cplchanb
Senior Member
https://rollingstockworld.com/passe...ment-on-hold-amid-loss-of-government-support/
looks like the hydrogen train is on life support...
looks like the hydrogen train is on life support...
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
Encouraging that there are signs that after enough de-scoping, MX may actually be able to break out of their analysis paralysis.
Reece suggests raising the tracks at Pearson to enable the BEMUs to replace UP Express. Why not raise the platforms? Isn't that what MX has been protecting for?
Reece suggests raising the tracks at Pearson to enable the BEMUs to replace UP Express. Why not raise the platforms? Isn't that what MX has been protecting for?
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Well thank God! The use of battery trains are going to save GO a fortune in electrification costs and years of construction time. It's good to now that ML finally decided to listen to me.
How they also plan to implement the battery train recharging system is also superior. It is always better to have 10km here and 10km there of catenary than having every station have a overhead recharge. As frequency increases and they eventually move over , at least for the RER portion, to BEMU and more level boarding, the less time the trains will dwell at each station. By the time the train stops and lifts it's catenary to recharge, the train is already set to move on. There is actually little time for the train to recharge at each station in a meaningful way. Conversely, having, for example, a 10km catenary system on the Lakeshore East and then Lakeshore West means it cannot only recharge during that time but is also not draining the battery for that total 20km. Ideally there should only be one recharging station on each line and that is at terminus stations.
How they also plan to implement the battery train recharging system is also superior. It is always better to have 10km here and 10km there of catenary than having every station have a overhead recharge. As frequency increases and they eventually move over , at least for the RER portion, to BEMU and more level boarding, the less time the trains will dwell at each station. By the time the train stops and lifts it's catenary to recharge, the train is already set to move on. There is actually little time for the train to recharge at each station in a meaningful way. Conversely, having, for example, a 10km catenary system on the Lakeshore East and then Lakeshore West means it cannot only recharge during that time but is also not draining the battery for that total 20km. Ideally there should only be one recharging station on each line and that is at terminus stations.
smallspy
Senior Member
The platforms for the UPX are all 48" above the top of rail - also known as high-level platforms. GO platforms are considerably lower, only about 5" to 10" above the top of rail.
They are too high for BiLevels, but are the right height to have level boarding for most other rolling stock used in North America.
Dan
nfitz
Superstar
They should be more worried about the platform length than the platform height.
Though surely it's moot with the whole thing slated for redevelopment - they can build what they want when the Skywalk get's knocked down.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but when the elevated portions of the UPX went up, didn't they install the place for the catenary to be easily put up? If that is so then a BEMU would be very easy to start up as it could recharge during the elevated section and at Pearson. This would negate having to put up a separate recharging at Union and greatly reduce the amount of charging time needed at Pearson which would allow higher frequencies.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
It's worth noting that there's a big difference between including a small battery on an EMU to cover short unelectrified stretches like the USRC and yards, and using batteries to avoid electrifying railways.So @ssiguy2 might be happy.
Reece Martin suggests that the USRC might not be electrified. Saving money from the train shed but also some bridges in the core. Battery trains.
This is his analysis of the recent Metrolinx board documents on Go Expansion.
Metrolinx Sheds Light on GO Corridor Transformations | UrbanToronto
Metrolinx has long been criticized for its opaqueness, particularly as it relates to plans around improvements to GO transit rail services, but as part of a recent series of updates, Metrolinx has released what may be the clearest outline of its plans for the core frequent GO services, and how...urbantoronto.ca
EMU with small battery
- Only slightly heavier than normal EMU, with similar acceleration and similar energy consumption
- Only slightly more expensive to buy
- Mostly powered directly under wires (very efficient) or via slow charging under wires (somewhat efficient)
EMU that's mostly battery powered
- Very heavy, accelerates slowly, requires a lot of energy to accelerate
- Very expensive to buy
- Mostly powered by fast charging (very inefficient) or overnight slow charging (somewhat efficient)
In my opinion, including a small battery for short-distance off-wire movement makes a lot of sense, since it allows major cost savings by eliminating the need to fully electrify complex trackwork such as in yards and in the USRC, while still maintaining the performance of a normal EMU. Even some existing "EMU"s such as the British Rail Class 801 have small diesel generators to let them move around off-wire. Nowadays with our lighter and more affordable batteries that function could be just as easily provided by a small battery pack.
Last edited:
cplchanb
Senior Member
The thing that riles me the most is the constant flip flopping and the endless talking/studies.
Just pick something and move on with it!
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Another BEMU update Dec 3/25............ Slovakia has just ordered 32 Skoda 2-car BEMU trains. Each train has a seated capacity of 157. The first 16 2-car trains will arrive Fall 2026.
As far as performance, there is no two ways around it, EMUs are better. They have faster exceleration than BEMUs which have faster acceleration than DEMU. Both EMU & BEMU enjoy much quieter Inside and out} and smother rides than DEMUs and produce no emissions. The reason for BEMUs being slower accelerating than EMU is simple physics........they weigh more due to the batteries. Hence the more catenary and/or the shorter the route, the faster their acceleration due to needing fewer batteries. As batteries develop and become faster charging, can cover longer distances, and are smaller and lighter, the less the advantage EMU has over BEMU.
BEMUs are more expensive to buy than EMU and marginally more expensive to operate but this in negated by not having to put up massive and expensive catenary systems initially and not having to maintain, repair and replace catenary wires. Both BEMU and DEMU are more reliable in inclement weather due to not having to worry about a power outage locally effecting the catenary power supply or a major outage regionwide.
As far as performance, there is no two ways around it, EMUs are better. They have faster exceleration than BEMUs which have faster acceleration than DEMU. Both EMU & BEMU enjoy much quieter Inside and out} and smother rides than DEMUs and produce no emissions. The reason for BEMUs being slower accelerating than EMU is simple physics........they weigh more due to the batteries. Hence the more catenary and/or the shorter the route, the faster their acceleration due to needing fewer batteries. As batteries develop and become faster charging, can cover longer distances, and are smaller and lighter, the less the advantage EMU has over BEMU.
BEMUs are more expensive to buy than EMU and marginally more expensive to operate but this in negated by not having to put up massive and expensive catenary systems initially and not having to maintain, repair and replace catenary wires. Both BEMU and DEMU are more reliable in inclement weather due to not having to worry about a power outage locally effecting the catenary power supply or a major outage regionwide.
Last edited:
JJTheJetPln
Active Member
But wait, there's more!
We need to study the studies and study the results and create more studies for the results so we can study things and blow a 20 year lead on electrification! .....Ugh.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I’d much rather had 10 more years of studying (and consultations!) for the REM than having endless discussions now about whether it could possibly be justified to pay an extra $10+ billion to dig a second Mont-Royal tunnel, just because some arrogant CDPQi executives (honorary mention to Jean-Marc Abaud: “You don’t have a project, come back when you have a project!”) refused to acknowledge the possibility that VIA’s HFR project could ever proceed past the Studies stage (let alone: become a project of their own, as VIA had already pitched back then)…
Last edited:
JJTheJetPln
Active Member
Yeah. I think the thing that's annoying about this is these studies have the ability to show results, but then we end up in a triangle where we study something, we get results, and then the results require more studies. It just feels like a never-ending cycle.
I do agree with having more studies, but it's just a matter of how many more studies we have before something becomes viable, and whether or not there will be new information from external sources that will *also* need to be studied too. With the pace that we're going with these studies, it just seems like they'll be retaining an entire encyclopedia or library of information with not much to show for it other than "we know all this, but not what to do with it."