OldEnginemanKeeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary?
I think your entire post is interesting, but as I read this sentence it brought to mind the question, How do electric railroads handle the snow situation in the Alps, or across Siberia, for that matter? I'm sure I don't know, but you make a good case for the expense involved in such a big project.
York1 MidlandMike How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors. You are mixing the two. You point up Russia and Morocco. Russia is a good example of a railroad system built by a dictatorial government. Morocco's railroad is state-owned. Then you mention Japan and Europe. As pointed out, both of those are small, densely populated areas. Europe's private trains for the most part operate on state owned tracks. Japan's trains are private, but carry almost no freight. All of these situations would not translate well to the U.S. or Canada. If you want us to have a system like Russia or Europe, then elect people to Congress who will take over the rail system, spend trillions of dollars to electrify it, and then sit back and enjoy watching your tax dollars at work. Several times you've mentioned Russia's system. It was mostly built by the communist governments. While they electrified the system, they also had people standing in bread lines and living in government housing that would be condemned in any other country. They didn't worry about pollution or dirty power systems.
MidlandMike How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors.
You are mixing the two.
You point up Russia and Morocco. Russia is a good example of a railroad system built by a dictatorial government. Morocco's railroad is state-owned.
Then you mention Japan and Europe. As pointed out, both of those are small, densely populated areas. Europe's private trains for the most part operate on state owned tracks. Japan's trains are private, but carry almost no freight.
All of these situations would not translate well to the U.S. or Canada.
If you want us to have a system like Russia or Europe, then elect people to Congress who will take over the rail system, spend trillions of dollars to electrify it, and then sit back and enjoy watching your tax dollars at work.
Several times you've mentioned Russia's system. It was mostly built by the communist governments. While they electrified the system, they also had people standing in bread lines and living in government housing that would be condemned in any other country. They didn't worry about pollution or dirty power systems.
Posters are complaining that electrified lines can't be built in sparsely populated areas. So the Trans-Siberian was built by communist? (It was actually built by the Czar, then electrified under the communist.) Regardless of who built it, a line can be electrified in a sparsely populated area. But lets look at someplace with a more western culture. New Zealand has a population of 5 million on one of the most isolated islands on Earth. They electrified their North Island mainline for freight. I haven't heard that anyone was standing in bread lines while it was being built.
The point being that population density can't be used as a reason that absolutly excludes electrification. In the last 40 years since Conrail pulled the plug on the last major freight electrics, some of the Class 1s have toyed with electrification, some going so far as stringing short sections of catenary to see how it does in the environment. But all have made a conscious decision not to pursue it. Why don't they pursue it? The only arguements so far in this thread that seem to ring true, is that the rail companies are fixated on the short term returns. Not to say if it is good or bad, just that evidence shows it to be a fact.
MidlandMike York1 MidlandMike How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors. You are mixing the two. You point up Russia and Morocco. Russia is a good example of a railroad system built by a dictatorial government. Morocco's railroad is state-owned. Then you mention Japan and Europe. As pointed out, both of those are small, densely populated areas. Europe's private trains for the most part operate on state owned tracks. Japan's trains are private, but carry almost no freight. All of these situations would not translate well to the U.S. or Canada. If you want us to have a system like Russia or Europe, then elect people to Congress who will take over the rail system, spend trillions of dollars to electrify it, and then sit back and enjoy watching your tax dollars at work. Several times you've mentioned Russia's system. It was mostly built by the communist governments. While they electrified the system, they also had people standing in bread lines and living in government housing that would be condemned in any other country. They didn't worry about pollution or dirty power systems. Posters are complaining that electrified lines can't be built in sparsely populated areas. So the Trans-Siberian was built by communist? (It was actually built by the Czar, then electrified under the communist.) Regardless of who built it, a line can be electrified in a sparsely populated area. But lets look at someplace with a more western culture. New Zealand has a population of 5 million on one of the most isolated islands on Earth. They electrified their North Island mainline for freight. I haven't heard that anyone was standing in bread lines while it was being built. The point being that population density can't be used as a reason that absolutly excludes electrification. In the last 40 years since Conrail pulled the plug on the last major freight electrics, some of the Class 1s have toyed with electrification, some going so far as stringing short sections of catenary to see how it does in the environment. But all have made a conscious decision not to pursue it. Why don't they pursue it? The only arguements so far in this thread that seem to ring true, is that the rail companies are fixated on the short term returns. Not to say if it is good or bad, just that evidence shows it to be a fact.
