News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

Having trouble following your logic there. Can you rephrase that? Let me project a parallel logic, no matter the direction of your comment:

Easy - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

^ In principle it never hurts to study a new technology or to test it, the concern is that it will be used to divert attention from the practical electrification, as well as provide ammunition to NUMBYs to delay electification through their areas until the said studies are completed.

We don't really need the principle - we have a long history of trying to develop or adopting transit technologies that ended up being orphans, provided poor performance or worse:

Maglev
ICTS
Hybrid buses

Why should we even attempt to pick this one up for its' uncertain promise? We're wasting time and money.

AoD
 
Last edited:
^ In principle it never hurts to study a new technology or to test it, the concern is that it will be used to divert attention from the practical electrification, as well as provide ammunition to NUMBYs to delay electification through their areas until the said studies are completed.

Exactly. @ShonTron said it best...

Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 9.54.55 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 9.55.06 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 9.55.06 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 9.55.06 PM.png
    162.6 KB · Views: 408
  • Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 9.54.55 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 9.54.55 PM.png
    56.6 KB · Views: 437
This also makes it easier for the PCs, if elected in 2018, to cancel as much of RER as possible as a fantastical boondoggle. It'll be easy for them to conflate RER as a whole with the research into Hydrogen trains, and say that since investing all of this time and money into an untested, unproven system is a bad idea, they should just cancel the whole thing, not just fall back to the existing electrification plan. Electrification in its normal form is tried, tested, and prove, and its timeline and cost of implementation can be estimated FAR more accurately than Hydrogen. If the liberals had been REMOTELY diligent about getting RER TPAPs/EAs done, and put stuff out to tender and gotten shovels in the ground by now, it would be a pretty sure thing that the PCs wouldn't be able to cancel it if elected in 2018. But now, this is yet another delay, and yet more risk of cancellation...
 
Like the whole Green Energy boondoggle that resulted in sky-high electricity prices, often times these pie-in-the sky schemes are concocted by bureaucrats at Queen's Park, and not by any real experts.
 
Like the whole Green Energy boondoggle that resulted in sky-high electricity prices, often times these pie-in-the sky schemes are concocted by bureaucrats at Queen's Park, and not by any real experts.

Probably less bureaucrats and more political operatives in the ministry.

AoD
 
This also makes it easier for the PCs, if elected in 2018, to cancel as much of RER as possible as a fantastical boondoggle. It'll be easy for them to conflate RER as a whole with the research into Hydrogen trains, and say that since investing all of this time and money into an untested, unproven system is a bad idea, they should just cancel the whole thing, not just fall back to the existing electrification plan. Electrification in its normal form is tried, tested, and prove, and its timeline and cost of implementation can be estimated FAR more accurately than Hydrogen. If the liberals had been REMOTELY diligent about getting RER TPAPs/EAs done, and put stuff out to tender and gotten shovels in the ground by now, it would be a pretty sure thing that the PCs wouldn't be able to cancel it if elected in 2018. But now, this is yet another delay, and yet more risk of cancellation...

Also its easier to cancel if there arent any overhead wires and electrification infrastructure and just some electric hydrogen trains that can be sold off.
 
Like the whole Green Energy boondoggle that resulted in sky-high electricity prices, often times these pie-in-the sky schemes are concocted by bureaucrats at Queen's Park, and not by any real experts.
Just like those hand-held computers in Star Trek. That'll never happen!

UT's story on this puts it in the perspective it needs:
According to Del Duca, "Recent advances in using... cells to power electric trains in other jurisdictions makes it important that Ontario consider this clean electric technology as an alternative to conventional overhead wires."
OK, now that quote is ambiguous if not misleading to start with. Poor choice of words Il Duce.

UT's Mackenzie continues:
While the government investigates this alternative energy source, it's proceeding full-steam (or is that full-electrons?) ahead on electrifying the lines with more traditional methods. It formally kicked off the environmental assessment for electrification June 14 and plans to consult with the public at upcoming events June 26, 28 and 29 and July 5 in Mississauga, Ajax, Toronto and Newmarket. Its study will assess the impact of its proposal on the environment and nearby communities.

Traditionally, electrifying trains requires railroad companies or transit agencies to build major infrastructure, including power stations, switching stations, transmission lines, catenary (or overhead wiring) along each line and pylons to support the catenary. It may also require Metrolinx to rebuild other infrastructure, including raising overpasses and station roofs to support both the wiring and pantographs – the connectors between trains and power source.

If the government can determine that fuel-cells are viable for powering Ontario's then it can avoid the expense of all that extra construction, while delivering fast, frequent commuter trains that are quiet, "green" and, hopefully, less demanding on the taxpayer.
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/06/ontario-considering-fuel-cells-electrify-go-trains

Il Duce best clarify his stance by stating *Complements and Supplements* the proposed catenary network.

Of course, those Germans and French wouldn't know anything about how to run passenger trains and transit at all, would they? Fuel-cells *ARE* "proven", albeit this application and costs/durability/reliability have to be proven.

And they way you do that? You run a test program.

Rocket Science, 101.
 
Railway Technology.com
Analysis

Gary Peters
Dec 12 2016

Hydrogen fuel cells vs batteries: how to power the trains of tomorrow

InnoTrans 2016 was, as expected from the world's largest rail trade fair, full of bold plans. Cutting through the chatter and speculation, two stuck out: Alstom’s Coradia iLint and Bombardier’s Talent 3.
In September, Henri Poupart-Lafarge, Alstom chairman and CEO, took the stage at InnoTrans in Berlin, to declare the launch of the new Coradia iLint, marketed as the world’s first “zero-emission” train, powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.

At the same event, the German transport minister Alexander Dobrindt announced €4m in funding for Bombardier to help develop their Talent 3 project, an electric multiple unit (EMU) equipped with a battery system.

It’s interesting that two industry leaders have decided to take different paths, although the end goal of reducing emissions remains the same. But why batteries and hydrogen fuel cells?

“[They] both offer the advantage that there are no harmful emissions at the point-of-use and they do not rely on continuous wayside infrastructure for power supply,” explains Andreas Hoffrichter, professor in railway management at Michigan State University.

Dr Federico Zenith, senior research scientist for rail and fuel cell applications at Sintef, agrees, highlighting the potentially prohibitive cost of traditional electrification projects. “Hydrogen, and battery, trains can be introduced more gradually and allow operators to test a zero-emission solution without committing a critical amount of resources,” he says.

Hydrogen fuel cells
Alstom’s plan is to run the Coradia iLint on non-electrified lines, viewing it as a cheaper and quicker alternative to mass electrification. The train’s only emission is steam and it also produces a very low level of noise compared to a diesel engine, according to Ulrich Gahl, market and portfolio director of regional trains, Alstom.

Electrical power is generated by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an on-board fuel cell.

"Alstom plans to run the Coradia iLint on non-electrified lines."
The design plans show the hydrogen stored as a gas in tanks on the roof of the train, while in the base of the train the lithium-ion batteries store energy – including that generated during braking – to boost acceleration when necessary. A top speed of 140 km/h is expected, with capacity for 300 seated passengers.

In a sense, it’s a combination of both technologies. “All hydrogen-powered railway vehicles that I am aware of are hybrids,” says Hoffrichter.

The launch comes after Alstom signed letters of intent with the German regions of Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg, as well as the Public Transportation Authorities of Hesse, in 2014.

As of November, trials are scheduled to take place by the end of the year. “In 2018 the first trains will be in service in Germany,” says Gahl.

Bombardier’s battery power
As with Alstom, Bombardier’s Talent 3 EMU is principally designed for non-electrified routes, although it is slightly behind in terms of development. “A prototype will be built in 2018,” says Stefan von Mach, chief engineer of the Talent 3. “After 12 months of test runs, passenger services are planned for 2019.”

The company will work with the Technische Universität Berlin, Südwestdeutsche Verkehrs AG and Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Baden-Württemberg, on the three-car unit, which will use Bombardier’s PRIMOVE batteries – already tested on hybrid trams. The prototype is expected to run on regional routes in Baden-Württemberg.

But how does it work?

“In battery mode the pantograph [which collects power from overhead wires] is lowered and the battery provides the energy into the propulsion, and therefore replaces the catenary [the system of overhead wires] as an energy supply. In braking mode, energy is recuperated into the batteries and recharges them,” von Mach explains.

The Talent 3 can also be recharged by overhead wires when travelling on a section of electrified track, or “under dedicated re-charge stations” on longer, non-electrified routes.

According to Zenith, this type of arrangement is suitable for “last-mile” applications, such as sections of track “where catenary cannot be installed along the entire line, for example in tunnels or for aesthetic reasons in city centres”.

So, if relatively short gaps in existing electrification infrastructure need to be overcome, “batteries are probably the way forward”, says Hoffrichter.

Not the first of their kind
Despite the enthusiasm surrounding both endeavours, it is of course only a continuation of efforts to date.

Take Hydrail as an example. The term, which denotes all forms of rail vehicles that use onboard hydrogen for energy, has grown in popularity over the years, to the extent where the German state of Schleswig-Holstein wants to electrify its entire railway network – some 1,100km – using hydrail fuel cell equipment by 2025.

“We want to see a complete network running on hydrail, including international lines up to Esbjerg in Denmark,” commented German Green Party leader Detlef Matthiessen, in June. There have also been projects in the UK and Japan, while last year China unveiled a fully operational hydrogen-powered tram in Qingdao.

In fact, Hydrail has grown from a small-town idea to something that now commands the attention of the whole industry through its international conferences – the twelfth edition will be held in Graz, Austria, next June.

Hoffrichter, who received what is believed to be the world’s first PhD in hydrail from the University of Birmingham in 2013, says hydrogen is better suited to longer distance routes, and is confident that there will be other plans similar to the state of Schleswig-Holstein’s one in the near future.

The same can be said for battery power, which has gathered many admirers in recent times. It was at the beginning of last year when Network Rail – in collaboration with Bombardier and Abellio Greater Anglia – introduced the first battery-powered passenger train to run on Britain’s rail network in more than half a century.

