GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[raptor]

CNL Expertise Helps Metrolinx Evaluate Hydrogen-Based Rail Network

Shocker, a company with expertise in hydrogen technology concludes hydrail is feasible

 

[cplchanb]

CNL Expertise Helps Metrolinx Evaluate Hydrogen-Based Rail Network

this has got to be the worst timing for this report however credible it is (which is questionable to begin with since there is no existing equivalent infrastructure to evaluate) I fear that this will only
cause inception and lead to more delays as politicians start second guessing themselves.

 

[raptor]

this has got to be the worst timing for this report however credible it is (which is questionable to begin with since there is no existing equivalent infrastructure to evaluate) I fear that this will only
cause inception and lead to more delays as politicians start second guessing themselves.

This is not news however. The report was announced back in February

 

[cplchanb]

This is not news however. The report was announced back in February

fair point, but regardless in general introducing a potential major crossroads decision that can make or break our transit future during an election period is recipe for disaster

 

[steveintoronto]

CNL Expertise Helps Metrolinx Evaluate Hydrogen-Based Rail Network

this has got to be the worst timing for this report however credible it is (which is questionable to begin with since there is no existing equivalent infrastructure to evaluate) I fear that this will only
cause inception and lead to more delays as politicians start second guessing themselves.

You know...I state this almost completely subjectively, I have a background in understanding physics and the various reactor types and systems.

I'd like to ask CNL how the "Heavy Water Cooled" reactor technology is doing? Speaking of Hydrogen and explosions...
http://www.ccnr.org/exports_3.html

To keep the record straight, I'm actually pro-nuclear *with caveats!*....huge ones. CANDUs are good for breeding, not good for intrinsic safety and cost.

 

[aquateam]

With regards to the Hydrogen-based Rail Network, that makes me think of this prophetic blog post about California's CBOSS signalling system from 10 years ago, where Caltrain decided they were more interested in R&D than in providing passenger train service. It could be modified to apply to GO:

• Suppose that Metrolinx's primary business is to carry passengers, and not to undertake major new technology development projects with a price tag more than twice annual revenue.
• Suppose that a Hydrail development failure is actually not an option, since it would prevent delivery of the Regional Express Rail program.
• Suppose that there are many program risks that threaten the smooth execution of the Regional Express Rail Program, and that Hydrail development risk borrows more trouble than it's worth when demonstrated solutions exist.
• Suppose that Metrolinx developing a new train propulsion system for RER amounts (at best) to the tail wagging the dog, or (at worst) to the future need for redundant power generation equipment on every single passenger rail train in Ontario.
• Suppose that the large-scale use and distribution of large volumes of highly effusive, explosive hydrogen incurs its own risks.
• Suppose that electricity prices may rise, greatly increasing the cost of electrolytic production of hydrogen and eliminating the operational cost advantage.
• Suppose that battery or other energy storage technologies develop to a maturity where there is no longer a significant cost advantage to using off-peak power for hydrogen generation.
• Suppose that being locked into a single vendor for our newly minted technology does not promote vigorous competition and healthy long-term viability of your supplier base.

If these suppositions sound remotely reasonable, then the Regional Express Rail Program should take the bold and visionary step of adopting electrification--catenary and all. Electrification would mitigate development risk, guarantee program delivery, and avoid dependency on a single vendor.

To keep the record straight, I'm actually pro-nuclear *with caveats!*....huge ones. CANDUs are good for breeding, not good for intrinsic safety and cost.

My impression is that CANDUs are quite intrinsically safe, since the heavy water coolant is also the moderator. I.e. if a pipe bursts or the coolant explodes or something, the nuclear reaction stops because the neutrons are no longer slowed down to be thermal neutrons.

 

[steveintoronto]

My impression is that CANDUs are quite intrinsically safe, since the heavy water coolant is also the moderator. I.e. if a pipe bursts or the coolant explodes or something, the nuclear reaction stops because the neutrons are no longer slowed down to be thermal neutrons.

That's an interesting claim. Compared to the earlier NRU and NRX gas and light water cooled reactors, yes. (Both of which had severe accidents) But only in comparison to other risk evaluations. There's a reason that liability was severely limited in the past, and still limited today.

