• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Battery powered Electrostar to go into passenger carrying trials

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,184
Location
Oxford
I remember once having a holiday at Centre Parcs, and my father hiring some bikes for the week for us to use. On those bikes were electric devices called lights. Those lights were not powered by batteries, third rails, or overhead wires. They had a device which generated electricity from the rotating movement of the wheel.:idea:

... are you proposing that we power the trains by the movement of the train wheels?

Because that's called an infinite motion machine.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
I remember once having a holiday at Centre Parcs, and my father hiring some bikes for the week for us to use. On those bikes were electric devices called lights. Those lights were not powered by batteries, third rails, or overhead wires. They had a device which generated electricity from the rotating movement of the wheel.:idea:

Are you suggesting all the passengers should pedal?
:lol:
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
It would be great if it could render overhead wires obsolete, even on main lines, if they can improve the battery technology.

It would be much safer and cheaper, I'm not sure how much better it will be for the environment though ?

Interesting questions.

Batteries aren't necessarily safer than overhead lines. There are circumstances where the energy stored in the battery can be released rapidly and in an uncontrolled manner, as seen a few times recently with fairly small batteries in aircraft. Have this happen to a big traction battery and there may be no way to stop the entire stored energy being converted rapidly to heat. An overhead supply will normally cut off automatically on any fault or can be turned off manually to remove the source of energy. So the batteries used on trains, especially if they run underground, will need very careful design and testing to effectively rule out this sort of event even in the rather harsh environment they will encounter underneath a train.

In terms of cost and environment, there is a balance between providing and maintaining the overhead wires and the need to fit batteries which often contain large amounts of rare and unpleasant substances. These also increase the weight of the train so it needs more power for acceleration, and putting energy into a battery and taking it out again will always waste a significant proportion of it. The battery may also need replacing well before the train does.

The financial and environmental balance will favour lightly-used branch lines where relatively few batteries can replace a relatively large amount of OLE. Exactly where this balance sits should become clearer after the current series of tests.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
I remember once having a holiday at Centre Parcs, and my father hiring some bikes for the week for us to use. On those bikes were electric devices called lights. Those lights were not powered by batteries, third rails, or overhead wires. They had a device which generated electricity from the rotating movement of the wheel.:idea:
They are called dynamos, the faster you got the wheels to turn the brighter the lights got, the dynamo basically tripled the rolling resistance of the wheel so you needed twice as much effort to make the bike move.

What relevance this has to a battery powered train I dont know, unless you think sticking a dynamo to the 379 will make it into a perpetual motion machine!
What 'energy' are you proposing to power the dynamo and where is this 'energy' coming from?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Are you suggesting all the passengers should pedal?
:lol:

Can I crack the whip, pretty pretty pleeeeeaaaaase! :lol:
 
Last edited:

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
It would be great if it could render overhead wires obsolete, even on main lines, if they can improve the battery technology.

I can't see how it ever would - no foreseeable battery is ever going to provide the power you need for long distance/high speed/heavy trains at a remotely practical size and weight.

As for this experiment, it's usefulness in the real world appears to be limited - it seems best suited to relatively short branch lines connected to existing electrified routes, but these should also have a good case for conventional wiring without the need for new trains or the penalty of extra weight and charging times.

Chris
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
... are you proposing that we power the trains by the movement of the train wheels?

Because that's called an infinite motion machine.

Are you suggesting all the passengers should pedal?
:lol:

They are called dynamos, the faster you got the wheels to turn the brighter the lights got, the dynamo basically tripled the rolling resistance of the wheel so you needed twice as much effort to make the bike move.

What relevance this has to a battery powered train I dont know, unless you think sticking a dynamo to the 379 will make it into a perpetual motion machine!
What 'energy' are you proposing to power the dynamo and where is this 'energy' coming from?

The point I was trying to make was that electricity to charge the battery does't have to come from the overhead wires (just like bike lights don't have to be powered by batteries).

I don't know the physics of it all, but it seems to me that there are options to explore. Some trains do generate power already, IIRC.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
The point I was trying to make was that electricity to charge the battery does't have to come from the overhead wires (just like bike lights don't have to be powered by batteries).

I don't know the physics of it all, but it seems to me that there are options to explore. Some trains do generate power already, IIRC.

Sadly the laws of physics make this an impossibility. In essence, you certainly *could* use some of the train's motion to recharge the batteries, but you would get less energy back than the extra you would have to expend to run the dynamos in the first place.

Things like regenerative braking work because the system isn't closed. The train takes energy as it speeds up and runs, but can give a small amount back when it slows down. It may be possible to do an equivalent technique with a battery-powered train, but it would only represent a small amount of energy recovered and a small efficiency improvement.
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
The point I was trying to make was that electricity to charge the battery does't have to come from the overhead wires (just like bike lights don't have to be powered by batteries).

