(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.