Battery Powered Electrostars for Southern

[edwin_m]

It couldn't really be anything else, as the clearances through the (original) Thames Tunnel leave much to be desired.

I think the ELL extension pre-dated the latest ORR policy. In any case it's pretty low risk, mostly in tunnel or viaduct so trespass is difficult. The tunnel section will need isolation before workers can go on the track as with Underground lines, not sure if the same applies to the surface part but being a former four-track there are likely to be good walkways clear of the third rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

Will this really be that feasible on the Uckfield Line though where they regularly run 10 coach trains and its not like Eastbourne-Ashford where the trains will be operating on third rail up to Ore and then presumably charging again whilst sitting on the platform at Ashford.

Absolutely feasible.

Maybe they could upgrade the power supply on the electrified section so that they could charge as they were moving as well as station stops.

Doesn’t even need a power upgrade. EMUs are rarely on full power, even less so on the Uckfield circuit. There is no reason why they wouldn’t be charging pretty much all the time they are on the con rail, including when they are regen braking as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the ELL extension pre-dated the latest ORR policy. In any case it's pretty low risk, mostly in tunnel or viaduct so trespass is difficult. The tunnel section will need isolation before workers can go on the track as with Underground lines, not sure if the same applies to the surface part but being a former four-track there are likely to be good walkways clear of the third rail.

I think the whole TfL controlled section of the ELL is prohibited for track side working with the power on.

 

[387star]

171s have the comfiest seats on southern
Guess uckfield passengers have had it good for too long

By the way does anyone actually use the reading lights on electrostars?

 

[Doomotron]

171s have the comfiest seats on southern
Guess uckfield passengers have had it good for too long

By the way does anyone actually use the reading lights on electrostars?

I don't use them for reading, but on the older Electrostars with worse lighting, I turn them on to be able to see.

 

[Fincra5]

Absolutely feasible.




Doesn’t even need a power upgrade. EMUs are rarely on full power, even less so on the Uckfield circuit. There is no reason why they wouldn’t be charging pretty much all the time they are on the con rail, including when they are regen braking as well.

All depends on how much power is drawn from the Batteries to get the train moving Vs re-charge from braking. Obviously it takes a lot more power to start moving and build momentum. Once thats reached the train uses less power. However then gradients come along.

Now in theory you could strip a 387 or 379 of the AC equipment and use the free space under the PTOSL to house all the batteries.

Personally I'd say a 387 would be better. Only as the 379 is older. However not having been on a 379 I can't really compare the interior. Such as 387 uses mostly LED lighting (a good thing for battery power), lighter seats (not favourable for all on this forum) and the gangway doors are electric.

 

[Fincra5]

Thinking about it. You'd likely have to scrap the Peak, "Rye Shuttles" unless the battery capacity is good enough and the ReGen is strong enough. Can't imagine you'd get that much top-up charge on the short turn arounds at AFK.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thinking about it. You'd likely have to scrap the Peak, "Rye Shuttles" unless the battery capacity is good enough and the ReGen is strong enough. Can't imagine you'd get that much top-up charge on the short turn arounds at AFK.

Then make the turnarounds longer. Not necessarily in the platform. Or have a short stretch of con rail at Rye, energised only when a train is on it. Or both.

 

[aleggatta]

I wonder, whether it would be possible, to electrify the double track section of the marshlink (only a handful of miles I think), that would leave a less than 20 mile round trip on battery for the peak shuttles, another option would be to make the rye shuttles interwork with the coastway services, but this is all dependant on anticipated range in the final product.

With regards to rolling stock selection for the conversion, the traction systems on all electrostars are based off the same design, and a Bombardier engineer has told me that the conversion would work with any existing electrostar product, so it would make sense to me to use single voltage units, dump the steel counterweight from the PTOSL and load it up with batteries as required. Cost, however, might be a much more limiting factor at play, but if it is true that the 171s are going off lease, the choice will have already been made.

 

[Nym]

I think the ELL extension pre-dated the latest ORR policy. In any case it's pretty low risk, mostly in tunnel or viaduct so trespass is difficult. The tunnel section will need isolation before workers can go on the track as with Underground lines, not sure if the same applies to the surface part but being a former four-track there are likely to be good walkways clear of the third rail.

FYI... LU doesn't require per se an isolation to walk on track...

I've been on live track many a time in traffic hours, on live rail...

 

[Fincra5]

I wonder, whether it would be possible, to electrify the double track section of the marshlink (only a handful of miles I think), that would leave a less than 20 mile round trip on battery for the peak shuttles, another option would be to make the rye shuttles interwork with the coastway services, but this is all dependant on anticipated range in the final product.

With regards to rolling stock selection for the conversion, the traction systems on all electrostars are based off the same design, and a Bombardier engineer has told me that the conversion would work with any existing electrostar product, so it would make sense to me to use single voltage units, dump the steel counterweight from the PTOSL and load it up with batteries as required. Cost, however, might be a much more limiting factor at play, but if it is true that the 171s are going off lease, the choice will have already been made.

If you're going to extend the Juice by a few miles or, as Bald Rick suggested, add some juice at Rye, you might as well go the whole hog and link up Ore to Ashford. Its not a hugely demanding route. So perhaps a substation at Rye and a couple of TP Huts could do it...

 

[Bald Rick]

If you're going to extend the Juice by a few miles or, as Bald Rick suggested, add some juice at Rye, you might as well go the whole hog and link up Ore to Ashford. Its not a hugely demanding route. So perhaps a substation at Rye and a couple of TP Huts could do it...

Except it would be a lot cheaper, and safer, not to go the ‘whole hog’...

 

[Fincra5]

Except it would be a lot cheaper, and safer, not to go the ‘whole hog’...

Cheaper yes but that depends how much a cost would be of 1 Substation for a Charging Point at Rye. Where you'd need the "unsafe" 3rd rail anyways. Then the cost of modding the trains with batteries. So on.

Personally I don't think 3rd Rail is that unsafe. Its quite obvious which rail to avoid. I work around it all the time.

 

[Roast Veg]

Wrt to gradients, the clue as to whether they are an issue on Marshlink might be in the name.

 

[Fincra5]

Wrt to gradients, the clue as to whether they are an issue on Marshlink might be in the name.

Its still quite the incline to Ore from Three Oaks. I'm not so sure about the Uckfield Branch but I don't think its that flat...

The Marshlink, having just looked at a route pack, isn't actually that flat. Yes there are periods of LEVEL but also a fair few up/downs at 100 and then a fair amount of long-shallow inclines/ declines.

 

[RichJF]

Its still quite the incline to Ore from Three Oaks. I'm not so sure about the Uckfield Branch but I don't think its that flat...

Think there's a 1:75 gradient from Uckfield up to Crowborough & a descent from there to Eridge (not sure of that gradient). Would need some decent battery power to get climb the incline (esp if 8/12 car) from a standing start.

The Oxted Lines are quite hilly (not too bad on the electric sections) but south of Hurst Green would be interesting.

 

[physics34]

With the rumours that southern is to be an electrostar franchise eventually, that could mean 379s and even 376s coming in maybe, with 319s and 455s also needing replacing in a few years

 

[Fincra5]

So I was doing some thinking whilst driving 313's all day. Don't worry I'm not going to suggest BEMU 313s .

I did wonder how Bombardier fitted batteries to a 379; seeing as space as limited. It turns out from this document that they appear to have swapped the MCM from the MOSL and replaced it with batteries. Having driven 377s many times with an MCM out; It's awfully sluggish. Essentially carrying round dead weight requiring the 2 remaining MCMs to do the work of 3.

So my thinking is DC only unit is the better choice. Unless you remove the AC equipment from an AC or DV unit.

Further to this, I was thinking about the systems a bank of batteries have to power...

Take a 4 Car 377 for example: There's 8 Saloon HVACs, 2x ACMs, 3x MCMs, 2 Vacuum Toilets, Saloon environment (Lighting, Plugs, PIS, CCTV), then all the Cab Equipment (In the active cab - inc DOO Systems) and Cab HVAC. It's a fair amount of power.

If it was my project, I'd look at taking 377/3s (Metro Replacement Req) and use these for the BEMU. There's one less coach so therefore; 1 less MCM, 1 Less Toilet, 2 Less HVACs, 1 coach Less of Saloon environment.
So in theory, with the same Battery Bank on a 3 Car vs a 4 Car, you'd get better range as less power is required for the same journey vs a 4 car. At least that's my thinking anyways .
A 3 Car 377 would be fine for the current Marshlink Services - Can always be doubled up as required as ASDO is fitted.
On the Uckfield Line they could run 4 units to make the 12 Car for Peaks. And reduce down to 6 Off-Peak. 3/6/9/12 Flexibility.

Food for thought.

 

[Murray J]

i'm on a discord where one of the admins has friends at southern who say that the 171s are being swapped for EMR 158s. make of that what you will.

