And now, hybrid electric locomotives...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Personally, I think natural gas is a great fuel for vehicles in general.  For railway use though, it seems like they are going to 'skip over' and go straight to battery electric with regularized power charging stations.  As I noted to @footeab@yahoo.com the tracks don't move, so it's a lot easier to plan out a charging network, and Battery-electric locomotives basically solve the infrastructure problem of having the whole system continuously electrified.  Locomotives also have a lot more 'down time' when they aren't moving than most people realize, making the charging time a non issue if the stations are in the right locations.  As I noted though, my friends at Caterpillar (and apparently the folks at Wabtec) could be wrong.  Even if they are right, the current fleet of diesel-electric locomotives will still be running the rails for 20-30 years at a minimum.  For an OEM like Caterpillar or Wabtec, that may not be a big enough market to be worth investing in equipment to convert it to CNG, but there are other smaller companies for whom it makes sense to chase that business, and some of the rail lines seem to want it.  If you are trying to predict the future, it would make sense to hedge your bets on both sides of the line, but it's probably safe to assume that diesel-electric will be over and done with in a predictable time frame. 

Here is another story on natural gas locomotives. https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/fec-rolls-out-lng/

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

General Motors Co will supply electric batteries and hydrogen fuel cell systems for rail supplier Wabtec Corp's locomotives, in a move extending the No. 1 U.S. automaker's reach outside the automotive sector.

Wabtec, based in Pittsburgh, is developing locomotives powered by electric batteries and hydrogen fuel cells in response to rail industry demand to eliminate carbon emissions. It has a test electric locomotive model and intends to build a second generation version, with deliveries starting in 2023.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-supply-electric-batteries-hydrogen-130146053.html

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

On 5/30/2021 at 1:27 PM, Eric Gagen said:

It's probably not any worse than a 'normal' diesel engine, and possibly a little better.  Many years ago I did some work for a guy looking to use CNG barges to transport gas to small Caribbean islands for use in electric power stations which were too small to accept LNG tanker loads.  Basically the 'tender' on these CNG locomotives is just a bunch of tubes that are filled with high pressure natural gas, which is bled off through a regulator to provide fuel for the engine as needed.  As long as the pressure isn't enormous, the tubes last functionally forever, and it's 'just' another kind of fuel tank for an otherwise standard diesel locomotive which has had it's fuel injectors reprogrammed, and it's emissions controls chip swapped out for one tuned for the C/H ratio of natural gas instead of #2 diesel oil.  I am sure someone will pursue it - after all, my friend at Caterpillar may be wrong about the future of fossil fuel locomotives.  

Eric is there any work being done on hydrogen fuel cell powered trains?

It seems to me the infrastructure refuelling issue is far less than with road vehicles and there would be no issues in cold temperatures.

Or is this just not economically viable?

Sorry Jay just seen the above lol

Great minds eh

Edited June 16, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 5/26/2021 at 5:36 PM, markslawson said:

Exactly - mind you electrification of commuter trains was a major step in clearing urban skies in those cities where train networks had been built. Extending that network to stuff like electric trams powered through overhead lines are about the only way the morning commute will be substantially electrified - fantasies about electric cars aside. But none of that involves batteries .. The most they claim for this battery-powered hybrid train is that it cuts fuel consumption by about 11 per cent.. they don't say how much additional capital investment is required or even if fuel is the major cost in trains (probably it isn't) - but it seems like a lot of mining of rare earths and stuff for not much result  

 

Jay - please try to remember that those who come on this site are, on average, technically literate. Freight trains are required to pull serious loads, and they are, already an emissions-efficient way to move goods around. If trucks ever go hybrid in large numbers maybe then worry about trains. 

