Well we have all had time to comment and analyze. So let's make predictions about when the first significant electrification will occur. By significant let's make it 300-500 miles of a major traffic density corridor. And lets not make it a difficult operational corridor. I offer (but you may select your own) the UP between Omaha and Cheyenne or the BNSF Transcon between Wellington, KS and Clovis, NM.
And to leave wiggle room let's pick in ten year segments, 10-20-30-40-50-60 or more. My prediction is none in view or worth speculation.
Two points from a European view.
Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.
As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary.
The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.
sfcouple wrote: I don't appreciate your condensing manner, name calling, and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party. There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support. Wayne
I don't appreciate your condensing manner, name calling, and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party. There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.
Wayne
Right on Wayne. The oil may be in Texas but the dipsticks are in DC!
Mark
l think electrification will happen when capacity and average train speed increases to the point when diesel locos become costly. Maybe once the BNSF from the outskirts of Chicago to the outskirts of LA becomes fully double tracked all the way. Then the next increases would be a third track or electric. Electric locos can have higher horse power and less down time and fewer engines could handle more traffic on just double track.
So when speed and capacity needs to be increased to increase profit then they may electrify. And when they do it won't be crooked wooden poles, it will be state of the art electrification, the most durable and reliable setup possible. l say they'll start doing it in 10-20 years.
The cost of both deisel and electricity will probably be very high in the future.
I think the jury's out on cat for the BNSF route from Chicago to L.A. Note that the Northern Transcon route has been shifted from pretty much pure ATSF's main line freight route Chicago - L.A., to exx-CB&Q mainline as far west as Cameron, to the west of Galesburg. If I were Mr. Rose, I wouldn't sneer at a government subsidy (or outright grant) to electrify those busy lines, but I would be torn between the newer Transcon Mendota (IL) route and the previous Streator (IL) route if only one could be electrified because that would "lock in" the chosen route as the preferred one--perhaps the only one.
As for intercity third-rail in this country, forget it! Let's get better crossing gates and nastier cab horns or else start embanking the lines, as IIRC most of the (British) Southern Rwy. is, before we can even think of third-rail out in the country-- or suburban areas for that matter.
- a. s.
Okay, guys, I found a really informative article on electrification using 3rd rail cross country at the following link:
http://www.railway-technical.com/etracp.shtml
They can get some pretty decent speed out of their trains, and I know the Hamburg commuter trains use 1,500 V DC (according to the article, AC transmission does not work via 3rd rail, but transformers on the locomotive could turn DC into 3 phase AC).
The diagrams appear to show a normal steel rail being used as the 3rd rail. Check it out!
sfcouple wrote: Wow, your logic and political ideas are strange to say the least. May I recommend a few news sources for your consideration: US News and World Report, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters News Service. And stay away from FOX News. We have become a very divisive country, which is not condusive to solviing our many problems. There are no easy, one size fits all, solutions to these issues, but we can all benefit from the talents of everyone, regardless of political affiliation. I don't appreciate your condescending manner, name calling, and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party. There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.
Wow, your logic and political ideas are strange to say the least. May I recommend a few news sources for your consideration: US News and World Report, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters News Service. And stay away from FOX News. We have become a very divisive country, which is not condusive to solviing our many problems. There are no easy, one size fits all, solutions to these issues, but we can all benefit from the talents of everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
I don't appreciate your condescending manner, name calling, and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party. There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.
I read all news sources, and I see no real difference between Fox News, WSJ, and Reuters. US News and World Report tends to lean too far left.
But I'm intrigue as to why you would suggest one "stay away from Fox News". I find Fox willing to report news items that others ignore, and on the whole give a good balance between leftist and rightist views. Why do you find that objectionable?
Point of fact: It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price. Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out! Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T". I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.
And of course there is a strong correlation between what happens to electricity markets and transportation markets, and what is now being debated on this thread aka railroad electrification.
The point is, I'm pointing out fact, and you accuse me of namecalling and "strange political ideas". These aren't ideas, they are realities of what happens when people of a Marxist tilt try to oversee ostensibly private markets. California is a beast, the 5th largest economy in the world, and it is sad to see that once great free market state embracing more and more of the Marxist philosophy, even more so than China and Russia it seems. You cannot discount California's influence over the rest of the nation, and the path they are pushing the rest of us down is very discouraging to mainstream Americans.
Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics.
If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning!
Why not take the correspondence PM?
al
al-in-chgo wrote:Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics. If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning! Why not take the correspondence PM? al
I agree and wish I had never made my initial posting. I would like to apologize to all the members for my part in contributing to the off topic comments. I was wrong, learned a lesson and am sorry for what happened. This will be my last posting on this thread, and no, I don't even want to continue it on PM.
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
Whew! I was hoping it would come to this.
Thanks, everyone, even if we got into the weeds a bit. It is good to have a dig at each other now and then, as long as the words don't become hurtful.
-Crandell
Norman Saxon wrote:Point of fact: It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price. Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out! Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T". I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.
My impression is that the situation was a bit more complicated than that. The electric utility deregulation bill was passed with good intentions by people who didn't have a very good idea of how utilities worked and an overly optimistic estimate for the cost of producing electric power. They also were thinking that the era of cheap oil and natural gas would last forever. Couple this with an almost complete lack of new generation built since the Jerry Brown administration and you had a good recipe for disaster.
If I had a say in planning the deregulation (with the benefit of some 20/20 hindsight), there would have been a couple of changes. Number 1 would have been phasing in time of day metering for all customers before starting the wholesale deregulation process. Number 2 would have made the power contracts based on the electricity delivered to the customer - the seller would have been responsible for establishing adequate transmission capacity to prevent the kinds of shenanigans done by the likes of Enron (they really were guilty of abusing the market).
What this has to do with railroad electrification is that gross uncertainty as to the price and availability of electric power will be a deal breaker.
erikem wrote: Norman Saxon wrote: Point of fact: It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price. Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out! Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T". I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.My impression is that the situation was a bit more complicated than that. The electric utility deregulation bill was passed with good intentions by people who didn't have a very good idea of how utilities worked and an overly optimistic estimate for the cost of producing electric power. They also were thinking that the era of cheap oil and natural gas would last forever. Couple this with an almost complete lack of new generation built since the Jerry Brown administration and you had a good recipe for disaster.If I had a say in planning the deregulation (with the benefit of some 20/20 hindsight), there would have been a couple of changes. Number 1 would have been phasing in time of day metering for all customers before starting the wholesale deregulation process. Number 2 would have made the power contracts based on the electricity delivered to the customer - the seller would have been responsible for establishing adequate transmission capacity to prevent the kinds of shenanigans done by the likes of Enron (they really were guilty of abusing the market).What this has to do with railroad electrification is that gross uncertainty as to the price and availability of electric power will be a deal breaker.
Norman Saxon wrote: Point of fact: It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price. Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out! Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T". I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.
I hate to say it but you are almost certainly right. Now, if every region of the U.S. contained a Columbia River Valley, we could generate the power hydroelectrically. That wouldn't please some people, but given the opportunity and the challenges it probably would be done. Heck, the Swiss are sensitive as all get-out about pollution but they generate so much power with their mountainous falling water that they sell the excess to Northern Italy at night!
-- "Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz, The Simpsons.
sfcouple wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics. If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning! Why not take the correspondence PM? al I agree and wish I had never made my initial posting. I would like to apologize to all the members for my part in contributing to the off topic comments. I was wrong, learned a lesson and am sorry for what happened. This will be my last posting on this thread, and no, I don't even want to continue it on PM. Wayne
al-in-chgo wrote: Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics. If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning! Why not take the correspondence PM? al
Wayne, I just read your private message to me...sorry to hear about your personal situation...keep a stiff upper lip buddy, and you will get through this OK.
The expense of stringing cantenary aside, wonder if it would be feasible, or possible, to retrofit some newer existing locomotives for pantograph power pickup when, or if, electrification should happen?
martin.knoepfel wrote:Two points from a European view. Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary. The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.
Railway Man wrote:Depreciation and longevity are two different things -- one an accounting rule set by law, the other an economic decision. RWM
The advisability of utilizing an accurate depreciation reserve is an economic necessity, and the depreciation schedules for locomotives are determined by the railroads themselves, not "set by law" except that the railroads must follow their own prescribed depreciation periods, and depreciation is ordinarily equivalent to "economic service life" or "useful life" which is economic longevity and which may have little to do with "longevity" under the rule that if you want to spend the money, you can keep any machine going forever.
The IRS adopts the STB depreciation rules.
"STB - Useful Life - For regulatory purposes, the Class I railroads are required to conduct depreciation studies on their equipment on a periodic basis. These studies are performed by an independent consultant. The depreciation studies are an accurate estimate of useful life not only for regulatory but also for tax purposes because they are based on the Iowa Curve methodology. The life that this study yields is known as the "average service life". This average service life is determined through a relatively complicated, but quite reliable and accurate actuarial method called the Retirement Rate Method, also known as the Annual Rate Method in Iowa Curve publications. This method is commonly used for lifing assets and its results are widely accepted by statisticians and lifing experts. STB uses the results of the studies to insure that the railroads maintain an adequate depreciation reserve. The STB R-1 report, filed annually with the STB, Schedules 332 and 340, contains a composite rate for locomotives that is derived from the rate studies."
Among other things, careless attention to depreciation as an actual measure of useful or economic service life can mislead investors and for Class I railroads, that invites SEC scrutiny.
A useful review is at:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=138860,00.html
Several years ago the Santa Fe did an estimate on electrifying track between Chicago and L.A. The cost of it exceeded the net worth of the entire railroad!
Just my
riptracker wrote: The expense of stringing cantenary aside, wonder if it would be feasible, or possible, to retrofit some newer existing locomotives for pantograph power pickup when, or if, electrification should happen?
General Electric and EMD proposed as much for Milwaukee Road:
GE proposed a 5400 hp design, SPECIFICATION 3000 V DC 5400 RAIL HP ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE SPECIFICATION NO. 5002A November, 1969:
http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/Specification5400hpElectric110069.pdf
My understanding at the time was that these were an existing Diesel-electric design, changed over to pantograph operation.
EMD proposed an augmented SD-40 model:
http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/September1972Correspondence.pdf
MichaelSol wrote: Railway Man wrote:Depreciation and longevity are two different things -- one an accounting rule set by law, the other an economic decision. RWMThe advisability of utilizing an accurate depreciation reserve is an economic necessity, and the depreciation schedules for locomotives are determined by the railroads themselves, not "set by law" except that the railroads must follow their own prescribed depreciation periods, and depreciation is ordinarily equivalent to "economic service life" or "useful life" which is economic longevity and which may have little to do with "longevity" under the rule that if you want to spend the money, you can keep any machine going forever.The IRS adopts the STB depreciation rules."STB - Useful Life - For regulatory purposes, the Class I railroads are required to conduct depreciation studies on their equipment on a periodic basis. These studies are performed by an independent consultant. The depreciation studies are an accurate estimate of useful life not only for regulatory but also for tax purposes because they are based on the Iowa Curve methodology. The life that this study yields is known as the "average service life". This average service life is determined through a relatively complicated, but quite reliable and accurate actuarial method called the Retirement Rate Method, also known as the Annual Rate Method in Iowa Curve publications. This method is commonly used for lifing assets and its results are widely accepted by statisticians and lifing experts. STB uses the results of the studies to insure that the railroads maintain an adequate depreciation reserve. The STB R-1 report, filed annually with the STB, Schedules 332 and 340, contains a composite rate for locomotives that is derived from the rate studies."Among other things, careless attention to depreciation as an actual measure of useful or economic service life can mislead investors and for Class I railroads, that invites SEC scrutiny.A useful review is at:http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=138860,00.html
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Railway Man wrote:Depreciation and longevity are two different things -- one an accounting rule set by law, the other an economic decision. RWMThe advisability of utilizing an accurate depreciation reserve is an economic necessity, and the depreciation schedules for locomotives are determined by the railroads themselves, not "set by law" except that the railroads must follow their own prescribed depreciation periods, and depreciation is ordinarily equivalent to "economic service life" or "useful life" which is economic longevity and which may have little to do with "longevity" under the rule that if you want to spend the money, you can keep any machine going forever.The IRS adopts the STB depreciation rules."STB - Useful Life - For regulatory purposes, the Class I railroads are required to conduct depreciation studies on their equipment on a periodic basis. These studies are performed by an independent consultant. The depreciation studies are an accurate estimate of useful life not only for regulatory but also for tax purposes because they are based on the Iowa Curve methodology. The life that this study yields is known as the "average service life". This average service life is determined through a relatively complicated, but quite reliable and accurate actuarial method called the Retirement Rate Method, also known as the Annual Rate Method in Iowa Curve publications. This method is commonly used for lifing assets and its results are widely accepted by statisticians and lifing experts. STB uses the results of the studies to insure that the railroads maintain an adequate depreciation reserve. The STB R-1 report, filed annually with the STB, Schedules 332 and 340, contains a composite rate for locomotives that is derived from the rate studies."Among other things, careless attention to depreciation as an actual measure of useful or economic service life can mislead investors and for Class I railroads, that invites SEC scrutiny.A useful review is at:http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=138860,00.html So in other words, the accounting for depreciation-the proportion of the cost and the timing of the write off-is set by law as promulgated by the IRS and the STB, and longevity is an economic decision made by the railroad which can decide to overhaul, rebuild or scrap.
For how long a period IS the STB/IRS standard depreciation, if it is not too complex to relate? If it's something like seven years, then the goal is to have the loco. worth as much as possible in salable dollars OR have an idea what a new one would cost subject to depreciation in a comparison. Nothing wrong with having a 7- to 15-year old average fleet if most of it is out of depreciation and in the clear. Reduces overhead and relieves stress on the capital budget. Reduced overhead means you can lower capital expenditures but would probably not affect the operating ratio, which is based on operating receipts div. into operating revenues.
Yet as a practical matter, if I were CEO of a biggie, I would probably want to let the motive power stay in their grandfathered-in pollution phase (a II, is that right) as long as legally possible. It's easy for me to be a friend of the earth when I don't have thousands of shippers and shareholders and a big piece of America's infrastructure among my professional concerns. Oh: and let's not forget labor (OT) -- does any RR ever give the workers a raise without "prolonged" negotiations these days?
jeaton wrote:So in other words, the accounting for depreciation-the proportion of the cost and the timing of the write off-is set by law as promulgated by the IRS and the STB, and longevity is an economic decision made by the railroad which can decide to overhaul, rebuild or scrap.
No. Depreciation is based on the economic service life, which is a specific economic measurement. It is not set by "law" it is set by reality. The "law" only says that it is the economic service life and that is what it is. That is, based on a specific statistical measure and not something arbitrary.
Longevity is measured otherwise: a machine can last indefinitely if you want to spend the money. A given machine may have longevity because the railroad lacks the capital to invest to minimize its costs. It such instances, "longevity" may exceed the economic service life. In that case, it is not a measure of maximum economic efficiency, but rather a measure of economic inefficiency because of capital starvation and resulting higher operating costs.
al-in-chgo wrote:Nothing wrong with having a 7- to 15-year old average fleet if most of it is out of depreciation and in the clear. Reduces overhead and relieves stress on the capital budget.
Whoa. You are misunderstanding the purpose of accounting. Depreciation reduces taxable income, but does not reduce actual cash flow. Depreciation is good. If the depreciation period is shorter than the actual service life, taxes go up when depreciation reaches zero; profit goes down and cash flow goes down even more. Only a complete idiot would want the depreciable economic service life to be different from the actual service life. The financial importance of this is why the IRS lets the railroads set the schedules rather than mandating it purely as a matter of "law" as erroneously implied above.
MichaelSol wrote:GE proposed a 5400 hp design, SPECIFICATION 3000 V DC 5400 RAIL HP ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE SPECIFICATION NO. 5002A November, 1969: http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/Specification5400hpElectric110069.pdfMy understanding at the time was that these were an existing Diesel-electric design, changed over to pantograph operation.EMD proposed an augmented SD-40 model:http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/September1972Correspondence.pdf
Having seen the proposals, the EMD was most emphatically an augmented Diesel Electric, but the GE design was more of a pure electric using 750 motors instead of the 752 used on the diesels. It would have been interesting to see the GE's in action, they might have made an excellent replacement for the Little Joe's.
