carnej1 Conversely, you could build a dual mode (Diesel Electric/Catenary Electric) freight locomotive. IIRC, GE has stated to NS that they could build a dual mode ES44AC for the Electrified corridor project (name escapes) me that NS has been studying... Also,Railpower Industries holds a patent for a slug unit that could have a pantograph and supply power to a modified diesel unit..
Conversely, you could build a dual mode (Diesel Electric/Catenary Electric) freight locomotive. IIRC, GE has stated to NS that they could build a dual mode ES44AC for the Electrified corridor project (name escapes) me that NS has been studying...
Also,Railpower Industries holds a patent for a slug unit that could have a pantograph and supply power to a modified diesel unit..
quick look at what would be required. Locating a protective transformer cage in the loco would be most difficult --- probably at rear of loco that might require new attach points for prime mover to enable balanced weight distribution. With transformer cage weight some ballast in loco could be deleted to maintain total weight of loco.
Electric mode traction could be as much as 6600 HP with each inverter's capacity listed at 1100 HP. Transformer size is a minor weight item. The extra HP would be great whenever train is traveling uphill at a speed for all HP to be useful. I can see that this excess HP would have applications on long hills such a Horseshoe..
CAT would be best installed for dual mode locos where the HP hours / per mile is used to get trains over a hill. The more HP hours per mile required on any section of CAT track the better the return of investment.
there would be a requirement for various controls ( PANS, regenerative braking, start / stop prime mover, switch imput from prime mover to transformer, etc ) to operate in CAT mode with probably a supplementary MU control.
narig01 CSSHEGEWISCH: narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45. I suspect you might misunderstand what I am trying to say. The idea is this: In areas where you have overhead wires you don't need the power plant and it will not be part of a train consist. However if you need to go offline or away from the wire you add the power plant (sled?) to the consist to get the train away from the wire. Say UP/BNSF have the Powder River electrified and their mains but need to deliver to a power plant in Mississippi that is on IC/ CN. Run the train under wire to Memphis then add the power sled for the last 100 miles or so to Mississippi. Same applies for trips to say Pleasant Prairie, Wi . Main line to Chicago then add the power plant for the last 60 miles or so. Thx IGN
CSSHEGEWISCH: narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45.
narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN
Just a thought about dual mode.
Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power.
Rgds IGN
This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45.
I suspect you might misunderstand what I am trying to say.
The idea is this: In areas where you have overhead wires you don't need the power plant and it will not be part of a train consist. However if you need to go offline or away from the wire you add the power plant (sled?) to the consist to get the train away from the wire. Say UP/BNSF have the Powder River electrified and their mains but need to deliver to a power plant in Mississippi that is on IC/ CN. Run the train under wire to Memphis then add the power sled for the last 100 miles or so to Mississippi.
Same applies for trips to say Pleasant Prairie, Wi . Main line to Chicago then add the power plant for the last 60 miles or so.
Thx IGN
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
CSSHEGEWISCH narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45.
narig01 Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN
Note there are several varieties of dual-mode diesel-electric-electric.
Most expensive and most tricky to design: New Jersey Transit's dual modes, diesel electric and 11,000V 25Hz AC convertable to 12,500V 60Hz AC with capability of adding 25,000V 60Hz AC and with full speed capabilities in all modes and electric horsepower exceeding that of diesel-electric horsepower
Next most expensive and tricky to design: LIRR's dual modes, diesel electric and 600V DC electric with full speed capabilities in both modes and electric horsepower exceeding that of diesel-electric/
Least challanging: The original FL-9 design and current Amtrak and Metro-North dual modes, similar to above, except very limited electric speed capability (35 or 40 mph) intend to be used only south of 125th Street on Metro North into GCT and only south of 72nd Street on Amtrak into Penn Station. Note that Hudson Line Amtrak trains do not use their dual modes to go to and from Sunnyside Yard. They would tie up the main line East River tunnels if they did. Normally, the are switched by one of Amtrak's electrifcs, a Bombadier or Toaster or whatever. Also Amtrak currently operates only on diesel mode while on Metro Norfth Hudson line tracks and does not use Metro North's third rail power. The third rails Amtrak uses in the Penn Staion area are the LIRR overruning type.
Some of the FL-9's were rebult to the 2nd type for LIRR service and inaugurated the first through Oyster Bay - Penn Station trains since the end of the use of DD-1's and Jamaica engine changes int he steam era. They had problems and were replaced by the current dual-modes.
Photo of a Philadelphia Electric Co. 'overbuild' line over the former Reading RR's (now CSX) Stoney Creek Branch, from Norristown to Lansdale, PA, looking east from the PA Rt. 73 grade crossing:
On another thread here a couple years ago I posted some of my photos of other "overbuilds" in the Philadelphia area, which usually involve more substantial structures.
- Paul North.
narig01 Considering the current escalating price of diesel I thought I would try to restart this thread And I will ask the question: Considering that coal movements for power companies are a major source of revenue, why can't railroads and power companies get together to electrify the railroads.
Considering the current escalating price of diesel I thought I would try to restart this thread
And I will ask the question: Considering that coal movements for power companies are a major source of revenue, why can't railroads and power companies get together to electrify the railroads.
As someone who worked in the electric utility business for decades, my company would be happy to sell power to a railroad providing there was a sustaining demand for it. Whether we could earn a return on any required incremental system expansion (generation, transmission, and distribution) to justify the capital investment is the key question.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, which has one of the most extensive light rail systems in the U.S., buys its power from a variety of electric retailers in Texas. They solicit bids to obtain the best deal, which may come as shock to some folks, and draw power from a variety of suppliers to the grid. Little if any system expansion was required to make the power available to DART. Houston's light rail system also buys power from the grid.
The financial planners for a railroad will look at the same investment model that a power company would look at. Would the returns justify the investment?
Unlike Amtrak, which is a government agency masquerading as a business, private enterprise must get a return on a capital investment. Otherwise, it cannot afford to do it. The challenge for a railroad considering electrification is modeling what is likely to happen for fuel prices. If they make the wrong call, as numerous planners have done, with Southwest Airlines being one of the most recent examples, they could be encumbered with an investment that generates a negative return.
Right now dual mode locos seem to cost too much. That may be because passenger locos are just more complex or economies of scale are not able to be applied.
certain locations where helpers are used on almost all trains may be an application of short distance electrification where electric motors helpers could be assigned. One example is NS's horseshoe route on both sides of the mountain.
Electric Power for the RR may come from its own mineral resources. The development of the shale natural gas in the Pennsylvania area can provide energy to run power generators.
The new recuperating power generating systems that GE among other manufacturers are producing have much potential to provide the necessary power without depending on commercial power. These units are natural gas powered turbines that can start up in 10 minutes with a energy recovery of ~~ 30%.. But the real deal is that if a heat recovery system is installed in the exhaust of the gas turbine in approximately 1 hour energy recovery can be as high as 50 + %.. With the potential of very low natural gas prices in the forseeable future ???
This is a system that certainly needs consideration.
Now the price of installing electrification is a real cost. One possible solution is the building of a production train. UK's Network Rail's building of a factory train to install CAT on the west coast line may be a solution. The train is some 25+ cars that install eveything in one passthere by not tying up track time too long. If I remember correctly installation is over 1 mile a day ?.
rpwood1. With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines? 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.? 3. Which road(s) would benefit the most? 4. Where would potential electrifications be most likely? My own observations and opinions on the subject are: - This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ's, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time. - It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1's could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan's in the east and the Rockies in the west..
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 Coal fired power stations are more efficient than steam locos. The New York and New Haven RR learnt this nearly a 100 years ago. Once the bugs in its pioneering AC electrification had been ironed out, its Financial Director was able to report to Stockholder that they got twice as many drawbar hp per ton of coal burnt in their powerstation than they got for every ton of coal burnt in their steam locos.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 Yes, especially Russian ones! (Tony B has just signed a deal with President Putin of Russia. We're going to build a pipeline all the way from Siberia to Britain, now that Britain is no longer self sufficient). I think we should emulate the Danes. They male 1/3rd of their natural gas from pig's manure; you can make it from human sewage too.!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Do they buy that natural gas from open access pipeline companies?[:-,]
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources? Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion. The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it. Best regards, Michael Sol Coal fired power stations are more efficient than steam locos. The New York and New Haven RR learnt this nearly a 100 years ago. Once the bugs in its pioneering AC electrification had been ironed out, its Financial Director was able to report to Stockholder that they got twice as many drawbar hp per ton of coal burnt in their powerstation than they got for every ton of coal burnt in their steam locos. The new combined cycle gas power station are even more efficient. In these you run jet engines on natural gas then use the hot exhaust gases to make steam to drive steam turbines. In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources? Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion. The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.? No. Traffic levels will not rise enough to pay for electricification, not unless the government radically changes tax law (that is, subsidize the installation costs).
QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.?
QUOTE: No, it's not kept on the back burner. It's not even in the dustiest box in the dimmest recess of the oldest warehouse. This is a very capital-intensive industry already; why make it worse?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.