BNSFwatcher A small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel. [snip] Hays
[snip]
Hays
Thanks for the Stevens Pass clarification. Don't know why I was thinking Maria's Pass. And since you've now mentioned that at least twice here - how come it was named that ? I always thought that Marias was something like a corruption or a misapplication of a French word - kind of like Tetons for that mountain range. So who was "Maria", and why did they name a pass for her ? [For the record, somehow I do know I'm going to regret asking that question . . . ]. No "Sound of Music" answers, please.
Another double-entendr/e that I can use for the enjoyment of others - we have a "Camel's Hump" here in Pennsylvania, too - in Northampton County, a few miles northeast of the City of Bethlehem, just south of Rt. 22, between Rts. 512 and 191.
- Paul North.
klahmThis is all most interesting, especially from the "policy wonk" perspective. Good points to provoke thought, especially "out of the box". But let's consider some realities: 1) The current administration appears very likely to try to create and implement a policy framework for transportation issues that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something that has never been done before in the US (and may be an undertaking that can't possibly result in meaningful change in the fractious political climate). Of course, the consultant and think-tank industries about the Beltway all want a piece of the action on this and thus are publishing their theses widely, in hope that policymakers notice and involve them in the process. Hence the proliferation of papers/articles/etc. 2) Implementation of policy can take many forms. Nationalization of industry is an extreme one. Tax incentives are others. Matching grants/loans/etc. can also be components of the mix. While it is certain that the federal government will be involved in this at some level(s), it is by no means certain that it will or must take the industrial nationalization form. It will take a major crisis, with no meaningful alternatives, to follow that radical path. 3) Incremental changes might pass Congress. Wholesale changes won't, absent a major crisis. Few Republicans dare to depart from the "party line", which would undoubtedly oppose most of the "alternative energy" initiatives, absent some revolutionary technology that would be so attractive that industries would run to it before Congress could hold its first hearing on the topic. Democrats are far less monolithic and enough would look out for the parochial interests of their districts in opposition to the leadership to block any radical, rapid change. 3) Electrification will reap the greatest and earliest benefits in high-density corridors, such as the BNSF Transcon, NS Chicago-NY, UP Overland, etc. Implementation of any of these would not be cheap, but the extreme dollar amounts discussed in some posts above for nationwide, rapid deployment are unlikely to be realized over the short term. And, as the BNSF "clean sheet" thinking reported in some of Bucyrus's references suggests, there may be ways to use synergies to spread costs over a broader industrial base, reducing marginal cost to the railroads (and public). All this suggests an incremental migration of railroad power sources away from the internal combustion engine and braking via friction and/or heat dissipation. But not an "overnight", "break the bank" approach.
Huh? Say what?
I've got one word of advice, "Paragraphs."
I did get enough out of your writing to understand that you believe the current administration will bring a new paradigm to transportation "that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something that has never been done before in the US"
That's not true. Anyonel who thinks about it will realize that the modes are simply different tools that do the same thing. They create time and place utility by putting a person or thing (i.e, a banana) where he/she/it needs to be when he/she/it needs to be there.
The modes have long been integrated in attempts to produce a "synergistic whole" as you put it. Sometimes it makes sense to use one tool, such as an aircraft, while at other times it makes sense to use another tool, such as a bus. Transportation pros realized this from the get go and have an established history of modal integration in an effort to produce a "synergistic whole".
Staying on the passenger side, I'll point out the formation of Northeast Airlines by New England railroads, the start of the Trailways Bus System as a "Santa Fe Trail" operation by the Santa Fe and the operation of steamship service by the Southen Pacific between New Orleans and New York.
The problem was not, as you falsely state, that no one had ever thought this way before. The problem was the dang government which actively blocked modal integration by forcing divestitures of multi-modal ownership.
I've often stated that I think the worst government regulatory rulling regading transportation was "In the Matter of Container Service" A rulling handed down in 1931 that greatly hindered intermodal freight movement for 50 years.
And now you'e out here saying (sans paragraphs) that no one has ever thought of this before. That just isn't true.
Please... no more 'meaningful change' ideas.
Perhaps this isn't the forum to be discussing this on. Maybe we need a "Historical" forum. Anyhoo...
