Main Line Electrifications

[Anonymous]

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..

[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.