GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[mdrejhon]

They've been making provisions for catenary

• They've installed ground-based mount points for catenary portals at the Whitby maintenance facility.
  
  
• In Hamilton, the new John Street bridge rebuild has been raising the bridge to just above catenary height. They did that for the earlier Bay Street bridge rebuild a few years ago.
  
  
• Newer signal portals that are recently installed have been adjusted in height to double as catenary portals.
  
  
• The 2020s decade have both the Whitby Mahal (gigantic electrification-ready maintenance facility) and Union Station Mahal (completed revitalization), oversized facilities for non-electrified service.

Metrolinx currently has a mandated a current GO minimum regulation height for OCS (Overhead Contact System), which are being designed-in to every newbuild.

All moves point to making electrification easier and easier, as time passes. Electrification using catenary is inevitable at least on at least one main GO train route, even if the dates are a moving target.

Even if alternatives (4G / hybrids / non-diesels -- hell, even hydrogen -- for minor feeder routes) happen, catenary WILL still happen on at least one route eventually due to pressure to fill corridor capacity. Union Station is designed to push 3x as many passengers as today, once full revitalization is complete. Even if dates shift to 2028 or 2032.

Many of us are familiar with Metrolinx delays that we all love [Insert "AnimatedAngryMonkey.gif" here] but the evidence is plainly momentum towards clearly eventual electrification by catenary.

 

[rbt]

Wasn't there a small oops made during the Union Shed refurb though?

More a misunderstanding by media who believed catenary is the only way to feed power to a train.

Yes, there is not room for catenary within the train shed in the same form as it will be installed on the mainline. There is, however, plenty of room for overhead rigid rail which is quite common at train stations around the world and even used by TTC in a few places for streetcar lines (Queens Quay tunnel, Spadina tunnel, and under some bridges on King Street *** EDIT: Incorrect, St. Clair West only***).

Not lowering the tracks (remove ballast and wood ties) and adjusting platform height for level boarding simultaneous to rebuilding the shed and punching in a bunch of stairwells was kinda surprising.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I recall seeing a diagram of it even.

 

[mdrejhon]

Yes, there is not room for catenary within the train shed in the same form as it will be installed on the mainline. There is, however, plenty of room for overhead rigid rail which is quite common at train stations around the world and even used by TTC

Just simple rigid metal and flash plates underneath existing arches.

And two or three simple portal structures inside the glass atrium.

Not the most expensive part of an electrification project.

The upgrade to faster track switches in USRC is probably way more costly & disruptive than the installation of the inside-Union OCS overhead "rail". Mostly a simple one-track-at-a-time shutdown for their install, with practically no track-level modifications needed.

Sure, lots of planning, licensed contractors, electrical/safety inspectors -- given proximity of 25kV and lots of commuters -- but otherwise bog-simple technology. Even that extra cost-add won't be a significant to the total cost of a fully revitialized Union Station or the total cost of electrification. The media did doth hype a protest there.

 

[Allandale25]

Wasn't there a small oops made during the Union Shed refurb though?

Just simple rigid metal and flash plates underneath existing arches.

And two or three simple portal structures inside the glass atrium.

Not the most expensive part of an electrification project.

The upgrade to faster track switches in USRC is probably way more costly & disruptive than the installation of the inside-Union OCS overhead "rail". Mostly a simple one-track-at-a-time shutdown for their install, with practically no track-level modifications needed. The $$$ will be the expensive licensed contractors, electric inspectors, and safety inspectors, and even that won't be a significant cost-add to a fully revitialized Union Station.

Found it (cc @dowlingm). See my October 12, 2017 post here in the GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler) thread. Also posted by @AlvinofDiaspar.

I had extracted the files here: https://viarailcorridor.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/union-station-shed-and-ocs-volume-1.pdf

Key image of option 1. There is an option 2 you can see in the file above.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

TTC in a few places for streetcar lines (Queens Quay tunnel, Spadina tunnel, and under some bridges on King Street).

The only rigid section of overhead is inside of St. Clar west all of the other places you list are just the same wire as the rest of the overhead in the rest of the network with a fibreglass plank under them so that if the streetcar dewires it won't make contact with the bridge or the tunnel roof.

 

[rbt]

The only rigid section of overhead is inside of St. Clar west all of the other places you list are just the same wire as the rest of the overhead in the rest of the network with a fibreglass plank under them so that if the streetcar dewires it won't make contact with the bridge or the tunnel roof.

Indeed. I had to look at pictures because I remember them being a smooth cylindrical metal bar welded in place; and none of them are like that as you say.

 

[ssiguy2]

An interesting development on the hydrogen rail front that you anti-hydrogen people will absolutely love.

