Who thinks this would be an economical fuel source/power.
I think the key issue is horsepower and I just dunno if solar could do it. The solar cells out now are great for producing power for lightweight plywood solar-cars and powering road construction signs but when it comes to throwing 5,000+hp the rails forget it. One interesting thing comming through R&D is the concept of fuel cells. The US Army is experimenting with the things and some say they could replace the diesel-electric.
I think Marklin have produced a Z-gauge set (one of those layout-in-a-briefcase ones) that uses solar cells as a power source. Not sure of the details but I do remember it being very expensive when I saw it advertised.
Sure, why not?! The sun runs on nuclear power, so why not trains… [;)]
Oh, you mean solar cells… well, maybe if they were on the roof of every car in the consist… maybe not…
Andrew
Of course, you’d run into power problems every time you entered a tunnel! It would also rule out night operations…
I like what I’ve heard about the new “hybrid” type diesel-electric locomotive, the “Green Goat”, which works like the Honda hybrid electric car–a small diesel engine (about the size you’d find in a pickup truck) runs continuously to power a large bank of batteries, which in turn power electric traction motors. This is different from traditional diesel-electric motors where the diesels vary in power to meet current demand for traction and speed, rather than running at an optimized, continuous RPM and the batteries handling various loads. Apparently this design uses about a quarter as much fuel as traditional diesels, and while batteries are expensive it’s more efficient in the long run. Fuel cell motors, running on hydrogen, might be another potential replacement for traditional diesel-electric motors before too long, but, like with cars on the street, hybrid gas-electric and diesel-electric seems like a worthwhile transitional phase…
For the real thing or models? Solar calculators that run on 1.5 volts and virtually no amps are easy to do and are readily available. As soon as you require work to be done - in the Physics sense - forget it. It take amperage to turn a motor and it is more important then the voltage. What would make more sense to me would be adding oxygen separation equipment to engines to equalize O2 input regardless of altitude. It is highly feasable as small units have existed now for 15-20 years and could boost short time output also. The output could be funneled into the intake manaifold easily. Sort of turbocharging the engine without increasing the volume substnatially.
Hey it might work (I mean you never know untill you try/ nothing ventured nothing gained/ talk’s cheap, doing something will show them). : )
What if we used solar cells to heat water in a steam engine using electiric heating elements, like in a clothes iron (The railfan side of me is thinking “resurection of steam!!!”)??? This might be more practical than putting the electricity to the motors directly.
Or we could use the sun’s light to directly heat the water to make steam, like in some solar generating plants. In Australia they have a solar generating plant where light is focussed on the solar cell, at which point the ambient temperature is 1000 degrees!
Here’s a more outlandish idea: why not put a giant radiometer (you know-that thing with the white and black veins which spin around in a glass bulb like you saw in science class) onto wheels.
Sure, you would need some new technology, namely something along the lines of a high capacity battery for tunnels and night operations, but they also have several good points as well:
1.) They are powered by the sun, which is free, thus eliminating fuel costs and the costs of fueling facilities.
2.) They would have the better reliability and lower maintenance costs found with most electric locomotives (I am, of course not referring to the Acelas), but without the added costs of catenary.
3.) Solar power is environmentally friendly, so the railroads’ public image would improve.
4.) Solar powered locomotives would probably be quiter than current locomotives, lowering complaints of noise polution.
I’ve often wondered this myself.
We connect the vanes to a shaft that drives a generator…
How about wind powered trains (no-not sails)?
Random thought
-Daniel
So your telling me that if we have a spell of overcast days (which occurs frequently here in the midwest) that I cannot get the railroad to deliver my cars, or pick up my shipments? So I must shut down the factory, and lay off the workers? I don’t see any benefit for solar powered locomotives. If the railroad cannot deliver, I will use trucks. Gentlemen, reliable service is what really drives trasportation competition, not low cost.
Instead of having the body (except the cab) filled with the engine and other parts why not fill the long hood with big batteries
Dear GDRMCo,
I like that Idea. We could put solar panels on the roof and sides, and have over 1,000 square feet of panels. And to rdganthracite, you can’t deny that low costs are significant to railroads. I’ve seen batteries that can provide power to a small community for several days which could fit into the long hood of a diesel. And, if there is no sun for several days, I suppose the railroad could just plug the locomotive into the power grid to recharge it.
-Daniel
Some dealers in Europe were selling these sets off last year for GB £145. Couldn’t resist, so bought 2 at this price.
I think they were selling originally for about GB £450.
Superb quality and value.
