@@MetraFan81 And the climate has been changing at various levels for thousands of years. There are much more severe pollution issues than carbon emissions. Yet over the last 2 decades there has been lots of investment and improvement in the efficiency of diesel engines. Emissions are but one factor in many.
Another potential future power source besides fuel cells and batteries is the Brilliant Light Power Suncell. The suncell works by catalyzing hydrogen to the lowest energy state known as the hydrino. This reaction creates light thousands of times brighter than sunlight which is converted to electricity using solar cells.
@@andrewreynolds4949 that’s still a climate change denial take. Yes the climate has been always been changing but we have accelerated a process in the last 300 years that naturally would take millions if not billions of years. The rate of warming we’re seeing now is risking the livability of much of the globe and is actively already killing millions through things like heat, droughts, and floods. The science has been out on this for decades and there’s no denying that we should have stopped emitting carbon emissions decades ago. That said diesel freight trains is still better than diesel truck freight, however given the issues of pollution in the mining of materials for these batteries and the safety issues that lithium-ion batteries have, I don’t really see those as a practical replacement to overhead catenaries or diesel.
Overhead wires really aren’t that expensive. It’s 2-4M a mile of track. They could have taken a fraction of their stock buybacks and increased the number of tracks and done overhead power. Hydrogen and batteries really only make sense for low frequency branch lines and yard work The biggest issue with hydrogen right now is 99% of it is not green given it comes from oil. The actual green stuff done via electrolysis is still super expensive.
Yeah hydrogen isn’t really such a great alternative fuel and batteries are still kind of a mess. Overhead wires are what we should’ve done a long time ago and what we should be doing now
@@sd8313 The real shocker is, that there already used to be hundreds of miles of electrified mainlines all over the US. Most of it was torn down in the 1970s because diesel was so cheap.
The research is great but class I railroads should really be thinking about overhead-wire electrification for their business sections of mainline. It’s cheaper in the long run. And when trains that run on those lines also have batteries on board for when they leave the main line then that solves logistic issues about comparability in many cases.
Class 1 railroads are busy getting in trouble with FDOT right now. They are currently leaching on their own revenue for wall street. Things will continue that way unless the government steps in, or they "unmerge" the railroads.
Aren’t there other significant issues with the tech like hydrogen currently being significantly cheaper when bought from oil burning sources (guess where the penny pincher buys it from), batteries being heavy as all fuck and taking forever to charge while generally the range gets drastically slashed when compared to diesel locos?
In a rail application, the extra weight could be considered an advantage. There’s nothing that says the locos must be stationary when recharging either. They could charge in motion while under wire like any other electric locomotive.
@@brentfoster9138 that’s the sensible way to use batteries, but then it would make sense to electrify main lines which is what they’re apparently trying to avoid…
@@genoobtlp4424 I think they might be trying to avoid such a thing as these companies would then have to Maintain and build the infrastructure. If it's built for them or such infrastructure is greatly subsidized it will get built simply as that really But if they are fronting all cost why should they eat an upfront cost than the maintenance.
Also batteries won't last very long on a locomotive. Even with LiFePO4 batteries they are going to be under a lot of load constantly and most likely very large discharge and charge cycles. No battery would last very long in those conditions. And overall it could be more costly than maintaining overhead power if entire freight companies where battery powered. And that still begs the question of where does the power come from? Probably fossil fuels in most cases! In that case it would be better for the environment to just use diesel locos because then there aren't all the losses from having to travel through the entire power grid to get to where it is needed where its already inconvenient to get electricity to anyways. Figure out good reliable green power first, then do the vehicles.
I’m sorry but your statement by saying catenary is “impractical” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard a rail fan say… the United States was the world-class leader of rail electrification in the early 1900s which set precedent for Europe and Asia to follow in America’s footsteps. Unlike Europe and Asia, the US tore down and destroyed most of its electrified rail infrastructure during the 60s and 70s. By saying catenary is “impractical”, it is not only ignorant to America’s railroading history but also completely ignores the far superior electrified systems Europe and Asia enjoy in modern day. Hydrogen and battery trains are GIMMICKS, it is essentially a way for freight companies to greenwash rather than put in effort in constructing proper PROVEN infrastructure.
And are you going to pay the tremendous cost to put in ALL of the wiring needed across the entire country. The United States is huge compared to Europe, if that's you example. It is VERY impractical!!
@@SMichaelDeHart for reference, the trans-Siberian railroad is fully electrified, all 5700 miles of it. the fact that the US can’t achieve electrification on any individual statewide scale is quite sad
@@subdomhourz7946 and that's a pretty much single STATE operated line & system. Who's paying for ALL the Class 1 lines and Short Lines ALL across this rather LARGE country?? Taxpayers??!! Your NUTS!!
Ultimately, lugging around a full hydrogen fuel cell and all the fuel, or an even heavier battery will never be as efficient as overhead wires. Both battery and "hydrogen" locos are electric locos at their core. It's always going to be easier and cheaper to run those electric engines from overhead wires and not have to carry an extra ounce of fuel or batteries. I understand that the oil industry is the largest customer the Class 1s have and that they have to play this "hydrogen is viable" charade, but watch them all adopt dual-mode battery units with overhead "charging" and then progressively electrifying their networks. You can't argue with economics. And the cost breakdown just isn't in hydrogen's favor.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Over here in Europe battery powered EMUs are definitely winning out over hydrogen fuel cells, with literally hundreds of vehicles ordered by various regional rail companies from several manufacturers. The main reason being that large parts of our rail network are already electrified, so it's easy to recharge the trains whenever they run under catenary. Overall, a fleet of BEMUs is decidedly cheaper than electrifying little used branch lines, and also much cheaper than building up completely new infrastructure and logistics for hydrogen - it's a no-brainer economically. Also - after having diesel-hybrid locomotives available for quite some time already - there are now several types of electric locomotives with "last mile" batteries coming to the market. My guess would be that we'll see the same in those parts of the US that already have electrified mainlines. Cross-country it's a different story. There the higher energy density of hydrogen is a considerable bonus. The only real problem will be: where to get enough "green" hydrogen? Currently about 99% of all H2 is produced from natural gas, pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. And we're nowhere near changing that in the medium term. So ecologically it would be probably better to keep running modern Diesel engines, and use the resources that would be necessary to build up the hydrogen infrastructure to actually (re)build electrification instead.
@Mike Mainer Lithium isn't exactly rare. We have known deposits of millions of tons in Europe (e.g. under the Rhine valley in Germany or under the Koralpe mountains in Austria). btw. it's not that much different with fuel cells. Those need some rare materials as well. Plus there is the problem that you need much more energy to produce hydrogen in an environmentally friendly way. Plus you still need batteries in fuel-cell trains (and they are not that much smaller; e.g. the buffer batteries in the iLint family of trains are still about half the capacity of the battery-electric Stadler trains). Also: Hydrogen isn't exactly "shunned" either. There are some regions that have ordered FC trains. Albeit mainly because of politics; batteries just make much more economical sense in most cases.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@@maas1208 The BEMUs I'm talking about *are* "dual-mode" (overhead + battery). Overhead + hydrogen fuel-cell doesn't really make sense, as you still need batteries in HFC trains anyways. HFC only makes sense on routes that never have the opportunity to recharge from overhead wires - which is only the case in very small niches in central Europe, hence why most rail companies go for battery-electric (when they are not forced into hydrogen by politicians who want to appear "innovative"). The raw economics just make it an obvious decision.
In my honest opinion, I still think overhead catenary wires are superior. Sure, hydrogen and battery trains have their uses, but they aren't nearly as environmentally friendly as overhead wires powered by nuclear or renewable energy. Hydrogen/Batteries could be much better for switching, local, and branch line service, while catenaries/third rail are better for long distance or regional commuter networks. However, you are right about one thing: It's time for diesel power to be put to rest.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@@maas1208 That actually sounds interesting. It would be pretty versatile too, especially for sections of rail that aren't electrified yet, or local operations where overhead or third rail power just isn't feasible.
@@maas1208 In Europe there is a similar thing we call them "Last-mile engine" basically they normally run under overhead wires and if they need to deliver something to a warehouse or a branch line without overhead wires they start a small diesel engine
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
A good use of the WABTEC battery locomotive is for regenerative braking and safety on long grades. It also improves the efficiency of the diesels and makes for a good DPU replacement.
@@SMichaelDeHart Void argument. I'm pretty sure the amount of electrified railways in Europe vastly outmatches the length of the major US main lines that would be suitable as electrified trunk routes, but even if somehow not, just look at Russia and your argument immediately falls apart. The entire Trans-Siberian Railway is electrified, running through some very remote places and stretching far greater distances than US main lines. India, another huge country, already has a mostly electrified rail network, and is electrifying more right now. China also has massive electrified railways. Distances don't matter at all. If tracks can be laid there, if roads can be built there, then wires can be hung there.
@@bahnspotterEU what's funny is Europe is the same size as the US. Anyone making the "US too big" excuse can't imagine America not being the center of the universe.
The US does not have the population density of Europe, India, or China. It’s really difficult to maintain OLE through the remote terrain of the US and way too expensive to install.
@@bahnspotterEU and the USSR railway is pretty much a single line and is NOT spread out like the US railroads. Europeans have NO concept of how America works.
Toronto has embarked on an ambitious commuter rail electrification plan for their extensive all-diesel fleet . A few years ago they evaluated a hydrogen loco plan but rejected it on the grounds of unknown costs and high risk of new technology and delays. They stuck with the tried-and-tested tech: overhead high-voltage wire.
The best solution is probably to use the hydrogen to run the power plants themselves in addition to locomotives that have to go long distances between charging stations. Dual-modality would be something to look into.
Overhead electrification would be expensive in the short term but would be far cheaper in the long term. There isn't exactly a limitless supply of lithium and the total cost to change every locomotive to lithium would exceed the cost to simply add catenary. We should be starting the process of adding catenary and investing in dual mode or even modifying existing locomotives to operating as dual modes. While the vast majority of locomotives currently in service use DC traction motors there are some that use AC that would be relatively easy to modify. It's also important to note that electric locomotives usually last longer than diesel electrics without expensive rebuilds and have more tractive effort and horsepower. In the meantime if we are still stubbornly going against catenary biodiesel is relatively cheap alternative fuel source that would have a more positive effect on the environment than going battery electric or hydrogen.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Agreed, other than a few limited cases (e.g. running from an electrified line onto a relatively short and lesser used branch line) battery and hydrogen trains don't seem great to me, as much as I'd like to love them. Carrying your energy with you in any form isn't great, but I don't see the other alternatives to diesel/electrification being better or practical...
It would likely be tedious to switch electric locomotives around since either you have to electrify every single rail in a rail yard or you have to switch a locomotive around with another locomotive.
If one of UP or BNSF even commits or tries to electrify one of their mainline from Chicago to the West, then it could be a game changer in the American Railroad. That might increase the chances and more focus on electrifying all the mainlines from all different railroads.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
no one ever seems to remember the real issues with batteries being that, they degrade very fast for this application, they're flammable, and they take ages to charge, even the best lithium ion batteries today can lose 20% or more of their capacity over just a few hundred charge cycles, and the degradation only gets worse from there, if the battery pack of a locomotive has to be replaced outright with no way to refurbish it and very limited recycling capacity for the raw materials then the railroads will probably get very sick of that very fast as opposed to a diesel prime mover that can last decades without any insane maintenance. let's all also not forget the tendency of lithium ion batteries to spontaneously catch fire, and that's not an issues with wiring, or current battery chemistry, but just Lithium as an element, it's an alkali metal, the most reactive group of the periodic table, it doesn't take much to cause lithium to catch fire. the mining issues mentioned aren't even the worst, the truth that companies like Tesla try to hide as best they can is the cobalt in the battery chemistry, which is mined mostly with child slave labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo(I wish I was making that up, please do your own research on it instead of taking the word of a random person in the TH-cam comments, it is not ok and more people need to understand the humanitarian harm happening for our first world battery powered future, lithium ion batteries are deeply flawed) and even after all of that, they still take forever to charge, and before you start making points about fast charging, please understand that the faster you charge a lithium ion battery, the faster you degrade the battery, that may be fine for your cell phone which is charging at only 5Amps anyways, but for a locomotive, in order to charge it in a reasonable amount of time as opposed to the time it would take to steam a steam loco from cold, the batteries lifespans would be cut in half or worse. at the end of the day, more effort and resources for research should be pointed to fuels produced from direct carbon capture, that's my opinion at least, nuclear power and direct carbon capture, but I always encourage people to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, so please, look into the engineering, chemistry, economics, politics, etc behind all these things in order to form a fully informed opinion, never listen to the marketing material from manufacturers, and don't fall into the futurist tech bro pitfall, battery powered everything is never going to be sustainable, trying to make all our power from solar and wind is never going to work, just, please, everyone, do your research into the engineering of things
if you want to not use any products containing cobalt I have bad news for you about how they refine diesel fuel. It's misleading to say that most of the world's cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo by child slave labor. It is true to say that 60% of the world's current cobalt production happens in the Democratic Republic of Congo but the vast bulk of it is happening in ordinary mines worked by adults with paying jobs. They're certainly not perfect jobs but it's not slavery. Some portion of shoes are made by children, that doesn't mean we all stop wearing shoes, it means we stop people from using child labor to make them. Almost every product in every supply chain has at some point been through the hands of someone who was exploited to one degree or another. There isn't currently any uranium mining in the DRC, but there used to be, the first atomic bombs were made with Congolese uranium, and those vast reserves are still there under that country. If that same bunch of kids were digging up 10-12% of the world's uranium supply would you propose banning the use of uranium altogether, or would you push for better oversight and control of supply chains to cut those mines out? This isn't an idle hypothetical, uranium is rare in extractable concentrations, a lot of it is produced in relatively impoverished Kazakhstan, and a lot of the rest comes from Canada and Australia who are settler colonialist countries mining on stolen indigenous land. I don't think you're a bad person for supporting a technology that's built on the back of extractive mining that's politically fraught, but it's funny that you're willing to ignore where the materials come from for nuclear power because you think that technology is going to save the world but for lithium and cobalt it's an unforgivable sin. Let's be clear here, I do think we should be building more nuclear energy and electrifying the railways more, and we need to be using trains instead of cars and trucks to a much greater degree. Just taking all of our current fossil fuel vehicles and swapping them for identical vehicles with batteries in them is not achievable or desirable. However, a lot of the anti battery rhetoric that gets repeated all over the internet is inherently propaganda, and by propaganda I don't mean that it's false, I mean that it's framed in a way to push an agenda.
@@AlRoderick Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
I think the rail network should be government owned, similar to the US highway system. Imagine if trucking companies owned the roads and were in charge of paying for their maintenance and construction, it would make no sense. When the rail network is government owned, then we can put in the massive investment of putting up poles and wires.
@@tonyburzio4107 Thomas Edison did not build the NEC. It was put together from sections built by several different railroads, mostly the Pennsylvania RR and the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.
@@AlexCab_49 The UK railway system is not really privatized. It's sort of a terrible, dysfunctional halfway system. The US railways are a very different system and do rather well for themselves. In the 1950s and 1960s after the creation of British Rail things were a disaster. Political decisions meant entire programs were reversed and replaced, and there were enormous amounts of resources wasted on rushed, untested agendas. Conflicts of interest crippled high-level decision making. After the Modernization Plan failed, their last resort to recover wasted costs was to strip the rail system to its bones. When things became nationalized all sorts of people suddenly had a say and they could no longer make effective decisions for the good of the organization. It took decades for them to recover. Meanwhile there is no reason to nationalize the US railway system. They have seen record amounts of freight recently, and there's a lot of investment happening in strategic places across the country. The railroads have run themselves perfectly fine for decades.
We already have a solution to electrifying trains safely, efficiently, and cleanly using overhead wires. Why use dangerous, inefficient, and dirty batteries? (Hint: short term cost cutting, but the company can still claim to be 'green')
I second this comment. I think “zero-emissions” is a misleading term because the mining for the materials for lithium-ion batteries such as lithium and cobalt already causes a lot of emissions and incredible amounts of pollution. Additionally, once the batteries reach the end of their life cycle, we still don’t really have a good method of repurposing them, especially with lithium being an incredibly toxic metal that is difficult to safely dispose of. Even the expansion of overhead catenaries doesn’t mean much of the grid is power by fossil fuels. It’s a much more complex issue that goes beyond the railroad itself.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
Outstanding video! This is your most detailed episode yet, and I can tell this took months to research, but it's worth it. I personally feel most existing diesels should be converted with battery or hydrogen engines, so this way there isn't a backlog of relatively new or reliable diesels waiting to be scrapped. Furthermore, it's cheaper to convert existing engines rather than buy new ones from scratch, similar to NS rebuilding their Dash 9s with T4 diesel engines.
lmao imagine spending millions in developing H2 fuel cell and battery electric locomotives instead of simply electrifying the tracks. The rest of the world went that way long ago. Impractical and expensive? Coming from the wealthiest country? What a joke!
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@@shubhampawaskar6443 Electrifying the US rail system would be a project on a scale that's really hard to picture. For over 93,000 miles at a price of $4.8 million per mile it would be around $450 billion just for the catenary equipment. That does not include the cost of new locomotives, new or modified maintenance facilities and equipment, training or retraining crews and maintenance teams, or special clearance work needed before OLE equipment could be installed. Most importantly it does not include building enough new power plants to power the whole system, which would increase the cost exponentially and require decades to complete alone, before the electrical equipment they power could be installed. So yes, it is impractical and expensive.
@@maas1208 Batteries are extremely heavy compared to a diesel engine, have a much lesser range, and take a long time to charge. They are also very environmentally unfriendly at that scale and have a short service life. Please tell me the solar panel locomotive is a joke
Battery and hydrogen locomotives (currently diesel) are for rail yard work, not transporting long distances… that’s how it’s done here in Europe. Long distance uses overhead catenary.
Conrail was the last Class I to use electrics to operate freight, but electric freight stopped because of Amtrak's costs on the NEC and Keystone Corridor and Potomac Yard's closure.
It would likely be tedious to switch electric locomotives around since either you have to electrify every single rail in a rail yard or you have to switch a locomotive around with another locomotive.
In my opinion, I don’t mind. As long as more Hydrogen Fuel Locomotives are built like CP 1001 (Which is a Cowl Unit), then they cool. Also, the Best part about Hydrogen Fuel Cell locomotives is that all you Need to Refuel them is to take water, and use electricity to Divid the water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, and then that Hydrogen should be used as fuel.
The cool thing about CP1001 was it (the original diesel loco) was set to be scrapped, but someone at CP said, “hey, if we need a core for our hydrogen loco, let’s use this one! Lots of room in the body, wide cab, and not that old!”
21:29 That looks like a nuclear power plant which, contrary to popular belief, actually produces fewer emissions in a lifetime than a coal powered plant can produce in 1 year. (There's actually a video on how nuclear power isn't that dangerous.)
There's boatloads of documentation upon studies about how safe and reliable nuclear power generation, plant design, and operation practices have gotten over the years. Plenty of videos about it too. It doesn't stop the insidious propaganda that builds up opposition to it resulting in nuclear plants being powered down in favor of new fossil fuel plants. We need to be downing fossil fuel plants in favor of nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
@@mrmaniac3 I live in an area with large wind farms, and have spoken to a couple people connected to the industry. Their biggest complaint is it is cheaper and easier to build new turbines than keep them operational, so at any given time a large number of them are broken and useless. Apparently they break quite frequently and repairs are very expensive. The fundamental problem with wind and solar is that the energy source cannot be controlled or easily adjusted for demand like most other power generation methods. It depends on the weather, not demand, and varies greatly by location. The intermittent nature of the electricity production is hard on electrical grid equipment. Wind and solar are definitely useful for ancillary purposes, especially in remote areas, but not so much for the mainstream power generation politics is pushing for. Apparently bird strikes are also a problem on the large turbines.
Short answer: yes (ish) long answer: while better than diesels in some ways, hydrogen and battery-electrics are just an excuse not to put up the wires. additionally, we all know that batteries have emissions when made and also hydrogen harvesting isn't actually done through an environmentally friendly electrolysis process, but actually through burning fossil fuels
@@andrewreynolds4949 The thing is, both what we need for batteries and hydrogen power involves some sort of limited resource. We're just going to be back at square one in 50-or-so years from now.
@@andrewreynolds4949 True. I would rather them keep using diesel and/or start moving over to traditional electrification than pretending that using hydrogen and batteries will be sustainable in the long run.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
Battery locomotives and fuel cell locomotives would be literal WMD's on wheels. Plus, overhead pantograph systems actually EXIST, and they DO SOMETHING.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
You should talk for high speed rail week is what the High speed rail alliance want to do with the Mid west. All the both commuter and high speed rail trains In the Midwest.
The problem with overhead wires is, where do you plug them in once you are far from a city? There's also the problem with damage to the wires from the weather and how long it takes to repair the wires.
Make a hybrid locomotive, or use both electric and diesel locomotives where you can transfer electricity from the electric locomotives to the diesel's electric motors until the line runs out.
One other option that was not discussed is what FEC (Florida East Coast) is doing right now with LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas). Otherwise this was a well done program.
I have a feeling that as soon as an electric locomotive has therman runaway in a town or in the bc fraser/thompson canyon and starts a forrest fire that takes out a town, everyone will stop using fhem because of the therman runaway
Thanks for mentioning the environmental impact of battery and hydrogen locomotives. It bothers me when people forget the other sorces of environmental impact associated with "clean and green" energy.
Hybrid locomotives use tons of batteries. If they're lithium ion that could cancel out the advantages of shutting down the prime mover. Where steam locomotives once traveled, there was much plant growth near the tracks. They were fertilized with 99% pure carbon. Electrification has many advantages. If powered by nuclear power plants the problem could be solved. India is working on electrification nation wide, and France runs 75% on nuclear power. Using hydrogen fuel is extremely dangerous. Can anyone imagine a wreck with a locomotive with hydrogen in the fuel tanks?
The railroads say it's too expensive to electrify their lines, but they do have plenty of money to buy crazy expensive prototype battery and hydrogen powered locomotives that will never work. This is a scam to avoid environmental fines. They are not serious about cutting their emissions or reducing their dependence on imported oil. Many car manufacturers made so-called fleet compliance electric cars that would bring the average efficiency of a car model to standards set by government regulations, but it's nearly impossible to actually buy one. I think the railroads are doing the same thing with this. There is actually a simple solution to this problem that could actually make it through Congress. Since railroads in the US are private companies, they have to pay taxes. If the government gave them a tax break of a certain amount for every kilometer they installed overhead wires on and taxed pure electric locomotives at a lower rate than diesel locomotives the railroads would suddenly have lots of money for electrifying their lines. This could actually pass Congress. Democrats love infrastructure bills, and Republicans love cutting taxes on big business. They both get what they want. It's a tragedy this is what it takes to solve a problem like this but this is how it is. The technology exists to solve this problem. The northeast corridor successfully demonstrated this technology decades ago. All that's missing is the political will and the money.
Did you know about the upgraded versions of the turbines that was able to produce anywhere from 8500 - 10,000 HP the cabs even looked different compared to the version you showed in the video. BTW I like the content
Obviously overhead wires are the much better option in literally any case, but if its between batteries and hydrogen, hydrogen makes more sense. The amount of battery it must take to fill a loco is insane and very wasteful, and there is plenty of space to fit the equipment for hydrogen fuel and fuel cells. Combined with the fact that hydrogen will refuel faster and that they only need refueling stations in specific places means hydrogen just makes more sense.
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
I love all these go green programs, trucks, trains, cars and more. The problem is no one talks about where the “power” to charge these batteries is coming from. We can build all the electric vehicles we want, but the power still comes from the grid that is 90% fossil fuel driven. This is not a solution, it a money making diversion.
I think hydrogen tenders would be better in between locomotives. The PRR electrified in the 1930s to save on high-speed costs, where as MILW electrified its Pacific Extension to reduce costs. The PRR is still electrified east of Harrisburg, but MILW de-electrified in 1974.
US freight companies refuse to go overhead electrification because they want to do the bare minimum to maintain anything. Not installing or ripping off existing wire so they can spend less maintaining infrastructure. So they actively avoid electrification despite the fact that it is a very good solution for mainline freight due to electric locomotive having higher traction than diesel loco. And with these investment into new tech and infrastructure to refuel hydrogen/ recharging it could ended up being even more expensive than overhead wire locomotive and infrastructure as it is existing and proven one as oppose to totally new tech. Also battery aren't cheap, especially with such large amount of lithium battery on train. Oh and battery will degrade as well. So u have to replace them more frequently compare to only need to replace parts. In the end it will be more expensive than traditional electric locomotive. For high density freight line, overhead electrification make more sense especially in the long term. Unless u want to get in and sell it quick.
I noticed that when u explained the GTEL history, those locomotives are not passenger locomotives, they were pure freight haulers as you may guess as sitting right behind a loud and hot jet engine might be uncomfortable for all passengers The GETLs saw service from 1952-1970 (18 years) of freight hauling and the reason why it ran on Bunker C fuel was because the fuel was considered waste and Union Pacific was going to take a crap fuel source at a cheap rate until the plastic industry realize the usefulness to Bunker C fuel into a lighter fuel source. That’s what killed the GTELs
There just isn't enough electrical power infrastructure (power plants AND transmission lines) to support electric RRs--and it won't be very long before electric autos will be dimming houses everywhere.
What if Indonesia High Speed Rail (KCIC Jakarta - Bandung & Surabaya) we compared with the California High Speed Rail? Which is better?? I must know the answer from @Worldwide Railfans
Of course you have to see what it would cost to electrify all the tracks in North America. The technology currently exists to pull heavy trains. The example of high electric traction can be seen in the double locomotives from Bombardier "MTAB IORE" for Sweden and Norway. Here I currently see the cheaper alternative in synthetic fuels and "E-Fuels" to quickly get away from diesel fuel. You can then use the new fuels to create the same properties as with diesel power. The diesel locomotive can then be operated with “E-Fuels”, which then have the properties of conventional diesel fuel. The infrastructure and the machines do not have to be changed significantly when operating with "E-Fuels".
Overhead wires are great for passenger transport and small grids, like in many European countries. In the US however I see hydrogen engines because maintaining an overhead wire system over an entire continent with low population density in between is difficult.
Just finished binge watching the series up to today’s release. These are awesome videos! Most surprising to me is the rapid expansion and success of the Brightline, compared to the glacial pace of CA HSR construction here in my state. I get how different the projects are, although I totally agree with your viewpoint that the route alignment chosen is insane. I especially enjoyed the original footage you shot of some of these projects where you were able.
Wabtec’s FLXdrive is pronounced “Flex Drive” I’d you want to save yourself some time. Also Net Zero Emissions doesn’t mean no emissions so UP isn’t going to dive into electric traction if it’s not economically viable yet, it just means they’ll offset their emissions in other ways.
union pacific is always first in line for getting and trying out new locomotives. union pacific is the only company in the world that has tried every new trial loco's. if they worked they ordered many of them. and other rail companies followed suit, if they didn't work out well. no company bought any.
I think Hydrogen or Biogas is the better alternative. Electric trains [Overhead powered] will still be the only true enviromentally friendly locomotive. I make the same argument as with buses here. In cities/populated areas. Electrified. [In trains case basically major lines] and for rural areas [low frequency branchlines] will use Hydrogen/Biogas. This is still no permanent soloution. In about 20 years all lines SHOULD be electrified and private companies cant make the excuse "ToO eXnSiVe, iSnT bAtTeRy GuD eNoUgH?!?" And electric cars have the exact same problems as battery electric trains, plus the fact that theyre STILL CARS. Still being incredibly space inneficient and having a HORRIBLE economy of scale.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Yeah, right, batteries for railroad locomotives - so that locomotives that have worked perfectly well for more than a century (electric with catenary, and diesel-electric) can suffer all of the drawbacks of batteries. This is classic environmentalism - take something that works perfectly well and convert over to something that has no history of working nearly as well.
They could make two way engine for commuter electric for electric lines diesal for off the electric or hybrid. Battery is good for short range yard use. Electric overhead you are burning fuel at powerplant. The vast distances going coast to coast. All locomotive have to work together in multiple locomotive trains like triple headers
Batteries trains does better for commuter rail since they stop allot and when they reach the end of the line, they can plug it in and charge it up before heading the other way. hydrogen train should be done on freight trains.
FPL/Brightline uses a blend, 6 to 20 percent bio. The standards are various percentages up to 20, and then a jump to 100 - presumably because anything over 20% is impractical unless you want to use a giant butter knife to feed it into your engine.
Though, coal and diesel can be used to generate Hydrogen centralized in high quality stations. How about storing solo energy with gravity logistically?!!
Battery power and hydrogen fuel cell are just methods of storing electricity. But the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, so what's the point? Might as well stick with safe proven diesel electrics until such time as we make the significant investments in clean electricity generation (which is going to have to include a lot of nuclear). But if we do want to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the short run, a good way to do it would be to ban long haul trucking. All of that cargo should be transported by rail and only by truck for the "final mile" services to homes and businesses.
@@andrewreynolds4949 the point is to reduce the fuel used to transport each load, but you are right that shipment my train would also dramatically reduce the labor required as well. So why then, with less fuel and less labor would the transportation costs increase?
So, you mention that the source of electricity is not 100% renewables and therefore, the battery systems aren't renewable until the grid that feeds them are. A fair argument. But then you go on to completely neglect that hydrogen has the exact same problem. H2 systems are nothing more than a different kind of chemical battery. Which is charged from the same exact sources as a lithium battery. Pretty misleading presentation.
Hydrogen is awesome. If it was plentiful both polution and energy problems would be solved. Only problem it is not an energy SOURCE. Hydrogen readily combines with pretty much everything (and is way lighter than air when it doesnt) so it exists in a usable state exactly nowhere on earth. Only way to produce it is to either strip hydrocarbons (and when you strip hydro from hydrocarbon you leave carbon - which is what we're trying to STOP using) or use some other energy source to split water into H and O. So its more like a battery. But if you had plentiful solar, wind or geothermal power someplace with lots of water but too remote for wires, you could electrolysize the water with the power and store the gasses (O2 being useful also) but without massive refrigeration they would need gigantic tanks to store them in gaseous form. If we had working, practical fusion power, that could both power the world and create hydrogen for when you needed portable energy without wires (airliner, for example). SO keep scientisting!
I'm happy UP is experimenting with biofuels after hearing what the Rio tinto had to say, battery electric locomotives are a joke and show people are still ignorant to the laws of thermodynamics. Biodiesel is renewable, carbon neutral and uses existing infrastructure unlike hydrogen and electric locomotives. Plus we in the US produce enough waste cooking oil every year to run every single diesel in the states (including the steam locomotives). Switching to EVs and Hydrogen is a waste and a terrible idea when you realize just how much biofuel is actually available.
Batteries? Bad idea. Only really suited to short journeys - shunting & brief "transition" runs. Fuel Cells? Also a bad idea. While a better option than batteries, fuel cells are phenomenally expensive & a pain to maintain. Also, you need to train up a whole new workshop crew to maintain them. The best option (imo) would be to convert the current diesel engines to run on hydrogen. This has several advantages - chief amongst which is the fact that the engines that would be used ALREADY EXIST. This saves the environment much more effectively than batteries, as there is no need to dig up & process the materials needed to build the batteries... What does converting a diesel engine to run on hydrogen involve? Basically, a head swap. You need to tweak the compression, add direct injection (if not already present) and spark ignition. That's pretty much it (for the engine). The much trickier part is the fuel system - hydrogen is notoriously hard to store. 'Tis a tricky challenge, but not insurmountable. JCB have done it, having converted & tested several of their diesel excavator models to run on hydrogen. Humanity has a heckuvalot of experience building & maintaining IC engines. It might well be worth looking into how to make use of that knowledge, before rushing off to the "Ooh! Shiny!" realms of fuel cells or the environmentally dubious "benefits" of batteries.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Bruh when are we gonna see CP 1001 in action because it’s literally on HU but there literally isn’t anything going on with it they got us all hyped for nothing.
I think as long as a considerable part of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, there’s not much to be gained from electrifying transportation. Wired electric trains are cool though :D
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
It may cost more, but I think overhead quaternary is a better system then batteries in the long run.
For the majority of the US diesel is better than either
@@MetraFan81 And the climate has been changing at various levels for thousands of years. There are much more severe pollution issues than carbon emissions. Yet over the last 2 decades there has been lots of investment and improvement in the efficiency of diesel engines. Emissions are but one factor in many.
@@andrewreynolds4949 i agree muchly.
Another potential future power source besides fuel cells and batteries is the Brilliant Light Power Suncell. The suncell works by catalyzing hydrogen to the lowest energy state known as the hydrino. This reaction creates light thousands of times brighter than sunlight which is converted to electricity using solar cells.
@@andrewreynolds4949 that’s still a climate change denial take. Yes the climate has been always been changing but we have accelerated a process in the last 300 years that naturally would take millions if not billions of years. The rate of warming we’re seeing now is risking the livability of much of the globe and is actively already killing millions through things like heat, droughts, and floods. The science has been out on this for decades and there’s no denying that we should have stopped emitting carbon emissions decades ago.
That said diesel freight trains is still better than diesel truck freight, however given the issues of pollution in the mining of materials for these batteries and the safety issues that lithium-ion batteries have, I don’t really see those as a practical replacement to overhead catenaries or diesel.
Overhead wires really aren’t that expensive. It’s 2-4M a mile of track. They could have taken a fraction of their stock buybacks and increased the number of tracks and done overhead power.
Hydrogen and batteries really only make sense for low frequency branch lines and yard work
The biggest issue with hydrogen right now is 99% of it is not green given it comes from oil. The actual green stuff done via electrolysis is still super expensive.
Exactly what I was saying! I want overhead wires too!
Yeah hydrogen isn’t really such a great alternative fuel and batteries are still kind of a mess. Overhead wires are what we should’ve done a long time ago and what we should be doing now
@@sd8313 agreed 100%
@@sd8313 The real shocker is, that there already used to be hundreds of miles of electrified mainlines all over the US. Most of it was torn down in the 1970s because diesel was so cheap.
@@stephanweinberger yeah that too
The research is great but class I railroads should really be thinking about overhead-wire electrification for their business sections of mainline. It’s cheaper in the long run. And when trains that run on those lines also have batteries on board for when they leave the main line then that solves logistic issues about comparability in many cases.
But that’s expensive, and they won’t get much benefit out of it
@@andrewreynolds4949 most of Europe use overhead lines. And they aren’t losing any money
@@gamerfan8445 they are all subsidized mostly in Europe
@@massmike11 well the US can do the same.
Class 1 railroads are busy getting in trouble with FDOT right now. They are currently leaching on their own revenue for wall street. Things will continue that way unless the government steps in, or they "unmerge" the railroads.
Aren’t there other significant issues with the tech like hydrogen currently being significantly cheaper when bought from oil burning sources (guess where the penny pincher buys it from), batteries being heavy as all fuck and taking forever to charge while generally the range gets drastically slashed when compared to diesel locos?
To be fair, weight is less of a concern on rails than it is on pavement, but it's ridiculous to do all this song and dance to avoid overhead wires
In a rail application, the extra weight could be considered an advantage.
There’s nothing that says the locos must be stationary when recharging either. They could charge in motion while under wire like any other electric locomotive.
@@brentfoster9138 that’s the sensible way to use batteries, but then it would make sense to electrify main lines which is what they’re apparently trying to avoid…
@@genoobtlp4424 I think they might be trying to avoid such a thing as these companies would then have to Maintain and build the infrastructure.
If it's built for them or such infrastructure is greatly subsidized it will get built simply as that really
But if they are fronting all cost why should they eat an upfront cost than the maintenance.
Also batteries won't last very long on a locomotive. Even with LiFePO4 batteries they are going to be under a lot of load constantly and most likely very large discharge and charge cycles.
No battery would last very long in those conditions. And overall it could be more costly than maintaining overhead power if entire freight companies where battery powered.
And that still begs the question of where does the power come from? Probably fossil fuels in most cases! In that case it would be better for the environment to just use diesel locos because then there aren't all the losses from having to travel through the entire power grid to get to where it is needed where its already inconvenient to get electricity to anyways.
Figure out good reliable green power first, then do the vehicles.
I’m sorry but your statement by saying catenary is “impractical” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard a rail fan say… the United States was the world-class leader of rail electrification in the early 1900s which set precedent for Europe and Asia to follow in America’s footsteps. Unlike Europe and Asia, the US tore down and destroyed most of its electrified rail infrastructure during the 60s and 70s. By saying catenary is “impractical”, it is not only ignorant to America’s railroading history but also completely ignores the far superior electrified systems Europe and Asia enjoy in modern day. Hydrogen and battery trains are GIMMICKS, it is essentially a way for freight companies to greenwash rather than put in effort in constructing proper PROVEN infrastructure.
And are you going to pay the tremendous cost to put in ALL of the wiring needed across the entire country. The United States is huge compared to Europe, if that's you example. It is VERY impractical!!
@@SMichaelDeHart for reference, the trans-Siberian railroad is fully electrified, all 5700 miles of it. the fact that the US can’t achieve electrification on any individual statewide scale is quite sad
@@subdomhourz7946 and that's a pretty much single STATE operated line & system. Who's paying for ALL the Class 1 lines and Short Lines ALL across this rather LARGE country?? Taxpayers??!! Your NUTS!!
@@SMichaelDeHart It would be awesome if the Class 1s were nationalized.
@@packr72 Why...are you a Bolshevik??
Ultimately, lugging around a full hydrogen fuel cell and all the fuel, or an even heavier battery will never be as efficient as overhead wires. Both battery and "hydrogen" locos are electric locos at their core. It's always going to be easier and cheaper to run those electric engines from overhead wires and not have to carry an extra ounce of fuel or batteries.
I understand that the oil industry is the largest customer the Class 1s have and that they have to play this "hydrogen is viable" charade, but watch them all adopt dual-mode battery units with overhead "charging" and then progressively electrifying their networks.
You can't argue with economics. And the cost breakdown just isn't in hydrogen's favor.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Over here in Europe battery powered EMUs are definitely winning out over hydrogen fuel cells, with literally hundreds of vehicles ordered by various regional rail companies from several manufacturers. The main reason being that large parts of our rail network are already electrified, so it's easy to recharge the trains whenever they run under catenary. Overall, a fleet of BEMUs is decidedly cheaper than electrifying little used branch lines, and also much cheaper than building up completely new infrastructure and logistics for hydrogen - it's a no-brainer economically. Also - after having diesel-hybrid locomotives available for quite some time already - there are now several types of electric locomotives with "last mile" batteries coming to the market.
My guess would be that we'll see the same in those parts of the US that already have electrified mainlines.
Cross-country it's a different story. There the higher energy density of hydrogen is a considerable bonus. The only real problem will be: where to get enough "green" hydrogen? Currently about 99% of all H2 is produced from natural gas, pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. And we're nowhere near changing that in the medium term. So ecologically it would be probably better to keep running modern Diesel engines, and use the resources that would be necessary to build up the hydrogen infrastructure to actually (re)build electrification instead.
@Mike Mainer Lithium isn't exactly rare. We have known deposits of millions of tons in Europe (e.g. under the Rhine valley in Germany or under the Koralpe mountains in Austria).
btw. it's not that much different with fuel cells. Those need some rare materials as well.
Plus there is the problem that you need much more energy to produce hydrogen in an environmentally friendly way.
Plus you still need batteries in fuel-cell trains (and they are not that much smaller; e.g. the buffer batteries in the iLint family of trains are still about half the capacity of the battery-electric Stadler trains).
Also: Hydrogen isn't exactly "shunned" either. There are some regions that have ordered FC trains. Albeit mainly because of politics; batteries just make much more economical sense in most cases.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@@maas1208 The BEMUs I'm talking about *are* "dual-mode" (overhead + battery).
Overhead + hydrogen fuel-cell doesn't really make sense, as you still need batteries in HFC trains anyways.
HFC only makes sense on routes that never have the opportunity to recharge from overhead wires - which is only the case in very small niches in central Europe, hence why most rail companies go for battery-electric (when they are not forced into hydrogen by politicians who want to appear "innovative"). The raw economics just make it an obvious decision.
No
In my honest opinion, I still think overhead catenary wires are superior. Sure, hydrogen and battery trains have their uses, but they aren't nearly as environmentally friendly as overhead wires powered by nuclear or renewable energy. Hydrogen/Batteries could be much better for switching, local, and branch line service, while catenaries/third rail are better for long distance or regional commuter networks.
However, you are right about one thing: It's time for diesel power to be put to rest.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@@maas1208 That actually sounds interesting. It would be pretty versatile too, especially for sections of rail that aren't electrified yet, or local operations where overhead or third rail power just isn't feasible.
@@maas1208 In Europe there is a similar thing we call them "Last-mile engine" basically they normally run under overhead wires and if they need to deliver something to a warehouse or a branch line without overhead wires they start a small diesel engine
@@NoZoDEor small battery like on the TRAXX 3 and Vectron
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
A good use of the WABTEC battery locomotive is for regenerative braking and safety on long grades. It also improves the efficiency of the diesels and makes for a good DPU replacement.
I’ll be seeing it on the B&P or hope to within the next year
I do think trains using overhead wires are practical because of other places like all of Europe, most of their system is electrified.
And do you even realize how BIG the United States is!! Europe is A LOT smaller!!
@@SMichaelDeHart Void argument. I'm pretty sure the amount of electrified railways in Europe vastly outmatches the length of the major US main lines that would be suitable as electrified trunk routes, but even if somehow not, just look at Russia and your argument immediately falls apart. The entire Trans-Siberian Railway is electrified, running through some very remote places and stretching far greater distances than US main lines. India, another huge country, already has a mostly electrified rail network, and is electrifying more right now. China also has massive electrified railways. Distances don't matter at all. If tracks can be laid there, if roads can be built there, then wires can be hung there.
@@bahnspotterEU what's funny is Europe is the same size as the US. Anyone making the "US too big" excuse can't imagine America not being the center of the universe.
The US does not have the population density of Europe, India, or China. It’s really difficult to maintain OLE through the remote terrain of the US and way too expensive to install.
@@bahnspotterEU and the USSR railway is pretty much a single line and is NOT spread out like the US railroads. Europeans have NO concept of how America works.
Toronto has embarked on an ambitious commuter rail electrification plan for their extensive all-diesel fleet . A few years ago they evaluated a hydrogen loco plan but rejected it on the grounds of unknown costs and high risk of new technology and delays. They stuck with the tried-and-tested tech: overhead high-voltage wire.
The best solution is probably to use the hydrogen to run the power plants themselves in addition to locomotives that have to go long distances between charging stations. Dual-modality would be something to look into.
Overhead electrification would be expensive in the short term but would be far cheaper in the long term. There isn't exactly a limitless supply of lithium and the total cost to change every locomotive to lithium would exceed the cost to simply add catenary. We should be starting the process of adding catenary and investing in dual mode or even modifying existing locomotives to operating as dual modes. While the vast majority of locomotives currently in service use DC traction motors there are some that use AC that would be relatively easy to modify. It's also important to note that electric locomotives usually last longer than diesel electrics without expensive rebuilds and have more tractive effort and horsepower.
In the meantime if we are still stubbornly going against catenary biodiesel is relatively cheap alternative fuel source that would have a more positive effect on the environment than going battery electric or hydrogen.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Agreed, other than a few limited cases (e.g. running from an electrified line onto a relatively short and lesser used branch line) battery and hydrogen trains don't seem great to me, as much as I'd like to love them. Carrying your energy with you in any form isn't great, but I don't see the other alternatives to diesel/electrification being better or practical...
Why would AC motor locomotives be easier to convert than DC?
It would likely be tedious to switch electric locomotives around since either you have to electrify every single rail in a rail yard or you have to switch a locomotive around with another locomotive.
If one of UP or BNSF even commits or tries to electrify one of their mainline from Chicago to the West, then it could be a game changer in the American Railroad. That might increase the chances and more focus on electrifying all the mainlines from all different railroads.
