News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     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
 5.5K     0 

roger1818 said:
Interesting thought. Another option would be to continue to follow the Belleville Sub past Tichborne and then use the old Bay of Quinte Railway to cut over to the Havelock Sub just south of Tweed, thus bypassing both towns. Parts of it has become Marlbank Rd. though, so that would need to be addressed. In the end, I am not sure if it would be that much better.

View attachment 312860
Click to expand...

It certainly wouldn't cheap. It was built to late 1800s standards of alignment and has been out of service since the 1930s. The ROW would most certainly have to be entirely expropriated.
 
Frank_Lee said:
Agree on the battery front, but is it not inconceivable that electrification of sections of at least the Prairies is not that far off given the levels of traffic they're running at? I'm imagining it would be pretty natural for hydrogen locomotives to be dual mode units. Electrification for any of the mountain grade sections is probably impossible from what little I've read, though. The kind of power that 10,000 ton freight trains require to get moving from a standstill on any kind of a slope would be more load than contemporary electrical grids could flexibly provide, least of all in remote mountain passes.
Click to expand...

Of course they could electrify the entire network but the cost would be ridiculously high while just changing the power systems on the trains themselves much cheaper. This is why CP recently announced that they are teaming up with Ballard to create a prototype hydrogen locomotive.........they know batteries are a non-starter and electrifying the entire system would bankrupt them. This mean CN/CP will have to create a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure system which VIA could take advantage of. Also, transforming over to hydrogen trains does not actually require new trains but rather just a retrofit as they have done in the UK and the actual passenger cars themselves don't require any work at all.

CN/CP will NEVER go catenary due to the astronomical cost and decades to build out and batteries are a laughable idea for freight. Hell the sheer weight of the batteries would probably crush the tracks beneath them. They know that hydrogen is their only alternative and VIA could take advantage of that................if you can't afford something, let someone else pay for it.
 
Last edited:
ssiguy2 said:
Of course they could electrify the entire network but the cost would be ridiculously high while just changing the power systems on the trains themselves much cheaper. This is why CP recently announced that they are teaming up with Ballard to create a prototype hydrogen locomotive.........they know batteries are a non-started and electrifying the entire system would bankrupt them. This mean CN/CP will have to create a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure system which VIA could take advantage of. Also, transforming over to hydrogen trains does not actually require new trains but rather just a retrofit as they have done in the UK and the actual passenger cars themselves don't require any work at all.

CN/CP will NEVER go catenary due to the astronomical cost and decades to build out and batteries are a laughable idea for freight. Hell the sheer weight of the batteries would probably crush the tracks beneath them. They know that hydrogen is their only alternative and VIA could take advantage of that................if you can't afford something, let someone else pay for it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that people said the same thing about having a device more powerful then the computer that send mankind to the moon fit in the palm of your hand. And that was only 50 or so years ago.
 
MisterF said:
Via Rail already serves several towns in the 5000 population ballpark in the Corridor. Casselman, Glencoe and Gananoque to name a few. Having barebones stations in towns of that size is hardly unusual. I don't know how many people use them but it's obviously more than 1-2 per train, and it's enough to make it worth having some basic service. That doesn't turn the overall service into crap at all; most trains just go through without even slowing down.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Express trains do not stop in these small places (only the 'milk run) BUT this means they have very few trains every day.
 
Certainly in 50 years you maybe able to drive your car 200 km on a Duracell but we don't have 50 years. Despite the dizzying rate of battery development, the idea of a freight train with 100 cars behind it plying it's way thru the Rockies is probably a century away. This is the same with air planes, cargo ships, agricultural equipment, ferries, and heavy manufacturing. NONE of these sectors are even contemplating battery systems as they know that hydrogen is the only zero emissions alternative they have. Think about it...........the Tesla SUVs are ILLEGAL on the Brooklyn Bridge because they weigh more than the bridge allows.
 
I don't imagine the battery weight presents any problems as far as the rails themselves are concerned, inasmuch as you could just attach modular battery (or hydrogen) cars, like in the age of steam. I'm just thinking that they're probably looking at the build out of catenary between Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg on the main lines. Maybe in northern Ontario too. My apologies to the other folks for extending this tangent.
 
I too do not want to get off topic and don't want the thread to turn into a technology battle.

The only reason I brought it up is that this is a real canary-in-the-coalmine issue for VIA and will be a heavy expense on top of any improvements {ie HSR/HFR/Cal-Edm} that the corporation is going to have to deal with in the next 20 years. Regardless if they employ catenary, battery, hydrogen or a combination of all 3 will not change the fact they have a real financial hit coming with little to pay for it due to lack of support from Ottawa and being at the mercy of CN & CP.

I have yet to see any real long-term policy framework from VIA on how they are going to address this issue. Switching to lower emissions Tier 4 diesel trains is a stop-gap measure. VIA must have a concrete plan, both in infrastructure, technology, and cost, on how they are going to transfer over to a zero emissions rail system and so far, and correct me if I'm wrong, I have seen no such policy developments from VIA.

Ottawa wants to meet net zero by 2050 and that will require a complete decarbonising of our transportation system. and Ottawa will not be able to dictate to every other transportation supplier and provider that they go carbon-free while giving it's only transportation corporation a pass. This is a REAL challenge for VIA and they had better start planning for it because 20 years isn't very long.
 
VIA is a small fish in the North American pond - it isn't a real concern, the rest of the industry will move on, and VIA will purchase near off the shelf solutions. Easy to think of VIA like the TTC, having to think of much of a technology framework for a bespoke product. But instead VIA is in a world that has produced 5000 GE evolution series locomotives in 20 years. VIA rail has 78 locomotives.
 
ssiguy2 said:
CN/CP will NEVER go catenary due to the astronomical cost and decades to build out and batteries are a laughable idea for freight. Hell the sheer weight of the batteries would probably crush the tracks beneath them. They know that hydrogen is their only alternative and VIA could take advantage of that................if you can't afford something, let someone else pay for it.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Popcorn ready.
 
SFO-YYZ said:
Here we go again. Popcorn ready.
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't want to get into this again, but I will say that many people on here are stuck with the mindset that it has to be catenary OR batteries OR hydrogen, when in reality it will likely be catenary AND batteries AND hydrogen, in some combination. In the end, the railways will use a combination that gives them the lowest overall cost.

Catenary has the lowest "fuel" cost but has very high capital and maintenance costs. As a result, it is great in high traffic areas that have easy access to the electrical grid.

Hydrogen is a very expensive fuel (it is currently much more expensive than gasoline or diesel, though some suggest that it could drop to be equal to them by 2025, but it will still be more expensive than electricity), but the capital and maintenance costs are low.

Batteries have a "fuel" cost that is only slightly higher than catenary (due to small losses from charging and discharging) but have a lower capital cost and very low maintenance costs. There is also the issue of range charging speed, and while you could swap out the batteries, that would significantly increase the capital cost, as you end up needing a lot of extra batteries.

The best options are to have batteries can supplement both hydrogen and catenary. Having batteries supplement hydrogen allows two key advantages:
  1. Regenerative braking. Trains operating in mountainous regions often use dynamic breaks, where by they use the electric traction motor as a generator and dissipate the energy as heat in giant resistors on the roof of the locomotive. Rather than wasting all that energy as heat, why not store it in batteries to reduce the fuel needed later. This is not limited for use in mountainous regions, but is beneficial any time a train needs to slow down.
  2. Increased peak power. Batteries are much better at providing large amounts of instantaneous power than hydrogen fuel cells. By having a battery large enough to meet the peak power needs, the size of the hydrogen fuel cell can be reduced and the power demand curve can be leveled out By telling a computer the route being used, it can calculate when the use the fuel cell to charge the battery and when to leave a hilltop reserve for regenerative braking.
Having batteries supplement catenary allows the railways to only put catenary where it is cheapest (near cities) and will get the most use by being shared with multiple routes. While under catenary power, the trains can charge their batteries and once they get beyond the catenary, they can switch to battery power. This only works for shorter routes serving busier hubs, but for them it removes any need to stop and wait for the train to recharge. Batteries also allow the train to ride out disruptions in power on the catenary.

