Wabtech FLX Locomotive BEL44C4D #3000

[GSkid]

If you look into the locomotive on Wabtecs site, they mention a full HVAC suite to keep the batteries conditioned properly. My curiousity is in how many KWh the HVAC system needs in the extremes to do so.

Thanks for the heads up. Didn't know they had a spec sheet out on it yet. It's clear now that they have both heating and cooling. That solves that problem. But you are right... how much power is it gonna draw away from the tractive effort?

Says the locomotive has 2,400,000 watt-hours of battery capacity. To put that in perspective.... it would take 780 units of my Yeti 3000 solar generator or 169,851 Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max batteries to match it.

Other things that caught my eye is a 30-40 minute duration of full 4400HP output. Also it only charges up through a charge station in Stockton and through dynamic braking. These bring up some interesting thoughts.

They struck an interesting balance in choosing this route for testing. It's a steep mountain pass smacked in the middle of an otherwise flat route. Since Stockton is the home base with the charging station, we'll start there. The brochure says it's a 350 mile route, but it's more like 370 miles.

An EB out of Stockton will go south to Bakersfield for 235 flat track miles. It will then encounter a 48 mile climb to Tehachapi summit and 18 miles downhill to Mojave. From there it will encounter 69 miles of flat to Barstow. That means WB trains are the most efficient since they have a shorter climb and longer decent than EB trains.

I'm also curious as to the charging profile for these. A slow charge up is better than a fast charge up for batteries. Fast charging shortens the lifespan of a battery due to the heat it produces and thus the electrical resistance that comes with that. Cooling fans help, but they don't eliminate it completely. I have 600 watts in solar panels, but only use all of them at once on a cloudy day when I'm trying to grab every watt of power out of the sky that I can. Otherwise I only charge up with 100 or 200 watts in solar panels for a sunny day.

I wonder how low these will draw their batteries down. You want to stay at a 20% or higher charge if you don't want to impact it's overall lifespan too badly. They have to find that balance so they can get the most out of their batteries over time. They aren't cheap.

Now a scenario that could help keep this locomotive with less downtime at a charger and more uptime on the road would be..... electrically daisy-chaining it to a diesel powered locomotive similar to a yard slug.

Hypothetical.....

After climbing WB up the pass, your battery is down to 20%. Going downhill in dynamics charges it up to 40% before you hit the long flat portion of the valley. And that 40% only gets you halfway to Stockton before it cuts out. You are now only using the diesel units to pull the train the remainder of the trip.

Now instead... have the battery loco connected electrically to a diesel loco. And as they go downhill, the diesel redirects all it's dynamic brake power away from it's own dynamic grid and into the battery of the trailing loco. With more traction motors added to the recharge effort, it could be at a 60% charge instead of 40% at the bottom of the grade this time around. Why waste that power into the air when you can send it back to your trailing unit for power later??!?

Just makes more sense overall.

[BNSFdude]

They're using Consist Isolation in TO to optimize the use of the BEL. (Think Conrail's Select-A-Power) The BEL pretty much does nothing outside of starting the train or enduring mountain grades for it's short period of time. Reportedly it'll also go into light regenerative braking while the rest of the consist is pulling which seems pretty stupid to me as far as efficiency goes.

In my opinion, battery electric locomotives for terminal switch power seems feasible, but this concept of hybrid consists is pure dogwater. Just start electrifying. I understand the costs associated, but if they want to take an honest shake at efficient trains, they need to electrify. I believe I saw UP comment in a recent article at the same prospect.

[buzz456]

Before anyone starts talking about electrifying anything there really needs to be a real (non political) conversation about the cost/benefits. Electricity doesn't just magically appear and the amount of pollution given off by railroads is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. The generation of electricity has become such a political football that it's questionable if we are going to have enough to serve our present needs in the future much less power a whole transportation mode.

[HighBypass]

Well said, buzz!

