GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[steveintoronto]

^ It's not "France", it's a local TER authority in Aquitaine for lightly used lines:

Mon 12 Nov 2018 10h03

Hydrogen-powered trains will be tested on four lines in New Aquitaine, regional MP Michel Delpon has confirmed.

The trains will operate on the Bordeaux-Soulac, Angoulême-Saintes-Royan, Bordeaux-Bergerac-Sarlat and Bordeaux-Périgueux-Limoges lines. The government expects the trains will be commercially operational by 2022.

Hydrogen trains have been in commercial use in Germany since September, where rail authorities have spent €81million to buy 14 engines.

A total €45million earmarked for electifying the Bordeaux-Soulac line in Nouvelle Aquitaine will now be spent buying hydrogen trains, which emit only water when travelling.

In the region, only 40% of the 3,250km of TER lines are electrified, according to President of the Regional Council Alain Rousset. Across France, 50% of rail lines are electrified.
[...]

https://www.connexionfrance.com/index.php/French-news/France-on-track-for-hydrogen-train-roll-out

In Ontario, this would be like York or Waterloo Region rail if such existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_express_régional

I am still in the dark if hydrogen has similar benefits to electrification like fast acceleration.

Source impedance for battery supply can be very low, like catenary...for very short periods of time. Battery supply (and that's what these vehicles are, but *replenished at a slow rate* by fuel cells) still displays a consequence to thrust-to-weight ratio performance compared to catenary.

There's no way around this, catenary, if supplied properly (low impedance source) is still *by far* the best way to power trains *in most cases* and where the *business model shows advantage*. Battery, fuel cell and diesel-electric all have to lug their system weight in addition to the motors on the bogies. "Ah!" Some will proclaim. "But there's the traction transformer needed for high voltage overhead". A fraction of the weight they used to be, and now there's solid state xfrmrs, weigh next to nothing. Think the power supply in your computer. Think "switching supplies". For DC overhead systems, even that isn't needed, as per streetcars and LVDC metro vehicle type supplies (pretty much obsolete now save for integrating with existing systems, AC has so many advantages, and far better traction motors and control).

You'll note that other than failed prototypes, there's no heavy rail hydrogen locos, internal combustion or fuel cell. Hydrogen is incredibly disadvantaged in terms of power density to make sense in those cases.

It's excellent for toys...I wonder when the wind-up Lint (WuLint) is going to be available? lol...it's not so far fetched, there are functioning flywheel powered railcars in commercial service.

Parry People Movers - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_People_Movers
Parry People Movers Ltd. (PPM) is a British company manufacturing lightweight trams and railcars that use flywheel energy storage (FES) to store energy for traction, allowing electric systems to operate without overhead wires or third rails, and railcars ...
‎Current usage · ‎Earlier trials · ‎Technology · ‎Fleet

I mean we have surplus energy so that's no big deal.

It's a huge deal. Sorry to be so brusque, but I'm astounded how some fall for the line of how easy it is.

We can also build colonies on the Moon. The energy to do it is a fraction of what we produce on Earth.

Perhaps someone can explain why France, Germany et al are still building catenary if Hydrail is such an advantage?
One of many examples:

A unique new-generation OCS in southwestern France
Occitanie 12.03.2018

A new milestone has been reached in the extensive overhead catenary system renovation project undertaken by ENGIE Ineo, agent of a consortium with Colas Rail, since the end of 2016 on the Toulouse to Bayonne railway. A second section of the new generation OCS* installed since September 2017 has now been activated by SNCF Réseau. Deployed for the first time on a line of this importance, this new technology, capable of withstanding a much stronger electric current, meets the requirements of the French government’s objectives concerning the restoration and modernisation of the country’s existing transportation network.
[...]
The first railway line of this magnitude to accommodate this new technology, the section between Tarbes and Montréjeau will be equipped with a specific system currently deployed in the Paris region, on the RER B regional express line. This system will subsequently be installed on other lines of the French rail network.
[...]

https://www.engie-ineo.fr/en/a-unique-new-generation-ocs-in-southwestern-france/

 

[muller877]

^
Source impedance for battery supply can be very low, like catenary...for very short periods of time. Battery supply (and that's what these vehicles are, but *replenished at a slow rate* by fuel cells) still displays a consequence to thrust-to-weight ratio performance compared to catenary.

There's no way around this, catenary, if supplied properly (low impedance source) is still *by far* the best way to power trains *in most cases* and where the *business model shows advantage*. Battery, fuel cell and diesel-electric all have to lug their system weight in addition to the motors on the bogies. "Ah!" Some will proclaim. "But there's the traction transformer needed for high voltage overhead". A fraction of the weight they used to be, and now there's solid state xfrmrs, weigh next to nothing. Think the power supply in your computer. Think "switching supplies". For DC overhead systems, even that isn't needed, as per streetcars and LVDC metro vehicle type supplies (pretty much obsolete now save for integrating with existing systems, AC has so many advantages, and far better traction motors and control).

You'll note that other than failed prototypes, there's no heavy rail hydrogen locos, internal combustion or fuel cell. Hydrogen is incredibly disadvantaged in terms of power density to make sense in those cases.
.....

Perhaps someone can explain why France, Germany et al are still building catenary if Hydrail is such an advantage?

Here's my theory.

Every country has different types of power plants. Base vs Peak load plants. Plus renewables (wind & solar) which is totally random. Germany for example has most of their power Base load plants (40% coal, nuclear, hydro without large capacity reservoirs, etc). Plus a lot in renewables. Only about 15-20% is Peak load plants (e.g. gas).

So by using hydrogen it allows them to convert some of their base load plant capacity at night to hydrogen and use it at peak times.

I fully agree that electrification should be used if you have the peak load capacity AND there are sufficient use of the catenary. But on low volume lines (capex cost is too high) or if you can spread out peak load (to get lower cost electricity) hydrogen may be a feasible alternative.

Based on this I believe Ontario should electrify the Lakeshore lines and the inner part of others. But by using hydrogen it could save significant dollars from Brampton-Kitchener, Richmond Hill and all the way up to Barrie. Plus it would not put less of a strain on peak load and therefore we could defer building another power plant in the future.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's my theory.

Even though I disagree on some of your points not in theory, but in practice, all in all, an excellent post.

The crux of you points revolves around how potential is stored off-peak, and there are ways to do that hydrostatically (reverse pumping at Niagara Falls at night, for instance) and even massive battery farms, either with the the generator/supplier, or on the train company property itself. Australia, for instance, is claiming a massive success on this for electric utilities storing surplus in battery banks. Ontario is somewhat new to the game.

And then there's also the possibility of H storage, either at generation source, or at hydrail terminals to generate overnight/off peak.

Your grasp of the technology is excellent, the possible implementation we must discuss more. The costs of the hyrogen production and storage is still a huge 'if', but even accepting that as reasonable/doable, it would only be the outer regions of the GO rail system where it would make any sense.

You'll note that the 'European rail authorities' looking at this aren't the national or even state or lander systems. They're municipal regional ones on lightly used lines. The national systems in most Euro nations are not only upgrading their present catenary, they continue to expand it.

Hydrail is a *complement* at best, not a replacement.

Meantime:

BySimon Alvarez
Posted on September 27, 2018
Tesla’s big battery in South Australia, officially known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve, has been supporting the region’s beleaguered energy grid since it went online last year. Over the past months, the Powerpack installation has been proving that large-scale battery storage solutions could be preferable alternatives to fossil fuel-powered backup plants.[...]

Tesla's big battery in Australia is starting an energy storage movement

Farmers to flock to solar and battery storage, as power costs bite

South Australia Reaffirms Its Love for Tesla's Big Batteries | Greentech

Etc....

 

[ADRM]

I don't know, from the looks of it the trains could probably run on hot air and standing ovations.

AoD

...the only real source of endlessly renewable power generation.

 

[gweed123]

Based on this I believe Ontario should electrify the Lakeshore lines and the inner part of others. But by using hydrogen it could save significant dollars from Brampton-Kitchener, Richmond Hill and all the way up to Barrie. Plus it would not put less of a strain on peak load and therefore we could defer building another power plant in the future.

I think this is the key point. Electrify the sections of lines that will be running almost subway-level frequencies (Lakeshore Line, Kitchener Line to Mount Joy, Barrie Line to Newmarket, Stouffville Line), and convert what would still be running diesel locomotives to hydrogen when the technology is mature enough.

That saves you the expense of electrifying a whole whack of trackage that will be seeing only medium to light usage, but still provides the environmental benefits of shifting away from diesel.

