Electrification in North America

[Phoebe Vet]

RRNut:

I do not subscribe to the totality of "buy American", but I absolutely believe that our military should.  You have to consider the possibility that we might someday be at war with the country who supplies our weapon system.  And on the flip side of that coin, I believe we should not be selling weapons or weapons technology to other countries.

I am not at all concerned about the safety of nuclear generating plants.  I do not believe that the waste problem is insurmountable, but it has not been solved yet.  Rockets to the sun is an elegant, if expensive, solution, but you must consider the occasional launch failure.  The problem with putting it back into the ground is that it is not the same elements that came out of the ground.  Then there is the fact that Uranium, like coal and oil, is another finite resource.  Eventually we need to change to something renewable.

I would like to see the inventive and creative minds with which we used to lead the world design a heat driven steam generating plant that would burn coal, old tires, and garbage while not spewing the bad stuff from the smoke stacks.  Great strides have been made in that direction, surely there is someone out there who can design something to put it over the top.

[rrnut282]

I agree.

But until we have the renewable power source that is reliable (99.99% up time) and the sources and supply chain established with redundancy, we will have to rely on coal/gas/nuclear.  The problem with burn whatever you throw into them boilers is that they burn whatever only so well with the potential to release a lot of unconsumed junk up the stack.  We can optimize several boilers for different fuels, but then you have to overbuild capacity.  Neither is a good choice.  Eventually we may find an ideal solution, but IMHO, we're not close yet.

[piouslion1]

I have spent 24 years in the electric utility industry and here are a couple of things; 

I have not read the entire thread, so someone may have addressed this already, but bare hard drawn copper is no longer installed on new power lines. Either ACSR ( Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced ) or AAC ( All Aluminum Conductor ) is installed now. Copper does not stay up well in bad weather.

Also, the cost of electricity has two components, if it is bought from a utility. There is the KWH cost. This is the cost of the energy used. There is also the demand cost.This is the cost the utility charges you for having the capacity in place to serve the trains when they are actually running. If they have a circuit that serves some houses and some businesses along with a railroad metring point, the utility must build a circuit with enough capacity to feed everything feeding from it, whether all the consumers are pulling current or not. So the railroad would pay the demand charge whether they are running trains or not. Most likely, the railroad management would view that as an expense that should be avoided.

 

George

Overall:

While I did not spend 24 years in the electric utility industry, I did my time working for  Southern Co.'s construction department back in the 70's and early 80's (R.W. Sherer Units I and II). Your statement about the cost/demand ratio was music to my ears after not hearing it for quite a few years now and I happen to agree with you as current conditions warrant in the country.

I think however, if I am reading Mr. Rose's statements in the interview, what he did not say, is more important. BNSF probably has no intention of using an utility to provide power for the railroad. They will build generating and transmission capacity to be for, by and to the benefit of BNSF. You know as well as I that the start up costs for such an undertaking, while high initially, will over the long run prove very reasonable toward the cost of their operations. I say this because the discussion about tax credits and incentives apparently points more toward ownership by the railroad than an electric utility-customer relationship.

The fascinating thing about Matt Rose is that he might be just see an opportunity that when combined with some courage and daring in the guy could probably justify and actually pull it off. $ 100+ /barrel oil has a way of getting some folks thinking of a better way of doing things.

Stay tuned this could be interesting.

My 2 cents

PL

[narig01]

Electricity is the highest cost source of power there is.  when you burn a fuel and it powers something directly it is the most efficient.  When you use the fuel to make steam you lose some of the heat.  When the steam turns a turbine it lsess some of its energy.  When the turbine turns a generator it loses some of its energy.  When you transmit that electricity it lose some of its energy.  Now you need vast strings of copper wire to transmit the electricity that remains and copper is the highest price in history so it just isn't feasable.  UNLESS you have very high density and usage which the corridor does and the PRR took advantage of. Even in the 1930's the cost was astronomical in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  We have no alternative to carbon based fuels.  Everything that burns with the exception of hydrogen has it and the most economical way to produce hydrogen is electolysis which needs electricity so it doesn't buy you anything.

Comment. Is it worth the energy to lug around your power plant? (ie the diesel & generator/alternator)

Rgds IGN

[narig01]

   The United States, a nation 3,000 miles wide.  Lets look at just one Railroad.  The Union Pacific was designed to run from the western end of the Union States to the Pacific Ocean during our Civil War.

  Today they operate 32,200 ROUTE MILES of track. with 8,700 locomotives.  

 Options?  Third Rail is mostly lower voltage (approx. 600 v) and usually DC. Such lines must be fenced and requires "booster stations".   Overhead Wires (Catenary) is usually 25,000 volt AC commerical power.

  There isn't enought money in the World to electrify just that one railroad system, build the Power Plants, and replace all the locomotives. 

  Europe had a head start, the rail system had to be rebuilt after WWII, lots of coal and lots of water power and a large Public Transportation in need of trains..  Why not go electric.

Question.  Would you need to out & out replace the diesel engines?    Could you not use the locomotive frames & the electric part of the "Diesel - Electric " Locomotive?

Rgds IGN

[piouslion1]

   The United States, a nation 3,000 miles wide.  Lets look at just one Railroad.  The Union Pacific was designed to run from the western end of the Union States to the Pacific Ocean during our Civil War.

  Today they operate 32,200 ROUTE MILES of track. with 8,700 locomotives.  

 Options?  Third Rail is mostly lower voltage (approx. 600 v) and usually DC. Such lines must be fenced and requires "booster stations".   Overhead Wires (Catenary) is usually 25,000 volt AC commercial power.

  There isn't enough money in the World to electrify just that one railroad system, build the Power Plants, and replace all the locomotives. 

  Europe had a head start, the rail system had to be rebuilt after WWII, lots of coal and lots of water power and a large Public Transportation in need of trains..  Why not go electric.

Question.  Would you need to out & out replace the diesel engines?    Could you not use the locomotive frames & the electric part of the "Diesel - Electric " Locomotive?

Rgds IGN

A good and sensible question.

PL

[Phoebe Vet]

Just a thought, I don't know how difficult it would be:

If existing engines were converted so that they could run either, then they could be used on the entire road during the many years that the transition would take, and new purchases could be electric.

The older engines would also be available if they needed to use someone elses rails.

[billbtrain]

Isn't it funny that BN did a study on electrification 30 years ago?What kind of railroad would they have today if instead of deciding it was either too expensive or not feasible?What would the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Coast Extension be like with new electrification and locomotives had they decided to spend the money?

We hear and read from the same people about it being too expensive/not feasible/how does it get paid for and yet complain that everything is too expensive(gas,food,rent,shoes,utilities,etc),because it takes away from their 'playtime'(amusement park,basketball game,bar,etc).Don't have money for roads,power grid,etc improvements,because they have to buy tickets to the Lakers/Packers/Sox/Opera.And then there are the N.I.M.B.Y.'s......       Goodnight!

Have a good one.

Bill B 

 

What is old is new again ______ 

 

Something from the September 2008 Trains (Page 16, Question 3) that might be a very interesting point to this thread:

Matt Rose was asked about short term and long term planning on how BNSF plans to deal with soaring fuel costs at his company. His answer at first was a pretty much standard response that can be found from almost any CEO in a fossil fuel dependant industry. Things like increased efficiency, new fuel types (hydrogen) and operating practices. His answer then went on to where few execs ever dare to go these days by mentioning a different energy source apart from the standard. He mentioned studying the electrification of some BNSF his lines.

This is almost a what is old is new again statement for an industry that was once known for such thinking (over due is what comes to my mind) in the arena of applied technology. Mr Rose mentions the use of tax credits for the development of new generating sources, including but not limited to atomic power. If this is the case where would one start with new projects should this idea come to pass?

Not being a professional railroader, but one that is both an advocate for the enterprise as well as a stockholder in a couple of Class 1's. I put it to the Forum for general discussion now that one of the industries heavyweights has had the courage to come forward with such a notion.

The question is:

WHERE WOULD SUCH PROJECTS BE PLACED AND SHOW THE GREATEST IMPACT??

Let's talk about it.

 

Piouslion  

P.S.

MichaelSol _ I think that this new "published" development begs your input -PL

[billbtrain]

Isn't it funny that BN did a study on electrification 30 years ago?What kind of railroad would they have today if instead of deciding it was either too expensive or not feasible?What would the Milwaukee Road's Pacific Coast Extension be like with new electrification and locomotives had they decided to spend the money?

We hear and read from the same people about it being too expensive/not feasible/how does it get paid for and yet complain that everything is too expensive(gas,food,rent,shoes,utilities,etc),because it takes away from their 'playtime'(amusement park,basketball game,bar,etc).Don't have money for roads,power grid,etc improvements,because they have to buy tickets to the Lakers/Packers/Sox/Opera.And then there are the N.I.M.B.Y.'s......       Goodnight!

Have a good one.

Bill B 

 

What is old is new again ______ 

 

Something from the September 2008 Trains (Page 16, Question 3) that might be a very interesting point to this thread:

Matt Rose was asked about short term and long term planning on how BNSF plans to deal with soaring fuel costs at his company. His answer at first was a pretty much standard response that can be found from almost any CEO in a fossil fuel dependant industry. Things like increased efficiency, new fuel types (hydrogen) and operating practices. His answer then went on to where few execs ever dare to go these days by mentioning a different energy source apart from the standard. He mentioned studying the electrification of some BNSF his lines.

This is almost a what is old is new again statement for an industry that was once known for such thinking (over due is what comes to my mind) in the arena of applied technology. Mr Rose mentions the use of tax credits for the development of new generating sources, including but not limited to atomic power. If this is the case where would one start with new projects should this idea come to pass?

Not being a professional railroader, but one that is both an advocate for the enterprise as well as a stockholder in a couple of Class 1's. I put it to the Forum for general discussion now that one of the industries heavyweights has had the courage to come forward with such a notion.

The question is:

WHERE WOULD SUCH PROJECTS BE PLACED AND SHOW THE GREATEST IMPACT??

Let's talk about it.

 

Piouslion  

P.S.

MichaelSol _ I think that this new "published" development begs your input -PL

[shayfan]

Newb here so be patient. I totally agree with the above comments from billbtrain. btw: who (or what?) is michaelsol???

[nanaimo73]

btw: who (or what?) is michaelsol???

Michael Sol was a member of this forum, until recently, from Missoula, Montana. He is very knowledgeable on the Milwaukee Road (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad), electrification, regulation, and several other issues on railroads. He remains a frequent contibutor on the Milwaukee Road Yahoo List.

[billbtrain]

Michael's off the list????

When did this happen??

Bill B 

[shayfan]

Thanks...the Milwaukee Road brings back a lot of memories.  I think my father and I took it from Chicago to Omaha, but that was back in the 1950's and my memory ain't what it used to be!

John H.