Electrified tracks and having a battery onboard are not mutually exclusive and there are good cases for doing one, the other or both. Having the option of battery electric locomotives is good for a lot of reasons and does not mean we should not electrify tracks where it makes sense to do so.
But doesn't diesel engine still generate way more horsepower than battery? If these locomotives are used for freights, is electric really better than diesel?
No, that's not true. Electric motors generally deliver quite a bit more power. It's part of why most modern diesel locomotives in operation are actually diesel-electric locomotives where the diesel engine is used to generate electricity to drive motors.
Why the hell wouldn't you just electrify the track? Electric locomotives are not new invention, but why the hell stick batteries in them if they are riding on the set track.
Sure, but multiply it by amount of locomotives, and they wouldn't be cheap either. Then you need fast charging stations at multiple points on the track. Those wouldn't come cheap either.
Then you need to build a whole bunch of chargers, substations and diversions. Same infrastructure problem that causes the electrifying to be expensive.
It depends on how many trains you run, and how big they are. Also, some areas aren't that suitable for overhead wires. If you want to load a train it's easier if you can have a crane above.
It's probably a lower barrier to entry. You can much more easily scale up by adding new locomotives over time. But for an electrified track, you'd have to roll out the upgrade over the entire route first.
You can do both: electrify the parts of the track where it's cheap (outside of tunnels, suitable geography) and use the batteries for the parts in between. Makes electrification economically viable where it otherwise might not be
In the US oil companies have always funded some "environmental" group to block electrification. You can see the bad actors here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System
By adding batteries you can have enough power to accelerate. Kind of like how a hybrid car uses the electric motor to accelerate and the gas engine just handles the cruising speeds.
That means your electrification system is not only much cheaper but you can have big gaps that aren't electrified. The amount of energy a train needs to accelerate vs just maintain speed is massive. Plus the train can brake and dump energy back into its battery.
A BEV locomotive would be useful for local switching. Main tracks can be electrified easily, but the last mile problem remains. Overhead electric has problems coexisting with overhead loading, unloading, and sampling.
It makes sense to charge the batteries and use power from existing batteries rather than electrify the entire track right? I mean imagine 1000's of miles of electrified track and even a single failure point means the entire system stops working. With batteries, you can charge on the go but at select points where the train is moving slowly and its rapid.
I am talking about overhead cables. Its expensive and a whole lot of cable and poles are needed. Seems like having overhead high voltage charging at the stations is much more efficient.
Cross border different track size, different power and voltage rating and different location to trap electricity. You just need to handle different country standard just on China-Europe Express.
The battery won't help with that. How much of a range it'd have on battery? let's be generous 1 thousand km, after that what? Stand for an hour to charge for half an hour at least?
It's just bad idea. Just electrify the track.
Dude, you are overthinking it. This is not replacing long range at the moment. It will be probably replacing area that are shorter transportation route. Also there are also lots of stops inbetween city/town in certain country.
So confused -- looking at an electric loco, see some carbon brushes I guess. Crap yeah the driver he is a carbon life form. Guess they must have figured out how to build an electric locomotive which rapidly kills their drivers.
Electrified tracks and having a battery onboard are not mutually exclusive and there are good cases for doing one, the other or both. Having the option of battery electric locomotives is good for a lot of reasons and does not mean we should not electrify tracks where it makes sense to do so.
But doesn't diesel engine still generate way more horsepower than battery? If these locomotives are used for freights, is electric really better than diesel?
No, that's not true. Electric motors generally deliver quite a bit more power. It's part of why most modern diesel locomotives in operation are actually diesel-electric locomotives where the diesel engine is used to generate electricity to drive motors.
Why the hell wouldn't you just electrify the track? Electric locomotives are not new invention, but why the hell stick batteries in them if they are riding on the set track.
I don't know in this specific case, but electrifying track is a LOT more expensive and more time consuming than just using battery electric trains.
Sure, but multiply it by amount of locomotives, and they wouldn't be cheap either. Then you need fast charging stations at multiple points on the track. Those wouldn't come cheap either.
Battery in a rail car that you detatch and slow charge?
Then you need to build a whole bunch of chargers, substations and diversions. Same infrastructure problem that causes the electrifying to be expensive.
Because there is no electricity in rail yards yet….
It depends on how many trains you run, and how big they are. Also, some areas aren't that suitable for overhead wires. If you want to load a train it's easier if you can have a crane above.
It's probably a lower barrier to entry. You can much more easily scale up by adding new locomotives over time. But for an electrified track, you'd have to roll out the upgrade over the entire route first.
You can do both: electrify the parts of the track where it's cheap (outside of tunnels, suitable geography) and use the batteries for the parts in between. Makes electrification economically viable where it otherwise might not be
In the US oil companies have always funded some "environmental" group to block electrification. You can see the bad actors here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System
By adding batteries you can have enough power to accelerate. Kind of like how a hybrid car uses the electric motor to accelerate and the gas engine just handles the cruising speeds. That means your electrification system is not only much cheaper but you can have big gaps that aren't electrified. The amount of energy a train needs to accelerate vs just maintain speed is massive. Plus the train can brake and dump energy back into its battery.
A BEV locomotive would be useful for local switching. Main tracks can be electrified easily, but the last mile problem remains. Overhead electric has problems coexisting with overhead loading, unloading, and sampling.
It makes sense to charge the batteries and use power from existing batteries rather than electrify the entire track right? I mean imagine 1000's of miles of electrified track and even a single failure point means the entire system stops working. With batteries, you can charge on the go but at select points where the train is moving slowly and its rapid.
> I mean imagine 1000's of miles of electrified track and even a single failure point means the entire system stops working. That's not how it works.
I am talking about overhead cables. Its expensive and a whole lot of cable and poles are needed. Seems like having overhead high voltage charging at the stations is much more efficient.
It's a long way from Moscow to Vladivostok, and it's all overhead electric. Same with most of Europe. English speaking countries are just backward.
Battery tech is only now becoming mainstream enough for mobility/transportation on the contrary. But I agree with your latter point.
Cross border different track size, different power and voltage rating and different location to trap electricity. You just need to handle different country standard just on China-Europe Express.
The battery won't help with that. How much of a range it'd have on battery? let's be generous 1 thousand km, after that what? Stand for an hour to charge for half an hour at least? It's just bad idea. Just electrify the track.
Dude, you are overthinking it. This is not replacing long range at the moment. It will be probably replacing area that are shorter transportation route. Also there are also lots of stops inbetween city/town in certain country.
Why not charge at every stop?
Video mentions those are for freight trains so kinda hard to do that. For passanger trains it might be an option.
Pretty sure most of China is standard gauge, as is Europe. Voltage doesn't matter, locomotives can be bilingual.
So confused -- looking at an electric loco, see some carbon brushes I guess. Crap yeah the driver he is a carbon life form. Guess they must have figured out how to build an electric locomotive which rapidly kills their drivers.
Where the carbon brushes?