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
no one ever seems to remember the real issues with batteries being that, they degrade very fast for this application, they're flammable, and they take ages to charge, even the best lithium ion batteries today can lose 20% or more of their capacity over just a few hundred charge cycles, and the degradation only gets worse from there, if the battery pack of a locomotive has to be replaced outright with no way to refurbish it and very limited recycling capacity for the raw materials then the railroads will probably get very sick of that very fast as opposed to a diesel prime mover that can last decades without any insane maintenance. let's all also not forget the tendency of lithium ion batteries to spontaneously catch fire, and that's not an issues with wiring, or current battery chemistry, but just Lithium as an element, it's an alkali metal, the most reactive group of the periodic table, it doesn't take much to cause lithium to catch fire. the mining issues mentioned aren't even the worst, the truth that companies like Tesla try to hide as best they can is the cobalt in the battery chemistry, which is mined mostly with child slave labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo(I wish I was making that up, please do your own research on it instead of taking the word of a random person in the TH-cam comments, it is not ok and more people need to understand the humanitarian harm happening for our first world battery powered future, lithium ion batteries are deeply flawed) and even after all of that, they still take forever to charge, and before you start making points about fast charging, please understand that the faster you charge a lithium ion battery, the faster you degrade the battery, that may be fine for your cell phone which is charging at only 5Amps anyways, but for a locomotive, in order to charge it in a reasonable amount of time as opposed to the time it would take to steam a steam loco from cold, the batteries lifespans would be cut in half or worse. at the end of the day, more effort and resources for research should be pointed to fuels produced from direct carbon capture, that's my opinion at least, nuclear power and direct carbon capture, but I always encourage people to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, so please, look into the engineering, chemistry, economics, politics, etc behind all these things in order to form a fully informed opinion, never listen to the marketing material from manufacturers, and don't fall into the futurist tech bro pitfall, battery powered everything is never going to be sustainable, trying to make all our power from solar and wind is never going to work, just, please, everyone, do your research into the engineering of things
if you want to not use any products containing cobalt I have bad news for you about how they refine diesel fuel.
It's misleading to say that most of the world's cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo by child slave labor. It is true to say that 60% of the world's current cobalt production happens in the Democratic Republic of Congo but the vast bulk of it is happening in ordinary mines worked by adults with paying jobs. They're certainly not perfect jobs but it's not slavery. Some portion of shoes are made by children, that doesn't mean we all stop wearing shoes, it means we stop people from using child labor to make them. Almost every product in every supply chain has at some point been through the hands of someone who was exploited to one degree or another.
There isn't currently any uranium mining in the DRC, but there used to be, the first atomic bombs were made with Congolese uranium, and those vast reserves are still there under that country. If that same bunch of kids were digging up 10-12% of the world's uranium supply would you propose banning the use of uranium altogether, or would you push for better oversight and control of supply chains to cut those mines out? This isn't an idle hypothetical, uranium is rare in extractable concentrations, a lot of it is produced in relatively impoverished Kazakhstan, and a lot of the rest comes from Canada and Australia who are settler colonialist countries mining on stolen indigenous land. I don't think you're a bad person for supporting a technology that's built on the back of extractive mining that's politically fraught, but it's funny that you're willing to ignore where the materials come from for nuclear power because you think that technology is going to save the world but for lithium and cobalt it's an unforgivable sin.
Let's be clear here, I do think we should be building more nuclear energy and electrifying the railways more, and we need to be using trains instead of cars and trucks to a much greater degree. Just taking all of our current fossil fuel vehicles and swapping them for identical vehicles with batteries in them is not achievable or desirable. However, a lot of the anti battery rhetoric that gets repeated all over the internet is inherently propaganda, and by propaganda I don't mean that it's false, I mean that it's framed in a way to push an agenda.
@@AlRoderick Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
I think the rail network should be government owned, similar to the US highway system. Imagine if trucking companies owned the roads and were in charge of paying for their maintenance and construction, it would make no sense. When the rail network is government owned, then we can put in the massive investment of putting up poles and wires.
Hell no, when the UK nationalized it’s system it was a disaster.
The Northeast Corridor is government owned, and it's ancient and very prone to failure. Thomas Edison built it.
@@andrewreynolds4949 The privatization of British rail is often said to be a failure and the privatized nature of our railroads proves that.
@@tonyburzio4107 Thomas Edison did not build the NEC. It was put together from sections built by several different railroads, mostly the Pennsylvania RR and the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.
@@AlexCab_49 The UK railway system is not really privatized. It's sort of a terrible, dysfunctional halfway system. The US railways are a very different system and do rather well for themselves.
In the 1950s and 1960s after the creation of British Rail things were a disaster. Political decisions meant entire programs were reversed and replaced, and there were enormous amounts of resources wasted on rushed, untested agendas. Conflicts of interest crippled high-level decision making. After the Modernization Plan failed, their last resort to recover wasted costs was to strip the rail system to its bones. When things became nationalized all sorts of people suddenly had a say and they could no longer make effective decisions for the good of the organization. It took decades for them to recover.
Meanwhile there is no reason to nationalize the US railway system. They have seen record amounts of freight recently, and there's a lot of investment happening in strategic places across the country. The railroads have run themselves perfectly fine for decades.
We already have a solution to electrifying trains safely, efficiently, and cleanly using overhead wires. Why use dangerous, inefficient, and dirty batteries? (Hint: short term cost cutting, but the company can still claim to be 'green')
Power stations. Oddly enough, trains run where there aren't any power stations out in the country. The Milwaukee found this out and failed miserably.
I second this comment. I think “zero-emissions” is a misleading term because the mining for the materials for lithium-ion batteries such as lithium and cobalt already causes a lot of emissions and incredible amounts of pollution. Additionally, once the batteries reach the end of their life cycle, we still don’t really have a good method of repurposing them, especially with lithium being an incredibly toxic metal that is difficult to safely dispose of.
Even the expansion of overhead catenaries doesn’t mean much of the grid is power by fossil fuels. It’s a much more complex issue that goes beyond the railroad itself.
@@tonyburzio4107 Milwaukee Road owned their own hydro electric generators in the Rockies, no?
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
Outstanding video! This is your most detailed episode yet, and I can tell this took months to research, but it's worth it. I personally feel most existing diesels should be converted with battery or hydrogen engines, so this way there isn't a backlog of relatively new or reliable diesels waiting to be scrapped. Furthermore, it's cheaper to convert existing engines rather than buy new ones from scratch, similar to NS rebuilding their Dash 9s with T4 diesel engines.
Or just make diesels more efficient
lmao imagine spending millions in developing H2 fuel cell and battery electric locomotives instead of simply electrifying the tracks.
The rest of the world went that way long ago.
Impractical and expensive? Coming from the wealthiest country? What a joke!
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@@shubhampawaskar6443 Electrifying the US rail system would be a project on a scale that's really hard to picture. For over 93,000 miles at a price of $4.8 million per mile it would be around $450 billion just for the catenary equipment. That does not include the cost of new locomotives, new or modified maintenance facilities and equipment, training or retraining crews and maintenance teams, or special clearance work needed before OLE equipment could be installed. Most importantly it does not include building enough new power plants to power the whole system, which would increase the cost exponentially and require decades to complete alone, before the electrical equipment they power could be installed. So yes, it is impractical and expensive.
@@maas1208 Batteries are extremely heavy compared to a diesel engine, have a much lesser range, and take a long time to charge. They are also very environmentally unfriendly at that scale and have a short service life.
Please tell me the solar panel locomotive is a joke
Battery and hydrogen locomotives (currently diesel) are for rail yard work, not transporting long distances… that’s how it’s done here in Europe. Long distance uses overhead catenary.
3:48 - Is this train seen on the route of 'Empire Servce' ? / New York City to Buffalo and Toronto
Conrail was the last Class I to use electrics to operate freight, but electric freight stopped because of Amtrak's costs on the NEC and Keystone Corridor and Potomac Yard's closure.
It would likely be tedious to switch electric locomotives around since either you have to electrify every single rail in a rail yard or you have to switch a locomotive around with another locomotive.
In my opinion, I don’t mind. As long as more Hydrogen Fuel Locomotives are built like CP 1001 (Which is a Cowl Unit), then they cool.
Also, the Best part about Hydrogen Fuel Cell locomotives is that all you Need to Refuel them is to take water, and use electricity to Divid the water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, and then that Hydrogen should be used as fuel.
The cool thing about CP1001 was it (the original diesel loco) was set to be scrapped, but someone at CP said, “hey, if we need a core for our hydrogen loco, let’s use this one! Lots of room in the body, wide cab, and not that old!”
also, battery as source of power tends to last/perform less in cold weather, something you somehow forgot to mention :D
21:29 That looks like a nuclear power plant which, contrary to popular belief, actually produces fewer emissions in a lifetime than a coal powered plant can produce in 1 year. (There's actually a video on how nuclear power isn't that dangerous.)
There's boatloads of documentation upon studies about how safe and reliable nuclear power generation, plant design, and operation practices have gotten over the years. Plenty of videos about it too. It doesn't stop the insidious propaganda that builds up opposition to it resulting in nuclear plants being powered down in favor of new fossil fuel plants. We need to be downing fossil fuel plants in favor of nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
Solar and wind are problematic. They are intermittent and break frequently. Hydroelectric and nuclear power are better
@@andrewreynolds4949 that's a silly notion born out of ignorance and propaganda, but do go on.
@@mrmaniac3 I live in an area with large wind farms, and have spoken to a couple people connected to the industry. Their biggest complaint is it is cheaper and easier to build new turbines than keep them operational, so at any given time a large number of them are broken and useless. Apparently they break quite frequently and repairs are very expensive.
The fundamental problem with wind and solar is that the energy source cannot be controlled or easily adjusted for demand like most other power generation methods. It depends on the weather, not demand, and varies greatly by location. The intermittent nature of the electricity production is hard on electrical grid equipment. Wind and solar are definitely useful for ancillary purposes, especially in remote areas, but not so much for the mainstream power generation politics is pushing for.
Apparently bird strikes are also a problem on the large turbines.
@@mrmaniac3 Hey, as long as they’re not in favour of resorting to burning shit, he’s on your side.
Short answer: yes (ish)
long answer: while better than diesels in some ways, hydrogen and battery-electrics are just an excuse not to put up the wires. additionally, we all know that batteries have emissions when made and also hydrogen harvesting isn't actually done through an environmentally friendly electrolysis process, but actually through burning fossil fuels
Better excuse for no electrification: cost and maintenance difficulty
@@andrewreynolds4949 The thing is, both what we need for batteries and hydrogen power involves some sort of limited resource. We're just going to be back at square one in 50-or-so years from now.
@@piemadd Or the other option is to continue using diesel power. Modern prime movers are rather efficient and cost effective.
@@andrewreynolds4949 True. I would rather them keep using diesel and/or start moving over to traditional electrification than pretending that using hydrogen and batteries will be sustainable in the long run.
@Mike Mainer 4% of the world's hydrogen comes from electrolysis. 48% natural gas, 30% oil, and 18% coal.
Put up wires, that’s it. No stupid batteries or hydrogen trains, just wires.
It takes to much because sometimes rails have to be switched poles have to be built wires have to be placed in
Wires are expensive and what is there works fine
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
Battery locomotives and fuel cell locomotives would be literal WMD's on wheels.
Plus, overhead pantograph systems actually EXIST, and they DO SOMETHING.
Norfolk Southern SD70ACe #1047, Norfolk Southern D940CW #9608, Amtrak Midwest SC-44 Charger #4613, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner SC-44 Charger #2115.
The biggest problem with hydrogen is shipping and storage. You can't move hydrogen by pipeline, and you need to refrigerate it once it gets there.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
@knucklehead d How about replacing those fossil fuel plants nuclear and/or wind/solar and water (Dams)
American freight will do literally anything to avoid actual electrification lmao
For good reason
Why not do both? Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Lol
You should talk for high speed rail week is what the High speed rail alliance want to do with the Mid west. All the both commuter and high speed rail trains In the Midwest.
The problem with overhead wires is, where do you plug them in once you are far from a city? There's also the problem with damage to the wires from the weather and how long it takes to repair the wires.
Make a hybrid locomotive, or use both electric and diesel locomotives where you can transfer electricity from the electric locomotives to the diesel's electric motors until the line runs out.
One other option that was not discussed is what FEC (Florida East Coast) is doing right now with LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas). Otherwise this was a well done program.
I have a feeling that as soon as an electric locomotive has therman runaway in a town or in the bc fraser/thompson canyon and starts a forrest fire that takes out a town, everyone will stop using fhem because of the therman runaway
I'm in CP's camp, 110%!
According to a good friend at UP the 2O ordered are being recycled from SD60m locomotives, you forgot to mention the SD40-2s UP rebuilt into battery
Thanks for mentioning the environmental impact of battery and hydrogen locomotives. It bothers me when people forget the other sorces of environmental impact associated with "clean and green" energy.
I hate how much nuclear energy is so overshadowed but no i dont wanna think of nuclear powered locomotives
UP has probably 2000 units currently sitting in storage not sure why they would buy units that will definitely go into storage as well.
That NS podium is adorable.
Hey when are u gonna do the credit cause u said that on the video that I caught AMTK 157 and 197
Hybrid locomotives use tons of batteries. If they're lithium ion that could cancel out the advantages of shutting down the prime mover. Where steam locomotives once traveled, there was much plant growth near the tracks. They were fertilized with 99% pure carbon. Electrification has many advantages. If powered by nuclear power plants the problem could be solved. India is working on electrification nation wide, and France runs 75% on nuclear power. Using hydrogen fuel is extremely dangerous. Can anyone imagine a wreck with a locomotive with hydrogen in the fuel tanks?
Sorry I am late to the party. At 2400 KWhr it would run for 1.6 hours at half power. How is this going to work?
Yeah they need a bigger battery
The railroads say it's too expensive to electrify their lines, but they do have plenty of money to buy crazy expensive prototype battery and hydrogen powered locomotives that will never work. This is a scam to avoid environmental fines. They are not serious about cutting their emissions or reducing their dependence on imported oil. Many car manufacturers made so-called fleet compliance electric cars that would bring the average efficiency of a car model to standards set by government regulations, but it's nearly impossible to actually buy one. I think the railroads are doing the same thing with this. There is actually a simple solution to this problem that could actually make it through Congress. Since railroads in the US are private companies, they have to pay taxes. If the government gave them a tax break of a certain amount for every kilometer they installed overhead wires on and taxed pure electric locomotives at a lower rate than diesel locomotives the railroads would suddenly have lots of money for electrifying their lines. This could actually pass Congress. Democrats love infrastructure bills, and Republicans love cutting taxes on big business. They both get what they want. It's a tragedy this is what it takes to solve a problem like this but this is how it is. The technology exists to solve this problem. The northeast corridor successfully demonstrated this technology decades ago. All that's missing is the political will and the money.
Very informative and great footage as well..thanks for sharing.
Awesome! When will “This Month On The Railroad” series be happening again
September 0rd, 2069
July 1st
Did you know about the upgraded versions of the turbines that was able to produce anywhere from 8500 - 10,000 HP the cabs even looked different compared to the version you showed in the video. BTW I like the content
GTEL is too expensive
Conrail stopped operating electric freight when they moved most traffic off the NEC and the Keystone Corridor.
I'd say Hydrogen & BioDiesel are better.
thanks for this.
well done!
Obviously overhead wires are the much better option in literally any case, but if its between batteries and hydrogen, hydrogen makes more sense. The amount of battery it must take to fill a loco is insane and very wasteful, and there is plenty of space to fit the equipment for hydrogen fuel and fuel cells. Combined with the fact that hydrogen will refuel faster and that they only need refueling stations in specific places means hydrogen just makes more sense.
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries
I love all these go green programs, trucks, trains, cars and more. The problem is no one talks about where the “power” to charge these batteries is coming from. We can build all the electric vehicles we want, but the power still comes from the grid that is 90% fossil fuel driven. This is not a solution, it a money making diversion.
I think hydrogen tenders would be better in between locomotives. The PRR electrified in the 1930s to save on high-speed costs, where as MILW electrified its Pacific Extension to reduce costs. The PRR is still electrified east of Harrisburg, but MILW de-electrified in 1974.
US freight companies refuse to go overhead electrification because they want to do the bare minimum to maintain anything. Not installing or ripping off existing wire so they can spend less maintaining infrastructure.
So they actively avoid electrification despite the fact that it is a very good solution for mainline freight due to electric locomotive having higher traction than diesel loco.
And with these investment into new tech and infrastructure to refuel hydrogen/ recharging it could ended up being even more expensive than overhead wire locomotive and infrastructure as it is existing and proven one as oppose to totally new tech. Also battery aren't cheap, especially with such large amount of lithium battery on train. Oh and battery will degrade as well. So u have to replace them more frequently compare to only need to replace parts. In the end it will be more expensive than traditional electric locomotive. For high density freight line, overhead electrification make more sense especially in the long term. Unless u want to get in and sell it quick.
UAC Turbo Train 170 MPH thats faster than the early Shinkansen train in the 1960.
The gteL never on a passenger service only freight
I noticed that when u explained the GTEL history, those locomotives are not passenger locomotives, they were pure freight haulers as you may guess as sitting right behind a loud and hot jet engine might be uncomfortable for all passengers
The GETLs saw service from 1952-1970 (18 years) of freight hauling and the reason why it ran on Bunker C fuel was because the fuel was considered waste and Union Pacific was going to take a crap fuel source at a cheap rate until the plastic industry realize the usefulness to Bunker C fuel into a lighter fuel source. That’s what killed the GTELs
Well done video, Sam! I do agree, the next few years are going to be very interesting for railroads.
23:34 U.P. GTEL's were NOT used in passenger service
The LIRR test failed and wasn’t found feasible
There just isn't enough electrical power infrastructure (power plants AND transmission lines) to support electric RRs--and it won't be very long before electric autos will be dimming houses everywhere.
Basically. Just puts an increasing demand on power generation, which will have to be made up somewhere.
What if Indonesia High Speed Rail (KCIC Jakarta - Bandung & Surabaya) we compared with the California High Speed Rail? Which is better?? I must know the answer from @Worldwide Railfans
Jelas bagusan punya Indonesia
Jelas KCIC menang pake nanyain
Of course you have to see what it would cost to electrify all the tracks in North America. The technology currently exists to pull heavy trains. The example of high electric traction can be seen in the double locomotives from Bombardier "MTAB IORE" for Sweden and Norway. Here I currently see the cheaper alternative in synthetic fuels and "E-Fuels" to quickly get away from diesel fuel. You can then use the new fuels to create the same properties as with diesel power. The diesel locomotive can then be operated with “E-Fuels”, which then have the properties of conventional diesel fuel. The infrastructure and the machines do not have to be changed significantly when operating with "E-Fuels".
Overhead wires are great for passenger transport and small grids, like in many European countries. In the US however I see hydrogen engines because maintaining an overhead wire system over an entire continent with low population density in between is difficult.
9:50 Oh... Are the batteries of the FLXdrive removable? Practical.
Just finished binge watching the series up to today’s release. These are awesome videos! Most surprising to me is the rapid expansion and success of the Brightline, compared to the glacial pace of CA HSR construction here in my state. I get how different the projects are, although I totally agree with your viewpoint that the route alignment chosen is insane. I especially enjoyed the original footage you shot of some of these projects where you were able.
11:11 2 F40’s x an SD70ACe
Wabtec’s FLXdrive is pronounced “Flex Drive” I’d you want to save yourself some time. Also Net Zero Emissions doesn’t mean no emissions so UP isn’t going to dive into electric traction if it’s not economically viable yet, it just means they’ll offset their emissions in other ways.
Yeah, great video dude 😎😎😎!!!
alco joined the chat
*GE has left the chat*
Hydrogen is the true answer to Trains , Planes and Automobiles , not AC or DC .
union pacific is always first in line for getting and trying out new locomotives. union pacific is the only company in the world that has tried every new trial loco's. if they worked they ordered many of them. and other rail companies followed suit, if they didn't work out well. no company bought any.
C a t e n a r y
Meanwhile Europe with their Stadler Eurodual, Siemens Vectron DM, TRAXX LM, Mireo Plus B and many more being like:
"You guys call this innovation?"
This is an excellent video. Impressive in every capacity. Well done!
I think Hydrogen or Biogas is the better alternative. Electric trains [Overhead powered] will still be the only true enviromentally friendly locomotive.
I make the same argument as with buses here. In cities/populated areas. Electrified. [In trains case basically major lines] and for rural areas [low frequency branchlines] will use Hydrogen/Biogas.
This is still no permanent soloution. In about 20 years all lines SHOULD be electrified and private companies cant make the excuse "ToO eXnSiVe, iSnT bAtTeRy GuD eNoUgH?!?" And electric cars have the exact same problems as battery electric trains, plus the fact that theyre STILL CARS. Still being incredibly space inneficient and having a HORRIBLE economy of scale.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
I like its number. the 999 (6:15), an alternate 'Galaxy Express' locomotive :P
Yeah, right, batteries for railroad locomotives - so that locomotives that have worked perfectly well for more than a century (electric with catenary, and diesel-electric) can suffer all of the drawbacks of batteries. This is classic environmentalism - take something that works perfectly well and convert over to something that has no history of working nearly as well.
They could make two way engine for commuter electric for electric lines diesal for off the electric or hybrid. Battery is good for short range yard use. Electric overhead you are burning fuel at powerplant. The vast distances going coast to coast. All locomotive have to work together in multiple locomotive trains like triple headers
Norfolk Southern SD70ACe 1047 & Norfolk Southern D940CW 9608, Amtrak SC-44 4613 & 2115.
i am curious, where is the electricity going to come from?
Nuclear power plant or LNG power plant
They should do both hydrogen and battery
I wonder which one is CSX Chosing
LIRR said battery was a no go after spending $1,000,000 studying the problem
Batteries trains does better for commuter rail since they stop allot and when they reach the end of the line, they can plug it in and charge it up before heading the other way. hydrogen train should be done on freight trains.
How about biodiesel
Still produces emissions
E-Fuel can work
FPL/Brightline uses a blend, 6 to 20 percent bio. The standards are various percentages up to 20, and then a jump to 100 - presumably because anything over 20% is impractical unless you want to use a giant butter knife to feed it into your engine.
Yes Bio Fuels, Renewable Fuels, Hybrid, and Fuel Cells are better than Electric's
@@sd8313 same thing with electric's
Though, coal and diesel can be used to generate Hydrogen centralized in high quality stations.
How about storing solo energy with gravity logistically?!!
Battery power and hydrogen fuel cell are just methods of storing electricity. But the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, so what's the point? Might as well stick with safe proven diesel electrics until such time as we make the significant investments in clean electricity generation (which is going to have to include a lot of nuclear). But if we do want to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the short run, a good way to do it would be to ban long haul trucking. All of that cargo should be transported by rail and only by truck for the "final mile" services to homes and businesses.
Banning long haul trucking would cost a lot of people their jobs and drive up prices on goods
@@andrewreynolds4949 the point is to reduce the fuel used to transport each load, but you are right that shipment my train would also dramatically reduce the labor required as well. So why then, with less fuel and less labor would the transportation costs increase?
@@anitrain The market is more limited so costs will inevitably rise. Competition is what keeps costs lower.
Speak for yourself. Ontario stopped burning coal a decade ago.
Will you stop saying diesel trains are bad for the environment. Low emissions and that hydrogen train are going to flop!
What about solar power locomotives
Same shit as batteries
So, you mention that the source of electricity is not 100% renewables and therefore, the battery systems aren't renewable until the grid that feeds them are. A fair argument. But then you go on to completely neglect that hydrogen has the exact same problem. H2 systems are nothing more than a different kind of chemical battery. Which is charged from the same exact sources as a lithium battery.
Pretty misleading presentation.
Hydrogen is awesome. If it was plentiful both polution and energy problems would be solved. Only problem it is not an energy SOURCE. Hydrogen readily combines with pretty much everything (and is way lighter than air when it doesnt) so it exists in a usable state exactly nowhere on earth. Only way to produce it is to either strip hydrocarbons (and when you strip hydro from hydrocarbon you leave carbon - which is what we're trying to STOP using) or use some other energy source to split water into H and O.
So its more like a battery. But if you had plentiful solar, wind or geothermal power someplace with lots of water but too remote for wires, you could electrolysize the water with the power and store the gasses (O2 being useful also) but without massive refrigeration they would need gigantic tanks to store them in gaseous form.
If we had working, practical fusion power, that could both power the world and create hydrogen for when you needed portable energy without wires (airliner, for example). SO keep scientisting!
I'm happy UP is experimenting with biofuels after hearing what the Rio tinto had to say, battery electric locomotives are a joke and show people are still ignorant to the laws of thermodynamics.
Biodiesel is renewable, carbon neutral and uses existing infrastructure unlike hydrogen and electric locomotives.
Plus we in the US produce enough waste cooking oil every year to run every single diesel in the states (including the steam locomotives).
Switching to EVs and Hydrogen is a waste and a terrible idea when you realize just how much biofuel is actually available.
Batteries? Bad idea. Only really suited to short journeys - shunting & brief "transition" runs.
Fuel Cells? Also a bad idea. While a better option than batteries, fuel cells are phenomenally expensive & a pain to maintain. Also, you need to train up a whole new workshop crew to maintain them.
The best option (imo) would be to convert the current diesel engines to run on hydrogen. This has several advantages - chief amongst which is the fact that the engines that would be used ALREADY EXIST. This saves the environment much more effectively than batteries, as there is no need to dig up & process the materials needed to build the batteries...
What does converting a diesel engine to run on hydrogen involve? Basically, a head swap. You need to tweak the compression, add direct injection (if not already present) and spark ignition. That's pretty much it (for the engine). The much trickier part is the fuel system - hydrogen is notoriously hard to store. 'Tis a tricky challenge, but not insurmountable. JCB have done it, having converted & tested several of their diesel excavator models to run on hydrogen.
Humanity has a heckuvalot of experience building & maintaining IC engines. It might well be worth looking into how to make use of that knowledge, before rushing off to the "Ooh! Shiny!" realms of fuel cells or the environmentally dubious "benefits" of batteries.
Dual mode locomotives should be Battery powered in sections where there isn't any overhead wires or third rail. Think of an alp-44 dual mode locomotive or a p32-ac dm but instead have a diesel prime mover its has batteries instead of diesel I think that would be the most efficient and also add some mini solar panels to charge batteries when not under wires or using third rail incase of cloudy days
Bruh when are we gonna see CP 1001 in action because it’s literally on HU but there literally isn’t anything going on with it they got us all hyped for nothing.
I think as long as a considerable part of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, there’s not much to be gained from electrifying transportation. Wired electric trains are cool though :D
Norfolk Southern SD70ACE 1047 and D940CW 9608.
In my opinion hydrogen is far superior to lithium batteries despite the obvious high cost of manufacturing it.
Mining the battery does more damage to the environment then a diesel locomotive will do
JUST USE OVERHEAD WIRES RAILROADS
Why not just use 3rd rail as average freight in america cant go faster than 75 mph and they dont have to excuse about their beloved intermodals getting stuck on the catenaries