This should make Mark happy:

Australian mining firm is first buyer for Wabtec battery-electric locomotive

FLXdrive will be used to create hybrid power consist on iron ore railroad in remote Pilbara region

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/australian-mining-firm-is-first-buyer-for-wabtec-battery-electric-locomotive/

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Australian mining firm is first buyer for Wabtec battery-electric locomotive

FLXdrive will be used to create hybrid power consist on iron ore railroad in remote Pilbara region

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/australian-mining-firm-is-first-buyer-for-wabtec-battery-electric-locomotive/

What the articles don't tell you and took me a while to work out is that the electric loco is paired with a conventional diesel model as you'd expect.

Note this part of this article   

 The FLXdrive was put to the test as part of a hybrid system with conventional diesel powertrains across a three-month trial in San Joaquin Valley, California, where it covered more than 13,320 miles (21,400 km) of hilly terrain. According to Wabtec, the 11-percent average reduction in fuel consumption for the entire train is equivalent to 6,200 gallons of diesel saved, or around 69 tons of CO2.

They put a whole loco in and its only saving 11 per cent? That doesn't sound very efficient but there may be a cost-benefit case for one. By recharging through dynamic braking the loco is also conserving some of the energy generated by the conventional diesels. Interesting but you can only take this approach so far. Its been bought and stuck on the tracks in order to having something to tell shareholders - look we're trying to conserve carbon.. Anyway, Jay, keep trying.. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, markslawson said:

What the articles don't tell you and took me a while to work out is that the electric loco is paired with a conventional diesel model as you'd expect.

Note this part of this article   

 The FLXdrive was put to the test as part of a hybrid system with conventional diesel powertrains across a three-month trial in San Joaquin Valley, California, where it covered more than 13,320 miles (21,400 km) of hilly terrain. According to Wabtec, the 11-percent average reduction in fuel consumption for the entire train is equivalent to 6,200 gallons of diesel saved, or around 69 tons of CO2.

They put a whole loco in and its only saving 11 per cent? That doesn't sound very efficient but there may be a cost-benefit case for one. By recharging through dynamic braking the loco is also conserving some of the energy generated by the conventional diesels. Interesting but you can only take this approach so far. Its been bought and stuck on the tracks in order to having something to tell shareholders - look we're trying to conserve carbon.. Anyway, Jay, keep trying.. 

We all know it is paired with diesels, the article clearly states as much and I pointed it out in detail in the second post in this thread. The question is why it took you so long to figure it out? No doubt the same reason you think 11% efficiency improvement doesn't sound worthwhile.  

Edited September 14, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[markslawson + 1,042]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We all know it is paired with diesels, the article clearly states as much and I pointed it out in detail in the second post in this thread. The question is why it took you so long to figure it out? No doubt the same reason you think 11% efficiency improvement doesn't sound worthwhile.  

So it does - although you have to search to find it - anyway of course 11 per cent is worthwhile, I never said it wasn't. I was questioning the cost-benefit of buying a whole loco to knock 11 per cent off the fuel costs, plus the heavy duty recharging station that has to be installed and additional wear on the other locos. Without going through the sums - difficult to do without access to information on prices and fuel costs  - I would have said the case would be marginal at best. There is ever indication that the e-loco has been bought to look good to shareholders and green activists. Anyway, that was better than your usual contribution. Leave it with you.. 

[notsonice + 1,067]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

So it does - although you have to search to find it - anyway of course 11 per cent is worthwhile, I never said it wasn't. I was questioning the cost-benefit of buying a whole loco to knock 11 per cent off the fuel costs, plus the heavy duty recharging station that has to be installed and additional wear on the other locos. Without going through the sums - difficult to do without access to information on prices and fuel costs  - I would have said the case would be marginal at best. There is ever indication that the e-loco has been bought to look good to shareholders and green activists. Anyway, that was better than your usual contribution. Leave it with you.. 

They put a whole loco in and its only saving 11 per cent? That doesn't sound very efficient ??? guess you never seen the diesel bill for hauling 60 million tonnes per year of iron ore 214 miles one way (the empty train has to return the mine adding on another 214 mile trip).

11 percent ? I would love to have 10 percent of the savings

1 gal of diesel gets you 500 miles for one tonne of freight on a railroad

for the iron ore mine in question, the rail haul  it uses about 25 million gallons of diesel a year from mine to port

or $75 million a year times 11 percent savings..........$ 8 million a year in the savings just in fuel  plus decreased wear and tear of the other locos and the wear and tear on the brake systems of each jenny.....Battery Loco for regenerative braking is a winner for unit trains. Expect them to be used all over the world for unit trains in the next 10 years

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by notsonice

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/27/2021 at 1:36 AM, markslawson said:

Exactly - mind you electrification of commuter trains was a major step in clearing urban skies in those cities where train networks had been built. Extending that network to stuff like electric trams powered through overhead lines are about the only way the morning commute will be substantially electrified - fantasies about electric cars aside. But none of that involves batteries .. The most they claim for this battery-powered hybrid train is that it cuts fuel consumption by about 11 per cent.. they don't say how much additional capital investment is required or even if fuel is the major cost in trains (probably it isn't) - but it seems like a lot of mining of rare earths and stuff for not much result  

 

Jay - please try to remember that those who come on this site are, on average, technically literate. Freight trains are required to pull serious loads, and they are, already an emissions-efficient way to move goods around. If trucks ever go hybrid in large numbers maybe then worry about trains. 

The Victoria Line (Metro) in London recovers 36% of the energy through regenerative breaking. There are 15 stations and journey time end to end is about 30 minutes. The lines runs at up to 36 train per hour so what one train is dumping into the power track as it decelerates, another train uses it to accelerate.

[notsonice + 1,067]

38 minutes ago, NickW said:

The Victoria Line (Metro) in London recovers 36% of the energy through regenerative breaking. There are 15 stations and journey time end to end is about 30 minutes. The lines runs at up to 36 train per hour so what one train is dumping into the power track as it decelerates, another train uses it to accelerate.

London Underground battery-electric locomotives are battery locomotives used for hauling engineers' trains on the London Underground network where they can operate when the electric traction current is switched off. The first two locomotives were built in 1905 for the construction of the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway, and their success prompted the District Railway to buy two more in 1909, which were the only ones built to the loading gauge of the subsurface lines. Following this, a number of battery vehicles were built by converting redundant motor cars, with the batteries placed in the unused passenger compartment. One exception to this was made by the City and South London Railway, who used a trailer car to hold the batteries, and wired them to a separate locomotive.

From 1936, battery locomotives were built as new vehicles, although in most cases, some components, particularly the bogies and motors, were refurbished from withdrawn passenger cars. The batch of nine vehicles supplied by Gloucester Railway Carriage & Wagon Company between 1936 and 1938 set the standard for subsequent builds. Including this batch, 52 machines had been built by 1986, in six batches from four manufacturers, with one built at London Transport's Acton Works. Each new batch included some improvements, but most used electro-pneumatic traction control equipment made by GEC, and so could be operated together. The exception were three from the 1936 batch, which used an experimental Metadyne system, and the final batch of six, built in 1985, which used controllers manufactured by Kiepe.

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

18 hours ago, notsonice said:

or $75 million a year times 11 percent savings..........$ 8 million a year in the savings just in fuel  plus decreased wear and tear of the other locos and the wear and tear on the brake systems of each jenny.....Battery Loco for regenerative braking is a winner for unit trains. Expect them to be used all over the world for unit trains in the next 10 years

As I said barely worth it -  $8 million a year doesn't get you very far, especially when you consider how long the locos would have to be in service to make up its capital cost plus maintenance. How long would the battery last for example? Then you have to factor in the costs of the other locos having to make up for the e-locos inability to sustain power during the whole trip and the charging station installation capital costs. Then there is the cost of the power  What you've done is make favourable assumption on costs and ignored all the problems. All that said, you may be right and these locos will come to be used widely not because they are cost effective - I doubt they are - but because they allow the company to claim they have the environment at heart and so on. They make useful PR, and probably from that point of view, provided they don't lose too much money on operations, would be worth the trouble. Anyway, a useful discussion. Thanks for the feedback, leave it with you.  

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

The Victoria Line (Metro) in London recovers 36% of the energy through regenerative breaking. There are 15 stations and journey time end to end is about 30 minutes. The lines runs at up to 36 train per hour so what one train is dumping into the power track as it decelerates, another train uses it to accelerate.

NickW - dear, dear.. I was about to make approving noises and then I read the other post and went looking myself. I don't know where you got the 36 per cent figure from but the battery-electric locos used on the underground are for engineering works, not passengers .. that said battery electric is possible for such trains.. however its a long way from reality.. note this extract from this article

In January/February 2015, a trial of the first UK battery hybrid train for 50 years was conducted. A prototype, known as an independently powered, electric multiple unit (IPEMU) entered trial passenger service. The unit consisted of a converted Bombardier Electrostar Class 379 4-car, 25kv 50Hz EMU, that had been retrofitted with a lithium ion magnesium phosphate propulsion battery pack for off catenery use. This trial was deemed to be a success and has strengthened the case for similar IPEMUs running in the UK.

However, in spite of the positive outcome of the trial, there remain some issues which may deter potential industry investors, such as uncertainties over propulsion battery life, and the need to further develop some details of the prototype design to production standard, such as the propulsion battery containment and thermal management. All stakeholders in the concept now need to develop the case further and determine the cost of developing a new generation of battery powered vehicles versus conversion of current stock.

This doesn't sound like the technology is in widespread use does it.. Leave it with you.

[notsonice + 1,067]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

As I said barely worth it -  $8 million a year doesn't get you very far, especially when you consider how long the locos would have to be in service to make up its capital cost plus maintenance. How long would the battery last for example? Then you have to factor in the costs of the other locos having to make up for the e-locos inability to sustain power during the whole trip and the charging station installation capital costs. Then there is the cost of the power  What you've done is make favourable assumption on costs and ignored all the problems. All that said, you may be right and these locos will come to be used widely not because they are cost effective - I doubt they are - but because they allow the company to claim they have the environment at heart and so on. They make useful PR, and probably from that point of view, provided they don't lose too much money on operations, would be worth the trouble. Anyway, a useful discussion. Thanks for the feedback, leave it with you.  

$8 million a year doesn't get you very far???? You obviously have never worked on the financial side of a project or on operating costs. $8 million a year over the next 20 years to 40 years... 160 milliion to 320 million bucks..........Barely worth it????? you really do not know what your talking about....there is no charging station.....it is regenerative braking....do you know what that means????? 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by notsonice

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

NickW - dear, dear.. I was about to make approving noises and then I read the other post and went looking myself. I don't know where you got the 36 per cent figure from but the battery-electric locos used on the underground are for engineering works, not passengers .. that said battery electric is possible for such trains.. however its a long way from reality.. note this extract from this article

In January/February 2015, a trial of the first UK battery hybrid train for 50 years was conducted. A prototype, known as an independently powered, electric multiple unit (IPEMU) entered trial passenger service. The unit consisted of a converted Bombardier Electrostar Class 379 4-car, 25kv 50Hz EMU, that had been retrofitted with a lithium ion magnesium phosphate propulsion battery pack for off catenery use. This trial was deemed to be a success and has strengthened the case for similar IPEMUs running in the UK.

However, in spite of the positive outcome of the trial, there remain some issues which may deter potential industry investors, such as uncertainties over propulsion battery life, and the need to further develop some details of the prototype design to production standard, such as the propulsion battery containment and thermal management. All stakeholders in the concept now need to develop the case further and determine the cost of developing a new generation of battery powered vehicles versus conversion of current stock.

This doesn't sound like the technology is in widespread use does it.. Leave it with you.