Bob
Seems to me that back in the late 1960’s Texas Instruments was selling their desktop computer for about $50 , good quality and value. Then some Wall Street type explained to TI that when they figured out what the problem was with this idea, when they had $110 cost of parts and labor in the product, they might be able to sell some bonds for working capital.
There are untold numbers of approachs to our energy problems which $3 a gallon cost of gasoline was on the verge of getting kicked off, but we quickly forget them when the price drops to an exorbinate $2 a gallon (which I believe doesn’t cover the cost of manufacture of Ethanol). Perhaps if we have enough scares we will actually get some economical approachs to the problem we all face.
Would it not be surprising if one of those solutiuons had root here in these discussions. What a scary Haloween thought that is!
Will
Let’s see. An SD70 is has a body about 70’ long (I’m doing close-enough calculations, known in the science field as “back-of-the-envelope”), just over 15’ high, and about 10’ wide. Assume (probably incorrectly) that we can cover every single surface of the locomotive above the walkways with solar cells (ignore the portion below the walkway- the trucks probably won’t have solar cells on them). That leaves us with a nice even number- 700 sq.ft. of surface area on each side and on the top.
OK, the side away from the sun won’t contribute much (the difference between direct and indirect radiation is huge), so ignore it.
Depending on the latitude and season at which the locomotive is running, we’ll get a different portion of solar radiation caught by the side and top faces, but they operate against each other- if the sun is directly overhead, then the side cells wouldn’t get any sun. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student, but assuming 45 degrees above the horizon (for example, at latitude 21 degrees North on the Equinox) would give a maximum power output (so this won’t be the most efficient solution in the U.S. or Canada).
With an Insolation of 1350 W/sq.m, we get a power output of:
2 * 700 sq.ft. * sin(45) * 1350 W/sq.m * 0.09290304 sq.m/sq.ft * 1hp/746W * .15 = 25HP.
(edit: forgot the electrical efficiency of, at best, around 15%)
So, there is no way that this locomotive could compete with a modern 4000HP unit.
Brian “Ex Physics Prof” Pickering
Hi, I think the easy way around the problem is not to use solar to power locomotives directly but to use solar as a power generation source like the solar reactor in France? also electrification of the lines would be needed. A country like the US which has areas that have a high number of sunshine/ daylight hours per year could use this power source, the new cells I believe use daylight as opposed to direct sunshine? In my model railway room which is external to our house I use a 1.5Kw wind generator which is usually enough power to heat & light the room, it works in conjunction with mains suppy so if I need more than 1.5Kw the mains boosts the power needed and when not drawing more than 1.5Kw the excess power is fed back in to the electric company grid.
Shaun
You have hit the nail on the head: even though you lose some power in transmission over long distances, you are better off having a stationary powerplant (solar or whatever) and electric motors in the locomotive. While fossil fuels provide a highly efficient way to remotely generate power for locomotion, there are also obvious limitations on its use. The nice thing about electrically powered trains is that they aren’t picky about powerplants: coal, oil, nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, whatever…
Some oufit in California that had been paying $$$ to power the lights in a low, sprawling commercial structure, recently paved the roof with solar cells. They now get $$$ from the utility company, since the solar array produces up to 4 times what they need.
In the same vein, covering a few square miles of Nevada desert with solar cells would produce plenty of power, either for direct use (think catenary) or for refining water to service hydrogen-burning fuel cells. Nevada has LOTS of square miles of desert, and no shortage of sunshine.
Granted that the up front cost would be high. Once in operation, the major expense would be dust removal. (Unfortunately, Nevada also has about a gazillion tons of airborne dust, added to by every breeze that blows.)
Chuck (enjoying the sunshine in Sin City)
HI, but once the up front costs have been paid there is no cost for fuel (unless the railroad doesn’t own the generating plant) The Swiss also use Hydro for the generation of power quite successfully.
Shaun
You know, this puzzles me, too. We’ve had electric locomotives for roughly 100 years, and yet we’re still using diesel electrics? Really, if you think about it, what if diesel fuel had cost $1.00 a gallon back in 1939-1945? Or, more logically, had diesel been rationed more strictly during that time? Would RR’s have electrified more mainline trackage, and diesels fallen by the wayside? I think I read somewhere that electric locomotives are capable of producing something like 8000+ HP per unit (on 6 axles), have no direct emissions (other than the ozone from power pickup), and are relatively silent.
I wonder what it would cost to electrify a line (say, for sake of discussion, a 50 mile shortline), just electrify the main track, and use diesel or battery power for switching cars off the main on the spurs.
Brad