Charged Up: Trains of the Future (with Geoff Marshall) | CC 

Yeah, I want whatever Frosties she’s on...❄️😉

I met her, once, at Long Marston. She is just as 'larger than life' in real life!

Alice is great!

An earlier appearance (2017) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9s4heZe7ChM.html

And 2 cameos here @ 5min & 11min ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SnNaMPR-e1I.html

Alice is the best

That could be up to leasing companies.

And was at the East Lancashire Railway for a few years where a lit of work was completed including sourcing a charging system. Then it went to the deeside Railway where ironically it was proposed to haul it with diesel locomotives.

LU seem to want to standarise on everything, which is why they disposed of them in the first place, rather silly as the A Stock too could have had a similar makeover.

@Rob Some of that I think were the Ford engine units. has that now been solved. Problem of a Small Class really , should bed in better as any specific faults are found

@Rob Similar really to some AEC and Leyland systems, really high rev, turbo engines with little cooling anywhere is asking the wrong kind of thing, . I would have thought in light , lower speed less busy routes it would have been less of a problem, but the design for these trains was on when manufacturers etc were not exactly doing build for stock UK spec trains, something that they are now doing, plus cascade plans partly depended on new stock elsewhere in the UK being in place, with service levels lower than what passenger numbers were actually going through As it is there is still a strategic mis-match between potential rail reopenings and the rolling stock to service those routes being ready and appropriate.

@@highpath4776 what? The A Stock was very much end of life.

It's a fine line between enthusiastic and irritating.....

@@droge192 I suppose it all depends on your point of view? No irritation here. The lady seems to be quite jolly and positive, to me.

@@droge192 She's fab.

Shouldn't be too hard. If they added a contact shoe for standard third rail and a pantograph (plus transformer and other power electronics) this thing could drive almost anywhere in the UK.

It's not, it's to use instead of diesel on lines that aren't electrified. Electrifying lines is very expensive. On busy lines it is more worth it but on less used lines a battery one may be cheaper.

none, (as yet), whatever the prices being charged or labour hours to vivarail, vivarail share and bond holders plus presumably some tech grants from EU or UK sources plus R&D Tax Credits

@@arthurmiddleton6953 thanks for your reply! And you did a great job on this documentary !

There were electric buses over 110 years ago, according to an article on the London "Electrobus" scam (the buses worked, but the investors' money 'walked' (out of the back door).

That's down to the electricity grid. The engine itself is zero-emmission.

Even if the power grid were running Entirely on coal (it isn't), economies of scale apply. It still reduces carbon emissions compared to individual vehicles having their own engines running on diesel etc. (Well, to be fair, it does with cars. Those same factors mean that trains were already better than cars, so the gains would be smaller. Still applies though.) Not to mention that the main reason anyone uses diesel trains rather than electric to start with is the high cost of setting up the electrical infrastructure, which this system greatly reduces.

It's all about efficiency. A coal power station (A very minor part of the UK grid), is one of the dirtiest sources of power, but 90+% efficient, where as an Internal Combustion Engine is only about 40-50% efficient at best.

@@jamesbedford7327 Coal is hardly ever used these days, mostly wind, gas , and nuclear.

@@bellshooter biomass, but that is another story of efficiency, effectiveness and ecology

They are, not all of vivarail's trains are batteries. Some are diesel-electric e.g. the class 230 for LNWR on the Marston vale line. Others are pure electric e.g. the class 484s for Island Line. Then there are others that are battery (not sure if TfW ones are battery but they might be?) I'm not sure if they've actually made any battery ones but I think this video is just showcasing that the technology is there should anyone want to order it.

Viva Rail is kinda into the train refurbishment business, while developing solutions for making trains greener.

We dont really have yet electric freight , which is where further savings would come, and do you really see the mid-wales line getting electified for its full distance ?

The 3rd/4th rail is for charging, as stated And using a heat pump/ series of them, makes your AC way more energy efficient Yes, emissions are caused when you make things, for example engines or batteries And if you listened, You charge at stations with 3rd/4th rail. You could just add some 3rd/4th rail at a station where trains idle for a while, and have them charge there

🤨 - well, is that bus a hybrid = battery electric/diesel, and not completely electric?

@@samuelfellows6923 the Alexander Dennis BYD Enviro EV 200 #Long is fully electric. But use a diesel powered heater.

@@AlfredMogaji = it would be burning diesel for 3 months at beginning/end of a year autumn>winter>spring, how well the climate control is working, and if the driver cares about warming his passengers up - he might prefer to leave them freezing, if he knows it will burn diesel to do so and is a tree hugger/environmentalist. (They thought it would do no harm in burning diesel for 6 months, when cold) most of these electric buses will use heat pumps for heating 😉

Difficult one to answer since not all platforms are of uniform height. Nor, for that matter, are door vestibules. If only one type of unit is employed on a given line then investment for level access may be justifiable e.g. Merseyrail platform enhancements. Otherwise on a case by case basis.

Afterthought. Is the gap filling technology that you refer to the "Harrington Hump"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump If so this can provide a cheap solution albeit with a reduced number of doors accessible on the level.

True, but the weight of the battery is less of a problem for a train because of the lower rolling resistance and smoother acceleration and deceleration compared to a car. Most of the extra electricity taken to accelerate the mass of the battery will be recovered through regen braking. Electrifying lines is very expensive. It's more worth it for busy lines. These may be used where part of the track isn't busy enough to justify electrification.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 The rapid chargers are a serious infrastructure cost, not just the charger but the adaption of the grid to cope with the very high, intermittent loads. I get the idea of using them on rural lines, but I think there needs to be a serious cost benefit analysis. Right now it just seems to be a “battery vehicles good” dogma.

@@charlesphillips4575 it's not battery good dogma. It's fossil fuels bad. These are to replace diesel where electrified lines aren't available. Electrified is best I agree. In the UK there are major lines that have not yet been electrified even though people have been asking for it for years. That's actually what Osbourne's northern powerhouse project was about, electrifying the Manchester to Leeds line. Still hasn't happened more than 10 years later. As for the fast charging, which I agree is a potential concern, my earlier comment was before watching the video. In the video they explain that they are not trying to fast charge the train from the grid. They have fixed battery packs installed at the stations which are slow charged from the grid then fast discharge into the train battery when it stops. This removes the high power grid connection requirement, but also increases the amount of battery required to run the service. A static battery doesn't have much need to keep weight low so it can be oversized. That can keep the active portion of the charge discharge cycle away from the max an min levels which will make the useful life much longer.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 I wanted a cost benefit analysis comparing battery with electrified lines, so “diesel bad” is not a factor. I watched the video so long ago I had forgotten about the plan for the fast chargers to have batteries. That avoids the grid problem but increases the cost of the chargers, and makes them less “green” because of the losses as well as the pollution problems with making the batteries.

@@charlesphillips4575 can't post links on RU-vid but if you search for Trains fit for the future that will show you various pages relating to the enquiry into this issue. There is a PDF summary report and transcripts of oral evidence. I don't know if it ever goes into the explict numbers but they have done these calculations and it tells you their findings. They want to electrify most of the network, but it's going to take about 30 years. It costs between 0.7-2.5 M per km (single track, double for twin). They think hydrogen or battery trains will be cheaper for a small proportion of the network. The proposal is to start with the most important tracks to electrify and re-evaluate how much alternatives to use towards the end depending on how much the technology has improved by then.

All in good time.

Did you miss renewables off that list? They are connected to the grid. Much better than diesel. Also depending how you view nuclear it is also clean energy.

@@Jimmy_Jones I am not against diesel engines, they can be built to run on plant based or recycled fuels. The big issue is the batteries are built from raw materials that are mined with little regard for the environment, normally sourced from China and Africa. In the end not green at all. I do like the refurbishment of older equipment, that is good for the environment. The battery electric concept for trains, busses and cars just makes people think that it's good because they don't see the exhaust. If you want a green option look at hydrogen fuel cell tech. The exhaust from running them is water and oxygen.

The same way you run the heating of an electric car?

@@misstakenot9582 Yes it is a few% of the battery capacity.

Vivarail have commented in the past that their technology is suitable for conversion of current diesel units likely to be withdrawn prior to their life expectation due to the timetable to reduce carbon emissions. There have also been suggestions that some shorter (older) third rail units could be converted for use beyond the current limits of the electrified network. (non intentional pun) You may be interested in this interview with Mr Shooter regarding the "state of play" in October. www.keymodernrailways.com/article/vivarail-zero-emission-trains-video For further information check out News section at vivarail.co.uk/

Addendum In the interest of completeness this blog link lists the classes and quantity of units thought to be suitable for Vivarail conversion; anonw.com/2020/10/14/how-many-diesel-multiple-units-in-the-uk-have-voith-hydraulic-transmissions/

A 'pure-battery' Vivarail train is capable of recharging at the platform while the passengers get on and off, usually at a terminus, but no charging stations have been installed yet in the UK (early 2021). Fortunately, the battery technology capable of very fast recharge does exist, without excessive weight. Vivarail can also build trains that will recharge on the move from 750Vdc third rail or 25kV overhead (not just Class 250s), so can run routes that are partly electrified without needing diesels.

