Link: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-05/battery-poweredlocomotives-zero-emission-train-future Please see link above for source text, embedded hotlinks, and comments.
Battery-powered trains could be a climate game changer. Is everyone all aboard? Ralph Vartabedian July 5, 2021
Colossal freight locomotives are a fixture of the American landscape, but their 4,400horsepower engines collectively burn 3.5 billion gallons of diesel annually, at a time when railroads and other fossil fuel users face pressure to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. With little fanfare, however, the industry has begun operating locomotives that run on stored electrical power, moving toward a future in which toy shops are not the only source of battery trains. American passenger lines could also be transformed by the technology, though California rail officials say it will not work for the state’s bullet train. In a just-completed test, BNSF ran a freight train from Barstow to Stockton with an experimental battery locomotive, coupled with two diesel locomotives, and achieved an 11% reduction in fuel consumption, along with similar reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides, small particulates and greenhouse gases. An upgraded future operational version is expected to improve fuel efficiency by 30%.
1
The test was a “defining moment for freight rail,” accelerating the industry to eventual zero-emission locomotives, said Eric Gebhardt, chief technology officer at Wabtec, which developed the system at its research center near Lake Erie in northern Pennsylvania. Battery- and hydrogen fuel cell-powered trains are among the rail industry’s only viable options for reducing greenhouse gases. Every battery locomotive that replaces a diesel will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3,000 tons per year, Wabtec estimates. But it is unlikely they can quickly replace diesel-powered trains. U.S. freight railroads are awash in surplus locomotives and nobody can predict what battery-operated systems will cost, compared with existing $3-million diesels. “Battery locomotives are feasible,” said Michael Iden, a consultant who was Union Pacific’s longtime director of locomotive engineering. Iden compares Wabtec’s achievement to the Wright brothers’ first powered flight: a proof of concept ready for development. They will be tested soon in California ports and rail yards, he noted. That said, “Estimating the cost of commercially available in production battery locomotives is, in my opinion, like forecasting the price of multiple fully landscaped four-bedroom, three-car garage homes with in-ground pools on Mars,” Iden said. “Someday such homes may exist on Mars but that’s a long way off.” Much will depend on the degree that state and federal regulators pressure railroads to clean up their emissions. Here in California, the state Air Resources Board wants railroads to reduce or even eliminate diesels in the next 14 years. The transportation sector accounts for 29% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Within that category, the rail industry, which moves 40% of long-distance freight, accounts for just 2%, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data. But freight trains as well as trucks expose many populated urban corridors, notably neighborhoods near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, to soot and pollution. Business California mandates big increase in zero-emission trucks June 25, 2020 “We can do more,” said Ian Jefferies, president of the Assn. of American Railroads, citing the potential of battery-operated trains. “It is good business to reduce emissions and reduce fuel consumption and is reflective of society’s goals.” At the same time, Jefferies and his organization are pushing back against proposed regulations to eliminate diesels, saying, “It doesn’t make sense.” Severin Borenstein, an energy expert and professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said railroads are not likely to get a free pass on climate change issues. 2
“The fact that railroads are already the most efficient transportation source is great, but we all need to reduce greenhouse gases,” he said. “Railroads are a major source of greenhouse gases.” Apart from freight, battery- and fuel cell-powered trains offer promise to upgrade U.S. passenger rail, which generally runs on rails owned by freight railroads, such as BNSF and Union Pacific. These companies oppose overhead electrical lines — such as those that power urban light rail — because of potential interference with freight operations. Batteries and fuel cell locomotives eliminate that potential conflict. In San Bernardino, the county transportation authority is waiting for delivery of a hydrogen fuel cell-powered passenger train, which will go into service by 2024 on the Metrolink commuter rail system. The train is under development in Switzerland by Stadler, which also makes a line of high-speed trains that run on wires. Besides reducing pollution, the Stadler train can accelerate and slow down faster than a diesel, reducing trip times — much like electric vehicles that mimic muscle cars of the 1960s — and is likely to appeal to riders with strong environmental beliefs. “We are in the beginning of a transition period and there is a lot of movement in