Note: I deleted a duplicate of the post above, which also deleted the "daughter" that RWM posted in reply. I can't find a way to restore the daughter. So, with apologies to RWM, here is his reply.
"I don't know if my estimate is any better but for fun, here it is. Let's assume electrification of 2,000 miles of double-track main line with 250 train starts per day.
1. Let's assume the project would use existing technology for the entire system from power generation right to the wheel/rail interface. Developing new technology incurrs uncertainties that are hard to quantify.
2. Locomotives don't encounter many unknowns. The standard GE or EMD platform is adequate. Frame, bogies and cab don't change. Design and manufacture of, say, 1,000 locomotives, would require 5-7 years unless a large premium was paid to acquire new manufacturing floor space and hire and train a greatly expanded work force. Figure one year to design, one to test and make sure all the controls and electronics respond as anticipated, and five to manufacture. It would be feasible to manufacture subassemblies such as bogies complete with traction motors in advance in order to save time, but it's very costly to purchase inventory and then sit on it for a long time before it's put to use.
3. Catenary isn't a major issue to design or build except where it doesn't fit under overhead structures and tunnels, as it is generally entirely contained on the right-of-way and permitting requirements probably won't be an issue (but that's probably a vain hope on my part). Tunnels are in most cases not a challenge to permit for increasing clearances because they are on the right-of-way and owned by the railroad, but certain tunnels will present very expensive challenges to obtain clearances. By expensive, think $250 million for a problem tunnel. Overhead structures are a more difficult problem because they're not owned by the railroad but by a plethora of public agencies. These agencies would be happy to have the railroad buy them new overpasses, but design, permitting, public involvement, and construction will take 5-8 years easily for all of them. There isn't the staff at the public agencies to process the permits and plan reviews more quickly. It would also consume a great deal of the entire U.S. consulting engineering resources experienced in bridge and roadway design, too, to try and tackle that many bridges and roadway changes all at once. Manufacture of catenary components can be scattered over the world (and likely would be), and erection is mostly an erector-set operation that can be done by numerous electrical and steel erection contractors even if they've never seen a catenary pole in their life. Long story short, I think that it take 2 years to erect the catenary after 7 years to make the right-of-way ready for catenary, if you didn't mind throwing a great deal of money at the problem to use up all those resources.
4. Transmission starts to get dicey because it's not likely the existing grid has the capacity or reliability. Some of the transmission lines could be placed on the right-of-way but every place it has to strike out across country to reach into the grid, there will be right-of-way acquisition required, public review and comment, and in many cases Enivronmental Impact Statements. The EIS process can be 3 years if all goes well, if it doesn't go well, 10 years is not out of the realm of possibilities. Condemnation lawsuits would inevitably appear somewhere, and that will get state and federal political attention, and who knows where that will lead. Most of the effective opposition to condemnation lawsuits and EISs these days is not coming from the oft-caricatured yuppie liberal city NIMBY types, but from long-term landowners that have money, power, strong community ties, and vote conservative. Erection of the transmission lines might take 3 years if there's not a lot of mileage required.
5. Generation is the problem that I would be concerned about. It's essential that the power supply is reliable and price-predictable. I would think that tends to rule out thoughts of just buying power on the commercial market as it's either not available where you want it, not reliable, or not price-predictable. By reliable, I mean less than one total hour of complete system outage annually, and not more than 12 hours spot outage annually at more than three locations on the entire system. Otherwise the cost of outages on the transportation system fluidity are catastrophic. Natural-gas fired units are the cheapest and easiest to permit units to build, but the high fuel cost and volatility of pricing is highly unattractive. If the alternative is coal or nuclear, 15 years to get it permitted and built is about the minimum -- if all goes well and there are no legislative changes in the interim.
Such a program has the risk of spinning into national questions about division of power between federal and state governments, environmental stewardship, private property, economic development, job creation, foreign trade, rights of cities dwellers vs. rural dwellers, big states vs. small states, and so forth. It would be very interesting to watch and participate in, so long as you didn't have your self-worth riding on the expectation of a specific outcome.
RWM"
The cold harsh reality there is 0 or <0 incentive for the railroads to electrify. So long as they can adjust their fuel surcharge to customers to reflect increasing fuel prices to them why would they borrow the massive amounts of capital to electrify? Electricity prices to the end users are not exactly the most stable in the deregulated, either.
The railroads' customer base is not in danger of jumping to another mode with lower transportation costs either. There are simply not enough trucks and truck drivers to allow that to happen especially for bulk commodities such as coal, grains or methonol.
Railroads exchange a lot of locomotives in run through and horsepower by the our arrangements. An electrified railroad cannot easily pass their locomotives to a connecting railroad which is not electrified. Similarly, it does not want diesel locomotives under it's own wires since that means the electrified railroad will be forced to maintain fueling facilities to service the foreign units even though their power no longer needs to suck diesel.
Unless forced by environmental dictates, electrification in the US is dead for the forseeable future.
Selector, thanks for the undelete of RWM's comments.
For RWM's points 1 & 2, I pretty much agree with his assessment of electric locomotive technology. I do wonder if the source of many of the frames, bogies, motors and inverters would be traded-in AC motor diesel locomotives.
Point 3 sounds about right. There may be a way around the low clearance problem (will describe below).
Points 4 & 5 also sound about right as far as permitting goes (RWM comes across as having had many battles with permitting) . One question would be the substation spacing and how long the phase sections would be assuming 60 Hz on the catenary (power companies dislike loads that upset the balance on the 3 phase system - this can overcome by running differing sections on differeing phases).
Generation may or may not be a significant problem. It would probably make the most sense to contract for delivery of power from a group of generating plants than to build a plant specifically for the electrification. The generating companies would be happy to have another base load customer. One great advantage of electric energy is the diversity of the original energy sources.
One possible solution to the restricted clearance problem is to install batteries or capacitors on the locomotives to allow for a de-energized wire in low clearance areas. While such locomotives would be more expensive, it may be cheaper than trying to increase clearance. The technology GE is working on for hybrid diesel electrics should be directly applicable to straight-electrics.
erikem wrote: Selector, thanks for the undelete of RWM's comments.For RWM's points 1 & 2, I pretty much agree with his assessment of electric locomotive technology. I do wonder if the source of many of the frames, bogies, motors and inverters would be traded-in AC motor diesel locomotives.Point 3 sounds about right. There may be a way around the low clearance problem (will describe below).Points 4 & 5 also sound about right as far as permitting goes (RWM comes across as having had many battles with permitting) . One question would be the substation spacing and how long the phase sections would be assuming 60 Hz on the catenary (power companies dislike loads that upset the balance on the 3 phase system - this can overcome by running differing sections on differeing phases).Generation may or may not be a significant problem. It would probably make the most sense to contract for delivery of power from a group of generating plants than to build a plant specifically for the electrification. The generating companies would be happy to have another base load customer. One great advantage of electric energy is the diversity of the original energy sources.One possible solution to the restricted clearance problem is to install batteries or capacitors on the locomotives to allow for a de-energized wire in low clearance areas. While such locomotives would be more expensive, it may be cheaper than trying to increase clearance. The technology GE is working on for hybrid diesel electrics should be directly applicable to straight-electrics.
I hadn't thought about the hybrid battery/catenary locomotive -- they're not far off for diesel-electrics, from what I am hearing. I don't know if it would be feasible to use this to skip around every low-clearance overpass on a route, but for a long tunnel it sounds like a nifty workaround.
I hadn't imagined that a railroad would want to build its own generating facility, and I agree it's unattractive. I know very little of the electric power generation business, but my impressions from the utilities I work with is that there isn't much spare base-line capacity, a situation that is growing worse as the public demands increased generation from unpredictable and non on-demand sources such as wind, instead of predictable base-line such as coal and nuclear. One utility with a high percentage of hydro power commented to me that it has completely used up its ability to use hydro's excellent rapid on/off characteristics to balance the fluctuations created by the wind generation in the network.
RWM
The generation is an interesting aspect. The German DB-Netz, which manages ROW issues, operates its own power stations, generating the 15kV needed directly, as opposed to using transformers to convert commercial high voltage.
I was wondering if another solution for the low clearance areas (i.e. highway overpasses, tunnels and the like) might be more practicable. Since future railcars will probably be equipped with a bus line for electronic-pneumatic-braking, how about a power bus running the whole length of the train. Use distributed power or a dummy with a pantograph to draw power at the rear end of the train. Then, while the front end power runs through a de-energized section of caternary, it would draw its juice from the rear end of the train. By the time that end reached the dead-wire, the front locos would be back under a live-wire. I think that would work for most situations, except perhaps the Moffat Tunnel.
In reference to the above comparisons in hp/$, don't forget that when an electric stops, it draws next to ZERO power from the caternary. How many hours a day does a typical diesel spend just idling?
