Could battery powered trains operate Guildford to London Bridge via North Downs?

[JonathanH]

Perhaps a North Downs battery train service could be formed of the following services of which at least the first two of the first three listed below inter-work to provide enough recharge time:

• 1tph Reading-Guildford-Portsmouth
• 1tph Reading-Gatwick
• 1tph Newbury-Gatwick
• 1tph Guildford-Redhill-Victoria

I think that the extended services to Newbury, Portsmouth and Victoria would provide some reasonable benefits for passengers.

Given that the Reading-Guildford-Portsmouth train you envisage would presumably be the stopper, perhaps this should terminate at Haslemere and the existing Waterloo path could then be used for an out-and-out fast Waterloo to Portsmouth train.

However, this is certainly the service pattern that I think ought to be the aim.

 

[NSEFAN]

Perhaps a North Downs battery train service could be formed of the following services of which at least the first two of the first three listed below inter-work to provide enough recharge time:

You'd need a large fleet of battery trains for all those services, and all because we're dancing around the issue of just straight up electrifying the North Downs line. Keeping the service as is might justify the use of BEMUs but for any expansion you really should be looking at electrification.

 

[JamesRowden]

You'd need a large fleet of battery trains for all those services, and all because we're dancing around the issue of just straight up electrifying the North Downs line. Keeping the service as is might justify the use of BEMUs but for any expansion you really should be looking at electrification.

I wonder if the lack of electrification (and capacity through Reading station before the rebuild) is the reason that at least some of these services don't already operate.

 

[Deepgreen]

I wonder if the lack of electrification (and capacity through Reading station before the rebuild) is the reason that at least some of these services don't already operate.

Plus the capacity at Redhill, which is to be alleviated soon-ish by the additional platform zero.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I've been heard that early electrification hinges on whether the extra runway gets the go ahead at Gatwick.

If that's the case, then the electrification is probably part of the sweetener to allow it to happen.

 

[Minstral25]

Perhaps a North Downs battery train service could be formed of the following services of which at least the first two of the first three listed below inter-work to provide enough recharge time:

• 1tph Reading-Guildford-Portsmouth
• 1tph Reading-Gatwick
• 1tph Newbury-Gatwick
• 1tph Guildford-Redhill-Victoria

I think that the extended services to Newbury, Portsmouth and Victoria would provide some reasonable benefits for passengers.

The last of those trains will need to be at least 2 per hour - Reigate alone is already in the passenger numbers bracket where it needs two (or even 4) per hour to London, then bring in Dorking for which this would be faster service.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

And as the BML is already at capacity, where are you going to run these extra trains off of the NDL to?:-?

You'd be better off going to Ashford International for Eurostar, Gatwick (as now), Crawley & Horsham and just amend the timings so they connect into existing services.

 

[Dent]

By my reckoning the 379 manages half as long on battery only as it does charging & running on the electric power supply. So, using your figure, 94 minutes on the juice would give 47 minutes on battery. But you reckon 68 (2*34) minutes is needed on battery so it is not going to work by 21 minutes. That is roughly eleven minutes each way if everything else works fine (no delays and good batteries).

Comparing minutes of running time doesn't have much meaning, since the discharge rate depends entirely on how much power is being used at the time. Conversely the charge rate can be higher when less of the available power is being used to power the train.

Your calculation are based on an assumption that battery discharge is constant regardless of whether the train is running at full power or stationary. This is clearly not a valid assumption.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Add 10 minutes for turnaround at each end and you are up to 114' on the juice compared to 136' needed (68' *2). Infill 4' running time in each direction and you get 122' running vs 120' needed. For instance add third rail from Shalford Jn to Shalford and from Aldershot Sth to North Camp and you are done.

The problem being that you are relying on that 2 to 1 ratio being true for the lifetime of the battery, which might be unjustified. And that there is a 10min turnaround at both ends. Terminate short at Redhill and the numbers don't work as you've lost 40' of charging.

But extending the London to Reigate services to Guildford does seem reasonable. 45' mins on juice to 20' off juice ignoring turnaround times.

I told you it won't work, the units won't have enough guts to get up the grades. It struggled to perform well on the flatness of East Anglia.

