Here's a wild card: the closed-cycle gas turbine.
The CCGT is an external combustion heat engine, so needs only a heat source not a specific fuel. The following link summarises the differences between ordinary, open-cycle gas turbines (as used in the UP locomotives, amongst others) and the closed-cycle type:
https://me-mechanicalengineering.com/comparison-between-closed-cycle-gas-turbine-and-open-cycle-gas-turbine/
The CCGT is under development for power generation. It might also be used for marine applications. If a CCGT of suitable dimensions were put into large scale production there is no reason why a locomotive using this prime mover could not be built. Since combustion is separate from the operation of the turbine it would be possible to use carbon-neutral fuels such as biomass pellets or pyrolysis oil.
I doubt that a major breakthrough in clean diesel technology is possible. Going from Tier O to Tier 3 may not have been easy but it was accomplished without too much difficulty. Getting to Tier 4 appears to have involved some steps that add a major degree of complication to the process. Getting to a theoretical Tier 5 may be impossible.
If we are going with real possible improvements, I would say a breakthrough in clean engine diesel technology. It would need to be something comparable to converters on gas engines. They are dirtier than we want to think about and it's a global issue so there is a good insentive across many markets to come up with something. I am excepting CO2 as it is native to the beast and all you can do is use it's output efficently. Thay still leaves soot, Nox and sulfer compounds as true posions coming out the stack.
zugmann Paul of Covington How about this? Equip locomotives with strain sensors on their draft gear and logic in place to sense this strain and control power and braking When we ran with LEADER, it showed buff and draft forces throughout the train.
Paul of Covington How about this? Equip locomotives with strain sensors on their draft gear and logic in place to sense this strain and control power and braking
When we ran with LEADER, it showed buff and draft forces throughout the train.
Yes, it was quite impressive watching the LEADER screen the time it tore up a 135 car 2x1 coal train. I watched the draft force in the red (excessive force) danger zone develope and run through the train until the air went. Once it started, it was too late to stop it.
The buff/draft indicator was computer generated. I noticed on many that when operating with the fence up and each consist independent, the indicator still showed in-train forces as if the lead and dp consists were being operated in sync mode.
LEADER integrated in PTC doesn't show in-train forces. It also doesn't show the entire train if it's over about 7000 ft long on the PTC screen.
Jeff
Paul of Covington Equip locomotives with strain sensors on their draft gear and logic in place to sense this strain and control power and braking. When placed in a train as a DPU, the logic would be set up to sense the strain on the leading coupler and attempt to keep the strain at zero.
Equip locomotives with strain sensors on their draft gear and logic in place to sense this strain and control power and braking. When placed in a train as a DPU, the logic would be set up to sense the strain on the leading coupler and attempt to keep the strain at zero.
That's been tried before, remember reading about tests in an early 1960's Trains issue. General consnsus is that it doesn't work, think of stop-and-go traffic on a freeway at rush hour.
I also think that the consensus with distributed power is that the embedded locomotives need to do a bit of pushing - a comment along those lines was made in an article on use of helpers in the first few years of the Milwaukee electrification.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
How about this?
Equip locomotives with strain sensors on their draft gear and logic in place to sense this strain and control power and braking. When placed in a train as a DPU, the logic would be set up to sense the strain on the leading coupler and attempt to keep the strain at zero. This way, I think you could make up a very long train with a single locomotive up front followed by single DPU's spaced throughout the whole train, the number of cars behind each unit depending on the capability of the locomotives and on the terrain. You would still need remote control capability for emergency and for instances I know I haven't thought of, but for routine operation the engineer need not be concerned with controlling the following units. And by spacing the locomotives throughout the train I think broken knuckles would be less likely.
I know there is always, "What if something goes wrong", which is true of anything technical, but otherwise, would this work?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
caldreamer traisessive1. I disagree with you on th point that 4 axle engines are not needed. They are good for locals, transfers and with a slug for yard switching. They still have a place. Not like it used to be when they pulled through freights because they need 6 axle engines due to the higher tonnage pulled today, but thery are still needed and usefull Ira
traisessive1.
I disagree with you on th point that 4 axle engines are not needed. They are good for locals, transfers and with a slug for yard switching. They still have a place. Not like it used to be when they pulled through freights because they need 6 axle engines due to the higher tonnage pulled today, but thery are still needed and usefull
Ira
Which is exactly why I said 4 axle ROAD power.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
HR616 RailDan My guess? Cut the diesel. Battery-powered cars and trucks are on the rise, so why not trains? I know it would take up more space, but without a prime mover I would imagine you'd have plenty. If batteries are too much of a stretch, then surely hydrogen fuel cells aren't. BNSF and GE are teaming up to test that concpept out. Battery locos may be able to perform shorter runs, but I can't see them hauling an intermodal train from LA to Chicago anytime soon. Why? Energy density. Even the most efficient types of Lithium batteries are limited in terms of storage and charging capacity. https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/bnsf-and-ge-to-test-battery-freight-loco.html As for Hydrogen, there does seem to be some interest in it over in Europe. If you wan't Carbon neutral Hydrogen gas though, a process called electrolysis would need to be used (it consumes a lot of energy and is quite expensive). Bottom line? I can't see any mass adoption of these technologies unless there's an economic incentive or requirement to do so. Right now, Diesels (even the less reliable T4 models) are still cheaper to run than most other types of locomotives.
RailDan My guess? Cut the diesel. Battery-powered cars and trucks are on the rise, so why not trains? I know it would take up more space, but without a prime mover I would imagine you'd have plenty. If batteries are too much of a stretch, then surely hydrogen fuel cells aren't.
My guess? Cut the diesel. Battery-powered cars and trucks are on the rise, so why not trains? I know it would take up more space, but without a prime mover I would imagine you'd have plenty.
If batteries are too much of a stretch, then surely hydrogen fuel cells aren't.
BNSF and GE are teaming up to test that concpept out. Battery locos may be able to perform shorter runs, but I can't see them hauling an intermodal train from LA to Chicago anytime soon. Why? Energy density. Even the most efficient types of Lithium batteries are limited in terms of storage and charging capacity.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/bnsf-and-ge-to-test-battery-freight-loco.html
As for Hydrogen, there does seem to be some interest in it over in Europe. If you wan't Carbon neutral Hydrogen gas though, a process called electrolysis would need to be used (it consumes a lot of energy and is quite expensive).
Bottom line? I can't see any mass adoption of these technologies unless there's an economic incentive or requirement to do so. Right now, Diesels (even the less reliable T4 models) are still cheaper to run than most other types of locomotives.
I actually agree that there is no reason for this technology right now and I think it will be quite a while until any of it is implemented- maybe by another EPA restriction. Other than possibly autonomous trains, I don't see any major advancements before then, though. That would make it the next big advancement (again, unless autonomous traind come first) even if it is a ways off.
MidlandMike and HR616--thanks for your replies.
zardoz One thing I've wondered about: because of the huge up-front costs of installing catenary as the main reason electrification has not become popular, would not a third-rail-type of installation work? Certainly works well on mass transit.
One thing I've wondered about: because of the huge up-front costs of installing catenary as the main reason electrification has not become popular, would not a third-rail-type of installation work? Certainly works well on mass transit.
There are many issues with third rails. Aside from all the safety problems (like preventing trespassers from getting electrocuted), third rail systems typically use lower DC voltages (with high currents), meaning hundreds of substations would be required on a longer freight line. There are also practical issues too, like clearing snow in the winter, and gaps created by grade crossings and junctions.
zardozOne thing I've wondered about: because of the huge up-front costs of installing catenary as the main reason electrification has not become popular, would not a third-rail-type of installation work? Certainly works well on mass transit.
