The proposed non oil based transport system based upon railroad electrification foresees speed capability of freight operations increased so that conventional passenger speed could then be supported.
Electrifying without enhancements to increase speed capacity would not be rational. There will be opportunities to increase line speed from 79 to 90 and in some cases 110. This is not HSR. It could better characterized as semi-speed rail.
The study addresses ONLY semi-speed rail.
HSR requires new construction and is integrated into the conventional railroad system to access terminals and stations
Clarification:
There are two distinctly different trains of thought on railroad electrification.
1) The private business economic proposal.
2) The government environmental proposal.
The first has been around since electrification first was tried. That is the economic debate as to whether it would make economic sense for the freight railroads to electrify as a private sector business decision. If the answer to this perennial question were “yes,” then the railroads would electrify. So the answer is somewhat self-evident.
The second train of thought on electrification is a proposal by government activists to have government step in and electrify the freight railroads as a public sector endeavor to be paid for with public money. The rationale for this proposal is not based on seeking less costly operation, as is the case with the first train of thought. Instead, the rationale for this public sector proposal is based on the following two objectives:
1) To prevent climate change.
2) To create an oil-free society.
This proposal has nothing to do with creating less costly rail transportation.
The subject of the article that the original poster linked to this thread is clearly related to this public sector environmental objective and not to the private sector business objective of lower cost rail transportation
Here is a link to the PDF of the article appearing in Trains November 2009, called “WIRED UP” by Scott Lothes.
http://www.railsolution.org/uploads/PDF/TRAINSarticle11-09.pdf
This advocates for electrification as the public sector, environmental proposal, as does the article linked by the original poster in the first post of this thread.
As noted, the article cited by Bucyrus was written by the author of the article first cited in the original post.
Until earnings are sheltered from taxation, there is no incentive to private railroad companies to do this project.
Assuming that projections for traffic quagmires by 2035 are reasonable, then it is in their interest to plan for the future. Freight not delivered is traffic that has not earned income.
While there may be no net advantage in thermal efficiency as noted, there would be the creation of a non-oil based transportation system,
The original posting had as its basis the Scott Lothas article. Lothas made a passing comment regarding the work of Alan Drake. The internet allowed for prompt access to the study, "Evaluating the Creation of a Parallel Non-Oil Transportatioon System in an Oil Constrained Future."
It is likely that added future generation capacity will be a combination of renewable and conventional generation methods.
The study makes the argument that additional generation capacity makes a reasonable argument for renewable generation technology to be able to provide for the future generation capacity needs. It is presented as an alternative to conventional generation methods.
To ignore the potential in renewable generation methods, that would have been a basis to criticize the study as well.
The link given goes to information provided by Alan Drake, one of the authors of the Millennium Institute's study subject of the original post.
The post is looking at the concept from the potential to fund by private sector earnings. When the last 4 years of the freight railroads' before tax earnings are computed, the back of the envelope computation is that sheltering railroad earnings from taxation will likely fund all or a substantial portion of the funding.
This writer advocates for private funding with the Federal government creating the guidelines for the public interest. That public interest is the creation of a non oil based transport system. So, the method of sheltering income and then applying the windfall to the project must be defined. The incentive for the railroad companies is having a motive power method that lessens their costs. With lessened costs they likely will have greater capacity and greater speed capability. Those variables mean more traffic. AS the project has been funded from dollars that would have otherwise gone into the general treasury but used for the public interest, there is no cost of capital for longterm funding. Yes, it is a government subsidy. But the method of subsidy is direct and does not involve cumbersome government oversight that USDOT now represents.
The last 40 years has seen 6 additional Megaregions develop in the US beside the Northeast. Now the country has a logistics challenge of transport between and within the Megaregions. In 40 years the country's population nearly doubled. It is projected that in another 40 years, the country will have another 100 million for 400 million people.
A non oil based transport system will be a tool to defend the nation in a constrained oil future as well as be the strategic economic tool to assure growth with the population growth.
Recognition on the part of legislators that a parallel non oil based transport system is the future.
1. Freight RRs ROWs are not usable for HSR passenger trains in mountainous areas. The freights need a reasonable ( .5 - 1 - 2% ) grade whereas HSR needs an essentially very low curvature tracks but can operate on steeper slopes than freight.
There ya go. The roadways are NOT totally compatible.
2. A fact looked over so far is that there is about a 30% recovery back into the electric grid (using regenerative braking) when going down hill or slowing for whatever reason.
The amount of time in dynamic braking is negligible for purposes of regeneration. It means , in the case of an AC system, which it will have to be, that you must now carry the equipment to convert back to the original AC voltage and phase. It is simply not worth toting this equipment 100% of the time for the small recovery.
3. There has been very large deposits of natural gas discovered in the NE that can now be recovered by using fracting.
So the new buzz word is fracking. Not that most who use it even know what it means. Natural gas has a very low energy density. It is much more difficult to transport and handle. And you ain't heard nothing yet when the anti hazmat crowd jumps on this
4. Some one here can give the actual BTU conversion of present day Locomotives but I believe that it is in the 25 -35% range.
Why would a different fuel improve the efficiency of a process? As I have previously stated the energy density is LOW. to get the same out put will require a larger prime mover and a tender for the fuel. All of which take a LOT of energy to build and haul around.
5. Present day Natural gas electrical turbine generators have a BTU recovery around 35%. If a recuperative after heat system is used the BTU recovery goes up to 55 - 60%. Gas turbines also have a quick start up cycle that can be used for the peaking needs of RRs however the recuperative cycle takes longer to get to peak efficiency. Certainly would not have to wait for more convential electic generating plants to be built.
A turbine is only that efficient at full load. It drops dramatically as the load falls off. The quick starts take a toll in maintainance. These are not lawnmower engines. They take, even in a small gas turbine, 6-8 hrs to stabilize at operating temperature. Conventional generating plants? You need to get out more. Combined cycle is about all that has been built for the last 20 years.
6. The energy savings from the required conversion to power saving light bulbs is estimated to be 3 -4 % which is what has been quoted here-in as what RRs will require. Could be a wash?
3-4% of residential lighting is negligible, merely a feel good thing.
7. Start electrifying on severe grades to cut fuel consumption especially fuel required to run traction cooling fans when using dynamic braking going downhill.
Obviously don't know what you are talking about. DC machines run those fans from the Dynamic brake current. No fuel consumed.
8. Some route locations might be able to use dual mode locos.
Why? Nothing gained by that except the energy loss from carrying extra equipment around.
9. Present US passenger electric 4 axel motors already have a proven output of 8000 HP. That is too much tractive effort for low speed (relative) freights. A 6 axel electric motor with the power output of 8000Hp might be mated to an old (SD-40, C40, GP-30, etc) locomotive that is not even teir 0 compliant (new use for a road slug). This is a good use for the older frames whose prime mover is past its prime.
Been done. You are 40 years late. Of course then the flexibility of that unit is lost as it has to stay with that slug.
10. Electric motors should have a higher reliability due to no prime mover. That might translate into about 5% less HP needed for any level of operation??
Rediculous. Electric motors do not know where their electricity comes from. It will use the same regardless of on board generation , batteries, or catenary.
There must be some thing about this electrification thing that affects the brain. It makes it's proponents recite the same unsupported BS platitudes over and over.
blue streak 1 4. Some one here can give the actual BTU conversion of present day Locomotives but I believe that it is in the 25 -35% range.
Sounds about right for late second generation diesels, but I suspect the newest locomotives will exceed 35% efficiency.
Sounds right for the installed base of natural gas fueled combustion turbines. GE is claiming 46% efficiency for their H series turbines at full output, and 40% efficiency when running at half rated output. These do not use any form of recuperation as far as I know. GE is claiming 60% efficiency for combined cycle plants, i.e. where the exhaust heat from the turbine is used for a steam bottoming cycle. Large (as in several thousand HP per cylinder) diesel engines are capable of a bit over 50% efficiency, but I have no idea if that would be still true if the engines were run on natural gas.
The technology exists to run locomotives on natural gas, but the relative thermal efficiencies in my previous paragraph don't tell the whole story. The most practical means of supplying the locomotive is to liquefy the gas first and there is significant energy consumption involved in the process.
- Erik
P.S. Looks like the US will be self-sufficient in natural gas for a while and the Europeans as also looking into the matter. If that's not enough, there is an enormous amount of methane clathrates under the sea floors.
Bucyrus schlimm: Once again we see a quasi-straw man argument. (In this case, half-truths.) The proposal you link (from 2008) is hardly representative of all electrification ideas. Some rely on coal or nuclear generation, while recently natural gas is in favor. It is not a straw man. Yes, the article I linked does not represent all thinking about the electrification of railroads. But it certainly is aligned with the article that the original poster mentioned as the basis of his opening thoughts. Trains recently ran an article by Scott Lothas. I will have to check that last name. Anyway, it all connects back the non-oil transportation system with the objectives I listed. No straw man. In many ways, the FRA is on the same page as evidenced by some of there statements. And this particular group of thinkers is not about to use coal or nuclear to generate the electricity.
schlimm: Once again we see a quasi-straw man argument. (In this case, half-truths.) The proposal you link (from 2008) is hardly representative of all electrification ideas. Some rely on coal or nuclear generation, while recently natural gas is in favor.
Once again we see a quasi-straw man argument. (In this case, half-truths.) The proposal you link (from 2008) is hardly representative of all electrification ideas. Some rely on coal or nuclear generation, while recently natural gas is in favor.
And this particular group of thinkers is not about to use coal or nuclear to generate the electricity.
The article Bucyrus cites is about 90% identical to the one the OP cited. Bucyrus's has a bit more detail. If you read it closely you find no great improvement in thermal effeciency as between modern diesel locomotives and a modern coal plant after transmission losses, which the author discusses and then hand waves away. The real question is not thermal effeciency but the full cost of power including capital and maintenance cost.
If I can spot huge leaps of faith, assuming facts not in evidence, and flat errors, I have a hard time supporting something, non oil dependent railroads, that has its attractions. The question is what is it worth to the country and to the carriers. So far it is not worth the cost to the carriers. The real price of oil will begin to rise at some point, but the oil sellers need us almost as much as we need them. For the record I would prefer not to have to buy any oil from outside the US. I also beleive it will never happen for a whole host of reasons.
Mac
schlimm Once again we see a quasi-straw man argument. (In this case, half-truths.) The proposal you link (from 2008) is hardly representative of all electrification ideas. Some rely on coal or nuclear generation, while recently natural gas is in favor.
It is not a straw man. Yes, the article I linked does not represent all thinking about the electrification of railroads. But it certainly is aligned with the article that the original poster mentioned as the basis of his opening thoughts. Trains recently ran an article by Scott Lothas. I will have to check that last name. Anyway, it all connects back the non-oil transportation system with the objectives I listed. No straw man. In many ways, the FRA is on the same page as evidenced by some of there statements.
Its interesting about the wind farm business. There was a news item about 6 month's ago where Wartisila was awarded a contract to build a power plant using about 18 of their 10 megawatt gas fuel generators (converted from diesels) to cover the largest wind farm in west Texas when the wind isn't passing.
"I like passing wind." - Benny Hill
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This general proposal about electrifying freight railroads in order to create non-oil transportation is being put forth by several think tanks. It entails the following:
1) Electrification of all freight railroads.
2) Moving 80% of long-haul truck freight off of the highways and onto rail.
3) Obtaining all of the electricity from wind and solar sources.
4) Building a new smart grid and adding new power lines to carry the power from the generally western wind farms eastward.
5) Routing the new power lines on railroad corridors.
6) Adding HSR and high-speed freight trains.
It is an ambitious plan. And I assume that this is being proposed as being executed entirely by the public sector. In fact, I personally believe that this is being proposed in order to give the public sector more to do.
Here is a link to this train of thought:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301
One can have a multiplicity of elegant solutions to problems to no avail if we aren't aware of the continued impediment to implementation, which has become part of the problem. Failure to recognize this is what has led to 40+ years of inaction, not the lack of solutions to the technical part of the problem. Big oil has had and continues to have an overwhelming influence, probably far greater than the dangers Ike warned us of with the military-industrial complex (originally he called it the military-industrial-congressional complex).
It is not important as to why poor decisions are made and followed. It is important to identify them and change them.
It has been frustrating to recognize the oft stated problem of foreign oil dependence over the decades without a logical, consistent response.
What the cited studies do is to identify an elegantly logical solution to reliance upon an oil based transport system.
Sorry if my brevity appeared to be platitudes. I was posing real questions about the underlying motivations of the anti-electrification, anti-alternatives to oil, anti-change crowd, not your post. "Follow the money" refers to looking there for the real motivations of that group. Every President beginning with with Nixon, has mentioned "reducing/eliminating dependence on foreign oil" in S of the U addresses, yet our dependence has only increased. Why? Foreign oil is cheaper to extract, hence greater profit margins for the international petroleum giants. I wonder who are the largest donors to the TP, AEI and the Heritage Foundation? For that matter, to both major political parties?
schlimm 2. I ask myself, why are some folks so opposed to moving to a less oil dependent economy, through electrification, more alternative energy sources and energy conservation? Follow the money. 3. Isn't it just a bit odd that almost everywhere else in the world there has been a gradual shift to electrification of heavily used mainlines. Wonder why and why not here? Follow the money.
2. I ask myself, why are some folks so opposed to moving to a less oil dependent economy, through electrification, more alternative energy sources and energy conservation? Follow the money.
3. Isn't it just a bit odd that almost everywhere else in the world there has been a gradual shift to electrification of heavily used mainlines. Wonder why and why not here? Follow the money.
Oh, yeah, the military-industrial-petroleum complex feels threatened by anything that does not promote or ensure their comfortable future.
Electrification in the rest of the world has not been a gradual shift but a constant application since the 1930's or before. We started the same way here in the US at the time but had a gradual shift away from electrification because of 1) our up to then dedication to coal and the coal industry; 2) the onslaught of the Great Depression; 3) the increasing devotion and adherenced to petroleum products. The diesel locomotive was the Godsend for all as it was cheaper to operate in many ways (labor, continual usage, maintenence, etc.), actually produced electricity for a motor to move the unit and didn't need wire to be electric. American railroads (governement, public, manufacturers) became more and more complacent with that philosophy.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Platitudes and open ended questions are on way to communicate.
What is meant by "red herrings in abundance?"
What does "follow the money" mean?
Yes, it is arguable that electrification of present main lines as they are increase capacity. Given projections for serious freight railroad constrictions in designated places in the nation in 9 short years and a quagmire in 2035 if nothing is done; then electrification is part of the answer. And, whether railroad income is sheltered for 5 to 7 years or a longer period to create a non oil based transport system with sufficient capacity (additional mainline track) is something to e considered. If anything CREATE demonstrates the delay and confusion caused by government subsidy that sheltered earnings could have accomplished with the rational decision making the private sector companies are capable of doing.
There was a reason to post the resource in the original posting for Forum participants to review. The study is a summary given the large topic.
Many of the concerns noted are dealt with in the footnotes.
For example, the miles to be electrified are the miles doing most of the tonmile carriage. The study makes the point that the route miles needing electrification are essentially the 32,421 railroad miles designated as strategic by the Department of Defense. See footnote 30: "Military Traffic Management Commoand Newport News VA Operations Analysis DIV. Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and Defense Connector Line. A243593."
It is not difficult to imagine the need to create a non oil based transportation system.
It is not difficult to imagine using proven, mature, practical technology inherent to electrification to achieve a non oil based transport system.
The study asks the reader to consider and imagine a significantly larger Gross Domestic Product in 2030 than is what is possible with an oil based transport system.
While the oil based transport system sees enormous tonnage in freight train operations, Electrification would allows the cost effective option to operate faster, more frequent freight trains. Doing so supports the study's supposition for greater acceleration and braking capacity.
While the Millennium Institute has its philosophical position on one side of issues and its economic modeling, so to does the Free Congress Foundation have a differing philosophical position yet also advocates for electrification for urban transportation in order to complete a non oil based transportation system. The Free Congress Foundation was also cited in the original post.
The phrase, "common industrial knowledge" was used once in the study for a single point. It was not used to categorize the whole study. The criticism of the BTU ratios cited has merit to the extent that it is difficult reading.
Details are something that can be done and should be done by the private sector freight railroads. The studies establish the logic for a non oil based transportation system. Providing the basis to move forward is what is needed
Returning to imagination. Using 1970 as the point to consider the imaginings: 1. a railroad system with all mainlines using welded rail, 2. diesel motive power of great efficiency and power, 3. traffic control centers of incredible capacity and ability to communicate, 4.consolidation of railroad organizations, incredible single freight train tonnage capacity, 5.free market pricing, 6. ton miles performed in 2007 in comparison to 1970, etc. In 1970, all that was science fiction.
1. Red herrings in abundance!
WilliamKiesel FIrst, electrifying the American freight railroads would create a transport system not vulnerable to interruptions to oil supply. Second, in the event of months or years long interruptions, an electrified non-oil based transportation system would allow the American economy to function. Third, an electrified railroad will use remarkably less BTUs to do the same transportation function as the oil based transportation system. Lower production costs for transportation services will have a favorable ripple effect throughout the economy. Fourth, electrifying the freight railroad would increase their carriage capacity and their line haul speed creating new services and new income opportunities. Our national mindset is on a treadmill of complacency. If a non oil based transport system is not created, household budgets remain deeply affected by upward changes in price. For that matter, if oil supply is constrained, the impact upon the national economy and household budgets will be even more deeply felt.
FIrst, electrifying the American freight railroads would create a transport system not vulnerable to interruptions to oil supply.
Second, in the event of months or years long interruptions, an electrified non-oil based transportation system would allow the American economy to function.
Third, an electrified railroad will use remarkably less BTUs to do the same transportation function as the oil based transportation system. Lower production costs for transportation services will have a favorable ripple effect throughout the economy.
Fourth, electrifying the freight railroad would increase their carriage capacity and their line haul speed creating new services and new income opportunities.
Our national mindset is on a treadmill of complacency. If a non oil based transport system is not created, household budgets remain deeply affected by upward changes in price. For that matter, if oil supply is constrained, the impact upon the national economy and household budgets will be even more deeply felt.
First assertion - TRUE
Second assertion - TRUE
Third assertion - NOT DEMONSTRATED AND LIKELY NOT TRUE. It takes the same amount of power at the rail to move a given train over a given route. No evidence has been offered that electric locomotives would convert fuel to power more effeciently than do modern diesels. The assertions in the paper are false on their face as I explained in my previous post.
Fourth assertion - NOT TRUE Electrification in and of itself will not increase freight rail speed, capacity, or create services.
Increased speed requires increased horsepower and energy consumption. Horesepower per ton ratios can be increased with diesel locomotives. That they are not, indicates that there is no economic incentive to do so. HPPT ratios do vary today based on type of service holding line characteristics constant. On a typical 1% or so ruling grade line, unit coal and grain trains get about 1 HPPT while double stacks get 2-3, and a hot UPS train will get 4-5. Do not confuse electrification with increasing HPPT ratios.
Increased speed does not convert simply and easily to increased capacity, especially on single track lines. Dispatching a busy single track lines is incredibly complex and line specific.
For a railroad to create new services it must believe that it can make money by providing the service and must have the track capacity to do it. Many routes are capacity constrained. Fixing capactiy constraints is expensive. If a route is capacity constrained, the marginal (new) service has to be so profitable that it can pay for the new capacity it requires. Fixing capacity constraints usually means moving dirt and building track. For a demonstration of this see the CREATE project in Chicago.
What bothers me most about electrification is the wire itself...expensive to build and maintain, vulnerable to weather and physical destruction. Is there any engineering for an induction system where by the rails or some inground device(s) be charged and transmitting to a propulsion machine of some kind?
Therein lies part of the problem, gasoline.
Laughing about the problem posed is a curious reaction.
There is no doubt that railroad use of petroleum is a small percentage of the currentoil based transportation system.
As the phrase "red herring" means, to attempt to divert attention, its use here is curious. This posting and the effort being put forth is to bring attention to the fact that the country could minimize its oil based transport reliance.
The country could have a serious interruption to the current supply by a physical attack such as harm to the Striat of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca. Alternatively, civil disruption in a major producing nation could interrupt supply. For eample, recent events in Tunisia has raised such a concern. Notwithstanding such interruption, there is simply increasing worldwide market demand for the resource. That competitive impediment to supply is a constrained supply making a substantial impact upon the national economy.
This reply is a continuing attempt to draw attention, not divert attention from the problems caused by the oil based transport system
I should find a 'standing ovation' image somewhere...
Dan
I went to the source document referenced by the OP. The sponsor of the paper is a global warming believer organization. The have a fancy enonomic model which predicts that under "market based" conditions the year 2011 will see peak oil prices of $350 per gallon leading to a 9% reduction in GDP.
The document claims that by adopting their program there will be a "high elasticity of transportation supply" a condition that was never attained during the years of rail traffic growth.
A favorite phrase was "common industrial knowledge" which is simply a dressed up version of "everybody knows". Two specific examples were:
"Common industrial knowledge suggests that rail capacity increases by 15% [due to electrification] because trains can accellerate and brake faster". Passenger trains may be able to accellerate and brake faster, but heavy US freight trains will not. In the context of US freight operation this statement is simply false.
"Common industrial knowledge also suggests that an electric locomotive using 1 BTU of electricity displaces 2.5 BTUs of diesel fuel in flat, rural areas and 3 BTUs of diesel in mountainous and urban areas." The energy required to move a train is a function of grade and curves. The energy expended at the rail as between diesel or electric locomotive holding tonnage constant has to be the same. The issue is effeciency of conversion of fuel to power at the rail. No data is offered on this, the real point. I suspect that diesel locomotives may well be more effecient than a remote power plant and its associated transmission losses. How an urban area makes electrics more efficent is beyond my imagination.
The next claim is that "Transfering heavy truck inter-city freight to double stack container trains with diesel electric locomotives gives a 9 to 1 reduction in diesel use" The AAR claims that rail provides 4 times the transportation as truck for a gallon of fuel. My personal oppinion is that double stack is relatively less fuel effecient than the industry average AAR figure, and that 3 to 1 is more realistic.
The paper goes on to multiply 2.5 times 8 to get a 20 to one fuel savings for electrified freight rail versus motor carriers. Would that it were true. The real figure is in the range of 3 or 4 to one regardless of motive power.
The paper assumes that 85% of truck traffic will be diverted to rail by 2030.
The paper makes no effort to identify lines to be electrified. It simply invokes the 80/20 rule, hangs the fancy name 'Pareto Principle" on the rule and thereby assumes that 80% of the traffic is on 20% of the route miles. They plan to electrify 34,000 route miles, They also plan to do various capacity expansion projects, including 14,000 track miles of double and tripple tracking. Cost is said to be $500 billion. No details of their cost calculation are provided.
I would not have turned in a term paper that was such a compound of assumptions and errors without labeling it as science fiction.
I keep waiting for the lit match to hit the proverbial pool of gasoline that is this thread. Got my popcorn ready though...waiting (and to keep laughing too!).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.