That 'Direct Air Capture Car' thing at 10:47 was *immediately* making me think: "Paging Thunderfoot, Paging Thunderfoot', then the more you described it the more I started getting 'Solar Roadway' vibes off of it. The whole idea is obviously absurd.
Regenerative braking isnt actually repurposing the heat, like some people think it is. It's literally taking an electric motor, but instead of using it to turn the wheels, you use the wheels to turn the motor, making it into a generator. So, while it wouldn't make quite as much electricity as it takes to get the train moving (due to Newton's law of conservation of energy,) it could generate an impressive amount of energy. Energy that would get stored in the... um... *checks notes* "battry array..."
That's actually a pretty common feature of most electric or hybrid buses, where the energy is used to recharge the battery, thus extending the range. The same technology is used on trolleybuses and trams, either to recharge the trolleybus batteries for off-wire use, or to generate electricity to be put BACK into the grid.
Regarding the high-speed rail (#5, Amtrak), central & south Florida have it. Brightline train sets run 85 mph between West Palm Beach and Miami, and the plan is to ramp it up to 125 mph once Cocoa Beach & Orlando are added into the mix. They're currently double-tracking the Florida East Coast mainline from WPB to Cocoa because the two currently share FEC infrastructure and when it's finished either railway can use both mains. The graphics guy (#1, CO2 Rail) doesn't know how to spell "battery" either.
The Radio Tube Train is basically a DPU judging by how it's controlled. But in otherwords, it's basically an unmanned train controlled remotely. Yeah, that's real safe considering how many grade crossings there are in America on most mainlines!
Regarding the Westinghouse electric locomotive it wasn't as far fetched as you might think. The GG1 built in the 1930's had a short time power rating of 8500hp, so to produce a 7500hp loco 10 years later isn't that much of a task. Also 16 axles would be better for heavy freight use which is what that was designed for.
It also looks like a first pass Virginian Railway 2B of 1948. That eventually came from GE as pair of back to back B-B-B-B units sharing a common number. So it did have 16 axles on 8 trucks, and 8000 hp in real life, just split across two bodyshells, and the four built lasted ten years until the VR/N&W merger.
The first locomotive was the proposed AMT125 high speed (125MPH) diesel locomotive. It would be streamlined and rounded to match the Amfleet 1 cars behind it. I believe it was to be used on the New York to Buffalo Empire service with 3rd rail shoes for Grand Central Terminal. Amtrak instead bought Rohr Turboliners for this service. The Westinghouse 16 axle electric locomotive was for the planned PRR electrification between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh over the Allegheny mountains in central Pennsylvania. This planned electrification was delayed by WW2 and then never happened due to the rise of the diesel locomotive. I wonder how well this thing would have tracked around Horseshoe Curve.
The prototype for the class 50, DP2, actually had a modified Deltic body. I used to see it almost every day during the 60s as it pulled the London-Scottish car-carrier past my school. Unfortunately, it was destroyed due to an accident. I believe there was also talk of a 4,000HP Super Deltic which would have used an extended Deltic body. The reason no further Deltic engines were produced was due to their limited overhaul schedule and the need to return them to English Electric for rebuilding.
The APT prototypes were reintroduced to service for testing in the mid '80s and worked very nicely- the technology and data from the project has benefited high speed rail travel all over the world. Given its scope the project was not expensive and, although the name APT was forever poisoned by the adverse media coverage, the Class 91+Mk4 sets that have served the East Coast Main Line so well for some thirty years and counting are service APTs in all but name albeit lacking some of the developments noteably tilting. (The Mk4 coaches were made to tilt but that has never been exploited.)
On the "Radio Tube" train,the New Haven railroad Did, infact, participate in a test of a radio controlled crewless train in the 1950s.The trainset in question was a set of Pullman Standard "Washboard" multiple unit cars,and the tests were successful,but the technology wasn't accepted Also...about Baldwin's 16 axle electric's horsepower,GEs Big Blow Turbine generated 8,500 horsepower,and some were upgraded to 10,000 hp before they were retired in the early 1970s
Love your videos. Please consider producing one about the German State Railroad 99 161 steam locomotive. It looks more like a steamboat on rails than a train engine. It was in operation on the Reichenbach Roller Carrier Line in the 1950s and 1960s. Thank you. Keep up the great work.
Did anyone notice the engine on the Amtrak train had the same fan/grill layout and the fuel tank as the F40ph? It looks like an F40 with a body to match the Amfleet cars. Could it have been an early concept drawing of the F40ph?
Hello Darkey Referring to your number three on this list (min 5:50) - Have you ever heard of the Ae 8/14, built for the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB-CFF-FFS) between 1931 to 1939? While they did not have 16 axles, they still got 14 axles and the maximum power of the last model was about 11'000 hp. Unlike the project you mention here, they actually were built and they were the most powerful locomotives in the world for some time .
3:10 The reduction of the USN from 11 carriers to 10 would reduce the operating costs by 1/11th but would reduce the USN's operational fleet strength by 1/4. As with 11 carriers, one would be in for refuelling, the remaining permit 4 carriers on operation (5 ships in co-operation can maintain 2 at sea at a time), however a reduction to 10 would mean one in for refuelling and 3 operational carriers (as it takes 3 ships co-operating to maintain 1 at sea at a time, although for guaranteed operations you would want 4 [See RN ballistic missile submarines]). Also there more like $8/9 billion, that being said USS Gerald R. Ford herself cost about $13 billion because of First-of-class design changes (about 19,000) and cost associated with the difference in construction when compared to USS George H.W. Bush.
Westinghouse's 16-axle electric locomotive rides on AAR Type A trucks... this thing would probably have rode ridiculously rough and been limited to 30mph.... it would have been the electric equivalent of the Erie Triplex.
I think the Westinghouse 16 axle would have been designed for the electrified mountain coal lines of the Former Virginian. N&W instead choose to de-electrify the lines.
Napier designed a turbo compounded version of the Deltic engine with the turbine in the centre of the triangle, and I think that a prototype was actually built, but it never went into production. Was the ‘Super Deltic’ intended to use this, or a pair of ‘normal’ Deltic engines?
Are you referring to the compound turbine engine (mentioned by curious droid in his video on the deltic engine) where the deltic engine was used as a hot gas generator to drive the turbine that supposedly produced near 5000hp but had reliability issues?
The US NAVY did drop 1 aircraft carrier. During the cold war the navy had 12 carries. But when the cold war ended, they drop to 11 because of advance technology and budget constraints.
4:48 actually the saxophone shaped airhorn is about the only thing of that design that was based in reality. The early Wabco airhorns of that era actually were shaped like that, the idea being that they were mounted vertically with the bend near the end so that way rainwater would drain out of the horn. WWII diesel submarines also had steam powered horns that were shaped the same way so that seawater will drain out of them once the sub surfaces. Yes, some submarines had horns on them, no idea why. It ended up that rain was not that big of a deal and later airhorns were just the straight trumpet shapes that we are used to today.
So you think large glass bulbs aren't suitable for a railway locomotive. Well what about the Mercury Arc Rectifiers used by the Class 82 and Class 83 electric Locomotives? Largeish glass bulbs containing a reasonable amount of Mercury and lots of 25Kv AC electricity - sounds reasonably safe - for use by BR.
If you read the article a bit, they are radio frequency rectifiers. Powerful AC motors weren't availible at that (DC motors could run AC at low frequencies, up to about 20Hz), so they would have been designing for DC Motors.
And the class 81 and 84's. To be fair, the 81's and 82's were reasonably reliable. They were replaced with silicon rectifiers in the early 70's, together with the 85's, that had Germanium rectifiers.
It seems strange that the more powerful "super Deltic" was proposed to be Class 51, an even lower number than the Class 55 of the normal Deltics. Wouldn't they logically have been Class 56 (assuming the scheme pre-dated the eventual 56s).
The class numbers used by BR weren't sequential in that way (although arranged in groups based on the Type) - in fact, the Class 47 Class as built was more powerful (2,750 bhp) than the Class 50s (2,700 bhp). It's likely they were refered to as 'Class 51' due to them being considered an evolution of the Class 50, whereas Class 56 would have made sense if they'd looked at building an extended Class 55 (and, yes, the proposed 51s predated the actual 56s by about 8 years).
About transferring power wirelessly, ever hear of a guy named Tesla? Here is an easy way to remove a lot of Co2, takes lots of land though, plant trees and plants, no train required...I love this crap...
By law, yes the Navy needs 11 air craft carriers. Also, if high speed rail doesn't work in the corridor, no one in the rest of the country will pay for it. What I think would be an awesome amtrak route would be a Michigan to Florida train.
Can we agree that if we build a high speed rail from Buffalo NY through Albany to Boston MA and Albany through NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Alexandria, and Richmond to Norfolk that all further expansions have to be financed solely from the profit from the then existing high speed network without any further subsidies.
The sheer amount of power needed to be transmitted via radio waves to the radio tube train would make these radio waves a lethal thing, they would fry your body. The 16 axle locomotive however would make sense, it replaces an A-B-B-A set of F7s which have a similar amount of wheels and the electric would have a better power rating.
That's the thing, we know perfectly well how to transmit electricity wirelessly, but there are side effects. Do you want the people medium or well done?
The Acela power cars are 8000 HP! Diesel Electrics topped out at 6000 real and 4500 practical because of limits of traction versus weight. Regenerative braking is a real thing. Electric locomotives have used it forever. This uses the fact that electric motors and generators are essentially the same thing. Turning it on generates electricity and the friction of motors slows the train. The electricity is then sent back on the wire. Hybrids put the electricity back into batteries for future use. Diesel electrics use a version of this called Dynamic Braking. However, the electricity is run through resistors to generate heat which is let out into the atmosphere. Even so, due to friction, entropy , etc. you will never get all the energy back hence the notion that the capture car would require no energy is ludicrous!
6000HP locomotives didnt really became a thing in the US not because of traction issues but the lack of trains where it would make sense to use them. Here in Brazil we have got the ES58ACi with 5800HP to move massive kilometers long unit trains of iron ore in the EF Carajás together with the SD80ACe with 5300HP ao it makes them feaseable since you always have a set train weight. IIRC with 4400/4500HP locomotives (C44-9WM/SD70ACe/AC44i) it takes 7 locomotives but with 5800HP it takes 5 and with 5300HP it takes 6. Plus the fact that the 6000HP'ers of today are a lot more reliable than the ones that were produced in the 90s.
For #5 I wonder if that was a different Name for the New York Sets that were the Turbo Sets. Amtrak had the RTG and the RTL. That is one interesting Story and a fight with Amtrak and the State of New York.
Default electric locomotives for the last decade or so have only had 4400 horsepower out of a V12 like the General Electric Evolution series has a V12 the new EMD has a 10/10 as well which is 1010 cubic inches out of a V12 putting out 4400 horsepower just to let you know my friend I love your videos keep up the great work
Interesting - thinking of the radio tube train, a lot of 'popular science' type mags in the 20's and 30's ran stories on quite fantastic machines that never came into being - there were a great many ideas for 'island in the sky' type cities with monorails and heliports, gyroscopic unicycles and the like. Really, they were Jules Verne and H G Wells brought up to date, but far beyond what the ir contemporary technology could support. The odd thing is that a few of the ideas have come to pass in our generation - Dick Tracy had a miniature two way wrist radio in about 1932, for example. Now we have portable phones.
Given that a standard Deltic could run at 125mph, (they didn't as track, signalling, safe braking, engine wear and a host of other issues,) then a Super Detic would potentially hit 140mph plus if the traction motors and track would let it.
It was never intended to, really, likely duties were the WMCL expresses (which got pairs of 50's on non electrified sections for a while) and and maybe a handful of trains on the EMCL. Post full electrification of the WCML anyone's guess. Initial work on what became the HST included concepts for a deltic powered power car, but that hot canned pretty quickly - the deltic engine wasn't really suitable for the kind of intensive use planned.
Some of these ideas give me an idea for backup locomotive that uses electricity from a diesel electric locomotive to power traction motors, likely reducing CO2 emissions from multiple-unit trains. It would look like an E7 B-unit but it’s completely electric. It would have multiple large batteries where the Diesel engine on an E7 would be.
The Wabtec BEL is a converted ES44AC that is completely battery with regenerative braking. BNSF had done tests with it. They haven't figured out how to run it off the DPU it runs with yet. That would be a good idea.
It just so happened that I wrote an article on CO2 Rail for my earth science class a few months ago about current events regarding climate change, and my main issue with this is that it still relies on fossil fuels to power the diesel engines instead of using cleaner forms of energy. While I don't think the railcar is supposed to take carbon out of the surrounding atmosphere (not counting the diesel emissions), I do feel a few prototypes may be built for testing, but I'm not sure if it'll be used on a wide scale.
Yeah idk that it would ever be mass-adopted. Kinda doubt it. However, I can see the logic in the design and tbh, it's kinda genius. I just don't think it'll ever get enough attention or funding to become a reality
@@fanofeverything30465 From everything I've read, seen and heard, the US power grid currently isn't up to the task, as rolling blackouts have been a thing in California for several years now. Also, what are they going to use as power sources?
From the article next to the Radio Tube Train: "The gigantic tubes could be built of unbreakable glass." And you silly bean was worried about what would happen in case of a crash. Well, OBVIOUSLY, you just build it from unbreakable glass, duh. :-D :-D :-D
The idea behind the carbon train is that the energy that is normally converted to heat in the resistor grids of a diesel-electric locomotive equipped with dynamic braking would be, instead, used to power a CO2 collector. The problem that I see is that the energy used by railways is relatively small--Obviously, the amount of energy recovered from stopping a train cannot exceed the amount of energy used to make it move. That's not much power.
The first entry produces an intriguing "what if", namely, would would have happened in Amtrak had gone the same way as Australia, and purchased HSTs from British Rail (suitably modified for American working)? That would have cut down the development costs massively, and given the USA some pretty decent rolling stock - with a decent maximum range, they could have worked the East Coast or West Coast services pretty well.
15:27 Regenerative braking is actually used in many electric locomotives, where the dynamic braking process (using traction motors as generators in reverse, generating massive drag) is modified to send electricity back into the OHE catenary and the grid. It requires some frequency synchronization to work for AC grids, and if the synchronization fails, the loco reverts back to conventional dynamic braking. It is strong enough to prevent trains rolling down steep grades, and also to slow down big trains over a distance to walking speeds (thereby preserving the brake pads). The thing is, it is feasible with a locomotive, where it has 4 - 6 traction motors, and it is directly in contact with an electric grid. But are batteries enough to hold the energy regenerated from a TRAIN? I highly doubt it (Highly synchronized regenerative braking systems can capture almost 25 - 30% of the energy that would have been lost as heat. Where would you store THAT MUCH energy?).
It's question for the experts. but a layman's guess is that the DAC plant would be creating continuous draw or drain on the. batteries so maybe that is the answer?
Batteries can be, but you have to size them appropriately. The new stadler built cl.93 tri-mode locos in the UK are 25kvAC/diesel/battery, and they've sacrificed having onboard dynamic braking resistors (for when you want to use regenerative braking, but the power supply can't take it back for whatever reason) to make room for the batteries. The batteries can be charged during braking, or by the diesel or the AC supply, and they boost the locos' off-grid 'last mile' capabilities. Direct air is an investment scam. It's thermdynamically impossible.
The capture car would be better suited to a passenger service route with lots of stops to charge the Regen system. You'd have to do the math though if the co2 it pulls is negated by the extra diesel you burn tugging the car along.
Interesting that you mention passenger trains. Their streamlined fronts are, i think , the result of wind-tunnel tests which examines the contours of the slipstream and sees where maximum drag is caused -giving the best aerodynamic design designed to minimise this effect on train speed. The Article in 'Joule' seems to anticipate that the DAC railcar with its large 'scoops' will increase drag so it would be useful to know whether they can quantify this amount. i guess the operators of the high-speed passenger trains would be reluctant to incorporate any rail cars that would significantly lower their speed?
Some of these things are so crazy that I think it would be easier for that unnamed British company to design and build a steam turbine that would actually work properly at all speeds.
Okay, I can think of why a lot of axles on a high-horsepower electric is a good idea, and it is basically the same as a slug in this sense: starting heavy trains from rest without overheating traction motors (about 470 horsepower per motor, compared to 375 on a GP7 or equivalent). A heavy ore train or coal drag could benefit, but 16 axles is still a lot.
Also, extremely powerful locomotives must be VERY heavy to use this power without sliping, and you have limited weight per axle. But fitting this thing into the curves and switches? Good luck with that. Basically, they are real world examples of 2x(Bo-Bo-Bo), but i think that it is sanity limit.
@@paveloleynikov4715 search for Ae 8/14 ( a heavy electric locomotive for the Swiss Federal Railway) If you wonder how such a thing might have worked in practice.
@@JosipRadnik1 Thanks. I believed that crocodile were a wackyest swiss design, but I was wrong. But, while I couldn't find detailed description, her running gear looks closer to steam engine with rigid base on photos, as driving axles are not on bogies, but fixed to the frame.
@@paveloleynikov4715 The drive system is called the "Buchli System". it's a very unique but reliable and successful construction. The wheelaxles are sprung and the power transmission is delivered from one side by a construct of interlocking cogs that automaticly adjust to the vertical travel of the wheelaxle. The same system as was used by the Ae 3/6I or the Ae 4/7 and it was cleared for speeds up to 110 kph
Regenerative braking isn't what you think it is, think traction motor acting as a generator and that power being put thru a really big resistor that slows down the train. So this CO2 thing would just be generators on the axles.
16 axle train should make Horseshoe curve with ease but the Russians have a 24 axle Locomotive the 3ES5K used for heavy freight or full consist Double decker 1.1m high platform trains
In the 1930s, there was a lot of speculation about transmitting enough energy through high-frequency electromagnetic radiation to actually do work; like make something move. Amazingly, one application was finally perfected and is now probably in your home: Your microwave oven!
Does anyone have any other links of anyone that can just do it normally without all the dribble. I know that's his Forte, not my liking, but I just want to learn about trains so people can link me to someone who does a documentary without the drone that would be appreciated thank you.
Re DAC solar cells - back of the envelope (with lots of rounding) power generating capacity: exposed surface area ~= (3m diameter * pi)/2 * 20m length ~= 90 m²; the sun yields 1kw of solar power per square meter in the best conditions, 300w typical. Excellent solar cells are about 25% efficient. So maybe the DAC obtains about (30kw * 0.25 ~= 8kw) to (90kw * 0.25 ~= 24kw) or about *11hp* to *32hp* from its solar array. It won't be solar power that makes this choo-choo go 😂
4:25 Nikola Tesla Planned To Use Earth For Wireless Power Transfer by using the rocks in the underground as sort of conductor, the vibrations are sent to a receiving device and the oscillations transformed back into electricity, to be used locally.
Because you need to apply the brakes in order for the power-generating brake thing to work I think; and if so then the people at CO2 train Co. need to rethink their idea because math and logic don't make sense. I feel like it was just too much of a problem "solving" idea that they didn't check the logistics
20:21 I’m surprised no one pointed out another that this thing would have but I will: so the cars must be arranged with the CO2 intake vent located in the direction of travel right? Yea because freight cars and locomotives are always facing the same direction even in a rail yards.
The carbon capture car thing is an interesting idea, but you’re right about the location of the denser pockets of Co2 being in the upper atmosphere. On most freight rail routes, there is very little ambient carbon dioxide and it’s ultimately not the best way to use DCC tech. I’m not a climatologist, but I do dabble in environmental sciences and I can say with 78.4% certainty that it is in fact a dumb idea.
Maybe it could be adapted to be carried by ordinary aircraft who presumably cruise where the CO2 is denser or maybe some billionaire could build a special craft which could incorporate the idea and simply cruise around the troposphere collecting CO2? Oh and by the way when one of these futuristic DAC craft land its CO2 could be fused with hydrogen to make 'synfuel' which would fuel it to continue its journeys around the globe-so it would effectively be 'burning up' the CO2 from our atmosphere? Great ideas are always so simple!
How are they going to cool the CO2 down to the temp needed to get it to the liquid state? That takes a WHOLE LOT OF ENERGY. I don't see that car having the technology onboard to do this. That will add to the foot print.
So, apparently slapping a 'HYBRID" logo on anything makes it 'green'? The DAC collection car isn't powered, other than maybe something to do with the regenerative braking having a motor involved. The Locomotive (DACX 2021, cute) is supposed to be a hybrid? Hmmm, Diesel engine coupled to a generator, providing electricity to power the traction MOTORS at the axles.... Yep, it's a hybrid. Funny GE hasn't been marketing their locos as the GE Prius. Manufacturers could replace or divert the power generated in the dynamic braking system to either onboard or separately carried batteries on the train to store energy instead of venting it through the resistor banks in the root (the large round fan ducts seen from above).
As someone who's done a lot of research about alternative fuels and related subjects, and let me tell you, the "Direct Air Hybrid" would NEVER work. Absolute BS.
The CO2 Capture Car sounds like either pie in the sky thinking or an outright scam. However it does make one think... How much energy is produced from regenerative breaking and can it be harnessed? Let's say someone builds basically a cow/calf setup where the calf has batteries to store energy from the other locomotives and uses the Cow/Calf as a helper unit for steep climbs? Yeah you probably couldn't get enough power on the downslope to get it up the upslope but what would be the savings? Would it be like 50% fuel savings or like 1%?
Still waiting for you to look into the kitson still hybrid deisel/steam locomotive Ran conventional boiler but with 8 cylinders that ran on stem up to 10mph then changed over to deisel injection and ran up to 50mph and used the exhaust from the deisel injection to heat the boiler
Direct Air Hybrid may have difficulty attracting investors when they can't even spell 'Battery'
They might be British Americans so
Battery is only spelled that way in the English language
It reeks of bs
That 'Direct Air Capture Car' thing at 10:47 was *immediately* making me think: "Paging Thunderfoot, Paging Thunderfoot', then the more you described it the more I started getting 'Solar Roadway' vibes off of it. The whole idea is obviously absurd.
Why? Have a look at [Joule Vol 8, Issue 7, July 20. 2022]& the .pdf 'Supplemental info' which contains quite a lot of supporting data and. research
Direct Air is an investment scam, no its or buts. That's why there's no hardware.
Regenerative braking isnt actually repurposing the heat, like some people think it is.
It's literally taking an electric motor, but instead of using it to turn the wheels, you use the wheels to turn the motor, making it into a generator. So, while it wouldn't make quite as much electricity as it takes to get the train moving (due to Newton's law of conservation of energy,) it could generate an impressive amount of energy.
Energy that would get stored in the... um... *checks notes* "battry array..."
Have a look at the Article in the scientific magazine'Joule'-it may help explain all this.
That's actually a pretty common feature of most electric or hybrid buses, where the energy is used to recharge the battery, thus extending the range.
The same technology is used on trolleybuses and trams, either to recharge the trolleybus batteries for off-wire use, or to generate electricity to be put BACK into the grid.
Regarding the high-speed rail (#5, Amtrak), central & south Florida have it. Brightline train sets run 85 mph between West Palm Beach and Miami, and the plan is to ramp it up to 125 mph once Cocoa Beach & Orlando are added into the mix. They're currently double-tracking the Florida East Coast mainline from WPB to Cocoa because the two currently share FEC infrastructure and when it's finished either railway can use both mains.
The graphics guy (#1, CO2 Rail) doesn't know how to spell "battery" either.
by the standards of the rest of the world, 125mph is barely high speed... anything short of that is just a reasonable expectation for regional rail
@@MercenaryPen who cares? at least it's something.
Acela runs up to 150.
The Radio Tube Train is basically a DPU judging by how it's controlled. But in otherwords, it's basically an unmanned train controlled remotely. Yeah, that's real safe considering how many grade crossings there are in America on most mainlines!
It's basically like if you took the concept of the Docklands Light Railway in London, and translated it into a standard (at the time) US locomotive.
*D P U alright!!!*
Regarding the Westinghouse electric locomotive it wasn't as far fetched as you might think. The GG1 built in the 1930's had a short time power rating of 8500hp, so to produce a 7500hp loco 10 years later isn't that much of a task. Also 16 axles would be better for heavy freight use which is what that was designed for.
Love the username
It also looks like a first pass Virginian Railway 2B of 1948. That eventually came from GE as pair of back to back B-B-B-B units sharing a common number. So it did have 16 axles on 8 trucks, and 8000 hp in real life, just split across two bodyshells, and the four built lasted ten years until the VR/N&W merger.
The Amtrack high speed train looks like a cross between a 1st generation bullet train and a British Rail Class 91.
The first locomotive was the proposed AMT125 high speed (125MPH) diesel locomotive. It would be streamlined and rounded to match the Amfleet 1 cars behind it. I believe it was to be used on the New York to Buffalo Empire service with 3rd rail shoes for Grand Central Terminal. Amtrak instead bought Rohr Turboliners for this service.
The Westinghouse 16 axle electric locomotive was for the planned PRR electrification between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh over the Allegheny mountains in central Pennsylvania. This planned electrification was delayed by WW2 and then never happened due to the rise of the diesel locomotive. I wonder how well this thing would have tracked around Horseshoe Curve.
What the design of that digibashed mockup reeks of, is "Look, it's green! That means this is _totally_ real green technology!"
The prototype for the class 50, DP2, actually had a modified Deltic body. I used to see it almost every day during the 60s as it pulled the London-Scottish car-carrier past my school. Unfortunately, it was destroyed due to an accident. I believe there was also talk of a 4,000HP Super Deltic which would have used an extended Deltic body. The reason no further Deltic engines were produced was due to their limited overhaul schedule and the need to return them to English Electric for rebuilding.
The APT prototypes were reintroduced to service for testing in the mid '80s and worked very nicely- the technology and data from the project has benefited high speed rail travel all over the world. Given its scope the project was not expensive and, although the name APT was forever poisoned by the adverse media coverage, the Class 91+Mk4 sets that have served the East Coast Main Line so well for some thirty years and counting are service APTs in all but name albeit lacking some of the developments noteably tilting. (The Mk4 coaches were made to tilt but that has never been exploited.)
Looking at the CO2 car I can’t help but get Holman Horror vides.
That needs to be the British rail intro now
Darkness the cursed: Why dOn’t wE haVE HiGh sPeeD TraINs?!
California high speed rail: am I a joke to you?
Acela Express and Aveila Liberty: ...
yes
American Public:
It takes days to complete a journey that takes two hours by plane, but costs twice as much as a flight.
Yes. You are a joke.
I could see the Virginian going for a 7,000hp single-unit electric locomotive, but a 16 axle would just simply be too big for their network
“Your horn is a saxophone.” ROTFL!! 🤣😂😆
On the "Radio Tube" train,the New Haven railroad Did, infact, participate in a test of a radio controlled crewless train in the 1950s.The trainset in question was a set of Pullman Standard "Washboard" multiple unit cars,and the tests were successful,but the technology wasn't accepted
Also...about Baldwin's 16 axle electric's horsepower,GEs Big Blow Turbine generated 8,500 horsepower,and some were upgraded to 10,000 hp before they were retired in the early 1970s
Love your videos. Please consider producing one about the German State Railroad 99 161 steam locomotive. It looks more like a steamboat on rails than a train engine. It was in operation on the Reichenbach Roller Carrier Line in the 1950s and 1960s. Thank you. Keep up the great work.
Did anyone notice the engine on the Amtrak train had the same fan/grill layout and the fuel tank as the F40ph? It looks like an F40 with a body to match the Amfleet cars. Could it have been an early concept drawing of the F40ph?
Hello Darkey
Referring to your number three on this list (min 5:50) - Have you ever heard of the Ae 8/14, built for the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB-CFF-FFS) between 1931 to 1939? While they did not have 16 axles, they still got 14 axles and the maximum power of the last model was about 11'000 hp. Unlike the project you mention here, they actually were built and they were the most powerful locomotives in the world for some time .
3:10 The reduction of the USN from 11 carriers to 10 would reduce the operating costs by 1/11th but would reduce the USN's operational fleet strength by 1/4. As with 11 carriers, one would be in for refuelling, the remaining permit 4 carriers on operation (5 ships in co-operation can maintain 2 at sea at a time), however a reduction to 10 would mean one in for refuelling and 3 operational carriers (as it takes 3 ships co-operating to maintain 1 at sea at a time, although for guaranteed operations you would want 4 [See RN ballistic missile submarines]).
Also there more like $8/9 billion, that being said USS Gerald R. Ford herself cost about $13 billion because of First-of-class design changes (about 19,000) and cost associated with the difference in construction when compared to USS George H.W. Bush.
Westinghouse's 16-axle electric locomotive rides on AAR Type A trucks... this thing would probably have rode ridiculously rough and been limited to 30mph.... it would have been the electric equivalent of the Erie Triplex.
I think the Westinghouse 16 axle would have been designed for the electrified mountain coal lines of the Former Virginian. N&W instead choose to de-electrify the lines.
Napier designed a turbo compounded version of the Deltic engine with the turbine in the centre of the triangle, and I think that a prototype was actually built, but it never went into production. Was the ‘Super Deltic’ intended to use this, or a pair of ‘normal’ Deltic engines?
Are you referring to the compound turbine engine (mentioned by curious droid in his video on the deltic engine) where the deltic engine was used as a hot gas generator to drive the turbine that supposedly produced near 5000hp but had reliability issues?
The US NAVY did drop 1 aircraft carrier. During the cold war the navy had 12 carries. But when the cold war ended, they drop to 11 because of advance technology and budget constraints.
Then they could easily drop it to 10
4:48 actually the saxophone shaped airhorn is about the only thing of that design that was based in reality. The early Wabco airhorns of that era actually were shaped like that, the idea being that they were mounted vertically with the bend near the end so that way rainwater would drain out of the horn. WWII diesel submarines also had steam powered horns that were shaped the same way so that seawater will drain out of them once the sub surfaces. Yes, some submarines had horns on them, no idea why.
It ended up that rain was not that big of a deal and later airhorns were just the straight trumpet shapes that we are used to today.
Do 5 Railroads that never came to be please?
