Yes, we are getting close to crossing that line and if we do we might have to lock the topic. I wanted to share this and other news information that have recently came out with folks here since not everyone would have saw these peices of news. It's good to hear differnt views from around the world but let's not get to deep into the "politics" while discussing this piece of news. What is the good news here in the USA is that folks are starting to look at train travel again as a mode of transporation. :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd:
Even the US government chimed in today by approving AmTrak's budget, with some capital equipment and infrastructure funds. It was approved by a veto-proof margin in both the House and the Senate. The US railroads are reporting increased profits, and plans to build major new track. So things are finally looking up after six years of AmTrak operating without a confirmed government subsidy.
I am just happy to see some emphasis on rail transportation. If it's got flanged wheels and runs on steel rails I am probably a fan.
I threw out night games and bridges and streetlights as just a few of the larger, more obvious examples...(And yes, I'd guess that the lights on the SF Bay Bridge use at least 100000 watts when they're on, which is equal to more than a 1/4 of the power a 4000hp locomotive puts out. AT&T park uses more than a whole locomotives worth.) The point is that power to run trains is pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to our total energy usage. If residential and business electricity usage was cut by just %1, we could increase the electricity used for transportation nationally sixfold. (Numbers based on this well known graph.) I'd wager that's probably enough to power locomotives for all the major transcontinental freight lines. (Anyone know how much power that is?) What we're really talking about here is transferring a pretty fractional amount of our national energy use. While I'm hardly naive about the political obstacles to even such a small change, it hardly deserves to be called "impossible". Frankly though, I think that at some point the railroads will just do it. If they're not already staring at the price of diesel, and dusting off their own electrification studies from back in the seventies to figure out which numbers they need to crunch, then they're not as smart as I think they are. I hope that as long as we don't call each other names or discuss certain political parties that we can have this discussion here. The issues our society is going to face this century vis-a-vis energy and transportation are hardly non-railroad-related.
I agree. Often, it just takes someone getting angry at someone else's idea that gets threads closed down as too "political." If I say that I would like to see electrification of more mainlines I am not doing it to anger people but as a future vision of what I think is possible. One thing about rail lines is that they are very decentralized. They are not like aluminum plants. With losses due to transmission and such, I would think that your generation would also benefit from being decentralized. I could imagine a case where power for each section of track would be locally sourced - perhaps bought from a utility here, or run from hydroelectric power there. Maybe in the Great Plains we run trains off wind-farms. Maybe we use thin-film solar technologies for part of it. When we speak in superlatives (best, worst) or use definitive terms like never or always we tend to limit our own imaginations.
None of us should presume to know the intelligence levels of a particular railroad's board members, for in some cases that is madness (or will drive us to it). OK, just for grins & giggles, let's say BNSF wants to electrify their Transcon line from, say, Amarillo, TX to Barstow, CA. Lots of traffic (or so it seemed when I was out in Gallup in 2006) covering the high plains of the Texas Panhandle, deserts, mountain areas (Abo Canyon) and places to open the throttle and let 'er rip. Now, add up the costs of building catenary on a double-track mainline (and fairly soon, if they can get past the NIMBYs, Abo Canyon will be double-tracked), including sidings, yard trackage, and servicing tracks. Get EMD to pull the plans for electric freight motors out of the file, make some changes for the upgrades, and begin building a fleet of road and road-switching motors. OK, you have the infrastructure. Now where do we get the power? Telling folks they can't have their lights on because the trains won't run will be met by howls of indignation, outrage, and amusement, so we don't go there. This means extra power plants to generate electricity for the railroad, plus electricity for an increase in population that we know is going to happen, since we can't tell people not to move to the Southwest. How to fuel these plants? Coal? Wind? Solar? Nuclear? Natural gas? Fusion? And please, let's keep it practical. How to deal with the NIMBYs who don't want a certain power plant, yet want power to live their accustomed standard of living? I'm not trying to poke fun or decry the idea of electrification as ridiculous- in fact, if you can deal with the above problems, it would be a feat similar to the construction of the Interstate highway system. And I could get behind that. But as you can see, there are obstacles to deal with in any project of this size, and solutions that may not be universally accepted, but must work to benefit as many people as possible. I quite agree.
Glad to see AMTRAK getting popular! :thumbs_up: Now, if we could only find a way to canvince the U.P., BNSF et al to give passenger trains priority as it was in the '50's ... AMTRAK would ignite the use of rails again. But, being a realist, I doubt the majors will ever consent to that on their own.
It's still going to require a generation and distribution system infrastructure to be built completely new. Energy saved in Kentucky won't be of any value to an electrified line in New Mexico. Not sure who you're "quoting" here. I don't have time this morning to re-read the entire thread. I do know the word is not mine. They'll still need to contract for the energy to use. After negotiating a favorable rate. They cannot then simply just tap into local power supply. Not for the scale of installation suggested here. And that will also require what I have stated above. Boxcab E50
In fact, since de-regulation of the Electric Utility Industry and the National Power Grid in the '80s, this is no longer the case. Any major user can negotiate and contract a volume and rate with any supplier anywhere on the National Grid. For instance, Amtrak NEC could negotiate a one year contract with a hydro facility in Washington State for a minimum of X-KWH and a rate of $Y/KWH. In this case the generating plant would output the negotiated amount of power to the Grid, and Amtrak would draw that same amount of power from the Grid. The concept is that the National Grid is like a huge water reservoir where pumping stations add to the level and cities draw from the level, while both guarantee to maintain a balance to the level. So a plant in Kentucky could negotiate a contract to generate power for an electrified line in New Mexico.
