Can We Use Big Batteries to Power Our Trains? (arstechnica.com) 238
Research studying the possibility of electrifying rail-based freight "finds that the technology is pretty much ready," reports Ars Technica, "and under the right circumstances, the economics are on the verge of working out."
It helps that the price of batteries have dropped 87% over the last decade: In the U.S., the typical freight car travels an average of 241 kilometers per day when in operation. So the researchers created a battery big enough to move that distance as part of a large freight train (four locomotives, 100 freight cars, and about 7,000 tonnes of payload). They found that lithium ferrous phosphate would let each of the four locomotives be serviced by a single freight car configured as a giant battery. The battery would only occupy 40 percent of the volume of a typical boxcar and would be seven tonnes below the weight limit imposed by existing bridges. Because of the efficiency of direct electric power, the train would use only half the energy consumed by an internal combustion engine driving an on-board generator...
Using an economic measure called the "net present value," the researchers determine that switching to batteries alone would cost $15 billion. But taking the pollution damages into account turns the number into a $44 billion savings. Considering climate damages as well boosts the savings to $94 billion. Even if these damages are ignored, a rise in the price of diesel and allowing freight companies to buy power at wholesale rates come close to shifting the costs to neutral... [F]reight companies could use their capacity to provide grid stabilization services or sell back power when the price gets high. In extreme cases, this system could actually pay for the entire infrastructure.
"Preliminary estimates of the most expensive 90 hours per year in the ERCOT [Texas] market, for example, show that batteries could be discharged at $200/kWh, potentially generating enough revenue to pay for the upfront battery cost in a single year," the study says.
Special thanks to clovis (Slashdot reader #4,684) for the submission — and for also sharing "some general info about diesel-electric locomotives" and "some detail on the AC-DC-AC drive."
It helps that the price of batteries have dropped 87% over the last decade: In the U.S., the typical freight car travels an average of 241 kilometers per day when in operation. So the researchers created a battery big enough to move that distance as part of a large freight train (four locomotives, 100 freight cars, and about 7,000 tonnes of payload). They found that lithium ferrous phosphate would let each of the four locomotives be serviced by a single freight car configured as a giant battery. The battery would only occupy 40 percent of the volume of a typical boxcar and would be seven tonnes below the weight limit imposed by existing bridges. Because of the efficiency of direct electric power, the train would use only half the energy consumed by an internal combustion engine driving an on-board generator...
Using an economic measure called the "net present value," the researchers determine that switching to batteries alone would cost $15 billion. But taking the pollution damages into account turns the number into a $44 billion savings. Considering climate damages as well boosts the savings to $94 billion. Even if these damages are ignored, a rise in the price of diesel and allowing freight companies to buy power at wholesale rates come close to shifting the costs to neutral... [F]reight companies could use their capacity to provide grid stabilization services or sell back power when the price gets high. In extreme cases, this system could actually pay for the entire infrastructure.
"Preliminary estimates of the most expensive 90 hours per year in the ERCOT [Texas] market, for example, show that batteries could be discharged at $200/kWh, potentially generating enough revenue to pay for the upfront battery cost in a single year," the study says.
Special thanks to clovis (Slashdot reader #4,684) for the submission — and for also sharing "some general info about diesel-electric locomotives" and "some detail on the AC-DC-AC drive."
Well, same old story then. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you could force polluters to pay the externalized cost of pollution, they'd choose cleaner technologies. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A plug-in hybrid is affordable, and for most people operates as an EV most of the time. I fill up my hybrid's (very small) gas tank about six times a year. It's actually *more* convenient and an ICE car for day to day driving, while being more convenient than an EV for distance driving. The only inconvenience is limited cargo space. It's fine for driving the family around town, but not for road trips with more than two people.
From my personal experience, there's absolutely no "glaring" issues with the t
Re: (Score:3)
If you could force the EV industry to solve the glaring issues with the technology and price their products as if they actually want a majority of people to buy them, then it wouldn't be an issue.
The EV industry is selling everything they can produce and ramping up production as fast as they can. Why would they lower prices?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what "glaring issues" exist in EVs today. Today you can buy an EV (multiple manufacturers) which has more range than most people use in a week and costs less than the average ICE car. Easily charged at home, work or on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are not glaring issues.
