Battery 450s replacing 159s on West of England line?

[Xavi]

If the sections are a couple of miles long then presumably not. If it’s purely in stations to be activated when a train’s on them, but the power that would have to flow for a charge at an intermediate stop to be worthwhile would be phenomenal.

One purpose of the multiple locations with 3rd rail (15 in total) is to provide a direct supply where the most power is required - accelerating from stations. Full charging of batteries at each and every location is not part of the plan.

 

[MarkyT]

That’s going to be fairly heavy usage of the switchgear and thus increased maintenance costs

They might be looking at solid state solutions. I don't know the state of the art of that technology though.

 

[HSTEd]

That’s going to be fairly heavy usage of the switchgear and thus increased maintenance costs

I would expect them to not bother trying to segment each section, and simply turn on a few minutes before the train arrives at the station and turn off a few minutes after it leaves.
On the West of England Main line that is still likely to result in the rail being dead a very large proportion of the time.

If there is only one circuit breaker required for each installation it can be put on the AC side, and AC circuit breakers rated for this kind of duty are available.

 

[AHBD]

.

 

[DerekC]

The on-train mods will be interesting. It sounds terribly simple until you think about regeneration, feeding energy back to the third rail (in permanently live third rail areas) and to the battery (in discontinuous third rail areas). Initial thought is to make sure the train knows (combination of GPS and balises/beacons?) which it's in, and that it must regenerate to the battery and not to the third rail when not in a "permanently on" area. But why not let the train regenerate to the battery as first preference all the time, then when the battery is full to the third rail as long as it's receptive (i.e. voltage less than maximum) and if nowhere else to go, to the resistor bank. That could avoid the train needing to know its location for this purpose, as long as you don't mind having live shoes in non-third rail areas. I wonder what combination they are thinking about. Presumably Siemens have come up with some ball park numbers?

 

[HSTEd]

The on-train mods will be interesting. It sounds terribly simple until you think about regeneration, feeding energy back to the third rail (in permanently live third rail areas) and to the battery (in discontinuous third rail areas). Initial thought is to make sure the train knows (combination of GPS and balises/beacons?) which it's in, and that it must regenerate to the battery and not to the third rail when not in a "permanently on" area. But why not let the train regenerate to the battery as first preference all the time, then when the battery is full to the third rail as long as it's receptive (i.e. voltage less than maximum) and if nowhere else to go, to the resistor bank. That could avoid the train needing to know its location for this purpose, as long as you don't mind having live shoes in non-third rail areas. I wonder what combination they are thinking about. Presumably Siemens have come up with some ball park numbers?

I agree that the battery should always be first preference for regeneration, given the power limits on some third rail areas - the train needs to charge as fast as possible wherever it is.

You could also "signal" to the train not to regenerate in the new areas by just setting the substation busbar voltage high enough that the train electronics decide not to do it.

 

[MarkyT]

I agree that the battery should always be first preference for regeneration, given the power limits on some third rail areas - the train needs to charge as fast as possible wherever it is.

You could also "signal" to the train not to regenerate in the new areas by just setting the substation busbar voltage high enough that the train electronics decide not to do it.

You could even choose not to draw all (or much) current from the 3rd rail if demand and voltage drop has caused rail supply voltage to fall. Batteries could help power management across the system allowing onboard storage to maintain performance even when the supply is struggling at its limits, bearing in mind that peaks in rail are often fairly short term during spurts of acceleration and hilll climbing. The additional aspect of storage at substation supply points adds more options for power management. A train (and the network generally) would also benefit from management algorithms that keep sufficient battery capacity available for reasonable regenerative braking expectations. A battery train at the top of a mountain, for example, would ideally maintain enough storage capacity for its descent to the valley wholly under regen without needing to waste energy into resistor banks. A bi-mode freight loco stood in a goods loop could rev up its engine to inject additional power into the conductor rail to speed up dense passenger traffic blocking its path through a junction...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree that the battery should always be first preference for regeneration, given the power limits on some third rail areas - the train needs to charge as fast as possible wherever it is.

You could also "signal" to the train not to regenerate in the new areas by just setting the substation busbar voltage high enough that the train electronics decide not to do it.

