Hitachi Hayabusa (2007) Hybrid HST - future uses?

[NotATrainspott]

Back in 2007 Hitachi fitted an HST power car plus an adjoining Mk3 carriage with a hybrid electric battery storage system. At the time, the IEP was to involve HST-style diesel power cars and a battery-electric hybrid system was on the cards for Hitachi's offering. With the HSTs now being planned to run in service until well into the 2020s, do you think there's a possibility that this technology might be fitted in service? Hitachi said at the time that it could lead to a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, and with the HST fleet now focussing on slower, more frequently stopping services it seems that it might do well. It might also help to deal with the diesel emissions issue in enclosed city centre stations, which I expect to become much more significant in future. Of course, it would come down to a question of cost, as fitting the battery would not be trivial (although at least the plans for it are proven to work). If, however, there were a major clampdown on diesel emissions in future it might help to keep the units in service for a few years longer.

 

[Mordac]

Did they have to pay Suzuki for royalties on that name? :P

 

[NotATrainspott]

Did they have to pay Suzuki for royalties on that name? :P

It's the Japanese word for peregrine falcon, so probably not.

 

[43096]

Back in 2007 Hitachi fitted an HST power car plus an adjoining Mk3 carriage with a hybrid electric battery storage system. At the time, the IEP was to involve HST-style diesel power cars and a battery-electric hybrid system was on the cards for Hitachi's offering. With the HSTs now being planned to run in service until well into the 2020s, do you think there's a possibility that this technology might be fitted in service? Hitachi said at the time that it could lead to a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, and with the HST fleet now focussing on slower, more frequently stopping services it seems that it might do well. It might also help to deal with the diesel emissions issue in enclosed city centre stations, which I expect to become much more significant in future. Of course, it would come down to a question of cost, as fitting the battery would not be trivial (although at least the plans for it are proven to work). If, however, there were a major clampdown on diesel emissions in future it might help to keep the units in service for a few years longer.

The kit might have been Hitachi, but the modifications were done by Brush. The Hayabusa name reflects the involvement of both.

It's not going to be practical for HST use, as it needed an extra trailer for the batteries. The NMT was ideal, but for passenger service it's not really going to work.

 

[59CosG95]

The kit might have been Hitachi, but the modifications were done by Brush. The Hayabusa name reflects the involvement of both.

It's not going to be practical for HST use, as it needed an extra trailer for the batteries. The NMT was ideal, but for passenger service it's not really going to work.

EMT tried to keep it as a "Hayabusa" when NR had finished with the trials; while they were willing to give up half a trailer for the batteries, the non-standard nature of the traction equipment meant that it was easier to return it to original HST configuration.

 

[43096]

EMT tried to keep it as a "Hayabusa" when NR had finished with the trials; while they were willing to give up half a trailer for the batteries, the non-standard nature of the traction equipment meant that it was easier to return it to original HST configuration.

Did they?

That is not my understanding of it.

 

[fgwrich]

If anyone's interested, The Mk3 involved now resides as an external boardroom for Bachmann industries at Barwell.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The kit might have been Hitachi, but the modifications were done by Brush. The Hayabusa name reflects the involvement of both.

It's not going to be practical for HST use, as it needed an extra trailer for the batteries. The NMT was ideal, but for passenger service it's not really going to work.

Didn't it just use the guards area in a TGS vehicle? Even allowing for that space to be accommodated elsewhere that's less than half a carriage. Batteries for both power cars would use about half a carriage length in total.

 

[fgwrich]

Didn't it just use the guards area in a TGS vehicle? Even allowing for that space to be accommodated elsewhere that's less than half a carriage. Batteries for both power cars would use about half a carriage length in total.

Certainly the technology used more than just the guards van of the TGS - The entire underframe module was removed to accommodate more batteries and equipment, as can be seen here.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12408...L4Z-NCnEo8-bsTgQ1-NjVRPa-HnHSUn-BsxZie-Av8CFZ

 

[NotATrainspott]

This Railway Gazette article says that the system used 48 1kWh batteries, which had to be fitted in the adjoining Mk3 TGS. These were said to be too heavy for the power car, but that was in 2007 when mass lithium-ion battery technology was in its infancy. Now, it's basically just a battery from a Renault Zoe or any of the other low-mid range BEVs that will come onto the market within the next few years. A 14kWh Tesla Powerwall 2 has a mass of 120kg with a dimension of 112x74x14cm. A ~50kWh unit made up of modules could therefore weigh just about half a metric ton and take up less than half a cubic metre of space. It certainly seems like the idea is more feasible technically now, but I can see that the need to retraction too might push the cost too high to be worthwhile. AC-motored hybrid MTU power-door retention toilet HSTs wouldn't really share much with what rolled off the production line back in the 70s/80s!

 

[jopsuk]

I'd imagine it's been looked at, perhaps not in detail, for the Scotrail and GWR HST overhaul/life extension projects

 

[DerekC]

It was always a rather odd choice for a hybrid. As with cars, hybrids give the best efficiency gains on runs with lots of stops. A high speed train only stopping occasionally doesn't give much scope for energy recovery. I have heard the 20% figure quoted before, but I have never seen any proper evidence to back it up.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It was always a rather odd choice for a hybrid. As with cars, hybrids give the best efficiency gains on runs with lots of stops. A high speed train only stopping occasionally doesn't give much scope for energy recovery. I have heard the 20% figure quoted before, but I have never seen any proper evidence to back it up.

The HST is one of the few diesel-electric passenger trains that a battery hybrid system could be fitted to. What made me think about this idea now is that the HSTs will now be running services where they won't just be cruising along at 125mph most of the day. It would also be a way of heavily mitigating the emissions issue in stations like Waverley or Queen Street without needing more intensive changes like a high-power shore supply or fitting a pantograph.

 

[43096]

The HST is one of the few diesel-electric passenger trains that a battery hybrid system could be fitted to. What made me think about this idea now is that the HSTs will now be running services where they won't just be cruising along at 125mph most of the day. It would also be a way of heavily mitigating the emissions issue in stations like Waverley or Queen Street without needing more intensive changes like a high-power shore supply or fitting a pantograph.

I thought the MTU programme was meant to cut the emissions radically? If you believe the TOCs' PR guff they now emit freshly cut daisies and reverse global warming.

 

[edwin_m]

The HST is one of the few diesel-electric passenger trains that a battery hybrid system could be fitted to. What made me think about this idea now is that the HSTs will now be running services where they won't just be cruising along at 125mph most of the day. It would also be a way of heavily mitigating the emissions issue in stations like Waverley or Queen Street without needing more intensive changes like a high-power shore supply or fitting a pantograph.

I doubt a hybrid would get very far up the incline to Cowlairs before it needed diesel power, so the engine start with attendant clag would either be in the station or in the tunnel. And all the HSTs starting from Waverley would be starting a few minutes later from Haymarket, so would need battery power for two starts, or Haymarket would have to suffer diesel starts, unless they could get enough charge by running the engine for a short period in between.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I thought the MTU programme was meant to cut the emissions radically? If you believe the TOCs' PR guff they now emit freshly cut daisies and reverse global warming.

Any emissions at all in enclosed city centre environments are going to get a lot of attention soon enough. While it won't be possible to get rid of them completely, I can see there being a push to do everything they can to minimise them.

I doubt a hybrid would get very far up the incline to Cowlairs before it needed diesel power, so the engine start with attendant clag would either be in the station or in the tunnel. And all the HSTs starting from Waverley would be starting a few minutes later from Haymarket, so would need battery power for two starts, or Haymarket would have to suffer diesel starts, unless they could get enough charge by running the engine for a short period in between.

2 power cars plus 5 generic Mk3 carriages is (2x70 + 5x33) is 305 tonnes or 3x10^6 kg. Google Earth says that Queen Street is at 15m and Cowlairs at 60m above sea level, so a difference of 45m. E = mgh = 3x10^6 * 9.8 * 45 = ~135MJ. 1kWh = 3.6MJ so with 100% efficiency you would need 37kWh of battery capacity just to move the train up the hill against gravity, ignoring forward movement or any other loads like hotel power. The train in total would have about 100kWh available.

So, it's possibly within an order of magnitude of being possible, but it's clearly not quite practical to assume the train would be able to manage without any assistance from the engine. What could work would be for the country end engine to idle away and deliver a minimal level of power, only really revving up and causing problems once it's out in the open. The buffer end engine could stay off completely. While this wouldn't completely remove emissions from the station, it would at least keep them to a minimum.

