BucyrusI 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.
Power to run all railroads today = _____% of power actually consumed today.
ALL the railroads? But quite a few of them already are electric, particularly transit. How about we just take the Class 1 freight operations. Data for 2008 is not yet available, so I will use 2007:
In other words, to electrify all freight operations of all U.S. Class 1 railroads, it would require a generation increase of 4 percent. That kind of spare capacity exists, but often it is not in the right place at the right time. The problem is mostly one of transmission, storage, and reliability. In some cases it may be less expensive to build new generation capacity at a specific location than to build new transmission lines, but that is not a "lack of generation capacity" problem per se.
(Note -- adding in all the passenger operations, including intercity, commuter, and transit, increases the BTU consumption from 566.9 trillion to 657.5 trillion)
RWM
Railway Man Bucyrus 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. ALL the railroads? But quite a few of them already are electric, particularly transit. How about we just take the Class 1 freight operations. Data for 2008 is not yet available, so I will use 2007: Class 1 freight consumed 566.9 trillion BTU The U.S. generated 4,156,745 thousand megawatt-hours That equates to 14,183 trillion BTU equivalent That equates to 3.99 percent. In other words, to electrify all freight operations of all U.S. Class 1 railroads, it would require a generation increase of 4 percent. That kind of spare capacity exists, but often it is not in the right place at the right time. The problem is mostly one of transmission, storage, and reliability. In some cases it may be less expensive to build new generation capacity at a specific location than to build new transmission lines, but that is not a "lack of generation capacity" problem per se. (Note -- adding in all the passenger operations, including intercity, commuter, and transit, increases the BTU consumption from 566.9 trillion to 657.5 trillion) RWM
Bucyrus 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.
Thanks RWM. I just wanted to get a feel for how much new generation would be required. The 4% figure seems like it could be squeezed out of existing production, especially if we are entering an era of reducing consumption in the non-rail sector.
Simple question - and a good one, which will go a long ways towards settling this aspect of the issue, though perhaps it gets a complicated answer - but here's tan answer for a good start - the details follow:
Power to run all railroads today = approx. 1.38 % of power actually consumed today. [computed on an annual basis]
The details:
Amount of Electric Power Actually Consumed Today:
"Total net generation in the country in 2007 was 4,157 billion kilowatthours, of which 2,504 billion kilowatthours was generated by electric utilities (Figure 6)." [''Figure 6. = Electric Power Industry Generation by Energy Source, 2007''; emphasis added - PDN]
Source: U.S. Energy Iinformation Administration's ["U.S. EIA"] "Electric Power Industry Overview 2007", at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html
Power to run all railroads today:
3,634,512 Thousand Gallons of Distillate Fuel Oil used by Railroads in 2007
Source: U.S. EIA's "Table 1. Sales of Distillate Fuel Oil by Energy Use in the United States: 2003-2007", from the "Railroad Fuel Use" link in the "A-Z Topic" list at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/a-z_index/Energya-z_r.html and then at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/fuel_oil_and_kerosene_sales/current/pdf/table1.pdf
Converting fuel oil gallons to ''HorsePower-Hours'' at an average rate of 20 HP-Hrs. per gallon, based on my review of Al Krug's ''Locomotive Fuel Use'' table and webpage at: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm
3.635 billion gals. x 20 HP-Hrs. / gal. = 72.70 billion HP-Hrs.
Since 1 HP = 0.746 KW,
72.70 billion HP-Hrs. x 0.746 KWHR/ HP-Hr. = 54.23 billion KWHR equivalent used by diesel locomotives.
Plus Amtrak, etc.: 28 trillion BTU = 3.01 billion KWHR equivalent [see below] - roughly 6 % of railroad diesel fuel wquivalent of 54.23 billion KWHR equivalent [see above].
Total rail energy usage = 57.24 billion KWHR equivalent.
Plus Amtrak, etc.: 28 trillion BTU = 3.01 billion KWHR equivalent, as follows:
from: U.S. EIA's "Table 2.1e Transportation Sector Energy Consumption, 1949-2008" at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0201e.html
At 5.826 million BTUs per barrel [42 gallons, per U.S. EIA's Glossary - http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/glossary_b.htm ], per U.S. EIA's Annual Energy Review - 2008 "Appendix A - British Thermal Unit Conversion Factors" at pg. 365 at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/append_a.html then http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec13_1.pdf
28 trillion BTU / 5.826 million BTU per barrel = 4.81 million barrels
4.81 million barrels x 42 gals. = 202 million gallons
202 million gallons x 20 HP-Hrs. / gal. = 4,037 million HP-Hrs.
4.04 billion HP-Hrs. x 0.746 KWHR/ HP-Hr. = 3.01 billion KWHR equivalent used by electric rail transport.
Percentage Calculation:
57.24 BKWH / 4,157 BKWH = 1.38 % of total.
Someone will (or at least should) point out that - among other flaws, caveats, exceptions, qualifications, etc. - these are aggregate statistics that are compiled over the entire year, whereas electric generation is a real-time, 'instant of use' commodity that can't be stored, etc. So the next step in this analysis would be to compare the maximum peak power generation capacity that is available and 'on-line' for at least most of a 'typical' day, and the typical peak demand for railroad usage that might occur during such a day. Unfortunately, that would require knowing the aggregate railroad 'hour-by-hour' dispatching and power consist for all railroads, and then finding the peak day for that - an exercise that I'm not prepared to do. So the above answer will have to do for the time being.
- Paul North.
erikem SactoGuy188 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. 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.
SactoGuy188 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.
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.
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.
I have read that both China and India are electrifying freightlines with sufficient clearances for doublestacks (granted IINM they use "international" boxes which are slightly less tall than Domestic North American containers). I am not aware on any technical reasons that it couldn't be done although I'm certain that the costs increase quite a bit.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Lest anyone think I didn't notice - while I was working on my lengthy post above, RWM put together and posted his, and has an answer that's larger than mine by a factor of about 3 - 3.99 % vs. 1.38 %. I've reviewed both calculations and attempted to replicate his - and have been successful to some degree - but the source of that difference isn't jumping out at me just yet. Maybe I'll take another look at it later today - anyone who feels like it in the meanwhile, feel free go ahead and work through it. [Bubba Justin, here's a real-life math problem for you . . . ]
In the meantime, I think either answer is essentially the same and 'works' for Bucyrus and the conclusion for the limited purpose of this discussion - that electrifying the railroads isn't going to seriously tax the nation's overall generating capacity.
Paul, I think your numbers might be OK in relation to total U.S. energy consumption but I just looked at electricity, which is what I think Bucyrus was asking. Also, I go into exercises like this about once a month in the real job, so I have a lot of familiarity with the source data. That familiarity enabled me to do mine using a simpler pathway, I think.
As I look at it again, I found another table that quantifies consumption rather than generation, which accounts for electricity transmission losses and imports, which I knew I had left out previously. But electric imports aren't huge so I didn't worry too much about it; and, Bucyrus was asking about electric generating capacity and I have no idea what kind of transmission losses railway electrification might entail, so that's probably not an apples-to-apples comparison anyway.
Paul and RWM,
Since we have been talking about the difficulty of building new coal-fired power plants being an impediment to railroad electrification, I just wanted to get an idea of how much additional electricity would be needed to electrify the railroads on a comprehensive basis. I had no idea whether the number was 10% or 75%. So, with both of your numbers being under 5%, it puts the matter in good perspective, even though your numbers differ a bit.
There is a lot of research going on right now on nucliar generation that will probably cut costs, increase safety, greatly diminish nuclear waste, much of it being conducted at MIT. I think this becoming successful and the use of railroad rights-of-way for power transmission lines, will lead to successful railway electrification some time in the future. There is also no reason why an old diesel with a worn out prime mover, but a good frame cab, trucks, traction motors, and blowers, cannot be rebuilt into a straight electric at substantially less cost than a new straight electric.
Bucyrus - Given the trend in natural gas prices (down) and supply (up), the limitations in the transmission system, and the ability of gas turbines to spool up quickly and act as peaking plants, if one were thinking about electrifying vast swaths of the freight rail system, I think that there would be some new natural gas generation plants and not one new coal plant.
daveklepperThere is a lot of research going on right now on nucliar generation that will probably cut costs, increase safety, greatly diminish nuclear waste, much of it being conducted at MIT. I think this becoming successful and the use of railroad rights-of-way for power transmission lines, will lead to successful railway electrification some time in the future. There is also no reason why an old diesel with a worn out prime mover, but a good frame cab, trucks, traction motors, and blowers, cannot be rebuilt into a straight electric at substantially less cost than a new straight electric.
The diesel-electric can be rebuilt, but I think it will still be significantly cheaper to build new locomotives rather than trying to convert and rebuild. A locomotive is an integrated engineering package, not a collection of components haphazardly thrown together like a buffet plate. To gain efficiency, reliability, availability, and low maintenance and operating costs, a locomotive needs an integrated design. You can make anything work, after a fashion, with non-purpose built components, but it will do for $2 what a clean-paper design can do for $1.
I'm halfway through all the threads on this and haven't seen this addressed:
When I see electric lines in Europe and elsewhere, the infrastructure looks so much less intensive than what I see on the NE Corridor (NEC). Looking down the high speed lines in France, one can almost miss the towers and wires - they're non thick and heavy like many on the NEC. Do people look at the nearly 100 yr old heavy steel structures when they envision infrastructure or do they look at lines in Europe that seem less labor intensive to build and maintain ("seem", but I really don't know)?
The longer they wait to start, the more expensive it will be.
Also, to address the power and strength needed to move these trains, might we also consider that many other countries seem to run shorter freight trains on schedules rather than putting together a 2 mile "mine's bigger than yours" extravaganza? Wouldn't shorter trains be easier to schedule, with shorter acceleration and deceleration times and lengths? Then, wouldn't scheduled freight make it easier for shippers to consider trains?
A good friend of mine is an over the road trucker, going from the east coast to the midwest all the time. Most of his business, according to him, is shipments that need to get there quicker than a train can do it. I told him about the trains in Europe where the entire truck is on a flatcar and the truck driver in a coach or sleeper. He's intrigued, but it's still about the schedule.
So, start the infrastructure now, get the ball rolling! It's going to take years to accomplish, so stop stalling! Don't reinvent any wheels - study how other countries do it and make it work. Use shorter, scheduled trains that will require less power.
I'm ready for my cabinet position, Mr. Obama! LOL
WhiteLeather I'm halfway through all the threads on this and haven't seen this addressed: When I see electric lines in Europe and elsewhere, the infrastructure looks so much less intensive than what I see on the NE Corridor (NEC). Looking down the high speed lines in France, one can almost miss the towers and wires - they're non thick and heavy like many on the NEC. Do people look at the nearly 100 yr old heavy steel structures when they envision infrastructure or do they look at lines in Europe that seem less labor intensive to build and maintain ("seem", but I really don't know)? [snip]
When I see electric lines in Europe and elsewhere, the infrastructure looks so much less intensive than what I see on the NE Corridor (NEC). Looking down the high speed lines in France, one can almost miss the towers and wires - they're non thick and heavy like many on the NEC. Do people look at the nearly 100 yr old heavy steel structures when they envision infrastructure or do they look at lines in Europe that seem less labor intensive to build and maintain ("seem", but I really don't know)? [snip]
Those higher and heavier towers are due to a couple of unique factors:
1. Back when the PRR started long-distance electrification - and perhaps the New Haven as well, but I don't know its and that region's history well enough - there weren't any power grids as we now know them, and definitely not enough locally generated power available 'off-the-shelf'. So as a self-sufficiency measure, the PRR undertook to provide its own long-distance transmission system to be able to supply itself and coordinate its own power supplies. Of course, the best place to do that was right on top of the consuming R-O-W. Today, there are lots of transmission lines available elsewhere, so a modern system would look more European.
2. Another reason that the PRR and some others needed their own transmission system was that the frequency of their power - at 25 Hz. - was too different from the commercial frequency of 60 Hz. to be able to use the commercial lines. To some degree that was alleviated by frequency and phase changers at the substations, but some of PRR's power suppliers - notable the Safe Harbor Dam - went so far as to have a dedicated 25 Hz. railroad generator.
3. In later years, engineers and R-O-W personnel from some of the electric companies - notably the Philadelphia Electric Co., or PECo - saw the advantages of 'co-locating' a new or enlarged transmission line on a convenient R-O-W that had already been purchased, assembled, and already had wires over it - often called an 'over-build'. The railroad was usually quite receptive to the rental or license payment which resulted from that, too. So there's another factor that added to the proliferation.
4. Lastly, back then steel construction and engineering analysis, and wind and other loading conditions were just getting accepted, and computational methods were primitive. Then as now it was preferable for engineers to be conservative and make structures larger than 'just enough' to assure longevity and safety. Hence those old structures are undoubtedly bigger than they would be if constructed as new today.
WhiteLeather So, start the infrastructure now, get the ball rolling! It's going to take years to accomplish, so stop stalling! Don't reinvent any wheels - study how other countries do it and make it work. Use shorter, scheduled trains that will require less power. I'm ready for my cabinet position, Mr. Obama! LOL
I know it is a lighthearted remark, but why not a position with UP, BNSF, CSX, or NS? If your proposal is a good one, why do you thing they are not doing it?
RWM, thanks for those supplemental references.
We both used the exact same 'significant figures' for domestic electricity generation of 4.157 as our denominator - the only difference was the units and multiples of 1,000 that it was expressed in, so that's not the problem.
A couple of tries at the RR-side conversions your way and comparing it with my source data hasn't showed me yet where the problem is - we're within 10 % of each other with the intermediate numbers, so I still don't know - yet. I agree that the 'losses', imports, etc. kinds of thing aren't significant, either. Instead, intuition is telling me that it may be in the conversion factor of 1 KWHR = 3.412 x 10^^3 BTUs, because the reciprocal of that is 0.3 x 10^^-3 . . . Or, the discrepancy may be due to the inefficiency and losses in the inherent energy during the transformation from diesel fuel to electric power at the traction motors, which would not be a factor for a straight-electric operation . . . In other words, maybe we should be measuring at the output location of the diesel locomotive - at either the rail, traction motor, or generator, but not at the fuel tank . . .
Not to 'twist the tiger's tail', but here's a little side bet, if you're interested: I'll stake a bottle or glass of beer from any domestic brew-pub that my figure is closer to correct than yours. Here's why I'm that confident: Table 2.6 from your reference above says that Class I Freight Rail is responsible for only 2.0 % of all Transportation Energy Use. From other EIA tables, Transportation is about 29 % of all energy consumption, and Electric Generation is about 40 %. It roughly follows, then, that Rail Energy which is 2.0 % of 29 % would be a slightly smaller fraction of 40 % - say, about 3/4 as much, or around 1.5 %. Intuitively, too, I think that freight rail as being about 1.5 % of all domestic electric generation - incuding non-public, by the way - is more 'right' than 4.0 % - that just seems a little high to me. Well, we'll see, either way . . .
Thanks again.
WhiteLeatherAlso, to address the power and strength needed to move these trains, might we also consider that many other countries seem to run shorter freight trains on schedules rather than putting together a 2 mile "mine's bigger than yours" extravaganza? Wouldn't shorter trains be easier to schedule, with shorter acceleration and deceleration times and lengths? Then, wouldn't scheduled freight make it easier for shippers to consider trains?
What about all the customers who don't want to pay to get their freight that fast?
Shorter, scheduled trains require MORE power, not less.
Other countries have different geography, economies, tax structures, markets, resources, laws, and culture. Do you think it is possible to pluck things you like wholesale from one country and drop it into another, and it will all work out? Do you think railroaders in the U.S. are ignorant of European practice (or European railroaders of our practices)? Why do you think that what they do is better? Isn't the logic you use just as likely to say that the U.S. does it better and they should copy us?
Paul: The EIA calculates BTUs for Class 1 freight use by using the gallons of fuel consumed by the Class 1s for rail use (it is reported by the AAR members to the AAR, and AAR to EIA), converting to BTUs using the conversion factor 5.825 million BTU per barrel of diesel fuel. I don't see how that number is flawed. It accounts for all the work you are doing to try to measure efficiency and output of the locomotive (and it also accounts for the switch engines, work trains, deadhead moves, and idling).
RWM - OK, thanks for that pointer and clarifying explanation. That is the same conversion figure I used for the Amtrak and other already electrified operations portion of my calcs (for the other Class I freight portion, I converted from gallons to HP-Hr. and then to KWHr.). It's like any other conversion constant - and so I'm not arguing with it.
Nor am I arguing with its application in terms of measuring the BTU input or energy consumption of the present diesel-electric locomotive fleet. As you'll see below, we're pretty close on that, too.
What I'm wondering - in the context trying to formulate an answer to Bucyrus' question - if we should be assuming that an all-electric operation would be using the same BTU-equivalents of electricity from a power plant as the present diesels consume in the BTUs of the diesel fuel they use. That's a little bit of a loaded question, though, in favor of the electric, because - among other factors - the thermal losses from the hot exhaust going out the power plant's stack happen before the measurement of electric power going into the electric locomotive, and hence are 'hidden' from view; whereas the diesel-electric loco is assessed the entire heat value of its fuel, regardless of the extent that it is used or lost (and yes, I know all of that diesel fuel should nevertheless be counted, because all of that fuel is a 'real-world' cost to the railroad regardless of how it is eventually used).
Perhaps a simple example will better illustrate my concern here: Consider a pair of 3,000 HP locomotives - one a diesel, the other an electric. Let's compare a reasonable estimate of the BTUs that each uses per hour of 100 % operation, as follows:
Diesel: 3,000 HP X 1 Hr. / 20 HP-Hr. per Gal. = 150 Gals. [per Al Krug's data]
150 Gals. / 42 Gals. per Barrel = 3.57 Barrels
3.57 Bbl. x 5.825 million BTU / Bbl. = 20.8 million BTU [per Hr.]
Electric: 3,000 HP X 1 Hr. x 0.746 KW / HP = 2,240 KWHr. = 2.24 MWHr.
2,240 KWHr. x 3,412 BTU/ KWHr. = 7.64 million BTU per Hr.
Ratio = possible overstatement of Diesel BTU to Electric BTU = 20.8 / 7.64 = 2.72.
See what I'm concerned about ? Even the miscellaneous transmission losses in the electric drives of either locomotive don't account for that much.
The problem here is that I too used ''3,634,512 Thousand Gallons of Distillate Fuel Oil used by Railroads in 2007''. Multiplying that by 5.825 million BTU / Bbl. / 42 Gals. per Barrel = 504 trillion [10^^12] BTU, which is tolerably close to your figure of 566.9 trillion BTU - only about 11 % less. So I'm not understanding why my percentage is only about 1/3 of yours - that's all.
Will take another look at this later on tonight.
That was my guess about PRR's catenary. I know PRR overbuilt just about everything, as witnessed by how many of their structures are still standing and in use. But today, aren't there figures that show how much cheaper it is to put down rail (and wires) per mile versus concrete?
Honestly, I'd put my money on the railroads being afraid to be first with that big of a jump. And as a railfan who's a lifelong professional musician and has been a firefighter nearly that long, I am fairly certain they'd not take a second look at my resume. If they did, though, I'd be at the table with them!
WhiteLeather That was my guess about PRR's catenary. I know PRR overbuilt just about everything, as witnessed by how many of their structures are still standing and in use. But today, aren't there figures that show how much cheaper it is to put down rail (and wires) per mile versus concrete?
By ''concrete'' do you mean highways ? If so - yes, there are figures, and they've been posted here at least several times in the past 2 -3 years that I can recall - RWM has been particularly generous with his insights as to the conditions that can drastically affect the ranges of each of those figures - often by a factor of 10 or more, and sometimes as much as 100 times - and as a result the relationship between can vary by that much as well.
The problem with any of those figures is that they are so dependent on the characteristics and conditions of a specific site or route that almost any figure can be stated - and it will be valid for some limited number of situations, and invalid for others - but not really helpful unless a particular proposal is under consideration. And even then, the comparisons are never 'apples compared to apples' - there's always something that makes the playing field other than truly 'level'. So whether they are functionally equivalent or comparable in any respect is open to debate.
That said, the most that can be said generally with any certainty is that any additional lane or a new alignment of highway will usually cost a heckuva lot more to acquire R-O-W, obtain permits, and build, etc. than an additional track or a new rail route, respectively.
Also, the pro-highway interests get to use one of the more acceptable of the addictive 'drugs' - 'O-P-M' = 'Other People's Money' = us taxpayers, whereas the railroad of course usually has to fund its own improvements. Even if the highway would cost a lot more than the rail alternative - so what ? There's usually a Highway Trust Fund, or Federal Aid to State Roads, or a 'stimulus'/ recovery act, or a pork-barrel 'ear-mark', or some other way to get the project funded by a layer of government someplace without soaking the locals too much. That's just seems to be how it is, regardless of the 'justice' of it all.
WhiteLeather Honestly, I'd put my money on the railroads being afraid to be first with that big of a jump. And as a railfan who's a lifelong professional musician and has been a firefighter nearly that long, I am fairly certain they'd not take a second look at my resume. If they did, though, I'd be at the table with them!
Regarding your comment:
“So, start the infrastructure now, get the ball rolling! It's going to take years to accomplish, so stop stalling! Don't reinvent any wheels - study how other countries do it and make it work. Use shorter, scheduled trains that will require less power. I'm ready for my cabinet position, Mr. Obama! LOL,”
I just assumed that when you said that, you were implying that your electrification proposal was economically sound, but the railroads were dragging their feet for some unknown reason. And your reference to Mr. Obama meant that you feel that your electrification proposal should be government funded with taxpayer money, so it can get done despite any economic reservations on the part of the railroad companies.
Interestingly, that is also the position of author Scott Lothes and the sources he sites, in his article, WIRED UP.
Electrification of the railroads would be a big step, but also a big step, would be the mandating that taxpayers pick up the cost. They, of course, will be told that it is an important step in solving the transportation crisis, and they will pay more over the long run if they don’t pay for electrification now. It would also be a big step for the railroads to have a large part of their plant cost collectivized, and to accept whatever strings may be attached to that.
One other question I didn't see addressed is are they taking an all or nothing approach to electrification? Are they only going to string wires on the highest density mains or every track? If the taxpayers are going into the juice business, will they be footing the bill for juice jacks, too or will the railroads have to pony up the money for two types of motive power themselves?
Taking this a step further, will large grain elevators and mines and factories, etc., that paid for loop loading tracks and on-site storage yards have to pay for the upgrades (catenary) on all their tracks to keep their shipping costs the same? Because if they don't the railroads will again have to have two types of motive power to serve those customers. The railroads can't absorb the extra cost at nearly $2million per unit, to have them standing by when that customer calls for a switch.
Way too many unanswered questions.
Re-reading through my copy of William D. Middleton's 1974 ed. of When the Steam Railroads Electrified last night, I was reviewing the chapter about the future. There, he compared the weights of the catenary - esp. the early DC and AC electrification - with the BM&LP's light simple-type 50,000 volt catenary - the same as the European standard now, as I recall. So here's another reason for the bigger/ heavier size and weight of the NEC electrifications:
5. The early 20th century installations tended to be lower voltage - e.g., 11,000 volts AC - whereas modern installations are at the higher voltages of either 25,000 or 50,000 volts. As a result, the current-carrying capacity and hence cross-sectional area of the contact wire and any messenger or other conducting wires only need to be 44 % or 22 % as large, respectively; thus, with that much less weight to suspend in the air, the supporting structures can be that much smaller and lighter.
IIRC, the article mentioned using RR R/W for new high-tension electric tranmission lines. I think this is a BAD IDEA. How is each protected from a disaster on the other without incurring astronomical costs? For example: how is the electric transmission line protected from a potential derailment? Is there even a pole strong enough to withstand that in existance? Conversely, tornados and other high winds have been known to bring down wires. How can the railroad operate through the resulting spaghetti? Which is cheaper, power companies buying their own easements, or overengineering and amouring the towers to withstand crash damage?
I think the issue of electrification is dead on arrival. No one has had or will have the private or public capital to implement it, especially in this climate of economic decline. The other issues brought up in this thread are also compelling evidence that such a massive project, regardless of the financing source (s) is effectively blocked by a series of daunting hurdles. If anything occurred regarding public funding, it would be studied to death, and argued to death and be prone to the same political divides that already are becoming more pronounced. I think a more pragmatic analysis instead of "what if" would have been more enlightening.
Finally when you strip away all of the "what ifs" you come to the real issue which is coal. The whole issue is a series of checkmates. Nothing will happen unless the oil spigot drys out.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
rrnut282 IIRC, the article mentioned using RR R/W for new high-tension electric tranmission lines. I think this is a BAD IDEA. How is each protected from a disaster on the other without incurring astronomical costs? For example: how is the electric transmission line protected from a potential derailment? Is there even a pole strong enough to withstand that in existance? Conversely, tornados and other high winds have been known to bring down wires. How can the railroad operate through the resulting spaghetti? Which is cheaper, power companies buying their own easements, or overengineering and amouring the towers to withstand crash damage?
Whatever the concerns, the 'proof of the pudding' is that it's been done successfully in the Northeast Corridor on the former PRR lines and around Philadelphia on the ex-Reading lines for almost 80 years now, with no huge problems - and those lines were and are by no means immune to derailments, such as the PRR's Congressional at Frankford Jct. in 1947, if I recall correctly. There are a few catenary poles around with kinks and bends in them as a result of other miscellaneous derailments - but they're still there and in service. Although, an Amtrak wire guy at the 1987 Chase, Md./ GUNPOW interlocking / Amtrak Colonial disaster said that was the only time he'd even seen a catenary pole sheared off at the base - and that took a train moving in the 120 MPH range to do that. Later on I'll post a link to a little blurb about what a CSX freight derailment did to a couple of SEPTA catenary poles a few years ago.
If the tornado will bring down the power company's lines, it's going to bring down the catenary, too, so that will only compound the aggravation, not prevent it.
Otherwise, it depends on where, I suppose. In built-up urban and suburban areas, it will undoubtedly be cheaper to share the R-O-W. Maybe in rural areas it would be cheaper to acquire a separate R-O-W and build there instead, particularly if it is much shorter, such as up and over a mountain instead of following the railroad the long way around. But if there's something like a park, wildlife refuge, or vocal NIMBY opponents in the way, the railroad may be far less of a hassle anyway.
Better metallurgy and/or materials used in better engineered structures with smaller cross-sections presented to potentially damaging winds? For example, in the analysis given by PDN just above, the thinner cables would provide less of a cross-section, and be at the same time a better quality of cable...ostensibly.
-Crandell
It's usualy just the wires that get damaged in great storms, not the poles. Catenary poles are usualy much stronger then hydro poles because catenary wires hang under alot more tension.
Paul_D_North_Jr Whatever the concerns, the 'proof of the pudding' is that it's been done successfully in the Northeast Corridor on the former PRR lines and around Philadelphia on the ex-Reading lines for almost 80 years now, with no huge problems - and those lines were and are by no means immune to derailments, such as the PRR's Congressional at Frankford Jct. in 1947, if I recall correctly. There are a few catenary poles around with kinks and bends in them as a result of other miscellaneous derailments - but they're still there and in service. Although, an Amtrak wire guy at the 1987 Chase, Md./ GUNPOW interlocking / Amtrak Colonial disaster said that was the only time he'd even seen a catenary pole sheared off at the base - and that took a train moving in the 120 MPH range to do that. Later on I'll post a link to a little blurb about what a CSX freight derailment did to a couple of SEPTA catenary poles a few years ago. If the tornado will bring down the power company's lines, it's going to bring down the catenary, too, so that will only compound the aggravation, not prevent it. - Paul North.
So what you're saying, is catenary support poles are more robust than they look and can withstand quite a pounding. How susseptable are they to unbalanced tension loads?
So if both the transmission wires and catenary are down, will the railroad not run diesel powered trains to keep traffic moving so the electric company can occupy the right-of-way for a few days? These are the kinds of details that people proposing this idea haven't fleshed out.
Paul_D_North_Jr rrnut282 How is each protected from a disaster on the other without incurring astronomical costs? For example: how is the electric transmission line protected from a potential derailment? Is there even a pole strong enough to withstand that in existance? . . . Which is cheaper, power companies buying their own easements, or overengineering and amouring the towers to withstand crash damage? . . . Later on I'll post a link to a little blurb about what a CSX freight derailment did to a couple of SEPTA catenary poles a few years ago. - Paul North.
rrnut282 How is each protected from a disaster on the other without incurring astronomical costs? For example: how is the electric transmission line protected from a potential derailment? Is there even a pole strong enough to withstand that in existance? . . . Which is cheaper, power companies buying their own easements, or overengineering and amouring the towers to withstand crash damage?
. . . Later on I'll post a link to a little blurb about what a CSX freight derailment did to a couple of SEPTA catenary poles a few years ago.
Here's the link to ''Neshaminy/Trenton Line Derailment Design And Construction Support'', and an excerpt from same:
The project involved one route mile of existing two-track, steel portal frame catenary structures that supported two mainline catenary systems, crossover catenary, transmission wires, and signal cables.''
http://www.gftransitrail.com/projects/Neshaminy.htm
As I said before - it happens, it's not good, but it's not the end of the world. The agencies/ companies involved seem to have figured out a way that works out there in the 'real world' - whatever our theoretical concerns may be - and when it does happen they're too busy to be told that it can't be done, etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.