First Group order AT300 for East Coast open access operation

Bletchleyite · 6 May 2019

I'm not sure it massively matters now we have moved away from having a range for DMU, a range for EMU etc. Most notably it does look like all D-trains will be Class 230 regardless of what generates the juice.

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger · 6 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I'm not sure it massively matters now we have moved away from having a range for DMU, a range for EMU etc. Most notably it does look like all D-trains will be Class 230 regardless of what generates the juice.

I don’t think you can actually say that until every other likely variant is actually built. You would expect “diesel-electric with battery” to be 2xx, but what if they happen to build a “third rail with battery” as people keep hypothesising for the IOW?

route:oxford · 6 May 2019

hexagon789 said:
But only for hotel power; they cannot provide traction power to move the train.

If Hitachi are promoting a version of the Class 385 that can operate for 60 miles on batteries to Scotrail, why would it be so difficult for Hitachi to sell First Group a version of the AT300 that can operate for a similar distance?

Given the modular approach to train manufacture, surely the engine space versus battery space will be near identical on both units?

Japan0913 · 6 May 2019

The battery attached to the AT-300 has only power to move to a safe place at low speed if it stops on the tunnel or the iron bridge.

Battery powered railcar DMU alternative is not.

This train...
Class801 rather than "Class 395-Javelin" similar to.

Class 395 - Javelin
http://hitachirail-eu.com/products/our-trains/at300-intercity-high-speed
・・・・・・
Power Supply: (25kVAC / 750 Vdc / Battery)

hexagon789 · 6 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
The battery attached to the AT-300 has only power to move to a safe place at low speed if it stops on the tunnel or the iron bridge.

Battery powered railcar DMU alternative is not.

This train...
Class801 rather than "Class 395-Javelin" similar to.

Class 395 - Javelin
http://hitachirail-eu.com/products/our-trains/at300-intercity-high-speed
・・・・・・
Power Supply: (25kVAC / 750 Vdc / Battery)

I don't see anything in that link that confirms or refutes the ability to use the batteries for even emergency propulsion.

hexagon789 · 6 May 2019

route:oxford said:
If Hitachi are promoting a version of the Class 385 that can operate for 60 miles on batteries to Scotrail, why would it be so difficult for Hitachi to sell First Group a version of the AT300 that can operate for a similar distance?

Given the modular approach to train manufacture, surely the engine space versus battery space will be near identical on both units?

You misunderstand, I know they can sell a variant which can get its traction power from batteries, I'm not disputing that. Simply that the train being procured by First for their East Coast Trains open-access operation does not that I'm aware have the ability to use its batteries to move.

Japan0913 · 6 May 2019

hexagon789 said:
I don't see anything in that link that confirms or refutes the ability to use the batteries for even emergency propulsion.

Please read page 10 of this PDF.
https://www.globalrailwayreview.com...aper-Ni-Cd-for-onboard-batteries_final2_P.pdf

UK High Speed 1 (HS1) EMUs
Saft is providing scheduled servicing of its batteries on board Hitachi ’s fleet of Class 395 EMUs operating on the UK ’s High Speed 1 (HS1) line between London and the Channel Tunnel.
Hitachi demands high reliability from all the systems and components on board its high-speed trains to ensure a predictable and consistent service for passengers.
From its depot in Ashford, Kent, Hitachi is overseeing the planned maintenance of its fleet of 29 Class 395 trains, which have been in operation since 2009.
Each Class 395 EMU is fitted with three sets of Saft MRX batteries, which provide the power for traction and auxiliary systems in neutral sections on the electrified rail service as well as backup power. To ensure that they remain in optimum condition, the batteries are overhauled by Saft every five years.
Conclusion
Rail manufacturers and operators are naturally looking for the best return on investment for their onboard equipment. But as part of this calculation, it is important to consider the total cost of ownership of a battery is much higher than the initial purchase cost.
What is more, the choice of battery technology should be made having considered the key reliability and performance requirements of the application. There is no single battery type that is appropriate for ALL applications, and choosing the wrong battery can have potentially disastrous results in the case of failure.
Where reliability and life cycle costs are key, Ni-Cd batteries offer considerable advantages to the rail industry compared with lead-acid batteries.
Refurbishment services keep Hitachi ’s Class 395 batteries in perfect conditions

hexagon789 · 6 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
Please read page 10 of this PDF.
https://www.globalrailwayreview.com...aper-Ni-Cd-for-onboard-batteries_final2_P.pdf

That's the 395 though.

