VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Metrolinx won't be using hydrogen. Why would they do that after spending billions on electrification? Hydrail is for the poors that can't afford to electrify. Metrolinx will initially use diesel locos on the unelectrified portions. As these age, they'll transition to battery electric locomotives. The hydrail vs electric debate already happened in Ontario. The provincial Liberals got roundly roasted for pushing hydrail and delaying electrification. Ontario is all in on electrification and batteries now.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In Canada, I doubt we will see battery power for decades after it becomes popular in Europe and Asia. Canada has not had much success with new tech for any rail infrastructure.

CP is fielding hydrogen locomotives. CN is fielding battery electric locomotives. It's early trials with small fleets so they can learn. But it's definitely not going to take decades. The large freight companies will use technology to cut operating costs where they can.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

CP is fielding hydrogen locomotives. CN is fielding battery electric locomotives. It's early trials with small fleets so they can learn. But it's definitely not going to take decades. The large freight companies will use technology to cut operating costs where they can.

I have heard of this. Good to see it happening.

So, how long till the majority of their fleet are these?
My guess is more than a decade. For Via to have them, more likely 2 or 3 decades.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, how long till the majority of their fleet are these?
My guess is more than a decade.

Which is on par or even ahead of most unelectrified operators elsewhere doing such trials.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For Via to have them, more likely 2 or 3 decades.

VIA can't deploy anything without host railway compatibility. But 2-3 decades? That is ridiculously pessimistic given that the entire Siemens fleet was bought with electrification in mind (convertibility est a requirement) and that Amtrak is already fielding battery electric Siemens trains. VIA is just waiting for Metrolinx to finish electrifying their network and to see what AMT does. They will work out an electrification plan after that. I expect most Corridor services to be mostly electrified by 2040. VIA long haul and adventure routes are the difficult ones and will require compatibility with freight operators.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which is on par or even ahead of most unelectrified operators elsewhere doing such trials.



VIA can't deploy anything without host railway compatibility. But 2-3 decades? That is ridiculously pessimistic given that the entire Siemens fleet was bought with electrification in mind (convertibility est a requirement) and that Amtrak is already fielding battery electric Siemens trains. VIA is just waiting for Metrolinx to finish electrifying their network and to see what AMT does. They will work out an electrification plan after that. I expect most Corridor services to be mostly electrified by 2040. VIA long haul and adventure routes are the difficult ones and will require compatibility with freight operators.

I am not talking electrification. I am talking battery electric. My guess is when Via replaces the new Siemens trains, they will be either Battery or straight electric. So, that is like around 20 years away.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not talking electrification. I am talking battery electric. My guess is when Via replaces the new Siemens trains, they will be either Battery or straight electric. So, that is like around 20 years away.

Read what I wrote carefully. VIA purchased Siemens locomotives that can be converted. But they cannot convert them before they have an electrified network they can charge on. This is what they are waiting for.

Also, locomotives last a lot longer than 20 years. Just look at VIA's current locomotive fleet. When the Siemens fleet is converted in the late 2030s, they will only be halfway through design life.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Read what I wrote carefully. VIA purchased Siemens locomotives that can be converted. But they cannot convert them before they have an electrified network they can charge on. This is what they are waiting for.

Also, locomotives last a lot longer than 20 years. Just look at VIA's current locomotive fleet. When the Siemens fleet is converted in the late 2030s, they will only be halfway through design life.

The fleet that the Siemens fleet is replaces is around 20 years old.

There is a difference between battery electric and electric. These units, will they be converted for battery electric, or just electric?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The fleet that the Siemens fleet is replaces is around 20 years old.

Though indeed true for VIA‘s Renaissance cars and P42 locomotives, its F40s, LRCs, HEP1s and HEP2s (which collectively account for the vast majority of VIA’s Corridor fleet) are approaching 40, 40, 70 and 75 years, respectively.

[ssiguy]

Hydrogen has an amazing future from passenger trains to planes to freight to automobiles to trucking to agriculture to mining BUT is not there yet and so I don't see any widespread usage until 2040. Right now hydrogen is still too expensive {although prices are plunging and will continue to do so} and the technology is still in it's infancy. Also there is no comprehensive infrastructure built out to make it viable.

I do think any SWO HSR {up to 200km/hr} will not be totally electrified but rather use battery/electric. Catenary is already done to Aldershot and VIA owns the Chatham to Windsor section and therefore could be electrified. That leaves just a 200 km section east/west of London which could be battery only. Already battery trains go more than that distance in Europe and as the technology advances at a dizzying rate, the batteries will become lighter, cheaper, last longer, have longer range, shorter recharging times, and faster. Stadler is already working on a 200 km/hr battery trains and most battery trains already go 160 km/hour.

For now, battery trains are not viable on the Tor/QC section because the distances {ie Tor to Mon/Ott} are too great.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Catenary is already done to Aldershot and VIA owns the Chatham to Windsor section and therefore could be electrified. That leaves just a 200 km section east/west of London which could be battery only. Already battery trains go more than that distance in Europe and as the technology advances at a dizzying rate, the batteries will become lighter, cheaper, last longer, have longer range, shorter recharging times, and faster. Stadler is already working on a 200 km/hr battery trains and most battery trains already go 160 km/hour.

For now, battery trains are not viable on the Tor/QC section because the distances {ie Tor to Mon/Ott} are too great.

Last time I was at Aldershot, no catenary was to be seen (or anywhere else on heavy rail tracks in the GTHA).

Also, I‘d like to know where in Europe battery-powered trains cover distances of 200 km in revenue service.

And contrary to what you say, the forced catenary gaps would be a lot shorter than 200 km on Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto (~60 km Gare Centrale - De Beaujeu, ~ 30 km Smiths Falls - Glen Tay and <20 km Agincourt - Metrolinx territory)…

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Though indeed true for VIA‘s Renaissance cars and P42 locomotives, its F40s, LRCs, HEP1s and HEP2s (which collectively account for the vast majority of VIA’s Corridor fleet) are approaching 40, 40, 70 and 75 years, respectively.

The fact that its newest in the fleet are due for replacement, and the older fleet needs buffer cars only support the fact that there is a good chance that any new tech will be purchased in 20 years. However, if the Alstom HSR bid is chosen, There will need to be a new fleet for it anyways. Maybe by then, Via will be ready for expansion of Corridor like service, outside of the Corridor. The Prairies and the Maritimes would be a potential area.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Hydrogen has an amazing future from passenger trains to planes to freight to automobiles to trucking to agriculture to mining BUT is not there yet and so I don't see any widespread usage until 2040. Right now hydrogen is still too expensive {although prices are plunging and will continue to do so} and the technology is still in it's infancy. Also there is no comprehensive infrastructure built out to make it viable.

Hydrogen has been seen as a thing for the future since at least the 90s. It reminds me of Fusion power. Fusion power has been touted as the next big thing, and that has been said for decades. Unlike fusion, Hydrogen will not see widespread use if power generation can match the needs for most train services to switch to overhead wire power.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I do think any SWO HSR {up to 200km/hr} will not be totally electrified but rather use battery/electric. Catenary is already done to Aldershot and VIA owns the Chatham to Windsor section and therefore could be electrified. That leaves just a 200 km section east/west of London which could be battery only. Already battery trains go more than that distance in Europe and as the technology advances at a dizzying rate, the batteries will become lighter, cheaper, last longer, have longer range, shorter recharging times, and faster. Stadler is already working on a 200 km/hr battery trains and most battery trains already go 160 km/hour.

For now, battery trains are not viable on the Tor/QC section because the distances {ie Tor to Mon/Ott} are too great.

I'd suspect that for any HSR service, they will be on their own tracks. If that is the case, why would they not use overhead wires?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The fact that its newest in the fleet are due for replacement, and the older fleet needs buffer cars only support the fact that there is a good chance that any new tech will be purchased in 20 years.

Locomotives and passenger rail cars typically have an economic lifespan of 40 years, with locomotives requiring a "rebuilt" after approximately 20 years and passenger rail cars a "refurbishment". However, sometimes you need to retire passenger rail equipment earlier and VIA's Renaissance (corrosion damages and low reliability) and LRC (structural problems and safety concerns) fleets are cases-in-point. Similarly, the LRC locomotives were prematurely retired (most after only 10-15 years in service) due to their mechanical and technical problems and glitches.

The P42s, on the other hand, will only be retired already after just 20 years because the Siemens Chargers will replace all Corridor locomotives, which will cause a surplus of F40s and therefore makes the P42s redundant, just at the time where they would be due for a rebuilt. With the Chargers and the Ventures being very proven designs, there is no reason to believe that they will need to get replaced in 20 years time...

However, if the Alstom HSR bid is chosen, There will need to be a new fleet for it anyways.

If HSR (i.e. speeds in excess of 200 km/h, for which the Siemens trainsets are not specified) gets chosen for HFR, you will still need a similar number of trainsets for non-HFR routes (e.g. QBEC-DRMV-MTRL, MTRL/OTTW-KGON-TRTO and Southwestern Ontario), as HFR would have anyways required the delivery of 16 additional trainsets, as the delivery of 32 trainsets only replaces the existing Corridor fleet.

Maybe by then, Via will be ready for expansion of Corridor like service, outside of the Corridor. The Prairies and the Maritimes would be a potential area.

Independently from the fleet question, that's not VIA's decision to make, but that of the federal government and its bureaucrats, which define what services fit into VIA's mandate ("near-commercial" Corridor services, a Transcontinental service ensuring minimum connectivity between both ends of the country and Remote services to certain designated "remote" areas) and which one's don't (anything which doesn't fall under these categories). If you fault VIA for not restoring services which lie outside its mandate, you are unfortunately barking up the wrong tree...

I'd suspect that for any HSR service, they will be on their own tracks. If that is the case, why would they not use overhead wires?

HSR speeds require own tracks (but only beyond 160 mph), but HSR trains don't depend on them unless they operate at HSR speeds:

Source: FRA (2017)

The ability of HSR trains to leverage the legacy rail network (except in countries like Japan and Spain, which built their legacy rail network in non-standard gauges) is the main reason why Maglevs have failed so spectacularly at superseding HSR, exactly because this inter-operability allows HSR to share tracks with urban and freight services where real estate is the most expensive and their speeds would be low anyways, i.e. on the approaches to downtown terminal stations like Gare Centrale or Union Station...

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Hydrogen has been seen as a thing for the future since at least the 90s. It reminds me of Fusion power. Fusion power has been touted as the next big thing, and that has been said for decades. Unlike fusion, Hydrogen will not see widespread use if power generation can match the needs for most train services to switch to overhead wire power.

Where we are likely to see Hydrogen is ocean going ships and inter-city rail where the frequency does not justify overhead power.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Locomotives and passenger rail cars typically have an economic lifespan of 40 years, with locomotives requiring a "rebuilt" after approximately 20 years and passenger rail cars a "refurbishment". However, sometimes you need to retire passenger rail equipment earlier and VIA's Renaissance (corrosion damages and low reliability) and LRC (structural problems and safety concerns) fleets are cases-in-point. Similarly, the LRC locomotives were prematurely retired (most after only 10-15 years in service) due to their mechanical and technical problems and glitches.

The P42s, on the other hand, will only be retired already after just 20 years because the Siemens Chargers will replace all Corridor locomotives, which will cause a surplus of F40s and therefore makes the P42s redundant, just at the time where they would be due for a rebuilt. With the Chargers and the Ventures being very proven designs, there is no reason to believe that they will need to get replaced in 20 years time...

I understand what you are saying, and I think we are saying the same things.
My assumption is the order placed now will replace all existing rolling stock on the Windsor -Quebec City Corridor.You can correct me as to whether what is ordered will be enough.

Could the P42s be used to replace the F40s that are needing to be retired? Could they be a stopgap till the new long distance fleet be brought online? Am I right that the replacement tender is just cars, not engines?

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If HSR (i.e. speeds in excess of 200 km/h, for which the Siemens trainsets are not specified) gets chosen for HFR, you will still need a similar number of trainsets for non-HFR routes (e.g. QBEC-DRMV-MTRL, MTRL/OTTW-KGON-TRTO and Southwestern Ontario), as HFR would have anyways required the delivery of 16 additional trainsets, as the delivery of 32 trainsets only replaces the existing Corridor fleet.

So, if we assume HSR is built TOM, all of the existing rolling stock along there will have to go somewhere.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Independently from the fleet question, that's not VIA's decision to make, but that of the federal government and its bureaucrats, which define what services fit into VIA's mandate ("near-commercial" Corridor services, a Transcontinental service ensuring minimum connectivity between both ends of the country and Remote services to certain designated "remote" areas) and which one's don't (anything which doesn't fall under these categories). If you fault VIA for not restoring services which lie outside its mandate, you are unfortunately barking up the wrong tree...