the technology,” said Guido Vogel, Stadler’s engineering chief. “There is a political push to get away from diesel propulsion.” The U.S. rail industry has made key transformations in the past, going from wood to coal and coal to oil, before its current dependence on diesel. Today it operates what is regarded as the most efficient freight system in the world. About 23,000 locomotives ply the nation’s railway network every day. Half of them operate in California. Even though they are about four times more fuel efficient than big rig trucks — in terms of ton-miles hauled — they burn roughly a gallon of diesel every 2,000 feet. Add it all up, and this 3.5-billion gallon yearly usage of diesel would fill a river 10 feet deep and 25 feet wide from Los Angeles to Phoenix. The California Air Resources Board, which helped fund the Wabtec test, believes trains are too big a source of greenhouse gases to escape further regulation. Air regulators began clamping down on the freight railroads, specifically BNSF and Union Pacific, in 1998, when they signed a voluntary pact that required the use of newer diesel engines that produced less pollution. But the agreement did commit the railroads to use even newer generations of diesel engines. Today, the two railroads operate just 472 of the most modern systems, known as Tier 4 diesels, out of the 11,217 that they run in California at any given time, according to an annual report to the air board. “There is nothing to compel them to get rid of their Tier 0 locomotives,” said Ajay Mangat, supervisor of the air board’s freight systems section. 3
The air board staff is preparing complex regulations to eliminate railroad emissions by 2035, though it does depend on technical feasibility, he said. The proposal will go to the air board for a vote next year. Jefferies, the railroad association chief, said the proposed regulations ignore a 70% voluntary reduction in California emissions since 2005. More pointedly, the association asserts the air board has no legal jurisdiction because railroads are subject only to federal regulation, a long-held entitlement. Even if the air board doesn’t succeed in imposing tough regulations, railroads, as with other industries, are facing pressure from many directions: shareholders, customers, employees and advocacy groups. In Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S., about half a dozen rail equipment makers are developing systems that would operate trains either on batteries or hydrogen fuel cells, according to an industry research report. Wabtec’s Gebhardt said the upfront cost of a battery-powered locomotive will be higher than a traditional diesel, but the fuel costs with electrical charging will be lower. Since existing locomotives use diesel engines to generate power that drives electric traction motors, only the generation of the electricity has to be solved. “It makes economic sense with batteries getting exponentially better,” Gebhardt said. In the California test, the batteries recharge every time the train slows to a stop, which is frequent along freight routes. The Wabtec train recharged its batteries, through regenerative braking, on the steep 4,000-foot descent from the Tehachapi Pass to the San Joaquin Valley, for example. California Metrolink unveils new locomotives that could help improve the region’s air July 18, 2016 Another battery-powered locomotive will anchor a demonstration project by Pacific Harbor Line in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The 3,200-horsepower locomotive, made by Progress Rail, a unit of Caterpillar, can haul cars around the port for 24 hours on one charge. Union Pacific just purchased a battery-operated locomotive for use in one of its California switching yards, as well. Carrie Schindler, director of transit and rail programs for the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, said its Stadler two-car train set will be put into service on a newly built nine-mile line between San Bernardino and Redlands, making 16 round trips per day at 79 mph.
4
An electric train is more energy efficient than an electric car, on a per passenger basis, said Vogel, Stadler’s engineering chief. Schindler said the $23-million program for the technology development and trainsets will enable significant emission reductions without the huge cost of building overhead high-voltage lines. The Caltrain commuter system between San Jose and San Francisco is paying $2 billion for just 50 miles of overhead wires. At the moment, it appears unlikely the California bullet train authority will embrace the technology. When asked about it at a recent legislative hearing, Chief Executive Brian Kelly said proposed wireless trains would not satisfy the 220 mph-speed mandate, written into law. The rail authority is in the process of issuing a contract this year for a wired system and related trains, though he said the authority will monitor battery technology. The rail authority’s plans came up in recent negotiations with the Legislature for additional funding, stirring concern about whether the bullet train is not considering the potential for a game-changing technology. Legislative leaders left without any agreement to appropriate more money, according to a person who is familiar with the closed door talks but was not authorized to speak publicly about them.
Ralph Vartabedian is a former national correspondent at the Los Angeles Times and became a special contributor in April 2020. He joined the newspaper in 1981 and has covered many technical subjects, including aerospace, auto safety, nuclear weapons and high-speed rail. He has won two Loeb awards and was a Pulitzer finalist, among many other career recognitions.
5
Link: https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/service/battery-electriclocomotive.html Please see link above for source text, embedded hotlinks, and comments. BNSF Railway August 7, 2019
BNSF leads the charge on testing batteryelectric locomotive
BNSF and project partners are developing and will soon begin testing a battery-electric highhorsepower road locomotive (the type that moves freight trains from Point A to Point B). BNSF and other railroads have tested low-horsepower battery-electric locomotives in rail yards for years, but mainly for switching freight cars. “What’s different about today’s batteries is that they are significantly more powerful than before, and manufacturers have improved battery quality, reliability and technology so we’re able to test their power for our road locomotives,” said BNSF’s Michael Cleveland, senior manager, Emerging Technologies. In 2018, BNSF and Wabtec (formerly GE Transportation) joined forces to begin developing a 100-percent battery-electric road locomotive prototype that works with conventional diesel locomotives to make a battery-electric hybrid consist. (Consist refers to when two or more locomotives are coupled together.) Performance testing of the hybrid is expected to begin in late 2020. 6
The project is being supported by a grant from the California Air Resources Board as part of its Zero- and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities program. Once all the equipment and support systems are in place, the plan is to run tests between Stockton and Barstow, California – about 350 miles. Once fully developed, the battery-electric locomotive will provide environmental benefits and fuel savings for the entire locomotive consist. While in the rail yard, the consist will shut down or idle the other locomotives (when possible) and use the battery-electric locomotive to reduce local emissions and noise. Once on the road, the locomotive consist will work behind the scenes to determine the best way to use the battery power. Thanks to this capability, the consist could also choose to “graze” on battery power when the train is cruising through open landscape, saving hundreds of gallons of diesel. Over the next few years, BNSF and Wabtec expect to learn much about how to build, configure, operate and maintain a battery-electric locomotive. Like the transition from steam to dieselelectric locomotives, it will take years to support an all battery-electric fleet.
7
“It certainly has the potential to be a game changer, especially as the technology continues to mature,” said Wabtec’s Dan McNair, senior product manager for North American Locomotives. “Our demonstration project in California with BNSF will give us tremendous insight into the capabilities of battery power, as well as the best and safest operational methods of leveraging the technology. Smart utilization of the batteries with diesel power can provide multiple operational benefits, and I expect the proliferation of battery locomotives will happen over the next decade." BNSF’s prototype locomotive will use a battery cell similar to what you might find under the hood of an electric car. It is a lithium-ion energy storage unit with cells that contain a combination of nickel, manganese and cobalt. In terms of size and packaging, however, it’s on a totally different scale.
8
9
Consider a standard electric car battery usually holds a few hundred storage cells — each around the size of a mini-tablet computer. The locomotive prototype will have a battery with approximately 20,000 cells, and future versions may have as many as 50,000 cells. The cells also must be able to weather the heavy-going environment of a locomotive. From the outside, the battery-powered locomotive won’t look much different from its diesel counterparts. Before the pilot testing of the locomotive can begin, a battery charger will need to be designed and installed at BNSF’s Mormon Yard in Stockton later this year. While the Stockton battery charging station will provide an initial charge, the new locomotive will be designed to provide regenerative power under braking to extend its range. “The battery will recover energy through dynamic braking,” Cleveland explained. (Dynamic braking is where the kinetic energy of a moving train is used to generate electric current at the locomotive’s traction motors.) “Essentially, every time dynamic braking is used to slow and control train speed, the battery will refill its energy reserves, which is unlike anything today’s diesel-powered locomotives can do.” The battery-electric locomotives will also use an advanced version of train energy management software to look at the route ahead and calculate how to best use the battery. “We're developing and testing the ‘next-generation’ locomotive now to build our advantage over long-haul trucks, remain competitive and reduce our operating costs,” said John Lovenburg, vice president, Environmental, BNSF. And together, with our project partners, we’ll be leading the “charge” in railroading’s future.
