adkrr64 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.
It seems likely to me that the Syracuse bypass construction of the 1930's was probably paid for with either a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and/or a Public Works Administration grant or loan. The New York Central Railroad may not have had too much skin in this game, for the simple reason it had very little capital to invest, thanks to the enormous amounts of money required to service the bonds on recently-completed projects such as the Cleveland, Cincinnati and Buffalo terminals, as well as the stock market crash, the subsequent Depression, and consequent loss of revenue generally.
Perhaps the title should be rail electrification, as Amtrak along with commuter lines would be a major beneficiary of such a scheme. Why not get Amtrak, C1's, some private financing, and the utilities to strike a deal? It seems the biggest impediment to electrification is removing height restrictions..
SD60MAC9500 Perhaps the title should be rail electrification, as Amtrak along with commuter lines would be a major beneficiary of such a scheme. Why not get Amtrak, C1's, some private financing, and the utilities to strike deal.. It seems the biggest impediment to eletrification is removing height restrictions..
Perhaps the title should be rail electrification, as Amtrak along with commuter lines would be a major beneficiary of such a scheme. Why not get Amtrak, C1's, some private financing, and the utilities to strike deal.. It seems the biggest impediment to eletrification is removing height restrictions..
Instead of being forced to the electrical boondoggle-wires, poles,hard-to-get transformers ..why don't we just change the fuel used? -CNG, LNG, alcohol, BioDiesel (remember when the enviros loved all of these fuels?)
CSSHEGEWISCHLack of generating and distribution capacity may be the real issue. All of that electricity is going to have to come from somewhere.
Yeah - we still have to be able to charge our electric cars.
Around here, at least one solar farm project has gotten curtailed because the existing grid can't handle the "traffic."
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...
azrailInstead of being forced to the electrical boondoggle - wires, poles, hard-to-get transformers... why don't we just change the fuel used? -CNG, LNG, alcohol, BioDiesel (remember when the enviros loved all of these fuels?)
No fuel (or fuel cycle) involving net carbon release -- and that includes during fuel synthesis or generation, not just 'release at the point of consumption' -- is currently getting any serious experimental consideration. That rules out even full B100 biodiesel, any form of CNG/LNG, methanol or alcohol, or indeed on-board reforming for fuel cells. The closest practical technology is blue hydrogen with sequestration (which cheats in that the CO2 condenses out supercritical long before the hydrogen reaches its process pressure for practical distribution) but, you know, it's a f*ss*l source...
If you ever see widespread green generation of hydrogen carrier... it will be stealing an outsized amount of electricity that could have been used for BEVs. (Or catenary/smart third rail). I see this alone ultimately killing any practical take rate for it.
And then, there's ammonia: niftily liquid, three hydrogens a molecule, friendly ol' nitrogen as the emission that would have been carbon from CH4. The only real woe with this is... you have megatons of, well, ammonia circulating in supply infrastructure, stored in garages, ready to leak in accidents... and nobody will convince me that is anything but a Bad Thing.
There are all kinds of advantages any synergies to electrification once the outsize cost to implement and maintain it has been addressed. Remember from the timeless clash of titans here that the Milwaukee electrification could have been very effective indeed... if not left with 'the gap' or been the butt of the wrong kinds of finance when new, and never allowed to discharge the outsized costs saddled on it. That was far from the only major electrification project looked at in that era, or in the 'next wave' associated with Insull's marketing of consumer electricity.
If RWU can call for nationalization, they can call for distributed staged electrification with dual-modes, battery locomotives, or Iden's electrical tenders. I have of course strong feelings about what works best for the self-powered side of dual-modes, but some form of electrification greatly improves practical operation -- even with the consists making no more train-factor power under non-grade wires as when running on fuel.
Overmod azrail Instead of being forced to the electrical boondoggle - wires, poles, hard-to-get transformers... why don't we just change the fuel used? -CNG, LNG, alcohol, BioDiesel (remember when the enviros loved all of these fuels?) Welcome to the happy world of zero-carbon emphasis (as pointedly different from, and opposed to, zero-net-carbon). No fuel (or fuel cycle) involving net carbon release -- and that includes during fuel synthesis or generation, not just 'release at the point of consumption' -- is currently getting any serious experimental consideration. That rules out even full B100 biodiesel, any form of CNG/LNG, methanol or alcohol, or indeed on-board reforming for fuel cells. The closest practical technology is blue hydrogen with sequestration (which cheats in that the CO2 condenses out supercritical long before the hydrogen reaches its process pressure for practical distribution) but, you know, it's a f*ss*l source... If you ever see widespread green generation of hydrogen carrier... it will be stealing an outsized amount of electricity that could have been used for BEVs. (Or catenary/smart third rail). I see this alone ultimately killing any practical take rate for it. And then, there's ammonia: niftily liquid, three hydrogens a molecule, friendly ol' nitrogen as the emission that would have been carbon from CH4. The only real woe with this is... you have megatons of, well, ammonia circulating in supply infrastructure, stored in garages, ready to leak in accidents... and nobody will convince me that is anything but a Bad Thing. There are all kinds of advantages any synergies to electrification once the outsize cost to implement and maintain it has been addressed. Remember from the timeless clash of titans here that the Milwaukee electrification could have been very effective indeed... if not left with 'the gap' or been the butt of the wrong kinds of finance when new, and never allowed to discharge the outsized costs saddled on it. That was far from the only major electrification project looked at in that era, or in the 'next wave' associated with Insull's marketing of consumer electricity. If RWU can call for nationalization, they can call for distributed staged electrification with dual-modes, battery locomotives, or Iden's electrical tenders. I have of course strong feelings about what works best for the self-powered side of dual-modes, but some form of electrification greatly improves practical operation -- even with the consists making no more train-factor power under non-grade wires as when running on fuel.
azrail Instead of being forced to the electrical boondoggle - wires, poles, hard-to-get transformers... why don't we just change the fuel used? -CNG, LNG, alcohol, BioDiesel (remember when the enviros loved all of these fuels?)
Welcome to the happy world of zero-carbon emphasis (as pointedly different from, and opposed to, zero-net-carbon).
Were there railroads in 'The Jetsons'?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Were there railroads in 'The Jetsons'?
Don't recall seeing any, mostly aircars with a funny exhaust.
The time period that "The Jetsons" takes place in (2062) is closer to the present than than the time when the series originally aired (1962). George Jetson was supposedly born a year or two ago.
There has been a lot of progress in batteries and power electronics that could have major effects on the design of a ground up electrification. One example is that a medium voltage (i.e. 10 to 15kV) DC electrification is possible, and the conversion apparatus would be lighter than the transformer needed for a 50/60Hz electrification.
Forgive me if I somehow missed this, but have the C1s done any internal studies on electrification in the past couple of decades?
Everybody seems to focus on the locomotives and track infrastructure, while the real problem is where this electricity is going to come from.
Maybe I missed it, but what would be the reason to electrify the railroads now?
Is it the same as the reason to electrify cars and trucks?
Euclid Maybe I missed it, but what would be the reason to electrify the railroads now? Is it the same as the reason to electrify cars and trucks?
Well, we have to eliminate those dirty old Diesels, of course. Never mind the technicalities...
EuclidMaybe I missed it, but what would be the reason to electrify the railroads now?
Zero-net-carbon would allow synthetic carbon-bearing fuels developed and source with similarly-renewable fuel. Or the Oxford cycle using methanol/ethanol and H2O2 tempered by water to generate superheated steam at reasonable quality for transportation. It isn't that difficult to figure out the logistics and economics of such a fuel cycle either if abatement of transportation emissions in fair proportion is desired, or if the inevitable cap 'n trade system beloved of the Europeans provides useful 'carbon credits' for the economy of railroad transport.
But zero-carbon, I'm sure to produce an exaggerated virtue signal of 'doing our part' to reverse climate change quickly, is where all the research capital and interest is, and that basically means carrier hydrogen or ammonia. If you have better alternatives, list them.
