Battery Powered Electrostars for Southern

Doomotron · 12 Jan 2020

paul1609 said:
Has the ability to charge the batteries off the dc been improved? If so how?
The problem in the previous appraisal for Marshlink was that the charging in use was far from the state of the art experienced at a tesla fast charger.
The cycle had to be restarted every time the train hit a gap in the third rail and the charging current had to be limited when high power was demanded from the traction motors due to restraints in the dc bus and shoe gear. A continuous cycle of Ashford to Brighton wasn't possible the trains would have run Ashford to Brighton then a return trip to Seaford before running back to Ashford. They hadn't found a feasible solution for the Rye shuttles at that time.
The Eastbourne to Ashford timetable now run would appear to be even worse.
I still say a low cost overhead electrification is the most practical solution.

And would allow Southeastern to run St Pancras to Hastings services.

RailUK Forums

Milo T.K · 13 Jan 2020

There is another option to use NS Talbot DMU stock that recently had been replaced as the Bulgaria deal fell through

supervc-10 · 13 Jan 2020

Would those fit? I feel like they probably wouldn't.

I kind of feel like what's really needed is 3rd rail electrification, but saving that, a bi-mode 3rd rail/diesel train would be ideal for Southern and to replace SWR's 159s.

LowLevel · 14 Jan 2020

Milo T.K said:
There is another option to use NS Talbot DMU stock that recently had been replaced as the Bulgaria deal fell through

They'd never fit the loading gauge in the UK. Far too wide and tall. I believe they're similar to a class 158 mechanically but that's about it

Chrisgr31 · 21 Jan 2020

No idea what the article says as I don’t have access! https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/electroflex-battery-emu-plan-to-end-southern-diesel-operation/55593 however it does appear the 171s are on the way out, May/June next year is when they start going apparently

D365 · 21 Jan 2020

Chrisgr31 said:
No idea what the article says as I don’t have access! https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/electroflex-battery-emu-plan-to-end-southern-diesel-operation/55593 however it does appear the 171s are on the way out, May/June next year is when they start going apparently

I don't have access either but it looks like Porterbrook are providing a Class 377/3 for the trial conversion.

I imagine that this will be different to the IPEMU trial in 2015, in that the prototype won't just be developed as a one-off.

Fincra5 · 21 Jan 2020

Chrisgr31 said:
No idea what the article says as I don’t have access! https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/electroflex-battery-emu-plan-to-end-southern-diesel-operation/55593 however it does appear the 171s are on the way out, May/June next year is when they start going apparently

Porterbook anticipates than an agreement will be reached soon for Govia Thameslink Railway to release a Bombardier Transportation Class 377/3 Electrostar electric multiple-unit from service so that it can be retrofitted with lithium-ion traction batteries

Wonder if they’ve read my thoughts on it...

Class 170101 · 21 Jan 2020

paul1609 said:
Has the ability to charge the batteries off the dc been improved? If so how?
The problem in the previous appraisal for Marshlink was that the charging in use was far from the state of the art experienced at a tesla fast charger.
The cycle had to be restarted every time the train hit a gap in the third rail and the charging current had to be limited when high power was demanded from the traction motors due to restraints in the dc bus and shoe gear. A continuous cycle of Ashford to Brighton wasn't possible the trains would have run Ashford to Brighton then a return trip to Seaford before running back to Ashford. They hadn't found a feasible solution for the Rye shuttles at that time.
The Eastbourne to Ashford timetable now run would appear to be even worse.
I still say a low cost overhead electrification is the most practical solution.

Could the Class 377s be interworked though, such that an individual unit would only run on the unelectrified sections once or twice a day separated by several hours until the next visit?

jopsuk · 21 Jan 2020

D365 said:
I don't have access either but it looks like Porterbrook are providing a Class 377/3 for the trial conversion.

I imagine that this will be different to the IPEMU trial in 2015, in that the prototype won't just be developed as a one-off.

One would hope that the work from that informs the new conversions, and that with the 171s being off elsewhere this really does need to be a squadron deployment

Fincra5 · 21 Jan 2020

Class 170101 said:
Could the Class 377s be interworked though, such that an individual unit would only run on the unelectrified sections once or twice a day separated by several hours until the next visit?

Not in the current TimeTable.

I wouldn't be surprised if they came along with Tesla Style Super Chargers at Termini, such as; Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford.

A pantograph could be used as access to the Super Charger. I'm sure ReGen braking can top up the battery level, if 750DC can't, when its being used for the 3rd Rail Operation.

In a similar vain to those seen on some EV Buses. A bit like this.

D365 · 21 Jan 2020

Fincra5 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they came along with Tesla Style Super Chargers at Termini, such as; Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford.

A pantograph could be used as access to the Super Charger. I'm sure ReGen braking can top up the battery level, if 750DC can't, when its being used for the 3rd Rail Operation.

Vivarail's fast charge system can dump several kWhs into a Class 230 during a seven minute turn around, though admittedly that might not be enough for a Class 377. Plus with fast charging you'd have to take issues like cable amperage and battery charge cycles into account. Repeated fast charging runs the risk of degrading battery performance more quickly, especially if not adequately cooled.

Fincra5 · 21 Jan 2020

D365 said:
Vivarail's fast charge system can dump several kWhs into a Class 230 during a seven minute turn around, though admittedly that might not be enough for a Class 377. Plus with fast charging you'd have to take issues like cable amperage and battery charge cycles into account. Repeated fast charging runs the risk of degrading battery performance more quickly, especially if not adequately cooled.

Its interesting as in the Article, Porterbrook seem to be wanting a Fast-Charge Route. Which would fit in with the bare-bones Turn-a-round times on SN!

"The underfloor battery would provide a range of around 60 km, she predicted, with a charging time of 8 min. The intention would be that the battery would never be fully discharged in service, and an emergency mode would provide power to keep onboard systems running for at least 1 h in the event of a train being stranded; Simpson point out that stranded trains don’t need much power."

Brissle Girl · 21 Jan 2020

Lets hope Porterbrook has more success in achieving a timely delivery than it has had with its other bi-mode conversion project.

D365 · 21 Jan 2020

Fincra5 said:
"The underfloor battery would provide a range of around 60 km, she predicted, with a charging time of 8 min. The intention would be that the battery would never be fully discharged in service, and an emergency mode would provide power to keep onboard systems running for at least 1 h in the event of a train being stranded; Simpson point out that stranded trains don’t need much power."

This has the additional benefit of maximising battery life; I was once shown a very interesting graph from a railway battery supplier, which showed the number of cycles in a li-ion battery could be increased dramatically by reducing Depth of Discharge (DoD) to below 80%.

Greybeard33 · 21 Jan 2020

Brissle Girl said:
Lets hope Porterbrook has more success in achieving a timely delivery than it has had with its other bi-mode conversion project.

Hmm. Porterbrook's Helen Simpson was behind the 319 Flex project too, making similarly optimistic statements to the press. Maybe lessons have been learnt...?

D365 · 21 Jan 2020

Greybeard33 said:
Hmm. Porterbrook's Helen Simpson was behind the 319 Flex project too, making similarly optimistic statements to the press. Maybe lessons have been learnt...?

Also helps that the Class 377s won't be half as rusty.

One would hope...

Chrisgr31 · 21 Jan 2020

Hurst Green to Uckfield appears to be 31km so they will struggle to do the journey without charging at Uckfield. There is currently an 11 minute turnaround time at Uckfield but fortunately the down trains never run late so they will always have time to charge down there!

They also have never been turned round at Crowborough so it all sounds as if it will work really well!

rebmcr · 21 Jan 2020

D365 said:
Repeated fast charging runs the risk of degrading battery performance more quickly, especially if not adequately cooled.

Or indeed if not adequately warmed! https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/31/lithium_ion_battery_fast_charge/

paul1609 · 22 Jan 2020

Class 170101 said:
Could the Class 377s be interworked though, such that an individual unit would only run on the unelectrified sections once or twice a day separated by several hours until the next visit?

Possibly but a much higher proportion of 377/3s would have to be fitted with battery packs.

paul1609 · 22 Jan 2020

Fincra5 said:
Not in the current TimeTable.

I wouldn't be surprised if they came along with Tesla Style Super Chargers at Termini, such as; Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford.