In the end, I see the railways either buying bi-mode (or tri-mode) locomotives or, since many trains have multiple locomotives anyway, coupling locomotives with different power sources together and having them share power back and forth, depending on the situation.
 
^^^^ Fine SFO-YYZ, so what's your alternative to decarbonising the VIA network? You sound like O'Toole............attacking the Liberal's climate change strategy but offering no alternative and just hoping the issue goes away by itself.

I agree with roger1818, there is no such thing as a 'one-size-fits-all' technology especially in a monstrous system like VIA. I too think VIA will employ a number of different technologies depending upon the route.
 
ssiguy2 said:
^^^^ Fine, so what's your alternative to decarbonising the VIA network?

You sound like O'Toole............attacking the Liberal's climate change strategy but offering no alternative and just hoping the issue goes away by itself.
Click to expand...

Which post are you referring to? I don't see how either of the last 2 posts (the only ones within 12 hours) attack the Liberal's climate change strategy.
 
Darwinkgo said:
Easy to think of VIA like the TTC, having to think of much of a technology framework for a bespoke product. But instead VIA is in a world that has produced 5000 GE evolution series locomotives in 20 years. VIA rail has 78 locomotives.
Click to expand...

This thinking is the same problem that has lead to the high costs and the continuous delays associated with TTC rolling stock purchases. If I recall correctly, Bombardier was the only serious bidder the replacement of the CLRVs because the TTC required numerous alterations to car designs that the other major LRV manufactures did not want to get involved in. While a dependence on bespoke designs may have worked with a vertically integrated system of transportation operation and vehicle construction, it is clearly suboptimal for the current structure of outsourcing everything.



It is clear that there will be a push towards the elimination of diesel power in the coming years as part of a larger transition to renewable energy, but funds are no unlimited so this will need to be done in a manner that maximizes return investment. The construction and electrification of the HFR project is a clear start. So is the extension of high frequency electrified rail over other key corridors. These are the kinds of projects that will bring the biggest reductions in carbon emissions from intercity travel. The development of bespoke solutions for sub-daily rail service offers much lower value for money and therefore does not make sense as a prioritization. This does not mean that freight network electrification will never be feasible, just that at this moment it does not make sense to pour some of VIA's limited capital funding into such projects instead of the many other that will offer greater improvements in user experience while reducing net emissions in other ways. Emissions reductions from shifting travelers from cars or flights to electrified rail should not be ignored.
 
ManyQuestions said:
The development of bespoke solutions for sub-daily rail service offers much lower value for money and therefore does not make sense as a prioritization. This does not mean that freight network electrification will never be feasible, just that at this moment it does not make sense to pour some of VIA's limited capital funding into such projects instead of the many other that will offer greater improvements in user experience while reducing net emissions in other ways. Emissions reductions from shifting travelers from cars or flights to electrified rail should not be ignored.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The combined diesel fleets of BC, Toronto, and Montreal commuter operators far outweigh VIA's loco fleet. Amtrak and US commuter operators will have similar needs. VIA is the tail, not the dog.

As cited earlier in this thread, one saves more carbon by moving a trainload of auto drivers onto a diesel train than by electrifying said train.

The time to electrify is when HFR is transitioned to (or replaced by) HSR. Wires have a life cycle of several decades. Putting wires on HFR, and then tearing some or all of it down before it's at end of life is not a zero-carbon proposition.

I have a lot of confidence that as railway motive power transitions, VIA won't be left behind. Of all the carbon-reducing things we need to do in this country, replacing a modest number of diesel trains with electric wires is a lot of money for not that much carbon.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top