[HN Gopher] Autonomous battery-powered rail cars
___________________________________________________________________
Autonomous battery-powered rail cars
Author : vanburen
Score : 65 points
Date : 2022-01-30 16:16 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| Animats wrote:
| Autonomous vehicles carrying containers: [1] (Video is sped up).
| Most of the hardware for this already exists, and is in use at
| the more advanced ports for moving containers around within the
| port and sorting them. Major ports today are very automated.
|
| The latest fad is "dry ports". This is a bigger version of what
| used to be called an "intermodal facility", a place where
| containers are transferred from trains to trucks. The long
| distance portion of the trip is by rail, and then there's a
| transfer to trucks for the last ten or hundred miles. That, in
| practice, is how this problem is solved.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm_rlLyelQo
| pintxo wrote:
| Bringing the ideas of packet based networking to the world of
| train based container freight seems interesting.
|
| Question is will the gain in time and cost efficiency (by having
| each container move individually more or less fully automated) be
| bigger then the loss in energy and cost efficiency (each
| container needing it's own motor and energy storage sounds to be
| more expensive then one big locomotive)?
| brudgers wrote:
| Packet based networks are great where it is possible to route
| around bottlenecks.
|
| The rail network does not have that property.
|
| Unfortunately, physics does not allow for packet collisions.
|
| ---
|
| In terms of practical efficiency of motors: grades and loads
| and wind vary.
|
| A self-powered rail care would need enough oomph to handle
| maximum load up a steep grade in a front quartering wind...most
| of that capacity would lie idle most of the time.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Packet based networks are not a good analogy because there is
| typically only one railway line the discrete container units
| can travel along - the magic of the internet is the multiple
| routes data can travel along concurrently to destinations.
| brudgers wrote:
| Networks are not packet based, protocols are.
|
| The rail network, as my comment, is not a good fit for
| packet switching protocols.
|
| The automotive network generally is.
|
| The airline network certainly is.
| olivermarks wrote:
| agreed, my comment was responding to @pintxo
| Mystlix wrote:
| When reading about this proposal the only thing that can justify
| it is scamming investors out of their money.
|
| First of all this internet-packet-routing-like way of
| transporting goods would work only if almost every town in
| America had rail passing through it, or at least very near it,
| which isn't the case. Secondly if such a rail network were to be
| constructed it would pay off to just have it electrified and use
| these carts without a battery. Until that day what rail needs is
| maintenance, expansion and usage, not these silicon valley pipe
| dreams.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| A lot of towns used to have rail service with spur lines or
| short lines. A lot of those have been turned into bike or
| walking trails. Good luck ever getting those back to their
| original use; re-provisioning rail service to these places will
| mean acquiring and clearing new routes.
| machinerychorus wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is true everywhere, but I lived in a
| town with a "rail trail" and my understanding was that the
| railroad company was renting the land to the town, and could
| put it back into use whenever they wanted.
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| Haha, it seems they missed the more obvious solution: build a
| second story rail (with a middle rail so you can even split up or
| redirect workloads) and move lighter, smaller goods faster. You
| can now optimize for transportation of goods more valuable or
| time sensitive but less bulky, move them faster, and add capacity
| to your system, all at the same time. All on exactly the same
| land without interrupting existing rail. And since it's smaller
| and higher they could expand or reroute over properties where
| before it would've been too difficult.
|
| Low tunnels and bridges would of course be an issue; some you
| could just go above or around, others maybe not at all. Still,
| there may be routes where it makes sense.
| PLenz wrote:
| Trains are already crazy efficent both fuel and operational
| people wise - in fact this negates one of railroading great
| efficencies, slack (that 2 mile freight train already starts one
| car at a time). Also subtracting, cars are going to need to bunch
| up anyway at passing sidings to let cars go by opposite
| direction. Besides, the real cost is railroading is MOE and MOW
| (including land taxes here) and this solves neither of those
| issues. Could be interesting for locals and LCL traffic but those
| haven't been big parts of railroading in decades.
