posted
The issue is being raised again by Rose. Funny enough, he's calling on federal involvement; funnier still, a figure of $10 billion is cited for not only electrifying all of their main lines (which translates to a very low per-mile figure, in the six-figure realm) plus investment in "dual-mode" technology, presumably along the lines of NJ Transit's ALP-45DP genset thingy adapted for freight service. Most curious.
Of course, along Amtrak lines, this would evoke visions of AEM-7s on the Southwest Chief or HHP-8s on the Empire Builder, and the decommissioning of the ventilation system of the Cascades Tunnel (and the return of wires there, most ironically). Too late for the E60MA, though, which would be more suited to the top speeds of these main lines (even for 90 mph on the SW Chief) and quite the heavy low-speed puller...but food for dreams, if not for serious thought at this time.
quote:BNSF eyes route to electric trains Tuesday, April 21, 2009
(The following story by John D. Boyd appeared on The Journal of Commerce website on April 13, 2009.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Converting the freight rail system to electric trains from today’s all-diesel operations might seem like a far-off notion, but BNSF Railway’s Matthew K. Rose is starting to explore this new frontier.
If his ideas pan out, BNSF’s still-early planning efforts could help produce historic change for North American freight railroads.
Rose, BNSF’s chairman, president and CEO, told The Journal of Commerce his company is in talks with electrical power line builders about stringing or burying transmission lines in some of BNSF’s inter-city rail corridors.
With those line-easement leases emerging as a possible new revenue source, BNSF officials are also weighing how to electrify the carrier’s mainline track system and asking equipment makers about locomotives that could run both under electric or diesel power.
That puts the nation’s second-largest railroad in the midst of a power-line building boom to upgrade the electrical grid, and angling to be ready for the time when proposed federal caps on carbon emissions might turn diesel use into a big financial disadvantage.
“We have had conversations with two, if not three, outside organizations,” Rose said, “around using railroad right of way for different opportunities of electrification.” He does not see such potential power line projects developing quickly on the railroad, but said BNSF is in “serious” talks with two of them.
He said BNSF could opt to draw electricity from those lines for its own use, in lieu of cash payments. With that, it might also offer power along with freight transportation to a new-era industrial park for various types of factories that burn lots of energy.
BNSF has not asked locomotive makers to prepare any plans, Rose said, but has discussed with them what kind of equipment is already available or could be developed if the railroad begins to integrate electric power with its vast diesel territory.
He said the price tag to electrify all BNSF mainline tracks could be $10 billion, including what the carrier would need in dual-mode locomotives. That’s too steep a price for BNSF to justify right now, but the initial power line projects could be a way to start.
“Without a doubt it helps a lot, but it’s not like either of these deals that we’ve looked at on transmission lines are to blanket our 26,000 miles of railroad,” Rose said.
But a tough new federal policy to cap or cut carbon emissions could soon make electrified rail feasible for freight rail. “I think we’re going to start pricing carbon out at some point in time in the future,” he said. “There’s lots of good news, and lots of not so good news, in that for the railroads.”
Of the power line projects BNSF is discussing, one would draw from an alternative energy production site, another from a nuclear plant. So if BNSF tapped them, that electricity would not come from carbon-emitting coal plants.
Rose thinks the federal government should step in as a matter of public policy, set rail electrification as a national goal to cut carbon levels and U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and help fund it across the entire rail network.
“You hear everybody talking about a carbon-constrained world, and a carbon-priced world,” he said. “Railroads are so efficient from a carbon standpoint in terms of truck, but we still have an opportunity in terms of electrification. But I just think the capital burdens are so enormous when we’re talking about this that it’s really going to have to be a federal vision, with some federal funding.”
posted
Most interesting, even more so if it comes to fruition in part if not whole. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the ability for trains going downhill to return power to the grid - even more of a saving. However, has the cost of lowering the tracks through tunnels and under bridges been factored in (you would have thought so)?
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question in my mind regarding these types of projects is where the extra power is going to come from. Solar and wind are fine as supplemental power sources, but their nature does not allow dependence on them. Now that they are safely in office, the administration seems to be signaling additional coal facilities are out. Nuke is not acceptable to their supporters either.
Mr. Rose is right in exploring the idea of putting power lines along his right of ways. However, that is just part of the problem.
Posts: 41 | From: South Dakota | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should not be assumed that the electric power for trains would come from overhead lines. So clearances may be a minimal problem.
