That is the one and only way I could see railroad electrification happening. It would come with the premise that it did not
I don’t believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned.
I distinctly remember hearing as a kid that Southern Pacific was studying the electrification of their Sunset Line from West Colton to Indio in the 1960s and if that turned out to be successful, possibly extending it eastward all the way to El Paso. I also think that they also looked at electrifying Donner Pass.
However, in both cases, they decided against it. Why? Almost surely due to cost.
Today, battery powered freight locomotives for long distances are still in the experimental phase and might or might not pan out. In some cases, catenary might make more sense.
For some reason that I have never quite been able to fully grasp and digest, other countries found a way to electrify, but not the U.S.
I suspect that unless the Greens have their way and mandate something, Diesels will probably continue to rule American rails for some time to come except in yards or for short distances where batteries would be far more practical.
Other (nominally European & Japanese) countries had to rebuild much of their rail infrastructure from the ground up after WW II. The rebuilds were done as governmental projects, not private business projects. Governments and debt are different than private companies and debt. Governments can withstand the debt necessary to finance electrification as a matter of public interest.
In the US, while the railroads had to be rebuilt after WW II it was not the same task as in Europe and Japan. The US railroads were the victims of deferred maintenance during the war. The physical plant and equipment had been run hard and put away wet to carry the wartime
Interest on government’s debt as rates go up will swamp all programs. Electrification would be a nonstarter. I think we’re in the danger zone of not being able to right the ship. Very bad outcome if we have a crash. Will not be pretty.
A TV news story tonight showed a test of an in-pavement (induction) charging grid being installed in a Detroit street. There are similar tests going on in several other countries. If the government finances any transportation electrification, it will be for autos, and not trains.
For the 1991-92 study on electrifying the freight RR’s in SoCal, half of the total projected cost was in providing adequate clearance for the 50kV catenary.
During my GE years, GE was working (but I wasn’t) on the hybrid diesel-electric locomotive, which prompted two ideas on my part. One was that the hybrid would have been useful for long tunnels as the prime mover could be throttled back to reduce exhaust gases and heat from engine cooling. The other was to put batteries on electric locomotives to power through non-electrified trackage (as done by the CNS&M), where such trackage could include areas where clearances were insufficient for catenary.
I also think battery technology has progressed to where a hybrid commuter locomotive (or hybrid DMU’s) would make a lot of sense. Part of it would be recovering energy that would be otherwise lost in braking, but the other effectively doubling or tripling the output of the prime mover in acceleration and be able ro spend moore time at track speed between stops.
[quote user=“BaltACD”]
Fred M Cain
I don’t believe that clearance issues in tunnels and through-truss bridges are much of an obstacle. The real problem is cost, which several of you have already mentioned.I distinctly remember hearing as a kid that Southern Pacific was studying the electrification of their Sunset Line from West Colton to Indio in the 1960s and if that turned out to be successful, possibly extending it eastward all the way to El Paso. I also think that they also looked at electrifying Donner Pass.
However, in both cases, they decided against it. Why? Almost surely due to cost.
Today, battery powered freight locomotives for long distances are still in the experimental phase and might or might not pan out. In some cases, catenary might make more sense.
For some reason that I have never quite been able to fully grasp and digest, other countries found a way to electrify, but not the U.S.
I suspect that unless the Greens have their way and mandate something, Diesels will probably continue to rule American rails for some time to come except in yards or for short distances where batteries would be far more practical.
Other (nominally European & Japanese) countries had to rebuild much of their rail infrastructure from the ground up after WW II. The rebuilds were done as governmental projects, not private business projects. Governments and debt are different than private companies and debt. Governments can withstand the debt necessary to finance electrification as a matter of public interest.
In the US, while the railroads had to be rebuilt after WW II it was not the same task as in Europe and Japan.&nb
Have you checked what all that money is about? Maybe $1 - 2B for all the CAT work. All the rest is ROW, Sawtooth bridge Dock bridge. bridges including the Maryland and Connecticut bridges. Undercutting the whole track to remove bad sub grade, stations, & Etc.
In the USA electrification will not go forward without mass quantities of Federal Government ‘seed’ money, lots and lots of seed money.
The ROI on electrification is not sufficient to attract private capital investment in the project.
What will make it even more expensive is that the .gov couldn’t just help one railroad. If they helped NS, they’d have to do the same for CSX. If the money goes to UP, BNSF will demand an equal amount.
IMO some of our posters are making a mountain out of a mole hill concerning low clearances. If a lower clearance is a problem just lower the voltage thru the low clearance area(s). The use of tap changing transformers is well known. Later models of tap changers are automatic such as Acelas, Sprinters, AEMs with some older units such as E-60s, EMUs & etc either automatic or manual.
So, 25 kV is not required everywhere. Can be 12.5, 6.25, 3.12 or some other voltasge. The AAR would need to desiginate whatever voltages. Read somewhere that some location in Europe uses ~3 kV in a constrained location. Even CSX’s Virginia Ave tunnel will be able to use some lower voltage.
Another method would be to operate all trains thru a low clearance area to have an electric motor in front and one at rear of train operating in DPU. Just run CAT as an isolated dead section under low clearances allowing unpowered units to coast thru dead section with other unit(s) providing traction for train movement.
I would love to see the numbers, can you provide them? If the cat work is only an inconsequencial amount, then why are you always reporting on cat problems on the NEC?
Because it is an outdated type of construction.
- Steel poles directly into the ground slowly rusting away.
- The PRR method of hanging all track’s CAT wire on one single line between opposite sides of tracks. That is if one CAT wire is snagged as many as 4 CATwires on all 4 tracks come down. Just takes longer to fix.
- Variable tension CAT that sags in summer and may get very tight in winter.
- Until now congress has not allocated a line item to replace PRR CAT with constant tension CAT. Just look at how there is very few CAT problems on New Haven - BOS. Also for that matter how often NJ Transit has a problem with their new CAT.
Just a reminder for those who say to use DP and have some of the power “coast” while going through a tunnel. Many tunnels are used to get rid of the top of a grade so it really wouldn’t work to cut off the power of some of the locomotives.
Not to mention the fun when the train is stopped on the grade approaching the tunnel, and the DP has to start the train without benefit of draft-gear slack.
The point about varying catenary voltage with overhead clearance ignores the increased current (and hence various I2R losses) inherent in using a lower voltage in traction applications. A much better use would be in conjunction with battery dual-mode-lite hybrid power, where ‘every little bit’ of charging power could be helpful without compromising the performance of the train through ‘restricted clearance’ areas.
The photo I see of a standard PRR cat section shows the poles (I-beams) on a cement foundation, although I can’t tell if they are bolted to the foundation, or sunk into the cement. I know the PRR cat is basically obsolete, but my point is that if congress does not fund replacement of their own problem plagued cat, then what is the likelyhood of them funding widespread freight line electrification.
The logical solution is low-voltage same AC 60Hz frequebcr 3rd rail just though the restricted-clearance area and possibly 500 feet overlap transition lengrth each side.
If memory is correct, each concrete base was port with steel set into the top that looked like a flat bplate, but pobably had “feet” extendibg into the concrete, and the line poles were bolted to attachments intagral with each plate. Should be a drawing somewhere.
Pretty much the same PRR and NYNH&H.
One issue with 60Hz and 3rd rail is that the 60Hz impedance of rails is at least 6 times higher than the DC resistance. One option is copying BART with aluminum bonded to the sides of the 3rd rail. The other option is using DC on the 3rd rail and using a DC-DC converter for converting 3rd rail potential to the DC-link potential of the traction inverters. This converter would be smaller and lighter than the transformer.
Batteries have the advantage of providing power though spots where the catenary may be out of service due to maintenance and also though areas where it is not economical to electrify. Battery technology has come a long ways from when the CNS&M, DL&W and the NYC were using electric locomotives with batteries. I would also think the LFP batteries would be a better fit than Li-ion.
The ‘correct’ solution for track-level electrical contact is going to be ‘smart third rail’ (which is basically an upgrade of the old GE idea of having contacts raised and actuated as a shoe under the locomotive contacts them). There are in particular some Japanese and Italian versions that have near-continuous contacts embedded in a polymer structure, actuated electronically. As Eric notes, these are best implemented with DC / running-rail return, but the transversion from AC can be done nearly at each point of contact. I would of course argue for ~1500VDC fed via suitable equipment to the DC-Link of connected dual-mode-lite hybrid consists. (Adding the necessary ‘connectivity’ to one of Iden’s “tenders” would not be technically difficult either…)
There are few reasons, though, not to build the bulk of the electrification as overhead constant-tension line with the usual wear-reducing lateral sinusoid pulloff, and keep any return-current arrangements in the rails compliant with that.