So what's wrong with running on (compressed/adsorbed/liquefied) natural gas for this application? Or indeed, a diesel running on ULSD with a DPF and SCR?

I suspect all of the contributors are receiving R&D pork from Washington D.C. or Washington State. No sane businessman would invest his or his private investors' money into running a locomotive on hydrogen.

Gentlemen:

Railroad operations must be cleaned up too.

Getting rid of polluting noisy large diesels is more than welcomed.

Direct electrification would be a worthy alternative but would require a multitude of overhead wires throughout the switching yards. Doable but costly.

For long distance applications, fuel cells (with hydrogene refill stations every 800+ Km) may be just as economical as direct electrification, i.e without the overhead cables. Locomotives can carry a lot of hydrogene on board.

Fred:

Europe (rightfully) electrified their railroads many years ago. They more or less went from steam to electric locomotives.

Thanks to cheap oil, North America replaced steam locomotives with diesel-electric units and electric city buses + trams with dirty noisy diesel city buses.

Having taken the wrong decision about 5 to 6 decades ago, N-A will have to spend $$ billions to re-convert to electricity.

We are very smart....

I am extremely weary of Rail Power working on this project. The company is a mess with having to recall defective locomotives, and slow production rates. The only thing keeping that company afloat is a $35 million investment by the Ontario's Teachers Pension Plan. I am a huge supporter of greener locomotives....but the commercialization aspect must be handled by a more competent company! Hopefully, with the addition of multiple partners this particular project will go off without any problems.

God I love you guys...

They arnt interested in the train at all its just a cheap off the shelf platform to test the real device. A portable long lasting 250 kw SILENT powerplant.. small enough almost to fit in a tank. All they need now is the absornative h2 tank and boom they have thier goalet WAAAY back in the 80s of a compact 250 kw long operating silent powerplant.

After that comes a bigger 1.5 mw or so unit and then finaly a 3.75 mw fully electric tank with yes a fricken laser cannon.

Gymvee and other moting options also will be done im sure.

If along the way peaceful uses pop up like this... fine by them.

The hydrogen will likely be produced by reforming natural gas, so it doesn't solve energy-security problems.
In a disaster you want power and so energy, with less consideration for noise and pollution than normal. Hydrogen loses to diesel in both its lack of existing infrastructure and the difficulty in transporting large amounts of it.
I'd like to approaches like this pushed off the Green movement band wagon.

Didn't see too many of those near the rail line, riding Amtrak, from Chicago to Seattle.

Maybe we can electrify _parts_ of the system east of the Mississippi.

>the local substation, which allows the long-distance electric transmission to be done at much higher voltage and low losses.

Actualy railways did look at atrining lines along the routes... but maintenance was an impossible task.

Its also not all that efficient as most of the power vleeds away from line losses and to heat the lines in winter to prevet icing. H2 while somewhat more energy intensive doesnt need local power stations nor does it need a massive army of maintenance crews.

And of course railways can always bring in the fuel by rail:)

But realy thats all a sideshow to the main show.. a portanle compact powerplant capable of powering the militarues anti missle anti projectile laser thingy.

Also of note the entire system was so lite they had to add a cubic meter of steel.. 15 tons to make up the lost weight.

Gents, a switch locomotive is one used to shunt freight wagons around a yard, assembling and disassembling trains as needed. You could do this electrically, but only if you segregate that segment of the grid from the main line, otherwise the power spikes either way will play havoc with the system.

It's a lot cheaper to deploy ICE-based locomotives, typically diesels running on sulfur-laden off-road dross but that causes emissions problems. Let's focus on the specific application and not worry about the entire US rail network plus buses in this thread.

Hi Rafael,

there are quite a few electric switcher locomotives in use in europe (ie. 1063, 1163, 1064) with continous power ratings in the 1.5 MW range. With modern PFC-like semiconductor power rectification, the disturbances in the grid are neglegible; also, rail yards typically feature individual supply rails per track and have their own substation.

@Mark A.:

The rail gauge in europe is the same as in the US with 1435 mm. However, the loading gauge, especially on long distance tracks in the western part of the US, allows for over 6,1 m height, compared with 4,1 m in the EU. Thus double-stacked TEU-containers are not possible here (not only due to the electrificiation, but also due to many tunnels, bridge heights etc.

In any case, the typical long-haul US engine is a series-diesel/electric, lacking any means to store regenerated power. Instead, huge cooling fans can dissipate as much as 3-4 MW of the generated power during braking. I would think, that at least a partial electrification (ie. with a 3rd rail) on steep grades would be extremely beneficial for UP and nearby population. Instead of wasting 4times 3MW (typically, a 3rd or even 4th engine is coupled in order to climb the grade), and further heating the hot southern states air, the generated electricity could be sent into the grid (or at least some kind of stationary "external" power storage, like a flywheel or pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant nearby) and instead of running the diesels at peak power climbing up, that energy could be consumed off the grid / storage.

With 3-8 trains, each wasting 30-50 MWh daily (!) on a typical grade, that would save some 1 to 3 million gallons, 20000 to 100000 barrels a year per grade (mountain pass)...

Just some numbers to think about the wasteful way of life the US currently lives... (Oil needs to get scarcer and much more costly still - 200-300 USD/bar, to feel the pressure).

Alan over at The Oil Drum has noted the real problem with rail electrification:  it involves improvement of the infrastructure, which increases property taxes.  The Interstates don't pay property taxes, so railways should probably be exempted to level the playing field.

Alan has a map of rail electrification projects which are on the drawing board.  They include runs from Los Angeles through Texas, IIRC.  Pretty much the whole nation was wired by the REA; it's time to use that wiring to eliminate the rail system's dependence on petroleum.

The Betuweroute is electrified and is build to handle double-stacked TEU-containers so technically it is possible

If memory serves, correct me if I am wrong, there were diesel locomotives built that could run on both electrification and diesel. I am thinking of the diesel locomotives that had third-rail contacts attached to the trucks (wheel frames) of the locomotives; and could seamlessly go from diesel to electrification and back.

Also, has any one considered running the long haul trains on third-rail? This would do away with a lot of expenses for catenary wires and towers. It would mean that there would not be any interference with double-stack container cargo. Also, no modifications to existing tunnel heights or any other overhead structures would have to be done; resulting in substantial installation savings. Also, the maintenance costs would be reduced by doing away with the catenary equipment.