future electrification routes?

electricron wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:If the moderators will indulge, since Mr. Buffet's holdings have been discussed, I give out this article on turbine purchase.

Berkshire Hathaway goes for the long plays. I wouldn't be surprised if they electrify major portions of the Transcon in the next 20 years. (It'll be a race to see what's easier operationally and cheaper, this or LNG). If so, its always possible Amtrak might want to take advantage of the electrification. Though doubtful.

Presuming you mean the Southern Transcon here, though I could see such on the Northern too - the grades tend to be heavier, and the only major tunnel (Cascade) was electrified once upon a time.

There's a reason why BNSF took the wires down in the Cascade's Tunnel, to make room (clearance) for double stacked container cars.

Well, technically it took down the wires because dieselization made them obsolete well before the double-stack revolution, but point taken. I'm sure Matt Rose will take that into account if electrification is an option, because it doesn't make sense to only electrify the Southern Transcon.

The UP/SP Roseville Sub tunnels had to be "notched" to allow Double Stacks over Donner Pass,Stampede Pass tunnels will need to
be undercut to allow the return of overhead wire.
If BNSF were to hang wire across the Transcon,the masssive rebuilding or undercutting of the many overpasses would kill
the budget,as would hanging wire from Kansas City to Newton Ks and Mulvave,plus Belen to ABQ to Dalies to allow Amtrak
to use Electric power on the Chief.

I'd imagine that the only routes that would be feasible initially for freight electrification would be the ones that are primarily flat; there wouldn't be a large need to adjust tunnels or undercut, or have to adjust many bridges because it would mostly be level crossings.


Unrelated to my previous statement, a question: Wasn't there a proposal at some point to construct a direct route from New York to Boston, up through northeastern Connecticut? I can't remember if it was related to the research into the feasibility of rebuilding the New York & Boston Air Line that was done around the time of the Acela research. If it was, it certainly wouldn't be feasible; as much as it was an impressive route, there are too many curves, elevation changes, and bridges to be efficient as a route or monetarily.

Could there be a technology developed involving a "charge car" employed behind the engine using the traction to charge the unit? This would make wire and all the infrastructure it entails moot plus allow for continued double stacks etc. I could be off the deep end with this concept but we're talking waaaaay down the road here...

NRGeep wrote:Could there be a technology developed involving a "charge car" employed behind the engine using the traction to charge the unit? This would make wire and all the infrastructure it entails moot plus allow for continued double stacks etc. I could be off the deep end with this concept but we're talking waaaaay down the road here...

That exists on trolleys now as a bona fide purchase option for off-wire excursions, though no one's yet had a need to procure a vehicle like that: http://www.ameritram.com/technical_innovation.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Unfortunately RR distances make it a real reach for battery hybrids to go off-wire at the scale that would be required here. There might be a point by mid-century where that can suffice for short commuter rail branchlines forking off an electrified mainline, but for Amtrak's purposes it's too many decades away to matter. Regenerative braking and battery tech does the most good today simply for lowering power consumption on both electrics and diesels. The ACS-64 for all its braun is a relative electricity sipper compared to the AEM-7's, E60's, and even the HHP-8's. And so are some of these new AC traction Tier 3 & 4 diesels.

Really, what it'll do in the meantime is jump-start the true dual modes market since fitting powerful electric and diesel engines under one hood gets easier the better the regenerative braking is. With Amtrak consolidating its platforms under very modular-looking Sprinter and next-gen diesel platforms that 'killer app' ALP-45DP competitor is just a matter of time as a P32 replacement and means of freeing up the yards at D.C. and New Haven from stocking equipment for VA and Springfield Regionals engine switches. With the Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, Inland Regionals, and ever-increasing NC service also being beneficiaries. It'll free up a lot of Sprinters and diesels for service increases elsewhere to not have to get reserved in pairs any longer for these off-wire addendums to NEC runs.

NRGeep wrote:Could there be a technology developed involving a "charge car" employed behind the engine using the traction to charge the unit? This would make wire and all the infrastructure it entails moot plus allow for continued double stacks etc. I could be off the deep end with this concept but we're talking waaaaay down the road here...

I was going to say "probably not" but looking at the numbers it's not as far out there a I first thought.

One way to look at this is in terms of energy density. Basically how much energy can fit into a size.

Consider how powerful a Star Trek Phaser is compared to say a pop-gun.

Here we want to compare diesel to rechargeable battery.

if you look at the top 1/2 of that page, you'll see diesel is roughly 36MJ/L.
Li-Ion- 2.63MJ/L.

So you'd need something roughly 14x as big as the fuel tank on a current locomotive to match range.

That's a first pass approximation.

This is why all electric cars have a hard time reaching the range of gasoline powered cars. They need a LOT of battery. (Stop in a Tesla showroom if you can and you'll see much of the car is battery.)

On the other hand, you can simply other things, so giving it some thought, might not be a horrible idea.
Of course you have the operational issue of having to swap out "battery cars" since the time to recharge them would be quite large.

Greg Moore wrote:

NRGeep wrote:Could there be a technology developed involving a "charge car" employed behind the engine using the traction to charge the unit? This would make wire and all the infrastructure it entails moot plus allow for continued double stacks etc. I could be off the deep end with this concept but we're talking waaaaay down the road here...

I was going to say "probably not" but looking at the numbers it's not as far out there a I first thought.

...

So you'd need something roughly 14x as big as the fuel tank on a current locomotive to match range.

...

Of course you have the operational issue of having to swap out "battery cars" since the time to recharge them would be quite large.

Hmm. An average ES44AC has a 5,000 gallon tank, or 668 cubic feet - about half the volume of a TEU shipping container.

Eight TEU-sized batteries would more than match the fuel capacity in a modern diesel, and would have the advantage of being easily replaced by overhead container crane. Whether lithium ion batteries are advanced enough to serve in this role is an open question, but it isn't intrinsically impossible.

mtuandrew wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:

NRGeep wrote:Could there be a technology developed involving a "charge car" employed behind the engine using the traction to charge the unit? This would make wire and all the infrastructure it entails moot plus allow for continued double stacks etc. I could be off the deep end with this concept but we're talking waaaaay down the road here...

I was going to say "probably not" but looking at the numbers it's not as far out there a I first thought.

...

So you'd need something roughly 14x as big as the fuel tank on a current locomotive to match range.

...

Of course you have the operational issue of having to swap out "battery cars" since the time to recharge them would be quite large.

Hmm. An average ES44AC has a 5,000 gallon tank, or 668 cubic feet - about half the volume of a TEU shipping container.

Eight TEU-sized batteries would more than match the fuel capacity in a modern diesel, and would have the advantage of being easily replaced by overhead container crane. Whether lithium ion batteries are advanced enough to serve in this role is an open question, but it isn't intrinsically impossible.

Yeah. Like I say, I was surprised. It's not nearly as hard as I thought. But it is still fairly impractical for most cases.

And really doesn't do Amtrak much good.

what happens to this thinking if you accept that our supply of crude is limitless. i really don't know the economics of electricity versus diesel in locomotives . my simple comparison is diesel is far more efficient because it's a first use element. electricity requires a power source for generation. also, history is instructive since freight diesels rapidly replaced electrics for a variety of reasons. also one should not look at non-us freight since passenger-friendly countries limit weight-on-rail to 10 tons/axle thereby placing most freight into trucks. hardly economic. ken patrick

I note the Siemens Vectron family has a "last mile" option now. Is there a chance this might help move forward electrification on line sections where the bits that are hard to get safe clearance are impractical to fix but not long in length? Obviously it would have an impact since top speed would likely be around 50mph plus if the pan had to be lowered in transit but depending on context (where for instance a 110mph diesel service was to be replaced with 125mph electric) may not extend total travel time over the prior timetable.

I've stayed away from this topic to date simply because it has gone exactly where I could have figured - a bunch of young railfans throwing darts at a board with the underlying view that the predominantly investor owned US railroad system is here for the convenience of passenger trains.

First allow me to make reference to the one comment I noted during my review of this material that stands out; it will take a LOT of passenger trains to make any electrification project feasible. All of the logical extensions in the Northeast have been completed - those being obviously New Haven - Boston and those of several lines in the New York area. Even existing or proposed 'dozen a day' frequencies about the land can hardly justify the excess of capital costs for electrification over existing Diesel-Electric propulsion.

Mr. Patrick has immediately made comments worthy of our attention. First is that while both UP and BNSF predecessors traditional UP in the case of the former have done studies regarding main line electrification, the conclusions are simply 'it ain't worth it'. These studies were born from the days of the '70's when one assorted Sheik/Emir/Potentate/Dear Leader/Ayatollah could turn off the spigot at will. But now with the technological breakthroughs for extracting crude (geologists have known the stuff was there for 100 years; I learned of it in Geology 101 circa 1963), the US is approaching that energy independent status pols since Nixon have promised.

Finally, again referring to Mr. Patrick's immediate with regards to the European rail system; lest we forget such is simply a glorified interurban (not being critical of a system that provides high speed frequencies we only dream of over here) in that what freight traffic they handle is done so at the sufferance of the passenger trains. This not only includes staying out of passenger's way, but also loadings not much greater than a passenger train. Of course on the flip side, let us also note that Europe has many more miles of navigable waterways per square mile than does North America.

There's a reason why BNSF took the wires down in the Cascade's Tunnel in the mid 1950s, to make room (clearance) for future double stacked container cars, and taller cars in general.

Was a time machine involved to bring BNSF into the picture? When Cascade Tunnel was de-electrified in 1956, it was the property of the Great Northern Railway. And double-stacks weren't even thought of back then. GN's steam-era electrification was removed because by the mid-1950s the combination of diesel power and ventilating fans made it an unnecessary expense. The same thing happened to the Boston & Maine electrification through Hoosac Tunnel and the New York Central's smoke-abatement electrification through Cleveland Union Terminal. With diesels taking over from steam, they weren't needed anymore.

i note a statement by amtrak: i.e. will purchase 70 'sprinter' electric locomotives at a total cost of $466 million. that's a per unit price of $6.7 million. can this be true? was the statement incorrect? am i mistaken when i opine that an electric must cost less than a diesel since it doesn't have an on-board power source, fuel tanks & delivery system etc. last time i looked, new diesels were in the $2mil range. what is the reason for this huge difference? ken patrick

Ken, perhaps you've heard the old cliche of comparing "apples to oranges". If that doesn't sate your thirst for knowledge, perhaps you've heard of the most rational and business-oriented concept of calculating "net present value", also known as NPV.

Regardless of purchase price of new equipment, if the net present value of the cost to acquire said new equipment is less than the net present value of maintaining the old equipment, then the prudent fiscal decision is to buy new equipment. Otherwise, it would be a waste of taxpayer money to keep shoe-stringing the old equipment. This is a decision made at managerial levels of any railroad, passenger or freight, when considering new equipment. You'll find the same calculation being made in Roanoke or Fort Worth, the bastions of rail-based profit making.

KEN PATRICK wrote:i note a statement by amtrak: i.e. will purchase 70 'sprinter' electric locomotives at a total cost of $466 million. that's a per unit price of $6.7 million. can this be true? was the statement incorrect? am i mistaken when i opine that an electric must cost less than a diesel since it doesn't have an on-board power source, fuel tanks & delivery system etc. last time i looked, new diesels were in the $2mil range. what is the reason for this huge difference? ken patrick

Frieght locomotives have less horsepower/generate less kilowatts? I'm sure making them run on 25Hz and 60Hz raised the price a bit. Freight locomotives don't have HEP inverters. They aren't designed to run at 125 in service. The price includes training and a spare parts inventory etc. If they option any, that's the cost of the locomotive without the training etc. very very roughly two diesels = one ACS64. Cadillacs cost more than Chevies. ... Lamborghinis cost more than pickup trucks.