Trains.com

NS's battery powered locomotive

9465 views
31 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
NS's battery powered locomotive
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:14 AM

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,492 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:02 PM
This design would probably be useful as a shop switcher or a plant switcher in a hazardous environment such as a chemical plant. It might be good as a plant switcher where duty is relatively light such as a small grain elevator.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:34 PM
...or maybe helper service. I see that it has regenerative DB, which would get almost no work as a plant switcher. All that batter acid and electrical potential could make a big mess in a wreck, though,

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 24,888 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:43 PM

If I were designing such a locomotive, I think I would include some form of automatic dynamic braking, such that dynamics would be the first choice for retarding progress, with wheel brakes kicking in only when the dynamics weren't capable of doing the job. 

In theory, anyhow, this would prevent an engineer from doing all his braking on air, thus doing no regenerative braking.  I would think that even in a yard/industrial situation, there would be opportunities for regenerative braking.  Not if the engineer had to consciously switch over every time, though.

But I'm not a locomotive design engineer, and I may be way out in left field on that.

As for the acid - there's no question that it would be an environmental problem in the event of an incident causing leakage of the acid, but I suspect that said damage would be far less severe than the spillage of several thousand gallons of Diesel (not to mention the flammability factor).

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:44 AM
tree68

If I were designing such a locomotive, I think I would include some form of automatic dynamic braking, such that dynamics would be the first choice for retarding progress, with wheel brakes kicking in only when the dynamics weren't capable of doing the job. 

In theory, anyhow, this would prevent an engineer from doing all his braking on air, thus doing no regenerative braking.  I would think that even in a yard/industrial situation, there would be opportunities for regenerative braking.  Not if the engineer had to consciously switch over every time, though.

Good thought! Blended braking on passenger equipment works this way. Why not for a switcher? DB could work as well as the independent almost down to a stop. Guess we'll have to wait and see how NS uses it.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:48 AM
tree68
As for the acid - there's no question that it would be an environmental problem in the event of an incident causing leakage of the acid, but I suspect that said damage would be far less severe than the spillage of several thousand gallons of Diesel (not to mention the flammability factor).
Diesel's not really all that flammable. In fact, if you throw a match into it, the match will go out. Burning diesel isn't very toxic, but burning sulphuric acid? And all those batteries with can provide plenty of oomph, to get things burning.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,169 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:50 AM

One thing did not seem to be mentioned, and in my mind it could be a pretty significant hazard in working in switching situatuions.             Being battery operated, it should be relatively quiet while it operates (aside from flange squeal, and the like).  Would not the very, relative silence be a hazard to those working on the ground in the vicinity and along side of it?     I know they use horn signals, but there seem to be alot of moves when the engineer simply notifies the appropriate crewman by radio, and those in the vicinity without radios could be caught by an unexpected movement of the engine or a cut of cars. 

   I know they use flashing lights in some cases on remote controled units, but , a constantly ringing bell could be construed as a health, safety hazard as well.  An engine running fairly silently in a yard could be a real danger in my mind.

Anyone have any thoughts about this issue?

 

 


 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:35 AM
samfp1943

One thing did not seem to be mentioned, and in my mind it could be a pretty significant hazard in working in switching situatuions.             Being battery operated, it should be relatively quiet while it operates (aside from flange squeal, and the like).  Would not the very, relative silence be a hazard to those working on the ground in the vicinity and along side of it?     I know they use horn signals, but there seem to be alot of moves when the engineer simply notifies the appropriate crewman by radio, and those in the vicinity without radios could be caught by an unexpected movement of the engine or a cut of cars. 

   I know they use flashing lights in some cases on remote controled units, but , a constantly ringing bell could be construed as a health, safety hazard as well.  An engine running fairly silently in a yard could be a real danger in my mind.

Anyone have any thoughts about this issue?

It still has to have a bell. It won't be completely quiet. It must have a motor operated air compressor that'll make some noise at least intermittently. Also, it likely has some sort of carbody ventilation system with a fan.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:16 AM

oltmannd

FYI, there's already a thread going about this in the "General Discussion" Forum..shouldn't we merge them?

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/156966.aspx

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 24,888 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, October 1, 2009 9:27 AM

samfp1943
and those in the vicinity without radios could be caught by an unexpected movement of the engine or a cut of cars. 

A prime rule of railroading is to always expect a movement.  Even if you know there should be no other movements because you know where all the rolling stock is, vigilance leads to staying alive.

A cut of moving cars several carlengths from the locomotive is deadly quiet.  Beyond a certain distance you won't hear the locomotive anyhow.

If there are grades involved, there is often no engine noise beyond idling when starting rolling - gravity is providing the power.

On the list of potential hazards, the relative quietness would be fairly low, in my book.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 7:40 PM

If the loco is too quiet, fit it with one of those annoying OSHA beepers that they mandate on trucks, busses and construction equipment.  Won't take much power, WILL get everyone's attention.

