[micheal_can]

Putting up that wire cost $2B. That buys a lot of battery packs and track. I'd rather see them put the money towards building a better line than electrification of a corridor that won't see more than 15-20 trains per day for a decade or two. The $2B it would cost to electrify Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, is enough to get them to London, after RER. What would you rather have? HFR service to London by 2030, or an electrified Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal?

... It is funny that you think that much expansion that will take the Charger away from the Corridor will be in place by 2030.

Here is how I see things happening:
1) GO and EXO electrified.
2) Via Electrifies HFR routes between them.
3) New services open elsewhere.

There is no space there for a battery system. Vis is most likely replacing the Chargers with an electric unit. I'd like to be proven wrong, but Via does not exactly do things that are an interim solution.

 

[kEiThZ]

... It is funny that you think that much expansion that will take the Charger away from the Corridor will be in place by 2030.

Not so much expansion as electrification. After RER is done in 2030, VIA might want to have at least 200 km where they can run on electricity.

Here is how I see things happening:
1) GO and EXO electrified.
2) Via Electrifies HFR routes between them.
3) New services open elsewhere.

One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. If GO and Exo are electrified, it doesn't follow that VIA will electrify the stretches in between. That would still be expensive. It's ~200 km from Peterborough to Smiths Falls. And there's no guarantee at all that GO would electrify all the way till Peterborough. VIA might have to electrify more than 250 km of the corridor, for just 1-2 trains per hour in each direction. Nor is there any understanding that GO, Exo and VIA could electrify corridors that are shared with freight. It most certainly will be a business case evaluation whether electrification in the boonies is cheaper than simply fielding BEMUs over a 20 year service life.

I think everyone gets wrapped with thinking of electrified corridors in Europe and Asia. But they have more service than HFR would see for a long time. And they were built in an era where batteries and fuel cells weren't capable of what we're discussing. I doubt they would have built their networks the same way if they had current technology.

 

[robmausser]

What shifts it? The answer is the same as your automatic transmission - hydraulics. There is no mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels.

No, its a computer controlled gearbox, theres no hydraulics or torque convertor.

You are getting confused also,

Hydraulic-Diesel trains literally use hydraulic fluid as a means of power transmission, the hydraulic fluid turns special hydraulic motors in the wheels. No gears.

 

[kEiThZ]

Hydraulic-Diesel trains literally use hydraulic fluid as a means of power transmission, the hydraulic fluid turns special hydraulic motors in the wheels. No gears.

Viscous coupling.

 

[roger1818]

Then we have the "Pound for pound of fuel." that I said. Most people do not understand what kj/kg are.

Even still, J/kg is a unit of Specific Energy. Certainly important information, but still not the efficiency.

But really, we are talking how much energy from a given method is the cheapest per watt.

Once again, while the cost of energy is another important consideration, and can be affected by the efficiency of the process, it isn't the efficiency.

But, let's say we don't have access liquid fuels. Well, the only one is the Rankine. Nuclear plants, such as Darlington, Pickering and Bruce all are simple Rankine plants that use the heat given off from nuclear fission to heat the water going to a steam turbine. So, if we ever can get a fission plant to meet the required crash standards, and be small enough to fit on an existing engine, there would be no need for batteries, or other prime movers to move trains.

While safety (including crash worthiness) is certainly the most important consideration in terms of nuclear powered trains, another very significant issue is the need for variable power output. I am not sure about thorium molten salt reactors, but the uranium reactors we use today are great for providing baseline power, but they don't ramp up and down well at all (if shut down a nuclear reactor, you have to wait 3 days before you can start it again (fun fact: one of the key causes of the Chernobyl disaster was an engineer ignoring this during a safety test)). It is true they are used in nuclear vessels, but I suspect (I am not an expert on nuclear wessels ) they have found ways to consume unused energy (my guess is they have batteries to ride out the peaks an valleys of demand and have load resisters they can switch in and out that are cooled by sea water, which they have access to plenty of).

Throughout this, I am using the watt instead of kilowatt to simplify things. I don't use horsepower because then I would have to talk about the slug..... and that just gets messy.

Of course.

 

[roger1818]

Fast charging a car is much different than a train. Typically, a car spends most of it's time stopped, and can therefore be on a long, slow charge. for most of the time. A battery train doesn't sit much, which means it doesn't have the chance to recover from the fast charges.. If there is only a gap of 200-300 km, then it makes more financial sense to install wires.

Let me guess, you don't own a BEV. You don't drive them with the same mindset as an ICEV (where you only fill it when the tank gets close to empty). With BEVs, you quickly plug it in whenever you can (if needed) while doing other things (one of the best things about BEVs is it saves you time, since you never have to waste time going to a gas station).

Trains are even easier to manage, since it is much easier to charge while it is moving than it is with a car (yes they are working on induction chargers for highways, but they would be incredibly expensive to install and not really necessary). By putting catenary at and near every station (where they likely already have access to power) and maybe sidings, you can not only charge the batteries in the places the train is spending the most time over the shortest distance (minimizing installation and maintenance costs), but you can power the wheels directly when the motors need the most power (when accelerating up to speed from a stop). Once the train is up to speed, you only need enough battery power (with some reserve) to maintain the speed until the train gets to the next stop (you don't need to fully recharge the battery every time). The batteries will also get some charge from regenerative breaking. The only time the train will likely have a full charge is when it leaves the shed in the morning, after charging all night. The battery will do a zig zag decay throughout the day before charging back up to full again. You just need to make sure there is enough reserve to cover eventualities.

Remember, we are talking corridor trains here, not long distance trains, which would need a completely different solution.

You need to look up recent battery developments. This is the entire point of something like Tesla's million mile battery. Allows for more rapid and deep charging cycles than the life of the car. This won't be any issue in 5 years, let alone 10.

True, but there is even more to it than that. It is kind of like Tesla's million mile battery in that one way to increase the life (in distance traveled) of the battery, is to increase the capacity of the battery (each cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles, and if you increase the battery's overall capacity, you reduce the number of times each cell needs to be charged and discharged to travel a set distance, thus prolonging the life of the battery). There is a corollary to that for charging train batteries. Assuming effective battery thermal management, the maximum charging rate of the battery is the product of the number of cells in the battery by the maximum charging rate of each cell. Since train batteries will be significantly larger than a EV battery (they need to tow a significantly heavier vehicle, at a higher speed, with a larger overall drag coefficient), the maximum charge rate for the battery will also be much higher.

 

[Bordercollie]

Let me guess, you don't own a BEV. You don't drive them with the same mindset as an ICEV (where you only fill it when the tank gets close to empty). With BEVs, you quickly plug it in whenever you can (if needed) while doing other things (one of the best things about BEVs is it saves you time, since you never have to waste time going to a gas station).

Trains are even easier to manage, since it is much easier to charge while it is moving than it is with a car (yes they are working on induction chargers for highways, but they would be incredibly expensive to install and not really necessary). By putting catenary at and near every station (where they likely already have access to power) and maybe sidings, you can not only charge the batteries in the places the train is spending the most time over the shortest distance (minimizing installation and maintenance costs), but you can power the wheels directly when the motors need the most power (when accelerating up to speed from a stop). Once the train is up to speed, you only need enough battery power (with some reserve) to maintain the speed until the train gets to the next stop (you don't need to fully recharge the battery every time). The batteries will also get some charge from regenerative breaking. The only time the train will likely have a full charge is when it leaves the shed in the morning, after charging all night. The battery will do a zig zag decay throughout the day before charging back up to full again. You just need to make sure there is enough reserve to cover eventualities.

Remember, we are talking corridor trains here, not long distance trains, which would need a completely different solution.



True, but there is even more to it than that. It is kind of like Tesla's million mile battery in that one way to increase the life (in distance traveled) of the battery, is to increase the capacity of the battery (each cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles, and if you increase the battery's overall capacity, you reduce the number of times each cell needs to be charged and discharged to travel a set distance, thus prolonging the life of the battery). There is a corollary to that for charging train batteries. Assuming effective battery thermal management, the maximum charging rate of the battery is the product of the number of cells in the battery by the maximum charging rate of each cell. Since train batteries will be significantly larger than a EV battery (they need to tow a significantly heavier vehicle, at a higher speed, with a larger overall drag coefficient), the maximum charge rate for the battery will also be much higher.

The train follows a predictable route. They lay over at stations. You can charge at the end of the line during layovers. It's not that hard. Also solar panels should help with charging, and possibly a small diesel motor for emergencies.

 

[crs1026]

^Unlike GO - which needs to string wires asap, IMhO - VIA could well afford to stick with diesel until battery technology is proven and reliable. The Charger locos will be reliable and low maintenance for their first decade. They have relatively advanced power management capability and hence fuel efficiency and emission control.
The capital required to string wires might be better spent on Phase II track and route improvements and expansion. Ridership gains will matter more in HFR’s first decade than the relative gains in green, considering that getting people out of cars and onto HFr in the first place is the big green improvement.
The batteries are coming, it’s just a matter of how soon. I’m not a fan of buying the 1.0 version of anything. The 2.0 battery locos will be a better buy. Patience is sometimes a virtue.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Interesting. Hadn't seen this before.

Follow your train in real time

Be informed of our departures and arrivals: follow your train in real time.

tsimobile.viarail.ca

 

[Allandale25]

Prep work on forrmer VIA RDCs for their trip to Waterloo Central. Apparently they have been stored at the TMC since 1989.

 

[roger1818]

The train follows a predictable route. They lay over at stations. You can charge at the end of the line during layovers. It's not that hard.

I agree, though I still think charging at most if not all stations would help.

Also solar panels should help with charging,

I think only thin film solar panels would be appropriate for trains and I am not sure if the technology is quite ready yet.

and possibly a small diesel motor for emergencies.

It all depends how much reserve capacity there would be in the battery, but that would be an option.

 

[kEiThZ]

The train follows a predictable route. They lay over at stations. You can charge at the end of the line during layovers. It's not that hard. Also solar panels should help with charging, and possibly a small diesel motor for emergencies.

Don't need any of that. Just run diesel trains until battery/hydrogen fuel cell tech is good enough to avoid installing catenary on the long, lightly used stretches.

^Unlike GO - which needs to string wires asap, IMhO - VIA could well afford to stick with diesel until battery technology is proven and reliable. The Charger locos will be reliable and low maintenance for their first decade. They have relatively advanced power management capability and hence fuel efficiency and emission control.
The capital required to string wires might be better spent on Phase II track and route improvements and expansion. Ridership gains will matter more in HFR’s first decade than the relative gains in green, considering that getting people out of cars and onto HFr in the first place is the big green improvement.
The batteries are coming, it’s just a matter of how soon. I’m not a fan of buying the 1.0 version of anything. The 2.0 battery locos will be a better buy. Patience is sometimes a virtue.

- Paul

Exactly. The Charger/Venture fleet is only entering service in 2022. Full delivery won't be done till 2024. It'll be 2025, if options are exercised for HFR. That leaves a ton of time to let GO finish electrifying tracks, fine tune the electrification strategy and figure out where to redeploy the fleet. Realistically, this would mean nothing before 2035. By that point batteries could be potent enough that they may not need charging infrastructure between the GTA and Ottawa at all, and the packs will last a decade while charging at hundreds of kilowatts several times per day. The billions they would spend stringing OCS, would be better spent expanding the network. I hope they can get to London (via Kitchener) by 2030 and Windsor by 2035.

 

[micheal_can]

Let me guess, you don't own a BEV. You don't drive them with the same mindset as an ICEV (where you only fill it when the tank gets close to empty). With BEVs, you quickly plug it in whenever you can (if needed) while doing other things (one of the best things about BEVs is it saves you time, since you never have to waste time going to a gas station).

Trains are even easier to manage, since it is much easier to charge while it is moving than it is with a car (yes they are working on induction chargers for highways, but they would be incredibly expensive to install and not really necessary). By putting catenary at and near every station (where they likely already have access to power) and maybe sidings, you can not only charge the batteries in the places the train is spending the most time over the shortest distance (minimizing installation and maintenance costs), but you can power the wheels directly when the motors need the most power (when accelerating up to speed from a stop). Once the train is up to speed, you only need enough battery power (with some reserve) to maintain the speed until the train gets to the next stop (you don't need to fully recharge the battery every time). The batteries will also get some charge from regenerative breaking. The only time the train will likely have a full charge is when it leaves the shed in the morning, after charging all night. The battery will do a zig zag decay throughout the day before charging back up to full again. You just need to make sure there is enough reserve to cover eventualities.

Remember, we are talking corridor trains here, not long distance trains, which would need a completely different solution.



True, but there is even more to it than that. It is kind of like Tesla's million mile battery in that one way to increase the life (in distance traveled) of the battery, is to increase the capacity of the battery (each cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles, and if you increase the battery's overall capacity, you reduce the number of times each cell needs to be charged and discharged to travel a set distance, thus prolonging the life of the battery). There is a corollary to that for charging train batteries. Assuming effective battery thermal management, the maximum charging rate of the battery is the product of the number of cells in the battery by the maximum charging rate of each cell. Since train batteries will be significantly larger than a EV battery (they need to tow a significantly heavier vehicle, at a higher speed, with a larger overall drag coefficient), the maximum charge rate for the battery will also be much higher.

I still cannot see Via doing that. I can see Via having dual mode trains and run electric where the lines are.

I don't own an EV yet. The issue is that I need one that fits my driving style and my needs.

^Unlike GO - which needs to string wires asap, IMhO - VIA could well afford to stick with diesel until battery technology is proven and reliable. The Charger locos will be reliable and low maintenance for their first decade. They have relatively advanced power management capability and hence fuel efficiency and emission control.
The capital required to string wires might be better spent on Phase II track and route improvements and expansion. Ridership gains will matter more in HFR’s first decade than the relative gains in green, considering that getting people out of cars and onto HFr in the first place is the big green improvement.
The batteries are coming, it’s just a matter of how soon. I’m not a fan of buying the 1.0 version of anything. The 2.0 battery locos will be a better buy. Patience is sometimes a virtue.

- Paul

Exactly!
I don't see batteries on a Via train for a long time.

Don't need any of that. Just run diesel trains until battery/hydrogen fuel cell tech is good enough to avoid installing catenary on the long, lightly used stretches.



Exactly. The Charger/Venture fleet is only entering service in 2022. Full delivery won't be done till 2024. It'll be 2025, if options are exercised for HFR. That leaves a ton of time to let GO finish electrifying tracks, fine tune the electrification strategy and figure out where to redeploy the fleet. Realistically, this would mean nothing before 2035. By that point batteries could be potent enough that they may not need charging infrastructure between the GTA and Ottawa at all, and the packs will last a decade while charging at hundreds of kilowatts several times per day. The billions they would spend stringing OCS, would be better spent expanding the network. I hope they can get to London (via Kitchener) by 2030 and Windsor by 2035.

So, why push for the switch before 2030?

 

[roger1818]

^Unlike GO - which needs to string wires asap, IMhO - VIA could well afford to stick with diesel until battery technology is proven and reliable. The Charger locos will be reliable and low maintenance for their first decade. They have relatively advanced power management capability and hence fuel efficiency and emission control.
The capital required to string wires might be better spent on Phase II track and route improvements and expansion. Ridership gains will matter more in HFR’s first decade than the relative gains in green, considering that getting people out of cars and onto HFr in the first place is the big green improvement.
The batteries are coming, it’s just a matter of how soon. I’m not a fan of buying the 1.0 version of anything. The 2.0 battery locos will be a better buy. Patience is sometimes a virtue.

I do tend to agree with you. My only concern is if the advancements in battery technology continues at the same pace over the next decade as it has over the past decade (a near doubling of energy density and a decrease in cost per kWh by an order of magnitude), we could see a situation where the transition to ZEVs goes significantly faster than the government's current target. In that case, we could have a situation where by the mid 30's, the majority of road users aren't paying any carbon taxes but VIA is.

I am not saying this is a probable outcome (there are good reasons why, especially on the cost front, battery progress won't continue at the same rate), but it is possible.

 

[crs1026]

I do tend to agree with you. My only concern is if the advancements in battery technology continues at the same pace over the next decade as it has over the past decade (a near doubling of energy density and a decrease in cost per kWh by an order of magnitude), we could see a situation where the transition to ZEVs goes significantly faster than the government's current target. In that case, we could have a situation where by the mid 30's, the majority of road users aren't paying any carbon taxes but VIA is.

I am not saying this is a probable outcome (there are good reasons why, especially on the cost front, battery progress won't continue at the same rate), but it is possible.

A battery loco fleet will be only so expensive. Worst case, suppose it’s $15M a copy in 2021 dollars. Even 50 units would only cost $750M (plus inflation). Saving $1B plus now by not stringing wires, against having to spend $750M (escalated) at some future date, seems like a good deal.

If the carbon tax proves painful, and the technology really soars in a hurry, VIA could partially or gradually replace diesel with battery, and reap whatever level of benefit it can afford.

Diesels typically depreciate in 15 years - so if the Chargers were written off after ten years its’s not a crippling hit to the balance sheet. Whereas the wires will be a pay-upfront, long-term depreciation proposition - and not scalable. So one has to think that the wires are a riskier investment and potentially a bigger stranded asset if battery comes on strong.

- Paul