News   Apr 19, 2024
 347     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 9K     2 

VIA Rail

There are a lot of "Ifs". If all of that happens, then it is reasonable that BEMUs could come to the Corridor. However, I doubt that will happen that quick.

If the "ifs" don't pan out, it's fine, they can stick to the Siemens Chargers. If the growth doesn't pan out, they won't have much of a case for electrification either.

The issue is whether the section of electrification are long enough to charge the batteries.

They should be fine. Stretches like Kitchener-Union-Peterborough (> 200 km) will be long enough, with some of the longer station stops at these locations. Ditto for Smith Falls-Ottawa (~80 km). The train will be spending longer under wires than the spaces in between. They can simply make the stops at major centres a few minutes longer if necessary.

I don't think it'll be a huge concern. We have EV battery packs capable of 350 kW charging (Porsche Taycan). And research on batteries and supercapacitors are still ramping up. I can only imagine what will be possible in a decade.
 
If the "ifs" don't pan out, it's fine, they can stick to the Siemens Chargers. If the growth doesn't pan out, they won't have much of a case for electrification either.



They should be fine. Stretches like Kitchener-Union-Peterborough (> 200 km) will be long enough, with some of the longer station stops at these locations. Ditto for Smith Falls-Ottawa (~80 km). The train will be spending longer under wires than the spaces in between. They can simply make the stops at major centres a few minutes longer if necessary.

I don't think it'll be a huge concern. We have EV battery packs capable of 350 kW charging (Porsche Taycan). And research on batteries and supercapacitors are still ramping up. I can only imagine what will be possible in a decade.

Fast charging batteries actually degrades them. So, now we are going to have a fleet that gets fast charged? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Fast charging a car is much different than a train. Typically, a car spends most of it's time stopped, and can therefore be on a long, slow charge. for most of the time. A battery train doesn't sit much, which means it doesn't have the chance to recover from the fast charges.. If there is only a gap of 200-300 km, then it makes more financial sense to install wires.
 
Fast charging batteries actually degrades them.

You need to look up recent battery developments. This is the entire point of something like Tesla's million mile battery. Allows for more rapid and deep charging cycles than the life of the car. This won't be any issue in 5 years, let alone 10.

Also, battery packs are modular. Simply replace them if the state of charge is too low. Won't be all that expensive. Fraction of buying a new locomotive. The periodic replacement cost just becomes part of the business case.
 
You need to look up recent battery developments. This is the entire point of something like Tesla's million mile battery. Allows for more rapid and deep charging cycles than the life of the car. This won't be any issue in 5 years, let alone 10.

Also, battery packs are modular. Simply replace them if the state of charge is too low. Won't be all that expensive. Fraction of buying a new locomotive. The periodic replacement cost just becomes part of the business case.

Or, we forgo that cost and just use a wire to give it electricity.
 
Or, we forgo that cost and just use a wire to give it electricity.

Putting up that wire cost $2B. That buys a lot of battery packs and track. I'd rather see them put the money towards building a better line than electrification of a corridor that won't see more than 15-20 trains per day for a decade or two. The $2B it would cost to electrify Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, is enough to get them to London, after RER. What would you rather have? HFR service to London by 2030, or an electrified Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal?
 
Putting up that wire cost $2B. That buys a lot of battery packs and track. I'd rather see them put the money towards building a better line than electrification of a corridor that won't see more than 15-20 trains per day for a decade or two. The $2B it would cost to electrify Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, is enough to get them to London, after RER. What would you rather have? HFR service to London by 2030, or an electrified Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal?

... It is funny that you think that much expansion that will take the Charger away from the Corridor will be in place by 2030.

Here is how I see things happening:
1) GO and EXO electrified.
2) Via Electrifies HFR routes between them.
3) New services open elsewhere.

There is no space there for a battery system. Vis is most likely replacing the Chargers with an electric unit. I'd like to be proven wrong, but Via does not exactly do things that are an interim solution.
 
... It is funny that you think that much expansion that will take the Charger away from the Corridor will be in place by 2030.

Not so much expansion as electrification. After RER is done in 2030, VIA might want to have at least 200 km where they can run on electricity.

Here is how I see things happening:
1) GO and EXO electrified.
2) Via Electrifies HFR routes between them.
3) New services open elsewhere.

One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. If GO and Exo are electrified, it doesn't follow that VIA will electrify the stretches in between. That would still be expensive. It's ~200 km from Peterborough to Smiths Falls. And there's no guarantee at all that GO would electrify all the way till Peterborough. VIA might have to electrify more than 250 km of the corridor, for just 1-2 trains per hour in each direction. Nor is there any understanding that GO, Exo and VIA could electrify corridors that are shared with freight. It most certainly will be a business case evaluation whether electrification in the boonies is cheaper than simply fielding BEMUs over a 20 year service life.

I think everyone gets wrapped with thinking of electrified corridors in Europe and Asia. But they have more service than HFR would see for a long time. And they were built in an era where batteries and fuel cells weren't capable of what we're discussing. I doubt they would have built their networks the same way if they had current technology.
 
Last edited:
What shifts it? The answer is the same as your automatic transmission - hydraulics. There is no mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels.

No, its a computer controlled gearbox, theres no hydraulics or torque convertor.

You are getting confused also,

Hydraulic-Diesel trains literally use hydraulic fluid as a means of power transmission, the hydraulic fluid turns special hydraulic motors in the wheels. No gears.
 
Then we have the "Pound for pound of fuel." that I said. Most people do not understand what kj/kg are.

Even still, J/kg is a unit of Specific Energy. Certainly important information, but still not the efficiency.

But really, we are talking how much energy from a given method is the cheapest per watt.

Once again, while the cost of energy is another important consideration, and can be affected by the efficiency of the process, it isn't the efficiency.

But, let's say we don't have access liquid fuels. Well, the only one is the Rankine. Nuclear plants, such as Darlington, Pickering and Bruce all are simple Rankine plants that use the heat given off from nuclear fission to heat the water going to a steam turbine. So, if we ever can get a fission plant to meet the required crash standards, and be small enough to fit on an existing engine, there would be no need for batteries, or other prime movers to move trains.

While safety (including crash worthiness) is certainly the most important consideration in terms of nuclear powered trains, another very significant issue is the need for variable power output. I am not sure about thorium molten salt reactors, but the uranium reactors we use today are great for providing baseline power, but they don't ramp up and down well at all (if shut down a nuclear reactor, you have to wait 3 days before you can start it again (fun fact: one of the key causes of the Chernobyl disaster was an engineer ignoring this during a safety test)). It is true they are used in nuclear vessels, but I suspect (I am not an expert on nuclear wessels ;) ) they have found ways to consume unused energy (my guess is they have batteries to ride out the peaks an valleys of demand and have load resisters they can switch in and out that are cooled by sea water, which they have access to plenty of).

Throughout this, I am using the watt instead of kilowatt to simplify things. I don't use horsepower because then I would have to talk about the slug..... and that just gets messy.

Of course.

 
Fast charging a car is much different than a train. Typically, a car spends most of it's time stopped, and can therefore be on a long, slow charge. for most of the time. A battery train doesn't sit much, which means it doesn't have the chance to recover from the fast charges.. If there is only a gap of 200-300 km, then it makes more financial sense to install wires.

Let me guess, you don't own a BEV. You don't drive them with the same mindset as an ICEV (where you only fill it when the tank gets close to empty). With BEVs, you quickly plug it in whenever you can (if needed) while doing other things (one of the best things about BEVs is it saves you time, since you never have to waste time going to a gas station).

Trains are even easier to manage, since it is much easier to charge while it is moving than it is with a car (yes they are working on induction chargers for highways, but they would be incredibly expensive to install and not really necessary). By putting catenary at and near every station (where they likely already have access to power) and maybe sidings, you can not only charge the batteries in the places the train is spending the most time over the shortest distance (minimizing installation and maintenance costs), but you can power the wheels directly when the motors need the most power (when accelerating up to speed from a stop). Once the train is up to speed, you only need enough battery power (with some reserve) to maintain the speed until the train gets to the next stop (you don't need to fully recharge the battery every time). The batteries will also get some charge from regenerative breaking. The only time the train will likely have a full charge is when it leaves the shed in the morning, after charging all night. The battery will do a zig zag decay throughout the day before charging back up to full again. You just need to make sure there is enough reserve to cover eventualities.

