What implications does the latest battery train results have on future UK electrification ?.

[Annetts key]

And here you show perfectly why the current set-up disincentivises saving money. It's not limited to railways, my sector does this too. The most feared thing is a budget underspend, and if it looks like there could be money left over, ways are found to ensure every last penny is spent. If you don't, not only do you lose* the money you didn't spend this year, but it is cut from your budget for all future years.

It guarantees there will never be an underspend, while doing nothing to prevent an overspend.

*Usually this is expressed as "those insert expletive in central management will take our money away"

This is why these budget systems don't work. I've experienced the same. Not all the money for a year has been spent, or a project has not been finished. But in "two weeks" that money will disappear. So overtime and rest day working is thrown at the job to (a) use up the money (budget) before it disappears and (b) to make sure that the project / department doesn't come in under budget.

In more recent times, I've seen that the budget has been set far too low such that an overspend is predicted just three months into the year (that's financial year). So no surprise then, that at the end of the year, there's a massive overspend.

Such budget systems are not fit for use. Underspends should be rewarded not punished.

And the bean counters in the Treasury need dragging out of their offices to get their hands dirty in the real world of engineering (along with their lords and masters in Government, and I don't mean a day out for a photo opportunity). It's surprising what happens when a top level boss gets to see the real world (I've seen this, it actually resulted in some positive action that improved reliability on an important main line).

By the sounds of it, Scotland has brought costs back to normal levels, but by applying methods that will never be allowed by the treasury (and politicians) in England, such as not repeatedly cancelling, reinstating, and redesigning project.

Shock! A politician / government / the Treasury changing the parameters of a project and then the costs change. Never Or delaying it and then the costs go up. Never

Interference or delays to projects / schemes is known to be a prime reason for increased costs. As is setting unrealistic budgets or expectations. Or not doing enough to find out how much it would cost before starting. Especially as companies that put in bids know all this ("if we tell them how much it will really cost, we won't win the bid" kind of thing). I believe there may be a Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minster episode on this very subject.

 

[Bald Rick]

By the sounds of it, Scotland has brought costs back to normal levels

Depends what you mean by ‘normal’. To avoid any doubt, electrification in Scotland uses the same standards, same processes and same accounting as it does in England. It mostly uses the same contractors, and often even the same individual staff. Any difference in cost will be down to site specific issues. As a reminder, the main Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification was more expensive than the Great Western electrification on a £/km basis.

 

[Trainbike46]

Depends what you mean by ‘normal’. To avoid any doubt, electrification in Scotland uses the same standards, same processes and same accounting as it does in England. It mostly uses the same contractors, and often even the same individual staff. Any difference in cost will be down to site specific issues. As a reminder, the main Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification was more expensive than the Great Western electrification on a £/km basis.

I am aware the contractors, staff, and engineering standards.nI was referring to post-EGIP projects because as you say, EGIP was very expensive.

However, I disagree it is solely due to site-specific issues; repeatedly cancelling and uncancelling projects, delaying parts of the project, and repeatedly changing what a project is supposed to deliver all drive up costs significantly, and are things that Scotland has tackled way more effectively than England in recent electrification (ie post EGIP and GWEP)

 

[HSTEd]

I am aware the contractors, staff, and engineering standards.nI was referring to post-EGIP projects because as you say, EGIP was very expensive.

However, I disagree it is solely due to site-specific issues; repeatedly cancelling and uncancelling projects, delaying parts of the project, and repeatedly changing what a project is supposed to deliver all drive up costs significantly, and are things that Scotland has tackled way more effectively than England in recent electrification (ie post EGIP and GWEP)

Most of the cancellations and rescoping in England and Wales took place because of runaway cost and schedule failures.

If you try to prevent the government doing that the cost issues could easily spiral to untenable levels.

 

[eldomtom2]

A few ECS moves are likely to be less expensive than big station electrification.

I'm doubtful of that if you keep having to run trains ECS onto the main line and then park them there to charge. I can't imagine all the operational constraints that entails being cheaper than installing some conductor bars.

 

[JohnRegular]

Does the likely wider adoption of battery trains bolster the case for OLE in some locations?

I gave an earlier example of the Portsmouth-Cardiff route; if batteries were likely for this route I would expect this to improve the case for putting wires up on Filton Bank, through Bath, and particularly at Bristol Temple Meads. It might also be necessary at Westbury where trains often turn or are stabled. I'm sure similar is applicable across other routes.

For those in the know, is this line of thinking justified, and would you expect to see some wiring of 'trunks and hubs' ahead of battery train adoption?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'm doubtful of that if you keep having to run trains ECS onto the main line and then park them there to charge. I can't imagine all the operational constraints that entails being cheaper than installing some conductor bars.

I think that any station that is too complicated to wire easily will also be too busy to have extra ECS moves added to get trains out to sidings. This will therefore mean wiring important stations will be necessary or a majority of charging done on the move on plain sections. But that does not help with trains stabled at stations overnight.

Does the likely wider adoption of battery trains bolster the case for OLE in some locations?

I gave an earlier example of the Portsmouth-Cardiff route; if batteries were likely for this route I would expect this to improve the case for putting wires up on Filton Bank, through Bath, and particularly at Bristol Temple Meads. It might also be necessary at Westbury where trains often turn or are stabled. I'm sure similar is applicable across other routes.

For those in the know, is this line of thinking justified, and would you expect to see some wiring of 'trunks and hubs' ahead of battery train adoption?

I think start with electrifying suburban areas (yes the hard bits). I am thinking of major conurbations as these can justify wiring of their own local(ish) area. The long parts for "intercity" become more tempting once the difficult bits at each end are wired.

Obvious example is wiring Chiltern London end, Birmingham Snow Hill lines out to Leamington & Stratford and Great Western already wired (almost to Oxford). Then the "intercity" stretch between Oxford and Leamington spa becomes more tempting for Battery trains. Ideally the suburban ends would never require batteries but then Snow Hill tunnel and the tunnel outside Marylebone make that necessary.

After all Great Western and Midland mainline electrification started with the bits near London wired a lot earlier.

Other suburban ends/areas are Bristol and Portsmouth-Southampton. There we are in need of a Battery unit for Portsmouth-Cardiff that can feed off 25kV AC overhead and 750 V DC third rail !.

Another obvious one is a Battery EMU that gets beyond the third rail to Uckfield.

 

[Magdalia]

I'm doubtful of that if you keep having to run trains ECS onto the main line and then park them there to charge. I can't imagine all the operational constraints that entails being cheaper than installing some conductor bars.

Conductor bars are only cheap if there is an existing 25kV supply. In a station with no OHL there is no existing 25kV supply and it would be expensive to install.

I think that any station that is too complicated to wire easily will also be too busy to have extra ECS moves added to get trains out to sidings.

Major London termini do it every peak time.

I think start with electrifying suburban areas (yes the hard bits).

There is no money for that.

Does the likely wider adoption of battery trains bolster the case for OLE in some locations?

Your answer is here.

The only prospect of any electrification over and above what is already committed is if a rolling stock order relies on some OLE islands, and that is somehow wrapped into the leasing deal.

The key point with battery trains is that it is no longer essential to bring the power to the train, it is also possible to take the train to the power supply. In a lot of cases taking the train to the power supply is going to be cheaper.

 

[Trainbike46]

Conductor bars are only cheap if there is an existing 25kV supply. In a station with no OHL there is no existing 25kV supply and it would be expensive to install.


Major London termini do it every peak time.

You mean to move trains away that don't get used during the off-peak times? That isn't the same as what you're proposing at all.

ECS moves are operationally expensive both in staff time and track capacity usage, so a massive increase in the number of ECS move, as you would need to move trains away to charge in a siding somewhere out of service and then move them back, will be expensive. It would also require more trains.

