News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

roger1818 said:
First of all, VIA doesn't operate HSR. In fact, I am unaware of any HSR lines that use diesel fuel, likely because of the significant increase in fuel required. They not only save weight by not having to carry the fuel, but they also don't occur the expense of buying all that fuel (electricity is much cheaper, especially when you consider the improved efficacy of an electric locomotive).
Click to expand...
Fuel-operated trains are so much more expensive to operate than electric trains, even in Germany, where electricity costs a multiple of what it costs here. For instance, the energy costs of a 160 km/h fast fuel-operated DB Class 612 DMU is estimated to be 2.5 times that of a battery-powered BMU:
IMG_7093.jpeg

Similarly, the energy costs per 1000 seat-km of a 200 km/h fast ICE-TD DMU are estimated to be more than 3 times that of a 300 km/h fast ICE-3 EMU:
IMG_7094.jpeg

Calculation:
ICE-TD: 1600€ / 285 km / 195 seats * 1000 = 28.79€
ICE-3: [3€ * 390 seats / 2 = 585€] / 164km / 390 seats * 1000 = 9.15€

Loading…

www.static.tu.berlin
 
The freight Co. could come to the rescue for Cnd. They r spending lots on hydrogen due to it being the only vible option to de-crbonize. We could piggy onto their infrstructure & supply network from BC to NS & not just the Corridor or CGY/Edm.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Type high speed hydrogen to go to videos including new one from Chin.
Click to expand...
I assume you meant this video:


I believe it when the first Hydrogen train enters revenue service, but to me it sounds like an oxymoron, as whenever you can’t afford to install catenary electrification, you usually also can’t afford to build railway corridors to HSR specs. It really sounds like a solution in search of a problem (and market)…

Edit: I’ve just started to watch that video, which is just about the agglomeration of meaningless buzz words and stock footage you’d expect. I had to burst out in laughter when the video claimed that electrification costs of 500.000€ per km was “staggering” (if the makers of this video had any competency, they would have chosen a much higher figure). Anyways, long story short: the technology is still as immature as ever, but they are hoping to soon have a prototype which can run 250 km/h, as if the problem was the speed and not the lack of range…

Edit2:
Everything you need to know about Hydrogen “High Speed” trains is neatly summarized in these 2 comments:
IMG_7096.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Urban Sky said:
I assume you meant this video:


I believe it when the first Hydrogen train enters revenue service, but to me it sounds like an oxymoron, as whenever you can’t afford to install catenary electrification, you usually also can’t afford to build railway corridors to HSR specs. It really sounds like a solution in search of a problem (and market)…
Click to expand...
I can see the benefit of this, if it works as well as is claimed. Via, and various Canadian governments have tried all sorts of things. We can pile this on top of them.
 
I found a Forbs Article on this Spanish High Speed Hydrogen Train. This article says exactly what I was saying earlier:

explains Stan Thompson, Co-founder of the Mooresville Hydrail Initiative. “The scale limiting factor with hydrail is the amount of hydrogen that can be carried aboard to make the electric energy that powers the vehicle. The heavier and faster a rail vehicle or train is, the harder it is to store enough hydrogen onboard to move it fast enough and far enough.”
Click to expand...

I do find it odd that even in this article they talk about the cost of building and maintaining the catenary, but they completely ignore the cost of producing H₂. It is simple, high school physics and you only need to understand the first two laws of thermodynamics to understand why H₂ will always be more expensive than electricity.

There might be some places where hydrogen trains make sense. As the article says, the cost of catenary can only be justified where there there is a significant amount of traffic (passenger or freight) proportional to the distance traveled. In places where that traffic volume isn't there, hydrogen might be a viable alternative, but in cases like that, you likely can't justify all of the other expenses HSR creates. As Urban Sky said, this seems to be a solution looking for a problem.
 
Hydrogen won't be the best solution for everywhere but with our huge country, it will be the ONLY option to meet net-zero. The CGY/EDM corridor is the best route to begin testing hydrogen's potentil. Freight could come to our rescue due to them going hydrogen & hence building the needed infrstructure so the initil costs could be much lower then we think.
 
