Future of Railroading

[Junctionfan]

Here is a thread I thought would be cool for people interested in giving their opinions on what railroad could do to better the business and the economy of our nations whether you are from the United States, Canada or elsewhere.

I'm very interested in what you have to say. I will put my Ideas later as I am still acessing my opinions to see if they are informed or not.

[Anonymous]

Engineer Only Crews, I bet you in the next few years they will figure out ways to get clearances out by computers on board the locomotives (or handheld computers like Palms) and they role of the conductor will be useless making most if not all freight trains engineer only -- at least the Unit and Intermodal trains that don't require switching on-line.

It's going to get lonely out there.

[miniwyo]

Miss Cleo says that I will see lots of armour yellow in my future!!! Just kidding. I can see totally automated locomotives operated by a guy miles away looking at a computer screen. No need for in engine crews.

[Anonymous]

I see plenty of Intermodal Cars and Trailers.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by miniwyo

Miss Cleo says that I will see lots of armour yellow in my future!!! Just kidding. I can see totally automated locomotives operated by a guy miles away looking at a computer screen. No need for in engine crews.

aw christ, that's terrible. even a one man crew seems depressing. who to talk to? how to make friends with co-workers. What a depressing job that will make railroading, at least from the engineer's perspective. That's like cops being able to go without partners. I know for them it's a safety issue and all but who would deny that's it's also probably a bit of a morale booster to have another human presence with you in the squad car. Can you imagine doing three hundred mile runs in the cab of a locomotive BY YOURSELF? Either there's going to be a lot more smokers or a lot more closet drunks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Heartland Flyer

I see plenty of Intermodal Cars and Trailers.

When I lived in Portland a buddy of mine used to work for gunderson and told me that a couple years ago they started getting more orders in for boxcars than for intermodal stuff/buckets, etc... Interesting, huh?

[Anonymous]

In the old days railroads literally built towns so they could have traffic. From what I have seen here lately, is that it seems railroads no longer have this level of interest in related industries, or the general population. I am quite a novice in this area though, so I could be wrong.

Why not build (RR Co.) industrial parks with track access to all areas, and then offer companies incentive to relocate, or incentive to startup.

Maybe business that locate on a RR could get a tax break for relieving highway traffic.

Maybe business could be allowed to locate directly on trainyard property to get immediate acces to shipments. That's what airports do.

If I read right, CN is now a true continental bridge line, something similar will have to be developed to compete in the U.S. - maybe a coalition train nonstop coast to coast.

Could it be that railroads in their current physical form have met a maximum? What would be the next paradigm? I don't know, you can only put so much weight on a steel wheel on a steel rail.

If grades and curves were completely eliminated just how long could a train be?

I see hydrogen fuel cells in green goats, but what about the constant power demands of a road locomotive? Railpower proposes a CNG loco, but CNG doesn't have the BTU/Lb. of diesel. As fossil fuels become rare, will electric locos make a comeback? or a modern steam loco burning coal with a closed system condensation cycle?

I know much has been researched by serious groups already and no real benefit was discovered such as the ACE 2000. While they developed a locomotive that looked like a modern diesel but ran on steam and coal, I believe they relied to heavily on old paradigms, and thus, developed a locomotive that did not exceed any current standard. They did propose an increase in efficiency up to 18%, which is pretty high for a steam locomotive, more than double any conventional steam loco. But compared to diesel, this is not an improvement, and they hoped on the continueing low price of coal.

What I say is why not 30% or 40% efficiency? what kind of boiler can do that? Instead of a large boiler and 300 PSI, why not three or four "micro boilers", that can react quickly to changes. Such small boilers could operate at much higher pressures, because they have small surface areas, maybe 1200 PSI !!!!!

How about this for radical? A DRY BOILER! A chamber heated to extreme temperature, a small quantity of water is injected and instataneously explodes !!! This is repeated at high speed !!!!!!! BBBBBBBBBAM!!!!!!!!!

How about configuring these dry micro boilers to operate vertically, and arrange them on horizontal manifolds, the water manifold on the bottom, and the steam manifold at the top. Water comes in at the bottom, is injected into a chamber, BAM!, then steam in the upper manifold. Unlike verticle tube boilers, there is no seperation of water and steam at the top, only pure superheated steam comes directly out of the chambers !!!!

By keeping internal volumes as small as possible, this system could use an absolute minimum of steam at extreme pressures.

[Anonymous]

"A man told me ya better get out fast, Ah don't think railroadin's gonna last, we're movin' on, we're rollin' on..."

-Anonymous Ballad

A lot of the old heads used to tell us when we were new that the old timers of their day told them this in the 50s and 60s. Railroading is ever changing. Sitting in front of a screen controlling trains miles or even hundreds of miles away isn't the same as running from the cab, but it would probably be quite a bit safer.

Nothing stands still. I doubt we'll see control centers in my lifetime...

LC

[Anonymous]

By using a minimum of water and steam, condensation in a mobile land based application -locomotive- becomes economical. I have said it before, a closed cycle steam plant can have efficiencies as high as 30%, but this is not possible in a locomotive because massive cooling capacity is necessary to complete a condensation cycle. This is not a problem in a ship in the ocean, or a power plant near a river.

To heat one pound of water at sea level from 32 F to 212F takes 180 BTU of heat.

To convert one pound of 212 F water at sea level to 212 F steam takes 970 BTU of heat.

This is called latent heat value.

To condense that same steam, that much heat must then be removed.

How much water does a conventional steam locomotive hold?

Water weighs about eight pounds a gallon, so a thousand gallons weighs about eight thousand pounds, and has almost 8 million BTU of latent heat!!!!

What if a steam locomotive had a closed system with fifty gallons of water.

And, then this water was cycled at a very high rate?

[Anonymous]

Using such a small amount of water could make a condensation cycle economical.

Using such a small amount of water makes it possible to use water of a high purity.

My god !!!! why hasn't anybody thought of these things !!!!!!!

The materials and the technology exist today. A truly modern steam locomotive !!!!

[Anonymous]

Oh, 1200 psi steam has a superheat temperature of about 1000 F. So, again there are materials that make it doable.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert

Using such a small amount of water could make a condensation cycle economical.

Using such a small amount of water makes it possible to use water of a high purity.

My god !!!! why hasn't anybody thought of these things !!!!!!!

The materials and the technology exist today. A truly modern steam locomotive !!!!

mix in a few politicians and naysayers and then look at your receipe again.

Mook

[JoeKoh]

Railroads going away?I think not.I hopper vs 15 semi loads.do the math.
stay safe
Joe

[Junctionfan]

I wondering if the railroads should build their own powerplant and go electric. The only problem I can forsee though is running electric with double stacks. Is there enough clearance for that?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I wondering if the railroads should build their own powerplant and go electric. The only problem I can forsee though is running electric with double stacks. Is there enough clearance for that?

Caternary can be hung high enough to clear double stacks as long as there are no other height restrictions (existing overhead bridges, tunnels, etc....)

However, there is a lot more to it than just hanging wires. Virtually all electrical equipment associated with the railroad (signals, track detection equipment, dispatching systems, crossing detectors and so on) would all have to be modified or replaced to work in association with the high voltage, since the track is used as the ground for the locomotive's electrical system. Not impossible, just very expensive. But, still an excellent idea.[tup]

[Hugh Jampton]

In the UK we have had OMO (one man operated) trains for ages,, it's gotta be the one thing that we aren't 10 years behind.

Most advances will be IT related,, better car tracking, improved methods of condition monitoring (track as well as trains), transmission based signalling (doing away with blocks and lineside signals {these systems can be automatic, so a lot of dispatchers can go}), and things like that there.

[Junctionfan]

I figure that those AEM 7 can draw the power to get 8000hp so 2 AEM 7 can get 16000hp or almost 4 SD70MAC. The P-42DC engines are designed to be both diesel and electric so Amtrak shouldn't have a lot of problems. The SD90MAC is a big engine. Refurbish it to an electric locomotive and maybe you could draw as much as 10000 hp! If car manufacturers start puting moters in the cars themselves, you could run a 500 car train without worring about slack action. Like running a long passenger train with 1 P-42DC and 30 RDCs-something like that.

[Anonymous]

Before the railroad is remotely operated from the "bat cave" it is more likely that a one man crew will be an engineer with a remote box. When he needs to do switching he will flip a few switches on the wall panel and then put on his remote control box and get on the ground and start the switching. I think it is very dangerous to have a one man crew because of people falling asleep, lonliness can lead to all kinds of stuff, and if the lone operator were to get hurt no one may even know about it!!! I'm sure the railroads are trying to figure out a way for a one-man crew, but the technology had better improve by leaps and bounds before they even try implementing that idea. Just my [2c]

[Anonymous]

I see the railroad industry going through a period of convulsions and upheaval that will have profound ramifications. Deferred maintenance will now have the same catastrophic consequences for some Class Ones that it had 30 years ago for the six railroads that made up Conrail. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of derailments is increasing on some lines which coincides with lack of emphasis on infrastructure maintenance. This is a slippery slope that makes it extremely difficult for a major carrier to rebound from. Increased costs due to mounting number of derailments absorbs funds that could be used for track and structure rehabilitation. Truly, a vicious cycle. Wreck of the Penn Central red'ux. Our elected representatives, occupied by matters of national security, cannot see the coming melt down, but what North America needs is a balanced ground transportation policy that recognizes the importance of a healthy rail network. As a matter of national security and continued operation of the integrated rail system the Federal government may eventually be forced to at least take over responsibility for the maintenance of the major rights of way throughout the continent. The storm clouds are building, and "it doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows".

[Junctionfan]

Here is another thing I wonder about. SInce some railroads don't seem to be overly interested in maintaining the mainlines, what if the government control the mainlines and the railroads just lease access to it. Like trucking companies using the highways.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is another thing I wonder about. SInce some railroads don't seem to be overly interested in maintaining the mainlines, what if the government control the mainlines and the railroads just lease access to it. Like trucking companies using the highways.

Railroads do a fine job of maintaining their lines overall. The concept you are speaking of is "Open Access" and would result in the end of the railroad industry as we now know it. Many customer groups pushed for this in the past. The railroad industry won't allow it, nor should it. It is largely a ploy by certain customers to get cheaper rates.

LC

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is another thing I wonder about. SInce some railroads don't seem to be overly interested in maintaining the mainlines, what if the government control the mainlines and the railroads just lease access to it. Like trucking companies using the highways.

I'm not the brightest marble on here, but I am thinking Amtrak for how the government gets involved.

The railroads will be a dim memory if you wait for the govt to get their ducks in order and set up a lease access system.

But maybe some brighter marble will point out the error of my thinking.

Mookie

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

Railroads going away?I think not.I hopper vs 15 semi loads.do the math.
stay safe
Joe

Joe-

I'm not sure what makes you think a single hopper can hold 15 truckloads. It can't. The real ratio of truckloads to railcar loads, depending upon the commodity, weight, cubes, etc is about 3 or 4 truckloads per railcar load.

LC

[dldance]

I know that the State of Texas is proposing "transportation corridors" across the state that include rail - to reduce truck traffic on interstates. Cheaper to build rail than highway in many cases. I expect to see more goverment involvement in rail in the next 10 years.

dd

[SALfan]

To add a little bit to what tomubee said, in my sometimes not-so-humble opinion the best thing this country could do to enhance its national security is to take whatever steps are necessary to end our dependence on foreign oil. Railroads could go a long way toward doing that, obviously, because they are so much more efficient than trucks for moving large quantities long distances.

Even if natural gas (NG) has fewer BTU's for a given volume than diesel fuel, using NG in locomotives wouldn't seem to prevent insurmountable problems. Remember BN's fuel tenders from years ago, which were used to avoid high-priced fuel in a couple of states? The big benefit to NG is that it can be made from coal (which we have in abundance), pig manure and sewage (believe me, in some places the stench from pig manure is a BIG issue), garbage, and I believe from decaying vegetable matter such as waste wood, cornstalks, etc.

The best solution would be nuclear power plants powering electric locomotives, but that will never happen. Even if the fearsome initial investment could be had, the NIMBY's and BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) would all wet their pants in unison and start bleating and whining so much no politician would stand for it.

[Anonymous]

Limitedclear: Rails did an overall good job of maintaining infrastructure, and a few still do. Operations personnel on some carriers will tell you privately that the number of slow orders is rising dramatically. I don't need to cite specific examples, but any engineer or conductor on one or more of the class ones would concur. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

I know that the State of Texas is proposing "transportation corridors" across the state that include rail - to reduce truck traffic on interstates. Cheaper to build rail than highway in many cases. I expect to see more goverment involvement in rail in the next 10 years.

dd

The Texas Transportation Corridor would include the surrounding states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Louisiana.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomubee

Limitedclear: Rails did an overall good job of maintaining infrastructure, and a few still do. Operations personnel on some carriers will tell you privately that the number of slow orders is rising dramatically. I don't need to cite specific examples, but any engineer or conductor on one or more of the class ones would concur. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Tom-

We have fewer slow orders on the lines I operate than I can remember during my career. I'm sure that MOW budgets aren't huge given the economy and needs in other areas. Railroads have a lot of places to spend money these days and not that much money to spend. In case you haven't noticed, with the troubles in trucking we have more traffic than has moved in quite a while, cars and locomotives of all types are critically short particularly centerbeams, coal hoppers and seasonally grain hoppers. So this Engineer doesn't agree with your thesis or your "most conductors and engineers". Besides, I could get at least half of the guys I work with to buy Enron stock if I told them to, so 5 out of 6 conductors surveyed doesn't do much for me...lol...

LC

[espeefoamer]

If someone had captured all the hot air generated this week in Boston by the Democratic convention,we could generate enough fuel to run our railroads for the next 10 years![^]

[Junctionfan]

How could making the mainlines govermentally owned and leased, bankrupt the railroads. I'm not proposing that anybody with a locomotive can run. What I was proposing is that for example a couple of main arteries double or triple tracked, maintained and dispatched by a governmental agency, that can be use by all the class 1 railroads, passengers traffic, commuter traffic and some shortlines to get from one shortline to another. I can think of one place in Canada that would benefit from this. The Canada Southern route that went between Buffalo/Fort Erie to WIndsor/Detroit. This route would solve conjestion problems in Fostoria and would eliminate time for time sensitive NS and CSX intermodals running East to West to East. There would need to be work done on this route but it would be very great for CSX, NS, CN, CP, VIA, Rail America, Amtrak as well as UP and BNSF that wait for the eastbound NS and CSX intermodals. CP could run their Expressway tofc ferry between Buffalo and Detroit. CSX and NS could run their autoparts trains quicker, CN could run a few Niagara to Sarnia trains down that route. Also, Amtrak could run what they use to run an express train that ran between Detroit and Buffalo Depew. Via could start service between Niagara Falls Canada to Windsor. Some of the shortlines could get to their other locations without having to depend on CN.