RR's are experimenting with battery locos. But, take an average modern, long freight train with 5 locos and an average HP of 4500 HP per loco, and that works out to about 17 million watts of energy. How big of a battery is needed to run that?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Two rails and wood ties... What is the problem.... Just do it like we do lol
@CALNNC posted:RR's are experimenting with battery locos. But, take an average modern, long freight train with 5 locos and an average HP of 4500 HP per loco, and that works out to about 17 million watts of energy. How big of a battery is needed to run that?
Bigger than a breadbox. 
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Bigger than a breadbox.
Yep, and how big is the bread box to run one steel mill arc furnace at 65million volt/amps? That's a lot of windmills, wind not included, or solar panels on a bright day.
Really you only need one of these, and it is smaller than a bread box.
Good for 1.21 Gigawatts.
Bob
We have a 2.0MW 4160VAC cogen plant on our campus. It's a 12 cylinder nat gas engine+ the generator. It's housed in a 36' long enclosure.
So 40' box car x 9= 360' of train just to hold the equivalent 18.0MW of power generation.......
Interesting question. I'm not sure if there is a direct correlation between wattage of batteries and horsepower of diesel generator. There is a loss of efficiency inherent in any transfer of energy from one source to another. Diesel generators are more efficient than gasoline, but I still think the efficiency of a diesel generator is somewhere in the 50% range which would mean at least a 50% reduction in energy required to get an equivalent 4,500 hp assuming there is not some form of logarithmic equation in there. Someone a lot smarter than me can probably show the math calculation of how many BTUh of energy is required to get an equivalent HP rating on a traditional diesel electric. There is also probably some fuzzy math in there related to energy required to start a train from full stop to running at speed. Again, I do not know the answers, but it might be similar to the load ratings on any electrical equipment that has a motor that describes FLA (Full Load Amperage) vs. Running Amps. FLA is always a higher number.
This is just my assessment as a dumb architect who can do load calcs on a single-phase AC 400-watt panel or less by code versus a true electrical engineer who can probably explain it a whole lot better.
@CALNNC posted:RR's are experimenting with battery locos. But, take an average modern, long freight train with 5 locos and an average HP of 4500 HP per loco, and that works out to about 17 million watts of energy. How big of a battery is needed to run that?
Being generous, lithium ion batter technology (which is the most energy dense commercial battery technology currently) has an energy density of roughly 300 watt hours per kg. To deliver 4000 hp at the wheel for a period of 24 hours (roughly an ES44AC with 5000 gallons of fuel consuming 210 gallons per hour) will require roughly a mass of 400,000 kg of battery (about the mass of two locomotives).
@CALNNC posted:RR's are experimenting with battery locos. But, take an average modern, long freight train with 5 locos and an average HP of 4500 HP per loco, and that works out to about 17 million watts of energy. How big of a battery is needed to run that?
No idea on the engineering side, but an observation and comment, based on my real world experience and personal observations:
In the generally-bright EV efficiency picture (with modest driving, I easily and regularly turn in fuel-cost-per-mile figures about one-third of what a similar weight ICE vehicle would rack up), one thing stands out to me. Any appreciable extra load (increased weight of vehicle and contents, towing a load, bucking headwinds, high speeds, etc.) seems to have a disproportionate negative effect on EV fuel efficiency, at least compared to my prior decades of ICE experience. Most obviously, if I am hoofing it on a high-speed road (legally or DIY 
), I can practically watch the miles-per-KWH display drop.
After some thinking, I'm inclined to believe this may be more of an ICE phenomenon rather than EV. IOW, when an ICE vehicle sees a heavier load, a higher percentage of the energy otherwise being wasted in lost heat, etc. may actually be put to work propelling the vehicle down the road, thus slightly *increasing* its efficiency by doing useful work with more of the energy rather than its just being lost. Thus, a graph of EV efficiency would appear more linear with varying loading, while the ICE engine might be getting some "work credit" for some of the energy that would otherwise have been lost, under heavy load conditions (Sure, the overall *consumption* would still go up, but *efficiency* might rise slightly when compared to an EV).
Any thoughts on this? I'm sure the hypothesis would easily be verifiable or falsifiable by real world testing, but I don't have access to the equipment or inclination to do the work! 
https://www.railway-technology...s/blues-train-italy/
These are hybrid trains being produced in Italy by Hitachi. They have diesel generators, but can also be powered from overhead electrical wires, and can even run 15 km on battery power only.
Italy's trains are incredible - very fast and tickets are very affordable.
@Steve Tyler posted:No idea on the engineering side, but an observation and comment, based on my real world experience and personal observations:
In the generally-bright EV efficiency picture (with modest driving, I easily and regularly turn in fuel-cost-per-mile figures about one-third of what a similar weight ICE vehicle would rack up), one thing stands out to me. Any appreciable extra load (increased weight of vehicle and contents, towing a load, bucking headwinds, high speeds, etc.) seems to have a disproportionate negative effect on EV fuel efficiency, at least compared to my prior decades of ICE experience. Most obviously, if I am hoofing it on a high-speed road (legally or DIY
After some thinking, I'm inclined to believe this may be more of an ICE phenomenon rather than EV. IOW, when an ICE vehicle sees a heavier load, a higher percentage of the energy otherwise being wasted in lost heat, etc. may actually be put to work propelling the vehicle down the road, thus slightly *increasing* its efficiency by doing useful work with more of the energy rather than its just being lost. Thus, a graph of EV efficiency would appear more linear with varying loading, while the ICE engine might be getting some "work credit" for some of the energy that would otherwise have been lost, under heavy load conditions (Sure, the overall *consumption* would still go up, but *efficiency* might rise slightly when compared to an EV).
Any thoughts on this? I'm sure the hypothesis would easily be verifiable or falsifiable by real world testing, but I don't have access to the equipment or inclination to do the work!
One thought is that DC motors make maximum torque at stall. Torque decreases as RPMs increase. Actually you can see the effect of load on your trains simply by observing an ammeter. An engine running light vs pulling a train the current may be triple or more.
ICE are usually tuned so maximum efficiency is somewhere mid RPM, say 60 MPH in high gear. Above or below that point fuel economy is typically less. I know my 4 cyl Toyota gets far better mileage at 75 than it does at 55.
Pete
@GG1 4877 posted:Diesel generators are more efficient than gasoline, but I still think the efficiency of a diesel generator is somewhere in the 50% range which would mean at least a 50% reduction in energy required to get an equivalent 4,500 hp assuming there is not some form of logarithmic equation in there.
From that page...
Typically a diesel generator will run at about 40 percent efficiency in its designed optimum operating range, usually up to 80 percent of total load capacity. That means for every 100 units of energy input, 40 units are delivered as output. As in any mechanical system, there are energy losses from heat and friction.
However, the real question is, how compact is the energy necessary to do the task. I can easily drive 300 miles on 20 gallons of gas, the fuel load weighs 6 pounds/gallon, or about 120 pounds. To drive the same distance in a Tesla, it requires an 1800 pound battery, fifteen times the weight.
Diesel containing more energy than gasoline, the comparison would probably be closer to 20:1 in weight.
So, using a 20:1 comparison, the 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel weighs 35,500 pounds, and the lithium battery to give the same range would weigh 710,000 pounds. Let's be generous and divide by three to allow for the greater efficiency of direct use of the battery electricity to power the drive motors vs the diesel running a generator and then powering the drive motors. That's still 118 tons of batteries!
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Diesel Generator vs. Gas Generator: Which is More Efficient?
From that page...
Typically a diesel generator will run at about 40 percent efficiency in its designed optimum operating range, usually up to 80 percent of total load capacity. That means for every 100 units of energy input, 40 units are delivered as output. As in any mechanical system, there are energy losses from heat and friction.
However, the real question is, how compact is the energy necessary to do the task. I can easily drive 300 miles on 20 gallons of gas, the fuel load weighs 6 pounds/gallon, or about 120 pounds. To drive the same distance in a Tesla, it requires an 1800 pound battery, fifteen times the weight.
Diesel containing more energy than gasoline, the comparison would probably be closer to 20:1 in weight.
So, using a 20:1 comparison, the 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel weighs 35,500 pounds, and the lithium battery to give the same range would weigh 710,000 pounds. Let's be generous and divide by three to allow for the greater efficiency of direct use of the battery electricity to power the drive motors vs the diesel running a generator and then powering the drive motors. That's still 118 tons of batteries!
Very interesting! Now, lets throw in the re-charge time for such a massive battery vs. the time it takes to refuel that diesel electric locomotive. Sure, the battery unit will re-charge itself when in dynamic braking. If you believe THAT, I believe there is a REALLY nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn, NY.
@Hot Water posted:Very interesting! Now, lets throw in the re-charge time for such a massive battery vs. the time it takes to refuel that diesel electric locomotive. Sure, the battery unit will re-charge itself when in dynamic braking. If you believe THAT, I believe there is a REALLY nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn, NY.
I decided not to get into the time it would take to charge that 118 ton battery. God Forbid that monster battery ever has a problem and catches fire! 
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Diesel Generator vs. Gas Generator: Which is More Efficient?
From that page...
Typically a diesel generator will run at about 40 percent efficiency in its designed optimum operating range, usually up to 80 percent of total load capacity. That means for every 100 units of energy input, 40 units are delivered as output. As in any mechanical system, there are energy losses from heat and friction.
However, the real question is, how compact is the energy necessary to do the task. I can easily drive 300 miles on 20 gallons of gas, the fuel load weighs 6 pounds/gallon, or about 120 pounds. To drive the same distance in a Tesla, it requires an 1800 pound battery, fifteen times the weight.
Diesel containing more energy than gasoline, the comparison would probably be closer to 20:1 in weight.
So, using a 20:1 comparison, the 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel weighs 35,500 pounds, and the lithium battery to give the same range would weigh 710,000 pounds. Let's be generous and divide by three to allow for the greater efficiency of direct use of the battery electricity to power the drive motors vs the diesel running a generator and then powering the drive motors. That's still 118 tons of batteries!
The challenge with an ev automobile is the efficiency of a rubber tire on asphalt versus steel wheels on steel rail and the relative friction difference. Add to that the fact that diesel electric locomotives need weight for tractive effort. Not a great analogy when you truly compare the two.
@GG1 4877 posted:The challenge with an ev automobile is the efficiency of a rubber tire on asphalt versus steel wheels on steel rail and the relative friction difference. Add to that the fact that diesel electric locomotives need weight for tractive effort. Not a great analogy when you truly compare the two.
It needs weight, but maybe not quite that much. Besides, as HW says, we haven't even addressed the issues of charging those massive battery packs!
It would be a lot smarter to electrify the routes than to attempt to use monster batteries for all these locomotives.
Can I say one word: CATENARY !
@lpb007 posted:Can I say one word: CATENARY !
Sure but, 1) who pays for all of it and, 2) where does all that electric power come from?
@Hot Water posted:Very interesting! Now, lets throw in the re-charge time for such a massive battery vs. the time it takes to refuel that diesel electric locomotive. Sure, the battery unit will re-charge itself when in dynamic braking. If you believe THAT, I believe there is a REALLY nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn, NY.
Whoa back, there, stranger!
First, dynamic recharging is very real thing, which at the very least reduces wear and maintenance on the friction pads while adding a relatively small amount to range (IIRC it adds about 3% in range in most EVs). No one has ever promoted regenerative braking as a perpetual motion machine, but it definitely exists as a range extender.
Second, sure, any battery powered system has recharging as a potential Achilles heel, at least if you require a 24/7 duty cycle. However, if that's a criteria, recharging on the fly through insulated wiring embedded in the roadbed might be a possibility, similar to in-road systems for EVs being prototyped currently. ISTM such a system would be much easier and cheaper to install on existing track roadbeds than adding traditional catenary overhead direct contact systems. Even if the potential power flow is not enough to continuously power the locomotive, it could massively extend the range of the batteries, and with recharging during even minor down-time periods in the schedule, it might effectively eliminate the need for specific recharging periods.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:I decided not to get into the time it would take to charge that 118 ton battery. God Forbid that monster battery ever has a problem and catches fire!
Yeah, I'd hate to besmirch the railroads' sterling reputations for "ha(ving) a problem and catch(ing) fire" . . .
@Steve Tyler posted:Yeah, I'd hate to besmirch the railroads' sterling reputations for "ha(ving) a problem and catch(ing) fire" . . .
An old saying comes to mind in response.
@Steve Tyler posted:Whoa back, there, stranger!
First, dynamic recharging is very real thing, which at the very least reduces wear and maintenance on the friction pads while adding a relatively small amount to range (IIRC it adds about 3% in range in most EVs). No one has ever promoted regenerative braking as a perpetual motion machine, but it definitely exists as a range extender.
Trying to compare automotive "regenerative braking" to railroad dynamic braking is quite ridiculous.
Second, sure, any battery powered system has recharging as a potential Achilles heel, at least if you require a 24/7 duty cycle. However, if that's a criteria, recharging on the fly through insulated wiring embedded in the roadbed might be a possibility, similar to in-road systems for EVs being prototyped currently. ISTM such a system would be much easier and cheaper to install on existing track roadbeds than adding traditional catenary overhead direct contact systems. Even if the potential power flow is not enough to continuously power the locomotive, it could massively extend the range of the batteries, and with recharging during even minor down-time periods in the schedule, it might effectively eliminate the need for specific recharging periods.
Just my opinion but, I think you are living in a dream world when it comes to U.S railroad battery powered locomotives.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:An old saying comes to mind in response.
Accidents happen, but must you give them so much help?
Yep -- usually applicable, currently very much in effect, and likely well into the future . . . 
@Hot Water posted:@Steve Tyler posted:First, dynamic recharging is very real thing, which at the very least reduces wear and maintenance on the friction pads while adding a relatively small amount to range (IIRC it adds about 3% in range in most EVs). No one has ever promoted regenerative braking as a perpetual motion machine, but it definitely exists as a range extender.
Trying to compare automotive "regenerative braking" to railroad dynamic braking is quite ridiculous.
Second, sure, any battery powered system has recharging as a potential Achilles heel, at least if you require a 24/7 duty cycle. However, if that's a criteria, recharging on the fly through insulated wiring embedded in the roadbed might be a possibility, similar to in-road systems for EVs being prototyped currently. ISTM such a system would be much easier and cheaper to install on existing track roadbeds than adding traditional catenary overhead direct contact systems. Even if the potential power flow is not enough to continuously power the locomotive, it could massively extend the range of the batteries, and with recharging during even minor down-time periods in the schedule, it might effectively eliminate the need for specific recharging periods.
Just my opinion but, I think you are living in a dream world when it comes to U.S railroad battery powered locomotives.
Ridiculous? Why? Both systems typically connect the drive wheels directly to a DC motor, which can be configured to recharge the battery pack on demand. What do you imagine I am missing?
As to your second comment, the engineering needed to add some battery capacity to an electric chassis hardly requires a moon shot-level effort. Getting the *right* balance between the weight and bulk of batteries and dealing with the power, range and recharging issues is, of course, the hard part, but I see no reason some combination of more-or-less off-the-shelf technologies can't go a long way to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
The battery powered train may not be as ridiculous as it first appears. As GRJ pointed out LOTS of battery weight but.......could be configured in a "tender". Could use multiple tenders per "run" that get switched-out and are recharged at division points. Recharging, think in terms of adding water to a steam loco tender. Expect as stated maybe better to just unplug one tender and plug the next one in. Or maybe just swap out motive power. Unlike an automobile a freight train is pulling a huge amount of weight, so the battery "Tender" is approximately equivalent to one fully loaded freight car. Now you have a machine that is 90+% efficient rather than 40%.
If it works economically for the railroads, the change over might be as quick and dramatic as dieselization was.
Just my 2 cents.
The idea of switching out battery "tenders" at division points sounds interesting. But there would have to be a lot of fully charged tenders available and lot more being recharged at a charging facility of some kind. I'm not sure the regular city power grid could handle the requirements of charging a bunch of tenders, each with 118 tons of lithium-ion battery, which suggests additional expenses for infrastructure upgrades -- who pays for that?
Guys.....you're all missing the obvious....put solar panels on the roof of every rail car, replace the EOTD with a big windmill and BINGO all the Power you need on the go....🤣🤣🤣🤣
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
@RSJB18 posted:Guys.....you're all missing the obvious....put solar panels on the roof of every rail car, replace the EOTD with a big windmill and BINGO all the Power you need on the go....🤣🤣🤣🤣
And freight only runs on sunny days, and never overnight.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:And freight only runs on sunny days, and never overnight.
At least the windmill will keep turning as the train moves.....
@gunrunnerjohn posted:And freight only runs on sunny days, and never overnight.
In the winter the battery won't charge sunny or not. We had dead teslas all over Chicago when sub zero temps hit a few weeks ago.
I don't think we're ready for battery operated trains yet. Fully electric cars are more trendy than reliable at this point.
Besides, the thousands of gallons of diesel fuel consumed by massive machines spewing tons of carbon. While mining the lithium, negates much of the "green ness" of battery powered vehicles.
But....this is all for a different forum.
@lpb007 posted:Can I say one word: CATENARY !
Here in Western NC, where for over 35 years we have been trying to bring Amtrak back, they just started a $400 million refurb project at the Asheville Airport. $400 million could have probably electrified the line from Asheville to Charlotte, where most of the planes that leave here go, and you would think a project like that would make all the environmentalists happy instead of tons more burnt kerosene at 30,000 feet.
For some real time background. The LIRR was developing battery-electric railcars to replace diesels in their non-electrified territory. They were attempting to retro-fit some M7 cars The plans were scrapped in 2022 after issues with reliability and power requirements for recharging the batteries were cited. Retrofitting existing cars also meant removing 9 sets of seats to make space to hold the batteries.
Some fun.
I figured 1300 Tesla power walls, which fits the 400,000lb estimate.
It will be interesting to see where this ends up. We have more room for windmills in Texas.
@RSJB18 posted:Guys.....you're all missing the obvious....put solar panels on the roof of every rail car, replace the EOTD with a big windmill and BINGO all the Power you need on the go....🤣🤣🤣🤣
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
I couldn’t figure out if you were serious about that windmill but won’t the energy required to turn the windmill at a constant speed, for the entire trip, increase the Drag on the train, requiring more energy to keep the train moving? How would such a setup obey the laws relating to the conservation of energy?
These are just my opinion,
Naveen Rajan
@CALNNC posted:RR's are experimenting with battery locos. But, take an average modern, long freight train with 5 locos and an average HP of 4500 HP per loco, and that works out to about 17 million watts of energy. How big of a battery is needed to run that?
I believe it would take four dilithium crystals
I see this topic like most everything. We are afraid of change. The same arguments were happening when diesel electric locomotives were starting to appear, and advocates of steam power said the diesel electric would never replace steam. We saw how that worked on railroads. With the current technology, battery powered locomotives for mainline service may not be quite there yet, but with constant evolution of technology it probably will get there. We have seen this over and over again with computers, mobile phones, and so many other devices we consider common place these days. Battery technology has evolved a great deal from the lead acid cells that destroyed a lot of postwar Lionel F3s to the lithium batteries we have today. It will continue to evolve.
@naveenrajan posted:I couldn’t figure out if you were serious about that windmill but won’t the energy required to turn the windmill at a constant speed, for the entire trip, increase the Drag on the train, requiring more energy to keep the train moving? How would such a setup obey the laws relating to the conservation of energy?
These are just my opinion,
Naveen Rajan
Clearly, it was a joke!
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Clearly, it was a joke!
With tongue firmly planted in cheek........
Thanks John.
@dkdkrd posted:I think they're exploring hydrogen fuel cells, too. (That'll be spectacular at a RR Xing event!...remember the Hindenburg!)
An experiment was done with 3 vehicles, gas, propane and hydrogen powered. While it did not simulate a vehicular wreck, the point was being made about the volatility of each fuel. A high powered rifle was used to fire a bullet into the gas tanks of each. Gasoline dribbled out of the hole. Propane spayed out at high pressure, but did not ignite. The hydrogen vehicle blew up like a nuclear detonation, complete with mini mushroom cloud. Hydrogen is a very good fuel, and a lot of it around, but seems it will solve any rescue efforts on vehicle wreck survivors, beyond a broom and dustpan. Safe storage in a motor vehicle has to be worked out first.
I'm not seeing hydrogen as a fuel I want in my car, train, or airplane!
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
