NS and Brookville Equipment building a Battery Electric Locomotive

[oltmannd]

creepycrank

I wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors.

I suspect battery flushing has been facilitated in some fashion other than checking and watering each cell by hand - but I don't know. I wish I did. There's lots more I'd like to know about this.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

wabash1

if I read this right its for switching and in switching we dont need dynamic. and dont use it in switching, anything else it wont be nessesarry either as it wont move much tonnage at only 1500hp. [snip]

Switching is probably its primary 'stand-alone' use that justifies building it and its continuing existence, but I'm sure it won't be limited to that - meaning yard switching.  It could also take a short cut of cars out onto the main at higher speeds to do local work - such as running up to Tyrone or Huntingdon, or over to the Sam Rea Shops at Hollidaysburg - where the dynamic brakes would have an opportunity to be put to use.

But I'll bet that before too long - like over this winter - it will be assigned to pusher service for a while out of Altoona up the East Slope to AR Tower/ Gallitzin, most likely as 1 of a 2 or 3 unit consist, which will also include 1 or more NS engineering test cars.  That'll provide a real-world opportunity to see and collect test data on how the batteries perform under sustained load for about an hour - and also to use the dynamic brakes for a sustained period coming back downhill, and see how well that actually recharges the battery system.

By itself - no, it isn't going to move big trains.  But anymore, locomotives are just 'building blocks', and this one is now big enough to take the place of one in a consist.  A full consist of more and bigger of such units as these would just be 'more of the same' - so this one is enough for now to serve as a 'stand-in' to see how well such a unit will work, that's all it is and is for, I think.

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

creepycrank

I think its 90% publicity stunt and !0% proof of concept. I wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors. I sounds like they used car batteries and the must have made some SEARS die-hard battery guy's day. They've been running fork lift trucks forever on large, deep cycle batteries for ever and I remember what a nuisance they could be. That's probably why the tri-power locomotive of 80 years disappeared. Don't railroads do management's pet projects about once every 30 years or so. The amount of time it takes to forget way it didn't work the last time.

Actually, the best 'off-the-shelf' batteries for this kind of application are either golf-cart batteries, or floor-polishing machine batteries, per the electric car folks.  I'm sure those too come in the sealed 'no-maintenance' and gel versions, so there's no water to check - and that would greatly reduce the slopping and spillage that usually causes connector corrosion, at least with my cars.

Don't forget that at least some of Brookville Equipment's underground mining machines are battery-powered, so presumably they're pretty well conversant with the maintenance hassles - esp. in those locations - and what's out there that's less maintenance-intensive.

Also, think of submarine batteries.  Remember way back in the day, the sub's batteries were charged by diesels while on the surface, then ran on battery while submerged.  Even the nuclear subs - actually nuclear-fueled, steam-turbine to electric generator to electric final drive - still have extensive battery banks.  And here's a little-known - though not a military secret factoid:  Land-locked Penn State University's electronic/electrical/computer engineering people do a heckuva lot of R&D work for the U.S. Navy's sonar systems - the 'eyes' of a submarine, and the essential tool to hunting them, too.  Batteries are electrical power devices, and those on NS BP-4 999 have a sophisticated control system - and Penn State was publicly acknowledged to be involved in its development as well.  Anybody want to bet against that a 'cross-over' or technology transfer of some kind might have happened there ?  I have no inside info on this - I'm just sayin', that's all. 

- Paul North.

[creepycrank]

Creepcrank says: Brookville Equipment says its"1080 standard truck batteries are wired in 20 parallel strings" I stand by my story, now where is Ed Benton when we need him.

[tree68]

That's 648 volts per string (at 12 volts per individual battery).  It would be as much as 745 volts at a full charge of 13.8 volts.

One truck battery I randomly picked out (presumably relatively typical) listed a rating of 100 AH (amp hours) and 1090 CCA (cold cranking amps).

I'm thinking that the configuration given will yield 2000 amp hours, which would translate to about two hours at full load (assuming 1000 amps as full load).  Obviously lesser loadings would yield longer run times.

I'll gladly stand corrected.

As for the maintenance issue - the battery I randomly picked happened to be sealed - no maintenance as such.

Given the stated proof-of-concept design of this locomotive, I'm still certain that if it works, more advanced battery systems will be brought into play.

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

That's pretty good 'close reading', creepycrank.  But I'm speaking not only about this specific locomotive, but also future similar ones, which as well could easily utilize better batteries.

But even truck batteries come in 'sealed' / AGM = 'Absorbed Glass Mat' versions that won't spill or leak, and can take a lot of this kind of loading.  As just one example, see -

http://www.odysseyfactory.com/hdbenefits.html 

If you click on the 'Specifications' link, you'll see that there are some powerful 12-volt batteries there.  The 'top of the line' / bottom of the page model is good for 114 Amp-hours over a 10-hour discharge period, which is a continuous current of about 11 Amps.  At 25 Amps, it's good for 240 minutes = 4 hrs., probably 100+ amps for a 1-hour continuous rating. 

I can readily believe the '20 parallel strings' part, too - that would be 54 batteries in series in each string x 12 volts each = 648, say 650 volts for the 600 volt motors.  Since there are 4 motors, that would be 5 strings for each motor.  For the 4-hour rating, that would be 125 Amps for each motor = 500 Amps for the whole locomotive, which is not bad.  At 2 hours, that would be around 1,000 Amps, which is getting near the red-line limits.  So it shouldn't have any problem going all-out pushing up around Horseshoe Curve - or on the other assignments, which will have a lot of time at much lower power outputs in their 'duty cycle'.

- Paul North.

[tree68]

It occurs to me that such a locomotive would be perfect for our tourist operation.  We certainly value the burbling ALCOs and chugging EMDs (as do the fans), but our duty cycle for the day only includes about 4.5 hours of actual running (1.25 hours for each trip plus runarounds and other station work). 

On top of that, we're in the mountains and run up and down the same stretches of tracks.  Not much is level, so we're always either climbing or decending, including some lengthy stretches of .5 to 1%+ grades - dynamics territory now, certainly recharging territory for one of these. 

Speeds are generally in the 20-25 mph range with 4 passenger cars in tow. 

[Anonymous]

It will be very interesting to see how this locomotive works out.  I hope we will be quickly informed of the technical details of the locomotive and its performance during testing.  I am somewhat skeptical only because this is publicly funded, and all wrapped up in the green, sustainability movement, which I have observed to contain a lot of symbolism over substance. 

 

One thing to consider is that it is possible that this new locomotive will usher in a new era of motive power that will actually be more expensive to operate, and therefore drive up the consumer cost of transportation.  It might be the price of sustainability.  Greenness and cost reduction do not necessarily go hand in hand.  Often they are mutually exclusive.  The payoff for greenness and sustainability is in saving the planet from destruction.  If it happens to reduce operating costs from higher efficiency, so much the better, but in many cases sustainability raises the overall cost of a product.  The extra cost is the price of saving the planet.  Furthermore, these green advances are prone to become legally mandated because they otherwise would not be embraced due to the higher cost.

 

If this new locomotive promised to lower the cost of rail transport, I would be amazed if every major railroad and locomotive builder were not investing in it.  If it were some exotic new proprietary technology that could reduce costs, I would not be surprised to see it being held by just one developer.  But a battery-powered locomotive is an old concept, so I would be surprised to see it suddenly take off as a locomotive having a lower operating/life-cycle cost.  That could be the case if there were a major breakthrough in battery technology.  A lot of potential battery power applications are waiting for a better battery.  Perhaps that day will arrive, and the R&D work with the NS 999 will pave the way for a truly cost effective battery locomotive.

 

Interestingly, the news of this new locomotive could fit well into our recent thread about the recapture of dynamic brake energy from diesel-electric locomotives.  That indeed seems to be the core of improvement embodied in the NS 999.  And maybe that core, coupled with new technology in the control systems could have solid merit in the pursuit of a more cost effective locomotive. 

 

As has been mentioned here and on other forums, the dynamic brake functionality of the NS 999 is liable to be quite different from that of conventional diesel-electrics.  With the latter, the purpose is to achieve better braking performance.  With the NS 999, the purpose is to capture as much braking energy as possible.  Moreover, the braking performance objective of conventional dynamic braking would not have much application in yard service.  So the dynamic braking objective with the NS 999 should be to capture as much dynamic brake energy as possible all the way down to dead stop, and this should be the primary braking, unlike conventional dynamic braking.

