• 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 EMUs - what tech is used/could be used?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Occurred to me on reading another thread - do battery EMUs use Li-ion type batteries, with their lifespan issues, or do/could they use something else?

I seem to recall a BR BEMU experiment using traditional lead-acid which while heavy (not a great issue on a rail vehicle) would avoid many of these issues as the lead remains valuable and reusable?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,458
I think they use Li ion batteries or atleast the 379 test did.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,164
Location
Somewhere, not in London
LUL Battery Locos use lead acid, and have been running around for a rather long time.

(hence the bull plop alarms sounding when someone like Bombardier or Vivarail claim "First battery powered train")
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,671
Location
Northern England
Are there any battery EMU orders (excluding prototypes) planned other than the additional battery cars for Windermere? I'm unsure what technology these will use but it'll be interesting to see.
 

Metal_gee_man

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
669
It seems the best chance we will see truly battery powered trains is when Solid State batteries become available, half the size, lighter batteries, double the life and more sustainable.

Here is an article from Car Magazine

Samsung solid-state battery breakthrough could double EV range
Published: 11 May 2020

Electronics giant Samsung has made an important step towards making solid-state batteries a viable tech for electric cars - meaning longer ranges for electric vehicle (EV) owners.


Samsung’s Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT) claims the chemical breakthrough means the size of the battery is halved, so you could theoretically double the range of today's first-generation EVs, from around 200-300 miles to nearer 400-600 on one charge.

The secret to Samsung’s super battery lies in its electrolyte. In conventional EV batteries, the electrolyte is a liquid, but Samsung’s scientists and engineers have developed solid electrolyte technology, which is far denser than the liquid approach.

Master at SAIT’s Next Generation Battery Lab and the leader of the project, Dongmin Im, said: 'The product of this study could be a seed technology for safer, high-performance batteries of the future. Going forward, we will continue to develop and refine all-solid-state battery materials and manufacturing technologies to help take EV battery innovation to the next level.'


Boosting energy density by a claimed factor of three, Samsung's prototype solid-state batteries introduce a new silver-carbon coating known as Ag-C, which is just 5.0 micrometers thick. This Ag-C nanocomposite not only allows more compact packaging but resists the growth of ‘dendrites’ - the chemical formation of needle-like crystals which reduces battery capacity over many charge cycles, as well as the stability of the pack.

Samsung says they can be recharged more than 1000 times (about half a million miles of total range) for a future of more attractive and compelling electric vehicles.

Electric cars are improving constantly in terms of mileage, performance and charging time – but there’s still a lot of room for improvement. While the number of hybrid cars is only likely to increase, fully-electric vehicles aren’t quite ready overtake the internal combustion engine.


That’s because most EVs and hybrids rely on electric motors powered by lithium-ion batteries, using the same tech that powers smartphones and laptops. Essentially an evolution on chemical batteries, lithium-ion batteries work well in EVs, but there are better solutions.

The use of a liquid electrolyte in lithium-ion batteries comes with a suite of disadvantages. Capacity and ability to deliver peak charge deteriorates over time and lithium-ion batteries also bleed a lot of heat, requiring weighty cooling systems to be integrated into their design. And thanks to the flammable liquid they contain, lithium-ion batteries can catch fire or even explode if damaged in an accident.

For the last few years, car makers have begun to mention solid state batteries as the next breakthrough EVs, usually quoting insane performance and range at the same time. So, what makes solid-state battery tech so good for EVs, how does it work – or is it just a bunch of vapourware?

What are solid-state batteries?
Simply put, solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte as opposed to the liquid or polymer gel one found in current lithium-ion batteries, and it can take the form of ceramics, glass, sulphites or solid polymers.

Solid state battery

Solid electrolyte aside, solid-state batteries function much like those in lithium-ion batteries, in that they contain electrodes (cathodes and anodes) separated by an electrolyte that allows charged ions to pass through it.

How do solid state batteries work?
Much the same way as a normal battery, if we’re honest. The flow of ions trigger a chemical reaction between the battery’s materials called ‘Redox’ where, when discharging power, oxidation occurs at the anode to create compounds with free electrons, which deliver electric energy, and reduction at the cathode which sees compounds gain electrons and thus store power. When a battery is charged the process is reversed.

