MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[Nottingham59]

are 9 MW power conversion systems practicable to fit within (ideally low-floor) BEMU? Size/weight/cost etc - not being sarcastic, I really don't know but I would imagine that loco bodies are not just full of empty space. And obviously a big chunk of the available space/weight is going to be batteries.

To get an idea of the size of traction batteries, have a look at the layout plan of the Class 93 is this Rail Engineer article here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

The traction battery (7) uses Lithium-Titanium Oxide, which is not the most compact but better suited to rail traction. It has a capacity of 80kWh and a discharge rate of 400kW. My guess is a 1MWh battery able to recharge at 5MW is likely to be about twelve times the size.

Alternatively, the Traction battery used in 802027 for the Hitachi battery trail had a capacity of 555kWh and a power output over 700kW, and it used the space occupied by a singe diesel power pack and fuel tank under the floor of a normal 802. See here for details: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-for-transpennine.249321/page-3#post-7027863

 

[JamesT]

Why on earth would trains that run entirely over electrified routes carry the completely unnecessary mass of a battery pack around with them?

To avoid getting stuck when the electrification breaks?

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Wait a minute,,

What I'm querying is the value of doing sections like Derby-Clay Cross in the next decade when the 2tph XC trains are likely to be diesel 221s for the next 15 years, and EMR are commited to bimode 810s, with diesel performance as good as electric. There are many places where electrification will have a far better financial and strategic case, and those should be done first.

So having Derby-Chesterfield OLE ready ahead of the introduction of 80X bimodes on cross-country by five years, is such a waste of resources that we have to design a new type of OLE, descope already completed design work, propose-trial-assess-deploy brand new operational procedures and remove the ability for dwell time to absorb small delays...

 

[Zomboid]

the substations and grid connections are as grossly over-specified as Braybrooke at 2 x 80MVA off a 400kV supply, on a line that carries just 4tph bimode passenger and almost no freight then they should be reviewed.

The transformers might be 80MVA, but that's no guide to the amount of power that NR is allowed to take. National Grid won't want to have to assess and accept a whole range of bespoke designs for each connection. There will be one standard 400/25-0-25 transformer design and that is what will be installed at every 400kV connection.

NR will specify how much they want on each circuit, including allowances for outages and that will be part of the connection agreement. And it'll also include for anticipated future growth (and for recently specified connections that will probably include BEMUs).

 

[Nottingham59]

The MML planning and design work also exists for that section too. It's good future-proofing to allow 810s to go over to XC while all electric intercity trains can run the MML and achieving the maintenance/whole life cost benefits of real electrification. Derby-Clay Cross is not even an especially difficult section compared to others (save for that one tunnel). Also, it's basically ready to be put into delivery, whatever other electrification work you're suggesting we're sacrificing for it, cannot go ahead without it's own proposal, planning and design stages.

So if the planning and design stages have already been completed for the whole MMLe, then you/they must already have a clear figures for how much it is all going to cost. So what is the overall cost going to be in present day pounds per single track kilometre? What is the BCR of the decision to invest? And what assumptions about future demand and traction technology are going into that BCR decision?

So having Derby-Chesterfield OLE ready ahead of the introduction of 80X bimodes on cross-country by five years, is such a waste of resources that we have to design a new type of OLE, descope already completed design work, propose-trial-assess-deploy brand new operational procedures and remove the ability for dwell time to absorb small delays...

No, just delay any investment in MMLe beyond Derby until the 221s going to form the XC fleet have five years life left in them. We taxpayers are currently paying 5% on government debt. If you can delay an investment for ten years, then that is an immediate saving of around 40% of the cost when discounted back to the present day.

If you have any insider knowledge of 80x or 810 bimodes being sent to XC, then there are many threads on this site which would love to hear from you.

It's not at all grossly over-specified, it's specified to handle an N-2 service

The N-2 design principle dates from the time before bi-modes were invented. On a line where every traction (810, 222, 221, 80x bimode, class 99, class 66, BEMU) has a diesel engine, you don't need to design to N-2 level because diesel mode provides the second level of redundancy.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

So if the planning and design stages have already been completed for the whole MMLe, then you/they must already have a clear figures for how much it is all going to cost. So what is the overall cost going to be in present day pounds per single track kilometre? What is the BCR of the decision to invest? And what assumptions about future demand and traction technology are going into that BCR decision?

I don't think that's how costs work on a big construction project. There's a whole industry in estimating such things - this is because you don't know what's going to happen during construction. I reckon they do have final estimates, they're not going to tell people like us who are entirely out of the loop about such things.

No, just delay any investment in MMLe beyond Derby until the 221s going to form the XC fleet have five years life left in them. We taxpayers are currently paying 5% on government debt. If you can delay an investment for ten years, then that is an immediate saving of around 40% of the cost when discounted back to the present day.

This is not a sensible industrial policy. Rolling stock orders would take longer than 5 years to materialise.

If you have any insider knowledge of 80x or 810 bimodes being sent to XC, then there are many threads on this site which would love to hear from you.

I mean that they will likely have some kind of intercity bimodes, maybe battery. There is some PWI video somewhere where Eastern Region were explaining an approach they had made to future grid connections and I think they gestured that they (Network Rail Eastern's E&P team) seemed to think a new fleet for XC was a plausible reality they had to account for.

The N-2 design principle dates from the time before bi-modes were invented. On a line where every traction (810, 222, 221, 80x bimode, class 99, class 66, BEMU) has a diesel engine, you don't need to design to N-2 level because diesel mode provides the second level of redundancy.

Still required in the battery-bimode outlook

 

[Technologist]

Why on earth would trains that run entirely over electrified routes carry the completely unnecessary mass of a battery pack around with

Several reasons.

1: Performance; if you search for it you can find my high performance BEMU calculations based on class 8XX weights. With todays EV technologies you could get 46,000bhp out of a 9 car train using a battery system that adds no more weight than the bi-mode train. With that power to weight you can accelerate at the same rate as a tube train (1.3ms2)until you get up to 125mph.

Speed (mph)	Time (s)	Distance (m)
0-60​	20.6​	276.6​
0-100​	34.4​	768.3​
0-125​	43.0​	1200.5​
0-150​	52.2​	1765.5​
0-186​	68.7​	2998.2​
0-225​	92.8​	4974.3​

On high speed railway line it means that we can add stops every 40-50km and still do high speed end to end journey times. This would allow us to create a national high speed metro where most of the UKs largest cities would functionally be a single unit. The ability to hit 200kph in 1200m means that you can hit high speeds in short sections of existing tracks before slowing for curves and then re-accelerating.
2: Simplify infrastructure. On the London underground for example with 1-3 100KWh power packs under each carriage you would be able to get end to end on each line at least 3 times. Combined with fast charging at 5C which has been demonstrated on cars you would be able to do a rapid charge at either the terminating station alone or that plus one additional stop. This would then allow you strip out all the electrification and thus remove it's cost and hazard from 90+% of stations. Removing the electrification would also remove one of the barriers to operating the system unmanned, and who knows what facilities you could install in the space no longer needed for traction electrical equipment.

3: Increased resilience, the BEMU can go at full speed over large sections of de-energised track, this simplifies maintenance works, depots and diversions and makes the system resilient to OHLE damage.

4: Why wouldn’t you; we are talking about 5-10% of tare mass being added to a pure electric train, this assumes that we don’t find 5-10% mass savings when bringing in new trains anyway. The cost of batteries is now so cheap that a few MWh of storage is only going to set you back a few hundred thousand on a train costing tens of millions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 21:37 ==

Are 9 MW power conversion systems practicable to fit within (ideally low-floor) BEMU? Size/weight/cost etc - not being sarcastic, I really don't know but I would imagine that loco bodies are not just full of empty space. And obviously a big chunk of the available space/weight is going to be batteries.

Short answer, yes.

DC-DC converters basically use power electronics to convert the AC frequency to kilohertz and then run the power through a tiny transformer before rectifying it back to DC nearly an order of magnitude smaller than a conventional transformer and uses technology that is now produced at volume. Batteries aren't that big either, particularly if you distribute them under every floor. In my 46,000bhp example we are looking at hiding 6 battery packs which are the same size as those found under the floor of each car.

 

[WAO]

I'm not sure that you could squeeze 34MW of power from any source into a 9 car unit. It's as much as a major marine propulsion unit.

You also have to apply it through the wheel/rail interface with a coefficient of friction of 0.3 at best, dropping to 12% or lower on wet greasy rail. Also, as the speed increases so does the Davis Equation drag, reducing the tractive effort/force available for acceleration.

Imagine the O S Nock write up!

WAO

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure that you could squeeze 34MW of power from any source into a 9 car unit. It's as much as a major marine propulsion unit.

This is a world that can put 1030hp into a Tesla Model S 'Plaid' and still have it look more or less like an ordinary electric car
Or uses lithium ion batteries to power fuel pumps on space launch vehicles.

The power to weight ratios available from lithium batteries and modern motor designs are enormous.

A 9 car unit could have 36 traction motors. AGV motor bogies are supposedly rated at 760kW per motor continuous, with two motors contained in the bogie frame.
36 x 760kW is 27 megawatts continuous.
60 second ratings will be substantially greater than that, and the AGV motor design is over 15 years old at this point.

You also have to apply it through the wheel/rail interface with a coefficient of friction of 0.3 at best, dropping to 12% or lower on wet greasy rail. Also, as the speed increases so does the Davis Equation drag, reducing the tractive effort/force available for acceleration.

Yes, I believe the objective is to be traction limited through the entire operational speed range.
IMagine a train that takes off like a tube train and keeps doing that all the way to the speed limit.
Drag forces are fairly small next to the forces needed to acceleration at 1.3m/s^2.

My old AGV brochure suggests that on the flat a 11-car AGV will have a total resistance to movement force at 200km/h of just under 30kN.

NTV's 11-car AGVs weigh 410 tonnes or so, which suggests a reduction in acceleration of around 0.07m/s^2 due to drag/rolling resistance forces.

Imagine the O S Nock write up!

ALmost worth building it and a time machine to find out!

EDIT:
Providing 34MW of peak (5-minute rating) power output from BYD blade cells would require 22,200 cells weighing about 57 tonnes. Those batteries would store about 10MWh.
In reality you would only be applying 34MW right at the end of acceleration for a matter of seconds.

EDIT #2:
At 200kph the train, assuming similar aerodynamics to an AGV, would only be drawing 1.7MW. So your 25kV power system probably only has to be able to draw 2MW to keep the batteries charged on average. Compared to traditional traction transformers of 5MW or so (see Pendolino), a 2MW ultra modern high voltage switch mode converter will weigh almost nothing.

 

[InTheEastMids]

In reality you would only be applying 34MW

I honestly have no idea of the answer to this, but a Class 374 with all the trailers removed is getting into the right ballpark (2MW per powered vehicle), so I wondered whether, once all the batteries have been put under the floor, whether there's room in the vehicle for 2MW of inverters, aircon system, fresh & waste water tanks, appropriate cooling systems, fire suppressant, and anything else that it needs to make the train work.

The other point (which may be rather more relevant to MMLE) is whether the tube-like performance to top speed would be better-invested on accelerating the slowest services? i.e. Rocket boosters on 700s or 360s might do more for the timetable than on 810s that are at permitted line speed south of Harpenden.

The N-2 design principle dates from the time before bi-modes were invented. On a line where every traction (810, 222, 221, 80x bimode, class 99, class 66, BEMU) has a diesel engine, you don't need to design to N-2 level because diesel mode provides the second level of redundancy.

