Trimode specification for new intermittent mainline electrification

[YourMum666]

I think we need to stop pretending that batteries are a suitable form of power for mainline de-carbonisation. They aren't (they should be a niche application for lighter use lines) and the answer is to do the job properly and get the wires up. I would not be at all surprised if in a few years time there will be some environmental or health crisis about batteries and their contents.

Oh, and why are we basing anything on the IET? It's utterly appalling from almost every perspective: a manufacturer not interested in suppporting customers, trains that are cracking up (literally), abysmal ride quality, high cost, poor quality, poor reliability, poor availability. There is a consistent theme with these trains and we should not be putting any more orders the way of Hitachi.

Why not the IET, it’s not like FLIRTs are any better

 

[Trainbike46]

Why not the IET, it’s not like FLIRTs are any better

The FLIRT has level boarding, so is miles better on that front

But in any case, it's better not to write a specification so that only one manufacturer can possibly deliver; Don't ask for an IET (or FLIRT), but instead ask for a 125 mph BEMU with level boarding and specified minimum battery requirements; That way, you can then get whatever is the best option, be that an 80x-derivative, a FLIRT or something else entirely

 

[YourMum666]

The FLIRT has level boarding, so is miles better on that front

But in any case, it's better not to write a specification so that only one manufacturer can possibly deliver; Don't ask for an IET (or FLIRT), but instead ask for a 125 mph BEMU with level boarding and specified minimum battery requirements; That way, you can then get whatever is the best option, be that an 80x-derivative, a FLIRT or something else entirely

True

 

[deltic08]

Well for short distances, like a low bridge or a tunnel, or Wigston-Syston, then you could just run an insulated +25kV/0/-25kV cable in the cess to provide electrical continuity.

For longer gaps, sure, you would need a grid feeder for electrified islands. But not that many: at 90mph this train would have a range on battery only of 8 minutes, but running the diesel engine as a range extender would give you 20 minutes, which is 30 miles. This is the distance from Yate to Gloucester or from Cheltenham to Bromsgrove. So you would only have to electrify Cheltenham to the Gloucester triangle to decarbonise the whole of Bristol-Birmingham.

And I note that Tamworth is 15 miles from Birmingham, and 25 miles from Derby. Tamworth high-level could be supplied from the WCML without needing a new grid feeder at all. You could electrify / batterify the whole cross-country route from Bristol to Edinburgh with just one new grid feeder at Cheltenham.

And all freight trains continue to be diesel hauled forever especially the heavy, literally, freight flows to/from South Wales?
Isn't there a saying that 2tph justifies full OHLE?
It isn't that long ago that electrification was only £1m per stk. If the DfT dither much longer it is going to be £8m per stk.

 

[43096]

Why not the IET, it’s not like FLIRTs are any better

If you read my post there's plenty of reasons why not.

 

[Bald Rick]

It isn't that long ago that electrification was only £1m per stk.

It certainly is a long time ago! 20 years ago at least, since when inflation has more than doubled retail prices, and done more than that in construction.

 

[YourMum666]

If you read my post there's plenty of reasons why not.

Your post can be applied to almost any train that has entered service in the last 5 years…