future electrification routes?

Adirondacker wrote:

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.

Add in too, that Amtrak is ordering 70 locomotives specialized for their need. So there's some engineering that has to go into it. And that's a relatively small order. I would guess that something like the SD70MAC might be cheaper (I honestly have no idea) because there's been close to 4,000 units built (in various configurations). Larger production runs are often cheaper.

We can only hope for the day the US needs 4,000 ACS-64 units. (Well once we electrify everything...

Greg Moore wrote:...
Add in too, that Amtrak is ordering 70 locomotives specialized for their need. So there's some engineering that has to go into it. And that's a relatively small order.....

If you look at it as a North American version of a Vectron it's the second biggest order Siemens has had for it. ( Based on the list on Wikipedia ) The biggest order is from VR in Finland. If I did the arithmetic correctly those are 5.87 million dollars a pop.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/trac ... tives.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you look at as the North American version of EuroSprinter Wikipedia says there have been 630 built in various models/options not including ACS64s. 70 out of 700 is ten percent of all of them built. And they are all more or less exactly the same..... It's one of Siemen's biggest orders.

KEN PATRICK wrote:what happens to this thinking if you accept that our supply of crude is limitless. ken patrick

Not meaning to be a crude "environmento wacko", but is this a good thing? No doubt, technology is evolving in petro efficiency, but we're still putting carbon into the atmosphere.

I'll take that a step further. I'm a fairly serious fiscal conservative and I'll agree with the above stance. Crude is not limitless, and even if it were, money to pay the foreigners that own the oil wells isn't limitless. Either way you look at it, both parties in our government have a lot to fear from such a mentality.

60% of all electricity generated in the USA comes from burning coal, and over another 20% comes from burning petroleum products (natural gas and oil); leaving less than 20% coming from nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. You're not going to save much in carbon releases into the atmosphere by switching to electric powered locomotives....

The one significant intercity electric powered rail corridor in the USA (the famed NEC owned by Amtrak) isn't in that great a shape. It's over 75 years old, 25Hz is just one of its shortcomings, it also lacks automatic tensioning; so even Acela trains can't go 150 mph south of New York City today.

We should be worrying about refurbishing it to modern standards before discussing where to build more electric rail lines. I'm not even sure Amtrak will be able to save what electric rail lines we have now because it costs so much more to maintain.

electricron wrote:60% of all electricity generated in the USA comes from burning coal, and over another 20% comes from burning petroleum products (natural gas and oil); leaving less than 20% coming from nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. You're not going to save much in carbon releases into the atmosphere by switching to electric powered locomotives....

The one significant intercity electric powered rail corridor in the USA (the famed NEC owned by Amtrak) isn't in that great a shape. It's over 75 years old, 25Hz is just one of its shortcomings, it also lacks automatic tensioning; so even Acela trains can't go 150 mph south of New York City today.

We should be worrying about refurbishing it to modern standards before discussing where to build more electric rail lines. I'm not even sure Amtrak will be able to save what electric rail lines we have now because it costs so much more to maintain.

Except... more and more electrical generation is moving to gas, which is cleaner than coal, solar and wind are growing (I believe the US for the first time added more solar than Germany, which is a nice mark) and you can also more easily sequester carbon at the source with a stationary plant than you can a locomotive.

So yes, in the next 10-20 years, you'll be able to save a lot of carbon this way.

electricron wrote:60% of all electricity generated in the USA comes from burning coal, and over another 20% comes from burning petroleum products (natural gas and oil); leaving less than 20% coming from nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. You're not going to save much in carbon releases into the atmosphere by switching to electric powered locomotives....

The one significant intercity electric powered rail corridor in the USA (the famed NEC owned by Amtrak) isn't in that great a shape. It's over 75 years old, 25Hz is just one of its shortcomings, it also lacks automatic tensioning; so even Acela trains can't go 150 mph south of New York City today.

We should be worrying about refurbishing it to modern standards before discussing where to build more electric rail lines. I'm not even sure Amtrak will be able to save what electric rail lines we have now because it costs so much more to maintain.

The percentages have changed substantially from those in the last couple of years. For the most recent calendar year USA electric energy generation by fuel was as follows. (For 2013 natural gas replaced more coal than in the below list and that trend is expected to continue.)

