BNSF Electrification?

atsf sp wrote:When did GN take down the catenary through the cascade tunnel?

1956.

Back on August 10, 2008, westr mentioned...


Burlington Northern did do an electrification study in the 1970s. There was even an artists rendering of a GE E60-type locomotive in BN cascade green published in a BN motive power annual.


Interestingly enough, I was just randomly surfing the 'net this morning, and found myself digging for information on electric locomotives and I stumbled upon this...

http://members.aol.com/e44e33/project/bne60.htm

The aforementioned artist's rendering from 1975 is down near the bottom of the page.

Didnt read the full thread bu here ya go.

You don't always need the catenary when you can use a 3rd rail. There are also industrial lines with a side catenary not over the tracks the pantagraph reaches out to the side for power. The Ole NYC units that ran mostly 3rd rail had mini pantagraphs to get over special track work where the 3rd rail couldnt be. That idea can work in reverse.

Electrification, yeh, watch steam locos make a return idea...there are still experimenters out there trying for the new steam engine idea.

mtuandrew wrote:In the tunnel itself, there's no reason BNSF couldn't use a conductor rail bolted directly (through insulators) to the ceiling. As long as there's room for a pantograph and there weren't issues with arcing to containers, it wouldn't be a big issue.

I think GE is best set up for building a new electric locomotive, probably in cooperation with one of the Europeans or Japanese concerns until they finish blowing off the cobwebs from their own collective memory. Their E60s were built up until 20 years ago, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they rebuild the E60PHs into E60MAs? One thing I am sure of, any locomotive will be built on the GEVO frame and will look like most GEVOs out there, unless someone gets a mind to stick a second cab on one. EMD would probably either go to Alstom for designs, eventually getting swallowed, or go back to ABB and build some hybrid of the ALP-44 and SD-70M-2.

Just remember any diesel engine is an electric engine (without using some direct drive)

jtr1962 wrote:Here's a real world example regarding the benefits and costs of electrification:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-03a.htm

Note that this electrification was done in the 1960s, a time when diesel fuel was very cheap, and yet it still paid off. A factor often overlooked is that electric trains can get over the road faster than diesels. This can often mean fewer trainsets to do the same amount of work, even with freight operations. I have little doubt we're well past the point where electrification would pay for itself within a matter of a few years. Cost to electrify the approximately 100,000 miles of track in the US at roughly 3 million per mile is on the order of $300 billion. Spread over ten years, this isn't much over 1% of the federal budget. Not a huge cost by any stretch, yet it would return enormous benefits. My proposal-the feds pick up the tab for stringing wire, the railroads buy the electric locomotives.

gotta answer this one...har

Up Oregon way some guy made an electric drag racing car, it was beating out all the other cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAYrsEOxqYc

Yeh, I see why the BNSF might make points and try to draw federal funding, but not all their current lines had overhead before in its history, but those that had electric worked out, but there maybe new lines out there also never having electric, so making the push makes sense.
The 50-s 60-s saw electric/steam do a fallout but economics are forging it back.

It seems interesting that there is all this concern about the Cascade Tunnel and clearances and with good reason but it has to be remembered that there is another route that BNSF owns with no tunnels very wide rights of way and a great view of the sun for nearly all its length.

joshuahouse wrote:another route that BNSF owns with no tunnels very wide rights of way and a great view of the sun for nearly all its length.

But then that route will be over crowded and the Cascade route would render obsolete. The traffic load switch will be too high if a full electricifaction or more to electrification than diesel switch is made.

I'm simply saying that there is an additional line with fewer issues for electrification, not that the former BN line should be closed. I'm sure that if it were possible to create such a project that other lines in the South West would also be able to electrify. However there are still a lot of transmission issues that would have to be worked out at any rate.

Advantages to a Northern route (GN/NP/SP&S) electrification:
-cheaper electricity
-greater proportion of energy savings through regenerative power
-(SP&S specifically) low gradient to the Pacific Ocean from the Rocky Mountains

Advantages to a Southern route (ATSF) electrification:
-lower mountain crossings
-fewer height restrictions
-less power needed to begin with

BNSF's engineering department would be starting at square one no matter what, with only a few historical documents to inform their decisions. If BNSF were to start a serious electrification project, the obvious place to me would be the Powder River and Montana Divisions - cheap coal and hydropower, scads of trains and a need for regenerative power. Assuming all works well, they can move on to more mainlines - Shelby to Seattle and Portland, Belen to Los Angeles, and a joint project with the UP to wire the Oregon Trunk and the WP from Wishram, WA through Oregon to Stockton, CA.

This probably doesn't belong here but it does have to do with electricity and BNSF. I arrived at a BNSF rail crossing in LaPine Oregon as the gates were coming down. The last two cars on the short train were hopper cars (BNSF) with 1 solar panel on each.
I do not remember seeing anything like it on a train. Do these cars have a battery and a blinking light or some other 12-20V equipment?

Maybe one of the deciding factors for the freight railroads to convert to straight electric locomotives in the future could be locomotive maintenance .A straight electric locomotive needs no power assemblies, no lubricating oil, no air filters (except maybe for the air compressor)
no need for engine coolant, etc.. Not to mention weather availability with a straight electric is much better. You would no longer have to worry about hot/cold weather issues with a diesel engine.

CN5789 wrote:Maybe one of the deciding factors for the freight railroads to convert to straight electric locomotives in the future could be locomotive maintenance .A straight electric locomotive needs no power assemblies, no lubricating oil, no air filters (except maybe for the air compressor)
no need for engine coolant, etc.. Not to mention weather availability with a straight electric is much better. You would no longer have to worry about hot/cold weather issues with a diesel engine.

Very true, but with less loco maintence (but they are both still required to have 92 day inspections), but more infrastructure maintence with the catenary and wires. Tree trimming in particular is a big deal. Trees and branches fall all the time all over the railroda, and if there is catenary, it would land on/in the catenary, cause more troubles.

There are many benefits to electrification, but there are also some drawbacks and some unique problems/issues with catenary, which is what im familar with

Jtgshu wrote:how did the Milwaukee Road do it? did they have PGs or no?

3kv DC. Maybe small power gaps, but no phase breaks.

The likely candidates these days are 12kv (11kv / 13.8kv) 60Hz and 25kv (27.6kv) 60hz. 25kv would require bigger clearances, 12kv smaller.

Assuming an 800 or so amp constant draw, 12kv gives you about 12,000 hp at the rail to play with. Roughly 3 or 4 AC4400s - since that's <i>at the rail</i> HP. 25kv gives you twice that.

The concerns then become phase breaks and short time interruptions, though that can all be tamed by software.

Without a prime mover on board to worry about overspeeding, adhesion could theoretically be higher, though I doubt there's a significant gap. And that stuff gets noisy - ever hear an ALP-46 leaving a station?

The big 'good neighbor' advantage to electric? No surprise there - ever hear an idling electric? Oh yeah, not gonna use it for a while? Pop the main breaker open (why bother dropping the pan - any freight RR that electrifies will figure this out in a month). No power use. Need it? Pop the main breaker closed. It's ready to go as fast as you can pump the air up.

Inspection? Besides the typical running gear that's common, check the pan and hi pot things every few years. Hollow carbon strips are dominant now - if they get damaged, they drop away from the wire before they can snag.

Catenary? If it's well hung (heh) it's not a huge issue - what kills things in the northeast is the massive use plus the 75 year old fixed tension stuff plus the lack of hollow carbons. Look at Metro-North's dewirements on the NH line since they've been going around constant tensioning it, and theoretically, curves tend to be worse for that stuff.

IMHO, the first movement towards freight electrification will be in the south east, where there's a LOT of nuke capacity planned (and some of it already starting to be built), and pressure to kill off coal (one condition of building the two AP1000s in Levy County was closing two coal burners near by). Cheap electricity and loss of easy customers means competition based on speed will have to happen there first, and that'll shift the economics in favor of catenary, IMHO.

And let's be realistic - oil's gonna be around 60 - 80 for the foreseeable future, and any saber rattling by the usual suspects in the middle east will push it higher.

I bet once someone breaks the ice, it'll catch on fast. Realize most existing electrifications are done by government agencies. Not exactly leaders in economic anything. When faced with stringing up a few thousand miles of wire, people figure out way to do it cheaper, fast. Look at how the BM&LP is vs the Boston electrification....

Nasadowsk wrote:And let's be realistic - oil's gonna be around 60 - 80 for the foreseeable future...

Oil just went above 80$/bbl today.

I am not really ripping on you for making the prediction - we all make predictions of one sort or another, and for some reason your statement stuck in my mind when I read it earlier, and my own thoughts were that it would break 80$ a lot sooner than you thought.

My experience has been that predicting things like the stock market or oil prices is in fact a rather difficult proposition, especially if you try and project out far in the future. I can just imagine the difficulties that carriers like railroads and airlines face when trying to plan for the future when there is so much uncertainty and so many $$ on the line..

Komachi wrote:I could also see a special Cascade Tunnel locomotive built that could operate on both cantenary and a third rail setup... assuming that a third rail setup could be implemented in the tunnel.

As others said, that'd be highly unlikely. Just on practicality alone a 12000hp (8900kw) electric locomotive would be drawing more than 12000 amps if it were using a fairly standard 750 volt DC third rail system. As jtr said the practical limit to current draw is below 10000 amps, and at more than 12000amps I'd think some damage may be possible were arcing to occur. It'd probably be easier to just cut another notch in the Cascade Tunnel's roof, or undercut the trackbed than to try to make third rail work in there.

mtuandrew wrote:I think GE is best set up for building a new electric locomotive, probably in cooperation with one of the Europeans or Japanese concerns until they finish blowing off the cobwebs from their own collective memory. Their E60s were built up until 20 years ago, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they rebuild the E60PHs into E60MAs? One thing I am sure of, any locomotive will be built on the GEVO frame and will look like most GEVOs out there, unless someone gets a mind to stick a second cab on one. EMD would probably either go to Alstom for designs, eventually getting swallowed, or go back to ABB and build some hybrid of the ALP-44 and SD-70M-2.

Both GE and EMD are already making electric locomotives, we just need to reduce the size of the diesel powerplant, stick a transformer on them, and give them pantographs. I know it's not quite that simple, but I find it difficult to believe GE's electrics from more than 20 years ago give them any sort of leg up on EMD. For nearly 20 years now EMD's AC powered locomotives have used Siemens power systems in them, so it's unlikely they'd go to either ABB or Alstom. Just about the only advantage GE has is that it has power infrastructure and electronics development departments under the same roof as their locomotive guys, but an EMD/Siemens consortium accomplishes the same thing. I wouldn't be overly surprised to see Bombardier or Alstom throw their hats into the ring alongside EMD and GE if freight electrification really takes off. It's also possible builders like MPI or NRE could parlay their experience with gensets and rebuilds into converting existing, nearly modern locomotive frames (the SD70MACs?) into nearly new electric locomotives with small diesel generators for light duty off-wire service. Presumably those sorts of light duty service would either include shop moves, yard moves around intermodal yards not equipped with wires, or perhaps switching of enroute industries on non-electrified spur tracks.

Nasadowski wrote:The likely candidates these days are 12kv (11kv / 13.8kv) 60Hz and 25kv (27.6kv) 60hz. 25kv would require bigger clearances, 12kv smaller.

I don't see why they wouldn't go for 50kv, especially on lines that are out in the middle of nowhere. The increased distance between substations would likely be a major time and money saver for maitenance crews. Admittedly it could be difficult getting the wire high enough to not zap the top of a doublestack, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. For a transcontinental electrified railroad I find it difficult to believe we'd stick with one power supply from origin to destination. It seems much more likely we'd do 12 or 25kv in the congested areas with vertical clearance issues, and then switch to 50kv for operating through the wide open spaces beyond those areas.

IMHO perhaps the best early adoption strategy any freight railroad could take with electrification would be to electrify some helper districts. Helper locomotives are fairly contained in their operating area, they can sit idle for quite a long period during which they continue to consume diesel, and the railroad can potentially realize reductions in the number of powered axles per train movement by trading out a set of 4000hp helpers for one or two 8000-12000hp units.

In particular I tend to think Cajon pass has great potential for electrification. Even with the third track BNSF and UP sound like they're still nearly at capacity over the pass. Electrification of helper services would allow them to add tremendous amounts of power to those trains to speed transit times without a correpsonding increase in diesel consumption. There are an enormous number of train movements over which the cost of electrification can be amortized. It'd also probably be worth more than a few brownie points with the locals to point to a truly green locomotive. I'm almost tempted to say UP, GE, or EMD should erect a few hundred feet of wire in the San Gorgonio Pass, alongside its many, many wind turbines for some photos in whatever PR campaign they could draw from the ostensibly wind powered trains.

I have to wonder about Southern California Edison's transmission capacity into the LA basin. They're building new links between the Palo Verde nuke, Hoover Dam, and wind farms in the high desert and the substation near Barstow. However, it doesn't seem like they're adding capacity into the LA basin itself. BNSF or UP could likely partner with either the LADP&W or SCE to provide ROW and some infrastructure support to additional power capacity over the pass in exchange for turn key infrastructure and power billed at the pantograph.

Finally, if they electrify all the way in to downtown Los Angeles then it'd likely be a pretty safe bet Metrolink would be able to adopt electric locomotives or perhaps even EMUs. The potential for drastic changes in ridership as a result of that change could mean BNSF could partner with the SCCRA to secure federal funds for the project, thereby alleviating some of the capital cost associated with the electrification.

I don't think it's particularly natural to think in terms of short electrifications at the moment, especially in light of the utter destruction of our electrified territory in the postwar years. However, I think if BNSF and UP could find a way to reduce their capital costs by partnering with the local commuter rail operator, and then to defray their operational costs by partnering with utilities they could potentially get an important component of both their nationwide systems electrified with far less impact on their bottom line than has previously been forecast. Of course it won't be completely useful until the rest of the route to Chicago is electrified, with units rolling completely across the country. But an electrified segment from Los Angeles to Victorville, possibly encompassing the Cajon helper district, gets them operating experience with electrification, including maitenance to the wires and so on without too much being invested in the infrastructure or rolling stock changeover.