Japan0913 · 6 May 2019

hexagon789 said:
You misunderstand, I know they can sell a variant which can get its traction power from batteries, I'm not disputing that. Simply that the train being procured by First for their East Coast Trains open-access operation does not that I'm aware have the ability to use its batteries to move.

HITCHI　Commercialization of battery-powered train.
Battery-powered Drive Systems: Latest Technologies and Outlook
https://www.hitachi.com/rev/archive/2017/r2017_02/07/index.html
◆More detail
https://www.hitachi.com/rev/archive/2017/r2017_02/pdf/54-60_R1-07.pdf

But still, in Hitachi, but it has not been reported in the realization of a high-speed vehicle.

hexagon789 · 6 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
But still, in Hitachi, but it has not been reported in the realization of a high-speed vehicle.

I'm sorry?

Not sure what this means?

Japan0913 · 6 May 2019

hexagon789 said:
I'm sorry?

Not sure what this means?

At Hitachi, for now, there is no announcement of the commercialization of high-speed power storage vehicles.

hexagon789 · 6 May 2019

Japan0913 said:
At Hitachi, for now, there is no announcement of the commercialization of high-speed power storage vehicles.

So Hitachi are not planning to develop battery traction for high-speed trains any further at the moment? Is that what you mean?

Japan0913 · 6 May 2019

hexagon789 said:
So Hitachi are not planning to develop battery traction for high-speed trains any further at the moment? Is that what you mean?

Hitachi would have planned. ,
However. I do not know the fact that it has been announced.

Nym · 6 May 2019

So these versions of the Super Express Trains might even have enough battery power to keep the lights on for more than 15 mins without the auxiliaries tripping out when a Prime Mover isn't available?

Japan0913 · 7 May 2019

rdlover777 said:
that might just be because Hitachi seem to love the 395, go on there website and its mostly dedicated to the 395

They are quite different.

Bletchleyite · 7 May 2019

Both certainly look much more attractive than the 800, just as a 222 looks more like it means business than a 220/221 despite being basically the same thing.

swt_passenger · 14 May 2019

Modern Railways May edition page 37 refers.

The ECML AT300s do not have the get you home single diesel generator set, and do not have battery powered traction either (as some have speculated about).

“Batteries will provide standby power only, with no traction option.” As per the vast majority of trains then...

hexagon789 · 14 May 2019

swt_passenger said:
Modern Railways May edition page 37 refers.

The ECML AT300s do not have the get you home single diesel generator set, and do not have battery powered traction either (as some have speculated about).

“Batteries will provide standby power only, with no traction option.” As per the vast majority of trains then...

Exactly what I was saying up thread! :lol:

swt_passenger · 14 May 2019

hexagon789 said:
Exactly what I was saying up thread!

Yes, I thought some third party confirmation might support you...

hexagon789 · 14 May 2019

swt_passenger said:
Yes, I thought some third party confirmation might support you...

Thanks, I got my information from another source, but I still can't remember where!

Jorge Da Silva · 26 Sep 2019

Japan0913 said:
View attachment 62581 They are quite different.

They look different to the Class 800/801/802's don't they? Any chance it will be an 803?

They look similar to the 395's IMO.

ohgoditsjames · 26 Sep 2019

Jorge Da Silva said:
They look different to the Class 800/801/802's don't they? Any chance it will be an 803?

They look similar to the 395's IMO.

803 might be for the new trains that EMT have ordered as it will be a variant of the AT300.

Jorge Da Silva · 26 Sep 2019

ohgoditsjames said:
803 might be for the new trains that EMT have ordered as it will be a variant of the AT300.

Could well be, but these new trains could also be a new classification as they are different to the 800/801/802's.

First Group order AT300 for East Coast open access operation

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member