carnej1 Conversely, you could build a dual mode (Diesel Electric/Catenary Electric) freight locomotive. IIRC, GE has stated to NS that they could build a dual mode ES44AC for the Electrified corridor project (name escapes) me that NS has been studying... Also,Railpower Industries holds a patent for a slug unit that could have a pantograph and supply power to a modified diesel unit..
Conversely, you could build a dual mode (Diesel Electric/Catenary Electric) freight locomotive. IIRC, GE has stated to NS that they could build a dual mode ES44AC for the Electrified corridor project (name escapes) me that NS has been studying...
Also,Railpower Industries holds a patent for a slug unit that could have a pantograph and supply power to a modified diesel unit..
quick look at what would be required. Locating a protective transformer cage in the loco would be most difficult --- probably at rear of loco that might require new attach points for prime mover to enable balanced weight distribution. With transformer cage weight some ballast in loco could be deleted to maintain total weight of loco.
Electric mode traction could be as much as 6600 HP with each inverter's capacity listed at 1100 HP. Transformer size is a minor weight item. The extra HP would be great whenever train is traveling uphill at a speed for all HP to be useful. I can see that this excess HP would have applications on long hills such a Horseshoe..
CAT would be best installed for dual mode locos where the HP hours / per mile is used to get trains over a hill. The more HP hours per mile required on any section of CAT track the better the return of investment.
there would be a requirement for various controls ( PANS, regenerative braking, start / stop prime mover, switch imput from prime mover to transformer, etc ) to operate in CAT mode with probably a supplementary MU control.
narig01 CSSHEGEWISCH: narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45. I suspect you might misunderstand what I am trying to say. The idea is this: In areas where you have overhead wires you don't need the power plant and it will not be part of a train consist. However if you need to go offline or away from the wire you add the power plant (sled?) to the consist to get the train away from the wire. Say UP/BNSF have the Powder River electrified and their mains but need to deliver to a power plant in Mississippi that is on IC/ CN. Run the train under wire to Memphis then add the power sled for the last 100 miles or so to Mississippi. Same applies for trips to say Pleasant Prairie, Wi . Main line to Chicago then add the power plant for the last 60 miles or so. Thx IGN
CSSHEGEWISCH: narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45.
narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN
Just a thought about dual mode.
Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power.
Rgds IGN
This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45.
I suspect you might misunderstand what I am trying to say.
The idea is this: In areas where you have overhead wires you don't need the power plant and it will not be part of a train consist. However if you need to go offline or away from the wire you add the power plant (sled?) to the consist to get the train away from the wire. Say UP/BNSF have the Powder River electrified and their mains but need to deliver to a power plant in Mississippi that is on IC/ CN. Run the train under wire to Memphis then add the power sled for the last 100 miles or so to Mississippi.
Same applies for trips to say Pleasant Prairie, Wi . Main line to Chicago then add the power plant for the last 60 miles or so.
Thx IGN
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
CSSHEGEWISCH narig01: Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN This strikes me as an overly complex way to build a dual-mode locomotive and doesn't appear to be an improvement over the ALP45.
narig01 Just a thought about dual mode. Why not instead have a portable power plant (a gas turbine or diesel generator) that could be plugged into. The idea is that when the train is away from wire you use a portable power plant to get the electricity. The difference between this and conventional diesel electrics is that the power plant is not on the same frame. Kind of turning the engine into a slug. It would be kind of a chore to keep up with. I would think having a section to monitor allocations of engines would also be able to allocate portable power. Rgds IGN
Note there are several varieties of dual-mode diesel-electric-electric.
Most expensive and most tricky to design: New Jersey Transit's dual modes, diesel electric and 11,000V 25Hz AC convertable to 12,500V 60Hz AC with capability of adding 25,000V 60Hz AC and with full speed capabilities in all modes and electric horsepower exceeding that of diesel-electric horsepower
Next most expensive and tricky to design: LIRR's dual modes, diesel electric and 600V DC electric with full speed capabilities in both modes and electric horsepower exceeding that of diesel-electric/
Least challanging: The original FL-9 design and current Amtrak and Metro-North dual modes, similar to above, except very limited electric speed capability (35 or 40 mph) intend to be used only south of 125th Street on Metro North into GCT and only south of 72nd Street on Amtrak into Penn Station. Note that Hudson Line Amtrak trains do not use their dual modes to go to and from Sunnyside Yard. They would tie up the main line East River tunnels if they did. Normally, the are switched by one of Amtrak's electrifcs, a Bombadier or Toaster or whatever. Also Amtrak currently operates only on diesel mode while on Metro Norfth Hudson line tracks and does not use Metro North's third rail power. The third rails Amtrak uses in the Penn Staion area are the LIRR overruning type.
