I know that Tesla Motors has created a car that can run 300 miles on a single full charge, but have rail-related companies been able to develop, let alone look into, battery operated locomotives that, with the same technology Tesla Motors uses, could power a train for a lengthy distance, say, the route of the IAIS from Blue Island to Council Bluffs?
I would surmise that the cost of the batteries alone would be prohibitive. And the charging time needed would make the unit not very productive.
Maybe for a light-rail application, or a trolley, but not for hauling tonnage.
Unless it was downhill both ways.
zardoz I would surmise that the cost of the batteries alone would be prohibitive. And the charging time needed would make the unit not very productive.
And then a crew will probably run over the cord.
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
Not exactly. It is technically possible to build a storage-battery locomotive, and a number of them have been built. In the very olden days, the battery was used as a 'buffer' to reduce some of the control issues with motor-electric locomotives. Perhaps the most interesting use was the 'tri-power' setup used on a couple of Eastern roads in the 1920s (third rail, motor-electric, and battery). In England, but there are problems in railroad service that are more extreme than found in roadgoing BEVs.
First, a straight BEV locomotive would involve enormous capital cost for the required energy density. To get to required voltage and amperage for traction motors involves large serial AND parallel strings of cells, and this runs the cost of the overall battery up tremendously. Some means of configuring around 'open' cells, as the battery ages, must be considered. The draw must be carefully regulated, as overcurrent damages most cost-effective battery structures and chemistries. Range... well, it should tell you something that current battery-electric designs are intended for relatively short-range yard service.
Then there is the problem of peak charging current in regeneration. This is one of the things that killed the original Green Goat system. The inertia of a train is much greater than that of even the heaviest trucks, and this results in very high peak currents if dynamic braking is not carefully excited -- and high peak charging currents for an acceptable 'average' even when it is. Sulfation and other problems result with large numbers of chemical 'cycles' between charge and discharge. (Some of this was addressed in the design of Norfolk Southern's 999.) Reading between the lines, somebody failed miserably to understand exactly what is involved with flat switching -- it's often actually the opposite of what you might expect, kicking cars up to high speed quickly and then using high levels of braking.
The 'best' solution for battery-electric, here as well as in road vehicles, is some sort of hybrid solution, where there is some generating capacity in parallel with a large traction battery . As I mentioned, the Comsol company has a good description of GE battery design for their hybrid road locomotive -- it's on a 'free' DVD you can request that shows how various kinds of CFD and other computer simulations can help with design. (I suspect you would not get a description at all if you were to ask GE directly!)
The modern 'trick' with battery-vehicle control is the use of effective DC-DC conversion to keep voltage high even in relatively deep discharge. This comes with a painful downside (from the standpoint of robust battery structure) because increasing power is required from the battery toward the end of its charge. If you need high peak current low down in the discharge cycle ... as you would in railroad operation over a substantial distance ... your risk of being stranded is very high.
One way to get around the battery charge/discharge rate problem is to use some flavor of quickly-reversible energy storage in the link between the motors/controllers and the battery itself. These include super/ultracapacitors, and flywheel storage (with magnetic bearings, perhaps in a hydrogen atmosphere with the flywheel made insensitive to hydrogen embrittlement), both of which when done right can absorb a significant current and then 'buffer' it out at the rate battery chemistry can accommodate it.
An intermediate stage between BEV and hybrid is the system (used on some Swiss buses) where intermittent electrical contact or induction supplies current to spin up flywheels which are then adequate to get the bus to the next 'charge' location. This method will also work with some battery configurations, the additional weight and bulk not being a substantial negative issue on something the size of a locomotive.
In my opinion, the cost of any effective road-locomotive BEV would be out of all proportion to its value, even in air-quality management districts, and the risk of 'going dead on the road' takes on a whole new ominous meaning. Hybrids, especially hybrid genset locomotives, pose a much more interesting class of solutions...
A data facility I worked at had a 160 KVA (3 phase/408V) uninterruptible power supply (UPS) with a two hour reserve. I wish I could remember how many batteries (more or less standard marine deep cycle) it required. I think there were at least 8 cabinets involved just for the batteries, each holding around 8-10 batteries on each of maybe 4 shelves, for around 250 batteries.
Obviously, a battery operated locomotive would be capable of holding more batteries (at what price?), but someone else can do the calculations as to how long that 160KVA would last flat switching a yard.
Too - the UPS "floated" it's power across the top of those batteries - turning the 3 phase AC into DC, then using an inverter to turn the DC back into AC. If the batteries got sucked down during a power outage, it took a considerable amount of time to get them back up to rated capacity.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Overmod First, a straight BEV locomotive would involve enormous capital cost for the required energy density. To get to required voltage and amperage for traction motors involves large serial AND parallel strings of cells, and this runs the cost of the overall battery up tremendously. Some means of configuring around 'open' cells, as the battery ages, must be considered. The draw must be carefully regulated, as overcurrent damages most cost-effective battery structures and chemistries. Range... well, it should tell you something that current battery-electric designs are intended for relatively short-range yard service. Then there is the problem of peak charging current in regeneration. This is one of the things that killed the original Green Goat system. The inertia of a train is much greater than that of even the heaviest trucks, and this results in very high peak currents if dynamic braking is not carefully excited -- and high peak charging currents for an acceptable 'average' even when it is. Sulfation and other problems result with large numbers of chemical 'cycles' between charge and discharge. (Some of this was addressed in the design of Norfolk Southern's 999.) Reading between the lines, somebody failed miserably to understand exactly what is involved with flat switching -- it's often actually the opposite of what you might expect, kicking cars up to high speed quickly and then using high levels of braking.
No argument from me about the issues of capital cost and energy density. I would also had the problems with limited cycle lifetime, e.g. a battery costing $500/kWhr and having a life of 1,000 charge discharge cycles would cost $0.50 per kWhr on top of the cost of the "raw" electric energy.
Peak charging is a function of battery chemistry, with some of the Lithium technologies capable of very high charging rates as well as discharge rates, though at a possible expense of reducing cycle time. There has been some promising research into technologies that will greatly increase power density (NOT energy density) with some promise of increasing cycle time as well.
I'd bet on ultracapacitors, no moving parts, present specific energy of 4 w-hrs/kg with potential of 40 w-hrs/kg, specific power greater than 1 kW/kg, terminal voltage giving state of charge and 500,000 cycle lifetime. There have been claims that some Lithium batteries can attain a very high cycle life by limiting charge/discharge to 5-10% of battery capacity and keeping the battery around 50% charged.
Or a straight electric with battery back-up. One of the high costs of electrification is improving vertical clearances, it may be cheaper to provide a few minutes of power onboard the locomotives and put dead wires at the low clearance spots.
- Erik
P.S. For what CA is proposing to spend on HSR, I wonder if the same funding could be used to develop short haul electric airliners. Batteries could be kept in underwing pods (think drop tanks) that could be swapped out quickly.
OvermodSulfation and other problems result with large numbers of chemical 'cycles' between charge and discharge. (Some of this was addressed in the design of Norfolk Southern's 999.) Reading between the lines, somebody failed miserably to understand exactly what is involved with flat switching -- it's often actually the opposite of what you might expect, kicking cars up to high speed quickly and then using high levels of braking.
The original poster raised the question in the context of a road locomotive. The #999 was conceived as a yard switcher or possibly limited road switching. It failed to meet expectations. Perhaps the developers underestimated the work of switching, as you suggest.
But if the design engineering were to properly address the work of switching, would a battery powered yard switcher be economically feasible, even though battery powered road locomotives appear to be infeasible?
Some of the newer EMD/GE road power has enough battery power dwell/reserve to get them out the shop doors w/o starting the diesel engines . (IAIS' new locomotive shop outside Cedar Rapids/ Homestead, IA was designed around this concept, no locomotives were to be started or left running in the building - there are no power exhaust fans for diesel fumes in the roof) The units cannot go far on just battery.
Mr. Railman I know that Tesla Motors has created a car that can run 300 miles on a single full charge, but have rail-related companies been able to develop, let alone look into, battery operated locomotives that, with the same technology Tesla Motors uses, could power a train for a lengthy distance, say, the route of the IAIS from Blue Island to Council Bluffs?
There certainly is interest in such an application within the RR industry but implementing such a concept awaits the development of improved batteries or other energy storage systems.
One problem encountered in heavy duty freight railroad situations is that the type of battery which seems to be most promising in other hybrid vehicle applications: Lithium Ion, so far has not stood up well to the tremendous stresses and shock load faced by a freight locomotive in North America, esp. in switching situations.
This is why General Electric is working to develop a different kind of battery technology:Molten salt Batteries.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-11/ge-builds-a-better-battery
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
BucyrusBut if the design engineering were to properly address the work of switching, would a battery powered yard switcher be economically feasible, even though battery powered road locomotives appear to be infeasible?
To me, the big key to 'success' of a strict BEV switcher would involve adjacent quick charging or, as Elon Musk calls it, 'supercharging'/
Simplest way to do this would be with a small pantograph and sections of track energized with appropriate current (rectified to DC if possible, as it does not require rectification on board the switcher). Whenever the 'power meter' starts running low, before you get into deep cycling, you'll go over to a convenient charging point and recharge. Note that this overhead wire and pan are not used for fast running, so they can be very high for clearance of most anything and still work.
Inductive charging would also work, but it's much more expensive than wire and pans, and usually requires close clearances and more 'precise' parking over the recharge spot (probably handled on a production or RCO locomotive with some sort of autolocate feature based on accurate GPS and local beacons). My opinion, without checking facts, is that the effective current coupling you get through this -- and it has to be fairly high-frequency AC to work -- is limited. It would have the advantage that OTS solutions already provide the ability to energize the supply coil ONLY when a receive coil that is not shorted and is properly connected to a properly-working battery is in position over it.
My own opinion is that it's pretty boneheaded to rely solely on plug-in power for a working locomotive; the 'better' approach is to use a sufficiently clean-burning genset (of not very large peak capacity, as you're only using it for baseline and 'emergency hostling'). This would normally be used ONLY to charge the batteries (I believe the Green Goat was set up that way) but could be cut in to move the locomotive if the battery pack were to be disabled, catch fire, etc. and something had to be done ASAP.
I did not say that strict BEV locomotives were infeasible, just that they were not cost-efficient compared to hybrids. You can easily arrange 'real' catenary segments -- the same ones that would be used to capture 'excess' power from properly-equipped diesels -- to keep charge on a reasonable set of locomotives. Same for induction charging -- cost would indicate that only a few points be powered, but the charging coils can be placed in a shallow trough at the service location, and automatically run forward and backward to align with multiple units in a given consist. In my opinion, it makes sense to put these at the ends of sidings, where the train would be stopped anyway and the charging time is essentially 'free'; hybrid locomotives could easily have their engines turned off instead of idle with full assurance of restart even under conditions that might result from high current drain from the battery if no external electrical power were unavailable.
The catch -- as, evidently, with Tesla -- is that stops have to be made more frequently, and probably longer, than you'd really want. On a properly-dispatched railroad, with proper 'just-in-time' scheduling tracking slack time, this would be less of an issue.
Again, in my opinion there is little point in going to the trouble of making a strict BEV plug-in. Automobiles can be made as little beer cans to save mass. There is less than no reason to do that with a freight locomotive, where you need a minimum adhesive weight (and must actually ballast, as Krauss-Maffei and some others had to do, to make proper FA). One of the good arguments for hybrid locomotives is precisely that large battery arrays carry no real 'weight' penalty in service.
I repeat that many of the technical details of GE's battery are in the Comsol paper.
This is also a very suitable place for the old Ford sodium-sulfur battery... now that nanoshield insulation is a commercially-available commodity. No longer difficult or particularly expensive to keep the battery hot enough -- especially when a small 'additional' current drawn at recharge time is specifically allocated to 'hotel' power that brings up the battery temperature buffer.
RME
Overmod,
Thanks for that explanation. By “feasible,” I mean it to generally include the objective of being cost-effective. But then the objective of cost-effectiveness needs to be defined. I am not sure how one defines the cost/benefit if it includes the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions. What value does one place on that objective?
BucyrusBut then the objective of cost-effectiveness needs to be defined. I am not sure how one defines the cost/benefit if it includes the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions. What value does one place on that objective?
Essentially zero. The carbon-emissions from even a large fleet of hybrid genset switchers possessed of the highest practical acceleration (call it 3.5 fpsps) is negligible in terms of actual contribution to anthropogenic global warming. And in my opinion it would be utterly stupid to put cost measures in place to penalize the genset capability, or even the hour-by-hour genset emissions, on some sort of strict carbon-credit hornswoggle.
The value one actually places on any BEV locomotive is (1) political and (2) marketing/promotion related. Cost only enters into it to the extent that incentives, grants, political action, and things of that nature have a distorting effect on cost-effectiveness. Look to agencies like SCAQMD ("you can't spell it without S-C-A-M") to actually 'manage' the economic picture involved here for 'legitimate' reasons, which of course don't involve CO2 in any practical fashion for 'smog reduction.'
On the bright side: adding the plug-in capacity to a hybrid locomotive will involve a much smaller proportion of expense than it does to automobiles or even class 8 trucks. And to the extent that energy costs can be kept lower, particularly if load-factor adjustments can be made by doing more or less switching relevant to overall electricity demand, there may be a compelling case to substitute 'as much' grid power as possible. (But again, I think people are idiots who take off for long distances in a straight BEV without some onboard emergency power. A bit like going anywhere in an older English car without tools and some supplies...)
If I recall correctly, Norfolk Southern and Brookville did build a battery electric locomotive a few years ago with a good bit of fanfare. And then it seemed to vanish.
now, could they build an "FL9 style" battery electric locomotive? Ie, run from Penn or Grand Central with either pantograph or third rail shoes and then switch to battery where the catenary and third rail end?
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
What about a battery tender or battery car? You would have battery tenders placed at recharging stations along the line and the train would switch them at stations along the line....need more power? hook up more battery cars....
North Shore Line had a pair of battery-electrics that drew off the overhead most of the time and switched to battery to work industrial spurs that were not equipped with overhead.
One of my posts disappeared! If this is due to moderation... let me know what's wrong!
I mentioned the old tripower locomotives, and why it made sense to have all three modes in a locomotive doing particular things. Dual-mode with a small amount of energy storage really does most of them 'well enough' -- particularly if the engine runs on some flavor of natural gas, which would make it relatively safe to use inside warehouses or other closed facilities. There were some other points in the post, but I will leave them out (unless it reappears later).
Ah yes, here we go, NS did indeed build such a locomotive called the BP4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altoona_Works_BP4
There was a small group of battery-electric railcars built in the 1920s for Canadian National. They had a range of about 140 miles, and could be recharged overnight. They did not enjoy a long life in that form several being converted to trailers to accompany the much more successful oil-electric cars built by Brill and others. The batteries were suspended under the frame, with coach and baggage sections in the carbody above.
That range was for a relatively lightweight coach. Although a locomotive could use the space in the carbody to carry a lot more batteries, hauling any sort of train up a grade would still drain the batteries quickly. CPR cancelled their green goat program due to that very problem. It is perhaps significant that the concept seems to have been entirely superseded by the gensets. Except for light duty and/or short distances, the available battery technology is not suitable for general railroad use.
John
Overmod BucyrusBut then the objective of cost-effectiveness needs to be defined. I am not sure how one defines the cost/benefit if it includes the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions. What value does one place on that objective? Essentially zero. The carbon-emissions from even a large fleet of hybrid genset switchers possessed of the highest practical acceleration (call it 3.5 fpsps) is negligible in terms of actual contribution to anthropogenic global warming. And in my opinion it would be utterly stupid to put cost measures in place to penalize the genset capability, or even the hour-by-hour genset emissions, on some sort of strict carbon-credit hornswoggle.
I agree on the non-value of reducing CO2 emissions in this case, though reductions in NOx and particulates are nothing to be sneezed at.
Running some numbers for an ultracap/genset switcher:
Design basis assumption (figures rounded a bit to make calculation simpler) - accelerate 750 tons of switcher and cars to 15 MPH in 30 seconds, which requires ~75,000 lbf tractive effort. 75,000x15/375 = 3,000 DBHP, which with inverter and motor losses requires a peak power of about 2.4MW, and average power over the 30 seconds would be 1.2MW. Since 30 seconds is 1/120 hour, the energy used is 10 kW-hr. Maxwell sells ultracaps with a specific energy of 6 W-hr/kg, or 6 kW-hr/kg, figure we use 1/4 of that to keep the inverter bus voltage from dropping too much, so we need 10/1.5 metric tons of ultracaps (7.2 short tons). Extrapolating a bit from the pricing in the Digi-Key catalog, we're looking at $400,000 to $500,000 for the capacitors alone (probably too high, but not an order of magnitude too high).
One selling point is that the acceleration would be available immediately, no waiting for the engine to load. Emissions should be lower as the engine is both producing fewer horsepower hours and is running at closer to a constant output (really important for particulates).
Ultracaps have a few advantages over batteries in this application. These include higher cycle life, no damage from letting sit discharged, improved safety because that capacitors can be fully discharged, rugged construction, directly measurable charge state and high specific power.
On a related note, garbage collection entities are buying hydraulic accumulator hybrid trucks for realizable cost savings. The most obvious is the savings in fuel, with fuel consumption dropping by almost 50%, there are savings from greatly reduced wear on the brakes, and perhaps the most surprising savings comes from an increased number of pick-ups per shift due to the faster acceleration possible with the hybrid drive.
Eh? LION cannot even keep a laptop or a cordless drill in working order. You want me to run a locomotive on a battery?
I do not think so.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
What is the incentive behind the genset switchers? Does the fuel efficiency make them more cost effective over their lifespan? Why do railroads buy them?
My guess is that genset's have lower emissions than switchers with larger prime movers. Keep in mind that switchers usually operate in urban areas and thus emissions are of concern.
Another possibility is that the engines in gensets are more amenable to use of anti-freeze and can be left shut down in colder weather than possible with a large prime mover.
erikemRunning some numbers for an ultracap/genset switcher: <snipped>
Good numbers. BUT -- now make a further assumption. You have a large chemical battery that a chemically-determined time constant for max current, both out fo power and inrush through dynamic braking. What I want you to do is run numbers for ultracaps that ONLY provide supplemental source/sync to keep the load on the battery from peaking. This does involve some precharge of capacitor strings, but you will need fewer ultracaps to make the trick work, and even with the added cost of the battery and switchgear, you should come out well ahead.
Note also that ultracaps are EXQUISITELY sensitive to voltage spikes -- they are inherently very low voltage devices as you know. High spike transients are likely to result from traction motors and associated circuitry for a fairly good variety of reasons. Wise to design the ultracap bank so that it 'self-heals' around failed or degraded devices... and imho it helps to have a vast charge sink with inherent internal resistance (aka battery) available in lieu of very good and clean electrical ground...
A good hybrid would give the immediate acceleration... but also remember that in switching there is always some warning before acceleration, so easier for one or more of the engines to come on the line to assist. As you imply, though, it's precisely the first few moments of acceleration that benefit most from supercaps...
Most of the particulate problem is transient load changes; I think of part of it as 'nucleate overfueling' that occurs when you get below the transition temperature or in a surface non-oxidizing atmosphere with the nuclei reduced to carbon but not combusted. Slower engine operation is also very significant with respect to particulates. It is my opinion that particulate generation is not related to where the observed torque peak of the engine is, although I tacitly assumed that (because of stoich) for a long time.
Note that the implication for this will be to run the engine at constant speed, into constant load, which implies that it is providing a baseline charge to the battery/capacitor separate from what the regenerative system provides. Interesting corollaries for peak current to the cap/battery system during peak of regenerative braking. There is also the idea that power can be 'tapped' off the locomotive to furnish peak grid power.
But they don't like staying charged, and shorting them can produce VERY interesting effects above what is seen with battery systems. They also, as noted above, are sensitive to overvoltage.
With part of the higher acceleration directly attributable to the high specific accumulator pressure from the previous stop's regenerative braking.
Garbage trucks and postal vehicles are THE poster children for the Karman transmission. I believe the current generation don't do what we did, which was to operate the engine only as a hydraulic pump, with all the power going through the vane motors or whatever -- but to get particulates down, it may, and I think will, become necessary to stop using the truck engine in mechanical parallel for acceleration.