Nowadays, it would be relatively easy to adapt the AC drive components on a diesel locotive to use the output of a transformer (or a huge DC-DC converter) instead of the output of the traction alternator.
erikem wrote:Having seen the proposals, the EMD was most emphatically an augmented Diesel Electric, but the GE design was more of a pure electric using 750 motors instead of the 752 used on the diesels. It would have been interesting to see the GE's in action, they might have made an excellent replacement for the Little Joe's.
The 750 may well have been the best DC traction motor ever built.
Railway Man wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote: Two points from a European view. Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary. The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.Depreciation and longevity are two different things -- one an accounting rule set by law, the other an economic decision. Electric locomotives often have very long lives not because of any particular advantage of the technology compared to diesel-electric but because there's often very little economic advantage in replacement. Many electrified railroads are one-offs with obsolete transmission and distribution systems there's little point to replacing the locomotives without an expensive replacement of the overhead, too. Many electrified railroads are also state-owned and subject to different economic calculations than the investor-owned railroads of the U.S.Diesel-electric locomotives are often replaced because the technology continues to progress (particularly reduction in fuel consumption and maintenance costs) and there is significant economic advantage to the replacement. There are thousands of diesel-electric locomotives in Class I main-line service today that are 35+ years of age, with no rebuild, only component renewal.RWM
martin.knoepfel wrote: Two points from a European view. Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary. The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.
Sorry to disagree with you, RWM, but (old) electrics require less overall maintenence than (old) diesels. German DB uses hundreds of 40+ year old electrics in daily mainline service. They are being replaced at present not because they are obsolete, but rather because the newer electrics have more drawbar hp and higher speed capabilities.
As far as I know, none of the European countries using overhead DC are planning conversion anytime soon (with the exception of Holland). In fact, modern 3-phase AC electrics rectify the current to DC for better power regulation before chopping it up again to feed it to the traction motors. Modern electrics with AC traction motors can operate on both low voltage DC as well as high voltage AC.
Bombardier (in affiliation with GE) has a locomotive family by the name of TRAXX that it markets all over Europe. Siemens is their main competitor in electrics and diesel-electrics. I believe that many American RR operating dept. managers are just not familiar with what's on the market over here, and what possibilities this could open up for them!
In the long term - say hundreds of years in the future - we're probably going to have to have electric railroads, with power generated from nuclear power plants, or have railroads powered by horses. Oil and coal are finite, even the most optimistic projections say that in time they will run out.
To me, it would be better to build the infrastructure for electric railroads now while we can do it, even if in the short term it costs more than continuing to run diesels.
My understanding is that the CTA went to 3rd rail for the Skokie Swift just for commonality of equipment; that is, they didn't have to maintain a fleet with trolley poles for that one line. Looking around the world at electrified passenger and freight rail systems, catenary seems to be the most popular option : the Northeast Corridor in the U.S., Japan's Bullet Trains, Europe's TGV and ICE, and so on. On my visits to Germany, the longest freight train I can recall seeing was only about 30 cars long, and all were headed by a single electric locomotive running under wire. This seems to have allowed them to run at nearly the same speed as the local passenger trains sharing the same lines. Of course, all the yards had several diesel/electric locomotives available as well; not every track in every yard was electrified, and some of the industrial and lesser-traveled passenger branch lines were diesel-only as well.
Conversion of current diesel/electric locomotives to pure electric operation, especially the newer AC-motor versions, would seem to be a relatively low-cost option to investing in a completely new fleet; these converted units could then be replaced with new units over time, as the railroads would normally do with the diesel units. Being relatively simpler to maintain than diesel/electrics as well as longer lasting, maintenance and replacement costs will go down.
Electrification of main lines does not have to be done all at once! It could be started at major metropolitan centers, like Chicago, along the commuter lines which spoke out along Class I railroads' mains in most cases. This would spread the cost among the Federal, state and local government agencies which currently subsidize commuter rail anyway. As the population grows and spreads out, the electrified commuter rail system would eventually reach toward other cities, lessening the gaps and increasing the incentive (as well as lessening the cost) to electrify the freight-only sections in between. Chicago-Milwaukee seems to be a natural place to start, later extending west toward Minneapolis; or possibly Chicago-Springfield, then on to St. Louis.
Since the Soviet Republic disintegrated in the 1990s, how many warships, both nuclear and conventional, have been decommissioned or mothballed? Consider them as portable power supplies until sufficient generating capacity can be constructed on shore. IIRC, this has already been done to supply electricity for disaster-stricken areas, so why not use them now in the U.S.? I'm sure there are quite a few retired Navy nuclear power techs who wouldn't mind a job on such a floating power station berthed along the Mississippi, Missouri, or Ohio rivers at points where sufficient operating electricity is not available.
Lastly, if the unthinkable happens and the country enters another Great Depression, electrification of the nation's railroads could be (and should be) considered as a modern-era project like the CCC and WPA which helped pull the country out of the depression.
Lee Koch wrote: Railway Man wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote: Two points from a European view. Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary. The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.Depreciation and longevity are two different things -- one an accounting rule set by law, the other an economic decision. Electric locomotives often have very long lives not because of any particular advantage of the technology compared to diesel-electric but because there's often very little economic advantage in replacement. Many electrified railroads are one-offs with obsolete transmission and distribution systems there's little point to replacing the locomotives without an expensive replacement of the overhead, too. Many electrified railroads are also state-owned and subject to different economic calculations than the investor-owned railroads of the U.S.Diesel-electric locomotives are often replaced because the technology continues to progress (particularly reduction in fuel consumption and maintenance costs) and there is significant economic advantage to the replacement. There are thousands of diesel-electric locomotives in Class I main-line service today that are 35+ years of age, with no rebuild, only component renewal.RWMSorry to disagree with you, RWM, but (old) electrics require less overall maintenence than (old) diesels. German DB uses hundreds of 40+ year old electrics in daily mainline service. They are being replaced at present not because they are obsolete, but rather because the newer electrics have more drawbar hp and higher speed capabilities.As far as I know, none of the European countries using overhead DC are planning conversion anytime soon (with the exception of Holland). In fact, modern 3-phase AC electrics rectify the current to DC for better power regulation before chopping it up again to feed it to the traction motors. Modern electrics with AC traction motors can operate on both low voltage DC as well as high voltage AC.Bombardier (in affiliation with GE) has a locomotive family by the name of TRAXX that it markets all over Europe. Siemens is their main competitor in electrics and diesel-electrics. I believe that many American RR operating dept. managers are just not familiar with what's on the market over here, and what possibilities this could open up for them!
Your original point did not cite maintenance as a reason to replace diesel-electric locomotives. You cited depreciation and inferred longevity. Maintenance on a straight-electric locomotive is less indeed, but the comparison with straight-electric locomotives is not why old diesel-electric locomotives are replaced with new diesel-electric locomotives. Maintenance on the diesel prime mover and auxiliaries is linear with use, and one can continue to replace and renew prime mover and auxiliary components forever. Maintenance on the electrical system of both diesel-electric and straight-electric locomotives is non-linear, and other than the rotating electrical gear can be flat for 15-30 years then suddenly spike as all the insulation reaches the end of its lifetime.
The example you cite of old straight-electric locomotives being replaced to obtain higher efficiency and performance is precisely why diesel-electric locomotives are replaced. If diesel-electric locomotive technology had firmly plateaued at the SD40-2 or F9 or C40-8, that's exactly where the replacement would have stopped in the U.S., and whichever design the technology had stopped at would have been renewed forever. But technological improvement has not stopped, so there continues to be economic incentive to replace.
I think you vastly overestimate the parochialism of U.S. railroad managers. We're not railfans. We will buy the best product for the money regardless of where it is made. I was at a trailroad rade show last week in Texas and there were representatives of at least 20 European or multinational railroad supply firms with substantial booths. Siemens and Bombardier have substantial presence in North American railroading; if they are not offering a main line heavy-haul locomotive for North America it's because they have made the decision that they cannot compete on price and performance. If anything it's the European railroads that tend to be the closed systems.
RWM
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.