MichaelSol wrote:In contrast to AC practice, a DC "section" consists of two substations.
In contrast to AC practice, a DC "section" consists of two substations.
Yes, I realize that DC practice is to feed from both ends. Do you think that is an advantage? Or is it a work-around to overcome a limitation of the system? The low voltage means heavier contact wire, which means heavier supports and probably more of them, stronger anchorages for the tensioning system, the dual-feeding means more substations, and all of that is almost certainly going to cost more.
beaulieu wrote: MichaelSol wrote: In contrast to AC practice, a DC "section" consists of two substations.Yes, I realize that DC practice is to feed from both ends.
MichaelSol wrote: In contrast to AC practice, a DC "section" consists of two substations.
Yes, I realize that DC practice is to feed from both ends.
Well, my point was, it doubles the amps available.
Yes, there is a different argument about other aspects, and that too would be an interesting discussion.
daveklepper wrote:But conversion from 60Hz to 400Hz with power solid state electronics on the locomotive may be possible as developments in semiconductors progress. And that should drastically reduce the size, weight, and cost of transformers, which are one huge ticket item in ac 60 Hz 25000volt electrics.Michael, we have to stick with 60Hz AC because it is what the power companies provide and transmit. To go to high voltage dc would make sense, but you would then need power conversion at the substations in addition to doing again on the locomitve. The added costs would greatly outway the economies.I had not thought of frequency conversion right before the transformers to 400Hz until reading this thread. I wonder if GE or EMD have thought of it?
But conversion from 60Hz to 400Hz with power solid state electronics on the locomotive may be possible as developments in semiconductors progress. And that should drastically reduce the size, weight, and cost of transformers, which are one huge ticket item in ac 60 Hz 25000volt electrics.
Michael, we have to stick with 60Hz AC because it is what the power companies provide and transmit. To go to high voltage dc would make sense, but you would then need power conversion at the substations in addition to doing again on the locomitve. The added costs would greatly outway the economies.
I had not thought of frequency conversion right before the transformers to 400Hz until reading this thread. I wonder if GE or EMD have thought of it?
AC equipped diesel locomotives first rectify the output of the traction alternator to provide a DC bus for the inverters - current practice is to use IGBT's for switching - the output of the inverters is a variable voltage variable frequency AC. It would seem to me that an electric locomotive could be made by *cough* simply *cough* replacing the prime mover and alternator with the appropriate power conversion gear (whether it be converting from 60 Hz at 50KV or 25 Hz at 11KV or DC at 3.3KV) to provide the appropriate bus voltage. GE has been working on adding a battery pack to the internal bus on their future locomotives and such a battery pack could be very useful for an electric locomotive.
The ratings on IGBT's have progressed to the point where it would be practical to run the inverter off of a 2.4 to 3.3 KV DC bus - would have made for lighter cars on the old Lackawana and CN suburban electrifications than what they're using now after converting to AC catenary.
Back to 400 Hz - the real pain with 400 Hz is that circuit breakers won't work as well due to the very short zero crossing time - one of the advantages of 25 Hz over 60 Hz was the lower frequency was better in allowing arcs to quench due to the longer time at near zero current.
wallyworld wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The Electrification was just about studied to death between 1968 and 1972. Several proposals were made.1) The L.W. Wylie study of 1968. Proposed upgrades, electrifying the Gap, proposed a new electric locomotive design to be ordered up. A detailed engineering study that showed compelling cost operating advantages, but left it to the railroad to determine the best means of financing the upgrade. This study generated a great deal of internal review and, in turn, stimulated suppliers to propose equipment and actual costs to supplement the study.2) The three largest PNW electric utilities -- Puget Power & Light, Washington Water Power, and Montana Power Company -- put together a joint study and made a joint proposal. 1970 if I recall correctly. They favored continued DC operation based on their own study which showed that the DC was superior to AC for the Milwaukee's mountain operations, closing the gap, and purchasing new locomotives from GE, upgrading the system overall with silicon diode rectifiers, and raising the voltage to 3,900 vDC.Financing was a combination of salvage sales (replacing copper with aluminum on feeder), loans, and wheelage fees on the Milwaukee high voltage line; possibly from sales revenue generated from sales of the lines to the power companies.3) An updated Power Company study was submitted to the Milwaukee in 1971, based on GE and EMD actual price quotes for motive power.4) GE made a detailed proposal in 1972 to upgrade the entire system. It was instigated by the power company study. GE agreed with most elements of the power company study, including recognition that the existing DC system would be superior in operation to any alternative AC system. GE's proposal was more detailed than any prior study and, at least from a presentation standpoint, made a clear and detailed presentation based on GE's "Econometric Computer Program" and took the analysis clear through to a "before tax" and an "after tax" scenario.5) The MILW legal department's proposal to re-electrify using a high voltage, state-of-the-art AC system, financed almost entirely by a $250 million grant from the FRA as a demonstrator project for railroad electrification. FRA had approved it; all that remained was MILW board approval.6) MILW internal studies, ongoing. An interesting one was done by VP Management Services Gaye Kellow when he pointed out in 1970 that the most economically efficient system was a combined electric/diesel system like the Milwaukee was currently operating, rather than going either all-electric or all-diesel. The GE analysis showed that upon full operation in 1974, the system would have generated a net pretax savings at a 2.7% growth rate in traffic of $30,000. By 1980, the savings would have been just under $1 million annually at 2.7% or $1.4 million annually at a 5% growth rate, assuming diesel fuel at 16 cents per gallon by 1980. Total accumulated savings in each case by 1980 was $3.2 million and $4.8 million. By 1985, the savings would have been $8.9 million and $16 million respectively. In the all cases, the underlying assumptions of rate of growth and rate of diesel fuel cost increases were far too conservative, and actual savings would have been much greater.Over the estimated life of the system, by 2003 the respective total savings would have $221.6 million and $403 million. In that year, the annual savings would have reached $24 million and $49 milllion respectively.As it turned out, with substantially greater growth in traffic in the electrified zones, and substantially greater increases in diesel fuel costs than projected in the study, Milwaukee would have saved closer to $20 million by 1980 in annual operating savings.Fascinating insight into this topic from an historical viewpoint....
MichaelSol wrote: The Electrification was just about studied to death between 1968 and 1972. Several proposals were made.1) The L.W. Wylie study of 1968. Proposed upgrades, electrifying the Gap, proposed a new electric locomotive design to be ordered up. A detailed engineering study that showed compelling cost operating advantages, but left it to the railroad to determine the best means of financing the upgrade. This study generated a great deal of internal review and, in turn, stimulated suppliers to propose equipment and actual costs to supplement the study.2) The three largest PNW electric utilities -- Puget Power & Light, Washington Water Power, and Montana Power Company -- put together a joint study and made a joint proposal. 1970 if I recall correctly. They favored continued DC operation based on their own study which showed that the DC was superior to AC for the Milwaukee's mountain operations, closing the gap, and purchasing new locomotives from GE, upgrading the system overall with silicon diode rectifiers, and raising the voltage to 3,900 vDC.Financing was a combination of salvage sales (replacing copper with aluminum on feeder), loans, and wheelage fees on the Milwaukee high voltage line; possibly from sales revenue generated from sales of the lines to the power companies.3) An updated Power Company study was submitted to the Milwaukee in 1971, based on GE and EMD actual price quotes for motive power.4) GE made a detailed proposal in 1972 to upgrade the entire system. It was instigated by the power company study. GE agreed with most elements of the power company study, including recognition that the existing DC system would be superior in operation to any alternative AC system. GE's proposal was more detailed than any prior study and, at least from a presentation standpoint, made a clear and detailed presentation based on GE's "Econometric Computer Program" and took the analysis clear through to a "before tax" and an "after tax" scenario.5) The MILW legal department's proposal to re-electrify using a high voltage, state-of-the-art AC system, financed almost entirely by a $250 million grant from the FRA as a demonstrator project for railroad electrification. FRA had approved it; all that remained was MILW board approval.6) MILW internal studies, ongoing. An interesting one was done by VP Management Services Gaye Kellow when he pointed out in 1970 that the most economically efficient system was a combined electric/diesel system like the Milwaukee was currently operating, rather than going either all-electric or all-diesel. The GE analysis showed that upon full operation in 1974, the system would have generated a net pretax savings at a 2.7% growth rate in traffic of $30,000. By 1980, the savings would have been just under $1 million annually at 2.7% or $1.4 million annually at a 5% growth rate, assuming diesel fuel at 16 cents per gallon by 1980. Total accumulated savings in each case by 1980 was $3.2 million and $4.8 million. By 1985, the savings would have been $8.9 million and $16 million respectively. In the all cases, the underlying assumptions of rate of growth and rate of diesel fuel cost increases were far too conservative, and actual savings would have been much greater.Over the estimated life of the system, by 2003 the respective total savings would have $221.6 million and $403 million. In that year, the annual savings would have reached $24 million and $49 milllion respectively.As it turned out, with substantially greater growth in traffic in the electrified zones, and substantially greater increases in diesel fuel costs than projected in the study, Milwaukee would have saved closer to $20 million by 1980 in annual operating savings.
The Electrification was just about studied to death between 1968 and 1972. Several proposals were made.
1) The L.W. Wylie study of 1968. Proposed upgrades, electrifying the Gap, proposed a new electric locomotive design to be ordered up. A detailed engineering study that showed compelling cost operating advantages, but left it to the railroad to determine the best means of financing the upgrade. This study generated a great deal of internal review and, in turn, stimulated suppliers to propose equipment and actual costs to supplement the study.
2) The three largest PNW electric utilities -- Puget Power & Light, Washington Water Power, and Montana Power Company -- put together a joint study and made a joint proposal. 1970 if I recall correctly.
They favored continued DC operation based on their own study which showed that the DC was superior to AC for the Milwaukee's mountain operations, closing the gap, and purchasing new locomotives from GE, upgrading the system overall with silicon diode rectifiers, and raising the voltage to 3,900 vDC.
Financing was a combination of salvage sales (replacing copper with aluminum on feeder), loans, and wheelage fees on the Milwaukee high voltage line; possibly from sales revenue generated from sales of the lines to the power companies.
3) An updated Power Company study was submitted to the Milwaukee in 1971, based on GE and EMD actual price quotes for motive power.
4) GE made a detailed proposal in 1972 to upgrade the entire system. It was instigated by the power company study. GE agreed with most elements of the power company study, including recognition that the existing DC system would be superior in operation to any alternative AC system. GE's proposal was more detailed than any prior study and, at least from a presentation standpoint, made a clear and detailed presentation based on GE's "Econometric Computer Program" and took the analysis clear through to a "before tax" and an "after tax" scenario.
5) The MILW legal department's proposal to re-electrify using a high voltage, state-of-the-art AC system, financed almost entirely by a $250 million grant from the FRA as a demonstrator project for railroad electrification. FRA had approved it; all that remained was MILW board approval.
6) MILW internal studies, ongoing. An interesting one was done by VP Management Services Gaye Kellow when he pointed out in 1970 that the most economically efficient system was a combined electric/diesel system like the Milwaukee was currently operating, rather than going either all-electric or all-diesel.
The GE analysis showed that upon full operation in 1974, the system would have generated a net pretax savings at a 2.7% growth rate in traffic of $30,000. By 1980, the savings would have been just under $1 million annually at 2.7% or $1.4 million annually at a 5% growth rate, assuming diesel fuel at 16 cents per gallon by 1980. Total accumulated savings in each case by 1980 was $3.2 million and $4.8 million. By 1985, the savings would have been $8.9 million and $16 million respectively.
In the all cases, the underlying assumptions of rate of growth and rate of diesel fuel cost increases were far too conservative, and actual savings would have been much greater.
Over the estimated life of the system, by 2003 the respective total savings would have $221.6 million and $403 million. In that year, the annual savings would have reached $24 million and $49 milllion respectively.
As it turned out, with substantially greater growth in traffic in the electrified zones, and substantially greater increases in diesel fuel costs than projected in the study, Milwaukee would have saved closer to $20 million by 1980 in annual operating savings.
Fascinating insight into this topic from an historical viewpoint....
So close, so soon before the oil embargo. It's enough to make one cry!
beaulieu wrote:Yes, I realize that DC practice is to feed from both ends. Do you think that is an advantage? Or is it a work-around to overcome a limitation of the system? The low voltage means heavier contact wire, which means heavier supports and probably more of them, stronger anchorages for the tensioning system, the dual-feeding means more substations, and all of that is almost certainly going to cost more.
I would think it has several advantages. One is inherent redundancy in that you will still have power if one substation dies (though it will be greatly reduced). Another is that the substations can be set up to current share by letting the output voltage drop when the current draw reaches the limit for that substation. Yet another advantage is lack of phase breaks.
