Battery Powered Electrostars for Southern

[Doomotron]

yeah, what i'd suggest is if SN do have 158s they'd either work in tandem with 170s/171s or more likely only be on the line short term until more stock, probably 170s or other diesel equivalents, are in service. in theory, 185s and 175s are possibly an option if they can't get their hands on 170s, not sure if they'll fit through the thin tunnels though.

185s definitely won't, I'm not sure about 175s (although Southern probably won't be wanting those for the same reasons they won't want 158s.

If they do get 158s in the end (which would be great for the Marshlink Line), they'd have to make a choice on the couplings of one of the fleets:

• 171s have got a TMS, making them much harder to work with 'legacy' classes.
• 158s would be the larger fleet.
• 171s will need to be converted in one go, reducing possible capacity during the cascade of 171s from Southern when moving to EMR or when being modified to work with 158s.
• 158s can have Dellners fitted when they're being refurbished.

 

[Mikey C]

I can understand the logic of replacing the 171s with Battery Electrostars (if it works)

I don't understand the logic of replacing 171s (which at least are related to the Southern Electrostars AND have the right door openings for busy commuter routes into London) with unsuitable end door stock, so that EMR can have a common fleet of Turbostars! That's an awful lot of effort and expense to make one franchise better and another one worse...

 

[Doomotron]

I can understand the logic of replacing the 171s with Battery Electrostars (if it works)

I don't understand the logic of replacing 171s (which at least are related to the Southern Electrostars AND have the right door openings for busy commuter routes into London) with unsuitable end door stock, so that EMR can have a common fleet of Turbostars! That's an awful lot of effort and expense to make one franchise better and another one worse...

I think we're about to stray into off-topic territory, but how about instead of taking Southern's Turbostars they take CrossCountry's, where the 158s would be much more suited?

 

[jayah]

At a rail users meeting 2 years ago in Rye they (Southern) told us that Battery Units had been considered but dismissed as impractical following the trials with the class 379. I didn't make last years meeting but am told the matter was not discussed further and in answer to a question following complaints about the Marshlink service being cut back to Eastbourne they said the existing inadequate rolling stock was all we were likely to get for the foreseeable future. The next meeting should be in May.

Tesla Model X is now 100KWH in an £85,000 car weighing about 2.5-3t.

It would be nice to Modern Railways run with this story and technology as their title suggests rather than pointing at diesel trains and saying E-L-E-C-T-R-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N which would cost £ billions and take decades.

This is the future and Uckfield is one place to try it out and develop the technology.

 

[paul1609]

I can understand the logic of replacing the 171s with Battery Electrostars (if it works)

I don't understand the logic of replacing 171s (which at least are related to the Southern Electrostars AND have the right door openings for busy commuter routes into London) with unsuitable end door stock, so that EMR can have a common fleet of Turbostars! That's an awful lot of effort and expense to make one franchise better and another one worse...

Do EMRs 170s use selective door opening? If so the 4 and 3 car 171s would require rewiring as well as new couplers to be compatible with the 170s.
When the Scotrail 170s were converted to 171s it took something like 2 years to get this working correctly. the ex scotrail units were so unreliable they were banned from Marshlink for this reason.

 

[paul1609]

Tesla Model X is now 100KWH in an £85,000 car weighing about 2.5-3t.

It would be nice to Modern Railways run with this story and technology as their title suggests rather than pointing at diesel trains and saying E-L-E-C-T-R-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N which would cost £ billions and take decades.

This is the future and Uckfield is one place to try it out and develop the technology.

Ive not driven a Model X but I have driven a Model S from the Eastern Lake District to Kent and back. Useable range in British Winter Motorway conditions is probably 200 miles if you push it. I chickened out at Cherwell Valley services on the M40. Build quality is awful.

 

[edwin_m]

Tesla Model X is now 100KWH in an £85,000 car weighing about 2.5-3t.

It would be nice to Modern Railways run with this story and technology as their title suggests rather than pointing at diesel trains and saying E-L-E-C-T-R-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N which would cost £ billions and take decades.

This is the future and Uckfield is one place to try it out and develop the technology.

To put it in context that's getting on for twice the weight of a Ford Mondeo. You can make a car a bit bigger and heavier to accommodate a battery without causing major problems. But on a train the amount of space available before you start losing passenger capacity is quite limited. Extra weight increases energy consumption and/or reduces performance when on the third rail, increases track maintenance costs and may even make the train incompatible with some routes.