Absolutely correct. Depending on the political landscape, one could see taking the extras and moving them elsewhere. If, for example the E&N survives the next few days, maybe one or 2 are sent there to replace the Budd RDC car. Maybe the same happens with the Sudbury -White River as well; then the RDCs can be retired.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

HSR speeds require own tracks (but only beyond 160 mph), but HSR trains don't depend on them unless they operate at HSR speeds:

Source: FRA (2017)

The ability of HSR trains to leverage the legacy rail network (except in countries like Japan and Spain, which built their legacy rail network in non-standard gauges) is the main reason why Maglevs have failed so spectacularly at superseding HSR, exactly because this inter-operability allows HSR to share tracks with urban and freight services where real estate is the most expensive and their speeds would be low anyways, i.e. on the approaches to downtown terminal stations like Gare Centrale or Union Station...

The good thing about Toronto, with Metrolinx owning the approaches, and their future plans of an electrified system, if HSR does happen, some of the infrastructure will be there and in the hands of a transit agency, instead of a freight carrier.

Originally Posted by casper

Where we are likely to see Hydrogen is ocean going ships and inter-city rail where the frequency does not justify overhead power.

Even then, the energy costs to get hydrogen, regardless of where you get it will make it prohibitive. It isn't that we can't, but whether we should.

[swimmer_spe]

Here is how I feel this could play out.

Alston's HSR (or any other company's plan for HSR) is approved between TOM.
This would mean 2 things:
1) not ordering the extra 16 trainsets for the Corridor service.
2) New rolling stock between TOM

The rest of the 32 trainsets are moved to the rest of the Corridor to be able to add frequency.

If Via can get funding, and if it is seen that the Corridor has a surplus of trainsets, they may expand. The Prairies and the Mairitimes are the most likely places to see additional service.
Using the Northlander as a template for the number of trainsets needed, the Maritime service would need 3 sets, C-E would need 2-3, and the rest of the Prairies would need 5-10.

And then there is the possibility that the RDCs for the Sudbury - White River and the E&N are replaced with these as well.

Yes, a lot of this is fantasy, but much of that fantasy is rooted in real possibilities based on the reality of the rolling stock of Via and the desire to change parts of Via into better service.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by casper

Where we are likely to see Hydrogen is ocean going ships and inter-city rail where the frequency does not justify overhead power.

Ocean going cargo ships {as well as ferries and cruise ships} are an application I forgot to mention so thanks for pointing it out.

I think the first mass hydrogen application will be both freight and inter-city passenger rail because the technology is there, both require vastly less refueling supply depots and the conversions are surprisingly cheap and fast to do.

All fuel cells require hydrogen but not all hydrogen requires fuel cells and this is a common misconception. Hydrogen locomotives basically require just a switch of power source from oil to hydrogen as the vehicles remain 100% ICE vehicles. There are not considered 100% green as they omit no GHG emissions but still do omit particulate matter.

Fuel cells basically mean freight companies would have to completely rebuild their massive engines and leaving only the frames intact. Fuel cell technology is also still in it's infancy while hydrogen powered locomotives are not.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think the first mass hydrogen application will be both freight and inter-city passenger rail because the technology is there, both require vastly less refueling supply depots and the conversions are surprisingly cheap and fast to do.

All fuel cells require hydrogen but not all hydrogen requires fuel cells and this is a common misconception. Hydrogen locomotives basically require just a switch of power source from oil to hydrogen as the vehicles remain 100% ICE vehicles. There are not considered 100% green as they omit no GHG emissions but still do omit particulate matter.

Fuel cells basically mean freight companies would have to completely rebuild their massive engines and leaving only the frames intact. Fuel cell technology is also still in it's infancy while hydrogen powered locomotives are not.

Can you point to some examples where railway locomotives burn hydrogen rather than diesel? I know Cummins have been trying to develop a hydrogen-burning engine for trucks, but there are some complex issues of NOx to solve, (and they're also developing their own fuel cell engines), and JCB have developed one, but so far not for a rail application.

There seem to be a lot of fuel cell applications already up and running, and being tested, including in Canada. The hydrogen-fueled passenger train route in Bremervorde, Lower Saxony, Germany, uses fuel cells. CP's Hydrogen locomotive had the diesel unit replaced with fuel cells. GMs new hydrogen locomotives will have fuel cells. BNSF are testing a fuel cell locomotive (with a Caterpillar-built engine). Sierra Northern's hydrogen powered locomotive has fuel cells. China's new hydrogen train uses fuel cells.

[ssiguy]

^^^^

Hydrogen locomotives are indeed rare and used mostly for shunting. The difference is that locomotive hydrogen trains are more evolutionary while fuel cell only trains are more revolutionary. Building a fuel cell train is sort of like building a battery powered train........you basically have to scrap the entire locomotive short of the shell and start again. Locomotives are extremely expensive so this would be a costly and time consuming endeavor. It's akin to a business that has to transform their building and having the option of doing renovations or simply tearing down the whole building and building another in it's place.

Hydrogen locomotive are much faster to build and much cheaper because they are very much tried and true ICE vehicles. All they really require is the system to be powered from one energy source to the another but outside of that, the workings of the engine remain exactly the same. This is why they emit the same amount of particulate matter as a similar diesel ICE vehicle does. The GHG emissions however go from high to none at all due to, like all hydrogen vehicles, only emitting water. This gets the freight companies to their net-zero but without having to basically ditch their entire fleet of locomotives and start again.

Fuel cell engines will certainly, one day, be viable one day as the technology advances but for now this offers a financially viable way to meet net zero over the short to medium term.

[Airboy]

CP is testing freight hauling. also adding to their fleet.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ns/ar-AA18hona

ATCO is also building fueling facilities in Edmonton and Calgary.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

^^^^

Hydrogen locomotives are indeed rare and used mostly for shunting. The difference is that locomotive hydrogen trains are more evolutionary while fuel cell only trains are more revolutionary. Building a fuel cell train is sort of like building a battery powered train........you basically have to scrap the entire locomotive short of the shell and start again. Locomotives are extremely expensive so this would be a costly and time consuming endeavor. It's akin to a business that has to transform their building and having the option of doing renovations or simply tearing down the whole building and building another in it's place.

Hydrogen locomotive are much faster to build and much cheaper because they are very much tried and true ICE vehicles. All they really require is the system to be powered from one energy source to the another but outside of that, the workings of the engine remain exactly the same. This is why they emit the same amount of particulate matter as a similar diesel ICE vehicle does. The GHG emissions however go from high to none at all due to, like all hydrogen vehicles, only emitting water. This gets the freight companies to their net-zero but without having to basically ditch their entire fleet of locomotives and start again.

Fuel cell engines will certainly, one day, be viable one day as the technology advances but for now this offers a financially viable way to meet net zero over the short to medium term.

You have it backwards. "fuel cell technology is well developed and has obvious application in providing electrical traction power, while hydrogen combustion in traditional IC engines and gas turbines is not yet well developed." [link].

There are a few companies looking at how hydrogen could be burned instead of diesel in locomotive engines, but they aren't in operation yet, because you can't just burn hydrogen instead of diesel. It doesn't produce particulates, but it does generate NOx, two toxic gases known to cause respiritory illness. So it introduces a whole different form of pollution that has to be dealt with in the design of the engine. Using hydrogen in fuel cells doesn't produce NOx.

Currently there's an experimental design that mixes hydrogen and diesel (but that requires rebuilding the entire engine). There's also a 4-year research program to build a hydrogen combustion engine for locomotives in the US, but that's also a new design which would require replacing the engine (or buying a new replacement). There's one retrofitted Alstom engine being developed in Germany, but the company so far haven't published any details on comparable performance or cost compared to a fuel cell powered unit. It isn't actually in operation, it's a pilot project.

Fuel Cell locomotives are already running, including as shunting engines, and generate no pollution in operation (see the CP example above). So are battery electric engines - including shunting locomotives. I can't find any pure hydrogen-burning ICE conversions of diesel locomotives in commercial operation. Care to share a link?

Either burned directly, or in fuel cells, hydrogen isn't a solution to climate change if it's produced from natural gas - which is how 95% of the world's hydrogen was produced at the end of 2021. Unless the hydrogen used is produced using 100% renewable energy it doesn't count at all at getting to net-zero. While theoretical 'green' hydrogen would be a solution, actual 'green' electricty exists today, which is why most passenger operations like VIA will be more likely to electrify their operations, either as battery electric or overhead catenary.