Some of the FL-9's were rebult to the 2nd type for LIRR service and inaugurated the first through Oyster Bay - Penn Station trains since the end of the use of DD-1's and Jamaica engine changes int he steam era. They had problems and were replaced by the current dual-modes.
Photo of a Philadelphia Electric Co. 'overbuild' line over the former Reading RR's (now CSX) Stoney Creek Branch, from Norristown to Lansdale, PA, looking east from the PA Rt. 73 grade crossing:
On another thread here a couple years ago I posted some of my photos of other "overbuilds" in the Philadelphia area, which usually involve more substantial structures.
- Paul North.
narig01 Considering the current escalating price of diesel I thought I would try to restart this thread And I will ask the question: Considering that coal movements for power companies are a major source of revenue, why can't railroads and power companies get together to electrify the railroads.
Considering the current escalating price of diesel I thought I would try to restart this thread
And I will ask the question: Considering that coal movements for power companies are a major source of revenue, why can't railroads and power companies get together to electrify the railroads.
As someone who worked in the electric utility business for decades, my company would be happy to sell power to a railroad providing there was a sustaining demand for it. Whether we could earn a return on any required incremental system expansion (generation, transmission, and distribution) to justify the capital investment is the key question.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, which has one of the most extensive light rail systems in the U.S., buys its power from a variety of electric retailers in Texas. They solicit bids to obtain the best deal, which may come as shock to some folks, and draw power from a variety of suppliers to the grid. Little if any system expansion was required to make the power available to DART. Houston's light rail system also buys power from the grid.
The financial planners for a railroad will look at the same investment model that a power company would look at. Would the returns justify the investment?
Unlike Amtrak, which is a government agency masquerading as a business, private enterprise must get a return on a capital investment. Otherwise, it cannot afford to do it. The challenge for a railroad considering electrification is modeling what is likely to happen for fuel prices. If they make the wrong call, as numerous planners have done, with Southwest Airlines being one of the most recent examples, they could be encumbered with an investment that generates a negative return.
Right now dual mode locos seem to cost too much. That may be because passenger locos are just more complex or economies of scale are not able to be applied.
certain locations where helpers are used on almost all trains may be an application of short distance electrification where electric motors helpers could be assigned. One example is NS's horseshoe route on both sides of the mountain.
Electric Power for the RR may come from its own mineral resources. The development of the shale natural gas in the Pennsylvania area can provide energy to run power generators.
The new recuperating power generating systems that GE among other manufacturers are producing have much potential to provide the necessary power without depending on commercial power. These units are natural gas powered turbines that can start up in 10 minutes with a energy recovery of ~~ 30%.. But the real deal is that if a heat recovery system is installed in the exhaust of the gas turbine in approximately 1 hour energy recovery can be as high as 50 + %.. With the potential of very low natural gas prices in the forseeable future ???
This is a system that certainly needs consideration.
Now the price of installing electrification is a real cost. One possible solution is the building of a production train. UK's Network Rail's building of a factory train to install CAT on the west coast line may be a solution. The train is some 25+ cars that install eveything in one passthere by not tying up track time too long. If I remember correctly installation is over 1 mile a day ?.
rpwood1. With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines? 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.? 3. Which road(s) would benefit the most? 4. Where would potential electrifications be most likely? My own observations and opinions on the subject are: - This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ's, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time. - It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1's could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan's in the east and the Rockies in the west..