In 2012:
Coal provided 37.4 of our nation's electricity;
Natural gas supplied 30.4 percent;
Nuclear generation produced 19 percent;
Hydro provided 6.7 percent of the supply;
Non-hydro renewables produced 5.4 percent; and
Fuel oil provided 0.6 percent of the generation mix.

http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/gene ... fault.aspx

With respect to Germany's transition to increased reliance on renewables for electric generation mentioned elsewhere, that has resulted in an average cost of electricity that is reportedly 3 times higher than that in the USA and has become a major political sore point with the German people. Solar in particular is vastly more costly than other forms of generation, and wind in most areas still is more costly, though no where near the cost of solar.

With respect to the NE Corridor, the infrastructure is sorely in need of upgrading. I subscribe to the NJT alerts (because the Raritan Valley Line trains on which I commute) are affected by NEC issues due to late connections, etc. These alerts of late have been frequent, and often stated as power or signal problems. Bringing the NEC out of the 1930's era catenary technology could serve as a poster child for other areas of the USA where population density could reasonably support electrification.

tadman- one of the rules herein is no political advocacy-driven posts.
my limitless crude refers only to north america. thankfully we now have access to limitless crude ( and concurrent natural gas). it means we may continue to look forward to a continuation of the highest standard of living on the planet.

now, as for npv. how would one do npv with the zero interest rate we are currently enjoying? npv applied to these electric locos at zero interest would certainly change the outcome. unfavorable, for sure. based on my limited experience with power projects, i view the '$300 million to the grid from re-generative ' as unbelievable. at the 4cents kw coal rate,( if you can even find buyers in our surplus power situation), you need to generate 8 BILLION kw, an impossibility with 70 locomotives.

lastly, i trust that thinking posters will recognize the fallacy in carbon release 'science' . KEN PATRICK

KEN PATRICK wrote:tadman- one of the rules herein is no political advocacy-driven posts.
my limitless crude refers only to north america. thankfully we now have access to limitless crude ( and concurrent natural gas). it means we may continue to look forward to a continuation of the highest standard of living on the planet.

Thank you for reminding me of the rules in my own shop. We must appoint more backseat moderators.

That aside, we DO NOT have limitless crude or gas here. The crude and gas we get through fracking, which I do support, costs more than your traditional well-borne oil.

KEN PATRICK wrote:now, as for npv. how would one do npv with the zero interest rate we are currently enjoying?

Can you do me a favor and call up my bank and tell them we have zero percent rates, so my personal and company debt should be interest free? Also perhaps call BofA and a few other big banks and advise them to lay off their analyst staff. If NPV is not a useful calculation anymore they sure are wasting their time crunching numbers.

I'll go sit in RR.net political timeout until you think it's appropriate I come out. Can someone tell Greg he's got the wheel for a bit?

KEN PATRICK wrote:tadman- one of the rules herein is no political advocacy-driven posts.
my limitless crude refers only to north america. thankfully we now have access to limitless crude ( and concurrent natural gas). it means we may continue to look forward to a continuation of the highest standard of living on the planet.

lastly, i trust that thinking posters will recognize the fallacy in carbon release 'science' . KEN PATRICK

Thinking people can have healthy disagreements on the fluid topic of climate science. Local sources of natural gas and North American crude seem to be abundant, yet their known and unknown side effects remain an issue. To not study and eventually implement less polluting energy technology for railroads etc seems short sighted at best.

NRGeep wrote:

KEN PATRICK wrote:tadman- one of the rules herein is no political advocacy-driven posts.
my limitless crude refers only to north america. thankfully we now have access to limitless crude ( and concurrent natural gas). it means we may continue to look forward to a continuation of the highest standard of living on the planet.

lastly, i trust that thinking posters will recognize the fallacy in carbon release 'science' . KEN PATRICK

Thinking people can have healthy disagreements on the fluid topic of climate science. Local sources of natural gas and North American crude seem to be abundant, yet their known and unknown side effects remain an issue. To not study and eventually implement less polluting energy technology for railroads etc seems short sighted at best.

To state the obvious: A diesel engine can only run off a limited number of different liquid fuels. Straight diesel, bio-diesel, coal-derived syncrude, LNG-- and that's about it. Electricity on the other hand can be generated by anything that can spin a generator-- be it a steam turbine, a hydro turbine, a windmill-- heck, even a guy on a treadmill. An electric locomotive is in that sense the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle. One's opinion on the climate change question aside, it would be foolish for a major fuel consumer like say UP not to study the question.

Probably the worst mistake you can make in any business is assuming that current trends are going to continue indefinitely and getting caught out when they reverse (this is exactly what doomed my old employer, Bear Stearns.)

Pollution aside-- what are the major advantages that electric operation has over diesel? The two that come to my mind are the ability to operate at very high speeds and the ability to provide rapid acceleration in MU operation. It's the latter that makes me wonder if we are going to see electrification come to parts of Southern California at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Ridgefielder wrote:

NRGeep wrote:

KEN PATRICK wrote:tadman- one of the rules herein is no political advocacy-driven posts.
my limitless crude refers only to north america. thankfully we now have access to limitless crude ( and concurrent natural gas). it means we may continue to look forward to a continuation of the highest standard of living on the planet.

lastly, i trust that thinking posters will recognize the fallacy in carbon release 'science' . KEN PATRICK

Thinking people can have healthy disagreements on the fluid topic of climate science. Local sources of natural gas and North American crude seem to be abundant, yet their known and unknown side effects remain an issue. To not study and eventually implement less polluting energy technology for railroads etc seems short sighted at best.

To state the obvious: A diesel engine can only run off a limited number of different liquid fuels. Straight diesel, bio-diesel, coal-derived syncrude, LNG-- and that's about it. Electricity on the other hand can be generated by anything that can spin a generator-- be it a steam turbine, a hydro turbine, a windmill-- heck, even a guy on a treadmill. An electric locomotive is in that sense the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle. One's opinion on the climate change question aside, it would be foolish for a major fuel consumer like say UP not to study the question.

Probably the worst mistake you can make in any business is assuming that current trends are going to continue indefinitely and getting caught out when they reverse (this is exactly what doomed my old employer, Bear Stearns.)

Pollution aside-- what are the major advantages that electric operation has over diesel? The two that come to my mind are the ability to operate at very high speeds and the ability to provide rapid acceleration in MU operation. It's the latter that makes me wonder if we are going to see electrification come to parts of Southern California at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Other advantages, I suspect less need for locomotive maintenance, lower probability of environmental contamination (fuel spills), no need for fuel delivery, storage, fueling; no need for liquid coolant, regenerative braking, minimal warmup time, quiet head end power, quieter in general so fewer noise complaints from the public. For freight the potential for using substantially lower offpeak power rates.

Electric from rail, line, or plough is the future. Nuclear, PV, wind, yes small by %, however, the main issue is not production of electricity, but consumption by buildings. Get the buildings super efficient (houses, office towers etc) and pretty much problem solved, though we should have WAY more PV and solar hot water and a LOT more micro-wind, then you get banks of ultracapacitors, so you even out supply.

We have all the stuff we need NOW to address this problem, so fixing it is a matter of will, not a matter of money, time, or space.

KEN PATRICK wrote:... you need to generate 8 BILLION kw, an impossibility with 70 locomotives...

I should save my envelopes. Maybe I'm remembering someone else finding this:

Siemens and Amtrak estimate that over the next 20 years, these 70 new electric locomotives could save $300 million and 3 billion kWh thanks to their higher efficiency.

from: http://www.treehugger.com/public-transp ... odels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which has lovely links at the bottom of the article. Treehugger got the 300 million dollar figure from an Amtrak press release at

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/898/720/Amt ... 13-039.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Electricity is expensive in the Northeast. 3 billion kWh saving 300 million implies a 10 cent kWh rate averaged over all of their suppliers over the next 20 years.

Ken W2KB wrote:Other advantages, ...
no need for liquid coolant

I thought one of the big problems with SEPTA's Paoli yard, and I assume many other railroad yards, was PCB's which they used to cool MU's transformers that soaked into the ground, and are carcinogenic. And I thought that PCB's in GG1 electric locomotives is one of the excuses why the few preserved ones are only on static display.
Do we no longer use PCB's, or maybe use different transformers, or maybe did we never use as much transformer coolant as a diesel would use engine coolant?