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?
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?
Yes. Generally. Lower cost. Reduced CO2 emissions.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
OvermodUntil I see an organized effort to fix the variables, I stand by the observation. It's your burden to prove why it is mistaken.
A large consensus in the relevant corporations as well as science seems to disagree with your purely personal opinion.
Even on this little forum, a knowledgable railroader (Don) seems to see the sense of electrification.
oltmannd 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? Yes. Generally. Lower cost. Reduced CO2 emissions.
So why are the railroads not capable of understanding that electrification will lower their cost? They had no hesitation to dieselize because of the claim that doing so would lower the cost.
Euclid oltmannd 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? Yes. Generally. Lower cost. Reduced CO2 emissions. So why are the railroads not capable of understanding that electrification will lower their cost? They had no hesitation to dieselize because of the claim that doing so would lower the cost.
Dieselization was not a 'claim' of lowered costs - it was demonstrated with the 'barnstorming' tours of the various demonstrators that the manufacturers put out on tour.
The demonstrators were put on tour and could work side by side with steam and prove their 'savings' in real time.
Electrification cannot work side by side with existing motive power without investment in catenary or 3rd rail upon the territory to be tested. Testing with electrification requires a big investment just to run the test. That investment wasn't required to test diesel-elecrics vs. steam.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid oltmannd 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? Yes. Generally. Lower cost. Reduced CO2 emissions. So why are the railroads not capable of understanding that electrification will lower their cost? They had no hesitation to dieselize because of the claim that doing so would lower the cost. Dieselization was not a 'claim' of lowered costs - it was demonstrated with the 'barnstorming' tours of the various demonstrators that the manufacturers put out on tour. The demonstrators were put on tour and could work side by side with steam and prove their 'savings' in real time. Electrification cannot work side by side with existing motive power without investment in catenary or 3rd rail upon the territory to be tested. Testing with electrification requires a big investment just to run the test. That investment wasn't required to test diesel-elecrics vs. steam.
BaltACD Electrification cannot work side by side with existing motive power without investment in catenary or 3rd rail upon the territory to be tested. Testing with electrification requires a big investment just to run the test. That investment wasn't required to test diesel-elecrics vs. steam.
That is a very insightful comment.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid oltmannd 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? Yes. Generally. Lower cost. Reduced CO2 emissions. So why are the railroads not capable of understanding that electrification will lower their cost? They had no hesitation to dieselize because of the claim that doing so would lower the cost. Dieselization was not a 'claim' of lowered costs - it was demonstrated with the 'barnstorming' tours of the various demonstrators that the manufacturers put out on tour. The demonstrators were put on tour and could work side by side with steam and prove their 'savings' in real time. Electrification cannot work side by side with existing motive power without investment in catenary or 3rd rail upon the territory to be tested. Testing with electrification requires a big investment just to run the test. That investment wasn't required to test diesel-elecrics vs. steam. So are you saying that electrification will not lower the cost of running trains, and therefore the industry is justified in opposing electrification?
So are you saying that electrification will not lower the cost of running trains, and therefore the industry is justified in opposing electrification?
What I am saying is that if you build the electrical power delivery system to conduct the tests, then the tests can be conducted.
To date it looks like neither the electrical providers nor the railroads want to invest in what is necessary to run side by side real world testing. In todays investment climate neither side wants to commit that level of investment 'betting on the come'.
blue streak 1 A big problem was clearances.
That was the major take-away from the SoCal Regional Railroad Authority study done in 1991-92. Half the cost of electrification would have been providing adequate clearances. This is where I got the inspiration for use of batteries to power through the low clearance areas.
High voltage third rail is tricky. The Michigan RR (Interurban) found out that 2400V did not work well due to frequent arcing between the third rail and journal boxes. Central California Traction had good luck with 1200V and BART runs on 1000V. IIRC, a ten car BART train can draw 10MW (~13,000HP) when accelerating.
They payback on investment is long without monetizing the cost of carbon. There needs to be either a tax on carbon or a subsidy for avoiding CO2 emissions or an investment subsidy.
BaltACDElectrification cannot work side by side with existing motive power without investment in catenary or 3rd rail upon the territory to be tested. Testing with electrification requires a big investment just to run the test. That investment wasn't required to test diesel-elecrics vs. steam.
You either do it or your don't. In the RR industry, there has always been reluctance to be the first to do something new. Electrification is a pretty big bet.
Latest example is AC power. It didn't happen until EMD built some demonstrators and the AAR started working on a larger test fleet. The test fleet got cut short by BN's big purchase.
Stacks, spine cars, ECP braking, ATCS/PTC - everone tip-toes into the water wanting someone else to go first.
oltmanndThere needs to be either a tax on carbon or a subsidy for avoiding CO2 emissions or an investment subsidy.
Cynically: if the various arms of Government decide to start soaking NS with a tenth of their gross income in fines -- take that money and use it directly for electrification infrastructure. (Not consultants, not general fund anything.)
At one time, I thought the infrastructure should be Government-subsidized, with repayment in proportion to the actual savings observed. That's basically the way most of the world got electrified, and then had railroads improved, but nearly always involving, however transient, Government ownership of part or all of the plant. This might be (again somewhat cynically) used as a method of obtaining 'iron ocean' track and dispatching... but I don't think I would trust either PSR/financier management or our prospective government to assess the amounts of 'return' fairly.
GrampWhat I'd like to add in is the dawn of small nuclear reactors.
Certainly there is ample evidence that a railroad system can be run well with substantial supply from nuclear powerplants...
I'd be more inclined to build the plants at sufficient size and output to cover all the cycle and security costs, and provide the 'new baseline' for all the various future draws that don't fit a workable renewable-energy plan. As with longline electrical powerlines, preferential siting for these might be 'close to railroads, and the catenary overhead adapted to serve very-high-voltage or HVDC lines (see the New Jersey Transit/PSE&G bridges across the Jersey Meadows as an example).
Overmod Gramp What I'd like to add in is the dawn of small nuclear reactors. The problem I see so far isn't technical, but political -- including the risks of security and prevention of proliferation. Certainly there is ample evidence that a railroad system can be run well with substantial supply from nuclear powerplants... I'd be more inclined to build the plants at sufficient size and output to cover all the cycle and security costs, and provide the 'new baseline' for all the various future draws that don't fit a workable renewable-energy plan. As with longline electrical powerlines, preferential siting for these might be 'close to railroads, and the catenary overhead adapted to serve very-high-voltage or HVDC lines (see the New Jersey Transit/PSE&G bridges across the Jersey Meadows as an example).
Gramp What I'd like to add in is the dawn of small nuclear reactors.
The problem I see so far isn't technical, but political -- including the risks of security and prevention of proliferation.
With the world going 'wireless'. When wireless transmission of electricity is perfected to safely send power to locomotives, then the railroads will use electric locomotives.
BaltACDWith the world going 'wireless'. When wireless transmission of electricity is perfected to safely send power to locomotives, then the railroads will use electric locomotives.
Not to mention 'imperfect reflection' from all those multipath sources, but now at high wattage. Perhaps like that hotel in Las Vegas or awful building in London with their solar-focus issues -- but with invisible RF.
The point to remember is that OHLE electrification is radically lower in actual cost and difficulty now than it was even a few years ago. That is due largely to the Chinese and their extensive domestic building program; I don't know if it has been meaningly extended to Belt and Road initiatives, but it was developed with all the necessary equipment, techniques, and technical instruction to be a full analogue to the still-modern-looking rigs used to construct the long elevated railroads in New York in the 1870s. Even if we were to hold our noses about 'buying Chinese technology', the example is there on how to do it cost-effectively at the required scale, on the required schedule.
The alternative to 'transmitted power' for locomotives is enough overhead wire contact or third rail to perform periodic recharge, as with the older Swiss systems back to the days of flywheel buses. No RF transversion, interference, or exploding fences and line wires required!
Overmod BaltACD With the world going 'wireless'. When wireless transmission of electricity is perfected to safely send power to locomotives, then the railroads will use electric locomotives. Didn't work in Colorado, didn't work at Wardenclyffe, and it won't work now -- why would you think that beam power would be practical when railroads can't even arrange DP or PTC radio without dropouts and QoS issues? Not to mention 'imperfect reflection' from all those multipath sources, but now at high wattage. Perhaps like that hotel in Las Vegas or awful building in London with their solar-focus issues -- but with invisible RF. The point to remember is that OHLE electrification is radically lower in actual cost and difficulty now than it was even a few years ago. That is due largely to the Chinese and their extensive domestic building program; I don't know if it has been meaningly extended to Belt and Road initiatives, but it was developed with all the necessary equipment, techniques, and technical instruction to be a full analogue to the still-modern-looking rigs used to construct the long elevated railroads in New York in the 1870s. Even if we were to hold our noses about 'buying Chinese technology', the example is there on how to do it cost-effectively at the required scale, on the required schedule. The alternative to 'transmitted power' for locomotives is enough overhead wire contact or third rail to perform periodic recharge, as with the older Swiss systems back to the days of flywheel buses. No RF transversion, interference, or exploding fences and line wires required!
BaltACD With the world going 'wireless'. When wireless transmission of electricity is perfected to safely send power to locomotives, then the railroads will use electric locomotives.
Didn't work in Colorado, didn't work at Wardenclyffe, and it won't work now -- why would you think that beam power would be practical when railroads can't even arrange DP or PTC radio without dropouts and QoS issues?
While I threw wireless power transmission out there. I don't know of any technolgies at the present time that would facilitate it, especially at the power levels necessary to power rail transportation. I don't anticipate such technology being available within my remaining lifetime, if my Grandfather is a predictor could be 22 years or more.
Overmod...but now at high wattage...
As an amateur radio operator, I now have to do an RF exposure survey for my personal station. At 100 watts max I run, the RF levels are negligible. At the wattage needed for a locomotive, that exposure would be significant.
Even a weather radar would provide insufficient power to keep a locomotive going.
People complain now about the potential harm from 5G cell phone towers - imagine what we'd hear about this...
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...
OvermodCertainly there is ample evidence that a railroad system can be run well with substantial supply from nuclear powerplants...
My opinion is that the modern, small-scale nuckear plants are the only way out of carbon but that seems unlikely. Are you suggesting railroads operate these plants, a throwback to Insull interurban practice? In the current diplomatic climate, installing the Chinese electrification infrastructure is a non-starter. I may be wrong, but isn't it a "copy" of Siemens designs?
tree68 Overmod ...but now at high wattage... As an amateur radio operator, I now have to do an RF exposure survey for my personal station. At 100 watts max I run, the RF levels are negligible. At the wattage needed for a locomotive, that exposure would be significant. Even a weather radar would provide insufficient power to keep a locomotive going. People complain now about the potential harm from 5G cell phone towers - imagine what we'd hear about this...
Overmod ...but now at high wattage...
Metal fences with gates that cross high-voltage transmission lines can be hair-razing
People complain about the risk of nuclear powerplants without realizing that the USN has had literally hundreds of them online over the last 70 years without an accident.
Backshop People complain about the risk of nuclear powerplants without realizing that the USN has had literally hundreds of them online over the last 70 years without an accident.
It's not the actual powerplants. It's the shareholder-driven companies running them I have no faith in.
PSN anyone?
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
ZUG, so who should run the companies if not the shareholders???
diningcar ZUG, so who should run the companies if not the shareholders???
Maybe we're not ready to harness that power as a species.
At least as long as profits drive all - even over safety.
We have many good things nowadays due to the quest for profit.
Worked well for the MILW, didn't it.
I've taken this off-topic enough.
Back to pantographs.
Managers who know the business. Yes, a company needs to make a profit, but that should only be one of the goals...
There's more to milking a cow than collecting the milk check...
Everything we do is dependent on fossil fuels...including making electric cars.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.