Freight Railroad Electrification

[Overmod]

northeaster

I read a piece about the Milwaukee electric operation that the first freight going west provided enough power going downslope with regenerative braking to pay for its return east in power use.

The actual story turns out not to be quite as fun: they staged the freight at the top of the grade, and used its regenerated power to lift what I recall was a smaller train.  Good theatre for the time...

Modern electrification would make use of grid capacity, and wayside storage, and optimized charging of battery hybrid power.  In theory, using the Carnegie-Mellon approach (and proper PSR planning operation), decelerating trains can be timed to supply demanded power for accelerating ones in the same general region

[Overmod]

timz

Erik_Mag

NCTD's Sprinter service

 What's that?

San Diego.

[tree68]

SD70Dude

They are also being rather ignorant of how railroad electrification would reduce the amount of diesel exhaust in their area.  

And noise.

[zugmann]

tree68

And noise.

Ever stand near catenary on a damp/misty/foggy night/morning? 

[tree68]

zugmann

Ever stand near catenary on a damp/misty/foggy night/morning? 

Can't say as I have.  I was thinking the rumble of the Diesels...

[Backshop]

The only time that I saw the NEC was in 1970 when I was 11 and we visited my aunt and uncle in New Brunswick, NJ.  Their house was about 4 lots away from the NEC.  I remember that one electric was almost silent approaching and one was very loud but I don't remember which was the E44 and which was the GG1.  Can anyone refresh my memory?

[timz]

GG1s weren't loud -- near silent, seems to me. So why didn't they need the noisy blowers?

[NittanyLion]

SD70Dude

On what legal grounds?

Like this is something that's ever mattered to anyone with deep pockets and a willingness to go into them.

This is a location that got WMATA to split the Metro station's canopy so as not to obscure the view of the Masonic memorial when looking up the main street in town.  They'll either find something or keep suggesting something indefinitely, if it ever comes up as part of a serious proposal.

[BaltACD]

NittanyLion

 

SD70Dude

On what legal grounds? 

Like this is something that's ever mattered to anyone with deep pockets and a willingness to go into them.

This is a location that got WMATA to split the Metro station's canopy so as not to obscure the view of the Masonic memorial when looking up the main street in town.  They'll either find something or keep suggesting something indefinitely, if it ever comes up as part of a serious proposal.

And yet most of the catenary structures that existed to get GG-1's into Potomac Yard still exist, despite the yard having been gone for 30 years or more and Amtrak not permitting through freights on the NEC for even longer.

[Overmod]

timz

GG1s weren't loud -- near silent, seems to me. So why didn't they need the noisy blowers?

VERY different motor arrangement.

GG1s had twelve comparatively large universal motors (arranged as twin motors) with ample ducting for cooling air.  Transformer was a huge multiple-tap Pyranol affair that needed no particular force cooling.

E44s had nose-suspended motors that needed extensive cooling through flexible ducting, and air-cooled transformers, hence fans that ran with that distinctive vacuum-cleaner roar.  See also the New Haven EP-5s, in their excessively close carbody (to fit into the Park Avenue tunnels), which were known effectively as 'Jets" for the noise, and propensity to catch fire even then from inadequate cooling. 

[Gramp]

Overmod

What has allowed the UK to be responsive to supporting the introduction of these smalll modular nuclear plants?

 

 

Gramp

What I'd like to add in is the dawn of small nuclear reactors.  Not installed in locos.  Could a UP or BNSF supply its own electricity to its locos, and significantly lower its energy costs?

 

 

If the government tolerated self-insurance for even one of these, I'd be astounded; in addition it would be necessary to do something like extend Price-Anderson to potential accidents regarding them... and I don't see any prospective government even broaching the issue of statutory limitation.  (We sure ain't gonna see the latter readily after East Palestine!)

 

Railroad would have all the 'baggage' of dealing with permitting and the usual cost-escalating delays and pressure groups; it would have to provide, or expen$ively outsource, the added security against the usual suspects that would find small nuke plants an attractive nuisance; just think about the fun convincing absentee investor owners of having to account in advance for the full decommissioning costs.  And that's just for operation with no incidents.

