RME oltmannd I tried to imagine what such a RR might look like and wrote about it in January 2014 in my blog entry "2040". I am looking forward to "part two" of the story, the "Easy as A.B.C." to its "With the Night Mail", as it were, that tells the reminiscences about how that electrification system came to be, and whether there were any 'false starts' or other approaches that are cautionary tales for we, the living.
oltmannd I tried to imagine what such a RR might look like and wrote about it in January 2014 in my blog entry "2040".
I am looking forward to "part two" of the story, the "Easy as A.B.C." to its "With the Night Mail", as it were, that tells the reminiscences about how that electrification system came to be, and whether there were any 'false starts' or other approaches that are cautionary tales for we, the living.
http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html
2. The forecast wireless communication from freight train cars to crew is now functional in a least one application: The report in this News Wire article describes exactly that:
German railroad tests ‘wireless’ freight train
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/05/03-wireless-train
Congrats, Don, for being so prescient !
- PDN.
What the OP proposes is essentially a competitor to Interstate Route 80, which had no directly-parallel line, either rail or highway, until its completion in the Late Sixties and early Seventies; the "Vondrak Gang" that used to liven things up at railroad.net had some discussion about this -- too many years ago.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=150&t=17907&start=15
There was a time when Northwestern and North Central Pennsylvania was an attractive market for rail service; PRR, B&O, NYC and Erie all found their way into the area at one time or another, and a Trains issue from the late Forties featured a photo study of a day at FALLS CREEK Tower outside DuBois, where the B&O's (ex BR&P) main line crossed the Pennsy's Low Grade (Renovo-Brady's Bend) Line. All four of the big players found their way here, NYC & Erie via trackage rights, which changed over time as well.
In addition to the two lines already cited, NYC moved large amounts of bituminous coal from a hub at Jersey Shore, PA; a friendly connection (NYC/RDG) at Newberry (Williamsport) also generated bridge traffic.
There is a Railway Age article from sometime in the mid-Twenties (probably promoted by the Van Swearingens) in which a "new trunk line" from the NKP/W&LE-centered Alphabet Route diverges at Bellevue, OH and continues east via Stoneboro, Newberry, and a RDG/CNJ connection at Haucks, PA; it's worthy of note that a crossing of the Eastern Continental Divide near Benzette would not have involved helper grades, and very little construction of new trackage would hae been necessary. But the idea died, of course, with the onset of the Great Depression.
PRR's Low Grade dream was essentially stillborn -- one of the great cases of what might have been. It has survived largely on moves of unit coal between a large mine in Cambria and Clearfield Counties, and two coal-fired plants at Turbotville, PA (PP&L) and Pope's Creek, MD (PEPCo); both seem doomed to fold due to gas conversion. The NYC Pine Creek line has been gone for over twenty years as well, so I wouldn't hold out much hope for a revival.
RME ATLANTIC CENTRAL No question, large scale storage would be the next electrical breakthough. Part of Don's point is that the R&D, implementation, and operation of any appropriate-scale energy-storage or hybrid system needs to be at grid scale, linked and wheeled as part of large-scale grid control. Even the explicitly rail-based gravity-storage system with the 90-degree-shifted concrete weights was a grid system. As an extension, I would expect that a modern electrification (like the one Mr. Oltmann so charmingly proposed) would have something like grid-SCADA input into operations and dispatching so that any transient or power-factor concerns, both local and systemic, could be best addressed from a power-generation and -distribution perspective. It's also probably non-starting to expect the whole cost of the electrification 'infrastructure -- with or without energy storage or practical use of regeneration -- to be undertaken at freight-railroad expense. It would be an interesting thing to see a state like California 'put its money where its mouth is' by subsidizing some very large percentage of the up-front electrification cost using the same "welfare economics" arguments used for, say, Government subsidies for PV or BEV. And no, I wouldn't look soon for electrification west of Buffalo on the Chicago Line, although in 'recent history' the amount of traffic, judging by reports here of 'congestion', might justify a dual-mode electrification in a number of key places...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL No question, large scale storage would be the next electrical breakthough.
Part of Don's point is that the R&D, implementation, and operation of any appropriate-scale energy-storage or hybrid system needs to be at grid scale, linked and wheeled as part of large-scale grid control. Even the explicitly rail-based gravity-storage system with the 90-degree-shifted concrete weights was a grid system.
As an extension, I would expect that a modern electrification (like the one Mr. Oltmann so charmingly proposed) would have something like grid-SCADA input into operations and dispatching so that any transient or power-factor concerns, both local and systemic, could be best addressed from a power-generation and -distribution perspective.
It's also probably non-starting to expect the whole cost of the electrification 'infrastructure -- with or without energy storage or practical use of regeneration -- to be undertaken at freight-railroad expense. It would be an interesting thing to see a state like California 'put its money where its mouth is' by subsidizing some very large percentage of the up-front electrification cost using the same "welfare economics" arguments used for, say, Government subsidies for PV or BEV.
And no, I wouldn't look soon for electrification west of Buffalo on the Chicago Line, although in 'recent history' the amount of traffic, judging by reports here of 'congestion', might justify a dual-mode electrification in a number of key places...
In 2040 I would expect that future train engineers wil show up to work in a air conditioned office and run trains via a Train Simulater. The engines will have 3D cameras and the office chairs will simulate vibarations. Uncoupling will by remote control. Railroad cars will have small solar powered traction moters and batterys and will sort themselves and "walk" themselves down to the main line. As far as Unions go since you can operate the trains from anywhere expect them to be outsourced to India which has a aboundonce of quilified train engineers.
ATLANTIC CENTRALNo question, large scale storage would be the next electrical breakthough.
oltmannd ATLANTIC CENTRAL Which begs the question asked above - how would we generate this power? My assumption would be that it would be powered from the grid, so whatever is powering the grid, powers the electrification. I read somewhere that the total, lifecycle cost of wind power is now less than coal, so I'd bet we have quite a bit more wind power - and an upgraded grid to transport - in the next couple decades. There likely will be schemes such as batteries and capacitive storage to cover slack and peak periods. Mountain railroading would generate a lot of energy from regenerative braking, so it would be a good place to install a local energy storage solution.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Which begs the question asked above - how would we generate this power?
My assumption would be that it would be powered from the grid, so whatever is powering the grid, powers the electrification.
I read somewhere that the total, lifecycle cost of wind power is now less than coal, so I'd bet we have quite a bit more wind power - and an upgraded grid to transport - in the next couple decades. There likely will be schemes such as batteries and capacitive storage to cover slack and peak periods.
Mountain railroading would generate a lot of energy from regenerative braking, so it would be a good place to install a local energy storage solution.
No question, large scale storage would be the next electrical breakthough.
Until then........my house is heated with oil, my cars run on gasoline, I cook on propane........and I operate a somewhat large home and out buildings (1200 sg ft garage/model train room/shop, built in pool, 4000 sq ft home) on only a 200 amp service.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhich begs the question asked above - how would we generate this power?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I have not read all the replies, and I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, but it seems to me there needs to be a fairly dense traffic level to make electrification energy efficient.
The funny thing about electricity (I am an electrical design draftsman, electrical control engineer, and electrician by training) is that unless you use it right away, the energy used to generate it is wasted.
Which begs the question asked above - how would we generate this power?
It seems it would be a bad idea if the power is to be generated with coal, oil or natural gas.
FACT - individual, modern, high efficiency fossil fuel energy sources are often more efficient and "cleaner" than using the same amount of fuel to make and transmit electricity to do the same work.
Example, it has been deminstrated that if every home with oil heat had a modern boiler/furnace, it would have a smaller carbon footprint than using oil to make electricity to run heat pumps in those same homes.
So a diesel electric locomotive remains king, the benefits of electric traction with the efficiency of only generating the power needed at the moment.......
So the only advantage might come from power generated some other way - solar, hydro, or nuclear, none of which lend themselves to riding along in the locomotive.........
RME http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html
Trains let YOU do it! I got my wrist slapped when I tried a couple years ago.
A very enjoyable blog. Should be on the required reading list.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
RMEYou should post a direct link to that entry
Trains won't let you post direct links to your blog entries except in your signature. I suspect it's because some folk try to monetize their blogs (I don't)
CSSHEGEWISCH The former PRR main between Fort Wayne and Chicago still exists but much of it is single track and not even remotely suitable for high-speed operation. It was already being downgraded to somewhere between a secondary main and a long branch line under Conrail management.
The former PRR main between Fort Wayne and Chicago still exists but much of it is single track and not even remotely suitable for high-speed operation. It was already being downgraded to somewhere between a secondary main and a long branch line under Conrail management.
While Clarke-Whiting never formally abandoned (InDOT screw-up ...long story), InDOT sold off R/W to a casino and the East Gary redevelopment people. CR took the money from INDOT and ran. The Lake County government political drones at Crowne Point further muddied the waters. The problem in there is a stupid number of grade crossings, broke(and inept) local government supported by an inept InDOT .building roads to nowhere.
RME: The State of Indiana statutes have recklessly created a situation where any utility has the right to go anywhere on railroad R/W they want to because they are a utility, regardless of color of title. (really bad case of inept State Government arrogantly "knowing best" and probably money changing hands under the table)...Two well known Indiana shortlines with a common owner, challenged the Indiana statute all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court. Waiting for a Cls. 1 to challenge the state in federal court and return some common sense.
IMHO - Stringing catenary between Buffalo and Chicago is a hopelessly stupid and wasteful/inefficient idea. Deader than a dodo bird.
oltmanndI tried to imagine what such a RR might look like and wrote about it in January 2014 in my blog entry "2040".
You should post a direct link to that entry, as (among other things) it is directly relevant to some of what the original poster was 'getting at' with a call for electrification, and does not involve some form of extreme HSR as a necessary precondition for that electrification.
A public investment for passenger service is a real long-shot.
However, you might be able to make the case for freight. I think it could only work as part of an integrated transformation of the railroad to one oriented toward intermodal with merchandise and bulk as the secondary products.
I think you might be able to justify the cost with higher labor productivity, higher track capacity, reduced energy costs, and faster service. I tried to imagine what such a RR might look like and wrote about it in January 2014 in my blog entry "2040".
I'm of a mind at the moment that we have to get by the Hunter Harrison era of super-tuning the status quo and into a new regime where the transformation of the railroad drives growth. I thought we might be there with NS's Crescent Corridor, but that transformation has sort of fizzled of late.
In October of 1987, I rode the Capitol Limited as I was coming home on a trip to Virginia, and noticed that the signals on one track had been taken out of service. I asked the conductor about it, but his answer was not intelligible--perhaps he was disgusted with what was taking place?
Johnny
Los Angeles Rams Guy RME It's easier than that. A major part of the PRR line to Chicago is essentially gone, and has been for some time. The former PRR Chicago - New York mainline is still definitely there save for the small portion around Tolleston, IL. CFE operates the mainline as far east as Crestline, OH.
RME It's easier than that. A major part of the PRR line to Chicago is essentially gone, and has been for some time.
It's easier than that. A major part of the PRR line to Chicago is essentially gone, and has been for some time.
The former PRR Chicago - New York mainline is still definitely there save for the small portion around Tolleston, IL. CFE operates the mainline as far east as Crestline, OH.
Tolleston is in Indiana.
A closer look at the overhead Cat. on the NE Corridor shows that the intercity high voltage wire is on the upper brakets and the power wire is below.
Paul_D_North_JrAlso, the railroad's own transmission and distribution system for its electrification is often 132 kV and is often on the catenary towers as well (PRR & RDG). As it happens, there have been several major derailments under such systems, fortunately AFAIK with no terrible effects on the High Voltage AC transmission system above. In chronological order: PRR Congressional Limited at Frankford Jct./ Phila., PA in 1943; Amtrak Colonial (?) at Chase, MD in 1987; and Amtrak 188 (?) also at Frankford Jct. in 2015. - PDN.
As it happens, there have been several major derailments under such systems, fortunately AFAIK with no terrible effects on the High Voltage AC transmission system above. In chronological order: PRR Congressional Limited at Frankford Jct./ Phila., PA in 1943; Amtrak Colonial (?) at Chase, MD in 1987; and Amtrak 188 (?) also at Frankford Jct. in 2015.
I am guessing that PRR/PC/Amtrak Power Directors had a 'quick handle' on shutting off the power once notified of the derailments mentioned.
If outside parties were in control of 132Kv & higher transmission lines along a right of way, cutting the power and the consequences of cutting the power may be very different.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There are many miles of "overbuild" of (former) Philadelphia Electric Co./ PECo transmission lines over former both PRR and Reading electrified lines in the Philadelphia area. There may be others elsewhere in the NorthEast Corridor (NEC), but I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure.
Link to one of my photos of some of the more spectacular ones:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48838227@N02/4478124502/in/dateposted-public/
Also, the railroad's own transmission and distribution system for its electrification is often 132 kV and is often on the catenary towers as well (PRR & RDG).
CandOforprogress2What I am proposing that the Trans-Con Power Grid move over one of the Eastern 2 trans-con railroads either PRR Keystone or the NYC Water Level Route. The New York Power Authority has a power line from Niagara Falls that shadows the Water Level Route. By moving the power line they free up land for other uses and have high speed clean rail at the same time.
There is an old discussion involving this, with similarity to co-location of cellular data radio antennas to powerline ROW. At least one powerline, in the New Jersey 'meadowlands', was specifically built along a railroad ROW with bridges for catenary included. with the specific intent of reducing the subsequent cost of electrification.
The problem then, and the problem now, is that there are safety issues involved with co-locating HVAC longlines with train traffic. Some issues that might concern power companies will be addressed by the civil enforcement provisions in PTC once that is active and debugged, but the risk involved with derailments around 132kV and higher structure is a significant problem, as may be the suppression of electric field in the track structure.
MC is likely to have considerable knowledge of this subject and historical approaches to it.
CandOforprogress2 CandOforprogress2 sez, in part: "...By moving the power line they free up land for other uses and have high speed clean rail at the same time." There is no high speed rail in this hemisphere.
CandOforprogress2 sez, in part:
"...By moving the power line they free up land for other uses and have high speed clean rail at the same time."
There is no high speed rail in this hemisphere.
HSR is not 100 -110 MPH running. If you can't do 150-175 MPH for sustained distances you are wasting HSR funding.
What I am proposing that the Trans-Con Power Grid move over one of the Eastern 2 trans-con railroads either PRR Keystone or the NYC Water Leval Route. The New York Power Authority has a power line from Niagara Falls that shadows the Water Leval Route. By moving the power line they free up land for other uses and have high speed clean rail at the same time.
tree68I was talking with someone last night who noted that they can drive to NYC from here almost as quickly as taking the train right now. This might change their minds (I never did ask them about parking in the "City...")
Almost as quickly?
In 1969, my father dropped me off at Penn Station 10 minutes before Metroliner time. He then made it out of the City, down to Silver Spring to pick up a couple of people, then back in (and get parked) to meet us at the platform as we came in. And we were moving at 100mph a considerable part of the way...
Most people taking the train from New York to Chicago don't start anywhere near GCT or -- even all the ones boarding at intermediate points -- finish anywhere near Union Station. I believe it's getting to where even airplane speed doesn't outweigh the time and complexity of having to rent vehicles to get from origin point to the 'mass' high-speed transport, and then again to the ultimate destination point, within the envelope of 'straight driving' time ... at with at least one, perhaps two orders of magnitude cost saving for the marginal cost of the driving. Just taking parts of the trip up to 110mph (and destroying normal sleeper comfort in the process) isn't going to fix anything other than surplus budgeted funds for infrastructure development. You'll have to make 1000-mile nonexhausting day trips a practical reality, at no more than airline cost -- that can be done, but not with incremental excuses that ultimately turn out to provide only a few pathetic minutes actual time improvement. You could also develop practical 'business sleeper class' of some kind workable for an overnight trip in this particular corridor, as has been brought up a few times especially in some V. Payne threads. But again this won't involve disseminated patches of raggedy 110mph on concrete ties...
