oltmanndBattery tenders for bridging gaps would recharge en route. As fast as they discharged at least? I'd bet you'd manage it. Get charge up enough for next gap, series of gaps, and regulate recharge accordingly.
I'd bet you'd manage it. Get charge up enough for next gap, series of gaps, and regulate recharge accordingly.
My observation of batteries is that it takes longer to charge them than it does to discharge them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I think we're assuming gaps would be under well under 50% of the line length which would imply more time spent charging than discharging. Some of the charging could be derived from regenerative braking as that's rarely done (if at all) in the US with 60Hz electrifications.
Remermbrer that catenr-third-rail (AC or DC) dual-mode equipment weighs lots less than batteries (or stand-by diesel with fuel).
For an Electrified Class-I freight railroad, there are certain to be lines and operations where battery catenary-gap-power makes sense, anther where third ral makes more sense.
AC-third rail impedence problems (impedense, not resistance) are easily solved with feeder cable.
Weight is good for tractive effort, though.
BackshopWeight is good for tractive effort, though.
Weight is not an advantage in OTR trucks. There is a good post on RyPN by a driver in reaction to the news about the long-term testing by Walmart and Pepsi. Not only operational, but concerned with legal weight restrictions, which will only grow more stringent as infrastructure concerns mount.
BaltACDMy observation of batteries is that it takes longer to charge them than it does to discharge them.
Not even for fancy huge transportation batteries. I'm certain this is universally true.
Kid me was always very frustrated that it took 4 hours to charge the batteries for my Tyco Bandit...for 15 minutes of play time.
Most BEVs can charge from 20% to 80% in 25 to 35 minutes and can go 240-350 miles, depending on temperature.
There's a tradeoff in Li-ion battery lifetime when fast charging, but, IIRC, LFP batteries are more tolerant of fast charging but at a lower specific energy capacity. Doing a fast charge on a locomotive sized battery would involve one very impressive charging station, probably requiring > 50MWhr battery just to buffer the power demand.
Erik_Mag Doing a fast charge on a locomotive sized battery would involve one very impressive charging station, probably requiring > 50MWhr battery just to buffer the power demand.
I recently read of a locality that was opposed to a proposed e-truck charging facility as it would draw more power than the current existing community. It's a consideration when some areas are dealing with infrastructure that can't handle the addition of new solar facilities.
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...
If most other industrialized nations and even some less-developed ones seem to be able to figure out how to electrify trunk lines, it's about time we moved into the 21st century. We used to be a leader and we can again.
charlie hebdoIf most other industrialized nations and even some less-developed ones seem to be able to figure out how to electrify trunk lines, it's about time we moved into the 21st century. We used to be a leader and we can again.
In most the rest of the world, railroads are a function of the government. That is not the case in North America where all carriers are privately owned and invested in.
A government can print billions of its currency to finance the things the government desires.
Governments don't look for a short term return on investment. The current capitalist 'investors' demand almost immediate ROI. Investing in railroad electrification creates a very long term ROI, longer than can attract willing investors.
https://www.mobility.siemens.com/us/en/portfolio/rail/rolling-stock/high-speed-and-intercity-trains/american-pioneer-220.html?fbclid=IwAR1WxpMROCDfCBY1f8Cw2vXeVWVLklMNFeK-Xg8DoGHrrPUBFtTud-75OKs
Electrics on the highways to get more expensive
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/maryland-considers-increase-electric-vehicle-registration-fee/46068847
Here's an idea. For use in tunnels where cat can't be strung, use diesels. Their limited use won't impact the environment and you won't have to spend millions and millions to develop new, limited use technology. You can thank me later (or never)!
BackshopHere's an idea. For use in tunnels where cat can't be strung, use diesels. Their limited use won't impact the environment and you won't have to spend millions and millions to develop new, limited use technology. You can thank me later (or never)!
This in fact is one of the advantages of operating dual-mode-lite, where the trains are sized to the "self-propelled" power and the advantages of the electrification do not include using the higher available power under the wire for longer or heavier trains.
Or use 3rd rail in tunnels
rdamonOr use 3rd rail in tunnels
The 'smart third rail' at least offers comparatively large contact area for a very slight actual active length, energized only when the shoe under the motive power engages it. You can see many of the advantages for passenger rail described on its proponents' and providers' websites; you'd have to scale up to get to even dual-mode-lite instantaneous rating, but it surely can be done.
It might be added that some variant of smart third rail represents the best approach for periodic recharge of battery-electric locomotive power, if that is the 'zero-carbon' approach that might come to be embraced. A comparatively short length, energized for a comparatively short time, might transfer enough 'state of charge' to allow a battery consist to traverse a considerable distance between overhead-electrified segments.
A lot of ideas for electrification in tunnels. Question; How many route miles of tunnels are there in US and on what railroads (excluding Canada) outside of the NEC?
BaltACD oltmannd Battery tenders for bridging gaps would recharge en route. As fast as they discharged at least? I'd bet you'd manage it. Get charge up enough for next gap, series of gaps, and regulate recharge accordingly. My observation of batteries is that it takes longer to charge them than it does to discharge them.
oltmannd Battery tenders for bridging gaps would recharge en route. As fast as they discharged at least? I'd bet you'd manage it. Get charge up enough for next gap, series of gaps, and regulate recharge accordingly.
Doesn't hold for automotive service. Typical discharge rate for EV is 25 KW. (3 KWHR/mile at 75 mph) Fast DC charge 100-300 KW.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Backshop Here's an idea. For use in tunnels where cat can't be strung, use diesels. Their limited use won't impact the environment and you won't have to spend millions and millions to develop new, limited use technology. You can thank me later (or never)!
Not terrible. If you have to get to zero net CO2 and you run out of places plant stuff to offset, you could do bio-diesel. But, i'd bet batteries are cheaper in the long run...or fuel cells.
Erik_Mag I think we're assuming gaps would be under well under 50% of the line length which would imply more time spent charging than discharging. Some of the charging could be derived from regenerative braking as that's rarely done (if at all) in the US with 60Hz electrifications.
I would imagine most routes would be a few % gap at most. From Atlanta to NJ, for example, one tunnel. (Pattenburg in NJ). NJ to Chicago, two. (Spruce Creek and Gallitzin)
oltmanndI would imagine most routes would be a few % gap at most. From Atlanta to NJ, for example, one tunnel. (Pattenburg in NJ). NJ to Chicago, two. (Spruce Creek and Gallitzin)
Add the Bergen Hill Tunnel if you go via the National Docks Branch.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
oltmannd I would imagine most routes would be a few % gap at most. From Atlanta to NJ, for example, one tunnel. (Pattenburg in NJ). NJ to Chicago, two. (Spruce Creek and Gallitzin)
Getting back to the SCRRA study on electrifying the freight railroads in the the South Coast Air Quality Basin (AKA the Southland) - HALF of the projected cost was in just improving clearances. Keep in mind that about the only tunnels are on the the Espee's Coast line between Simi Valley and San Fernando Valley. In other words, the clearance problem is with raising overpasses not tunnels. This implies numerous short gaps which makes the battery-electric idea potentially even more feasible.
charlie hebdoA lot of ideas for electrification in tunnels. Question; How many route miles of tunnels are there in US and on what railroads (excluding Canada) outside of the NEC?
Many tunnels are, as noted, near the tops of grades that would qualify for the initial stages of punctate electrification -- snapping and helping districts for otherwise-fairly-flat operations. (I believe this priority is discussed in the Garrett dual-mode-lite study, although not with specific mention of tunnels. One of the premises in the study would be that the diesel prime movers were isolated or even shut down on turning gear when under the wire, so any wired lengths would have to be long enough 'either side' of a critical tunnel to accommodate that conveniently.)
What I'm wondering about all of this, especially in light of a recent TRAINS Magazine article, is that there seems to be so many issues and expenses with battery, hydrogen and other so-called "zero emission" technologies, would just simply stringing catenary be such a bad idea afterall?
If the government is doling out huge, obscene sums of OUR money for EV charging stations, autonomous truck technologies, etc., then why not give the railroads some assistance in installing catenary? That might be a better idea after all.
Of course, the best and most economic idea would be for the government to back off and continue to allow the railroads to operate Diesel locomotives. Diesels are actually a lot cleaner than they were back in the 1950s & '60s.
Diesels are cleaner primaily because of various EPA regulations, which have become tighter over time. I also don't think that there is enough money availabe to string catenary over high-density main lines, much less the secondary lines.
Fred M CainWhat I'm wondering about all of this, especially in light of a recent TRAINS Magazine article, is that there seems to be so many issues and expenses with battery, hydrogen and other so-called "zero emission" technologies, would just simply stringing catenary be such a bad idea afterall?
All that electric vehicles of all sorts do is move the source of the power away from the end user.
It was famously discovered following the unveiling of a GM electric car in Lansing, MI, that the source of the power to charge the car came from a coal fired power plant.
Curiously, ALL forms of electric generation are under fire from somebody. Hydro, wind, solar, natural gas, coal, oil - all have their detractors.
At this point, I think most of them believe in the electricity fairy...
tree68 All that electric vehicles of all sorts do is move the source of the power away from the end user. Curiously, ALL forms of electric generation are under fire from somebody. Hydro, wind, solar, natural gas, coal, oil - all have their detractors. At this point, I think most of them believe in the electricity fairy...
I agree. It's just like the people who eat meat but don't like hunting.
PS--You forgot the "worst"---nuclear!
BackshopPS--You forgot the "worst"---nuclear!
Didn't forget, just forgot to include it in my list. Old folks will understand...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.