richg1998 With all the charging that will be needed with battery operated locos, cars, etc, for sure, we will need more coal fired power plants. Rich
With all the charging that will be needed with battery operated locos, cars, etc, for sure, we will need more coal fired power plants.
Rich
..and we'll be lucky if they permit even new Natural Gas fired plants...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
oltmannd...you have not been through the power plant at Juniata. A steam tractor would be too new.
For those who may be curious or interested in the details of the Juniata Back Shops' power plant, see ''The Juniata Shop Power Plant'' - about 1 page - at:
http://www.altoonaworks.info/powerplant.html
From it: '' . . . two Westinghouse 1875kw steam turbines capable of producing 90,000kw of electricity each 24 hour period . . .''
- Paul North.
creepycrank [snip] I wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors. I sounds like they used car batteries and the must have made some SEARS die-hard battery guy's day. They've been running fork lift trucks forever on large, deep cycle batteries for ever and I remember what a nuisance they could be. [snip]
Well, here's one large truck battery of the type I was referring to - looks like it's sealed, so no water levels to check or maintenance of that sort:
http://www.batterystore.com/Odyssey/PC2250.htm and
http://www.batterystore.com/Odyssey/OdysseyProducts.htm
List price per that website is $408.39 ea., so 1,080 of them would be $441,000 at retail. Note that I've seen posts which claim Odyssey is the actual manufacturer of the Sears 'Die-Hard' line of batteries, but I don't have enough other info to be able to confirm or refute that either way.
I don't know how that compares to the cost of brand-new 1,350 or 1,500 HP diesel engine prime mover, but I suspect that they're not all that far apart -= maybe $100,000 or so one way or the other.
One problem with the battery locomotive that I have to concede is that once it uses up that charge, it's done for the day - until it gets back to the shop and gets charged up again overnight. At the 25 Amps output for 4 hrs. above, the 5 strings feeding each motor [20 strings total] would be 125 Amps x 600 volts = 75,000 watts / 746 = 100 HP. So it could run on low-power - the equivalent of about 400 HP output total for the entire locomotive* - for about 4 hours, or 800 HP for 2 hrs., or 1,600 HP for 1 hr., etc.
*As Bucyrus noted - and John W. Barriger, III and former Trains editor David P. Morgan before him - traditional electric locomotives might more properly be called ''electro-motives''. That's because their power supply is not integral to them, and they are not self-sufficient as are diesels - at least until the next refueling is needed. Instead, the electric locomotives are dependent on the 'umbilical cord' of either a catenary or 3rd rail to connect them to an independent 'outside' power supply to be able to move at all. Here, however, the NS BP-4 999 appears to be capable of moving self-propelled at least for several hours unassisted and unconnected to anything else, and so would not be subject to that naming or designation issue.
However, in such intensive use - without any further improvement in the state-of-the-art of the technology - if NS needed a longer 'duty cycle' and higher HP output or more availability than this, then NS would simply have to purchase more units to cover or protect its forecasted needs. The higher capital cost for those additional units is of course a concern and a weakness of this approach.
A quick calculation is that if such a unit - on more of a mass-production basis - would cost around $1 million each, the ownership/ capital recovery costs would be on the order of $200 to $335 per day at 6 % interest over 30 years. For comparison, an SW1500 at 1,500 HP will burn 92.7 gals. of fuel per hour at 100 % output, per the table of 'Locomotive Fuel Use' in Al Krug's ''Railroad Facts and Figures'' webpage at: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm So the battery-electric locomotive would save - at $3.00/ gal. for 92.7 gals. = $278 per day in fuel costs. Subtract the cost of the replacement electricity to recharge it - 1,600 HP X 0.746 KW/ HP = 1,187 KW for 1 hr. at 8 cents / KWHR. = $95, for a net savings of $278 - $95 = $183 per day. So buying more units to cover the 'down' and recharging time might make economic sense, depending on the relative costs of the units, diesel fuel, electricity, etc. Note: ''Your Mileage May Vary.''
. . .except that now it has a brand new smokestack . . .
Actually, that's one aspect of this critter that hasn't been explored much. A few posts above I noted that recharging it at commercial electric rates would be roughly the equivalent of diesel fuel at $1.00 per gallon. But if you look at the 'wholesale rates' on the PJM grid in the middle of the night, they get really, really, cheap . . . maybe down around the equivalent of 25 cents per gallon, because both the electric grid system's load and demand then is at daily minimums, and they have to do something with the power that is being generated by the 'spinning reserve' of the thermal = coal and nuclear power plants, and maybe the wind turbines, too. Even adding some 'mark-up' for the power company, it would be well worthwhile to plug-in NS 999 through a glorified timer and metering set-up so that it starts recharging at - say, 10:00 PM, through to and finishes by 6:00 AM each night. It could then head and and work all day, and repeat the next night. Depending on how much it saves that way - I haven't run any numbers yet - it might even be able to entirely pay for the inevitable battery replacements after a couple hundred deep discharge-recharge cycles, etc.
