CSSHEGEWISCHThe problem with hybrids is that battery technology currently does not allow for rapid recharging. Until that issue is resolved, long recharging times will limit the availability of battery locomotives.
The problem with hybrids is that battery technology currently does not allow for rapid recharging. Until that issue is resolved, long recharging times will limit the availability of battery locomotives.
wjstixSince New York Central had engines that could run on third-rail electric, overhead electric, or battery a century (or more) ago, I'd think making a new battery powered engine wouldn't be impossible.
The historical tripower locomotives, were, in fact, battery locomotives: neither their third-rail connections nor their combustion engines powered the wheels directly. Instead they were connected through the large traction battery, essentially using it as a large "charge buffer" to reduce surge when connecting or disconnecting the 'external' power
I do not know if the St. Louis Car locomotives from 1929 that IC bought (11000-11002) worked this way -- they do not appear to have been successful compared either to straight electrics or diesel-electrics of the period, at least for what IC wanted them for.
Overmod The idea of the battery locomotive is that it can run as such in air-quality management districts AND as a road slug AND as the energy storage of what would be two hybrid locomotives, with little more than software determining which. I'm a little surprised they didn't keep all six motors for some of the 'alternative uses' but I'm not going to second-guess them.
The idea of the battery locomotive is that it can run as such in air-quality management districts AND as a road slug AND as the energy storage of what would be two hybrid locomotives, with little more than software determining which. I'm a little surprised they didn't keep all six motors for some of the 'alternative uses' but I'm not going to second-guess them.
BNSF hasn’t purchased a brand new six-motor locomotive since 2014. The A1A trucked GE ES44C4 and ET44C4 locomotives are BNSF’s current standard for new locomotive purchases, so it makes sense for the Wabtec/GE battery locomotive to follow the same truck design. If one of the other Class I’s was pursuing this type of project, I think it is almost certain that a standard six-axle design would have been used. I have read that part of GE‘s goal with this project was to significantly increase the effective fuel economy of their Tier 4 locomotives. They are keenly aware of the fact that the fuel efficiency problems with their Tier 4 EGR design has hurt sales. Assuming that the battery locomotive design is successful, it will be interesting to see if the economics will be compelling enough outside of California to induce the other Class I’s to follow suit.
samfp1943 In a similar time frame that Lithonia Operator was traveling in; I wound up in the Dayton,Oh. area. There was a fireless steam engine that worked at the[N.C.R.] National Cash Register factory area..It was pretty interesting to see that engine shuttling about that plant; periodically, it would go to a steam line, for re-charging from what I thought was the factory boiler room(?).
In a similar time frame that Lithonia Operator was traveling in; I wound up in the Dayton,Oh. area. There was a fireless steam engine that worked at the[N.C.R.] National Cash Register factory area..It was pretty interesting to see that engine shuttling about that plant; periodically, it would go to a steam line, for re-charging from what I thought was the factory boiler room(?).
"fill'er up! Superheated water, please."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I think the NYC battery electrics were made to go inside buildings just off the High Line's 3rd rail.
Since New York Central had engines that could run on third-rail electric, overhead electric, or battery a century (or more) ago, I'd think making a new battery powered engine wouldn't be impossible.
If I remember correctly, steam in NYC eventually was limited to fireless locos.
I went to the University of Dayton in the late 1960s, which is basically across the street from NCR, and never realized they had a fireless loco. NCR's industrial campus was fairly open, and I once walked along the rail line that went thru it. I climbed up a gondola to see what was inside, and a security guard waved me off, so I was somewhat leary of doing much railfaning there. NCR has moved out of Dayton to Atlanta, and much of their site was transferred to UD.
Fireless cookers are recharged with high-pressure steam (at saturation temperature) by sparging through internal pipes low down in the shell; the idea is to wind up with a 'boilerful' of saturated water and condensed steam at comparatively high pressure that will mostly flash to steam (at progressively lower but still effective temperature and pressure).
The Germans experimented with 1200psi steam in fireless locomotives but for a variety of reasons the 'big savings' were not really there.
I believe Kodak, in Rochester, NY, had at least one fireless cooker - a major consideration there was the flammable film.
It probably was the boiler room where they recharged it.
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...
In around 1975, I was traveling with my wife and a friend all around the country in a van for three months. Somewhere out west, kind of in the middle of nowhere, we came upon a fireless steam locomotive working at what I think was a lumber company, or maybe like a crosstie plant or something.
I asked the guys why they had no tender, and they told me they got the steam from the plant. I had never heard of such a thing before that. I was amazed to find an operating steam locomotive in everyday industrial use. Before that, I never imagined a fireless steam loco, never heard of them.
One reason for keeping the batteries onboard the unit is that there would be a lot of current carried between a battery tender and main locomotive. With 4000HP and an inverter DC link potential of 800V, you would be looking at 4,000A being carried on the cables between the tender and locomotive.
Not an unsolvable problem by any means...
How long to charge a battery engine? Our engines usually don't sit very long.
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
Ulrich A new engine would likely be more expensive than a battery tender.. I'm not sure how much of an engine redesign would be needed to divert engine output to a battery verses to a generator.
A new engine would likely be more expensive than a battery tender.. I'm not sure how much of an engine redesign would be needed to divert engine output to a battery verses to a generator.
If you are going to use an internal combustion engine, you'll need a generator no matter if the power is going to the traction motors directly, or to batteries.
An uninterruptible power supply operates by running a voltage across the top of the batteries. This is why it's uninterruptible. I would see a battery locomotive with on-board recharging working much the same way.
If I were designing such a locomotive to work primarily off the batteries (ie, recharging at a recharging station a la electric cars), I think I'd still include some method of on-board recharging "just in case."
But - I'm not an electrical engineer.
UlrichInstead of a BEL.. why not a conventional diesel locomotive and a "battery tender"?
If you are going to have a new, dedicated car, why not power it's axles, as well and have sort of an 'A-B' set up?
Some good comments on this thread in the Locomotive foru,
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/283770.aspx
tinyurl version
https://tinyurl.com/y5aopz6o
I'm reminded of the "fireless cookers" of the past. Steam locomotives with no boiler.
They existed because most plants that needed a locomotive (oftimes including a need to mitigate a fire hazard as well) also had a steam plant with which to recharge the locomotives. Never mind advancements in technology - such plants are getting rare.
I would opine that a pure battery locomotive (hybrids already exist) would most likely be used by an industry with cheap (hydro?) power available.
As I recall, hybrid locos only use the fuel powered generator to recharge the batteries, not as a prime mover.
Well, you are designing a new battery tender, and redesigning the engine so it feeds its power off to the tender and receives truck motor power from the tender, and now you have the extra thing to tow around. Why NOT design a new engine?
Instead of a BEL.. why not a conventional diesel locomotive and a "battery tender"? Current from the tender is fed to the traction motors...when the battery charge runs low the diesel engine kicks in to recharge. Why design a new locomotive?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.