[Note: we experimented with a Karman transmission in an old Lehman-Peterson limousine, since the lower limit of practical effectiveness of the system at that time was about 7800lb vehicle weight (I'm not using 'slugs' for mass equivalent, so leave me alone). "Engine" (pumping the accumulator) was first a diesel Rabbit engine, then a sleeved-down (!) Rabbit engine, then a turbo Rabbit engine -- we designed it for balancing speed around 65mph on a 2% grade, about the limit of what Caltrans highway engineering would require at the time. Worked nicely... with one little niggling detail: if there were a failure in the accumulator, it would be like three sticks of dynamite going off under the car...
Bucyrus What is the incentive behind the genset switchers? Does the fuel efficiency make them more cost effective over their lifespan? Why do railroads buy them?
There are a number. First, of course, you can adjust required horsepower (and both specific and overall fuel consumption) more easily, and cleanly, than via 'turndown' of a larger motor, especially if turbocharging is a key part of motor operation. The OTS engines and generators used generally have cheaper parts, and wider availability, and the fact that they and many of their control and ancillary systems have already been costed-down in larger production for road vehicle market applcations and the like reduces marginal cost dramatically.
Maintenance is a bit less involved, since you can remove one of the 'modules' and replace it in minimum time. Failure of one of the engines does not necessarily disable the locomotive. Emissions and noise can be reduced somewhat more easily,
There is, of course, also the political and PR advantage of designing and building 'green' -- which probably does count, although not for engineering economic reasons...
Don et al. will give you other significant reasons.
But why would a railroad company decide to buy a genset versus a conventional diesel-electric locomotive?
Overmod Note also that ultracaps are EXQUISITELY sensitive to voltage spikes -- they are inherently very low voltage devices as you know. High spike transients are likely to result from traction motors and associated circuitry for a fairly good variety of reasons. Wise to design the ultracap bank so that it 'self-heals' around failed or degraded devices... and imho it helps to have a vast charge sink with inherent internal resistance (aka battery) available in lieu of very good and clean electrical ground...
AC drive would be a given if acceleration is of utmost importance and H-bridge inverters usually have a fairly substantial capacitor bank to lower the bus impedance. These caps would work nicely to minimize voltage spikes. One would have to be bat guano insane to construct a large series string of ultracaps without some sort of voltage balancing and over-voltage protection built in. There's enough of a market for high voltage ultracap modules so the the balancing and protection circuitry is available off the shelf.
A bit more challenging problem with using ultra-caps is keeping them cool, the Maxwell caps are rated for a 10 year lifetime at rated voltage when kept at 25C internal temperature, but that life drops to 1,500 hours at 65C internal temp. Keeping the temp down is easier when the specific power rating isn't pushed too hard.
One vendor for Lithium batteries claimed to have specific power and cycle life equal to ultracaps as long as the charge was kept around 50% and the discharge per cycle was limited to about 2 W-hrs/kg. Most of the news reports about battery life suggest that 10,000 cycles is still a ways in the future, though that may not take life extending techniques into account (e.g. slow ramping of charge/discharge cycles).
A final note: Flywheels would be the last thing to put on a switcher as the shocks from switching would not be good for bearing or fatigue life. They would make sense for load smoothing for transit substations.
Bucyrus But why would a railroad company decide to buy a genset versus a conventional diesel-electric locomotive?
Start by assuming it burns far less fuel, on average, than a typical diesel over the course of a year.
Then assume it is easier and cheaper to repair and service the smaller, truck-derived engines.
Then assume that in air-quality-management districts there are benefits from the smaller amount of pollution, and the better pollution equipment, provided by the smaller engines.
Then assume there are $$$ advantages to owning them instead of 'legacy' switchers. This might be capital assistance, or a consequence of government legislation fining railroads for emissions of various kinds, or the result of clever marketing or promotion.
You may argue that these aren't compelling when a typical EMD switcher is still in sufficient demand to keep the price relatively high at LTE. But there are certainly enough railroads who think the idea is worthwhile...
Is some of the railroad demand driven by the need to meet regulations?
To placate the gullible public into believing that the railroad is actually doing something.
Ditto regulators. The RR must get its numbers down, and a few locomotives with really low pollution numbers will pull the corporate average down as well.
And besides, there might really be some savings in those beasts.
Bucyrus Is some of the railroad demand driven by the need to meet regulations?
Yes, particularly in southern California.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.