MichaelSol wrote:1. Cost of fuel.
1. Cost of fuel.
And carbon offsets if we ever conclude that CO2 is as bad as the enviro's think it is.
2. Equivalent cost of electric power. Currently, the cost of equivalent electric power is about 54% of the cost of diesel at $2.20 per gallon. For the DC systems I am familiar with, about 72% of the substation metered power gets to the rail. This results in an equivalent electric power cost at the rail of about 76% of the cost of diesel fuel.3. Cost differential due to regeneration. For a typical Western railroad profile, 15% of cost at the substation meter can be recovered by regeneration, offering a final equivalent electric power cost at the rail in favor of electrification of just about 65%.
2. Equivalent cost of electric power. Currently, the cost of equivalent electric power is about 54% of the cost of diesel at $2.20 per gallon. For the DC systems I am familiar with, about 72% of the substation metered power gets to the rail. This results in an equivalent electric power cost at the rail of about 76% of the cost of diesel fuel.
3. Cost differential due to regeneration. For a typical Western railroad profile, 15% of cost at the substation meter can be recovered by regeneration, offering a final equivalent electric power cost at the rail in favor of electrification of just about 65%.
I'm wondering if a high voltage (10 KV or so) DC system might be the way to go, using a "large scale" DC/DC converter on the locomotive to convert from the contact wire voltage to the internal bus voltage (the internal bus would be similar to the current AC motored Diesels) and you could even hang an energy storage subsystem (batteries, ultracaps or flywheels) to allow for power or regenration through gaps in the overhead.
Adavantages of a DC system include:
1. No phase unbalance from the power grid and better isolation from the grid.
2. Would be a lot easier to make use of regeneration.
Disadvantages include:
1. Electrolytic corrosion.
2. Substations more expensive than commecial frequency substations.
Yes I know the Europeans had the early Autobahns and stuff, but the USA built much bigger and longer freeways from the 50's on. Also the Autobahns were very straight but not realy very wide at fisrt compared to the big US highways and bridges. I also realise that Europe has a very extensive freeway system now.
JT22CW wrote: Lee Koch wrote:Since privatization, German Railway refurbished the substations and caternary of a former East-German branch line, but the lines are dead now, because a private competitor was able to provide less expensive service with diesel-electricsNot likely that the service is less expensive. Electric service is still cheaper than diesel service. (Which railway are you citing, incidentally?—with all due respect, I must ask for the name, otherwise I'm going to assume this to be hearsay.)
Lee Koch wrote:Since privatization, German Railway refurbished the substations and caternary of a former East-German branch line, but the lines are dead now, because a private competitor was able to provide less expensive service with diesel-electrics
He is obviously talking about the Rubelandbahn. To elaborate on the Rubelandbahn for other readers of this thread, the line is located in the former East Germany on the north side of the Harz Mountains. The main reason for the line is to access high quality Limestone. There are several quarries located near the crest of the mountains at the station of Rubeland. Prior to the electrification in 1965-66 the line was steam powered using powerful 2-8-2T rack locomotives, the final few kilometers into Rubeland is on a 6.0 % grade used the Abt Rack system. At the time of electrification the line was relocated reducing the maximum gradient. The electrification chosen was 25kV/50Hz. to give East German industry experience with the system. The line is connected to the main system but the electrification only runs to the base of the mountains at Blankenrode, so diesel traction is still needed to get the trains to the mainline. A few years ago when the time came to refurbish the electrical equipment, a lot of which was prototype equipment, the DB proposed to replace the electrification with diesels similar to the type 232 of Russian design with an Alco like emissions(i.e plenty of smoke when not fresh from overhaul). Political pressure from the local inhabitants meant money was found to renew the electrical equipment. With Open Access becoming the rule, DB was unable to retain the contracts to haul the Limestone and the new operators brought in diesels after promising to use only models meeting the latest emissions standards. The main model used is the Bombardier/GE Blue Tiger (a AC3200C double cab). Within the last year there is a renewed push to get the trains electric powered and to extend the electrification through the small city of Halberstadt and to the mainline near the Landhauptstadt (State Capitol) of Magdeburg.
