Well daveklepper and jt22cw, I am a very long time member of the NHRHTA (New Haven Railroad Historical & Technical Association).
One of the very best stories about the FL-9 was published in 3 parts by the NRHTA in the association quarterly magazine "Shoreliner", 1994 Vol.25, Issues 2, 3, and 4. Written by Geroge Baumes who was part of the testing and de-buging program of the FL-9, it's 66 pages of detail and history.
Among other things, Vol. 25 Issue 2 1994 page 33, "Each FL-9 had a third rail distribution panel containing an electric meter (similar to older electrics) to measure the amount of current used while operating on NYC and PRR trackage. The New Haven was required to pay for the electricty its locomotives drew from the third-rail. As a result, a New Haven Order was posted limiting electric operation between GCT and the lower Bronx in order to reduce the electric bills".
When Penn Central took over, the FL-9s were de-buged and 11 years old, enter Conrail and the were a tired 20 years old. It would appear that much of the "rebuilding" re-introduced the third-rail bugs to be solved a second time. Metro-North and Conrail ran most in Push-Pull mode with the locomotive faced east, out of the tunnel and away from the platforms. Tunnel speed is only 10 anyway.
We, New Haven fans, are indebted to the late Joseph Trifono and the NHRH&TA group comprising "Project 2000". They inlisted the backing of ConnDOT Commissioner J. William Burns and Governor O'Neal in the re-birth of the famous New Haven paint job.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Micheal: Right on!
Starting with the mountain portions of any RR is the right way to go. You probably thought of many mountain routes that would fit in well as I do. Everyone thinks electrification can happen overnight. I don't. Self financing is very effective. Lowering floors of tunnels is much easier. What did BNSF quote to lower Stampeed? Glad for your imput.
It makes little sense to electrify everything, particularly if road engines aren't going to be operating routinely on general yard tracks.
It also makes little sense to undertake 2,000 miles of Electrification all at once, and not only because of the lead times, permitting and regulatory difficulties, tying up of enormous resources and cost. Indeed, that approach would duplicate the weakness of the Dieselization process described by H.F. Brown: too much, too fast -- and the prospective operating cost savings were consumed by financing and conversion charges. That is, rather than allowing operating savings to finance additions to the fleet, the rail industry incurred debt, and the debt service charges reduced the effect of the operating savings while increasing overall costs. It was a classic mistake.
Because of the capital cost of Electrification, but also because of the operating cost savings, any large scale Electrification committment would look to being as self-financing and self-generating as possible. The last thing a railroad company would want to do is undertake a 2,000 mile electrification project. Rather, a railroad would look carefully to the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to define the scope of any such undertaking. The maximum IRR would be on mountain grades where the cost of electric power would maximize the savings over the current cost of diesel fuel, and savings through regeneration of electric power would leverage the overall benefits of the project strongly while minimizing overall power requirements because of the regeneration. A lower IRR would be found electrifying across the Great Plains, for instance. Electrifying into cities would perhaps represent the lowest IRR, although the cost of meeting emissions restrictions might well tip that one on its head.
I would also guess that rather than spending $250 million to raise a tunnel roof, railroads would spend $800,000 or so lowering a tunnel floor or roadbed to achieve clearances.
A mountain railway electrification of, say, 200-600 miles, blends nicely with diesel-electric operation. The company doesn't need 250 electric locomotives right off the bat; it can accept deliveries as the manufacturer is able to make them, while still obtaining the benefits of the Electrification. At a certain level, a blended system can represent a lower cost of operation than either system alone although the increasing cost of diesel fuel makes that scenario increasingly unlikely.
In this fashion, a railroad would obtain the maximum economic benefits of Railway Electrification up front, with the minimum of initial capital investment. Operating savings obtained then become a source of funds for continuing extension of electrified zones. Too, the initial committment enters into the planning for power companies in all directions. This approach typically solves many of the problems encountered by the Great Big Project simply because the problems get solved before they become "problems".
The real problem, as arbfe points out above, and as I have repeatedly cautioned regarding both steam and electrification, is that railroads now fully enjoy the monopolist's advantage: nothing can beat the railroads on cost, and they do not have the essential capacity to compete with each other.
The danger of monopoly is in the cost imposed on society and this represents a classic example. Wth the disappearance of a genuinely competitive rail system and the new ability to pass through all costs directly to shippers without a competitive penalty, there is no compelling competitive incentive to significant investment in further productivity increases in the rail industry.
And while lowering dependence of foreign oil has significant societal advantages, and lowering consumption significantly would assist other sectors of the economy which do not have alternatives, the rail industry in effect operates directly counter to the best interests of the U.S. economy because it has so strongly insulated itself against the market forces that, in other industries, continually compel ongoing productivity investment -- to beat the other guy in the market by lowering operating costs.
And this is why this is a genuine economic problem in an allegedly "deregulated" environment that preserves the essential elements of regulation for the industry: protection from anti-trust law and fair trade practices acts. When the interests of a specific industry run so directly counter to the best interests of a market economy and society as a whole, it is not a matter of whether there is going to be reckoning, but when.
erikem wrote:Yet another reason for a battery catenary locomotive would be dealing with the canes at intermodal terminals. I imagine it would be a royal pain to operate container cranes around energized catenary - so the ability to haul a train into the terminal under battery power could be a real plus.
Yet another reason for a battery catenary locomotive would be dealing with the canes at intermodal terminals. I imagine it would be a royal pain to operate container cranes around energized catenary - so the ability to haul a train into the terminal under battery power could be a real plus.
Particularly since the new high-capacity intermodal terminals coming on-line now use rail-mounted wide-span gantry cranes (RMG cranes) instead of narrow-span rubber-tire cranes (RTG cranes). But it would not be a major blow to operational flexibility and operating costs to put only the arrival/departure tracks under wire and use a switch engine to pull and spot the loading/unloading tracks.
I'm also wondering if a diesel electric hybrid might have some advantages for long tunnels. My understanding is that the GE hybrid isn't designed to produce full power on batteries alone, but even a 50% reduction in the prime mover output would make operation in tunnels a whole lot nicer. My understanding is that the GE hybrid uses a sodium sulfur battery (first championed by Ford for electric car use in the late 60's), which should yield 100 to 200 w-hr/kg (100 to 200 kwhr/metric ton). It should be practical to put a much larger battery on an electric locomotive.
The number I've heard is the batteries will supply 2,000 hp for traction for one hour, recharged by dynamic braking.
RWM
Railway Man wrote:I hadn't thought about the hybrid battery/catenary locomotive -- they're not far off for diesel-electrics, from what I am hearing. I don't know if it would be feasible to use this to skip around every low-clearance overpass on a route, but for a long tunnel it sounds like a nifty workaround.
I hadn't thought about the hybrid battery/catenary locomotive -- they're not far off for diesel-electrics, from what I am hearing. I don't know if it would be feasible to use this to skip around every low-clearance overpass on a route, but for a long tunnel it sounds like a nifty workaround.
I hadn't imagined that a railroad would want to build its own generating facility, and I agree it's unattractive. I know very little of the electric power generation business, but my impressions from the utilities I work with is that there isn't much spare base-line capacity, a situation that is growing worse as the public demands increased generation from unpredictable and non on-demand sources such as wind, instead of predictable base-line such as coal and nuclear. One utility with a high percentage of hydro power commented to me that it has completely used up its ability to use hydro's excellent rapid on/off characteristics to balance the fluctuations created by the wind generation in the network.
I can believe the story about the problems with wind generation. There have been a couple of proposals to use smart controllers on electric car chargers to absorb the fluctuations in renewable electric generation (in some cases where the cars would actually return power to the grid to meet peak loads). Solar is more predictable, but it is much better suited for meeting the daytime peak load than providing base load (which would require energy storage).
FWIW, I saw one station advertising diesel at $5.39/gal - cash price. Not really sure where prices will settle down to - sure glad I'm not trying to make a living with OTR trucking (or running an airline).
martin.knoepfel wrote:The Italian State Railway runs most of its mainlines with 3kv DC. They made tests with increasing tension to 6 kV. It worked technically, but for reasons unknown to me they did convert any larger portions of their system to 6kV.Perhaps, the said the increase in efficiency was not worth another system.
The Italian State Railway runs most of its mainlines with 3kv DC. They made tests with increasing tension to 6 kV. It worked technically, but for reasons unknown to me they did convert any larger portions of their system to 6kV.Perhaps, the said the increase in efficiency was not worth another system.
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. The Milwaukee bumped up their voltage from 3KV to 3.3KV to get a bit more power and efficiency, but that didn't require changes in the locomotives. IIRC, the Little Joes could take over 4KV, but the last quote from GE for new power (in 1969) called for a maximum trolley voltage of 3.6KV.
The point with 15 kV in Europe against 25 kV is not the difference in tension. The 15kV-AC-systems in Europa use AC with 16.7 Hz for historical reasons. The newer 25 kV-AC-lines use the so called industrial frequency of 50 Hz common in Western Europe.
Historical reason was that AC series motors work better at lower frequencies (16.7 or 25 Hz) than at standard grid frequencies (50 and 60 Hz). This was first mooted by the development of M-G locomotives such as used on GN's second Cascade tunnel electrification, then by development of rectifier locomotives. OTOH, switchgear for lower frequencies can take a bit more abuse than for higher frequencies.
The point with 15 kV in Europe against 25 kV is not the difference in tension. The 15kV-AC-systems in Europa use AC with 16.7 Hz for historical reasons. The newer 25 kV-AC-lines use the so called industrial frequency of 50 Hz common in Western Europe. The railroads in Europe had to build their own power plants because at the time Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway electrified with 15 kV 16,7 Hz, it was difficult and costly to convert AC from 50 to 16.7 Hz. Today, if the US-railroads electrified on a larger scale, they would certainly use either high-tension DC or industral-frequency AC. BTW, the old PRR-electrification from NYC to Washington DS is another such oddball, Amtrak did not yet modernize. (They once wanted to do so.)
AFAIK, the MKT planned an electrification of about 300 miles of mainline in the 80s, but they never did it. Anybody knows why?
The generation is an interesting aspect. The German DB-Netz, which manages ROW issues, operates its own power stations, generating the 15kV needed directly, as opposed to using transformers to convert commercial high voltage.
I was wondering if another solution for the low clearance areas (i.e. highway overpasses, tunnels and the like) might be more practicable. Since future railcars will probably be equipped with a bus line for electronic-pneumatic-braking, how about a power bus running the whole length of the train. Use distributed power or a dummy with a pantograph to draw power at the rear end of the train. Then, while the front end power runs through a de-energized section of caternary, it would draw its juice from the rear end of the train. By the time that end reached the dead-wire, the front locos would be back under a live-wire. I think that would work for most situations, except perhaps the Moffat Tunnel.
In reference to the above comparisons in hp/$, don't forget that when an electric stops, it draws next to ZERO power from the caternary. How many hours a day does a typical diesel spend just idling?
erikem wrote: Selector, thanks for the undelete of RWM's comments.For RWM's points 1 & 2, I pretty much agree with his assessment of electric locomotive technology. I do wonder if the source of many of the frames, bogies, motors and inverters would be traded-in AC motor diesel locomotives.Point 3 sounds about right. There may be a way around the low clearance problem (will describe below).Points 4 & 5 also sound about right as far as permitting goes (RWM comes across as having had many battles with permitting) . One question would be the substation spacing and how long the phase sections would be assuming 60 Hz on the catenary (power companies dislike loads that upset the balance on the 3 phase system - this can overcome by running differing sections on differeing phases).Generation may or may not be a significant problem. It would probably make the most sense to contract for delivery of power from a group of generating plants than to build a plant specifically for the electrification. The generating companies would be happy to have another base load customer. One great advantage of electric energy is the diversity of the original energy sources.One possible solution to the restricted clearance problem is to install batteries or capacitors on the locomotives to allow for a de-energized wire in low clearance areas. While such locomotives would be more expensive, it may be cheaper than trying to increase clearance. The technology GE is working on for hybrid diesel electrics should be directly applicable to straight-electrics.
Selector, thanks for the undelete of RWM's comments.
For RWM's points 1 & 2, I pretty much agree with his assessment of electric locomotive technology. I do wonder if the source of many of the frames, bogies, motors and inverters would be traded-in AC motor diesel locomotives.
Point 3 sounds about right. There may be a way around the low clearance problem (will describe below).
Points 4 & 5 also sound about right as far as permitting goes (RWM comes across as having had many battles with permitting) . One question would be the substation spacing and how long the phase sections would be assuming 60 Hz on the catenary (power companies dislike loads that upset the balance on the 3 phase system - this can overcome by running differing sections on differeing phases).
Generation may or may not be a significant problem. It would probably make the most sense to contract for delivery of power from a group of generating plants than to build a plant specifically for the electrification. The generating companies would be happy to have another base load customer. One great advantage of electric energy is the diversity of the original energy sources.
One possible solution to the restricted clearance problem is to install batteries or capacitors on the locomotives to allow for a de-energized wire in low clearance areas. While such locomotives would be more expensive, it may be cheaper than trying to increase clearance. The technology GE is working on for hybrid diesel electrics should be directly applicable to straight-electrics.
The cold harsh reality there is 0 or <0 incentive for the railroads to electrify. So long as they can adjust their fuel surcharge to customers to reflect increasing fuel prices to them why would they borrow the massive amounts of capital to electrify? Electricity prices to the end users are not exactly the most stable in the deregulated, either.
The railroads' customer base is not in danger of jumping to another mode with lower transportation costs either. There are simply not enough trucks and truck drivers to allow that to happen especially for bulk commodities such as coal, grains or methonol.
Railroads exchange a lot of locomotives in run through and horsepower by the our arrangements. An electrified railroad cannot easily pass their locomotives to a connecting railroad which is not electrified. Similarly, it does not want diesel locomotives under it's own wires since that means the electrified railroad will be forced to maintain fueling facilities to service the foreign units even though their power no longer needs to suck diesel.
Unless forced by environmental dictates, electrification in the US is dead for the forseeable future.
Note: I deleted a duplicate of the post above, which also deleted the "daughter" that RWM posted in reply. I can't find a way to restore the daughter. So, with apologies to RWM, here is his reply.
"I don't know if my estimate is any better but for fun, here it is. Let's assume electrification of 2,000 miles of double-track main line with 250 train starts per day.
1. Let's assume the project would use existing technology for the entire system from power generation right to the wheel/rail interface. Developing new technology incurrs uncertainties that are hard to quantify.
2. Locomotives don't encounter many unknowns. The standard GE or EMD platform is adequate. Frame, bogies and cab don't change. Design and manufacture of, say, 1,000 locomotives, would require 5-7 years unless a large premium was paid to acquire new manufacturing floor space and hire and train a greatly expanded work force. Figure one year to design, one to test and make sure all the controls and electronics respond as anticipated, and five to manufacture. It would be feasible to manufacture subassemblies such as bogies complete with traction motors in advance in order to save time, but it's very costly to purchase inventory and then sit on it for a long time before it's put to use.
3. Catenary isn't a major issue to design or build except where it doesn't fit under overhead structures and tunnels, as it is generally entirely contained on the right-of-way and permitting requirements probably won't be an issue (but that's probably a vain hope on my part). Tunnels are in most cases not a challenge to permit for increasing clearances because they are on the right-of-way and owned by the railroad, but certain tunnels will present very expensive challenges to obtain clearances. By expensive, think $250 million for a problem tunnel. Overhead structures are a more difficult problem because they're not owned by the railroad but by a plethora of public agencies. These agencies would be happy to have the railroad buy them new overpasses, but design, permitting, public involvement, and construction will take 5-8 years easily for all of them. There isn't the staff at the public agencies to process the permits and plan reviews more quickly. It would also consume a great deal of the entire U.S. consulting engineering resources experienced in bridge and roadway design, too, to try and tackle that many bridges and roadway changes all at once. Manufacture of catenary components can be scattered over the world (and likely would be), and erection is mostly an erector-set operation that can be done by numerous electrical and steel erection contractors even if they've never seen a catenary pole in their life. Long story short, I think that it take 2 years to erect the catenary after 7 years to make the right-of-way ready for catenary, if you didn't mind throwing a great deal of money at the problem to use up all those resources.
4. Transmission starts to get dicey because it's not likely the existing grid has the capacity or reliability. Some of the transmission lines could be placed on the right-of-way but every place it has to strike out across country to reach into the grid, there will be right-of-way acquisition required, public review and comment, and in many cases Enivronmental Impact Statements. The EIS process can be 3 years if all goes well, if it doesn't go well, 10 years is not out of the realm of possibilities. Condemnation lawsuits would inevitably appear somewhere, and that will get state and federal political attention, and who knows where that will lead. Most of the effective opposition to condemnation lawsuits and EISs these days is not coming from the oft-caricatured yuppie liberal city NIMBY types, but from long-term landowners that have money, power, strong community ties, and vote conservative. Erection of the transmission lines might take 3 years if there's not a lot of mileage required.
5. Generation is the problem that I would be concerned about. It's essential that the power supply is reliable and price-predictable. I would think that tends to rule out thoughts of just buying power on the commercial market as it's either not available where you want it, not reliable, or not price-predictable. By reliable, I mean less than one total hour of complete system outage annually, and not more than 12 hours spot outage annually at more than three locations on the entire system. Otherwise the cost of outages on the transportation system fluidity are catastrophic. Natural-gas fired units are the cheapest and easiest to permit units to build, but the high fuel cost and volatility of pricing is highly unattractive. If the alternative is coal or nuclear, 15 years to get it permitted and built is about the minimum -- if all goes well and there are no legislative changes in the interim.
