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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

If one were to start with a clean sheet of paper on railroad electrification, there are very interesting technologies which can improve the reliability and safety - whether cat or 3rd rail.

One is the application of computer controlled power dispatching. Under this system, most of the electrical system would be at very low voltage most of the time. In reponse to the train signaling system, with further control from dispatching, voltage would jump to railroad power levels a few seconds before the engines arrive in that block and then drop back to low control voltage after the engines had passed. This is very similar to the way that model railroads operate. Properly designed, most of the train would be over(under) dead power leads for safety.

Interesting. On the one hand, this method could reduce attenuation losses in the overhead wires. On the other hand, wouldn't this type of system hamper the ability of downhill trains to return power to the system via regenerative braking systems?

[dldance]

If one were to start with a clean sheet of paper on railroad electrification, there are very interesting technologies which can improve the reliability and safety - whether cat or 3rd rail.

One is the application of computer controlled power dispatching. Under this system, most of the electrical system would be at very low voltage most of the time. In reponse to the train signaling system, with further control from dispatching, voltage would jump to railroad power levels a few seconds before the engines arrive in that block and then drop back to low control voltage after the engines had passed. This is very similar to the way that model railroads operate. Properly designed, most of the train would be over(under) dead power leads for safety.

The second idea requires much more research, but GM developed an inductive method for connecting the 220v charging power to battery powered cars. With this method, a person could be in contact with both the power source and the car at the same time - without causing a short or conducting power through the body. The only thing that would allow power transfer is a matching inductor in each locomotive.

Just a few things to think about.

dd

[Overmod]

HVDC is not a practical technology for sliding power distribution -- or for applications where very thick and heavy insulating construction cannot be provided. There are relatively hard limits on third-rail voltage imposed by its proximity to ties, ground, etc., particularly in rain or bad weather that induces a better path from rail to ground. The substantially higher return current in the track requires better bonding (and in my opinion leads to higher galvanic issues as well).

A possible place for third-rail service is on helper or pusher districts, to supply additional power via relatively cheap means. This would not 'replace' diesel operation over this trackage, simply provide a means of 'boosting' performance without commensurate fuel burn. I have looked into this opportunity, and some of the enabling technology should be quite inexpensive. I don't think that third rail is a particularly good general railroad solution for long-distance full freight electrification, however; I also note that all current FRA development of electrification systems is predicated on relatively high-speed passenger operation, and 110mph operation on third rail is NOT a particularly attractive technical requirement...

The Harmon to GCT electrification was state-of-the-art... for the turn of the century. It is quite capable for passenger work, but even in its best days the speed achieved was not particularly high. I can't imagine it extended to serve the needs of particularly heavy freight... or fast service either; it's not at all easy to build a high-current high-speed pickup for conventional third-rail (either overrunning or underrunning) that fits in the required locations and won't set the train on fire (as so many of the '50s attempts seemed to do!). You will also have some substantial engineering, implementation, and maintenance problems trying to do distributed peak-power generation with locomotives feeding third rail.

Conversely, modern AC catenary (the dynamically-suspended kind) solves these issues rather well. The ice problem is relatively easily addressed by running periodic trains that break the ice off the trolley, messenger, and hangers with vibration; it isn't difficult to use resistant heating elements in the catenary and pulloffs when necessary. We've done some studies on adapting trolleybus multiconductor overhead to railroad traction applications; I don't yet see insurmountable problems with the technology.

Note that I am NOT necessarily advocating the use of the overhead-wire infrastructure to carry grid AC power directly (although this was the gist of the Meadowlands cat-bridge project I mentioned earlier). To a certain extent, the area directly over railroad lines could be used for AC longlines (particularly the 'lollipop' multiphase line designs) -- the towers would have to be constructed to allow necessary overhead clearance, but it might actually be easier to arrange the pulloffs, hangers etc. for the high clearances required for stack trains in this sort of design, as opposed to portal-frame style catenary bridges or other ground-planted support with high legs (and hence high bending moment) relative to their cross-span. One note is that sagging of the actual main powerline conductors under overload conditions can be substantial, and this may have serious implications regarding the necessary height of the power towers over the railroad ROW.