Shadow the Cats ownerLastly how are you going to grade separate all those crossings.
The currently-named "Chicago Line" through NY was heavily grade-separated by the NYC, although there are still crossings on the line.
It was originally also mostly, if not all, four-track - two freight, two passenger. So the geography is mostly available there, even through cities. At least for one more track.
There would be dozens of small issues to contend with, however - places where connections branch off to the north or south, locations of stations, the aforementioned crossings, etc.
I was talking with someone last night who noted that they can drive to NYC from here almost as quickly as taking the train right now. This might change their minds (I never did ask them about parking in the "City...")
But the bottom line is still funding, and the ROI, even if adjusted for the whole public use thing.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
CandOforprogress2What would the middle of PA look like if the PRR had not run out of money and wired the Keystone thru Horseshoe Tunnel all the way to Cleveland?
PRR didn't 'run out of money,' they observed falling passenger volume early and saw a perfectly good solution for far less cost in diesel-electrics -- this still holds good for any future NYC-Chicago service on normal tracks. The predominant use of PRR electrification Harrisburg to Pittsburgh (no particular need to take it to "Cleveland" on PRR) was to be freight, and while there is substantial 'bang' for electrification there it is not something that existing diesel power can't handle at orders of magnitude lower fixed charges.
Since we can only afford one or the other there are 11 cities over 100,000 people on the Water Level Route but the route thru Pittsburgh is faster and growth due to such a line might make up for it.[
It's easier than that. A major part of the PRR line to Chicago is essentially gone, and has been for some time. There is little point in pretending the capital is there to restore it to even HrSR speeds, let alone constant-tension wire it.
Meanwhile there WAS a comparable plan to wire some of the Water Level Route -- anone remember that full-page cut of the electric locomotive that otherwise went unmentioned in Kiefer's 1947 report on motive power? -- but there again 'Dieseliners' did anything required (and it might be mentioned that, had a need for sustained 120+ running been needed at that time, there were designs of Diesel that would have accommodated it, probably including the Ingalls lightweights with Bowes drive).
It is possible that, given the congestion on parts of what used to be the Water Level Route, some of the operating efficiency of electrification for freight that was observed on PRR in the six-track region in New Jersey might be observable in those areas, and some of the benefit then extended to passenger service. That would almost certainly have to be done with dual-mode engines and not 'straight' electrification. But even Democratic levels of 'stimulus' throwaway wouldn't get that up to speed with necessary effectiveness...
Current proposals for Midwest High Speed rail are incremental. Let us either electrify [the] current NYC or PRR route and then upgrade tracks later or as needed.
Here is where the thing largely falls down. The electrification cost can only be justified if there is an accompanying upgrade of track structure and systems - makes far better sense to do it the other way 'round for higher speed as needed, and you rapidly get into Shadow's owner's issues, particularly if going for peak speeds of any magnitude that "requires" electrification (well over 125mph). For legitimate HSR you're talking full grade separation, and probably new ROW optimized for high-speed lightweight trains. And that ain't going to be built where most of the PRR west of Harrisburg runs. It might be attractive to think of what happens west of Fort Wayne, for a while, but you won't just put back what used to be there and string wires. Ultimate cost per passenger makes me think of one early Amtrak study which pointed out that buying each passenger of record a new Volkswagen would have been cheqper for the Government...
I have a grim suspicion that a substantial part of electrification west of Harrisburg might have gone the way of the Atglen and Susquehanna, particularly as Amtrak had to assume much of the maintenance costing for it, although it might have been feasible to restore some of it via dual-mode-lite after the '80s.
Of course, I still think Weed's system of high-speed narrow-gauge package and express electrification should have been tried, and perhaps expanded... while at the time only an idiot would have proposed transporting passengers on it, the 'form factor' for the necessary accommodations looks remarkbly like that for Hyperloop...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.