As a supporter of future electrification I find that demand pricing is a death warrant for any electrification. The only way to avoid that is for RRs to purchase their own generating facilities. Maybe they could buy a coal burning facility that a power company plans to retire ? Amtrak certainly has its own at the Safe Harbor hydro generating facility.
Understand that NS has some natural gas wells on its property at Altoona. If so they could put a generating station there using the GE Turbine recuperative generating system for a stable power source. That would allow for electrification up and down Horseshoe. The GE system claims almost a 50%energy recovery metric.
Unfortunately that is only a short distance maybe as far as Pittsburgh ? How the generation of electricity be either 3 phase or single phase. Single phase would mean it cold not sell excess power to the net. 1 phase would be much like PRR's system though probably 60 Hz ?
There seems to be confusion here about "demand" pricing. You will always have a demand factor even if you have your own plant. You must have enough capacity to meet the demand. If you want to roll your own re: power generation you will have to spend the money on the machinery to meet that demand. If you buy from a utility you will pay based on the highest 15 minute interval. You can combine demand and time of day for a lower rate. For instance if you will only require that demand at night when production is cheaper and there is more capacity available the rate will be lower.
What happened in Texas is that what is basically a shady deal called Griddy offers residential service at the spot price plus their cut. When everything is normal and in full production it is cheaper. When the spot price goes up 1000% then so does you bill. People who were buying from a utility saw no difference because their rate is regulated.
So you are going to pay for demand any way you slice it. You can pay it to a utility, a merchant generator, or the manfacturer of the equipment and the fuel supplier.
I wrote
"I see that variable costs are a negative factor to RRs. Yet, aren't diesel fuel costs also fluctuating according to the price of oil, the marke situation, tax percentage and possibly other influences?
I feel RRs are maybe expecting a special price because they are so vital to the business traffic of the nation and they are already so hard struck by .. competition with trucking companies etc?"
My remark on variable costs of electricity was posted under my 'austerity' account which I created for when I can't access my proper account.
Sorry if it caused confusion
Juniatha
Juni,
One difference between variable costs of diesel fuel and variable costs of electricity is that it is much easier (and cheaper) to store diesel fuel than electricity. The Milwaukee's Cascade electrification was basically shut down between 5 and 6PM in the winter months as the rates for electricity depended on the peak demand in that timeframe.
The thing about electric demand pricing is that the railroads have an alternative to paying high demand charges when they run their trains. Diesel-electric locomotives.
It might be that railroad management may be short sighted to simply not let the power company string the catenary and pay whatever the power company wants. In electric power terms, oil burning diesel engines are used or have been used for "peaker plants" and especially for standby power for people who cannot stand to have their power interrupted. This includes nuclear power plants where grid power runs the reactor-circuit cooling pumps, and if that power is interrupted, Really Bad Stuff Happens.
It goes back to those publicity cartoons for the California High Speed Rail, where sleek trains lettered with "Fly California" zipped past turning windmills supplying green electricity. Only windmills are a particularly unsuited supply of electric power for a high-speed train service that you want to run like clockwork without delay or interruption, otherwise, what is the point of a high-speed train?
With an electric railroad, you have the capacity limitation of the grid and the generating plants layered on top of the capacity limitation of a rail network, and the US railroads, so far, have said, they would rather have the expense of paying for their expensive source of mobile electric generators -- the diesel-electric locomotive -- than deal with demand charges.
You could also say the electric power companies are short sighted to not want to "cut a deal" with the railroads, not understanding that the rails are another layer of capacity constraint someone has to deal with.
The railroads don't want to buy power on terms favorable to the electric companies, but the electric companies don't want to sell power under terms to close a sale with the railroads. Is this Capitalism resulting in bad decisions? I don't know, but I don't know if the people "pushing" electrification know all of the operational and economic constraints?
