There are several light rail systems that already do this, use battery in areas where wires are not able to be installed or are undesirable.
Yes, but a bilevel coach weighs about 50% more than an LRV, and can carry twice as many passengers. The stored power requirement must be much greater.
A 6 car KISS including all the propulsion unit weight is no heavier than 6 Amfleet cars, something worth keeping in mind. After the battery weight is added, it will still be lighter than 6 Amfleets plus a locomotive by quite a bit.
Thing is they could have gotten around that by rebuilding the 3 F40 and 6 MP36 to T3 via a 710 swap or T2 with a modified 645. They could have likely gotten another MP36 from metrolink if they wanted 7 MP36 T3 to allow all F40 to be retired.
I think this is fine in situations where there is no alternative or a temporary fix.
That type of rebuild is off the table in California.
I think that in California, the emissions benefit and avoiding the cost of installation of catenary trump every other consideration at this point. The only real competition for zero-emissions power is that of fuel cell electric locomotives. I know they exists, but I don't know the state of the technology, though.
I was surprised that they did not go for the AKKU.
Fuel Cell end to end energy efficiency of Hydrogen truly sucks though compared to Battery.
The real problem with Hydrogen is not the 700 bar tank pressure but the energy it takes to produce, pressurize and package Hydrogen, even more so if the input to the process is not fossil fuel, which presumably will be the case when you are fully decarbonized.
On the other hand, when a gasoline tank blows up, that's a pretty spectacular fire and explosion, too. I once saw a documentary where they shot up a gasoline tank and a hydrogen tank with some sort of incendiary bullet. They hydrogen fire was brief and whooshed up and was gone pretty quickly. The gasoline fire was much more intense and all over the place. Also, I believe the Hindenburg disaster was more from the diesel fuel catching fire than from the initial hydrogen fire.
This would be a regrettable case of false incentives favorizing suboptimal and wasteful solutions.
Third rails are lots of fun in suburban or rural operation. On the Puget Sound Electric Rwy., kids used to toss chains across from the third rail to the running rails to see what might happen. In Cold War Berlin I sometimes could time our whee hours trips to be at a grade crossing in our unmarked car when the Duppel S-Bahn shuttle would come flashing through the darkness. My regular partners were not surprised, but the third rail fireworks on a dark suburban road impressed newbies and concerned some.
It is not, even units disable to get money for modern locos can be rebuilt if they meet T4 standards. Metrolinks F59 fleet could come back if they deiced rebuild to T4 was a good move.
Right now its a visual impact under CEQA California's environmental review process that must be mitigated. There have been a number of attempts to exempt it with new ones planned.
No 3rd rails are bad for mainline running, they limit trains speed, require far more frequent substations given their lower DC voltage and have major safety issues
