BNSF Electrification?

RedLantern wrote: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.

Oh well, how often has the BNSF been referred to now as Warren's 1:1 Lionel set.

Now, if Mr. Red Lantern's proposal moves forth, it will be "Lionel with Magne-Traction".

But, away from the rail industry, and especially the railfan, media, there does appear "traction' for an electrification initiative far beyond the scope of the studies noted earlier in the topic by Ms. Bly:

http://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/audi ... rification

Finally, while off-topic at the BNSF forum, the "washroom humor' on my road, the MILW, when during 1974 it was announced that the existing electrification was to be scrapped, the quote was heard "well, we've now taken the first step towards modernizing the electricifaction".

I wonder if Warren Buffett discussed Mr. Rose's thoughts with our Commander-in-Chief, on Buffett's recent visit to Washington. A carbon tax may not yet be in the works for the nation, but even if they generated every watt by coal, BNSF would probably reduce their carbon emissions if they moved to a majority-electric fleet. Considering that BNSF also owns many thousands of acres where wind turbines would be entirely suitable, they'd have even more of an advantage for carbon taxation.

David Benton wrote: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 .

Our industrial and large commercial customers pay a demand charge based on the peak demand (generally in a 15 minute interval, but see the below special provision for traction power) for the billing month measured in kilowatts. The demand readout is reset to zero monthly when the meter is read, or remotely for remotely read meters. The other major component of the bill is the energy charge for all energy used in the month, measured in kilowatt hours.

We can refuse to serve a customer whose power factor is beyond a certain variation from unity. Customers with that issue generally have compensating devices such as capacitors to offset inductive loads.

As a point of interest, our largest (maybe our only for heavy rail; JCP&L has several supply points) supply point for New Jersey Transit (NJT) traction power is the Meadows substation which is fed in flow-through configuration by two 230kV lines. NJT owns the substation (bus, stepdown transformers, protection system, etc.) and we own the wires to the points of interconnection at each end of the substation.

Our electric tariff is here http://www.pseg.com/companies/pseandg/s ... tariff.pdf

The two traction power provisions in the above are as follows:

Large Power and Lighting Service
BILLING DETERMINANTS:
Monthly Peak Demand:
The Monthly Peak Demand for each time period shall be determined by the registration of a demand meter furnished by Public Service. The customer’s Monthly Peak Demand in any month for each time period shall be the greatest average number of kilowatts delivered by Public Service during any thirty-minute interval for secondary distribution voltage customers and during any fifteen-minute interval for primary distribution voltage customers. Where the use of electric service is intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, Public Service may base the customer’s Monthly Peak Demand for each time period upon five-minute intervals in lieu of intervals hereinbefore set forth. Where electric service is supplied for traction power to a rail rapid-transit system, for the purpose of determination of Monthly Peak Demands, the hours 8 A.M. to 10 A.M. and 4 P.M. to 7 P.M. shall be included in the Off-Peak time period, and Public Service shall base the customer’s Monthly Peak Demand for each time period upon the greatest average number of kilowatts delivered by Public Service during any single coincident hour-ended sixty-minute interval during each time period, in lieu of fifteen minute intervals.

High Tension Service
BILLING DETERMINANTS:
Monthly Peak Demand:
The Monthly Peak Demand for each time period shall be determined by the registration of a demand meter furnished by Public Service. The customer’s Monthly Peak Demand in any month for each time period shall be the greatest average number of kilowatts delivered by Public Service during any fifteen-minute interval. Where the use of electric service is intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, Public Service may base the customer’s Monthly Peak Demand for each time period upon five-minute intervals in lieu of intervals hereinbefore set forth. Where electric service is supplied for traction power to a rail rapid-transit system, for the purpose of determination of Monthly Peak Demands the hours 8 A.M. to 10 A.M. and 4 P.M. to 7 P.M. shall be included in the Off-Peak time period, and Public Service shall base the customer’s Monthly Peak Demand for each time period upon the greatest average number of kilowatts delivered by Public Service during any single coincident hour-ended sixty-minute interval during each time period, in lieu of fifteen-minute intervals. Where traction power is supplied at high voltage (230,000 volts) and such power is being provided during a limited period to supplant power normally supplied by another utility, that limited period shall be excluded for the purpose of determining Monthly Peak Demand.

In the early 50s, the GN field tested the GE demo motors which eventually were sold to the PRR as their class E2b; they also demonstrated on the NH.
The GN had also contemplated extending the wires to Seattle.
One big determining factor in electrification is traffic density and volume.
The initial cost of the infrastructure is high, high traffic density would eventually cover the initial investment.
Question is, which I have no doubt BNSF would explore is do they have a high traffic density in specific areas to justify the investment.

The Powder River Basin might be a good starting place for electrification, as well as possibly the southern transcon.

Metra may have some good info by comparing the ME district to their other lines. May be another study into what it would take to electrify commuters on the Racetrack or other lines.

A limiting factor in the PRB is a lack of power plants & water to make steam. I don't know if there are any flood control dams or other created lakes where a plant could be sited.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway could easily convert to electric locomotives for faster freight service on all of the lines that the railroad uses. (Excluding lines where Burlington Northern Santa Fe has trackage rights on Union Pacific.) Granted, installing the overhead wire is expensive, but in the end it is all worth it. We should take a lesson from railroads like the Pennsylvania and the Virginian. They employed electric locomotives to haul both passengers and freight and well, many of their electrified lines are still in use (Well, the Pennsylvania anyway.). Plus, with overhead wire, they'd have to be high enough for the double stack container trains along with Automobile carrying cars (Autorack). Besides, if Burlington Northern Santa Fe converted to all electric, they'd need dual mode for the trackage rights on Union Pacific areas. Besides, with the transition, Amtrak will be able to send the AEM-7 electric locomotive to work the Empire Builder, Southwest Chief and so on. Besides, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe could convert to third rail. But remember, snow and the third rail don't mix. (Example: Metro North) But, all in all, a Burlington Northern Santa Fe electrification project could work, but remember what the Pennsylvania, Virginian, Milwaukee Road, Norfolk & Western, New Haven and so on did when they issued electric locomotives and what Amtrak uses on the Northeast Corridor. And no Conrail mistakes (Retiring the electric locomotives.).

Those would need to be very tall pantographs in order to have a catenary that would clear double stacks, and autoracks, and Superliners.
As for the third rail, take a hint from the New York Central, and put the shoe under the rail.