Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
As the title suggests: how much electrification would be needed for Transpennine services to be pure electric ?
Aside of course from committed electrification schemes...
TRU
and those announced under 'Network North' such as Hull.
Please don't lets end up in a discussion about Network North and how likely schemes announced within it are. I just want to know how many more miles would be needed for these new Transpennine trains to be pure electric!
As the title suggests: how much electrification would be needed for Transpennine services to be pure electric ?
Aside of course from committed electrification schemes...
TRU
and those announced under 'Network North' such as Hull.
Please don't lets end up in a discussion about Network North and how likely schemes announced within it are. I just want to know how many more miles would be needed for these new Transpennine trains to be pure electric!
So for TPE South route (Liverpool-Cleethorpes), you'd need to electrify Allerton Jcn to Castlefield Jcn (28.03 miles), and Hazel Grove to Cleethorpes (103.73 miles, excluding the approximate mile of electrification around Doncaster station).
For the unelectrified portion of the Scarborough route, you'd need to electrify York Scarborough Bridge Jcn to Scarborough (41.84 miles).
Then for the Saltburn route, you'd need to electrify Northallerton East jcn to Saltburn (33.01 miles).
AFAIK, all other routes are already electrified, or are in the process of being electrified (inc. Network North).
So, by my calculations, you'd need to electrify approx. 206.61 route miles.
My route mileages were obtained from Real Time Trains, so apologies in advance if they're not the most accurate!
You could do, but I'm not sure it would be of any use to TPE as they mostly don't stop there and not all Bi mode MUs can change over on the move (if you're thinking that).
You might also want to consider adding some diversionary routes, e.g. Ashburys - Marple - New Mills South Junction, and Leeds - Castleford - Church Fenton (for York).
On the TPE Liverpool to Cleethorpes, I did a little analysis with a hypothetical 800X 5 car train with the whole mass allocated to diesels and their fuel being allocated to an LFP battery pack. I sent it to Liverpool Lime Street to Cleethorpe and back using the IEP programme spec for consumption on the ECML to estimate battery drain (conservative for this route).
I have assumed that the train charges at the max rate allowed by the battery when it is on 25KV, I have also assumed that in larger stations and terminating stations a short length of OHL is installed to allow the train to charge.
As you can see the BEMU can operate in this pattern pretty much indefinitely, you might notice that when the train exits Liverpool Lime street it is only at 91% SOC, will this mean it will loose charge gradually over the day? No, as the battery depletes it charges faster so at the end of the next cycle it leaves Liverpool with 88% SOC and reaches "equilibrium" on further cycles. We still have good margin (26% SOC) at Cleethorpe so we have space to accommodate weather, battery degradation & diversions.
So conclusion, you could do at least some of the routes today entirely on electricity with a BEMU using no particular innovations not already running in BEV cars.
So for TPE South route (Liverpool-Cleethorpes), you'd need to electrify Allerton Jcn to Castlefield Jcn (28.03 miles), and Hazel Grove to Cleethorpes (103.73 miles, excluding the approximate mile of electrification around Doncaster station).
For the unelectrified portion of the Scarborough route, you'd need to electrify York Scarborough Bridge Jcn to Scarborough (41.84 miles).
Then for the Saltburn route, you'd need to electrify Northallerton East jcn to Saltburn (33.01 miles).
AFAIK, all other routes are already electrified, or are in the process of being electrified (inc. Network North).
So, by my calculations, you'd need to electrify approx. 206.61 route miles.
My route mileages were obtained from Real Time Trains, so apologies in advance if they're not the most accurate!
You probably wouldn't do this though, as it would make more (financial) sense to electrify perhaps just Hull to Leeds via Selby and rationalise the North TPE service to just Hull to Manchester and Newcastle/York to Manchester/ Liverpool, then serve the likes of Middlesbrough and Scarborough with shuttles from York.
Of course bi-modes mean that you don't need to rationalise the routes like this but if hypothetically we were talking about pure EMUs then that is probably the most likely scenario.
I think @Technologist 's figures show just how the prospect of battery operation will affect electrification plans.
When Sheffield is electrified, many routes across the North will be immediately feasible with BEMUs, including Liverpool-Nottingham; Leeds-Nottingham and many local services in Yorkshire. Many others, like Liverpool-Cleethorpes will become feasible with minimal extra investment in infrastructure.
I agree you'd want to electrify Cleethorpes, but this could be via plug-in chargers at the buffer stops rather than OHLE throughout the station (routing the cable from above so that it doesn't cause a trip hazard).
I'd also electrify sections of track where we know there will be a heavy load, provided this can be done cheaply. So I'd look at electrifying the line northbound out of Doncaster at least to the point where trains reach line speed; and the line out of Hazel Grove (just the uphill track, if that were cheaper).
To cover diversions and terminating short, I would specify the trains to have a small diesel engine (running on HVO biodiesel); this would be cheaper than electrifying diversionary routes. With megawatt-capable batteries to provide acceleration, the diesel engine could be very small (100kW), the size used in family cars. But I'd size the train battery to avoid using the range extender except in time of disruption.
Has Sheffield actually been committed to construction or are pwople assuming that it will be? I thought the committed work on the MML still ended south of Nottingham
On the TPE Liverpool to Cleethorpes, I did a little analysis with a hypothetical 800X 5 car train with the whole mass allocated to diesels and their fuel being allocated to an LFP battery pack. I sent it to Liverpool Lime Street to Cleethorpe and back using the IEP programme spec for consumption on the ECML to estimate battery drain (conservative for this route).
I have assumed that the train charges at the max rate allowed by the battery when it is on 25KV, I have also assumed that in larger stations and terminating stations a short length of OHL is installed to allow the train to charge.
As you can see the BEMU can operate in this pattern pretty much indefinitely, you might notice that when the train exits Liverpool Lime street it is only at 91% SOC, will this mean it will loose charge gradually over the day? No, as the battery depletes it charges faster so at the end of the next cycle it leaves Liverpool with 88% SOC and reaches "equilibrium" on further cycles. We still have good margin (26% SOC) at Cleethorpe so we have space to accommodate weather, battery degradation & diversions.
So conclusion, you could do at least some of the routes today entirely on electricity with a BEMU using no particular innovations not already running in BEV cars.
I think @Technologist 's figures show just how the prospect of battery operation will affect electrification plans.
When Sheffield is electrified, many routes across the North will be immediately feasible with BEMUs, including Liverpool-Nottingham; Leeds-Nottingham and many local services in Yorkshire. Many others, like Liverpool-Cleethorpes will become feasible with minimal extra investment in infrastructure.
I agree you'd want to electrify Cleethorpes, but this could be via plug-in chargers at the buffer stops rather than OHLE throughout the station (routing the cable from above so that it doesn't cause a trip hazard).
I'd also electrify sections of track where we know there will be a heavy load, provided this can be done cheaply. So I'd look at electrifying the line northbound out of Doncaster at least to the point where trains reach line speed; and the line out of Hazel Grove (just the uphill track, if that were cheaper).
To cover diversions and terminating short, I would specify the trains to have a small diesel engine (running on HVO biodiesel); this would be cheaper than electrifying diversionary routes. With megawatt-capable batteries to provide acceleration, the diesel engine could be very small (100kW), the size used in family cars. But I'd size the train battery to avoid using the range extender except in time of disruption.
Personally, I wouldn't add a range extender, simply because having a diesel engine of any type adds complexity, maintenance requirements and costs. Better to simply have longer charging breaks if diversions are necessary
Personally, I wouldn't add a range extender, simply because having a diesel engine of any type adds complexity, maintenance requirements and costs. Better to simply have longer charging breaks if diversions are necessary
It would save an awful low of battery weight. If you only run it occasionally to cover disruption, I don't see that it would need much more maintenance than a family diesel car. But then the railway always makes things ten times as expensive as it needs to be.
Just for clarity, at what stations are you proposing electrifying the platforms?
Personally, I wouldn't add a range extender, simply because having a diesel engine of any type adds complexity, maintenance requirements and costs. Better to simply have longer charging breaks if diversions are necessary
That's a direct grab from Excel rather than a presentation slide. The analysis has a charge curve included in it so you can see that it charges faster when the battery is depleted and very slowly between 90-100%.
If the number in the "dwell time" column is greater than zero then the train took a charge in that station, I can manipulate the analysis by manually putting a zero in that column if I don't want it to charge at that station. You can work out how much goes in at a given station by looking at the SOC on entry and exit.
Some of the station stops with a 0 dwell time are passing stations which are used to count when 25kv sections end and begin.
Most of the stops on this line don't make too much difference, I've done a simulation where the train doesn't charge at stations without 25KV already in them except for the terminal station in Cleethorpes. I've also made this an equilibrium cycle for the battery in that it starts and ends on 90% in Liverpool.
The cycle is pushing it a little as it is coming into Cleethorpes on 10% charge, these are end of life batteries so I have accounted for degradation, but that's still probably too little margin. You would want either some more electrified sections, a more efficient train, a bigger battery or some more charging stops.
The key point is that there is a lot of optionality and my money is on battery trains happening quicker due to replacements and conversions than full electrification. Also for short dwell times I expect that rather than an island piece of OHL with a substation we'll probably see a battery at the station charged by an existing grid connection rapidly discharging into a train over 1-2 minutes then slow charging back up for 10 minutes before the next train comes.
It would save an awful low of battery weight. If you only run it occasionally to cover disruption, I don't see that it would need much more maintenance than a family diesel car. But then the railway always makes things ten times as expensive as it needs to be.
I'd argue that it's no more necessary than a range extender on a Tesla.
Some things to consider, that BEMU I describe has a 2175 KWh battery (It could be much bigger but I'm being pessimistic rather than imagining what a purpose build BEMU would be like), it has an operating range of 126 miles on ECML average consumption.
In general we don't want to routinely discharge its batteries below 10% which means that we have a 12.6 mile range buffer at all times. However that figure is at express passenger line speeds, if we want to trundle along at 50mph then the range is much longer given that energy usage goes with square of speed then we are looking at more like 75 miles in contingencies. That should be plenty enough to get the train back to a wire or a charger.
Given the rate of charge speeds its also likely that just adding a few more minutes of charging at a platform and/or running a little slower would give the train enough range to leapfrog a section of electrified track which is faulted or a station with a broken charger.
I'd argue that it's no more necessary than a range extender on a Tesla.
Some things to consider, that BEMU I describe has a 2175 KWh battery (It could be much bigger but I'm being pessimistic rather than imagining what a purpose build BEMU would be like), it has an operating range of 126 miles on ECML average consumption.
In general we don't want to routinely discharge its batteries below 10% which means that we have a 12.6 mile range buffer at all times. However that figure is at express passenger line speeds, if we want to trundle along at 50mph then the range is much longer given that energy usage goes with square of speed then we are looking at more like 75 miles in contingencies. That should be plenty enough to get the train back to a wire or a charger.
Given the rate of charge speeds its also likely that just adding a few more minutes of charging at a platform and/or running a little slower would give the train enough range to leapfrog a section of electrified track which is faulted or a station with a broken charger.
You're right. I hadn't considered the additional range that comes from running slowly. And you could always timetable that in for diversions if necessary.
The limiting case for TPE is when the line is blocked at Cleethorpes, and the train has to reverse at Grimsby, say, and get itself back to Doncaster. That's 50 miles each way. So maybe scope for electrifying around Scunthorpe or Barnetby too? The great thing about electrification for BEMUs is that you can build the OHLE where it is cheapest to do so, avoiding sections of line with low overbridges or complex track layouts. Plenty of places in Lincolnshire like that.
So conclusion, you could do at least some of the routes today entirely on electricity with a BEMU using no particular innovations not already running in BEV cars.
Your'e comments are certainly very interesting, many thanks for them all!
I thought I should just add for the benefit of everyone that the purpose of this thread was to work out how much electrification would be needed to enable pure EMUs.
Removing the alternative of segregating TPE routes into diesel and electric routes in order to reach places like Scarbough and Saltburn via Middlesborough.
I am not against bi-modes but I do think that they undermine the financial case of electrification!
Your'e comments are certainly very interesting, many thanks for them all!
I thought I should just add for the benefit of everyone that the purpose of this thread was to work out how much electrification would be needed to enable pure EMUs.
Removing the alternative of segregating TPE routes into diesel and electric routes in order to reach places like Scarbough and Saltburn via Middlesborough.
I am not against bi-modes but I do think that they undermine the financial case of electrification!
Bi-modes will make the good cases better off and the basket cases more obvious. Bi-Modes on TPE would likely aid the case for Hope Valley, South Yorks, Hull electrification but possibly harm the case for Doncaster-Cleethorpes, for instance.
Your'e comments are certainly very interesting, many thanks for them all!
I thought I should just add for the benefit of everyone that the purpose of this thread was to work out how much electrification would be needed to enable pure EMUs.
Removing the alternative of segregating TPE routes into diesel and electric routes in order to reach places like Scarbough and Saltburn via Middlesborough.
I am not against bi-modes but I do think that they undermine the financial case of electrification!
Battery EMU's will make the case for electric operation stronger not weaker. I don't get the line of argument that pure EMU operation is somehow preferably to lower cost mixed operations using BEMU's.
Why pay out for the high cost of OHLE when it's not needed? Any future electrifications will no doubt combine both to get maximum benefits for the investment.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's a direct grab from Excel rather than a presentation slide. The analysis has a charge curve included in it so you can see that it charges faster when the battery is depleted and very slowly between 90-100%.
If the number in the "dwell time" column is greater than zero then the train took a charge in that station, I can manipulate the analysis by manually putting a zero in that column if I don't want it to charge at that station. You can work out how much goes in at a given station by looking at the SOC on entry and exit.
Some of the station stops with a 0 dwell time are passing stations which are used to count when 25kv sections end and begin.
Most of the stops on this line don't make too much difference, I've done a simulation where the train doesn't charge at stations without 25KV already in them except for the terminal station in Cleethorpes. I've also made this an equilibrium cycle for the battery in that it starts and ends on 90% in Liverpool.
The cycle is pushing it a little as it is coming into Cleethorpes on 10% charge, these are end of life batteries so I have accounted for degradation, but that's still probably too little margin. You would want either some more electrified sections, a more efficient train, a bigger battery or some more charging stops.
The key point is that there is a lot of optionality and my money is on battery trains happening quicker due to replacements and conversions than full electrification. Also for short dwell times I expect that rather than an island piece of OHL with a substation we'll probably see a battery at the station charged by an existing grid connection rapidly discharging into a train over 1-2 minutes then slow charging back up for 10 minutes before the next train comes.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd argue that it's no more necessary than a range extender on a Tesla.
Some things to consider, that BEMU I describe has a 2175 KWh battery (It could be much bigger but I'm being pessimistic rather than imagining what a purpose build BEMU would be like), it has an operating range of 126 miles on ECML average consumption.
In general we don't want to routinely discharge its batteries below 10% which means that we have a 12.6 mile range buffer at all times. However that figure is at express passenger line speeds, if we want to trundle along at 50mph then the range is much longer given that energy usage goes with square of speed then we are looking at more like 75 miles in contingencies. That should be plenty enough to get the train back to a wire or a charger.
Given the rate of charge speeds its also likely that just adding a few more minutes of charging at a platform and/or running a little slower would give the train enough range to leapfrog a section of electrified track which is faulted or a station with a broken charger.
That's great analysis and as a back of the envelope looks it's reasonably in the right ball park.
A couple of points on the details based on the work I've been involved with in Germany introducing BEMU's.
Generally the charge rate drops off above around 80% and under 20% depending on the exact chemistry used and charging method. For the BEMU introduction in Holstein, modelling was undertaken on where to install the OHLE extensions and OHLE islands to allow battery levels to stay between 80% and 20% in normal service. This was to allow a contingency for routine emergencies.
I also think the use of the average power consumption from ECML operation where trains experience very few speed changes and station stops when compared to trans Pennine services is probably not a good power usage figure to use. The maximum range of 126 miles seems optimistic. I'd suggest a more realistic max range would be closer to 100 miles and a max operating range around the 70 mile mark.
Otherwise through this analysis a very good analysis that is certainly spot on in the type of electrification strategy needed for routes like transpennine and certainly highlights the potential of BEMU'S on routes like these.
You probably wouldn't do this though, as it would make more (financial) sense to electrify perhaps just Hull to Leeds via Selby and rationalise the North TPE service to just Hull to Manchester and Newcastle/York to Manchester/ Liverpool, then serve the likes of Middlesbrough and Scarborough with shuttles from York.
Of course bi-modes mean that you don't need to rationalise the routes like this but if hypothetically we were talking about pure EMUs then that is probably the most likely scenario.
The premise of the thread was to make it entirely electric, without exception.
If we were envisaging a different scenario and taking account of likelihood of implementation, then it would be a different ballgame, yes.
My idea would be to use bi modes on the Cleethorpes route and then electrify York to Saltburn/Scarborough.
This would be half the mileage for most of the benefit.
I think we should just stick to TPE North Pennines being electrified fully for now using additional 397s if needed and cascade 802s to Hull, Scarborough and Saltburn. It will be decades before South Pennine is electrified at the present rate of 5 miles per annum.
The Power Supply Upgrade powered forward into its second phase in September 2020, when a £216.2m contract was awarded to the Rail Electrification Alliance.
Phase 2 of the project involves the installation of feeder and substations along the route, capacity upgrades, new 132kv connection at Hambleton junction and upgrades to existing power supply connections.
This phase will deliver upgraded power to the East Coast Main Line railway between Doncaster and Edinburgh and will include:
Installing 27 new traction substations
Installing 1000 km new cabling including feeder cables and telecoms cabling
Construction of supporting foundations and structures for substations and to support overhead line equipment
Introduction of 2 New Static Frequency Converter Compounds at 132kV supply connection points
I think for TPE to be pure electric you would end up having to electrify most of the north of England due to diversionary routes. As others have said batteries could reduce this in the extremities but for TPE I can never get away from the fact it needs total electrification.
Shilbottle TSC's site at lunchtime today. Unlike the others, which are all modular containerised buildings, this is almost a throwback to the 60s with its bricks-and-mortar construction. That’s interesting that a conventional construction has been chosen (or required by planning?). Yes it...
www.railforums.co.uk
The latest discussion is whether the plans for Marshall Meadows (immediately south of the Scottish Border) have been dropped.
I think for TPE to be pure electric you would end up having to electrify most of the north of England due to diversionary routes. As others have said batteries could reduce this in the extremities but for TPE I can never get away from the fact it needs total electrification.
Battery EMU's will make the case for electric operation stronger not weaker. I don't get the line of argument that pure EMU operation is somehow preferably to lower cost mixed operations using BEMU's.
Why pay out for the high cost of OHLE when it's not needed? Any future electrifications will no doubt combine both to get maximum benefits for the investment.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's great analysis and as a back of the envelope looks it's reasonably in the right ball park.
A couple of points on the details based on the work I've been involved with in Germany introducing BEMU's.
Generally the charge rate drops off above around 80% and under 20% depending on the exact chemistry used and charging method. For the BEMU introduction in Holstein, modelling was undertaken on where to install the OHLE extensions and OHLE islands to allow battery levels to stay between 80% and 20% in normal service. This was to allow a contingency for routine emergencies.
I also think the use of the average power consumption from ECML operation where trains experience very few speed changes and station stops when compared to trans Pennine services is probably not a good power usage figure to use. The maximum range of 126 miles seems optimistic. I'd suggest a more realistic max range would be closer to 100 miles and a max operating range around the 70 mile mark.
Otherwise through this analysis a very good analysis that is certainly spot on in the type of electrification strategy needed for routes like transpennine and certainly highlights the potential of BEMU'S on routes like these.
I'd be interested to see what batteries they are using for the German BEMU. I'd guess that if they are not using the top 20% it's an NMC type which is what most long range BEV cars use.
Power storage and transit vehicles are likely to use LFP types which have a higher cyclic life and also don't mind bring charged to 100% (at the cost of ultimate energy density). Though the other reason not to charge to 100% is that the charge rate is super slow for 90-100%, it's fine for a BEV where max range trips are rare, less good for a public transport vehicle.
Regarding range, I'll have a look in the IET specs they did have some other routes with expected energy usage, but I'm pretty sure the energy usages for all the InterCity routes were pretty similar with stops offsetting higher cruising speeds.
The other key bit about the ultimate potential for BEMUs is to look at what they are doing with cars, it now possible to put extreme levels of performance into mundane cars at minimal marginal cost. Our class800X train with it 2.2MWh battery (Around $250k at current prices) will be able to discharge that battery at 5-6C for a few minutes. Which means that our 250 tonne 5 car train could have 14,500-17,500 horsepower!
The Tesla Model S Plaid motor drive unit is 90kg for motor, inverter and gearbox, if we put 2 of them on every axle (like in the car) we'd have a matching 17,000bhp. Those drive units also cost in the region of $2500 so about $100k of drive units for the train or a pretty trivial price. (the arguments about relative duty cycle between the train and car also go out the window as this thing won't spend very long at high power) The reason they can do this is because, in a single year some of the larger EV manufacturers are turning out more traction motors than the whole rail industry has ever used!
So on out class 800x we would now have the capability to accelerate at the traction limit (say 1.3m/s/s) up to about 80mph and then on to 125mph in 50 seconds. Widely replicated I'd suggest this might do wonders for capacity and journey times. I shudder to think what the infrastructure costs of upgrading electrification to allow every train to put out 3-4 times the power output of a typical EMU, ergo I think the argument may well be that every EMU ends up being a BEMU because it allows higher performance on the same infrastructure and using components sourced from the rapidly expanding automotive supply chain means there is negligible cost for doing this.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