Much like lithium-ion batteries, when delivering power in solid-state batteries, aka discharging, positively charged ions travel through the electrolyte from the negative electrode (anode) to the positive one (cathode). This leads to a build up of positive charge in the cathode which attracts electrons from the anode. But as the electrons can’t travel through the electrolyte they have to travel across a circuit and thus deliver power to whatever it’s connected to, say an electric motor.

During charging, the opposite happens with ions flowing to the anode building up a charge that sees electrons pulled to it across a circuit from the cathode. When no more ions will flow to the negative electrode, the battery is considered fully charged.

Solid-state batteries have been around for a while, but are only used for small electronic devices like RFID tags and pacemakers and in their current state are non-rechargeable. As such, work is being done to allow them to power larger devices and be recharged.

What makes solid-state batteries the next big thing?
Thanks to the solid electrolyte having a smaller footprint, solid-state batteries promise some two to ten times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries of the same size. That means more powerful batteries without extra space, or more compact battery packs without compromising on power. That means powerful and longer range electric cars or more compact and lighter EVs. They are also expected to charge faster.

Better efficiency and energy density means solid-state batteries don't require the cooling and control components that lithium-ion batteries do either, and that means a smaller overall footprint along with more chassis freedom and less weight. It’s little wonder that solid state is most quoted by performance car manufacturers; Bentley sees the technology as its primary way to make electrification work for them.

Safety is another advantage solid-state batteries claim to offer. Exothermic reactions in lithium-ion batteries can cause them to get hot, expand and potentially rupture spilling flammable and hazardous liquid electrolyte; in some cases this has caused minor explosions. Having a solid electrolyte effectively bypasses this problem.

Finally, the use of the solid-state electrolyte means the batteries can withstand more discharge and charge cycles than lithium-ion batteries, as they don’t have to suffer electrode corrosion caused by chemicals in the liquid electrolyte or the build up of solid layers in the electrolyte that deteriorates battery life. Solid-state batteries could be re-charged up to seven times more, giving them a potential lifespan of ten years as opposed to the couple of years a lithium-ion battery is expected to effectively last for.

Drawbacks
You might wonder why solid-state batteries aren’t being used in EVs given they seen to be the panacea to the problems in lithium-ion batteries. But the challenge with solid-state batteries is they are very difficult to manufacture at scale.

Not only are they currently too expensive to be pushed out into commercial use, there’s still a lot of work to be done to make them ready for mass market use, notably in EVs.

At the moment, there’s still a need to find the right atomic and chemical composition for a solid electrolyte that has the right ionic conductivity to deliver enough power for an EV motor.

That's why we prefixed the advantages of solid-state batteries with ‘could’ as they’ve yet to prove themselves out in the real-world in a consumer gadget let alone an electric car.

Getting the solid electrolyte right is particularly important as it’s the precursor to allowing the use of lithium anodes, which can produce more lithium-ions and thereby more energy. A solid-state electrode is thought to be the solution to the problem of damaging needle-like structures called dendrites forming on the anode as it charges.

Charging ahead
Despite these challenges, the allure of solid-state batteries is clearly strong, as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan teamed up to create the Libtec consortium to develop solid-state batteries, with the former supposedly due to reveal a solid-state battery powered car at the Tokyo Olympics this year.

And there are academic institutions, battery makers, and material specialists looking into how solid-state batteries can be developed into next-generation power sources for mass use. There’s no shortage of hype and interest in solid-state batteries.

However, Toyota doesn't expect to manage mass production of solid-state batteries until the middle of the decade. And other car makers like Volkswagen aren’t expecting to have solid-state batteries ready for car use until at least 2025.

IBM and Daimler are working together to better understand battery technology. 'We need to find a fundamentally different chemistry to create the batteries of the future,' Katie Pizzolato, director of applications research at IBM, says. 'Quantum computing could let us effectively peer inside the batteries chemical reactions, to better understand the materials and reactions that will give the world those better batteries.'

Vacuum and other air-blowing tech maker Dyson had planned to make an electric car powered by solid-state batteries by 2021. But it killed off its car plans last Autumn, though it aims to keep working on the battery tech.

Fisker Inc, the reincarnation of the collapsed Fisker Automotive, previously stated a lofty ambition of having a car that uses solid-state batteries ready for 2020. But at the Consumer Electronics Show this year, it simply showed off the Ocean SUV, which is powered by lithium-ion batteries; there was no word on a solid-state battery setup.

So while there’s a lot of activity around the development of solid-state batteries, it’s quite unlikely you’ll see an EV powered by them on the road any time soon.

A short circuit
As one of the largest lithium-ion battery makers in the world, Panasonic has skin in that battery game. Nevertheless it reckons solid-state batteries are still some ten years away from commercial use.

It does co-own Tesla’s Gigafactory and supplies the batteries for Tesla cars, and it reckons the improvement in EV batteries in the short-term will come from further developing lithium-ion batteries.

Rather than go down the solid-state route, Tesla is working on improving the performance of lithium-ion batteries, with it last year touting new chemistry which could power an EV for more than a million miles.

Given the improvements in lithium-ion batteries and the millage that can be extracted out from them, as well as how they are already being mass produced, it’s unlikely we’ll see them ousted by solid-state batteries anytime soon.

But solid state batteries do look like the future power source for electric cars, it’s just the road to them might be longer than first thought.

Check out more CAR Tech news here

By Roland Moore-Coyler
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,136
Location
Dunblane
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about those
The Northern ORR 100 day report is also suggesting they would prefer electrifying windermere (again), rather than maintaining a small subfleet of battery 331s. Can't find it but was discussed in detail on another thread
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The Northern ORR 100 day report is also suggesting they would prefer electrifying windermere (again), rather than maintaining a small subfleet of battery 331s. Can't find it but was discussed in detail on another thread

I fear that just means more dithering, though I can't disagree with the logic.
 

Gaz55

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2020
Messages
84
Location
Doncaster
The latest Modern Railways has some snippets on Northern not wanting to have a small subfleet of battery powered stock.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,775
Location
Glasgow
Occurred to me on reading another thread - do battery EMUs use Li-ion type batteries, with their lifespan issues, or do/could they use something else?

I seem to recall a BR BEMU experiment using traditional lead-acid which while heavy (not a great issue on a rail vehicle) would avoid many of these issues as the lead remains valuable and reusable?

A Derby Lightweight was specially equipped with battery equipment at Cowlairs depot for trials and was used in passenger traffic on the Aberdeen-Ballater line alternating with a conventional DMU. The unit actually survives on the preserved section of the Royal Deeside Line but is non-operational other than as hauled stock. It entered service in 1958, though was in and out of traffic between 1960 and 1966 when the line closed and it was stored at Cowlairs.

Some good technical info can be found here on the railcar website: https://railcar.co.uk/type/battery-multiple-unit/summary
 

ivzem

Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
50
Location
Potsdam, Germany
Are there any battery EMU orders (excluding prototypes) planned other than the additional battery cars for Windermere? I'm unsure what technology these will use but it'll be interesting to see.
Alongside the 756's there are also the 230s for Wrexham - Bidston and the Class 398s (which unlike the 756 and 230 don't have any diesel engines, making them arguably "purer" battery EMUs). The future Tyne and Wear units will also have batteries for depot shunting and could have more batteries installed if needed.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,880
Location
Nottingham
A Derby Lightweight was specially equipped with battery equipment at Cowlairs depot for trials and was used in passenger traffic on the Aberdeen-Ballater line alternating with a conventional DMU. The unit actually survives on the preserved section of the Royal Deeside Line but is non-operational other than as hauled stock. It entered service in 1958, though was in and out of traffic between 1960 and 1966 when the line closed and it was stored at Cowlairs.

Some good technical info can be found here on the railcar website: https://railcar.co.uk/type/battery-multiple-unit/summary
Interesting that that link says the Ballater line, 43 miles with some severe gradients, did not over-stretch the batteries (they were charged both ends) and units in Germany could travel well over 100 miles before recharging. It states the cells on the Ballater unit were lead-acid and presumably the German ones were too. That sort of duty cycle might work on many modern routes too, although performance was probably less than Sprinter-like (line speed of 50mph) and modern diagrams wouldn't have layovers of 1hr plus that could be used for charging! However they did weight 17.5 tons across the two cars, requiring a strengthened underframe, to drive a unit that was probably otherwise considerably lighter than today's designs. Also the heating was oil-fired so there would have been very little auxiliary load on the batteries.
 

superkev

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
2,686
Location
west yorkshire
The Northern ORR 100 day report is also suggesting they would prefer electrifying windermere (again), rather than maintaining a small subfleet of battery 331s. Can't find it but was discussed in detail on another thread
Not sure how much Network rail electrification costs per mile but the life cost of say 6 x 331 battery coaches with battery replacement every 7 to 10 years must be colossal. They would probably need special body shells because of the weight too.
K
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Also the heating was oil-fired so there would have been very little auxiliary load on the batteries.

