What are the pros and cons of electrifying America?

[JonMyrlennBailey]

Where are we going to get clean electricty to run trains even across the Continental Divide?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI1ctMHnrfY


PS - Why is Amtrak taking 25 minutes switching out locomotives between electrified and non-electrified lines? Can't trains be made to run on either diesel electric or electrified lines without switching anything out?
D/E engines already have electric traction motors on board. They just need a movable pickup trolley to activate and deactivate between lines.

Yes, there is as a matter of fact!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-diesel_locomotive


An electro-diesel locomotive (also referred to as a dual-mode or bi-mode locomotive) is a type of locomotive that can be powered either from an electricity supply (like an electric locomotive) or by using the onboard diesel engine (like a diesel-electric locomotive). For the most part, these locomotives are built to serve regional, niche markets with a very specific purpose.

 

[capdiamont]

Different voltages between what a diesel generates vs what a long distance freight would use. You can make a locomotive run on both, however why spend the money for the extra parts most locomotive’s will not use? It isn’t like there is a standard voltage for electric railways anyhow. Different voltages, different parts. AC vs DC. It costs a lot to electrify a line, there is lots of lines. Then there is the issue of, can the electric grid handle the load. The US electric grid is actually three different grids. How does one handle the transition between the electric grids? What about power outages? Nice thing though is breaking can send the power back to the grid vs wasting it as heat.

 

[Pendolino]

With modern electronics, the different line voltages and frequencies are not a problem: the Siemens Vectron (a close relative of the ACS-64, which also has this capability) can run under 25 kV, 60 Hz AC, 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz AC, 3 kV DC and 1,5 kV DC (with a small loss in power - approx. 10% for 3 kV DC - when running under DC). Most manufacturers offer this multi-current option for their electric locomotive.

The electric motors and their control electronics don't care if the power you feed them comes from a catenary or from an onboard Diesel-driven generator.

The real problem is housing a Diesel engine powerful enough to provide the same performance when the locomotive is running in non-electrified territory. This implies installing two very large piece of machinery (the engine and the generator). A truly bimodal locomotive, capable of delivering the same performance both in Diesel and electric mode, would have a lot of machinery onboard that is only used in one of the two modes.

Many manufacturers offer "dual-mode" locomotives, but these are usually equipped with a small Diesel-generator (approx. 200 kW / 250 HP) unit that allows switching cars in non-electrified industrial spurs, but that are not intended for mainline use.

The most powerful "dual-mode" unit is the Stadler Euro Dual, but even in this case the Diesel engine is rated at 2.8 MW (3,750 HP), which still much less than the power rating in electric mode (7 MW / 9400 HP). It is conceived to mostly run in electric mode, with the capability of continuing its run on non-electrified branch lines. It can also use the Diesel engine as a booster for high speed running.

 

[Forester1]

I would think Amtrak could couple a diesel and an electric together? Is there a large load in pulling a loco that is not actually running? The electric could run where there are wires and the diesel where there aren't? I suppose that means extra crews and other expenses though.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

How is the current for an electric RR line produced anyway? If the power company supplying the railroad is burning fossil fuels to make electricity, it isn't cleaner than diesel-electric engines.

How does Russia do so well with electrified freight trains over about 11 time zones with severe winters? How is that electrcity produced? Nuclear?

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

The EXPENSE is born by Amtrak passengers: delays, wasted time, unsafe service and unreasonably high train fares. In summer 1986, I got held up in Salt Lake City for five hours at the station on my way to Denver. I complained but the train crew did not want to hear it. The rumors floating around the train was that a freight train derailed ahead. I think this was the California Zephyr running bettwen Oakland, California and Chicago. It was pulled by two F40PH's and had a UP helper hook on around Provo Utah or somewhere in Utah. It was pulling a private car in the rear. The train interior also stunk of mold and the observation car windows were dirty. Commercial air is still the way to go 1,000+ miles in spite of the TSA jerks and the gouging for extras like blankets and pillows. My father said that passenger train service was excellent in the days before Amtrak.

 

[jordon412]

Here's my take on electrifying America's freight railroads:
Electrification has high startup cost (infrastructure, electrical, etc.), but low running cost, and is only justified when the traffic demands it. So, the only routes that would be electrified would be the Class I's core routes, such as the transcontinental routes of BNSF and UP. Also, it would make sense if the railroads used a type of electricity used on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), to ensure compatibility with Amtrak electrics.

 

[bnsfc]

Electrification is going to have to happen eventually, oil aint infinite and bio diesel cant be farmed efficiently enough for 100% usage unless you want to eat only boiled seaweed. Good for a stopgap/ help the transition, not permanent. Bi-modal would be good for branch lines in the near term, and while construction is taking place. If I have the facts right, most US locomotives wouldn't need much fiddling to work off catenary. They already have electrical control equipment and run using traction motors. The only problem I might see (apart form the AC/DC rectifier fun times depending on the loco and what the cat is offering) is every type of generator alternator might have a different Voltage/ amperage. Honestly not sure if everything is the same, only slip between manufacture's, or every class (SD-40, GP38, Dash-9 etc) has its own "grid" so to speak.

As far as generation and grid switch's, Nuclear (its safe, no it really is), some solar and wind, where able, hydro where able, and maybe some geothermal and tidal. For the grid, the line will already be blocked into power districts (just like a model railway) to avoid a lighting strike in Kansas blowing the fuse's in St Louis and all you have to do is line up those to your grid lines where needed. It would be VERY expensive I'm sure, but if we start soon, that cost can be spread out.

We also already know it works thanks to the Milwaukee road. There electric divisions didn't die because it didn't work, they died because the company said it wasn't working and refused any and all efforts to keep it running. Heck GE offered to rehab it for FREE (or maybe at cost, cant quite remember) with new lines, equipment, and locomotives. They turned it down, and abandoned the only tracks that where keeping the road above water. (grumbles)

 

[jjslll54]

Hello,

One thing you guys are forgetting is that we run two mile or more long trains and as well as also run double stack trains which make catenary unfeasible. I can't see railroads giving up being able to haul twice the freight with double stack vs single stack used in Europe because of catenary. Third rail electrification is not safe for open countryside. I'm sure someone will invent a way to move away from diesel eventually. Nice topic though.

Jack

 

[Forester1]

Hi Jack. They do run double stacks in India, using a high catenary, so it can be done, albeit more expensive to build and maintain.

Bnsfc, Milwaukee Road did not even listen to their own best financial advice. They thought copper was expensive and diesel fuel was low in the 1970s, so they decided to "de-electrify" from Harlowtown Montana to Seattle-Tacoma Washington. Of course, the minute they did, the oil crisis of the 1970s hit. At the same time, the price of copper dropped. So, they were pretty much screwed at that point and decided to save money by neglecting maintenance, which just made things worse by slowing everything down.

I do gotta wonder how electric lines would do in tornado country and in hurricane country. Bad news for the power to go out and leave your train sitting in a tornado or hurricane....

 

[JCitron]

Hi Jack. They do run double stacks in India, using a high catenary, so it can be done, albeit more expensive to build and maintain.

Bnsfc, Milwaukee Road did not even listen to their own best financial advice. They thought copper was expensive and diesel fuel was low in the 1970s, so they decided to "de-electrify" from Harlowtown Montana to Seattle-Tacoma Washington. Of course, the minute they did, the oil crisis of the 1970s hit. At the same time, the price of copper dropped. So, they were pretty much screwed at that point and decided to save money by neglecting maintenance, which just made things worse by slowing everything down.

I do gotta wonder how electric lines would do in tornado country and in hurricane country. Bad news for the power to go out and leave your train sitting in a tornado or hurricane....

I've wondered the same thing regarding those big storms. In the Northeast Corridor, they have lightning issues and I remember a particularly bad one in the late 80s that took out a big segment in New Jersey for some hours after it blew out a substation. I imagine that a tornado or hurricane strong enough could rip through the wires and bring everything right down to the ground.

Don't get me going on the Milwaukee Road. From what I read management was already hell bent on putting the company out of business and had done some other pretty stupid moves such as instituting a lease-back program with their rolling stock and then deferred maintenance on the rolling stock they had which put the equipment into a bigger pile of slow orders. This meant they were paying for equipment that wasn't earning any revenue. Combine that with more deferred maintenance on the rest of the system which led to more slow orders. Then there was the whole electric system. The US government offered them loans and GE and Westinghouse offered them new equipment to rebuild the system, but they refused and chose to bring everything down in favor of the diesel drinking GP40s and GP38s just as the price of fuel skyrocketed. Then it came to the accounting error... Oi! This led to the abandonment of the only profitable portion of the system.

 

[bnsfc]

For double stacks as previously mentioned India runs them under catenary just fine, its not even too much more expensive. It is more of course, but nothing crazy. They also stack the containers onto flat cars, not wells, so US wires could be even lower. Also tall catenary in the US isn't unheard of, the Virginia railway had some quit tall wires, though I suspect that was mostly so steam loco's wouldn't soot up the wires as much, but that just speculation on my part.

Ill bet a double stack could sneak under that!

For tornadoes, well you do have a point. 3rd rail Isn't an option and the catenary would be vulnerable, but not as much as you would think. High tension lines don't come down every time a tornado pass's by and with the right engineering the cats, witch are lower so need to support less. could weather probably up to an F3 (again no engineer here but its not impossible/ prohibitively expensive) if an F4 or 5 hit the mainline there will probably be more than just the catenary down at that point, I think the system could tank it.