I agree it would be interesting to see an update on MR's analysis taking account of advances in battery technology and potential electrification cost reductions in the couple of years or so since they last looked at it. I've no doubt electrification remains the best option for high-speed routes where the train couldn't carry the necessary batteries, or very busy routes where infrastructure will be cheaper than fitting and operating batteries to many units. But the break-even point between batteries and electrification may well have moved.

Muddying the waters is the ORR refusal to countenance third rail except in circumstances which effectively rule it out on this type of scheme, for which they have never published an evidence-based justification. The electrification alternative therefore has to be a free-standing 25kV scheme with its own feeder station, plus enabling dual-voltage on a fairly large fleet of units. This would be much more expensive for these routes than a third rail extension.

 

[southern442]

I think we're about to stray into off-topic territory, but how about instead of taking Southern's Turbostars they take CrossCountry's, where the 158s would be much more suited?

Not sure how relevant this is, but turbostars can do 100mph, 158s only 90. Now on Southern this wouldn't matter because I believe the 171's only get up to about 85-90, however on XC I would imagine the 170s regularly reach 100mph, so 158s would maybe give quite a reduction in journey times?

I personally don't see a huge issue with 158s being used on Southern. Only problems are getting them up to 10-car on the Uckfield line, this might require 3-car units, and also dwell times, which I only think would present an issue at East Croydon, (however platform 5 is comparatively lightly used so could be the solution to this). 4-car 158s could bring back the fast Marshlink service which would certainly be welcome, and overall I would not say they are particularly inferior to the 171's, ride quality and comfort are good and they still have several years left in them.

 

[jayah]

To put it in context that's getting on for twice the weight of a Ford Mondeo. You can make a car a bit bigger and heavier to accommodate a battery without causing major problems. But on a train the amount of space available before you start losing passenger capacity is quite limited. Extra weight increases energy consumption and/or reduces performance when on the third rail, increases track maintenance costs and may even make the train incompatible with some routes.

I agree it would be interesting to see an update on MR's analysis taking account of advances in battery technology and potential electrification cost reductions in the couple of years or so since they last looked at it. I've no doubt electrification remains the best option for high-speed routes where the train couldn't carry the necessary batteries, or very busy routes where infrastructure will be cheaper than fitting and operating batteries to many units. But the break-even point between batteries and electrification may well have moved.

Muddying the waters is the ORR refusal to countenance third rail except in circumstances which effectively rule it out on this type of scheme, for which they have never published an evidence-based justification. The electrification alternative therefore has to be a free-standing 25kV scheme with its own feeder station, plus enabling dual-voltage on a fairly large fleet of units. This would be much more expensive for these routes than a third rail extension.

The weight, space and cost of rail vehicles should make a lot of this much easier to overcome. For example battery costs are a tiny fraction of vehicle costs, unlike electric cars and on many routes the trains connects to the grid every 60mins.

 

[Southern Dvr]

158s are ‘normal’ length compared to a longer 171. Therefore a 10 car 171 = a 12 car 159

 

[edwin_m]

The weight, space and cost of rail vehicles should make a lot of this much easier to overcome. For example battery costs are a tiny fraction of vehicle costs, unlike electric cars and on many routes the trains connects to the grid every 60mins.

I'll probably agree with you for the Southern routes. You seem to be suggesting batteries are the solution everywhere and I can't support that.

 

[edwin_m]

158s are ‘normal’ length compared to a longer 171. Therefore a 10 car 171 = a 12 car 159

Both 158/159 and 171 are around 23m per vehicle. Of the Sprinter classes only 150s are shorter at about 20m.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not convinced 158s would do anything special for dwell time, given the door and seat layout. And that's a big big deal on the GTR network. Also - are 10 coach formations of 158s really plausible (I know SWR run some fairly long 158/159 formations but not sure about that length)? You couldn't get away with permanently shortening the peak trains any more than has been done - it would be political suicide.

SWR (and SWT previously) definitely operate a couple of 10 car formations - Salisbury had platform alterations to allow for the whole train to fit, around 10 years ago. But 9 car are commonplace.

 

[Doomotron]

Not sure how relevant this is, but turbostars can do 100mph, 158s only 90. Now on Southern this wouldn't matter because I believe the 171's only get up to about 85-90, however on XC I would imagine the 170s regularly reach 100mph, so 158s would maybe give quite a reduction in journey times?