[AmericanSteam]

Railroads need to be competitive with other carriers, while keeping operating ratios low and still comply with federal and state air quality regulations. Fuel costs are about 18% of railroad costs, second to labor. Fuel costs are up 22.5% from last year. This technology most likely will be adopted for cost savings and environmental reasons alone. The railroad industry always has been into new technology from developing bigger, more efficient steam locomotives, electric, turbine power, jet power, diesel electric, diesel hydraulic, LNG, CNG, compressed air (fireless) to this battery powered unit. Some were successful, others not, but they kept tinkering. Lots of technology looks good on paper but once in the field that is where the viability is assessed.
Industry needs to be ahead the game; you can’t develop this technology in the 4th quarter of the game, it needs to be up and online. Think of this locomotive as a Tesla on steroids. Battery technology has become better, safer, more efficient. We only see what is out of the labs.
The issue with a universal single power source is vulnerably, is all it would take is a major solar flare, nuclear device air burst or some bad foreign or domestic terrorist and the country would come to a screeching halt. We have yet to harden our power distribution systems against these EMTs or hackers. Solar and wind are practically useless in snowy and icy 0-degree Winter unless there is a massive battery system in place. We have seen that failure recently.
A lot of us are comfortable with what is in place and dubious about new technology, but are we just like that first hogger who saw his first diesel and said it naw, nuttin’ will come of it then spits his chaw on the ground then climbs back into the cab.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Perhaps a 'battery slug' will help for the time being in hybrid multiple unit lashups? I.e. two Gevo's and a battery slug, or perhaps even one Gevo and a battery slug on flat territory? When running in low power, the slug's batteries can be charged from the locomotives, and its traction motors can provide extra pull. In theory, there don't have to be power cables linking the units even, as a self contained slug can be remotely controlled apart from being m.u. capable.

The battery slug can provide extra power when starting or pulling up a grade, it can store power when into regenerative braking or when going downhill, it can propel the whole consist when passing through city quiet zones?

[BNSFdude]

Perhaps a 'battery slug' will help for the time being in hybrid multiple unit lashups? I.e. two Gevo's and a battery slug, or perhaps even one Gevo and a battery slug on flat territory? When running in low power, the slug's batteries can be charged from the locomotives, and its traction motors can provide extra pull. In theory, there don't have to be power cables linking the units even, as a self contained slug can be remotely controlled apart from being m.u. capable.

The battery slug can provide extra power when starting or pulling up a grade, it can store power when into regenerative braking or when going downhill, it can propel the whole consist when passing through city quiet zones?

That's exactly what this is.

[cnwfan]

I'm in agreement with BNSFdude on this. Line electrification makes more sense. Batteries can only take so many cycles of recharge before the chemical process starts to break down. It seems that line electrification would have a longer life span without the hazardous combination of chemicals and minerals that batteries have. The Milwaukee Road and GN were on the right track with electrification on their mountain grades where gravity could be used for regen braking, thus putting power back into the grid and slightly offsetting the energy used to climb the grade.

In the end though, this large scale Energizer Bunny battery experiment will follow the same path of Gensets and uria. Looks pretty on paper, sounds nice, but impractical when scaled up to match real world US class 1 railroad demands. Just my opinion though.

[AmericanSteam]

This may be a stop gap remedy to the solution. Electrification of transcontinental railroads would be years away and would need major capitol outlay. A whole new infrastructure would need to be built.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

That's exactly what this is.

I was under the impression it is going to be marketed as an autonomous locomotive?

[BNSFdude]

It can be used as such for short times, sure, but the way they are utilizing it is basically exactly how you described it.

[GSkid]

They're using Consist Isolation in TO to optimize the use of the BEL. (Think Conrail's Select-A-Power) The BEL pretty much does nothing outside of starting the train or enduring mountain grades for it's short period of time. Reportedly it'll also go into light regenerative braking while the rest of the consist is pulling which seems pretty stupid to me as far as efficiency goes.

In my opinion, battery electric locomotives for terminal switch power seems feasible, but this concept of hybrid consists is pure dogwater. Just start electrifying. I understand the costs associated, but if they want to take an honest shake at efficient trains, they need to electrify. I believe I saw UP comment in a recent article at the same prospect.

Read my mind. I had thought of the concept before you said something, but wasn't sure if it made sense enough to mention it. My thought was.... does the power generated from it offset the fuel used to overpower the parasitic drag it would cause on the whole train? Power from the charger is almost certainly cheaper per Kilowatt than the extra cost of the fuel it would burn to drag it in light dynamics to charge it up.

Charging through dynamics certainly sounds logistically more efficient time-wise. You could just slap it on one train to the next without needing a yard crew to move it to the special charging area of the yard. It just stays on the road.

The advantages of electrical chargers are many. They could be placed everywhere in a yard instead of just a special area. You don't have to worry about fuel storage tanks, access for refueling trucks or a network of pipes that could leak and contaminate the soil. No special containment areas needed. Just put all power lines underground and it's pretty much maintenance free.

The smart intervals on this trial route to have available chargers is at Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield and Barstow.

My guess is that Notch 1 on dynamics would be all it would need for the locomotive equivalent of a trickle charge without hurting fuel economy too much. It's a less efficient way of charging because you are converting electrical power into physical labor and then back into electrical power through the physical/electrical resistance of dynamic brakes. Then add in losses from friction in this arrangement and it's even less ideal. An electrical daisy chain to the diesel would cut out the middle man and give it power directly. That avoids the heat and frictional losses that occur though the traction motors and rails.

I agree with you that these should be used for starting a train. I wouldn't use it as power in the mountains. Either go to a lower notch of throttle over the flat section to save fuel because of the electric loco ....or simply idle/turn off one diesel unit until you hit the mountain grade or run out of battery.

Remember that the western half of Tehachapi Pass is steeper than the eastern half. EB trains hit a 2.91% grade between Ilmon and Caliente, but only maxes out at around 2.3% between Mojave and Cameron for WB trains. The western half also has the tighter curve angles with multiple 180 degree turns up the pass. That's why 23mph is the prevailing track speed for the majority of it. So the most efficient use of battery power would be in the higher speed flat sections of the route. Unless they are worried about reducing pollution in the mountains, then they will use them there too I suppose.

Remember.... you get full 4400HP for only 30-40 minutes on a full charge. So unless light dynamics have charged up the batteries prior to hitting the start of the grade on either side, you will not have a full charge once you approach them. And even if you did, does a full battery get you all the way to the top? It might just get up the 18 mile westward climb, but you won't make it up the 48 miles of the eastward climb. Takes longer than 40 minutes to reach the summit that direction.

I'm curious on how the battery management works in this particular case. Batteries have something called the stadium effect. In general it becomes most evident at 90% of charge. Like a dome on a round building, that's the stage where the walls start dramatically closing in. Think of it like when people go for a world record on how many people can fit in a compact car. At first you get people in quickly, but the last couple bodies must be squeezed in very slowly and carefully.

This is when a battery starts running out of room for these electrons rather quickly. Forcing them in at this stage is a delicate dance. As electrons are packed in, they resist. That quick rise in resistance creates lots of heat. This not only can dramatically shorten the lifespan of a battery, but could also make it explode. So they dramatically reduce the charge rate at 90% capacity to slowly ease these last electrons into the battery. That's why charging the last 10% of your cell phone to full takes so long.

So I'm wondering how they have the thing set up. If they are looking to prolong battery lifespan, the system should stop charging at 90% for sure. Since they plan heavy prolonged use of it, keeping it in the 25%-85% charge range is the best balance of available power and battery lifespan.

When the battery approaches this limit, does it redirect that power to the loco's own dynamic grid? It must. Otherwise you would have to reduce notches on it's dynamics and eventually have them off. A smart system would redirect more and more power to the grid as the charge rate needed is reduced.

Another thing I noticed is this is a 6-axle unit with 4 powered axles just like the ES44C4, but lacks it's adhesion system where the center axles on the trucks are lifted up to increase weight on the powered axles and thus increase adhesion.

As for electrification? As mentioned above...expensive, grid vulnerable to cyber attack and you would need to Faraday cage everything to keep it viable after an EMP attack. Goal Zero actually sells a military-grade Faraday cage for my Yeti 3000 for $235. Gotta have the survivalist in mind off the grid.

Also.... IMHO electric locomotives are humming, soulless vehicles. Even turbine powered trains sound better. I'm a diesel guy followed by steam.

[ZekTheKid]

It can be used as such for short times, sure, but the way they are utilizing it is basically exactly how you described it.

So in a sense, it ends up being somewhat of a glorified B-unit on trains?

[BNSFdude]

It can be used as such for short times, sure, but the way they are utilizing it is basically exactly how you described it.

So in a sense, it ends up being somewhat of a glorified B-unit on trains?

It has cab controls and all that, so no. Just a wireless slug with extra steps is what it is. A cabbed short time tractive effort booster.

[buzz456]

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