[ssiguy2]

If Ottawa and VIA decide to go the logical route for electrification {which admittedly is doubtful} then they can use battery trains and not just standard catenary ones. This would save a lot of time and money on the Windsor/Quebec Corridor.

Even with today's basic technology, trains can now run up to 100km using purely battery power in real world conditions. With overhead charging at station stops and sections of catenary to both run the train and recharge the batteries, VIA could already get away with only putting up half the catenary to get to Ottawa and if GO puts up catenary to Burlington, it could almost already get to London catenary-free. Needless to say, these distance times will increase dramatically before VIA even starts working on HFR and the weight and size of the batteries will also shrink along with recharging times.

This would save VIA {aka Ottawa} billions and those saved billions would build a hell of a lot of new track and grade separations.

 

[EnviroTO]

Not to mention the supersonic jets and ancient navel vessels neither of which are particularly low carbon.

If it was "fleets" where all the carbon emissions were registered I would agree, but this is under "facilities" where most of their carbon is. I agree completely that the cost of ships moving around, CF18s blasting their afterburners, the cost of shipping supplies all over the world with an often antiquated fleet would have a high carbon footprint... but somehow that is all dwarfed by National Defence Facilities. It seems like there are issues with the data. I downloaded the details and there are marine fleet energy costs for Transport Canada (the highest single emission source for fleets), and a much smaller marine fleet energy cost for Parks Canada, but no marine costs for National Defence which obviously makes no sense. Transport Canada and National Research Council both have aircraft energy costs, but not National Defence. Fisheries and Oceans has no marine costs but runs the Coast Guard. Clearly the data has issues.

 

[crs1026]

^There are over 100 Armouries in Canada, a great many dating back to the first World War and beyond. And then there are all the military bases proper, many having large buildings that house and service airplanes and equipment..... not the sort of structures that will earn a LEED certification. I can well imagine that the energy consumption of military infrastructure is ginormous. I doubt our military has ever been given much funding to improve the situation, and it may simply not be possible in many cases. They do have a strategy document, however.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

^ And, as Keitz mentioned, all the arctic sites that run on diesel.

 

[kEiThZ]

I believe the actual fuel consumption of combat vehicles is not in those numbers. These are numbers for fixed infrastructure and administrative fleets. Everybody thinks of tanks and ships. But DND also has a massive fleet of regular pickup trucks, town cars, buses, etc. And a lot of just plain old buildings that were designed in an era when insulation and workmanship was expensive and fuel was cheap. Like the rest of government, DND pushes for LEED Gold (or equivalent) for all new buildings. New hangars when we get them are designed much better. Segmented bays means less energy loss when you open the giant doors.

But this is off topic. Suffice to say that cutting VIA's emissions isn't high on the list, and VIA would literally cut the majority of its emissions just by electrifying Corridor services. The handful of long haul trains are way down the list.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think an interesting approach might be to look at what Amtrak is going. What are their plans to replace the long haul sleeper fleet?

 

[Bordercollie]

I think an interesting approach might be to look at what Amtrak is going. What are their plans to replace the long haul sleeper fleet?

There will likely be a bid to replace the rolling stock with new Superliners, and they could order more Viewliner Sleepers.

 

[Bordercollie]

If Ottawa and VIA decide to go the logical route for electrification {which admittedly is doubtful} then they can use battery trains and not just standard catenary ones. This would save a lot of time and money on the Windsor/Quebec Corridor.

Even with today's basic technology, trains can now run up to 100km using purely battery power in real world conditions. With overhead charging at station stops and sections of catenary to both run the train and recharge the batteries, VIA could already get away with only putting up half the catenary to get to Ottawa and if GO puts up catenary to Burlington, it could almost already get to London catenary-free. Needless to say, these distance times will increase dramatically before VIA even starts working on HFR and the weight and size of the batteries will also shrink along with recharging times.

This would save VIA {aka Ottawa} billions and those saved billions would build a hell of a lot of new track and grade separations.