What needs to happen is an assessment needs to be made of where electrification is needed and where it can be installed for the lowest total cost to recharge BEMUs while they are in service. Sometimes the answer will be along a plain line section, with lower per-mile electrification costs, in other cases it will be at a location where lines come together (like certain stations) even if the the per-mile cost is higher, but you don't need as many miles because the trains run slower and many trains run over not that much track.

In some cases, the cheapest option may well be to extend from the current limit of electrification if that means you can avoid getting an extra feeder station installed. In other cases (Uckfield comes to mind), all the electrification needed to support BEMU operation may already be there, so there is no need to install any more.

I do suspect the answer will likely be different in different parts of the country, depending on local factors including the presence of bridges, tunnels, how easy/hard it is to get a feeder station, what electrification already exists, etc.

 

[SynthD]

And as I said earlier, the batteries used in trains that use traction battery systems will have a lifespan considerably less than that of the train they are fitted in. Maybe five to ten years.

Where is that estimate from?

Does the likely wider adoption of battery trains bolster the case for OLE in some locations?

I think start with electrifying suburban areas (yes the hard bits). I am thinking of major conurbations as these can justify wiring of their own local(ish) area. The long parts for "intercity" become more tempting once the difficult bits at each end are wired.

Obvious example is wiring Chiltern London end, Birmingham Snow Hill lines out to Leamington & Stratford and Great Western already wired (almost to Oxford). Then the "intercity" stretch between Oxford and Leamington spa becomes more tempting for Battery trains. Ideally the suburban ends would never require batteries but then Snow Hill tunnel and the tunnel outside Marylebone make that necessary.

There are so many more possibilities with that question, that I could do with a way to cut down the options. Birmingham Moor St to Stratford for BEMU local services, Leamington to Oxford for electric freight and XC, around Wembley and St Johns tunnel to Marylebone for BEMU local services is another potential answer.

 

[N1]

Where is that estimate from?



There are so many more possibilities with that question, that I could do with a way to cut down the options. Birmingham Moor St to Stratford for BEMU local services, Leamington to Oxford for electric freight and XC, around Wembley and St Johns tunnel to Marylebone for BEMU local services is another potential answer.

RouteOne article on Battery degradation in electric coach and bus: How to manage it with Zenobe

Quote of the most relevant paragraph:

With fewer moving parts and lower vibrations, we may see electric buses on the road for up to 20 years. Current battery warranties stand at around eight years, and so there Is an expectation that two battery replacements may be required.

Generally for latest Lithium battery types life span seems to have gone up slowly over the last few years.

For reference German accumulator railcars generally had their lead acids changed every 5-7 years (the Bundesbahn tended to use the batteries longer than was probably advised, East German ones that were Pre-WWII were withdrawn even sooner as they couldn't afford new batteries or refurbs on them)

​

 

[Annetts key]

Does the likely wider adoption of battery trains bolster the case for OLE in some locations?

I would say yes.

I gave an earlier example of the Portsmouth-Cardiff route; if batteries were likely for this route I would expect this to improve the case for putting wires up on Filton Bank, through Bath, and particularly at Bristol Temple Meads. It might also be necessary at Westbury where trains often turn or are stabled. I'm sure similar is applicable across other routes.

The Filton lines (Doctor Days Bridge Junction to Patchway / Stoke Gifford junctions) is already planned to be done.

Bath Spa itself (and Sydney Gardens area) maybe (because of the different design required, this may be done later). But some of the other simple plain line sections between Bristol Temple Meads and Bathampton Junction absolutely yes.

I think Bristol Temple Meads is essential due to nearly all passenger trains stopping there, and the number of services that have long dwell times there or which terminate / start from there. The alternative would be to only provide OHLE for the carriage lines at Bedminister, but that then means trains have to shunt to/from there, then wait while the battery recharges. And only two trains could be accommodated with the current arrangements (unless you expand the OHLE to other sidings). This may be fine if it was only one or two local services that were formed of BEMUs and which started/terminated at BTM. But would be unsuitable for a more intensive service.

 

[Magdalia]

What needs to happen is an assessment needs to be made of where electrification is needed and where it can be installed for the lowest total cost to recharge BEMUs while they are in service. Sometimes the answer will be along a plain line section, with lower per-mile electrification costs, in other cases it will be at a location where lines come together (like certain stations) even if the the per-mile cost is higher, but you don't need as many miles because the trains run slower and many trains run over not that much track.

In some cases, the cheapest option may well be to extend from the current limit of electrification if that means you can avoid getting an extra feeder station installed. In other cases (Uckfield comes to mind), all the electrification needed to support BEMU operation may already be there, so there is no need to install any more.

I do suspect the answer will likely be different in different parts of the country, depending on local factors including the presence of bridges, tunnels, how easy/hard it is to get a feeder station, what electrification already exists, etc.

I agree with this, and it means having an open mind about what is going to be the most cost effective option.

ECS moves are operationally expensive both in staff time and track capacity usage, so a massive increase in the number of ECS move, as you would need to move trains away to charge in a siding somewhere out of service and then move them back, will be expensive. It would also require more trains.

That includes having an open mind about whether this could be the most cost effective option.

 

[Trainbike46]

I agree with this, and it means having an open mind about what is going to be the most cost effective option.

Agreed

That includes having an open mind about whether this could be the most cost effective option.

I'd be happy to have this considered as an option, but would be very surprised if it was the cheapest option anywhere. Then again, I like being surprised.

 

[eldomtom2]

Conductor bars are only cheap if there is an existing 25kV supply. In a station with no OHL there is no existing 25kV supply and it would be expensive to install.

Well, since we're assuming that we need a new 25kV supply anyway (and assuming that we're not using something like GWR's fast-charge system), is it really cheaper to build it out in the countryside, presumably with a bunch of sidings as well so that charging trains aren't blocking the main line?

Major London termini do it every peak time.

To sidings that have already been built, and I can't imagine electrifying the sidings will be cheaper than electrifying the stations.

 

[Nottingham59]

And as I said earlier, the batteries used in trains that use traction battery systems will have a lifespan considerably less than that of the train they are fitted in. Maybe five to ten years. So, what "pot" does the replacement cost of batteries come from? Capital expenditure? Maintenance? Or ongoing leasing costs?

From whatever budget is used to maintain the diesel engines, or for mid-life replacement.

The nine trimode 80x ordered by Grand Central will cost £300M (which includes a ten year maintenance contract), and their batteries will cost £10M. The cost of new traction batteries is only a small fraction of the cost of a new train.

Hitachi wins new UK contract to build intercity battery trains : April 3, 2025

Search Hitachi press releases and official announcements.

www.hitachi.com

The order for 45 Hitachi Rail 'tri-mode' cars, which have the flexibility to run on electrified and non-electrified tracks, along with a 10-year maintenance contract, represents an investment of around £300 million. Tri-mode means the trains can be powered using electricity, battery or diesel.

Turntide Secures Hitachi Order to Power First UK Battery Trains

Turntide Secures Hitachi Order to Power First UK Battery Trains. This latest development strengthens their long-term relationship.

turntide.com

Turntide Technologies will supply next-generation LFP batteries, which are designed to be smaller and more powerful than previous lithium-ion batteries. This order comes after Hitachi Rail was awarded a contract to build nine battery intercity (tri-mode) trains for Arriva’s Grand Central and Angel Trains. These will be the first new battery trains manufactured in the U.K.

Hitachi will place orders worth nearly £10 million with Turntide Technologies to continue R&D and supply LFP batteries.

 

[Magdalia]

Well, since we're assuming that we need a new 25kV supply anyway

I'm not assuming that. It might be possible to get an existing supply to the sidings very cheaply, but to the station only very expensively. Two current controversial examples are Leicester and Oxford.

is it really cheaper to build it out in the countryside, presumably with a bunch of sidings as well so that charging trains aren't blocking the main line?