@@Mixture1922 Hi Mixture 1922! Thanks for you answer. Very interesting to know.

Look at this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wg0-kA49lNc.html

Allowed as essential work anyway

The point is it *can* be zero emissions when charged by non fossil fuel electricity. UK grid is 58% non fossil fuel and improving every year. A diesel train is fossil fuel 100% of the time.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 that's only part of the story though. There's also the issue of the batteries. They have a limited life and currently the materials used in the batteries are more complicated and environmentally worse than fossil fuels.

there are efficiencies gained from scale, one massive coal fired power station powering 1,000 trains is more efficient than 1,000 trains having a diesel engine and would still result in a net decrease in C02, but yes, you wont fully notice and wont fully go green until until the grid goes nuclear/renewable. But anyway there are still some inefficiencies with batteries with batteries themselves being bad for the environment and fast charging just makes them die sooner. but again, its still better than a diesel engine but it just means electrification is still needed.

I'd imagine that Running it isn't any better than a regular electric train (or at least the difference would be negligible), but the infrastructure you need to build to do so is greatly reduced, so much less energy is needed in that process where the infrastructure isn't already in place. You only need to supply power at the stations rather than along the whole line. It's also Much cheaper for the same reason,and thus easier to convince those in charge to implement. The prohibitive setup costs is why so much of the world's railways Aren't electrified, despite electric locomotives being generally superior in every respect that I'm aware of. The video itself mentions why converting a diesel engine to electric is better than building a new electric locomotive (or railcar/multiple unit) from scratch. While the gains for switching a train from oil based fuels to electricity are much less than in the case of doing the same to a car, because trains are, simply put, already much more efficient than a car is, Generally speaking, even if you're burning coal, massive electrical turbines are more energy efficient (due to matters of scale and related factors) than giving each vehicle it's own engine. Once you take into account the use of greener sources as well,, the amount of fuel burned (and carbon released) per unit of distance covered per unit of time per unit if mass is better still. Even once transmission loss and the like is taken into account. There is no logical reason to replace Existing overhead or third rail electrified track/trains with this system, mind you (unless I missed some detail or another), but it's absolutely a great improvement over diesel. Well, assuming the system works. Battery powered (large) trucks can't manage power, range, and cargo capacity at the same time yet, after all. But this is a passenger (commuter?) train, not heavy freight.

The UK is already very green, and getting greener each year. As a snapshot, right now (Dec 26 2020 09:10am) the power grid is running from the following mix: 52% Renewables 24% Nuclear 14% CCGT 4% Biomass 2% Hydro 2% EW Interconnector (Ireland-GB undersea line) 1% Coal 1% Other

UK grid carbon intensity is reducing year to year. Coal has already mostly been removed from the grid. Whilst diesel is pretty much fixed in carbon intensity, electrification and battery tech effectively get greener as the years go by.

Coal is basically the backup for the backup for the backup source now in the UK. Coal often has ever increasing days of no usage as the years tick by.

Your wish will be granted. Check out www.keymodernrailways.com/article/vivarail-zero-emission-trains-video and plans for "Pop Up Metro" US demonstrator.

Why Essex specifically?

I live there lol

@@nickipruss664 Then you’ll know Greater Anglia is using Stadler and (soon) Bombardier stock only.

There's clearly an opportunity here. Every station has enough land/roof area for a significant quantity of solar panels. These could be used to supplement (replace?) the grid for the charging of local batteries, which in turn charge the trains. Just a thought.

@@misstakenot9582 You are correct, a % could be supplied by local Solar or wind generation. But the grid is now substantially low carbon, and is vastly greener than diesel.

That is not the USP of these trains, designed for short/shuttle journeys where electrification is uneconomic. This where acceleration, low total life costs and dependability are the requirements.

They might use it if they don't have access to a car.

ticket prices are set by govt generally within franchise , and biggest costs are train labour , stations and signalling/track. I suspect the mid-wales route is fractionally faster by train for intermediate stations than trying to drive avoiding the sheep on the mountains. Given that say, London Bristol/London Swansea has already been speeded up with the Hitachi Bi-Modes, and the route will only get faster if further OHE occurs - but Govt have said they wont fund beyond Cardiff.

Third rail installation costs. Overhead wires costs. Charging batteries means no great infrastructure, so suitable for low-intensity use.

The point is it cost less capital investment, which makes it more likely to sell a project. For this solution, all you need to do is install 3rd rail at stations where trains dwell for 5-10 mins

@Chiltern Transport Productions A battery electric commuter would be ideal, like the Bombardier demonstrater from 2015.