VIA Rail

[UrbanJon]

That's only if you think of the carbon emissions from Toronto to Vancouver. What about between travelling in-between those two locations? What about remote locations that dont have airports?

Everyone doesn't live in a major metropolitan area.

And the carbon emissions for a single driver in a car Driving from Toronto to Edmonton is going to be more than taking the Canadian.

A robust intercity bus network could do the job of intermediate transport and it could do so without having to carry around the weight of bedrooms and dining spaces which sit unused for much of the journey. The same applies to the Ocean as well.

In this climate emergency we have to take decisive action, and unless utilization and energy efficiency of long distance trains sees a dramatic increase, they may not make the cut.

 

[crs1026]

^it will be interesting to see what survives and what doesn’t. As a simple matter of amount of fuel consumed, and carbon output per train, this sounds like pretty small potatoes. Imagine what the cruise ship industry faces in comparison. A 2,000 tom passenger train by rail - versus a 50,000 ton boat moving by water?

- Paul

 

[EnviroTO]

Unfortunately, the climate savings of rail are not absolute, especially for long distance passengers and with the climate crisis we are in, it may be best to cancel the Canadian outright.

Yes, there is a big difference between CN pulling a 100+ car double stacked train, and VIA Rail running old diesel engines to pull stainless steel coaches with the people per car ratio being very low. I would imagine the new VIA corridor fleet and the RDC coaches paired with the P42DCs would fair better. GO's double deck fleet would probably be as good as it gets for diesel because the double deck cars have lower car weight per passenger and the new engines meet EPA Tier 4 standards. Not sure about the Renaissance fleet as they were built with heavy steel.

 

[ssiguy2]

Whatever VIA decides in terms of technology { and personally I think all 3 types of zero emissions vehicles have their place all depending upon the route} but the fact that they have no concrete plans of how they will meet net-zero by 2050 is highly irresponsible.

The very first thing VIA should do in this regard is NOT to go to Ottawa looking for money but rather meeting up with CN & CP and see what their plans and technology choice will be. Nearly every inch of VIA service is run on their freight tracks and so working together with CN & CP will not allow for far easier and faster new technology implementation but also greatly reduce VIA infrastructure costs.

 

[sacred]

Unfortunately, the climate savings of rail are not absolute, especially for long distance passengers and with the climate crisis we are in, it may be best to cancel the Canadian outright.

Let's get real here, the Canadian is a niche, relatively infrequent train with an absolutely tiny carbon footprint. The climate crisis is not the top reason to cancel it.

---
To everyone except Paul Langan, please hope/pray/wish for good news in tomorrow's budget.

 

[EnviroTO]

Whatever VIA decides in terms of technology { and personally I think all 3 types of zero emissions vehicles have their place all depending upon the route} but the fact that they have no concrete plans of how they will meet net-zero by 2050 is highly irresponsible.

I look at the gradually reduced frequency, the minimal investment, and the increasingly poor on-time reliability that has a train that people ride to see the scenery pass through the rockies in the middle of the night as proof positive that by 2050 VIA will have achieved net-zero emissions on the route.

 

[Darwinkgo]

t the fact that they have no concrete plans of how they will meet net-zero by 2050 is highly irresponsible

Right now the plan should be: we will evaluate new applications of renewable and zero emissions technology to the sector as they emerge, and ensure VIA's operations are net zero by or before 2050.

Or what would likely be called no plan by you.

It would be irresponsible to have a detailed plan at this point beyond things they can do today, like fleet renewal, track side power an maintenance stations, and strategies to reducing idling.

Right now their resilience statement is:
"Reduce the environmental impacts of our own fleet and buildings and help bring transformational change to Canada by reducing the transportation sector’s contribution to climate change, congestion and smog."

And they're far ahead of the 2030 target. And they'll have further reductions due to the new corridor fleet.

Anyways, read all about it. https://media.viarail.ca/sites/default/files/publications/2019_Sustainability_Report_EN.pdf

 

[crs1026]

Whatever VIA decides in terms of technology { and personally I think all 3 types of zero emissions vehicles have their place all depending upon the route} but the fact that they have no concrete plans of how they will meet net-zero by 2050 is highly irresponsible.

The very first thing VIA should do in this regard is NOT to go to Ottawa looking for money but rather meeting up with CN & CP and see what their plans and technology choice will be. Nearly every inch of VIA service is run on their freight tracks and so working together with CN & CP will not allow for far easier and faster new technology implementation but also greatly reduce VIA infrastructure costs.

I totally disagree with your first paragraph and totally agree with the second.

What would be totally irresponsible would be for VIA to forge ahead and pursue a potentially unique and un-integrated strategy that ignores what its host railways will inevitably have to do to manage their own carbon contribution. Having a plan today would be proof of wasting time and money. Especially since the technology isn’t ripe yet.

