Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: Stephen Sprunk (stephen_at_sprunk.org)
Date: 08/10/04 

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:14:04 -0500

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:ti8Sc.12425$a65.514707@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:LjWRc.7915$a65.396799@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >>> An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly
> >>> rolling terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and
> >>> sometimes more at the back) of the consist. You think railroads
> >>> want to quadruple the number of engines they need?
> >>
> >> Because they want BIG trains to reduce the number of switching
> >> decisions and personnel requirements.
> >
> > That doesn't justify using 24 FC locos where six diesel locos will do.
>
> This is really stupid. There is nothing to say that FC locomotives cannot
be
> made in 4,000+ hp varieties. The size of the current one is exactly right
> for the job it is doing. They even downsized a larger model because it was
> oversized for the job. Now you want to use 24 light duty yard switchers to
> pull line frieght trains?? Do you have ANY clue?

If the goal was to make a yard switcher, it appears they've succeeded. That
wasn't the goal I'd gotten from previous messages in the thread.

> > History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for
> > long-haul routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two)
> > tiny locos.
>
> Sure. P.S. nice illogical non-sequitor or is it a red herring? If they
build
> FC line haulers they will be sized to the job. ***, you are clueless.
Were
> you always this dim or is it due to brain damage?

But can they actually build long-distance FC locos with sufficient (and
safe) storage capacity to match the range a full-size diesel-electric loco
can do today?

> >>> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads (the
> >>> few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their lines
> >>> and switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler, cheaper, more
> >>> proven than any hydrogen-based "solution".
> >>
> >> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
> >> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
> >
> > And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines?
>
> JP4 or something equivalent like diesel.

You missed the entire point of what I said. Diesel ICEs are the most
cost-effective powerplant for locos today; the question was what they'd do
if diesel (and presumably other fossil fuels) were banned. They wouldn't
switch to H2, they'd go electric.

> > Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel engines
> > they use are mainly for switching and short-haul movements. Totally
> > different requirements.
>
> The reason they use electrics is mostly because they want high power, low
> cost, and low weight for high speed rail systems.

Read closer. Europe uses electric for long-distance freight because, due to
their taxes, it's cheaper than diesel. Electric will be cheaper (and easier
to deal with) than H2 as well.

> Other than electic rail the only other way to have such light weight high
> power is by turbine engine and if you look at high speed rail proposals
for
> the U.S. you will notice that as the engine of choice.

The only HSR in the US (existing or proposed) uses overhead electric; try
again.

> Having power delivered from the lines reduces the weight of the
locomotive
> part allowing for a relatively light weight locomotive and cars with the
> power to haul at high speed. Obviously, the same pressures would exist in
> the U.S. if they made a similar investment in high speed commuter freight,
> but let us not talk about fantasies. The U.S. requirements for rail will
be
> for slow speeds, heavy cargo and passenger rail will be an afterthought.
> WAY too many level crossing.

Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos actually require
ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but you brought up passenger
rail.

> > And that still doesn't address the issue that US RRs expect a loco
> > engine to last 30+ years. If buying six locos that lasted 5 years
> > each were more cost effective, they'd be doing it.
>
> And yet, replacing the batteries every five to ten years or even
rebuilding
> the PEM cell would be a simple thing. Relative economics will be the real
> issue and that is not yet known. Diesels in the 4,000 hp class are not
cheap
> either.

So your position is that PEMs and batteries are cheap enough to
replace/rebuild every few years and still come out ahead of a 30+ year
service-life diesel loco?

It's possible, but I'd like to see real numbers on that. Current FC cars
(which at least resemble locos) can't even break even on cost for a 5-year
service life.

> Are you babbling to hear yourself think or do you think you have some
> universal principle or unconquerable problem that will force things to go
> your way. And what way is that? Sometimes I think you are arguing for
> electified rail and other times you seem to be saying that diesels will
> never be replaceable.

Diesel wins hands-down in the US, except for HSR where it simply can't
provide enough traction power. Electric is the only other _proven_
technology and has the advantage (over fossil fuels) of no emissions at the
point of use, but it's more expensive in our current economy.

If the economics of various fuels change drastically, I might support
something else. Personally I'd rather see everything go to biodiesel and/or
ethanol, but right now it's just not cost-effective to do so.

> > Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries
> > needed to store excess/regenerated power.
>
> So they are diesel electrics, not hybrids..... Halfway hybrids or
whatever.
> It just points to there being easy to convert to hybrids. Just add battery
> storage and charging controllers.

So to you, a power train consisting of a diesel engine, electric generator,
and electric motors does not qualify as a hybrid merely because it doesn't
have batteries?

> > A switcher would benefit from such, but long-haul locos tend to
> > maintain constant speeds for hours at a time; the weight of the
batteries
> > would offset any gains made during (rare) acceleration events.
>
> No. The engines of pretty well any transport system are sized for peak
> power. Aircraft do it on takeoff. Locomotives do it on hauling through the
> mountains.

Unlike aircraft and cars, locos are added to freight consists for trips up
and down steep grades; a typical freight consist in Kansas (running at peak
power just maintaining speed on level track) would never make it though
western Colorado.

> Cars do it to accelerate onto the highway. Etc. Hybrids have the
> advantage of being able to 'borrow' from the batteries to reduce the size
of
> the engine required for those peak times and not having to idle the engine
> when power is not needed just to have it ready when the line moves a
little
> ( more important in gasoline engines than diesels ) .

That assumes your hybrid has enough battery capacity to last through the
peak need. A loco heading into the mountains can spend _hours_ at peak
power, and then more hours at idle power braking down the other side. You'd
need many, many railcars full of batteries to hold enough energy to be
useful.

> Even with line haulers, for heavy loads, or mountain passages, they tend
to
> add other engines and so the equation still ends up that engine capacity
are
> much higher than average loads. Say there was a four engine frieght with
> three of the engines needed for a mountain pass. It may be that they can
> idle three of the engines on flat level ground once up to speed.

They generally remove the excess locos from the consist at the bottom of the
grade, unless logistics dictate they're needed somewhere else. There's
often a pool of "helper" locos at the bottom on each side, which are slapped
onto the end of freights coming through.

> I expect that line haulers, if built on the hybrid concept, would be
'light
> hybrid' with limited battery storage, just to add a short boost when
needed
> for accelerating the train up to speed.

Freight trains rarely stop between yards. Commuter trains, on the other
hand, are a perfect use for hybrids. Short but steep acceleration profiles
mean most systems have several times the capacity they need once up to
speed; the rolling resistance is so low it's not uncommon for the engineer
to run peak power coming out of a station, hit 60mph after a minute or so,
and then coast 3-5mi to the next station. A smart hybrid could use that
coasting time to charge the batteries for the next departure.

> Actually I expect that the rail companies will not bother as they don't
have
> any pressure to make such savings and there are few companies more
> conservative than U.S. railroads.

With most railroads teetering on the brink of bankrupcy for the last several
decades, they'll do anything to cut costs. But first there has to be strong
evidence they _will_ save money for them to make that commitment, and fuel
cells simply aren't proven even in the comparatively reckless auto industry.

> The line switcher is another story, of course.

Indeed. It's a great laboratory to make experiments, because the cost of
failure is low and the requirements for success are even lower. In another
decade or two enough evidence might be collected that fuel cells could be
considered for long-distance use.

S 

-- 
Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov
Quantcast