It's one thing to test prototype zero-emissions locomotives on paper, and quite another thing to test them under real operating conditions and in all sorts of weather. https://lnkd.in/exNVs_p4
Braden Kayganich
4mo
Well since they did not say if this double-stack train was 40’s or 53’s… I assume this is a train of ISO boxes… 130/5=26 5-packers, 260 boxes. At 19 tons, this study’s hypothetical train only weighs ~7319 tons by my calculations. Comparing A DEL (Diesel Electric Locomotive) to CPKC’s H2FC.. The DEL has more TE. Which this study failed to consider. A 6-axle AC traction Wabtec EVO, continuous tractive effort is about 166klbs. The CPKC unit I’m guessing only musters ~95klbs. To lift this train up and over Cajon requires 327,891lbs of tractive effort. 44.8lbs/ton on a 2.2% grade. Only 2x DEL’s would be needed to lift the train. While the FCH2 unit requires 4x just to meet that requirement.
Tom Hughes
4mo
I can speak from personal experience supporting the BNSF that they did extensive testing with a single BEL (battery electric locomotive) in 2018/2019. That was an effort between CARB, GE, Transportation, and the BNSF. However, that was just supplemental power that used a very unique recharging capacity driven by dynamic braking and managed by Trip Optimizer. There’s just no way they could ever replace diesel 100%, only supplement it. The California terrain is well suited for that type of use. In addition to diesel and BEL capabilities, GE Transportation also offers an LNG capability. If I’m not mistaken, it has the ability to be “dual fuel”. The systems are in use by Florida East Coast and Ferromex. But there’s infrastructure that would be needed in order to make the change to LNG. Having the ability to utilize the same power (locomotives for Those not in the industry) without having to switch them out as they cross a state line is extremely imperative from an operational standpoint. If you’re not in the industry, it's likely not obvious. In short, it’s a delicate, balancing act. Improvements have been made for decades, and will continue to be made. Trying to “rush genius” has way more negative downsides.
Maddock Thomas
4mo
Someone needs to tell CARB about the Milwaukee Road...
James Evans
4mo
Yes, no doubt about that Mr. Stephen's. Time will tell but progress is being made even if the pace is slower than some would hope to achieve.
Owner at HZRX-Locomotive Leasing, LLC
4moGreen-Washed Propoganda. As having built a battery & reworked Gen-Set locomotives this is no different than those who have electric automobiles. In very specific (all inclusive or otherwise narrow window) situations does the technology actually work and it will only work for the predetermined OEM support window. The major take-away is that everything built today is throw-away and will be obsoleted by the OEM (be wary of who owns the aftermarket). The Gen-sets of the mid 2000's are almost 100% scrap now. The battery units built in the late 2000/2010's are all scrap (we just cut the last). The new ones just do not have the stamina, simplicity or otherwise robustness demanded of our grueling industry. The EMD locomotives built in the 1940-1980's are mostly still use are not disposable - being T0+. Super fuel efficient (especially over the QSK), full aftermarket support, environmentally conscious and upgradable. It is saddening the Propoganda given the lack of understanding of what permits our industry to function over time. I mean - when was the last time a railroad brought good PR to town instead of a derailment? It's rare. No one (public or policy) is seemingly remotely familiar with us, what we do or how we do it.