Chuck

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Tulsa, OK
  • 140 posts
Posted by joesap1 on Sunday, December 6, 2009 10:14 PM

These genset powers are unreliable junk! The battery powered version has a generator in the rear that makes more noise that a regular diesel power. The genset that has 3 diesel engines  can't keep the traction motors on line. Neither one of these units can work a 12 hour shift of switching without breaking down. To make matter worse, the air conditioning cuts out after working 15 minutes.

Joe Sapwater
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Tulsa, OK
  • 140 posts
Posted by joesap1 on Sunday, December 6, 2009 10:17 PM

Oh yes, I forgot to add that the generator must work almost constantly on the battery version to keep the batery charged. Therefore, it is not very quiet at all, considering the generator noise.

Joe Sapwater
  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 3 posts
Posted by trainbuff63 on Sunday, December 6, 2009 11:31 PM

Most all of the locomotives, especially the widebodies, have both independent and dynamic braking. Now  they are trying to bring in remote controlled units into some of the yards. The East Wayne yard in New  Haven, IN, when I left there in 2004, had two of them, but one always had a tendenacy of breaking down. To me I think the Remote controlled units are very dangerous especially when approaching a railroad crossing. Although I do miss my 4 axle units.

trainbuff63

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 3 posts
Posted by trainbuff63 on Sunday, December 6, 2009 11:41 PM

I agree with you 100%. Always be on the lookout for anything to happen. Being around the railroad since 1991, I have learned a great deal about safety. Our motto is "Safety First". I also have a roailroad sticker on the back of my personal vehicle from Operation Life Saver and one that says , I Break for Trains. I spent alot of years driving on the roads to and from the yards and I just wish everyone out there would learn to stop at all railroad crossings before they cross them. I have seen to many people get killed by trains and it is not a pretty sight, especially if you have to be one of the ones there to take pictures of it or even of a derailment. PLEASE, practice the Safety First rule.

trainbuff63

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 30 posts
Posted by NSDash9 on Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:43 PM

 

joesap1

Oh yes, I forgot to add that the generator must work almost constantly on the battery version to keep the batery charged. Therefore, it is not very quiet at all, considering the generator noise.

Just to clarify, the NS BP-4 battery powered switcher that is the subject of this thread is not equipped with a generator.  It is 100% battery powered and is charged with a cable from an electric source when not in use and also has regenerative braking when switching.

Chris Toth
NSDash9.com
Click here to visit/join the NSDash9.com facebook page

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,530 posts
Posted by zugmann on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 7:23 AM
trainbuff63

Most all of the locomotives, especially the widebodies, have both independent and dynamic braking. Now  they are trying to bring in remote controlled units into some of the yards. The East Wayne yard in New  Haven, IN, when I left there in 2004, had two of them, but one always had a tendenacy of breaking down. To me I think the Remote controlled units are very dangerous especially when approaching a railroad crossing. Although I do miss my 4 axle units.

trainbuff63

Why are they dangerous? How is it any more dangerous for a RCL to cross a road compared to a normal engine, or even cars being shoved across roads? The engines themselves are not dangerous. Crews can be dangerous, though...

  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: US
  • 591 posts
Posted by petitnj on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 9:54 AM
And to be more clearer (sic), these locomotives are NOT BATTERY POWERED. They are coal powered and the battery is the intermediate (and lossy) storage system. This is a non solution to a problem already solved. We have power sources that could charge the batteries but coal dominates. I think those steam engine folks are behind all of this. It is a conspiracy and not a alternative.
  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 429 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 10:48 AM
petitnj
And to be more clearer (sic), these locomotives are NOT BATTERY POWERED. They are coal powered and the battery is the intermediate (and lossy) storage system. This is a non solution to a problem already solved. We have power sources that could charge the batteries but coal dominates. I think those steam engine folks are behind all of this. It is a conspiracy and not a alternative.
Yes the whole thing is a "greener than thou" publicity stunt.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 429 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 10:48 AM
petitnj
And to be more clearer (sic), these locomotives are NOT BATTERY POWERED. They are coal powered and the battery is the intermediate (and lossy) storage system. This is a non solution to a problem already solved. We have power sources that could charge the batteries but coal dominates. I think those steam engine folks are behind all of this. It is a conspiracy and not a alternative.
Yes the whole thing is a "greener than thou" publicity stunt.
Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 11:22 AM

petitnj
  And to be more clearer (sic), these locomotives are NOT BATTERY POWERED. They are coal powered and the battery is the intermediate (and lossy) storage system. [snip]

Actually, to be even more correct, these locomotives are ultimately NOT COAL POWERED either. They are solar and hence nuclear powered - the energy to create the coal came from the Sun, which is a thermonuclear furnace - and so the coal is also the intermediate (and lousy) storage system.  The same is also true of diesel fuel oil.

Some advantages of this concept is that it can be powered by whatever source via the electric grid - it can be, but need not, be any of the coal/ natural gas/ fuel oil/ hydro/ solar/ wind/ methane/ fuel cell/ gerbil/ whatever else can be used to generate electricity - it's not tied to just coal.

