[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 36 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Attention: All work safe boards are soon going to be on the 4channel.org domain.

For now, all boards are accessible through either domain.

Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: electrified_freight.jpg (654 KB, 780x558)
654 KB
654 KB JPG
Apparently, BNSF studied a full-system electrification in 2008 or 2009, and came to the conclusion that it would be worth it, but only if they could find some way to reduce the capital costs. However, I haven't been able to find this study anywhere, only articles mentioning it.

Does anyone have a link or PDF? Is it even publicly available?
>>
>>1254395
>worth it
>only if they could find some way to reduce the capital costs

Isn't that the problem with anything that doesn't get done, though? Yes, it's "worth" doing, but not for the price.

Sounds like bullshit overall
>>
>>1254395
Found an article about it from 2009. It's definitely a neat idea, especially for the fact that they can generate energy back when braking down a hill.
https://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/bnsf-eyes-route-electric-trains_20090413.html

The capital costs could be covered federally then payed back. With environmental and infrastructure being the focus of the federal government.
>>
>>1254398
>The capital costs could be covered federally then payed back.
Fuck that. They get a loan like everyone else.

>With environmental and infrastructure being the focus of the federal government.
What was this abortion of a sentence supposed to mean?
>>
>>1254403
>Fuck that. They get a loan like everyone else.
At the very least the feds out to give them a couple-year tax break on the wire they put up. I'm not sure if that'd be enough to make it financially viable on its own, but it'd be pretty easy to do and would definitely get the Class Is looking into it.
>>
>>1254397
The implication is that there's significant operational savings from electrics, but the upfront cost of stringing catenary over hundreds of mile of rail is too high.
>>
>>1254410
>Hundreds
You mean tens of thousands.
>>
>>1254410
>hundreds of mile
Found the European/Californian.
>>
>>1254421
>>1254430
You really think the Class Is would electrify ALL their network? No, they'd do the mainlines, and maybe a couple of branches. BNSF said they'd switch from diesel to dual-mode, not from pure diesel to pure electric.
>>
>>1254450
>full system electrification
>only the mainlines
>>
>>1254450
Nigga, the southern transcon alone is 2,200 miles.
>>
>>1254450
Dual-Mode would actually be the best option, and is actually pretty popular among a lot of European freight operators, where the costs of dedicated diesel shunters is too high.
The benefit comes from the fact that a lot of freight yards are unelectrified for practical purposes (which includes the likes of container gantries and other such loading facilities. A Bi-Mode locomotive could start up a diesel generator and then leave the electrified mainline to move into the frieght yard, or do what is called "last mile" running, where the train moves off the mainline onto an unelectrified branch in order to reach a freight facility of some kind.

There is another option, which would be setting up 2-3 locomotives, much like is already done. One locomotive could be a diesel-electric with a prime mover and the other locomotive is a fully electric one. Both can operate independently, but when working in multiples, under catenary the diesel locomotive can operate like a cabbed slug, while in unelectrified areas, the electric locomotive can act as a cabbed slug too.
>>
>>1254471
Or you can just keep running diesel-electrics everywhere because peak oil is a myth and the massive capital costs of electrification are only worth it if you're not paying for it in the first place.

See: nationalized railroads.
>>
>>1254398
>The capital costs could be covered federally
The Fed could incentivize this with a carbon tax
>>
>>1254395
It does seem unfortunate, as I'd love to see the electric or bi-mode freight locomotives that you guys could come up with.
Surely a fed loan could get the ball rolling?
>>
>>1254473
This only makes me think that you've never heard of the 1973 Oil Crisis.
>>
>>1254489
This only makes me think you've never heard of the two Gulf Wars.
>>
File: 1522688202100.jpg (158 KB, 853x875)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>1254475
>>
>>1254489
OPEC will never have that much power again.
There are too many suppliers of oil and the recent push for alternative energy supplies is reducing demand for oil derived power generation
>>
>>1254495
Yes, but diesel locomotives run on oil...
The only train that's capable of running on alternative energy supplies will be electric locomotives, running on catenary which can get its power from solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, sea, hydro-electric and geothermal power.
>>
>>1254497
Do you think everyone is as stupid as you?
>>
>>1254491
End your miserable existence right now
>>
>>1254526
My life is 9/10 right now since I'm not shilling for the "Federal" Reserve retard
>>
>>1254395
Oh look, it's the electrification shills! Hello boys, sorry but I can't hear you over the efficiency of a new diesel engine.
>>
>>1254491
guess what
taxes pay for shit that is good for you
>>
>>1254560
Well I'm not a boomer or a nigger so "free" healthcare doesn't matter to me. You can't say the Fed isn't the worst organization on Earth at the moment.
>>
>>1254560
That's right goyim! Just vote for more taxes and """global warming""" will be solved!
>>
>>1254407
>give them a couple-year tax break
That’s the same as just straight up give them money.
>>
>>1254410
That’s just another way of saying it’s not worth it.
>>
>>1254582
>dual-mode locomotives.
Can they pull as much as a conventional road unit (SD70, ES44)?

>Segments with any sort of passenger service get priority.
Why?

>...the busiest diesel segments get electrified. Repeat until all the mainlines are complete.
Duh. But remember that BNSF at least 24,000 miles of mainline track

>It's not a hard concept.How expensive can electrification be?
Yes it is, cost the the main thing preventing it from happening. Not just the catenary itself, but the cost of buying thousands of new dual mode or electric locomotives and the hiring + training people needed to maintain the wire.
>>
>>1254561
>'m not a boomer so "free" healthcare doesn't matter to me.
unless you get hurt on the job and get kicked off employer benefits after you have been off work for 2 weeks
>You can't say the Fed isn't the worst organization on Earth at the moment.
under funding thanks to corporate tax cuts since Regan will do it
>>1254566
That's right, pretend corporate tax breaks arn't the Israeli agenda
>>
>>1254591
But I want things to be more expensive for me, not less!
>>
>>1254595
That's right. Everything should be exactly as expensive as I can afford, so no one poorer than me can pay for anything.
>>
>>1254598
More taxes, please! The government said they were good.
>>
>>1254471
Battery-electrics are getting more and more practical, they could be a useful alternative to bi-modes.
>>
>>1254567
Not really. It achieves a similair effect, sure, but "not taking money" is financially distinct from "giving money."
>>
File: image001 (1).jpg (80 KB, 1140x693)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
Without some kind of tax break or subsidy, railroads will move to full-alternative fuels long before they'd even consider electrifying.

The FEC LNG-ized its mainline fleet a couple of years ago (being the only railroad to do so in NA), and has reported significant savings in operational costs over pure-diesel.
>>
>>1254732
>natural gas
>alternative fuel
It doesn't count if you're still burning fossils. Natural gas won't save you when carbon emissions come under heavy scrutiny.
>>
>>1254748
>when carbon emissions come under heavy scrutiny
Fuck off Yuro
>>
>>1254497
Steam locomotives can run on anything that burns
Are you suggesting we return to them & electrify to lower oil dependence?
>>
>>1254588
>Can they pull as much as a conventional road unit (SD70, ES44)?
Easily.
Most European electrics can pull more, pound for pound, than diesels could. You could probably get 8000hp units or more in the US loading gauge, which means accelerated or longer trains.

Plus the maintenance of electrics is far easy as there's no added strain of a big diesel revving away

But you're right in saying that they cost big $ intially
>>
>>1254762
What I mean is in diesel mode, they'd need to have the same power as current US road units (4000+).

Another problem would be that if a dual mode had high HP in electric mode but it dropped substantially in diesel mode, you'd need to add additional diesel units when it leaves any electrified portion. This sounds simple in practice but railroads seldom have a surplus locomotive pool to pick from and seldom 'overpower' trains based on the territory (i.e. if you have more locomotives on your train than it needs, they are either isolated/shut down to conserve fuel).
>>
>>1254755
No
I'm saying catenary wire can take power from energy sources which don't even need to burn anything.
Read my post. Clean energy generation can revolutionise rail freight, and without it, rail freight will just contribute to pollution.
>>
>>1254776
Would they need 4000hp in diesel mode?
A lower horsepower loco does not necessarily have a lower tractive effort, but instead has a lower upper speed with the same train weight.

