Written evidence submitted by Bombardier Transportation UK (TFF0033)
- Introduction
1.1 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Transport Select Committee (TSC) call for written evidence. This letter constitutes a response from Bombardier Transportation and we would be happy to provide oral evidence if that would be helpful.
1.2 The inquiry is timely and welcome, as ensuring trains are fit for the future is of paramount importance to our business. In particular, the decarbonisation of rail by 2040 is an important but challenging objective, and the whole rail industry and Government will need to work closely together to achieve it.
- BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION
2.1 With 60 production and engineering sites in 27 countries, Bombardier Transportation is a global mobility solution provider with the rail industry’s broadest portfolio. We cover the full spectrum of rail solutions, ranging from trains to sub-systems and signalling to complete transport systems, e-mobility technology and data-driven maintenance services. Our installed base of rolling stock exceeds 100,000 rail cars and locomotives worldwide. Our over 39,000 employees continue a proud tradition of delivering ingenious rail transportation solutions, including:
- Urban (metros, trams and light rail vehicles, commuter trains, automated people mover, monorails, e-mobility)
- Mainline (high-speed trains, locomotives, regional and intercity trains)
- Equipment (equipment for urban vehicles, equipment for mainline vehicles)
- Signalling and infrastructure (mass transit signalling, communications-based train control (CBTC), European rail traffic management system (ERMTS), industrial and mining signalling, rail control services solutions, mainline signalling)
2.2 In the UK, Bombardier is the leading rail engineering, manufacturing and rail solutions company, headquartered at the iconic Litchurch Lane facility in Derby. Bombardier is the only company in the UK able to design, develop, manufacture, test and service trains for UK and export markets. Our AVENTRA trains for the Elizabeth line, London Overground, and the East Anglia, South Western, West Midlands and Essex Thameside rail franchises are designed and built here in Britain. The trains our services teams maintain from 18 sites across the country keep Britain moving on one of the busiest and most complex networks in the world.
2.3 In the UK, Bombardier employs around 4,000 people, comprising around 2,000 at Derby including over 400 specialised engineers, almost 1,000 mainly service staff at depots across London, and our Rail Control Solutions engineering and manufacturing facility at Plymouth produces products for the UK and for export.
- DECARBONISING RAIL
3.1 Bombardier supports the Government’s objective of decarbonising the UK rail sector by 2040. The UK of course is not alone in seeking to achieve this objective. With various worldwide agreements to counter greenhouse gas emissions and limit the detrimental effects of climate change, many industrialised nations, particularly in Europe, are developing alternative eco-friendly solutions for public and private transport. For example, Bombardier’s TALENT3 battery electric multiple unit train is an innovative, and forward-looking way to deal with the challenges of providing sustainable and environmentally friendly mobility solutions. TALENT3 multiple units can provide an energy efficient and cost-effective way to replace diesel trains with battery power in some applications.
3.2 Many of our global customers - transport authorities and operating companies - have clear targets to move forward with electrification plans and reduce the number of transport systems emitting CO2, pollution and noise. It is Bombardier’s view that overhead electrification remains the most effective way of reducing rail sector emissions, as well as delivering greater performance, cleaner and quieter journeys for passengers and lower maintenance costs for operators. However, as the Committee knows well, the upfront infrastructure costs for electrification in the UK are currently too high and it is neither easy nor fast to implement. Even if the capital costs of electrification can be brought down significantly, some lower frequency routes may always struggle to provide the return on investment needed to justify electrification.
3.3 Transport authorities and operators are therefore right to look for alternative solutions to diesel-driven vehicles. Different transport solutions are available based on network characteristics such as route length and profile, non-electrified sections, availability of charging and fuelling stations, and location of depots. Transport authorities and operators must also consider the importance of future-proofing whatever solution they select, to ensure that a train’s 30-35 year operating life isn’t prematurely ended by obsolescent technology, or by advances in alternative technologies.
3.4 One way of future-proofing is to design trains with a modular approach. For example, the 125-mph bi-mode AVENTRA train we have developed and bid for the East Midlands and West Coast Partnership franchises can draw its power from overhead electric wires, or from an onboard diesel engine and can switch seamlessly between the two. Critically though, the AVENTRA’s modular design would enable the diesel engine and fuel tanks to be removed in future as overhead wires extend, or to allow the fitment of batteries or another technology.
