RailfanGXYI was under the impression that with the GG20 and GK10, the small engine ran continously, while the battery bank amplified its horsepower to the designated amount for traction.
I believe CSSHegewisch is correct about all the early commercial 'green switchers'. They have a large battery bank that does all the 'tractive' power and takes the regeneration; their small engine does nothing but trickle-charge the battery at an optimal rate for the chemistry used (read up on the various limitations of lead-acid batteries for more on how to do this right).
This is in specific contrast to 'parallel hybrid' cars, where the output of the IC engine and the traction motor/battery can be added to produce high transient acceleration. For a variety of reasons that is not an approach that is preferred on locomotives. Note that I said 'in theory' (the situation being a bit different for a purpose-built train like iLINT, and there being a premium for having higher repeated acceleration rate with limited IC "genset" capacity however the power is developed.
The Green Goats and Green Kids probably had a similar arrangement to the tri-power and dual-power locomotives of the 1920's and 1930's. The traction motors always drew from the batteries while the engine or overhead/third rail fed a charge into the batteries.
Overmod The cost of a suitable (e.g. surge/spike isolated) battery and supercap bank is still a bit too steep for 'hybrid' road locomotive use. Note the control scheme developed for the iLINT "hydrogen train" being discussed in another thread: the Hydrogenics fuel cell here takes the place of a rotating-shaftrś engine of about the size range you mention, and in theory its output could be paralleled with the battery bank for higher transient acceleration. The Progress Rail PR43C was specifically intended to take advantage of the economy of two sizes of prime mover, with the smaller engine being a bit more 'rightsized' for the n lighter duty (I think it was a C18-6). The logic was that the larger prime mover would only run when actually required for sustained hp. Note that most of the early battery-locomotive schemes apparently foundered on a lack of understanding of how switching is actually performed. Very similar issues concern peak loads and the speed with which currents are sourced and sunk in the battery chemistry. The GE hybrid locomotive battery design (the COMSOL multiphysics software comany has a paper on it) was about the first I saw that actually addressed the cumulative duty cycles involved, and you will note GE is no longer advertising work on the idea.
The cost of a suitable (e.g. surge/spike isolated) battery and supercap bank is still a bit too steep for 'hybrid' road locomotive use.
Note the control scheme developed for the iLINT "hydrogen train" being discussed in another thread: the Hydrogenics fuel cell here takes the place of a rotating-shaftrś engine of about the size range you mention, and in theory its output could be paralleled with the battery bank for higher transient acceleration.
The Progress Rail PR43C was specifically intended to take advantage of the economy of two sizes of prime mover, with the smaller engine being a bit more 'rightsized' for the n lighter duty (I think it was a C18-6). The logic was that the larger prime mover would only run when actually required for sustained hp.
Note that most of the early battery-locomotive schemes apparently foundered on a lack of understanding of how switching is actually performed. Very similar issues concern peak loads and the speed with which currents are sourced and sunk in the battery chemistry. The GE hybrid locomotive battery design (the COMSOL multiphysics software comany has a paper on it) was about the first I saw that actually addressed the cumulative duty cycles involved, and you will note GE is no longer advertising work on the idea.
So...the battery bank doesn't work as a power amplifier? I was under the impression that with the GG20 and GK10, the small engine ran continously, while the battery bank amplified its horsepower to the designated amount for traction.
CandOforprogress2 Is the world going to run low on lithuim where the next big war will be over this stratigic mineral?
Is the world going to run low on lithuim where the next big war will be over this stratigic mineral?
Hopefully not. Probably a good reason why basic research into battery storage would be in the strategic interest of the country.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Actually, battery-electric switchers is nothing new. GE produced a pair in 1928 for the Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee which they numbered 455 & 456. Here's a link to their advertising photo at the time: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129679309@N05/16507793706/ They ran until the North Shore shut down in 1963.
These 'pups' ran off the overhead wire most of the time, but when switching industrial trackage that didn't have overhead, they dropped the pole and ran from battery power. The biggest non-overhead switching was in the Weber Industrial District near what is now CTA's Skokie Shops. The Chicago & Northwestern RR also had access to the Weber district, so it was built without overhead.
oltmanndSaw it in January in Roanoke. Quite dead. Number boards out of it. Not looking good...
It was initially listed in the auction they had a while back, but was pulled.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
CMQ_9017 Deggesty CSSHEGEWISCH One part of battery propulsion that is often overlooked by many people is that it only relocates the source of pollution from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the power plant. Quick recharge (or lack thereof) may long be a major weakness of battery technology. Battery packs are not light so having a couple of fully-charged packs in your garage so you can change out the discharged battery pack in your car may not be a practical solution for the average motorist. Paul, your first paragraph hits on a matter which has absolutely been ignored by many people; they seem to be totally oblivious of the fact that usable electricity does not fall from the sky. Um... I don't wanna be that guy but... it does literally fall from the sky. We call it solar power.
Deggesty CSSHEGEWISCH One part of battery propulsion that is often overlooked by many people is that it only relocates the source of pollution from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the power plant. Quick recharge (or lack thereof) may long be a major weakness of battery technology. Battery packs are not light so having a couple of fully-charged packs in your garage so you can change out the discharged battery pack in your car may not be a practical solution for the average motorist. Paul, your first paragraph hits on a matter which has absolutely been ignored by many people; they seem to be totally oblivious of the fact that usable electricity does not fall from the sky.
CSSHEGEWISCH One part of battery propulsion that is often overlooked by many people is that it only relocates the source of pollution from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the power plant. Quick recharge (or lack thereof) may long be a major weakness of battery technology. Battery packs are not light so having a couple of fully-charged packs in your garage so you can change out the discharged battery pack in your car may not be a practical solution for the average motorist.
One part of battery propulsion that is often overlooked by many people is that it only relocates the source of pollution from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the power plant.
Quick recharge (or lack thereof) may long be a major weakness of battery technology. Battery packs are not light so having a couple of fully-charged packs in your garage so you can change out the discharged battery pack in your car may not be a practical solution for the average motorist.
Paul, your first paragraph hits on a matter which has absolutely been ignored by many people; they seem to be totally oblivious of the fact that usable electricity does not fall from the sky.
Um... I don't wanna be that guy but... it does literally fall from the sky. We call it solar power.
Johnny
oltmannd samfp1943 Apparently, NS' #999 is still around, and has been undergoing additional testing and is now being tagged as a 2.0 version in its latest itteration. Saw it in January in Roanoke. Quite dead. Number boards out of it. Not looking good...
samfp1943 Apparently, NS' #999 is still around, and has been undergoing additional testing and is now being tagged as a 2.0 version in its latest itteration.
Saw it in January in Roanoke. Quite dead. Number boards out of it. Not looking good...
Oh well, it was neat while it lasted. I do wish NS would adopt its paint scheme as their standard one though, that splash of green really is a nice touch.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
samfp1943Apparently, NS' #999 is still around, and has been undergoing additional testing and is now being tagged as a 2.0 version in its latest itteration.
tree68There's wind power, too, unless the NIMBYs manage to put the kibosh on efforts to build wind farms.
Should be noted that wind power is given as the primary 'source' of the carrier hydrogen Linde is contracting to provide for the 14 iLINT trains.
CMQ_9017Um... I don't wanna be that guy but... it does literally fall from the sky. We call it solar power.
There is a lot of energy and resources that go into making solar panels, some of it is not very clean.
There's wind power, too, unless the NIMBY's manage to put the kaibosh on efforts to build wind farms.
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...
.SD70Dude wrote the following post[in part]:
"...A friend used to work on the in-plant railroad at Agrium's Redwater, AB fertilizer plant. Around 15 years ago they got one of the Railpower "Green Kid" demonstrators to test. The results were promising, the Kid would easily out pull the plant's older SW's while using a fraction of the fuel. Everyone loved it, and Agrium bought it.
But then one day the switching crew misjudged their distance, and smacked it into a cut of cars at about 10 mph. Nothing derailed and no one was hurt, but all the batteries were given one heck of a jolt, hard enough that they were shifted around inside the hood.
It was repaired, but after that incident the Kid turned into an unreliable piece of junk that wouldn't pull worth a darn, and Agrium ended up getting rid of it.
Their old SW's continue to soldier on..."
A major issue with lead/acid batteries. They are assembled with individual plates, that are bonded together, with small lead clamps,plate to plate, they are then placed in the lower battery case and, sealed in with the top case/plate. A solid bump will jostle the plates, and a blow too heavy or hard, or with some frequency, will damage the battery connections, within the cell.
This was the original make-up of the battery system introduced in the 2009 version of the NS RR's #999; which utilized commercial, automotive-style, batteries(?) as its power source. Apparently, NS' #999 is still around, and has been undergoing additional testing and is now being tagged as a 2.0 version in its latest itteration.
see linked @ http://nssustainability.com/2014_sustainability_report/environmental_performance/a_battery_powered_alternative.html
Overmod Note that most of the early battery-locomotive schemes apparently foundered on a lack of understanding of how switching is actually performed. Very similar issues concern peak loads and the speed with which currents are sourced and sunk in the battery chemistry. The GE hybrid locomotive battery design (the COMSOL multiphysics software comany has a paper on it) was about the first I saw that actually addressed the cumulative duty cycles involved, and you will note GE is no longer advertising work on the idea.
With regard to switching it is not just the peak load or battery discharge & recharge rates that are of concern, one must also consider how the equipment will be treated in the real world, and how well it will survive that treatment.
A friend used to work on the in-plant railroad at Agrium's Redwater, AB fertilizer plant. Around 15 years ago they got one of the Railpower "Green Kid" demonstrators to test. The results were promising, the Kid would easily out pull the plant's older SW's while using a fraction of the fuel. Everyone loved it, and Agrium bought it.
Their old SW's continue to soldier on...
Here's a possible solution. Currently, the closest thing that Class I's have to a battery-electric locomotive is the Green Goat switchers and road switchers (I don't care the use, it it has two hoods, it's not just a switcher in my book).
Anyway, they mainly run on batteries, but there's still a diesel engine to power the battery when it runs low on charge. My question is, why not have a locomotive using both systems at once? A 300 HP I6 engine likely doesn't use up anywhere near as much fuel at a time compared to a 4,400 HP V12 engine. With the battery bank, the power from the engine could just be amplified before being delivered to the traction motors.
If a large road locomotive used this system (already have a design on paper for this) were to use the Green Goat system, it would probably have a single V8 engine plus turbocharger. As it operates, it provides power to the battery bank and alternator. This increases the actual output of power available for traction and even onboard power. This allows a single engine, producing say 2,000 horsepower or less on its own, to provide enough power for a locomotive to use 5,000 horsepower for traction. A smaller engine would likely make more sense for local and real road-switching.
An addendum- see link below:
http://www.railengineer.uk/2017/04/06/railbaar-rapid-charge-station/
It might be possible, or even preferable, to use the system described to rapid charge an advanced flywheel based energy storage system on board the train. Advanced flywheels (which usually use carbon-fibre disks supported by magnetic bearings, spinning in a vacuum) can be charged very rapidly indeed, have high charge and discharge efficiency and have a long, maintenance-free life.
http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/Infrastructures/products/aps-ground-level-power-supply/
oltmannd IslandMan The recharging problem for battery locomotives might be solved by putting the battery pack inside a detachable module. The module could be quickly swapped out when the batteries were running low. This method would reduce locomotive down-time and because battery charging time would be decoupled from the times trains needed to run allow railways to take advantage of off-peak electricity prices. Batteries might be useful as an auxiliary power source on diesel locomotives, for two reasons: (1) Regeneration - to absorb energy when the train decelerates, and use the stored energy to boost the power from the locomotive's engine when the train is got moving again; (2) To even out troughs and peaks in power demand. Diesel engines are most fuel-efficient when working at 80+% of their capacity. This lies behind the idea of the genset locomotive where two or three smaller engines take the place of one large one, engines being used as far as possible only when they will be working flat-out. A locomotive with one large diesel engine and a battery power-pack might achieve the same fuel savings with greater reliability. Your #1 and #2 reasons are the ones that drive the economics, I think. Just need diesel engine to provide for steady state. I think a great application would be commuter service. You wouldn't need to store huge amounts of energy, so storage device wouldn't have to be massive. If the RR is electrified, then the opportunity for temporarily storing the energy from braking can be wayside. I think some transit lines are trying this. You can always use regenerative braking and not have to worry about a matching load occuring at the same moment.
IslandMan The recharging problem for battery locomotives might be solved by putting the battery pack inside a detachable module. The module could be quickly swapped out when the batteries were running low. This method would reduce locomotive down-time and because battery charging time would be decoupled from the times trains needed to run allow railways to take advantage of off-peak electricity prices. Batteries might be useful as an auxiliary power source on diesel locomotives, for two reasons: (1) Regeneration - to absorb energy when the train decelerates, and use the stored energy to boost the power from the locomotive's engine when the train is got moving again; (2) To even out troughs and peaks in power demand. Diesel engines are most fuel-efficient when working at 80+% of their capacity. This lies behind the idea of the genset locomotive where two or three smaller engines take the place of one large one, engines being used as far as possible only when they will be working flat-out. A locomotive with one large diesel engine and a battery power-pack might achieve the same fuel savings with greater reliability.
The recharging problem for battery locomotives might be solved by putting the battery pack inside a detachable module. The module could be quickly swapped out when the batteries were running low. This method would reduce locomotive down-time and because battery charging time would be decoupled from the times trains needed to run allow railways to take advantage of off-peak electricity prices.
Batteries might be useful as an auxiliary power source on diesel locomotives, for two reasons:
(1) Regeneration - to absorb energy when the train decelerates, and use the stored energy to boost the power from the locomotive's engine when the train is got moving again;
(2) To even out troughs and peaks in power demand. Diesel engines are most fuel-efficient when working at 80+% of their capacity. This lies behind the idea of the genset locomotive where two or three smaller engines take the place of one large one, engines being used as far as possible only when they will be working flat-out. A locomotive with one large diesel engine and a battery power-pack might achieve the same fuel savings with greater reliability.
Your #1 and #2 reasons are the ones that drive the economics, I think. Just need diesel engine to provide for steady state.
I think a great application would be commuter service. You wouldn't need to store huge amounts of energy, so storage device wouldn't have to be massive.
If the RR is electrified, then the opportunity for temporarily storing the energy from braking can be wayside. I think some transit lines are trying this. You can always use regenerative braking and not have to worry about a matching load occuring at the same moment.
There have been a number of battery-powered passenger trains over the past 85 years or so. Perhaps the greatest use of battery power was the commuter service in Dublin, Ireland, which used Drumm nickel-zinc batteries and was in operation from 1932 to 1949. In the 1950s an experimental two-car train using lead-acid batteries ran on the Aberdeen-Ballater branch in Scotland.
There is currently a battery-powered train in experimental service on the Colchester-Harwich line in eastern England. Modern lithium-based batteries, with their better energy/weight ratio, increase the scope for using battery power for transport applications.
The best theoretical energy/weight ratio that could be obtained is with a lithium-air battery. Development work on this is being carried out at Cambridge University. A lithium-air battery could, in theory, match the energy density of gasoline (whether it would in practice is of course another matter).
For a rail system like that of the US, with huge trains hauled thousands of miles, it is probably best to persist with diesels. In the near future, adapting locomotives to use cheap and plentiful natural gas might be the best option.
BaltACDSome of them have never seen a real blade of grass!
... be careful as you pass ...
tree68 Miningman It's the same in the states. Many of those who think that electric vehicles are the savior oftimes have never seen a real cow on the hoof....
Miningman
It's the same in the states. Many of those who think that electric vehicles are the savior oftimes have never seen a real cow on the hoof....
Some of them have never seen a real blade of grass!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
MiningmanThis scenario is typical of a huge part of all of Canada.
Joe Blow- Nice to see some common sense still exists in this world as it's getting increasingly rare these days. Cut through the crap and tell it like it really is.
Electric Vehicles likely will never exist here in Northern Saskatchewan, or anywhere else in Canada outside of Toronto and Vancouver. The closest city to me is 3 hours away and thats only one city, anything else is much further. The temperature goes to -30 to -40 November and pretty much stays there until the end of March. A vehicle up here must have a robust heating system and requires warmup time. Also has to be rugged as, with the exception of the Hwy. to that city 3 hours away, nothing is paved. This scenario is typical of a huge part of all of Canada.
Now...if we were all interconnected with high speed rail up here, well that would be nice. We had great service back in the steam days, but vitually every branch and secondary main has been lifted. Saskatchewan has been like Iowa or Florida on steroids.