I suspect that buried HVDC lines adjacent to the ROW (they can coexist quite nicely with fiber-optic cabling, btw) represents a more workable sort of solution. The railroad catenary infrastructure here might be considered a 'quid pro quo' for the colocation rights for HVDC lines, with the additional benefit of distributed peak-power connection... at least that's the way I've been developing some of the economic models.

What's the general consensus of the experienced heads on this list about the 'best' technologies for nuclear development?

With respect to SRC -- are there accessible studies on its storage stability and other characteristics?

[TH&B]

MK- Don't you consider the LIRR as maimline with 3rd rai? I do. So is the main line between Harmon and Grand Central Station.

J- Another big problem with 3rd rail is snow on the ground, this of course is not as big a problem for subway trains because they are mostly under ground.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

3rd rail is a good way to electricute switchmen and brakeman on the ground.

It is done on LIRR, but it's bad news, well cars and engine pilots can strike the 3rd rail and much of this equipement wich is standard everywhere else is restricted on Long Island.

Sounds like some insulation innovation is required than if this is to be something thought of for the future.

[martin.knoepfel]

Except for subways, I know only one place where third rail electrification is used for main lines. southern england, and it is hopelessly outmoded.

it is still in use because British governments - both conservative and labour - have negelcted the railroads for decades.

when the British Railways electrified from London to the Midlands and to Scotland, they chose 25 kv 50 Hz AC with catenary. this sais enough as for prospects of third rail.

[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?

[TH&B]

3rd rail is a good way to electricute switchmen and brakeman on the ground.

It is done on LIRR, but it's bad news, well cars and engine pilots can strike the 3rd rail and much of this equipement wich is standard everywhere else is restricted on Long Island.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan


I have know idea about what Ontario Power Generations plans on solar and the other alternatives. I do know that coal powered plants are to be phased out so I am keeping my ears peeled to see how sucessful it is.

A good idea for the future, but a bit short sighted for your utilities in view of available resourses and technology that cleans traditional fuels to compliant standards. The loss of coal shipments to utilities would not bring much good to the rail companies their investors, employees or customers. Please remember that we are seeking for a win-win proposition. Intermodal by itself is only a partial answer for a commercial transportation company entering the 21st century.

[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....

[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]

[Junctionfan]

Toronto is using some wind turbines to reduce the demand on our existing grid. It has been very sucessful and in fact Ontario plans on substantially increase the amount of wind turbines. This of course isn't our only method to increase the strain but it is a relatively cheap method of increasing our power. We also have plans to build another hydro dam in Niagara Falls-the Adam Beck 3 I believe it's called.

I have know idea about what Ontario Power Generations plans on solar and the other alternatives. I do know that coal powered plants are to be phased out so I am keeping my ears peeled to see how sucessful it is.

[Anonymous]

A Win Win proposal might be in order given present technology and reserch available. Nuclear, Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) heat recapture, regeneration and the like. Who would like to look into this idea. Solar, wind and even biomass are still in their infancy and need reserch and reliability studies. What says the forum

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

I like the idea of more direct electrically powered railroads versus diesel electric, but at what cost for the infrastructure? As a further question what distances does the author envision DC transmission lines? If I remember my college e.e one of the reasons for transmitting power as alternating current is it can be transmitted more economically over long distances.

Other questions:
How will the power be generated? Conventional fossil fuel power plants, Hydroelectrict, Nuclear?

What effect would substantial railroad electrification have on air quality?

Rudy -- please see my previous post for a fairly detailed discussion of AC vs. DC in long distance power transmission. The longest DC interconnects I know of are on the order to 1,000 miles, but there is no particular reason why they can't be longer. There is now no significant difference in operating cost for AC vs. DC; construction costs for DC are equal or less. Your college e.e. course was right -- when you took it! -- but things have changed in the last couple of decades.

The cost of infrastructure on the whole has to be regarded in two parts: overall grid infrastructure, and railroad (catenary) infrastructure. There is, I think I would be correct in saying, a truly desperate (dare I say emergency?) need to upgrade the North American electrical transmission grid, with the emphasis being on the US grid which is in really horrible condition. Who will pay? We all will, one way or another. If we don't do it, we will pay in increased power outages and lost production. If we do, we will pay either through increased taxes (if the Feds do it) or electricity rates (if the power line owners do it).

The cost for railroads for catenary would be very high, and is -- in my humble opinion -- probably the best reason for debating the wisdom of electrifying all railroads. Someone mentioned the clearances problem, which might be significant in some areas -- although I doubt that the cost of solving that would be more than a rather small fraction of the overall cost. However, the overall cost/benefit (including environmental costs) of electrification is certainly debatable, at least in my opinion. The issue is certainly exceedingly complex!

As to where would the electricity come from? OK, OK, you all have backed me into a corner and now I guess I need to come out of my closet: in my humble opinion, formed over working on and off in the power and risk assessment industry as an engineer for the last four decades or so, the power generation mode (for any industrially usable mode) which has the least overall cost to the environment (total environmental damage) and the lowest overall risk to the people, when looked at from initial extraction/acquisition of the energy in whatever form to the final user (which is the only valid comparison, by the way) is nuclear energy. Both the overall environmental hazard/damage and the overall risk to both workers and general population, particularly in terms of health consequences, are about two orders of magnitude less than the next best resource, which is natural gas. Coal and oil are simply off the charts, relatively speaking. The various renewable resources, while very attractive from some standpoints, either do not offer enough 100% reliable power (e.g. wind has this problem); enough power, period (e.g. biomass, geothermal) or have some pretty horrible environmental drawbacks (e.g. hydroelectric). Which is not to say they shouldn't be used where, and when, they make overall sense. But from the engineering standpoint, nuclear is preferable on every possible count. Politically, of course... oh well.

For what it's worth...

[dehusman]

Also figure in the incredible cost of raising virtually every overpass and tunnel in the United States. Since double stacks and tall multi-levels are now the norm the clearance height is now fully occupied by railroad car. If you want to put overhead in Its going to have to be at the 23-24 ft high level which means a whole lot of bridge and tunnel work.

Either that or you will condemn the entire US railroad system to step back from double stacks and trilevel auto racks, which would be a horrible step back from current efficiencies and would result in horrendous traffic jams in constrained corridors.

I wonder if you won't save more oil by using conventional engines and putting more TOFC/COFC on the rails, eliminating the use by trucks.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

How hard would it be to also run a MAC off ~12-20kV A.C.catenary?? More than a transformer big enough for the load? How many phases do AC traction motors use??

[Junctionfan]

Perhaps it is time to start investing in solar, wind, geo thermic, more hydro, methane, ethanol, and other alternative renewable resource power. It may not be much on their own but a whole bunch of thease definatly lessens the load of the fossil fuel burners and the nuclear power plus I have never heard of a terrorist wanting to blow up a wind turbine.

[daveklepper]

1. The idea has great merit and should be put into place. We need energy efficiency if lobal Terror is to be ended. (Again, Saudi kids have to be raised without the idea that, in the Eternal's World, people who are not Wahabee Muslims should and can be treated like cattle.)

2. The investment should come from the Federal Government as loans to the Power Companies so they can modernize and also solve the transportation problems at the same time. The same stratergy that was used for the Harrisburg - Paoli, Trenton - Sunnyside/Greneville, and Wilmington - Washington/Potomic Yard electrifications. The PRR paid back the USA and so will the power companies.

3. In addition to pure electric and pure diesel locomotives, through freight can be handled by a series of EMD and/or GE compatibles: An electric and a diesel and mu together and have heavy power cables connecting them when required. In electric territory the diesel acts as a slug for the electric for maximum tractive effort and in non-electric territory the electric acts similarly for the diesel. Prime movers, electronic equipment, alternators, rectifiers, pantographs, etc., would be designed for maximum horsepower (8000-9000) for this type of operation.

4. Tunnels would be handled by third rail at lower voltage, possibly between the rails Lionel like. The transition zones would have installed heaters in snowy areas.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

I like the idea of more direct electrically powered railroads versus diesel electric, but at what cost for the infrastructure? As a further question what distances does the author envision DC transmission lines? If I remember my college e.e one of the reasons for transmitting power as alternating current is it can be transmitted more economically over long distances.

Other questions:
How will the power be generated? Conventional fossil fuel power plants, Hydroelectrict, Nuclear?

What effect would substantial railroad electrification have on air quality?

Again, the problem with power transmission over long distances is that you need high voltage to avoid line losses. The problem with DC was that it was hard to change the voltage unlike AC which is easy to change the voltage. Apparently these problems with DC have been solved. There are HVDC transmission lines in use today. Here's one used to connect grids on New Zealand's north and south islands. http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=4798

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I like the idea of more direct electrically powered railroads versus diesel electric, but at what cost for the infrastructure? As a further question what distances does the author envision DC transmission lines? If I remember my college e.e one of the reasons for transmitting power as alternating current is it can be transmitted more economically over long distances.

Other questions:
How will the power be generated? Conventional fossil fuel power plants, Hydroelectrict, Nuclear?

What effect would substantial railroad electrification have on air quality?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Forget the coal. Ideally, it would be nicer to generations to come to let the coal turn into diamonds. Coal is bad for the environment and will eventually get used up.

Plutonium and stuff like that is man-made and so it will be forever to make. My only problem with radioactive materials is that it is difficult to deal with the waste afterwards. I can't think of any way to fast and safely dispose or destroy the waste.

Not to make to much of a statement here, but there is technology that is currently available (since 1978) patented by Southern Company, known as Solvent Refined Coal or SRC for short. This process available today cleans up the coal to an amazing level. If you were to see a piece of SRC it would appear almost crystaline, burns very hot, dry, and clean without the sulphuric acid residue with greatly redused NOX emission. This would be a musical note to both the nuclear industry that provides the heat requirement and the railroads for their traditional role. This is also the first cousin to the McIntosh process that is used to turn coal into synthetic oil. Unfortunatly it is still somewhat expensive, but who knows, with oil prices going North of $50 the barell something might just happen from that clay ridge in Atlanta on the perimeter, and things will never be the same again.

[oltmannd]

If energy independence is truly a national goal, and I don't think it currently is, then we are going to need public works projects like those discussed. Projects of that scope generally have to have some sort of gov't funding, backing, facilitation or assistance in order to happen. Hoover Dam, Golden Gate bridge, TVA/rural electrificaiton, Erie canal, UP/CP RR are examples. from our history.

However, gov't debt and commitment to social programs have so overwhelmed the Federal budget that I doubt we could scrape up enough funding to plug in a toaster, much less rewire the country.

Now, if we could just start balancing the budget, get gov't out of direct social aid and into facilitating social aid, we might have a chance. (getting off soap box!)

[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?

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

Guess I need to restudy the physics of electricity. Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC transmission, but the idea fell to Tesla's AC because the DC was incapable of long distance transmission.

[#ditto] Did I miss some technological breakthrough? Since when is DC transmission of electrical power more efficient than AC? A quick physics lesson is requested.

Possibly you may have missed a technological breakthrough, since there are several which make high voltage DC interconnects not only feasible, but desirable.
As ajmiller noted, transmission losses are related to the square of the current in a power line, assuming the same size wire. Power transmitted is related to the voltage times the current; to reduce transmission losses, raise the voltage and lower the current. In Mr. Edison's day, changing the voltage of a DC system involved rotating machinery, which was expensive, required a lot of maintenance, and wasn't all that efficient. So Mr. Edison had to resort to relatively low voltages to keep from frying the customer -- but then he couldn't transmit the power for any useful distance. Mr. Tesla's AC, on the other hand, could be changed in voltage by means of a transformer, which has pretty decent efficiency, no moving parts, and requires very little maintenance. Voila: he could use high voltages for long distance transmission, and transform them down to not fry the customer.
And so things stood, until relatively recently.
Not so long ago, static inverters/rectifiers using solid-state devices became practical for high voltage and high power use (think of a transistor on MEGAsteroids!). These devices have high efficiency, little maintenance, and no moving parts (just like a transformer!). Now it is possible to take a medium voltage AC or DC power source, as it might be from a generating plant, step it up to a nice high voltage (say 500,000 volts plus), convert it into DC, send it off for a few hundred or a few thousand miles, and then convert it back to AC and bring it down to a usable distribution voltage at the other end. All as simply as using transformers all the way and staying with AC.
So why use AC at all? It has numerous advantages, particularly in the three phase flavour, over DC for power use: motors and the like. Also, it is easy to step up and down, so you can have 110 VAC in your home, 220 VAC for you stove, and 480 or 1100 VAC for your industrial power.
OK then... why bother with DC for grid transmission?
There are several major reasons. First, to transmit DC from point X to point Y, you only really need one wire (although two are often used); to do the same thing with AC, you need at least three. Wires is money. So are the poles or trenches they are put in. Second, AC is subject to a variety of losses in transmission in addition to the pure I squared R losses; why is much too much to go into here, but the resistance in a given wire is often higher -- often much higher -- for AC than for DC. Third, and perhaps at least as significant, if you use DC for an interconnect it is much easier to keep the whole electrical grid stable. This is a little tricky to understand, but grid instability is what ultimately did in the northeast in the blackout a few years ago. Even one DC interconnect would have blocked the instability -- no blackout. (Again, it is a little complex, but in an all AC grid it is possible to get huge amounts -- gigawatts -- of power whizzing around in the grid, with no usable power getting out to anyone -- or in. With DC, this simply can't happen).
All that help?
oh -- PS -- Junctionfan is quite right: nuclear power has some major advantages, environmentally, over any form of fossil fuel and over most forms of 'renewable resources'. Politically, however, at the moment nuclear power is bad news. There are technical ways to handle the waste problem quite effectively.

[dldance]

Railroads already help the US achieve energy independence - compare the ton-miles per gallon of rail vs trucks and planes.

dd

[ajmiller]

I'm not an electrical engineer, but electrical power is P = V I where V is voltage and I is current. The power loss in transmission lines is I^2 R (read I squared R) where R is resistance of the wire. To minimize losses for a given power, you need high voltage with low current. Back in Edison's day, DC voltage could not be easily stepped up, but AC voltage can easily be stepped up using inductive transformers. Although I'm completely unfamiliar with the modern high voltage DC technology, I assume that it is now possible to step up DC voltages at powerplants. Search around for HVDC.

[rrnut282]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

Guess I need to restudy the physics of electricity. Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC transmission, but the idea fell to Tesla's AC because the DC was incapable of long distance transmission.

[#ditto] Did I miss some technological breakthrough? Since when is DC transmission of electrical power more efficient than AC? A quick physics lesson is requested.

[tree68]

Guess I need to restudy the physics of electricity. Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC transmission, but the idea fell to Tesla's AC because the DC was incapable of long distance transmission.

[Junctionfan]

Forget the coal. Ideally, it would be nicer to generations to come to let the coal turn into diamonds. Coal is bad for the environment and will eventually get used up.

Plutonium and stuff like that is man-made and so it will be forever to make. My only problem with radioactive materials is that it is difficult to deal with the waste afterwards. I can't think of any way to fast and safely dispose or destroy the waste.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick

If the goal is energy independence, we may not need a multi-multi billion $ electrification project. Just bring back the coal burning steam locomotive. Not the smoky, inefficient steamers we all know and love from the past. We know how to create clean burning highly efficient steam machines. We know how to MU them. We can address the balance and dynamic thrust problems. Even with other technical problems to overcome, we could do so far easier and cheaper than the proposed electrification. And the petroleum savings would be significant.

On the other hand if the goal is to end the use of fossil fuels, steam does no good. The real problem is to overcome the political resistance to nukes. There is no other technology presently feasible that could produce the massive amount of power required to electrify the entire railroad system.

Shelor's article was about energy indepedence from foreign sources, not necessarily ending the use of so-called "fossil fuels" (because many petroleum geologists now consider the possibility of hydrocarbons being of abiotic origin, but that's a whole 'nother argument!). Indeed, he also advocates increased drilling of all potential U.S. sources of oil and gas.

Since you mention coal, it is more likely that if it comes to that railroads will utilize some form of liquified coal derivitives like coal-derived diesel which are compatible with the current motive power, rather than going to a modernized version of reciprocating steam power or steam turbine.