News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 521     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.1K     1 

GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

trtcttc said:
Is there a reason why for GO, which has mostly longer bus routes, they don't experiment with other technology like Hydrogen? I understand EVs for passenger cars, but for Busses, lugging all that weight around must not be ideal, and the downsides of hydrogen (expensive storage, facilities) aren't as big of an issue to a transit agency vs passenger cars.
Click to expand...

I don't see GO lagging behind any of the other local operators. Is anyone making big investments of this sort yet?

"Wait and see" is a very businesslike strategy with such new technology. Let somebody else get all the bugs out and wait until the manufacturing costs come down.

When others make the leap, GO will likely do likewise.

- Paul.
 
Speaking of the buses

Is it true that all of the current active GO buses are in the two tone MX scheme now?
 
trtcttc said:
Is there a reason why for GO, which has mostly longer bus routes, they don't experiment with other technology like Hydrogen? I understand EVs for passenger cars, but for Busses, lugging all that weight around must not be ideal, and the downsides of hydrogen (expensive storage, facilities) aren't as big of an issue to a transit agency vs passenger cars.
Click to expand...
I think Metrolinx has an RFI out for a hydrogen fuel cell pilot project. Not sure if it’s for GO or for the TPI agencies.

Mississauga has a planned fuel cell pilot project too. They are just waiting for the funding.
 
trtcttc said:
Is there a reason why for GO, which has mostly longer bus routes, they don't experiment with other technology like Hydrogen? I understand EVs for passenger cars, but for Busses, lugging all that weight around must not be ideal, and the downsides of hydrogen (expensive storage, facilities) aren't as big of an issue to a transit agency vs passenger cars.
Click to expand...
Depending on the form, hydrogen is even more problematic than battery power. And even in its best form, it's beset by many of the same issues as battery electric vehicles.

It's a neat toy, but it's not a practical alternative.

Dan
 
Based on what I saw in Europe last years, the DD systems I saw in 2012 were replaced with articulated buses as it didn't require tall towers for overhead charging along the routes to allow charging where the bus needs to be top up or a plug-in charger. The few DD I did see were hybrids. There are battery power DD, but never saw any.

Since none of GO routes are over 150 km, ML can easy install charging stations at the end of the route or bus terminals to top the bus up to keep it on the road for a full day of runs without worrying about the 400 km range. Without charging stations for the route, the DD will only do a few trips before heading back to the garage to be charge with x replacing it.

Poor use for resources
 
smallspy said:
Depending on the form, hydrogen is even more problematic than battery power. And even in its best form, it's beset by many of the same issues as battery electric vehicles.

It's a neat toy, but it's not a practical alternative.

Dan
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on some of the reasons? The two big problems I see with battery is the downtime required for charging. And operationally, if there are issues, unforeseen traffic, etc. all more difficult to manage with a BEV.
Hydrogen has a much higher energy density and can be “refueled” fairly quickly at end or main stations.
 
trtcttc said:
Could you elaborate on some of the reasons? The two big problems I see with battery is the downtime required for charging. And operationally, if there are issues, unforeseen traffic, etc. all more difficult to manage with a BEV.
Hydrogen has a much higher energy density and can be “refueled” fairly quickly at end or main stations.
Click to expand...
If you are "burning" the hydrogen - using it directly in an internal combustion engine - you require way more of it by volume as it is far less energy-dense than any of the traditional fuels, even the natural gases. Plus, it needs to be liquefied, which means keeping it chilled to something near -150C. Although here, you may not need to worry about batteries. But range becomes a factor, as the volume of your storage is directly tied to how far you can go and the engine size.

If you are using it in a fuel cell, that seems to be a far better option but it's still not really ideal. The storage cylinders are similar than for using in an ICE as the hydrogen doesn't keep to be kept refrigerated, but they still take up a lot of volume and add a lot of weight. And then you still have all of the potential issues of the batteries and an electric drivetrain.

It's not to say that improvements can't be made - hydrogen as a fuel has come a long way in the last 30-ish years. There have been and are fleets of vehicles out in service running entirely on hydrogen. But the drawbacks of it still seem so great that it seems churlish to spent too much time on it when there are far better options available or on the horizon.

Dan
 
The pressure vessels themselves add a lot of weight, although I don't know how that compares to a comparable battery pack. As well, the weight is localized to where the tanks are, as compared to battery packs which are typically integral with the body/frame structure, comparatively thin, and help maintain a lower centre of gravity. As it stands now, there is very little in form of fuel supply chain that GO could draw on, and would have to replicate a fueling dock at each of their yards.
 
lenaitch said:
The pressure vessels themselves add a lot of weight, although I don't know how that compares to a comparable battery pack. As well, the weight is localized to where the tanks are, as compared to battery packs which are typically integral with the body/frame structure, comparatively thin, and help maintain a lower centre of gravity. As it stands now, there is very little in form of fuel supply chain that GO could draw on, and would have to replicate a fueling dock at each of their yards.
Click to expand...
Well, as an example.....

New Flyer built a fleet of 20 hydrogen-hybrid buses for Whistler for use in the 2010 Olympics. The buses had to have an artificially low maximum rider capacity - just a little over the maximum seated capacity - because of the additional weight of the tanks and other hydrogen accessories greatly increased the empty weight of the vehicles.

Dan
 
RS3488 said:
In other news

207 currently holding at North Bay, likely to be delivered back to Toronto soon.
Click to expand...
Hi i'm new to this forum, is there a reason why GO 206 hasn't been flipped around yet. I saw it the other day. Are they trying to break it in or what?
 
ryanandmagic said:
Hi i'm new to this forum, is there a reason why GO 206 hasn't been flipped around yet. I saw it the other day. Are they trying to break it in or what?
Click to expand...

Just because the long term plan says the cab cars will be needed down the road, doesn’t mean that there is any short term urgency to putting them in service as such. They are not being rebuilt or released on a just-in-time basis.
When the time is right, they will be turned and deployed as cab cars - but there is no rush.

- Paul
 
RS3488 said:
So the London Train only had 1 F59 today but still had 10 cars
Click to expand...
F59s are certified for up to 10 coaches but it's definitely unusual. A 10 car train with only one F59 must take forever to accelerate.

I assume (hope) it was just an temporary situation rather than a change in policy.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top