In the Land Transport Authority, we were tasked with investigating the feasibility of implementing traction batteries in trains in Singapore. In order to do so, we investigated different ways traction batteries in trains could be used, from just getting to the next station in the event of a power failure to continuing regular service in the event of a power failure. At the end of the attachment, we created a presentation along with a proposal for several possible solutions we felt were viable for implementing batteries in trains. From this, I learned more about batteries in trains, the electrical systems present in the MRT, as well as skills like how to structure presentations. Looking for spaces within the train to place the batteries, as well as exploring new and relatively unproven technologies were aspects of my learning that were of interest to me. From this, I also learned more about thinking out of the box and keeping an open mind to solve problems.

The project I was involved in aims to investigate the feasibility of implementing traction batteries in trains in Singapore. Power failures are a common cause of train disruptions in Singapore, as they stop the train’s propulsion systems. Implementing traction batteries in trains allows trains to continue moving in the event of a power supply failure. This has multiple benefits. The first benefit is improved safety; the train being able to move even during a power failure allows passengers to quickly, efficiently and safely disembark from the train at the next station by using the normal doors rather than the emergency exits. This protects passengers from harm in the event of an emergency such as a fire or impending collision with another train. Depending on the size and strength of the traction batteries used, the batteries can even be used to allow the train to resume its normal service, which would improve the reliability of rail service. To work on the project, we were given a room to work in and information regarding the specifications and layout of the trains.

At the point that I joined the project, work on it had not yet begun as the project was something we were tasked with directly. The approach we decided to take was to consider different traction applications of batteries, as doing so allowed us to ensure that even if one application was infeasible, we might still find another that is.

The first step to completing the project was learning more about how traction batteries are used in trains abroad. We did this by doing research on what kind of trains are used for battery operation, what kind of batteries they used, and what the use case for the batteries are. For example, some trains use traction batteries to bridge non-electrified sections, while others use it as a backup power source in the case of a power failure. This gave us a basis for comparison and allowed us to find an example which we could model our proposed solution after.

The next step was choosing a train model to use as the basis for our investigation. This allowed us to make calculations regarding the powering requirements of the train and the space available in the train. We chose the C751C train on the North East Line as it is a driver less train so there is no driver to calm passengers and it is a six car train, providing us with more space to work with.

After that, our next step was to find out the powering performance of the train. We did this by asking for the power draw statistics of the train. This information helped us to decide what kinds of batteries to use, and also was used in designing the specifications of the batteries.

The next step was to decide on what kinds of batteries to use for the train. We did this by finding information about the properties of different types of batteries on the internet, and seeing which batteries suited the functions they need to perform. We used different types of batteries for traction and non-traction functions . We decided to use different kinds of batteries for traction and non-traction functions as they have different powering requirements. We chose Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries to power traction and Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide batteries to power non-traction functions.

The next step was to design the specifications of the batteries. Using the information regarding the properties of the chosen batteries, as well as the powering requirements of the trains, we calculated the number, weight and volume of batteries required.

After finding out the mass and volume of batteries required, we calculated the amount of space available in the train. Using diagrams of the train’s schematics that we were provided, we calculated the amount of space available in the under-seat compartments of the train. We chose to use the under-seat compartments to house the batteries if possible as placing them there would allow us to add the batteries without sacrificing and seating capacity. It was found that there is sufficient space in the under-seat compartments of the train to house the batteries.

Finally, after verifying the technical feasibility of implementing batteries, we investigated the economic viability of implementing the batteries. This was challenging as it was not possible to find out the exact economic impact of train disruptions while there were conflicting reports on whether they would be significant or not. Additionally, we neither had information on what price battery suppliers would supply the batteries to LTA at, nor information regarding the cost of maintenance, installation and the accompanying systems to the battery like cooking and battery management. In the end, while our findings on whether or not implementing traction batteries would be financially beneficial were inconclusive, we decided that it was still a solution worth considering to alleviate the many inconveniences that result from train disruptions.