 

The problem with this objective is that dynamic braking force falls off as motor speed drops.  Theoretically, dynamic braking could not actually stop the locomotive.  All it can do is slow the locomotive down to some degree.  From that point, bringing the locomotive to dead stop would need to be accomplished either by rolling resistance or by air brakes.  I don’t know what is needed to maximize the dynamic brake regeneration at the slowest possible travel speeds.  One way to accomplish this would be to use higher speed motors and gear them down farther.  The point would be to have the motors turning fast enough at say five mph and slower, to generate enough power to act as brakes if that power load were used to charge the batteries.  But I am guessing that NS 999 uses conventional traction motors and gearing, so maybe there is another way to extend the dynamic braking to near stop of the locomotive travel for the objective of recapturing as much energy as possible. 

 

 

[oltmannd]

Bucyrus

The problem with this objective is that dynamic braking force falls off as motor speed drops.  Theoretically, dynamic braking could not actually stop the locomotive.

Correct, but most of the problem is the resistance of the grids. For extended range DB, you shunt the grids and get full braking to a lower speed. Recharging batteries would have a lower limit based in the internal resistance of the batteries themselves. I would imagine that is lower than that of the DB grids, so you should be able to regulate full braking down to really low speeds. You'd still need some sort of automatic DB/air blended braking to get all the way to stop. Such systems have been around a long time. SEPTAs SIlverliner IV cars have had it for 30+ years, for example.

[creepycrank]

I still think that NS et al are missing a great propaganda opportunity on the battery recharging side. My suggestion is to find a steam tractor with a drum type PTO to drive a generator for recharging. They could burn waste paper from the office and broken pallets and other waste from the loading dock (recycling) and use wood for the main fuel ( bio-fuel) - all renewable energy sources.

[oltmannd]

...you have not been through the power plant at Juniata. A steam tractor would be too new.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

  . . .except that now it has a brand new smokestack . . .

Actually, that's one aspect of this critter that hasn't been explored much.  A few posts above I noted that recharging it at commercial electric rates would be roughly the equivalent of diesel fuel at $1.00 per gallon.  But if you look at the 'wholesale rates' on the PJM grid in the middle of the night, they get really, really, cheap . . . maybe down around the equivalent of 25 cents per gallon, because both the electric grid system's load and demand then is at daily minimums, and they have to do something with the power that is being generated by the 'spinning reserve' of the thermal = coal and nuclear power plants, and maybe the wind turbines, too.  Even adding some 'mark-up' for the power company, it would be well worthwhile to plug-in NS 999 through a glorified timer and metering set-up so that it starts recharging at - say, 10:00 PM, through to and finishes by 6:00 AM each night.  It could then head and and work all day, and repeat the next night.  Depending on how much it saves that way - I haven't run any numbers yet - it might even be able to entirely pay for the inevitable battery replacements after a couple hundred deep discharge-recharge cycles, etc.

Oh yeah - I see that I busted my math on the battery and motor amps calculation a few posts above - the 1,000 Amps range as a max. short-term current load is for each motor, not the locomotive as a whole. 

Using that figure as a guide, then, each traction motor would be using 600 Volts x 1,000 Amps = 600 KW / 0.746 KW per HP = 804 HP - call it 800 HP per motor. 

For a 4-axle unit such as this one, that's about 3,200 HP altogether short-term; for a 6-axle, that would be 4,800 HP, which is of course slightly more than the usual 4,400 HP that they're rated at. 

For this unit, again figuring 5 of the battery strings per motor, each string putting out 100 Amps - which is about the batteries' 1-hour rating, as I figure it, as above  - by proportion each motor will get 500 Amps and produce 400 HP, which is comfortably within the motors' usual continuous rating.  So the whole unit would be good for about 1,600 HP or 1,200 KW power output, so its rating of either 1,500 or 1,350 HP - printed versions vary on that - is a little on the conservative side, or maybe just reflects slightly less capable batteries.

