GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[Streety McCarface]

You people really are bizarre so let me explain this very clearly so you will be able to follow along..........

Battery trains ARE, in everyway, shape, and form, catenary trains. I'll say that again so you can all keep up.........battery trains and catenary trains are the EXACT same thing. Battery trains use wires to run the trains just like ordinary catenary ones do. The ONLY difference is that battery trains have bigger and more advanced batteries which mean they can run the propulsion between the stations and then recharge at each station using those same catenary wires.

How any of you could view this as revolutionary is completely beyond me.

I'm pretty sure the hybrid buses are lemons (especially the older buses) and that we're just testing out battery buses now. We genuinely don't know how the battery-operated buses will fare in Toronto. This is how we do things, we don't procure a huge order for an unproven technology without testing it and ensuring its longevity first, because it may have awful consequences for us in the future.

There are far more challenges when using battery-operated trains than you seem to think, you're not just installing batteries into a train and calling it a battery train. Batteries themselves are extremely heavy and take up a lot of space, and you require 25 tonnes of batteries to run a train for 2 hrs with a factor of safety of 2. EMUs already distribute the weight of the locomotive among its cars (in the form of traction motors and additional electric infrastructure), so this is 25 tones of additional weight added to the train. If we extend the use of the locomotive to all-day without charging (which is extremely impractical), then we'd require 200 additional tonnes of dead weight — the equivalent mass of 4 EMUs. This has to be factored into rail wear (which is close to negligible but not quite there), additional capacity requirements, electricity usage (as if batteries weren't inefficient enough), and cost. There's also the additional cost of this type of rolling stock, finding a suitable vendor, and charging infrastructure. Battery charging itself is very challenging in cold weather climates, and it may not be practical for such a large train here in Toronto. When you have additional weight you require heavier traction motors (further increasing cost).

Lifecycle costs are a whole different issue. Electric infrastructure can last almost a century before needing a full replacement, while a battery-operated train may only last 20 years. Batteries for a train that would run all day would cost an additional 4 million dollars at current prices, assuming cost decreases don't occur faster than inflation, that could cost GO transit an additional 1.8 billion dollars on batteries alone. (I didn't include maintenance for either because it's too hard to estimate with the resources I currently have, though I'd expect battery maintenance to be far more expensive).

If you're talking about just throwing batteries on the existing trains and calling it a day, that's not really possible. Again, you'd be adding about 17 tonnes of batteries per biLevel coach. That is enough to warrant a complete structural strengthening for the entire coach. This doesn't even include the additional weight of electric traction motors, inverters, pantographs, and other electric train components. You'd have to start from scratch. If you're willing to find a train manufacturer that's willing to build at least 320 heavy rail, battery-operated vehicles that conform to Transport Canada standards, are not prohibitively expensive and have the capacity required to run our transit system, please, be my guest.

Battery-operated trains may have the potential to run on spur lines (maybe a future Bolton line, maybe it can be run through the Georgetown spur and rejoin electrified rail along the Guelph spur, maybe to Bowmanville, possibly to Niagara Falls), but there are far too many impracticalities and unknowns to justify investing in them right now, especially when the technology doesn't fit the needs of our system.

 

[kEiThZ]

Any bidder would be nuts to discard the hundreds of existing carriages. The easiest path then might be to string OCS and then deploy electric locomotives. With EMUs only coming on a few lines.
.
I'm sure every bidder is gaming this out. I would bet not one has proposed battery or hydrogen trains. Most bidders aren't in the habit of proposing high risk solutions that could get them booted quick.

 

[ssiguy2]

StreetyMcFarce...………………..You are absolutely right, there are downsides to battery trains including, as you mentioned, the weight of the batteries and their replacement costs. This is similar to the downside of catenary trains of massive infrastructure costs, having to repair/replace that infrastructure due to periodic weather damage, far longer implementation times, clearance issues and visual pollution and the resulting public pushback. There is no such thing as a perfect solution because if there was we {and hundreds of different cities around the world} wouldn't be having this conversation.

What irks me is when people say it is an unproven technology. There is absolutely nothing unproven about it as they have been plying the rails for a century now with no problems. The ONLY difference now is that the batteries have improved so much, so fast that they are now practical for mass transit. This is no different from battery cars being used 20 years ago, they worked but due to the massive weight, very long recharging times, very limited mileage, and no where to recharge them they simply weren't optional for the masses.

This is not about embracing an unproven technology but rather just making use of an improved one. There is nothing revolutionary about battery trains and even saying they are novel is pushing it but now, for the first time, they are however practical.

 

[torontocolin]

Battery trains still require major infrastructure investments (as you said, they need catenary in stations to charge). It's not like you can just buy battery trains and roll them out next year. They also require an expensive wholesale replacement of the entire fleet in order to be rolled out. As @kEiThZ pointed out, a full catenary system, rolled out line by line, would allow the bidder to purchase electric locomotives for the existing fleet and then EMUs for service expansion or replacement.

 

[Streety McCarface]

StreetyMcFarce...………………..You are absolutely right, there are downsides to battery trains including, as you mentioned, the weight of the batteries and their replacement costs. This is similar to the downside of catenary trains of massive infrastructure costs, having to repair/replace that infrastructure due to periodic weather damage, far longer implementation times, clearance issues and visual pollution and the resulting public pushback. There is no such thing as a perfect solution because if there was we {and hundreds of different cities around the world} wouldn't be having this conversation.

What irks me is when people say it is an unproven technology. There is absolutely nothing unproven about it as they have been plying the rails for a century now with no problems. The ONLY difference now is that the batteries have improved so much, so fast that they are now practical for mass transit. This is no different from battery cars being used 20 years ago, they worked but due to the massive weight, very long recharging times, very limited mileage, and no where to recharge them they simply weren't optional for the masses.

This is not about embracing an unproven technology but rather just making use of an improved one. There is nothing revolutionary about battery trains and even saying they are novel is pushing it but now, for the first time, they are however practical.

Please provide an example of a large scale commuter rail network that runs trains with batteries, let alone a large scale EMU that utilizes batteries. Again, the concept makes sense for some areas of the network, but it in no way can replace the entirety of the system.

 

[jje1000]

Any bidder would be nuts to discard the hundreds of existing carriages. The easiest path then might be to string OCS and then deploy electric locomotives. With EMUs only coming a few lines.
.
I'm sure every bidder is gaming this out. I would bet not one gas proposed battery or hydrogen trains. Most bidders aren't in the habit of proposing high risk solutions that could get them booted quick.

Definitely so- could we see something like the ACS-64 or the ALP-46 pulling bi-levels instead of the current diesel engines? (And also whatever Alstom currently manufactures)

Siemens ACS-64 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bombardier ALP-46 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Streety McCarface]

Definitely so- could we see something like the ACS-64 or the ALP-46 pulling bi-levels instead of the current diesel engines? (And also whatever Alstom currently manufactures)

Siemens ACS-64 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bombardier ALP-46 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fleet replacement will be necessary soon, and I still think that the Single level EMU idea was the best bet from the get go.

Silverliner IV (SEPTA). They were built well and have lasted 45 years and will likely last another 10.

Arrow III (NJT), Pretty much the same as the Silverliner IV.

Some Nippon Sharyo EMUs used on the South Shore line also work fairly well.

In terms of more modern vehicles that could actually be used:

The Kawasaki M9 or M8, both have (or will [be]) been equipped with Pantographs. MNRR seems to find that the M8s are really reliable and I doubt the M9s would be any different.

Silverliner Vs (SEPTA and RTD), These are lemons though.

If we want double-deckers, then the KISS or the new bombardier Multilevel EMUs could work. Nippon Sharyos (Metra) have proved the concept in Chicagoland:

 

[BobWay28]

Hoping they choose the perfect one on this.

 

[smallspy]

Regarding the Kitchener Line between Union and Bramalea, is it a technical limitation that RER can provide no better than 15 minute service intervals in both directions? Or is it a Metrolinx policy decision (i.e. it could be better than 15 minutes if they chose)?

With the current track and signalling configuration, 15 minute headways would be very, very difficult to achieve because of how the track is laid out at Bramalea. If the track there was optimized, there's no reason why smaller headways couldn't be run.

GO seems to have a bit of a hard-on for half-hourly and quarter-hourly schedules, but I don't see why that couldn't be overcome.

Dan

 

[kEiThZ]

What irks me is when people say it is an unproven technology.

It’s not just employment, but employment at scale that matters. GO is a massive operator and the backbone of a regional transport system that covers an area the size of some small European countries. At that scale, it’s a massive risk to switch to technology that has not successfully operated at the same scale as GO before. And it’s such a huge risk not just because of the tech, but because GO will be changing their operational concept from commuter to suburban rail at the same time. There is no organization as large as GO going through that large a change that would then add risk by using tech that hasn’t demonstrated at scale before.

 

[cplchanb]

It’s not just employment, but employment at scale that matters. GO is a massive operator and the backbone of a regional transport system that covers an area the size of some small European countries. At that scale, it’s a massive risk to switch to technology that has not successfully operated at the same scale as GO before. And it’s such a huge risk not just because of the tech, but because GO will be changing their operational concept from commuter to suburban rail at the same time. There is no organization as large as GO going through that large a change that would then add risk by using tech that hasn’t demonstrated at scale before.

+1.
large operations like GO require proof of satisfactory service history before they will even consider employing it network wide. That is why they have pilot programs to test in real world circumstances. In the case for BET and Hydrail, I have so far not seen
any operations or pilots happen with current equipment in North America. The very most I see GO will do is employ a pilot on the RH or their lesser used lines and MAYBE use it for their next generation. Then again weve seen ML do crazy things so well have to see if theyre crazy enough to seriously consider these so far exotic ideas.

 

[ssiguy2]

Stadler and Bombardier now have battery trains that are practical in the real world and I have noted several cities earlier that investing heavily in them including the massive Ireland DART coach replacement program which will see potentially hundreds of them on their network. Auckland already uses them. Siemens is coming out with it's own battery trains very soon as is Hitachi and Skoda.

Battery trains are catenary trains as that is how they draw their power for recharging but now they just don't require charging all the time but rather periodically getting rid of the massive catenary infrastructure costs. This is EXACTLY like trolley buses and streetcars that can still run a very short distance even in a power outage. How it would make any difference being in NA as opposed to the rest of the world is truly beyond me.

 

[ssiguy2]

The problem here is that Hydrail or Battery could turn out to be a far superior choice in both operational and infrastructure costs over catenary and yet it potentially won't make a hoot of difference. This is because of Metrolinx's bizarre choice of letting 4 contractors bid and let the best company win. Sounds good on paper but what happens if the 4 competing companies do nothing but offer catenary systems? That means the potentially better options of Hydrail and Battery aren't even being considered. Remember the private companies are only interested in how low their operational costs will come in at and not the initial infrastructure costs even though that matters greatly to the taxpayers.

ML didn't want to make any decisions on technology or even train types which may have pigeon-hold them into getting them {potentially} the worst system. Due to ML not having the balls to make an executive decision on either of those things then what they should have done is put out the potential contracts to 6 bidders.........….2 catenary, 2 hydrail, and 2 battery to make sure they are not only getting the best operators but the best systems as well.

 

[Divas S.]

Stadler and Bombardier now have battery trains that are practical in the real world and I have noted several cities earlier that investing heavily in them including the massive Ireland DART coach replacement program which will see potentially hundreds of them on their network. Auckland already uses them. Siemens is coming out with it's own battery trains very soon as is Hitachi and Skoda.

Battery trains are catenary trains as that is how they draw their power for recharging but now they just don't require charging all the time but rather periodically getting rid of the massive catenary infrastructure costs. This is EXACTLY like trolley buses and streetcars that can still run a very short distance even in a power outage. How it would make any difference being in NA as opposed to the rest of the world is truly beyond me.

The Auckland trains are 3 car EMUs and DART doesn't even have a manufacturer.

The problem here is that Hydrail or Battery could turn out to be a far superior choice in both operational and infrastructure costs over catenary and yet it potentially won't make a hoot of difference. This is because of Metrolinx's bizarre choice of letting 4 contractors bid and let the best company win. Sounds good on paper but what happens if the 4 competing companies do nothing but offer catenary systems? That means the potentially better options of Hydrail and Battery aren't even being considered. Remember the private companies are only interested in how low their operational costs will come in at and not the initial infrastructure costs even though that matters greatly to the taxpayers.

If all of them do then that proves the traditional tech works, you can type and type till your fingertips- or your rbg keyboard turns blue about battery trains this and hydrail that, i don't know why you still try

 

[kEiThZ]

Metrolinx's bizarre choice of letting 4 contractors bid and let the best company win. Sounds good on paper but what happens if the 4 competing companies do nothing but offer catenary systems?

Nothing bizarre about it. The contractors are bearing all the risk. Hence why they are allowed to propose what ever they want.

Amateurs talk kit. Professionals talk logistics.

It's clear you don't appreciate technical and financial risks involved on a multi-billion dollar DBFOM contract and think it's all about the trains.

Could some of them propose hydrail or battery trains? Sure. It depends on how comfortable they are offering performance guarantees on the tech and how the costs work out.

Keep in mind the less confident they are on how these technologies perform, the more they will have to spend on rolling stock (higher spare ratio) which will drive larger maintenance facilities, more staff, etc. They'll have to book larger contingency budgets, longer implementation schedules, etc. And all that to replace hundreds of GO carriages already in service.

They will offer what they think makes their bid competitive and delivers the performance GO wants. That's all we, as taxpayers, should care about. Why should I care what type of propulsion it is? I only care that a train is there every 15 mins, that service is consistent and reliable and that the costs are low enough to maximize taxpayer investment.