Personally I think the expense in developing alternate fuel will exceed its worth. Fuel cells are very expensive and for certain regions of the country electric power may be the way to go. Those certain areas would probably be CN and CP from Alberta west. BNSF from Montana west to Seattle and Portland. Also BNSF from Vancouver to the California border. Electric only makes sense where traffic warrants or where there is abundant electricity at reasonable prices. Other possible areas for electric operation would be UP from Cheyenne west to Ogden or possibly to Oakland. To put in electric to the southwest would not be economically feasible due to the cost of power in that region. The Northwest and possibly around the Great Lakes would also be better served by electric. But fuel cells and other alternative fuels will be a long time coming to railroads. I dont no about the BN experiment with liquified petroleum a few years back, but I do no that several trucking companies experimented with this fuel alternative and found that the trucks required 1/3 more power to deliver the same load the same distance as a conventionally powered diesel. Kenworth and Boeing experimented with turbine powered trucks some years ago and found they provided ample power and were capable of topping Snoqualmie Pass grossing 80’000 lbs at the speed limit of seventy at the time. Slow starting but once under way they were hard to beat. Fuel prices defeated the technology. The UP found the same thing with their turbines. If diesel fuel continues to increase as it has in the last year then I am sure railroads will look once again at stringing wire.
Dual-powered designs like the Green Goat will probably become more common in appropriate usages like yards and industrial switching where the duty cycle allows for battery charging.
Road service will probably continue to be performed by diesel-electrics, with the differences in the details, such as AC or DC traction motors.
Steam is dead (it’s too labor intensive). Straight electrics are unlikely because of the capital demands for overhead wire and related modifications. Gas turbines are unlikely because they aren’t that efficient at anything less than full speed.
There may be some new design in the future that is in the early stages of development, but my crystal ball isn’t that clear.
No no no, you all have missed the true power of the future, gerbal power! that’s right folks, Loco’s of the future will be driven by Gerbals on a wheel! and all loco’s will then be rated in gerbal power, the new Gerb40, for instance will require 40 gerbals to turn the wheel, the Gerb-4000, would require 4000 Gerbals to run it. all that’s required is that there be frequent replacement points alongt he way to replace those that perish in transit.
I could go for Atomic Power for trains. Not the locomotive itself, but providing the juice for Electric Locomotives.
Steam is dead forever, not reliable and requires a large skilled workforce for maintainance. Very difficult to dynamically balance so steamers pounded the rails to death. Diesel will remain king for the same reasons it already is - reliable , relatively easy to produce and maintain and efficient to get the job done. Alternate fuels? possible but will require time to develop. Atomic? no way - too many safety issues. Electric- too expensive to install and still dependent on fossil fuel for most production also requires additional maintainance for the overhead. A minor problem in urban areas is the flashing from the overhead arcing. If you ever road NEC at night you seen this - spectacular but probably irritating if you live next to the tracks.
Most likely hydrogen powered fuel cell /turbine hybrids and more electrification in specific corridors like the heavily used mountain areas as said earlier and the dense lines around Chicago. Diesel will not be king forever because of peak oil but it will be on of the last oil based technologies to disappear. (5 times more efficient than semi-trucking hence more certain future). The hydrogen will be generated by wind on the high plains, hydro in BC, Quebec and the NW states, solar thermal and algae ponds in the desert SW and biomass in all areas, particularly the midwest, south and southeast. There is no place for atomic power in all of this. Too expensive, poisonous and potentially unsafe.
STEAM SUCKS! That’s why the railroads got rid of the damn things in the first place.
Now that diesel is here thay’ll never go away. It would cost the railroads today millions just to keep that (steam)junk running.So steam fans enjoy your choo choo steam loco’s,because some day thay will be put back in there rightful place…THE BOX!
Nah, yer ALL Wrong!..
The future will be Nuclear Powered 2-8-8-2 ex-NW Mallet steam engines mass produced in India!
[:o)]
Your so funny! Just don’t give up your day job.[:)].
That has to be the most creative idea I’ve ever heard. But why an ex-NW 2-8-8-2, why not something different?
[8]TrainFreak409[8]
When the real future power is developed, it will be something no one expected.
There is a working fuel cell locomotive. It is used by the US Army, I can’t remember it’s number right now. It is rated at 1000 kva, which works out to about 1341 horsepower by my calculations. It looks like a chop nose GP 9. It is here now folks.
George
My prediction (somewhat biased) is that diesels are here to stay. Maybe hybrid locos will become commonplace but probably only in yards doing switching. The problem with fuel cell technology is that it is dirty. It takes an incredible amount of energy to get usable hydrogen -and that , at this point in time, negates any benefit. Bio-diesel is an option but it’s still diesel. Mag-lev won’t happen because of the infrastructure needed. And nuclear?- Only in Homers world! (it’s pronounced ‘new-clear’!)
I think there is going to be more and more electric powered engines coming. Since we only have around 50-100 years of oil left, they will have to get used to using another power source.[:O]
There’s something to consider! We are rapidly burning away what little fossil fuel we have left. It takes too much time for oils, and gasolines to form. Electricity can only look better, and better. But, the price will still drive railroads away.
But, with more use of electricity, we will have to look for a better way to produce electricity. Which gives us another problem to solve. Maybe, by the time we actually need to use alternate sources for power plants, fussion might be possible.
But, with anything dealing with fussion, or fission, can cause radiation. And, if a reactor burns out, there would be chaos.
And it goes on…
[8]TrainFreak409[8]
My 0.25 byte’s worth:
csx, the problems with fusion are like the ones with hydrogen as a motor fuel. The basic principle is charming; the implementation and problems considerably less so. Most of the difficulties are concerned with how the power of the nuclear reaction is converted to ‘useful work’ (e.g., via lithium blanket) and how long-term operation causes radiation effects in the structure. I don’t think it’s practical to mount a fusion plant – even a Riggatron clone – on a moving locomotive within current North American loading gauge. The previous posts about the accident safety of any nuclear source capable of the necessary power rating (even… or perhaps particularly… the straight nuclear-electric approaches) are quite well advised.
Most alternative fuels suffer from low energy density. You can overcome this somewhat via government subsidies and incentives, but ethanol in particular is a dubious option even if the net oil-consumption rate turns out to be lower. #2 diesel is a “sweet spot” between energy content (largely carbon-content-dependent) and pumpability under cold conditions, with the added benefit of ‘engineered lubricosity’ to help with wear of precise injection machinery. Personally, I think one solution is a modified Fischer-Tropsch synthesis program, using treated coal as the primary feedstock and incorporating hydrogen generated by whatever effective means there might be.
Hydrogen as a locomotive fuel? I think not. I HOPE not. It’s dumb enough to put this stuff in automobiles, and propose to build “self-serve” fuel stations, automated or not. Hindenburg jokes aside, H2 will never be ready for prime time as something safe in accidents. Not to mention the fun with how you store the stuff in adequate quantities on the locomotive… or how you get it reliably into the locomotive when refueling, say, in summer in the Southwest.
There are potentially effective ways to achieve catenary coverage of railroad lines for reasons oth
Hopefully electric will be used more in the future. In all I dont care what is used to move trains i just want more train service NOW.
Anybody watch the episode of Scientific American Frontiers about cleaner automobiles? One auto manufactuer did a test of a car leaking and burning hydrogen versus a car leaking and burning gasoline. Judging from the video I’d feel much safer with hydrogen because it burned straight up. Gasoline, however, engulfed the entire car.
Our Modern day diesels are going to have to convert from 2-stroke Engines to 4-stroke engines to please the EPA.