Shadow the Cats owner3 simple problems with going to Battery systems. First off the weight. The engine in the modern reefer unit on the nose of a trailer weighs in at less than 400 pounds wet weight that is ready to run. The rest of the weight is the refrigaration unit itself that keeps the trailer cold. 2nd is the Service net. Thermo King and Carrier both have massive service networks that can get someone to a broke down unit in less than 2 hours nationwide with the parts needed to get a unit back up and running and with satalite montioring with the newest units they can diagnose the problem on the fly. Lastly is the fuel use of the current units. 1 gallon of fuel per hour at highspeed cooling or heating and less than a half a gallon on low speed constant running are the quotes and real world results. Your talking an entire new infastructure for these new units again.
You're right. Those are simple "probems", if they're problems at all.
This is in no way going to require "an entire new infrastructure". Similar reefer containers are moving around the North American rail network now. They're just hooked up to a diesel generator in some fashion. What I asked about was the feasibility of replacing the diesel generator with some newer tech batteries. The batteries wouldn't go on the container/chassis combination. They'd be on the well cars during rail transit. On the short haul drayage I wondered if the container reefer units could draw juice from an electric tractor's existing batteries.
You just said it would save 400 pounds dead weight per load, and that will translate to 400 more pounds of payload. Did you include the fuel weight that won't have to be drug around, further limiting payload, if short haul (300 mile range) Tesla tractors were to be used?
There's absolutely no reason TK/Carrier repair people can't handle this with the same set up they have today. They do the electrical work now.
SD70Dude BaltACD SD70Dude GERALD L MCFARLANE JR We could always go the Australian rail system route and mount fixed 20'/24' generator containers every so many cars and hook up the refrigerated units to those so that they don't have to use the onboard refrigeration unit while in transit. I'm guessing that's how they're able to run entire trains of referigated international containers from inland to port, since that's what I've seen in dozens of videos. CN has been doing that for some years already. Often cables run across multiple cars, with warning stickers and locking blocks in place to prevent them from being uncoupled. And then there are the knuckle and drawbar failures that don't read and abide by the warning stickers. That happened to a loaded welded rail train in Saskatchewan some years ago. A shame I can't find the pictures anymore. Would have been a big, tangled, dangerous mess to clean up.
BaltACD SD70Dude GERALD L MCFARLANE JR We could always go the Australian rail system route and mount fixed 20'/24' generator containers every so many cars and hook up the refrigerated units to those so that they don't have to use the onboard refrigeration unit while in transit. I'm guessing that's how they're able to run entire trains of referigated international containers from inland to port, since that's what I've seen in dozens of videos. CN has been doing that for some years already. Often cables run across multiple cars, with warning stickers and locking blocks in place to prevent them from being uncoupled. And then there are the knuckle and drawbar failures that don't read and abide by the warning stickers.
SD70Dude GERALD L MCFARLANE JR We could always go the Australian rail system route and mount fixed 20'/24' generator containers every so many cars and hook up the refrigerated units to those so that they don't have to use the onboard refrigeration unit while in transit. I'm guessing that's how they're able to run entire trains of referigated international containers from inland to port, since that's what I've seen in dozens of videos. CN has been doing that for some years already. Often cables run across multiple cars, with warning stickers and locking blocks in place to prevent them from being uncoupled.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR We could always go the Australian rail system route and mount fixed 20'/24' generator containers every so many cars and hook up the refrigerated units to those so that they don't have to use the onboard refrigeration unit while in transit. I'm guessing that's how they're able to run entire trains of referigated international containers from inland to port, since that's what I've seen in dozens of videos.
We could always go the Australian rail system route and mount fixed 20'/24' generator containers every so many cars and hook up the refrigerated units to those so that they don't have to use the onboard refrigeration unit while in transit. I'm guessing that's how they're able to run entire trains of referigated international containers from inland to port, since that's what I've seen in dozens of videos.
CN has been doing that for some years already. Often cables run across multiple cars, with warning stickers and locking blocks in place to prevent them from being uncoupled.
And then there are the knuckle and drawbar failures that don't read and abide by the warning stickers.
That happened to a loaded welded rail train in Saskatchewan some years ago. A shame I can't find the pictures anymore.
Would have been a big, tangled, dangerous mess to clean up.
What you were looking for?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Overmod I'd simply note this: for Elon Musk to achieve his class 8 electric truck 'future' all the necessary engineering either has or will be done 'for you' -- as will much of the technology and even the capital buildout. Scaling the number of cells in parallel is the only thing needed for even large insulated cars. The other 'half' of the picture is good aerogel and nanoinsulation, which can probably cut down the actual heat-pumping required by a substantial amount. I understand that less than an inch of good multiple-shield insulation has the same quality as some of the 'space-grade' systems used on rockets in the 1960s with much more cost and thickness. There are a variety of charging options, including the equivalent of wayside storage charging; I suspect that some kind of harness on well cars analogous to HEP is going to be the thing, but the 220V line from ECP braking could be used for trickle-charging and 'emergency' support power with a little enhancement. It might even be possible to have a percentage of combustion-engined 'hybrid' power distributed in the consist to do any 'support' charging for end-to-end QoS that large battery banks alone might not be cost-effective or safe enough to handle.
I'd simply note this: for Elon Musk to achieve his class 8 electric truck 'future' all the necessary engineering either has or will be done 'for you' -- as will much of the technology and even the capital buildout. Scaling the number of cells in parallel is the only thing needed for even large insulated cars.
The other 'half' of the picture is good aerogel and nanoinsulation, which can probably cut down the actual heat-pumping required by a substantial amount. I understand that less than an inch of good multiple-shield insulation has the same quality as some of the 'space-grade' systems used on rockets in the 1960s with much more cost and thickness.
There are a variety of charging options, including the equivalent of wayside storage charging; I suspect that some kind of harness on well cars analogous to HEP is going to be the thing, but the 220V line from ECP braking could be used for trickle-charging and 'emergency' support power with a little enhancement. It might even be possible to have a percentage of combustion-engined 'hybrid' power distributed in the consist to do any 'support' charging for end-to-end QoS that large battery banks alone might not be cost-effective or safe enough to handle.
The Insulation used in the walls and the roofs of reefer trailers anymore is structurial also they are built as part of a Stressed skin counstruction by several builders. That means the interal and external walls have minimal bracing between the roof and bottom of the trailers the insulation is literally the glue that keeps the trailers from buckling under the load of the products being carried. Wabash was the first to come up with this design and it cut about 1000 pounds from the weight of the trailer. They figured out a way to make their duraplate trailers into reefers and pretty much took over the market. You will not get a switch to areogels and other wonder insultations for one reason COST. When expanded spray foam costs you thousands less to repair than areogel after an accident or shipper or reciever tearing the inner panel out of the trailer and that happens way more than you think it does. We have 3 trailers in the body shop right now that even with a translucent roof on them forklift drivers managed to punch holes in the freaking roof of them in the middle of the trailers.
3 simple problems with going to Battery systems. First off the weight. The engine in the modern reefer unit on the nose of a trailer weighs in at less than 400 pounds wet weight that is ready to run. The rest of the weight is the refrigaration unit itself that keeps the trailer cold. 2nd is the Service net. Thermo King and Carrier both have massive service networks that can get someone to a broke down unit in less than 2 hours nationwide with the parts needed to get a unit back up and running and with satalite montioring with the newest units they can diagnose the problem on the fly. Lastly is the fuel use of the current units. 1 gallon of fuel per hour at highspeed cooling or heating and less than a half a gallon on low speed constant running are the quotes and real world results. Your talking an entire new infastructure for these new units again.
I would only agree with the point made by BaltACD since he is retired, most likely, familiar with current 1" to1" railroading issues Overmod has taught me much. My position is just observational; I reside on a main feeder line of BNSF's Southern T-Con [Main#03 El Dorado sub] Having been essentially house bound for the last couple of months, I've been able to observe the passing parade. WE have our large number of container stack trains, both west bound and eastbound.
I have also noticed that we have a couple of solid TOFC trains each week, WB they seem to be reefers(not runnin/dry freight?), and EB they seem to be reefer units operational. Mostly they are reeferTOFC, but lately, there are a fair number of OTR Carrier's Reefer Containers (Operating). Have even seen JBH reefer containers, as well. Those trains always seem to have their compliment of dry freight, pup trailers, as well as longer units. The OTR reefer containers have been a growing number over about the last year.
While in Albuquerque, at the railyard on the South end of town, they had a mobile fuel truck, that seemed to be fueling some of the trailers on a stopped TOFC train (?). Was not able to get close enough to actually watch for somew time. There seem to be a growing number of satellite sending units on the TOFC units, and even some of the reefer containers (small unit mounted near the top, on the trailer's nose area).
