Vivarail chosen for fast charging trial on the Greenford branch

[whole diary]

[johnneyw]

Encouraging, interesting and perhaps a little surprising given that I seem to recall Mark Hopwood being somewhat dismissive of the prospects of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) using Vivarail D-Train a few years ago.  I suppose that it might have been because the battery power version was a less proven option then.

[ChrisB]

Commercial opportunities with other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) for the supply of maintenance etc.?

[paul7575]

Commercial opportunities with other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) for the supply of maintenance etc.?

The biggest problem with the Bedford - Bletchley 230 units, and presumably the TfW version, was the diesel power pack reliability.  The DC^▸ (Direct Current) only SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) class 484 version is already maintained in house, hopefully spares provision was included.

So although without any firm evidence, I’d expect that the diesel power packs are completely irrelevant to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)’s aims for the trial and won’t have been included in the deal.

PS

Roger Ford has also summarised it in his e-mail preview that just arrived:

“The good news, breaking just as I was about to send out e-Preview, is that GWR has agreed contracts to buy the intellectual property (IP), rolling stock and equipment for the high-performance battery and Fast-Charge technology which was due to be tested on the Greenford Branch.

GWR has also employed nine former Vivarail staff to support the trials and project development.

The IP acquired is essentially the patents protecting the Fast-Charge system.”

Paul

[TonyK]

Glad to hear that this project is still going ahead. Battery power is IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) the future for lines that cant be electrified affordably.

Your view isn't shared by the authors of the Regional Traction Decarbonisation Strategy. They give amber to battery power for passenger transport to 75 mph, read for 100 mph, but green for hydrogen in both cases. That doesn't make sense to me unless they are happy with the steam reforming of hydrogen. Even then, battery would win because we already have an infrastructure for that. Like johnneyw, I am surprised, given Mark Hopwood's antipathy towards the idea in the past. Possibilities for his volte-face (should it be Volt here?) include an improvement in the technology since Vivarail dropped the viva, a Damascene conversion on the road to West Ealing, an opportunity to greenwash something else, or a jolly good price for something that might come in handy in the future.

I don't see either battery or hydrogen as having a big future on railways. It will be OHLE, diesel, or closure.

[ChrisB]

Battery beats diesel though, right?

So a very reasonable way of removing diesel where costs of electrifying plus the time needed are deemed excessive?

[TonyK]

Battery beats diesel though, right?

So a very reasonable way of removing diesel where costs of electrifying plus the time needed are deemed excessive?

Battery beats diesel. I have a nasty feeling that the laws of physics will beat battery in the real  world unless there is a diesel engine just in case. That will make it a hybrid, like the ones sold by the Indulgence Specialists, unbeloved by broadgage with good reason.

[Bmblbzzz]

Battery technology is improving, and apparently there is hope for types based on iron, avoiding the problem of needing rare minerals. But that's still in the future...

[eightonedee]

There also seems to be some encouraging developments in developing sodium-ion batteries instead of lithium-ion. However it seems still to be early days, and (if I understand what I have read so far correctly) advantages of not being reliant on China for lithium, fewer safety issues, faster charging and longer life are offset to a degree by lower energy storage.

There is however an issue that no-one seems to have addressed - a small fleet of battery units operating on a small number of branches surely reduces flexibility, and means that if a unit fails it is going to be difficult to procure a replacement from a limited pool of units. More cost-effective means of electrification of branch lines may well be more cost effective in the long run.     

[TonyK]

Battery technology is improving, and apparently there is hope for types based on iron, avoiding the problem of needing rare minerals. But that's still in the future...

Jam tomorrow then, although that was probably said of the now ubiquitous Lithium ion battery for the first 30 years or so of development.

There also seems to be some encouraging developments in developing sodium-ion batteries instead of lithium-ion. However it seems still to be early days, and (if I understand what I have read so far correctly) advantages of not being reliant on China for lithium, fewer safety issues, faster charging and longer life are offset to a degree by lower energy storage.

There is however an issue that no-one seems to have addressed - a small fleet of battery units operating on a small number of branches surely reduces flexibility, and means that if a unit fails it is going to be difficult to procure a replacement from a limited pool of units. More cost-effective means of electrification of branch lines may well be more cost effective in the long run.     