 

Question is above. Put it in the wrong place. 

[Vermontanan2]

Thanks for the link to the article by Michael Iden.  While he makes many good points, he (like many others) omits one of the biggest obstacles to the “straight electric” electrification option: The huge cost of modifying locomotive power at locations where the electrification would start or end.

 

He stated, “We need to electrify only the heaviest density main lines—11,900 route-miles or 19,000 track-miles (assuming 1.6 main tracks per route-mile) handling 30% of U.S. rail freight GTMs at the lowest energy cost. This points to several key corridors: Chicago to Ogden, Barstow, Buffalo and Pittsburgh, plus Vancouver-Calgary. The Powder River Basin would have been a natural candidate but is in decline.” 

 

Electrifying only these 11,900 route-miles will create a fantastically inefficient utilization of locomotive resources because replacement power would need to be available at power at the numerous modification locations and this would result in a large quantity of power just sitting around waiting for the next train to be modified or would result in trains holding for the “right kind” of locomotive power before continuing.  In reality, I suspect that there would still be a large percentage of trains operating with diesel-electric locomotives in the electrified territory.  And then you would also need a lot more land and build yard tracks to accommodate these trains during power modifications.

 

So, let’s just take the (BNSF) Chicago-to-Barstow example, except eastbound.  Forty to fifty eastbound trains (depending on the day of the week) arrive Barstow with diesel-electric power. 70% or so are through trains, mostly intermodal.  All need to have their power modified, and since many would require distributed power, that means power would need to be replaced on both the head end and rear end of the train, and for the heaviest stack trains, power would need to be replaced in the middle of the train – a modification likely to take hours unless a lot of manpower and trackage is available.  Merchandise traffic humps at Barstow, so power modification for this traffic would not be a problem.  The problem is that not all the traffic goes to Chicago or somewhere else on the Southern Transcontinental.  There are merchandise trains for Galesburg, Kansas City, Amarillo and Belen, but also for Slaton, Temple, Houston, Fort Worth, Tulsa, and Memphis – all locations not on the core electrified route. 

 

Moving east, the first junction of consequence is Williams Jct. where the non-electrified trains from Phoenix join the main line.  They would need power modification at Winslow.  Coal trains unloaded near Springerville, Arizona when returning to the main line probably would keep their diesel-electric power (back to Amarillo) since that’s what they departed the Powder River Basin with.  At Belen, grain empties and auto rack trains from El Paso would need to be “relayed” with all-electric locomotives.  Eastbound trains, which would normally just hang a right at the south end of the yard would need to be brought into the yard for the modification.

 

At Clovis – the major intermodal and auto rack block-swapping location, trains pick up, set out, annul and originate.  All the trains for Lubbock, Slaton, Temple, Houston and New Orleans need to be relayed with diesel-electric power.  At Amarillo, it’s the same story for trains destined for Fort Worth, Teague, and Denver.  Avard, Oklahoma is probably the busiest junction point where trains for Tulsa, Springfield, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, and St. Louis leave the Southern Transcon.  There’s nothing at Avard but the junction – so you know that these trains aren’t going to be arriving with all-electric power. 

 

In Kansas, many trains join the Southern Transcon from Texas and Oklahoma origin points including Houston, Temple, Fort Worth and Oklahoma City.  Alternate route running for eastbound trains between Mulvane and Ellinor via Newton would likely be discontinued as not to electrify two parallel routes.  At Mulvane, grain empties for Concordia, Abilene, and Nebraska leave the main line, and obviously wouldn’t have their power modified there.  At Kansas City, inbound trains from Tulsa, Springfield and Memphis and outbound trains for Lincoln, the Dakotas and Minnesota would all need power modifications to change from electric to diesel electric.  At the Cameron connection, presumably electrification would extend to the Galesburg yard where many merchandise trains would terminate off the Southern Transcon or need to be repowered before continuing north.  And finally in Chicago, many intermodal trains would terminate – mostly from California, but power would need to be relayed if running through to other railroads which weren’t on the “Buffalo” or “Pittsburgh” routes.

 

I could go on, but the point is obvious:  Captive power only works when most of the trains go most of the distance of where the power is captive.  Otherwise, it creates a huge inefficiency that supersedes any perceived benefits.  The amount of locomotive dwell, train delay, and repositioning power to accommodate or to overcome the electrified section would not only be huge, it would be perpetual.

 

In today’s railroading, power modifications add cost and train delay.  This cost is easily recoverable if power is simply added for a section with increased grade, but to modify power just to change from diesel-electric to electric or vice versa (and back as the case may be) – especially with a large number of trains – is so cost prohibitive, it will never happen.  Clearly, a predominately all-electric system would be required to match the efficiency of much of today’s railroading (locomotive power from origin to destination, even through interchange). 

 

 

[Erik_Mag]

Captive power only works when most of the trains go most of the distance of where the power is captive.  Otherwise, it creates a huge inefficiency that supersedes any perceived benefits.

A very important point. That implies that electrification would require either an almost complete electrification or dual mode locomotives with sufficient battery capacity to operate over the entire length of the low density lines.

FWIW, I'm posting from Miles City. [Update 4/12: Back home now, high yesterday was 87F and tere were stll patches of ice on the ground... Noted a lot of stored cars between MC and Billings, a few on what was the Milwaukee main line in MC and the former NP station in MC is looking very dilapidated.]

[Erik_Mag]

timz

 

Erik_Mag

The Milwaukee pretty much shut down their Coast Division operations between 5PM and 6PM

 

In its later years, you mean?

Not necessarily.

I don't have access to my copy of Holley's book, as he had a short story about one conductor getting a lot flack for authorizing a train running during the 5-6PM peak demand time for the utilities supplying the coast electrification. My more than fallible memory was the incident took place somewhere around 1950.

The demand charge was one of the things discussed in the 1962 Trains article titled "We should have electrified".

[BaltACD]

Considering the path is for more electric cars in the years going forward, how much additional electrical generating capacity will be needed to support electrificatian of the railroads in addition to automotive requirements?

[ELRobby]

charlie hebdo

Just think, back in the day when railroads were more progressive (1920s) they built elevated, grade separated ROWs along several lines in the Chicago area alone.

I am assuming that the quote from Mr. Hebdo, and please excuse me if I have misunderstood your intent, is to accuse railroads of not being able or willing to do that type of large project anymore. I am not going to argue about the willingness of railroads, but there are other obstacles in trying to do projects today that I think we're all well aware of which makes your comparison invalid. However, there are also some specific things about your quote. First, the quote is inaccurate. The Chicago overheads were not built in the 1920's. They were the result of Chicago ordinances passed from the 1880's until the 1910's that mandated various places where the railroads had to eliminate Chicago road crossings. I am not going to claim that there may have been some projects done in the 1920's, but the majority were done over several decades with maybe the last big one being the massive Grand Crossing separation and grade crossing elimination done by the IC, PRR, NYC and NKP completed about 1915. If you care to look it up, there is a book that can be found in the on-line hathitrust site that reports on all the various Chicago ordinanced elevation projects from the beginning to 1908, if I remember the dates correctly. The book lists the various projects, shows the railroads involved, what the project involved and what percentage the railroad had to pay. It would not include the Grand Crossing project since it's after 1908. The agreement for the Grand Crossing project among the four railroads constitutes its own book as it had to go to arbitration to get settled. In today's world, that agreement might have constituted two books. To help the process along, there was also an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that absolved the railroads from any damages caused to neighboring properties by erecting these structures. The fact that the elevations were mandated by Chicago ordinances and the favorable court ruling helped these projects get done. Mentioned several times in the various responses regarding the electrication would be the problem today of getting the various NIMBY groups and environmental groups to allow these massive electrication projects to proceed. If you remember one of the problems affecting the completion of the fairly recently completed PTC mandates were native Americans objecting to the erection of some of the necessary signal towers. Electrication on the scale discussed would dwarf the PTC projects.  

The second objection to your quote is even though the Chicago elevation projects were completed (just not during the 1920's), is using those Chicago projects as an example of what can be done has no application today. Do you have any experience of working with any Chicago city agency? I remember that when Conrail was still around, they had a lawyer on retainer in Chicago just to serve as a lobbyist to help people get in contact with various City of Chicago departments. And every Chicago agency one deals with has their hand out for some type of payment. I don't imagine it's gotten any better since I had to deal with them. Not impossible as the various completed CREATE projects show, but still hard and they're going to take longer. And that is just the city agencies - not mentioning the NIMBY's and environmentalists.

The third thing that you're overlooking with the Chicago elevations as an example of what could be done then is you don't know how the fill was obtained. It would be impossible today to do the fill as cheaply and conveniently sourced as it was available then - which certainly made the elevation projects financially possible. Most of the fill came from the now protected nearby Indiana dunes. Both the NYC and PRR ran unit trains of sand out of the Dune Park area. The NYC's Dune Park Branch (and it's not the IHB's) even allowed the EJ&E trackage rights over it to mine sand which was used to fill in the ground under what became US Steel's Gary Works. Also the fill for the now abandoned Dune Park Branch elevation came from the Indiana Dunes. Environmental groups today would not let anyone touch the Dunes for that kind of sand mining. 

I think to use any 19th or early 20th century project as an example of what railroads could accomplish then as some sort of criticism of today's companies ignores what could be done then with little opposition. Can you imagine getting permission without a long environmental battle for the SP building the causeway across the Great Salt Lake, PRR tunneling under the Hudson, any number of famous railroad viaducts, Horseshoe Curve scarring the forest, pick your great railroad engineering project, etc. How would you get the CP/UP Transcon built through native American lands today?

Two other fairly recent examples that I ran across in my career impressed me as examples of what even minor environmental opposition can block or delay. This may be apocryphal, but I was told that during the program to increase Amtrak speeds between Chicago and St. Louis one of the objections was that the increased speed would lead to more of a rare type of butterfly that was in some swamp along the line getting squished by the train. Supposedly it ceased to be a problem because the species died out on its own. The second example is when Conrail was clearing the railroad for doublestack in the 1990's into Harrisburg and east. One of the Conrail civil engineers told me it would have been cheaper to daylight the tunnels at Spruce (east of Altoona) instead of the work that was done to improve the tunnels. And easier to engineer. Daylighting couldn't even be considered because there was a popular hiking trail that went over the top of the tunnels. I would guess that even when something is finally permitted for a massive electrication project it is probably going to have minor and major environmental restrictions placed upon them. And that will apply to the numerous projects that will be necessary for any single line to be electrified. 

I don't think that environmental concerns are a bad thing, but to compare what could be done then to the present day is not valid. Maybe the corporations don't have the will today (and looking at the various CREATE projects done in Chicago I don't agree with that belief 100%), but they're certainly going to face a lot more obstacles now than one hundred or more years ago.

Massive electrication may or may not be a good idea, but I would bet it's going to take 10 years just to get the NIMBY, EPA and other environmental groups obections dealt with just to do one line. And that will be decided line by line.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

If you're wondering why electrifying the railroads won't work look no further than California.  Where last summer people were being told that they literally couldn't recharge their electric cars to avoid blackouts during the day.  

[NKP guy]

BaltACD

Considering the path is for more electric cars in the years going forward, how much additional electrical generating capacity will be needed to support electrificatian of the railroads in addition to automotive requirements?

 

   I think we'd be advised to look into Bitcoin "mining" to find that additional needed power.  In the New York Times of April 11 we see a two-page spread on how much electricity is needed to run all of the Bitcoin operations in the USA.  For example, in New York state alone*, Bitcoin consumes as much electricity as 382,000 households. In North Dakota, electricity that could power 316,000 households is consumed every day "mining" Bitcoin.  In Texas, power that could run 1,243,000 households is consumed every day.  BTW, in California, NO electricity is used "mining" Bitcoin.

   It's interesting to me that we criticize each other in this forum over the needed power to  re-charge automobilies and maybe operate trains, but not one word is said about the absolute waste of resources and the environment to "make" something as silly and unnecessary as crypto-currency.

 

*Coinment in Massena, NY (near you, tree68) consumes the vast majority of Bitcoin's NY energy "needs": 186,000 households worth.

[NittanyLion]

BaltACD

 

 

NittanyLion

 

SD70Dude

On what legal grounds? 

Like this is something that's ever mattered to anyone with deep pockets and a willingness to go into them.

This is a location that got WMATA to split the Metro station's canopy so as not to obscure the view of the Masonic memorial when looking up the main street in town.  They'll either find something or keep suggesting something indefinitely, if it ever comes up as part of a serious proposal.

 

 

And yet most of the catenary structures that existed to get GG-1's into Potomac Yard still exist, despite the yard having been gone for 30 years or more and Amtrak not permitting through freights on the NEC for even longer.

 

There's no extant catenary structures in Virginia, with the possible exception of a few immediately west of Long Bridge.  They were removed when the main were realigned from the west side of the yard property to the east ahead of the redevelopment.  But, virtually all of the electrified territory was in Arlington County and not the City of Alexandria.  By the time the main crossed Four Mile Run, it was non-electrified and, as such, wire was never strung in the City of Alexandria.  Especially not through the residential areas just south of Potomac Yard and through the station.  The only wire in Alexandria was a few hundred feet on some of the yard tracks.

[Overmod]

He doesn't mean wire; I think he means the cat bridges and other structure.

[BaltACD]

NKP guy

 

BaltACD

Considering the path is for more electric cars in the years going forward, how much additional electrical generating capacity will be needed to support electrificatian of the railroads in addition to automotive requirements? 

   I think we'd be advised to look into Bitcoin "mining" to find that additional needed power.  In the New York Times of April 11 we see a two-page spread on how much electricity is needed to run all of the Bitcoin operations in the USA.  For example, in New York state alone*, Bitcoin consumes as much electricity as 382,000 households. In North Dakota, electricity that could power 316,000 households is consumed every day "mining" Bitcoin.  In Texas, power that could run 1,243,000 households is consumed every day.  BTW, in California, NO electricity is used "mining" Bitcoin.

   It's interesting to me that we criticize each other in this forum over the needed power to  re-charge automobilies and maybe operate trains, but not one word is said about the absolute waste of resources and the environment to "make" something as silly and unnecessary as crypto-currency. 

*Coinment in Massena, NY (near you, tree68) consumes the vast majority of Bitcoin's NY energy "needs": 186,000 households worth.

Call me a Neanderthal - I don't understand Bitcoin mining and why power consumption is so high to do it.

[Backshop]

BaltACD

 

 

NKP guy

 

BaltACD

Considering the path is for more electric cars in the years going forward, how much additional electrical generating capacity will be needed to support electrificatian of the railroads in addition to automotive requirements? 

   I think we'd be advised to look into Bitcoin "mining" to find that additional needed power.  In the New York Times of April 11 we see a two-page spread on how much electricity is needed to run all of the Bitcoin operations in the USA.  For example, in New York state alone*, Bitcoin consumes as much electricity as 382,000 households. In North Dakota, electricity that could power 316,000 households is consumed every day "mining" Bitcoin.  In Texas, power that could run 1,243,000 households is consumed every day.  BTW, in California, NO electricity is used "mining" Bitcoin.

   It's interesting to me that we criticize each other in this forum over the needed power to  re-charge automobilies and maybe operate trains, but not one word is said about the absolute waste of resources and the environment to "make" something as silly and unnecessary as crypto-currency. 

*Coinment in Massena, NY (near you, tree68) consumes the vast majority of Bitcoin's NY energy "needs": 186,000 households worth.

 

 

Call me a Neanderthal - I don't understand Bitcoin mining and why power consumption is so high to do it.

 

Only the smartest people are supposed to understand it.  The rest of us Neanderthals are just supposed to give them our money.

[rdamon]

Backshop

 

 

BaltACD

 

 

NKP guy

 

BaltACD

Considering the path is for more electric cars in the years going forward, how much additional electrical generating capacity will be needed to support electrificatian of the railroads in addition to automotive requirements? 

   I think we'd be advised to look into Bitcoin "mining" to find that additional needed power.  In the New York Times of April 11 we see a two-page spread on how much electricity is needed to run all of the Bitcoin operations in the USA.  For example, in New York state alone*, Bitcoin consumes as much electricity as 382,000 households. In North Dakota, electricity that could power 316,000 households is consumed every day "mining" Bitcoin.  In Texas, power that could run 1,243,000 households is consumed every day.  BTW, in California, NO electricity is used "mining" Bitcoin.

   It's interesting to me that we criticize each other in this forum over the needed power to  re-charge automobilies and maybe operate trains, but not one word is said about the absolute waste of resources and the environment to "make" something as silly and unnecessary as crypto-currency. 

*Coinment in Massena, NY (near you, tree68) consumes the vast majority of Bitcoin's NY energy "needs": 186,000 households worth.

 

 

Call me a Neanderthal - I don't understand Bitcoin mining and why power consumption is so high to do it.

 

 

 

 

Only the smartest people are supposed to understand it.  The rest of us Neanderthals are just supposed to give them our money.

 

 

 

Large scale mining operations are where there is cheap power.  

The problem is not the power, but the grid.

https://www.necn.com/news/local/jury-holds-key-to-fate-of-1-billion-transmission-project-in-maine/2961047/

I'll let my friends who have mining operaition in CA know they do not exist. :)

[Overmod]

The fundamental basis of Bitcoin as a store of value is (like Marxism) labor.  But instead of 'manual' labor, something that can be secured directly from 'cyber' systems was chosen: the number of computer processor cycles to solve certain mathematical problems.

In 2008, the era where the 'competition' for idle processor cycles was stuff like SETI@home, the bar for speed and capacity was lower.  Now it is ridiculously high -- there are or were huge hydro complexes in the former USSR feeding things like mammoth Beowulf clusters to make the equivalent of Bitmills (or smaller) per hour -- even at the inflated value Bitcoin occasionally reaches, it's a dubious use for (and payback from) all the electrical kWh consumed.

But it IS a conversion from electricity, which is gone if not used as generated, to a protected and reasonably secure store of value... however small the units.

[rdamon]

That is why I only use recycled electrons.

[BaltACD]

Wikipedia

What is a Beowulf cluster used for?

A Beowulf Computing Cluster is a grouping of off-the-shelf computer hardware networked together with fast communication software. The resulting parallel processing power of the collection generates processing speeds faster than most super-computer systems used for complex processing – at a fraction of the cost.Aug 4, 2022

[Cotton Belt MP104]

FWIW. Laptops or even cell phones get "warm" when used. Think about large computer systems. Enough heat is created that air conditioning is needed. Where does this A/C come from? Electrical power. Sorry to not be able to cite specifics, but I have read of some large computer center in the U.S. uses so much electricity for A/C (air conditioning) that it equals the need of some cities. endmrw0411232022

[Gramp]

Occidental Petroleum is starting to build huge carbon sequestration plants to allow it to continue in the oil biz going forward. Figures it will become a large additional business on its own. 

[rdamon]

Maybe BNSF could use the CA HSR Route for a high speed version of the Western Fruit Express between Fresno and Merced, CA.

[charlie hebdo]

ELRobby

charlie hebdo Just think, back in the day when railroads were more progressive (1920s) they built elevated, grade separated ROWs along several lines in the Chicago area alone. I am assuming that the quote from Mr. Hebdo, and please excuse me if I have misunderstood your intent, is to accuse railroads of not being able or willing to do that type of large project anymore. I

I wasn't limiting it to the 1920s, although as I recall (correct me if I err by a few years if you must) some major projects were done in the early 20s, such as in Aurora, IL.  My point was that American railroads appear to have ceased major modernization of infrastructure, unlike rails in other countries, whatever the reason.