Overmod And truth to tell, if I were running a railroad I'd pay careful attention to all that, and be tempted not to do anything I didn't actually 'have' to do -- there are no government guarantee programs or aid for spending money on them if it turns out you need the capital elsewhere, and not just to line stakeholder pockets as an 'incentive to invest' or to keep the share price up when you want it high or whatever. I'd presume that the cost of maintaining and 'spot-repairing' any of the electrical equipment on the cars would be handled comparably to how 'private cars' are currently maintained: the railroad or a contractor suitable to it would repair as necessary, and then bill the 'owner' for cost plus reasonable profit. The owner might contract with a Hulcher-like service to do running inspections, or continuous monitoring of datastreams, etc. (just as they might use a private service like Olin to track their cars 'securely and proprietarily') and waive all but the work an exchanging railroad might deem necessary before the 'service' can respond completely. Why this is still an ongoing issue, I don't quite see. Remember this is for a private service initially, not a railroad-owned or railroad-promoted thing. There seems to be something like the opposite of a 'groundswell of enthusiasm' that the current crop of railroads bedazzled by financial-legerdemain PSR would still have the skills, let alone the interest, to set up and run a new service of this kind, assuming all the transitory losses and risk, especially if there's any long-term perception that autonomous/hybrid trucks will cherry-pick much of the business as the various truck-related system costs go down...
And truth to tell, if I were running a railroad I'd pay careful attention to all that, and be tempted not to do anything I didn't actually 'have' to do -- there are no government guarantee programs or aid for spending money on them if it turns out you need the capital elsewhere, and not just to line stakeholder pockets as an 'incentive to invest' or to keep the share price up when you want it high or whatever.
I'd presume that the cost of maintaining and 'spot-repairing' any of the electrical equipment on the cars would be handled comparably to how 'private cars' are currently maintained: the railroad or a contractor suitable to it would repair as necessary, and then bill the 'owner' for cost plus reasonable profit. The owner might contract with a Hulcher-like service to do running inspections, or continuous monitoring of datastreams, etc. (just as they might use a private service like Olin to track their cars 'securely and proprietarily') and waive all but the work an exchanging railroad might deem necessary before the 'service' can respond completely.
Why this is still an ongoing issue, I don't quite see. Remember this is for a private service initially, not a railroad-owned or railroad-promoted thing. There seems to be something like the opposite of a 'groundswell of enthusiasm' that the current crop of railroads bedazzled by financial-legerdemain PSR would still have the skills, let alone the interest, to set up and run a new service of this kind, assuming all the transitory losses and risk, especially if there's any long-term perception that autonomous/hybrid trucks will cherry-pick much of the business as the various truck-related system costs go down...
The Hedge Funds that are promoting PSR are not using it as a incentive to invest, they are using it as a vehicle to extract railroad assets into becoming 'shareholder value'. Financial rape.
Maintaining 'other parties' equipment and billing at the rates allowed by Car Service Rules does not make that a profit center - at least not without bogus billings. To maintain 'other parties' equipment requires additional railroad manpower to do it - additional manpower that PSR doesn't want on the payroll.
Remember, when railroads accept a shipment - they are liable for the shipment to be delivered to the consignee in the same condition in which it was offered, the railroads are also liable for anything or damage that the shipment causes while the shipment is in transit and on the railroads property.
PSR as presently practiced is not about 'gowing' the business - it could be, but at present it is not.
BaltACDThey don't want to 'touch' locomotives beyond putting fuel and sand in them while occasionally emptying the toilet between required 92 day inspections (which requirement they are trying to have the period extended). Likewise they don't want to touch freight cars more frequently than FRA regulations require.
TBH this was often the attitude long before the advent of three-letter things like EHH and PSR. It's been argued, I think with more than a grain of factual truth, that things like the Power Brake Law and the Boiler Law were driven by railroad obstinacy to act in what was, honestly, their own greater best interest -- and yes, there are parallels in the likely course of adopting ECP. The great first-generation dieselization was at its root a desire to make locomotives less complicated to service and to operate ... and over the years the innovations that have been adopted on locomotives, as opposed to those that 'died on the vine' or were outright disasters like the Republic Starships, have often been those that reduce uncertainty, or predict a 'maintenance' schedule without human intervention, or that allow locomotives with some defects to operate until 'schedulably close' to their 92-day or whatever.
