Main Line Electrifications

[nanaimo73]

I think electrification was put back 30 years when BN placed that order for 370 SD70MACs. I am sure they must have given a lot of thought to electification at that time.

[Anonymous]

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

[martin.knoepfel]

Main line electrification in mountain region would be with high-tension AC.

Low tension DC on the other side is the best solution for streetcars, LRT and subways

[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. These substations had a one-hour overload capacity of 200% of rated capacity. By isolating sections to permit two or three substations per block, the system could easily provide as much as 36,000 KW or more to a train.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

[Randy Stahl]

The bottom line is that electricity is in great demand and the price of electricity is on the rise too. Until electricity becomes VERY cheap it's not worth the big expense of installing wires.
Randy

[TH&B]

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.

Mark in Utah;
A double set TGV high speed train has 4 x 6000hp units to accelatate a 1000 ton train to 188mph. The wires hold up fine.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Randy Stahl]

Michael,
since you are in the Pacific NW perhaps you can find a way to save an old friend. Milw super dome #58 needs a friend badly. It's at the AOE facility and they have no plans for it . Breaks my heart to see it die.
Randy

[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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

50kvAC remains pretty unusual.

DC systems of all types, from 600 v to 3000 v, constitute 58,000 miles of European rail line, of which 3 kV DC is 77% of the total mileage. AC mileage of all types amounts to 74,000 miles, of which the 25 vAC, 50 mHz systems are approximately 64% of the total AC mileage, or 47,000 miles. It is interesting to note that, nearly 50 years after its introduction, the AC "standard" that was adopted in many cases on political grounds is, in spite of the strong political and economic backing of the French government, still only slightly ahead of the the 45,000 miles of 3 kVDC systems based on the Milwaukee Road design which are still hauling freight and passengers to this day and which never enjoyed a government support or export subsidy. If the recent trans-Siberian construction is not included, 3 kV DC would still be the predominant railway electrification type in Eurasia.

An interesting thing about the current AC "standard" is its history. The primary European AC standard prior to WWII was a 15 kVAC16Hz system. It was developed by Czech and German engineers. This remains the primary electrification standard of Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. There remains nearly 27,000 miles of this old AC "standard." Germany and the other named countries have shown little inclination to adopt 25kv50Hz "standard" AC systems.

Modern planning toward the new AC system is primarily a result of European "integrationist" policies, propelled by French economic interests, rather than technical economic justification.

Indeed, at the commencement of WWII, DC was the overwhelming standard of Europe. Spain had adopted 3kvDC in 1922, Italy in 1928, USSR, Belgium and Poland in 1926. France, Holland and England had adopted 1500 vDC systems. This was in spite of Westinghouse and German companies offering AC systems resembling today's technology. Indeed, Milwaukee Road itself had turned down a 14,000 v AC system proposed in 1914 by Westinghouse on both technical and economic grounds.

During WWII, the impetus for widespread AC electrification was primarily a Nazi initiative, after Germany overran most of Europe and began implementing AC railway electrification planning and design. So, AC electrification has an interesting political heritage.

After WWII, AC railroad electrification became almost entirely a political consideration. France was looking to exploit export markets and build its industry. In several areas of endeavor -- aircraft, armaments, engines -- France developed standards which were specifically designed to offer an alternative to conventional [i.e American or German] industrial technology, and pushed political alliances to facilitate markets for these alternatives.

In the electric locomotive development division of SNCF, engineers were specifically directed to escape the "dependence path." [Bouley, Japan Railway & Transport Review, 3:49-51]. The French chose the 25 vAC 50 mHZ standard because it was specifically different, but also marketable because it was cheaper to build. It was not until 1955 that the 25 vAC 50 MHz standard was, through French political pressure, accepted as a "standard" at European conferences.

What is interesting is the failure of that standard to become much of a standard, or at least how slowly it became one. While it is the cheapest to construct, and therefore virtually all recent construction by the fiscally shaky Russian government has been at this standard, the primary adopters of that standard were France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

A review of current electrification shows considerable 3 kV DC mileage throughout Europe, and that it is being extended in countries such as Italy and Poland. A 1999 European electrification conference showed several papers presented on improvements in DC railway electrification and I was surprised to see that research is continuing in this type of system; indeed, at that conference there were nearly as many DC papers as AC related papers.

Milwaukee was interesting from the standpoint that as it aged, it was not derated in capacity, but was increased at minimal cost.

A review of current electrification practice shows the durability of this 80 year old DC design standing up extraordinarily well against a subsidized and heavily promoted AC system.

Recent technological innovations in high voltage technology have favored DC considerably from a transmission efficiency standpoint, and so we may soon be at a point where DC will again be the preferred railroad electrification technology.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

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?

The engineer of the Electric could, through the diesel synchronous controller (Wylie throttle), control any diesels operating behind the electrics directly through the electric controls. The diesels could not, however, obtain operating power through the electrics. The only dual source equipment on the Milwaukee were special rotary snowplows designed to either accept overhead 3600 vDC power through a pantograph, or 600 vDC power from a diesel locomotive.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[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. All of those MILW substations were there to convert AC to DC and DC to AC as needed. So the MILW used commercial AC to get the power to the rail lines and then DC to feed the trains. I have no doubt any modern system would do the same thing. They would take commercial AC power from the grid and feed lower voltage AC to the locomotives or feed DC to them. Note all the nice new AC diesels from EMD and GE have AC alternators in them but the output is converted to a very smooth DC voltage before computer controlled circuitry converts the DC back to very specific frequency AC to feed the traction motors. It would be plausable that feeding pure DC through the catenary to the locos would be the best solution to regulating the speed of the locomotives.

Lawrence Wylie was not convinced in the benefits of AC line voltages and ac locomotives when designing an upgrade to the MILW system in the early 1970s and wa pushing for an upgrade to the DC system in place with increased capacity to run longer and more frequent trains.

Lets face it , 12K, 25K or 50K voltages in a locomotive is a lot of electrons looking really hard for a way to get out of there. The 600v systems in modern diesels have shown they can generate 1000 hp per axle and that seems to be a limit to adhesion with out implementing more sophisticated wheel slip and power control systems.

[Anonymous]

I understand the Lake Powell and Black Mesa, a landlocked RR, uses 50,000 volts (?), hauls very heavy coal trains at a moderate speed.

With that kind of voltage, does it have to be AC? 'Cuz if AC motors are getting more efficient the way AC diesel-electrics are, that would be one more reason to prefer AC.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Hi Alan, actually 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.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[RhB_HJ]

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

Hi there,

I was born and grew up in Switzerland aka the Land of Electric Railway Pioneering - never mind chocolate, cheese and yodeling! [;)][:D]

OK to electrify with a return on your money it is best to do that with high-voltage i.e. Austria, Germany and Switzerland at 15kV 16.666 cycle. It helps if you're running relatively short trains at relatively high speeds and can keep the differential between freight speed and passenger speed to a minimum or get the freight on separate tracks.
The propulsion technology that is being used in modern AC engines has been around since 1972 - at least that was when I was trained on that technology albeit for a differnt application - but at that time lacked the sophistication that comes with the modern computers.
Using that technology in conjunction with recuperative braking makes for very efficient energy use.
BTW the catenary is not really a limiting factor in modern electrification - think AC! - modern electric engines are in the 10'000HP+ range, frequently run in MU and have tremendous acceleration. All criteria which will tax the catenary and yet are standard conditions on modern electric lines.

Of course it really helps to have hydro-electric generating capacity to feed the catenary.
The reason the Swiss electrified in a big way?? WW1 - and to some extent WW2 - with severe coal shortages (all of it needed to be imported!), in short there have been other energy crises, but people seem to forget. [;)][:)]

[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.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

Hi Alan, actually 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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Admittedly, I get nervous when engineering and economic decisions are founded upon adjectives such as "incredibly," and "huge," as opposed to use of specific numbers.

However, let me offer a couple of suggestions. When Milwaukee decided to abandon its electrification in 1973, I discussed it with retired Milwaukee Road Electrical Engineers L.W. Wylie and H.R. Morgan, as well as with British Rail's expert, H.F. Brown, and engineers familiar with both the Milwaukee and GN electrifications, Walter Gordon, E.E. Van Ness, Gordon Rogers, and others. The last three named and I participated in a formal study on the project, consulting with Wylie, Morgan and Brown.

At that time, diesel fuel was 8 cents a gallon, but had begun its historic rise. Historically, the increase in diesel fuel costs was always faster than corresponding electric power costs, partcularly in the U.S. West with its large installed base of hydroelectric power. This has remained true.

I had discussed the matter with the Montana Power Company, and someone else on our team discussed it with Puget Power & Light, which was the electric power supplier for Milwaukee Road's Coast Division.

One of the big surprises in our study was the offer by the Electric Utilities that, if the Milwaukee felt that it needed to completely rebuild its system around an AC concept, and scrap entirely the DC system, that they would be glad to participate and fund the physical plant.

Why?

Utilities were already seeing that the future prospects of transmission line construction were becoming dimmer and dimmer, with land acquisition costs, lawsuits, condemnation proceedings, environmental reviews and the like making the prospects of new power lines less and less likely, and more and more expensive.

It was cheaper for the utilities to construct a high voltage line on the railroad right-of-way, AND construct the contact wire and distribution system for a railroad electrification, than it was to go out and try and acquire its own right of way from scratch.

At that point in time, the Milwaukee's big bargaining chip was that it owned the existing 110 kAC line in Montana, Idaho and Washington, and leased power transmission use to the power companies. In turn, because of the historic and strategic location of the Milwaukee's AC lines, they were heavily used by the power companies and by the BPA. This is one reason that Milwaukee Road obtained its electric power for trains for free.

So, these companies were very nervous about Milwaukee's intentions. Had Milwaukee asked, the power companies would have gladly stepped in, done a major rebuild to upgrade the AC line capacity, and installed contact wire and supply for an AC railroad electrification for free.

As it was, the 800 miles of right-of-way was a huge prize. The scrap value of the copper in the existing system, alone, was worth $23 million.

We were all quite surprised, then, when Milwaukee not only failed to take advantage of the rebuilding offer, but turned around and sold the lines. Montana Power Company bought the Montana AC transmission system, including right of way, for $3.5 million. The scrap value of the copper alone in the AC lines of the Montana portion of the system was worth $6 million. Later, I asked the president of the Montana Power Company about that, and he said they were all kind of flabbergasted. "We were ready to pay a much higher price," and suggested they had thought they could pay as high as $20-25 million.

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.

This is not true. A 1968 study at the Milwaukee showed that because of higher hp per unit available, higher overall availability, as well as substantial overload capacity, 40 electric units would offer the same capacity to the Milwaukee as 120 of the highest hp diesel-electric units then available.

When economic service life was considered, 240 to 360 diesel units would be necessary to match the 40 electric units, because of the historically short service life of diesel-electric units in heavy mainline road service, which at that time was about 8-10 years, whereas the DC Electrics had an economic service life of more than 30 years in heavy mainline use.

Changeover times were not a factor. Because of the FRA 500 mile inspection rule, generally, power changeovers certainly could accompany such an inspection. Too, on the Milwaukee, the operation of electric power generally always resulted in faster transit times than diesel-electric operation for a variety of reasons.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

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.

Diesels produce their own power??!!?? Well, DUH![}:)]

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).

For the Cascade Tunnel, it would allow a "back to the future" scenario for the Stevens Pass line wherein the wires are only strung through the tunnel itself, as was done in the original electrification of the old Cascade Tunnel. However, instead of needing separate crews (and subsequent crew districts in an isolated area) as was done with the old GN operation, you would have only your road crew throwing the switch enroute when the catenary is reached (and subsequently ended).

Certainly, the technology exists without expensive complications.

[MichaelSol]

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).

Requires some modified diesel units, but its a very interesting idea. Take it one step further -- those modified diesels enter electric territory. The diesel engine shuts down but, behind an electric providing both power and pick-up, the diesel units continue to operate, more efficiently because the diesel engine limitations are not present, and more cheaply because electric power costs are cheaper than the cost per equivalent gallon of fuel. The Diesel units become, for the duration of their run under a wire, straight electrics with no wear and tear on the component most prone to failure, the diesel engine. The number of straight electrics required is considerably reduced.

The diesel-electrics no longer lose power to altitude, temperature and engine age; they are, for their run under the wire, more powerful than when running on their own.

Interesting idea.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

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.

The statement referred to DC transmission, not railway electrification.

But, with regard to step down from transmission voltage to operating voltage, you might ponder how Milwaukee Road used 3600 volts DC to supply the GE 750 series traction motors on the Little Joe electrics.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[martin.knoepfel]

Even these days, crude is stil cheaper than 25 years ago during the second oil crisis. That is why I don't expect any large-scale mainline-electrification in the US oder CDN soon.

In Italy, they made some studies to increase tension from 3 to 6kv DC, but they did not (yet?) convert any railroad-lines to that system.

A point for the AC-system. When South Africa built a new ore-hauler, the electrified it with high-tension AC 50 HZ

[MichaelSol]

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

50kvAC almost always exists under specific circumstances:

1) wide open country with no clearance problems,

2) a single tap available for the orginal AC supply.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[arbfbe]

The first major component in 25K and 50K electric locomotives is a transformer to bring the voltage down to a lower level. That is not needed in a DC fed loco. While the transformer can be expensive you do need some weight to ballast the units for pulling.

According to one SP study, about 85% of all the components need for an electric locomotive are found on a Diesel Electric. The SP was considering the cost of converting SD45 units which would become surplus by an electrification on Donner Pass to electrics needed to operate the line under catenary.

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. The best way to use bimodal units would be to follow the FL9 model and put a power pick up on all the units. Diesels coming into Harlow would have the prime movers knocked in the head (railroad terminology for shutting down the diesel) and the pantographs raised. The controls to raise and lower tha pan would be included in the 27 pin mu cables. That would make those some expensive, custom designed diesels so it would likely be best just to change diesels out for electrics in the long run. The life span of the electric will exceed that of the diesel by a factor of 3-5 times so you would be scrapping the electric components in the bimodal units along with the diesel components which seems like a waste of capital and resources.

All the opportunities MILW management had to make their railroad work and they repeatedly chose the wrong course. Their blind obsession to make the MILW a plain vanilla railroad with no deviation from industry standards so as to make the railroad a merger candidate with any other broken down midwestern granger line has cost the investors, the employees and shippers from Louisville, KY to Seattle dearly over the years. Someone should go to jail to protect them from being strung up from a 3600 v DC trolley pole in 16 mile canyon in the dark of the night..............and then grounded between the copper and the steel. No ratlesnakes will be injured in the making of this movie.

[TH&B]

Michael;
That is very interesting what you say about electric railways. I 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?

I also know that Denmark electrified seemingly idioticaly with 25kv when the only other railway systems it conects with at each end of the country use 15kv , Germany and Sweden.

Based on all this information it suddenly sounds like it would be obviously more cost effective to electrify in the USA, but none is doing it. I would also think one standard for the whole country would be the best, but would that realy be best? Or should each company choose for itself what it thinks is best?

If BNSF or any other class 1 was to electrify what would be the best choice of electricity?

[MichaelSol]

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?

Well, it's not happening soon. The costs of upgrading the entire system (both rolling stock and the infrastructure) to a high voltage are phenomenally high, and even excluding the costs of rolling stock, would cost more than 2 billion Guilders, oops, euros. Considering this cost barrier, it is unlikely that conversion, if it happens, is going to happen very soon.

The problem is that the Dutch system is very densely utilized. When a 1500 vDC train is accelerating, it can use up to 6 MW of power or more, corresponding to a load current of 4000 amps. This is HUGE and requires a substantially more robust system than a 3000 or 3600 vDC system. This is totally unlike American freight electric railway practice, such as it was, where there is little power demand, by comparison, because the trains spend most of their time at speed.

In contrast, Dutch trains spend most of their time either accelerating or slowing down unless you are out in the "country" going to Eindhoven or some such place. The current demands of all these trains constantly accelerating is in dramatic contrast to what we think of as piddly little trains on a light electrification. The power demands are in reality enormous because of the low voltage and high acceleration demands on the system by large numbers of such trains.

France recognized the same dilemma and started 25 kV electrification more than 40 years ago. Yet, France still has 50% of its electrified railways powered by 1500 v DC.

New Dutch railway construction is prepared for 25 kV AC, but continues to be operated at 1500 vDC and probably will be for many years to come, although international routes operate at the AC standard, or dual/ 3,000 vDC for trains to Belgium.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Ragarding electricity, here is how things are here In Croatia right now:

137km of 3000V DC electricity
984km of 25000 AC electricity

[Anonymous]

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.

[martin.knoepfel]

The Dutch are building a new freight-only-line, the Betuweljin, from the big port of Rotterdam to the German Ruhr-region, which is still heavily industrialized. It will run with
25 kv 50 Hz
As to the other railroad-lines in the Netherlands, they study the conversion to AC. But you have to know, that the Dutch have a very large passenger business and they run their railroad practically like a big nationwide suburban-system. Freight is less important because of competition from trucks and especially barges.

The decision to electrify the Betuweljin with a new system - it connects to 15 kv, 16,7 Hz in Germany - hast to do with technical progress. Now, it has become much cheaper to build multi-system-electric-engines than a few decades ago. Most probably, this played a role when Denmark electrified with 25 kv 50 Hz. 50 Hz has a large advantage: the European grid-system runs on this frequency. No need for specific railroad-systems.

[Anonymous]

There are more advantages to the 25 kV/50 hz system then just industry standard (despite the fact that it cuts the cost right there - off the shelf equipment rocks).

Higher frequencies mean smaller transformers - good for EMUS when you want to mount a transformer underfloor (and keep the weight down).

Higher voltage means less substations. 3 kV system capable of 6 MW output requires something about 3 mile substation spacing. 25 kV will happily work with 30 miles. The reason why BMLP or Sishen-Saldanha run at 50 kV is because it saves the substations. I believe that whole BMLP is fed from a single 'outlet' :D. (BTW whole 600 miles of sishen-saldanha use just 8 substations - voltage may drop as low as 25 kV between then) Obviously these are giant saivngs.

And lastly - higher voltage means less maintenance and machinery for the catenary. 3 kV system pretty much requires two contact wires - while 25 kV will work with a single one - and of a smaller diameter.

Once multi-system equipment starts to be widely avalible there will be a giant pu***oward 25 kV/50 Hz system all over Europe (esp in DC countries).

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 :)

BTW - in the case of the US the 50 kV transcons and 25 kV everywhere else would make sense. But frankly - I can't really see a justification for the expense in the current operating schemes. Wires provide benefits that would not be used by US freight railroads.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Milwaukee Road's 3600 vDC substations, which had continuous ratings typically of 4.8 MW or 7.2 MW, were all spaced 28-30 miles.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator
Obviously these are giant saivngs.

Still nervous when engineering cost analysis is structured entirely on words like "giant."

With 1973 technology, rectifiers and inverters, Milwaukee Road studies found that 25 kv Ac and the 3600 vDC systems cost approximately the same to operate. While there were endless arguments about the idea that AC "should" cost less to operate, in fact it didn't. We looked and looked.

The difference in construction costs were small .... DC cost about 10% more, overall, to construct at the time. For existing DC systems, we could find no economic incentive to change systems unless someone just wanted to spend a lot of money for political reasons. And that was the bottom line when we actually looked at numbers ... replacing an existing DC electrification with an AC system invariably generated a negative rate of return unless you could obtain the money for free.

This is the single reason why Italy did not convert to 6kV DC and why most nations have been extremely slow to convert to an AC "standard" that affects, at best, a few international trains. While there are operating advantages to both the higher voltage DC and the AC, they simply were not worth the cost of replacing the existing systems. That is, nothing is realistically being purchased that justifies the cost. Holland has a unique situation of a system operating right at capacity for which a hgher voltage something, DC or AC, is the only feasible solution.

For a long system tapping from multiple AC supplies, the "clean" nature of DC avoided both loss of phase and phase problems as trains ran through power from those multiple suppliers. For existing rail installations, safety clearances came down in favor of the DC systems.

DC has evolved considerably since the early 1970s. DC is now the preferred means of long distance high voltage power transmission. Inverter and rectifier technology has improved by leaps and bounds, and their costs have dropped substantially. I suspect that the small advantage that AC systems had in construction costs thirty years ago has disappeared over shorter distances. At very high voltage, DC now has the cost advantage at transmission distances of approximately 400 miles or more and this cost advantage increases with distance. Likewise, DC's superior utilization of the carrier cross section reduces power losses and increases transmission efficiency substantially over AC.

As hgh voltage AC supply lines are gradually converted over the next twenty years to high voltage DC, the irony will be that rail systems which are utilizing AC at any voltage will be stranded.

They will have to invest in inverter and rectifier substations. At that point, the construction cost advantage will clearly be with DC railway electrification and AC will be viewed as an archaic and expensive albeit interesting relic.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[arbfbe]

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.

*********************************************************************************************

The problem with the bussing of power from a single source are many fold. Note the slug units you refer to are commonly a single unit feeding one or both ends of the slug of diesel powered locomotives. We are talking 600v DC with a max of about 1000 amps per traction motor on the slug. That is still a lot of watts to carry through the wires. Now carry that over to your suggestion for the MILW and you are looking for the head end electric to provide 3000+vDC to 12 or 18 trailing traction motors if they are electric locomotives. But they would be diesels, with 600vDC traction motors which the Joes could not provide. So in all likely hood, you would be building a new class of 600V DC electric units to lead the trailing diesels. It would be far simpler to build a new class of diesels with pantographs with 3000 volt traction motors. However, that would mean a complete redesign of the units to these specs using non-standard main generators, traction motors and control circuitry. Prohibitively expensive and far out of reach to the MILW. Also, trying to feed three or four locomotives from one pantograph just begs to have an arc between the pan shoe and the trolley wire in the heavy frost which would burn through the wire causing massive delays until the wire is repaired.

There is just not likely any feasible substitute for an existing electrification than to build purely electric locomotives for the line voltage in use. Changing DC voltages in the MILW era would involve motor generator sets on each locomotive if the 600v traction motors were retained which would have made the diesel units too heavy for the bridge structures on the MILW. The ideas of short stretches of line with electrification in mountain grade territory seems to run counter to rebuilding the entire existing electrical system in it's entirety to more fully utilize the specially built electric locomotives that would be necessary.

Now as to poor business judgement by MILW managers at the highest levels...
The topic that has arisen on this thread is the idea MILW could have had a total upgrade to the electrification to state of the art standards at NO COST to themselves. What a deal! Instead, they elected to pass on that gift horse. The reason I have heard was the proposal from the consortium included GE and there was a clause that the MILW could only purchase their locomotives from GE during the first 20 yrs of the contract. While it would be unlikely EMD or any other supplier would design a competing locomotive at a competitive price in that time and the life span of the original electrics could easily exceed that 20 yr period, MILW management was unwilling to accept such a restriction. Come on now, someone offers to build you a new house for free and the only restriction is the next two cars you buy have to be Fords and you walk away from that offer?!?!? Is that short sighted or what?

As to the other chances the MILW management had to redeem themselves, I can refer you to the previous threads you have participated in on this forum. Specifically the Booz, Allen & Hamilton assessment that the profits were in the long haul including the Pacific Coast extension and not in the granger lines of the MILW. Yet, MILW management abandoned the profitable lines and kept focused on the lines that were losing them money. You can search the other MILW threads on this forum to refresh your memory if you like.

What would I have done with the electrification in the 1950's and 1960's? Expand it, of course. Each MILW boxcab has the same rating as the current F, SD or GP 9 series units of the 1950's. The Joes, at 5500 hp were equal to almost 4 GP9s in mu. It would take the diesel builders until post 2000 to come up with a single prime mover of 6000 hp to best the Joes. (The DD series of UP units do not count as they are just two diesels on a single chassis. All the eliminated was the drawbars between two units.) The Black Mesa & Lake Powell units of the1970s were far ahead of the diesels of that era. There were serious alternatives to motor generator types of substations that the MILW could have used to increase the load capacity of the electrification of the existing lines at a far lower cost than building mg substations. So I say, electrify the gap in Idaho, replace the trolley poles using concrete or steel structures and buy new locomotives. Leave all the diesels save for branchline power east of Harlowton until you can electrify the rest of the mainlines. If the power companies and suppliers will do this for you at no substantial charges to yourself, welcome them into the board room with open arms.

Unfortunately, MILW management was bent of getting out of the railroad business by merging the MILW with any other railroad that would take them. Their primary choice seemed to be the C&NW which was not the strongest line in the pile. In order to make themselves more attractive to a suitor, the managers decided that standardization was desirable and electrification was nonstandard no matter how well it worked. Well, Plan A with the merger scenario did not work but Plan B, make the MILW the best transcontinental line to Seattle using other people's money to upgrade the electrification was dismissed in favor of pursueing Plan A2, A3 and finally Plan C, dump the money making parts of the system to look again at Plan A3, A4 and who knows how many other merger related ideas. The one finally pursued with relish was inclusion into the BN system since BN was required to consider it as part of their original merger authority granted by the ICC. On it's death throes, the final Plan A was with the GTW but the Soo Line snatched that opportunity away. Instead of the MILW lines being abandoned in the midwest in favor of the merged railroad's trackage, it became a situation where the Soo Line trackage was abandoned and spun off in favor of the MILW lines. Yes, indeed what happened was the SOO Line managers came to run what was left of the MILW granger lines.

[Anonymous]

arbfbe,

Thanks for providing your insights into the Milwaukee electrification decisions. I have a few followup questions (and Michael Sol, please chip in if you want):

1. Was there any significant difference between the current used by the New Haven et al with their FL9's and the 3600 v DC used by the Milwaukee that prevented them from utilizing an FL9 type locomotive on the PCE? Did the Milwaukee ever consider an electric/diesel hybrid like the FL9 for the PCE? Do you know if the FL9 was a considerably more expensive locomotive than standard diesels or an electric like the Little Joes?

2. With regards to the possibility of fulling electrifying the mainline from Harlowtown to the Puget Sound, when the Milwaukee received trackage rights into Portland, wouldn't that have put a crimp into having a dedicated electric fleet west of Harlowtown? You can't put catenary over someone elses track. If as I had speculated the Milwaukee could have requested (and received) trackage rights over the SP&S between Spokane and Portland as well as the I-5 corridor, that also would have required a substantial fleet of diesels in the PNW. Any run through freights would have to have been fully dieselized or run in electric/diesel combos, so there would be the added cost of adding/taking out electrics at certain points in the case of the latter. And since mergers were an ever increasing fact of life for the railroad industry, there is some credibility to the argument that the uniqueness of the electrification may have scared off potential suitors, especially in an industry that practically worships at the alter of standardization.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in hindsight that for the Milwaukee (or the GN for that matter) to have given up on electrification was a bad idea, given today's diesel fuel costs (and BNSF's current capacity constraints through the Cascade Tunnel). If either entity had kept their electrification (and assuming the Milwaukee had survived into the present), said electrification would be paying huge divedends right now.

[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.

[jchnhtfd]

Pause for thought...

The considerations for using AC vs. DC differ depending on whether one is talking about transmission, distribution, or powering motors.

First, transmission. Until relatively recently, AC was the only form of electrical power which was really usable for transmission. Why? Because it is possible to transform AC from one voltage to another using a simple static device: the transformer, which is dead simple, highly reliable, and very very efficient. And it is necessary, economically, to use very high voltages for transmission, since power losses are inversely proportional to the square of the voltage -- but you don't want to either generate or use electricity at high voltages. More recently, solid state converters have come into use for conversion of AC to DC, or vice versa, at very high voltages. With these converters, which are not cheap and are nowhere near as reliable as transformers, it is possible to get the advantages of very to extreme high voltage transmission of power with DC, which has some real advantages.

For local distribution -- say in a city -- I do not see an advantage to DC, if for no other reason economics: you still need moderately high voltage for distribution (23 kV is typical) but you don't want that in the individual user's establishments (anything over 480 is regarded as very high in the user's environment, and takes special handling). So each user, or group of users, would need the converters rather than transformers.

For power use, the advantages of AC are almost overwhelming for most applications. A three phase (or single phase, in small applications) AC motor is, again, a near zero maintenance, dead simple, device. A DC motor is neither.

Railroad applications are just a wee bit different. First, although there were a very very few multi-phase AC overhead systems, they were horribly complex and difficult to maintain, so you were limited to single phase at some frequency or other (it really doesn't matter, within reason). But large single phase AC motors aren't practical, so the railroads used DC traction motors. In the bad old days, this meant motor-generator sets to convert the AC (stepped down via a transformer) to get DC. Some outfits ran the numbers and decided that complexity wasn't worth it, and used DC for distribution -- with lots of substations. Others decided that it was, and used AC at much higher voltages (like 11 kV) for distribution. Again, however, solid state devices get into the equation, and with them it is now quite practical, and 'best practice', to use solid state devices to take either DC or single phase AC, at some voltage compatible with the catenary or whatever, convert it in the locomotive to DC, and reconvert it to frequency controlled three-phase AC to drive the traction motors.

Do you use AC or DC for your power distribution (catenary/third rail)? That would be a decision grounded in economics. My bet would be that in most cases, AC would win, if you were starting from scratch. If you are using existing infrastructure -- run what you brung.

[Isambard]

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 :)

By choosing 15 kV 16,6 Hz, German equipment would be prevented from running on Polish rails in the event of an invasion? Was it in fact a consideration in the Polish decision? In view of the predominance of steam power at the time I would have thought that this would not have been a significant consideration.

Apart from that can anyone comment on the use of 16,6 Hz transmission by Germany rather than a higher frequency? Was this an inheritance from the early days of AC transmission? Was use of 16,6 Hz general elsewhere? Is it still used?

As an aside, I understand that Ontario Hydro choose 25 Hz over 60 Hz for domestic purposes in the early days of AC, due to concerns that 60 Hz was more dangerous to personnel and customers. As a result in the 1950's Ontario had a massive project to convert all domestic and industrial equipment in southern Ontario from 25 Hz to 60Hz, the by then prevailing standard in the rest of Ontario and North America. Think of it-every vacuum cleaner, refridgerator and so on!

As other questions for anyone:
What is/are the source(s) for electrical power for the Dutch railway system- fossil fueled power stations or nuclear, domestic Dutch or imported?

