CMStPnP Overmod The 'correct' solution for track-level electrical contact is going to be 'smart third rail' (which is basically an upgrade of the old GE idea of having contacts raised and actuated as a shoe under the locomotive contacts them). There are in particular some Japanese and Italian versions that have near-continuous contacts embedded in a polymer structure, actuated electronically. As Eric notes, these are best implemented with DC / running-rail return, but the transversion from AC can be done nearly at each point of contact. I would of course argue for ~1500VDC fed via suitable equipment to the DC-Link of connected dual-mode-lite hybrid consists. (Adding the necessary 'connectivity' to one of Iden's "tenders" would not be technically difficult either...) There are few reasons, though, not to build the bulk of the electrification as overhead constant-tension line with the usual wear-reducing lateral sinusoid pulloff, and keep any return-current arrangements in the rails compliant with that. I think both overhead wires and third rails do not have much of a future and sooner or later someone will cross the threshold with a self contained powerplant that will replace the diesel and will be as cheap or cheaper to run and maintain. Wabtec and it's hybrid Diesel is getting closer but it still has emissions.
Overmod The 'correct' solution for track-level electrical contact is going to be 'smart third rail' (which is basically an upgrade of the old GE idea of having contacts raised and actuated as a shoe under the locomotive contacts them). There are in particular some Japanese and Italian versions that have near-continuous contacts embedded in a polymer structure, actuated electronically. As Eric notes, these are best implemented with DC / running-rail return, but the transversion from AC can be done nearly at each point of contact. I would of course argue for ~1500VDC fed via suitable equipment to the DC-Link of connected dual-mode-lite hybrid consists. (Adding the necessary 'connectivity' to one of Iden's "tenders" would not be technically difficult either...) There are few reasons, though, not to build the bulk of the electrification as overhead constant-tension line with the usual wear-reducing lateral sinusoid pulloff, and keep any return-current arrangements in the rails compliant with that.
The 'correct' solution for track-level electrical contact is going to be 'smart third rail' (which is basically an upgrade of the old GE idea of having contacts raised and actuated as a shoe under the locomotive contacts them). There are in particular some Japanese and Italian versions that have near-continuous contacts embedded in a polymer structure, actuated electronically. As Eric notes, these are best implemented with DC / running-rail return, but the transversion from AC can be done nearly at each point of contact. I would of course argue for ~1500VDC fed via suitable equipment to the DC-Link of connected dual-mode-lite hybrid consists. (Adding the necessary 'connectivity' to one of Iden's "tenders" would not be technically difficult either...)
There are few reasons, though, not to build the bulk of the electrification as overhead constant-tension line with the usual wear-reducing lateral sinusoid pulloff, and keep any return-current arrangements in the rails compliant with that.
I think both overhead wires and third rails do not have much of a future and sooner or later someone will cross the threshold with a self contained powerplant that will replace the diesel and will be as cheap or cheaper to run and maintain.
Wabtec and it's hybrid Diesel is getting closer but it still has emissions.
daveklepper The logical solution is low-voltage same AC 60Hz frequebcr 3rd rail just though the restricted-clearance area and possibly 500 feet overlap transition lengrth each side.
The logical solution is low-voltage same AC 60Hz frequebcr 3rd rail just though the restricted-clearance area and possibly 500 feet overlap transition lengrth each side.
One issue with 60Hz and 3rd rail is that the 60Hz impedance of rails is at least 6 times higher than the DC resistance. One option is copying BART with aluminum bonded to the sides of the 3rd rail. The other option is using DC on the 3rd rail and using a DC-DC converter for converting 3rd rail potential to the DC-link potential of the traction inverters. This converter would be smaller and lighter than the transformer.
Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion.
If memory is correct, each concrete base was port with steel set into the top that looked like a flat bplate, but pobably had "feet" extendibg into the concrete, and the line poles were bolted to attachments intagral with each plate. Should be a drawing somewhere.
Pretty much the same PRR and NYNH&H.
blue streak 1Because it is an outdated type of construction. 1. Steel poles directly into the ground slowly rusting away. ...
The photo I see of a standard PRR cat section shows the poles (I-beams) on a cement foundation, although I can't tell if they are bolted to the foundation, or sunk into the cement. I know the PRR cat is basically obsolete, but my point is that if congress does not fund replacement of their own problem plagued cat, then what is the likelyhood of them funding widespread freight line electrification.
BackshopMany tunnels are used to get rid of the top of a grade so it really wouldn't work to cut off the power of some of the locomotives.
The point about varying catenary voltage with overhead clearance ignores the increased current (and hence various I2R losses) inherent in using a lower voltage in traction applications. A much better use would be in conjunction with battery dual-mode-lite hybrid power, where 'every little bit' of charging power could be helpful without compromising the performance of the train through 'restricted clearance' areas.
Just a reminder for those who say to use DP and have some of the power "coast" while going through a tunnel. Many tunnels are used to get rid of the top of a grade so it really wouldn't work to cut off the power of some of the locomotives.
MidlandMike I would love to see the numbers, can you provide them? If the cat work is only an inconsequencial amount, then why are you always reporting on cat problems on the NEC?
I would love to see the numbers, can you provide them? If the cat work is only an inconsequencial amount, then why are you always reporting on cat problems on the NEC?
blue streak 1 MidlandMike It's not all gravy once the electrification is built. The NEC was built around a century ago, and needs tens of billion$ just to bring it to a state of good repair. Have you checked what all that money is about? Maybe $1 - 2B for all the CAT work. All the rest is ROW, Sawtooth bridge Dock bridge. bridges including the Maryland and Connecticut bridges. Undercutting the whole track to remove bad sub grade, stations, & Etc.
MidlandMike It's not all gravy once the electrification is built. The NEC was built around a century ago, and needs tens of billion$ just to bring it to a state of good repair.
Have you checked what all that money is about? Maybe $1 - 2B for all the CAT work. All the rest is ROW, Sawtooth bridge Dock bridge. bridges including the Maryland and Connecticut bridges. Undercutting the whole track to remove bad sub grade, stations, & Etc.
IMO some of our posters are making a mountain out of a mole hill concerning low clearances. If a lower clearance is a problem just lower the voltage thru the low clearance area(s). The use of tap changing transformers is well known. Later models of tap changers are automatic such as Acelas, Sprinters, AEMs with some older units such as E-60s, EMUs & etc either automatic or manual.
So, 25 kV is not required everywhere. Can be 12.5, 6.25, 3.12 or some other voltasge. The AAR would need to desiginate whatever voltages. Read somewhere that some location in Europe uses ~3 kV in a constrained location. Even CSX's Virginia Ave tunnel will be able to use some lower voltage.
Another method would be to operate all trains thru a low clearance area to have an electric motor in front and one at rear of train operating in DPU. Just run CAT as an isolated dead section under low clearances allowing unpowered units to coast thru dead section with other unit(s) providing traction for train movement.
BaltACD In the USA electrification will not go forward without mass quantities of Federal Government 'seed' money, lots and lots of seed money. The ROI on electrification is not sufficient to attract private capital investment in the project.
In the USA electrification will not go forward without mass quantities of Federal Government 'seed' money, lots and lots of seed money.
The ROI on electrification is not sufficient to attract private capital investment in the project.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Fred M Cain I don't believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned. I distinctly remember hearing as a kid that Southern Pacific was studying the electrification of their Sunset Line from West Colton to Indio in the 1960s and if that turned out to be successful, possibly extending it eastward all the way to El Paso. I also think that they also looked at electrifying Donner Pass. However, in both cases, they decided against it. Why? Almost surely due to cost. Today, battery powered freight locomotives for long distances are still in the experimental phase and might or might not pan out. In some cases, catenary might make more sense. For some reason that I have never quite been able to fully grasp and digest, other countries found a way to electrify, but not the U.S. I suspect that unless the Greens have their way and mandate something, Diesels will probably continue to rule American rails for some time to come except in yards or for short distances where batteries would be far more practical. Other (nominally European & Japanese) countries had to rebuild much of their rail infrastructure from the ground up after WW II. The rebuilds were done as governmental projects, not private business projects. Governments and debt are different than private companies and debt. Governments can withstand the debt necessary to finance electrification as a matter of public interest. In the US, while the railroads had to be rebuilt after WW II it was not the same task as in Europe and Japan. The US railroads were the victims of deferred maintenance during the war. The physical plant and equipment had been run hard and put away wet to carry the wartime traffic demands. While the railroads were profitable during the war, they were not a profitable as possible because of the 'discounted rates' that governmental traffic moved over. During the remainder of the 40's the US roads tried to play catch-up on their maintenance only to find a declining level of traffic needed to finance the maintenance catch-up programs. Nowhere in this landscape did the Federal Government step in and offer the capital necessary to bring about electrification. The countries whose railroads are predominately electrified are that way because of the desires and investments of their governments.
Fred M Cain I don't believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned. I distinctly remember hearing as a kid that Southern Pacific was studying the electrification of their Sunset Line from West Colton to Indio in the 1960s and if that turned out to be successful, possibly extending it eastward all the way to El Paso. I also think that they also looked at electrifying Donner Pass. However, in both cases, they decided against it. Why? Almost surely due to cost. Today, battery powered freight locomotives for long distances are still in the experimental phase and might or might not pan out. In some cases, catenary might make more sense. For some reason that I have never quite been able to fully grasp and digest, other countries found a way to electrify, but not the U.S. I suspect that unless the Greens have their way and mandate something, Diesels will probably continue to rule American rails for some time to come except in yards or for short distances where batteries would be far more practical.
I distinctly remember hearing as a kid that Southern Pacific was studying the electrification of their Sunset Line from West Colton to Indio in the 1960s and if that turned out to be successful, possibly extending it eastward all the way to El Paso. I also think that they also looked at electrifying Donner Pass.
However, in both cases, they decided against it. Why? Almost surely due to cost.
Today, battery powered freight locomotives for long distances are still in the experimental phase and might or might not pan out. In some cases, catenary might make more sense.
For some reason that I have never quite been able to fully grasp and digest, other countries found a way to electrify, but not the U.S.
I suspect that unless the Greens have their way and mandate something, Diesels will probably continue to rule American rails for some time to come except in yards or for short distances where batteries would be far more practical.
Other (nominally European & Japanese) countries had to rebuild much of their rail infrastructure from the ground up after WW II. The rebuilds were done as governmental projects, not private business projects. Governments and debt are different than private companies and debt. Governments can withstand the debt necessary to finance electrification as a matter of public interest.
In the US, while the railroads had to be rebuilt after WW II it was not the same task as in Europe and Japan. The US railroads were the victims of deferred maintenance during the war. The physical plant and equipment had been run hard and put away wet to carry the wartime traffic demands. While the railroads were profitable during the war, they were not a profitable as possible because of the 'discounted rates' that governmental traffic moved over.
During the remainder of the 40's the US roads tried to play catch-up on their maintenance only to find a declining level of traffic needed to finance the maintenance catch-up programs. Nowhere in this landscape did the Federal Government step in and offer the capital necessary to bring about electrification.
The countries whose railroads are predominately electrified are that way because of the desires and investments of their governments.
And their government's choice of the baseload generation necessary to provide reliable power for all that electrification of the government-owned railroad.
Fred M Cain I don't believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned.
I don't believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned.
For the 1991-92 study on electrifying the freight RR's in SoCal, half of the total projected cost was in providing adequate clearance for the 50kV catenary.
During my GE years, GE was working (but I wasn't) on the hybrid diesel-electric locomotive, which prompted two ideas on my part. One was that the hybrid would have been useful for long tunnels as the prime mover could be throttled back to reduce exhaust gases and heat from engine cooling. The other was to put batteries on electric locomotives to power through non-electrified trackage (as done by the CNS&M), where such trackage could include areas where clearances were insufficient for catenary.
I also think battery technology has progressed to where a hybrid commuter locomotive (or hybrid DMU's) would make a lot of sense. Part of it would be recovering energy that would be otherwise lost in braking, but the other effectively doubling or tripling the output of the prime mover in acceleration and be able ro spend moore time at track speed between stops.
A TV news story tonight showed a test of an in-pavement (induction) charging grid being installed in a Detroit street. There are similar tests going on in several other countries. If the government finances any transportation electrification, it will be for autos, and not trains.
Interest on government's debt as rates go up will swamp all programs. Electrification would be a nonstarter. I think we're in the danger zone of not being able to right the ship. Very bad outcome if we have a crash. Will not be pretty.
Fred M CainI don't believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned. I distinctly remember hearing as a kid that Southern Pacific was studying the electrification of their Sunset Line from West Colton to Indio in the 1960s and if that turned out to be successful, possibly extending it eastward all the way to El Paso. I also think that they also looked at electrifying Donner Pass. However, in both cases, they decided against it. Why? Almost surely due to cost. Today, battery powered freight locomotives for long distances are still in the experimental phase and might or might not pan out. In some cases, catenary might make more sense. For some reason that I have never quite been able to fully grasp and digest, other countries found a way to electrify, but not the U.S. I suspect that unless the Greens have their way and mandate something, Diesels will probably continue to rule American rails for some time to come except in yards or for short distances where batteries would be far more practical.
jeffhergert tree68 PJS1 This is a critical question. For a nation with a federal government debt of more than $33.8 trillion, as well as gobs of state and local government debt, where will the money come from? Someone will have to make a convincing case for the investors that electrification will pay back, in spades. Barring that, or a healthy infusion of taxpayer money, it's not going to happen. The government is good at unfunded mandates. PTC anyone? Although I haven't been following it closely, California is supposed to be trying to force all locomotives to be zero emissions by 2030 or 2035 depending on type of service. Some shortlines are worried that they won't be able to afford the technology, that really isn't there yet. Some expect that they would have to shut down. Just force it nation wide, which isn't above the realm of possibility, and it almost forces electrification. At least for heavily trafficed lines. It might lead to abandonment of lesser trafficed lines. The railroads might think the expense is not justified. Jeff
tree68 PJS1 This is a critical question. For a nation with a federal government debt of more than $33.8 trillion, as well as gobs of state and local government debt, where will the money come from? Someone will have to make a convincing case for the investors that electrification will pay back, in spades. Barring that, or a healthy infusion of taxpayer money, it's not going to happen.
PJS1 This is a critical question. For a nation with a federal government debt of more than $33.8 trillion, as well as gobs of state and local government debt, where will the money come from?
Someone will have to make a convincing case for the investors that electrification will pay back, in spades. Barring that, or a healthy infusion of taxpayer money, it's not going to happen.
The government is good at unfunded mandates. PTC anyone?
Although I haven't been following it closely, California is supposed to be trying to force all locomotives to be zero emissions by 2030 or 2035 depending on type of service. Some shortlines are worried that they won't be able to afford the technology, that really isn't there yet. Some expect that they would have to shut down.
Just force it nation wide, which isn't above the realm of possibility, and it almost forces electrification. At least for heavily trafficed lines. It might lead to abandonment of lesser trafficed lines. The railroads might think the expense is not justified.
Jeff
wjstix ...How much do railroads currently pay each year for diesel fuel? The fuel costs are paid from the rates they charge companies for moving their goods (and the companies pass the cost to the consumer), and I assume using fuel costs as an expense giving them a tax break, meaning they pay less tax (so we pay more). Ultimetly we all pay for it...
...How much do railroads currently pay each year for diesel fuel? The fuel costs are paid from the rates they charge companies for moving their goods (and the companies pass the cost to the consumer), and I assume using fuel costs as an expense giving them a tax break, meaning they pay less tax (so we pay more). Ultimetly we all pay for it...
??? Huh? I would hope that legitimate costs are being accounted for against sales revenue to arrive at true taxable income. Otherwise gonna fall down, go booom.
wjstix... It is likely, once the infrastructure was in place, that using electricity (which could be generated by solar power, wind power, etc.) would be much cheaper per year than diesels.
It's not all gravy once the electrification is built. The NEC was built around a century ago, and needs tens of billion$ just to bring it to a state of good repair.
CSSHEGEWISCH The other issue that is not being addressed is where will the electricity formerly generated by locomotives come from once the catenary is strung. The existing power grid cannot handle the additional load from railroads.
The other issue that is not being addressed is where will the electricity formerly generated by locomotives come from once the catenary is strung. The existing power grid cannot handle the additional load from railroads.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/total_energy_2022.pdf
RRs used 0.05 quadrillion BTUs
Electrical generation consumed 33 quadrillion BTUs
I don't think anyone would even notice if RRs electrified....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Leo_Ames It's the ROI that traditionally kills these. All the big studies for electrication of busy mainlines through the years have shown that they're financially viable. But the rate is too slow and spread over too many years. When they can get a better return elsewhere, their limited capital is going to go somewhere else rather than towards electrication.
It's the ROI that traditionally kills these. All the big studies for electrication of busy mainlines through the years have shown that they're financially viable. But the rate is too slow and spread over too many years.
When they can get a better return elsewhere, their limited capital is going to go somewhere else rather than towards electrication.
RRs are flush with cash - all that low OR PSR generated cash flow.
Electrification can be a winner on heavy main lines.
https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2023/04/i-built-train-performance-calculator.html
I crunched some numbers....
I believe Mike Iden has the best solution.
https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/follow-the-megawatt-hours-hydrogen-fuel-cells-batteries-and-electric-propulsion/
Battery tenders for the "gaps".
Electrify the heavy mainlines. Let hybrids, fuel cell, bio-diesel handle the rest.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe existing power grid cannot handle the additional load from railroads.
Especially not when you include EVs - there are already grid capacity issues with charging them.
Every power source has its foes. Some people hate hydroelectric (gotta get rid of those darned dams), some hate wind turbines (unsightly, kill birds), some hate solar (for taking up what could be productive farm land), some hate nuclear (OMG! Chernobyl!), some hate the various fossil fuels.
Power source issues notwithstanding, money to build will be the issue. The railroads do use substantial amounts of fuel, which would theoretically be replaced by electricity.
Even setting aside construction, what's the ROI for going with electricity? Social issues are not part of the discussion.
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.