But it can take advantageof the really low off-peak electric rates by recharging overnight, when a lot of the coal plants have to keep running anyway to stay hot to be ready to go the next day.  May as well put that energy and emissions to a useful purpose - and if it can be done cheaper, so much the better.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: US
  • 591 posts
Posted by petitnj on Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:16 PM

 Yes, Paul. I just object to calling it Battery Powered. We are going to shift our energy use to electric systems and then wonder how we are going to get this power to urban areas to charge up all these batteries. It will be interesting to see how the economics of the battery storage locomotive work out.

 I am also wondering if these things need a noise generator so people can hear them when they move. I am sure battery locomotives will have to have bells or beepers whenever they move. 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:43 PM
Now, now. Everything else in existence that has batteries in it that make it operate are considered "battery powered". A flashlight, a remote control, an EOT, a cell phone... Don't be so picky!

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: West Coast
  • 4,122 posts
Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, December 10, 2009 3:29 PM

What happens at the end of the batteries life? They are filled with toxic chemicals, which makes them hard to dispose of, especially if this idea catches on and other railroads begin using battery powered switchers? The environmentalists aren't going to like the results, whatever they are.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! Smile

Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:29 PM

My understanding is that the NS BP-4 999 has 1,080 standard lead-acid truck batteries in it.  So they will last for several years - I suppose one technical goal of the project is to find out how long that is and the load-discharge duty cycle, etc. - and then be replaced, just like the batteries in trucks or our cars.

Then, I believe that PbSO4 Question batteries are recycled*, to reuse the lead and the sulfuric acid-salt that are the result and the remains.  I'm not conversant with the details, but they are no longer just tossed into sinkholes next to mobile home parks and their water wells - that's kind of a 'gallows humor' inside joke from this part of Pennsylvania, where we used to have many battery factories and lots of sinkholes from the limestone geology - the MHPs are still here, too.

I don't think the nationwide fleet will ever be all-battery - but I could see maybe a thousand such units, concentrated in urban areas and switching locations.  I'm sure that as battery technology evolves, better, cheaper, and less environmentally damaging batteries will emerge.

The environmentalists will have to choose between exhaust emissions and noise from petroleum- fueled engines, or battery effects, etc. - can't have it both ways.

- Paul North.

* EDIT:  A Google search for "battery recycling" yielded this website, among many others: http://www.batteryrecycling.com/Battery+Recycling+Process   So it seems to be a mature and accepted technology and process.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:32 PM
espeefoamer

What happens at the end of the batteries life? They are filled with toxic chemicals, which makes them hard to dispose of, especially if this idea catches on and other railroads begin using battery powered switchers? The environmentalists aren't going to like the results, whatever they are.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! Smile

Compared to 150M or so automotive batteries in cars, who'd even notice?

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: US
  • 591 posts
Posted by petitnj on Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:59 PM

 Flashlights are chemical power (except for the shakey ones). "Powered" means were did the electrical power first appear? That is, what energy source was used to make electrons move.

 Lead-acid batteries are fully recycled at a rate higher than most other materials. The plastic becomes a new battery case and the lead becomes new grids and other lead chemicals.  See: http://www.batterycouncil.org/LeadAcidBatteries/BatteryRecycling/tabid/71/Default.aspx

 Back to trains. One of the problems with batteries is that their capacity is reduced at higher discharge rates. Crank that thing up to Run 8 and you will reduce the amount of energy drawn off the battery by about 30% compared to a slow discharge rate.  That number increases as the batteries wear on. 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,530 posts
Posted by zugmann on Friday, December 11, 2009 6:12 AM
petitnj

 Yes, Paul. I just object to calling it Battery Powered. We are going to shift our energy use to electric systems and then wonder how we are going to get this power to urban areas to charge up all these batteries. It will be interesting to see how the economics of the battery storage locomotive work out.

 I am also wondering if these things need a noise generator so people can hear them when they move. I am sure battery locomotives will have to have bells or beepers whenever they move. 

Why would it need a beeper? When I'm shoving a block of cars with a locomotive, the cars are all but silent. "expect movement on any track at any time". If a hogger is running the battery engine (and I will refer to it as battery-powered as that is what NS has it designated as) and there are people near the tracks, he will use the locomotive bell and or horn as outlined in the rulebook. If hooked up to a remote master, then the remote rings its bell before it moves every time. I could see definite possibilities in something like small intermodal terminals, or small industries. Places where you don't need to be out shifting for 10 hours straight. Even around repair shops....

  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    February 2016
  • 176 posts
Posted by Tugboat Tony on Friday, December 11, 2009 6:45 AM

Maybe I'm alone here, but I would LOVE a little quiet goat to switch my shop with.  The lack of noise is a nothing but a good thing from a safety standpoint. I love it when we had an old CNW 8500 with a batt. jog feature so we could switch a house with out filling it with smoke or hearing all that clattering all the time.  just my not so humble thoughts 

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 2,849 posts
Posted by wabash1 on Friday, December 11, 2009 7:46 PM

I can not see what the foamers on here are so worry about the engine being silent, it will not in any way cause them any problem as they will never see this thing at a crossing and if it becomes a problem for them its because they are treaspassing in a yard where they are not supposed to be anyways. railroaders dont have any problems with it as most generally when im crossing tracks in the yard im looking both directions because a shove move has the engine on the opposite end from me and those cars are not making a sound.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy