GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[Streety McCarface]

Wait for it. Catenary electrification...…...just hold both wires and it will blow you to your destination.

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am NOT saying Hydrail is the right solution but neither am I going to write it off as some form of fantasy not worth considering. If they do a fair comparison between all 3 options of hydrogen, catenary, or battery {don't think anyone is advocating a mass switch to 3rd rail or linear induction} it should be done with no preconceived ideas of what is right or wrong. Make a knowledge based decision on reliability, implementation, environmental concerns, cost, construction times, maintenance, speed, etc and then decide the best course of action.

For myself I see hydrogen as an alternative worth exploring for RER single level trains and battery as well if they use a RailBaar type recharging system as I personally hate the visual pollution of catenary wires and poles all over the damn place.

I honestly think both of the traction methods you mentioned (3rd rail and Linear Induction) have more potential for a better cost:benefit ratio than hydrogen or battery on the current RER corridors. Save hydrail for richmond hill midday service or Niagara service, but it's not going to be effective at all for the RER needs of LSW, Kitchener, or Barrie.

 

[ssiguy2]

If Hydrail is effective, it would most certainly have more than enough capacity for any of the RER lines. These are not some new fangled trains but simply a variation of the current very successful Alstom Coradia trains used on RER lines all over the world including the very busy Paris system.

 

[mdrejhon]

We have enough money for one of the two, but prudence suggests we should not spend for both. Hydrail as it exists today cannot meet the performance spec we need for a GO train - we have 286 level Hydrail trains, but we need Pentium or better. In ten years I'm sure we will have that available.

Do we wait?

Hydrail. Schmydrail.

It may someday work, but....

I think more realistic is battery boost for catenary free sections - this is a non-time-critical natural progreaaion. This is doable within the timeline of Metrolinx 2041 RTP.

String catenary to Aldershot for 15min RER to Aldershot by 2025, then finish the 15min rest of the way to Hamilton on battery boost alone whenever tech is ready before 2041 (with catenary at West Harbour GO station or Hunter GO, for recharging for the return trip to Aldershot).

Run express diesels (as planned) until such time mature battery-assist becomes available. You potentially would only need as little as 1 to 3 Tesla cars worth of batteries per coach to pull this off, with sufficient (~3x to 4x) safety margin for reduced winter-time battery capacity and long-duration stalls -- and to keep state-of-charge shallow most of time for battery longevity -- there is not much power needed to roll along at moderate speeds (like today) between Aldershot and Hamilton. It would also be excellent "reach next station" backup during power outages, too!

 

[Streety McCarface]

Hydrail. Schmydrail.

It may someday work, but....

I think more realistic is battery boost for catenary free sections - this is a non-time-critical natural progreaaion. This is doable within the timeline of Metrolinx 2041 RTP.

String catenary to Aldershot for 15min RER to Aldershot by 2025, then finish the 15min rest of the way to Hamilton on battery boost alone whenever tech is ready before 2041 (with catenary at West Harbour GO station or Hunter GO, for recharging for the return trip to Aldershot).

Run express diesels (as planned) until such time mature battery-assist becomes available. You potentially would only need as little as 1 to 3 Tesla cars worth of batteries per coach to pull this off, with sufficient (~3x to 4x) safety margin for reduced winter-time battery capacity and long-duration stalls -- and to keep state-of-charge shallow most of time for battery longevity -- there is not much power needed to roll along at moderate speeds (like today) between Aldershot and Hamilton. It would also be excellent "reach next station" backup during power outages, too!

I think you're vastly understating those numbers. A Tesla car has a battery pack that has a capacity of about 70 kWh, but each coach (as an EMU) requires at least 250 kW when accelerating, so I'd say you'd need around 3 times the capacity of a Tesla as a bare minimum, with 1 dedicated to the 60 kW for HEP and the other 140 kW for average traction, and this is only for one hour of service at max. Given that trains would need to travel distances of around 1-1.5 hrs each way in the areas that would require it (bramalea to Kitchener, Milton Corridor, Richmond Hill Corridor, Aldershot to Niagara Falls, Oshawa to Bowmanville), you'd need the equivalent of 9 teslas without reductions. Factoring in that 3-4* safety margin, you're at up to 36 teslas per vehicle (to give an approximate cost, that's up to 300K (closer to 275K) per battery pack, which will likely need to be replaced twice for an additional cost of between 800K and 1 million over the lifetime of the EMU. Given the cost of an emu is around 3 million with 3 million in maintenance, that extra million doesn't come cheap). It might make sense on small spurs or even the Richmond Hill line, but in the meantime, diesel or hydrail is the way to go until these corridors can be electrified.

