From May 21, 2024, a good article on status of development of alternatives to diesel fueled locomotives.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
BNSF had a hydrogen cell engine in the early 2010s. I saw it at the DOD rail shop at Hill AFB. It seemed to work, but never heard more about it.
Sort of like the GE 2010
I hope there is a railroad somewhere doing better thinking than what was reported in that article. Maybe not. The exciting things in the article were battery power and hydrogen power. Both require large amounts of electricity, just like the cantilever powered rail lines that have been around for a hundred years. If we had enough electricity available that was not generated using carbon fuel, then the problem would be solved. We could deliver that electricity to the engines with a cantilever system, with batteries, with hydrogen, or with some combination of those systems.
So where does that electricity come from? Cold nuclear fusion is still a pipe dream. A nuclear power plant is a politically explosive proposition. Most rivers that could be dammed are already dammed and their electricity is already spoken for. So that leaves us with solar panels, which could be used by railroads with a right-of-way through a desert area. And it leaves us with wind turbines, which could be used by railroads with a right-of-way through high mountain passes.
We need to forget solar power as the efficiency of the best cells in only in the 20%-30% (tops) range. There are rumors of much better cells out there but for some reason we don't see them. What is encouraging is the possibility that technologies similar to what Tesla developed and other modern inventors have proven are right around the corner. Check out what Dr Steven Greer presents in his film 'The Lost Century and How ro reclaim it'. Zero Point energy is something we are not familiar with yet but may just be the ticket we are looking for
@c.sam posted:We need to forget solar power as the efficiency of the best cells in only in the 20%-30% (tops) range.
Well yes, but 20-30% of effectively infinite and free - that is, the sun - is still pretty good.
I think I'll take that over fantasy energies that violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Stan Meyer drove a 'dune buggy' from NY to California some years ago on 23 gallons of water obtained from numerous water faucets along the way. Water is Oxygen and Hydrogen. Both are flammable. God combined them into a liquid in more than vast quantities for us to use. Our imagination and ingenuity through technology makes them available to use as a fuel. Makes sense that people have been able to do this. I remember as a boy in the 1950s seeing small ads in the back of Boy's Life and Popular Mechanics showing a fella with a water hose holding it in the gas filler of a car. Ad said "Run Your Car on Water." I doubt that ESSO, Shell, Standard Oil, et al liked that idea... :-)
Except that dune buggy was all a fraud.
I get really sad at the degree of willful ignorance and disdain of science in our society today.
Formation of water is an exothermic reaction, which in really simple terms means the hydrogen and oxygen are giving up their energy when they combine in water. Separating them requires INPUT of energy.
A few transcon electrified corridors would probably have the same net effect for a lot less money. Using well-proven hundred year old plus technology.
But somehow I picture the return of the tender, but this time with batteries but not carrying coal/oil/water.
"I hope there is a railroad somewhere doing better thinking than what was reported in that article. Maybe not. The exciting things in the article were battery power and hydrogen power. Both require large amounts of electricity, just like the cantilever powered rail lines that have been around for a hundred years. If we had enough electricity available that was not generated using carbon fuel, then the problem would be solved. We could deliver that electricity to the engines with a cantilever system, with batteries, with hydrogen, or with some combination of those systems."
I think you must mean "catenary" (overhead wire) rather than "cantilever" powered system. While it's true that electricity, if available in sufficient quantity from "green" generation, would be a good source of power on railroads, the cost of erecting catenary and of building a high-voltage distribution network in remote areas remains a serious financial problem regardless of how the electricity is generated. Even in pre-Global Warming decades, several Western RR's looked at installing catenary and rejected it on the basis of high capital cost, compared with diesel-electric power.
I'd love to see an objective study on what it will take to produce enough batteries and their delivery system to run US tonnage trains on a daily basis versus what it would take to build and maintain a modern catenary system (and distribution system).
Pulling 10,000 tons is a bit different than a 4000 pound car with four wheels and one or two electric motors.
Even though physics is a science I have my doubts that scientific objectivity would reign in the discussion.
