Potential for battery tech to avoid "awkward" electrification on TransPennine

[Bantamzen]

We don’t really need to go into it again as it’s been done numerous times before, but there’s one or two spots where total electrification would be awkward.

Anyway, personally I’m all in favour of it remaining a hybrid railway as it would mean stock would still have the ability to be diverted via alternative routes during disruption, via Hebden Bridge, Wakefield Kirkgate and Castleford in the main.

The only problem with a hybrid railway is that you end up dragging around heavy diesel engines around for relatively small sections. This is passible for extensions to places of electric mains where it is simply not viable to wire. But for services like Liverpool-Newcastle across the North TransPennine route, if all the planned wiring takes place you will end up carrying engines to bridge the only gap between Stalybridge-Huddersfield. It really doesn't make any sense in the long run.

 

[Legolash2o]

The only problem with a hybrid railway is that you end up dragging around heavy diesel engines around for relatively small sections. This is passible for extensions to places of electric mains where it is simply not viable to wire. But for services like Liverpool-Newcastle across the North TransPennine route, if all the planned wiring takes place you will end up carrying engines to bridge the only gap between Stalybridge-Huddersfield. It really doesn't make any sense in the long run.

Hopefully battery technology will improve to negate that issue.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hopefully battery technology will improve to negate that issue.

If they end up being lighter than conventional engines, but even so its all extra weight that could be negated by wiring a relatively small section of track.

 

[Spartacus]

The only problem with a hybrid railway is that you end up dragging around heavy diesel engines around for relatively small sections. This is passible for extensions to places of electric mains where it is simply not viable to wire. But for services like Liverpool-Newcastle across the North TransPennine route, if all the planned wiring takes place you will end up carrying engines to bridge the only gap between Stalybridge-Huddersfield. It really doesn't make any sense in the long run.

In the short to medium term most services are likely to need a diesel engine anyway.

 

[Bantamzen]

In the short to medium term most services are likely to need a diesel engine anyway.

Had the upgrade plans been stuck to by the Minister, the new stock would pretty much not need them at all for many runs...

But yes until the upgrade is complete, there will be need for diesel traction for many parts, and after for the 'Grayling Gap'...

 

[superkev]

Hopefully battery technology will improve to negate that issue.

Battery tech will need a ten fold increase in technology both in weight and cost to compete with Diesel.
My days testing large diesel generators the rule of thumb was half a pint of diesel per kw/hr or 16 kw/hr per gallon. Theres a lot of energy in not a lot of diesel.
K

 

[matacaster]

The only problem with a hybrid railway is that you end up dragging around heavy diesel engines around for relatively small sections. This is passible for extensions to places of electric mains where it is simply not viable to wire. But for services like Liverpool-Newcastle across the North TransPennine route, if all the planned wiring takes place you will end up carrying engines to bridge the only gap between Stalybridge-Huddersfield. It really doesn't make any sense in the long run.

Going over the Pennines is precisely where additional power would have most effect. But

 

[JonasB]

Battery tech will need a ten fold increase in technology both in weight and cost to compete with Diesel.
My days testing large diesel generators the rule of thumb was half a pint of diesel per kw/hr or 16 kw/hr per gallon. Theres a lot of energy in not a lot of diesel.
K

Batteries are not as good as diesel, but for many they are good enough. 80 km range should be enough to bridge the Huddersfield-Stalybridge gap.

 

[superkev]

Batteries are not as good as diesel, but for many they are good enough. 80 km range should be enough to bridge the Huddersfield-Stalybridge gap.

80km or 50miles range would require quite a battery. Using the figure of 1mpg for a 185 that's 50gallons of fuel which at 16kw/hr/gal would require 800kw/hr or 20 Nissan leaf batteries. A very rough estimate based on 100kw ton and £200/kw/hr would be 8 tons, £160 000 and around a 7 year life.
K

 

[takno]

80km or 50miles range would require quite a battery. Using the figure of 1mpg for a 185 that's 50gallons of fuel which at 16kw/hr/gal would require 800kw/hr or 20 Nissan leaf batteries. A very rough estimate.would be 10 tons, £160 000 and around a 7 year life.
K

As far as I can see the peak power output of a 185 is 3x560kw. You aren't going to get anywhere near 800kw/h in 50 miles from that. Realistically you'd actually be looking at maybe 6 or 7 Leaf batteries, so more like 3 tons (or <5% of empty weight) and £50k. Battery life would presumably vary by usage.

 

[bengley]

Also bear in mind when going downhill and braking there would be regen which would recharge the batteries - this amounts to a significant power gain on trains.

 

[superkev]

As far as I can see the peak power output of a 185 is 3x560kw. You aren't going to get anywhere near 800kw/h in 50 miles from that. Realistically you'd actually be looking at maybe 6 or 7 Leaf batteries, so more like 3 tons (or <5% of empty weight) and £50k. Battery life would presumably vary by usage.

My figure of 800kw/hr battery for 50mile range was based on 1mpg which I've seen as typical for a 185.
Not sure a 6 or 7 40kw/hr Nissan leaf batteries could do much with a 150ton class 185 let alone a much longer train up the hill from Stalybridge.
Ian Warmsley of Modern railways did an article on the emu ( was it Hitachi) converted to go the last few miles on batteries. Apart from the weight and volume I remember him saying the battery leasing cost exceeded the rest of the train.
Incidentally it's nice to see car manufacturers quoting there batteries correctly in Kw/hours rather than just Kw which can be very different.
K

 

[hwl]

My figure of 800kw/hr battery for 50mile range was based on 1mpg which I've seen as typical for a 185.
Not sure a 6 or 7 40kw/hr Nissan leaf batteries could do much with a 150ton class 185 let alone a much longer train up the hill from Stalybridge.
Ian Warmsley of Modern railways did an article on the emu ( was it Hitachi) converted to go the last few miles on batteries. Apart from the weight and volume I remember him saying the battery leasing cost exceeded the rest of the train.
Incidentally it's nice to see car manufacturers quoting there batteries correctly in Kw/hours rather than just Kw which can be very different.
K

On an equivalent in the tank /battery basis, battery is well over 90+% efficient but rail diesel is typically only 25-38% efficient (excluding idle) hence mpg based calculation are a bit meaning less

 

[yorksrob]

I've yet to see any evidence that Standedge is any more 'awkward' than any of the myriad other electrified tunnels on the network. Complete hokum.

 

[hwl]

I've yet to see any evidence that Standedge is any more 'awkward' than any of the myriad other electrified tunnels on the network. Complete hokum.

Agreed it isn't awkward just a logistical pain with lots closure time needed!
The key bit for me in terms of making it more saleable as regards disruption is delaying Standedge so that all the other work is complete so that you have electrified Leeds - Huddersfield and ManVic - Stalybridge running with much longer trains than currently to take as much load of TPE as possible and reducing the Northern Journey times through EMU use.

 

[The Lad]

But in terms of energy use, electrifying up to the tunnels is the bit where energy is being used.

 

[Ianno87]

But in terms of energy use, electrifying up to the tunnels is the bit where energy is being used.

Standedge Tunnel itself is actually level, I believe. (Hence why there's a parallel canal tunnel)

 

[mmh]

Even if a tunnel was too awkward for some reason, you could perhaps third rail electrify it at less cost than an elaborate battery alternative, if only third rail was as trendy.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Even if a tunnel was too awkward for some reason, you could perhaps third rail electrify it at less cost than an elaborate battery alternative, if only third rail was as trendy.

Hmm, or maybe you could use rigid catenary.

 

[randyrippley]

Even if a tunnel was too awkward for some reason, you could perhaps third rail electrify it at less cost than an elaborate battery alternative, if only third rail was as trendy.

Third rail in a wet tunnel? Doesn't sound a good idea

 

[bengley]

Third rail in a wet tunnel? Doesn't sound a good idea

Works okay in all of the wet tunnels I used to drive through on the Brighton Main Line.

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of closure time, I think it still might be worth considering temporarily reinstating one of the other tunnels to enable a through service when the main tunnel is closed.

So long as the tunnel is structurally sound, the temporary track could be low speed and reversible, and built with components that could be reused afterwards.

 

[Meerkat]

If you leave electrifying the difficult bits until the rest is upgraded and running more and longer trains then you increase the cost and disruption of the closures you will need and just make it even less likely to ever happen.

 

[AndrewE]

If you leave electrifying the difficult bits until the rest is upgraded and running more and longer trains then you increase the cost and disruption of the closures you will need and just make it even less likely to ever happen.

So don't waste any more time trying to develop and commission any more hybrid trains, just electrify it all straight away then, especially as there isn't even a difficult bit, apart from some houses close to the track at one point.

In terms of closure time, I think it still might be worth considering temporarily reinstating one of the other tunnels to enable a through service when the main tunnel is closed.
So long as the tunnel is structurally sound, the temporary track could be low speed and reversible, and built with components that could be reused afterwards.

There's nothing temporary about it! All the tunnels are sound, and the two single bores could easily be brought back fully into use and electrified to allow the double track bore to be done. The single bores have been maintained because they are listed as strategic assets that cannot be allowed to deteriorate. It is likely that all 4 would be needed anyway (as the western end of the 4-track railway from Yorkshire.)
The canal lobby (including a certain Welshman) will scream about this, but I think it could easily be done if the rails in the single bore nearest the canal were paved to allow the C&RT to escort boats through for a couple of windows mid-morning and mid-afternoon while trains were restricted to the third track (signalled bi-directionally, if needed.)
As has been said in another thread, why complicate the modernisation of a trunk route with gimmicks to get round a what is really just a basic failure to invest in infrastructure outside (or not serving) London?
I have suggested before that if restricted clearance is making electrification difficult in places across the network (big if) then low wires and a speed-restricted narrow pantograph could do the job in most of these places. If BR could build narrow trains for some lines, how come we can't cope with a narrow pan for some short sections? (The Forth Bridge was the earlier example.)

 

[yorksrob]

So don't waste any more time trying to develop and commission any more hybrid trains, just electrify it all straight away then, especially as there isn't even a difficult bit, apart from some houses close to the track at one point.

There's nothing temporary about it! All the tunnels are sound, and the two single bores could easily be brought back fully into use and electrified to allow the double track bore to be done. The single bores have been maintained because they are listed as strategic assets that cannot be allowed to deteriorate. It is likely that all 4 would be needed anyway (as the western end of the 4-track railway from Yorkshire.)
The canal lobby (including a certain Welshman) will scream about this, but I think it could easily be done if the rails in the single bore nearest the canal were paved to allow the C&RT to escort boats for a couple of windows mid-morning and mid-afternoon while trains were restricted to the third track (signalled bi-directionally, if needed.)
As has been said in another thread, why complicate the modernisation of a trunk route with gimmicks to get round a what is really just a basic failure to invest in infrastructure outside (or not serving) London?
I have suggested before that if restricted clearance is making electrification difficult in places across the network (big if) then low wires and a speed-restricted narrow pantograph could do the job in most of these places. If BR could build narrow trains for some lines, how come we can't cope with a narrow pan for some short sections? (The Forth Bridge was the earlier example.)

Well indeed. I was thinking if you didn't want to go to the expense of electrifying the additional tunnels (or closing off the canal), you could increase capacity massively by having a similar number of much longer trains and adjusting the infrastructure.