|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
rbt
Senior Member
Yes, whatever vehicle Toronto receives will be custom, regardless of which vendor is selected.
We're looking for 800+ EMU passenger cars OR 90 to 180 locomotives; either is a huge order allowing for relatively low per-unit costs with custom design. They will be built to meet Metrolinx tendered performance specs, and not any better.
cplchanb
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
Not sure why you're focusing on North America for battery stuff. Battery design and electric motor design does not change with the continent; in fact they're not even railway specific technologies.
That said, bits and pieces of the product line I mentioned is deployed to various scales in 100 cities, including Toronto. The minimal use is for creeping into a station during a power outage but it can be scaled up (or down) through the use of more modules for regular service.
Absolutely no passenger train car in North America is suitable for what Metrolinx has tendered. Whatever we receive will be a custom design.
cplchanb
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
It's their standard electric gear whether Metro, Tram, Commuter Rail, People Mover, or Monorail. Nearly every city with a modern electric BBD product, including Toronto, uses those modules. Siemens, Alstom, etc. also have very similar standardized parts across their various product lines.
The battery piece is scaled from minimal (keep the lights on, and operate emergency equipment), to medium (creep to a nearby station in power failure), to large (normal operations in catenary gaps).
The longest unpowered stretch I'm aware of is about 2km in Birmingham UK. Toronto segments would be closer to 50m to get around upgrading a few bridges or Union Station if costly to electrify. Overhead line will still exist to direct the pantograph under the obstruction, it just won't be a powered line.
Yes, all companies proposing vehicles for GO RER will need to go through safety, weather, and other testing. There is no off-the-shelf vehicle which is fiscally efficient and hits Metrolinx minimum performance specs. It will be a customized to hit spec (and not beyond) regardless of the fiscally optimized battery bank size.
For scale, TTC ordered 480 Toronto Rockets, and MTA rarely buys more than 500 units in an order, but if the vendor chooses EMU's then they'll be producing about 90 units for GO RER. Shaving a tiny fraction off the production cost will be a huge savings; I can all but guarantee it'll be a customized design.
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I'm glade you think so but I never said that.There is no such thing as a perfect solution. One of the drawbacks of battery trains is how often you have to replace the batteries and the cost. The distance it can travel without a full recharge is also an issue as well as how long it takes to recharge the train although a ReBaar type system would go a long way to relieving that.
As far as this idea that some of you have of battery trains being revolutionary, you need to get out more. Battery trains have been around for a century...…………….there is absolutely, positively nothing revolutionary or even novel about them. Battery trains are the same as they have always been and have proven themselves to be efficient and safe. The ONLY difference between older battery ones and the new ones is that the batteries have improved immensely. This means that now they are actually more useful for true commuter/suburban needs.
Most systems , like the new ones built by Bombardier, Stadler, and coming soon Siemens, are dual-mode...…......they can run on both catenary and battery alone. The Auckland system is opening this year, Stadler just got a contract last month for 55 FLIRT battery trains for Germany, Austria is opening several battery lines this year, Britain has already started testing it's new battery trains on regular track for deployment in Anglia, and Ireland's DART announced last month that it is buying 600 carriages to battery and catenary trains to replace the diesels they run now.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I'm not an expert, hence will defer the actual judgement to the experts, but from the sound of it the combination of catenary in most places with battery power in selected spots should be very appealing:
- Solves the mileage problem that battery-only trains might have. The battery might only be needed for 15-30 min at a time, and then it will be recharged while traveling the next catenary-powered section.
- Seamlessly supports less frequent branches off the trunk line, those branches might not have any catenary but will still benefit from the trunk line's catenary.
- If need be, the orignal no-catenary sections can be fitted with catenary at a later point.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
A ReeBaar system at stations makes perfect sense and is used im many places already for electric buses...………...you "gas up" at every short stop instead of a long one at one particular stop. Even regular catenary wires just at the stations themselves would do the trick. These are essentially just good old fashioned EMUs that store more of their energy on board but that's about the only difference.
The issue now is that Metrolinx has not decided on a technology but rather is leaving that up 100% to the bidder...…….an incredibly stupid move. A private business is going to be looking at short-term expenses and not long term needs. ML should have dictated the technology and train types long ago and then put out the bid but that would have required ML to actually make a executive decision something it has proven itself unable to do.
The issue now is that Metrolinx has not decided on a technology but rather is leaving that up 100% to the bidder...…….an incredibly stupid move. A private business is going to be looking at short-term expenses and not long term needs. ML should have dictated the technology and train types long ago and then put out the bid but that would have required ML to actually make a executive decision something it has proven itself unable to do.
jje1000
Senior Member
It definitely would be a more pragmatic approach than forcing centenary across the entire line, but I wonder- wouldn't battery requirements also make the trainsets heavier?
rbt
Senior Member
Definitely. It's a trade of higher operating costs for both lower capital costs and potentially a shorter launch timeframe (the GO RER tender financially rewards an earlier service start, though we don't know how much).
Saving $1B in capital expense is roughly break-even with a $40M/year added operating expense. Bean counters armed with engineer estimates will ultimately make the decision.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Batteries certainly add to the weight but fewer and smaller catenary components on the train itself do help to offset a lot of this. Batteries are also developing at a dizzying pace and so the longevity, weight, and size of the batteries will only improve.
The problem here is that battery maybe the best option {or even hydrogen for that matter} but if none of the bidders decide to go with anything but catenary then it doesn't matter. I honestly don't see any advantages catenary has over battery as both are basically the same technology and the only difference now is that due to the vast improvements in battery technology, they have become far more practical. This however could mean very little to any bidders if the province is going to pay for the catenary infrastructure anyway...……………...private bidders are only interested in sheer operation costs.
There is another very distinct advantage that both Hydrail and battery have over catenary...…………..they can be phased-in. The actual infrastructure needed for both technologies is rather simply, easy to install, and vastly cheaper which are amongst their primary advantages and why their usage is becoming more widespread. Catenary, besides being expensive and time consuming to build is also a all-or-nothing kind of service. You have to wait until an entire line is ready to go before any service can begin and for ML that means late 2025 as opposed to both Hydrail and battery which could be plying the rails in less than 2 years. Again a private bidder doesn't care about that as the contract will only begin when all the lines are up and running.
The problem here is that battery maybe the best option {or even hydrogen for that matter} but if none of the bidders decide to go with anything but catenary then it doesn't matter. I honestly don't see any advantages catenary has over battery as both are basically the same technology and the only difference now is that due to the vast improvements in battery technology, they have become far more practical. This however could mean very little to any bidders if the province is going to pay for the catenary infrastructure anyway...……………...private bidders are only interested in sheer operation costs.
There is another very distinct advantage that both Hydrail and battery have over catenary...…………..they can be phased-in. The actual infrastructure needed for both technologies is rather simply, easy to install, and vastly cheaper which are amongst their primary advantages and why their usage is becoming more widespread. Catenary, besides being expensive and time consuming to build is also a all-or-nothing kind of service. You have to wait until an entire line is ready to go before any service can begin and for ML that means late 2025 as opposed to both Hydrail and battery which could be plying the rails in less than 2 years. Again a private bidder doesn't care about that as the contract will only begin when all the lines are up and running.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Hydrail or battery could turn out to be the best options due to vastly lower initial infrastructure costs, could be up and running 4 years earlier, far easier expandability of the network, and no visual pollution but unfortunately the P3 company doesn't have to worry about such matters.
There is one very easy way to basically put this entire debate to bed...…………..finding out what the 4 short-listed companies are proposing in terms of technology and trains.
There is one very easy way to basically put this entire debate to bed...…………..finding out what the 4 short-listed companies are proposing in terms of technology and trains.
Divas S.
Active Member
You sound like Elon musk trying to convince people that hyperloop is a technology that exists this century.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
You people really are bizarre so let me explain this very clearly so you will be able to follow along..........
Battery trains ARE, in everyway, shape, and form, catenary trains. I'll say that again so you can all keep up.........battery trains and catenary trains are the EXACT same thing. Battery trains use wires to run the trains just like ordinary catenary ones do. The ONLY difference is that battery trains have bigger and more advanced batteries which mean they can run the propulsion between the stations and then recharge at each station using those same catenary wires.
How any of you could view this as revolutionary is completely beyond me.
Battery trains ARE, in everyway, shape, and form, catenary trains. I'll say that again so you can all keep up.........battery trains and catenary trains are the EXACT same thing. Battery trains use wires to run the trains just like ordinary catenary ones do. The ONLY difference is that battery trains have bigger and more advanced batteries which mean they can run the propulsion between the stations and then recharge at each station using those same catenary wires.
How any of you could view this as revolutionary is completely beyond me.