Gee, Wabash, lighten up! Of course it’s for publicity! If you did something like this and DIDN’T do the publicity, you’d be nuts! If you read carefully and a bit between the lines, you’ll find this locomotive is really a proof of concept, designed to see just how practical the idea is. Nobody, anywhere on NS ever claimed this was just the first unit of a planned vast fleet that will replace all the diesel locomotives in short order. Exactly how the batteries do in this environment, how well they cope with the duty cycle they will see and how well the locomotive manages the heat and hydrogen gas emissions from the battery would seem to be the big questions that this unit will answer. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else know what, if any, niche this kind of locomotive will prove to be an economical fit… But, I wouldn’t bet against this locomotive’s 3rd cousin pushing trains over the mountain in years to come.
There hasn’t been much about the control system, either. Is it single axle control with the field for each TM independently controlled? How to they manage the battery buss voltage? Is the DB integrated into the air brake? What, exactly, does that elaborate battery management system work? Is the carbody force ventilated to keep the hydrogen gas from building up? Is there on board fire suppression? Hopefully, more info will be forthcoming. This looks like a good item for an ASME/IEEE rail conference paper.
My thoughts as well. Having to manually engage the DB every time a regenerative braking opportunity came up would be a real pain. Some form of blended braking, which automatically uses regenerative braking when appropriate, yet applies air as needed, all in one or two handles, would seem to be an appropriate answer. Full electronics over air is already in use (NYAB, for one). This would be a logical extension.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
[(-D] Good one, wabash1 ! I do like your several suggestions for what else it could be used for. But remember - as Don picked-up above, too - I’m not blind to weaknesses that will be shown, and am also looking for those ‘real-world’ comments on its performance. As an EMD guy said and was quoted in Trains a few years ago: ‘‘One test is worth a thousand opinions.’’ And can’t you find a way to somehow transfer over to the Pittsburgh Division and ‘mark-up’ to run ‘the big electric train’, and give us your review of it
[quote user=“Paul_D_North_Jr”]
Good one, wabash1 ! I do like your several suggestions for what else it could be used for. But remember - as Don picked-up above, too - I’m not blind to weaknesses that will be shown, and am also looking for those ‘real-world’ comments on its performance. As an EMD guy said and was quoted in Trains a few years ago: ‘‘One test is worth a thousand opinions.’’ And can’t you find a way to somehow transfer over to the Pittsburgh Division and ‘mark-up’ to run ‘the big electric train’, and give us your review of it
I think its 90% publicity stunt and !0% proof of concept. I wonder how long it will take to check the water levels in 1080 batteries not to mention clean all the connectors. I sounds like they used car batteries and the must have made some SEARS die-hard battery guy’s day. They’ve been running fork lift trucks forever on large, deep cycle batteries for ever and I remember what a nuisance they could be. That’s probably why the tri-power locomotive of 80 years disappeared. Don’t railroads do management’s pet projects about once every 30 years or so. The amount of time it takes to forget way it didn’t work the last time.
Here’s a link to a website and page that has a photo of it - Reply #22, about the 3rd one up from the bottom of the page:
http://jreb.org/ns/index.php?topic=8077.0
And a link to a TV station’s brief news report - about 2 minutes’ worth total, which includes a video clip, and ‘sound bites’ from the politicians, etc.:
http://www.wjactv.com/news/21141444/detail.html
- Paul North.
Don, those are of course all good points regarding the control system. If the ASME/IEEE follows the usual pattern of a spring conference, there should also be a goodly collection of data by then on its actual operating performance - including some cold winter nights - and the inevitable adjustments, ‘tweaks’, bugs, and other things that have been worked out in the meantime. Maybe it will even visit the conference city ?
Meanwhile, NS has something neat to show the college kids, ‘visiting firemen’ from other railroads and countries, and various politicians - it isn’t just the auto and aerospace companies that are doing ‘cutting edge’ stuff anymore.
Oh yeah - this NS BP-4 999 ‘experimental’ kept a bunch of good and talented people at the Juniata Locomotive Shops fully and gainfully employed for a few more months, too.
- Paul North.
They may well have used a bunch of automotive batteries - or perhaps the type in the big Uninteruptible Power Supply (UPS) that supports our servers. They’re essentially automotive batteries, but they are sealed and intended for the specific application.
There are better battery technologies available, but using an estabilished component allows them to experiment without as much cost. If the concept performs as expected/hoped, they can look at using more efficient batteries. If it falls on its face, then they can file the lessons learned until the day that the problems they encounter can be surmounted with new technology.
Stop over at the Big Boy thread for a discussion of ideas that didn’t work during the steam era.
if I read this right its for switching and in switching we dont need dynamic. and dont use it in switching, anything else it wont be nessesarry either as it wont move much tonnage at only 1500hp. I think it may have a usefull perpose in the intermodel spotting and pulling ramps and building stack trains but thats about it.
I suspect battery flushing has been facilitated in some fashion other than checking and watering each cell by hand - but I don’t know. I wish I did. There’s lots more I’d like to know about this.
Switching is probably its primary ‘stand-alone’ use that justifies building it and its continuing existence, but I’m sure it won’t be limited to that - meaning yard switching. It could also take a short cut of cars out onto the main at higher speeds to do local work - such as running up to Tyrone or Huntingdon, or over to the Sam Rea Shops at Hollidaysburg - where the dynamic brakes would have an opportunity to be put to use.
But I’ll bet that before too long - like over this winter - it will be assigned to pusher service for a while out of Altoona up the East Slope to AR Tower/ Gallitzin, most likely as 1 of a 2 or 3 unit consist, which will also include 1 or more NS engineering test cars. That’ll provide a real-world opportunity to see and collect test data on how the batteries perform under sustained load for about an hour - and also to use the dynamic brakes for a sustained period coming back downhill, and see how well that actually recharges the battery system.
By itself - no, it isn’t going to move big trains. But anymore, locomotives are just ‘building blocks’, and this one is now big enough to take the place of one in a consist. A full consist of more and bigger of such units as these would just be ‘more of the same’ - so this one is enough for now to serve as a ‘stand-in’ to see how well such a unit will work, that’s all it is and is for, I think.
- Paul North.
Actually, the best ‘off-the-shelf’ batteries for this kind of application are either golf-cart batteries, or floor-polishing machine batteries, per the electric car folks. I’m sure those too come in the sealed ‘no-maintenance’ and gel versions, so there’s no water to check - and that would greatly reduce the slopping and spillage that usually causes connector corrosion, at least with my cars.
Don’t forget that at least some of Brookville Equipment’s underground mining machines are battery-powered, so presumably they’re pretty well conversant with the maintenance hassles - esp. in those locations - and what’s out there that’s less maintenance-intensive.
Also, think of submarine batteries. Remember way back in the day, the sub’s batteries were charged by diesels while on the surface, then ran on battery while submerged. Even the nuclear subs - actually nuclear-fueled, steam-turbine to electric generator to electric final drive - still have extensive battery banks. And here’s a little-known - though not a military secret factoid: Land-locked Penn State University’s electronic/electrical/computer engineering people do a h
Creepcrank says: Brookville Equipment says its"1080 standard truck batteries are wired in 20 parallel strings" I stand by my story, now where is Ed Benton when we need him.
That’s 648 volts per string (at 12 volts per individual battery). It would be as much as 745 volts at a full charge of 13.8 volts.
One truck battery I randomly picked out (presumably relatively typical) listed a rating of 100 AH (amp hours) and 1090 CCA (cold cranking amps).
I’m thinking that the configuration given will yield 2000 amp hours, which would translate to about two hours at full load (assuming 1000 amps as full load). Obviously lesser loadings would yield longer run times.
I’ll gladly stand corrected.
As for the maintenance issue - the battery I randomly picked happened to be sealed - no maintenance as such.
Given the stated proof-of-concept design of this locomotive, I’m still certain that if it works, more advanced battery systems will be brought into play.
That’s pretty good ‘close reading’, creepycrank. But I’m speaking not only about this specific locomotive, but also future similar ones, which as well could easily utilize better batteries.
But even truck batteries come in ‘sealed’ / AGM = ‘Absorbed Glass Mat’ versions that won’t spill or leak, and can take a lot of this kind of loading. As just one example, see -
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/hdbenefits.html
If you click on the ‘Specifications’ link, you’ll see that there are some powerful 12-volt batteries there. The ‘top of the line’ / bottom of the page model is good for 114 Amp-hours over a 10-hour discharge period, which is a continuous current of about 11 Amps. At 25 Amps, it’s good for 240 minutes = 4 hrs., probably 100+ amps for a 1-hour continuous rating.
I can readily believe the ‘20 parallel strings’ part, too - that would be 54 batteries in series in each string x 12 volts each = 648, say 650 volts for the 600 volt motors. Since there are 4 motors, that would be 5 strings for each motor. For the 4-hour rating, that would be 125 Amps for each motor = 500 Amps for the whole locomotive, which is not bad. At 2 hours, that would be around 1,000 Amps, which is getting near the red-line limits. So it shouldn’t have any problem going all-out pushing up around Horseshoe Curve - or on the other assignments, which will have a lot of time at much lower power outputs in their ‘duty cycle’.
- Paul North.
It occurs to me that such a locomotive would be perfect for our tourist operation. We certainly value the burbling ALCOs and chugging EMDs (as do the fans), but our duty cycle for the day only includes about 4.5 hours of actual running (1.25 hours for each trip plus runarounds and other station work).
On top of that, we’re in the mountains and run up and down the same stretches of tracks. Not much is level, so we’re always either climbing or decending, including some lengthy stretches of .5 to 1%+ grades - dynamics territory now, certainly recharging territory for one of these.
Speeds are generally in the 20-25 mph range with 4 passenger cars in tow.
It will be very interesting to see how this locomotive works out. I hope we will be quickly informed of the technical details of the locomotive and its performance during testing. I am somewhat skeptical only because this is publicly funded, and all wrapped up in the green, sustainability movement, which I have observed to contain a lot of symbolism over substance.
One thing to consider is that it is possible that this new locomotive will usher in a new era of motive power that will actually be more expensive to operate, and therefore drive up the consumer cost of transportation. It might be the price of sustainability. Greenness and cost reduction do not necessarily go hand in hand. Often they are mutually exclusive. The payoff for greenness and sustainability is in saving the planet from destruction. If it happens to reduce operating costs from higher efficiency, so much the better, but in many cases sustainability raises the overall cost of a product. The extra cost is the price of saving the planet. Furthermore, these green advances are prone to become legally mandated because they otherwise would not be embraced due to the higher cost.
Correct, but most of the problem is the resistance of the grids. For extended range DB, you shunt the grids and get full braking to a lower speed. Recharging batteries would have a lower limit based in the internal resistance of the batteries themselves. I would imagine that is lower than that of the DB grids, so you should be able to regulate full braking down to really low speeds. You’d still need some sort of automatic DB/air blended braking to get all the way to stop. Such systems have been around a long time. SEPTAs SIlverliner IV cars have had it for 30+ years, for example.
I still think that NS et al are missing a great propaganda opportunity on the battery recharging side. My suggestion is to find a steam tractor with a drum type PTO to drive a generator for recharging. They could burn waste paper from the office and broken pallets and other waste from the loading dock (recycling) and use wood for the main fuel ( bio-fuel) - all renewable energy sources.