Web Site
Developers
Diesel-Electric Hybrid Energy Recovering Locomotive
GE's Announced Intentions
As mentioned in the introductory lead to this series this locomotive type was announced about May of 2005 and to date no sign of even a prototype has been sighted. [See addendum - prototype announced and being tested.] Given the inherent conservatism of railway management, this premature statement of intentions was at best misguided. Moreover, the promise of environmentally friendly batteries seems to lend credence to this being an ingenuous PR ploy (again look at the link above).
Regarding the last point: a lead battery might be more environmentally friendly than a more exotic battery chemistry that is under development, if the former has a very high percentage of materials recycling. Moreover, the lead acid battery is better known and a recent version that is under very active development [Firefly] could both lessen the lead content and increase the ability to take rapid charging along and an increased number of charging cycles. All of the latter characteristics are difficult to affect and would be exceedingly desirable for this type of a locomotive. Indeed, if GE would partner with Firefly as an assured buyer, the appearance of this battery type could be much sooner. That would be a real environmental contribution.
To just give you the idea how hard it is to sell hybrids to railways, after a year or more testing this initial order was announced in March, 2007 for 35 battery/diesel/electric locomotives. Moreover, this locomotive type was built at various railways' suggestion, however, what I know but cannot yet cite is the first three of this order have already been returned by CP (Canadian Pacific Railway) and the entire order is effectively canceled in favor of a three genset type locomotive. That is, no hybrids but smaller diesel/generator combinations with which they have more confidence and greater comfort. This puts RailPower Technologies railway locomotive business under severe pressure, however, they too offer models with three gensets or with two gensets and a battery pack hybrid. I am unsure of the numbers in their order bookings for each type, however, I suspect the hybrid type has lower numbers.
Clearing Up Misconceptions
Railway locomotive hybrids do not have the same problems auto hybrids have. For example, unlike the autos they are not a dual drive, hence, they are not extra cost vehicles. Diesel/electric locomotives are by definition an electric locomotive that is carrying its own power plant in the form of a diesel turning a large generator. Moreover, a significant fraction of these locomotives come equipped, from the factory, to convert their electric motors at the axles into generators. However, the energy harvested is nearly all wasted by running it through a resistance grid where it blown into the atmosphere as heat [the large fan doing this work might use part of the recovered power]. The purpose is for more precise train braking power not energy recovery and is properly named as dynamic braking. Here is one example described in this patent application. There are many other refinements in other patents. It was my impression such technology dates from at least the late 1940's if not much earlier.
Railway locomotives are nearly ready to go, as is, as a full energy recovery units with on board storage. There is just one missing component: batteries and computerized control infrastructure. Those are not trivial problems, however, for GE to have announced a locomotive should have meant the project was well along. Remember too, this is meant to only store a fraction of the of the recovered power into battery array. Much, if not most, of the recovered energy may still exit as waste heat. Therefore, it is not proven that an energy recovery locomotive even justifies its first cost, let alone the possible extra maintenance and replacement parts. It is necessary to test in real world conditions to unequivocally demonstrate its worth.
It's the Batteries
I have decided not to bore you with any attempt to justify my belief that GE is not overly active in battery development. My reasoning is primarily inferential and based upon the apparent absence of GE's efforts attracting attention. More words would add little.
If GE does not already have a well established project to produce the battery arrays required by their energy recovering locomotive, their excessive imagination may cost them. Unlike batteries needed for plug-in hybrid autos, weight is not nearly as critical in railway locomotives. If they gain in fuel economy, they can reduce the fuel tank capacity. If they can store a significant amount of energy, its prime mover [the diesel engine] can be reduced in size taking more weight out of the locomotive. Moreover, weight is sometimes added purposely to enhance adhesion, hence, weight alone may not be an important factor.
The battery set GE delivers must significantly reduce both fuel consumption and the maintenance load. Moreover, it has to show those savings far exceed the up front costs of a more complex product. If it does not meet these criteria along with having high reliability, it will find no market.
Possible Consequences
As I mentioned in the lead in to this series, GE is fighting the proposed EPA tightening of diesel exhaust levels[1.], whereas Electro-Motive Corporation is not. I have read just today in passing that informed opinion believes Electro-Motive's diesel engines could meet the standard today or with little effort on its newest model. That would explain that company's confidence.
The skeptic in me makes me think that perhaps the announcement of this locomotive type by GE was a ploy to gain time relative to the Tier III standards. Should Electro-Motive create such a product that meets or exceeds the expectations of the railways and GE's ability to match, GE could find itself again the second place market holder. Electro-Motive only lost its top sales position due to General Motors ambivalence about retaining that company and the below standards 50 series. If Electro-Motive once again becomes the market leader, despite being the much smaller company, this will tarnish GE's reputation and possibly reduce its stock value.
Conclusion
So GE, it's simply time to produce. Just shutting up may no longer suffice.
Addendum - Prototype Announced and Under Test[2]
While GE seems to finally have delivered, albeit only partially I do not fully recant my skeptical view. Moreover, the announcements contain questionable assertions, perhaps due to misunderstandings and due to the company's unstated marketing objectives. Below, I will list some links for items I ran across and include the summaries that I intend to comment upon.
Here is some text I found on Business Week site; from which I copied completely this rather uncritical, inaccurate summary:
"General Electric Co. announced the debut of its one-of-a-kind hybrid road locomotive at its Ecomagination event in Los Angeles. GE's Evolution® Hybrid locomotive will be unveiled at LA's historic Union Station to demonstrate the progress that GE's Transportation business is making in developing a freight hybrid locomotive that is capable of recycling thermal energy as stored power in on-board batteries. This demonstration hybrid unit will be one of many technologies featured at the Ecomagination event that are developed and used in the rail industry to reduce smog-causing emissions, including Nitrous Oxide emissions, and particulate matter. Ecomagination is GE's initiative to bring to market new technologies that will help customers meet their most pressing environmental challenges." I found in testing the link, the content changed. Therefore, I removed the url. If you wish to see if you can find this or other buried material of interest: check this link.
I suspect the reporter misunderstood the explanation given or that person misinterpreted the content of the GE press release relating to the energy recovery from the dynamic braking. Note in the quote referring to recycling of thermal energy is a stretch from reality. Moreover, a significant fraction of the potentially recoverable energy will still be expelled as heat into the atmosphere because the chemical battery array cannot absorb the vast amount of energy generate by the traction motors when they are switched to generators as part of the dynamic braking mode. Much of the rest on the vast ecological benefits seems more taking to regurgitated boiler plate from GE's public relations staff. Personally, the figures quoted below in the GE press release are hard to reconcile with the overall fuel saving claims.
Before I continue my critical take, I will allow the reader to judge for themselves by pointing them to the GE press release and summary:
"GE is also quietly harvesting low-hanging alternative-energy ideas, such as its hybrid diesel-electric locomotive. Vlatkovic and his engineers see an opportunity to cut both fuel consumption and the emission of noxious gases by capturing the energy thrown off during braking. GE's standard 6,000-horsepower locomotive gobbles 200 gallons of diesel fuel per hour. Now running on a looping eight-mile test track at GE's huge plant in Erie, Pa., is a hybrid prototype that uses 15% less fuel and emits almost 50% less carbon dioxide and noxious gases while generating 2,000 additional horsepower. A few hybrid locomotives will be sold to customers in 2007, and they are scheduled to go into full production in 2008."
Here are a few reasons for my doubts. To begin the statement about the 6,000-horsepower locomotive being one of its standard engines is in a sense only partially true. The railways have shown a decided preference for the 4,400 horsepower units over this model from either GE or Electromotive. Indeed, if you read the actual press release, the prototype engine is of the latter horsepower. Moreover, both the reduction in emissions and the estimated reductions in fuel consumption are both more modest. So what do you believe? I suggest awaiting the appearance of production models vetted by the U.S. Transportation Department testing. Neither the higher horsepower or the higher fuel savings are outrageous figures. Regarding the former, adding the short term battery power to the more standard type engine would match or exceed the higher rating. With respect to the emissions and fuel economy I would hope the improvements exceed the 10% figure, particularly if the battery charging was not limited to recovery during dynamic braking. Diesel locomotives tend not to be shut down, and in a near idle state the batteries could be more efficiently charged with a trickle current.
My residual worry is that the battery technology may not be anywhere the robustness railways will demand. However, unlike the worries of the auto manufacturers maintenance by the general public, railways expect to change out locomotive components, hence, it would not be unthinkable for the owners to cycle batteries and perform upgrades. I am heartened just a bit reading that the Burlington Norther Sante Fe railway is an active partner in the development of this engine. Perhaps there is hope. I would certainly prefer to be proven to be totally in error than to find this is nearly all P.R. fluff.
I have just read a few more tid bits that do not raise my expectation for this unit: it was still under construction as of late April, 2007. Moreover, the batteries had not yet been installed. Furthermore, the numbering of the unit 2010 supposedly has a significant meaning. That is, that number was the hoped year where production units would be delivered. Since the this unit was to be exhibited a bit more than a month later on the opposite coast, one may wonder how extensive the test regime this unit has really undergone. Color me skeptical.
If you jumped down to the addendum and would like to return to the spot you left, hit this link. For all others, thanks for reading through to the end.
Corrections, questions or comments TxtEdMacs, if the mailto does not work for you, email to TxtEdMacs [-At-] bst-softwaredevs.com.
© B/ST Software Developers, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Return to Home or E & E Page
* Originally published on the Open Source Today site June 19, 2007. Content may have been altered prior to being moved onto Web Site Developers.
____________________________________________________________________ 1. Wall Street Journal, A2 February 13, 2007. "GE Fights EPA's Tougher Smog Proposals". 2. This article was completed and awaiting publication when it discovered that GE announced the appearance of its hybrid, hence, the addendum instead of a total rewrite. Note too the inconsistent interpretations.