| Retric wrote:
| Rail is insanely efficient over long distances but these seem
| to be optimized for shorter route with a 500 mile limit
| ignoring battery degradation. For rural lines that might see 10
| trains a day increasing utilization via ultra short trains on
| local routes could be very profitable for a railroad as long is
| it doesn't require people or interfere with existing traffic.
|
| Basically if a tiny spur for loading and unloading doesn't need
| to fit a full sized train they you can cheaply add a lot of
| stations.
| jt2190 wrote:
| > Also subtracting, cars are going to need to bunch up anyway
| at passing sidings to let cars go by opposite direction.
|
| Sounds like the cars are already "bunched up":
|
| > "We think our platoon sizes are ideally between ten and 50
| cars," Matt Soule, CEO of Parallel Systems, told Ars.
|
| Edit: Also, you say:
|
| > ... [T]he real cost is railroading is MOE and MOW (including
| land taxes here) and this solves neither of those issues.
|
| But the article mentions that the maximum utilization of a rail
| line is currently limited by how close trains can follow one
| another safely. If new technology can increase that limit, the
| capital costs of the rail line can be distributed across more
| units of freight.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _But the article mentions that the maximum utilization of a
| rail line is currently limited by how close trains can follow
| one another safely._
|
| Back in the 90's, Wisconsin Central was a major freight
| railroad in the midwest (I don't know if it still is), and
| was trying really hard to be allowed to automate most of its
| freight lines.
|
| Part of the problem was that for legal reasons, it had to
| convince every little town along the way to buy into the idea
| of automated freight trains rolling through their towns. I
| went to a bunch of public hearings about it.
|
| At the time, WC had already reduced its trains to one or two
| humans (I think just one), and it was really easy for local
| politicians to envision a voter's car being struck by a train
| at a crossing and dragged for 500 miles, since there was no
| engineer to see it happen.
|
| WC's response was that it was already running automated
| freight trains in New Zealand with no problems because they
| had cameras on board.
|
| It then mentioned that with automated trains, it could run
| more trains closer together. If you've ever lived near a
| railroad, whether small town or big city, stalled freight
| trains blocking grade crossings are a major problem. So the
| little towns didn't like hearing that automation meant more
| trains.
|
| I don't know what the status is today, but by the time I left
| the midwest, WC had instead shelled out the money to upgrade
| the tracks and grade crossings through the little towns so
| that it could plow trains through without slowing down,
| achieving the efficiency it was looking for, without
| resorting to automation.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| How does this negate the efficiency from slack? Each bogie is
| sized to move one car and all the cars move independently.
| Isn't that effectively slack? Unlike regular freight trains, it
| wouldn't have the momentum of all cars in front helping to
| start any given car, but on the other hand, that momentum was
| still produced by the locomotive earlier in the starting of the
| train.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I can think of numerous political/social/business reasons for
| this to go wrong, but can't really think of any way in which
| this isn't more efficient than the status quo and so seems
| inevitable on some timescale.
|
| Before, long train that has to move as one unit. After, long
| train that can optionally split and recombine at will with
| other long trains coming and going from different places.
| bs7280 wrote:
| I think the true value of this isn't replacing trains during
| the long haul portion, but rather the "last mile". The
| logistical infrastructure for getting freight from train depot
| to other depots is about as efficient as it can get BUT getting
| that freight to its final destination is still inefficient. A 2
| mile long train needs to tediously be loaded onto trucks, which
| will all burn gasoline to get to where-ever they need to go.
|
| In Switzerland a lot of factories and warehouses have train
| lines built into the infrastructure to try to solve this issue,
| but its not always feasible to a) build that infrastructure
| out, especially in the US, and b) use a train to transport a
| few containers to its destination.
|
| If these electric train cars could be built to interface with
| normal train cars, they could still take advantage of the
| biggest efficiency of freight trains, while also helping solve
| the last mile problem by splitting off from the train to get
| closer to their final destination.
|
| In large cities you could lay more tracks specifically for
| these cars to get closer to major industry areas. Land rights
| are an issue but you could lay track in roads. Chicago has some
| remnants of street running trains, but the biggest issue is a
| train that's ~200 yards long is a lot more disruptive to
| traffic than something that's the size of a semi truck.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| I think it's around like a ton of goods for 500 miles, per
| gallon of fuel.
| Animats wrote:
| _one of railroading great efficiencies, slack (that 2 mile
| freight train already starts one car at a time)_
|
| Is that right? Maybe before roller bearings, when overcoming
| starting friction was a huge problem.[1] But all US railroad
| cars in interchange have had roller bearings since about 1992.
|
| Normal starting procedure is to move the engine very slowly
| until the end of train device reports motion, indicating all
| the slack has been taken out. Then apply power.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-1EZ6K7bpQ
| ajuc wrote:
| This is solving the wrong problem, badly.
|
| More on why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUpST_cQ1hM
| epistasis wrote:
| I wish I hadn't spent my time watching that. Argument through
| incredulity and mocking might be entertaining for some, but
| it's very low signal and all noise. Leaving this comment as a
| warning for others.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| Based on what? You offer no more evidence of your claims
| against what's presented in the videos other than vagarities
| yourself.
| yreg wrote:
| I watched only the second video and also find it poor. It
| basically just says that using this system to transport a
| train-load of cargo between two train terminals would use
| more energy than a train. Well, you don't say.
|
| Also, as other videos on the channel it is arrogant and
| mocking.
| [deleted]
| Tade0 wrote:
| I didn't have to click to know that at least one of these
| links was Adam Something.
|
| Guy jumped the shark and his smugness lately has been tiring,
| especially that his clips are at times factually incorrect.
|
| The other link explains why this idea is DOA well, though.
| goodpoint wrote:
| The idea might be indeed just a grift, however the analysis in
| the video is very poor.
| elkos wrote:
| There are two videos in the previous comment, though. Do they
| both do poor analysis?
| lpcvoid wrote:
| Why do you think it is?
| goodpoint wrote:
| In the first video the author makes a lot of assumption
| around operating these things in the existing railways
| without changing how they are managed. It does not consider
| the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars
| arrange themselves and route autonomously to their
| destinations.
|
| Industrial warehousing/logistic robots are becoming very
| widespread and significantly changes the workflow and
| reduces human intervention.
|
| You can't make a fair comparison by treating autonomous
| robots as if they were regular train cars.
|
| The second video is simply mocking the boisterous style and
| claims of the ads.
| lpcvoid wrote:
| I think they don't consider that because it's a rail
| system. Re-arranging cars on route would require many
| junctions, and would probably slow down the whole system
| when they separate. It's also a different problem that
| they are solving with warehouse robots - goods need to be
| transported individually to destinations. Trains solve
| mass transport. And besides - autonomous rail robots
| would still be bound to a rail, and thus can't really
| plan any fancy avoidance or path finding that a warehouse
| robot could.
| zardo wrote:
| > In the first video the author makes a lot of assumption
| around operating these things in the existing railways
| without changing how they are managed. It does not
| consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in
| having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to
| their destinations.
|
| Are they selling the bogie cars, or are they selling new
| rail infrastructure? If it's just the former then they
| have to work with the existing infrastructure, including
| manually switched tracks
| morcheeba wrote:
| What's in the video? A one-sentence summary would save everyone
| a lot of time.
| yosamino wrote:
| I haven't watched the video, but based off of the title "Pod
| train" the argument is probably along the lines of this:
|
| There is a futuristic theme in logistics that envisions
| humans or cargo to be shipped in "pods". This is in contrast
| to the more efficient way of shipping humans or cargo in
| larger vehicles like trains or busses.
|
| These pod-ideas inevitable run into some bottle-necks or have
| to make trade-offs that in the end give them so much lower
| efficiency than the "traditional" way which is already the
| (almost) optimal solution to a given problem.
|
| Examples of this are various incarnations of hyperloop, that
| do not actually solve all real-world problems existing
| solutions have to deal with, but rather only a subset of them
| - but they are better at this subset plus they look fancy in
| their renderings.
|
| This makes it so these impractical solutions get a lot of
| hype, and money is spent on prototypes, but there is a lot of
| hot air and little substance.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Hmm, I'm not convinced this is ideal for mainlines, but I can
| imagine some variant of this concept might be really handy on
| branches/spurs.
| sschueller wrote:
| This does not scale economically when regular rail already has a
| difficult time being profitable.
|
| Switzerland has the most dense rail network in the world and is
| 100% electrified. However even before the pandemic SBB cargo was
| in the red. To reach our climate goals we need to increase the
| amount of cargo on rail (currently around 46% of cargo is by
| rail). There is no way around it but they will need government
| funding to reach those goals.
|
| Such gimmicks have extremely high costs. Each on of those needs
| maintenance. A regular cargo car is quite dumb and can take a lot
| of abuse.
| bs7280 wrote:
| I believe Switzerland has nationalized their railroad network,
| much like the US has nationalized our road network. Its
| supposed to take a loss so that the rest of the economy
| benefits.
| sschueller wrote:
| SBB cargo is by law supposed to be self sustaining[1] and
| operate like a regular business unlike passenger rail.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2DNK2lrSKA
| RobLach wrote:
| The benefit of rail is that you exchange the enormous capex of
| shaping and planting metal rails for only having to run and
| maintain a single locomotive that pulls simple boxes with wheels
| that can move staggering amounts of tonnage efficiently.
|
| This system requires both building more infrastructure to
| leverage the granularity of the cars, more infrastructure to keep
| a massive fleet of batteries charged, and more maintenance as
| each freight car now has a drive system.
|
| If this already existed someone would pitch leveraging the
| economies of scale where you'd build a huge car that pulls all
| the other ones and you only need to keep 1 battery charged...
| which is what we have right now...
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Actually it turns out rail lines have fairly low capex compared
| to many other transport types. It makes sense once you think
| about it, but I was surprised too.
| ericd wrote:
| Yeah, laying enormous amounts of wide, graded asphalt with
| proper drainage isn't exactly cheap either.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I wasn't sure. Intuitively rail would seem to be cheaper,
| it looks like it should be a lot easier to lay a rail line
| than build a road. But rail lines need a lot more fill or
| bridging over low areas since heavy freight trains cannot
| climb grades of more than a few percent. On the other hand,
| rail switches and diamonds have got to be way less
| expensive than highway interchanges.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I wonder if hyperloop/boring thing won't motivate realistic
| underground narrow freight trains.
|
| ps: obligatory history article
| https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/a-world-
| without.html
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| IIUC - standard heavy rail lines are 3-4x more expensive to
| build than a lane of freeway.
|
| I guess no one is building one lane freeways, but, but I
| was still surprised by how much more expensive rail is.
| niftich wrote:
| The tech is neat but the reasons this isn't already in use has to
| do a lot more with railroading company culture (operational
| familiarity, risk of losing business to a competitor) than with
| any particular shortcomings of the technology.
|
| Right now, no one has to chaperone individual railcars (or
| bogies!), because trains of many railcars travel as a unit. This
| also makes track control / impact avoidance easier, regardless of
| the level of train control deployed on the track.
|
| This may see more use in the EU, where EU-wide regulations are
| mandating all member states to separate ownership of their rail
| network from ownership of rail operators. Then, an adventurous
| operator may decide to trial this technology. But nonetheless,
| this is fairly unlikely, as rail slots are essentially priced by
| time occupied for the block, so it makes more sense to pack a
| train's worth of cargo into the reservation you paid for.
| ant6n wrote:
| Even in the EU, you will want an engine in front and you'll
| want the train to be coulpled together. For one, the engine is
| the place where the train understands the gazillion signaling
| systems in the EU, and it's where the overhead power is
| converted to on train power. Both items cost like millions,
| it's not something you want to distribute.
|
| perhaps automatic couplers and a power pack on each truck
| (bogie) will allow automatic shunting, which is the newtec
| gimmick that can make freight trains competitive again.
| edhelas wrote:
| Connect those things in line by hundreds to simplify management
| of the shipment and save energy. Put in front one big engine that
| put the whole thing in motion. Let the physics do the rest.
|
| You just reinvented the container train.
|
| Meanwhile in silicon valley, hey let's reinvent the less
| efficient and most complex way of doing that.
|
| Also applies to Elon Musk Boring Company that is the dumbest,
| most dangerous, and less-efficient way of building a subway.
| goodpoint wrote:
| No, you don't save any energy by connecting them.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Actually, yes, you do save energy by connecting them. You
| reduce wind friction by having them draft each other, and you
| reduce weight by having one large motor instead of multiple
| smaller ones.
| goodpoint wrote:
| No. We are talking about modern trains here.
|
| The wind friction is lowered in high-speed trains by making
| a flush body without interruption - and not by the
| connection itself. But this is besides the point.
|
| Each car has its engines and brakes, there is no
| significant push/pull force on the connections and there is
| no bigger engine somewhere.
|
| In the context of the current conversation the autonomous
| cars are electric and each car has its engines.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I'm not talking about high speed trains. I'm talking
| about medium speed cargo trains. Despite the lack of a
| flush body, each container does draft the following one,
| greatly decreasing drag.
|
| Each car in a normal cargo train doesn't have its own
| engine. They are pulled by locomotives. This is more
| efficient than putting an engine in every car.
|
| Passenger trains typically do have engines in every car,
| but we're not talking about passenger train here.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| TFA shows a standard freight container on a rail car.
| Hardly aerodynamic, and cannot be coupled without gaps.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| I'm not sure you understand drafting and its
| uses/benefits in things like pelotons, bird migrations,
| and trains
| deepnotderp wrote:
| Bird migrations use v-formations to reduce induced drag
| not parasitic drag, eg
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/birds-
| tha...
| scottbez1 wrote:
| There are a lot of problems with this proposal, and it's also not
| clear what problem it's solving.
|
| Battery life prevents using this for long hauls, but the idea of
| using these small pods that can easily split up on small
| industrial spurs doesn't make sense either - most of those non-
| main-line routes have manually thrown switches. So beyond the
| much higher unit economics of requiring 2 complex autonomous
| vehicles (and associated maintenance) per container instead of a
| basic hunk of steel with wheels, you _still_ need to have a
| person travel with it to throw switches, or else upgrade every
| switch on every tiny, poorly maintained spur to be electrically
| operated.
|
| There's also some strange claims by this company in the article,
| like the ability for these to carry double-stacks. If you look
| closely at current intermodal rolling stock, you'll notice that
| the containers are between bogies rather than above them. A
| double-stack container would sit too high to fit through standard
| tunnels and bridges if the containers were on top of the wheels.
| There's no possible way to accomplish this concept (a pod per end
| of a container) if you need the container to sit lower than the
| top of the wheels...
|
| Maybe there's some potential with this idea, but I'm really not
| buying it based on what they're saying and showing so far.
| gumby wrote:
| The article is coy on the question of whether trains are even
| needed at all, or if individual cars could simply travel the rail
| road alone.
| [deleted]
| dhosek wrote:
| I'm wondering whether it might become even more cost-effective if
| it can run off of third-rail electrification (the form factor
| makes overhead catenary impractical). That said, the issue about
| last-mile rails having been removed is very much a big issue.
| There was once a rail spur in downtown Chicago along Kinzie
| Avenue to serve printing plants at the Sun-Times and Tribune
| which is no longer maintained, although I'm not sure if there's a
| good use case for it even with these sorts of cars (IIRC it
| originally ran to loading docks off the river in an area that's
| now luxury condos). I remember a few years back going for a run
| nearby and watching workers tear up the rails from another rail
| spur off the Illinois Central1 tracks.
|
| [?][?][?]
|
| 1. Like many a Chicagoan, I have a tendency to refer to things by
| long-superseded names that no longer apply. I honestly could not
| tell you the name of the current owner of that right of way.
| bluGill wrote:
| Third rail cannot deliver nearly as much power as overhead for
| voltage reasons. It might work for short lines where you don't
| need speed, but not for mainline
| Symbiote wrote:
| It mostly-works and is used in South East England (including
| South London + some bits), both for passenger and freight
| trains.
|
| The top speed is about 160km/h. I don't know if the maximum
| weight or length of a freight train is reduced vs. overhead
| catenary.
|
| However, it's more expensive to maintain and more dangerous
| to staff and the public. There's a very, very long term
| policy aim to convert everything to overhead catenary.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-30 23:01 UTC)