3 ms·

By the way, 50MW seems way high to keep the train moving. The locomotives are 3-4MW peak and I rarely see them use more than 3 or 4 of them on a train. And I

By the way, 50MW seems way high to keep the train moving. The locomotives are 3-4MW peak and I rarely see them use more than 3 or 4 of them on a train. And I would expect them to be using much less than peak when they are not accelerating or hauling up a steep grade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Dash_9_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Dash_9_Series

mlyle 5y ago
50MW is too high (I overestimated freight train speed); I revised to 15MW on my previous post (too low). > The locomotives are 3-4MW peak and I rarely see them use more than 3 or 4 of them on a train. 3-4 locomotives is typical for a "small" 3000 tonne train. When you get to the 10,000 tonne monsters, you might have 8 GE Evolutions distributed, capable of 24MW sustained. It's also worth noting this is not really enough. If rail freight was a little faster, it could be used for more things. > 50%, which is totally doable The US rail freight market and scale is different from Denmark. I don't think you understand how much goods travels over track which is near nothing and very long. Especially in the Western US. E.g. Los Angeles to San Antonio is just one of many major rail route. It's through 1200 miles of largely desert with nothing around. Estimates are that it would cost $5M/track mile to electrify. Just to note the scale difference: Banedanmark moves about 2.6 billon tonnes-km according to Wikipedia. BNSF and Union Pacific railroads-- the #1 and #2 rail freight carrier in the US-- move about 1500 billion tonnes-km. On the other hand, it takes about 12L of diesel to pull a tonne of freight across the distance. We'd be far better off trying to just move more freight to the existing rail network than to try and electrify it, if we're looking at things from a standpoint of reducing CO2 emissions.
- ErikCorry 5y ago
  >> 50%, which is totally doable Don't misquote me, dude. Here's what I wrote: > for 50% coverage charging speed falls to 1C, which is totally doable I was saying that it's doable to charge batteries at a rate of 1C.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > Don't misquote me, dude. Here's what I wrote: Sorry-- When I quote from earlier ones I lose the window and I sometimes screw up quoting. ON THE OTHER HAND, you seemed to imply 95% electrification was plausible... so I don't think I got the spirit of your comment wrong. If 50% isn't even plausible, then it's all a bit moot, isn't it? [Also, note that if you have 50% coverage and are charging at 1C, you're also putting 1 cycle on the battery per 2 hours]. I think you're generalizing from a small market, with much less rail in empty space, to a massive market, with lots of rail in empty space, that moves a very large chunk of goods by rail.

mlyle 5y ago

50MW is too high (I overestimated freight train speed); I revised to 15MW on my previous post (too low). > The locomotives are 3-4MW peak and I rarely see them use more than 3 or 4 of them on a train. 3-4 locomotives is typical for a "small" 3000 tonne train. When you get to the 10,000 tonne monsters, you might have 8 GE Evolutions distributed, capable of 24MW sustained. It's also worth noting this is not really enough. If rail freight was a little faster, it could be used for more things. > 50%, which is totally doable The US rail freight market and scale is different from Denmark. I don't think you understand how much goods travels over track which is near nothing and very long. Especially in the Western US. E.g. Los Angeles to San Antonio is just one of many major rail route. It's through 1200 miles of largely desert with nothing around. Estimates are that it would cost $5M/track mile to electrify. Just to note the scale difference: Banedanmark moves about 2.6 billon tonnes-km according to Wikipedia. BNSF and Union Pacific railroads-- the #1 and #2 rail freight carrier in the US-- move about 1500 billion tonnes-km. On the other hand, it takes about 12L of diesel to pull a tonne of freight across the distance. We'd be far better off trying to just move more freight to the existing rail network than to try and electrify it, if we're looking at things from a standpoint of reducing CO2 emissions.

ErikCorry 5y ago
>> 50%, which is totally doable Don't misquote me, dude. Here's what I wrote: > for 50% coverage charging speed falls to 1C, which is totally doable I was saying that it's doable to charge batteries at a rate of 1C.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > Don't misquote me, dude. Here's what I wrote: Sorry-- When I quote from earlier ones I lose the window and I sometimes screw up quoting. ON THE OTHER HAND, you seemed to imply 95% electrification was plausible... so I don't think I got the spirit of your comment wrong. If 50% isn't even plausible, then it's all a bit moot, isn't it? [Also, note that if you have 50% coverage and are charging at 1C, you're also putting 1 cycle on the battery per 2 hours]. I think you're generalizing from a small market, with much less rail in empty space, to a massive market, with lots of rail in empty space, that moves a very large chunk of goods by rail.