Class 350 BatteryFlex

[td97]

Not sure a 350 is suitable for Sunderland/Bradford to London services!

They're good enough for Manchester to Scotland services though.

 

[DarloRich]

They're good enough for Manchester to Scotland services though.

a different kettle of fish. Have you used a 350/2? They are high density commuter trains. To use them on some of the routes you suggest requires not only a battery solution but also a total interior refit.

They are great trains but the 350/2 are best used on commuter routes.

 

[43096]

There have been other threads on the matter. Do you have some evidence otherwise?

Other threads.... Did they offer any evidence?

I note you are doing the classic deflection technique to try to hide that you have no evidence and are guessing. I'm not saying your supposition is right or wrong, just challenging your assumption. So, is there any evidence?

 

[AlexNL]

What's Porterbrook's obsession with Flex?

Huge batches of brand new EMUs are on their way for various franchises, which makes it hard for Porterbrook to get rid of their off-lease but not yet life-expired trains. With the Flex projects they want to make the most out of their assets.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Huge batches of brand new EMUs are on their way for various franchises, which makes it hard for Porterbrook to get rid of their off-lease but not yet life-expired trains. With the Flex projects they want to make the most out of their assets.

Just straight swap Northern's 319's with 350/2's.

 

[NSEFAN]

Huge batches of brand new EMUs are on their way for various franchises, which makes it hard for Porterbrook to get rid of their off-lease but not yet life-expired trains. With the Flex projects they want to make the most out of their assets.

I read the question to be regarding the word itself, "Flex". I guess it's easy to say and denotes that the trains have been made more operational flexible?

 

[bastien]

I read the question to be regarding the word itself, "Flex". I guess it's easy to say and denotes that the trains have been made more operational flexible?

The irony is that they appear to be using the word 'Flex' to refer to things that don't need wires...

 

[VT 390]

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.

 

[VT 390]

a different kettle of fish. Have you used a 350/2? They are high density commuter trains. To use them on some of the routes you suggest requires not only a battery solution but also a total interior refit.

Won't they be refitted anyway if they moved to a new operator as the seating will be getting older by then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Won't they be refitted anyway if they moved to a new operator as the seating will be getting older by then.

Unless there is a wish to reseat to 2+2 I doubt it, other than muck on the carpet the interiors are basically as new - definitely stereotypical German quality both above and below the floor.

 

[tomuk]

I know Porterbrook have to be seen to be maximising their assets but 'flexing' the 350s will be interesting. The 350's are built like tanks and are very heavy, the range of the battery Electrostar was poor so the 350's would only be worse. Surely only a niche requirement.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Does anybody know how many they are going to convert?

 

[samuelmorris]

I imagine 1 or 2 prototypes, then after that as many as get ordered. I hope they make a success of it as this is possibly the worst case of all of wasted stock laying idle due to fleet harmonisation. Theoretically there's no harm in taking up some above-floor space in one of the vehicles to increase the battery capacity. The 350s have performance in abundance so additional weight shouldn't be too much of a problem if correctly distributed.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I imagine 1 or 2 prototypes, then after that as many as get ordered. I hope they make a success of it as this is possibly the worst case of all of wasted stock laying idle due to fleet harmonisation. Theoretically there's no harm in taking up some above-floor space in one of the vehicles to increase the battery capacity. The 350s have performance in abundance so additional weight shouldn't be too much of a problem if correctly distributed.

How much power have they actually got. Wiki says 335hp per motorcar which obviously inst right.

 

[samuelmorris]

How much power have they actually got. Wiki says 335hp per motorcar which obviously inst right.

That's per traction motor, of which there are 8 per unit, however, I believe the traction power is limited to 2000hp per unit out of the 2680 maximum.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

That's per traction motor, of which there are 8 per unit, however, I believe the traction power is limited to 1500hp per unit out of the 2010 maximum.

So it could produce 2010hp as the Wiki says but is limited to 1500, why is this?

If it produces 1500hp and it weight 176 tonnes then that means a hp/tonne figure of 8.5.

Although 8 time 335 is 2680hp which again can't be right.

 

[samuelmorris]

So it could produce 2010hp as the Wiki says but is limited to 1500, why is this?

If it produces 1500hp and it weight 176 tonnes then that means a hp/tonne figure of 8.5.

Although 8 time 335 is 2680hp which again can't be right.

2010kW so 2680hp, that is correct. It only produces 1500kW (2000hp) because of a limitation of how much current either the transformer or the traction inverters can provide, I forget which it is. Theoretically though it means that more power can be deployed in case of wheelslip or if a set of motors is isolated, as the remaining motors can work at full power unimpeded.

2000hp is the figure you're looking for. That's how powerful each 4-car unit is in practice (On A/C power - the DC-powered 450s, and indeed 350/1s on DC back when they ran dual-voltage) are reduced in power due to current limitations on third rail infrastructure.

 

[AM9]

I know Porterbrook have to be seen to be maximising their assets but 'flexing' the 350s will be interesting. The 350's are built like tanks and are very heavy, the range of the battery Electrostar was poor so the 350's would only be worse. Surely only a niche requirement.

They weigh less than 2 tons more than an Electrostar, so that is abut 1% more, -hardly likely to make them noticeably more sluggish.

 

[Chester1]

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.

Hereford is too far off the wires. The range will probably be 30-40 miles and requiring full recharges would affect reliability. Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton would be a good distance though Liverpool South Parkway to Old Trafford and the Windermere branch for Northern Connect services have a reasonable on and off wires balance. They are another niche product alongside the 769s. Porterbrook only own the 37 x 350/2s so they don't neee them to fit that many routes.

Unless there is a wish to reseat to 2+2 I doubt it, other than muck on the carpet the interiors are basically as new - definitely stereotypical German quality both above and below the floor.

Northern seem to be their most likely customer and I doubt they will be prepared to pay to lease them for stopping services. They would most likely be used to free up 195s + 331s and therefore would need to be refitted to Northern Connect specs. I think they would be a great choice for Liverpool-Manchester Airport via CLC. Windermere too, and Blackpool services for options to interwork them and to free up 331s for other services.

If they are offered at a price to tempt Northern into using them for commuter services then Northern could plausibly lease all 37. They could then ditch all their Porterbrook 150s (11 units), all 14 x 155s and some 156s. Porterbrook would be replacing old sprinters with units that could only (politically) be replaced by other battery EMUs. The odds of them staying after 2025 would be extremely high.

 

[samuelmorris]

Has the range actually been specified yet? Depending on how the units are configured the range could vary wildly.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I could imagine these being used on the Airevalley once the Skipton to Colne line has been reopened. Also on the Calder Valley where I believe the direct Blackpool service is supposedly to be reinstated at some-point, that will of course be diesel.

Leeds - Skipton (Wired)

Skipton - Preston (Un-wired)

Preston - Blackpool North (Wired)

New Leeds - Blackpool North via Skipton, service anyone?

 

[D365]

Has the range actually been specified yet? Depending on how the units are configured the range could vary wildly.

Also depends on the performance requirement under battery operation, bearing in mind that Desiros are known to be heavier than Electrostars. 379013 was limited to 60mph and an acceleration rate of appx. 0.6ms^-2 on battery.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I could imagine these being used on the Airevalley once the Skipton to Colne line has been reopened. Also on the Calder Valley where I believe the direct Blackpool service is supposedly to be reinstated at some-point, that will of course be diesel.

Leeds - Skipton (Wired)

Skipton - Preston (Un-wired)

Preston - Blackpool North (Wired)

New Leeds - Blackpool North via Skipton, service anyone?

Manchester suburbans would be a good start, I'd say.

 

[samuelmorris]

Also depends on the performance requirement under battery operation, bearing in mind that Desiros are known to be heavier than Electrostars. 379013 was limited to 60mph and an acceleration rate of appx. 0.6ms^-2 on battery.

At 175.5t for a 350 and 173.6t for a 377, barely! The 379 was also a relatively short-term conversion. More extensive work could be done to improve the range if required.

 

[D365]

At 175.5t for a 350 and 173.6t for a 377, barely! The 379 was also a relatively short-term conversion. More extensive work could be done to improve the range if required.

Ah, I had the Class 357 in mind, which is 158t.

Tesla/Panasonic 18650-based batteries have more than twice the energy density of the Valence U-Charge type that featured in 379013. So the technology itself has improved massively.

 

[samuelmorris]

Not really sure why they're so much heavier than 357s to be honest, that does raise an interesting point. 18650s are, to my knowledge, also now being superceded in Teslas. Is that sort of battery suitable for rail use though?

 

[rebmcr]

18650s are, to my knowledge, also now being superceded in Teslas. Is that sort of battery suitable for rail use though?

A battery is just a lump of metal underneath the packaging and whatnot. Even the new Tesla design is very similar to a 18650, just slightly different dimensions for space efficiency.

How the array of batteries are wired up within the package affects things like max capacity, discharge rate, ampage, etc.

 

[samuelmorris]

Yes, but certainly in the case of Vivarail I recall them alluding to using a type of battery with a lower energy density but higher safety for rail use. I wasn't sure if that was the same type used for all vehicles (just not, for example smartphones) or whether the sort of batteries used in rail applications had lower energy density than electric cars.

 

[AM9]

Yes, but certainly in the case of Vivarail I recall them alluding to using a type of battery with a lower energy density but higher safety for rail use. I wasn't sure if that was the same type used for all vehicles (just not, for example smartphones) or whether the sort of batteries used in rail applications had lower energy density than electric cars.

It may be so that lithium batteries for use on rail vehicles have specific self combustion prevention requirements. Once a lithium battery ignites, the only way of preventing a complete melt-down which reaches very high temperatures is rapid cooling.

 

[MikePJ]

There are several different battery chemistries that are all described as "lithium". There is a trade off between energy density (how many joules you can store in a given volume of battery), power density (what the peak power output is for a given volume) and safety. The type of batteries used in phones (typically Lithium Cobalt Oxide) have high energy density because the device is very size-constrained, but they are prone to thermal runaway (i.e. fire) if overcharged. Most electric vehicles (e.g. Nissan Leaf, BMW i3) use a battery combining both lithium manganese oxide and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide cells, which are considerably safer and better optimised for traction applications where you need high currents for starting and accelerating. They are, however, bulkier than phone batteries. For very safety-critical applications (like aircraft, and probably also rail), you can use Lithium Iron Phosphate cells - not very space-efficient, but very safe and with a great peak-current capacity for accelerating.

Numerous other chemistries are available. There should be no problem with getting a suitably safe battery for a rail application as we're mostly not concerned about the bulk of the battery in the way that phone and car manufacturers are. Lots more information here https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion