What could replace the diesel for freight locomotives?

Question

If oil prices went super crazy.

Answer 1

Rango is correct.Straight electric would be the way to go.All that diesel does is power a big generator anyways.I don't see it happening in the near future though.The trucks on the highway are wasting much more fuel than the railroads are.One gallon of fuel will move a ton of freight on the rails about 400 miles.A truck gets it about 59 miles.

Bob just as a side note we don't have short time rating anymore on locomotives like the SD 70 and the C44ac and theC45ac.They will grind along all day at low speed.

Answer 2

The cost of diesel goingup is actually good for railroads. Due to their efficiency they move much more freight per gallon of fuel than a truck.

As fuel goes up, the railroads are better able to compete and like any business, it is just one more expense and they have to pass it on to their consumers.

There is vegetable oil substitutes for diesel fuel but I dont think we have anywhere near the capacity to produce the amount of vegetable oil necessary to replace petroleum based fuel.

Turning our food sources into fuel does not seem to be a wise choice, look at the increase in global food prices as we race toward burning more and more corn in our gas tanks.

I dont see going back to steam as being an environmentally acceptable substiture, perhpas onboard steam turbine generators but I dont see it happeing. What we are using now is better.

Straight electric locomotives work better than diesel once the overhead system is installed, it is expensive but can be done.

The country would need more generating capacity but that can be done also.

Railroads using clectrictiy via overhead lines are quite efficient, they recycle electricity as trains go downhill.

In the future, that is what you will see, starting in inner city areas first but the country will move toward more electrics in a "greener" world.

Answer 3

People, when you see a locomotive pulling other locomotives doesn't mean they're all doing the work to carry the load. SOmetimes they are just taking them to a different location, or to a shop or if it's a long trip they will rotate them. The diesel locomotive will not be replaced at least for the next 80 years.  They came up with ultra low emissions anf fuel efficient locomotives made my General electric.  As for 100% electrical locomotives, hmmmmmmm I don't see that happening, they would have either a cable on top or on the rails to energize the locomotive and would be too hard to maintain in case of floods, rain, wind.

Answer 4

The price of diesel would have to be out of this world to covert to eclectic only trains. Plus the safety factor would also be considerable. If you used a third rail the tracks would have to be fenced to keep everything out that could be killed by it. And if you ran overhead wiring the cost of all the supports and the wiring would probably be in the billions. Best bet would be going back to steam.

Answer 5

Oil is super crazy now! I think they should go back to steam locomotives,cause they run on coal,and most of the coal supply is here.The old steamers were more powerful anyway.You see trains today,they have 3,4,or even 5 large diesel locomotives pulling a 300 car train,when back in the days of the steamers,you usually only saw one locomotive pulling a 300 car freight train.

Answer 6

If oil prices continue to go up with no sign of relief (meaning years into the future) then, as others have already said, I think many of the large railroads which could afford it would begin contemplating energizing at least their most heavily used main lines.  

Still, even with today's AC technology being very efficient and allowing one to string wires over vast distances without a significant power loss it is still awfully expensive.  Trains Magazine covered a piece a few years ago on the likelihood of railroads (Class Is) ever electrifying significant portions of their systems and came to the conclusion that unless absolutely justifiable they would seek other alternatives due to high costs of construction.

While steam might be such an alternative they would try it's still pretty maintenance intensive and would require frequent fuel stops resulting in increased transit times (even with the newer technologies the motive power would employ).  Just purely an educated guess but I think that the industry might go for something like the locomotives developed by RailPower Technologies, which use batteries and diesel generators as prime movers.  If a company like RailPower could develop a much more powerful model than what they currently offer (which is only around 2,000 hp), similar to the SD70ACes and ES44ACs of today, then you would have an extremely fuel efficient locomotive that is powerful enough to move the heaviest freight yet also very environmentally friendly.

Answer 7

Oh, electric, no doubt.  It's awesome.  Nobody ever took an electrified line out because they didn't like it.  Electrified railroads are a lot cheaper to operate.  Electricity (made from coal/hydro/nuclear) is cheap, and there's no moving fuel around.

Answer 8

You'll see the return of mainline electrification.  

Some folks are saying that's not practical.  I would say those people have never been to Europe, where most lines are electrified, and they don't move nearly the tonnage we move.  The Trans-Siberian Railroad is electrified.

Tonnage is not a problem though.  America also had massive electrification projects for freight - Virginian, Norfolk & Western, Great Northern, Milwaukee Road. They were torn down because of dirt cheap diesel fuel, which no longer exists.  In the meantime, electric power technology has greatly advanced.

Mainline electrification uses overhead wire, set high at 23-27 feet, running high voltage single phase AC, typically 11,000 volts to 33,000 volts.  Similar to the Amtrak northeast corridor or any of the lines in Europe or Russia.  The overhead wire and parts are readily available from American companies.

Notably, many railroad mountain passes are also located in high wind areas.  Railroads could build windmills on their own land to power their own railroad.

Answer 9

Electric locomotives are more powerful but they need an infrastructure of generators, sub stations and supply lines. Plus how to generate the power?

Switzerland has the cleanest system with 70% of electricity through hydro stations, but this isn't the solution for other countries.

Nuclear power is CO2 free but stores up radioactive waste for future generations.

Coal and gas produce high levels of CO2 and other pollutants, detracting from the overall efficiency of the system.

