"Modernizing" the BNSF Transcon

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael, would you agree an electric has to be well designed to last 2-3 times longer, it's not guaranteed.
Some of the last mainline electric freight locomotives built were the 7 GMD GF6C for BC Rail. I believe they were worn out after 16 years.

http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/ttd/gf6c_2.html

Well, of course I think that a heavy DC electric will outlast an AC electric every time, but the Black Mesa & Lake Powell 50kvAC electrics reached nearly 30 years of 24/7 operation. Depends on mileage. The Tumbler line electrification was designed for a use level that did not materialize. I understand the traction motors were of a poor design and had to be rebuilt. That's pretty unusual for any locomotive; good grief, if EMD didn't have traction motors figured out by then ....

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

MichaelSol: I'm curious where the price of $1.5 billion comes from? Compared to the post on page 1 about theNEC, this seems like a bargain.

Urban electrification is certainly more expensive than out in the country. Multiple track electification is certainly more expensive than one or two mainlines. Railway electrification costs have been steady for years. A Milwaukee-style DC electrification can be done for about $36,000 per mile ranging up to $1 million per mile for high voltage AC.

[vsmith]

Also where would the electricity for all this come from, you'd have to build a lot of infrastucture that an awfull lot of people may not want in their back yard!

Not only that but what power source, Nat Gas is the only continuous fuel source that doesnt get the enviromentalist in a tizzy, Solar and wind are too sporatic, Coal?, plentiful but way expensive to build a clean powerplant. Nuke? dont even go there! Gas will have to hit $10 a gallon before people will warm up to Nuclear power again....too much baggage! Not just powerplants, but transmission lines, substations, switching stations, breakers, theres a LOT of extras that go along with electrification...where would these go, how do you get past the enviromentalist, the NIMBYs, and the weak-kneed politicians who won't back anything remotely threatening to their reelection campaigns...?

Dont get me wrong, personally I see it as inevitable that most of the US's lines will end up electrified in the next 50 years, its how we get there thats going to be a troubled path.
Were too deeply ingrained in Big Oil.

We'll see more Hybrid technology before we see moves toward electrification. The tipping point will be when we reach peak oil production in the next decade and it becomes obvious that we will have to cut the oil ambilical cord...but doing so is going to be very very painfull for most American businesses.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

Probably not. All that would change would be the ultimate source of energy for moving the trains. UP would be better off spending its money to continue the double-tracking project.

Because of overload capacity which is not available in a diesel-electric locomotive, electric locomotives have more available short time horsepower.

This improves acceleration, as well as offering improved speed on grades. On the same track, an electrically-powered train operates, typically, at a higher average train speed. A rule of thumb is that electrification will improve track capacity by anywhere between 5 and 20% depending on a variety of factors including number of meets, grades, curvature, etc.

Which is why I believe UP would be better off electrifying it's Blue Mountain lines between Hinkle OR and Nampa ID, rather than electrifying the Sunset route. This is UP's big headache in terms of operational constraints, and due to the grades and other mountainous characteristics would provide the biggest bang for the buck in terms of increasing capacity to and from the PNW.

I'm not all that familiar with the Sunset route, but isn't it's alignment more in tune to a lot of flat running?

As for BNSF, they should look into re-electrifying the Stevens Pass line, since current train limits are around 25 to 30 per day, and they probably would gain by increasing that capacity to 35 or 40 per day. And not only in raw train numbers, but the types of trains that run over that line as well, in that electrifying would allow grain and coal trains to use that line once again without the operational fears of slow lugging and broken knuckles. This would also allow the Puget Sound bound grain trains and the Centralia coal trains to vacate the Columbia Gorge line, whose capacity problems are not as "fixable" with electrification.

[edbenton]

Futuremodal I am having trouble but for once I agree with you reelectrifing Stevens pass will allow better utlization of that route

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electrification would have a way of congealing the locomotive pool since straight electrics would be tied to the catenary. Dual-power locomotives would in theory not be tied to the catenary but unless the entire road fleet is so equipped, such locomotives couldn't be allowed to stray too far from the end of wire. As an example, Amtrak's dual-powers rarely get west of Albany or Buffalo.

As mentioned in other posts, the electricity would have to come from somewhere, and unless the local utilities have spare generating and transmission capacity, additional power plants and transmission lines would need to be built at appreciable expense, and getting permits for that construction would take more than a little time.

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

MichaelSol: I'm curious where the price of $1.5 billion comes from? Compared to the post on page 1 about theNEC, this seems like a bargain.

Urban electrification is certainly more expensive than out in the country. Multiple track electification is certainly more expensive than one or two mainlines. Railway electrification costs have been steady for years. A Milwaukee-style DC electrification can be done for about $36,000 per mile ranging up to $1 million per mile for high voltage AC.

One of the biggest expenses in electrification is raising the highway bridges above the tracks - that item alone was half the estimated cost for electrifying the freight RR's in So Cal (from the electrification study). Cost per track mile in the country is going to be less. I'm also under the impression that there was considerable upgrading of the NH - Boston line as part of the project.

Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense.

Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal.

[daveklepper]

And also pulling through a tunnel?

[carnej1]

"Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal."

[MichaelSol]

EMD proposed a dual power source SD-40 to the Milwaukee. It would have had a pantograph and generate 3000 engine hp while the diesel was running, and 5400 rail hp while using the 3 kvDC contact wire.

Milwaukee's Electrical Engineer vetoed the proposal.

While running in diesel mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive diesel locomotive. While running in the electric mode, the Company was paying for a very expensive electric locomotive. While running as a diesel, the Company lost available electric horsepower. While running in electric mode, the Company lost available diesel horsepower.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem
Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense.

With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile.

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikem
Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense.

With silicon diode rectifier substations added in, the cost --power supply and overhead -- was about $45,200 per mile.

That sounds like a good number for the early 1970's - implies "the gap" could have been closed for ~$10,000,000.

The Milw used a pair of 4/0 trolley wires, which comes out to 6600 pounds of copper per mile. At $3.50/pound (fudged from futures market prices), that $23,000 just for the copper in the contact wire. Throw in the cost for messenger wire, hangers and feeder plus 35 poles per mile, you would be lucky to come in under $200k/mile (number pulled out of my rear end...). That still would be a bargain compared to the $1M/mile for the AC electrification.

[erikem]

QUOTE:
Anyone know the status of this? The FRA and DOE were funding a program to build a prototype passenger turbine (using the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive)with a flywheel energy storage system but I believe it's a dead project.....................

Don't know what's become of that project...

GE is supposedly working on a hybrid locomotove for freight service - using batteries for energy storage. It might be useful in hilly country as opposed to mountainous country. I think the ideal application for a hybrid is a commuter rail locomotive - possibly recovering a lot of the braking energy and improving acceleration.

[Tharmeni]

The initial question here is not that farfetched. BN studied doing long-route electrication as late as 1988. The intriguing part of it is that the line would not be subject to Arab fuel cuts, embargoes, etc.

But it IS the initial cost that led BN to drop the plan. However, TSA monies have been spent on much less worthy projects.

[carnej1]

I seem to remember reading (on the Milwaukee Road Historical Society site IIRC) that in the early to mid 1970's General Electric proposed to the Milwaukee a complete rebuild of the electrification to modern AC standard including a new electric locomotive fleet and "closing the gap". As this would allow GE to test new technology in anticipation of large scale Class 1 electrification (widely predicted during the 70's energy crisis) they supposedly offered a financing package with little or no up front cost to the RR. But MR management passed.......

[Anonymous]

In Britain there is some discusion about a project called HST 2, to replace the Diesel HST, one of the most successful trains ever to turn a wheel. One idea floating about is hybrid technology with betterys to aid acceleration and to be charged using dynamic breaking. One of our railway magazines called Moden Railways has just had a quick look at this and worked out that if HST 2's Diesel powercars were a modern clone of HST 1, to make it hybrid you'd need to add 8 tons of battery. Basicly they concluded that at the moment it's not likely you can scale up a Prius for Railway work.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1

"Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal."

The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better.


Bert

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1

"Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal."

The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better.



Bert

Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era.

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1

"Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal."

The North Shore had locomotives that could run on battery power back in the 50's. Now that was with 600 volt DC, but I am sure that 60 years of progress could get you somewhere even better.



Bert

Are you aware of the existence of Railpower Technologies and the Green Goat? Unfortunately, battery technology at the large scale required hasn't improved that much over the years since the dual-powers and tri-powers of the pre-WW2 era.

I would assume hat the Green Goat uses lead -acid batteries for a couple of reasons. The first is that lead-acid is still the king in cost/watt-hour of the battery technologies. The second is that low weight isn't a requirement for the Goat.

What has changed since the days of the pre-WW2 dual and tri-powers is the advancement in motor control circuitry, where it is possible to have efficient operation off of a constant voltage bus (i.e. battery). The gensets on the Goat work pretty much the same way the generator/alternator works on a car - they keep the batteries topped off (batteries aren't being deep-cycled). Since the gensets are running at pretty much constant power, it is much easier to keep them running clean, than a diesel that's constantly being throttled back and forth from run 1 to run 8.

Back to batteries - lead acid batteries have several failings, poor energy density, poor power density, a limited number of discharge cycle before wearout (lifetime is a problem for just about any battery technology), lotsa corrosive stuff in the battery, and a general safety hazard of the energy stored in the battery. NiMH batteries have a much higher power density and moderately higher enegy density. Li-ion batteries have both a much higher power and energy density than lead-acids (price per watt-hour is higher as well). It is technically feasible for a commuter operation to run on Li batteries, but not economically feasible.

If I were going to do a dual power electric, my choice would be to go with "Ultra-Caps" - they'll last through 100,000+ charge/discharge cycles, have very good power density and can be bled off for maintenance. The idea is to permit having significant gaps in the wire and not having to worry about stranding the locomotive.

[Anonymous]

Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels.

Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery.

However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Electrification is around $1,000,000/mile these days - DC or AC - doesn't matter. In urban territories it might be more expensive - likewise with long tunnels.

Locomotives last longer since there is no big infernal combustion engine on board - so much less vibration, wear and tear. 50yr life spans are not unheard of with 60+ in certain examples. But that was for straight electrics. How long wil current generation of thyristor-solid-state-rectifer locos last is a mystery.

However - american style 200 ton loco, properely overbuilt :P with good quality materials would be pretty much eternal with proper maintenence.

More likely to become technically obsolete before they were worn out.

John Beaulieu

[DrummingTrainfan]

Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option??

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan

Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option??

With 3rd rail you would have to fence the ROW as any someone walking across could get quite a jolt. Also there would be breaks in power at grade crossings, which with passenger is not that big of a deal, but a long freight train losing power could stall very easily.


Bert

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan

Excuse the [D)], but why not just use 3rd rail? The technology already exists in the P32 to have diesel/electric combo locomitives. How do prices compare with 3rd rail and cantenary? Is 3rd rail even a viable option??

Not viable, typical power for a locomotive in Europe is 5 MW of power. Power (Watts)
is voltage multiplied by Amperage. In this case divide the Wattage by the voltage
5000000 divided by 750 equals 6667 Amps, you can weld about anything with that much power. Realistically you would want at least 3000 volts if you are going DC.
Even then you would probably need heavier wire than that used by the Milwaukee, and more frequent substations. You certainly don't want that much power at ground level. Touch it and it doesn't just kill you is turns you into a crispy critter.

[Anonymous]

Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC.

Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary.

600 volt 3rd rail and 8000 hp locos really don't mix well :P

[Anonymous]

Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading.

[mudchicken]

Where in the heck does anyone call electrifying the Santa Fe transcon "modernizing" or efficient?......Did someone convolute a fairy-tale and go out trying to brainwash folks again? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Well - polish experiments with a 6MW (~8000hp) locos required specially designed catenary - one which withstand top load of 4000 amps. Polish system is 3000 V DC.

Going electric with the usual 8000-12000 hp unit train consist locos would require either higher voltage on DC or 25000V+ AC catenary.

Milwaukee typically (every day) ran two Little Joes with a 4 unit boxcab helper. Working hard, that was well in excess of 20,000 hp at 3400 vDC.

[DrummingTrainfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull

Third rail would not be an option in areas that are subject to heavy snow or freezing rain accumulations. Also in areas where there are wildlife the right of way would have to be fenced as you wouldn't want the right of way scattered with electrocuted moose, deer, elk and bear. In areas that are subject to rock falls, mudslides and avalanches there would be constant repairs. I don't think the 3rd rail option is viable at all. Mainline railroading is not the same as suburban railroading.

That does make sense, but wouldn't rockslides and the such also have a negative effect on cantenary? The wires have to be held up by something (poles) that can be knocked over by a rockslide or a mudslide. I've also heard of many stories about ice and snow negatively effecting cantenary in the NEC similarly to how regular powerlines get knocked down.

However, I do believe that cantenary and animals get along much better than 3rd rail and cantenary do. The only issues I can think of would be an animal somehow knocking over a cantenary pole, which is much less likely than an animal accidentally getting toasted on the 3rd rail.

Yet again the forum logic outperforms mine [:I][:o)].

[Jack_S]

QUOTE: Originally posted by silicon212

Biodiesel is the wave of the future.

Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass?

Biodiesel is a phantom. There is not nearly enough arable land in the USA to grow enough biodiesel crops to fulfill the USA's fuel needs. And every bit of land used to grow biodiesel means less land to grow food.

Jack