future electrification routes?

In the 1950's PRR public timetables advertised "smooth electric power all the way" despite there being no wire west of Harrisburg. Technically true.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:59 amYou would still have an immense number of substations to electrify the major mains in the country

Substations are not that hard. The power grid has thousands upon thousands of them. 115kV to 50kV isn't that big of a deal.

and there is also not an electric locomotive in the western world that is good for heavy haul the way we do it. Maybe the BBD motors on the Kiruna line in Sweden but that's a niche operation. European freights are short and fast, nothing like we operate.

They would have to be designed and manufactured. All of the technology to do so has existed in some form for over 100 years. Of course modern locomotives would be computer controlled with IGBT inverters and whatnot, but all that has been already used in more complicated diesel and dual-mode locomotives as well as electric locomotives and EMUs.

You'd want two different models. One 16'2" height with I-ETMS and 12.5kV/60 and 25kV/60 capability, probably about 10,000HP. Then there would be a corridor electric model at 15'6" height with I-ETMS and ACSES II and 12kV/25, 12.5kV/60, and 25kV/60 capability, probably about 7,000HP.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 3:37 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:59 am You would still have an immense number of substations to electrify the major mains in the country and there is also not an electric locomotive in the western world that is good for heavy haul the way we do it.

Mr. Dunville, I'm 100% with you.

European freight operations are some kind of joke; when I have visited Salzburg (not this year; Berlin got my €), a Bar on the 19th floor of the Arte Hotel provides an unobstructed view of "the action" - of which there is plenty. I couldn't help but laugh (to myself of course; I'm a guest in someone else's country) when I'd see these (maybe) 30 car Container trains - single stack of course. I will give them credit for one thing; they do move at something resembling passenger train speed.

They are competing over distances American railroads can't even look at.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:59 am

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:19 pm

I showed her some photos of Union Pacific engines handling a Container train taken somewhere along the Overland Route and I said "look at the size of those engines, and then think of how many sub stations would there need be accross that lightly populated land. "that's why electrification never has and likely never will take hold in The States".

That's total nonsense. The 50kV split phase system providing 25kV/60 to the trains operated on the Shore Line is fed at just four points between Boston South Station and CHAPEL Interlocking in New Haven. ACS-64s have almost double the horsepower of a standard freight locomotive. Railroad right of way can carry power for hundreds upon hundreds of miles.

You would still have an immense number of substations to electrify the major mains in the country and there is also not an electric locomotive in the western world that is good for heavy haul the way we do it. Maybe the BBD motors on the Kiruna line in Sweden but that's a niche operation. European freights are short and fast, nothing like we operate.

Four substations between New Haven and Boston, correct? That's an average of 35 miles between them. The Southeren Transcon is 2,200 miles long. With the same substation density, you need 63. Hardly an insurmountable number. I bet the real number is a little lower, especially if they bump up the catenary voltage to 50kV for the long stretches in the middle of nowhere.

As a general rule of thumb, not being precise, one kilovolt source of electricity can push electrons 1 mile. If using a 25kV volt substation, the distance between substations would be around 50 miles. If using a 12.5 kV substation, the distance between substations would be around 25 miles.
(NH) 25 miles (substation)25 miles (gap) 25 miles (substation) 25 miles (gap) 25 miles (substation) 25 miles (Boston)
As you can see, they could have done it with 3 substations averaging 46 miles between substations. With the previously reported 35 miles between substations average, that's using 4 substations.

What was substation distances on the BC RR?

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 6:16 am As a general rule of thumb, not being precise, one kilovolt source of electricity can push electrons 1 mile. If using a 25kV volt substation, the distance between substations would be around 50 miles. If using a 12.5 kV substation, the distance between substations would be around 25 miles.
(NH) 25 miles (substation)25 miles (gap) 25 miles (substation) 25 miles (gap) 25 miles (substation) 25 miles (Boston)
As you can see, they could have done it with 3 substations averaging 46 miles between substations. With the previously reported 35 miles between substations average, that's using 4 substations.

The NEC has paralleling stations so that you can feed any section off of the adjacent section in the event of an interruption to the power supply. Something similar would be needed for freight. The railroad could carry its own transmission overhead for part of all of the distance, and with a 60hz system, also connect renewable energy to the grid, making money off of leasing the space for the line, or the power transmission itself.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:36 pm The NEC has paralleling stations so that you can feed any section off of the adjacent section in the event of an interruption to the power supply. Something similar would be needed for freight. The railroad could carry its own transmission overhead for part of all of the distance, and with a 60hz system, also connect renewable energy to the grid, making money off of leasing the space for the line, or the power transmission itself.