You really should stop faffing around with this bizarre notion of using a battery powered train, which will be heavy and not good enough, just face the facts that the only sensible solution is to do the job properly and electrify it, not some rather pathetic half measure which is just typical of this countries myopic & short term way of thinking and yet whinges like hell when costs increase at an exponential rate for something that should have been done much earlier at a far cheaper cost in the first place.

 

[Hophead]

These quoted recharge times are for 25kV OHLE, though, aren't they? Will it be possible to recharge at the same rate off the 3rd rail?

Can't say I'm convinced yet by battery trains. Not, at least, over these sorts of distances. Perhaps if either of the 2 gaps on this line were electrified, we might have a goer, but you're still excluding conventional EMUs from the unelectrified portions of the route and thereby reducing the network benefits of electrification.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Comparing minutes of running time doesn't have much meaning, since the discharge rate depends entirely on how much power is being used at the time. Conversely the charge rate can be higher when less of the available power is being used to power the train.

Your calculation are based on an assumption that battery discharge is constant regardless of whether the train is running at full power or stationary. This is clearly not a valid assumption.

Might average out to be similar. Some downhill sections vs some uphill sections.

I expect the charging rates on 25KV AC could be better than on DC. But it all depends how quickly the batteries are capable of being charged. Just because you have more power available to charge does not necessarily result in the charging being quicker. At a higher current the batteries internal resistance becomes more important and then heat is generated. High enough current and you could have a fire. As has happened to lap top batteries iirc and batteries installed in planes !.

 

[infobleep]

This is one of the lines that I know quite well and have worked over in the past & no it wouldn't be hugely expensive either. The last costings were in the region of £30-50m for the electrification of the two missing sections.

However as the line hasn't had any serious infrastructure upgrades in over 40 years, you'll need to factor in the resignalling as well, which will probably mean an overall cost of £50-60m to give the line a complete update and soon NR will have the perfect opportunity to do it, when the line gets transferred to Basingstoke ROC & Three Bridges ROC.

They need to extend the platforms at most stations, increase the line speeds in several key sections (there's absolutely no reason why linespeeds in excess of 75mph shouldn't be possible), shorter signalling sections should be easily achievable using the lightweight stuff that they used in the Fens.

Power supplies in difficult locations away from roads? You're having a laugh aren't you?

Most locations are quite easily accessed from either the local road network, a substation at Shalford Junction or Shalford station easy access, another sub at Albury (Brook)/Shere Heath again easy access, another at Dorking West or Deepdene which could be used to power both NDL and supplement the Horsham line & final one at Buckland (Betchworth) again accessible from either Rectory or Lawrence Lanes. Simple easy access and TP huts or DC containers are now prefabricated and easily transportable to their corresponding locations and assembled on site.

The other direction you can have a feed from the Substation at Aldershot North, you then already have a Sub at Farnborough for the SWML, another Sub at either Sandhurst or Crowthorne, before joining the already electrified Reading - Waterloo section at Wokingham, where there's already a substation.

Would there be enough spare power in the Farnborough substation to supply electricity to the NDL in that vicinity?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Diesels may be falling out of favour but where we haven't got third rail we need something to power the trains - Gas Turbines? Let's get the APT out for tests.

It seems amazing that the little North Downs line is such a problem in rural Surrey. It's not as if we have any mountains down here.

Perhaps then a bigger MTU and replace First Class with it as previously suggested - It'll be lovely to have a Thumper back

How about converting the line to steam. They could could knock down the useful Farnham Road car park in Guildford and rebuild a new engine ahead, in the place where it use to be. Just dreaming there for a moment.

 

[Deepgreen]

[QUOTE

How about converting the line to steam. They could could knock down the useful Farnham Road car park in Guildford and rebuild a new engine ahead, in the place where it use to be. Just dreaming there for a moment.[/QUOTE]

The Jacobite of the South! Just to be on the safe side, a 'West Country' with shoe gear and a battery pack.

 

[OliverS]

I told you it won't work, the units won't have enough guts to get up the grades. It struggled to perform well on the flatness of East Anglia.

You really should stop faffing around with this bizarre notion of using a battery powered train, which will be heavy and not good enough, just face the facts that the only sensible solution is to do the job properly and electrify it, not some rather pathetic half measure which is just typical of this countries myopic & short term way of thinking and yet whinges like hell when costs increase at an exponential rate for something that should have been done much earlier at a far cheaper cost in the first place.

