"Battery Trains" & The SWML

[SpacePhoenix]

If the battery tech does work out and it could be fitted to a class 450 (and SDO installed on the route), would this work?

Three 450s, 1 starts at Weymouth, 1 starts at Swanage (on battery power) and one starts at Poole. The 1 at Weymouth departs first, the one at Swanage departs later and they're timed so that they arrive in Wareham around the same time where they couple up.

The two carry onto Poole where they couple up to the third and the 12 car train then goes through to Waterloo, possibly as a semi-fast including a stop at Basingstoke (what other stops could be added to relieve a bit of pressure from other routes?

 

[dgl]

Would power consumption of 3 450's be a problem on the stretch from poole to Bournemouth? Also, we don't want 450's down to Weymouth if we can help it. We prefer the lovely 444's.

What I think would be a good idea is an extension of the poole stopping service to reach swanage (making note of the fact that the SR as a heritage operation is heavily speed restricted across the whole route from Worgret Jn. to Swanage) you would need a couple more units though to make up for the extra time the journey would take.

 

[The Ham]

Just have two class 444's with one from Swanage and one from Weymouth.

Although having made the suggestion, it made me think "would battery powered trains allow more services to run to Weymouth?".

The logic being that when the trains needed more power than the 3rd rail could provide then the trains could keep going from the batteries.

 

[edwin_m]

Just have two class 444's with one from Swanage and one from Weymouth.

Although having made the suggestion, it made me think "would battery powered trains allow more services to run to Weymouth?".

The logic being that when the trains needed more power than the 3rd rail could provide then the trains could keep going from the batteries.

There is a general problem with third rail battery trains. They have to charge the batteries sometime, and when this happens they will have to draw extra power from the third rail. The third rail and associated power supplies are pretty much at the limit in terms of the loads that can be supported. It's possible that charging could be suspended while full traction power is selected, but even if the maximum current is limited in this way there may still be problems with equipment overheating if the maximum is drawn for more of the time.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There is a general problem with third rail battery trains. They have to charge the batteries sometime, and when this happens they will have to draw extra power from the third rail. The third rail and associated power supplies are pretty much at the limit in terms of the loads that can be supported. It's possible that charging could be suspended while full traction power is selected, but even if the maximum current is limited in this way there may still be problems with equipment overheating if the maximum is drawn for more of the time.

What if they were plugged into charge at Swanage? If they were plugged into charge at Swanage and the Southampton-Basingstoke section gets converted to AC (charging then on AC), could enough charge be maintained (perhaps plugging them in at Waterloo)?

 

[paul1609]

I understand that the 379 battery emu has a useable range of about 25 miles on battery power and needs 2 hours charging on AC for every hour it's off. Charging at a terminal would meanwhile that you needed so many extra units it would be more economical to run dmus

 

[jopsuk]

I suspect you're rather trying to a find a problem to apply a solution to.

 

[Wardog]

I read rapports stating that battery trains is indeed possible, and even more enviromental friendly than overhead wires.

 

[Chris125]

I read rapports stating that battery trains is indeed possible, and even more enviromental friendly than overhead wires.

Aesthetics aside I'm not sure how an electric train powered by batteries rather than wires can be more 'environmentally friendly' but they are certainly possible - indeed a 379 so-fitted has recently completed trials, but the batteries are expensive, heavy, have a limited range and lifetime and such trains require a lengthy time moving under wires or stationary to recharge - it's hard to think of situations where their long term use makes more sense than low-cost wiring as with the Paisley Canal branch.

Chrus

 

[Wardog]

Aesthetics aside I'm not sure how an electric train powered by batteries rather than wires can be more 'environmentally friendly' but they are certainly possible - indeed a 379 so-fitted has recently completed trials, but the batteries are expensive, heavy, have a limited range and lifetime and such trains require a lengthy time moving under wires or stationary to recharge - it's hard to think of situations where their long term use makes more sense than low-cost wiring as with the Paisley Canal branch.

Chrus

I read a very long report about the potential of battery trains, made by www.palludan.dk - fremtidens jernbane, but unfourtunately its in Danish.

In Denmark we have less than 50% of the main lines electrified, and it seems unessecary to do so now, due to the huge development in lithium ion batteries. The costs of electrifying the rest of the main lines in our country is about 1 billion Pounds, but estimated to be less than 100 mio Pounds to make standard Electric trains run on batteries instead. Therefore battery trains are especially attractive and interesting for us.

As soon as a train hits its top speed it requires only a minimum of power supply to maintain the speed due to its extremely low rolling resistance. Its acceleration which for now would require overhead wires for 2 -3 kilometers from the stations in each direction. Regenerative breaking charges the baterise alot as well, and supercharging at the end stations is possible too. Battery trains can furthermore be fully charged at night, when there isnt much call for electricity.

These are just some of the positive aspects, but the report even concludes that it would pay off to replace overhead wiring trains with battery trains both for economical and environmental reasons. Weather the report is completely true I am not able to say, but it is made by people who got no personal interests in that regard.

 

[The Ham]

There is a general problem with third rail battery trains. They have to charge the batteries sometime, and when this happens they will have to draw extra power from the third rail. The third rail and associated power supplies are pretty much at the limit in terms of the loads that can be supported. It's possible that charging could be suspended while full traction power is selected, but even if the maximum current is limited in this way there may still be problems with equipment overheating if the maximum is drawn for more of the time.

I was thinking that if there was a way to select the power mode (3rd rail only, 3rd rail charging or battery), then it could be possible (depending on how long the problem section was) to run one train using 3rd rail only and one train on the battery in one direction with the trains swapping power modes for the journey back.

Charging would then take place between Poole and London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I read a very long report about the potential of battery trains, made by www.palludan.dk - fremtidens jernbane, but unfourtunately its in Danish.

In Denmark we have less than 50% of the main lines electrified, and it seems unessecary to do so now, due to the huge development in lithium ion batteries. The costs of electrifying the rest of the main lines in our country is about 1 billion Pounds, but estimated to be less than 100 mio Pounds to make standard Electric trains run on batteries instead. Therefore battery trains are especially attractive and interesting for us.

As soon as a train hits its top speed it requires only a minimum of power supply to maintain the speed due to its extremely low rolling resistance. Its acceleration which for now would require overhead wires for 2 -3 kilometers from the stations in each direction. Regenerative breaking charges the baterise alot as well, and supercharging at the end stations is possible too. Battery trains can furthermore be fully charged at night, when there isnt much call for electricity.

These are just some of the positive aspects, but the report even concludes that it would pay off to replace overhead wiring trains with battery trains both for economical and environmental reasons. Weather the report is completely true I am not able to say, but it is made by people who got no personal interests in that regard.

The problem is that the feed to the grid is the most expensive part followed by junctions and end sections. Unless there are very long sections between stations then often it is cheaper to just keep running the wires.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are going to rely on nighttime charging then you will have terrible stock availability.
And while you may pay less now for batteries you will pay for them in perpetuity - the bulk of the costs of electrification have very long payback lifetimes (indeed for tunnel/bridge clearances they last forever)

 

[455driver]

I read rapports stating that battery trains is indeed possible, and even more enviromental friendly than overhead wires.

I have read reports that some people are so gullible they will believe anything they read!

 

[swt_passenger]

This is getting well ahead of reality. No one has even established a demand exists for through trains.

The heritage people aren't going to want to run through to Waterloo, and their current position is that they don't want through trains interfering with their railway.

 

[fairysdad]

I have read reports that some people are so gullible they will believe anything they read!

Indeed... didn't the Daily Mail report recently that the reason that the GWML is having overhead wiring as its electrification is because the EU won't allow third rail?

 

[The Ham]

Indeed... didn't the Daily Mail report recently that the reason that the GWML is having overhead wiring as its electrification is because the EU won't allow third rail?

Ah. That probably also explains why OHLE will be replacing 3rd rail between Basingstoke and Southampton.

 

[Chris125]

Weather the report is completely true I am not able to say, but it is made by people who got no personal interests in that regard.

If those really are the arguments used I wouldn't take it too seriously.

 

[rf_ioliver]

In Denmark we have less than 50% of the main lines electrified, and it seems unessecary to do so now, due to the huge development in lithium ion batteries. The costs of electrifying the rest of the main lines in our country is about 1 billion Pounds, but estimated to be less than 100 mio Pounds to make standard Electric trains run on batteries instead. Therefore battery trains are especially attractive and interesting for us.

