One of the major sources sited in the TRAINS article is the RAIL SOLUTIONS Virginia Website, essentially an interest group seeking rail improvements including electrification as an alternative to major rebuilding of Interstate 81 which connects Tn. With upstate NY via the Virginias and Pa.
http://www.railsolution.org/
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
oltmannd [snip] The undoing of the electrics was the loss of a "critical mass" of lines when the electrified territory was split between Conrail and Amtrak and availability of alternate routes (LV, RDG) siphoned off traffic. [emphasis added - PDN]
I think this is critical to understanding why ConRail de-electrified in the early 1980s. The 'backbone' of the former 11 KV PRR and NH electrifications - the 'NorthEast Corridor' (''NEC'') from New Haven to New York City to Philadelphia to Wilmington to Baltimore to Washington, D.C. - plus the 'Keystone Line' from Phila. to Harrisburg - all went to Amtrak. My understanding is that Amtrak barely tolerated - understandably - the freights and any electric freights on at least the NEC route, account of heavy effects to the sensitive high-speed track geometry parameters, interference with passenger train traffic, etc. So the freights were confined to certain tracks and certain hours - mainly overnight - which was tough on transit times and schedules. Plus, my understanding again is that Amtrak imposed 'per car-mile' trackage-rights charges that were something like 5 times higher than normal or typical at the time. As a result, the route was marginal to uneconomic for ConRail to use or serve with any power, except for those industries and locations that it was absolutely necessary to use to reach.
As a result, ConRail was left with only a couple of essentially disconnected segments of electrified lines that went from Harrisburg to 'dead ends' that were either not important, declining, or otherwise not essential from either a traffic or routing perspective, and/ or barred by Amtrak's NEC 'Chinese Wall'. Those lines were 1) Harrisburg to the greater Philadelphia region and Trenton via either the Keystone Line and/or the collection of parallel low-grade bypass lines; and, 2) the Columbia and Port Deposit / 'Port Road' Line from Harrisburg via Columbia, PA to Perryville, MD - merely a quaint village on the NEC at the mouth of the Susquehanna River on the Chesapeake Bay, about halfway between Wilmington and Baltimore.
As Don mentions, the traffic from Harrisburg to New York City - then still an important point, and getting more so - which would have gone via the Keystone Line in PRR days was then diverted to the non-electrified routing of ex-Reading from Harrisburg to Allentown, and then ex-Lehigh Valley from there to North Jersey. So that rendered the electrified Keystone Line and most of the parallel lines useless to ConRail, and left only the Port Road as having a function.
Against the cost of having to re-build an electrified network in the East in order to take advantage of what little useful electric infrastructure that ConRail was left with - and already faced with overwhelming macro-economic challenges and micro-scale competition and an uncertain future - ConRail's decision is understandable. It was analogous to amputating a badly mangled leg - a big loss of mobility, but necessary to save the rest of the body. It was probably the right decision at the time - but that decision should be properly understood in light of those special and hostile circumstances at that time and place, and not as a refutation of the continuing validity of the basic economics or virtues of electrification generally.
- Paul North.
gabeMy 10,000 feet-up, novice reading of Trains magazines over the last two decades seems to conclude that railroads have strived for homogenity in their diesel power.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Railway Man Interesting. Applicable to today? Who knows? Lots of assumptions about operating profile there, Paul. Most of the TPC runs I do today show average throttle notch better than 6, sometimes an average throttle notch of 8. Besides, I do not think I would want to assume that an electrified operation would even want to be just like a diesel-electric operation, with the only difference being a pantograph on the locomotive instead of an exhaust stack. [emphasis added - PDN] RWM
Besides, I do not think I would want to assume that an electrified operation would even want to be just like a diesel-electric operation, with the only difference being a pantograph on the locomotive instead of an exhaust stack. [emphasis added - PDN]
RWM
EDIT - add: 'TPC' = ''Train Performance Calculator'', such as this one: http://www.railsim.com/TPC.htm
Now there's a provocative and tantalizing comment ! (and a nice turn of phrase,too - very 'sound-bite' and intuitive) As a first response, I'm thinking ''Huh ? Why not ?''. Then - ''OK, what's different about electrics from diesels that leads us this way ?'' I suspect you, RWM, already have some thoughts in that regard - you're not given to idle chit-chat in matters like this. (Is this a challenge ? )
But aside from from facile stuff - no refueling stops, for example - the only 2 locomotive characteristics that I'm seeing at the moment are 1) potential for essentially unlimited power from the catenary, and 2) short-term overload capability of the traction motors can then be exploited. And right now I'm having a hard time imagining how that might affect main line freight operations in a significant way, other than the kind of things that the N&W and VGN did when they electrified - bigger and faster trains, and once at the summit, filling out tonnage for even longer trains heading downgrade and for beyond, etc.
As far as the power supply side, the whole peak ''demand charge'' / off-peak really cheap power available could be an incentive to distorted operating patterns like running all the 'not time-sensitive' heavy trains - e.g., unit coal trains - up the long grades at night, and downgrade during the afternoon during peak hours. Kind of like the 'pumped-storage' generation concept, only using trains instead of water . . .
So I'm going to postpone an attempt to respond to that until I have an opportunity to think about it further.
I also want to respond to the above on the percentage of power actually being used at a time, as well as our analysis of the gnerating capacity question last week, because your exceptions above are valid there as well - and yes, I recognized them. Unfortunately, I'm way short of time for the next few days, so it's not that I'm ignoring the points - I just want to think about them further and formulate and organize intelligent responses.
Let us assume for the moment that I am running BNSF. (Not that I claim I could do anywhere as well as the current management, but let's assume!) The reports are in and electrification is doable, It will bring the required return on investment. It can be sold to the shareholders, the banks, the government, and the power companies, al of whom will help in their own way.
Do I immediately go out and order a fleet of brand new electric locomotives. NO! I tell GE and EMD and Motive Power: "I am taking bids on conversion packages. Our earliest fleet of AC-drive diesels are do for major mid-life overhaul, requiring varying degrees of diesel prime mover componant and even in some case structure replacement. Half the fleet will be upgraded to latest fuel emission standards a scurrent model deisel electrics and also be compatible as control units and slugs for straight electrics and as control units and locomotives using straight electrics as slugs when not under catenary. The other half of the fleet, those with the prime movers requiring the most work, will become straight electrics, usable by themselves under catenary and also as control units and slugs as paired with diesels when not under catenary and able to use the diesels as slugs and control units when under catenary.
This is the only way the freight railroads can sensibly approach electrification while conserving existing investment.
HarveyK400 I apologize for shooting from the hip. I was thinking more of federal projects and couldn't recall any major investments in the railroads and canals of the 19th Century or in transportation generally until the highways, ports and waterways including the Panama and Suez Canals, and airports beginning at the turn of the 20th Century. 1) I thought the Erie Canal was built as a private venture; and I had no idea of the extent of the involvement of the State of New York. You stated it was "protected," presumably by legislation of some kind, not built by the State. If not actually built by the State, should that qualify? Furthermore, I was thinking that the Illinois-Michigan Canal was a private venture too. 2) I wasn't aware of the C&A being built by the State of Illinois. 3) I forgot the Illinois Central began as a State-owned railway and later privatized. Now that you mention it, wasn't the CNOT&P initially owned or capitalized by the City of Cincinnati? 4) Land grant railroads were another matter entirely. The US government didn't put any actual money into the capitalization. The sale of lands was used to repay investors. In return, the government got people settled across the continent to reinforce the claim for the United States.
I apologize for shooting from the hip. I was thinking more of federal projects and couldn't recall any major investments in the railroads and canals of the 19th Century or in transportation generally until the highways, ports and waterways including the Panama and Suez Canals, and airports beginning at the turn of the 20th Century.
1) I thought the Erie Canal was built as a private venture; and I had no idea of the extent of the involvement of the State of New York. You stated it was "protected," presumably by legislation of some kind, not built by the State. If not actually built by the State, should that qualify? Furthermore, I was thinking that the Illinois-Michigan Canal was a private venture too.
2) I wasn't aware of the C&A being built by the State of Illinois.
3) I forgot the Illinois Central began as a State-owned railway and later privatized. Now that you mention it, wasn't the CNOT&P initially owned or capitalized by the City of Cincinnati?
4) Land grant railroads were another matter entirely. The US government didn't put any actual money into the capitalization. The sale of lands was used to repay investors. In return, the government got people settled across the continent to reinforce the claim for the United States.
If I was not such a kind and forgiving man, possessed of great patience, taught from birth to overlook faults and only seek the inner goodness latent in each and every living creature, I'd swear to The Heavens that you are saying this stuff just to irritate me. What The Blazes Are You Smoking?
First, if you want to understand railroad transportation, or any transportation, you have to understand the history of transportation. We're here now. We're here for reasons. Some of 'em good, some of 'em bad. But if you want to know where to go from here you have to understand how we got here. 'Cause we're where we are for reasons. To me, from this post and other posts you've made, you don't have a clue you need to learn a great deal more.
The building of the Erie Canal was a watershed (no pun intended) moment in transportation. If you can understand why it was built, how it was financed, how the financing was to be repaid, what positive effects it had, what negative effects it had, what its limitations were, etc. you'll learn a great deal about transportation. You should at least know the basics of the Erie Canal. It's an important part of US history. The fact that you don't is an indictment of our education system.
For the record, it was built by the State of New York. It functioned similarly to a toll road today. The state issued debt and planned to repay the debt by charging tolls for commercial canal use. A big problem with the canal was that it would freeze in the winter for around three months and was shut down during that time of year.
When it was started, circa 1820, there was no other alternative to team and wagon movment save canals for inland transport. .This quickly changed with the development of a then new technology, the railroad. (In something that is unchanged today, making any long term investment involves risks, even for a government. Nobody knows what's going to show up tomorrow.)
In response to the railroad competition the New York Legislature acted to "protect" the Erie Canal by restricting the railroads. They either couldn't haul freight in competition with the canal, or the shipper had to pay the canal tolls in addition to the railroad charges if he chose to use the railroad instead of the canal. Knowledge and understanding of this "protection" might yeah, fat chance cool your enthusiasm for government involvement. The New York politicians were perfectly willing to limit economic development (keep people poor) and deny freedom of choice to their citizens in order to bail their own sorry butts out.
Read up on it. Probably do you some good. Couldn't hurt.
The C&A was a private company from the git go. I never said it wasn't. Don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't. However, some Illinois politician by the name of "A. Lincoln" was very active in promoting its construction. He even owned a few shares of this "Self Serving Corporation" (A corporation that did a lot of good for a lot of folks.)
The Illinois Central was never "Privatized" as you "forgot" that it was. It's interesting that you claim to have "forgotten" something that never happened. It was a private company from the beginning, but it received construction aid in the form of the first Federal railroad land grants.
The land grants were a good thing. The Federal Government had a lot of worthless land. It was worthless because there was no transportaiton. You could grow all the corn and raise all the hogs you wanted to on that fertile Illinois soil. But it would be an exercise in futility because you couldn't economically get what you produced to a market. So the government turned worthless land into valuable land by trading some of it for transportation. No pubic debt was involved. (Unlike the proposal in Trains to burden us with billions of dollars in debt for no good reason other than that some folks think railroad electrification a neat idea.)
The first land grants didn't go to a railroad. They went to that Illinois & Michigan Canal you mentioned. The I&M Canal was started by the state government (which received the land grants) But the state was unable to finish the canal so some European investors bailed the project out.
Land grants were used for other things. State universities for example. I graduated from a "Land Grant University", the University of Illinois which was founded in 1868. Does that shoot a hole in another one of your strange pronouncements, that we are only now beginning to understand the value of education?
To wrap this up, I'd suggest that you read more. Concentrate on history, economics and commerce.. Couldn't hurt. Might do you some good.
Sam1 carnej1 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 spent most of my working life with one of the largest electric power generators in North America. We only used oil as an emergency fuel when every other option had failed. The last time we burned any oil, other than for test purposes, was more than 20 years ago during a terrible ice storm. If significant electrification of America's railroads becomes a feasible option, with sufficient lead time, the nation's electric utilities could come up with the power. A significant portion of it is likely to be nuclear. At last count the U.S. has 22 new nuclear power plants on the drawing boards and plans to begin constructing them in the near future.
carnej1 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...............
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?
bubbajustin If railroads electrified they would consume a huge amount of electricity right? In turn, that would raise energy costs for us right?
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 spent most of my working life with one of the largest electric power generators in North America. We only used oil as an emergency fuel when every other option had failed. The last time we burned any oil, other than for test purposes, was more than 20 years ago during a terrible ice storm.
If significant electrification of America's railroads becomes a feasible option, with sufficient lead time, the nation's electric utilities could come up with the power. A significant portion of it is likely to be nuclear. At last count the U.S. has 22 new nuclear power plants on the drawing boards and plans to begin constructing them in the near future.
Whatever the likelihood of using oil for electric generation for basic consumer purposes, it would definitely not be used for this Lothes/Drake/Longman rail electrification proposal. They prefer windmills, but concede nuclear as a possibility. Drake even allows that coal would be acceptable because the evil of coal would be offset by the virtue of using it for such a green purpose as their rail electrification proposal. In other words, coal would be OK if it were used to defeat oil.
gabe Anyway, when we are talking about electification on here, what exactly are we talking about? More or less universal electrification, electrification of certain routes wherein all traffic over the line is electric, electrification of certain routes like the Milwaukee Road, wherein you saw a mix of power, and so on? There are several reasons I bring up this disjunctive. But, one of the more prominent ones, would a partially electrified system impose added expense because of a lack of homogenity (spelling?). My 10,000 feet-up, novice reading of Trains magazines over the last two decades seems to conclude that railroads have strived for homogenity in their diesel power. Conversely, would a totally electrified system produce inefficiencies similar to those alleged by some regarding the rapid transition to steam--i.e. taking a railroad that has a well-established stock of good locomotives and replacing them all is a debt-inducing process, the GP-30 should have been the replacement for Northerns, etc. Gabe
Anyway, when we are talking about electification on here, what exactly are we talking about? More or less universal electrification, electrification of certain routes wherein all traffic over the line is electric, electrification of certain routes like the Milwaukee Road, wherein you saw a mix of power, and so on?
There are several reasons I bring up this disjunctive. But, one of the more prominent ones, would a partially electrified system impose added expense because of a lack of homogenity (spelling?). My 10,000 feet-up, novice reading of Trains magazines over the last two decades seems to conclude that railroads have strived for homogenity in their diesel power. Conversely, would a totally electrified system produce inefficiencies similar to those alleged by some regarding the rapid transition to steam--i.e. taking a railroad that has a well-established stock of good locomotives and replacing them all is a debt-inducing process, the GP-30 should have been the replacement for Northerns, etc.
Gabe
What the Trains article on electrification is proposing is the electrification of 36,000 miles as one plan. The author cites Alan Drake who proposes going further and electrifying all American intercity routes as another plan. That mileage is not given. Alan Drake in his essay on The Oil Drum, lays out his proposal in detail. He is describes a national energy and transpiration crisis that needs a silver bullet solution. But he says that it is so vast, all we can muster are several silver BBs, hoping they will total something equivalent to the elusive magic bullet. Here is one of his silver BBs:
Electrify 36,000 miles of mainline railroads
Expand railroad capacity and speed by adding double tracks, better signals and more grade separation.
New 110 mph tracks for passenger and freight added to existing railroad ROWs as a second step.
In many, but not all cases, use the railroad ROW as new electrical transmission line corridors.
Promote the use of rail lines, usually spur lines, as wind turbine sites with rail transported cranes and materials.
Take advantage of the lower marginal economic costs of railroads, where the more we use it, the less it costs per unit. A diffuse economic benefit for many sectors of the economy.
--------------------------
Mr. Drake believes this is the best silver BB, and he says we can do it within six years. I would think that such an electrification within that timeframe would indeed render surplus a lot of diesel locomotives. Those locomotives could be allowed to run under the wires to use up their lives, thus trading the cost of electricity for their asset value. Using up the diesels would also preserve life in the new electrics. However, the operating cost of those diesels would be higher than that of the electrics, and their continued use would delay the non-oil transportation energy policy.
However, the Drake and Lothes proposals call for public financing, so funds will presumably be available to cover the loss of value in diesel locomotives should they be retired prematurely for the larger objective of achieving a sustainable rail transportation system that is non-oil, and attracts the majority of truck freight and private vehicle travelers off of the highways.
One of the issues I have in understanding "electrification" is that the term "electrification" is kind of like the term "democracy" to me. Ancient Greece and Modern Mexico were/are both "democracies," but using one as a paradigm of the other would be somewhat misguided/misplaced.
Interesting. Applicable to today? Who knows? Lots of assumptions about operating profile there, Paul. Most of the TPC runs I do today show average throttle notch (in power) of better than 6, sometimes an average throttle notch of almost 8.
Besides, I do not think I would want to assume that an electrified operation would even want to be just like a diesel-electric operation, with the only difference being a pantograph on the locomotive instead of an exhaust stack.
OK -fair enough. Back to the subject at hand . . . to help with that . . .
A persistent - and legitimate - concern here [way above] has been generating capacity. But here's a so-far unremarked little further technical information which addresses and puts that to rest, from the ''Epoch of Electrification'' article by. A. C. Kalmbach himself on pp. 40 - 47 of the April 1943 issue of Trains magazine, as contained in the TrainsExpress PDF that I previously referenced above. From page 43: [emphasis added - PDN]
''The electric locomotive makes a still further economy in the amount of power generating equipment which must be built. . . . A Diesel-electric of 4500 horsepower must needs have a Diesel engine of 4500 horsepower capacity. But in the Pennsylvania Railroad electrified territory a locomotive of 4500 horsepower needs only an average of 27 per cent or 1215 horsepower back in the powerhouse. This is because the powerhouse equipment spreads its horsepower over the entire section of railroad and is at the same time supplying some locomotives running uphill at peak load, others running easily on level, others drifting or stopped in stations, and others which aren't even on the line but are being serviced or held for assignments. Thus Pennsylvania Railroad locomotives and multiple-unit cars of 1,100,000 kilowatts total power need only 306,000 kilowatts of generating capacity, while if these were Diesel-electric locomotives they would need to carry with them 1,100,000 kilowatts or more than three times as much generating capacity. They would not have the short-time overload capacity even then.''
