Trains.com

Saluda Grade

2779 views
17 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 5 posts
Saluda Grade
Posted by Berkshire41 on Saturday, January 17, 2015 6:29 PM
I have cousins who live near Saluda near the top and friends near the bottom. As I was reading a recent article on the Amtrak ACS64, I couldn't help pondering that NS should consider electric slave locomotives, using dynamic breaking to lower cars down the grade and put their electricity into catenaries for the return trip up the hill. I thought this was so novel I just had to share. What do you think?
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Sunday, January 18, 2015 2:57 PM
N&W had an electrified section and abandoned it seventy years ago. I seriously doubt they have any interest in regenerative electricfication.
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 5 posts
Posted by Berkshire41 on Sunday, January 18, 2015 3:32 PM
You may be right, but according to the recent article on ACS64, there is consideration of electrification into the Carolinas as well into the great lakes, both NS routes. Why duplicate when electric is so easy.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, January 19, 2015 9:19 AM

Berkshire41
You may be right, but according to the recent article on ACS64, there is consideration of electrification into the Carolinas as well into the great lakes, both NS routes. Why duplicate when electric is so easy.
 

Electric is anything but easy or cheap to install in railroad installations.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Monday, January 19, 2015 9:26 AM
Maybe you should study N&W, Vgn, CR, GN and CM&STP all of whom had catenary and eliminated it. What does that tell you?
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 5 posts
Posted by Berkshire41 on Monday, January 19, 2015 9:48 AM

If I recall correctly, that was about the time of conversion from steam to diesel.  We need to look at the economics of electric freight where there would be a dual usage for passenger/commuter operations.  I know MofW is expensive for overhead electric, but the only way to make progress is to continually question the current paradigm.  I recently did a souces & uses study to determin feasebility of waste-to-energy (not a good idea at this time).

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, January 19, 2015 9:50 AM

The N&W and Virginian electrifications might possibly considered as special case--after the N&W bored another tunnel through Elkhorn Mountain, reducing the grade, the company felt that it no longer needed to use overhead electric power and could run the road engines through; after the N&W absorbed the Virginian, it became able to run trains one way over the former Virginian track and the opposite way on the original N&W track where the two are parallel, and it became uneconomical to use the electric locomotives.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Monday, January 19, 2015 4:42 PM

Conrail dropped freight electrifiction well past the end of the steam era.

Assuming that electrification were installed to bring trains up and down the grade, you'd need terminals and facilities at the ends of the segment to at least add/remove, and at most change out, the power, then to service it.  This would be something that had to be done no matter what, if the freight were going beyond the end points of your electrification.  Lots of crews needed for this alone, not to mention shop facilities at at least one end.  I suspect that, as NS has found out, it would still be easier and cheaper to route its freight around the grade.

Now here's an idea for you (you may take it as seriously as you wish).  Have a power company wire the grade--only the grade--for electrical operation.  Buy a fleet of electric locomotives--one, a dozen, a hundred.  And let the electric company operate them up and down the hill.  It would, in an ideal world, take as much electricity to power them up the hill as would be generated by the locomotives rolling downhill (for mechanical reasons that's probably not true).  But if you run the generators (I mean, the locomotives) downhill during times when electrical demand is high, they can provide power to a grid somewhere, then power can be used to run the locomotives back up the hill when the demand for grid power is at its lowest.  No other trains to interfere with operation.  Perhaps NS could add tonnage to the downhill slide to increase the power generated by braking them.  The result should be power that could be sold to recoup some of the costs.

(As a postscript, I should add that there are peaks and valleys in power use that make a plan like this plausible.  Just south of Ludington, Michigan, a power company pumps water into a huge pond a few hundred feet above the level of Lake Michigan.  During the day (peak demand) the water is drained, generating power as it falls back into Lake Michigan.  This plant has been in operation for decades, so I assume it is a profitable thing.)

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Monday, January 19, 2015 5:09 PM

That is correct.  ONLY after the N&W purchased the Virginian di they eliminate the electric lines.  According to a friend who grew up alongside the Virginian,  the colst of the electric lines was very cheap.  they used the coal from the mines that they serviced to produce power.  

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 5 posts
Posted by Berkshire41 on Monday, January 19, 2015 6:23 PM

I like the way you think.  Run the heavy coal trains down during the day, and return them at night.  From my visit there are several marshalling tracks at the top and probably some kind of pull out at the bottom.

A Duke plant near Charlotte on Lake Norman does that same thing; pump water up at night and generate hydro-el during peak demand.

