An electrifying freight solution on the 710? Siemens working on it

[mwadswor]

An electrifying freight solution on the 710? Siemens working on it

By Susan Carpenter
May 15, 2012

Los Angeles may be one of the first global cities to adopt a new electric freight trucking system, unveiled by electrical engineering giant Siemens Corp. last week at the 26th Electric Vehicle Symposium, or EVS26.

The new technology, called eHighway, is a highway electrification system that uses overhead electrical wires to transmit energy to freight trucks in select vehicle lanes, similar to modern-day streetcars.

The eHighway’s so-called catenary system uses diesel hybrid trucks outfitted with software that senses when an overhead electrical line is available and automatically connects or disconnects as needed. When the trucks’ rooftop connectors are attached to the electrical lines, the trucks run entirely on electricity. When the connectors are lowered, they run on a hybrid electric propulsion system similar to the Toyota Prius.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/en...Environment%29

[mwadswor]

This is a very cool idea. Obviously trucks are easier given height issues, but I wonder what the possibilities are of allowing normal passenger vehicles to also hook into the system. A system like this doesn't do anything for the urban planning or congestion problems of busy highways, but it could potentially be a huge advantage as far as environmental concerns. No need to convince people to get out of their cars into mass transit or extend wires to everyone's house to get the environmental advantages of an electric system. Just put it along the busiest freeways. Electric cars on the highways and gas operated vehicles for the last mile to their destination.

[ardecila]

Well, the idea is that the 710 sees a lot of traffic between the ports of LA/Long Beach and the various railyards in the San Gabriel Valley. All of that traffic runs between a small, fixed set of origins and destinations, so it might make sense to install expensive systems like this to improve truck traffic rather than further expanding the Alameda Corridor and shift more cargo onto rail.

The average freeway, on the other hand, has trucks coming from a wide variety of places heading to another huge set of destinations, so the concentration really isn't there.

On routes with heavy concentrations of long-haul trucking, it might make sense to install a set of tolled truck lanes. In this manner, trucking companies would pay tolls to mitigate the heavy damage they cause to the roadway, while personal vehicles would continue to have a set of free lanes. Currently USDOT is studying this concept for rural segments of I-70 between Wheeling, WV and Kansas City.

[Centropolis]

I-70 in Missouri is the most truck intense stretch of interstate I've seen in the midwest that isn't a toll road. I fucking hate driving it and it's poorly laid out to boot with lots of twists and turns ups and downs. I guess it's because truck traffic necks down going west at St. Louis from any number of places including Chicago or St. Louis intermodals or freight coming from intermodals at KC only heading east, I don't know. It feels like it drops off on I-70 east of St. Louis or west of KC.

From what I've heard the trucking industry has swayed lawmakers from moving on a toll option this year in Missouri.

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I-70 in Missouri is the most truck intense stretch of interstate I've seen in the midwest that isn't a toll road. I fucking hate driving it and it's poorly laid out to boot with lots of twists and turns ups and downs. I guess it's because truck traffic necks down going west at St. Louis from any number of places including Chicago or St. Louis intermodals or freight coming from intermodals at KC only heading east, I don't know. It feels like it drops off on I-70 east of St. Louis or west of KC.

From what I've heard the trucking industry has swayed lawmakers from moving on a toll option this year in Missouri.

Check out the South Side of Chicago where the I-80 and I-94 freeways merge, combining traffic from Canada/Detroit and everything East of Chicago from Cleveland to the NE megalopolis. I've driven most/all stretches of freeway in the Midwest and that is by FAR the most truck-intensive freeway I've ever seen, and has not been outdone by any city I've been to!

Not trying to undermine your point, but I wanted to throw that stretch out there as super truck-intensive (and it's not the only one in the Chicagoland area). Check it out on Google Satellite if you want to see aerials of some of these freeways.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, the idea is that the 710 sees a lot of traffic between the ports of LA/Long Beach and the various railyards in the San Gabriel Valley. All of that traffic runs between a small, fixed set of origins and destinations, so it might make sense to install expensive systems like this to improve truck traffic rather than further expanding the Alameda Corridor and shift more cargo onto rail.

The average freeway, on the other hand, has trucks coming from a wide variety of places heading to another huge set of destinations, so the concentration really isn't there.

On routes with heavy concentrations of long-haul trucking, it might make sense to install a set of tolled truck lanes. In this manner, trucking companies would pay tolls to mitigate the heavy damage they cause to the roadway, while personal vehicles would continue to have a set of free lanes. Currently USDOT is studying this concept for rural segments of I-70 between Wheeling, WV and Kansas City.

That's the point of the hybrid system though. You don't need to electrify the whole route to get benefits, only the portions where trucks concentrate. It doesn't matter if trucks are going to or coming from different places, as long as they all concentrate along a freeway corridor, then that corridor can be electrified and the trucks can run as normal hybrids off of the electrified portion. Then over time the systems can expand.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus

Check out the South Side of Chicago where the I-80 and I-94 freeways merge, combining traffic from Canada/Detroit and everything East of Chicago from Cleveland to the NE megalopolis. I've driven most/all stretches of freeway in the Midwest and that is by FAR the most truck-intensive freeway I've ever seen, and has not been outdone by any city I've been to!

Not trying to undermine your point, but I wanted to throw that stretch out there as super truck-intensive (and it's not the only one in the Chicagoland area). Check it out on Google Satellite if you want to see aerials of some of these freeways.

Oh I've been on it, I don't know why I didn't mention it. It certainly outdoes I-70. One of those is a toll road of course. I've taken surface streets through Gary to avoid that mess...

[brickell]

But will fuel savings be enough to encourage the trucking companies to actually buy new vehicles? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe in a closed system (where one entity owns the road and the trucks) it might work, but this seems very much like a "build it and they will come" scenario. Good luck with that.

[Beta_Magellan]

I’d have to agree with brickell—it seems like this would work best as a closed system. If we had a truck fleet that consisted of series hybrids, however (I’m sure if I were a truck driver I’d like the torque, though I’m sure if the extra mass from batteries would outweigh any benefits relative to just having a diesel engine, which are great for trucks anyway)…

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/en...Environment%29

An interesting idea.

A few observations:

A. The width of the catenary contacts are the result of the same problem which forced two right-left contacts on the old electric buses, that is, the tendency for vehicles not on guide rails to move laterally.

B. Like steel rail freight transport, the efficientcies of such a system would go up with the increase in number of interconnected vehicles (think of an electrified Australian trunk train). However, the lateral movement problem, related in point A, and, the need to control it, IMO, would increase exponentially per trained vehicle, unless each 'pup' had some degree of electric motor traction.

C. Also as in steel rail transport, vehicles cannot pass one another unless this is permitted via the overhead wiring, unless the vehicle switched to batteries. This, IMO, would likely have to be done at reduced speed and on a a secondary catenary line.

D. Again, as in steel rail transport, unless passing overhead catenaries are provided, vehicles either will have to travel at approximately the same speed or far enough apart to absorb variations in speed.

E. If very efficient off-and on supplied electrical power system switch could be provided and a constant speed on the wired route be provided (enforced) then a mix of public passenger and freight traffic could be provided on the same line, which might appeal to the private sector.

F. All vehicles would have to able to maintain speed for a distance Y if one or more tires went flat, particularly as the density of vehicles per unit distance increased.

[M II A II R II K]

If it gets some freight off of the rails it may allow less disruptions on nearby passenger rail routes as well.

[edluva]

and speaking of things that could use electrification, what about the alameda corridor rail line to be used for freight running along the exact same route into the inland empire? i wonder how much that will impact the number of trucks on the 710 once the extension to the IE opens.

i hope these things happen. logistical activities related to the la/lb port complex account for a very significant share of the region's air pollution. there will be a very noticable improvement in air quality if these take place, along with the expansion of cold ironing container terminals.

pretty crazy but I can already realistically forsee a time when smog could become a thing of the LA's past.