Also, by having a fleet with two different energy types, if there's a major power outage or something, you aren't totally pooched operationally, as you can boost hydrogen service frequencies to sort of make up for it.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Further to the tack the posts are taking, and further to the South Oz example, note the *massive difference* in both "right of centre" regimes between the State of SA and Ontario. Ontario is saddled with one of the least able regimes to deal with this file at this time than at any time in a century. It's not 'right or left' of centre in ideology, it's awareness of what new technology can offer or not:

ENERGY STORAGE
South Australia Reaffirms Its Love for Tesla’s Big Batteries
Infigen Energy announces 52-megawatt-hour project attached to a wind farm.
JASON DEIGN AUGUST 20, 2018

South Australia awards a grant for a 25-megawatt, 52-megawatt-hour plant.

South Australia has reaffirmed its love for big Tesla battery projects with an AUD $5 million (USD $3.7 million) grant for a 25-megawatt, 52-megawatt-hour plant.
The funding, which is being matched by an equal amount from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, will go toward the AUD $38 million (USD $28 million) cost of developing a Tesla Powerpack-based energy storage system for Infigen Energy.
The system will be built next to a 278.5-megawatt wind farm at Lake Bonney and connected to Australia’s National Electricity Market via a substation owned by ElectraNet, Infigen said in a press release. Construction is due to start in the coming weeks, the company said.
Infigen CEO Ross Rolfe said that the battery plant would help his company expand its supply contracts from the Lake Bonney wind farm to additional commercial and industrial customers in South Australia.


The plant will allow Infigen “to firm at least an additional 18 megawatts of power depending on the customer load profile,” said the company.
It will also provide ancillary services, ensuring increased security and quality of supply and fast response services “as required,” Infigen said.
The Australian Financial Review reported that Infigen had looked at various options to firm up wind generation, including pumped hydro and gas, before settling on battery technology.

The Infigen project could become Australia’s second-largest battery system, after the 129-megawatt-hour Hornsdale Power Reserve, unless it is overtaken by plans for a 120-megawatt, 140-megawatt-hour Tesla plant in the same region.
But it is only one of several big battery projects announced in South Australia. In February, for example, Tilt Renewables unveiled plans for a 21-megawatt, 26-megawatt-hour battery system attached to a solar plant and wind farm in Snowtown.
The project would be supported with an AUD $7.1 million (USD $5.2 million) government grant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports, and would be accompanied by a 300-megawatt, 1.35-gigawatt-hour pumped hydro storage project.
Tilt Renewables CEO Deion Campbell said the project would be the largest co-located wind, solar and battery plant in the country.
Also in South Australia, the electricity transmission company ElectraNet was due this July to have installed a 30-megawatt, 8-megawatt-hour battery system at its Dalrymple substation, near Stansbury in the state’s Yorke Peninsula region. The project is part funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
The system will work with local utility AGL’s 90-megawatt Wattle Point Wind Farm and rooftop solar PV to provide up to two hours of backup power in the event of any interruption to supply from the grid, according to ElectraNet, as well as providing fast frequency response services.
South Australia’s continuing investments in big battery projects seem to indicate that concerns over Hornsdale’s impact on the state’s energy market may have been overblown.

They should also dispel worries that a change in local government earlier this year might have affected the appetite for energy storage investments. In March elections, the Australian Labor Party was thrown out after 16 years in power.
It was replaced by the center-right Liberal Party of Australia, which under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott took a downbeat stance on renewables.
However, in an interview published in RenewEconomy in May, South Australian energy minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan pledged to continue supporting the state’s move toward green energy.
“We are going to take the very best of what the former government had to offer in this space, we’re going to reject the mistakes that they made, and improve on what they had to offer,” he said.
Javier Cavada Camino, president of energy solutions at Wärtsilä, said decreasing renewable energy pricing is making it harder for the South Australian leadership to take a stance against renewables. “It’s unstoppable,” he said.
But Simon Hackett, technology evangelist at the Australian flow battery maker Redflow, told GTM it is important to make sure a focus on lithium-ion does not exclude other energy storage technologies.
“A primary aspect of government policy in the energy storage realm must be that government support programs are structured in a technology-neutral manner, to ensure the deployment of the most appropriate technology in each of the sectors in which it is applied,” he said.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...ia-reaffirms-its-love-for-tesla-big-batteries

To keep on the 'right of centre'...*rational* right point....I see huge advantage in the present political/economic climate for GO's electrification to be tendered off by whole or part to *generating utilities* who are able to best supply and maintain catenary and distribution. GO's electrical grid could work best as part and parcel of a provincial utility able to establish massive battery storage farms near to catenary feeds. Load demand would be slowly met off-peak in to the batteries, and those batteries able to supply extremely low impedance supply source to the catenary *even if the greater grid fails!* (Power interruption). An alternative would be to charge on-board storage at train terminals, but this remains a problematic technical barrier. Sure you can charge a super capacitor in minutes at a recharging terminal. The question is: "Would you really want to?".

I work in electronics, and I've seen my share of disasters with massive discharges, and I'm reasonably comfortable around massive storage devices...but super-caps? Whoa...it's like standing beside a flywheel that could lose bearings at any moment.

A storage disaster on a remote battery farm is a hell of a lot safer than on a train or at a station/terminal. Hydrogen and Supercaps alike give me cause for great concern.

For *much* of the present heaviest travelled GO train system, catenary remains the best choice. And at the end of the day, probably the most cost effective.

 

[pman]

It’s not clear you want to contrast Ontario unfavourably with SA. The entire state lost power in a heatwave the summer before last.

 

[steveintoronto]

It’s not clear you want to contrast Ontario unfavourably with SA. The entire state lost power in a heatwave the summer before last.

And Halifax harbour exploded a century ago. Let's ban ships.

What is your point? Has it ever occurred to you that overloaded xmssn corridors could have been the cause, a situation that Ontario also has and limits importation of cheaper power from Quebec?

The South Australian blackout of 2016 was a widespread power outage in South Australia that occurred as a result of storm damage to electricity transmission infrastructure on 28 September 2016. The cascading failure of the electricity transmission network resulted in almost the entire state losing its electricity supply. Kangaroo Island did not lose its supply,[1] as the Kangaroo Island power station had been built to supply the island for the contingency of a failure in the power cable under the Backstairs Passage.[2][...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

Of course, a system wide blackout couldn't and hasn't ever occurred in Ontario, has it? I blame those Leftards meself!

How Conservation Voltage Regulation Can Help Ontario’s Aging Power Grid

The heatwave affecting Ontario has made one thing clear – Ontario’s power grid is aging. Since the heatwave began air conditioners all over the city have been running on high and putting stress on the +100 year-old electrical grid.
As CBC’s The National noted in their July 6th story, Canada’s Aging Power Grid, Torontonians felt the affects of the aging grid on July 5th when there was widespread blackout throughout the city. The old grid isn’t able to handle the demand for things like air conditioners running full blast throughout the city, so it becomes overloaded and crashes.
According to a CBC News July 2010 report, cold winters and hot summers are to blame for Canada’s position as world’s third highest per capita energy user. Demand continues to rise. Ontario needs to spend $150 – $220 billion over the next two decades just to keep the grid infrastructure up-to-date with demand or else Canadians will need to get used to blackouts. [...]

How Conservation Voltage Regulation Can Help Ontario's Aging Electric Grid

So let me spell out what should be obvious: The *Right of Centre* regime in South Australia *has taken* steps to address their grid deficiencies. South Australia has privatized electrical gen and supply.

The owner later clarified that it was not allowed to bid into the market if supply cannot be guaranteed, and it did not have a current gas supply contract for the second unit. It was able to respond promptly once directed to do so on 9 February during continuing high temperature weather.[34]

Doug Ford has taken the steps to increase the debt by firing people at Hydro One. It must be very hard for dyed in the wool apologists to understand what *rational right of centre* policies are.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Here's my theory.

Every country has different types of power plants. Base vs Peak load plants. Plus renewables (wind & solar) which is totally random. Germany for example has most of their power Base load plants (40% coal, nuclear, hydro without large capacity reservoirs, etc). Plus a lot in renewables. Only about 15-20% is Peak load plants (e.g. gas).

So by using hydrogen it allows them to convert some of their base load plant capacity at night to hydrogen and use it at peak times.

I fully agree that electrification should be used if you have the peak load capacity AND there are sufficient use of the catenary. But on low volume lines (capex cost is too high) or if you can spread out peak load (to get lower cost electricity) hydrogen may be a feasible alternative.

Based on this I believe Ontario should electrify the Lakeshore lines and the inner part of others. But by using hydrogen it could save significant dollars from Brampton-Kitchener, Richmond Hill and all the way up to Barrie. Plus it would not put less of a strain on peak load and therefore we could defer building another power plant in the future.

I think this is the key point. Electrify the sections of lines that will be running almost subway-level frequencies (Lakeshore Line, Kitchener Line to Mount Joy, Barrie Line to Newmarket, Stouffville Line), and convert what would still be running diesel locomotives to hydrogen when the technology is mature enough.

