Should We Electrify Freight RR?

Hi All: I just read a very interesting article, concerning Electrification Freight RR as well as Passenger RR. They stated the fact that Electrifying Freight RR, it would in fact increase the efficiency of the RR as well as pollution. There would be separate Right of Ways. Again we are way behind other Countries when comes to this..Russia is leading the pack 25,000 Miles..China and then India. Something to be said about this..WHAT DO YOU THINK?


Bob Cass

we could do it. but the upfront cost would be tremendous.

many years ago the Milwaukee road had an electrified section in the northern united states. however they tore it down in the 50's. the diesils would haul the fright or passenger in and be hooked up to MILW's giant little joes or other engines they had electrified.



The one major problem is, besides upfront cost, the united states operates frights different then the country's listed. we run frights that are longer, heavier, over trackage thats seen better years.

Absolutely Not.:n:


My Opinion,
Woody

The United States currently has less freight trackage under wire now than it did 50 years ago. The Milwaukee Road turned off its catenary as follows:

Othello to Tacoma and Seattle 1972 Coast Division
Harlowton to Avery 1974 Mountain Division

Conrail did not opt to continue use of electric traction as a result of the fee's Amtrak wanted to use its power.

The biggest problem in the United States was the failure of the Electric Traction suppliers to standardize on one system of power transmission.

The PRR and New Haven and Reading Railroad used 11,000 volt 25 cycle AC
overhead line.
The Long Island Railroad opted for 650 volt 3rd rail DC
New York Central opted for 660 volt 3rd rail DC
The Delaware Lackawanna & Western and the Milwaukee opted for 3,000 Volt
overhead DC

The Virginian Railroad opted for 11,000 Volt AC

and on and on.

Failure to agree early on one system of electrification increased the costs as nothing was standardized

Currently with the advant of Silocon Rectifier Diodes the 25,000 volt power company transmission voltage appears to be emerging as a standard. Use of this voltage dispenses with the need for sub stations and lowers the invested costs. On high density mainlines which have emerged with the consolidation of the US freight railroad industry electrification would become a good investment. I feel that the US Government should offer investment tax credits to railroads that electrify this would help to get things rolling.

Well, as far as pollution, the trains themselves don't make it, but what about the source of that electricity? You have to burn something to make that power (unless it's nuclear.)

I read in that same issue that for merely 3 times what we wasted bailing out AIG, a foolish insurance company, we could electrify all the main lines of the current American class 1 railroads. It would create a lot of jobs too, so what the heck are we waiting for? At least it would be money well spent.

No, I don't think it is a good idea!

simulatortrain said:

Well, as far as pollution, the trains themselves don't make it, but what about the source of that electricity? You have to burn something to make that power (unless it's nuclear.)

Click to expand...

But with Nuclear there is always the hazard of another Chernobyl, and you know how bad that was.

applegathc said:

But with Nuclear there is always the hazard of another Chernobyl, and you know how bad that was.

Click to expand...

Yeah, nobody wants that, so we're stuck burning stuff for fuel. So, it still pollutes.

Insofar as pollution it depends on how mismatched generating capacity is to actual usage. As I stated before with the consolidation of routes in the United States that there are high density freight routes in which electrification is viable.

Electrification would be cleaner than diesels on high density freight routes because one large installation will be more fuel efficient than several smaller instatallations. Consider a high density freight route of 200 miles that operates 20 freights in each direction. If the average freight train has 2 diesel locomotives on it we are talking about 80 diesel locomotives a day. An existing power plant that expanded its capacity slightly to accomodate that usage on a BTU basis would be much cleaner than diesels. Large installations have economy of scale.

Electric locomotives represent less tare weight account that they do not have to carry their fuel supply with them.

Electric locomotives have less moving parts than internal combustion engines and are more reliable and less costly to maintain.

Electric Locomotives can also return power to the overhead line durring regenerative breaking.

Nuclear power is both safe and efficient. France is currently producing all of its electricity with nuclear power. The radioactive waste problem has been solved with deep well injection.

In short electrification would result in substantially reduced operating expense, would be environmentally cleaner, and would reduce the amount of energy on a btu basis that trains consume. The only problem is the initial expense of buying electric locomotives which now with Silocon Diode Rectifier technology can be made from existing diesel electric locomotive designs. And second the cost of stringing the overhead line. Substations and their construction and operation are not necessary. To convert an existing diesel locomotive to a strait electric is actually at this point quite feasible with technology progressing to the extent it has.

Interesting arguments, all of them; but they all miss the elephant in the room: oil supplies are finite. There might be some debate about when but there can be no doubt about the fact that it will happen.

The point about electrification is that it is merely a transmission system. Any source can be used to generate the electricity; hydro, coal, oil, nuclear, gas, geothermal etc etc. So if you had a nationwide electric railway/railroad powered by oil generators when the oil runs out all you need to change are the power sources not the entire system.

Standard is 25,000 volts at 50 cycles. It's called industrial frequency. It has been the Holy Grail of electric rail systems since the very begining and now it is possible. Thyrisors and steady state electronics make it a doddle to do these days. The high AC voltage means much lighter wire and supports can be used and feeder substations can be further apart.

As for the source of power I plum for nuclear but not the clunky inefficient and potentially dangerous fission reactors of the present; the real break through will be with fusion power. Tomorrow eh.

American engineers and railroads have taken a great delight in the diesel dream but when the oil runs out who's gonna look stupid; the Europeans with their comprehensive electrification of anything that moves or the Americans with their armadas of dinosaur diesels and nothing to make them go? :hehe:


Cheers

Nix

Hi All: Don't forget the Wind Energy..It's Taking off big time in Texas,Calif.,Iowa. I'm sure other states are also doing it as well..Nice clean energy. I think it should take off(Electrification of RR's), we need it mainly to create jobs(Temporary 0r Permanent) It would be good in the long haul to get things moving. We need to do this for America..


Bob Cass

I remember speaking with a friend of mine some time ago about this. Being a railfan myself, and he working for a mining company that recently dieselized, I asked him why. Since the catenary was (as far as I could tell) more efficient than the diesel locomotives. His answer shocked me.


Apparently, they had a problem with thieves. He explained it like this:

The catenary wire they used was made of copper. Since copper sells so well, people had figured out ways to steal it. At night, when certain sections of the mine were shut down, these guys would purposefuly short circuit the power and then cut the catenary wire down in long sections. They'd then head off to sell the wire.

After a while the company quit depowering the sections, but that ended badly when it killed a thief, so in the long run they decided to get rid of the copper all together, and went to diesel.

applegathc said:

But with Nuclear there is always the hazard of another Chernobyl, and you know how bad that was.

Click to expand...

Chernobyl was the result of an experiment, and also took place in the 80s. Our knowledge of nuclear physics have evolved considerably since then.

applegathc said:

But with Nuclear there is always the hazard of another Chernobyl, and you know how bad that was.

Click to expand...

Technically, not in the United States there isn't. Or reactors operate differently than the Chernobyl one. While a mistake like the Chernobyl one would lead to an explosion in that type of reactor, it would lead to an automatic shutdown in ours. Also, technically, it wasn't because of an experiment. It was due to a test of the plant and its workers in an emergency situation. Which of course turned into a real one due to human and mechanical error.

Just saying. Now, a Three Mile Island style disaster, that is a different story.


Electrifying freight just doesn't seems like a cost effective decision right now. It would take decades for it to pay off.

The stealing of copper is a problem. Insofar as the Northeast Corridor is concerned I have not heard of any issues with this. I suspect that the catenary is never deenergized on the Northeast Corridor except when maintenance is being performed on the system.

Security is an issue that is easily addressed as CTV camera's that can transmit over the internet are becoming increasingly affordable. Having ample security personel to respond to incidents is important. Railroads should be beefing up security anyway.


Howard

As well they better, or more stealing will keep happening, and theft on the railroad is nothing new anyway!

A nuclear powered locomotive is feasible now, has been for a while, below are the stats for a small nuclear powered research submarine, the measurements that are important to this discussion is the beam, or the widest point of the sub, 12 feet 6 inches, and that includes the pressure hull which would not be needed for above surface use and the weight 400 tons total, how much is the reactor is unknown, but even if the power plant is 250 tons it is not to heavy for locomotive use.

Name: Deep Submergence Vessel NR-1
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat
Laid down: 10 June 1967
Launched: 25 January 1969
In service: 27 October 1969
Out of service: 21 November 2008

General characteristics

Displacement: 400 tons
Length: 45 meters (150 feet) overall, 29.3 meters (96 feet 1 inch) pressure hull
Beam: 3.8 meters (12 feet 6 inches) 4.8 meters (15 feet 10 inches) at stern stabilizers.
Draft: 4.6 meters (15 feet 1 inch)
BOX keel depth (below base-line): 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Propulsion: one nuclear reactor, one turbo-alternator, two external motors, two propellers, four ducted thrusters (mounted diagonally in two "x-configured" pairs)
Speed: 4.5 knots surfaced, 3.5 knots submerged
Endurance: 210 man-days nominal
16 Days for a 13 person crew
330 man-days maximum
25 Days for a 13 person crew
Complement: three officers, eight crewmen, two scientists


Why haven't they used this technology yet, political, yup, well would you want nuclear reactors running all over the country, no matter how safe it is made the general populace would object at the next election, and any politician that voted for it would be out of office :hehe:

Cheers David

Nuclear plant powered locomotives are quite common in France.

pommie said:

Why haven't they used this technology yet, political, yup, well would you want nuclear reactors running all over the country, no matter how safe it is made the general populace would object at the next election, and any politician that voted for it would be out of office :hehe:

Cheers David

Click to expand...

Unfortunatly it's the amount of mis-information feed to the general populace by other " interested parties " that would almost certainly result in that scenario . Hard for most to make an informed decision when all they rely on for info is the 6 pm news or radio talkback.

Sci