News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 384     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 822     4 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.1K     6 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

Electrification beyond the freight electrification limit!
"including an environmental assessment (EA) to study electrification of the rail corridor starting from west of Georgetown to Kitchener "

212840


....might Metrolinx found a solution with CN?

....Could it be battery trains?
....Could CN have capitulated to electrification?
....Pinch us, we're dreaming.

Battery trains for the short freight section -- catenary from Kitchener-Georgetown, and Bramalea-Union. Battery mode to hop the CN section.

212842
 

Attachments

  • 1572639789532.png
    1572639789532.png
    280 KB · Views: 363
Last edited:
^ Yes but doesn't Metrolinx own the tracks west of Georgetown? On mobile so I can't check the RAC map to refresh my memory.
 
My guess would be dual-mode locos, though, the changeover would probably add a significant amount of time to the trip.

Perhaps there might be 3rd rail electrification through the CN corridor? Thereby allowing doublestack freight to use electrified corridors. Perhaps they might just increase the height of the catenary through the CN corridor.
 
It could be dual mode initially, with battery train by 2035+

I feel that considering electrification for Kitchener at this early a juncture, is evidence that Metrolinx feels confident enough about train solutions -- the combined choices of dualmodes and battery trains. I've been paying attention to Metrolinxs' consideration of train technologies and I think a domino has been tipped recently amongst a few executives there, and forced them to look at options that skipped the Freight Bypass. It's much, much, much less risky than the silly Hydrail technology that they were earlier studying.

I think Metrolinx saw some proposals by train manufacturers that lit a few lightbulbs -- year 2018 is when many train manufacturers had lots of internal battery train concepts being offered to Metrolinx.

I heard of one European Hydrail project scaled back because of battery train developments (will try to find the doc), the discovery that the risk/economics are so much superior with battery trains that are recharged-on-the-fly under OCS.
 
Not to dispute the possibility of dual-mode, but Metrolinx's map shows a paralleling station, traction power substation, tap site, and switching station for the Guelph Sub. The presence of a switching station, IMO, makes me think they are highly considering piecemeal electrification from Kitchener to Georgetown, or at least are treating Guelph Sub electrification as a separate project for engineering reasons.
map-metrolinx-1.jpg
 
Just to be pedantic about the EA status to date - The Kitchener line has had two previous EA's dealing with electrification. Index page is here.

First, the UPE section (only) was EA'd for electrification back in 2014.

Then, the section west of the Airport to Bramalea was studied in 2017 - see here.

The second study actually covered west to about Kennedy Road, as that's where the electrical supply was planned. see here.

Hydro One did a separate EA dealing with the power system impacts and infrastructure needs.

I'm not aware of any EA for the segment between Bramalea and Silver. Presumably that would need to be studied with CN's involvement.

The bottom line - it's good that ML is getting this done, so that it's in the drawer when needed....but.... don't expect any immediate activity on this.

One wonders if this is another risk-reducing exercise in advance of receiving bids on the master MODBFOM. ML may (quite properly) have decided to take the political and legal heat on this proposal, so that bidders have a clear road for what they may propose. No sane bidder is going to quote on the whole process of justifying to the electorate and qualifying electrification, or if they do, the price will be a lot higher than if that political trail has been blazed, and the potential mitigation measures have been established. Then, all the bidder has to do is turn up and install the infrastructure.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Streety McCarface said:
Perhaps there might be 3rd rail electrification through the CN corridor? Thereby allowing doublestack freight to use electrified corridors. Perhaps they might just increase the height of the catenary through the CN corridor.
Click to expand...

Third rail poses more clearance issues than does overhead catenary, so no - they are not considering third rail.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Third rail poses more clearance issues than does overhead catenary, so no - they are not considering third rail.

Dan
Click to expand...
Does it really? In dry conditions, 1 kV will arc at about 1 mm, so assuming wet conditions and a factor of safety of like 10, plus the wooden/synthetic cover, you'd probably require an additional 20-30cms. Are freight cars really that low? or is it more of a risk of foreign debris (including brake lines) hitting the rail?
 
Third rail reliability are quite complicated in rail yards & switches, and there are not enough grade separations, and too much illegal entry by humans. Very unsafe.

Third rail is also lower voltage. Overhead catenary on many mainlines is 25 kilovolts and can inject megawatts into a trainset on instant demand — some high speed trains gobble over ten megawatts during full-throttle acceleration.
 
Last edited:
mdrejhon said:
Third rail reliability are quite complicated in rail yards & switches, and there are not enough grade separations, and too much illegal entry by humans. Very unsafe.

Third rail is also lower voltage. Overhead catenary is 25 kilovolts and can inject megawatts into a trainset on I stand demand — some high speed trains gobble over ten megawatts during full-throttle acceleration.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you or ignoring the challenges posed by them, I'm just wondering why the clearance of a freight rail vehicle is too low to justify freight service over it, especially since the LIRR seems to work relatively okay with freight running along its electrified sections.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Does it really? In dry conditions, 1 kV will arc at about 1 mm, so assuming wet conditions and a factor of safety of like 10, plus the wooden/synthetic cover, you'd probably require an additional 20-30cms. Are freight cars really that low? or is it more of a risk of foreign debris (including brake lines) hitting the rail?
Click to expand...

Before even worrying about lineside or other restrictions, I'm referring specifically to the rolling stock.

Every single locomotive that runs on that corridor will need its pilots and plows cut back. Stirrup steps on some types of freight and passenger equipment may be an issue. Locomotive trucks most certainly are, and some units will have to be restricted from the corridor. The Canadian-style vertical steps used on most older locomotives are also a clearance hazard.

So yeah, third rail is a non-starter.

Streety McCarface said:
I'm not disagreeing with you or ignoring the challenges posed by them, I'm just wondering why the clearance of a freight rail vehicle is too low to justify freight service over it, especially since the LIRR seems to work relatively okay with freight running along its electrified sections.
Click to expand...

LIRR is running with locomotives in a captive service, which have had all of the requisite modifications already done to them to clear the third rail. The passenger cars that they use were designed specifically to work in their corridor, and the freight equipment that they haul has been checked for clearances prior to arriving on their trackage, and frankly is not any bigger than a 50 foot long boxcar or a 60 foot long flat car.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top