 

[mdrejhon]

I think you're vastly understating those numbers. A Tesla car has a battery pack that has a capacity of about 70 kWh, but each coach (as an EMU) requires at least 250 kW when accelerating, so I'd say you'd need around 3 times the capacity of a Tesla as a bare minimum, with 1 dedicated to the 60 kW for HEP and the other 140 kW for average traction, and this is only for one hour of service at max. Given that trains would need to travel distances of around 1-1.5 hrs each way in the areas that would require it (bramalea to Kitchener, Milton Corridor, Richmond Hill Corridor, Aldershot to Niagara Falls, Oshawa to Bowmanville), you'd need the equivalent of 9 teslas without reductions. Factoring in that 3-4* safety margin, you're at up to 36 teslas per vehicle (to give an approximate cost, that's up to 300K (closer to 275K) per battery pack, which will likely need to be replaced twice for an additional cost of between 800K and 1 million over the lifetime of the EMU. Given the cost of an emu is around 3 million with 3 million in maintenance, that extra million doesn't come cheap). It might make sense on small spurs or even the Richmond Hill line, but in the meantime, diesel or hydrail is the way to go until these corridors can be electrified.

You're massively overstating - possibly by almost an order of margin.

(I earned A+ in electronics class back in the day, so I know the basics of Ohm's Law, thank you very much)

First:
Kilowatt hours is not the same thing as kilowatts.
A kilowatt hour is the power available continuously for one hour.
100 KWh can output 1 megawatt for 1/10 hour
250 KWh can output 1 megawatt for 1/4 hour
Many lithium batteries can ouptut 10C or more (Ludricious acceleration briefly exceeds 500 KW total at battery contacts on Tesla!! The Tesla battery is 375 volts, and peaks at 1850 amps on a P100D during a drag race run. Run your Electronics 101 math on that, and.... Yessiere....Seven Hundred Kilowatts Buddy!!!)

Secondly:
Maintaining steady speed on flat ground can be less than 1/10th power. (Result: Less than 1/10th of 250KW)
A train is not accelerating nonstop for a full hour. (Result: 250KW is a surge only for ~2 minutes)
You also do not need to accelerate to full speed. (Result: The surge is less than 250KW)
You also do not need to run at full speed at steady state (Result: Lower power consumption)
You also have the dynamic regen brakin option to recover energy for the next re-acceleration. (Result: One acceleration is not goodbye 100% of that power foreever)

24 Tesla P100 batteries worth should be sufficient for a 12 coach GO train, to service a 1 stop catenary gap -- at reduced acceleration / reduced max speeds (~80-100kph instead of 140kph) -- while keeping a 3x to 4x safety margin for reduced capacity at cold temps & unexpected stops.

Honestly, and rather bluntly so, I'm being generous here, possibly even overestimating required capacity for such conservative operating margins. But we need to run the heater in winter, which may consume more total wattage than steady state speed. That widlcard of climate control actually worries me more than the easy numbers, but that does not require an order of magnitude adjustment. Dynamic regen braking can help recovery, recovering roughly half of the energy spent accelerating (give or take). Need I go on?

 

[crs1026]

Honestly, and rather bluntly so, I'm being generous here, possibly even overestimating required capacity for such conservative operating margins. But we need to run the heater in winter, which may consume more total wattage than steady state speed. That widlcard of climate control actually worries me more than the easy numbers, but that does not require an order of magnitude adjustment. Dynamic regen braking can help recovery, recovering roughly half of the energy spent accelerating (give or take). Need I go on?

A very interesting scenario here. Never really thought it through before. Suppose battery power was viable. You could wire the first five miles west of Union, and the first five miles east of Union, but you might not have to wire the USRC at all. *Huge* reduction in cost doing that.

No reason why there couldn't be short wired sections just east of the trainshed, where the locos stop in regular service. Five minutes' charging time while the train is stopped at the platform. Enough to kick the train over to the wired portion.

Now, build a small diesel engine and generator into the locomotive.... a 6-cylinder bus engine or just the current HEP engine. Gives you assured "first notch" electrical output in the dire event that the battery reached total discharge. Lets the train coast or creep if necessary. For that matter, I wonder if it could run continuously, generating say 300 hp (you can convert to kw) which continually charges the battery between wired areas. Maybe (similar to hybrid vehicles) there is some optimal size diesel which running continuously provides some % of full charge, with regen braking and wired zones bringing the battery up to 100%. Maybe HEP (being constant load) is its own variable which may or may not benefit from the battery approach - so leave the HEP engine in play.

Got a bridge that is currently too low for catenary? Just don't wire the 750m either side of it, let it be an unwired zone (the gap would have to be long enough to provide assured fail-safe panto retraction). More savings.

It sounds Rube Goldberg-ish, but it could be just so inexpensive as to be workable. Clearly you would want catenary where there are grades, which pretty much requires Cherry Street to Rouge Hill, and Strachan to Malton, and Strachan to Concord. And maybe beyond. But even limiting the unwired zones to the most level terrain, that's a hell of a savings over wiring the entire line.

Now, the big question - what is the weight of 24 Tesla P100 batteries? And can that weight be mounted low enough on the carbody?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

^ What the Hydrail propagandists don't tell you is that battery-powered EMUs are being considered as much or more than Hydrail in Europe:

Bombardier revives the battery-powered train
It's the first first of its kind to operate in Europe in over 60 years.

Steve Dent, @stevetdent
09.17.18 in Transportation

Bombardier
Diesel trains are noisy and polluting, but on stretches of non-electrified rail, what else are you going to do? Hydrogen trains are one option, but now there's another: Canadian transportation firm Bombardier has (re-)introduced the battery powered train. In Berlin, it launched the Bombardier Talent 3 electro-hybrid train, the first of its kind in Europe in over 60 years, the company said. The train took its maiden voyage with local luminaries including the federal commissioner for rail transport and the Brandenburg transport minister.
"Around 40 percent of the German rail network is not electrified," said Bombardier German transportation chief, Michael Fohrer. "The Bombardier battery-operated train is an attractive option to counter that, both economically and ecologically speaking." Developed with $4 million worth of support from the German government, the train uses Bombardier's MITRAC powertrain (below) that allows for different combinations of motors and batteries.

The train that ran on the weekend can go about 40 km (25 miles) on a charge, but future version will be able to run for up to 100 km (62 miles). It generates no exhaust and is 90 percent efficient in terms of efficiency and recyclability, Bombardier said.
Germany is trying hard to reduce its dependence on diesel trains. Earlier this year, Alstom unveiled the Coradia iLint, a hydrogen-powered train that will one day run for about 1,000 km (620 miles) on a tank of hydrogen. "On non-electrified or only partially electrified routes, the motto is: move away from diesel on the tracks and toward cleaner and more environmentally-friendly mobility," said Germany's state secretary for rail transport Enak Ferlemann.
Germany has a ways to go to catch up with Holland, which runs 100 percent of its trains on wind power. It's trying, though: In 2019, operator Deutsche Bahn (DB) will start a twelve-month trial run with passengers on Bombardier's 40 km-range prototype train near Lake Constance in Germany's southwest.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/17/bombardier-battery-powered-electric-train/

(See vid at link)

And what does OCTranspo still have sitting idly by for sale? The three Talent sets now replaced on the O-Train albeit Talent 1s that could be used for prototypes...

Here's the latest I can find on the Talents for sale:

Feb 2, 2018 1:47pm EST
Calling all Ottawa railfans: If you’re feeling nostalgic or have an extra few thousand dollars just lying around, you could be the owner of the city’s old O-Trains.
The City of Ottawa is selling three of the original Bombardier train sets that ran on the O-Train Trillium line when it opened in 2001. The trains were taken out of service three years ago and are being maintained in storage at the Walkley Yard.
Over their lifespans, the trains each covered more than 1.4 million kilometres of track over the course of roughly 20,000 hours of use.

