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.
Michael's off the list????
When did this happen??
Bill B
shayfan wrote: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.
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.
piouslion1 wrote: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
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
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
narig01 wrote: DMUinCT wrote: 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
DMUinCT wrote: 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.
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
PL
DMUinCT wrote: 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.
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.
ndbprr wrote: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)
overall wrote: 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
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
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.
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.
PheobeVet,
One small correction, the Air Force mordernized tanker program that was going to use "green" Airbus A330 aricraft as its core has been cancelled and put back out to bid. Boeing won a re-bid do to a minor technicality on the original bidding process. No doubt helped by some "buy-American" undercurrents.
Biker,
Whether we build more coal-fired or nuclear power plants, keep this in mind, the so called pollutants that has the greens scurrying for cover are NATURALLY OCCURING SUBSTANCES. The process of converting the mineral (carbon in coal and uranium ) to release energy only moves these and other compounds from one location to another. Putting the by-products back into the ground makes sense as that is where they came from in the first place, in most cases. One solution for nuclear waste that hasn't been given much consideration is loading it on a rocket and flying it into the sun where it will be incinerated, naturally.
As for me, I think the newer fail-proof designs for nuclear reactors make sense and will be safer and "cleaner" in the long run. However, favoring nuclear means less coal for the railroads to haul, so I have mixed feelings for that reason alone.
Also, the cost of electricity has two components, if it is bought from a utiltiy. 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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072031/
It seems not all the scientists agree with your "stick it back into the ground" solution.
I do agree that eventually MagLev will be better than electrified rails, but since our government can only see how much it costs, we will have to wait for the Japanese and the Germans to refine the technology and file all the patents, and then we will be able to buy it from them.
There have always been NIMBYs and BANANAs, and there always will be. If eminent domain laws can be used to build condos and shopping centers, they can sure use them for their original intended purpose of building roads and railroads.
In case YOU haven't noticed, we are NOT the most innovative and creative society in the world anymore. France, Germany, and Japan have high speed rail, and China and even one South American country are installing it. We are still making excuses. The HD television technology is Japanese. The Japanese car companies are growing while ours are dying. The first hybrid automobiles you can actually buy are Japanese. The largest shipbuilding industries are in Europe. The 23 new high tech helicopters being built for the President are Italian. The 50 new refueling aircraft being purchased for our Air Force are European. Even little Holland knows more about keeping out the sea than New Orleans.
Your reply shows a lack of understanding of the interstate highway system. The cities were bypassed, not because of the cost of acquiring widened right of way, but because the need to eliminate steep hills, intersections and low underpasses. The railroads need to do the same thing with grade level crossings. Perhaps I am older than you are, but I remember the frustration of being stuck behind an 18 wheeler going 5 mph in a long no passing zone up a steep hill. The too expensive to widen argument is a red herring. Large cities do just that all the time.
For every military program that was cancelled because the government keeps changing the specs and the costs go from ridiculous to absurd, you can find, if you look, a program that was chosen, not because it was the one the military wanted, but because of who's congressional district the jobs would be in. This country spends more on our military that the rest of the world combined.
In deference to your dander, I will now move on.
Lee Koch wrote: My brother-in-law put it to me rather frankly recently; he said, basically, we're not much further along than Fred Flintstone: we still need a fire for everything!
My brother-in-law put it to me rather frankly recently; he said, basically, we're not much further along than Fred Flintstone: we still need a fire for everything!
"We didn't start the fire, it was always burnin' since the world's been turnin'.... But when we are gone, it will still burn on."
They can have my carbon when they pry my internal cumbustion engine from my cold, dead hands.
Nicely said Bike:
Speaking as a finance man that has done a small share of transactions: The real truth is that money is only a median of exchange that represents treasure. When talking about spending the stuff an old finance man of the mid 20th century that I studied under made a major point about the expenditure of treasure. especially US treasure.
"This country can do and afford anything that it wants, once the motivation and need are understood by the buyers."
But this thread is about electrification of railroads. What Matt Rose is telling those willing to listen is that the time is approaching when such an undertaking would not just be possible but maybe even necessary.
PL.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Properly regulated and monitored, nuclear is safe and clean, but until they find a way to dispose of the waste, which will be hazardous for 10,000 years, I have to say I am not exactly a proponent.
Properly regulated and monitored, nuclear is safe and clean, but until they find a way to dispose of the waste, which will be hazardous for 10,000 years, I have to say I am not exactly a proponent.
So what if its "hazardous" for 10,000 years? First off, the INPUT fuel of nuclear energy production is already hazardous for 10k+ years, and it already comes out of the ground "hot." So, we just dump it back INTO the ground. Sheesh. btw, the "acceptable" radiation levels at the High Level Waste Depository (aka Yucca Mountain) are LOWER than the background radiation you'll be exposed to if you take a tour of the United States Capitol Building!!! Second, if we haven't figured out how to deal with a few nuke dumps in 1,000 years (heck, 150), then I'm sure that the tribal shamans will make it clear to our dirt grubbing descendants to stay away from those areas because of "evil spirits".
I do agree that electrification is the way to go. I personally don't agree that it is "the way" to go, but it's certainly an option worth considering. If I had my druthers, not only would we electrify (sort of), but we'd replace the entire system with mag-levs.
I do agree that electrification is the way to go.
American industry used to be lead by outside the box thinkers like Burt Ruttan, but we have developed the "because that's the way we have always done it" mentality, which is an anchor holding us back while the rest of the world moves on. Uh, in case you haven't noticed, American industry is still the most innovative and creative in the world, and there are a lot of other innovative and creative people at work in other countries as well. I suggest you get yourself a subscription to Popular Mechanics.
American industry used to be lead by outside the box thinkers like Burt Ruttan, but we have developed the "because that's the way we have always done it" mentality, which is an anchor holding us back while the rest of the world moves on.
The other anchor is the "cheapest way out" mentality. We can't have high speed rail because the right of way aquired in the late 1800s is too obstacle ridden to support it. Has it ever occurred to anyone to take a clean sheet of paper and establish NEW rights of way? "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" Are you going to shoot all the NIMBYs, Greens, Historical Society dames, and ALL their lawyers in order to secure this new right of way? Because its either use government power (which ultimately implies the threat of force) or from somewhere come up with oodles and ooodles and ooooooodles of money (as in more than the value of all the railroads in America today) to do it.
The other anchor is the "cheapest way out" mentality. We can't have high speed rail because the right of way aquired in the late 1800s is too obstacle ridden to support it. Has it ever occurred to anyone to take a clean sheet of paper and establish NEW rights of way? "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?"
Try to imagine what the interstate highway system would be like if we had just taken the cheap way out and widened the existing roads. Clearly, you aren't familiar with the history of the Interstate highway system. A lot of it WAS the cheap way. Its a lot cheaper to bypass a town paying 1/10 for the land than it is to buy the wider right of way through town. Of course, as anyone who's seen the movie Cars can attest (or lived in one of the bypassed towns), it economically sucks to be bypassed.
Try to imagine what the interstate highway system would be like if we had just taken the cheap way out and widened the existing roads.
We wouldn't even have railroads if we had listened to the "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" people. No, we have railroads because we have people who said, "are you serious, we can make HOW MUCH MONEY?" Somehow, given your irrational concerns over nuclear power, your disdain for American industry and business, and your irrelavent and cheap shot at weapons system development, I don't think that the basic desire to make a buck qualifies as a legitimate motiviation from your perspective, at least not when its someone else's motivation. FWIW, maybe you should consider the following weapons systems: Comanche helicopter, B-70 bomber, DDX/CGX ships, MBT70, just for starters. All were cancelled (some just in the last year) because they cost too much. Oh, and you'll probably be thrilled to know that the Air Force is mothballing some more B-52s and standing down an entire squadron (50 missiles) of Minuteman ICBMs, all in order to save money.
We wouldn't even have railroads if we had listened to the "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" people.
sigh... every once in a while somebody posts something that just gets my dander up...
My thoughts on which line to be first.
Because the LA Basin has the tightest emission standards in the US and they are only going to get tighter.
I would first electrify from some point in the Los Angeles area (probably at a transfer point just outside the immediate harbor area) to Yuma, AZ on the Sunset Route, Needles, CA on the Transcon, Yermo, CA on the Salt Lake Route,and Bakersfield, CA on the Tehachapi Route for freight. I think at the same time the Surf Line to San Diego and the Metrolink routes should also be electrified, for improved passenger service. All these lines would share a distribution system with meters on the individual locomotives. Right now under current regulations all SD70M, Dash-9, and AC4400CW locomotives ( and earlier) will be banned from the LA basin within the next couple of years, so trains for LA will already require a segregated fleet to serve it. This area would serve to test for a greater amount of electrification later. The UP might like the initial electrification of the Salt Lake route extended to Arden, NV(nr Las Vegas), because of the grades on Cima Hill.
This much electrification would cover heavily used lines and provide real numbers as to cost, it would meet the need to reduce emission within the LA Basin, and the limitation to Tier II (for now) reduces the cost imposition from having a dedicated fleet, as you could now use Diesel locomotives that only meet Tier 0 and Tier 1 to the border points, improving utilization of the whole fleet.
If the BNSF seriously looks at electrification then probably the first line for electrification would be from LA to eastern New Mexico. From that point to Chicago leave it to the diesels.
On the Northern transcontinental Seattle to Havre would have to be considered for electrification.
I don't see any reason to electrify any of the other mainline trackage on the the BNSF.
The coal line through Wyoming and Colorado would be looked at sooner or later but the two transcontinental routes would the most important for the BNSF. I don't believe any of their other routes would need to be electrified.
Al - in - Stockton
American industry used to be lead by outside the box thinkers like Burt Ruttan, but we have developed the "because that's the way we have always done it" mentality, which is an anchor holding us back while the rest of the world moves on.The other anchor is the "cheapest way out" mentality. We can't have high speed rail because the right of way aquired in the late 1800s is too obstacle ridden to support it. Has it ever occurred to anyone to take a clean sheet of paper and establish NEW rights of way? "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?"
We wouldn't even have railroads if we had listened to the "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" people. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. He found a way to make it attractive to "everyone". After all, horses were cheaper, quieter, faster, and less trouble. Why would anyone trade a horse and wagon for one of those cantankerous Model T Pickup trucks?
Funny how nobody uses the "Do you know what that would cost?" argument when we want to develop a new weapon system.
blue streak 1 wrote:lee koch: If nuclear power has no future why are the French close to 80% of all power production requirements from nuclear power plants? I suspect that the present design of nuclear package plants has a lot going for them. If you want to know I have been an opponent of nuclear designs i.n the past circa three mile island to an extent and the disastrous design of Chernoble(sp)
How many "incidents" have occurred at French nuclear facilities in the last 30 days? The French facilities are getting old, their concrete mantles are getting brittle, and the companies running them are not willing to spend the money neccessary for safe maintanence!
I love clean energy, but nuclear energy is not clean! There may be no "carbon emmissions", but that other stuff that you can't see or feel is much more nasty.
But I digress. I originally posted this thread to discuss the feasability of electrification regardless of primary energy source, as this would allow the railroads more flexibility without having to change their physical plant (once the initial electrification were done). My brother-in-law put it to me rather frankly recently; he said, basically, we're not much further along than Fred Flintstone: we still need a fire for everything!
NP Red wrote: This is a long thread with lots of great discusion on stuff that seems secondary. The cost of cantenary is the major problem. Can anybody come up with a good idea to make it cheaper.
This is a long thread with lots of great discusion on stuff that seems secondary. The cost of cantenary is the major problem. Can anybody come up with a good idea to make it cheaper.
I think I can. Concentrate traffic on limited lines then string catenary. Like mentioned don't electrify the spralling yards and less used spurs.
Power generation isn't that big of a problem.
Clearance problems can be overcome by putting a diesel in the consist of electrics locomotives to get the train through the long tunnels.
Existing locomotives could be kinda converted by removing the prime mover and alternator and installing a multi-tap step down transformer in their place. The transformer would have a 25kv or 15kv primary tap that connects to the cantenary and 8 taps on a 1500v secondary. These 8 taps would replace the 8 throttle settings to deliver different voltages to the system. There should be few changes to the rest of the locomotive. No operational changes either.
DC cantenary or third rail will never be a valid choice for long range, hi-power applications. High voltage AC is required for flexability and efficienty.
PS- Cantenary wire would be steel not copper or aluminuim. They are too soft and costly. Steel is fine at high voltages, not too much loss.
piouslion1 wrote: 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
As I've said earlier on this thread, I believe that RRs and energy companies could partner up with RRs providing lower shipping rates for coal in exchange for cheap electricity. I still don't think that atomic energy has much of a future. But with RRs being a major energy consumer, I'm sure that they could use their leverage to cut deals with electric companies.
As far as where such projects could begin: high density, multiple track main lines would seem the obvious place to start. Also, areas in which air pollution is an issue, such as southern California or Texas would seem obvious candidates for electrification.
blue streak 1 wrote:Electrification in yards seems extravagant. I had not though about battery electrics either but several ideas here appear more appealing. My post on if RRs electrify mentioned Road Mates as receiving power from a motor. Why not have some converted Road Mates battery electric for the shorter tunnels? For longer and or steep tunnels that cannot be given clearances the idea of geting power from a third rail has many advantages. I also wonder about the welding current but hopefully this could be mitigated but using contacts on both trucks. The tunnels could be protected and maybe not even be energized unless a train is within a mile. The DC third rail could be powered from a small substation at either end from the overhead electric and maybe one in the middle of the tunnel. Since Cascade and Moffet tunnels both had electrification at one time does anyone know their clearances? Also NS's Heritage corridor work what clearance are they going to use?
I like the idea of 3rd rail in tunnels for freight trains. As far as I know the "weilding current" for 3rd rail can be delt with, there are so many electrified railways with experience in the world to tap from. US freight locomotives don't draw that much power in spite of runnig 4 to 5 lead engines. Hi speed draws way more then low speed anyways.
ps; My Q is that why is lowering cheaper then raising a roof of a tunnel ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.