The NEC is already electrified. There's no valid reason to replace the 25 Hz with 60 Hz. The 25 Hz grid already exists. What it needs for reliability is constant tension wires. That is what Amtrak should spend their money on first.

As for future electrifications, with the very limited 25 Hz network, Amtrak should run 60 Hz lines.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 9:24 pmThe NEC is already electrified. There's no valid reason to replace the 25 Hz with 60 Hz. The 25 Hz grid already exists. What it needs for reliability is constant tension wires. That is what Amtrak should spend their money on first.

As for future electrifications, with the very limited 25 Hz network, Amtrak should run 60 Hz lines.

You lost the context there. We were talking about the 25kV/60 New Haven Shore Line system built in 1999. I posted somewhere all the reasons why replacing the 25hz system would be a low priority/bad use of capital investment. Primarily that the small efficiency improvement would be much smaller than electrifying additional lines that aren't electrified today. I believe they have installed or are installed constant tension catenary on most/all of the 25hz system.

What I was talking about installing at 60hz and renewable energy was the BNSF Southern Transcon (although the same logic applies to the UP Sunset Route).

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 9:34 pm What I was talking about installing at 60hz and renewable energy was the BNSF Southern Transcon (although the same logic applies to the UP Sunset Route).

It gets confusing when everyone is discussing different routes.
I am going to disagree with electrifying any long distance route with just two passenger trains per day. The Sunset Limited gets even less, with 6 passenger trains per week.
What might be cost effective to electrify out west is limited to just a few routes. Cascades between Seattle and Portland, Amtrak California between San Jose and Sacramento, the Surfliner between Santa Barbara and San Diego, and the Hiawatha between Milwaukee and Chicago. Only on these few corridors are there possibly enough passenger trains to make the cost worthwhile.
I believe California is seriously looking at using Hydrogen powered locomotives or trains vs electrifying with catenaries. They have already bought ten hydrogen FLIRTs for the San Joaquins. I believe electrification with catenaries will be limited in California for corridors supporting HSR trains with max speeds over 125 mph.
https://dot.ca.gov/news-releases/news-release-2024-007

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 9:42 pm It gets confusing when everyone is discussing different routes.
I am going to disagree with electrifying any long distance route with just two passenger trains per day. The Sunset Limited gets even less, with 6 passenger trains per week.

You're still lost on context here. The concept is that Amtrak would just use the wire that BNSF puts up for freight, plus about half a mile of wire for Amtrak where it rejoins the Southern Transcon for the transition back to electric. Amtrak would need long-distance dual-mode locomotives to make it work over Raton Pass, which would obviously remain a diesel route.

The route where it makes sense for to put up 5 miles of wire for Amtrak in Cleveland, and some wire around Albany for Amtrak is the Lake Shore Limited, which would use CSX and NS electrification on the old NYC Water Level Route. Those two short segments, plus some local electrification in Chicago would allow two different all-electric routes for Amtrak to get from NYC to Chicago, one via the current Lake Shore Limited, and one via an extended Pennsylvanian on the PRR route to Cleveland and then rejoining the NYC route, staying on present day NS. They could also originate a train in Washington or even Florida with electrification of CSX to Jacksonville and FEC to Miami, and instead of taking the Capitol Limited/Floridian route, they could go through Philly and out the PRR main that way.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 9:42 pm I am going to disagree with electrifying any long distance route with just two passenger trains per day. The Sunset Limited gets even less, with 6 passenger trains per week.

I also addressed this a few pages back (emphasis added):

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:41 pmI have lots of thoughts about electrification, but in keeping with ones that would be relevant to Amtrak in sort of geographic order. Note that many of these make ZERO sense for Amtrak alone, but follow heavily trafficked freight lines that should be electrified, so a few additional miles of electrification would connect the routes for Amtrak.

Folks, let's take a few steps back here, since this has gotten to be a hairball and slowly growing to a gordian knot.

First, ignore the already-electified NEC for now. Yes, it needs to be switched to constant tension to get the speeds up, and having caternary that can handle both 25Hz and 60Hz would be a bonus down the road. That's not what is being talked about though. Split that topic off for now (there's probably already a thread on that).

This is how I see it in my late reading of this thread. We're electrifying freight lines, which means:

• If the freight lines can get away with it, separating freight from passenger rail and making Amtrak maintain "their" track...
• Or, setting limitations on how low the height of the caternary can be. The freight lines have gone double-stack, and will want the catenary tall enough to let that clear (24' is what I've seen from CSX).
• Ether way, the freight companies will care not about the caternary if they're running diesel unless going electric is net-profitable on their bottom line in both the short and long term.
• Also, the freight companies in thrall of PSR won't like having to go into PSR withdrawal or (gasp) actually implement it right.

Right now, the freight companies are happy where they are at and have no reason to change.