[quote user="Lastspikemike"]You can't build that one battery big enough and it doesn't look like you will ever be able to.
It's actually easy to build that 'one battery' big enough for practical wayside storage, even using liquid metal batteries to cut the cost and improve the number of cycles in effective lifetime. If I remember correctly, there are or were test installations of flywheel-bank short-term energy storage on one of the ex-Reading SEPTA lines, and the 'idling' current for the magnetic bearings was surprisingly small.
I was involved in the mid-to-late Nineties with magnetic storage for grid AC power, which developed the art of superconducting-magnet refrigeration to a surprising degree. While this would be of more value for a general distributed utility architecture also supplying railroads than for a purely dedicated traction system, it remains useful in principle, and may become dramatically more so as research into practical higher-temperature superconductors advances.
The practical battery for railroad applications has already been built; it is in the FLXdrives, and the poor man's version of it is 'spam in the can' over at RPS in Fullerton. The point is NOT to replace fossil power with battery power, it is to do just what MB was doing in your example, use the higher-energy-density liquid fuel more effectively.
If you have not read the COMSOL 'case study' for the GE hybrid locomotive of a decade and a half ago -- find it and look at it now. That was a reasonably practical chemistry, and if you remember the old Ford experiments with sodium/sulfur back in the day, modern nanoinsulation makes that chemistry fully workable in the kind of built-out plug-in charging infrastructure that makes widespread BEV operation even thinkable in the future.
As GE points out now (admittedly a bit between the lines) there really isn't a dramatic need in general service for more than about 40 minutes 80-20 for the main traction battery in a hybrid consist. As I keep saying, the situation for flat switching is a bit different: there the 80-20 charge and discharge cycling is severe but reasonably more time-limited: aggressive cooling is the 'secret' there, not nominal capacity. Were it not that aggressive cooling is part of the secret for practical road locomotives, too, it would be easy to note that switchers are a more expensive and difficult use of "battery" technology than 12,000+hp road power is.
Energy density is the problem solved by fossil fuels.
The practical answer is one or two units burning an appropriate high-energy fuel, mothering an electric unit functioning as a road slug and hybrid enablement. If you want to use that middle unit for switching, it has a cab and controls; if you want a two-unit consist equipped for bidirectional running 'cabs out' without the pain and sorrow of running long-hood-forward, there you are.
And every inch you electrify the right-of-way becomes useful for propulsion and charging with the dual-mode-lite that is almost trivial to implement on an AC-synthesis inverter-drive locomotive. Eventually you may push the battery or other storage back into the infrastructure, where we wanted it in 1997...
KERS was used as a technical term to distinguish it from things like turbocompounding, on the one hand, and the Japanese style of parallel hybrid transmission on the other. Volvo, as I recall, developed a "practical" system of coupling the energy from a large turbocharger (both pressure and inertial) back to the engine crankshaft. In those days it was just as equally far more practical to use a Satcon on the interstage to harvest and deliver electric power, using a battery as a buffer, but the cost and cycle characteristics of the batteries made that approach excessively expensive for the benefits received.
Now that lithium cells and supercapacitors are far more efficient, and their production has been 'costed-down' for other reasons, making everything 'electrical' makes far more sense. We realized this for large steam locomotives nearly two decades ago: if all the auxiliaries run on 220 to 240V 60Hz AC, and you use similar power to run the ECP brake trainline, instead of a bunch of little steam turbines pissing away your expensively generated chemically-treated feedwater, you have simple wiring harness for power with powerline modulation for data and a great deal of the cost of 'modern steam' disappears.
With respect to the turbo example: any child can figure out that spooling the turbo with the energy from braking is a good idea. Making it asynchronous is the genius, and while you can do that a la Karman with a pressurized accumulator, it is easier to do it electrically -- and you get all the other prospective benefits of Ludicrous+ power on demand free.
And what you are missing so badly is that, once you have that ONE big battery with the correct internal architecture and construction and cooling... all the benefits can be tapped from it, and the BMW-style reformed 5kW or so fuel cell that only runs the vehicle auxiliaries (a la SPV2000) becomes workable.
