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].
While probably unpublished and perhaps in development 'stealth mode' I think the Rail Propulsion Systems (Fullerton) 'commuter hybrid module' may already contain "buildable" answers to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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
We are assuming the caternary would clear doublestacks, correct?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.