I don't know the physics of it all, but it seems to me that there are options to explore. Some trains do generate power already, IIRC.

No options to explore, it's all long established science and technology. Regen braking would certainly help, but you'll always get significantly less than 100% of the energy back that you put in to get the train up to speed. Regen will help reduce the penalty of station or signal stops, speed restrictions, etc, but offers nothing for the energy required to sustain constant speed or operate hotel services. Realistically, regen braking can only ever provide a tiny amount of the overall charging required, probably on the order of less than 10%. The primary charging will always have to come from either some sort of electrification (OHLE, 3rd rail, or a shore supply plugged in at a terminus), or a chemical-fired generator (diesel generator, hydrogen fuel cell, etc).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Sadly the laws of physics make this an impossibility. In essence, you certainly *could* use some of the train's motion to recharge the batteries, but you would get less energy back than the extra you would have to expend to run the dynamos in the first place.

Things like regenerative braking work because the system isn't closed. The train takes energy as it speeds up and runs, but can give a small amount back when it slows down. It may be possible to do an equivalent technique with a battery-powered train, but it would only represent a small amount of energy recovered and a small efficiency improvement.

I'd be very surprised if regenerative braking wasn't part of the battery trial and therefore already allowed for in the statements made about operating range under battery power.

Under conventional electrification it saves roughly between 15% and 25% of energy - with stop-start Metro, tram and suburban workings towards the top end of the range. So it would give a similar extension of range under battery power, or possibly a bit less because of losses in the battery and charge/discharge circuits.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
The point I was trying to make was that electricity to charge the battery does't have to come from the overhead wires (just like bike lights don't have to be powered by batteries).

I don't know the physics of it all, but it seems to me that there are options to explore. Some trains do generate power already, IIRC.

You need to use energy to drive the dynamo to produce the electricity (the production of that electricity will be at most 90% efficient, IE 90% of the energy going in will come out as electricity, the other 10% is lost), that energy being used will show itself as drag or resistance, to overcome that resistance you will need to use more energy, the machines using that energy to provide the movement/power are about 90% efficient, and around we go again.

Nothing is free and electrical machines are 90% efficient at best, to produce more energy than they use would mean that it would need to be over 100% efficient.
 

TheWalrus

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2008
Messages
1,983
Location
UK
Could they have solar panels on the roof so the trains could charge all the time during daylight? Or would it not be enough?
 

Rapidash

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
669
Location
Torbaydos, Devon
I wonder if, in the deep dark depths of The Future Where The Far West Is Leccfied*, this would be a solution to the slight niggling issue of the Dawlish sea wall? Have wires/third rails to the Warren and then gracefully float along on battery power to Teignmouth to regain the juice?


*Currently timetabled for the next coming of Zeus
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
I wonder if, in the deep dark depths of The Future Where The Far West Is Leccfied*, this would be a solution to the slight niggling issue of the Dawlish sea wall? Have wires/third rails to the Warren and then gracefully float along on battery power to Teignmouth to regain the juice?


*Currently timetabled for the next coming of Zeus

Battery propulsion is well proven for submarines, so should be fine for Dawlish. ;)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could they have solar panels on the roof so the trains could charge all the time during daylight? Or would it not be enough?

I sincerely doubt that they could reliably provide enough energy to justify their weight and complexity. Better to let the grid worry about where the power can be created, let the train get on with using it.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
I wonder if, in the deep dark depths of The Future Where The Far West Is Leccfied*, this would be a solution to the slight niggling issue of the Dawlish sea wall? Have wires/third rails to the Warren and then gracefully float along on battery power to Teignmouth to regain the juice?


*Currently timetabled for the next coming of Zeus

You could have short sections of OHL in a couple of the tunnels as a boost.
TBH the overheads are not affected by the waves/spray as much as would be expected and its probably only a few days a year (and only for a few hours on those days) that it would be a problem anyway.
 

Bright Boy

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
217
Location
Sale
Interesting questions.

Batteries aren't necessarily safer than overhead lines. There are circumstances where the energy stored in the battery can be released rapidly and in an uncontrolled manner, as seen a few times recently with fairly small batteries in aircraft. Have this happen to a big traction battery and there may be no way to stop the entire stored energy being converted rapidly to heat. An overhead supply will normally cut off automatically on any fault or can be turned off manually to remove the source of energy. So the batteries used on trains, especially if they run underground, will need very careful design and testing to effectively rule out this sort of event even in the rather harsh environment they will encounter underneath a train.

In terms of cost and environment, there is a balance between providing and maintaining the overhead wires and the need to fit batteries which often contain large amounts of rare and unpleasant substances. These also increase the weight of the train so it needs more power for acceleration, and putting energy into a battery and taking it out again will always waste a significant proportion of it. The battery may also need replacing well before the train does.

