July TRAINS item on electrification - the "FL9" solution?

[erikem]

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but power management for BNSF and UP is already going to get a lot tougher. Starting sometime in 2009, both railroads will only be allowed to operate  locomotives meeting Tier II or better in Southern California (LA Basin). There are still a lot of road locomotives in both companies fleets that only meet Tier 0 or Tier I standards. They will have to be switched out before they arrive in the LA Basin. Look for the rest of California to follow and the standard to move up as Tier III and eventually Tier IV standards are introduced.

I could see LA to Yuma/Needles/Yermo/Bakersfield as being the first part electrified. 

Interestingly, that was the thust of the hearings done by the Southern California Regional Rail authority in 1990-92. The estimated cost at that time was 4 billion dollars. As I mentioned in another thread, about half the cost was due to providing the clearance for a 50KV catennary over doublestacks. 

[MichaelSol]

By 1972, the Boxcabs were retired. E29ACB, E50AB and a C unit, E45ABCD, and I recall E37 or possibly E-39ABCD were still soldiering on, but by and large, the fleet was gone. I don't keep track of details on numbering, but that's what I recall. The Coast Division Electrification operation was suspended -- there wasn't anything left to run on it. Only the 12 Little Joes remained in service, 22 years after their purchase. The remaining Boxcabs moved to the Rocky Mountain Division.

Wandering off topic into a sidebar here...

I didn't know that the Coast Division had been stripped of electric motive power! Wow-talk about cannibalization! That was, what, 200+ miles of railroad? Was this more because of the retirement of locomotives or because of an increase in traffic? Did the electrics ever return or did the Coast Division remain all diesel until the end? If the electrics did not return, was the electrification system kept up or left to deteriorate?

The Coast Division was kept in "ready" status, with maintenance continuing, until the final termination decision for all of the Electrification was reached in February, 1973. Salvage began thereafter. The RMD continued in operation until June, 1974, when salvage began after the final operation on June 16. Motive power was officially retired in July, 1974, except for the E50AB, which was officially retired from service in 1977. She had been the first electric unit operated on the Milwaukee Road in 1915. There had never been a major overhaul.

I was sent to record her actual removal from service, March, 1973, with the removal of her pans.

In storage, 1974:

In 1975, she was moved inside.

 

[MichaelSol]

Futuremodal has expressed his interest in dual-service locomotives, and while I happen to think the idea can't fly from a strictly economic perspective, ideas like that offer a challenge to think about.

This was the Electrical Engineer's perspective, and he was interested...

Office of the Electrical Engineer
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co.
1100 East Milwaukee Way
Tacoma, Washington 98421

September 7, 1972

Mr. R.B. Wallis
ElectroMotive Division
La Grange, Ill. 60525

Dear Mr. Wallis,

You asked my opinion as to the merit in augmentation of diesel output by separate electrical supply on the Milwaukee Road.

To give some current perspective, TE curves of an SD40 and SD45 have been added to the curve you prepared (attached). The general conclusion indicated is that augmentation essentially doubles the SD40 output horsepower in the mid range speed using a double drive motor from the separate electrical supply. Such conclusion would suggest further exploration of the scheme.

This system, which presents a new management alternative to resolution of the electrification status, would not require wiring the gap or upgrading substations or feeder. It would allow through operation of power on the Idaho. It would utilize standard diesel parts as used throughout the country. It would allow continued use of the EF-4 engines.

The added engine complexity would be countered by fewer units required and reliability and flexibility added by two power sources.

Such a flexible system suggests that time could be bought during a transitional period of uncertainty on railroads as regards mergers, coordination, motive power technological development, fuel-energy concern and possible Federal government encouragement of electrification.

Recognizing that our trolley efficiency varies as the square of the voltage and that the boosted conversion introduces a loss, the desireability that the unit accept 3000 Vdc becomes evident.

The augmented diesel could serve as a transition by other railroads to full electrification and give incentive to hardware development.

The hard fact of life-weight on drivers must still be faced. This suggests the possibility of developing a solid state module that could go in parallel with an individual traction motor. This could supply additional controlled energy to each axle modulated to result in the 25% adhesion which ASEA has attained (see schematic).

With individual controlled added power to each axle, rapid dropping of this power to prevent slipping would tend to throw the load over to the diesel generator I believe.

This alternative would have to be justified on the basis of reduced engine maintenance and ownership cost.

Further feasibility requires estimating cost for such a unit and projected maintenance cost.

A chopper controlled electric engine that could achieve 25% adhesion is still the most promising possibility.

Very truly yours,

/s/

George R. Frazier
Elecrical Engineer
The Milwaukee Road

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but power management for BNSF and UP is already going to get a lot tougher. Starting sometime in 2009, both railroads will only be allowed to operate  locomotives meeting Tier II or better in Southern California (LA Basin). There are still a lot of road locomotives in both companies fleets that only meet Tier 0 or Tier I standards. They will have to be switched out before they arrive in the LA Basin. Look for the rest of California to follow and the standard to move up as Tier III and eventually Tier IV standards are introduced.

I could see LA to Yuma/Needles/Yermo/Bakersfield as being the first part electrified. 

Interestingly, that was the thust of the hearings done by the Southern California Regional Rail authority in 1990-92. The estimated cost at that time was 4 billion dollars. As I mentioned in another thread, about half the cost was due to providing the clearance for a 50KV catennary over doublestacks. 

Yet another reason to go to single stack operations!

[Anonymous]

Futuremodal has expressed his interest in dual-service locomotives, and while I happen to think the idea can't fly from a strictly economic perspective, ideas like that offer a challenge to think about.

This was the Electrical Engineer's perspective, and he was interested...

Office of the Electrical Engineer
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co.
1100 East Milwaukee Way
Tacoma, Washington 98421

September 7, 1972

Mr. R.B. Wallis
ElectroMotive Division
La Grange, Ill. 60525

Dear Mr. Wallis,

You asked my opinion as to the merit in augmentation of diesel output by separate electrical supply on the Milwaukee Road.

To give some current perspective, TE curves of an SD40 and SD45 have been added to the curve you prepared (attached). The general conclusion indicated is that augmentation essentially doubles the SD40 output horsepower in the mid range speed using a double drive motor from the separate electrical supply. Such conclusion would suggest further exploration of the scheme.

This system, which presents a new management alternative to resolution of the electrification status, would not require wiring the gap or upgrading substations or feeder. It would allow through operation of power on the Idaho. It would utilize standard diesel parts as used throughout the country. It would allow continued use of the EF-4 engines.

The added engine complexity would be countered by fewer units required and reliability and flexibility added by two power sources.

Such a flexible system suggests that time could be bought during a transitional period of uncertainty on railroads as regards mergers, coordination, motive power technological development, fuel-energy concern and possible Federal government encouragement of electrification.

Recognizing that our trolley efficiency varies as the square of the voltage and that the boosted conversion introduces a loss, the desireability that the unit accept 3000 Vdc becomes evident.

The augmented diesel could serve as a transition by other railroads to full electrification and give incentive to hardware development.

The hard fact of life-weight on drivers must still be faced. This suggests the possibility of developing a solid state module that could go in parallel with an individual traction motor. This could supply additional controlled energy to each axle modulated to result in the 25% adhesion which ASEA has attained (see schematic).

With individual controlled added power to each axle, rapid dropping of this power to prevent slipping would tend to throw the load over to the diesel generator I believe.

This alternative would have to be justified on the basis of reduced engine maintenance and ownership cost.

Further feasibility requires estimating cost for such a unit and projected maintenance cost.

A chopper controlled electric engine that could achieve 25% adhesion is still the most promising possibility.

Very truly yours,

/s/

George R. Frazier
Elecrical Engineer
The Milwaukee Road

I'm not clear on the whole "weight on drivers/25% adhesion" discussion.  Was this an attempt to improve the adhesion of the SD's to 25%?  What was the rated adhesion of the SD's on the Milwaukee mountain grades?  If it was simply a matter of increasing weight on the SD's drivers, wouldn't the necessary added equipment provide this increased weight, aka that would be a net positive, not a net negative?

It is interesting that with the dual mode concept there is a recognition of the possibility of maintaining the 3kv system as it was while also improving the intra-industry standardization possibilities if a future merger was in order.  Mr. Frazier also seems to suggest that dual mode engines would improve relative reliability of the engine fleet.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Prior to the advent of sophisticated wheel-slip control systems and AC traction, an adhesion rate of 25% was considered the maximum possible under ideal conditions.  Since adhesion is expressed as a percentage of weight on drivers, adding weight does not improve the adhesion ratio even though it may increase low-speed tractive effort. 

[oltmannd]

Prior to the advent of sophisticated wheel-slip control systems and AC traction, an adhesion rate of 25% was considered the maximum possible under ideal conditions.  Since adhesion is expressed as a percentage of weight on drivers, adding weight does not improve the adhesion ratio even though it may increase low-speed tractive effort. 

Single axle wheels slip technology was a hot topic in the 70s and 80s.  If you could independently control the field on each TM instead of controling excitation, you could theoretically boost the overall "all weather" adhesion of a locomotive.  I'm not sure if the complexity and cost of single axle wheel slip control or the capabilities of Super Series/Sentry or the advent of AC drive sunk SAWS.

[cordon]

Is the 25% with, or without, sand?