LensCapOn carnej1, The Eurolight is not quite focused the way I would like, being more of a light weight hi-speed design. A base assumption is the BB would have a performance curve close to the new AC engines, just down sized for the lower power and weight. AC bits should be widely available soonish and a V-12 Cummings QSK95 would be another way to the needed power. A tier 2 builder might try something like that on a GP38/40/50/60 frame. GE and Cat would need 8 cylinder versions of their GEVO and H265 engines as a start.
carnej1,
The Eurolight is not quite focused the way I would like, being more of a light weight hi-speed design.
A base assumption is the BB would have a performance curve close to the new AC engines, just down sized for the lower power and weight. AC bits should be widely available soonish and a V-12 Cummings QSK95 would be another way to the needed power. A tier 2 builder might try something like that on a GP38/40/50/60 frame.
GE and Cat would need 8 cylinder versions of their GEVO and H265 engines as a start.
You could put the machinery/electrical system onto a US styled roadswitcher frame and it wouldn't be lightweight and highspeed...however it also would need SCR/Urea to meet Tier IV so probable the railroads over here won't want it.. BTW, the V12 Cummins uses urea as well.
GE does make Inline 6 and 8 cylinder versions of the GEVO engine which are in the 2300-3000 HP range and has offered them as part of a locomotive repowering package:
http://www.ecomagination.com/portfolio/l250-6-8-cylinder-engine
The H265 is not Tier IV compliant and can't be sold in the U.S,but it is the starting point for the new Cat/EMD Tier IV EGR locomotive engine (which will be called something elese) in the same way GE developed the GEVO from the HDL engine. Maybe an 8 cylinder version of that will appear in time..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
BuslistPassengers in lead vehicles OK on tier I operations not OK on tier II. IIRC break point is 90 MPH.
NorthWest zkr123 Why are there no AC traction 4 axle locomotives such as GP40AC or SD40-2AC? (Well, the 40 series hasn't been built since the '80s) 1. Weight. An AC B-B would probably be overweight, thus the AIA-AIA ES44C4. -- snip -- AC is expensive, as is any new locomotive, so carriers use demoted road power that would otherwise have no use.
zkr123
Why are there no AC traction 4 axle locomotives such as GP40AC or SD40-2AC?
(Well, the 40 series hasn't been built since the '80s)
1. Weight. An AC B-B would probably be overweight, thus the AIA-AIA ES44C4.
-- snip --
AC is expensive, as is any new locomotive, so carriers use demoted road power that would otherwise have no use.
A couple of comments:
Weight: AC motors for a given rating are lighter than DC motors, but it sounds like the presently available inverters with their supporting hardware (eg. cooling) more than make up for the savings in motor weight. Silicon Carbide MOSFET's are rapidly approaching the point where they could be used for locomotive traction inverters - Cree is selling a half-bridge module rated at 1700V/300A which weighs 300gr. The SiC parts can run at higher junction temperatres than Si parts, which lowers the weight of the cooling system. The SiC parts also run at much higher frequencies than Si IGBT's whch lowers the weight of the input and output filters.
Cost: AC motors are usually cheaper than equivalent DC motors, though the inverters can more than make up for that "deficiency". The higher switching frequency of the SiC parts should make it possible to avoid the expense of an invreter grade motor as the SiC based inverter should be able to ouput a clean sine wave.
While a niche market, I think there would be some demand for B-B's with the adhesion and low speed CTE advantages of AC drive. Typical application is a line with stiff grades and sharp curves where C-C's would put a lot of stress on the track.
- Erik
This conversation reminds me of the non-driving idiots that travel on NJ roads. "Right Lane is for conversations on diesels", "Left Lane is for talk about passenger trains" The idiots that can't make up their minds drive down the middle. When someone actually makes up their mind what this forum is about please let me know. In the meantime, I have a train to catch to NYC, riding in the cab car, of course, being powered by a PL42AC (with 4 AC Traction Motors)
pajrr In the meantime, I have a train to catch to NYC, riding in the cab car, of course, being powered by a PL42AC (with 4 AC Traction Motors)
In the meantime, I have a train to catch to NYC, riding in the cab car, of course, being powered by a PL42AC (with 4 AC Traction Motors)
M636C pajrr In the meantime, I have a train to catch to NYC, riding in the cab car, of course, being powered by a PL42AC (with 4 AC Traction Motors) And not just the PL42AC... You could arrive on Amtrak from Albany behind a GE P32AC-DM, also used by the MTA. There are the EMD DM30-AC units as well... not to mention the two F69PHs In fact nearly everybody has built at least one four motor AC unit. But as you suggest, passenger service is seen as a different world where the laws of physics don't apply. I mean, they still use overhead electric locomotives in passenger service and everyone knows that you can't use overhead electrics for freight... M636C
What everybody knows is that using overhead electrics for freight in the U.S would require the same thing electric commuter operations and the Northeast corridor(to some degree) require, large public subsidies..
There is one place that may conceivably happen, the BNSF/UP Alameida corridor line running out of the LA Ports....
As far as using modern monocoque bodied high horsepower four axle passenger units for freight service, what did the poor Class 1 freight crews that would have to operate them (as opposed to roadswitcher style units) do to make you want to punish them so?
carnej1 What everybody knows is that using overhead electrics for freight in the U.S would require the same thing electric commuter operations and the Northeast corridor(to some degree) require, large public subsidies..
Sorry but but this makes no sense to me. Why would using electric locomotives to haul profitable freight require a large subsidy? We pay for diesel fuel or we pay for kilowatts. Is the subsidty for installation of the electrification infrastructure? Commuter operation and freight operation are very different beasts finically!
Not a subsidy, you are correct, but a huge huge investment. And private railroads have to invest the available capital in plant improvements that bring the most return on investment. And the national electric generating capacity does not have a lot of excess capacity waiting to be used at the present time. The greatest needs for capital investment are for expansion of terminals and extra tracks and flyovers at choke points to accomodate extra business. If the government wished to provide long-term low-interest loans for electrification and expansion of generating capacity and transmission, then electrification would make excellent economic sense, but only then at the present time.
BuslistIs the subsidy for installation of the electrification infrastructure?
In a nutshell, yes. Hell, yes.
Electrification over typical North American long-haul distances, with the associated provision of grid power to remote locations to feed it, involves orders of magnitude greater cost than, say, developing a synthetic fuel production technology at required magnitude to allow continued diesel operation (and there are many alternative uses for the synthetic product which allow stranded cost to be a safer investment overall, and provide economies of scale and do not require the physical plant to do load-following in realtime). I have seen many proposals to electrify American main lines, including the rather interesting one for dual-power locomotives that Conrail developed in the '80s. None of them makes any sense for a railroad that intends to maximize return (shareholder or otherwise!) on invested capital.
Therefore -- as indicated -- large 'public subsidy' is required to provide the distribution infrastructure for a typical electric railroad. Remains to be seen, or argued, whether maintenance costs for modern constant-tension catenary could be made low enough so that 'power by the hour' reliability would be the same or better as for the equivalent HP in diesel-electrics (or other wholly- or partially self-propelled forms of motive power).
We have one example of a railroad that conducted a concerted effort to electrify over long distances. That effort bankrupted the railroad fairly promptly. (And that was with wood poles and other expedients...) Note how quickly PRR backed off doing the actual electrification between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that 'mattered' as soon as Uncle Sam wasn't co-signing... and F units did the business about as well, with no need for All That Capital. (I still think it's a sad thing not to have the 9000-plus-foot tunnel under Horse Shoe, or GG2s based on the DD1's electrics... but considering what we now know about PRR finances in the '40s and '50s, perhaps not a particularly regrettable sad thing... ;-} )
Overmod We have one example of a railroad that conducted a concerted effort to electrify over long distances. That effort bankrupted the railroad fairly promptly. (And that was with wood poles and other expedients...)
We have one example of a railroad that conducted a concerted effort to electrify over long distances. That effort bankrupted the railroad fairly promptly. (And that was with wood poles and other expedients...)
So let's see. A railway invests in a ill conceived line extension, misses many of the population centers along the route and in many cases is literally only a stone's throw away from a long established competitor. The extension is additionally ill timed as traffic in that corridor plummeted a year after the extension was completed due to the opening on the Panama Canal. The Railroad is estimated to have spent $6bn current dollars on the project. The railroad probably mistakenly (due to lower than expected traffic levels) decides to electrify at an estimated cost of about $300m current $, or less than a 5% addition to the cost of the project. So in spite of the property reporting a, for that era, strong rate of return on reduced locomotive costs, which would have been far greater $ wise if the projected traffic had materialized, we are going to blame a bankruptcy of the company on that 5% additional cost.
No mention of the lack of traffic on that $6bn investment or all the debt taken on with a lease in 1921 of the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern (CTH&SE) and in 1922 the acquisition of the Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary to gain access to the coalfields of southern Indiana via the CTH&SE. Both of those railroads were heavily in debt.
The Idaho/Montana segment was turned on in 1916, the coast segment in 1919. The bankruptcy was declared in 1925. I think when the circumstances are put in context it is likely that the electrification had only a minor effect, if any, on the bankruptcy and certainly wasn't prompt.
Buslist Overmod We have one example of a railroad that conducted a concerted effort to electrify over long distances. That effort bankrupted the railroad fairly promptly. (And that was with wood poles and other expedients...) So let's see. A railway invests in a ill conceived line extension, misses many of the population centers along the route and in many cases is literally only a stone's throw away from a long established competitor. The extension is additionally ill timed as traffic in that corridor plummeted a year after the extension was completed due to the opening on the Panama Canal. The Railroad is estimated to have spent $6bn current dollars on the project. The railroad probably mistakenly (due to lower than expected traffic levels) decides to electrify at an estimated cost of about $300m current $, or less than a 5% addition to the cost of the project. So in spite of the property reporting a, for that era, strong rate of return on reduced locomotive costs, which would have been far greater $ wise if the projected traffic had materialized, we are going to blame a bankruptcy of the company on that 5% additional cost. No mention of the lack of traffic on that $6bn investment or all the debt taken on with a lease in 1921 of the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern (CTH&SE) and in 1922 the acquisition of the Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary to gain access to the coalfields of southern Indiana via the CTH&SE. Both of those railroads were heavily in debt. The Idaho/Montana segment was turned on in 1916, the coast segment in 1919. The bankruptcy was declared in 1925. I think when the circumstances are put in context it is likely that the electrification had only a minor effect, if any, on the bankruptcy and certainly wasn't prompt.
But what about AC drive 4 axle roadswitchers?
The Milwaukee didn't own any..
Yes, but the Milwaukee Road would have acquired AC (traction motor) B-truck road switchers if such a thing existed!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Yes, but the Milwaukee Road would have acquired AC (traction motor) B-truck road switchers if such a thing existed!
Only if they had pantographs on top (where's Micheal Sol these days, I wonder?)...
carnej1 Paul Milenkovic Yes, but the Milwaukee Road would have acquired AC (traction motor) B-truck road switchers if such a thing existed! Only if they had pantographs on top (where's Micheal Sol these days, I wonder?)...
He is generally on the MILW Yahoo group. Also, he runs this: http://www.milwaukeeroadarchives.com/ Or adds to it as he digs up more stuff.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
WSOR 3801 carnej1 Paul Milenkovic Yes, but the Milwaukee Road would have acquired AC (traction motor) B-truck road switchers if such a thing existed! Only if they had pantographs on top (where's Micheal Sol these days, I wonder?)... He is generally on the MILW Yahoo group. Also, he runs this: http://www.milwaukeeroadarchives.com/ Or adds to it as he digs up more stuff.
I've been to that website and it is very well done and informative.
Of Course, I have a fair idea of how Mr. Sol would view 4 axle AC Drive road switchers..almost certainly with the same disdain he expressed towards diesel electric motive power in general (what a thread that was..).
Not to beat this point to death (but I guess I am), I came across a long discussion of the electrification issued by the corporate offices on the announcement of its closure. I pulled out 2 quotes that shed more light on the relationship between the electrification and the 1925 bankruptcy of the carrier.
BuslistNot to beat this point to death (but I guess I am), I came across a long discussion of the electrification issued by the corporate offices on the announcement of its closure.
Let me take the time now to say how appreciative I am of your supplying this information. My original comment reflected precisely the kind of 'conventional railfan wisdom' about historical matters that I have disparaged with respect to the T1, and I am glad for the correction, in as much detail as you want to supply.
By the way, the same attitude applies to the comments regarding railhead martensite, which I do still intend to take up again when I've assembled some references. I am looking forward to reading the book when it comes out.
I would have communicated via PM, but you appear to have that feature turned off.
One question: what were the reasons the 200-odd-mile section between the two electrified zones was never bridged, if the electrification was acknowledged as being so great an advantage?
Can you provide a link to the corporate discussion, or cites to find it? That's something I would like to read in detail.
The Milw electrification was primarily on the mountain districts, where the proportion of locomotive weight on drivers made a difference along with regenerative braking. The ruling grade on the 200 mile gap was about 1%. The other problem of elecrifying between Avery and Othello was that the passenger trains went through Spokane with part of the distance on UP rails, where the freights took a more direct route. A third issue is that the gap was urther away from the hydroelectric plants powering the electrified divisions.
A related issue is WW1, with the combination of high copper prices due to demand for brass cartridge casings and the turmoil from the USRA. Had the US stayed out of WW1, the Milwaukee might have electrified the gap.
The Milwaukee did have sites planned for the substations between Avery and Othello.
Another area that might have benefitted from electrification was the stretch from Morbridge SD to Terry MT, which was known for bad water.
Overmod Buslist Not to beat this point to death (but I guess I am), I came across a long discussion of the electrification issued by the corporate offices on the announcement of its closure. Let me take the time now to say how appreciative I am of your supplying this information. My original comment reflected precisely the kind of 'conventional railfan wisdom' about historical matters that I have disparaged with respect to the T1, and I am glad for the correction, in as much detail as you want to supply. By the way, the same attitude applies to the comments regarding railhead martensite, which I do still intend to take up again when I've assembled some references. I am looking forward to reading the book when it comes out. I would have communicated via PM, but you appear to have that feature turned off. One question: what were the reasons the 200-odd-mile section between the two electrified zones was never bridged, if the electrification was acknowledged as being so great an advantage? Can you provide a link to the corporate discussion, or cites to find it? That's something I would like to read in detail.
Buslist Not to beat this point to death (but I guess I am), I came across a long discussion of the electrification issued by the corporate offices on the announcement of its closure.
BTW the book went to final edit this week, guess you'll see my photo if you get it, but got to stay under the radar per a non disclosure agreement with my former employer.
Here's the link to the electrification write up. I think you'll find it fascinating.
http://www.oldmilwaukeeroad.com/content/proud/complete_text.doc
to quote the discussion
" The line through the gap, relatively flat and straight, lacked the immediate operating difficulties of the other two segments. The gap therefore had the lowest priority for electrification, since steam power could do the job well."
actually ran across this while searching for the type of heavyweight cars the Milwaukee used in commuter service prior to the bilevels, trying to model each major service, have my Wabash set, my IC set and my C&NW set, finishing my GM&O set, got more to go but another story.
Paul Milenkovic Don: The FRA doesn't let you seat passengers for intercity trains in the lead "thing", whether it is a locomotive, a power car, or a DMU. If the train is run push-pull, you cannot seat anybody in either the lead or the trailing unit of a passenger consist. Amtrak corridor trains have a 4000 HP 120+ ton locomotive at one end and a ballasted-with-cement-to-120 ton "cabbage car" at the other end, which has a baggage door but I don't think they provide checked baggage service on thise trains. In some cases, they have a Genesis Diesel at each end of the consist -- does the Vermonter or the Wolverine really need 8000 Hp? ...
Don:
The FRA doesn't let you seat passengers for intercity trains in the lead "thing", whether it is a locomotive, a power car, or a DMU. If the train is run push-pull, you cannot seat anybody in either the lead or the trailing unit of a passenger consist.
Amtrak corridor trains have a 4000 HP 120+ ton locomotive at one end and a ballasted-with-cement-to-120 ton "cabbage car" at the other end, which has a baggage door but I don't think they provide checked baggage service on thise trains.
In some cases, they have a Genesis Diesel at each end of the consist -- does the Vermonter or the Wolverine really need 8000 Hp?
...
The Wolverine corridor has been Amtrak's test bed for diesel HrSR and earlier PTC. Wonder if they need the extra power to get up to 110 mph, or if they want to have PTC equiped engines at both ends?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.