GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[KevinT]

How it would make any difference being in NA as opposed to the rest of the world is truly beyond me.

Because in North America passenger trains are "rolling bank vaults" (per Thomas Downs, former Amtrak president, who was in a position to know) thanks to our archaic regulations framework. You're throwing around a lot more weight than in Europe, which means more batteries, beefier motors, beefier motor controllers, beefier wiring, higher charging currents (or lengthier charge times), etc., etc. Could it be solved? Doubtless, but at what cost and in what time scale? In the meantime catenary is proven and available today, not just in Europe but over here as well.

 

[crs1026]

Amateurs talk kit. Professionals talk logistics.

I love this saying. Brilliant. And so true.

Professionals lay out the basis for their decisions on spreadsheets. It’s unlikely we can replicate that analysis here. The choice will be what it is.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

Because in North America passenger trains are "rolling bank vaults" (per Thomas Downs, former Amtrak president, who was in a position to know) thanks to our archaic regulations framework. You're throwing around a lot more weight than in Europe, which means more batteries, beefier motors, beefier motor controllers, beefier wiring, higher charging currents (or lengthier charge times), etc., etc. Could it be solved? Doubtless, but at what cost and in what time scale? In the meantime catenary is proven and available today, not just in Europe but over here as well.

This discussion seems to be going catenary versus battery, which is clearly not the decision bean counters will be making. Blue sky catenary is indeed cheap, well known, and easy to manage.

The decision to be made by those making a tender is whether it's worth spending $1B+ on various bridge works (many are the correct height not electrically safe, others require a full demolition and rebuilt) and possible union station modifications or carrying around enough battery to move the train ~100m until a pantograph can contact a powered part of the catenary. Visually, it probably won't be noticeable as they'd still string wire (or rigid rail) to guide the pantograph below non-electrically safe obstructions.

Capacity for 100m travel, perhaps even less, from a full stop isn't going to be a huge amount. I'd hazard a guess it's on the order of 50kwh or 2500kg.

They absolutely will not be submitting a battery only tender. 99% of the line will definitely be electrified; the interesting piece is that last 1% which is broken in many tiny segments and takes much more than 1% of the capital budget if electrified.

I'm curious now though, how much capacity (and weight) is in the standard Diesel Starter Batteries currently under GO locomotives (just ahead of the fuel tank)?

 

[ssiguy2]

I am NOT, nor have I ever said, that catenary is not the best option. It may very well turn out to be the superior choice but my point is that you cannot make that decision unless you know all the facts. This is what this conversation is about. When spending $13 billion on a transit project you have to make sure that the it is an informed decision and not one based upon what you hear thru the grapevine.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am NOT, nor have I ever said, that catenary is not the best option. It may very well turn out to be the superior choice but my point is that you cannot make that decision unless you know all the facts. This is what this conversation is about. When spending $13 billion on a transit project you have to make sure that the it is an informed decision and not one based upon what you hear thru the grapevine.

This is the entire point of a DBFOM contract. You're asking for bidders to provide you a capability. And you leave it to them how that will be provided. On their comfort level for risk and cost.

You don't need an "informed decision". You only need to know what capability you want.

 

[kEiThZ]

I love this saying. Brilliant. And so true.

Professionals lay out the basis for their decisions on spreadsheets. It’s unlikely we can replicate that analysis here. The choice will be what it is.

- Paul

The gap between professional knowledge and public understanding is huge and getting wider.

Take the debate over the F-35 (something in my lane). The public sees an expensive and unproven aircraft. Military officers see a normal development cycle, increasing capability and most importantly the only aircraft that will be sustainable over a 40 year lifecycle. Nobody in the public would think about sustainment at all.

Same thing here.

I get where ssiguy is coming from. And it's a perspective of someone who doesn't have to think of technological risk impacting project costs, timelines and delivery risks.

What often blows my mind is which professionals the public thinks it can accept advice from. Doctor? Climate scientist? Sure. Planner? Network engineer? Nope. And thanks to Wikipedia everybody is apparently an expert on fighter jets.

 

[cplchanb]

The gap between professional knowledge and public understanding is huge and getting wider.

Take the debate over the F-35 (something in my lane). The public sees an expensive and unproven aircraft. Military officers see a normal development cycle, increasing capability and most importantly the only aircraft that will be sustainable over a 40 year lifecycle. Nobody in the public would think about sustainment at all.

Same thing here.

I get where ssiguy is coming from. And it's a perspective of someone who doesn't have to think of technological risk impacting project costs, timelines and delivery risks.

What often blows my mind is which professionals the public thinks it can accept advice from. Doctor? Climate scientist? Sure. Planner? Network engineer? Nope. And thanks to Wikipedia everybody is apparently an expert on fighter jets.

As a former CAF member I would be delighted to debate the merits of the F-35 saga, but you definitely nailed it about public perception over reality. Same thing over the whole hyperloop craze and Musk's boring network,
Despite the current progress they have they still have years to go before its approved for public use and gains tangible business success. The whole hydrail and BET so far in most parts are sporadic and in its infancy.

 

[crs1026]

^Well, the public has every right to be skeptical of professionals’ assertions that an unproven technology will work..... LIM transit technology in Toronto winters, tilting technology on LRC trains, interchangeable weapons platforms on USN Littoral ships, plenty of things don’t work out as the pro’s said they would. Pro's are only so certain, but a public debate forces them to a "100% confidence" assertion even when they know better.
The difference between military procurement and transit infrastructure procurement is, indeed, risk. Given what an opposing military might deploy, we have little choice but to attempt to stay leading edge, even if some things don’t work right. Having said that, the issue is not whether the F-35 has the best radar etc on the market, it’s whether the F-35 is most easily retrofitted in 15 years when weapons and technology have evolved and missions have changed.
“Tested and proven” however is perfectly sound for transit procurement. Any added cost in redoing bridges etc for catenary is just buying insurance on reliability. I definitely do not see value in taking risks on unproven transit technology too soon in its development cycle. I especially don’t see focussing on any particular model of railcar or locomotive as part of that argument. Sure, cite statistics on reliability and cost per mile, but don’t post pretty pictures of trains to make one’s case.
- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

“Tested and proven” however is perfectly sound for transit procurement.

Exactly. GO has what we in the military call, "a no-fail mission". GO having any sort of reliability issues could actually cripple the GTA. The costs of that could well exceed any savings from using newer technologies.

Again though, this is what's great about DBFOM. The taxpayers don't have to decide which technology is great. They just have to ask for the frequency, capacity and cost they want. Industry decides on how to deliver.

Every consortium knows their tech. They know their costs. They know its reliability. They will adjust their bids accordingly.

it’s whether the F-35 is most easily retrofitted in 15 years

Side-note. The F-35 is the only a aircraft on the market built with oversized generators that can support directed energy weapons. And larger and better cooled avionics bays to support growth in processing power. These aren't things that can be retrofitted.

 

[ssiguy2]

The problem with letting private companies do the work that ML refuses to is that they are deciding the best technology choice. Hydrogen or battery could be the superior choice but if none of the 4 of the companies offer that solution then Torontonians are stuck with the best of the worst systems.

Seeing ML has abdicated it's roll what they should have done is had 6 bidders...……..2 catenary, 2 hydrogen, and 2 battery. This would not only ensure that the best operators are chosen but also the best technology. That could very well turn out to be catenary but you won't be able to make a truly informed decision unless you are presented with all the options.

If you are in the market for a more fuel efficient and reliable car and you know that BMWs have a proven track record then does that mean you would go out an buy the Beemer and not look at newer options like an all electric Tesla or another new hybrid from Lexus? If you wouldn't shop that way than neither should Metrolinx.

 

[torontocolin]

If it was the superior choice then one of these bidders would propose it. If a company can make a competitive bid with hydrogen or battery, they will. If nobody proposes hydrogen or battery, we'll know that no private companies thought it was a better idea. Forcing companies to make noncompetitive bids is a waste of everyone's time.

And how on earth could you cap the number of bidders based on technologies before you've even seen the bids? If there are four qualified bidders who all want to propose catenary, the whole point of the RFP process is that we don't know which one will offer the best bid.

 

[rbt]

And how on earth could you cap the number of bidders based on technologies before you've even seen the bids? If there are four qualified bidders who all want to propose catenary, the whole point of the RFP process is that we don't know which one will offer the best bid.

RER is a large enough project that companies are being paid ($72M each IIRC) for preparing a bid package. They'll be putting hundreds of staff on the design effort.

To determine which potential bidders would be able to actually follow through (and received funding to prepare a bid), there was an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) round where they were required to show they had access to funds and technical expertise to perform the work.

 

[lenaitch]

I have no experience with DBFOM contracts and there very well may be huge differences, but I have been peripherally involved in Ontario government procurement contracts involving both computer systems and telecommunications networks. The government is horrible at setting out clear parameters in terms of aspects such as equipment, performance, etc. and later enforcing them (they are even worse at in-house development; e-health anyone?). Deficiencies discovered after implementation often end up with the government throwing more money at the contractor because either they don't want to take the contractor to court, won't publicly admit they got into a flawed contract and/or the project is so far down the road (or the government is desparate because the preexisting system/process is so out of date) the contractor knows that there no turning back. The federal Phoenix payroll system is an example, as are the highway maintenance contracts of a few years ago. In one case, it was clear the a successful bidder didn't have the equipment to meet the contract, so the government's answer was to buy more and give it to them. Again, DBFOM contracts may well be different.

 

[ssiguy2]

Private companies vying for RER are NOT interested in delivering the best service and bang-for-the-buck but rather making money. There is nothing wrong with that as they are private companies who are investing time and money and hence want a return on their dollar.. Simultaneously they are only interested in operation for the period of their contracts and not concerned with anything beyond that. They are also not concerned with how much initial infrastructure costs that comes with the type of technology as the taxpayers are on the hook for that.

If they build catenary a company may save, as an example, save ML $50 million/year and win the contract but the fact that it will cost ML an extra $1.5 billion in infrastructure over hydrogen or battery is not considered. That $1.5 billion could buy 100 more trains and instead of the travelling public being crammed onto smaller or less frequent trains they could enjoy shorter waits and/or getting a seat but that does not work into the equation.

 

[crs1026]

I have no experience with DBFOM contracts and there very well may be huge differences, but I have been peripherally involved in Ontario government procurement contracts involving both computer systems and telecommunications networks. The government is horrible at setting out clear parameters in terms of aspects such as equipment, performance, etc. and later enforcing them (they are even worse at in-house development; e-health anyone?). Deficiencies discovered after implementation often end up with the government throwing more money at the contractor because either they don't want to take the contractor to court, won't publicly admit they got into a flawed contract and/or the project is so far down the road (or the government is desparate because the preexisting system/process is so out of date) the contractor knows that there no turning back. The federal Phoenix payroll system is an example, as are the highway maintenance contracts of a few years ago. In one case, it was clear the a successful bidder didn't have the equipment to meet the contract, so the government's answer was to buy more and give it to them. Again, DBFOM contracts may well be different.

You captured the down side of contract procurement well, and I’m sure the same will be true of the RER procurement. If your contract is loose, or not clearly specc’d, or loosely enforced, and especially if change orders start happening, the contractor typically holds the upper hand and is insulated from risk, as opposed to assuming a greater share of the risk. I have experience with both IT and physical plant contracting that went much as you described.

These problems are no worse however than the alternative - ie doing things in house when the task is not a well honed competency for that organization.

I am pretty skeptical of ML’s approach to P3, but the electrification piece is not the biggest part of that. The biggest error one could make with it is under-building the supply system, so that it is either unreliable or limits the number of trains that can be run. The spec ought to be clear on that.

The other big risk is not building in reliability, and that’s where the choice of technology matters. Playing with unproven technologies is unhealthy, whether it’s in the vehicles or something else. I would be equally unhappy if the choice were catenary, and some extremely new high tech control system were proposed for the electrical supply system. Let some other jurisdiction get the spotlight for sexy technology.

- Paul