But let's get back to "Hydrogen" and CNL being the judge of what is 'safe' and 'provable'.

[...]
“Every design has some passive features, some features that would survive somebody else’s accident,” says Norman Rubin, director of nuclear research and senior policy analyst at Energy Probe.

Rubin says that it’s an apple and oranges comparison to smugly pit Candu safety features against those of other reactors because they are designed so differently and prone to different problems.

For example, the Candu has far more potential to create explosive gases in a meltdown situation because its pressure tubes are made out of zirconium, which produces hydrogen when it overheats and reacts with steam.

“Those are concerns in Candu . . . which are orders of magnitude greater than in Fukushima,” Rubin says. He points out that these tubes tend to become brittle and have needed to be replaced far earlier than expected in several reactors.

Novog counters that Candu plants are protected from this potentially explosive release by technology that plucks out hydrogen atoms and “recombines” them with oxygen to form water. And again, this technology does not require electricity.

Rubin says Canadian nuclear “experts” in the industry and at universities are almost uniformly cheerleaders for Candu and are blinded to its dangers.

“If you want to find someone (other than than the AECL) who is more flamingly pro-nuclear in his outlook and his religion and his beliefs . . . try looking in academia,” he says, explaining that many have worked in the industry and are training students to join it.

Rubin likens reactors to science experiments that will inevitably go bad during repeated runs.

“And the more reactors you have,” he says, “the longer you run them, the worse the probability gets.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/04/01/failsafe_inside_the_candu_safety_net.html

If you wish to enter into a more technical and referenced discussion on the matter, I can certainly do so. But let me ask again: How are sales of CANDUs doing right now?

I get a distinct whiff of a 'self serving' nature of Ontario trying to goose-start Hydrogen technology where others are rightly reticent to tread, and getting the 'yeah boys' of the underemployed nuclear industry to give it a thumbs-up. Even the Germans, who've pioneered this, aren't ready to commit to it, not by any means.

Bill Davis' Krauss-Maffei moment redux.

Addendum: Best I quote reference for the last comment:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=m5tdKoGDvpEC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=krauss+maffei+bill+davis&source=bl&ots=MnXkC7M8l0&sig=bfrWTtxgBnEZc7cwyr6vq-CmJX4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw1OqIo5LaAhVEyYMKHTmoCrQQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=krauss maffei bill davis&f=false

To correct the record, the last reference is incorrect in using "magnetic levitation" as the drive principle. Quite the opposite, which was its massive downfall. It was *attractive* propulsion, complete with the obvious engineering fault of any irregularity in distance between the stator and rotor (in linear form) caused them to slam together and bond.

Krauss-Maffei, long ago realizing the massive faux-pas of the principle, went in the other direction: Repulsive drive...thus the vehicle 'floating' on the magnetic field, finding a balance point where mass expressed as weight equaled the lifting force, and then by phasing the stator loops, it affected forward motion (certain other factors permitting).

And Ontario is about to make the same mistake. What would the world know that we aren't better at, eh?

If there's any consolation, Chris Grayling in the UK is pulling the same stunt. Yep, the same brilliant minds behind Brexit.

What could possibly go wrong?

23 JANUARY 2018
Chris Grayling says scrapping rail electrification has saved passengers “years of delays”
The Transport Secretary suggested taxpayers’ money could be better spent on upgrading diesel trains to run on hydrogen instead.

Chris Grayling has defended his decision not to proceed with three major rail electrification projects.

Appearing before the Transport Select Committee for a second time to explain his judgment to drop plans to modernise the Great Western line from Cardiff to Swansea, the Midland Main Line and tracks in the Lake District last summer, he said: “Spending £500m to enable the same trains to travel on the same track, at the same speed, isn’t a terribly good use of taxpayers’ money.”

Network Rail’s electrification programmes around the United Kingdom, most notably on the Great Western main line from London to Swansea, which started in 2014, had been described as a crucial development that would bring cleaner, faster and more reliable services for passengers.