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 The thing about electric demand pricing is that the railroads have an alternative to paying high demand charges when they run their trains. Diesel-electric locomotives. It might be that railroad management may be short sighted to simply not let the power company string the catenary and pay whatever the power company wants. In electric power terms, oil burning diesel engines are used or have been used for "peaker plants" and especially for standby power for people who cannot stand to have their power interrupted. This includes nuclear power plants where grid power runs the reactor-circuit cooling pumps, and if that power is interrupted, Really Bad Stuff Happens. It goes back to those publicity cartoons for the California High Speed Rail, where sleek trains lettered with "Fly California" zipped past turning windmills supplying green electricity. Only windmills are a particularly unsuited supply of electric power for a high-speed train service that you want to run like clockwork without delay or interruption, otherwise, what is the point of a high-speed train? With an electric railroad, you have the capacity limitation of the grid and the generating plants layered on top of the capacity limitation of a rail network, and the US railroads, so far, have said, they would rather have the expense of paying for their expensive source of mobile electric generators -- the diesel-electric locomotive -- than deal with demand charges. You could also say the electric power companies are short sighted to not want to "cut a deal" with the railroads, not understanding that the rails are another layer of capacity constraint someone has to deal with. The railroads don't want to buy power on terms favorable to the electric companies, but the electric companies don't want to sell power under terms to close a sale with the railroads. Is this Capitalism resulting in bad decisions? I don't know, but I don't know if the people "pushing" electrification know all of the operational and economic constraints?
The Bonneville Power Administration and Tennesee Valley Authority both offered the Railroads power free of the demand charge back in the 40's. The expansion of hydroelectric power generation and utilizing it's capacity was one factor in both agenices offering RR's the discounted rate to electrify lines in their prospective geography, and quite possibly beyond.
Paul M. wrote: " Is this Capitalism resulting in bad decisions? I don't know, but I don't know if the people "pushing" electrification know all of the operational and economic constraints?"
Paul, to me it looks like it - however hard it is to swallow in 'God's own land of capitalism'. But it was modern type capitalism that pushed the RRs to scrap the whole of their motive power and buy the same again by venturing into incumbrance that often ended in financial disaster, with the diesel industry 'working' hand in hand with the oil industry and banking and I don't wanna know with whom else to make a gigantic heap of profit - by brainwashing CEO's to such extent that people repeat their sales slogans even today. It is the same connection that today makes a due and technically only logical decision impossible and keeps RRs under the influence of the same production companies.Just take a look at the car market and see how progressive US cars are today in relation to imports. Why are imported makes so successful despite all those custom duties imposed on them? People just want a Japanese car, or a 'Beamer', or a Merc, which today means Mercedes, not Mercury - no matter if customs make them 20, 30, or 50 % more expensive. Where is Detroit today? The same goes with the RRs, just take a look at their wobbly maintenance delayed track - with exceptions mostly found on BNSF, CSX, and UP - just take a look at their freight train speeds that brings down monthly mileage covered by units and cars - mobile investments that should run, not dawdle, make high ton-miles figures to make revenue.About all those constrictions with electric energy: take a look at Europe where all this doesn't exist to such exorbitant prohibitive dimension - and Europe is by no means united, rather it is a loose congregation of nations which all tend in differing directions. They don't have a central European government, the US have their's - but it doesn't use its power to set clear and fair rules in this 'tohu-va-bohu' so things can be brought forward to everyone's advantage. Run electric during hours of low power charges and run diesel during high charge hours - that would be the solution to make America weak again - before the eyes of everyone!Heavenly advice is bitterly craved for!
And you don't need two fleets of locomotives to do it.
Erik_Mag Juni, One difference between variable costs of diesel fuel and variable costs of electricity is that it is much easier (and cheaper) to store diesel fuel than electricity. The Milwaukee's Cascade electrification was basically shut down between 5 and 6PM in the winter months as the rates for electricity depended on the peak demand in that timeframe.
Is this still true? The cost of battery storage is dropping like a rock. The inherent costs to site and permit Petroleum storage is non-trivial. To say nothing of transportation costs.
Why wouldn't the railroads simply supply their own line side battery/capacitor Storage stations just as the utilities are looking at for variable renewables. They could, in theory buy their power at off peak times or at fixed rates as their draw on the grid could be smoothed.
YoHo1975Why wouldn't the railroads simply supply their own line side battery/capacitor Storage stations just as the utilities are looking at for variable renewables.
For low-cost alternatives, see the somewhat strangely-named 'liquid metal batteries'. I actually went to talk to investment bankers about commercializing magnetic storage in the late '90s, after a couple of breakthroughs in insulation and cryogenics.
There are some highly interesting alternatives that arise out of some of the work being done on commuter-engine 'tenders' in Fullerton -- using batteries no longer fully suitable for vehicle traction.
Most of these are intended to run around inherent grid intertie, I think highly sensibly. Most of the infrastructure then becomes shared with utility use and stranded cost. 20 years ago I had much greater hopes for distributed generation (including progressive connection of islanded capacity) -- the infrastructure hasn't developed, but the cost of the necessary data interconnection has plummeted. Even with the necessary care against Chinese equipment, Russian plotting, etc. etc. etc.
So the first relevant link that pops up is about LA Metro's wayside storage system...which is all well and good. Interesting stuff, but I'm not talking about storing regenerative braking energy. I'm talking about grid storage. I called it lineside to imply Railroad owned vs. utility owned. There are a host of options developed or being developed. Li-Ion obviously, but there are other options out there like pumped hydro and liquid air which are developed or being developed. BNSF isn't going to be doing pumped hydro across the Transcon obviously, but maybe across the northern transcon they could?
Also worth noting. It was suggested on the first page that railroads would electrify mountain routes and leave the flatlands to be dominated by diesels. Would they? I'd argue the exact opposite and for 2 reasons. 1: The railroads, even with grants and partners are going to be cost sensitive and Mountain passes are the most expensive parts of the route to electrify. 2: States and the EPA are going to be looking for maximum CO2 reduction and even more they're going to be looking for max benefit to their Urban area. California doesn't care about Donner, they care about San Joaquin/Sacramento River Valleys and the LA Basin. So MAYBE Tehachapi, Cajon and the Sunset route get Electrified, but Getting lines strung up from Bakersfield to Redding is going to be far far far higher on CARB's wishlist. And while Yards are going to benefit from battery locomotives for a variety of reasons, I'd still think that there is a large likelyhood of them seeing at least some overhead wires first. As an example, why wouldn't UP run Catenary on the lead to the hump in Roseville. Why run down batteries on engines sitting on the same track for large amounts of time. Sure the flat switching can be battery....well, except that Roseville City yard is at least partially switched by the road power and if the mains are strung with Catenary...
UP is already throwing 2-3 additional units on the train at Roseville and taking them off at SLC. Let that section be dominated by Diesels. Or, at least let Donner itself be so dominated. Maybe the electrics pick back up at sparks.
daveklepper And you don't need two fleets of locomotives to do it.
No? Really not? Are these not two systems of locos you have pictured here? I presume they are a diesel + one electric + a diesel. This is just the double traction thing.
I'm not the expert, ok. But I know how filled the interior is in a modern syncron / asyncron electric, I crept through the Austrian ~ 10000 hp BoBo 'Taurus' on a guided tour in Vienna. The Austrians are quite proud of what they have there and this type is being sold even into Switzerland (see my linked video of the Gotthard line Göschenen to Erstfeld) and this is first class 'Electricity Land'!
I can tell you from seeing, although many elements have been told to have become smaller, they have grown again because now the power output has really doubled in relation to the AC electrics of the 1960s! So, a Taurus is really filled with components only to feed those four traction motors.
You suggest that one car body will supply power to twelve (!!!) traction motors.
Ok, but never the strength of those Taurus motors - never-ever!!!
If you remain content with those small traction motors in the diesel electrics then sorry: this leads directly from one dead end to another: where is the increased power to climb rising line sections faster to avoid congestion?
Battery powered shunting: what a huge demand of rare metals you would create! And this is being uprooted in environmentally polluting ways in countries like China and the Third World! Do you want to promote large polluting excavations in these contries of low economy?
I wouldn't
0S5A0R0A3
YoHo1975I'm talking about grid storage. I called it lineside to imply Railroad owned vs. utility owned.
Pumped hydro is almost always a boondoggle, effective only because the power to do the pumping is assumed to be 'free' (with no alternative use at all) and of course finding and then building such a facility would involve as much public complaint, lobbying, and delay as a nuclear steam station.
As happens, I know someone who was deeply involved with liquefied air for road vehicles. It is not a practical thing for North America. It was not even a practical thing in smaller size and much lower distance in Europe. I can happily give you some of the reasons why (if you buy me enough beers to get the story out, and you can stay awake). The story changes slightly if cryogenic methane or natural gas becomes used for process heat 'on the ground' adjacent to air or sieved-nitrogen liquefaction facilities, using the air for storage instead of as a "carrier fuel" and using waste heat for the necessary reheat. But not really enough to matter.
One of the great advantages of PSR is that (in theory, quite reduceable to effective practice) you can adjust train movements to suit power demand, with enough advance notice to bring up peak or even additional baseline power. In a world of distributed emergency power under extended SCADA or one of the other methods of regulation and islanding protection, there will presumably be a very large capacity that can be brought up, synchronized and power-factor corrected (largely using domestic natural gas) within no more than a couple of minutes at need. Adding sequestration to this is painful, but 'doable', and in a world waking up to solar, wind, and other "renewable" scams may come to be tolerated just as it should have been decades ago for 'clean coal'.
Part of the reason I keep beating the drums for dual-mode-lite (and by extension for fuel-cell hybrid units and the like that will MU effectively with it) is that it gives you a bridge between full electrification and self-power almost immediately, for about the minimum fixed investment at any stage of rollout or operation. It also allows strategic extension of electrification as you develop it, most usefully in situations where proper 25kV or 50kV catenary cannot be wired at Plate H or K clearance for the whole of a route. When you can wire just grades, or locations for energy harvesting, or areas within air-quality management districts that have a large number of expensive low-clearance overhead bridges or NIMBYs who don't want wire... well, you get the idea.
For an introduction to dual-mode-lite, look here:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15203/PB81191314%5B1%5D.pdf
(I believe Don Oltmann can link to a copy of the 'detailed description and analysis' (volume 2) if you want it, or I can e-mail you a copy. It is on the Web, but the copy I have was stored in a funny place that I can't find again from a phone...)
Much has enhanced the idea since the early '80s, not least the practical and widespread adoption of synthesized AC drive to traction motors capable of much more instantaneous/hourly rating than was then available. You will note the relatively small additional packaging needed to supply AC for typical PSR road speeds and equipment, especially if the pickup platform can be actively stabilized and kept at correct height across gaps and transitions (you will note the cheap methods whereby this might be accomplished!)
Sara wrote: "No? Really not? Are these not two systems of locos you have pictured here? I presume they are a diesel + one electric + a diesel. This is just the double traction thing."
Quite rightly so, you saw right through it, congrats!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cptIS1qdec0
the song for electric traction? What has become of us steam friends?
=J=
YoHo1975 So the first relevant link that pops up is about LA Metro's wayside storage system...which is all well and good. Interesting stuff, but I'm not talking about storing regenerative braking energy. I'm talking about grid storage. I called it lineside to imply Railroad owned vs. utility owned. There are a host of options developed or being developed. Li-Ion obviously, but there are other options out there like pumped hydro and liquid air which are developed or being developed. BNSF isn't going to be doing pumped hydro across the Transcon obviously, but maybe across the northern transcon they could?
Concerning BNSF's NT. The Bonneville Power Administration has been in a qualm since the aluminum industry packed most its bags and left the PNW. California was a major customer of BPA juice. Now with wind, and solar pushing in the market. The BPA has excess power capacity, but no where to go. It has power to sell. I don't see it being a problem to use existing Hydro Power. No expensive pump storage needed.
You can consider a 9000Hp diesel-electric-diesel combine as pictured as one new 9000Hp dual-power, and no more expensive than on a single frame if three recycled frames and two recycled cabs are used, possibly recycled trucks as well. And AC motors if available.
Dave, please: 9000hp divided on three chassis? where is the 'savoir faire' when one Bo'Bo' Taurus has already 6000kW continuos output and 300 kN continuos traction force? You already had 9000hp in three units with full diesel. Still my arguement stands: you can't get energy for 9000 hp in twelve traction motors, used or new, from one four axle electric chassis. If you could, then all the electric engineers would only be apprentices. It may look like a short-cut backdoor electrification having just one electric and three units. But the speed uphill will be the same creeping as it is now, because you can't get energy for twelve ...
And less would I believe you can have two diesel motors with enough output on two four axle chassis for to produce 9000hp in twelve ...
SARA 05003
Sara TBattery powered shunting: what a huge demand of rare metals you would create! And this is being uprooted in environmentally polluting ways in countries like China and the Third World! Do you want to promote large polluting excavations in these contries of low economy?
Very good point Sara, especially when the point is "Do you really want to make a deal with the Devil for the sake of your own convenience?"
Well, as a Californian, I'd just as soon see our own Rare Earth Mine supply the needed material as would the mine owners. Sara, are you suggesting that the Pantograph couldn't pull in sufficient current to drive the 12 traction motors shown? That somehow the electrical gear needed couldn't fit on the chassis? The point about sufficient HP out of the diesels is taken. Clearly they would need to be 6axle though they could of course be A-1-A trucks. 2 modern 6 Axle diesels put out 9000HP in total and each unit around 142 KN/m (ES44C4). Which should outclass the single unit when doubled up.
Flintlock, I really thank you for that nice post.
Sara the one and lonely 05003
Hello YoHo,
your question about 'pulling enough current': the pantograph(s) may do it (perhaps just before melting), my concern was more about converting and regulating this current energy, for convenience I repeat here the section of my former posting:
>>I'm not the expert, ok. But I know how filled the interior is in a modern syncron / asyncron electric, I crept through the Austrian ~ 10000 hp BoBo 'Taurus' on a guided tour in Vienna. The Austrians are quite proud of what they have there and this type is being sold even into Switzerland (see my linked video of the Gotthard line Göschenen to Erstfeld) and this is first class 'Electricity Land'!
I can tell you from seeing, although many elements have been told to have become smaller, they have grown again because now the power output has really doubled in relation to the AC electrics of the 1960s! So, a Taurus is really filled with components only to feed those four traction motors. <<
The twelve motors only make sense if they are all full strength. In a full electric this is far more than the about 550 kW of a diesel-electric, rather it is about 1500 kW: this power cannot be converted on one four axle chassis. Now if you make the diesel chassis six axle and the electric chassis also six axle for needs then we have the same situation again.
All in all, you cannot convert so much energy in one chassis to provide for two more chassis and all are of full power. I believe even with A1A bogies you don't get much further, also this is an admission you cannot get enough power to these chassis with the diesel engine on them.
By the way, my remark 'before melting' was no joke: this can happen in situations of slow speed and continuous high demand, especially when the pantograph does not keep tight contact to the catenary. You can see this with the sparks flashing at the contact point, no fun if it does. From this viewpoint, it helps if catenary tension is being forced 'on its knees' (voltage comes down somewhat) with more trains on a section all pulling energy at the max.
Another point with powerful electrics of course is slipping on the incline. This can happen in a thunderstorm after a period of dry weather and can bring an all-powerful electric down to steam speed with consequences to timekeeping.
Sara, the one and lonely 05003
You're welcome, Sara!
this now gets a bit over my technical knowledge of locomotion. I have asked Juni for a short advice, she had been asleep but mumbled a load of things into the phone. What I did get was:
>>Can we even compare a European designed electric<<
Yes we can. Every electric has a reduction gear motor to axle. To shift best power output to lower speeds and increase traction at the same time you only need to increase the reduction ratio, the higher US axle loads will provide enough friction on the rail.
>>how often the loco ever actually develops full power is an interesting question<<
On the US railroads always with maximum train loads it should be full power all the way up, if the scheduling is right.
>>difficulty is high even if the ROI is good<<
Roi, le roi in French is the king. It is always good if the king is good. But what does it mean in your text?
Mountain / flatland / handle the power:
A line should be fully electrified all sections or not at all because otherwise you cannot get the full advantage of electric power. The conversion equipment can always handle the power for the axle motors of this chassis, but not for three chassis. This is always so, in Europe and America because electricity and its physical parameters are the same all over the world.
Sara 05003
ROI = Return On Investment
from the Far East of the Sunset Route
(In the shadow of the Huey P Long bridge)
>>ROI = Return On Investment<<
Of course, the return of investment is king, or rather: is absolute tycoon or dictator. I see.
About what electricity can do: a ride with a test run of a new TGV. I don't tell how fast it went, just see for yourself.
Note the absolute smoothness of the wheel on rail, the perfect 'melting' of the switch into the straight track, the straight ride of the train, see people in front cabin and in measuring coach. (note that all the klicking and ticking is only from the 'music' with it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOdATLzRGHc
and a regular run Lyon Part Dieu à Marseille Saint Charles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBLWgSOV18
Sara- you score a Zero only one matter: The Conversion Equipment (AC-DC-AC) can easily handle the 12 or 18 motors spread out over three chasise. The idea is to start using the electrification as soon as possible without changinrg engines for the portion still to be electrified, to save cash by using existing diesel frames and cabs and eventually even trucks and AC motors.
Dave,
it is not so much the number of motors, it is the amount of combined electric energy to pass through. If you want to make full use of the electrically powered axles. That means not to have these little 500 - 800 kW motors but 1500 - 2000 kW! 2000 x 12 = 24000 kW. Don't try to tell me you can pass 24000kW (and more, mind efficiency rating!) through two (I grant you) pantographs, one transformer and the rest and all that on 1/3 the number of wheels of the total congregation. The Taurus electric I mentioned is for sure a most advanced modern machine, but I tell you it will not become any stronger by adding up 'slave' motor chassis that draw power from it. I see this is about a scheme to avoid costs of full electrification and smuggling around with using existing diesel-electric chassis. I'm not for anything like this. New electrics work so differently from old slow-wheel diesels that every mixing of the powers can only compromize the result.
To electrify or stay diesel - that's the question, Billy Shakespeare or modernized.
Sara
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.