Gen-Set Locomotives

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

UP has recently ordered large batches of gen-set locomotives from National Railway Equipment (for California) and Railpower Technologies (for Texas). The principal of using multiple (2 or 3) truck-size diesel-engine-with-generator sets per locomotive with one set operating full-time and the others fired up only when needed sounds good in principle as a way of reducing emissions. Is there any real-world experience that NRE and Railpower are using as a basis for their designs or is a big leap of faith involved here?

[edbenton]

Not in the RR industry. What it sounds like what they are doing is kind of like the power industry and gen sets when the load increases they light off another one. sounds good in principle but look for some problems. I wonder how they mechanics are going to feel when they are changing out parts on a Cat or Cummins engine.

[nanaimo73]

Railpower's stock to a big fall last week due to warranty concerns. The railroads have been using the Green Goats in service so far heavier than forecast, decreasing the life of the batteries.

http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/01022006/2/finance-railpower-stock-falls-firm-takes-23m-28m-provision-q4.html

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Railpower's stock to a big fall last week due to warranty concerns. The railroads have been using the Green Goats in service so far heavier than forecast, decreasing the life of the batteries.

http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/01022006/2/finance-railpower-stock-falls-firm-takes-23m-28m-provision-q4.html

I hope they can overcome these problems. If you ever watched a set of hump engines or bowl engines you saw a tremendous amount of smoke and smog emitted by them. Having less smoke/smog would be a good thing.

[Overmod]

No leap of faith required here at all. The engine and main-generator characteristics are well established, as are most of the maintenance characteristics, MTTF, etc. Aside from the possible economies of scale (and service, maintenance, parts, etc.) in using largely OTS "truck" motors for rail, it becomes much easier to use and control some of the final-stage pollution technologies (such as ammonia injection and particulate traps) with several small engines than with one big one.

I'm tempted to say that you're seeing the 'shakeout' of overly-hyped "green" technologies when applied to real-world railroading, but that would be a bit of a cheap shot. I don;t know the design cycles for 'switcher' loading that RailPower used, but they might have assumed shorter cuts of cars, lower speeds, and less 'kicking' than actual yard crews use -- Ed Blysard, for example, can probably provide very useful insight into what switch crews like to use, and Randy Stahl can translate that into the electrical 'consequences' on the motors, and thence to the batteries and controls. Note in particular that very large 'spikes' of regeneration power (from the traction motors) may be above the 'safe' charging rate of some of the battery cells, and many cycles of repetition of even short overloading may be causing unanticipated cumulative damage.

Historically, IIRC, some (perhaps all?) of the original Clessie Cummins proposals for PRR back in the '20s involved multiple gensets using comparatively small engines, and I suspect the Baldwin modular locomotive (6000) did not succeed mostly for reasons unconnected with the idea of multiple 'slot-in' power gensets per se. Of course, neither of these were primarily designed with the explicit intent of trimming power (rather with achieving high power with the limited capacity of individual diesel engines at the time)

One assumption is that maximum speed demanded of the genset locomotives be restricted -- I think it's reasonable to build a class of 'dedicated' locomotives for this service; UP management evidently thinks so. It is technically possible to build genset locomotives with 'asymmetrical' equipment -- one or more of the engines being a larger, more conventional railroad-style type. Once some of the rail-specific genset equipment has been costed down, we may well see extension of the idea into other forms of power ... in California or other areas with the 'right' mix of carrots and sticks to make the effort "cost-effective" on pollution grounds, and in places like Texas (see the reference to the 98 UP hybrids in the above article) where locomotive loading may involve heavy peak capacity as well as extended idle time between loaded moves.

Note that the genset locomotives, inherently, are a response to the problems of repeated heavy cycling of conventional battery banks. Railpower admits as much -- their fix is a larger genset, presumably sized to keep the percentage of battery cycling up to where the battery system doesn't degrade, not to take up larger proportions of the traction load directly. This may indicate that the problem is repeated relatively deep discharge, not repeated cycling or excessive peak energy.

[chad thomas]

I agree with overmod. It's probably just a matter of tweeking the Generating capacity to match the average demand of the load. It always did seem to me that the size of the generators were too small for the duty cycle of a switcher in yard duty, let alone the duty cycle for going on the road to do local jobs. Then again I read somewhere recently that the genset locos were designed in a building block fashion where additional generators could be added to match the duty cycle needed for the service they are in. That makes them fairly inflexabe for use in other services though.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

No leap of faith required here at all. The engine and main-generator characteristics are well established, as are most of the maintenance characteristics, MTTF, etc. Aside from the possible economies of scale (and service, maintenance, parts, etc.) in using largely OTS "truck" motors for rail, it becomes much easier to use and control some of the final-stage pollution technologies (such as ammonia injection and particulate traps) with several small engines than with one big one.

I'm tempted to say that you're seeing the 'shakeout' of overly-hyped "green" technologies when applied to real-world railroading, but that would be a bit of a cheap shot. I don;t know the design cycles for 'switcher' loading that RailPower used, but they might have assumed shorter cuts of cars, lower speeds, and less 'kicking' than actual yard crews use -- Ed Blysard, for example, can probably provide very useful insight into what switch crews like to use, and Randy Stahl can translate that into the electrical 'consequences' on the motors, and thence to the batteries and controls. Note in particular that very large 'spikes' of regeneration power (from the traction motors) may be above the 'safe' charging rate of some of the battery cells, and many cycles of repetition of even short overloading may be causing unanticipated cumulative damage.

Historically, IIRC, some (perhaps all?) of the original Clessie Cummins proposals for PRR back in the '20s involved multiple gensets using comparatively small engines, and I suspect the Baldwin modular locomotive (6000) did not succeed mostly for reasons unconnected with the idea of multiple 'slot-in' power gensets per se. Of course, neither of these were primarily designed with the explicit intent of trimming power (rather with achieving high power with the limited capacity of individual diesel engines at the time)

One assumption is that maximum speed demanded of the genset locomotives be restricted -- I think it's reasonable to build a class of 'dedicated' locomotives for this service; UP management evidently thinks so. It is technically possible to build genset locomotives with 'asymmetrical' equipment -- one or more of the engines being a larger, more conventional railroad-style type. Once some of the rail-specific genset equipment has been costed down, we may well see extension of the idea into other forms of power ... in California or other areas with the 'right' mix of carrots and sticks to make the effort "cost-effective" on pollution grounds, and in places like Texas (see the reference to the 98 UP hybrids in the above article) where locomotive loading may involve heavy peak capacity as well as extended idle time between loaded moves.

Note that the genset locomotives, inherently, are a response to the problems of repeated heavy cycling of conventional battery banks. Railpower admits as much -- their fix is a larger genset, presumably sized to keep the percentage of battery cycling up to where the battery system doesn't degrade, not to take up larger proportions of the traction load directly. This may indicate that the problem is repeated relatively deep discharge, not repeated cycling or excessive peak energy.

I think Overmod has a pretty good idea, Maybe, Ed Blysard and Randy Stahl could weigh in with their thoughts. I'm sure they would have a pretty good take on the paractical aspects of these types of power. And any of the other members who have operational knowledge of switchers and their everyday use would be appreciated also. I havw seen in the past when watching switching ops at Forrest Yard in Memphis [Then Southern Rwy]. that the "SW style" switchers were asked and seemed to be able to deliver remarkable feats of moving very large numbers of cars without assistance. I have seen multiple road engines disconected and then an 'SW' would hook that same train and move it upgrade to classify that train for dispersion to other road in the area. Their demonstrations of pulling power were pretty remarkable under those circumstances. It was not until the NS took over that those switch jobs were handled by road type equipment.
Sam

[jchnhtfd]

Batteries and their control are the biggest problem in all of the hybrid designs, whether they are rail or truck or automotive. For all we take them for granted -- and we all do, get in the car and turn the key -- they are astonishingly delicate beasts. As has been noted, they are sensitive to overcharging, excess charging rate, too deep a discharge, and excessive discharge rates -- any one of those can do them in. For the real old-timers, submarines had the same problem! Having absolutely no factual basis to draw on, I would imagine that one of the big things that RailPower and other folks are working on is the computer controls of charge/discharge rates and amounts to optimize the life of the batteries vs. the cost of running the whole rig.

It will take a while to get it right -- but in the meantime, they do seem to be on the right track. As it were... sorry about the pun!

[dldance]

UP's ordering approach of two batches from different suppliers - with deliveries over a two year period is a sound way to invest in new technology. Of course it helps that part of their purchase cost is offset by local environmental incentives. At the end of this purchase, UP and suppliers will either have most of the bugs worked out or shown the technology to be unworkable in RR switching applications. I'll bet on the former.

dd

[Tulyar15]

These Gen-set locos sound a bit like the twin engined Class 17 built by Claytons diesels that British Rail ordered in the 1960's. These had a central cab and a 450hp engine under each bonnet. These locos were intended for heavy switching and short trip freight workings (which were rapidly disappearing with line and yard closures taking place all the time). The idea was that for lighter duties one engine could be shut down.

Alas these locos were not a success. The extra complexity of their systems meant they were more costly to maintain than the older (1957 vintage) 1000hp single cab English Electric class 20's. As a result BR decided to scrap the Class 17s, in some cases after less than 5 years, and ordered another batch of the Class 20's. To-day only one class 17 survives, having been sold off to an industrial line and then preserved, whereas Class 20's are STILL in use with some of the open access operators.

Curiosuly, the problems BR had with the Class 17's did not deter their builders from a further experiment. This loco, known only as DHP1, had TWO 400hp engines under each bonnet. It undertook a few trials on BR but its hydraulic transmission (its designated DHP1 stood for Diesel Hydraulic Prototype 1) meant BR were not very interested. It wound up as works switcher at Clayton's plant in Derby.

40s years on though, we now have DMU's with hydraulic transmission rather than loco hauled passenger trains so perhaps the Gen-set's time has come. After all the 5 car "Adelante" DMU's which have a 750hp engine in each car can keep time with one engine out of use, so this gives added resilience. And electronics are a lot more robust now. We shall see.

[daveklepper]

Advances in computer technology may make control of mutliple engine DE's a lot more robust, maintenance-free, and practical. But anyone know how GE's forey into Hybrid technology for road power is doing?

[beaulieu]

One question I do have is how much of the foray into these new technologies is due to government funding. I know that at Soo Line the Cat engined locomotives were well thought of right up to the time of their first overhaul. They required an overhaul at 4 years versus 8 years for a GP38-2 in the same service. Cost about the same too. I see a continuing decline in the need for switching locomotives and light roadswitchers. The carriers may view these locomotives as a bridge until they can eliminate loose car railroading.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm calling this thread back up to generate some more thought. Although gen-sets have been proposed primarily as a way of reducing emissions, could they also stand on their own as a way of reducing fuel costs? I'm primarily looking at regionals, short lines and terminal operations outside of California and Texas.
A shortline or a roadswitch job on a regional or an industry job on a terminal road could use a gen-set locomotive to use just the right amount of horsepower to do the job. If the job is light, only one engine may be running; if the job is much heavier on a different day, two or three engines may be on line. Fuel usage would vary depending on the need.

Is this wishful thinking or could it really work?

[tree68]

All those grain elevator switchers would probably be a good match for a genset locomotive. Locally, a cogen plant uses an old SW to move cars (delivered by CSX) for unloading. The switcher is usually doing one of two things - shuttling cars between the yard and the unloading track, or moving cars up one at a time to be bottom dumped. I'm guessing the SW is around 900 HP (haven't taken the time to determine the model), and they certainly don't need all of that to push 10 cars 40 feet at a time...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

All those grain elevator switchers would probably be a good match for a genset locomotive. Locally, a cogen plant uses an old SW to move cars (delivered by CSX) for unloading. The switcher is usually doing one of two things - shuttling cars between the yard and the unloading track, or moving cars up one at a time to be bottom dumped. I'm guessing the SW is around 900 HP (haven't taken the time to determine the model), and they certainly don't need all of that to push 10 cars 40 feet at a time...

A grain trans-load facility in Illinois that I used to be familiar with shifted long strings of grain hoppers using just a cat tractor and a chain.

[daveklepper]

Again, anyone know how the two GE Road-Hybrids are doing on the road? Are they still in use or back at the shop?

MIT has announced (check www.mit.edu) the development of a practical prototype litheum battery that can be developed into a production model. This will hopefully cause GM to rethink its position with respect to electric cars, and strenthen its market share and development of hybrids as well as benefit the other USA automakers. Possibly Toyota and Honda may even use this type of battery to improve their existing popular products. (Toyota has said nothing but hybrids in just a few years.) I think we can all hope for a comeback for GM with really advanced design electric cars and without the danger and lower (overall) efficiency of fuel cells.

But this should really impact possibilities for "green" diesel locomotives.

[edblysard]

Missed this thread the first time around...
In flat yard switching service we typically switch out two 100 to 120 car trains a shift flat switching, per yard job, with 3 jobs working at the same time.

If lady luck is smiling on us, there are large "cuts" of cars going to the same track and we can bring them around and just shove in, but the norm is the train being comprised of almost all singles, a few doubles.

So look for the trains being "cut up" into 30 to 40 car cuts, with anywhere between 70 to 90 "pins" or kicks per train switched.

Because we switch down several leads, as opposed to a hump job pushing them over a hill at constant speed, or a hump yard trim job dragging a track out of the bowl and setting it over intact in another track, the flat switching locomotive goes from standing still to notch 6 or 8, then back to a stop for each kick.
Most moves involve a kick, then stretching back past the lead switch, and kicking down the other lead, backing up, stopping, kicking down the next lead, so forth and so on.

So count on the locomotive having to go from a standstill to full bore, and then stopping and reversing direction for just about every car kicked.

On a 90 "pin" train, that’s 180 short, high power requirement moves per train switched, or 360 times per shift for one switch crew, a demanding job even for a "normal" locomotive.

Not being privy to all the technical aspect of the green goats, I would suspect that the batteries were designed to be drained at a fairly constant rate, and charged in like manner, as opposed to the short, repetitive high draw use of a flat switcher.

With the gen set type, I don’t see the locomotive moving at a constant rate of speed for any long period of time, just the short burst and stops we do, and I doubt the generators could keep the batteries charged enough, or recharge them fast enough

Imagine the hammering your automotive battery would take if you started/stopped your car 360 times every 8 hours, 24/7.....

I have noticed that down here, UP has most of the hybrids in yard to yard transfer service, and in trim job use, with the actual switching left to the MP15s and the GP38s...And I have yet to see one running alone, or MUed to another hybrid, they have, so far, always be MUed to a "normal" locomotive, I assume as a power protective measure.

Ed

[Randy Stahl]

In my opinion , the engineering on these machines should have included new low speed traction motors. I'm thinking that something along the lines of a axle wound armature similar tp the Bi Polar design . Batterys do very well at making current but quickly lose voltage , the high speed 4-1 gear ratio motors that are used in current locomotives are not designed for low voltage .
Randy

[edblysard]

And, with Randy's idea, there would be zero lag time between the throttle being opened and the locomotive moving, almost instant motion, no wait for the thing to load up...

Hey, Randy,you should write them a letter!

Ed

[Overmod]

Randy, could you not achieve similar results by radically changing the gear ratio on an 'existing' nose-suspended design, and keep at least the general frame and armature common with other motors? (You'd need a different gearcase for sure, but wouldn't that be a relatively small inconvenience... and it should be practical to make the 'larger' pinion as an adapter that would fit, and perhaps laterally 'float', over the smaller 'standard' pinion profile on the armature...

[M636C]

To revert to the thread title a bit more closely, nobody has actually said anything about the actual engines involved, even in the two references in "Trains" to date regarding UP 2005, which is a pity. Imagine describing the "GEVO" without saying anything about its twelve cylinder engine as opposed to the FDL16 in the Dash 9. (Quiet mumblings to myself about dumbing down regarding technical matters).

A 700 HP Cummins must surely be a K19, more particularly a QSK 19, the electronically controlled, electronic injection version. This is a six cylinder in line engine and probably a bit big for the average highway truck (I'll take advice on this from any truck experts). This engine is very popular in its horizontal form as a railcar engine, used extensively in the UK and Australia with both hydraulic and electric transmission. The Caterpillar equivalent is a new engine, the C 18, also an in line six. In both these cases, the engine model "number" is the capacity in litres.

While these engines are easier to start and stop than locomotive engines, they will be able to operate in combination with better fuel consumption and lower emission since there will be a greater range of optimum settings with one, two (or three, if fitted) engines running to match the load.

M636C

[edbenton]

The largest 3 engines in the OTR industry are the 14 Litre Mercedes benz 60 series. Then comes the Signature series from cummins the measures out at 15 litres and then the big boy the 15.8 CAT C-16 series. You may see the C-18 or the new cummions in the OTR industry in a big owner operartor truck if they can come up with a transmission that can hold that torque and HP. The HP rates are as followed 575 for the 60 series then 625 in the Cummins and then 600 from CAT. The biggest one I drove was the 550 CAT and that was sweet I would have loved to gotten one chance with the 600 HP CAT.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Colorado Railcars is promoting their DMU in both single deck and a 20-foot-tall full double deck version, the thing is powered by a pair of 600 HP Detroit Diesel truck engines through Voith automatic transmissions, and unlike the old RDC, they are saying they can pull trailers. They are claiming .9 gal/mile pulling a pair of Bombardier bi-levels in a simulated Miami commuter service run -- that is over 400 seat miles/gallon, which is fantastic fuel mileage in commuter service with lots of stops, and claimed to be 2.5 times better than a locomotive pulling a 3 car train (of course the rush hour trains may be much longer).

These fuel mileage figures are for an actual test run -- Colorado Railcars gives some nominal fuel consumption figures for DMU's and for locomotives and trailers, although the seem to assign a high fixed fuel use to a locomotive with a very small increment for adding cars -- this doesn't make sense for commuter service where with the frequent stops, fuel use should pretty much go with the weight.

Colorado Railcars also claims a maintenance cost advantage for their system over locomotives (again in commuter service for services with shorter train lengths). Trucks use these engines and truckers are able to afford the maintenance on them as part of their operations, so how big a stretch to use these engines in rail service. There must be a "track record" for using engines this size for HEP generators in commuter service.

On the other hand, there is always something about rail service that manages to make demands of equipment that things may not translate directly from the automotive/truck/bus world. A CRC DMU plus two trailers and you are talking two truck engines driving 225 tons vs two truck engines driving 80 tons in truck service. I am wondering if running those engines that much harder (at rated power for longer intervals) is going to have problems.

As far as trucks, I can understand why owner-operators would like the bigger truck engines -- fewer downshifts, less slow running on hills, less hassle merging into traffic, probably a lot less wear-and-tear on the driver. But why are the trucking companies cheap-skates with regard to smaller engines? Do they save fuel? Do they weigh less and allow bigger loads?

[edbenton]

A C10 fleet engine weighs 1000 lbs dry a C-16 is right around 1900 lbs so yes the smaller engine gives more cargo but at a higher wear on the engine and driver. Fleets buy the smaller engines so they can put a lighter wieght drive train in then cheaper to repair when a 30 day wonder rips out a rear end or a tranny.