<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68338031>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68338031>

I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
hopefully enter service in the next few months.

I look forward to a renewed cross-platform Interchange between 1992 and D78
stock! Of course, it's now the D stock climbing to meet the 1992 stock
platform level, rather than the other way round.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:31:29 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68338031>
>
>I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>
>I look forward to a renewed cross-platform Interchange between 1992 and D78
>stock! Of course, it's now the D stock climbing to meet the 1992 stock
>platform level, rather than the other way round.
>
See also going downstairs to the Overground from the Underground at
Whitechapel.

Am 19.02.2024 um 18:48 schrieb Graeme Wall:
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68338031>

In Germany, there is also some progress with BEMU.

In Schleswig-Holstein, Stadler Flirt started running last October as
supposedly first regulalry scheduled BEMU service (charging via standard
catenary at the end points), with plenty of reliability problems.

As of February, the first "catenary island" was opened for regular
service in Heide.
<https://bauprojekte.deutschebahn.com/p/akku-nachlade-infrastruktur-sh>

As of December, Siemens Mireo Battery should have started regular
service in Offenburg, Southern Germany (charging via standard catenary
at the end points) but introduction has been delayed by a few months.

Another large network with catenary islands is to be opend next year in
South-west Germany
<https://www.akkuzug-pfalznetz.de/>

A low-cost stationary BEMU charging infrastructure was prototyped
sucessfully
<https://www.swtue.de/geschaeftskunden/energie/strom/bahnstrom/voltap.html>

Rolf

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:39:34 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 19.02.2024 um 18:48 schrieb Graeme Wall:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68338031>
>
>In Germany, there is also some progress with BEMU.
>
>In Schleswig-Holstein, Stadler Flirt started running last October as
>supposedly first regulalry scheduled BEMU service (charging via standard
>catenary at the end points), with plenty of reliability problems.

The Merseyrail Stadler BEMU (officially IPEMU) class 777s have also had a lot of problems (even more than the simpler
EMU version). But they are now in regular passenger service, with a better-than-promised battery-only range.

On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
> hopefully enter service in the next few months.

I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?

On 20/02/2024 13:46, JMB99 wrote:
> On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
>> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>> hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>
>
> I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
> new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?
>
>
>

86 miles is quite a way to go on 1 tank of water, that's why they put in
water troughs on long distance routes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:46:06 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
>> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>> hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>
>
>I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
>new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?

Given its a train and therefor weight isn't as important as a road vehicle
so you can have literally tons of batteries slung underneath plus the lack of
stop start driving conditions and repdictable regen, you'd think they'd be able
to do a lot better than 86 miles.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:46:06 +0000
>JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
>>> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>>> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>>> hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>>
>>
>>I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
>>new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?
>
>Given its a train and therefor weight isn't as important as a road vehicle
>so you can have literally tons of batteries slung underneath plus the lack of
>stop start driving conditions and repdictable regen, you'd think they'd be able
>to do a lot better than 86 miles.

They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are conversions of old trains never intended to carry
a battery load, and which will be used on much shorter routes.

On 20.02.2024 16:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:46:06 +0000
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
>>> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>>> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>>> hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>>
>>
>> I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
>> new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?
>
> Given its a train and therefor weight isn't as important as a road vehicle
> so you can have literally tons of batteries slung underneath plus the lack of
> stop start driving conditions and repdictable regen, you'd think they'd be able
> to do a lot better than 86 miles.

I suspect it's more a case that nobody has really set out with the
intention of setting a record. A lot of the designs being developed are
built around the concept of being able to run and recharge using
standard electrification equipment, so longer runs on mainlines are
likely to be completed on straight electric running, or for driver
training/route knowledge reasons, be done as drags. Likely as the
technology matures applications involving longer distance services will
be brought in.

Robin

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
> which will be used on much shorter routes.

And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
to the upfront cost of the battery.

What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.

Theo

On 20/02/2024 16:25, Theo wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>
> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>
> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>

I would assume maintenance would be done at Reading, well within battery
range.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>
>And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>to the upfront cost of the battery.
>
>What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.

25KV would mean a few tons of transformer being lugged around. A lot simpler
would just be to fit a shoebeam so it could trundle around on 3rd rail to
some depot.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>
>> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>
>> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>
> 25KV would mean a few tons of transformer being lugged around. A lot simpler
> would just be to fit a shoebeam so it could trundle around on 3rd rail to
> some depot.

It does have shoe beams, but there's no third rail to Reading depot.

On 20/02/2024 17:27, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>>
>>> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>>> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>>> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>>
>>> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>>> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>>> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>>
>> 25KV would mean a few tons of transformer being lugged around. A lot simpler
>> would just be to fit a shoebeam so it could trundle around on 3rd rail to
>> some depot.
>
> It does have shoe beams, but there's no third rail to Reading depot.
>
It's a short trip under/over the GW main line from the third rail using
the battery.

On 20/02/2024 16:53, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>
>> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>
>> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>
> 25KV would mean a few tons of transformer being lugged around. A lot simpler
> would just be to fit a shoebeam so it could trundle around on 3rd rail to
> some depot.
>

Not a lot of third rail in GW territory.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> Wrote in message:

> It's a short trip under/over the GW main line from the third rail using the battery.

