Independently Powered EMU to be tested

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Donald 'Duck' Dunn in The Blues Brothers said, "If the 5h!t fits, wear it."

He also said he was in a band, "powerful enough to turn goat p!55 into gasoline."

There's your answer. Get a blues band together, throw in a few micturating ungulates and you've got a ready source of fuel. Job's a good 'un.

[bobm]

Note to self:  Must tighten up the profanity filter.    

[TonyK]

Or we could just be posting sh!t.

 

It happens.

[grahame]

An update on the IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) ... (I think we have several threads ...)

http://www.machinery-market.co.uk/news/17358/Battery-powered-trains-possible-for-Wales

Posted on 03 May 2017 and read 221 times
inShare
Battery-powered trains possible for WalesThe UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Government is not guaranteeing that it will give Wales a promised £125 million contribution for electrifying the Valley Lines, if alternative technology is chosen.

Indeed, a Welsh government transport official has confirmed that it is looking at cheaper alternatives to electrification — including battery-powered trains. These have already been trialled in parts of the UK as replacements for costly (and heavy) diesel trains.

Called independently powered electric multiple units (IPEMUs), the trains are powered by lithium iron magnesium phosphate batteries

The costs and timescales of railway electrification have risen dramatically since 2014, when David Cameron made the pledge, and this has led the Welsh Government to “take soundings” from rail experts in Europe and Asia onalternatives for the Valley Lines (potentially including new technology such as battery-powered rolling stock): and while a UK Government civil servant said earlier this month that the Department for Transport had not yet decided if the £125 million “would still be available” if an alternative to electrification were chosen, the Welsh Government said it should not be penalised for exploiting technological developments.

Simon Jones, the Welsh Government’s transport director, said: “We might end up with some kind of hybrid solution that involves battery-powered trains, for example. When Mr Cameron made his pledge in 2014, I guess it was envisaged that we would be putting in pylons for the entire length of the Valley Lines.

We may not need to do that because of the way that technology has moved on, but we shouldn’t be penalised for finding a different technological approach to delivering the same outcome.”

[Noggin]

I'm a follower of Noel Dolphin of Furrer+Frey (who make OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") kit for NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) and he seems to have been spending lots of time in Cardiff, spends lots of time talking about their recharging stations, and the other day was on the new VivaRail mock up of the old London Underground D stock which has had batteries fitted.

I'd joked a while ago that if VivaRail agreed to them being converted in Wales, then the Assembly might have them as a cheap source of new stock for the Valleys, but perhaps I wasn't too far off the mark? A few lengths of switchable 3rd and 4th rail in strategic locations should be enough to charge the things, and regenerative braking should mean that they can top themselves up on the way down the hill.

Sorted. 

[broadgage]

Conductor rail charging at stations is certainly possible, I suspect that the conductor rail would have to be dead normally and only rendered live when a train was over it.
Unless the conductor rail was at a less dangerous voltage such as 110 volt DC^▸ (Direct Current).
Despite the vast currents involved 110 volt should be doable with the transformer and rectifier mounted close to the track.
Or light duty and simple overhead within the station. Both the overhead and the pantograph could be much cheaper and much simplified if only used when stopped rather than at speed.

[stuving]

There was a final report of this IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) trial, which I don't think has been reported here, though it's not easy to find it. It is available to anyone with a SPARK registration, and anyone can register with SPARK, but it's not for those with a serious hoop aversion. You may recall SPARK as being the document store for RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) research. Most of that has now moved back to the main RSSB site, where (at least I found) the same registration is valid. SPARK still exists, for other rail industry stuff that doesn't clearly belong somewhere else.

So, the IPEMU final report is a network rail document, Ref: RMVP/RPT/0448; Issue: 1; Date: 05/10/2016 "Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit (IPEMU) Trial Report".

I can't quote a short summary or conclusion, as there isn't one. The conclusions section refers back to the conclusions in the other sections, and is hard to follow without those. That's partly because the trial running of the train was only a part of the battery testing, other types were tested statically for comparison.

Remember, too, that this was an experiment, not a prototype. The train did not represent anything that could be built in quantity and put into operation; the aim was only to provide practical data for future designs. So exactly how well it ran in service is not really the point of the exercise.

On that basis, it's not a surprise that the (lithium iron phosphate) batteries in the train had too little cooling, and heat built up during the day until it needed a rest in the afternoon. Otherwise the train ran with no serious faults. Some design issues were identified which will need to be solved, notably how to control load sharing in parallel cells.

Two other battery chemistries were tested on the bench, but both were further from a usable product. Lithium titanate was assessed as likely to fit the requirements, with some more development. While it has lower energy density, it has higher power density, and the high power demand is the key parameter in trains. Molten sodium was also tested, but was less advanced and could only be rated "promising" at this stage.

[Oxonhutch]

Conductor rail charging at stations is certainly possible, I suspect that the conductor rail would have to be dead normally and only rendered live when a train was over it.
Unless the conductor rail was at a less dangerous voltage such as 110 volt DC^▸ (Direct Current).

Having been nipped by mains voltage in the States, I can say that 110V is still a massive kick. Our UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 110V site transformers here are split phase 55V/55V so the actual voltage to ground is about that of a telephone wire.

[broadgage]

Conductor rail charging at stations is certainly possible, I suspect that the conductor rail would have to be dead normally and only rendered live when a train was over it.
Unless the conductor rail was at a less dangerous voltage such as 110 volt DC^▸ (Direct Current).

Having been nipped by mains voltage in the States, I can say that 110V is still a massive kick. Our UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 110V site transformers here are split phase 55V/55V so the actual voltage to ground is about that of a telephone wire.

Yes, but under UK regulations DC is considered to be lower risk, with up to 120 volts DC being considered as SELV or "safety extra low voltage" The limit for AC is 50 volts. (building site transformers are regarded as "reduced low voltage" as the voltage is in excess of 50 volts to earth, but much less than mains.)
Whilst I do not agree with this, the rules are what they are, and not influenced by my views. I did refer to 110 volts DC as being "less dangerous" rather than "safe"
 A conductor rail at 110 volts DC should therefore be acceptable for charging a battery train.

The health and safety industry MIGHT accept charging from a conductor rail at about 750 volts with extra precautions such as.
1) centrally placed, between the running rails.
2) short length only
3) interlocked so as to be live only when a train is over it.