WM7471Is it time for the locomotive manufacturers to come up with a new more powerful locomotive?
As an alternative to the somewhat horse-beating discussion of freight locomotives -- consider the recent decision by Metrolinx to use two Cummins QSK-60s (instead of a single QSK-95) in a single MP36 carbody. The peak hp of this arrangement may be as high as 5400 (depending on how the HEP arrangement is made) and this raises some interesting implications for how the higher horsepower will be used in operations.
It is at least possible that one of the engines will only come 'off idle' at higher speeds, to provide the higher horsepower needed for continued high acceleration rate at high road speeds, rather than trying to use all the available power for starting heavier trains.
I'm going to assume that the above proposal is basically a genset suburban locomotive. I seriously doubt that the second engine could come on line fast enough to provide additional acceleration, especially with the frequent stops involved in suburban service. It would be safer to assume that the second engine will come on line to provide the additional horsepower for heavier rush hour trains, not unlike freight gensets on a local turn.
Good note on the HEP. With this, I suspect that they have removed that HEP generator, and put in a static inverter. Does anyone know?
EMD#1 Reason being when you run a train with two 6,000 hp units and one goes down you will more than likely stall. Most trains are capable of being pulled by two 4,400 hp units. The third is added to help maintain schedule and to be a backup in case one of the other units goes down during the trip.
Reason being when you run a train with two 6,000 hp units and one goes down you will more than likely stall. Most trains are capable of being pulled by two 4,400 hp units. The third is added to help maintain schedule and to be a backup in case one of the other units goes down during the trip.
So what you are saying is that current freight operations practice (exceptions to be noted) is to 1) dispatch enough HP to keep the schedule and 2) dispatch enough tractive axles to not strand the train with a unit failure? And this explains the popularity of the 4400 HP unit? And why 6000 HP units have a market in places using single locomotive units (China?).
I asked some while ago on another thread why Amtrak dispatches multiple units on many trains, even if they are under 12 cars -- is this a case of "the train has to move if a unit goes out"?
I suppose the trade is that you don't dispatch any more HP than you have to because that costs fuel, but you are dispatching extra axles as "backup" -- that costs fuel too, but maybe not as much as going over-HP?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicSo what you are saying is that current freight operations practice (exceptions to be noted) is to 1) dispatch enough HP to keep the schedule and 2) dispatch enough tractive axles to not strand the train with a unit failure?
No! Most trains operate with the minimum horsepower possible, because this is far cheaper, and locomotives are in short supply. 6000HP locomotives failed for a variety of reasons, lack of redundancy being only one. Inflexibility was a bigger problem.
blade, the ES6000CW doesn't exist...
It is at least that way on my class one railroad. That is especially true for the hotter Intermodals. Lower class trains will often run according to the tonnage profile. That is why some will only run with two units on an intermodal. These are mostly double stacks with no UPS or FedEX traffic on board. The hot UPS and FedEX trains rank three units and yes that third is just for backup and to keep the train on time. I think BNSF uses four units but then they not only want to keep their hot trains on time, they want them to run track speed wherever they are at!
Here on the NS, General Freight trains and Unit trains will also run per the tonnage profile. The one thing you have to be careful though is having too many powered axles up front. On NS, we can only run three six axle 4400 HP AC units on the headend. Any more than that and we could possibly rip a draw head completely out of the end of a car on a hard uphill pull. And we can only have two shoving on the rear. You may sometimes see a train moving with more than three or four units on the headend but they are definitely not all online. At least if the engineer wants to keep from being taken out of service!
In agreement. I was trying to explain to Paul that trains with extra power are the exception, only the hotshot intermodal trains and specials, as well as passenger trains.
For manifest trains and unit trains of bulk goods, maintaining track speed is not always necessary, and the money saved by just adhering to the tonnage profile beats the payoff amount for speed. Coal doesn't need to be moving at a continuous 50MPH, it just needs to get over the hills.
