VIA Rail

[SFO-YYZ]

CN/CP will NEVER go catenary due to the astronomical cost and decades to build out and batteries are a laughable idea for freight. Hell the sheer weight of the batteries would probably crush the tracks beneath them. They know that hydrogen is their only alternative and VIA could take advantage of that................if you can't afford something, let someone else pay for it.

Here we go again. Popcorn ready.

 

[roger1818]

Here we go again. Popcorn ready.

LOL. I don't want to get into this again, but I will say that many people on here are stuck with the mindset that it has to be catenary OR batteries OR hydrogen, when in reality it will likely be catenary AND batteries AND hydrogen, in some combination. In the end, the railways will use a combination that gives them the lowest overall cost.

Catenary has the lowest "fuel" cost but has very high capital and maintenance costs. As a result, it is great in high traffic areas that have easy access to the electrical grid.

Hydrogen is a very expensive fuel (it is currently much more expensive than gasoline or diesel, though some suggest that it could drop to be equal to them by 2025, but it will still be more expensive than electricity), but the capital and maintenance costs are low.

Batteries have a "fuel" cost that is only slightly higher than catenary (due to small losses from charging and discharging) but have a lower capital cost and very low maintenance costs. There is also the issue of range charging speed, and while you could swap out the batteries, that would significantly increase the capital cost, as you end up needing a lot of extra batteries.

The best options are to have batteries can supplement both hydrogen and catenary. Having batteries supplement hydrogen allows two key advantages:

1. Regenerative braking. Trains operating in mountainous regions often use dynamic breaks, where by they use the electric traction motor as a generator and dissipate the energy as heat in giant resistors on the roof of the locomotive. Rather than wasting all that energy as heat, why not store it in batteries to reduce the fuel needed later. This is not limited for use in mountainous regions, but is beneficial any time a train needs to slow down.
2. Increased peak power. Batteries are much better at providing large amounts of instantaneous power than hydrogen fuel cells. By having a battery large enough to meet the peak power needs, the size of the hydrogen fuel cell can be reduced and the power demand curve can be leveled out By telling a computer the route being used, it can calculate when the use the fuel cell to charge the battery and when to leave a hilltop reserve for regenerative braking.

Having batteries supplement catenary allows the railways to only put catenary where it is cheapest (near cities) and will get the most use by being shared with multiple routes. While under catenary power, the trains can charge their batteries and once they get beyond the catenary, they can switch to battery power. This only works for shorter routes serving busier hubs, but for them it removes any need to stop and wait for the train to recharge. Batteries also allow the train to ride out disruptions in power on the catenary.

In the end, I see the railways either buying bi-mode (or tri-mode) locomotives or, since many trains have multiple locomotives anyway, coupling locomotives with different power sources together and having them share power back and forth, depending on the situation.

 

[ssiguy2]

^^^^ Fine SFO-YYZ, so what's your alternative to decarbonising the VIA network? You sound like O'Toole............attacking the Liberal's climate change strategy but offering no alternative and just hoping the issue goes away by itself.

I agree with roger1818, there is no such thing as a 'one-size-fits-all' technology especially in a monstrous system like VIA. I too think VIA will employ a number of different technologies depending upon the route.

 

[roger1818]

^^^^ Fine, so what's your alternative to decarbonising the VIA network?

You sound like O'Toole............attacking the Liberal's climate change strategy but offering no alternative and just hoping the issue goes away by itself.

Which post are you referring to? I don't see how either of the last 2 posts (the only ones within 12 hours) attack the Liberal's climate change strategy.

 

[ManyQuestions]

Easy to think of VIA like the TTC, having to think of much of a technology framework for a bespoke product. But instead VIA is in a world that has produced 5000 GE evolution series locomotives in 20 years. VIA rail has 78 locomotives.

This thinking is the same problem that has lead to the high costs and the continuous delays associated with TTC rolling stock purchases. If I recall correctly, Bombardier was the only serious bidder the replacement of the CLRVs because the TTC required numerous alterations to car designs that the other major LRV manufactures did not want to get involved in. While a dependence on bespoke designs may have worked with a vertically integrated system of transportation operation and vehicle construction, it is clearly suboptimal for the current structure of outsourcing everything.