Had we started to electrify the busier lines back when they introduced the Turbo much of our rail lines that carry passengers would be electrified. Now, we are trying to fix the problem we ignored for decades. To me, the Turbo was the first solution looking for a problem. While places in Europe and Asia were building electric HSR trains, we thought the answer was a jet engine that does not like anything but full speed. The LRCs fit into this. Even the current fleet is a solution to a problem we should not have.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Hydrogen won't be the best solution for everywhere but with our huge country, it will be the ONLY option to meet net-zero. The CGY/EDM corridor is the best route to begin testing hydrogen's potentil. Freight could come to our rescue due to them going hydrogen & hence building the needed infrstructure so the initil costs could be much lower then we think.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that net-zero does not mean zero emissions. Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) that's produced and the amount that's removed from the atmosphere. It can be achieved through a combination of emission reduction and emission removal.

It has yet to be proven that hydrogen is the most cost effective way of achieving net-zero. It might be cheaper to just just offset them, since GHG emissions from rail represent only about 1% of Canada's total GHG emissions (7.65 Mt of 752 Mt in 2019). Granted I am skeptical about the integrity of many Carbon offset programs.

I also wouldn't rule out electrification. Physics tells us that electricity will always be significantly cheaper than green hydrogen, so for well traveled routes, it will come down to which is cheaper, building the catenary or buying a more expensive fuel. While it is true that the cost of building catenary is proportional to the length of the route, one must also remember that amount of fuel used is also proportional to the length of the route.

The railways have accountants who will calculate the cheapest option to achieve net-zero, when they are required to do so. In the meantime, the cheapest option is to use continue using diesel and experiment with prototype hydrogen (and battery) locomotives, mostly as a marketing initiative and a delay tactic.
 
Last edited:
roger1818 said:
Don't forget that net-zero does not mean zero emissions. Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) that's produced and the amount that's removed from the atmosphere. It can be achieved through a combination of emission reduction and emission removal.
Click to expand...
This has already been explained to him many times…
roger1818 said:
It has yet to be proven that hydrogen is the most cost effective way of achieving net-zero. It might be cheaper to just just offset them, since GHG emissions from rail represent only about 1% of Canada's total GHG emissions (7.65 Mt of 752 Mt in 2019). Granted I am skeptical about the integrity of many Carbon offset programs.

I also wouldn't rule out electrification. Physics tells us that electricity will always be significantly cheaper than green hydrogen, so for well traveled routes, it will come down to which is cheaper, building the catenary or buying a more expensive fuel. While it is true that the cost of building catenary is proportional to the length of the route, one must also remember that amount of fuel used is also proportional to the length of the route.

The railways have accountants who will calculate the cheapest option to achieve net-zero, when they are required to do so. In the meantime, the cheapest option is to use continue using diesel and experiment with prototype hydrogen (and battery) locomotives, mostly as a marketing initiative and a delay tactic.
Click to expand...
It seems like even the freight railroads own industry body is highly skeptical of Hydrogen’s potential in achieving “net zero”, especially on the all-important cost front:
IMG_7016.jpeg

 
Electrifiction could very well be the best route for Win/QC but I think CGY/ED will be hydrogen when Smith needs to show off the province's hydrogen potentil.

In the rest of the country with huge distnces & much colder temps, hydrogen is the only option to cut GHG emissions. Trying to string wires from VCR to HFX is ridiculously expensive. Yes, hydrogen fuel is more expensive but those prices r coming down quickly & will continue to do so due to the technology & infrstructure growing.
 
Some sort of a hybrid system would seem likely.Eventually Electrification where CN & CPKC do not own the lines and traffic volumes make sense. So GO for one, perhaps VIA on certain routes, especially where trackage is their own or shared with GO (for instance). And then diesel on the balance of VIA, until Justin gives them the money to make the Canadian greener. And diesel/hydrogen on the balance of the CN/CPKC and other short lines extending across both borders. Hydrogen being first a ‘testing’ fuel that then see’s some use on selected lines where the fit makes sense - both operationally and pr wise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top