MichaelSol wrote: 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.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
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?
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
Shortly after the Milwaukee road proposals EMD partnered with ASEA to produce a prototype 6,000HP freight motor built on a modified SD40-2 frame. IINM the GF6C electric locos built for the BC Rail Tumbler Ridge coal line electrification used SD frames as well..In addition GE built a small number of E25B engines on U23B frames for a Texas Utility rr.
An interesting extrapolation on the MR idea would be an electric locomotive "Slug" supplying traction current to one or more electrically interconnected diesels, an idea I have seen advanced by others on this forum...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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 British 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!
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 British 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 British 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.
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 British 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!
Uff Dah, lots of misconceptions in this discussion at this point. In Germany, at this point the most "Open" of all railways, is set up with subsidiary DB Energie as generating some of the electric power used and as distribution agent for the national network. Based on a recent German Supreme Court decision, Open Access operators, and Regional Authorities who contract for services, may purchase electric power on the commercial market and have it supplied to DB Energie, Rail4Chem(now a Veolia subsidiary) is doing this, I believe that one of the Laender (States) is also doing this for its regional passenger services. By regulation all newer locomotives have power meters that measure electricity consumption and regeneration, and the companies are billed accordingly, for older locomotives it is estimated(vast majority of these are DB or OeBB owned). DB Energie is required to charge based on a similar basis as other power providers, the same Supreme Court decision allowed volume discounts, but struck down DB's existing agreement as structured to be discriminatory against other operators. DB has a program to replace older locomotives as fast as economically possible, older electrics consume more kilowatts per drawbar horsepower and lack regenerative braking. Rapid railfreight growth has meant that some older locomotives have been kept longer than planned, but of the Class 140 (879 built over 18 years) those chosen for survival a bit longer, are a few "Good Actors" (low repairs over lifetime) and those which were built with Thyristor switching systems(more power efficient). The Class 140s are restricted now to 100 kph which is too low for most non-bulk services, but except for parcels services (DHL or UPS for example) there isn't much (any) demand for more than 140 kph, with empty bulk trains desired to be able to move at 120 kph. The price of kilowatts is rising quickly, just as other forms of fuel prices are rising, so the price for higher power (fuel) consumption needed to achieve higher speeds is a balancing force acting against the higher utilization gained by the higher speeds. It doesn't matter whether the energy is kilowatts of electricity or gallons of diesel fuel.
The Dutch have not converted any lines from the national standard of 1.5kv DC, and after studying the economics, are only going to convert the freight-only tracks connecting the "Havenlinje" (Port Line serving the majority of Rotterdam Harbor) to the "Betuweroute" (which is a new-build dedicated freight connection towards the German border), plus the short section from Zevenaar (end of the Betuweroute) to the German border. The new build High-speed Line linking Amsterdam with Antwerp, the new build Betuweroute freight line from Kifhoek Yd to Zevenaar, and the Havenlinje which was built as diesel operated, will be equipped with 25kv AC when completed, but they weren't converted.
Bombardier did offer the "Blue Tiger" Diesel-electric locomotives in partnership with GE, but sales were disappointing and the partners went their separate ways. Bombardier "TRAXX" locomotives use Bombardier proprietary electrical drive systems, derived from ABB designs that were acquired with the purchase of Adtranz(ABB spinoff). They have the Engineering know-how to develop their own drive equipment.
loadmaster747 wrote: 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. Loadmaster, have you been hallucinating? The only nuclear vessels that have been taken out of service are some early submarines. These are very small units. NONE of the vessels are electric powered, they only produce enought to cover their hotel load. Deep water traffic on the Missisippi-Ohio-Missouri river system is only possible to Baton Rouge La. If you are thinking of using Soviet vessels their reactors are notoriously dangerous. None of these vessels produce a significant amount of electricity . Those not nuclear would still be burning oil so what would be gained if they did?
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.
Loadmaster, have you been hallucinating? The only nuclear vessels that have been taken out of service are some early submarines. These are very small units. NONE of the vessels are electric powered, they only produce enought to cover their hotel load. Deep water traffic on the Missisippi-Ohio-Missouri river system is only possible to Baton Rouge La. If you are thinking of using Soviet vessels their reactors are notoriously dangerous. None of these vessels produce a significant amount of electricity . Those not nuclear would still be burning oil so what would be gained if they did?
from prior post by beaulieu:
The Dutch have not converted any lines from the national standard of 1.5kv DC, and after studying the economics, are only going to convert the freight-only tracks connecting the "Havenlinje" (Port Line serving the majority of Rotterdam Harbor) to the "Betuweroute" (which is a new-build dedicated freight connection towards the German border), plus the short section from Zevenaar (end of the Betuweroute) to the German border. The new build High-speed Line linking Amsterdam with Antwerp, the new build Betuweroute freight line from Kifhoek Yd to Zevenaar, and Bowevenlinje which was built as diesel operated, will be equipped with 25kv AC when completed, but they weren't converted.
John, you are a jewel! I do so enjoy reading your stuff. I'm curious as to where you get your info: Intenet, European journals, contacts, visiting?
If possible, I'd like to start informing myself along the same lines. Any suggestions? I've been to Europe several times but that was back in the cheap-Eurailpass days of the 1970s and 1980s.
Please understand that I stand much more in admiration than in envy!
Best, Al Smalling
So why would a new freight line from Rotterdam towards the German border then not use 15KV like the germans ?
Now it seems like they will have a 25KV line in an aera where other railways use 1500 DC or 15KV AC. It makes alot electric locomotives obsolete by doing this.
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).
al-in-chgo wrote: John, you are a jewel! I do so enjoy reading your stuff. I'm curious as to where you get your info: Intenet, European journals, contacts, visiting? If possible, I'd like to start informing myself along the same lines. Any suggestions? I've been to Europe several times but that was back in the cheap-Eurailpass days of the 1970s and 1980s. Please understand that I stand much more in admiration than in envy! Best, Al Smalling
Al feel free to mail or pm me with your questions!
wjstix wrote: 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.
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.
Hydrocarbons may be finite, or they may exist in relatively infinite amounts.......
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
Whether one accepts the theory of abiotic hydrocarbon origins or not, or whether one is convinced that hydrocarbons are of a biotic origin and thus quite finite, it should also be pointed out that man has only discovered the easiest to get to reserves or oil, gas, and coal. The easy to get to hydrocarbon reserves may only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of actual existence of Earth's hydrocarbon resources.
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.
That would have some merit if indeed we were actually running out of domestic hydrocarbon sources. Thing is, we have at least 300 years worth of easy to get to coal within our borders we ought to utilize while we can, coal that can be used in steam locomtives, or liquified into diesel fuel. Thus, we have a few more centuries to go before we need to start erecting catenery.
Railway Man wrote: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.
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.
A slight correction, renewal for parts on a diesel prime mover can continue as long as parts are available - try maintaining a Winton 201A . Aging of insulation can be dealt with by re-winding the motors and renewing the wiring - probably not any worse than some of the rebuilding necessary on the prime mover. The Milwaukee's original complement of GE motors were retired more for fatigue damage in the frames than for wearing out of the electrical gear.
erikem wrote: Railway Man wrote: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. A slight correction, renewal for parts on a diesel prime mover can continue as long as parts are available - try maintaining a Winton 201A . Aging of insulation can be dealt with by re-winding the motors and renewing the wiring - probably not any worse than some of the rebuilding necessary on the prime mover. The Milwaukee's original complement of GE motors were retired more for fatigue damage in the frames than for wearing out of the electrical gear.
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.
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.
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.
RWM
al-in-chgo wrote: I'm curious as to where you get your info: Intenet, European journals, contacts, visiting? If possible, I'd like to start informing myself along the same lines. Any suggestions? I've been to Europe several times but that was back in the cheap-Eurailpass days of the 1970s and 1980s.
I'm curious as to where you get your info: Intenet, European journals, contacts, visiting?
Al, I'm not sure what your budget is like, but I would suggest subscribing to the British magazine "Today's Railways Europe". It is a monthly magazine covering mainland Europe, they have a sister magazine to cover Great Britain and Ireland. The magazine is like a cross between Trains and CTC Board. They have an Editorial page, a section covering major European news, 2 or 3 feature articles, pages covering news briefs from each of the major European countries, a section on Transit, and a section on Heritage or Preserved Railways. They cover European Rail Passes in a feature article each year. The current price is 52.80 GBP for airmail to the US. A couple of years ago they ran a feature article on each of the three major European Locomotive builders and their current multi-system electric locomotives. Those issues are still available as are many of their back issues.
Good Internet websites are;
X-Rail for news releases - translated into English
Eurift also for links to news stories
For maps that show the electrification systems I use the maps on this website. It also shows power and track layouts at border stations where the power systems were different from each other, and how interchange was handled.
Trainspotting Bukkes
I can read German, but I don't think I can speak intelligeable German anymore. I use computer translation software for the other major European languages.
I would also suggest joining the yahoogroup SwissRail where the discussion is about Swiss Railways with the discussion in English. The moderator is an official with the Swiss equivilent of our STB and FRA combined, the BAV (BundesAmt fur Verkehr). Feel free to drop me a Private Message if you want further info.
beaulieu wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: I'm curious as to where you get your info: Intenet, European journals, contacts, visiting? If possible, I'd like to start informing myself along the same lines. Any suggestions? I've been to Europe several times but that was back in the cheap-Eurailpass days of the 1970s and 1980s. Al, I'm not sure what your budget is like, but I would suggest subscribing to the British magazine "Today's Railways Europe". It is a monthly magazine covering mainland Europe, they have a sister magazine to cover Great Britain and Ireland. The magazine is like a cross between Trains and CTC Board. They have an Editorial page, a section covering major European news, 2 or 3 feature articles, pages covering news briefs from each of the major European countries, a section on Transit, and a section on Heritage or Preserved Railways. They cover European Rail Passes in a feature article each year. The current price is 52.80 GBP for airmail to the US. A couple of years ago they ran a feature article on each of the three major European Locomotive builders and their current multi-system electric locomotives. Those issues are still available as are many of their back issues. Good Internet websites are;X-Rail for news releases - translated into EnglishEurift also for links to news storiesFor maps that show the electrification systems I use the maps on this website. It also shows power and track layouts at border stations where the power systems were different from each other, and how interchange was handled.Trainspotting Bukkes I can read German, but I don't think I can speak intelligeable German anymore. I use computer translation software for the other major European languages.I would also suggest joining the yahoogroup SwissRail where the discussion is about Swiss Railways with the discussion in English. The moderator is an official with the Swiss equivilent of our STB and FRA combined, the BAV (BundesAmt fur Verkehr). Feel free to drop me a Private Message if you want further info.
I am much in debt to you. Thank you for your erudition and for taking the trouble to address my query.
I'll PM you seeking a little further info. - al
blue streak 1 wrote: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?
Insulation standards are set by AREMA for signaling systems and by the manufacturer for locomotives, rolling stock, and on- and off-track machinery, with cognizance of standards set by the FRA, National Electrical Code, and other regulatory or rating agencies. It gets long and tedious describing it in any sort of detail.
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.
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).
blue streak 1 wrote: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.
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.
Have fun with your trains
Railway Man wrote: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.
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.
marcimmeker wrote: 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 ImmekerPS 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 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!
vsmith wrote: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
NH's FL-9's operated in just this way
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.
blue streak 1 wrote:NJ transit is ordering dual mode locomotives as a joint order with Montreal QB
Railway Man wrote: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).
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...
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.
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.
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?
blue streak 1 wrote:Didn't some of the NH electric motors use both catenary and under running shoes to go into GC terminal?
vsmith wrote: 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 wrote: blue streak 1 wrote: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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.