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

creepycrank

[snip] I wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors. I sounds like they used car batteries and the must have made some SEARS die-hard battery guy's day. They've been running fork lift trucks forever on large, deep cycle batteries for ever and I remember what a nuisance they could be.  [snip]

Well, here's one large truck battery of the type I was referring to - looks like it's sealed, so no water levels to check or maintenance of that sort: 

http://www.batterystore.com/Odyssey/PC2250.htm and

http://www.batterystore.com/Odyssey/OdysseyProducts.htm

2250 cranking amps

1225 cold cranking amps 

240 minute reserve capacity at 25 amp load

Capacity/20 Hour: 126.0Ah

List price per that website is $408.39 ea., so 1,080 of them would be $441,000 at retail.  Note that I've seen posts which claim Odyssey is the actual manufacturer of the Sears 'Die-Hard' line of batteries, but I don't have enough other info to be able to confirm or refute that either way. 

I don't know how that compares to the cost of brand-new 1,350 or 1,500 HP diesel engine prime mover, but I suspect that they're not all that far apart -= maybe $100,000 or so one way or the other.

One problem with the battery locomotive that I have to concede is that once it uses up that charge, it's done for the day - until it gets back to the shop and gets charged up again overnight.  At the 25 Amps output for 4 hrs. above, the 5 strings feeding each motor [20 strings total] would be 125 Amps x 600 volts = 75,000 watts / 746 = 100 HP.  So it could run on low-power - the equivalent of about 400 HP output total for the entire locomotive* - for about 4 hours, or 800 HP for 2 hrs., or 1,600 HP for 1 hr., etc.

*As Bucyrus noted - and John W. Barriger, III and former Trains editor David P. Morgan before him - traditional electric locomotives might more properly be called ''electro-motives''.  That's because their power supply is not integral to them, and they are not self-sufficient as are diesels - at least until the next refueling is needed.  Instead, the electric locomotives are dependent on the 'umbilical cord' of either a catenary or 3rd rail to connect them to an independent 'outside' power supply to be able to move at all.  Here, however, the NS BP-4 999 appears to be capable of moving self-propelled at least for several hours unassisted and unconnected to anything else, and so would not be subject to that naming or designation issue.

However, in such intensive use - without any further improvement in the state-of-the-art of the technology - if NS needed a longer 'duty cycle' and higher HP output or more availability than this, then NS would simply have to purchase more units to cover or protect its forecasted needs.  The higher capital cost for those additional units is of course a concern and a weakness of this approach. 

A quick calculation is that if such a unit - on more of a mass-production basis - would cost around $1 million each, the ownership/ capital recovery costs would be on the order of $200 to $335 per day at 6 % interest over 30 years.  For comparison, an SW1500 at 1,500 HP will burn 92.7 gals. of fuel per hour at 100  % output, per the table of 'Locomotive Fuel Use' in Al Krug's ''Railroad Facts and Figures'' webpage at: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm   So the battery-electric locomotive would save - at $3.00/ gal. for 92.7 gals. = $278 per day in fuel costs.  Subtract the cost of the replacement electricity to recharge it  - 1,600 HP X 0.746 KW/ HP = 1,187 KW for 1 hr. at 8 cents / KWHR. = $95, for a net savings of $278 - $95 =  $183 per day.  So buying more units to cover the 'down' and recharging time might make economic sense, depending on the relative costs of the units, diesel fuel, electricity, etc.  Note: ''Your Mileage May Vary.''

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

oltmannd

...you have not been through the power plant at Juniata. A steam tractor would be too new.

For those who may be curious or interested in the details of the Juniata Back Shops' power plant, see ''The Juniata Shop Power Plant'' - about 1 page - at:

http://www.altoonaworks.info/powerplant.html 

From it: '' . . . two Westinghouse 1875kw steam turbines capable of producing 90,000kw of electricity each 24 hour period . . .''

- Paul North.

[richg1998]

 With all the charging that will be needed with battery operated locos, cars, etc, for sure, we will need more coal fired power plants.

Rich

[carnej1]

richg1998

 With all the charging that will be needed with battery operated locos, cars, etc, for sure, we will need more coal fired power plants.

Rich

..and we'll be lucky if they permit even new Natural Gas fired plants...