John Beaulieu
Lee Koch wrote:I agree with dldance: the cost of stringing caternary accross the continent would be enormous
As for cost efficacy, don't forget that when European RRs were electrified, most of them were government entities with their own impressive budgets and lots of subsidies, so the costs of electrification were irrelevant
Since privatization, German Railway refurbished the substations and caternary of a former East-German branch line, but the lines are dead now, because a private competitor was able to provide less expensive service with diesel-electrics
440cuin wrote:I thought the Europeans electrified because they didn't have deep enough pockets to build a freeway network as fast as the US was able to afford like the Interstate highways and such
JonathanS wrote: In the early 60s when the P5 fleet was nearing its end, the Pennsy hired THREE consultant companies (they wanted to be sure) to report if continued electric operation was more economic than conversion to diesels. The results were that electric operation was more economic IF you already had the wire. If you needed to borrow money to electrify then diesel was more economic.
New Haven came to the same conclusion when they re-electrified their freight service between New Haven and Bay Ridge, for which service they purchased the ex-VGN EL-C's since any electrics that were in storage at Cedar Hill were too deteriorated to restore to service.
I agree with dldance: the cost of stringing caternary accross the continent would be enormous! As for cost efficacy, don't forget that when European RRs were electrified, most of them were government entities with their own impressive budgets and lots of subsidies, so the costs of electrification were irrelevant.
Since privatization, German Railway refurbished the substations and caternary of a former East-German branch line, but the lines are dead now, because a private competitor was able to provide less expensive service with diesel-electrics. I'm sure that hydrogen fuel cells will play a role in powering the locomotive of the future!
Diesels could certainly be converted to more environmentally friendly fuels over time (bio-diesel, ethanol, recycled fryer grease, etc.).
I thought the Europeans electrified because they didn't have deep enough pockets to build a freeway network as fast as the US was able to afford like the Interstate highways and such. Electrifying was done because it was cheaper and a quicker way to get transport to the large populations in less space available and using less fuel oil wich they had a hard time affording. Now of course Europe has matured it's freeway system but the US was way ahead in the 50' s and 60's.
If deisels are as strong as electrics how come P42DC's don't seem to accelerate even as fast as an AEM7 ?? It doesn't look or feel like they do anyways. I've seen the AEM7 pull a long train out of 30th Street Station and get up to speed impressively quick.
440cuin wrote: Turbines in stationary power plants run at constant rpms so they are far more efficient at generating electricity then the variable deisel engines in locomotives.
Turbines in stationary power plants run at constant rpms so they are far more efficient at generating electricity then the variable deisel engines in locomotives.
That's just not true. A turbocharged diesel engine has a very nearly linear power vs. fuel curve. Each increment or decrement in fuel gives an equal change in power from notch one thru notch 8.
An SD60 makes 13.71 KW per gallon, duty cycle weighted vs 14.56 in notch 8. Most of the difference is idle fuel offset.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
People tend to forget that the most of the Pennsy Electrification only happed because of government loans given during the Great Depression to help stimulate the economy. PRR had previous electrification in New York because of the tunnels and around Philly for the commuter service. The Pennsy had plans to electrify, but the majority didn't happen until Uncle Sam thought it was a good idea. Most of the European electrification occured because the railroads enjoyed the deep pockets of the governments.
In the early 60s when the P5 fleet was nearing its end, the Pennsy hired THREE consultant companies (they wanted to be sure) to report if continued electric operation was more economic than conversion to diesels. The results were that electric operation was more economic IF you already had the wire. If you needed to borrow money to electrify then diesel was more economic.
At the same time that the Pennsy was evaluating if they wanted to keep the electrification at all they were looking for replacements for the P5s. PRR had Baldwin-Westinghouse build the E3B and E3C ignitron test beds and had GE build the E2Bs which were simply updated AC traction motor locos. When the order was finally let, Pennsy had GE build the E44s using Westinghouse's ignitron technology. Talk about hedging the hedges to the hedges to your bets. But of course PRR was a very conservative corporation.
The limits are only imposed by coupler strength (on tractive effort, actually, and not really horsepower) and possibly track structure on curves. Electrification is desireable economically only where there is heavy traffic, and so a 10,000 HP locomotive is a possibility and possibly a desirability. Remember that the "best electric locomotives ever built," the New Haven EF-3's, had 9600 HP short-time capability, which they frequently did use hauling hundred car freight at about 40 mph up the grades on both sides to the Hell Gate Bridge. Took three or four GP-9's to do the same job. The trustees bought the ex-Virginians and two EF-4's (PRR E-33's) in multiple could also do the job. The GG-1's had slightly less horsepower, and those regeared from 100 mph to 90 were no slouches in freight service. Again, it was taking freight off the corridor that really doomed the Pennsy electrification for frieght.
When a 10,000 HP real dual service freight locomotive is practical and doesn't cost an arm and leg, say just 20% more than an equal pure diesel, and we are talking about 60Hz AC 25,000volts, then the UP will be interested again. Especially if the neat package is available to add to existing modern diesels. Possibly this 400Hz idea is the way to go!
Another requirement is no increase in real-estate taxes for the electrified rights of way.
And use by the power company for power line transmission.
daveklepper wrote: Please refer to previous posting for answers to a few of the questions raised. To continue, third rail is not practical today for long distances because the highest voltage possible without flashover situations at switches, which require gaps just like grade crossings, is 1500volts. Nearly all third rail lines today are 600 or 750 volts dc. 60 cycles per second AC is used because it is the commercial frequency. Nearly all dual service electric diesel electric locos today are dc 600 or 750 volts on electric, but high voltage AC is required for long distance heavy duty operation with reasonable cost of installation and reasonable spacing of substations. So overhead catenary is essential. The idea of 400Hz instead of 60Hz could be a solution applied on the locomotives, with solid-state electronic conversion at high voltage before step down via the transformers, and this could be a practical breakthough in reducing the cost of powerful dual-service locomotives. I wonder if GE or ED have thought of the idea? This is not off-the-shelf electronics but the technology is available.The battaries on the CA&E and North Shore passenger cars were for lighting and control circuits and not for power. They coasted across grade crossings. Just like the LIRR and the CTA. And as the NYC did (with grade crossings now gone). And still do through switch gaps. However, the CA&E and North Shore freight locos, several of them, did have battery power capability, and the NYC had triple power, oil engine, battery, and third rail freight locomotives.
Please refer to previous posting for answers to a few of the questions raised. To continue, third rail is not practical today for long distances because the highest voltage possible without flashover situations at switches, which require gaps just like grade crossings, is 1500volts. Nearly all third rail lines today are 600 or 750 volts dc. 60 cycles per second AC is used because it is the commercial frequency. Nearly all dual service electric diesel electric locos today are dc 600 or 750 volts on electric, but high voltage AC is required for long distance heavy duty operation with reasonable cost of installation and reasonable spacing of substations. So overhead catenary is essential. The idea of 400Hz instead of 60Hz could be a solution applied on the locomotives, with solid-state electronic conversion at high voltage before step down via the transformers, and this could be a practical breakthough in reducing the cost of powerful dual-service locomotives. I wonder if GE or ED have thought of the idea? This is not off-the-shelf electronics but the technology is available.
The battaries on the CA&E and North Shore passenger cars were for lighting and control circuits and not for power. They coasted across grade crossings. Just like the LIRR and the CTA. And as the NYC did (with grade crossings now gone). And still do through switch gaps. However, the CA&E and North Shore freight locos, several of them, did have battery power capability, and the NYC had triple power, oil engine, battery, and third rail freight locomotives.
The clarification on the limits of third rail use of DC was helpful..thanks. This is more of a theoretical question rather than a practical one, followed by a second. The first is that the use of third rail appears on the surface to be limited to DC strictly for safety reasons that are obvious...in other words, if a.c power was applied, one wonders what the upper limits of it's carrying capacity would be? I would think similar to catenary..maybe? The second question came from the use of 10,000 HP motive power...how long would a average train be if this horsepower was available in a single unit? A related musing...what is the upper limit in length of a freight train? There must be a practical limit...