The electric buses used on the buses used on the MK route 7 trial had diesel heaters. The only other sensible option, really, is storage heating of some kind (i.e. as the batteries charge, heat bricks are also heated from the 25kV). The Vevey funicular (and probably others) in Switzerland work (sort of) on that basis, the "unit" plugs into mains powered heating at each end but there is none during the actual journey, though that didn't use bricks, rather it just relied on the heat staying within the vehicle for what is a fairly short (15 minute or so) journey. The battery load of heating, unless it can be done from waste heat e.g. from the traction motors, would be too much.

Lighting would presumably be LED so the draw for that would be far, far less than the 1960s unit.

Having said that, there may be some merit in looking at the feasibility of air source heat pumps. If you've got aircon, it's effectively just running it in reverse (moving heat into the vehicle rather than out of it) and consumes far less power than resistance heating. A fridge is an air source heat pump - it kicks out the heat from the back that it's extracted from the air inside, effectively.
 
Last edited:

alangla

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2018
Messages
1,178
Location
Glasgow
Also the heating was oil-fired so there would have been very little auxiliary load on the batteries.

I‘ve seen recent battery powered buses emitting exhaust vapour from oil fired heating, so it’s still something that “zero emission” vehicles seem to have. I guess the issue with an EMU isn’t so much heat, which it would probably be ok to be without for a short time, but air conditioning, which would almost certainly need to be maintained.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,266
Not sure how much Network rail electrification costs per mile but the life cost of say 6 x 331 battery coaches with battery replacement every 7 to 10 years must be colossal. They would probably need special body shells because of the weight too.
K
Then there is the software to control it all to be written and tested, units stood down to have the battery vehicles inserted, software updated and units tested etc etc etc

It's to see why Northern is rapidly losing interest. Get the wires up (which should have been done back in 1974 when the northern West Coast was wired)!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's to see why Northern is rapidly losing interest. Get the wires up (which should have been done back in 1974 when the northern West Coast was wired)!

As long as they actually do (rather than just running DMUs until people forget about it), that's by far my preferred solution. Alternatives should only be looked at if proper 25kV electrification (or light rail conversion) is non-viable.

However...there are still places where battery EMUs might work...I doubt the wires will go to Barrow any time soon, so unless you move to Manchester Airport-Windermere being hourly and all Barrows a connection from Lancaster (which might well be worth doing) you still have some sort of need.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
1,638
Location
South Staffordshire
The Northern ORR 100 day report is also suggesting they would prefer electrifying windermere (again), rather than maintaining a small subfleet of battery 331s. Can't find it but was discussed in detail on another thread
Not surprised, but from what I remember DfT ordered an additional three class 195s for Northern to sidestep the Windermere electification cancellation. If the project is resurrected then theoretically those three 195s replace some150s - at least on paper.
No ? I didn't think so either !!!
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,671
Location
Northern England
Not surprised, but from what I remember DfT ordered an additional three class 195s for Northern to sidestep the Windermere electification cancellation. If the project is resurrected then theoretically those three 195s replace some150s - at least on paper.
No ? I didn't think so either !!!
Given that there are not enough DMUs anyway, especially with social distancing in force, the capacity three additional 195s would certainly not be a bad thing. Therefore, replacing the 150s would be madness.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,775
Location
Glasgow
Interesting that that link says the Ballater line, 43 miles with some severe gradients, did not over-stretch the batteries (they were charged both ends) and units in Germany could travel well over 100 miles before recharging. It states the cells on the Ballater unit were lead-acid and presumably the German ones were too. That sort of duty cycle might work on many modern routes too, although performance was probably less than Sprinter-like (line speed of 50mph) and modern diagrams wouldn't have layovers of 1hr plus that could be used for charging! However they did weight 17.5 tons across the two cars, requiring a strengthened underframe, to drive a unit that was probably otherwise considerably lighter than today's designs. Also the heating was oil-fired so there would have been very little auxiliary load on the batteries.


I believe the units were 60mph capable so that would've allowed wider use if the design had been perpetuated. One thing I wonder is whether they deliberately wrote in longer dwells to permit top-up charging at each end or if the timetable was always like that.

A modern system might permit similar performance charged overnight and with only 20-min top-up charges. I can't remember what the arrangements for the Greater Anglia trial unit were; did it get topped up off the OLE every now and again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top