VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Electrification doesn’t necessarily mean catenary. It could also be batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Most likely VIA will use a combination of all 3, depending on the route.

As for the freight railways, there is little incentive for them to electrify yet. They are currently 4 times more fuel (and thus carbon) efficient than trucks and it will likely be over a decade before long haul trucks will electrify (short haul will be sooner, but they aren’t in competition with the railways). Once long haul trucks start to electrify, the railways will need to follow suit and then VIA can let them influence their choice of technology.

 

[crs1026]

Electrification doesn’t necessarily mean catenary. It could also be batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Most likely VIA will use a combination of all 3, depending on the route.

As for the freight railways, there is little incentive for them to electrify yet. They are currently 4 times more fuel (and thus carbon) efficient than trucks and it will likely be over a decade before long haul trucks will electrify (short haul will be sooner, but they aren’t in competition with the railways). Once long haul trucks start to electrify, the railways will need to follow suit and then VIA can let them influence their choice of technology.

Yes. It’s one thing to have a sense of urgency about curtailing carbon, but it’s another to have developed and tested alternatives to the point where one has enough data to select a specific replacement and know it makes the most economic sense.

The sheer amount of energy consumed by the freight railways means that whatever mode they select, the change will be a big-ticket item. Even a small per-unit price differential between, say, hydrogen and battery, will be material when multiplied across the millions of horsepower expended. So I can see their thinking long and hard, and insisting on extensive and fully validated data before they make a choice. I would be very suspicious of anyone claiming there is an obvious answer....the data just isn’t there yet.

VIA is clearly the tail and not the dog in this.It will have to react in pace with the freight railways.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

It seems to me that batteries and hydrogen will always perform poorly compared to catenary because of the weight penalty - they need to carry their fuel with them while trains powered by wires don't. So even with batteries getting lighter and cheaper over time, my guess is that for low traffic routes we could see hydrogen or batteries but for high demand lines catenary will always be preferred.

Cars are another story. They need to carry their "fuel" with them so batteries make a lot more sense.

 

[roger1818]

while cascading the Siemens diesel locomotives to other parts of the network.

While VIA could certainly use some of the Chargers elsewhere on the network, according to Wikipedia, VIA is buying the VIA is buying the SCB-40 variant for intercity rail service not the ALC-42 variant for long haul rail service (and thus has a larger diesel fuel tank). I am not sure how easy it would be to convert an SCB-40 to an ALC-42, but the smaller tank could make it harder to use on long distance routes.

North America’s Class I railroads are starting to run out of excuses why electrification would undermine their operational efficiency:

I think you are missing the point. The railways have been gradually increasing the clearance on their ROWs over the years. Since most of the ROW has blue sky overhead, they only need to fix the specific places where the clearance doesn't meet their new desired specification (tunnels, underpasses, sheds, etc). With a catenary overhead, they would need to raise it along the entire line, not just those few limiting places. Maybe they have reached the maximum clearance they will ever want, but maybe not. We don't know what the future holds. When the railways were first built, they didn't know that double stacks and auto racks would become a thing. This is yet another reason why having separate freight and passenger ROWs along the corridor is a good thing.

Interestingly, GE and BNSF have been working together to produce a battery-powered locomotive that will work in conjunction with a diesel-electric locomotive. I gather the two locomotives share power back and forth, with the diesel-electric locomotive giving power (either from the diesel generator or the wheels) to charge the battery when there is extra power available, and the battery locomotive can give extra power to the diesel-electric locomotive when accelerating or climbing a hill. They claim that adding one battery-powered locomotive to a consist can result in up to 15% fuel savings. If the railways switched to hydrogen, this locomotive would still be useful (if not even more useful) for balancing out the power requirements (fuel cells aren't as good as batteries with huge surges in power demand).

There is no reason why a passenger version of this locomotive couldn't be built for long distance passenger trains (which typically have multiple locomotives anyway). Obviously VIA wouldn't be have enough buying power to influence this, but if Amtrak ordered some, VIA could piggyback on the order.

 

[roger1818]

It seems to me that batteries and hydrogen will always perform poorly compared to catenary because of the weight penalty - they need to carry their fuel with them while trains powered by wires don't. So even with batteries getting lighter and cheaper over time, my guess is that for low traffic routes we could see hydrogen or batteries but for high demand lines catenary will always be preferred.

Cars are another story. They need to carry their "fuel" with them so batteries make a lot more sense.

We are getting off topic again, but weight isn't the evil thing to trains that it is for cars and trucks (within reason). Locomotives need to be heavy, to gain enough traction, to haul the cars behind it. An electric locomotive will have an appropriate amount of weight added to it to allow it to haul the maximum load the locomotive is designed for. This could be in the form of ballast, but is usually designed into the locomotive within its structure instead. A battery-powered locomotive will be designed to use the weight of the batteries to increase traction. EMUs get around this by putting the traction motors in the cars, so it uses the entire train's weight as ballast. I have never heard of an EMU freight train though.

 

[micheal_can]

We are getting off topic again, but weight isn't the evil thing to trains that it is for cars and trucks (within reason). Locomotives need to be heavy, to gain enough traction, to haul the cars behind it. An electric locomotive will have an appropriate amount of weight added to it to allow it to haul the maximum load the locomotive is designed for. This could be in the form of ballast, but is usually designed into the locomotive within its structure instead. A battery-powered locomotive will be designed to use the weight of the batteries to increase traction. EMUs get around this by putting the traction motors in the cars, so it uses the entire train's weight as ballast. I have never heard of an EMU freight train though.

Europe and Asia has them.

 

[kEiThZ]

The biggest challenge for VIA over the next 30 years will not be the introduction of HFR as that's really not much of an accomplishment but rather the financial and logistical challenges of de-carbonising the entire network.

Not even close.

1) There's no mandate to decarbonize rail in Canada. This is entirely dependent on technology and economics.

2) VIA doesn't control most of its track. So it can't make policies on decarbonization until the track owners do.

3) With the vast majority of passenger miles being generated in the Corridor, realistically, this is the only portion that will matter for a while. Maybe if Calgary-Edmonton gets built....

4) Time is on VIA's side. Technology is only getting better and cheaper. And the carbon tax is only going to make driving and flying more expensive. VIA can wait for a more appropriate tipping point. Be that in 10, 20 or 30 years.

 

[afransen]

It seems to me that batteries and hydrogen will always perform poorly compared to catenary because of the weight penalty - they need to carry their fuel with them while trains powered by wires don't. So even with batteries getting lighter and cheaper over time, my guess is that for low traffic routes we could see hydrogen or batteries but for high demand lines catenary will always be preferred.

Cars are another story. They need to carry their "fuel" with them so batteries make a lot more sense.

Hydrogen is high opex, batteries are high capex. So with sufficient traffic on a corridor, catenary makes sense to achieve opex savings or capex savings.

 

[crs1026]

From Gof C data

Putting freight and (especially) passengers on diesel rail is far more carbon-reducing than looking for carbon reductions from the trains themselves.... but only for now.

The economics that may drive trains away from diesel may be regeneration rather than carbon tax, even. I won't digress further. The impact on VIA is, it's just another aspect of being a tenant on the freight railways. And more broadly, one would expect that passenger motive power technology would be an offshoot of whatever freight technology is pursued.... because the economics will be driven by the much larger market for freight locomotives.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Europe and Asia has them.

EMU freight trains? I have never seen such a beast. Freight trains with an electric locomotive sure, but not freight trains without a locomotive but instead each car has an electric motor. Can you provide a picture?

 

[roger1818]

Hydrogen is high opex, batteries are high capex. So with sufficient traffic on a corridor, catenary makes sense to achieve opex savings or capex savings.

Catenary is also high capex per km where as battery is high capex per locomotive, so the cutoff between the two depends on the distance travelled and frequency of service.

 

[Urban Sky]

EMU freight trains? I have never seen such a beast. Freight trains with an electric locomotive sure, but not freight trains without a locomotive but instead each car has an electric motor. Can you provide a picture?

I suspect he means multiple-locomotives, like this one on the Narvik-Lulea line in Sweden/Norway I mentioned recently:

Source: David Gubler via Wikimedia

The only freight multiple unit I’m aware of is the ill-fated “CargoSprinter” DMU:

Source: German federal ministry for Transportation and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI)

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Since freight EMU was mentioned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD2

Apparantly able to haul up to 7,000 t and operate down to -40C. Based on Alstom Prima locomotives.

 

[Urban Sky]

Since freight EMU was mentioned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD2

View attachment 295359

Apparantly able to haul up to 7,000 t and operate down to -40C. Based on Alstom Prima locomotives.

Exactly, electrical multiple-unit freight locomotives exist in countries like Sweden, Russia and China, electrical multiple-unit freight trains (i.e. what @roger1818 referred to with “EMU freight trains”) probably only in Micheal’s unconstrained imagination...

 

[afransen]

Catenary is also high capex per km where as battery is high capex per locomotive, so the cutoff between the two depends on the distance travelled and frequency of service.

Battery is high capex per tonne-mile.