This is a very good point - in particular batteries negate a core assumption about electric traction (that feeds into system design) - that when the power goes, everything stops.

Slowing down the MMLE programme, developing/testing/assuring new design/resilience standards and then re-scoping with revised grid connections, lineside batteries etc would mean the whole programme would need to be rewritten and potentially reprocured. What are the costs/schedule impacts of doing all of this?

Also worth noting that part of the redundancy requirements with rail connections may be to allow the network operator to isolate its circuits for maintenance.

So yes, by all means revise things like that due to transformational technologies like battery storage, but costly, disruptive and risky to do it on a key route with a scheme that is more or less in flight. Certainly find a scheme at a lower level of maturity, and probably one on a less critical route.

 

[HSTEd]

I honestly have no idea of the answer to this, but a Class 374 with all the trailers removed is getting into the right ballpark (2MW per powered vehicle), so I wondered whether, once all the batteries have been put under the floor, whether there's room in the vehicle for 2MW of inverters, aircon system, fresh & waste water tanks, appropriate cooling systems, fire suppressant, and anything else that it needs to make the train work.

Well with 22200 batteries spread over nine vehicles, each would contain a battery pack 2.84m wide, <100mm tall and about 11m long. It is a significant size but its not enormous. The volume is 3.1 cubic metres, which is comparable to a diesel engine without generator.
OBviously the traction converter gets bigger, but a lot of interesting work in Japan has shrunk their converters a lot using very efficient gallium nitride designs. Indeed thetraction converters on the N700S don't even have active cooling, they use ram pressure from movement to force air through them.
But this is all wandering off the topic!

The other point (which may be rather more relevant to MMLE) is whether the tube-like performance to top speed would be better-invested on accelerating the slowest services? i.e. Rocket boosters on 700s or 360s might do more for the timetable than on 810s that are at permitted line speed south of Harpenden.

Well, the really interesting question is if you have a train that can do that...... what even are fast and slow trains any more?
Such a train would put performance of stoppers through the roof, to the point that a stopper would lose something like 90 seconds from 125mph compared to a non stop train assuming a relatively short dwell.

This is a very good point - in particular batteries negate a core assumption about electric traction (that feeds into system design) - that when the power goes, everything stops.

Slowing down the MMLE programme, developing/testing/assuring new design/resilience standards and then re-scoping with revised grid connections, lineside batteries etc would mean the whole programme would need to be rewritten and potentially reprocured. What are the costs/schedule impacts of doing all of this?

Also worth noting that part of the redundancy requirements with rail connections may be to allow the network operator to isolate its circuits for maintenance.

So yes, by all means revise things like that due to transformational technologies like battery storage, but costly, disruptive and risky to do it on a key route with a scheme that is more or less in flight. Certainly find a scheme at a lower level of maturity, and probably one on a less critical route.

Is the MML scheme truly "in flight" though?
Sure a lot of design work has been done, but is it likely money to complete the originally envisaged scheme will actually be available in the near future?

As to other schemes, how many other schemes are actually going to be coming?
What major unelectrified routes remain after the Transpennine Route Upgrade (which is arguably far more mature than the MML in that it is actually committed) and the Midland Main Line scheme?

Cost escalation, deployment of electrodiesels and now battery electric trains are doing a number on the Cost Benefit Ratios of electrification.
This may be the only chance the railway has to prove that it can leverage these technologies to do significant electrification cheaper.

 

[duffield]

What major unelectrified routes remain after the Transpennine Route Upgrade (which is arguably far more mature than the MML in that it is actually committed) and the Midland Main Line scheme?

I'd say Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds via Kirkgate (half done already), Birmingham-Bristol, GWR completed to Bristol, GWR to Oxford, Oxford to Birmingham, Sheffield to Manchester (Hazel Grove) just for starters.

A proper rolling OHLE program for all trunk routes, including major freight routes, with batteries left for secondary and branch lines. Battery technology may be much improved but dragging them around on fast main lines *for ever* rather than biting the bullet of the one off cost of OHLE (which will be much less with a rolling program, and will always be more energy efficient when completed) seems short-sighted to put it politely.

Anyhow, this seems to be a very unpopular view these days.

 

[may032]

I'd say Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds via Kirkgate (half done already), Birmingham-Bristol, GWR completed to Bristol, GWR to Oxford, Oxford to Birmingham, Sheffield to Manchester (Hazel Grove) just for starters.

A proper rolling OHLE program for all trunk routes, including major freight routes, with batteries left for secondary and branch lines. Battery technology may be much improved but dragging them around on fast main lines *for ever* rather than biting the bullet of the one off cost of OHLE (which will be much less with a rolling program, and will always be more energy efficient when completed) seems short-sighted to put it politely.

Anyhow, this seems to be a very unpopular view these days.

Maybe it’s an unpopular view because it doesn't compare favourably on multiple fronts. OLE is not a one off cost, it’s a lot of infrastructure that needs to be maintained… forever! Taking advantage of the progress in battery technology that is revolutionising industries such as cars and energy, to deliver railway electrification significantly cheaper and far, far quicker, is a no-brainer.

 

[eldomtom2]

Maybe it’s an unpopular view because it doesn't compare favourably on multiple fronts. OLE is not a one off cost, it’s a lot of infrastructure that needs to be maintained… forever! Taking advantage of the progress in battery technology that is revolutionising industries such as cars and energy, to deliver railway electrification significantly cheaper and far, far quicker, is a no-brainer.

We're not actually seeing any of this "progress in battery technology" in rail vehicles though - it's all just paper exercises, so I remain skeptical.

 

[Zomboid]

I'd say Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds via Kirkgate (half done already), Birmingham-Bristol, GWR completed to Bristol, GWR to Oxford, Oxford to Birmingham, Sheffield to Manchester (Hazel Grove) just for starters.

A proper rolling OHLE program for all trunk routes, including major freight routes, with batteries left for secondary and branch lines. Battery technology may be much improved but dragging them around on fast main lines *for ever* rather than biting the bullet of the one off cost of OHLE (which will be much less with a rolling program, and will always be more energy efficient when completed) seems short-sighted to put it politely.

Anyhow, this seems to be a very unpopular view these days.

I completely agree.

Batteries are a part of the future, but they're not an excuse to leave trunk routes unelectrified. I can even see some sense in using them for an acceleration boost (which is what the Toyota style hybrid does).

But giving a train 34MW so that Intercity trains accelerate like a tube train is an interesting thought experiment, but it's never going to happen in the real world. That power has to come from somewhere, and we're all going to be paying that electricity bill through tickets and taxes.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd say Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds via Kirkgate (half done already), Birmingham-Bristol, GWR completed to Bristol, GWR to Oxford, Oxford to Birmingham, Sheffield to Manchester (Hazel Grove) just for starters.

That's quite a bit, to be sure, but some of those routes aren't particularly well travelled.

A proper rolling OHLE program for all trunk routes, including major freight routes, with batteries left for secondary and branch lines.

The problem with a rolling programme is it defacto requires a commitment to electrify for years regardless of cost.
Any programme large enough to generate meaningful economies of scale will get an awful lot of track done before it can reasonably be considered to be rolling.

Battery technology may be much improved but dragging them around on fast main lines *for ever* rather than biting the bullet of the one off cost of OHLE (which will be much less with a rolling program, and will always be more energy efficient when completed) seems short-sighted to put it politely.

Anyhow, this seems to be a very unpopular view these days.

The cost of 25kV electrification has spiralled well out of control, and with the end of near zero interest rates, capital expenditure now has an ongoing cost.
Index linked gilts are running real yields of 1.25%

Even at £2m/stkm that is £25,000 per annum per track kilometre, forever.
At £4m/stkm that is £50,000.

Add to that the non zero maintenance cost for all this equipment.

A battery/electrodiesel enabled scheme on the Midland Main Line could slash a lot of the support infrastructure and significantly reduce capital costs. It would probably have a radically different topology.

 

[duffield]

Maybe it’s an unpopular view because it doesn't compare favourably on multiple fronts. OLE is not a one off cost, it’s a lot of infrastructure that needs to be maintained… forever! Taking advantage of the progress in battery technology that is revolutionising industries such as cars and energy, to deliver railway electrification significantly cheaper and far, far quicker, is a no-brainer.

I'd like to see some studies showing how battery power is as good as or better than OHLE in every respect for high speed main lines, and hopefully at least one or two countries proving it in practice, before we go down that route.

 

[HSTEd]

But giving a train 34MW so that Intercity trains accelerate like a tube train is an interesting thought experiment, but it's never going to happen in the real world. That power has to come from somewhere, and we're all going to be paying that electricity bill through tickets and taxes.

I don't think electricity costs would not be significantly larger than now.
There would be marginal losses because a portion of the energy used to run the train would come from the battery, and the train would achieve a higher average speed (so more drag), but that would not be a major increase.

Electricity costs are not, in any case, a significant portion of the cost of operating a railway.

Power doesn't really cost money here, energy does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 19:35 ==

I'd like to see some studies showing how battery power is as good as or better than OHLE in every respect for high speed main lines, and hopefully at least one or two countries proving it in practice, before we go down that route.

In that case I think it would be only sensible that electrification work be allowed to wind down until the results of this are known.
Completing the MML electrification as currently projected will cost billions of pounds that are not readily available.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I'd say Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds via Kirkgate (half done already), Birmingham-Bristol, GWR completed to Bristol, GWR to Oxford, Oxford to Birmingham, Sheffield to Manchester (Hazel Grove) just for starters.

A proper rolling OHLE program for all trunk routes, including major freight routes, with batteries left for secondary and branch lines. Battery technology may be much improved but dragging them around on fast main lines *for ever* rather than biting the bullet of the one off cost of OHLE (which will be much less with a rolling program, and will always be more energy efficient when completed) seems short-sighted to put it politely.

Anyhow, this seems to be a very unpopular view these days.

Seems to be just us three who hold this viewpoint.
I have a feeling that the railway-battery craze is more common and extreme on this forum than amongst industry, although it's quite hard to tell as the industry does not ever speak for itself or assert a position back to government, but that's a different point. I think fundamentally it comes down to tech optimism, which is to say "we need to innovate brand new things in order to adapt to the climate crisis," vs the reality which is that we already have the solutions for railways; we just need to 'innovate' political and managerial structures that can actually deliver railway investment, not even rolling stock orders happen within the lifespan of any politician's office.

That's quite a bit, to be sure, but some of those routes aren't particularly well travelled.

Yes they are, those are the connections between many of the largest urban areas in the country - if you don't think the cross-country route is well travelled, no line is. In terms of GWML, those last sections (along with Cardiff-Swansea) would represent a significant amount of GWR routes turning to EMU operation rather than continuing to shrink the lifespan of those early IETs by running their engines.

The problem with a rolling programme is it defacto requires a commitment to electrify for years regardless of cost.
Any programme large enough to generate meaningful economies of scale will get an awful lot of track done before it can reasonably be considered to be rolling.

It happened in Scotland to considerable success, and the Scottish government actually had to balance the books unlike Westminster.

 

[eldomtom2]

although it's quite hard to tell as the industry does not ever speak for itself or assert a position back to government, but that's a different point.

The rail industry has a number of groups to represent itself, such as the Rail Delivery Group and the Railway Industry Association.

 

[duffield]

In that case I think it would be only sensible that electrification work be allowed to wind down until the results of this are known.
Completing the MML electrification as currently projected will cost billions of pounds that are not readily available.

So there are no such studies, no-one else has done it, and battery power *isn't* ready for high speed main lines. And you think we should stop deploying proven technology which is working successfully all over the world right now, and wait to see if unproven future technology works out somewhere down the line, meanwhile carry on burning diesel indefinitely. Sounds very sensible.

 

[may032]

I'd like to see some studies showing how battery power is as good as or better than OHLE in every respect for high speed main lines, and hopefully at least one or two countries proving it in practice, before we go down that route.

I think instead of waiting for someone else to do it, and waste valuable time, the UK should be an innovator in this space. We are the perfect test space for it given our sporadic existing OLE and structural issues in the construction industry that are very hard to change. Arguably with the Hitachi and GWR trials, we are leading the charge but we need to go faster.

 

[The Ham]

Batteries have energy losses during the charging/using process.

There was an interesting graph showing the amount of energy required for each (which I can't currently find), however it showed that adding batteries was funny to require a noticeable amount of extra energy (at a time when we still need to limit our useage to reach net zero)

Batteries add to the maintenance of the taxi by making the trains heavier (even if they are lighter than DMU's).

There has to be somewhere to charge from, if that's batteries at stations that's still infrastructure to maintain. However, if your charging from OHLE you need to beef up the feeder points anyway, so it's a question of upgrades to the existing OHLE or considering if you could put the feeder point somewhere else to allow EMU running.

Having to make the battery safe each time you do electrical maintenance on the trains would increase the maintenance costs.

In the same way which means that a house can't accidentally feed power to the network during times of maintenance, you'd need the same functions on a battery train.

Overall, whilst there's still discussion over if battery trains are viable (where, over what distances, charge times, etc.), it's worth continuing to build some more OHLE, as it's not like it won't be at all useful.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

So there are no such studies, no-one else has done it, and battery power *isn't* ready for high speed main lines. And you think we should stop deploying proven technology which is working successfully all over the world right now, and wait to see if unproven future technology works out somewhere down the line, meanwhile carry on burning diesel indefinitely. Sounds very sensible.

Exactly. The cheapest and quickest thing to do for MML is carry on with the current project as is because it's design is already mature. The amount of risky innovation being proposed instead will have a huge time and money penalty and deliver an overall worse product anyway. There is nothing to suggest that creating all new operational procedures, entirely new bespoke/complex/never-before-done rolling stock and all manner of other unproven ideas would actually be cheaper and it won't be faster. It's only because we've seen the pricetags on OLE that we assume some other imagined thing must be cheaper; this is a logical fallacy that ignores incremental rail innovation actually is. It's also what we as a nation have been doing on the topic of electrification since at least privatisation, milling around doing nothing over and over again and halting ideas to write more reports just because there's a scant risk we could save some amount of capex in theory.

 

[londonmidland]

Electrification of the MML should be at least to Derby and Nottingham before we even think about battery alternatives. The MML has been let down on a number of occasions. Lets not prematurely give up on the idea of electrification in favour of batteries on busy, mainline routes.

 

[The exile]

Exactly. The cheapest and quickest thing to do for MML is carry on with the current project as is because it's design is already mature. The amount of risky innovation being proposed instead will have a huge time and money penalty and deliver an overall worse product anyway. There is nothing to suggest that creating all new operational procedures, entirely new bespoke/complex/never-before-done rolling stock and all manner of other unproven ideas would actually be cheaper and it won't be faster. It's only because we've seen the pricetags on OLE that we assume some other imagined thing must be cheaper; this is a logical fallacy that ignores incremental rail innovation actually is. It's also what we as a nation have been doing on the topic of electrification since at least privatisation, milling around doing nothing over and over again and halting ideas to write more reports just because there's a scant risk we could save some amount of capex in theory.

It's also worth bearing in mind that some of those eye-watering costs (how much to rebuild Bridge Xyz to achieve clearance?!!!!) are coming down the line to us anyway - if not now then in a few years' time. Those bridges are now up to 200 years old and in some cases in a pretty poor state that is possibly overdue for attention. Electrification "nicely" (unless you're trying to cut the costs of electrifying) absorbs those costs. The example that immediately springs to mind is the Wallgate bridge at Wigan - which is presumably the reason the current electrification scheme doesn't reach Wallgate station. As it's built on, the costs of rebuilding would be enormous - yet the extra props underneath it suggest that it's going to need it before long.

 

[HSTEd]

However, if your charging from OHLE you need to beef up the feeder points anyway, so it's a question of upgrades to the existing OHLE or considering if you could put the feeder point somewhere else to allow EMU running.

Not necessarily.
Conventional electric units have to draw power at the instant that it is used, they have to do this regardless of system conditions.
A battery train can, to a reasonable degree, determine feeder conditions using the proxy of line voltage and adjust its draw of power from the system accordingly.

A system dominated by battery fitted trains could load the feeders far more heavily without risking an actual overload and trip.

 

[Class 317]

People seem to miss the key point on BEMU'S and electrification schemes which is that they allow substantially extra services to go over to electric operations over a much wider area. This spreads the benefits further, both in a traditional BCR basis and also politically in serving more constituencies.

Incorporating BEMU'S into future electrification makes a rolling programme more not less likely as they will reduce the cost of operation over a much wider area. Stradler Flirt BEMU'S operating coat is substantially less than the DMU's replaced.(From memory it's something like 35-50% less but I can't find an open source in the public domain at the moment).

Turning back to MML, the fact EMR are refurbishing class 170 etc is probably not a great barrier in a future GBR world as they would find good employment on other routes pending other electrification schemes completing.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

People seem to miss the key point on BEMU'S and electrification schemes which is that they allow substantially extra services to go over to electric operations over a much wider area. This spreads the benefits further, both in a traditional BCR basis and also politically in serving more constituencies.

Incorporating BEMU'S into future electrification makes a rolling programme more not less likely as they will reduce the cost of operation over a much wider area.

I was meaning to come to this at some point yeah. I think this is especially true for freight, I've wondered why Ipswich-Felixstowe was never electrified, but probably because a diesel loco change has to happen somewhere and I guess it was not practical in Felixstowe dock with a shunter. But with bimode locos you can draw OLE much closer to the dock.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Well, the really interesting question is if you have a train that can do that...... what even are fast and slow trains any more?

I did think for that in this world the MML basically simplifies to a fast line and slow line service pattern, however if you add ~7 stops to a Sheffield train south of Leicester, that is going to cost 10-15 mins on headline journey timesv with these new high power trains (more like 30 with current trains). May still be a tough to sell in the Sheffield Star, so perhaps needs HS2.

There is nothing to suggest that creating all new operational procedures, entirely new bespoke/complex/never-before-done rolling stock and all manner of other unproven ideas would actually be cheaper and it won't be faster.

Agree. Two things can be simultaneously true: (i) Batteries will transform the rail industry, and; (ii) there are still some low regrets electrification schemes to do.

Rethinking electrification for a world of cheap batteries is not easy, and there is much higher optimism bias in unproven ideas (ie they'll take longer and cost more than currently predicted). I don't think a decade of strategic paralysis is a great idea whilst all the tech, supply chain, standards/regs pieces are put in place. Finally, prediction is hard, so the risk that some superfluous electrification is done needs to be accepted.

It's also worth bearing in mind that some of those eye-watering costs (how much to rebuild Bridge Xyz to achieve clearance?!!!!)

Not sure how many bridges the MMLE will (fully) rebuild now, I can only think of one between Wigston & Trent (A6006), so this may indicate falling real terms costs.

Turning back to MML, the fact EMR are refurbishing class 170 etc is probably not a great barrier in a future GBR world as they would find good employment on other routes pending other electrification schemes completing

I agree. The 158 fleet is on its last legs so a strategic approach to maximizing benefits would see them retired around 2030 to be replaced by bimodes