Electric locomotives in the U.S.

[JanOlov]

Hi guys......

How come that there isn't more electric lines operating than it is in the U.S today?
Which railroad had the most successful electric powered system of those who used it like the MILW, GN, NYNH&H, NYC, PRR and others?
How come that they didn't develope it any further than they did?
Do you have any particular favorite electric locomotive?
Any good websites and/or books on this subject?

Have a nice weekend and take care.....

[PBenham]

There are a number of books on North American electrifications, one can reference by indivdual railroads, or get a copy of "When the Steam Railroads Electrified" by William D. Middleton, which is not currently in print, but is relatively easy to find through book dealers, or on Ebay (If you dare!)

[David_Telesha]

The New Haven pioneered electrification... Especially catenary contruction, locomotives, and all the things that go with it.

PRR followed the NH's standards from voltage to cycle...

The NH originally had plans to electrify from NH-Boston but didn't have the money cause of mis-management (JP Morgan) and then WWI.. Amtrak took care of that.

My favorite locomotives would have to be all of the New Havens...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The major reason that electrification didn't go any further than it did was a form of electrification without wires known as the diesel-electric locomotive. Beyond PRR, NH, VGN and MILW, most remaining electrifications were for tunnels or suburban service. The need for tunnel electrifications disappeared for the most part with diesels and suburban electrifications generally handled MU cars only. Freight service on the four operations that I mentioned eventually vanished because electric locomotives became expensive oddballs with limits on their utilization.

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The major reason that electrification didn't go any further than it did was a form of electrification without wires known as the diesel-electric locomotive. Beyond PRR, NH, VGN and MILW, most remaining electrifications were for tunnels or suburban service. The need for tunnel electrifications disappeared for the most part with diesels and suburban electrifications generally handled MU cars only. Freight service on the four operations that I mentioned eventually vanished because electric locomotives became expensive oddballs with limits on their utilization.

Thats not quite right. Freight service vanished because the INDUSTRIES vanished - and those that remained went to shipping by truck.

Electrics certainly were not oddballs with limits on the NH... The McGinnis and Alpert admins did cut and try to eliminate them, but at the pursuit of their own warped programs they attempted.

[PBenham]

Amen, Brother Dave, amen![bow]

[JanOlov]

I didn't know that about New Haven. I'm really curious about this. I always thought that PRR was the big one having the GG1's and all that.... Not forgetting MILW and GN...

[AltonFan]

Electrification makes economic sense where there is sufficient traffic density to justify the costs of the physical plant needed, which besides the transmission system (catenary or third rail), but also substations, maintenance, winterization, and safety issues. The areas where mainline electrification has survived tend to be places where there is a lot of traffic density, and generally cover relatively small geographical areas. (The Northeast Corridor generally answers this description.)

[Anonymous]

Right on, AltonFan as the extended electrification on the NY-Boston attests.

The catenary is labor intensive and only frequent use can offset that kind of cost.

Art (also an Alton Fan as I worked on what would have been the Alton had not the GM&O bought it!)

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JanOlov

I didn't know that about New Haven. I'm really curious about this. I always thought that PRR was the big one having the GG1's and all that.... Not forgetting MILW and GN...

If there wasn't a New Haven with EP-3 electrics there would have never been a PRR GG1 - PRR borrowed some NH EP-3's and tested them, basing the design GG1 on the NH EP-3.

The New Haven was a heavy electric road and they were a mainstay. They may not have had as many route miles or loco's as PRR, but the New Haven was the pioneer - PRR followed suit.

The New Haven also had the first electrified mainline in 1907.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electrification is a lot more than locomotives, the obsolescence of the Cos Cob power plant which fed NH's wires and the demand charges from Con Ed and other power companies which also supplied electricity were also a factor in the partial de-electrification of NH and the building of the FL9's. NH re-electrified some of its freight service in the 1960's because it would even out the usage patterns that affected its electric bill.

[AltonFan]

I recall reading about an interurban line that managed to survive the depression, and into the 1950s. The line developed its freight business as the passenger business declined. In the mid-1950s, the electrical system needed an overhaul. So the catenart was deenergized and removed, and diesels were acquired.

It makes me wonder: are railroad electrical systems as important for deferred maintenance regulations as track work?

