Smudge617
Well-Known Member
Came across this interesting article published in the Wall Street Journal.
The Future of Diesel Freight Locomotives
- Thread starter Smudge617
- Start date
ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
Mixed Freight
Well-Known Member
Somewhat interesting article. But in my opinion..................
The only TRUE advancement in diesel-electric locomotives, which no one really wants to hear of, or admit to, will be Nuclear-Electric locomotives.
All the other so-called "advancements" to diesel-electrics range anywhere from a small step backwards to large leaps backwards.
The only TRUE advancement in diesel-electric locomotives, which no one really wants to hear of, or admit to, will be Nuclear-Electric locomotives.
All the other so-called "advancements" to diesel-electrics range anywhere from a small step backwards to large leaps backwards.
J.Albert
Well-Known Member
Battery-powered locomotives just aren't going to work. Period.
Nor will hydrogen-powered locomotives -- not reliably or efficiently, anyway.
Who here has read William D. Middleton's books "When the Steam Railroads Electrified", or "Time of the Trolley"?
In the earliest days of electric traction (which go all the way back to 1834 or so and Thomas Davenport's little electric toy locomotive in Vermont) one of the fundamental problems became a constant source of electric power.
Electrical dynamos that were reliable didn't yet exist, so batteries were used. Very crude then, of course, but they demonstrated 175 years ago why "batteries" could not be relied upon for powering railed vehicles over any distances or for any extended length of time.
Once a "constant source of power" was established (electric dynamo generator at a fixed power plant) and a good source of power delivery was fabricated (third rail or overhead wire), electric traction proceeded rapidly.
By the 1920's, railroads had established reliable and well-performing alternatives to steam power -- by electrifying their mainlines, such as the New Haven, The Milwaukee Road, and [a decade+ later] the Pennsylvania.
If the railroads are going to replace diesel-electric locomotives in mainline freight service, all they have to do is electrify those mainlines. NOW they'll have a constant source of power that won't run down and require "re-charging" -- from the nearly-limitless power in the wire up above.
I realize "the cost" of such services. It won't be cheap.
But this is the only scheme that will work.
Perhaps if a state like California had given up notions of that stupid "high-speed rail" boondoggle that has burned up tens of BILLIONS in that state, and put all those funds toward electrifying the freight mainlines, they would actually have something to show for their money, and something that cuts down on diesel usage, as well.
But batteries?
Not gonna happen in your lifetime.
Nor will hydrogen-powered locomotives -- not reliably or efficiently, anyway.
Who here has read William D. Middleton's books "When the Steam Railroads Electrified", or "Time of the Trolley"?
In the earliest days of electric traction (which go all the way back to 1834 or so and Thomas Davenport's little electric toy locomotive in Vermont) one of the fundamental problems became a constant source of electric power.
Electrical dynamos that were reliable didn't yet exist, so batteries were used. Very crude then, of course, but they demonstrated 175 years ago why "batteries" could not be relied upon for powering railed vehicles over any distances or for any extended length of time.
Once a "constant source of power" was established (electric dynamo generator at a fixed power plant) and a good source of power delivery was fabricated (third rail or overhead wire), electric traction proceeded rapidly.
By the 1920's, railroads had established reliable and well-performing alternatives to steam power -- by electrifying their mainlines, such as the New Haven, The Milwaukee Road, and [a decade+ later] the Pennsylvania.
If the railroads are going to replace diesel-electric locomotives in mainline freight service, all they have to do is electrify those mainlines. NOW they'll have a constant source of power that won't run down and require "re-charging" -- from the nearly-limitless power in the wire up above.
I realize "the cost" of such services. It won't be cheap.
But this is the only scheme that will work.
Perhaps if a state like California had given up notions of that stupid "high-speed rail" boondoggle that has burned up tens of BILLIONS in that state, and put all those funds toward electrifying the freight mainlines, they would actually have something to show for their money, and something that cuts down on diesel usage, as well.
But batteries?
Not gonna happen in your lifetime.
jmupton2000
John M Upton
There have been a few attempts in recent times here in the UK at converting an existing class of multiple unit to hybrid propulsion, basically adding battery and or diesel engines to existing electric multiple units to bridge gaps in the electrified parts of the UK rail network.
All have been a dismal and expensive failure, the Class 769's that were converted from redundant Class 319's for GWR Reading to Gatwick services at great expense for example, never turned a wheel in traffic carrying a fare paying passenger and after three years of testing, the whole lot were binned off to "warm storage" which is UK railway speak for hide them somewhere before quietly moving them along to the scrap man.
All have been a dismal and expensive failure, the Class 769's that were converted from redundant Class 319's for GWR Reading to Gatwick services at great expense for example, never turned a wheel in traffic carrying a fare paying passenger and after three years of testing, the whole lot were binned off to "warm storage" which is UK railway speak for hide them somewhere before quietly moving them along to the scrap man.
GEfan
Active Member
Hi John,
Actually the 769 tri-modes are now testing in Scotland, although I believe they are now bi-mode, diesel and 25kv AC overhead - the 750v DC third rail having been removed.
It is quite interesting, that in the UK we have a new product from Stadler called a Class 93 which is a tri-mode Bo-Bo locomotive ... 25kv AC overhead, CAT diesel and Li-ion batteries. The batteries are intended to retain energy previously lost through braking, and be charged from the CAT engine, its a very different proposition from a normal diesel loco, as the CAT engine is basically providing electric, not normal drive like a diesel. The big BUT however is it is intended for passenger and lighter weight freight operations - its no good at all for UP/BNSF/CSX for example, but does show the tech is developing.
There are also hydrogen powered passenger trains operating in Europe, but again, its a very different proposition moving a few hundred tones of multiple unit than the US style freights!
Richie
Actually the 769 tri-modes are now testing in Scotland, although I believe they are now bi-mode, diesel and 25kv AC overhead - the 750v DC third rail having been removed.
It is quite interesting, that in the UK we have a new product from Stadler called a Class 93 which is a tri-mode Bo-Bo locomotive ... 25kv AC overhead, CAT diesel and Li-ion batteries. The batteries are intended to retain energy previously lost through braking, and be charged from the CAT engine, its a very different proposition from a normal diesel loco, as the CAT engine is basically providing electric, not normal drive like a diesel. The big BUT however is it is intended for passenger and lighter weight freight operations - its no good at all for UP/BNSF/CSX for example, but does show the tech is developing.
There are also hydrogen powered passenger trains operating in Europe, but again, its a very different proposition moving a few hundred tones of multiple unit than the US style freights!
Richie
Last edited:
trailrider
Well-Known Member
The main problem I see for using electric power exclusively in the U.S.A. is our power grid being able to supply the power more extensively than now. As GEfan stated, this just doesn't seem practicable for the major Class I roads, especially the UP/BNSF/CSX that cover large areas of the country. I don't say that some new form of technology may never come along to replace or efficiently augment the diesel-electric locomotive, but not very quickly.
I see the future of both cars and locomotives as hybrids. Most engines spend most of their time idling or stopped.
Build a two unit consist, one unit a 2000 hp motor generator set and the other a battery storage unit. Both engines have 4000 hp traction motors and electrical gear. Both use regenerative braking. The 2000 hp engine runs most of the time and keeps the battery charged, plus any time the train slows the "dynamic brakes" charge the battery. You get 8000 hp tractive effort by running a 2000 hp engine some of the time.
Build a two unit consist, one unit a 2000 hp motor generator set and the other a battery storage unit. Both engines have 4000 hp traction motors and electrical gear. Both use regenerative braking. The 2000 hp engine runs most of the time and keeps the battery charged, plus any time the train slows the "dynamic brakes" charge the battery. You get 8000 hp tractive effort by running a 2000 hp engine some of the time.
They tried something similar with the genset engines a few years ago. They were--less than successful, and the ones not already scrapped are stored waiting for their leases or tax credits to expire before they are scrapped.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)