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

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/10/04 

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:48:16 -0400

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> "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.

The fact that it was a GP-10 was prominent. How could you confuse a GP-10
with an SD90??

>
>>> 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?

No. But then we are talking about hybrids not all electric storage. Is this
something like dyslexia, where you cannot help but confuse what is being
discussed?

>
>>>>> 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.

No. You talked about banning diesels for environmental reasons. That would
mean for their pollution, especially fine particulates. The turbines do not
have this problem.

> Diesel ICEs are the most cost-effective powerplant for locos today;

Not necessarily. For high output, the turbine would be the choice as it is
for high speed rail. Diesels are just the traditional choice.

> 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.

Ah. So you are not banning diesels. You are banning fossil fuels? Why did
you not say so. If they banned fossil fuels I expect that they would just
continue on using diesel engines but develop biodiesels supplies. Much
cheaper. It is commercially available now and a small part of the Sonorran
desert could potentially provide enough biodiesel fuel to power the U.S.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

>
>>> 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.

Think a second. The rails are electified for high speed rail. Whay would
they use inefficienc onboard diesels when they already have the power freely
available. Do not confuse the driving motivation with the opportunity cost.

>
>> 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.

If you have an example where they have electified, it is news to me.
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtrak/

Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over lifting
bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I imagine that level
crossing must be avoided and that must costs a LOT. Only one place has the
traffic to afford this in the U.S. I guess.
http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
"In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC and Boston
(the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track with enough overhead
electric lines to supply electricity to a high-speed rail train."
which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been for
turbine powered locomotion.

>
>> 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.

Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger trains in
Europe using electricity.

>
>>> 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?

No. My position is that the future is not here and you cannot predict it
from reading chicken entrails.

>
> 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 claiming that PEM fuel cell trains are cost effective today? Where
did you read that and how do you justify it? Man. Just discuss the potential
advances in engineering with you and automatigically you go into fantasy
land where everything is NOW.

>
>> 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.

Well, you are still ignoring turbine electric which provides enough power
for high speed rail.

> 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.

Overhead electicity is only feasible in the one area it is already in use.

>
> If the economics of various fuels change drastically, I might support
> something else.

The economic of fuel cells are currently shitty. That is why I pointed to
the hybrid systems.

> Personally I'd rather see everything go to biodiesel
> and/or ethanol, but right now it's just not cost-effective to do so.

Nothing is cost effective before the infrastructure is built. Afterwards
nobody can understand why they didn't switch sooner.

>
>>> 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 'hybrid' is not a 'diesel electrci'. A clue can be gotten from the fact
that they have different names for different things. A hybrid has onboard
power storage so that it can both provide a boost to reduce peak power
requirements ( and thus engine size) increasing efficiency as well as
regenerative power from braking ( to cut down on losses from start/stop
cycles.).

>
>>> 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.

And the power to start or acceleate a frieght is not the same as the power
needed to keep it moving. Please understand what I am saying. Hybrids
provide higher effeiciency by load levelling. The same is true of multiple
engines but regardless of how many engines are active, the hybrid concept
can maximise the efficiency of that engine by regenerative braking and by
peak boosting.

>
>> 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.

That is why a locomotive hybrid would probably be a 'light hybrid' with
limited power boost for short term acceleration, not for inclines.

> 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.

You cannot 'load level' over a long high power use, yes. And yet you can and
do add engines reducing the issue to providing a short term boost for peak
duty even in mountian terrain. Perhaps for the biggest inclines or to
provide a boost during building up of speed. Hybrides do not work by having
massive storage. They can only provide a boost over a peak and recover some
energy from braking on inclines.

>
>> 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.

Idled or detached in a non-issue.

>
>> 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.

And your point is?

> Commuter trains, on the
> other hand, are a perfect use for hybrids.

Rather, they would benefit more from 'light' hybrid design.

> 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.

Leaving room for regenerative braking on nearing the station.

>
>> 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.

Rather, they have become tremendously risk averse, avoiding any change as
potentially disasterous.

> 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.

Well, according to you we shoudl have electric cars with overhead wires on
our streets? There is a problem in comparing apples and oranges, don't you
know?

>
>> 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.

Rather than a failure, the hybrid switcher is a roaring success. However it
is not a testbed for other situtations, only maybe the materials.

The ammonia based PEM locomotive will be a more interesting testbed.
>
> S

Quantcast