Winnebago is coming out with an all electric powered motorhome. Surely locomotives can't be far off.
https://electrek.co/2018/05/02/winnebago-all-electric-rv-platform-electric-motorhome/
This RV will be perfect for those who want to get away from it all. Provided they don't want to get too far away from it all.
Jeff
Ge had a diesel hybrid prototype (#2010) in 2007. The expexted to market the locomotive from 2010: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/ge-unveils-hybrid-locomotive.html
GE estimated a fuel reduction of 10%. With relatively low fuel prices it looks like the reduction didn't warrant the additional costs for the hybrid system.
As of March 2018 GE is working on an updated version of the diesel hybrid locomotive: http://www.goerie.com/news/20180306/ges-at-work-on-hybrid-locomotive
Regards, Volker
oltmannd I wonder why we haven't seen a push for diesel hybrids. With the emphasis on dynamic braking, a lot of energy is just burned off that could be captured.
oltmannd zugmann oltmannd I like this idea. You don't need to spend too much on the batteries or worry about when and how to recharge. That's good, because they don't have the whole "refuelling engines when they are low" thing down pat, yet. +1 Ha! Yes. For something that is complete figure-out-able, they don't do it very well.
zugmann oltmannd I like this idea. You don't need to spend too much on the batteries or worry about when and how to recharge. That's good, because they don't have the whole "refuelling engines when they are low" thing down pat, yet.
oltmannd I like this idea. You don't need to spend too much on the batteries or worry about when and how to recharge.
That's good, because they don't have the whole "refuelling engines when they are low" thing down pat, yet.
+1 Ha! Yes. For something that is complete figure-out-able, they don't do it very well.
Even when you do the figuring out for them it can still get screwed up, several times I have informed the powers that be of a low fuel situation (with specifics, including where and when to refuel) and been told "it will be taken care of", only to find a dead or dying engine the next day.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndI like this idea. You don't need to spend too much on the batteries or worry about when and how to recharge.
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
erikem With battery powered locomotives using existing battery technology, they probably would have to be changed at every division point. In the case of California, simply getting the trains out of the LA basin would be considered a good start. I don't think it makes economic sense for a transcontinental run. A battery/straight electric may be an interesting combo, would allow for "complete" electrification without electrifying ALL of the tracks. It would also allow for dead zones where it would be too costly to increase clearance to accomodate the wire.
With battery powered locomotives using existing battery technology, they probably would have to be changed at every division point. In the case of California, simply getting the trains out of the LA basin would be considered a good start. I don't think it makes economic sense for a transcontinental run.
A battery/straight electric may be an interesting combo, would allow for "complete" electrification without electrifying ALL of the tracks. It would also allow for dead zones where it would be too costly to increase clearance to accomodate the wire.
I like this idea. You don't need to spend too much on the batteries or worry about when and how to recharge.
I wonder why we haven't seen a push for diesel hybrids. With the emphasis on dynamic braking, a lot of energy is just burned off that could be captured.
I thought BNSF was seriously looking at electrifying the LA-CHI line. When the price of oil shot up years ago, it was seriously looked at.
In the earliest days of diesel engines, the difference between an oil engine and a diesel engine was based on the type of fuel injection used. No spark plugs in either variety.
The tri-powered locos had a 300 hp diesel that charged the batteries, along with 3rd rail pick-up.
I believe the New York Central had three-power locomotives, oil, third rail, and battery.
Is my memory correct? Unsure if the oil engine had spark plugs or used injection ignition.
Replaced steam on the West Side freight line, even before High Line elevation and the Riverside Park tunnel construction.
erikem A battery/straight electric may be an interesting combo, would allow for "complete" electrification without electrifying ALL of the tracks. It would also allow for dead zones where it would be too costly to increase clearance to accomodate the wire.
I'm of the impression that "pony express" means changing engines at every division point/crew district. Something the railroads did in the days of steam regularly, at least until the late steam era. Changing between steam or diesel-electrics to straight electrics, to me, isn't a pony express type operation.
And CASO did it in Windsor and Detroit.
Johnny
erikemEven with that, we're still looking at playing "Pony Express".
The New York Central did it at Harmon for many, many years.
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...
oltmannd If I did the math right, 19,000 HP-HR = about 1000 gallons of diesel locomotive range. Okay for getting out of the LA basin, but not ready for the long haul. You'd be playing "Pony Express".
If I did the math right, 19,000 HP-HR = about 1000 gallons of diesel locomotive range. Okay for getting out of the LA basin, but not ready for the long haul. You'd be playing "Pony Express".
Your math seems about right.
To get much more than my estimate of 19,000 HP-HR on a six axle locomotive will require an advance in commerically available batteries. Li-S batteries are supposedly good for 450 w-hr/kg, which may give close to 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel equivalent, but those batteries are still in the experimental stage. Eeven with that, we're still looking at playing "Pony Express".
In the long run catenary will likely be much sheaper than batteries, but the battery locomotives have the advantage that they can be moved around to where they are needed.
I still think GE messed up with the way they were trying to sell their hybrid locomotive. IMHO, the killer application is to increase the number of trains per hour that can be handled in long tunnels - with the battery providing half the power, that means the diesel engine would be working half as hard and dumping half the exhaust and heat into the bore.
Found this on the Web - contains some discussion of the battery tender concept:
http://railtec.illinois.edu/articles/Files/Conference%20Proceedings/2015/IHHA_2015_PAPER%20224.00_FULLERTON_G_DICK_CT.pdf
This is from the CARB - Pages VI 1-VI 2 AND VI 10-VI 16 discuss using battery tenders to get from the Ports of LA/LB to Barstow as zero-emission miles.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/freight_locomotives_tech_report.pdf
WM7471 kgbw49 It would be interesting to see if they develop large “battery tenders” that get charged while rolling through other states and then take over supplying the traction motors at the CA State Line. The science and engineering will be interesting no matter the solution. IIRC G.E. already has patents on some type of "Battery Tender". However, I don't remember any of the details. Since there are heavy grades on most of the lines out of the L.A. Basin, batteries do not seem to be a good solution. Hanging caternary seems to be the logical choice.
kgbw49 It would be interesting to see if they develop large “battery tenders” that get charged while rolling through other states and then take over supplying the traction motors at the CA State Line. The science and engineering will be interesting no matter the solution.
It would be interesting to see if they develop large “battery tenders” that get charged while rolling through other states and then take over supplying the traction motors at the CA State Line. The science and engineering will be interesting no matter the solution.
IIRC G.E. already has patents on some type of "Battery Tender". However, I don't remember any of the details. Since there are heavy grades on most of the lines out of the L.A. Basin, batteries do not seem to be a good solution.
Hanging caternary seems to be the logical choice.
Might not be as bad as it would seem. If you have enought oomph to get to the top of the grade, you can recover some of it on the way back down, so recharging at the other end wouldn't be as long....
Electrification also allows regenerative braking, so both beat the diesels...
Speaking of the Pony Express, such a change would take a few minutes longer than the Pony Express changes did.
On the topic of changes, I am not sure the people in Denver know how to couple or uncouple cars. Last fall, some private cars were added to the train I was on, and it took several tries before the job was done. This past Satuday, I am not sure what was being done (we left Chicago with one private car on the rear), but whatever it was took two or three bumps to accomplish.
erikemLi-ion battery packs are good for at least 150 w-hr/kg, which works out to ~135 kwhr/ton (ton = 2,000lb). I would guess that a six axle slug would be capable of holding 100 tons of batteries, say 13.5Mwhr. This would be equivalent of 19,000 prime mover hp-hr. Estimates for cost of EV battery packs are running around $180/kw-hr, so we're looking at $2.4 million for the batteries alone. This may be cheaper than electrification for getting trains out of the L.A. air basin...
Getting to the current six axle locomotive range would require ~$10M in batteries.
It's probably cheaper, too. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Georgetown TX draws its electric power from wind and solar, and saves its customers a lot of money.
tree68 It might be more worthwhile to put in a solar powered charging station, using ground mounted panels. Trying to be green, you know!
You could be right. El Paso Electric, after surveying its customers, has decided to built one or more solar farms for its customers. It seems that many of them want green power - solar, but don't want the hassle of putting the panels on their roofs.
Another win for the competitive electric energy market in Texas!
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Some general comments:
The power probably would have to be swapped at the CA line, and this was the consensus when the SCRRA was looking at electrification of the SoCal freight lines. The expactation was that catenary would have to be placed 25' above the top of the rail to accomodate double stacks and growth in rail height from track maintenance.
There is a lot of knowledge about proper packaging of Li-ion bateris for EV's, so the main development effort for RR use would be proper shock mounting. Note that the packaging includes both thermal management and state of charge management.
Li-ion battery packs are good for at least 150 w-hr/kg, which works out to ~135 kwhr/ton (ton = 2,000lb). I would guess that a six axle slug would be capable of holding 100 tons of batteries, say 13.5Mwhr. This would be equivalent of 19,000 prime mover hp-hr. Estimates for cost of EV battery packs are running around $180/kw-hr, so we're looking at $2.4 million for the batteries alone. This may be cheaper than electrification for getting trains out of the L.A. air basin...
I am going to ask a very-layperson question.
If BNSF would string catenary in CA, would that require a power swap on every train?
If so, how much time would have to be added to schedules?
There are also 'shields - think fiberglass, about 4 ft. wide - that can be placed between the catenary wire and the structure overhead. That effectively reduces the required 'air gap' separation up to the structure to near zero - though some clearance is still needed so the current collector doesn't physically contact the shield - since the distance across half the width of the shield to the closest edge is greater than ther required air gap of 1+ ft. per Volker's data above.
- PDN.
BaltACD How much would have to be done to install catanery for safe operation I don't know. I don't know how much 'arc over' distance is required for safety.
It depends on Voltage.Germany: 15 kV 16.666 Hz; standard height contact wire 18'-0.5'', minimum 16'-3''; height bi-level cars 15'-2.4''. Standard safety distance is about 3', minimum about 1'
United Kingdom: 25 kV 50 Hz; Standard safety distance 2'-4'', minimum 1'-3''
Additionally one needs a safety distance to structures but both can get minimized when the contact wire is neutral under short bridges and tunnels. Momentum will carry on the train.Regards, Volker
The Milwaukee Road on their electrification had the trolley wire at 24' 2" above the top of the rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.