The Italian State Railway runs most of its mainlines with 3kv DC. They made tests with increasing tension to 6 kV. It worked technically, but for reasons unknown to me they did convert any larger portions of their system to 6kV.Perhaps, the said the increase in efficiency was not worth another system.
The point with 15 kV in Europe against 25 kV is not the difference in tension. The 15kV-AC-systems in Europa use AC with 16.7 Hz for historical reasons. The newer 25 kV-AC-lines use the so called industrial frequency of 50 Hz common in Western Europe. The railroads in Europe had to build their own power plants because at the time Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway electrified with 15 kV 16,7 Hz, it was difficult and costly to convert AC from 50 to 16.7 Hz. Today, if the US-railroads electrified on a larger scale, they would certainly use either high-tension DC or industral-frequency AC. BTW, the old PRR-electrification from NYC to Washington DS is another such oddball, Amtrak did not yet modernize. (They once wanted to do so.)
AFAIK, the MKT planned an electrification of about 300 miles of mainline in the 80s, but they never did it. Anybody knows why?
martin.knoepfel wrote:The Italian State Railway runs most of its mainlines with 3kv DC. They made tests with increasing tension to 6 kV. It worked technically, but for reasons unknown to me they did convert any larger portions of their system to 6kV.Perhaps, the said the increase in efficiency was not worth another system.
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. The Milwaukee bumped up their voltage from 3KV to 3.3KV to get a bit more power and efficiency, but that didn't require changes in the locomotives. IIRC, the Little Joes could take over 4KV, but the last quote from GE for new power (in 1969) called for a maximum trolley voltage of 3.6KV.
The point with 15 kV in Europe against 25 kV is not the difference in tension. The 15kV-AC-systems in Europa use AC with 16.7 Hz for historical reasons. The newer 25 kV-AC-lines use the so called industrial frequency of 50 Hz common in Western Europe.
Historical reason was that AC series motors work better at lower frequencies (16.7 or 25 Hz) than at standard grid frequencies (50 and 60 Hz). This was first mooted by the development of M-G locomotives such as used on GN's second Cascade tunnel electrification, then by development of rectifier locomotives. OTOH, switchgear for lower frequencies can take a bit more abuse than for higher frequencies.
Railway Man wrote:I hadn't thought about the hybrid battery/catenary locomotive -- they're not far off for diesel-electrics, from what I am hearing. I don't know if it would be feasible to use this to skip around every low-clearance overpass on a route, but for a long tunnel it sounds like a nifty workaround.
Yet another reason for a battery catenary locomotive would be dealing with the canes at intermodal terminals. I imagine it would be a royal pain to operate container cranes around energized catenary - so the ability to haul a train into the terminal under battery power could be a real plus.
I'm also wondering if a diesel electric hybrid might have some advantages for long tunnels. My understanding is that the GE hybrid isn't designed to produce full power on batteries alone, but even a 50% reduction in the prime mover output would make operation in tunnels a whole lot nicer. My understanding is that the GE hybrid uses a sodium sulfur battery (first championed by Ford for electric car use in the late 60's), which should yield 100 to 200 w-hr/kg (100 to 200 kwhr/metric ton). It should be practical to put a much larger battery on an electric locomotive.
I can believe the story about the problems with wind generation. There have been a couple of proposals to use smart controllers on electric car chargers to absorb the fluctuations in renewable electric generation (in some cases where the cars would actually return power to the grid to meet peak loads). Solar is more predictable, but it is much better suited for meeting the daytime peak load than providing base load (which would require energy storage).
FWIW, I saw one station advertising diesel at $5.39/gal - cash price. Not really sure where prices will settle down to - sure glad I'm not trying to make a living with OTR trucking (or running an airline).
erikem wrote:Yet another reason for a battery catenary locomotive would be dealing with the canes at intermodal terminals. I imagine it would be a royal pain to operate container cranes around energized catenary - so the ability to haul a train into the terminal under battery power could be a real plus.
Particularly since the new high-capacity intermodal terminals coming on-line now use rail-mounted wide-span gantry cranes (RMG cranes) instead of narrow-span rubber-tire cranes (RTG cranes). But it would not be a major blow to operational flexibility and operating costs to put only the arrival/departure tracks under wire and use a switch engine to pull and spot the loading/unloading tracks.
The number I've heard is the batteries will supply 2,000 hp for traction for one hour, recharged by dynamic braking.
It makes little sense to electrify everything, particularly if road engines aren't going to be operating routinely on general yard tracks.
