Electrification in North America

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

 Again the question is should RRS start electrifying.

 

No.

[al-in-chgo]

My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.

The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either. 

Interesting - thanks for the info. That suggests that it would be possible to use 6KVDC on the catenary, which would give a fourfold substation spacing or locomotive horsepower over the Milwaukee 3KV electrification. One advantage of a DC electrification is the lack of phase unbalance problems inherent with single phase commercial frequency electrifications. OTOH, there's still the problem of more frequent and more expensive substations than an AC electrification along with the more severe electrolysis problems. 

Erik, let me interrupt for a moment OT:  Today the mailman brought me the book "TEACH YOURSELF ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS."  I am not being facetious.  It will take me a while just to work through the introductory chapters but at some point I will be able to understand practical electrical terms a little better, I hope.  Is this an OK book -- I know it is aimed at the novice. Author is Stan Gibilisisco.  Book is in its fourth edition; originally published in 1972.

I'd think it great if any of you here on this thread recommend other books for me; but on those in the $60-and-up category it's unlikely I will splurge.  -  a.s.

 

[Big Wheel Driver]

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.

[Big Wheel Driver]

Well my contacts in the petroleum industry are surprised by oil $129.02 at 1118 CDT today tuesday may 20. Again the question is should RRS start electrifying. Remember each dollar increase of a 42 gallon barrel is $.025 a galon increase in price. Paid $3.929 today.

[blue streak 1]

Well my contacts in the petroleum industry are surprised by oil $129.02 at 1118 CDT today tuesday may 20. Again the question is should RRS start electrifying. Remember each dollar increase of a 42 gallon barrel is $.025 a galon increase in price. Paid $3.929 today.

[erikem]

My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.

The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either. 

Interesting - thanks for the info. That suggests that it would be possible to use 6KVDC on the catenary, which would give a fourfold substation spacing or locomotive horsepower over the Milwaukee 3KV electrification. One advantage of a DC electrification is the lack of phase unbalance problems inherent with single phase commercial frequency electrifications. OTOH, there's still the problem of more frequent and more expensive substations than an AC electrification along with the more severe electrolysis problems. 

[beaulieu]

My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.

The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either. 

[erikem]

 

 A question though: are third rail electrification systems compatible with long distance heavy freight service? It seems that every major freight electrification in use today is overhead wire...

 No there are no 3rd rail heavy freight operations because of the power required. Because there are no 3rd rail systems using higher than 800V for safety reasons, at that voltage a SD70 would need to draw 4000 amps to produce its rated horsepower, welding doesn't take anywhere near that amperage. If the contact shoe would come off the contact rail the arc would at least melt a bit of the contact rail or possibly vaporize a bit. Of course you could run multiple shoe gear but maintenance costs go up. Also modern traction invertors (for 3-phase traction motors) operate at 3k - 6k DC input. With the newest electric locomotives using 6kv for improved conversion efficiency.  To use 800v from a 3rd rail you would have to fit the locomotive with IGBT lifting choppers to chop the DC to the higher voltage, this increases costs and complications.

My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.

BART still uses 1000V for the third rail and CCT use to use 1200V. The Michigan Railways experimented with 2400V third rail, but were having problems with arcs developing between the rail and journal box.

As for current, the breakers on the former NYC third rail supplies are set for 14,000A, so with 1200V it would be possible to get a bit over 16MW which translates to 20,000 drawbar horsepower - adequate for many frieght trains. Safety issues for any unfenced ROW and the economics of a substation every 3-4 miles pretty much rule out long distance third rail. 

[beaulieu]

 

 A question though: are third rail electrification systems compatible with long distance heavy freight service? It seems that every major freight electrification in use today is overhead wire...

 

No there are no 3rd rail heavy freight operations because of the power required. Because there are no 3rd rail systems using higher than 800V for safety reasons, at that voltage a SD70 would need to draw 4000 amps to produce its rated horsepower, welding doesn't take anywhere near that amperage. If the contact shoe would come off the contact rail the arc would at least melt a bit of the contact rail or possibly vaporize a bit. Of course you could run multiple shoe gear but maintenance costs go up. Also modern traction invertors (for 3-phase traction motors) operate at 3k - 6k DC input. With the newest electric locomotives using 6kv for improved conversion efficiency.  To use 800v from a 3rd rail you would have to fit the locomotive with IGBT lifting choppers to chop the DC to the higher voltage, this increases costs and complications.

