roger1818
Senior Member
Catenary is also high capex per km where as battery is high capex per locomotive, so the cutoff between the two depends on the distance travelled and frequency of service.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Catenary is also high capex per km where as battery is high capex per locomotive, so the cutoff between the two depends on the distance travelled and frequency of service.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I suspect he means multiple-locomotives, like this one on the Narvik-Lulea line in Sweden/Norway I mentioned recently:
Source: David Gubler via Wikimedia
The only freight multiple unit I’m aware of is the ill-fated “CargoSprinter” DMU:
Source: German federal ministry for Transportation and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI)
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
Since freight EMU was mentioned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD2
Apparantly able to haul up to 7,000 t and operate down to -40C. Based on Alstom Prima locomotives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD2
Apparantly able to haul up to 7,000 t and operate down to -40C. Based on Alstom Prima locomotives.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Exactly, electrical multiple-unit freight locomotives exist in countries like Sweden, Russia and China, electrical multiple-unit freight trains (i.e. what @roger1818 referred to with “EMU freight trains”) probably only in Micheal’s unconstrained imagination...
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
Battery is high capex per tonne-mile.
roger1818
Senior Member
I suspect he means multiple-locomotives, like this one on the Narvik-Lulea line in Sweden/Norway I mentioned recently:
Source: David Gubler via Wikimedia
As you said, that is an example of electrified freight, but it certainly isn't an EMU. The locomotives will have a significant amount of weight added to gain traction, which was my point.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IORE_beim_Torneträsk.jpg
The only freight multiple unit I’m aware of is the ill-fated “CargoSprinter” DMU:
Source: German federal ministry for Transportation and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI)
Interesting, though I don't see any catenary, so I assume it is a DMU not an EMU. Regardless an interesting vehicle and would be useful for certain applications, especially with severe restrictions on train lengths Europe. I see it working well for running containers back and forth between a port with limited space to a nearby intermodal yard, especially if it could operate autonomously.
Back to talking about VIA Rail
Bordercollie
Senior Member
For something like double stack well cars, there is space at either side of the car where you could put batteries, and then connect all of those batteries in tandem. You could charge the batteries in the cars while braking and then use the power in the batteries to power the locomotive.
The issue would be, maintenance cycling, and crash management. How about a non revenue car like an APU with just batteries or DPU but without the cab?
The issue would be, maintenance cycling, and crash management. How about a non revenue car like an APU with just batteries or DPU but without the cab?
micheal_can
Senior Member
Right now, all of this is correct. However, with the USA back in the Paris Accord, and no real chance a party in Canada will get in without a climate policy, there is the real possibility that we start decarbonizing the rail industry. If Via is smart, when Amtrak has an order, they order a few too.
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant replacing the existing diesel electric with full electric. Those exist. Having each car with it's own motor would be problematic, and costly.
kEiThZ
Superstar
1) US policy on climate change is largely irrelevant to Canada. We've been ahead of them the entire time. And we're still ahead of them. You'll note they have neither a national plan to cut emissions or any plans to price carbon. This is not the situation Canada is in.
2) Rail emissions are negligible in both countries. And substantially lower per pax-mile or ton-mile than road or aviation alternatives. So governments will not be focusing on rail first. The primary focus is on cutting road and aviation emissions and miles traveled.
3) Canada has chosen a carbon tax to specifically avoid sectoral mandates. Set the price. Industry and consumers will decide what is the cheapest way to cut emissions. In some cases, shifting to diesel rail would cut emissions and costs.
Amtrak already orders for their electrified corridor. VIA just doesn't because it has no electrified order. Heck, it has no full substantial corridor of its own to even electrify.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I can't comment on whether or not there would be sufficient space on well cars, one problem with distributing power throughout the consist is that the bulk of rolling stock is not owned by the carriers. It would be quite an effort to achieve commonality across a fleet that gets bashed around all sorts of roads across NA and sometimes sits idle for extended periods in obscure locations (although no doubt that carriers would love it as it would shift a lot of the cost away from them).
micheal_can
Senior Member
1) For now. However, if they get going in a big way, this could force us to try to keep up.
2) Rail would be easier than trucks. Think of it another way - low hanging fruit. What could the government mandate to decarbon that would be easier for the industry, trucks or trains? The amount may be low but the optics would be high.
So, there will never be another order? I know they have ordered various things as they needed to in the past. I am talking about a future order that eventually will happen.
afransen
Senior Member
I think this is what it would look like. You don't want to worry about maintaining thousands of such cars, and you want to be able to swap the batteries for charging without having to reload the train.
roger1818
Senior Member
The confusion makes sense. While a train with multiple locomotives might sound like it has multiple units, in reality an EMU (or sister DMU) has multiple self propelled carriages instead of one or more locomotives.
kEiThZ
Superstar
First, they are not going to "get going in a big way", simply because their political process doesn't allow for that. Republicans would have to agree to passing a carbon tax in Congress. And they'd have to agree to raising it by $10 per year through 2030 to even come near the ballpark to what Canada is doing. And then all of this would have to survive a whole bunch of lawsuits from the states in a Supreme Court dominated by Republicans, a third of whom are Trump appointees. In short, not happening. Rejoining Paris was somewhat symbolic. And all their emissions cuts are mostly going to come from carrots (incentives and infrastructure dollars) than sticks, which means there's a real limit to what can be done.
So yes we'll always be ahead of them. And that's a good thing. It's a way to develop our cleantech sector and sell to them. See GM's recent investment in Ingersoll as an example.
Why would you think rail is easier? There's zero evidence of that. Battery and hydrogen tech will electrify most last mile logistics and substantial portions of trucking in 10-15 years. The tech is still substantially further out on doing that to freight rail. The passenger rail networks that can be electrified in 10-15 years are well on their way to being done.
If you're talking about a future in 2-3 decades? Sure. Right now though, it's hard to see any of this in the next 10-15 years. We don't even have an announcement on HFR yet. And when announced, it'll be unelectrified single track for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec. We're a long ways away from doing joint orders with Amtrak on electrified rolling stock. Maybe in the 2040s, when our Chargers and their Avelia Libertys are going on two decades, we will have something to talk about.
p_xavier
Active Member
This documentary from 1984 is still so on point :