Railroads' role in helping U.S. achieve energy independence

[TH&B]

quote by jctfan;

" That's why I advocate using things like solar panel moduals or wind turbines, something that is clean and gives enough juice just to power a block not the entire system plus maybe sell extra juice to the power company"

I've seen solar panels at power switches and signals. I imagine though it is self contained and not conected to the"grid" , but it is reliable and didn't fail in the blackout.

[Junctionfan]

Niagara College (Glendale Campus) which was built recently, does not have a powerplant but the Welland Campus I am sure does. Welland Campus was built a long time ago.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

oltmannd:

I was able to ride one of your SEPTA trains a couple weekends ago. I was in Philly for a scientific conference, and I took the train from Pennsylvania Convention Center out to the airport. I talked to a British colleague who said he rode the train in from the airport and liked it a whole lot -- SEPTA gets high marks from the international train-riding community.

Hey everybody, did you know you could fly into Phily, a $5.50 train ride leaves just outside baggage claim every half hour and can take you to Amtrak station where you can hop on the NEC? Trying doing anything that cool anywhere else. I hope the service holds together after the big cost crunch situation by the end of the year.

By the way, I remember riding a Silverliner MU car from Metro Park, NJ to Trenton about 20 years ago (a commuter train on the NEC), and I remember the acceleration and traction motor gearing to be streetcar/electric trolley bus kind of fast -- the SEPTA MUs run smooth but I didn't notice the same rush of adrenelin. Does SEPTA run the same kind of MU over its entire network or is it a mix of Diesel and electric like NJT? Who makes your MU cars these days now that Budd is out of the business?

Best kept secret in Philly! Ironically, everytime SEPTA has a budget crunch, they say the Airport line is 1st to go! It has the most political leaverage, I think.

The coolest service was, when, for a short time in the early 90s, Amtrak and Midway did a code share for service to Atlantic City from the airport. I often think the NJT should start their AC runs from the airport.

SEPTA's Silverliners are/were identical to the NJT Arrows of the same vintage except the SEPTA cars had blended braking. The Silverliner IVs I used to ride to Marcus Hook each day moved out pretty well and would creep up on 100 mph thru Riley Park each day.

Neither NJT nor SEPTA have purchased MUs lately - since the mid 70s. They've purchased Bombardier coaches. NJT has purchased quite a bit of equipment. SEPTA, hardly any. So, SEPTA is still primarily MUs from the 60s and 70s while NJT is primarily loco hauled coaches from the 80s and 90s.

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I wonder how many universities and colleges do the same thing?

Junctionfan,

I don't have exact numbers, but all the universities at which I studied - or at which I have been employed - have had their own power plants. Keep in mind that a university is a huge endeavor, and it requires a lot of electricity for all the classrooms, teaching and research labs, offices, eateries, etc., to run. Most could not operate by plugging into the local utility alone.

Michael

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Junc: The sale of railroad-generated power is clearly possible under the provisions of PURPA -- I have no idea why the precedent mentioned by piouslion would apply to the situation you mentioned. Of course, the rail-generated power would have to be 'sold' to electric utilities (the situation is a bit more complex under deregulation, but not effectively different) but most railroads would have little desire to become regulated utilities anyway.

Unless things have radically changed, the price which utilities pay for qualified NUG power is substantially above baseline 'market' rate, intentionally set up to make investment in alternative power and cogen more attractive.

A point well made sir, in the case you mentioned on the sale of NUG power the cost would be higher than that of base load costs and price of a major utility's generating capasity. The precedent I used was only to point out the starting point of the community of interests that would be line up against such a program. I in no way wi***o demini***he clear thought that was exspoused in the thread. In truth I think it is a great idea that Junctionfan makes for a good position. Thanks for expanding the thread - Roy

[Junctionfan]

I wonder how many universities and colleges do the same thing? Obviously it is more cost effective than to get it from the OPG or they would have. That's why I advocate using things like solar panel moduals or wind turbines, something that is clean and gives enough juice just to power a block not the entire system plus maybe sell extra juice to the power company (I originally thought city but I have been corrected (thankyou jchnhtfd)). Wind turbines and solar panels do not cause pollution nor do they require a lot of maintainance I would say.

