Edit: Was responding to a post from December. Noticed the time stamp and several further pages of conversation after I hit reply.
So please disregard.
It looks like the cab the base locomotive had when it was still an SD40-2F (CP9024). It had a wide body and the EMD three window cab. But I think we may be looking at an artist's impression and the future release could vary.
John
kgbw49 Is that a Dash 8-40CM cab with Draper Taper?
Is that a Dash 8-40CM cab with Draper Taper?
Sure looks like 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...
Interesting paint scheme on the artist's rendering of CP's hydrogen locomotive:
https://sustainability.cpr.ca/about/highlight-stories/cps-hydrogen-powered-locomotive-pilot-project/
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Story in Newswire mentioned that there would only be 1200kW worth of fuels cells installed, with batteries to provide higher short term power. This is similar to the way most fuel cell cars work, the fuel cell stack is sized for supplying cruise power and batteries for acceleration.
In 2014, I got a ride in a fuel cell powered Toyota Rav4... Seemed to respond pretty much like a battery electric. Downside was that there were 3 or 4 hydrogen stations in SoCal, with one being at UC Irvine.
adkrr64I doubt CP has the manufacturing facilities to build their own locomotives, especially in volume. If they develop some unique intellectual property during the project and patent it, they can license it to the manufacturers.
Story in Newswire that they have decided on Ballard fuel cells.
MidlandMike The loco manufactures are already invested in diesel engine production. What is their incentive to experiment with radical change that might not pan out?
The loco manufactures are already invested in diesel engine production. What is their incentive to experiment with radical change that might not pan out?
I would opine that it's outside forces that would drive this move. "Green" stockholders and all. If they show they're making an effort, it'll keep such folks happy, for a while anyhow.
And you never know, they might hit on a workable solution.
matthewsaggie Alco, Baldwin and Lima all said the same thing a few years ago. Where are they now?
Alco, Baldwin and Lima all said the same thing a few years ago. Where are they now?
Probably regretting that they made the diesels that no one wanted.
GM experimented with electric locos, and maybe today would have tried again, however, they sold the locomotive business to another diesel manufacturer.
Agreed. That was kinda my point - develop the technology in house. These days I doubt any railroad has the ability to build in quantity.
The last locomotives CP built in their own shops were the 9100-series SD9043MACs. Didn't turn out so well.
Anyway, they probably don't have the capability or manpower to do such a project completely in-house anymore, and they certainly won't have anyone with experience around hydrogen fuel cells.
Just seems odd that the "customer" is doing the innovation part of it. It would be like my customer showing me how to operate a flatbed truck.. Maybe a wakeup call to the manufacturers.. you guys are supposed to be doing the innovating here when it comes to locomotive design and manufacturing.
tree68Nothing against the locomotive manufacturers, but if CP has the know-how, why should they pay the overhead/profit to the manufacturers if they can do it in-house?
I doubt CP has the manufacturing facilities to build their own locomotives, especially in volume. If they develop some unique intellectual property during the project and patent it, they can license it to the manufacturers.
Ulrich...one would think one of the locomotive builders would be doing it...
Nothing against the locomotive manufacturers, but if CP has the know-how, why should they pay the overhead/profit to the manufacturers if they can do it in-house?
Interesting that CP is doing this.. one would think one of the locomotive builders would be doing it. CP says they want to build a test bed hydrogen locomotive and then present it to the builders with "here's what we want.. build it". Good for CP for taking the initiative regardless of the reason behind.
Getting back on topic.....
CP appears to have selected a SD40-2F for their prototype hydrogen locomotive. CP/CMQ 9024 was loaded onto a heavy truck at Niobe, AB today. This unit has sat at the Ogden shops for some time before being moved the other day, and has been sandblasted and painted in grey primer.
Word on the street (from a CP source) is that this unit suffered a major engine failure some time ago, and has been gutted internally.
No word yet on its destination.
daveklepperOvermod, there is no "problem." I was referring to Eric's posting on increasing longevity, with the possibility of lower birthrate, and the effect on Social Security, not the posting on fuel-use and Climate Warming.
If you would, please quote a little of the actual context the next time you dangle grammatical catnip. It will help avoid ASSumptions of the kind I made...
And I'd concur... having read down a couple more column-inches... that the usually-despised "and/or" would be a good choice for the inclusive-or sense that was meant.
Overmod, there is no "problem." I was referring to Eric's posting on increasing longevity, with the possibility of lower birthrate, and the effect on Social Security, not the posting on fuel-use and Climate Warming. Increasing taxation, and/or reduced benefits, and/or raising the minimum retirement age can keep Social Security solvent. But if the birth-rate should fall, dosn't immigration make-up for it or can it do so?
And I always appreciate your wise and thoughtful comments.
daveklepperEric, in my writing I use "and" when I mean and (&), "or'" when I mean exclusive or, and "and/or" when both possibilities are present and/or are meant to be present.
The point being that the prospective change in rail carbon usage would have relatively 'limited' impact on actual overall carbon emissions.
Now, we can discuss whether the prospective reductions are meaningful (perhaps on the 'every little bit helps' model) or are more on the scale of virtue signaling, but the discussion changes from the number of lb. or kg. carbon 'not released' to the percentage reduction of overall transportation-carbon reduction. (ISTR a recent report of successful adaptation of synthetic fuel from renewable sources as aviation fuel, but it is relatively unlikely that hydrogen carrier in any form would be adaptable to commercial turbofan propulsion (and hypersonics still pose more security risk than they would provide economically-viable transportation service) so the prospective development of zero-net-carbon is even more leveraged as beneficial.)
That of course does not mean that zero-carbon technology shouldn't be advanced, or that selective hydrogen use and distribution shouldn't be undertaken. But if actual stabilization of rate of increase in atmospheric carbon is a true priority it should be clear that zero-net-carbon will have a far greater impact for far less money and far less risk.
Eric, in my wrining I use "and" when I mean and (&), "or'" when I mean exclusive or, and "and/or when both possibilities are present and/or are meant to be present.
I'm not complaining or criticizing; just wished to suggest anther option.
tree68 Interesting that they consider natural gas as a renewable resource. Last I knew, it was a fossil fuel...
Interesting that they consider natural gas as a renewable resource. Last I knew, it was a fossil fuel...
If you read the fine print it seems they are referring to 'biogas', which is produced from renewable sources like manure, or perhaps municipal sewage.
I'm surprised at the claim of zero NOx emissions, even with urea aftertreatment.
Took a while to find this.
Railway Age article that contains interesting details of some of the options and suppliers,from an interesting source:
https://www.railwayage.com/news/zero-emission-locomotives-on-u-s-railways/
tree68 Keep in mind that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement system - it's a safety net. I do quite well with my retirement annuity. Social Security is a bonus.
Keep in mind that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement system - it's a safety net.
I do quite well with my retirement annuity. Social Security is a bonus.
And the US DoD makes those numbers look like a rounding error
Erik_Mag Euclid The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic. In 2019, the US consumed 18.27 billion gallons of aviation fuel and 3.656 billion gallons of railroad fuel.
Euclid The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic.
The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic.
In 2019, the US consumed 18.27 billion gallons of aviation fuel and 3.656 billion gallons of railroad fuel.
The points I made in the above post would apply to either fuel use. They certainly do apply to the railroad fuel, which is the point of this thread.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.