Could the TfW 230s be converted to battery only?

[Peter Sarf]

Moderator note - split from:

Transport for Wales Class 230

230 gone awol again after being 30 minutes late on the 1135 from Wrexham today. Sorry to report again i’m not trying to be negative so if anyone feels that it’s not necessary then i will stop. Wow obviously people are fed up with it all now because it’s been tucked away in a different topic area

www.railforums.co.uk

The thinking at Merseytravel a few years back was that if a through service to Liverpool from Wrexham was to be inaugurated, they would order more battery fitted units from their options with Stadler which would then be subleased to TfW, who would retain operation of the route. I would think that any such order would need to be fitted with toilets.

Passenger carrying vehicles containing diesel fuel are not permitted through the Merseyrail tunnels so using 230s is not possible.

We have to careful with the definition of the 230s. They can come in many versions. The one on the West Ealing trial is pure battery. So, theoretically, the engine rafts can just be swapped for battery rafts. I can imagine there will be a few other changes ?. So then it is just a matter of installing enough charging places - same as would be required for the 777s. But I can guess the 777s would be more likely to be allowed to interwork with existing services in the Merseyrail tunnels for rescuing (coupling) purposes.

 

[Zontar]

We have to careful with the definition of the 230s. They can come in many versions. The one on the West Ealing trial is pure battery. So, theoretically, the engine rafts can just be swapped for battery rafts. I can imagine there will be a few other changes ?. So then it is just a matter of installing enough charging places - same as would be required for the 777s. But I can guess the 777s would be more likely to be allowed to interwork with existing services in the Merseyrail tunnels for rescuing (coupling) purposes.

The 230 don't have a facing cab egress so won't be allowed on the network

 

[Peter Sarf]

The 230 don't have a facing cab egress so won't be allowed on the network

And to think, in their original guise I suppose they did !.

 

[Woods]

We have to careful with the definition of the 230s. They can come in many versions. The one on the West Ealing trial is pure battery. So, theoretically, the engine rafts can just be swapped for battery rafts. I can imagine there will be a few other changes ?. So then it is just a matter of installing enough charging places - same as would be required for the 777s. But I can guess the 777s would be more likely to be allowed to interwork with existing services in the Merseyrail tunnels for rescuing (coupling) purposes.

As somebody who is close to the GWR 230 trial, I have tried to initiate conversations with TfW and Network Rail about how to radically improve the performance of the TfW 230s, but as yet they seem to remain intent on trying to get the 230s to work as they are, as diesel-battery hybrids. I do have some sympathy with that approach, except that it doesn't seem to be working..... Anyway, if it was me, firstly I would strip off the hopeless diesel gensets and throw them in the bin. Also throw the first generation batteries in the bin which can't charge very fast and require hours and hours to balance the cells in the depot. Replace them with the same power architecture and '2nd generation' batteries as used on the GWR 230 (which happens to also be a 3-car, like each of the TfW 230s) and equip each of the TfW units with ground based 'fast charge' pickup apparatus (like on the GWR 230). It's a 54 mile round trip so you could have the main charger (as per the one at West Ealing) at the Wrexham end and the units would probably be able to do a round trip on a single charge (on the basis that the GWR unit has done 200 miles!), but it would probably be sensible to have a second charger at somewhere in the middle just in case the charger at Wrexham fails or energy usage is particularly high (like in the winter due to the heating). You'd have to work out how much dwell time would be needed at Wrexham to replenish the batteries for another round trip with enough in hand for 'perturbations'; this might require a tweak to the timetable to lengthen the dwell time at Wrexham slightly, and I don't know how acceptable that would be. Unfortunately you probably couldn't have a second charger at Bidston (which would be the logical place to have it, assuming the units don't ever run further on the Merseyrail network) because of the presence of the 3rd rail; the GWR fast charge system is not the same as third rail (for a start, the GWR system has its charging rails in the four foot, rather than the 3rd rail which is outside of the running rails), and it would probably be a bit too complicated to make the two power systems coexist for various other reasons (though not impossible). Those with more knowledge of the workings of this line could probably suggest where best to put the chargers; ideally where the dwell time is greatest - is there a passing place where units wait for 3 or 4mins perhaps? Anyway, all of this should be eminently more achievable than trying to get a higher range 777 BEMU - you've only got to look at those units to see how little space is available on them for additional batteries; they can barely manage the handful of miles to Headbolt Lane, I don't see it being physically possible myself; you'd be better off just extending the 3rd rail down to Wrexham, but we all know that's never going to happen either.

Another point is that when the 777 BEMUs charge off the third rail, they do so at a much lower rate (power) than the GWR 230 does, because the former is limited by the ability of the normal 3rd rail system to deliver the power for battery charging, as well as the limited ability of standard 3rd rail cast iron shoes to transmit the current. Whereas the GWR fast charging system is a totally independent system designed specifically for the purposes of delivering high power charging, but crucially the batteries on the train must also be able to receive the power AND interface with the GWR system. It would be a lot easier to convert the TfW 230s to the GWR system, than it would be to convert the 777s to work with the GWR system.

 

[simonmpoulton]

As somebody who is close to the GWR 230 trial, I have tried to initiate conversations with TfW and Network Rail about how to radically improve the performance of the TfW 230s, but as yet they seem to remain intent on trying to get the 230s to work as they are, as diesel-battery hybrids. I do have some sympathy with that approach, except that it doesn't seem to be working..... Anyway, if it was me, firstly I would strip off the hopeless diesel gensets and throw them in the bin. Also throw the first generation batteries in the bin which can't charge very fast and require hours and hours to balance the cells in the depot. Replace them with the same power architecture and '2nd generation' batteries as used on the GWR 230 (which happens to also be a 3-car, like each of the TfW 230s) and equip each of the TfW units with ground based 'fast charge' pickup apparatus (like on the GWR 230). It's a 54 mile round trip so you could have the main charger (as per the one at West Ealing) at the Wrexham end and the units would probably be able to do a round trip on a single charge (on the basis that the GWR unit has done 200 miles!), but it would probably be sensible to have a second charger at somewhere in the middle just in case the charger at Wrexham fails or energy usage is particularly high (like in the winter due to the heating). You'd have to work out how much dwell time would be needed at Wrexham to replenish the batteries for another round trip with enough in hand for 'perturbations'; this might require a tweak to the timetable to lengthen the dwell time at Wrexham slightly, and I don't know how acceptable that would be. Unfortunately you probably couldn't have a second charger at Bidston (which would be the logical place to have it, assuming the units don't ever run further on the Merseyrail network) because of the presence of the 3rd rail; the GWR fast charge system is not the same as third rail (for a start, the GWR system has its charging rails in the four foot, rather than the 3rd rail which is outside of the running rails), and it would probably be a bit too complicated to make the two power systems coexist for various other reasons (though not impossible). Those with more knowledge of the workings of this line could probably suggest where best to put the chargers; ideally where the dwell time is greatest - is there a passing place where units wait for 3 or 4mins perhaps? Anyway, all of this should be eminently more achievable than trying to get a higher range 777 BEMU - you've only got to look at those units to see how little space is available on them for additional batteries; they can barely manage the handful of miles to Headbolt Lane, I don't see it being physically possible myself; you'd be better off just extending the 3rd rail down to Wrexham, but we all know that's never going to happen either.

Another point is that when the 777 BEMUs charge off the third rail, they do so at a much lower rate (power) than the GWR 230 does, because the former is limited by the ability of the normal 3rd rail system to deliver the power for battery charging, as well as the limited ability of standard 3rd rail cast iron shoes to transmit the current. Whereas the GWR fast charging system is a totally independent system designed specifically for the purposes of delivering high power charging, but crucially the batteries on the train must also be able to receive the power AND interface with the GWR system. It would be a lot easier to convert the TfW 230s to the GWR system, than it would be to convert the 777s to work with the GWR system.

It's great to have some insight from someone more in the know with regards to the fantastic work that GWR have been doing with the full battery powered unit!

Your biggest problem however is the very tight turnaround times on the Bidston-Wrexham line (2-4 minutes at Wrexham) - not sure how much juice you could get into it in that time! There's also the matter that often the service is late and then has to turnaround early at Wrexham General!

 

[Zontar]

As somebody who is close to the GWR 230 trial, I have tried to initiate conversations with TfW and Network Rail about how to radically improve the performance of the TfW 230s, but as yet they seem to remain intent on trying to get the 230s to work as they are, as diesel-battery hybrids. I do have some sympathy with that approach, except that it doesn't seem to be working..... Anyway, if it was me, firstly I would strip off the hopeless diesel gensets and throw them in the bin. Also throw the first generation batteries in the bin which can't charge very fast and require hours and hours to balance the cells in the depot. Replace them with the same power architecture and '2nd generation' batteries as used on the GWR 230 (which happens to also be a 3-car, like each of the TfW 230s) and equip each of the TfW units with ground based 'fast charge' pickup apparatus (like on the GWR 230). It's a 54 mile round trip so you could have the main charger (as per the one at West Ealing) at the Wrexham end and the units would probably be able to do a round trip on a single charge (on the basis that the GWR unit has done 200 miles!), but it would probably be sensible to have a second charger at somewhere in the middle just in case the charger at Wrexham fails or energy usage is particularly high (like in the winter due to the heating). You'd have to work out how much dwell time would be needed at Wrexham to replenish the batteries for another round trip with enough in hand for 'perturbations'; this might require a tweak to the timetable to lengthen the dwell time at Wrexham slightly, and I don't know how acceptable that would be. Unfortunately you probably couldn't have a second charger at Bidston (which would be the logical place to have it, assuming the units don't ever run further on the Merseyrail network) because of the presence of the 3rd rail; the GWR fast charge system is not the same as third rail (for a start, the GWR system has its charging rails in the four foot, rather than the 3rd rail which is outside of the running rails), and it would probably be a bit too complicated to make the two power systems coexist for various other reasons (though not impossible). Those with more knowledge of the workings of this line could probably suggest where best to put the chargers; ideally where the dwell time is greatest - is there a passing place where units wait for 3 or 4mins perhaps? Anyway, all of this should be eminently more achievable than trying to get a higher range 777 BEMU - you've only got to look at those units to see how little space is available on them for additional batteries; they can barely manage the handful of miles to Headbolt Lane, I don't see it being physically possible myself; you'd be better off just extending the 3rd rail down to Wrexham, but we all know that's never going to happen either.

Another point is that when the 777 BEMUs charge off the third rail, they do so at a much lower rate (power) than the GWR 230 does, because the former is limited by the ability of the normal 3rd rail system to deliver the power for battery charging, as well as the limited ability of standard 3rd rail cast iron shoes to transmit the current. Whereas the GWR fast charging system is a totally independent system designed specifically for the purposes of delivering high power charging, but crucially the batteries on the train must also be able to receive the power AND interface with the GWR system. It would be a lot easier to convert the TfW 230s to the GWR system, than it would be to convert the 777s to work with the GWR system.

They want to run (eventually) non stop Wrexham to Liverpool service. Given the problem of the complexity of a fast charge system amongst 3rd rail, how would they bypass this if they were to upgrade 230s? I imagine you would need a fast charge point Liverpool end just in case?

 

[John R]

My recollection of the fast charge trial analysis is that in the short turnaround of 3 to 4 mins at West Ealing, the batteries barely replenished the charge used for the 5 mile round trip to Greenford, with a consequential slow reduction in charge levels over the course of a day.

Would that not imply much longer turnarounds or mid journey top-ups than would be practical even for a one way 27 mile trip, as well as the issue around how recharging at Bidston could be achieved?

 

[WirralLine]

Its all getting a bit speculative now, however while a lot of the journeys have 5mins or so layover at Wrexham Central (or less), some have 10 to 20 minutes. Its worth keeping in mind as somebody said earlier in the event of disruption they often turn services at Wrexham General, and infact there are some services booked to terminate there in the first place with a very quick turnaround back to Bidston.

 

[FrontSideBus]

I'd get rid of the batteries and use them as pure DMU's tbh. I've never been on them without the engines running and producing power all the time!

 

[Peter Sarf]

As somebody who is close to the GWR 230 trial, I have tried to initiate conversations with TfW and Network Rail about how to radically improve the performance of the TfW 230s, but as yet they seem to remain intent on trying to get the 230s to work as they are, as diesel-battery hybrids. I do have some sympathy with that approach, except that it doesn't seem to be working..... Anyway, if it was me, firstly I would strip off the hopeless diesel gensets and throw them in the bin. Also throw the first generation batteries in the bin which can't charge very fast and require hours and hours to balance the cells in the depot. Replace them with the same power architecture and '2nd generation' batteries as used on the GWR 230 (which happens to also be a 3-car, like each of the TfW 230s) and equip each of the TfW units with ground based 'fast charge' pickup apparatus (like on the GWR 230). It's a 54 mile round trip so you could have the main charger (as per the one at West Ealing) at the Wrexham end and the units would probably be able to do a round trip on a single charge (on the basis that the GWR unit has done 200 miles!), but it would probably be sensible to have a second charger at somewhere in the middle just in case the charger at Wrexham fails or energy usage is particularly high (like in the winter due to the heating). You'd have to work out how much dwell time would be needed at Wrexham to replenish the batteries for another round trip with enough in hand for 'perturbations'; this might require a tweak to the timetable to lengthen the dwell time at Wrexham slightly, and I don't know how acceptable that would be. Unfortunately you probably couldn't have a second charger at Bidston (which would be the logical place to have it, assuming the units don't ever run further on the Merseyrail network) because of the presence of the 3rd rail; the GWR fast charge system is not the same as third rail (for a start, the GWR system has its charging rails in the four foot, rather than the 3rd rail which is outside of the running rails), and it would probably be a bit too complicated to make the two power systems coexist for various other reasons (though not impossible). Those with more knowledge of the workings of this line could probably suggest where best to put the chargers; ideally where the dwell time is greatest - is there a passing place where units wait for 3 or 4mins perhaps? Anyway, all of this should be eminently more achievable than trying to get a higher range 777 BEMU - you've only got to look at those units to see how little space is available on them for additional batteries; they can barely manage the handful of miles to Headbolt Lane, I don't see it being physically possible myself; you'd be better off just extending the 3rd rail down to Wrexham, but we all know that's never going to happen either.

Another point is that when the 777 BEMUs charge off the third rail, they do so at a much lower rate (power) than the GWR 230 does, because the former is limited by the ability of the normal 3rd rail system to deliver the power for battery charging, as well as the limited ability of standard 3rd rail cast iron shoes to transmit the current. Whereas the GWR fast charging system is a totally independent system designed specifically for the purposes of delivering high power charging, but crucially the batteries on the train must also be able to receive the power AND interface with the GWR system. It would be a lot easier to convert the TfW 230s to the GWR system, than it would be to convert the 777s to work with the GWR system.

Thankyou very much for taking the time to add your considerable knowledge.

We can rule out 777s due to battery range being much shorter than the Greenford 230.

It's great to have some insight from someone more in the know with regards to the fantastic work that GWR have been doing with the full battery powered unit!

Your biggest problem however is the very tight turnaround times on the Bidston-Wrexham line (2-4 minutes at Wrexham) - not sure how much juice you could get into it in that time! There's also the matter that often the service is late and then has to turnaround early at Wrexham General!

For Wrexham and Bidston (see below) I would re-design the timetable and unit usage to allow for extended turn around times - there are five of these 230s after all. Plus potential for three more (see below).

They want to run (eventually) non stop Wrexham to Liverpool service. Given the problem of the complexity of a fast charge system amongst 3rd rail, how would they bypass this if they were to upgrade 230s? I imagine you would need a fast charge point Liverpool end just in case?

I seem to recall there is space at Bidston for a bay platform on the South side. Might be sensible to keep the Borderlands service away from the two through platforms used by the frequent services of Merseyrail. Would mean more expense of course.

if it decided to operate the fast service then could TfW include the ex Marston Vale 230s - @Woods will know if these are similar enough (even for the slow service).

I'd get rid of the batteries and use them as pure DMU's tbh. I've never been on them without the engines running and producing power all the time!

I suspect replacing the battery rafts with more gen-sets is an option if you want to ignore green credentials.
But how are the engines coping compared to the batteries ?.
However, as @Woods says, there are better batteries available now.

I could see the Borderlands line being the next stage in 100% battery trials (as in after Greenford/West-Ealing).

If it is going to be 777s then electrification over head (even 750/1,500 V DC) might be easier.

But we are talking about a not very intensively used line/service here.

 

[anthony263]

Ive read an article which tfw says the main issue seems to be the generators on it saying the batteries have allowed the units to get to a station before packing in.

Network rail I believe have come up witha way to I.prove safety with 3rd rail so a partial extension of the 3rd rail network onto the Bidston-Wrexham line