One major challenge of the project was that the usage of traction batteries in trains, particularly for redundancy purposes as they would be used in Singapore, is still a very recent and untested field. Hence, we did not have very much precedent to follow. For example, the most recent version of the standards for battery implementation in rail systems did not include any information on Lithium Ion batteries, which we determined to be the most suitable category of batteries to be used. As a result, we had to look at battery technology outside of the context of rail usage, and see how it can be applied to trains.

Another major challenge was that there was some information we were unable to obtain, such as information on the economic losses incurred as a result of train disruptions, or information regarding how battery manufacturers could configure their batteries to suit the needs of Singapore’s trains. We tried to face these challenges by either using other factors to make a decision, such as considering intangibles to determine whether or not implementing batteries in trais is worth considering, or by using alternative, available information, such as using information from traction batteries in trains in other countries to serve as a placeholder for unavailable information.

The outcome of our project was a presentation on our findings. In the presentation, we were to explain what the costs and benefits of implementing batteries in trains are, and propose solutions to balance these costs and benefits.

The learning objectives were to increase our knowledge and understanding of how the MRT system operates, and to become better able to do research on new things to gain a better understanding of them. The learning objectives were achieved as I now have a much greater understanding of all the systems involved in the MRT, while also having been able to successfully do research on batteries, with the skills used there being transferable to other research in the future.

One content knowledge that I learned about was the properties of different batteries. Before this attachment, I had little understanding about the differences between different types of batteries. However, after extensive research during the attachment, I now know about the different properties and characteristics of different types of batteries, along with what applications each type is suitable for. For example, I now know that Lithium Ion batteries are commonly used in electronics such as mobile devices or personal mobility devices due to their high energy density.

Another area of content I learned about was the electrical systems that powered MRT trains. All power in Singapore comes from the main power grid. Each MRT line is divided into multiple substations, which are further divided into electrical sections, which typically consist of two or three inter-stations. Section failures are the most common type of power-failure, and although they only affect a small section, can disrupt the whole line. This has allowed me to better understand the nature of power-failure related MRT disruptions, while also being able to appreciate the MRT while it does work properly, due to being aware of the number of different systems and points of failure present in the system.

A skill that I learned was how to effectively structure presentations. I learned that when creating a presentation, trying to convey all information through words can make the presentation difficult to digest and ineffective as a result. After our preliminary presentation, we were taught to use graphs, tables and images to compress information into more easily digestible forms. This is useful for future presentations, particularly in the case of proposals where the quality of presentation can influence others’ decisions on important matters, and persuade them to do or not to do a thing.

One interesting aspect of my learning was looking for different spaces in the train to place the batteries. Before deciding on the under-seat compartments, we initially planned to place the batteries where the seats at the corner of the train cars currently are. While this initially seemed like a good idea, we realised that while removing those seats would not make a large difference to the overall seating capacity of the train, they would make the commuting experience of several people each day much less comfortable, and hence we decided to use the under-seat compartments instead.

Another interesting aspect of my learning was going outside of what was already commonly practiced and analysing the usage of new technologies. For example, we were provided with a set of standards for how batteries in trains could be implemented, but they did not cover Lithium ion batteries yet. As a result, we had to venture out of these standards and explore how newer, less proven technologies could be implemented, without a simple guide to follow.

One takeaway for life that I have from this attachment is that we should always keep an open mind when thinking of solutions for problems. Early on in the attachment, I had dismissed the possibility of trains continuing service with batteries by bypassing section failures as being too difficult to implement due to the large power output required. However, I learned that with the battery technology available, it was in fact possible to do so. Along with that, we also considered other solutions, such as using supercapacitors in place of batteries to power the traction of the trains. While these solutions were not eventually adopted, they made me realise how important it is to keep and open mind and think out of the box, because doing so will ensure that we are not blinded to the best solution, if it is not the most obvious one.