Battery trains for Bedwyn?

[tetudo boy]

Hello there! As discussed by TheWalrus, there are possibilities of using battery trains between the unelectrified Newbury and Bedwyn, which are currently used by Class 165's and Class 800's on services from London Paddington. There has been a similar idea to use battery trains for the Oxenholme-Windermere line, which might use similar technology for the Newbury to Bedwyn section. So if we converted some Class 387's to battery trains on the London to Bedwyn service, would it make use for the Newbury to Bedwyn section?

 

[JonathanH]

It isn't a new idea though and it appears that GWR decided not to take up the proposition https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-western-railway-future-stock.125662/page-4#post-2457450 from 2016. If you believe this post from 2015, it even seemed a possibility at one time https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fgw-franchise.113684/page-16#post-2171829. The "maths had been done". Indeed 'The Walrus' posted that GWR had already agreed to it in 2015 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-the-marlow-branch.113919/page-2#post-2123563.

Batteries do not come without environmental costs - they simply move production and pollution away from the point at which they are used. It would be better to electrify to Bedwyn in due course than mess around with batteries in 387s and until then (and maybe even after then) GWR have plenty of 80x to run the service.

 

[TheWalrus]

Y

It isn't a new idea though and it appears that GWR decided not to take up the proposition https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-western-railway-future-stock.125662/page-4#post-2457450 from 2016. If you believe this post from 2015, it even seemed a possibility at one time https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fgw-franchise.113684/page-16#post-2171829. The "maths had been done". Indeed 'The Walrus' posted that GWR had already agreed to it in 2015 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-the-marlow-branch.113919/page-2#post-2123563.

Batteries do not come without environmental costs - they simply move production and pollution away from the point at which they are used. It would be better to electrify to Bedwyn in due course than mess around with batteries in 387s and until then (and maybe even after then) GWR have plenty of 80x to run the service.

Yes it was certainly proposed for Bedwyns some years ago. I would not be in support of electrification to Bedwyn, even though it is my nearest station, which I never use due to lack of a useful service. I do suspect it would be cheaper operationally to use 387s with batteries than 80x. More recently battery units have been proposed for Uckfield services.

 

[JonathanH]

I would not be in support of electrification to Bedwyn

Why? Because it doesn't seem like a sensible place for electrification to end? Because they would have to put the fares up to pay for it?

More recently battery units have been proposed for Uckfield services.

Not clear that it is going ahead though is it.

 

[tetudo boy]

Batteries do not come without environmental costs - they simply move production and pollution away from the point at which they are used. It would be better to electrify to Bedwyn in due course than mess around with batteries in 387s and until then (and maybe even after then) GWR have plenty of 80x to run the service.

Battery trains are less expensive and are environmentally friendly, and adding battery trains would be less of a hassle and less time to install on an already built train instead of electrifying an existing or new stretch of track.

Why? Because it doesn't seem like a sensible place for electrification to end? Because they would have to put the fares up to pay for it?

I think it's because electrifying the Newbury to Bedwyn section would add more time to construct and would be a lot more expensive, so battery services would be appropriate.
Also, remember the IPEMU Project? It was a project to use Class 379's to convert into battery trains, that started trials in early 2015 but was only used for testing. Now, what if we did the same for the class 387's? And if it was used for commercial use? It would make a lot more sense because the Class 379 (the selected trains for the IPEMU Project) is from the same family as the class 387 (the train that might have some unit's have batteries), the Electrostar.

 

[JonathanH]

Also, remember the IPEMU Project? It was a project to use Class 379's to convert into battery trains, that started trials in early 2015 but was only used for testing. Now, what if we did the same for the class 387's? And if it was used for commercial use? It would make a lot more sense because the Class 379 (the selected trains for the IPEMU Project) is from the same family as the class 387 (the train that might have some unit's have batteries), the Electrostar.

Yes, I well remember and indeed made a trip to travel on it between Manningtree and Harwich. If you read the threads on this forum about that trial you will see that it wasn't really successful. I don't think the position has really moved on much. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/battery-powered-emus.127263/#post-2477356

From that thread "The conclusions for the 379 were that the trial was technically feasible but that leasing maintenance charges and relative fuel costs with the current battery technology meant that it was uneconomic for squadron service by a very wide margin when compared with using a standard DMU on the non electrified service. I can't remember the exact cost but I think it was something of the region of 3.5 times the running cost of the DMU."

Battery trains are less expensive and are environmentally friendly, and adding battery trains would be less of a hassle and less time to install on an already built train instead of electrifying an existing or new stretch of track.

Battery trains are not without their costs, both financial and economic.

What are battery trains less expensive than? They are more expensive than straight electrics without batteries and their increased weight causes more damage to the track. (Admittedly, 'bi-modes' are the same.)

It is not clear that retro-fitting batteries isn't a hassle.

 

[TheWalrus]

Why? Because it doesn't seem like a sensible place for electrification to end? Because they would have to put the fares up to pay for it?

Not clear that it is going ahead though is it.

No because it would only benefit 1tph. I could give you a list of more lines that warrant electrification a lot more.

Battery operated trains have been proposed to replace 171s on the Uckfield line due to go to EMR. Not confirmed.

 

[Tobbes]

Surely the answer is 80Xs until electrification is extended beyond Newbury to Plymouth and beyond.

 

[JonathanH]

Surely the answer is 80Xs until electrification is extended beyond Newbury to Plymouth and beyond.

Not sure electrification is going to be extended beyond Newbury to Plymouth any time soon based on the current level of service.

 

[TheWalrus]

Not sure electrification is going to be extended beyond Newbury to Plymouth any time soon based on the current level of service.

I would increase the Exeter semi-fast to 1tph, call additionally at Hungerford and limited calls at Bedwyn then reduce the Bedwyn service to 1tp2h off-peak.

 

[coppercapped]

Batteries are only the solution for some very specific applications. In this case one of the limiting factors in the choice of traction is the capacity of the Paddington to Reading section. The 90mph Class 165 and 166 dmus took up between one and two paths in what was otherwise a 125mph railway. The situation is eased, but not entirely overcome, now that the 110mph Class 387s have replaced the dmus. However the acceleration of the IETs is greater than that of the 387s in the higher speed ranges so there is still the loss of a potential path if a 387 is pathed rather than an IET.

Why complicate matters? 165 or 166s do not run to Newbury or Bedwyn any longer, the Reading - Newbury local service being in the hands of 387s, so there is no saving there. The IETs from Paddington run to Newbury under electric power, they only use the diesels for the final stretch to Bedwyn and that for only one train per hour.

The necessary stock for the Bedwyn trains already exists, it is not necessary to spend money and time making a few 387s for this service heavier when they are less suitable than the IETs for the Paddington Reading section and would be carting the extra mass and expense around when they are used on other services such as Paddington to Didcot.

 

[JonathanH]

165 or 166s do not run to Newbury or Bedwyn any longer

Not strictly true, the evening services between Newbury and Bedwyn are still scheduled for Turbos, working west on the following services
Monday to Friday 2K52 1645 Reading to Bedwyn
Saturday 1K26 1907 London Paddington to Bedwyn
Sunday 2K92 2144 Reading to Bedwyn

The first up train from Bedwyn on a Saturday and Sunday is also scheduled for a Turbo
Saturday
2K64 0508 Reading to Bedwyn
5K03 05+59 Bedwyn to Bedwyn
1K03 0606 Bedwyn to London Paddington
5K03 07+37 London Paddington to West Ealing Emu Sidings
(works 1K26 later)

Sunday
5K76 0826 Reading Traincare Depot to Reading
2K76 0833 Reading to Bedwyn
5K45 09+16 Bedwyn to Bedwyn
1K45 0925 Bedwyn to London Paddington
5R45 11+09 London Paddington to Reading Traincare Depot

But I appreciate that the point about simplicity and not needing to fix a problem with more money and time wasted on 387s is a good one.

 

[brad465]

No because it would only benefit 1tph. I could give you a list of more lines that warrant electrification a lot more.

It would also though allow services that run beyond Bedwyn to run electric a bit longer, reducing diesel consumption more and enabling faster acceleration on electric through a stretch with a wide fluctuation of line speeds (75-110mph I believe exists within the Newbury-Bedwyn stretch).

Also while electrification to Plymouth might be highly unlikely as said earlier up the thread, I can see greater benefits in future for electrifying beyond Newbury, even if only to somewhere like Taunton or Exeter. Getting Bedwyn electrification done would be a head start.

 

[TheWalrus]

It would also though allow services that run beyond Bedwyn to run electric a bit longer, reducing diesel consumption more and enabling faster acceleration on electric through a stretch with a wide fluctuation of line speeds (75-110mph I believe exists within the Newbury-Bedwyn stretch).

Also while electrification to Plymouth might be highly unlikely as said earlier up the thread, I can see greater benefits in future for electrifying beyond Newbury, even if only to somewhere like Taunton or Exeter. Getting Bedwyn electrification done would be a head start.

I still wouldn’t prioritise it as it’s a very long distance Newbury-Taunton/Exeter, for only 2tph, kills the business case really.
If 80x can’t change between diesel and electric on the move it wouldn’t be any more beneficial. Not sure if they can or not.

 

[JonathanH]

I still wouldn’t prioritise it as it’s a very long distance Newbury-Taunton/Exeter, for only 2tph, kills the business case really.
If 80x can’t change between diesel and electric on the move it wouldn’t be any more beneficial. Not sure if they can or not.

80x can change on the move provided the wiring is set up for it - so they have specific changeover points.

 

[class26]

I still wouldn’t prioritise it as it’s a very long distance Newbury-Taunton/Exeter, for only 2tph, kills the business case really.
If 80x can’t change between diesel and electric on the move it wouldn’t be any more beneficial. Not sure if they can or not.

Electrification the Plymouth HAS to come if we are to meet the de carbon targets. Also from Taunton there are the Cross Country trains joining plus others from Bristol / Cardiff to Cornwall Does the "business case" between Newbury and Taunton take into account climate change effects of burning all that diesel? I suspect not.

 

[D365]

Does the "business case" between Newbury and Taunton take into account climate change effects of burning all that diesel? I suspect not.

Business cases don’t tend to take environmental benefits into account.

 

[class26]

Business cases don’t tend to take environmental benefits into account.

I asked the question fully knowing the answer ! What i was implying was that going forwards the business case ought to take environmental factors into account. After all, there is a cost, even if it is difficult to quantify.

 

[TheWalrus]

Can electrification be done beyond Exeter over the Dawlish sea wall?

 

[JonathanH]

Can electrification be done beyond Exeter over the Dawlish sea wall?

How would you electrify Dawlish?

The recent stranding of a Voyager at Dawlish, having been hit by a wave, had me wondering. If (and yes, I accept it's a big if) how do you electrify along the sea wall? Water and electricity don't seem to be happy bedfellows.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[class26]

How would you electrify Dawlish?

The recent stranding of a Voyager at Dawlish, having been hit by a wave, had me wondering. If (and yes, I accept it's a big if) how do you electrify along the sea wall? Water and electricity don't seem to be happy bedfellows.

www.railforums.co.uk

It`s a similar situation on the Ayr line and it isn`t a problem

 

[coppercapped]

Not strictly true, the evening services between Newbury and Bedwyn are still scheduled for Turbos, working west on the following services
Monday to Friday 2K52 1645 Reading to Bedwyn
Saturday 1K26 1907 London Paddington to Bedwyn
Sunday 2K92 2144 Reading to Bedwyn

The first up train from Bedwyn on a Saturday and Sunday is also scheduled for a Turbo
Saturday
2K64 0508 Reading to Bedwyn
5K03 05+59 Bedwyn to Bedwyn
1K03 0606 Bedwyn to London Paddington
5K03 07+37 London Paddington to West Ealing Emu Sidings
(works 1K26 later)

Sunday
5K76 0826 Reading Traincare Depot to Reading
2K76 0833 Reading to Bedwyn
5K45 09+16 Bedwyn to Bedwyn
1K45 0925 Bedwyn to London Paddington
5R45 11+09 London Paddington to Reading Traincare Depot

But I appreciate that the point about simplicity and not needing to fix a problem with more money and time wasted on 387s is a good one.

