Should We Electrify Freight RR?

[pommie]

David,

I you are actually worried about Global Warming/Cooling/Diming, I sugest you take it up with the Indians or the Chinese. We are doing fine here.

I do not remember making a statement about being worried about global Warming/Cooling/Diming, I stated that I was concerned about the poloution situation, does this not worry you
And just because the Chinese and Indians are now producing a lot of polution does not let the rest of the world off the hook for the last 200 years worth.

Respectfully incorrect. The main reason most countries put money into roads over rails was the answer I asked about here:

That being National Defense.
It didn't start in America either. President Eisenhower who pushed forward our development of the highway and road system got part of his inspiration from the German Autobahn network.
The strategic and tactical advantages roads have over rail in national defense means roads will always get priority. Unless you can find a way to show rail being superior and with all the cutbacks and rail line removals that's a hard sell.
National Defense trumps the price of petrol.

Said with a polite voice , how fast could the road network move 1000 heavy class tanks and their associated equipment and personal from Detroit (picked only because of its established motor idustry) to the closest port, or in the case of invasion, the 'front line' of defence.
Also if an army is in retreat it is easier to destroy the rail network than road. After the D-day landings how come fixing the rail system was a top priority for the Allies ?

Now to the so called massive oil reserves, how come world oil production has been dropping over the last four/five years if they are finding more than we are using ????
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/mx/
I realize that a person can find things on the net to support anything, so don't read the page, just look at the data, which is official data, and draw your own conclusions.
If you do not want to go to the site, here is one of the graph's concerning the Mexican Gulfs output.

And the text to go with it,
"Mexico - Cantarell crashing, by Tom Whipple, Peak Oil Review [2007 January 29]

"On Friday PEMEX made it official. Production from Mexico's largest oilfield, Cantarell, fell from 1.99 million b/d in January 2006 to 1.44 million b/d in December. The company's overall crude production in December was 2.98 million b/d, falling below 3 million barrels for the first time in six years. Nearly a year ago, a leaked internal PEMEX study forecast that under the best-case scenario Cantarell's production would fall to 1.54 million barrels a day by the end of 2006 -- almost exactly what happened."

Remember that the Cantarell field supplies 60% of Mexico's total oil output, and from here on in it is going to get a lot more costly to remove the remaining oil.

/me gets down off his soapbox and relaxes with a glass of wine

 

[Alex99al]

Pennsylvania Railroad Electrification with catenary in place of third rail.

We should take a lesson from my favorite railroad, the Pennsylvania Railroad. They had a lot of electric lines in the 50s. By 1968 when they merged with the New York Central System, many of the electrified lines were still in operation. A fine good example is the Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington. The line has outlived the Pennsy. The NEC has gone through Penn Central and Conrail. Most of Pennsy's Philadelphia area commuter lines remain in use with SEPTA and they use electrics on the former Pennsy electrified trackage where years ago, the MP54 MU cars took passengers to and from Philadelphia and the GG1 hauled passengers from New York to Washington, Chicago (via the Harrisburg engine change and station stop.) The P5a, E44, and diesels hauling freight along the NEC. Just look around the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania metropolitan area and you'll see that most of the Pennsy's electrified lines are still in service. (PRR West Chester line no longer electrified all the way to West Chester. SEPTA stopped service to West Chester in 1986, 3 years after it was started.) Even the NEC and Keystone Corridor which carries the main line of the ex-PRR, now NS and AMTK, (SEPTA to Paoli.) is still active with electric traction. (NS uses diesels though.)

 

[gfisher]

You can still see the catenary poles on the West Chester line today.

I recall reading that during WWII the Pennsy calculated that if they had not electrified they would have needed a six track mainline to carry the tonnage they carried with the electrified locos on the four track line. Of course that is based on electric motors vs steam in comparing tractive effort and acceleration. What I don't know and would be curious to find out is how a modern electric motor stacks up against a modern diesel electric equipped with traction control. Is there still a significant advantage to the electric motor? Trainz magazine didn't really get into that issue, but that would be at the heart of any decision to go electric. Is it cheaper to go from a two track transcon to a four track transcon with more diesel electrics, or to electrify the two track system and be able to haul more freight because the electric motors perform better.

 

[BigThing]

I think it would be a good idea. Not only will it reduce pollution but with rising fuel prices it will pay itself off in a much shorter time than 10 years ago.