Fellas- Can we get back to focus on the topic at hand, and away from a pure politics discussion please?-Norris user/moderator
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bucyrus With all due respect, I think that the so-called banking crisis, being held up as an example of the inherent deficiency of the private sector is a red herring. The banks lent money to bad credit risks because government policy ordered it and underwrote the risk of it. That then caused the housing bubble. It had nothing to do with the fundamental mechanics of the private sector. I also disagree with your characterization of us having a choice between “self-serving corporations and inexperienced bureaucrats,” referring to the private and public sectors. While government may have more than its share of inexperience bureaucrats, it is just as self-serving and filled with expansionist zeal as any private corporation. And on top of that, it has the power of fiat, unlike any corporation. Government is not just a neutral entity, passively doing the work that public asks for, as many people believe.
The lack of regulation, quite the opposite of government policy orders, resulting from strong financial industry lobbying seems to have allowed the potential high-profit and imprudent, deceitful high-risk lending that led to the crash. The requirement and government intervention in the facet of the market to which you refer that financing be offered to lower income individuals did not compel lenders to issue, even encourage, unaffordably large mortgages doomed to default.
HarveyK400 Now that you mention it, wasn't the CNOT&P initially owned or capitalized by the City of Cincinnati?
Unless it has changed hands recently, the Cincinnati Southern (operated as the CNO&TP and leased to the NS) is still owned by the City of Cincinnati.
Johnny
blue streak 1You say if and that is a worry that I have. The situation in Iran may turn volitile at any time and the consequences of the loss o f that production would cause great difficulties. There was an article in the the WSJ mentioning that the US government is trying to get other middle eastern states to ship more oil to China so China will not oppose tougher sanctions against Iran. But again the if can be an 800# gorrila if any producing nation is cut off from the USA. The US strategic oil storage will only mitigate the ensuing shortage so long. To paraphrase you "to have put our transportation system depending on only one external source of energy will be considered foolish when someone in the future looks back at the past overdependency on petroleum." That is a very sucient observation. (AMTRAK, South Shore, METRA, MN, light rail, and subway systems being the exception)
You say if and that is a worry that I have. The situation in Iran may turn volitile at any time and the consequences of the loss o f that production would cause great difficulties. There was an article in the the WSJ mentioning that the US government is trying to get other middle eastern states to ship more oil to China so China will not oppose tougher sanctions against Iran.
But again the if can be an 800# gorrila if any producing nation is cut off from the USA. The US strategic oil storage will only mitigate the ensuing shortage so long.
To paraphrase you "to have put our transportation system depending on only one external source of energy will be considered foolish when someone in the future looks back at the past overdependency on petroleum." That is a very sucient observation. (AMTRAK, South Shore, METRA, MN, light rail, and subway systems being the exception)
The "if" was just in relation to "peak oil." I totally agree with you about the uncertainty of supply and the issue of that risk which is another facet of the problem.
Harvey
beaulieuNobody has mentioned otherwise yet, but Russia has more mileage of 25kV/50Hz electrification than they have of 3kV DC. Unfortunately for their High-speed plans, the sections between major cities in the West were electrified early, and so were electrified at 3kV DC rather than 25kV/50Hz AC .
Q - Who knows?
Maybe the Russians are planning to do a slow conversion to 25Kv much like the Lackawanna lines were by NJ Transit. The big problem with 3000V DC is the current carrying capacity of the wires you need 8 time the current capacity with 3Kv as 25Kv. There is another consequence in that the PANs do not work as well under heavier wire. Harmonic vibrations are much less under lighter CAT especially when more than one PAN is contacting the CAT between tower spans. ie EMUs.
Remember the problems that PC had with the metroliners when three PAN trains would snag the wires. Of course the wire was not constant tension which mitigates the problem somewhat.
HarveyK400There's not a lot to choose from between self-serving corporations and inexperienced bureaucrats trying to pick up the pieces after a free-enterprise train-wreck. We tried leaving the bank recovery to the bankers and the results were mixed. How can you blithely speak of the "market" as some free and pure force when it has acquired so much baggage?
Harvey,
With all due respect, I think that the so-called banking crisis, being held up as an example of the inherent deficiency of the private sector is a red herring. The banks lent money to bad credit risks because government policy ordered it and underwrote the risk of it. That then caused the housing bubble. It had nothing to do with the fundamental mechanics of the private sector.
I also disagree with your characterization of us having a choice between “self-serving corporations and inexperienced bureaucrats,” referring to the private and public sectors. While government may have more than its share of inexperience bureaucrats, it is just as self-serving and filled with expansionist zeal as any private corporation. And on top of that, it has the power of fiat, unlike any corporation. Government is not just a neutral entity, passively doing the work that public asks for, as many people believe.
HarveyK400To compound the problem, if oil is in short supply, where in the line do you think railroads will be? Having more efficient diesel-powered trains won't help if railroads don't get the fuel to operate. Politically, there are a lot more truckers out there than railroaders.
Harvey.
erikemPaul_D_North_JrDoes anyone know when the Russians started their electrification ? As I understand the history of the technology, those options mentioned by erikem would have been available in about the 1895 to 1915 time frame. That would have been during the Czar's reign and pre-Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. After that, both the New Haven and the PRR were using 11,000 volt 25 Hz AC for their initial electrified zones, so that had become a viable technology from then on. Wonder why the Bolsheviks didn't just toss out that project as well ? Paul,Adoption of the 3,000VDC electrification would put the start somewhere after the Bolsheviks took over. As for the exact date, someone more knowledgeable than I would have to answer that.
Paul_D_North_JrDoes anyone know when the Russians started their electrification ? As I understand the history of the technology, those options mentioned by erikem would have been available in about the 1895 to 1915 time frame. That would have been during the Czar's reign and pre-Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. After that, both the New Haven and the PRR were using 11,000 volt 25 Hz AC for their initial electrified zones, so that had become a viable technology from then on. Wonder why the Bolsheviks didn't just toss out that project as well ?
Does anyone know when the Russians started their electrification ? As I understand the history of the technology, those options mentioned by erikem would have been available in about the 1895 to 1915 time frame. That would have been during the Czar's reign and pre-Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. After that, both the New Haven and the PRR were using 11,000 volt 25 Hz AC for their initial electrified zones, so that had become a viable technology from then on. Wonder why the Bolsheviks didn't just toss out that project as well ?
Adoption of the 3,000VDC electrification would put the start somewhere after the Bolsheviks took over. As for the exact date, someone more knowledgeable than I would have to answer that.
There were certainly electrification proposals in Russia pre WW1, but I don't know whether they came to anything, and I'm pretty sure nothing survived war and revolution.
The first Soviet electrification schemes were suburban ones out of Baku (1926 - 1.2kV) and Moscow (1929 - 1.5kV), the first 'main line' electrification was the Surom pass line (in the Caucasus) in 1932 - on 3kV dc, for which American and Italian locos were imported (from which they developed their own). There were then a succession of (relatively) small schemes, where 'special' circumstances (particularly heavy traffic or other) justified electrification, up to the mid 1950's. But from 1956 (and the decision to phase out steam), there was a general plan of railway electrification, and it forged ahead, with schemes in some cases over a thousand kilometres. Initially this was at 3kV, but from the mid 1950s they started experimenting with 25kV 50Hz ac, and from about 1960 this was being used extensively for new systems/areas (extensions were still on dc). Certainly some islands of dc have been converted to ac, but I don't think there has been any plan for a general conversion.
htgguyHarveyK400If oil production does not fall below rising demand and prices stay relatively unchanged, then the assumption would be correct that more expensive alternative energy sources and railroad electrification would reduce rail shipping. This is a gamble and hope too, perhaps based on a political philosophy denying of a rightful role of government in private industry regardless of public impact. C'mon, Harvey. Your bias is showing. "Political philosophy denying a rightful role of government in private industry"? It's PRIVATE industry. The rightful role of the government is enforcing the laws of the land. If a railroad's shareholders want to operate using mules for motive power, and can comply with the law, that is their right. The market will make better decisions than some government bureaucrat.
HarveyK400If oil production does not fall below rising demand and prices stay relatively unchanged, then the assumption would be correct that more expensive alternative energy sources and railroad electrification would reduce rail shipping. This is a gamble and hope too, perhaps based on a political philosophy denying of a rightful role of government in private industry regardless of public impact.
C'mon, Harvey. Your bias is showing. "Political philosophy denying a rightful role of government in private industry"? It's PRIVATE industry. The rightful role of the government is enforcing the laws of the land. If a railroad's shareholders want to operate using mules for motive power, and can comply with the law, that is their right.
The market will make better decisions than some government bureaucrat.
Yours is an opinion and political bias as well; and you're entitled to it - just own it. I happen to believe that there are limits to private business where there are vital public and government concerns. We've seen the public's interest in private business most recently in the attempt, for better or worse, to keep credit flowing with the banking industry's near-collapse. We also see public concern in employee safety and unemployment benefit contributions as other examples of interference.
I agree that railroads account for a very small percentage of all energy use for transportation, and even a small proportion compared to long-haul trucking that includes much that isn't in a high-volume lane subject to diversion to an electrified rail line. If railroad electrification is deemed to be in the public's interest for energy security, and this needs to be evaluated as a system as well as for discrete corridors, a way will be found to achieve that objective with or without private industry cooperation. Hopefully electrification, where beneficial, will entail the same degree of railroad participation and concurrence that has marked government-assisted various railroad relocation projects, the Alameda Corridor, and the proposed CREATE project in Chicago.
Another issue that is being discussed along with railroad electrification is change back to more intense development patterns re-focused on railroads where cheap land will entail offsetting high transportation energy costs. I do not see even this pushing railroads to handle anywhere near the wishful 83% of freight movement as asserted in the article. Call it social engineering; but what would be the smart alternative to rising costs of gas and for more roads and bridges protecting the status quo for private businesses?
There's not a lot to choose from between self-serving corporations and inexperienced bureaucrats trying to pick up the pieces after a free-enterprise train-wreck. We tried leaving the bank recovery to the bankers and the results were mixed. How can you blithely speak of the "market" as some free and pure force when it has acquired so much baggage?
One thing that the article did not explore is how the fulfillment of its vision of wind energy rail electrification will be coerced and accelerated by the looming federal requirements to reduce CO2 emissions.
Meanwhile, if electrification were to begin while we remain using existing power plants, and if railroads were required to reduce their CO2 emissions by say 25%, how would the cost of doing it on-board a diesel locomotive compare to doing it at the power plant supplying electricity?
Paul_D_North_Jr edblysard [snip] Now, I agree the article is not as much about discussing a profitable way Class 1 railroads can go to electric power and more the authors political viewpoint and personal agenda, and I would have liked to have seen an article that challenges Mr. Lothes’s statistics and claims follow right behind his, but then again, maybe there was no such article in hand for them to print. So maybe Greyhounds, Mr.North, Bucryus and RWM could each submit such an article, or maybe collaborate on one? It would be quite interesting to see the real world numbers and such all together in a written form. We should have electrified 15 years ago! Trains, April 1962 page 18 the case for electrification ( ELECTRIFICATION, "MARTIN, THOMAS M. C.", TRN ) Why we don't electrify Trains, December 1962 page 40 rebuttal to article in April 1962 Trains ( ANALYSIS, ELECTRIFICATION, "SENNHAUSER, GEORGE J.", TRN ) Now there was a great pair of articles. I think Martin also had this as a personal viewpoint, but he did a better job of supporting it. Sennhauser did an admirable job of demolishing it - a few years later he was the pipe-smokin', slide-rulin' Superintendent of the Erie Mining Railroad in Minnesota, later LTV, then Cliffs - The other Erie [subtitle was something like, ''The case for the unadulterated railroad'']Trains, September 1973 page 41 Erie Mining's railroad ( EMX, MINING, MINNESOTA, "PATRICK, HOWARD S.", ROSTER, TRN ) Here's another great electrification review article - which I believe was already referenced in another post above: The when and if of wires Trains, July 1970 page 38 future electrification projects ( ELECTRIFICATION, "PINKEPANK, JERRY A.", TRN ) You could worse than to basically take these articles, and just update the names of the railroads and the dollar figures, etc. for a starting point. What is Mr. Pinkepank doing now ? I wonder if Scott Lothes or Alan Drake ever read any of these, let alone tried to address the issues raised in them, on both sides of the issue. Some are no longer relevant, sure, but most are. Trains.com ought to make them all available on the website or on a CD, ETC. - Paul North.
edblysard [snip] Now, I agree the article is not as much about discussing a profitable way Class 1 railroads can go to electric power and more the authors political viewpoint and personal agenda, and I would have liked to have seen an article that challenges Mr. Lothes’s statistics and claims follow right behind his, but then again, maybe there was no such article in hand for them to print. So maybe Greyhounds, Mr.North, Bucryus and RWM could each submit such an article, or maybe collaborate on one? It would be quite interesting to see the real world numbers and such all together in a written form.
Now there was a great pair of articles. I think Martin also had this as a personal viewpoint, but he did a better job of supporting it. Sennhauser did an admirable job of demolishing it - a few years later he was the pipe-smokin', slide-rulin' Superintendent of the Erie Mining Railroad in Minnesota, later LTV, then Cliffs -
The other Erie [subtitle was something like, ''The case for the unadulterated railroad'']Trains, September 1973 page 41 Erie Mining's railroad ( EMX, MINING, MINNESOTA, "PATRICK, HOWARD S.", ROSTER, TRN )
Here's another great electrification review article - which I believe was already referenced in another post above:
The when and if of wires Trains, July 1970 page 38 future electrification projects ( ELECTRIFICATION, "PINKEPANK, JERRY A.", TRN )
You could worse than to basically take these articles, and just update the names of the railroads and the dollar figures, etc. for a starting point. What is Mr. Pinkepank doing now ? I wonder if Scott Lothes or Alan Drake ever read any of these, let alone tried to address the issues raised in them, on both sides of the issue. Some are no longer relevant, sure, but most are. Trains.com ought to make them all available on the website or on a CD, ETC.
These articles ARE AVAILABLE - tjhey're all contained in the TrainsExpress PDF download that's available to the magazine subscribers. See elsewhere for an explanation of how to access and perform the download. Thank you to the staff for this ! [Hey - after all the 'bashing' I've done to them over this article, they deserve credit for that, too !]
Visit look4trains.com
I don't know much about how the Soviet electric utility system evolved, but I wouldn't be surprised if it started off as a bunch of disconnected systems. I seriously doubt that the Soviets ever ran their grids as one system, the continental U.S. is operated as three systems (East, West, Texas). The US had the utilities along the Pennsy Wash - NYC mainline pretty much operating as a unified grid by about 1930, even with that, the frequency converter stations needed means of adjusting the relative phase to prevent utility power flowing over the Pennsy's 25 Hz transmission system.
An advantage of DC is that phase or frequency differences disappear after conversion to DC. This would allow a continuous 3,000V feeder line crossing boundaries between power systems. In the case of the early Soviet Union, I would expect that there would be a lot of separate systems. The DC system substations are very compatible with long commercial frequency transmission lines, and it wouldn't surprise me that the first transmission lines in many parts of the Soviet Union were put there to provide power for the railroad, much the same way that the Milwaukee needed to build its own 100kV transmission line on the western half of the Rocky Mountain electrification.
If the Russians were starting from scratch now, they would most likely use either 25kV or 50kV 50Hz. Bear in mind that commercial frequency electrification technology was first developed in the 1950's.
- Erik
artschlosserI have often wondered why they need to rotate or transpose the wires when there is no other lines near them.
I have often wondered why they need to rotate or transpose the wires when there is no other lines near them.
To balance inductance of each phase for three phase power lines and minimize ionospheric noise pick-up for phone lines. In case of power transmission, any practical arrangement of the conductors will have unequal inductance, transposing is used to even out the imbalance.
Paul,
I was going to include the winged pigs in one of my responses but wimped out.
Maybe I missed the boat here…but did the author claim the figures provided by Drake as real, or did he simply quote Drake and his green world assumptions?
Because I have jus re-read the article, and I still come away from it thinking the author was clear the 83% shift in freight and the outrageous job increase were Drakes figures, based on the Millennium Institutes Dynamic Simulated models, and not the authors figures (or Trains figures for that matter) although he does seem to want such figures to be real.
Maybe more to the point is what irked me was the tone of so many postings…that of “I don’t like the political agenda of the article, nor do I believe the figures stated, so Trains should not have published it”.
What I am getting at is Trains most likely did do a little checking, and I am sure they did check to see if the author quoted Drake correctly…but it is not up to the magazine to check and see if Drakes figures are true and correct, after all, the numbers are based on a model, nothing concrete or real, and the article makes it clear that these numbers are part of a “what if” scenario, not an absolute “this will happen” claim.
Same as when the magazine publishes any article which claims, say, the Big Boy was the most powerful steam locomotive in the US, yet there is no way to really prove that, there are fans out there who claim the Alleghany or Berkshire is even more powerful…its all a subjective concept, and it all depends on your personal definition of powerful.
The entire article read to me as a big “What if” concept, not as a statement of fact or prediction of the future, but only as this author’s idea of what could be, if these social changes do come about.
Yes, it is a article with a lot of political overtones, but not much about railroads is not in some way connected to politics.
I don’t see the agenda being hidden in any way, the author is pretty much straight forward in his beliefs and statements that such social changes and social engineering are, in his opinion, the best solution to a problem he sees.
Should Trains forever refrain from publishing any article that mention the impact EMD’s Geeps had on railroading, allowing railroads to do away with thousands of steam related jobs, which is an example of social change/engineering that already has happened already?
Isn’t it up to you, the reader, to make up your own mind, based on the things you read, experience, hear and see in your life, or is it up to a magazine to tell you what is or is not true, correct or real?
Just because Drake is published somewhere else shouldn’t exclude any author who has a mind to from quoting him again, regardless of the believability of his models and his predictions.
No one gets their panties in a wad when an article about Amtrak, which is railroad politics at its worst, is published in Trains…and every one of said articles always makes reference to what Congress should do, and what the public ought to think or do, and every one has the agenda of promoting Amtrak for a political or personal purpose…nothing more heinous that what this author has done, yet no one seems upset when Trains runs such an article.
Personally, I think the author is neck deep in cow crap, and that being the case, Drake and the Millennium Institute should invest in snorkels, but that is just my opinion.
Of course, now that this is published in the forums, I guess the staff at Trains should grab a yardstick and go measure, in the interest of fairness and accuracy.
23 17 46 11
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.