Do double stacks ever run on the NEC even with just 9' containers under wire ?
A friend told me just 3 days ago, that he did see double stacks (containers) under catenary
IN CHINA !!!
So it´s possible..... if there is the will !!
henry6 Note today's...11-18-08...TRAINS Newswire! Especially those who have told me that no private enterprise railroad has asked for government aid or those who wanted specifics. There is a CSX story that back me up.
Note today's...11-18-08...TRAINS Newswire! Especially those who have told me that no private enterprise railroad has asked for government aid or those who wanted specifics. There is a CSX story that back me up.
Why do you need to be backed up?
I don't recall anybody telling you that no private enterprise railroad has asked for government aid. Could you refresh my memory?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
gardendance carnej1 there is a reluctance nowadays to use Eminent Domain laws.... What do you have to back up this statement? I read once in a while of appeals when government declares properties "blighted" in order to condemn them for private shopping centers and apartments, but where's the reluctance to use eminent domain for good old fashioned transportation as has been practiced for about 200 years?
carnej1 there is a reluctance nowadays to use Eminent Domain laws....
there is a reluctance nowadays to use Eminent Domain laws....
What do you have to back up this statement? I read once in a while of appeals when government declares properties "blighted" in order to condemn them for private shopping centers and apartments, but where's the reluctance to use eminent domain for good old fashioned transportation as has been practiced for about 200 years?
I note that local governments in recent years have used Eminent Domain to acquire (or grab, IMO) land for private development using the "economic development" argument. This practice generally seems to be used projects which are politically popular (in areas that are politically unpopular). There have been a number of recent examples in my part of the country (New England) which have been quite controversial. Recently the US Supreme Court ruled the practice legal.
But there seems to be a great reluctance to do is the large scale that was required, for instance, to build the interstate highway system. An early example of opposition to the practice was back in the 1960's when the Boston outer beltway was proposed. This would have extended Interstate 95 through much of the outer suburbs/neighborhoods in the Boston Metropolitan area and spawned great opposition which lead to it's cancelation. A result of that was the development of the MBTA green line light rail project.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Railway Man Bagehot -- I credit you with digging up sources -- old articles I recall reading at the time -- which unfortunately disprove neither of us. I can say that having worked with or for all of the U.S. Class Is for the past 30 years, there has been absolutely no trend away from centralization of the Class Is during that time period, from my experience both inside and outside each of them, in fact it has been exactly the opposite.
Bagehot -- I credit you with digging up sources -- old articles I recall reading at the time -- which unfortunately disprove neither of us. I can say that having worked with or for all of the U.S. Class Is for the past 30 years, there has been absolutely no trend away from centralization of the Class Is during that time period, from my experience both inside and outside each of them, in fact it has been exactly the opposite.
The original comment stated that UP "decentralized" certain operations following the so-called "meltdown." You demanded the cite for the proposition as though claiming it had not happened. The Union Pacific was duly cited as claiming it was "decentralizing." Now you seem to claim that Union Pacific's own representations "disprove neither of us." Meaning that Union Pacific doesn't know what the word "decentralizing" means? You also claim, after having demanded citations, that you remembered them all along.
Maybe I am just tired this evening, but the purpose of these changes is hard to follow: they seem to me to be all over the place.
However, you are substituting the general for the specific. Did UP decentralize certain aspects of operation as the original poster suggested? Yes, it did.
Did anyone say this meant a general argument in favor of overall centralization or decentralization? No, it didn't.
These things are never black and white, and simply because dogmatic positions are bad business practice, this is a good example of one person's experience clouding judgment to the possibility that something different did, in fact, happen, for better or for worse.
My project this week is finding out why a $__ million annual account went to _____ Trucking. An account the railroad had since the 1950s. Very profitable, but all very long haul, which I think blinded some to the possibility of diversion. And I already pretty much know the reason why, and the loss of the business wasn't because the railroad was underbid. My final report will not be pleasant to read. But I will meet Tuesday with their GM and he will let me know in detail, I am sure. I have my own well-grounded opinions on centralization, organizations and reorganizations. And that's for profit -- the hard part that makes the whole thing work for both the railroad and the shipper -- and not for fun by any stretch.
As I say, an Electrification discussion was intended for me to be a break from the real world, not an immersion in it.