So you think large glass bulbs aren't suitable for a railway locomotive. Well what about the Mercury Arc Rectifiers used by the Class 82 and Class 83 electric Locomotives? Largeish glass bulbs containing a reasonable amount of Mercury and lots of 25Kv AC electricity - sounds reasonably safe - for use by BR.
If you read the article a bit, they are radio frequency rectifiers. Powerful AC motors weren't availible at that (DC motors could run AC at low frequencies, up to about 20Hz), so they would have been designing for DC Motors.
And the class 81 and 84's. To be fair, the 81's and 82's were reasonably reliable. They were replaced with silicon rectifiers in the early 70's, together with the 85's, that had Germanium rectifiers.
It seems strange that the more powerful "super Deltic" was proposed to be Class 51, an even lower number than the Class 55 of the normal Deltics. Wouldn't they logically have been Class 56 (assuming the scheme pre-dated the eventual 56s).
The class numbers used by BR weren't sequential in that way (although arranged in groups based on the Type) - in fact, the Class 47 Class as built was more powerful (2,750 bhp) than the Class 50s (2,700 bhp). It's likely they were refered to as 'Class 51' due to them being considered an evolution of the Class 50, whereas Class 56 would have made sense if they'd looked at building an extended Class 55 (and, yes, the proposed 51s predated the actual 56s by about 8 years).
May I suggest a Sigi Strasser for a future video? (ex. The great Reifefetzer and the Blue Angel)
Oh yes! I would like to see Darkness do a video about Sigi Strasser, The Steampunk Man of the Future!
Trains in the middle of the stratosphere? Hmm... sounds like Galaxy Railways to me
just as an aside the New York Fire Department used a Deltic engine as a fire truck pump
"america doesn't have high speed rail"
acela and brightline: "am i a joke to you?"
Not really "high speed" though are they.
What's Alela and Brightline
With the high speed train revolution Australia got pretty much a new train but it fits under the HST from Britain
About transferring power wirelessly, ever hear of a guy named Tesla?
Here is an easy way to remove a lot of Co2, takes lots of land though, plant trees and plants, no train required...I love this crap...
7:38… If you can’t beat ’em, just stop trying.
By law, yes the Navy needs 11 air craft carriers. Also, if high speed rail doesn't work in the corridor, no one in the rest of the country will pay for it. What I think would be an awesome amtrak route would be a Michigan to Florida train.
Can we agree that if we build a high speed rail from Buffalo NY through Albany to Boston MA and Albany through NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Alexandria, and Richmond to Norfolk that all further expansions have to be financed solely from the profit from the then existing high speed network without any further subsidies.
The sheer amount of power needed to be transmitted via radio waves to the radio tube train would make these radio waves a lethal thing, they would fry your body.
The 16 axle locomotive however would make sense, it replaces an A-B-B-A set of F7s which have a similar amount of wheels and the electric would have a better power rating.
That's the thing, we know perfectly well how to transmit electricity wirelessly, but there are side effects. Do you want the people medium or well done?
The Acela power cars are 8000 HP! Diesel Electrics topped out at 6000 real and 4500 practical because of limits of traction versus weight.
Regenerative braking is a real thing. Electric locomotives have used it forever. This uses the fact that electric motors and generators are essentially the same thing. Turning it on generates electricity and the friction of motors slows the train. The electricity is then sent back on the wire. Hybrids put the electricity back into batteries for future use. Diesel electrics use a version of this called Dynamic Braking. However, the electricity is run through resistors to generate heat which is let out into the atmosphere.
Even so, due to friction, entropy , etc. you will never get all the energy back hence the notion that the capture car would require no energy is ludicrous!
6000HP locomotives didnt really became a thing in the US not because of traction issues but the lack of trains where it would make sense to use them.
Here in Brazil we have got the ES58ACi with 5800HP to move massive kilometers long unit trains of iron ore in the EF Carajás together with the SD80ACe with 5300HP ao it makes them feaseable since you always have a set train weight.
IIRC with 4400/4500HP locomotives (C44-9WM/SD70ACe/AC44i) it takes 7 locomotives but with 5800HP it takes 5 and with 5300HP it takes 6.
Plus the fact that the 6000HP'ers of today are a lot more reliable than the ones that were produced in the 90s.
great to see the older style intro back.
I totally agree.
For #5 I wonder if that was a different Name for the New York Sets that were the Turbo Sets. Amtrak had the RTG and the RTL. That is one interesting Story and a fight with Amtrak and the State of New York.
Default electric locomotives for the last decade or so have only had 4400 horsepower out of a V12 like the General Electric Evolution series has a V12 the new EMD has a 10/10 as well which is 1010 cubic inches out of a V12 putting out 4400 horsepower just to let you know my friend I love your videos keep up the great work
Interesting - thinking of the radio tube train, a lot of 'popular science' type mags in the 20's and 30's ran stories on quite fantastic machines that never came into being - there were a great many ideas for 'island in the sky' type cities with monorails and heliports, gyroscopic unicycles and the like. Really, they were Jules Verne and H G Wells brought up to date, but far beyond what the ir contemporary technology could support. The odd thing is that a few of the ideas have come to pass in our generation - Dick Tracy had a miniature two way wrist radio in about 1932, for example. Now we have portable phones.
Given that a standard Deltic could run at 125mph, (they didn't as track, signalling, safe braking, engine wear and a host of other issues,) then a Super Detic would potentially hit 140mph plus if the traction motors and track would let it.
It was never intended to, really, likely duties were the WMCL expresses (which got pairs of 50's on non electrified sections for a while) and and maybe a handful of trains on the EMCL. Post full electrification of the WCML anyone's guess.
Initial work on what became the HST included concepts for a deltic powered power car, but that hot canned pretty quickly - the deltic engine wasn't really suitable for the kind of intensive use planned.
Some of these ideas give me an idea for backup locomotive that uses electricity from a diesel electric locomotive to power traction motors, likely reducing CO2 emissions from multiple-unit trains. It would look like an E7 B-unit but it’s completely electric. It would have multiple large batteries where the Diesel engine on an E7 would be.
The Wabtec BEL is a converted ES44AC that is completely battery with regenerative braking. BNSF had done tests with it. They haven't figured out how to run it off the DPU it runs with yet. That would be a good idea.
It just so happened that I wrote an article on CO2 Rail for my earth science class a few months ago about current events regarding climate change, and my main issue with this is that it still relies on fossil fuels to power the diesel engines instead of using cleaner forms of energy. While I don't think the railcar is supposed to take carbon out of the surrounding atmosphere (not counting the diesel emissions), I do feel a few prototypes may be built for testing, but I'm not sure if it'll be used on a wide scale.
I think it'll be more feasible putting these cars on electric trains in light rails
America should probably just ellichrefy their railways 🛤
Yeah idk that it would ever be mass-adopted. Kinda doubt it. However, I can see the logic in the design and tbh, it's kinda genius. I just don't think it'll ever get enough attention or funding to become a reality
@@fanofeverything30465 From everything I've read, seen and heard, the US power grid currently isn't up to the task, as rolling blackouts have been a thing in California for several years now. Also, what are they going to use as power sources?
@@moosecat Oh yes I never thought of that
From the article next to the Radio Tube Train: "The gigantic tubes could be built of unbreakable glass."
And you silly bean was worried about what would happen in case of a crash. Well, OBVIOUSLY, you just build it from unbreakable glass, duh. :-D :-D :-D
The idea behind the carbon train is that the energy that is normally converted to heat in the resistor grids of a diesel-electric locomotive equipped with dynamic braking would be, instead, used to power a CO2 collector. The problem that I see is that the energy used by railways is relatively small--Obviously, the amount of energy recovered from stopping a train cannot exceed the amount of energy used to make it move. That's not much power.
2:57-*Amtrak Acela took that personally!* 🤣🤣
The key here is that these are "concepts". Ideas that may or may not be viable. All ideas should be considered.
The first entry produces an intriguing "what if", namely, would would have happened in Amtrak had gone the same way as Australia, and purchased HSTs from British Rail (suitably modified for American working)? That would have cut down the development costs massively, and given the USA some pretty decent rolling stock - with a decent maximum range, they could have worked the East Coast or West Coast services pretty well.
15:27 Regenerative braking is actually used in many electric locomotives, where the dynamic braking process (using traction motors as generators in reverse, generating massive drag) is modified to send electricity back into the OHE catenary and the grid. It requires some frequency synchronization to work for AC grids, and if the synchronization fails, the loco reverts back to conventional dynamic braking. It is strong enough to prevent trains rolling down steep grades, and also to slow down big trains over a distance to walking speeds (thereby preserving the brake pads). The thing is, it is feasible with a locomotive, where it has 4 - 6 traction motors, and it is directly in contact with an electric grid. But are batteries enough to hold the energy regenerated from a TRAIN? I highly doubt it (Highly synchronized regenerative braking systems can capture almost 25 - 30% of the energy that would have been lost as heat. Where would you store THAT MUCH energy?).
It's question for the experts. but a layman's guess is that the DAC plant would be creating continuous draw or drain on the. batteries so maybe that is the answer?
Batteries can be, but you have to size them appropriately. The new stadler built cl.93 tri-mode locos in the UK are 25kvAC/diesel/battery, and they've sacrificed having onboard dynamic braking resistors (for when you want to use regenerative braking, but the power supply can't take it back for whatever reason) to make room for the batteries. The batteries can be charged during braking, or by the diesel or the AC supply, and they boost the locos' off-grid 'last mile' capabilities.
Direct air is an investment scam. It's thermdynamically impossible.
The capture car would be better suited to a passenger service route with lots of stops to charge the Regen system. You'd have to do the math though if the co2 it pulls is negated by the extra diesel you burn tugging the car along.
Interesting that you mention passenger trains. Their streamlined fronts are, i think , the result of wind-tunnel tests which examines the contours of the slipstream and sees where maximum drag is caused -giving the best aerodynamic design designed to minimise this effect on train speed. The Article in 'Joule' seems to anticipate that the DAC railcar with its large 'scoops' will increase drag so it would be useful to know whether they can quantify this amount.
i guess the operators of the high-speed passenger trains would be reluctant to incorporate any rail cars that would significantly lower their speed?
My dad worked for Napier in the 50s and helped to build the deltics .
Though the coaches for Amtrak's bullet train would be built as the Amfleets.
Wasn't the Deltic name an amalgamation of delta (the cylinder layout) and English Electric (the owners of Napier engines)?
Next episode of this, talk about the proposed tunnel under the Bering Strait, which is probably a joke just like all of these things.
The direct air train is a machine to separate idiots from their money.
Some of these things are so crazy that I think it would be easier for that unnamed British company to design and build a steam turbine that would actually work properly at all speeds.
Would dynamic braking be able to produce enough power?
Okay, I can think of why a lot of axles on a high-horsepower electric is a good idea, and it is basically the same as a slug in this sense: starting heavy trains from rest without overheating traction motors (about 470 horsepower per motor, compared to 375 on a GP7 or equivalent). A heavy ore train or coal drag could benefit, but 16 axles is still a lot.
Also, extremely powerful locomotives must be VERY heavy to use this power without sliping, and you have limited weight per axle. But fitting this thing into the curves and switches? Good luck with that. Basically, they are real world examples of 2x(Bo-Bo-Bo), but i think that it is sanity limit.
@@paveloleynikov4715
search for Ae 8/14 ( a heavy electric locomotive for the Swiss Federal Railway) If you wonder how such a thing might have worked in practice.
@@JosipRadnik1 Thanks. I believed that crocodile were a wackyest swiss design, but I was wrong. But, while I couldn't find detailed description, her running gear looks closer to steam engine with rigid base on photos, as driving axles are not on bogies, but fixed to the frame.
@@paveloleynikov4715 The drive system is called the "Buchli System". it's a very unique but reliable and successful construction. The wheelaxles are sprung and the power transmission is delivered from one side by a construct of interlocking cogs that automaticly adjust to the vertical travel of the wheelaxle. The same system as was used by the Ae 3/6I or the Ae 4/7 and it was cleared for speeds up to 110 kph
10:22, did...did he just say "In British Rail's defense?" Are we still on the same channel? Or did someone else take over narrating for Darkness.
How about the train from the Coors light commercial
The BR logo over the Dr Livesy walk can’t get old 💀💀
Milwaukee Road EF-4 Little Joes used the Regen-Breaking...back in the what, 50s, 60s and 70s.
15:00 The main captured product is government subsides
Regenerative braking isn't what you think it is, think traction motor acting as a generator and that power being put thru a really big resistor that slows down the train. So this CO2 thing would just be generators on the axles.
We have the nyc to Washington acela train sets
16 axle train should make Horseshoe curve with ease but the Russians have a 24 axle Locomotive the 3ES5K used for heavy freight or full consist Double decker 1.1m high platform trains
The direct Air system seems to be Promising the Moon on a stick.
In the 1930s, there was a lot of speculation about transmitting enough energy through high-frequency electromagnetic radiation to actually do work; like make something move. Amazingly, one application was finally perfected and is now probably in your home: Your microwave oven!
7:00 flex power bro😂
You'd have an easier time convincing airlines to tow "carbon capture gliders" behind their jets.
The fact that the CO2-Hybrid people apparently have misspelled the word "Battery" in their illustration is a big red flag to me.
The giant glass orbs on the tube train might practically be mercury rectifiers
Does anyone have any other links of anyone that can just do it normally without all the dribble. I know that's his Forte, not my liking, but I just want to learn about trains so people can link me to someone who does a documentary without the drone that would be appreciated thank you.
Re DAC solar cells - back of the envelope (with lots of rounding) power generating capacity: exposed surface area ~= (3m diameter * pi)/2 * 20m length ~= 90 m²; the sun yields 1kw of solar power per square meter in the best conditions, 300w typical. Excellent solar cells are about 25% efficient. So maybe the DAC obtains about (30kw * 0.25 ~= 8kw) to (90kw * 0.25 ~= 24kw) or about *11hp* to *32hp* from its solar array. It won't be solar power that makes this choo-choo go 😂
Yas!!
4:25 Nikola Tesla Planned To Use Earth For Wireless Power Transfer by using the rocks in the underground as sort of conductor, the vibrations are sent to a receiving device and the oscillations transformed back into electricity, to be used locally.
Would the braking system be a propectail motion machine
Because you need to apply the brakes in order for the power-generating brake thing to work I think; and if so then the people at CO2 train Co. need to rethink their idea because math and logic don't make sense. I feel like it was just too much of a problem "solving" idea that they didn't check the logistics
20:21 I’m surprised no one pointed out another that this thing would have but I will: so the cars must be arranged with the CO2 intake vent located in the direction of travel right? Yea because freight cars and locomotives are always facing the same direction even in a rail yards.
Two scoops.
@@ferky123 what
"Graphics design is my passion" rofl
Relative to the CO2 Rail, by inspection the Second Law of Thermodynamics eats this one.
I need chad British railways in my life
Perhaps “Stratosphere Train Finder” could be a new group of channel supporter.
The radio tube train is 1920s Graphics Design Is My Passion
What's confusing? Radio waves are used to control things. a train of radio waves would be control
That Amtrak HST would not have been successful as the HST125/XPT. It would have had a US prime mover (EMD/GE) ahead of a 16 cyl Paxman Valenta
The vacuum tube train was utilizing Tesla's transmitted electricity concept. Only thing it could be.
The carbon capture car thing is an interesting idea, but you’re right about the location of the denser pockets of Co2 being in the upper atmosphere. On most freight rail routes, there is very little ambient carbon dioxide and it’s ultimately not the best way to use DCC tech. I’m not a climatologist, but I do dabble in environmental sciences and I can say with 78.4% certainty that it is in fact a dumb idea.
Maybe it could be adapted to be carried by ordinary aircraft who presumably cruise where the CO2 is denser or maybe some billionaire could build a special craft which could incorporate the idea and simply cruise around the troposphere collecting CO2? Oh and by the way when one of these futuristic DAC craft land its CO2 could be fused with hydrogen to make 'synfuel' which would fuel it to continue its journeys around the globe-so it would effectively be 'burning up' the CO2 from our atmosphere?
Great ideas are always so simple!
@@edwardhogan1877 that might actually work
How are they going to cool the CO2 down to the temp needed to get it to the liquid state? That takes a WHOLE LOT OF ENERGY. I don't see that car having the technology onboard to do this. That will add to the foot print.
So, apparently slapping a 'HYBRID" logo on anything makes it 'green'? The DAC collection car isn't powered, other than maybe something to do with the regenerative braking having a motor involved. The Locomotive (DACX 2021, cute) is supposed to be a hybrid? Hmmm, Diesel engine coupled to a generator, providing electricity to power the traction MOTORS at the axles.... Yep, it's a hybrid. Funny GE hasn't been marketing their locos as the GE Prius. Manufacturers could replace or divert the power generated in the dynamic braking system to either onboard or separately carried batteries on the train to store energy instead of venting it through the resistor banks in the root (the large round fan ducts seen from above).
RE #1: Acela ?
What if they could convince the Government to credit the Rail Lines (tax wise) if they can prove that their system works.
As someone who's done a lot of research about alternative fuels and related subjects, and let me tell you, the "Direct Air Hybrid" would NEVER work. Absolute BS.
So Amtrak tried to make a bullet train to Iowa?
How long do railroads want their trains?
that westing house proposal isnt a locomotive! its a axlelotl!
The CO2 Capture Car sounds like either pie in the sky thinking or an outright scam. However it does make one think...
How much energy is produced from regenerative breaking and can it be harnessed? Let's say someone builds basically a cow/calf setup where the calf has batteries to store energy from the other locomotives and uses the Cow/Calf as a helper unit for steep climbs? Yeah you probably couldn't get enough power on the downslope to get it up the upslope but what would be the savings? Would it be like 50% fuel savings or like 1%?
Still waiting for you to look into the kitson still hybrid deisel/steam locomotive Ran conventional boiler but with 8 cylinders that ran on stem up to 10mph then changed over to deisel injection and ran up to 50mph and used the exhaust from the deisel injection to heat the boiler
He talked about that on '5 Trains that are not What they Seem'