What lessons do Ember Coaches have for battery operation on the railways?

[Nottingham59]

Driving to John O'Groats last week, I was struck by the Ember electric coach service that now runs from Inverness to Wick and Thurso. I was genuinely surprised to see these EVs, as the Far North Line has always been held up as an example of a route that would be impossibly far for battery passenger trains.

So what lessons do Ember Coaches have for the future of battery public transport in the UK?

Digging deeper, I found this video from Ember about the Yutong T14e coaches that they use:

See at 2m30s for actual in-service performance data.

"Our route Edinburgh to Aberdeen is 450km round trip, and the T14e perform that on a single charge, even in winter conditions in relative comfort."
- One hour charge time from 20% to 100%
- Fully wheelchair accessible

So what are the implications for Battery trains? What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range? Why can't trains have wheelchair lifts? Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

Thoughts?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range?

Money

Why can't trains have wheelchair lifts?

Because ramps work fine in most of the country (and don't need electricity and moving parts).

Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

The train serves the several communities on the route that aren't on the main road.

 

[Acathater]

Sounds like it would be a better bet to buy a batch of road-rail dual purpose buses and get the best from both forms of transport.
You could probably save on infrastructure costs by downgrading the rail to light rail.
Or you could just convert the line to a guided busway

 

[stevieinselby]

So what are the implications for Battery trains? What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range? Why can't trains have wheelchair lifts? Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

There are a number of factors as to why the railways aren't running battery trains with that kind of range:

• Batteries with that capacity are big, and also heavy – you would be looking at something like the power pack on a class 755. You're not going to be able to fit it into the usual space within the carriage. The coaches can be the height of a double-decker to accommodate them, trains can't go taller.
• Charging needs to be done automatically in the station (or potentially on the move), which is more complicated to arrange than driving a coach off to a depot and plugging it in.
• The carbon footprint and air quality issues of running diesel trains on remote routes like the Far North Line is minimal and not worth worrying about when electrification of other lines would provide far more benefit.
• Trains have a much longer lifespan than coaches, and scrapping them before they reach the end of their useful life is almost certainly worse for the environment than replacing them early.

Yes, we should be doing more to get battery trains up and running, but the Far North Line is not the place to focus our energy on that front.
And why would trains want wheelchair lifts, when ramps work better? Better to move towards level boarding, which is now a solved problem with trains.

 

[HSTEd]

There are a number of factors as to why the railways aren't running battery trains with that kind of range:

• Batteries with that capacity are big, and also heavy – you would be looking at something like the power pack on a class 755. You're not going to be able to fit it into the usual space within the carriage. The coaches can be the height of a double-decker to accommodate them, trains can't go taller.
• Charging needs to be done automatically in the station (or potentially on the move), which is more complicated to arrange than driving a coach off to a depot and plugging it in.
• The carbon footprint and air quality issues of running diesel trains on remote routes like the Far North Line is minimal and not worth worrying about when electrification of other lines would provide far more benefit.
• Trains have a much longer lifespan than coaches, and scrapping them before they reach the end of their useful life is almost certainly worse for the environment than replacing them early.

Yes, we should be doing more to get battery trains up and running, but the Far North Line is not the place to focus our energy on that front.
And why would trains want wheelchair lifts, when ramps work better? Better to move towards level boarding, which is now a solved problem with trains.

The embodied carbon in a diesel multiple unit will rapidly be eclipsed by the emissions from burning diesel. Given that most the energy intensive metals in a train will be recycled, I don't think you'd have to stop burning diesel for very long before you are in pure profit.
Even a single tank of diesel on a single Class 158 vehicle equates to ~4.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide if you do the calculation.

I'd very much expect that you'd rapidly have a net benefit from replacing every diesel passenger vehicle on the system with battery ones, even ones only a handful of years old.
There are only ~3,000 diesel passenger vehicles on the system, so we could end this debate with a handful of billion it would seem.

If a 450km coach can be built, a 450km train can certainly be built.

 

[JamesT]

The embodied carbon in a diesel multiple unit will rapidly be eclipsed by the emissions from burning diesel. Given that most the energy intensive metals in a train will be recycled, I don't think you'd have to stop burning diesel for very long before you are in pure profit.
Even a single tank of diesel on a single Class 158 vehicle equates to ~4.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide if you do the calculation.

I'd very much expect that you'd rapidly have a net benefit from replacing every diesel passenger vehicle on the system with battery ones, even ones only a handful of years old.
There are only ~3,000 diesel passenger vehicles on the system, so we could end this debate with a handful of billion it would seem.

