future electrification routes?

Patrick Boylan wrote:

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?

PCB laden transformer oil has not been used in the USA for several decades. Electric utilities removed the PCB type oil and replaced it with a benign mineral oil over 30 years ago. It did not require transformer replacement, only a flushing to clean out the old and then a refill with the safe stuff. That included everything from large generator step ups and switching station down to pole top transformers. It was a major project to say the least. For end of life rail equipment it was probably less expensive to remove and send the transformers for cleaning and scrap value.

Adirondacker wrote:

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.

Much of the cost of electric energy is higher in the northeast as other regions have government owned and operated hydroelectric (thereby taxpayer subsidized) and both non and government owned dirtier coal fired stations (they have not spent billions for emissions controls like stations in the northeast.) That said, the Amtrak in common with other customers can enter into contracts to purchase energy and capacity at essentially wholesale from electric generating and marketing companies. It may also be able to bypass distribution costs in some jurisdictions by taking deliver at transmission level voltages (100kV and higher) paying only the transmission rates which are federally regulated. So Amtrak does have the ability to receive lower electric costs than other customers.

great posts. i used 4 cents/kwh to evaluate the $300mil. this is the coal rate. i wish everyone appreciated this number when looking at wind etc. the cape cod offshore has projected 34cents/kwh. i suspect all alternatives are similarly so costly. and i ask what is the point of spending so much to chase an ephemeral thought? i recognize that many folk have economic interests in being subservient to unproven and non-threatening carbon discharges. i use the term 'common shared delusion' in speaking about the so-called carbon impact on our environment. i,for one, believe the epa should be eliminated.merry christmas. ken patrick

If good ole' Nixon had not created the EPA perhaps we may still be facing those pcb laden transformers...take a look at China for the price their paying for little or no environmental regulations. Compare the lopsided subsidies in the US for oil and nukes and it makes Solandra look small time. Again, my original post was about waay in the future. Good luck to the US and beyond if the majority of trains are still spewing diesel fumes in 30 years no matter how abundant it is. Happy holidays all!

KEN PATRICK wrote:great posts. i used 4 cents/kwh to evaluate the $300mil. this is the coal rate. i wish everyone appreciated this number when looking at wind etc. the cape cod offshore has projected 34cents/kwh. i suspect all alternatives are similarly so costly. and i ask what is the point of spending so much to chase an ephemeral thought? i recognize that many folk have economic interests in being subservient to unproven and non-threatening carbon discharges. i use the term 'common shared delusion' in speaking about the so-called carbon impact on our environment. i,for one, believe the epa should be eliminated.merry christmas. ken patrick

Are you george bush?
Merry xmas

David Benton wrote:

KEN PATRICK wrote:great posts. i used 4 cents/kwh to evaluate the $300mil. this is the coal rate. i wish everyone appreciated this number when looking at wind etc. the cape cod offshore has projected 34cents/kwh. i suspect all alternatives are similarly so costly. and i ask what is the point of spending so much to chase an ephemeral thought? i recognize that many folk have economic interests in being subservient to unproven and non-threatening carbon discharges. i use the term 'common shared delusion' in speaking about the so-called carbon impact on our environment. i,for one, believe the epa should be eliminated.merry christmas. ken patrick

Are you george bush?
Merry xmas

One of the biggest tasks for the medium term future is to get the worldwide discharges of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere down to as close to the pre-industrial levels as possible, as soon as possible. Until we do the problems of greater climate disturbance will continue to get worse. The recent hurricanes in the Philippines were an example of how necessary is solving this problem. At present the trend is towards more and more carbon in the atmosphere which will lead to more and worse hurricanes.

george matthews wrote: One of the biggest tasks for the medium term future is to get the worldwide discharges of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere down to as close to the pre-industrial levels as possible, as soon as possible. Until we do the problems of greater climate disturbance will continue to get worse. The recent hurricanes in the Philippines were an example of how necessary is solving this problem. At present the trend is towards more and more carbon in the atmosphere which will lead to more and worse hurricanes.

It's hard to directly attribute particular storms at this point to climate change; though, climate change certainly can cause more frequent and more intense storms.

With cutting down carbon, the main reasons we want to do this now is there's a threshold somewhere where methane deposits at the poles will be released, in addition to various biological materials trapped in permafrost that will start decomposing. This will create a feedback loop of carbon, and that's the point where we really lose any kind of control of the change, which to say the least is problematic.


More on topic, the new ROW Amtrak plans to build from NYC->Hartford->Providence to form a more direct route to Boston should be on-track (pun unintentional) to being build in the next few decades. At least, it will be as long as Amtrak's budget continues to avoid being gutted in the future. The congressional forces vying against it certainly haven't abated.

what were the 'pre-industrialization' carbon levels? are there numbers for the current levels? conjecture seems to replace unavailable facts. as i posted, the amtrak electricity savings arising from the 70 new locomotives were not based on today's coal-generated electricity costs. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:what were the 'pre-industrialization' carbon levels? are there numbers for the current levels? conjecture seems to replace unavailable facts. as i posted, the amtrak electricity savings arising from the 70 new locomotives were not based on today's coal-generated electricity costs. ken patrick

We have carbon levels going back 800 thousand years, and generally are in the 180-300ppm level.

Currently they've exceed 400ppm.

The rise in the last 100 years is extremely dramatic.

It may simply be coincidence that we're seeing signs of global warming and ocean acidification (where a great deal of CO2 appears to be ending up) but it's a hell of a coincidence.

Bringing this back on topic, I do fully expect over the next few decades we will see a greater move to a non-fossil fuel economy. For trains, that almost certainly means some form of electric.

I also suspect we'll see an expansion of short-distance corridors as people will want to get away from their cars and airlines will prefer the longer-haul routes where they really are the only viable alternative. (People think the western once-day LD trains don't carry much, the trans-Atlantic cruise ship market is even smaller. (And I don't know of any trans-Pacific one, but that reflects my own ignorance.)

Greg Moore wrote: (And I don't know of any trans-Pacific one, but that reflects my own ignorance.)

Not really trans Pacific but the Queen Mary goes across once a year.

Greg Moore wrote:

KEN PATRICK wrote:what were the 'pre-industrialization' carbon levels? are there numbers for the current levels? conjecture seems to replace unavailable facts. as i posted, the amtrak electricity savings arising from the 70 new locomotives were not based on today's coal-generated electricity costs. ken patrick

We have carbon levels going back 800 thousand years, and generally are in the 180-300ppm level.

Currently they've exceed 400ppm.

The rise in the last 100 years is extremely dramatic.

It may simply be coincidence that we're seeing signs of global warming and ocean acidification (where a great deal of CO2 appears to be ending up) but it's a hell of a coincidence.

Bringing this back on topic, I do fully expect over the next few decades we will see a greater move to a non-fossil fuel economy. For trains, that almost certainly means some form of electric.

I also suspect we'll see an expansion of short-distance corridors as people will want to get away from their cars and airlines will prefer the longer-haul routes where they really are the only viable alternative. (People think the western once-day LD trains don't carry much, the trans-Atlantic cruise ship market is even smaller. (And I don't know of any trans-Pacific one, but that reflects my own ignorance.)

The change in preference is most dramatic in the younger generation. The number of young people who don't drive, is the highest it has ever been, and increasing. There is no longer the teenage rush to get your license and a car as soon as your old enough.
Couple that with an aging "baby boomer" population that are living longer, but no longer capable/confident of driving themselves, and the future of public transport is looking good.
We (the currently 20-70 year old generation) may be the last of the "Petrolheads".

Ken W2KB wrote:

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.

While all of the above is accurate, there is still a down side. For every fuel spill, there are trees that fall into the catenary which causes fires. There is the cost of building and maintaining the electrical infrastructure which means poles and concrete to mount the poles in, insulators etc.

Sure, as long as the generator spins you may have electricity, what happens when the generator doesn't spin? What happens when the generator spins but there is no way to transmit the electricity from the source? If anyone is paying attention to the NE over the last week, you'd notice more than a few problems with electrical infrastructure (trees in the wire, inverted pantographs, downed wires, ice on the wires) that brings electric operations to a grinding, unproductive halt.

I don't see the freight operators adding this expense to aid Amtrak or to help themselves. Trends may dictate that any sort of fuel prices will rise and fall, but spinning the generator will also cost money.

My own observation (I realize this is anecdotal) is that the "non-rush" of young people to get their license may only exist in places where local public transportation exists. My young friends in Kennebec County, Me. and in rural upstate NY certainly didn't waste any time getting theirs. I also believe that the rush of "car-free" among young adults will lessen once they have children, both because urban street-life becomes less of a magnet when you can't go out 4 times / week (and conversely, having your own yard for the kids to play in becomes more attractive), and because cars are darn handy when you have 3 kids who all need to get to dance/music/hockey practice in rapid succession.

Personally, to be on-topic for this thread, I doubt we'll see much more electrification beyond some expanded commuter plants (e.g., MBTA North-side) and maybe the rest of the Hudson line to ALB. Beyond that, it's a question not only of density and conflicting freight traffic but of the relative value of the passenger traffic involved (there would be more political pressure for higher speeds on the Empire Service where people are traveling to get permits and legislative favors for nine-digit projects than for the Downeaster where much of the traffic is middle-class leisure travel).

markhb- nice post. i remain amazed at the folk who continue to beat the carbon drum. they seem impervious to facts. our standard of living is fossil-based. we are blessed. it is really dumb to think we can affect our planet. i suspect those who think so are working in some government job and are paid to believe this nonsense. look at the origin of the so-called 'global warming' discussion. an obscure english school. i'll bet nobody posting can name it much less speak to it's history. can it just be a fad for folk to identify with an illusion? or an attempt to appear smart? look to the facts. 'global warming' is a joke. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:markhb- nice post. i remain amazed at the folk who continue to beat the carbon drum. they seem impervious to facts. our standard of living is fossil-based. we are blessed. it is really dumb to think we can affect our planet. i suspect those who think so are working in some government job and are paid to believe this nonsense. look at the origin of the so-called 'global warming' discussion. an obscure english school. i'll bet nobody posting can name it much less speak to it's history. can it just be a fad for folk to identify with an illusion? or an attempt to appear smart? look to the facts. 'global warming' is a joke. ken patrick

I'll say the same thing as when I see a cassette tape in a record store, "They still make you?"

KEN PATRICK wrote: it is really dumb to think we can affect our planet.

I'm certain they're enough nuclear warheads between Russia and the USA to turn the planet in Venus. Man does indeed have the power to affect the planet.