Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

[datadyne007]

I recall from prior threads:
That the vehicle is smallest part of the cost. What is is more important is to add more juice to the existing wire. Although the PVD line has catenary it needs a whole new substation in order to support more trains. I recall that there is space for one in Canton but it needs to be done. The sidings need to be electrified as well as there are stations not served by Amtrak. The Fairmount could run off the new substation and, theoretically you would want to do Stoughton. I don't know the magnitude of $$$ for this.

We are currently costing the Prov/Stoughton Line specifically.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The energy density of batteries will bever be sufficient to meet the needs of locomotives. If they’re to be electric, transmission is the only practical way.

What exact number of kW or kWh are you claiming that trains need that you believe batteries cannot supply?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The MBTA isn't going to custom fab Tesla batteries into custom fab'd electric locomotives, even if Tesla can even deliver on their own promises which they generally fail to do.

I'm curious what promises you think Tesla doesn't deliver on. The big stationary battery in Australia? automobile deliveries?

I've also been suggesting that the MBTA should work with an existing railroad truck manufacturer to place an order, not build these things in house.

The cost for this custom work would be much, much higher than your estimates

First of all, why are you calling it custom when it likely be a design usable on all standard gauge commuter rail and North American intermodal freight?

Second, can you elaborate on why you think it will be so expensive?

and the long term maintence of these unicorns would be a nightmare.

They'll be lower maintenance than the diesels we have now.

Plus this is leaving out the costs of charging station and infrastructure.

Yes, I said that, but working out those costs is still not going to change the basic observation that overhead wire based electrification for the whole MBTA commuter rail system will likely be at least 5x more expensive than batteries for the whole MBTA commuter rail system.

When established players have off the shelf proven battery powered solutions, sure - in the meantime the MBTA probably shouldn't wait 5-10+ years for something that might happen.

Why shouldn't the MBTA volunteer to have the initial testing done on a less critical section of its track with a few of its existing coaches? What commuter railroad do you think battery technology should first be tested on?

Also, didn't the Fitchburg Line improvements get delayed for many years arguing over aesthetics? Do we want to invest in a technology for the Providence Line that we might never be able to use in aesthetically sensitive areas, like where the Fitchburg Line project ran into delays (possibly Acton?), or where a community didn't want radio towers (possibly Rockport?), or where there ended up being a tunnel on the Greenbush Line?

 

[Arlington]

The new Acela IIs will have regenerative braking, meaning "the grid" is their battery into which they'll backfeed 60Hz power during regen braking.

But in support of Joel Weber (but for a different thread) regenerative braking will also mean that Diesel-Electric trains may really really want to store "surge" acceleration power on board. The battery would supply power for quicker starts and store power during all braking, and allow a potentially smaller engine. Going from Diesel-Electric to Diesel-Battery-Electric will be a natural step, particularly for RDC/DMUs. But not for Providence or the NSRL.

For the TransitMatters Regional Rail Plan (the topic and time-horizon of this thread) overhead wires make this "shovel ready" or really, practically "shovel-free" Electrifying just Stoughton (and maybe Indigo) is slam-dunk worth it considering proven tech and off-the-shelf component prices that Datadyne cites.

The costs end up being just vehicles and expanding substations.

 

[Mongo]

Non Tesla-Frankenstein Battery trains do exist. The UK ran a trial in 2015.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/01/13/battery-powered-electrostar-enters-traffic

It is fitted with six battery rafts, and uses Lithium Iron Magnesium Phosphate battery technology. The IPEMU can hold a charge for 60 miles and requires two hours of charging for every hour running. The batteries charge from the overhead wires when the pantograph is raised, and from regenerative braking.

So based on that performance, I don't see them replacing the commuter rail trains any time soon.

Hydrogen is probably a much better solution than batteries as demonstrated by these trains already being put in service:
http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2017/11/14-coradia-ilint-in-salzgitter-for-lnvg/#hydrogennow

Those trains will have a 1000 km range and could be refueled much faster than a battery could charge. It would be interesting to see the cost break down of electrifying a track vs installing a few hydrogen fueling stations.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The MBTA isn't going to custom fab Tesla batteries into custom fab'd electric locomotives, even if Tesla can even deliver on their own promises which they generally fail to do. The cost for this custom work would be much, much higher than your estimates and the long term maintence of these unicorns would be a nightmare.

And again, if the argument you're making had any validity, the T wouldn't be actually getting Type 9 Green Line cars with completely custom trucks.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Non Tesla-Frankenstein Battery trains do exist. The UK ran a trial in 2015.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/01/13/battery-powered-electrostar-enters-traffic

So based on that performance, I don't see them replacing the commuter rail trains any time soon.

You're right that batteries that require two hours of charging for every hour of running aren't worth using. But the 1966 Electrovair II wasn't exactly a success either; is the Electrovair proof that the Tesla Model S can't go 200 miles on a charge?

The Tesla Supercharger technology that's been around for roughly half a decade now is capable of a half hour of charging for roughly three hours of 60 MPH travel, which I think argues that reasoning from Tesla Model 3 / Semi adaptation to trains is the right way to understand the possibilities.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

But in support of Joel Weber (but for a different thread) regenerative braking will also mean that Diesel-Electric trains may really really want to store "surge" acceleration power on board. The battery would supply power for quicker starts and store power during all braking, and allow a potentially smaller engine. Going from Diesel-Electric to Diesel-Battery-Electric will be a natural step, particularly for RDC/DMUs. But not for Providence or the NSRL.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/02/27/boston-regional-rail/ says the electricity cost for Boston to Providence for a 320 ton train is expected to be $180 at $.15/kWh, or about 1.2 MWh per one way trip. Tesla batteries seem to be about 1000 pounds per 100 kWh, or roughly 200 kWh per ton, which suggests that 6 tons of batteries, roughly 2% of the weight of the train, would be enough for a one way trip from Providence to Boston.

I'm pretty sure a 4200 horsepower diesel engine weighs somewhat more than 6 tons, so I'm not sure why you'd want to keep a traditional diesel if the batteries already have enough power for the whole trip, but I'm also not sure whether it's possible to get 3 MPH/s of acceleration from Tesla batteries if you're trying to accelerate a 320 ton train with just 6 tons of batteries. 320 tons is 8 x 80,000 pound semis; that would be just 150 kWh per Tesla Semi, and it seems likely that the smallest batteries Tesla will actually sell for the Semi will probably be several times that, perhaps in part to ensure adequate acceleration.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

We are already actively discussing how to leverage the VW lawsuit, even more so in light of the Senate Budget. ;-)

Do you have data on how effectively an investment in electric buses vs electric commuter rail will reduce cases of asthma? I've seen comments expressing concern about freeway pollution in Somerville near I-93, and I'm wondering how effectively asthma can be reduced by assigning electric buses to bus routes inside 128 near I-93 and I-90 vs by electrifying commuter rail; and if the technology used to electrify commuter rail is cheapest to deploy on the Providence Line, very little of the Providence Line runs near freeways that run through dense areas (I think basically just the Back Bay to South Station section).

 

[datadyne007]

Do you have data on how effectively an investment in electric buses vs electric commuter rail will reduce cases of asthma? I've seen comments expressing concern about freeway pollution in Somerville near I-93, and I'm wondering how effectively asthma can be reduced by assigning electric buses to bus routes inside 128 near I-93 and I-90 vs by electrifying commuter rail; and if the technology used to electrify commuter rail is cheapest to deploy on the Providence Line, very little of the Providence Line runs near freeways that run through dense areas (I think basically just the Back Bay to South Station section).

No because we are studying & advocating to electrify the Commuter Rail as a business model to rethink Commuter Rail from a cost, reliability & efficiency perspective that happens to have a more environmentally & user-friendly approach.

We're focused on improving MDBF:

And bringing down operating costs:

We need to electrify our "Commuter Rail" regardless of our bus network in order make passenger rail in the Commonwealth a sustainable operation. The executive summary talks about the need: https://transitmatters.squarespace.com/regional-rail-report/executive-summary/?p

 

[bakgwailo]

I'm curious what promises you think Tesla doesn't deliver on. The big stationary battery in Australia? automobile deliveries?

The model 3? They have a solid and proven record of over promising and under delivering.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/au...ues-mount-executives-flee-competition-n856946

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/28/news/companies/tesla-model-3-cash-crunch/index.html

http://bgr.com/2018/03/14/model-3-problems-tesla-parts-rework-tesla-denies/

I've also been suggesting that the MBTA should work with an existing railroad truck manufacturer to place an order, not build these things in house.

First of all, why are you calling it custom when it likely be a design usable on all standard gauge commuter rail and North American intermodal freight?

Second, can you elaborate on why you think it will be so expensive?

Because custom fabrication and design costs money. They will literally design a train that doesn't exist by attempting to shoehorn two things together that were never meant to be together, and this assumes that it even works, or that Tesla can even deliver on its battery promises - and even if they can, that they don't go out of business leaving the MBTA high and dry.