Is the transmission frequency for electrified North American railroads usually at 60 Hz, the standard domestic frequency?

[Hugh Jampton]

16 2/3 Hz was originally chosen as it's easy to make, being 1/3 of 50Hz,, and commutated motors will run at this frequency, which means that simple resistance control can be used.

[martin.knoepfel]

Hugh Jampton is right. When Germany started electrification, 50 Hz didn't seem practicable for railway purposes. Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland run on 15 kv 16,7 Hz AC. The Swiss federal railways recently admitted, they would use 25 kv 50 Hz AC, if they could start from scratch. However, Hungary successfully tried out 50 Hz very early, in the twenties or thirties of the 20th century with the Kando engines.

I know of natural-gas-fired and nuclear power plants in the Netherlands.

[arbfbe]

The easiest way to regulate the speed on an AC motor is to vary the frequency of the current. Today there are different alternatives. I believe the N&W AC system in it's earliest forms had units that had three throttle positions, stop, half speed and full speed. Imagine the lunging between throttle postions there! I suppose the speed control was the reason for the low frequencies of some systems.

[Anonymous]

MichaelSol:

I will auto correct myself. 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.

As for the 'giant' savings. Maybe the better word would be 'substantial'. Electrification pays off when the line is havily trafficked. With longer segments and euro-style traffic density (think 3 minute headways) with longer segments there are, ferinstance more chances to regenerate energy. If one really tried then 25 kV would suffice for 200 or so miles - with low enough traffic density. BTW - spacing of 25 kV system is about 40-60 miles.

But nonetheless - in the US type of railroading electrification does not make sense at all. The traffic density is too low (there are too few places with really tight spacing), trains are, by euro standards, underpowered and speeds are moderate.

EDIT: as for clearances - what is the problem to step down from 25 kV to say - 8,33 kV? That would be the same as clearances for 3 kV DC.

Isambard:

When polish electrification was coined there was a plan to electrify a coal line from Upper Silesia to the Gdynia seaport - in that tume that line run along the border with Germany. Also - electrification started in 1935 - the war started in 1939. By 1939 there were only 8 locos and several EMUS in service. Obviously later it was a moot point.

When the war ended communists simply started with what was there - so 3 kV DCsystem was there to stay - esp since the BIg Brother also electrified with 3kV DC

[gfjwilmde]

I've read some of your messages and it has me confused. Although I'm a machinist, I've also been in some training classes learning about electricity(for safety training[required]). My understanding about the subject is, that it's easier to move(transport)electricity when it's ac rather than dc. I was taught that you can dump up ac to a higher voltage than dc, thus making it better to transmit across greater distances. Another thing I've learned in the 12+ yrs that I've been working around electric locomotives is that all they are no more than converters and 'step down' transformers. Ac cannot be used directly to the traction motors because of the pulsations in them. So the converters change ac over to dc and at the same time smoothes out the pulsations. Once this is done then its changed back to ac(or stays dc) and then 'stepped down to a safe and usable voltage for the traction motors. In fact...many of your modern diesels operate similarly. The diesel locomotive's generator(altenator) is actually producing ac current and is changed and 'stepped down' silmilar to what I explained earlier. The one downside to European or Asian rail systems is this, their electric locomotives are very lightweight. Most of the electrics barely weigh over 100 tons. Trying to pull a heavy train with those is an effort in futility. On the other hand...when electric freight operations were in their heyday, many of the railroads had very big, very heavy and very powerfull(at that time) electrics pulling most anything with very little in the way of mu'ing. Anyway...I believe there should have been an extensive network of both diesel and electric rail lines in this country ages ago. Many of the northeastern cities were very concerned about pollution caused by the steam locomotives, so railroads like Pennsy and New Haven electified much of their eastern or urban territories to cut down on smoke emmissions. Well, don't think for one minute that diesels don't put out a significant amount of fumes either. That's one reason why there should be more use of electric rail lines across the country than ever before. Surely...there are many in urban areas whom have no choice, but to live near(or right next to) an active rail line that has significant traffic flow. Surely to hear the rubble of the high horsepower diesels and the stench of diesel exhaust as they blast(or crawl) through a residential area is very uncomfortable. Sometimes, the smell of the exhaust lingers long after the train has departed. No to mention if the train is just sitting there waiting for traffic to clear so it can be on it's way is very inconsiderate to the surrounding populace. When I was a teen, I used to hangout in the Conrail yards near Jersey City, New Jersey. Many of the trains crept through the city, usually blowing out huge plumes of smoke, blackening everything around. Sometimes, if there was a cylinder that was bad, there would also be oil flying out with the exhaust as well. Yes...maybe some day we'll return to moving heavy freight trains with electics again...some day.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!

[ungern]

This makes me ask a question.

How about the railroads electrifying their yards? This minimize the expense with much of the benifits because isn't yard switching a big use of diesel fuel. Already railroads are beginning to buy "green goats" for yard switching because they're more effecient why not take it a step further and just electrify the yards and leave the line for the diesel-electrics?

Ungern
BNSF fan

[Anonymous]

Switching - about 0.00000005% of fuel used by railroads

[TH&B]

Ungern;
I think that's a very good question, I've never realy thought of that. I think the fuel used by railroad switching is actualy alot and wastefull and in fact CPRail recently quoted that their switchers are killing them in fuel. Railroads are always using older downgraded diesels and "double switching". If switching costs could be reduced railroads could maybe compete better with shorter hauls.

Just electrify the yards with DC I suppose and use very simple switchers with pantographs.

But please don't suggest to use 3rd rail hehehe, for the swicthmens sake.

[ungern]

Actually, I won't ever suggest 3rd rail in a switching yard.

Also hi voltage transmission lines running alongside the mainlines could allow the railroads another income source. Amtrak actually makes money by allowing open access of its transmission lines that power the NEC in the wholesale electricity market.

Uzurpator, where did you get the 0.00000005% number for amount of fuel used while switching?

Ungern

[Anonymous]

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.

That was one of the things that pops to mind. However, there are two different subjects I want to broach regarding the FL9 concept: (1)Why the Milwaukee did not consider an FL9 type locomotive, and (2)if an FL9 type solution would work to allow more capacity through the Cascade Tunnel.

1. My thought regarding the Milwaukee circa 1970 was that they were faced with an electrical physical plant that needed to be upgraded (and possibly expanded) or eliminated. With a bi-modal locomotive such as the FL9, they could have eliminated much of the catenary over the more water level grades such as the Clark Fork segments without having to establish new crew districts and locomotive transfer areas. This way they could have focused on upgrading only the mountainous segments of the electrification at a fraction of the cost of upgrading or expanding the entire electrical physical plant.

2. For the current Cascade Tunnel, one would have to balance the cost of rostering FL9-type locomotives that are limited to a small geographic area against the benefits of increasing capacity, perhaps doubling capacity over Stevens Pass (aka no time delays to ventilate the tunnel). I also wonder about clearances in the Cascade Tunnel, whether one can even restring catenary without interfering with double stacks, or whether the third rail option might work (at least in the tunnel).

[arbfbe]

futuremodal,

While the FL9 concept was a nice idea you end up with expensive units that spend a lot of their time outside the electric zone where all the high priced dual mode equipment goes to waste. That is not a great way to utilize capital. It worked on the NH account the units were into the electrified trackage every day. Now think about the MILW. The dual use units leaves Tacoma and works over the Cascades and in your secnario only on the short sections of mountain grade. Full diesel through Idaho to St Paul Pass where the dual use pantographs are raised. Then out of trolley from Haugen to Butte where the pans go up again for the mountain. Then no pan use all the way to St Paul or KC. So you might as well cut them off in Harlo and turn them back. So they become restricted use units in which case you might as well buy straight electrics for the lines west of Harlo.

The NH was an ac railroad while the MILW was dc. None of the equipment would have been interchangable. The FL9s worked since the third rail was compatible with the diesel traction motors. They were not compatible with the catenary with it's ac voltages.

The measure of work for electricity is Watts. You get watts from multiplying the volts times the amps. Volts is the pressure of the electricity through the system and amps is the volume of the electrons through the system. Now you can get 100 watts of power in any number of ways so long as volts x amps = 100w. P=IxE if you remember your high school physics. If you have 100 volts you only need to shove 1 amp through the iwres to have 100 watts. Or you can use 1 volt to move 100 amps. That 1 volt does not move too much through wires though since the wire has resistance. The 100 v option is better for over coming the resistance of the wire. Since you are only trying to move 1 amp the wire does not have to be very big, you are not trying to move a lot of volume.

On the users side, high voltages are a problem. With all that power they need a lot of insulation to keep Readdy Kilowatt coralled where you want him. There it makes to use bigger wires for a shorter distance to get the work done. The MILW AC supply to the substations was pretty small wire compared to the copper feeder on the trolley poles that brought power from the substation to the catenary. The dual catenary was about 4' or wire to make a pound of copper while the dc feeder at the same 3600 v DC was about 4# of copper for every foot of wire. So it took about 4.25 lb of copper for every foot of railroad to feed a couple of trains at a time. On the other hand, the AC commercial lines fed substations, small towns and other rural areas.

Another argument AC proponents hand out is since the AC cycle goes positive to negative with each cycle change the line system will break an arc while the continuous nature of the DC will hold the arc until something burns through or a breaker kicks out. The DC proponents will say how that same factor means you have a period at each cycle change where there is not any pu***o make work. The AC people developed multi phase AC to counter that short coming.

At one time the AC vs DC arguments were just as strongly argued as the standard gauge vs narrow gauge battles. With today's technology i doubt there is all that much difference with a newly designed system in either mode. The big battle is to get someone to make the investment. The saying goes ithat electrification is the program every one wants to be the second company to take the plunge.

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ungern

Actually, I won't ever suggest 3rd rail in a switching yard.