Progress.
Railroads just like the majority of the driving public will adopt EV's when they become more user friendly than ICE (gasoline/diesel powered) vehicles.
1) EV's currently take 30 minutes to over eight hours to refill their proverbial tanks to either over half full or full. For most people and organizations that is inconvenient.
2) Current battery chemistry development is not advancing fast enough to come out with a major increase in storage capacity or recharing time anytime soon.
3) A battery's capacity shrinks every time it charges and discharges. Anyone who has had a cell phone has experienced this. Most people don't want to buy a vehicle that has a gas tank that shrinks over time.
Until battery technology becomes a better alternative than combusion engines, EVs are always going to be small niche technology like 3D printing or drones. Remember all of the talk miniture manufacturing and skys fill with drones delivering all a manner goods.
As for Tesla, I get the feeling that sales of the forthcoming Model 3 will decline after they fulfill their orders to technophiles and the ecominded of modest financial means.
Battery/diesel/electric
http://newdavesrailpix.com/it/htm/usr_h_it_frt_0051_dajen_108.htm
rluke Yet another use would be a battery/electric locomotive, where the battery is used when away from the wire ... the locomotive would switch to battery power for a short time. I was thinking along those same lines when I originally posted this. I was also wondering if the catenary or third rail could also be used to recharge the batteries in route.
Yet another use would be a battery/electric locomotive, where the battery is used when away from the wire ... the locomotive would switch to battery power for a short time.
I was thinking along those same lines when I originally posted this. I was also wondering if the catenary or third rail could also be used to recharge the batteries in route.
The answer is 'yes', but perhaps the better answer is the modern version of a 'tri-power' locomotive like the ones used in the infancy of diesel powerplants, where the locomotive could operate from wire or third rail where air quality were important, and use battery for operations such as inside warehouses or building tunnels (like on the old NYC West Side High Line) where it was unsafe or impractical to put traction power connections.
The sorts of 'charging connections' used for flywheel buses and the like, either with plug-in or shielded contacts or induction charging, ought to work for many applications, if the locomotive can be moved or 'parked' in those locations between the times it needs to be moving. That would substitute for running the small genset or other fueled onboard charging engine to keep the battery reasonably charged. For overhead wire, this would involve little more than a short length of wire or bar with appropriate spacing, without need for careful tensioning or alignment. Note that the advanced trolley people have already worked out a practical "pole" arrangement for up to three conductors in a common head, which neatly gets around issues with using the running track as a powered or bonded return...
erikem CSSHEGEWISCH One part of battery propulsion that is often overlooked by many people is that it only relocates the source of pollution from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the power plant. Not if you're charging the battery when solar electric production is in excess of demand. This is starting to become an issue in California, look up "solar duck". OTOH, for RR use, this would require a large stockpile of spare batteries so that they can be charged when the power is available. IOW, technically possible, but an economic disaster. Yet another use would be a battery/electric locomotive, where the battery is used when away from the wire (such as the North Shore locomotive described earlier in this thread). Along those lines, the cost of electrifying many lines can be dramatically cut if there isn't a need to raise overhead clearances for the catenary, e.g. going under a highway bridge with 22' clearance above the rail (where a 50kV electrification would require 26'). A short dead section of catenary could be placed under the bridge and the locomotive would switch to battery power for a short time.
CSSHEGEWISCH One part of battery propulsion that is often overlooked by many people is that it only relocates the source of pollution from the exhaust pipe of the vehicle to the smokestack of the power plant.
Not if you're charging the battery when solar electric production is in excess of demand. This is starting to become an issue in California, look up "solar duck".
OTOH, for RR use, this would require a large stockpile of spare batteries so that they can be charged when the power is available. IOW, technically possible, but an economic disaster.
Yet another use would be a battery/electric locomotive, where the battery is used when away from the wire (such as the North Shore locomotive described earlier in this thread). Along those lines, the cost of electrifying many lines can be dramatically cut if there isn't a need to raise overhead clearances for the catenary, e.g. going under a highway bridge with 22' clearance above the rail (where a 50kV electrification would require 26'). A short dead section of catenary could be placed under the bridge and the locomotive would switch to battery power for a short time.
Erikem
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.