I personally don't see a huge issue with 158s being used on Southern. Only problems are getting them up to 10-car on the Uckfield line, this might require 3-car units, and also dwell times, which I only think would present an issue at East Croydon, (however platform 5 is comparatively lightly used so could be the solution to this). 4-car 158s could bring back the fast Marshlink service which would certainly be welcome, and overall I would not say they are particularly inferior to the 171's, ride quality and comfort are good and they still have several years left in them.

158s have better acceleration than the 170s (much better) so would be in the same area of the Avanti AT300s: faster acceleration, lower maximum speed. Also 10mph difference is tiny, hence the use of Class 90s and speed-limited 373s on the ECML.

Considering the loadings on a lot of Southern's diesel trains, 158s will not be fun in the slightest. On the Marshlink Line, the interior of the 158s with the Grammer IC3000s is great as a lot of passengers on that route went the whole way to Brighton, but at busy intermediate stations like Rye, Hastings, Eastbourne, Lewes or East Croydon, they will cause a lot of problems.

However, if they do get 158s, at least we might get the trolley back.

 

[Fincra5]

A Class 158 wouldn't at all be suitable for Today's SN Operations. The dwell times do not suit the small end doors of a 158.

SN will not release 171s until a replacement is in service. How long's a piece of string...

IMO, the best solution would be for SN to lease the 707s when they are returned from SWR. Thus releasing the 3 car 377s from Metro Duties (where they are paired to form 10 Cars with a 4 Car Unit). Mod the 377/3s to utilise the space under the PTOSL for Battery Banks, to power the 2 DMOS'. The 28 (Not including 377-342) would roughly cover the 20 171's in operation. Easy to keep one Subclass as Battery Mods.

On the Uckfield like they could be paired to 12 Car (4 Units) In peak and run down to 3 or 6 car formations off-peak. Marshlink would be fine as 3 Car Units.

I can't see SN getting any DMU to replace the 171s...

 

[D365]

IMO, the best solution would be for SN to lease the 707s when they are returned from SWR. Thus releasing the 3 car 377s from Metro Duties (where they are paired to form 10 Cars with a 4 Car Unit). Mod the 377/3s to utilise the space under the PTOSL for Battery Banks, to power the 2 DMOS'. The 28 (Not including 377-342) would roughly cover the 20 171's in operation. Easy to keep one Subclass as Battery Mods.

From what I understand when I was researching the IPEMU (379013), fitting batteries to a 3-car EMU would be rather difficult.

 

[JonathanH]

dwell times, which I only think would present an issue at East Croydon, (however platform 5 is comparatively lightly used so could be the solution to this

As noted many times on this forum, there is a good reason why platform 5 is not used northbound (other than for the departure of the Milton Keynes service) and it isn't because they are keeping it free for longer dwell times on London bound services from Uckfield.

Poor dwell times on the Uckfield trains would cause disruption to departure times of the East Croydon to Milton Keynes service.

 

[aleggatta]

From what I understand when I was researching the IPEMU (379013), fitting batteries to a 3-car EMU would be rather difficult.

Whilst admittedly there may be a requirement for a custom build of the TMS so that a MCM could communicate with the equipment on the PTOSL (i'm not aware that any trailer VCU has had to control a motor drive unit), the space available and the benefit of not removing two motored bogies is preferable (on the IPEMU the traction motors were not in use on the trial unit). It also appears that on the IPEMU the DC batteries fed the main DC bus (the same as used for third rail) so there may have to be more switchgear to disconnect the shoe gear when operating in battery mode

 

[Murray J]

IMO, the best solution would be for SN to lease the 707s when they are returned from SWR. Thus releasing the 3 car 377s from Metro Duties (where they are paired to form 10 Cars with a 4 Car Unit). Mod the 377/3s to utilise the space under the PTOSL for Battery Banks, to power the 2 DMOS'. The 28 (Not including 377-342) would roughly cover the 20 171's in operation. Easy to keep one Subclass as Battery Mods.

wouldn't be surprised if something along those lines happens, seems the most logical solution to me, 707s would be good for SN or SE metro services, although personally still wishing for DMUs.

 

[Fincra5]

From what I understand when I was researching the IPEMU (379013), fitting batteries to a 3-car EMU would be rather difficult.

The 379 Conversion is different. A MOSL was used for the Battery Banks as Transformer Equipment, under the PTOSL, is needed for AC Operation. This reduced the amount of Motor Converter Modules (MCMs) from 3 to 2.
A 377/3 Doesn't need AC Equipment as its runs around on DC Land. Thus the PTOSL is fairly empty. Having a 3 Car, so only 2 MCMs increases the power available from the Batteries (In Theory) vs a 4 Car DC Unit which as 3 MCMs needing the Battery Power. Isolating one would be pointless as then the batteries are being used to haul Dead Weight.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree it would be interesting to see an update on MR's analysis taking account of advances in battery technology and potential electrification cost reductions in the couple of years or so since they last looked at it. I've no doubt electrification remains the best option for high-speed routes where the train couldn't carry the necessary batteries, or very busy routes where infrastructure will be cheaper than fitting and operating batteries to many units. But the break-even point between batteries and electrification may well have moved.

The weight, space and cost of rail vehicles should make a lot of this much easier to overcome. For example battery costs are a tiny fraction of vehicle costs, unlike electric cars and on many routes the trains connects to the grid every 60mins.

I'll probably agree with you for the Southern routes. You seem to be suggesting batteries are the solution everywhere and I can't support that.

The latest Tesla 100KWh battery pack weighs just over half a ton, which implies that a 1.2 MWh pack would be 6 tonnes. That would be enough to feed a 377/4 at full power for an hour. That would be more than enough to get to Uckfield and back, given how little of the trip is actually at full power and that regen braking would help recharge.

Meanwhile, 6 tonnes across 174 tonnes of unit is in the roundings, especially as the D.C. only units are ballasted to enable a common design with the AC units and their transformers.

I agree that batteries are not the solution for high speed services, nor for long distances off the juice. But the Uckfield, Marshlink and N Downs lines are just about perfect. By far the biggest obstacle is the cost of the R&D to prove it, along with a whole lot of ‘not invented here’.

 

[Class 466]

707s have a home, so Southern can’t use them.

 

[D365]

707s have a home, so Southern can’t use them.

Are you able to elaborate?

 

[Fincra5]

707s have a home, so Southern can’t use them.

Where are the off to after SWR O' Oracle?

 

[Energy]

The latest Tesla 100KWh battery pack weighs just over half a ton, which implies that a 1.2 MWh pack would be 6 tonnes. That would be enough to feed a 377/4 at full power for an hour. That would be more than enough to get to Uckfield and back, given how little of the trip is actually at full power and that regen braking would help recharge.

By the way, the batteries Tesla uses are made by Panasonic, as far as I'm aware anyone can buy them.

 

[rebmcr]

By the way, the batteries Tesla uses are made by Panasonic, as far as I'm aware anyone can buy them.

Previously yes, they were arrays of standard "18650" cells. Now they're moving to a slightly more space-efficient optimised design and manufacturing in-house.

 

[paul1609]

A Class 158 wouldn't at all be suitable for Today's SN Operations. The dwell times do not suit the small end doors of a 158.

SN will not release 171s until a replacement is in service. How long's a piece of string...

IMO, the best solution would be for SN to lease the 707s when they are returned from SWR. Thus releasing the 3 car 377s from Metro Duties (where they are paired to form 10 Cars with a 4 Car Unit). Mod the 377/3s to utilise the space under the PTOSL for Battery Banks, to power the 2 DMOS'. The 28 (Not including 377-342) would roughly cover the 20 171's in operation. Easy to keep one Subclass as Battery Mods.

On the Uckfield like they could be paired to 12 Car (4 Units) In peak and run down to 3 or 6 car formations off-peak. Marshlink would be fine as 3 Car Units.

I can't see SN getting any DMU to replace the 171s...

If Marshlink is to be extended back to Brighton as has been promised 3 cars won't be sufficient for peak loadings and stuff like Brighton and Hove football games. Even on the east end of the line there are weekend days when 4 car 171s are used because of events at Rye and the Pontins Holiday camp at Camber Sands. There were several trains earlier this year when the train had to leave people at Ashford International because they couldn't physically fit on a 2 car 171.
If we really really do have to go down this battery Path and Im far from convinced, then it would make sense for me for Marshlink East of Eastbourne to transfer from Southern to Southeastern and be operated as an extension of the London Victoria to Ashford stopping service via Maidstone East as it would facilitate the operation of the Rye Shuttles. Currently the Rye Shuttle diagrams operate 88 miles off the juice with only 10 min turnarounds at Ashford to recharge. Does anybody know if a 377 ASDO can operate on 1 coach platforms? My understanding of the regulations is that the Conductor Select Door opening will lose its grandfather rights once the 171s leave. How is disabled access affected if the coach with the wheelchair space is off the platform?