-- Bagehot
Bagehot -- I credit you with digging up sources -- old articles I recall reading at the time -- which unfortunately disprove neither of us. I can say that having worked with or for all of the U.S. Class Is for the past 30 years, there has been absolutely no trend away from centralization of the Class Is during that time period, from my experience both inside and outside each of them, in fact it has been exactly the opposite. And I wouldn't make such a broad statement without having a great deal of confidence that I can go to work tomorrow morning (well, actually tonight!) and know that the railroad officers with whom I work will not snicker at me for making such a claim that didn't have consensus. While trade magazines, public releases, and investor news might make claims of decentralization, it ain't so. If I want to get anything done at any Class I, regional railroad, or short line holding company these days, I pick up the phone and call headquarters. Fifty years ago, you could have obtained a service plan, new switch off the main track, a job, or a contract, by paying a visit to the division office, if not directly from a trainmaster, road foreman, roadmaster, chief clerk, master mechanic. While the divisions and regions at the Class Is get to chime in today, headquarters has the final say. Try getting a switch off the main track without headquarters wanting the last word. And I cannot see any evidence that this has changed or will change. I know nothing of your background and your experience may vary from mine, and that's fine. I'm here to share information for fun not profit. At work I'll put my efforts into the arguments, because that's both for fun and money.
RWM
Railway Man Bagehot To the extent that the following presaged an implemented plan, or a non-implemented plan, someone else would have to say. However, it was big news at the time. And the net effect of this was, before and after, what? What changes occurred in policy-making or policy implementation methods, or visible results? RWM
Bagehot To the extent that the following presaged an implemented plan, or a non-implemented plan, someone else would have to say. However, it was big news at the time.
To the extent that the following presaged an implemented plan, or a non-implemented plan, someone else would have to say. However, it was big news at the time.
And the net effect of this was, before and after, what? What changes occurred in policy-making or policy implementation methods, or visible results?
"Policy making" is best left to the owners -- the Board of Directors. Management is a different function.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Union Pacific Reorganization Designed to Cut Delays at Ports
Union Pacific Corp.’s decision to loosen the supervisory grip of its centralized operations by giving autonomy to regional divisions is designed in part to avert the costly rail delays and cargo pileups that cost Southern California’s economy $750 million over the last year.
“We feel the railroad is too large to be managed from one central location,” company spokesman John Bromley said. “Basically it is putting the administration of the railroad out where the action is.”
Bromley said the company hopes that the plan to decentralize operations into three regions will prevent further problems in California, which accounts for the railroad’s largest volume of imported cargo. “California is one of the places where we are concentrating the most,” he said.
Shippers in Southern California are hopeful that Union Pacific’s plan will resolve the ongoing problems that have slowed Pacific Rim trade through the nation’s busiest ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach.
“The problems have been so big, we’re hoping it helps without question,” said Tony Hupfeld with the steamship company “K” Line America Inc., which operates a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
Since last year the company, like nearly all shippers at Long Beach and Los Angeles harbors, has been plagued with frequent freight delays largely because of equipment and labor shortages at the region’s largest railroad. While the worst of the cargo snarls occurred last year, Hupfeld said, delays of three days were still common as recently as two months ago.
Earlier this week, Dallas-based Union Pacific Corp. announced plans that it hopes will prevent such delays.
Cargo delays in the Golden State, however, have been just part of a larger, nationwide logjam that hit Union Pacific last fall as the railroad was absorbing the giant Southern Pacific network it acquired in 1996. The merger left Union Pacific the largest and, perhaps in the short-run, the most troubled railroad in the nation.
Texas and the Gulf Coast were also hit hard by the slowdown, and federal regulators became so alarmed that they put the railroad under emergency oversight. The delays have cost the U.S. economy an estimated $2 billion.
By most accounts, however, Union Pacific has since made steady progress toward alleviating the tie-ups, partly through the purchase of new locomotives and implementation of capital improvements funded through $1.5 billion in securities sold earlier this year.
....
Improvements in cargo flow made for an upbeat backdrop for the company’s announcement of its decentralization plans, which will allow managers in the field to make decisions on personnel and equipment, among other matters, without having to check with administrators in Omaha. The exact boundaries of the regions have not been finalized, Bromley said, but the Western area will be run out of offices in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville.
The company’s move is in sharp contrast to cost-cutting efforts last year that sought to consolidate in Omaha the operations of both Union Pacific and former Southern Pacific networks.
