https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/12/17-canadian-national-canadian-pacific-seek-alternatives-to-diesel-electric-locomotives
Electrification, hydrogen cell, biofuels all being considered long term. UP will also face pressure to move away from carbon-based propulsion.
CN leads in fuel efficiency because of lower grades, not because of Trip Op (which we aren't allowed to use if we have other notch restrictions) or anything else.
CN's Winnipeg-Edmonton mainline is the busiest freight line in the country, and would be the best place to start electrifying. But you would have to go all the way to the west coast to get real benefits and avoid having to change locomotives.
A battery locomotive with a range of say 200 miles or 16 hours would be a massive step forward, as you would not need to electrify a lot of yard, terminal and customer trackage.
For now, I think the railroads would be better off investing in more double track and yard capacity improvements, to reduce the amount of idling time and instances when trains are stopped and started again, which wastes fuel compared to continuously moving at a more constant speed.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
It would be crazy if the Coalition for Sustainable Rail came up with something that was a part of the solution based on their biomass torrefaction work. One never can tell what the future holds!
I'll predict now that the answer is "diesels using only DEF for NOx reduction, running on some form of properly-treated B100 with appropriate additives, using a battery-equipped (or battery) road-capable locomotive for hybrid powertrain". With dual-mode-lite on that battery locomotive for compatibility at 'rated horsepower' from 12.5/25/50kV 60Hz AC catenary as extended, wherever extended.
Hydrogen is a boutique fuel, a means for recharging a battery vehicle. It is exquisitely dependent on a sensible fuel generation and distribution program, in all present cases extensively subsidized and underwritten by government. As a carrier fuel, it has a number of rather significant disadvantages that make it extremely unlikely to be competitive in other than railcar service. Since I do not ever see it being competitive for road vehicles, that puts a considerable crimp in expansion of the special distribution arrangements becoming cost-effective in more general terms.
The "best" carbon-neutral system is probably still catalyzed H2O2 and either methanol (one carbon to ~11 molecules of steam) or ethanol (2 carbons to ~14 -15 molecules of steam -- ethanol of course being a renewable fuel with alternative uses for most of its generation 'waste stream'. The problem was, is, and will remain that the H2O2 involved needs to be above circa 30% concentration to make the system work properly ... and as long as there is acetone, there would be TATP. I've said it before; I'll say it many times more: RATS!!!
(Amusingly, while SRC remains an alternative (remember the GE work with coal slurry in oil in the '80s?) torrefied wood, which has inherent ash remaining and is not particularly cost-effective to use as a solvent-refining feedstock, is probably not -- except perhaps in power generation for electrified lines, which really doesn't count. But if solid-fuel combustion becomes practical anywhere, I suspect Tom Blasingame will be poised and ready to build and arrange for it.)
The British are now in some kind of push to develop fusion as a commercial power source by 2040. I am perhaps their greatest covert supporter in this ... if they can do it. Again this is purely for electrification, and probably not close to wayside 'anywhere sane' regardless of pictures you may see.
What about electric locomotives coupled to battery tenders? At each or every other division point where crews are changed, switch out the spent battery tender for a new one.. I think this would be far better than stringing catenary for thousands of miles.
UlrichWhat about electric locomotives coupled to battery tenders? At each or every other division point where crews are changed, switch out the spent battery tender for a new one.. I think this would be far better than stringing catenary for thousands of miles.
Slightly less awful would be swapping modular batteries with some kind of semi- or automated equipment, leaving the 'rest' of the consist intact. I know several companies have done considerable research and design work on this in a service and maintenance context; it would not take "that" much to make it a wayside thing.
The problem is that the idea of modular batteries that slide out in a group for easy replacement on the Rhino barbecue-grill tank model has never gained much traction anywhere, any time, and I don't see this being the first. Add the cost of rapid charging all the batteries, having enough units (either locomotives or modules) for any demand, dealing with various issues of battery life and health and capacity... you'll rapidly appreciate having adequate combustion-engine capability to take the train in a pinch, and the added weight and length of diesel-electric power generation on one or two locomotives is a relatively small addition to straight-battery drain from a pure BEV consist...
Note that a battery hybrid between two 'mother' diesels, which I think is 'the charm', could easily have its batteries swapped out, say at a point where power has been depleted but a substantial grade or other region with high resistance needs to be involved, or a "larger" battery installed. Again, you wouldn't switch the consist around, and you wouldn't want to have to reboot the PTC system, etc.
One "alternative" is rapid massively-parallel charge of the strings of cells and supercaps through a special harness, which could be made with the right cooling system, in the range from about 20% to 80% that causes the least overall damage or degradation, in just a few minutes if the location can be supplied cost-effectively with that power density. I'd think it would be better to keep the harness (and not use 'all of its connections every time' in cases where something's not fully optimal) rather than have to meddle with whole cells and connectors ... let alone whole battery locomotives or B-tenders ... at that location.
Not out of the question, but it may cost more to buy the needed battery tenders than put up wires.
One of the cost drivers with catenary is providing clearance for the wires in tunnels and where tracks go under bridges or other structures. An electric locomotive with internal battery could run with pantagraphs down in those areas and thus not need the increased clearance over the top of the rails.
We are assuming the caternary would clear doublestacks, correct?
If you build new catenary it is easy enough to use taller poles in open areas. But in some tunnels and bridges the clearance is already tight enough that you can't add wires without reducing the equipment clearance or enlarging the space.
Erik_MagAn electric locomotive with internal battery could run with pantographs down in those areas and thus not need the increased clearance over the top of the rails.
An option with the 'fast parallel charging' system is to do asynchronous regenerative braking, using single-phase catenary only for the brake runs, cumulatively feeding some sort of low-internal-resistance wayside storage that is then connected to the units for massive parallel charge in a short time.
SD70Dude If you build new catenary it is easy enough to use taller poles in open areas. But in some tunnels and bridges the clearance is already tight enough that you can't add wires without reducing the equipment clearance or enlarging the space.
Why can't you switch to third rail for tunnels using shoes? Didn't some of the FL-9's have both pantographs for overhead and shoes for third rail and they could flip between the two as a power source? Is that something that can be done at higher speed or is it limited to lower speeds? From my understanding the shoes were activated at speed via pneumatic cylinders and could run on either over or under rail pickup systems. I read the locomotive could switch between pantograph and shoes while in the trackage of Grand Central Terminal but that is operating at slower than mainline speed not sure how that works at higher speeds or if speed is even an issue.
Could the work done by Alstom for ground power that is only activated under the light rail train be used on a larger scale?
https://www.alstom.com/our-solutions/infrastructure/aps-service-proven-catenary-free-tramway-operations#:~:text=Alstom's%20APS%20ground%2Dlevel%20power,or%20along%20the%20entire%20line.
Overmod This is one point I make; another is that a 'charging-based' system can also use sections of reduced voltage or even limited current as effectively as possible, essentially for the cost of the battery-hybrid locomotive. It then becomes relatively straightforward to improve the relatively small areas of overhead restriction, or skip impossible gaps, as necessary -- if the goal is to limit carbon combustion sensibly while preserving operating flexibility, this offers an attractive option.
This is one point I make; another is that a 'charging-based' system can also use sections of reduced voltage or even limited current as effectively as possible, essentially for the cost of the battery-hybrid locomotive. It then becomes relatively straightforward to improve the relatively small areas of overhead restriction, or skip impossible gaps, as necessary -- if the goal is to limit carbon combustion sensibly while preserving operating flexibility, this offers an attractive option.
I would think that a charge controller would have a pretty good idea of when the battery would need charging, when it would supply power, when regenerative braking is needed, etc. Optimal use would have the battery charged from regenerative where ever possible, but take power from the catenary if needed.
For optimal battery life, we'd want to limit discharge to ~1C, which implies maybe 4MWhr battery capacity (might cost $800k? and weigh 20tons?). Charge controller would strive to keep state of charge between 20% and 80% except in rare cases and most of the time keep it in the 40% to 70% range.
The cost breakdown in the 1991-92 SCRRA study on electrifying SoCal freight RR's showed that half of the cost was mitigating clearance for double stacks and 50kV catenary. The cost estimate then was $4B, which implies $2B was for improving clearances and that would buy a whole bunch of batteries.
Batteries could also be of help in reducing or eliminating power draw during peak load times.
While probably unpublished and perhaps in development 'stealth mode' I think the Rail Propulsion Systems (Fullerton) 'commuter hybrid module' may already contain "buildable" answers to many of these concerns and issues. Hybrid car design has long wrestled with the tradeoff of recovering as much energy as possible vs. retaining enough 'headroom' for braking without need for serious grid-style heat dissipation in dynamic braking. Extending to even short-contact wayside source/sink provides what may be highly useful resources.
I would not build a system of this kind without using something like the Carnegie-Mellon system of having GIS/GPS coordination of sufficient resolution and metadata as to permit real-time extrapolation of power requirements in advance and appropriate 'power planning' to meet it. Energency accommodation using that as a baseline can then be arranged more sensibly...
rdamon: the answer is probably 'yes' in several respects. In my opinion it would be difficult to extend the existing transit way systems to freight-train current draw, but for asynchronous recharge, especially as a fill-in for areas where overhead is difficult, impractical, or resisted by NIMBYs, it may be attractive. I would note that there is no great reason AC could not be used on one of the segmented-contact systems if desired.
Trains Newswire:
Canadian Pacific has announced a program it says will develop North America’s first line-haul hydrogen-powered locomotive, retrofitting a current locomotive with hydrogen fuel cells and batteries to drive the traction motors.
“This is a globally significant project that positions CP at the leading edge of decarbonizing the freight transportation sector,” Keith Creel, CP's President and Chief Executive Officer said in a press release. “CP will continue to focus on finding innovative solutions to transform our operations and adapt our business, positioning CP and our industry as leaders for a sustainable future.”
CP has previously tested lower-emission locomotives using biofuels and compressed natural gas, as well as battery-powered units. As it notes in its press release, virtually all freight locomotives in North America are diesel-powered, representing railroading’s most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The move comes as Canadian Pacific is among railroads facing pressure from investors to reduce greenhouse gases, which has increased interest in hydrogen technology as well as revived talk of mainline electrification [see “Canadian National, Canadian Pacific seek alternatives to diesel-electric locomotives,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 17, 2020]. And hydrogen-powered passenger trains are being tested in Europe and elsewhere [see “Development of hydrogen-powered trains continues …,” News Wire, Dec. 14, 2020].
BNSF was involved in development and testing of a hydrogen-powered switch engine in 2009 [see “BNSF unveils hydrogen-powered locomotive,” News Wire, June 20, 2009].
Overmod While probably unpublished and perhaps in development 'stealth mode' I think the Rail Propulsion Systems (Fullerton) 'commuter hybrid module' may already contain "buildable" answers to many of these concerns and issues. Hybrid car design has long wrestled with the tradeoff of recovering as much energy as possible vs. retaining enough 'headroom' for braking without need for serious grid-style heat dissipation in dynamic braking. Extending to even short-contact wayside source/sink provides what may be highly useful resources.
I would think that "Trip Optimiser" level of siuation awareness would get 90+% of the benefits as tractive/braking energy is much more predictable than an automobile.
Nice to see someone actually working on a hybrid module for railcar use. Being able to recover braking energy and providing extra power for acceleration would have significant benefits in reducing fuel consumption, schedule time and brake wear (the NCTD Sprinter cars were showing much more brake pad wear than expected). One other advantage with a hybrid is that the prime mover will not be cycled as rapidly as it would in a non-hybrid railcar.
NYC used track pans to pick up water (they built the tenders to hold lots of coal, not much water).
Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries.
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...
tree68Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries.
It's possible that an array of supercapacitors could be charged at the appropriate current drawn from a short length of catenary, and this then used to charge any 'chemical' battery storage at a more appropriate rate as well as for continuing traction. The limiting factor then gets to be the ohmic heating of the wire and the pantograph contact patch, and some of the other considerations seen in high current draw across a sliding contact. There is additional cost in providing the necessary intelligent crossbar switching between the charged supercaps and 'massively parallel' charging arrangement inside the battery, but I and others think that a 'traction battery' should already be constructed this way on general principles.
I would also note that the 'catenary' for a typical PSR sort of train need not be either particularly stable or expensive, except for the quality of the trolley wire and its connections to power. The speed involved will likely be under 45mph, and a great deal of poor contact could be easily 'desparked' with intelligent charge management with little issue other than opportunity loss of charging during the 'debouncing'. So this could be wired cheaply to start, and then improved for full electrification at any future time warranted.
I find this from the article rather interesting:"Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which are under investor pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions..."Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Overmod tree68 Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries. The problem is that it's the charging that is the limiting time constraint on what can be 'taken' from an outside source by a chemical cell or battery. It's possible that an array of supercapacitors could be charged at the appropriate current drawn from a short length of catenary, and this then used to charge any 'chemical' battery storage at a more appropriate rate as well as for continuing traction. The limiting factor then gets to be the ohmic heating of the wire and the pantograph contact patch, and some of the other considerations seen in high current draw across a sliding contact. There is additional cost in providing the necessary intelligent crossbar switching between the charged supercaps and 'massively parallel' charging arrangement inside the battery, but I and others think that a 'traction battery' should already be constructed this way on general principles. I would also note that the 'catenary' for a typical PSR sort of train need not be either particularly stable or expensive, except for the quality of the trolley wire and its connections to power. The speed involved will likely be under 45mph, and a great deal of poor contact could be easily 'desparked' with intelligent charge management with little issue other than opportunity loss of charging during the 'debouncing'. So this could be wired cheaply to start, and then improved for full electrification at any future time warranted.
tree68 Perhaps the concept would have value with battery locomotives - A mile or so of catenary (or third rail, although that might be more problematic) every so many miles to charge up the batteries.
The problem is that it's the charging that is the limiting time constraint on what can be 'taken' from an outside source by a chemical cell or battery.
So how much battery or capacitor is necessary to supply the in excess of 6500kw that can be needed when two current era diesel units are hauling a train at max load?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy Siding I find this from the article rather interesting:"Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which are under investor pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions..."Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
Regarding the "investor pressure," I too find this puzzling. I assume the railroads are currently compliant, so why is there pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Where is the pressure actually originating from? Does reducing greenhouse gas emissions create revenue or does it consume it? If it creates revenue, why did they wait until they came under pressure to act? If it consumes revenue, how much are they willing to spend?
BaltACDSo how much battery or capacitor is necessary to supply the in excess of 6500kw that can be needed when two current era diesel units are hauling a train at max load?
This is also the average current that would have to be shoveled across intermittent 'charging contact' means, whether split between charging and traction power or dedicated to the battery (as on one of the '20s tripower locomotives).
(Peripherally this will tell you why I think the 'future' is in using the battery in a hybrid configuration with dual-mode-lite diesel electric power, rather than as a pure BEV...)
Some of that pressure comes from the TCI group, which is also exerting pressure on the UP as a major stockholder there as well. The point is eventual elimination of diesel fuel use through electrification and/or hydrogen cells, as I also posted concerning the latter.
BaltACD So how much battery or capacitor is necessary to supply the in excess of 6500kw that can be needed when two current era diesel units are hauling a train at max load?
A conservative rule of thumb with Li-ion batteries is to keep discharge rates 1C or lower, i.e. 6MW would require at least 6MWHr battery capacity. Present Li-ion batteries are running around 5 tonnes/MWHr (5.5 tons/MWHr), so 6MWHr would run around 33 tons.
I knew there would be some interesting dynamics involved with the idea. Great discussion.
Murphy Siding "Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which are under investor pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions..." Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
Are we sure about this? Aren't these the same investors who want to boost stock values and next quarter earnings at any cost?
hydrogen can be made by electrolysis of water. A water tank car behind the locomotive which is equipped with hydrogen fuel cells and batteries. The output is hhydrogen and oxygen which can be released into the atmosphere. Bingo, cheap sustainable power. Hydrogen fuel cells are used on all space craft to produce power. This is a proven technology.
By that measure Bill Ackman and Paul Hilal are not professionals, yet they are the first ones who come to mind when I think of "institutional investors".
SD70Dude For now, I think the railroads would be better off investing in more double track and yard capacity improvements, to reduce the amount of idling time and instances when trains are stopped and started again, which wastes fuel compared to continuously moving at a more constant speed.
TCI (The Childrens Investment) Fund wants to maximize income for their charitable work. I guess they don't want the children to grow up in a world with an impending climate crisis.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.