• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BEMU replacement for Class 170 regional trains - performance and endurance on battery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,346
Location
Nottingham
To understand the implications of converting regional train services to battery or tri-mode operation, I thought it would be useful to consider what range and endurance would be possible with current battery technology. EMR use class 170s, so I'm going to propose a battery trimode for regional trains, based on a 3-car 170 (3x23m carriages; top speed 100mph; 3 x diesel engines rated at 315kW; acceleration 0.5m/s^2).

PROPOSED REFERENCE TRIMODE TRAIN
  • one 315kW diesel engine, as on a 170. Able to use diesel fuel or HVO biodiesel.
  • two 575kWh Turntide battery packs, as fitted to 802207 in the Hitachi tri-mode trial.
  • maximum 2C recharge rate = 1.15MW per battery, when between 20% and 80% state of charge. Giving an operating recharge time (20% to 80%) of 575/1150 x60% = 0.3h (18 minutes)
  • max electric power uptake on 25kV AC of 4MW, with a second pantograph below 10mph to keep within the 2MW per pantograph limit when stationary
  • Plug-in charging at terminus platforms, using the MCS Megawatt Charging Standard for EV trucks (up to 3.75MW)

TRACTION POWER
Ignoring hotel power for now, I'm going to assume that average consumption of traction energy is between one third and one half of the peak total power of a 170 (which is 945kW). This is based on the 2021 record attempt, where 390044 used 8MWh to get from London to Glasgow in 4 hours. Average consumption at 2MW was 40% of the 5.16MW peak power of a 9-car Pendolino. If anyone has any better data for traction energy consumption by regional passenger stock, please share it.

The gives an assumed average power consumption, ignoring hotel power and after the effect of regenerative braking, of
  • 472kW (50% of peak) on fast mainline routes like Nottingham - Cardiff and Nottingham - Leeds
  • 315kW (33% of peak) on slow provincial routes like Nottingham - Skegness and Nottingham - Workshop

RANGE WITH JUST EXISTING OHLE ELECTRIFICATION
  • On slow provincial routes, maximum range on battery alone will be 2x575/315 = 3.65h, with an operating endurance (from 80% charge to 20%) = 60% x 3.65h = 2.2h. Enough to get from Nottingham to Matlock and back.
  • With the diesel engine, range is unlimited. One 315kW engine will match the assumed averge consumption, with the battery packs absorbing the peaks and troughs of energy use. One engine running at a steady speed will have lower diesel consumption and very much lower maintenance costs than three engines on a 170 running a typical DMU load cycle.

  • On fast lines, battery-only range will be 2x575/472 = 2.4h (max) x60% = 1.46h (operating). 1.4h is enough to get from Severn Tunnel Junction onto the wires at Bromsgrove; and from Proof House junction to Nottingham (but not back again).
  • On fast lines with the diesel engine running, endurance will be 2x575/(472-315) = 7.3h (max) x60% = 4.4h (operating endurance). Enough to get from Leeds to Nottingham via Barnsley and back. If the Leeds-Nottingham service went via Moorthorpe, it would have 40-50 minutes under the wires; plenty of time to fully recharge the batteries.
So my first conclusion is that this reference tri-mode train could replace the entire EMR 170 fleet plus XC service to Cardiff and Northern service to Leeds, running current diagrams with no loss of performance and very much reduced diesel consumption.

Do you agree? Have I missed anything?


Now, interesting things happen when you start to add islands of electrification at places like Nottingham and Sheffield. But I'll look at those in another post, possibly tomorrow.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
754
Location
NorthWest
Are these class 170 conversions or new build?
Remember that the 170s have hydraulic transmission not electric
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,346
Location
Nottingham
Are these class 170 conversions or new build?
Remember that the 170s have hydraulic transmission not electric
I'm proposing a new build trimode BEMU with the same size and top speed and therefore about the same average energy consumption and sectional running times as a 3-car 170 on the same routes.

