BNSF: looking into electrification, etc.
Nick Fotis
yesterday I received the September TRAINS issue, and has a mini-interview
with BNSF's Matt Rose (look at p. 16).
Some items worth noting:
- fuel prices are hurting bad BNSF (if their engineers manage to lower the
consumption, they get a $50 gas card as an incentive to economize)
- the rail industry consumed 5 billion USD in 2007, they expect to pay 18
billion this year (ouch!)
- they are studying electrification (I suppose this has to do with out past
debates in M.T.R.A.? :-) :-) ).
They are looking in nuclear, coal, alternative energy as sources.
- they seem open to federal help for infrastructure
(maybe via a Congress-voted infrastructure tax credit?)
- Mr.Rose seems to think it was a big mistake for the USA to not keep a
passenger train network in the fifties.
Now it will be a costly project, but very important in the long term, and it
better be implemented in a separate right of way from freight railroads
(which are already stressed).
Maybe in 1-2 years we'll see catenary strung over Cajon pass? (half-joking)
Cheers,
N.F.
RKapp...@gmail.com
I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification of rail in Southern
California. Not only does it have busy rail lines and steep grades,
it also has air quality problems that electrification would do a lot
to reduce. I think that electrification would be a winner with a lot
of communities along tracks that handle a lot of freight traffic and
might make it easier for both railroads to overcome community
opposition to expanding their operations.
John Kane
> Hello there,
>
> yesterday I received the September TRAINS issue, and has a mini-interview
> with BNSF's Matt Rose (look at p. 16).
>
> Some items worth noting:
> - fuel prices are hurting bad BNSF (if their engineers manage to lower the
> consumption, they get a $50 gas card as an incentive to economize)
If they save fuel they get a bonus to burn more fuel.
Isn't there something wrong here?
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Nick Fotis
> If they save fuel they get a bonus to burn more fuel.
>
> Isn't there something wrong here?
I'm glad to see that you have noticed the irony of this.
Obviously, the first case is company fuel (having a six-pack of these
behemoths running economically would gain the company much more than 50$).
Maybe they get directed in the refueling depot of BNSF and they use the
coupon for their car? :-) :-)
N.F.
Nick Fotis
> I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification of rail in Southern
> California. Not only does it have busy rail lines and steep grades,
> it also has air quality problems that electrification would do a lot
> to reduce. I think that electrification would be a winner with a lot
> of communities along tracks that handle a lot of freight traffic and
> might make it easier for both railroads to overcome community
> opposition to expanding their operations.
Never underestimate NIMBYism - I can imagine their cry:
"These damned catenary poles destroy the beauty of our desert!"
(never mind their ecosystem of satellite dishes and trailer parks :-) )
Obviously, if they make such overbuilt catenary as in the NEC, this wouldn't
be nice-looking.
Maybe if hydroelectrics could power these trains, that would be a big help
(e.g. from Oregon or Washington state?).
Or big solar steam generators with collectors lined along the right of way?
Using coal and nuclear would be a 'last resort' for me.
California wants 'clean air'? Well, running coal-powered generators in
neighbour states doesn't sound very 'clean air' to me - air knows no state
borders.
Using renewable energy sources would be a VERY interesting proposal that
would put the USA in the front line. And this technology would be
exportable as well.
BNSF could even ask the feds and the states for help in implementing such a
'clean air' project - they are lucky to go through some of the most sunny
places in the USA, I think.
And it makes excellent PR. ;-)
Cheers,
N.F.
Jishnu Mukerji
> Obviously, if they make such overbuilt catenary as in the NEC, this wouldn't
> be nice-looking.
Frankly, I wish we in the US would stop trying to re-invent how to
catenary and simply use well tried and tested ways. NJTransit actually
in a fit of rationality did so using Constant Tension catenary with
standard French suspension system, on the North Jersey Coast Line, and
probably now has the most unobtrusive catenary of any on main line
railroad in the US. But then it reverted back to the usual clunky stuff
with two messenger wires and what nots on the Montclair-Boonton Line
electrification, and even forgot all about Constant Tension to boot. Go
figure. Meanwhile Amtrak of course managed to install the most overbuilt
piece of new catenary that I have seen anywhere on the New Haven to
Boston electrification, and ran out of money before they finished all of
it too.
David A Rasmussen
Can't they harness the power of rotting banana peels like in Back to the
Future? ;-)
--
Dave Rasmussen, Account Administration
University Information Technology Services
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Office: Bolton 229A | Office Phone: 414-229-5133
Nick Fotis
electric locomotive of the Austrian railways.
These are pulling both freight and passenger trains.
In the video you see a single 'Taurus' accelerating a 1100+ metric tonnes
train from a standstill (these Siemens solid state electronics have a very
interesting sound, to say the least).
After passing some switches, the locomotive approaches 100 km/h (if I am not
mistaken), without breaking much sweat (their limit is the European
coupler, at 1400 metric tonnes or so, and the passing sidings, at 700 or so
meters).
Also, note the very detailed timetable for this freight train and the double
passenger train (as the 3rd minute finishes).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZE4FBaMNTs
You can see (sort of) the catenary, can you notice it? ;-)
They are using just cables for keeping raised the catenary above multiple
tracks, no solid horizontal beams at all.
If you want photos, it is easy to find some (or more videos in YouTube with
the class 1116):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNhcmjs4sA (a single Taurus with Mozart
livery pulls 42+ cars)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhr1-nL7Tbw (lots of bilevel cars pulled
around a bypass, check the catenary masts in the telephoto view).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LitmAqYzuA (the 'Greek' Taurus - with vinyls
applied for Euro 2008 pulls a RoLa train, while a Hungarian Taurus pulls an
InterCity train along it - note the catenary in this view).
Also, note that the Taurus (and the other European locomotives) are limited
by their coupler and the 22.5 metric tonnes axle weight.
I am sure these will be more than capable universal locomotives in USA soil,
if they get the chance...
And these can be build cheap, as soon as the USA buyers decide on a common
platform (mass market, you know :-) )
Cheers,
N.F.
Nick Fotis
> Can't they harness the power of rotting banana peels like in Back to the
> Future? ;-)
>
Of course, it's just a matter of quantity! *grin*
(how many rotting bananas does it take to move a 10.000 tonnes train?)
Cheers,
N.F.
Nick Fotis
locomotive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdy3G_an65s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyPRn5gDJuU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzRcrBQI0_U
And an idea of how to get some extra money (advertising liveries):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J_hMHenUrw
Cheers,
N.F.
RKapp...@gmail.com
> RKappes...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification of rail in Southern
> > California. Not only does it have busy rail lines and steep grades,
> > it also has air quality problems that electrification would do a lot
> > to reduce. I think that electrification would be a winner with a lot
> > of communities along tracks that handle a lot of freight traffic and
> > might make it easier for both railroads to overcome community
> > opposition to expanding their operations.
>
> Never underestimate NIMBYism - I can imagine their cry:
> "These damned catenary poles destroy the beauty of our desert!"
>
> (never mind their ecosystem of satellite dishes and trailer parks :-) )
It depends on where you are. Diesel exhaust is viewed by railroad
neighbors as a big problem on the busier lines and some are lobbying
for electrification. On less used lines, electrification would have
NIMBY problems.
>
> Obviously, if they make such overbuilt catenary as in the NEC, this wouldn't
> be nice-looking.
>
> Maybe if hydroelectrics could power these trains, that would be a big help
> (e.g. from Oregon or Washington state?).
>
> Or big solar steam generators with collectors lined along the right of way?
> Using coal and nuclear would be a 'last resort' for me.
> California wants 'clean air'? Well, running coal-powered generators in
> neighbour states doesn't sound very 'clean air' to me - air knows no state
> borders.
>
Well, California has prohibited its utilities from buying more
electricity than they already do from coal power plants, so that
shouldn't be an issue. However, since the wind blows west to east,
moving pollution to Utah was a good strategy for California when they
could do so.
> Using renewable energy sources would be a VERY interesting proposal that
> would put the USA in the front line. And this technology would be
> exportable as well.
There is something like 6TW of solar generating capacity under
contract to be built for various utilities in California in the next 5
years. If even 1/3 of it actually comes on line then the state will
have plenty of clean power generation capacity. It's simply stunning
the number and size of solar plants that have contracts with
California utilities. However, several require congress to renew a
tax credit that expires at the end of the year. Hopefully the credit
will come back and we'll see California meet its solar mandate.
David Lesher
>I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification of rail in Southern
>California. Not only does it have busy rail lines and steep grades,
>it also has air quality problems that electrification would do a lot
>to reduce. I think that electrification would be a winner with a lot
>of communities along tracks that handle a lot of freight traffic and
>might make it easier for both railroads to overcome community
>opposition to expanding their operations.
Is there a big-picture map of SC rail traffic? I know almost zip;
a) Lots of traffic from LA/?Long Beach? ports to the east.
b) Much traffic east through passes inc. one for I-15
c) Some new line was recently built from the LA port to somewhere east
that was going to cut down on air pollution by easing congestion.
Where are rail yards? Any east of the passes?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
David Lesher
>It depends on where you are. Diesel exhaust is viewed by railroad
>neighbors as a big problem on the busier lines and some are lobbying
>for electrification. On less used lines, electrification would have
>NIMBY problems.
I'd think an all-electric line would be quieter....
Laurence Sheldon
> RKapp...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> It depends on where you are. Diesel exhaust is viewed by railroad
>> neighbors as a big problem on the busier lines and some are lobbying
>> for electrification. On less used lines, electrification would have
>> NIMBY problems.
>
> I'd think an all-electric line would be quieter....
If it is different, it will have NIMBY problems. There is no change of
lack of change that is immune.
Look at our whole energy situation: two kinds of solutions, the ones we
can't do at all, and the ones we can't do $here. Or $there.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
John McCoy
@reader1.panix.com:
> Is there a big-picture map of SC rail traffic? I know almost zip;
>
> a) Lots of traffic from LA/?Long Beach? ports to the east.
Yes - almost all rail freight is to/from Port of LA and Port of
Long Beach, and that's mostly containers.
> b) Much traffic east through passes inc. one for I-15
See if I remember - been quite some while since I was out there.
The basic pattern out of LA is everything goes east to San Berdoo.
UP's Sunset Route then splits off and goes southeastward to
(eventually) Phoenix. BNSF, and that portion of UP traffic going
northerly, heads northeastward over Cajon Pass (the one you're
thinking of alongside I15). BNSF goes to Barstow (and eventually
to KC & Chicago). UP likewise goes to Barstow, then northerly
to Salt Lake City.
A much smaller amount of traffic splits off after Cajon Pass
and goes over Tehachapi to Bakersfield, and even less goes up
the coast line toward San Fran.
> c) Some new line was recently built from the LA port to somewhere east
> that was going to cut down on air pollution by easing congestion.
Yes - from the ports to San Berdoo. It grade seperates the rails
from the streets, allowing both trains and auto traffic to run
faster with fewer stoppages.
However, it's not been a total success as a pollution reducer,
since it's a toll road, and some shippers chose to truck their
containers to San Bernadino instead of loading them in the port.
> Where are rail yards? Any east of the passes?
At the port, at San Bernadino, at Barstow (big yard there).
I don't recall if there's one on the Sunset route before you
get to Arizona.
