Many infrastructure projects postdate the '20s, including the Syracuse bypass. I suspect that the post-1928 'change of focus' of the ICC away from automatic train control and toward grade-crossing dangers resulted in quite a bit of line relocation plans, perhaps actually made more effective by Depression-era economics.
Much of what's left is only addressable by far more heroic infrastructure than almost any railroad could afford. Railroads aren't going to pay for (or maintain) large numbers of elevated roads to eliminate grade crossings; tunneling under is usually a drainage nightmare; transit-style flyovers at even major crossings are probably nonstarting for operations, and require extensive government assistance. The alternative is to develop Chinese-style viaduct construction combined with Interstate-style berm construction... and combining this with low-grade freight optimization. (I suspect that this would also tend to convert even relatively minor derailments into car-scattering crapstravaganzas...)
They have removed the small hills in many classification yards recently
OvermodMany infrastructure projects postdate the '20s, including the Syracuse bypass.
Considering that the Central used to run right down the middle of Washington Street in downtown Syracuse. Actually, the (freight) bypass was in place before the turn of the century. That's now the mainline for the Chicago Line, as it's called. The downtown line came up in 1936, to the jubilation of Syracuse residents. The station that replaced the downtown running was just east of downtown. The station itself is local headquarters for a cable company. The ROW is now Interstate 690.
The Water Level Route was largely grade separated. Grade crossings are not common, although they do exist. Certainly not like they could be.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Wasn't there some deal about "excess profits" in the early 20th Century? Either spend them on infrastructure or they'd be confiscated?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
It's just not realistic to consider electrification for long-haul rail operations in this day for a number of reasons. PRR's electrification east of Harrisburg/Enola, PA was the sole high density application excluding commuter operations, the New Haven and NYC's relatively short distances out of Gotham and N&W and VGN's coalfield operations. Look at when this happened – when long-distance passenger traffic was still king and steam was the prevalent form of locomotion with significant costs.
Vermontanan2 entered his typically incisive thoughts about how this might look on a BNSF of the present day. While there would be a number of points requiring power changes, I'm not sure a change at Winslow for a Phoenix train is that big a deal although relaying power on a number of symbols at Clovis or Amarillo, as cited, may well present more congestion if the traffic is not itself being broken down and re-classified. UP would have similar considerations – Cheyenne to Denver, at Granger, WY unless the short-line to the northwest was also wired, and whether density beyond Ogden/Salt Lake on the LA&SL or former SP was sufficient.
Pennsylvania's system had the advantage of being, essentially, a three-pronged route from Harrisburg/Enola to Jersey, Philadelphia and Baltimore/Potomac Yard plus the so-called corridor from NYC to Washington. Thus there was the necessity to reduce smoke emissions from steam locomotives – at Broad Street Station in Phila. and otherwise that required an alternative. The Hudson tubes were electrified upon construction, so power was having to be relayed at Manhattan Transfer on the Jersey side of the tubes before electrification west of that point. So the wires covered the very high density routes with other lines such as the Cumberland Valley to Hagerstown, Northern Central via York, PA, the Schuylkill Branch via Reading, the Delmarva Penninsula and the Bel-Del line from Trenton to Phillipsburg, NJ never electrified.
That the majority of the PRR electrification was constructed during the depression, as was Safe Harbor Dam on the Susquehanna River that supplied much of the system's power (as it still does for Amtrak), meant the project, and including federal loans, was constructed in a financially viable circumstance. There has not been a sustained period when diesel fuel has been so expensive that the enormous costs of long-distance electrification can be justified. Moreover, just where all of that electricity is going to come from is debatable given that you have lakes Powell and Mead in danger of becoming dead pools based upon vagaries of the weather and hot summers already presenting problems for the grid elsewhere. Maybe if they mounted wind turbines atop the catenary system for thousand of miles that would help as no one seems to much care about the eyesores these things constitute. Faster run times may be achieved but, as some have said, the condition at terminals is such that you are just hurrying up to wait. I cannot see how a modern railroad with its majority shareholders is going to justify such an expense.
