They're made by Turntide Technologies:
https://turntide.com/products/energy-storage/
Lithium-ion NMC (Nickel / Manganese / Cobalt)
EDIT: Also "capable of running up to 100km in battery mode", but it doesn't say whether that is at normal linespeeds.
The May press release says:
"The single battery unit is incredibly powerful, storing enough electricity to power more than 75 houses for a day. This impressive energy and power density will deliver the same levels of high-speed acceleration and performance, while being
no heavier than the diesel engine it replaces."
Interesting that they're using NMC as there have been doubts expressed about whether that chemistry is appropriate for rail use, particularly in terms of durability.
The power output is similar to the diesel genset so I would expect performance from a hypothetical all-battery unit to be similar to an 80x on diesel.
I also wonder if the 100 km is usable range, or what the acceptable distance between electrification would be (clearly this test train can still limp along on 2 gensets if that happens)
Something else I'm sure the trial is thinking about is recharging. With 700 kW charge/discharge and 550 kWh capacity, charging will take perhaps 40 mins to 1h. So to cover longer routes, there needs to be enough time under the wires to recharge.
I guess extending dwells at an electrified end of the route can be considered, but it strikes me that these will typically be large, busy electrified stations in city centres, where this would reduce capacity or need additional platforms (£££). Shortening dwell times is also a main way to recover from disruption, and so requiring a long dwell to recharge may kill of off that option.
That doesn't make me think that we can just bin off all planned electrification, I think we'll need some significant extensions, as well as solutions at the other/rural end of the line and some innovation about how to recover from disruption if a significantly reduced turnaround time is not in all cases going to be an option.