Bromley defended the move: “We don’t think that attributed to the service problems, but we think decentralization will certainly help solve them.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These changes were pretty well covered by Railway Age Magazine. For those interested in the serious side of railroading, a subscription is worth the price, if nothing else as this thread shows, to maintain awareness of changes in the rail industry.
Railway Age, October 1, 1998:
Step one in Union Pacific Chairman Dick Davidson's plan to strategically "transform" the Union Pacific was reorganization of the railroad into three operating regions (RA, Sept., p. 22). Davidson has now taken step two, the creation of a Network Design and Integration (NDI) organization "to assure that commitments match delivery capacity and that our transportation network is effective and efficient."
....."
Now, your original challenge was to "provide a cite". Given the specific references to the "cites" that you either requested or demanded, depending on the point of view, your more recent challenge is kind of an "oh yeah, so what?" I don't know what the basis of either one of your comments is. This was a pretty well-known re-alignment at UP. Did it help? Do organizational changes in general "help"? The economic efficiency of the Company did improve. That's a fact. There were no more "meltdowns." Does that prove that this "reorganization" worked? Only in the sense that railroads are not introspective that way. It cannot be said it made things worse. Things got better, Union Pacific moved on. Believe me, I would love to see the "study" that shows the ultimate effects of some of these "reorganizations," but if you think they are out there, well, your experience is different than mine and if you have seen one on this one, other than the actual positive operating results -- the ultimate measure -- you let me know.
I don't read many of these threads. This one looked interesting, in a distracting sort of way, regarding electrification.
jeatonYou could store the energy in the form of hydrogen. The concept of using hydrogen as the end energy product for internal combustion engines is still out on the fringe, but if you want to get the advocates for a pristine environment reeeeaaaly excited...
You could store the energy in the form of hydrogen. The concept of using hydrogen as the end energy product for internal combustion engines is still out on the fringe, but if you want to get the advocates for a pristine environment reeeeaaaly excited...
My comment about energy storage was in regards to a means of storage on an electric locomotive to provide power through dead spots, specifically dead spots due to insufficient clearance to allow use of an energized wire. Possible technologies are batteries, capacitors or flywheels. The issues that decide which is the best approach include initial cost, maintenance cost, energy capacity for a given weight and volume, power capacity for a given weight and volume, safety, ruggedness, efficiency and cycle life.
Flywheels are probably out of the question as I doubt that they would stand up to the shocks inherent in locomotive. One other not so obvious problem is that they can have a limited cycle life due to fatigue.
Capacitors have a limited energy storage capacity, the best being around 4 w-hrs/kg. There is talk about achieving 40 w-hrs/kg (which is in the range of lead acid batteries). They do have advantages in having a high power density, high cycle life (> 100,000 charge/discharge cycles), ruggedness and safety (unlike batteries, a capacitor can be completely discharged without affecting life expectancy). I'm not sure if prices will come down enough for them to be economical for RR use. One last problem with caps is that the voltage drops proportionally to the amount of discharge.
Batteries are probably the most likely choice with either Li-ion or GE's sodium nickel chloride (the latter being developed explicitly for locomotive use). One manufacturer of Li-ion batteries claims a greater than 100,000 cycle life as long as depth of discharge is only a few percent. This would be more than adequate for powering locomotives under gaps due to low bridges, though I'm not sure if the initial cost would be feasible.
As far as grid scale storage goes, my favorite would be sodium sulfur batteries. Two main reasons are that the cycle efficiency is high (get back about 90% of what was put in), and both sodium and sulfur are extremely abundant. Some sort of grid scale storage will be needed to handle the projected increase in wind generation - a few months ago, RWM stated that one utility had max'ed out on the swing capacity of their hydro plants - and parts of Texas were facing rolling blackouts recently due to lack of wind.
Having been employed by a few companies who tried to use management reorganization as the way to prosperity, a few thoughts. Changes such as those in Davidson's announcement are more often than not a stab at improving stakeholder relations by saying that major steps are being taken to fix problems. More often than not and in spite lofty titles the people assigned to head up the new and somewhat informal divisions really hold staff rather line responsibilities. A good key is to look at the line organization. Is there still a top system wide VP of Operations, Engineering and Mechanical? Not to say that there is never any benefit, but it is extremely rare that extablishing a regional structure means that the management function will be that found in a free standing company or subsidiary.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
BagehotTo the extent that the following presaged an implemented plan, or a non-implemented plan, someone else would have to say. However, it was big news at the time.
