Hotel Load of train: Why separate generator & not locomotive

In summary, on a long distance train in India, there are two large cars at each end of the train dedicated to power generation, powered by diesel generators. Each car has two exhaust pipes, suggesting four generators per train. It is likely that these generators are more efficient at producing electrical power than the train's engine, and attaching them helps reduce the load on the engine and make it more efficient. This is a common practice in the railway industry, as seen in the use of head-end power on Amtrak trains. It is also more efficient to have separate generator cars for HVAC loads rather than modifying every locomotive. Additionally, having separate power cars provides a backup in case of locomotive failure and can be more efficient for long stops.
  • #1
rollingstein
Gold Member
646
16
While on a long distance train in India I noticed that there were two huge cars devoted to power generation, one at each end of the train (approx. an 18 car consist). A pic. below. Apparently diesel powered generators. Each car had two exhaust pipes on top (one at each end) so presumably these are four generators per train.

I'm wondering why they wouldn't use the locomotive power itself for this load. What's the typical horsepower of a big railway loco versus what's the size of the lighting / HVAC loads. Is stepping down the voltage a problem? What's typical railway practice regarding this?

It's like Hoover dam running a thermal power turbine for their offices instead of a tapping from a step down transformer. Just curious.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3055/5827726839_66d9e74c49_b.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'd guess that the generators are more efficient than the engine at producing electrical power, or that there is some limitation on the engine's ability to produce electrical power.
Based on some quick reading, it looks like attaching generator cars may help reduce the load on the engine since it no longer has to provide power for the rest of the train, which frees up horsepower for starting, getting up hills, and makes the engine more efficient, though all that is just a guess.

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-end_power
http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs-of-railroading/2006/05/head-end-power
 
  • #3
Interesting. I'd have thought adding a little bit of hotel load to an already ginormous engine makes more sense than having separate small generation.

The additional initial cost, the weight, the higher effeciency of one large engine than multiple small generators et cetra.
 
  • #4
Drakkith said:
'd guess that the generators are more efficient than the engine at producing electrical power,

I find that hard to believe because it's essentially like saying that a 4000 hP diesel-to-electric generator is less efficient that a (say) 200 hP diesel-to-electric generator.
 
  • #5
Per the second link above:

Amtrak's locomotives can be set to produce traction power only, head-end power only, or both - the speed of the prime mover varies with each setting. "An electronic circuit [reduces] excitation of the main generator for propulsion to the extent that head-end power is needed to maintain that rpm," explained John Wood, who was manager at Amtrak's 14th Street shop in Chicago. He recalls a bitterly cold January day when the 3-trains-in-1 California Zephyr, often 16 cars long, drew 700 kw when it was first plugged in before departure. (The 3000 h.p. diesel in an F40 - the long-distance locomotive then in use - turned at 893 rpm in the traction/HEP mode.) "We almost didn't release the train," he recalls, "but gradually the heaters began shutting off and the load dropped to around 550 kw."

rollingstein said:
I find that hard to believe because it's essentially like saying that a 4000 hP diesel-to-electric generator is less efficient that a (say) 200 hP diesel-to-electric generator.

It can be. You can set up an AC generator (perhaps a DC too?) so that it runs at a very efficient RPM for a given load. It doesn't have to worry about anything else. But the train engine also has to pull the train, which means that it can't simply be set at the most efficient RPM for a given electrical load since that may mean that it's running too fast or too slow to be efficient at pulling the train.

You can see from the above quote that the electrical power required for a train can sap a significant amount of power from the engine. Also in the same link that quote came from is a part where the writer talks about the train crew having to cut all power to the cars just to be able to get up a steep incline.
 
  • #6
Firstly, if the locomotive is generating DC for DC traction motors, then control of field windings can be used to optimise power transfer. The extraction of HVAC from such a variable system would be quite involved.

Secondly, there are few trains that require significant HVAC at a stable voltage and regular frequency. It is more economic to have a few generator cars that can stay with the special train than to modify every locomotive that might pull the train.
 
  • #7
Drakkith said:
It can be. You can set up an AC generator (perhaps a DC too?) so that it runs at a very efficient RPM for a given load. It doesn't have to worry about anything else. But the train engine also has to pull the train, which means that it can't simply be set at the most efficient RPM for a given electrical load since that may mean that it's running too fast or too slow to be efficient at pulling the train.

Agreed, but isn't that one reason why no modern diesel locomotive is directly linked to the wheels by a transmission? What you already have,( even in a pure freight loco with no HVAC loads) is a massive electric generation plant on wheels that is driving electric motors connected to wheelsets.

Ergo, you are already running a generator at its Best Efficiency point (or close to) no matter how fast or slow the train is moving. If so, you have a very efficient high power generator Maybe I understand it wrong.
 
  • #8
Drakkith said:
You can see from the above quote that the electrical power required for a train can sap a significant amount of power from the engine.

Agreed that the HVAC power is significant. From the figures you cited perhaps as much as 20% of the total loco power.

But the fact is you must provide this power from somewhere. The question is why from elsewhere rather than just go for a beefier loco. Not sure if that makes sense.

Some reasons I can think of (a) We are just stuck with legacy locos that are underpowered (b) Having separate power cars adds backup in case the loco fails the cars don't have to stay unheated (c) If there are long periods where the train must stop then it might be more efficient to run a small 200 hP generator than a large 4000 hP loco.
 
  • #9
Baluncore said:
Secondly, there are few trains that require significant HVAC at a stable voltage and regular frequency. It is more economic to have a few generator cars that can stay with the special train than to modify every locomotive that might pull the train.

You mean if the loco does a mixed freight + passenger duty? All PAX trains must need a large HVAC load I suppose though the exact amount might vary.

Is it typical to use the same loco for both freight & PAX services?
 
  • #10
Locomotives nowadays generate AC power but at varying frequency. It's converted electronically to whatever the traction motors need.

Think about the practical side -
It'd sure be simpler to have a smaller fixed frequency generator somewhere in the line of passenger cars for house load.
That way any old locomotive can be used to move the passenger train, even a steam one with only a DC lighting dynamo.

http://www.railway-technical.com/drives.shtml [Broken]
Often, people ask about the differences between AC and DC motors as used in locomotives and multiple-units. In the early days of electric traction at the beginning of this century both types were tried. The limits of the technology at the time favoured the DC motor. It provided the right torque characteristic for railway operation and was reasonably simple to control.

By the early 1980s, power electronics had progressed to the stage where the 3-phase AC motor became a serious and more efficient alternative to the DC motor because:

1. They are simpler to construct, they require no mechanical contacts to work (such as brushes) and they are lighter than DC motors for equivalent power.

2. Modern electronics allow AC motors to be controlled effectively to improve both adhesion and traction.

3. AC motors can be microprocessor controlled to a fine degree and can regenerate current down to almost a stop whereas DC regeneration fades quickly at low speeds.

4. They are more robust and easier to maintain than DC motors.

This type of motor is commonly called the Asynchronous Motor and was often referred to as the squirrel cage motor on account of its early design form. The photos below show a DC and an AC motor.

DC_motor_brushes_small.jpg

DC traction motor brushes

motor2_small.gif

Modern AC traction motor

The DC motor is similar to look at externally but there are differences in construction, particularly because the DC motor has a commutator and brushes which the AC motor does not.

this old locomotive is being restored and will likely see passenger service for nostalgia tours. If you're ever around Cheyenne Wyoming visit the Union Pacific roundhouse...

e68a68119990aede6aa8f2606f2062db_L.jpg

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...urn-to-steam-for-big-boy-4014.html?channel=35
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
rollingstein said:
Agreed, but isn't that one reason why no modern diesel locomotive is directly linked to the wheels by a transmission? What you already have,( even in a pure freight loco with no HVAC loads) is a massive electric generation plant on wheels that is driving electric motors connected to wheelsets.

Huh. I didn't realize most diesel locomotives were diesel-electric hybrids.

rollingstein said:
But the fact is you must provide this power from somewhere. The question is why from elsewhere rather than just go for a beefier loco. Not sure if that makes sense.

A beefier locomotive is more expensive to build/purchase and more costly to run. It seems to me that a separate generator car is much more flexible and cost efficient than using the engine itself.

rollingstein said:
Ergo, you are already running a generator at its Best Efficiency point (or close to) no matter how fast or slow the train is moving. If so, you have a very efficient high power generator Maybe I understand it wrong.

It's running at the best efficiency for providing the type of power needed by the traction motors, not by the rest of the train. For example, in a modern diesel-electric locomotive, as the speed of the train increases, the engine-generator moves from initially producing low-voltage, high-current power at low speeds to high-voltage, low-current power at high speeds. This change in voltage and current means that you need a method of transforming the power produced by the engine-generator into power usable by the cars since their current and voltage use does not change in this manner. Transforming the power inevitably incurs losses.
 
  • #12
The original DC power control was based on series or parallel connection of motors, known as “group up” or “group down”. When combined with control of the field windings, a very effective electrical equivalent to a continuously variable gearbox was implemented.
The technology of ship propulsion and train traction is always needing to change. But railway systems do not replace expensive plant and equipment, such as million dollar locomotives, until the service life is reached, maybe 30 years. Purchases are political decisions, made by conservative managers, on the advice of accountants.

The alternator sets are built into the baggage cars. For a long train, every joule available for traction is valuable, unfortunately long trains require the most traction and the most HVAC. If the length of trains was always the same a more integrated solution might be possible. The present system is flexible and it works.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #13
DC locomotives indeed start with the traction motors connected in series because at standstill they make no counter-emf so appear basically a dead short to the engine driven generator. At speed of a slow walk big relays re-arrange them from series to parallel connection , you hear the engine unload for a split second as the contactors clatter.
The predominant instrument on the dashboard was a big kiloamp-meter.
I remember locomotives with no speedometer. It was impressive if quaint to watch the engineer and fireman pull out their pocket watches and count telegraph poles, announcing speed together on i think twentieth pole...Big copper commutators and brushes are expensive to fabricate and they require frequent maintenance. When power electronics became equal to the task it was a no-brainer.
 
  • #14
Drakkith said:
Huh. I didn't realize most diesel locomotives were diesel-electric hybrids.

I could be wrong. But I think most, relatively large, recent diesel locos are indeed hybrids. Maybe someone else can tell us.

In fact, even if not for efficiency reasons, the mere task of fabricating a mechanical transmission that was up to the task of transmitting those huge torques would be pretty challenging. Perhaps enough to kill the idea. (As an aside, are there large, say 5000 hP+, mechanical geared transmissions in other applications?)

I think the only feasible options that remain are diesel-electric & diesel-hydraulic (but that too doesn't seem very popular)
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Diesel electrics indeed are predominant.
rollingstein said:
(As an aside, are there large, say 5000 hP+, mechanical geared transmissions in other applications?)

I took the engine room tour on Alaska Ferry's "M V Columbia". It has 6,000 hp diesels mechanically geared to its two propeller shafts.
It was built circa 1974.
columbia3.jpg
 
  • #16
jim hardy said:
I took the engine room tour on Alaska Ferry's "M V Columbia". It has 6,000 hp diesels mechanically geared to its two propeller shafts.

Fascinating. How big were those darn gear wheels anyways. Took any pics of its innards? Must have been a sight.

Wonder why they made that design decision. Any idea? I though in marine applications too diesel electric was fairly common.

On second thought, do propellers need as much gearing as a locomotive? Is the varying resistance offered by water with propeller rpm more forgiving in terms of torque-speed characteristics? Are there many speed-gears or just a reversing gear?
 
  • #17
rollingstein said:
I think the only feasible options that remain are diesel-electric & diesel-hydraulic (but that too doesn't seem very popular)
Hydraulics give the most compact and maximum power to weight ratio. Pumps and motors can be variable displacement, so the matching of diesel engine to track speed would be good. But the fundamental problem is that hydraulic devices are really only about 85% efficient, (Apparently viscosity has something to do with it, thick fluid gets hotter, thin fluid gets through the seals and requires precision clearances). 15% of the total power is an awful lot of heat to remove from the hydraulic fluid, but it might be possible. Unfortunately hydraulics gets a little more difficult than that. Both the pump and the motor are 85% efficient. The product of the combination gives 72% efficiency, which requires the removal of 28% of the total generated energy as heat. I think that explains why hydraulic transmissions are rarely employed. Using that 28% to heat the train in winter could work, but in summer it would be a really expensive problem.
 
  • #18
rollingstein said:
Fascinating. How big were those darn gear wheels anyways. Took any pics of its innards? Must have been a sight.
Didnt get pictures, sad to say. Light wasn't the best and it's a crowded equipment room where one would need professional wide angle lenses.
The reduction gear is in a closed box about size of a medium moving van.
It is a sight. As you know you feel more than see big machinery in operation.

http://gallery.pasty.com/images/image.gif?id=1791088179625 http://gallery.pasty.com/images/image.gif?id=1791088179625 I did find this youtube time-lapse of a recent engine replacement on Columbia.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7BAQ4NPKB8
Wonder why they made that design decision. Any idea? I though in marine applications too diesel electric was fairly common.
I think it was the time. Columbia was built early 1970's when big electric drives were in infancy.
As you see, 6000 hp is a very modest electric drive nowadays.
http://www.gepowerconversion.com/product-solutions/medium-voltage-drives/mv7000
On second thought, do propellers need as much gearing as a locomotive? Is the varying resistance offered by water with propeller rpm more forgiving in terms of torque-speed characteristics? Are there many speed-gears or just a reversing gear?

Columbia was just forward-reverse gear. I think the engines ran at 650 RPM propellers around a third of that- but that's just memory so i don't trust it very much.

Yes a propeller is easy to turn at low RPM whereas to move a train you're overcoming immense inertia.
So a marine engine starts against low torque(after overcoming relatively small inertia of the rotating parts) ,
but a locomotive is pulling against a near immovable object.
Once inertia is overcome the locomotive's task is a lot easier just friction and hills.
I guess my old railroad days made me somewhat obsessive about inertia and momentum... if you've ever watched from a locomotive cab as people in a car try to beat the train at a crossing, well, the feeling of abject helplessness is profound .

see "Propeller Law" http://atljsoft.com/html_help/Propeller Law.htm
Propeller Law:

The Propeller Law is an idealized set of assumptions that can be used for boats operating in the displacement mode below the Hull Speed. These assumptions are:

1) boat resistance is proportional to boat speed squared,

Resistance = C1 x MPH2

2) propeller thrust is proportional to boat speed squared,

Thrust = C2 x MPH2

3) propeller RPM is proportional to boat speed,

Propeller RPM = C3 x MPH

4) propeller torque is proportional to RPM squared,

Propeller Torque = C4 x RPM2

5) horsepower absorbed by the propeller is proportional to RPM cubed,

Propeller HP = C5 x RPM3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Here is a low tech actual use of the theoretical question in India. When travel time needs to be saved in an elite train, a secnd locomotive is being used to push the train removing the power cars.
https://in.news.yahoo.com/cut-travel-time-rajdhanis-shatabdis-010200712.html [Broken]
The second engine besides handling the hotel load, mainly saves time while accelerating or decelerating. This can happen frequently due to technical speed restrictions and short stoppages. Besides two passenger carriages can be attached to earn more revenue also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
The only locomotive I have ever worked on was full hybrid. It had diesel, 600VDC, or HV catenary power input. Everything ran off of the centenary power bus. Hotel power was inverter based. One little software bug and everything went dark. The hotel inverter was very particular about load changes.

I was working on the air conditioners on the passenger cars so unfortunately never got to tour the main engine room.

BoB
 
  • #21
rollingstein said:
I could be wrong. But I think most, relatively large, recent diesel locos are indeed hybrids. Maybe someone else can tell us.

In fact, even if not for efficiency reasons, the mere task of fabricating a mechanical transmission that was up to the task of transmitting those huge torques would be pretty challenging. Perhaps enough to kill the idea. (As an aside, are there large, say 5000 hP+, mechanical geared transmissions in other applications?)

I think the only feasible options that remain are diesel-electric & diesel-hydraulic (but that too doesn't seem very popular)
in the usa the genset loco looks to be the way to go, made up of smaller engines dr in ac/alternators that can be shut down as require .in Europe the electric/diesel locomotive being diesel electric/electric loco using both on diesel-and over head wiring for power
 
  • #22
Interesting topic, both the locomotive and marine facets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive
Wikipedia said:
General Electric (GE) entered the railcar market in the early twentieth century, as Thomas Edison possessed a patent on the electric locomotive, his design actually being a type of electrically propelled railcar.[12] GE built its first electric locomotive prototype in 1895.
...
The first regular use of diesel-electric locomotives was in switching (shunter) applications. General Electric produced several small switching locomotives in the 1930s
rollingstein said:
In fact, even if not for efficiency reasons, the mere task of fabricating a mechanical transmission that was up to the task of transmitting those huge torques would be pretty challenging. Perhaps enough to kill the idea.

That's correct it is very challenging.

