GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[crs1026]

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?

It is possible, although it would be costly to have crews standing by. In a roundabout way it is already in place, in the sense that spare equipment and diesels are already grabbed and made available when breakdowns happen. Under more dense operating conditions, it’s possible for the following GO train to simply ease up and push. But there are strict operating rules to be followed in those situations, and they consume time. Ultimately we need trains that don’t die on the road, period. This will be the case eventually, but nothing g good will come of GO trying to push the curve here.

- Paul

 

[Bureaucromancer]

nothing good will come of GO trying to push the curve here.

This is very much the point. We have a proven, reasonable and entirely practical solution in catenary, but Ontario's odd mix of small minded reluctance to build anything and techno fetishism is doing its best to kill that. It's happened too many times here already, we need to stop falling into the same damn trap, and certainly not on THE most important project since the Yonge line.

 

[ssiguy2]

To counter that argument is that this is not a "fetish" and is , in fact, quite the opposite...……... it's staying with the tried and true. This is NOTHING but a standard catenary train and the ONLY difference is that it requires fewer poles. To say it's a unique technology is like saying hybrid cars are and of course they are not. They use the same combustion engines that we have been using for 120 years. The only difference is that the batteries that they have also been using for 120 years have advanced so that now the first 30km can be done on battery alone.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Frankly I'd agree that we're looking at tried and true tech if it were dual mode (and tbh I suspect we WILL see some form of that proposed by at least some bidders - I'd be rather surprised if no one includes dual mode locomotives at least for Brampton - Kitchener, Aldershot - Hamilton and Durham extension services), that was being talked about, but this thread keeps rehashing hydrogren, pure battery, non catenary power distribution and various incarnations of waiting to see about various technologies... All the kind of thing that is liable to get us into trouble of some kind, and certainly not "tried and true" for anything like the scope and scale of GO operations now or post RER.

 

[mdrejhon]

I prefer pure catenary, but battery trains are far older technology than hydrogen.

Battery trains are over 100 years old. Google “accumulator rail train history”, dating back to 1890s onwards.

The point being is, despite complexities, it is a far more realistic route than hydrogen if we go unconventional solution. Power systems now exist today to interface batteries and 25kVAC — and maintain EMU acceleration and speed capabilities. Important attributes of RER.

And if an unconventional route is chosen, less likely to get us in trouble, given ordinary catenary trains (non battery) still can operate in the catenary sections. Very tried-and-true. And still compatible with dual-mode trains. Hydrogen backs us into a corner. While catenary-recharged battery train infrastructure is more compatible with pure-catenary trains and dual-mode trains.

Imagine Burlington-to-Oshawa electric service, but Metrolinx buys a few battery backed catenary train sets to replace Hamilton diesels with more frequent electric service, if CP still won’t let catenary go to Hamilton this century.

That doesn’t have to happen till 2030s or 2040s anyway when mature, and is an incremental add-on that allows keeping using diesels or dual modes, until a mature battery option is available.

Also some battery systems are per-coach, so battery can still be dead on 1 coach and the rest of the train can still move the dead coach. Like an EMU train set with one coach turned off (non-propulsive).

Pure diesels are still planned for Hamilton RER but if a bilevel battery+cat option is mature by then, the flexibility of bypassing the “CP bans catenary to Hamilton” problem, for RER upgrade Stage 2 or 3 or 4, Metrolinx has to then choose from available dual mode options, of which may by then already include mature battery+cat options too (e.g. 2041).

Graceful path. And we don’t have to decide battery today. Just commit to catenary now, and keep the both battery and no-battery decision forks open until it is time to decide.

The core route needs to be catenary regardless, no? De-risk by not going hydrogen. Batteries aren’t necessarily the start of RER, anyway. The first buildout should be pure catenary. So I am essentially in agreement on that with majority here. It is just Stage 2 or 3 stuff, such as solving the freight problem. Unlike hydrogen, it is not a polar choice.

Catenary is the constant.

See?

 

[ssiguy2]

I have NEVER, EVER stated which of the 3 options {catenary/battery/hydrogen} I think would be the best bet but I will do so now...….………………………………….RER should be battery.

1} Catenary trains are highly inflexible.. They can't go anywhere not connected to a wire. which means they can't be deployed anywhere else even in an emergency. unlike diesel, battery, or hydrogen.

2} Catenary work perfectly but only under perfect conditions. Ice/snow/wind storms can knock out power lines bringing the system to a grinding halt. Power outages do the same as are more likely during storms when the roads are also suffering under these conditions...………..the system is the least reliable when people need to rely on it the most again unlike diesel/battery/hydrogen.

3} Hydrogen has the faults of being a new technology and will require some new infrastructure and although it looks promising, it is too much of an unknown quantity to risk the money. Due to being new, supply may also be a concern and they, like diesel, can never be deployed underground if every needed for RER in the future.

4} Massive time and money savings of not having to put catenary wires and the associated infrastructure and upkeep/replacement.

5} Battery trains are just catenary trains with better batteries. They are the same trains, same track, same power source, same, same connections to the grid and same capacity but just don't need as many poles.

In short, battery offers all the flexibility of hydrogen and diesel trains but the zero emission, confirmed technology, better performance of catenary while saving well over a $1 billion in infrastructure, upkeep, and yet can be up and running much faster than catenary and with far less disruption. Although it should not be a deciding factor, they also don't look like shit which every catenary system does. Catenary systems aren't as ugly and overbearing as they use to be but that doesn't change the fact that they are still ugly and a blight on the urban landscape.

 

[Allandale25]

I have NEVER, EVER stated which of the 3 options {catenary/battery/hydrogen} I think would be the best bet but I will do so now...….………………………………….RER should be battery.

1} Catenary trains are highly inflexible.. They can't go anywhere not connected to a wire. which means they can't be deployed anywhere else even in an emergency. unlike diesel, battery, or hydrogen.

2} Catenary work perfectly but only under perfect conditions. Ice/snow/wind storms can knock out power lines bringing the system to a grinding halt. Power outages do the same as are more likely during storms when the roads are also suffering under these conditions...………..the system is the least reliable when people need to rely on it the most again unlike diesel/battery/hydrogen.

3} Hydrogen has the faults of being a new technology and will require some new infrastructure and although it looks promising, it is too much of an unknown quantity to risk the money. Due to being new, supply may also be a concern and they, like diesel, can never be deployed underground if every needed for RER in the future.

4} Massive time and money savings of not having to put catenary wires and the associated infrastructure and upkeep/replacement.

5} Battery trains are just catenary trains with better batteries. They are the same trains, same track, same power source, same, same connections to the grid and same capacity but just don't need as many poles.

In short, battery offers all the flexibility of hydrogen and diesel trains but the zero emission, confirmed technology, better performance of catenary while saving well over a $1 billion in infrastructure, upkeep, and yet can be up and running much faster than catenary and with far less disruption. Although it should not be a deciding factor, they also don't look like shit which every catenary system does. Catenary systems aren't as ugly and overbearing as they use to be but that doesn't change the fact that they are still ugly and a blight on the urban landscape.

Some of the aspects I'm most interested in for evaluating the different electrification options are the ability of each option to handle acceleration/deceleration, the type and scale of equipment GO needs, and the cost and availability of off the shelf rolling stock. How does battery do with acceleration/efficiency/speed?

 

[Rainforest]

Catenary is likely to remain the most cost-effective choice for the central sections with most frequent traffic. Basically, the nearly-fixed cost of infrastructure is divided by a larger number of trips, making the cost of each trip lower.

For the outer sections, and/or middle sections where catenary is problematic, the battery option looks promising. Battery requires no static infrastructure (only rolling stock) if the batteries are supposed to be charged in-place while the train is in a catenary equipped section. Thus, battery should go well with catenary.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, requires nontrivial static infrastructure (produce / deliver / store hydrogen, load hydrogen onto the trains). It would be very unlikely for the province (or anyone) to fund both catenary infrastructure and hydrogen infrastructure, hence we would forfeight catenary by choosing hydrogen.

 

[mdrejhon]

Some of the aspects I'm most interested in for evaluating the different electrification options are the ability of each option to handle acceleration/deceleration, the type and scale of equipment GO needs, and the cost and availability of off the shelf rolling stock. How does battery do with acceleration/efficiency/speed?

A very fast moving target.
The answer will change in 2020, 2030 and 2040.

My view (unlike ssiguy) is that we probably don't even have to decide on battery until somewhat later.
The luxury of waiting shorter/longer for battery train is afforded by simply starting with pure catenary, and stick to catenary-compatible battery trains.

Let's run a trial exercise of a theoretical 2030s bilevel battery+cat train.

1. Modern lithium batteries output an inordinate amount of power -- a single Tesla battery outputs more than half a megawatt surge during max acceleration -- a P100D is 778 horsepower which maths out to 580 kilowatts.
2. There's plenty of room in undercarriage space of a BiLevel to put a few such batteries per coach, plus the necessary bulk of crash/fire protection.
3. The new Tier 4 GO locomotives are dual 2700 HP engines (5400 HP total max). At 746 watts per horsepower, that's 4 megawatt. You'd be able to do that with just about ~8 Tesla car sized batteries.
4. Engineering can could easily hide 3 Tesla batteries per coach in the undercarriage.
5. At 3 Tesla sized batteries per coach, 12 coach train, that's a grand total of 36 Tesla sized batteries per whole trainset.
6. If we wanted to go nuts, that's a shocking 20.9 megawatts, or 28,000 horsepower per train -- more than 5x the power of Tesla battery at max power output. That's more than a high speed train requires!
7. Revenue service train will need to frequently accelerate, so a safety margin is needed.
8. Say, perhaps output only 1/4 the power to reduce wear-tear.
9. At only 1/4th the power output of a Tesla, that's still 7000 horsepower per trainset per theoretical 12-coach 2020s bilevel battery EMU sized with the equivalent of 36 Tesla-sized batteries at 3 Tesla sized batteries per coach.
10. Even if you use 1/10th power output (even gentler on the batteries), that's still 2800 horsepower -- the ballpark of a common rev during today's GO train acceleration
11. There's plenty of room for many batteries, perhaps even 100 Tesla sized batteries per coach (including bulk of crash protection for them). More battery capacity, and plenty of safety margin to go subway-acceleration while pushing the batteries only 1/10th max output.
12. Max power output would only occur briefly during acceleration away from a platform -- basically the big surge is only during acceleration. It's often only a few hundred horsepower to coast a train on level ground.

TL;DR: A 12-coach EMU bilevel battery train designed in the mid 2020s or 2030s should accelerate far faster than a GO train.

Again, we don't *even* have to decide on battery trains until something about approximately 2030s or 2040s, probably.

Once they're mature and safe, especially with newer miniaturized 25kV voltage converters to interface between the cat and battery. I feel the catenary is still the constant. The great thing about emerging battery trains is that they're backwards compatible with catenary infrastructure, and the trains can recharge while they're moving. 30-45 minutes serving passengers under catenary will easily recharge enough for a Burlington-Hamilton hop with a major safety margin (the winter blockage scenario, even with partial battery failure - where heaters have to keep running full tilt while a train is blocked by a derailed freight train)

Keep in mind it can modularize, so a battery failure only affects one coach. A dead coach (or segment of train) can still be pushed around by the adjacent EMU coaches, as with today's EMU trains (e.g. motor that became defective, or other subsystem), and a battery train can get similar redundancy too.

Once upon a time, battery acceleration was very wimpy. But that's no longer the case, especially when engineered with the latest tech.

The bottom line, is there's no limitation preventing a 12-coach BiLevel battery train from accelerating like a full EMU (or subway train) instead of a GO train. The question is how much power safety margin we choose and the maturity of the technology in the future.

Nontheless.... I believe RER (phase 1) should be 100% pure catenary regardless, of whether we go dual-mode battery later.

 

[crs1026]

1. Modern lithium batteries output an inordinate amount of power -- a single Tesla battery outputs more than half a megawatt surge during max acceleration -- a P100D is 778 horsepower which maths out to 580 kilowatts.
2. There's plenty of room in undercarriage space of a BiLevel to put a few such batteries per coach, plus the necessary bulk of crash/fire protection.
3. The new Tier 4 GO locomotives are dual 2700 HP engines (5400 HP total max). At 746 watts per horsepower, that's 4 megawatt. You'd be able to do that with just about ~8 Tesla car sized batteries.
4. Engineering can could easily hide 3 Tesla batteries per coach in the undercarriage.
5. At 3 Tesla sized batteries per coach, 12 coach train, that's a grand total of 36 Tesla sized batteries per whole trainset.
6. If we wanted to go nuts, that's a shocking 20.9 megawatts, or 28,000 horsepower per train -- more than 5x the power of Tesla battery at max power output. That's more than a high speed train requires!

Two questions:
1) What's the weight of a Tesla battery?
2) How long will a Tesla battery deliver to that maximum output? Even if the peak power is there, Zero to sixty in a small number seconds on a highway ramp is a relatively short burst of power, and therefore a different battery drain, than Run 8 to track speed (and maintain).

I'm not arguing against batteries, I just wonder if we are there yet. And, as I posted before, one would expect the USRC to be a wired zone even if trains recharge while stopped in Union Station. Once one sinks that cost, (insulating nearby structures, isolating signal systems, stringing wires over all that trackage, and installing a power substation and feeders with enough capacity to recharge a whole trainshed of trains at the same time) it may be cheaper to extend the wires than to rely on the battery. Further out, the battery may make sense.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Two questions:
1) What's the weight of a Tesla battery?

Approximately ~500 kilograms -- only 1% the weight of a BiLevel coach (50,000kg per coach). Though the shielding will add some.

It's a question of how big a catenary-free hop we need to clear, with enough safety margin (more than a 5x factor) for long track blockages that includes winter heating for stranded passengers.. Realistically I'd say we need 5% of a coach weight to be battery (300 KWh per coach, plus shielding) to do a Hamiltion top with safety margin.

2) How long will a Tesla battery deliver to that maximum output? Even if the peak power is there, Zero to sixty in a small number seconds on a highway ramp is a relatively short burst of power, and therefore a different battery drain, than Run 8 to track speed (and maintain).

This question is already answered in bullet #10 -- continuous to depletion (no time limit) if overengineered to the point where there's no battery heating considerations. What will happen is parallelism which vastly reduces power requirements to -- where only a mere 5%-10% of battery max output can still out-horsepower the new Tier4 locos. That's all that is needed for revenue operation.

Does not have to be Tesla branded, but they are easy mathematically for napkin exercises. Mathematically, with the equivalent of about "36-Tesla-battery-equivalents" (about 3½ megawatt-hours).

True, it is not that simple -- but understanding parallel-vs-series -- the napkin math is within stone throw of a bilevel EMU battery train that likely will be manufactured in Europe in about 5 years from now.

Electricity torque is much higher at low end than gas/diesel, and you got the EMU traction.
For reference:
-- a Stadler KISS is about 6 megawatt max, 4 megawatt continuous, and it accelerates a 6-coach at 1.1 m/s^2
-- The GO train locos accelerate a 12-coach at only 0.33 m/s^2 (appeared to be full throttle, accelerated to 50kph in one trainset-length)

But you don't necessarily have to go max. You can simply accelerate slightly slower during catenary-free sections. Say at only ~2 megawatts or so, and for a whole 12-coach. Say 3000 HP. You can accelerate like a bat out of hell under catenary to Burlington, and just gently accelerate after your Aldershot/Hamilton dwell.

Mathematically to do a standard ~3000 HP acceleration (approximate output needed to out-accelerate a 12-coach noticeably faster than a diesel)
-- You'd only need to draw 80 kilowatts per Tesla-pack-equivalent if there were 36 Tesla-pack-equivalents spread throughout, only 16% the max output of a typically sized Tesla-pack-equivalent battery capable of 500 kilowatts per Tesla-pack-equivalent module, at 36 modules per 12-coach trainset.
MATH: Theoretical 18 megawatts max, but only needing 2.2 megawatts (3000 HP) to accelerate faster than a GO train due to all-wheel traction
-- You'd only need to draw 22 kilowatts per Tesla-pack-equivalent (only 4.4% the max output) if there were 100 Tesla-pack-equivalents per train.
MATH: Theoretical 50 megawatts max, but only needing 2.2 megawatts (3000 HP) to accelerate faster than a GO train due to all-wheel traction

Note: Figures are approximate.

Point proven: You'll still be accelerating faster than a diesel GO train at only a tiny fraction of the max output of the battery

You never use max output, for battery longevity. It was only merely to simply prove my point -- that excess safety margin is definiitely becoming available --- to out-accelerate diesel -- without needing to use remotely close to battery max output..

If we needed route extenders sooner than specs were available, we'd choose diesel dual modes instead until that happened anyway. It's a flex-choice, backwards compatible, not a corner-back-into'er like Hydrogen. No need to worry ourselves to death. Let's wait for Europe to put a bunch of catenary-recharged battery trains out, and mature them, release bilevel models, and then that'll definitely catch attention of Metrolinx. It's all backwards compatible.

TL;DR: This doesn't matter for currently funded core RER. This discussion is all academic for RER Phase I, as this graceful battery-train introduction discussion really won't matter till 2030s or 2040s, since we'd be going catenary-only at first. I view dual mode battery trains will be electrification route-extenders past freight infrastructure (etc), only if they become available.

 

[smallspy]

2.There's plenty of room in undercarriage space of a BiLevel to put a few such batteries per coach, plus the necessary bulk of crash/fire protection.

No, no there is not. There is very, very little space left available in the current BiLevel coach design to allow for the addition of motive power of any sort.

(There is also the small and not inconsequential issue of what Transport Canada will rule on battery location. As it is, fuel tanks are highly regulated - underslung batteries as a start would likely have to meet those same requirements, and may be required to do more.)

Sure, the base design could be modified to allow for it - at the cost of interior space - and new vehicles built, but to suggest that it's simply a matter of throwing a couple of batteries under an existing car and off you go is quite false.

3. The new Tier 4 GO locomotives are dual 2700 HP engines (5400 HP total max). At 746 watts per horsepower, that's 4 megawatt. You'd be able to do that with just about ~8 Tesla car sized batteries.

Any GO loco - one of the MP54s or MP40s - can run at full power for about 5 hours on a single fuel tank. A Tesla battery, as I can recall, can maybe last 3 minutes at maximum draw before the control system limits it due to heat.

6. If we wanted to go nuts, that's a shocking 20.9 megawatts, or 28,000 horsepower per train -- more than 5x the power of Tesla battery at max power output. That's more than a high speed train requires!

Except that horsepower on its own is a meaningless metric for commuter trains. Hell, it's a meaningless number for most trains. (It's also argued that it's nearly meaningless, and quite misunderstood for most ICE-powered vehicles, but that's neither here nor there.) Far more important are things like tractive effort and acceleration rate. The train will only be able to use its maximum horsepower above 30 or 35mph or so, depending on gearing.

Now, having a train with distributed power - multiple cars providing tractive effort rather than a single one - will definitely improve the total tractive effort for the train as a whole, and thus in theory be able to increase the acceleration rate.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

https://www.facebook.com/TransportAction/posts/1421374901333616

 

[mdrejhon]

No, no there is not. There is very, very little space left available in the current BiLevel coach design to allow for the addition of motive power of any sort.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not referring specifically only to the Bombardier type -- but a theoretical new design. Some has more space than others -- the Tesla battery packs aren't terribly big as they are generally skateboard-chassis designs that are only a few inches thick (basically the battery is a large thin slab below your feet and above the pavement). I do stand corrected on available space, though they could also fit in the space above the midlevels too, which is also (but not always) reserved for other stuff.

(There is also the small and not inconsequential issue of what Transport Canada will rule on battery location. As it is, fuel tanks are highly regulated - underslung batteries as a start would likely have to meet those same requirements, and may be required to do more.)

That's a good consideration!

Sure, the base design could be modified to allow for it - at the cost of interior space - and new vehicles built, but to suggest that it's simply a matter of throwing a couple of batteries under an existing car and off you go is quite false.

(I never intended to frame an existing-vehicle modification, just to illustrate points/numbers)

Any GO loco - one of the MP54s or MP40s - can run at full power for about 5 hours on a single fuel tank. A Tesla battery, as I can recall, can maybe last 3 minutes at maximum draw before the control system limits it due to heat.

I touched upon the max-draw situation simply to show surge power is there for full EMU-league acceleration on flat ground. Before moving onto adding margin so that max-draw is never needed for max-acceleration. Also, I imagine, 5 continuous hours of 5400 HP is not healthy for the engine maintenance either, the trains are run at well below that most of the time. Anyway, in the sufficiently engineered situation described in my last message, you'd get wheelslip far before pushing the battery to heat throttling -- e.g. wheel slipping well before say, 5% of max-power-draw (just look at the numbers above again).

Certainly battery trains aren't well suited for long-duration steep uphill grade runs at max speed, but maintaining a steady ~100kph on flat level rail doesn't consume anywhere remotely close to half of 5400 HP anyway. We don't have battery-train-unfriendly track slope situation in Toronto so we should be OK there.

In real world, it is probably no big deal to skip EMU-league acceleration at one station (e.g. Aldershot, Hamilton) and just go for pokey locomotive-style acceleration in an EMU, to keep things easy on the battery on the cat-less sections.
The point is, the technology is already there to give EMU acceleration (more brisk than loco acceleration) while using only a tiny fraction of max-output, given proper engineering design. In that situation, this avoids the battery-heating-up risk.

Except that horsepower on its own is a meaningless metric for commuter trains. Hell, it's a meaningless number for most trains. (It's also argued that it's nearly meaningless, and quite misunderstood for most ICE-powered vehicles, but that's neither here nor there.) Far more important are things like tractive effort and acceleration rate. The train will only be able to use its maximum horsepower above 30 or 35mph or so, depending on gearing.

Right, there's no way to use all the horsepower to traction at those speeds regardless of tech (diesel, electric) -- wheel slip occurs before you can use up all those horses....

Now, having a train with distributed power - multiple cars providing tractive effort rather than a single one - will definitely improve the total tractive effort for the train as a whole, and thus in theory be able to increase the acceleration rate.

There's definitely stronger acceleration on a Stadler KISS than on a locomotive-pulled GO train. This also reinforces the point, wheelslip would be more of a limiting factor than the surge power availability of modern lithium batteries. One can engineer far more than enough surge from lithium batteries to do max EMU acceleration as long as the power distribution design was done properly, and without even reaching max-output per assembly (e.g. Tesla pack style assembly).

Despite lower storage efficiency (battery versus fuel), efficiency of an electric motor is much higher, so that significantly compensates. Also, the batteries are recharged (inflight-refueled) by the catenary sections, so there never needs to be hours of train motion on a battery charge in our situation.

It's just a matter of time until batt+cat hybrids become quite common in Europe, then we can consider selecting suitability for future RER phases, versus dual mode diesels or other options.

Thanks for chiming in!

 

[crs1026]

I touched upon the max-draw situation simply to show surge power is there for full EMU-league acceleration on flat ground. Before moving onto adding margin so that max-draw is never needed for max-acceleration. Also, I imagine, 5 continuous hours of 5400 HP is not healthy for the engine maintenance either, the trains are run at well below that most of the time. Anyway, in the sufficiently engineered situation described in my last message, you'd get wheelslip far before pushing the battery to heat throttling -- e.g. wheel slipping well before say, 5% of max-power-draw (just look at the numbers above again).

Certainly battery trains aren't well suited for long-duration steep uphill grade runs at max speed, but maintaining a steady ~100kph on flat level rail doesn't consume anywhere remotely close to half of 5400 HP anyway.

Well, actually, five hours in Run 8 is exactly how the freight railroads utilize the same 710 power plant in their diesel locomotives. Diesels are happy to churn away at full rpms for days on end provided the temperatures and fluids are kept constant (see marine diesels, remote electrical sites, CP westbound out of Calgary). Those applications simply have bigger fuel tanks.

I don’t know how GO’s maintenance folks would comment, but intuitively the cycle of full throttle - coast-brake-repeat suggests a lot of stresses. The challenge for a battery system in commuter rail applications is both how much power it can deliver for how long at full load.....and how much power it can reclaim quickly in braking, a full-load, quick charge situation. Hybrid switching locomotives were attempted about a decade back, but failed because the batteries overheated under heavy recharge pressure.

Right, there's no way to use all the horsepower to traction at those speeds regardless of tech (diesel, electric) -- wheel slip occurs before you can use up all those horses....

There's definitely stronger acceleration on a Stadler KISS than on a locomotive-pulled GO train. This also reinforces the point, wheelslip would be more of a limiting factor than the surge power availability of modern lithium batteries. One can engineer far more than enough surge from lithium batteries to do max EMU acceleration as long as the power distribution design was done properly, and without even reaching max-output per assembly (e.g. Tesla pack style assembly).

Well, I have had some pretty exciting accelerations behind electric locomotives! There’s no doubt that a battery contains lots of stored power. I just wonder how many times you can go zero to eighty and back to zero in a Tesla before you have to recharge. We may learn a lot as transit properties deploy e-buses....not everyone is confident that the ones arriving now can stay on the road all day, for the same reasons. But in time, they will.

- Paul