…The history of battery trains dates all the way back to the 1890s, with several successful iterations through the first half of the 20th century before diesel started to dominate. Early chemistries ranged from nickel-iron and nickel-zinc to the lead-acid batteries used by the British Rail BEMU that ran on Scotland’s Deeside Railway from 1958-1966.
Today, lithium-ion is the battery chemistry of choice for most mobility applications, though a variety of flavours are available. Trains are very different vehicles to cars, and what works for the automotive sector is not necessarily the right fit for rail. Finding the right balance between density, charging time and longevity is paramount, according to Clark
“We’re looking at lithium titanate oxide batteries,” he said. Though considerably lower in energy density than other types of lithium-ion chemistries, lithium titanate oxide (LTO) batteries are ideal for the rail sector. Trains are such hefty vehicles to begin with that additional weight is simply not as crucial as it is in sectors like automotive and electronics. And what LTO lacks in power density, it makes up for in charging speed and durability. According to Clark, Desiro Verve’s LTO batteries will require just a single overhaul throughout the life of the trains.
BEMU’s with fast-charging will only get going if ORR’s “objections” to anything actually electrified are overcome …
Though, given ORR’s other now-very-public po faux, that may not last very long (We hope)
Greg T,
ORR don’t object to anything electrified. Only third-rail unless certain (admittedly stringent) conditions are met. And you can still charge on existing 3rd rail networks. Fast charging doesn’t have to mean stationary charging. So I don’t see how ORR is holding back fast-charging in any significant way.
I am starting to suspect there is a lot more behind ORR’s alleged faux pas than appears on the surface. A personal email to you had already been sent prior to me reading this comment.
“A lot of the route densities of traffic are not high enough in many cases to justify full electrification” says Graeme Clark from Siemens.
Whilst this is a fair statement, there are vast parts of the network that do have more than enough traffic, and where politicians and bean counters keep failing us. The way this article is written downplays that. Yes mistakes were made with the GWR scheme, but the MML and TRU schemes have fared better, and the feast-and-famine approach to expertise is the persistent problem.
At the very least completion of the MML electrification to Sheffield and Nottingham should be a no-brainer. Then there’s Oxford and Bristol via Bath and Cardiff to Swansea. Then there’s plenty of cross-country in-fill that would make sense before we get to the more challenging but still viable case of getting wires from Newbury and Bristol to Exeter and Plymouth.
Russia might have a moribund economy and a warmongering despot, but they managed to electrify their railway that extends half way around the world decades ago; if the economics can’t give us a few hundred route miles of wires in Britain then it’s the economics that are failing.
The article is clearly trying to sell new trains.
But there may be situations where an initial BEMU conversion could be a refurbishment of an existing train rather than outright new trains, to accelerate conversion/decarbonisation.
Case in point: the Greater Anglia “branch” lines. Currently served by Stadler FLIRT hybrid DMUs that can run on OHE where available. It would be simple enough to ask Stadler to supply battery pack cars to replace the diesel engine car in the current consist, but that might not be the best overall outcome for the region or the country as a whole within the available funding.
It appears that Abellio did not purchase enough FLIRTs (branch and mainline classes) to meet current demand, and it has become commonplace (before and after GBR takeover) to run FLIRTs intended for branch line use on long distance services (2 x 4 cars coupled together). It might be sensible to make this repurposing permanent and reconfigure some branch line consists into mainline longer trains (remove the power pack car), backfilling with BEMU conversions. Especially if that there was a possibility to additional trains to GEML or Stansted routes.
Therefore replacing some of the branch line FLIRTs with older EMUs converted to multi-mode BEMU operation would seem to be a better answer, for the short to medium term. The required performance to operate the branch lines is un-challenging in terms of top speed and acceleration/deceleration.
I’m not going to propose D-trains (I think these are a dead end and likely would create more challenges than they would solve), more likely conversions of Class 319 or similar (maybe removing the diesel engines from Class 769 and replacing with battery packs; the 769’s DEMUs could be piloted on some GA branches as-is while refurbishment is ongoing, if Porterbrook could resolve the reliability concerns, maybe as a fleet leased with maintenance included). Or cascading down Electrostar based units from elsewhere (Overground units maybe, if not too long, replacing those by adding to the ongoing Aventra orders for London, i.e. more 710s alongside the 345’s). Maybe more than one fleet change in the coming 2 decades.
Yes any cascaded refurbishment would potentially be a “downgrade” for the GA branch lines (especially in terms of level boarding accessibility, something to be considered in any future refurbishment).
But maybe needs must.
Class 755’s running on mainline from Norwich usually made up of 2×4 car and 1 x 3 car total 11 cars
without the advertised First Class compared with class 745 with 12 cars.I read sometime ago that Greater Anglia had a surplus of class 720 Aventras which should have been used for Stansted Express.This would obviate the use of Stansted Express 745 trains without First Class having to be returned to Crown Point in Norwich for servicing.
I believe that Greater Anglia had planned to add a third Norwich service which would have been an extension of the current Ipswich to Liverpool Street semi fasts which could have used the Stansted EXpress trains displaced.Also planned was an hourly Ipswich to Peterborough service which proved impossible due to the problems at Haughley and Ely North junctions.
I must admit to an error of omission – I meant, of course to refer to 3-rd rail electification.
But, the ORR’s strictures are completely unreasonable, even given modern, stricter safety standards.
They have effectively banned the fill-in electrifications of Asford – Ore, Hurst Green – Uckfield & the two sections between Wokingham & Reigate.
This has attracted sarcsitic comments in “Modern Railways” about protecting the hundreds of people desiring to throw themseleves off the platforms at Shalford & Gomshall (for instance)
There’s also the considerable cost savings to be made by having an all-electric stock fleet, without “extraneous” diesels.