Railroad Forums 

  • Total Electrification

  • General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.
It is currently Thu May 02, 2024 9:12 am

Total Electrification

General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.

Moderator: Robert Paniagua

  by SimplySam
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote:
However at this time, I'll give the Red Sox shorter odds on winning the World Series than any of the above coming to pass.
Red Sox Nation takes offense at this otherwise accurate statement! :wink:

BTW, how are the Cubs doing???

  by MudLake
 
Nasadowsk wrote:* Cheap electricity and high oil prices (90 a barrel's a certainty, 100's easily possible) will make electrification look attractive.

Looking into a 'crystal ball', I'll go out on a limb and predict the first new freight electrification in the US will be in the southeastern part of the country.
The concept of electricity being "cheap" has been around forever and it still hasn't happened. Remember when people were predicting that nuclear power generation would make electricity "too cheap to bother to meter"?

If the economics truly start to favor electrification, then the railroads will be all over it. Of course they will ask for some type of government assistance but until they start making noise I think it's safe to say that the "numbers aren't there" to paraphrase Mr. Norman.

  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Nasadowsk wrote:Clean coal isn't going to happen. Utilities don't even want it, now. Plant cost is approaching that of a nuke, operating costs are higher, siting is almost as bad, there's almost as much liability. And a 'clean coal' plant still depends on coal deliveries every day or two. And the utilities are NOT happy with the way the RRs are treating them.

Put it this way: utilities are canceling their plans for 'clean coal' plants, and submitting applications to the NRC for nukes - there's licenses for 5 units in now, and another 15 or 20 expected by the end of next year. This is minus Watts Bar #2, which the TVA says they will start work on (again)( this January.

Carbon sequestering is a big question mark, the newer emissions controls are adding complexity and costs, and may not be enough, anyway. On the flip side, today's new nuke designs are simpler, safer, make less waste, and cost less.
Mr. Nas, if you held licensure as a Security Analyst, I think you would be putting out the SELL signal for BNI, CSX, NSC, and UNP.

While as an electrical production/transmission professional, you are less concerned about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island than "others amongst us' in that you are confident the industry has addressed the issues either disaster raised over twenty years ago, either would be the first thing "John Q" will remember when he realizes there is a proliferation of nukes about the land.

Regarding "Green", maybe Vice President Gore's award of the Nobel Peace Prize will raise awareness of this issue (even if the incumbent Administration has suggested such is a non-issue), John Q has yet to get the message, for as I learned from NBC News, only 25% of "spring" water bottles are recycled.

Nevertheless, the railroad industry appears to be at an "X-roads"; if "Green" is 'swept under the rug", and a year round Northwest Passage is navigable to maritime traffic, whatever hopes the industry has of a "land bridge' for Asian-European trade will be gone. That's high rated traffic, Volks. Conversely, the coal traffic, low rated lest we forget, will be safe.

If "Green" moves forth and the initiative includes Nuke (but I would also hope includes solar and wind), then the railroads will be clipped. However, with the track capacity freed from less coal traffic converted, with maybe a little effective marketing for once from the industry, to land bridge maritime traffic, and along with priority services such as that declined by UP from UPS (FedEX on the rails, who knows?) the coal revenue loss could be offset, if not recovered.

Oh and lastly, maybe more efficient handling of Amtrak LD (it ain't going away, even if I personally think it should have been gone thirty years ago) enabled by released track capacity, will result in more "copper in the hopper' in the industry's pockets.

  by Nasadowsk
 
<i>Remember when people were predicting that nuclear power generation would make electricity "too cheap to bother to meter"? </i>

The popular media does, but the industry didn't say that. The oft quoted comment the chairman of the AEC made was paraphrased and chopped by the media - he never did say nuclear was going to be 'too cheap to meter'.

Back in the late 50's, it was assumed that nuclear would, at best, match the best coal plants of the time. There was a huge R&D effort on early plants - 1/3rd of Dresden's cost was R&D, ditto for most other plants of the era. Even discounting R&D, the raw costs still put it barely on par with coal.

What's happening now is the cost metrics are shifting. Coal plants are getting more expensive to build, more expensive to operate, while nukes are going the other direction.

Both still blow the doors off of wind and solar....

I'm also questioning how much the numbers aren't there, and how much is industry inertia. Let's face it, the RRs in the US are generally on the trailing edge of technology in general. And having read some stuff out there, I tend to think there's a lot of people in the industry who have some bizzare (at best) notions of electrification.

  by JoeG
 
Nukes still have big safety issues. 1) No permanent waste storage facility is yet open for business. 2) If such a facility is developed, there will probably be only one, and the transport of high-level waste for long distances will be risky. 3) The PWR and BWR designs being proposed run at too high temperatures and pressures, and I assume they still use zirconium for fuel rods. So, they are inherently more dangerous than nuke designs that run at lower temperature and pressure. The added possibility of terrorist attacks on nukes can't be ignored, either.

That being said, the dangers of coal are now seen as much more serious than was true pre-Gore, etc. If Mr Nasadowski is right and nukes become dominant in new electric plants, I can only hope that safer, lower temperature and pressure plants get built, but I see no sign of that so far.

  by pennsy
 
For areas that have no catenary etc. it will be quite expensive to install poles, catenary wire, supporting wires etc. let alone the substations that can provide the proper voltages and current demands of the RR. Certainly not cheap.

Once these fixtures are installed and in operation, yes, it would be cheaper to run the trains with electric power.

Electric power, especially at high voltages, can come from considerable distances from the source. That is a major advantage of high voltage power, extreme distances from the power source, efficiently.

Major problem is economics. Where do you get the financial resources to convert a line to electrical power ? The power can come from Hydroelectric plants, dams, wind sources, and lately, solar power. All have Green approval.

  by John_Perkowski
 
Moderator's Note:

The simple fact is there is a huge investment if the freight railroads are to invest in wire delivered electricity as their principal power source. This is a Board of Directors decision at UP, BNSF, CSXT, NS, and on, and on.

Amtrak, outside the NEC, represents 1 movement/direction/day on many of these lines.

This discussion is worthwhile, but it's going to get moved to the General Discussion: Railroad Operations Forum. I'll ask Otto to unlock it after the move is complete.

  by NJTRailfan
 
Forgot to add that with total electrification yo ucan forget abotu running dome cars there. Yes even though Amtrak no longer owns/runs them in regular service there are still quite a few private car owners/excursions and other rail companies ooperating charters that do. Or if domes can be runned it would be like the B&O where no one would be allowed to sit in the dome as long as it's under a wire for the fear of someone getting electrified since theres only glass and a steel striping holding the windows from protecting you.

  by Tadman
 
Nasadowsk, I really respect your out-of-box thinking and analysis on a drop in traffic due to large increases in nuclear generation being the catalyst. I never ever thought of things that way, and I have to say it does make sense.

  by Murjax
 
We need more money before we can pursue anything like this. I don't think that money's going to come from the government because there aren't enough people supporting the rails. We need private money. That's all I have to say.

  by Ken W2KB
 
pennsy wrote:The power can come from Hydroelectric plants, dams, wind sources, and lately, solar power. All have Green approval.
Dams and hydro are opposed by many enviro groups as they want to see the ecosystems of rivers returned to free running. That said, there is little or no hydro additional potential in the USA as virtually all has been developed.

Wind and solar are intermittent resources and cannot be relied upon to be available when needed at peak times. For example, in the northeast US, about 10 times the amount of wind generation would have to be built to get the equivalent capacity of a conventional fuel source generator. E.g., 1,000MW of wind generators would be needed to achieve the capacity factor of a conventional 100MW unit.

Wind and solar energy is on the order of magnitude of 10 times more expensive than new fossil or nuclear generation. Building wind or solar to supply traction power would be uneconomic.

  by DutchRailnut
 
Suburban Station wrote:
DutchRailnut wrote:Electrifying on freight railroads would also restrict freight car use like double stacks or oversize loads ao freight carriers even if they got it for free and use for free would still object.
Is it not possible to place catenary at heights sufficient to run double stacks?
Not really since the catenary at such hieght would not be good for passenger use at higher speeds.
Even trains lean in curves and Catenary is normally kept closer to roof in curves so the pantograph does not leave the wire.
Putting the wire at 30 or so feet would make the reach of pantograph way to high.

  by David Benton
 
I think things are going to change rather rapidly in the near future . In some ways its a chiken and eggs situation for the railroads . 2 things i can see happening , coal burning and trucking going out of favour . One would represent a drop in traffic for the railroads , the other an increase .
I would think the smart railroad would be looking at 2 things , its energy efficency and its speed / level of service . both will become more critical .
as far as electrification goes , it may come into being with the advance of hybrid technology , and onboard power storage . I.e partial electrification , with battery / diesel filling in the gaps . using the Albant - New York line as an example , 3rd rail could be used in conjunction with battery / diesel , form new york to the end of the current electrification . from there only stations and the first mile or 2 each side of a station would be electrified . allowing the shutdoewn of the diesel whilst in the station , and a combo of diesel / electric t provide quic acceleration away from the station stop .
On the frieght side i could see heavily graded sections been electrified , again hybrid locos using both when needed , and using regeneative braking when descending grades .

  by LCJ
 
And then I woke up... :wink:

  by Frank
 
John_Perkowski wrote:Amtrak, outside the NEC, represents 1 movement/direction/day on many of these lines.
The Empire Corridor runs more than 1 train a day in each direction and could easily benefit from electrification (atleast from New York to Albany).
 Return to “Operations, Facilities, Maps and Resources”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -