[Allandale25]

^ For your first, second, and third points, I'm just curious if there are any stats available from Europe or the US Northeast on how often the system is unreliable/there's a breakdown/or power outage.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Well written.

 

[raptor]

From the feasibility report:

Procurement Timeline
A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the DBFOM contract is expected to be issued in Spring 2018, and the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued later that year. Financial close is anticipated in 2019, after which OnCo is expected to begin on-corridor infrastructure works and the procurement of rolling HYDRAIL OnCo is expected to assume current operations at a defined date after 2021 and to provide the upgraded RER service delivery to various corridors commencing in 2024.
The current procurement timeline is somewhat aggressive, noting significant works to be completed in the installation of overhead catenaries. These works will also involve significant third party and public interface, given the need to obtain environmental approvals, relocate utilities, upgrade bridges, remove trees and obtain property rights. Additionally, there are potentially significant scheduling risks associated with the installation of overhead catenary wires.
While Hydrail will eliminate the need for the infrastructure works associated with the installation of overhead catenary wires, additional scheduling risks are presented because hydrogen fuel powered train sets that meet RER requirements do not currently exist. Based on initial market consultations, it is however, anticipated that train sets could be designed and delivered within the planned timeline for RER implementation.

 

[crs1026]

The one silver lining in this horror show is the premise of using two hydrogen locos in place of one diesel, on a 12 car train. It should be an easy proposition to procure a half dozen prototypes and pair them with an existing diesel and test the heck out of them. If the concept works, wonderful, but there is an operational safety net and the investment is prudent.

Beyond that, it’s absurdly reckless to hitch our transit future to an unproven technology. Contrary to the claims in the report, the technology is not even at the toehold stage in a non-stationary application.

So much for Wynne’s commitment to RER. Talk a good line, but when it’s time to pay the tab, we get sticker shock. No promise is too central that it can’t be walked away from.

The repeated theme about saving all those trees along the rail corridors is priceless. We probably chopped down more trees to erect all those unneeded wind vanes.

I am all for testing the technology but GO should get on with electrifying Union and LSE/LSW at least.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

From the feasibility report:

With respect to this line "OnCo is expected to begin on-corridor infrastructure works and the procurement of rolling HYDRAIL" shouldn't it read "OnCo is expected to begin on-corridor infrastructure works and the procurement of overhead wire rolling stock OR HYDRAIL rolling stock". Clarifications in bold.

Also, does the Feasibility Study touch on when these two pilot vehicles would be delivered and how that fits into the RFQ-RFP timeline? Via the Hydrail page:

HFC Locomotive Pilot
Currently, GO rail vehicles are locomotives that are powered by diesel engines. An HFC locomotive would be an electrically powered locomotive where the electricity is generated using hydrogen that is stored on-board the train.

Metrolinx plans to commission concept designs for an HFC locomotive and will then consider building a prototype that could be introduced into service on the GO Transit Network. The prototype would gather valuable feedback on operations, performance, and reliability.

EMU Design Concept
An electric multiple unit or EMU is a multiple unit train consisting of self-propelled carriages, using electricity as the power that drives the train. An EMU requires no separate locomotive. An HFC EMU is an EMU where the electricity is generated using hydrogen that is stored on-board the train. Ontario is engaging with train manufacturers Alstom and Siemens to produce concept designs that incorporate hydrogen fuel cells into bi-level trains similar to those currently used by GO Transit.

 

[salsa]

Just a minor detail.


View attachment 135243

 

[Northern Light]

I have serious issues with this.

First, Hydrail is in its infancy, it may well turn out to be brilliant tech.

That could have been said of the SRT as well; but we got stuck w/the prototype model, too small, not used as intended, not adequately winter-proofed etc.

I am very concerned that we not do the same again.

Nothing wrong at all with buying off-the-shelf, proven tech.

***

Second, there is not one hydrail system in the world used on rolling stock and locos of size used by GO, so far as I can discern.

Meaning the tech doesn't even exist yet, and is therefore, by definition an indeterminate amount of time from being able to be used.