3 KV DC is too low of a voltage for a new electrification, 10 to 15KV would be more like it. Higher voltages would run a higher risk of a fault that won't clear until the line is shut off for a second or so (which argues for some energy storage on the locomotive).
erikem wrote: 3 KV DC is too low of a voltage for a new electrification, 10 to 15KV would be more like it. Higher voltages would run a higher risk of a fault that won't clear until the line is shut off for a second or so (which argues for some energy storage on the locomotive).
The Milwaukee's choice of 3k vDC was an economic decision. GE had tested 5k and 6k systems. Railway electrification at 5K vDC was perfectly feasible. The 6k was rejected. The only reasoning or explanation I can find in contemporaneous accounts is that 6k required "freakish mechanisms" in the locomotives. Apparently some sort of engineering term I am unfamiliar with.
But, ultimately, it was simply a cost decision. The higher voltages required more expensive locomotives and cheaper overhead, the lower voltages required heavier overhead, but less expensive locomotives. The Milwaukee's particular conditions of distance, grade and tonnage -- and numbers of locomotives relative to the size of the installation -- put the decision squarely at 3,000 volts DC; just as the contemporaneous BA&P design was cost effective at 2,400 volts.
I am sure that the cost considerations have changed considerably, particularly in regard to using off-the-shelf, rather than custom built, locomotives. However, this note is a reminder that the decision at the time was not technology limited, but rather cost driven.
L.W. Wylie, with whom I spoke at some length regarding his 1968 study, and who was a consultant on various DC and AC electrifications throughout the world -- including the advanced AC Shinkasen high speed railway -- was adamant that the 3,600 volt DC system was superior for a regular freight, mountain railroad. I wish I had known better, 37 years ago, to take copious notes on his specific reasoning.
MichaelSol wrote: The only reasoning or explanation I can find in contemporaneous accounts is that 6k required "freakish mechanisms" in the locomotives. Apparently some sort of engineering term I am unfamiliar with.
MichaelSol wrote:The Milwaukee's choice of 3k vDC was an economic decision. GE had tested 5k and 6k systems. Railway electrification at 5K vDC was perfectly feasible. The 6k was rejected. The only reasoning or explanation I can find in contemporaneous accounts is that 6k required "freakish mechanisms" in the locomotives. Apparently some sort of engineering term I am unfamiliar with.
3 KV DC was probably the economic limit at the time the Milwaukee electrified and probably was close to the economic limit until very recently. What's changed is the availability of high voltage power electronics (e.g. Powerex has had a GTO that would hold off 4KV and rated at carrying 4,000 amps) and things may get even more interesting when SiC devices become more widely available.
While regenerative braking is possible with single phase AC (done by the N&W, VGN and GN), it is still a lot easier with DC.
Eventually many lines in North America will have no choice but to go to electrics. As the world runs out of 'easy to get' fuel, fuel costs will continue to rise. As the world develops lower cost solar, wind, hydro, tidal generation, the RRs will financially forced to convert from diesel to electric grid. The risk is, since we are so short-term focused, and do not believe in long term investment we risk waiting too long, then it will be too late in the sense that the costs to convert will be even more expensive, and our overseas competitors will already be enjoying an electric system that has already paid for itself many times over. When my son starts school it won't be French langauge he will be learning as a second language, I will be getting him taught Chinese....because 20 years from now China will rule the world and or economy will be broken. They will be driving the energy efficient hybrids and we will be riding the bicycles. Our cheap energy ride is over and the 'harsh reality' is just starting to begin. This is why USA and Canada are resisiting Kyoto Protocol. We believe it will cost us too much money money to convert from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that uses less fossil fuel. Other nations aroudn the world have already completed their obligations becase they were already less dependant on fossil fuels then we are.
erikem wrote: MichaelSol wrote:The Milwaukee's choice of 3k vDC was an economic decision. GE had tested 5k and 6k systems. Railway electrification at 5K vDC was perfectly feasible. The 6k was rejected. The only reasoning or explanation I can find in contemporaneous accounts is that 6k required "freakish mechanisms" in the locomotives. Apparently some sort of engineering term I am unfamiliar with.3 KV DC was probably the economic limit at the time the Milwaukee electrified and probably was close to the economic limit until very recently. What's changed is the availability of high voltage power electronics (e.g. Powerex has had a GTO that would hold off 4KV and rated at carrying 4,000 amps) and things may get even more interesting when SiC devices become more widely available.While regenerative braking is possible with single phase AC (done by the N&W, VGN and GN), it is still a lot easier with DC.