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
greyhounds wrote:In Europe, the trains may be electrically powered, but that freight is going down the highway behind a diesel tractor
How about this?
Now what does this look like…
Closer to home for this one.
Datafever wrote:Is third rail electrification a viable solution if grade crossings are present?
Back when the PRR and LIRR were first electrifying, it was one of two competing technologies for electrification—Edison was the champion of DC, against Tesla and AC. The LIRR was also originally looking to use the NYC subway to access NYC, so that would have required using third-rail anyhow (their MP41 EMUs were built to IRT dimensions). Present-day LIRR (as well as some stretches on Metro-North) have the third-rail breaks at grade crossings, which is not terribly effective, but when you run 12-car EMUs, you can have enough access to juice to keep your train going. Third rail becomes a problem when you want to run electric motors (single-unit locomotives); although the NY Central first used motors before EMUs, at locations like Grand Central Terminal they used overhead third-rail to get through gaps at the track-level third-rail.
Also, third-rail has other problems like ground loss of current, not to mention requiring several more substations than AC overhead wire (compare 600 volt DC third rail needing a substation every two miles with 25kV 60Hz AC catenary system requiring a substation every 20 miles).
The LIRR uses third rail and has grade x-ings. 3rd rail can be aukward for crews when switching though. But it is done so it may be viable under certain circumstances.
Even though I do understand most arguements for why deisel is used thru out the freight railroads ((wich in itself might mean I'm brainwashed, hehehe)). Most of the rest of the world electrify as much main line as they can afford, wich just makes me wonder.
You can theoretically use third rail if a fail-safe way can be invented to only activate the third rail during locomotive pass over, e.g. the power line is buried underneath the third rail, and the current is transfered to the third rail by relay triggered by the locomotive passing over it. Basically you're using the same technology as is used to activate crossing signals. Problem is, we all have seen crossing signals go off on their own sans an actual train triggering it, and obviously you can't have a third rail becoming electrified due to the same causes.
Nothing says that it can't. Trains are nuclear powered in France and Japan.
Murphy Siding wrote: Why would it make any *more* sense today, than it did in 1974 and 1980?
Interest rates.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Aren't maintenance costs for the track higher under wire? You have to maintain the right of way, and the wire, and the cantery. Whenever we get the high winds or ice and snow here the NEC stops or grinds to a halt due to down wires. Going to school in West Texas, I would think it would be a nightmare to deal with poles and wires blowing away all spring, ice dropping lines all the time or breaking the wires. I know all the telephone and a lot of the power lines are buried in that region because of those very reasons (I am looking at a picture right now from Arizona and there are no lines on the poles anymore). Plus you would have to have another set of maintenance crews who could work with high voltage lines, or retrain a lot of guys to know how to deal with it (and pay more to those guys if I read my unions right), which means more benefits and retirement plans on the books, creating another snowball of expenses for the railroads. Then there is the need to keep two sets of parts for locomotives (since not all lines will be electrified, certainly not all right away) and the loss of interchangeability if you need a sub on a branch. Another whole set of maintenance storage materials for line replacement. Another source to get sued over (suc as when the rocket scientist climb up on stuff and get zapped touching the lines to see if they are live).
Don't make the mistake of trying to compare Europe and the US. Aside from being on rails, they are not performing the same tasks over the same distances.
Another advantage of electric locos is that they have a constant weight so tranction effort would be constant relatively. Deisels have maximum traction with a full tank of deisel.
Wallyworld, thank you for that response. I had not thought about coasting through the crossings.
Also, isn't there technology available that allows for the electrification of only the occupied block?
440cuin wrote: Turbines in stationary power plants run at constant rpms so they are far more efficient at generating electricity then the variable deisel engines in locomotives. If our freight railroads would run shorter more frequent trains, service would improve for shippers by offering more frequent or more direct services. Shorter faster more frequent trains would allow electrification to be far more advatagous and beat the deisel in efficientcy. Right now the railroads run on desperation, desperate to improve bottum line with run down, dirty deisels with over length and over weight trains with poor service to save on cost. This makes electric trains look bad, but if the railroad was truely running efficiently you'd probably see money for main lines with catenary.
If our freight railroads would run shorter more frequent trains, service would improve for shippers by offering more frequent or more direct services. Shorter faster more frequent trains would allow electrification to be far more advatagous and beat the deisel in efficientcy. Right now the railroads run on desperation, desperate to improve bottum line with run down, dirty deisels with over length and over weight trains with poor service to save on cost. This makes electric trains look bad, but if the railroad was truely running efficiently you'd probably see money for main lines with catenary.
Railroads, like any other business these days, are less concerned with providing good service as they are with doing more with less. Sure, it makes great sense to provide better service, with shorter more frequent runs; but that means employing more people, and paying out more in benefits for the rest of their lives. In short, it'll never happen, and in a way that's a good thing. I for one am sick of paying the dues (IE pensions) of retired people, because there won't be anything left over for me when the time comes.
oltmannd wrote: Since diesel is currently cheaper than it was in the mid 1970s and early 80s and those locomotive mounted power plants are even more efficient than they were back then, there is absolutely no reason to electrify.
Since diesel is currently cheaper than it was in the mid 1970s and early 80s and those locomotive mounted power plants are even more efficient than they were back then, there is absolutely no reason to electrify.
Well, electricity is relatively cheaper to diesel fuel than it was 30 years ago, too.
And production efficiency of a modern coal fired plant is greater than it was 30 years ago.
And pollution control equipment for modern coal fired plants is much more advanced than anything that has happened with the basic diesel engine over the past thirty years.
What has changed from 30 years ago is utilization of track capacity, and electrification offers a 15-20% increase in track capacity.
A proper analysis of electrification today, in fact, includes cost advantages in capacity returns and avoided construction costs that were not present thirty years ago.
A proper analysis would include:
4. Cost of financing. Currently, these outweight the fuel savings on a 15 year basis. At 9% financing cost, diesel fuel would have to reach approximately $3.01 per gallon before the savings in diesel fuel costs justified the direct costs of electrification.
5. Cost of financing -- service life. The cost of financing the diesel-electric fleet over a 30 year period substantially exceeds the cost of financing of an electrification system because of the economic service life of the diesel electric being currently between one-fourth and one-half of the economic service life of an electric.
5. Salvage value. The cost per rail hp of diesel vs electric is about the same. The cost of the diesels "displaced" by an electrification would be a credit to the cost of electrification.
6. Depreciation. The depreciation costs of the diesel-electric fleet on an 8 year depreciation cycle substantially exceeds the depreciation cost of motive power and overhead on the accepted depreciation cycle for electrical equipment of 30 years.
7. Avoided cost of capacity construction. At a 15-20% increase in track capacity, the avoided cost of new track -- particularly flat vs. rolling vs. mountain construction where new capacity costs are almost directly proportional to operating savings from electrification due to regeneration.
8. Higher revenue from expanded capacity on existing track vs the friction costs of greater capacity on existing track.
9. The cultural and corporate resistance of professionals who don't know anything about electrification and who would be ceding jurisdiction of important components of their areas of expertise to a differerent engineering profession.
10. Willingness to take risk -- and there is always risk with capital investment -- in an industry where the current industry structure now permits cost inefficiencies in this area to be passed on to the customer.
This top ten list is quite a menu of considerations. Cost of diesel fuel is almost the least important of the considerations.
Two other trends will continue to postpone major electrification in the US. (1) Diesels are getting cleaner so the smoke issues have been diffused, and (2) the price of copper and aluminum for transmission lines has skyrocketed.
Best long-term bet (50 years) for replacing diesel from my studies will be hydrogen powered engines (either fuel cell or conventional) with nuclear reactor based hydrogen generation.
dd
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.