I can't imagine electrifying the sidings will be cheaper than electrifying the stations.

Wiring sidings will be cheaper than wiring stations because the layout is simpler and there are no buildings to consider. Also it will only be necessary to have OHL in a few sidings, not lots of platforms.

 

[sad1e]

Converting older EMUs to BEMUs is something that could be looked at, but I think DMUs will just need to be steadily cascaded away from the B/EMU routes until withdrawal.

After the whole Vivarail bankrupcy fiasco and all the issues the 769's have had after their conversion to diesel I think the rail industry is probably looking to steer clear of MacGyvering older EMU's to run off another power source.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm not assuming that. It might be possible to get an existing supply to the sidings very cheaply, but to the station only very expensively. Two current controversial examples are Leicester and Oxford.

What sidings near Leicester and Oxford do you consider much easier to wire than the stations themselves?

Wiring sidings will be cheaper than wiring stations because the layout is simpler and there are no buildings to consider. Also it will only be necessary to have OHL in a few sidings, not lots of platforms.

But my point is that if we're wiring stations solely to charge battery trains, we only need to wire enough of the platform for the pantograph on a stopped train to reach, assuming an extended dwell time is acceptable (which it will be if the alternative is sending the train somewhere else to charge). Layout complexity isn't especially relevant in that case since the points won't be wired.

 

[vuzzeho]

After the whole Vivarail bankrupcy fiasco and all the issues the 769's have had after their conversion to diesel I think the rail industry is probably looking to steer clear of MacGyvering older EMU's to run off another power source.

Well, the Vivarail bankruptcy wasn't caused by an issue with the technology, right? Seems not. Similarly, the 769s didn't go well, but the TPE 802 trials did (apparently). If anything, I expect that to turn into something.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well, the Vivarail bankruptcy wasn't caused by an issue with the technology, right? Seems not. Similarly, the 769s didn't go well, but the TPE 802 trials did (apparently). If anything, I expect that to turn into something.

I think it would be a very good thing if all 80x were fitted with at least one, and in some cases multiple, battery packs, using the information gained during that trial, so let's hope it goes somewhere!

 

[Nottingham59]

I think it would be a very good thing if all 80x were fitted with at least one, and in some cases multiple, battery packs, using the information gained during that trial, so let's hope it goes somewhere!

That would be the most cost-effective electrification project available at the moment, by far.

 

[Buntobox]

In a lot of cases the extra cost of the batteries is going to be cheaper than the cost of installing overhead line.

Maybe. Batteries will need replacing far more often than OHLE and they are far from cheap...my car's battery pack replacement cost is £30K so the cost of replacing the traction batteries on a fleet of BEMUs several times over the lifespan of the trains is going to rival that of an OHLE installation...which only needs to be done once, not every few years.
Besides, Google the phrase "lithium evaporation pans" and your notion that these things are the environmental panacea we've been told they are might well take a bit of a beating.

 

[AndrewE]

Maybe. Batteries will need replacing far more often than OHLE and they are far from cheap...my car's battery pack replacement cost is £30K so the cost of replacing the traction batteries on a fleet of BEMUs several times over the lifespan of the trains is going to rival that of an OHLE installation...which only needs to be done once, not every few years.
Besides, Google the phrase "lithium evaporation pans" and your notion that these things are the environmental panacea we've been told they are might well take a bit of a beating.

given the network costs of OLE failures which are currently plaguing several main lines I wouldn't be so sure of that!

Anyway, the selection and procurement of batteries for trains will probably have almost nothing in common with putting them in cars. Tesla Powerwalls have only just switched away from the LiIon cells used in their cars, when most other domestic batteries have been LiFeP for years.

 

[CdBrux]

That would be the most cost-effective electrification project available at the moment, by far.

