Battery powered train now on test

[Class377/5]

The battery powered 379 has now started testing

Here's the PR statement

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-of-prototype-battery-powered-train-211f.aspx

Batteries included: Network Rail begins on-track trials of prototype battery-powered train

Britain’s first battery-powered train is being put through its paces in a series of on-track trials – a move which could ultimately lead to a fleet of battery-powered trains running on Britain’s rail network which are quieter and more efficient than diesel-powered trains, making them better for passengers and the environment.

Network Rail has successfully completed the retrofitting of its first battery-powered train and has now embarked upon a programme of trials at a test track in Derby, which will culminate with a series of high-speed tests at the Rail Innovation and Development Centre (RIDC) in Nottinghamshire later this year.

Although the project is in its very early stages, Network Rail and its partners believe battery-powered trains could be used to bridge gaps in otherwise electrified parts of the network or be used on branch lines where it would not be cost effective to install overhead electrification equipment, bringing the additional benefits of making the new trains cost-effective and sustainable.

Using an Abellio Greater Anglia Class 379 unit, which normally operates using electricity drawn from overhead power lines, Network Rail and its industry partners – including Bombardier, Abellio Greater Anglia, FutureRailway and the Department for Transport who are co-funding – have installed six battery rafts to the full train at Bombardier’s facility in Derby, where the first on-track test runs are now taking place.

Network Rail’s senior engineer leading on the Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit (IPEMU) project, James Ambrose, said: “Over the next five years, Network Rail has a target to reduce the cost of running Britain’s railway by a further 20 per cent. At the same time, we are always looking for ways to make the railway greener too. This project has the potential to contribute significantly towards both those goals.

“It’s still early days for what is an exciting and experimental project that tackles these two key objectives, but we’re thrilled to begin the next phase of testing and look forward to running the train on-track in live, high-speed tests.”

The battery rafts fitted to the Class 379 unit contain a battery box, isolation switch, power distribution control panel, battery charging inverter, batteries and battery monitoring system, all mounted within a bespoke, purpose-built rig. Their creation follows the successful testing of several types of battery technologies, including lithium iron magnesium and hot sodium nickel salt.

James added: “Although we’ve retrofitted the Abellio Greater Anglia Class 379 unit with lithium iron magnesium batteries, we continue to test other possible solutions so we can gather as much information and comparison data as possible for future development.”

Additional battery tests are now underway at the Bombardier Mannheim facility in Germany. On-track trials of the Abellio Greater Anglia Class 379 are now underway at a test track in Derby, and high-speed running has been scheduled at the RIDC towards the end of the year.

Notes to editors

The partners working on the IPEMU project are:

•Network Rail
•Department for Transport
•FutureRailway
•Abellio Greater Anglia
•Bombardier

Data gathered during the experiment will be used to determine what form any future Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit (IPEMU) will take, be it a straight battery unit or hybrid.

Any future IPEMU would most likely be designed as a new train and not an adapted unit, to minimise energy consumption but this project will also provide useful information for retrofit.

About FutureRailway: FutureRailway is a cross industry collaboration between Network Rail and RSSB to help the whole industry deliver the Rail Technical Strategy. It incorporates the activities of the former Enabling Innovation Team, which was set up by the rail industry to accelerate the uptake of innovation. Our approach is to: understand the challenges that industry faces; connect potential innovators with these challenges; and, where necessary with potential funding. The team reports to the Technical Strategy Leadership Group (TSLG) and is supported by the Rail Delivery Group as well as the Department for Transport.

Hopefully the testing will go well and provide a unit for the future where units mostly run under the wires. Something that will be helpful as electrification schemes progress.

 

[jopsuk]

It's not Britain's first battery powered train! The first one, the BEMU, ran in service for a number of years!

 

[madannie77]

And the Eden Valley Railway and the East Kent Railway run trains using battery powered MLVs.

 

[HSTEd]

And thus sounds the death knell of the electrification programme.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And thus sounds the death knell of the electrification programme.

No. There are a limited number of types of lines that these sorts of battery-powered trains would be useful for. Battery power would be for last-mile or long-neutral-section purposes only on routes that don't yet justify electric freight. For example, the Morecambe and Heysham Port branch line would be ideal but the entire Cumbrian Coast line would not, unless used to prevent the need to put wires up in tunnels. A train without batteries will always be cheaper than one equipped with them, and a train equipped to run entire diagrams on battery power is going to be significantly more expensive and heavier than one with only a few minutes' worth of short self-powered use. The sorts of lines that desperately need electrification soon are ones with far too intensive a service for battery technology to come out cheaper in the long term, so the electrification programme will run as normal for decades to come.