1. There are extensive charging networks for fast charging. However most days you charge from home with a full charge for your commute. And you don't get the running low at the end of the week.
2. EV come with this thing called a computer, with a GPS nav. That help make sure you can make it to a charging station before you run out. And if you were to have someone toe your car, you can Regen charge your car too.
3. Overnight when you should be sleeping, you can charge your car
or you can just.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If batteries could be used it will likely be much cheaper than electrifying the entire line.
Re: or you can just.. (Score:2)
Re:or you can just.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:or you can just.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US was more than happy to spend $500 billion a year on killing spreed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Railroad electrification costs about $5 million per track mile. One year of military murder sprees = 100,000 miles of electrified track.
And the current number of route miles in service in the US today is 140,000. So the entire network is done with less than a year and a half of the Afghanistan/Iraq spending.
And of course the locomotives don't all have to be shifted instantly to using the new electric option since diesel can operate underneath the system without issue, allowing normal attrition and depreciation to replace the fleets of the operators over time, preventing the imposition of some unsustainably huge capital expense on the railroads.
Re: (Score:3)
$5 million if you don't have to immunize existing signals or raise existing bridges, maybe. In most cases you need to do both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For the first train, probably. But as you electrify more and more trains, at some point it becomes cheaper to just build the catenaries.
Maybe a hybrid approach would work: build catenaries on upward slopes and on every so many miles on flat land so trains don't need to carry so many batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and they could recharge on the go.
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult to say.
a) you have plenty of trains going that track, all might need/want a battery
b) you need charging infrastructure
On the other hand, you hve to refit trains
c) for over head electricity
d) probably set up or connect power plants
You would need more info to do the math.
Refitting single trains - one after the other - to batteries might be an interesting slow migration.
Putting up over head power is a "big bang" solution.
However both ways keep you open to have the old diesel/electric trains running.
Re:or you can just.. (Score:4, Informative)
do like in many other places and electrify it? think that would make more sense in the long run. But i guess that precludes that the electricalgrid is working somewhat reliably also so guess not.
The researchers discussed this. The problem is freight trains in the USA are typically several times longer than found in Europe and the routes are far longer, so the electrical requirements are much greater, thus more expensive upfront costs and higher maintenance costs. Also double stacked freight trains used in the USA means the electrical towers would have to be over 21 meters tall.
The big catch is you have to build fixed infrastructure to meet the needs of the largest that might use it
It works great for passenger trains, but they are small and all pretty much the same sized cars .
Re:or you can just.. (Score:5, Informative)
The Russians, Chinese, and South Africans) run long/heavy ore trains under the wires. This isn't an unfixable problem. Double stacked trains are more a problem under low bridges and in tunnels where there's no extra clearance for wires. The solution is to either have an engine in front and within the train, so that one always has contact, or a fairly small battery for bridging within tunnels.
The major advantage of trains is that they're electric vehicles without the range limitations and environmental depredation of batteries.
Re:or you can just.. (Score:4)
21 ft, maybe. Definitely not 21 m when ISO containers are 8'/2m44 high.
A TGV Duplex can draw 9 MW, and they routinely run two coupled trainsets, so that makes 18 MW. That's enough to pull several miles worth of rail cars at freight train speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also double stacked freight trains used in the USA means the electrical towers would have to be over 21 meters tall.
I don't really get this. These are trains that run on their own track system, not pubic roads like a trolley system. . Why not just have extra electrified rails like a subway system? There's no reason it needs to be unsafe, it just needs to be sectional with some switching technology so that sections are only active when a train is passing overhead. That way, people can only get electrocuted if they're under the train. Heck, with modern pattern recognition technology, you could set up detectors under the tr
Re: or you can just.. (Score:2)
3rd rail operates at a much lower voltage than centenary because of the danger of flash over with the ground or running rails which means a MUCH higher current and hence higher circuit losses. Also gaps are an issue and at road crossings 3rd rail is problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Also some routes have literal airplanes with the Boeing 737 bodies getting moved by rail.
