UK's First Rapid-Charging Battery Train Ready For Boarding (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0180703736
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/01/30/2211211/uks-first-rapid-charging-battery-train-ready-for-boarding
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/30/uk-first-rapid-charging-battery-train
> The UK's first superfast-charging train running only on battery power [1]will come into passenger service this weekend -- operating a five-mile return route in west London. Great Western Railway (GWR) will send the converted London Underground train out from 5.30am to cover the full Saturday timetable on the West Ealing to Greenford branch line, four stops and 12 minutes each way, and now carrying up to 273 passengers, should its celebrity stoke up the demand.
>
> The battery will recharge in just three and a half minutes back at West Ealing station between trips, using a 2,000kW charger connected to a few meters of rail that only becomes live when the train stops directly overhead. There are hopes within government and industry that this technology could one day replace diesel trains on routes that have proved difficult or expensive to electrify with overhead wires, as the decarbonization of rail continues.
>
> The train has proved itself capable of going more than 200 miles on a single charge -- last year setting a world record for the farthest travelled by a battery-electric train, smashing a German record set in 2021. The GWR train and the fast-charge technology has been trialled on the 2.5-mile line since early 2024, but has not yet carried paying passengers.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/30/uk-first-rapid-charging-battery-train
Electric trains (Score:2)
Why batteries? We've had technology (called "wires" or "third rails") to deliver electrical energy to trains for about 100 years now. Why not just electrify the route?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I know the article says some routes are "difficult or expensive to electrify" but I have to call BS on that. Surely it can't be more difficult or expensive to use an old, proven technology rather than batteries and high-power chargers?
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should (Score:2)
Seems really bad idea to use batteries in trains (and transportation with huge battery packs), not only due to extreme weather and cold spells which shorten battery life, but the constant daily charge/drain cycles multiple times a day will just kill the battery capacity more quickly.
Add to that, lithium batteries use what limited amount of lithium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, etc that we have available in the earth, and accelerating mining not only damages the earth, but uses a lot of clean finite water we h
This is bad for the environment (Score:2)
Trains, even if they run on coal are so much more efficient at moving people than individual cars that anything that makes them less useful will lead to more cars being used. A full train can hold hundreds of people. If a fraction of those people choose to use cars instead because the battery train is too expensive or there are few of them then the reduction in pollution by using batteries over a fossil fuel is lost. Heck, even if the other cars are battery cars, over the lifetime the diesel train is bet
Light passenger rail... (Score:3)
Light passenger rail is ideal for batteries. With lightweight trains and low rolling resistance, coupled with regenerative braking, it should be pretty easy on the batteries. The only issue would be the batteries catching fire underground...might be better for surface transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you could use these magical things called overhead wires or the less-obtrusive third rails to supply energy to the train along the entirety of the route. And not even need batteries.