Future Power

[DSchmitt]

When the real future power is developed, it will be something no one expected.

[overall]

There is a working fuel cell locomotive. It is used by the US Army, I can't remember it's number right now. It is rated at 1000 kva, which works out to about 1341 horsepower by my calculations. It looks like a chop nose GP 9. It is here now folks.

George

[Anonymous]

My prediction (somewhat biased) is that diesels are here to stay. Maybe hybrid locos will become commonplace but probably only in yards doing switching. The problem with fuel cell technology is that it is dirty. It takes an incredible amount of energy to get usable hydrogen -and that , at this point in time, negates any benefit. Bio-diesel is an option but it's still diesel. Mag-lev won't happen because of the infrastructure needed. And nuclear?- Only in Homers world! (it's pronounced 'new-clear'!)

[Anonymous]

I think there is going to be more and more electric powered engines coming. Since we only have around 50-100 years of oil left, they will have to get used to using another power source.[:O]

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NJMike

I think there is going to be more and more electric powered engines coming. Since we only have around 50-100 years of oil left, they will have to get used to using another power source.[:O]

There's something to consider! We are rapidly burning away what little fossil fuel we have left. It takes too much time for oils, and gasolines to form. Electricity can only look better, and better. But, the price will still drive railroads away.
But, with more use of electricity, we will have to look for a better way to produce electricity. Which gives us another problem to solve. Maybe, by the time we actually need to use alternate sources for power plants, fussion might be possible.
But, with anything dealing with fussion, or fission, can cause radiation. And, if a reactor burns out, there would be chaos.
And it goes on...


[8]TrainFreak409[8]

[Overmod]

My 0.25 byte's worth:

csx, the problems with fusion are like the ones with hydrogen as a motor fuel. The basic principle is charming; the implementation and problems considerably less so. Most of the difficulties are concerned with how the power of the nuclear reaction is converted to 'useful work' (e.g., via lithium blanket) and how long-term operation causes radiation effects in the structure. I don't think it's practical to mount a fusion plant -- even a Riggatron clone -- on a moving locomotive within current North American loading gauge. The previous posts about the accident safety of any nuclear source capable of the necessary power rating (even... or perhaps *particularly*... the straight nuclear-electric approaches) are quite well advised.

Most alternative fuels suffer from low energy density. You can overcome this somewhat via government subsidies and incentives, but ethanol in particular is a dubious option even if the net oil-consumption rate turns out to be lower. #2 diesel is a "sweet spot" between energy content (largely carbon-content-dependent) and pumpability under cold conditions, with the added benefit of 'engineered lubricosity' to help with wear of precise injection machinery. Personally, I think one solution is a modified Fischer-Tropsch synthesis program, using treated coal as the primary feedstock and incorporating hydrogen generated by whatever effective means there might be.

Hydrogen as a locomotive fuel? I think not. I HOPE not. It's dumb enough to put this stuff in automobiles, and propose to build "self-serve" fuel stations, automated or not. Hindenburg jokes aside, H2 will never be ready for prime time as something safe in accidents. Not to mention the fun with how you store the stuff in adequate quantities on the locomotive... or how you get it reliably into the locomotive when refueling, say, in summer in the Southwest.

There are potentially effective ways to achieve catenary coverage of railroad lines for reasons other than initial straight-electric operation, but they take political and economic coordination and strategic alliances of a level not often seen. Anyone on-list remember the Jersey Meadows catenary bridges on EL in the early '70s? Repeat this whenever new transmission lines are built (see the location of cell-phone towers as a useful precedent). Use reserve power from rail vehicles for peak-power generation, etc.

I feel reasonably confident that coal in locomotives can be made practical, although both type and service will probably be limited to long-haul, fairly high-horsepower output.

Hybrid locomotives are one of the major technologies for the future. Green-Goat style power is good for its intended service; if you need additional road power, it's comparatively simple (although not part of their present business model) to use a larger engine/generator, or provide multiple identical genset modules.

More to the point: Energy-storage transmission components designed for automotive and truck service are often applicable to locomotive service. Both the space and tare-weight restrictions are less rigorous here than for other land vehicles. The 'catch' is to make the added capital cost and maintenance worthwhile, and I think this is on the verge of being practically demonstrated.

The thing to avoid, I think, is to have the future power designed by bean counters, or the guys from GE who look at "max-profitable" levels of locomotive availability rather than 100% service reliability (not intended as fuel for a GE-EMD debate!) The history of motive power is littered with designs that stressed fuel efficiency at the cost of overall effectiveness... D&H Consolidations, anyone? If crews don't like the way GE locomotives are computer-controlled, imagine how they'd like engines with 'green programming' that make automatic train-handling decisions based on some arbitrary scheme like minimum fuel burn.

Here's the great place for improvement, and perhaps a way out of the 'remote control' controversy: How do you coordinate the power and energy-storage systems on a modern locomotive to simplify the crew's job of getting trains over the road, and perhaps make locomotives more fun to 'drive' in the process? More particularly, how do you create the necessary predictability in the ways the locomotive behaves in critical situations? I'd be interested in all constructive criticism on how real enginemen think this should be done...

[Anonymous]

Hopefully electric will be used more in the future. In all I dont care what is used to move trains i just want more train service NOW.

[ozarkrailfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

My 0.25 byte's worth:



Hydrogen as a locomotive fuel? I think not. I HOPE not. It's dumb enough to put this stuff in automobiles, and propose to build "self-serve" fuel stations, automated or not. Hindenburg jokes aside, H2 will never be ready for prime time as something safe in accidents. Not to mention the fun with how you store the stuff in adequate quantities on the locomotive... or how you get it reliably into the locomotive when refueling, say, in summer in the Southwest.

Anybody watch the episode of Scientific American Frontiers about cleaner automobiles? One auto manufactuer did a test of a car leaking and burning hydrogen versus a car leaking and burning gasoline. Judging from the video I'd feel much safer with hydrogen because it burned straight up. Gasoline, however, engulfed the entire car.

[Anonymous]

Our Modern day diesels are going to have to convert from 2-stroke Engines to 4-stroke engines to please the EPA.