I do find it quite surprising that, if it was a bit of a 'no brainer' this hasn't started already. Or maybe it has (at least preparations) and the info is not public

 

[Nottingham59]

I do find it quite surprising that, if it was a bit of a 'no brainer' this hasn't started already. Or maybe it has (at least preparations) and the info is not public

The obvious place to start would be the GWR bimodes that spend most of their time going off the wires to Exeter and Plymouth. But I suspect it's all tied up with the Hitachi IET maintenance contract which I expect would make it very difficult to introduce a different specification into to mix without extortionate costs for contract variation.

It's telling that the first movers in this space are Arriva with their tri-mode order for Grand Central, who are not constrained with an inflexible DfT-imposed contractual model and maintenance regime.

 

[HSTEd]

I do find it quite surprising that, if it was a bit of a 'no brainer' this hasn't started already. Or maybe it has (at least preparations) and the info is not public

The battery designed for the trial was cobbled together out of Nissan Leaf batteries, I believe.

They may want to create a purpose built design before proceeding to series production

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==

Maybe. Batteries will need replacing far more often than OHLE and they are far from cheap...my car's battery pack replacement cost is £30K so the cost of replacing the traction batteries on a fleet of BEMUs several times over the lifespan of the trains is going to rival that of an OHLE installation...which only needs to be done once, not every few years.
Besides, Google the phrase "lithium evaporation pans" and your notion that these things are the environmental panacea we've been told they are might well take a bit of a beating.

Even the optimistic estimates for electrification put it at £2.5m/stkm and up

You can buy an awful lot of batteries for that. Additionally lithium is a capital expenditure, once the first generation of batteries is procured only limited additional metal is required for later years.

 

[Trainbike46]

The obvious place to start would be the GWR bimodes that spend most of their time going off the wires to Exeter and Plymouth. But I suspect it's all tied up with the Hitachi IET maintenance contract which I expect would make it very difficult to introduce a different specification into to mix without extortionate costs for contract variation.

It's telling that the first movers in this space are Arriva with their tri-mode order for Grand Central, who are not constrained with an inflexible DfT-imposed contractual model and maintenance regime.

LNER has also ordered trimodes, but from CAF.

Given you would likely want Hitachi to make the changes to the units anyway, the contract isn't an inherent problem, as you can vary contracts if both parties agree. The issue may be whether Hitachi is willing to vary the contract for a reasonable price.

 

[zwk500]

Well, the Vivarail bankruptcy wasn't caused by an issue with the technology, right? Seems not. Similarly, the 769s didn't go well, but the TPE 802 trials did (apparently). If anything, I expect that to turn into something.

Converting an EMU to a BMMU is a completely different technical ask to converting an EMU to a BEMU.

 

[Magdalia]

What sidings near Leicester and Oxford do you consider much easier to wire than the stations themselves?

This is a general discussion about battery trains, we don't have the information to design specific schemes. The point is that Oxford has existing 25kV only 10 miles away at Didcot, and Leicester will have 25kV about 5 miles away at Wigston. Ways can be devised to take advantage of that without wiring all of Oxford or Leicester.

But my point is that if we're wiring stations solely to charge battery trains, we only need to wire enough of the platform for the pantograph on a stopped train to reach, assuming an extended dwell time is acceptable (which it will be if the alternative is sending the train somewhere else to charge). Layout complexity isn't especially relevant in that case since the points won't be wired.

I agree this is an option. It reminds me of 1500v DV electrification at Manchester London Road which I think was only platforms 1-4.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==

Maybe. Batteries will need replacing far more often than OHLE and they are far from cheap...my car's battery pack replacement cost is £30K so the cost of replacing the traction batteries on a fleet of BEMUs several times over the lifespan of the trains is going to rival that of an OHLE installation...which only needs to be done once, not every few years.

I can think of various OHL schemes that have been done more than once.

OHL has a heavy maintenance cost especially frequent adjustment of OHL tensions to adapt to changes in temperature.

Straight EMUs can also have some expensive mid-life equipment upgrades for example the new traction packages on the class 465s. HSTs were all re-engined mid-life. Replacing batteries may need to be done a bit more often, but it is a much more simple task than either of these.