When the Southern Railway in England embarked on its big electrification programme in the 1920's and 1930's, it used 3rd rail and only passenger trains were electric (all worked by EMUs). When WW2 broke out, shortage of good quality coal prompted the Southern to build some electric locos for freight trains. Because it would be impractical to have 3rd rail in switching yards, the yards concerned were equipped with simple trolley wire. When the lines from London to the Kent Coast ports were electrified on 3rd rail in the 1950's more yards were wired and more locos built with both pick up shoes and pantographs. But in the 1960's a class of locos called "Electro Diesels" which were basically electric locos with a small (600hp) diesel engine on board were built. These proved to be much more useful than the straight electric locos which were then scrapped and the yards de-wired. But now Brush are fitting an old Class 86 electric loco with batteries to provide a more eco-friendly alternative to the Elector-Diesels, a few of which are still running.

[Anonymous]

ungern: i used a hyperbole for the fact that fuel used by switching is insignificant to the cost of electrification... ;)

Think about it - UPRR Bailey Yard has 315 miles of track. 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 ;)

[Anonymous]

No one has touched on one of the biggest impedements to the economies of electrification in the US, namely property taxes. Electrification significanly raises the real property value and thereby the taxes. For anything less than very heavily used lines any reduced operating costs resulting from the use of electricity will be spent on local property taxes. And this is totally ignoring the interest needed on the loans to pay for the infrastructure, which in a few areas of the US invokes another set of taxes.

There are two notable exceptions to the above. The electrified railroad can be a government or quasi government agency, as Amtrak , SEPTA, NJDOT, and the like. They are generally immune from taxes. This was the case in much of Europe until recently and is still the case in places. The other exception has been utilities who could until recently automatically pass on their costs to the consumers and thus had no real incentive to find the true lowest cost solution.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Milwaukee voltage drop could drop as low as 2400 volts between substations. A Little Joe might be pulling as much as 1800 amps IF it was working hard. The locations of substations was such that usually at that distance, Joes would be working on flat ground, with a couple of exceptions. But, naturally, the substations tended to be located on Mountain grades, with slightly closer spacing.

Two Joes could pull 3600 amps if the voltage dropped to 2400 volts. DC systems, however, generally pair substations, whereas AC splits the power sources so phase is not a problem. Indeed, with the DC system, three or more power supplies can be fed to one train if necessary.

On DC then, a typical power pair, Drexel and East Portal substations on the Rocky Mountain Division, have a combined capacity of 12 MW, to feed an energized section. At one hour overload on this 28 mile section, the capacity is 24 MW. For two Joes using 3600 amps, they have available to them 5000 amps, with an overload capacity of 10,000 amps. Big power, but it is carried on that section by 1,000,000 cm of direct contact wire, 500,000 cm of copper feeder cable, and 750,000 cm of aluminum feeder, for a total of 2.25 million cm of capacity.

It was routine to have as many as four Little Joes drawing from an energized section of track. Of course, if one set was going uphill and one downhill, the downhill set was generating power of its own into the trolley system, and represented an additional source of power for the uphill train.

The ability to raise and lower trolley voltage at the substations enabled more efficient movement of heavy trains, sometimes it was useful to deliver less than 3600 vDC to the engines.

The DC design was simply rugged. The fact that 80 year old 3000 vDCsystems continue to operate on more railway mileage than just about any other form of electric traction it testimony to both their economy and reliability.

GE had tested a 5000 vDC design for the Milwaukee. The only reason it was not used was economic. The cost savings of copper cable permitted by the higher voltage was more than offset by the hgher costs of manufacturing the locomotives to operate at that voltage. The 3,000 vDC resulted from the intersection of two cost curves, nothing more.

The DC traction motor was, at that time, far superior to anything else. The use of relatively low voltqges DC, compared to AC, was primarily a historical artifact that no longer exists: the difficulty of converting DC voltages from one to another, compared to the ease of converting AC voltgages. That problem no longer exists. For any benefits of any particular voltage insofar as distance of transmission is concerned, AC and DC now compete on relatively equal terms.

The modern AC motor ostensibly changes the equation a bit, but the bottom line is that an AC "locomotive" is now a substantially more complex machine than its DC counterparts, and regeneration remains an expensiive option with AC, whereas it is an inherent design benefit of the DC systems. This was something we noted: AC locomotives appeared to have shorter economic service lives than standard DC equipment.

Note that DC diesel-electric locomotives sell at asubstantial price advantage to AC locomotives, notwithstanding that the AC design is not "new". 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.

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.

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. The advantages that the Transformer gave to AC systems will be gone entirely, as AC rail electrification will almost certainly have to incur the expense of rectifier substations rather than transformer substations, and the additional cost of inverters if they care to regenerate back into the power grid.

Once again, rail planners may be preparing for the past, rather than for the future.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[jchnhtfd]

Just a few little comments here...

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...

Multi-phase AC was NOT invented to solve the 'problem' of 'no push' twice each cycle. Multi-phase -- most usually three phase -- power was developed to address the problem of starting an AC motor; a single phase AC motor will not, without auxiliary devices, start on its own (although it will keep running very nicely, thank you). Without getting all Steinmetz here, suffice it to say that with three phase power, you can get a very nice rotating magnetic field, which will drag a rotor (which can be unbelievably simple) along with it, with about as much torque (and power) as you want -- and if you can control the frequency, at any speed you want. This is what modern variable speed drives, such as are used on AC diesels and electric motors, do: you control the torque by the current in the field, and the speed by the frequency supplied to the motor. Wheel slipping? No problem, my friend -- reduce the current slightly. Want to go faster? No problem -- increase the frequency (and current). There is nothing complex about any of it, and maintenance is dead simple -- something fries, pull the board and slip in a new one.

I am sorry that Michael feels that those of us in railway engineering are planning for the past, rather than the future; I'd very much rather not think so... and, in terms of on-board equipment, I'll stick with my alternators, static converters, and AC motors for the time being -- if I never see another commutator again, it's going to be way too soon!

[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.

[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

[MichaelSol]

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 ;)

Well, 3600 vDC costs about $45,000 per mile to electrify, heavy conductor and all. This $1 mi per mile figure sounds inordinately high.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

I am still a bit hazzy on the mechanichs of DC electricity. I know DC cannot be stepped up and stepped down like AC can, so how is power in a high voltage transmission line, say 132kv, stepped down to 3000 volts for use in a locomotive? I do know that in many railway applications, when high voltage DC is used, the motors in a 6 motor engine will be connected all 6 in serise, 2 groups of 3 in serise and finally 3 groups of 2 in serise, so the maximum voltage across each motor is never more than 1500 volts. I admire the robustness of high voltage DC applications, but I feel i have to run with the PACK and go for 25kv AC.

[arbfbe]

All of the power fed to the electric locomotives was 3000, 3300 and then 3600 vDC. Speed control was by means of series, series-parallel and parallel connections between the traction motors. Threre were also resistance grids, shunt connections between the motor fields and other things I am only aware of and have no real understanding. Then the MILW wanted to change AC voltages they used transformers and when they wanted to change AC to DC they used an AC motor to run a DC generator to create the voltage they wanted to power the locomotives. Today there are alternatives available for the same purposes but the majority of AC to AC conversions still use transformers.

Modern AC diesels use an alternator to generate AC power. That power is then fed into a set of rectifiers where it is converted into smooth DC current. That DC current is then converted back into AC at the frequency need to give the speed of the locomotive desired. Thus a pure DC feed to the locomotives could be used to power either DC or AC traction motors in one of a new generation of locomotives based on current technology. AC traction motors on electric locomotives used in mountain territory have a number of attractive advantages. Regeneration using the AC traction motors should be much simpler on a DC line since the current would just need to be changed to DC to feed the trolley and would not have to be phase matched to the supply voltages.

[MichaelSol]

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...

Unless things have changed, the traction motor was not the high cost maintenance item on diesel-electric locomotives. On our cost per hp maintenance curves for the Milwaukee Road diesel fleet as of 1974, road diesel hp maintenance costs remained fairly constant for approximately the first three years after purchase, then began a steep rise. By the eighth year, the cost per hp of maintenance exceeded the costs of acquisition of new power. This drove purchasing decisions for the diesel-electric fleet. However, the traction motors were not a significant part of that cost, at any point in the curve. The weak spot was not the DC traction motors, the weak spot was the diesel engine.

By comparison, the electric fleet's cost per hp maintenance curves were essentially flat. They were, in nearly all instances, approximately one-third the cost per rated hp of the maintenance of a road diesel-electric at year four, even though the newest units were already a quarter century old, some of the electrics in the fleet were nearly 60 years old and for the period of the study, still in mainline service.

I do not recall traction motor cost or failure being a significant driver of the existing cost of maintaining the electric fleet. An AC motor may be a superior motor to the DC motor, but in economic terms, under most conditions the DC motor delivers the necessary performance without a significant overall maintenance cost difference.

Is it more difficult to maintain? Apparently so.

Is that a significant economic argument in favor of the AC traction motor? If that's all there was to it, sure. But without seeing some current comparable data, the low actual cost of DC traction motors in heavy mainline service, many of them quite old, suggests to me that excepting unusual service demands, there isn't an economic justification for the substantially higher locomotive purchase price, particularly since the design simplicity of the AC motor itself is accompanied by a significant increase in the complexity and cost of the "locomotive" that is able to use the AC motor.

And, the adoption of an AC traction motor does nothing to primary source of increasing maintenance costs: the diesel engine. I guess they've solved a problem that wasn't really a problem, and done nothing for the component that is the cause of 90% of the maintenance costs. This justifies .... what?

The question raised to me is whether the benefits meet or exceed the opportunity cost of the higher cost of acquisition, but also whether or not the more complex machine will ultimately have the same economic service life. A rule of thumb is well tested that more complex machines fail more often than less complex machines. I guess time will tell for the AC diesel-electric and whether that rule has finally been turned on its head.

However, Alan makes a good point. Any characteristic that is genuinely favorable for the AC traction motor is perhaps most efficiently utilized in a DC traction context in order to maximize its economic benefits.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

MichaelSol:

Amount of substations per sections does not matter really - the thing is that you cannot really go above ~2kA continuus without some major engineering in place. To lower currents you need to increase voltage. 6 kV DC - feasible, but anything more then this... I dunno. There might be problems with extinguishing arc with DC voltages so high and possible tight clearances.

On 3kV DC a typical 8000 hp universal loco may go as high as 4 kA. Getting more of them on a single section - bad thing... But not a problem with 25 kV AC (or 15 kV AC - for that matter).

