Electrification in the U. S.

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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??

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.