VIA Rail - Discussion générale ​

[Internist]

il y a 13 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Les trains “Diesel” sont en fait des hybrides, le moteur diesel tournant dans sa gamme la plus efficace connecté à un alternateur CA pour alimenter les moteurs électriques de traction. Les locomotives bi-modes, comme les ALP-45DP de Bombardier (exo), peuvent changer entre le moteur diesel et le caténaire pour l’alimentation des moteurs électriques.

Vous m’apprenez quelque chose!

C’est franchement intéressant, surtout que je ne m’étais jamais posé la question à savoir en quoi ça différait des véhicules hybrides.

Merci de me corriger, et désolé si mes propos ont induits des gens en erreur.

Je retire donc ce que je disais, et je me demande alors pourquoi ne pas avoir été vers un modèle bi-modes. Savez-vous si le coût est beaucoup plus important? C’est l’explication qui serait la plus simple.

[SameGuy]

11 minutes ago, Internist said:

Vous m’apprenez quelque chose!

C’est franchement intéressant, surtout que je ne m’étais jamais posé la question à savoir en quoi ça différait des véhicules hybrides.

Merci de me corriger, et désolé si mes propos ont induits des gens en erreur.

Je retire donc ce que je disais, et je me demande alors pourquoi ne pas avoir été vers un modèle bi-modes. Savez-vous si le coût est beaucoup plus important? C’est l’explication qui serait la plus simple.

Ben non! Nous somme tous ici pour partager, j’apprends qqchose de nouveau à chaque visite, et je suis très reconnaissant à tous les membres qui prennent le temps d’ajouter à ma compréhension ici.

11 minutes ago, Internist said:

Je retire donc ce que je disais, et je me demande alors pourquoi ne pas avoir été vers un modèle bi-modes. Savez-vous si le coût est beaucoup plus important? C’est l’explication qui serait la plus simple.

Selon ce que j'ai pu trouver en ligne, les Chargers de Siemens commandées par VIA peuvent être convertis en bi-mode à une date ultérieure, mais je n'ai pas été en mesure de savoir si Siemens a effectivement construit des prototypes d'une telle locomotive.

[Decel]

il y a 29 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Les trains “Diesel” sont en fait des hybrides, le moteur diesel tournant dans sa gamme la plus efficace connecté à un alternateur CA pour alimenter les moteurs électriques de traction. Les locomotives bi-modes, comme les ALP-45DP de Bombardier (exo), peuvent changer entre le moteur diesel et le caténaire pour l’alimentation des moteurs électriques.

Il faut aussi se rappeler que les trains de Bombardier ne valaient pas la chandelle:

https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/32c2ea04-aacb-4836-b399-a576184e107e__7C___0.html

Citation

Ces locomotives construites par Bombardier ont coûté plus du double d’un engin au diesel conventionnel. Elles avaient été acquises principalement pour rouler sur les lignes de Deux-Montagnes et de Mascouche, et dans l’éventualité d’une électrification des trains de banlieue qui n’a jamais eu lieu.

Avec la mise en service du réseau de train léger de la Caisse de dépôt et placement, le RTM n’aura plus besoin de ces locomotives pouvant rouler à l’électricité, dont l’entretien est aussi beaucoup plus coûteux que celui d’une locomotive ordinaire.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/713735/wagons-bimodes-bombardier-amt-upac-joel-gauthier

Citation

L'exemple de Go Transit

Les locomotives bimodes de Bombardier ont été acquises par l'AMT en 2008, au terme d'un appel d'offres conjoint lancé par New Jersey Transit et l'AMT. À la même période, l'agence des trains de banlieue Go Transit à Toronto a acquis 27 locomotives diesel de nouvelle génération au coût de 4,2 millions de dollars chacune, c'est-à-dire trois fois moins cher que les bimodes. Selon tous les spécialistes que nous avons consultés, c'est ce que l'AMT aurait dû faire, compte tenu de l'état embryonnaire de son projet d'électrification.

 

[Enalung]

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

Les trains “Diesel” sont en fait des hybrides, le moteur diesel tournant dans sa gamme la plus efficace connecté à un alternateur CA pour alimenter les moteurs électriques de traction. Les locomotives bi-modes, comme les ALP-45DP de Bombardier (exo), peuvent changer entre le moteur diesel et le caténaire pour l’alimentation des moteurs électriques.

Les moteurs électriques ont d'ailleurs plus de puissance de traction qu'un moteur diesel et accélèrent plus vite. Les moteurs électriques ont également l'avantage de pouvoir être utilisé lors du freinage. Ils génèrent alors de l'électricité, ce qui crée une résistance au mouvement. L'électricité ainsi généré est relâché sous forme de chaleur par le train. Ce type de freinage à l'avantage de générer très peu d'usure en comparaison à un frein mécanique.

Les nouveaux trains diesel sont encore plus efficace que les vieux. Plutôt que d'avoir un seul gros moteur pour généré l'électricité, ils en possèdent plusieurs plus petit qui peuvent se mettre à l'arrêt lorsque la demande est moindre.

6 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

Your point is right on, but technically you should say that hydrogen is a chemical element which is (currently mostly) obtained from burning fossil fuel (gas, oil, coal). The problem is indeed with the production process.  In itself, hydrogen is a zero carbon fuel which produces electricity when combined with oxygen (found in the air), leaving water as a by-product.  If we (humanity) were able to produce hydrogen exclusively from the electrolysis process (which of course consumes electricity in the first place), we could avoid burning fossil fuels, as long as electricity itself was produced from renewable sources (hydro, solar, wind, etc.), or nuclear (which has its own disadvantages).

Regardless, using hydrogen as a fuel can be advantageous when the goal is to minimize/eliminate toxic gas release in urban areas.  Then the problem is simply moved to outlyling, less populous areas.  It does nothing to prevent climate change worldwide, but it helps locally.  It's akin to burning coal or oil to produce electricity which will be used to heat homes in cities, instead of burning coal/oil directly at home.  There is also a similarity with the tall chimneys (smokestacks) which serve to disperse pollution over a larger area --for the benefit of the locals, but to the detriment of others.   

1 hour ago, Né entre les rapides said:

What you say is worthy of a healthy debate.  Please however specify which "we" you are referring to: Quebec, Canada,  some other countries, the whole world?  The reason why I am asking is because global market forces make some economic activities more profitable than others, failing to take into account their environmental benefits or costs.  

Going directly into the heart of the matter, I would ask you whether you would be supportive of an approach whereby Quebec for example would willingly sacrifice ("sacrify" is deemed obsolete)  more than its fair share of foregone revenues in order to "save the planet"?

One idea that might be viable for hydrogen is to pair it with renewables. The amount of power produced by both wind and solar vary greatly. This means that we have to overbuild them to supply the grid with a reliable amount of electricity, but that also means that there are going to be periods when there are massive surpluses of electricity available. Rather then just waste that electricity, we could have electrolysis plants turn on based on availability. This hydrogen could then be used to either supply the grid with electricity when demand goes above production, or could be used by the transport industry. This is really a discussion for another topic...

[FrodoMTL]

Both VIA and Metrolinx in Toronto have recently completed their hydrogen rail studies (spent $7 million on the study). Metrolinx explicitly stated in Feb 2021 that they will not be considering hydrogen rolling stock because:

1) lack of large scale deployment at the moment, esp in North American market, therefore significantly increasing risk during deployment (and cost of ongoing maintenance when no other major North America rail agency has plans for Hydrail).

2) need for extensive infrastructure rebuild to support hydro trains

This is actually good news for VIA, because it'll force VIA, Metrolinx, and (hopefully Exo) into a unified electrification approach. Metrolinx owns over 500 km+ of passengers in and around Toronto, and Metrolinx is on a very aggressive electrification program, which will be additional incentive for VIA to electrify HFR to some degree within the same timeline.

Modifié 13 mai 2021 par FrodoMTL

[FrodoMTL]

23 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Honestly, my biggest issue is still how they went about the renewal of the corridor fleet, foregoing any future-proofing by ordering the diesel push-pull Charger/Venture sets. Siemens has no proof-of-concept dual-mode units running; IMO VIA should’ve postponed a fleet choice until an HFR decision was finalized, giving time to RFP for dual-modes or even a turnkey all-electric buildout. 

1. Fleet-Renewal project was approved in 2017-18 budget, hence well before the announcement of HFR

2. As part of the current Siemens order, VIA has the contractual option to order 22 additional dual-mode train sets based on the charger model (similar to Amtrak and NY Metro-North Rail Charger Dual-Mode orders).

We'll likely end up with a mixed fleet in HFR, and that's okay for this transitional period. Anyway, super excited to see the new (more streamlined) Siemens fleet arriving in Montreal this summer!

[SamStar]

Un court vidéo d'une nouvelle locomotive Charger à l'usine de Siemens en Californie :

 

 

[SameGuy]

On 2021-05-13 at 12:32 PM, FrodoMTL said:

and that's okay for this transitional period

It is indeed a step forward into the early aughts, but we honestly need more than that. If they’re going to spend the $5-10 billion to build or repurpose dedicated ROW, why not spend the extra $5-10 billion on electrification between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and get simpler, proven, electric-only train sets at a fraction of the dual-modes’ cost and complexity? The savings in fleet costs, financing, fuel, and maintenance would take very little time to offset the electrification costs.

FWIW, I agree that true HSR is a non-starter for this country in the real world. It’s nice to fantasize about kickstarting the economy with a $50+ billion investment in HSR but it’s silly.

[FrodoMTL]

18 hours ago, SameGuy said:

It is indeed a step forward into the early aughts, but we honestly need more than that. If they’re going to spend the $5-10 billion to build or repurpose dedicated ROW, why not spend the extra $5-10 billion on electrification between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and get simpler, proven, electric-only train sets at a fraction of the dual-modes’ cost and complexity? The savings in fleet costs, financing, fuel, and maintenance would take very little time to offset the electrification costs.

FWIW, I agree that true HSR is a non-starter for this country in the real world. It’s nice to fantasize about kickstarting the economy with a $50+ billion investment in HSR but it’s silly.

The baseline cost for HFR is quoted at $4 billion. Electrification should bring that up to $6 billion. Of course, none of this is fully costed until the detailed design is completed by the Joint Projects Office and CIB. I think what VIA's strategy is to break down HFR into phases, with $4 billion as the baseline phase and add-ons like electrification and other track/grade separation/station enhancements as additional pieces that could be brought on for later phases once the main HFR project is signed off. It's typical project planning strategy in public sector, to break up a large project into multi-phases so they are more "digistable" to the accountants, politicians, and bean counters in Ottawa. From a project management stand point, it's also much easier/faster to process and approve change orders (e.g. add on electrification or add new stations or add new grade separations, etc.) once the main contract is signed and underway. I've been on several large scale projects with Toronto-based transit agencies - the change orders always tend to be larger than the original contract size.

Modifié 18 mai 2021 par FrodoMTL

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, FrodoMTL said:

The baseline cost for HFR is quoted at $4 billion. Electrification should bring that up to $6 billion. Of course, none of this is fully costed until the detailed design is completed by the Joint Projects Office and CIB. I think what VIA's strategy is to break down HFR into phases, with $4 billion as the baseline phase and add-ons like electrification and other track/grade separation/station enhancements as additional pieces that could be brought on for later phases once the main HFR project is signed off. It's typical project planning strategy in public sector, to break up a large project into multi-phases so they are more "digistable" to the accountants, politicians, and bean counters in Ottawa. From a project management stand point, it's also much easier/faster to process and approve change orders (e.g. add on electrification or add new stations or add new grade separations, etc.) once the main contract is signed and underway. I've been on several large scale projects with Toronto-based transit agencies - the change orders always tend to be larger than the original contract size.

I was padding my guesstimates. 😜
 

Electrification always gets a $10M/km figure thrown around that I used for an 800 km phase one triangle between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, but I guess that often includes line improvements (signalling, track upgrades, crossings, etc) that will mostly be done in the baseline project.