The FL9 was modified from the F9 design, it featured a longer frame and an B-A1A truck arrangement. The rear A1A truck was near the location of the third rail pickup shoe.
A question though: are third rail electrification systems compatible with long distance heavy freight service? It seems that every major freight electrification in use today is overhead wire...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I"m not sure why this keeps coming up but 3rd rail is incompatible with ANY application where there is even the remotest chance that people , livestock, or wildlife might have access to it under any condition. Search these forums for Norfolk Southern lawsuit Wilkes Barre. This should give you your answer. And remember it wasn't even the railroad's wire.
What we got here is failure to communicate.
garyla wrote:The FL9 was an EMD product. According to my sources, it was introduced in 1956, and the last ones were built in 1960.
Thanks! I've seen photos and the locomotive looked kind of "F" series, but I wasn't sure. - a.s.
Should RRs electrify: Read the extensive CALTRAIN report on electrifying its whole route from SFO to Gilroy. The cost to just electrify (no motors since they would probaly replace freight RRs locomotives comes to about 3.2 million per track mile to San Jose and 1.71 per mile to Gilroy.
www.caltrain.com/electrification.html
Its a long document Chap 2 covers salient items including many questions poised here. Would like your comments.
carnej1 wrote: A question though: are third rail electrification systems compatible with long distance heavy freight service? It seems that every major freight electrification in use today is overhead wire...
No there are no 3rd rail heavy freight operations because of the power required. Because there are no 3rd rail systems using higher than 800V for safety reasons, at that voltage a SD70 would need to draw 4000 amps to produce its rated horsepower, welding doesn't take anywhere near that amperage. If the contact shoe would come off the contact rail the arc would at least melt a bit of the contact rail or possibly vaporize a bit. Of course you could run multiple shoe gear but maintenance costs go up. Also modern traction invertors (for 3-phase traction motors) operate at 3k - 6k DC input. With the newest electric locomotives using 6kv for improved conversion efficiency. To use 800v from a 3rd rail you would have to fit the locomotive with IGBT lifting choppers to chop the DC to the higher voltage, this increases costs and complications.
beaulieu wrote: carnej1 wrote: A question though: are third rail electrification systems compatible with long distance heavy freight service? It seems that every major freight electrification in use today is overhead wire... No there are no 3rd rail heavy freight operations because of the power required. Because there are no 3rd rail systems using higher than 800V for safety reasons, at that voltage a SD70 would need to draw 4000 amps to produce its rated horsepower, welding doesn't take anywhere near that amperage. If the contact shoe would come off the contact rail the arc would at least melt a bit of the contact rail or possibly vaporize a bit. Of course you could run multiple shoe gear but maintenance costs go up. Also modern traction invertors (for 3-phase traction motors) operate at 3k - 6k DC input. With the newest electric locomotives using 6kv for improved conversion efficiency. To use 800v from a 3rd rail you would have to fit the locomotive with IGBT lifting choppers to chop the DC to the higher voltage, this increases costs and complications.
My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.
BART still uses 1000V for the third rail and CCT use to use 1200V. The Michigan Railways experimented with 2400V third rail, but were having problems with arcs developing between the rail and journal box.
As for current, the breakers on the former NYC third rail supplies are set for 14,000A, so with 1200V it would be possible to get a bit over 16MW which translates to 20,000 drawbar horsepower - adequate for many frieght trains. Safety issues for any unfenced ROW and the economics of a substation every 3-4 miles pretty much rule out long distance third rail.
erikem wrote:My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.
The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either.
beaulieu wrote: erikem wrote:My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore. The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either.
Interesting - thanks for the info. That suggests that it would be possible to use 6KVDC on the catenary, which would give a fourfold substation spacing or locomotive horsepower over the Milwaukee 3KV electrification. One advantage of a DC electrification is the lack of phase unbalance problems inherent with single phase commercial frequency electrifications. OTOH, there's still the problem of more frequent and more expensive substations than an AC electrification along with the more severe electrolysis problems.
blue streak 1 wrote:Well my contacts in the petroleum industry are surprised by oil $129.02 at 1118 CDT today tuesday may 20. Again the question is should RRS start electrifying. Remember each dollar increase of a 42 gallon barrel is $.025 a galon increase in price. Paid $3.929 today.
One day the oil will run out. There will be no road transport as we know it. The railways will come into their own. Electrified railways. I have driven steam, diesel and electric locos, electric are far better than any of the others. The cost of installing the catenery will be covered be the great increase in rail traffic.
Regards, Malcolm.
erikem wrote: beaulieu wrote: erikem wrote: My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either. Interesting - thanks for the info. That suggests that it would be possible to use 6KVDC on the catenary, which would give a fourfold substation spacing or locomotive horsepower over the Milwaukee 3KV electrification. One advantage of a DC electrification is the lack of phase unbalance problems inherent with single phase commercial frequency electrifications. OTOH, there's still the problem of more frequent and more expensive substations than an AC electrification along with the more severe electrolysis problems.
beaulieu wrote: erikem wrote: My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.The 6kV DC links are found on current production electrics in Europe, I don't think EMD uses anything over 8-900V DC on their diesel-electric locomotives either.
erikem wrote: My recollection is that theGE lcomotives use ~800VDC for supplying the inverters - though may have misread the powerpoint slide. The presentation was given by someone from GE's Research Center in Bangalore.
Erik, let me interrupt for a moment OT: Today the mailman brought me the book "TEACH YOURSELF ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS." I am not being facetious. It will take me a while just to work through the introductory chapters but at some point I will be able to understand practical electrical terms a little better, I hope. Is this an OK book -- I know it is aimed at the novice. Author is Stan Gibilisisco. Book is in its fourth edition; originally published in 1972.
I'd think it great if any of you here on this thread recommend other books for me; but on those in the $60-and-up category it's unlikely I will splurge. - a.s.
Again the question is should RRS start electrifying.
No.
Big Wheel Driver wrote:One day the oil will run out. There will be no road transport as we know it. The railways will come into their own. Electrified railways. I have driven steam, diesel and electric locos, electric are far better than any of the others. The cost of installing the catenery will be covered be the great increase in rail traffic.Regards, Malcolm.
lt's a questioin of logistics weather to electrify or not. Technologicaly electrification can be done in many ways, there are plenty of examples all over the world.
All US mainline locomotives are electric, electric transmitions (traction motors) have proven itself in the US for the RRS. Not all diesel locomtives in the world are diesel electric, some countries use diesel hydraulic.
And in South Africa not only do they run heavy freight like the US, they run way heavier freights then anywhere in the US, and on narrow gauge.
Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: Again the question is should RRS start electrifying. No.
My answer is "Not yet".
If liquid fuels will continue to be widely available at costs closer to historical levels (say $70/bbl), and CO2 emissions are determined to not be a major issue, and a good portion of the electricity in places like California are generated from hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas or oil), then it makes most sense to continue to carry the prime mover on the locomotive.
If liquid fuels become scarcer and more expensive, and/or CO2 emissions are determined to be a major issue (and dealt with in central generating plants), and/or meeting (non-CO2) emission standards for high HP locomotives becomes difficult, and electricity is generated from sources significantly cheaper than oil (coal, wind, solar, nuclear), then it would make sense to electrify.
We may see a move to high speed rail if aircraft contrails are found to have a major impact on climate change.
blade wrote:all of or most of europe has electric rail and i well know that up here in canada they are looking into the possibility of doing a electrification for high speed rail which would be nice if they did so ,it would be good for the enviorment,cleaner and safer source of energy although it would likely be costly it would be well worth it.
But in Europe, until very recently, the railroads were owned by the governments and economical operation was not a primary consideration for electrification.
The FL9, a product of 1950s technologies.
The New Haven's access to New York's Grand Central Terminal was over the New York Central's outside third rail 600 volt DC track. Electric Locomotives dropped there pantographs (11,000 volt AC) at Mount Vernon and ran into GCT on NYC's third rail DC.
GM (EMD) said it could be done, why buy replacement Diesels AND Electric locomotives when they would build a Diesel that would do the work of both, while eliminating the locomotive change at New Haven on Boston to New York trains.
It became a "long" version of the F9 production locomotive, FL9. The resulting locomotive design became too heavy for the New York Central's 125th Street Viaduct so they replaced the two axle rear truck with a three axle version to spread the weight. A one of a kind, a B-C diesel wheel setup (as in the production F9, only four axles are powered). Yes, they did have problems at first but they were worked out. Also, Running in close to the Park Avenue Tunnels to GCT on diesel, they avoided buying power from NYC's third rail.
The FL9s have lasted over 50 years, through 3 rebuilds, and are still used in commuter service as intended but only on branch lines down to "the city" and as backup power.
Some of the "rebuilds" called for the paint job to be "as deliverd", New Haven colors!
Photo taken 2005
Don U. TCA 73-5735
JonathanS wrote: blade wrote:all of or most of europe has electric rail and i well know that up here in canada they are looking into the possibility of doing a electrification for high speed rail which would be nice if they did so ,it would be good for the enviorment,cleaner and safer source of energy although it would likely be costly it would be well worth it.But in Europe, until very recently, the railroads were owned by the governments and economical operation was not a primary consideration for electrification.
Exactly! And because of that, electrification was often placed on the back burner, even though it is the most economical in the long term!
In Germany electrification was not aggressively pursued until the DB was semi-privitized. Up until then, the bureaucratic management was rather ambivalent about electrifying. Yes, many main lines were electrified in former East Germany, and even more in the West, but there were vast stretches of track which were not electrified before privatization.
Some of the most blatant examples are the line from Munich to Memmingen, connecting on to Swiss Rail (electrified), from Hamburg to Berlin, from Hannover to Denmark, and from Nuremburg to Leipzig.
As to the price of electricity, all energy forms are going to get more and more expensive in the coming decades. But with electricity we can hope for technological breakthroughs in the source of primary energy (hydrogen fuel cell, fission, solar, etc). The Austrians use really advanced technology in their hydroelectric sector, using one lake to feed another, then back to the first by using subterranean aquaducts at different elevations. There has also been much progress made with tidal turbines.
According to a study by the University of Cambridge, England, using technology available today, were England to place solar panels on every available roof in Great Britain, they would not only meet their own energy needs, but could even export electricity! And that's in a country with less than 100 days of sunshine a year!
Don't forget, if RRs electrify, they can buy electricity from the lowest bidder, no matter what primary energy source was used to generate it, without any changes to their physical plant, and that is where the long term economics are much better than any other form of locomotion!
Lee Koch wrote: As to the price of electricity, all energy forms are going to get more and more expensive in the coming decades.
As to the price of electricity, all energy forms are going to get more and more expensive in the coming decades.
Relatively speaking, coal won't. In fact, the comparative price of coal relative to petroleum, biomass, wind, solar et al, will actually fall in the coming decades. Only nuclear has the ability to maintain price stability, so if you're looking for long term price stability in electrification, nuke is the only way to go.
The reason for this is simple supply and demand, exascerbated by government mismanagement: There is no real shortage of either nuclear components nor easily accessable coal reserves world wide. Only shortsighted anti-nuke programs and climate change-induced restrictions on use of coal can cause these energy sources to spike.
Lee Koch wrote:In Germany electrification was not aggressively pursued until the DB was semi-privitized. Up until then, the bureaucratic management was rather ambivalent about electrifying. Yes, many main lines were electrified in former East Germany, and even more in the West, but there were vast stretches of track which were not electrified before privatization
If there's anything that continental western Europe is renowned for, it's the extensive electrification, and this is all pre-"privatization" (and frankly, DB is not truly privatized); indeed, if, as JonathanS claims, "economical" operation was not a concern for state-owned European railroads, then the TGV in France would have manifested itself as the Turbo TGV that was built in late 1960s and tested at 192 mph in the early 1970s!
DMUinCT wrote:The New Haven's access to New York's Grand Central Terminal was over the New York Central's outside third rail 600 volt DC track. Electric Locomotives dropped there (sic) pantographs (11,000 volt AC) at Mount Vernon and ran into GCT on NYC's third rail DC.GM (EMD) said it could be done, why buy replacement Diesels AND Electric locomotives when they would build a Diesel that would do the work of both, while eliminating the locomotive change at New Haven on Boston to New York trains. It became a "long" version of the F9 production locomotive, FL9. The resulting locomotive design became too heavy for the New York Central's 125th Street Viaduct so they replaced the two axle rear truck with a three axle version to spread the weight. A one of a kind, a B-C diesel wheel setup (as in the production F9, only four axles are powered). Yes, they did have problems at first but they were worked out. Also, Running in close to the Park Avenue Tunnels to GCT on diesel, they avoided buying power from NYC's third rail.The FL9s have lasted over 50 years, through 3 rebuilds, and are still used in commuter service as intended but only on branch lines down to "the city" and as backup power.Some of the "rebuilds" called for the paint job to be "as deliverd"(sic), New Haven colors
Some of the "rebuilds" called for the paint job to be "as deliverd"(sic), New Haven colors
Buying 60 untried FL9s was a very rash decision on the New Haven Railroad's part; they ended up scrapping most of their electric fleet in a hurry, even motors that were less than a quarter-century old, so in fact the FL9 was an inspiration towards waste, and the dream of the no-change-of-engines between GCT and Boston was rather short-lived and never rose again (however, 40 years later, electrification made it all the way to Boston). The FL9 was not intended as a commuter loco, but as a long-distance loco.
And the FL9 was nowhere near a unique machine; the Fairbanks-Morse P-12-42 actually preceded it.
The New Haven RR had access to both Grand Central Terminal and New York Penn Station.
Connecticut DOT paints all of their commuter engines (even Geeps for Shore Line East service and P32AC-DMs for operation on Metro-North) in McGinnis New Haven RR colors, so the McGinnis colors on the ConnDOT FL9s is not due to any kind of nostalgia on the state's part. And frankly, the McGinnis is not the nicest of New Haven paint schemes; the scheme that preceded McGinnis was far more pleasant.
DMU should read DIESELS TO PARK AVENUE and THE NEW HAVEN RAILROAD IN THE MCGINNIS YEARS, both available from the New Haven Railroad Technical and Historical Society, and they have a website. And they are truly terrific books.
1. The vast majority of commuters and other uses of both Metro North and ConnDot services think the McGinnis paint scheme is one of very best paint schemes that was ever adopted for railroad use, with a loyalty matching those of us who loved the Sante Fe's war-bonnet scheme.
2. It was readopted because of nostalgia. It was one man's (yes, a railfan, and he has passed on to his award) idea to revive the scheme on the first two FL-9's ConnDot paid for rebuilding. The officials then applied it all the rebuilds, which surprised the railfans that had pushed for only a pair, and then ConnDot applied it to all the equipment.
3. True despite the distaste the commuters and on-line communities have for the memory of Pat and all his efforts. The operating people at Metro North and Shore Line East keep quiet and don't wish to discuss these issues, but I am pretty sure they feel the same way as the commuters and communities feel.
4. It was not Pat's scheme nor his wife's. All they did was choose orange-red over yellow. (This is always the ploy of a good consultant, make your client feel he or she is making the final decision, even if you know perfectly well which choice is best.) It was the product of one of the very best commercial artists and designers, a Yale Professor in addition. (I also am proud to say I once lectured at Yale, but never, or not yet, a professor.)
5. IN DIESELS TO PARK AVENUE, you will read about the maintenance problems that forced Conrail and then Metro North to operate in diesel mode into and out of Grand Central. What is not stated is the bad track maintenance that left third rail gaps in the tunnel without adequate ramping and which shered off the third rail shoes or damaged them so the would not operate properly. Also, the manufacturer of the high-current change-over contactor was out of business and EMD had not YET found a replacement. Both problems were eventually solved when Metro North was running the system. Diesel operaton into GCT filled one Waldorf Astoria dining room with exhaust fumes. A cousin of mine was the restaurant owner's lawyer.
6. I used Penn Central, Conrail, and Metro North services in the area, mostly on the Harlem, but very frequently on the New Haven and sometimes on the Hudson, during this period. While living in NY I was a frequent volunteer at the Shore Line Trolley Musuem, Branford Electric Rarilway Association, www.bera.org, and almost always used Metro North - New Haven for that commute, only occasionally springing for huge increase in price to ride Amtrak.
JT22CW wrote: Lee Koch wrote:In Germany electrification was not aggressively pursued until the DB was semi-privitized. Up until then, the bureaucratic management was rather ambivalent about electrifying. Yes, many main lines were electrified in former East Germany, and even more in the West, but there were vast stretches of track which were not electrified before privatizationAre you sure you don't have this backwards? Deutsche Bundesbahn was quite aggressive when it came to electrification (their InterCity service from the late 60s through the 80s was dominated by the 103-class); DR in East Germany had a lot of their electrification stymied by the Soviet Union, with a lot of infrastructure dismantled and moved to the Motherland for "reparations". If there's anything that continental western Europe is renowned for, it's the extensive electrification, and this is all pre-"privatization" (and frankly, DB is not truly privatized).
If there's anything that continental western Europe is renowned for, it's the extensive electrification, and this is all pre-"privatization" (and frankly, DB is not truly privatized).
You are right, the DB is not truly privatized, in that the government owns all of the stock. There is a big push to make an IPO, but the government is balking. Why? Since the formation of the DB as a publicly owned incorporation, restructuring has led to massive profits!
As to electrification, yes, the Soviets took down the ENTIRE electric physical plant in the east, transporting it to the Ural mountains, where it sits, unused to this day (I know this from an eye-witness who helped work on the Drushba gas pipeline). The former West-German DB certainly electrified extensively, but not systematically, and really more in fits and starts, leaving out big chunks on the periphery of the country.
After the merger of the Deutsche Reichsbahn and the Deutsche Bundesbahn to form the Deutsche Bahn AG in the 90s, management made a concerted effort to electrify almost ALL mainlines and quite a few secondary lines. Certainly, they got government subsidies, in particular for the lines in former East Germany, but massive capital investment was also neccessary. And as an Aktiengesellschaft/incorportation, they now are very interested in return on investments.
Consider this little analysis of the comparative fuel/ energy costs for diesel vs. electric:
A modern 4,000+ HP diesel-electric locomotive - i.e., EMD's SD70MAC, GE's C40-8 and C44-9 models, etc. - at 100 % of rated power output in "RUN 8" will produce about 21 horsepower ("HP") for an hour (rounded up slightly for conservatism & to allow for recent modest improvements), for each gallon of fuel consumed per hour. (Source & reference: Al A. Krug's "Railroad Facts and Figures - Locomotive Fuel Use in gallons per hour" - http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm ).
Using, say, $3.00 per gallon cost of diesel fuel to the railroad - no highway fuel taxes, and the railroad buys in bulk, so it's considerably cheaper than the current $4.75 +/ - per gallon at the truck stop's pump - those 21 HP for an hour use $3.00 worth of fuel, or about $0.143 (14.3 cents) per HP-hour. For a 4,000 HP loco such as the C40-8, that is 193 gals. per hour (per Krug, above), at $3.00 per gal. = a cost of $579 per hour.
If the same HP was being produced by an electric locomotive, 1 HP is 746 watts = 0.746 kilowatts ("KW"), by a well-accepted physics units conversion factor, so 21 HP x 0.746 KW per HP = 15.7 KW. (I know, I'm not allowing anything for power losses in transmission and in the mechanical parts of the loco, but bear with me here. If you like, you can adjust these figures accordingly - in the end, it doesn't appear to make a huge difference.)
Using, say, $0.10 (10.0 cents) per kilowatt-hour ("KW-HR") bulk cost of electricity to the railroad - those same 21 HP for an hour use 15.7 KW-HRs at $0.10 = $1.57 worth of electricty, or about $0.075 (7.5 cents) per HP-hour. For a 4,000 HP electric loco to match the C40-8, that is 4,000 x 0.746 KW/ HP = 2,985 KW. AT $0.10 per KW-HR, that power ourput for an hour would use 2,985 KW-HRs x $0.10/ KW-HR = a cost of $299 per hour, only about 51.5 % of the cost of the diesel !
So now let's look at the comparative fuel/ energy cost of 1 locomotive producing 4,000 HP for an hour:
$579 for the diesel vs. $299 for the electric = $280 cheaper - a savings of almost half !
(This doesn't consider the advanatge of the usually reduced maintenance costs and greater availability of the electric loco, either.)
Now, most locomotives don't run at 100 % for more than a few hours at a time. If it's the equivalent of 2 hrs. per day, that would be $560 per loco per day. If it's 5 hours per day, then it's a $1,400 savings per day per loco. And of course, there's usually more than 1 loco on a train.
So now you can get a feel for the magnitude of some of the economics on the energy/ fuel savings side of the electrification debate / analysis. If you don't agree with or like my numbers or assumptions, then plug in those you prefer, and post the math and the results here for all of us to look at and to continue the discussion !
Hope this is informative. Best wishes to everyone for the weekend and Memorial Day. Thank you to all veterans and their families for their honored service to our country !
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr wrote: $579 for the diesel vs. $299 for the electric = $280 cheaper - a savings of almost half !
It's better than that when a variety of associated costs are included and based on real-world throttle settings under a variety of actual conditions.
Using a GE Econometric program designed to compare Diesel-electric costs with straight Electrification, 20% mountain profile (regeneration savings), with the following parameters: 1,000 miles, single track mainline, 24 MGT annually, electric power cost at 10.55 cents/Kwh; Diesel fuel at $3.31.
Total Annual Operating Cost (fuel, maintenance, lubricant, inventory, inspections, availability, associated costs)
Diesel-electric: $253,847,000 (248 units @ 4000hp)
Steam (Northern): $69,558,000
Electric: $29,325,000 (191 units @ 5200 hp)
The $1.4-1.7 billion capital investment, up front, for the Electrification at that level and distance remains problematic, particularly compared to replacement of existing Diesel-electric systems which now have substantial remaining sunk costs in existing motive power without further actual financing costs [the average BN diesel-electric is 15 years old]. But, compared to the Diesel-elecric, the numbers are swinging in favor of electrification.
Paul, Micheal:
I find your figures very interesting. No one has addressed the fact that any substantial electrification will take years. It appears that if RR X decided to start electrification tomorrow the following timetables would apply. BOD approval - 2 months. ROW engineering - 6 months unless some plans are in place ( then 2 months to update), Enviromental impact statements for certain critical locations 2-3 years. Ordering locomotives and proper testing in Pubelo 1 year from BOD approval. Purchasing overhead equipment 6 - months from BOD. Construction contracts some 30 days from BOD. Power contracts 6 months from BOD. 2 year construction for siqnificant wire. 15 years to get 10,000 miles under wire. The point is Diesel locos will be wearing out and their life as secondary route power will always be needed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.