News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 975     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 388     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 707     1 

GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

ssiguy2 said:
Hydrogen, is far better used on more long-haul needs like transport, ferries, air travel, cargo ships, longer distance rail service, and cars. It offers the flexibility of traditional diesel/oil/jet fuel without the emissions and is blissfully quieter. It can used for commuter systems but it has one big drawback............it can never be used on a route with any underground stations due to safety concerns much like diesel can't. As RER ridership soars it may be necessary to build even a small underground alternative station to relieve the stress on Union and with hydrogen that simply wouldn't be an option. Of course it is very promising but also is still a newer technology and will require years to get the kinks out of the system to say nothing of having a number of large fuel suppliers.

Battery trains are very much just standard catenary trains that simply require fewer wires. This gives them the flexibility of running on non-electrified routes, far less initial infrastructure costs, not having to deal with low clearance bridges, and are more reliable due to not being at the whim of Mother Nature. They also have far lower operational costs because they don't require constant replacements, maintenance, and repairs due to weather as wires ones do. The recharging stations can simply be done at each station but are more secure and now require no contact so degradation of the system is nearly non-existent. They also don't have the visual pollution of catenary wires makes them more palatable to the neighbourhoods they are going thru.

Battery trains have been around forever as has the technology and it is proven. The only difference now is that the battery technology has allowed them to be cost efficient and practical.
Click to expand...
Hydrogen makes more sense on long range freight vehicles where even if batteries get cheap, power to weight ratio would remain an issue.
 
robmausser said:
I hope whatever they do they consult with VIA on the power system.

I foresee VIA HFR being extended to London in the future via Kitchener, and it would be a pain if the electrification for the current HFR plan and Metrolinx was a different standard.
Click to expand...

For long distance like this It would be 25kV AC whether done for/by GO or for/by VIA. I don't know if maximum/minimum contact wire heights and the max offset from the rail centerline would be standard though, or if the two systems could still trip each other up there. Hopefully not...
 
^Everything that ML has done on electrification has referenced 25 kv which is the industry benchmark. I have lots of confidence that VIA has not been excluded in the planning. It would be remarkable if either GO or VIA went anywhere else in their thinking.

These EA’s are really just filling in small gaps in the earlier global electrification EA, and suggest that some finer detail thinking is going on. They are pretty innocuous to my eye. One senses that this corridor may see electrification even sooner than say LSE/LSW, perhaps because there are fewer things (eg low bridges) in the way that require costly prerequisite civil works.

I was intrigued by the sudden upping of profile around indigenous consultation. ( I’m not objecting, just observing). One of my pet conspiracy theories is that there is in fact a treaty document lurking somewhere which directly bears on this particular line. Collenette’s study hinted at this also. First Nations consent may somehow be more central to moving ahead than has been the case with other GTA rail projects. Just a theory.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
These EA’s are really just filling in small gaps in the earlier global electrification EA, and suggest that some finer detail thinking is going on. They are pretty innocuous to my eye. One senses that this corridor may see electrification even sooner than say LSE/LSW, perhaps because there are fewer things (eg low bridges) in the way that require costly prerequisite civil works.
Click to expand...

This may be the case, but without the LSE how would they get any electric trains onto the corridor?
 
crs1026 said:
I was intrigued by the sudden upping of profile around indigenous consultation. ( I’m not objecting, just observing). One of my pet conspiracy theories is that there is in fact a treaty document lurking somewhere which directly bears on this particular line. Collenette’s study hinted at this also. First Nations consent may somehow be more central to moving ahead than has been the case with other GTA rail projects. Just a theory.

- Paul
Click to expand...
The Haldimand Tract could cause issues. Decent explainer. Full extent of the tract. And part of a small ongoing protest right now in Kitchener.
 
This is one of the many problems with how Metrolinx has proceeded with RER. It is patently ridiculous that 6 years after RER was announced they still don't even know what kind of trains or technology they are going to be using. Now this discussion about catenary on the Kitchener Line which may not even be relevant if they go with battery or hydrogen. They are rebuilding stations and expanding/widening the rail network without putting up the catenary at the same time because again they don't know if they will be needed. That means if they go catenary all the disruption will start all over again.

It is the most ass backwards way to proceed with transit known to man and all because ML refuses to make any decisions about anything at all. As for this stupid notion of waiting for the bidders, that is not only a cop-out but one that will not serve Torontonians. Having a system that's based upon strictly the financial operation dictated by companies is offensive because what is best for a company does not mean it is the best system for the travelling public.

Can you imagine building the Eglinton Crosstown and then at the last minute deciding what king of trains and technology they have decided to use? It is patently absurd. Every other system on the planet has the trains and technology decided BEFORE it goes out to tender so they get more competing bids, can have more proactive, effciient, and coordinated corridor and station planning, and the travelling public actually knows what they are going to be getting. This is why the much shorter OL is getting all the attention but isn't nearly as transformative as RER.............it doesn't mean anything to anybody because nobody knows what it is, including ML.
 
ssiguy2 said:
This is one of the many problems with how Metrolinx has proceeded with RER. It is patently ridiculous that 6 years after RER was announced they still don't even know what kind of trains or technology they are going to be using. Now this discussion about catenary on the Kitchener Line which may not even be relevant if they go with battery or hydrogen. They are rebuilding stations and expanding/widening the rail network without putting up the catenary at the same time because again they don't know if they will be needed. That means if they go catenary all the disruption will start all over again.

It is the most ass backwards way to proceed with transit known to man and all because ML refuses to make any decisions about anything at all. As for this stupid notion of waiting for the bidders, that is not only a cop-out but one that will not serve Torontonians. Having a system that's based upon strictly the financial operation dictated by companies is offensive because what is best for a company does not mean it is the best system for the travelling public.

Can you imagine building the Eglinton Crosstown and then at the last minute deciding what king of trains and technology they have decided to use? It is patently absurd. Every other system on the planet has the trains and technology decided BEFORE it goes out to tender so they get more competing bids, can have more proactive, effciient, and coordinated corridor and station planning, and the travelling public actually knows what they are going to be getting. This is why the much shorter OL is getting all the attention but isn't nearly as transformative as RER.............it doesn't mean anything to anybody because nobody knows what it is, including ML.
Click to expand...
Judging by their business case as well as previous statements, it's 99% going to be EMU/Electrification unless they decide to change their mind last minute.
 
They have already proposed and changed proposals and tendered and changed tender and put the onus on the bidders because they cant make a decision. Yet here we are... "hoping" they dont change their minds... again! In the meantime a decade has passed and more years will pass still while we miss deadline after deadline.

Its shocking what makes the media these days while constant government waste goes unnoticed no matter the party in power.
 
robmausser said:
and both are more expensive than overhead in terms of cost and efficiency.

When you have to bring your energy with you, it will always be less efficient.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Hundreds of km of overhead incur some maintenance cost, and the electric transmission isn't loss-free.

I suspect overhead is the most efficient option for busy corridors. That said, the battery option may be a good start because it is compatible with future overhead. You can start with battery trains that charge at designated stations only, then add overhead and let the trains draw power from the overhead wile they are serving sections with wires.

I am less optimistic about hydrogen because that option requires completely separate infrastructure. You can't regenerate the hydrogen onboard the hydrogen powered trains even if overhead is added, because hydrogen needs to be stored at a very high pressure to fit into a reasonable volume. If we were to start building hydrogen infrastructure, we would be somewhat pinned to that choice since noone wants duplicate costs.
 
robmausser said:
and both are more expensive than overhead in terms of cost and efficiency.
Click to expand...

That depends on the capital obstacles to building the overhead.

In a clear field with nearby power plants and trains making a couple trips an hour then overhead is definitely the way to go.

With dozens of bridges that would require rebuilding at a different height? Well, I'd still say overhead but if you can sneak a non-electrified wire under the existing bridge (to guide the pantograph without need for electrical clearance) with 10kwh of battery on-board then that's a pretty good deal.

Through mountainous regions which have unpopulated valleys (no electrical feed), older small tunnels too small for overhead, and 1 trip per day at the most? Battery banks for the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
Crossposting from the Jane LRT thread, an update on the bidding process for RER.

Edit: Yes I did check the Wayback Machine to see if this is updated.

1599777534443.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top