"Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%." - blue streak 1
"The issue of tax assessments could be resolved with legislative or Congressional relief." - HarveyK400
But it's the same cast of characters, esp. at the state level: "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session.'' - In re: Estate of A.B., New York Surrogate's Court, 1826 [as best as I can recall]
The only real - though impermanent - solution is what RWM said recently over on another thread: Educate, inform, and persuade the politicians to "Don't kill the 'golden goose' of the freight railroads", or it will come back to bite us elsewhere in many other and more expensive ways.
- Paul North.
Privatize the Interstate Highway System? Let it be self supporting? Auction it off to pay the National Dept?
I would agree that straightening curves is less costly before electrification. This can get to a point that it might be easier to start from scratch between end-points. It seemed that the high speed alternatives for the Southeast Corridor left less than 20% of the CSX alignment intact from Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC.
Typical railroad grades are much less significant for HSR.
The issue of tax assessments could be resolved with legislative or Congressional relief
The issue you do not address is the cost and need for grade separation and the temporary tracks this might require.
blue streak 1Paul_D_North_Jr Annual costs - mainly capital recovery, such as interest, amortization, taxes, and insurance, etc. - of the capital cost / investment of the electrification infrastructure, such as the catenary wires and poles, transformers, etc. PDN has pointed out something that may be the 800# gorrilla. Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%. AMTRAK does have an advantage of not having to pay these taxes. All we have to do is remember the confiscatory industrial propery taxes in New York State to see what happened to both industry and the RRs. Those taxes certainly helped kill the NYC's passenger operations. The reduction enabled the water level route to reduce from 4 to 2 tracks in most places. Now with that in mind my ABCD RR will want to upgrade ROW by correcting any track problems before electrifying. I will want to straighten curves, ease grades, get rid of sags, rebuild or replace bridges, etc. So a $10M upgrade on XYZ's jurisdiction that I make on my RR will allow the tax assesor to give it a $20M improvement assestment because my RR becomes more fluid. (that word again). I would believe that any HSR on existing RR ROW will need to address these problems. RWM any thoughts??
Paul_D_North_Jr Annual costs - mainly capital recovery, such as interest, amortization, taxes, and insurance, etc. - of the capital cost / investment of the electrification infrastructure, such as the catenary wires and poles, transformers, etc.
Annual costs - mainly capital recovery, such as interest, amortization, taxes, and insurance, etc. - of the capital cost / investment of the electrification infrastructure, such as the catenary wires and poles, transformers, etc.
PDN has pointed out something that may be the 800# gorrilla. Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%. AMTRAK does have an advantage of not having to pay these taxes. All we have to do is remember the confiscatory industrial propery taxes in New York State to see what happened to both industry and the RRs. Those taxes certainly helped kill the NYC's passenger operations. The reduction enabled the water level route to reduce from 4 to 2 tracks in most places.
Now with that in mind my ABCD RR will want to upgrade ROW by correcting any track problems before electrifying. I will want to straighten curves, ease grades, get rid of sags, rebuild or replace bridges, etc. So a $10M upgrade on XYZ's jurisdiction that I make on my RR will allow the tax assesor to give it a $20M improvement assestment because my RR becomes more fluid. (that word again).
I would believe that any HSR on existing RR ROW will need to address these problems.
RWM any thoughts??
TH&B Even as a rail fan, the changes required in the US to make electrifeing look good would be a shock. Reduce track millage big time, ie consolidate routes even more.............. alot more !
Even as a rail fan, the changes required in the US to make electrifeing look good would be a shock. Reduce track millage big time, ie consolidate routes even more.............. alot more !
If you consolidate routes you end up putting all your eggs in one basket .
The consolidation that has occurred has come back to bite RRs more than once. Examples.:
1. CSX - SAL "S" line Petersburg - Raleigh.
2. CSX - B&O Parkersburg - St. Louis line.
3. BN - SP&S Pasco - Spokane
4. BN Stampede pass route (sold, purchased back, and now mothballed only
I'm certain others may be cited
Routes mothballed to maybe return another day
11. NS SOU - Saluda grade
12. CSX (buckham Branch operating) Orange/Richmond - Clifton Forge
13. UP - D&RGW - Tennessee Pass
14. UP - SP Monoco route near Oakland, Ca
OTHERS??
Just judging by the limited stats in the Trains article, the US has far too many railroad miles for it's population compared to Russia or China. The fact that Russia doesn't even have a paved transiberian hiway makes a big difference in choosing electric traction.
CSSHEGEWISCH Ulrich Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it. The example of Russia is a poor one since the former Soviet Union was a command economy and the bottom line was hardly a factor in the decision to electrify.
Ulrich Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it.
Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it.
The example of Russia is a poor one since the former Soviet Union was a command economy and the bottom line was hardly a factor in the decision to electrify.
I realize the difference..although the bottom line still does matter..even in a command economy. So what factors drove Russia to electrify?..Russia has an abundance of oil...
Isn't one of the main issues for NOT electrifying, is not just cost, but cost up front and long term investment? While the Santa Fe main from Chicago to LA is being electrified the Sunset route or UP mainline can underbid the BNSF and there is the trucking companys too. It's alot of work to gain customers and while spending your efforts on the technolagy of electric trains, you might be loosing the race.
It's not all just about money, because I'm sure a busy transcon can run very cost effective electric.
I would not say that electrification couldn’t be done. My only objection is to the premise of the article, which includes its specific reasons why we should electrify, and advocates doing so as a collective, taxpayer funded, federal project. As large of a sea change as electrification would be, having the federal government do it would be an even larger sea change.
The specific reasons to electrify from the article:
1) Less traffic congestion.
2) Less air pollution.
3) Less energy consumption.
4) Higher capacity transportation.
5) Higher capacity and improved electric grid [smart grid?].
6) Aiding and speeding the development of alternative energy.
7) Renewable energy development.
8) Better national defense.
9) Less fuel use.
10) Less greenhouse gas emissions.
11) Increase of 13% in GDP in 20 years.
12) Adds 175,000,000 new jobs.
13) Reduces greenhouse gases by 38% within 20 years.
14) Reduces oil consumption by 22% within 20 years.
15) A “non-oil policy.”
To me, it is clear that the ideas and reasoning expressed in Mr. Lothes’ article have many adherents, and are being pushed as a political ideology. Generally, it falls under the umbrella of a command and control, central planning economy that is built around the green movement, and so-called, sustainability. Because the cornerstone of sustainability is reducing consumption, coercion is a prominent component of this ideology. Mr. Lothes touches on its application when he says that local governments could become electrification catalysts by outlawing diesels.
Another major component of sustainability is the war on the private automobile and the role it plays in suburban living. I think that it is quite telling that in the lead illustration of the article, the role of highways and motor vehicles has been obviously reduced quite sharply.
For the perception of balance, author Lothes makes a nod to nuclear power by saying that new power lines could transmit electricity produced by wind or nuclear plants, but the foregone conclusion of the article seems to be that the electrification will be powered by renewable energy, and not nuclear, coal, or other fossil fuels. Indeed, he sees the need for additional power for rail electrification, as a way to spur the development of renewable energy, leading one to wonder which one of the two is really the main objective.
It will be interesting to see whether the management of railroad companies get onboard this bandwagon, or whether they see it as running against their interests as private sector businesses.
Andy -
Good questions. Unfortunately, the rail and potential-rail shipping market is not a monolithic uniform entity about which we can make generalized broad sweeping statements that will then be universally true. Instead, that market - at least for this purpose - is composed of several differentiated segments or 'cases' - each of which needs to be considered separately to analyze and understand what will and will not work. I don't have the time at the moment to launch into that dissertation, so I'll just attempt to clarify the 'tipping point'' reference, as follows:
The 'tipping point' to which Bucyrus referred above is not between rail and truck, but between diesel-powered rail and electric-powered rail. Stated simply and qualitatively only (in words, not numbers), it's something like this:
Annual savings from electric operation = basically diesel fuel costs - electric power costs,
as balanced against the:
When those annual fuel and other operating savings are perceived or reliably predicted to become big enough to be equal or greater than the annual costs to repay the investment, then that 'tipping point' will have been reached, and the investment in electrification will start to occur. It's very similar to the decision many young people have to make in deciding whether they should rent or buy their own living space, etc. - trading savings by eliminating an ongoing expense to support repaying a capital investment instead.
If the railroad has enough 'market power' to be able to charge a rate that includes a hefty fuel surcharge, it's still going to have that same market power after it electrifies. The legal and economic cost basis for the fuel surcharge component will have vanished, but the objective market conditions that made the shippers willing to pay a higher rate will still be in place and in effect. The shippers of course will try to claim that the rail fuel costs have hence gone down, so the rate should too - but that ignores the railroads' need to use those savings to repay the investors in the railroad's electrification - it's not just to be passed through to the shippers. Also, as you aptly noted, ''It's all just money out the door'', and the alternative - truck - is more costly still . Unless, of course, the fuel costs for trucks and rail both drop, as they have from 2008 through 2009 - in which case a new equilibrium of market share between those 2 modes will be re-established at some market-determined level.
The different case is if the railroad does want to attract more traffic that's not now on the train, for whatever reason. The electrification may be able to lower the rail cost structure and hence the rates enough for that to serve as an incentive to the shipper to attract that traffic to rail from the trucks, at a profit that is acceptable to the railroad. In those cases the electrification becomes a market-penetration tool. But that should occur only if the railroad is satisfied that the lower rate will cover all of the costs of the electrification plus a profit - no sense in giving away any of that advantage.
I'll let someone else pick up the response from here on.
The conceptual drawing at the head of the article fleshes out comments I made in a previous thread on the Southeast/Atlantic Coast HSR corridor alternatives. Substantial cost savings in grade separation, maybe electrification too, of a combined freight-(maybe not so) HSR corridor along the CSX A-Line could be realized and benefit both. This concept also applies for Midwestern routes with significant freight traffic.
The problem of financial resouces in today's economy has bothered me as well. Which is the priority: the limited benefit of isolated 220mph HSR lines or railway mainline electrification that could be shared with suburban and faster intercity passenger services?
The most recent MHSRA plan calls for an electrified 220mph HSR line between Chicago and Saint Louis along the CN from Chicago to Champaign. Would the CN be electrified to Carbondale or over the faster Edgewood Cutoff to West Paducah, Nashville, Memphis, and New Orleans and support the City of New Orleans and expanded Amtrak services? Would the Illini, Saluki, and Superliner City of New Orleans even be compatible with HSR, especially if UIC, but not FRA compliant?
Andy Cummings BucyrusAssuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper. But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time. The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no. But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise. We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time. Folks — I've heard the claim made that electrification will never happen because railroads have the market power to pass fuel costs onto their customers via fuel surcharges. Thus, the benefits of electrification would go to shippers, not to railroads. The success with which railroads were able to pass high fuel prices on to customers in 2008 seems to bear this out. Further, because their competition (truckers) are less fuel-efficient as a general rule, by this theory, there would be no "tipping point," as Bucyrus refers to it. What alternative do shippers have but to pay fuel surcharges, however high they go, if the alternative is more costly still? On the flip side, if you're a shipper, it doesn't matter whether you're paying the railroads in the form of higher rates, or in the form of fuel surcharges; it's all money out the door. Thus, if electrification means lower fuel costs, and thus, lower fuel surcharges, railroads will look more attractive to shippers vis a vis trucks, and that could generate additional traffic, and thus, the revenue that would justify electrification. In theory. Be interested to hear you guys' thoughts on this subject.
BucyrusAssuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper. But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time. The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no. But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise. We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time.
Folks —
I've heard the claim made that electrification will never happen because railroads have the market power to pass fuel costs onto their customers via fuel surcharges. Thus, the benefits of electrification would go to shippers, not to railroads. The success with which railroads were able to pass high fuel prices on to customers in 2008 seems to bear this out. Further, because their competition (truckers) are less fuel-efficient as a general rule, by this theory, there would be no "tipping point," as Bucyrus refers to it. What alternative do shippers have but to pay fuel surcharges, however high they go, if the alternative is more costly still?
On the flip side, if you're a shipper, it doesn't matter whether you're paying the railroads in the form of higher rates, or in the form of fuel surcharges; it's all money out the door. Thus, if electrification means lower fuel costs, and thus, lower fuel surcharges, railroads will look more attractive to shippers vis a vis trucks, and that could generate additional traffic, and thus, the revenue that would justify electrification. In theory.
Be interested to hear you guys' thoughts on this subject.
Andy,
I understand your point about there being no tipping point because railroads are able to pass on the higher fuel cost to the shipper. But shippers then have to pass the cost on to the consumers, and consumers can reduce their consumption in response. That is the alternative that you asked about above. So the ability of the railroads to pass on the rising cost of fuel is not open-ended. At some point, for example, the rising cost of electricity caused by the railroads passing on their added fuel costs for hauling the coal to make the electricity will cause consumers to use less electricity.
While it is true that electricity is more or less a necessity, there is still a lot of flexibility in how much is consumed. What would happen to the railroad business if all consumers reduced their electric consumption by 25%? Moreover, railroads haul a lot of freight that is not as much of a necessity as coal for electricity, so its consumption is even freer to be reduced.
So, I think there is a tipping point, despite the ability for railroads to pass on the rising cost of fuel. However, it may not be wise for railroads to wait for that tipping point. This is because, as they wait and continue passing on costs that ultimately fall on the consumer, it slows down the economy. And as the economy slows, it causes the tipping point to move further away. If the economy is too slow, and railroad business falls too far, option to electrify offered by the tipping point may simply disappear. In other words, the business may be too slow to justify the investment in electrification.
Railway ManBucyrusI 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 BTUThe U.S. generated 4,156,745 thousand megawatt-hoursThat equates to 14,183 trillion BTU equivalentThat 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
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
Seems to me a network of transcontinental semi-autonomous railway power transmission lines and generation sources would provide some insurance against regional blackouts and help restore the public power grid.
Maybe trains could be parked for a few hours to get past an unusually high peak demand to gain an extra 3-4% current. I wouldn't expect it to be more than one day every five years. There needs to be a letter of understanding that the public grid capacity must keep up with a reasonable projected worst-case demand based on growth of demand and efficiency improvements like CFLs, LCD TVs and computers, and Energy Star products.
Jerry Pier I was also somewhat underwhelmed by this article, in fact so much so that i fired off a letter to the editor shown below: Good history but you lost me when it was stated that alternative energy would make up for the enormous increase in generating capacity with mass electrification. There is not a prayer of this happening. Nuclear Power on the face of it is a source but Nuclear power plants use gas turbines to produce "peaking" power that railroads will run on at least half of the time. At least 12% of the power is lost in transmission so gross power consumption goes up. A better solution is gas turbine electric locomotives burning either diesel #2, CNG or LNG. There are plenty of 5000 hp aero-derivative gas turbines that will meet or beat Tier 4 emissions on diesel #2. On natural gas they are even cleaner. Gas turbines are light weight and compact so it is quite feasible to put two gas turbine gen sets feeding a common DC buss in a present day locomotive body. The traction motors don't care whether the power comes from miles away or feet away. No need for massive capital spending for catenary and you could start right now. I could go on- (Some of you may recall a forum piece I wrote a short time ago titled, "Something Big for the UP" on a proposed LNG fueled 10,000 hp freight locomotive. The Russions are already running a prototype; we should be able to do better.) Jerome R. Pier
I was also somewhat underwhelmed by this article, in fact so much so that i fired off a letter to the editor shown below:
I'm risking a charge of "thread-jacking" Jerry but I am curious about some of the details of your gas turbine proposal...specifically, I note than when Railpower Industries was trying to find investment money to build a prototype of their CINGL (Compressed Integrated Natural Gas Locomotive) they were seeking a partnership with Caterpillar's Solar Turbines subsidiary (note that is the company name and has nothing to do with solar energy)...the turbine/alternator set they wanted to use was the Solar Mercury 50
http://mysolar.cat.com/cda/layout?m=41105&x=7
This is an advanced technology recuperative gas turbine with a continuous output of 5500HP...what are the advantages and disadvantages of this type of turbine vs. an aeroderivative?
...maybe I should start another thread?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Plus the Russian railways are 3000 DC. That doesn't seem like a very logical voltage for either long distance or high capacity railroading.
Paul -- interesting how you and I approached the question from different directions. Your approach looked at the work output, whereas I used my usual worst-case approach because the question originally was how much generation capacity might be needed -- and using the electrical equivalent of the fuel burn would at least probably not badly understate the generating capacity needed. Neither one of us allowed for transmission losses or power plant "home" requirements, and we both assumed that we could obtain a 100% electric-for-diesel replacement, which is probably not even close to economically feasible.
It would be an interesting project to estimate with greater precision what the actual electical generating capacity requirement might be. There are may possible scenarios and it would require the use of numerous assumptions which could turn out to be completely wrong. It's anyone's guess whether the actual answer is closer to your estimate of 1.38 percent or mine of 3.99 percent, but for the purposes of this discussion, the range is narrow enough to be unimportant.
Thanks to the work by Paul and RWM, we now know that the power needed to electrify most railroads in the U.S. is only about 2-4% of what is being produced in the country now. That number seems surprisingly small to me, just thinking in terms of general perception. I think of all the work being done hauling trains, but I guess it is still small compared to all the light bulbs, heating, cooling, industrial, etc. blanketed across the county. Squeezing out another 2-4% of power in this country does not seem like a showstopper, the banning of coal notwithstanding.
Assuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper. But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time. The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no. But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise. We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time.
However, the Trains article did not explore this dollars and cents aspect of the economic return on the investment. Instead, author Scott Lothes makes a case based on platitudes about sustainability, renewable energy, job creation, and his conclusion that if other countries are doing it, it must be the right thing to do here. He also justifies electrification on the premise that it will draw business away from trucking. He cites an intermodal system where trucks only haul containers to the nearest railhead and then transfer them to a train, and he says that will produce a 65 percent reduction in both fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.
He cites Phillip Longman who says this: “As the volume of freight is expected to increase by 57 percent between 2000 and 2020, the potential economic and environmental benefits of such an intermodal system will go higher and higher.” (my emphasis)
I would not conclude, however, that economic and environmental benefits necessarily move together, in the same direction, as Mr. Longman implies. In many cases economic benefits are sacrificed in order to advance environmental benefits. With the growth of his intermodal system, environmental benefits will surely rise higher and higher, and the economic benefit of lower fuel usage per ton will rise as well. But what about the economic benefits of meeting the market demand for speed? Trucking today is apparently filling a useful market niche in carrying containers much farther than just to the nearest railhead.
What if Mr. Longman’s vision results in an intermodal system that saves fuel and reduces emissions, but moves slower than the conventional approach today? Time is money. What if the market prefers the speed of today’s system even if it uses more fuel and makes more emissions than Mr. Longman’s intermodal vision?
Author Lothes clearly expects government to step in and implement his electric rail, intermodal dream with public funding, as though the mission were tied more to our collective national well being rather than to the business interests of the individual railroad companies. With his freight transportation vision riding solely on the green sustainability objective, do you think he could be dissuaded by concerns over loss of speed and private business revenue in the pursuit of the greater environmental good?
Or would he prefer to just tighten the emissions laws for trucks, driving up their costs, thus forcing the market to give up faster, but higher cost trucking in trade for the lower cost of Mr. Longman’s intermodal vision?
Wow ! A lot of info and some good thoughts. A few partial responses below, where I can provide information or something useful - otherwise, I agree with almost all of it:
blue streak 1 There are the figures stating conversion of diesel fuel to power differing from 25% to 33% of total energy available in the fuel. Why the difference?
Aside from the inherent variations in the energy in various grades of fuel, and maybe also in the ambient environmental conditions such as temperature and altitude, and exact operating circumstances at the time of measurement and other parameters such as 'duty cycle', grade, percentage of capacity, overall or 'instantaneous' values, etc., that variation may simply reflect the different efficiencies of locomotives, and how that has improved recently with modern locomotives. For example, if you take a look at Al Krug's 'Locomotive Fuel Use' tabulation at http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm , the 2,000 HP GP38 and -2 only get 16.3 HP-Hr./ gal., whereas a 4,400 hp C44-9 gets 20.9 HP-Hr./ gal.; my calculations that led to about 37 % conversion were based on 20 HP-Hr./ gal. Similarly, Al Krug also provides more specific data for the 3,000 HP SD40 at - http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fuelSD40.htm As can be seen, its stated fuel use varies from 16.3 HP-Hr./ gal. in Run 7, to 17.9 HP-Hr./ gal. in Run 8 - that's a 10 % jump from only 1 increase in throttle position right there - to 19.0 HP-Hr./ gal. in Run 4, which is a 17 % increase. So without a lot more rigorous quantification and establishment and holding of specific standards and operating conditions, I wouldn't be too concerned about variations in those conversion factors.
blue streak 1 1. PDN mentions the parasitic loss of an operating locomotive. Included are the idling times at engine terminals with the parasitic losses. Parasites that only apply to diesels are cooling fans (I know even an electric needs small cooling capabilitys), heating methods of the coolant in weather below 0-C or 32-F . rotating engine parts, idling generators, etc. Many times electric motors lower the pan so no power used while awaiting the next assignment.
Exactly. Thank you for pointing that out.
blue streak 1 2. Except for flat RR locations like the FEC there are long periods of the Parasitic loads when going downhill in Dynamic braking. There is load when having to advance the throttle to provide enough power (either mechanical or electrical) to provide cooling air to the braking grids. I seem to remember a post from PDN of a train going downhill at HorseShoe where he heard the prime mover running hard which he thought it was pushing but may have been providing power to the braking grids and traction fans.
It's correct that the prime mover was running hard, but I'm convinced it was far harder than it needed to be for powering the fans for cooling both the traction motor/ generators and dynamic brake grids - like Run 5 or 6. Maybe an engineman or Mechanical Dept. person can enlighten us as to how little throttle is actually needed. I could be wrong on this - and I still owe wabash1 a citation or reference to the train handling rules for it - but until someone in the know tells me different, I'm convinced those helpers were essentially 'power-braking' downgrade, to avoid having to release the train brake line to keep the train moving.
Again, Al Krug's Locomotive Fuel Use tabulation even includes a column for that during 'Dyn Brk' = dynamic braking operations. For an SD40-2 it's just 18.4 gals. / hr., whereas for a C40-8 it's 14.0 gals. / hr.; and in general is consistent with 'almost Run 2' fuel consumption rates, so that supports my impression from that day.
blue streak 1 The next consideration is the ability of stationary power plants to have a higher BTU to electricity conversion factor.
The Energy Information Administration website that I referenced a few posts back most likely has that kind of information.
-Paul North.
My word there are some clever people out there. But one thing does not seem to have been mentioned yet, which is that electric power can be used for regeneration. Most railways, but more so the busy ones as opposed to the quiet ones will have trains accellerating and braking at the same time. While diesel engine dynamic brakes heat the atmosphere, the same principle in electric traction can be used to put power back into the catenerary so that it can be used by the accelerating trains. I don't know the exact figures, but somewhere in my mind the figure of 10-15% comes out.
Paul_D_North_JrThe physical difference is that much of the BTU value in each barrel or gallon of fuel - maybe as much as 2/3 - goes up the stack as hot exhaust and hence lost and unproductive energy; the other 1/3 is used for useful work. With that understanding, each reader can decide for him/herself which figure is more appropriate.
PDN's and RWM's posts here brought several very important considerations that I and others now need to understand.
The figures come from different view points but say essentially the same.
There are the figures stating conversion of diesel fuel to power differing from 25% to 33% of total energy available in the fuel. Why the difference?
1. PDN mentions the parasitic loss of an operating locomotive. Included are the idling times at engine terminals with the parasitic losses. Parasites that only apply to diesels are cooling fans (I know even an electric needs small cooling capabilitys), heating methods of the coolant in weather below 0-C or 32-F . rotating engine parts, idling generators, etc. Many times electric motors lower the pan so no power used while awaiting the next assignment.
2. Except for flat RR locations like the FEC there are long periods of the Parasitic loads when going downhill in Dynamic braking. There is load when having to advance the throttle to provide enough power (either mechanical or electrical) to provide cooling air to the braking grids. I seem to remember a post from PDN of a train going downhill at HorseShoe where he heard the prime mover running hard which he thought it was pushing but may have been providing power to the braking grids and traction fans.
3. So in mountain railroading there is a lot of energy lost.
4. The use of regeneration from the last figures I've read is about 29% but could be more now? That is power that can be put to other uses. That includes the use of this power for the air compressors, electrical equipment cooling , traction motor cooling, battery chargers, lights, radios, etc with excess into the power grid (with proper filtering) or helping power some train up grade.
5. From all I've read the most efficient power useage of diesels are in run 8.
6. Electric traction motors convert essentially at the same % factor no matter what setting and may be slightly more efficient at less than full power due to cooling (applies to D-Es also).
The next consideration is the ability of stationary power plants to have a higher BTU to electricity conversion factor.
1. I do not know the conversion factors of either nuclear or conventional steam plants.
2. Present day peaking plants using either natural gas or other distilate are listed at up to 60% conversion factors if you can believe GE figures.
This now brings up NS 999.
1. This is a battery electric that for now uses a ground connection for charging the battery. Do not know where the charger is located?
2. The max available charging rate of 999 is ? What is the energy recovery factor??
3. The standard household isolation primary 7200V transformer that you see outside your home of with a 25-KVA output rating now costs about $400. That same rating of a 25Kv transformer would cost about $800 and the necessary battery charging equipment may increase the cost to $3500?
4. In response to the post of no wires at switch locations.
If a battery electric similar to 999 with a PAN and transformer (transformer physical size will be about twice as large as your home transformer) is built maybe $30,000 for a complete installed cost above 999's cost. So if 999 works out then adding such a setup (already done in europe) gives the best of both worlds enabling the switching of industrys and when complete going under the wires and using the regenerative function to charge on the fly to the next switching location.
A short trolley wire could be located at terminal tracks to charge during idle times.
5. One more fact with only a slightly more robust transformer this battery-electric can work under AMTRAK's 12Kv - 25Hz or on any 12.5Kv 60Hz CAT.
Railway Man 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). [emphasis added - PDN] RWM
OK, for anyone who still cares about this, I've figured out why my 1.38 % figure is only about 1/3 of RWM's 3.99 % figure. It's because the figure used by RWM is based on the amount of fuel now actually consumed by diesels, whereas my figure is based more on the amount of power produced by them, as I noted in my post immediately after RWM's that I've quoted above, which included an example based on a 3,000 HP diesel vs. a 3,000 HP electric. The math works out just about the same - see below for a little more on that. The physical difference is that much of the BTU value in each barrel or gallon of fuel - maybe as much as 2/3 - goes up the stack as hot exhaust and hence lost and unproductive energy; the other 1/3 is used for useful work. With that understanding, each reader can decide for him/herself which figure is more appropriate.
The math:
For a barrel of 42 gals. of diesel fuel, the British Thermal Unit content is generally accepted at 5.825 million BTU per barrel, as RWM says. Dividing by the 42 gallons per barrel results in approx. 139,000 BTU contained in each gallon of diesel fuel.
I then used an average figure that I took out of Al Krug's 'Locomotive Fuel Use' table of 20 HorsePower-Hours per gallon of diesel fuel used. That is apparently based on manufacturer's ratings, and I believe it would include the necessary 'parasitic loads' of auxilliay equipment and accessories such as the brake air compressor, generators for lights, motor cooling fans, etc. - but would not include an allowance or adjustment for idling time such as in terminals, braking downgrade, etc., or less than optimum power output at lower throttle settings. I believe my percentage figure is more applicable in those scenarios because an all-electric locomotive would be using only the minimal power actually needed to run the accessory equipment that is actually turned on; it would not be expending any energy at all turning over an idling prime mover - because electrics simply don't have one - but they would nevertheless still be using power when switching, in work train service, dead head moves, etc. as RWM points out above. So:
That 1 gallon of diesel fuel will produce about 20 HP-Hrs. of useful work, per Al Krug's table.
1 HP-Hr. = 2,545 BTU [from various 'on-line' conversion sources - you could look it up], so the equivalent 20 HP-Hrs. x 2,545 = 50,900 BTU of energy needed for the useful work produced by the electric locomotive (ignoring transmission and transformer losses, etc.).
RWM's 139,000 BTU contained in each such gallon of diesel fuel consumed, divided by
My 50,900 BTU of useful work produced per gallon of diesel fuel consumed (= what has to be replaced by supplying equivalent electric power),
= 2.72, exactly the same figure as in my 3,000 HP example, and tolerably close to the ratio of the different percentages that RWM and I calculated:
3.99 % / 1.38 % = 2.89
2.72 is of course close enough to the roughly 3:1 or 1/3 ratio that I noted when I first commented on the apparent discrepancy in those percentages.
But as I hope this makes clear, it's not an actual discrepancy in my view - it's just a 'judgment call' or choice of the appropriate analytical framework regarding looking at different ends of the locomotive, so to speak - the input end (RWM), or the output end (me). Further comment and insight is invited.
The United States transitioned to Diesel when we produced 100% of our own oil, and it was cheap. Our interest in electrification is renewed each time we have a domestic energy crisis. My personal take is that future locomotives, both for road and yard service, will be powered by natural gas, or the emerging hydrogen cell technology.
In today's - Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - Wall Street Journal on page A-6 is an article with the following headline and excerpts:
By REBECCA SMITH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125539671133381751.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
''The project, called the Tres Amigas "superstation," to be built at Clovis, N.M., would bring a major change to the U.S. electricity infrastructure by improving connectivity. . . . The substation is being proposed by Tres Amigas LLC, a company run by Phil Harris, formerly the chief executive of PJM Interconnection LLC, the nation's largest grid-running organization. The project, which likely would involve partners, could cost $1 billion or more. The location is key -- it would be less than 100 miles from substations in the grids to which it would connect electrically.''
The 3 grids are the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and ERCOT = Electric Reliability Council Of Texas [see - it really is ''a whole 'nother country'' ! ]. It would use a 5,000 MW capacity super-cold, super-conducting DC cable.
From a railroad perspective, 2 points are notable about this article:
1. Possibly less coal traffic: ''It isn't just renewable energy that could be moved across grids. Coal is shipped from mines in Wyoming and Montana, in the Western Grid, to power plants throughout the Eastern U.S., among other places. With the superstation in place, more power plants could be built closer to the mines.''
2. Clovis, N.M.: Hey, - we've heard of that place before, right ? Former AT&SF locomotive shop town, still an important junction and division point between BNSF's Kansas and Southwest Operating Divisions, important point on the TransCon line . . . Hmm, wonder if this might be of any help to a BNSF effort to electrify its nearby lines, eh ?
Link to photo of the 1943 'hot box' derailment of the PRR's Congressional at SHORE interlocking (1947 was when the Red Arrow derailed at excessive speed on a curve a few miles above Horseshoe Curve):
http://www.sjrail.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Cl19.jpg
Note that although the signal gantry bridge was sheared off one of its bases and moved some 22 ft. by the impact, the overhead transmission wires appear to all be still there and intact. The catenary looks pretty well destroyed, but that's to be expected in a wreck this bad - odd, though, because a steam loco was pulling this train !
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.