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 Coal fired power stations are more efficient than steam locos. The New York and New Haven RR learnt this nearly a 100 years ago. Once the bugs in its pioneering AC electrification had been ironed out, its Financial Director was able to report to Stockholder that they got twice as many drawbar hp per ton of coal burnt in their powerstation than they got for every ton of coal burnt in their steam locos.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 Yes, especially Russian ones! (Tony B has just signed a deal with President Putin of Russia. We're going to build a pipeline all the way from Siberia to Britain, now that Britain is no longer self sufficient). I think we should emulate the Danes. They male 1/3rd of their natural gas from pig's manure; you can make it from human sewage too.!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Do they buy that natural gas from open access pipeline companies?[:-,]
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources? Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion. The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it. Best regards, Michael Sol Coal fired power stations are more efficient than steam locos. The New York and New Haven RR learnt this nearly a 100 years ago. Once the bugs in its pioneering AC electrification had been ironed out, its Financial Director was able to report to Stockholder that they got twice as many drawbar hp per ton of coal burnt in their powerstation than they got for every ton of coal burnt in their steam locos. The new combined cycle gas power station are even more efficient. In these you run jet engines on natural gas then use the hot exhaust gases to make steam to drive steam turbines. In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources? Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion. The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.? No. Traffic levels will not rise enough to pay for electricification, not unless the government radically changes tax law (that is, subsidize the installation costs).
QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.?
QUOTE: No, it's not kept on the back burner. It's not even in the dustiest box in the dimmest recess of the oldest warehouse. This is a very capital-intensive industry already; why make it worse?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: Originally posted by rpwood 1. With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines? No. There are no rumblings. QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.? No. Traffic levels will not rise enough to pay for electricification, not unless the government radically changes tax law (that is, subsidize the installation costs). QUOTE: 3. Which road(s) would benefit the most? Better way to phrase this would be, "Which railroads would puni***heir equity holders the worst by doing this?" QUOTE: 4. Where would potential electrifications be most likely? Any place the taxpayer can be gulled into paying for it. QUOTE: My own observations and opinions on the subject are: - This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ's, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time. No, it's not kept on the back burner. It's not even in the dustiest box in the dimmest recess of the oldest warehouse. This is a very capital-intensive industry already; why make it worse? QUOTE: It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1's could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan's in the east and the Rockies in the west. Perhaps, but this is like giving someone the choice of walking the plank over 20 fathoms of water or 200 fathoms of water.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rpwood 1. With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines?
QUOTE: 3. Which road(s) would benefit the most?
QUOTE: 4. Where would potential electrifications be most likely?
QUOTE: My own observations and opinions on the subject are: - This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ's, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time.
QUOTE: It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1's could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan's in the east and the Rockies in the west.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines or have special engines that are very expensive. Dave H.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH As has been brought up earlier, dual-mode sounds nice on paper for short electric zones in a diesel world but a dual-mode locomotive would be more expensive and that extra investment would spend a lot of time not justifying its existence and earning a return. As I pointed out earlier, dual-mode locomotives are still tied to the electric zone, it's just not as obvious. If dual-mode is such a great idea, why didn't PRR or NYC order any dual-mode power after the FL9 proved itself?
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 [For electification to pay for itself long hauls are necessary. The longer the better. I believe the place to start would be the first crew change point. I would think the loading loops should be the last place to be electified. Some of the Powder River mines shut down for periods which would waste the investment. Logically the place to start would be with Union Pacific from Bill to North Platte.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Isambard Can anyone comment regarding potential electrification of Canadian railway mainlines in view of climbing diesel fuel rates and increasing traffic density e.g. the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor or the Calgary-Vancouver or Edmonton -Vancouver routes? Viable propositions or pipe dreams?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding I still wonder why the first leg of the route out of the Powder River Basin couldn't be electified as far as the first crew change point?