I had the function of acquiring property for a Class 1 and the eminent domain issue was utilized only once in my fifteen year experience. That one time involved a part owner who was receiving treatment for mental problems and his siblings could not get his agreement although they all were satisfied with all of the terms.
There is one other aspect of 'eminent domain' filings and that is because of the IRS rules which permit reinvestment of capital gains proceeds, which were not sought, in similar property thus avoiding current taxes. A competent attorney will advise a client that a written letter or a statement in a Purchase and Sale Agreement which states that the RR will utilize eminent domain proceedings if agreement cannot be reached through negotiations is sufficient
. This is acceptable to the IRS, however I encountered a seller whose attorney told him to make the RR actually file for eminent domain acqusition. We did of course and then the seller accepted our more than fair offer. Perhaps this attorney was not properly informed, or was billing a few more hours to his client.
My experience suggests that RWM is correct. Class 1 RR's budget sufficiently to pay top prices for land needed. It is less expensive in both dollars and time lost through legal proceedings. And they do not try to "low ball" in their initial presentations of an offer.
Railway Man henry6 After the "meltdown" UP did indeed decentralize. Could you cite where, when, and how, please.
henry6 After the "meltdown" UP did indeed decentralize.
After the "meltdown" UP did indeed decentralize.
Could you cite where, when, and how, please.
To the extent that the following presaged an implemented plan, or a non-implemented plan, someone else would have to say. However, it was big news at the time. From the Associated Press:
Union Pacific Restructures
August 19, 1998 3:14 PM EDT
BILL, Wyoming (AP) _ The nation's biggest railway company is dividing management of its rail operations into three regions in hopes of improving service for customers.
The changes at Union Pacific Corp. follow the severe rail traffic congestion that arose after Union Pacific's 1996 merger with Southern Pacific.
Union Pacific chairman and chief executive Dick Davidson said a top executive would be designated in each region with authority to run the region almost like a separate railroad.
Davidson said the new structure should bring the Omaha-based railroad closer to its customers and give people in the field more responsibility.
He spoke Tuesday from a Union Pacific train making its way from the coal fields of Wyoming to the central corridor in North Platte, Neb., as part of a tour of the railroad.
Union Pacific centralized operations in the mid-1980s. But acquisition of three railroads since then, including the Chicago and Northwestern Railway in 1995 and Southern Pacific in 1996, roughly doubled the size of the company, making it the largest in the country with 36,000 miles of track in 23 states.
But traffic congestion problems arose last year in the wake of the Southern Pacific merger and lingered despite efforts to eliminate them.
``We thought our centralized system would work, but it turned out to be too complex,'' Davidson said.
Planning and oversight will continue to take place in Omaha, but the regions will be given the resources and authority over how best to carry out overall goals, Davidson said.
The regions will be split roughly into northern, southern and western sections, Davidson said.
Mike Kelly, now vice president of marketing, will take over in Omaha. Jeff Verhall, general manager of the western region, will be vice president of that region, out of Roseville, Calif., and Steve Barkley, already stationed in Houston, will be vice president there.
The regional vice presidents will put their teams together and the new structure should be in place by Nov. 1, Davidson said.
Railway Man gardendance carnej1 there is a reluctance nowadays to use Eminent Domain laws.... What do you have to back up this statement? I read once in a while of appeals when government declares properties "blighted" in order to condemn them for private shopping centers and apartments, but where's the reluctance to use eminent domain for good old fashioned transportation as has been practiced for about 200 years? Carnej is correct. Exercise of Eminent Domain is a last resort beyond the last resort. It's politically suicidal; you win the battle and lose the war. The case you are referring to was a one-time instance, not a broad practice, which resulted in eminent domain laws being rewritten in numerous states to further restrict its exercise.
Carnej is correct. Exercise of Eminent Domain is a last resort beyond the last resort. It's politically suicidal; you win the battle and lose the war. The case you are referring to was a one-time instance, not a broad practice, which resulted in eminent domain laws being rewritten in numerous states to further restrict its exercise.
Whatever any of this has to do with Electrification. This thread is managing to be all over the place, primarily with misinformation.
However, three points:
1) There is, in fact, an official National Transportation Policy. It is one of the duties of the Department of Transportation to develop and update the policy. For those who care to read it before they go on the public record to declare that we need one, it is available to the public, and after reading it you can get an idea how much good it has done.
2) Kelo, if that is what you are referring to, was hardly a "one time instance."
Eminent domain for non-transportation and non-public utility purposes had/has, in fact, become a relatively common practice. A recent book by Carla T. Main, "Bulldozed: "Kelo," Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land {Encounter Books, 2007] summarizes an extensive history of such takings. See Western Seafood Co. v. United States, No. 04-41196 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2006), West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (1848).
The major case on the matter was Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the condemnation power was justified under the Constitution's Police Power, and that the Fifth Amendment permitted private takings for economic development purposes. The majority opinion was written by Justice Douglas, and while that might be before your time, it is suggestive as to how long this practice has been occuring, since the practice was approved by the Supreme Court over 60 years ago.
Those who have actually worked in the Rail industry on such matters are familiar with the concept, as for example in the so-called "Air Rights" cases of the 1960s and 1970s.
State appellate courts have agreed. See Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 304 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1981), overruled, County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2004), which approved of economic development condemnation to facilitate construction of a General Motors assembly plant.
Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) is a similar case, and unfortunately is not an extreme example -- although it should be -- in which the US Supreme Court noted that "to reduce the perceived social and economic evils of a land oligopoly traceable to the early high chiefs of the Hawaiian Islands, the Hawaii Legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967 (Act), which created a land condemnation scheme whereby title in real property is taken from lessors and transferred to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of land ownership."
That legislation was upheld and is far more significant than Kelo in terms of the condemnation power, since it's sole purpose was to facilitate a politically popular re-distribution of wealth and assets with no other purpose than to directly benefit the recipients.
3) Speaking of the "Air Rights" cases, for railroads eminent domain has always cut both ways. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897).
henry6After the "meltdown" UP did indeed decentralize.
Let's return to Carnej's original statement, which I inferred to say that railroads are reluctant to employ eminent domain rights. In my 30 years in the railroad business, much of it on the capacity-expansion side, I can think of not a single instance where a freight railroad resorted in the final to eminent domain. There are a few cases of transit railroads using eminent domain, which resulted in disastrous public-relations outcomes. There have been several recent cases where the validity of eminent domain laws have been tested in court concerning pipeline, electric transmission, and railroad companies prior to any actual use of eminent domain powers, which is not the same as an actual exercise of eminent domain powers.
Public entities may use (or abuse) eminent powers, and if I gave the impression I was talking about that or wished to expand this thread into a general discussion of eminent domain, my apologies.
After the "meltdown" UP did indeed decentralize...Amtrak is a good example of being too big and unwieldly...CP is contantly trying to find the middle ground with all its properties and acquisitions...so is CN...there are many examples of becomeing too big.
I don't know of the outcomes, but actually there are several examples that I heard of
Ardmore, PA, the area around the train station.
Pennsauken, NJ I do know that the township condemned, evicted and demolished the existing property, then the private developer ran out of money, nothing's been built so far but several acres of taxpaying land are now township owned.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml lists examples in Lakewood Ohio, Mesa Arizona, and New York city
granted these are a few years old, and maybe every eminent domain law in the country has been rewritten since, but I don't see how you can claim it's just a one-time instance, and I'm not trying to say it's a broad practice.
I do agree this is eminent domain abuse. But back to my question, where's the evidence to back up carnej1's and your statements that there's a reluctance to use eminent domain, especially the good old fashioned kind that's withheld appeals for 200 years? If you're expressing opinion that's another matter, I respect everybody's opinion, but you've both phrased them as fact, not opinion.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
henry6There are numerous examples of becoming too big. UP, for instance, when first assimiliating SP et.al. centralized everything but found it was too big and unwieldly so broke itself down into smaller, more managable segments. Other orgainzations, railroads and others, have experienced the same "big is better" syndorme only to find themselves reinventing the smaller "is more effiecient" model.
There are numerous examples of becoming too big. UP, for instance, when first assimiliating SP et.al. centralized everything but found it was too big and unwieldly so broke itself down into smaller, more managable segments. Other orgainzations, railroads and others, have experienced the same "big is better" syndorme only to find themselves reinventing the smaller "is more effiecient" model.
UP did not break itself down into smaller segments at any point in time after the SP merger, up to the present time. It has actually centralized more.
There might be an upper limit to the centralization of railroad organization in North America from the standpoint of organizational efficiency, but no one has found it yet. Frankly I rather like the trend toward centralization.
There was a case locally where a guy built a boat in a factory building; the boat was so big he had to dismantle it to get it out.
I remember as a kid we had our septic tank being cleaned out...I was all of 9 or 10...and I asked the men why they didn't use bigger shovels. The answer was simple: bigger shovels weigh more but gets workers tired more quickly and don't really improve effienciency but rather more likely hampered it. So they stuck with the ordinary spade.
My point is that we often think so big that we often cripple ourselves in trying to achieve.
gardendancecarnej1 there is a reluctance nowadays to use Eminent Domain laws.... What do you have to back up this statement? I read once in a while of appeals when government declares properties "blighted" in order to condemn them for private shopping centers and apartments, but where's the reluctance to use eminent domain for good old fashioned transportation as has been practiced for about 200 years?
Bucyrushenry6We have a tendency to build big, bigger, bigger yet, biggest, and then more bigger until we smother our greed in it. I don't know where to begin.
henry6We have a tendency to build big, bigger, bigger yet, biggest, and then more bigger until we smother our greed in it.
I don't know where to begin.
Me neither!
henry6The next questions is: does marketing/sales dictate engineering and design or does engineering/planning dictate engineering, design and marketing?
ANSWER: Marketing/sales dictates the engineering and design.
All right, its me, but I am hung up on the clearance problem. I don't really think it is as big a problem as being made in that any standard is set...be it current US deminsions or whatever...and is used. And isn't the present track guage pretty well filled out for height and width verses stability? Is there greater clearances elsewhere in the world which the US would have to adhere to? Wouldn't further height mean, or at least suggest the need for, a wider track guage? We have a tendency to build big, bigger, bigger yet, biggest, and then more bigger until we smother our greed in it. Our eyes are always bigger than our stomachs, so to speak. There has to be an optimum after which effeciency...and reality... is diminished. Thus hanging an electric wire anyplace would just help define the height demensions and height demensions would dictate wire placement. The next questions is: does marketing/sales dictate engineering and design or does engineering/planning dictate engineering, design and marketing?
erikem beaulieu My thinking for low clearance locations is to make those your neutral sections, they would still be wired, but unenergized so that the pantograph would stay in contact. The lack of power would allow clearances between the contact wire and the structure to be very minimal. As now the train would coast through them. Also the CFRs are Federal Regulations not Constitutional Amendments, they can be changed. I'd wonder if there were some places where coasting through a dead spot would be impractical (e.g unpleasant slack action). The question may become whether it is cheaper to increase clearances or to put some sort of energy storage on the locomotives. To put this into perspective, the study on electrifying the freight RR's in Southern California came up with a price tag of $4 billion (in 1992 dollars) - half of which was just for raising bridges or lowering tracks.
beaulieu My thinking for low clearance locations is to make those your neutral sections, they would still be wired, but unenergized so that the pantograph would stay in contact. The lack of power would allow clearances between the contact wire and the structure to be very minimal. As now the train would coast through them. Also the CFRs are Federal Regulations not Constitutional Amendments, they can be changed.
My thinking for low clearance locations is to make those your neutral sections, they would still be wired, but unenergized so that the pantograph would stay in contact. The lack of power would allow clearances between the contact wire and the structure to be very minimal. As now the train would coast through them. Also the CFRs are Federal Regulations not Constitutional Amendments, they can be changed.
I'd wonder if there were some places where coasting through a dead spot would be impractical (e.g unpleasant slack action). The question may become whether it is cheaper to increase clearances or to put some sort of energy storage on the locomotives. To put this into perspective, the study on electrifying the freight RR's in Southern California came up with a price tag of $4 billion (in 1992 dollars) - half of which was just for raising bridges or lowering tracks.
Here are some ideas on the subject. Going back to RWM's 5 reasons for considering electrification, the first was improving the predictability of energy cost. Right now crude price is the 800 pound gorilla in the energy room. Electrification means that the initial energy sources of coal, uranium and gravity become primary and they appear to have substantially less price volatility. On those grounds alone, I would agree with the suggested odds of a 50-50 chance of a major electrification installation made in the next ten years. Just where I don't know, but if it improves capacity perhaps it goes in places like Cajon, the UP's triple track lines inWyoming and Nebraska, points along the BNSF's Transcon and other rail line segments where traffic is very heavy and overpasses are relatively rare.
The hydrogen idea is pretty neat. Instead of making electricity from the usual energy sources and conveying it via wire to the point of use, use the electricity to get hydrogen out of water and pipe it or send it by tank to the point of use.
Perhaps the deal breaker is cost and I am not going to try to dig up the numbers. There are other factors on the down side. If I am not mistaken, hydrogen at a managable compresion holds less BTU's than petroleum products for a given volume. That is a big implication for storage and transport, and if you want to use it in an automobile, there is the problem of getting a tank holding enough fuel to get 350 miles down the road, more or less the standard for a tank of gasoline in a car. There is obviously no existing transport infrastructure-pipelines- to get hydrogen to fueling points. Production of hydrogen is another problem. I believe it is relatively easy to extract it from natural gas, but given the potential surge in demand, electrical hydrolysis will probably have be employed to meet the needs. (Beside that, I wouldn't to be competing with transportation users to buy the natural gas I use to heat my home. D*** you, T. Boone!!!) Given that uranium is considered too dangerous and gravity is used up, that leaves coal as the more readily available energy source for electricity. Burning coal to make electricity to make hydrogen to eliminate polution from the vehicle misses something. Right?
So, how about other sources of electricity? The genesis for this post was a recent article on the subject of research into improving the efficiencey of producing hydrogen by hydrolysis. Guess the focus of the research. As many are quick to note on the subject of the solar and wind power generation of electricity, the sun sets at night and winds go calm. The goal is to find a practical method of storing the energy produced by wind and solar power so that the problem of the interuption of electricity production is eliminated. Converting the electricity to hydrogen is an option that can go along with batteries as an energy storage method.
Will a system of using hydrogen to transport energy from primary production points to railroad locomotives be economically efficient? I don't know. However a couple of problems noted above can be dealt with. While fueling points for highway vehicles probably have to number in the thousands, it seem the railroads could make do with just a few hundred. If the tank on the locomotive doesn't have the capacity to get a satisfactory run between refueling points, it is fairly easy for a railroad to tack on an auxiliary tank. And, of course, so much for the clearance problem.
Far fetched? I believe I recently read that the BNSF is going to test a hydrogen powered locomotive.
henry6I don't understand the concern about clearances. Again, with all other continents using electric traction the global standard has been set. No matter what the box is behind the engine, it will be set by the intertnational container size in stack configuration. I am sure Simplon isn't going to be made bigger every few years, so there is no reason to get bogged down on this matter. I mean, how much more clearance do you think you will ever need with 4 ft 8 and one half in. guage? It really can't be much higher than it is and still be stable unless you widen the guage, which is less likely than electrification in the first place!
Clearances are not a trivial concern.
There is no global standard in railroading. I've worked for or with railways on three continents and six countries and they are all different. Even "standard gauge" is not the standard on many significant, modern systems, e.g., Spoornet in South Africa.
Different railroads in different countries have different loading gauges with different economic models and different economic regulation, and containers are not uniform in size either. Containers come in standard height and high-cube height. North American railroads double-stack high-cube containers giving a total height above rail of 20'-4", which requires a loading gauge out of the question for almost the entire rail network in the rest of the world. Very few railroads in Europe or elsewhere have the loading gauge sufficient to double-stack even the regular international container.
Saudi Arabia is one of the few exceptions as its rail system was engineered by U.S. engineers to North American standards and they brought their ideas, which included a North American-size loading gauge. Contemporaneous rail construction in the developing world engineered by European or Indian railway experts brought their ideas, which in most cases equipped the railways with loading gauges that can not accommodate double-stacks without expensive reconstruction of overhead structures, as they saw no reason to pay the extra money it would take to obtain North American loading gauges when there was little likelihood these railways would ever need such a thing.
I haven't studied European RRs, I don't recall seeing any stacks in Europe, do they stack over there? Also I believe, but could be wrong, aren't tri-level auto-racks an American phenomonon, are those used else-where also?
I do know that the Higher the Voltage your system operates on, the greater the clearance you need from other objects to avoid an arcing short, so your minimum clearances would be affected in part by what voltage you're operating on.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.