[daveklepper]

Almost. A really good catenary installation can last about fifty years, but then isn't that what people hope for with concrete ties and heavy ballast and heavy rail?

If the USA wants to be really serious about energy independence, then railway electrification is one good step in that direction. Just the heavierst main lines, including NS Harrisburg - Pittsburgh, UP Council Bluffs - Ogden, the Transcon possibly. Required legislation: Power companies can get back into the transportation business. No increase in real estate taxes on account of electrification and uses or railroad rights of way for electric transmission lines.

Coments about the PRR leaning on the New Haven are correct. And the New Haven's EF-3 (not EP-3), was a further improvement on the GG-1. Best "motor" ever built! (And the I-5 4-6-4 is tied with the N&W J and Daylight for the most beautiful streamlined steam locomotive.)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AltonFan

I recall reading about an interurban line that managed to survive the depression, and into the 1950s. The line developed its freight business as the passenger business declined. In the mid-1950s, the electrical system needed an overhaul. So the catenart was deenergized and removed, and diesels were acquired.

It makes me wonder: are railroad electrical systems as important for deferred maintenance regulations as track work?

Sounds like either the Illinois Terminal or Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern. While ITC and North Shore Line did have some catenary, most interurban overhead was single-wire direct suspension.

As far as the electrical system needing an overhaul: in the case of Illinois Terminal, freight business was good enough that the electrical system couldn't handle the additional power needed to move the larger trains and diesels were probably a more reasonable alternative than new substations, feeder wires, overhead and larger electric locomotives.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know if there was any preference on the part of engineers between operating electric locomotives, diesels, or steam.

Erik

[Anonymous]

The comment about an interurban line going without the overhead sounded to me like the CRANDIC, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City.

Art

[daveklepper]

Of course the New Jersey Transit "River Line" from the Camden, NJ, Harbor, over city streets to the old PRR Camden and Amboy right of way, then that right of way, which itself includes bits of street running, to the Trenton RR Station, on the street below the NEC ROW, is clearly an interurban line. But it is diesel powered using articulated diesel Sadler Swiss diesel light rail cars, often in two-car trains. And CSX does provide freight service when the light rail system takes a recess for the night.

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Almost. A really good catenary installation can last about fifty years, but then isn't that what people hope for with concrete ties and heavy ballast and heavy rail?

If the USA wants to be really serious about energy independence, then railway electrification is one good step in that direction. Just the heavierst main lines, including NS Harrisburg - Pittsburgh, UP Council Bluffs - Ogden, the Transcon possibly. Required legislation: Power companies can get back into the transportation business. No increase in real estate taxes on account of electrification and uses or railroad rights of way for electric transmission lines.

Coments about the PRR leaning on the New Haven are correct. And the New Haven's EF-3 (not EP-3), was a further improvement on the GG-1. Best "motor" ever built! (And the I-5 4-6-4 is tied with the N&W J and Daylight for the most beautiful streamlined steam locomotive.)

EP-3 came before the GG1 and was used for testing and design of the GG1. I believe the PRR borrowed 2 EP-3's.

The EF-3 and EP-4 came later - late 1930s and early 1940's, and you are correct they were improved 2-C+C-2 base motors.

[daveklepper]

Those unfamiliar with this power, the EP-3 was a box-cab 2-C+C-2 (4-6-6-4) with dc third-rail capapbility and steam boiler, the EP-4 was double-end streamlined, again with dc third-rail capability and steam boilder, and the EF-3 was the last of these and the most powerful, more powerful than a GG-1, with a body quite similar to the EP-4, but intended initially as a freight hauler with top speed of 60mph, and without dc third-rail capability. Some EF-3's were equipped with steam boilers for passenger service into Penn Station over the Hell Gate Bridge, and in that service they regularly ran at 70mph and often unofficially much higher. Again, in my opinion the best electric locomotive ever built. The biggest advantage over the GG-1 were the far better crew amenities. They never needed assistance handling a freight of any length on the Hell Bridge approach grades.

The EP-5's were the "Jets", C-C, rectifier double-end cab locomotives, bodies similar to double-end PA's. Thge EF-4's were the E-33's rectifier electrics from the N&W and Virginian.

[Anonymous]

In my opinion the electrification on the Virginian was the most successful. It permitted the Virginian to greatly increase the capacity of their single track main while at the same time reducing operating costs significantly. Unfortunately when N&W bought them out the Virginian main line was converted to single direction, which doomed the juice jacks.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

With apologies to David Telesha, the NH electrics may not have been oddballs, but they have operating limits. They obviously never ran east of New Haven while diesels could and did run systemwide.

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

With apologies to David Telesha, the NH electrics may not have been oddballs, but they have operating limits. They obviously never ran east of New Haven while diesels could and did run systemwide.

Sure they did, the wire ran east into Cedar Hill.[:p]

They served their purpose where the wires were.

[daveklepper]

I pointed out that it took THREE GP-9's to do the work of ONE EF-3 on Bay Ridge - Ceder Hill freight trains over the Hell Gate Bridge. But now on rereading the book on the New Haven in the McGinnis Days (New Haven RR Historical and Technical Society), I see the author says FOUR GP-9's., so I guess it did depend somewhat on the length of the freight train. And again, one EF-3 was sufficient for any train the New Haven operated on this route. And the little "Ponies" and "Geeps" (2-B+B-2) that inaugurated the electrification, some built as early as 1910, ran right up to about 1955, some of them. Two were sold to the B&M during WWII to help with capacity at Hoosack Tunnel. One GP-9 was thus about equal to one "Geep" in pulling freight.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

daveklepper's example points out one advantage of straight electrics: a virtually limitless source of energy from the wire. Combine this with short-term motor ratings and an electric will look better if you compare diesels with electrics based on the continuous rating of the electric and the hp rating into the generator of the diesel.

At any rate, the amount of energy required to move the train is going to be the same, whether the source of that energy is four 567C diesel engines or the Cos Cob power plant.

[JanOlov]

How would the different motors compare to each other? PRR's GG-1 to the Milwaukee Roads Bi-Polars etc. etc?

[daveklepper]

GG-1 was built for both speed and power, where the Bi-Polar was an older design, dc, with tractive effort possibly more important than speed. The GG-1 was built to operate on 11,000V AC, and the Bi-polar on 3,000V DC. For Milwaukee service, the Little Joe was more comparable to the GG-1. The two extra set of dirvers (4-8-8-4 instead of 4-6-6-4, or rather 2-D+D-2 instead of 2-C+C-2) was mainly for the lighter weight track structure of the Russian railroads they were originally designed for. But most engineers would probably say the GG-1 was a better locomotive and the New Haven's EF-3 even better yet. The development of rectifiers and solid-state switching now has given us a new generation, with the little Swedesh Meatball, AEM-7 matching the GG-1 in all but tractive effort and having really become a classic in iits own right. The PRR's E-44's were logical developments from the E-33's, all good freight locomotives and much easier to maintain if not quite up to a GG-1 or EF-3. The early PRR's O-1's and P-5's were really attempts to continue to apply steam locomotive thinking to electrics and continued to be used, along with the pioneering DD-1in LIRR service, long after they were really obsolete.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The EL-C/EF4/E33 and E44 were logical follow-ups to the PRR experimentals of the early 1950's and the NH washboard MU's. They were rectifier locomotives with Ignitron tube rectifiers with the later E44's rebuilt or equipped with silicon diode rectifiers and were a major advance over motor-generator locomotives like GN's W-1's and the various straight AC locomotives.

[David_Telesha]

And the NH EP-5 was the *first* rectifier...[:D]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David_Telesha

And the NH EP-5 was the *first* rectifier...[:D]

Does it predate the PRR E3b's and E2c's built by Baldwin-Westinghouse?

[daveklepper]

You are correct ab out the PRR's E3b and E2c, but they were experimental. I thought only one of each was buit. The EP-5 may be said to be the first "production" rectifier after the New Haven got the first "railroad" (as opposed to subway car) rectifier mu cars, the "Washboards" or 4400's.

Most people who know still thought the GG-1 and certainly the EF-3 could outrun and outpull an EP-5, and the EP-5's were almost never used in freight service. The EP-5 was not only innovative in being a rectifier locomotive, but also innovative in using standard diesel electric technology to the extent possible, including trucks and traction motors (dc). The E-33's and E-44's also used parts common to diesel electrics but were specifically designed and geared for freight service.