[jchnhtfd]

Mudchicken's third point -- why do people think a power plant is cleaner than a good modern locomotive? -- is exactly why I mentioned earlier that the whole notion of electrifying anything much more than extremely high-density routes is, at best, debatable. The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there. There are a few applications, and long distance rail is one of them in my opinion, where the continued use of liquid fossil fuel as the energy source (read: diesel engines) is fully justified. Hybrids, e.g. the green goats, in yard work; straight diesel road engines. If one works the numbers, it works. The other place, incidentally, is in air transportation. It's a bear to run an airplane off a catenary or with an extension cord... and hydrogen tanks are too heavy to be an option.

ps -- Junctionfan -- Trent University in Peterborough ON also generates its own power and sells to the grid -- hydroelectric plant on the Otonabee River

[Junctionfan]

Well if they can sell it, maybe they can store it as back up power if there is a generation problem or it can be distributed through out the system where needed.

[Overmod]

Junc: The sale of railroad-generated power is clearly possible under the provisions of PURPA -- I have no idea why the precedent mentioned by piouslion would apply to the situation you mentioned. Of course, the rail-generated power would have to be 'sold' to electric utilities (the situation is a bit more complex under deregulation, but not effectively different) but most railroads would have little desire to become regulated utilities anyway.

Unless things have radically changed, the price which utilities pay for qualified NUG power is substantially above baseline 'market' rate, intentionally set up to make investment in alternative power and cogen more attractive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Ontario passed a bill under the conservatives to allow similar things to happen. Brock University for example, has its own power plant and sell excess power to the city of St.Catharines which in turn lowers its property taxes.

Is this amendment eradicatable? Would this be something politically reasonable because think how much revenue Amtrak's NEC could muster.

To answer your question, yes it is changeable and can be vacated by an act of congress. The problem is that to do this would involve many private and public vested interests that have grown up over the past 60 or so years and have become quite happy with the status quo. To make such a change would require a very large dose of political courage, a gracious plenty of economic persuasion, a large helping of pure salemanship rivaling Ben Feldman or P.T. Barnum and a passion for change on the order of the desire to live free. Railroads and legal monopolies what a natural partnership.

[Junctionfan]

Ontario passed a bill under the conservatives to allow similar things to happen. Brock University for example, has its own power plant and sell excess power to the city of St.Catharines which in turn lowers its property taxes.

Is this amendment eradicatable? Would this be something politically reasonable because think how much revenue Amtrak's NEC could muster.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I know.



Anything including the CTC signals that needs power, gets its own wind turbine or solar modual or something like that. All power imput is controlled by the railroad and excess power can be sold by the railroad, to the cities. Would something like this work?

That is an astoundingly great idea, One problem The admendments to the Utility Holding Acts of 1934 amended in1939. This act as amended had much to do with the demise of the Baltimore and Annapolis Interurbans forbidding the very idea that you are placing forward. F.D. Roosevelt and his New Deal Crowd pretty much put an end to that idea. By the way its a good idea. Then utilities would be allowed to keep the heat rates up in their reactors and power boilers, transmission scheduleing would be greatly simplified and interstate transmission between utilities more efficent.

[Junctionfan]

I know. This will of course be a real bummer on the railroads and railfans who like to see coal train but as much as I don't like it, if coal power fumes are causing harmful pollutants than I must think of others and say, what else can we use as power? I am glad than this clean coal technology is going on well but what happens to us when we have used up all conviently located coal deposits? Coal is not a practical renewable resources as it takes millions of years to renew as opposed to wind, solar, ethanol, and things like that. Mind you, what about a unit ethanol train (ADM tanks or MCP tanks)

Anyways, what about a wind turbine per block. Anything including the CTC signals that needs power, gets its own wind turbine or solar modual or something like that. All power imput is controlled by the railroad and excess power can be sold by the railroad, to the cities. Would something like this work?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(1) The cost of the changeover is prohibitive (pointed out justifiably multiple times)

(2) Why do people think that ALL the power put out at the generating site automatically gets to the end user(s)????

(3) Why do people think that electricity is automatically cleaner than portable diesel electric generators on wheels (aka diesel locomotives)????All you are doing is moving the emissions point source to some other guy's backyard and evil is conserved.

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

If the power plants don't output toxic fumes like coal powered plants, than all is o.k.

Junctionfan: I really did not want to say this, but it really would help if you knew something about the modern compliant coal fired generating plants which are the only kind you can build in the U.S. Please do also remember that those coal plants are a primary sorse of healthy income to your favorite industry in the U.S. (railroads). We do not have the resorses your great country has when it comes to Hydo electric sites in the U.S. and are even beginning to retire and destroy them due to their adverse impact on the environment. Be careful friend don't cut yourself off from reality when it comes to commercial enterprises

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(1) The cost of the changeover is prohibitive (pointed out justifiably multiple times)

(2) Why do people think that ALL the power put out at the generating site automatically gets to the end user(s)????