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned. Costs of any project are almost always up front. Something doesn't sound right here. "The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years." Guess what the negative cash flow period is for a new road diesel. Does Withun say? Isn't that important to know? What was the risk analysis of staying with the same system, based on the well known historical trends that diesel fuel costs always trend up, while electric power costs almost always trend down? This is the part that is usually missing: the analysis of the risk of not changing. In 1970, electric power price per kilowatt hour averaged 8 cents in the US. In places like Montana with abundant Hydroelectric resources, the price was closer to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel was less than 8 cents per gallon. This year, electric power costs are at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour in Montana (industrial), and range from 2.39 cents in Washington state (industrial) to 7 cents in Eastern states. Diesel fuel has gone up from 8 cents per gallon in the early 1970s to $1.17 for railroads in 2004 to $2.19 this year. While we happen to think it's just awful, this isn't that far off the historical trend that has existed since WWII and, indeed, confirms that trend. How does Withun deal with that historical probability in his analysis? I am curious. Given that the historical trends have been well defined and accepted -- Bonneville Power Administration noted and recognized them, in fact emphasized them, in a railroad electrification proposal made to the Milwaukee Road and several other Western railroads (GN, NP, UP, and SP) in the early 1950s -- I have an impression from the description of the Withun article that it is likely that the real "risk" factor was not assessed. The question is interesting enough that I will get the paper and read it. This is a standard business school problem: to do a risk analysis for the change, but not for staying the same. A single risk or sensitivity analysis is fairly meaningless without the corresponding risk analysis. It is the comparison of risks that is important, not "a" single risk. After all, the risk of the staying the same is high. Most businesses ultimately fail when they stay the same, not when they change. Best regards, Michael Sol It's not that the costs were upfront. It's that they were so large and upfront. It was a "bet the compny" proposition with a reasonable chance that they could loose. All the analysis came down indicating the risk was too great. Claiming the analysis were wrong, every one of them, is a road to nowhere. A way needs to be found to mitigate the risk. This wasn't a case of one management team arriving at the wrong conclusion, something that does happen. There were numerous independant electricfication studies done. Not one of them produced an electrification project. I don't think a diesel purchase involves much negative cash flow. GE will finance its equipment. The diesel locomotive will begin to produce revenue ton miles almost as soon as it arrives on the property. That revenue will offset the finance charges. And diesels can be bought incramentally on shorter lead times that electrification. There's more certainty in the projections with the shorter time frames. Remember, if the projections about diesel fuel costs, electricity costs, etc. ten years out are wrong, the company will be destroyed. They're risking "other people's money" on what will happen ten years from now. Not exactly a prudent thing to do. Why don't we quit arguing over old analysis and try to come up with a way to reduce the risks of electrification? I think that's the key. There is a need to: 1) convert existing diesel electrics to also operate as straight electrics - reducing the capital costs greatly. 2) deal with the electric current in a way that doesn't require rebuilding of the entire signal system. Including grade crossing protection. 3) assure an uninteruptable adequate power supply 4) keep "pet" projects such as open access, Amtrak, lower freight rates for farmers, etc. out of the process. Do these four things and the risks of electrification will be reduced significantly. Will they be reduced enough to justify it, who knows?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned. Costs of any project are almost always up front. Something doesn't sound right here. "The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years." Guess what the negative cash flow period is for a new road diesel. Does Withun say? Isn't that important to know? What was the risk analysis of staying with the same system, based on the well known historical trends that diesel fuel costs always trend up, while electric power costs almost always trend down? This is the part that is usually missing: the analysis of the risk of not changing. In 1970, electric power price per kilowatt hour averaged 8 cents in the US. In places like Montana with abundant Hydroelectric resources, the price was closer to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel was less than 8 cents per gallon. This year, electric power costs are at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour in Montana (industrial), and range from 2.39 cents in Washington state (industrial) to 7 cents in Eastern states. Diesel fuel has gone up from 8 cents per gallon in the early 1970s to $1.17 for railroads in 2004 to $2.19 this year. While we happen to think it's just awful, this isn't that far off the historical trend that has existed since WWII and, indeed, confirms that trend. How does Withun deal with that historical probability in his analysis? I am curious. Given that the historical trends have been well defined and accepted -- Bonneville Power Administration noted and recognized them, in fact emphasized them, in a railroad electrification proposal made to the Milwaukee Road and several other Western railroads (GN, NP, UP, and SP) in the early 1950s -- I have an impression from the description of the Withun article that it is likely that the real "risk" factor was not assessed. The question is interesting enough that I will get the paper and read it. This is a standard business school problem: to do a risk analysis for the change, but not for staying the same. A single risk or sensitivity analysis is fairly meaningless without the corresponding risk analysis. It is the comparison of risks that is important, not "a" single risk. After all, the risk of the staying the same is high. Most businesses ultimately fail when they stay the same, not when they change. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned.
Isambard
Grizzly Northern history, Tales from the Grizzly and news on line at isambard5935.blogspot.com
QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.?
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines ...