They'll be lower maintenance than the diesels we have now.

Almost anything is cheaper maintence than what we have now, but I do not believe these custom frankenstiens will come close to the low maintence of off the shelf electric locomotives or EMUs.

Yes, I said that, but working out those costs is still not going to change the basic observation that overhead wire based electrification for the whole MBTA commuter rail system will likely be at least 5x more expensive than batteries for the whole MBTA commuter rail system.

Why shouldn't the MBTA volunteer to have the initial testing done on a less critical section of its track with a few of its existing coaches? What commuter railroad do you think battery technology should first be tested on?

Because the MBTA has limited funds and a history of fucking up even simple procurement processes, and is currently in pretty dire straits when it comes to reliability as it is - they don't have the luxury of risking our next (and current to cannibalize it) generation of CR rolling stock to expermint on things that may or may not work, and in the end still end up with heavily customized vehicles that will again be a nightmare to maintain (see current Acela, Type-8s, etc), when they can go with existing proven technology in EMUs and over head wires (as much of the line is already electrified).

This is pretty much a shovel ready project that could greatly increase service and help anyone on the Fairmont and Providence lines. Going full custom one-off vehicles using our existing rolling stock is simply too dangerous and will take entirely too much time. When the big players come up with off the shelf solutions, then sure.

Also, didn't the Fitchburg Line improvements get delayed for many years arguing over aesthetics? Do we want to invest in a technology for the Providence Line that we might never be able to use in aesthetically sensitive areas, like where the Fitchburg Line project ran into delays (possibly Acton?), or where a community didn't want radio towers (possibly Rockport?), or where there ended up being a tunnel on the Greenbush Line?

What are you talking about? The Providence Line (the NEC) is already fully electrified with catenary wire, there is no change in aesthetics, the overhead wires are already there. Also, a small minority of people have been complaining about overhead catenary wires for a hundred years. Like before, I don't see anything that validates their viewpoint to stop needed infrastructure projects.

And again, if the argument you're making had any validity, the T wouldn't be actually getting Type 9 Green Line cars with completely custom trucks.

The T has no off the shelf options for Green Line trains due to the existing tunnels and curves - see the $3.5 Billion dollar plan to upgrade the Green to allow more standard procurement. Also, the Type-8s were (and still are) a disaster, so not exactly a great defense. Furthermore, these were contracted out to a CAF that makes rolling stock - this is all the same standard propositional/breaking/etc, just different specs/dimensions. This is completely different from trying to get a 3rd party company to frankenstein Tesla semi batteries into existing CR rolling stock.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And bringing down operating costs:

If you were actually focused on reducing costs you'd be looking a lot more carefully at whether batteries would be cheaper than overhead wires.

We need to electrify our "Commuter Rail" regardless of our bus network in order make passenger rail in the Commonwealth a sustainable operation. The executive summary talks about the need: https://transitmatters.squarespace.com/regional-rail-report/executive-summary/?p

Clearly we should electrify both buses and commuter rail, but I think the VW money should be allocated to whichever mode will provide more cost effective health improvements.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The model 3? They have a solid and proven record of over promising and under delivering.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/au...ues-mount-executives-flee-competition-n856946

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/28/news/companies/tesla-model-3-cash-crunch/index.html

http://bgr.com/2018/03/14/model-3-problems-tesla-parts-rework-tesla-denies/

The Model 3 is currently the highest production quantity EV of any manufacturer at this point according to the link I posted above. And they're in the middle of ramping up production and working through the bugs, which was expected.

Because custom fabrication and design costs money. They will literally design a train that doesn't exist by attempting to shoehorn two things together that were never meant to be together, and this assumes that it even works, or that Tesla can even deliver on its battery promises - and even if they can, that they don't go out of business leaving the MBTA high and dry.

It's pretty unlikely that Tesla will go out of business at this point, but I also somehow don't remember reading a news story about how the T couldn't introduce SL3 bus service because Neoplan USA that built the buses went out of business.

Setting aside three commuter rail coaches to replace the trucks on for testing would be pretty low risk. It would even be possible to save the old trucks to convert them back if it doesn't work out.

Because the MBTA has limited funds and a history of fucking up even simple procurement processes, and is currently in pretty dire straits when it comes to reliability as it is - they don't have the luxury of risking our next (and current to cannibalize it) generation of CR rolling stock to expermint on things that may or may not work, and in the end still end up with heavily customized vehicles that will again be a nightmare to maintain (see current Acela, Type-8s, etc), when they can go with existing proven technology in EMUs and over head wires (as much of the line is already electrified).

Is the technology in the Tesla Model S somehow unproven?

Does the T not even have three spare commuter rail coaches?

What are you talking about? The Providence Line (the NEC) is already fully electrified with catenary wire, there is no change in aesthetics, the overhead wires are already there.

I'm talking about how we'd like to electrify the entire commuter rail system with a consistent solution that works everywhere. Most of the commuter rail system doesn't have overhead wire right now.

Also, a small minority of people have been complaining about overhead catenary wires for a hundred years. Like before, I don't see anything that validates their viewpoint to stop needed infrastructure projects.

The last round of Fitchburg Line improvements were actually delayed by several years by those folks. There were some cell towers that actually ended up not being built on MBTA property because of those folks. There's a tunnel on the Greenbush Line that actually got built at significant expense because of those folks. So I think there's a very real risk that if we start using overhead power for commuter rail on the Providence Line and assume that we can apply the same technology to the Fitchburg and Rockport and Greenbush Lines, that we'll find that it's time consuming at best to get the relevant approvals.

The T has no off the shelf options for Green Line trains due to the existing tunnels and curves - see the $3.5 Billion dollar plan to upgrade the Green to allow more standard procurement. Also, the Type-8s were (and still are) a disaster, so not exactly a great defense. Furthermore, these were contracted out to a CAF that makes rolling stock - this is all the same standard propositional/breaking/etc, just different specs/dimensions. This is completely different from trying to get a 3rd party company to frankenstein Tesla semi batteries into existing CR rolling stock.

Putting Tesla Semi parts into railroad trucks ought to be less effort than the Type 9 design project, since the battery project just involves the trucks and not building the entire car body. And like I keep saying, this is a cost that the railroad truck manufacturer ought to be able to amortize over many commuter rail and intermodal freight customers.

 

[jklo]

And they're in the middle of ramping up production and working through the bugs, which was expected.

This is getting awfully off topic, but Tesla is very badly missing the production projections they had told Wall Street about, which was taking into account growing pains and such. So no, not expected. And yes they are running out of cash but Bankruptcy isn't the end of the world.

 

[Mongo]

Hey Data,

Were hydrogen powered EMUs something you looked at for lines that aren't currently electrified? Is there not enough data to guage their cost performance vs electrification with straight EMUs?

 

[datadyne007]

Hey Data,

Were hydrogen powered EMUs something you looked at for lines that aren't currently electrified? Is there not enough data to guage their cost performance vs electrification with straight EMUs?

Talked about for maybe a brief second (along with batteries that could possibly power thru brief areas where catenary couldn't work like at a tight bridge), but yeah, there's not enough data and the tech is unproven. We put everything we had into proven, global industry-standard electric technology.

 

[bakgwailo]

The Model 3 is currently the highest production quantity EV of any manufacturer at this point according to the link I posted above. And they're in the middle of ramping up production and working through the bugs, which was expected.

And its no where near their sales and they have been plagued by production issues and they are way far behind like the articles I posted - it wasn't expected that they would be hand making/manufacturing their mass market Model 3.

It's pretty unlikely that Tesla will go out of business at this point, but I also somehow don't remember reading a news story about how the T couldn't introduce SL3 bus service because Neoplan USA that built the buses went out of business.

Given they have never been profitable and just posted a $700 million quarterly loss, I would say: never say never. Traditional auto makers have caught up in the all electric market and are eating Tesla's lunch, as Tesla can't get their collective shite together for mass production which is the bread and butter of existing companies.

Setting aside three commuter rail coaches to replace the trucks on for testing would be pretty low risk. It would even be possible to save the old trucks to convert them back if it doesn't work out.

I would say yes - as far as I know there is a shortage of rolling stock leading to lines like Fairmount getting shafted.

Is the technology in the Tesla Model S somehow unproven?

Some of it, yes - the autopilot has had issues. Their batteries and electric motors are fine, but, that's in a car, which is apples to oranges different that a train.

Does the T not even have three spare commuter rail coaches?

See above.

I'm talking about how we'd like to electrify the entire commuter rail system with a consistent solution that works everywhere. Most of the commuter rail system doesn't have overhead wire right now.

And the bill and what we are discussing is only about the Providence and Fairmount lines.

The last round of Fitchburg Line improvements were actually delayed by several years by those folks. There were some cell towers that actually ended up not being built on MBTA property because of those folks. There's a tunnel on the Greenbush Line that actually got built at significant expense because of those folks. So I think there's a very real risk that if we start using overhead power for commuter rail on the Providence Line and assume that we can apply the same technology to the Fitchburg and Rockport and Greenbush Lines, that we'll find that it's time consuming at best to get the relevant approvals.

Again, this isn't talking about those lines, but, I don't think it will be a big issue at all. The wifi towers were boondoggles anyways and much, much taller.

Putting Tesla Semi parts into railroad trucks ought to be less effort than the Type 9 design project, since the battery project just involves the trucks and not building the entire car body.

It is never cheap to create unproven things.

And like I keep saying, this is a cost that the railroad truck manufacturer ought to be able to amortize over many commuter rail and intermodal freight customers.

Which is fine - but that doesn't happen if the MBTA is paying for all the R&D here to make the bloody things. As I have already said, once manufacturers invest in this themselves when they feel it is viable and produce off the shelf battery powered trains that aren't terrible, then we should totally look into it. Also, looking into existing battery powered trains, it seems the tech simply isn't there yet for trains.

 

[Riverside]

Question about electrification in general, and then applied to the T:

Why does Metro-North use third-rail electrification instead of overhead catenary? What are the pros and cons associated with third-rail for regional/intercity systems?

I assume that third-rail does not make sense for the MBTA's Commuter Rail, simply because the infrastructure is already in place for overhead for a sizable fraction of the system, and so there's no point in reinventing the wheel.

(That said, would third-rail be cheaper on a per-mile basis, since it's a rail close to the ground, and not something that requires hundreds of masts be put up?)

I guess, lurking in the back of my mind, is the long-term question-- would third-rail be a better long-term investment than overhead? I seem to recall that one of the (many) reasons for handwringing over Indigofying the Fairmount Line was that there aren't many commercially available EMUs in the US. I assume that assumes overhead electrification, because clearly there are plenty of EMUs down in the Tri-State area that could be used up here, if we had third-rail-- right?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Third Rail

On the Old Colony Lines through Quincy, there is third rail on the adjacent Red Line tracks with no overhead power.

Third rail often uses voltages in the 600V to 750V range. All of the MBTA subway power for third rail, and overhead wire for both subway and trolleybus, is 600V.

Amtrak's Acela, Northeast Regional, Keystone, etc trains use overhead power in the roughly 12,000V to 25,000V range.

Higher voltages lose less energy when transmitting power over a longer distance, so using a higher voltage for the commuter rail than for the subway might be appropriate.

The Metro-North New Haven Line uses EMUs that use overhead power somewhere around 12,000V out in the suburbs, and third rail I think somewhere around 800V in the tunnels in the city that have limited vertical clearance. Apparently where they have diesel locomotives with third rail pickup, the third rail system is somehow so limited that the diesel engine can provide better acceleration.

New York City also has the mess of some tracks using over running third rail shoes and others using under running third rail shoes.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And its no where near their sales and they have been plagued by production issues and they are way far behind like the articles I posted - it wasn't expected that they would be hand making/manufacturing their mass market Model 3.

All automobile production has human beings involved in the final assembly, in a manner that might count as hand assembly except that maybe they have power tools in their hands.

And apparently Tesla did switch the problematic battery module assembly step from manual assembly to unsatisfying automated assembly and are somewhere in the process of switching (or maybe they already have and haven't told people) to a better designed automated assembly line. It'll get fixed soon enough.

Given that Ford is getting out of building Ford branded sedans, it seems nearly certain that Tesla will be building more sedans in 2019 than Ford.

Given they have never been profitable and just posted a $700 million quarterly loss, I would say: never say never. Traditional auto makers have caught up in the all electric market and are eating Tesla's lunch, as Tesla can't get their collective shite together for mass production which is the bread and butter of existing companies.

Have you bothered to look at Tesla's latest quarterly statement? Also, how in the world do you think it makes sense to claim that traditional automakers have caught up in the all electric market when the 2018 production numbers say the Tesla Model 3 is the highest production electric vehicle (in spite of the things Tesla hadn't debugged yet at the time)?

I would say yes - as far as I know there is a shortage of rolling stock leading to lines like Fairmount getting shafted.

Has ridership gone up significantly since the first Hyundai-Rotem train car was delivered? I'd been under the impression that when those cars were delivered we'd gotten a lot more total rolling stock, probably corresponding to very little increase in ridership. Are you sure the problem isn't the unreliable diesels?

And the bill and what we are discussing is only about the Providence and Fairmount lines.

Really? Did the TransitMatters Regional Rail report say they think we should keep using diesels forever everywhere except the Providence and Fairmount lines?