 

[aleggatta]

If Marshlink is to be extended back to Brighton as has been promised 3 cars won't be sufficient for peak loadings and stuff like Brighton and Hove football games. Even on the east end of the line there are weekend days when 4 car 171s are used because of events at Rye and the Pontins Holiday camp at Camber Sands. There were several trains earlier this year when the train had to leave people at Ashford International because they couldn't physically fit on a 2 car 171.
If we really really do have to go down this battery Path and Im far from convinced, then it would make sense for me for Marshlink East of Eastbourne to transfer from Southern to Southeastern and be operated as an extension of the London Victoria to Ashford stopping service via Maidstone East as it would facilitate the operation of the Rye Shuttles. Currently the Rye Shuttle diagrams operate 88 miles off the juice with only 10 min turnarounds at Ashford to recharge. Does anybody know if a 377 ASDO can operate on 1 coach platforms? My understanding of the regulations is that the Conductor Select Door opening will lose its grandfather rights once the 171s leave. How is disabled access affected if the coach with the wheelchair space is off the platform?

Running battery electrostars will enable much easier multiple working, as SDO will all be automatic and not require conductor intervention as is currently the case.
With regards to extension back to Brighton and loadings, it would also be possible to run a 7 or 11 car formation with non-battery units, with 8 or 4 cars staying behind at Eastbourne or Hastings with the 3 running onwards. The only constraints that I can see with running more than 3 cars on the Marshlink is the length of the passing loop at Rye. Would a 6 car fit? ASDO on 377s will work correctly on 1 coach platforms, but I don't know how PRM applies in this case (I can't remember what station has a one coach platform, or what it's access arrangements are to street, but I'm sure this would all play a part in any dispensation that might be considered if required)

 

[Fincra5]

If Marshlink is to be extended back to Brighton as has been promised 3 cars won't be sufficient for peak loadings and stuff like Brighton and Hove football games. Even on the east end of the line there are weekend days when 4 car 171s are used because of events at Rye and the Pontins Holiday camp at Camber Sands. There were several trains earlier this year when the train had to leave people at Ashford International because they couldn't physically fit on a 2 car 171.
If we really really do have to go down this battery Path and Im far from convinced, then it would make sense for me for Marshlink East of Eastbourne to transfer from Southern to Southeastern and be operated as an extension of the London Victoria to Ashford stopping service via Maidstone East as it would facilitate the operation of the Rye Shuttles. Currently the Rye Shuttle diagrams operate 88 miles off the juice with only 10 min turnarounds at Ashford to recharge. Does anybody know if a 377 ASDO can operate on 1 coach platforms? My understanding of the regulations is that the Conductor Select Door opening will lose its grandfather rights once the 171s leave. How is disabled access affected if the coach with the wheelchair space is off the platform?

I've not heard of the Marshlink Returning to Brighton...

377s with Gangways and ASDO are pretty flexible. A 6 Coach could operate between Hastings (Eastbourne) and Ashford when required.

When Brighton play at the Amex Seafords and some Hastings services are extended to 8 Car to move everyone along. The Marshlink is unaffected. But say it did return to Brighton. A unit could just couple up to more coaches at Eastbourne and continue on and Vice Versa.

You'd likely see platforms extended at least to 2 Coaches (if its 3 cars) as the PTOSL will be in the centre of the train.

 

[paul1609]

The latest Tesla 100KWh battery pack weighs just over half a ton, which implies that a 1.2 MWh pack would be 6 tonnes. That would be enough to feed a 377/4 at full power for an hour. That would be more than enough to get to Uckfield and back, given how little of the trip is actually at full power and that regen braking would help recharge.

Meanwhile, 6 tonnes across 174 tonnes of unit is in the roundings, especially as the D.C. only units are ballasted to enable a common design with the AC units and their transformers.

I agree that batteries are not the solution for high speed services, nor for long distances off the juice. But the Uckfield, Marshlink and N Downs lines are just about perfect. By far the biggest obstacle is the cost of the R&D to prove it, along with a whole lot of ‘not invented here’.

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.