If a 450km coach can be built, a 450km train can certainly be built.

https://www.electricandhybridrail.com/content/news/stadler-sets-world-record-with-flirt-akku-for-longest-distance-travelled-by-a-train-in-battery-only-mode

Travelling from Berlin to Warnemünde in Germany, the FLIRT Akku test carrier reached a range of 224km in wintry temperatures around freezing point.

So that’s halfway there, in a run performed 5 years ago.

The production ones are often quoted as having a range of 150km on battery, but that appears to be two car units with no power car. Whereas I think the picture of the record run appears to show a power car in the middle, as there are three cars but no doors in the middle. Obviously there’s the gauge differences, but I think it’s plausible that having a battery car and stuffing batteries into the passenger ones you could start seeing very long ranges.

 

[zero]

I took Ember from Glasgow to Fort William last winter and sat right behind the driver. Around Glencoe a notification popped up on his screen saying something to the effect that the battery was depleting faster than expected. As a result the driver switched off the heating and the bus was freezing for the remainder of the journey. I wasn't able to see any battery level indicator from my position.

 

[Magrar]

The carbon footprint and air quality issues of running diesel trains on remote routes like the Far North Line is minimal and not worth worrying about when electrification of other lines would provide far more benefit.

I couldn't disagree more.

The diesel units on the Ashington line are viscerally disgusting to passengers on the platform. The defeaning roar they make, the visible plume of dirty filth that then emits, and that you cannot avoid if the wind brings it your way, is an horrific assualt to the senses.

That would be anyone's natural reaction as a human with lungs, but now we know the actual literal effects of air pollution on human health, in addition to the climate effects of burning fossil fuels, how anyone can be so blase about it, is beyond me.

I'm not even remotely a hippy or environmentalist, but this is enough for me to choose not to travel on a service that is so obviously not fit for the present day, let alone the decades some people are claiming thsee things need to be endured.

The real tragedy is that there are plenty of tourist locations accessible on that line, beautiful scenery, wild coasts and inland areas rich in biodiversity, some rare habitats even, and even a musem to our folly of thinking coal mining was a good thing.

The optics alone are astounding, and these trains will only have an ever greater literal local footprint impact considering the rapid rollout of electric motor vehicles.

And yet someone thought it was a good thing to not even bother starting with the assumption this line would open with a better form of motive power.

The rapid change of pace in EV tech, and the not insignificant costs and barriers to deploying it even in coaches, has been totally lost on the rail industry it seems, and that's very evident in your wider points.

So what lessons do Ember Coaches have for the future of battery public transport in the UK?

The implications are stark. To even come close to doing what has been done with Ember, we'd need a Chinese attitude to our economy in general, and the rail industry in particular.

Probably the best bet now, for rapid change, would be to hand over the keys to GBR and domestic train building to the Chinese government, and let them reap the profits of their massive investment, as if we were no better than an African proxy state.

So it's basically not going to happen.

 

[snookertam]

Driving to John O'Groats last week, I was struck by the Ember electric coach service that now runs from Inverness to Wick and Thurso. I was genuinely surprised to see these EVs, as the Far North Line has always been held up as an example of a route that would be impossibly far for battery passenger trains.

So what lessons do Ember Coaches have for the future of battery public transport in the UK?

Digging deeper, I found this video from Ember about the Yutong T14e coaches that they use:

See at 2m30s for actual in-service performance data.



So what are the implications for Battery trains? What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range? Why can't trains have wheelchair lifts? Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

Thoughts?

Ember also get a sizeable subsidy from the Scottish government to purchase electric vehicles. Their servicing of rural and remote parts of Scotland will not continue in the long term.

The railway will be around after the ember flash in the pan has gone.

 

[Nottingham59]

Ember also get a sizeable subsidy from the Scottish government to purchase electric vehicles.

Can you say how big that subsidy to Ember was? And how it compares to the subsidy provided every year to keep the Far North Line going?

The railway will be around after the ember flash in the pan has gone.

Maybe. But will Ember's battery technology be applied to rail? And what does this mean for future electrification investment? I'm much more interested in the future path of rail electrification across the country, than any particular route

 

[Stephen42]

So what are the implications for Battery trains? What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range?

