News   Jul 23, 2019
 131     0 
News   Jul 23, 2019
 376     0 
News   Jul 23, 2019
 241     0 

GO Transit Electrification (Metrolinx, Proposed)

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
I say again, this claim that catenary height can't change is on the level of claiming catenary doesn't work in winter.
And here's your reference:
A test programme has confirmed the feasibility of operating electrically hauled double-stack container trains, leading to Indian Railways’ decision to wire the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor at 25 kV 50 Hz.
https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Railway _Gazette_Double_Stack Container(1).pdf

What do you think "Dedicated Freight Corridor" might mean?

Here's a pic from that reference:
188897


For some odd reason, using a panto that tall for rapid passenger use let alone high speed use aggravates the laws of physics. They will fail, spectacularly, and if not pushed to the failure point, they add a huge amount of drag and stress.
The wiring in most countries is too low to allow double stack container trains. The Channel Tunnel has an extended height overhead line to accommodate double-height car and truck transporters. India is proposing a network of freight-only lines that would be electrified with extra height wiring and pantographs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_line#Height

Metrolinx has made clear the height it intends to use for catenary if and when it ever happens. And it's the height considered by many as a standard.in the developed world.(Approx 5.3m) CN and CP have declared that they don't wish for that, or *ANY* catenary on their main lines. That is their right under our law. On Metrolinx tracks, the conditions of sales apply from the former railway, and that may or may not dictate the ability to run double stack trains.

This strange Canadian obsession with declaring that everything must be done the way it was 80 some years ago "because that's the way it is" really drives me insane.
Your insanity or not besides, here's California's take on it:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM3_2_3R00.pdf
and the EU's and Int'l directive:
https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1604362/EN 50119

Their standards are right up to date, not "80 years ago" and they're a hell of a lot more advanced in terms of electrified passenger transit than we are.
 
Last edited:

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
1,547
Fair enough, but if financial close takes until late 2020, there is only so much time left for construction. And I wonder how pricing will end up after the bidders consider risk versus opportunity. If they promise 2024 but miss the deadline, what is the penalty? Is it worth taking the risk - construction seldom runs to an exact schedule.
Indeed. I wish the schedules were public so we would know that type of detail. I would assume penalties will be large enough that vendors won't try to game the system by promising a 2024 date and actually delivering in 2027.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
Indeed. I wish the schedules were public so we would know that type of detail. I would assume penalties will be large enough that vendors won't try to game the system by promising a 2024 date and actually delivering in 2027.
I expect to see discussion on 'daylighting' many of those terms and conditions, since the participation of the Cdn Infrastructure Bank makes this also pertinent under Federal Law.

Not that the Feds have been anywhere near compliant on FOI and just open accounting on many things, as the Globe's special feature on the EDC chronicled on the weekend. I'd say a little more investigative journalism is in order. The Province may rue the day it heralded the participation of the CIB. There's also the question of securities legislation applying.

Edit to Add: From the CIB website:
The Bank, of course, is accountable to the Government and must comply with its enabling legislation, cited above, and Part X of the Financial Administration Act (FAA). The Bank should also be guided by the Government's foundational policy statements in the Fall Economic Statement 2016 and Budget 2017, as tabled in Parliament.
https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/CIB-BIC/letter-lettre-eng.html

Part X of the Financial Administration Act (FAA):
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-15.html#h-229273

Act details required compliance with:
Implementation of World Trade Organization Agreement
Canadian Free Trade Agreement
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement
Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement
Canada — Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Canada–Peru Free Trade Agreement
Other Free Trade Agreements


This might get very interesting...
 
Last edited:

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,189
Reaction score
3,318
Location
Toronto
I would assume penalties will be large enough that vendors won't try to game the system by promising a 2024 date and actually delivering in 2027.
What's to be delivered in 2024?

This is the contract that, among other things, replaces Bombardier's current contract to operate GO Trains. The first item listed is operating GO Trains. Presumably day one, they simply operate the current equipment, and any transition, and possible electrification, would then be gradual, and subject to a lot more talks - possibly even after the contract is issued. I'd assume there'd be a lot of optional pricing in the bids.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
1,547
What's to be delivered in 2024?
From what I can tell the tender is basically in 10 parts; inner + outer service of the 5 routes. The 10 "target" dates in the tender will be the dates the vendor believes they can begin providing service for those pieces.

GO has not put any deadlines into the tender at all. The vendor will be selecting their own dates, with the ability to charge more and still win the contract for earlier target dates and penalties for missing their target.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,189
Reaction score
3,318
Location
Toronto
From what I can tell the tender is basically in 10 parts; inner + outer service of the 5 routes.
Interesting ... so it doesn't cover operating the Milton and Richmond Hill lines? I'm surprised Richmond Hill isn't there.

Presumaly Union-Pearson is being done separately? I'm not sure how it currently works.

Is the RDQ document available somewhere - I think I've missed that somehow.
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
694
Interesting ... so it doesn't cover operating the Milton and Richmond Hill lines? I'm surprised Richmond Hill isn't there.

Presumaly Union-Pearson is being done separately? I'm not sure how it currently works.

Is the RDQ document available somewhere - I think I've missed that somehow.
man RH line always get the shaft.... no improvements no increased service... 😩
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
1,547
Interesting ... so it doesn't cover operating the Milton and Richmond Hill lines? I'm surprised Richmond Hill isn't there.
That specific detail seems to be in an unpublished Schedule of the RFP.

Within the Business Case, which I assume remains unaltered for RFP expectations, it appeared they would take over operations of those lines but it would be using existing equipment and with existing frequencies. There were no "improvement" expectations.

The main GO Expansion bits require non-trivial construction activities and equipment to be delivered before service targets might be hit.

Presumaly Union-Pearson is being done separately? I'm not sure how it currently works.
UP is mentioned in the Business Case as being part of the RER program; but it's effectively (from a vendor perspective) a branch of Bramalea service with 7.5 minute combined frequencies.
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
As an aside to the topic heading, but closely related to it, especially so in light of the CIB participation:
Province says it wants federal money for the Ontario Line. Ottawa says it needs more answers
By Ben SpurrTransportation Reporter
Mon., June 3, 2019
[...]
“Prime Minister Trudeau wants to pick a fight. Instead he should pick up a shovel,” he said. McNaughton called on Trudeau to “quite frankly put his money where his mouth is” and “approve these projects so the people of Ontario can benefit.”
Yurek said Toronto transit users are tired of being stuck on overcrowded vehicles and the province was committed to working with the city to get the Ontario Line built.
“Now it’s time for our federal partner to commit their support. It’s in all of Ontario’s interest to get more cars off the road with better transit, that is what Ontarians deserve,” he said.
The ministers’ comments came four months before an anticipated federal election that will pit Trudeau’s Liberals against the Ontario PC’s federal cousins in the Conservative Party of Canada.
The press conference also followed remarks Trudeau made on Friday in which he accused provincial politicians of going “out of their way to block federal funding” for infrastructure projects “just to score political points.”
In an email to the Star Monday, Brook Simpson, a spokesperson for Canada’s Minister of Infrastructure and Communities François-Philippe Champagne, said the Ford government hasn’t provided Ottawa the necessary information about the Ontario Line and other projects for them to win federal approval.
[...]
Despite the provincial minister’s comments Monday, correspondence obtained by the Star suggests that behind the scenes the federal government has signalled it would be open to providing funding for Ontario transit projects before detailed plans are finalized.

An April 30, 2019 letter from the federal deputy minister of infrastructure to her provincial counterpart stated that “in the event that approval of federal funding is required before a final business case can be developed,” the government of Canada could provide money for projects through a “stage gate” process.

Under this process, Ottawa would help pay to advance a provincial project’s design, and make funding to build new lines contingent on submission of a full business case.
[...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/06/03/province-says-it-wants-federal-money-for-the-ontario-line-ottawa-says-it-needs-more-answers.html

I can see the InfraBank playing an ever more important role on this...and having legal claims to ownership by doing so. The question is if that resides with the Federal Gov't, or somehow held in escrow by the InfraBank.
 
Last edited:

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
674
East Japan Railway {as reported by the Japan Times} has just announced that they are going to spend $40 million on a hydrogen trains to be running and tested by 2021 with large scale service to begin in 2024 on a 120km non-electrified line.

Railway Journal has also stated that Europe is leading the way in hydrogen rail even though most of Europe is electrified due to new noise pollution regulations in the EU coming into effect within a decade. It would simply cost far too much to electrify the systems, be too time consuming, and the regulations will also apply to freight...…......that's right, hydrogen is coming along quickly in freight as well and is already being tested in Poland & Germany. The fast development of hydrogen is truly dizzying as crucial regulations for diesel phase out and noise reductions quickly approach.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
674
Just to add to the above: Forbes has stated that delivery giant DHL is buying 100 hydrogen delivery trucks for Germany and if they work well another 400 will be added to the order and delivered by 2025 and they will set up the needed hydrogen fueling stations across Germany.. In NA, Nicola Motors has raised the capitol to begin planning of a new hydrogen facility in Phoenix where they will be building hydrogen large transport trucks for freight. Anhueser-Busch has already placed a monstrous order for 800 transports.

These 2 are, of course, not rail but exemplify how fast hydrogen infrastructure will be developing over the next few years which is often, falsely, stated as a drawback to hydrogen rail.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
674
Business Korea has announced that Hyundai will begin production of 300 new hydrogen buses every year starting in next year AND has signed a contract to export 1200 to Europe. SK is constructing 85 hydrogen refueling stations this year. H2B has announced an order for 1,000 hydrogen buses for Denmark, Latvia, and the UK. Chinese car making giant Geely has just produced it's first hydrogen bus and is backed by Beijing as China desperately tries to get a grip on it's extreme pollution levels.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
674
Hyundai Motors & Rotem have just announced that they are going to be developing a hydrogen tram/streetcar and will have the prototype available by the end of next year. Van Hool, the Belgian bus giant, this week is rolling out it's new hydrogen double articulated 23 meter bus called Exquicity with a range of 200 km for mostly BRT routes.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
^All very nice. There seems to be a problem running them on railway tracks for some reason.

Meantime, British Rail Class 769
[...]
During a detailed evaluation to determine a suitable independent power source for the type, Porterbrook decided that the desired performance and range of the vehicle would be at least equal to a Class 150 Sprinter diesel multiple unit (DMU).[12] Furthermore, it was also determined that these trains would be capable of interchanging between electrified and non-electrified lines via a straightforward switchover process, including potentially while in motion. According to Porterbrook, efforts were made to make the driving experience as similar to the Class 319 as possible to make it an attractive option to prospective operators.[12]

The use of various energy storage mediums, including batteries, flywheels, supercapacitors and hydrogen fuel cells were examined, but most were discarded due to the insufficient range provided. A lack of available refuelling infrastructure and risks posed over the approvals process were also present with the hydrogen option.[12] A diesel power unit was selected due to its optimum performance across factors including range, weight, size, power density, and overall cost. According to Porterbrook, the selected engine should produce lower emissions and reduced maintenance costs, as well as a higher tractive effort at low speeds, than a Class 150 train due to its use of modern technology.[12]
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_769

RailEngineer:
[...]
Of course, there was a lot to consider, evaluate and model before any metal was cut. The key decision was the independent power source. Porterbrook determined that the self-powered performance needed to be at least as good as a Class 150 Sprinter train and that it should have a broadly comparable range.

Alternative power sources such as batteries, flywheels, and supercapacitors were rejected because of their lack of range, and hydrogen fuel cells were rejected because of the novelty risk, lack of hydrogen infrastructure for refuelling, and approvals risks (drafted before the announcement of the Hydroflex, covered in this issue).

Consequently, Porterbrook decided that the only fully developed option was diesel power, delivering the best compromise of range, weight, physical size, power density and total cost.
[...]
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/09/27/bi-mode-good-tri-mode-better/

How's those Hydrail train protos working out?
BY MALCOLM DOBELL BTECH CENG FIMECHE
28TH SEPTEMBER 2018
RailEngineer.com

When researching an article for the Class 769 Flex, there were lots of ideas discussed about how the concept could be extended for other uses. What was not discussed was the possibility of a hydrogen-powered version. Yet, at InnoTrans on 19 September, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling, Porterbrook announced that it was making a Class 319 unit available to Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education (BCRRE) for conversion into a hydrogen-powered train to be known as HyrdoFlex.

The announcement added that development work has recently commenced and HydroFlex will undertake testing and demonstration runs in summer 2019.

The HydroFlex will retain the ability to operate on existing electric routes (on either third rail or 25kV overhead power) and the addition of a hydrogen fuel cell will allow it to operate in self-powered mode, without the need for diesel engines.

As was reported in Rail Engineer earlier this year, Rail Minister Jo Johnson has challenged the rail industry to develop decarbonisation plans, with the objective of removing diesel-only trains from the network by 2040. HydroFlex is Porterbrook’s and BCRRE’s response to this challenge, bringing together industry and academia in partnership to deliver the UK’s first-in-class, clean energy, main line passenger train.

After the signing ceremony, the Secretary of State joined representatives from Porterbrook and BCRRE to discuss both the potential for hydrogen technology to decarbonise the railway and the world-leading rail R&D and innovation expertise to be found across the UK rail supply industry and through the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN).

BCRRE reported that it has already undertaken a significant amount of research into the potential application of hydrogen fuel-cell technology to railway operations and has worked with a number of global rail businesses to identify potential opportunities to use hydrogen as a clean alternative to diesel.

Strictly a demonstrator

Rail Engineer readers who have been following this topic will understand that the Class 319 is not necessarily the best base for a hydrogen-powered train – the lack of regenerative braking might lead to a bigger fuel cell, for example. Clearly, if the objective was a fully developed train ready for production, then this might be a problem, but this is not the key objective at this stage of the project.

In response to Rail Engineer’s questions, BCRRE said that the demonstrator version focuses on delivering an electric/hydrogen bi-mode to UK gauge, which the UK market is currently looking for given the wider context of the 2040 decarbonisation ambition and the need to make more effective use of existing electrification with additional emission-free running beyond the wires.

BCRRE added that a part of the project includes developing the product approval and safety cases for hydrogen running on the UK railway.

The team working on this demonstrator project has a lot of work to do to make hydrogen rail a reality. The demonstrator will take passengers in 2019, but BCRRE will need to prove the technology to the regulator and the infrastructure manager before the demonstrator can go into full passenger service.

BCRRE promised more technical details later, so watch this space!
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/09/28/hydroflex-the-next-iteration-of-the-flex-concept/
 
Last edited:

Top