5 ms·

Well put. Until they have a good reason, the major freight railroads (BNSF/UP/CSX/NS/CN/CP/KCS) will continue to be all-diesel. Also, as emissions requirements

Well put. Until they have a good reason, the major freight railroads (BNSF/UP/CSX/NS/CN/CP/KCS) will continue to be all-diesel. Also, as emissions requirements have gotten more stringent they've moved to rebuilding older power (which gets around the current Tier-4 requirements instead of buying as much newer motive power. In fact, a number of the most recent-gen units have been stored as they're often 15% less efficient than the previous generation (Tier-3). I do believe a move to electric with catenary is inevitable, most likely via 50KV/50HZ to allow for greater distance between substations. However it won't happen for some time until legislation mandates it.

narag 8y ago
Excuse if this is an absurd idea, I really don't know. But... Wouldn't it be possible to use (giant) batteries? It sounds terribly dangerous, but possible?
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  There are experimental train engines with pantograph for mainlines and batteries for the "last mile" the issue is that for freight you often have heavy trains which need lots of power, pulling the required batteries would need lots of power as well, not to mention charging times. More likely in the short term are electric engines, with a Diesel generator for the last mile (i.e. Bombardier TRAXX)
- kposehn 8y ago
  Power density is the main issue. There are some experiments with batteries, for sure, but you can't really create the same density of stored energy as diesel that would actually fit on a frame and can be recharged in some semblance of a normal time. IIRC it was bandied back and forth but you'd only get a few hours of peak load, vs a diesel which can run at peak power for days before running out of fuel.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    I wonder if batteries, motor and third rail connections could be added to the flat cars that carry shipping containers. Skip the engine all together, and make trains fully dynamic. Probably not worth the cost. It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes.
    - narag 8y ago
      It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes. That happens all the time here, in Spain. Some trains from Madrid to Andalusia travels to Seville with two locomotives, one in the front, another one in the rear. Then half the train goes on to Cádiz, half to Huelva. Oh, and it's sometimes very long, forty passengers cars + 2 locom. + several restaurant cars. I guess the same happens with other routes. It's all electric, of course. Rail here is cheap, very confortable and fast, 250 km/H in all high-speed network. Edit: actually, now that I come to think about it, it seems most high-speed trains have locomotives in both ends. Maybe so they don't have to turn around? The splitted train could use four then.
      - usrusr 8y ago
        Turn around is also solved with a special car that has a driver cockpit for remote control of the locomotive on the other end. But some high speed trains like the Velaro (also running in Spain) don't even have locomotives anymore, they just have cockpits at each end of a multi-car segment, and all the motors, transformers and so on are distributed along the whole length of the train. I think that GP meant with "Skip the engine all together, and make trains fully dynamic" would be something where every single car could be autonomous and they just connect together (on the go?) for slipstream and traffic control. This is both real (segments are joined primarily for traffic control, "cars" already have their own motors etc) as it is far away (the individual cars of a segment are joined together at the factory and form a single articulated unit)
      - anonymou2 8y ago
        Fast yes, cheap not at all. Conventional (not high speed) trains in Spain are cheap, but there are fewer and fewer of those. If you want to travel cheaply you mostly have to take a bus. Most trains here are now only for the rich.
- CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
  Interestingly, trains today are technically diesel-electric, where a diesel engine is feeding a generator, which feeds traction motors on the axles. So putting in a battery would "just" mean swapping out the fuel tank, engine, and generator. Probably the biggest issue I could see is, the battery would have to be able to handle extremely high currents to get the consist moving. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD90MAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD90MAC shows a power output of up to 4.47 Megawatts at full engine speed (for the EMD 265).
  - narag 8y ago
    That seems US specific. Of course it wouldn't make sense to use the batteries for that case, but maybe it would be cheaper for you than electrifying the network.
    - anonymou2 8y ago
      I know it sounds dangerous, but, haven't anyone thought of electrifying by just using the two rails as conductors, one rail per pole? So no need of third rail or catenary. I suppose the expense would be isolating all the axels! This is the method used by model railroads by the way.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  Totally possible, locomotives tend to work out to around 20-25 hp per ton and that's just the locomotive. So you need proportionally smaller batteries than you would with a car. And when you start digging up the capital cost of locomotives you find they can easily absorb the cost of batteries.

narag 8y ago

Excuse if this is an absurd idea, I really don't know. But... Wouldn't it be possible to use (giant) batteries? It sounds terribly dangerous, but possible?

johannes1234321 8y ago
There are experimental train engines with pantograph for mainlines and batteries for the "last mile" the issue is that for freight you often have heavy trains which need lots of power, pulling the required batteries would need lots of power as well, not to mention charging times. More likely in the short term are electric engines, with a Diesel generator for the last mile (i.e. Bombardier TRAXX)
kposehn 8y ago
Power density is the main issue. There are some experiments with batteries, for sure, but you can't really create the same density of stored energy as diesel that would actually fit on a frame and can be recharged in some semblance of a normal time. IIRC it was bandied back and forth but you'd only get a few hours of peak load, vs a diesel which can run at peak power for days before running out of fuel.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  I wonder if batteries, motor and third rail connections could be added to the flat cars that carry shipping containers. Skip the engine all together, and make trains fully dynamic. Probably not worth the cost. It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes.
  - narag 8y ago
    It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes. That happens all the time here, in Spain. Some trains from Madrid to Andalusia travels to Seville with two locomotives, one in the front, another one in the rear. Then half the train goes on to Cádiz, half to Huelva. Oh, and it's sometimes very long, forty passengers cars + 2 locom. + several restaurant cars. I guess the same happens with other routes. It's all electric, of course. Rail here is cheap, very confortable and fast, 250 km/H in all high-speed network. Edit: actually, now that I come to think about it, it seems most high-speed trains have locomotives in both ends. Maybe so they don't have to turn around? The splitted train could use four then.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      Turn around is also solved with a special car that has a driver cockpit for remote control of the locomotive on the other end. But some high speed trains like the Velaro (also running in Spain) don't even have locomotives anymore, they just have cockpits at each end of a multi-car segment, and all the motors, transformers and so on are distributed along the whole length of the train. I think that GP meant with "Skip the engine all together, and make trains fully dynamic" would be something where every single car could be autonomous and they just connect together (on the go?) for slipstream and traffic control. This is both real (segments are joined primarily for traffic control, "cars" already have their own motors etc) as it is far away (the individual cars of a segment are joined together at the factory and form a single articulated unit)
    - anonymou2 8y ago
      Fast yes, cheap not at all. Conventional (not high speed) trains in Spain are cheap, but there are fewer and fewer of those. If you want to travel cheaply you mostly have to take a bus. Most trains here are now only for the rich.
CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
Interestingly, trains today are technically diesel-electric, where a diesel engine is feeding a generator, which feeds traction motors on the axles. So putting in a battery would "just" mean swapping out the fuel tank, engine, and generator. Probably the biggest issue I could see is, the battery would have to be able to handle extremely high currents to get the consist moving. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD90MAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD90MAC shows a power output of up to 4.47 Megawatts at full engine speed (for the EMD 265).
- narag 8y ago
  That seems US specific. Of course it wouldn't make sense to use the batteries for that case, but maybe it would be cheaper for you than electrifying the network.
  - anonymou2 8y ago
    I know it sounds dangerous, but, haven't anyone thought of electrifying by just using the two rails as conductors, one rail per pole? So no need of third rail or catenary. I suppose the expense would be isolating all the axels! This is the method used by model railroads by the way.
Gibbon1 8y ago
Totally possible, locomotives tend to work out to around 20-25 hp per ton and that's just the locomotive. So you need proportionally smaller batteries than you would with a car. And when you start digging up the capital cost of locomotives you find they can easily absorb the cost of batteries.