The freight railways are still getting their heads around the investment that will be needed. There’s a pretty obvious reality: the mega mega joules of energy they waste by relying on non-regenerative braking is as much a carbon problem as a fuel cost problem. Some technology (not necessarily wires, but I don’t rule it out) that captures and reuses kinetic (braking) energy would halve their carbon output (and fuel costs). Sourcing the remaining energy used without producing carbon is a separate but equally pressing problem

Let’s not mistreat VIA for having to wait and see how this progresses.

-Paul

 

[roger1818]

I totally disagree with your first paragraph and totally agree with the second.

What would be totally irresponsible would be for VIA to forge ahead and pursue a potentially unique and un-integrated strategy that ignores what its host railways will inevitably have to do to manage their own carbon contribution. Having a plan today would be proof of wasting time and money. Especially since the technology isn’t ripe yet.

The freight railways are still getting their heads around the investment that will be needed. There’s a pretty obvious reality: the mega mega joules of energy they waste by relying on non-regenerative braking is as much a carbon problem as a fuel cost problem. Some technology (not necessarily wires, but I don’t rule it out) that captures and reuses kinetic (braking) energy would halve their carbon output (and fuel costs). Sourcing the remaining energy used without producing carbon is a separate but equally pressing problem

Let’s not mistreat VIA for having to wait and see how this progresses.

-Paul

I totally agree!

I think I have posted this before, but BNSF and Wabtec (formerly GE Transportation) are working on a battery-powered locomotive that "will be situated in a consist between two Tier 4 locomotives, creating a battery-electric hybrid consist." They are exploring several ways of using this locomotive, including (though not necessarily limited to):

1. Recovering energy from dynamic breaking for use later, saving fuel.
2. When stopped in a yard, powering the safety systems by battery, allowing the diesel locomotives to be shut off, saving fuel and reducing noise.
3. While at cruising speed, the train can "graze" on battery power to save fuel.

All of these features will be controlled by a computer system that will calculate the best way utilize the battery on the planned route (when to fully charge the battery from diesel and when to leave room for regenerative breaking). Saving fuel not only saves the railways money, it also reduce emissions.

Here are a couple interesting media releases from BNSF about this:

BNSF leads the charge on testing battery electric locomotive

BNSF and project partners are developing and will soon begin testing a battery-electric high-horsepower road locomotive (the type that moves freight trains from Point A to Point B). BNSF and other railroads have tested low-horsepower battery-electric locomotives in rail yards for years, but...

www.bnsf.com

BNSF and Wabtec commence battery-electric locomotive pilot test in California

www.bnsf.com

 

[crs1026]

All of these features will be controlled by a computer system that will calculate the best way utilize the battery on the planned route (when to fully charge the battery from diesel and when to leave room for regenerative breaking). Saving fuel not only saves the railways money, it also reduce emissions.

To me, the "smart" part of this is the most interesting. The recharging cycle may be more complex than just brake/recharge, throttle/discharge. And for now, the diesel may not disappear.

A train running at full speed with a fully-charged battery might benefit from using up the battery power, so there is room to recover energy when it next slows down. A train at rest (say, waiting for their turn to move) with low battery charge might benefit from being charged by the diesel, so there is more battery energy on hand to assist with acceleration, meaning the diesel can be smaller. Fixed charging and recovery locations might exist rather than end-to-end wires. Locomotive behaviour may vary from location to location based on the anticipated gradient and energy need/recovery potential as it appears in real time.

It's too soon to know which of these will be found to be of value.

The particular differentiator for passenger trains is HEP. The most modern locomotives can pass traction, auxiliary gen, and regen energy back and forth between traction and HEP load. The moving and at-rest power demands are a lot different for passenger than for freight.

For VIA, this means they have to wait and see what the industry develops, and how CP/CN deploy it, and what other passenger operators do.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz....................so your alternative to diesel trains is to do nothing at all?

Until the technology catches up and the government is willing to fund a conversion, VIA should do nothing at all.

You seem to be forgetting that VIA is a crown corp and that the government decides what capital investments are made. Not VIA management.

Well if Ottawa decides to use that theory then I can't wait for CN & CP to take them to court because one rail system gets a pass and the other doesn't.

What exactly would they take them to court for? It is you that has invented this imaginary decarbonization of rail. The government has no such policy. They have some vague pronouncements and trials for some tech. But they have no hard deadlines or rules. So there's nothing to fight in court over. Don't mistake some rhetoric from the Liberals for actual policy. And the Conservatives aren't even bothering with rhetoric. The rails won't be decarbonizing for a very, very long time in Canada.

Let's assume, however, that Ottawa lets VIA keep polluting til the end of time, there is also another reality.........in 30 years VIA won't have any suppliers.

Correct. And in 30 years, the Chargers that VIA just bought will be old and ready for replacement. This is repeatedly what I have said on this thread. They can (and probably will) pursue electrification in 15-20 years when they've gotten past most of the useful economic life of the Chargers. Somewhere around 2035-2040, that's when we might hear about electrifying Corridor ops, unless we see substantial political motivation to put down OCS for the whole Corridor.