PennsyBoomerIt's just not realistic to consider electrification for long-haul rail operations in this day for a number of reasons.
I just showed it was...I thought. What did I get wrong?
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.
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.
If you ignore the recent decade long PTC installation, sure.
An "expensive model collector"
I was referring to improvements the rails have done on their own initiative, not ones basically mandated. Or do you think of PSR as an improvement?
You are correct. Captive power reduces utilization. Conrail used to keep the C30-7As and C32-8s on the Boston Line. Nearly exclusively. Their throttle duty cycle was lower than the rest of the fleet. About 9% in notch 8 vs 13% for the road fleet average. The power spent too much time not assigned, too.
However, if you electrify the heavy mainlines, you don't really have a captive fleet as much as you have a segregated fleet. You wouldn't build your arranged freight service plan to require power changes en route. You'd built it so that it would occur at work locations.
For example, I doubt you'd try to electrify east of Harrisburg on NS. Harrisburg/Enola is a natural break point for traffic. Stuff to/from the south and west winds up going to/from a whole bunch of terminals in the east.
Harrisburg/Enola already are major block swap/classification locations. You'd just amp that up and drop the little thru service that exists (trading a handling there for one elsewhere - so net zero to car/shipment velocity).
There just aren't a lot of branches or secondary mains where trains run through and would require a power change. You would either handle these with "conventional" power or modify your service have PU/SO along the route.
Electrified mains isn't a solution you plug into the existing train plan and say "let's go!". It's a major change and the train plan has to be tailored to suit.
Also keep in mind that carload traffic continues to decline as intermodal continues to grow. We need to be working toward a railroad that suits intermodal best that can still accomodate carload and bulk.
Intermodal is well suited to the electrified mains plan.
oltmanndIntermodal is well suited to the electrified mains plan.
Probably a little tough to have electrified IM yards.
Why not HBG-east? Running IM trains to Jersey, you have more urbanized areas, probably easier to put up wire, and you're near other electrified operations already (AMTK, SEPTA, NJT), so you have some of the infrastructure and people there already.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
charlie hebdoI was referring to improvements the rails have done on their own initiative, not ones basically mandated. Or do you think of PSR as an improvement?
The mandated PTC sucked down a lot of capital that could have been used for other initiatives.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmannProbably a little tough to have electrified IM yards.
Yes.
But the model of "electric mains, diesel in the intermodal terminal" is pretty much how Europe is rolling. Not just intermodal either. If you go look around Europoort on the Google Maps, the yards serving the port are electrified and all of the tracks inside the terminal are diesel. I suspect that might be what some ports would look like now in the US, if electrification had not tapered off.
How high will the catenary have to be with the US railroads handling 20'2" double stacks?
From the 1991-92 SoCal Regional Rail authority sessions on electrifying the freight railroads in the SoCal air quality basin - the contact wire needs to be 24 to 25 feet above the rails for 50kV. Subtract maybe a foot for 25kV. There also needs to be a couple of feet or more between the top of the catenary and the bottom of a structure such as a bridge. Half the estimated cost for the proposed electrification was just for increasing overhead clearances.
FWIW, 100 years go the standard height of the contact wire above the rails for main-line railroad electrification in open territory was 24 to 25 feet. This was to allow a brakeman to swing his lantern while on top of a car.
OM and I have made comments stating that batteries could allow for gaps in the overhead where increasing clearance was too expensive. In addition it would not take much of a battery to be able to pull a train through an IM facility.
Partial electrification, with the obvious inefficiencies it would bring, would be right in line with the half-assed way our country has always done infrastructure. It's the same reason we have a bazillion grade crossings: the triumph of short-term savings over long-term safety and efficiency.
zugmann oltmannd Intermodal is well suited to the electrified mains plan. Probably a little tough to have electrified IM yards. Why not HBG-east? Running IM trains to Jersey, you have more urbanized areas, probably easier to put up wire, and you're near other electrified operations already (AMTK, SEPTA, NJT), so you have some of the infrastructure and people there already.
oltmannd Intermodal is well suited to the electrified mains plan.
