Electrification for CP6-what could we expect to see?

[Bald Rick]

.... and it's not like there aren't various branches currently confirmed or proposed for electrification.

Chris

But that's because the bi mode / battery unit has not yet been proven - at least not in a GB rail environment (although F1, Various road car manufacturers, and Wrightbus seem to have nailed it). As HSTEd says, when they do exist, the economics change considerably. For example a battery EMU with approx 30-40miles range off the wires could work for the top end of the Valleys, and might knock tens, perhaps a hundred million off the capital cost.

(And if it ran out of juice, it could coast back down the valley till the wires started )

 

[The Ham]

Also some diesel islands in the SE could be fairly cheap to do if/when the line leading to them is converted from DC to AC. For instance if the extra line doesn't require an extra substation then the cost per mile maybe fairly marginal.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Also some diesel islands in the SE could be fairly cheap to do if/when the line leading to them is converted from DC to AC. For instance if the extra line doesn't require an extra substation then the cost per mile maybe fairly marginal.

The Uckfield line will probably be done when the BML is converted from DC at AC as it would make sense to do this infill project at the same time, and it should hopefully avoid the need for lots of feeder stations on route. Similarly if the plans to run Javelins across the Marshlink line gets the go ahead in CP6 then that could hopefully be end fed from HS1 at Ashford.

 

[Chris125]

But that's because the bi mode / battery unit has not yet been proven

I don't see anything about bi-mode operation that needs 'proving', it's not a new concept and they are essentially just a combination of existing technology - that's clearly not the case with battery units, but even if the trial is successful I can't see the inherent limitations of range, weight, cost and performance giving them an automatically superior business case to conventional electrification.

Chris

 

[Bald Rick]

...I can't see the inherent limitations of range, weight, cost and performance giving them an automatically superior business case to conventional electrification.

Chris

I can, for shortish branch lines.

 

[edwin_m]

It will depend on a wide range of things - not only length of the branch but how long and how frequent the train service is and whether there are other similar branches nearby (to avoid creating a micro-fleet). Also if the branch train continues on the electrified main line it has an opportunity to recharge before the batteries are needed again.

There will probably be places where a battery unit makes sense, but perhaps not very many.

 

[Kneedown]

But that's the point. The cost and reliability drawbacks of a small DMU, bi-mode, or dare I say battery train fleet to maintain an hourly service on a typical 15 mile branch line are insignificant compared to the cost of electrifying that line.

In the short term yes, but not over the long term.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the short term yes, but not over the long term.

We'll have to disagree on that, unless by short term you mean 60 year whole life cost. (Confession - I've seen the sums)

 

[NotATrainspott]

To use Cornwall as an example I could see battery power being used on the St Ives branchline but the only long-term option for the main line to Penzance is proper 25kV AC OHLE. Even then, I see battery/supercapacitor technology being used primarily to allow for longer neutral sections so that the absolute minimum of energy storage technology is required to be fitted to what would otherwise be a standard EMU design.

Bi-mode will be applied only to types of trains that actively require it rather than being spread out across the entire network - there aren't to be many more bi-mode IEPs than are actually necessary on East Coast, for example. It is a very useful concept at the moment when there are significant proportions of the network which are and aren't electrified but there will be enough of the network that will require proper electrification that the business case will be not so bad just to bite the bullet and do all the remaining branchlines.

 

[HSTEd]

Its highly likely that the West of England HSTs will end up replaced by bi-mode IEPs.

And most of the remaining un-electrified network can not build a business case for electrification - remember that under wires running using diesels dissapears with bi-modes, removing one of the main reasons for infill electrification.
A 1000kg battery mounted below the solebar of a typical vehicle would only displace ~450L or so. It would hold roughly ~250kWh using modern LiPo technology (which improves all time).

THat would enable the unit to run for roughly 100km on battery power, that is a 50km round trip. (I assume it could go further using a top up charger at the destination but assuming no charging gives a conservative estimate).

50km round trip won't get you that far on main line running.
But 1000kg is a very small estimate.
For example the QSK-19 weighs ~1900kg before you consider the mass of the fuel tank, fuel lines and fuel.
You could easily be looking at ~3000kg full load, at which point you can manage ~150km round trips - which are enough to run on battery entirely beyond Plymouth to Penzance and back.

Good bye electrification of Cornwall. (Unless you think a 3000kg battery pack for each vehicle on ~15 sets is going to be more expensive than ~250 track kilometres of overhead wiring which could easily run to £500m).

 

[snowball]

A 1000kg battery mounted below the solebar of a typical vehicle would only displace ~450L or so. It would hold roughly ~250kWh using modern LiPo technology (which improves all time).

What's that, lithium polonide? Sounds nasty. Or is it LiPo as in liposuction? Or the new Teletubby?

 

[HSTEd]

What's that, lithium polonide? Sounds nasty. Or is it LiPo as in liposuction? Or the new Teletubby?

