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

From: Stephen Sprunk (stephen_at_sprunk.org)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:44:06 -0500

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:y7nSc.21123$Mq1.1082275@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> 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???

European railroads pay taxes on diesel just like consumers do, so that is
part of the cost of the fuel. Over there, electricity costs less to use per
unit energy than diesel, no matter what speed. This is very simple math.

> The main driving force behind electificaiton of the rails in Europe was
> the
> power to weight rations for high speed passenger traffic.

The freight lines in Europe were electrified long before TGVs arrived in
1981; it was motivated out of the economics of fuels, not out of the
power/weight ratio. Also, since TGVs _don't use freight tracks_, why would
they be electrified if it were only for TGV's benefit?

> And please wipe the *** out of your ears. ... Clear now or do you need
> it repeated a twelvth time before you clue in?

Ad hominem attacks don't add anything to the debate.

>> 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.

It's feasible anywhere. The question is whether it's cost-effective.

>> 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.

If electricity were cheaper for the US freight RRs, they'd put up catenary
in a heartbeat and it'd be universal just like in Europe. Even most
low-speed passenger trains entirely within the NEC use diesel because it's
cheaper; the only ones that don't are Acela and trains going into tunnels or
other areas (like mid/lower Manhattan) where diesel is banned.

>> 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.

So you're saying California, with an excess of 5GW even during peak
consumption, doesn't have enough power in the grid to handle a few 9MW
trains? Other states tend to have even more (percentage wise) excess power.

There are distribution capacity shortages on the lines into many major
cities, however that's not where trains will be consuming the most power.
TGVs don't exceed 140km/h within Paris or its suburbs, and that corresponds
to a power draw of less than 2MW (and only for short periods). You might
need a few new distribution lines, but that's a minor cost compared to
building the tracks, and the new power consumption (at retail prices) would
pay the utilities back in short order. Electric railroads even provide
their own power stations; they can take 25kV and higher feeds directly from
the power grid and distribute the power up and down the tracks themselves.

> There are a lot of problems with demand variations in most electrical
> trains.
> Europe has a lot of experience with this

Sure, with hundreds of trains operating at any given time and up to
8.8MW/train, that will tax the power grid a bit. One or two new power
plants would cover all of France's trains, however, so it's not any sort of
crisis.

> and it is even a problem on the Singapore MagLev line which is only
> 27 kms long and the only big periodic demand.

Singapore doesn't have anywhere near the electric capacity available in the
US or Europe.

>> 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.

New distribution lines might be needed, but that's a trivial problem
compared to getting private RRs with no vested interest in passenger rail
from electrifying their tracks.

>> 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.

It was a candidate for TGV as well. Maglev was proposed at one time, but
unlike TGV it had no state support or investment at all.

> Maglev is a 'crackpot idea???

The only operational high-speed maglev in the world is a small test track in
Japan; they're decades ahead of the US in HSR work, and if they can't get it
into production service yet there's no way we (with almost zero HSR
experience) can get it to work.

> 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 NEC was grade-separated decades ago for safety and efficiency reasons;
the fact Amtrak _wouldn't_ have to pay for doing the work is one of the main
reasons Acela was even possible on Amtrak's shoestring budget.

S 

-- 
Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov