East Midlands Railway BEMUs by 2033: How could this be achieved?

[QSK19]

This comment here (thanks @bunnahabhain ) has the revenue breakdown as:

• 80% Intercity & Connect
• 5% Regional
• 15% Liverpool - Norwich

So the ROI on regional is almost certainly terrible, but BEMUs on Liverpool - Norwich should be financially possible.

Any BEMU order for this route is going to be small (e.g. 26 x 3 car) so ordering from the same framework as Northern would save money and allow for more fleet flexibility should the route change operator.

Makes sense. So presumably a Liverpool-Norwich BEMU order cascades any 170s used on the route to the rest of the Regional network and that in turn sees off the 158s.

However, if there aren’t enough cascaded 170s to completely cover 158 withdrawal, presumably a few extra BEMUs would be needed for other routes with enough OLE (eg Leicester-Nottingham once RS2 & RS3 are done).

 

[Trainbike46]

Makes sense. So presumably a Liverpool-Norwich BEMU order cascades any 170s used on the route to the rest of the Regional network and that in turn sees off the 158s.

However, if there aren’t enough cascaded 170s to completely cover 158 withdrawal, presumably a few extra BEMUs would be needed for other routes with enough OLE (eg Leicester-Nottingham once RS2 & RS3 are done).

aren't the 158s concentrated on Liverpool-Norwich anyway?

Regardless, this idea that old trains are cheaper than new trains comes up regularly on the forum, but it isn't necessarily true in the current leasing situation - units have been replaced simply because the new fleet was cheaper to lease than the old fleet occasionally (at GA and WMT for example), and quiet regional services have had new trains ordered for them, e.g. at TfW and Greater Anglia, so I don't see why this couldn't happen at EMR.

In my view, the logical split would be to order BEMUs for those routes where BEMUs are possible, and continue using 170s on the, likely small, remaining number of routes where BEMUs are impractical.

 

[DDB]

There are very strong rumours of a reorganised regional routes in December in this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-midlands-railway-dec-2025-recast.281065/

This has a large chunk of routes having Derby Nottingham Lincoln at their core. Derby Nottingham will be wired. How much of Nottingham Lincoln would need to wired to give a decent charge. Could wiring be extended from and powered by the ECML giving a boost either side of Newark crossing?

 

[HSTEd]

This has a large chunk of routes having Derby Nottingham Lincoln at their core. Derby Nottingham will be wired.

Has that been confirmed anywhere?
So far I am not aware of concrete commitment for electrification to even reach Nottingham

How much of Nottingham Lincoln would need to wired to give a decent charge. Could wiring be extended from and powered by the ECML giving a boost either side of Newark crossing?

This question would likely be directly dependent on the power supply situation on the ECML after the current upgrades.
Conceptually yes, the route could be electrified, fed from the Newark Crossing.

The question is whether the power supply arrangements will like that.
The more power available from the ECML the shorter the section will be because the train can conceptually charge faster.

 

[Zomboid]

Depends where the power comes from. If there's not a feeder station at Newark then the supply to the Lincoln line would be dependent on some of the ECML being live and available to transmit power. Not an impossible situation but it'd probably be best to avoid creating dependencies.

If there is a supply at Newark then it would be the obvious place to take power from if the line towards Nottingham/ Lincoln is wired.

How you'd get OLE to stay in the air with such a sharp crossing angle is another question. Might be that grade separation is necessary to electrify.

 

[Grimsby town]

This comment here (thanks @bunnahabhain ) has the revenue breakdown as:

• 80% Intercity & Connect
• 5% Regional
• 15% Liverpool - Norwich

So the ROI on regional is almost certainly terrible, but BEMUs on Liverpool - Norwich should be financially possible.

Any BEMU order for this route is going to be small (e.g. 26 x 3 car) so ordering from the same framework as Northern would save money and allow for more fleet flexibility should the route change operator.

If only units operating Liverpool-Norwich are replaced, it's likely that some regional services will be operating fully or mostly under the wires e.g. Leicester to Nottingham. That's not only bad PR, but could be more expensive operationally. Yes new rollingstock may cost more but electric trains are cheaper to operate. There's also the sparks effect to boost passenger revenue and external economic ams environmental benefits.

At the end of the day, rollingstock is going to have to be replaced eventually. I remember the benefit cost ratio of Pacer replacement being terrible but it still happened.

 

[HSTEd]

Depends where the power comes from. If there's not a feeder station at Newark then the supply to the Lincoln line would be dependent on some of the ECML being live and available to transmit power. Not an impossible situation but it'd probably be best to avoid creating dependencies.

As far as I know the nearest feeder point is Grantham North, although I am not up to date on that and I might have missed one.

A new feeder station would be a major to cost to such a scheme, so I am skeptical it would be funded.

 

[Zomboid]

There'll be power at the Nottingham end as well, probably near Ratcliffe power station. That might have enough juice to get to Newark.

 

[andy33gmail]

Unless I’m missing something; BMUs / EMBUs have a massive capital cost and environmental footprint to make, in order to last 20-40 years

At the same time, countries like Germany have been testing the polar opposite - putting pantographs for lorries over autobahn

Isn’t is much more economical and sustainable to just crack on and electrify more lines - at least as a default approach - rather than put lithium batteries in deckchairs?

 

[HSTEd]

Unless I’m missing something; BMUs / EMBUs have a massive capital cost and environmental footprint to make, in order to last 20-40 years

At the same time, countries like Germany have been testing the polar opposite - putting pantographs for lorries over autobahn

There was a study on the application of that eHighway technology to British motorways.
More than half of all HGV traffic could be electrified with only a few thousand lane-km of electrification.

The traffic densities seen on those routes far exceeds that seen on our remaining unelectrified railways.

The environmental impact from train batteries will be made up in a matter of weeks of not burning diesel.

Isn’t is much more economical and sustainable to just crack on and electrify more lines - at least as a default approach - rather than put lithium batteries in deckchairs?

No, because 25kV electrification has become extraordinarily expensive.
£2.5m per track km or more (apparently pushing much higher in some projects)

Virtually every piece of track that is economical to electrify at current prices has already been committed to electrification.

 

[Brubulus]

There's a major substation right next to the railway at Staythorpe, so pretty much perfect for electrification, especially given there are 0 older overbridges between Newark and Lincoln, meaning clearance work would be limited. One of the easiest electrification routes in the country, even up to Lincoln, so should be done.

 

[HSTEd]

There's a major substation right next to the railway at Staythorpe, so pretty much perfect for electrification, especially given there are 0 older overbridges between Newark and Lincoln, meaning clearance work would be limited. One of the easiest electrification routes in the country, even up to Lincoln, so should be done.

The clearances required on 25kV installations were set to significantly larger values with the adoption of European specifications in 2015. Anything older than that may require significant clearance works, as the later Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification projects found out.

A feeding point at Staythorpe will still likely cost tens of millions of pounds.

 

[Class 170101]

Do you actually need a feeding point there? Useful though it sounds it would be right next to the railway.

Can existing feeding points be boosted so newly electrified lines can feed off existing electrified routes? eg Newark to Nottingham fed from the MML from the west (once wired) and ECML from the east?

 

[Zomboid]

Not easily. Depends on how much spare capacity that the grid has at that location, and any significant change isn't going to be cheaper than starting again.

 

[HSTEd]

Can existing feeding points be boosted so newly electrified lines can feed off existing electrified routes? eg Newark to Nottingham fed from the MML from the west (once wired) and ECML from the east?

I'm not sure the lightly trafficked line between Newark and Lincoln is going to significantly load the ECML's traction supply.

It's going to be 1-2 short battery units per hour.

If the railway is willing to accept any availability issues it is likely doable.

 

[Class 170101]

Not easily. Depends on how much spare capacity that the grid has at that location, and any significant change isn't going to be cheaper than starting again.

Does using an SFC make any difference to this? (also balances supply doesn't it)?

 

[Class 317]

BEMU'S like the straddler Flirt currently have around a 65 mile nominal range including a 20% contingency allowance.

Giving real world testing by Hitachi using old battery tech got to this range it's realistic to expect a range of around 90-100 miles to be possible with the latest chemistries particularly on low speed routes.

I think most people are assuming a range far less than this and therefore are over estimating the necessary OHLE islands required for charging.

If MML OHLE does reach Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield I would be surprised if much more charging infrastructure or OHLE was required to allow BEMU'S to cover all EMR's regional routes. Targeted small extensions for example of a few extra miles either side of planned OHLE and 2/3 terminal stations might be all that is required. Operational resilience could add in for example Lincoln station area.

 

[HSTEd]

If MML OHLE does reach Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield I would be surprised if much more charging infrastructure or OHLE was required to allow BEMU'S to cover all EMR's regional routes. Targeted small extensions for example of a few extra miles either side of planned OHLE and 2/3 terminal stations might be all that is required. Operational resilience could add in for example Lincoln station area.

Well the section from Newark Castle to the flat crossing is only 1340m and only has one overbridge.
That would provide a nice little boost especially as the train could sit in Newark Castle during disruption if its battery is overly depleted.

Anyone know if there is a limit on the catenary drawing power through a static pantograph? I assume there is but I don't know what the value would be.

 

[Zomboid]

Does using an SFC make any difference to this? (also balances supply doesn't it)?

SFCs as I understand allow connection at a lower voltage, but for a given output they're a lot bigger and more complicated than a simple transformer. So it's swings and roundabouts really. It'll depend on the specifics of the location.

With discontinuous electrification they may well have a part to play if you can get a small, cheap, low output one that can connect to whatever power supply is available locally to energise a few km of wires - though for a static charging station the system being trialled at West Ealing may turn out to be closer to the solution that's widely adopted. Time will tell...

 

[Nottingham59]

Anyone know if there is a limit on the catenary drawing power through a static pantograph? I assume there is but I don't know what the value would be.

I don't know, but at 25kV a 2MW power draw would be 80 Amps, which is less than a standard domestic supply. I'd be very surprised if the limit for static draw was less than twice this.

 

[Elecman]

The problem is the localised heating of the pan carbon and contact wire at the small point of contact if drawing any appreciable load such as rapid battery charging

 

[absolutelymilk]

The problem is the localised heating of the pan carbon and contact wire at the small point of contact if drawing any appreciable load such as rapid battery charging

Would having multiple pantographs, even on a single unit, help to deal with this?

 

[Nottingham59]

Google is your friend....

From:
Rail Industry Standard RIS-1853-ENE Issue: One Draft: Draft 3 Date: December 2022 Rail Industry Standard on AC Energy Subsystem and Interfaces to Rolling Stock Subsystem

G 2.4.1 The ENE NTSN does not specify requirements for current at standstill for ac systems.
BS EN 50367:2020, clause 7.2, Table 5 specifies a limit of 80 A per pantograph at
vehicle standstill, assuming two 40 mm wide contact strips. RSSB research project
T1185 (2021) undertook tests to ascertain current capacity of different types and
configurations of contact wires.

That's 15 minutes for a complete recharge of a 500kWh battery at standstill.

 

[Class 317]

Google is your friend....

From:
Rail Industry Standard RIS-1853-ENE Issue: One Draft: Draft 3 Date: December 2022 Rail Industry Standard on AC Energy Subsystem and Interfaces to Rolling Stock Subsystem



That's 15 minutes for a complete recharge of a 500kWh battery at standstill.

This is the exact standard used by both Staddler and Siemens. I believe work is ongoing to improve on this by changing materials used in the Pantographs. 15 mins would seem very reasonable for a turnaround time at journeys end.

 

[HSTEd]

Would having multiple pantographs, even on a single unit, help to deal with this?

In theory, yes. Although that might be a bit of an overkill way to deal with it.

A train where every carriage has a pantograph, with them only raised when the train is stationary.

However, transformer weight is likely to militate against this, and will likely be the limiting factor on charging power.

 

[Zomboid]

2MW charging really ought to be enough. There's also a limiting factor of how much battery capacity can be carried, both in terms of space and weight.
If that's not a fast enough charge rate then we probably need more wires so the batteries don't get so depleted to begin with.

 

[Nottingham59]

The OHLE can carry tens of megawatts, given the power requirments of multiple 800s at full acceleration.

I can see the benefit of a BEMU having two pantographs, for redundancy on the move and double capacity when stationary to give 4MW recharging rate at stations.

 

[Zomboid]

not very many tens of MW, and accelerating trains aren't static point loads - as they move through the system their current is distributed between the various parallel wires (unless single track).

Static battery charging is a different use case and you can't just assume that it'll be ok. Though any new OLE that's put in place can be designed to cope with it

 

[Nottingham59]

Though any new OLE that's put in place can be designed to cope with it

Yes, it can. Let's just hope that the design for the MML electrification at Nottingham station includes the capacity for multiple megawatt recharging of BEMUs arriving from the depths of Lincolnshire. Or at least passive provision for future upgrade.

 

[Nym]

In the real world, a pantograph can take a lot more than 80A. Dekra have done extensive testing on this in the Netherlands but it’s not openly available.