BNSF Electrification?

I was reading the Sept 08 trains and there is a question and answer with Matt Rose.

One question was "What can be done either short-term or long-term about fuel costs?"

He talks about fuel efficent locos, and a fuel saving program and method of operation, but there was one section that caught my eye....

"We're also launching a study of electrification. The big question is, do we electrify with nuclear, alternative energy, or coal? We need to determine which source makes the most sense. The costs are high up front, but the opportunties in the long run are great. We'd need a tax policy that would be in place for some time to encourage and make this possible"

Working on the east coast with electric locos on a daily basis, I know the benefits of them. The power is incredible, and regenerative braking, which similar to dynamic braking, but instead of the power generated by the Traction Motors in braking mode sent up to a set of grid and dispersed as heat, the power is sent back into the line, and the loco is generating electricity, cutting the electric consumption.

Also something that is relatively new is the recent annoucement of a dual mode loco being designed and built for New Jersey Transit and the Montreal commuter agency (AMT). The loco is supposed to have about 4200HP in diesel mode, produced by 2 Caterpillar engines, and produce 5 megawatts of power in electric mode. There are specific requirements and desires for passenger service (4 axle, less than 298,000 lbs, i believe it is) and of course height requirements for the tunnels into NY Penn Station.

With looser restrictions in weight and size, a dual mode loco could probably be built for freight using a tried and true EMD powerplant (V12 or V16 710, 6 axle trucks and maybe even a larger transformer, producing more power.

For comparison, the Amtrak AEM7/NJT ALP44 is about 4 megawatts of power (roughly 7000HP). The newest electric loco in the US, NJTs ALP46 is 6 megawatts (roughly 8000hp), with a newer model being delievered in a year which is I think supposed to have slighly more power.

It is very expensive to build the catenary (Im assuming they would be studying OH Catenary) but the costs could be made back pretty quickly with fuel savings. I think we all konw that the era of cheap fuel (gasoline and diesel) is pretty much over.

Any thoughts/comments from any BNSF folks/fans?

Personally I think we'll be seeing a lot of class 1 freights electrifying in the next decade. While it's true that stringing catenary isn't exactly cheap, the payback time grows shorter as fuel prices continue to rise. I read a while back that $2 to $3 per gallon diesel, depending upon traffic, was the point where electrification makes sense even if there are no other reasons for it (i.e. traffic demands, need for rapid acceleration, etc.). Diesel is now pushing $5 a gallon with no signs of going anywhere but up in the long run. I think the railroads may have thought it possible to wait out what may have been a price spike, but all signs are pointing to this price rise being caused mostly by supply and demand. The time to seriously consider electrifying is here. Besides the obvious cost savings, let's not overlook the benefits of low noise/zero emissions. Noise plus fumes are two big reasons NIMBYs don't want trains in their neighborhood.

Only question left is who will pay for electrification. Perhaps the federal government footing some of the bill in exchange for the freight railroads guaranteeing faster Amtrak slots might work. Once electrified, there would likely be excess capacity anyway as the freights can get over the road faster. If a large road like BNSF leads the way here string up wire, I suspect Union Pacific or CSX won't be far behind. How cool would it be to have 6-axle, 12,000 HP electric freight locos?

Wasn't there a study into freight electrification during the 70s fuel crisis?

Also, who took out the wire on the ex-GN?

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.

Since it might suggest what direction BNSF could go, here are the electrification highlights from the 1970s BN Motive Power Annuals.

The 1973 Burlington Northern Motive Power Annual states that Burlington Northern announced that it was conducting an electrification feasability study in conjunction with General Electric "last May." Factors leading to BNs consideration of electrification: the energy crisis (BN's 2,000 locomotives at the time are said to use 1 million gallons of fuel daily, with prices up and allotments reduced), BN's owership of at least 62 billion tons of low-sulphur coal deposits, and increasing business, including coal transport, leading several lines to have the density to warrant electrification. BN hoped to trade its coal directly to power companies for electricity for locomotives. Four lines were being considered, including the western end of the GN line to Seattle and routes leading east from Montana and Wyoming coal fields. BN was considering locomotives from both American and European builders. A photo of a then-new Black Mesa & Lake Powell GE E60C is shown as an example.

The 1974-75 Annual states that the feasability study started in 1973 was completed in 1974 and the decision about whether to proceed with an engineering study was expected in early 1975, but it was expected that the recession would put it off. Sweden's ASEA was involved in the study and made their results for the Lincoln, Neb to Sheridan, Wyo line public, with an annual volume of 100 million tons of coal. Three types of locomotives were considered: 5100hp* C-C (equal to 6000hp diesel), 8400hp* B-B-B (equal to 9900hp diesel), and 11000hp* B-B-B (equal to 12800hp diesel). (*Continuous Rail Horsepower) The C-Cs woud be in sets of 6 pulling 24 trains per 24 hours of 103 cars each while the B-B-Bs would be in set of 5 pulling 26 trains per 24 hours of 105 or 115 cars each respectively. They would need 333 C-Cs or 288 B-B-Bs. A rough line drawing of three GE E60s pulling a coal train was included.

The 1975-76 Annual shows a Ron Hatch painting of a GE E60C in BN Cascade Green, numbered 8001, pulling a coal train. The image is titled Electrification Maybe Next Year and the caption says that the 1975 recession has indefinitely postponed the plans but "the future still looks bright for electification."

As for the Great Northern's electrification, GN shut down and removed their electrification just after the ventilation system was installed in the Cascade Tunnel in 1956. This was one of the lines considered for electrification in the 70s.

Not that I'm a credible authority on this or anything like that, but I there is probably a minimal chance of this happening within ten or twenty years. It could be 2030 when we read something like this in Trains again and recall "didn't they do some kind of study on this like twenty years ago?" Fuel prices are probably high mainly due to inflation and would thus go back down somewhat again, and there won't be another word about electrification. The other thing is that they are trying to rely on handouts instead of finding investors to finance it the right way.

Anyway, I really look forward to seeing electrification happen some day. For BNSF, it would probably make the most sense to start with the mountain mainlines. They have a serious capacity limitation at the Cascade Tunnel because of the ventilation issue. Lines with heavy coal traffic make sense too, if they work something out with the utilities.

I like that, "nuclear, alternative energy, or coal?" The only options are really coal or nuclear, and possibly hydroelectric in mountain areas. Wind and solar would be too expensive for the railroad's electricity requirements. The most likely source is coal since the railroad has access to lots of it.

Electro Motive and General Electric are probably too far behind modern electric locomotive technology at this point, so the locomotives would probably be from something ike Alstom or Siemens, possibly in partnership with the first two.

Would there be a way to make catenary that can allow doublestacks to go under it or overheight cars? And would the engines just have to be bigger or bigger pantographs to reach the wire?

That is a great point atsf_sp. They can probably make pantographs that reach high enough to have the catenary above doublestacks, but it led me to another thought. Doublestacks barely clear the Cascade Tunnel as it is. BN cut notches in the entire length of the tunnel liner so they will fit. I can't imagine that the height of the tunnel could be raised or the floor lowered enough to clear catenary above doublestacks, at least not without closing the tunnel for an extended period of time. Other tunnels might have the same problem; even if they clear doublestacks just fine, they might not have the clearance to add catenary. This could count out catenary on any line with both doublestacks and tunnels. Some through truss bridges might have problems as well.

In the case of the Cascade Tunnel...

How much clearance would the cantenary system need between the roof of the tunnel and the roofs of the rolling stock, be it double stacks or Superliners? Is there ample space as it stands now? If there is not sufficent space to string cantenary, I would think the two alternatives would be to either a.) bore a new tunnel or b.) operate bio-diesel or battery powered locomotives. 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.

But I'm not a civil or electrical engineer, nor am I knowledgeable on Cascade Tunnel, so I have no clue as to the feasibility of my above commentary and relegate it to the world of pure speculation. I will let those who are experts in these matters weigh in on the subject.


As for the question of motive power, I would think the units would be brutish, but possibly not as big as the electrics built at the turn of the last century for The Great Northern, Northern Pacific and/or Milwaukee Road. More than likely they'd be built to a larger scale than most units on the rails now, but I would think with the advances in technology, they wouldn't be that much bigger than, say, the E60s. Personally, I'd like to see something like the "Little Joe" or "W-1" grace the rails again. Heck, I wouldn't mind seening new boxcabs either. But that's just me.

Again, I'm not a locomotive builder, and will add the same disclaimer as my comentary on the Cascade Tunnel.

It won't be a problem with the double stacks and catenary.....CSX and Septa (Philly area) intermingle all the time

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 947&nseq=6

You make a good point about the tunnels, however, if a double stack can fit, there should be enough room for catenary up there, so long as the tunnel bore wasn't too squared off to fit the double stacks through. If they had the ceilings majorly notched out for the clearance, then it might be tough to squeeze in catenary.

Im not sure what the clearance would be required with double stacks, etc, but here in the east coast, there is very minimal clearance inbetween the catenary the passenger cars/locomotives.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 21&nseq=24

Its not a great picture, but there is only a few inches clearance inbetween the loco and the catenary.

Here's a picture I found online of a doublestack train emerging from the Cascade Tunnel. You can see the limited clearance and one of the notches they had to grind in the liner just to clear the containers.

http://www.gngoat.org/bnsf4853atscenic.JPG

The Cascade Tunnel is nearly 8 miles long. BNSF won't be boring a new one anytime soon. Third rail in the tunnel would be a possibility. I don't see BNSF switching locomotives to go through the tunnel; eliminating the need to change power was one of the main reasons GN got rid of the electrification.

Again, as I'm not in the industry and have not crunched the numbers on this...

I was thinking that they would not only bore a new tunnel tall enough for the double stacks, but wide enough for two tracks as well (and again, forgive me of my ignorance of the geography surrounding the tunnel, as I am not familiar with the site... but will be doing some extensive research on this later tonight).


Westr,

Yes, I too doubt that BNSF would want to bog down trains with power changes, but that would be the only way to get trains through the tunnels, if cantenary is not an option in the Cascade Tunnel as it exists now (which, again, is why I proposed reboring), or also the possible development of a locomotive that could utilize a third rail system to get "juice." It would definately be quicker to stop the train, lower the pans and deploy the third rail pickup shoe. Or, is it possible to lower the pans and run the unit via battery power while the shoe is deployed... "on the fly?"


You know, I've been out of college for five years (after eight years of post-secondary education), but it appears your moderator needs to do his homework.

There definitely doesn't seem to be room for catenary in the Cascade Tunnel, and I'm sure other tunnels on the line have this problem. Undercutting could be an option, although it would be a huge expensive project. The Milwaukee Road undercut many of their tunnels in electric territory in order to clear autoracks. Third rail would be cheaper as long as it could be designed so that it doesn't get in the way of existing equipment (diesel plows and low freight cars). It would have to be a combination of third rail and catenary installation. Electrifying the mountain lines makes sense not only because of the tunnels but also the horsepower requirements.

It sure seems like we are doing a lot of consulting work for BNSF in this thread.

wow, that does look pretty tight - it woudln't be too bad to notch out the top of the tunnel though - thats how the North and East River tunnels in NY that the PRR built. they were originally built with 3rd rail (engines were changed at the infamous Manhattan Transfer from 3rd rail to steam), but was converted to OH catenary in the 30s.

Or depending on how well the future dual mode locos work for NJT, maybe a freight design could be built (more HP, 3 axle trucks, etc), where it would only run on diesel while in the tunnels (seems the opposite of common sense, but it would work)

Are the majority of those tunnels uphill, downhill, level, or some combination of up and down which averages to level? If downhill then you don't even need to worry about running catenary. If level or undulating but averaging level then it might be possible to coast all the way through, even 8 miles, if the entry speed is high enough. The only time you definitely need to run powered through the tunnel is uphill, and then only if the run is fairly long. Inability to run catenary in the tunnels might not necessarily be a showstopper here. Besides, it should be possible to notch out the roof as was done in the East River Tunnels.

The 7.8 mile Cascade Tunnel has a constant grade rising from west to east of about 1.5%. The east portal is the high point on the line, so even westbound "downhill" trains are still pulling up to and probably after they enter the tunnel until enough of the train has crested the hill that gravity takes over and the brakes are applied.