Interesting!
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/09/norfolk-southern-999-demonstrates-green-commitment.html
This design would probably be useful as a shop switcher or a plant switcher in a hazardous environment such as a chemical plant. It might be good as a plant switcher where duty is relatively light such as a small grain elevator.
…or maybe helper service. I see that it has regenerative DB, which would get almost no work as a plant switcher. All that batter acid and electrical potential could make a big mess in a wreck, though,
If I were designing such a locomotive, I think I would include some form of automatic dynamic braking, such that dynamics would be the first choice for retarding progress, with wheel brakes kicking in only when the dynamics weren’t capable of doing the job.
In theory, anyhow, this would prevent an engineer from doing all his braking on air, thus doing no regenerative braking. I would think that even in a yard/industrial situation, there would be opportunities for regenerative braking. Not if the engineer had to consciously switch over every time, though.
But I’m not a locomotive design engineer, and I may be way out in left field on that.
As for the acid - there’s no question that it would be an environmental problem in the event of an incident causing leakage of the acid, but I suspect that said damage would be far less severe than the spillage of several thousand gallons of Diesel (not to mention the flammability factor).
Good thought! Blended braking on passenger equipment works this way. Why not for a switcher? DB could work as well as the independent almost down to a stop. Guess we’ll have to wait and see how NS uses it.
Diesel’s not really all that flammable. In fact, if you throw a match into it, the match will go out. Burning diesel isn’t very toxic, but burning sulphuric acid? And all those batteries with can provide plenty of oomph, to get things burning.
One thing did not seem to be mentioned, and in my mind it could be a pretty significant hazard in working in switching situatuions. Being battery operated, it should be relatively quiet while it operates (aside from flange squeal, and the like). Would not the very, relative silence be a hazard to those working on the ground in the vicinity and along side of it? I know they use horn signals, but there seem to be alot of moves when the engineer simply notifies the appropriate crewman by radio, and those in the vicinity without radios could be caught by an unexpected movement of the engine or a cut of cars.
I know they use flashing lights in some cases on remote controled units, but , a constantly ringing bell could be construed as a health, safety hazard as well. An engine running fairly silently in a yard could be a real danger in my mind.
Anyone have any thoughts about this issue?
It still has to have a bell. It won’t be completely quiet. It must have a motor operated air compressor that’ll make some noise at least intermittently. Also, it likely has some sort of carbody ventilation system with a fan.
FYI, there’s already a thread going about this in the “General Discussion” Forum…shouldn’t we merge them?
A prime rule of railroading is to always expect a movement. Even if you know there should be no other movements because you know where all the rolling stock is, vigilance leads to staying alive.
A cut of moving cars several carlengths from the locomotive is deadly quiet. Beyond a certain distance you won’t hear the locomotive anyhow.
If there are grades involved, there is often no engine noise beyond idling when starting rolling - gravity is providing the power.
On the list of potential hazards, the relative quietness would be fairly low, in my book.
If the loco is too quiet, fit it with one of those annoying OSHA beepers that they mandate on trucks, busses and construction equipment. Won’t take much power, WILL get everyone’s attention.
Chuck
These genset powers are unreliable junk! The battery powered version has a generator in the rear that makes more noise that a regular diesel power. The genset that has 3 diesel engines can’t keep the traction motors on line. Neither one of these units can work a 12 hour shift of switching without breaking down. To make matter worse, the air conditioning cuts out after working 15 minutes.
Oh yes, I forgot to add that the generator must work almost constantly on the battery version to keep the batery charged. Therefore, it is not very quiet at all, considering the generator noise.
Most all of the locomotives, especially the widebodies, have both independent and dynamic braking. Now they are trying to bring in remote controlled units into some of the yards. The East Wayne yard in New Haven, IN, when I left there in 2004, had two of them, but one always had a tendenacy of breaking down. To me I think the Remote controlled units are very dangerous especially when approaching a railroad crossing. Although I do miss my 4 axle units.
trainbuff63
I agree with you 100%. Always be on the lookout for anything to happen. Being around the railroad since 1991, I have learned a great deal about safety. Our motto is “Safety First”. I also have a roailroad sticker on the back of my personal vehicle from Operation Life Saver and one that says , I Break for Trains. I spent alot of years driving on the roads to and from the yards and I just wish everyone out there would learn to stop at all railroad crossings before they cross them. I have seen to many people get killed by trains and it is not a pretty sight, especially if you have to be one of the ones there to take pictures of it or even of a derailment. PLEASE, practice the Safety First rule.
trainbuff63
Just to clarify, the NS BP-4 battery powered switcher that is the subject of this thread is not equipped with a generator. It is 100% battery powered and is charged with a cable from an electric source when not in use and also has regenerative braking when switching.
Chris Toth
NSDash9.com
Click here to visit/join the NSDash9.com facebook page
Why are they dangerous? How is it any more dangerous for a RCL to cross a road compared to a normal engine, or even cars being shoved across roads? The engines themselves are not dangerous. Crews can be dangerous, though…
And to be more clearer (sic), these locomotives are NOT BATTERY POWERED. They are coal powered and the battery is the intermediate (and lossy) storage system. This is a non solution to a problem already solved. We have power sources that could charge the batteries but coal dominates. I think those steam engine folks are behind all of this. It is a conspiracy and not a alternative.
Yes the whole thing is a “greener than thou” publicity stunt.
Yes the whole thing is a “greener than thou” publicity stunt.