ROLLING STOCK
Testing begins on battery-powered prototype train
Network Rail has confirmed that on-track trials are taking place to assess what it calls ‘Britain’s first battery-powered train’. Adam Hewitt reports.
T
he ‘IPEMU’ – Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit – project uses an
Abellio Greater Anglia Class 379, which would normally draw traction power via a pantograph (25kV 50Hz AC).
Not everyone agrees that the IPEMU should be described as a ‘first’ when it comes to battery power – RTM readers have recalled the two-car battery powered train in use on the Aberdeen-Ballater branch from 1958, and the BR Southern Region motor luggage vans that used lead-acid batteries, for example.
Roger Capel noted on the RTM website: “The 1957 battery train (gather it was a BEMU!) was done in the same works as today’s IPEMU, using the two standard ‘Derby Lightweight’ DMU bodyshells. At that time DB were putting battery railcars into service in Germany, but I think its immediate despatch to the wilds of Aberdeenshire indicates that it was a BR gesture.”
But the IPEMU is the first modern attempt to trial battery power for potential passenger services, with the conversion taking place at Bombardier’s facility in Derby, where the on- track test runs have been happening.
The conversion
The DMOS, PTOSL(W) and DMOC cars are standard, but the MOSL car has been converted to a ‘Trailer Battery Car (BOS)’. The MCM (motor converter module), CET tank and power bogie have been removed, the pipework and cabling have been reconfigured because of equipment being relocated and the toilet is locked out. The auxiliary reservoir has been relocated to the DMOS, and six battery rafts have been installed, alongside new power cables, trailer bogie, a new button on the cab desk, an additional HMI screen, and data acquisition instrumentation.
The battery rafts fitted to the Class 379 unit contain a battery box, isolation switch, power distribution control panel, battery charging inverter, batteries and battery monitoring system, all mounted within a bespoke, purpose- built rig. Their creation follows the successful testing of several types of battery technologies, including lithium iron magnesium (which are being used for these tests) and hot sodium nickel salt.
66 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 14
Project partners include FutureRailway – which gave an update on the IPEMU project at Rail Live in June – as well as the Department for Transport,
Network Rail and Abellio Greater Anglia.
Companies who have been participating include US firms Valence and Altairnano, and the Italian FIAMM Group.
James Ambrose, Network Rail’s
senior engineer
leading on the IPEMU, said battery powered trains could cut costs and carbon emissions. He added: “It’s still early days for what is an exciting and experimental project that tackles these two key objectives, but we’re thrilled to begin the next phase of testing and look forward to running the train on-track in live, high-speed tests.”
The partners believe battery-powered trains could be used to bridge gaps in otherwise electrified parts of the network, or be used on branch lines where it would not be cost- effective to install OLE. Batteries could be a much more energy- and cost-efficient method than using a back-up diesel engine.
Next steps – testing, approvals, then passenger service?
Additional battery tests are now underway at the Bombardier Mannheim facility in Germany. After the on-track trials at Derby, high-speed running has been scheduled at the Rail Innovation and Development Centre (RIDC) in Nottinghamshire towards the end of the year.
Data gathered there will inform the future for IPEMU, whether as a straight battery unit or a hybrid. It would most likely be designed as a new train and not an adapted unit, to minimise energy consumption – but this project will also provide useful information for retrofit.
The approvals process would depend on ORR consultation, its authorisation into service
These photos sent to us by the project team show the battery pods and battery rafts.
under CSM regulations and the operator’s safety management system, and assurance that it complies with the relevant standards and the infrastructure. The safety case must be compliant to CSM, and a competent body appointed.
David Clarke, director of FutureRailway,
the industry’s innovation team, told RTM recently: “The research suggests it will work, the technology exists in other industries, but nobody in the rail industry is going to take the risk of going out and buying one until they have actually seen one in action.”
A project update for the IMechE by Charles Twort of Bombardier and Sam Barrett of Network Rail said the trial performance targets are: a range of 50km (regional service); an acceleration and speed similar to a DMU; operational cycles of 30km battery and 50km overhead; a lifetime of five to seven years; and a “high level of intrinsic safety”.
Obviously plans for passenger service and public demonstrations are speculative at this stage and nothing is confirmed, but there have been suggestions that the Crouch Valley Line could be used (Wickford to Southminster), and Marks Tey to Sudbury for the demonstration.
At the project’s end, the IPEMU will be converted back into a standard Class 379.
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
Bombardier,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164