John
Michael G. Koerner
Howabout BNSF rewiring their former GN Cascade Tunnel line? Not having to
ventilate the tunnel will significantly increase that line's capacity (it
takes 20-30 minutes to change the air in that tunnel after a train passes
before another train can safely enter it). Also a 'ditto' at their Flathead
Tunnel.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
RKapp...@gmail.com
> RKappes...@gmail.com writes:
> >It depends on where you are. Diesel exhaust is viewed by railroad
> >neighbors as a big problem on the busier lines and some are lobbying
> >for electrification. On less used lines, electrification would have
> >NIMBY problems.
>
> I'd think an all-electric line would be quieter....
Yes, but overhead wires, even well designed ones, are visually
intrusive and if service is infrequent that may be more of a concern,
especially for people with nice views.
Merritt Mullen
<931d45b7-a178-46b9...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
RKapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification of rail in Southern
> California. Not only does it have busy rail lines and steep grades,
> it also has air quality problems that electrification would do a lot
> to reduce. I think that electrification would be a winner with a lot
> of communities along tracks that handle a lot of freight traffic and
> might make it easier for both railroads to overcome community
> opposition to expanding their operations.
The obvious place where electrification is needed for operational
purposes (not for fuel savings, which is a relatively new concern) is
the Pacific Surfliner route between LA Union Station and San Diego.
Of course, before electrification (or at the same time) that route needs
to be fully double tracked (it is only about 50% multi-track now).
The problem is, it runs along the beach, and the homeowners have
declared they will never permit catenary to be strung between their
homes and the beach.
Even the California HSR Authority plans to run its high-speed train sets
under diesel power along the Surf Line (changing power at Fullerton or
Anaheim).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > c) Some new line was recently built from the LA port to somewhere east
> > that was going to cut down on air pollution by easing congestion.
>
> Yes - from the ports to San Berdoo. It grade seperates the rails
> from the streets, allowing both trains and auto traffic to run
> faster with fewer stoppages.
You are thinking of the Alameda Corridor. It does not run to San
Bernardino, but from the ports of LA and Long Beach north (in a trench)
to just south of downtown Los Angeles (Redondo Junction). From L.A. to
San Bernardino their is a BNSF and a UP line (actually BNSF has two
lines). There was a project called Alameda Corridor East, that was
going to trench the lines going east from L.A. but that has not
happened.
> However, it's not been a total success as a pollution reducer,
> since it's a toll road, and some shippers chose to truck their
> containers to San Bernadino instead of loading them in the port.
But it does get the trains off the streets and eliminates grade
crossings.
> > Where are rail yards? Any east of the passes?
>
> At the port, at San Bernadino, at Barstow (big yard there).
And in Los Angeles and Riverside/Colton. Everything from the port on
rails has to go to L.A. first.
> I don't recall if there's one on the Sunset route before you
> get to Arizona.
That is in the Riverside/Colton area.
One thing you are missing is a relatively new development. What used to
be George AFB, near Victorville (at the top of Cajon Pass), is now the
Southern California Logistics Airport. Since the airport is adjacent to
the BNSF and UP lines as well as I-15 and I-40, it is slated to become
the major freight hub for Southern California for air, highway and rail
traffic, and interchange between those modes.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Nick Fotis <nfo...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> Never underestimate NIMBYism - I can imagine their cry:
> "These damned catenary poles destroy the beauty of our desert!"
>
> (never mind their ecosystem of satellite dishes and trailer parks :-) )
Which will soon become solar panels and wind turbines, which will
generate the electricity to run the trains. Actually, there is not a
NIMBY problem in the desert, but there is along the seashore.
> Maybe if hydroelectrics could power these trains, that would be a big help
> (e.g. from Oregon or Washington state?).
The big source of power in the desert Southwest will be wind turbines
and solar arrays. There is plenty of energy available for the taking.
Merritt
John McCoy
news:mmullen8014-18AA...@netnews.mchsi.com:
> In article <Xns9AFBCF7524E...@216.168.3.30>,
> John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> However, it's not been a total success as a pollution reducer,
>> since it's a toll road, and some shippers chose to truck their
>> containers to San Bernadino instead of loading them in the port.