If you visit the USS North Carolina battleship museum in Wilmington, NC, you can see the reduction gear in the picture below. They made Plexiglas windows so that you can see the internals. If I remember right,the placard said that it was the biggest such gear in the world when built in 1937. I think diesel electric took over soon thereafter.

nc06.jpg
 
  • #23
anorlunda said:
Interesting topic, both the locomotive and marine facets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive
That's correct it is very challenging.

If you visit the USS North Carolina battleship museum in Wilmington, NC, you can see the reduction gear in the picture below. They made Plexiglas windows so that you can see the internals. If I remember right,the placard said that it was the biggest such gear in the world when built in 1937. I think diesel electric took over soon thereafter.

nc06.jpg

The reduction gears in the USS North Carolina are designed to reduce the speed of the steam turbines which propel the vessel to match the speed of the propellers. These are double-reduction units, which means that the turbine speed is reduced in two stages, in order to keep the size of the gears manageable. The high pressure steam turbine runs at something like 6000 RPM, while the low pressure unit typically runs at about 3600 RPM. The propeller runs at about 300 RPM at full load. Thus, you need about a 20:1 speed reduction to match the HP turbine to the propeller, which makes for a large gear. Also, these gears must handle about 30,000 horsepower (22,000 kW) each at full load. There are four identical geared steam turbine units which drive the North Carolina.

On the other hand, this is a picture of a medium speed GM 2-stroke diesel, 20 cylinders, developing about 3600 horsepower (2700 kW) at 900 RPM with a Falk reduction gear shown to the right:


EMD-ENGINE-INSTALL-500PIX.jpg


Depending on application, these Falk gears have a speed reduction of from 3:1 to about 6:1, making for a very compact unit.

Because making large reduction gears for ships is a very complicated and expensive process, engineers have sought different methods of matching the high speed of the steam turbine with the low speed where a marine propeller operates most efficiently.

One method which was used at various times was the turbo-electric plant, developed just before World War I broke out. In a turbo-electric plant, the steam turbines drive alternators or generators to make electricity. The electricity is then transmitted to electric motors which in turn drive the propellers of the vessel. The speed of the electric motors can be varied without affecting the speed of the turbines. Its much easier to build a large generator or motor than to machine a large reduction gear, so turbo-electric plants were quite popular with naval designers and the designers of some ocean liners. In World War II, when manufacturing capacity for large reduction gears was completely absorbed by the construction of large naval vessels, turbo-electric and diesel-electric propulsion plants were substituted for geared steam turbines on tankers and destroyer escorts, not to mention all submarines used diesel-electric power on the surface and electric power while submerged. After the war ended, new construction of naval and merchant vessels reverted to geared steam turbines, and turbo-electric plants fell into disuse.

Some new ocean liners, like the Queen Mary 2, use diesel-electric plants to generate electricity not only for hotel service but also to drive the vessel's podded propulsion thrusters, which are driven by electric motors.
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda

1. Why does a hotel load need a separate generator instead of using the locomotive's generator?

A hotel load refers to the electric power needed to run amenities such as lights, heating, and air conditioning in passenger trains. The locomotive's generator is primarily designed to power the train's engines and move the train, not to provide electricity for passenger use. A separate generator is necessary to meet the additional power demands of a hotel load.

2. Can't the locomotive's generator be modified to handle the hotel load?

The locomotive's generator is specifically designed for the train's propulsion system and cannot be easily modified to handle the additional power demands of a hotel load. It would require extensive engineering and design changes, which would be costly and not feasible for most trains.

3. How is the separate generator powered?

The separate generator is usually powered by the locomotive's diesel engine through a belt or gear-driven system. This allows the generator to produce electricity while the train is in motion, providing power for the hotel load.

4. Is having a separate generator more efficient than using the locomotive's generator?

Yes, having a separate generator is more efficient for powering the hotel load. The locomotive's generator is optimized for the train's propulsion needs and may not be able to handle the additional load of powering amenities. By using a separate generator, the train can conserve fuel and operate more efficiently.

5. Does every train have a separate generator for the hotel load?

No, not every train has a separate generator for the hotel load. It depends on the specific train and its power needs. Some older trains may not have a separate generator and instead rely on the locomotive's generator to power the hotel load. However, most modern trains have a dedicated generator for this purpose.

Similar threads

  • Electrical Engineering
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
32K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
Back
Top