GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[cplchanb]

They don't want catenary on their freight mainlines. That definitely precludes the Kitchener Line through Brampton, but not necessarily as far as Bramalea, especially after that station is rebuilt, with south tracks separated from the double-stacked through freights. After all, there are several sections of CN-owned track with overhead electric catenary.

"Not on their land under any circumstances" isn't quite the same thing.

what is their rationale about this? on that note why cant they also convert to electric as well? (at least for their mainline routes) kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

going back to the original question, would it be possible for ml to lay their own track parallel to cns and call it theirs? or if crossovers are a concern give that new section to them and take what we need.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Didn't I read something where CN has indicated they can live with the overhead wires for their local switching jobs on the various corridors that'll be electrified.

 

[crs1026]

^ Didn't I read something where CN has indicated they can live with the overhead wires for their local switching jobs on the various corridors that'll be electrified.

I seem to recall there were some exceptions in the RER BCS document, but my dusty memory says they were the reverse.... ie CN was ok with operating under wires on GO owned lines where they have switching rights.

Just a few things that might be problemmatic
- having to train all their crews on procedures for operating under wires
- restrictions on the use of boom trucks by MOW, and procedures for same
- loss of productivity applying work protection (ie ensuring wires are turned off) for track maintenance especially with high-profile work trucks
- added inspection time (who does periodic inspection on the wires, and when)
- procedures (and liability) if the wires come down
- procedures (and liability) if the wires come down and land on dangerous commodity cars
- added dead-track time and "foreperson" requirements to allow wires maintenance crews to occupy tracks to fix wires, and
- who maintains the wires, and complexities of CN letting them on the property (ML vs CN vs Hy1)

I know, I know, other railroads eg CSS+SB do this just fine, but they are possible reasons why CN might have reservations. Or, just not want the hassle.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

I seem to recall there were some exceptions in the RER BCS document, but my dusty memory says they were the reverse.... ie CN was ok with operating under wires on GO owned lines where they have switching rights.

Just a few things that might be problemmatic
- having to train all their crews on procedures for operating under wires
- restrictions on the use of boom trucks by MOW, and procedures for same
- loss of productivity applying work protection (ie ensuring wires are turned off) for maintenance especially with high-profile work trucks
- procedures if the wires come down
- procedures if the wires come down and land on dangerous commodity cars
- added dead-track time and "foreperson" requirements to allow wires maintenance crews to occupy tracks to fix wires, and
- who maintains the wires, and complexities of CN letting them on the property (ML vs CN vs Hy1)

I know, I know, other railroads eg CS+SB do this just fine, but they are possible reasons why CN might have reservations.

- Paul

Thanks Paul. Totally get that. But what about the local CN customers between Bramalea-Union, Oshawa-Union, Unionville-Union, etc. How would switching be handled in those cases? Here's an example in the Union Corridor. Would you think that the Ford Oakville plant on the Lakeshore West line would be the highest volume shipper on GO owned tracks? Or maybe some of the chemical plans along Lakeshore West?

Also, I note that the June 2016 announcement about the MOU with CN to study the Bypass suggested "most" of the CN traffic would be diverted, which suggests some would remain if this section was electrified.

 

[crs1026]

I'm presuming it would be the same as now....CN diesel powered trains run under the wires to do their local work, usually at nights or during non-peak periods. The only incremental issue might be a few new rules and procedures to ensure that nobody on the CN crews is tempted to climb above a safe level where they could get too close to the wires. And what to do to stay safe if the wires come down. It would be up to GO to figure out when to fix the wires and how and who to utilise for that.... no headache or risk assumed by CN, and no CN assets impacted.

There are a couple of daytime switching jobs in the Rexdale-Malton-Peel area, btw. They do tie up a mainline between Halwest and Peel for substantial periods, but with three main lines that is not usually a problem. It does happen that one main line is tied up with track maintenance, one with local switching..... leaving only one left to run trains on. In many spots there are enough service tracks for the local trains to clear the mainline to do their work, but not everywhere.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

What I think is they don't want electrification on their mainlines, but will tolerate electrification on branch/customer lines (running rights on Metrolinx lines, etc).

Operationally, they will probably have to cover (tarp) bucket cars -- especially the loose-metal-scrap hazard under high voltage.

I see freight trains with open-bucket cars with loose metal scrap in them, and I wonder: I doubt they'd be able to run it that way under electrification, given wind can blow light pieces of metal (sheet metal, etc) upwards, close the arcing distance, and cause a big dangerous zap.

 

[dowlingm]

Article here on the "hydrail" conference where car makers had a surprising amount to say.
https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...oo-quick-to-get-on-board-with-hydrogen-trains
The key piece is where the hydrogen is coming from. Electrolysis is one thing but fossil fuel steam reformation is something else entirely.

 

[rbt]

Article here on the "hydrail" conference where car makers had a surprising amount to say.
https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...oo-quick-to-get-on-board-with-hydrogen-trains
The key piece is where the hydrogen is coming from. Electrolysis is one thing but fossil fuel steam reformation is something else entirely.

If there's one thing Ontario has an over abundance of between 1am and 6am, it's electricity.

Straight electrification is clearly best but for parts of the corridors where catenary isn't practical (Kitchener line at the moment; Hydrail seems just as practical at this point as the freight bypass), doing something which time-shifts generation isn't the worst idea.

 

[dowlingm]

If there's one thing Ontario has an over abundance of between 1am and 6am, it's electricity (and steam at some specific locations).

Straight electrification is clearly best but for parts of the corridors where catenary isn't practical (Kitchener line at the moment; Hydrail seems just as practical at this point as the freight bypass), doing something which time-shifts generation isn't the worst idea.

Except existing technology (ALP-45DP locomotives) is in service now to allow bridging the catenary gaps. With the money saved by using existing technology (avoided costs of new refuelling facilities etc) you can do other proven stuff to displace/reduce fossil fuel.

 

[rbt]

Except existing technology (ALP-45DP locomotives) is in service now to allow bridging the catenary gaps. With the money saved by using existing technology (avoided costs of new refuelling facilities etc) you can do other proven stuff to displace/reduce fossil fuel.

Or we can just use the same equipment we do today and skip electrification (and higher frequencies due to fuel costs) on those problem lines entirely. That is the most likely answer for the next government.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What I think is they don't want electrification on their mainlines, but will tolerate electrification on branch/customer lines (running rights on Metrolinx lines, etc).

Operationally, they will probably have to cover (tarp) bucket cars -- especially the loose-metal-scrap hazard under high voltage.

I see freight trains with open-bucket cars with loose metal scrap in them, and I wonder: I doubt they'd be able to run it that way under electrification, given wind can blow light pieces of metal (sheet metal, etc) upwards, close the arcing distance, and cause a big dangerous zap.

All I can say is our national rail policy requires an enema. It's odd that we built the country through railways and now it is what is holding it back.

AoD

 

[jje1000]

Article here on the "hydrail" conference where car makers had a surprising amount to say.
https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...oo-quick-to-get-on-board-with-hydrogen-trains
The key piece is where the hydrogen is coming from. Electrolysis is one thing but fossil fuel steam reformation is something else entirely.

Definitely the biggest points that need reiterating:

[...] Metrolinx is looking for a two-car trainset with two levels, like GO’s current passenger cars, or possibly a fuel-cell locomotive that could be a “drop-in” replacement for their current diesel engines.

In short, Metrolinx is asking for private companies to bid to make something that doesn’t currently exist. The costs are a big question mark. So is the performance. One of the reasons the government was going to go with overhead wires was that electric trains can accelerate faster than their diesel counterparts, allowing a railway to run more vehicles in and out of stations, safely. That means more frequent train service for riders. Can Metrolinx find a hydrogen train vendor that can meet those specs while delivering the number of trains needed by the 2025 deadline?

And can they do it while sticking to the $13 billion budget? The costs of electrification aren’t small, but they’re at least well-understood, and there’s reason enough to be confident they won’t shoot rapidly skyward. The risk of pursuing an unknown, unproven technology is that costs could explode, or the government could simply abandon its service targets. Instead of trains every 15 minutes or less, riders could be left with service no better than what they have now.

And while a study from California, cited at the symposium, projects hydrail costs coming in much lower than conventional electrification, that assumes the costs of overhead wires are amortized over many fewer trains than Metrolinx actually plans to run — 100 or so round trips weekly, as opposed to Metrolinx’s 6,000, if service is expanded as planned. The idea of powering hydrogen trains with Ontario’s copious overnight electricity surpluses, meanwhile, is kind of perverse: it uses the Liberals’ terrible record on energy policy to drive risky decisions on transportation policy.

But it’s fair to question the government’s record on this file: the Liberals collectively, and Del Duca specifically, have a history of pressuring Metrolinx to come to the politically convenient answer no matter what the evidence says.

The mood at the symposium wasn’t reassuring, either: for a conference nominally about the prospects of improving train service in the GTA, some of the biggest boosters for fuel cell technology included natural gas companies (hydrogen can be extracted from methane) and car manufacturers. Automakers are welcome to their informed opinions as to what makes a good car, but they probably aren’t motivated by ensuring the best transit experience possible

In fact, it seemed as if the most exciting prospect for some in the room was that all the spending on hydrogen fuelling infrastructure might drive consumers toward fuel-cell cars, which have had a hard time competing with conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles, as well as with battery-powered electric cars such as those Tesla makes. (One panellist who said the industry needed to redouble its efforts on fuel cells “because Elon Musk gets too much airtime” was, perhaps, being too honest.)

There was a lot of talk on Thursday about the “bravery” and “vision” it would take to choose hydrogen trains over “conventional” (and thus boring) electrification. But it’s easy to be brave when you’re gambling with other people’s money. Sometimes the hard thing in government is shouting down the flatterers and courtiers who know that, in this world, even failures make out like bandits.

 

[raptor]

Update on Hydrail from the Dec 7 Metrolinx Board meeting

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Was on the subway a day or two ago and Phil Verster and the guy at Metrolinx who did the Hydrail presentation at the last board meeting got on and sat next to me at Union. I believe they were discussing that the intended direction was to have consortiums have an option to choose hydrogen or catenary when they make their bids (I think we all know what they will choose), they were saying something about it being built into the RFQ in a flexible way. I'd like to have listened more but they got off at Queen's Park and I had class.

There's nothing better than eavesdropping on unsuspecting public figures in public. Great catch on the information by the way.

 

[Allandale25]

Was on the subway a day or two ago and Phil Verster and the guy at Metrolinx who did the Hydrail presentation at the last board meeting got on and sat next to me at Union. I believe they were discussing that the intended direction was to have consortiums have an option to choose hydrogen or catenary when they make their bids (I think we all know what they will choose), they were saying something about it being built into the RFQ in a flexible way. I'd like to have listened more but they got off at Queen's Park and I had class.

Good report but next time skip class