Nobody is saying it CAN'T be done. Virtually anything can be done anywhere. The problem is in finding someone to pay for it. Are those paying for it expecting a monetary return on their investment?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OldEngineman But electrifying the major freight lines in California? Even UP and BNSF are going to be challenged to pay for it. The cost in dollars will be astronomical.
But electrifying the major freight lines in California?
Even UP and BNSF are going to be challenged to pay for it. The cost in dollars will be astronomical.
The 1992 estimates for electrifying the freight railroads in the LA basin to engine change points such as Yuma, Mojave, and Barstow came out to 4 billion $. I suspect the cost for all the main lines in CA would be at least factor of 10 higher than that now.
The technical and engineering work will be daunting, particularly with tunnels that will have to be rebuilt to handle double-stack AND a 25,000v overhead catenary system. Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary?
Half of the 4 billion dollar cost estimate from 1992 was in raising clearances, so your comments about engineering work is spot on.
As for operating a rotary snow plow under catenary, the Milwaukee apparently didn't have a lot of trouble. 25kV AC versus 3kV DC does make for more of a challenge. I suspect that having the contact wire high enough to clear double stacks will make things a bit easier.
And what happens when the trains get to the Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon borders? Gonna be a whole lotta engine changin' goin' on (apologies to Jerry Lee Lewis). That's going to mean "more crews", as well.
Based on the 1992 example, the electrified zones would extend to crew change points. Granted, changing locomotives is more involved than changing crews.
Shadow the Cats owner Except for the Northeast Corridor and even Conrail quit running electric locomotives in the 80s. Not 1 Class one electricalficaion survived unless it was for passenger service. That is the only reason why certain lines around Chicago have it and even those are run by the government aka Metra.
Except for the Northeast Corridor and even Conrail quit running electric locomotives in the 80s. Not 1 Class one electricalficaion survived unless it was for passenger service. That is the only reason why certain lines around Chicago have it and even those are run by the government aka Metra.
NKP guy OldEngineman Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary? I think your entire post is interesting, but as I read this sentence it brought to mind the question, How do electric railroads handle the snow situation in the Alps, or across Siberia, for that matter? I'm sure I don't know, but you make a good case for the expense involved in such a big project.
OldEngineman Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary?
I don't think the challenges would be any different than keeping the existing distribution and delivery grid going in the Sierras or Rockys.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd NKP guy OldEngineman Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary? I think your entire post is interesting, but as I read this sentence it brought to mind the question, How do electric railroads handle the snow situation in the Alps, or across Siberia, for that matter? I'm sure I don't know, but you make a good case for the expense involved in such a big project. I don't think the challenges would be any different than keeping the existing distribution and delivery grid going in the Sierras or Rockys.
ie. periodic power failures for unpridctable periods of time - just like happens everywhere else.
York1 oltmannd If you can use electrification to speed up service, you can save cars, locomotives and have longer crew districts. These are interesting projections for savings. I'm very interested in the energy savings. As the electricity use skyrockets over the next years, I imagine the prices will also rise. Savings on carbon? How can that number be used to help with the payback?
oltmannd If you can use electrification to speed up service, you can save cars, locomotives and have longer crew districts.
Renewables are cheaper than coal and nat'l gas at the moment. I'd expect electric rates to remain flat as consumption increases (except in GA where we are having to pay for an over-budget, very late pair of new nukes)
The cost of carbon could take several forms. It could be a tax on diesel fuel, in which case the savings would be direct. It could be in the form of a direct subsidy to electrify - either capital or reduced price on electricity. It could be a tax credit against earnings. Doesn't matter. There are several estimates on what the environmental cost of carbon actually is. Some are based on what the tax would need to be in order to achieve climate goals. Middle of the road was $75/ton, so I used that.