That saves you the expense of electrifying a whole whack of trackage that will be seeing only medium to light usage, but still provides the environmental benefits of shifting away from diesel.

Also, by having a fleet with two different energy types, if there's a major power outage or something, you aren't totally pooched operationally, as you can boost hydrogen service frequencies to sort of make up for it.

In defense of Waterloo Region and Barrie (Note, I live in Waterloo), the eventual goal for the Kitchener line is to see two-way all day service between Toronto and Waterloo (2hrs each direction off peak, at least ever 15 minutes during the peak), maybe even better with the freight bypass being taken care of. Electrification itself isn't the super expensive part of building the transit network, rather, it's the renewal of existing infrastructure, grade separation, and adding of tracks. The Kitchener line is so expensive because of the need for a freight bypass. I believe only 2-3 billion is actually being allocated for electrification itself across the 250+ km of track being electrified.

(http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...fitscases/GO_RER_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf, table 25), Under a full build scenario (for the entire GO network), only about 600$ more would be allocated to the electrification of the rest of the network (not including bridge, signal, and station modifications, 1.2 billion if these factors are considered). This cost is extremely insignificant when compared to the scope of the project, and would allow for the streamlining of rolling stock throughout the network. It also mitigates the need for extra express tracks for diesel trains along these corridors. With electrification, you can also increase the number of stations in Kitchener, creating a viable intercity link from east to west, as well as serving Guelph (which would be a huge benefit to everyone). Instead of running a six car double decker train from Toronto to Kitchener every 2 hrs, run 1 2-4 car single level EMU from Toronto to Kitchener ever 15-30 minutes. If the electrified Kitchener corridor is to see 15 minute service initially and hopefully 5 minute service shortly after, then you don't have to run all trains to Kitchener, have a streamlined fleet, and improve service. Given the student population here, ridership wouldn't be nearly as bad as people project. Hydrogen trains would probably cost twice as much as conventional vehicles, require new infrastructure, and cost a lot more in maintenance. I'd say the best solution is to run express diesel trains until the freight bypass is built.

 

[Allandale25]

In defense of Waterloo Region and Barrie (Note, I live in Waterloo), the eventual goal for the Kitchener line is to see two-way all day service between Toronto and Waterloo (2hrs each direction off peak, at least ever 15 minutes during the peak), maybe even better with the freight bypass being taken care of. Electrification itself isn't the super expensive part of building the transit network, rather, it's the renewal of existing infrastructure, grade separation, and adding of tracks. The Kitchener line is so expensive because of the need for a freight bypass. I believe only 2-3 billion is actually being allocated for electrification itself across the 250+ km of track being electrified.

Indeed. Here's the breakdown of the $2.25B for the "Kitchener Extension" (the figure comes from the quarterly Metrolinx Capital Projects Group report):

• $1.45B for the 30 Km of bypass tracks (and likely grade separations, utility relocations);
• $500M for electrification between Bramalea and Kitchener; and
• $300M for new track between Georgetown and Kitchener.

 

[steveintoronto]

This cost is extremely insignificant when compared to the scope of the project, and would allow for the streamlining of rolling stock throughout the network.

This is a key point that many fail to understand. Electric catenary is not only relatively cheap in the bigger picture, it goes up surprisingly fast if one judges by world standards, the one major proviso being that xmssn supply and xfrmr stations are ample and near. GO Transit has that and more available.

It's like little Johnny putting on a screaming fit to not get his bad tooth fixed and all the while he's dying from starvation. Yes it's going to be an item on the books. It's also an *asset*. If the Cons weren't so busy trying to tie laces on the shoes they keep stepping on, they'd realize that almost the entire cost of electrification by catenary can be privatized. Joe Q Ontario isn't really going to care about that at this point in time. The NDP will....whatever...but 'sensible outsourcing' must sound like a sauce to the present regime in QP.

They just don't get it. The Libs have almost delivered it to them on a silver platter already with DBFOM. That must spell Doug Ford Bomb Ontario Mothers to the Lysdexics of the Legendslayer...

 

[steveintoronto]

The government has not yet set a timeline to balance the budget and will continue a review of spending on programs.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...ent-vulnerable-children-and-francophones.html

I'm just so shocked, shocked I tell you....nothing on transit.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Nothing on transit. Maybe they can't keep all their promises.

 

[hw621]

^promises are meant to be broken

 

[steveintoronto]

Nothing on transit. Maybe they can't keep all their promises.

Wait for it..."We didn't promise anything except 'Government for The People'".