Did you know? The BNSF/Wabtec battery-electric locomotive pilot project is being supported in part by a grant from the California Air Resources Board, which has awarded $22.6 million to BNSF Railway and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for the Zero- and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities Project. In addition to the locomotive technology development, the Zero- and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities Project will pilot emissions-reducing technologies in railyards. The Zero- and Near Zero-Emission Freight Facilities Project is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide initiative that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy and improving public health and the environment — particularly in disadvantaged communities. For more information, see here.
10
Link: https://www.railwayage.com/news/dont-dismiss-freight-rail-electrification/ Please see link above for source text, embedded hotlinks, and comments.
Don’t Dismiss Freight Rail Electrification Written by Jim Blaze, Contributing Editor February 5, 2021
(Photo from California’s Caltrain public files) Alternate research suggests that it is too early to walk away from the electrification discussion. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) recently published a fact sheet (download below) arguing that partial or complete Class I railroad electrification is a bad idea; not necessary; no financial return. With this type of analysis, would there be a role for battery-powered main line freight locomotives, like the FLXdrive battery-electric Wabtec and BNSF are testing? Or perhaps HFC (hydrogen fuel cell) powered units, as Canadian Pacific recently announced?
11
Renderings from Wabtec-requested sales documents. Download Wabtec’s FLXdrive Fact Sheet: FLX-Drive-Fact-SheetDownload This rail economist offers a contrasting opinion. Why challenge AAR’s professional conclusion that we should stick to Tier 4 or higher EPArated diesel-powered locomotives? Because the AAR conclusion appears, at least on its surface, too simplistic. It dismisses previous rail industry business-case studies for electrification. In contrast, previous railroad company reports have shown cases where overhead electrification could work and be financed with reasonable internal rates of return. They have demonstrated that specific route studies are the best determinants of a business case for alternate fuels. That analytical approach has been true for longer trains, heavy-axle loadings and overhead-clearance business case evaluations. It should therefore be true for electrification or selective-route battery locomotive applications. Where is the case history documentation review by the AAR that showed a favorable business case for full freight rail electrification? AAR does not acknowledge that a positive business case existed. However, the possibility of feasible financial returns for electrification was in fact seriously examined. Observers and industry experts with whom I’ve communicated are familiar with these studies:
12
In the early 1970s, electrification as an option was examined in the 1976-79 period by the U.S. DOT and the Federal Railroad Administration as part of the federal act that allowed the seven bankrupt Northeastern railroads to be restructured into Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). The specifics for Conrail electrification did not pass the business case test internally within Conrail’s management team. But under the correct blend of circumstances, electrification was not forever ruled out. The conclusion, which was closely aligned to the AAR 2020 policy statement, is that the government could not or should not simply mandate electrification. Other studies examined into the 1980s the potential to electrify parts of the Powder River Basin Wyoming/Montana low-sulfur coal routes. There were some favorable structured project terms evaluated, then negotiated, and very close to execution. Why? Because there were favorable joint railroad right-of-use aspects for the utility companies and available funding. The internal rates of return for a partnership of utility/railroad/financing had back then a projected rate of return greater than 25%. This was the same period when overall railroad ROI on assets was less than 10-12%. The financing venture terms in part looked like this: A partnership would spread the risks over multiple parties, not just the railroad company. A financial organization or a bank would initially have been a limited partner. The railroad company would have invested only a token amount of capital and then gradually acquired the partnership from the lenders. The joint venture structure back then was offering to absorb the initial building cost of the catenary, the power (electricity) distribution and the power generation as a package, with the railroad to pay like a trucker does for road use. It was to be a railroad trains pay-as-you-go deal. Electric locomotive energy regeneration—putting power back into the grid through regenerative dynamic braking—was part of the cost-benefit analysis calculations. Therefore, four decades ago, innovative railroads and outside parties were structuring interesting feasible deals for electrification.
