ronrunner I think were we are going is a partial cat system were we have duel use locos that can run on wire,battery and hydrogen
I think were we are going is a partial cat system were we have duel use locos that can run on wire,battery and hydrogen
Former Car MaintainerHydrogen tanks under extreme pressure and a match? Does hydrogen bomb come to mind?..
I don't think they plan on using tritium.
NTSB report on the four vehicle fires:
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SR2001.pdf
The NTSB report demonstrates that there were problems with stranded energy and fire reignition in these Teslas with Li-ion batteries. The fire fighters can put the fire out with water and foam, but then the energy left in the damaged battery will restart the fire some hours later. Probably battery design engineers are already working on this problem. Linking the disconnection and draining of the battery energy with the actuation of the air bags could be part of the solution.
It should be easier to protect the Li-ion batteries in a locomotive than in a car since you are not as concerned with weight and thus can protect them better. However, lessions learned in car safety and fire need to be applied, since once in awhile locomotives do get into trouble.
Motor Trend magazine had an interesting article on Gallium Nitride, (GaN), which will soon take over the DC voltage stepping and DC to AC conversion duties in battery powered cars, now performed by Silicon and the more expensive Silicon Carbide solid state switches. GaN has less resistance and for the same current therefore has less heat. It is estimated that it could save 40% of the cooling requirements, thus saving weight and opening up more space. The Motor Trend article isn’t yet online, but you can read the SAE article below to find all the good things coming with Gallium Nitride. Eventually they will be in locomotives.
https://www.sae.org/news/2021/04/gallium-nitride-future-of-ev-chips
MidlandMikeI don't think they plan on using tritium.
Jim200you can read the SAE article below to find all the good things coming with Gallium Nitride. Eventually they will be in locomotives. https://www.sae.org/news/2021/04/gallium-nitride-future-of-ev-chips
Not that I won't embrace it as technically sweet if in fact the company can deliver reliably.
Those with an idle hour to kill will find some interesting information here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOolrEYPWzI
Repor of Lithium battery fire. drop your battery loco into a water stream ????
Nearly 100 Tons of Lithium Batteries Involved in Large Morris Industrial Fire – NBC Chicago
Montreal is instituting duel power diesal and overhead wire on its commuter rail system which is growing to 6 lines at last check...I assume that UP will do the same where it is most efficianr
Jim200 Motor Trend magazine had an interesting article on Gallium Nitride, (GaN), which will soon take over the DC voltage stepping and DC to AC conversion duties in battery powered cars, now performed by Silicon and the more expensive Silicon Carbide solid state switches. GaN has less resistance and for the same current therefore has less heat. It is estimated that it could save 40% of the cooling requirements, thus saving weight and opening up more space. The Motor Trend article isn’t yet online, but you can read the SAE article below to find all the good things coming with Gallium Nitride. Eventually they will be in locomotives.
GaN devices ae typically limited to about 700V rating, with recommended maximum DC link voltage of 450 to 500VDC (derating to to cosmic ray induced neutrons). SiC devices are wdely available with 1700V ratings and 3300V rated parts have been in limited production for several years. Experimental SiCFET's have been made with greater than 10kV ratings, along with 20+kV GTO thyristors.
One major difference between GaN and SiC is that conduction in GaNFETs is along an essentially 2D layer on top of the die, where conduction in SiCFET's is through the bulk layer of the die as in silicon FETs. The GaNFET's are inherently higher speed devices than SiCFET's, but my impression is that SiCFET's are more amenable for larger, hence higher current, devices.
The higher speed of GaN really doesn't buy you much when reaching the megawatt levels of locomotive traction motors. The lower volatge ratings of GaN necessitates a higher current which then puts really serious constraints on stray inductance. The higher frequencies mean more of an issue with skin effect and proximity effect. OTOH, the higher frequencies are a great help when dealing with consumer electronics, note the GaN 65W USB power supplies that are the same size as the older 30W supplies.
My conclusion is that locomotive traction inverters will switch to SiC and not GaN, but there may be applications for LRV traction inverters once they get device ratings up to 900V or so.
Slightly off topic but if you're interested look up what would be the aftermath of a lithium battery powered locomotive that caught fire basically. In Morris Illinois between 80 to 100 tons of lithium batteries went up in smoke 2 days ago. It is still burning this morning. This is the worst ever accident involving lithium batteries in the USA and has got people talking about how dangerous they actually are and then they discovered that they are the primary power in electric cars and in cellphones.
There are ways to mitigate some of the concerns with locomotive-scale integrated batteries. A number of these involve isolation of the 'stranded power' containing cells so they can be externally monitored by first responders; I expect this to be extended to vehicle traction batteries at some point. I also expect the crossbar architecture in the traction system to be built to facilitate discharge of stranded power even when there has been substantial mechanical damage that the normal 'armoring' and reinforcement methods did not prevent.
The airborne gases are somewhat amenable to treatment by prompt encapsulation and air fogging. But first responders have to be carefully trained and provided with specialized equipment -- which, as I have argued, ought to be the responsibility of the electric-vehicle industry to provide as part of their necessary overhead.
Shadow the Cats owner Slightly off topic but if you're interested look up what would be the aftermath of a lithium battery powered locomotive that caught fire basically. In Morris Illinois between 80 to 100 tons of lithium batteries went up in smoke 2 days ago. It is still burning this morning. This is the worst ever accident involving lithium batteries in the USA and has got people talking about how dangerous they actually are and then they discovered that they are the primary power in electric cars and in cellphones.
I would not say this is off topic because the subject is lithium battery-electric locomotives.
It should be clarified that this fire occurred at a site where this large number of batteries were housed -- this was not on a battery-electric locomotive of which some are being tested right now.
A 100 tons of batteries may be more than what would be placed on a single locomotive unit of around 200 tons gross weight, but still, it gives and idea of the scale of locomotive battern.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I would think that there would be enough volume in the locomotive cab/cowl/hood to place insulating panels between individual battery packs if not between the individual cells. This would lower the risk of a fire starting in one battery (or one cell of the battery) from spreading, or in worst case, slow the spread.
There was a recent news item about a fire starting in one parked electric bus spreading to the electric buses parked next to it. Good thing that solid rocket motors used on sub launched ballistic missiles don't have thesafety record of EV batteries.
I've also read a few articles on battery constructions/chemistries that are supposed to dramatically reduce the risk of thermal runaways.
Here's the latest Tesla to go up in flames:
https://www.rt.com/usa/528155-tesla-model-s-explosion/
Was it part of the strategy to tip it on its side to spray the underneath?
Well the lithium battery storage company in Morris is finally out. They used dry cement and sand to put it out to literally smother the fire. I wouldn't want to be the maker of those batteries in the courtrooms here in Illinois. Why if they've sold so much as one of their products in some counties in this state I have some advice. Just bend way over applying lubrication and then shut your eyes as they extract the cash from your wallet in extremely large amounts. Madison County is called the hell hole of all judicial systems in the USA.
Shadow the Cats owner They used dry cement and sand to put it out to literally smother the fire.
They used dry cement and sand to put it out to literally smother the fire.
Sand is the reccommended extinguishing agent for any alkali metal fire, though CO2, N2 and Argon would probably work if sufficient quantities are available. You correct in that sand smothers the fire.
Note that sand will not work with any fire involving ClF3 (Chlorine tri-Fluoride) as sand will burn in the presence of ClF3, but then just about everything will burn in the presence of ClF3.
I don't think this was known, maybe I missed it back before the discussion of battery fires, But as a throw away line in this article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-05/battery-powered-locomotives-zero-emission-train-future UP has purchased a battery powered loco for use in one of the Ca yard. No indication which model from which provider.
Back to battery fires. In 2019 there were 189,000 Vehicle fires in the United States. So the real question isn't do Electric vehicles catch on fire, the question is, what is the rate of fires compared to ICE vehicles. That Battery fires require different techniques to put out is important and it will be a challenge as Fire Departments learn and deploy the right tools. But that's their job. It's what they do.
YoHo1975UP has purchased a battery powered loco for use in one of the Ca yard. No indication which model from which provider.
Hybrid rules out Joule.
Now the LA Times story, despite going into great detail on the Wabtec consist with FLXdrive, pointedly does not mention the manufacturer of UP's switcher, though it happily identifies Pacific Harbor as a Progress (read EMD, read Joule) customer.
No amount of digging I could do since I read the post has revealed who the supplier is. I thought perhaps RPS in Fullerton, as they are a California manufacturer with a finger in several pies involving Southern California 'optimized' operation -- but no mention of it in the usual places.
I'm apparently not the only one perplexed: Tom Mack put out a call for information on LocoNotes about an hour ago. If any community is likely to know the correct detail on this, they'd be the one.
Battery fires require different techniques to put out is important and it will be a challenge as Fire Departments learn and deploy the right tools. But that's their job. It's what they do.
Blanketing and encapsulation can be as much to retain and passivate the toxic components of the 'smoke' as to put out the actual chemical flame or contain the effects of stranded-electricity reignition. I was expecting to see definitive policies on standardizing 'release of stranded storage' after catastrophic damage in various battery implementations long before now -- they have been a standard part of my designing since the 1980s.
In fact it was the query on Loconotes that caused me to post here since I came here to look back and see if it had been mentioned.
the City of Chicago, sweet home though it once was for me, can get in a snit. It's the same snit they'd get in if one of the refineries in Gary experienced a major incident. And frankly I'd be more worried about that than a massive battery fire, but, you know people are really really bad at judging risk properly.
I live near Chicago and also Gary and actually closer to Joliet. I'm well aware of all the chemical and refinery plants in this area most of which are customers who we serve. Most fire departments are well aware of how to deal with chemical fires. But with lithium batteries their self generating their oxygen and get hyper active when they get wet.
This poster has major worry about Lithium batteries. They have caused 2 complete aircraft destroyed UPS at PHL and Fed EX at Weschester airport. A third was the battery fire at BOS logan field. My personal experience was a tool power pack that got hot last time used it and thankfully took it outside and almost put it in a bucket of water. Now I know better. That Battery then would not take a charge. Home center exchanged it ar no charge.
Many years ago various aircraft used led acid batteries. Then FAA required modifications and to use NiCad batteries. NiCADs periodically had to removed and be deep discharged and installed in whatever aircraft had theirs removed. As far as I know the NiCAD have not been changed to LiION but newer Aircraft have the LiION at construction.
Bluestreak read up on the 787 dreamliner and the problem they had with the lithium ion batteries used in it during it's introductory service. It literally had to be removed from service while the whole battery mounting system was redone including the fire suppression system and venting system for it in case it did catch fire in the air.
Shadow thanks for the tip. Had not heard that but know why. Your description sounds very likely. Wonder what the STC will show ? I know of no NICAD or lead acid aircraft that had any of the fire suppression systems that LiIon require.~!.
Streak:
Keep in mind there are lithium batteries are not all alike. Li-ion is used in BEV's because it has a very high specific energy (w-hrs/lb), but has the problem of thermal runaway under a variety of circumstances. The Progress Rail locomotives use Lithium-Iron-Phosphate as it has a higher specific power (w/lb), but lower specific energy. It also is much less susceptible to thermal runaway and the batteries have a much longer usable lifetime.
Heard all the added protection negated the weight benefits from the NiCads on the 777
rdamon Heard all the added protection negated the weight benefits from the NiCads on the 777
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.