>
> But it does get the trains off the streets and eliminates grade
> crossings.
Right, no debate that it's greatly improved the flow of traffic,
both rail and auto. Just that it had the unexpected result of
diverting some cargo to truck, which is the less enviromentally
friendly way to move it. I suspect, tho, that the current high
prices for diesel will likely make it more economical to use
rail now, even with the toll.
>> > Where are rail yards? Any east of the passes?
>>
>> At the port, at San Bernadino, at Barstow (big yard there).
>
> And in Los Angeles and Riverside/Colton. Everything from the port on
> rails has to go to L.A. first.
Colton is the one I was thinking of at San Bernadino.
>> I don't recall if there's one on the Sunset route before you
>> get to Arizona.
>
> That is in the Riverside/Colton area.
Yeah, I wasn't counting that, because that's where the Sunset
route traffic splits from the LA&SL and other northbound traffic.
I don't recall any significant yards east of Colton.
> One thing you are missing is a relatively new development. What used
> to be George AFB, near Victorville (at the top of Cajon Pass), is now
> the Southern California Logistics Airport. Since the airport is
> adjacent to the BNSF and UP lines as well as I-15 and I-40, it is
> slated to become the major freight hub for Southern California for
> air, highway and rail traffic, and interchange between those modes.
Yeah, that's new to me. Last time I was out there, there was
still a working steel mill in Fontana, not a race track, so it's
been a while :-)
John
dpel...@my-deja.com
> The problem is, it runs along the beach, and the homeowners have
> declared they will never permit catenary to be strung between their
> homes and the beach.
Are these the tracks that people have to cross to get to the beach?
Aside from NIMBY issues, this might be one case where the quieter
electric trains would be a bad thing, at least from a safety
perspective.
Dan
John Kane
But then the engineers would have to buy desiel automobiles. It
sounds like a plot by Ford and GM to sell more SUV's.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 15, 2:42 pm, Nick Fotis <nfo...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> If they save fuel they get a bonus to burn more fuel.
>>> Isn't there something wrong here?
>>
>> I'm glad to see that you have noticed the irony of this.
>>
>> Obviously, the first case is company fuel (having a six-pack of these
>>
>> Maybe they get directed in the refueling depot of BNSF and they use the
>> coupon for their car? :-) :-)
>
> sounds like a plot by Ford and GM to sell more SUV's.
Well, several GM and Ford dealers here _are_ offering free gas for the
next two years with the purchase of any new truck or SUV, presumably to
move out their current stock until the more fuel efficient models
they're developing hit the market... It's an effective, if expensive,
way to fight high gas prices if all you have are gas guzzlers...
However, I don't think that has anything to do with BNSF. The RR wants
to lower fuel consumption, so it's perfectly logical for them to offer
an incentive to the employees who are capable of delivering it. At the
same time, those employees are themselves being hurt by the same high
fuel prices, so it makes sense for that incentive to be in the form of
gift cards for fuel. Keep in mind that gift cards can be purchased for
less than face value (because some percentage are never fully used, plus
it guarantees the seller some additional customers that might have gone
to a lower-priced competitor), so it's cheaper to do things that way
than to simply give employees a $50 bonus on their check. There may
also be differences in how the gift card is taxed.
S
Damon Hill
news:gdKdnVdUWOWMzDvV...@ntd.net:
> Howabout BNSF rewiring their former GN Cascade Tunnel line? Not
> having to ventilate the tunnel will significantly increase that line's
> capacity (it takes 20-30 minutes to change the air in that tunnel
> after a train passes before another train can safely enter it). Also
> a 'ditto' at their Flathead Tunnel.
Might be just as effective to rebore the adjacent pilot tunnel with
modern equipment. (That was used to remove rock from multiple
internal faces during construction.)
The former Northern Pacific's Stampede Pass tunnel is too tight to
accomodate double-stack intermodals and some other outsize cars; it's
supposed to be reamed out to improve clearances but the long-rumored
project has yet to be initiated. Rumors also abound that UP will
divert some traffic over Stampede when the improvements are finished.
This route has demanding grades and loaded trains routinely run with
DP and even some manned helpers on westbound unit grain trains. Otherwise
the route is only lightly used at present.
We'll see...I think it's safe to say that the original and electrified
Milwaukee Road line over Snoqualmie Pass is rather unlikely to be
rebuilt.
--Damon
Michael G. Koerner
> "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in
> news:gdKdnVdUWOWMzDvV...@ntd.net:
>
>
>> Howabout BNSF rewiring their former GN Cascade Tunnel line? Not
>> having to ventilate the tunnel will significantly increase that line's
>> capacity (it takes 20-30 minutes to change the air in that tunnel
>> after a train passes before another train can safely enter it). Also
>> a 'ditto' at their Flathead Tunnel.
>
> Might be just as effective to rebore the adjacent pilot tunnel with
> modern equipment. (That was used to remove rock from multiple
> internal faces during construction.)
That would certainly be an option, with or without electrification -
remembering that even with double track, diesel-powered trains would still
only be able to operate on headways of the time that it takes for a train to
pass through one of the tubes plus the 20-30 minutes it takes to change the
tube's air. That would allow a maximum of one train per 40-50 minutes in each
direction.
How much would it cost to double-track the former GN Cascade Tunnel line?
> The former Northern Pacific's Stampede Pass tunnel is too tight to
> accomodate double-stack intermodals and some other outsize cars; it's
> supposed to be reamed out to improve clearances but the long-rumored
> project has yet to be initiated. Rumors also abound that UP will
> divert some traffic over Stampede when the improvements are finished.
> This route has demanding grades and loaded trains routinely run with
> DP and even some manned helpers on westbound unit grain trains. Otherwise
> the route is only lightly used at present.
>
> We'll see...I think it's safe to say that the original and electrified
> Milwaukee Road line over Snoqualmie Pass is rather unlikely to be
> rebuilt.
In fact, I have heard and read chatter in recent years of WSDOT wanting to use
the former MILW grade on the east approach to that pass for upgrading I-90.
The existing I-90 would become 3 or 4 lanes westbound while the former MILW
grade would become 3 or 4 lanes eastbound.
Mark Mathu
news:mmullen8014-C992...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> The obvious place where electrification is needed for operational
> purposes (not for fuel savings, which is a relatively new concern) is
> the Pacific Surfliner route between LA Union Station and San Diego.
What makes that route "obvious?"
Mark Mathu
news:g851uf$ae3$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> I'd think an all-electric line would be quieter....
Yeah,
Especially iif it isn't economically vialble...
Merritt Mullen
"Mark Mathu" <ma...@mathu.com> wrote:
Because we are talking only about Colifornia, and it is the most densely
used rail line in California, and second only to the NEC in all of the
US. It operates commuter service which benefits greatly from the high
acceleration provided by electrical propulsion. It runs through densely
populated areas which would benefit by the less noisy and non-emitting
electric propulsion.
It is "obvious" to me. Others may differ.
Merritt
James Robinson
One of the problems with the existing diesel-electrics is that they can't
be easily heard above the sound of the surf. They "sneak" up on people who
walk along the tracks, and who aren't constantly alert.
So yes, electrics could be worse.
Merritt Mullen
James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
> One of the problems with the existing diesel-electrics is that they can't
> be easily heard above the sound of the surf. They "sneak" up on people who
> walk along the tracks, and who aren't constantly alert.
>
> So yes, electrics could be worse.
The horns are very loud, and that doesn't matter what kind of locomotive
it is.
Anyway, any upgrade to the Surf Line should include frequent pedestrian
under- and over-passes for beach access and the rail ROW should be
securely fenced.
Merritt