13
Diesel-electric locomotives are the standard power source for freight trains across long distances. Think of it this way: Given the amortization period proposed back then, the capex obligations would have reached retirement about the time that Powder River Basin volume increases peaked, but the legacy electrified investment benefits as cash flow would have continued for more decades ahead past 2030, since the coal is not disappearing. So, why did the parties back then walk away from a projected rail freight electrification project with a favorable outlook? Probably because some people or persons in charge at the railroad headquarters or board level clearly had a negative outlook for the rail industry. Time has shown that Powder River Basin growth lasted about 35 years, and the traffic still has a few decades left. Back to AAR’s 2020 paper: Its broad assertion is this: “Mandating electrification of the freight rail network is not a viable means for reducing GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. Proposals that would require all or part of our nation’s freight rail network to be electrified should be set aside to focus on other alternatives.” AAR relies in part on a study from 2016, when there was no “off the shelf” near-zero-emission locomotive technology sufficient for North American linehaul freight service. But the study encouraged additional research. As to a government mandate of electrification? Let’s agree that would indeed be premature. AAR asserts that electrification would require building and maintaining 140,000 route-miles of catenary. AAR’s assumptions include these points:
14
This is a strategic worst-case view. The counter argument: What constitutes the definition of a low-carbon business case network size? That comes down to these variables in terms of annual traffic volume:
Market segmentation would likely drop the initial electrification planning to around 50,000 route-miles, possibly lower. As to electric locomotive cost, which can be more than double that of a diesel-electric (based on units purchased for passenger service by Amtrak, NJ Transit and other carriers), AAR does not acknowledge that straight electrics can be easier to maintain, based on largely modular components and the increased ruggedness and reliability of modern solid-state electronics. Plus, each one could be as powerful as perhaps two diesel-electrics. There are economic trade-offs.
15
Amtrak Siemens ACS-64 (6,400 peak horsepower) on the Northeast Corridor “New Jersey Raceway.”
16
Making the Business Case Can a business case be made for electrification or main line battery-powered locomotives? In specific cases and locations, yes. Yet, the AAR policy paper suggests that:
Those are hypothetical claims. The solution requires deeper commercial examination. A series of business cases should be used to document both the technical and financial feasibility of energy options. And high-probability route options should be evaluated. A blanket rejection in 2021 is unnecessary. Here are some ways to examine either battery-powered locomotives or electrification: • A 3-part Pro Forma Financial Model could be used for best location evaluations. This technique uses future year changes of income statements, balance sheets and cash flow results. Why these tools? Because Wall Street will use them to vet possible project success or commercial failure. • Other useful models will require discounted future cash flows and cost-center change analysis. • The opposing parties within a project group will need to test against a variety of factors to avoid data bias. • Rugged field testing of the equipment will have to demonstrate both long-term maintenance costs and operational reliability. Takeaways Main line full-battery locomotive reliability and economic testing might require as much as a half-decade to test fully. And it will require many units rather than just a handful of beta units. Testing is just starting now, so why stop? Full electrification requires less testing since there is railway electrification already in place worldwide. That body of evidence should not be ignored, should it? Here is the bottom line from multiple U.S. expert rail colleagues: • • •
Alternative fuels require testing. We may be a decade away from looking at balanced case evidence. Writing off rail freight alternatives is premature. 17
Mike Iden, retired from the Union Pacific as General Director of Locomotive Engineering and now an independent locomotive and technology consultant (Tier 5 Locomotive LLC), offers his deep insight and industry history: “Selecting the optimal power option(s) will be a complex process and requires a lot of time to test for both business case and technical reliability.” In other words, it is a bit early to pick the financial winner out. AAR-Electrification-Fact-SheetDownload This is not a Staples-like “That Was Easy” buying decision. Regardless of your hypothesis about electrification or alternate fuels like batteries, and batterytender-assisted locomotives or even hydrogen fuel-cell (HFC) locomotives, it is too early to pull the quarterback and put the second team quarterback, so to speak, into the game. The private market is willing to gamble. It’s looking for a partnership deal. Walking away from serious testing of the current modern technology and creative financing is way too early. As for battery and LNG units, there are too few in service right now. We need maybe 30 or more for a number of years to measure the component and life cycle durability. (Approximately 126 “battery locomotives” were built and tested in the U.S. prior to 2014. Many were unsuccessful.) And let’s not forget CNG, which advocates believe has possibilities that may be superior to LNG. Railroad carriers will want to see solid measurements that demonstrate evidence of the ability of the new technology fuels to provide rigorous locomotives durability. Folks like Mike Iden are used that kind of “kicking the tires.” Think in terms of a half-decade to a decade as a reasonable period of market testing. Current PSR earnings combined with project risk sharing should have that kind of staying power. Independent railway economist and Railway Age Contributing Editor Jim Blaze has been in the railroad industry for more than 40 years. Trained in logistics, he served seven years with the Illinois DOT as a Chicago long-range freight planner and almost two years with the USRA technical staff in Washington, D.C. Jim then spent 21 years with Conrail in cross-functional strategic roles from branch line economics to mergers, IT, logistics, and corporate change. He followed this with 20 years of international consulting at rail engineering firm Zeta-Tech Associated. Jim is a Magna cum Laude Graduate of St Anselm’s College with a master’s degree from the University of Chicago. Married with six children, he lives outside of Philadelphia. “This column reflects my continued passion for the future of railroading as a competitive industry,” says Jim. “Only by occasionally challenging our institutions can we probe for better quality and performance. My opinions are my own, independent of Railway Age. As always, contrary business opinions are welcome.”
18
Comments about electrification of railroads in general and battery powered locomotives in particular John Shanahan, Civil Engineer Editor, website: allaboutenergy.net. France has the best electrified railway and urban public transportation system in the world for a population and area of its size. It is powered by clean and reliable nuclear power. Switzerland is much smaller. Their rail system is powered by clean hydro-electric and nuclear. Here is a list of countries with total length of railways, length electrified, historical peak length. In many cases coal is used to generate the electricity. That is not as clean as the railway systems in France and Switzerland. In the United States most of the rail traffic is freight which is powered by diesel electric. Only a small fraction of the rail system in America is still electrified and that is mostly for passenger service. Electrification of heavy-use, very-long-freight-trains in high density urban and ocean port areas would certainly lead to cleaner air. The reason for electrifying these rail systems would be mainly for environmental and health reasons mandated by law. Once out of the urban areas, trains could switch to diesel-electric, the most reliable and economical standard for long distances. The most logical electrification method would be by use of electric locomotives powered by third rail or overhead wire. Preferably, the electricity would come from nuclear power. Environmentally equipped coal fired power plants would work, like in Germany. Certainly not coal fired plants in Third-World countries, nor wind and solar power. Battery powered freight trains will remain in the realm of toys for young children, not model railroad aficionados. Model railroaders will always use electricity from the grid and power plants. Before the question of battery-driven, super-powerful freight locomotives is settled, California’s single-minded politicians, extreme environmentalists, and their partners in Washington, D.C. will waste a lot of public tax money proving beyond any doubt that battery powered locomotives are not good for real railroading. Countries who wish the USA no good will benefit tremendously by America’s economic demise. Battery powered locomotives in the USA will give California politicians and environmental extremists no data to show that they really can control climate change by forcing stopping use of fossil fuels. 19