It also makes little sense to undertake 2,000 miles of Electrification all at once, and not only because of the lead times, permitting and regulatory difficulties, tying up of enormous resources and cost. Indeed, that approach would duplicate the weakness of the Dieselization process described by H.F. Brown: too much, too fast -- and the prospective operating cost savings were consumed by financing and conversion charges. That is, rather than allowing operating savings to finance additions to the fleet, the rail industry incurred debt, and the debt service charges reduced the effect of the operating savings while increasing overall costs. It was a classic mistake.
Because of the capital cost of Electrification, but also because of the operating cost savings, any large scale Electrification committment would look to being as self-financing and self-generating as possible. The last thing a railroad company would want to do is undertake a 2,000 mile electrification project. Rather, a railroad would look carefully to the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to define the scope of any such undertaking. The maximum IRR would be on mountain grades where the cost of electric power would maximize the savings over the current cost of diesel fuel, and savings through regeneration of electric power would leverage the overall benefits of the project strongly while minimizing overall power requirements because of the regeneration. A lower IRR would be found electrifying across the Great Plains, for instance. Electrifying into cities would perhaps represent the lowest IRR, although the cost of meeting emissions restrictions might well tip that one on its head.
I would also guess that rather than spending $250 million to raise a tunnel roof, railroads would spend $800,000 or so lowering a tunnel floor or roadbed to achieve clearances.
A mountain railway electrification of, say, 200-600 miles, blends nicely with diesel-electric operation. The company doesn't need 250 electric locomotives right off the bat; it can accept deliveries as the manufacturer is able to make them, while still obtaining the benefits of the Electrification. At a certain level, a blended system can represent a lower cost of operation than either system alone although the increasing cost of diesel fuel makes that scenario increasingly unlikely.
In this fashion, a railroad would obtain the maximum economic benefits of Railway Electrification up front, with the minimum of initial capital investment. Operating savings obtained then become a source of funds for continuing extension of electrified zones. Too, the initial committment enters into the planning for power companies in all directions. This approach typically solves many of the problems encountered by the Great Big Project simply because the problems get solved before they become "problems".
The real problem, as arbfe points out above, and as I have repeatedly cautioned regarding both steam and electrification, is that railroads now fully enjoy the monopolist's advantage: nothing can beat the railroads on cost, and they do not have the essential capacity to compete with each other.
The danger of monopoly is in the cost imposed on society and this represents a classic example. Wth the disappearance of a genuinely competitive rail system and the new ability to pass through all costs directly to shippers without a competitive penalty, there is no compelling competitive incentive to significant investment in further productivity increases in the rail industry.
And while lowering dependence of foreign oil has significant societal advantages, and lowering consumption significantly would assist other sectors of the economy which do not have alternatives, the rail industry in effect operates directly counter to the best interests of the U.S. economy because it has so strongly insulated itself against the market forces that, in other industries, continually compel ongoing productivity investment -- to beat the other guy in the market by lowering operating costs.
And this is why this is a genuine economic problem in an allegedly "deregulated" environment that preserves the essential elements of regulation for the industry: protection from anti-trust law and fair trade practices acts. When the interests of a specific industry run so directly counter to the best interests of a market economy and society as a whole, it is not a matter of whether there is going to be reckoning, but when.
Micheal: Right on!
Starting with the mountain portions of any RR is the right way to go. You probably thought of many mountain routes that would fit in well as I do. Everyone thinks electrification can happen overnight. I don't. Self financing is very effective. Lowering floors of tunnels is much easier. What did BNSF quote to lower Stampeed? Glad for your imput.
Well daveklepper and jt22cw, I am a very long time member of the NHRHTA (New Haven Railroad Historical & Technical Association).
One of the very best stories about the FL-9 was published in 3 parts by the NRHTA in the association quarterly magazine "Shoreliner", 1994 Vol.25, Issues 2, 3, and 4. Written by Geroge Baumes who was part of the testing and de-buging program of the FL-9, it's 66 pages of detail and history.
Among other things, Vol. 25 Issue 2 1994 page 33, "Each FL-9 had a third rail distribution panel containing an electric meter (similar to older electrics) to measure the amount of current used while operating on NYC and PRR trackage. The New Haven was required to pay for the electricty its locomotives drew from the third-rail. As a result, a New Haven Order was posted limiting electric operation between GCT and the lower Bronx in order to reduce the electric bills".
When Penn Central took over, the FL-9s were de-buged and 11 years old, enter Conrail and the were a tired 20 years old. It would appear that much of the "rebuilding" re-introduced the third-rail bugs to be solved a second time. Metro-North and Conrail ran most in Push-Pull mode with the locomotive faced east, out of the tunnel and away from the platforms. Tunnel speed is only 10 anyway.
We, New Haven fans, are indebted to the late Joseph Trifono and the NHRH&TA group comprising "Project 2000". They inlisted the backing of ConnDOT Commissioner J. William Burns and Governor O'Neal in the re-birth of the famous New Haven paint job.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
What is old is new again ______
Something from the September 2008 Trains (Page 16, Question 3) that might be a very interesting point to this thread:
Matt Rose was asked about short term and long term planning on how BNSF plans to deal with soaring fuel costs at his company. His answer at first was a pretty much standard response that can be found from almost any CEO in a fossil fuel dependant industry. Things like increased efficiency, new fuel types (hydrogen) and operating practices. His answer then went on to where few execs ever dare to go these days by mentioning a different energy source apart from the standard. He mentioned studying the electrification of some BNSF his lines.
This is almost a what is old is new again statement for an industry that was once known for such thinking (over due is what comes to my mind) in the arena of applied technology. Mr Rose mentions the use of tax credits for the development of new generating sources, including but not limited to atomic power. If this is the case where would one start with new projects should this idea come to pass?
Not being a professional railroader, but one that is both an advocate for the enterprise as well as a stockholder in a couple of Class 1's. I put it to the Forum for general discussion now that one of the industries heavyweights has had the courage to come forward with such a notion.
The question is:
WHERE WOULD SUCH PROJECTS BE PLACED AND SHOW THE GREATEST IMPACT??
Let's talk about it.
Piouslion
P.S.
MichaelSol _ I think that this new "published" development begs your input -PL
blue streak 1 wrote:Electrification in yards seems extravagant. I had not though about battery electrics either but several ideas here appear more appealing. My post on if RRs electrify mentioned Road Mates as receiving power from a motor. Why not have some converted Road Mates battery electric for the shorter tunnels? For longer and or steep tunnels that cannot be given clearances the idea of geting power from a third rail has many advantages. I also wonder about the welding current but hopefully this could be mitigated but using contacts on both trucks. The tunnels could be protected and maybe not even be energized unless a train is within a mile. The DC third rail could be powered from a small substation at either end from the overhead electric and maybe one in the middle of the tunnel. Since Cascade and Moffet tunnels both had electrification at one time does anyone know their clearances? Also NS's Heritage corridor work what clearance are they going to use?
I like the idea of 3rd rail in tunnels for freight trains. As far as I know the "weilding current" for 3rd rail can be delt with, there are so many electrified railways with experience in the world to tap from. US freight locomotives don't draw that much power in spite of runnig 4 to 5 lead engines. Hi speed draws way more then low speed anyways.
ps; My Q is that why is lowering cheaper then raising a roof of a tunnel ?
piouslion1 wrote: What is old is new again ______ Something from the September 2008 Trains (Page 16, Question 3) that might be a very interesting point to this thread: Matt Rose was asked about short term and long term planning on how BNSF plans to deal with soaring fuel costs at his company. His answer at first was a pretty much standard response that can be found from almost any CEO in a fossil fuel dependant industry. Things like increased efficiency, new fuel types (hydrogen) and operating practices. His answer then went on to where few execs ever dare to go these days by mentioning a different energy source apart from the standard. He mentioned studying the electrification of some BNSF his lines. This is almost a what is old is new again statement for an industry that was once known for such thinking (over due is what comes to my mind) in the arena of applied technology. Mr Rose mentions the use of tax credits for the development of new generating sources, including but not limited to atomic power. If this is the case where would one start with new projects should this idea come to pass?Not being a professional railroader, but one that is both an advocate for the enterprise as well as a stockholder in a couple of Class 1's. I put it to the Forum for general discussion now that one of the industries heavyweights has had the courage to come forward with such a notion.The question is:WHERE WOULD SUCH PROJECTS BE PLACED AND SHOW THE GREATEST IMPACT??Let's talk about it. Piouslion P.S. MichaelSol _ I think that this new "published" development begs your input -PL
As I've said earlier on this thread, I believe that RRs and energy companies could partner up with RRs providing lower shipping rates for coal in exchange for cheap electricity. I still don't think that atomic energy has much of a future. But with RRs being a major energy consumer, I'm sure that they could use their leverage to cut deals with electric companies.
As far as where such projects could begin: high density, multiple track main lines would seem the obvious place to start. Also, areas in which air pollution is an issue, such as southern California or Texas would seem obvious candidates for electrification.
This is a long thread with lots of great discusion on stuff that seems secondary. The cost of cantenary is the major problem. Can anybody come up with a good idea to make it cheaper.
Power generation isn't that big of a problem.
Clearance problems can be overcome by putting a diesel in the consist of electrics locomotives to get the train through the long tunnels.
Existing locomotives could be kinda converted by removing the prime mover and alternator and installing a multi-tap step down transformer in their place. The transformer would have a 25kv or 15kv primary tap that connects to the cantenary and 8 taps on a 1500v secondary. These 8 taps would replace the 8 throttle settings to deliver different voltages to the system. There should be few changes to the rest of the locomotive. No operational changes either.
DC cantenary or third rail will never be a valid choice for long range, hi-power applications. High voltage AC is required for flexability and efficienty.
PS- Cantenary wire would be steel not copper or aluminuim. They are too soft and costly. Steel is fine at high voltages, not too much loss.
NP Red wrote: This is a long thread with lots of great discusion on stuff that seems secondary. The cost of cantenary is the major problem. Can anybody come up with a good idea to make it cheaper.
I think I can. Concentrate traffic on limited lines then string catenary. Like mentioned don't electrify the spralling yards and less used spurs.
blue streak 1 wrote:lee koch: If nuclear power has no future why are the French close to 80% of all power production requirements from nuclear power plants? I suspect that the present design of nuclear package plants has a lot going for them. If you want to know I have been an opponent of nuclear designs i.n the past circa three mile island to an extent and the disastrous design of Chernoble(sp)
How many "incidents" have occurred at French nuclear facilities in the last 30 days? The French facilities are getting old, their concrete mantles are getting brittle, and the companies running them are not willing to spend the money neccessary for safe maintanence!
I love clean energy, but nuclear energy is not clean! There may be no "carbon emmissions", but that other stuff that you can't see or feel is much more nasty.
But I digress. I originally posted this thread to discuss the feasability of electrification regardless of primary energy source, as this would allow the railroads more flexibility without having to change their physical plant (once the initial electrification were done). My brother-in-law put it to me rather frankly recently; he said, basically, we're not much further along than Fred Flintstone: we still need a fire for everything!
Properly regulated and monitored, nuclear is safe and clean, but until they find a way to dispose of the waste, which will be hazardous for 10,000 years, I have to say I am not exactly a proponent.
I do agree that electrification is the way to go.
American industry used to be lead by outside the box thinkers like Burt Ruttan, but we have developed the "because that's the way we have always done it" mentality, which is an anchor holding us back while the rest of the world moves on.The other anchor is the "cheapest way out" mentality. We can't have high speed rail because the right of way aquired in the late 1800s is too obstacle ridden to support it. Has it ever occurred to anyone to take a clean sheet of paper and establish NEW rights of way? "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?"
Try to imagine what the interstate highway system would be like if we had just taken the cheap way out and widened the existing roads.
We wouldn't even have railroads if we had listened to the "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" people. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. He found a way to make it attractive to "everyone". After all, horses were cheaper, quieter, faster, and less trouble. Why would anyone trade a horse and wagon for one of those cantankerous Model T Pickup trucks?
Funny how nobody uses the "Do you know what that would cost?" argument when we want to develop a new weapon system.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
If the BNSF seriously looks at electrification then probably the first line for electrification would be from LA to eastern New Mexico. From that point to Chicago leave it to the diesels.
On the Northern transcontinental Seattle to Havre would have to be considered for electrification.
I don't see any reason to electrify any of the other mainline trackage on the the BNSF.
The coal line through Wyoming and Colorado would be looked at sooner or later but the two transcontinental routes would the most important for the BNSF. I don't believe any of their other routes would need to be electrified.
Al - in - Stockton
My thoughts on which line to be first.
Because the LA Basin has the tightest emission standards in the US and they are only going to get tighter.