Hank- Yes. Provided there was infrastructure available to serve the needed end facility. Wherever that might need to be located. Boxcab E50
Ken, I assume the local electric service provider would be very happy to install a substation at the rail company's facility, and the distribution lines between it and the Grid. Under de-regulation, the rail company would pay their bill to the local service provider. That bill would include the service provider's invoice for transport services as a percentage of total usage, and the generation company's invoice for supply. The local service provider would be responsible for forwarding the usage payment to the generating company. I'm sure that by the time the rail company had their catenary installed and ready for operation, the power already would be available at rail-side. Under de-regulation, you and I have the ability to negotiate annual contracts with generating companies. The only requirement being that we must guarantee a minimum monthly usage, which would be way above what most residences use in a year...except perhaps for Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee.....:tb-mad:
The potential of mini-power plants is very real. The potential for them to be powered by other than coal and gas is also very real. Imagine a mini- or even micro-plant every so many miles, dedicated to rail service--or whatever. Small, clean, quiet--they could eliminate the NIMBY syndrome.
I would hope so. It's been thirty years since I worked on such a project. Back then, there weren't the NIMBYs, no EIS, no lengthy fights, no studies, nor review processes. On that job, the power company already owned the entire right of way. Thus omitting any need to aqcuire, or try for eminent domain. Even so, it took three years from start, to finish. For roughly 12 miles, and one substation. Boxcab E50
The "mini-power plant" is very real today! Several states including California and, I believe, New Mexico have enacted laws that require the power grid to buy excess power generated from ALL sources, including homeowners. That is to say, if Pete or Ken have installed residential power generation systems for their home use, Pete's could be solar and Ken's could be hydro, and these systems generate power that exceeds their home needs at any time, and they are able to synchronize that power to the grid, the local power company MUST buy the excess. Pete and Ken will have had the local power company install a reversing meter (at no cost) so that at the end of every month when the meter is read, it will indicate whether more power was used from, or supplied to the grid. If Pete or Ken used more power than supplied, they would be charged, but if they supplied more than they used, they would be paid, all at the current rate per KWH. So the "mini-power plant" could be as large as a gas-fired steam turbine capable of 100 MegaWatts, or as small as Pete or Ken jogging on a treadmill......well maybe not a treadmill. :tb-wacky::tb-biggrin:
I except it would take at least that long to install a catenary distribution system, plus acquire locomotives, so that would not be a deal breaker. I believe that most the country is so fed up with Congress' and the White House's inaction regards fuel and transportation, that, if a rail company presented a logical no-cost plan to the community, it would fly in a New York Second. (A New York Second is that instantaneous interval of time between the traffic light turning green and the cabbie behind you honking his horn.)
Because it was all built in the first half of the 20th century and their weren't any Meglomanical German Dictators to blow it all up around here. So it managed to last for much longer. Easy for someone in Europe to say. Those missles were built as much for the Netherlands as for the US. Some in the US military get rather irked at this kind of thinking, because they feel Europe got a free ride for decades. Without the US military, European military spending would need to be higher plain and simple. I don't think it's fair to say nobody is doing anything about it. The problem is getting people to look beyond their navels.
Interesting. This thread is concentrating on Electric and pretty much ignored my comment about steam.
Let's keep it cool, folks. The cultural and political beliefs of the world have grown closer and further apart in a cyclical manner since WWII, and we are now somewhat far apart. European thinking versus US thinking; Russian thinking versus US thinking or European thinking; US thinking versus Chinese thinking versus Russian thinking versus European thinking, and then add in the Pacific rim. We're not going to solve the geopolitical problems of Earth on this forum! Let's stay away from defense spending, and concentrate on energy and transportation spending. And let's realize that the cost of gasoline in the US, while part of the problem, is still only one part of a very complex worldwide problem. Let's realize that global warming is also part of the problem. Having realized that, let's stay cool in our discussion. I work in a place that has been a leader in alternate energy production since the early 1970s. It has spawned some of the leading companies in wind and photovoltaic power since then. Wind is our near-term contributor to the power grid. Photovoltaic is still a little further down the road, although advances in efficiency, still in the laboratory, are encouraging. Mini-power plants, as others have noted, are already here. A natural gas powered turbine doesn't take much more space than a large, industrial garage, perhaps 20 x 60 feet (6 x 18 meters), and will get much smaller. They could power a third rail, rather than a catenary. Or some other scheme possible with today's materials and electronic controls. For example. it would be entirely possible to power a third rail or catenary in 1000' segments (or 100' segments, or 10' segments) as a loco pickup sped along it, rather than power long stretches of catenary. That's totally and comfortably within our capabilities today. Except for the northern route through the Dakotas and Wyoming and further north, I've crossed the US quite a few times by auto. In most areas it's not quite as unpopulated as many believe.