I haven't seen evidence that it failed to perform in Essex. In fact I recall reading that it performed better than they had originally planned for in that they let it make return trips under battery power rather than the one way trips they had planned. What you seem to be suggesting is that it will fail to deliver the power necessary to cope with the grades on the North Downs. What is the additional weight of the batteries and what is the power to weight ratios of the battery powered 379 and that of the current stock on the North Downs? My impression is that in general an EMU would have a better power to weight ration than a DMU so the battery unit will have a chance of parity with the current DMUs.

As pointed out in the various press releases, the cost of a battery unit is the same or less than a DMU and so if the option is not taken to electrify the gaps then the question arises whether a battery replacement for the current DMUs would be possible. If it were, then the value of the electrification drops. However at present the service pattern suggests that there would need to be some infill electrification, and that might mean it is worth doing it all.

 

[Peter Sarf]

OliverS - That makes me think of four factors.
First - I assume the batteries are a lower capital cost than the alternative of a diesel engine.
Second - although the batteries will wear out I wonder will they last as long as a diesel engine and need less servicing/rebuilds ?.
Third - The power to weight ratio could be similar to a diesel unit.
Fourth - The battery train is going to be cleaner in the depot.

[QUOTE

How about converting the line to steam. They could could knock down the useful Farnham Road car park in Guildford and rebuild a new engine ahead, in the place where it use to be. Just dreaming there for a moment.

The Jacobite of the South! Just to be on the safe side, a 'West Country' with shoe gear and a battery pack.[/QUOTE]

Get a steam loco to work push-pull with a 442 :roll:.

 

[Minstral25]

And as the BML is already at capacity, where are you going to run these extra trains off of the NDL to?:-?

2 per hour from Guildford to London would be extensions of the Existing services between Reigate/Tonbridge and London - where would you need extra capacity for that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How about converting the line to steam. They could could knock down the useful Farnham Road car park in Guildford and rebuild a new engine ahead, in the place where it use to be. Just dreaming there for a moment.

Clan Line tested that theory out last night

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Say either a 450 or 444 had batteries installed, how long would it probably take to charge them if they were plugged into an external 450V supply?

 

[OliverS]

OliverS - That makes me think of four factors.
First - I assume the batteries are a lower capital cost than the alternative of a diesel engine.
Second - although the batteries will wear out I wonder will they last as long as a diesel engine and need less servicing/rebuilds ?.
Third - The power to weight ratio could be similar to a diesel unit.
Fourth - The battery train is going to be cleaner in the depot.

First - I think the quote was for lifetime cost so I'm not sure whether the capital cost is lower or how much the relative price of diesel and electricity comes into it.
Second - Don't forget that fuel cost. Even if the batteries need replacing more frequently than the diesel prime movers it might still be more cost effective.
Third - it could, but I have no idea whether it is the case.
Fourth - Not only cleaner but presumably lower maintenance, i.e. MTBF similar to that of an EMU rather than a DMU. Figures I've seen in the past suggest EMUs are lower maintenance. Again that affects the lifetime cost of the unit as you need fewer staff at the depot (as well as potentially no fueling infrastructure).

I'm sure that someone somewhere is weighing up the additional costs of a fleet of battery units and sufficient infill electrification to run them, which can of course be done around areas where there is both road access and national grid. I would be fascinated to see those numbers compared to the costs of full in-fill electrification.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

2 per hour from Guildford to London would be extensions of the Existing services between Reigate/Tonbridge and London - where would you need extra capacity for that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Clan Line tested that theory out last night

So where are you going to get the extra stock from? Why allow SN to run it, when 80 odd percent of the line is within the Wessex/SWT boundary?

 

[OliverS]

Say either a 450 or 444 had batteries installed, how long would it probably take to charge them if they were plugged into an external 450V supply?

It depends on how big a connector you have, i.e. the current you can feed in. And also how much battery you have. It takes less time to charge a battery that can power a 450/444 for an hour than to charge a battery that can power it for 2 hours.

So how long would you like your string to be?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Say either a 450 or 444 had batteries installed, how long would it probably take to charge them if they were plugged into an external 450V supply?

They're already heavy enough and need to go on a diet, let alone add more weight to them with batteries!

 

[Minstral25]

So where are you going to get the extra stock from? Why allow SN to run it, when 80 odd percent of the line is within the Wessex/SWT boundary?

That was the original question about new Battery Stock. It'll presumably be new although compatibility to existing 377's would be very useful.

If you run a London to Guildford train via Redhill majority of service is in Southern's territory and Southern already run a service to Guildford. So why is it so difficult to imagine Southern running it and why would SWT suddenly get running rights into London Bridge or Victoria?

In any case its not about which company runs the service as that's irrelevant when passenger demand is looked at - there is plenty of customer demand for a direct service from Guildford to London via Redhill - for both Guildford/Dorking/Reigate to East Croydon and Dorking/Reigate to London, exampled by the tripling of usage at Reigate since hourly London Bridge trains introduced and that it is faster Dorking to London changing at Redhill than direct from Dorking Main.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

It ultimately depends on the franchise who runs it, it makes more sense to have it run by the current franchise holder of the SWT one as it will be all in one neat package, trains and infrastructure/signalling all in one "box".

It would also be more sensible to do it that way as it could be used in the future for creating a linkage between Gatwick & Heathrow.

Also allowing SN to run an additional service, when it can barely run its own should be proof enough, you only need to look at the abysmal performance of Coastway West services and their shocking levels of punctuality and the number of services it has to terminate at Havant or Fareham, plus giving SN could also be seen as anti competitive too.

 

[infobleep]

It ultimately depends on the franchise who runs it, it makes more sense to have it run by the current franchise holder of the SWT one as it will be all in one neat package, trains and infrastructure/signalling all in one "box".

It would also be more sensible to do it that way as it could be used in the future for creating a linkage between Gatwick & Heathrow.

Also allowing SN to run an additional service, when it can barely run its own should be proof enough, you only need to look at the abysmal performance of Coastway West services and their shocking levels of punctuality and the number of services it has to terminate at Havant or Fareham, plus giving SN could also be seen as anti competitive too.

I didn't think competition mattered that much. I would prefer South West Trains to have it mind you as they seem to be able to run services on time more often.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

As I have previously stated, it makes logistical sense to have it as an SW line, keeping "everything under one roof".

SN has a poor reputation for timekeeping, just as much as FGW do. The simple fact of the matter is that battery powered trains don't have proven reliability and by the time it's proven, the line could have been electrified. Also why this obsession with going to London?

Not everyone wants to go there and most want destinations other than London.

 

[jon0844]

For me the logic in Battery EMUs is that it allows the signalling and electrification work to be spread out over time rather than needing to be totally complete to run and electric service on day 1 which make the work logistically and cash flow easier as then would then be less strict deadlines to guarantee hitting which all push the costs up.

Plus battery technology is slowly improving, as is charging technology. The latter perhaps helping cover for the lack of a major leap in battery tech for now.

Looking at what companies like Tesla are doing, first for cars and now for the home/offices, you could imagine that advancements could make battery powered trains a reality in even more places than the current trials and predictions suggest.

It might simply not happen overnight, but within 10 or 20 years I can see a massive transformation. It's no surprise a lot of big oil companies are now seemingly taking it seriously, knowing that it makes sense to get in early rather than simply hope to keep people using fossil fuel for as long as possible.

 

[TheWalrus]

Could the Reading-Redhills be combined with the Reigate-London Victorias, with a separate Reading-Gatwick and be transferred to Southern? I know this has been discussed before as in transferring these services away from GW but in this case would it make sense?

 

[Deepgreen]

Could the Reading-Redhills be combined with the Reigate-London Victorias, with a separate Reading-Gatwick and be transferred to Southern? I know this has been discussed before as in transferring these services away from GW but in this case would it make sense?

Southern have no spare DMUs with which to operate this route.

 

[infobleep]

Southern have no spare DMUs with which to operate this route.

Surely they would be allowed to get more DMUs were it transferred to them.

 

[NSEFAN]

Better just electrify the route as part of the transfer. I'm with HarleyDavidson on this one, just electrify it (3rd rail or overhead, whichever is better value for money).