These bi-modes would be best working point-to point electrified lines, with the diesel used for short unelectrified sections like sidings or yards where speed is not a huge concern.
>>
>>1254778
"Clean" energy creates problems elsewhere anon.
Most use rare earth metals, which are mined using methods that create huge amounts of pollution.
They use up more land area for the same output than non-clean energy, and are often reliant on specific conditions that do not create a stable flow of power (e.g. wind, sun, tides).

They are not the only solution to the energy problems we face
>>
>>1254785
>A lower horsepower loco does not necessarily have a lower tractive effort
Bullshit. You cannot pull with geeps what you can with SDs.
>>
>>1254785
>Would they need 4000hp in diesel mode?
Yes they would, otherwise there's no point in dual-mode units in the first place, because you'd run them to the end of the wire and then have to rely on conventional road units to get it the rest of the way unless your entire network is electrified (not going to happen in North America in our lifetimes).
>>
>>1254787
Actually, solar furnaces are among the most efficient way of generating power, and takes up a small space, as they aren't relying on photovoltaic panels. Solar generates huge amounts of power, even in cloudy conditions, and with solar furnaces, molten salts (melted by the sun) can also keep generating power though the night.
Wind is a very reliable and consistent power generation, and are designed to work in even light breezes as they have adjustable angles of attack, which means that they can always generate power, and gearboxes allow for even a slight breeze to generate a huge amount of power.
Tidal power relies of the power of the moon moving the seas. Tidal power is incredibly reliable and predictable and can generate huge amounts of power during a tidal change.
Wave power is is also a huge untapped resource, as is hydro-electic, not forgetting the hydro-electric facilities which serve as power storage systems.

Plus, we're forgetting that next generation nuclear power stations are safer, more powerful and will be a key aspect for the electrical backbone.

Face it, burning fossil fuels is out of season. We have the technology to competely modernise and electrify most aspects of our transport while also generating nothing but clean power. The only thing stopping it is a lack of political will thanks to vested interests.
>>
>>1254795
It is true though.
Horsepower is a function of speed and the weight pulled.
T.E. is the amount of weight that can be pulled.
A 4000hp locomotive can pull 2000t at 20mph on the flat.
A 2000hp can pull the same at 14.7mph.
Do correct me if my calculations are wrong:
> Hp * 33000 / 2240 * train weight = max speed

>>1254797
That's why I said ideally from point-to-point
So yard > electrified mainline > sidings.
You would need a long enough route for it to be worthwhile switching over

>>1254798
You've got a good point, but until a indisputably better alternative to fossil fuels comes along they'll be around for decades to come
>>
>>1254801
>That's why I said ideally from point-to-point
>So yard > electrified mainline > sidings.
>You would need a long enough route for it to be worthwhile switching over

I don't understand
>>
>>1254803
To save switching locomotives too often and avoid wasting time and money, you need a long enough route between the start and finishing points on the journey.
This could be on a heavy traffic mainline between two yards where the vast majority of the journey is on the electrified mainline.
>>
>>1254801
No. While cruise is roughly proportional to the power, relation to weight is not liner.
In fact, for wheeled transport weight only affects acceleration/deceleration rates, but not the cruse because of negligible affect which weight has on friction loses.
>>
>>1254810
Yeah but you're stating the obvious

So can dual-mode locomotives achieve 4000+ hp or not? If not, there's no point in having them vs. a fleet of diesels and a fleet of straight electrics.
>>
>>1254817
It'd be easy to make a 4000hp electric.
I think it might be difficult to fit a 4000hp diesel plus electrical equipment in a single unit even with US loading gauges.
Unless you did something similar to this with a diesel in each unit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_locomotive_class_WAG-12
>>
>>1254397
Capital cost mean the cost of sourcing the fund
>>
>>1254900
>Simply put, if it can speed up travel times for passenger trains (it likely will), it should be done.
Passenger train speeds are based on track conditions and geometry, not motive power capacity. Passenger trains are also a minute fraction of all trains on any given mainline in the US apart from the NEC.
>>
>>1254817
Different anon, but: Stadler's EuroDual locomotive does 3750 hp in diesel mode and 9300 hp in electric mode. With american loading gauges, scaling up the engine for 4000 hp should be no issue.

