If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 All those grain elevator switchers would probably be a good match for a genset locomotive. Locally, a cogen plant uses an old SW to move cars (delivered by CSX) for unloading. The switcher is usually doing one of two things - shuttling cars between the yard and the unloading track, or moving cars up one at a time to be bottom dumped. I'm guessing the SW is around 900 HP (haven't taken the time to determine the model), and they certainly don't need all of that to push 10 cars 40 feet at a time...
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...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod No leap of faith required here at all. The engine and main-generator characteristics are well established, as are most of the maintenance characteristics, MTTF, etc. Aside from the possible economies of scale (and service, maintenance, parts, etc.) in using largely OTS "truck" motors for rail, it becomes much easier to use and control some of the final-stage pollution technologies (such as ammonia injection and particulate traps) with several small engines than with one big one. I'm tempted to say that you're seeing the 'shakeout' of overly-hyped "green" technologies when applied to real-world railroading, but that would be a bit of a cheap shot. I don;t know the design cycles for 'switcher' loading that RailPower used, but they might have assumed shorter cuts of cars, lower speeds, and less 'kicking' than actual yard crews use -- Ed Blysard, for example, can probably provide very useful insight into what switch crews like to use, and Randy Stahl can translate that into the electrical 'consequences' on the motors, and thence to the batteries and controls. Note in particular that very large 'spikes' of regeneration power (from the traction motors) may be above the 'safe' charging rate of some of the battery cells, and many cycles of repetition of even short overloading may be causing unanticipated cumulative damage. Historically, IIRC, some (perhaps all?) of the original Clessie Cummins proposals for PRR back in the '20s involved multiple gensets using comparatively small engines, and I suspect the Baldwin modular locomotive (6000) did not succeed mostly for reasons unconnected with the idea of multiple 'slot-in' power gensets per se. Of course, neither of these were primarily designed with the explicit intent of trimming power (rather with achieving high power with the limited capacity of individual diesel engines at the time) One assumption is that maximum speed demanded of the genset locomotives be restricted -- I think it's reasonable to build a class of 'dedicated' locomotives for this service; UP management evidently thinks so. It is technically possible to build genset locomotives with 'asymmetrical' equipment -- one or more of the engines being a larger, more conventional railroad-style type. Once some of the rail-specific genset equipment has been costed down, we may well see extension of the idea into other forms of power ... in California or other areas with the 'right' mix of carrots and sticks to make the effort "cost-effective" on pollution grounds, and in places like Texas (see the reference to the 98 UP hybrids in the above article) where locomotive loading may involve heavy peak capacity as well as extended idle time between loaded moves. Note that the genset locomotives, inherently, are a response to the problems of repeated heavy cycling of conventional battery banks. Railpower admits as much -- their fix is a larger genset, presumably sized to keep the percentage of battery cycling up to where the battery system doesn't degrade, not to take up larger proportions of the traction load directly. This may indicate that the problem is repeated relatively deep discharge, not repeated cycling or excessive peak energy.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Railpower's stock to a big fall last week due to warranty concerns. The railroads have been using the Green Goats in service so far heavier than forecast, decreasing the life of the batteries. http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/01022006/2/finance-railpower-stock-falls-firm-takes-23m-28m-provision-q4.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.