FWIW is $75/ton works out to 70 cents per gallon of gasoline. Not a crazy amount in my opinion.
BaltACD oltmannd NKP guy OldEngineman Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary? I think your entire post is interesting, but as I read this sentence it brought to mind the question, How do electric railroads handle the snow situation in the Alps, or across Siberia, for that matter? I'm sure I don't know, but you make a good case for the expense involved in such a big project. I don't think the challenges would be any different than keeping the existing distribution and delivery grid going in the Sierras or Rockys. ie. periodic power failures for unpridctable periods of time - just like happens everywhere else.
Yep. Not like they really run trains in the snow much these days anyway.
BaltACD charlie hebdo There is lots of international service in Europe. If engine changes are needed st s border, they are done efficiently. Engine changes, no matter how efficient, are DELAY. The bigger problem is actually having engines at the proper location at the proper time to facilitate a change.
charlie hebdo There is lots of international service in Europe. If engine changes are needed st s border, they are done efficiently.
Engine changes, no matter how efficient, are DELAY. The bigger problem is actually having engines at the proper location at the proper time to facilitate a change.
Engine changes at work locations would help. If you're going to dump the air, might as well be at a place where you are already doing it. Not much net time to change power.
Positioning of power is key. Better on high density routes. Better if you keep enough safety stock - something RRs have been terrible about in the current era.
MidlandMike In the last 40 years since Conrail pulled the plug on the last major freight electrics, some of the Class 1s have toyed with electrification, some going so far as stringing short sections of catenary to see how it does in the environment. But all have made a conscious decision not to pursue it. Why don't they pursue it? The only arguements so far in this thread that seem to ring true, is that the rail companies are fixated on the short term returns. Not to say if it is good or bad, just that evidence shows it to be a fact.
Carbon is the new thing that changes the equation. The ROI is samll to non-existent without it. Sooner or later, the cost of emitting CO2 is going to be charged against the emitter (net).
Back in the 1980s, no RR was throwing off enough cash to even consider a larger investment. (Conrail didn't pave new intermodal terminal lots because they couldn't afford to....)
Now, RRs are flush with cash. What are they doing with it? First, M&A. Now, stock repurchase and dividends. This is a "going out of business" approach.
charlie hebdoThe infreastructure is state owned; operators are privatized. We should do the same for efficiency
Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I think we can do better. Lots of advantages to our current private frt RRs. Super efficient. The problem is they tend to keep falling asleep and stop progressing. Sometimes they need a push.
oltmannd BaltACD oltmannd NKP guy OldEngineman Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary? I think your entire post is interesting, but as I read this sentence it brought to mind the question, How do electric railroads handle the snow situation in the Alps, or across Siberia, for that matter? I'm sure I don't know, but you make a good case for the expense involved in such a big project. I don't think the challenges would be any different than keeping the existing distribution and delivery grid going in the Sierras or Rockys. ie. periodic power failures for unpridctable periods of time - just like happens everywhere else. Yep. Not like they really run trains in the snow much these days anyway.
Back in the day - most railroad operating employees lived in near walking distance of their reporting location. Good weather, Bad weather - they are still in walking distance.
Today - most railroad operating employees live 10 to 100 miles from their reporting location and rely on 'good weather' to report for duty On Time. Throw snow on the highways and virtually no employees are able to get to their on duty locations.
As a kid in Baltimore I recall the Winter of 1958, Valentine's Day there was a blizzard - Dad was helping one of his fellow employees take the guy's daughter home after a ballet performance - Dad blew up the transmission on his 1957 Buick about two blocks from the guy's house. We all hiked through the foot and a half of snow to the house and were marooned there for a week, until the limited Baltimore County snow fighting equipment opened up the main routes.
In the blizzards of the Winter of 2009-10 the local snow fighting equipment would have the main routes open within 12 hours from the end of precipitation, community and side streets take longer.
oltmannd charlie hebdo The infreastructure is state owned; operators are privatized. We should do the same for efficiency Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I think we can do better. Lots of advantages to our current private frt RRs. Super efficient. The problem is they tend to keep falling asleep and stop progressing. Sometimes they need a push.
charlie hebdo The infreastructure is state owned; operators are privatized. We should do the same for efficiency
One of the problems for US rails is far too much capital is tied up in infrastructure and insufficient revenue to cover the high expenses of a high level of maintenance. It would be better in my opinion, if they could pay a rental charge to a quasi-government agency and focus on the business of freight services
oltmannd Renewables are cheaper than coal and nat'l gas at the moment. I'd expect electric rates to remain flat as consumption increases (except in GA where we are having to pay for an over-budget, very late pair of new nukes)
If you are talking about hydro, I would agree, but not for solar or wind. Combined cycle gas turbine in areas with plentiful NG is about the least expensive source for dispatchable electric power.
For what it is worth, India is claiming they can build a nuclear plant that has a lower cost per kw-hr than either solar or wind without including the cost of energy storage needed for renewables. Building a nuclear plant would generate a lot less CO2 than building the same effective (NOT nameplate) capacity with wind power.
Erik_MagFor what it is worth, India is claiming they can build a nuclear plant that has a lower cost per kw-hr than either solar or wind without including the cost of energy storage needed for renewables.
Building a nuclear plant would generate a lot less CO2 than building the same effective (NOT nameplate) capacity with wind power.
I followed pebble-bed nuclear for many years, hoping someone would effectively commercialize this at relatively small modular size. I suspect we'll all have to chime in with Peter Pan and reeeeeeeally believe in fairies by the time objection to modern nuclear solutions gets traction in California.
charlie hebdoOne of the problems for US rails is far too much capital is tied up in infrastructure and insufficient revenue to cover the high expenses of a high level of maintenance.
This is 110% wrong. An OR of 80 generates enough revenue to maintain the infrastructure, buy new equipment and keep everything status quo. RR ORs are running in the low 60s these days. That's why dividend and stock buy-backs are so high.
The cash is there and then some. They should be investing more to push the needle forward.
Erik_Mag oltmannd Renewables are cheaper than coal and nat'l gas at the moment. I'd expect electric rates to remain flat as consumption increases (except in GA where we are having to pay for an over-budget, very late pair of new nukes) If you are talking about hydro, I would agree, but not for solar or wind. Combined cycle gas turbine in areas with plentiful NG is about the least expensive source for dispatchable electric power. For what it is worth, India is claiming they can build a nuclear plant that has a lower cost per kw-hr than either solar or wind without including the cost of energy storage needed for renewables. Building a nuclear plant would generate a lot less CO2 than building the same effective (NOT nameplate) capacity with wind power.
But, it's close and won't stay that way. Replacing coal with NGCC isn't terrible in the short run.
https://energyinnovation.org/2018/01/22/renewable-energy-levelized-cost-of-energy-already-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-and-prices-keep-plunging/
I found this. It seems a bit dated. Has anything fundamentally changed?
The definition of LCOE used in the link you gave did not seem to include the cost of energy storage, increased transmission capacity or back up generation needed for a high penetration of renewable energy on the grid. As such it doesn't give a realistic cost comparison. If the cost of wind and solar really was cheaper, then why are we still subsidizing new construction?
For a thorough discussion of the issues of renewable energy I would recommend the series of articles written by Russell Schussler (AKA "Planning Engineer") that have appeared on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. website. Russell was the planning engineer for a large electric power cooperative, so he wasn't driven by maximizing profits.
oltmannd charlie hebdo One of the problems for US rails is far too much capital is tied up in infrastructure and insufficient revenue to cover the high expenses of a high level of maintenance. This is 110% wrong. An OR of 80 generates enough revenue to maintain the infrastructure, buy new equipment and keep everything status quo. RR ORs are running in the low 60s these days. That's why dividend and stock buy-backs are so high. The cash is there and then some. They should be investing more to push the needle forward.
charlie hebdo One of the problems for US rails is far too much capital is tied up in infrastructure and insufficient revenue to cover the high expenses of a high level of maintenance.
The cash may be there but it does not appear to be maintaining the plant very well. The low OR comes from cost-cutting. Instead that cash is used to enrich the quick buck artists.
The rails aren't pushing the needle forward, not without a lot of dragging them into the 21st century.
charlie hebdoThe cash may be there but it does not appear to be maintaining the plant very well.
I completely disagree. There is no data that suggests deferred maintenance.
Erik_Mag The definition of LCOE used in the link you gave did not seem to include the cost of energy storage, increased transmission capacity or back up generation needed for a high penetration of renewable energy on the grid. As such it doesn't give a realistic cost comparison. If the cost of wind and solar really was cheaper, then why are we still subsidizing new construction? For a thorough discussion of the issues of renewable energy I would recommend the series of articles written by Russell Schussler (AKA "Planning Engineer") that have appeared on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. website. Russell was the planning engineer for a large electric power cooperative, so he wasn't driven by maximizing profits.
Excellent. Thanks. I will check them out.
Why would catenary (Sp?) be needed? Couldn't the power lines be run between the rails and have the pickup points be located under the locomotive? Seems like it would solve a lot of problems with clearance and structure maintenance. Would just need government support protecting railroads against trespasser lawsuits which is a very reasonable tradeoff.
MJ4562 Why would catenary (Sp?) be needed? Couldn't the power lines be run between the rails and have the pickup points be located under the locomotive? Seems like it would solve a lot of problems with clearance and structure maintenance. Would just need government support protecting railroads against trespasser lawsuits which is a very reasonable tradeoff.
"Smart third rail" is a variant of the GE stud-contact system described in Burch's "Electric Traction for Railway Trains" (1911). The basic idea (now) is to provide insulated sections of DC supply, with a smooth overall contact face, and return the usual way to the running rails, so that only when the locomotive pickup completely covers a given segment is heavy current supplied to it. The pickup bridges several sections, so that a very large contact area exists at any one time but there is no 'make' or 'break' with arcing as the shoe encounters and leaves a new segment.
Manufacturers claim that it is relatively easy to make modular sections including the switching electronics, so most of the implementation is laying the third rail and connecting it to periodic DC supply (probably rectified from 60Hz grid power in the United States, but in intermittent OHLE from the catenary traction supply.
Alstrom did this in Brazilhttps://www.alstom.com/solutions/infrastructure/srs-innovative-safe-and-automatic-charging-trams-and-electric-buses
It looks good for re-charging batteries quickly on streetcars or light rail and battery buses but I can't see it as very practical for rail applications. It seems like a rather expensive way of eliminating overhead wires.
charlie hebdo The cash may be there but it does not appear to be maintaining the plant very well.
The cash may be there but it does not appear to be maintaining the plant very well.
The are maintaining the plant just fine. Do you have any first hand knowledge from your railroading experience to back up your statement?
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 charlie hebdo The cash may be there but it does not appear to be maintaining the plant very well. The are maintaining the plant just fine. Do you have any first hand knowledge from your railroading experience to back up your statement?
I observe: watch and listen.
As the lyric says, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Do you think the only people allowed to comment on railroads on here are railroaders? Are you a railroad employee? If so, what qualifies you?
charlie hebdo n012944 charlie hebdo The cash may be there but it does not appear to be maintaining the plant very well. The are maintaining the plant just fine. Do you have any first hand knowledge from your railroading experience to back up your statement? I observe: watch and listen. As the lyric says, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Do you think the only people allowed to comment on railroads on here are railroaders? Are you a railroad employee? If so, what qualifies you?
So no, you don't. Got it.
Do I think only railroaders should comment? Of course not. Do I think that railroaders have a bit more knowledge of what is going on than someone who "observes" from afar? You bet.
What qualified me as a railroader to make the observation? 20 some years of experience. I know how much track time MOW or signals are asking for, and if they are getting it. I know how long temporary speed restrictions are put out before being repaired. I know how often crews report rough track, or have engine failures. I know how often track lights appear, or switches fail. If you were a railroader with knowledge, I would not have to explain that to you.
I know things that simply "watching and listening" from afar does not tell you. As seems to be your thing these days, you are letting your ideology get in the way of the facts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.