The committee’s chair, Lilian Greenwood, said that scrapping electrification projects represented bad news for passengers and raised “serious questions about the government’s willingness to invest in the long-term future of our railways and their commitment to the decarbonisation of transport”.

The Transport Secretary, however, insisted that passengers could benefit from “modern bi-mode trains” instead, and would no longer have to put up with engineering works, potentially causing “years of disruption”.


Grayling repeatedly told the committee it was better to focus efforts on boosting capacity rather than electrification. He also said that already available bi-mode trains, which can operate using both electric and diesel power depending on whether overhead cables are installed, could be modernised further in the future to be battery or hydrogen-powered.

The Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell added: “My job is to try to maximise the value to passengers of the investments that we make. With bi-mode trains you're getting all the passenger benefits without any of the disruption, no passenger’s travel experience is going to be worse by using bi-mode trains.

“I’ve talked to senior people in the industry who believe there will only be one generation of diesel engines on the bi-modes and the second generation will be hydrogen engines. We’re looking now to try and get the first hydrogen trains on our network…Battery trains now are becoming a real possibility.”

Committee member Daniel Ziechner, though, was unconvinced, labelling the bi-mode concept as the “worst of both worlds” and pointing out that maintenance of these trains is twice as expensive. Bi-mode trains are heavier, he explained, which increases a risk of damage to the tracks.


And Roger Ford, the industry and technology editor of Modern Railway, submitted written evidence to the committee ahead of Grayling’s hearing. He said: “To be blunt, the claim that bi-mode trains will provide passengers with the same quality of service is a face-saving attempt to justify cancellation of the onward electrification from Cardiff to Swansea.”

Ford argued that electric trains offered better “operating costs, environmental impact, energy efficiency, reliability and passenger comfort.” He said bi-mode trains would have to carry “up to 10 tonnes of diesel power pack and fuel under 60 per cent of its coaches” and that “performance is thus degraded in both modes by either excessive weight or lack of power”.

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotli...ing-rail-electrification-has-saved-passengers

In the few months since that article, even more scathing criticism has come out of the UK on Grayling's grovelling on hydrogen.

 

[steveintoronto]

More on the present UK's Gov't regime and the bungled 'cancelled catenary conniption' (Ontario is going to have to face up to the same realization at some point):
Rail electrification plans cancelled purely for cost reasons, says NAO
Spending watchdog rejects transport secretary’s claim that new trains made major rail investment scheme unnecessary

Anne Perkins Deputy political editor (UK Guardian)
Thu 29 Mar 2018 00.01 BST

Government claims that hundreds of millions of pounds of rail investment were cancelled last July because there were other ways of delivering improvements have been rejected by the government spending watchdog.

In fact, the plans to modernise the line from Cardiff to Swansea, the Midland mainline and tracks in the Lake District were dropped after Network Rail spent huge sums on engineering works, said a report by the National Audit Office.

Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, slipped the announcement of the cancellations out last summer in a written statement as parliament prepared for the summer recess.

“New bi-mode train technology offers seamless transfer from diesel power to electric that is undetectable to passengers,” Grayling said at the time. “This means that we no longer need to electrify every line to achieve the same significant improvements to journeys, and we will only electrify lines where it delivers a genuine benefit to passengers.”

“Modern bi-mode trains” meant there was no need to put up with “disruptive electrification works” and “intrusive wires and masts”, he added.

The NAO investigation found that the reasons for the cancellations had been purely financial after costs had escalated and Network Rail’s capacity to borrow had been limited because it was redefined as a public body.

The plans were abandoned even though electrification of the Midland mainline to Sheffield had been a 2015 Conservative party manifesto commitment. The 2015 manifesto also stated that work was under way to electrify the railway in south Wales.

In 2012, when he announced the £38bn programme, David Cameron declared that it was the biggest investment since the Victorian era. Network Rail’s electrification works around the country, most notably on the Great Western mainline from London to Swansea, which started in 2014, were originally described as a vital upgrade that would bring cleaner, faster and more reliable services for passengers.

