I wasn't aware that Russia's mainline was completely electrified...My wife is from Russia and she tells me that Russia relies almost completely on rail for its longhaul...trucking is much less important in Russia and is generally confined to local work and perishables from Asia. Maybe we (in North America) need to look more closely at what the Russians and Chinese are doing...they appear to be way ahead of us...As far as passenger rail goes..my wife says people don't generally drive long distances in Russia..that travel by train is still "mainstream"..ahead of driving and flying..
Also very interesting about PRR's electrified Philly to Washington corridor.. PRR was way ahead of its time..
Actually, the PRR wired from New York City [Sunnyside Yard on Long Island] to Washington, D.C. [Potomac Yard a little further south]; plus Philadelphia to Harrisburg [Enola Yard on the west shore of the Susquehanna River]; and to 'close the triangle', the Port Road branch mainly on the east side of the Susquehanna from the Harrisburg area south to the main line about midway between Baltimore and Wilmington; plus a few more lines that were either parallel to, cut-offs, or low-grade alternatives to them.
I've just finished reading most of "ELECTRIC TRACTION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD: 1895-1965" by Michael Bezilla, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, c. 1980, ISBN 0-271-00241-7, Lib. Cong. 79-65858, which is his Ph.D. thesis in History turned into a book. Although he says ''I have made an effort to appeal to both interests [historian and rail buff], realizing that I risk satisfying neither'' (Acknowledgments), it's very readable.
The more interesting part of the book - which intentionally takes it out of the usual recitation of facts and events - is that ''It is also a study of how a great corporation attempted to manage an important element of technological risk.'', and ''illuminates the capabilities of technological innovation as a tool of corporate management'' [Introduction, pp. 2 - 3], much of it then new or even non-existent technology. For example, during the suburban route electrification, by 1915 a large capacity phase balancer was needed to convert the 3-phase supply from the electric company to single-phase for the commuter cars - and while GE had just developed one, but had not had the opportunity to test it and would not guarantee it. One of the world's foremost engineers of such equipment - Charles P. Steinmetz - was called in to examine the phase balancer, and after less than half an hour said merely ''It will work.'' - and that was enough [pp. 68 - 69].
The most surprising aspect of the electrification, though - at least to me - was that the motive power technology was so troublesome. For example, as late as 1928 it seems there was not an alternating current motor as powerful as the PRR wanted - on the order of 750 to 1,000 HP per motor or per axle - that could still fit between the driving wheels, so as to eliminate the jackshafts and side rods or gearing that has been needed up to that point. So in 1928 the PRR directed both Westinghouse and GE to develop such a motor - and by 1930 they had, being the Type 425 and the Type 617/ 625, respectively [pp. 111, 119].
But the PRR had a terrible time developing satisfactory electric motive power, esp. for fast and heavy passenger service. Up until the time of the 66 'C-C' E-44 and E-44a units in 1960 - 1963, it seems that there was only a single electric road locomotive design that worked really well in the service for which it was intended - of course, the 139 '2-C+C-2' GG1's of 1934-1943 for the main lines. Elsewhere, the 33 '2-B+B-2' DD1's of 1909-1911 lasted seemingly forever in the New York City tunnel operations, as did the 28 'C' B1 switchers of 1926 - 1935. But here's a list of all the other experimental and unsuccessful designs [from Appendix C], rearranged to approximate chronological order:
2 ea. 'B-B' AA1 - 1905
[33 successful '2-B+B-2' DD1 - 1909 - 1911 - NYC tunnels]
[A.C. phase balancer developed - 1915]
1 ea. '1-C+C-1' FF1 - 1917
24 ea. '1-D-1' L5 - 1924 - 1928
7 ea. '1-C+C-1' FF2 - 1926 - 1929
[28 successful 'C' B1 - 1926 - 1935 - switchers]
[A.C. motor for between wheels developed - 1930]
8 ea. '2-B-2' O1 - 1930 - 1931
92 ea. '2-C-2' P5, P5a - 1931 - 1935
3 ea. '1-D-1' L6 - 1932 - 1933
1 ea. '2-D-2' R1 - 1934 - developed same time as . . .
[139 successful '2-C+C-2' GG1 - 1934 - 1943 - passenger & freight]
1 ea. '2-B+B-2' DD2 - 1938
6 ea. 'B-B' E2b - 1951
2 ea. 'C-C' E2c - 1951
2 ea. 'B+B+B' E3b - 1951
[66 successful 'C-C' E44, E44a - 1960 - 1963]
The extensive text and analysis in the book makes clear that this was very frustrating for the Pennsy - probably the only part of its electrification that wasn't a successful overcoming of the obstacles, until it was saved by the development and performance of the GG1.
- Paul North.
I think that the most likely time for electrification on US railroads would have been in the 1970's. This would have been true especially after the 1973 energy crisis. I think that both SP and UP did consider it. One question I have was the SD-40-2 that great that it deterred electrification? I make the case that yes it was!
aricat I think that the most likely time for electrification on US railroads would have been in the 1970's. This would have been true especially after the 1973 energy crisis. I think that both SP and UP did consider it. One question I have was the SD-40-2 that great that it deterred electrification? I make the case that yes it was!
And perhaps the SD70MAC prevented BN from electifing their coal lines when those SD40-2s needed to be replaced?
nanaimo73 aricat I think that the most likely time for electrification on US railroads would have been in the 1970's. This would have been true especially after the 1973 energy crisis. I think that both SP and UP did consider it. One question I have was the SD-40-2 that great that it deterred electrification? I make the case that yes it was! And perhaps the SD70MAC prevented BN from electifing their coal lines when those SD40-2s needed to be replaced?
Dale,
Nice to see you on here.
(1) I think that there are currently too many political questions that could greatly affect the viability of railroads to make such an investment right now.
(2) I was told by a high ranking Santa Fe official that they considered electrification in the 1970s, but decided against it. He indicated that the investment wasn't what really shot the deal down. The though of surrenduring the ability to run their trains to people who make decisions about the power grid was ultimately what killed the deal.
Gabe
gabe nanaimo73 aricat I think that the most likely time for electrification on US railroads would have been in the 1970's. This would have been true especially after the 1973 energy crisis. I think that both SP and UP did consider it. One question I have was the SD-40-2 that great that it deterred electrification? I make the case that yes it was! And perhaps the SD70MAC prevented BN from electifing their coal lines when those SD40-2s needed to be replaced? Dale, Nice to see you on here. (1) I think that there are currently too many political questions that could greatly affect the viability of railroads to make such an investment right now. (2) I was told by a high ranking Santa Fe official that they considered electrification in the 1970s, but decided against it. He indicated that the investment wasn't what really shot the deal down. The though of surrenduring the ability to run their trains to people who make decisions about the power grid was ultimately what killed the deal. Gabe
I doubt it...right now we're all at the mercy of oil producing countries who don't necessarily like us. Much better to be dependent on the Hoover Dam people...just my opinion of course.
If railroads electrified they would consume a huge amount of electricity right? In turn, that would raise energy costs for us right?
On the contrary, I too am liking the issue. I am currently on the article about the Smithsonian’s transportation director. I have liked the issue a lot over all.
Justin
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
I think my concerns about electrifying rail lines in the USA comes down to this: the ENORMOUS up-front cost of the installation.
I cite the following problems:
1) The cost of putting up many thousands of miles of overhead wiring. And I do mean many thousands of miles.
2) The cost of the Class I railroads having to buy as many as 6,000 new electric locomotives if we were to phase out diesel-electric locomotives.
3) The enormous cost of raising tunnel clearances or daylighting shorter tunnels to accommodate overhead wiring. I can imagine how much that would cost CSX and NS to do this on their rail routes through the Appalachians.
4) Finding the means to power up all these many thousands of miles of overhead wiring.
5) The worst problem of all, the height of the overhead wiring may not accommodate domestic doublestack container trains, which means we end up reducing capacity for container freight service.
bubbajustin If railroads electrified they would consume a huge amount of electricity right? In turn, that would raise energy costs for us right?
Let us look at it this way. A diesel electric thermal efficiency is some 25%+. Modern power plants are about 40%+??. If these figures are close to correct the oil used in power plants to generate power (oil doesn't have to be refined as diesel does which also saves energy) is not as much as the diesel used for the same ton miles. This assumes the energy needed is traded 1 for 1 (I know not likely) then we still have a net reduction in oil used?
The electrification article in November 2009 Trains was just plain awful.
It failed to deal with major issues, such as "where does the electricity come frome?" and presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage.
That would be more than double the number of jobs the US had in 2006 before the recession. Such a claim is flat out garbage. Diverting 83% of the truck traffic to rail couldn't be done if the railroads had free power.
I never thought I'd see such garbage in the pages of Trains Magazine.
greyhounds It presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage.
It presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage.
Pardon the minor cut and paste job, the above I agree with you completely.
It failed to deal with major issues, such as "where does the electricity come frome?"
My question to you about the above part is this, where will the oil come from to make the diesel fuel in 20 years? The oil companies have been able to find it so far, but there are no more guarantees than the ability to make sufficient electricity. The only reasonable way to make diesel fuel is from mineral oil extracted from the ground, converting coal or natural gas isn't economically viable with any technology known at the present. It is straight forward to produce electricity from either of those sources as well as others. Trying to build a new powerplant is no harder than trying to build a new refinery. And as to the person who says what will happen if a powerplant goes down will the public demand first call on the available power ahead of the railroad? What happens if a refinery goes down, will the public be any more reasonable?
greyhounds The electrification article in November 2009 Trains was just plain awful. It failed to deal with major issues, such as "where does the electricity come frome?" and presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage. That would be more than double the number of jobs the US had in 2006 before the recession. Such a claim is flat out garbage. Diverting 83% of the truck traffic to rail couldn't be done if the railroads had free power. I never thought I'd see such garbage in the pages of Trains Magazine.
I could not agree more. I was excited when I saw the preview for this months magazine on this website. After reading it, I was very disappointed.
An "expensive model collector"
blue streak 1 bubbajustin If railroads electrified they would consume a huge amount of electricity right? In turn, that would raise energy costs for us right? Let us look at it this way. A diesel electric thermal efficiency is some 25%+. Modern power plants are about 40%+??. If these figures are close to correct the oil used in power plants to generate power (oil doesn't have to be refined as diesel does which also saves energy) is not as much as the diesel used for the same ton miles. This assumes the energy needed is traded 1 for 1 (I know not likely) then we still have a net reduction in oil used?
Oil fueled power plants are becoming scarcer and scarcer in the U.S, many have been converted to Natural Gas fuel. Coal and Nuclear plants both generate much more power than coal. If you're speculating that there would be some new plant construction to power railroad electrification I would bet anything none of them would be oil fired...............
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
beaulieu greyhounds It presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage. Pardon the minor cut and paste job, the above I agree with you completely. It failed to deal with major issues, such as "where does the electricity come frome?" My question to you about the above part is this, where will the oil come from to make the diesel fuel in 20 years? The oil companies have been able to find it so far, but there are no more guarantees than the ability to make sufficient electricity. The only reasonable way to make diesel fuel is from mineral oil extracted from the ground, converting coal or natural gas isn't economically viable with any technology known at the present. It is straight forward to produce electricity from either of those sources as well as others. Trying to build a new powerplant is no harder than trying to build a new refinery. And as to the person who says what will happen if a powerplant goes down will the public demand first call on the available power ahead of the railroad? What happens if a refinery goes down, will the public be any more reasonable?
Logically, If petroleum becomes scarcer and scarcer then using alternate sources of hydrocarbon to produce synthetic diesel becomes viable. The economy of synthetic fuels you mention is in relation to the price of oil, if that skyrockets due to declines in production synfuels become more attractive...
Actually I do think electrification may eventually happen on a large scale, but not in the near term.
If we're not careful this thread will turn into another "bring back steam" argument, LOL!
I think they will be able to find adequate oil supplies for a lot longer than 20 more years. In my opinion, a lot of the impetus behind the so-called peak oil theories and the supposed crisis of quickly running out of oil are part of an anti-fossil fuel agenda. In other words, they are creating a false crisis that we are almost out of oil, which is intended to force us to give up hope for continued oil use, thereby moving us away from oil and into renewables as fast as possible.
But even if oil only has another 20 years, the roadblock to coal is right here and now. Maybe an exception to that roadblock could somehow be carved out for the exclusive electric application of railroad traction, or maybe the roadblock will be lifted with changing politics, but otherwise, there is no way the necessary power will be available. It is a non-starter today.
beaulieu My question to you about the above part is this, where will the oil come from to make the diesel fuel in 20 years? The oil companies have been able to find it so far, but there are no more guarantees than the ability to make sufficient electricity.
My question to you about the above part is this, where will the oil come from to make the diesel fuel in 20 years? The oil companies have been able to find it so far, but there are no more guarantees than the ability to make sufficient electricity.
The oil 20 years from now will come from basically the same sources it comes from now, underground oil wells.
We've been "running out" of oil ever since Edwin Drake drilled the 1st oil well in Pennsylvania in 1859. Back then, nobody knew of oil anywhere other than in that part of Pennsylvania so it was reasonable to reason that when those well went dry the world would be out of oil. We've got petroleum resources here in the US. The dang government just locks most of 'em up along with not allowing power plants or refineries to be built.
But this begs the question avoided by that awful Trains article on electrification. To electrify the US railroads new power plants would have to be built. (No, the railroads can't be powered by windmills.) These power plants would have to be nuclear or coal. The dang government won't allow either one. This means the plan of "Researcher" Alan Drake of the Millennium Institue, Trains Magzine's chosen expert on railroad electrification, has a major flaw. (Actually, his plan has several major flaws,. but hey, he's Trains' chosen expert.)
We're headed for freezing in the dark. If we don't starve to death in a homeless shelter first.
blue streak 1 Let us look at it this way. A diesel electric thermal efficiency is some 25%+. Modern power plants are about 40%+??. If these figures are close to correct the oil used in power plants to generate power (oil doesn't have to be refined as diesel does which also saves energy) is not as much as the diesel used for the same ton miles. This assumes the energy needed is traded 1 for 1 (I know not likely) then we still have a net reduction in oil used?
Where in this country will you find an OIL FIRED ELECTRIC POWER PLANT TODAY???? Electricity is mostly produced by coal; followed by nuclear, hydroelectric and natural gas. Oh yea, and lastly the wind farms.
Since oil is no longer a significant source for electricity, it destroys your whole agrument.
Mike
MJChittick Since oil is no longer a significant source for electricity, it destroys your whole agrument.
Oil fired power plants
While oil continues to decline in popularity as an electricity fuel, in places such as New York, oil still comprises about 8 percent of the state's electricity fuel mix
FPL FPL’s current fuel mix is: 43 percent natural gas, 19 percent nuclear, 17 percent oil, 18 percent coal, and 3 percent
Just a couple that I know about, now operated by PPL Generation, LLC (formerly Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.):
23 combustion turbines - 451 MW - in central & eastern PA, all fueled by "home heating oil" - see:
http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation/natural+gas+and+oil/combustion+turbines.htm
Martin's Creek, PA plant - "The two oil or natural gas units have a generating capacity of 832 megawatts each and operate in times of peak electricity demand. The units were built in 1974 and 1976, respectively, to burn crude or No. 6 fuel oil. In 1996, PPL modified the units so they could burn natural gas as well."
"Martins Creek’s coal-fired Units 1 and 2, which had a generating capacity of 150 megawatts each, were shut down Sept. 14, 2007, under a voluntary agreement with state environmental agencies. They began commercial operation in 1954 and 1956, respectively."
See: http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation/natural+gas+and+oil/Martins+Creek.htm
[emphasis added - PDN] Note that these oil-fired units are for 'peaking' use, which may be suitable for supplying railroad electrification loads; they have now essentially replaced the former coal units; and are over 5 times larger than the coal units they replaced.
To backup some of the replies: "State of Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control"
For the six New England states --- "New England Power Pool System Mix" ---
"Electric Generation Disclosure Label"
Natural Gas 34.7%
Nuclear 28.6%
Coal 15.5%
Oil 7.5%
Renewable 3.5%
Other, Misc. 10.2%
Don U. TCA 73-5735
DMUinCT To backup some of the replies: "State of Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control" For the six New England states --- "New England Power Pool System Mix" --- "Electric Generation Disclosure Label" Natural Gas 34.7% Nuclear 28.6% Coal 15.5% Oil 7.5% Renewable 3.5% Other, Misc. 10.2%
I was hoping for some solid economic / engineering analysis, but instead, the article strikes me as being written by a left-wing politician with the usual crisis mongering about crumbling infrastructure, climate change, running out of oil, highway congestion, and the need for public investment to fix everything. As greyhounds mentioned, the article does not say where the new supply of electricity will come from, and we have been discussing how it cannot come from coal or nuclear power unless we have a sea change in national policy.
However the author of the article makes it loud and clear by strong implication at least, that the new energy will come from renewables such as wind and solar. In fact, I get the impression that the author would not have it any other way, and is in total agreement with those who want to phase out coal and become green.
To support a case for electrification, author Lothes suggest that it might be the only alternative should a state or local district suddenly outlaw diesels, based on some perceived threat. He asks: “What might happen if, say, the city of Los Angeles or the entire state of California decided to ban diesel locomotive emissions?” My answer to that question would be: If the state of California decided to ban diesel locomotive emissions, they would quickly change their mind when they realized the consequences of their ban.
If private investors were willing to back such electrification, and showed their analysis of facts and figures to support their plan, I would have no reason to doubt them. However, when such a plan is being put forth by someone having the politically ulterior motive to expand the public sector, i.e. a cheerleader for bigger government; I don’t trust his numbers.
The author argues that this mass electrification is too big of a project for private capital to finance, thus leaving only government to get the job done. I would say that the truth is that if the private sector won’t do it, it is not worth doing. And furthermore, the government cannot succeed in doing it because their policy precludes coal or nuclear power for electrification, and creating enough wind and solar power will add so much time and money that the project will sink under its own weight.
Another short article on electrification.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_9_209/ai_n29476448/?tag=content;col1
Jeff
greyhoundsThe oil 20 years from now will come from basically the same sources it comes from now, underground oil wells. We've been "running out" of oil ever since Edwin Drake drilled the 1st oil well in Pennsylvania in 1859. Back then, nobody knew of oil anywhere other than in that part of Pennsylvania so it was reasonable to reason that when those well went dry the world would be out of oil. We've got petroleum resources here in the US. The dang government just locks most of 'em up along with not allowing power plants or refineries to be built. But this begs the question avoided by that awful Trains article on electrification. To electrify the US railroads new power plants would have to be built. (No, the railroads can't be powered by windmills.) These power plants would have to be nuclear or coal. The dang government won't allow either one. This means the plan of "Researcher" Alan Drake of the Millennium Institue, Trains Magzine's chosen expert on railroad electrification, has a major flaw. (Actually, his plan has several major flaws,. but hey, he's Trains' chosen expert.) We're headed for freezing in the dark. If we don't starve to death in a homeless shelter first.
Not Nuclear or Coal power, but rather Natural Gas for fuel. Perhaps what will happen is a back to the future with more locomotives like the 4 BN SD40-2s towing a tankcar with CNG or similar.
Natural Gas
The problem with renewables as Boone Pickens is finding out after spending lots of money on Turbines is lack of transmission lines. I think the transmission lines we have currently waste a lot of electricity in transmission, so they need to be reworked. Of course the railways will offer their right of way for them if they can also draw from the current. Problem there is the Nimby's are not going to approve of the huge towers in their backyard unless the lines can be buried (very expensive).....I don't see this happening. Seems to me that railroad electrification in urban areas at least probably won't happen anytime soon. Maybe out West in isolated areas like the Powder RIver Basin?. It's nice to dream but we are at least 20-30 years away from any major effort to electrify our countries railways without any Federal Support.
BTW, large wind turbine farm going up in Indiana along I-65 between Chicago and Louisville. Pretty impressive to see.
Follow along with T. Boone Pickens....Power interstate trucking with natural gas....Perhaps power railroad engine units with it too.
Power producing wind farms are being built every day across this nation and all of a sudden they too, will be adding to the generating capacity of producing power for all kinds of needs in this country, including areas where railroad electrification is more efficient.
Quentin
SactoGuy188I think my concerns about electrifying rail lines in the USA comes down to this: the ENORMOUS up-front cost of the installation.I cite the following problems:1) The cost of putting up many thousands of miles of overhead wiring. And I do mean many thousands of miles.2) The cost of the Class I railroads having to buy as many as 6,000 new electric locomotives if we were to phase out diesel-electric locomotives.3) The enormous cost of raising tunnel clearances or daylighting shorter tunnels to accommodate overhead wiring. I can imagine how much that would cost CSX and NS to do this on their rail routes through the Appalachians.4) Finding the means to power up all these many thousands of miles of overhead wiring.5) The worst problem of all, the height of the overhead wiring may not accommodate domestic doublestack container trains, which means we end up reducing capacity for container freight service.
Your concerns are more or less valid. My understanding is that most electrification studies assume that the wires need to clear a doublestack train (this was the assumption when the Southern California Regional Railraod Authority was looking into the matter in 1991-92).
As for your concern #3, don't forget overpass clearances, this was estimated to be half the cost of the proposed southern California electrification.
Except for at least Norfolk Southern's /former Southern Rwy. CNO&TP subsidiary's former 'Rathole' route from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. I understand that during the early 1960's improvement project, clearances were increased to 30 feet - including through all the tunnels - against just this possibility.
As to power supplies: Most power systems and plants have daily demand peaks during the afternoon, and lulls overnight. There's lots of surplus generating capacity available then, and hence very cheaply, too - just look up the hourly spot market quotes from, say, the PJM Regional Transmission Operator/ grid. A main reason is that - unlike the combustion turbines - the big thermal/ coal plants can't be cycled to start up and shut down each day - essentially they have to be kept 'hot' and spinning overnight. So to produce a little more electricity then is generally no problem at all - in fact, that would put to a productive use a capacity that would otherwise be wasted - a 'lost opportunity' cost. For more information and details, consult 'The magazine of Generation' [whatever that publication may may be ]. In many instances - but not all, certainly - the peak time for mainline railroad movements is also during the overnight hours, so here may be a possible fortunate coincidence of need and supply.
But inevitably, there is going to be a conflict when a railroad needs or wants to run trains - either during a blazing hot and humid August afternoon, or in the middle of a deep January freeze - when the local power system is at 100+ % capacity and 'rolling brownouts' are being implemented to conserve and ration power. I have no magic answer for how to handle that dilemma, except to note that based on recent experience here in the NorthEastern US, I estimate it would occur about once every 10 years or so. Does the risk and occasional happening of that kind of rare and temporary disruption justify not taking advanatge of the possible benefits from electrification ?
I have a simple question:
If all the railroads in the U.S. were electrified today, how much power would that require compared to the amount of electric power actually consumed today.
Power to run all railroads today = _____% of power actually consumed today.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.