Third rail is low voltage DC (AC needs more isolation distance). DC needs converters and more substations (low voltage has a short transmission range.) OK for short transit districts, but not for mainlines.
HR616Battery locos may be able to perform shorter runs, but I can't see them hauling an intermodal train from LA to Chicago anytime soon.
Even a 15K ton train will require three SD motors, each one's ammeter needle buried at 1500 amps, just to pull it up a mere 1% grade.
Locomotives carry thousands of pounds of ballast for a reason.
You need that weight and six axles to take full of advantage of 4,400 horsepower, or tractive effort decreases. There's a reason why GE's ES44C4's were marketed as having similar tractive effort capabilities as DC motored ES44DC's rather than ES44AC's.
All the fancy wheelslip controls in the world won't make up for thousands of less pounds when 4,400 horsepower is delivered to the rails on a four axle machine weighing ~288,000 pounds rather than spread across six axles on a 432,000 pound locomotive.
And again using 432,000 pounds as an example, no Class 1 will want that weight spread across just four axles at 108,000 pounds per axle rather than today's 72,000, just to achive similar traction capabilities as an ES44AC.
BaltACD MidlandMike BaltACD MidlandMike How about a lighter weight engine so they don't need 3 axle trucks. How much more tonnage will a lighter weight engine pull and at what higher speed? This would be for the engines that develop all the traction they need from 4 AC motors, but need 6 axles for weight distribution. ie. GP-40's Remember CSX took the production CW44AC's and put additional ballast in them so they could pull more tonnage than the regular production version. The additional weight permited these engines to have a tonnage rating of about 500 tons more than the non-Heavies.
MidlandMike BaltACD MidlandMike How about a lighter weight engine so they don't need 3 axle trucks. How much more tonnage will a lighter weight engine pull and at what higher speed? This would be for the engines that develop all the traction they need from 4 AC motors, but need 6 axles for weight distribution.
BaltACD MidlandMike How about a lighter weight engine so they don't need 3 axle trucks. How much more tonnage will a lighter weight engine pull and at what higher speed?
MidlandMike How about a lighter weight engine so they don't need 3 axle trucks.
How much more tonnage will a lighter weight engine pull and at what higher speed?
This would be for the engines that develop all the traction they need from 4 AC motors, but need 6 axles for weight distribution.
ie. GP-40's
Remember CSX took the production CW44AC's and put additional ballast in them so they could pull more tonnage than the regular production version. The additional weight permited these engines to have a tonnage rating of about 500 tons more than the non-Heavies.
No, I'm not talking about 50 year old GP-40's. I am talking about current high HP model GE's and "EMD"s, that because of AC motor efficency, only need 4 powered axles, but still need 6 axles total to carry the weight of the engine. The 2 extra axles contribute nothing to traction. Some railroads go to the trouble of ordering the optional package to change the weight distribution on the dead axles.
4 axle road locomotives are a thing of the past. It really blows my mind that BNSF has those ES44C4s. Where I work they are all about putting the most tonnage on a train as they possibly can with the least amount of power, even on the intermodal trains. There is no such thing as a high speed train anywhere here.
A 4 axle road engine just doesn't have a place in today's world. They need the 6 axles to pull the load.
Trains won't get shorter if crew sizes get smaller. That makes no sense. They won't add more trains just because they have fewer crews. That totally takes away from the whole point. Get rid of one expense and add another??
NS6770fan RailDan My guess? Cut the diesel. Battery-powered cars and trucks are on the rise, so why not trains? I know it would take up more space, but without a prime mover I would imagine you'd have plenty. If batteries are too much of a stretch, then surely hydrogen fuel cells aren't. Then it might be automation after that... that depends on how far off that technology is. NS tried this with the 999. It failed and the unit now sits infront of the Roanoke shops without numberboards.
RailDan My guess? Cut the diesel. Battery-powered cars and trucks are on the rise, so why not trains? I know it would take up more space, but without a prime mover I would imagine you'd have plenty. If batteries are too much of a stretch, then surely hydrogen fuel cells aren't. Then it might be automation after that... that depends on how far off that technology is.
Then it might be automation after that... that depends on how far off that technology is.
NS tried this with the 999. It failed and the unit now sits infront of the Roanoke shops without numberboards.
So? It was just an experiment. There werre plenty of unsuccessful diesel prototypes before the EMD FT came along. Eventually, someone else will give it a shot, I'm sure. And, like I said, perhaps hydrogen fuel cells could be more realistic.
Worth noting that both battery and hydrohgen power is being looked at seriously for multiple units in Europe, which I know are very different machines, but that could possibly lead somewhere...
With a lot fewer moving parts, it should certainly be possible to make a battery powered locomotive that is a lot more reliable than a diesel. Also, rarely do either of these setups come in one piece- if one battery pack or fuel cell fails, the locomotive can keep going and it can be serviced (or even replaced) individually.
Both setups allow for regenerative braking, which I can imagine as being very effective on heavy North American freight trains. Remember the Virginian Railway? Apparently, a loaded coal train heading downgrade on the electrrified part could generate enough power to pull an empty one back up. Regular dynamic brakes on a diesel can't put fuel back in the tank.
I wouldn't bother speculating about the locomotive design before you have the operating model worked out. Most of the advantages of autonomous operation of freight under PSR might easily be achieved with a 'module' trainlength comfortably handled by a single 4400hp C-C (or A-1-A-trucked 'equivalent' as now in service) and thereby not suffer the relatively large capitalization and restricted operating capability of a fleet of lighter B-B power. (Which wouldn't be GP40 equivalents, but something required to use SCR/DEF high-speed engines, with all the infrastructure and servicing issues that implies...) Did we not discuss a 'freight' version of the Siemens Charger (with frame-and-hood construction rather than monocoque but retaining geometric truck centers at the quarter points) a while back?
If ever there were a case for Kneiling's original integral-train equipment (he proposed light gas turbines in dedicated 'rakes' of articulated spine underframes) or the less ambitious forms of 'freight doodlebugs' like the original European Sprinters, this would be it (rather than attempting to retain a locomotive-hauled model at all.) But we come back to another of Kneiling's considerations, the use of open access and common standards for what he called the 'iron ocean' -- something achievable under private ownership with the necessary 'enabling' and safety systems, which PTC basically provides and standards of CBTC extend to a world of many small consists in the traffic mix, and a little political re-regulation. Without a reasonable implementation of PSR the idea of many small consists, even if multiples fit in a single given siding, quickly turns to nightmare; the idea of mixing small and larger consists already has the Excedrin bottle starting to suffer.
One early advantage I can see for small autonomous consists in a conventional environment, where Amtrak is present, is to implement good CBTC and then fleet a number of the modular consists before and after the Amtrak train, on relatively short mutual headways determined by the Amtrak train itself. That might well encompass all the high-speed scheduled freight for that particular lane, or permit concentration of traffic that allows practical sustained-speed increase of the 'extended consist' while leaving the other 'dayparts' amenable to slower one-speed operation.
I'm a bit surprised Don Oltmann hasn't chimed in to a greater extent here; his blogged proposal for how an electrified "PRR" would handle blocks of freight is highly applicable to an autonomous model with 'distributed power' corresponding to the addressable blocks going to different lanes en route... perhaps even using a glorified and powered version of the old Great Western slip-coach methodology.
SD70DudeFusion. Hot or Cold. If Doc Brown can power a flying DeLorean with something exactly the size of a coffee maker, then how big would a 10,000 HP FusiCAT be? The Space Force could pay for itself by mining Helium 3 on the moon... ...and there's our fuel source!
This is just a little cruel. It's not quite as bad as that; if it fits on the back of a truck, it would be possible to fit it in a locomotive, even one made small to fit a lighter peak consist...
Thorium cycle also produces He3; I trust you appreciate why this is 'preferred' for mirror machines that are intended to produce electricity as their output.
I'd be happy with electric-powered intermittent wipers and decent HVAC.
I know - I'm a cheap date.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Flintlock76 As crazy as it sounds, there may be a whole 'nother source of energy out there as yet undiscovered and understood. Look at it this way, 400 years ago who would have thought the steam seeping out from under the lids of cooking pots could be harnessed to machines that would change the world? 200 years ago who would have thought the somewhat mysterious power of electricity could be harnessed to machines that would change the world? And 100 years ago? Who could have imagined nuclear energy? 75 years ago? Who would have thought solar power would be the force it's become? I'm not a religious man, by any means, but sometimes I wonder if God in His wisdom picks the time and place when He's ready to reveal His secrets to us. That is, when He thinks we're ready. Maybe we're not ready yet for the next advance.
As crazy as it sounds, there may be a whole 'nother source of energy out there as yet undiscovered and understood.
Look at it this way, 400 years ago who would have thought the steam seeping out from under the lids of cooking pots could be harnessed to machines that would change the world?
200 years ago who would have thought the somewhat mysterious power of electricity could be harnessed to machines that would change the world?
And 100 years ago? Who could have imagined nuclear energy?
75 years ago? Who would have thought solar power would be the force it's become?
I'm not a religious man, by any means, but sometimes I wonder if God in His wisdom picks the time and place when He's ready to reveal His secrets to us.
That is, when He thinks we're ready.
Maybe we're not ready yet for the next advance.
Fusion. Hot or Cold.
If Doc Brown can power a flying DeLorean with something exactly the size of a coffee maker, then how big would a 10,000 HP FusiCAT be?
The Space Force could pay for itself by mining Helium 3 on the moon... ...and there's our fuel source!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
oltmannd If autonomous trains come to pass, the need to run really large trains for crew productivity will cease. Instead, really short, really frequent trains will rule the day. Those trains will need small, lower HP locomotives. How about a 1000 HP, two axle locomotive?
If autonomous trains come to pass, the need to run really large trains for crew productivity will cease. Instead, really short, really frequent trains will rule the day. Those trains will need small, lower HP locomotives. How about a 1000 HP, two axle locomotive?
You beat me to it, a truly successful and reliable automation system that can properly operate ALL the features of the locomotive and train (unlike Trip Op and Leader) will be the biggest future locomotive innovation. I don't like it but it is coming within my lifetime, just like autonomous trucks.
However, as long as Janney couplers, gladhand connectors on air hoses, hand-operated switches, and poor maintenance practices dominate there will be a need for some train operation employees out in the field.
No matter how advanced the locomotive is, you still need a real person to flip the Diagnostic Access Switch and perform a hard reset of the computer when it dies out on the line.
In the short term. Battery Tenders.
These could be M.U.ed to existing diesel locomotives that have been modified to charge or draw from the battery pack. They could operate either as "B" units, or add a cab and use them in a Slug/Mother arraignment the way CSX operated their GP40/GP30 slug combos.
If used in the Slug/Mother mode, and permanently connected, it might be possible to designate the combo as a single hybrid locomotive and cut the carbon footprint in half. They could follow the Slug formula of being built on the cut down frame of scrapped locomotives.
Second, I think the railroads will have to re-examine DEF using prime movers. Many commuter services and Amtrak have already bitten the bullet. DEF is now widely available from fuel suppliers.
Long term. As much as railroads don’t want to hear it… electrification. I don’t see any other long term solution.
Perhaps some future government will offer grants, loans or tax credits to enable the railroads to hang wire. Of course that won’t happen until after the PSR railroads have liquidated all of their real estate and unused assets, and start selling the government the only thing they have left… their right of way and track.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.