The problem is that if the train needs to stop to for an emergency or another reason and the battery is depleted before it gets to the station to charge? You would still need a genset on board incase the train ran out of juice before reaching the next charging point. It would be much smaller than the current prime motors used today but it would be likely the size of the HEP generators used in the F40 Fleet (Or smaller since those are already 10 years old).

 

[roger1818]

There will likely be a bid to replace the rolling stock with new Superliners, and they could order more Viewliner Sleepers.

After loosing a lawsuit filed by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities about the Renaissance cars not being accessible to wheelchair users, VIA will be a be extra careful about making sure any cars they purchase are fully accessible. I am not sure that either the Superliner or the Viewliner cars meet modern accessibility standards. I am not an expert on this though.

The problem is that if the train needs to stop to for an emergency or another reason and the battery is depleted before it gets to the station to charge? You would still need a genset on board incase the train ran out of juice before reaching the next charging point. It would be much smaller than the current prime motors used today but it would be likely the size of the HEP generators used in the F40 Fleet (Or smaller since those are already 10 years old).

How is this any different from a train running out of diesel fuel? Currently they don't have a backup fuel in case they run out of diesel. The key is having plenty of reserve so that you won't run out of fuel. People on here scoffed at my suggestion that double the rated range for the distance you are traveling on battery is required, but you don't want to run out of power should there be a significant delay. Don't forget, conventional trains use HEP to power their HVAC systems.

Does anyone know how much fuel reserve VIA plans on having in their locomotives over the minimum they need? Also, I am curious, for a "nominal" 5 car train, what percentage of a locomotive's energy goes to both providing HEP on a cold winter's day and to keep the air brakes charged (the two most critical systems).

On an side note, I discovered that the Siemens Charger's dynamic breaking system has regenerative capabilities to divert power generated away from the resistor grids to the HEP inverter and other auxiliary needs, thus saving fuel.

EDIT: Does anyone know if the Siemens Venture trainsets VIA will be receiving have heat pumps to save energy when heating? The only article I could find says an order of Viaggio coaches (which the Venture cars are based off of) made by the AUSTRIAN Federal Railways (ÖBB) will include heat pumps.

 

[Bordercollie]

After loosing a lawsuit filed by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities about the Renaissance cars not being accessible to wheelchair users, VIA will be a be extra careful about making sure any cars they purchase are fully accessible. I am not sure that either the Superliner or the Viewliner cars meet modern accessibility standards. I am not an expert on this though.



How is this any different from a train running out of diesel fuel? Currently they don't have a backup fuel in case they run out of diesel. The key is having plenty of reserve so that you won't run out of fuel. People on here scoffed at my suggestion that double the rated range for the distance you are traveling on battery is required, but you don't want to run out of power should there be a significant delay. Don't forget, conventional trains use HEP to power their HVAC systems.

Does anyone know how much fuel reserve VIA plans on having in their locomotives over the minimum they need? Also, I am curious, for a "nominal" 5 car train, what percentage of a locomotive's energy goes to both providing HEP on a cold winter's day and to keep the air brakes charged (the two most critical systems).

On an side note, I discovered that the Siemens Charger's dynamic breaking system has regenerative capabilities to divert power generated away from the resistor grids to the HEP inverter and other auxiliary needs, thus saving fuel.

I dont think you understand the scale.

Lets say the train has a range of 50KM's on battery and before it can get to the station to charge what would happen then?

That's different from a 2000km range and then being able to get diesel delivered to you almost anywhere there is road access. The buffer range is not even close to that of a battery train, and the battery train you need to get another train to tow it to the station to charge.

 

[roger1818]

I dont think you understand the scale.

I don't think you fully understand what I am saying.

Lets say the train has a range of 50KM's on battery and before it can get to the station to charge what would happen then?

A train with only a 50 km range would only work on the very shortest of dead zones, and I don't think anyone would expect it to be feasible for VIA.

That's different from a 2000km range and then being able to get diesel delivered to you almost anywhere there is road access. The buffer range is not even close to that of a battery train, and the battery train you need to get another train to tow it to the station to charge.

How often do VIA trains actually run out of fuel? Sure it happens to freight trains all the time, but the consequences of that are significantly smaller, and it becomes a financial decision based on cost vs. risk. With a VIA train, when you run out of fuel, you loose HEP, thus the HVAC systems stop working, and that affects not only passenger comfort, but passenger safety. VIA needs to be confident that they have enough fuel to get to their destination every time, regardless of eventualities.

As for the 2000km range, sure that is nice, but AFAIK, VIA only refuels their corridor locomotives once a day, and that is probably still double the range that they need (giving them plenty of reserve). If VIA can charge at every station and along every stretch of track that has catenary, you only need enough range to get to the next place you can recharge, though admittedly with an extraordinarily high level of confidence.

In the end, could VIA deploy battery powered trains today? No. The infrastructure isn't there and range isn't good enough, yet.

Could VIA deploy battery powered trains along the corridor in a decade? Maybe. If Metrolinx and EXO electrify the routes that they share with VIA, VIA electrifies much of the track they own, and the energy density of batteries continues to increase at the same pace as it has over the past decade, then it might be a feasible on certain routes.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't get the doctrinaire viewpoint that only one technology can win. VIA operations are all very different. And there will be different technologies for different applications in different timeframes. And all of this is far, far less important than VIA getting its own track.

 

[nfitz]

That's different from a 2000km range and then being able to get diesel delivered to you almost anywhere there is road access.

Which car gives you 2,000 km? I've been not considering all-electric, because I didn't think anything had even a 1,000 km range.

 

[Urban Sky]

Which car gives you 2,000 km? I've been not considering all-electric, because I didn't think anything had even a 1,000 km range.

He was talking about Diesel locomotives (i.e. trains), not cars...

 

[Bordercollie]

I don't think you fully understand what I am saying.



A train with only a 50 km range would only work on the very shortest of dead zones, and I don't think anyone would expect it to be feasible for VIA.



How often do VIA trains actually run out of fuel? Sure it happens to freight trains all the time, but the consequences of that are significantly smaller, and it becomes a financial decision based on cost vs. risk. With a VIA train, when you run out of fuel, you loose HEP, thus the HVAC systems stop working, and that affects not only passenger comfort, but passenger safety. VIA needs to be confident that they have enough fuel to get to their destination every time, regardless of eventualities.

As for the 2000km range, sure that is nice, but AFAIK, VIA only refuels their corridor locomotives once a day, and that is probably still double the range that they need (giving them plenty of reserve). If VIA can charge at every station and along every stretch of track that has catenary, you only need enough range to get to the next place you can recharge, though admittedly with an extraordinarily high level of confidence.

In the end, could VIA deploy battery powered trains today? No. The infrastructure isn't there and range isn't good enough, yet.

Could VIA deploy battery powered trains along the corridor in a decade? Maybe. If Metrolinx and EXO electrify the routes that they share with VIA, VIA electrifies much of the track they own, and the energy density of batteries continues to increase at the same pace as it has over the past decade, then it might be a feasible on certain routes.

Okay so lets say the distance between Toronto and Ottawa is 400KM. This train has on intermediate stop at Kingston which is half way (200KM). This means that this battery operated train needs a 425-450 KM Range incase it cant charge at Kingston and to be confident to reach it's destination without an issue.

Now lets say that the train could not charge at Kingston because of some glitch. If the train didnt have that much range, the trip would need to be suspended until the train can be charged.
OR the train would need to be designed to be able to a one way trip to Ottawa from Toronto without the requirement to charge.

Also currently the amount of energy required to charge a locomotive at Kingston would likely be a 40 min lay over making the trip 40 minutes longer unless you plan to change locomotives half way, which also takes time and requires more capital expenditure.

So as of RIGHT NOW only trains in an urban environment with multiple stops are feasible. 100KM route with 10 stops along the way and a dwell time of 2-5 minutes per station. This way the train likely has 100KM of range but charges along the way "top up" 10% of the battery at each station.

Does that make sense?