Overmod The only way 'electrification' at large scale makes any sense is 60Hz AC combined with electrical 'grid' distribution -- same model as the PRR with 132kV lines on the towers supporting the cat bridges, but with modern rather than 'industrial' frequency. It makes no sense whatever to buiild any number of electric-only locomotives for any reason, even after long stretches of track have been wired and energized. I would argue that it never makes sense to have 'full electric' anywhere for freight service, as a very great share of the expense is in a comparatively small number of track-miles (where there are objections to OHLE or engineering restrictions on overhead clearance). The modern version of dual-mode-lite, whether implemented on locomotives as in the Conrail study, or provided in a 'tender' like Iden's or a MATE, or as battery locomotives operated in a hybrid configuration, is really the alternative that makes the only sense. It also implicitly supports both helping/snapping of divisions that would benefit from it, full-power zero-carbon operation for any political region that demands that without compromising effective fueled operation elsewhere, and easy interoperation with shortlines, other operations that continue to use fuel-only or hybrid power of non-wired types, or existing types of catenary.
The only way 'electrification' at large scale makes any sense is 60Hz AC combined with electrical 'grid' distribution -- same model as the PRR with 132kV lines on the towers supporting the cat bridges, but with modern rather than 'industrial' frequency.
It makes no sense whatever to buiild any number of electric-only locomotives for any reason, even after long stretches of track have been wired and energized. I would argue that it never makes sense to have 'full electric' anywhere for freight service, as a very great share of the expense is in a comparatively small number of track-miles (where there are objections to OHLE or engineering restrictions on overhead clearance).
The modern version of dual-mode-lite, whether implemented on locomotives as in the Conrail study, or provided in a 'tender' like Iden's or a MATE, or as battery locomotives operated in a hybrid configuration, is really the alternative that makes the only sense. It also implicitly supports both helping/snapping of divisions that would benefit from it, full-power zero-carbon operation for any political region that demands that without compromising effective fueled operation elsewhere, and easy interoperation with shortlines, other operations that continue to use fuel-only or hybrid power of non-wired types, or existing types of catenary.
I really believe this is the way it will go. It also helps that this model can work whether you have comparatively few miles of wire over yards or recharge areas or many miles over long stretches. Meaning it can smooth out the pain of transition to an all electric or mostly electric future.
CSSHEGEWISCH Conversion of Metra Electric (ex-IC) from 1500 Volts DC to 50000 Volts AC 60 Hz would also require conversion of the South Shore Line.
Conversion of Metra Electric (ex-IC) from 1500 Volts DC to 50000 Volts AC 60 Hz would also require conversion of the South Shore Line.
As well as adding a few tons to the weight of each car. Making an inverter to run off of the 1500VDC catemary used by Metra Electric and South Shore is a piece of cake, so converting to 50KV AC would be a big step backwards. Then there is the "minor" issue of providing sufficient clearance for the 50KV catenary.
For a commuter line that will only see M.U. equipment, I would be very tempted to suggest using either 1500VDC or 3000VDC as the electrical equipment would be much lighter than with an AC electrification.
blue streak 1 As well convert METRA electric to 60 hZ. The other agencies having dual use tracks probably conver their cars to dual power useage. Such as San Diego.
As well convert METRA electric to 60 hZ. The other agencies having dual use tracks probably conver their cars to dual power useage. Such as San Diego.
I'm not sure how well it could work today given modern factors like environment impact studies that didn't figure into the expense 45 years ago, but Conrail's big electrification study projected a payback period of 9.9 years and an average savings of $84 million in operating costs over that time.
A public-private partnership perhaps could be the solution to the Wall Street problem, with the taxpayers being paid back over time from the operating savings generated by the electrification.
But at the end of the day what would happen to everything past the busiest of mainlines? I can't imagine for instance that electrification would ever pay for itself on a quiet line like the one across town from me (the CSX Syracuse-Montreal line).
Would Class 1's want to go back to the days of the steam to diesel transition with two separate fleets, run through power not being possible where electrification and quieter diesel powered lines meet (if the federal government funds it for environmental reasons, even diesel run throughs under wire would presumably be discouraged), etc? Doesn't strike me as likely unless Congress forces them into it.
And there's tons of cascading effects as well. If the busy Class 1 roads largely were to electrify, what happens to the shortlines for instance? They can't afford brand new power and they've traditionally relied upon Class 1 cast-offs. While perhaps having to change in the years ahead no matter what (will the average shortline ever be able to make effective use of something like an old ES44AC?), they're all issues that have to be taken into account if such a drastic shift were to be undertaken.
Shadow the Cats owner The reason why the USA has never considered going to electric trains comes down to 3 things. 1 is the costs to do so and then build enough power generation plants to move everything. 2nd is the distances involved. There's a difference between 300 miles and 1000 miles a city when it comes to maintaining a set of overhead wires. Yes Russia has it but they literally have no roads outside their cities either. 3 is standardization all the railroads would have to agree on one standardized voltage and hertz for everything to be compatible across the nation. That's why diesel engines work so well. It doesn't matter what options you have as a railroad on your own locomotives the fuel they all burn is the same ulsd that comes out of the pump except for FEC and their captive service LNG fueled engines.
The reason why the USA has never considered going to electric trains comes down to 3 things. 1 is the costs to do so and then build enough power generation plants to move everything. 2nd is the distances involved. There's a difference between 300 miles and 1000 miles a city when it comes to maintaining a set of overhead wires. Yes Russia has it but they literally have no roads outside their cities either. 3 is standardization all the railroads would have to agree on one standardized voltage and hertz for everything to be compatible across the nation. That's why diesel engines work so well. It doesn't matter what options
you have as a railroad on your own locomotives the fuel they all burn is the same ulsd that comes out of the pump except for FEC and their captive service LNG fueled engines.
Also 4) fossil fuels are not priced to include the environmental costs of burning them. If they were, electrification would suddenly become more economical even with the infrastructure costs.
And 5) Wall Street, with its focus on quarterly earnings, would never tolerate the sort of massive infrastructure investment that stringing cat would require, even if it paid off in the long term. Granted, BNSF doesn't have that problem.
As far as a nationwide power specification that is up to either the AAR or more likely the FRA setting the standard. 60 hZ AC which is the standard commercial power will be the default and is already used by Amtrak (in spots), Cal Train, MNRR, & NJ Transit. The FRA & FTA should require any tracks that are temporal seperated new electric equipment to operate on 60 hZ and the agency that is ordering equipment its own power type.
Voltages can be various by constructing transformers with multi tap transformers. They work well for Amtrak, NJ Transit & MNRR. Voltages probably would be 50 kV ( although have heard that voltage has some problems). 25 kV and 12.5 kV are widely in use. For locations with restricted clearances such as tunnels IMO 6.25 kV might be the standard although that really is up to a standars committee.
6.25 kV or lower voltage allows for attaching an insulated ceiling rail system leaving only top of car to ceiling rail a short distance to be necessary. Auto transformer voltage reductions for those possible lower voltages can tap off the CAT feed line at that location.
The 25 hZ problem on the NE corridor is another problem as the US RRs should not have to install the larger transformers needed for 25 hZ. The solution there is to probably have congress appropriate funds to convert Amtrak, NJ Transit, and Septa. As well convert METRA electric to 60 hZ. The other agencies having dual use tracks probably conver their cars to dual power useage. Such as San Diego.
FWIW, Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) can have a thermal efficiency exceeding 60%. This has to be balanced against the loss in transmission and distribution.
I've said it before and will say again: I think it would be a very good idea to make provisions for some battery storage to cope with breaks in the catenary and recovering some regenerated energy. Modern pulse width modulated inverters operate very nicely with the constant voltage produced by the battery.
Shadow the Cats owner2nd is the distances involved. There's a difference between 300 miles and 1000 miles a city
Europe seems able to electrify. You realize the distance from LA to NYC is similar to many routes in Europe: Lisbon to Istanbul or Lithuania or Kyiv, for example. And multi-current locomotives are available and used.
MidlandMike A transition to electric cat would probably be at a rate comparable to attrition of older diesel unit retirements.
A transition to electric cat would probably be at a rate comparable to attrition of older diesel unit retirements.
The asumption that the RRs would only use commercial power is not necessary. Although an additional cost the some RRs could build their own generating capacity. They could use much more efficient diesel engines even using their saved diesel fuel. Or as well use peaking recuperative generators with turbine engines that are getting close to 50 % thermal efficiency vs regular locos 25+%. Start up time about 5 minutes & can use various diesel or jet fuels. Running steady state at most efficient speeds a real plus.
The ability to get much more tractive effort when needed as long as the AC motors are rated for short time peaks even exceeding the best diesel locos now being built.
As for converting present locos the rectifiers are already in them that feed the various inverters. Also no lag in traction power caused by prime mover lag that is in production diesels for emission reduction. IMO there needs to be individual axel inverters instead of one inverter per truck.
Another post with an Ohio-centric name...
rdamon Bring back the FL-9
Bring back the FL-9
Patowmack-OhioSummiter Yeah that could offset any savings to be gained if it would be system wide
Yeah that could offset any savings to be gained if it would be system wide
Would it not be more cost effective... just to mount a motor on your 'Loco's" ?
Just askin; for a friend....
I don't think that, even if it were feasible, that such conversions would make electrification more affordable. The cost of catenary, transmission lines, substations, etc. would still need to be considered.
The reason why the USA has never considered going to electric trains comes down to 3 things. 1 is the costs to do so and then build enough power generation plants to move everything. 2nd is the distances involved. There's a difference between 300 miles and 1000 miles a city when it comes to maintaining a set of overhead wires. Yes Russia has it but they literally have no roads outside their cities either. 3 is standardization all the railroads would have to agree on one standardized voltage and hertz for everything to be compatible across the nation. That's why diesel engines work so well. It doesn't matter what options you have as a railroad on your own locomotives the fuel they all burn is the same ulsd that comes out of the pump except for FEC and their captive service LNG fueled engines.
Ive looked at diagrams with the inner workings of diesel electric and pure electric locos, traction wise its the same after the transformer/generator, with electricity going into a rectifier and an inverter before going to the traction motors moving the axels. Youd think a company or two would have tried refurbishing a diesel electric to a cantenary electric then, considering its just a matter of swapping out the fuel tanks, Generator and Engine with a Transformer and a Big Rectifier with some rewiring and an Auxilary Inverter for the formally powered non traction systems. Has this actually happened before? id be willing to bet though that factors like costs of adding a transformer, the different mechanics between a generator and a rectifier, and simply the diesel locomotives not being built for the pure electric layout, probably are why this hasnt been done. If they find a way to do it cheaply it might prove useful if electrification ever arrives on the systems of the class I companies and they have a group of diesels they could convert to take advantage of it, presuming double stack compatible cantenaries ever arrive to america.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.