Such a program has the risk of spinning into national questions about division of power between federal and state governments, environmental stewardship, private property, economic development, job creation, foreign trade, rights of cities dwellers vs. rural dwellers, big states vs. small states, and so forth. It would be very interesting to watch and participate in, so long as you didn't have your self-worth riding on the expectation of a specific outcome.
RWM"
Paul, Micheal:
I find your figures very interesting. No one has addressed the fact that any substantial electrification will take years. It appears that if RR X decided to start electrification tomorrow the following timetables would apply. BOD approval - 2 months. ROW engineering - 6 months unless some plans are in place ( then 2 months to update), Enviromental impact statements for certain critical locations 2-3 years. Ordering locomotives and proper testing in Pubelo 1 year from BOD approval. Purchasing overhead equipment 6 - months from BOD. Construction contracts some 30 days from BOD. Power contracts 6 months from BOD. 2 year construction for siqnificant wire. 15 years to get 10,000 miles under wire. The point is Diesel locos will be wearing out and their life as secondary route power will always be needed.
Paul_D_North_Jr wrote: $579 for the diesel vs. $299 for the electric = $280 cheaper - a savings of almost half !
$579 for the diesel vs. $299 for the electric = $280 cheaper - a savings of almost half !
It's better than that when a variety of associated costs are included and based on real-world throttle settings under a variety of actual conditions.
Using a GE Econometric program designed to compare Diesel-electric costs with straight Electrification, 20% mountain profile (regeneration savings), with the following parameters: 1,000 miles, single track mainline, 24 MGT annually, electric power cost at 10.55 cents/Kwh; Diesel fuel at $3.31.
Total Annual Operating Cost (fuel, maintenance, lubricant, inventory, inspections, availability, associated costs)
Diesel-electric: $253,847,000 (248 units @ 4000hp)
Steam (Northern): $69,558,000
Electric: $29,325,000 (191 units @ 5200 hp)
The $1.4-1.7 billion capital investment, up front, for the Electrification at that level and distance remains problematic, particularly compared to replacement of existing Diesel-electric systems which now have substantial remaining sunk costs in existing motive power without further actual financing costs [the average BN diesel-electric is 15 years old]. But, compared to the Diesel-elecric, the numbers are swinging in favor of electrification.
Consider this little analysis of the comparative fuel/ energy costs for diesel vs. electric:
A modern 4,000+ HP diesel-electric locomotive - i.e., EMD's SD70MAC, GE's C40-8 and C44-9 models, etc. - at 100 % of rated power output in "RUN 8" will produce about 21 horsepower ("HP") for an hour (rounded up slightly for conservatism & to allow for recent modest improvements), for each gallon of fuel consumed per hour. (Source & reference: Al A. Krug's "Railroad Facts and Figures - Locomotive Fuel Use in gallons per hour" - http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm ).
Using, say, $3.00 per gallon cost of diesel fuel to the railroad - no highway fuel taxes, and the railroad buys in bulk, so it's considerably cheaper than the current $4.75 +/ - per gallon at the truck stop's pump - those 21 HP for an hour use $3.00 worth of fuel, or about $0.143 (14.3 cents) per HP-hour. For a 4,000 HP loco such as the C40-8, that is 193 gals. per hour (per Krug, above), at $3.00 per gal. = a cost of $579 per hour.
If the same HP was being produced by an electric locomotive, 1 HP is 746 watts = 0.746 kilowatts ("KW"), by a well-accepted physics units conversion factor, so 21 HP x 0.746 KW per HP = 15.7 KW. (I know, I'm not allowing anything for power losses in transmission and in the mechanical parts of the loco, but bear with me here. If you like, you can adjust these figures accordingly - in the end, it doesn't appear to make a huge difference.)
Using, say, $0.10 (10.0 cents) per kilowatt-hour ("KW-HR") bulk cost of electricity to the railroad - those same 21 HP for an hour use 15.7 KW-HRs at $0.10 = $1.57 worth of electricty, or about $0.075 (7.5 cents) per HP-hour. For a 4,000 HP electric loco to match the C40-8, that is 4,000 x 0.746 KW/ HP = 2,985 KW. AT $0.10 per KW-HR, that power ourput for an hour would use 2,985 KW-HRs x $0.10/ KW-HR = a cost of $299 per hour, only about 51.5 % of the cost of the diesel !
So now let's look at the comparative fuel/ energy cost of 1 locomotive producing 4,000 HP for an hour:
(This doesn't consider the advanatge of the usually reduced maintenance costs and greater availability of the electric loco, either.)
Now, most locomotives don't run at 100 % for more than a few hours at a time. If it's the equivalent of 2 hrs. per day, that would be $560 per loco per day. If it's 5 hours per day, then it's a $1,400 savings per day per loco. And of course, there's usually more than 1 loco on a train.
So now you can get a feel for the magnitude of some of the economics on the energy/ fuel savings side of the electrification debate / analysis. If you don't agree with or like my numbers or assumptions, then plug in those you prefer, and post the math and the results here for all of us to look at and to continue the discussion !
Hope this is informative. Best wishes to everyone for the weekend and Memorial Day. Thank you to all veterans and their families for their honored service to our country !
- Paul North.
JT22CW wrote: Lee Koch wrote:In Germany electrification was not aggressively pursued until the DB was semi-privitized. Up until then, the bureaucratic management was rather ambivalent about electrifying. Yes, many main lines were electrified in former East Germany, and even more in the West, but there were vast stretches of track which were not electrified before privatizationAre you sure you don't have this backwards? Deutsche Bundesbahn was quite aggressive when it came to electrification (their InterCity service from the late 60s through the 80s was dominated by the 103-class); DR in East Germany had a lot of their electrification stymied by the Soviet Union, with a lot of infrastructure dismantled and moved to the Motherland for "reparations". If there's anything that continental western Europe is renowned for, it's the extensive electrification, and this is all pre-"privatization" (and frankly, DB is not truly privatized).
Lee Koch wrote:In Germany electrification was not aggressively pursued until the DB was semi-privitized. Up until then, the bureaucratic management was rather ambivalent about electrifying. Yes, many main lines were electrified in former East Germany, and even more in the West, but there were vast stretches of track which were not electrified before privatization
If there's anything that continental western Europe is renowned for, it's the extensive electrification, and this is all pre-"privatization" (and frankly, DB is not truly privatized).
You are right, the DB is not truly privatized, in that the government owns all of the stock. There is a big push to make an IPO, but the government is balking. Why? Since the formation of the DB as a publicly owned incorporation, restructuring has led to massive profits!
As to electrification, yes, the Soviets took down the ENTIRE electric physical plant in the east, transporting it to the Ural mountains, where it sits, unused to this day (I know this from an eye-witness who helped work on the Drushba gas pipeline). The former West-German DB certainly electrified extensively, but not systematically, and really more in fits and starts, leaving out big chunks on the periphery of the country.
After the merger of the Deutsche Reichsbahn and the Deutsche Bundesbahn to form the Deutsche Bahn AG in the 90s, management made a concerted effort to electrify almost ALL mainlines and quite a few secondary lines. Certainly, they got government subsidies, in particular for the lines in former East Germany, but massive capital investment was also neccessary. And as an Aktiengesellschaft/incorportation, they now are very interested in return on investments.
DMU should read DIESELS TO PARK AVENUE and THE NEW HAVEN RAILROAD IN THE MCGINNIS YEARS, both available from the New Haven Railroad Technical and Historical Society, and they have a website. And they are truly terrific books.
1. The vast majority of commuters and other uses of both Metro North and ConnDot services think the McGinnis paint scheme is one of very best paint schemes that was ever adopted for railroad use, with a loyalty matching those of us who loved the Sante Fe's war-bonnet scheme.
2. It was readopted because of nostalgia. It was one man's (yes, a railfan, and he has passed on to his award) idea to revive the scheme on the first two FL-9's ConnDot paid for rebuilding. The officials then applied it all the rebuilds, which surprised the railfans that had pushed for only a pair, and then ConnDot applied it to all the equipment.
3. True despite the distaste the commuters and on-line communities have for the memory of Pat and all his efforts. The operating people at Metro North and Shore Line East keep quiet and don't wish to discuss these issues, but I am pretty sure they feel the same way as the commuters and communities feel.
4. It was not Pat's scheme nor his wife's. All they did was choose orange-red over yellow. (This is always the ploy of a good consultant, make your client feel he or she is making the final decision, even if you know perfectly well which choice is best.) It was the product of one of the very best commercial artists and designers, a Yale Professor in addition. (I also am proud to say I once lectured at Yale, but never, or not yet, a professor.)
5. IN DIESELS TO PARK AVENUE, you will read about the maintenance problems that forced Conrail and then Metro North to operate in diesel mode into and out of Grand Central. What is not stated is the bad track maintenance that left third rail gaps in the tunnel without adequate ramping and which shered off the third rail shoes or damaged them so the would not operate properly. Also, the manufacturer of the high-current change-over contactor was out of business and EMD had not YET found a replacement. Both problems were eventually solved when Metro North was running the system. Diesel operaton into GCT filled one Waldorf Astoria dining room with exhaust fumes. A cousin of mine was the restaurant owner's lawyer.
6. I used Penn Central, Conrail, and Metro North services in the area, mostly on the Harlem, but very frequently on the New Haven and sometimes on the Hudson, during this period. While living in NY I was a frequent volunteer at the Shore Line Trolley Musuem, Branford Electric Rarilway Association, www.bera.org, and almost always used Metro North - New Haven for that commute, only occasionally springing for huge increase in price to ride Amtrak.
If there's anything that continental western Europe is renowned for, it's the extensive electrification, and this is all pre-"privatization" (and frankly, DB is not truly privatized); indeed, if, as JonathanS claims, "economical" operation was not a concern for state-owned European railroads, then the TGV in France would have manifested itself as the Turbo TGV that was built in late 1960s and tested at 192 mph in the early 1970s!
DMUinCT wrote:The New Haven's access to New York's Grand Central Terminal was over the New York Central's outside third rail 600 volt DC track. Electric Locomotives dropped there (sic) pantographs (11,000 volt AC) at Mount Vernon and ran into GCT on NYC's third rail DC.GM (EMD) said it could be done, why buy replacement Diesels AND Electric locomotives when they would build a Diesel that would do the work of both, while eliminating the locomotive change at New Haven on Boston to New York trains. It became a "long" version of the F9 production locomotive, FL9. The resulting locomotive design became too heavy for the New York Central's 125th Street Viaduct so they replaced the two axle rear truck with a three axle version to spread the weight. A one of a kind, a B-C diesel wheel setup (as in the production F9, only four axles are powered). Yes, they did have problems at first but they were worked out. Also, Running in close to the Park Avenue Tunnels to GCT on diesel, they avoided buying power from NYC's third rail.The FL9s have lasted over 50 years, through 3 rebuilds, and are still used in commuter service as intended but only on branch lines down to "the city" and as backup power.Some of the "rebuilds" called for the paint job to be "as deliverd"(sic), New Haven colors
GM (EMD) said it could be done, why buy replacement Diesels AND Electric locomotives when they would build a Diesel that would do the work of both, while eliminating the locomotive change at New Haven on Boston to New York trains.
It became a "long" version of the F9 production locomotive, FL9. The resulting locomotive design became too heavy for the New York Central's 125th Street Viaduct so they replaced the two axle rear truck with a three axle version to spread the weight. A one of a kind, a B-C diesel wheel setup (as in the production F9, only four axles are powered). Yes, they did have problems at first but they were worked out. Also, Running in close to the Park Avenue Tunnels to GCT on diesel, they avoided buying power from NYC's third rail.
The FL9s have lasted over 50 years, through 3 rebuilds, and are still used in commuter service as intended but only on branch lines down to "the city" and as backup power.
Some of the "rebuilds" called for the paint job to be "as deliverd"(sic), New Haven colors
Buying 60 untried FL9s was a very rash decision on the New Haven Railroad's part; they ended up scrapping most of their electric fleet in a hurry, even motors that were less than a quarter-century old, so in fact the FL9 was an inspiration towards waste, and the dream of the no-change-of-engines between GCT and Boston was rather short-lived and never rose again (however, 40 years later, electrification made it all the way to Boston). The FL9 was not intended as a commuter loco, but as a long-distance loco.
And the FL9 was nowhere near a unique machine; the Fairbanks-Morse P-12-42 actually preceded it.
The New Haven RR had access to both Grand Central Terminal and New York Penn Station.
Connecticut DOT paints all of their commuter engines (even Geeps for Shore Line East service and P32AC-DMs for operation on Metro-North) in McGinnis New Haven RR colors, so the McGinnis colors on the ConnDOT FL9s is not due to any kind of nostalgia on the state's part. And frankly, the McGinnis is not the nicest of New Haven paint schemes; the scheme that preceded McGinnis was far more pleasant.
Lee Koch wrote: As to the price of electricity, all energy forms are going to get more and more expensive in the coming decades.
As to the price of electricity, all energy forms are going to get more and more expensive in the coming decades.
Relatively speaking, coal won't. In fact, the comparative price of coal relative to petroleum, biomass, wind, solar et al, will actually fall in the coming decades. Only nuclear has the ability to maintain price stability, so if you're looking for long term price stability in electrification, nuke is the only way to go.
The reason for this is simple supply and demand, exascerbated by government mismanagement: There is no real shortage of either nuclear components nor easily accessable coal reserves world wide. Only shortsighted anti-nuke programs and climate change-induced restrictions on use of coal can cause these energy sources to spike.
JonathanS wrote: blade wrote:all of or most of europe has electric rail and i well know that up here in canada they are looking into the possibility of doing a electrification for high speed rail which would be nice if they did so ,it would be good for the enviorment,cleaner and safer source of energy although it would likely be costly it would be well worth it.But in Europe, until very recently, the railroads were owned by the governments and economical operation was not a primary consideration for electrification.
blade wrote:all of or most of europe has electric rail and i well know that up here in canada they are looking into the possibility of doing a electrification for high speed rail which would be nice if they did so ,it would be good for the enviorment,cleaner and safer source of energy although it would likely be costly it would be well worth it.
But in Europe, until very recently, the railroads were owned by the governments and economical operation was not a primary consideration for electrification.
Exactly! And because of that, electrification was often placed on the back burner, even though it is the most economical in the long term!
In Germany electrification was not aggressively pursued until the DB was semi-privitized. Up until then, the bureaucratic management was rather ambivalent about electrifying. Yes, many main lines were electrified in former East Germany, and even more in the West, but there were vast stretches of track which were not electrified before privatization.
Some of the most blatant examples are the line from Munich to Memmingen, connecting on to Swiss Rail (electrified), from Hamburg to Berlin, from Hannover to Denmark, and from Nuremburg to Leipzig.
As to the price of electricity, all energy forms are going to get more and more expensive in the coming decades. But with electricity we can hope for technological breakthroughs in the source of primary energy (hydrogen fuel cell, fission, solar, etc). The Austrians use really advanced technology in their hydroelectric sector, using one lake to feed another, then back to the first by using subterranean aquaducts at different elevations. There has also been much progress made with tidal turbines.
According to a study by the University of Cambridge, England, using technology available today, were England to place solar panels on every available roof in Great Britain, they would not only meet their own energy needs, but could even export electricity! And that's in a country with less than 100 days of sunshine a year!
Don't forget, if RRs electrify, they can buy electricity from the lowest bidder, no matter what primary energy source was used to generate it, without any changes to their physical plant, and that is where the long term economics are much better than any other form of locomotion!
The FL9, a product of 1950s technologies.
The New Haven's access to New York's Grand Central Terminal was over the New York Central's outside third rail 600 volt DC track. Electric Locomotives dropped there pantographs (11,000 volt AC) at Mount Vernon and ran into GCT on NYC's third rail DC.
Some of the "rebuilds" called for the paint job to be "as deliverd", New Haven colors!
Photo taken 2005
Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: Again the question is should RRS start electrifying. No.
Again the question is should RRS start electrifying.
No.
My answer is "Not yet".
If liquid fuels will continue to be widely available at costs closer to historical levels (say $70/bbl), and CO2 emissions are determined to not be a major issue, and a good portion of the electricity in places like California are generated from hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas or oil), then it makes most sense to continue to carry the prime mover on the locomotive.
If liquid fuels become scarcer and more expensive, and/or CO2 emissions are determined to be a major issue (and dealt with in central generating plants), and/or meeting (non-CO2) emission standards for high HP locomotives becomes difficult, and electricity is generated from sources significantly cheaper than oil (coal, wind, solar, nuclear), then it would make sense to electrify.
We may see a move to high speed rail if aircraft contrails are found to have a major impact on climate change.
lt's a questioin of logistics weather to electrify or not. Technologicaly electrification can be done in many ways, there are plenty of examples all over the world.
All US mainline locomotives are electric, electric transmitions (traction motors) have proven itself in the US for the RRS. Not all diesel locomtives in the world are diesel electric, some countries use diesel hydraulic.
And in South Africa not only do they run heavy freight like the US, they run way heavier freights then anywhere in the US, and on narrow gauge.
Big Wheel Driver wrote:One day the oil will run out. There will be no road transport as we know it. The railways will come into their own. Electrified railways. I have driven steam, diesel and electric locos, electric are far better than any of the others. The cost of installing the catenery will be covered be the great increase in rail traffic.Regards, Malcolm.
One day the oil will run out. There will be no road transport as we know it. The railways will come into their own. Electrified railways. I have driven steam, diesel and electric locos, electric are far better than any of the others. The cost of installing the catenery will be covered be the great increase in rail traffic.
Regards, Malcolm.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.