Re: (Score:2)
Electrification is being looked at but there are some stumbling blocks and batteries may be part of the solution.
A few things to think about:
- the example of 100 cars and 7000 tons is not your typical freight. Maybe in 1990 but not now, more like 170 and 13000 tons. Minor issue as just add more batteries, right? Also power units are distributed so the battery units would have to be as well. Back to engines and tenders. Not a technical problem but may affect cost calculations
- a freight car may only
Re: (Score:2)
- the example of 100 cars and 7000 tons is not your typical freight. Maybe in 1990 but not now, more like 170 and 13000 tons. Minor issue as just add more batteries, right? Also power units are distributed so the battery units would have to be as well. Back to engines and tenders. Not a technical problem but may affect cost calculations
Not that you couldn't just have one battery unit per engine, but I don't see why you couldn't just have have big cables running under each car that you link up when you link up the cars so you could transmit the power from a single battery car along the whole train. I'm in favor of just having an electrification system so that the train gets power delivered pretty much anywhere along the tracks and only needs a (relatively) small battery anyway, but if you did go all battery, I don't really see why having m
this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freight trains go long distances. You'd need high voltage, and idiots would make a habit of electrocuting themselves. Also, rain, snow and debris would be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:3)
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless you're focused only on the passenger rail system, you're absolutely incorrect. The US/CAN freight rail system is incredibly efficient, is privately held, and gets more so each year. And the operations through MX are getting better. Witness the recent activity toward acquiring/merging with KCS which has a significant presence in MX.
Diesel-electric locomotives are the #1 mover of freight trains on this continent. A mix of AC and DC operation now, and AC gets more and more compelling now that semiconductors are capable of handling the huge powers required. I've read somewhere that the US/CAN freight rail system burns way more diesel fuel than the US Navy, and I wouldn't doubt it.
A challenge to switching to full electric is that right now, a typical freight train uses at least two locomotives, and some many more, and loss of one loco isn't the end of the world. Lots of system redundancy there. A single battery "tender" becomes a single point of failure, and that's problematic. Witness all the experiments with fuel (mostly LPG) tenders that carry the supply for the locomotives. None have become common.
Another issue is that trains tend to run between crewing points, and those (here in the southwest) are often 250-350 miles apart. The battery needs to be sized for the distance. Next is that train lengths are becoming incredible, I've recently seen some that are nearly 2 miles long (length can be constrained by the signaling system in place) and 10 to 15 ktons. Speeds are generally 50-65 mph. Grades are significant and long.
Installing electric power infrastructure (like catenary systems, 3rd rail, etc) would cost an incredible amount of money, and increase maintenance costs immensely. And high power needs to be brought from where it's generated to the right-of-way, which would be a whole new level of infrastructure.
On the plus side, a run like Barstow (CA) to Needles (CA) has a lot of ups and downs, and energy storage into battery would ease the load on the braking system (which mostly dissipates the kinetic energy through heating resistors cooled by even more giant fans). That could be pretty nice. It would be practical today to test the idea, there'd be a fair amount of electrical system mods to a given locomotive, but mostly rewiring.
Cheers - Jon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speed limits weren't 20 mph on a lot of mainline track before the 1950s ... we've just allowed the track to deteriorate to that point. The US rail system was actually built to a higher standard than you'd think. 80-100 mph was normal (at least for passenger trains) even in the days of steam engines and GE electrics.
Substations are less of an issue than you'd think. A lot of mainline freight runs through rural or decaying industrial areas where land is cheap. Assuming we're not stupid and electrify every
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its the turns and cars that limit speed. We have towns all over the midwest where roads cross tracks 3 and 4 times without a damn signal light. Do you not live near trains? They are limited to 20 to 25 mph and one train per hour maximum
They cross roads in towns in the UK too. It's possible to put signals in, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
So the problem is signaling, not the tracks themselves. Close off some of the more minor level crossings. Put barriers and lights on the rest ... if someone chooses to ignore them, put a plow on the front of the engine and let Darwin's Law be enforced.
Trains in the US have been running > 60 mph since the 1800s. Casey Jones was doing about 70-75 when he saw a train blocking the line and held the brake down instead of jumping, and that was in 1900.
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the moon is "just there"!
Everyone can see it!
But the next best railway is in some Yahoo area, most people don not even know it exists.
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
North America's main freight lines are generally well maintained and the infrastructure is in good shape with lots of upgrades going on.
Off-main your mileage may vary; easier and cheaper to put in a slow order than to replace those 100 year old ditch bridges and aging ties.
Batteries have to deal with more than crewing point distances.
Can they be recharged in, say 30 minutes at a crew change point. Don't say just switch in a fully charged unit. That is usually not practical or possible.
Can they sustain a
Re: (Score:2)
Our rail system in the US is shit. Its cobbled together since the 1880s.
That's pretty new compared to the UK, and much of the UK is electrified.
Re: this sounds stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
High-voltage electrification (10 to 25kV) already exists in parts of the US. It's common enough for long distances in Europe, Russia (the entire trans-Siberian is now electrified), India, China, and South Africa and isn't particularly dangerous. The voltages used are about the same as used on top of roadside power poles in the US before the electricity is stepped down to 110/220 volts. There's no real safety issue.
Battery-electric locomotives may be needed in freight yards, where it's safer to load and u
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes some idiots climb on top of rail-cars. I think Germany had one or two this year. These often end up killing themselves. But it is a) quite rare and b) you need to ignore tons of warnings and climb about 4 meter up with no safety rails and past warning signs.
People that do things _this_ stupid kill themselves sooner or later by accident, this is just a minor opportunity to them and not statistically significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, sometimes idiots play in traffic -- it's not an argument to ban highways. Rail electrification is no more (or less) dangerous than the high-tension wires running on top of "phone" poles in many US neighborhoods.
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Freight trains go long distances. You'd need high voltage, and idiots would make a habit of electrocuting themselves. Also, rain, snow and debris would be a problem.
Yep, this is why nowhere in Europe are lines electrified.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky that we do not have such idiots in Europe.
Have to check Thailand or Japan, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Freight trains go long distances. You'd need high voltage, and idiots would make a habit of electrocuting themselves. Also, rain, snow and debris would be a problem.
No good reason you couldn't have the charging rails in sections and only electrify the sections when a train is passing over them. Sure, someone could break into a junction box and electrocute themselves, but they can also climb an electrical tower and electrocute themselves, or make toast in the bathtub, or walk across a rail bridge and fall off. As far as rain, snow and debris go, they can be cleared. With modern technology, they can be detected as well and equipment that might damage itself can automatic
Re: (Score:2)
But it is expensive and the traffic needs to be high to justify it. Even in the USA, the corridor from Washington DC to Boston Mass is electrified.
But US rail network is vast, and the cost of electrification of track is very high and it is not viable.
This battery box car is the ideal situation to electrify some select trunk route where there is traffic t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Existing diesel electric locos are already electric with traction motors. So all we are going to do is t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Trolley and bus power lines are almost always DC (from 600 to about 1500V), so they don't "hum."
(2) The environment as a whole is more important than a NIMBY's pretty view. We're talking about one or two wires down a street, not dozens like on utility poles.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody will pay for it (Score:2)
It's considered a major victory that the Democrats got a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill through... that spends the money over 10 years, meaning $120/billion a year in a country whose infrastructure dates back to the early 1900s.
We can't get anyone to pay for it, so folk are trying to come up with a sol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Pathetic. $120 billion per year is about 1/4 of what we spent to send our military to countries where it had no business being from 2001 to 2020.
The problem with running current through a third rail isn't danger to people and wildlife (it's used for longer-distance trains around NYC as well as in the South of England). The problem is that you're limited to about 1000 volts due to higher voltages arcing to the running rails or to the ground. This limitation means that available power is limited unle
Re: (Score:2)
3rd rail can't deliver the power needed to haul those mile long freight trains. You need 25kV or even 50kV AC Overhead just to deliver the power needed.
AFAIK, third rail is limited to around 1000A @ 750v. Even then, substations have to be very close together if you want to run multiple trains over the same section of railway (not single track)
Just compare that to charging an EV on DC. They use 400V or 800V systems and can use up to 350kW. Those chargers at the top end need water/liquid cooling.
The line that
Re: (Score:2)
To electrify them would cost money.
Many things do.
Pretty sure you can't just run current through the rails like you do for subways
No, because that's the wrong way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
our trains run on diesel.
Diesel, or diesel-electric?
Re: (Score:2)
Electrifying rails means raising bridges and immunizing signals. Denmark is doing it right now, the project is a decade behind the original schedule. It started less than ten years ago, so technically progress is negative...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see some moderator is but-hurt about reality. Here is news for you: You have been fucking yourself....
Recharge time? (Score:2)
So, how long does it take to recharge one of these batteries? We talking overnight? Or are we talking longer than that?
And what's the lifespan of the battery? Ten years? Twenty?
And finally, will they work within existing laws regarding pollution? If there's a train wreck, are we talking "ho hum, more of the same-old-same-old", or are we talking "holy hell, we've just contaminated three States for the next century!!"?
Re: Recharge time? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Switching is usually not desirable and often not possible. Think 3.5km long train where the longest siding or yard track is less than half that, and you can not stand longer than 15 minutes on the main. Also that there may be 4 or more power units that need to be serviced and they are at the front, middle and rear of the train.
There would have to be other solutions that would satisfy or improve on current practices. I'm sure there are ways of dealing with the charge issue but it is more complex than wh
Why not just electrify? (Score:2)
Rather than create special cars, electrifying the heaviest-used routes would make more sense.
Existing locomotives could be hybridized if they venture outside the then-existing electrified areas. As electrification expands, the need for hybrids declines.
Reintroduce the concept from decades ago of battery-powered switching locomotives for dealing with sidings off the main lines.
This would also apply to any future construction; the so-called "high speed" lines being planned or constructed start out wired, anyw
Re: Why not just electrify? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Heaviest used" rarely includes hairpin turns through encroaching urban neighborhoods. These are lines that carry the majority of both passengers and freight, where the average locomotive travels a hell of a lot more than 240km per day.
These are lines that were built before housing closed in around them, and rarely are the right-of-ways so narrow as to preclude overhead electrification. Third-rail would probably be simpler, but not as safe. They've not been electrified in the past because there wasn't the n
Sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
First, our trains basically are electric now. (They run diesels that run electric motors.)
"switching to batteries alone would cost $15 billion. But taking the pollution damages into account turns the number into a $44 billion savings"
Well, except that the $44 bn number includes made up costs that nobody actually PAYS.
So setting an ACTUAL COST IN MONEY vs a theoretical cost that they're not paying right now isn't a terribly compelling argument, because if you try to lay that $44bn on them, you've just destroyed the entire economics of train transportation - the MOST EFFICIENT $/mile land transport there is.
So good luck with that.
Re: Sure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean that 'nobody actually accounts for'. People planet wide are most certainly paying for pollution. Exactly what that amount is is a difficult number to quantify.
Exchangeable (Score:3)
Don't you LIKE saving money? (Score:2)
This is the same load of B.S. spewed by telemarketers. They pitch you something that supposedly saves you money. They don't tell you that you have to spend money in order to get the supposedly savings. In this case, the pitch is supposedly saving money on "pollution damages" which nobody gets billed for.
Of course, the other factor here is diminishing returns. As you increase battery mass you add to try to get more range or performance out of the overall system, eventually you reach a performance limit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always skeptical of these "savings" claims made by battery pushers. How are they calculating these savings? Are they real or hypothetical?
There's always hidden costs due to unintended consequences that you have no way of calculating until you start going down that road. I'd like to know how any of these environmental projects that claim "savings" have actually ever materialized those supposed savings. I'd be willing to bet that number is close to or at zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental projects saved the Danish forests from acid rain in the 80's and 90's. What would you put the value of having forests at?
Excuses & bodges (Score:2)
Next quarter's profits. (Score:2)
Weren't trains the most fuel efficient? (Score:2)
In any case wouldn't it make more sense for locomotives to be hybrids instead of straight battery-powered?
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that diesel electric freight trains were the most fuel-efficient form of ICE vehicles?
Probably large container ships, but yes they're efficient.
Why are they picking on them, when jet passenger aircraft are just about the least efficient?
Picking on them? This isn't some sort of schoolyard bullying. Freight trains are an easy target. They are already all electric anyway, which makes changing the power source from a diesel generator to a battery car really easy. Second they are not particularly weigh
Re: (Score:3)
The Guardian has a good article [theguardian.com] explaining the answer.
Siemens battery-hybrid trainsets for Amtrak (Score:2)
The Siemens Venture battery-hybrid trainsets being proposed for Amtrak's eastern routes feature battery cars.
It will be interesting to see how long those battery cars will last and, more importantly, if the US Congress will agree to fund their replacement when they inevitably wear out.
diesels waste fuel with stationary idling (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.thedenverchannel.c... [thedenverchannel.com]
"The problem is the sitting, the idling, the running for days on end when we're trying to sleep," Dana Smyly said. "It's in the middle of the night. It's during the day when we're trying to hang out." "Last two to three months, it's been happening quite often," she said. "There's toxic fumes when the wind is blowing a certain direction, you get all the toxic fumes."
Rose Coloured Glasses (Score:2)
This strikes me as a 'rose coloured glasses' type of study. I.e. presenting what they want to see. Batteries require a better recharging infrastructure than America can deliver. In terms of green energy, these kinds of 'studies' will do more harm than good as people see the holes being revealed in these 'best case' ideas. Overhead wires where possible and diesel or fuel cell last mile type of long haul / shunting seems achievable and would do much to lower emissions. Until there is some serious breakthrough
Rail has been electric since the 60s! (Score:2)
Rail has been electric since the 60s! Those 3 big columns you see on locomotive engines are capacitors for the diesel electric generator. That stored electricity is then used to drive the wheels.
Trains have been electric for longer than most people on Slashdot have been alive. Adding batteries just reduces their range, increases their downtime, and reduces their efficiency.
Recuperative braking (Score:4, Interesting)
The article doesn't mention one advantage of electrical locomotives: regenerative braking. A diesel driven train must dissipate all the braking energy as heat. Electrical locomotive can recover some of the energy by recharging batteries when braking.
Why not power every rail car? (Score:2)
Smaller Trains? (Score:2)
Do they need to be large? If the locomotives are automated, why not break the four-locomotive, 25-car beasts into four individual trains with 25 cars each? I figured the benefit of having a larger train was saving on employees (drivers, etc), but maybe there are other large savings I'm not aware of.
Overhead electrification (Score:3)
Electrification is the best way forward. Overhead wires, not batteries.
Start with the west, across the continental divide. That's where diesel is struggling the most and where OHLE at (2×)25kV will shine. Trains will go faster across the mountains, regenerative braking will save *A LOT* of energy on busy lines, zero emissions en route and in rail yards.
As long as electrification is done on long-enough corridors (eg LA to Belen, NM on BNSF's southern transcon) where cars or containers are marshalled at both ends (meaning even diesel locos would be coupled/decoupled/refuelled/etc) then it'll pay for itself in a matter of years.
The main problem here is that, save for BNSF, all other freight railroads are owned and managed by Wall Street. These guys only "invest" money if they can make a profit within one or two quarters, not *years*. Long term for them is "next year", not "next decade". As long as these goons are in charge, it won't happen. Just take a look at "precision scheduled railroading" (sic) and see the damage it's done.
Reinventing The Wheel (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't, it's just wasting energy to charge them and then use them - it's a lot of heat wasted in the process.
You may have some batteries on the trains just as a buffer and backup, but use overhead power lines instead since that's a lot less wasteful and you don't have to lug around the batteries everywhere.
It's basically only in the US that this seems to be a strange answer to a problem already solved in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
In Switzerland, for example, almost all of the trains are electric and run from overhead wires. Small compact country. Easy to do.
In the US, only commuter trains/trams and subways use direct electric connection. Again, short runs.
However, intercity trains and long distance freight trains are a different kettle of fish. It's expensive to wire thousands of miles of track for wired electricity so it's primarily diesel powered.
This study shows that with the lower cost of batteries, long distance battery powered