 

[HSTEd]

No. There are a limited number of types of lines that these sorts of battery-powered trains would be useful for. Battery power would be for last-mile or long-neutral-section purposes only on routes that don't yet justify electric freight

Why would it only be so used?

Something like 2000kg of pouch type Lithium-ion batteries could support something approaching 500kWh (at ~250Wh/kg).
According to traction energy metrics a Class 357 vehicle (a reasonable exemplar for a regional unit - and improvements since then in traction packs and motors would offset energy use from hauling batteries) consumes something like 2.2kWh/km.
That means the pack can transport the train roughly 225km, although you wouldn't push it that far a high power charger (and a 25kV supply is very high power) could recharge the packs in something like an hour.
20 minutes on turnaround would boost range significantly.

~100km each-way off wire at the end of a diagram that spends an hour on wire (so half an hour each way, or 20 minutes each way with a 20 minute turnaround).
Trips that are relatively short on wire and relatively long on wire are now feasible for wiring.

Assuming this is limited to a 'few minutes' is very short sighted. Especially considering the rapidly reducing price of batteries - approaching $200/kW now. 500kWh per vehicle only adds a few tens of thousand pounds to the price of the vehicle - far cheaper than electrification, and it is sdropping all the time.

 

[jopsuk]

And thus sounds the death knell of the electrification programme.

Utter rot. This project has been in the works- and before that, in the planning stages- for a number of years as a complement to the electrification programme, specifically for branches

 

[rebmcr]

It's not Britain's first battery powered train! The first one, the BEMU, ran in service for a number of years!

Plus, haven't LUL used battery-powered departmental vehicles since the Victorian era?

 

[HSTEd]

Utter rot. This project has been in the works- and before that, in the planning stages- for a number of years as a complement to the electrification programme, specifically for branches

Indeed, but the rapidly falling cost of batteries and their increasing storage capacity per unit weight (thanks largely due to improvements in the now dominant lithium ion chemistry) will rapidly obliterate the business case for all sorts of electrification projects.

 

[WatcherZero]

Poppy cock, Li-Ion Batteries today are still only two to three times as good as lead batteries from 150 years ago! Improvement has been painstakingly slow. In fact even Li-Ion batteries were first invented more than a century ago and first commercialised 40 years ago!

 

[theageofthetra]

Surely a real benefit of this research could be an electric freight loco powered by batteries in a trailing vehicle. There must be lots of examples of freight movements which run over electrified lines and could then be run on batteries for the last few miles on a freight only spur or siding.

 

[HSTEd]

Poppy cock, Li-Ion Batteries today are still only two to three times as good as lead batteries from 150 years ago! Improvement has been painstakingly slow. In fact even Li-Ion batteries were first invented more than a century ago and first commercialised 40 years ago!

Yes, and the price is now falling like a rock.
Significant progress has been made in reducing the the weight of installation rather than the weight of the batteries themselves.
Optimised battery topologies and fancy new wire designs that trim weight off there.
Drastic improvements in charger technology.

Pouch cells are an obvious factor (plastic pouches instead of metal cell cases).

And battery units have been around for years. MLVs for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely a real benefit of this research could be an electric freight loco powered by batteries in a trailing vehicle. There must be lots of examples of freight movements which run over electrified lines and could then be run on batteries for the last few miles on a freight only spur or siding.

There is plenty of space in electric locomotives.
A locomotive that was the same weight as a Class 66, for example, would have the starting tractive effort of a Class 70 but would have something approaching 10MWe of at rail power.
10,000kW - or thirteen thousand horsepower.

 

[Bigfoot]

A locomotive that was the same weight as a Class 66, for example, would have the starting tractive effort of a Class 70 but would have something approaching 10MWe of at rail power.
10,000kW - or thirteen thousand horsepower.

The question is how long would it be likey to maintain this tractive effort?

 

[WatcherZero]

Say 10t of batteries put aside with a power demand of 4.5MW.

Taking median performance figures...

10000kg would produce around 7MWh available power at 90% discharge efficiency that would provide full power for less than 90 minutes.

 

[southern442]

And the Eden Valley Railway and the East Kent Railway run trains using battery powered MLVs.