Predictably an ill informed and irrelevant comment by Mark Lawson

Note this is from 2015

Recycling energy from Tube trains to power stations - Transport for London (tfl.gov.uk)

I appreciate the system is not hybrid - it doesn't need to be as it sends recovered energy back into the rail track providing the energy. The point is it demonstrates the sort of energy recovery you can get from regenerative braking systems which will be the same source  for hybrid locomotives. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

$8 million a year doesn't get you very far???? You obviously have never worked on the financial side of a project or on operating costs. $8 million a year over the next 20 years to 40 years... 160 milliion to 320 million bucks..........Barely worth it????? you really do not know what your talking about....there is no charging station.....it is regenerative braking....do you know what that means????? 

In fact I use to be a financial reporter and yes, there is a charging station.. says so in the news articles.. as you would expect, regenerative braking is PART of the deal. In the cost analysis you have to compare the price tag (which I didn't see) and life of the asset (which includes a battery pack in this case) with expected savings.. you have to discount back, incidentally.. maybe it would pay back its initial price, but it would be line ball at best I would say.. anyway, I see you're becoming both hysterical and abusive so I'll leave you alone..  Leave it with you.  

[markslawson + 1,042]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Note this is from 2015

Recycling energy from Tube trains to power stations - Transport for London (tfl.gov.uk)

I appreciate the system is not hybrid - it doesn't need to be as it sends recovered energy back into the rail track providing the energy. The point is it demonstrates the sort of energy recovery you can get from regenerative braking systems which will be the same source  for hybrid locomotives. 

NickW - I am becoming impatient. The trial you point to is in fact about the same age as the article I cite and I couldn't see anywhere that they have started using the system on the underground. The most recent reference I could find was an article last year that basically repeated that release. Yet, I got the distinct impression from your original post that this technology was in common use.. not only are in completely unapologetic over what was an attempt to mislead, you abuse me for the correcting the record.. "ill informed and irrelevant" anyway, that's it on that one. I suggest you be more careful when we next exchange posts.. Leave it with you..   

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

55 minutes ago, markslawson said:

In fact I use to be a financial reporter and yes, there is a charging station.. says so in the news articles.. as you would expect, regenerative braking is PART of the deal. In the cost analysis you have to compare the price tag (which I didn't see) and life of the asset (which includes a battery pack in this case) with expected savings.. you have to discount back, incidentally.. maybe it would pay back its initial price, but it would be line ball at best I would say.. anyway, I see you're becoming both hysterical and abusive so I'll leave you alone..  Leave it with you.  

One charging station was installed in Stockton because they wanted to experiment with using it as a yard switcher. However the test route it ran was 700 miles from Stockton to Barstow and back. The charger wasn't relevant to the road test.  The unit only has a range of 40 miles on a full charge. That said, chargers aren't a big deal like you think they are.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 5/27/2021 at 6:33 PM, markslawson said:

Jay - look, again, you don't seem to realise I spent a good part of my adult life looking at profit and loss statements and balance sheets. Now look at this full year accounting of costs for BNSF... fuel comes in fourth. But it wasn't even the point I was making about costs.. the point was not that fuel is an expense but whether the additional expenditure on this vastly more complicated train, not to mention the vast increases in use of scarce rare earths and the like, is worth the saving in fuel. Remember you have to update the whole fleet to get this 10-30 per cent saving on the total fuel bill listed, if it can be achieved. Rather than blindly support anything electric, maybe it might be better to take a step back and ask some hard questions. At least this time your argument made marginally more sense than usual. Leave it with you.   

Recently did an assignment for material balances comparing two cars, one with twice the mileage but costing 1/3 extra. In the theoretical scenario, it took 60k miles of driving to pay off the difference. 

I agree with you, fuel savings really aren't that big of a deal.

This is something I do with tractors as well. Weighing the cost of a new one with better fuel efficiency vs one from the 1980's. Spoiler alert: The only thing you should worry about is repair cost. Fuel cost is insignificant if you have to pay 100k extra for a 10% boost. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior