[kEiThZ]

What time frame are you talking about?

Probably beyond 2035.

Also, AFIK, most BEMUs need at least part of the route to be electrified to recharge the batteries.

Absolutely. And that would have to be taken into consideration.

As for installing battery packs on coaches, unless the coaches were designed to have battery packs installed (which I don't think the Siemen's Venture coaches were designed for), I don't see that as being an easy solution.

As currently designed, I'd agree. In 10-15 years, I wouldn't write off mods being designed and battery packs being substantially smaller and lighter. As it stands right now, you could probably put a Tesla battery pack on each coach and have enough range to cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

 

[Bordercollie]

I'm sure you could roof Mount it like CNG tanks on a bus. Possibly with solar panels for trickle charging.

 

[roger1818]

Probably beyond 2035.

By then, who knows what the freight railways have done towards electrification.

As it stands right now, you could probably put a Tesla battery pack on each coach and have enough range to cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

That is a pretty bold statement with no proof. Lets see if the math works out.

Using VIA Rail's emissions data, the Toronto-Montreal train emits 14.76 kg CO2 /seat based on an emission factor of 3.01 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of diesel, so works out to 4.91 liters of diesel / seat. Based on the assumption that a typical train on that route is a 5 car LRC, there are typically 272.00 seats per train, the train uses 1,335 liters of diesel. According to Wikipedia, diesel fuel has an energy density of 38.60 MJ / liter of diesel, so the fuel Energy used (MJ) is 51,533 MJ. Since there is 3.60 MJ / kWh, that works out to 14,315 kWh. Now I don't know how efficient VIA's locomotives are, but assuming that they are an extremely poor 30% (they are probably much better), that means the electrical energy used is 4,294 kWh. It is also true that by using batteries, additional efficiencies can be gained through regenerative braking and such. Assuming that works out to 15%, that means the total battery energy used would be 3,650 kWh for the train. Now you said each car would have a battery, so given that we are assuming a 5 car train, that means the each car would draw on average 730 kWh. Now in reality that is an average and you would also want some reserve in case of eventualities, so you would probably want each car to actually have double that, so you are looking at a 1.5 MWh battery per car. As far as I know, the largest batteries Tesla currently uses are 100 kWh, so no, putting "a Tesla battery pack on each coach" would not "have enough range to cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal."

On top of that, none of that takes into account that adding batteries to the coaches will increase their mass, and thus increase the amount of energy needed to haul them.. Even Tesla's new 4680 cell is expected to have a specific energy density of about 300 Wh/kg. That works out to over 3 tonnes per MWh.

I'm sure you could roof Mount it like CNG tanks on a bus. Possibly with solar panels for trickle charging.

Batteries are very heavy and putting them on the roof will raise the center of gravity significantly. This would change the car's design performance, especially around corners.

The reality is, with a traditional passenger train (with separate locomotive and coaches, not an EMU), it makes far more sense to put the batteries in the locomotive, so that their mass (and thus weight) can increase the traction between the driving wheels and the rail (the traction is proportional to the weight) rather than increase the mass of the load with no increase in traction. Obviously, with an EMU, the motors are in the coaches, so that is no longer an issue.

 

[kEiThZ]

Using VIA Rail's emissions data, the Toronto-Montreal train emits 14.76 kg CO2 /seat based on an emission factor of 3.01 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of diesel, so works out to 4.91 liters of diesel / seat. Based on the assumption that a typical train on that route is a 5 car LRC, there are typically 272.00 seats per train, the train uses 1,335 liters of diesel. According to Wikipedia, diesel fuel has an energy density of 38.60 MJ / liter of diesel, so the fuel Energy used (MJ) is 51,533 MJ. Since there is 3.60 MJ / kWh, that works out to 14,315 kWh. Now I don't know how efficient VIA's locomotives are, but assuming that they are an extremely poor 30% (they are probably much better), that means the electrical energy used is 4,294 kWh. It is also true that by using batteries, additional efficiencies can be gained through regenerative braking and such. Assuming that works out to 15%, that means the total battery energy used would be 3,650 kWh for the train. Now you said each car would have a battery, so given that we are assuming a 5 car train, that means the each car would draw on average 730 kWh. Now in reality that is an average and you would also want some reserve in case of eventualities, so you would probably want each car to actually have double that, so you are looking at a 1.5 MWh battery per car.

Your roundabout math is massively overinflating the demand per car. You're right that it's more than a Tesla. Probably a couple of Tesla packs. But nowhere near 1.5MWh per car. That's insane.

Bombardier launched their Talent 3 BEMU in 2016 with 300 kWh for a 3 car train claiming 100 km of range. Here's the actual quote from their presentation:

CFO range: 40 km for early deployment lines (100 km achieveable). 40 km based on actual lines with many stops max acceleration to 120 kph with a fully loaded train using only 40% of the battery capacity (20% is then buffer and 40% DoD to ensure optimal lifetime of the batteries)

Source: http://www.ig-nahverkehr.de/wp-cont...-batteries_presentation_for-the-webpage_0.pdf

But that was for surburban service with lots of stops and lots of acceleration and deceleration. It's easy to see how a few hundred kWh could easily cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Especially if there's stretches of Catenary where they aren't running on battery power. And especially if we're talking 10-15 years from now when batteries should have seen some notable improvements in specific energy.

Batteries are very heavy and putting them on the roof will raise the center of gravity significantly. This would change the car's design performance, especially around corners.

And yet that's what Bombardier is doing. Maybe the vertical change in C of G is just not enough to cause concerns? Especially at lower speeds and banking.

 

[micheal_can]

Your roundabout math is massively overinflating the demand per car. You're right that it's more than a Tesla. Probably a couple of Tesla packs. But nowhere near 1.5MWh per car. That's insane.

Bombardier launched their Talent 3 BEMU in 2016 with 300 kWh for a 3 car train claiming 100 km of range. Here's the actual quote from their presentation:

The issue is you want to range. So, how many km would the train need to travel on battery in a day?

 

[roger1818]

Your roundabout math is massively overinflating the demand per car. You're right that it's more than a Tesla. Probably a couple of Tesla packs. But nowhere near 1.5MWh per car. That's insane.

Then show me where my math is wrong. It isn't as round about as you might think since VIA calculated their carbon emissions based on fuel consumption, so I was just reversing their calculations.

Bombardier launched their Talent 3 BEMU in 2016 with 300 kWh for a 3 car train claiming 100 km of range. Here's the actual quote from their presentation:

Source: http://www.ig-nahverkehr.de/wp-cont...-batteries_presentation_for-the-webpage_0.pdf

First of all, the 100 km range will be an average. You wouldn't want to plan on pushing the trains that far as you will want to leave some reserve.

Secondly, VIA's Toronto to Montreal route is 539 km, so that is a 5.39 times increase.in needed range from the 100 km you are quoting. If you multiply 300 kWh by 5.39 you get 1617 kWh. Also, although it has 3 cars, the total train length is 52.6 m, only double the length of a single Siemens Venture. So divide that by 2, you get 800 kWh per car. I calculated 730 kWh per car and doubled it for some reserve. On top of that, the Talent is an EMU and will be more efficient than a conventional train with a separate locomotive.
http://www.ig-nahverkehr.de/wp-cont...-batteries_presentation_for-the-webpage_0.pdf

But that was for surburban service with lots of stops and lots of acceleration and deceleration. It's easy to see how a few hundred kWh could easily cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

True, but they are also operating at lower speed. Fluid friction is proportional to the square of the velocity, so a faster train will need more energy. Also, the nice thing about electric vehicles (in this case trains) is they can use regenerative braking to recuperate some of the energy lost when stopping (assuming they have somewhere to put that energy, like batteries or back to the catenary).

Especially if there's stretches of Catenary where they aren't running on battery power. And especially if we're talking 10-15 years from now when batteries should have seen some notable improvements in specific energy.

Except you said:

As it stands right now, you could probably put a Tesla battery pack on each coach and have enough range to cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

We don't have any catenary on any of the route right now.

And yet that's what Bombardier is doing. Maybe the vertical change in C of G is just not enough to cause concerns? Especially at lower speeds and banking.

It is one thing for the manufacture to design it in. It is another thing to add batteries to the roof of existing coaches.

 

[kEiThZ]

You're right. I was wrong. It's a few Tesla packs. 1.5 MWh was overkill though.

In any event, we have a few decades to see how this pans out. No point speculating when nobody how much catenary there will be and where batteries will be in 15-20 years. I don't think there will be any rush to electrify VIA's fleet. There's bigger fish to fry.

 

[kEiThZ]

The issue is you want to range. So, how many km would the train need to travel on battery in a day?

That's a function of how much catenary is built.

 

[micheal_can]

That's a function of how much catenary is built.

Well, when you are the one stuck on battery trains, one would think you would have figured out roughly how many km along the line would need to be on battery. Reality is, if it cannot last the day on one charge and be charged overnoght, it would not be used.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, when you are the one stuck on battery trains, one would think you would have figured out roughly how many km along the line would need to be on battery. Reality is, if it cannot last the day on one charge and be charged overnoght, it would not be used.

That's not really how battery train operations work. And you'd need deep modeling to figure out exactly how much battery is needed and the tradeoff between extra battery capacity and catenary extensions. That's far beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[crs1026]

Just to keep our eye on the ball.....

At .081kg/km/seat, a 272 seat VIA train produces 22.032 kg of CO2 per km. (VIA's figures)

To compare, 272 2021 Honda Accord sedans are rated at 45.424 kg of CO2 per km. (Honda's figures)

So, for every additional trainload of (single passenger) auto driving customers it attracts, VIA can reduce emissions by marginally more (45.4-22.0 = 23.4 kg) than if it eliminated the emissions of one current diesel train. And that's assuming electrification/battery/whatever can be considered completely carbon free.

Capital spent on HFR improvements that boost ridership will have a higher ROI than capital that makes VIA greener but does not grow ridership. Batteries don't boost ridership. They can wait.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

That's not really how battery train operations work. And you'd need deep modeling to figure out exactly how much battery is needed and the tradeoff between extra battery capacity and catenary extensions. That's far beyond the scope of this forum.

It is not. If someone is suggesting battery power and then showing what is out there, the question needs to be whether it would work with Via's system. So, at what point would Via aquire these battery trains? How much of their line would be fed by some sort of shore power? How many trips a day would this one train make? Using all that, you could come up with some very rough numbers that for most of us, would help us understand the basic feasibility of it.

So, how much of their line would be electrified before they would bring a Battery train in service?
How much of their route would be not electrified?
How many trips of that route in a day would they travel it?

That number would be km per day that a train is without shore power.

Now, if you want to make sure we have all the information, then we would need to know how many km to charge the batteries to full, and if in the route is there enough of those km. If there iss not, then we need to assume that it will need to last most of the day and be charged where it lays over for the night.

This is kinda like how often do the engines get refueled. I am guessing it's normally once a day along the Corridor.

 

[kEiThZ]

At .081kg/km/seat, a 272 seat VIA train produces 22.032 kg of CO2 per km. (VIA's figures)

Should add that the new fleet should be even better than this.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

I normally wouldn't share random YouTube videos, but this YouTuber recently travelled from Winnipeg to Jasper on The Canadian and provided a glimpse of the refurbished HEP1 coaches in service.

From what l can see, they look pretty great! I was wondering whether anyone had a clearer shot of the interior?

Love the new interior refurbish, new leather seats an colour scheme. Feels modern and retro at the same time and a good reuse of old rollingstock.

 

[Bordercollie]

Looks like they installed digital number boards. Looks good.