torontowest91
Active Member
so is the park lawn go really delayed to 2032 to 2035??? that's really frustrating as it was supposed to open in 2026. Getting to Mimico from this area isn't the easiest. Long walk and slow bus routes.
|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
Really, any four axle hulk would likely be a candidate for a test bed..
You raise a good point - not much logic to put a project into the production environment without first running it in a test environment.
I imagine that GWR will run more tests and demonstrations before justifying a production order. Their test run, while splashy, is not sufficient testing to get them to funding for a commercial order. Perhaps a test and in-service demonstration on a branch line will happen at some point.
- Paul
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Mainline battery reminds me of the promise and reality of light rail in Ontario.
In theory, allowing a rapid transit system to have level crossings can enable you to build a line as fast as a subway at a fraction of the construction cost. Canada's first LRT - the Edmonton Capital Line - did exactly this. But in Ontario, we used the flexibility of LRT to water down rapid transit projects so heavily that they're no faster than a bus in mixed traffic. Instead of getting a good deal on a rapid transit system, we got a horrible deal on a local transit system.
Similarly, adding small batteries onto electric trains can bring substantial capital cost savings by avoiding the need to electrify complicated areas such as yards, whilst maintaining almost all of the benefits in faster acceleration and lower operating costs. But Ontario politicians and engineers are almost certain to use that flexibility to scale back electrification plans to save capital costs, requiring larger batteries on the trains, which undermines the primary benefits of electrification: faster acceleration and lower operating costs. So instead of saving a few hundred million dollars on an electrification programme that still provides a dramatic performance upgrade, we'll be spending billions on an electrification programme that leaves us with heavy, expensive battery-powered trains that are just as slow as a diesel train.
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Battery technology is developing at a dizzying rate. Prices are falling along with recharging times and the weight of the batteries while capacity is increasing along with the battery longevity. The cost savings between putting up hundreds of km of catenary and buying battery trains with only some recharging at certain stations along the route will continue to widen. In 10 years when the first electric trains finally start rolling, people will be wondering why we wasted so much time and energy to do it.
Battery trains are not some form of novel technology as they have been around nearly as long as trains themselves. The only difference between now and then is that they are now not only affordable but also practical. The usage of battery trains is growing worldwide at an exponential rate because they offer all the benefits of catenary trains without the enormous initial infrastructure costs and don't have the upkeep of maintaining the wires. They are also more reliable in bad weather which can effect/damage the catenary. This is why all major rail manufacturers are now offering battery trains along with their standard catenary.
ML should stop all catenary plans and just use BEMU with recharging at key stations allowing them to run all day. If ML requires endless studies and pilot projects to prove what the rest of the planet already knows, the UPX would be a great place to start. Using BEV, ML could still have it's entire network electrified within 3 years.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
According to their white paper, they ran it not-in-service for a year on the Greenford Branch. Presumably the next step would be to do that again, but in service.
Also according to that white paper, they are using a fast-charger at West Ealing, which is a very energy-intensive way of powering an electric vehicle. The fast charger runs off an intermediate battery bank which is trickle charged from the grid, since it would be very bad for the power grid to suddenly have a Megawatt draw toggling on and off when a train starts and finishes fast-charging.
Image from the GWR white paper.
In a conventional electric train, the energy path is:
Power plant -> transmission -> propulsion system
With trickle-charged battery train (i.e. with overhead lines along a substantial portion of the route) the path for the energy used off-wire is:
Power plant -> transmission -> onboard battery -> propulsion system.
And of course the energy used on-wire is the same path as a normal electric train.
With fast-charge battery trains, the energy path is:
Power plant -> transmission -> lineside battery -> onboard battery -> propulsion system.
Each battery added to the chain involves energy loss, so fast-charge battery trains are inherently the least energy-efficient type of electric train. They also tend to need the largest batteries, so they are also the heaviest and slowest-accelerating.
Last edited:
dowlingm
Senior Member
it will be interesting to see which systems pick which charging system and why. Alstom’s Xtrapolis for Dublin is planned for chargers at outer termini, beginning with Drogheda, but will only charge from braking energy while in motion, not from the existing 1500VDC overhead while in E-mode. Not sure if the decision would have been different with a different power network - haven’t seen any discussion of that.
I doubt you will see many systems heavily hub and spoke as Toronto is relying on any system which would require charging in a central station which needs trains to minimize dwell time in order to maximize throughput.
I doubt you will see many systems heavily hub and spoke as Toronto is relying on any system which would require charging in a central station which needs trains to minimize dwell time in order to maximize throughput.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The reason I think ML should scrap the whole idea of catenary electrification is primarily because they have no intention of doing it in the first place. The lack of electrification has NOTHING to do with funds as ML found piles of money to build palatial parking garages. It was due to incompetence, corruption, and worse of all, bold faced lying. It's been over a decade since they announced the plan and haven't managed to put a single pole in the ground little alone order any vehicles to do it. Now, if Toronto is VERY lucky, they will have some poles in the ground by 2030. The Grand Paris Express on the other hand, started construction in 2016 and by 2030 it will have 200km of new Metro with 68 new stations, and nearly all underground.
