Alternative Fuel and Hybrids, Is This Even Possible?

[Anonymous]

Of course, if you put up overhead on selected main lines, it wouldn't matter what you burned, would it????? This is, of course, entirely price-driven and the numbers don't work in most places--yet. We went through this convulsion 20 years ago and they almost worked, provided the utility owned, operated and maintained the overhead (which they do better, anyway) and the RR paid by kW/kWH at the substation with primary metering. Leaves a lot of room to massage the coal rate equation. If you can get some relief on some of the capital costs.

[Anonymous]

HHmmmm, we could pay five dollars a gallon for gasoline the way europeans do to subsidize public transportation.

[daveklepper]

Electrification would solve noise and pollution problems, but the second seems on its way to solution by stiffer requirements that the two builders are meeting and the first problem can be solved by careful design. The Stadler (Swiss) diesel electric light rail cars on the new Camden Trenton New Jersey line (a true diesel interurban line by the way, on the original Camden and Ambay route with diesel freight service still in operation) are reputed to be quieter than any current bus. I'd be interested in knowing how they are on fuel economy.

[Anonymous]

RE: davelklepper--

The crowd-pleaser selling points are noise and pollution, but in many respects those are just window-dressing solvable to a great extent in engine-driven technologies, as is correctly pointed out. The real reason for electrification is you are not tied to any specific fuel or fuel type. But, as I say, it's not for everybody-at least not yet. Price drives the equation, and you have to be able to absorb the capital costs. And the price for the overhead and associated equipment has gone down with technology improvements and is even lower at 60 Hz, because the utility is delivering commercial frequency power (no conversion) at standard distribution or, at worst, subtransmission voltage. That's why they can do the power side of a modern system a whole lot better than the RR can.

[Anonymous]

The UPRR tried using Bunker C fuel in GP9s in the 1950s. It worked but the maintenance costs were high. Bunker C contains a lot of ash.