|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 26, 2012 8:54:37 GMT -8
Elson, I don't believe that supercapacitors would work for Metrolink. The Paris implementation is on a tram, and from my reading, the devices only store enough energy to operate the tram and/or LRV for a few kilometers.
Metrolink is much larger passenger cars, they are also much heavier, and they travel much further between stops. Those 3 things point you away from the supercapacitors. Just like you would likely never see them used on HSR, simply because the amount of energy being expended to move that train at 180+MPH requires *constant* power coming from the overhead wire. They could/are being used on LRV's due to the lower power draw and shorter station spacing.
If you have any further link on the Paris system, let us know.
RT
|
|
|
Post by coasterfreak18 on Jul 20, 2017 23:59:58 GMT -8
Will this ever happen? Like, ever??
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 21, 2017 9:45:29 GMT -8
Doubtful.
There's no financial incentive for Metrolink to do this, beyond a large infusion of funding from Metro or the government.
It may become a necessity environmentally some day, but I don't see it happening in the next 50 years, and there are no plans for it to happen sooner.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 29, 2017 1:41:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Dec 22, 2017 7:55:25 GMT -8
That must hurt, having something you can't put CA HSR down for!
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 22, 2017 10:12:11 GMT -8
I don’t know if you’ve seen my recent posts, but I’ve come around a bit onHSR. I still think it’s a pretty suboptimal Route and some of the compromises on transfers to diesels and track sharing are outrageous, but we’ve spent three billion already and there’s a mammoth amount of construction going on in CP1 with CP2-3 ramping up massively in 2018. So we’ve made the bed they shit in, we will just have to live with a mediocre train that is the worlds slowest HSR.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Dec 22, 2017 11:42:45 GMT -8
I don’t know if you’ve seen my recent posts, but I’ve come around a bit onHSR. I still think it’s a pretty suboptimal Route and some of the compromises on transfers to diesels and track sharing are outrageous, but we’ve spent three billion already and there’s a mammoth amount of construction going on in CP1 with CP2-3 ramping up massively in 2018. So we’ve made the bed they shit in, we will just have to live with a mediocre train that is the worlds slowest HSR. Oh, I'm definitely with you on it being a suboptimal HSR. But given the sorry state of Amtrak, I'll take suboptimal HSR over the status quo any day.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Oct 10, 2019 12:38:24 GMT -8
Per KNX radio today 10/10/2019. Metrolink wants a lot of the state high speed rail money for the line from Burbank to Anaheim.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Apr 2, 2020 7:44:37 GMT -8
My memory was just jogged. Back in about 1994 made a call to Metro or Metrolink about the upcoming Gold Line on the ATSF Pasadena sub. Suggested that instead of light rail that should use electric locomotive hauled commuter cars. The new unused electric locomotives in Mexico were being sold at that time. These were based on a Amtrak locomotive. Was told thanks but no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by coasterfreak18 on May 28, 2021 14:11:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 28, 2021 16:56:00 GMT -8
Electrification is part of Metrolink's long term plan, but was it ever part of SCORE? I don't recall that.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 27, 2022 18:04:21 GMT -8
So i've been deep diving into any material i can find on this for a video on amtrak/metrolink/HSR, and right now the way it seems to me is that no one plans to or wants to build an OCS system themselves except HSR, and that other agencies half-heartedly say they'll use the HSR system if it's there, but that's it. For zero emission goals, it seems both metrolink and caltrans (as well as freight) are all converging on hydrogen fuel cell trains. Hydrogen cells are great for the environment, but on performance they're massively behind an OCS system - current hydrogen trains would restrict metrolink and amtrak trains to their current top speeds, while an OCS system would allow trains to travel much faster where other factors allow.
CAHSR plans to convert the entire burbank-LAUS section of track to a fully-grade-separated (which only requires 7 new grade separations) quadruple track, which will essentially require tearing up and rebuilding almost all the track. Two of the tracks will be electrified HSR tracks that other passenger rail can share, but the other two - the ones that serve the intermediate stations - will not be electrified, and will serve non-HSR passenger rail and freight. It seems crazy to me to rebuild the whole corridor and *still* not electrify the other two tracks - the catenaries can easily be built high enough to accommodate double-stacked freight, like I believe they are on caltrain.
But right now, no one wants to go to bat for a whole electrified system, and fight that political fight for the money to build it, and to fight with nimbys along the coast who get apoplectic at the idea of visible catenaries. The one upside though is that Caltrans points out that a *hybrid* system of trains that can both run off hydrogen *and* OCS could be ideal. If we went that route, it would allow us to fight localized fights to electrify the most key portions of the system. I think electrifying the entirety of LOSSAN between ventura and laguna is realistic, even along the BNSF-owned portion as, like with burbank-LAUS, that section will probably be rebuilt anyway when HSR comes to anaheim. Plus, electrifying all of the AV line and SB lines (except the small UP portion in el monte) would allow the majority of metrolink lines to use OCS power a majority of the time. And Perris Valley could be electrified on the metrolink-owned portion. I think the tougher portions to get electrified would be the freight-owned Riverside line, and the freight-owned portions of 91 and IE/OC, and LOSSAN north of ventura, along with the publicly-owned tracks south of laguna for political reasons. BUT, a hydrogen-hybrid trainset would at least allow for high speeds in a lot of key areas, and zero-emissions the whole way. This may be a more feasible target for advocacy than blanket electrification, and I think a good first step would be pushing to get all four tracks electrified on Burbank-LAUS if they're going to rebuild them anyway.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 27, 2022 22:54:07 GMT -8
So i've been deep diving into any material i can find on this for a video on amtrak/metrolink/HSR, and right now the way it seems to me is that no one plans to or wants to build an OCS system themselves except HSR, and that other agencies half-heartedly say they'll use the HSR system if it's there, but that's it. For zero emission goals, it seems both metrolink and caltrans (as well as freight) are all converging on hydrogen fuel cell trains. Hydrogen cells are great for the environment, but on performance they're massively behind an OCS system - current hydrogen trains would restrict metrolink and amtrak trains to their current top speeds, while an OCS system would allow trains to travel much faster where other factors allow. CAHSR plans to convert the entire burbank-LAUS section of track to a fully-grade-separated (which only requires 7 new grade separations) quadruple track, which will essentially require tearing up and rebuilding almost all the track. Two of the tracks will be electrified HSR tracks that other passenger rail can share, but the other two - the ones that serve the intermediate stations - will not be electrified, and will serve non-HSR passenger rail and freight. It seems crazy to me to rebuild the whole corridor and *still* not electrify the other two tracks - the catenaries can easily be built high enough to accommodate double-stacked freight, like I believe they are on caltrain. But right now, no one wants to go to bat for a whole electrified system, and fight that political fight for the money to build it, and to fight with nimbys along the coast who get apoplectic at the idea of visible catenaries. The one upside though is that Caltrans points out that a *hybrid* system of trains that can both run off hydrogen *and* OCS could be ideal. If we went that route, it would allow us to fight localized fights to electrify the most key portions of the system. I think electrifying the entirety of LOSSAN between ventura and laguna is realistic, even along the BNSF-owned portion as, like with burbank-LAUS, that section will probably be rebuilt anyway when HSR comes to anaheim. Plus, electrifying all of the AV line and SB lines (except the small UP portion in el monte) would allow the majority of metrolink lines to use OCS power a majority of the time. And Perris Valley could be electrified on the metrolink-owned portion. I think the tougher portions to get electrified would be the freight-owned Riverside line, and the freight-owned portions of 91 and IE/OC, and LOSSAN north of ventura, along with the publicly-owned tracks south of laguna for political reasons. BUT, a hydrogen-hybrid trainset would at least allow for high speeds in a lot of key areas, and zero-emissions the whole way. This may be a more feasible target for advocacy than blanket electrification, and I think a good first step would be pushing to get all four tracks electrified on Burbank-LAUS if they're going to rebuild them anyway. Just my thoughts. Page 44 of this PDF says the following which may be relevant: northcountytransportationcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/NCTC-JPA-July-11-2022-Agenda-Packet.pdf• CalSTA awarded Metrolink and Metro $10 million in TIRCP funding for a zero-emissions rail vehicle pilot project on the Antelope Valley Line • Metrolink’s Zero Emissions Pilot Implementation Plan will be finalized in Fall 2022
|
|