GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[Allandale25]

^ Helpful link Dan. Thanks for posting.

 

[steveintoronto]

I take it that you didn't note the date on the article then? Or the crappy photoshop of the containers onto the existing image?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

It was right at the top of what I posted. I take it you have problems reading details?

1 April 2017 Historic moment for UK rail freight as double stack container trains launched

Perhaps in your haste to make take a cheap shot, you missed the point of the post?

Than you all for making the point:

Difference with U.K. apart from state ownership of the track infrastructure is that they don't run double stack freight (so overhead wire height only has to clear 9ft6 containers on flats where that clearance has been implemented) and indeed some freight flows actually use electric traction. Difficult to compare to this freight bound network in Canada which tolerates passenger here and there

GO is on record of intending to use the standard UIC height, albeit it might have to be lowered in sections to clear bridges and the Union Station roof. This is commonly done elsewhere, especially in tunnel.

The picture was supplied with the article linked. Does that negate their facts?

Please, I'd like to hear your explanations...

Here's the article completely intact:

http://www.intermodality.com/news.html

As to discussion of CalTrans, and their use/spec of 'standard' cat height:

Hello BH,
Post by BH Williams
To what are the Caltrans clearances related? If it's the distance between
any point where a member of the public might have access and the contact
wire, then it doesn't seem too different to European standards- 3.1 metres
rings a bell. If, however, it refers to the distance between the underside
of an overline structure and the contact wire (or other energised part of
the OCS), then it is way in excess of UK, and almost certainly other
European, standards.The CalTrans standards are generic, non-rail standards. The document
I got them from dealt with placing power lines over highways. However
the distances seem similar to US standards I have found other places.

It may come from the General Electrical Safety Code. Unfrotunately,
like too many US standards (and it seems unlike many European ones),
this is a proprietary standard that isn't available for free, and thus
on the web.

Greg Gritton

http://misc.transport.rail.americas.narkive.com/o0uAT2ji/electrical-clearances

It would seem claims on this matter are contentious. But my point rebutting "Difference with U.K. apart from state ownership of the track infrastructure is that they don't run double stack freight (so overhead wire height only has to clear 9ft6 containers on flats where that clearance has been implemented) and indeed some freight flows actually use electric traction. Difficult to compare to this freight bound network in Canada which tolerates passenger here and there" holds!

The reason that electrification of the K/W is so problematic is the claim by CN that there won't be sufficient clearance for double-stack freight to allow complete electrification on the line.

Does anyone dispute that? The politics are skewed, but the rationale is correct. Build the Bypass, and the 'missing catenary sections' can no longer be held up as an excuse not to electrify.

 

[Allandale25]

I take it that you didn't note the date on the article then? Or the crappy photoshop of the containers onto the existing image?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

It was right at the top of what I posted. I take it you have problems reading details?

Perhaps in your haste to make take a cheap shot, you missed the point of the post?

The date is April 1, 2017 which I note is April Fool's Day.

The picture was supplied with the article linked. Does that negate their facts?

Please, I'd like to hear your explanations...

Here's the article completely intact:
View attachment 147252
http://www.intermodality.com/news.html

When I ran the image through a reverse photo search as noted in my post above, the result that came back indicated that it appears the original image was photoshopped, as Dan indicated. Maybe there are double stacked containers in the UK that run below wires. I just don't think that image is the best one to use to provide a reference.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Neither do I. That's why I included all the *written* and linked reference that I did.

Maybe there are double stacked containers in the UK that run below wires.

There are, and they are private. And freight only. Massive one in the NL (highly controversial for many reasons, a story in itself) and China too, but I digress. All detailed and linked in my prior post, but you (plural) were so possessed of making such an issue over the pic that perhaps you missed what it was all about?

 

[smallspy]

The date is April 1, 2017 which I note is April Fool's Day.



When I ran the image through a reverse photo search as noted in my post above, the result that came back indicated that it appears the original image was photoshopped, as Dan indicated. Maybe there are double stacked containers in the UK that run below wires. I just don't think that image is the best one to use to provide a reference.

The article was written as a joke - there are no locations anywhere in the UK where double-stacked containers can be run, regardless of where the wires are. The date that the article was written should have been a first clue.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

All detailed and linked in my prior post, but you (plural) were so possessed of making such an issue over the pic that perhaps you missed what it was all about?

Not at all. When the possibility of a photoshopped image was indicated I simply ran it through the site I mentioned. Took mere seconds. Just thought it would help those following the discussion. Turns out it was much easier and quicker than I thought to confirm Dan's point that it was photoshopped. The image to the right of it on the site didn't turn up any results.

The article was written as a joke - there are no locations anywhere in the UK where double-stacked containers can be run, regardless of where the wires are. The date that the article was written should have been a first clue.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[mdrejhon]

TheStar FOIAs the Hydrail project....

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...described-hydrogen-train-plan-as-madness.html

 

[cplchanb]

And that is why del duca lost his position as transport minister an ultimately reelection

 

[dowlingm]

Please, I'd like to hear your explanations...

Here's the article completely intact:
View attachment 147252
http://www.intermodality.com/news.html

what purpose do you think the word "fabrication" is serving on the last line?

 

[steveintoronto]

what purpose do you think the word "fabrication" is serving on the last line?