[/quote]
Overmod Euclid Maybe I missed it, but what would be the reason to electrify the railroads now? Zero-carbon response to 'climate change'. Zero-net-carbon would allow synthetic carbon-bearing fuels developed and source with similarly-renewable fuel. Or the Oxford cycle using methanol/ethanol and H2O2 tempered by water to generate superheated steam at reasonable quality for transportation. It isn't that difficult to figure out the logistics and economics of such a fuel cycle either if abatement of transportation emissions in fair proportion is desired, or if the inevitable cap 'n trade system beloved of the Europeans provides useful 'carbon credits' for the economy of railroad transport. But zero-carbon, I'm sure to produce an exaggerated virtue signal of 'doing our part' to reverse climate change quickly, is where all the research capital and interest is, and that basically means carrier hydrogen or ammonia. If you have better alternatives, list them.
Euclid Maybe I missed it, but what would be the reason to electrify the railroads now?
Zero-carbon response to 'climate change'.
That is what I figured was the reason. I understand that the industry does not find the conversion to be cost effective, but they use a different cost/benefit analysis.
I have no better alternative for the fuel. My alternative to the green motive would be to stay with fossil fuels, or specifically let the railroads and the highway drivers choose what fuel to use.
Electric locomotives would eliminate run-through power on trains, which would slow things down. It might even limit where connections could be made.
Euclid I understand that the industry does not find the conversion to be cost effective, but they use a different cost/benefit analysis.
The practical implementation of electrification involves what are fundamentally Government carrots and sticks. If they were to 'mandate' electrification following the same model being used for BEV sales, you can bet your bottom dollar there would be problems, complicated over the issues for BEV charging infrastructure by the railroads being private access and limited area. The model I assumed for this would be to jack up applicable taxes and fees, and perhaps earmark those outsized penalty settlements discussed in the current House and Senate bills, and then allow a 'subsidy' of equal amount if railroads use the funds for electrification. (This presupposes both a mandated fast-tracking of environmental impact and minimal 'consultant' BS, and research into producing suitable dual-mode-lite conversions and hybrid power, among other things, but it produces the maximal carrot effect if you want rapid punctate electrification).
In theory -- and this is Kneiling-grade theory, so you can decide to believe it or not, the government could track valuation as it did after 1915, and then track operating efficiency, and 'recapture' any performance gains from electrification against their subsidized cost. This isn't different in principle from those office consultants who ask for a percentage of the money saved by their actions.
While I doubt the RWU plan could get anywhere with this, either, it does have to be said that Government assumption of iron-ocean operation easily allows electrification capitalization without concern that it 'benefits private company infrastructure'. If the Government were to assume any operations over that track (specifically including Amtrak) then the cost as well as planning for the locomotive equipment could be similarly addressed.
Of course, in a world where EMD fails Tier 4 final cert by only a tiny fraction of a percent in only about 2% of an artificial duty cycle... and is not given a waiver because expedient policy is to force adoption of SCR/DEF... I have very little hope of common sense from the Government, regardless of the ideology nominally in power. Perhaps come the revolution, intermodal transportation at least can be rationalized, and done fairly.
Overmodit becomes exceedingly and excruciatingly clear that BEV cars and trucks aren't sustainable at any significant take rate.
A personal opinion stated as settled fact without any evidence cited.
Oh, so sorry for what you might perceive as another ad hominem one liner.
my favorite
I remember when Detroit Edison (now DTE) would let you trade in your old burned out light bulbs for new ones for free.
Backshop I remember when Detroit Edison (now DTE) would let you trade in your old burned out light bulbs for new ones for free.
Remember that well... The office was on Liberty Street, right next to the post office (itself now moved).
charlie hebdoA personal opinion stated as settled fact without any evidence cited.
It is not "settled fact" but only a very obvious likelihood, from the number of replacement vehicles necessary, and the required generation capacity to accommodate them all to match the availability and 'refill/recharge time' of current liquid-fueled vehicles. Until I see an organized effort to fix the variables, I stand by the observation. It's your burden to prove why it is mistaken.
tree68 Backshop I remember when Detroit Edison (now DTE) would let you trade in your old burned out light bulbs for new ones for free. Remember that well... The office was on Liberty Street, right next to the post office (itself now moved).
Backshop Everybody seems to focus on the locomotives and track infrastructure, while the real problem is where this electricity is going to come from.
I tried to look at how big a problem this is. At EMD, we figured, with input from the RR's, that a typical line haul loco burned 400,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year, with the fleet of higher HP units now and better utilization, it's probably more now. Using that figure and a BTU conversion of 138,700 BTU/gal, that equates to 55.5 billion BTU's consumed as fuel. Assuming the overall efficiency is 20% over the duty cycle means 11.1 BTU of energy produced. Converting that to MWhours is 3,252 MWh. Considering replacing 5,000 locomotives with equivalent electrics requires 16.26 million MWh - if those locos are 90% efficient, that requires 18.1 million MWh of electric generation ignoring transmission loss which I have no idea of a good number.
The US consumed 4.05 billion MWh of electricity in 2022 per this US government agency:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php#:~:text=Total%20U.S.%20electricity%20consumption%20in,year%20decreases%20occurred%20after%202007.
So the 18.1 million MWh is only 0.45% of the total electricity consumed. The consumption in 2022 increased by 2.6% over 2021 so it seems to me that electric power generation is not a big problem. Getting where needed might be a bigger one.
I'd welcome someone confirming my numbers.
Dave
bogie_engineerGetting where needed might be a bigger one.
That is a huge problem. According to folks I've talked to, our grid in my area is pretty much maxed out. I mentioned somewhere that one solar farm had to be cut (in half?) because the grid couldn't handle the power it would generate.
Power from the St Lawrence Power Project gets sent to NYC. Same with the power from the Oswego nuclear plants, and even the Niagara Power Project.
Worse - power generation as a whole is under attack. Some people don't want nuclear, some don't want hydroelectric, some don't want coal, some don't want natural gas. Heck, even renewables (biomass) aren't getting the support they should be.
Someone better find the electricity fairy and tell him to up his game, 'cause that's where a lot of people seem to think all this electricity is coming from.
Not long ago, at a GM press event introducing one of their EV's, the GM flack was asked where the power to charge the EV on display came from. Her answer - "this building." Pressed further, she admitted that she didn't know where the building got its power. A local official later revealed that power for that city (Lansing, MI) was generated by burning coal...
Which is why I always refer to coal trains as "EV fuel..."
I would think that the conversion efficiency of the diesel engine/alternator is higher than 20%, so the 5,000 locomotive example would consume somewhat closer to 1% of the US electric energy consumption. This is still significantly smaller than the electric energy used by data centers.
The problem with most "renewable" sources of electric power is that they are intermittent and railroads don't like having additional constraints on dispatching trains.
Erik_MagI would think that the conversion efficiency of the diesel engine/alternator is higher than 20%, so the 5,000 locomotive example would consume somewhat closer to 1% of the US electric energy consumption. This is still significantly smaller than the electric energy used by data centers.
I don't have the substantiation data at hand, but were GSHPs to substitute for existing systems (and I include GURL-type neighborhood loops in the possibility) the overall(!) energy consumption for the United States would drop by about 35%. I have worked for what is now decades on ways to make that not only doable, but reasonably cost-effective at that scale, within a reasonable total transition time. That, and not the efficiency of an already-highly-efficient mode of transportation, is something I think those with concern for rapid effects of climate change need to prioritize.
Even before 1998, very efficient methods of wayside storage and release (for example, magnetic and kinetic) were effective at required dual-mode-lite scale. Newer technologies like LMBs and flow batteries only improve the options. (You'd need more fixed plant for higher 'full electrification' consists, but I'd expect reasonable economies of scale to help with that if truly desired.)
Railroads have the benefit of being nice and long so they parallel or cross multiple high-voltage transmission lines along the way. They also cross natural gas pipelines where generation units can be installed.
Securing a diverse source of power will not be a problem. This augmented with their own wayside storage in battery arrays.
They will be able to bypass the distribution grid.
Construction of the catenary wires will be the biggest challenge.
Maybe even one of these:
https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/hundreds-of-24-ton-bricks-could-help-fix-a-key-renewable-energy-problem/
So far not one poster has admittted how much energy RRs waste. Where you ask? Every Kw that goes into heating dynamic brake grids is lost forever. Now regenerating power back to the grid is not perfect but it is certainly a source to partially power a train needing some Kws. Regenerating going down hill will provide partial power to a companion train coming up the hill. Or it might provide all the power for a train on close to level tracks. Already Amtrak with Siemens is planning on electric / diesel EDMUs with a trailing Battery / CAT car.
In the east Harrisburg <> Pittsburgh is an ideal route for complete wires. A close 2nd will be Sand Patch. A third and 4th will be CSX & NS Cincinnatti - ATL.
"IF" battery storage becomes workable then regeneratioon also works with the addirional help of a charging CAT. Now there are many diesel locos that are retired because of dead or dying prime movers. Many have absolutely good frames, trucks and fewer have good control stands. That is a great source for battery cars although some older ones especially shorter GPs could not carry too much weight with some locos also equipped with smaller traction wheels and motors. The various set ups leave many different configurations possible. Can we imagine a electric / diesel dual mode using electric on grades and diesel on 1% or less flat runs? That might extend life of loco prime movers from 20 years to 30? As well save traction motors by lowering lowest max continous speeds and lower total power on traction motors as battery CAT loco shares prime mover output.
There is good reason that RRs can build there own peaking power unit that run on diesel. The new GE turbine power units that also use recuperative power recovery are getting close to 50% energy recovery. Tell me what diesel engine even comes close. The GEs on start up can get to about 30 % in 5 minutes and reverse log scale to max at one hour. Lots of less total fuel needed not counting regneration.
Since you seem concerned it wasn't mentioned in MEGO detail...
You might not still find the GE Ecomagination hybrid locomotive on their Web site, but you can read about it courtesy of the multiphysics-program supplier that helped model it:
https://www.comsol.com/paper/rechargeable-battery-for-hybrid-diesel-electric-locomotive-6438
And here is a review of some of the technology, from 2013:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276709770_Hybrid_locomotives_overview_of_construction_solutions
Iden's (somewhat self-promoting but we'll-thought-out) commercialization of an electric tender has been discussed here within the past couple of weeks, possibly earlier in this very thread but thanks to the Clambake Elves I can't check easily while signed in. RPS in California (notable also for having quite a catalogue of rebuilds of war-weary conventional locomotives, including as cabbage-style tenders for Metrolink trains) has some interesting alternatives including stringing wire for wayside storage either side of a known stop location to help recapture some of the braking energy without onboard batteries or flywheels and 'all that that implies' (as Kipling might say).
The Conrail dual-mode-lite study (which was done in the now-ancient world of freight on the ex-PRR electrification) presumed DC traction on an SD40-2 -- and did not extensively discuss transversion of the DC dynamic-braking current to put back into the overhead line. AC locomotives have much less difficulty in principle doing this, particularly if tied together via DC-Link and not slug/mother type cables. (The phase information can be read directly off the catenary in real-time for the regenerative AC synthesis, for example).
You will note the number of dynamic-regenerating battery locomotives proposed and built recently. You may also have observed that they aren't set up to sink DB from conventional locomotives couples to them -- something very easily arranged once they wake up to recognizing that there is little point in FLXdrives or Joules as standalone mainline BEV locomotives... periodic recharge or no.
I am quite certain that as soon as any actually cost-justified electrification is undertaken there are solutions 'in being' to use dynamic braking through it. Whether or not railroads, or government, want to spend the extra money to sink the full DB generated current to the grid, then and there, or whether as I'd prefer the system itself proportions regen among grids, battery, and cat/STR automagically and with smart failover, are things to discuss for a few minutes after the contract papers for the infrastructure are signed, but they sure wouldn't take long or come as a surprise to road-locomotive design engineers.
Incidentally, you might have access to the EPRI paper discussing the superiority of piston engines to turbines in peaking under conditions of greater operating turndown.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.