Remember, we are talking corridor trains here, not long distance trains, which would need a completely different solution.

You need to look up recent battery developments. This is the entire point of something like Tesla's million mile battery. Allows for more rapid and deep charging cycles than the life of the car. This won't be any issue in 5 years, let alone 10.

True, but there is even more to it than that. It is kind of like Tesla's million mile battery in that one way to increase the life (in distance traveled) of the battery, is to increase the capacity of the battery (each cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles, and if you increase the battery's overall capacity, you reduce the number of times each cell needs to be charged and discharged to travel a set distance, thus prolonging the life of the battery). There is a corollary to that for charging train batteries. Assuming effective battery thermal management, the maximum charging rate of the battery is the product of the number of cells in the battery by the maximum charging rate of each cell. Since train batteries will be significantly larger than a EV battery (they need to tow a significantly heavier vehicle, at a higher speed, with a larger overall drag coefficient), the maximum charge rate for the battery will also be much higher.
 
Let me guess, you don't own a BEV. You don't drive them with the same mindset as an ICEV (where you only fill it when the tank gets close to empty). With BEVs, you quickly plug it in whenever you can (if needed) while doing other things (one of the best things about BEVs is it saves you time, since you never have to waste time going to a gas station).

Trains are even easier to manage, since it is much easier to charge while it is moving than it is with a car (yes they are working on induction chargers for highways, but they would be incredibly expensive to install and not really necessary). By putting catenary at and near every station (where they likely already have access to power) and maybe sidings, you can not only charge the batteries in the places the train is spending the most time over the shortest distance (minimizing installation and maintenance costs), but you can power the wheels directly when the motors need the most power (when accelerating up to speed from a stop). Once the train is up to speed, you only need enough battery power (with some reserve) to maintain the speed until the train gets to the next stop (you don't need to fully recharge the battery every time). The batteries will also get some charge from regenerative breaking. The only time the train will likely have a full charge is when it leaves the shed in the morning, after charging all night. The battery will do a zig zag decay throughout the day before charging back up to full again. You just need to make sure there is enough reserve to cover eventualities.

Remember, we are talking corridor trains here, not long distance trains, which would need a completely different solution.



True, but there is even more to it than that. It is kind of like Tesla's million mile battery in that one way to increase the life (in distance traveled) of the battery, is to increase the capacity of the battery (each cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles, and if you increase the battery's overall capacity, you reduce the number of times each cell needs to be charged and discharged to travel a set distance, thus prolonging the life of the battery). There is a corollary to that for charging train batteries. Assuming effective battery thermal management, the maximum charging rate of the battery is the product of the number of cells in the battery by the maximum charging rate of each cell. Since train batteries will be significantly larger than a EV battery (they need to tow a significantly heavier vehicle, at a higher speed, with a larger overall drag coefficient), the maximum charge rate for the battery will also be much higher.
The train follows a predictable route. They lay over at stations. You can charge at the end of the line during layovers. It's not that hard. Also solar panels should help with charging, and possibly a small diesel motor for emergencies.
 
^Unlike GO - which needs to string wires asap, IMhO - VIA could well afford to stick with diesel until battery technology is proven and reliable. The Charger locos will be reliable and low maintenance for their first decade. They have relatively advanced power management capability and hence fuel efficiency and emission control.
The capital required to string wires might be better spent on Phase II track and route improvements and expansion. Ridership gains will matter more in HFR’s first decade than the relative gains in green, considering that getting people out of cars and onto HFr in the first place is the big green improvement.
The batteries are coming, it’s just a matter of how soon. I’m not a fan of buying the 1.0 version of anything. The 2.0 battery locos will be a better buy. Patience is sometimes a virtue.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

Back
Top