For now the fastest diesel was circa 170 mph (again - russian loco :p). Problem is the fact that 125 mph diesel freight would be really expensive fuel-wise. Wires help here thanks to the regeneration. Also - each 5500 hp (such as sd90mac*) diesel is ~150-190 tons you need to haul around - this takes payload space. And since for 80+ mph service you need tons of power - diesels would quickly become too expensive to run.
With current technology 12000 hp 6-axle loco, with 15000-17000hp short term rating is quite possible.
So - possible with diesels? Yes (Burlington Zephyrs did run 100+ mph didn’t they… in 1935). Economical - not bloody likely.
Let’s explore this. Remember, we’re talking about a speed that beats the truckers over the medium to long haul. Let’s say we’re trying to run a train that beats the long haul team truck drivers by one day. The shippers who would use this service are willing to pay a premium for this one day improvement, so that is priced into the fuel use cost. The hybrid technology should provide a match for electric locos regeneration. Also, the maintenance costs of catenary has to be taken into consideration. Finally, you can always gear a diesel for those top end speeds (at a cost to drawbar hp). With HSR, you’re not going to see any 10,000 ton freights anyway.
Turbines are not practical for railway operation because they need to run at constant speed and load to match or better the fuel efficiency of a conventional 4-cycle diesel.
Hybrid diesels for high-speed high-horsepower operation are not practical because of the truly tremendous amount of battery power that is necessary. For switching and for stop and go suburban operation, hybrids make sense.
Electrification is a way of delivering power with great flexibility of fuel sources. If clean burning low pollution coal is converted economically at one power plant today, but oil powers turbines at a another power plant tomorrow, and nuclear comes on line safely the third day, the high speed freight locmotive doesn’t know or care about the difference.
Regeneration is a useful braking technique in an electrified operation but it can’t be used with rectifier locomotives. Also, I don’t believe that it generates enough electricity to make a major difference in power costs. In “When the Steam Roads Electrified”, mention is made of a proposal for an electrified railroad to haul coal to port in which the regenerative braking used on the downhill loads would generate enough electricity to haul the empties uphill. No power plant would be needed. The ICC denied a certificate of public convenience and necessity since the economics were unrealistic.
Also, the locomotives may be straight electrics instead of diesels, but the horsepower requirements stay the same and the power still has to come from somewhere.
RailPower, the guys with the Green Goat, are in the stages of planning a road hybrid. It will be interesting to see if the same savings can be accrued as the yard version.
I believe the turbine concept today relies on either a turbine array, and/or incorporate the hybrid concept.
Rather than using batteries, the technology for using supercapacitors for energy storage is almost available commercially, and supercapacitors have a much greater energy storage per square foot than batteries. This could be that giant technological leap forward for hybrid locomotives that will make all other locomotive designs (diesel, electric, turbine) obsolete for high speed capability.
RRs can measure these thing somewhat differently, depending on their point of view for each measure. Generally, train speed is measured from each dept to the next arrival. The intermediate dwell for crew changes, PU/SO, fueling isn’t counted. If a train goes from A to C with a stop for work and crew change at B, the speed will be measured from dept A to arrive B and dept B to arrive C. If the train stops inbetween A and B or B and C, for a meet, recrew or whatever, this dwell time IS counted in the elapsed time.
Dwell is measured at the car level. Most RRs measure it each time a car is handled - which is defined as arriving and departing on a different train symbol. In most cases, the cars is humped, flat switched or block swapped. CN and BNSF also count car dwell at crew change points and intermediate work locations were the car is NOT handled (it’s why their dwell numbers are so much lower than everyone elses).
The train speed number gives some idea of if the RR is congested or not w.r.t the trains getting over the road. The dwell number will tell you something about how fluid the yards are. Neither is a prefect measure, but they do give some idea of the overall health of operations.
A high speed freight train might not look much different from a high speed passenger train. In fact, they might be mixed trains. Not likely they’d look like a conv. intermodal train.
That 150 mph Bombardier turbine locomotive (Acela with at turbine shoved in where the transformer goes) is pretty slick. “Fuel consumption at part load” arguement doesn’t mean much to high speed rail operations. Time is more highly valued than cost.
If HSR is a gov’t sponsored operation, would they go looking for frt shippers? Amtrak has done a pretty good job of scaring freight off the NEC… I think we’d have a cultural boundary to overcome.
To beat trucks it would suffice to have avg 60-70 mph shuttle trains for trucks. On long routes this would allow truck companies to save on drivers (when the truck is shipped the driver may doze off - thus he is not needing a change). With 60 mph speed it would beat trucking hands down.
Simple solution: rr has let us say - Chi-LA route with 20 stops. On each stop truckers load/unload on the train and doze off when the train is in motion. Kind of like LD passanger trains - but for trucks.
For that you just need to scrounge Amtrak some P42’s and run at 79 mph max.
But if you want to run 100+ mph freight for perishables and high-value stuff (mail, electronics, valuables, some UPS/FedEx stuff) then wired trailroad is the only way to go. Altho hybrid turbine might be an interesting solution.
The physics are all wrong for a high speed hybrid loco!
To create a NEW market niche, you have to do something new. You need to knock at least a production shift out and better yet, whole days, out of the door to door transit time. Something like NY - Chic in 12 hours might be worth something.
Well… If running 24/7 from Chi to LA requires 3 ppl - and with shuttle train only one is needed… I call that an improvement Buuut … the logistics of the truck company might be a problem here.
As an outsider with an ear to shippers, it makes sense for them to calculate a trains speed as how long it takes the railroad to move their cargo once it either leaves the dock in a boxcar or is transloaded from a truck at the railhead, then to the point where the cargo is either transloaded back to a truck or the boxcar is parked at the destination dock. The shipper doesn’t care how many times a train needs to stop for meets, refueling, or crew changes, or how many times a boxcar needs to be reclassified at the next hump yard, it all counts the same. That’s why when they read that trains average 25 mph, they assume that means the cargo will make it accross the country in 5 to 6 days, so when it actually takes two to three weeks, they think the railroad is lollygagging with their cars while UPS and other bigshot companies get the percieved red carpet treatment.
That’s why I don’t think 60 mph average for HSR would be sufficient, even with dedicated bi-modal or TOFC between coasts. A truck competitive HSR not only has to compensate for terminal transload times, it also has to compensate for the inevitable long waits in sidings and refueling depots.
Your statement about rectifier locomotives not having regenerative braking is true with the original rectifiers, but today you can have solid state rectification and use the power diodes in switcheable configuration. Indeed, the ideal freight locomotive would pick up AC power and also use AC motors. Whether the electronic frequency conversion, if necessary, would have an intermediate dc step would be up to the particular electronic control system. It is possible today to have a purely ac drive from catenary to wheel, without using rotary converters etc. Transformers are still necessary, and they are major expense and major weight and major real estate. But yes, regenerative braking with ac propulsion is again a possibility.
Again, my ideal USA high speed freight locomotive would be compatible AC electric and AC diesel-electric coupled together with power cables between, with the diesel acting as the “road slug” for the electric to insure high hoursepower and decent speed up the grades, with the electric acting as the “road slug” for the diesel when off the wire to insure good starting tractive effort. The motors as generators would feed grid resistors on the diesel for dynamic braking when not under wire and would be in a regenerative braking mode when under wire.
You know, if you are looking at a speed which will permit beating a truck over a long distance route I suggest you read the UP article by Fraley in a recent issue of Trains.
The UP’s “Gold Streak” and “Blue Streak” service was designed to do just that, let UPS beat Fed-Ex’s truck service to LA, with conventional engines on conventional track with conventional crew agreements. The UP was able to operate the trains and make the schedule.
The rub was there wasn’t sufficient capacity to do it on conventional track routes. It caused too much interference to the rest of the network. The BNSF has a double track route and they didn’t want to try it either. You can implement it if you have one of the following:
You have a long distance route good for high speeds with minimal traffic.
A long distance multiple track route with traffic that all moves at a high speed.
A route with more than 2 tracks and a mix of train speeds.
Option one no longer exists in the US, options 2&3 don’t exist outside the NEC.
and run at 79 mph max.