A pantograph could be used as access to the Super Charger. I'm sure ReGen braking can top up the battery level, if 750DC can't, when its being used for the 3rd Rail Operation.

In a similar vain to those seen on some EV Buses. A bit like this.

Marshlink trains only have access to Platforms 1 and 2 at Ashford International which are the 12 car dc through platforms. not sure you'd want that sort of thing dangling down. Personally I think theres near to zero chance of this scheme being implemented.

JonathanH · 22 Jan 2020

paul1609 said:
Possibly but a much higher proportion of 377/3s would have to be fitted with battery packs.

To maintain capacity they are going to have to convert all of the 377/3 fleet anyway.

Any 2-car 171 working will need to be replaced directly by a 3-car 377. A 4-car 171 working will possibly need to be 6-car 377 and a 10-car 171 working will need to be replaced by 12-car 377.

So that is 4 units on Marshlink plus something like 16 units (3 x 4 plus 2 x 2) on the Uckfield line. That is already 20 units. They may as well convert all 28 377/3s.

(I realise there is 377342 as well but that still might revert to 377442 at some point)

hwl · 22 Jan 2020

One problem is that most /3s are used for making up 10car metro formations so substantial shortening there unless a /3 is just used as a prototype.

Overall more stock needs to be brought in (or back) though what that is very much depends on what is used for conversion.

Fincra5 · 22 Jan 2020

hwl said:
One problem is that most /3s are used for making up 10car metro formations so substantial shortening there unless a /3 is just used as a prototype.

Overall more stock needs to be brought in (or back) though what that is very much depends on what is used for conversion.

Indeed. I'm sure there's plans afoot for the Metro, if 377/3s end up being used totally.

Fincra5 · 22 Jan 2020

paul1609 said:
Marshlink trains only have access to Platforms 1 and 2 at Ashford International which are the 12 car dc through platforms. not sure you'd want that sort of thing dangling down. Personally I think theres near to zero chance of this scheme being implemented.

It doesn't dangle down.

. The pantograph on those buses extends from the roof. It automatically aligns itself to the Charger.

D365 · 22 Jan 2020

Fincra5 said:
Indeed. I'm sure there's plans afoot for the Metro, if 377/3s end up being used totally.

May I be the first to suggest Class 442s? :lol:

Bletchleyite · 22 Jan 2020

Fincra5 said:
It doesn't dangle down. . The pantograph on those buses extends from the roof. It automatically aligns itself to the Charger.

There is also a type where an inductive charging grid does "dangle down" from the bottom of the bus, this type was used in a now-finished trial in MK.

Doomotron · 22 Jan 2020

D365 said:
May I be the first to suggest Class 442s?

Beat me to it.

Fincra5 · 22 Jan 2020

Bletchleyite said:
There is also a type where an inductive charging grid does "dangle down" from the bottom of the bus, this type was used in a now-finished trial in MK.

Ah, so there was. That would actually be better I'd say.

You'd have the structures in place at said station's and maybe depot like Eastbourne. The trains are fitted with the relevant connections for the Drop Down Pantograph and the system aligns itself to the train.

Would be cheaper I'd say and faster as each unit would only need "charing pads" rather than a pantograph (for connection) each.

Fincra5 · 22 Jan 2020

D365 said:
May I be the first to suggest Class 442s?

4 Battery Cars. And the MCB in the middle. As Clarkson would say: Powerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

edwin_m · 22 Jan 2020

Fincra5 said:
Ah, so there was. That would actually be better I'd say.

You'd have the structures in place at said station's and maybe depot like Eastbourne. The trains are fitted with the relevant connections for the Drop Down Pantograph and the system aligns itself to the train.

Would be cheaper I'd say and faster as each unit would only need "charing pads" rather than a pantograph (for connection) each.

The problem with inductive charging is efficiency or the lack of it (very difficult to find any figures, which tells you something in itself). In a high-power application like a train it would lose a significant fraction of the energy, which affects charging time as well as efficiency. And there's no real need for inductive charging in an environment where contact charging is workable and the trains even carry the relevant equipment already.

Battery Powered Electrostars for Southern

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member