Overmod,
Generally, I agree with most of your points. The point I was making is really simple. The original poster asked if battery locomotives were the way of the future. The answer seems to be that they are not because solving the technical problems would render them non-cost-effective. But add regulations and they might become cost effective. And yes, any number of alternative solutions might emerge and compete with each other for the best approach to meeting new regulations including just fleeing the regulations.
Above I said, “…based on free market economics, nobody is going to buy locomotives that cost more to own and operate than conventional locomotives. But if a performance regulation adds cost to a locomotive, it will be accepted.”
And you said that I pointedly left out whether anyone will buy locomotives that cost more to own and LESS to operate.
I only left that out because it has nothing to do with the point I was making which is about the ability of regulations to move the goal posts. Certainly I agree that if a locomotive cost more upfront but less overall because of more fuel efficiency or lower maintenance cost, for example, then sure that would be a good thing, and it might indeed be possible. But that is another issue. Railroads would buy that locomotive without the coercion of new regulatory cost.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating the elimination of CO2 emissions. I am probably on the same page as you are regarding that issue. But it seems that much of this country is taking it very seriously. It may seem like the sky is falling, but occasionally it does fall. And I am not comforted by the fact that China and India are getting a pass. That seems to be part of the deal. The main focus of the call to action is targeted largely on the U.S. But in any case, I do not expect an overnight ban on emitting CO2, but a shift in regulations might overnight change what technology is viable. That is all I meant by suggesting abrupt change.
Bucyrus I am setting up a hypothetical case because I think it is highly probable. We were told that this case was the justification for the NS #999 battery locomotive.
I am setting up a hypothetical case because I think it is highly probable. We were told that this case was the justification for the NS #999 battery locomotive.
You see, I remember this differently -- the stated goals were air quality management, reducing dependence on foreign oil (by using grid electricity from coal or natural gas efficiently for charging) and save fuel expense (both with the 'cheaper-per-kilowatt' grid power and the regenerative braking). If Schuster or the FRA/DOT agencies doing the co-granting had wanted to play up the global-warming scam, I suspect it would have been mentioned in the press releases and stories at the time. And yes, I think that it's significant they did not.
Eliminating CO2 does indeed seem to be the elephant in the living room.
I look at it far more as a 'sky is falling' issue as far as most people in the Western world are concerned -- except insofar as it serves as a post-Cold War excuse to throw money at technology without significantly inflationary effect, and as a means of further consolidating European (and, ultimately, Asian) hegemony over American economic affairs.
If there were practical political will to reduce actual anthropogenic global warming, the effort would heavily involve China and India, as well as other nations producing large amounts of effective greenhouse gas. That it does not tells me that the whole story isn't being told truthfully, and there is more than enough evidence of arrogant scheming in the 'scientific' community and buy-in from various profiteers to indicate that it isn't nearly as important as... well, air quality in certain districts, or providing a technology without the drawbacks of diesel power.
[Disclaimer: I was a supporter of an anthropogenic global warming hypothesis in 1971, and I certainly still believe it can, and perhaps should be acknowledged as, real. It's the fake science and the cozening that I find so deplorable.]
But the point I am making about this objective is that it affects the cost/benefit ratio of new non-emission locomotive concepts in a direction that makes previously non-cost-effective solutions suddenly become cost-effective.
Yes, and I don't want to stomp on that point. The issue that concerns me about this is that AGW is not going to be a means of enforcing a permanent mandate that forces a required change from diesel to plug-in within a short timeframe. (The principal reason for that being, no matter how much of a mandate a particular administration or Congress had, the disastrous effects of modal CO2 reduction would result in a political backlash within years, not decades -- and a prompt rethinking and revision of policies.
In any case, I would concentrate on other aspects, notably the stated reasons for building 999 as a straight electric. You may note that the immediate follow-on project was to MU the battery locomotive with a genset engine to increase flexibility. Hybrids with large energy storage density and good control over battery deterioration are DEFINITELY cost effective with diesel cost where it is, and are more and more attractive when terminal air-quality issues are included. I have been waiting to see where the whole natural gas/methanol/synthesis thing goes -- LNG hybrid genset engines may be expensive, but they'll be clean, efficient, capable of plug-in charging to the greatest practical extent... etc.
In other words, based on free market economics, nobody is going to buy locomotives that cost more to own and operate than conventional locomotives. But if a performance regulation adds cost to a locomotive, it will be accepted.
Yes, but you pointedly leave out whether anyone will buy locomotives that cost more to own and LESS to operate. Which was precisely the rationale behind first-generation diesels, and we know how THAT worked out in a reasonably free-market economic environment...
And if the regulation requires a locomotive power concept that was previously uneconomical, it might suddenly become economical.
But so would a whole passel of OTHER alternatives, some of which would be considerably superior.
An interesting example that people have been dancing around mentioning in this thread concerns fuel economy in automobiles. I don't know if anyone remembers the fun involved with lean-burn and stratified-charge engines back in the early '70s ... in a world before fast inexpensive digital controls or CAD/CAM-optimized systems of direct fuel injection. And in which cheapness generally trumped quality design and assembly.
Without the push from EPA and CAFE regulation... no matter how ridiculous and inefficient some of the implementations were ... I doubt that the 'right' kind of competition would have put the modern generation of fuel-efficient engine technologies in place. Especially at the 'bottom end' of the price range.
Of course, I also remember one of the writers in the early Seventies aghast -- aghast, I tell you -- at the ridiculous prospect that a Volkswagen would shortly cost more than Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars. Of course, by the time the price did get there, a Volkswagen wasn't a cheap little car any more...
I did observe that it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions.
Well, that's a valid point, but you are forgetting the 'zero option': it a technology is the 'cheapest' way to eliminate CO2 entirely, but it is not cost-effective by regular standards, you will simply see abolition of the service, or relocation of functions or operations to a less expensive or restrictive location. Happened with furniture making in the 1950s -- out of unionized New England to lower-cost right-to-work North Carolina. I don't have to bring up the word "Amtrak" to YOU. Has anyone run the numbers for battery switcher cost to see how net profit from operations would be affected -- or how far rates would have to be run up to cover the cost of the battery, or whatever, technology?
I am just using battery locomotives as an example of technology that is not cost effective, but might become so overnight with new regulations.
I think you've already made that point, a bit better, with respect to genset engines. There is no need to postulate some modal and irreversible change in tolerance of 'any' level of CO2 to see the effect -- the spectre of $4 diesel certainly got many approaches rolling, as did the Southern California and EPA 'tier' requirements.
(I would also be very amused to see where practical amounts of charge power in a 'strict zero-CO2-emission' framework would come from ... and how the definition of 'cost-effective' would change when neither coal nor gas could be used for electric power generation without sequestration or other abatement/remediation techniques...)
OvermodBucyrusWhen we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2. If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost. So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions. So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.It is trivial to set up an extreme example with a set of hypothetical assumptions and then draw conclusions from that. Of course there would be implications from an autocratic imposition of CO2-abatement legislation that would technically favor BEVs -- or mandate a pure-electric technology if the use of liquid carbon-containing fuel were arbitrarily banned. Long before that point, the use of synthesized 'carrier' fuel from technically renewable sources would become 'cost-effective', and there are other technologies that would become pervasive -- notably more widespread acceptance of railroad electrification, since the contribution of road locomotives to CO2 emissions greatly exceeds switching.
BucyrusWhen we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2. If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost. So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions. So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.
I am setting up a hypothetical case because I think it is highly probable. We were told that this case was the justification for the NS #999 battery locomotive. Eliminating CO2 does indeed seem to be the elephant in the living room.
But the point I am making about this objective is that it affects the cost/benefit ratio of new non-emission locomotive concepts in a direction that makes previously non-cost-effective solutions suddenly become cost-effective. In other words, based on free market economics, nobody is going to buy locomotives that cost more to own and operate than conventional locomotives. But if a performance regulation adds cost to a locomotive, it will be accepted. And if the regulation requires a locomotive power concept that was previously uneconomical, it might suddenly become economical.