I suspect that the 5 kV loco costs are not an issue now :)

QUOTE: This was something we noted: AC locomotives appeared to have shorter economic service lives than standard DC equipment.

With many AC locos reaching 50 year time frame... Besides - noone builds straight DC locos anymore.

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.

Oh come on - you know it is not true. In a comparsion to a straight DC loco an interior of a modern AC loco is just a set of boxes. No 3kV relay boxes, switches etc. ANd the HIgh voltage goes as far as the transformer. Usually all connections are made on the roof of the loco. There is no live 25kV in the vehicle.

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.

Sources?

Anyhoo - SZD employs about 1,5-2 million people. Stellar safety record...

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.

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: Well, 3600 vDC costs about $45,000 per mile to electrify, heavy conductor and all. This $1 mi per mile figure sounds inordinately high.

Omg - check current prices.

Recently, to upgrade an existing catenery to 200 kmh polish railways paid ~$250.000/km. That works out to $400k per mile (2 tracks) - that is sans substations, connection ot the power grid and masts. 1mil/mile is usual cost.

$45k will not buy you the necessary wire, let alone the whole catenary ;)

Townsend:

Except for a few rare circumstances (like arc furnaces) noone uses 100+ kV for anything else then transmission.

In this part of the world 3kV DC stations are fed from 6 to 20 kV 50hz, stepped down to 3,6 kV/50 hz then rectified, and smoothed.

To get from 110 kV the voltage usually goes down 110 -> 40 -> 20 -> 10/6 kV.

[arbfbe]

Moving the electricity and powering the locomotives are two completely different engineering problems. The MILW solved them by using high voltage AC in pretty thin wires to get the power from the dams in Montana to the substations along the line. There the conversion to DC was made to power the locomotives. The locomotives were supplied directly by the trolley wire which was supplemented the entire route byt a substantial copper feeder. The feeder wires were 8 or 10 times the size of the catenary wire or the HVAC lines. These heavy copper cables would have been prohibitively expensive to use to move DC from the dams to the mainline. Poles would have had to have been really close together to support the weight realtive to the length. I would suggest any future railroad electrification would use the same technology. Solid state electronics, computer automation and technological advances make the cost of a substation less of a capital constraint than when the MILW electrified their lines in the early 1900s.

[MichaelSol]

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.

This is pretty outdated. And more words like "astronomical."

AC was preferred as recently as the 1970s but that view began to change in that decade as engineers looked at the overwhelming success of the John Day Dam HVDC line to California.

It does however underscore the fact that railway engineering is often guided by conventional wisdoms rather than ongoing analysis.

This is the current view on HvDC.

With sources.

According to Siemens Power Engineering Guide, Transmission & Distribution, 2004, p. 36, the primary advantage of DC for high voltage transmission is "economic transmission of bulk power over long distances." They also note that it is used "for connection of asynchronous power grid systems," and for "connection of synchronous but weak power grid systems," as well as for "increasing the transmission capacity of existing rights-of-way." 1/36, p. 1.

Siemens notes that HVDC systems can "stabilize weak AC links or supply even more active power, where the AC system reaches the short-circuit capability," but that, in cases where bulk power is transmitted over long distances, which they see as 1,000 km or more, the HVDC is economically superior to HVAC as it can transmit more power, more efficiently.

A paper entitled "High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Transmission Systems Technology Review Paper" by Rudervall, Carpentier, and Sharma, prepared for the World Bank, listed the advantages of HVDC over HVAC in the following order: environmental advantages, the most economical to build and operate, facilitates asynchronous connections, power flow control, and the stability and power quality of the transmission.

According to these gentlemen, the cost of HVAC systems begins to exceed the cost of construction of a comparable HVDC system when the transmission distance exceeds 670 km which is only 419 miles. At 1000 miles, the cost of a comparable HVDC system is 75% the cost of an HVAC system, and the differential increases as distance increases, that is, the cost of the HVAC systems increases more rapidly than the cost of the HVDC with increasing distance. [p. 6].

They specifically note: "The investment cost for for HVDC converter stations are higher than for high voltage AC substations. On the other hand, the costs of transmission medium (overhead lines and cables), land acquisition/right of way costs are lower in the HVDC case. Moreover, the operation and maintenance costs are lower in the HVDC case. Initial loss levels are high in the HVDC system, but they do not vary with distance. In contrast, loss levels increase with distance in a high voltage AC system." [p. 7].

Interestingly, "technological developments have tended to push HVDC system costs downward, while environmental considerations have resulted in pushing up the high voltage AC system costs."

The largest project on earth is in Brazil, and dwarfs our Bonneville Power project lines, carries 1,440 MW. It operates at 600 kVDC with a rated power of 6300 MW, transmitting over 490 miles, and was gradually phased in to current capacity in the mid to late 1980s. "HVDC was chosen basically for two reasons: partly to be able to supply power from the 50 Hz generators to the 60 Hz system, and partly because an HVDC link was economically preferable for the long distance involved." In 1990, an HVDC project in India brought on line a 500 k VDC system carrying 1500 MW over 500 miles, and the "most important reasons" for using the DC system were "better economics, halved right of way requirements, lower transmission losses, and better stability and control."

As I remarked when I suggested that DC utilizes the cross section of the conductor more efficiently than AC, "HVDC can carry more power for a given size of conductor." [p. 14].

The World Bank study states that the general convention for choosing HVDC over HVAC is when "large amounts of power (>500 MW) needed to be transmitted over long distances (>500 km, 310 miles). Transmitting under water was the next most commonly considered reason, and connecting asynchronous AC systems the third most common reason for using HVDC.

The paper points out, however, that technological advances are continuing to bring the costs of HVDC installations down compared to HVAC, and that the economic feasibility point in favor of HVDC systems as a transmission medium -- as opposed to a purpose relating to stability or effectuating trans-grid power transfer -- may now be as low as 200 MW and only 40 miles. This is very significant, not only because of the rapidity with which this transmission frontier was reached -- this was fantasy just ten years ago -- but how close this is, relatively speaking, to requirements of heavy DC railway electrification, particularly in the context of auxilliary use of railway corridors for electric power transmission.

Indeed, Siemens reports that 10 of 17 recent HVDC installations that it has made around the world were for long distance transmission purposes, rather than for other -- stability or AC system integration purposes. What is also interesting is that of the remaining seven systems which Siemens has constructed, so called back-to-back, several have been built in the US to facilitate AC grid connections. There are now a number of DC systems which are now being constructed simply to buffer AC systems. The "ease of conversion" which long justified AC technology has been found to have serious defects and Edison would probably be gratified that engineers now must turn to DC to permit AC to AC systems transmission. Interestingly, I can find no cost analysis that adds the cost of these HVDC back-to-back systems to any "true" cost of the associated HVAC systems that require them. The HVDC systems have no such hidden but necessary costs.

A U.S. Department of Energy Symposium held August 3, 2001, "Analysis and Concepts to Address Electric Infrastructure Needs", strongly suggested expanding general use of HVDC lines in the United States, arguing that conversion of existing HVAC lines to DC would double the capacity of such systems and that fact alone justified a review of existing HVAC systems as a way of meeting demand which has exceeded current transmission capacity in the United States. A prophetic paper given the recent AC power grid fiasco in the Northeast. Engineers at the symposium pointed out that not only could HVDC move substantially more power than a similar HVAC system, but that "for an AC line with the same conductor and insulators per phase, losses were 50% higher" than for the HVDC systems and the efficiency of HVDC systems meant power savings. This was the basis for my statement that, the longer the system, the greater the DC advantage. "A simple rule of thumb may be applied in that the cost of a DC transmission line may be 80 to 100% of the cost of an AC line whose rated line voltage is the same as the rated pole to ground voltage of the DC line ... [however] the cost advantage of DC transmission for traversing long distances is that it may be rated at twice the power flow capacity of an AC line of the same voltage." "HVDC Transmission,"Dennis Woodford, Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, 3/18/98.

An IEEE paper suggests the same: "Challenging Opportunities for Incoming Engineers in HVDC Transmission Technology," Katancevic, IEEE Paper, 2002
Winter Meeting: "Cost of transmission losses caused with HVDC are far and away lower than costs of HVAC transmission losses." ... "For very long distance transmission links, ... decisive [also] are the construction costs [in favor of HVDC]."

The point of all of this is that conventional wisdoms can create compelling orthodoxies even among professionals. Even the history books write, as a form of drama, the "battle" between Tesla and Edison over AC vs DC and that "AC won." This became a conventional wisdom that somehow DC was just a electrical stepchild, an obsolete approach to mass electrification that never could go very far for a variety of technical reasons. However, as current trends indicate, DC is now, ironically, the medium that enjoys cutting edge technological advances which demonstrate decisive economic superiority over AC in precisely those areas which the general misconception believed DC was most inferior, high voltage transmission.

This is why DC railway electrification papers are once again as common as AC papers at international conferences.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[greyhounds]

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

"One is a historian?" He was curator of transportation at the Smithsonian when the article was written. (Maybe he still is.) I don't think he'd put his name, or the Smithsonian's, on a poorly researched paper.

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.

They were projecting diesel fuel and electricity costs 10 years plus out. There was no certainty. In the end it was a "bet the company" proposition. If everything went right there would be tremendous benifits, but if everything didn't go right the corporation would be destroyed financially. There is no way everthing was going to go right. The risk was too great.

Now they did note that the major expense was the new locomotives. If existing diesel electrics can be modified to operate as straight electrics that may reduce the risks.

[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

[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. Quite true. It is part of the nature of the beast: railway engineers are trained to think in terms of what is going to work, and keep working, for anywhere from 50 years to a century, and it does sometimes give the impression of being rather conservative. There are, however, examples to the contrary, and instances of innovative thinking. Unfortunately, the corpses of the relevant advocates litter the landscape, and tend to deter the rest of us from being too radical.

The remarks regarding high voltage DC transmission for bulk power transfer are quite well taken, and I, for one, have no problem with them. They are all true. They are also almost irrelevant to the ostensible topic of this thread, which is main line electrification.

As is true of so many things in capitalist societies, the question of main line electrification, never mind the details of how it is to be implemented, is primarily an economic question; engineering, and engineering choices, are an important part of the equation, and are gone over with great care to determine the best return on investment. There is no room for ideology there. The fundamental question, which the railway and the engineer must solve, is 'what is the best way (in terms of return on capital) to move the expected traffic from point X to point Y'. If it turns out that a wheelbarrow is the best approach, so be it. If it involves electrifying -- by whatever means -- a given line, so be it. In most cases, it doesn't involve electrification.

If it does involve electrification, then the engineer is -- again -- faced with the task of determining the best way to do it.

Yes, railway engineers tend to be conservative. Frequently, railway equipment and fixed assets appear to be (to the uninitiated) overbuilt. But, as I said above, I would still like to think that railway engineers produce a product with exceptional reliability and safety, at a reasonable cost.

[MichaelSol]

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.

I think somewhere along the line, my point got missed.

I am speaking to the economic viability of an 80 year old system of railway electrification. I think that qualifies, by any analysis, as advocating a quite conservative view of railway electrification engineering. And this is particularly true from the standpoint of tens of thousands of miles of that system still existing and operating. Nothing is more conservative than well-engineered systems that continue to generate after nearly a century of operation a superb rate of return, for which modern propulsion systems still cannot match in terms of economic efficiency.

The problem is that in the discussion, many people are guided by conventional wisdoms. See the quote cited above: "3 phase AC is the cheapest form of moving energy. Period." Very emphatic. Very wrong. Yet, people seem to feel that this perception of AC power transmission is relevant to evaluating DC railway electrifications. That is found throughout this thread even though long distance transmission and locomotive power supply aren't quite the same things. Yet, that perception colors the debate.

Technology continues to change, in some cases requiring a reassessment of these conventional wisdoms that, in this case, makes assumptions that AC is just simply superior to DC. Since this is the startng place for many people -- see this thread -- the discussion doesn't go very far when the bias interferes with the discussion.

The first place that people, even engineers, start to fall flat on their face is this uninformed assumption: "AC is the cheapest form of moving energy. Period." To have a rational discussion, these mythologies have to be dispensed with. Once readers get the idea that these "inherent" advantages do not, in fact, exist at all, then the discussion can proceed to discuss genuine merits not simply obsolete ideas which not only distort the discussion, but are in fact wrong.

However, from the standpoint of future electrification, the steady, and remarkably rapid progress of HvDC suggests a trend to show that the very conventional reasons for AC railway electrification -- access to and ease of use of existing AC delivery installations -- will most likely become obsolete within our lifetimes. This is probable, not just possible. What is remarkable is that while much of the electrical engineering community is looking at this rapid evolution, this very thread, and indeed your post, shows the evidence that for this particular application -- railway electrification -- there is a stubborn resistance to even considering the operating and economic implications.

Something that good engineering, and in particular conservative engineering, always takes into account.

If there is a profound example of the advantages of conservative engineering, it is found in the 47,000 miles of existing 3kvDC railway electrification still operating around the world, nearly a century after the first wires for it were strung on the Milwaukee Road.

Hence, my point.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[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 publication 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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Railroad History apparently had a typo. I did not question you, you questioned my characterization of him as a historian. If you thought it important enough to question my characterization, don't be offended when you get an answer.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[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

[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

[greyhounds]

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

Well, we agree. I do characterize this as an insignificant detail. Whether the man is(was) "Curator of Transportation" or "Curator of Transporation History" at the Smithsonian has absolutely nothing to do with anything significant.

Discussion of his writing on why studies of establishing main line freight electrification in the US came up negative would be relavent and interesting - but you're stuck on his title. (There were such studies on the BN, ATSF, ICG, Conrail, and the UP, maybe more.) They produced no electrification. And what main line freight electrification that did exist, Conrail, Milwaukee, Virginian, etc. -- was shut down in favor of diesel operation.

Now understanding why would be interesting. And maybe things have changed.

But you want to argue about one word in a title.

[MichaelSol]

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.

This is typical. You brought it up -- ""Historian?".

Yes, I answered.

That's about as far as the discussion needed to go.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[jchnhtfd]

As a railway engineer, I will consider any technology which will help my railroad run better, last longer, and be cost effective. Power beams, if they ever prove feasible. Big springs. Whatever.

Mr. Sol appears to feel that his point has been missed; I haven't missed it. I am well aware of it.

Perhaps, however, he has missed mine?

End of participation.

James C. Hall, PhD, PE

[Murphy Siding]

It would be a genuine shame to *lose* an interesting thread with 73 views and 1026 views, over petty bickering.[V] Come on, guys-don't suck the fun out of this.

Thanks

[nanaimo73]

A few years ago I saw some video of large dump trucks at an open pit mine which ran on diesel engines. When they were climbing out of the pit they used catenary. Is this common ?

These trucks apear to be full electric.
http://www.mining-technology.com/contractors/transportation/gia/

[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.

[daveklepper]

Regarding tunnels, a center third rail electrification would make more sense than overhead catenary which would limit clearances and preclude double stacks. This could be DC at 3000V

[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!!

[bobwilcox]

There may be a Federal role for fixed investments other than electrification but we can't even get Amtrak's capital neeeds covered.

[greyhounds]

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.

Please don't bring Amtrak into this. Amtrak is guaranteed to loose any money invested in it. This thing will create, not destroy, the country's wealth. It's not Amtrak. Joining the two will only make this less likely to occur.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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!

[greyhounds]

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!

Yep! This is why it won't work. People will try to drag in their pet, unproven, projects like Amtak and Open Access. Instead of keeping it a straight project to electrify the main freight lines they'll try to load it up with their "pets".

The politicians will join in so they can "make a difference" and wield power.

Just buy some more diesel electrics and move the freight. Oh well, it was worth a thought.

[MichaelSol]

Well, in the 1970s, there was a government program for railroad electrification, administered by the FRA. No one took advantage of it. Milwaukee Road's legal department had run it through to final FRA approval, but Chairman Quinn failed to present it to the Board: politics trumped economics.

I do note that the railroads gladly participated in the 3R and 4R programs when government money was otherwise available, and gladly took advantage of government efforts to cut back on "excess capacity" by eliminating future needed capacity.

Whether government intervention into railroad infrastructure modernization would or wouldn't "work," the railroads jumped in with both feet to the extent that it created the basis for our modern infrastructure, however one might feel about that infrastructure.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

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 ...

How much do you think that problem costs?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[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

[Tulyar15]

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.?

Most of the European ones may have been but the Southern railway in England electrification programme in the 1920's and 1930's was done under private ownership.
The French TGV's were originally going to be gas turbine (as was the first British Advanced Passenger Train) but the oil price hike after 1974 saw the decision to go for electric TGV's instead.

As for the problem of changing locos, the Southern Region of British Rail solved that by developing the electro-diesel - an electric loco with a small diesel engine. Also I believe some railroads in the vicinity of New York city fit pick up shoes to their diesel locos so they can draw power from the third rail when running on electrified lines thereabouts.

[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?

[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?

[Leon Silverman]

Michael Sol complains about missing the analysis of NOT changing.
My engineering mathematics training included a technique called "Curve fitting" where you take a number of simingly unrelated data points and generate a mathematical formula for a curve that will predict other points on that curve or graph.
This is a very useful tool. However, if a data point is left off the curve, it will not effect the final formula. Consequently, I am frequently suspect of "mathematical Proofs".
The points generated by not changing were ignored and therefor had no effect on the figures generated. The results may not have been accurate, but they provided justification to the the people who didn't want to change anyway.

[TH&B]

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 ...
How much do you think that problem costs?


The costs would be as high as cascading train delays caused by power not being available on time at power change points. This is a commun problem on European railways where different electrifications meet. This can somtimes be solved with the added costs of supplying extra engines or dual purpose engines.

In Skandinavia some freight rail service failed to materialize due in part for the very expensive charges for use of expensive dual electrics from Sweden to Germany though Denmark wich uses a different "better" power source. Some trains where then run using diesels through out wich is discouraged by long tunnels and most traffic ends up on the hiway. I don't know how things are by now.

So to the answer for how expensive? Loosing the bussiness can be the cost.

Stations where they exchange power are a rail fans dream, but a railroads nightmare.

How did the MILW handle this? The "gap" must have been a problem.

[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?

[Anonymous]

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?

Your #4 is inconsistent with #'s 1, 2, and 3. If you want the taxpayers to aid in funding such an enterprise, you'll have to accept conditions to that aid. Otherwise, you better let the stock and bond holders know that they will be footing the bill.

And by "taxpayers aid", we mean anti-trust exemption as well as direct subsidy.

[nanaimo73]

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?

I don't think there is any chance at all of the Canadian Railways electifing their mainlines, at least until an American railroad has done it first and the new freight electrics are proven. CN has such a flat route through the Rockies that it is not necessary. CN does not even need AC traction locomotives. Canadian Pacific strung a quarter mile of catenary in Rogers Pass in 1972 to test it in winter conditions. This is just west of the west end of the Mount MacDonald tunnel. I don't know if it is still in place. I can't see CP being a leader in electification.

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?

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.

[gfjwilmde]

I grew up in New York City and Amtrak was in it's infancy when i was finishing junior high school. I had bought a book when Amtrak was in it's fifth year. In it was a photo of an ex NYC(Cleveland Terminal) electric unit pulling a reinstated New York-Chicago train up the Park Ave. viaduct past 125th station in Harlem. When i used to hang out in Grand Central Station in Manhattan, I seldom seen any of these heavy units doing any kind of road work. They were basically there to switch the station after trains had arrived or before departures. Although the engine change was in Croton-Harmon, NY(a mere 30+ miles north of the city), the sight to see such an old engine still being used to haul the mix of various streamlined cars was somewhat impressive to me. At the time, they were said to be the oldest units Amtrak was using to haul trains. I often wonder what the railroading landscape would have looked like if the freight railroads(especially the eastern one's) would have had a different view when the demise of steam engines was at hand and the need for new powerful locomotives were at stake. I also believe that Amtrak's decision to charge Conrail more money to use it's mainline and it's catenary system hastened the demise of RF&P's Pot Yard. Without the need to change from electric to diesel and back again, there was no need to classify trains there anymore. I worked with an oldtimer when I first started with Amtrak in Washington, DC., whom recalled the engine house and servicing tracks being full of Conrail's electric(G's, E33's & E44's). Many of those trains(& engines) were destined for Enola Yard which too was partly electrified. The few trains(he said) that were heading towards the northeast, often ran with diesels instead of electrics because of the high trackage(& catenary) utilization fees Amtrak were charging. The concept worked for many years, but as always, greed gets in the way.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!

[Anonymous]

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.

Spot electrification would work for select segments of track (upgrades, tunnels) if the electrical engineers can figure out a way to incorporate the bi-powered FL9 concept into the mix. Could New Haven's 600v work with multiple units and with adaquate power? What about a connection that takes in 3600v, converts a portion of that to the specs of diesel traction motors and spits out the rest via the dynamic brake grids?

[nanaimo73]

I still think the SD60MAC killed electrification for 30 years.

[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?

[ndbprr]

For additional lines to be electrified the overriding cost will be the power cost. Without cheap guaranteed power no industry or givernment can afford to take the risk with the capital. Since nuclear is frowned upon thanks to our doomsayers and greenies. That leaves only two sources of power that are cheap. Wind and hydroelectric. Wind probably can't generate enough and the enviro people would have a cow over more dams and pristine wilderness demands so don't look for anything in North America ever IMHO.

[oltmannd]

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?

[:D] "Reliable FL9" is an oxymoron!

The REAL question is why did the NH go back for seconds.....

[oltmannd]

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.

Agreed that locomotive productivity is part of the puzzle. But...

The real issue is what's the cost to deliver HP to the rear coupler of the locomotive consist. - including capital, energy, maintenance and locomotive ownership costs.

[oltmannd]

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.

Nobody on this RR even whispering about electrification. Capacity issue are being addressed by adding/lengthening sidings, a bit of double track here and there, better trains dispatching and train control systems, more efficient network design, intermodal terminal expansion, etc.

[Anonymous]

1. Making assertions about the lacking qualities of a dual mode locomotive based on the 50 year old technology of the FL9 is like saying the diesel-electric locomotive is only good for yard work (based on the original usage). Surely even the electrical engineering field has evolved over the past half century.

2. The reason the railroads won't adapt to any large scale electrifications is because there is no competitive incentive to do so. Railroads are natural monopolies, and as such can always pass on the cost of fuel to their captive shippers.

[nanaimo73]

What is the current ([;)]) state of electricty supply in the USA ?
I thought demand has been outstripping capacity for several years and prices are relatively high.

[MichaelSol]

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).

Railroads are complaining that certain of their mainlines are at capacity. How traffic levels could raise beyond that, that is, beyond existing capacity, in order to justify electrification, raises an interesting question as to just when electrification can ever be justified.

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?

Class I railroads have been on a capital spending spree, justifiabily so, to add capacity. The problem with capital intensive industries is their inability to adjust to economic downturns. Naturally, the other problem is that the ability to raise capital is limited. There is only so much capital spending that an industry, or a company, can afford. It's probably safe to characterize Class I's right now as "iffy" in terms of whether or not their income, current and future, justifies the expenditures.

Add in electrification costs on top of track capacity projects? Tough to see that happening if the electrification is in addition to existing projects.

However, as both engineers and economists point out, railroad electrification offers an alternative to continuing to expand physical capacity, while at the same time achieving reduced operating costs. In the times of economic downturn, it is the reduced operating costs that will be the payback, not thousands of miles of expensive track capacity.

From "Maximizing the Capacity of Shared Use Rail Corridors," by John A. Harrison, from TR News the national journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, Sept-Oct. 2002, p, 21:

"Line capacity is a function of train acceleration and braking rates, train lengths, safe braking distances and times,train headways—affected by train performance, train length, signal systems, and human factors such as reaction times—and the number of tracks and the spacing of crossovers."
...
"Increasing speed in sidings, reducing siding-to-siding spacing and time, improving train control systems, and adding double track can increase track capacity. Electrification is another way of increasing capacity ..."

At today's fuel/electric power price differential, electrification offers a means of increasing capacity in a capital intensive industry, while reducing operating costs signficantly compared to alternative capital investments which yield no such benefit.

Whether the trade-off of savings against investment costs is justified, and how that compares to the alternatives is, as is usually the case, determined best on the basis of thorough and competent studies. The most recent Class I studies I am familiar with, BN circa 1975, compared 56 cent diesel fuel costs and 17% cost of capital against 8 cents per kwh electric power costs, and it was a close call. But nobody was needing second, third, fourth or fifth mainline tracks then, either.

It would be interesting, I am sure, today with 6% cost of capital, $2.20 cost of fuel against 5 cents/kwh. I would not place a confident bet that the cost savings might not exceed, substantiallly, the cost of capital, while generating an opportunity cost saving by increasing capacity at the same time.

The problem is the problem anytime there is a conventional wisdom in an industry, and surely in an industry where management, simply because of the enormous management demands of running corporations of the size and complexity involved, have little time or enthusiasm for innovation. and certainly without the idea of changing operations dramatically.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[BudKarr]

So much said and so much very well.

The Great Northern entered into the electrification of its Cascade Tunnel in 1909 and continued with it when the longer second tunnel was opened in the late 1920s. This idea is hardly anything new or novel.

The information provided by the gentleman from Switzerland sums up what I was going to provide. Europe and electrification could easily be the model for North America. The idea on this continent is to generate that electricity from as few petroleum based sources as possible.

The technology is there, and take it from someone who has spent an adult lifetime in the operational aspect of the petroleum industry, primarily outside of North America, it can be done.

Good thought provoking subject.

BK

[Anonymous]

Very good discussion on electrification. It appears that HVDC is the way to go, although some will disagree with this assumption. A recent posting summed it up: Why spend money on electrification when it is needed dearly to add double track, longer sidings, etc to increase capacity. There is only so much money in the basement of the railroad's offices. We have found out that the cost of the electrical aspects of our light rail system (catenary, substations, signalling, etc) is equal to the civil (grading) and track laying/ballast. Essentially you can double the cost of a railroad by electrifing (oops-I forgot signalling)

***

[Anonymous]

MichaelSol:

Nice article about HVDC. Note however, that about 90% of all high tension lines (alas in this neck of the woods) are shorter then 400 or so miles. That makes HVDC lose to typical AC transmission costiwse.

[ndbprr]

What is the current () state of electricty supply in the USA ?
I thought demand has been outstripping capacity for several years and prices are relatively high.

Yep! Remember California when Grayout Davis tried to outthink the markets? One other thing. 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?

[TH&B]

Another way to increase capacity is to run with the type of air brakes used on passenger trains. Passenger trains have more contol, it would make it easier for trains to apply and release quicker so trains would be able to run closer together with more accurate contoled brakes.

One of the biggest reasons for a class one US railroad to NOT electrify is not just cost in itself, but it's the risk. It is a big initial expense that the competeing railroads and truckers may not be paying out. By the time you benefit from it you might be out of bussiness already. I can see why the US won't electrify right now but the future may change.

[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

[Anonymous]

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

Okay, say you electrify and are buying the juice at market prices - how long until the project starts turning a profit compared to the alternative of just adding more sidings, etc?

[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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

This offers a key point to an industry highly dependent on energy. Electrification always offered the best opportunity to take advantage of the cheapest available source of power. Conventional generating plants continue to make significant strides in energy conversion efficiency, even as various alternatives come and go: coal, natural gas, oil. Only Electrification can take advantage of truly significant alternatives, hydroelectric and nuclear.

The Diesel engine reached its general maximum energy conversion efficiency decades ago, and while significant effort has been put into electronic control of the machines to increase the efficiency of overall energy use of the locomotives, the fundamental efficiency of the engine itself has not significantly changed, even as the technological frontier of energy efficiency of production has advanced significantly over recent decades.

The capital investment argument against Railway Electrification is the identical argument used by the old rust belt industries as their excuse to avoid change. It is at the same time a compelling argument -- the numbers always look daunting for major capital investments -- and a deceptive argument -- it maintains obsolete technologies which ultimately kills those companies reluctant to make the investment.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15
In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.

Yep, more than a few energy companies here in the US have made the same horrific mistake, e.g. replacing coal fired electricity at .02/kwh with a "new and improved/environmentally friendly" natural gas combined cycle-fired electricity, which unfortunately raised the cost of generation to .20/kwh at today's natural gas prices. Stupid is as stupid does, and all those PC utilities executives who threw away the cheap alternative for the extremely costly alternative should be fired.

The best thing those energy execs could do now is to replace those natural gas plants with coal gasification plants. They may not be able to go back to the .02/kwh price, but at .04/kwh it's still better than those natural gas plants. And if they use the gasification/methanization technology, they can run those plants as peakers, generating electricity at peak electricity demand and pumping out sythetic natural gas into the system when natural gas demand peaks.

[Murphy Siding]

Do they buy that natural gas from open access pipeline companies?[:-,]

[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.!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Do they buy that natural gas from open access pipeline companies?[:-,]

No, they buy that natural gas from natural has producers, who then utilize open access pipelines to deliver the product. The phrasing of your question is like asking if coal burning utilities buy their coal from BNSF (or UP, et al). They don't, they buy the coal from the coal companies. And yes, it is cheaper to ship natural gas via open access pipeline than it is to ship coal via closed access railways, although that is more of an apples to oranges comparison. (Hmmmm, need to figure out the shipping cost on a $$/mmBtu basis, but we do know that rail transportation costs amount from a third to half the delivered cost of coal, and as far as I can tell the transportation costs to ship natural gas amounts to pennies per therm compared to the wellhead price.)

[Anonymous]

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.!

Doesn't Britain still have vast coal reserves? Why denigrate your balance of trade by importing something you can manufacture domestically at a lower price (assuming Russia is selling at market prices)?

[espeefoamer]

How are Amtrak's new GEs that can operate on diesel or electric power,that they operate out of New York working out. Is Amtrak having the same problems New Haven had with the FL9s?

[MichaelSol]

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.

Economies of scale in power generation have been well understood for over a century. The diseconomies of small scale, with very small engine plants puttering all over the landscape, and the enormous resulting energy inefficiency, is a modern marvel.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[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.

Thx IGN

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?
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..

[blue streak 1]

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 ?.    

[Anonymous]

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.  

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.    

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

[daveklepper]

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.  

[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

[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]

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

[carnej1]

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

 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..

[blue streak 1]

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..

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.