So, what's the answer? On a postcard, please.......

Answer 10

Kylie isn't too far off the mark.

A new hybrid would be the way to go, to my way of thinking.  It is the vast changes (cost prohibitive) to the infrastructure to electrify that would put a damper on that course of action, although environmentally that would be the best way to go.  

In actuality, a design actually made it to a drawing board somewhere, as I remember reading about it in an issue of "Locomotive Engineer," a publication of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers union.  This was during the oil shortage engineered by OPEC in the '70s, creating havoc and shortages at the gas pumps.

It would take a long time to explain, but it can be accurately said that a diesel electric locomotive will start more tonnage moving than it can keep going, but a steam engine can keep tonnage moving, if it didn't have to start it moving.  A steam engine can operate at full power at much slower speed than a diesel elctric locomotive, which is also a great advantage.

The diesel locos have a "short time rating."  What that means is, in drag freight operation, once that train is moving slower than 12 mph or so, so much amperage is being fed to the traction motors that, if allowed to continue, they will burn themselves up.  The time must be observed and stop be made to let the traction motors cool before proceeding.  They can overheat to a critical level in as little as 5 minutes.

The most powerful steam engines built in the US were the Baldwin built 2-8-8-4 locomotives of the Duluth, Messabe and Iron Range (my appologies to the misinformed who hold that the Alco built UP "Big Boy" was the most powerful.  They were 17" longer and weighed a few tons more [over all] than the Baldwins, but the greater weight on the drivers, and consequently the more powerful, belongs to the Baldwins of the DM&IR.  They were not advertised as were the Big Boys, that were released to much media fan-fare of the day.)  A single one of these locomotives of the DM&IR would lump around 13,000 tons of coal or iron ore all day long and never complain.

The steam engine won't care and will keep chugging away until it is beaten by the grade alone.  The diesels will run for five minutes, then ya can stop and let 'em cool for a couple hours, then go for five more minutes...  you get the idea.

Simply put, the diesel electrics have a much, much higher "starting tractive effort," or what is known as "torque."  One on one, a large steam engine can out pull a diesel electric locomotive (or two), once the tonnage is moving.

The design I mentioned incorporated a diesel electric locomotive component, as well as a steam engine for running after starting.  They were to be micro-processor controlled (totally revolutionary for the time).  Fuel was to be supplied in pre-packaged, 25 ton bins of gassified, low sulfur coal that would be loaded into the locomotive from existing engine service facilities.  They were "condenser" engines, recapturing some of the spent steam and condensing it back into water, then re-boiling it to use over again.  This would have given them a very long range between water stops.

But for that matter, the hot-shot passenger trains of many eastern railroads powered by steam took on water "on the fly," scooping the water up out of long troughs built next to the rail.  No water stops meant a quicker schedule, which translated into better service for the customer.

Firing was all automatic with no need for a fireman.  The engines were designed to "MU" (connect in multiple) with conventional diesel electric locomotives.  They had no resemblance at all to what most of us picture in our minds when we imagine a classic steam engine.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps the design should be revisited today.  We are 30 years more advanced in computing power and micro-processor technology, as well as the over all technological advances made in the 30 years past that would undoubtedly produce an even better design.

I wouldn't rule out a return to steam just yet...  I don't think I'd bet on it, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Answer 11

There are several alternatives to diesel, which have already been mentioned.  However, railroads are already so fuel-efficient that higher fuel costs actually put them at a competitive advantage.  Truckers have always had an advantage in terms of flexibility, but they are being much more greatly affected by rising fuel costs.

Electric is an attractive alternative theoretically, but difficult to put into practice.  Train lines in Europe are largely electrified--why not in North America?  Because the distances are much longer, and the cost of installation would be prohibitive.

I would foresee the railroads searching for some form of alternative fuel (such as biofuels) perhaps in combination with battery hybrid drives before going electric.  There are other biofuels besides those based on crops.

I don think steam will make a comeback, for a number of reasons.

Why did steam, after over a century of development, get phased out by the diesel almost overnight in North America--in a period of about 20 years?  Because, despite their incredible character, they were dirty, inefficient, inflexible, high-maintenance machines.  A set of diesels can haul an 18,000-ton train up a grade for hours on end, without pausing for breath--and do so for months with minimal maintenance.  To quote Fred Frailey, from 1989: "How many engineers and fireman--and how many water stops and coaling towers and how many armies of roundhouse mechanics--would be required for any class of steam locomotive to do as much?  I shudder to think, as would the chief financial officer of any railroad."  Technology would be able to overcome some of these shortcomings, but steamers are inherently less efficient than diesel-electrics. The 95% availability of today's SD70M's--or SD40-2's or even F-units when new--was never matched by steam locomotives.

The idea of steam locomotives being vastly more powerful than diesels is incorrect.  The most powerful steam locomotives developed 6000 to 7500 horsepower, and 130,000 to 180,000 lbs of tractive effort.  The most powerful diesel-electrics develop 6,000 horsepower (or more) and 180,000 to 200,000 lbs of tractive effort.  The UP "Big Boy" was designed to handle a 3,600-ton train on a 1.1% grade--about what a large six-axle diesel could handle today.  Keep in mind that the train cars of 70 years ago were half as heavy as those of today.

Answer 12

I would like to see a hydrogen powered rail engine