With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines?
I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.?
Which road(s) would benefit the most?
Where would potential electrifications be most likely?
My own observations and opinions on the subject are:
This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ’s, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time.
It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1’s could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan’s in the east and the Rockies in the west…
I think electrification was put back 30 years when BN placed that order for 370 SD70MACs. I am sure they must have given a lot of thought to electification at that time.
I’m not an expert on electricfication, but it appears to be used the most where you have lightly loaded trains running on a frequent basis, such as commuter rail and light rail systems. This is probably due to the limitations of an overhead catenary.
The light rail system in Salt Lkae uses a 700 VDC optimum voltage. This of course floats around due to a wide assortment of things. If we assume 700 VDC, we get a few numbers that can be scary:
A 4400 hp locomotive will consume roughly 750 watts X 4400 hp = 3.3 megawatts, or 3,300,000 / 700 volts = 4700 amps!!! Even if by chance the system voltage is kicked up to 2800 volts, you’re still looking at close to 1200 amps.
Not many wires can carry this current. Imagine if you have multiple engines pulling a coal drag… Get the idea? You also have a substantial voltage drop along the wire, so you have to space the substations (DC power supplies) fairly close along the route.
You’d have to run a LOT of freight to pay for such a system.
AC would probably be used, but regarding DC, Milwaukee Road used a 3600 vDC system. It’s 5,500 hp Little Joes used approximately 1200 amps, or 1400 if the Joe went to its overload capacity of 7000 hp. The catenary used two 500,000 cm copper wires, with auxilliary feeder cable augmenting the catenary through either a 500,000 cm copper feeder, or a 750,000 cm aluminum feeder cable, with 4,000 or 6,000 kW substations located at approximately 28 mile intervals. These substations had a one-hour overload capacity of 200% of rated capacity. By isolating sections to permit two or three substations per block, the system could easily provide as much as 36,000 KW or more to a train.The system could typically handle two 5,500 hp Little Joes and a four unit Boxcab helper, 7000 hp, without overheating the catenary.
It routinely paid for itself, even with relatively light usage, every 8-10 years.
The bottom line is that electricity is in great demand and the price of electricity is on the rise too. Until electricity becomes VERY cheap it’s not worth the big expense of installing wires.
Randy
DC is out dated for heavy main line electric trains. The modern heavy ore trains and high speed trains around the world use 50,000 volts AC. This has the capacity to give more power then the biggest diesel lashups ever used in USA.
Mark in Utah;
A double set TGV high speed train has 4 x 6000hp units to accelatate a 1000 ton train to 188mph. The wires hold up fine.
In the Milwaukee thread, you had mentioned the MU’ing of electrics and diesels by the Milwaukee. Was this strictly one man control from the cab of the electric, or was there ever a situation where the diesels could draw current from the “mother” electric?
Michael,
since you are in the Pacific NW perhaps you can find a way to save an old friend. Milw super dome #58 needs a friend badly. It’s at the AOE facility and they have no plans for it . Breaks my heart to see it die.
Randy
DC systems of all types, from 600 v to 3000 v, constitute 58,000 miles of European rail line, of which 3 kV DC is 77% of the total mileage. AC mileage of all types amounts to 74,000 miles, of which the 25 vAC, 50 mHz systems are approximately 64% of the total AC mileage, or 47,000 miles. It is interesting to note that, nearly 50 years after its introduction, the AC “standard” that was adopted in many cases on political grounds is, in spite of the strong political and economic backing of the French government, still only slightly ahead of the the 45,000 miles of 3 kVDC systems based on the Milwaukee Road design which are still hauling freight and passengers to this day and which never enjoyed a government support or export subsidy. If the recent trans-Siberian construction is not included, 3 kV DC would still be the predominant railway electrification type in Eurasia.
An interesting thing about the current AC “standard” is its history. The primary European AC standard prior to WWII was a 15 kVAC16Hz system. It was developed by Czech and German engineers. This remains the primary electrification standard of Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. There remains nearly 27,000 miles of this old AC “standard.” Germany and the other named countries have shown little inclination to adopt 25kv50Hz “standard” AC systems.
Modern planning toward the new AC system is primarily a result of European “integrationist” policies, propelled by French economic interests, rather than technical economic justification.
Indeed, at the commencement of WWII, DC was the overwhelming standard of Europe. Spain had adopted 3kvDC in 1922, It
The engineer of the Electric could, through the diesel synchronous controller (Wylie throttle), control any diesels operating behind the electrics directly through the electric controls. The diesels could not, however, obtain operating power through the electrics. The only dual source equipment on the Milwaukee were special rotary snowplows designed to either accept overhead 3600 vDC power through a pantograph, or 600 vDC power from a diesel locomotive.
The a.c. vs d.c. argument is really sort of a bugabo anyway. AC current travels long distances better than DC but DC has always been easier to control at the locomotive. All of those MILW substations were there to convert AC to DC and DC to AC as needed. So the MILW used commercial AC to get the power to the rail lines and then DC to feed the trains. I have no doubt any modern system would do the same thing. They would take commercial AC power from the grid and feed lower voltage AC to the locomotives or feed DC to them. Note all the nice new AC diesels from EMD and GE have AC alternators in them but the output is converted to a very smooth DC voltage before computer controlled circuitry converts the DC back to very specific frequency AC to feed the traction motors. It would be plausable that feeding pure DC through the catenary to the locos would be the best solution to regulating the speed of the locomotives.
Lawrence Wylie was not convinced in the benefits of AC line voltages and ac locomotives when designing an upgrade to the MILW system in the early 1970s and wa pushing for an upgrade to the DC system in place with increased capacity to run longer and more frequent trains.
Lets face it , 12K, 25K or 50K voltages in a locomotive is a lot of electrons looking really hard for a way to get out of there. The 600v systems in modern diesels have shown they can generate 1000 hp per axle and that seems to be a limit to adhesion with out implementing more sophisticated wheel slip and power control systems.
I understand the Lake Powell and Black Mesa, a landlocked RR, uses 50,000 volts (?), hauls very heavy coal trains at a moderate speed.
With that kind of voltage, does it have to be AC? 'Cuz if AC motors are getting more efficient the way AC diesel-electrics are, that would be one more reason to prefer AC.
Hi Alan, actually DC is better over long distances. I don’t know where the idea comes from, but it is only a truism that AC is a better means of transporting high voltage power. It’s previous advantage was only in the ease of conversion to different voltages, but in fact, DC is a superior form of long distance, high voltage electric power transmission. As technology has reduced the cost of converting DC power, its advantages have increased to the point where high voltage DC is now the preferred means of long distance electric power transmission.
I was born and grew up in Switzerland aka the Land of Electric Railway Pioneering - never mind chocolate, cheese and yodeling! [;)][:D]
OK to electrify with a return on your money it is best to do that with high-voltage i.e. Austria, Germany and Switzerland at 15kV 16.666 cycle. It helps if you’re running relatively short trains at relatively high speeds and can keep the differential between freight speed and passenger speed to a minimum or get the freight on separate tracks.
The propulsion technology that is being used in modern AC engines has been around since 1972 - at least that was when I was trained on that technology albeit for a differnt application - but at that time lacked the sophistication that comes with the modern computers.
Using that technology in conjunction with recuperative braking makes for ve
I doubt whether any railroads have active electrification plans. It is incredibly expensive initially. It requires huge permanent physical plant investments and it requires new locomotives that are restricted to just one portion of the railroad. There are very few locomotive savings because you still need virtually the same number of engines to haul the trains away from the electrified portion and you have the added delay of changing engines at the boundry point.
Bottom line is the costs are greater to electrify than the savings in fuel.
Hi Alan, actually DC is better over long distances. I don’t know where the idea comes from, but it is only a truism that AC is a better means of transporting high voltage power. It’s previous advantage was only in the ease of conversion to different voltages, but in fact, DC is a superior form of long distance, high voltage electric power transmission. As technology has reduced the cost of converting DC power, its advantages have increased to the point where high voltage DC is now the preferred means of long distance electric power transmission.
I am not to sure on that. In Britain 1500 volts was the standard before the Second World War, with the exeption of the Southern Railway, but the railways did not have the money for large scale electrification. When the money became available Post War in the 1950’s it was decided to electrify at 25kv industrial frequency. For new electrification since the 1950’s 25kv has been the way the go. Other voltages have been extensions to existing systems. If the difference is so small way have new projects all been high voltage AC. In addition i dont now of good loco standard motor that can handle much over 1200 volts so how would high voltage DC be used in motors.
Admittedly, I get nervous when engineering and economic decisions are founded upon adjectives such as “incredibly,” and “huge,” as opposed to use of specific numbers.
However, let me offer a couple of suggestions. When Milwaukee decided to abandon its electrification in 1973, I discussed it with retired Milwaukee Road Electrical Engineers L.W. Wylie and H.R. Morgan, as well as with British Rail’s expert, H.F. Brown, and engineers familiar with both the Milwaukee and GN electrifications, Walter Gordon, E.E. Van Ness, Gordon Rogers, and others. The last three named and I participated in a formal study on the project, consulting with Wylie, Morgan and Brown.
At that time, diesel fuel was 8 cents a gallon, but had begun its historic rise. Historically, the increase in diesel fuel costs was always faster than corresponding electric power costs, partcularly in the U.S. West with its large installed base of hydroelectric power. This has remained true.
I had discussed the matter with the Montana Power Company, and someone else on our team discussed it with Puget Power & Light, which was the electric power supplier for Milwaukee Road’s Coast Division.
One of the big surprises in our study was the offer by the Electric Utilities that, if the Milwaukee felt that it needed to completely rebuild its system around an AC concept, and scrap entirely t
Diesels produce their own power??!!?? Well, DUH![}:)]
What I am getting at is if it is possible for an electric loco to feed power to MU’ed diesels (and vis versa) while going through long tunnels, e.g. a hypothetical re-electrification of BNSF’s Cascade Tunnel. This would make it possible to eliminate the need for time consuming ventilation of the tunnel. The thought I had was that there would be no need to electrify entire subdivisions, rather concentrate the catenary in those places with the long tunnels or steepest grades, then run a combined consist of electric and diesels as a segregated FL9. The diesels would feed th