Hydrobarns

As part of an effort to be more sustainable and reduce emissions, CP Rail has announced a program to convert their SD40-2F Barns with hydrogen powered engines. According to the live chat, the test unit is to be CMQ 9024, but this may or may not be confirmed. What do you all think of this development? What benefits and drawbacks do you think this engine will have when compared to existing GEVOs or SD40-2s? The floor is open for discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCoVCD8S1_I

Test unit is definitely 9024, it was mentioned in a photo of it in primer last year sitting on a flatbed in Alyth, AB that it would be part of a "new test program".

It apparently had some major mechanical issues, as it sat for some time at Derby shops before its trip west when CP took over for CMQ and cleaned the place out. Also noteworthy, as it was the last barn built.

Interesting they've chosen this model, many to include myself thought these things would become razor blades once CP reacquired them.

Where is the hydrogen fuel stored? Are we talking compressed hydrogen or liquid hydrogen? In saddle tanks where the diesel tanks used to be?

Hydrogen fuel is a "manufactured" product, presumably made from water using electricity. Likely be more expensive than LNG for quite a while. Hydrogen gas also has a low energy density. Main benefit is to say there is "no carbon or harmful emissions".

The hydrogen fuel would likely be stored in a separate tender like the LNG tenders used on the FEC.

The Calgary fueling facility will include an electrolysis plant to produce hydrogen from water. This facility will operate on renewable power from solar panels at CP's headquarters campus and produce zero greenhouse gas emissions. The Edmonton facility includes a small-scale steam methane reformation system that will generate hydrogen from Alberta's natural gas resources. The system will be constructed to accommodate the possible future addition of greenhouse gas capture equipment.

https://www.cpr.ca/en/media/canadian-pa ... ssions-red

It's a press release, so take it with a grain of salt.

Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made by natural gas reforming in large central plants... The only product from an FCEV (fuel cell electric vehicle) tailpipe is water vapor but even with the upstream process of producing hydrogen from natural gas as well as delivering and storing it for use in FCEVs, the total greenhouse gas emissions are cut in half and petroleum is reduced over 90% compared to today's gasoline vehicles.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h ... -reforming

Natural gas reforming typically uses conventional energy, and natural gas.

One contradiction that calls for journalism is "small-scale steam methane reformation" vs. the claim in Wikipedia that the process is only economical with large scale plants.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... ocomotive/

[Canadian Pacific] says the locomotive, built from a former SD40-2F and dubbed the H20EL (for “Hydrogen Zero-Emissions Locomotive”) has operated under its own power. CP launched the hydrogen program in late 2020, and announced last November that it would be expanded to three units with the help of a grant from Emissions Reduction Alberta.

This feels like window dressing. Sure, the locomotives are zero emissions but the upline production is nowhere near zero.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I agree, It's like the environmentalists who buy electric cars. Most of the electricity in the grid is produced with fossil fuels, but they feel like they are doing something good.

I recently bought a hybrid vehicle not because I'm a raving tree hugger (I do care, just not evangelical about it), but because I could have an all-wheel drive SUV that gets 40 miles to the gallon, as opposed to the straight gas AWD SUV it replaced which only got 25 MPG despite being smaller. Pre-pandemic I drove 500+ miles a week, and I expect I'll have to go back to that routine any time now, so my wallet and I won't miss filling the tank two to three times a week like the bad old days - I'll be down to filling up once a week or so.

The folks at Ogden Dale Road are thinking the same thing - fuel is one of the biggest expense buckets a railroad has, and if they can look into technologies to try to reduce that expense, they will. This is a demonstration project clearly - I don't think the technology's quite mature enough yet, but CP's decided to be a part of making it more mature, and they have grant money and some otherwise throwaway locomotives that they can use for it. They will absolutely make great hay about sustainability and environmental and social responsibility because that is very good public relations, and good public relations is good business. Finding a cheaper way to power locomotives, though, is even better business, and that doesn't happen without industry participation.

well said

jwhite07 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:31 pm I recently bought a hybrid vehicle not because I'm a raving tree hugger (I do care, just not evangelical about it), but because I could have an all-wheel drive SUV that gets 40 miles to the gallon, as opposed to the straight gas AWD SUV it replaced which only got 25 MPG despite being smaller.

Good luck with the new hybrid, and hopefully you have a better experience than we did.

We owned a Honda hybrid and could only get that advertised ~40 mpg if we were rolling downhill with a tailwind... otherwise, after two years of ownership we found it wasn't really all that much a difference from the VW diesel Jetta it replaced. We dumped it and broke even on the trade-in.

The never aging secret to better fuel mileage on a vehicle is putting it in neutral going downhill; regardless of fuel or transmission type. No idea why railroad locomotives waste energy on dynamic braking going downhill when they could just pop it into neutral and let gravity do the work: faster and major fuel savings.

NotYou wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:37 pm The never aging secret to better fuel mileage on a vehicle is putting it in neutral going downhill; regardless of fuel or transmission type. No idea why railroad locomotives waste energy on dynamic braking going downhill when they could just pop it into neutral and let gravity do the work: faster and major fuel savings.

Maybe they don't want a repeat of the Duffy Street, Lac Megantic, Kicking Horse Pass, or similar disasters.

NotYou wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:37 pm The never aging secret to better fuel mileage on a vehicle is putting it in neutral going downhill; regardless of fuel or transmission type. No idea why railroad locomotives waste energy on dynamic braking going downhill when they could just pop it into neutral and let gravity do the work: faster and major fuel savings.

Inertia always wins.

Putting your car in neutral and letting gravity take over might cost you more in brake repairs than if you'd let the engine slow the vehicle down. Injected engines are smart enough that fuel flow drops to almost nothing when compression braking is being used.

NotYou wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:37 pm The never aging secret to better fuel mileage on a vehicle is putting it in neutral going downhill; regardless of fuel or transmission type. No idea why railroad locomotives waste energy on dynamic braking going downhill when they could just pop it into neutral and let gravity do the work: faster and major fuel savings.

Diesel-electric locomotives don't have engine compression holding them back the way a mechanically driven car or truck does. There's no neutral and there's no fuel savings to be gained in a locomotive this way. Safety is what dictates a train's speed on a descent, not fuel economy.
Modern fuel injected engines in cars or trucks use no fuel when the throttle is closed and the vehicle is above idle. It actually takes more fuel to idle an engine than to let it stay in gear and spin at higher speeds, holding the vehicle back to a safe speed.