MAYBE Harrisburg to North Jersey... Phila, Morrisville, Baltimore et. al. Nah. Not enough traffic and/or too hard. You need the train volume to justify the fixed cost.
Erik_Mag From the 1991-92 SoCal Regional Rail authority sessions on electrifying the freight railroads in the SoCal air quality basin - the contact wire needs to be 24 to 25 feet above the rails for 50kV. Subtract maybe a foot for 25kV. There also needs to be a couple of feet or more between the top of the catenary and the bottom of a structure such as a bridge. Half the estimated cost for the proposed electrification was just for increasing overhead clearances. FWIW, 100 years go the standard height of the contact wire above the rails for main-line railroad electrification in open territory was 24 to 25 feet. This was to allow a brakeman to swing his lantern while on top of a car. OM and I have made comments stating that batteries could allow for gaps in the overhead where increasing clearance was too expensive. In addition it would not take much of a battery to be able to pull a train through an IM facility.
You guys are convincing me! Also, maybe electric locomotives would have a "super battery jog" feature? Good for low speeds for a dozen miles or so for working yards, PU/SO work.
oltmannd You guys are convincing me! Also, maybe electric locomotives would have a "super battery jog" feature? Good for low speeds for a dozen miles or so for working yards, PU/SO work.
A little math: A 4400HP diesel electric will produce about 3.2MW at run 8, so one hour at run 8 is equal to 3.2MWhr. A conservative estimate for specific energy of an LFP battery is 100w-hrs/kg, so 32 tonnes (about 36 tons) will get the equivalent of an hour of run 8. This equals 100,000lbf of tractive effort for 16 miles. This wold be useflu for both the IM terminal case and short sections of restricted clearance case.
A couple of notes: While LFP can go well above 1C discharge rates (1C means discharging in 1 hour, 5C means discharging in 12 minutes (1/5 hour)), it would probably be best to size the battery for a maximum of a 1C discharge rate for increased battery life. Having said that, it is almost certain that the batteries will need replacing at least during the life of the locomotive despite LFP having a much higher cycle lifetime than Li-ion batteris.
Ther technology is certainly there, but I am not certain about the economics, which would require a reliable source of electric power with energy price significantly cheaper than liquid hydrocarbons.
As for Mark Myers (Vermontanan) comment about locomotive utilization, one battery company is about to start production of a lithium battery using silicon nanowires for the cathode. Claimed specific energy is 450w-hrs/kg, so a 36 ton battery will provide 100,000lbf of tractive effort over 72 miles. This might be enough to cover the Phoenix to Williams lane, especially if there are some sections of catenary along the way. Allowing more weight for the battery would also increase the range and allow for a lower discharge rate on the battery.
The silicon cathode Li cells have not had a lot of real world experience. The push is coming from aviation as 400w-hrs/kg is about the minimum specific energy to make a useful electric airliner, albeit short range. With current Li-ion technology, the available energy is just enough to climb to flight altitude without getting into IFR reserves.
This technology will need a few years before it is mature enough for day to day railroad use.
charlie hebdo I was referring to improvements the rails have done on their own initiative, not ones basically mandated. Or do you think of PSR as an improvement?
The Chicago grade separation projects, and those in a number of other smaller cities from about 1900 - 1930, were not voluntary either. They were an unfunded mandate just like PTC, required by city ordinances which the railroads strongly resisted.
Dan
The battery has to be bigger for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that it's feeding or sinking power from 12 or 18 motors (through the DC Link connection, not slug cables) and must be carefully cooled in all weather and charge/discharge conditions.