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports. No, we haven't shut down the country to repair huricane damage and fight the war. The O'Hare expansion got the go ahead, only to be stopped in court. But the Government was ready to act. Same with a lot of highway projects. The Interstate Highway System was constructed at the height of the Cold War. We can do more than one thing at a time. Mainline freight electrification in the US would produce tremendous benifits - think of what would happen to the price of diesel fuel if the railroads didn't need near as much - but the risks of the huge capital costs have to be mitigated. There is a role for the government here in mitigating the risks. How to structure this is an interesting question. The government can't assume all the risks or money will be wasted. And the taxpayers should get their money back. But expecting a private company to go into a negative cash flow situation for a decade is unrealistic. And any govt funds would include "strings" - these must be minimized. The railroads don't want to become puppets on those strings. Right now, I don't have a clue as to how such a thing shold be structured - but it sure would be good if those perisables out of California (half of what is consumed in the US, not to mention Canada) could ride in the reefer units drawing power from the overhead wire instead of small diesel gen sets. And a train going downhill in dynamic could feed power to a train going uphill instead of wasting the energy, and, and, and!! Hmmm. Government participation in rail infrastructure modernization? We covered that in the Open Access thread. Chalk up another for OA!
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports. No, we haven't shut down the country to repair huricane damage and fight the war. The O'Hare expansion got the go ahead, only to be stopped in court. But the Government was ready to act. Same with a lot of highway projects. The Interstate Highway System was constructed at the height of the Cold War. We can do more than one thing at a time. Mainline freight electrification in the US would produce tremendous benifits - think of what would happen to the price of diesel fuel if the railroads didn't need near as much - but the risks of the huge capital costs have to be mitigated. There is a role for the government here in mitigating the risks. How to structure this is an interesting question. The government can't assume all the risks or money will be wasted. And the taxpayers should get their money back. But expecting a private company to go into a negative cash flow situation for a decade is unrealistic. And any govt funds would include "strings" - these must be minimized. The railroads don't want to become puppets on those strings. Right now, I don't have a clue as to how such a thing shold be structured - but it sure would be good if those perisables out of California (half of what is consumed in the US, not to mention Canada) could ride in the reefer units drawing power from the overhead wire instead of small diesel gen sets. And a train going downhill in dynamic could feed power to a train going uphill instead of wasting the energy, and, and, and!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox There may be a Federal role for fixed investments other than electrification but we can't even get Amtrak's capital neeeds covered.
QUOTE: by greyhounds:Whether the man is(was) "Curator of Transportation" or "Curator of Transporation History" at the Smithsonian has absolutely nothing to do with anything significant.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Bill's current title is Curator, Division of Work and Industry, National Museum of American History. You can see his cv at: http://americanhistory.si.edu/about/staff.cfm?key=12&staffkey=706 Greyhounds would characterize this as an insignificant detail. The Smthsonian's staff page is at the following: http://www.si.edu/ofg/Staffhp/withuhnw.htm That page contains the following text: William L. Withuhn Curator of Transportation History National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution PO Box 37012 MRC 628 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research Interests writing book, "The American Steam Locomotive: An Engineering History, 1880-1960." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Research Projects "Woody Guthrie" (SITES); Smithsonian Presidio Trust Partnership Exhibits Proposal (San Francisco); Urban Transportatation Museum, Lowell National Historical Park (National Park Service, Lowell, Mass); "America On The Move," opening at NMAH 2004, a major Smithsonian reinstallation/exhibition of the social history of American transportation, 1876-2000. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent Publications "Rails Across America: A History of Railroads in North America," Smithmark Publishers (N.Y.), 1995. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Bill's current title is Curator, Division of Work and Industry, National Museum of American History. You can see his cv at: http://americanhistory.si.edu/about/staff.cfm?key=12&staffkey=706
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds "One is a historian?" He was curator of transportation at the Smithsonian when the article was written. (Maybe he still is.) He is Curator of Transportation History at the Smithsonian. Best regards, Michael Sol Well the book I cited says he is "curator of transportatiion", not Curator of Transportation History. See page 80 of "Railroad History", autumn 1999, #181. It's best if you don't pick at insignificant details.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds "One is a historian?" He was curator of transportation at the Smithsonian when the article was written. (Maybe he still is.) He is Curator of Transportation History at the Smithsonian. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds "One is a historian?" He was curator of transportation at the Smithsonian when the article was written. (Maybe he still is.)
