Class 350 BatteryFlex

[33Hz]

All the batteries I have seen proposed for rail use so far are Lithium Titanate (or LTO) which offer very high charge/discharge currents, many thousands of charge cycles and very high safety, at the expense of outright energy density (they have about 60-70% of the state of the art for a pack using other chemistry like Lithium NCA). The chemistry has been around for well over a decade so it is nice to see the rail industry finally putting it to use.

This is the chemistry being used in the Siemens "Desiro Cityjet Eco" development for Austrian railways (OeBB) which has a 528 kWh battery - much bigger than what I understand was in the IPEMU Electrostar and Vivarail use.

 

[samuelmorris]

All the batteries I have seen proposed for rail use so far are Lithium Titanate (or LTO) which offer very high charge/discharge currents, many thousands of charge cycles and very high safety, at the expense of outright energy density (they have about 60-70% of the state of the art for a pack using other chemistry like Lithium NCA). The chemistry has been around for well over a decade so it is nice to see the rail industry finally putting it to use.

This is the chemistry being used in the Siemens "Desiro Cityjet Eco" development for Austrian railways (OeBB) which has a 528 kWh battery - much bigger than what I understand was in the IPEMU Electrostar and Vivarail use.

The spec for the class 345 is 24Wh/m or better for a 200m train, so at the same efficiency (Desiro UK is admittedly going to be a bit less due to the extra weight) 528kWh for an 80m unit would suggest up to 55km range, so probably 30 miles or so in practice. I'm aware kWh requirement doesn't scale linearly with increased weight, but I'm not sure exactly how it does scale.

 

[33Hz]

The spec for the class 345 is 24Wh/m or better for a 200m train, so at the same efficiency (Desiro UK is admittedly going to be a bit less due to the extra weight) 528kWh for an 80m unit would suggest up to 55km range, so probably 30 miles or so in practice.

So if I have understood you mean for an 80 metre train you would expect 9.6 kWh/km? That seems a bit high given that Alstom state 15.5kWh/km for a 511 seat AGV at up to 320 km/h.

I'm aware kWh requirement doesn't scale linearly with increased weight, but I'm not sure exactly how it does scale.

Much more so with CdA than weight at any moderate to high speed, especially with low friction in a railway application.

 

[samuelmorris]

That's taken from the spec requirement, not a recorded measurement of the train - it may well be far below that in practice, but that's the only figure I could obtain easily.

 

[33Hz]

That's taken from the spec requirement, not a recorded measurement of the train - it may well be far below that in practice, but that's the only figure I could obtain easily.

Under full power acceleration perhaps?

The Austrian unit has a top speed of 120 km/h on battery power (and 140 km/h on mains). I think it is reasonable to assume the net consumption could be >7 times less than the AGV example.

 

[Energy]

GWR has some routes which come of electrified lines, like the Windsor branch which could have services to London as the Flex 350s are fairly quick going 100mph (sadly not converted to 110) and with 387s now being used on HeX they may want these 350s, the 3+2 seating isnt an issue as it is already served by turbos.

 

[swt_passenger]

GWR has some routes which come of electrified lines, like the Windsor branch which could have services to London as the Flex 350s are fairly quick going 100mph (sadly not converted to 110) and with 387s now being used on HeX they may want these 350s, the 3+2 seating isnt an issue as it is already served by turbos.

The reason the Windsor branch doesn’t have through services to London is nothing to do with power supplies or traction, and everything to do with it being on the wrong side of the main lines. You aren’t ever going to see normal through running.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reason the Windsor branch doesn’t have through services to London is nothing to do with power supplies or traction, and everything to do with it being on the wrong side of the main lines. You aren’t ever going to see normal through running.

And I can barely think of a better type of rolling stock for it than a 3 or 4-car battery Class 230 set with the original LU interior. It's basically a Tube line remote from London in terms of its usage pattern.

 

[samuelmorris]

And I can barely think of a better type of rolling stock for it than a 3 or 4-car battery Class 230 set with the original LU interior. It's basically a Tube line remote from London in terms of its usage pattern.

For the branch itself yes, but I'm sure concerns were raised about getting them around the mainline when they go back to the depot, weren't there? 60mph would very quickly get in the way of the myriad of other services in that area,

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the branch itself yes, but I'm sure concerns were raised about getting them around the mainline when they go back to the depot, weren't there? 60mph would very quickly get in the way of the myriad of other services in that area,

I doubt it would be much of an issue at the crack of dawn - and potentially basic maintenance could be done away from the depot.

 

[samuelmorris]

I doubt it would be much of an issue at the crack of dawn - and potentially basic maintenance could be done away from the depot.

Certainly I'd like to see them elsewhere, but I think they'd have to do the other Thames Valley branches as well, it wouldn't be cost-effective to use just the one unit.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Have no idea why it is still not materialized? From this thread about future use of 350/2s other people think it is just a fantasy to convert 350/2s into Battery Operations..........
Or the 350/2s are still not available until they are replaced by Class 730s later this year?

 

[Domh245]

a) They're not available for conversion yet, all still in service with LNR and unlikely to be released this year given the rather slow appearance of other Aventras
b) Porterbrook are unlikely to convert the entire fleet until they've got a confirmed operator lined up, other than perhaps a single one as a trail unit

 

[Halifaxlad]

They even may end up being used as pure electrics considering that more lines are likely to be electrified on the next few years!

 

[Stephen Lee]

They even may end up being used as pure electrics considering that more lines are likely to be electrified on the next few years!

When more routes are electrified, there will be less new diesel trains ordered.

 

[Stephen Lee]

They even may end up being used as pure electrics considering that more lines are likely to be electrified on the next few years!

Well......I heard that the North TransPennine Route will be electrified by 2022. I wondered if more 185s will become surplus due to this......

 

[D365]

Well......I heard that the North TransPennine Route will be electrified by 2022. I wondered if more 185s will become surplus due to this......

Transpennine Electrification was postponed by Grayling, it may be back on the cards this decade but no chance of it being completed by 2022.

Nothing to do with the BatteryFlex though.

 

[bussnapperwm]

As with batteries they could operate under the wires or on electrified lines could WMR keep them (with batteries) and have them operate on the Birmingham-Shrewsbury and Birmingham-Hereford routes as then it would allow the new 196's to either operate elsewhere on the WMR network or replace older stock with another operator and would also eliminate some diesels from central Birmingham which can't be a bad thing.

Either that or create a new Northampton to Stourbridge/Shrewsbury/Worcester via New Street service

 

[Halifaxlad]

Either that or create a new Northampton to Stourbridge/Shrewsbury/Worcester via New Street service

Isn't they're something else being proposed for battery conversion that you could use ?

They're great units that would be ideal to allow the 333's in Yorkshire to be cascaded to Lancashire if or rather when the Bolton - Blackburn - Burnley - Colne line is electrified.

In short Ill prefer the majority of them at least not to be converted although some could be quite useful.

 

[JonathanH]

They're great units that would be ideal to allow the 333's in Yorkshire to be cascaded to Lancashire if or rather when the Bolton - Blackburn - Burnley - Colne line is electrified.

Why would you move the 333s away from the routes they currently operate them and replace them with 350s? That has no logic at all. Electrification to Colne is not in anyone's plans at the moment. Why make things like that up?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Why would you move the 333s away from the routes they currently operate them and replace them with 350s? That has no logic at all. Electrification to Colne is not in anyone's plans at the moment. Why make things like that up?

Don't think I said it's being electrified so don't know how you can claim I'm making things up?

Anyway the goverment is slowly comming around to electrification that will change the status quo once again, that itself prompted this proposal from Porterbrook in the first place.

 

[Silverlinky]

350/2's will remain with LNW until the end of 2021 at least.

 

[JonathanH]

Don't think I said it's being electrified so don't know how you can claim I'm making things up?

Anyway the goverment is slowly comming around to electrification that will change the status quo once again, that itself prompted this proposal from Porterbrook in the first place.

You wrote 'if or rather when'. The point was more about just why:
a) you would send 333s away from Yorkshire to Lancashire in favour of 350s
b) there is any chance of Colne (or indeed Bolton to Blackburn) being electrified in the timescales of 350/2s becoming available.

If 350/2s were to be considered why would they not just go direct to a route being electrified rather than having to be involved in a cascade that requires two groups of traincrew to learn new rolling stock?