Alternative Fuel and Hybrids, Is This Even Possible?

[Anonymous]

This may sound like a stupid question, but considering the current "oil crisis" that looks like it will probably be here to stay, is there any research into the use of alternative fuels? There is of course electric locomotives now, which run on power that more than likely comes from a fossil-fuel powered plant. I know that a hybrid probably wouldn't be efficient for use since you constantly have to have the generators running and could never let electric power take over. There has also been the talk about hydrogen fuel cells for cars, is there anyway they could be used on a large enough scale for locomotives. For some of you this all may sound a bit silly and I should probably do a bit more of my own research and know more of the technical information, but I was just curious if anything had been mentioned or if there was anything out there, nothing too "deep" but just any information.

[DSchmitt]

Regarding hybrids see this link:

http://www.railindustry.com/coverage/2002/2002g02a.html

[Anonymous]

Wow, that was really interesting. Guess it can be done! Thanks for the link.

[Overmod]

Hybrids are easily possible -- in fact, some of the early diesel-electric locomotive designers assumed there 'had' to be a battery bank between the generator and motors to simplify controls and lower the instantaneous loads on the engine.

The principal difficulty, I think, is the very large capital cost of the energy storage at locomotive horsepowers. Even at present diesel-fuel costs, you can buy a lot of ton-miles for the cost of a battery sufficiently large to be meaningful on a modern road consist. Let alone a proper supercapacitor bank -- these devices have a low effective breakdown voltage and hence must be combined massively in both series and parallel for locomotive work.

There has been, and is, extensive research into alternative fuel use. The current rail infrastructure is heavily geared toward single-fuel provision (diesel), with any adjustment of fuel quality for winter operation, altitude, etc. being provided for the 'plant' as a whole. Any time you have a second fuel involved, costs and confusion go up. I dimly remember attempts to use fuels like propane in some areas, including some part of the LA air-quality district IIRC. The lower energy density of the fuel makes this less practical.

I assume you all know that the Green Goat is technically a hybrid, although the amount of traction power from its engine is intentionally very small. The company that developed it is working on large locomotives to run on natural gas. Unfortunately, this is NOT a fuel that should be used extensively in rail transportation -- there's competition in home heating, industry, peak-power generation etc. that would almost certainly run up prices, restrict supply, etc. on a regular basis, and we do not need yet more demand on the shrinking effective sources of supply.

To some extent, the UT flywheel transmission for the NRA non-electric locomotive project has uses as a 'hybrid' device not involving large and heavy energy storage. However, the principal purpose of this device isn't sustained power; it's to provide short-term high-current 'peaks' for high-speed passenger operation similar to that on the "new" TGV lines in France, which have very high maximum gradients. At 180+mph, no grade is "long" in terms of time, but very high power is required to go up 8 to 10% grades at that speed. Even 25kV overhead gets stressed a bit. To do this with a self-contained locomotive would require a VERY large engine, which would then be wasteful at all times other than peak. So it makes sense, technically, to use an energy-storage device with high peak release rate, low effective internal resistance, controllable back EMF, etc. etc. (The people at UT have calculated the out-of-plane gyroscopic forces on the carbody and track, and the static mass of the flywheel system is not very great, btw)

What would make you think that a hybrid can't take power from external electric supply? That's not eminently practical for automobiles, for a variety of reasons, but certainly is for trams or transit buses. I remember a couple of proposals in the 1970s for flywheel-electric transit buses that would be 'recharged' at stops by connecting to some form of isolated chargers (such as short stretches of overhead supply and return), but would not require wire between those points. A comparatively small genset could be provided to keep the flywheel spun up for larger distances between 'recharges'. There aren't many situations in practical American railroading where this kind of profile is present AND operation isn't already subsidized (e.g., commuter districts) but there's no objective reason why large locomotives couldn't receive some of their traction power from an external source. Modern synthesized AC drive can solve many of the problems encountered in the past when trying to run this way -- flaming NH locomotives, anyone? -- but (somewhat evidently) a compelling case for lower overall running cost hasn't yet been made.

Also: Hydrogen isn't really a 'fuel' -- it's more of an 'energy carrier' used for convenience. The overall 'net' energy balance for its use is generally negative, in the sense that it takes more energy to provide the fuel than you get back by burning it. A direct implication is that some form of Government mandate, for example more stringent emission profiles than those in EPA Tier II, would be needed to more or less compel adoption of this more expensive technology. I also suspect that the number of PEM or SO cells needed to provide meaningful traction power would be amazingly expensive, and most of the currently-developed approaches and technologies are remarkably sensitive to indifferent operating conditions or maintenance. (I feel very strongly that hydrogen in quantities required for 'diesel-equivalent' fuel storage is a massive public danger, but that's not a strictly technical argument; locomotives are less hampered than other forms of land transportation in their ability to 'carry' large cryogenic or hydride storage tankage)

[Anonymous]

Also, Morrison Knudsen came up with compressed natural gas powered MK1200G switch engine

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

Wow, that was really interesting. Guess it can be done! Thanks for the link.