Oh yeah - I see that I busted my math on the battery and motor amps calculation a few posts above - the 1,000 Amps range as a max. short-term current load is for each motor, not the locomotive as a whole.
Using that figure as a guide, then, each traction motor would be using 600 Volts x 1,000 Amps = 600 KW / 0.746 KW per HP = 804 HP - call it 800 HP per motor.
For a 4-axle unit such as this one, that's about 3,200 HP altogether short-term; for a 6-axle, that would be 4,800 HP, which is of course slightly more than the usual 4,400 HP that they're rated at.
For this unit, again figuring 5 of the battery strings per motor, each string putting out 100 Amps - which is about the batteries' 1-hour rating, as I figure it, as above - by proportion each motor will get 500 Amps and produce 400 HP, which is comfortably within the motors' usual continuous rating. So the whole unit would be good for about 1,600 HP or 1,200 KW power output, so its rating of either 1,500 or 1,350 HP - printed versions vary on that - is a little on the conservative side, or maybe just reflects slightly less capable batteries.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BucyrusThe problem with this objective is that dynamic braking force falls off as motor speed drops. Theoretically, dynamic braking could not actually stop the locomotive.
It will be very interesting to see how this locomotive works out. I hope we will be quickly informed of the technical details of the locomotive and its performance during testing. I am somewhat skeptical only because this is publicly funded, and all wrapped up in the green, sustainability movement, which I have observed to contain a lot of symbolism over substance.
One thing to consider is that it is possible that this new locomotive will usher in a new era of motive power that will actually be more expensive to operate, and therefore drive up the consumer cost of transportation. It might be the price of sustainability. Greenness and cost reduction do not necessarily go hand in hand. Often they are mutually exclusive. The payoff for greenness and sustainability is in saving the planet from destruction. If it happens to reduce operating costs from higher efficiency, so much the better, but in many cases sustainability raises the overall cost of a product. The extra cost is the price of saving the planet. Furthermore, these green advances are prone to become legally mandated because they otherwise would not be embraced due to the higher cost.
If this new locomotive promised to lower the cost of rail transport, I would be amazed if every major railroad and locomotive builder were not investing in it. If it were some exotic new proprietary technology that could reduce costs, I would not be surprised to see it being held by just one developer. But a battery-powered locomotive is an old concept, so I would be surprised to see it suddenly take off as a locomotive having a lower operating/life-cycle cost. That could be the case if there were a major breakthrough in battery technology. A lot of potential battery power applications are waiting for a better battery. Perhaps that day will arrive, and the R&D work with the NS 999 will pave the way for a truly cost effective battery locomotive.
Interestingly, the news of this new locomotive could fit well into our recent thread about the recapture of dynamic brake energy from diesel-electric locomotives. That indeed seems to be the core of improvement embodied in the NS 999. And maybe that core, coupled with new technology in the control systems could have solid merit in the pursuit of a more cost effective locomotive.
As has been mentioned here and on other forums, the dynamic brake functionality of the NS 999 is liable to be quite different from that of conventional diesel-electrics. With the latter, the purpose is to achieve better braking performance. With the NS 999, the purpose is to capture as much braking energy as possible. Moreover, the braking performance objective of conventional dynamic braking would not have much application in yard service. So the dynamic braking objective with the NS 999 should be to capture as much dynamic brake energy as possible all the way down to dead stop, and this should be the primary braking, unlike conventional dynamic braking.
The problem with this objective is that dynamic braking force falls off as motor speed drops. Theoretically, dynamic braking could not actually stop the locomotive. All it can do is slow the locomotive down to some degree. From that point, bringing the locomotive to dead stop would need to be accomplished either by rolling resistance or by air brakes. I don’t know what is needed to maximize the dynamic brake regeneration at the slowest possible travel speeds. One way to accomplish this would be to use higher speed motors and gear them down farther. The point would be to have the motors turning fast enough at say five mph and slower, to generate enough power to act as brakes if that power load were used to charge the batteries. But I am guessing that NS 999 uses conventional traction motors and gearing, so maybe there is another way to extend the dynamic braking to near stop of the locomotive travel for the objective of recapturing as much energy as possible.
It occurs to me that such a locomotive would be perfect for our tourist operation. We certainly value the burbling ALCOs and chugging EMDs (as do the fans), but our duty cycle for the day only includes about 4.5 hours of actual running (1.25 hours for each trip plus runarounds and other station work).
On top of that, we're in the mountains and run up and down the same stretches of tracks. Not much is level, so we're always either climbing or decending, including some lengthy stretches of .5 to 1%+ grades - dynamics territory now, certainly recharging territory for one of these.
Speeds are generally in the 20-25 mph range with 4 passenger cars in tow.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
That's pretty good 'close reading', creepycrank. But I'm speaking not only about this specific locomotive, but also future similar ones, which as well could easily utilize better batteries.
But even truck batteries come in 'sealed' / AGM = 'Absorbed Glass Mat' versions that won't spill or leak, and can take a lot of this kind of loading. As just one example, see -
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/hdbenefits.html
If you click on the 'Specifications' link, you'll see that there are some powerful 12-volt batteries there. The 'top of the line' / bottom of the page model is good for 114 Amp-hours over a 10-hour discharge period, which is a continuous current of about 11 Amps. At 25 Amps, it's good for 240 minutes = 4 hrs., probably 100+ amps for a 1-hour continuous rating.
I can readily believe the '20 parallel strings' part, too - that would be 54 batteries in series in each string x 12 volts each = 648, say 650 volts for the 600 volt motors. Since there are 4 motors, that would be 5 strings for each motor. For the 4-hour rating, that would be 125 Amps for each motor = 500 Amps for the whole locomotive, which is not bad. At 2 hours, that would be around 1,000 Amps, which is getting near the red-line limits. So it shouldn't have any problem going all-out pushing up around Horseshoe Curve - or on the other assignments, which will have a lot of time at much lower power outputs in their 'duty cycle'.
That's 648 volts per string (at 12 volts per individual battery). It would be as much as 745 volts at a full charge of 13.8 volts.
One truck battery I randomly picked out (presumably relatively typical) listed a rating of 100 AH (amp hours) and 1090 CCA (cold cranking amps).
I'm thinking that the configuration given will yield 2000 amp hours, which would translate to about two hours at full load (assuming 1000 amps as full load). Obviously lesser loadings would yield longer run times.
I'll gladly stand corrected.
As for the maintenance issue - the battery I randomly picked happened to be sealed - no maintenance as such.
Given the stated proof-of-concept design of this locomotive, I'm still certain that if it works, more advanced battery systems will be brought into play.
creepycrankI think its 90% publicity stunt and !0% proof of concept. I wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors. I sounds like they used car batteries and the must have made some SEARS die-hard battery guy's day. They've been running fork lift trucks forever on large, deep cycle batteries for ever and I remember what a nuisance they could be. That's probably why the tri-power locomotive of 80 years disappeared. Don't railroads do management's pet projects about once every 30 years or so. The amount of time it takes to forget way it didn't work the last time.
Actually, the best 'off-the-shelf' batteries for this kind of application are either golf-cart batteries, or floor-polishing machine batteries, per the electric car folks. I'm sure those too come in the sealed 'no-maintenance' and gel versions, so there's no water to check - and that would greatly reduce the slopping and spillage that usually causes connector corrosion, at least with my cars.
Don't forget that at least some of Brookville Equipment's underground mining machines are battery-powered, so presumably they're pretty well conversant with the maintenance hassles - esp. in those locations - and what's out there that's less maintenance-intensive.
Also, think of submarine batteries. Remember way back in the day, the sub's batteries were charged by diesels while on the surface, then ran on battery while submerged. Even the nuclear subs - actually nuclear-fueled, steam-turbine to electric generator to electric final drive - still have extensive battery banks. And here's a little-known - though not a military secret factoid: Land-locked Penn State University's electronic/electrical/computer engineering people do a heckuva lot of R&D work for the U.S. Navy's sonar systems - the 'eyes' of a submarine, and the essential tool to hunting them, too. Batteries are electrical power devices, and those on NS BP-4 999 have a sophisticated control system - and Penn State was publicly acknowledged to be involved in its development as well. Anybody want to bet against that a 'cross-over' or technology transfer of some kind might have happened there ? I have no inside info on this - I'm just sayin', that's all.
wabash1 if I read this right its for switching and in switching we dont need dynamic. and dont use it in switching, anything else it wont be nessesarry either as it wont move much tonnage at only 1500hp. [snip]
Switching is probably its primary 'stand-alone' use that justifies building it and its continuing existence, but I'm sure it won't be limited to that - meaning yard switching. It could also take a short cut of cars out onto the main at higher speeds to do local work - such as running up to Tyrone or Huntingdon, or over to the Sam Rea Shops at Hollidaysburg - where the dynamic brakes would have an opportunity to be put to use.
But I'll bet that before too long - like over this winter - it will be assigned to pusher service for a while out of Altoona up the East Slope to AR Tower/ Gallitzin, most likely as 1 of a 2 or 3 unit consist, which will also include 1 or more NS engineering test cars. That'll provide a real-world opportunity to see and collect test data on how the batteries perform under sustained load for about an hour - and also to use the dynamic brakes for a sustained period coming back downhill, and see how well that actually recharges the battery system.
By itself - no, it isn't going to move big trains. But anymore, locomotives are just 'building blocks', and this one is now big enough to take the place of one in a consist. A full consist of more and bigger of such units as these would just be 'more of the same' - so this one is enough for now to serve as a 'stand-in' to see how well such a unit will work, that's all it is and is for, I think.
creepycrankI wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors.
if I read this right its for switching and in switching we dont need dynamic. and dont use it in switching, anything else it wont be nessesarry either as it wont move much tonnage at only 1500hp. I think it may have a usefull perpose in the intermodel spotting and pulling ramps and building stack trains but thats about it.
They may well have used a bunch of automotive batteries - or perhaps the type in the big Uninteruptible Power Supply (UPS) that supports our servers. They're essentially automotive batteries, but they are sealed and intended for the specific application.
There are better battery technologies available, but using an estabilished component allows them to experiment without as much cost. If the concept performs as expected/hoped, they can look at using more efficient batteries. If it falls on its face, then they can file the lessons learned until the day that the problems they encounter can be surmounted with new technology.
Stop over at the Big Boy thread for a discussion of ideas that didn't work during the steam era.
Don, those are of course all good points regarding the control system. If the ASME/IEEE follows the usual pattern of a spring conference, there should also be a goodly collection of data by then on its actual operating performance - including some cold winter nights - and the inevitable adjustments, 'tweaks', bugs, and other things that have been worked out in the meantime. Maybe it will even visit the conference city ?
Meanwhile, NS has something neat to show the college kids, 'visiting firemen' from other railroads and countries, and various politicians - it isn't just the auto and aerospace companies that are doing 'cutting edge' stuff anymore.
Oh yeah - this NS BP-4 999 'experimental' kept a bunch of good and talented people at the Juniata Locomotive Shops fully and gainfully employed for a few more months, too.
Here's a link to a website and page that has a photo of it - Reply #22, about the 3rd one up from the bottom of the page:
http://jreb.org/ns/index.php?topic=8077.0
And a link to a TV station's brief news report - about 2 minutes' worth total, which includes a video clip, and 'sound bites' from the politicians, etc.:
http://www.wjactv.com/news/21141444/detail.html
Paul_D_North_Jr wabash1 Gee Paul settle down dont wet yourself after all its only a peice of junk. You can bet this is for publicity smoke and mirrors after the newness is worn off and the hype is down and they showed up the other railroads it will fade away. Remeber this is the safest railroad around and when you cant even keep a dash 9 running and jumping all the other engines how in the world do you think this one will stay running. they will look at the cost of batteries the amount of charging time the 1 shift it can work before a charge 1 weak battery take out all the others, limited tonnage it can drag .. after you add all that together its not worth the cost. the first video will be them dragging 6-10 empties then working the hump yard with empties maybe they can give it to MOW for the camp cars and other duties needed for them. Good one, wabash1 ! I do like your several suggestions for what else it could be used for. But remember - as Don picked-up above, too - I'm not blind to weaknesses that will be shown, and am also looking for those 'real-world' comments on its performance. As an EMD guy said and was quoted in Trains a few years ago: ''One test is worth a thousand opinions.'' And can't you find a way to somehow transfer over to the Pittsburgh Division and 'mark-up' to run 'the big electric train', and give us your review of it ? In the meantime, remember too - what started out and was then dismissively referred to ['dissed' is the term used these days] as ''Kettering's trolley car'' by the then-Electro-Motive Corporation - of course became EMD, which built the FT and eventually the SD40-2 - I presume you're OK with them ? Remember too the Wright Brothers, and the early 'flivvers'. And yes, I know that for every success there were probably 100 or a 1,000 failures. - Paul North. P.S. - Oh yeah: How would you like to be buying gas for your car or truck at $1.00 per gallon ? Because that's roughly what the equivalent amount of electricity will cost NS for this critter !
wabash1 Gee Paul settle down dont wet yourself after all its only a peice of junk. You can bet this is for publicity smoke and mirrors after the newness is worn off and the hype is down and they showed up the other railroads it will fade away. Remeber this is the safest railroad around and when you cant even keep a dash 9 running and jumping all the other engines how in the world do you think this one will stay running. they will look at the cost of batteries the amount of charging time the 1 shift it can work before a charge 1 weak battery take out all the others, limited tonnage it can drag .. after you add all that together its not worth the cost. the first video will be them dragging 6-10 empties then working the hump yard with empties maybe they can give it to MOW for the camp cars and other duties needed for them.