Erik_MagBalt, Are you implying that maintenance and railroads should neither be written in the same sentence nor be said in the same breath????
Are you implying that maintenance and railroads should neither be written in the same sentence nor be said in the same breath????
Today's PSR railroads abhor spending money on maintenance - they feel it is money better spent in shareholder value. Anything that will require additional funds to be spent to maintain it is DOA.
They don't want to 'touch' locomotives beyond putting fuel and sand in them while occasionally emptying the toilet between required 92 day inspections (which requirement they are trying to have the period extended). Likewise they don't want to touch freight cars more frequently than FRA regulations require.
Erik_MagAre you implying that maintenance and railroads should neither be written in the same sentence nor be said in the same breath????
No, just the opposite: on a railroad, checking the fancy technology and fixing it when, not if, it breaks is a very important priority -- perhaps the greatest, long-term.
I am presuming that adequate BITE is provided in the control equipment, that the design takes full advantage of modular and FRU construction, that logistics exist to get parts where needed, that there is full support for manuals and support on wireless devices in the field ... etc.
And that the design isn't characteristic of modern "Internet-style" design practice, where the philosophy is not to test the complex rigorously but cleverly troubleshoot 'around' complex failures as they emerge. That philosophy is highly useful in building self-healing networks for global thermonuclear war, not so much in building software that has to be maintained by anyone but gamers. It certainly destroyed Yahoo Groups about as effectively as I've ever seen an industry-leading organization destroyed; up to that point I thought RIM's implosion was about the worst thing that could happen.
I learned early about the value (at least in theory) of field-replaceable parts, for example the original idea of the RDC engines which pioneered 'works-in-a-drawer' decades before Quasar. Much of the maintenance of an onboard 'hotel-power' system (whether to run refrigeration or just trickle-charge it) would be conducted by replacing components wholesale, including both on a PM basis and as monitoring software advises, and servicing them 'asynchronously' as time and budget and facilities (and offshore shopping, perhaps) permit. Emergency maintenance ought to be limited, where possible, to what one man 'on the spot' could transport there, perhaps by drone, but if not...
Balt,
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
I agree in that a caboose generator belt arrangement would be best. It may also make sense to have at least two generators per car so that a belt failure dows not mean total loss of power.
The intent with using the generators as auxiliary brakes is NOT to be the primary brake mechanism, but as a way of scavenging energy that would otherwise be wasted. OTOH, some sort of higher powered axle generator could be interesting for a commuter coach. In this case, the generator would be in a form of traction motor mounting.
Erik_MagOne thought on the "Spicer drive" idea. Instead of having the generators sized to float charge the batteries as was done on axle driven generator passenger cars, size the generators to be able to act as regenerative brakes to recharge the batteries when braking is needed. Use induction generators to miminize drag when not charging - permanent magnet generators will have some core loss increasing drag above what's caused by friction and windage.
Spicer drives are not highly workable on three-piece trucks for a number of mechanical reasons; Amtrak has recently banned them as if they seize or the shafts lose a universal and drop it can cause spectacular derailment with little warning.
You would not want something under distributed wireless control to make up part of your dynamic braking. Again for a variety of reasons. It's an appealing idea to use the bazaar software-development model for train handling -- but I see too many pitfalls for not enough assured safety.
On the other hand, we could use the distributed battery storage as the source for the functional electromagnetic track emergency brakes we were discussing a few years ago, as I think they have the necessary energy density. On even semi-dedicated consists this might prove of real value.
I'd use switched-reluctance (double-salient) generators since we are assuming full control over the various excitation currents. I'd provide either a small permag-enhanced exciter or some other external 'voltage source' for excitation from 'dead', as I did with the intelligent-driveshaft 'fix' for SPVs lo! these many years ago. I agree that using equipment with as little undesired 'machine friction' effect as possible, including effects of continual self-induction via eddy currents from permanent magnets, is probably a good idea.
I still favor the use of Gates belts driven from an external pulley, as no modification of either wheelsets or wheel seats is formally required. Caboose double-reduction drives are a model for how to implement this. Naturally the amount of potential 'dynamic braking' reduction would be limited to what the belt(s) could practically handle, and my inclination would be to use an explicit Weller tensioner rather than the 'legacy' practice of moving one pulley periodically. Anything that seizes will either snap or 'derail' the belt, which poses a minimal hazard.
Overmod4) Link a generator to a well car axle to recharge the batteries if necessary. The initial problem here is that you'd either need special wheelsets or special associated truck detail design (assuming you'd be using a caboose-style belt drive that could fail without compromising rail safety).
Virtually all of our passenger cars still have the axle driven generator still in place (it's heavy, and removing it will require some "rebalancing" of the car/trucks to ensure proper ride). They were driven by a right-angle drive off the center of the axle. The drive shafts, etc, are long gone on our cars. Aside from the FRA frowning on them, I suspect they'd be a maintenance headache of the first degree.
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...
One thought on the "Spicer drive" idea. Instead of having the generators sized to float charge the batteries as was done on axle driven generator passenger cars, size the generators to be able to act as regenerative brakes to recharge the batteries when braking is needed. Use induction generators to miminize drag when not charging - permanent magnet generators will have some core loss increasing drag above what's caused by friction and windage.
Fixed repetition #3 to start.
Well, I don't know about the Memphis Grizzlies, but repeating it three times doesn't change the fact that I understand about 1/3 of what he said. I flat out don't know what a "Curie point" is. Overmod seems to know his stuff, but he does usually talk well over my head. That's my problem, not his.
No, it's mine for talking over your head. Remember how on the English-grammar threads the point is made about 'communication' being the point of these forum posts? Well, the opposite or contrapositive is true, too: no matter how correct the grammar or 'fascinating' the cogitation, if the reader doesn't get what they need, it's the explanation that needs the rework, not the reader.
In case anyone has noticed I had this problem in the entropy thread, too.
Basic entry-point site for Tesla Semi: https://www.tesla.com/semi
A fun 'external' site that has been tracking the effort:
https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-semi/
The 'Curie point' is the (usually 'elevated') temperature at which a substance that exhibits 'magnetism' stops doing so. This is observed to be reversible for temporarily-magnetized materials (e.g. 'ferromagnetic' metals and alloys) but in many permanent-magnet materials repeated heat cycling above the Curie point will result in progressive loss of magnetic strength in the region so treated. This shows up, for example, in many DC voltage-controlled permag motors that are either insufficiently cooled or effectively overloaded in service, and its effects are often overlooked by 'motor rebuilders' who happily rework the physicals of a motor but don't think to check the torque afterward.
Some types of motor made to run on synthesized AC drive use permanent magnets in part of their construction, and care needs to be taken to watch the temperature in them, which in my opinion justifies specific temperature monitoring 'just' for that part of the device.
So, putting this all together as best I can...
It looks as if there may be an opportunity to:
1) Use the lighter weight Tesla tractors (300 mile range) for intermodal drayage. California will be happy and it could make economic sense.
In my opinion this is 'spot on' -- and may represent an early market for the technology just as electric parcel delivery vans do in some of the smaller truck classes. Don't overlook the use of the technology for yard tractors, or 'yard-equipped' tractors for transfer between formal intermodal facilities that can shorten some of the various dwell times or 'critical paths' that involve serial handling with limited equipment.
2) Power refrigerated containers from those tractors when on the highway.
Here I think the answer may include an aspect of 'both'.
As one of the most critical things is 'assurance of refrigeration' I think most services that use 'straight electric' will need a capable onboard battery. The 'easiest' place to package this is in a thin, appropriately-constructed shell, comparable to the 'skateboard' sort of battery design that GM and others have advocated, and I think the argument could be made that the actual number of cells or supercaps or 'integrated battery architecture' components installed in such a shell would be chosen much as an OTR trucker determines how much fuel to run in a conventional tractor: trading off between weight and unrecharged potential run time. The cell could either go 'below' the container or above it (like many bus batteries) or be packaged in the 'envelope space' of existing refrigerator equipment on 'reefers' -- many kinds of well car already have implicit 'usable space' between units where a projecting equipment shell could go either 'stacked' or 'unstacked' provided the various yards and facilities could easily deal with 'handed' containers properly. The latter is probably the 'best' approach for use in potential doublestacking operations that are at some point critically height-limited, although the necessary height of the flat battery may be relatively low (and hence the loss of cubage if it is installed within say ISO nominal dimensions may be relatively slight).