Technically, diesels are all the original "Hybrid's". I worked at Lockheed when they were mimicking locomotive technology to use in buses, box trucks, and semi's. Unfortunately, there isn't likely any use for adding batteries to modify current technology since there just isn't any room for them under the current chassis. In order to get enough batteries to make full use of the technology, a loco would need to drag around a battery car, kinda like an axillary water tender to a steam loco.
Most of the "Hybrid" cars on the road these days really aren't Hybrid's in the original sense of the word. Only cars like Chevy's Volt are Hybrid's by the original definition. An engine running as only a generator with no mechanical connection to the drive components. It's like people making up new uses for the word "Ozone". The chemical makeup of Ozone is O4 and is only created by nature events like lightning. Smog is not Ozone and definitely is not O4.
With the exception of Premier trains - other trains are designed to be run at max tonnage for the ruling grade in the route of the train, unless there are designated helper districts.
It is not unusual for a train to be rated for 11600 on the ruling grade and to have a train of 11590. There is a lot of praying that takes place while the train is on the ruling grade,
Like the NS, my carrier has rules on how much power can be on the head end of a train - Unit trains are allowed the tonnage of 2 AC's + Dash8. Routine manifest trains are allowed the tonnage for 3 Dash8's. There are also rules limiting rear end helper power and rules that require cutting the 'rear end' helper into the body of the train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NorthWest Paul MilenkovicSo what you are saying is that current freight operations practice (exceptions to be noted) is to 1) dispatch enough HP to keep the schedule and 2) dispatch enough tractive axles to not strand the train with a unit failure? No! Most trains operate with the minimum horsepower possible, because this is far cheaper, and locomotives are in short supply. 6000HP locomotives failed for a variety of reasons, lack of redundancy being only one. Inflexibility was a bigger problem. blade, the ES6000CW doesn't exist...
GE never built an ES6000CW but the ES58AC units built for Brazil are pretty much exactly what such a unit would be.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
As surprising as it seems - the 4400 HP GE AC locomotives have been earning their keep since at least October 1994 - after 20 years it is about time for the next quantum leap in locomotive technology. Unfortunately Tier 4 compliance doesn't count as a leap in technology, just advancement of technology to remain in business.
NorthWest In agreement. I was trying to explain to Paul that trains with extra power are the exception, only the hotshot intermodal trains and specials, as well as passenger trains.
Many people attempt to "explain to Paul" around here.
I offered that the typical consist had 1) "enough HP to make the schedule", which by definition, is a minimum amount of HP, and 2) extra axles so the train is not able to not move with a unit cutout. If you are dispatching units with this minimum amount of HP, by definition, you are below minimum HP if a unit cuts out, and you will still move, but you won't make your schedule.
If the consist had both the minimum HP and no extra traction axles, by definition, that train would not be able to move if a unit cut out, and there would be no advantage to running 3 vs 2 vs 1 unit if that were possible.
For my troubles I get scolded with a "No!", exclamation point included.
Please note that I meant no antagonism, and I offer my sincere apologies if my comments came across as condescending.
Paul MilenkovicI offered that the typical consist had 1) "enough HP to make the schedule", which by definition, is a minimum amount of HP, and 2) extra axles so the train is not able to not move with a unit cutout. If you are dispatching units with this minimum amount of HP, by definition, you are below minimum HP if a unit cuts out, and you will still move, but you won't make your schedule.
Only certain products must arrive at a certain scheduled time, including priority intermodal trains, passenger trains, and perishable trains. These trains need to accelerate quick, and have more HP than they need, due to the extra redundant units.
All others can incur a bit of delay, such as having a unit fail. There is no certain hour that the train must arrive. This is cheaper than adding units, which are in very short supply. (Note Balt's comments above.)
carnej1GE never built an ES6000CW but the ES58AC units built for Brazil are pretty much exactly what such a unit would be.
Except that they are only 5800HP, and fail to make the required emission standards. You are correct, though, that these are the closest units built new that we will likely see. I think the AC6000CWs that were converted to GEVO prime movers are closer.
