Hybrid (battery/AC) EMU trains

[FRN9]

I concur, this idea if proven could be revolutionary. But from reading the reports, it's far from reality.
As a passenger, I'd really want to see a complete safety proof-of-concept before relying on this for a regular commute.
(see problems with Boeing 787 batteries:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787 ... y_problems )

How would agencies deal with the worst-case scenarios in case of battery failure? Imagine a cold morning, with a train load of commuters, and a dead battery.
Would extra diesels have to be on hand to rescue those trains?
Schedule reliability would be out of the window, would passengers flee?

I think this concept is about 20 years from reality...at least...

They're testing them now in the UK with 54km runs.

With regards to the early morning, they would start out charged at the end of the line, then move to a battery area and then back to AC power.

With regards to 787, they're not just testing lithium batteries. Tesla and the battery buses the MTA is testing http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ele ... -1.1455731 are good examples of batteries in action that are safe.

The problem with the 787 is not the batteries but that its made out of plastic ("composite") and it melts easily http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 596731.xml.

No reason to use a heavier North American shell when European standards are accepted by the FRA (post PTC).

[25Hz]

Suddenly the dawn breaks on RRD expansion.

[Adirondacker]

.

But it just seems smarter to buy off the shelf European models that are lighter and cheaper.

The passengers won't appreciate leaping from the platforms to the cars or from the cars to the platforms. Whatever runs in North America will be built to North American loading gauges and platform heights, if it's going to be running on the national network.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_platform_height

Standard North American passenger cars - 1,300 mm (51 in)
Train (standard gauge (except UK) or broad gauge) - 1,300 to 1,370 mm (51 to 54 in)

Read a bit further and it will explain that Germany is standardizing on 760 mm, Netherlands on 760 mm, or that "Typical Polish platform is 550 mm high, as in France, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and Czech Republic." platforms in Europe are or will 550 mm or 760 mm with some exceptions for high speed rail. The UK is going with 915.

Wikipedia has other interesting stuff like the specific train being discussed is variant of Bombardier's Electrostar line and the width of the cars is 9'2". Passengers in and around the NEC would find the gap between the train and the platform disconcerting. Unfortunately it doesn't say what the platform height is. From the pictures it's not 48 inches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and typical European cars are stubby little things, like the Electrostars. 60, 65 feet long.

[FRN9]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/trac ... sting.html

This should be the push for Septa and NJT.

[FRN9]

More news on this. The battery EMU should be entering service in March.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/as ... hannel=540

[NJT TT9801]

NJT could benefit too:

Raritan to Newark is only 29 miles.
Hacketstown to Dover is only 20 miles.
Long Branch to Bay Head is also 20 miles.

MetroNorth:

Hudson line: If electrification was extended to Peekskill then it would only be 30 miles to Poughkeepsie
Wassaic to Southeast is only 33 miles
Danbury Branch 24 miles
New Canaan Branch 8.2 miles

Here's the link to the presentation:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 5w&cad=rja

It's too late. NJ Transit already has brand new dual modes, and they will always need Diesels. Metro-North also has dual modes, however, MN and would benefit more. SEPTA should definitely invest in this technology.

[FRN9]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/trac ... derby.html

Looks like more action on battery EMU testing.

[Tritransit Area]

I concur, this idea if proven could be revolutionary. But from reading the reports, it's far from reality.
As a passenger, I'd really want to see a complete safety proof-of-concept before relying on this for a regular commute.
(see problems with Boeing 787 batteries:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787 ... y_problems )

How would agencies deal with the worst-case scenarios in case of battery failure? Imagine a cold morning, with a train load of commuters, and a dead battery.
Would extra diesels have to be on hand to rescue those trains?
Schedule reliability would be out of the window, would passengers flee?

They'd probably do the same thing as when a train pulled by an AEM-7 or a Silverliner set breaks down. To be honest, with regenerative braking technology, I wouldn't be surprised if the battery range extends beyond the 54 km range. What would be even more amazing is if the battery trains could run and power the regular catenary trains both on and off wire.

Any of these proposed non-electrified extensions probably wouldn't start service (or sadly, even construction) for at least 5 or more years, so there's plenty of time to develop and test the technology so that it is proven.