Good one, wabash1 ! I do like your several suggestions for what else it could be used for. But remember - as Don picked-up above, too - I'm not blind to weaknesses that will be shown, and am also looking for those 'real-world' comments on its performance. As an EMD guy said and was quoted in Trains a few years ago: ''One test is worth a thousand opinions.'' And can't you find a way to somehow transfer over to the Pittsburgh Division and 'mark-up' to run 'the big electric train', and give us your review of it ?
In the meantime, remember too - what started out and was then dismissively referred to ['dissed' is the term used these days] as ''Kettering's trolley car'' by the then-Electro-Motive Corporation - of course became EMD, which built the FT and eventually the SD40-2 - I presume you're OK with them ?
Remember too the Wright Brothers, and the early 'flivvers'. And yes, I know that for every success there were probably 100 or a 1,000 failures.
P.S. - Oh yeah: How would you like to be buying gas for your car or truck at $1.00 per gallon ? Because that's roughly what the equivalent amount of electricity will cost NS for this critter !
And of course Brookville's reputation is hardly riding on this..they've been in business much longer than all their competitors (such as EMD) and have a strong presence in both the rail and mining industries.
They've come up with some "ou-of the box" ideas before that didn't catch on..anyone recall the "Trailertramp" self propelled piggyback car?
oltmannd Is the DB integrated into the air brake? What, exactly, does that elaborate battery management system work?
My thoughts as well. Having to manually engage the DB every time a regenerative braking opportunity came up would be a real pain. Some form of blended braking, which automatically uses regenerative braking when appropriate, yet applies air as needed, all in one or two handles, would seem to be an appropriate answer. Full electronics over air is already in use (NYAB, for one). This would be a logical extension.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Paul_D_North_JrNo photos on-line yet that I'm aware of - or 'real-world' reports as to how it performs.
wabash1Gee Paul settle down dont wet yourself after all its only a peice of junk. You can bet this is for publicity smoke and mirrors after the newness is worn off and the hype is down and they showed up the other railroads it will fade away. Remeber this is the safest railroad around and when you cant even keep a dash 9 running and jumping all the other engines how in the world do you think this one will stay running. they will look at the cost of batteries the amount of charging time the 1 shift it can work before a charge 1 weak battery take out all the others, limited tonnage it can drag .. after you add all that together its not worth the cost. the first video will be them dragging 6-10 empties then working the hump yard with empties maybe they can give it to MOW for the camp cars and other duties needed for them.
Paul_D_North_JrAlthough the press release says "hybrid", you're perceptive enough to comprehend that it's a straight battery-electric instead. The caption to the NS drawing in the press release says "replace the engine and fuel tank", and there's no sign of any other engine or generator being installed, nor mention of one in the text.
What they have produced is a new hybrid coal burning locomotive. Or a coal-fired, steam turbine, battery-electric hybrid locomotive, to be precise. It is indeed a hybrid, but the prime mover is out of sight, out of mind in a building somewhere else. NS calls the locomotive “zero emission,” but of course that cannot be the case.
Moreover, the labels green, sustainable, and carbon footprint do not only account for how much fossil fuel is consumed and how much emissions are produced. The terms actually take into account the full life cycle of energy input and natural resource extraction that goes into the item being labeled “green.” The use of 1,080 lead acid batteries and how long they go before needing replacement ought to raise some eyebrows on anyone evaluating the greenness of this locomotive. On the plus side, a locomotive is an ideal mobile unit to power with batteries, because the weight penalty normally associated with batteries does not matter to a locomotive, which uses weight to good advantage.
tree68 Or it'll be pulling a "tender" with a big generator on it....
Or it'll be pulling a "tender" with a big generator on it....
Maybe you have something here a general perpose railgrinder welder all in one maybe hook that system research car to it also. that way they scan check research weld and grind all at the same time. 1 track authority a days outage and do it all at one time
Progress has to start somehow, and someplace.....but of course it is not always successful.
Quentin
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.