QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. I was referring to something running into the pole and pushing it over, not pulling it down. ......I guess that would be conceivable for regular lineside poles, I mean cars hit telephone poles and knock them down. I would point out that common North American mammals in modern times don't get much bigger than elk or moose. No herds of Bison outside of isolated spots like Yellowstone. I'm familiar with modern catenary as I live near the northern part of the NEC (in RI). The poles are extremely sturdy tower type structures and nothing short of a brontosaurus would be able to topple one.......... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 4:27 PM I don't think there were many telegraph poles knocked down by animals unless it was a hungry beaver but then again I don't think creosote tastes that good. Reply Edit DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 4:25 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. I was referring to something running into the pole and pushing it over, not pulling it down. GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 4:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:37 PM Two Joes working hard would pull 3,000 amps. An EF-5 working hard would pull about 2300 amps. Put another electrically powered train in a section and you would begin approaching the short time section capacity (two substations) of approximately 8,000 amps, carried by the 500,000 cm equivalent contact wire, a 500,000 cm copper feeder cable, and a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Not unreasonable, it works out to 4388 Amps. I was under the impression that the Milwaukee's cantenary was fused for 4000 Amps. Of course holding back the power just a little would help. But I would expect that you could only have one train in section drawing that much power, any others would have to be in regenerative braking, or a different power section. That same train with proper locomotives and running under 25kv AC cantenary would only be drawing 597 Amps. It would them be possible to have six such trains working in the substations section. Reply carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 11:37 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 3:56 AM Biofuel can lead to world hunger. Reply Jack_S Member sinceDecember 2004 339 posts Posted by Jack_S on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by silicon212 Biodiesel is the wave of the future. Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass? Biodiesel is a phantom. There is not nearly enough arable land in the USA to grow enough biodiesel crops to fulfill the USA's fuel needs. And every bit of land used to grow biodiesel means less land to grow food. Jack Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Monday, June 5, 2006 10:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. That does make sense, but wouldn't rockslides and the such also have a negative effect on cantenary? The wires have to be held up by something (poles) that can be knocked over by a rockslide or a mudslide. I've also heard of many stories about ice and snow negatively effecting cantenary in the NEC similarly to how regular powerlines get knocked down. However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, June 5, 2006 8:58 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Monday, June 5, 2006 7:38 PM Where in the heck does anyone call electrifying the Santa Fe transcon "modernizing" or efficient?......Did someone convolute a fairy-tale and go out trying to brainwash folks again? [(-D][(-D][(-D] Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 6:05 PM Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:40 AM Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. 600 volt 3rd rail and 8000 hp locos really don't mix well :P Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Monday, June 5, 2006 12:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? Not viable, typical power for a locomotive in Europe is 5 MW of power. Power (Watts) is voltage multiplied by Amperage. In this case divide the Wattage by the voltage 5000000 divided by 750 equals 6667 Amps, you can weld about anything with that much power. Realistically you would want at least 3000 volts if you are going DC. Even then you would probably need heavier wire than that used by the Milwaukee, and more frequent substations. You certainly don't want that much power at ground level. Touch it and it doesn't just kill you is turns you into a crispy critter. Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Sunday, June 4, 2006 10:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? With 3rd rail you would have to fence the ROW as any someone walking across could get quite a jolt. Also there would be breaks in power at grade crossings, which with passenger is not that big of a deal, but a long freight train losing power could stall very easily. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Sunday, June 4, 2006 8:53 PM Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. More likely to become technically obsolete before they were worn out. John Beaulieu Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:54 AM Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. Reply Edit erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Sunday, June 4, 2006 12:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. I would assume hat the Green Goat uses lead -acid batteries for a couple of reasons. The first is that lead-acid is still the king in cost/watt-hour of the battery technologies. The second is that low weight isn't a requirement for the Goat. What has changed since the days of the pre-WW2 dual and tri-powers is the advancement in motor control circuitry, where it is possible to have efficient operation off of a constant voltage bus (i.e. battery). The gensets on the Goat work pretty much the same way the generator/alternator works on a car - they keep the batteries topped off (batteries aren't being deep-cycled). Since the gensets are running at pretty much constant power, it is much easier to keep them running clean, than a diesel that's constantly being throttled back and forth from run 1 to run 8. Back to batteries - lead acid batteries have several failings, poor energy density, poor power density, a limited number of discharge cycle before wearout (lifetime is a problem for just about any battery technology), lotsa corrosive stuff in the battery, and a general safety hazard of the energy stored in the battery. NiMH batteries have a much higher power density and moderately higher enegy density. Li-ion batteries have both a much higher power and energy density than lead-acids (price per watt-hour is higher as well). It is technically feasible for a commuter operation to run on Li batteries, but not economically feasible. If I were going to do a dual power electric, my choice would be to go with "Ultra-Caps" - they'll last through 100,000+ charge/discharge cycles, have very good power density and can be bled off for maintenance. The idea is to permit having significant gaps in the wire and not having to worry about stranding the locomotive. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:06 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Friday, June 2, 2006 5:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 2, 2006 2:26 PM In Britain there is some discusion about a project called HST 2, to replace the Diesel HST, one of the most successful trains ever to turn a wheel. One idea floating about is hybrid technology with betterys to aid acceleration and to be charged using dynamic breaking. One of our railway magazines called Moden Railways has just had a quick look at this and worked out that if HST 2's Diesel powercars were a modern clone of HST 1, to make it hybrid you'd need to add 8 tons of battery. Basicly they concluded that at the moment it's not likely you can scale up a Prius for Railway work. Reply Edit carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Friday, June 2, 2006 11:39 AM I seem to remember reading (on the Milwaukee Road Historical Society site IIRC) that in the early to mid 1970's General Electric proposed to the Milwaukee a complete rebuild of the electrification to modern AC standard including a new electric locomotive fleet and "closing the gap". As this would allow GE to test new technology in anticipation of large scale Class 1 electrification (widely predicted during the 70's energy crisis) they supposedly offered a financing package with little or no up front cost to the RR. But MR management passed....... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Friday, June 2, 2006 10:39 AM The initial question here is not that farfetched. BN studied doing long-route electrication as late as 1988. The intriguing part of it is that the line would not be subject to Arab fuel cuts, embargoes, etc. But it IS the initial cost that led BN to drop the plan. However, TSA monies have been spent on much less worthy projects. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:52 AM QUOTE: Anyone know the status of this? The FRA and DOE were funding a program to build a prototype passenger turbine (using the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive)with a flywheel energy storage system but I believe it's a dead project..................... Don't know what's become of that project... GE is supposedly working on a hybrid locomotove for freight service - using batteries for energy storage. It might be useful in hilly country as opposed to mountainous country. I think the ideal application for a hybrid is a commuter rail locomotive - possibly recovering a lot of the braking energy and improving acceleration. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. That sounds like a good number for the early 1970's - implies "the gap" could have been closed for ~$10,000,000. The Milw used a pair of 4/0 trolley wires, which comes out to 6600 pounds of copper per mile. At $3.50/pound (fudged from futures market prices), that $23,000 just for the copper in the contact wire. Throw in the cost for messenger wire, hangers and feeder plus 35 poles per mile, you would be lucky to come in under $200k/mile (number pulled out of my rear end...). That still would be a bargain compared to the $1M/mile for the AC electrification. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:39 AM EMD proposed a dual power source SD-40 to the Milwaukee. It would have had a pantograph and generate 3000 engine hp while the diesel was running, and 5400 rail hp while using the 3 kvDC contact wire. Milwaukee's Electrical Engineer vetoed the proposal. While running in diesel mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive diesel locomotive. While running in the electric mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive electric locomotive. While running as a diesel, the Company lost available electric horsepower. While running in electric mode, the Company lost available diesel horsepower. Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. I was referring to something running into the pole and pushing it over, not pulling it down.
QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking.........
Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)].
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. I was referring to something running into the pole and pushing it over, not pulling it down. GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 4:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:37 PM Two Joes working hard would pull 3,000 amps. An EF-5 working hard would pull about 2300 amps. Put another electrically powered train in a section and you would begin approaching the short time section capacity (two substations) of approximately 8,000 amps, carried by the 500,000 cm equivalent contact wire, a 500,000 cm copper feeder cable, and a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Not unreasonable, it works out to 4388 Amps. I was under the impression that the Milwaukee's cantenary was fused for 4000 Amps. Of course holding back the power just a little would help. But I would expect that you could only have one train in section drawing that much power, any others would have to be in regenerative braking, or a different power section. That same train with proper locomotives and running under 25kv AC cantenary would only be drawing 597 Amps. It would them be possible to have six such trains working in the substations section. Reply carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 11:37 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 3:56 AM Biofuel can lead to world hunger. Reply Jack_S Member sinceDecember 2004 339 posts Posted by Jack_S on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by silicon212 Biodiesel is the wave of the future. Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass? Biodiesel is a phantom. There is not nearly enough arable land in the USA to grow enough biodiesel crops to fulfill the USA's fuel needs. And every bit of land used to grow biodiesel means less land to grow food. Jack Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Monday, June 5, 2006 10:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. That does make sense, but wouldn't rockslides and the such also have a negative effect on cantenary? The wires have to be held up by something (poles) that can be knocked over by a rockslide or a mudslide. I've also heard of many stories about ice and snow negatively effecting cantenary in the NEC similarly to how regular powerlines get knocked down. However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, June 5, 2006 8:58 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Monday, June 5, 2006 7:38 PM Where in the heck does anyone call electrifying the Santa Fe transcon "modernizing" or efficient?......Did someone convolute a fairy-tale and go out trying to brainwash folks again? [(-D][(-D][(-D] Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 6:05 PM Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:40 AM Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. 600 volt 3rd rail and 8000 hp locos really don't mix well :P Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Monday, June 5, 2006 12:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? Not viable, typical power for a locomotive in Europe is 5 MW of power. Power (Watts) is voltage multiplied by Amperage. In this case divide the Wattage by the voltage 5000000 divided by 750 equals 6667 Amps, you can weld about anything with that much power. Realistically you would want at least 3000 volts if you are going DC. Even then you would probably need heavier wire than that used by the Milwaukee, and more frequent substations. You certainly don't want that much power at ground level. Touch it and it doesn't just kill you is turns you into a crispy critter. Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Sunday, June 4, 2006 10:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? With 3rd rail you would have to fence the ROW as any someone walking across could get quite a jolt. Also there would be breaks in power at grade crossings, which with passenger is not that big of a deal, but a long freight train losing power could stall very easily. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Sunday, June 4, 2006 8:53 PM Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. More likely to become technically obsolete before they were worn out. John Beaulieu Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:54 AM Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. Reply Edit erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Sunday, June 4, 2006 12:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. I would assume hat the Green Goat uses lead -acid batteries for a couple of reasons. The first is that lead-acid is still the king in cost/watt-hour of the battery technologies. The second is that low weight isn't a requirement for the Goat. What has changed since the days of the pre-WW2 dual and tri-powers is the advancement in motor control circuitry, where it is possible to have efficient operation off of a constant voltage bus (i.e. battery). The gensets on the Goat work pretty much the same way the generator/alternator works on a car - they keep the batteries topped off (batteries aren't being deep-cycled). Since the gensets are running at pretty much constant power, it is much easier to keep them running clean, than a diesel that's constantly being throttled back and forth from run 1 to run 8. Back to batteries - lead acid batteries have several failings, poor energy density, poor power density, a limited number of discharge cycle before wearout (lifetime is a problem for just about any battery technology), lotsa corrosive stuff in the battery, and a general safety hazard of the energy stored in the battery. NiMH batteries have a much higher power density and moderately higher enegy density. Li-ion batteries have both a much higher power and energy density than lead-acids (price per watt-hour is higher as well). It is technically feasible for a commuter operation to run on Li batteries, but not economically feasible. If I were going to do a dual power electric, my choice would be to go with "Ultra-Caps" - they'll last through 100,000+ charge/discharge cycles, have very good power density and can be bled off for maintenance. The idea is to permit having significant gaps in the wire and not having to worry about stranding the locomotive. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:06 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Friday, June 2, 2006 5:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 2, 2006 2:26 PM In Britain there is some discusion about a project called HST 2, to replace the Diesel HST, one of the most successful trains ever to turn a wheel. One idea floating about is hybrid technology with betterys to aid acceleration and to be charged using dynamic breaking. One of our railway magazines called Moden Railways has just had a quick look at this and worked out that if HST 2's Diesel powercars were a modern clone of HST 1, to make it hybrid you'd need to add 8 tons of battery. Basicly they concluded that at the moment it's not likely you can scale up a Prius for Railway work. Reply Edit carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Friday, June 2, 2006 11:39 AM I seem to remember reading (on the Milwaukee Road Historical Society site IIRC) that in the early to mid 1970's General Electric proposed to the Milwaukee a complete rebuild of the electrification to modern AC standard including a new electric locomotive fleet and "closing the gap". As this would allow GE to test new technology in anticipation of large scale Class 1 electrification (widely predicted during the 70's energy crisis) they supposedly offered a financing package with little or no up front cost to the RR. But MR management passed....... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Friday, June 2, 2006 10:39 AM The initial question here is not that farfetched. BN studied doing long-route electrication as late as 1988. The intriguing part of it is that the line would not be subject to Arab fuel cuts, embargoes, etc. But it IS the initial cost that led BN to drop the plan. However, TSA monies have been spent on much less worthy projects. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:52 AM QUOTE: Anyone know the status of this? The FRA and DOE were funding a program to build a prototype passenger turbine (using the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive)with a flywheel energy storage system but I believe it's a dead project..................... Don't know what's become of that project... GE is supposedly working on a hybrid locomotove for freight service - using batteries for energy storage. It might be useful in hilly country as opposed to mountainous country. I think the ideal application for a hybrid is a commuter rail locomotive - possibly recovering a lot of the braking energy and improving acceleration. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. That sounds like a good number for the early 1970's - implies "the gap" could have been closed for ~$10,000,000. The Milw used a pair of 4/0 trolley wires, which comes out to 6600 pounds of copper per mile. At $3.50/pound (fudged from futures market prices), that $23,000 just for the copper in the contact wire. Throw in the cost for messenger wire, hangers and feeder plus 35 poles per mile, you would be lucky to come in under $200k/mile (number pulled out of my rear end...). That still would be a bargain compared to the $1M/mile for the AC electrification. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:39 AM EMD proposed a dual power source SD-40 to the Milwaukee. It would have had a pantograph and generate 3000 engine hp while the diesel was running, and 5400 rail hp while using the 3 kvDC contact wire. Milwaukee's Electrical Engineer vetoed the proposal. While running in diesel mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive diesel locomotive. While running in the electric mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive electric locomotive. While running as a diesel, the Company lost available electric horsepower. While running in electric mode, the Company lost available diesel horsepower. Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... I don't believe he's talking about the animals tearing down the poles. More likely the potential that they can be electrocuted because they can touch the third rail and the nearest running rail at the same time. Probably the only animal that could do that with overhead wire is a giraffe. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:37 PM Two Joes working hard would pull 3,000 amps. An EF-5 working hard would pull about 2300 amps. Put another electrically powered train in a section and you would begin approaching the short time section capacity (two substations) of approximately 8,000 amps, carried by the 500,000 cm equivalent contact wire, a 500,000 cm copper feeder cable, and a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Not unreasonable, it works out to 4388 Amps. I was under the impression that the Milwaukee's cantenary was fused for 4000 Amps. Of course holding back the power just a little would help. But I would expect that you could only have one train in section drawing that much power, any others would have to be in regenerative braking, or a different power section. That same train with proper locomotives and running under 25kv AC cantenary would only be drawing 597 Amps. It would them be possible to have six such trains working in the substations section. Reply carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 11:37 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 3:56 AM Biofuel can lead to world hunger. Reply Jack_S Member sinceDecember 2004 339 posts Posted by Jack_S on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by silicon212 Biodiesel is the wave of the future. Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass? Biodiesel is a phantom. There is not nearly enough arable land in the USA to grow enough biodiesel crops to fulfill the USA's fuel needs. And every bit of land used to grow biodiesel means less land to grow food. Jack Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Monday, June 5, 2006 10:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. That does make sense, but wouldn't rockslides and the such also have a negative effect on cantenary? The wires have to be held up by something (poles) that can be knocked over by a rockslide or a mudslide. I've also heard of many stories about ice and snow negatively effecting cantenary in the NEC similarly to how regular powerlines get knocked down. However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, June 5, 2006 8:58 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Monday, June 5, 2006 7:38 PM Where in the heck does anyone call electrifying the Santa Fe transcon "modernizing" or efficient?......Did someone convolute a fairy-tale and go out trying to brainwash folks again? [(-D][(-D][(-D] Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 6:05 PM Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:40 AM Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. 600 volt 3rd rail and 8000 hp locos really don't mix well :P Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Monday, June 5, 2006 12:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? Not viable, typical power for a locomotive in Europe is 5 MW of power. Power (Watts) is voltage multiplied by Amperage. In this case divide the Wattage by the voltage 5000000 divided by 750 equals 6667 Amps, you can weld about anything with that much power. Realistically you would want at least 3000 volts if you are going DC. Even then you would probably need heavier wire than that used by the Milwaukee, and more frequent substations. You certainly don't want that much power at ground level. Touch it and it doesn't just kill you is turns you into a crispy critter. Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Sunday, June 4, 2006 10:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? With 3rd rail you would have to fence the ROW as any someone walking across could get quite a jolt. Also there would be breaks in power at grade crossings, which with passenger is not that big of a deal, but a long freight train losing power could stall very easily. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Sunday, June 4, 2006 8:53 PM Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. More likely to become technically obsolete before they were worn out. John Beaulieu Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:54 AM Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. Reply Edit erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Sunday, June 4, 2006 12:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. I would assume hat the Green Goat uses lead -acid batteries for a couple of reasons. The first is that lead-acid is still the king in cost/watt-hour of the battery technologies. The second is that low weight isn't a requirement for the Goat. What has changed since the days of the pre-WW2 dual and tri-powers is the advancement in motor control circuitry, where it is possible to have efficient operation off of a constant voltage bus (i.e. battery). The gensets on the Goat work pretty much the same way the generator/alternator works on a car - they keep the batteries topped off (batteries aren't being deep-cycled). Since the gensets are running at pretty much constant power, it is much easier to keep them running clean, than a diesel that's constantly being throttled back and forth from run 1 to run 8. Back to batteries - lead acid batteries have several failings, poor energy density, poor power density, a limited number of discharge cycle before wearout (lifetime is a problem for just about any battery technology), lotsa corrosive stuff in the battery, and a general safety hazard of the energy stored in the battery. NiMH batteries have a much higher power density and moderately higher enegy density. Li-ion batteries have both a much higher power and energy density than lead-acids (price per watt-hour is higher as well). It is technically feasible for a commuter operation to run on Li batteries, but not economically feasible. If I were going to do a dual power electric, my choice would be to go with "Ultra-Caps" - they'll last through 100,000+ charge/discharge cycles, have very good power density and can be bled off for maintenance. The idea is to permit having significant gaps in the wire and not having to worry about stranding the locomotive. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:06 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Friday, June 2, 2006 5:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 2, 2006 2:26 PM In Britain there is some discusion about a project called HST 2, to replace the Diesel HST, one of the most successful trains ever to turn a wheel. One idea floating about is hybrid technology with betterys to aid acceleration and to be charged using dynamic breaking. One of our railway magazines called Moden Railways has just had a quick look at this and worked out that if HST 2's Diesel powercars were a modern clone of HST 1, to make it hybrid you'd need to add 8 tons of battery. Basicly they concluded that at the moment it's not likely you can scale up a Prius for Railway work. Reply Edit carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Friday, June 2, 2006 11:39 AM I seem to remember reading (on the Milwaukee Road Historical Society site IIRC) that in the early to mid 1970's General Electric proposed to the Milwaukee a complete rebuild of the electrification to modern AC standard including a new electric locomotive fleet and "closing the gap". As this would allow GE to test new technology in anticipation of large scale Class 1 electrification (widely predicted during the 70's energy crisis) they supposedly offered a financing package with little or no up front cost to the RR. But MR management passed....... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Friday, June 2, 2006 10:39 AM The initial question here is not that farfetched. BN studied doing long-route electrication as late as 1988. The intriguing part of it is that the line would not be subject to Arab fuel cuts, embargoes, etc. But it IS the initial cost that led BN to drop the plan. However, TSA monies have been spent on much less worthy projects. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:52 AM QUOTE: Anyone know the status of this? The FRA and DOE were funding a program to build a prototype passenger turbine (using the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive)with a flywheel energy storage system but I believe it's a dead project..................... Don't know what's become of that project... GE is supposedly working on a hybrid locomotove for freight service - using batteries for energy storage. It might be useful in hilly country as opposed to mountainous country. I think the ideal application for a hybrid is a commuter rail locomotive - possibly recovering a lot of the braking energy and improving acceleration. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. That sounds like a good number for the early 1970's - implies "the gap" could have been closed for ~$10,000,000. The Milw used a pair of 4/0 trolley wires, which comes out to 6600 pounds of copper per mile. At $3.50/pound (fudged from futures market prices), that $23,000 just for the copper in the contact wire. Throw in the cost for messenger wire, hangers and feeder plus 35 poles per mile, you would be lucky to come in under $200k/mile (number pulled out of my rear end...). That still would be a bargain compared to the $1M/mile for the AC electrification. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:39 AM EMD proposed a dual power source SD-40 to the Milwaukee. It would have had a pantograph and generate 3000 engine hp while the diesel was running, and 5400 rail hp while using the 3 kvDC contact wire. Milwaukee's Electrical Engineer vetoed the proposal. While running in diesel mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive diesel locomotive. While running in the electric mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive electric locomotive. While running as a diesel, the Company lost available electric horsepower. While running in electric mode, the Company lost available diesel horsepower. Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Originally posted by idhull However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. I would be curious as to what sort of animal found in North America could tear down a catenary pole (or any other utility pole for that matter)? I doubt even an adult male grizzly could accompli***hat....maybe an Bull African elephant could pull it off. Brings to mind a cheesy B-movie I caught on the SciFi channel involving a maneating bigfoot critter who tore down power and phone lines to isolate a bunch of coeds in a mountain cabin for late night snacking......... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 3:56 AM Biofuel can lead to world hunger. Reply Jack_S Member sinceDecember 2004 339 posts Posted by Jack_S on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by silicon212 Biodiesel is the wave of the future. Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass? Biodiesel is a phantom. There is not nearly enough arable land in the USA to grow enough biodiesel crops to fulfill the USA's fuel needs. And every bit of land used to grow biodiesel means less land to grow food. Jack Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Monday, June 5, 2006 10:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. That does make sense, but wouldn't rockslides and the such also have a negative effect on cantenary? The wires have to be held up by something (poles) that can be knocked over by a rockslide or a mudslide. I've also heard of many stories about ice and snow negatively effecting cantenary in the NEC similarly to how regular powerlines get knocked down. However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail. Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)]. GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, June 5, 2006 8:58 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC. Reply mudchicken Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Denver / La Junta 10,820 posts Posted by mudchicken on Monday, June 5, 2006 7:38 PM Where in the heck does anyone call electrifying the Santa Fe transcon "modernizing" or efficient?......Did someone convolute a fairy-tale and go out trying to brainwash folks again? [(-D][(-D][(-D] Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 6:05 PM Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:40 AM Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC. Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary. 600 volt 3rd rail and 8000 hp locos really don't mix well :P Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Monday, June 5, 2006 12:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? Not viable, typical power for a locomotive in Europe is 5 MW of power. Power (Watts) is voltage multiplied by Amperage. In this case divide the Wattage by the voltage 5000000 divided by 750 equals 6667 Amps, you can weld about anything with that much power. Realistically you would want at least 3000 volts if you are going DC. Even then you would probably need heavier wire than that used by the Milwaukee, and more frequent substations. You certainly don't want that much power at ground level. Touch it and it doesn't just kill you is turns you into a crispy critter. Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Sunday, June 4, 2006 10:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? With 3rd rail you would have to fence the ROW as any someone walking across could get quite a jolt. Also there would be breaks in power at grade crossings, which with passenger is not that big of a deal, but a long freight train losing power could stall very easily. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply DrummingTrainfan Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska 703 posts Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Sunday, June 4, 2006 8:53 PM Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option?? GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. More likely to become technically obsolete before they were worn out. John Beaulieu Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:54 AM Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence. Reply Edit erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Sunday, June 4, 2006 12:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. I would assume hat the Green Goat uses lead -acid batteries for a couple of reasons. The first is that lead-acid is still the king in cost/watt-hour of the battery technologies. The second is that low weight isn't a requirement for the Goat. What has changed since the days of the pre-WW2 dual and tri-powers is the advancement in motor control circuitry, where it is possible to have efficient operation off of a constant voltage bus (i.e. battery). The gensets on the Goat work pretty much the same way the generator/alternator works on a car - they keep the batteries topped off (batteries aren't being deep-cycled). Since the gensets are running at pretty much constant power, it is much easier to keep them running clean, than a diesel that's constantly being throttled back and forth from run 1 to run 8. Back to batteries - lead acid batteries have several failings, poor energy density, poor power density, a limited number of discharge cycle before wearout (lifetime is a problem for just about any battery technology), lotsa corrosive stuff in the battery, and a general safety hazard of the energy stored in the battery. NiMH batteries have a much higher power density and moderately higher enegy density. Li-ion batteries have both a much higher power and energy density than lead-acids (price per watt-hour is higher as well). It is technically feasible for a commuter operation to run on Li batteries, but not economically feasible. If I were going to do a dual power electric, my choice would be to go with "Ultra-Caps" - they'll last through 100,000+ charge/discharge cycles, have very good power density and can be bled off for maintenance. The idea is to permit having significant gaps in the wire and not having to worry about stranding the locomotive. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:06 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Friday, June 2, 2006 5:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 2, 2006 2:26 PM In Britain there is some discusion about a project called HST 2, to replace the Diesel HST, one of the most successful trains ever to turn a wheel. One idea floating about is hybrid technology with betterys to aid acceleration and to be charged using dynamic breaking. One of our railway magazines called Moden Railways has just had a quick look at this and worked out that if HST 2's Diesel powercars were a modern clone of HST 1, to make it hybrid you'd need to add 8 tons of battery. Basicly they concluded that at the moment it's not likely you can scale up a Prius for Railway work. Reply Edit carnej1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Rhode Island 2,289 posts Posted by carnej1 on Friday, June 2, 2006 11:39 AM I seem to remember reading (on the Milwaukee Road Historical Society site IIRC) that in the early to mid 1970's General Electric proposed to the Milwaukee a complete rebuild of the electrification to modern AC standard including a new electric locomotive fleet and "closing the gap". As this would allow GE to test new technology in anticipation of large scale Class 1 electrification (widely predicted during the 70's energy crisis) they supposedly offered a financing package with little or no up front cost to the RR. But MR management passed....... "I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Friday, June 2, 2006 10:39 AM The initial question here is not that farfetched. BN studied doing long-route electrication as late as 1988. The intriguing part of it is that the line would not be subject to Arab fuel cuts, embargoes, etc. But it IS the initial cost that led BN to drop the plan. However, TSA monies have been spent on much less worthy projects. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:52 AM QUOTE: Anyone know the status of this? The FRA and DOE were funding a program to build a prototype passenger turbine (using the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive)with a flywheel energy storage system but I believe it's a dead project..................... Don't know what's become of that project... GE is supposedly working on a hybrid locomotove for freight service - using batteries for energy storage. It might be useful in hilly country as opposed to mountainous country. I think the ideal application for a hybrid is a commuter rail locomotive - possibly recovering a lot of the braking energy and improving acceleration. Reply erikem Member sinceDecember 2005 From: Cardiff, CA 2,930 posts Posted by erikem on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. That sounds like a good number for the early 1970's - implies "the gap" could have been closed for ~$10,000,000. The Milw used a pair of 4/0 trolley wires, which comes out to 6600 pounds of copper per mile. At $3.50/pound (fudged from futures market prices), that $23,000 just for the copper in the contact wire. Throw in the cost for messenger wire, hangers and feeder plus 35 poles per mile, you would be lucky to come in under $200k/mile (number pulled out of my rear end...). That still would be a bargain compared to the $1M/mile for the AC electrification. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:39 AM EMD proposed a dual power source SD-40 to the Milwaukee. It would have had a pantograph and generate 3000 engine hp while the diesel was running, and 5400 rail hp while using the 3 kvDC contact wire. Milwaukee's Electrical Engineer vetoed the proposal. While running in diesel mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive diesel locomotive. While running in the electric mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive electric locomotive. While running as a diesel, the Company lost available electric horsepower. While running in electric mode, the Company lost available diesel horsepower. Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by silicon212 Biodiesel is the wave of the future. Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass?
QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option??
An "expensive model collector"
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels. Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery. However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era.
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal." The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better. Bert
QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1 "Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal."
QUOTE: Anyone know the status of this? The FRA and DOE were funding a program to build a prototype passenger turbine (using the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive)with a flywheel energy storage system but I believe it's a dead project.....................
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense. With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile.
QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.