Bidding starts at $100,000, and removal is entirely the buyer’s responsibility.
The post on govdeals.ca went up this past Monday, according to the city, and will stay up until April 25.
The city won’t say if it has received any bids yet or what will happen to the trains if nobody makes an offer. Chief procurement officer Will McDonald said in a statement that the city won’t comment during an active bidding process.
He did confirm that the bid was posted on Jan. 29, but other online sources suggest this isn’t the first time the city has tried to sell the trains. They were also up for tender through Merx on a post dated Dec. 23, 2016, but that notice appears to have expired.
A post on Ottawa’s Reddit page yielded a few creative suggestions for the trains’ fates, with users suggesting they be put on display at the Canada Science and Technology Museum or on Sparks Street, or converted into a functional restaurant.

https://obj.ca/article/city-ottawa-selling-old-o-trains

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurepowering-the-trains-of-tomorrow-5723499/

World Premiere: Bombardier Transportation Presents a New Battery ...
https://www.bombardier.com/.../details.bt_20180912_world-premiere--bombardier-tr...
Sep 12, 2018 - 1 of 2 : The BOMBARDIER TALENT 3 battery-powered EMU ... The new battery-operated train is the first of its kind to enter passenger ... trial run with passengers with the current prototype in the Alb-Lake Constance region.
Bombardier Transportation Presents a New Battery-Operated Train
https://globenewswire.com/.../World-Premiere-Bombardier-Transportation-Presents-a-...
Sep 12, 2018 - The BOMBARDIER TALENT 3 battery-powered EMU. The BOMBARDIER ... Alb-Bodensee (regional transport for the Lake Constance region), ...
Bombardier revives the battery-powered train - Engadget
https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/17/bombardier-battery-powered-electric-train/
Sep 17, 2018 - In Berlin, it launched the Bombardier Talent 3 electro-hybrid train, the first of its ... "The Bombardier battery-operated train is an attractive option to counter ... on Bombardier's 40 km-range prototype train near Lake Constance in ...
A new emission-free, low-noise, battery-operated train is revealed
https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/.../battery-operated-vehicle-bombardier/
Sep 14, 2018 - The BOMBARDIER TALENT 3 battery-powered EMU ... trial run with passengers with the current prototype in the Alb-Lake Constance region.
First Battery-Powered Train in Europe in Over 60 Years Takes Maiden ...
https://interestingengineering.com/first-battery-powered-train-in-europe-in-over-60-y...
Sep 17, 2018 - Canadian company Bombardier has launched a battery powered train in Germany. ... An electro-hybrid train called the Bombardier Talent 3 started its trial ... Deutsche Bahn (DB) nearLake Constance in Germany's southwest.
Bombardier introduces a battery-electric hybrid passenger train - CNet
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bombardier-germany-electric-hybrid-train/
Sep 14, 2018 - The Talent 3 will use overhead power wires in cities to drive its wheels ... the Talent 3 prototype in early 2019 in the Alb-Lake Constance region.

[...etc...]

 

[ssiguy2]

^^………….you didn`t hear me say battery trains don`t have a bright future but they may not be able to function as RER and certainly not for GO commuter.

These trains are very good for Europe because they mean huge rural sections of non-electrified rail can be electric without the huge catenary expansions costs...………..they piggyback on the current electrified systems. Of course Toronto has absolutely no electrified rail so there is nothing to piggyback onto. In other words they couldn`t travel any of the proposed RER routes little alone GO commuter. Currently they have a battery distance of only 42km which wouldn`t even get them from Aldershot to Union.

Bombardier says a new battery type will be rolling out in 2019 {obviously don`t have to tell Torontonians of all people how good Bombardier when it comes to their timetable commitments} but assuming they can get it done, the battery will have a potential life of 100km per charge which still wouldn't work as Aldershot to Oshawa is more than that. Also remember that those are `ideal` distance with no stops. Battery could work but they would still either have to electrify half of the RER system anyway or more ideally use a RailBaar type station recharging system. Unless one of those 2 things are done then battery RER is not an option.

 

[Allandale25]

Might be of interest to some here. Apologies if it was already posted.

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-regulations-allow-stronger-lighter-safer-modern-trains

 

[steveintoronto]

Toronto has absolutely no electrified rail

Also has absolutely no Hydrogen delivery, generation or containment system.

You conveniently forget that the present Hydrail generation system *requires batteries* to accumulate a trickle charge from the otherwise inadequate fuel cell output rate.

The answer is to do as others are doing: Build catenary.

 

[steveintoronto]

Might be of interest to some here. Apologies if it was already posted.

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-regulations-allow-stronger-lighter-safer-modern-trains

Excellent heads-up! It had to happen. Now the big question: When will TC follow?

[...] The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has finalized new regulations that will make it easier and more affordable to bring modern train designs to the United States. They also make it possible for high-speed trains to use conventional tracks for part of their journey, which is critical to launching and expanding a high-speed network.

For generations, outdated U.S. safety regulations slowed or prevented the adoption of modern train designs already in use around the world. These new rules remove those barriers, making it possible for American train operators to use “off-the-shelf” designs from the world’s leading train equipment manufacturers with minimal modifications. (The FRA estimates the necessary changes will affect the cost of a new train by less than one percent.)

The old regulations left us with trains that are very heavy. That means our trains are slower, use more fuel, and cause more wear on tracks (and themselves). The regulations were so unique that they effectively isolated America from the rest of the world market. If you wanted to buy a new train in the U.S., your choices were limited, expensive, and antiquated.

The new regulations are based on years of proven experience and safe operation from around the world, particularly from Europe. They allow for trains that use modern materials and techniques to be lighter yet stronger and safer.

The FRA previously allowed certain trains to adopt these modern standards by applying for a waiver, which allowed TexRail and Caltrain to purchase modern trains. The new regulations allow these modern designs without the cumbersome waiver process.

The new regulations also enable high-speed trains to operate on existing, conventional tracks. This is an important tool in building a broad high-speed network with many destinations. Trains can travel at up to 220 mph on the new, dedicated high-speed line. They can then connect to existing tracks to finish their journey at conventional speeds.

European countries use this phased approach to gradually build and expand their famed high-speed networks. California’s high-speed train could also use this approach to take immediate advantage of its first completed segment.[...]

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-regulations-allow-stronger-lighter-safer-modern-trains

TC would be absolutely idiotic to not change along with the FRA. This opens up many more possibilities for inward investment into Cdn rail operations for passenger/commuter. I see HFR as well as GO as greatly benefiting from this.

 

[steveintoronto]

Further to the above: (Posted in full since it's a Gov't document)

FRA Issues Final Rule to Promote Safe and Efficient High-Speed Passenger Rail Operations
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a final rule establishing modern, performance-based safety standards for railroad passenger equipment. The rule reinforces FRA’s commitment to safety while representing one of the most significant enhancements to the nation’s passenger rail design standards in a century. The rule paves the way for U.S. high-speed passenger trains to safely travel as fast as 220 miles per hour (mph).
“These new regulations were made possible by a wealth of FRA research, reinforcing our unwavering commitment to safety,” FRA Administrator Ronald L. Batory said. “FRA’s safety experts solicited input from industry stakeholders at numerous levels and took those ideas to develop standards supporting a new era in public transportation.”
The final rule defines a new category of high-speed rail operations and makes it possible for high-speed rail to utilize existing infrastructure, saving the expense of building new rail lines. These new ‘Tier III’ passenger trains can operate over this shared track at conventional speeds, and as fast as 220 mph in areas with exclusive rights-of-way and without grade crossings.
The final rule also establishes minimum safety standards for these trains, focusing on core, structural, and critical system design criteria. FRA estimates that the rule will improve safety because of expected improvements made by the railroads to accommodate the operation of high-speed rail equipment in shared rights-of-way.
The final rule will be a deregulatory action under Executive Order (EO) 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” The rule is expected to save more than $475 million in net regulatory costs.
Passenger train manufacturers across the globe have utilized innovative design and testing techniques for years, incorporating features such as crash energy management. Under FRA’s previous passenger equipment regulations, U.S. rail companies have had limited procurement options or have needed to petition FRA for waivers to use these newer technologies.
The final rule continues to define Tier I as trains operating in shared rights-of-way at speeds up to 125 mph, and it also allows state-of-the-art, alternative designs for equipment operating at these conventional speeds. Tier II trains are defined as those traveling between 125-160 mph, an increase from the previous 150 mph limit. This supports a competitive operating environment for U.S. companies seeking to offer travelers more passenger rail options. By enabling the use of advanced equipment-safety technologies, this final rule helps eliminate the need for waivers.
The final rule was developed with the assistance of the Engineering Task Force (ETF), under the auspices of FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The ETF membership included FRA technical staff and representatives from railroads, rail labor organizations, manufacturers and others. The ETF evaluated production trends against the U.S. operating environment. The ETF recommended that FRA expand its traditional speed-and-safety rating system to three categories of passenger trains.
Updated: Tuesday, November 20, 2018

https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/...fficient-high-speed-passenger-rail-operations

 

[Streety McCarface]

You're massively overstating - possibly by almost an order of margin.

(I earned A+ in electronics class back in the day, so I know the basics of Ohm's Law, thank you very much)

First:
Kilowatt hours is not the same thing as kilowatts.
A kilowatt hour is the power available continuously for one hour.
100 KWh can output 1 megawatt for 1/10 hour
250 KWh can output 1 megawatt for 1/4 hour
Many lithium batteries can ouptut 10C or more (Ludricious acceleration briefly exceeds 500 KW total at battery contacts on Tesla!! The Tesla battery is 375 volts, and peaks at 1850 amps on a P100D during a drag race run. Run your Electronics 101 math on that, and.... Yessiere....Seven Hundred Kilowatts Buddy!!!)

Secondly:
Maintaining steady speed on flat ground can be less than 1/10th power. (Result: Less than 1/10th of 250KW)
A train is not accelerating nonstop for a full hour. (Result: 250KW is a surge only for ~2 minutes)
You also do not need to accelerate to full speed. (Result: The surge is less than 250KW)
You also do not need to run at full speed at steady state (Result: Lower power consumption)
You also have the dynamic regen brakin option to recover energy for the next re-acceleration. (Result: One acceleration is not goodbye 100% of that power foreever)

24 Tesla P100 batteries worth should be sufficient for a 12 coach GO train, to service a 1 stop catenary gap -- at reduced acceleration / reduced max speeds (~80-100kph instead of 140kph) -- while keeping a 3x to 4x safety margin for reduced capacity at cold temps & unexpected stops.

Honestly, and rather bluntly so, I'm being generous here, possibly even overestimating required capacity for such conservative operating margins. But we need to run the heater in winter, which may consume more total wattage than steady state speed. That widlcard of climate control actually worries me more than the easy numbers, but that does not require an order of magnitude adjustment. Dynamic regen braking can help recovery, recovering roughly half of the energy spent accelerating (give or take). Need I go on?

I didn't understand your assumptions. My bad.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ As much as I'm very pro-regeneration, both as a controlled braking method and the recovery of energy, some figures must be kept in mind:

[...]
Electric trains can recover 8 to 17% of electricity depending on whether the trains is used as long distance train or a full stop commuter train. In the United States, Amtrak introduced Acela Express high speed trains and other new and remanufactured electric locomotives in 2006. These trains use regenerative braking systems and have allowed Amtrak to reduce energy consumption by 8%, while in the UK Pendolino trains return up to 17% to the grid.

At the beginning of 2009, GE division Locomotive was designing a hybrid diesel locomotive for Indian Railways to capture energy dissipated during braking and store it in batteries to be used later. The new locomotive should reduce the fuel consumption by 15 percent and NOx and fine particle emissions even by 50 percent. It is unclear whether this fuel consumption reduction can be achieved when pulling many freight cars. (UIC, 2003)

The use of regenerative braking in the New Delhi's metro cuts back on energy use of the trains by about 30%. (Ritch, 2009)

For high speed trains, the reduction in electricity use by employing regenerative breaking is in general a bit lower. The energy savings of the N700 series of the Shinkansen are estimated to be about 4.5%. (UIC,2009)

In general the highest amount of energy can be recovered on full stop service commuter trains and subway trains.
[...]

http://www.climatetechwiki.org/technology/regenerative_braking_in_trains

 

[kEiThZ]

24 Tesla P100 batteries worth should be sufficient for a 12 coach GO train, to service a 1 stop catenary gap -- at reduced acceleration / reduced max speeds (~80-100kph instead of 140kph) -- while keeping a 3x to 4x safety margin for reduced capacity at cold temps & unexpected stops.

Honestly, and rather bluntly so, I'm being generous here, possibly even overestimating required capacity for such conservative operating margins. But we need to run the heater in winter, which may consume more total wattage than steady state speed. That widlcard of climate control actually worries me more than the easy numbers, but that does not require an order of magnitude adjustment. Dynamic regen braking can help recovery, recovering roughly half of the energy spent accelerating (give or take).

You real wild card is the cost and reliability implications of deep cycling those battery packs that 12-20x per day.