There isn't a huge market for 450km battery trains. Coach drivers are more likely to drive a single coach all shift and results in a good market for a range that outlasts the driver. 450km is further than a driver can go without a legally mandated break and that 45 minutes can be a recharging opportunity. Some routes might only need overnight charging at cheaper rates so extra range can be worth the extra weight. This doesn't work for all operators or routes, London to Scotland often switch drivers without a break as passengers going to end to end. An airport to city coach shuttle might normally swap drivers with the same fleet circulating around making electric coaches more challenging. There are options though and is partially why market for even longer ranges exist for coaches.

Trains by contrast are harder to park up out the way and can travel much longer distances over a days work. It's rare crew stay with a single physical train all shift plus fewer external factors gives lower turnaround times. Trains and their crews are also more expensive making down time comparatively more expensive. 450km is an awkward range where it's longer than needed for many rail operations and not enough to cover a days work. e.g. The Far North Line is less direct so Inverness to Wick and back is 560km. If charging both ends 300km range is enough and can have a third less battery, if can't recharge that's 600km or maybe even 900km range desired.

Current off the shelf options are mostly within the 100km to 200km range. That's not to say longer distance ones couldn't be produced, but it would be a more expensive custom design for a relatively small number of units and the additional weight could be problematic on long branch lines not used to freight trains.

Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

Politics. The traction type of the Far North Line or the adjacent road services doesn't make a big difference. Battery operation wouldn't significantly reduce costs and emission wise both will be tiny compared to the car traffic on similar roads. Closing a railway line no matter the merits isn't a popular proposition.

Can you say how big that subsidy to Ember was? And how it compares to the subsidy provided every year to keep the Far North Line going?

Google finds 20 million of grants over the last five years to Ember for coaches and charging infrastructure. Their operations do not turn a profit though which would add costs.

I don't think there's any doubt the railway line requires more subsidy. Scotrail in 2019 attributed 6.5 million subsidy to the Far North Line and that did not include a significant chunk of infrastructure expenditure.

Maybe. But will Ember's battery technology be applied to rail? And what does this mean for future electrification investment? I'm much more interested in the future path of rail electrification across the country, than any particular route

Ember's battery technology is not particularly novel. The infrastructure and rolling stock strategy once published later this year might give a better picture of the future. The main barriers on the easier routes are trains not needing replacing yet or power supply constraints on wired sections of the route. The bigger challenge longer term will be the lack of available funding.

 

[Magrar]

On this evidence, the rail industry is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the current Century, and we might just manage it by the turn of the next.

Meanwhile, even long haul heavy trucks are now going all electric, another relatively quiet revolution. Something people were probably saying was impossible ten years ago. Too heavy, too expensive, too impractical, etc etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range?

Nothing, but then they don’t need to, as charging on the move is relatively straightforward (see Wales, Borders, etc).

Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

That’s a good question, which at some point Scottish politicians will need to grapple with.

Ember also get a sizeable subsidy from the Scottish government to purchase electric vehicles. Their servicing of rural and remote parts of Scotland will not continue in the long term.

I‘d bet that subsidy is an order or magnitude lower that the Far North line receives - I’d be surprised if the annual cost of the line to the Scottish taxpayer is less than £30m.

 

[GusB]

The funding that Ember has received is as follows:
(Source - https://www.transport.gov.scot/public-transport/buses/scottish-zero-emission-bus-challenge-fund/)

Phase	Award (£)​
ScotZEB1	5562126​
ScotZEB3	13174147​
Total	18796273​

ScotZEB2 allocated £41.7m to a consortium led by Zenobe, but I'm struggling to find how much was actually allocated to Ember as part of this round.

Coach and bus operators both prominent in ScotZEB2 winners - routeone

Coach operators and bus operators are equally prominent among winners of ScotZEB2 funding, which will support 252 zero-emission vehicles.

www.route-one.net

Ember is the biggest beneficiary of ScotZEB2. It will see the part-funding of 100 vehicles and infrastructure at five sites. Of the other coach operators, Maynes will receive 12 vehicles; D&E five; Premier four; and Hairy Haggis two.

That's 123 vehicles, so an average of £339,024 per vehicle, although infrastructure was also included. Either way, it's well over £20m.

 

[Bald Rick]

The funding that Ember has received is as follows:
(Source - https://www.transport.gov.scot/public-transport/buses/scottish-zero-emission-bus-challenge-fund/)

Phase	Award (£)​
ScotZEB1	5562126​
ScotZEB3	13174147​
Total	18796273​

ScotZEB2 allocated £41.7m to a consortium led by Zenobe, but I'm struggling to find how much was actually allocated to Ember as part of this round.

Coach and bus operators both prominent in ScotZEB2 winners - routeone

Coach operators and bus operators are equally prominent among winners of ScotZEB2 funding, which will support 252 zero-emission vehicles.

www.route-one.net

That's 123 vehicles, so an average of £339,024 per vehicle, although infrastructure was also included. Either way, it's well over £20m.

Presumably that was a one off, and not annual?

 

[Zomboid]

Presumably that was a one off, and not annual?

Probably. It'll be interesting to see how long the buses last before they need new batteries/ complete replacement, and at what cost.

 

[Nottingham59]

Nothing, but then they don’t need to, as charging on the move is relatively straightforward (see Wales, Borders, etc).

Only if you've got OHLE in place. Otherwise it's £2-3 million per single track km to install it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Only if you've got OHLE in place. Otherwise it's £2-3 million per single track km to install it.

Yep.

 

[martin butler]

Clearly battery ranges are increasing, and charging cycles are becoming more manageable, but it still requires the vehicle to be plugged in at a point, in the real world, turn rounds of services on the railway very seldom long enough to charge up, even with fast charge systems as trailed by GWR,

For any battery train to be usable, it would have to have enough charge to be able to do a return trip, so that it does not need to fully recharge, ideal for short branch line type services, where recharging stations can be set up at either end, but for longer routes, such far north of Scotland, they will need to be hybrid trains,

 

[HighlandStorm]

Ember can charge their coaches at up to 600kw using double CCS. So achieving that static input to a BEMU at Wick where the trains layover for just over an hour (if not stabling overnight) should easily be possible.

Some quick googling suggests that’s enough for a return to Ardgay with 40% margin over and above what was in the batteries on arrival at Wick. If the proposed Inner Moray Firth electrification is delivered on the Far North Line - BEMUs probably are feasible already!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2026 ==

Maybe we need to look to the past for the solution? (From the AI thread)

 

[styles]

So what are the implications for Battery trains? What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range?

We could have them if we wanted. It's more a question of spending priorities.

Why can't trains have wheelchair lifts?

Coaches require lifts because of how high the seating is relative to the pavement. The underneath is used for luggage storage. Buses and trains can use ramps which are cheaper, quicker, and probably more reliable as there's no motorised/electric components required, because the upstand from the pavement is low enough to use ramps. On double-decker units used in other countries, ramps are still used because there's wheelchair spaces on the ground level of the unit.

Why should the Scottish Government continue to pour subsidy into the Far North Line, when Ember can provide a faster cleaner public transport service for less?

As mentioned above, Ember have received significant subsidies to buy their coaches.

Ember actually oppose the blanket £2 bus fare cap being trialled in Scotland mind, citing Edinburgh to Inverness for £2 being too generous. In the meantime, they benefit from it along with the other operators in the trial areas. Which brings us full circle - if the government wanted, instead of capping bus fares they could cap rail fares. It's just a question of money and political priorities.

 

[eldomtom2]

What's stopping the railway from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range?

Really, the question should be what's stopping railways worldwide from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range, since as far as I'm aware no railway in the world currently has plans to operate BEMUs over that far a distance.

 

[styles]

Really, the question should be what's stopping railways worldwide from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range, since as far as I'm aware no railway in the world currently has plans to operate BEMUs over that far a distance.

GWR ran a train for 322km on a single charge. With the willpower to add greater battery capacity, it's entirely feasible to run one for 450km. Obviously there's some constraints, allowing for a buffer, optimal driving, have to consider recharge time, etc, but I don't think it's extraordinarily ambitious to run a 450km single charge service; particularly if the alternative is OLE'ing 450km worth of track.

We also have a lot of lines which are much shorter than 450km which could benefit. As an extreme example of a non-Intercity service, the Far North Line is 290km. Apart from the obvious problems you've have at Altnabreac, OLE'ing that line would cost a fortune in capex and in maintenance, whereas BEMU once you've done the initial investment could provide a good service.

 

[Zomboid]

Really, the question should be what's stopping railways worldwide from running BEMUs with a 450km operating range, since as far as I'm aware no railway in the world currently has plans to operate BEMUs over that far a distance.

Nobody needs it. Much of Europe has far greater electrification coverage so don't need to go so far off the juice, whilst in many other places 450km wouldn't come close to cutting it - or they use locomotives which are a different problem entirely.