 |
Re: Palo Alto residents protest Caltrain Electrification
Author: Max Wyss
Date: 04-26-2014 - 12:55
The advantages of an electrified systems are manyfold:
• Much higher power per train, means better acceleration and therefore considerably shorter travel time. Modern EMU, such as the KISS by Stadler come along with 4000kW continuous power (the current Caltrain sets may have about half of that, particularly if the air conditioning is working at full blast). Also, modern EMUs are overall lighter, because they do not need an overweight (diesel) locomotive.
• Energy saving: modern electric rolling stock uses extensive regenerative braking, feeding that energy back into the grid, so that it can be used by other trains. A rule of thumb is that about 70% of the energy needed to accelerate can be retrieved. Note if regenerative braking were available on diesel engines, fuel would drizzle back into the fuel tank…
• Less CO2 produced: Even if the electricity is generated using fossil fuels, less CO2 is produced, because an electric power plant always operates at its best settings, whereas a diesel engine in a locomotive runs most of the time at sub-optimal settings.
• Fewer train needed for the same level of service, or more services with the same number of trains: The running time of a modern EMU is (from what I read) about 25% shorter than with the current diesel trains. That means, with the same number of trains, it is possible to offer about 20% more services.
This gets to the "longer trains" argument. You can't get longer trains for free; the stations have to be adjusted accordingly, and that would get the NIMBYs active big time… and considering how expensive infrastructure construction is in California (of course, that's what happens when you let "consultants" run the show), you may end up spending more than the price of the electrification.
I agree that there may be old trees to be cut down. Now what you could do is imaging that a really bad storm went over those trees…
• Much higher power per train, means better acceleration and therefore considerably shorter travel time. Modern EMU, such as the KISS by Stadler come along with 4000kW continuous power (the current Caltrain sets may have about half of that, particularly if the air conditioning is working at full blast). Also, modern EMUs are overall lighter, because they do not need an overweight (diesel) locomotive.
• Energy saving: modern electric rolling stock uses extensive regenerative braking, feeding that energy back into the grid, so that it can be used by other trains. A rule of thumb is that about 70% of the energy needed to accelerate can be retrieved. Note if regenerative braking were available on diesel engines, fuel would drizzle back into the fuel tank…
• Less CO2 produced: Even if the electricity is generated using fossil fuels, less CO2 is produced, because an electric power plant always operates at its best settings, whereas a diesel engine in a locomotive runs most of the time at sub-optimal settings.
• Fewer train needed for the same level of service, or more services with the same number of trains: The running time of a modern EMU is (from what I read) about 25% shorter than with the current diesel trains. That means, with the same number of trains, it is possible to offer about 20% more services.
This gets to the "longer trains" argument. You can't get longer trains for free; the stations have to be adjusted accordingly, and that would get the NIMBYs active big time… and considering how expensive infrastructure construction is in California (of course, that's what happens when you let "consultants" run the show), you may end up spending more than the price of the electrification.
I agree that there may be old trees to be cut down. Now what you could do is imaging that a really bad storm went over those trees…
