Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
I wonder if DEMUs will get more common as dual power/hybrid/battery designs get more advanced.
You had me digging on the eVoyager (Class 220/1/2 electrified) many of the articles are dated, but found this, right up to date:
Have Bombardier Got A Cunning Plan For Voyagers?
In the July 2018 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article entitled Bi-Mode Aventra Details Revealed.

A lot of the article takes the form of reporting an interview with Des McKeon, who is Bombardier’s Commercial |Director and Global Head of Regional and Intercity.

This is a paragraph.

He also confirmed Bombardier is examining the option of fitting batteries to Voyager DEMUs for use in stations.

The Voyager family of trains has three members.

The trains have the following characteristics in common.

  • They are diesel electric multiple units.
  • Each car is powered by an underfloor Cummins QSK19 diesel engine of 750 hp/560 kW.
  • They are capable of 125 mph running.
  • Some trains are fitted with tilting, which isn’t used.
  • The trains have rheostatic braking.
  • They meet or could easily meet the latest accessibility regulations for passengers of reduced mobility.
  • Train length appears to be flexible and cars seem to be able to be swapped around in a particular class.
I think it is true to say that the operators have a few problems with these trains.

  • Some passengers think the trains are rather cramped.
  • There is also a noise and vibration problem when the engines are working hard.
  • There have been problems with seawater getting in the resistor banks for the rheostatic braking on Class 220 trains at Dawlish.
  • CrossCpuntry would welcome extra capacity.
  • Both operators would probably welcome better fuel consumption on the trains.
How Would You Fit A Battery To A Voyager?

All these trains seem to be fitted with rheostatic braking.

Effectively, the traction motors generate electricity when they work in reverse to slow the train. On a modern train this electricity is either returned through the electrification to power other trains or stored in a battery.

But on these Voyagers, it is passed through resistors on the roof and used to heat the sky.

Consider these facts for a four-car Class 220 train.

  • The train has an operating speed of 125 mph.
  • Each car has its own diesel engine.
  • The train has a weight of 185.6 tonnes.
  • The train has seats for two hundred passengers.
  • If we assume that each passenger weighs 90 Kg. with their baggage this gives a total train weight of 203.6 tonnes.
Calculating the kinetic energy of the train for various speeds gives

  • 75 mph – 32 kWh
  • 90 mph – 46 kWh
  • 100 mph – 56 kWh
  • 125 mph – 89 kWh.
Every time a train stops, this energy goes to waste.

The simplest thing to do, would be to divert this energy to an appropriately sized battery in each car. As there is four cars in the train, a battery of 50 kWh in each car would probably be sufficient.

If the battery was full, then the energy would still go to the resistors on the roof.

You’ve now got a full battery, but how would you use the energy in a productive manner?

The easiest and probably best thing to do with it, is to power the hotel functions of the train like air-conditioning, lights, doors and toilets. This is an approach taken by Hitachi on their Class 800 trains, as this diagram confirms.



The diagram is contained in this document on the Hitachi Rail web site, which is entitled Development of Class 800/801 High-speed Rolling Stock for UK Intercity Express Programme.

The document is a fascinating read.

Using the energy to power the traction motors and move the train might be possible, but I suspect it might be too complicated and expensive.

The simple system of the braking energy charging the battery and then using this energy for hotel power has advantages, both for Hitachi and Voyagers.

  • The engines generally won’t need to run in a station to provide hotel power,as Des McKeon noted.
  • The control electronics would be reasonably simple.
  • Many of the existing expensive components like engines and traction motors probably wouldn’t need to be changed.
  • There might be maintenance savings on the brakes.
  • Less fuel will need to be expended to provide hotel power.
  • If say the train has to halt perhaps because of a signalling or track fault, hotel power can be provided without running the engines.
  • If batteries are supplying the hotel power, the train may have more power for traction.
I obviously don’t know how independent each car is from the next, but if each is independent, then there could be further advantages in converting, testing and maintaining the cars.

Conclusion

It looks to be a good plan.
https://anonw.com/2018/06/30/have-bombardier-got-a-cunning-plan-for-voyagers/

Which brings us back to the ever-galling need for Metrolinx to apply for a waiver for the UPX corridor, if not the Bramalea-Unionville one for non-FRA compliant stock. So much more could be done with the corridor than is at present at a small cost by using forward electrifiable compatible stock (and still keep the Nippon-Sharyos running, just supplement them for now).

Quoted article states:
You’ve now got a full battery, but how would you use the energy in a productive manner?

The easiest and probably best thing to do with it, is to power the hotel functions of the train like air-conditioning, lights, doors and toilets. This is an approach taken by Hitachi on their Class 800 trains, as this diagram confirms.
This is the "regenerative" feature of the Nippon-Sharyo DMU. Within the limitations of using mundane technology for the UPX cars, someone at Metrolinx was on the ball specifying the ZF 6spd xmssn, and the 'regenerative' feature for the N-S.

There's a lot more that could be done on that route (UPX), however. And the present TC regs form a railblock.
 
Last edited:

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
3,280
I wonder if DEMUs will get more common as dual power/hybrid/battery designs get more advanced.
You might think that to be the case, especially considering the advent of batteries to provide energy storage whilst braking - but it seems as if there hadn't been any major DEMU developments or orders until the huge IEP project and order for England from a couple of years ago.

Actually, that's not specifically true. Stadler has been pushing diesel-electric multiple units, but they seem to the be the only manufacturer that has.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
^There's been a very interesting development on this with the LINTs, and since Alstom are just opening a new facility in Brampton, as well as an existing one in Ottawa, and Ontario is/was testing the iLINT (Hydrogen fuel cell), this seems all the more pertinent for Metrolinx, as these are available in variable platform models, and 'Nordic' models (wider body for Nordic gauge, closer to North Am ones):
Press releases and news19 Sep 2018
Abellio, Alstom, NASA and Rolls-Royce to implement new hybrid drive solution on Coradia Lint diesel trains
  • Agreement on joint deliberations and preparatory measures for the retrofit of Coradia Lint regional trains from Alstom with MTU hybrid drives
  • Evaluation of service on routes in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
  • Conversion of the entire fleet of 54 vehicles under consideration
Abellio Rail Mitteldeutschland, Alstom, Nahverkehrsservice Sachsen-Anhalt GmbH (NASA) and Rolls-Royce plan to jointly implement a new hybrid drive solution on Abellio’s fleet of Coradia Lint diesel trains. Today, the four companies agreed to conduct technical feasibility studies regarding the integration of hybrid drives developed by MTU, a Rolls-Royce brand, into Coradia Lint rail vehicles and their use on routes of Dieselnetz Saxony-Anhalt, a diesel-powered rail network in Germany. The four partners plan to sign a contract covering the retrofit of at least three vehicles once the studies have been successfully concluded and financing is secured. To this effect, the companies signed a letter of intent at Innotrans, the world’s leading trade fair for railway and transport technology. Subsequent conversion of the entire fleet of 54 Coradia Lint vehicles is under consideration. The hybrid drives combine a modern diesel engine with an electric motor and batteries to recover braking energy, reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 25 percent. In addition, the ability to run under battery power only can reduce noise pollution in city areas and stations by 75 percent (20 dB(A)).

Stephan Schreier, Managing Director, Operations at Abellio, said: “As one of the largest operators of local rail passenger transport services in Saxony-Anhalt, we are aware of the special role we play in climate protection and, with this project, are pressing ahead unswervingly in the transition to lower-emission solutions.”

Dr Jörg Nikutta, Managing Director Germany and Austria at Alstom, said: “Alternative drive systems have become an important aspect of rail transportation. Alstom has been leading the way in this for many years now to reduce emissions. It is important for us, working with our partners, to add a new feature to our well-proven diesel train Coradia Lint and offer a hybrid traction solution that is quickly available and delivers immediate benefits for travellers and the environment.”

Rüdiger Malter, Managing Director at NASA, said: “The state of Saxony-Anhalt is very active on behalf of alternative drive solutions and low-emission transport. The planned hybrid trains are an important contribution to environmentally friendly rail travel which can be realized within a short time.”

Lars Kräft, Vice President Industrial Business at Rolls-Royce Power Systems, said: “Our MTU Hybrid PowerPack is a pioneering high-tech drive system combining the benefits of battery and diesel-powered trains without the need for additional infrastructure. We look forward to working with our partners to bring this technology into regular service here in Germany.”

Abellio is due to commence passenger services on behalf of the state of Saxony-Anhalt in December 2018 on 16 non-electrified lines in Saxony-Anhalt using 54 Coradia Lint trains. The contract covering the conversion of the first three of these vehicles to MTU hybrid drives is planned to be signed by the end of 2018. The conversion program is expected to take less than three years and will start operating in pilot mode to collect findings related to a normal daily use of a hybrid fleet.

The Coradia Lint is a fuel-efficient diesel multiple unit (DMU) that can reach operating speeds of up to 140 kph. It is powered by two MTU PowerPacks, each based on the MTU Series 1800 engine that meets the strict requirements of the current EU Stage IIIB emissions directive. The Hybrid PowerPack is an even more environmentally friendly version of this proven drive system: It combines an MTU diesel engine plus an electric machine, which can be used either as an electric motor or generator, and the MTU EnergyPack battery system, which stores the energy recovered during braking. This enables very low-noise, emissions-free battery-only electric operation in urban areas and around stations. The total operating costs of rail vehicles with MTU hybrid drives are also significantly lower. Even brake pads and discs have reduced wear due to brake energy recuperation. Because of the additional power of the electric machine, train operators also have the possibility to make up time delays using the improved drive dynamics and acceleration.

The Coradia Lint is part of Alstom’s Coradia range of modular trains which benefit from more than 30 years of service experience and proven technical solutions. Over 2800 Coradia trains have been sold to date, with 2300 of them currently operating in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada.
https://www.alstom.com/press-releas...lls-royce-implement-new-hybrid-drive-solution

Since the Hydrogen test vehicles are already here in Canada, perhaps it will be far easier to convert them to this rather than shipping them back to Europe?

Since City of Ottawa already has a waiver to use these, it would stand to reason that Metrolinx already has a foot in the door to get approval to use these on their own tracks, with temporal separation on the tracks still approved for freight use.
[...]
Vehicle Considerations
The Alstom LINT vehicles currently in production incorporate crash management (CM) specifications that are more stringent than the six vehicles currently operating on the Trillium Line. The City must engage Transport Canada closer to project implementation to determine if the new LINT vehicles will be acceptable to Transport Canada, and if there are issues with running vehicles with a mix of CM specifications on the same line. This will required a detailed review of vehicle specifications and the preparation of a risk assessment by the City, and is estimated to take 12-18 months.
[...]
https://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content...ed_Trillium_Line_Functional_Design_Report.pdf

Ostensibly this is already approved by now...

Big debunk from Tree Hugger on Hydrogen trains just a month back: (not that the technically minded didn't already know it)
https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/it-time-hop-hydrogen-train.html
 
Last edited:

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
790
An informative article from Treehugger and it raise some interesting points and valid concerns.

That said, much of their argument against HyRail is that the electricity to create the hydrogen may come from fossil fuels making, in terms of emissions, a zero sum game. In Ontario however there are no coal plants so this is not a concern. The nuclear plants aren't going anywhere anytime soon and are vastly cleaner with almost no emissions and they basically do nothing overnight when the demand is low so the power for the Hyrail is simply making the best use of existing power supply unlike catenary or 3rd rail.

In terms of efficiency, they are less efficient and hence use more electricity increasing operation costs but they don't mention that those increased operational costs are offset by the money saved by not having to electrify the system which in Ontario's case is about a whopping $2 billion. For that $2 billion saved Ontario could set up the hydrogen infrastructure, build the garage/maintenance facilities, and purchase an entire massive fleet of trains. All Ontario would get for it's $2 billion is a bunch of wires using power at peak times. Also that extra $2 billion for wires will be paid for on debt and even at 2% that works out to $40 million a year which cuts a lot of the operation savings down to size.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
^You overlook that batteries could effectively store the energy far more efficiently and cheaper than electrolysis does for Hydrogen. All those 'expensive wires' are also way to convey that energy, nighttime, daytime, anytime for stationary storage at stations or depots, as well as batteries on board the trains. And all the massive costs and downsides of Hydrogen are avoided doing it.

I wasn't initially a fan of battery powered BEMUs, but efficiency has increased far faster than hydrogen cell technology. And vastly safer.
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
3,674
Reaction score
1,478
The carbon concern about Hydrogen in Ontario isn’t power requirement from coal - this is assumed to be off peak nuclear - but Enbridge sniffing around at that Hydrail conference. The suspicion is that once hydrogen goes past concept, the source will switch to steam reforming of methane, which is where the overwhelming majority proportion of world production comes from
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
The suspicion is that once hydrogen goes past concept, the source will switch to steam reforming of methane, which is where the overwhelming majority proportion of world production comes from
An excellent point. Everyone assumes even electrolysis to be a straight-forward clean process. Far from it. It produces some nasty toxins even when using pure electrodes and distilled water (two expensive requirements alone).

How expensive is it?
[...]
And it is the most abundant chemical element in the universe, so you’d think we’d have all we need. Sadly, it’s not that easy.

It is expensive, in both money and energy, to pry hydrogen loose from other elements, store it, and convert it back to useful energy. The value we get out of it has never quite justified what we invest in producing it. It is one of those technologies that seems perpetually on the verge of a breakthrough, but never quite there.

Seattle native Evan Johnson thinks he can change that. He thinks he’s finally figured out how to unlock a hydrogen economy.

Johnson is far from the first or only person with that goal. But after 10 years of tinkering, testing, and preparation, he has worked out a series of technologies and a practical business plan that chart a path to real commercial scale for hydrogen.

And though HyTech Power, where Johnson serves as CTO, obviously seeks financial success, Johnson sees its products as something more: a way to use hydrogen to immediately reduce pollution while scaling up and driving down costs enough to enable more fundamental changes to the energy system. [...]
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...drogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

All very interesting, but indicative of how "Hydrogen" as a viable fuel alone still has a long way to go.

And this just repeats the mantra of 'easy answers': (cont'd from above)
That’s a potentially enormous market with plenty of existing demand, which HyTech hopes will capitalize its second product, a retrofit that will transform any internal combustion vehicle into a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) by enabling it to run on pure hydrogen. That will primarily be targeted at large fleets.
Bit of a massive problem there...and I get so tired of this mantra...

Unless you're using pure Oxygen as the oxidant, then you have emissions beyond pure water. All the gases in the air will produce their own form of oxide emissions. Most of them nasty. Some nastier than others.
 
Last edited:

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,380
Reaction score
1,886
The carbon concern about Hydrogen in Ontario isn’t power requirement from coal - this is assumed to be off peak nuclear - but Enbridge sniffing around at that Hydrail conference. The suspicion is that once hydrogen goes past concept, the source will switch to steam reforming of methane, which is where the overwhelming majority proportion of world production comes from
Enbridge is likely Ontario's most experienced company handling piping & storage of volatile substances too. There's a good reason for them to be paying close attention to tenders in that area even if the natural gas never enters the equation; doubly-so if they believe natural gas may go out of style over the next 30 years.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
Enbridge is likely Ontario's most experienced company handling piping & storage of volatile substances too. There's a good reason for them to be paying close attention to tenders in that area even if the natural gas never enters the equation; doubly-so if they believe natural gas may go out of style over the next 30 years.
What do your propose? Reformers at train depots? Or pipes carrying H from reformation farms to their intended destination?
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming

How's running this any simpler than just running catenary and supply, let alone the vastly lower source impedance of amply supplied cat?

Addendum: Digging further on Enbridge's angle, there's an interesting story:
Is large-scale energy storage a pipe dream? | The Star

https://www.thestar.com › Star Business Journal › Technology

May 4, 2012 - Enbridge Inc., the oil and gas pipeline giant, made a curious investment two weeks ago in an Ontario company that makes hydrogen fuel cells.
North America’s first major hydrogen-based energy storage facility now open
JWN staff |
July 17, 2018, 7:03 a.m.

Enbridge Gas Distribution and Hydrogenics Corporation announced on Monday that they have opened the first major energy storage facility using hydrogen in North America is now operational.

Energy storage projects are already deployed in Asia and Europe, but this is the first large-scale project in North America. It is expected to reduce energy costs for Ontario consumers.

The facility features technology developed and manufactured in Mississauga, Ontario by Hydrogenics and represents one of several projects selected by the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario for energy storage to deliver power grid stability and reliability services.

In the future, this technology could help reduce or defer the need for new energy infrastructure such as generation plants, poles and wires, Enbridge said.


The hydrogen produced could also be used for a number of purposes such as fueling cars and trains, and/or it can be blended into the natural gas system to offset traditional natural gas.

“Once this low carbon gas is injected in the pipeline it can serve multiple energy markets including building heating, heavy duty transportation fuels, and dispatchable power generation,” Enbridge said in a statement.
https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2...rogen-based-energy-storage-facility-now-open/

I have trepidations...will dig further. This may seem abstract to the UPX string, but it will mostly likely be the test-bed for experimental propulsion, not least since it's all on Metrolinx rail.
 
Last edited:

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
790
RER/UPX will have to be hydrogen or catenary as battery powered trains such as made by Bombardier are a non-starter. The battery trains make perfect sense in Europe when they charge by catenary and then run on the electricity for the further out non-electrified route. Canada has only one electric commuter train in Montreal so for the system to work at least 20km in each direction of Union would have to be electrified any way. At that point you might as well just electrify the whole damn system and be done with it.

Ford knows he would face hell from his 905 and suburban 416 MPs if he cancels RER so I don't think he will. What he will be doing however is trying to save money on the system and Hydrail does that by saving $2 billion on electrification and it could, at least partially, be up and running BEFORE the next election.

I think Ford will go Hydrail for the above reasons and to put his own stamp on RER as opposed to finishing a project that was conceived, planned, and built by Wynne and the Liberals. RER is going ahead for political reasons and because there is no way QP is going to refuse all that juicy transit infrastructure funding and I really believe he will choose hydrogen.
 
Last edited:

ErieHall

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
44
Reaction score
29
Are Hydrail trains faster than diesel? Because I feel like the main goal of this whole exercise is really to make the trains faster, while decarbonization is just a nice side benefit.
 
Last edited:

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,380
Reaction score
1,886
Are Hydrail trains faster than diesel?
That depends entirely on how fast Metrolinx requests them to be (they usually choose energy efficiency over performance) and whether it's a single engine (4 drive wheels per train) or a multi-unit (4 drive wheels per car).

Acceleration of GO trains is largely slow because it's a single engine hauling 12 cars of dead weight.

UPX seems to be slow because fuel efficiency is more important than trip performance.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
Are Hydrail trains faster than diesel? Because I feel like the main goal of this whole exercise is really to make the trains faster, while decarbonization is just a nice side benefit.
Bear in mind that the *on demand* performance of a hydrail vehicle will not be the fuel cell itself, but the source impedance and capacity of the battery the cell recharges. Which brings us back to battery powered vehicles.

Given sufficient battery capacity (vs the weight penalty, which is improving but still substantial) source impedance can be low. That translates to high torque (motors permitting) given the battery pack's and component current supply ability and discharge capacity over time. There's a reason that you're only seeing lighter vehicles hosting this at this time. (There are a few yard shunters hosting fuel cell and battery packs as energy source, but they're 'toys' for all intents and purposes).

Any serious rail transit system will still use catenary now, and will for the foreseeable future. As it stands and will for some time, fuel cell and/or battery vehicles have a purpose only at the extremities of a system where the cost to benefit of catenary isn't justified.

Ontario has one viable choice for electrifying the GO system: Catenary @ 25kV and of very ample current supply (e.g: 'low source impedance'). Just like the nations that have/are develop/ed/ing fuel cell vehicles continue to do.

The fastest speed and accelerating trains are catenary supplied, by a long shot.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
2,738
That depends entirely on how fast Metrolinx requests them to be (they usually choose energy efficiency over performance) and whether it's a single engine (4 drive wheels per train) or a multi-unit (4 drive wheels per car).

Acceleration of GO trains is largely slow because it's a single engine hauling 12 cars of dead weight.

UPX seems to be slow because fuel efficiency is more important than trip performance.
While you can do things to tweak acceleration profiles, trains that carry their fuel source on board, whether diesel, hydrogen or batteries, will always be heavier and more complex than overhead powered trains.

Not just the fuel but the mechanics involved to convert that fuel into electricity.

You're carrying your power plant with you.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,380
Reaction score
1,886
While you can do things to tweak acceleration profiles, trains that carry their fuel source on board, whether diesel, hydrogen or batteries, will always be heavier and more complex than overhead powered trains.
Yeah, efficiency leans heavily towards electric.

Acceleration is primarily based on the specs you give the vendor. They scale up/down engine components to fit the operating specs required; and if you lean toward fuel efficiency it'll be less responsive.

If you want an FRA train that can go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, be prepared to receive something that burns $100k in fuel per stop and has a pair of jet engines strapped to the top of each car.
 

Top