Early days indeed, although sodium ion batteries were being looked into some years ago, until it became clear that Lithium was going to be the winner in the rechargeable battery race. Sodium is back in contention because of cost and availability rather than any chance of replacing the usurper. From what little I have read, it looks like weight would preclude use for transport applications, although as a static power source it seems potentially useful. Not just iron and sodium  - I get emails announcing, with a fanfare of trumpets or roll of drums, some new idea involving aluminium or sulphur, both of which benefit on the electron count compared to lithium or sodium. All need a lot of playing with before any real result happens or the idea fades. Regime change in batteries can be as sudden and total as in the totalitarian wing of politics, or in matters like light bulbs. The new idea becomes affordable and safe with big advantages over the old, and old one is toast in the twinkling of an eye. The development is slow, though. The period between the start of serious research into a workable lithium ion battery and its near total domination over other small rechargeable types almost exactly mirrored the period from the introduction of VHS and Betamax to the almost complete demise of tape-based recording of video in the home.

That's a fascinating topic for deeper discussion on another thread, but does lead me nicely back to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s bargain purchase. Imagine that the research into how to optimise current battery technology continued under the aegis of GWR, with a select few of Vivarail's TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.)'d boffins working both in the laboratory and field, emerging with singed eyebrows and ticked boxes on worn clipboards occasionally. It is entirely possible than in a few years time they would come up with a workable solution that would become obsolete during the ceremony to roll out the 100th train produced to their design. For this reason, I can't see GWR pulling out every stop to bring the battery train into service. It may be worth carrying on slowly, maybe evaluating new developments to sort wheat from chaff rather than doing their own research. Intellectual property can sit quietly in a safe in case someone suddenly wants to buy or lease it. I hope I'm wrong, but there probably won't be much news here in the foreseeable.

[Electric train]

Encouraging, interesting and perhaps a little surprising given that I seem to recall Mark Hopwood being somewhat dismissive of the prospects of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) using Vivarail D-Train a few years ago.  I suppose that it might have been because the battery power version was a less proven option then.

I think its a bit wider than just the 'D' Stock. GWR has bought the intellectual property rights to the high-performance battery and fast charging technology, this is the part that is deployable to other rolling stock types, the 'D' Stock could be seen as the test bed. 

I can seen GWR partnering with a train builder for new rolling stock and or train builders buying a licence to use the technology 

[TonyK]

I think its a bit wider than just the 'D' Stock. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has bought the intellectual property rights to the high-performance battery and fast charging technology, this is the part that is deployable to other rolling stock types, the 'D' Stock could be seen as the test bed. 

I can seen GWR partnering with a train builder for new rolling stock and or train builders buying a licence to use the technology 

I agree completely. Whatever battery technology is decided upon, they will still hopefully make a living from licensing the charger idea. They have, to paraphrase a music publisher, bought the real estate. That presupposes that there is something discrete about the design that couldn't be assembled by any Tom, Dick or Isambard from parts available already.

[ellendune]

I think its a bit wider than just the 'D' Stock. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has bought the intellectual property rights to the high-performance battery and fast charging technology, this is the part that is deployable to other rolling stock types, the 'D' Stock could be seen as the test bed. 

I can seen GWR partnering with a train builder for new rolling stock and or train builders buying a licence to use the technology 

I agree completely. Whatever battery technology is decided upon, they will still hopefully make a living from licensing the charger idea. They have, to paraphrase a music publisher, bought the real estate. That presupposes that there is something discrete about the design that couldn't be assembled by any Tom, Dick or Isambard from parts available already.

I wonder has First Group Bought it or is it a franchise asset - essentially DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) buying it?

[stuving]

I wonder has First Group Bought it or is it a franchise asset - essentially DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) buying it?

I was thinking that too. There was a press release from First group, which I think is exactly the text from Twitter quoted above - so it's explicitly GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) that will be the owner. DfT is mentioned, but then they always were a "partner" in the trails programme. As a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), GWR must have had DfT approval, but not necessarily any money, do do this. I guess there will be agreements between DfT, GWR, and First covering who ends up with what. Of course the "what" may not have any value by next year anyway.

[Bmblbzzz]

Battery power might be useful as an addition to OHLE in two circumstances:

• Providing limp-home traction and running heating, air conditioning and lighting on passenger trains in case of OHLE failure
• For low-speed, short-distance freight manoeuvres in places where it's impractical to install OHLE for other reasons, such as ports and quarries, where waggons need to be loaded from above

Obviously only the first applies directly to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), and it might turn out that for the second, a small fleet of diesel shunters is more practical (but dirtier).

[ChrisB]

The VivaRail staff won't have been TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.)-D, because VivaRail was already in administration & therefore those staff already made redundant.

Also, I don't see why GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would have needed DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) approval to buy those assets. Surely a risk taken completely by GWR needs no approval. From *their* ultimate owners (FirstGroup) very likely though.