The newest E-Locos from the Big 3 European manufacturers all have IGBTs rated at 6.2 - 6.5kV so the DC link is now at that rating. Of course with IGBTs at that rating you can build Choppers to lift the DC voltage to the Link voltage. But no matter what, if the locomotive is going to produce 6MW then you need OHE that can provide that much. With modern microprocessor controls and 4-quadrant power convertors, regeneration isn't too difficult with single phase 60Hz AC either.
CrazyDiamond wrote: Eventually many lines in North America will have no choice but to go to electrics. As the world runs out of 'easy to get' fuel, fuel costs will continue to rise. As the world develops lower cost solar, wind, hydro, tidal generation, the RRs will financially forced to convert from diesel to electric grid. The risk is, since we are so short-term focused, and do not believe in long term investment we risk waiting too long, then it will be too late in the sense that the costs to convert will be even more expensive, and our overseas competitors will already be enjoying an electric system that has already paid for itself many times over. When my son starts school it won't be French langauge he will be learning as a second language, I will be getting him taught Chinese....because 20 years from now China will rule the world and or economy will be broken. They will be driving the energy efficient hybrids and we will be riding the bicycles. Our cheap energy ride is over and the 'harsh reality' is just starting to begin. This is why USA and Canada are resisiting Kyoto Protocol. We believe it will cost us too much money money to convert from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that uses less fossil fuel. Other nations aroudn the world have already completed their obligations becase they were already less dependant on fossil fuels then we are.
That's why I throw hydrogen into this discussion. With fuel cell technology, hydrogen is basically a "tankable" electricity. Thus, hydrogen is the carrier of the energy from an electrical source to an electrical use - without the complexity of a wired distribution system. It is a much better fit for the railroad business model. Hence the heavy research in Japan - who already has world class experience in electrical RR.
dd
PS: I am an electrical engineer by training and as much as I would like to see a US electrical RR infrastructure, I am still leaning toward hydrogen.
You are correct about Hydrogen being a tankable carrier of energy. Problem, is, for hydrogen to be pure enough for fuel cell operation (not just a additive to regular petroleum fuels) you need four times the energy you will get from the Hydrogen to convert it from some other source, using a projection of the most effiicent processes possible. This may be possibly someday be a technology useful for light duty machines like personal autos (although hybrids will be the way to go, for safety as well as other reasons, and electrics should have been the way to go with swappable batteries at filling stations, but the auto industry hasn't shown any willingness to buy this) but anyone who really understands the physics of the situation concludes quickly that railways are possibly the last place for this technology, even after aircraft. The conversion processes in use today give an energy output of about one-tenth the total energy applied to make the Hydrogen. This is the complete chain, from the power input to the conversion process to the output of the fuel cell to the electric motor drive.
Concerning the reduction of weight and size of the added equipment to make a diesel elctric into dual service with high-voltage catenary pickup capability, both for conversions of designs and for conversion of existing modern locomotives, the 60 Hz and combination 60Hz-25Hz transformers on modern electrics are a very major portion of the weight and real-estate on the locomotive. I had proposed twin locomotive pairs, one straight electric and one diesel-electric, which can be twinned or operated separately. When twinned, (with five heafty jumper electric power cables connecting the two) all eight or twelve axles can have state-of-the-art motors that draw power from the equipment on the straight electric when under catenary and from the diesel-electric when not under catenary. But for one unit to do the job, existing 60Hz equipment would just about increase the weight and bulk by 50% or more, and this is too much. But 400Hz would bring it down to reasonable size or whatever freqeuency Boeing does use. Again, the power electronics could pick up dc or any frequency the power company wishes to provide.
As to the merits or perceived disadvantages of various Voltages and AC vs. DC, I suggest you guys just look at Europe, where we have a whole plethora of differing systems. The best selling electrics here nowadays are multi-system locos, able to operate under AC, DC, and a number of different voltages (please see the Siemens EuroRunner or the Bombardier TRAXX family). There is plenty of experience as well as tried and true equipment for almost any electrical system imaginable. It's all doable in North America, but the COSTS... And don't forget the difficulty of reliable contact to caternary which is high enough to give clearance for double stacks!
Speaking of Fuel cell technology, I believe that it would be most practicable as a source of power for the substations, not as a mobile source of power in locomotives.
martin.knoepfel wrote:Italy's mainlines, except High-Speed-ROW, are 3kv DC. Some years ago, they considered going to 6kV, but they stopped the project. Several countries which started mainline electrication from scratch like the PRC or Denmark chose 25 kV AC. Same story for the UK, although they have a vaste network of DC third-rail in the Southeast and had suburban lines with 1,5 kV DC in several regions of the country.
A few years ago, upon the completion of the Transiberian AC electrification project, I did a survey of existing rail electrification mileage in Europe (including Russia). Summarized as follows:
AC
15 kV, 16 Hz .. 42,400 miles
6.6 kV 25 Hz .. 91 miles
25kV, 50Hz ... 74,373 miles
11 kv50Hz .. 482 miles
DC
1500 vDC.. 15,746 miles
3 kVDC .. 65,044 miles
1000-1200 vDC .. 572 miles
1800 vDC ... 21 miles
600-900 vDC ... 5,252 miles
3 kVDC mileage:
Russia .. 18,800 miles
Poland .. 11,967 miles
Italy ... 10,688 miles
Ukraine .. 9,000 miles
Spain .. 6,416 miles
The 3 kVDC is virtually all "Milwaukee" type -- patterned directly after the Milwaukee Road's installation.
Germany and Sweden both use 15kv 16 2/3Hz, but Denmark wich lies in between thse two countrys with no other rail route around, recently electrified with 25kv. What gives with that? Now they only have one type of loco that can travel through, the class EG.
To me this made no sense.
440cuin wrote: Germany and Sweden both use 15kv 16 2/3Hz, but Denmark wich lies in between thse two countrys with no other rail route around, recently electrified with 25kv. What gives with that? Now they only have one type of loco that can travel through, the class EG.
To an extent, these were political decisions. German and Czech engineering went into the 15 kV AC system, which Germany proposed to make a European "standard" at the particular point in time that it was "imposing" European standards.
After that particular war, France made it a national priority to impose a different standard that supported French industry. SNEC had been directed to develop an electrification standard that would break France away from the "dependence" path -- i.e. existing standards. For no other particular reason, SNEC developed the 25 kV AC system: it wasn't German and it wasn't General Electric. The French government pushed this as a European standard, naturally, and as opposed to the direct current systems as well as competing AC systems, it enjoyed loan subsidies from the French government.
Small nations electrifying for the first time, rebuilding electrifications from war damage, or in the case of Great Britain under the Labour party, adopting a "European" standard had substantial political tailwind, plus the availability of cheap loans. In its time, it was viewed as a "Socialist" electrification because it was new, represented the new idea of uniform integration, and promoted by France as such.
Practically speaking, it did cost about 10% less than a comparable 3 kVDC system to construct, but offered no demonstrable operating savings. Given the extent of existing DC electrification, adoption of 25 kVAC ironically slowed rail transport integration in Europe.
As a model of astute engineering, the DC 3,000 volt systems are in many cases approaching 90 years old. The technology is just about a century old. It survived several generations of steam, several generations of diesel-electrics, several varieties of AC electrification, and most of the original mileage, with the original motor-generator sets, is still going so strong that economic justification cannot be found for either termination or conversion.
Without diesels, I would not be a railfan! Electric trains are ok to ride on, but they suck as spectator events. There is absolutely NOTHING soul-stirring about a pure electric train.
bakupolo wrote: Without diesels, I would not be a railfan! Electric trains are ok to ride on, but they suck as spectator events. There is absolutely NOTHING soul-stirring about a pure electric train.
I beg to differ. Perhaps you missed the Milwaukee but I dare you to go spend a week along the Black Mesa & Lake Powell and tell me that is not a spectator event. From the moment that first pantograph of the day rises and slaps the trolley wire, bounces down and then restores contact it is all soul stirring. The machine comes alive, the auxiliaries hum to balance, the compressor rotates and pumps life into the reservoirs. The last act of the day is the dropping of the pans, the ppfffft of the air being released and the clatter of the metal nesting down onto the roof of the locomotive. The hum of the unit stops and the air in all the nooks and crannies pops, fizzes and escapes to the atmosphere it was borrowed from. Live a little here.
bakupolo wrote:Without diesels, I would not be a railfan! Electric trains are ok to ride on, but they suck as spectator events. There is absolutely NOTHING soul-stirring about a pure electric train.
I'm sure that there were some railfans who felt the same way when steam faded from general service too.
bakupolo wrote:Without diesels, I would not be a railfan! Electric trains are ok to ride on, but they suck as spectator events. There is absolutely NOTHING soul-stirring about a pure electric train
Diesel-electric is the compromise technology. If you need diesels to be a railfan, then perhaps you should question whether you are one, because you don't want to risk being a poseur…
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE. THE WORLD GOES IN CYCLES. Electrifying would cost millions upon millions. Besides look at the winter storms in the past four months. What if it takes out the pantogragh wire in areas of a storm. Can we really afford to lose rail service in some parts of the country for periods over three weeks due to a storm.
BNIRRLives
hopper wrote:I guess railroad electrification reached it's peak in the 1940's.or maybe sooner than that.Why did railroads get away from that??? During these times of global warming & green house gases,shouldnt the railroads also be looking for better ways of moving there payloads????Europe & the far east have trais runing on magnets & elctric power,it's time we get away from belching diesel locomotives and get some research started to geting some cleaner stuff on the rails.what's EMD or GE doing,anyone know???? Easter
If we are going to start pin pointing trains, then we need to look at the space shuttle and jets. GE developed the Evolution Environmentally friendly locomotive. Global Warming is not true the world goes through natural cycles.
BNIRRLives wrote: GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE. THE WORLD GOES IN CYCLES. Electrifying would cost millions upon millions. Besides look at the winter storms in the past four months. What if it takes out the pantogragh wire in areas of a storm. Can we really afford to lose rail service in some parts of the country for periods over three weeks due to a storm. BNIRRLives
That means the next ice age is just around the corner in about 3,000 years. What does global warming rants have to do with electrification? The energy to move trains has to come from somewhere. Some sources release more carbon emissions than others. Choose your poison.
Global warming is evident. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. Whether or not this is human caused or accelerated or purely a natural cyclical phenomon may be debateable but the rise in temperatures over the last 50 years is irrefutable. Get used to it. You will be affected in ways you cannot even begin to contemplate. The millions and millions needed to electrify is insignificant to the billions and billions which will be needed to try to deal with the unimaginable costs global warming is going to impose upon our societies.
Man, I hate when these threads get into partisan politics. I can go read this stuff at Fox News. Can we stick to trains here, no matter what your politics are, please?
MichaelSol wrote: To an extent, these were political decisions. German and Czech engineering went into the 15 kV AC system, which Germany proposed to make a European "standard" at the particular point in time that it was "imposing" European standards. After that particular war, France made it a national priority to impose a different standard that supported French industry. SNEC had been directed to develop an electrification standard that would break France away from the "dependence" path -- i.e. existing standards. For no other particular reason, SNEC developed the 25 kV AC system: it wasn't German and it wasn't General Electric. The French government pushed this as a European standard, naturally, and as opposed to the direct current systems as well as competing AC systems, it enjoyed loan subsidies from the French government. Small nations electrifying for the first time, rebuilding electrifications from war damage, or in the case of Great Britain under the Labour party, adopting a "European" standard had substantial political tailwind, plus the availability of cheap loans. In its time, it was viewed as a "Socialist" electrification because it was new, represented the new idea of uniform integration, and promoted by France as such.Practically speaking, it did cost about 10% less than a comparable 3 kVDC system to construct, but offered no demonstrable operating savings. Given the extent of existing DC electrification, adoption of 25 kVAC ironically slowed rail transport integration in Europe.As a model of astute engineering, the DC 3,000 volt systems are in many cases approaching 90 years old. The technology is just about a century old. It survived several generations of steam, several generations of diesel-electrics, several varieties of AC electrification, and most of the original mileage, with the original motor-generator sets, is still going so strong that economic justification cannot be found for either termination or conversion.
I think the French decision to develop 50Hz electrification was only partly political (France suffers badly from the 'not-invented-here' syndrome, probably more so than the US).
By the 1950's France had a considerable amount of 1.5kV DC electrification (the 1955 rail speed record runs used 1.5kV DC locomotives), but the limitations of the system were becoming apparent in high-power applications (thick and/or double contact wires to handle the high currents, closely spaced feeder stations etc) making it expensive to install.
High voltage industrial frequency (50/60Hz) AC minimises the cost of the feeder stations (just transformers and switchgear), but complicates the train equipment so it's well suited to longer distance lines with lower traffic densities. Given that by the late 1950's it was just about possible to make rectifiers usable in a high-power locomotive, the door was open to practical industrial frequency electrification - and of course France hoped to sell the idea/equipment to other countries. Low frequency, high voltage AC (e.g. 15kV 16.66Hz in Germany/Austria/Switzerland) has some of the same advantages but needs dedicated power stations or frequency converters in the feeder stations, and the on-train transformers are larger and heavier.
So technically (as well as politically) I suspect that going for 25kV 50Hz for future French electrification was the right decision at the time - even if it was prompted as much by 'NIH' considerations as much as technical need!
The 1.5kV DC electrification schemes in the UK were developed in the 1930's, but WW2 put the plans on hold until the early 1950's when they were dusted off and implemented (partly as job-creation schemes), so you could argue they were already obsolete when completed. Given that situation, moving to 25kV 50Hz for the first long-distance main line electrification in the early 1960's (London - Birmingham/Liverpool/Manchester) was probably the obvious thing to do, given that the French had already proven it could work. The existing 1.5kV DC lines were eventually either converted to 25kV 50Hz or abandoned.
Tony
CrazyDiamond wrote:Eventually many lines in North America will have no choice but to go to electrics. As the world runs out of 'easy to get' fuel, fuel costs will continue to rise. As the world develops lower cost solar, wind, hydro, tidal generation, the RRs will financially forced to convert from diesel to electric grid. The risk is, since we are so short-term focused, and do not believe in long term investment we risk waiting too long, then it will be too late in the sense that the costs to convert will be even more expensive, and our overseas competitors will already be enjoying an electric system that has already paid for itself many times over. When my son starts school it won't be French langauge he will be learning as a second language, I will be getting him taught Chinese....because 20 years from now China will rule the world and or economy will be broken. They will be driving the energy efficient hybrids and we will be riding the bicycles. Our cheap energy ride is over and the 'harsh reality' is just starting to begin. This is why USA and Canada are resisiting Kyoto Protocol. We believe it will cost us too much money money to convert from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that uses less fossil fuel. Other nations aroudn the world have already completed their obligations becase they were already less dependant on fossil fuels then we are.
Hi guys.
Maybe you're right and railroads will have to go to electrics - in the long term. But my bet for the short term is this: spot electrification and dual (maybe converted) locomotives.
Spot electrification would be done in places where most trains go full throttle or full dynamic brakes (such as steep grades or yard/station approaches). Line voltage would be handled directly by locomotive inverters (3.0 - 4.0 kV DC maybe) thus no heavy on board equipment required.
Conversion would only be possible for AC locomotives beacuse standard DC locomotives may not work as direct electrics. At least, a pantograph, a DC filter, a circuit breaker, extra wiring and complete re-programing of locomotive computers would be needed.
But it would be cheaper and easier than full electrification.
Is it feasible? I don't know.
Cheers.
owlsroost wrote: I think the French decision to develop 50Hz electrification was only partly political (France suffers badly from the 'not-invented-here' syndrome, probably more so than the US).By the 1950's France had a considerable amount of 1.5kV DC electrification (the 1955 rail speed record runs used 1.5kV DC locomotives), but the limitations of the system were becoming apparent in high-power applications (thick and/or double contact wires to handle the high currents, closely spaced feeder stations etc) making it expensive to install.
Ironically, one of the largest surviving 1500 vDC systems outside of Holland is in ... France, which retains nearly 6,000 miles of 1500 vDC line, compared to Holland's 2061 miles. Spain, Switzerland, and a few other countries retain some 1500 volt systems. Serbia retains the title, however, with 6,082 miles.
While urging everyone else to convert on the basis of economics ... France found little economic justification at home, even as Great Britain was furiously dismantling its 1500 v systems.
Take a look at most Canadian trackage areas- Try electrifying that.
The costs are astronomical, and we're having enough electricity problems anyway. There's the lack of versatility too.
Fuel cells and hybrids are the future, in my opinion.
-Tim
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.