I do not remember if I posted the Wikipedia entry on IORE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore
This should give enough details for a more complete comparison with North American locomotives.
N.F.
@ nfotis
You posted what I'd missed to ! Personally I find this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGSulGeokUg
even more impressive because it involves a stop and restart on the incline ( just listen to those car couplers rumbling along as the train's brakes apply and as they are being released with the locos restarting - wow that's tractive effort at work ! ) . You'll note how much more energetic the electrics continue to accelerate above immediate starting pace and continue to gain speed . At first I wondered the howling of gears should be audible from the distance but then I got to think it's rather the wheels on rails - which would indicate rail surface has developed a pattern and should badly need smoothening by a grinding train .
And yet , mind , at the time of writing these locomotives have already become second to latest technology in electric traction .
Regards
Juniatha
ML
nfotis The Bombardier IORE is the nearest example of an electric locomotive near North American specifications: two-section (each section rated at 5.6 MW on the rail, nearly equivalent to two 4400hp diesels each), 33 tonnes/axle, center AAR couplers and hauling 9000+ tons ore trains in Arctic conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gR2Xre7xKU N.F.
The Bombardier IORE is the nearest example of an electric locomotive near North American specifications: two-section (each section rated at 5.6 MW on the rail, nearly equivalent to two 4400hp diesels each), 33 tonnes/axle, center AAR couplers and hauling 9000+ tons ore trains in Arctic conditions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gR2Xre7xKU
Note in the YouTube comments and my own car count made the train at 66 cars.
I doubt the cars are loaded to the AAR allowed maximum of 286K pounds as I have no idea of what the permissible loading is in the counrty where the train is.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Hello there,
the practical limit for years has been nearly 2.000 hp per axle. This limit has been reached with European and Chinese electric locomotives (read: 6.4 MW on four axles, 9.6 MW on six axles).
Note also that electric locomotives are rated for power *at the rail*, not at the prime mover like diesels.
So, a 3.2 MW (4400hp) GE/EMD diesel locomotive puts on the rail less than half of a 6.4 MW electric locomotive.
The extra power obviously is not useful when starting a freight train, but it is useful when going at speeds above 10-15 mph, which is the typical 'critical speed' between the "tractive effort-limited" and "horsepower limited". The Bombardier IORE is the nearest example of an electric locomotive near North American specifications: two-section (each section rated at 5.6 MW on the rail, nearly equivalent to two 4400hp diesels each), 33 tonnes/axle, center AAR couplers and hauling 9000+ tons ore trains in Arctic conditions:
CPM500 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/hvso_2006/22_salasoo.pdf Mad that link "live" for you..
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/hvso_2006/22_salasoo.pdf
Mad that link "live" for you..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Thanks for that link. I quickly scanned over it, but I'll read it in depth later today.
[quote user="oltmannd"]
episette I had that idea about 5 year ago and tried to take out a patent on the design of the 6 axle battery tender but that patent is already owned by GE. The battery tender could have been used as extra axles powered by the other 2 locomotive in the consist with prime movers or it could have been charged and powered by the dynamic brakes in hilly terrain. I even considered the possiblity of including small gen-set engine in the battery tender to charge the batteries. GE owns the patent but as far as I can tell it has never been developed. GE is having enough trouble with the batteries in the hybrid AC EVO.
I had that idea about 5 year ago and tried to take out a patent on the design of the 6 axle battery tender but that patent is already owned by GE. The battery tender could have been used as extra axles powered by the other 2 locomotive in the consist with prime movers or it could have been charged and powered by the dynamic brakes in hilly terrain. I even considered the possiblity of including small gen-set engine in the battery tender to charge the batteries.
GE owns the patent but as far as I can tell it has never been developed. GE is having enough trouble with the batteries in the hybrid AC EVO.
Sounds similar to NS999.
The 999 is an all battery locomotive that IIRC operates on its own. The idea that I had was a battery tender/slug that wouild operate in conjunction with 2+ more 6 axle road locomotives in linehaul operations and capture the wasted electricity from the dynamic brakes. It would never operate on its own.
It would either be powered by the 2 other locomotices in the consist when they had more power than their axles could apply to the rails or it would be recharged by their dynamics on the downhill/stopping and then assist them going up the next grade or when starting. The use of the genset to charge the batteries would be a last resort.
I assumed that they would be build on the rebuilt bones of a former SD40-2/Dash8C and be a cabless (B-unit) locomotive. It could use banks of lithium ion batteries as a storge medium, but the weight of old fashioned lead batteries would supply both the necessary weight for traction and keep the cost relatively low.
The most complicated part of the design was the electronics to get it to work with multiple locomtives and how to allow the crew to utilize the power in a most effeciant manner and keep the batteries charged up.
A good approach to getting an overview of every stage in the development of GE's AC-traction locomotives is to search for patents under that particular engineer's name.
GE's battery program seems to be proceeding along to the point where they are in production and doing test installations in non-vehicle industrial applications:
http://geenergystorage.com/
At the moment though, GE transportation System's focus in the locomotive business is all about the Tier IV compliant GEVO which is make-or-break for them(Just ask Cat/EMD)...I suspect their second major priority is the Natural Gas Dual Fuel system for the GEVO engine so the Hybrid locomotive program seems to be a distant third priority wide.
There are several patents available online related to the energy tender idea..the one I find is the most one held by an engineer who worked on the Hybrid GEVo..it covers energy tenders and even equipping freight cars with battery energy storage and traction motors:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100186619
Sounds similar to NS 999.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
rdamon Could the future designs resemble GTELs with multiple prime movers that could be brought on and offline as needed as well as a battery tender with traction motors?
Could the future designs resemble GTELs with multiple prime movers that could be brought on and offline as needed as well as a battery tender with traction motors?
Except for the battery tender, this sounds like a super-sized version of a genset.
John
about your posting >> wheelslip ...<<
I know that ..
= J =
GDRMCo
sorry for answering late , yet again
to quote
>> Add the weight the US diesels have to a European electric and you'll get pretty close to the same starting TE (well maybe the same as a 4-axle unit) but they'll still have a higher balance speed. <<
well , agreed : on US axle load limits you could build extremely powerful electric units , no question - yet , mind to tell me how does *that* speak against electrics?
There is an all-American business slogan :
Time is Money
Fast moving trains - lots of merchandise per unit of time over a line
Slow moving trains - low mass flow of merchandise per unit of time over a line plus loss of highly paying high priority class of merchandise , too .
No ?
Then why are truckers being pressed by their companies to keep going without a stop ever , having breakfast , lunch and supper behind the wheel and - uhm - even pee never lifting the gas pedal and by the way speed up , too ?
Oh , yes , there are legal regulations , we all know for sure ...
It's the same in Europe .
blade I do belive the biggest and most powerful diesel engine is 6 000 horsepower general electric es6000cw .should they build more powerful locomotives maybe,take a look at the airbus super jumbo a380 it is the biggest airplane built with a mmaximum take off wieght in excess of a mind boggling 1.000.000 million pounds.so if they do build a bigger diesel engine at least 12 000 lbs would be off the charts
I do belive the biggest and most powerful diesel engine is 6 000 horsepower general electric es6000cw .should they build more powerful locomotives maybe,take a look at the airbus super jumbo a380 it is the biggest airplane built with a mmaximum take off wieght in excess of a mind boggling 1.000.000 million pounds.so if they do build a bigger diesel engine at least 12 000 lbs would be off the charts
Just as the Airbus A380 can only land and takeoff from a relatively limited number of airports worldwide due to it's size,your hypothetical 12,000 HP (assuming that that is what you ment) locomotive would be too heavy for many rail lines.
The railroad officials who oversee locomotive purchases prefer units that can be run anywhere on thier respective systems so I doubt that a "DDD100AceP-16" or whatever would ever actually be bought by a railroad..
The con would be the potential to loose an entire train due to a single failure. One solution could be creating a power bus where two large AC units can move from an active-active configuration to a mother-slug model when at speed.
Of course I would rather they just start running the GTELs and DDA40x units again. :)
I do belive the biggest and most powerful diesel engine is 6 000 horsepower general electric es6000cw .should they build more powerful locomotives maybe, take a look at the Airbus Super Jumbo A380, it is the biggest airplane built with a maximum take off weight [mass] in excess of a mind boggling 1.000.000 million pounds. So if they do build a bigger diesel engine at least 12 000 hp would be off the charts
[ just a few suggestions by aunt J - for better mutal understanding , I hope ]
you hit the nail on the head. new engines are not more efficient. Exhaust heat = wasted energy. New engines suck in 18 wheeler's, construction equip, farm equip. and your diesel pickups too. They take more fuel and maintenance and I don't know how burning more fuel is better and cleaner
NorthWest carnej1GE never built an ES6000CW but the ES58AC units built for Brazil are pretty much exactly what such a unit would be. Except that they are only 5800HP, and fail to make the required emission standards. You are correct, though, that these are the closest units built new that we will likely see. I think the AC6000CWs that were converted to GEVO prime movers are closer.
carnej1GE never built an ES6000CW but the ES58AC units built for Brazil are pretty much exactly what such a unit would be.
Except that they are only 5800HP, and fail to make the required emission standards. You are correct, though, that these are the closest units built new that we will likely see. I think the AC6000CWs that were converted to GEVO prime movers are closer.
I would agree but now all the CSX units have been derated to 4400HP to save fuel, turning them into ES44AC equivalents. I suspect they still have significantly greater fuel consumption per mile than the 12 cylinder GEVO's and probably higher maintenance costs, meaning they may be off the roster sooner rather than later.
IIRC, one operational issue with the 5000-6000 HP locomotives is that they were not ideally suited for all types of service. Specifically they were not advantageous in heavy bulk service (coal,grain) because at lower speeds they could not develop more tractive effort than the 4300-4400 HP units. The idea of replacing 3 4000 HP units with 2 6000 HP locomotives was only really applicable for higher speed manifest and intermodal trains...
JACOB LONGANECKER Technically, diesels are all the original "Hybrids".
Technically, diesels are all the original "Hybrids".
Only some diesels, like the Tripowers in the '20s. While any diesel-electric is (technically! your point on energy density is a good one) easy to convert into what used to be called a 'parallel' hybrid, there still has to be a second form of energy storage, such as a battery (or supercap bank, MegaGen. etc.) to provide the alternate source of electricity to the traction motor(s), and perhaps (as in good hybrid designs) to store the energy available from regenerative braking for subsequent effective traction use.
(As a peripheral note, when external electricity is provided as an alternate power source (and perhaps sink), e.g. via third rail or catenary, the present term in use is not 'hybrid' but something like 'dual-power' or 'dual-mode'.)
When the Japanese first started promoting small hybrid automobiles, they redefined 'parallel' (vs. 'serial') as the arrangement of a traction motor with an IC powerplant where both provide direct drive -- the parallel then had the motor in parallel with the IC engine, so that either could drive the powertrain; the serial had the motor in line with the engine crankshaft (usually either at the bellhousing end, or as an oversized generator as in the GM pickup-based hybrids) to accomplish the same end. The former is more easily run as a BEV, without the IC engine running, but in general the traction motor in such a design is smaller than in the 'original' kind of parallel design, because it is explicitly intended to share propulsion duty with the IC engine most of the time. In both cases the design is considerably lighter for a given power density than a 'traditional' engine-generator arrangement where the TM or motor-in-hub or whatever is the only thing that drives the wheels.
I've been complaining about the redefinition for many years, but I think we'll just have to keep using the same term for two very different designs...
... Hybrids by the original definition. An engine [driving] only a generator with no mechanical connection to the drive components.
That has never been the definition of 'hybrid'. What you're describing is '[engine]-electric' (where the name of the engine is usually substituted; 'diesel-electric' or 'gas-electric' being two that are familiar in railroading.
It's like people making up new uses for the word "Ozone". The chemical makeup of Ozone is O4 ... Smog is not Ozone and definitely is not O4.
The chemical makeup of any ozone I am familiar with is O3. You might want to check this before making definitive statements...
cx500(I believe GM recently redesigned the inverters so they could equal the competition.)
Yes, the SD70ACe-P6. Interesting that they found it enough of a difference to rename the units with six.
Paul: You are only somewhat right. On the ruling grade the train may need all those traction axles but elsewhere on the territory it would have no problem continuing to run, often still at the maximum permitted speed. The ruling grade is often only a very small portion of the run.
Sometimes the locomotive dies, but if the problem is with the electrical side often all that is needed is to cut out an offending traction motor. With the GE ACs they could be cut out individually, so you only lost about 15% of the tractive effort. That would rarely cause much noticeable effect on the performance. On a GM AC you lost the whole truck, meaning a nearly 50% reduction from that locomotive. (I believe GM recently redesigned the inverters so they could equal the competition.)
BaltACDAs surprising as it seems - the 4400 HP GE AC locomotives have been earning their keep since at least October 1994 - after 20 years it is about time for the next quantum leap in locomotive technology. Unfortunately Tier 4 compliance doesn't count as a leap in technology, just advancement of technology to remain in business.
After the failure of 6000HP locomotives, the decades-long horsepower race had ended, and the emissions race started. We'll see how much further development is down the road.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.