BNSF Electrification?

Wdobner wrote: 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.

The advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. The clearances at 50kv are really big, and even at 25kv, there's a lot of punch available - assuming a 1000 amp limit, that's about 20,000 HP or so. And you could edge up to 27.6kv like NJT did, too.

And sub maintenance ain't a biggie, it's basically a walk through frequently (weekly or so?) and hi pot inspection and calibration every now and then with an AC system.

A well done wire system gets a visual every now and then and little more. Maybe an occasional tweaking.

I wonder if any RRs ever talk to the BM&LP setup to see what it's like. That electrification's hung on a long time, even through the days of 'cheap' oil.

From the $1bn for a new North Coast Hiawatha thread:

wigwagfan wrote:

kmillard wrote:Also Just not sure it would be worthwhile for Amtrak to purchase and maintain just a couple locomotives for the sole purpose of getting 2 -4 trains a day through the Cascade Tunnel. It would almost make more sense to lease the power from BNSF which would also be using them for freight.

You still have the issue of providing train power, and BNSF's freight motors wouldn't be set up to provide power to the cars. So Amtrak would need some way to take power from the overhead and send it through the HEP line - am I not correct?

I don't think BNSF would have any interest in only electrifying Stevens Pass - I think to make it worthwhile, it would need to be a Seattle-Havre, MT electrification (remember, you also have Flathead Tunnel with its extensive ventilation system, and then it would be an image statement to have the electrification run along Glacier National Park. You already have a shop complex and inspection point at Havre which makes it a natural location to change locomotives, since it's done today.)

However, the problem becomes where do you get the power from. The region's power generation capacity is maxed out. The area is already debating how to get wind and solar onto the grid, while removing the (very) few coal plants in the region, much of the hydro capacity, and NOT building nuclear. Oh, and we don't want more natural gas. Many of the wind-rich areas of Oregon in particular are off-limits for wind development (NIMBYism: Oregon Coast, Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area, a number of federally protected areas in Eastern/Southern Oregon). Wind and solar has the potential to provide only 20-30% of the total power need for the nation, not considering new consumers like railroads.

I like the idea of a Seattle-Havre electrification, and it would be worthwhile to continue it southeast from Havre to Alliance's shop complex too. This route would have been ideal for electrification in about 1980, with coal and hydropower being in huge abundance. With the advent of a strong environmental lobby it could still be a great use of electricity today, but it would depend greatly on heavily filtered coal plants in Wyoming, additional nuclear power and expanded hydroelectric plants that are currently in use.

Worth noting that with the acquisition by Berkshire Hathaway, BNSF will now share a holding company with a large Midwestern utility, MidAmerican Holdings.

What was old is new again! I was just starting my career in the 1970s, and I well remember the electrification studies (there were several, by BN, UP, Conrail, and Southern Railway). UP even installed a test section of catenary on Sherman Hill, to see how it held up in the Wyoming winters. And in the end, nobody did anything.

So fast forward to 2009. it's 30 years later, diesels have become much more fuel efficient, wheelslip control has improved immensely, AC traction is now common...those d**n diesels are a moving target, aren't they? I did some work about a decade ago for a Swedish iron mining company. They were planning to replace their obsolete fleet of electric locomotives and purchase higher-capacity ore cars. When they told me the new electric locos were coming in at $12 million apiece, I ran some simulations using Dash 9-44s, and found that diesels could get the job done for half the price. But the wire was already up, and I was told use of diesels would be "unacceptable". I love socialism!

So don't hold your breath about US electrification. Oh, and BTW, it's not horsepower that moves trains, it's tractive effort. It's all fine to bat around 8,000 HP on six axles, but recall that tractive effort is limited by axle load and a concept called "adhesion factor". Axle load is limited to about 36 tons in US practice, so a six-axle unit would weigh about 288 tons, or 576,000 lbs. (a conventional ACe weighs about 425,000). Figure a 33% factor of adhesion, and you've got around 200,000 lbs. of tractive effort. The 8,000 HP only matters if you want to go fast. It's the tractive effort that starts the train. So you'll need two of these units to move a heavy train (drawbars won't take more than about 375,000 lbs. of load, but I suppose you could use distributed power). With 400,000 lbs. tractive, you're limited to about 15,000 trailing tons on a 1% grade, and less than half that on the grade over Stevens Pass (2.2% up to the tunnel). No panacea here, guys.

And then of course you have to hang, and maintain, the catenary, and there are transmission losses. And utilities won't be very happy with freight railroads as customers. They much prefer constant loads, but in a freight electrification, every time a train comes past a substation, it sucks down the power...and then there's no load for the next half hour or hour, until the next train shows up. Utilities calculate a "power factor" which is the ratio of peak to average current draw, and the power factor for a railroad substation is about the same as that for a vacation home.

I think we're more likely to see, maybe, natural gas locomotives than electrics, at least in my lifetime.

Is that 1/2 the intial cost of electric locos ,or 1/2 the cost over thier lifetime ???

NellieBly wrote: Utilities calculate a "power factor" which is the ratio of peak to average current draw, and the power factor for a railroad substation is about the same as that for a vacation home.

No. Power factor isn't that. It's the ratio of real to apparent power. Utilities don't like it when it drops too low, and bill accordingly. Just about any new locomotive worth buying will basically nail a unity power factor - they're designed for it. The utility pretty much could care less if you're hooked up and not using power. Well, they'd like you to use more power but if you're plugged in and not drawing much, they're not bothered by it.

I've talked to EEs at NJT, and they say the utility really doesn't care about them and their load - it's a rounding error to them. And, since the sub-sub distance is upwards of 10 or 20 miles, you're likely to have a train in the circuit most of the time. With careful transmission line selection, none of this is an issue. Nor is the phase imbalance - realize on a line with 1000-2000 MW capacity, 10 megawatts is .5 - 1%. They likely run more than that normally (think about it - your home's single phase, most are. Utilities try to balance things, but how can you ensure it'll stay balanced with effectively random usage?)

hmm , i'm not so sure power factor and phase balancing are that small a problem . they certainly go to great lenghts to retcify them here , and charge alot if they're not .But your correct , Nellie Bly is not talking about power factor.
A large power customer will pay an avaliability charge for thier peak load , it doesnt really matter how often they need it , or what proportion of thier average load it is . The peak load is what the power company has to provide equipment that can handle that load for , it doesnt matter if its once a year , thats what theyll charge you for . Then there is the charge for power actually used , then possibly penmalites for power factor , and phase imbalance .

NellieBly wrote:When they told me the new electric locos were coming in at $12 million apiece, I ran some simulations using Dash 9-44s, and found that diesels could get the job done for half the price.

Given that diesels are just electric engines which carry their own generator, I find this completely unbelievable (espcially since the "wires were already up"). Please explain what the chokepoint on electrical energy transmission was, or why your simulations were wrong, or why electric locos were being severely overpriced.

EDIT: to be clear on this, it seems fairly straightforward to replace any given diesel-electric powertrain with an electric powertrain, by replacing the diesel generator with a transformer. Transformers are not significantly more expensive than generators. So what exactly is going on here? Is there simply a lack of mass production of electric freight locomotives, or what?

neroden wrote:Is there simply a lack of mass production of electric freight locomotives, or what?

It was a 13 unit order.

For a better comparison, look at China, where they're ordering stuff by the hundreds. There really is an economy of scale with this stuff - if you can spread the engineering and tooling across a few hundred units, the costs look much different. Same reason the B-2 Stealth bomber cost 2 billion a pop - they built a handful.

NellieBly wrote:...it's not horsepower that moves trains, it's tractive effort. It's all fine to bat around 8,000 HP on six axles, but recall that tractive effort is limited by axle load and a concept called "adhesion factor". Axle load is limited to about 36 tons in US practice, so a six-axle unit would weigh about 288 tons, or 576,000 lbs. (a conventional ACe weighs about 425,000). Figure a 33% factor of adhesion, and you've got around 200,000 lbs. of tractive effort. The 8,000 HP only matters if you want to go fast. It's the tractive effort that starts the train. So you'll need two of these units to move a heavy train...

This gave me an idea, although this would require additional current, I wonder if hanging large electromagnets from the truck frame between each wheel could pull the wheels tighter against the rails. This would in theory allow a smaller locomotive since the trucks would be compensating for the weight of the prime mover. These magnetic coils would need to hang down as close to the rail as possible without making contact.

Also it might be a good idea to use welded rail bolted to the ties instead of spiked (imagine a locomotive pulling out all the spikes before it's train runs over it). There would also need to be some extensive sheilding to prevent the magnet from pulling in unwanted metal (cars at grade crossings, signal masts, etc.) or from adding stress on the axle by pulling it in the wrong direction (as well as ripping parts off the locomotive).

The only real questions for this would really have to come down to: Would the rail have enough mass/density for a strong magnet to be able to pull on it to any useful amount? Would it be possible to make a magnet with this kind of strength that wouldn't be too large to mount? And of course, how much extra power would be needed to power a magnet for this to work?

I'm thinking along the lines of either one giant locomotive with a bunch of axles, or even little single-truck steeplecabs with the same tractive power as a big diesel.

Nasadowsk wrote:

neroden wrote:Is there simply a lack of mass production of electric freight locomotives, or what?

It was a 13 unit order.

For a better comparison, look at China, where they're ordering stuff by the hundreds. There really is an economy of scale with this stuff - if you can spread the engineering and tooling across a few hundred units, the costs look much different. Same reason the B-2 Stealth bomber cost 2 billion a pop - they built a handful.

Now that makes sense. Maybe they should tag on to a Chinese order?

RedLantern wrote:

NellieBly wrote:...it's not horsepower that moves trains, it's tractive effort. It's all fine to bat around 8,000 HP on six axles, but recall that tractive effort is limited by axle load and a concept called "adhesion factor". Axle load is limited to about 36 tons in US practice, so a six-axle unit would weigh about 288 tons, or 576,000 lbs. (a conventional ACe weighs about 425,000). Figure a 33% factor of adhesion, and you've got around 200,000 lbs. of tractive effort. The 8,000 HP only matters if you want to go fast. It's the tractive effort that starts the train. So you'll need two of these units to move a heavy train...

This gave me an idea, although this would require additional current, I wonder if hanging large electromagnets from the truck frame between each wheel could pull the wheels tighter against the rails. This would in theory allow a smaller locomotive since the trucks would be compensating for the weight of the prime mover. These magnetic coils would need to hang down as close to the rail as possible without making contact.

Also it might be a good idea to use welded rail bolted to the ties instead of spiked (imagine a locomotive pulling out all the spikes before it's train runs over it). There would also need to be some extensive sheilding to prevent the magnet from pulling in unwanted metal (cars at grade crossings, signal masts, etc.) or from adding stress on the axle by pulling it in the wrong direction (as well as ripping parts off the locomotive).

The only real questions for this would really have to come down to: Would the rail have enough mass/density for a strong magnet to be able to pull on it to any useful amount? Would it be possible to make a magnet with this kind of strength that wouldn't be too large to mount? And of course, how much extra power would be needed to power a magnet for this to work?

I'm thinking along the lines of either one giant locomotive with a bunch of axles, or even little single-truck steeplecabs with the same tractive power as a big diesel.

I think that any kind of magnet like that would just cause a world of problems - there are so many electronics on the new locomotives and now even around the tracks that something that would require that kind of magnetic force could just open up a tremenoudous can of worms.

Ive pulled some heavy (for a commuter engineer!) trains with an ALP44 and ALP46 - but whats sticking in my head is a certain train I had with a single ALP46 - which puts out about 8000 HP with 4 axles. I had 10 Multilevels, about 150,000lbs each, 6 MUs, also about 150,000lbs each and 3 dead locos, 2 ALPs - at 200,000lbs each and a diesel at about 350,000lbs or so, and of course, the weight of the single loco that was powering it, at another 200,000lbs. So the train was about 3.15 million pounds (1575 tons) not including the 200,000 of the loco I was in.

I know thats a baby for some of you freight guys, but hey hahaha Im using passenger geared stuff!!

But what Im getting at is the problems I had with the train - the loco was VERY slippery - computerized wheelslip controls can only do so much! I have noticed that the lower HP of the DC ALP44s actually helps out on these heavy trains because of the more consistant power delivery - it seems like with the power of the AC Locos, if you are at or close to the limit of traction, it just keep putting out power, causing you to slip.

the GG1s and Little Joes and even the E60s worked well because they are heavy, and don't have THAT much power. I would think that an electric freight loco for a US style operation would need to be VERY heavy, and not 7 or 8 thousand HP. - I would think that a similar problem would be faced by the RRs as with the SD90s and AC6000s - too much HP, and if you loose one, your done.

It would seem to me (not that I know a whole heck of a lot about freight running) that a 5000-6000HP 6 axle loco in the neighborhood of 400,000lbs would be good, it would be heavy enough that it shouldn't be too slippery, not too powerful that just 1 could power a monster train, allowing redunancy if one dies, there is another one, and maybe save some drawbars

With regenerative breaking, (sending power back into the wire when dynamic braking) that should be a big plus to the RRs as well

Is there any kind of compariable loco like that elsewhere in the world? If so, how do they perform, and could they handle the riggers of US railroading?

That's why it's only an idea, obviously certain modifications to the track and electronics would have to be made to make this possible, it wouldn't be as simple as simply mounting magnets to the truck frames and rolling. What I'm more curious of is if the idea would even be possible from a conceptual standpoint.

If the electrification happens we all know the most obvious route's for electrification are BNSF's: Southern Transcon, Northern Transcon, Powder River Basin, also their California mainline's. I wonder would BNSF consider electrifying its route's to Dallas and Houston.

I am surprised they are not looking at doing the Califionia portions of their routes . The Cajon pass for e.g . they may get state assistance for clean air purposes .