As per the following article from Railway Engineer UK:

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/01/05/hydrail-comes-of-age/

In Toronto, such trains are hauled by diesel locomotives of 3,000kW, which is far greater than the power of any hydrogen powered rail vehicles to date. Initial feasibility work shows that a hydrogen-powered locomotive with this output would have to be a two-unit locomotive with one unit containing only the hydrogen storage. Such a hydrogen locomotive would thus need the train to be extended by another coach length, or require a passenger coach to be removed from the train.

 

[raptor]

There is no chance whatsoever electrification is even partially done by 2025

 

[BMO]

the more I think about Hydrail, the more I'm starting to like it. It's a clean technology that can come at a fraction of the cost of electrical and can be a more nimble and flexible option system wide.

But I'll admit, that linked document was way more technical and detailed than I was willing to bother reading through in its entirety. I skimmed it.

Edit: maybe not a fraction of the cost of electrical, but the physical infrastructure needed for Hydrail wouldn't need to impact existing service operations as it gets rolled out.

Edit: apparently the costs are basically the same, at which point I'm a bit confused as to what the benefit of Electrificaiton vs Hydrail is

 

[crs1026]

I’m still digesting the report, somaybe the answer is already there...but... the premise of the hydrogen loco is basically akin to a hybrid auto....the primary propulsion is battery, which is recharged thru regeneration....and the fuel cell adds power by slowly recharging beyond what the regen provides. If this is such a great idea, why isnt this being attempted already? To he best of my knowledge, the few attempts at battery regen on locomotives eg the Green Goats havent worked well.

Did I miss something?

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Well the technology is just starting to going from research into actual use but so far the prospects look very promising.

China's huge CRRC rail manufacturing now has 2 tram {known as Hytrolley} in operation and are planning MANY more. There have been no breakdown or safety issues at all. Even Whistler has been running hydrogen buses for over a decade with no issues. Riga is going to be introducing Hytrolleys next year. Just one week ago, the UK Minister of Transportation said he wants Hydrail introduction by just 2020. The UK has a goal of getting rid of all diesel/gas trains throughout the UK by 2040. That of course would require thousands of KM of new catenary but now he is seriously considering putting the entire electrification program on hold or potentially completely abandoned and replacing the current DMUs with Hydrail and is already in talks with Alstom.

California is looking at Hydrail to get rid of it's slow, polluting, and noised current commuter rail trains. Denmark and Holland want to be testing Hydrail each within 2 years. China is developing a Hydrail HSR train which is very significant for Southern Onbtario's HSR lines and would result in no expensive catenary connections to London or piggy-backing on RER. India is also looking at Hydrail for it's ambitious HSR program. Siemens is rolling out it's first Hydrail train by 2021 and it will be a higher capacity system and are developing one that maybe able to be used on bi-level trains.

When you have the 2 largest rail manufacturers {CRRC & Alstom/Siemens} going full speed ahead {and investing billions of dollars} into a technology then you know they are very confident in it's future and applicability. If there are countries in the world that know how to do transit and HSR it's China, Germany, and France.

When one looks at the number of countries developing and planning on Hyrail, it makes one think the question turns from what's the advantage of Hydrail to what the advantage of catenary? It is a horrifying thought that if 10 years Ontario looks back and views it's electrification program as a massive waste of time and money and being left behind in the new hydrogen economy where today Ontario is a world leader in the technology itself. When it comes to new technology there is a big difference between being cautious and being blind.

 

[Allandale25]

The Star's article on today's news is here.

Province moves ahead with pursuit of trains powered by hydrogen fuel cells for GO Transit
Government will pay two rail manufacturers, Alstom and Siemens, $1.5 million each to design coaches powered by the clean technology.

 

[rbt]

It seems the infamous "Package 3" is going to be a straight forward run X service or pay Y penalties type contract with very few technical requirements other than zero emission (no diesel basically).

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tr...ed-by-hydrogen-fuel-cells-for-go-transit.html

"Metrolinx plans to issue a request for proposals for RER at the end of 2018. The winning consortium will be responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining the rail network, and it will be up to the bidders to propose either traditional electrification or hydrogen trains."​

If private bidder decides to take the risk on Hydrail rather than pay for the various electrification upgrades, then so be it. Just make sure penalties are high enough that if Hydrail trains break every 2nd day that they're willing to build 3X the required fleet size to ensure the contracted service is delivered.

IMO, catenary + onboard batteries + fixed location energy storage is probably a safer implementation and still cheap. Run catenary where there are no obstacles otherwise run from onboard batteries (under bridges, etc.). Fixed location energy storage is for power failure backup and time-shifting electrical usage similar to what is being built for Eglinton.

 

[crs1026]

When one looks at the number of countries developing and planning on Hyrail, it makes one think the question turns from what's the advantage of Hydrail to what the advantage of catenary? It is a horrifying thought that if 10 years Ontario looks back and views it's electrification program as a massive waste of time and money and being left behind in the new hydrogen economy where today Ontario is a world leader in the technology itself. When it comes to new technology there is a big difference between being cautious and being blind.

That’s why I would split the difference, by continuing to drive quickly to catenary on the heaviest line (LSE/LSW) but not committing to OCS throughout. Perhaps there is some other criterion - one line may be more expensive, due to having to rebuild more bridges etc. - leave that one til last. That way, Ontario can continue to pursue the technology as aggressively as it can, but without all eggs in one basket.

I would compare it to self driving cars. We know they are coming, and we don’t want to be left behind. But here is Wynne, saying we can stop painting lines on the road or replacing burnt out stop light bulbs, because this new technology is right around the corner and we won’t need those things when it comes. It’s a reality that we will spend money, perhaps inefficiently, to keep the roads safe for non-automated cars for quite a while after the first SDV’s arrive. And who knows if that will be in two years, or ten?

The report seems preoccupied with two things that concern me. One is the lack of clarity on base electrical demand projections. The case for hydrogen is built on the premise that off peak power is cheap and can be used for hydrogen production. That is the historical pattern, with SBG being a painful cost item for the province. But if base demand rises and off peak rates rise.....the economics change. The second is the slide into a pitch for a “hydrogen economy”.... clearly this isn’t a standalone pitch about how to power RER, it’s the thin edge of a broader pitch for a whole energy strategy for Ontario. Again, that may be an astute vision for the province, but RER needs to be built on its merits and not as the first sip of somebody’s Koolaid. The one thing I would not trust the Liberals with in this province is energy policy.... what have they gotten right in the last 15 years?

At the end of the day, the minimum prudent timeline I can imagine is three years to build prototype trains and a production facility... and then two years of testing before a full order. Anything faster than that is reckless. Remember - iLint hasn’t turned a wheel yet in revenue service. Are we happy with totally shelving conventional electrification for that long, given how badly we need RER?

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Well Metrolinx certainly doesn't need a production facility to see how Hydrail works. The UK is already committed to getting Hydrail on some of it's lines by 2020 and if the UK can do that then so can Toronto.

The first step will be to run the trains back and forth between Weston & Kennedy via Union at TTC fares to act as a precursor to ST and offer some relief to B/D and hence Y/B station. By doing so Toronto has absolutely nothing to lose and QP could get a first hand appraisal of the system and then make a more informed decision not based on futuristic hyperbole or myopic views of being another SRT.

 

[ssiguy2]

I was interested in what Steve Munro had to say and nothing yet but his latest post stated that Flexity streetcars were ordered to "stop and stay" due to a power outage at King & Spadina. This is a potential problem with catenary and the RER system but would never be an issue with Hytrolley or Hydrail.

Can you imagine the chaos if this were to happen at Union when electrified RER is operational? It would shut the entire RER system down but not Hydrail. This is very pertinent to Toronto as when you have an entire RER system where every service and line converges at one spot, the entire network is threatened when using catenary.

Frankly the more I think about this the more I am prone to think that, if feasible technologically with pulling coaches, electrification should be be put on hold and Hydrail takes it's place. Don't cancel the entire project but get a prototype running for a couple years as a semi-DRL Weston to Kennedy route and make an informed decision.