Lithium Polymer cells.

They are Lithium Ion cells that have discarded the traditional metal casing and just use a plastic membrane which is far lighter.

 

[Bald Rick]

^^^^^ EXACTLY! ^^^^^ (3 posts up)

Although the numbers I saw aren't as impressive, but a couple of tons of battery will get an EMU 50 miles without a recharge, and that does allow for air con and lights on a sweltering evening.

Battery trains will, within the next decade, be the answer for any branch line service that also spends some time under the wires or on the juice. They also have the advantage of being able to keep going for a while to clear a dead section if the power is off.

But they won't be the answer for main line services - the power draw for speed is too high for any useful distance - or those that have notable freight use.

 

[snowball]

Lithium Polymer cells.

They are Lithium Ion cells that have discarded the traditional metal casing and just use a plastic membrane which is far lighter.

Thanks!

 

[Chris125]

I can, for shortish branch lines.

5 miles of the Paisley Canal branch was electrified for around £12m if I remember correctly - I'd be surprised if the potential costs of buying and relying on a dedicated fleet of new battery-fitted units offered a better business case over the medium to long term.

Chris

 

[Bald Rick]

5 miles of the Paisley Canal branch was electrified for around £12m if I remember correctly - I'd be surprised if the potential costs of buying and relying on a dedicated fleet of new battery-fitted units offered a better business case over the medium to long term.

Chris

For 5 miles, with no new substations, you're probably right, although it does depend on the size of fleet. But for 15-30 miles the case swings the other way, especially when the cost of new grid supplies can be avoided.

 

[Rapidash]

I would certainly like to see the SWML down to Exeter electrified (and redoubled if possible!), as it would at least encourage the rest of the GWML to be done as well.

 

[The Ham]

I would certainly like to see the SWML down to Exeter electrified (and redoubled if possible!), as it would at least encourage the rest of the GWML to be done as well.

Even if it were to only goes as far as Yeovil (with the rest of the way scheduled for CP7) and includs the line from Salisbury to Southampton then it could drematicly reduce the number of 159's which SWT's would need. If the rest of the way was done in CP7 then there would be no need for DUM's for SWT's.

Depending on how battery technology works out there may be no need to electrify beyond Yeovil for the time being and could free up all of SWT's DMU's by the end of CP6.

 

[Chris125]

For 5 miles, with no new substations, you're probably right, although it does depend on the size of fleet. But for 15-30 miles the case swings the other way, especially when the cost of new grid supplies can be avoided.

I'm not sure it stacks up with a longer line either, a 60 mile round trip is surely pushing the limits of the battery and extending the time needed to recharge - if it's worked by through services then the business case could hinge on how many units need a weighty and expensive battery that may only be used a portion of the time.

There are bound to be some lines where the capability of battery units matches the length, frequency, power output and top speed required, while outweighing the costs of poorer fleet utilisation, new rather than cascaded rolling stock, the weight and cost of the batteries and all the other inefficiencies that come with non-standard operation - but I really don't think this is going to have as large an impact on electrification as many suggest.

Chris

 

[joeykins82]

There's a finite amount of electrification that can be done at any given time. If the choice is between spending the time and money electrifying lightly-used branch lines that serve no freight or diversionary purpose, or using bi-mode EDMU or battery powered units for the part/mostly electrified sections and using the electrification resources on the next major intensive service project then I know which option I'd prefer to see NR adopt. Is there really a greater case for electrifying the Buxton line than Ely-Peterborough or the Birmingham Snow Hill lines or even the Bristol metro services?

 

[ac6000cw]

Is there really a greater case for electrifying the Buxton line than Ely-Peterborough

As a stand-alone project, probably yes precisely because it is a self-contained route and a relatively simple extension from Hazel Grove (and the steeply-graded line would benefit from an EMU performance upgrade over the DMUs).

Ely-Peterborough only really makes sense if you electrify at least Stowmarket - Ely at the same time.

 

[HSTEd]

Ely-Peterborough would achieve virtually no conversion to electric traction in of itself - just one of the local trains.
And I believe it would be considerably more expensive as Buxton is relatively short.

A South Manchester scheme, including the Marple lines, would have far better business case as suburban schemes tend to.

 

[ac6000cw]

Ely-Peterborough would achieve virtually no conversion to electric traction in of itself - just one of the local trains.

Exactly - and all of the 'local' trains are provided by longer distance services (Birmingham - Stansted, Liverpool - Norwich, Ipswich - Peterborough)

 

[HSTEd]

You would have to replace a huge fleet of legacy diesel trains with bi-modes to have any effect at all - fleets that are not yet life expired.

Ely-Peterborough has 46km of double track to electrify.
Hazel Grove - Buxton, New Mills Central - Ashburys and Hyde North - Romiley would have 50km of double track. (Rose Hill Marple's branch is a rounding error)

Which do you think would lead to greater replacement of diesel consumption with electricity?

