News   Nov 01, 2024
 1.9K     11 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.1K     2 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 683     0 

Guelph-Cambridge Initial Business Case - Battery Multiple Units now proposed

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,072
Reaction score
3,002
Location
Hamilton
Just in... a 166 page IBC PDF released this less than one hour ago

Four proposals, all involving 4-coach battery multiple units, in various possible 30min or 60min AD2W service between Guelph and Cambridge.


1723037936085.png


Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 9.39.46 AM.png
 
Last edited:
This PDF has some pretty cool snippets, and appears to be a fascinating solution for a quick commute between Cambridge and Guelph:

In between the text are these pretty cool table snippets, that gives a good picture of the proposal.

From page 32:

Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 9.44.51 AM.png


From page 34:

Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 9.46.23 AM.png



From page 35:

Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 9.45.35 AM.png



Options with an A prefix uses Class 3 trackage, and Options with a B prefix uses Class 4 trackage.

Option 2 provides a slightly slower speed but much more frequent 30min AD2W service, and the document has some rail diagrams showing this:


Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 9.51.25 AM.png



Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 9.50.14 AM.png



Nontheless, only 16 minutes for a trip between Cambridge and Guelph isn't bad at all. It'd be better to do the 30min frequency rather than 60min frequency, even with the slight slowdown for train-passing event.

Initial Business Case (IBC)'s are a good first move for a city council to get other levels of governments to fund the project (e.g. federal transit fund, Metrolinx, etc). Now that Metrolinx is gradually funding standalone non-Toront projects (e.g. Hamilton LRT) thanks to Hamilton's 2011 IBC, this may actually have a proposal.

Battery prices of non-explosive lithium-iron-phosphate have fallen from over $1000/kwh to under $100/kwh (an order of magnitude price drop in a mere ten years) at the factory pricing level, while having 15 year daily-cycle lifetimes (~5000 full charge cycles that still preserves 80% battery health), so battery trains are eminently getting economically practical. There's even battery precedent now. See Metrolinx's sudden unexpected cancellation of the Eglinton Crosstown gas generating plant now replaced by Metrolinx's brand new battery storage facility (a giant UPS for Eglinton Crosstown, now already built).

Even before the further cost reductions by the time BMU trainsets are purchased, it seems already the cheapest emissions-free 30min AD2W solution for a 15minute-ride 30min-frequency route, even including battery replacements every 15+ years(ish). Overhead Catenary System (OCS) can still be built later when justified (BMUs often can charge while in motion when catenary later gets built). A short ~15 min ride will be a very shallow SOC (State Of Charge depth, only a few percent battery) improving battery longevity and more backup reserve (winter heating + long stoppage), and a long ~15min dwell is plenty of charging time for a ~15min ride.

This route seems almost perfect for a BMU and battery longevity for a 4 coach single level train, you could literally keep the battery bar in its sweet spot 40%-60% almost permanently, with occasional abetrrations for maintenance, unexpected stoppages, and unusual weather (excess winter heating / summer air conditioning / winter battery capacity droop / battery heating in winter). For SoC management of prolonging battery health of LiFePo4 battery chemistries, the charging computer could charge only to 60% in spring/fall, to 70% in sunmer (increased AC demand), and to 80% in winter (to compensate for cold droop + heating). Complete charge to 100% and discharges to 0% would be unneeded in the train's lifetime, except for occasional battery-testing purposes. Such state of charge levels at appropriate times of year, would keep enough reserve for powering the train during multi-hour unexpected stoppages at full climate control. The station chargers can also heat the battery packs to prevent the wintertime battery capacity temporary droop.
 
Last edited:
Thanks! And the potential combinations are limitless such as Kitchener to New Hamburg.
 
I haven't digested in detail, but from skimming the document, a few of the things I would probe are -

1) the cost and feasibility of the connection and expansion to the GO trackage at Guelph, and the desirability of a totally separate right of way versus sharing ROW with GO - the potential opportunity being broader choice of equipment similar to the Trillium line
2) the assumption of a GO comparable fare..... I would predict pressure for an integrated fare as has emerged elsewhere across the GTA, requirement for free transfer to Guelph and Kitchener/Grand River Transit..... potentially lower revenue potential than the IBC assumes
3) managing scope on station construction - the renderings for Pinebush are pretty lavish, showing full size GO bilevel trains - would something much more basic suffice?
4) the need for a maintenance base that is situated and scalable for other future extensions - ie should it be somewhere on the Guelph Sub other than Guelph itself, so it is accessible by other potential extensions?
5) managing risk around equipment choice - while the suggestion of trying battery or other motive power is reasonable, what if there are teething troubles and are the pols willing to accept the potential fallout if the equipment leads to delays or an initial period of marginal reliability?

- Paul
 
3) managing scope on station construction - the renderings for Pinebush are pretty lavish, showing full size GO bilevel trains - would something much more basic suffice?
I wonder if the hypothetical full size trains are from a hypothetical Milton line extension.

Good questions though.

That being said, early BMU trials elsewhere are showing rapid development and deployments. Japan now has over 20 BEMU trainsets in operation, and now deployed in a few countries.

Given the pace of lithium iron battery development, and Alstom/etc rushing into the game, I suspect maturity will be very rapid, much like grid scale battery farms.

There are now options even if construction started today. Which it would not. So more options and maturity will happen in short order.

There is a BEMU running on a route in Dublin, which has weather not too different from this route.

The risk calculus of BEMU isn't like hydrogen, or other gadgetbahn technologies. It's just fundamentally a standard EMU modified to run off batteries, also an over 100-year-old technology too.

While there are indeed risks, I no longer consider BEMU to be a gadgetbahn technology anymore for these types of routes. Electrification on battery fronts are progressing stupendously rapidly.

Realistically it is just a "Let's briefly wait until more BEMU hit service before we cast an RFP or RFQ" situation; which is literally realistically 5 years or less -- also happens to be a minimum time window between an IBC and RFP/RFQ.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the hypothetical full size trains are from a hypothetical Milton line extension.
Aside from a Milton extension to Guelph having never had any serious attention, getting the GJR up to the Guelph Central platforms would be... a larger project than the rest of what we've discussed here combined. Milton trains in Guelph would only ever be feasible with a new platform.

If you're talking about a direct extension, Pinebush has no connection with it at all, the options being either the CP location or something at Delta.
 
Pinebush has no connection with it at all, the options being either the CP location or something at Delta.
That's a good question - you're right.

It may represent their aspirations of peak period GO trains someday in the future, maybe a few off the Kitchener Line only at peak.

Much like the fork between Hamilton West Harbour (all day) and Hamilton Downtown GO (peak).
 
The thing is, if these new trains use the same, standard track guage as the GO trains, then why not just run the GO trains to and from Pinebush? Why bother spending money on new trains? Why not just run a 6 coach train back and fourth? Use the old, F59 engines.
 
That's a good question - you're right.

It may represent their aspirations of peak period GO trains someday in the future, maybe a few off the Kitchener Line only at peak.

Much like the fork between Hamilton West Harbour (all day) and Hamilton Downtown GO (peak).
I don't put faith in renderings often.... but when I do......I think about what instructions the artists may have been given.....

My suspicion about the notional service plan is ML will be tempted to run a couple "regular" GO trains Cambridge-Union at peak, on the premise that Toronto bound commuters will be much happier if they have a seamless one-seat ride to Union (and likely save a few minutes that way) ... and why soak up seats on trains ex Kitchener when they are already fullish trains ex Pinebush....the point being, that forces the design of the line to a heavy rail standard - at much higher cost - when maybe this is the perfect application for a lighter rail solution with a lower pricetag and less of a footprint especially in central Guelph. And that opens up any number of opportunities to a more diverse GO fleet that does not depend on the standard bilevel. so, I would not rush to overbuild at Pinebush.

I am not against going to battery or other technologies, especially in a secondary line service, these technologies are definitely on their way.......however.... I firmly believe that GO should not be a trail blazer in technologies and should only buy products that have been validated on other properties. Let somebody else pay for the teething troubles and learning curves ! The point is for politicians (who may be technically naive, and susceptible to snake oil pitches) to 7nderstand that their necks are a lot safer if they don't rush for the spotlight.

- Paul
 
I really don't enjoy pouring cold water on transit projects, but according to the attached document this project would spend hundreds of millions on less than 1000 riders per day. It's not worth it. There is very little potential here to capture riders from cars, and this is not helped by poor station location and forced transfers at both ends.

I guess this is another reminder that branch line shuttles are almost never worth it, and that this route should be served with busses.

Also:

CN has already started abandoning portions of this corridor due to lack of business. Importantly, this is the portion of the corridor necessary if you wanted better network redundancy and a Cambridge station that doesn't drop you at a stroad in the middle of nowhere.

The Fergus Spur won't last much longer and once the region comes to their senses and stops developing this project, the corridor will be gone and this weird idea can stop sucking oxygen out of the room.
 
I don't put faith in renderings often.... but when I do......I think about what instructions the artists may have been given.....

My suspicion about the notional service plan is ML will be tempted to run a couple "regular" GO trains Cambridge-Union at peak, on the premise that Toronto bound commuters will be much happier if they have a seamless one-seat ride to Union (and likely save a few minutes that way) ... and why soak up seats on trains ex Kitchener when they are already fullish trains ex Pinebush....the point being, that forces the design of the line to a heavy rail standard - at much higher cost - when maybe this is the perfect application for a lighter rail solution with a lower pricetag and less of a footprint especially in central Guelph. And that opens up any number of opportunities to a more diverse GO fleet that does not depend on the standard bilevel. so, I would not rush to overbuild at Pinebush.

I am not against going to battery or other technologies, especially in a secondary line service, these technologies are definitely on their way.......however.... I firmly believe that GO should not be a trail blazer in technologies and should only buy products that have been validated on other properties. Let somebody else pay for the teething troubles and learning curves ! The point is for politicians (who may be technically naive, and susceptible to snake oil pitches) to 7nderstand that their necks are a lot safer if they don't rush for the spotlight.

- Paul
To reiterate my take on many of these points, going light and moving toward tram trains seems far more attractive on a cost basis to me. Frankly, as much as people will moan about the transfer in Guelph i think it’s the Cambridge side of things that will be more of a barrier to ridership. Through running to Galt has regulatory challenges, but shouldn’t come with the same level of cost that 12 car go trains do.
 
A project like this would make more sense on the Brampton/ Mississauga portion of the OBRY. From Streestville to Mayfield Rd.

Perhaps even between Georgetown and Aldershot. So long as CN would allow parallel running tracks beside their mainline.

This just seems like over kill for what's essentially a feeder line into the Kitchener line.

If the ION wasn't constructed to travel at such a slow speed, and if more money was spent to grade separate the track from the roads (REM, sky train), then it could essentially achieve what this project is trying to do.
 
Last edited:
Something I find very interesting about this project, is that getting between Pinebush and downtown Kitchener will be about twice as fast by taking the train into Guelph and back out, versus the existing ION LRT + Bus arrangement.

In the future, would love to see the Fergus Spur connected to the Guelph Sub by new track closer to K-W than Guelph, allowing for an expanded regional train system which could eventually span from The Boardwalk/Ira Needles area (or even New Hamburg, but not much growth happening there) through to Cambridge.

1723126134652.png
 

Back
Top