Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
31°/18°		 It is forcast to be Overcast at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Overcast
26°/15°

14 Comments

news

GO Train Electrification Could Be Faster, More Cost-Effective Than Diesel, Says Metrolinx Study

By Steve Kupferman

20101115elecstudy.jpg
Photo by phirleh, from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.


For about a year, Metrolinx, the Toronto and Hamilton area’s regional transit authority, has been studying the possibility of electrifying GO train tracks, all of which currently support only diesel-burning locomotives. Preliminary results from that study, detailed for the media this morning at Metrolinx headquarters, suggest that electric trains would be speedier and, over time, more cost-effective than a diesel-burning fleet.


The study was the first ever to take into account the costs of electrifying all seven of the rail corridors upon which GO trains run. The preliminary findings, in essence, indicate that if Metrolinx were to sink enough money up front into electrifying the GTA’s rail corridors, the costs of operating electric locomotives would be low enough that they would be cheaper to run, in the medium term, than diesels, owing to lower fuel and maintenance costs. Precise cost figures are still forthcoming. The study also found that electric locomotives would improve commute times by about 5%.
The preliminary study report presents six different electrification scenarios, reflecting different patterns of electrification rollout across the seven GO train corridors. The preliminary findings will be presented to the Metrolinx board at its meeting on Tuesday night. You can read the presentation yourself, if you’d like [PDF], but it’s mostly graphs and pictures. The final version of the report is set to be completed in December, but Metrolinx communications staff aren’t yet sure when it will be released to the public.
It isn’t yet clear how the Metrolinx board will act on the electrification study, once they’ve had a chance to peruse its full findings. Their choice is bound to be contentious, no matter what it ends up being.
Prior to the study, the constant refrain from Metrolinx had been that the costs associated with building the infrastructure necessary for electrification―including overhead “catenary” wiring above the tracks and modification of overpasses to create clearance for that wiring―were very high, and that while they wouldn’t rule out electrification in the future, their preference in the short term was diesel. “Electrification would require a very significant new capital commitment, likely measured in the tens of billions of dollars,” said Robert Prichard, former Metrolinx President and CEO (he’s now the Chair), during a public address in June 2009. “As a result, we think it right to do a thorough study before making commitments.”
Last October, Ontario’s environment minister approved a plan by Metrolinx to build additional diesel infrastructure along the Georgetown GO line, provided the locomotives used were the cleanest available, in terms of the diesel by-products they’d be pumping into the air. This angered community activists concerned about the human health risks associated with diesel exhaust. The Clean Train Coalition, the umbrella group under which these diesel protesters operate, is planning a demonstration at Tuesday’s Metrolinx board meeting: they want Metrolinx to electrify immediately, rather than deferring the investment until a later date. Metrolinx would be able to defer electrification of the Georgetown GO line if they chose. The study doesn’t bind them to any particular course of action; it’s only meant to provide information to them and the province.

Comments

  • http://www.joshuahind.wordpress.com Josh Hind

    I could be wrong but aren’t all structures built over rail lines already required to be of a certain height so as to allow the addition of electrical services? I remember reading the design specifications for the cancelled eastern Gardiner extension and it clearly mentioned a CN regulation whereby all overpasses had to meet a certain height that would allow future electrification. Not to say it make electrifying GO lines that much cheaper, but I was always warmed by the notion that some 50 years ago someone was thinking ahead.

  • http://stevekupferman.typepad.com Steve Kupferman

    Karen Pitre, project director of the electrification study, said today that raising bridges would be part of the work required to ready the corridors for electrification.
    She also said that “GO has been committed to, as we’re doing construction in the corridors, that we raise the bridges to the right heights and the right horizontal clearances, to make sure that we don’t have to go back afterwards.”

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    if Metrolinx were to sink enough money up front

    The crux of the issue. That money doesn’t exist.
    There is, maybe, barely enough for the current diesel plan. No doubt the Metrolinx board, in private, would love the electric option; but they can’t choose to promote a plan that no one would pay for. It would make the organization irrelevant.
    The Clean Train Coalition, while they have a pretty website and a petition, evidently haven’t though about which tree to bark up. Sit-ins at Metrolinx meetings will never conjure money to cover those capital costs.
    If, on the other hand, they lit a fire under the provincial and federal governments and won the necessary capital funding, Metrolinx would jump on electrification instantly. Monotone, “no diesel” rhetoric is not going to accomplish this.