I did observe that it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions. So, yes if a cheaper way were found, that would be used in place of battery locomotives. I am just using battery locomotives as an example of technology that is not cost effective, but might become so overnight with new regulations. I am certainly not advocating battery locomotives.
Bucyrus When I asked what value one places on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions, that question assumes that there is a cost to CO2 emissions that is now, or soon will be imposed through regulation. It appears that much if not all of the incentive to buy gensets is their ability to meet environmental regulations. I can’t find a reference to genset life cost, but I have learned that they cost six times more than a conventional diesel-electric switcher. Despite better fuel efficiency, I assume the life cost is higher than conventional locomotives simply because a lower life cost is not being trumpeted. What is trumpeted is the ability to meet regulations. When we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2. If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost. So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions. So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.
When I asked what value one places on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions, that question assumes that there is a cost to CO2 emissions that is now, or soon will be imposed through regulation. It appears that much if not all of the incentive to buy gensets is their ability to meet environmental regulations.
I can’t find a reference to genset life cost, but I have learned that they cost six times more than a conventional diesel-electric switcher. Despite better fuel efficiency, I assume the life cost is higher than conventional locomotives simply because a lower life cost is not being trumpeted. What is trumpeted is the ability to meet regulations.
When we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2. If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost. So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions. So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.
I had a long and detailed reply to this, but deleted it.
It is trivial to set up an extreme example with a set of hypothetical assumptions and then draw conclusions from that. Of course there would be implications from an autocratic imposition of CO2-abatement legislation that would technically favor BEVs -- or mandate a pure-electric technology if the use of liquid carbon-containing fuel were arbitrarily banned. Long before that point, the use of synthesized 'carrier' fuel from technically renewable sources would become 'cost-effective', and there are other technologies that would become pervasive -- notably more widespread acceptance of railroad electrification, since the contribution of road locomotives to CO2 emissions greatly exceeds switching.
I don't think most railroads go by 'what is trumpeted' when assessing motive power requirements, or their response to legislation. Actual use of BEVs for switching would, of course, have to be driven by something completely divorced from conventional economics. Even in a cap-and-trade kind of approach to reducing anthropogenic global warming or whatever, the use of synthesized 'renewable-source' carrier fuel in 'specialty' areas like switching would have lower cost than the straight battery solution...especially if used in a hybrid or genset configuration.
Reducing overall fuel consumption by switch engines might be perceived as an adequate reason to implement gensets -- in an era where substantial fuel cost, and uncertainty about future increases in that cost, prevail. I'd feel much more confident that railroads had a handle on what to do with gensets if I saw evidence of automatic startup and shutdown of the genset modules relative to demand or anticipated demand. Or that regenerative braking even via hydraulic or flywheel storage were being provided on those things. We'll see whether we ever get out of the "RCA VCR syndrome' on these things.
Bucyrus Over the life of a locomotive, considering first cost, maintenance, and operating cost; is a genset more costly than a comparable diesel-electric switcher or less costly? If the genset is less costly than the diesel electric, why don't the railroads buy gensets exclusively. If the genset is more costly than diesel-electrics, why do railroads buy gensets?
Over the life of a locomotive, considering first cost, maintenance, and operating cost; is a genset more costly than a comparable diesel-electric switcher or less costly?
If the genset is less costly than the diesel electric, why don't the railroads buy gensets exclusively. If the genset is more costly than diesel-electrics, why do railroads buy gensets?
Considering we have only had gensets a few years, I don't think there is an answer to your first question yet. Time will tell.
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
Overmod Bucyrus Is some of the railroad demand driven by the need to meet regulations? Yes, particularly in southern California.
Bucyrus Is some of the railroad demand driven by the need to meet regulations?
Is some of the railroad demand driven by the need to meet regulations?
Yes, particularly in southern California.
Bucyrus But why would a railroad company decide to buy a genset versus a conventional diesel-electric locomotive?
But why would a railroad company decide to buy a genset versus a conventional diesel-electric locomotive?
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.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
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...
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...
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.
- Erik
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?
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.
RME
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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
Ah yes, here we go, NS did indeed build such a locomotive called the BP4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altoona_Works_BP4
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
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).
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.
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....
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?
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...)
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 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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.