One of the planned hydrogen systems in the Ruhr region of Germany has been cancelled. They have decided to continue with diesel for the next few years and then transfer over to battery instead. Bombardier has been testing it's battery trains in Germany and obviously the train authority liked what it saw. One of the advantages of battery over catenary is that it requires no new stations, maintenance, or expertise as battery trains are, in every way, shape, and form, standard catenary trains. The ONLY difference between standard catenary and the new battery ones is that the new ones have bigger and better batteries but their technology and the trains themselves are identical.

 

[mdrejhon]

Yes, I think battery trains are more realistic than hydrogen.

With today's technology, batteries should be able to accelerate trains a bit faster than hydrogen. You can maintain EMU acceleration specifications and keep using big trains (e.g. double-decker) since much of the peak-period GO infrastructure requires 12-coach trains. Smaller trains offpeak sure, but I don't see how we can avoid at least having some double deckers at peak period.

Modern Tesla car batteries are now capable of near megawatt-league output; witness Tesla's world record times at the drag race trip (The P100D battery outputting an stupendous ~440,000 watts in a surge -- the average simultaneous power consumption of 40 residential houses! Albiet only during the 3 to 4 seconds to 0-to-100kph-)

Catenary and battery aren't mutually exclusive. You can have pure-catenary, pure-battery, or both. Catenary can recharge batteries while the trains are in motion. This would essentially be dual-mode trains except it's catenary+battery instead of catenary+diesel.

You can use smaller batteries if you only need to do a 1-station battery hop. Battery size is simply determined by the ratio of catenary:none. If you have catenary for most of your route, then the battery can be small. This can allow catenary where it's easy (e.g. Burlington to Union) and battery for the small hop to Hamilton (For the 15-min-frequency Hamilton service by 2041, as spelled out in the Metrolinx 2041 Regional Transportation Plan)

The brief power consumption of a bilevel EMU at full acceleration is several megawatts -- but a good lithium battery can supply that nowadays. Just a few Tesla car batteries per bilevel coach, in fact, and working independently per coach, with safety margin for dead batteries (dead coaches). Stupendous backup & safety margin if designed properly. But once at speed, the power consumption disappears dramatically (>90% reduction of power for the most efficient trains) when you're simply maintaining speed on level ground. So you don't need to overdesign the battery nearly as much for a 1-station hop.

The industrial scale of the automobile electrification going on -- and the cost reductions -- means massive lithium-battery-powered GO trains are feasible by the 2020s, at least for the small-hop.

This can mean dramatic cost reductions for electrifying all the way to Hamilton. The Tesla P100D is a 100 KWh battery, though most are smaller such as 75 KWh. Today, you only need about 2 to 4 Tesla-sized car batteries per bilevel GO coach to allow the Aldershot-Hamilton stop with enough safety margin for a winter stall between stations (power consumption of heaters etc). Approximately 100 to 300 KWh (kilowatts-hours) per bilevel EMU coach is suitable for the "small gap" at full speed (15-minute hop) -- the full power draw (acceleration) is only needed for 1 minute; and it takes much less power to simply coast. The cost calculus is going to work for Hamilton electrified 15-min frequency service. Freight rail won't need to deal with catenary.

There will probably be full or mostly-full catenary at least for the "Burlington-Bramalea-Oshawa" core and probably Aurora/Unionville. Whatever is beyond is up to imagination with battery trains.

 

[crs1026]

^The idea of a mixed catenary-battery technology is intriguing.

On the one hand, not having to string wires everywhere could really reduce the cost and complexity and the construction delay of RER electrification. Logically, acceleration and deceleration points ought to be wired, as that is where current demands are greatest. It’s a lot less battery drain to propel a train that has already reached track speed than it is to start the train from the station.

I wonder too if this could change the voltage spec for catenary. If the wired sections are shorter and non-continuous, maybe 25kv is no longer the spec. A lower voltage could change switchgear requirements and dimensions and clearance dimensions, again potentially simplifying construction. However, feeding a dozen short independent wire zones couldd be a lot more complicated and costly than one continuous wired route with a minimal number of feed points.

On the other hand, until reliability is proven, I would not want any train to need a rescue should batteries fail or prematurely drain. So build with some sort of minimum diesel capability to enable a train to crawl to the next electrified zone. A bus-sized emergency power plant that could deliver “first notch” level power is all that’s needed.

I won’t speculate on what the cost and wieght and reliability of battery vs hydrogen might be in this “light output while at speed” mode. Both are intriguing, but both are unproven in terms of practical operating lessons learned and detailed performance data.

And, it seems prudent to wire the USRC, both as a recharging zone and as an “acceleration” zone.... and because it is a choke point where we especially don’t need trains running out of power. That single zone is such a high cost item - once that cost is sunk, wiring the rest of the routes may be simpler than messing with batteries.