Whether or not I mistakenly posted a "fabricated" reference, I posted others, albeit overlooked referencing the Chunnel. (Eurotunnel) Catenary is higher than UIC standard to allow double stacked car trains and passenger both. (6030 mm above railhead)
Also: (3.8 Loading Gauge All UIC loading gauges are accepted in the Channel Fixed Link, including gauges UIC GC and GB+. However, the loading gauge for cross-Channel services is generally constrained by limits in adjacent networks. In particular, for freight trains bound for the classic Network Rail network, which has a more restrictive loading gauge (W9 or W6) beyond the Dollands Moor freight yard, only wagons respecting the relevant gauge can be accepted (NB: please note that wagon marking with “C.T.” initials is not required for operation in the Channel Fixed Link). Gauges UIC GC and GB+ are accepted on certain sections of the HS1 network. )
https://www.getlinkgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/the-channel-tunnel/23122013-DRRNS2015_EN1.pdf

The more you argue against that being possible, the more you make my case that CN won't allow electrification of the K/W line section they still own, or any other section of line they own, and CP has stated similar (gist) "never" for allowing electrification of any section of theirs. Ostensibly that applies to any height from railhead. Feel free to reference otherwise if you take issue with that.

I repeat yet again...the 'Bypass' or 'the Missing Link' in full is crucial to allowing electrification as ML themselves have projected for that line and by consequence others, and can be costed as IBI Consulting state in their report *for the whole Missing Link* let alone just the Bypass, as being cost equal to or less than the diversions and convolutions now necessary to accommodate the projected passenger pathings, let alone electrification on that line alone.

It would be something any political regime worth rationale would and should consider before going any further on a number of courses, not least the obfuscation of what must be done to promote RER and other highly necessary improvements to fulfil the claims of what Metrolinx is for.

VIA Rail forum
smallspy, Jan 24, 2018

cplchanb said: ↑

why is CN so afraid of catenary anyways? is it because it will be too low for some of their taller rolling stock? maintenance issues?

Any catenary installation will require improving clearances along the route to be able to maintain Plate K clearances - or better - along the line. That means that a lot of signals, overpasses and bridge structures may need to be replaced or moved, or track undercut to lower it around the obstruction. And considering that CN has been running a lot of equipment that exceeds those clearances, that would be a potential loss of business for them.

Then there's the issue of the additional maintenance in terms of removing vegetation around the tracks that would be required. CN's pretty bad at this now, having had their proverbial pee-pee smacked several times over the past couple of years by Transport Canada for just this issue.

Then there's the issue of derailment cleanup, or frankly any major work around the tracks. Overhead wires complicate it greatly.

The long and short of it is that they won't derive any benefit from the wires, and it would complicate their operations. Therefore - why should they be interested in it?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Watch for this to 're-ignite' the Hydrail debate, even though I have serious reservations about this due to possible/probable instability re the energy densities being talked of. This appears more valuable as a weapon than a dependable fuel, but we'll see: (It could be less volatile than using compressed Hydrogen, the subject of which is still being hedged)

New ‘flow battery’ could charge electric vehicles in seconds, say researchers
Posted on August 2018 by Editor in Energy Saving & Storage, News, Transport & Equipment
[...]
In a new paper published on 13 August in the journal Nature Chemistry, chemists from the University of Glasgow discuss how they developed a flow battery system using a nano-molecule that can store electric power or hydrogen gas giving a new type of hybrid energy storage system that can be used as a flow battery or for hydrogen storage.

Their ‘hybrid-electric-hydrogen’ flow battery, based upon the design of a nanoscale battery molecule can store energy, releasing the power on demand as electric power or hydrogen gas that can be used a fuel. When a concentrated liquid containing the nano-molecules is made, the amount of energy it can store increases by almost 10 times. The energy can be released as either electricity or hydrogen gas meaning that the system could be used flexibly in situations that might need either a fuel or electric power.

One potential benefit of this system is that electric cars could be charged in seconds, as the material is a pumpable liquid. This could mean that the battery of an electric car could be “recharged” in roughly the same length of time as petrol cars can be filled up. The old battery liquid would be removed at the same time and recharged ready to be used again.
The approach was designed and developed by Professor Leroy (Lee) Cronin, the University of Glasgow’s Regius Chair of Chemistry, and Dr Mark Symes, Senior Lecturer in Electrochemistry, also at the University of Glasgow with Dr Jia Jia Chen, who is a researcher in the team. They are convinced that this result will help pave the way for the development of new energy storage systems that could be used in electric cars, for the storage of renewable energy, and to develop electric-to-gas energy systems for when a fuel is required.

Professor Cronin said: “For future renewables to be effective high capacity and flexible energy storage systems are needed to smooth out the peaks and troughs in supply. Our approach will provide a new route to do this electrochemically and could even have application in electric cars where batteries can still take hours to recharge and have limited capacity. Moreover, the very high energy density of our material could increase the range of electric cars, and also increase the resilience of energy storage systems to keep the lights on at times of peak demand.”

This research is funded by the University of Glasgow complex chemistry initiative as well as the European Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

https://envirotecmagazine.com/2018/...electric-vehicles-in-seconds-say-researchers/

 

[cplchanb]

Watch for this to 're-ignite' the Hydrail debate, even though I have serious reservations about this due to possible/probable instability re the energy densities being talked of. This appears more valuable as a weapon than a dependable fuel, but we'll see: (It could be less volatile than using compressed Hydrogen, the subject of which is still being hedged)

https://envirotecmagazine.com/2018/...electric-vehicles-in-seconds-say-researchers/

Even if they get this thing going now it will take 10 years or more to trickle down to widespread usage for transit and evs. surely common sense will prevail.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Looks like Aecon is bidding on (RFQ stage) GO electrification. PDF page 6.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Question is still whether its gonna get cancelled, we'll know soon hopefully

I'm hoping that the construction lobby lobbies hard to keep it. They actually might be our best chance at keeping this thing afloat.

 

[Allandale25]

Looks like Aecon is bidding on (RFQ stage) GO electrification. PDF page 6.

Good find!