Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="MichaelSol"][quote user="futuremodal"] I take it also that the idea of an abreviated electrification was never studied, aka instead of keeping the electrification from Avery to Harlowtown, reduce it to Avery-Haugen/Butte-Whitehall/Ringling-Martinsdale respectively.  Again, it comes down to the cost of maintaining catenary where needed (with that 5,400 hp per unit under wire) but eliminating it where diesel mode (at 3,000 hp per unit) would suffice.[/quote]The cost of building the catenary was an obstacle, but not the cost of maintaining it. [/quote]I remember vaguely one of your posts from a while back when you discussed the decision making involved in the eventually abandonment of the Milwaukee electrification.  You had worked on this first hand if I remember correctly, and the analysis you and your coworkers came up with showed that maintaining the electrification was preferable to abandoning it, yet management chose the latter supposedly due to the economics of standardization.One question:  What was the analysis of the electric locomotive situation vis-a-vis remaining useful service life of the Joes et al and the cost of buying new electrics to replace the 50 year old boxcabs during the discussion of whether to continue the electrification or not?  Can we assume the Joes still had 20 or 30 years left in them in 1974?  What about the cost of replacing the older electrics (assuming they needed replacement)?One thing I'm getting at is that a dual mode locomotive would not necessarily have been superfluous to the locomotive market if electrification was ended, since they could be stripped of their electrification equipment and still ran as straight diesel-electrics.  But if Milwaukee bought brand new electrics, they were stuck with them with no resale possibility if electrification was abandoned a few years later.Another comparitive consideration is the recent plethora of new locomotive designs, aka hybrids, gen-sets, and now this new GE prototype where the power from dynamic braking is stored in battery packs rather than disapated as heat.  Why would a modern day dual mode locomotive be any more of a maintenance hassle than these current offerings?  Again, if the one thing keeping modern electrification from making a return is the up front costs of electrifying whole subdivisions, wouldn't segmented electrification of these subdivions and whole fleets of dual mode locomotives be a less expensive option than wholesale electrification and whole fleets of single mode electric locomotives?  Wouldn't dual mode locomotives have better resale prospects down the road than new electrics?[quote]One of the compelling arguments General Electric made to MILW in 1972 for completing the "Gap" was that the use of a continuously electrified section would increase the normal efficiencies associated with electrification. With the two separated sections, maintenance costs per hp were about 47% of the costs of maintaining an equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower. This was high for a heavy electrification and due to several factors including the cost of operating two separate maintenance facilities, two separate fleets, and relatively shorter runs by the electric locomotives. By making a continuous section, and as long as possible, GE estimated that MILW could get its electric power maintenance costs down to the expected 30% of equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower.[/quote]I agree that electrifying the gap made sense as the distance between necessary stops was lengthened with time and locomotives could stay with consists conceivably across the country.  But there's still the issue of standardization.[quote]I have the GE Econometric program used in the study, and as a "for example" input the cost of a dual mode locomotive and compared that to the cost of full Electrification, Harlowton to Tacoma, and compared that to full Dieselization as well, making a variety of assumptions regarding growth rate of traffic, inflation, and utilizing real costs of diesel fuel and electric power, 1974-2004, assuming a 15 year economic service life of the Dual Mode locomotives, and for a regular Diesel-electric, and 30 years for the straight electric,[/quote]Why assume only a 15 year economic service life for the dual mode?  Didn't the FL9's last 50 years? If we assume 15 years for diesel and 30 years for electric, wouldn't a more logical dual mode assumption be 20 to 25 years since it is operating part time as an electric and part time as a diesel?  The other consideration is that it is operating in diesel mode over less strenuous territory and in electric mode over the more strenuous territory, so it's diesel service life portion should last longer than diesels that went everywhere.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag