Wabtech FLX Locomotive BEL44C4D #3000

[Railfan722]

Is there any studies out there that actually show that electric locomotives are any more efficient than Diesel electrics?

There's a couple studies, but in the typical fashion they're gated behind journal paywalls. The closest figures I can find for efficiency are around 30-40% for diesel-electric and upwards of 95% for electric in terms of how much energy could theoretically be transferred from the power source (diesel fuel or catenary in this case) to the traction motors. Electrification has a number of other benefits, such as being able to pack a lot more power into the body. An ACS-64 at peak output puts down about half again as much power as a GEVO, despite only being about half as heavy. Obviously with freight you might get some problems with slippage there, but it's a lot easier to add weight to the body than it is to remove it. Electricity also has the advantage of generally being cheaper than diesel fuel, which means that over time the high cost of the initial installation is recouped. If there were no inherent benefits to electrification other than the environmental concerns, I don't think freight railroads would even consider it. 100% network electrification is a bit of a pipe dream, but electrifying the main arterial routes could definitely help freight get to where it goes faster and for less money.

[AmericanSteam]

One would think that If there weren't studies out there showing that this technology was viable then Union Pacific and other railroads wouldn't be investing time and money in it. These locomotives are a test bed for the viability of this technology. It may not work well in all applications or geographical areas but most likely be a success in others. We all can speculate, but UP development is privy to more technical and scientific data as pertaining to this application then most of us. I have theory and practical knowledge on working on all electric and hybrid vehicles.This was one of my specialties while working at a GM dealership before retirement. Sometimes we get into the view that what we have now works so why not keep it. Technology like time marches on.

[buzz456]

However folks the quoted efficiency doesn't seem to take into account that the electricity has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is from electrical generation. Please take that into consideration and tell me how many power plants we will need to build to just power a tiny part of our rail system. Economical consideration of hybrid and electric cars are a feel good thing and certainly don't add up to anyone who cares to take the time to do the calculations unless these numbskulls running the government drive the price of oil out of sight. Solar has proven to be expensive and unreliable which most of us knew going in and at this point in time wind alas is much the same. The bottom line is that leads us back to fossil fuels unless dare I say it nuclear for a solution.
In the interest of truth I must admit to being a stockholder of UP all be it a small one and I suspect they are mostly trying to be politically correct or woke or whatever you call it this week in this experiment although they have a long history of exploring alternatives when it comes to locomotion.

[BNSFdude]

Generation and transmission efficiency from power plants beit fossil or renewables is still far more efficient than diesel-electric no matter what way you put it. There's a reason the overwhelming majority of Europe is electrified for freight too.

[JohnS]

Check out Switzerland. Most of the railways are electric and they generate a majority of their power by burning 90% of their garbage and the other 10% gets recycled. They have to import trash because they don't create enough of their own.

[buzz456]

Check out Switzerland. Most of the railways are electric and they generate a majority of their power by burning 90% of their garbage and the other 10% gets recycled. They have to import trash because they don't create enough of their own.

That's what we should be doing but the environment whackos won't let us.

[EngineerJohn]

The high startup cost and huge initial environmental dent needed to do something on the scale of the US is a massive turnoff.

Also no alternate energy source is truly clean.

The absurd amounts of steel needed to construct and maintain a catenary system you can almost guarantee is going to come from a fuel hungry steel furnace getting power from a coal or natural gas powerplant.

Then you still have to bet on, whatever catenary does get built can be powered from some combination of nuclear (somewhat controversial in its own right), or other renewable sources with enough power between them to consistently keep trains running in adverse weather conditions in different regions.

If your massive catenary system is powered by an oil or even to an extent natural gas, you're really not gaining anything in the way of better efficiency.

Current technology puts well designed combustion engines at around 30-35% efficiency, meaning that much energy from fuel becomes usable mechanical power, then factor in a little loss for the electric generator, and wheel motors themselves.

With good alternative fuel sources, electric driven locomotives battery or otherwise are much, much more efficient.

[HighBypass]

As controversial as nuclear power is, molten salt reactors appear to be quite a safe option. I agree with EngineerJohn in that trying to construct catenary all over the railroad network in your country would be an immense undertaking, and that once constructed (and powered!), the maintenance and upkeep would not quite be as simple as maintaining the telegraph wires which ran alongside the tracks. I only mention those because they carry electricity, although a lot less than 25kV.

[mindenjohn]

In Europe very strong winds cause problems with catenary and heavy icing can also bring lines down so North American, mid western Tornadoes and icing would have to be serious engineering criteria.

[buzz456]

When and if it ever makes economic sense it will happen. Until then it should not. The intentions of some are good but the laws of unintended consequences are often ignored.

[ENR3005]

Is there any studies out there that actually show that electric locomotives are any more efficient than Diesel electrics?

There's a couple studies, but in the typical fashion they're gated behind journal paywalls. The closest figures I can find for efficiency are around 30-40% for diesel-electric and upwards of 95% for electric in terms of how much energy could theoretically be transferred from the power source (diesel fuel or catenary in this case) to the traction motors. Electrification has a number of other benefits, such as being able to pack a lot more power into the body. An ACS-64 at peak output puts down about half again as much power as a GEVO, despite only being about half as heavy. Obviously with freight you might get some problems with slippage there, but it's a lot easier to add weight to the body than it is to remove it. Electricity also has the advantage of generally being cheaper than diesel fuel, which means that over time the high cost of the initial installation is recouped. If there were no inherent benefits to electrification other than the environmental concerns, I don't think freight railroads would even consider it. 100% network electrification is a bit of a pipe dream, but electrifying the main arterial routes could definitely help freight get to where it goes faster and for less money.

There is plenty of research to read on electrification including heavy freight examples in North America. In the early 80s, BC built an 82 mile electrified branchline, the Tumbler Subdivision, to a pair of coal mines which required steep grades and and a pair of really long tunnels at 5.6 miles and 3.7 miles in remote wilderness. Trains were 106 cars or 14,000 tons using six custom made EMD GF6C electric locomotives rated at 6,000 HP each, three on the head end, three on the tail end. These trains operated in some of the harshest operating conditions of any North America railroad. Here is some documentation including fuel savings amounts for the first years of operation although a bit dated but good enough for a bargain hunting Provincial Government to jump on board that only years previously had bought a dozen junk C425s from Erie Lackawanna rather than brand new units. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tr ... 23-003.pdf There is a lot more documentation like this if you look. The mines unfortunately shutdown in the early 2000s and the locomotives were scrapped along with the electrification equipment. The write off of the entire line ultimately contributed to the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail in 2003. The mines however have reopened in recent years with new operator CN Rail now handling the coal traffic with diesel units. It was an impressive operation while run by BC Rail and a testament to what could be done with electrification to freight lines in North America. Here is a video of the railroad in operation in the late 90s for anyone who wants to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmFZFJB4adc

[BNSFdude]

A huge downfall of the GF6Cs was the DC traction motors. While 6000 HP is nice, the weight of the locomotive and speed constraints of the geography did not suit the high ratings very well and burned traction motor combos out frequently which lead to eventual deration to 5000 and maybe even lower HP ratings.

If the timing for the technology had been a bit better, there may have been a shot at seeing them powered with Siemens gear and Rockwell software much like the MAC program that launched not many years after.

[ENR3005]

A huge downfall of the GF6Cs was the DC traction motors. While 6000 HP is nice, the weight of the locomotive and speed constraints of the geography did not suit the high ratings very well and burned traction motor combos out frequently which lead to eventual deration to 5000 and maybe even lower HP ratings.

If the timing for the technology had been a bit better, there may have been a shot at seeing them powered with Siemens gear and Rockwell software much like the MAC program that launched not many years after.

They derated them to 4000 HP in later years which worked really well after this change.

[ttjph]

I would think that there are two primary benefits to this loco, used as a part of a hybrid diesel consist.

The primary one is recovery and re-use of dynamic brake energy. Potentially, if the control system allows it, the battery slug could do *all* the dynamic braking for moderate grades, with the diesel locos' resistors only coming into play once the required braking exceeds the limit of the slug (presumably 4000 hp or more) is exceeded. That stored energy can then be used to help start the train, or haul it up the next up-grade. Every time you use up all the (usable) energy in the batteries, you've saved the amount of diesel that a 4400 hp loco would burn in half an hour or so.

It's almost certain that the consist will have a 'supervisory' control system with the ability to manage each loco separately, for both power and braking, and probably with a route profile stored so that it can plan the battery usage looking ahead.

Interesting that they've configured it as an A1A-A1A rather than a full C-C (or Co-Co in UK terminology); but presumably the main benefit is at higher speeds where it can harvest its full rated power, rather than lower speeds close to the adhesion limit. Perhaps that also reduces the parasitic losses when it's running idle.

Secondly, you can charge it up before the run on grid electricity which, if it comes from nuclear, solar, wind, or hydroelectric, is greener than burning that half-hour of diesel (although I don't know about pricing stateside). You therefore achieve some of the benefits of electrification without the cost of installing and maintaining hundreds of miles of catenary, often in remote and difficult terrain, or risking the disruption of a 'wires down'.

The Wabtec brochure mentions a third advantage: zero-emission (and quiet) operation in yards, where speeds are low so the power of one loco is sufficient, and gradients are small so it has enough tractive effort too.

Finally, although the images show it in the middle of two diesel locos, I suspect that crews might very quickly decide that they prefer it as the lead unit for a quieter ride!

[HighBypass]

....(and quiet) operation in yards, where speeds are low so the power of one loco is sufficient..

My emphasis..
However, that might become a danger to the personnel in the yard - a 200 ton behemoth on rails would really be able to sneak up on someone... yet I assume the mandatory use of bell and perhaps horn would negate the locomotive being quiet anyway...