kEiThZ
Superstar
I would be so happy if our long haul fleet offered something like this:
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
roger1818
Senior Member
Would I like to see this happen? Yes.
Do I think that any government would pay CA$1.5B to replace the part of VIA's fleet that typically looses huge amounts of money each year? No.
I hope to be proven wrong, but I suspect they would like to cancel the long distance services, but know that doing so would be political suicide, so it is easer to just underfund them.
Frank_Lee
Active Member
I don't know why you think hydrogen is so unlikely to play a significant role? There are already commercially viable hydrogen locomotives running commuter routes in multiple countries. While things are further back for freight, I think you overestimate the obstacles and underestimate private sector ingenuity.
Full disclosure: I own shares in Ballard Power, Cummins, GM, and Toyota.
(To everyone else, my apologies for extending this discussion)
kEiThZ
Superstar
Fair point. And maybe the investment only comes if there's substantial political pressure. Maybe, we'll be lucky and post Siemens EIS, we'll see riders asking why they have to put up with old, unreliable and less functional trains.
Personally, I don't think $1.5B over a 4-5 yr procurement period is a huge lift. And there may well be political opportunity in selling the upgrade as investment in these regions. Particularly in the Maritimes.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Hydrogen is fine for commuter routes, because refuelling is done at fixed points close to urban centres, which can easily be connected to hydrogen supply. And all of that is usually managed by the same authority which owns and/or operates the network.
This is all very different and more challenging with long haul. As others have said, ultimately, VIA long haul will be following the lead of the freight companies. They own the infrastructure. And they will determine where and what fuel will be available. But that's a much more distant problem than the pressing need to recapitalize the long haul fleet.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If Ottawa and VIA decide to go the logical route for electrification {which admittedly is doubtful} then they can use battery trains and not just standard catenary ones. This would save a lot of time and money on the Windsor/Quebec Corridor.
Even with today's basic technology, trains can now run up to 100km using purely battery power in real world conditions. With overhead charging at station stops and sections of catenary to both run the train and recharge the batteries, VIA could already get away with only putting up half the catenary to get to Ottawa and if GO puts up catenary to Burlington, it could almost already get to London catenary-free. Needless to say, these distance times will increase dramatically before VIA even starts working on HFR and the weight and size of the batteries will also shrink along with recharging times.
This would save VIA {aka Ottawa} billions and those saved billions would build a hell of a lot of new track and grade separations.
Even with today's basic technology, trains can now run up to 100km using purely battery power in real world conditions. With overhead charging at station stops and sections of catenary to both run the train and recharge the batteries, VIA could already get away with only putting up half the catenary to get to Ottawa and if GO puts up catenary to Burlington, it could almost already get to London catenary-free. Needless to say, these distance times will increase dramatically before VIA even starts working on HFR and the weight and size of the batteries will also shrink along with recharging times.
This would save VIA {aka Ottawa} billions and those saved billions would build a hell of a lot of new track and grade separations.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
If it was "fleets" where all the carbon emissions were registered I would agree, but this is under "facilities" where most of their carbon is. I agree completely that the cost of ships moving around, CF18s blasting their afterburners, the cost of shipping supplies all over the world with an often antiquated fleet would have a high carbon footprint... but somehow that is all dwarfed by National Defence Facilities. It seems like there are issues with the data. I downloaded the details and there are marine fleet energy costs for Transport Canada (the highest single emission source for fleets), and a much smaller marine fleet energy cost for Parks Canada, but no marine costs for National Defence which obviously makes no sense. Transport Canada and National Research Council both have aircraft energy costs, but not National Defence. Fisheries and Oceans has no marine costs but runs the Coast Guard. Clearly the data has issues.
crs1026
Superstar
^There are over 100 Armouries in Canada, a great many dating back to the first World War and beyond. And then there are all the military bases proper, many having large buildings that house and service airplanes and equipment..... not the sort of structures that will earn a LEED certification. I can well imagine that the energy consumption of military infrastructure is ginormous. I doubt our military has ever been given much funding to improve the situation, and it may simply not be possible in many cases. They do have a strategy document, however.
- Paul
- Paul
lenaitch
Senior Member
^ And, as Keitz mentioned, all the arctic sites that run on diesel.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I believe the actual fuel consumption of combat vehicles is not in those numbers. These are numbers for fixed infrastructure and administrative fleets. Everybody thinks of tanks and ships. But DND also has a massive fleet of regular pickup trucks, town cars, buses, etc. And a lot of just plain old buildings that were designed in an era when insulation and workmanship was expensive and fuel was cheap. Like the rest of government, DND pushes for LEED Gold (or equivalent) for all new buildings. New hangars when we get them are designed much better. Segmented bays means less energy loss when you open the giant doors.
But this is off topic. Suffice to say that cutting VIA's emissions isn't high on the list, and VIA would literally cut the majority of its emissions just by electrifying Corridor services. The handful of long haul trains are way down the list.
But this is off topic. Suffice to say that cutting VIA's emissions isn't high on the list, and VIA would literally cut the majority of its emissions just by electrifying Corridor services. The handful of long haul trains are way down the list.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think an interesting approach might be to look at what Amtrak is going. What are their plans to replace the long haul sleeper fleet?
Bordercollie
Senior Member
There will likely be a bid to replace the rolling stock with new Superliners, and they could order more Viewliner Sleepers.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
The problem is that if the train needs to stop to for an emergency or another reason and the battery is depleted before it gets to the station to charge? You would still need a genset on board incase the train ran out of juice before reaching the next charging point. It would be much smaller than the current prime motors used today but it would be likely the size of the HEP generators used in the F40 Fleet (Or smaller since those are already 10 years old).
roger1818
Senior Member
After loosing a lawsuit filed by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities about the Renaissance cars not being accessible to wheelchair users, VIA will be a be extra careful about making sure any cars they purchase are fully accessible. I am not sure that either the Superliner or the Viewliner cars meet modern accessibility standards. I am not an expert on this though.
How is this any different from a train running out of diesel fuel? Currently they don't have a backup fuel in case they run out of diesel. The key is having plenty of reserve so that you won't run out of fuel. People on here scoffed at my suggestion that double the rated range for the distance you are traveling on battery is required, but you don't want to run out of power should there be a significant delay. Don't forget, conventional trains use HEP to power their HVAC systems.
Does anyone know how much fuel reserve VIA plans on having in their locomotives over the minimum they need? Also, I am curious, for a "nominal" 5 car train, what percentage of a locomotive's energy goes to both providing HEP on a cold winter's day and to keep the air brakes charged (the two most critical systems).
On an side note, I discovered that the Siemens Charger's dynamic breaking system has regenerative capabilities to divert power generated away from the resistor grids to the HEP inverter and other auxiliary needs, thus saving fuel.
EDIT: Does anyone know if the Siemens Venture trainsets VIA will be receiving have heat pumps to save energy when heating? The only article I could find says an order of Viaggio coaches (which the Venture cars are based off of) made by the AUSTRIAN Federal Railways (ÖBB) will include heat pumps.
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I dont think you understand the scale.
Lets say the train has a range of 50KM's on battery and before it can get to the station to charge what would happen then?
That's different from a 2000km range and then being able to get diesel delivered to you almost anywhere there is road access. The buffer range is not even close to that of a battery train, and the battery train you need to get another train to tow it to the station to charge.