GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[ssiguy2]

Well of course the problem with diesel hybrid with batteries is the diesel part. GO RER is to be completely emissions free so it's not an apt analogy.

With the number of advances in hydrogen trains in the last couple years and the truly dizzying advances in the technology itself as the world quickly moves to hydrogen, I am starting to think that maybe it is a better choice than even battery-catenary. It's amazing how COVID has changed the narrative about our future transportation needs and technologies.

 

[ARG1]

Well of course the problem with diesel hybrid with batteries is the diesel part. GO RER is to be completely emissions free so it's not an apt analogy.

With the number of advances in hydrogen trains in the last couple years and the truly dizzying advances in the technology itself as the world quickly moves to hydrogen, I am starting to think that maybe it is a better choice than even battery-catenary. It's amazing how COVID has changed the narrative about our future transportation needs and technologies.

Important to note that Hydrogen is not completely emissions free. To produce hydrogen fuel, the most common method is the decomposition of hydro carbons, it is also (afaik) the only energy efficient way of producing hydrogen fuel. It costs more energy to produce hydrogen fuel through something like Electrolysis than you actually get in return, as a result its not a popular method.

 

[afransen]

Important to note that Hydrogen is not completely emissions free. To produce hydrogen fuel, the most common method is the decomposition of hydro carbons, it is also (afaik) the only energy efficient way of producing hydrogen fuel. It costs more energy to produce hydrogen fuel through something like Electrolysis than you actually get in return, as a result its not a popular method.

This is what make it inherently more expensive than battery electric vehicles. That trade-off might be worthwhile if you prioritize range or weight (aircraft, etc.). Hydrogen fuel cells for rail in short tunnels is unnecessary, the same could be accomplished with batteries.

 

[sche]

I agree the hydrogen stuff is getting a bit annoying, but you should really consider saying that in a more polite manner. Don't think swearing is necessary here.

 

[ssiguy2]

I agree the hydrogen stuff is getting a bit annoying, but you should really consider saying that in a more polite manner. Don't think swearing is necessary here.

I didn't see any abrasive language???

It is true that green hydrogen is pricey, it is expected to drop by more than half within the decade. Also remember that calculations for cost productions are based upon normal business rates just like hydro costs are for catenary trains. Hydrogen however can be produced MUCH cheaper overnight due to lower prices brought about by drastically lower demand. This is why Ontario Hydro {or whatever the hell it's called now} is looking seriously into hydrogen production. Right now OH has massive amounts of surplus power produced overnight which is why they sell it to NY state at 25 cents on the dollar. They, like Hydro Quebec, want to make better use of their precious resource thru hydrogen.

 

[MrGoose]

I didn't see any abrasive language???

It is true that green hydrogen is pricey, it is expected to drop by more than half within the decade. Also remember that calculations for cost productions are based upon normal business rates just like hydro costs are for catenary trains. Hydrogen however can be produced MUCH cheaper overnight due to lower prices brought about by drastically lower demand. This is why Ontario Hydro {or whatever the hell it's called now} is looking seriously into hydrogen production. Right now OH has massive amounts of surplus power produced overnight which is why they sell it to NY state at 35 cents on the dollar. They, like Hydro Quebec, want to make better use of their precious resource thru hydrogen.

I said it.

Please stop polluting this thread with stories about hydrogen or hydrogen trains and create a separate thread for hydrogen vehicles and hydrogen trains. It says, "ELECTRIFICATION" on the tin not hydrogenation. Yes you have a hard on for hydrogen trains but as countless other posters have iterated before me, that is not the preferred technology here.

Please, create a separate thread and post there.

PS. your point about excess electricity is irrelevant to the cost of hydrogen. The per unit cost of hydrogen might be going down, but building the infrastructure for a hydrogen economy (for a single group of projects for a single city) is ridiculous.

 

[ssiguy2]

I do not have a "hard on" for hydrogen and the reason I bring up hydrogen is because it IS electrification in every sense of the word.

 

[afransen]

Presently, it is about as much electrification as current diesel electric locomotives.

 

[MrGoose]

I do not have a "hard on" for hydrogen and the reason I bring up hydrogen is because it IS electrification in every sense of the word.

How. Electrification refers to running catenary trains. This is how every other system has been electrified, that or using 3rd rail systems.

The electrification study written by Metrolinx assumes that they are operating catenary trains

Ok I'll assume that you're talking about fuel cells and using hydrogen to power fuel cells to power electric motors.

And for the sake of argument, I'll assume that a complete hydrogen based economy has been created and that none of the infrastructure around hydrogen has to be worried about. ALL the safety kinks have been worked out and hydrail is as safe and easy to use as catenaries. In addition, the manufacturing of high power hydrogen fuel cells has been perfected, there are no more technical details. And that all this extra work has been completed by 2025. Obviously this is totally false and all these factors would be a major hurdle totally kill the project as proposed, but I'll grant you this to make your case stronger.

What's the difference in cases now?

The hydrogen trains don't need wires. A catenary system costs about 8M CAD per km. I'll be very generous to your case and say that there are 2000 km of GO owned track. (There are only 450 km of system length, I'll just say that there are 4tracks on each km of this length)

Thats 1.6Bn in costs on catenary.

However, consider the costs of fueling those trains. Over 50 years, assuming that the difference between powering trains through electricity vs hydrogen is about 32M dollars/ year only then are you breaking even on the costs.

What other benefits does hydrogen offer in such a generous scenario? It can run outside of urban areas, so we don't have to build wires? For an urban commuter rail system, thats no benefit at all. And it's not as if hydrogen trains couldn't run on an catenary track either.

Are there any operational benefits to hydrogen? Is converting hydrogen back into electricity using fuel cells at 60% efficiency going to be more powerful than directly running 4000kwh electric motors from power lines?

No

Is hydrogen safer than electricity?

No, because hydrogen itself is highly combustible and the flames are invisible in daylight.

So if I've had to give you this much to help you make your case, totally removing all startup and teething pains that would come from spearheading a totally unproven-at-SCALE system and there still seems to be little if no cost or operational benefits, why should we go with hydrogen? You don't seem to have ever made a case that hydrogen is better for Metrolinx.

I suspect that your only real grip with catenary is the wires. As you yourself said here

Instead of unsightly wires all over the damn place

If all you care about is the wires, go away. We're talking about providing mass transit here for the millions of us that actually live in the GTA. Catenary wires exist literally on every other electrified rail system in the world and the people in those countries seem to live and make do. We can't afford your ideal wireless future right now and many many posters have made it clear that your constant talk about hydrogen is pointless.

And before you retreat behind your motte and claim "but I support battery trains". The same fundamental and key issues with scale that occur with hydrail occur with battery trains. These fundamental issues with scaling mean that waiting around for battery technology to be good enough to use on our entire system means waiting another generation for rapid electrified service across the GO network. That is unacceptable to us as the public and to the government, who is not going to be spending billions of dollars to wait for a technology to mature, or spend billions testing it out for everyone else.

Stop posting about hydrogen or batteries.

 

[north-of-anything]

This thread is about electrifying the GO line and not electrifying trains in general, so if hydrogen isn't feasible for GO trains in the next ten years then it's probably off-topic. We could do without any more hostility, though.

Quick question. Is electrifying GO corridors a prerequisite to adding in stations like Lansdowne and Finch East? I think it should be, since from personal experience the two-kilometer distance between stations like Maple/Rutherford means getting up to speed before stopping again makes for a slog of a journey.

 

[ARG1]

This thread is about electrifying the GO line and not electrifying trains in general, so if hydrogen isn't feasible for GO trains in the next ten years then it's probably off-topic. We could do without any more hostility, though.

Quick question. Is electrifying GO corridors a prerequisite to adding in stations like Lansdowne and Finch East? I think it should be, since from personal experience the two-kilometer distance between stations like Maple/Rutherford means getting up to speed before stopping again makes for a slog of a journey.

I'd assume it is. With the current service pattern, the trains only work well with longer distances between stops, so if you're going to add more stops, you kinda need something to equalize the time.

 

[smallspy]

Quick question. Is electrifying GO corridors a prerequisite to adding in stations like Lansdowne and Finch East? I think it should be, since from personal experience the two-kilometer distance between stations like Maple/Rutherford means getting up to speed before stopping again makes for a slog of a journey.

Not explicitly, no. The performance characteristics of any multiple unit self-propelled equipment - regardless of its power source - are such that acceleration is greatly enhanced versus a train made up of a locomotive - again, regardless of its power source - and unpowered coaches.

Where electrification really shines is that the acceleration curve of any rolling stock - locomotive or multiple unit - doesn't flatten off around 35-to-40mph as it does on diesel-powered equipment. That, and energy costs are far lower over the long run as electrically powered trains are capable of feeding their braking forces back into the power grid, rather than wasting that energy as heat.

Dan

 

[Rainforest]

Not explicitly, no. The performance characteristics of any multiple unit self-propelled equipment - regardless of its power source - are such that acceleration is greatly enhanced versus a train made up of a locomotive - again, regardless of its power source - and unpowered coaches.

Where electrification really shines is that the acceleration curve of any rolling stock - locomotive or multiple unit - doesn't flatten off around 35-to-40mph as it does on diesel-powered equipment. That, and energy costs are far lower over the long run as electrically powered trains are capable of feeding their braking forces back into the power grid, rather than wasting that energy as heat.

Dan

Though I am pretty sure we won't see diesel multiple-unit trains on any of our GO lines, save for UP Express. They had to go with DMUs for UP Express because they needed something more agile then diesel locos and they wanted to get it running quickly. But there would be no point buying more DMUs if a transition out of diesel is contemplated within the next 10 years or less.

Therefore, electrification (catenarization / hydrogenization / batterization) is a practical requirement for having more frequent GO stops, even though it is not a technical requirement.

 

[Rainforest]

Btw, most of today's diesel locos are diesel-electric. Their diesel engine powers the electric generator, which gives electric power to the electric motor, and the latter moves the loco and the train.

So, in a way the GO trains are already "electrified", but the goal is to get away from the use of diesel fuel.

 

[Rainforest]

It is true that green hydrogen is pricey, it is expected to drop by more than half within the decade. Also remember that calculations for cost productions are based upon normal business rates just like hydro costs are for catenary trains. Hydrogen however can be produced MUCH cheaper overnight due to lower prices brought about by drastically lower demand. This is why Ontario Hydro {or whatever the hell it's called now} is looking seriously into hydrogen production. Right now OH has massive amounts of surplus power produced overnight which is why they sell it to NY state at 25 cents on the dollar. They, like Hydro Quebec, want to make better use of their precious resource thru hydrogen.

One thing doesn't seem to add up though: if Ontario Hydro, or other Nuclear or Hydro electricity producers can make hydrogen cheaply overnight, then why wouldn't they sell it to the chemical industry, and thus obsolete the CO2-emitting method of hydrogen production based on fossil fuels?

I'm a bit worried that the electrolytic hydrogen can't compete on the price alone with the fossil fuel-conversion hydrogen, even if the former is produced overnight using the energy surplus. And the electricity producers hope to get a price subsidy for their hydrogen used to power public transit.

One can make an argument that such a subsidy is justified if it helps reducing the fossil fuel usage, but it may have a side effect of skewing the cost comparison in favor of hydrogen against the catenary or battery options.