https://www.mobility.siemens.com/us/en/portfolio/rail/rolling-stock/high-speed-and-intercity-trains/american-pioneer-220.html?fbclid=IwAR1WxpMROCDfCBY1f8Cw2vXeVWVLklMNFeK-Xg8DoGHrrPUBFtTud-75OKs
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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...
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.
Most BEVs can charge from 20% to 80% in 25 to 35 minutes and can go 240-350 miles, depending on temperature.
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.
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.
Weight is good for tractive effort, though.
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.
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.
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.
dpeltier CSSHEGEWISCH How long would it take and how much money would it take to recharge a battery of that size? Since it doesn't exist, I think the answer is - it can be designed to charge however fast you want, but there will be huge tradeoffs between speed, the effect on battery life, and the amount of equipment necessary for the charging system. Dan
CSSHEGEWISCH How long would it take and how much money would it take to recharge a battery of that size?
How long would it take and how much money would it take to recharge a battery of that size?
Since it doesn't exist, I think the answer is - it can be designed to charge however fast you want, but there will be huge tradeoffs between speed, the effect on battery life, and the amount of equipment necessary for the charging system.
Dan
Battery tenders for bridging gaps would recharge en route. As fast as they discharged at least?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
11 KV https://photos.app.goo.gl/iJkTqTe6bkKTv74g7
Not huge clearance under bridges... I would think we could do this with 25' wire most places.
dpeltier Erik_Mag Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion. Just some back-of-the-envelope numbers to drive home the point. All numbers are derived from Googling, I don't really know that much about locomotives but I know how to Google: - An ET44AC locomotive is rated for 4400 HP (3,300 kW) - The GEVO-12 prime mover weighs 42,300 lbs. Its fuel tanks can hold 5,000 gallons of diesel, which weighs around 35,000 lbs. - If you replace the prime mover and the fuel tanks with a battery, the battery could weigh over 77,000 lbs (35,000 kg) without increasing the total weight. - LFP batteries have an energy density around 150 wh/kg. So that battery could hold about 5,250 kWh of energy. - So you could run the locomotive at Notch 8 for about 1.6 hours minutes on a fully charged battery (5,250 kWh / 3,300 kW) - To maximize battery life you probably don't want to regularly do a full charge and discharge. If you try to keep the battery level between 20% - 80% of capacity, you can run for roughly 0.95 hours minutes at notch 8. - The longest rail tunnel in the USA is the Cascade Tunnel at 7.8 miles. - So, if you charge the battery to 80%, run through the Cascade tunnel at notch 8, as long as you can maintain an average speed of 8.2 MPH, then your battery will still have at least 20% left when you emerge. (And the DP unit is less likely to shut down in the tunnel due to excessive heat and poor air!) You can quibble with lots of details here, but unless I screwed up something pretty major, the point is current battery technology should be more than enough to get you through just about any clearance restriction between Seattle and New York. Dan
Erik_Mag Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion.
Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion.
Just some back-of-the-envelope numbers to drive home the point. All numbers are derived from Googling, I don't really know that much about locomotives but I know how to Google:
- An ET44AC locomotive is rated for 4400 HP (3,300 kW)
- The GEVO-12 prime mover weighs 42,300 lbs. Its fuel tanks can hold 5,000 gallons of diesel, which weighs around 35,000 lbs.
- If you replace the prime mover and the fuel tanks with a battery, the battery could weigh over 77,000 lbs (35,000 kg) without increasing the total weight.
- LFP batteries have an energy density around 150 wh/kg. So that battery could hold about 5,250 kWh of energy.
- So you could run the locomotive at Notch 8 for about 1.6 hours minutes on a fully charged battery (5,250 kWh / 3,300 kW)
- To maximize battery life you probably don't want to regularly do a full charge and discharge. If you try to keep the battery level between 20% - 80% of capacity, you can run for roughly 0.95 hours minutes at notch 8.
- The longest rail tunnel in the USA is the Cascade Tunnel at 7.8 miles.
- So, if you charge the battery to 80%, run through the Cascade tunnel at notch 8, as long as you can maintain an average speed of 8.2 MPH, then your battery will still have at least 20% left when you emerge. (And the DP unit is less likely to shut down in the tunnel due to excessive heat and poor air!)
You can quibble with lots of details here, but unless I screwed up something pretty major, the point is current battery technology should be more than enough to get you through just about any clearance restriction between Seattle and New York.
Love this! Mike Iden et.al. are on the right track (literally?)
jeffhergertThe government is good at unfunded mandates. PTC anyone?
For sure. But, the RRs brought that on themselves. Walked away from ATCS project distracted by some pretty merger mirages and some dude named EHH.
mudchickenThe dismissal of the clearance issue(s) above is a non-starter. The claim of 25 foot clearance is being adequate does not fly at all. (at any potential)
Strangely enough, India seems to have no problems with 7.57 meter (~24' 10") clearance on double-stacks on their 25 kV electrified lines. About 1/3 of world lines are electrified: US about 1%, Germany about 60%, China about 65%.
The dismissal of the clearance issue(s) above is a non-starter. The claim of 25 foot clearance is being adequate does not fly at all. (at any potential)
Insulating underheight bridges is not cheap and does not always work (and adds to the clearance problems)
The issue of dealing with existing utilities won't be cheap either. Raising pole lines is a rather contentious issue around railroads, especially on shared pole lines where you discover how many scofflaws are out there not complying with NESC clearance rules. (Biggest violators are reckless and unthinking phone and especially fiber operators)
Wanna make things worse? - try lowering the tracks and find out how many pipelines were installed improperly. (railroads and utilities / pipeline companies tend to have a great deal of angst when they encounter each other)
Nobody seems to consider the run-offs that are required with this stuff.
dpeltier Batteries would also let you avoid stringing wire over sidings, most yard tracks, etc. Current battery technology would not let you avoid overhead wire if your goal is full mainline electrification.
Batteries would also let you avoid stringing wire over sidings, most yard tracks, etc. Current battery technology would not let you avoid overhead wire if your goal is full mainline electrification.
Which is what I was driving at when saying that equipping an electric locomotive with a battery would have advantages beyond providing an answer to low clearances.
Your math and assumptions on using LFP batteries seem reasonable.
The state of the art for commercially available batteries is 450kWhr/tonne, which would be enough for branchline use. These batteries are being made for electric aircraft, though I think least another 50% increase in specific energy is needed to make it viable.
BaltACD dpeltier Erik_Mag Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion. You can quibble with lots of details here, but unless I screwed up something pretty major, the point is current battery technology should be more than enough to get you through just about any clearance restriction between Seattle and New York. Your calculations may be accruate for that single grade. Line segments are not made up of only a 'single grade' there are many grade permutations both ascending and descending that are involved in traversing the distances between origin and destination. Locomotives have to operate the entire distance of their runs, not just the ruling grade.
dpeltier Erik_Mag Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion. You can quibble with lots of details here, but unless I screwed up something pretty major, the point is current battery technology should be more than enough to get you through just about any clearance restriction between Seattle and New York.
Your calculations may be accruate for that single grade. Line segments are not made up of only a 'single grade' there are many grade permutations both ascending and descending that are involved in traversing the distances between origin and destination. Locomotives have to operate the entire distance of their runs, not just the ruling grade.
The subject wasn't grades, ruling or otherwise. The subject was clearance instructions and what you would need to do to bridge the gap in an overhead catenary system. And the answer is that basically even the longest clearance obstruction I can think of can probably be bridged just fine with an on-board battery.
CMStPnPSelf contained power plant that does not use fossil fuel, replacement for diesel, that does not require overhead wire or a third rail. I can't see use of third rail increasing without other requirements like ROW fencing around the third rail. Overhead wire to me seems expensive to install and maintain.
Someone is going to have to invent something, then, as you've ruled out virtually all of the solutions I know of.
Even going electric is likely to still involve fossil fuels.
jeffhergertI'm guessing a fuel cell. Jeff
Too expensive to operate unless they bring that part down in price. I think the first trains were Stadler Flirts or something in Germany? Germany has already stated no more of that nonsense and flipped back to electric or diesel. Shortly after that happened, Amtrak thought it would be a great idea to order more of those trainsets for California (lol). You have to give Amtrak some kind of management award for that.
EuclidWhat do you mean by, “Self-contained power plant” ?
Self contained power plant that does not use fossil fuel, replacement for diesel, that does not require overhead wire or a third rail. I can't see use of third rail increasing without other requirements like ROW fencing around the third rail. Overhead wire to me seems expensive to install and maintain.
NittanyLion Euclid What do you mean by, “Self-contained power plant” ? I'm kinda stumped by this too, because I'm reading some sort of description of an electric locomotive with a "self-contained power plant." Which is....literally what a diesel locomotive is?
Euclid What do you mean by, “Self-contained power plant” ?
I'm kinda stumped by this too, because I'm reading some sort of description of an electric locomotive with a "self-contained power plant." Which is....literally what a diesel locomotive is?
I'm guessing a fuel cell.
Jeff
The 'correct' solution for track-level electrical contact is going to be 'smart third rail' (which is basically an upgrade of the old GE idea of having contacts raised and actuated as a shoe under the locomotive contacts them). There are in particular some Japanese and Italian versions that have near-continuous contacts embedded in a polymer structure, actuated electronically. As Eric notes, these are best implemented with DC / running-rail return, but the transversion from AC can be done nearly at each point of contact. I would of course argue for ~1500VDC fed via suitable equipment to the DC-Link of connected dual-mode-lite hybrid consists. (Adding the necessary 'connectivity' to one of Iden's "tenders" would not be technically difficult either...)
There are few reasons, though, not to build the bulk of the electrification as overhead constant-tension line with the usual wear-reducing lateral sinusoid pulloff, and keep any return-current arrangements in the rails compliant with that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.