I would first electrify from some point in the Los Angeles area (probably at a transfer point just outside the immediate harbor area) to Yuma, AZ on the Sunset Route, Needles, CA on the Transcon, Yermo, CA on the Salt Lake Route,and Bakersfield, CA on the Tehachapi Route for freight. I think at the same time the Surf Line to San Diego and the Metrolink routes should also be electrified, for improved passenger service. All these lines would share a distribution system with meters on the individual locomotives. Right now under current regulations all SD70M, Dash-9, and AC4400CW locomotives ( and earlier) will be banned from the LA basin within the next couple of years, so trains for LA will already require a segregated fleet to serve it. This area would serve to test for a greater amount of electrification later. The UP might like the initial electrification of the Salt Lake route extended to Arden, NV(nr Las Vegas), because of the grades on Cima Hill.
This much electrification would cover heavily used lines and provide real numbers as to cost, it would meet the need to reduce emission within the LA Basin, and the limitation to Tier II (for now) reduces the cost imposition from having a dedicated fleet, as you could now use Diesel locomotives that only meet Tier 0 and Tier 1 to the border points, improving utilization of the whole fleet.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Properly regulated and monitored, nuclear is safe and clean, but until they find a way to dispose of the waste, which will be hazardous for 10,000 years, I have to say I am not exactly a proponent.
So what if its "hazardous" for 10,000 years? First off, the INPUT fuel of nuclear energy production is already hazardous for 10k+ years, and it already comes out of the ground "hot." So, we just dump it back INTO the ground. Sheesh. btw, the "acceptable" radiation levels at the High Level Waste Depository (aka Yucca Mountain) are LOWER than the background radiation you'll be exposed to if you take a tour of the United States Capitol Building!!! Second, if we haven't figured out how to deal with a few nuke dumps in 1,000 years (heck, 150), then I'm sure that the tribal shamans will make it clear to our dirt grubbing descendants to stay away from those areas because of "evil spirits".
I do agree that electrification is the way to go. I personally don't agree that it is "the way" to go, but it's certainly an option worth considering. If I had my druthers, not only would we electrify (sort of), but we'd replace the entire system with mag-levs.
American industry used to be lead by outside the box thinkers like Burt Ruttan, but we have developed the "because that's the way we have always done it" mentality, which is an anchor holding us back while the rest of the world moves on. Uh, in case you haven't noticed, American industry is still the most innovative and creative in the world, and there are a lot of other innovative and creative people at work in other countries as well. I suggest you get yourself a subscription to Popular Mechanics.
American industry used to be lead by outside the box thinkers like Burt Ruttan, but we have developed the "because that's the way we have always done it" mentality, which is an anchor holding us back while the rest of the world moves on.
The other anchor is the "cheapest way out" mentality. We can't have high speed rail because the right of way aquired in the late 1800s is too obstacle ridden to support it. Has it ever occurred to anyone to take a clean sheet of paper and establish NEW rights of way? "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" Are you going to shoot all the NIMBYs, Greens, Historical Society dames, and ALL their lawyers in order to secure this new right of way? Because its either use government power (which ultimately implies the threat of force) or from somewhere come up with oodles and ooodles and ooooooodles of money (as in more than the value of all the railroads in America today) to do it.
The other anchor is the "cheapest way out" mentality. We can't have high speed rail because the right of way aquired in the late 1800s is too obstacle ridden to support it. Has it ever occurred to anyone to take a clean sheet of paper and establish NEW rights of way? "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?"
Try to imagine what the interstate highway system would be like if we had just taken the cheap way out and widened the existing roads. Clearly, you aren't familiar with the history of the Interstate highway system. A lot of it WAS the cheap way. Its a lot cheaper to bypass a town paying 1/10 for the land than it is to buy the wider right of way through town. Of course, as anyone who's seen the movie Cars can attest (or lived in one of the bypassed towns), it economically sucks to be bypassed.
We wouldn't even have railroads if we had listened to the "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" people. No, we have railroads because we have people who said, "are you serious, we can make HOW MUCH MONEY?" Somehow, given your irrational concerns over nuclear power, your disdain for American industry and business, and your irrelavent and cheap shot at weapons system development, I don't think that the basic desire to make a buck qualifies as a legitimate motiviation from your perspective, at least not when its someone else's motivation. FWIW, maybe you should consider the following weapons systems: Comanche helicopter, B-70 bomber, DDX/CGX ships, MBT70, just for starters. All were cancelled (some just in the last year) because they cost too much. Oh, and you'll probably be thrilled to know that the Air Force is mothballing some more B-52s and standing down an entire squadron (50 missiles) of Minuteman ICBMs, all in order to save money.
We wouldn't even have railroads if we had listened to the "Are you serious? Do you know what that would cost?" people.
sigh... every once in a while somebody posts something that just gets my dander up...
Nicely said Bike:
Speaking as a finance man that has done a small share of transactions: The real truth is that money is only a median of exchange that represents treasure. When talking about spending the stuff an old finance man of the mid 20th century that I studied under made a major point about the expenditure of treasure. especially US treasure.
"This country can do and afford anything that it wants, once the motivation and need are understood by the buyers."
But this thread is about electrification of railroads. What Matt Rose is telling those willing to listen is that the time is approaching when such an undertaking would not just be possible but maybe even necessary.
PL.
Lee Koch wrote: My brother-in-law put it to me rather frankly recently; he said, basically, we're not much further along than Fred Flintstone: we still need a fire for everything!
My brother-in-law put it to me rather frankly recently; he said, basically, we're not much further along than Fred Flintstone: we still need a fire for everything!
"We didn't start the fire, it was always burnin' since the world's been turnin'.... But when we are gone, it will still burn on."
They can have my carbon when they pry my internal cumbustion engine from my cold, dead hands.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072031/
It seems not all the scientists agree with your "stick it back into the ground" solution.
I do agree that eventually MagLev will be better than electrified rails, but since our government can only see how much it costs, we will have to wait for the Japanese and the Germans to refine the technology and file all the patents, and then we will be able to buy it from them.
There have always been NIMBYs and BANANAs, and there always will be. If eminent domain laws can be used to build condos and shopping centers, they can sure use them for their original intended purpose of building roads and railroads.
In case YOU haven't noticed, we are NOT the most innovative and creative society in the world anymore. France, Germany, and Japan have high speed rail, and China and even one South American country are installing it. We are still making excuses. The HD television technology is Japanese. The Japanese car companies are growing while ours are dying. The first hybrid automobiles you can actually buy are Japanese. The largest shipbuilding industries are in Europe. The 23 new high tech helicopters being built for the President are Italian. The 50 new refueling aircraft being purchased for our Air Force are European. Even little Holland knows more about keeping out the sea than New Orleans.
Your reply shows a lack of understanding of the interstate highway system. The cities were bypassed, not because of the cost of acquiring widened right of way, but because the need to eliminate steep hills, intersections and low underpasses. The railroads need to do the same thing with grade level crossings. Perhaps I am older than you are, but I remember the frustration of being stuck behind an 18 wheeler going 5 mph in a long no passing zone up a steep hill. The too expensive to widen argument is a red herring. Large cities do just that all the time.
For every military program that was cancelled because the government keeps changing the specs and the costs go from ridiculous to absurd, you can find, if you look, a program that was chosen, not because it was the one the military wanted, but because of who's congressional district the jobs would be in. This country spends more on our military that the rest of the world combined.
In deference to your dander, I will now move on.
I have spent 24 years in the electric utility industry and here are a couple of things;
I have not read the entire thread, so someone may have addressed this already, but bare hard drawn copper is no longer installed on new power lines. Either ACSR ( Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced ) or AAC ( All Aluminum Conductor ) is installed now. Copper does not stay up well in bad weather.
Also, the cost of electricity has two components, if it is bought from a utiltiy. There is the KWH cost. This is the cost of the energy used. There is also the demand cost.This is the cost the utility charges you for having the capacity in place to serve the trains when they are actually running. If they have a circuit that serves some houses and some businesses along with a railroad metring point, the utility must build a circuit with enough capacity to feed everything feeding from it, whether all the consumers are pulling current or not. So the railroad would pay the demand charge whether they are running trains or not. Most likely, the railroad management would view that as an expense that should be avoided.
George
PheobeVet,
One small correction, the Air Force mordernized tanker program that was going to use "green" Airbus A330 aricraft as its core has been cancelled and put back out to bid. Boeing won a re-bid do to a minor technicality on the original bidding process. No doubt helped by some "buy-American" undercurrents.
Biker,
Whether we build more coal-fired or nuclear power plants, keep this in mind, the so called pollutants that has the greens scurrying for cover are NATURALLY OCCURING SUBSTANCES. The process of converting the mineral (carbon in coal and uranium ) to release energy only moves these and other compounds from one location to another. Putting the by-products back into the ground makes sense as that is where they came from in the first place, in most cases. One solution for nuclear waste that hasn't been given much consideration is loading it on a rocket and flying it into the sun where it will be incinerated, naturally.
As for me, I think the newer fail-proof designs for nuclear reactors make sense and will be safer and "cleaner" in the long run. However, favoring nuclear means less coal for the railroads to haul, so I have mixed feelings for that reason alone.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.