Electrification in the U. S.

[Anonymous]

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.

[gabe]

It is not going to happen--at least anytime soon.

The cost it would take to electrify such sections would be the same that lines would much rather spend on about 350 more important projects. It is a good thought, but the budget is just too limited.

Gabe

[nanaimo73]

BC Rail used 50kv on their Tumbler Ridge coal line from 1983 until 2003 so one substation could power the entire 80 miles. They had 7 GM GF6C 6000 hp electrics. One is now in the Prince George Museum and the other 6 were just cut up in Tacoma WA.

[BaltACD]

The investment cost of electrification far exceed any short term benefits of high oil prices. In the rail industry, electrification is much more complex than just stringing out catenary and electric wires. Signaling and communications will now have to operate in an areas of high electro-magnetic fields caused by the electrification and the problems just build from there.

[TH&B]

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. 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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

America is a cozy place in comparsion to Siberia. Transsib is electrified at 25kV/50Hz

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.

Everything costs money. The only benefit of electrification _right now_ would be energy savings in uphill/downhill railroading. That would require bidiriectional substations, but is really no biggie.

The problem is: UP is 33000 miles. Wires cost 1mil/mile. At 50% electrification it is about 17 billion - or half of the value of the railroad. That is a BIIIG pill to swallow, and without govt money I say its probability is about not bloody likely.

For starters - 100 billion gets you whole american railroad system, shortlines, commuter agencies and amtrak included. Electryfiyng the system would cost just as much.

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.

No problem at all. I bet that from 2008 (when pan-european open acces should be actually excercised) you'll see locos that run at 1.5/3/15/25 kV at DC or 15/16.6/25/50 Hz AC without problems. Of course they will have 4 or so pantographs, but really, what's the problem?

Quad voltage locos (1,5/3/15/25 kV DC/16.6/50 hz) are avalible off the shelf from bombardier, alstom, siemens and ABB...

[Bob-Fryml]

Whenever commercial applications of nuclear fusion become a reality, THAT will be the millenium. Electricity generated from fusion-produced heat means that the cost of energy will be frozen (for all intents and purposes) for all time. Now considering how the airlines, the barge lines, the truckers, and the railroads operate and do business, which transportation mode do you suppose is best suited to adopt dirt cheap electricity as its main energy source?

[TH&B]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why would they want to do that? These locos run in hundreads of examples all over europe. 3 million euro will get you one with 1 month delivery - buy in bulk, and you might go as low as 2 million a piece. Considering that diesel of this performance will cost much more to run (Europe diesel fuel prices...) and much higher speeds required due to psgr traffic i see no other way then going electric.

Also note that these locos have useful life of about 40-50 years - not 15 like a desel loco (when it requires prime mover swap).

[Junctionfan]

Not to sure about this but I think total electrification is a problem with certain equipment such as doublestacks, automax, autoracks and the Superliner as well as any other bi-level passenger equipment.

Although; I saw a picture of some bilevel commuter cars on the NEC owned by the MARC.

[TH&B]

There are several examples like Koln to Switzerland some new operator opted for deisels built by GMD London ON. A much cheaper purchase or lease, and then they don't have to purchase electricity from the same souce and presumably same price as the compeditor. Even though Switzerland uses the same electric power as Germanty the pantofraphs are different and don't fit.


On through freights operated by IKEA who trucks 90+% between Sweden and Germany and wants to desperately reduce transport costs tries to ship by rail. But alas Denmark a country in between recently electrified with a more modern and incompatible electrification, why?!?!?! The public will never realy know. This includes long tunnels between islands not designed for deisels but when the operators saw that the cost for beautifull, powerfull dual voltage elcectrics they had to go GMD deisel.

IKEA is not shipping by rail just to be good citizens, they want it to be a profitable option.

In other cases spurs leading to mines and loading areas and such are not electric and
the change off of locomotives is costly. So deisels prevail when "privately" operated.

Heavy ore trains between Holland and Germany are triple headed deisel European style hood units, the heaviest trains in Europe. Holland uses DC and Germany AC but Holland is upgrading to a more modern but still incompatable sytem to wht they use now and to what Gernmany uses.

A bit of a mess but it all works well for passenger trains.

[tatans]

Didn't the railroad through Montana and Washington have those big orange electrics??
I know I had some old photos and I know the had pantographs, anyone remember??

[tatans]

I think it was the Milwaukee Road, now I'm thinking, didn't the Great Northern Run sort of parallel to this line, guess I better get a railroad atlas.

[jimrice4449]

the Milwaukee had two long electrified districts. The GN had a relatively short electrified district through the Cascade tunnel and down to Wenatchee and the Butte, Annaconda & Pacific was totally electrified. It's all been scrapped. The Pennsy ran electric frieght trains in the NE Corridor. Amtrak runs el;ectric psgr but the frieght has been de-electrified. There's a lesson here somewhere.

[nanaimo73]

January 1981 Trains, page 10;
The Department of Energy has circulated what it terms a "scenario of electrification," footnoted with this qualification: "...not a forecast of where and when electification will happen; rather, it is only a plausable presentation of how things could happen once electification were deemed desirable and were begun." DOE's timetable by year construction begins (operations would start 5 years later) , railroad, route, mileage, and annual (in 1974) million gross tons (mgt);
1980-Southern Pacific, Colton CA-El Paso TX, 750 miles, 40 mgt.
1981-ATSF, Barstow CA-Clovis NM, 968 miles, 40 mgt.
1982-Union Pacific, Salt Lake City-Council Bluffs IW, 992 miles, 35 mgt.
1983-C&NW, Chicago-Omaha NE, 463 miles, 45 mgt.
1984-Conrail, Chicago-Selkirk NY, 825 miles, 74 mgt.
1985-Burlington Northern, Lincoln NE-Alliance NE, 366 miles, 15 mgt (before coal)
1986-Southern Pacific, Roseville CA-Ogden UT, 705 miles, 35 mgt.
1987-ATSF, Chicago-Clovis, 1,085 miles, 40 mgt,
1988-N&W, Roanoke VA-Bellevue OH, 548 miles, 40 mgt.
1989-Chessie, Chicago-Pittsburgh, 464 miles, 35 mgt.
1990-Chessie, Pittsburgh-Washington, 318 miles, 40 mgt.
1991-Chessie- Southern, Toledo-Cincinati-Atlanta, 716 miles, 30 mgt.
1992-N&W, Roanoke-Norfolk VA, 255 miles, 40 mgt.
1993-ICG, Chicago-Memphis, 539 miles, 40 mgt.
If implemented, DOE's ambitious program would total 8,994 miles, an eight-fold increase in US track under catenary or besid third rail.

Within a year of this report, UP had switched their N.California traffic to the WP line, and a Chessie-Southern project would have fallen apart. If anyone puts up catenary, they better have good projections. And what about UP's directional running across Arkansas ? Would the ex MP route be double tracked, and the SSW route be torn up ?

Did BN come close to electification in 1992 before ordering the 350 SD70MACs ?
Did SD70MACs push electification back 30 or 40 years ?

[daveklepper]

If you thoroughly investigate the European scene you will see about as much freight traffic switched from diesel to electric as the reverse, and the issue is not particularly the multiple current schemes. That problem was solved some 45 years ago, first by the French who built four-current rectifyer locomotives that could operate on any standard gauge European electrified main line. And you don't need four pantographs, jsut the right electronics and frequency inverters and rectifiers. The first high-voltage (25KV) and commercial frequency (50 cycles per second) European electrificaiton was done primarily by France for coal traffic and it still operates. Note that the Amtrak AEM-7 and Acela run on 60Hz 25000V, 60Hz 12500V, and 25Hz 11000V. Adding a DC capability isn't too difficult. Connecticut is ordering some MU cars that will also have that capability.

The real hope for electrification is power company investment wiith the use of railroad rights of way for transmission lines in addition.

[Anonymous]

daveklepper

Need to add that cateneries of certain european operators are not compatible - hence multiple pantographs. But really - the multicurrent ability is in the power electronics.

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.

[mhurley87f]

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.

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??

[Anonymous]

Buffalo NY passed a law(It is still on the books) that railroads in theh city limits had to electrify by 1929...The railroads said they that would cost 89 million dollers back in 1929(?) and spent the money on other projects. Buffalo would be a diffrent city today if the RRs were eletrified with Commuter trains every were

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electrification is an idea that has been kicked around from the time B&O electrified its Baltimore tunnel in 1895. It blossomed in a lot of special use areas (tunnels and terminals) in the steam era but dieselization went a long way in providing a lot of the advantages of electrification without many of the disadvantages.

The demise of freight electrification in the Northeast demonstrates that whoever is willing to start stringing wire had better a very good crystal ball because changes in routing patterns can leave you with a very expensive white elephant. Also, most proposals never contemplated electrifying branches or entire yards so your motive-power needs would have to be met by dual-power locomotives (FL9 concept) or a mixed fleet of diesels and straight electrics with the straight electrics tied to the catenary, limiting flexibility in power assignments.

[jchnhtfd]

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.

There have, in fact, been a number of threads on various aspects of electification of lines in North America. A search on the topic would be very rewarding.

However, to sort of summarize (and probably infuriate some folks!), electification is a very very capital intensive proposition, as well as having some practical difficulties.

In general, it might be said that electrification will be used if, and only if, the cost of the system is less than the costs from some other power source, or if there is no other practical solution (at the time). Some examples. The Northeast Corridor in the US is electrified, as well as the suburban lines out of Grand Central. The reason there (in both cases) is the combination of steam engines and tunnels and safety problems. Once the electrics were up, enough traffic continued to justify the cost. 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. The SAR electrification which you mentioned solved a problem relating to no water for steam engines. There are also some specialty electrifications in the US and Canada, mostly relating to lines serving power plants.

One of the biggest problems with large scale electrification was mentioned -- clearances. You cannot, for instance, put a double stack under the NEC wire.

To get back to the bottom line, however, a railroad has to think about what is the least expensive way to move so and so many tons of freight from point x to point y. A modern diesel locomotive has an overall operating efficiency which is not much short of a fixed electrical power plant. Most energy sources are priced in such a way that, for large scale use, the cost of a given kilowatt of delivered energy isn't that much different whether it is oil to a railroad or natural gas or coal to an electric power plant. As you follow this through, it is clear that the cost of a kilowatt of power to the rail to move the freight is going to be pretty much similar, whether that kilowatt comes from oil in the engine's fuel tank or from an overhead wire. This doesn't change much with changes in energy costs; they all go up and down pretty much together.

Thus changes in energy cost don't change the fundamental capital equation: electrification is too expensive to contemplate, unless you have some special situation or very very high traffic levels.

[TH&B]

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.

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;-(

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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Milwaukee Road was not electrified because of tunnels. Tunnels had nothing to do with it.

The electrification was not scrapped when the road first otherwise dieselized. The Milwaukee acquired an additional fleet of new electrics instead, raised the trolley voltage and expanded the capacity of the system. Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

From what many of you have said is it appears electrification is a non starter. I get the point with double stack, that would be very difficult but not impossible to fit under wire. As to the cost (this is were i make sort of mistage ony a foreigner would make) wouldn't the government shoulder some of the cost to guarantee a morket for publicly owned hydro electric dams and other power plants if there are any. As to having a standard method of electrification, would the Association of American Railroads come up with a standard American electrification system for it's class 1 members.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Junctionfan]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=65120

This is an interesting exception of bilevel commuter cars that don't have height restrictions due to cantenaries.

[Anonymous]

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.

Obviously the moron who bought wrong loco should be promptly fired. 3000 hp 6 axle electrics also exist...

Also - short trains are not moronic (who said so?) - the limit is moronic.

BTW - sweden-denmark-germany traffic is now pulled by these locos

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/dk/electric/EG/pix.html

86 mph, 6500 kW (~8600 hp), 120 tonnes, can run dual voltage and pull about 400 kN of tractive effort.

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;-(

Actually DMUs are used on local runs. ANd the locos will get bought real quick, retroffited with traction control/AC motors and run somewhere - be it France, Poland or Norway. Noone throws away good equipment.

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.

Very true :) I'am personally in favor of anything that
1. Works
2. Is cheap
;)

[mhurley87f]

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.

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,

[Hugh Jampton]

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,

No, no and no.
3-aspect signalling provides one block to stop in as there are 3 signal aspects, green - go, yellow - be prepared to stop at the next signal, and red - stop. This means that the signals are speced at braking distance intervals. If I'm wrong then explain it to me in detail.
With 4 aspect signalling you throw in a double yellow, so the sequence is now green - go,, Double yellow - the signal past the next one is red, yellow - the next signal is red, and red - stop. This allows signals to be placed at half the braking distance and effectively increases track capacity.

The reason freight trains are limited to 750 metres is simple,, siding length there's no point having a train longer than the sidings into which it has to fit. Passenger trains are limited to 400 metres due to platform length.

[daveklepper]

You can run heavy ore trains under 1500V DC catenary, if you have the wire diameter and substation capacity to do it. And probably fi you are using only one locomotive, it better have two pantographs contacting the wire. I suspect it was substation capacity that prevented electric locomotives on the ore trains. One ore train probably would draw about ten times the amperage that one typical passenger train draws.

You can put the catenary as high as you want, to clear doublestacks or anything else. The problem comes when you have existing tunnels, highway overpasses, signal bridges, lift bridges, and what else - like the coerridor.

My solution for long tunnels is to use a center third rail in the tunnel only, and shoes-rollers that drop down from the locomotive only in the tunnel, with the third rail powered only when a train is in or very close to the tunnel. Obviously a lower voltage a nd greter amperage would be used in the tunnel.