Caltrain looking at Battery Electric MU for Gilroy Service

[jis]

Caltrain is looking at using Battery-Electric EMUs for service from San Jose to Gilroy

Caltrain to Pilot First-in-the-Nation Bi-Level Dual Electric and Battery Powered Train to Expand Zero-Emission Service | Caltrain

www.caltrain.com

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Lost track, how many times did it say “aging diesel trains”?

It’s great to use other people money on expensive experimental gidget projects.

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

Lost track, how many times did it say “aging diesel trains”?

It’s great to use other people money on expensive experimental gidget projects.

There are several light rail systems that already do this, use battery in areas where wires are not able to be installed or are undesirable.

Seems like a sensible idea to deal with this type of situation and probably cheaper than stringing wire over the unelectrified section for the fewer trains that use it.

 

[joelkfla]

There are several light rail systems that already do this, use battery in areas where wires are not able to be installed or are undesirable.

Seems like a sensible idea to deal with this type of situation and probably cheaper than stringing wire over the unelectrified section for the fewer trains that use it.

Yes, but a bilevel coach weighs about 50% more than an LRV, and can carry twice as many passengers. The stored power requirement must be much greater.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

It’s an untested workaround. I agree it might work. Stadler is a good company for small fleet of specialty equipment. They might be able to do this. If not you can use this setup as a pure overhead wire system. It’s just nice to use other people money when doing this type of expensive experiment project.

I do like thinking outside of the box, but if it was my budget, I am going for the proven technology.

 

[PVD]

The word aging appeared a big 2 times, unfortunately, it's pretty accurate. Not sure if this particular solution will work out, but planning to replace the existing power is not unreasonable. And commonality with the rest of the Stadler fleet might be a pretty good thing long term.

 

[MARC Rider]

They're only buying one trainset with this technology, to experiment with it. It seems like a good idea, given that California is planning to require zero emissions trains in the coming decade. Might as well start planning now.

 

[jis]

Yes, but a bilevel coach weighs about 50% more than an LRV, and can carry twice as many passengers. The stored power requirement must be much greater.

A 6 car KISS including all the propulsion unit weight is no heavier than 6 Amfleet cars, something worth keeping in mind. After the battery weight is added, it will still be lighter than 6 Amfleets plus a locomotive by quite a bit.

 

[GDRRiley]

This is a 4 car KISS with one entire leading car taken up by batteries.
The choice of that over 3-4 4 car FLIRT AKKU which have batteries on the roof and therefore don't lose and space was a questionable CalSTA move. That would have allowed a direct comparison between the 4 hydrogen 4 car FLIRTs they are acquiring for testing.

They're only buying one trainset with this technology, to experiment with it. It seems like a good idea, given that California is planning to require zero emissions trains in the coming decade. Might as well start planning now.

Thing is they could have gotten around that by rebuilding the 3 F40 and 6 MP36 to T3 via a 710 swap or T2 with a modified 645. They could have likely gotten another MP36 from metrolink if they wanted 7 MP36 T3 to allow all F40 to be retired.

 

[cirdan]

There are several light rail systems that already do this, use battery in areas where wires are not able to be installed or are undesirable.

Seems like a sensible idea to deal with this type of situation and probably cheaper than stringing wire over the unelectrified section for the fewer trains that use it.

I think this is fine in situations where there is no alternative or a temporary fix.

But the whole advantage of electric trains (better power to weight ratio, higher acceleration, lower energy consumption) only works because there isn't too much extra equipment on board. The more this type of thing happens the lower the advantage of electrics in the first place and the easier we are making it to say, look, electrifcation doesn't really deliver on its promises

 

[PVD]

This is a 4 car KISS with one entire leading car taken up by batteries.
The choice of that over 3-4 4 car FLIRT AKKU which have batteries on the roof and therefore don't lose and space was a questionable CalSTA move. That would have allowed a direct comparison between the 4 hydrogen 4 car FLIRTs they are acquiring for testing.


Thing is they could have gotten around that by rebuilding the 3 F40 and 6 MP36 to T3 via a 710 swap or T2 with a modified 645. They could have likely gotten another MP36 from metrolink if they wanted 7 MP36 T3 to allow all F40 to be retired.

That type of rebuild is off the table in California.

 

[MARC Rider]

I think this is fine in situations where there is no alternative or a temporary fix.

But the whole advantage of electric trains (better power to weight ratio, higher acceleration, lower energy consumption) only works because there isn't too much extra equipment on board. The more this type of thing happens the lower the advantage of electrics in the first place and the easier we are making it to say, look, electrifcation doesn't really deliver on its promises

I think that in California, the emissions benefit and avoiding the cost of installation of catenary trump every other consideration at this point. The only real competition for zero-emissions power is that of fuel cell electric locomotives. I know they exists, but I don't know the state of the technology, though.

 

[PVD]

The big block to fuel cells is availability of hydrogen fueling. Some people might fear monger about gas under pressure in transit, but CNG buses have been around for years without an inordinate (but not 0) number of problems. They do make the news though, when they happen for sure.

 

[jis]

This is a 4 car KISS with one entire leading car taken up by batteries.
The choice of that over 3-4 4 car FLIRT AKKU which have batteries on the roof and therefore don't lose and space was a questionable CalSTA move. That would have allowed a direct comparison between the 4 hydrogen 4 car FLIRTs they are acquiring for testing.


Thing is they could have gotten around that by rebuilding the 3 F40 and 6 MP36 to T3 via a 710 swap or T2 with a modified 645. They could have likely gotten another MP36 from metrolink if they wanted 7 MP36 T3 to allow all F40 to be retired.

I was surprised that they did not go for the AKKU.

I think that in California, the emissions benefit and avoiding the cost of installation of catenary trump every other consideration at this point. The only real competition for zero-emissions power is that of fuel cell electric locomotives. I know they exists, but I don't know the state of the technology, though.

Fuel Cell end to end energy efficiency of Hydrogen truly sucks though compared to Battery.

But the bottom line I imagine is they are acquiring a BEMUs to play with so that they can run it through from Gilroy all the way to San Francisco, the portion between San Jose and San Francisco powered by the existing catenary. So adding Hydrogen to the mix simply adds complication unnecessarily while reducing end to end fuel efficiency too.

The big block to fuel cells is availability of hydrogen fueling. Some people might fear monger about gas under pressure in transit, but CNG buses have been around for years without an inordinate (but not 0) number of problems. They do make the news though, when they happen for sure.

The real problem with Hydrogen is not the 700 bar tank pressure but the energy it takes to produce, pressurize and package Hydrogen, even more so if the input to the process is not fossil fuel, which presumably will be the case when you are fully decarbonized.

Suffice it to say that for heavy application Hydrogen in spite of its inherent inefficiencies would probably be the fuel of choice, because of the ease of delivery once it has been packaged for doing so. But it would be spectacularly stupid to run a train on a track equipped with catenary using Hydrogen fuel, even much worse than running a classic diesel train under catenary. For Caltrain's application in the context of light commuter trains to extend its range a little distance beyond catenary, BEMU makes way more sense unless one wants to try out some FEMU - Fuel Cell and Electric MU, but that still adds the need for handling yet another fuel and the infrastructure that goes with it.

 

[MARC Rider]

The big block to fuel cells is availability of hydrogen fueling. Some people might fear monger about gas under pressure in transit, but CNG buses have been around for years without an inordinate (but not 0) number of problems. They do make the news though, when they happen for sure.

On the other hand, when a gasoline tank blows up, that's a pretty spectacular fire and explosion, too. I once saw a documentary where they shot up a gasoline tank and a hydrogen tank with some sort of incendiary bullet. They hydrogen fire was brief and whooshed up and was gone pretty quickly. The gasoline fire was much more intense and all over the place. Also, I believe the Hindenburg disaster was more from the diesel fuel catching fire than from the initial hydrogen fire.

 

[PVD]

I'm not a huge fuel cell fan. I cover them in my Alt Energy Systems class, but not with great enthusiasm. While they reduce emissions where they are used, overall, they are not end to end efficient. I agree with JIS that the BEMU is the better choice in this scenario.

 

[cirdan]

I think that in California, the emissions benefit and avoiding the cost of installation of catenary trump every other consideration at this point. The only real competition for zero-emissions power is that of fuel cell electric locomotives. I know they exists, but I don't know the state of the technology, though.

This would be a regrettable case of false incentives favorizing suboptimal and wasteful solutions.

I don't see what's so evil about catenary that one needs to avoid it at the cost of great distortion.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Not that I am in any way suggesting they go this route, but would third rail be cheaper (for interests sake)?

 

[jis]

Not that I am in any way suggesting they go this route, but would third rail be cheaper (for interests sake)?

No

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

No

Fast and concise!

 

[Willbridge]

Fast and concise!

Third rails are lots of fun in suburban or rural operation. On the Puget Sound Electric Rwy., kids used to toss chains across from the third rail to the running rails to see what might happen. In Cold War Berlin I sometimes could time our whee hours trips to be at a grade crossing in our unmarked car when the Duppel S-Bahn shuttle would come flashing through the darkness. My regular partners were not surprised, but the third rail fireworks on a dark suburban road impressed newbies and concerned some.

I vote for battery electrics on the Gilroy extension, with hypothetical catenary planned for any new project affecting clearances.

 

[GDRRiley]

That type of rebuild is off the table in California.

It is not, even units disable to get money for modern locos can be rebuilt if they meet T4 standards. Metrolinks F59 fleet could come back if they deiced rebuild to T4 was a good move.
Caltrans is going to rebuild their F59phi fleet to T3 if not T4

I don't see what's so evil about catenary that one needs to avoid it at the cost of great distortion.

Right now its a visual impact under CEQA California's environmental review process that must be mitigated. There have been a number of attempts to exempt it with new ones planned.

At this point UP is not interested in having wires above tracks they own so we need to buy them out to do so, Elmhurst to Moorpark on the coast line as well as Stockton to Yuba city via the old WP main are 2 that the state could likely buy. BNSF is far more open and it seems like they'll allow wires from Hobart to Fullerton if not all the way to San Bernardino.

Not that I am in any way suggesting they go this route, but would third rail be cheaper (for interests sake)?

No 3rd rails are bad for mainline running, they limit trains speed, require far more frequent substations given their lower DC voltage and have major safety issues

 

[PVD]

The newer CARB rules pretty much rule out most new rebuilds unless it is going to 4. That is not what was suggested in the original post which was 2&3, which will not happen.

 

[jis]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: A large number of posts discussing general electrification issues with little bearing on California specifically have been moved to a general discussion thread at:

The Electrification discussion

Railway are using taller rail cars now, so that is the technical reason why overhead wires are going to be unwelcome. The system that use battery pack to run trolley are in city that are quite old and the simple poles and wires are noticeable change to the few blocks of a historic area.

www.amtraktrains.com

Please continue that discussion in the new thread while focusing this old thread on the Caltrain BEMU experiment.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and participation.