Plus the countless narrow-gauge and miniature railways that use battery locos!

 

[pemma]

If I was involved on a team working on the bidding for the next TPE franchise I think the questions I'be be asking are:
1. Could they cover a North TPE diversion via Wakefield or Brighouse?
2. Could they be used to provide direct services to non-electrified destinations such as Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Windermere, Barrow and possibly Hull and Chester?
3. How much would the speed be restricted by under battery power?
4. What's the risk of the battery going flat if there is a severe delay on a non-electrified section?

 

[jopsuk]

I'm guessing that with the 379 they've taken on board key lessons from the Boeing 787 and spaced the cells out- the problem with large Li-Ion packs is that they really, really don't like heat but produce it.

 

[HSTEd]

Main problem is the 787's battery pack was that was in the same place as previous Boeing's had placed their pack.
Which was not in a climate controlled pressurised avionics bay - so it overheated when ambient pressures dropped to the levels found at ten kilometres altitude.

This should not be a problem for a train, especially as a fan is a simple to implement cooling solution.

 

[physics34]

Hoping for some 377s coverted to battery power on Uckfield line services soon, h

 

[AngusH]

If I was involved on a team working on the bidding for the next TPE franchise I think the questions I'be be asking are:
1. Could they cover a North TPE diversion via Wakefield or Brighouse?
2. Could they be used to provide direct services to non-electrified destinations such as Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Windermere, Barrow and possibly Hull and Chester?
3. How much would the speed be restricted by under battery power?
4. What's the risk of the battery going flat if there is a severe delay on a non-electrified section?

Excellent questions all. I'm still looking for more on exactly what they've tested. They appear to have tested the batteries on a simulated rig earlier and now they appear to be using the best systems from the first round of testing in an actual train.

So far I've only found the following

Notes to editors

The batteries were tested under simulations designed around potential live running routes in Anglia. These included intensive branch line round trips with 8 hours of continuous running, an extreme range test, extreme performance (high speed) test and extreme temperature test.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...ependently-powered-EMU-demonstrator-1f13.aspx



I've also found this page:

http://evnewsreport.com/tag/lithium-iron-magnesium-phosphate/

It talks about the battery types

Finally this page, which is a technical presentation on the topic:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30064788652


That presentation quotes target range of 30-50km, target acceleration and speed similar to DMU



Anyone else have any good information on this?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Plus, haven't LUL used battery-powered departmental vehicles since the Victorian era?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_battery-electric_locomotives

They do use them, they have done since 1905

The only places i can see battery powered trains being used is on low traffic branch lines

 

[edwin_m]

And thus sounds the death knell of the electrification programme.

This trial is to find out if the BatMU is a sensible and cost-effective way of bringing the benefits of electric traction to some branch lines, and of minimising running under the wires without forcing passengers to change from a branch DMU onto a main line electric. If it is too expensive or unreliable then we will know there is no point in taking the idea further until there is some breakthrough in battery technology.

If this works it might even increase electrification because the business case for some routes could be enhanced by using BatMUs instead of running diesels under the wires when they need to serve sections that aren't being electrified. Even if they reduce the amount of electrification, this would mean that spending on BatMUs was better value for taxpayers' money than wiring lightly-used or difficult routes.

At worst it makes no difference, and at best it allows more DMUs to be displaced more quickly and at less cost, onto routes where they are still needed.

I would be a bit cautious about allowing BatMUs into the sorts of sections where DMUs are restricted because of fire risks. There is a lot of energy stored in the battery pack (though not as much as in a diesel fuel tank) and the results could be serious if something happened that allowed it all to be released at once.

 

[broadgage]

If I was involved on a team working on the bidding for the next TPE franchise I think the questions I'be be asking are:
1. Could they cover a North TPE diversion via Wakefield or Brighouse?
2. Could they be used to provide direct services to non-electrified destinations such as Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Windermere, Barrow and possibly Hull and Chester?
3. How much would the speed be restricted by under battery power?
4. What's the risk of the battery going flat if there is a severe delay on a non-electrified section?

No significant risk of the battery going flat in the event of severe delay. With the train not moving no current would be used for traction. A little energy would be needed for lighting, but very small compared to traction. The air braking, air operated doors, and any air suspension should be as leak proof as possible to minimise electricity used by compressors.

Full speed should be possible under battery power, though the greater the speed the shorter the range from a given size battery.