The independently-powered electric multiple unit spent five weeks on the Manningtree-Harwich branch, “demonstrating the viability of an eco-friendly battery-powered train for the 21st century”, according to a Network Rail spokesperson.

“It could ultimately lead to a fleet of [these] trains running on Britain’s rail network, which are quieter and more efficient than diesel-powered trains, making them better for passengers and the environment.”

What's best for the future?
What, then, is better suited to expediting a cleaner railway? There is no right or wrong answer, says Hoffrichter.

“It depends on the existing railway system and the objectives of the railway organisation,” he explains. “The primary drivers to investigate alternatives to wayside electrification or diesel power are cost of infrastructure or fuel, a desire or requirement to reduce emissions at the point-of-use, and avoidance of overhead electrification due to visual pollution.”

However, Zenith strikes a slight different tone, although he too accepts that local requirements determine how the industry will move away from diesel.

"Hydrogen appears to be the better alternative with current technology."
He says: “Hydrogen appears to be the better alternative with current technology, but the picture may change with the development of both batteries and fuel cells in terms of cost.

“Fuel cells can become much cheaper with mass production, whereas batteries are already mass-produced, and their projected price reduction in the future will come mostly from technological advances.”

But, continues Zenith, “the main disadvantage of hydrogen is the unavailability of off-the-shelf technology and the risks connected with being a first mover”.

There’s no doubt that hydrogen fuel cells and batteries will play an integral part in lowering emissions, and both come with their own pros and cons. Nonetheless, it is generally accepted they are the pre-eminent methods – aside from mass electrification – by which to rid rail of diesel.
http://www.railway-technology.com/f...-how-to-power-the-trains-of-tomorrow-5692017/
 
A potential problem with pursuing fuel cell technology at this early stage is that if the technology doesn't work out and we end up with lemons (like the TTC and the hybrid buses), the next round of equipment purchases may very much be traditional diesel trains sets- putting us exactly back where we started.

With electrification, the infrastructure is essentially locked in and will at least dictate what trainsets can be used.
 
A potential problem with pursuing fuel cell technology at this early stage is that if the technology doesn't work out and we end up with lemons (like the TTC and the hybrid buses), the next round of equipment purchases may very much be traditional diesel trains sets- putting us exactly back where we started.

With electrification, the infrastructure is essentially locked in and will at least dictate what trainsets can be used.
You do BOTH! One does not supplant the other. It *complements it*! It has always been the case that there will be limits to the catenary's extent. That can be *furthered* by extending the range/reach by having hybrid vehicles. That was always the plan, save that it was electric/diesel. So with advances, like those oh-so-backward French, Germans and others are doing, is electric/electric. The fuel-cell aspect of replacing the diesel part doesn't work?

What do you suggest will? Steam? If you suggest "catenary" the costs are prohibitive to doing it. Main corridor, absolutely, cost to benefit to performance ratio indicates 25kVAC catenary and state of the art IGBT chopped motors. Off the main corridors?

How's that side-valve flat head coming along there Gus?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/GallopingGoose1952.jpg
 
Last edited:
And to those lamenting the Missing Link will never be realized until the Game of Thrones reaches a climax, this is your answer (far from preferable, but a workable one).

The Georgetown Corridor is strung with catenary its entire length save the Bramalea to Georgetown stretch, where CN states it's verboten. Over that stretch? You go to battery back-up or fuel-cell or both.

Don't you just hate choices that spoil your preconceptions?
 
You do BOTH! One does not supplant the other. It *complements it*!

My opinion as well- if they want to explore fuel cell or battery trains, the best opportunity would be to introduce them in the outer stops which have not been electrified, replacing diesel trains.

However, Del Duca and Queens Park seem to think that this technology can allow them to forgo traditional electrification on the whole in promise of something that can be done faster and cheaper...
 
My opinion as well- if they want to explore fuel cell or battery trains, the best opportunity would be to introduce them in the outer stops which have not been electrified, replacing diesel trains.

However, Del Duca and Queens Park seem to think that this technology can allow them to forgo traditional electrification on the whole in promise of something that can be done faster and cheaper...
Glad you clarified that jj, it's rare that we disagree. Il Duce really appears to be trying to pull a 'bait and switch', and he's going to get called on it, best he clarify this before it derails on him.

Btw: On further reflection, the Bramalea to Georgetown gap would probably be best done on battery power alone, I'd hope the RER trainsets would be a lot lighter than the present diesel hauled DDs, and battery capacity and recharge rate continue to improve. The irony of Il Duce's posturing is that it can be used against his *apparent* attempt at obfuscation. Being able to tide over that gap (Bramalea to Georgetown) puts *even more* impetus on getting the corridor catenary electrified full length minus the gap, which battery back-up will bridge. And nothing needs to be proven on what is very simple technology to do it. Re-integrating lower battery voltage back up to motor needs (triple phase, nominally 600vDC) is done all the time with inverters. That's how solar arrays provide line voltage for home and commercial use.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top