The Locomotives of the Future.

[Anonymous]

With new technology comes change. What do you think the trains of the future will be like. What will they look like, what will they run on, how will they be powered [?]

[Anonymous]

I think we'll probably be using the normal 4ft 8 1/2 track gauge for a while yet, as it's backwards-compatible. Knuckle couplers are also likely to stick around. Interestingly the DB (German railways) have started fitting switchers with remote-controlled couplers - these units can hook up to cars fitted with standard European hook and screw-link couplers, and unhook, using controls either on the loco control desk or on a handheld control box. I think we'll see more ideas like this.

Trains speeds in the US may also go up - France, Germany, etc have all invested heavily in fast internal and international rail links to compete with air travel. I think as airspace becomes more crowded we may well see more trains like the Acela. Electrification may also make a comeback on long runs - it's easier to build fast electrics than fast diesels. Electric yard switchers using overhead power might also make an appearance - they'll make less noise and smoke, handy in urban areas with residents who don't appreciate the trains!

[Anonymous]

One thing for sure, they will never be nuclear powered. I would even wonder about electric but one never knows.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wmlurgan

One thing for sure, they will never be nuclear powered. I would even wonder about electric but one never knows.

Even I have to agree with you on that one.

[Anonymous]

I don't really see fast long distance trains in the U.S. It's much harder to "secure" long stretches of track from sabotage. And it's so difficult to get around all of the freight, and you need to have much better built and maintained trackage for high-speed passenger travel, that you'd have to build separate tracks for the high-speed passenger stuff just like Europe and Japan did for their fast trains, and that will get very very very expensive in the large expanses of the U.S.. I can tell you by experience that Amtrak trains riding on most other railroad tracks (as opposed to having their own track and control) get held up so much by other traffic and waiting for clearances, that you can sit somewhere for over an hour. In those situations, it's not the speed of the train itself that holds them up. In short distances where Amtrak has their own track, and the comparable flight time is 1 1/2 hours or less, a train can be a viable solution, (especially if fuel costs stay at the current levels or increase). But not cross-country.

For freight, I foresee some hybrid engines in switching and local jobs in the future (situations where there is alot of slow-speed movement, alot of stop-and-go, and some sitting around). By "hybrid", I'm referring to a locomotive powered by a bank of batteries, which is constantly charged by a relatively small engine (either diesel, gasoline, or maybe a bio-fuel like ethanol). This will greatly improve fuel efficiency, and the smaller engine will be quieter. In vehicle hybrid applications, one of the big limitations is the weight of the batteries. On a yard or local locomotive, that will actually be a benefit, so there will not be a need for lighter batteries (which are expensive), helping with the costs.

Other than meeting upcoming EPA requirements, I don't expect long haul locomotives to change much in at least the next 20 years. Remote control, computer enhancement, GPS tracking, and dispatching might change, but I don't expect a change from the basic American diesel electric locomotive engine.

And like someone already mentioned about the remote uncoupling, I also expect to see thngs like more wireless cameras being used on locals, to assist the engineer in operating the train.

---jps

[Anonymous]

Wait til EMD introduces the SD100i-AC/DC-CFC-FREE/MAC-3[%-)]!!
Who knows what the technology will bring, but it recent offerings from EMD are the start of a trend, they wont do any thing but get uglier![;)].

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Wait til EMD introduces the SD100i-AC/DC-CFC-FREE/MAC-3!!
Who knows what the technology will bring, but it recent offerings from EMD are the start of a trend, they wont do any thing but get uglier!.

I think you are right[#ditto]

[tatans]

Turbine (jet engine technology) electric powered engines are on the drawing boards already. Just check the smaller size, more H.P. less maintenance , newer jet aircraft engines being used today and the size of the existing monster diesel engines that use 1950's technology. Smaller engines--less maintenance-- and better fuel consumption will be here sooner than you think, it's all dollars.

[ckape]

Well, save for complying with new regulations, I don't expect the bigger road units to change much over the next few years. For switchers I expect the most change. In switching operations there's a lot of starting and stopping, which could be made more efficient with regenerative braking and large battery banks or fuel cells. The Green Goat is already a step in this direction.

As for looks, they come and go, I'm not happy with EMD's new nose either, but the tapered nose on the early SD70s and 90s was a definate improvement over the noses that came with the 3-window SD60s and the original safety cabs.

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: What will they look like, what will they run on, how will they be powered?

I suppose it's unrealistic for me to continue to hold out hope for a return to coal fired steam power? [sigh]


Regards

Ed (..forgetting which way is "The Future"..)

[Bikerdad]

Fuel cells, starting with the yard switchers, i.e., "greener goats". Also, maglev, especially if the forward thinking engineers start thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX on how to do it. Done correctly, the major cost in converting to maglev is infrastructure and right of way. Smart folks can do it while using existing rolling stock, although not motive power.

[ben10ben]

If a practical, inexpensive, and readily available superconductor ever becomes a reality, I think that we will definitely see a surge in electrification, as it would become less epensive to get the power out to the locomotive if you don't have huge amounts of resistance eating it up all along the way. A super conductor would also greatly increase the efficiency, and probably the speed of existing diesel-electrics.

[Javern]

I look for completely remote operated trains, people in control centers will operate them. Video cams in the cab will offer them the birdseye view

[Anonymous]

A single track, line frequency (60 Hz ac) medium voltage (15 kV class) electrification is little more than a series of larger single phase distribution feeders like you'd find in an urban district, and can easily be fed from the existing grid right now, in most parts of the country. A 5,000HP ac electric locomotive is about a 5 MVA load, which is not all that big from a utility system standpoint, plus with modern solid-state technology regeneration is easily accomplished. Superconductors aren't necessary.

So why don't we do it?

Because of all the other costs associated with the changeover, including changeover of signaling, installation of bonds, and installation of substations and control equipment, not to mention the new motive power, plus modification of bridges and overpasses for clearance and installation of tensioned catenary rather than the far less expensive single aerial conductor usually associated with a single phase distribution system.

Several utilities figured out the stuff in the first paragraph above and did it at the mine mouth. But, they're limited point-to-point systems with minimal complication and work rules generally unlike any you'll find on the Class Is--e.g., TU Energy is semi-automated, remote-controlled, and is an IBEW shop, and has been all of the above for over 20 years.

Once upon a time, we looked at main line electrification for a Class I who was hauling coal to the utility and saw an immediate business opportunity, and the numbers worked, with the utility owning the electrical plant, but not at the prevailing (at the time) fuel price. Traffic also plays a huge part in the justification under today's economic constraints in the US. By the way, having the utility own the overhead and substations with the railroad purchasing power at the wire is a feasible method for consideration when the numbers are right. There are a lot of good reasons to consider this.

But, like maglev (which is a whole lot more complicated, incompatible and costly than is being reported in this thread), wholesale electrification requires conversion to and capitalization of what amounts to an entirely new infrastructure. Got the $$--go for it. Lots of $$ by RR standards.

I don't anticipate seeing any large scale mainline electrification projects any time soon, as long as fuel prices remain even as high as they are. Hybrids in yard and switching service--definitely. Commuter districts in non-attainment areas, probably, because the traffic is there, the incentives are not just simple economics, and Uncle and the local taxpayers will likely be doling out the $$..

You have to remember that most of Europe got electrified (or re-electrified) thanks to (1) different national priorities in the European states and (2) the US taxpayer, who largely bankrolled it while at the time was also building the interstate highway system here and taxing the RRs.

As I say, it's just a matter of national priorities.

[Anonymous]

Steam, they'rll revert to high-tech steamers! All [bow] to the mighty steam!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

Turbine (jet engine technology) electric powered engines are on the drawing boards already. Just check the smaller size, more H.P. less maintenance , newer jet aircraft engines being used today and the size of the existing monster diesel engines that use 1950's technology. Smaller engines--less maintenance-- and better fuel consumption will be here sooner than you think, it's all dollars.

While there are some things that haven't changed much from the '50s, there is certainly some current technology used in current locomotives. Besides, when you need to have your engine as reliable as possible, you don't want to be on the "bleeding edge" of technology. If it ain't broke...

Turbine engines themselves were tried back in the '50s, and failed miserably. New technologies and refinements can sometimes help old ideas become feasible, even after many many years. An example of that is the B2 bomber, who's predecessor originally flew in the mid-'40s. But I don't think that the problems with UP's turbine engines have been overcome. First, the engines were extremely noisy, which relegated them to extremely remote areas (they weren't even able to use them alongside cornfields and farms, they were that loud), and there isn't anything new there. Second, the turbines almost used as much fuel when idling as when running, and so they were limited to mainlines, and even then, you couldn't have them sitting waiting for clearance for too long. And the startup/shutdown sequence was so involved that they had a small 350 hp or so diesel engine inside that was used for moving the engine itself around the yard (when light, of course).

While technology might be at a point where the startup/shutdown sequence isn't as much of an issue, and fuel efficiency while idling (or under partial load) is improved (I don't know if those hurdles have been cleared or not), and if one would spend the money to design a turbine to this kind of application, the noise alone would still keep them out of service. Remember, we're talking about a 4k-6k HP engine, which even for a turbine isn't small (IIRC, the turbine in a Bell JetRanger helicopter is some 400HP). And then you have to consider the fuel type. When a railroad is run on diesel, it gets expensive to create an infrastructure to distribute a second fuel type, not to mention that jet fuel ain't cheap. So it would have to be so efficient to overcome that, or be designed to run on diesel.

Those turbine engines of UP were fascinating machines, but they simply weren't feasible and economical for something like a railroad.

---jps

[Anonymous]

Hydrogen Compression instead of diesel. Water would be converted to H2 and O2 by an electric current. In the cylinder heat from compression would do the same thing it does with diesel, explode the fuel. There are kits out there for converting tractors (the old John Deere) and semis to "burn" water, why not Locomotives?

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: But I don't think that the problems with UP's turbine engines have been overcome. First, the engines were extremely noisy, which relegated them to extremely remote areas (they weren't even able to use them alongside cornfields and farms, they were that loud), and there isn't anything new there. Second, the turbines almost used as much fuel when idling as when running, and so they were limited to mainlines, and even then, you couldn't have them sitting waiting for clearance for too long. And the startup/shutdown sequence was so involved that they had a small 350 hp or so diesel engine inside that was used for moving the engine itself around the yard (when light, of course).

I was told part of the reason the military adopted a turbine engine for the Abrams tank was that its turbine was quieter than a conventional diesel motor. OTOH, fuel efficiency is extemely poor. (I heard something like three gallons to the mile.)

So maybe turbines might be worth reconsidering.


It looks like heavier bridges and track may be needed to support the latest and greatest freight cars and locomotives. (I hear this is already beginning to threaten some short lines.)

I do not expect electrical transmission to change. Trains, for the foreseeable future will still run on electric traction motors. If there is any change, it will be in how the electric is collected/generated, and the fuels used by the prime movers.

Commuter districts may find themselves electrifying as demand for commuter trains increases. Urban sprawl will extend commuter districts beyond their steam-era terminals.

If passenger service is to be revived, it will be on dedicated high-speed lines, as in Japan and in Europe.

[tatans]

Whatever happened to the American Coal Institute's new version of a coal burning locomotive? I think they burned powdered coal for it's explosive burning power and it seemed to run, but heard no more about it, gee, is there no more coal left in the U.S.?
I'm sure I even saw a photo of it somewhere did'nt I. ? ?

[Budliner]

the future is now. check out the turnout under Technologies http://www.rtri.or.jp/rd/maglev/html/english/maglev_frame_E.html
Magnetic levitation trains are becoming a popular transportation A super high-speed transport system with a non-adhesive drive system a combination of superconducting magnets and linear motor technology, its been around since 1970, superconducting magnets suffer from external magnetic disturbances caused by ground coils and from mechanical vibrations generated by vehicle dynamics; these disturbances cause quenching troubles, or the sudden disappearance of magnetomotive force aerodynamic brakes, which use the aerodynamic drag of panels on the car roof, and disc brakes for high-speed running; ground coils which consist of sidewall levitation coils; a high-power supply system for pulse width modulation
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/maglev-train.htm

K-

[Anonymous]

I think if GE would of had the tech,available today back in the 50's UP's massive steam turbine,or even C&O's beautiful 490 might have had a greater impact on todays engine's.With NASA developing pulse or ram jet tech. we could very well see some type of turbine powered engines in the future.It is really hard to say what might be moving the freight in ten years time.

[RedLeader]

The "MagLev" technology is what is known as "transitional" technology. This usually happens with "bleeding edge technology". Remember the laser discs and the concorde? Perhaps it will be a long time when we see again comercial planes cruising at twice the speed of sound. I don't think we will be seeing maglev trains cruising cummon passangers at 600m/h, But small echological interurban services (slow) using this kind of technology in a more economical and practical way. Imagine the distance it will take for 300 thousand ton coal train to stop if running at 400m/h and the enrgy to accelerate it to that speed. In both cases the distance will be longer that the actual distance between stations. But the technology exists and now we must think what's the best way to adapt it to our practical needs.

Another aspect to think about is economical geography. Technology evolves much like Darwin's natural selection theory. The economical geography of europe and asia is different for that on north america and south america. As an example: Australia's road trains. Therefore you can't expect to find the same techonological applications in every country.

[cnw1995]

What about that fancy streamlined diesel passenger train engine that Bombardier was showing off a year or so ago? I can't find a picture of it online. I'm sorry to think Amtrak as a national entity will be killed off sometime in the next four years, and revert to a few state-supported point to point routes like in Calif. or in IL-WI with the Hiawathas, and of course the aging NEC- That leaves some interesting possibilities with light rail. Freight engines will be somewhat 'greener.' I can see the day when they're run by one person.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AltonFan

QUOTE: But I don't think that the problems with UP's turbine engines have been overcome. First, the engines were extremely noisy, which relegated them to extremely remote areas (they weren't even able to use them alongside cornfields and farms, they were that loud), and there isn't anything new there. Second, the turbines almost used as much fuel when idling as when running, and so they were limited to mainlines, and even then, you couldn't have them sitting waiting for clearance for too long. And the startup/shutdown sequence was so involved that they had a small 350 hp or so diesel engine inside that was used for moving the engine itself around the yard (when light, of course).

I was told part of the reason the military adopted a turbine engine for the Abrams tank was that its turbine was quieter than a conventional diesel motor. OTOH, fuel efficiency is extemely poor. (I heard something like three gallons to the mile.)

So maybe turbines might be worth reconsidering.

It may be. From time to time, something will come up to change things.

---jps

[3railguy]

I doubt we will see nuclear powered locomotives but if fuel prices keep going up like they have been, we may see more electrified railways that draw from nuclear power plants. It would not be difficult to kill the prime movers in existing locomotives and draw from outside conductors.