I did a similar exercise in November for 125mph trimodes (the "80x-T") here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-for-future-mainline-electrification.294723/
 
Last edited:

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
754
Location
NorthWest
Given that the class 170 hydraulics are going to be lighter than the total mass of your proposed trimode transmission, and that the trimode should have regenerative capability while the hydraulic transmission won't, and on top of that the hydraulics will lose a lot of energy simply as heat (heat loss from the oil) how sure are you that "about the same average energy consumption" is a valid assumption?
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,907
Location
North
To understand the implications of converting regional train services to battery or tri-mode operation, I thought it would be useful to consider what range and endurance would be possible with current battery technology. EMR use class 170s, so I'm going to propose a battery trimode for regional trains, based on a 3-car 170 (3x23m carriages; top speed 100mph; 3 x diesel engines rated at 315kW; acceleration 0.5m/s^2).

PROPOSED REFERENCE TRIMODE TRAIN
  • one 315kW diesel engine, as on a 170. Able to use diesel fuel or HVO biodiesel.
  • two 575kWh Turntide battery packs, as fitted to 802207 in the Hitachi tri-mode trial.
  • maximum 2C recharge rate = 1.15MW per battery, when between 20% and 80% state of charge. Giving an operating recharge time (20% to 80%) of 575/1150 x60% = 0.3h (18 minutes)
  • max electric power uptake on 25kV AC of 4MW, with a second pantograph below 10mph to keep within the 2MW per pantograph limit when stationary
  • Plug-in charging at terminus platforms, using the MCS Megawatt Charging Standard for EV trucks (up to 3.75MW)

TRACTION POWER
Ignoring hotel power for now, I'm going to assume that average consumption of traction energy is between one third and one half of the peak total power of a 170 (which is 945kW). This is based on the 2021 record attempt, where 390044 used 8MWh to get from London to Glasgow in 4 hours. Average consumption at 2MW was 40% of the 5.16MW peak power of a 9-car Pendolino. If anyone has any better data for traction energy consumption by regional passenger stock, please share it.

The gives an assumed average power consumption, ignoring hotel power and after the effect of regenerative braking, of
  • 472kW (50% of peak) on fast mainline routes like Nottingham - Cardiff and Nottingham - Leeds
  • 315kW (33% of peak) on slow provincial routes like Nottingham - Skegness and Nottingham - Workshop

RANGE WITH JUST EXISTING OHLE ELECTRIFICATION
  • On slow provincial routes, maximum range on battery alone will be 2x575/315 = 3.65h, with an operating endurance (from 80% charge to 20%) = 60% x 3.65h = 2.2h. Enough to get from Nottingham to Matlock and back.
  • With the diesel engine, range is unlimited. One 315kW engine will match the assumed averge consumption, with the battery packs absorbing the peaks and troughs of energy use. One engine running at a steady speed will have lower diesel consumption and very much lower maintenance costs than three engines on a 170 running a typical DMU load cycle.

  • On fast lines, battery-only range will be 2x575/472 = 2.4h (max) x60% = 1.46h (operating). 1.4h is enough to get from Severn Tunnel Junction onto the wires at Bromsgrove; and from Proof House junction to Nottingham (but not back again).
  • On fast lines with the diesel engine running, endurance will be 2x575/(472-315) = 7.3h (max) x60% = 4.4h (operating endurance). Enough to get from Leeds to Nottingham via Barnsley and back. If the Leeds-Nottingham service went via Moorthorpe, it would have 40-50 minutes under the wires; plenty of time to fully recharge the batteries.
So my first conclusion is that this reference tri-mode train could replace the entire EMR 170 fleet plus XC service to Cardiff and Northern service to Leeds, running current diagrams with no loss of performance and very much reduced diesel consumption.

Do you agree? Have I missed anything?


Now, interesting things happen when you start to add islands of electrification at places like Nottingham and Sheffield. But I'll look at those in another post, possibly tomorrow.
and freight remains diesel hauled on these corridors.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,346
Location
Nottingham
how sure are you that "about the same average energy consumption" is a valid assumption?
I'm not sure at all. Hence posting my reasoning here, hoping to encourage discussion.

I'm only using the 170 as a way to estimate the traction energy used by a passenger train on a route like Skegness. That determines how big a battery is needed to electrify the line, and where islands of electrification should be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top