I admit it would have been fun to see this work out in the marketplace, but zero-carbon has made its hydrogen counterpart more attractive, and in fact made its 'big brother' the continuous topping charge fuel-cell yet more attractive.
That's not really KERS in either sense. Since it uses a 'big enough battery' it is nothing more than a fancy Japanese-style hybrid powertrain, with the battery energy being directed to (presumably torque-vectored) propulsion or spooling up active boost... just as people have been doing in principle and practice with electric hybrid systems for a long time. In my opinion there is very little practical vehicle acceleration to be gained from the spinning turbocharger rotor, but very subtstantial advantage to using what we used to call a Satcon motor to accelerate the rotor(s) quickly to expedite boost.
The point of KERS is that it stores energy IN that spinning flywheel, not in a battery, and then recovers it from the flywheel. If you have a few hours to research down the rabbit hole, go here:
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/29969
and see what still remains of the MegaGen and the ALPS locomotive collateral.
LastspikemikeKinetic energy recovery systems using battery storage are quite feasible and depend only on the economics. At the moment the cost of including these systems far exceeds any payback from fuel savings, even from reduced consumption of heavily taxed motor fuels. I know of no economically sensible kinetic energy recovery system on any vehicle, even a golf cart which would be a simple device to include such a system.
There was an effective use made of KERS in the University of Texas ALPS locomotive proposal, where the main generator (which was an SDI spinoff) had substantial rotating inertia and very high momentary current capacity. I doubt this would be cost-competitive for any service other than true HSR (although it is highly valuable in that context).
Where the real money-shot for KERS exists is in wayside storage for vehicles using electric transmission, whether from overhead wire or some form of third rail. The deceleration energy coming into a station spins up the relatively cheap flywheel array, levitated in a working vacuum on magnetic bearings, and the stored energy is then used to snap the near-immediate departure of the same train. All the weight and packaging of considerable arrays of flywheels is carried on the ground (where I would argue it belongs!) and can in fact be partially spun up with external power if there is a problem with peak current from the utility grid into the the rail electrical system.
ndbprrHas anyone determined the amount of lithium required to replace all current autos?
The 'modern third rail' is a bit different from what we think of in current practice; it is more like the systems for transit (as pioneered before 1910 by General Electric) that 'turn on' the contact area under the locomotive shoes, and manage current flow only in that relatively small area. The rest of the distribution architecture can run at high voltage if desired and be transverted near the point of consumption or charging.
The real 'first best use' of this, in my opinion, is for those areas of an otherwise-overhead-wire system where the overhead wire is difficult to provide -- under bridges, for example, or in areas concerned with inability to police trespassers who might be electrocuted -- even if only to permit a 'stalled' train in a gap between dual-mode-lite sections to move without using its combustion power. It would also be highly useful if installed at the ends of sidings, where it has the effect of constituting a charging point for stopped trains. You could always use it 'outboard' of the siding to provide additional starting boost to 'snap' consists up to speed, or provide regeneration for consists about to take siding.
You could use this system to provide either snapping or helping on grades. But there are more advantages to using high-voltage overhead wire for this, and incrementally extending it to longer stretches.
Has anyone determined the amount of lithium required to replace all current autos? That alone may put the kibosh on the idea. I think the third rail idea might be usable for long haul locomotives. It would require a significant length that could replenish the batteries while moving while directing a portion of the power to operate the train. The modern version of mainline coaling towers or water pans.
LastspikemikeThe EU fire departments have water tanks to put entire EV cars into if the battery catches fire. No other method can work because cooling the fire is the only way it can be stopped. Apparently.
While the issue of stranded charge might be solved by dumping the whole vehicle in a tank of water, it might be necessary to leave the vehicle submerged a considerable time to ensure all the cells in the architecture are (1) discharged and (2) cool enough not to fail. There might be some interesting fireworks...