With the upcoming arrival of the SD70MACH's, Metra has mentioned that it is considering the conversion of three F40PH's to straight battery operation for rush-hour only operation, presumably one or two round trips daily for each locomotive. The conversion is mentioned as experimental, but it seems to have practical possibilities.
dpeltier charlie hebdo I was referring to improvements the rails have done on their own initiative, not ones basically mandated. Or do you think of PSR as an improvement? The Chicago grade separation projects, and those in a number of other smaller cities from about 1900 - 1930, were not voluntary either. They were an unfunded mandate just like PTC, required by city ordinances which the railroads strongly resisted. Dan
So there is not much in the way of infrastructure improvements as a good neighbor nor in safety equipment that wasn't forced upon the rails? So that's more evidence that stricter regulation is needed in those areas.
charlie hebdo So there is not much in the way of infrastructure improvements as a good neighbor nor in safety equipment that wasn't forced upon the rails? So that's more evidence that stricter regulation is needed in those areas.
The railroads do invest a lot in "safety equipment" without being required. If by "good neighbor" improvements you mean "things that cost an arm and a leg without much financial benefit", then no, of course they don't do much of that. No business does. If the benefit goes to the public instead of to the railroad, then then public pays the cost.
In the case of electrification or other climate-improving motive power improvements, railroads are investing at a level that makes sense given the current financial incentives. They are trying small demonstration projects and looking for new technologies that would make sense to scale up. So far, the only one they've found that I can think of is electric cranes in intermodal yards, with electric hostler trucks (also at intermodal facilities) and "renewable" (bio-) diesel for locomotives likely to happen pretty soon. For everything else, the return isn't there, and that's not likely to change unless either technology or government policy changes the numbers.
deleted
dpeltierThe railroads do invest a lot in "safety equipment" without being required. If by "good neighbor" improvements you mean "things that cost an arm and a leg without much financial benefit", then no, of course they don't do much of that. No business does.
Safer couplers, better brakes, banning arch bar trucks - all were involuntary and needed. So for some, much like Vanderbilt in the distant past, maximum profit is all that matters.
Someone who knows NYC history: who paid for the diversion around Syracuse in the late 1930s that eliminated street running there?
Both the Ramsey survey line and the PRR 'response' involved very long tunnels at several points, and their logical extension through the Watchungs to reach New York would have involved more. The Gould line was a mandatory electrification in 1906, and it still would have been when revived in the late 1920s. Even today, it's a bit dubious that a 15,000' tunnel designed for electric traction would have suitable ventilation arrangements for diesel working. A notable thing here is that all the blood and treasure involved in a Ramsey or Sam Rea line would be largely wasted in modern use: even though the lines would be nominally high peak speed, there would still be curves that would make them unsuited to true HSR, but the likely heroic embankments and viaducts to make them 'low grade' would be expensive to keep in shape.
PRR electrification is a better example than so far stated. Much of the NY to Washington electrification was done with RFC financing (which to my knowledge was relatively quickly repaid) and the Harrisburg electrification can also be understood as facilitated by this. But the most logical part of the Philadelphia-Chicago route to be electrified... not incidentally, the intermediate target of the Ramsey line and the thing bypassed by the PRR New Main Line for passenger traffic... was the stretch between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, over Horse Shoe... and without RFC incentive, the work stopped in Harrisburg. But was then revived in 1943, when the duration of the war was still not fully determined, with both some additional tunnelling and locomotives up to 16 driven axles designed with the motors used in the DD2. What gave this the kibosh was first that the part of the war requiring heavy transport (which also justified the Q2s) ended unexpectedly quickly, and then the competitive economics: diesels did the work with vastly less stranded cost and at least comparable contemporary economy of operation by the late '40s, and banks loved them for equipment trusts because they could easily be resold at little loss if necessary.
The Government did not subsidize much dieselization directly, then or now, but has certainly tried in recent years to mandate their way into motive-power selection. For extremely dubious reasons, with the results we know. The mandate for 'better brakes' in the form of ECP had a pin stuck in it, not by Trump's minions, but by actual people at NAS who didn't fall for the BS. (Not that I think a case can't be made for ECP economics and convenience, and even enhanced safety... just with reference to service braking rather than 'emergencies'...
Railroads have self-financed numerous, and sometimes very expensive, line improvements and investments -the Pecos bridge, Abo Canyon, the UP bypass in Shreveport -- when they perceive the operation will be in their interest. We should note that automatic air brakes, knuckle couplers, and cast-fram three-piece trucks were all essential in getting out of Vanderbilt's drag-freight, small-engine world first to the point that freight-train speed, even for long trains, was effective. (But even then, the rule over ruling grades was to let train speed drop to minimum continuous or below, rather than 'snap' to higher speed, on most trains...)
The situation with electrification is all in the vast stranded cost, maintenance expense, power contracts, etc, and in the beta and other measures of risk and opportunity cost in it, rather than "improvements in operating economy" that might derive from higher peak horsepower from electric 'locomotives' or whatever. Some means of subsidizing or sterilizing the cost will be necessary, and reasonably guaranteed, before any real route electrification takes place.
And one point of dual-mode lite is that it allows discontinuous buildout of any sections of catenary or smart third rail whever the economics works, with near-immediate benefit as soon as the section is energized, without ever needing to have 'every route-mile powered' or huge amounts of battery power required.
OvermodSomeone who knows NYC history: who paid for the diversion around Syracuse in the late 1930s that eliminated street running there?
I'm hardly an expert, but...
The bypass around downtown was already in place in 1930, it being the freight tracks of the four track Water Level Route. I would surmise that aside from possibly adding tracks to maintain the four track alignment, there was little additional cost.
I'm sure there were politics involved, as the city probably wanted the trains off their streets.
That bypass route is in use today as the main line, long since rationalized from four tracks to two.
charlie hebdo dpeltier The railroads do invest a lot in "safety equipment" without being required. If by "good neighbor" improvements you mean "things that cost an arm and a leg without much financial benefit", then no, of course they don't do much of that. No business does. Safer couplers, better brakes, banning arch bar trucks - all were involuntary and needed. So for some, much like Vanderbilt in the distant past, maximum profit is all that matters.
dpeltier The railroads do invest a lot in "safety equipment" without being required. If by "good neighbor" improvements you mean "things that cost an arm and a leg without much financial benefit", then no, of course they don't do much of that. No business does.
The railroads have been around for almost 200 years, so yes, some of the items will be in the "distant past". There have been many recent improvements that were not required, improved safety, and cost money. I doubt you will want to hear about them, as that would not match your agenda.
charlie hebdo Safer couplers, better brakes, banning arch bar trucks - all were involuntary and needed. So for some, much like Vanderbilt in the distant past, maximum profit is all that matters.
tree68 Overmod Someone who knows NYC history: who paid for the diversion around Syracuse in the late 1930s that eliminated street running there? The bypass around downtown was already in place in 1930, it being the freight tracks of the four track Water Level Route. I would surmise that aside from possibly adding tracks to maintain the four track alignment, there was little additional cost. I'm sure there were politics involved, as the city probably wanted the trains off their streets. That bypass route is in use today as the main line, long since rationalized from four tracks to two.
Overmod Someone who knows NYC history: who paid for the diversion around Syracuse in the late 1930s that eliminated street running there?
Passenger trains to Syracuse between 1936 and 1962 did not use the freight bypass (and the freight bypass dates back to the 1870s). They used a new bypass line, built specifically for passenger trains, that took them on an elevated and fully grade separated ROW somewhat north of the Washington St. line, but still through downtown Syracuse. All of that elevation/ grade separation was constructed in the 1930s and had to be paid for by someone, probably the NYC, likely with some help from governement agencies.
In 1962, the NYC built a new station in East Syracuse. It was then that passenger trains began using the freight bypass north of the Syracuse downtown area. The ROW for the passenger trains was sold to NYS and now carries Interstate 690.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.