(3) Why do people think that electricity is automatically cleaner than portable diesel electric generators on wheels (aka diesel locomotives)????All you are doing is moving the emissions point source to some other guy's backyard and evil is conserved.

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

If the power plants don't output toxic fumes like coal powered plants, than all is o.k.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(1) The cost of the changeover is prohibitive (pointed out justifiably multiple times)

(2) Why do people think that ALL the power put out at the generating site automatically gets to the end user(s)????

(3) Why do people think that electricity is automatically cleaner than portable diesel electric generators on wheels (aka diesel locomotives)????All you are doing is moving the emissions point source to some other guy's backyard and evil is conserved.

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

Mudchicken you have a nice way of putting forth the $ 64,000 question. Said like a true student of human nature and professor of life as it really is, Good post!!!-----[^]

[Paul Milenkovic]

oltmannd:

I was able to ride one of your SEPTA trains a couple weekends ago. I was in Philly for a scientific conference, and I took the train from Pennsylvania Convention Center out to the airport. I talked to a British colleague who said he rode the train in from the airport and liked it a whole lot -- SEPTA gets high marks from the international train-riding community.

Hey everybody, did you know you could fly into Phily, a $5.50 train ride leaves just outside baggage claim every half hour and can take you to Amtrak station where you can hop on the NEC? Trying doing anything that cool anywhere else. I hope the service holds together after the big cost crunch situation by the end of the year.

By the way, I remember riding a Silverliner MU car from Metro Park, NJ to Trenton about 20 years ago (a commuter train on the NEC), and I remember the acceleration and traction motor gearing to be streetcar/electric trolley bus kind of fast -- the SEPTA MUs run smooth but I didn't notice the same rush of adrenelin. Does SEPTA run the same kind of MU over its entire network or is it a mix of Diesel and electric like NJT? Who makes your MU cars these days now that Budd is out of the business?

[mudchicken]

(1) The cost of the changeover is prohibitive (pointed out justifiably multiple times)

(2) Why do people think that ALL the power put out at the generating site automatically gets to the end user(s)????

(3) Why do people think that electricity is automatically cleaner than portable diesel electric generators on wheels (aka diesel locomotives)????All you are doing is moving the emissions point source to some other guy's backyard and evil is conserved.

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Apparently, Plutonium for example which is 94 on the periodic table, can be rendered an inert gas if an element with a higher number was introduced to it like Lawrencium which is 103. Does anybody know of this?

Junctionfan,

Like most of the actinide elements, Lawrencium (Lr, element 103, atomic weight 262), has only been observed under extremely specific conditions (i.e. inside particle-accelerating cyclotrons), and only a VERY limited number of times. You can't just go to your friendly, neighborhood Lawrencium supplier and buy a tank of it to spray onto a pile of Plutonium. Lr was first detected in 1961 after bombarding a mixture of isotopes of Californium with heavy Boron. Moreover, it has a half-life of 8 seconds (although a lighter isotope had a half-life of 35 s)...not much time to make it useful, even if you had a lot of it. It has been observed so few times that is it considered probably a solid at 273 K (0 degrees Celsius), and probably would have a metallic look if you had enough of it to view it. We don't even know how it would react with air or water.

As for bombarding P with Lr: I'd stand waaaay back. There would be very little that was inert about the particles that would be emitted.

Michael

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Cantenary is possible but would be kind of difficult for double stacks and excess height railcars like the high cube box cars and the automaxes. Now if you raise the wires to accomidate them, you need to raise the clearance of the bridges and tunnels too. Gets kind of expensive and tasking to alter everything for the wires.

I don't know if it is possible but I wonder if it is possible to do a combination. Wires for lines and third rail for tunnels and underpasses?

Most of the clearance work for DS was done by undercutting. Not too difficult to go another foot down, if you need to. Tunnels can sometimes be undercut, too, depending on their construction. And, I think some of the heavy duty DS tunnel work allowed some extra clearance for future "growth". Stringing the wire is the big expense.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Yes but we are talking about (at least I think we are talking about) wiring up the entire U.S railways. NEC is fortunate but what about the other lines?

Brush cutters will work in the south and west, too.

[Junctionfan]

Cantenary is possible but would be kind of difficult for double stacks and excess height railcars like the high cube box cars and the automaxes. Now if you raise the wires to accomidate them, you need to raise the clearance of the bridges and tunnels too. Gets kind of expensive and tasking to alter everything for the wires.

I don't know if it is possible but I wonder if it is possible to do a combination. Wires for lines and third rail for tunnels and underpasses?

[TH&B]

J- Dealing with ice, if the whole continent can be filled with overhead transmision lines all over the place, why wouldn't the railroads be able to have catenary?

DaveK- Why would you put the 3rd rail between the rails Lionel like, instead of outside the rails like on subway lines?

[Junctionfan]

Yes but we are talking about (at least I think we are talking about) wiring up the entire U.S railways. NEC is fortunate but what about the other lines?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

As far as electrification goes, third rail would be a more reasonable way of doing it. High winds make cantenary too inconvient and is really ugly looking. Third rail allows for double stacks and does not make issues with bridges and tunnels that can not accomidate for the overhead wires.

Of course it makes the system look like a giant O scale layout.[:D]

Now, hold on there!

High winds make catenary "inconvenient"? What do you mean? It's too hard to install and repair when it's windy? I have no idea if this is true, but, that would be a minor inconvenience. Do you mean you can't run trains on windy days? That would be just plain wrong. The NH-DC catenary's been around a while, and that's a pretty reliable stretch of RR, all things considered..

What about the danger of electricution from 3rd rail? Most 3rd rail installations are fully fenced in.

I won't even get into the voltage/voltage drop arguement....

Haven't you seen those storms that knock down telephone and electric wires? Some states are prone to all kinds of annoying winds like Florida with hurricanes and Texas with Tornadoes. Than, ice and snow can weight down the lines and cause them to tumble from the weight. Just look what happened to the wires in Ontario and Quebec during that famous icestorm we had. There are a few states that can just as easilly get nailed by an Alberta Clipper.

As far as crews being electricuted, what about giving crews those boots and gloves that the electric companies wear when they work on the wires and about transformer stations?

This just isn't a problem on the NEC. When freezing rain occurs, sometimes they'll run with both pans up, but I've never seen trains have significant difficultly because of icing on the catenary.

I have seen freezing rain and snow cause problems with overrunning 3rd rail, though. Chicago has even gone as far at to apply electric heat tracing along the 3rd rail to keep it from icing. This is a big bucks solution!

Wind only causes problems with wires when it blows trees into them. I have never known of such a problem on the NEC - Amtrak keeps the trees trimmed back. The usual catenary problems are trains knocking down the wires, I suspect because the wires are near their fatigue life. I have even had my SEPTA commute be delayed because of squirrels in the substation (they were squirrel vapor at that point) , but never because of wind in the wires.

[daveklepper]

Third rail should be the solution for tunnels where raising clearances for caternary would be expensive. The third rail would be between the rails, Lionel like, and energized only when a train was in the tunnel. Voltage would be about 750V and this may require mutliple droppable "skates" to pick up the required current throught the tunnel. Just because the long distance transmission for the power companies would be DC, there is no reason why the say 20,000V catenary outside the tunnels need be DC if AC is the engineering solution for cost effectiveness.

I see too many objections on this thread that indicate the objectors have not really thought through all the possible answers to their objections.

Some of the electrifications may be planned for high speed rail, such as any further upgrade of the NE Corridor or its extension to Portland ME and Richmond, VA, although even there freight must be accommocated. But most new electrification would be planned primarily for more economy and greater capacity in freight movement, with residual benefit to commuter and Amtrak operations that may use part of this trackage

[Anonymous]

Yeah Jamie, but remember getting to yes often means that there is more than one answer, logic or no logic to what an engineer knows is the best answer there's always a bunch that make up a majority that will shout him down. By the way, I'm an old Civil Inspector with Nuc/Fossill/Hydro (NFH) construction Certs (what used to be called Level II). I know your point and mostly agree with it. Unfortunatly more dissagree with us than agree. SRC as a by product may be a place to find some alliances toward getting the U.S. back in the Nuc business while we still have enough crafts persons that know how to do the work. That combines, Utilities, Coal miners, Railroads, Steel folks, buildiong and trades folks and not a few investors that know a good thing when they see it. I do have to give you this, I think your right - Roy

[jeaton]

jchnhtfd

[Anonymous]

Well the discussion is at least far reaching

[Overmod]

Computer power dispatching doesn't impair regenerative connectivity. Note that the dispatching system works in 'blocks' that are activated by train occupancy. A train doing regenerative braking is still occupying a block, and the same connections that provide high traction power to trains in a block can very simply be arranged to handle or sink the current from trains producing current instead...