Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

tangent said:
I seriously doubt that the look of overhead wires would bring out more than 3 people to a meeting that might mention it in as an offhand comment.
Click to expand...


Dont underestimate NIMBYs. In DC, they got the US congress to pass a law banning them.
 
tangent said:
I'd like to see the cost benefit of what battery/hybrid locomotives look like in 3 years before committing to full electrification. Keeping dumb metal tracks is preferable if the economics and performance of batteries starts to make sense as it is with cars.

https://www.ge.com/reports/leading-charge-battery-electric-locomotives-pushing-us-freight-trains/
Click to expand...


I'll spoil the suspense: it won't look viable in 20 years, let alone 3. The horsepower and tractive effort involved to pull train weights is orders of magnitude above battery buses. The amount of sheer weight you have to lug around in battery storage to get functional hauling power is self-defeating and will never beat a vehicle that takes its power from an external source. For the same reason a DMU will never beat an EMU or a diesel loco an electric loco: the battery bulk is the analogue to the fuel bulk. It's the difference between that bulk existing at all vs. not existing at all on an all-electric vehicle.
 
Riverside said:
Just have to say, that "Get There Get Home" poster, with the Designer Editorial, is great.
Click to expand...

Thanks. ;-)

It would have been so much easier if I just could have said "service every 15/30 min," but no. This is America...
 
[re: F-Line ] Exactly. Diesel fuel has awesome energy density compared to any known battery technology or even supercapacitors, and we still prefer not to lug diesel around compared to having a lightweight train that draws its fuel from an overhead wire.

the best you can say about battery-electric systems is that they will probably get to the same system weights and capacities as a tank of diesel and a big diesel engine have today--catenary electric will continue to dominate.

I CAN imagine a future where you'd have a battery onboard capable of limping half the distance between stations, to ensure smooth transitions at phase changes and that a train never gets completely stranded under a down wire.
 
Can electric trains do anything akin what I know as regenerative braking from hybrid and electric cars? I can imagine an AC electric loco using a generator to supply power back to the overhead wire during breaking. I don't know the first thing about DC power grids, so I don't know if there is a reasonable analogy for DC trains.

Maybe the value proposition is too low to be worth the complexity. I'm just curious. It seems a shame to dump all the kinetic energy from an entire train every mile or so. I prefer to think of truly green ideas as things that actually use less energy, not just switch from fossil fuel to electricity.
 
Modern electric locomotives can regenerate back into the overhead, yes.
 
^Amtrak's coming generation of Acela will have regenerative braking where the power gets put back into the overhead for use by other trains or (when the trackside transformers have been upgraded) can run the meter backwards on the grid.

https://www.progressiverailroading....st-of-Alstoms-high-speed-Avelia-trains--50291

Siemens makes similar systems for just about any catenary powered Transit. The grid is your battery.
 
fattony said:
Can electric trains do anything akin what I know as regenerative braking from hybrid and electric cars? I can imagine an AC electric loco using a generator to supply power back to the overhead wire during breaking. I don't know the first thing about DC power grids, so I don't know if there is a reasonable analogy for DC trains.

Maybe the value proposition is too low to be worth the complexity. I'm just curious. It seems a shame to dump all the kinetic energy from an entire train every mile or so. I prefer to think of truly green ideas as things that actually use less energy, not just switch from fossil fuel to electricity.
Click to expand...

Regen braking is standard on everything nowadays, diesels included because it saves on fuel. And it's mainly enabled by the switch to more advantageous AC traction motors over the last 20 years rather than whether the power source is AC or DC. Going just by return-to-wire efficiency Amtrak's current NEC fleet uses significantly less power than the previous generation of rolling stock despite having much brawnier hauling capacity. And the new EPA Tier 4 emission standards for locomotives pretty much mandate regen braking in diesel-land as a way to drive down emissions and fuel consumption.

Examples:

  • Intercity: all Amtrak electrics (Sprinter, Acela, retired HHP-8's from 1999) + the Siemens Charger diesel that's replacing all the rest of their long-distance and corridor power + the Alstom Avelia Liberty HSR trainsets.

  • MBTA Blue Line 0700's and Green Line Type 9's (both 600V DC -sourced). To be joined by the new Orange + Red cars.

  • EMU's: Metro North M8, LIRR M9 (in-testing), SEPTA/Denver Silverliner V, NJT Bombardier MLV EMU (in-development)

  • Commuter locos: NJT Bombardier ALP-46A electric, NJT Bombardier ALP-45DP dual-mode, Metrolink EMD F125 diesel

  • Other HRT + light rail: tons and tons of 'em. . .

  • Overseas passenger RR's: tons and tons of 'em. . . (similar timeframe as when regen braking started appearing in domestic product)
 
Arlington said:
I CAN imagine a future where you'd have a battery onboard capable of limping half the distance between stations, to ensure smooth transitions at phase changes and that a train never gets completely stranded under a down wire.
Click to expand...

This already exists for third rail vehicles to prevent gapping at grade crossings. The M9's for LIRR have capability to continue over a crossing if they gap out, and the next-gen dual-mode locomotives for Metro North/LIRR/Amtrak Empire will have the same requirement so they can clear a gap in E-mode without needing to fire up the diesel. *Very* restricted speed, mind you, and the batteries will literally burn themselves out if you try to go too long a distance...but closes an important loophole. Gapping has been the bane of LIRR's existence literally ever since they first electrified 114 years ago.


Battery-electrics are great for things like switching, where you have a loco going back and forth over a fixed space (the yard) or running short-distance chores. It's a major air quality concern because of the way pollutants hang over a fixed space, and also there are so many short braking moves that a relatively non-bulky battery is all that's needed for all the recharges it'll get during work. A lot of the alternate fuel innovations in railway technology have used yard switchers as their test bed because the emissions are such a concern. They tried ethanol for the first time on switchers, vegetable oil on switchers, hydrogen fuel cells on switchers.

Road freights are a lot iffier. The tractive effort needed there requires simply enormous batteries, and that runs headfirst into the energy density problem because regen braking is making big inroads on freight diesels as well (driven by the recent EPA Tier 4 emissions regs). And since the locos that get assigned to running the local jobs tend to get relegated to the older beaters of any Class I or Class II carrier's fleets, there isn't really a vector for them buying a battery-electric fleet unless the weight/density hits a threshold suitable for the most lucrative longest-haul runs.
 
DominusNovus said:
Thats the problem right there. People freak out every time any tree gets cut. Its the rich communities that tend to lose power the most, in my experience. In Quincy, I think our neighborhood has had two black outs in the past five years (and I’m rounding up, I only specifically remember one).
Click to expand...

I would temper that — the T can be very indiscriminate with their cutting already, and there’s no getting around the fact that it sucks when they come and cut down the barrier between your house and the train. It may be inevitable, but I wouldn’t get surprised that people care about it. In many cases, it's a justified concern.

Moreover, train buffer zones tend to be mini-wildlife areas, so also not an unreasonable concern from an eco standpoint. Let's not conflate the fact that trees are worth preserving, wherever they are, whenever possible. The fact that wealthier communities might or might not be more vocal about preserving greenery is a completely separate issue from whether said preservation is a worthy goal or not. And, both of those issues are separate from whether trees will need to be cut to electrify the tracks; if it has to happen, so be it, but expect concerns and some opposition, that come from a generally quite reasonable place.
 
FK4 said:
I would temper that — the T can be very indiscriminate with their cutting already, and there’s no getting around the fact that it sucks when they come and cut down the barrier between your house and the train. It may be inevitable, but I wouldn’t get surprised that people care about it. In many cases, it's a justified concern.

Moreover, train buffer zones tend to be mini-wildlife areas, so also not an unreasonable concern from an eco standpoint. Let's not conflate the fact that trees are worth preserving, wherever they are, whenever possible. The fact that wealthier communities might or might not be more vocal about preserving greenery is a completely separate issue from whether said preservation is a worthy goal or not. And, both of those issues are separate from whether trees will need to be cut to electrify the tracks; if it has to happen, so be it, but expect concerns and some opposition, that come from a generally quite reasonable place.
Click to expand...

Yep, most (but not all) NIMBY's have legitimate concerns. We tend to dismiss them on here though.
 
tysmith95 said:
Yep, most (but not all) NIMBY's have legitimate concerns. We tend to dismiss them on here though.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It doesn’t mean those concerns shouldn’t be overridden in the interest of the greater good. Both can be true.
 
FK4 said:
Indeed. It doesn’t mean those concerns shouldn’t be overridden in the interest of the greater good. Both can be true.
Click to expand...

It also means that there might be compromises, such as the T taking a more conservative approach to the culling, rather than a scorched earth approach (which is easy, but unnecessarily destructive).
 
A lot of people were really angry when the GLX contractors cut down every tree in the corridor, and I don't blame them. They could have taken a lot more care to leave trees that weren't going to be in the widened ROW.
 
The green line, commuter rail, and bike path are going to take every inch of the ROW between School St and Broadway.
 
A better alternative to batteries that doesn't need overhead wire is hydrogen trains. They are currently being run in Europe to replace diesel service and seeing wider adoption.

Don't need the electrical infrastructure, just the new trains and a couple hydrogen filling stations.

Also, the D line has frequent problems with trees/branches falling on the catenary lines and stopping service. Removing Trees on the ROW is going to help that.
 
Mongo said:
A better alternative to batteries that doesn't need overhead wire is hydrogen trains. They are currently being run in Europe to replace diesel service and seeing wider adoption.

Don't need the electrical infrastructure, just the new trains and a couple hydrogen filling stations.

Also, the D line has frequent problems with trees/branches falling on the catenary lines and stopping service. Removing Trees on the ROW is going to help that.
Click to expand...

Not currently being run, but "could be run".

Still looks like a good idea though. F-Line, can you inform us on if Hydrogen trains have the speed and acceleration of electric ones?
 
Hydrogen trains would circumvent the biggest challenge of hydrogen cars - the fuel distribution network is vastly simpler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top