I have no knowledge of how practicle the Green Goat really is, and have no opinion.

A railroad employee visiting a hobby shop (he's a regular customer) near a major yard where it was being tested remarked that the Green Goat and a diesel switcher would do the the work of one diesel switcher. He definately was not impressed by it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

Wow, that was really interesting. Guess it can be done! Thanks for the link.

I have no knowledge of how practicle the Green Goat really is, and have no opinion.

A railroad employee visiting a hobby shop (he's a regular customer) near a major yard where it was being tested remarked that the Green Goat and a diesel switcher would do the the work of one diesel switcher. He definately was not impressed by it.

The green goats performance is really that poor? [B)]

[Anonymous]

It may not be very powerful, but you have to walk before you can run. I suppose with more research this could become more efficient, but until then...

Thanks for the technical stuff Overmod. Glad someone could explain it. I'm trying to learn[:D]

[Anonymous]

I'm disappointed to hear a negative remark about the green goat. One concern I have is in cost comparisons, Railpower didn't include maintaining a fleet of large batteries. Batteries have some pretty toxic stuff in them that require special handling.

Also, Railpower suggests that in the future a hydrogen fuel cell could replace the small diesel generator charging the batteries. This is not a large stretch of imagination, because fuel cells currently have small output and by design or operation are not variable in their output - a small constant output fits the bill for battery charging.

A common misconception about hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen is for combustion. Fuel cells cycle hydrogen molecules through a matrix to generate electricity.

A switcher has loads of short duration, what about a road locomotive with constant demand and high loads?

[Overmod]

Ahem... the hydrogen in fuel cells IS for "combustion" -- it winds up oxidized as H20. What I think you meant is that the hydrogen isn't used thermally, as in a conventional heat engine, but rather to produce electricity directly. Some of the methods that fuel cells use to do that are interesting and ingenious.

It is not at all a stretch for Railpower to envision a fuel cell replacing their rather small genset. Cost, and hydrogen-fuel logistics, are the principal difficulty. It's hard to beat using a small Cummins genset, even if bought new. I've been surprised lo these many years that none of the railroads that built slugs considered using a large battery bank (e.g. using cells from retired passenger diesels) and a small diesel engine and generator. Guess it was simpler just to run a couple of power cables from a second locomotive...

The thing about a road locomotive is that it wouldn't really benefit from large battery/small service charging in most applications. You'd need a much larger engine/generator to handle the sustained power loadings -- and cycling the cost-effective designs of battery heavily isn't a particularly good idea. There are a variety of different approaches to energy-storage and recuperative drives and transmissions, including the Karman hydraulic approach; most designs of battery banks aren't really well suited here because their charging rates are limited by chemical kinetics and temperature. One of the reasons to use a supercapacitor bank WITH batteries on a locomotive is to 'buffer' high currents and then 'temper' the output to make it palatable to cost-effective electrochemical (i.e. battery) storage.

[rvos1979]

Don't forget about biodiesel, although in its infancy, still could be useable, also is great for lowering emissions and lubrication (1% biodiesel mixed in with todays low sulfur (AKA Highway) diesel regains 50% of the lubricity found in high-sulfur (off-road) diesel)

Big thing is just getting enough plants online in order to lower the cost, it's quite a bit more expensive than regular diesel.

Randy Vos
WSOR Engineer

[Junctionfan]

You should treat say an AC4400CW like a rocket. If you want to wain it from diesel you need to give it a strong alternative like liquid oxygen, rocket fuel or solid fuel (missle fuel). Batteries would most likely number too many to power a 4400 hp beast across the Rocky Mountains. I wish scientist would hurry up with cold-fusion. That would most definately work.

[daveklepper]

Hybrid buses seem to be operating successfully on several transit properties include nearly every Swiss city (supplementing their tram systems), New Jersey Transit, and the New York City TA. This is the first I have heard of any trouble with the Green Goat. The idea should be practical and should be applicable for commuter service as well. Long distance and mountain railroading, no, since much larger battery capacities would be required. Of course, years ago the New York Central had three power locomotives at work on freight service on Manhattan's West Side. They were dc third-rail electric, oil-electric (like diesel electric) and battery. They lasted up to freight dieselization.

[jchnhtfd]

The Green Goat -- and, on a smaller scale, such cars as the Honda Civic Hybrid (I own one), Toyota Prius, etc. work very well indeed, and have very real advantages -- when they are in the environment for which they were intended: coping with loads which vary sharply with time, such as stop and go traffic, switching cars, and so on. They really don't show much, if any, improvement over a 'normal' vehicle when used in more or less constant power service, such as uncrowded open road driving or -- on the railroad scene -- mainline operations. Why? The advantage of the hybrid is that one can use an engine running under very optimised conditions to charge a battery when power demand is low, and then use the power in the battery (plus the engine) when power demand is high -- the engine is always running at or near its best operating point. In constant power service, the designer of the locomotive or car or truck simply optimises the engine for that particular power range -- such as hauling a freight train at 59 mph -- and you wind up with a system over which a hybrid has no advantage.

Used appropriately, hybrids are great and well proven. Used inappropriately, like anything else they aren't much better than 'standard' technology. The bottom line? Use the right tool for the job and you'll do a better job. If you use the wrong tool, don't complain when it doesn't work as well as you want it to.

[Anonymous]

Didn't the UP try a CNG test with a couple of road locos sandwiching a tank car fuel tender????

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

Didn't the UP try a CNG test with a couple of road locos sandwiching a tank car fuel tender????

They did; so, I think, did BNSF. They ran well and cost too much money...[:)]

[Overmod]

Junctionfan, high-energy oxidizers aren't necessary (or even remotely economical) in current railroad service. High "specific impulse" might have been useful on Mr. Perlman's modified M-181 RDC (;-}) but not on units going across the Rocky Mountains.

Detonation-range ignition or brazent speeds are not particularly desirable in either piston engines or turbines (think 'knock' -- the grandmother of all engine knocks!). You might be able to adapt a PDW engine as a gas generator for some weird combined-cycle locomotive plant... but the noise would make a UP turbine sound like one of those white-noise sleep machines.

Oddly enough, you may see purified oxygen (either cryogenic or derived from diffusion filters) in solid-fuel power (specifically locomotives derived from the US DOE 'clean coal' technology) before you see it applied to oil-burning locomotives...

Cold fusion is a scam, and definitively revealed as such a while back (perhaps UNLV should stick to basketball... oops, some trouble there, too...) I even had one of my high-school tutorees demonstrate how impossible it was, as described, by calculating the necessary neutron flux released by the observed "4 watts" of energy supposedly generated in the desktop-fusion event.

Catalysis is an interesting science, but you'll find that the physical phenomena involved are in the range of electronic bonding, NOT nuclear. I've seen some interesting research that indicates that nanoscale magnetic effects from modern materials may be able to "catalyze" the required kinetics to induce some nuclear fusion in susceptible elements... but I doubt this would produce the kind of flux needed to generate locomotive horsepower (which is energy x time as discussed in another post on this forum).

Even if it did, I would NOT want to be anywhere near the thing -- look up the characteristics of radiation from, say, a D-D reaction, and tell me what the shielding requirements would have to be. (Regardless of how the reactants were combined, the post-fusion energy release is driven by inherent nuclear physics: a 'cold-fused' MeV is no different from one from a tokamak... or, for that matter, from a hydrogen bomb using the same isotopes...)

Best to stick with good heat-engine fuels for heat engines... at least on the rails.

[Junctionfan]

What about using the Mag Lev technology for the North East Corridor? Also what about using ethanol or methanol as fuel? After reading Overmod's comments on my previous post, I have to agree. Wouldn't suck if it broke down or got into an accident-a six axle nuclear weapon...YEAHHHHHH! As far as cold fusion is concerned, I would remind folk that the so called farce of Star Trek transporter has been proven to be possible. Scientist beam a photon to from one place to another. Just because we are not advanced enough to figure how to do it, doesn't always mean that it can't be done. It may take a while but consider in 100 years we went from basic technology to advance cybernetics, space exploration, laser surgery, the chunnel, etc.

[Overmod]

Hold on a moment! Tunneling a photon is a VERY different thing from dissassembling a human (or Vulcan), beaming all the information across a very specific region of spacetime, and reassembling everything, exactly phase-coherent, in exactly the 3-space necessary. This is like saying that because researchers have essentially reduced a photon's speed to zero that it's possible to build stasis boxes to keep food, genetic experiments, Tnuctipun, etc. etc. indefinitely. Or make slow glass a la Light of Other Days.

Maglev for the NEC would be amazingly, terrifyingly expensive. Not quite on the order of the vacuum subway (which would have required everyone in LA to commute to NY, and everyone in NY to commute to LA, every day at full fare, to pay the cost) but still very high. Do not forget that maglev isn't a particularly well-advanced freight technology. Some of the economics have changed dramatically for the better (e.g., cheap magnetic cryogenic refrigerators can make the train suspension and propulsion cost-effective to operate) but there simply isn't enough pax traffic to justify the required investment in infrastructure... even in the Corridor.

On the other hand, if it got financed, I would support it. So there!

Ethanol is a farm-support dodge. Methanol is another story -- it has promise both as an internal-combustion fuel and as a feedstock for 'reformation' to use in fuel cells. Unfortunately, it's poisonous as hell, corrosive to a number of commonly-found materials, and has a high heat absorbance when carbureted (meaning it requires extensive heat to vaporize it to where it will burn well). It also has lower heat content than a fuel like #2 diesel, the 'flip side' of its composition (it is the liquid fuel with the lowest carbon content).
To top things off, its main commercial source feedstock is natural gas, which is in demand for too many other applications.

Its drawbacks matter less in railroad service than in most other potential applications, but I think it would require a much more 'secure' method of fueling locomotives, and dealing with vapors, leaks, engine-room ventilation, etc. -- these costs alone might outweigh the environmental "savings".


With respect to going from basic to advanced tech, one might observe that 'advanced' tech is not necessarily profitable tech. Ask any stockholder in the chunnel company...

[Junctionfan]

Technological advances lead to profit. It is more profitable for technologies like the invention of diesels, CTC, EOT's and other items. I'm sure someone at some point probably said the same thing about computers.

As far as transporting the human body; it is not inconcievable to do that in say likely with in the next several hundred to 1 thousand years. The fact that some one has maped out the human DNA is a start in programing the computer into disassembling a human being and rebuilding the person back. Their are several major problems with this right now because all though we have made advancements, it is no where near the state of taking on such a massive technology. In order to do this, the computer must be able to store our body in decompiled form somewhere plus it needs to know how to go about putting together that person without killing them or getting someone to become like THE FLY. The hard drive and memory would likely take up the entire earth service at this time. How do you keep the personality intact during such a transport? They have done it with a photon but how do you convert energy into living matter. The answers lie in that the whole universe is made of photons, electrons and neutrons in such a precise manners it can turn inorganic to organic and visa versa. We are too pitiful in scientific advancement that of course sceptasm is there.

[Overmod]

tom, this would make an excellent thread all by itself.

Personally, I don't think there is any one 'technological' magic bullet that's capable of giving you that quantum drop. Note that while the effect of alternative fuels may be positive in the future, when conventional oil fuel is pricier or less available, this is irrelevant to present operation -- subtract the cost of fuel entirely from OC and you'll only see about a 5% reduction (I invite anyone to use an exact percentage based on current numbers!). We've just lived through a period with sustained low interest/cost of capital rates, but haven't seen any meaningful investment in innovative locomotive technology for road service.

Part of the issue is that the business of actually moving goods for a purpose isn't that amenable to 'cheapening' in the ways that technology can make possible. It might, therefore, be better to ask if there is anything that could result in a quantum rise in the effectiveness of moving goods over land, or in satisfaction of shippers or customers with the service provided -- and in their willingness to provide more in profits than cost-cutting would otherwise yield.

I am assuming that no technology better than a somewhat improved metal-wheel-on-metal-rail one will give a more effective mix of speed, loading, and low energy requirements. Some of the potential "improvement" areas might be classed as follows:

Cheaper or more capable/flexible motive power (including locomotives with cheaper fuel, or which can exert high sustained 'overload' power economically on demand; in both cases these are well-established characteristics of external-combustion locomotives)

The ability to marshal and run longer trains, quickly enough to keep scheduling and community 'disturbance' at present levels or better -- this allows a given crew working a given number of hours to move more paying freight.

The ability to run trains quicker end-to-end -- this gives a possibility of better equipment utilization, more ton-miles per day to be billed, more effective scheduling or faster service (note these are two different things, see below) and better use of crew hours, at the cost of additional maintenance cost and fuel consumption.

Different technologies for track maintenance -- superlattice coatings and self-healing substrate layers for eliminating martensitic cracking and propagation and preserving precise geometry in the railhead, for example, and semi-continuous track-geometry assessment and 'magic wear rate' implementation. Some subsidy for the R&D and equipment/training first cost would be essential, since no one railroad would undertake paying for all the experimentation instead of 'jumping on the bandwagon' of success once proven.

Better or quicker handling of containers or car distribution at stops and terminals. I had a system in the '70s which could drop and load a 60-car container train in less than 5 minutes, with relatively cheap trackside installations. Modern tech makes this still more capable. This is just as important for modern 'peddler' trains (say, a version of John Kneiling's distributed-power container underframes, making local stops on a commuter-train-like schedule, able to haul a few conventional railcars when necessary).

Lower and optional rates to provide backhaul loadings -- perhaps following some of the traffic models developed for last-minute filling of airline seats.

Extension of PTC to semiautomatic train operation, thereby reducing crew size. I personally don't like the idea of this, but it does have to be said that the fastest way to eliminate problems with 8-hour crew laws is not to require that the crew be 'in the field' on the train... and there is little need for pair driving of trains that are all being attended remotely from central facilities (has the potential advantage that a given engineer could walk upstairs in JAX and sock a whiz-kid dispatcher if the latter screws him up too often ;-})

Beyond double-stack trains, you might be able to gain some additional effectiveness with wide-gauge specialized main lines (remember 'the case for the double-track train' in Trains in the '70s? We need more articles like that, Mark...) but the logistics of getting containers on and off these trains might be sufficiently overcomplicated that the transit economics don't produce meaningful service improvements. (Note that there is no way, fancy computers or otherwise, that it's more effective to use crane movements 'both ways' to strip and stuff containers on a ship at the same time... you pull everything first, then 'switch mode' and stuff. Presumably this would be true in multimodal yards, too)

Better signaling/dispatching, ideally using intelligent software agents to assess possibilities, handle multiple routings under stress or uncertainty, etc. This is NOT the same thing as computer-coding a college-boy "dispatcher", but rather attempting to replicate wisdom, common sense, Mark's described 'picture in the head', etc. using the advantages of distributed robust computing. Before you start laughing at me, one of the hospitals in Boston implemented an expert system for heart-attack diagnosis in their emergency room. When tested, the system caught 100% of the cases the attendings did... and also caught a couple they *didn't* -- without a significantly higher false-positive rate. A professor at one of our local universities has developed a program for the Navy that mimics a 'detailer'; this seems easy until you realize that the program has to work with many people who aren't particularly literate, let alone computer-literate, and be convincingly human to them... Seems to me that you could develop a wise, patient, and friendly 'dispatcher' who would be knowledgeable of its limitations and humble in the face of better immediate knowledge by others...

One point about many, many freight moves (as illustrated by the ex-dispatch manager for Consolidated Freightways) is that JIT or kanban manufacturing ISN'T about getting freight from point A to point B fastest, it's about getting it there PRECISELY when expected. Where the higher speed then comes in (in some forms of car rallying) is in providing some 'slack' in the schedule to overcome inevitable Murphy/Finagle delays, or other uncertainties. (It does help, of course, that the overall trip time can be shorter, or that 'emergency' orders arrive ASAP). But it also means that precisely-timed slower services are just as competitive as other modes, once salesmen understand what's really important...

I don't think there are going to be major revolutions in train handling comparable to, say, the replacement of high-maintenance steam with diesels in the '40s and '50s. All the cheap ways are fully leveraged by now. What I think may be important is the synergistic application of as many incremental 'betterings' as possible, and in the improvement of overall operating morale. Who was the management guy who stressed 'execution' over complicated planning and Too Much Analysis?

To the extent that infrastructure improvements can benefit overall effectiveness or cost reduction -- it's valuable to arrange for public or private subsidy of some of these costs, even if only done to 'sterilize risk' (and subsequently repaid, like the loan to Chrysler and, perhaps, the funds for Conrail). Remember Baldwin and his creditors? Imagine if they had foreclosed on him, or worse, if he hadn't been able to get funding afterward. To a large extent, that's where we are with a wide range of possible technologies... see the recent FRA 'letter to the administrator' for an interesting range of views.

I look forward to see what other people might believe and propose.

[rvos1979]

Originally posted by Overmod
Extension of PTC to semiautomatic train operation, thereby reducing crew size. I personally don't like the idea of this, but it does have to be said that the fastest way to eliminate problems with 8-hour crew laws is not to require that the crew be 'in the field' on the train... and there is little need for pair driving of trains that are all being attended remotely from central facilities (has the potential advantage that a given engineer could walk upstairs in JAX and sock a whiz-kid dispatcher if the latter screws him up too often ;-})

I think dispatchers would wind up in the hospital way too often.[swg]

Randy Vos

Randy Vos

"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings

"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV

• Reply