But by 2015 it was already clear the upgrading would cost much more than anticipated. The NAO report established that Network Rail ranked all the projects according to how far advanced they were, how much had already been spent and what the “reputational harm” of cancellation would be.
[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rely-for-cost-reasons-says-nao-chris-grayling

It could be stated (incorrectly) that the Grauniad article above represents a 'left of centre' anti-Conservative stance.

So here's the story from a neutral industry based view:

Posted 29th March 2018 | 2 Comments
Chris Grayling cancelled electrification to save money

ELECTRIFICATION of several routes was cancelled because it would have cost too much, and not to ‘avoid disruption’ as transport secretary Chris Grayling had claimed, according to a new report from the National Audit Office.

The report also concludes that the benefits claimed for bi mode trains on the Midland Main Line are uncertain, because rolling stock able to meet the requirements of a faster timetable without full electrification has yet to be designed or built.

The cancelled schemes examined by the NAO were Kettering to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, Oxenholme to Windermere and Cardiff to Swansea. The report describes electrification of the sections of the Great Western Main Line to Bristol Temple Meads and Oxford which has also been delayed as ‘pending’.

Concerns about the lack of sufficient funding in Network Rail’s budget for CP5 were followed by an internal decision in March last year to cancel the Midland Main Line scheme north of Kettering and also on the Windermere branch, but there was less certainty about the Swansea scheme. Theresa May wanted to see more details before taking a decision, but in July she agreed to cancel that as well.

This was followed by a written statement to Parliament on 20 July, just before the summer recess, by transport secretary Chris Grayling. He announced that all three schemes had been withdrawn from Network Rail’s electrification programme, saying that technology was ‘advancing quickly’, and that new types of power for trains were being developed.

He continued: “These new technologies mean that we can improve journeys for passengers on the Great Western Main Line in south Wales, the Midland Main Line, and on the Lakes Line between Windermere and Oxenholme sooner than expected with state of the art trains, instead of carrying out disruptive electrification works.”

A DfT press release issued on the same day reinforced this message, saying: ‘Passengers will benefit sooner and experience less disruption compared with putting up intrusive wires and masts along routes where they are no longer required.’

This was at odds with the business case for MML electrification in July 2012, which had said electrification would ‘reduce operating costs and environmental impact’.

The report also reveals that Network Rail presented a range of options for saving money in October 2016. A total of 23 schemes had been identified, including six in ‘Category 0’, which were considered to be the first choices for cancellation. These included the Midland Main Line and Windermere schemes. [...]

https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2018/03/29-chris-grayling-cancelled-electrification-to.html

Here's the National Audit Office report:
Published date: March 29, 2018
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/inves...o-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects/

Downloads

• 
  Full Report - Investigation into the Department for Transports decision to cancel three rail electrification projects
• 
  Summary - Investigation into the Department's decision to cancel three rail electrification projects
• 
  ePub - Investigation into the Department's decision to cancel three rail electrification projects
• 
  Press notice - Investigation into the Department's decision to cancel three rail electrification projects

Guaranteed Metrolinx staff will be reading this in the washrooms at Union Station...

 

[KevinT]

If Chris Grayling thinks wires and masts are intrusive, he should try living with asthma.

 

[steveintoronto]

If Chris Grayling thinks wires and masts are intrusive, he should try living with asthma.

What's interesting is not so much that Grayling is getting gruelled, but that Wynne isn't on almost exactly the same waffle.

It's all over the UK press. Here's from the admittedly Labour slant: (The Daily Mirror)

Tory Transport Secretary Chris Grayling accused of 'lying' over decision to scrap rail electrification plans
The attack by a union boss came as a spending watchdog savaged the Minister's reasons for cancelling schemes on the Great Western Main Line
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling is today accused of “lying” over his controversial decision to scrap major rail electrification projects.

By
Ben GlazeDeputy Political Editor

• 00:01, 29 MAR 2018

Whitehall’s spending watchdog savages the Cabinet Minister in a bombshell verdict on his reasons for cancelling schemes on the Great Western Main Line between Cardiff and Swansea, the Midland Main Line and on the Lakes Line between Windermere and Oxenholme.

The National Audit Office said the top Tory claimed the projects were being axed because it was no longer necessary to electrify every line to deliver passenger benefits.

He claimed services could be improved sooner by using “state of the art trains”, including bi-mode trains which can transfer from diesel to electric power without passengers being aware of the switch.

But the NAO revealed the reason was to slash costs. [...]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-transport-secretary-chris-grayling-12268607

The UK Transport Secretary is getting called on this, big time. In Ontario we have virtual silence on the matter.

 

[dowlingm]

If Chris Grayling thinks wires and masts are intrusive, he should try living with asthma.

He is an utter wretch, that one.

 

[steveintoronto]

Ontario, even in election mode, still has next to no discussion on the "Hydrogen Balloon" circus display. The argument for Hydrail continues to be taken out of context. Pardon the length of the following, it's an industrial/business examination of the UK's situation, almost all points pertain to Metrolinx:
(pics and paragraph headings edited out to save character space)

Railway Technology
28 MARCH 2018
ANALYSIS
Goodbye diesel: what does the phase-out mean for UK rail innovation?
By Joe Baker
[...]
In February, UK Transport Minister Jo Johnson kicked off his second month in office with a major announcement. Diesel-only trains, he said, should be removed from the railways by 2040.

Advocates across the rail industry have lauded the deadline as a step forward for decarbonisation and a shift towards technologies that either use diesel in a hybrid engine, or not at all.

Nevertheless, with almost a third of the UK’s train fleet still powered solely by diesel, the phase-out will require more than an extra push from the industry. Rail experts argue that the government needs to establish a framework for its objective and support the sector in its move away from diesel-only trains.

Electrifying the railways
Further electrification of the UK rail network will not only be welcome but necessary for a full-scale phase-out of diesel-only trains, according to Rail Industry Association (RIA) technical director David Clarke.

“Electrification is better for the environment, quieter, costs less in the long term, improves journey times, is lighter and reduces delays,” he says. “These reduced journey times with new trains have been shown to lead to local economic growth in the areas served.”

According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMECHE), a mere 42% of the UK’s network is currently electrified, putting it behind the Netherlands (76%), Italy (71%) and Spain (61%).

“Recent setbacks have created scepticism about future electrification projects.”
Moreover, recent setbacks have created scepticism about future electrification projects. Massive budget overruns and delays caused the government to scrap plans to electrify railway lines in Wales, the Midlands and the North of England in 2017.

Escalating costs led to the Great Western Electrification Scheme’s budget rising from £874m in 2013 to £2.8bn in 2015. According to Clarke, this programme was included in the UK Government’s 2009 electrification strategy on the basis of a very early estimate of cost and scope, derived from the East Coast electrification scheme that finished in 1992. As a result, the overall price of the project was vastly underestimated.

“The rapid ramp-up and then repeated stalling and restarting of electrification projects has only helped increase uncertainty in the sector, also helping to increase costs,” says Clarke.

Progressing through to this year, the RIA’s Electrification Cost Challenge is an initiative bringing together a number of contractors, consultants and suppliers of electrification infrastructure to investigate what can be done to reduce costs.

Meanwhile, IMECHE head of engineering Jenifer Baxter says the Department for Transport (DFT) needs to instruct infrastructure owner Network Rail to develop an appropriate specification for railway electrification, which will enable it to build an affordable business case for a rolling programme of completion over the next 20 years.

“This is to complete the electrification of mainlines between Britain’s principal cities and ports, particularly the urban rail networks through major city centres,” she says. “That’s one area where we would say that there definitely needs to be a very particular focus.”

Johnson says the rail industry should look into new bi-mode technology and alternative fuels to power trains. But to what extent are these options a viable replacement?

Bi-mode trains are currently being introduced on the UK’s Great Western and East Coast routes. The major benefit is that the trains are able to switch between electrified and non-electrified tracks, enabling their use in areas where the installation of overhead catenary lines may be impossible.

Nevertheless, Baxter expresses that these trains could actually end up being more of a hindrance to rail networks. Bi-mode trains emit higher levels of CO2 in diesel mode than diesel-only trains, and their two-mode operation can lead to greater capital and maintenance costs.