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Quote from Michael Sol: 'It does however underscore the fact that railway engineering is often guided by conventional wisdoms rather than ongoing analysis.' regarding the tendency of railway engineers to be, in his view, somewhat conservative.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds I'd reccomend a back copy of "Railroad History #181" - autumn 1999 from the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. It has two good articles on the subject. 1) "Risk and the Real Cost of Electrification" by William L Withuhn 2) "Why the Santa Fe Isn't Under Wires" by Wallace W. Abbey Good writing on why the decision was made not to electrify. I know one of the gentlemen quite well, and have an immense personal regard for him, but, with all due respect, of these two gentlemen one is an historian and the other a retired public relations executive. and neither has a management or engineering background. Railroad History, while I enjoy the journal, is usually not thought of as a serious journal of engineering analysis. What, exactly, did they discuss? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds I'd reccomend a back copy of "Railroad History #181" - autumn 1999 from the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. It has two good articles on the subject. 1) "Risk and the Real Cost of Electrification" by William L Withuhn 2) "Why the Santa Fe Isn't Under Wires" by Wallace W. Abbey Good writing on why the decision was made not to electrify.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: [i]from Michael Sol/[i]However, future planning does not seem to account for the fact that 100kv, 200 kv, 350 kv and 500 kv AC supply sources will not be available in the not-so-distant future, as these lines are converted to DC for its inherent long distance transmission efficiency and environmental advantages. 3 phase AC is the cheapest form of moving energy. Period. HVDC is used where it is impossible to string typical high tension line - usually to connect an island to a mainland or to connect two off-phase systems. Cost of a high power converter is astronomical.
QUOTE: [i]from Michael Sol/[i]However, future planning does not seem to account for the fact that 100kv, 200 kv, 350 kv and 500 kv AC supply sources will not be available in the not-so-distant future, as these lines are converted to DC for its inherent long distance transmission efficiency and environmental advantages.
QUOTE: This was something we noted: AC locomotives appeared to have shorter economic service lives than standard DC equipment.
QUOTE: This no doubt remains true for electric locomotives as well. And, as Alan points out, anything placing voltages on the order of 20k, 25k or 50k directly into the confines of a locomotive body shell that is then converting that power to DC and back to AC again, represents a lot of high voltage activity in a very small space.
QUOTE: Russian Railways reports 56 empoyee deaths per year related to electrification -- as opposed to other railway related causes -- apparently most of them occuring on AC sections.
QUOTE: However, future planning does not seem to account for the fact that 100kv, 200 kv, 350 kv and 500 kv AC supply sources will not be available in the not-so-distant future, as these lines are converted to DC for its inherent long distance transmission efficiency and environmental advantages.
QUOTE: Well, 3600 vDC costs about $45,000 per mile to electrify, heavy conductor and all. This $1 mi per mile figure sounds inordinately high.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd The AC traction motor is far simpler than a DC traction motor, and has almost overwhelming advantages. If this were not true, there would never be such a thing as AC diesels with their higher price tag. Railroad equipment purchasers and maintenance personnel are not fools...
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Wires cost ~1mil/mile. So to electrify you'd need to spend $315 million. That money will cover switching in that yard for several hundread years ;)
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Spacing on the polish system ( 3kV dc) is between 5 and 20 miles - depending on the traffic density. Typical substation is about 4,5 MW continuus and currents may reach 2,6 kA when ET42 (6600 hp) class loco is working hard. Considering that a single Little Joe was 5500 hp - that is about the same - buuut - with longer substation spacing (28 miles - as yau claim) the loss of voltage might be higher. I suspect that currents could go up to 3 kA then... impressive to say the least.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ungern Actually, I won't ever suggest 3rd rail in a switching yard.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Although dual-mode (FL9-type) locomotives to cover a tunnel-type electrification sound like a good idea to improve utilization, they still have their limitations. Amtrak generally does not allow its P32's to stray beyond Albany, which pretty much restricts their range to not a whole lot too far beyond the end of third rail. Dual-mode locomotives on a tunnel electrification could not be allowed to stray too far from the mainline that has the tunnel, which would restrict their utilization to some extent. They would also be more expensive than conventional diesel-electrics, which would make it hard to justify their purchase when their operating range would still be restricted.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator BTW Poland (and a few other countries) had chosen 3 kV DC because Germans used 15 kV 16,6 Hz system. It was 1935 then so obviously it was a national defense issue :)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe To feed trailing diesels from a lead electric would require quite a substantial bus system. The spring loaded bars on the GN Y -1 class electrics come to mind. There are some problems with that between units account the high voltages in the areas where crew members are working. The MILW boxcabs did bus the power between units but those units were almost permanently coupled and the feeders were above the roof line. As I percieve such power MU'ing, the combined electric and diesel loco lashup would act as each other's road slug depending on which power source is being utilized. Road slugs don't need such heavy duty bus bar connections, right? If I understand correctly, the bus bars were used to transmit "unconverted" 3600v DC current to the trailing units, while a road slug connection transmits "converted" current to the trailing unit(s). QUOTE: All the opportunities MILW management had to make their railroad work and they repeatedly chose the wrong course. Can you be more specific? For posterity's sake, what would you have done differently regarding Milwaukee's decision nexus circa 1970 as to what to do with the electrification, save it, scrap it, modernize it, and/or expand it? My long held belief was that Milwaukee should have scrapped the catenary back in the 1950's when dieselization became commonplace, e.g. the inherent savings of standardization. That belief has been modified in recent months with the information provided on this forum regarding the operating cost savings of electrification and the seemingly permanent price increases in diesel fuel, to the point where I now think electrification of certain segments would have made sense if a bi-modal power solution could be had "on the fly", e.g. some sort of emulation of the FL9 concept. For the Milwaukee in the 1970's, that FL9 technology concept existed in conjunction with Milwaukee's own innovations in running diesels and electrics together. Perhaps Milwaukee should have kept the wires between Harlowtown and Butte, as well as Haugen and Avery, but also considered taking down the wires between Butte and Haugen since that was basically water level gradient. On the Cascade segment, keep the wires between Beverly and Kittitas for the Saddle Mountain crossing as well as between Hyak and Maple Valley for the Snoqualmie Pass grade.
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe To feed trailing diesels from a lead electric would require quite a substantial bus system. The spring loaded bars on the GN Y -1 class electrics come to mind. There are some problems with that between units account the high voltages in the areas where crew members are working. The MILW boxcabs did bus the power between units but those units were almost permanently coupled and the feeders were above the roof line.
QUOTE: All the opportunities MILW management had to make their railroad work and they repeatedly chose the wrong course.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Obviously these are giant saivngs.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator 3 kV system capable of 6 MW output requires something about 3 mile substation spacing. 25 kV will happily work with 30 miles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin heard the Dutch Railways (NS) are in the process of converting from DC to the 25kv European standard. I thought it was because the older DC system would be inadiquate for future loads on the railway. Why else do you think they would go through such a big expensive conversion?
QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel A point for the AC-system. When South Africa built a new ore-hauler, the electrified it with high-tension AC 50 HZ
QUOTE: Originally posted by Townsend QUOTE: quoting Michael Sol DC is better over long distances. I don't know where the idea comes from, but it is only a truism that AC is a better means of transporting high voltage power. It's previous advantage was only in the ease of conversion to different voltages, but in fact, DC is a superior form of long distance, high voltage electric power transmission. As technology has reduced the cost of converting DC power, its advantages have increased to the point where high voltage DC is now the preferred means of long distance electric power transmission. I am not to sure on that. In Britain 1500 volts was the standard before the Second World War, with the exeption of the Southern Railway, but the railways did not have the money for large scale electrification. When the money became available Post War in the 1950's it was decided to electrify at 25kv industrial frequency. For new electrification since the 1950's 25kv has been the way the go. Other voltages have been extensions to existing systems. If the difference is so small way have new projects all been high voltage AC. In addition i dont now of good loco standard motor that can handle much over 1200 volts so how would high voltage DC be used in motors.
QUOTE: quoting Michael Sol DC is better over long distances. I don't know where the idea comes from, but it is only a truism that AC is a better means of transporting high voltage power. It's previous advantage was only in the ease of conversion to different voltages, but in fact, DC is a superior form of long distance, high voltage electric power transmission. As technology has reduced the cost of converting DC power, its advantages have increased to the point where high voltage DC is now the preferred means of long distance electric power transmission.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal What I am getting at is if it is possible for an electric loco to feed power to MU'ed diesels (and vis versa) while going through long tunnels, e.g. a hypothetical re-electrification of BNSF's Cascade Tunnel. This would make it possible to eliminate the need for time consuming ventilation of the tunnel. The thought I had was that there would be no need to electrify entire subdivisions, rather concentrate the catenary in those places with the long tunnels or steepest grades, then run a combined consist of electric and diesels as a segregated FL9. The diesels would feed the electric sans catenary (e.g. the electric loco would act as a road slug when there was no catenary), while the electric(s) would conversely feed the diesels' traction motors short term in the tunnel (where the diesels would act as road slugs).
QUOTE: Originally posted by mvlandsw QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol AC would probably be used, but regarding DC, Milwaukee Road used a 3600 vDC system. It's 5,500 hp Little Joes used approximately 1200 amps, or 1400 if the Joe went to its overload capacity of 7000 hp. The catenary used two 500,000 cm copper wires, with auxilliary feeder cable augmenting the catenary through either a 500,000 cm copper feeder, or a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable, with 4,000 or 6,000 kW substations located at approximately 28 mile intervals. The system could typically handle two 5,500 hp Little Joes and a four unit Boxcab helper, 7000 hp, without overheating the catenary. It routinely paid for itself, even with relatively light usage, every 8-10 years. Best regards, Michael Sol Michael, In the Milwaukee thread, you had mentioned the MU'ing of electrics and diesels by the Milwaukee. Was this strictly one man control from the cab of the electric, or was there ever a situation where the diesels could draw current from the "mother" electric? The diesels produced their own power. They did not drawany power from the electric locomotive or the overhead wire.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol AC would probably be used, but regarding DC, Milwaukee Road used a 3600 vDC system. It's 5,500 hp Little Joes used approximately 1200 amps, or 1400 if the Joe went to its overload capacity of 7000 hp. The catenary used two 500,000 cm copper wires, with auxilliary feeder cable augmenting the catenary through either a 500,000 cm copper feeder, or a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable, with 4,000 or 6,000 kW substations located at approximately 28 mile intervals. The system could typically handle two 5,500 hp Little Joes and a four unit Boxcab helper, 7000 hp, without overheating the catenary. It routinely paid for itself, even with relatively light usage, every 8-10 years. Best regards, Michael Sol Michael, In the Milwaukee thread, you had mentioned the MU'ing of electrics and diesels by the Milwaukee. Was this strictly one man control from the cab of the electric, or was there ever a situation where the diesels could draw current from the "mother" electric?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol AC would probably be used, but regarding DC, Milwaukee Road used a 3600 vDC system. It's 5,500 hp Little Joes used approximately 1200 amps, or 1400 if the Joe went to its overload capacity of 7000 hp. The catenary used two 500,000 cm copper wires, with auxilliary feeder cable augmenting the catenary through either a 500,000 cm copper feeder, or a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable, with 4,000 or 6,000 kW substations located at approximately 28 mile intervals. The system could typically handle two 5,500 hp Little Joes and a four unit Boxcab helper, 7000 hp, without overheating the catenary. It routinely paid for itself, even with relatively light usage, every 8-10 years. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman I doubt whether any railroads have active electrification plans. It is incredibly expensive initially. It requires huge permanent physical plant investments and it requires new locomotives that are restricted to just one portion of the railroad. There are very few locomotive savings because you still need virtually the same number of engines to haul the trains away from the electrified portion and you have the added delay of changing engines at the boundry point. Bottom line is the costs are greater to electrify than the savings in fuel.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman There are very few locomotive savings because you still need virtually the same number of engines to haul the trains away from the electrified portion and you have the added delay of changing engines at the boundry point.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah I'm not an expert on electricfication, but it appears to be used the most where you have lightly loaded trains running on a frequent basis, such as commuter rail and light rail systems. This is probably due to the limitations of an overhead catenary. The light rail system in Salt Lkae uses a 700 VDC optimum voltage. This of course floats around due to a wide assortment of things. If we assume 700 VDC, we get a few numbers that can be scary: A 4400 hp locomotive will consume roughly 750 watts X 4400 hp = 3.3 megawatts, or 3,300,000 / 700 volts = 4700 amps!!!!!! Even if by chance the system voltage is kicked up to 2800 volts, you're still looking at close to 1200 amps. Not many wires can carry this current. Imagine if you have multiple engines pulling a coal drag..... Get the idea? You also have a substantial voltage drop along the wire, so you have to space the substations (DC power supplies) fairly close along the route. You'd have to run a LOT of freight to pay for such a system. Mark in Utah
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe The a.c. vs d.c. argument is really sort of a bugabo anyway. AC current travels long distances better than DC but DC has always been easier to control at the locomotive.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [In the Milwaukee thread, you had mentioned the MU'ing of electrics and diesels by the Milwaukee. Was this strictly one man control from the cab of the electric, or was there ever a situation where the diesels could draw current from the "mother" electric?
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin DC is out dated for heavy main line electric trains. The modern heavy ore trains and high speed trains around the world use 50,000 volts AC. This has the capacity to give more power then the biggest diesel lashups ever used in USA.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.