The southern and northern Transcons would be logical starting locations since they have the greatest density of traffic.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Geoff M wrote: has the cost of lowering the tracks through tunnels and under bridges been factored in (you would have thought so)?
What with the clearance adjustment engaged in for double-stacks, such must be a minimal factor nowadays. Worthy of note is CSX's operation of high-clearance freight under legacy high-voltage AC electrification on its "Trenton Line" (former RDG between New Jersey and Pennsylvania).
quote:Dakguy201 wrote: Now that they are safely in office, the administration seems to be signaling additional coal facilities are out. Nuke is not acceptable to their supporters either
I seem to recall the administration actively promoting "clean coal" in TV ads. (This is in direct contrast to the anti-clean-coal propaganda ads put out by these "activist" types.)
As for nuke power, Obama still vacillates; the furthest he went in his campaign was to describe it as "not a panacea", IIRC. He's not a rabid opponent of it; and if the recent turnaround as far as military tribunals for GTMO detainees seems to indicate, he's not 100 percent pushed around by supporters of his from the most hardcore left.
quote:RRCHINA wrote: It should not be assumed that the electric power for trains would come from overhead lines
Why not? Third rail is essentially dead for any brand-new FRA rail applications, except in the case of extension of legacy systems (which has happened only in the 80s, with LIRR's extension to Ronkonkoma and Metro-North's extension to Southeast f.k.a. "Brewster North"). There is no other viable form of electrification other than that and overhead. Stuff like LIM is basically a curiosity relegated to the "rapid transit" arena (like on JFK Airport's "Airtrain" and other people-movers, but mostly in Asia).
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: I seem to recall the administration actively promoting "clean coal" in TV ads. (This is in direct contrast to the anti-clean-coal propaganda ads put out bythese "activist" types.)
If the interests of the Class I industry are of any concern (and times I wonder if such are with all members here), one had best recognize that 21% of the revenue and 44% of the ton-miles come from hauling that stuff.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well noted. (I can cite what happened with the power plant in Martin's Creek PA; their coal train deliveries are gone with the decommissioning of their coal-burning plants. Also, there's the matter of short lines unconnected to the general railway network, such as the Black Mesa & Lake Powell, Texas Utilities and Navajo Mine RR, all users of E60 electrics from various sources, one of which is Amtrak.)
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: It should not be assumed that the electric power for trains would come from overhead lines. So clearances may be a minimal problem.
True, insofar as the article does mention it. However, I'd be surprised if 25kv was allowed lower than somewhere above train level (be that single, double, or triple stack), which would mean a lower voltage, which then means a bigger cross section of rail or wire, which then means more substations more frequently along the line, which means more cost.
One question I do have is how BNSF would only be able to draw power from "green" power sources. In this country the power goes into the national grid from whatever source, be it coal, oil, nuclear, wind, solar (ha!), or water, and the customers don't know where their volts/whatever have come from. From the NE USA power wipeout of 2003 it would appear to be the same. So how can BNSF be so selective?
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I regard the "green power source only" as mere posturing for the dingbats in DC.
Agree totally that it will be overhead. So far as I know the maximum anybody does on third rail is around 1000 volts, and I do not see a publicly owned private business exposing themselves to the libility that having a charged piece of steel within reach of the idiots in our over-lawyered society. To attempt to push trains up mountains with any potential less than 25KV or the least, teh fomer Great Northern's 11KV would make no sense.
I beleive that if they do electrify, there would have to be something done about the clearances in Cascade Tunnel. I think the crown is at 21 feet above the rail, but don't hold me to that. During the days of the original electrification, 15'-6" tall Plate C cars would be about as high as things got.
Generally, the thought for electrification of freight lines is that the wire should be somewhere in the range of 23'-0" to 24'-6" above the rail and that you want at least 3'-0" to 3'-6" above that in tunnels for the hardware. Again, numbers off the top of my head.
George
Parenthetical thought: In the 1960's when Southern went on a huge tunnel enlargement binge in Appalachia, their standard was to have the crown 30'-0" above the rail, and the cross section 20'-0" wide, with the track set 8'-0" off one wall and 12'-0" off the other. It as assumed that the height was in consideration of potential electrification. There was a scheme for a while to electrify Cincinatti - Chattanooga with the overhead being owned by TVA or some power company and Southern buying the power as used.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