 

[Fincra5]

i'm on a discord where one of the admins has friends at southern who say that the 171s are being swapped for EMR 158s. make of that what you will.

Highly Unlikely. It more likely some miscommunication that the 171s are being used to replace EMRs 158s. (Not really in this thread though).

 

[JonathanH]

Isn't the fact that there isn't much room under a 4 car 377 the reason why they were looking at 6 car 376s (albeit with a massive amount of internal work needed) - this would have more space beneath if it had two unpowered coaches

 

[Murray J]

to be fair all but 6 of the 171s are going to EMR, not necessarily replacing the 158s but a mix. I though it was rather unlikely as well but according to the source southern is looking for a replacement with higher acceleration and gangways, at the same time with that criteria the replacement could be any type of stock.

 

[paul1609]

How much would it actually cost to electrify Marshlink with overhead? Platform 2 at Ashford is supposedly getting overhead and a connection to HS1 anyway? The electrical load is a maximum of 2 4 car EMUs and Ashford is equipped to allow 2 x 16 car Eurostars simultaneously but only has 3 trains per day in each direction. There must surely be sufficient spare capacity on the HS1 supply? The is no shortage of AC supplies in this part of the country.
The DC electrification already goes right to the mouth of ORE Tunnel. If there are clearance issues in the Tunnel extend the third rail through the tunnel and then make special isolation requirements for work in there. Transfer the line back to Southeastern who already have sufficient dual voltage 375s.

 

[Fincra5]

Isn't the fact that there isn't much room under a 4 car 377 the reason why they were looking at 6 car 376s (albeit with a massive amount of internal work needed) - this would have more space beneath if it had two unpowered coaches

Not heard that one. But there's plenty of space under the DC only Unit PTOSL for Battery Banks. All thats there is the compressor/ main res tank and some counter-balance weights. The AC units would prove harder due to the transformer (etc) being under the PTOSL. Which explains why on the 379 Test Train, they swapped the MCM from the MOSL to the batteries- resulting in a less powerful train however.

 

[387star]

Meanwhile two cat 158s trundle around the Southampton metro area on third rail lines

 

[southern442]

i'm on a discord where one of the admins has friends at southern who say that the 171s are being swapped for EMR 158s. make of that what you will.

Highly likely to be a misunderstanding but I absolutely adore the 158's so I would love for that to happen.
377/3's are a good shout though, because you could run them at 12-car length on the Uckfield line no problem as they have gangways, only thing would be getting units to replace them on metro duties (376's or 707's maybe? That way you could transfer the spare 4-car 377's on to 455 diagrams).

 

[Fincra5]

Highly likely to be a misunderstanding but I absolutely adore the 158's so I would love for that to happen.
377/3's are a good shout though, because you could run them at 12-car length on the Uckfield line no problem as they have gangways, only thing would be getting units to replace them on metro duties (376's or 707's maybe? That way you could transfer the spare 4-car 377's on to 455 diagrams).

Not to get off Topic but I think the 707s would be a good shout for SN Metro. GTR already have experience with these Desiro City units. Plus they've got DOO Equipment for 10 car.

Then send the 4 cars that were paired with 2x 377/3s to replace 455s. Good shout.

Too good and the railway doesn't run on common sense.

 

[Bald Rick]

How much would it actually cost to electrify Marshlink with overhead? Platform 2 at Ashford is supposedly getting overhead and a connection to HS1 anyway? The electrical load is a maximum of 2 4 car EMUs and Ashford is equipped to allow 2 x 16 car Eurostars simultaneously but only has 3 trains per day in each direction. There must surely be sufficient spare capacity on the HS1 supply? The is no shortage of AC supplies in this part of the country

If it was done at the same price as the cheapest AC electrification in this country recently, and there was no need for another feeder station (in my view very unlikely given the distance), then it would not be less than £100m.

 

[Bald Rick]

Cheaper yes but that depends how much a cost would be of 1 Substation for a Charging Point at Rye. Where you'd need the "unsafe" 3rd rail anyways. Then the cost of modding the trains with batteries. So on.

Personally I don't think 3rd Rail is that unsafe. Its quite obvious which rail to avoid. I work around it all the time.

Those that work around third rail naturally understand it. The issue is those that don’t understand it, which is pretty much everyone else.

 

[Meerkat]

If it was done at the same price as the cheapest AC electrification in this country recently, and there was no need for another feeder station (in my view very unlikely given the distance), then it would not be less than £100m.

That’s a lot of money. How much will developing, building, and maintaining battery trains cost?