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.
RWM
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.
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?
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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!
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
"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
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.