Should We Electrify Freight RR?

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc339/cascaderailroad/PRR-TGV1.jpg

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc339/cascaderailroad/UWSD45T2.jpg

Do they run freight electricaly in Europe ? Why is the US so far behind the technological times ? Nuclear, wind, batteries, what a joke. The PRR and NYC were very effective with electrification. The US RR's are so antiquated it's a wonder that they don't just shut completely down and have a millitary run RR. So far the US has proven time and time again: "Fail to plan...plan to fail" !
 
Last edited:
jadebullet said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Three Mile Island was a heavily hyped panic of a non-event. The reactor suffered a worst case scenario and the shell held like it was supposed to. The island was evacuated as a precaution, but the radiation released was so low that the plant itself never really needed to be evacuated. American nuclear power was extremely safe back then and is even safer now.
Also, electrification could pay off in the long run, but not before the next election cycle, which is why we never do anything that makes sense in the long run. It takes too much vision.
As for electrifying all the main lines, I think that would end up creating huge maintenance problems for lines as long and remote as we have in America. Remember the problem with vision I mentioned in the last paragraph. The railroads would have to plan ahead and set aside extra money for routine maintenance and repair, and that would require them to plan beyond the quarterly reports.
Reasonably short and heavily trafficked routes would pay off quickly and should be electrified. Even CEOs and Boards of Directors should be able to handle that without getting into too much trouble.

:cool:Claude
 
Milwaukee Rd electrification

I read that same article. What interested me was the background of the Milwaukee Road's electirification in the Rocky Mtn and Cascade Range, since I live in the NW USA. If you ever have your bike with you while you are crossing the Bitterroot Mtns (ID-MT, USA) border on I-90 (Lookout Pass)during the summer, you can ride the Milwaukee Road's former right-of-way, now known as the Hiawatha Trail (tunnels, trestles, plenty of historical info along the way). I have done it twice and I highly recommend it. Here's the link:

http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/rec/activities/biking/hiawatharide.html
 
Last edited:
i really don't this is a good idea honestly. don't get me wrong, we need to definatly start looking for a good alternitive feul. i mean like NOW. it will eventually dry up then boom, life as we know it comes to a halt. thats just a fact. while electrification sounds good in theory, how would you like to invest 30,000 into a car that 5 years from now you are going to have to get rid of because there is a cheaper and cleaner source of feul. all that money the RR's would spend on labor, parts, overhauling engines would just get the lines operational. thats not including the electricity bill every month. and here is something no one probably has thought about. when truckers get charged for higher diesel, we end up paying the difference. thats a fact. don't think the railroads are going to pass the cost to the customers who in turn charge us, the consumer, more? i agree that we need to something else to use for feul, however, thats why i don't think electricity is the way to do it. for the record, don't pay attention to the math, i just using examples haha

ps. what about rolling blackouts?
 
Electricity is not a fuel, it is the means of transferring power from the power source to the consumer, whether that consumer is a locomotive or a porch light.

Its the generation of that power that needs to be "green" (remember when green was just a colour) and that needs to be from a renewable source, but,

Wind power, only good when the wind is blowing,
Solar power, only good when the sun is shining,
Hydro power, admittedly a great source of power still relies on rain fall,
Tidal power, only good while the tide is flowing, stops four time a day,

While these methods can take the heavy load off regular power stations, you still need the regular power stations to be able to generate enough power on a cloudy day with no wind during a drought.

Using battery power that is charged up at night when there is a surplus of power, and used during the day is the best method we have at this present time, now how they can get that method to work with the railroads is a good question that I cannot answer :hehe: maybe convert to electric loco's and only move frieght at night during off peak, which would use up all the surplus power and there would be no more cheap "off peak" power :'(

Cheers David
 
Electrification in general is an economic decision. Electric trains are cheaper to run and maintain, and are more efficient in their total use of energy. Installation costs of overhead, are high, and maintenance costs must also be covered. In short, the busier the line, the better the financial case, and the shorter the payback. It's also the case that electrification gets more useful the more complete the system is, as it requires less changes of traction or running under the wires (very common in the UK).

Routes busy enough for electrification are unlikely to suffer copper theft (I've never heard of it happening on a busy in-use railway - in most of the world it's left switched on except for maintenance).

I suspect that the 'Nuclear plant powered locomotive' is a reference to most (not all) of France's electricity being nuclear powered, and most of their trains being electric.

The battery loco has it's points, but the weight of the batteries will almost certainly exceed the equivalent weight of diesel, so there is a fair bit of unnecessary haulage going on. I suspect as oil gets scarcer and more expensive they will become the traction of choice for many shortlines.

It would seem that 25,000 or 24000V AC is the best bet, as it's industrial standard, and a very common form of electrification around the world.

I just wonder how many of the worlds railroads will take the plunge before the price of oil rises again...

Paul
 
Just come across this, I know its two year old news I am a bit slow every now and then :)

"Toshiba's Micro Nuclear reactors are designed to power a single apartment building or city block, and measure a mere 20-feet by 6-feet. The 200 kilowatt reactor is fully automatic and fail-safe, and is completely self-sustaining. It uses special liquid lithium-6 reservoirs instead of traditional control rods, and can last up to 40 years, making energy for about 5 cents per kilowatt hour."

Building a loco around one of those should be possible, although 200Kw is not lot of power it is a start, and just think only years between fuel stops :hehe:

I think the only thing stopping this from happening is the general distrust of nuclear power, no matter how safe.

Cheers David
 
Last edited:
SuperFudd said:
Add to that general distrust the likelyhood of involvement in a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Please do a search on these 'micro nuclear reactors" there is not enough fuel in them to make a sneeze let alone a bomb.

In my previous post I said that 200 Kw is not a lot of power, well it isn't but I have just found out that to generate that amount of power there is also 5 megawatts of thermal power generated, now we are getting into some real serious steam turbine power, whether that steam is used directly or used to generate electric power is immaterial for this discussion.

Cheers David
 
UP5521 said:
Hmm, I don't know if nuclear fueled locomotives is a good idea!:eek:
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on that statement, why don't you think they are a good idea, please do some research and then you can say "I do not think its a good idea" or "I do think its a good idea"
If unsure then say "I am unsure as I do not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision"

I am not having a shot at you, a lot of people are uninformed or worse deliberately mis-informed about nuclear reactors, and while I am no genius, I like to think I have done enough research to make an informed decision, I could be totally wrong with that decision, but at least I made it :cool:

Cheers David
 
cascaderailroad said:
http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc339/cascaderailroad/PRR-TGV1.jpg

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc339/cascaderailroad/UWSD45T2.jpg

Do they run freight electricaly in Europe ? Why is the US so far behind the technological times ? Nuclear, wind, batteries, what a joke. The PRR and NYC were very effective with electrification. The US RR's are so antiquated it's a wonder that they don't just shut completely down and have a millitary run RR. So far the US has proven time and time again: "Fail to plan...plan to fail" !
Click to expand...

Poverty, greed and selfishness thy name is capitalism. I agree that the US is behind the times. If the government ran the whole system(rails and stock), there would be big opposition(anti-tax, libertarians, conservatives, anti-gov't, and anarchist groups). I do, however, think that infrastructure should be publically owned and services would be provided by private companies.

Cheers!
 
pommie said:
Could you please elaborate on that statement, why don't you think they are a good idea, please do some research and then you can say "I do not think its a good idea" or "I do think its a good idea"
If unsure then say "I am unsure as I do not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision"

I am not having a shot at you, a lot of people are uninformed or worse deliberately mis-informed about nuclear reactors, and while I am no genius, I like to think I have done enough research to make an informed decision, I could be totally wrong with that decision, but at least I made it :cool:

Cheers David
Click to expand...

well, I am unsure but I will do some research latter today and let you know what I come up with on 'nuclear powered locomotives!:cool:
 
UP5521 said:
well, I am unsure but I will do some research latter today and let you know what I come up with on 'nuclear powered locomotives!:cool:
Click to expand...


I'll help you with a link .. http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern16.htm

And a couple of thoughts .. When doing any personal research it's important to gather as much info as you are able , both for and against an idea . Look at both sides of the argument , and , when making your own choice , based on what you have read from qualified persons , ask these questions ... how much of the findings in the articles or papers you have read was based on the personal likes or dislikes of the writer , and were their findings influenced in any way by those individuals , companies or government's that may have been funding their studies. Unfortunately what you read , see or are told , is not always a true and accurate account of the facts.

Sci .. who also has no problem with nuclear for peaceful purposes
 
Last edited:
I do believe it is a good idea and since they want a environment friendly Nuclear fueled steam locomotive, I don't have a problem with that but it is going to be a long time before they get this project off of the ground and the project before it was called 'project ACE 3000' a steam locomotive which resembled a diesel locomotive but had a 4-8-2 wheel arrangment and they ran some tests with the #614 on a CSX coal train until two factors killed the project: 1.Oil prices rose and the #614 4-8-4 cracked its firebox,thus ending the project.:eek:
 
Hi All: You know gang I must say, we sure have lost something since the diesels took over..Now I want you to understand That I am not talking the Diesel down..But that is when the mood shifted to what it is today. Now everybody in the RR's are talking out of BOTH sides of there Mouths at the same time. DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO..



Bob Cass:) :)
 
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...
Yes, and also Trains are what huals the coal we burn so if they run out of coal there is nothing for power and the trains dont run.
 
The coal industry boasts that there is enough coal to burn for the next 150 years...Just at one Florida Power and Light plant they burn one coal hopper car of pulverized coal each and every 5 mimutes, 24/7/365...every day 75+ loaded coal trains leave the powder river basin...that's alot of coal
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
One project leading to another... The Hoosac Tunnel and Wilmington RR
Replies
1
Views
1K
Railwoodman
R
Back
Top