pman
Senior Member
This time it’s different.
From my understanding, fuel cells that are powered with hydrogen produced via electrolysis are very inefficient compared to an electric motor hooked onto the grid. You would use significantly more electricity to power hydrail than traditional electric trains. On top of that, you will need a large infrastructure to carry and supply the hydrogen to the trains which will also be energy intensive.
Knowing that much of the marginal supply of electricity to the North American (and Ontario indirectly) grids comes from fossil fuel, I don't think that hydrail is such a green alternative. I must say that at least it doesn't produce local emissions in the city.
Adding together these three factors, the Ontario grid experiences very substantial surpluses of green
electricity every day. The cost of this unwanted electricity is recovered by the Global Adjustment (GA).
The cost of electricity for either Hydrail or track electrification is crucially important to the choice
between the two technologies. The entire premise of Hydrail is that hydrogen will be generated by
accessing this unwanted electricity. In storing electricity as hydrogen, it will time-shift energy demand
by tapping into the unwanted surplus. Consequently, it is our understanding that electricity for Hydrail
would not be subject to the GA.
In contrast, the power required for the Overhead Contact System (OCS) does not alleviate the supplydemand
imbalance and would, therefore, likely be subject to GA.
Here's my take on it: I'd be fine with Hydrail for some of the exurban lines, but I think the core GO network should be electrified. Run electrified RER on West Harbour-Oshawa, Mt Pleasant-Unionville, and Aurora-Union, but implement Hydrail on routes like Niagara Falls-West Harbour, Kitchener-Union (express after Mt Pleasant), and Barrie (express after Aurora).
This would not only provide a good rolling stock delineation between the "core" RER network and the longer-haul routes, but it would also save money on not having to electrify through largely rural areas.
The Liberals think hydrogen trains are the future — but what if they're wrong?
ANALYSIS: Metrolinx has ordered hydrogen-powered trains for GO Transit. But even the companies eager to sell them can’t promise they’ll actually work, writes John Michael McGrath
Hasn't the province been down this road before, with unproven, one-off technology not used elsewhere?
I wonder how that turned out...
Column here on the topic.
I can only assume that you are talking about the SRT. Well ART was NOT unproven technology as it had been used before using it's linear technology. The only difference is that it was already bring used by Metros and not more LRT size trains. Linear induction {ie SkyTrain} has proven itself in Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur to be safe, fast, reliable, comfortable, and cost effective. Just because Toronto screwed up it's SRT doesn't mean other cities have.
The reason ART never really caught on is because, unlike Hydrail, there was no real advantage in using it over standard Metro. Outside of having tighter curve capacity, the difference in cost was negligible. Why bother using a new technology with very few potential suppliers as opposed to using standard Metro when there is no real advantage in doing so? This is NOT the case with Hydrail as it has many advantages over catenary as I stated earlier such as it's flexibility of service, being able to run on non-electrified lines, faster and cheaper to implement, and none of the visual pollution of catenary. This also a system that is now up and running in Germany and China with many other countries interested in employing it. It will also have off-the-shelf suppliers of the 3 largest rail manufacturers in the world.
If there was no advantage of using catenary over Hydrail then they should abandon the whole idea. Unlike Skytrain as opposed to standard Metro, there is no real advantage of choosing SkyTrain while Hydrail has many clear technical and operation advantages over catenary which is why it is being studied intensely in Toronto and many other countries. Metrolinx and many other cities and countries in the world are not looking at Hydrail as an alternative to catenary because they have nothing else to do but because they see it as potentially being a superior choice.
But why not? Risk just means $s, and all $s will get bundled into the overall price tag to the government.Can people stop acting like RER is going to be hydrail? It's up to the bidders and I seriously doubt they'd take the risk.
Don't make me laugh. A year ago nobody was talking about Hyrail or whatever the hell you call it at Metrolinx. This looks like something Del Duca is pushing and now everyone is running around all giddy about it. This looks like a "boondoggle" waiting to happen. We don't need to be guinea pigs for any unproven technology.
For those interested, here is the documents list and document requestor list.For those interested, Link to the Prototype Locomotive Design Services Project RFP
Get a loaner of the current trains and use it as a semi-DRL from Weston to Kennedy and see how it works. Find out it's strong points and shortcomings, cost-effectiveness, reliability, and equally important the riders viewpoint. Toronto would have nothing to lose and work with Alstom so they are in charge of operations. By doing this you would be offering some relief of B&Y and crucially will be able to study the technology and it's application first hand so that any informed and reasoned decision can be made. When dealing with such a huge project, hyperbole from either side of the argument serves no one and often result in decisions made on emotions and not logical...........Toronto of all cities should know the danger of that.
For those interested, here is the documents list and document requestor list.
View attachment 135367 View attachment 135368
Personally, I think hydrail is only good for a trial on a feeder line.
Bolton shuttle, Niagara-Hamilron shuttle, etc.