“If you offer a solution to non-electrified lines that doesn’t provide the required performance or often the most efficient or environmentally friendly solution, I would suggest that it’s not the best possible alternative,” says Baxter.

IMECHE has recommended that the DFT conduct a series of trials to look into how new bi-mode trains operate in and out of major stations, as well as to understand the level of pollutants and their effect on commuters and railway workers.

Another potential solution is battery-powered trains, which would create zero emissions at the point of use, but the energy density of batteries is low compared with other fuels. Baxter says a lithium-ion battery offers 2.63 mega joules of energy per litre, while diesel provides 35.8, meaning that batteries would have to be huge to match the performance requirements of a diesel-only locomotive.

Future developments in regenerative braking could mean that battery-powered trains could create their own power in the future.

“Battery-powered trains have the same ‘range anxiety’ as battery-powered cars, but there are many places where they could be used to avoid the need to fully electrify,” says Clarke.

One diesel alternative that has seemingly captivated the industry has been hydrogen. Trains powered by the substance only emit steam and store everything they need to create energy on-board.

“You could use a fairly similar infrastructure for refuelling trains as diesel and equally you can refuel them very quickly, whereas a battery would obviously require charging,” says Baxter.

Rail technology manufacturer Alstom is in the process of introducing its hydrogen-powered Coradia iLint in Germany this year.

Alstom’s head of business development and marketing Mike Muldoon says a number of railways in the UK predominantly use diesel multiple units (DMUs) as they could never viably be electrified. With UK Government officials clamouring about the potential of the technology, there is a potential market for hydrogen.

“We have the second-largest fleet in Europe, and if you look at the age profile of almost the entire fleet of diesel-only powered trains, their life expires before 2040,” says Muldoon. “They’ve all got to be replaced, and that makes it potentially quite a large market.”

Last month, it was reported that the UK Rail Safety and Standards Board was working with Alstom to start a hydrogen pilot project by 2019 or 2020. While Muldoon could not confirm which lines will be involved in the pilot, he says the company is aiming at franchises operating regional diesel services with no plans to electrify.

With regards to both battery and hydrogen trains, Clarke says the government needs to provide further support to the industry in enhancing energy storage. Continued investment in research could lead to a modular plug-and-play approach, allowing rolling stock to be retrofitted with alternative sources of power.

“Once the technology is adequately demonstrated in the UK or internationally, the government should ensure that their output specifications and evaluation criteria in franchise competitions encourage the adoption of this new technology,” he says. [...]

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/goodbye-diesel-phase-mean-uk-rail-innovation/

UK politicians are very divided on the cancellation of some electrification, the technology sector isn't. Meantime Ontario thinks they're going to 'lead the world' with Hydrail.

Good freakin' luck on that. Not a murmur beyond experimenting in Germany and France, and even there only on branch lines where catenary electrification could never be justified.

While Muldoon could not confirm which lines will be involved in the pilot, he says the company is aiming at franchises operating regional diesel services with no plans to electrify.

Just a few of the provisos that Ontario should follow.

 

[steveintoronto]

On one of the noted experts quoted in the prior post:

DR JENIFER BAXTER
Head of Engineering
CEng MIMechE CSci MEI

Dr Jenifer Baxter works closely with members to raise the profile of engineers and engineering potential, to generate discussion and provide thought leadership in the energy and environment sectors.

Jenifer is responsible for engaging with Government, industry and academia, aiming to ensure that the engineering perspective is included in policy making, innovation and research and development. Bringing the views of members, research and her knowledge of the sector together, Jenifer provides insight and opinion to the media ensuring greater awareness of engineers and their role.

Jenifer has published a number of academic papers on hydrogen technologies, the role of policy making in engineering innovation and innovation system modelling, as well as a number of magazine and opinion pieces for the Institution. She is a member of the Council for the Society of the Environment. [...]

https://www.imeche.org/about-us/our-people/dr-jenifer-baxter

"Jenifer has published a number of academic papers on hydrogen technologies". Gosh, not a mention of that in Metrolinx' examination, at least none that I can find Googling. No reference of the good doctor to "Ontario" at all. Which kinda indicates how 'selective' QP is being with the "research".

