Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:09:16 -0400

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:XFfSc.21015$Mq1.990024@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
>>>
>>> Europeans don't use diesel when electricity is available because
>>> diesel is more expensive there.
>>
>> Not the point. They could still have used diesel powered locomotives.
>
> Europe could use diesel today, but they don't because it costs more.

Well the electicity prices are comparible to the U.S. while the cost of
diesel and other fuels are highly taxed and cost much more ( $5/gallon or
more). You have admitted that electricity is more expensive than diesel in
the U.S. What makes you think that the costs favor electicity in Europe???

And please wipe the *** out of your ears. The main driving force behind
electificaiton of the rails in Europe was the power to weight rations for
high speed passenger traffic. Clear now or do you need it repeated a twelvth
time before you clue in?

>
>> The driving force for the change came with high speed passenger rail
>> which COULD NOT use diesels and thus paid the 'cost of conversion'
>> after which it became simple for freight to use the same
>> electification grid.
>
> Once you have the catenary up, diesel is still cheaper in the US than
> electricity.

Regardless of the cost of the catenary, the primary motivation to use
electicity for high speed rail is the power to weight ration necessary.
Turbines can be used where electification is not feasible.

> Even on Amtrak's NEC, which is completely electrified,
> most of the freight trains and even many passenger trains use diesel
> because it's cheaper. Only Acela, the Metroliners, and a few
> commuter trains use electric.

I expect that friegth uses diesel mainly because it does not want to be
resticted to a specific corridor, or have to change around when exiting the
corridor, while scheduled passenger traffic has nowhere outside the
corridor to go.

>
>>> The opposite is true here: most freights running on electrified rail
>>> lines still
>>> use diesel because it's more cost-effective.
>>
>> Rather, there is only one area which has the electicity
>> infrastructure to support the electrified rail system. I pointed
>> that out to you. Having trouble with your reading skills again?
>
> See below.

Why? Does it answer my question? Probably not, given your record so far.

>
>> I posted the link. It also notes the problems in running an overhead
>> electic
>> system and other notes point out that this si the ONLY area that can
>> currrently electify their passenger rail system. Which explains why
>> the New
>> York to Detroit run is using a turbine.
>
> No, it says that's the only area with enough catenary to power
> high-speed trains.

This is ambiguous. The 'overhead electical lines' may refer to the high
power grid lines rather than the catenary. The statement makes no sense in
their 'being enough' catenary lines, while the other interpretation makes
sense in terms of tapping the power necessary to feed the catenary. There
are a lot of problems with demand variations in most electrical trains.
Europe has a lot of experience with this and it is even a problem on the
Singapore MagLev line which is only 27 kms long and the only big periodic
demand.

> Similar catenary could be installed on any other
> rail line in the country. The real problem is that Amtrak doesn't
> own much track except for the NEC, and they have no authority to
> force a private railroad to install catenary -- and as I've noted,
> the freight RRs have no motivation to do it for their own use.

The problem with expanding overhead catenary is a lot bigger than your
simple claims. You would have to make major changes to the electrical grid
to deal with the demand spikes.

>
>>>> Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over
>>>> lifting bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I
>>>> imagine that level crossing must be avoided and that must costs a
>>>> LOT. Only one place has the traffic to afford this in the U.S. I
>>>> guess. http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
>>>> "In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC
>>>> and Boston (the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track
>>>> with enough overhead electric lines to supply electricity to a
>>>> high-speed rail train."
>>>> which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been
>>>> for turbine powered locomotion.
>>>
>>> No, the other proposals have all included similar electrification.
>>
>> No. Proposals for Florida, California, etc tend to be 'show me' at
>> this point and include things like mag lev or overhead suspension.
>> Not to be taken as serious commitments yet. As noted, there isn't
>> the electicity infrastructure for it yet and that would be a major
>> cost.
>
> The HSR proposal in Florida (FOX) was for a TGV derivative, using
> electric power.

No. They were considering all sorts of schemes and I do not think that they
settled on any one yet. The FOX proposal was scrubbed by Jeb Bush back in
1999. http://www.trainweb.org/hsr/

> Ditto for Texas.

Texas was a candidate for maglev, but again, nothing came of it.

> No other proposals have gotten to
> the funding or planning stages (except, of course, for Acela on the
> NEC).

There is a lot more going on than that.
http://www.fra.dot.gov

>
> If you want to count projects proposed by crackpots with a vested
> interest in other technologies, like maglev, yes there have been
> proposals -- but none that have attracted the attention of anyone
> with the money to actually make it happen.

Maglev is a 'crackpot idea??? And as for financing ANY rail scheme is
financed by government in the end. There is no other way to build up the
capital and rights of way necessary. For HSR, for example, the NWC had to
eliminate all level crossing and just think how much road constructino that
takes!

The fact is that the U.S. has the technology breakthrough to make maglev
cheap and practical but has sat around with the thumb in the bum and the
mind in neutral. Passive maglev eliminates most of the complexity and costs
assoicated with active maglev. Not that I expect you to be able to read or
understand the article but for the benefit of those with functional brains I
give the refernce. http://www.llnl.gov/str/Post.html

Loading