Brainstorming A National Network

A standard Genesis weigh's in at 298 000 lbs to add pantograph/transformer/rectifier/circuitbreaker/transformer cooling system etc would add 30 to 40 tons to the diesel locomotive.
This would put the locomotive way over weight for a lot of routes.
and why drag 30/40 ton allong when you don't use it half the time.
Talk about a energy waste.

add 30 to 40 tons to the diesel locomotive

I dont think so, not in these magnitude!
The transformer of the BR101 weights for example 13tons (6400kW).

Many things did u have already in the engine and have just to dimension bigger:

Dimension the cooling system bigger to cool the diesel engine and the transformer
(beside either the diesel runs or the transformer 'transforms', u can use one cooling system for both...)
Are addiontal Rectifier needed, if u use AC/AC Transmisson ? (Try to use most of the high voltage electronic for both power sources)
And a Pantograph plus other high voltage stuff doesn't carry weight...

Greets

even on AC propulsiuon engines you eed to rectify to a DC bus to feed inverters so you get variable AC for traction motors.

AC transformers are not cooled with water from a diesel engine.
The CB group for exsample is not present on a Diesel, to protect a diesel only Generator field needs to be turned off to protect a AC locomotive the transformer needs to be turned off requiring oil bath Circuit Breaker.
No AC diesel of high enough capacity has ever been built and the need of Amtrak would be a diesel of 4000 hp or greater.

A genesis currently runs at 33.5 ton axle load, but by adding electric gear how high do you think you can go for higher speed locomotives ???

.Taurus. wrote:Hi folks!

What's about a hybrid locomotive?
A diesel engine inside but also a pantograph on the roof?
The modern current converter (for the traktion motors and HEP) doesn't matter if the electrical power come from a gen-set or from the overhead wire.
So take a common diesel engine and equip it with a transformator and a pantograph... (simplify!)

With these engines u can install the overhead wire there where u need the advantages of the electrial catenary wire system.
For examples
* in urban areas with many stop and goes,
* on gradients of a pass route (dynamic breaking downwards with feeding into power network) and
* on high speed track parts (to increase the travel speed)

Cheers

It's called an Electro-Diesel. Several countries have them, though they are not very widespread. In fact there are some in the New York area for mixed running on MetroNorth and away from the third rail.

In Britain there is an extensive system of third rail electrification in the south (the former Southern Railway). Until the 1950s there was some freight on it, powered by steam. At the time of the phase out of steam a diesel locomotive was designed to use the third rail for its main power source and the diesel inside the freight yards where there was no third rail. Soon after that, freight vanished.

Only once in my life did I experience this locomotive in action, about 20 years ago, when one of these pulled an intercity train on the third rail, and then switched to diesel for an unelectrified section Bournemouth to Reading).

If electricity remains cheaper, and oil prices rise, this type of locomotive might be useful. However, for long distances travelling with each mode, a change of locomotive is probably a better choice.

(But of course locomotives are rare now in Britain and the rest of Europe where multi units of various kinds are the main passenger vehicles. I don't think there are any electro-diesel multiple units in Britain, though there may be some new ones in France. In Britain there are a large number of dual voltage multiple units that can use the third rail south of the river and the overhead north of the river. There is also the Class 92 locomotive built for channel tunnel traffic that can use both electric modes, in theory right through to Paris - though not in practice because of the signalling systems). The New York problem is that there are two incompatible third rail systems.
As Climate policy becomes formulated, more electrification on the railway is inevitable.

I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion topic insomuch as the originator presented, from his perception, a well thought proposal that notiwthstanding I would have great difficulty accepting.

The proposal simply called for a new national rail system that apparently would have been predominately used by passenger and FedEx or UPS trains. I found such absurd.

However, now that the discussion has evolved to addressing the merits of electrifiying major portions of the existing Class I rail system, I feel obliged to note that in terms of efficiency, electric locomotives, considering the capital costs of the infrastructure, were a "stand off" with the SD-40 locomotive generation, and were "behind the curve" with the present generation C-44 and SD-70.

The only occurrence that could change this is with this past Sunday, The New York Times putting "front and center" reportage of a study that establishes global warming is linked to human activity. As others have suggested here, C2O2, or carbon dioxde, emitted from human creations, is the source of such. If legislation both here and around the world were to impose taxes on those parties emitting C2O2, such as within the transportation community autos, diesel powered railroads, airlines, and electric utilities, then electrification of Class I roads could become cost beneficial.

The only problem is all too many emerging economies, such as that in China, really do not want to hear about such, and I don't think US consumers are about to say they will only buy Chinese made goods that were produced in "green" manufacturing environments..

Gilbert B Norman wrote: However, now that the discussion has evolved to addressing the merits of electrifiying major portions of the existing Class I rail system, I feel obliged to note that in terms of efficiency, electric locomotives, considering the capital costs of the infrastructure, were a "stand off" with the SD-40 locomotive generation, and were "behind the curve" with the present generation C-44 and SD-70.

The only occurrence that could change this is with this past Sunday, The New York Times putting "front and center" reportage of a study that establishes global warming is linked to human activity. As others have suggested here, C2O2, or carbon dioxde, emitted from human creations, is the source of such. If legislation both here and around the world were to impose taxes on those parties emitting C2O2, such as within the transportation community autos, diesel powered railroads, airlines, and electric utilities, then electrification of Class I roads could become cost beneficial.

The only problem is all too many emerging economies, such as that in China, really do not want to hear about such, and I don't think US consumers are about to say they will only buy Chinese made goods that were produced in "green" manufacturing environments..

This crisis is going to last at least 200 years. As it becomes more and more urgent, rather rapidly, we shall see many changes of attitude. Bush has wasted 6 years already in denial but the rest of the world is moving, though still too slowly. I can foresee a time when US exports (if there are any) are barred.

China is in fact investing heavily in carbon free energy, while also adding to the problem with coal fired power stations.

I think one angle of policy has to be more rail travel because it uses energy better. (But the US needs lighter trains).

Mr Norman correctly pointed out that electrification wasn't cost-effective when compared with SD-40 diesels. Since newer diesels were more efficient, the case for electrification was weaker still.
However, if $1.50/gal diesel fuel is here to stay, it's a whole new ball game. If $0.15 oil beat out electricity with SD-40's, let's say that modern diesels could beat out electricity with $0.30 oil--but not $1.50 oil.
It is true that electricity has gone up lately, but much of the price increase comes from power generated with natural gas or oil. Other public power price increases stem from failed attempts to deregulate electric power (Enron, anyone?) If UP/BNSF built a mine-mouth plant, they could produce cheap electricity. How would that compare in cost to the $1.50 oil?
Finally, with modern technology, a coal power plant can emit zero carbon. This technology costs, but hopefully tax credits could pay for it. No diesel locomotive can emit zero carbon.

I think this discussion is relevant to Amtrak .
for one thing , amtrak is the nearest thing there is to a national rail passenger Network . No new network is going to be built overnite , so amtrak is needed as a network to connect any corridors as they emerge .
Secondly , if any of this goes ahead , then one would expect Amtrak to be part of it , again in whole or part running on these tracks .

Unless we allow a Venezuelan takeover of the U.S. and permit Hugo Chavez to have unfettered control over the domestic economy, just how does one expect to:

1. Acquire all railroad lines,

2. Acquire any additional ROW necessary to construct HSR lines where existing railroads are unsuitable,

3. Build a new electric infrastructure, including both generation systems (either clean coal or nuclear), and beef up the national transmission grid,

4. Force everyone to use the system, and

5. PAY FOR IT???

Ultimately, what does this have to do with Amtrak??? Everything in this thread has nothing to do with Amtrak's current affairs; and in fact would require building a new network from the ground up, so whether or not Amtrak exists is a non-issue.

As Mr Halstead says, many of the ideas the originator of this thread put forth are impractical and may be undesirable. But, the idea was to "brainstorm," so some latitude is appropriate.
But, does this thread have to do with Amtrak? On one level, I'd expect that Amtrak would be the main operator of passenger service on any new or rebuilt rail network.
But on another level, why are we attracted to Amtrak? Is it because we are fascinated by its bumbling bureacracy? Does its inept project management make us feel good? Do we point with pride to its slow and late LD trains, run with dilapidated equipment and lousy services?

Of course not. We are interested in Amtrak because we are interested in passenger trains, especially intercity passenger trains. In the USA, right now, that means Amtrak. So, some thoughts about how to improve the rail network, and how to improve rail passenger service, naturally overlap with Amtrak's current and possible future reality.

Even though I enjoy riding Amtrak trains and believe LD trains are useful, I have felt for a while that criticisms of their cost by people like Mr Halstead were in fact hard to refute. I had resigned myself to a long, slow decline in most intercity train service in the US. The rise in oil prices combined with the sudden realization in this country that global warming is real and dangerous, gives me some hope for the rejuvenation of rail travel nationwide as a useful, integral part of the transportation network. I would expect that Amtrak would have the first shot at running an expanded network, if it ever came to pass.

These are my thoughts as a fellow member, not as a moderator.

This academic discussion looks like it has just gone all over the place. From routes, to operation, to equipment. I think this thread needs to be moved to another forum, since this is not really an Amtrak discussion.

I think the Amtrak forum is a reasonable place for this discussion as this thread partly is addressing the potential for a National Network for passenger service. Plus, the Amtrak forum is the most popular forum on the site, so more "eyes" are seeing it and more people are participating in the discussion.

I think JoeG has an excellent idea about initially electrifying the Powder River lines, possibly by a new electrical plant right there at the site. In researching electrification I actually found an old 1930's document from the Soviet Union that talked about maximizing efficiency by building the powerplants right at the coal mines. Transport the higher quality product, not the bulk product, and locate the major electrical consumers next to the powerplant. I know coal transportation is a big expense in the generation of electricity. So a powerplant on site should generate cheap electricity.

I will disagree with Mr. Norman that this concept only would involve passenger trains and dedicated FedEx and UPS trains. (Although a TGV train decked out in FedEx colors would be very cool!!) This network should modernize the energy consumed and maximize the efficiency of EVERYTHING being transported. That's why I don't feel a high speed system would be a good solution. The only thing that "thinks" it needs to move around faster than 100 mph are humans. And no matter what you build on the ground, even mag-lev, it will never approach the speed of a plane. Now given the long term energy demands and environmental problems that exist and are worsening, moving around on planes is going to be questioned. It at the very least is going to become more expensive. (I read an article that the growth in Commercial Aviation is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases. The article proposed putting caps on air transportation.)

In regards to a diesel/electric hybrid, I've thought about the concept of a "power car" that you could plug in behind an electric locomotive when it's not in cantinary territory. That's all a diesel electric locomotive really is anyway. In fact I read where "new" electric locomotives could quite easily be existing diesel locomotives with their engines removed and electrical equipment substituted.

I greatly appreciate the input that everyone has given so far. Again, I think a system of this kind, regardless of its details, is the only viable alternative we have to our current liquid fossil fuel based transportation system.

Do you know what a very interesting piece of information would be? How much oil would not be consumed by electrifying the Powder River routes. The ton miles are huge. Could it end up being a good percentage of the oil we get from Alaska?

Again, thanks for the discussion!!

Well i guess there's not much discussion of Airplanes and roads in this thread , so its not about Amtrak .

Electrifying the powder basin lines using a minehead power station is a great idea , probably as efficent as fossil fueled power can get .
On the passenger side , then i would say electrifying commuter lines would be the first step . these would have the traffic to justify it . Then i would look at extending the nec down to Richmond , and possibly the empire corridor . These small steps are acheviable easily .
first new line would be LA to Bakersfied ,in conjunction with Califionias high speed plans , except i would just connect to Amtraks existing services at Bakersfield as the first stage

george mathews wrote

I don't think any of us realise the extent of the changes to policy that are going to happen when the reality of the climate problem sinks in. When Bush and his deniers are gone there will be some changes. The climate problem is going to be increasingly at the centre of policy making for the next couple of centuries.

I recently finished Jeff Goodell's Big Coal, an outsider's look at the coal, rail and electric-utility industries, by a writer with an admittedly non-technical background (he got his start at Rolling Stone), but happily, an open mind. Mr Goodell devotes a substantial portion of his work to an examination of conditions in the industrailizing economies, and he recognizes that a quasi-entreprenural solution, with the recognition of the full cost of fossil-fuel use, and the trading of credits and incentives among the players, will generate a more positiive response than a heavy-handed system of taxation imposed by an ever-growing multinational bureaucracy.

As a conservative and a descendant of an entreprenurial family put out of business in the 1930's by the extremes of the New Deal, I am extremely suspicious of the global-warming hype, but I've read and seen enough evidence to back some very serious study of how the problem can be addressed (this is going to be the real challenge, as wishful science-fiction runs up against hard science), but only in a Manhattan-project-styled atmosphere, with the number of employees limited by statute to a few thousand and the zealots told either to produce technical credentials or stay out of the way.

But within that scenario, even a small portion of the funds proposed for the creation and administration of more governemental influence could be put to better use in the development of an integrated surface transportation system less dependent upon fossil fuel, and the use of those funds for permanent capital investment and well-paying construction jobs is a much easier sell politically.

Clearly, much of the current Al Gore/Hollywood/NEA global warming hysteria is directed only toward the establishment of yet another layer of bureaucracy, with some broad-base imposition of a reveneue measure on all strata of society and a new office in every major city to impose it.. I can assure you that milions of conservatives will fight that power-grab.

Since the thread is hypothetical I guess all the pie-in-the-sky posts are legit. But I get real antsy real quickly when people start using phrases like "government funded". That is a misleading, erroneous term. Correctly it should be "funded by each of us without our having any choice on whether or not we want to do so". It does not matter whether it's federal, state, or local funds, they all come from the same place - YOUR wallet and MY wallet.

There is no crisis which would call for even remote consideration of such a system. The shrill hysteria about warming is so much baloney. During the ice age, glaciers were so far south they extended into what is now Michigan and New York. Look how far back they have melted - can you blame that on fossil fuels when man was not even here yet? Just because a lot of scientists "agree" and make pompous statements does not make it true - no doubt Columbus faced similar assurances that the world really WAS flat. "Everybody" jumping on the bandwagon does not make truth.

Our country was built by and for private enterprise. If and when it makes sense for rail companies to convert to electrification, they will do so. But within the past 50 years the electric systems of MILW, PRR, and others have been deemed impractical. New technology will have to make huge improvements before it's worth rebuilding such systems. Efforts such as gen-set locomotives appear to be making progress much faster and at far less cost.

Don't accept numbers without doing some critical thinking. Having people replace a million light bulbs so we can run 13 electric locomotives is lunacy. It's OK to ask "what if" as a creative exercise but let's use a little common sense before taking any of this seriously.