News   Sep 18, 2020
 1.1K     2 
News   Sep 18, 2020
 857     0 
News   Sep 18, 2020
 10K     6 

GO Transit Electrification (Metrolinx, Proposed)

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
169
Reaction score
330
This is one of the many problems with how Metrolinx has proceeded with RER. It is patently ridiculous that 6 years after RER was announced they still don't even know what kind of trains or technology they are going to be using. Now this discussion about catenary on the Kitchener Line which may not even be relevant if they go with battery or hydrogen. They are rebuilding stations and expanding/widening the rail network without putting up the catenary at the same time because again they don't know if they will be needed. That means if they go catenary all the disruption will start all over again.

It is the most ass backwards way to proceed with transit known to man and all because ML refuses to make any decisions about anything at all. As for this stupid notion of waiting for the bidders, that is not only a cop-out but one that will not serve Torontonians. Having a system that's based upon strictly the financial operation dictated by companies is offensive because what is best for a company does not mean it is the best system for the travelling public.

Can you imagine building the Eglinton Crosstown and then at the last minute deciding what king of trains and technology they have decided to use? It is patently absurd. Every other system on the planet has the trains and technology decided BEFORE it goes out to tender so they get more competing bids, can have more proactive, effciient, and coordinated corridor and station planning, and the travelling public actually knows what they are going to be getting. This is why the much shorter OL is getting all the attention but isn't nearly as transformative as RER.............it doesn't mean anything to anybody because nobody knows what it is, including ML.
Judging by their business case as well as previous statements, it's 99% going to be EMU/Electrification unless they decide to change their mind last minute.
 

Kraylin

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
280
Reaction score
60
They have already proposed and changed proposals and tendered and changed tender and put the onus on the bidders because they cant make a decision. Yet here we are... "hoping" they dont change their minds... again! In the meantime a decade has passed and more years will pass still while we miss deadline after deadline.

Its shocking what makes the media these days while constant government waste goes unnoticed no matter the party in power.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,246
Reaction score
1,633
and both are more expensive than overhead in terms of cost and efficiency.

When you have to bring your energy with you, it will always be less efficient.
Not necessarily. Hundreds of km of overhead incur some maintenance cost, and the electric transmission isn't loss-free.

I suspect overhead is the most efficient option for busy corridors. That said, the battery option may be a good start because it is compatible with future overhead. You can start with battery trains that charge at designated stations only, then add overhead and let the trains draw power from the overhead wile they are serving sections with wires.

I am less optimistic about hydrogen because that option requires completely separate infrastructure. You can't regenerate the hydrogen onboard the hydrogen powered trains even if overhead is added, because hydrogen needs to be stored at a very high pressure to fit into a reasonable volume. If we were to start building hydrogen infrastructure, we would be somewhat pinned to that choice since noone wants duplicate costs.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,550
Reaction score
2,118
and both are more expensive than overhead in terms of cost and efficiency.
That depends on the capital obstacles to building the overhead.

In a clear field with nearby power plants and trains making a couple trips an hour then overhead is definitely the way to go.

With dozens of bridges that would require rebuilding at a different height? Well, I'd still say overhead but if you can sneak a non-electrified wire under the existing bridge (to guide the pantograph without need for electrical clearance) with 10kwh of battery on-board then that's a pretty good deal.

Through mountainous regions which have unpopulated valleys (no electrical feed), older small tunnels too small for overhead, and 1 trip per day at the most? Battery banks for the whole thing.
 
Last edited:

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,783
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth

Top