I continue to think that the 'better answer' to stranded charge is to develop equipment and training that allows it to be dissipated (or, better, recovered) even if the battery is damaged; this would minimize the 'surprise' of subsequent fires as the wreck is being transported, stored, or worked on. Why there have not been well-documented (and prominently recognizable to emergency personnel) contacts and jumpers to perform safe controlled discharge on large EV batteries is something of a mystery to me; on the other hand this couldn't possibly have escaped the notice of Tesla or Nikola engineers.
As I have said previously, it becomes the responsibility of EV manufacturers to provide tools and training for 'safe handling' of proprietary alternatives to 'familiar' fuels. We are about to see the issue taken up for expansion of hydrogen fueling as well.
NYC had Tri-Power switchers - Primary was battery with a diesel for trickle charging and third rail shoes for electrified territory.
"The principle of operation was similar to that of modern hybrid locomotives, the diesel engine driving a main generator of 600 volts DC, which provided charging current to a bank of batteries which powered four traction motors, one per axle. In addition to being powered by the diesel engine, these locomotives were capable of operating as electric locomotives. Two of these locomotives were equipped to operate off of 3000 volt overhead lines, and 34 were capable of operating off of a 600 volt third rail. The locomotives were equipped with a six-cylinder four-stroke in-line engine of 300 hp (224 kW). The diesel motor was used to charge the batteries, which could not be charged by third rail power. The battery consisted of 240 Exide Ironclad cells with a total capacity of 301 kWh.
The locomotives were mainly used in city areas for switching work, where exhaust-emissions-free operation was required at spurs entering factory halls. The main batch was ordered by New York Central Railroad to be used in the New York City area operating on the West Side Line and the High Line. Some three-power boxcabs also worked Chicago, Detroit, and Boston. One locomotive was built for Rock Island, which used it for switching the LaSalle Street Station in Chicago"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_three-power_boxcab#/media/File:NYC_1528.jpg
Overmod Lastspikemike Ironically, the accepted method of extinguishing Li ion battery fires is complete submersion of the battery in water..... Do you have a reference for that?
Lastspikemike Ironically, the accepted method of extinguishing Li ion battery fires is complete submersion of the battery in water.....
Do you have a reference for that?
The only way to extinguish a lithium battery fire is to flood the battery with water. A Lithium Fire Blanket will safely isolate a lithium fire battery for hours, until it can be flooded and extinguished.
But that advice appears to be contrary to the consensus advice to only use a foam extinguisher, ABC dry chemical.
Alton Junction
I have two questions that I have not seen answers to:
First, what is the recharge time on these electric cars and, what is the maximum range on a full charge? For instance, the nearest hobby shop worthy of the name is 420 interstate highway miles from me. Burning two hours charging up the car does not equate to a 10 minute stop for gas, and just won't cut it.
Second, what happened to the gensets? They were supposed to be the best thing since flush toilets but, that turned out to be the good ol' SD40-2- with slug if necessary.
LastspikemikeIronically, the accepted method of extinguishing Li ion battery fires is complete submersion of the battery in water.....
The reason for using 'water' despite the issues it has with lithium-battery construction is that if you spray it forcefully and then let it run or evaporate off it cools the structure more effectively than other methods firefighters can use. That's the reason you see Teslas on their sides after battery fires -- they were tipped over intentionally so they could be hosed to dissipate heat. [Yes, this has to do with the molecular characteristics of water vs. other sprayed material like gaseous Halons -- I'm not going into that here.]
Just "submerging" them would do little to remove heat, but it would sure produce positive exotherm from any damaged cells, and likely facilitate repeated battery fires when the battery is subsequently moved. Not to mention self-discharge issues facilitated by ionic contaminants in the water...
(You would likely also have a contaminated-water problem with your 'submersion' pool, but that's secondary to the electrical, chemical, and thermodynamic concerns...)
The burning freighter really shows the problem of concentrated batteries once they catch fire. Fire breaks down the insulation of cells reigniting the fire. Hopefully methods can be found to mitigae these problems. But until???
Fire on Cargo Ship Packed With Porsches and VWs Is Reportedly Fueled by EV Batteries (msn.com)
SeeYou190While currently the technology cannot power a mainline locomotive, there are suitable applications for yard, local, and light trains.
The yard and local locmotives I use get used HARD. Heavy pulls and shoves, constant loading, and get very little downtime. They are usually handed off from one crew to the next right away.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The advantages of hybrid power for road locomotives have been established for over a decade, as have the ways to build battery structures tolerant of both rapid and deep discharge. In my humble opinion, would-be critics should study the engineering behind Ludicrous+ mode on Teslas before making blanket statements, but that's just me.
The unfortunate thing about using batteries on modern switch engines is that it involves 104% of the expensive problems for very little perceived revenue value. If the Green Goat people had actually looked at the cycling involved in 'optimized' flat switching with PSR-style lengths of cuts, they might have realized the impending disaster of their charging premise, which was 'on average' quite sensible (in the sense the Fisker Karma was more sensible than a Tesla model S). The battery gets slammed from heavy discharge to heavy charge quickly, repeatedly, and without much predictable delay in ramping up or down.
I am waiting to see whether the Joule design team has correctly accounted for this. I'm reasonably certain RPS in Fullerton will, but it does remain to be seen if their strategy of selectively rebuilding with cells salvaged from Teslas and the like for low-value-proposition switching is going to be workable. One thing is sure: mere political diktat about employing "zero-carbon" is not going to substitute for careful engineering (and the increased costs that go with that) - see Dilworth's approach to yard and road power for both negative and positive examples of engineering to perceived needs.
As I have noted, integrating the FLXdrive as a separate road locomotive makes sense, but using it solely in road service as part of a consist with combustion engines 'most of its lifetime' also does. This is probably inherent in the for-those-with-eyes-to-see deployment of 'battery locomotives' to all the heavy-haul operations in the Pilbara... all of which run C-C road power; all of which have specified their battery locomotives with span-bolstered B-B trucks.
PruittAs far as regeneration goes, in constant speed travel, like highways, regeneration does very little for an automobile, it's true. But in stop-and-go traffic,
Regenerative batteries on hybrid transit buses were one of the best fuel savers ever introduced. The fuel economy gains were staggering in the real world.
My next vehicle will be plug in electric, it only makes sense. Everyone I know with them loves the cars.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Lastspikemike The missing idea here is always where do you get the energy from to store in the battery? That's why the PR bumpf talks about reducing "operational" CO2 and not about any idea of a full reduction back to the power source. If all the energy used in the batteries is just from "regeneration" (a snake oil term if there ever was one) then that's just recovery of a small bit of the energy from diesel fuel burned at a different time. The payback time period for that might as well be infinite. Diesel electric locomotives have long had on board regeneration capability called dynamic brakes. It's just never been economic to recover and reuse that. Still isn't. Towing a big battery pack equipped pseudo locomotive to store and then utilize this otherwise wasted energy may be laudable but that doesn't make it sensible. It dumb because it costs too much to recover and reuse that energy, which is why it isn't done without some other non-economic reason like PR or tax breaks or subsidies, etc. Same boondoggle rules apply to electric cars and hybrids. With current technology these are just dumb ideas that waste money. Trouble is the way things are set up it isn't the Tesla buyer who wastes his or her own money. That's a ridiculous state of affairs but it's really happening. Poor people are paying for rich people to drive electric cars. Stunningly stupid idea.
The missing idea here is always where do you get the energy from to store in the battery? That's why the PR bumpf talks about reducing "operational" CO2 and not about any idea of a full reduction back to the power source.
If all the energy used in the batteries is just from "regeneration" (a snake oil term if there ever was one) then that's just recovery of a small bit of the energy from diesel fuel burned at a different time. The payback time period for that might as well be infinite. Diesel electric locomotives have long had on board regeneration capability called dynamic brakes. It's just never been economic to recover and reuse that. Still isn't. Towing a big battery pack equipped pseudo locomotive to store and then utilize this otherwise wasted energy may be laudable but that doesn't make it sensible. It dumb because it costs too much to recover and reuse that energy, which is why it isn't done without some other non-economic reason like PR or tax breaks or subsidies, etc.
Same boondoggle rules apply to electric cars and hybrids. With current technology these are just dumb ideas that waste money. Trouble is the way things are set up it isn't the Tesla buyer who wastes his or her own money. That's a ridiculous state of affairs but it's really happening. Poor people are paying for rich people to drive electric cars. Stunningly stupid idea.
Lastspikemike, you may have some valid talking points about railway locomotives. However, you are pathetically ignorant on the subject of battery powered automobiles.
Even when I charge from a fossil-fueled charger, the noxious emissions at the power plant are much lower than if I were driving an internal combustion powered automobile. My Tesla will go nearly 300 miles on 90 kilowatts of power. If we equate that amount of electricity to the equivalent amount of energy in gasoline, my Tesla goes nearly 300 miles on three gallons of gas. My mpge (miles per gallon equivalent) is about 98, per the EPA when I purchased the car. That's significantly better than any equivalent ICE (internal combusion engine)-mobile by a factor of nearly four (I drive a Model S, a full-size semi-luxury car. Compare it to the Mercedes AMG GLC 43 Coupe, with 24 mpg highway, for example, or the BMW M5, with 23 mpg highway). The utility company creates a boatload LESS pollutants to generate the 95kw (90 kw storage + 5 kw wastage) it takes to charge my Tesla than either of those comparison cars create when burning their 12 or so gallons of fuel to go the same distance.
As far as regeneration goes, in constant speed travel, like highways, regeneration does very little for an automobile, it's true. But in stop-and-go traffic, like in town or on many freeways during busy times, it provides an additional 30-50 percent available mileage. That pretty signifcant. It's certainly very economical to recover that energy and reuse it. ICE vehicles just lose it completely.
Regarding your remark "...it isn't the Tesla buyer who wastes his or her own money. ... Poor people are paying for rich people to drive electric cars." How so? Because of the tax credit for purchasing an electric car? Tesla went over the limit for that back in 2018 or 2019, I think it was. Anyone buying a Tesla these days is not getting any sort of tax break, unless it's from the state in which they live. In my particular case, I pay an extra few hundred dollars a year every time I register my Tesla, to offset the loss of gas taxes since I don't buy gasoline. And that's fair. I use the roads and don't pay a gas tax. Instead, I pay up front.
A bit of advice - learn about a subject before spouting off about it. You might not embarrass yourself so bad in the future. Just sayin'.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
ndbprrModel the PRR so don't follow modern stuff too much. What is the story on battery powered locos. How far can they run? How much traction power do they have? Etc. See that sales are picking up. I don't see how they can be as efficient as diesel powered. Thank you
Battery power is the way of the future.
While currently the technology cannot power a mainline locomotive, there are suitable applications for yard, local, and light trains.
Beyond that, my NDA kicks in...
ndbprrWhat is the story on battery powered locos. How far can they run? How much traction power do they have? Etc.
Just saw a spec sheet on a Wabtech loco:
https://www.wabteccorp.com/media/466/download?inline
Says it can do a full 4,400 hp for 30-40 mins.
Seems like a sensible system to me -- you put it in a consist and dynamic braking (or "breaking" according to the release -- I ought to see if they want to hire a new copywriter) charges the battery and the loco can use that power later. It really is like the regenerative brake on a hybrid car... hybrids work by storing energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat so it can be used to assist later, allowing the use of a more fuel-efficient engine.
This'd be a much more sensible thing if the dynamic brakes of the other locomotives could be wired to it -- I'm running under the assumption that a heavy train might need more than one unit producing braking power. And of course once the battery is full you go back to wasting energy as heat. A quiet, vibration-free cab environment is probably a nice thing, too.
Cars: I work for a car mag and my long-termer/daily driver is a Toyota Mirai fuel-cell electric vehicle. So, hydrogen power. I can't (or at least for the moment won't) speak to the merits or problems of hydrogen and it's various sourcing. I can tell you the fueling infrastructure is suffering a lot of teething problems -- fueling is the biggest pain point. But it's a useful solution for someone like me -- I live in an oder apartment building and we can't get chargers installed.
I can also tell you that an electric car (whether battery or fuel-cell powered) is pretty darn wonderful. Smooth acceleration, no shifting, no hesitation, no vibration. This week someone else is driving the Mirai and I'm in a gasoline-powered SUV and it feels harsh and unrefined. Everything does. I'm a gearhead and thought I'd miss internal-combustion power, but I don't -- a manual transmission is the only thing I miss. But for that, I'd be all but done with gasoline. Set aside the power and political issues; IMHO from a driver's perspective electricity is THE way to go. And with home refueling (read: batteries) it's pretty hard to beat.
Aaron
A few years ago, when diesel prices went thru the roof, MR had an article about "GREEN GOATS". These were hybrids with 3000 hp of electric engines, but 300 hp diesels. Intended strictly for yard work. Apparently they were not popular with switch crews, and disappeared after fuel prices went down.
Railway Age article on Wabtec's (which purchased General Electric's locomotive division) on their battery powered locomotives.
https://www.railwayage.com/news/flxdrive-electrifies-pittsburgh/
Jeff
Battery technology has improved tremendously but not nearly enough for replacement of internal combustion, external combustion, and AC/DC wired equipment. The amp draw alone just starting a heavy train would deplete the stored energy faster than can be restored. My RC helicopters get on average 6 to 7 minutes of flight and depletes 1000 to 2000 Milli amp hours depending on battery. Recharging can take an hour or more to recharge at up to 6 amps. The heat generated by the lithium reaction drains the life out of the battery each time it is heavily discharged. I probably get 60 to 75 flight cycles before they puff and I toss them in a bucket of salt water for disposal. Lead acid batteries are even worse. The lead plates deteriorates quickly when discharged by high amp use.
These Tesla vehicles and other electric cars may be alright on their own. Try pulling a heavy load and see what happens. Better have a deep bank account for a new bank of batteries, if it pulls. I'm sure there is overload protection.
Pete.
LastspikemikeClick on your username. It'll take you to a complete list of your posts. Delete the post you wish to from that page.
Mike, thanks, but that seems to only remove the post from the list, and does not remove the post in the actual thread.
York1 John
We've hashed this around on the Trains Magazine forums for some time.
Straight electrification has almost never been cost-effective for long main lines in the United States. There is a long history behind this; note that even PRR never extended electrification to the most obvious place it would be valuable to them, between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.
If you were to develop electrification as a long-range enhancement on railroads (as has been commonly done in Europe) but with continued private ownership of ROW, you would benefit from the kind of 'dual-mode-lite' operation developed for Conrail in the late 1970s. This is eminently more practical today than in the age of SD40-2s... the idea is that diesel-electrics are equipped to take power from 'islands' of OHLE or modern track conductors where it is installed, and run on combustion power elsewhere. This gets around the obvious problem with straight electrification that it only runs when you have power 100% of the way, provided 100% of the time... you start with the obvious places electrification 'pays' or is otherwise required, then build as needed until you have most of your coverage.
BUT... there are many places on a conventional railroad, particularly in the East, where very expensive modifications would be needed, principally at bridges or other overhead clearances, to install even 25kV 60Hz catenary... let alone modern 50k. With dual-mode lite those can be left as permanent short gaps, which makes near-pervasive electrification much cheaper, quicker, and easier to implement... and if you have full electrical supply from a hybrid consist battery, even if it represents only a couple of minutes of full consist traction output, the advantage is as obvious as keepalives are in model railroading.
A rather obvious way to deploy dual-mode-lite is to equip diesels to take 'line power' as with road slugs, and add a car with the pantographs or shoes and necessary equipment to produce suitable current. With AC power, that can be easily done at DC link level, in the range of 1200-1500 VDC as supplied to the inverter drive.
Meanwhile, there are clear advantages to providing some kind of regeneration to dynamic braking. GE very carefully designed hybrid locomotives (you can actually see one detail design that was captured by the COMSOL company as a case example of use of their design software!)
Meanwhile, the idea of the battery tender that has the electrical pickup stuff on it has been around since the heady days of the GE MATEs, with some very problematic issues unless the 'tender' is equipped as a road slug.
The (in my opinion obvious) convergence of all this is to put the big hybrid battery in a powered locomotive frame, with a control cab... and that is exactly what a FLXdrive is... but operate it with one or two properly-equipped diesels as a hybrid consist most of the time.
Very seldom will you buy an expensive battery locomotive 'new' exclusively for switching, as no few railroads found out back in the day. It has been strange to watch people try to design these with apparent abject ignorance of how switching is actually performed on railroads -- that being the cause of the otherwise well-conceived Green Goat, a more sensible premise than a separate FLXdrive just as a Fisker Karma is a more sensible automobile than a Tesla. But if you have the political necessity it would be easy to use either B-B or B-B-B-B (note the recent Australian purchases, on railroads otherwise equipped with C-C road power) for switching and hybrid dual-mode-lite consisting alike and get the best of all worlds for your capital investment.
This is also a straightforward bridge to either reformed-LNG or carrier-hydrogen power on road consists, perhaps the only engineering alternative that isn't chiefly a form of virtue signaling.
William D. Middleton, in his books, describes the early efforts of the pioneers of electric traction -- how they were frustrated in trying to use battery power as a source of electricity. It wasn't until the dynamo was invented, and continuous collection of "externally-supplied" power by third rail or trolley was implemented, that electric locomotives and cars began to become practical and workable.
I believe it will be so with the fad of "battery powered" locomotives. They'll be found to be unworkable for all but very limited use cases.
When the battery runs out an inopportune time, the engine stops and becomes dead weight until it's either towed away or recharged (how long will THAT take?).
Of course a diesel can run out of fuel as well, but can often be refueled in minutes if a rubber-tired fuel truck can be brought near.
Why carry a battery around on the engine (with a finite charge and long recharging time) when you can put a pantograph on the roof and collect unlimited power from an overhead wire?
"Electric" locomotives have been around a long time now. Why not use technology that is known to work, and work well...?
Pruitt Lastspikemike A little ironically battery "power" is... ...too heavy for a road vehicle. ...needs more volume than is practical to provide. Wow. There's a whole lotta Tesla and Leaf and Volt owners who will be very surprised to learn that. As a Tesla owner myself, I know I am. Now what am I gonna do for transportation?
Lastspikemike A little ironically battery "power" is... ...too heavy for a road vehicle. ...needs more volume than is practical to provide.
Wow. There's a whole lotta Tesla and Leaf and Volt owners who will be very surprised to learn that. As a Tesla owner myself, I know I am. Now what am I gonna do for transportation?
As another Tesla owner, I have to agree with Mark.
Ray
LastspikemikeA little ironically battery "power" is... ...too heavy for a road vehicle. ...needs more volume than is practical to provide.
York1I'm sorry I wrote this, but the forum doesn't allow me to delete the post.
Sure you can. Just go to your post and click on edit. Then delete the content of your post, and type in "post content deleted by author".
Your post will be there, but anything that you put in which might upset someone else will be gone.
York1 York1 I don't have a garden railroad, and at my age, I'm unlikely to ever build one. But I would be very interested in battery powered locomotives on a garden RR. I'm sorry I wrote this, but the forum doesn't allow me to delete the post. I thought the original post was asking about battery-powered model locomotives.
York1 I don't have a garden railroad, and at my age, I'm unlikely to ever build one. But I would be very interested in battery powered locomotives on a garden RR.
I'm sorry I wrote this, but the forum doesn't allow me to delete the post.
I thought the original post was asking about battery-powered model locomotives.
Now I don't feel so bad. I thought the same thing.
ndbprr My questions are absolutely about prototype engines. I am trying to determine if my thoughts that this is a gimic that the railroads are doing for tax credits or other financial incentives is accurate and that these engines are doomed to failure
My questions are absolutely about prototype engines. I am trying to determine if my thoughts that this is a gimic that the railroads are doing for tax credits or other financial incentives is accurate and that these engines are doomed to failure
My mistake. I thought you were asking about the feasibility of battery powered model locos.