 

[Yew]

No significant risk of the battery going flat in the event of severe delay. With the train not moving no current would be used for traction. A little energy would be needed for lighting, but very small compared to traction. The air braking, air operated doors, and any air suspension should be as leak proof as possible to minimise electricity used by compressors.

Full speed should be possible under battery power, though the greater the speed the shorter the range from a given size battery.

What about air con however? That can use a fair chunk of power

 

[NotATrainspott]

What about air con however? That can use a fair chunk of power

Or heating, for that matter. In an internal combustion car the heating power comes from the heat of the engine, and since electric cars produce very little waste heat any cabin heating has to use energy from the battery. Trains on short-distance hops are going to be more than capable of losing much of their internal cabin heating, especially on a long journey with many stops. If battery power were just used for short extensions of otherwise-electric services, such as a service to Morecambe, this might not be a problem but it would certainly be a problem on a longer distance service like the Cumbrian Coast.

 

[davyp]

Would be interesting to see the battery unit tested on the Hazel Grove to Buxton line. Maybe a battery unit is the only solution for the line over time as there isn't much chance of electrification.

 

[pemma]

Would be interesting to see the battery unit tested on the Hazel Grove to Buxton line. Maybe a battery unit is the only solution for the line over time as there isn't much chance of electrification.

I've heard the possibility of a half-hourly Buxton-Liverpool via Warrington stopper is being looked at and if that goes ahead it could mean no services terminating at Hazel Grove in the off-peak period.

 

[HSTEd]

If this works it might even increase electrification because the business case for some routes could be enhanced by using BatMUs instead of running diesels under the wires when they need to serve sections that aren't being electrified. Even if they reduce the amount of electrification, this would mean that spending on BatMUs was better value for taxpayers' money than wiring lightly-used or difficult routes.

The railway does not often take the best-value option.
If it did there would be more electrification trains and the Midland Main Line would have been electrified ahead of (or at the same time as) the Great Western.

The government of the day (and indeed for all days in the forseeable future) has made a fetish out of resisting any and all capital expenditures.
This is why a large fraction of budget cuts have been capital expenditure cuts which will leave us in an even worse place than we would have been.

If they find out there is a cheaper way to run non electrified trains with electrified sections than diesels, they will then demand it be applied to all diesel running it can be - whether or not it would have been better to electrify it.
They will also use very short periods for analysis of the economics of the electrification - not taking account of the fact that a very large fraction of the electrification capital expenditure endures for 50 years or more (masts and tunnel clearing work and stuff like that.

Additionally it will ensure that diesel freight continues to run under the wires forever as a battery freight train is completely impractical.
So the railway continues to expend diesel forever when it could have been avoided by short sighted officials not being so short sighted.

 

[DownSouth]

The question is how long would it be likey to maintain this tractive effort?

Surely the demand would only be for a battery pack with enough capacity to get an electric train through a bulk freight loader, or through the sidings around an intermodal terminal without needing a shunter.

It's got to be more efficient (operational efficiency, not energy efficiency) to have a battery pack than attaching a shunter to pull an electric train through a freight loading facility. The big question is of course whether a battery pack would be more cost efficient than a small diesel genset that would be off-the-shelf technology.

With bulk freight at least, distributed power provides a simple solution to the issue of what happens going through the loader without needing any extra power source (battery pack, genset or coupling up a shunter). Multiple locomotives split in different parts of the consist (controlled via Locotrol or over the fixed data connections if ECP is in use) should allow propulsion to be handled by the other locomotive/s during the part where each one goes underneath the loader.

The Australian freight company Pacific National operates electric coal trains with 120 hoppers that are marshalled as loco 1 & wagons 1-40, loco 2 & wagons 41-80, loco 3 & wagons 81-120. When passing through the loader, each loco lowers its pantograph (on the 'slave' locos this is controlled from the lead 'master' locomotive) while the propulsion is handled by the other locos in the consist. Each of the loco+40 part-consists also rotates through the maintenance depot as a fixed formation, so even getting it right into the heart of the depot is easy when the other parts of the consist can push/pull it.

 

[Bald Rick]

What about air con however? That can use a fair chunk of power

For an extended stoppage, it will switch off, just like it does today with electric trains that lose power. Same with heating. There will be very clear protocols to make sure a train has enough juice on board to get to the next electrified stretch, and with power to spare. That's not to say trains will never go dead, but then there are plenty of examples of trains running out of diesel.