Independently Powered EMU to be tested

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

Is the reason for using Lithium Iron Magnesium Phosphate batteries so that it can LIMP home?

I don't like that word...

[Chris125]

On a serious note, though, these would be ideally suited to routes such as Waterloo to Exeter if they could take power from any or all of third rail, overhead and battery (although not at the same time of course).

Alas they don't have anywhere near enough battery power for Waterloo-Exeter services, this RTM^▸ ((and RTFM) Read The Manual!) article has the key targets for this trial:

- a range of 50km (regional service)
- an acceleration and speed similar to a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)
- operational cycles of 30km battery and 50km overhead
- a lifetime of five to seven years
- a ^high level of intrinsic safety^

At best it could manage a branch service that involves a decent amount of running under wires but they are hardly ten-a-penny and should have a decent business case for conventional wiring, so may only be viable as an interim measure if the cost of new rolling stock can be justified.

Chris

[TonyK]

Alas they don't have anywhere near enough battery power for Waterloo-Exeter services,

Correct. There is over 90 miles of unelectrified track on that route. To be honest, with a 30km battery range, it would struggle on the Severn Beach line once the line is electrified as far as Stapleton Road. It looks like having run the 30km on battery, a ride powered externally of at least 50km is needed to recharge the batteries. The alternative is a long dwell at a station. As Chris125 says, these are likely to be most useful on a very limited number of routes.

Which is not to say "Don't do it". Battery technology has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades, and probably will continue to do so.

[stuving]

[Which is not to say "Don't do it". Battery technology has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades, and probably will continue to do so.

And current lithium batteries are a big advance on the old lead acid ones, aren't they? Apparently not.

The Deeside train went over 60 km sideways and 200 m up, to get to Ballater, dragging its lead-acid batteries with it. It then had an easy ride back home to recharge, and as I recall it was 2 cars not 4, but even so that makes the new train's capability underwhelming. Maybe more of a wimp than limp, though.

But that (like previous comments) is based on assuming that a production unit would be designed to match this experimental test-bed. There's no reason why it needs to be, though I have seen nothing on the subject. As described, the modification had to be reversible, and that may have limited what they have done. Losing a motor bogie in the process does rather suggest it is underpowered for use away from its flatter-than-Norfolk test track.

[grahame]

To be honest, with a 30km battery range, it would struggle on the Severn Beach line once the line is electrified as far as Stapleton Road.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/battery-trams-running-in-nanjing.html

I note

These are recharged through the pantograph at stops, as only 10% of the route is equipped with catenary.

and wonder is the Severn Beach line would be plausible for the IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) fleet, with overhead equipment from (say) Sea Mills to Avonmouth where perhaps it would be easier to install that through Clifton Down tunnel?

[stuving]

 A whole branch line (cf. the Deeside BEMU) isn't the only potential application for on-board battery power. Being able to leave shorter gaps in electric supply also has advantages. One is the "Dover Marine" one of stretches with no third rail for safety reasons. Another is the "heritage area", similar to the pressures concerning overhead wires for trams in city centres.

In the past, tunnels and other places where 25 kV OHLE was "difficult" were also looked as a justifying some on-board storage. However, ways have been found of putting 25 kV into narrower spaces, reducing the need for that.

The general topic is covered, under the headings "coasting, discontinuous or discrete electrification" and "Innovative low cost forms of electrification", in section 6 "Options" of the "Network RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy): Alternative Solutions", July 2013.* This is also looking, inter alia, at light rail and trams, but does analyse where a heavy rail BEMU might be used. This analysis and the current experimental programme, which is purely a "lets build one and play with it" exercise, complement each other.

They considered a 75 mile range, so Waterloo-Exeter isn't on their list. Their conclusion is:

The RUS has considered distances which we understand from
manufacturers that the technology is not currently capable of
achieving within the required time to recharge. However, given the
considerable investment of other sectors, notably the automotive
sector, there is reason to believe that the technology is likely to
improve over the 30 years of this strategy.

It is recommended that the rail industry works closely with
manufacturers as the technology develops. The Network RUS:
Electrification ^Refresh^ will take forward the recommendations of
this strategy for this technology in considering those areas of the
network which may not have a case for conventional electrification.

However, the topic does not appear in the remit for the Network RUS: Electrification ^Refresh^.

50 years ago a battery-powered  train was able to work in service, if only in a very limited way. Since then batteries have improved enormously. So I find it odd, and unconvincing, that a few niches at least are not now quite feasible and economically viable.

*You need to read this with care, as the word "gap" is used in a technology/solutions sense in the sections about literal gaps in electric supply.

[TonyK]

The initial experiment will probably do no more than look at whether or not the concept is feasible. A converted train isn't going to perform brilliantly, but will at least provide test data for the engineers to crunch.

The question then will be whether it is worth developing an entirely new vehicle, using the best of the battery tests. Not only that, but lightweight composite body parts, regenerative braking, capacitor storage as well as battery, maybe even flywheel for overcoming the inertia when starting.

Or whether it would be cheaper to electrify the line, or continue with diesels.

[NickF]

Here is an article about an Diesel / Electric / Battery system train being tested by Rolls Royce in Germany:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11595842/Greener-quieter-and-more-efficient-has-Rolls-Royce-created-the-train-of-the-future.html

[paul7575]

Here is an article about an Diesel / Electric / Battery system train being tested by Rolls Royce in Germany:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11595842/Greener-quieter-and-more-efficient-has-Rolls-Royce-created-the-train-of-the-future.html

Oh dear:  "The system also utilises regenerative braking systems first seen in Formula 1 cars".   A well researched article here...

Paul

[Western Pathfinder]

Might be worse could of been Poo powered !.

[Cynthia]

Then why isn't it poo powered?  No shortage of that stuff as fuel!  Surely still more green than using batteries, as I'm not sure how they're disposed of when they're eventually unrechargeable.

[grahame]

Then why isn't it poo powered?  No shortage of that stuff as fuel!  Surely still more green than using batteries, as I'm not sure how they're disposed of when they're eventually unrechargeable.

Isn't there a difference between poo power and batteries in that batteries are a store for energy generated elsewhere, whereas the poo generates it?

I suspect that poo power may be inefficient, require heavy maintenance of the clever stuff that converts poo to movement, and I'm not sure how reliable the poo supply is.  "The 17:20 from Paddington has been delayed at Hungerford due to fuel shortage.   We have plenty on passenger on board, and expect they'll start throwing the sh*t in the next hour and we'll get going again.  In the mean time, long distance expresses will be diverted between Reading and Westbury, with Newbury and Pewsey calls replaced by a call at Swindon"

[Bmblbzzz]

Then why isn't it poo powered?  No shortage of that stuff as fuel!  Surely still more green than using batteries, as I'm not sure how they're disposed of when they're eventually unrechargeable.

Isn't there a difference between poo power and batteries in that batteries are a store for energy generated elsewhere, whereas the poo generates it?

I suspect that poo power may be inefficient, require heavy maintenance of the clever stuff that converts poo to movement, and I'm not sure how reliable the poo supply is.  "The 17:20 from Paddington has been delayed at Hungerford due to fuel shortage.   We have plenty on passenger on board, and expect they'll start throwing the sh*t in the next hour and we'll get going again.  In the mean time, long distance expresses will be diverted between Reading and Westbury, with Newbury and Pewsey calls replaced by a call at Swindon"

It's usually a movement that produces a poo. 

[TonyK]

Then why isn't it poo powered?  No shortage of that stuff as fuel!  Surely still more green than using batteries, as I'm not sure how they're disposed of when they're eventually unrechargeable.

Depends on the type of battery. Lead acid are very recyclable. When the surface of the lead plates gets too covered in crystalline lead sulphate to accept a charge, or mechanical stresses start to crumble the plates, or one of a number of things happens, it is kaput. The acid can be drained off - don't try this at home, as the process is regulated - and the plates simply smelted to recover the elemental lead. Lithium ion cells contain very pure copper and aluminium electrodes which are very much recoverable on an industrial scale. Rare earths such as Neodymium can also be recovered, but the rest of the contents are very dangerous, so this is a job for the experts. Silver oxide batteries, like watch batteries, contain a small amount of mercury, which it is both worth recovering and desirable to do so because of the poisonous nature of the liquid metal. Any manufacturer of batteries sold in the EU^» (European Union - about) has to pay for collection, recycling, and processing of used batteries. Although this has not been ratified into UK^▸ (United Kingdom) law AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know), most big places selling domestic batteries provide a facility to collect them for recycling. Commercial batteries have a significant unit value which encourages recycling.

The "poo-powered" bus is powered by methane, like the LNG bus (not a success because of filling problems) before it, making the description hyperbole. If the same gas were burnt in a power station then supplied to the grid, as is perfectly feasible, one could argue that IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will be poo-powered.

Disposal of human waste is a delicate matter, and as the supply isn't going down, it begs the question why all sewage isn't processed to recover methane. That otherwise ends up in the atmosphere, where it is a more potent greenhouse gas than the great enemy, Carbon Dioxide.

We need to take action instead of just going through the motions.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Or we could just be posting sh!t.