ML knew YEARS ago that electrification wasn't going to happen and yet only recently decided to tell the public. They have been lying thru their teeth for years and there is absolutely, positively no reason to think they aren't lying now. Quite the contrary, anyone who think ML is now telling the truth needs professional help.
They should put up the catenary poles at Pearson & Union and get Alstom to loan them an already tested BEV vehicle and start using it on the UPX. They are, according to them, going to be electrifying this segment anyway so they have nothing to lose by trying it out and will actually save them money by reduced operational expenses due to not having to buy diesel to run the crates they have now. I bet Alstom would salivate at the idea of loaning ML a couple battery trains knowing that if they work well, they could be in for a massive future train contract.
ML knew YEARS ago that electrification wasn't going to happen and yet only recently decided to tell the public. They have been lying thru their teeth for years and there is absolutely, positively no reason to think they aren't lying now. Quite the contrary, anyone who think ML is now telling the truth needs professional help.
They should put up the catenary poles at Pearson & Union and get Alstom to loan them an already tested BEV vehicle and start using it on the UPX. They are, according to them, going to be electrifying this segment anyway so they have nothing to lose by trying it out and will actually save them money by reduced operational expenses due to not having to buy diesel to run the crates they have now. I bet Alstom would salivate at the idea of loaning ML a couple battery trains knowing that if they work well, they could be in for a massive future train contract.
Last edited:
cplchanb
Senior Member
for once i actually agree with you in that ML is a terrible corrupt entity with zero integrity on this file. We have the funds to electrify everything but we threw it away just like Brampton threw away their LRT funded project.
ARG1
Senior Member
Source: It was revealed to you in a dream
ssiguy2
Senior Member
What part of Grand Paris Express, ML lying and corruption, spending money on garages and not on electrification, and not telling the public that catenary was not going to be started till at LEAST 2032 am I dreaming about? The truth hurts but what I stated was absolutely true.
afransen
Senior Member
Clearly, Metrolinx is a deeply dysfunctional organization that is not up to the task of developing an ambitious regional electrification program, or seemingly any rapid transit project, on time or on budget. I'm not attributing the malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.
JJTheJetPln
Active Member
ML feels like one of those organizations where there's so much waste in c-suite that it ends up devaluing any work they do without even moving a finger at this point.
I look at projects like the Ion LRT where all ML did was assist with procurement of rail vehicles, as opposed to being the owner of the project. And guess what, even with a job as simple as procuring rail vehicles, they still somehow managed to delay the project. I mean, sure, it was Bombardier, but it still wasn't a good look for ML. Despite the project starting in 2009 and not actually getting shovels in the ground until 2014, it still feels like the GrandLinq consortium did significantly more work in a shorter period of time than ML did with procuring vehicles... Feels like birds of a feather to me.
ML has really lost their way and needs to backseat themselves or remove themselves from projects they have ownership on and bring in a local company/consortium to get the work done. It's clear they've been running around like chickens with their heads cut off and have bit off more than they can chew. There are so many projects they either cannot deliver on because they have no idea what direction to take, or they simply just can't afford it due to their own failure to maintain their books.
It's frustrating to see that the main bottleneck for some if not all of these projects is the government organization responsible for these things.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Yup, very true.
You can also clearly see by their disjointed stoufville line upgrade project that I frequently allude to... the stations have been completed for years yet they somehow fail to connect the track which is one of the easiest tasks to complete save for that highland bridge, which in itself is a failed project as well. I dont get why they cant finish a job before moving onto the next. It seems like they have new toy syndrome. They start a brand new project, lose interest modway through and kick it down the road for another administration to work on it some more a bit until it might get finished somewhere in the next generation....incompetencies everywhere
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I suspect that the part you are not seeing is that resources (especially in the rail engineering industry) are not finite and that it’s therefore often not advisable to waste them on projects which alter track alignments but without being able yet to bring them into their final alignment (either because something is in the way or the final alignment has not yet been decided). Therefore, it might often be better to postpone such works until the moment when it can be done “right and at once” while speeding up other works.
I totally get how this can be frustrating for a regular user of the Stouffville line, but such an approach might be essential to minimize the overall inconvenience faced my GO’s entire ridership. In the meanwhile, I’ll happily share some old timetables to refresh your memory of how service on this line has already improved in the last few years…
Last edited:
KevinT
Active Member
GrandLinq also had to procure their own ATP system for installation in the trains because the Crosstown was already so far behind that they hadn't spec'd it yet. That was the giant holdup, and Bombardier was scapegoated to hide it. The region certainly wasn't going to point fingers at the province and put their (present and future) funding in jeopardy... (No, I don't know this as a fact, its just from reading between all the lines.)