What Will Run On The Rails? Part II
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post The picture to the right is what most people envision when we talk about light rail. This particular LRV (Light Rail Vehicle) is the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis. Manufactured by Canadian company Bombardier these vehicles depend on overhead wires known as catenaries to provide current for the onboard electric motors. This configuration is the preferred method of surface inter-urban rail transit in North America. The last few systems built have shared this configuration. Minneapolis, Denver and Phoenix are just a few of the latest cities to join the light rail club. Is Kansas City on its way to joining the LRT fraternity? Here I'll weigh some advantages and disadvantages of a traditional LRV. Advantages: - Clean, relatively quiet and zero-emissions - Foreign manufacturers like Bombardier (Canada) and Siemens (Germany) maintain assembly plants in the United States so LRVs can qualify for federal funded programs that require using domestic manufacturers - Proven technology. Catenary electric systems have been around for over 100 years - Attractive. Do not underestimate the "gee whiz" factor. Experienced transit planners admit that in order to lure riders an LRV must evoke emotional responses of "I need to get on that thing. It looks cool!" - It's familiar. Voters and bureaucrats typically shy away from new technology. This vehicle has gained wide acceptance and will not meet with resistance from the community.  Disadvantages: - It may be called 'light' rail but it's actually very heavy. Considerable infrastructure must be installed under the streets to disperse the weight. Additional reinforcement of the proposed crossing on the Heart of America Bridge may also be required. - The overhead catenaries are unsightly, create right-of-way issues and can present a safety hazard albeit a minimal one. - It's expensive. Of all the options, the LRVs are the most expensive vehicles. Coupled with the infrastructure required including the reinforced roadbed and overhead electrical system, this configuration is cost prohibitive for Kansas City without significant federal assistance. - It's implementation will take the longest. Spokespeople for the FTA say the average time that elapses from study to laying track is four to twelve years. And that's only if funding is available and no unforeseen issues arise. - It's 19th Century technology. It may look cool, but the concept of high voltage and large amperage delivered via steel cables is not exactly cutting edge. Conclusion: The traditional LRV does not lend itself to the constraints of implementing a light rail system in Kansas City. In my opinion the variables of funding, infrastructure issues and the return of catenaries is not desirable. There are other options. Tomorrow, Part III. |
posted by Mark at 8:08 AM
Comments on "What Will Run On The Rails? Part II"
-
DaveKCMO said ... (10:16 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:39 AM) :
-
DaveKCMO said ... (1:50 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (3:00 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (3:40 PM) :
-
Brent said ... (4:17 PM) :
-
iDan said ... (5:28 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (5:55 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (8:11 AM) :
-
the wife said ... (9:08 AM) :
post a commentthat's the beauty of using main street... up until the 50s there was catenary strung from every light pole and building from downtown to waldo (and plenty of sturdy road bed). regardless, i really wish more people would get behind the underground power supply referenced in the approved plan. as i've said before, alstom (the only supplier) is not some upstart, they created the TGV! *if* we decide to spend the time getting federal funds for the first phase, why not try something that's aesthetically pleasing and would set us apart from stodgy old minneapolis!
and for those who pooh-pooh the underground power supply technology because it hasn't been proven in colder climates, just ask any light rail operator using overhead catenary (denver, buffalo, st. louis) about heavy snow and ice storms. those wires don't just shake that ice and snow loose on their own. they need special machines to run over the wires to break that stuff loose. an underground power supply could be heated to just above freezing, preventing any build-up of snow or ice.
oh yeah, bombardier is not an american company (german?), just in case someone thinks we can't use foreign technologies or production.
Dave,
Didn't I mention Bombardier is Canadian? They have an assembly plant in Vermont. They ship the components in and assemble them there. That way it's "American Made." I believe Siemens also has an American plant.
As far as the in-ground supply technology, it may be "new" but it's not exactly modern or efficient. Power transmission from a central plant through cables is horribly inefficient. Not to get too electrical engineer on you but you have problems with ground bleed, coupling capacitance, resistive and inductive loads and numerous other things that prevent all the power from reaching its intended destination.
Lets not get too wrapped up in the pretty Hiawatha Line vehicles. I still have two more options to go. Wait for Wednesday and Thursday!
yeah, you did mention that bombardier has canadian operations... my bad. they are the #1 supplier in the states, so focusing on systems they supply is definitely worthwhile. however, several have mentioned that alstom cannot be an option because it's a foreign supplier... not true, they just need to get certified by the US DOT on their own, or through an affiliate.
i hope your future posts don't ramble on about monorail or cog-powered rail! i'm not sure what other *clean* motive options there are besides electrified cables?
Ok Forsythe, what are the other options? It's entertaining (at least for you) that we get a new option every day then you ask our opinion.
I'm not going to tell you thumbs up or down until I see all the options, pal.
So what are our other options? The only thing for certain is that no one is going to support that filthy option 1.
Let's get on with it!
mainstream,
I'm breaking this up for good reasons. First, I don't have the time to write one big massive post. I knock these out every evening when I'm winding down. Second, who wants to read one giant post?
Tomorrow's option is interesting but I honestly don't have anything prepared except for the pics.
I know it's frustrating to wait, but just think about waiting ten years if we attempt to follow the federal funding path!
I have a question regarding the bridges that you mention would potentially need to be fortified in order to carry light rail. There is a Rail bridge that crosses the Missouri River between the Broadway Bridge and the HOA Bridge (yip, you guessed it, almost aligned with Grand). Is it still in use? Would it even be an option for whatever system we wanted to use?
I think "cable cars" are coming tomorrow... move over San Fran!!! And I am guessing the next day will be a "funicular" rail option.
Brent, the ASB bridge is the large silver bridge between Broadway and Heart of America. It is still in use by the BNSF(?). However, it also has a now-empty top deck that used to serve as a roadway. I think the roadway was cantilevered off each side of the bridge. But the cantilevers have been removed (if you look close you can see this). I heard it was a scary ride. It seems plausible that this bridge would have excess capacity in its current use considering it carried rail traffic and automobiles simultaneously in the past and now it only carries rail. If the top deck is used for LRT there would still need to approach bridges built on either end of the ASB bridge to get the LRT down off the top of the bridge.
As for using the bottom deck of the bridge... good luck getting the BNSF to play nice.
No prob, Mark. Just giving you a little crap.
You're doing us all a great service by bringing on and organizing an informed, civil discussion.
Well, mostly civil anyways.
This may be nitpicky, but electric power is not zero emission.
(1) The energy used in the production of electricity contributes carbon emissions unless its from water/wind. It may be more efficient, contribute less carbon, and with centralized carbon production the emmissions can be better managed/reduced.
(2) Also, the production of the additional infrastructure for electricity (poles, lines, supports etc.etc. etc. )contributes alot of carbon.
(3) The production of the LR vehicle itself contributes a huge amount of carbon(e.g. the carbon emissions it takes to produce a car, for example, equalk or exceed the carbon emmissions of operating the car, if I have my facts correct.)
(4) Concrete pads for pedestrian egress and infrastructure needs contribute a lot of carbon as well. Concrete production is a relatively large contributor to our carbon footprint.
Obviously mass transit reduces carbon emmssions, but we should also recognize the essential core of our day-to-day existence is, unfortunately, based on extreme carbon-producing technologies.
Really, it's scary.
Hello from Beijing:-)