Thank you for your support! As you observed the point I was trying to make was that trying to remove diesel emissions from one train per hour between Newbury and Bedwyn by adding batteries to some of the fleet of 387s is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Thank you also for pointing out the residual diesel services which still exist but the points I made in my original post are still valid; one train per day does not invalidate my argument. In any case it seems to me as if these are more stock balancing or route knowledge maintenance turns than a serious service offering. All the other passenger trains in the non-Covid 19 virus timetable are either 387s or IETs, and if I had written 'most' then I would have been 100% accurate!

Edit: pressed 'Post' too soon, before I had finished writing!

 

[JonathanH]

One train per day does not invalidate my argument. It seems to me as if these are more stock balancing or route knowledge maintenance turns than a serious service offering. All the other passenger trains in the non-Covid 19 virus timetable are either 387s or IETs, if I had written 'most' then I would have been 100% accurate.

I didn't suggest that it did.

I think the residual Turbos are more about a) matching capacity to demand and b) being able to get a unit into action from Reading or back to Reading before or after engineering work would allow one to be sent from North Pole. On a weekday, there is no problem getting a unit west from North Pole in the very early hours to start the service.

 

[cle]

Bedwyn is now a fairly arbitrary terminus - Westbury would make more sense, being a bigger place with onward connections. Perhaps the other 1tp2h Exeter could at least run to there, and give Westbury an hourly service. But the problem is that we don't meet wires anywhere, or unlock anything more.

Better to retreat the commuter network to Newbury, and service through the semi-fasts and maybe some shuttles from Newbury or Reading, as was.

 

[JonathanH]

Bedwyn is now a fairly arbitrary terminus - Westbury would make more sense, being a bigger place with onward connections. Perhaps the other 1tp2h Exeter could at least run to there, and give Westbury an hourly service. But the problem is that we don't meet wires anywhere, or unlock anything more.

Better to retreat the commuter network to Newbury, and service through the semi-fasts and maybe some shuttles from Newbury or Reading, as was.

Surely GWR have considered all of this in making the case for 80x to run to Bedwyn. They could have done something else if that was how the demand was assessed.

Pewsey is 10 miles on from Bedwyn, Westbury is 20 miles on from Pewsey. People already complain about the lack of demand to Bedwyn on this forum, running the trains empty a further 30 miles to Westbury isn't going to do any good.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm absolutely conviced that eventually battery-equipped trains will become the predominant solution for fairly short wireless excursions from otherwise electrified networks such as this Bedwyn route, but practically I don't think any TOCs will voluntarily take the risk of early adoption until the technology has matured, someone else has had a few years proven service under the belt, and off-the-shelf products are available easily from major manufacturers. South Wales will be a major proving ground for this technology.

 

[si404]

Additionally, they wouldn't want a microfleet - I guess these battery trains could also do Oxford terminators (stopping and fast) at a pinch, beefing the numbers in use, but the question is still "why alter what has been studied a lot* recently to come up with the most cost-effective option?"

*electrification, rolling stock, service pattern.

 

[Bevan Price]

Battery technology is not cheap, and not exactly "green". The service life of almost all batteries is limited - they do not last forever, and their electrical capacity after recharge tends to decline slowly. Whilst battery technology is improving, and lifetimes will increase, batteries will all need to be replaced several times during the service life of trains - and that will be expensive. Just think of the cost of batteries for cameras, phones, etc., then scale that upwards to the size of batteries needed for trains.

Also, many modern batteries contain Lithium. You don't just dig lithium metal out of the ground. You have to extract it, either from seawater, or from fairly uncommon minerals in the ground. And then, to get the metal, you usually have to use electrolysis with something like molten lithium chloride -- and that requires a lot of energy.