On the other hand you Danes have been very successful at running mixed diesel and electric trains together. IIRC, a train divides at Frederika with an electric portion continuing to Aalborg and the diesel to Esbjerg (and various combinations there of). However, the IC3 and its clan are very, very nice trains...let's not speak about the IC4

Regarding the environmental benefits of battery trains, isn't the reason they are more environmentally friendly is because they don't require overhead wires and the nasty power stations they require [joke!!!]

t.

Ian

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Indeed... didn't the Daily Mail report recently that the reason that the GWML is having overhead wiring as its electrification is because the EU won't allow third rail?

Any idea if that also means no replacing life expired 3rd rail with new 3rd rail?

How much would it probably cost to convert the whole of the SWML over to AC (and how much to convert it altering relevant structures to allow for AC double deckers like what's used in France or Sydney Australia)?

 

[Bald Rick]

Any idea if that also means no replacing life expired 3rd rail with new 3rd rail?

How much would it probably cost to convert the whole of the SWML over to AC (and how much to convert it altering relevant structures to allow for AC double deckers like what's used in France or Sydney Australia)?

1) no
2) an awful lot
3) an awful lot x many times.

 

[jopsuk]

Any idea if that also means no replacing life expired 3rd rail with new 3rd rail?

How much would it probably cost to convert the whole of the SWML over to AC (and how much to convert it altering relevant structures to allow for AC double deckers like what's used in France or Sydney Australia)?

for the latter bit you would need to:
First, spend vast amounts to alter every single bridge and tunnel. The tunnels would be especially expensive, but some of the "bridges" have significant buildings on them (eg Wimbledon)
Next, shut the whole network and alter every single platform
Finally, reopen, having bought a completely new fleet and had it "run in elsewhere", retiring/cascading the existing fleet. The new fleet cannot operate anywhere else, whilst trains from other networks (eg Southern, CrossCountry, FGW and maybe even the "Windsor lines" if we're being strict about the SWML and its branches) will be unable to call at the new platforms due to the extreme gap to the new lower height and bigger set back from the running rails. They'd essentially need their own platforms that your new SWML fleet could not ever go into.

 

[HSTEd]

for the latter bit you would need to:
First, spend vast amounts to alter every single bridge and tunnel. The tunnels would be especially expensive, but some of the "bridges" have significant buildings on them (eg Wimbledon)
Next, shut the whole network and alter every single platform
Finally, reopen, having bought a completely new fleet and had it "run in elsewhere", retiring/cascading the existing fleet. The new fleet cannot operate anywhere else, whilst trains from other networks (eg Southern, CrossCountry, FGW and maybe even the "Windsor lines" if we're being strict about the SWML and its branches) will be unable to call at the new platforms due to the extreme gap to the new lower height and bigger set back from the running rails. They'd essentially need their own platforms that your new SWML fleet could not ever go into.

Actually if we are going in for wholesale reconstruction of all the routes to the level you are suggesting (reconstruction of all tunnels and bridges) there is absolutely no need to alter all the platforms and cause the problems you suggest.
Who says you have to build to the continental double deck gauge? You can just raise the height limit by another couple of feet and preserve the British platform characteristics. After all, AAR Plate H shows just how high trains can go before they suffer stability issues. This is one of the reasons I think GC gauge is too small for new construction HSLs - they should be cleared to the greatest possible height to enable future operation of double deck 'classic compatible' sets.
The "Colorado Railcar" double deck DMU in the US is nearly twenty feet tall after all.
Two ~2m tall decks on top of a 915mm platform height is roughly 4.92m, which is only 27cm taller than GC gauge.

EDIT:

As such a loading gauge would enable full double deck gangways between vehicles within a set it means you can get some extra benefits out of the double deck on routes that, like TPE, have a mix of long and short distance passengers.
Imagine a 3 car set with two staircases in the driving vehicles and that had relatively little seating on the lower deck to enable lots and lots of standing space - imagine a kind of S7 stock type interior, whilst upstairs there would be more conventional seating - as only long distance passengers will bother to move upstairs (as we see on buses) we can get away with fewer access points to the upper deck than would otherwise be the case. (Say 2 in a 60m train).