Railroad Forums 

  • Commuter Rail Electrification

  • Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.
Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: sery2831, CRail

 #1507318  by typesix
 
Yes, primarily freight, but efficiency numbers are still good, and the article does state that electrification is better for passenger trains in terms of acceleration and speed. There is no payback for converting to electrification.
 #1507325  by Bramdeisroberts
 
BandA wrote:What's the payback time for electrification?

One advantage of electrification is you can place a rail yard, or electric locomotive service facility, in the basement of a development such as Beacon Park or Widett Circle.
That's why it might make sense to electrify the south side 1st and go forward from there, simply because there's more redevelopable property like Widett and Beacon south of the Charles than there is north of it.

The easy way to do it would be to purchase a mix of dual-modes and bilevel EMUs, using the bilevel EMUs on the Fairmount, Providence, Needham, and Stoughton lines (and maybe the Worcester line out to Riverside or Framingham) while electrifying only out to 128 or so, running dual-mode hauled consists on the outer portions of the south side lines with the changeover happening at Braintree for the OC lines, Readville for the Franklin line, and Riverside or Framingham for the Worcester line. With a modest rollout like that, MassDOT could damn near pay for it in full from the cash for redevelopment rights at Beacon Park and South Bay alone.

At least with dual-modes, it'd only be a matter of replacing the F40/GP40 fleet with an ALP-45DP order (or whatever Charger/ACS-64 hybrid Siemens bids) of about the same size as the HSP-46 order, while the EMU fleet could be piggybacked on to whatever NJT is buying and be pushed out to replace either the remaining single levels and oldest K-cars on the roster, or the Brokems, depending on which ones MassDOT wants to get rid of 1st. Once that's done, the EMD-engined fleet can be sent off to be turned into Hyundais while the North Side becomes exclusively HSP-hauled bilevel consists.
 #1507345  by daybeers
 
typesix wrote:According to article below, there is no energy savings for electric vs diesel operation, the article calculates overall diesel efficiency at 30 percent and electric at 25 percent(factoring in powerplant and distribution).

http://energyskeptic.com/2016/electrifi ... ight-rail/
Even if we did trust that wordpress website, it doesn't take emissions into account, though if the claims are true, that's incredibly interesting to me. Yes, the vast majority of electricity in the U.S. is powered by fossil fuels, but we are slowly moving towards renewable energy, and need to be moving much faster. Diesel engines are absolutely horrible for the environment, and no, it doesn't matter if it's a Tier 4. Asthma rates are going up faster than ever before because of pollution.
 #1507365  by troffey
 
One other item to consider is that the MBTA could potentially produce electricity through wind turbine placement, cutting down even further on operating costs in compared to the current diesel costs. The MBTA already operates two, one in Kingston and one in Bridgewater...
 #1507395  by bgl
 
typesix wrote:Yes, primarily freight, but efficiency numbers are still good, and the article does state that electrification is better for passenger trains in terms of acceleration and speed. There is no payback for converting to electrification.
It also doesn't take into effect that electric locomotives are an order of magnitude more reliable/long lived than diesels (which the MBTA's rank well below average anyways). Cost savings aren't just in the fuel itself and fuel efficiency, not to mention that with electrification it allows the electricity to be generated in anyway way.
 #1507396  by BandA
 
That's amazing that an electric locomotive will last 200 years! And we can take advantage of the cheap electricity generated by Pilgrim I nuclear power plant! [Off topic fun fact: Pilgrim is the same model as the F u k u s h i m a nuclear reactors, but one year newer] (phpBB thinks Fukushima is a swear word)
 #1507442  by bgl
 
BandA wrote:That's amazing that an electric locomotive will last 200 years! And we can take advantage of the cheap electricity generated by Pilgrim I nuclear power plant! [Off topic fun fact: Pilgrim is the same model as the F u k u s h i m a nuclear reactors, but one year newer] (phpBB thinks * is a swear word)
When talking about reliability and miles per defect, than, yes, they are an order of magnitude better. But, sure, go for actual literal service life. As for electricity generation - your comment is pretty silly unless you are implying that there will be no advancements in electric generation (either cost or pollution) in the next few decades.
 #1507700  by BandA
 
Electrification may help increase capacity of the Providence Line if MBTA trains run closer to the speed of the Amtrak trains. But we're talking 20+ years at MBTA planning speed...
 #1507719  by Diverging Route
 
Not really. With very few exceptions, Providence Line trains are locals, and need significant time/space to accelerate, decelerate, and diverge tracks (at Attleboro, Forest Hills, etc.). It won't significantly increase capacity.
Last edited by CRail on Sun May 05, 2019 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Unnecessary quote removed.
 #1507748  by bgl
 
How so? Electric EMUs/trains will certainly help in local train situation given their far superior acceleration, which will allow shorter headways. Combine with dwell time reduction/full level boarding and it certainly could help capacity.
Last edited by CRail on Sun May 05, 2019 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Unnecessary nesting quotes removed. Do not use the "quote" button as a reply button.
 #1507793  by Diverging Route
 
Full-level boarding will definitely help! As well as buying bilevels with four door per side (two high-level only and two with traps) such as NJ Transit uses.
Last edited by CRail on Mon May 06, 2019 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Unnecessary quote removed.
 #1507836  by BandA
 
Can't have a bi-level with 4 doors accessible from high-level platforms, which is what is being built for all newer platforms in the northeast.

Also bi-levels increase the dwell time, and going up and down stairs is a pain in the bottom.
 #1507844  by andrewjw
 
Sorry, explain how the BBD MLV I/II/III in use on NJT (and in future use on SEPTA) does not meet your definition of a bi-level?
Last edited by CRail on Mon May 06, 2019 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Unnecessary quote removed.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 29