Lastly, I wonder about the reliability of raising and lowering the pantograph repeatedly during a run. In theory, in the GPS age it ought to be dead simple.... but the devil is in the details. We don’t need to be the property that pays for lessons learned the hard way.

In the end, my reaction is the same as with hydrogen: sure, there may be prototypes out there, and one day soon it may be everywhere..... but Ontario should not be the proving ground, and we needed electric trains yesterday. So, let someone else figure out the technology and perfect it, but in the meanwhile let’s get moving on those wires!

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

The reliability of the catenary poles going up and down need not be an issue. When discussing catenary-battery systems, there actually doesn't need to be a moving catenary or even any wires.

Bombardier is the leader in world of battery systems as this is where they have put their emphasis on non-catenary systems much like Alstom and Siemens are banking more on hydrogen Bombardier is also a leader in "contactless" systems with it's Primove technology. They are the LRT systems that allow the trains to run at grade with no wires due to having induction powered trains. They draw their power from underneath the trains without actually touching it and to make them safe against pedestrians and cars, the power is only becomes operational when the trains are directly on top of the lines.

They have been successful in many older and historic cities where visual pollution is a legitimate concern. They have however been limited to warmer climates as any colder cities where ice and snow are issue which could lead to reliability issues due to effecting the induction flow. This however is not an issue when the induction system is one the top of the train much like standard catenary. Solid metal lines the length of the stations would allow for no wires and the contactless points would obviously be underneath the steel. Due to be solid metal and underneath that makes the system completely unaffected by the biggest snow, ice, or wind storms Mother Nature could dish out and be impervious to rain exposure and hence corrosion. . Due to being at the stations they supply the power where it is needed most...........de/acceleration allowing the trains to effectively run all day without any recharging time.

 

[Rainforest]

The reliability of the catenary poles going up and down need not be an issue. When discussing catenary-battery systems, there actually doesn't need to be a moving catenary or even any wires.

Bombardier is the leader in world of battery systems as this is where they have put their emphasis on non-catenary systems much like Alstom and Siemens are banking more on hydrogen Bombardier is also a leader in "contactless" systems with it's Primove technology. They are the LRT systems that allow the trains to run at grade with no wires due to having induction powered trains. They draw their power from underneath the trains without actually touching it and to make them safe against pedestrians and cars, the power is only becomes operational when the trains are directly on top of the lines.

They have been successful in many older and historic cities where visual pollution is a legitimate concern. They have however been limited to warmer climates as any colder cities where ice and snow are issue which could lead to reliability issues due to effecting the induction flow. This however is not an issue when the induction system is one the top of the train much like standard catenary. Solid metal lines the length of the stations would allow for no wires and the contactless points would obviously be underneath the steel. Due to be solid metal and underneath that makes the system completely unaffected by the biggest snow, ice, or wind storms Mother Nature could dish out and be impervious to rain exposure and hence corrosion. . Due to being at the stations they supply the power where it is needed most...........de/acceleration allowing the trains to effectively run all day without any recharging time.

Sounds interesting, but it is not obvious that the induction system can transmit the required amount of power to push a mainline train, instead of a relatively small LRT. There should be some limitations both on transmitter and on the receiver side.

 

[Rainforest]

And, it seems prudent to wire the USRC, both as a recharging zone and as an “acceleration” zone.... and because it is a choke point where we especially don’t need trains running out of power. That single zone is such a high cost item - once that cost is sunk, wiring the rest of the routes may be simpler than messing with batteries.

USRC certainly should be wired, but one potential benefit of not having to wire every other section is that it will be easier to deal with CN / CP. As far as I know, they are reluctant to do along with the catenary because the wires might interfere with their tall freight cars.

 

[crs1026]

USRC certainly should be wired, but one potential benefit of not having to wire every other section is that it will be easier to deal with CN / CP. As far as I know, they are reluctant to do along with the catenary because the wires might interfere with their tall freight cars.

Very true.... but they too will be constructively skeptical of the technology until it is widespread and proven to be reliable.
Their angst over catenary above double stacks and hazardous materials is likely about electrical contact - which could be catastrophic. But stalled trains that block their freights can be costly - so dead batteries will be a concern until it’s proven that a battery train doesn't stall any more often than the diesel.

- Paul

 

[Rainforest]

Very true.... but they too will be constructively skeptical of the technology until it is widespread and proven to be reliable.
Their angst over catenary above double stacks and hazardous materials is likely about electrical contact - which could be catastrophic. But stalled trains that block their freights can be costly - so dead batteries will be a concern until it’s proven that a battery train doesn't stall any more often than the diesel.

- Paul

Would it be possible to keep a few "rescue" diesel engines at hand, that can be quickly deployed to pull or push a stalled train to a wired section in case of a battery failure?