 

[joeykins82]

Electrifying Ely-Peterborough is a logical first step for the wiring of the whole Felixtowe-Birmingham corridor because it would instantly provide service resilience for ECML LDHS services to run via Cambridge during times of disruption. The extension outwards in both directions would allow the conversion of the XC Birmingham-Stansted services, Ipswich-Cambridge (with a little infill via Newmarket) and a significant number of freight services.

Wiring up the Buxton branch frees up some DMUs and/or negates the need to buy new DMUs in future. But that's where the usefulness ends. Looking at Google Maps Manchester to Hazel Grove is just under half of the total distance to Buxton; there are plenty of diesel services that travel under the wires for a higher proportion of the journey and run more frequently, and which would also provide diversionary/freight benefits or open up logical next steps. Hazel Grove to Sheffield will be wired before Hazel Grove to Buxton IMO.

 

[HSTEd]

Electrifying Ely-Peterborough is a logical first step for the wiring of the whole Felixtowe-Birmingham corridor because it would instantly provide service resilience for ECML LDHS services to run via Cambridge during times of disruption.

The ECML LDHS fleet will be able to run via Cambridge anyway since its going to be dominated by Bi-modes regardless.
Diversionary capabilities are also almost worthless.
A big deal is made about the Felixstowe-Birmingham corridor being wired but even if every freight train on it was converted it would not actually be very intensive by the standards of many diesel suburban operations.
And not every train would convert for obvious reasons.

The extension outwards in both directions would allow the conversion of the XC Birmingham-Stansted services, Ipswich-Cambridge (with a little infill via Newmarket) and a significant number of freight services.

So now you want even more track kilometreage?
I can get even more suburban lines for that.
Freight is never going to justify a long distance electrification project.

Wiring up the Buxton branch frees up some DMUs and/or negates the need to buy new DMUs in future. But that's where the usefulness ends. Looking at Google Maps Manchester to Hazel Grove is just under half of the total distance to Buxton; there are plenty of diesel services that travel under the wires for a higher proportion of the journey and run more frequently, and which would also provide diversionary/freight benefits or open up logical next steps.

I am getting annoyed at the people constantly going on about 'Diversionary Benefits', they are not actually worth anything.
Freight operations are nearly worthless in justifying electrification as well because the vast majority of services are never going to be converted for reasons that have been discussed to death elsewhere.

Hazel Grove to Sheffield will be wired before Hazel Grove to Buxton IMO.

Why? Hazel Grove to Sheffield has a terrible case at the present time.
Buxton gets two trains per hour in peak times and can benefit from zero cost multiple units being available.
All you get by going to Sheffield is the stopper.

New Mills Central is 2tph
Rose Hill Marple is 2tph
Buxton is 1/2tph (with electric traction and endless Class 313s and 315s it woudl likely go to 2tph)

You really telling me that is worth less than Ely-Peterborough/

 

[ac6000cw]

Electrifying Ely-Peterborough is a logical first step for the wiring of the whole Felixtowe-Birmingham corridor because it would instantly provide service resilience for ECML LDHS services to run via Cambridge during times of disruption.

There isn't that much spare capacity for diversions anyway south of Cambridge. Soon Cambridge station to the junction at Shelford will be 8 tph off-peak each way on two tracks (and it's a flat junction), then 4 tph from there to Letchworth.

 

[joeykins82]

Point taken, perhaps Ely-P'boro a bad example. But my point that if you're going to electrify something, a terminating branch line with an hourly service off-peak which is currently less than 50% electrified is not going to find itself near the top of the list because there are many far more suitable candidates. It would find itself near the top of the list for new bi-mode or battery supported stock to operate it though.

(That being said, the ECML LDHS fleet is not dominated by bi-mode stock; there are 30x 9-car and 12x 5-car class 801 units with only 1 generator which aren't designed for normal running off-wire; there are 13x 9-car and 10x 5-car class 800 for the ECML LDHS fleet)

 

[Aictos]

IF and WHEN the Felixstowe-Birmingham route is fully wired up, I fail to see why more freight cannot be electrically hauled to use this route to avoid London as well as being a knock on effect that the Birmingham to Leicester/Stansted services can use EMUs instead especially when you consider the use of 2 car DMUs which are unsuitable for the service.

Plus wire up Cambridge to Ipswich/Norwich and Ely to Ipswich and at a stoke you've removed the entire Greater Anglia franchise from requiring DMUs on these routes which could be used elsewhere and could if possible see a increase in service if possible with EMUs.

So the only service likely to remain DMU operated would be the Norwich to Liverpool service.

Still that said I'm a firm believer in Newark Northgate to Lincoln/Leeds to York via Harrogate seeing wires.

 

[HSTEd]

And how many route kilometres would all that be?
If you went for routes like Buxton and so on you can convert far more diesel burning to electric traction - which in the age of bi modes will be all that matter.