BaltACDAs surprising as it seems - the 4400 HP GE AC locomotives have been earning their keep since at least October 1994 - after 20 years it is about time for the next quantum leap in locomotive technology. Unfortunately Tier 4 compliance doesn't count as a leap in technology, just advancement of technology to remain in business.
After the failure of 6000HP locomotives, the decades-long horsepower race had ended, and the emissions race started. We'll see how much further development is down the road.
Paul: You are only somewhat right. On the ruling grade the train may need all those traction axles but elsewhere on the territory it would have no problem continuing to run, often still at the maximum permitted speed. The ruling grade is often only a very small portion of the run.
Sometimes the locomotive dies, but if the problem is with the electrical side often all that is needed is to cut out an offending traction motor. With the GE ACs they could be cut out individually, so you only lost about 15% of the tractive effort. That would rarely cause much noticeable effect on the performance. On a GM AC you lost the whole truck, meaning a nearly 50% reduction from that locomotive. (I believe GM recently redesigned the inverters so they could equal the competition.)
John
cx500(I believe GM recently redesigned the inverters so they could equal the competition.)
Yes, the SD70ACe-P6. Interesting that they found it enough of a difference to rename the units with six.
JACOB LONGANECKER Technically, diesels are all the original "Hybrids".
Technically, diesels are all the original "Hybrids".
Only some diesels, like the Tripowers in the '20s. While any diesel-electric is (technically! your point on energy density is a good one) easy to convert into what used to be called a 'parallel' hybrid, there still has to be a second form of energy storage, such as a battery (or supercap bank, MegaGen. etc.) to provide the alternate source of electricity to the traction motor(s), and perhaps (as in good hybrid designs) to store the energy available from regenerative braking for subsequent effective traction use.
(As a peripheral note, when external electricity is provided as an alternate power source (and perhaps sink), e.g. via third rail or catenary, the present term in use is not 'hybrid' but something like 'dual-power' or 'dual-mode'.)
When the Japanese first started promoting small hybrid automobiles, they redefined 'parallel' (vs. 'serial') as the arrangement of a traction motor with an IC powerplant where both provide direct drive -- the parallel then had the motor in parallel with the IC engine, so that either could drive the powertrain; the serial had the motor in line with the engine crankshaft (usually either at the bellhousing end, or as an oversized generator as in the GM pickup-based hybrids) to accomplish the same end. The former is more easily run as a BEV, without the IC engine running, but in general the traction motor in such a design is smaller than in the 'original' kind of parallel design, because it is explicitly intended to share propulsion duty with the IC engine most of the time. In both cases the design is considerably lighter for a given power density than a 'traditional' engine-generator arrangement where the TM or motor-in-hub or whatever is the only thing that drives the wheels.
I've been complaining about the redefinition for many years, but I think we'll just have to keep using the same term for two very different designs...
... Hybrids by the original definition. An engine [driving] only a generator with no mechanical connection to the drive components.
That has never been the definition of 'hybrid'. What you're describing is '[engine]-electric' (where the name of the engine is usually substituted; 'diesel-electric' or 'gas-electric' being two that are familiar in railroading.
It's like people making up new uses for the word "Ozone". The chemical makeup of Ozone is O4 ... Smog is not Ozone and definitely is not O4.
The chemical makeup of any ozone I am familiar with is O3. You might want to check this before making definitive statements...
NorthWest carnej1GE never built an ES6000CW but the ES58AC units built for Brazil are pretty much exactly what such a unit would be. Except that they are only 5800HP, and fail to make the required emission standards. You are correct, though, that these are the closest units built new that we will likely see. I think the AC6000CWs that were converted to GEVO prime movers are closer.
I would agree but now all the CSX units have been derated to 4400HP to save fuel, turning them into ES44AC equivalents. I suspect they still have significantly greater fuel consumption per mile than the 12 cylinder GEVO's and probably higher maintenance costs, meaning they may be off the roster sooner rather than later.
IIRC, one operational issue with the 5000-6000 HP locomotives is that they were not ideally suited for all types of service. Specifically they were not advantageous in heavy bulk service (coal,grain) because at lower speeds they could not develop more tractive effort than the 4300-4400 HP units. The idea of replacing 3 4000 HP units with 2 6000 HP locomotives was only really applicable for higher speed manifest and intermodal trains...
you hit the nail on the head. new engines are not more efficient. Exhaust heat = wasted energy. New engines suck in 18 wheeler's, construction equip, farm equip. and your diesel pickups too. They take more fuel and maintenance and I don't know how burning more fuel is better and cleaner
I do belive the biggest and most powerful diesel engine is 6 000 horsepower general electric es6000cw .should they build more powerful locomotives maybe, take a look at the Airbus Super Jumbo A380, it is the biggest airplane built with a maximum take off weight [mass] in excess of a mind boggling 1.000.000 million pounds. So if they do build a bigger diesel engine at least 12 000 hp would be off the charts
[ just a few suggestions by aunt J - for better mutal understanding , I hope ]
ML
Could the future designs resemble GTELs with multiple prime movers that could be brought on and offline as needed as well as a battery tender with traction motors?
The con would be the potential to loose an entire train due to a single failure. One solution could be creating a power bus where two large AC units can move from an active-active configuration to a mother-slug model when at speed.
Of course I would rather they just start running the GTELs and DDA40x units again. :)
blade I do belive the biggest and most powerful diesel engine is 6 000 horsepower general electric es6000cw .should they build more powerful locomotives maybe,take a look at the airbus super jumbo a380 it is the biggest airplane built with a mmaximum take off wieght in excess of a mind boggling 1.000.000 million pounds.so if they do build a bigger diesel engine at least 12 000 lbs would be off the charts
I do belive the biggest and most powerful diesel engine is 6 000 horsepower general electric es6000cw .should they build more powerful locomotives maybe,take a look at the airbus super jumbo a380 it is the biggest airplane built with a mmaximum take off wieght in excess of a mind boggling 1.000.000 million pounds.so if they do build a bigger diesel engine at least 12 000 lbs would be off the charts
Just as the Airbus A380 can only land and takeoff from a relatively limited number of airports worldwide due to it's size,your hypothetical 12,000 HP (assuming that that is what you ment) locomotive would be too heavy for many rail lines.
The railroad officials who oversee locomotive purchases prefer units that can be run anywhere on thier respective systems so I doubt that a "DDD100AceP-16" or whatever would ever actually be bought by a railroad..
GDRMCo
sorry for answering late , yet again
to quote
>> Add the weight the US diesels have to a European electric and you'll get pretty close to the same starting TE (well maybe the same as a 4-axle unit) but they'll still have a higher balance speed. <<
well , agreed : on US axle load limits you could build extremely powerful electric units , no question - yet , mind to tell me how does *that* speak against electrics?
There is an all-American business slogan :
Time is Money
Fast moving trains - lots of merchandise per unit of time over a line
Slow moving trains - low mass flow of merchandise per unit of time over a line plus loss of highly paying high priority class of merchandise , too .
No ?
Then why are truckers being pressed by their companies to keep going without a stop ever , having breakfast , lunch and supper behind the wheel and - uhm - even pee never lifting the gas pedal and by the way speed up , too ?
Oh , yes , there are legal regulations , we all know for sure ...
It's the same in Europe .
= J =
about your posting >> wheelslip ...<<
I know that ..
I had that idea about 5 year ago and tried to take out a patent on the design of the 6 axle battery tender but that patent is already owned by GE. The battery tender could have been used as extra axles powered by the other 2 locomotive in the consist with prime movers or it could have been charged and powered by the dynamic brakes in hilly terrain. I even considered the possiblity of including small gen-set engine in the battery tender to charge the batteries.
GE owns the patent but as far as I can tell it has never been developed. GE is having enough trouble with the batteries in the hybrid AC EVO.
rdamon Could the future designs resemble GTELs with multiple prime movers that could be brought on and offline as needed as well as a battery tender with traction motors?
Except for the battery tender, this sounds like a super-sized version of a genset.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.