In 1805, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, of the "Corps of Discovery", coined the name "Maria's River", which CPT Meriwether Lewis named for his cousin Maria Wood. In 1889, John Frank Stevens 'discovered' the pass that the Great Northern Railway crossed the Rockies on. He named it "Maria's Pass", referencing it to the so-named river, which has headwaters there.
Lately, "PC"ers have railed at the use of "extraneous punctuation". The change, in the name of Camel's Hump, in Vermont is another example. The Burlington (VT) Free Press did an article on the removal of the apostrophy. All responses were negative, except for one. The only one in agreement was a high school ENGLISH teacher! He said it would "make his job easier, not having to teach punctuation! That, to me, is pretty scary!!!
All concerned lovers of our English language should go out, at night, if necessary, and replace the apostrophies on the road signs with a bit of adhesive tape! Take that!, "PC" fools!
There's one major flaw in this entire discussion.
There's only one way that anything close to our current energy needs can be met with "renewable" energy: if nuclear power is regarded as part of the "renewable" package. Any attempt to meet our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. Even wholesale conversion to nuclear power (such as the French have done) will not be cheap, and frankly the problems are more"political" than financial or logistical--the old "NIMBY" or "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors.
If such "green" energy sources are not used, there is little to be gained from electrification from a planetary/global perspective aside from potential increased efficiency of energy production and use.
LNER4472 There's one major flaw in this entire discussion. There's only one way that anything close to our current energy needs can be met with "renewable" energy: if nuclear power is regarded as part of the "renewable" package. Any attempt to meet our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. Even wholesale conversion to nuclear power (such as the French have done) will not be cheap, and frankly the problems are more"political" than financial or logistical--the old "NIMBY" or "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors. If such "green" energy sources are not used, there is little to be gained from electrification from a planetary/global perspective aside from potential increased efficiency of energy production and use.
The model of change that I have described and that is being widely promoted does indeed essentially require that the electricity for rail electrification be derived from wind energy, although there is a nod to the possibility of nuclear power as well. However nuclear power is as objectionable in green circles as carbon-based fuels are, although for somewhat different reasons. Like fossil fuel, nuclear is seen as being non-sustainable or non-renewable. Nuclear is also said to produce enough heat to add to the global warming problem. And dealing with the toxic nuclear waste is considered to be another environmental problem.
While renewable energy is preferred, there is some concession to the fact that electrification is better than diesel power even if the power for electrification comes from coal. This is because of the better efficiency of electrification plus the better ability to control emissions at large fixed plants rather than on individual locomotives. The acceptance of coal as a generating fuel is also intended to prevent the need to develop sufficient wind power before embarking on the rail electrification project. The proponents are willing to accept the temporary, continuing use of coal as the price of getting rail electrification done as fast as possible.
You mention that meeting our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. That is absolutely true, but that is the intention. The way this plan is detailed by the proponents, rail electrification will indeed be only a small portion of the whole plan. I would say that rail electrification would be less than 10% of the whole plan.
The plan is nothing less than a revolution in energy and transportation. Besides rail electrification, the plan calls for a national system of HSR. It also calls for a completely new power grid, and a complete conversion to renewable energy, not just for railroads, but for all uses. It calls for new railroads to be built, and massive rail infrastructure improvements. It calls for a whole new way of combining rail with trucking, which will require new terminal facilities.
The use of existing railroad right of ways for new transmission lines is viewed as a great advantage in mitigating the NIMBY problem.
Permit me to suggest a couple of [editorial insertions] that may clarify what was intended:
klahm [snip] 1) The current administration appears very likely to try to create and implement a policy framework for transportation issues that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something [i.e., the policy framework] that has never been done [by the government] before in the US (and may be an undertaking that can't possibly result in meaningful change [in the policy framework] in the [present] fractious political climate). [as opposed to/ distinguished from a meaningful change in the fractious political climate, which is a whole 'nother subject - PDN] [snip]
Is this closer to what was meant ? I'm not enough of a grammarian to know the correct name for this - but I know it when I see it !
Mudchicken has stated emphatically that electricity transmission and electrified railroad rows don't mix.
Also, I suspect that by the time a "policy framework for transportation issues" is codified, the conditions underwhich it was created will have changed, and the framework will hinder what is needed.
It seems to me that Nuclear energy is the only way to produce enough electricity to power what we need. France produces about 70% with the "N" word. It is the only way to produce what we will need into the 22nd century.
Dick
I think electrically-powered railroads is a great idea. However, I wouldn't want to be the one telling the shipper that his delivery will be "next Monday, if the wind blows!". Utter silliness, and at 52x the cost of hydro power. Jeezum! They don't even consider hydro power a "renewable"! Solar = silliness, too, as is geothermal.
As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn't, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. Sorry. Nuclear is "the only way to go!", with "clean" coal doing the job until then, and beyond.
Ultimate silliness: "Global Warming"!
BNSFwatcher [snip] As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn't, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. [snip]
To tie together internally within its own system and provide redundant sources of supply - those initial transmisison lines were at 132 KV, now 138 KV I believe, but 25 Hz.
Later, I believe Phila. Electric Co. added stubs on top for its 60 Hz. high-voltage transmission line 'overbuild', which made those tall towers even taller along certain lines. But I'll have to look to find any documentation to confirm or refute that thought, or a PECo Transmission & Distribution employee or expert to tell for sure.
I agree on the basic point. I'm sure no one objected to the Swiss Federal Rwys. stringing catenary through the Alps . . .
Here is a link to an interesting blog piece by someone who is espousing rail electrification for non-oil, sustainability reasons similar to the others I have linked.
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sunday-train-21st-century-steel.html
This author goes into a lot of detail about the logistics of train operations such as getting Rapid Freight Rail trains around the heavy rail trains. He also discusses the diversion of truck traffic to rail. He claims RFR will be faster than trucks door-to-door even if trucks have to haul from origination to the starting rail terminal and from the ending rail terminal to the destination. He advocates three types of rail service operating on the same corridor. The three types of rail operation are:
1) Emerging HSR passenger (110mph)
2) Heavy freight (conventional freight, 60 mph with 33 tons/axle loading).
3) Rapid Freight Rail for higher speed, priority delivery (100 mph with 25 tons/axle loading).
The author advocates an import fee on foreign oil to fund the electric rail vision.
Great post!
I, for one, believe that the cost of initial electrification is grossly over-exaggerated. It should be amortized over the life of the railroad. I'd be delighted to hear what the amortized cost of the PRR's 1930s electrification is.
For as comprehensive and massive as this energy/transportation proposal is, there is still one more major component of it that has not received much attention. That component is energy conservation. In fact, that may be the first component to be implemented because it requires no funding and no time to build.
Conservation may begin as soon as next year after congress passes an energy bill. One of the centerpiece features of this legislation will be cap-and-trade. Without discussing the pros and cons of this curious mechanism, what is objectively clear is that it will raise the cost of energy derived from all non-renewable sources. Therefore it will reduce energy consumption by raising its cost.
Conservation sounds timid, but when driven by price rationing, it will be a very potent component in the campaign for national sustainability. And all it requires is a new law. Just look what happens to driving when gasoline rises to $4 per gallon. Think how much energy could be saved if every household in the U.S. reduced electricity use by 20%. There is easily enough elasticity in consumption for that amount of reduction to occur. The only reason that it has not is that it has not been forced by price yet. A reduction of residential consumption of that magnitude could easily liberate enough electrical capacity to electrify the railroads, even if they were expanded to include HSR and to assume substantial truck haulage.
The so-called smart grid will further refine this pricing/conservation principle of cap-and-trade by managing electric consumption according to the necessity of how it is used. The smart grid knows what you plug in or turn on, and how necessary it is. The smart grid then sets the price accordingly. It also sets the price according to periods of high and low collective average demand. It can encourage conservation by raising the price as your total rate of consumption increases. This is the future of energy distribution, however, it is a physical infrastructure system that will have to be built and paid for. It is called a smart grid because of the stinging pain it can deliver when you open your electric bill.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Ahh... isn't utopia great!
If everybody just stopped exhaling, we could really reduce the carbon footprint. Cap and trade?
Sorry to be sarcastic. People don't matter to these people. Back to finding enjoyment in trains.
jclassPeople don't matter to these people. Back to finding enjoyment in trains.
It is possible to enjoy both people and trains, old and current, as well as appreciate that some advances in rail technology are desirable and necessary.
schlimm Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar.
I'm not so sure myself---the current term used now is Global Climate Change. And there is an over weening amount of fear and paranoia mongering that really has nothing at all to do with the environment but good ol' business bashing. Not to mention the issue of man being the sole creator of climate change. I wonder what created all the climate changes for the past 4+ billion years of the earth's existence--
Be that as it may----Hydro power is seen not as renewable because we are now being told that it too is a scarce resource. Then we allow large corporations to buy up and build up bottled water plants in some areas like they are going out of style----
Funny this----
As for the electrification----if we consider the conserving of energy from the individual side then we can also see the intensification of electrification at that end. In other words we cut our usage down to single light in one room with no TV and radio so the big boys can play with their toys------Mag Lev will be next
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Schlimm: have you checked the tax burden the Danes carry? Outrageous, but the flatulence that they eminate from drinking Akvavit and "Tuborg" chasers negates the "deadly" carbon dioxide elimination from going to wind power. Only a politician could love that!
Our local PP&L (Pennsylvania Power and Light. Yar PA in MT!) is replacing six old water turbines in Great Falls. The one new turbine will produce 70% more electricity than the old ones. Private enterprise at work!
As to why the 'solons' consider hydro a non-renewable resource, I don't know. Have they told Noah to stand down, 'cause it ain't gonna rain no more? Yar!, I pulled the plug on my TV nine years ago, and only have one task light on. I'm doing my part!
As far as "energy gobblers" go, Mag-Lev wins the prize!
Someone said that nuclear power plants really increase the temperature of the atmosphere. I presume through the steam coming out of coolant towers.
Really?? That sounds impossible.
aegrotatio Someone said that nuclear power plants really increase the temperature of the atmosphere. I presume through the steam coming out of coolant towers. Really?? That sounds impossible.
That seems to be the argument although from this little one's view it would be a reach----then again.
As for the European experience of electrification most of the power generated there is coming through nuclear power----Denmark included
blownout cylinder schlimm Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar. I'm not so sure myself---the current term used now is Global Climate Change. And there is an over weening amount of fear and paranoia mongering that really has nothing at all to do with the environment but good ol' business bashing. Not to mention the issue of man being the sole creator of climate change. I wonder what created all the climate changes for the past 4+ billion years of the earth's existence-- Be that as it may----Hydro power is seen not as renewable because we are now being told that it too is a scarce resource. Then we allow large corporations to buy up and build up bottled water plants in some areas like they are going out of style---- Funny this---- As for the electrification----if we consider the conserving of energy from the individual side then we can also see the intensification of electrification at that end. In other words we cut our usage down to single light in one room with no TV and radio so the big boys can play with their toys------Mag Lev will be next
The objection to Hydro seems to stem from the immense construction projects, Dams and resevoirs, necessary to make it work..of course here in the Northeast we are more than happy to purchase every hydroelectrically generated kilowatt our friends north of the border (Quebec Hydro) can send us...
What Maglev are you referring to?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
blownout cylinderAs for the European experience of electrification most of the power generated there is coming through nuclear power----Denmark included
Fact Check:
In Germany in 2008, all renewable sources contribute 15.3% of electrical use, wind 6.5% and growing. Nuclear contributes 22%, much of which is exported to France.
In Denmark in 2008, wind was ~20%; they do not generate electricity by nuclear and are an exporter of energy to nearby states.
I was hoping Eric would jump all over that statement, but since he didn't, I'll attempt to enlighten (or at least entertain).
Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. The whole point of most nuclear power plants is to generate heat to boil water to make steam to drive the turbine which turns the generator. Nuclear fuel (enriched uranium) is very expensive to ship, store, install, and remove, so you try not to waste it by dumping heat into the atmosphere without a darn good reason. Do you drive with the clutch in or out??
rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson.
Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
schlimmrrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The "ultimate silliness" is demanding people change their habits by fiat because there is a "consensus" (not proof) by a few liberal-minded scientist and politicians that they can accurately project the consequenses by comparing 100 years of weather data to a 4 billion year old climate.
Global warming and cooling has been going on since this this planet was formed. Trains hauling coal to power plants all this time hasn't made the same impact as one medium-sized volcanic eruption. Electrification of the mainlines would be cool, and the railroads would benefit from reduced costs of operation, but I don't expect others to pay increased taxes for my railroad viewing pleasure.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.