Battery powered Electrostar

[Kneedown]

If it will work in a shorter train the Derwent valley line must be a candidate location. When the MML is electrified the Nottingham to Matlock service will run under the wires for over half its journey (Nottingham to Ambergate junction). The other half (Ambergate junction to Matlock) has lots of original low stone and metal footbridges in a world heritage site and would I suspect be difficult to electrify.

It would also allow the train to nip back to Bombardier in Derby if there are teething troubles!

DDB

I have to say i am in full agreement here.
Has battery technology evolved enough to make extended use of battery units viable and economic? However, If they could utilise the wires from Notts to Ambergate, then switch to battery for the short hop to Matlock and back, raising the pan again at Ambergate for an ac run back to Notts, recharging the batteries from the wires. This could also work on Derby-Crewe services as long as 35miles isn't too far for batteries. My vision is short hops off electrified mainlines.
I ultimately envisage an "Electrification Lite" a'la Paisley Canal for Matlock, but this is a possibility as long as the cost, weight and run time of the batteries make it viable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not on my phone. On a very hot day, the battery gets warm and runs down quicker. Or perhaps I should say, appears to.. same result.

Perhaps when it cools down, it regains some of that lost power, but that's not going to be a lot of use.

I was always taught in Physic's that if you had a dead battery, put it under your armpit for a few minutes to warm it up and you'd get a bit more out of it.

 

[D365]

I was always taught in Physics that if you had a dead battery, put it under your armpit for a few minutes to warm it up and you'd get a bit more out of it.

I think there's an optimum temperature for getting the most life out of a battery; depending on its properties, of course

 

[jon0844]

I was always taught in Physic's that if you had a dead battery, put it under your armpit for a few minutes to warm it up and you'd get a bit more out of it.

I remember being told similar, but perhaps that was for older battery types?

Or that a very cold battery is no good and you simply warm it up - but if it actually gets hot, you need to cool it down to within a certain temperature range.

All good reasons for doing a controlled trial.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Really though, I see this being an excellent step forwards, especially if it allows diesel trains to be moved elsewhere from their islands (ie Uckfield etc).

Ummmm can we keep the lovely Class 171s on the Uckfield Line please, they are comfortable, usually reliable, easily identifiable in London Bridge etc.

I dread to think what happens when a battery powered train runs out of charge down at Uckfield or in the single line sections. Will it be recoverable by another battery powered train or will the load be too great? If it can't you'll then need to wait for the nearest diesel powered locl to go and retrieve it. Due to cost cutting that will be at the other end of the country!

 

[jon0844]

Just give the driver one of these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battery-Por...&sr=8-3-spell&keywords=portasble+battery+pack

Actually, maybe give the driver a few of them.

 

[HSTEd]

A replacement intercity stock programme would've happened with or without the bi-mode spec, and the bi-mode development is only a small part of the overall cost. A rolling electrification programme (like the one that's underway) makes more sense to the long term economy of the country than pulling in european teams; it provides skilled jobs with 30 years of stability.

The bi-mode spec has cast a long shadow over the entire programme, it almost certainly frightened off bidders that would have been interested and put such a technical strain on the project that only one bidder is available who can deliver something close to the original spec.

Which is one of the reasons the deal the government is getting is so awful.

And as to electrification as a job creation project, perhaps if we cut the rate of electrification in half we could have jobs with 60 years of stability?
What about the damage to the economy done by the reduced service on routes which could benefit from a more intensive service but can't recieve it due to the price of diesel?
Or the damage to the economy caused by burning several hundred thousand tonnes of imported fuel oil every year supporting the operation of the railway?

Or the people who die because the lack of electrification further weakens the already rather dodgy business model of rail freight operators, forcing more traffic onto the road network?

 

[jon0844]

I think the last point is a bit too emotive, but I expect that if diesel prices keep rising sharply, the Government might step in to give more discounts to rail operators (as with other essential services).

Obviously not an ideal solution, compared to more electrification or alternative green energy sources, but certainly one that I would think is looked at.

The same might also go for buses in rural areas, if fares have to keep rising as fuel prices increase.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the last point is a bit too emotive, but I expect that if diesel prices keep rising sharply, the Government might step in to give more discounts to rail operators (as with other essential services).

Obviously not an ideal solution, compared to more electrification or alternative green energy sources, but certainly one that I would think is looked at.

The same might also go for buses in rural areas, if fares have to keep rising as fuel prices increase.

Even total duty relief on diesel would only take us to ~70p per litre, grid electricity comes out at the equivalent of ~25-30p per litre.

Lets imagine for a second a two-car 25kV EMU (they exist elsewhere so I have to assume they can exist in the UK as well if anyone ever wanted one).
It would have such low operating costs that rural routes that are lightly used could justify service frequencies of 2-3 trains per hour rather than an hourly service they rate now.

That could have a transformational effect on use.

 

[edwin_m]

Even total duty relief on diesel would only take us to ~70p per litre, grid electricity comes out at the equivalent of ~25-30p per litre.

Lets imagine for a second a two-car 25kV EMU (they exist elsewhere so I have to assume they can exist in the UK as well if anyone ever wanted one).
It would have such low operating costs that rural routes that are lightly used could justify service frequencies of 2-3 trains per hour rather than an hourly service they rate now.

That could have a transformational effect on use.

Good thought but I think you're forgetting crew costs in that calculation.

 

[HSTEd]

Good thought but I think you're forgetting crew costs in that calculation.

Crew costs are not a huge issue.
A train driver costs ~£20/hr apparently.
Depending on if its DOO or on the price of a Guard I am not sure it would be capable of overwhelming fuel cost savings.

(Even on the Far North Line it would only cost ~£140 for the driver on a round trip and I have no idea how much for a guard if one is carried - reduction in journey times due to rapid acceleration would further reduce this, a DPTSO+DMSO unit with ~1000hp will smash a Class 158)

 

[edwin_m]

Crew costs are not a huge issue.
A train driver costs ~£20/hr apparently.
Depending on if its DOO or on the price of a Guard I am not sure it would be capable of overwhelming fuel cost savings.

(Even on the Far North Line it would only cost ~£140 for the driver on a round trip and I have no idea how much for a guard if one is carried - reduction in journey times due to rapid acceleration would further reduce this, a DPTSO+DMSO unit with ~1000hp will smash a Class 158)

A typical regional train will travel 20-30 miles in an hour. Going by your figures that would cost around a fiver in fuel, the driver would cost four times that and the conductor would add some more cost.

The savings from faster journeys are highly unlikely to pay for the extra fuel and other costs of using a diesel unit with large engines, which are inefficient in normal operation. The Voyager is Exhibit A.

 

[HSTEd]

A typical regional train will travel 20-30 miles in an hour. Going by your figures that would cost around a fiver in fuel, the driver would cost four times that and the conductor would add some more cost.

A typical regional train manages about ~0.4-0.45L/ vehicle.km.
WHich means we are looking at 0.80-0.9L/km for the train.
30 miles is approaching 50km which means you are looking at ~45L of fuel expended.
Which is close to £31.50 if you are using red diesel at close to current prices.
Not £5.

The savings from faster journeys are highly unlikely to pay for the extra fuel and other costs of using a diesel unit with large engines, which are inefficient in normal operation. The Voyager is Exhibit A.

I am not talking about fast accelerating diesels (do you not remember my many rants and calculations that it would be cheaper to scrap the 185s and buy 172s to replace them than continue to use them?), I am talking about making like the Swiss and electrifying everything for something like ~£20bn in capital expenditure.

Close to 570,000t of fuel oil is burned by the railway every year with important geopolitical implications.

 

[Ships]

As I see it, even though this stock will be bi-mode, everyone wants to switch them to electric only as soon as possible - not just say 'hey, we can stop the electrification projects now'.

My understanding was that a big driver for bi-mode units is the poor OLE reliability on the east coast main line, which won't be renewed till 2050(?)

 

[jon0844]

Following a few years of upgrade work, the problems on the ECML don't seem to be that bad now.

(I now await the next major incident that will happen in a matter of hours).

 

[joeykins82]

My understanding was that a big driver for bi-mode units is the poor OLE reliability on the east coast main line, which won't be renewed till 2050(?)

If that were true the ECML order would be only for the c800 bi-mode trains but they're getting a lot of c801 OHLE only sets

 

[asylumxl]

If that were true the ECML order would be only for the c800 bi-mode trains but they're getting a lot of c801 OHLE only sets

One would hope they will be sympathetic to the OHLE on the ECML.

The IEP specification does say it must be fully compatible with the existing OHL infrastructure, which I took to mean "shouldn't rip down the tooth floss on the ECML" .

 

[ainsworth74]

My understanding was that a big driver for bi-mode units is the poor OLE reliability on the east coast main line, which won't be renewed till 2050(?)

Compared to the need to run trains to places like Aberdeen, Inverness, Harrogate, Lincoln and Hull (though that last one might get wired soon) I believe the reliability of ECML OHLE (especially considering it's not particularly unreliable compared to other OHLE fitments) is quite a ways down the list of reasons.

 

[D365]

...(do you not remember my many rants and calculations that it would be cheaper to scrap the 185s and buy 172s to replace them than continue to use them?)

Remind me, I have heard from a few sources in the past that with the power output of the 185s, it would be possible to insert a trailer vehicle without additional engine. Do you know if this is actually possible; I'm inclined to think not...

If that were true the ECML order would be only for the c800 bi-mode trains but they're getting a lot of c801 OHLE only sets

Remember that the 'pure' electric trains also incorporate one engine pack each for self-recovery, shunting and hotel power etc.

 

[HSTEd]

Remind me, I have heard from a few sources in the past that with the power output of the 185s, it would be possible to insert a trailer vehicle without additional engine. Do you know if this is actually possible; I'm inclined to think not...

Probably not, they are too heavy and you would have to reopen the production line.
The enormous amount of power they have gives them only a small p:w advantage over the later turbostars with the higher power engines thanks to how absurdly overweight they are.

They really are an annoying mess.

 

[joeykins82]

Remember that the 'pure' electric trains also incorporate one engine pack each for self-recovery, shunting and hotel power etc.

I thought that'd been dropped from the pure EMU spec?

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought that'd been dropped from the pure EMU spec?

No, definitely still happening. It was still in the revised technical info published last year, and mentioned in the final announcements.

 

[edwin_m]

A typical regional train manages about ~0.4-0.45L/ vehicle.km.
WHich means we are looking at 0.80-0.9L/km for the train.
30 miles is approaching 50km which means you are looking at ~45L of fuel expended.
Which is close to £31.50 if you are using red diesel at close to current prices.
Not £5.

Sorry, I think I had my gallons and litres mixed up (it was rather late at night!). But the crew cost is still similar to the fuel cost.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry, I think I had my gallons and litres mixed up (it was rather late at night!). But the crew cost is still similar to the fuel cost.

Electrification cuts the fuel cost by 2/3rds or so.
Which means potentially you could almost double service since the fuel cost can be spent on extra crew for the extra trains.

Going from 1tph to 2tph is sure to increase usage quite significantly, paying for even greater increases in service, and on goes the virtuous cycle.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably not, they are too heavy and you would have to reopen the production line.
The enormous amount of power they have gives them only a small p:w advantage over the later turbostars with the higher power engines thanks to how absurdly overweight they are.

They really are an annoying mess.

When lenghtening the 185s was being considered the fourth car was intended to be a trailer, and the fact the 3-cars normally operate in eco-mode with one engine out suggests they have plenty of power. However I agree it would be prohibitively expensive to do this now the production line hsa been shut down.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

When lenghtening the 185s was being considered the fourth car was intended to be a trailer, and the fact the 3-cars normally operate in eco-mode with one engine out suggests they have plenty of power. However I agree it would be prohibitively expensive to do this now the production line hsa been shut down.

Would it be possible to order a few extra centre trailer cars of the 350/380 or 700 design but fit them out to be compatible with the systems on the 185s? They might look a little odd if the profile is not an exact match, but no worse than the 455/7s!

 

[jon0844]

Would the profile be that different anyway?

 

[joeykins82]

It's less about the profile than the impact on acceleration. The c185s are subject to speed restrictions because of their weight, but can still run the c158 timings on the TPE routes because of the acceleration. Stick a trailer car in to the mix and that's unlikely to be the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_185#Design (design section, paragraph 3)

 

[ainsworth74]

Would the profile be that different anyway?

Well the 185 is a 23m vehicle whilst the 350 is a 20m vehicle...

 

[joeykins82]

Presumably a 380 trailer car would be a better fit, but that doesn't get around the loss of acceleration that an extra ~40T of mass would cause

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well the 185 is a 23m vehicle whilst the 350 is a 20m vehicle...

Presumably a 380 trailer car would be a better fit, but that doesn't get around the loss of acceleration that an extra ~40T of mass would cause

I didn't think to consider lengths, but yes a 380 trailer would be more suitable. We are drifting further off-topic, but I would consider such a lengthening to be more of an option if the 185s were moved away from the Transpennine routes to somewhere where the extra weight would be less of an issue.