charlie hebdoThe point of all of this movement to non-carbon propulsion is clear and serious.
And that's assuming the distribution architecture is built-out and costed-down. We can joke all we want about reduced cryonic requirements in Canadian climate, but any distribution architecture involving the required mass of fuel required -- and remember the volume associated with that mass -- will be considerable, and substantially more than, say, LNG -- as well as posing ongoing and unavoidable dangers alternatives don't have.
Here is a Government resource on hydrogen costing correctly formulated (as a well-to-wheel cost analysis)
In my opinion, like so much else 'hydrogen-related' -- this is a publicity stunt more than any kind of future optimization.
This all begins and ends before we take up the larger issue of how much rail-related carbon emissions have a real impact on any of the mechanisms of AGW or 'climate change'. It's cute to say 'every little bit helps' but there are far more important places to concentrate efforts on carbon reduction -- better architectural heating and cooling being one major place, although I think money there should be devoted more to efficient ground-source utilization rather than, as Biden is thinking, better insulation and structural retrofit.
At least Mr. Creel didn't mention thorium!
OvermodI have yet to see a study that actually shows an electrification that will 'pay for itself' without subsidy, perhaps substantial subsidy. Even the electrification west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh foundered on the absence of continued Government assistance, and it is hard to imagine an electrification project of greater marginal return on investment.
As I recall, the study did show that it will pay for itself in savings with a payback period of about 10 years.
I don't remember anything about government subsidy in the report, but remember that the financial analysis centered around tax credits Conrail was eligible for due to substantial earlier losses. So not too applicable to profitable roads at the time like Union Pacific.
The issue that scuttled it was that the rate of return just wasn't high enough. Conrail had more lucrative (i.e., more important) places to invest capital with higher rates of return than extending electrification would provide, such as continuing to replace the decrepit locomotive fleet and roadbed that they had inherited.
The point of all of this movement to non-carbon propulsion is clear and serious. And like EVs, it may happen faster than we can imagine. I doubt if CP et al. are considering electrification, cells or batteries just for the heck of it. Ditto with trucks. Ditto with some applications of autonomous.
Overmod There have been plenty of proposals to use dynamic-braking electricity to electrolyze water, compress the resulting gases, use them in subsequent combustion or fuel cells, etc.
There have been plenty of proposals to use dynamic-braking electricity to electrolyze water, compress the resulting gases, use them in subsequent combustion or fuel cells, etc.
The energy efficiency of the process makes this a non-started when LI-ion batteries have better than 90% round trip efficiency. The 1939 GE STEL did use dynamic braking heat for heating the boiler.
There was a battery for space applications that electrolyzed water and stored the H2 and O2 for use in a fuel cell. Which reminds me, back in the Gemini days, batteries were considered the minimum weight option for missions less than four days and fuel cells for longer than that. Somewhere past that, solar cells were lower weight than fuel cells.
SD70DudeI recall reading that the Conrail study favoured expanding the electrification as a long term investment, but the high initial cost could not be justified.
Tumbler Ridge never did make sense on a purely economic basis, it was too short and required locomotives to be changed. That electrification was only built to avoid the problem of diesel exhaust in the long tunnels, and even that turned out to be a non-issue as the line was never operated at the full capacity the designers planned for.
Electrification provides benefits in the form of increased capacity (faster trains with more powerful locomotives for the same fuel cost) and lower locomotive maintenance costs. I recall reading that the Conrail study favoured expanding the electrification as a long term investment, but the high initial cost could not be justified.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeThe studies that have been done tend to show that while electrification provides benefits, it will take decades to pay for itself.
The point I keep trying to make is that creeping implementation of catenary is perhaps the only thing that stands a chance of 'private financing' -- and even there, I suspect that lavish "public assistance" of some form or other, most probably taking the form of income-tax credits to railroads (or, much less likely, property-tax abatements based on local or in-state investments) would be an essential part of adoption.
I think two particularly instructive 'case studies' are the Tumbler Ridge electrification and the Conrail 'dual-mode-lite' study that Don Oltmann and others have documented. In my opinion (expressed here perhaps ad nauseam to some by now) updating the latter to current technology and requirements is, or should be, of great interest compared to 'ordinary' kinds of electrification project.
The studies that have been done tend to show that while electrification provides benefits, it will take decades to pay for itself.
The point that is being danced around here is that nothing about a 'hydrogen locomotive' is a particularly difficult exercise -- I'm sure that there is some recent work on making something like a SOFC with less expensive materials, but even extrapolating the system in a Coradia LINT to required battery-charging scale presents no particular engineering difficulties ... other than intelligent detail design.
Where the real problems lie is in the logistics of onboard fuel storage and delivery, and much, much, much more importantly in the cost-effective logistics of producing and providing the fuel effectively across the portions of the system where these locomotives are to run. I trust you all recall that this last was quite properly noted as the 'thing of greatest importance' in the practicality of the "hydrogen-powered transit" equipment -- everywhere it has now been put into service.
I was amused by a prior post that seemed to indicate that water would be dissociated, the hydrogen stored in some way, and the oxygen discarded. If you are using hydrogen as a carrier fuel, there are better options for all those steps. A major point of hydrogen is that, despite all the drawbacks, it does 'combust' with high energy release to produce only water ... when done with proper heat transfer in the presence of only oxygen as oxidizing agent. A good fuel-cell design does this well, at comparatively low temperature rise -- but more efficiently with oxygen than with air that is about 4/5 nitrogen.
There have been plenty of proposals to use dynamic-braking electricity to electrolyze water, compress the resulting gases, use them in subsequent combustion or fuel cells, etc. None of them has ever advanced to a practical demonstration, let alone a road locomotive useful in general service, to my knowledge. That should tell you that a proper distribution architecture is a far likelier approach than opportunistically making the fuel like a huge defective imitation of the kind of regenerative-braking scheme (itself recognized as false economy on a grand scale) touted for, say, the original Milwaukee electrification.
Just as with steam-turbine electric planning -- the important part is to assure joint-venture partners to provide 100% of the fuel and distribution well in advance of even preliminary locomotive testing ... or even development investment. It will be interesting to see how well the Canadians comprehend this over the next few months.
From the trucking industry:
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/nacfe-releases-guidance-report-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-heavy-duty-trucks/
EuclidOr is the whole publicity for research to reduce carbon just a symbolic public gesture to push back against new regulations that require converting fuels?
I think you found the answer right there.
Railroads have done enough electrification over the years that they should be able to know where the make or break point is financially.
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...
Everybody wants to maximize their income no matter why they want the money. My question is how will the investors maximize their income by adding costs to the industries they invest in?
Has the railroad industry never done a cost/benefit analysis on electrification? Have they just now discovered that electrification is a gold mine that can be used to fund social causes?
Or is the whole publicity for research to reduce carbon just a symbolic public gesture to push back against new regulations that require converting fuels?
SD70Dude Isn't TCI the same outfit that tried and failed to take over CSX 10 or 15 years ago?
Isn't TCI the same outfit that tried and failed to take over CSX 10 or 15 years ago?
Yes.
CMStPnP 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.
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.
The pantographs used in GCT were to contact an overhead 3rd rail, where slip switches put long gaps in regular 3rd rail. FL9s ran on 3rd rail just to get thru the terminal tunnels, and was only for slow speed operation. Of course 3rd rail was only for low voltage operation to limit ground arcing.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
I knew there would be some interesting dynamics involved with the idea. Great discussion.
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?
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.
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.
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...)
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?
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.