 

[Spod]

Mind your units! I'll probably make a mistake too, but E (in Joules) = m (in kg) x g (m/s^2) x h (in meters). Also, 305 tonnes is 305000 kg, so 3x 10^6 g or 3x 10^3 kg.
So we end up with 3.05 x 10^3 x 9.8 x 45 = 1.345 MJ or so. So ignoring the energy required to accelerate the train horizontally, efficiency, hotel power and so on, getting up the hill takes 0.37 kWh.
That suggests the hill isn't much of a problem if the train can store 100 kWh, but it surprises me that the hill accounts for so little of the total energy storage. So what's the limiting factor? Charging the batteries? Cost of installation? Maintenance?
Maybe there isn't a limiting factor, and this is actually a really good idea that should be taken forward!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Mind your units! I'll probably make a mistake too, but E (in Joules) = m (in kg) x g (m/s^2) x h (in meters). Also, 305 tonnes is 305000 kg, so 3x 10^6 g or 3x 10^3 kg.
So we end up with 3.05 x 10^3 x 9.8 x 45 = 1.345 MJ or so. So ignoring the energy required to accelerate the train horizontally, efficiency, hotel power and so on, getting up the hill takes 0.37 kWh.
That suggests the hill isn't much of a problem if the train can store 100 kWh, but it surprises me that the hill accounts for so little of the total energy storage. So what's the limiting factor? Charging the batteries? Cost of installation? Maintenance?
Maybe there isn't a limiting factor, and this is actually a really good idea that should be taken forward!

I think we're both wrong. 305 ton is 3x10^5, not 3x10^6. Therefore, my energy calculation was one factor of ten too large. If I've not made another clanger of an error, it really does suggest that battery power up the incline might be within the realms of feasibility. Also, it's really just the station and tunnelled section of the incline which is the problem, so the actual length of non-diesel running would be less.

If my sums are right, then this does look like quite an interesting idea. I note that Abellio are obliged to find ways to reduce their average fuel consumption per kilometre of diesel running by a few percentage points each year. Something like this could have a major impact. Hitachi's idea for this hybrid technology is that new trains could be fitted with smaller engines, as low-speed acceleration can now be assisted by the battery power. With batteries it might be possible to use one power car just for to idle and supply ETS, with traction provided by the other one. That would mean very significant fuel and emissions savings for the remaining lifetime of the trains, and as I said it may also be key to allowing them to continue operating into Queen Street and Waverley when emissions regulations come and really start to bite.

 

[edwin_m]

I get 305000kg * 9.81m/s2 *45m = 135MJ or 37.5kWh, which was NotATrainspott's first answer, so possibly two self-cancelling errors there!

As a reality check, a train with 5MW at the rail would need 133 seconds to expend that amount of energy, which is in the same ball park as the time it takes to climb Cowlairs.

 

[The Lad]

A limiting factor is how quickly you can safely discharge the battery. 3 min to flat is a big ask.

 

[DerekC]

I think we're both wrong. 305 ton is 3x10^5, not 3x10^6. Therefore, my energy calculation was one factor of ten too large. If I've not made another clanger of an error, it really does suggest that battery power up the incline might be within the realms of feasibility. .

I think your first value (37kWh) was correct. Mass of train = 305T = 3.05*10^5 Kg. Force to be lifted = 3.05*9.8*10^5 = 2.989*10^6 N. Distance lifted = 45m. Energy used (N.m) = 2.989*45*10^6 = 134*10^6 J. Divide by 3600 to convert to Watt-hrs and by 1000 to get KWh = 37. This seems a like plausible number.

 

[43096]

So where are the batteries going on this HST? And do your calculations include the weight of the batteries?

 

[NotATrainspott]

So where are the batteries going on this HST? And do your calculations include the weight of the batteries?

A 2+5 HST has a mass of about 300 tonnes but a 50kWh battery is about 500kg, so it would be a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. In the Hayabusa trial the batteries went in the adjoining TGS but presumably the technology has improved to the point where it could be fitted to the power car, or at least not take up much space in a nearby trailer.

This would be a Prius-style battery hybrid, where the battery exists only to make the traditional diesel engine setup much more efficient and to reduce emissions in specific locations. It's quite different to ideas like BEMU, where batteries would be the main traction power source. That puts it well within the realm of feasibility and retrofitting to an existing train design. It also wouldn't be mission-critical, as in the worst case scenario of the battery systems failing the engine could just take over again and run as if the hybrid system wasn't fitted at all.

 

[Roast Veg]

Of course, hitting the engine throttle while in the tunnel isn't the end of the world, as the incline should mean most emissions end up spewing out of the other end (but not all).