[blue streak 1]

Should RRs electrify:  Read the extensive CALTRAIN report on electrifying its whole route from SFO to Gilroy. The cost to just electrify (no motors since they would probaly replace freight RRs locomotives comes to about 3.2 million per track mile to San Jose and 1.71 per mile to Gilroy.

www.caltrain.com/electrification.html

Its a long document Chap 2 covers salient items including many questions poised here. Would like your comments.

[al-in-chgo]

The FL9 was an EMD product.  According to my sources, it was introduced in 1956, and the last ones were built in 1960. 

Thanks!  I've seen photos and the locomotive looked kind of "F" series, but I wasn't sure. - a.s.

 

[tdmidget]

I"m not sure why this keeps coming up but 3rd rail is incompatible with ANY application where there is even the remotest chance that people , livestock, or wildlife might have access to it under any condition. Search these forums for Norfolk Southern lawsuit Wilkes Barre. This should give you your answer. And remember it wasn't even the railroad's wire.                       

What we got here is failure to communicate.

[carnej1]

The FL9 was modified from the F9 design, it featured a longer frame and an B-A1A truck arrangement. The rear A1A truck was near the location of the third rail pickup shoe.

 A question though: are third rail electrification systems compatible with long distance heavy freight service? It seems that every major freight electrification in use today is overhead wire...

[garyla]

The FL9 was an EMD product.  According to my sources, it was introduced in 1956, and the last ones were built in 1960. 

[al-in-chgo]

Didn't some of the NH electric motors use both catenary and under running shoes to go into GC terminal?

Yes, the electric motors. None of those were dual-mode (i.e. no diesel). All of their passenger motors had that ability, because without it, they could not access Grand Central Terminal. They also needed to use the overhead third-rail at that location, to get through the gaps. Remember, the FL9 had no catenary wire ability, because they went right to diesel mode once they got out of Manhattan.

I know the FL9 has a kind of iconic status, especially among New Haven fans, but I honestly don't know who manufactured them and when.  I guess this is as good a time as any to ask.

  - a.s.

 

[Flint Hills Tex]

While I beleive electrification will be inevitable, at least on a partial scale, not nationwide but certainly thru some urban corridors, I was thinking about something else.

IF electrication was to occur, could modern diesel locomotives be converted with cantaneries to power the traction motors on sections of electrified track while retaining the diesel motors for use on non-electrified open country sections?

I think I can follow you, but if a dual mode loco were too heavy, as some have said, what about a different approach. Try MUing DEs with electrics, say 1+1+1+1 (2 of each), when under caternary or next to 3rd rail, the electrics draw the power for all traction motors, when in un-electrified territory, the DEs' prime movers provide the power (sort of like a yard slug gets its power from another loco).

[JT22CW]

Didn't some of the NH electric motors use both catenary and under running shoes to go into GC terminal?

Yes, the electric motors. None of those were dual-mode (i.e. no diesel). All of their passenger motors had that ability, because without it, they could not access Grand Central Terminal. They also needed to use the overhead third-rail at that location, to get through the gaps. Remember, the FL9 had no catenary wire ability, because they went right to diesel mode once they got out of Manhattan.

[blue streak 1]

JT22CW:

didn't hear about NJ transit not following up have a source? Didn't some of the NH electric motors use both catenary and under running shoes to go into GC terminal? What was their top speed? 

[Flint Hills Tex]

I found an interesting study with cost estimates for 42,000 route miles of electrification:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/ElectricRail.pdf

I also took a train trip the day before yesterday, and travelled through electrified territory with wider than usual track centers. There, the caternary was supported over both tracks by a single pole between the tracks (you often see this on light rail systems as well). That seems like a way to lower some of the capital investments.

I understand the concept of rewiring a locomotive due to aging insulation, but wouldn't that be just as much of an issue on a diesel-electric? I expect that you could probably remove the large components such as transformer/rectifier just as easily as you could a prime mover. The rest of the locomotive's electrical systems would not really be hat much different than on a DE.

Edit: Didn't realize the author of the paper at the above link was a LaRouche follower. I do not neccessarily endorse the political/economic philosophy put forth in the last paragraph of the paper, but the estimates of capital investments neccessary are fascinating, if you disregard the mag-lev proposition.

[erikem]

Parts aren't available because there's lack of demand.  Demand is lacking because the locomotive has unattractive economics due to technological obsolescence.  Ergo, the cause is technical obsolescence -- my original point.  If the locomotive had value, the parts would be there.

No disrespect, but having spent many years turning wrenches on locomotives, there is a world of cost difference between renewing the wiring and renewing the prime mover, and another world of difference between a locomotive with a wheezy prime mover and one with an electrical cabient with crumbling wiring.  I can buy a good used 16-567C and drop it in for $25K, but a rewire is $150-200K.  The prime mover can be jerked out and another swapped in and the locomotive back out earning money in less than 24 hours.  A rewire is 30-90 days.  A locomotive with a fatally damaged prime mover I have no problem with -- it's just a big component to swap out -- but a locomotive with a burned-up electrical cabinet is generally going to be cannibalized and scrapped unless it's 60-series or newer.  And 60-series is borderline.  A GP60 with a burned cabinet will likely have turned its last revenue wheel.  Locomotives with worn-out prime movers will still pull something, but a locomotive with an old electrical cabinet and electrical gear is more trouble than it's worth to dispatch, because of all the ground fault relay trips and failures to load.  Diagnosing why the problem occurred can take days and in the process there's risk of creating more problems.

My comments about wiring were directed more at replacing/rewinding the motors - the mess with the elctrical cabinet wasn't something I had considered (thanks for the enlightenment).

 

About the worse thing you'll have to do with the prime mover is strip it, tank it, linebore it, and repaint it, get all the new jewelry out of the storeroom, and bolt it on.  And the locomotive will run even and pull some load even when the prime mover is not very good.

I'm having mental images of tanking car engine components - locomotive components are on a bit bigger scale. Then again, you could try tanking an engine from a supertanker...

 

It's not easy to draw lessons about diesel-electric maintenance economics from looking at straight-electric maintenance economics, as the situations are very different.  For a railroad with straight-electrics in this country, the only choices were to fix them no matter what had broke, scrap the whole system, or pay an exorbitant sum to buy new with absolutely no economies of scale.  The diesel-electric maintenance manager has the more unpleasant job as the flexibilities and commonalities with his neighbors he enjoys results in his cost and performance pressures being much greater.  The straight-electric shop manager was rewarded for his ability to improvise and extrapolate; the diesel-electric shop manager is rewarded for his ability to squeeze pennies out of the suppliers and sweat out of the employees.  All things considered, I think it would have been much more fun to work on the electrics.

First thought in reading that was Wylie of the Milwaukee - he knew his stuff and did a good job of keeping the electrics going. Interesting thing is that power electronics have evolved to the point that you can run the inverter for AC traction motors directly off of the 3KV catenary - though it might make more sense using a large scale DC-DC converter to step down the voltage to the ~800V used on the DC bus on GE's AC Evolution series locomotives (kilowatt level DC-DC converters are running about 95-96% efficient, and megawatt level converters would have even higher efficiency). I would expect future electric fieght locomotives to be largely the same as an equivalent vintage diesel electric with the prime mover replaced by a transformer.

Something that you've touched on is that the effieciency of the diesel prime mover has improved significantly over the years (EMD claimed a 10% improvement between the 645F of 1980 and the 710G of 1984). The situation for electrics is a bit different, the locomotives delivered to the BA&P in 1913 achieved a 90% efficiency in converting electric energy at the pantographs to mechanical energy at the optimum speed and loading. Improvements since then have been maintaining good efficiency over a wider range of speeds.

[JT22CW]

IF electrication was to occur, could modern diesel locomotives be converted with cantaneries to power the traction motors on sections of electrified track while retaining the diesel motors for use on non-electrified open country sections?

NH's FL-9's operated in just this way

No, they did not. FL9s operated from low-voltage DC third rail, not high-voltage AC catenary wire.

Besides, the only use for dual-mode locomotives is for operation in locations with poor ventilation, i.e. where there is a real danger of asphyxiation by diesel exhaust. As soon as the FL9 got out of Manhattan, the prime mover was activated, and the locomotives ran with the prime mover on while still in electrified territory.  The speed limit while in full electric mode was quite low; even their replacements, the GE Genesis II P32AC-DMs, operate no faster than 60 mph in electric mode.

NJ transit is ordering dual mode locomotives as a joint order with Montreal QB

Neither agency is ordering anything. A request for proposal was put out; and it was not renewed after expiring. NJT's second option was to study DMU/EMU combinations, such as the ADtranz (formerly; now Bombardier) "Flexliner" that operates in Denmark and Israel (and of course was tested by Amtrak). That too has been cast out. Now NJT is actually ordering a lot of new ALP-46s (a 125-mph version called the ALP-46A, reportedly), but since their electrified territory remains rather scant, especially on the Hoboken Division, it would be interesting to see if they actually are planning to extend electrification, or if they are just going to use them to run longer multi-level trains on the NEC (or even use them to replace their ALP-44s). Don't ask me why 125 mph; none of their railcars are certified for that speed, so perhaps they might lease some of these new motors to Amtrak.

[al-in-chgo]

If we only knew why that decision was made in my country! It is not logical given the direction of the Betuweroute (east - west, to cennect the big harbor at Rotterdam with the German hinterland).

On the other hand, and I am definitely not an expert, it is supposed to be easier to step down to 25 kV when electricity is coming from the high tension lines (up to 300 kV I believe).

The reason why we have not changed the system wholesale from 1500 v DC to 25 kV AC is very simple: cost. The politicians were not going to shoulder the cost and the railroad wasn't going to either. This was back in the middle of the 90's. Then the railroad owned the tracks and its stock was owned by the State. Now, infrastructure and passenger railroad operating company are separate juridical entities but still owned by the State and freight is completely private from the viewpoint of the Dutch State.

And while it costs more to install multiple voltage systems another big killer are the different safety systems. The difference between 25 kV and 15 kV are not that big compared to installing 1500 V DC also.

Oh, and while you may see electrics in double traction over here in my country, that does not mean they each use their full power! 1500 v DC simply won't allow that (I believe the critical values are 1350 and 1800 v DC as limiters). And there comes a point when adding more sub stations isn't going to work any more. That was the solution to not convert to 25 kV AC.

Hope this doesn't confuse matters.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

PS a small correction: it is Havenlijn, linje sounds way to much like Swedisch or Danish to me (also related to the Germanic branch of languages, but a different one than Dutch or English).

In Swedish "linje" means line and would sound to American ears like "LEEN-yah." And the Swedish word for "seal (as in aminal)" is Silja, pronounced "SEEL-yah."  Interestingly, one of the passenger ferries traveling overnite from Stockholm to Helsinki (where some of the people while at home speak Swedish not Finnish) is "Silja Line"; the the word "Line" is English and pronounced as in English:  "SEEL-yah Line."   I am looking at the ashtray I swiped as evidence! The second word's being in English is probably just an attempt to sound chic. Or maybe "SEEL-yah LEEN-yah" sounded silly, even in Swedish. 

In German same word meaning "line" as in sequence, or the "line" of a timetable (but not commonly used to refer to telephone line) is always capitalized, as all nouns that begin words are capitalized in German.  So it is spelled Linie, and pronounced with three syllables:  "LEEN-ee-Yah."   This is an exception to the general rule that the "-ie" is pronounced in English "EE." 

Correct me if I am wrong, all you Nederlanders, but perhaps the confusion is from a wrong transcreiption of the "ij" vowel in Dutch:  IJsselmeer -- "EE-sul-mare"; is that a decent decent spelling and pronunciation for the fresh-water lake ("meer") that replaced the saline "Zuider Zee"? 

Don't hate me; I majored in German and had to take linguistics, also some Swedish.  You'd be amazed how seldom it comes in handy.  On this side of the pond at least.  Continentals who make it to Chicago as tourists are generally very well educated, Scandinavians and the Dutch in particular, and English is the norm.  In fact, since most of the sounds in English are the same as in Dutch, it can take a while to perceive that an educated Dutchman (or -woman) is speaking as a native of a foreign tongue and not, say, a rather rarefied version of British English!  [Plug]:  Chicago loooves visitors from abroad.  We need those Euros flowing west! 

 

[garyla]

The EMD article was in December 1968 Trains magazine, beginning on page 24.  Page 30, near the end of the article, is where Kapton is mentioned.  I guess that I read the story long ago, but never paid much attention to that tape product.  It must be good stuff.

Interesting article, it points to reasons why Electro-Motive was so comfortably on top of the locomotive business for so many years.

 

 

 

[erikem]

I'm not aware of Kapton being used for anything in railroads, but who knows -- it may be somewhere.  I tend to doubt it has shown up too often because it was a specialty insulation designed for the requirements of aircraft, and railroads don't have a weight issue like aircraft do.

Kapton is used to insulate the windings in the armatures of DC traction motors - it was mentioned in a late 60's article  in Trains (Dec 68 - tnx Gary) on how EMD builds locomotives. The use of kapton insulation allows the windings to run hotter, which allows for more current in a given size motor. In addition to its high temperature capability, Kapton retains its mechanical properties at very low temperatures (it is widely used in cryogenic applications) - which may be why it is used in aircraft.

Added comment (May 18):

The GE-750 traction motors used in the Little Joes had a continuous rating of 345 amps and an hourly rating of 375 amps. The same series motors proposed in 1969 for a 5400HP C-C locomotive had a continuous rating of 480 amps and an hourly rating of 520 amps (both motors wound for 1500V and inuslated for 3000V). I would surmise that a large part of that increase was due to the use of Kapton (polyimide) insulation as opposed to what was used in the late 1940's. Polyimide was first synthesized in 1955.

I would expect that there would be few RR uses for Kapton (or polyimides) besides motor windings, besides expense, Kapton has relatively poor abrasion resistance.

[blue streak 1]

vsmith: NJ transit is ordering dual mode locomotives as a joint order with Montreal QB. This is just what I mentioned on my post "if RRs electrify"

[vsmith]

While I beleive electrification will be inevitable, at least on a partial scale, not nationwide but certainly thru some urban corridors, I was thinking about something else.

IF electrication was to occur, could modern diesel locomotives be converted with cantaneries to power the traction motors on sections of electrified track while retaining the diesel motors for use on non-electrified open country sections?

NH's FL-9's operated in just this way, what would be the advantges or disadvantages?

Gas prices have already been envisioned as being capable of reaching $7 a gallon in the next few years, so if Diesel hits $8+ and look like that will be the long term price, when does it become price effective to even begin considering the start up costs for electrification?

Just curious.

[blue streak 1]

RWM: thanks. The reason I mentioned Kapton was I worked on a B-727 that subject to a blown duct that placed 300+ F temps. The non Kapton melted the Kapton no problem. Took two weeks to replace all the non Kapton from cannon plug to cannon plug.

[Railway Man]

RWM: So do new locomotives and motors have longer insulation life today as opposed to the past? I would imagine that motors might have better insulation because of their longer service life.

Yes, locomotives and rotating electrical equipment do have better insulation that offers longer life and less leakage, but I am ignorant of any details beyond that statement.

RWM

[blue streak 1]

RWM: So do new locomotives and motors have longer insulation life today as opposed to the past? I would imagine that motors might have better insulation because of their longer service life.

[erikem]

RWM: What is the present performance status of insulation today as opposed to the past. I mentioned kapton before. Is it used in any factory delivered critical systems? 

A couple of comments about insulation. Kapton is used because it has the highest operating temperature of any commonly available polymer and it has been around since at least the early 60's (I first read about in the Time-Life Science Library book Giant Molecules that came out either '66 or '67. There is still work being done on improving kapton (and equivalents), about 10 years ago I ran across a NASA solicitation for means to improve the manufacturing of the stuff.

If you want to go to even higher temperatures, the insulators of choice will typically be ceramics (or the stuff used on high temp thermocouple wires).