The plain and simple truth is that we have to reduce emissions NOW. That starts with the way we move around the globe.

 

[Alex99al]

You can still see the catenary poles on the West Chester line today.

I recall reading that during WWII the Pennsy calculated that if they had not electrified they would have needed a six track mainline to carry the tonnage they carried with the electrified locos on the four track line. Of course that is based on electric motors vs steam in comparing tractive effort and acceleration. What I don't know and would be curious to find out is how a modern electric motor stacks up against a modern diesel electric equipped with traction control. Is there still a significant advantage to the electric motor? Trainz magazine didn't really get into that issue, but that would be at the heart of any decision to go electric. Is it cheaper to go from a two track transcon to a four track transcon with more diesel electrics, or to electrify the two track system and be able to haul more freight because the electric motors perform better.

I know that they are still up. I mean SEPTA removed the catenary from the poles.

 

[SuperFudd]

BigThing,

We started reducing emissions 50 years ago. You should have seen the air around here in the 50s. We have done a fine job cleaning not only the air but the water.

Why would going electric reduce polution? Have you factored in "line loss"?

 

[johnwhelan]

BigThing,

We started reducing emissions 50 years ago. You should have seen the air around here in the 50s. We have done a fine job cleaning not only the air but the water.

Why would going electric reduce polution? Have you factored in "line loss"?

It depends how you generate the hydro, sorry electricity. Do it with wind, nuclear or hydro and line lose becomes irrelevant, there isn't any more CO2 emitted.

Cheerio John

 

[SuperFudd]

John,

You are right about line loss. I am all for nuclear as long as it is not in my back yard.
Hydro electricity is maxed out here in the lower 48 and the greenies are trying to force us (US) to cut back on what we have.
Wind isn't practical on the scale needed. Besides it disturbs the sensibilities of the PITA folks.

 

[backyard]

...but we digress...

I think this thread has taken on the same demeanor as "meat vs. veggie..."

 

[BobCass]

Hi backyard: Would mind explaining that just a little more..we are discussing the pollution in the air, not meat and veggies..Why not be progressive with your thoughts, we are discussing our future. Why not do electricity(catenary), it gives off less pollution(the only thing it puts in the air is Ozone)..What is it you don't like about this thread??




Bob Cass

 

[backyard]

...pollution is not in the thread title either...

Hello Bob, thanks for your reply.

The connection of C-O2 production has not yet been scientifically proven to cause global temperature rise.

The stink raised by the theory of Global Warming has however created a new culture of green...and that's good!

The thread has degraded to the assumption that we're running out of resources that the entire civilization has been established by...scientifically.

Back when the dinosaurs roamed, an ice age happened...we don't have a clue as to why, just a lot of theory that it must have come from outer-space....but the dinosaurs wandered into certain locations before they kicked the bucket...now we have the Bone Valley Phosphate area of southwest central Florida, USA.

It seams to me that the Creator(a reference I'll borrow from Stephan Hawking), planned phosphate production(phosphate, is an element that sustains life, found in your DNA) way before there was a global need for fertilizer...

I selfishly declined to acknowledge my faith that my Creator has it all in His control...including a planet that is constantly refreshing itself using all the laws of physics & thermal-dynamics automatically regardless of our lack of stewardship towards our environment. This planet Earth has a purpose for existence & will continue until it's appointed date of judgment. If I ignored the salvation offered, I'd so be worried.

Yes, we should be better stewards of Earth.

My last on-topic post suggest that we should build-up the railroad infrastructure before we change "horses."

But the title of the thread is Should We Electrify Freight RR?

 

[pommie]

This planet Earth has a purpose for existence & will continue until it's appointed date of judgment. If I ignored the salvation offered, I'd so be worried.

But the title of the thread is Should We Electrify Freight RR?

Yeah I know I have selected only a part of your post :hehe:

This planet will continue until the sun becomes a red giant or a small planet sized comet/meteor smashes into it, the problem for the Human race is that the planet couldn't care less whether we survive or not.

Back to the topic, of which oil stocks are a part of, for without them we would have to go electric, the cost of conversion is the biggest hurdle to overcome, so how long would it take to do at a cost that whoever is paying can afford ?
The best estimate for oil reserves is around 150 years, but the cost of oil will skyrocket long before then, so lets say 100 years before the cost of oil becomes uneconomically practical, if we start now and take 100 years to convert across, would it then be affordable, if not, then there is no hope at all for non-electric railways/roads.

So I guess I am saying that YES, they should switch (pun intended :hehe: ) to electric as fast as they can

Cheers David

 

[johnwhelan]

So I guess I am saying that YES, they should switch (pun intended :hehe: ) to electric as fast as they can

Cheers David

And I think I agree, its difficult to switch cars to overhead electric power but trains we can switch and I think we should.

Cheerio John

 

[BobCass]

Hi All: Do you think now that Warren Buffet has control BNSF that he will do electrifycation?. I would think it would be to his advantage to do so..He has a good chance of catching the UP off guard..What do guys think??





Bob Cass

 

[Red_TVRM]

Uhhh NO. He is in it to make money and not spend millions when he doesn't have or need to.

 

[gfisher]

Warren Buffet also owns MidAmerica Power, a big utility company in Iowa, and they burn, you guessed it, coal from the Powder River Basin. However they are also becoming the largest windfarm operator outside of Texas, so I guess Warren would have enough power to power his railroad if it made economic sense to do so.

 

[SuperFudd]

I suspect that in the next 100 years we could have fuel cell powered railroads.
But, should freight lines be electrified now? No, for the previously stated reasons.
Will W.B. electrify his railroad with coal? Perhaps. The reason for buying U.P. is for profit centered around coal.

 

[pommie]

I suspect that in the next 100 years we could have fuel cell powered railroads.

We might have a lot of things, but unless you can say for sure that it will be developed in the next 100 years you cannot plan for it, its that "she'll be right" attitude that has landed us in the mess we are in now.

But, should freight lines be electrified now? No, for the previously stated reasons.

You keep on about freight and passenger lines, as far as I am aware they both run on the same track, anyway freight is what brings the money in and consumes the most diesel.

Will W.B. electrify his railroad with coal? Perhaps. The reason for buying U.P. is for profit centered around coal.

Almost right, just delete "centered around coal" each of the companies that he controls will have to return a profit in its own right.

Cheers David

 

[SuperFudd]

I don't think fuel cell technology is a might be. Certainly the automotive industry believes in it. If it can work in cars and trucks, why not railroad locomotives? It should not take more than 20 years to be widely used.

 

[pommie]

I don't think fuel cell technology is a might be. Certainly the automotive industry believes in it. If it can work in cars and trucks, why not railroad locomotives? It should not take more than 20 years to be widely used.

Just done some reading on the present state of fuel cell development

"In 2008, the Department of Energy reported that fuel cell system costs in volume production are $73 per kilowatt. The goal is $35 per kilowatt. In 2008 UTC Power has 400 kW stationary fuel cells for $1,000,000 per 400 kW installed costs."

I think it has a long way to go before it can hold its own against the present power for dollar sources.

Cheers David

"The efficiency of a fuel cell is dependent on the amount of power drawn from it. Drawing more power means drawing more current, which increases the losses in the fuel cell. As a general rule, the more power (current) drawn, the lower the efficiency. Most losses manifest themselves as a voltage drop in the cell, so the efficiency of a cell is almost proportional to its voltage. For this reason, it is common to show graphs of voltage versus current (so-called polarization curves) for fuel cells. A typical cell running at 0.7 V has an efficiency of about 50%, meaning that 50% of the energy content of the hydrogen is converted into electrical energy; the remaining 50% will be converted into heat. (Depending on the fuel cell system design, some fuel might leave the system unreacted, constituting an additional loss.)"

Its efficiency drops with load, just when you need the power you haven't got it, cars and trucks do not need max power for any sustained periods, locomotives however do spent a long time at maximum power.

And now for the best bit

"It is also important to take losses due to fuel production, transportation, and storage into account. Fuel cell vehicles running on compressed hydrogen may have a power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of 22% if the hydrogen is stored as high-pressure gas, and 17% if it is stored as liquid hydrogen.[27] In addition to the production losses, over 70% of US' electricity used for hydrogen production comes from thermal power, which only has an efficiency of 33% to 48%, resulting in a net increase in carbon dioxide production by using hydrogen in vehicles"

More development in fuel cell technology will not alter the above highlight.
So much for fuel cells being green :hehe: :hehe: