Welcome Guest!
WIn order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GO Transit
(06-15-2017, 03:09 PM)KevinL Wrote: Ontario also has the benefit of an electrical surplus - and hydrolysis can be done whenever that surplus is greatest and the cost cheapest, and hydrogen stockpiled for later use. I have a good feeling about this approach.

This seems like a good idea in theory. I wonder how it plays out in the real world.
Reply
I like Kevin's points! Producing hydrogen in the evening when electricity is cheaper is brilliant. That's the same idea as those reservoir pumping stations, like the one near Niagara Fals.

Tom, even if the efficiency between Diesel and Fuel Cell were the same, electricity can be made cleanly. So it's automatically better.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
Ugh more distractions that will complicate and slow down the TPAP process. If we can stop wasting time/energy/money on flashy but unreliable tech like hydrogen, and focus on getting electrification done right so we can start riding frequent RER trains as quickly as possible that'd be great thanks Dodgy

I can rant on and on about it but will instead let people smarter than me speak:

https://seanmarshall.ca/2017/06/15/provi...y-hot-air/

Quote:My fear is that this is yet another distraction from transportation needs in the here and now. Further, I worry that the “fuel cell technology symposium” will not only distract from the GO RER project, it will give credence to NIMBYs opposing electrification – be it the construction of gantries and overhead wires, or those worried about the effects of electromagnetism.

I have more faith in building sound, tested and true, transit systems than pursuing the newest technology there is. Electric trains have been around for over 100 years. Electric multiple unit regional rail as we know it is used in scores of cities worldwide, including Montreal, New York, and Philadelphia. Electric multiple unit trains (EMUs), which can be purchased from at least a half-dozen firms, are reliable, quick, and suitable for GO RER.

The provincial government has an unfortunate history of promoting new technologies that end either in failure — the 1970s-era GO-ALRT plans, for example, or the promotion of Ontario-made compressed natural gas (CNG) buses to replace electric trolley buses in Toronto and Hamilton in the early 1990s. (Those buses were either scrapped early, or converted to conventional diesel propulsion.) The Scarborough RT, originally planned as the nucleus of a conventional light rail network, was replaced by a propitiatory linear induction system heavily promoted by the province.

The idea of hydrogen-powered trains is attractive: they have zero at-source emissions; the Alstom train is train is exceptionally quiet, and only emits steam and condensed water. Electrification requires overhead gantries and wires, along with substations at regular intervals; hydrogen-powered trains require none of these expenses. What isn’t clear is whether hydrogen powered trains offer the other advantages of electric train operation, namely quick acceleration and deceleration needed for a frequent-stop regional rail service.

I want GO RER to be built, and I want it to be built right. I just fear that the attention given to an emerging technology will be yet another distraction, especially going into an election year.

P.S. A quick research shows that the McGuinty government proposed Full Cell GO trains back in 2007, and (as we now know) it went nowhere: https://stevemunro.ca/2007/09/15/when-wi...r-hot-air/


Quote:Of course, in the best tradition of Ontario transit projects, we could waste billions on a scheme that is an alleged technology leap and is greener than green.  Spending money on facilities and services we actually need has always been a distant second consideration for transit planning in these parts.
Reply
Yes, yes, yes ... and yet if we can get fuel-cell trains instead of dreaming about catenaries, it's a big win. I'm guessing that GO operates on maybe 500 km worth of track. To electrify half of that, in two directions, would likely cost something close to $1B, assuming not many bridges or tunnels need to be reworked. Fuel cell locomotives would be far cheaper than that (a catenary system would require new locomotives as well).

Oh yes: any electric locomotive, whether catenary, battery or fuel cell, would benefit from the electric motors' huge torque and low RPMs to improve acceleration.
Reply
Aren't diesel locomotives actually driven by electric motors too? I always thought the main benefit came when you had EMUs.
Reply
(06-15-2017, 09:43 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yes, yes, yes ... and yet if we can get fuel-cell trains instead of dreaming about catenaries, it's a big win.  I'm guessing that GO operates on maybe 500 km worth of track.  To electrify half of that, in two directions, would likely cost something close to $1B, assuming not many bridges or tunnels need to be reworked.  Fuel cell locomotives would be far cheaper than that (a catenary system would require new locomotives as well).
So how long are we going to wait for fuel cell to become viable, while our existing diesel trains continue to spew pollution and our highways continues to be congested? Ontario wants to have 15-minute RER service by 2025. We need tangible and trusted solutions, and fast. Electric rail w/ catenary has been tried and tested for more than a century; fuel cell trains are not even ready for commercial service yet.

Not every GO line will be electrified. And yes full cell will be an improvement over diesel, but then we also have dual-mode trains (used in New Jersey and Montréal), as well as hybrid-electric and battery-electric trains (in-service testing by East Japan Railway), which are far more advanced in terms of development stage than fuel cell. If we're going to debate technology for the non-electrified lines, that's fine, but I'd like to see the fuel cell question taken out of this electrification TPAP. It's nothing but a waste of time. 

Bridges and tunnels will be reworked anyway as part of the double-tracking. I'd rather see good money spend on electrification rather than wasted on flashy hydrogen trains and fuelling facilities that may just end up being too costly to run (see: how Whistler got rid of its hydrogen buses).

(06-15-2017, 09:43 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Oh yes: any electric locomotive, whether catenary, battery or fuel cell, would benefit from the electric motors' huge torque and low RPMs to improve acceleration.
Thank you for answering this question! Was wondering this myself.
Reply
I'd like to see the core of the network (LW to Aldershot, LE to Oshawa, KT to Bramalea, maybe BA to Maple and ST to Markham) fully electrified, and then some kind of dual-electric tech (whether diesel, hydrogen, or something else) on the less-dense branches. All-electric trains can travel the core, and the dual units can be powered by overhead in the core and power themselves beyond.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
Assuming the current high speed proposal actually gets built, wouldn't the Kitchener Line be electric all the way? Is this being considered in the EA for putting wires up for GO?
Reply
(06-15-2017, 10:36 PM)jamincan Wrote: Aren't diesel locomotives actually driven by electric motors too? I always thought the main benefit came when you had EMUs.

Yes! Reason being it's easier to stick electric motors in the bogies and control them electronically than other methods of transmission (gearboxes, drive shafts, etc.). So in a Diesel locomotive, the engine drives a generator, which makes electricity. The electricity is controlled via electronics to power the traction motors.

Those big dump trucks you see in open pit mines work the same way. It's easier to stick 4 torque hubs with the motors on each wheel than it would be to make some kind of absolutely massive mechanical transmission.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(06-15-2017, 10:36 PM)jamincan Wrote: Aren't diesel locomotives actually driven by electric motors too? I always thought the main benefit came when you had EMUs.

Yes, this is the case, diesel locomotives are already electric, so what is driving the wheels is the same.

You can also do DMUs for a similar benefit to EMUs.

A perusal of wikipedia would seem to suggest one of the benefits of the overhead catenary system is actually an increase in power over what is feasible with diesel.  Also, there is substantially less weight not having to haul around a diesel engine and a generator, but that's obviously lost on dual mode trains.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links