[...]
Dr Jenifer Baxter ( @IMechE ) Head of Engineering at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers urged interim measures: “Phasing out diesel-only trains is an important step. But achieving the transition to a low carbon transport network will require the introduction of a mix of different technologies and policies. The Government has outlined plans to phase out diesel trains by 2040 and over the course of the next 20 years we may see the introduction of hybrid trains using diesel and battery technologies as well as hydrogen trains on lines where electrification is cost prohibitive. In the interim it may be appropriate to retrofit technology, such as stop-start functionality on existing diesel locomotives, reducing emissions while trains are standing at platforms.”

“There is also the option of bi-mode trains that can run on both electrified and diesel lines, however these have higher capital and maintenance costs than pure electric trains and as they are heavier they also emit even more emissions than diesel trains, when operating in diesel mode” added Baxter.
[...]

https://www.smartrailworld.com/sust...-aims-to-scrap-all-diesel-only-trains-by-2040

Dr Baxter has a solid footing in Hydrogen research, favouring it as her doctoral thesis:

Research student
PhD student

Jenifer Baxter
1 October 2009 – 1 June 2014

Jenifer Baxter worked for the Welsh Assembly Government managing both the Public Sector Waste Minimisation Programme and the Waste and Resources Action Plan (WRAP) in Wales.

Prior to this Jenifer worked at Cardiff University researching the waste arising from businesses across Wales. Jenifer received an EPSRC funded studentship to study the Sustainable Delivery of Hydrogen as part of the H Delivery SuperGen Consortium.
[...]

http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/architecture/research-student/jenifer-baxter/

It seems that someone even intimately attached and schooled on Hydrogen use and highly qualified to hold an opinion on the matter is full of caveats and provisos on wholesale adoption of the mode.

You'd think a QP Conservative Opposition would have some questions to ask, but their new leader is an expert on Methane generation...He'd explode if you sparked his intellectual bewilderment on anything so technical.

 

[raptor]

RFI-2018-PMUN-022: RFI for Hydrail Refueling Concept Design Market Sounding

Metrolinx, an agency of the Government of Ontario under the Metrolinx Act, 2006, was created to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (“GTHA”). The organization’s mission is to champion, develop and implement an integrated transportation system for our region that enhances prosperity, sustainability and quality of life.

Metrolinx presently operates GO Transit, Union Pearson Express (UPX), and PRESTO and is overseeing the Rapid Transit Implementation (RTI) and Regional Express Rail (RER) initiatives.

Metrolinx is committed to finding the most sustainable solution for electrifying the GO rail network. That’s why, in addition to studying the environmental impacts of traditional electrification, Metrolinx is also examining the feasibility of another form of electrification – hydrogen powered vehicles.

As part of our work to deliver GO RER, the Ministry of Transportation is working with Metrolinx to study the feasibility of using hydrogen to power vehicles (‘hydrail’) on the GO rail network.

The purpose of this RFI is to improve Metrolinx’s understanding of the current and future market capabilities to design, build and commission a hydrogen refueling facility as part of a Hydrail System. In particular, Metrolinx is interested in gathering information on the currently available technology and any development that is currently under way in this area.

Information gathered as a result of this RFI process could be used to establish the requirements for a future request for proposals (RFP) in relation to a hydrogen refueling facility.

Interesting to note that this RFI closes in one week (April 9)

 

[steveintoronto]

RFI-2018-PMUN-022: RFI for Hydrail Refueling Concept Design Market Sounding



Interesting to note that this RFI closes in one week (April 9)

And hopefully someone already has an FOI request in to see 'what they're running on'. (Besides vapour and obfuscation) Excellent 'heads-up' Raptor. I've been scanning Google, and other than the UK's imbroglio, which at least is being well-discussed (disgusted?) there, in English language Google, I can find none of the actual 'pioneering nations' committing to wholesale adoption of this. Everyone is curious, rightly so, but where are the German, French, Japanese and Chinese results of their trials?