My opinion has always been that the supply of power to things like these reefers needs to be isolated from the momentary need of the traction power for acceleration, in other words not the direct analogue of a passenger train extensively using Spicer or similar axle drives to generate power for the individual cars. This (at least to me) strongly indicates that the power for the refrigerator should be 'recharging' something independent rather than simply switching to full hotel power while on a truck or on an underframe connected to a tractor. On the other hand, if desired (and with suitable battery chemistry or construction, a subject probably worth the study if you want to commercialize the idea and 'sell it' to people who have money but not engineering interest) you technically need little more energy storage on the container than a 'remontoir' on an older watch or clock involves: the ability to maintain cold during the periods that 'most' of the long-term-performance-maximizing use of the battery is needed for traction, or powering transfer equipment, or whatever.
And one could make the argument that, at least while the equipment is new or correctly maintained, the integrity of the insulation and the seals may make it practical to run loads for hour and perhaps days without actual refrigerator operation... using the 'thermal flywheel' to accomplish some of the needed transition, and designing the chilling arrangement in the container to preferentially bring down temperature in the areas so warmed 'first' when power is reconnected. I am ASSuming that most of these operations will have substantially prechilled the loads, so the refrigeration is basically maintaining low temperature rather than having to 'achieve' it.
So I'd recommend the use of direct or indirect 'assisted charging' more than hooking the container up to the tractor's battery and running from it directly. You need the battery for the 'rest' of the potential intermodal operation.
3) Power refrigerated containers from well car mounted battery packs while on the railroad.
I invite you to be thinking where, and how, such batteries would be built and installed.
If for no reason other than economies of scale alone, the architecture used should parallel what is used directly in electric trucks. There are some considerations for railroad service that are likely more stringent than for OTR operation, but I'd defer to people with direct distinctive competence in deciding and then assessing what those are, practically -- you're one of those people, as I think is Shadow the cat's owner.
4) Link a generator to a well car axle to recharge the batteries if necessary.
The initial problem here is that you'd either need special wheelsets or special associated truck detail design (assuming you'd be using a caboose-style belt drive that could fail without compromising rail safety). It's possible you could take the initial 'tap' off a pulley on the outside of a rotating cap (to preserve the ability of railroads to 'see' the end of the bearing turning) and then arrange things to your (probably modular) generator arrangement
The second problem is how to manage what may be a great number of these generators all contending for a fair share of traction/momentum energy. In a 'naive' design this might be a substantial amount of power that might 'peak' at very inconvenient times. In a perfect future world, we'd have PTC with full GIS access that could predict upgrades and 'coasting' where energy harvest could in fact be an advantage; I doubt however that any train crew would care to take the time to set this up to assist train handling -- it should be automatic. Where some of the fun comes in is that the 'automatic' algorithms need to be non-greedy, and I suspect there would be the temptation to 'cheat' in various ways. I bring this up because all this is relatively easy to 'design in' as part of initial spec ... near-impossible to incorporate 'after the fact'.
I have spent some time indicating the various ways that a 220VAC line for ECP brakes can be used for this sort of thing, including as a time and phase reference and as a source for 'powerline modulated' communications and wireless takeoffs. Wiring this as a 'harness' for eventual ECP changeover, and then rigging the ends with suitably-'smart' wireless connections, is a good short-term alternative (although I think there are better approaches than the "secure Bluetooth" North West was calling for in his story. However, power coordination is something that could easily be handled without a trainline, or even autonomously...
Note that I haven't discussed the applications where loose-car or small-scale unit consists are used instead of intermodal. Many of the advantages, and technological approaches, as as useful and applicable there as they are in full intermodal. I have always been something of an advocate of 'internal containerization' approaches, including semiautomatic dunnage arrangements, and this might be as effective in many ways for this specific niche as ISO-in-well-cars approaches are...
There is a huge opportunity for the railroads in the normally longer haul movement of fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, poultry, etc. This might help them exploit that opportunity.
The great initial issue being that most of the 'enabling technologies' also represent the alternative that people like ttrraaffiicc think is a likelier 'future' -- one in which the various economies and advantages produce an architecture increasingly realizing some of the advantages of intermodal, without many of the inherent or perceived technical or financial risks. I think it's important to go into something like this with eyes open, understanding that a technology with a great many fungible providers will always have advantages over something relying extensively on stranded capital some of which is time- or wear-limited and subject to slackadaisical maintenance. If we had not had the sobering experience related for Cold Train, I'd probably be more enthusiastic about the various prospects of the idea. But I remain highly enthusiastic about trying.
I do think that modified 'express line' models a la Cold Train are superior than trying to get PSR-addled railroads to provide all the necessary QoS details over a long guaranteed time; imho they represent a better starting place. The immediate question is access to the necessary (perhaps very large) capital requirements for the enabling technologies, with the usual problems 'first entrants' have in obsolescence and acquired experience making subsequent effective market entry easier. How you get the money men from the line to work with the money men for the railroad(s) involved to assure proper rail operations at the right level is one of the critical things that should be arranged from the start.
MiningmanWow a triple posting! Maybe the Memphis Grizzlies could use you!
1) Use the lighter weight Tesla tractors (300 mile range) for intermodal dayage. California will be happy and it could make economic sense.
Wow a triple posting! Maybe the Memphis Grizzlies could use you!
. (was involuntary repetition #2)
. (was involuntary repetition #1)
greyhoundsTesla claims its tractors can out accelerate and out pull a diesel tractor on the road. If that's true, the batteries from one of those things should be able (in my non engineer mind) to provide electric power for an six pack of refrigerated containers on an articulated well car for quite a distance.
There is a little more involved here, which you can appreciate a little better by reading up on "Ludicrous-plus' mode in Tesla cars.
By temporarily replacing 'best battery management' with full-tilt managed discharge, Tesla can produce very high effective acceleration for 'the time needed for the vehicle to come up to speed'. In the bad old days (not too long ago for many cell constructions) frequent use of such a 'mode' would produce early battery damage and perhaps progressive weakening of capacity/early aging, as well as some weakening of the motor magnets due to exceeding the Curie point in permag structure.
This is different from sizing the pack for sustained heavy use, for example grade climbing or bucking sustained heavy headwind. Your consideration for containers would be whatever maintenance drain a refrigerator for a well-insulated volume involves -- a major consideration of course being 'prechill' of the load using fixed power or equipment whenever possible. I'd design shore power, including that used during traction-battery 'megacharge', and probably the anti-idling arrangements used for hybrid trucks, to include the necessary current capability.
You would, I think, be correct in thinking that a 'traction battery' from a class 8 truck would be capable of supporting several efficient refrigerated containers -- perhaps a surprising number, if 'make-up' of thermal losses through insulation during on-rail transit is the principal anticipated draw. It would be interesting to consider whether changes to discharge-power management and physical battery size and packaging, etc. would be necessary or desirable to suit a standard 'truck' battery -- perhaps one that has aged or been damaged beyond full suitability for traction -- for installation (perhaps 'along with' container loading, as a baseplate or 'skate' under the container in the well) with minimum if any change to the (economically) important parts of the 'truck-optimized' configuration.
A simple system of lights backed up with wireless would give you reasonable control over charge state, and perhaps advanced warning if operational or scheduling issues 'as anticipated' call for care, or in-the-field recharge, of the packs you envision. A service vehicle with a large DC 'charge source' (battery or supercapacitors) backed up with an engine-driven genset, might then be a sensible thing to deploy, in favor of some high-current trainlined charging or maintenance arrangement drawing from the locomotive power.
Thank you Overmod. It's refreshing to have someone contribute to a concept instead of listing 1,001 reasons why it won't possibly work.
I did take a look at Tesla's prototype highway tractor. It seems well suited for intermodal pick up and delivery. The highway range is more than sufficient. Maybe it could also provide the power to a container's electric refrigeration system while on the road. That would eliminate the need for a diesel engine, fuel, and generator on the container. This would save weight, something that is critical in reefer movements. It would also save investment expense and maintenance.
Tesla claims its tractors can out accelerate and out pull a diesel tractor on the road. If that's true, the batteries from one of those things should be able (in my non engineer mind) to provide electric power for an six pack of refrigerated containers on an articulated well car for quite a distance.
Just a question here. I'm not an engineer of any kind, so I'll just ask.
For decades, inland temperature controll systems in transport have had small diesel gensets that provide power to electric refrigeration systems on a trailer/container/railcar.
OK, on rail, could you do it with the newer design batteries? Maybe it would save some money and increase the competitiveness of rail vis a vis trucking. Put the batteries on the railcar and hook 'em up. There's less of a weight probem on rail than on the road. Of course, you'd have to provide power on the truck portion for intermodal. PTO off the highway tractor?
There's a huge volume of this stuff moving long distances by truck in North America. Could it be to the railroads competitive advantage to use batteries instead of gensets? It's conceivably possible in my non engineer mind to even recharge the batteries from downgrade braking or solar pannels.
Just a thought while under house arrest.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.