# Life really does imitate art!!!



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks to Matthew Brown, here is an example of it: "This is the Wave of the Future" !!! The old days are indeed going.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

That's very interesting. It'd be great if they could make that work. It's a better application for batteries than cars, I assume, because weight isn't a problem, it's more of an asset in a locomotive.

The earmark part makes me wonder if this is just a PR stunt


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

"This is the wave of the future" is becoming a rather hackneyed comment.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

What we usually tend to forget is the environmental impact of 
A - producing batteries 
B - recycling batteries 
I do not really know how substantial A+B is in comparison with 
C - the environmental saving when electrical energy is produced at a 
power plant rather than by a diesel generator on the locomotive. 
But A+B may be non-negligible and the total environmental saving 
D(t)=C*t-(A+B) may initially be smaller than we would prefer to think, 
of course it improves with time t, that the batteries are used. Best, Zubi


----------



## Richard Weatherby (Jan 3, 2008)

Before you know it, it will be track powered... they already have overhead wires.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Zubi. 
c) the environmental saving does depend of course on how the power plant generates the energy used to recharge the batteries. If the method is totally renewable, then the environmental saving will be quite substantial.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

It's hard to beat hydroelectric generation direct to overhead electric catenary wire--that is the ideal system but not everyone can do it. Yet another reason why I like the Rhaetian railway in Switzerland, which does it exactly this way. We could do this in B.C. too, where we have ample hydroelectric possibilities...it's just the usual bureaucratic momentum & BS that keeps it bogged down. Many studies have shown that battery power is not the best answer when you calculate in the emissions from the coal fired generation plants making the power to charge them or the real cost of making & disposing of the batteries....at least the ones they have in production today. 

Keith


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony 

Looks like you may have a new market for your RCS Controls. 

Randy


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 01 Oct 2009 08:32 AM 

It's hard to beat hydroelectric generation direct to overhead electric catenary wire--that is the ideal system but not everyone can do it.

Keith 




There was once such a railway in Niagara Falls, NY..getting power directly from the falls:

http://www.trainweb.org/wnyrhs/nj15.htm


No longer exists though..
Scot


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

In article second sentence It's the only all-electric, plug-in locomotive in the world, is either a load of arrogant crap or a load of ignorant crap - there's hundreds of rechargeable battery mining and industrial locomotives of various gauges all over the planet.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Does anybody else find the entire concept of battery electric vehicles of any sort being called the 'future' just a_ little_ ironic, since it's foundation is a failed technology leftover from the teens? And you STILL can't quick recharge it (like a capacitor), so it's super inefficient for long trips. Infernal combustion replaced steam and animal power because it was a LARGE leap forward in terms of economy and convenience. Battery power is niether.


Then there are those who claim battery cars are clean technology (ie no emissions) - except that batteries require smelting of heavy metals and production of a lot of nasty chemicals. Then you plug it into the grid -- connected to a coal fired power plant - then the batteries outgas during charging. AND then you'll need to change out the batteries a LOT sooner than 200,000 miles. -- I guess it isn't_ pollution_ if you don't actually _see_ it? I'd really like to see comparisons over the entire projected lifetime -- raw materials to recycle, please. (not holding my breath on this) Not _wasting_ resources or _needlessly_ polluting makes perfect sense, but I'll start believing the green agenda a bit more when somebody can show me more of them who aren't either; anti human species kooks, trying to sell us something, want to be funded on the public tab, or just jumping on the bandwagon to look trendy (if that's too political, then delete it)


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rlvette on 01 Oct 2009 08:59 AM 
Tony 

Looks like you may have a new market for your RCS Controls. 

Randy 

Hi Randy. 
Not only do the full size RR's now quite commonly use radio control for the engineers with BELTPACK equipment, but now we see them introducing battery power as well.

Life is bliss.







Notwithstanding all this negativity of course.


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

For 1:1 electic trains, power from an overhead wire is probably the way to go. 

For cars...well, there are some serious leaps forward being made in battery technology. There was a article on the oil board a few month back in which one group claimed they'd come up with a battery that could be recharged something like 10,000 times over a ten year period (I might be a bit off there, but it were a *lot* of recharges). Still, for cars, the best options are going to be: small short haul vehicles (50 -80 mile trips max); or varients of the 'Volt' with that tiny generator kicking in to recharge the battery if need be. 

As to the materials employed in constructing and poweing electric cars...gasoline powered rigs also require the same amount of raw materials, and large, smelly, polluting refineries (one just down the road from me) to refine the fuel that goes into them. As far as materials required to build, it is probably about the same between electrics and gasoline powered rigs. Keeping them running...electrics use a bit less.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Just a lot of wishful thinking. Cost puts it mostly out of reach for this day and age. Just like when the Milw Rd went belly up with overhead. Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Forget batteries, go hydrogen! 

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200909045 

Later, 

K


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 01 Oct 2009 04:00 PM 
Posted By rlvette on 01 Oct 2009 08:59 AM 
Tony 

Looks like you may have a new market for your RCS Controls. 

Randy 

Hi Randy. 
Not only do the full size RR's now quite commonly use radio control for the engineers with BELTPACK equipment, but now we see them introducing battery power as well.

Life is bliss.







Notwithstanding all this negativity of course.

Tony,

I sure hope your products are more reliable than the beltpack garbage. Of course, the range might not be quite as good - can you operate from a mile or two away? 


I'm curious to know how long it takes to charge this beast. Also, I suspect it's more of a pet project than a truly reliable yard switcher. At Linwood, NC we have a fancy-dancy new-fangled Genset loco with 3 little engines instead of one big one. Supposed to be the wave of the future, green technology, etc. The only trouble is, we can't get a locomotive with ONE engine to start and run reliably (that might have something to do with GE quality, but I digress), let alone getting THREE to work. The thing has basically become a 200 ton paperweight. We tried to use it on the yard for a while, and they eventually gave up and sent it to the shop, where it's been sitting for the past few months.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By ThinkerT on 01 Oct 2009 06:07 PM 
As to the materials employed in constructing and poweing electric cars...gasoline powered rigs also require the same amount of raw materials, and large, smelly, polluting refineries (one just down the road from me) to refine the fuel that goes into them. As far as materials required to build, it is probably about the same between electrics and gasoline powered rigs. Keeping them running...electrics use a bit less. 
Electric cars require all the parts of an internal combustion car (except an engine, unless it's a hybrid) PLUS the batteries, controllers, and motors. Instead of aluminum and steel for an engine and transmission, they've got lead, cadmium, nickel, and all sorts of other goodies. Then you can compare the emissions of fuel production to the emissions of electricity production and distribution. I think that over the life cycle of the system, it's probably a break even proposition, but as Mik said, I'd really like to see some hard science that's not driven by an agenda.

Posted By East Broad Top on 02 Oct 2009 12:04 AM 
Forget batteries, go hydrogen! 

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200909045 

Later, 

K 

I love all the talk of hydrogen, as though it were the ultimate clean energy solution. Does anybody know where the vast majority (the percentage is in the high 90s, but I don't remember it exactly at the moment) of commercially available hydrogen comes from? It's cracked from... get ready... OIL! For years, we've focused on the carbon part of hydrocarbons, but there's a lot of hydrogen there, and it's a lot easier to gt at it than to break down water by electrolysis. In fact, it's more efficient in terms of miles per gallon of crude to simply burn the oil than it is to crack it, package the hydrogen (and what are they doing with the carbon, I wonder?), and run that through a fuel cell. Oh, and fuel cells also have some funky stuff in them that might be unpleasant if manufactured and scrapped in large volumes.


So, once again, I want to see some real science on this. There may be a more efficient, cleaner technology than what we're using now, but it HAS to be compared apples to apples over the entire life cycle of the system, rather than looking at one aspect and ignoring the rest.

Finally, the real solution, and the one that nobody seems to want to tank about, is that we as a society need to give up driving 6,000 lb tanks the 3 blocks to the grocery store. We HAVE to change how we see transportation, and move away from the concept of driving our fat butts everywhere in our own personal grossly oversized and inefficient cars and trucks. Only then will any really significant change happen. We all need to take the train, guys!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

First good photo is up: 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewpho...004&nseq=0 

Scot


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Kenneth. 

Would that train be the gravy train???


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Another problem with hydrogen is that, being the lightest and least-dense element, it's difficult to carry enough of it to be useful. To do so requires bottling it at extremely high pressure or extremely low temperature. 

A while back I overheard someone at a hobby shop going on about how "easy" it should be to make battery powered cars. His frame of reference was the lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries that are used to power model planes and helicopters. But there are some big problems there too. Cost, for one. Recharging time is another -- recharging something large enough to power a car is going to take a lot longer than recharging a tiny battery to power a toy. 

Those types of batteries also have a nasty habit of exploding violently when things go wrong. A friend of mine was charging one and it started to smoke, he tossed it outside and it actually blew a hole in the street.


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

Posted By DKRickman on 02 Oct 2009 06:21 AM ... I'd really like to see some hard science that's not driven by an agenda.
Good luck.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

There is no such things as science not driven by an agenda. There's always an "agenda." Otherwise there is no point to the research. "Agenda's" might include curing cancer, inventing electric light, increasing efficiency in an engine, or demonstrating that global warming either is or is not caused by human action. All of these are "agendas."


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Lownote, Science does not have an 'agenda'. Science means "knowledge" and yes, it used scientific methodology to obtain it. There is utilitarian science (that is mostly referred to as applied science or engineering) and pure science. There are goals in science but no 'agenda' in the way used in this thread. 'Science' with an 'agenda' is referred to as "junk science": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science The name implies how much it is worth. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The pure science in itself may not be agenda driven, but how the results are interpreted most decidedly are. It's the interpretation of the science that drives policy. A pure scientific examination of a glass reveals it to be filled to 50% of its overall capacity. That's the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. The numbers have no context, though. It's up to the scientific community to shape whether the glass is half full or half empty. Those whose agenda it is to fill the glass will report that the glass is half empty, therefore we need to take steps to fill it. Those whose agenda it is to empty the glass will say we've still got a ways to go before reaching the goal. The Zen community will declare the glass to be in perfect balance. 

BTW, you owe it to yourselves to listen to the full NPR report on the Hydrogen cell locomotive. They address the issues of producing the hydrogen in the first place, capacity, range, and all that stuff. There's still a ways to go with the technology, but it's got promise. 

Later, 

K


----------