The financial and environmental balance will favour lightly-used branch lines where relatively few batteries can replace a relatively large amount of OLE. Exactly where this balance sits should become clearer after the current series of tests.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I can't see how it ever would - no foreseeable battery is ever going to provide the power you need for long distance/high speed/heavy trains at a remotely practical size and weight.

As for this experiment, it's usefulness in the real world appears to be limited - it seems best suited to relatively short branch lines connected to existing electrified routes, but these should also have a good case for conventional wiring without the need for new trains or the penalty of extra weight and charging times.

Chris

I did state "If they improve battery technology", what I meant by that was 1: Battery Life, 2: Recharging time, 3: Containment & Safety, 4: Battery size/weight.

At present using battery trains could only be feasible on short branch lines, as you and others have stated in the above posts, to implement battery trains everywhere else would mean technology advancement and massive infrastructure change, but this is not pie in the sky stuff. Installing charging points and the "power stations" needed would not take up to much space, not be as disruptive and take too long to install and be inexpensive compared to installing overhead lines, the biggest expense and time consuming disruption would be taking down the existing OHL equipment. Also it would not be too difficult to convert most of the EMU's and even DMU's to BMU's, without the need to build all new trains for every line as this has just been demonstrated.
 
Last edited:

LateThanNever

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,027
You could have short sections of OHL in a couple of the tunnels as a boost.
TBH the overheads are not affected by the waves/spray as much as would be expected and its probably only a few days a year (and only for a few hours on those days) that it would be a problem anyway.

So similar to Cross Country then!
What a comfort!
Not
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
Such a simple solution, of course it would never happen over here as it didnt cost £20million to carry out all the safety case,environmental impact, CBRs etc.

Pretty sure the standard pantographs in the UK are designed to fail if they extend too far up, as a system to reduce damage caused when wires are "out of position"? Can't have both the auto-drop AND "coast through the gap pan up" system- one or the other!
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
I did state "If they improve battery technology"

Sure, there are some technology gains possible, but overall nope, not going to happen, there's some fundamental limitations from the laws of physics.

The safety thing will always be a major issue. The more energy stored, the bigger the risk, the larger the potential bomb (a bomb is just a rapid release of stored chemical energy). Damaged, or in other failure conditions, a huge battery will always present a huge risk.

Size and weight, there's really only so far you can push it, as you need the area/volume of chemical material to store the charge.
 

Bright Boy

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
217
Location
Sale
I wonder if, in the deep dark depths of The Future Where The Far West Is Leccfied*, this would be a solution to the slight niggling issue of the Dawlish sea wall? Have wires/third rails to the Warren and then gracefully float along on battery power to Teignmouth to regain the juice?


*Currently timetabled for the next coming of Zeus

the old "Atmospheric Railway" comes to mind from that line, maybe Brunel was on to something :roll:
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Pretty sure the standard pantographs in the UK are designed to fail if they extend too far up, as a system to reduce damage caused when wires are "out of position"? Can't have both the auto-drop AND "coast through the gap pan up" system- one or the other!

It shouldn't really be a problem to have something equivalent to coasting through neutral sections. Either driver controlled, or probably more likely these days a balise either side of the gap to automate it. Add a suitable pantograph removal device at the ends of the wires to protect the infrastructure from rogue pantographs..
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Short boost sections when the train is under power won't cut it - the batteries cannot charge fast enough to make use of it. And even if they could you still have to provide a high power 25kV supply in a random location on a non-electrified line.

All you really save in that case is the cost of the wire itself - which is not erally that large, even if a location like Dawlish where you would use Saltcoats style ~50kV equipment.
 

Bright Boy

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
217
Location
Sale
Sure, there are some technology gains possible, but overall nope, not going to happen, there's some fundamental limitations from the laws of physics.

The safety thing will always be a major issue. The more energy stored, the bigger the risk, the larger the potential bomb (a bomb is just a rapid release of stored chemical energy). Damaged, or in other failure conditions, a huge battery will always present a huge risk.

Size and weight, there's really only so far you can push it, as you need the area/volume of chemical material to store the charge.

A pessimist and a physicist at the same time!
Remember the batteries from 50 years ago ? or the mobile phones the size of a loaf of bread and as heavy as 2 bags of sugar. Fundamental laws of limitation do not apply to batteries.

I do agree with you about the energy stored risk, but as with everything it can be made safer, it will never be 100% perfectly safe though, there's always the human element, however how many deaths a year does the current railway electric supply provide each year?

I did state "If the battery technology improves"

3rd time now!!, how many times do I have to repeat this statement for you to understand it ?
 
Last edited:

170401

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2010
Messages
252
However, that section of line has a large number of services from all over the country run over it, meaning you would need to fit batteries to every train that could ever possibly want to run there. Electrifying it properly will be expensive but it won't be unjustified.