3.5 In the last two to three years, leading original equipment manufacturers (OEM) such as Bombardier have partnered with universities and made significant investments to find solutions for emission-free transportation. Two main concepts have made their way to the realisation phase: the fuel cell hybrid (hydrogen with batteries) and the battery electric multiple unit (BEMU).
3.6 The core of these concepts is to change or adapt the propulsion system of existing and established trains by using alternative energy supplies to diesel. Both solutions have advantages and are made for different operational applications. When comparing the concepts, it is worth examining various factors, such as TCO, impact on infrastructure, supply chain, safety and the range of autonomy.
- ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS - HYDROGEN
4.1 Hydrogen is a fuel which can be used instead of oil and gas in a fuel cell battery. It produces power without producing harmful greenhouse gas emissions when using green hydrogen. In order to produce green hydrogen, electricity is transformed into hydrogen via electrolysis with an efficiency loss of approximately 50%, then transmitted (via compressors) to hydrogen tanks. Once the filling process has taken place it is again transformed into electricity, and loses approximately 50% of efficiency. In total overall efficiency is around 33%. As a result, hydrogen traction requires 3 kW of electricity to deliver 1 kW of power to the wheel, while an electric train has no on-board energy conversion, so it needs only 1.2 kW.
4.2 In addition, when used as fuel, hydrogen gas must be compressed to reduce the storage volume and distribution. The train must also be adapted for hydrogen. Unlike a standard electric multiple unit vehicle, a fuel cell vehicle needs to be equipped with special high-pressure containers to keep the hydrogen usable, as well as a fuel cell stack and a battery. This requires a stronger maintenance regime as well as additional safety measures to avoid hydrogen leaks. Secondly, as hydrogen special filling stations would need to be built and connected to the operational network. The stations with hydrogen would need to be supplied via trucks or a pipeline, and it would require skilled staff for these operations.
4.3 In summary, the hydrogen solution produces power without producing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. However the solution does involve significant investment costs and implementation time. From a whole life perspective, the hydrogen solution also has disadvantages in terms of operational costs. The production of hydrogen via electrolysis is three times more expensive compared to production via natural gas. A benefit of using hydrogen technology for railway vehicles is the range of kilometres between refuelling – currently greater than that possible for battery. One of the rail vehicle manufacturers recently announced a figure of 600 km which is impressive and would therefore make sense economically on long non-electrified regional lines in the UK, currently operated by diesel fleets, for example lines in parts of Scotland and Wales.
4.4 As the Committee may be aware, Abellio’s successful franchise bid for the East Midlands franchise includes a commitment to undertake a hydrogen trial on the Midland Mainline. Should we secure the rolling stock order for the franchise we will work with Abellio to deliver this.
- ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS - BATTERY
5.1 The battery-driven train is another emission-free alternative to diesel. Converting a standard electrical multiple unit into a battery-powered variant requires the train to be equipped with additional batteries and a charger. Existing, proven battery packs can be installed on the roof or underfloor with minimal modifications to the train’s architecture. The number of battery packs installed depends on the available space and possible weight restrictions and it will define the range of the operation beyond electrified routes. In terms of safety, the traction batteries are integrated into the existing vehicle and fire safety concept. The batteries are easily charged by using the existing catenary while driving or at recharging stations, for example at the end of lines. This recharge does not require any labour. Thus, infrastructure needs depend purely on the state of the route’s existing infrastructure. The existing grid or railway catenary infrastructure can be used to connect low-investment recharging stations. The charging station is a low-cost and easy-to-implement catenary section, and therefore much more cost-efficient than the full electrification of a railway line.
5.2 Currently, the charging time under the catenary is only between 7 to 10 minutes, which minimises the operational stopping time. Recharging also occurs through regenerative breaking, which feeds the braking energy into the batteries. To optimise consumption of traction and auxiliary energy and the battery system, the train has an energy management system to ensure the best energy efficiency. In terms of overall investment costs, the battery solution is better than the hydrogen solution, due to its short implementation time and the relatively low-cost power packs.
5.3 Regarding the operational and lifecycle costs, the battery solution has significant advantages. Energy costs are much lower than the costs to produce and distribute hydrogen, which is a significant cost factor considering its operational time of 30 years. The lifetime of the battery is currently about 7 to 10 years (depending on the duty cycle and electrified network portions) and needs to be changed 3 to 4 times during the vehicle’s lifecycle. As the batteries still have a loading capacity of 80% at the end of their lifetime, there are second life application concepts for other industries to make the most efficient use of the batteries. Alternatively, the OEM takes care of the recycling of the batteries.
5.4 By using battery-driven trains, operators and transport authorities can fulfil their environmental obligations by providing public transport with reduced emissions. Battery-driven trains are quickly implemented, energy efficient and provide the best total cost of ownership on distances up to 100 km. According to an independent comparative study by Technische Universität Dresden (TU Dresden), Bombardier’s TALENT3 battery train is the most cost-effective and CO2-free alternative to diesel trains in terms of total cost of ownership over the entire 30-year service life.
5.5 The battery-driven variant of electric multiple units provides the most benefits for operators and transport authorities. With an easy and quick conversion time, capability to run distances of up to 100 km, high safety and most importantly, a low total cost of ownership, this solution speaks for itself. In most of the applications, there is no need for additional infrastructure, and depending on the provided energy mix, 100% emission-free transportation is possible. The battery technology and the related supply chain is well established and is continuously improving. This opens new business areas for operators and transport authorities as they can combine electrified and -electrified lines without looking for different types of vehicles.
5.6 With simple technology and infrastructure, as well as low costs, it is Bombardier’s current view that the battery-driven train is the best solution for partially electrified networks. The train’s batteries are charged while driving, or at stations under the overhead line, or with the aid of recovered braking energy. As soon as the train travels on non-electrified lines, the batteries mounted on the roof supply the required electricity in an ecological and efficient way.
5.7 Bombardier is talking to train operating companies and rolling stock companies about retrofitting Bombardier ELECTROSTAR and VOYAGER fleets with battery packs. There are clear potential operator and passenger benefits in doing so, as well as the potential to reduce emissions and contribute towards the decarbonisation of the sector.
5.8 To summarise the benefits of a battery-driven train:
- Combines electrified and non-electrified lines, and can run on non-electrified lines within a range of up to 100 km
- No investment in infrastructure if terminal stations are electrified
- Operates as a standard EMU if network electrification is carried out in the future
- No need to create specific production, supply chain and distribution channels
- Improved eco-friendly design compared to today’s diesel and hydrogen trains
- Emission-free operation
- Up to 50% lower total cost of ownership than hydrogen
- Noise reduction by up to 7 dB compared to conventional DMUs
- Lithium-ion batteries are proven in railway applications and materials from the batteries are recyclable
5.9 The total cost of ownership of a hydrogen train is up to 50% higher over the complete 30-year lifecycle in comparison to a battery train. The big drivers for this difference are the lifecycle costs (LCC), which are already 30% higher, and the energy costs, which are five times higher. A recent study by the Technical University of Dresden confirmed the significant TCO advantages of a battery train versus a hydrogen train. If upfront infrastructure costs involved in network electrification can be justified, a pure EMU train has the lowest costs:
Analysis conditions for TCO comparison: 75 three-car trains over 30 years; 100.000 km / vehicle / year; 50 % catenary-free operation + 50 % catenary-operation / 1.2 €/ l Diesel, 3% price increase per year; 5 €/ kg H2; 0.12 €/ kWh for electricity, 2 % price increase per year for H2 and electricity / Infrastructure included: Hydrogen (5 filling stations); Battery Train Re-Charge via existing Catenary
- train interiors of the future
6.2 For example :
- Greater integration between the passenger and the train’s super-system, giving the passenger choices at each stage of the journey to customise their surroundings, i.e. Improved ticketing, choosing which car, seating position, personalisation of journey choices to make the journey meet passenger objectives, opportunities to select a quieter space.
- Greater interaction between the passenger and the train/operator, e.g. seat availability, entertainment, service information, improved in-journey services including catering.
- Greater interaction between passenger and external environment, e.g. augmented reality in the windows highlighting interesting parts of the passing landscape.
- Adaptable passenger information delivery, meeting wider range of needs, is more inclusive and de-stresses the journey by offering greater availability of information and allowing informed decisions at each stage.
- Greater consideration of managing luggage and the associated security concerns and cycle users promoting greater sustainability.
- Personalisation of individual environments (thermal, physical, acoustic, visual (lighting) and olfactory).
- Improved hygiene and easier maintenance and cleaning.
- Provision of flexible interiors and system architectures to accommodate future changes in passenger expectations and functional needs.
6.3 We would be happy to help the Committee with more details in any of the areas outlined above.
May 2019
6/ 6