This would not help if an area of otherwise normal 3rd rail (so London side of Basingstoke) has power turned off in an emergency - then the battery 450 would not be allowed to move in case it re-energised the 3rd rail.

You could even choose not to draw all (or much) current from the 3rd rail if demand and voltage drop has caused rail supply voltage to fall. Batteries could help power management across the system allowing onboard storage to maintain performance even when the supply is struggling at its limits, bearing in mind that peaks in rail are often fairly short term during spurts of acceleration and hilll climbing. The additional aspect of storage at substation supply points adds more options for power management. A train (and the network generally) would also benefit from management algorithms that keep sufficient battery capacity available for reasonable regenerative braking expectations. A battery train at the top of a mountain, for example, would ideally maintain enough storage capacity for its descent to the valley wholly under regen without needing to waste energy into resistor banks. A bi-mode freight loco stood in a goods loop could rev up its engine to inject additional power into the conductor rail to speed up dense passenger traffic blocking its path through a junction...

Getting far away from the thread title there but you made me think.

The class 71 booster locomotives (the ones with a flywheel) must have addressed the issues of regenerative braking etc etc on and away from the 3rd rail.

 

[MarkyT]

Getting far away from the thread title there but you made me think.

The class 71 booster locomotives (the ones with a flywheel) must have addressed the issues of regenerative braking etc etc on and away from the 3rd rail.

I don't think that was a focus of their design. There might have been some level of feedback, 'engine braking' or something.
From the Wikipedia description of their predecessors, the SR/BR class 70.

Being much shorter than the predominant multiple units, electric locomotives can suffer from a problem known as "gapping" - becoming marooned between supplies at breaks in the electrical supply and snatching at the couplings whilst moving as they come on and off the power. The latter places undue stress on couplings and has been known to cause separations of a train. Raworth overcame this by having a motor–generator set (booster) with a large flywheel on the shaft between the two.

The traction current, instead of feeding the traction motors directly through the control assembly, powered a large motor which turned a shaft with the flywheel and fed into the generator. The output of the generator could be combined with the third rail power to reduce or boost the voltage applied to the traction motors. With the generator output polarity reversed, the control assembly could deliver around 1200 V DC by combining the generator output with the 650 V from the third rail to give positive 650 V and negative 500-600 V - leading to the nickname "boosters". The flywheel ensured the generator continued to turn whilst no current was available from the third rail, thus ensuring a continuous supply to the traction motors.

Even while stationary, Class 70 locomotives produced a noticeable droning noise due to the booster-set turning inside the body. Two booster sets were fitted in each locomotive, one for each bogie. It was not sufficient to allow the locomotives to work "off the grid" as the load on the generator whilst under power meant it would quickly consume the stored kinetic energy. They needed attentive driving, to ensure they were not brought to a halt on a gap and the booster set allowed to run down.

There were losses incurred in the conversion of electrical energy to kinetic and back again, but Raworth mitigated this in the control mechanism. Instead of having large, heavily built resistances in the power lines for the motors, the 26 taps on the controller changed resistances in the field coils of the generator. These correspondingly made the construction much lighter and more easily maintained. Instead of "burning-up" unrequired power, the controller simply altered how much power was generated.

So modern battery storage, even at a fairly modest capacity, could be seen as a new booster tech, maintaining performance even when rail volts are flagging short term, but also giving a 'get to next station' emergency capability and allowing service to continue (to a safe degree) through minor planned or unexpected isolations. Allowing electrification infrastructure around complex junctions and stations to be greatly simplified due to the new paradigm's ability to glide, under power, and restart as necessary across substantial gaps. A major improvement in rail resilience perhaps.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Allowing electrification infrastructure around complex junctions and stations to be greatly simplified due to the new paradigm's ability to glide, under power, and restart as necessary across substantial gaps. A major improvement in rail resilience perhaps.

Just a thought - there is already a technology for such a thing, called the diesel engine. Even as a bi-mode with 750V third rail, would that be such a bad thing?

 

[HSTEd]

Just a thought - there is already a technology for such a thing, called the diesel engine. Even as a bi-mode with 750V third rail, would that be such a bad thing?

Burning diesel in significant quantities will not be a good luck for the railway in 20 years time, when it goes cap in hand to the Treasury (and thus the public) for subsidies to compete with an overwhelmingly electric car/bus fleet.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Burning diesel in significant quantities will not be a good luck for the railway in 20 years time, when it goes cap in hand to the Treasury (and thus the public) for subsidies to compete with an overwhelmingly electric car/bus fleet.

Really? The WoE certainly won't be the only railway using diesel and much of the 'bad look' at the moment comes from fumes under the Waterloo canopy?

 

[MarkyT]

Just a thought - there is already a technology for such a thing, called the diesel engine. Even as a bi-mode with 750V third rail, would that be such a bad thing?

Burning diesel in significant quantities will not be a good luck for the railway in 20 years time, when it goes cap in hand to the Treasury (and thus the public) for subsidies to compete with an overwhelmingly electric car/bus fleet.

I don't think continuing to use some diesel or alternative liquid fuel 'in a rationed quota' is unreasonable in the medium term to avoid much greater carbon from equivalent capacity on the roads, where the flows make economic sense. Where bi-mode and battery assistance can make a difference is in the other emissions when in urban and other sensitive areas including where electrification is not economic or possible yet.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Where bi-mode and battery assistance can make a difference is in the other emissions when in urban and other sensitive areas including where electrification is not economic or possible yet.

This is what I mean. I'm sure Stadler could come up with something suitable, for instance.

 

[MarkyT]

This is what I mean. I'm sure Stadler could come up with something suitable, for instance.

I don't discount having diesels aboard, but if a solution using batteries alone and discontinuous electrification can be found for a particular application, I think that's preferable, especially in the longer term. Stadler pods could plausibly have their engines replaced by battery modules in the future as wiring spreads and they could negotiate the wide gaps without engines. Maybe just keep one diesel for emergencies, like the electric IETs on LNER.

 

[DerekC]

The proposal to use the 450s has to be economic as a modification programme to a distinctly middle aged set of EMUs! I am not too convinced that the whoie thing makes sense from that point of view. The cost of the mods needs to be a lot less than buying new trains and I am not sure that it would be.

 

[Snow1964]

The proposal to use the 450s has to be economic as a modification programme to a distinctly middle aged set of EMUs! I am not too convinced that the whoie thing makes sense from that point of view. The cost of the mods needs to be a lot less than buying new trains and I am not sure that it would be.

I guess if you look at it from an economic ot financial point of view, it looks more like how do we replace 32-35 year old 159s (and need a plan soon, not starting to think about replacement in 3-5 years, with another 3-5 years build time).

Then look at the 750 vehicles of class 701 which were ordered at a boom time, and now excess. Realise as these are new could expand their operation slightly (think peak trains to Farnham etc.) note I am not saying this is best idea that is good for customer. But from operator having got them, how do they best use them viewpoint, there is some logic.

Clearly if 701s or the refurbished 458s take over some 450 duties, in simple terms have spare 450s, so get to the speculative how best to modify them to replace the aging diesel trains, rather than buy direct replacements. Personally I could see some 450s still in service 25 years from now. So likely to be getting 20+ years from any modified ones.

I suspect in reality talking about modifying 24-28 units, not all 127 of them.

 

[Mikey C]

Rebuilding midlife trains for further use is classic Southern Region behaviour, so nothing new

 

[Peter Sarf]

.................

Allowing electrification infrastructure around complex junctions and stations to be greatly simplified due to the new paradigm's ability to glide, under power, and restart as necessary across substantial gaps. A major improvement in rail resilience perhaps.

+

Just a thought - there is already a technology for such a thing, called the diesel engine. Even as a bi-mode with 750V third rail, would that be such a bad thing?

I think that the point being made by @MarkyT was that having a continuously available supply (be it flywheel or batteries) means there is a smoother transition across gaps in the 3rd rail. Short gaps not gaps of several miles. Having a diesel engine do that would waste a lot of fuel as smooth transition would rely on the diesel engine running continuously.

The batteries could have the range for several miles as is needed for Basingstoke to Exeter. A flywheel would not have the range. Both would cope with gaping and allow for rationalisation of third rail at junctions so would be fitted to all EMUs. Incidentally I wonder if junction locations is where most rail worker electrocutions occur ? - after all points need more attention than plain line.

Meanwhile back to the thread title. Basingstoke to Exeter would requite batteries or diesel engines to be fitted. Battery would also cover the gaps at rationalised third rail junctions and be greener.

 

[I'm here now]

Found this interesting item in Network Rail’s RUS for electrification (2009) - BCR of 3.1 for Basingstoke - Exeter OHLE.

 

[JamesT]

Found this interesting item in Network Rail’s RUS for electrification (2009) - BCR of 3.1 for Basingstoke - Exeter OHLE.

So before the GWML electrification and costs spiralling.

 

[pompeyfan]

I’ve been told there’s a document that seems to show that 2 450s MAY be going for battery conversion from the may 25 T/T which is against what was said in the Green Signals interview mentioned upthread.

 

[Class450/4DES]

I’ve been told there’s a document that seems to show that 2 450s MAY be going for battery conversion from the may 25 T/T which is against what was said in the Green Signals interview mentioned upthread.

Why then? I have a feeling we are still going to be low on trains by then.

 

[317 forever]

Given that the 350/2s are being released from LNWR and are basically the same design as 450s with SWR, I wonder whether instead some 350/2s could be converted to battery, or dual 3rd rail/battery power, to replace the 159s.

 

[JonathanH]

Given that the 350/2s are being released from LNWR and are basically the same design as 450s with SWR, I wonder whether instead some 350/2s could be converted to battery, or dual 3rd rail/battery power, to replace the 159s.

The logic of that would seem to fail on two points.

Firstly, SWR already have 450s on lease from Angel Trains and if they can get the 701s into service will have many more 450s than they need. The 350/2 fleet is owned by Porterbrook.

Secondly, it stands to reason that fitting 350/2s with DC pick up and batteries is more work than fitting 450s with batteries.

 

[Snow1964]

Given that the 350/2s are being released from LNWR and are basically the same design as 450s with SWR, I wonder whether instead some 350/2s could be converted to battery, or dual 3rd rail/battery power, to replace the 159s.

If a conversion (adding batteries) goes ahead then could in theory be either class 450 or 350, but of course SWR have 450s

Historically Angel ordered 25 dual voltage units, 3 were built and tested, units 4-6 were moved to after production batch for SWR and became later batches, the other 17 became first part of the SWR order for 100 units. The ac equipment ended up on some 360s or 350s. More a reminder they can be reconfigured (and anyone who looks at a 450 from a bridge will see they have pantograph mounting pads.

The significance is could convert similar sets using the 350s (theoretically, but no current plans) to work on other part third services, eg Weymouth-Gloucester or Portsmouth-Cardiff and use units interchangeably (if in future not two operators, SWR and GWR doing their own thing)

 

[317 forever]

The logic of that would seem to fail on two points.

Firstly, SWR already have 450s on lease from Angel Trains and if they can get the 701s into service will have many more 450s than they need. The 350/2 fleet is owned by Porterbrook.

Secondly, it stands to reason that fitting 350/2s with DC pick up and batteries is more work than fitting 450s with batteries.

I hadn't thought of spare 450s becoming available once the 701s in service. But yes, in that case it is simpler to fit those with batteries rather than 350s.

 

[Lockwood]

Order a new fleet of new shiny diesels or bimode.
Park them up at Marchwood for many years.
Introduce 1 Exeter to Waterloo service off peak.
Claim a successful launch.

Could we have put batteries on the 442s?


More serious question, I see comments on door envy and a dislike of 1/3, 2/3 doors... What's the problem with them? I haven't really thought about it, I just go through the door to get on. I get a train to London, I might get end doors or 1/3,2/3. When I was younger, I might have had a carriage made up as window door window door window door window door window...

 

[JonathanH]

More serious question, I see comments on door envy and a dislike of 1/3, 2/3 doors... What's the problem with them?

The usual complaint is cold air blowing in through wide doorways, having toilets and other functional facilities in the passenger saloon, and not having a large single seating area.

 

[Mikey C]

More serious question, I see comments on door envy and a dislike of 1/3, 2/3 doors... What's the problem with them? I haven't really thought about it, I just go through the door to get on. I get a train to London, I might get end doors or 1/3,2/3. When I was younger, I might have had a carriage made up as window door window door window door window door window...

Not on longer distance services though. Though even then the Mk1 express units still had a middle door anyway, so it wasn't as if they just had end doors.