It is clear that there will be a push towards the elimination of diesel power in the coming years as part of a larger transition to renewable energy, but funds are no unlimited so this will need to be done in a manner that maximizes return investment. The construction and electrification of the HFR project is a clear start. So is the extension of high frequency electrified rail over other key corridors. These are the kinds of projects that will bring the biggest reductions in carbon emissions from intercity travel. The development of bespoke solutions for sub-daily rail service offers much lower value for money and therefore does not make sense as a prioritization. This does not mean that freight network electrification will never be feasible, just that at this moment it does not make sense to pour some of VIA's limited capital funding into such projects instead of the many other that will offer greater improvements in user experience while reducing net emissions in other ways. Emissions reductions from shifting travelers from cars or flights to electrified rail should not be ignored.

 

[crs1026]

The development of bespoke solutions for sub-daily rail service offers much lower value for money and therefore does not make sense as a prioritization. This does not mean that freight network electrification will never be feasible, just that at this moment it does not make sense to pour some of VIA's limited capital funding into such projects instead of the many other that will offer greater improvements in user experience while reducing net emissions in other ways. Emissions reductions from shifting travelers from cars or flights to electrified rail should not be ignored.

Indeed. The combined diesel fleets of BC, Toronto, and Montreal commuter operators far outweigh VIA's loco fleet. Amtrak and US commuter operators will have similar needs. VIA is the tail, not the dog.

As cited earlier in this thread, one saves more carbon by moving a trainload of auto drivers onto a diesel train than by electrifying said train.

The time to electrify is when HFR is transitioned to (or replaced by) HSR. Wires have a life cycle of several decades. Putting wires on HFR, and then tearing some or all of it down before it's at end of life is not a zero-carbon proposition.

I have a lot of confidence that as railway motive power transitions, VIA won't be left behind. Of all the carbon-reducing things we need to do in this country, replacing a modest number of diesel trains with electric wires is a lot of money for not that much carbon.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

Hell the sheer weight of the batteries would probably crush the tracks beneath them.

You know that railways specialize in moving heavy things, right? That's like, their main advantage. The idea of hydrogen being used for freight rail is in its own rail kind of ludicrous. There is no infrastructure for distributing it, fuel cells are very expensive, it costs substantially more than fossil fuels (zero ROI), and they still need batteries for regen braking and peak power to be competitive. Batteries are going to benefit from leverage of the scaling of the road vehicle fleet into BEVs, and rail can ride that cost curve. And there is actually an ROI on replacing diesel with battery electric, one that will only improve.

Hydrogen discussion should probably be kept in the hydrogen economy thread, as it is just fantasy speculation for Via at this point.

 

[roger1818]

You know that railways specialize in moving heavy things, right? That's like, their main advantage.

That is true. The UP Big Boy weighted 600 Tons, though modern freight locomotives only weigh around 210-220 tons. The question is how many tons of Lithium Ion batteries would a freight train need to travel a reasonable distance?

The idea of hydrogen being used for freight rail is in its own rail kind of ludicrous. There is no infrastructure for distributing it,

And there is no infrastructure for charging freight trains, so that point is moot.

fuel cells are very expensive,

As are Lithium-ion batteries (currently about $120 USD per kWh).

it costs substantially more than fossil fuels (zero ROI),

Though the article I previously linked to showed that it is projected to reach cost parody with gasoline by 2025.

and they still need batteries for regen braking and peak power to be competitive.

Much smaller batteries could be used for that purpose.

Batteries are going to benefit from leverage of the scaling of the road vehicle fleet into BEVs, and rail can ride that cost curve. And there is actually an ROI on replacing diesel with battery electric, one that will only improve.

The biggest barrier to cost reduction of batteries is the availability of raw materials. Installing massive batteries in freight locomotives will increase demand for those materials and drive the price up.

Hydrogen discussion should probably be kept in the hydrogen economy thread, as it is just fantasy speculation for Via at this point.

As is the discussion of using batteries for freight trains.

 

[jamincan]

Think about it...........the Tesla SUVs are ILLEGAL on the Brooklyn Bridge because they weigh more than the bridge allows.

This isn't actually quite true. The weight limit of the Brooklyn Bridge is 6000 lbs and the curb weight of a Model X is 5421 lbs. The GVWR does exceed 6000 lbs, but that is true for many other large SUVs and all pickup trucks.

 

[robmausser]

Until electrification of CN happens due to government c02 mandate (because lets be honest it won't happen until that) I'm surprised that the Bombardier Jet Train idea isn't reinvestigated now that we have better battery technology.

The issue with Jet turbines is that they have to run at high RPMs, which is only efficient when you are moving fast. But they are very efficient at high speeds. When a train is idling, or moving slowly, you're burning a whole lot of fuel for nothing.

A hybrid battery solution would solve most of these issues. When the train is moving slowly/idle, shut the jet engine off completely and run everything on battery power. When the train goes above a speed that is ideal for jet power, turn the turbine on and also recharge the batteries at the same time.

A jet engine also weighs 1/10th the weight of a diesel engine of the same power. So the extra weight of batteries would be negligible.

JetTrain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kEiThZ]

Fine SFO-YYZ, so what's your alternative to decarbonising the VIA network?

Don't?

There's no mandate that says VIA's network has to be decarbonized. Heck, as it stands our government hasn't even legislated a ban on new ICE vehicle sales. They just have some vague 2040 target for a new ICEV ban. The Conservatives have made no commitment in their plans beyond a 30% of ICEV as ZEV by 2030. But they also cut the carbon price by 60% in their plan. And they are proposing a weaker clean fuels standard than the Liberals today.

So it's just not an issue. Economics, notably the carbon tax, will drive this. And the carbon tax is going to hurt driving and flying far more than trains a long time to come. Heck, even an EV is still barely competitive with a diesel train when you consider per passenger fuel costs. And once you toss in the cost of the car, insurance, parking, etc. it's not competitive. That's why, VIA doesn't need to even consider electrifying any of its fleet till at least 2035.

Realistically, VIA will probably deploy some combination of overhead catenary and battery to electrify the Corridor in the 2030s, once GO is done electrifying corridors that VIA uses. And they'll probably work with CN and CP for biofuels or hydrogen elsewhere.

Ottawa wants to meet net zero by 2050 and that will require a complete decarbonising of our transportation system.

Rail is ~1% of national emissions, with transport as a whole making up ~30% of national emissions. There are far, far bigger fish to fry on this front than worrying about a tiny fraction of that 1% itself. Rail is so efficient that moving passengers from cars and airplanes to diesel trains would be a legitimate emissions reduction strategy.

 

[TerryJohnson]

Modal shift by any means possible is the low hanging fruit of climate policy. Getting people out of cars and planes on to trains, and long-haul freight off the highways on to trains. We could halve Canada's transportation emissions using diesel trains.
The electrification of trains is an incremental bonus on top of that unless we need it to add the capacity and throughput to achieve modal shift.

Industrial emitters will follow the pricing incentives as much as they can, but many gains there are contingent on research and commercialization of new technologies. Home heating is hard to push further because of the long installed life of recently-upgraded high-efficiency gas furnaces and the high price of electricity. Thus transportation is where public policy action, including a fair rail of passengers act and road pricing, can actually make a big difference.

 

[Darwinkgo]

road pricing

The carbon tax is effectively doing that. Even if it doesn't make road pricing advocates happy.

Reality is every path is technology dependent, involves choices with long lived capital stock and large hurdle prices. We don't need government dictating our choices if the carbon price is high enough.

 

[ssiguy2]

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

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. Ditto for the airlines. If we want a zero emissions economy then it has to apply to all sector and not just Ottawa deciding who should have to follow the rules and who shouldn't. Albertans will certainly have something to say about that.

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. The rest of the planet is going green and they are not going to stop doing that just to help little VIA. This is to say nothing of the fact that they also won't have any riders as people completely shun the system due to it being the only transportation system in the country that still belches out emissions.

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. What's probably worse than the actual price tag is that VIA has absolutely no policy or plans on how they are going to do it but do it they must. This is not a HSR/HFR analogy as those two things can be put off until the end of time but transferring it's entire fleet and the needed infrastructure to support it has a {at maximum} 30 year time table and that's for the entire VIA route system.

 

[Bordercollie]

I don't imagine the battery weight presents any problems as far as the rails themselves are concerned, inasmuch as you could just attach modular battery (or hydrogen) cars, like in the age of steam. I'm just thinking that they're probably looking at the build out of catenary between Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg on the main lines. Maybe in northern Ontario too. My apologies to the other folks for extending this tangent.

You could have battery cars which would recharge from regenerative breaking. It's the equivalent to a DPU on a train, and this way you could connect them to a locomotive or in the back of the train and recharge the batteries.

It would be easier than having small batteries on the freight cars.