Not really, apart from the regular Scotrail services and smattering of EC/XC services, not very much else runs over this section of line. Any electrification will likely initially see AT200 stock utilised for Fife circle and possibly Dundee/Perth services. With electrification to the likes of Aberdeen not likely in the next decade or 2 anyway, theirs unlikely to be any change to the requirement of EC/XC and when their is EC will be using bi mode stock anyway (Diesel engines instead of batteries) and XC by then would probably be looking for new stock. Likewise Scotrail would probably by then be looking at new electric stock to replace it's elderly HSTs so fitting of batteries is unlikely to be an issue.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
So similar to Cross Country then!
What a comfort!
Not
Nope XC pull their trains every time the tides and winds are possibly going to cause problems, the OHL could be designed to be more resilient than the stupid Voyagers are.
 

BantamMenace

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2013
Messages
563
Battery fitted EMUs seem ideal for the Leeds to Morecambe services. Depart Leeds after sitting there for around half an hour, travel under wires for almost an hour, have 40 minutes not under wires, rejoin wires at Carnforth, ten minutes down to Lancaster, 10 minutes sat there, then 10 minutes to Morecambe. And return.

Better acceleration and 90mph running on the airedale and WCML sections as oppose to current 75mph running.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Also it is worth noting that the Forth Rail bridge will probably be replaced/supplemented by a replacement crossing in the not too distant future - it is starting to show its age. So it not being electrified is not necessarily a big issue.
Although really if that is the only section of non electrified track on these routes, some of which are hundreds of miles long, it would probably work out cheaper just to solve the problem of 25kV on the bridge.

Its a pity the 6.25kV component was removed from the standard - it would have solved these issues really.
 
Last edited:

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
Could this technology not be used on the the FGW electrification? Surely it would be much cheaper and less disruptive to use batteries through the Severn tunnel? Could it be used on some of the Valley lines?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Requiring battery operation in the Severn Tunnel would essentially end any chance of significant freight ever using the route. Also attempting to pack IEPs with batteries is a non-starter, would just lead to a requirement for all IEPs to South Wales to be full bi-modes.

And it will likely be used for some of the Valley lines to get out of actually doing the job properly.
 

DownSouth

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2011
Messages
1,545
Not sure what your point is?
In addition to charging from a current source, a battery-powered EMU would be able to recover some energy from regenerative braking.

I looked up the timetable for the Windermere branch which was mentioned earlier in this thread and found that, under the current timetable, the largest number of Oxenholme-Windermere-Oxenholme round trips operated by a unit before it goes elsewhere is five, which happens three times a day.

The time it takes to run those five round trips is around five hours, with the time spent waiting at each end of the shuttle service during that time being 106, 102 and 77 minutes respectively. These times are based on the public timetable, the actual layover time at the termini might be even more if the public timetable differs from the working timetable on the 'under-promise, over-deliver' principle.

So to operate this branch with battery power, you would need the following amount of energy to be enough to get through five round trips:
  • The unit arriving from somewhere else carrying a full charge, courtesy of running on electrified lines.
  • Energy stored from braking for between 32-38 station stops.
  • 77 minutes worth of time spent charging from the wires while waiting between shuttle runs at Windermere and Oxenholme.

That actually seems like a fairly decent basis for a specification - running five shuttle trips on a 10 mile branch line after starting with a full charge and having it partially replenished during the shift by some charging from overhead lines.


As already mentioned, there are questions about how appropriate it would be for real world usage. There are some pretty exotic minerals used in making batteries which will increase in price if the most easily extracted sources get depleted by increased building of battery-powered vehicles, while the classic materials used in stringing up the overhead lines are relatively abundant.

Could this technology not be used on the the FGW electrification? Surely it would be much cheaper and less disruptive to use batteries through the Severn tunnel?
No.

Getting a small to medium-sized fleet of battery EMUs to run lower speed services on some short lines which branch off electrified routes might be cheaper than proper electrification, fitting batteries to every single train which uses a fairly important mainline is most definitely not.

All that is needed to do the Severn Tunnel with minimal disruption is good phasing of the works - or serious consideration of when it will become advantageous to stop spending money on it and build a modern twin-tube replacement which would incorporate the 140+ years of expertise gained since then, and be equipped with future compatibility for 250+ km/h high speed rail and larger loading gauges.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The time it takes to run those five round trips is around five hours, with the time spent waiting at each end of the shuttle service during that time being 106, 102 and 77 minutes respectively. These times are based on the public timetable, the actual layover time at the termini might be even more if the public timetable differs from the working timetable on the 'under-promise, over-deliver' principle.

I don't recognise these figures at all. The one-way journey time on the Windermere branch is around 20min and the service is irregular but approximately hourly. As there can only ever be one train on the branch there is no way the layovers are as long as you state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top