How would it get to the third rail network? It might as well go
all the way to Reading on battery power.
--

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 13:46, JMB99 wrote:
>> On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
>>> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>>> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>>> hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>>
>>
>> I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
>> new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?
>>
>>
>>
>
> 86 miles is quite a way to go on 1 tank of water, that's why they put in
> water troughs on long distance routes.
>

Southern had no troughs, The Bournemouth Belle originally ran non stop to
the town though later a stop was added at Southampton so both reasonable
distances as was Wilton on the West of England line where the Devon Belle
swapped locos on its ostensibly non stop run to the first scheduled
passenger stop at Sidmouth junction. Less prestigious trains would top up
on arrival at Salisbury.

GH

eRecliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>>
>>> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>>> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>>> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>>
>>> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>>> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>>> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>>
>> 25KV would mean a few tons of transformer being lugged around. A lot simpler
>> would just be to fit a shoebeam so it could trundle around on 3rd rail to
>> some depot.
>
> It does have shoe beams, but there's no third rail to Reading depot.
>
>
Even if there was it could not be used , there are no shoebeams in the
conventional third rail position like they had when they were D78 stock or
the present I.O.W straight electric version.

The battery charging contacts are underneath in the middle , photos of the
short charging rails
at West Ealing show 3 in parallel at each charging position , are the
shoes/ contacts even on a beam?
ICBW but don’t conventional 4th rail shoes just hang from something less
substantial than a beam
due to lack of space?

GH

On 20/02/2024 18:22, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> Wrote in message:
>
>> It's a short trip under/over the GW main line from the third rail using the battery.
>
> How would it get to the third rail network? It might as well go
> all the way to Reading on battery power.

I was just pointing out to someone that the depot wasn't far from the
third rail. Why is was on the third rail in the first place is another
matter.

On 20/02/2024 18:31, Marland wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 13:46, JMB99 wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2024 18:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>> I passed through West Ealing station today and saw the two large white
>>>> equipment cabinets installed for charging the battery train, which will
>>>> hopefully enter service in the next few months.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if there would be celebrations a hundred or so years ago if a
>>> new train had to stop after 86 miles to load up with coal and water?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 86 miles is quite a way to go on 1 tank of water, that's why they put in
>> water troughs on long distance routes.
>>
>
> Southern had no troughs, The Bournemouth Belle originally ran non stop to
> the town though later a stop was added at Southampton so both reasonable
> distances as was Wilton on the West of England line where the Devon Belle
> swapped locos on its ostensibly non stop run to the first scheduled
> passenger stop at Sidmouth junction. Less prestigious trains would top up
> on arrival at Salisbury.
>
l Bournemouth is 108 miles from Waterloo, Wilton was around 90 miles. Both
Bournemouth Belle and Devon Bell would have been hauled by express locos
with large tenders. The trains we are talking about are nearer in
concept an M7 and two coaches. Express locos had water capacities of
3000 gallons plus, M7s: 1300. So a range of 86 miles is much nearer
express class than local train class. Either way the D stock should make
the depot at Reading comfortably.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>
>And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>to the upfront cost of the battery.
>
>What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>
Has C stock got the necessary metalwork to bolt on a transformer and
pantograph at sensible cost?

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 22:10:47 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT), Theo
><theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>
>>And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>>would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>>to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>
>>What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>>connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>>away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>>
>Has C stock
>
D stock.
>got the necessary metalwork to bolt on a transformer and
>pantograph at sensible cost?

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> eRecliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>>>
>>>> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>>>> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>>>> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>>>
>>>> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>>>> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>>>> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>>>
>>> 25KV would mean a few tons of transformer being lugged around. A lot simpler
>>> would just be to fit a shoebeam so it could trundle around on 3rd rail to
>>> some depot.
>>
>> It does have shoe beams, but there's no third rail to Reading depot.
>>
>>
> Even if there was it could not be used , there are no shoebeams in the
> conventional third rail position like they had when they were D78 stock or
> the present I.O.W straight electric version.
>
> The battery charging contacts are underneath in the middle , photos of the
> short charging rails
> at West Ealing show 3 in parallel at each charging position , are the
> shoes/ contacts even on a beam?
> ICBW but don’t conventional 4th rail shoes just hang from something less
> substantial than a beam
> due to lack of space?

Presumably a BEMU version that runs on the third rail for part of the route
could be fitted with conventional shoe beams, both to collect traction
power and to recharge the batteries, just as the 777s do?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 22:10:47 +0000, Charles Ellson
> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2024 16:25:46 +0000 (GMT), Theo
>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> They could in a new-build train intended for longer routes. These are
>>>> conversions of old trains never intended to carry a battery load, and
>>>> which will be used on much shorter routes.
>>>
>>> And indeed there's no point fitting larger batteries on such routes - it
>>> would just be dead weight you haul around all day to no benefit, in addition
>>> to the upfront cost of the battery.
>>>
>>> What's more annoying on the battery 230s though is there's no 25kV
>>> connection, so the trains can't run on OHLE. Means they have to be dragged
>>> away for maintenance if it's beyond battery range.
>>>
>> Has C stock
>>
> D stock.
>> got the necessary metalwork to bolt on a transformer and
>> pantograph at sensible cost?
>

Vivarail had suggested it was possible, but I suspect it might have been at
the expense of some passenger space. I very much doubt that it would be
cost-effective.