When you talk about electric freight, I can remember the GG's parked outside Harrisburg in the late 60's

Electric is good for passenger rail with quick stops & starts, and for top speed.  Where there is dual usage (freight & passenger) electric could service both.  There is talk of electrifying the Carolinian to Charlotte (from DC).  If so, NS should consider electric freight.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Monday, January 19, 2015 7:29 PM

Berkshire41
[snipped - PDN] . . . I couldn't help pondering that NS should consider electric slave locomotives, using dynamic breaking to lower cars down the grade and put their electricity into catenaries for the return trip up the hill. I thought this was so novel I just had to share. What do you think?

The grade would have to be double-tracked, and have a train going up that really short grade at the exact same time for your concept to work - neither of which is likely.  Electricity generally can't be stored easily or cheaply in train-size quantities (aside from Carl's reference to the "pumped storage" peak/ off-peak operations of some electric utilities - lousy physics, but good economics !).

- Paul North.   

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:01 AM

In "When the Steam Railroads Electrified", there is mention of a proposal for an electrified railroad that would haul coal from the Southwest (New Mexico, IIRC) to the Pacific.  Electricity would be generated from locomotives re-using regenerative braking on downhill loaded runs.  Uphill runs with empties would use this electricity for their runs.  It sounds great in theory but the proposal was vetoed by the ICC based on unrealistic economic and engineering projections.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:36 AM

Quoting Berkshire 41 (I do not know why, but his post did not come to me on the thread, but by email, with the notation that it is on the Saluda Grade thread): "....There is talk of electrifying the Carolinian to Charlotte (from DC).  If so, NS should consider electric freight." This is interesting, since the train travels over CSX to Selma (277 miles from Washington), then over the North Carolina Railroad to Charlotte (112 miles to Greensboro, and then only 92 miles on the main line to Charlotte).

Johnny

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:18 AM

caldreamer
ONLY after the N&W purchased the Virginian di they eliminate the electric lines.

To clarify: N&W eliminated the VGN electrics after the VGN merger-- they had eliminated their own electrics around 1950.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 5 posts
Posted by Berkshire41 on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:41 PM

I didn't realize that we switched from NS to CSX from my train rides from High Point (south of GreenSborO) to DC.  I have been out of the area for over 8 years now, but read how ridership on the Carolinian has rise dramatically, from 1 train/day each way back in the 90's to like 6/day each way now.  See page 31 of Jan 2015, last paragraph..."electrified expansion into N. Carolina or up to Springfield MA."

  • Member since
    April 2009
  • From: Raleigh, N.C.
  • 182 posts
Posted by dubch87 on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:26 PM

Saluda ain't reopening under NS. It cost too much to operate thirteen years ago, and they're definitely not going to make things even more complicated and expensive for two trains a day. Plus, NS sold the line from Flat Rock to Asheville.

Regarding "high speed" rail into NC...not happening for decades. The latest estimate is 2035, and that's only for diesels running up to 110mph.

There are currently two trains between Charlotte and D.C. (Crescent and Carolinian), three trains between Charlotte and Raleigh (Carolinian, Piedmont, Piedmont), and two trains between Raleigh and D.C. (Silver Star and Carolinian). Not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

   

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 7:21 PM

Berkshire41

I didn't realize that we switched from NS to CSX from my train rides from High Point (south of GreenSborO) to DC.  I have been out of the area for over 8 years now, but read how ridership on the Carolinian has rise dramatically, from 1 train/day each way back in the 90's to like 6/day each way now.  See page 31 of Jan 2015, last paragraph..."electrified expansion into N. Carolina or up to Springfield MA."

 

Berkshire 41:  This link from July of 2014 will explain what happened when WATCO moved into Western North Carolina. More searchs may help bring you up to speed.

See Linked story @  http://www.thesylvaherald.com/breaking_news/article_66d9e4a0-135a-11e4-adef-0017a43b2370.html

 

 


 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Matthews NC
  • 363 posts
Posted by matthewsaggie on Friday, January 23, 2015 12:04 AM

Deggesty

Quoting Berkshire 41 (I do not know why, but his post did not come to me on the thread, but by email, with the notation that it is on the Saluda Grade thread): "....There is talk of electrifying the Carolinian to Charlotte (from DC).  If so, NS should consider electric freight." This is interesting, since the train travels over CSX to Selma (277 miles from Washington), then over the North Carolina Railroad to Charlotte (112 miles to Greensboro, and then only 92 miles on the main line to Charlotte).

 

It's the North Carolina Railroad all the way from Selma to Charlotte.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy