A. Overview: The present price oil is hovering around $110 (now 110 - 125) a petroleum barrel. This post will try to cover potential rewards and risks in justifying US electrification. This post is not an argument per say pro or con. This author solicits comments and especially omissions and corrections sent. Please reply with a source citation and not opinion. I’ll try to update this post at least once a month after the proper research on any comments. Included sections are feasibility, power supply, initial location(s), locomotives, operational options, and political problems.
Feasibility:
If petroleum stays at $100-110 or more the price per BTU makes sources of train powering other than diesel worth studying. At present there is enough spare electrical generating capacity in the US to REQUIRE no immediate need for new power plants. The new light bulb energy use regulations will mitigate but not eliminate the need for more power plants as CFLs and LED lights use age becomes more widespread.
If or when additional electricity is needed for trains it can be produced by - water ( most locations already taken ), nuclear (long lead times), wind solar(not consistent for RRs), coal (can be located with environmental issues mitigated near the location of use). Using oil or natural gas fired boilers appears counterproductive however they might still use less energy than our present locomotives. Natural gas peaking plants might be useful in certain circumstances.
India’s and China’s government and industries appear to be buying all the petroleum and coal they can find; the price of petroleum during the seasonal energy use lull in the US from April 1 - May 30 may give the US and Canada a good indication of the long term price trends of petroleum that will occur. I’ve seen speculation ranging from $100 - 165 a barrel.
The new Tier III locomotive rebuilding emission regul
I’d think that any new electrification would make use of battery electrics for many of the reasons listed. It would probably be easier to add an auxilliary diesel engine or turbine to an electric than to graft the electric equipment on a diesel.
erikem: I didn’t cover battery electric because of time and too lengthy post. Your suggestion is covered by the new Gen Sets that are being ordered in more numbers than I expected. Battery Electrics have battery capacity problems but certainly in certain switching applications make good sense. Old GP frames make a good conversion and recharging on deep cycle batterys could be done on a short piece of track off a third rail shoe that the crew couuld energize only when needed. (probably fenced off)
Really if you can afford to electrify large amounts of trackage you can afford to eliminate the two lower voltage/frequency systems. The lower frequency requires a much larger smoothing choke and more expensive metal in the core of the transformers. As it is there is very little freight traffic in these areas, and any increase would affect passenger services. If some areas in cities require lower voltages for clearance reasons at least make them 60 Hz.
The problem here is that extra speed requires extra energy and the relationship isn’t linear its exponential, no matter what, the extra energy isn’t free.
[quote]
F. Economics.
The infrastructure has such a long life that Wall street may object. The structure of the PRR initial electrification is sti
Skimming through this and other related posts, perhaps I missed the part where someone explained how catenary and doublestacks will coexist in tunnels. ALL tunnels. You can notch all you want to clear containers at the corners, but there appears to not be a lot of room left at the apex of some tunnel ceilings to accommodate wire and supporting members, as well as a pantograph of appropriate width to maintain contact on tight curves. Just my armchair engineering assessment. Someone else can crunch the numbers and tell us if the dimensions would work out.
If BNSF electrified the Transcon, would they most likely use 50KV60hz?
I’m thinking the best place for the east end of the catenary would be at the major yard in Galesburg. Diesels could then use the two routes used to various points in Chicago. Out west, would it make sense to add diesels on the point at Barstow for the trip over Cajon? The wires could end at the bottom of the grade in San Bernardino, or Fullerton, and the electrics could continue DIC into Los Angeles. This would seem to eliminate most of the clearance problems. I can’t think of any tunnels between Barstow and Galesburg.
There’s some great ideas here but shouldn’t this be combined with the “Electrification in North America” thread, we’re having two separate discussions on the same topic aren’t we?
Acckk. I have been away from this too long to really have any idea. I do see generic references to $1 million per mile from time to time. However, a wild guess from some old studies, using the Producer Price Index and the increase in the price of copper, using a 4/0 grooved copper trolley wire with steel messenger wire, catenary construction, a single track, “Milwaukee type” construction with wood poles, arms, signalling changes, insulators, AC clearances, anchors, feeder cable, probable cost of $677,831-$750,000 per track mile. The much heavier construction required for double track pushes the cost to something over $2 million per track mile. One thousand miles of double track with 120 electric locomotives could be outfitted on a typical Western railroad for about $2.4 billion. This compares with equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower of $648,000,000 and equivalent Steam equipment of $214,000,000 on a thirty year economic service life basis.
As a very rough guide to present day costs - but maybe the best available - what did it cost Amtrak about 8 - 10 years ago to extend its electrification from New Haven to Boston ?
The distance is what - about 150 miles ?
My very hazy recollection of the cost is around $330 million (please feel free to correct this if you have a better recollection or information !), which would be about $2.2 million per route-mile. If it’s essentially the equivalent of double track, that would be about $1.1 million per track-mile. I believe the prime contractor was Balfour Beatty (a British firm), possibility in collaboration (joint venture ?) with others, and that there were the usual allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse, etc. with reward to the billing and cost overruns at the end of the project.
Aside from the effects of inflation (increases), as I recall most of the work was done in a restricted time window of nights only - most likely to stay out of the way of the commuter trains, and was performed from special work trains - probably because of restricted access since the built-up urban / suburban nature of the area, many nearby marshes and bays, etc. prevented easy access from the side or with off-track equipment. Presumably elsewhere in the country - i.e., in the Midwest - it would be easier to arrange access from or across adjoining farms, the time frame might not be so constricted, and probably the local labor and other costs of construction would be less than in New England - remember, the infamous “Big Dig” highway project was also going on in Boston at some of the same time, I believe.
Anyway, some data to chew on for now, and maybe more if someone can retrieve the exact figures.
If you look at the other thread there is discussion of the “hows” going on right now…I’m just saying that there is a lot of duplication so shouldn’t it be merged (before the moderator goes ahead and merges it)?
No, you couldn’t. To do that you’d need to know how many locomotives, speeds, trailing tonnage, how many trains, climate, and vertical and horizontal alignment, just to get started. Catenary and locomotives are like track; they’re site- and use-specific.
For ballpark estimating purposes, we figure $2 million/mile for light rail catenary erected without the burden of existing traffic, not including cost of distribution system, design, permits (which can be fabulously expensive to obtain), or unusual conditions. Putting it up over a busy freight railroad would probably cost more than 50% additional, in lost productivity for the crews and delays for the freight trains.
For what it’s worth, virtually all new construction on western U.S. Class Is has sufficient vertical clearance above top of rail to accommodate catenary, and that extra clearance is there specifically for that purpose, not by coincidence. But many existing overhead structures and tunnels cannot accomodate catenary and would require substantial expense to rebuild, replace, enlarge, or reroute.
Thanks RWM. The state of Tennessee has been complaining for many years about NS, CSX and predecessors about the excess (their statement) clearances that they are requiring for future electrification.
If I had a time machine and could only change one thing, I would be satisfied to go back to 1950 and mandate that no overhead structure could be built encroaching on the right-of-way or lower than 23’4" above top of rail, and no transmission lines or pipelines in the the right-of-way, either. Just accomplishing that would be of great value today. But, alas, back then even railroaders didn’t see much of a future in the business, and ekeing out a few dollars from right-of-way leases and sales was sometimes the only thing that kept fuel in the tanks.
Beaulieu: Didn’t address the 25HZ cconversion to 60 Hz as slightly outside the post. However I agree that AMTRAK needs to convert from New Rochelle to sunnyside to Penn Station to Newark Airport station. As I have been told MN has no 25Hz equipment so how can they power pool on the proposed through service from MN to NJ transit? Then proceed converting on to Metropark, NJ. This would allow NJ transit the ability to no longer buy equipment for 25Hz and the now standard 60Hz. The Trenton line would be able to use the older equipment (25-60Hz). Bet riders would not put up with older equipment too long. Next down the line many station services (elevators etc) still use 25Hz. Does AMTRAK sell power to SEPTA? That is a real bucket of worms. Also is AMTRAK still using the PRR generating plant? Do not know if MARC equipment ok on 60Hz. On another post the statement that 25Hz transformers are much more expensive and bulky.
Bruce: I imagine that some mitigation in some tunnels would come from using 12,5Kv in the tunnel.
Paul: The total cost figures interest me very much. AMTRAK only went east from shoreline jct to Boston. There are some 3 track sections and Providence RI has 5 or 6 tracks for several miles. The addition of 3 track electric skews the figures and do not know if it was counted into the orighnal figures. Then there is the extensive Boston yard and South Station which is not catenary but simple trolley wire hangers. Also the total degrees of curvature counts because the tighter the curve the more superstructure needed. Do not know if the bridge clearance improvements were counted in.
As I posted in that other thread, the long term expection is for oil at $70 a barrel. CTL can produce diesel at $35 a barrel equivelant. Coal will stay under $100 ton. There is no spare generating capacity right now (contrary to the above statment), so railroads would probably have to build their own generating capacity or buy into someone else’s new generation.
If the cost of both generating electricity specifically for railroads and erecting/maintaining catenary is below these longer term benchmarks, then electrification has a chance.
Or the feds could just mandate it via legislation.