Whether you, or I, think VIA should go battery, catenary, hydrogen, or horse & buggy is completely irrelevant. The stark reality is that VIA is going to have to move to a completely sustainable and zero emissions fleet and it's not going to come cheap.

But it will be a lot cheaper than doing anything today. And that is the point. Batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, signalling systems, communications systems, AI software, etc will all be much cheaper a decade from now. And even more so in 15-20 years. Just in time to recapitalize some or all of VIA's fleet.

I think the likely plan is something like this:

1) Let GO RER Kitchener get substantially built out by 2030, with OCS installed. The Pearson transit hub might also happen by then.

2) Build out HFR West to Windsor by 2035.

3) Around 2030-2035 procure proven battery electric rolling stock and build up OCS as required on the rural stretches, and cascade the Siemens Chargers and maybe even the Siemens Venture fleet to VIA long haul operations.

4) Around 2045 start planning for the deployment of hydrogen traction on the long haul fleet.

That's a timeline that lines up with actual technological development in the rail sector. VIA ain't going to move faster than the rest of the world.

 

[kEiThZ]

To me, the "smart" part of this is the most interesting. The recharging cycle may be more complex than just brake/recharge, throttle/discharge. And for now, the diesel may not disappear.

It's still very early for rail. Especially for long haul of any kind. And especially for freight.

They need to look at the spectrum of tech. The turbine + battery idea proposed earlier for example. Or hydrogen fuel cells + battery + OCS. Or these diesel-battery consists. Etc. There's a lot of different options. It will take time to study and test most of that. I don't foresee CP and CN coming to any definitive strategy before 2030. They may just have some interim plans to help cut down emissions, like these hybrid consists. And it helps them that the carbon tax hurts them less than road freight.

VIA has even less pressure than CN and CP. It's vastly more efficient than driving and flying per pax-km. And it's going to stay that way for at least two decades the way that automotive electrification is going in Canada. Moreover, simply using installed OCS in the GO RER network, would start making a dent on emissions. So VIA not only has less pressure, but an easier path than freight. And that's if the government cares at all. Which they don't. The only way I see actual electrification for VIA, is if some government decides to make a political show out of electrifying VIA and I can't even see the Liberals doing that, when they haven't gotten around to a firm commitment on HFR yet.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Here is some interesting context on requiring CN and CP to do climate reporting:

Canada’s railroads endorse climate proposals in rare support for shareholder activism - The Logic

Shareholders of CN and CP will vote on a U.K. hedge-fund billionaire’s climate proposal at their annual general meetings this month

thelogic.co

investors will vote on bold climate-change resolutions that could compel both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to publicize their carbon footprints, and give shareholders a say in how they can improve them

From when they were first proposed:

Large railway shareholder seeks CN, CP climate plans and strategies to cut emissions

One of the largest shareholders of Canada's two main railways is calling on them to present climate plans at their upcoming annual meetings and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[roger1818]

It's still very early for rail. Especially for long haul of any kind. And especially for freight.

Agreed. It is likely 5 or more before these battery slave locomotives come to market.

They need to look at the spectrum of tech. The turbine + battery idea proposed earlier for example. Or hydrogen fuel cells + battery + OCS. Or these diesel-battery consists. Etc. There's a lot of different options. It will take time to study and test most of that. I don't foresee CP and CN coming to any definitive strategy before 2030. They may just have some interim plans to help cut down emissions, like these hybrid consists. And it helps them that the carbon tax hurts them less than road freight.

Exactly. It will be very much an incremental approach.

VIA has even less pressure than CN and CP. It's vastly more efficient than driving and flying per pax-km. And it's going to stay that way for at least two decades the way that automotive electrification is going in Canada.

I would argue that transporting freight by rail shows significantly more efficiency gains over driving and flying than transporting passengers by rail, especially over long distances. We are only just starting to see electric transport trucks and they are only good for short haul. We are a long ways away from long haul electric trucks.

Moreover, simply using installed OCS in the GO RER network, would start making a dent on emissions. So VIA not only has less pressure, but an easier path than freight. And that's if the government cares at all. Which they don't. The only way I see actual electrification for VIA, is if some government decides to make a political show out of electrifying VIA and I can't even see the Liberals doing that, when they haven't gotten around to a firm commitment on HFR yet.

The electrification of GO will be key in VIA's plans to electrify the corridor. Even in the corridor, VIA owns a very small percentage of the ROW they use, so they need to rely on electrification by the ROW owner. Outside of the corridor, VIA is 100% dependant on CN and CP's plans for electrification.

 

[drum118]

With the ban in effect stopping people coming into Ontario from Quebec, what is VIA doing about it and are they going to comply with the requirement like roads???