In short, yes.
>>
>>1255053
I don't know enough about the BNSF racetrack to make an educated appraisal, but the three UP lines should most certainly be electrified (the possibility was studied in the 1920s but was not pursued).
>>
>>1255209
>>1255053
Are there lot of yard to yard runs in/ around Chicago?
Govt could give the heavy rail companies tax breaks on electrification infrastructure within a certain radius of the city to increase air quality.
Also the short runs mean less up-front capital costs, with increased reliance on acceleration between stops.
It could be ideal territory for testing bimode/electric engines
>>
Electrification of US mainlines will never happen not only due to the cost of maintaining it also due the terrain. With the tonnage you have on these trains you would need at least 25 kv, that means a lot of feeder stations, feeder powerlines (and all of this need to be maintained). You will need a lot of overhead clearance for the double stacks, autoracks etc... There are tunnels, bridges that would need to be removed or modified to accommodate the wires. Even if the electrification would be heavily subsidized by the government no railroad would do it. In the future I guess they will use different fuels like gas or hydrogen.
With the current oil prices right now its probably even cheaper running on diesel than electric, all that matters to the US Railroads is money for shareholders.
>>
>>1255260
>Are there a lot of yards and interchange around Chicago?
These are the morons promoting electrified railroads. What a fucking joke.
>>
>>1255425
Canadian Pacific does go to Chicago, VIA is like Amtrak and I guess is technically a Class 1, but not really imo

>>1255429
kek true
>>
>>1255429
>These are the morons promoting electrified railroads.
I'm not from the USA m8.
It's kinda like 'muricans asking why they built the Tower of London so close to the underground.

This is a thread discussing electrification so would you give your opinion why interchange between yards in Chicago shouldn't be electrified or use biome locomotives?

>>1255425
Thanks, so Chicago is the Midwest hub
>>
>>1255532
Stop spreading your stupid conjecture if you don't have a fucking clue, bruv.
>>
>>1255532
Yes, Chicago is a major transportation hub, and is frequently referred to as the "railroad capital" of the U.S.
>>
>>1254798
Except for the fact it vaporizes birds.
>>
>>1254798
>Hydro-electric not fucking up ecosystems
>>
>>1255638
Canadian Pacific took over the former Milwaukee Road.
>>
>>1255638
>outdated map
>>
>>1255642
That's CN, not CP.
>>
File: everythings fine.png (580 KB, 1611x881)
580 KB
580 KB PNG
>>1255643
my mistake, thought you were talking about CN
CN does have a map that shows the Chicago problem fairly well
>>
>>1255644
CN has solved the Chicago problem by running around it rather than right through it.
>>
>>1255629
>implying that a few toasted pigeons constitute a significant problem
>>
>>1255698
Expensive meme energy that kills migratory wildlife is pretty cool, liberals declare
>>
>>1255644
What website is that? I've been looking for a North American rail map that can show only selected companies.
>>
>>1255593
Stop slinging insults you cunt.
Give me more reasons why I’m wrong
>>
>>1255777
http://cnebusiness.geomapguide.ca
>>
>>1255785
Thanks, are there any other good one like that?
>>
>>1255798
https://www.openrailwaymap.org/
Open RailwayMap is amazing. It's a more difficult to see who owns what but I love the abandoned right of way that they show. They used to show roller coasters on their maps too which I found hilarious.
>>
>>1255856
Thanks again. Here have a train.
>>
>>1255321
The only places it could really work are the places where there are:
>High train frequency
>High speed services
>Stop-start schedules
>High energy losses with diesel (regenerative braking)
>Cheap and plentiful electric supply
>Where air quality is important

Most of the places it is economically viable for (commuter rail, NE corridor) have already been electrified.
Though in places where there are freight trains running under wires, you could convert road slugs to have a pantograph and the necessary electrical systems with a wired connection transmitting the power to other connected locomotives.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.