  • http://undefined scottd

    Paul Kishimoto> Community groups and those with technical expertise have made a very credible case for going Electric now if you would bother to read a bit deeper and not be so dismissive. In all my years of following issues like this I have rarely seen a case where the community is so far ahead and more informed than this.
    It is obvious that you dont really know all the technical details and issues relating to ridership numbers,fare costs, and long term costs.
    Going electric would mean that more people could use the corridor expansion and the airport link making the massive investment truly cost effective. As a diesel plan it is a very large poor use of public funds.
    The evidence is out there.Stating in public what everybody at Metrolinx says privately would make them RELEVANT as it it their job to asses things on technical and cost merit not the poor management of Dalton McGinty.

  • http://undefined scottd

    “”Electrification would require a very significant new capital commitment, likely measured in the tens of billions of dollars,” said Robert Prichard,” Too bad that Pritchard, like the Metrolinx Board has zero experience with rail.Pritchard’s number has already been shown by Metrolinx’s own numbers to be overboard so it should not even be quoted.
    The results of this “study” were already available over a year ago, they were called “The Better Move” and researched and developed by CTC. For people in the know, this study is old news.

  • http://undefined dowlingm

    Josh, any new structures are required to, yes, but GO did a study of the Lakeshore line a while back and there are some structures which don’t provide enough height which were presumably built years ago.

  • http://undefined Andrew

    So, you’re saying the upfront cost of electrification is trivial (beyond the trackwork that is needed either way)? Because it’s trivial for diesels. And if that’s not what you’re saying, then you have spectacularly missed Paul’s point.

  • http://undefined scottd

    With diesel comes infrastructure that will be replaced with Electric infrastructure in the next decade if you believe Metrolinx. Why spend twice when you can spend once? The Pan Am games is a red herring, why blow a whack of money for a 2 week event when you can easily exopand the line you already have as you build for electric?
    Lets be clear, build it once, not build and pay for it twice.
    By the way, there is ALWAYS money when the political will is there. The question right now is how vunerable does Dalton feel along the rail corridor. If he is worried then watch the money flow.Every time there is a new :study” the cost of electrification seems to drop.

  • http://undefined scottd

    By the way “tens of billions” (always a fake number) is now 2 billion of which a vast amount is infrastructure needed regardless. Suddenly Electric day one is not so expensive it it?

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    By the way, there is ALWAYS money when the political will is there.

    …proving Andrew’s suggestion that you didn’t really read my comment. Perhaps “if you [had] bother[ed] to read a bit deeper and not” jump to conclusions about the point I was trying to make, we could have had a productive conversation.

  • http://undefined scottd
  • http://undefined scottd

    Sorry to slap you down again Paul but if you read Clean Trains detailed technical paper “The Better Move”, ie digging a little deeper before you are condescending, you would notice that instead of a “monotone no diesel” message community members have been pro-expansion, increased service, and green.It is you sir that that are replacing deeper thought with your put down of people who have a far more complex message than you give them credit for, a message that Metrolinx keeps catching up to. If anything is monotone here its your condescension. Please give me the courtesy of doing some more research.

  • http://undefined Andrew

    Okay, great! Electrification has an upfront cost of $2 billion. So what’s the upfront cost of the existing diesel project? From Metrolinx’s own recent update (pdf), the answer is $300 million, most of which is track work that is needed either way. In what way is $300 million a “vast amount” of $2 billion? I would call it an “order of magnitude smaller”.

  • http://undefined EricSmith

    scottd:

    With diesel comes infrastructure that will be replaced with Electric infrastructure in the next decade…

    I’m pretty sure that electrification of an existing rail line doesn’t involve much infrastructure replacement. It would consist, basically, of building power substations, stringing overhead wire, and raising old bridges, all of which would be new work. The trackwork and signalling wouldn’t necessarily change.

    I’m just waiting for the people who’re worried about the diesel emissions to collide fully with the people who’re worried about power lines.