Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin I think the biggest problems with electrification is the higher ongoing maintanance of the right of way wich would matter alot on the long isolated distances in North America.
QUOTE: Especialy with secondary main lines wich feed into the system. Maintanance of electric locos is less then deisels, but you have to weigh it against each other. In Europe they have many more trains running shorter distances and the savings in easier to maintain straight electrics outways the heavier maintance of deisels, especialy with the need for lighter but more horse power units for high speeds and the shorter route miles of electrification. So to them electric may be more cost effective on the long run.
QUOTE: Other major risks are if one railroad electrifies and then 10 years later another electrifies with an improved but incompatable system, this problem exists all over Europe now.
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin When "pan-European open access" happens you'll see operators look at the multi voltage- frequency- AC/DC- pantograph types- etc electric routes and the cost of these multi electrics and then they will get a deisel, at least for freight trains anyways but less likely on passenger trains. Aleady this is happening.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator 440cuin the problem with europe is not motive power. Just as Dave noted - just as much freight is moved with electrics, as is with diesels. The problem is in the moronic limitation of 750 metres for a single train (2300 ft) as mandated by UIC. And the ore trains move with diesels because holland has 1500VDC wires, and those do not cope with power requirements of heavy ore trains. BTW those aren't the heaviest trains in Europe.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Townsend A lot of people on this forum seem to be commenting on the high price of oil.However i have never read anything on electrification. When i lived in South Africa S. A. R. had an iron ore line several hundred miles long that was electrified at 50kv AC so the substations could be masive distances apart and the locomotives could handle a voltage drop of nearly 50% (i think). Has electrification like that been considered for service in the USA in the western states.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd As someone noted, however, many low-traffic branches, which were once electrified, have been turned over to diesels. They're cheaper to run (I'll get to fuel costs in a minute). Some portions of the western railroads (GN and Milwaukee) were electrified in the steam era; the problem again was tunnels. Once diesels took over, those electrifications were discontinued.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mhurley87f In what way is it moronic to limit freight train length to track circuit signal block lenths? What (train length) works best west of the Chicago - New Orleans axis in the US would be truly moronic in Europe. Have you ever seen how busy and complicated track layouts can be over this side??
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin I know lots of examples of deisel freight that was electrified when Denmark electrified their main line from Sweden to Germany. The fisrt generation of electrics locos in the 80's have 7000hp but weigh 80 tons and can't even get a loaded "moronic" 750meter long freight started, (I dont realy think short trains are moronic realy) so then they double headed the trains. 14000 hp just to move 2000 ton trains. One 3000 hp GM deisel had no problem exept for emisions in the long tunnel. Most freight trains today are electric now, but most freight and mail now moves by truck.
QUOTE: Many passenger trains are deisel multipal unit trains so the electric locos are expensive surplus. They don't need them for passenger trains and they can't pull the freights, they also cannot run through into Germany or Sweden. They may soon be getting old and haven't realy had the careir that was intended for them;-(
QUOTE: My point though is that I am in favour of electrification, but it has to be done right and the risks are high, the costs are high so politics enter it all if the government pays for some of it. A railroad should also only electrify if it realy needs it, not just because it is perceived as better. Right now the North American freight railroads have too many other things to spend their efforts on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by mhurley87f In what way is it moronic to limit freight train length to track circuit signal block lenths? What (train length) works best west of the Chicago - New Orleans axis in the US would be truly moronic in Europe. Have you ever seen how busy and complicated track layouts can be over this side?? Yes. I have seen. Frankly - I see that every day. And you got things backwards. In what way it was wise to limit train length to ~700 metres by track circuits? Ore trains can get up to 6000 tonnes within this limit, and that is pretty good. But intermodals, or auto trains linger about 1500 tonnes - which is pretty pathetic.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mhurley87f Let's start again, the UK's signalling thinking is based on a signal spacing that allows a safe braking distance from the permitted track speed, and that means in 3 aspect signal areas, a half mile signalling block will give around a mile advand ewarning of a red, and likewise in a 4 aspect area, around the same briaking distance. It's the distance between signals that limits the trains, not the maximium length the can be protected by a single track circuit. The point of my original respnse was, "What's the benefit of running 1 mile/2 mile long trains through, say Clapham Junction, Willesden Junction, Stratford, Leeeds West?? Any***up and the Fat Controller's blood would be on the moon !! Regards,
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.