[HaleaKalea]

Electric trains, anyone? With all the discussions on PO, and any great ideas for energy savings, there is practically no mention of railways.

There seems to be a fixation, understandably, on automobiles and road transport only. "Oh", but they will say "we don't have any trains here..." Most of the correspondents seem to be young and seem never to have seen a train, let alone ride one. Don't forget, America was built by railroads, not automobiles. Before about 1950, almost any city that was anything at all could be reached by train, and also had local transport run by streetcars (trams to those abroad), which ran by electricity.

This was all smashed away in favor of roads, more and more, and of course, suburbia, utterly car dependant. Thr Interstate Highway system was built using taxpayer money at the behest of truckers. After all oil was only like $2 a barrel then, and this was never going to end.

The electric streetcar systems in cities demised systematically, largely at the hand of the infamous National City Lines, which bought out rail systems,and scrapped everthing usually within two years in favor of diesel buses, as fast as they could get the new, shiny, buses delivered. The copper overhead lines came down for scrap immediately, the tracks remained in the streets, until paved over, where in many places they still rest today.

This was perhaps the the first example of Vulture Capitalism in action. Only a few lines in 5 cities remained rail as they ran in tunnels or subways. They could not figure out how to run diesel buses in tunnels.

So what does this matter for us today, concerned about PO? The steel wheel on the rail only consumes about 40% of the energy to move something around compared to rubber on the road. For this reason and also that one single locomotive can move tens and tens of tons of goods on the track, with only a small crew compared to the dozens of truck drivers needed to do the same by road. Therefore, even in the rail-hostile environment in the USA, railroads continue to exist, and lately, to thrive.

Suppose all the railroads were electrified (other than some low-traffic ones) using the latest systems available, that would be 25 or 50 KV AC, 60Hz (50HZ abroad). The cost would be astronomical, and the private railroads would not find this an economic investment, also in view of the huge capital tied up in the existing fleets of diesel locomotives So should the government of the day step in and guarantee the invesments? Maybe yes, But it seems roads are preferred and all the trappings regarding hybrid vehicles subsidies, etc.

The existing fleets of diesel locomotives, having already electric motors driving the axles, could be converted to overhead AC line supply by adding a transformer-thyristor converter package to replace the diesel driven generator. (See also the Hirsch Report)

It is said, in the same report, that even railway electrification would not save any significant amount of oil as the railroad consumption is so small compared to road. True, today, but maybe not tomorrow, as freight and cargo gets shifted over from road to rail as fuel prices increase, and rail investment looks better and better.

Don't forget railroads pay for their own track, and its maintainance and property taxes. Road users get the public roads provided already.

In Europe, rail thrives. Everything that matters is electrified since decades. In Switzerland there are many local railways as well as the state railways, these are also fully electric.It goes without saying that local transport in every town and city, nearly, is electric, that is trams, trolleybuses, or both.

And from where will come the electricity for this project?...from where it comes now, coal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, wind, geothermal....the new trains will run on all this rather than from the increasingly scarce oil from Middle Eastern lands.

Don't forget, one electric locomotive of 6000KW capacity (6 Megawatt) can haul tens and tens of tons of freight, and that at 60MPH plus, and regenerate the energy to the grid on downslopes and braking. Just one hydroelectric generator of 100 MW can run therefore dozens of trains.

I know, I have been in that business. And think: Railroad electrification: the jobs created for years...
HaleaKalea 05-08-14

[waegari]

Railroad electrification would indeed create many jobs.. If only because, to make railways sustainable, you would need to build a very substantial number of solar or wind energy instalations first.

Then a completely new infrastructure would have to get built. Because, you do not only need railroads, you also need railroad stations, you need to make sure that people find it more attractive to get to those stations than they would get to airports... all of this would cost a tremendous amount of oil first.

That is, after a sufficient amount of people would have taken political action to such an extent that your federal government would see no other option but...

And as you're right in saying, railroads thrive over here in Europe. Yet, unfortunately, please do not overestimate this. I'm in the Netherlands: we have a very fine railway system in place, but luckily the greatest majority of commuters do not travel by train, because if they would, the entire system would come to a standstill....There's no way in which this our railway system (or probably any country's railway system) could cope with those amounts of people gathering to move around at those daily peak hours. One would need a constant flow of trains throughout the country, which would mean a vast train fleet, and a tremendous lot of logistical problems.... Anyhow, to get it done in the US, the federal government should probably start building now.

That said, let me add that I love traveling by train.

[backstop]

HaleaKalea -

I enjoyed your post and think it has many entirely valid points, and share your recognition of the railways' crucial role in the coming transition. I've just written in another thread (UK population) of the UK's huge grassed-over track resource, (who's rails were stripped in the '60s - to try -in vain- to save the UK car industry). Your proposal of the mass-transfer of traffic from rubber to steel wheels looks spot on, with sizeable liquid-fuel-energy savings once infrastructure-development energy-cost was recovered.

While I've nothing remotely like your expertize on railway tech & ops, I have been studying sustainable energy and systems for some decades, and this leads me to question two parts of your post in particular.

First, I understand that in the UK we lose between 2% and 10% of total electricity generated in transmission losses - which seems a huge waste of fuel, human effort, capital & operating £s, pollution, etc. Given that 90% of UK population lives in a ~ 400 mile strip, while the US population is spread across ~ 3,000mls x 900mls and tolerates still lower energy efficiency, presumably transmission losses are still higher there ?

Therefore I’d question the energy-efficiency of rail electrification, not as compared with diesel, but as an optimum development.
Second, while of course fuel-switching is a normal part of national electricity generation, and electrified rail could well be powered by the grid, an annual 3% decline in oil supply (pushing barrel-prices to God knows what given US wealth and habits) will, given such distractions as the hybrid car, very likely put heavy pressure on both other fuel sources and on generator capacity, meaning that centralized power supplies for electric rail may be far from optimum.

As an alternative, shifting from diesel engines to biofuel fuel-cell powered engines looks a possible option. At best this would be a matter of retro-fitting those extant units which already have, as you say, electric-driven wheels & regenerative braking. This would avoid fixed-wire transmission losses, plus the very substantial £ & energy costs of nationwide installation, while also employing highly efficient fuel-conversion technology in operation. It would be a very substantial boost to both the (potentially sustainable) biomass enterprises as well as to the fledgling fuel cell manufacturing industry, while also significantly raising the economics and image of the railway.

In a sense, it would be applying the best fuel option to the best conversion option for the best transport option, and so would utilize their synergy to gain fresh political profile for each of the three components.

One possible efficiency downside is the waste heat from mobile fuel cells (apart from on-board uses) but, given that there is little if any sign of commercially-viable surplus-heat-distribution investment around existing power stations, I suspect this is a green herring.

I’d be very interested to read your thoughts on the above integrated sustainable rail-energy option.

Regards,

Backstop

PS : I well remember the trams (in London) while waiting for the bus to get to school . . .

[HaleaKalea]

For: backstop.

thanks the reply,also waegari

re fuel cells, this technology doesn't seem to be quite with us yet.
it seems for a few hundred or less kw a fuel cell system costs in the
order of seven figures at least a high six figures in $ or euro...
There was a site somewhere about some commercial installations in
NYC for hotels, etc, the power level was not mentioned but the price
of the completed containerized installation was over 980 000 $.....

For railway locos we are talking at least a couple thousand kw for each
loco, and that would not be a big unit at all. But I read somewhere
that some sort of hybrid loco was built using a fuel cell system. It
was a relatively low power unit for yard switching.

On electrification, in the UK you have already hundreds of miles of
railway electrified at 25KV 50 HZ since the war. The supply is from the grid at transformer stations some tens of km apart, which are fed at
132 or 275KV. A similar system would be required in the USA at 60 HZ
of course. Losses are at 5..10% but that is life for anything electric.
Don't forget that the best diesel engines only get around 30% efficiency..
Does anybody want to correct me on this figure...

The power demand of railways, were they electrified, is only a few
percent of the total load on the grid, at least in densely populated regions.
But out in the middle of Nevada it would be difficult....

I forgot to mention that in the USA since a couple decades that more
than 30 light rail systems have been built (or are going to be) not to
mention conventional trams being put back on the rails in certain
cities. All of this with federal funding....None of this ever gets mentioned
in the mainstream media, not even on the BBC.

Unfortunately all this is very expensive. To replace even a tiny bit of
what was scrapped 50+ years ago we are talking billions of $.
It seems a mile of double track laid in cities runs into millions,
and no light rail vehicle (LRV) leaves the manufacturer's workshops
for less than seven figures....That may change when more small suppliers
get into the game and the goldplating of rocket like science in
designs gets more reasonable.

Just read that a small company in Oregon is going to build trams
on a Czech design for Portland Ore, which has already an LRV system
and a new tram line being extended.

HaleaKalea, 05-08-14

[Macsporan]

I tremble with enthusiasm for intercity electric trains and urban light rail. It is the only remotely viable way for turning electricity into transport.

It is also between six and ten times more efficient than automobiles.

Please continue your posts on this topic. It really needs to be rammed home to people.

Thomas the Electric Tank Engine rules!

Well done,

Mac.

[Kingcoal]

Moving people over to public transit is much harder than it seems. Europe has retained much of it's public transit due largely to the fact that most of the member countries have very high levels of urbanization (unlike most of the US.) The US should not be compared to EU countries in this regard. The USA is more like Australia, Canada, etc. Looking at both of those countries and you see much of the same dependence on personal transport.

On the other hand, if we don't have the distalate fuels, we will still need to get around somehow.

[rogerhb]

You do have to laugh at how greed is able to shoot everyone in the foot. As in, if you did not laugh you would cry.

I commute every day by diesel train, alas I don't see the single-track tunnel getting electrified anytime soon as the tunnel is too low and putting up the power cables would mean that diesel goods trains would not be able to fit through. Tunnel is a good 8km long.

[gg3]

Here's another vote for electrified rail.

And for stretches that can't be electrified, perhaps a diesel (powered by biodiesel) on the engine or in the lead car, that could cut in when needed.

The one serious problem I see for rail in urban settings is that tracks embedded in the street are a huge hazard for people on bicycles and small scooters. Anyone have a solution for that?

[HaleaKalea]

For: Kingcoal, rogerhb. macsporan

Yes you are right kingcoal, the US is basically a low density landspace.
But decades ago just after electricity came around, there began to be
fast developments in electric interurban railways which were built
fast and dirty to grab off the traffic from the main-line railways which
were operated by coal fired steam locos. Electricity was the rocket science
of the day around 1900... The interurbans, as they were known, electric
lines using basic DC supply of 600 or 1200 volts, got built by the
hundreds (thousands) of miles, mainly in the East, Midwest, and the
Far West. At the crash of 1929 and the rise of the automobile, more
than half disappeared. But many survived until after WWII, when they
also went under for reasons stated in my first post.

What is the point of all this now?

With this very basic and simple technology of DC supply a lot can be
done for local services running along the sides of the roads as were
many of the interurbans originally built. Basically upsized tramways
which carried passengers and freight often in the same car. (the so-
called baggage combo) found today in many railway museums....
And they were not slow-pokey, either, famously speeds of 70MPH
were operated, scattering the livestock.

For more on this visit the many web sites dedicated to the 'interurbans'
a subject hardly touched in the mind of the common Joe Lunchbox,
unless he just happened by one of the many operating railway
museums.

Even now trams in Dresden, Germany, are carring freight on the
streets (Cargotram) a new old idea in modern technology. Ironically
to ship parts for the Volkswagen car plant...

So does this mean that no railways are electrified in the USA at all?
Yes, we have the Washington-Philadelphia-NYC-New Haven -Boston
electrifcation. Partly built in 1908 (New Haven Line) extended in the
30's by the Pennsylvania Railroad (now Conrail/Amtrak) using the
cheap labor of the depression to build an infrastructure that lasts until today. Later extended to Boston in the 60's. And that was the last
gasp of any new railway electrifications, the oil boys took over after
that.

In fact, we have to mention since then many hundreds of miles were
de-electrified, the Milwaukee Road in the Northwest, as well as many
electrified tunnels. and a part of the Pennsylvania, above: Philadelphia
to Harrisburg, the wire came down I think in the 70's....

And now we pay the price. There are just no trains out there anymore,
electric or otherwise. Welcome to Peak Oil at the pump near you.

Haleakalea, 05-08-15

[emersonbiggins]

Let's assume for a second that it is entirely possible to run a nationwide fleet of automobiles on electric batteries. Basically, switch out our current ICE models for electric ones. Would our mounting transportation crisis be solved? Would it allow the continued expansion of suburbia unabated, petroleum-laden crops notwithstanding? Could it allow the continuation of the 'entitlement' mindset, with consumer-driven madness now brought to you in electric-car form? I'm assuming, of course, that the cars would have to run on batteries charged overnight when the electrical grid is not near peak demand. It would seem to allow for better management of electric while it's "in the grid", allowing for a constant, steady demand rather than peaks and valleys. -OR- should we implement electric railways instead? -OR- both? I tend to think in terms of reimplementing rail as it provides a way for our nation to prioritize progress around things that matter, like community, versus our current individualistic mindset of 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

[GoIllini]

Let's assume for a second that it is entirely possible to run a nationwide fleet of automobiles on electric batteries. Basically, switch out our current ICE models for electric ones. Would our mounting transportation crisis be solved? Would it allow the continued expansion of suburbia unabated, petroleum-laden crops notwithstanding? Could it allow the continuation of the 'entitlement' mindset, with consumer-driven madness now brought to you in electric-car form? I'm assuming, of course, that the cars would have to run on batteries charged overnight when the electrical grid is not near peak demand. It would seem to allow for better management of electric while it's "in the grid", allowing for a constant, steady demand rather than peaks and valleys. -OR- should be implement electric railways instead? -OR- both? I tend to think in terms of reimplementing rail as it provides a way for our nation to prioritize progress around things that matter, like community, versus our current never-ending quest to 'Keep up with the Joneses'.

Coming out of peak oil, we'd see electric rail first; then electric cars.

Electric rail- combined with the maybe the ability to carry passengers' electric cars in tow- might be a possibility.

[small_steps]

While the infrastructure costs would seem quite high, the number of track miles in use would seem to be orders of magnitude less than road miles in use.
While I have not looked into the numbers, it would appear that shifting freight from roads to rails would greatly reduce the maintainance costs of roads, and reduce the roadway congestion, as well as reduce much of the motivation of requiring a very large vehicle for safety (and the associated mpg penalties). All would appear to incur significant reductions of liquid fuel usage. Hell, even if the electrified lines were fed through stationary diesel electric generators, there would be significant fuel savings over the current usage patterns.

It would also appear that wind energy has to be a significant part of the energy mix in the future. Here, the dispersed nature of the resource and the relatively dispersed nature of the main rail lines may for a bit of a synergy. That is that there will be a requirement for significant investment in transmission infrastructure for the use of wind energy, and the requirement of electricification of the rail lines, with a little forsight, both requirements could be achieved with relatively little pain. The distributed nature of both would also help mitigate the problems of the intermittancy of the resource and usage.

[small_steps]

Both,

Car - short range / commuting

Rail - long range / freight

[smiley]

Moving people over to public transit is much harder than it seems. Europe has retained much of it's public transit due largely to the fact that most of the member countries have very high levels of urbanization (unlike most of the US.) The US should not be compared to EU countries in this regard. The USA is more like Australia, Canada, etc. Looking at both of those countries and you see much of the same dependence on personal transport.

I think this shouldn't be a problem. Many of those small towns just exist by the grace of the road running though it. It is the road who provides them a source of existence, it is not their existence which justifies the road going there. When the road is gone they will move somewhere else to make a living. The function of the road will be taken over by the train stations, like it used to be 50-100 years back.

Russia is not exactly one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Yet they rely heavily on their rail system. Around it you see whole microeconomies evolve which feed on the trains and their passengers

[zceb90]

I think this shouldn't be a problem. Many of those small towns just exist by the grace of the road running though it. It is the road who provides them a source of existence, it is not their existence which justifies the road going there. When the road is gone they will move somewhere else to make a living. The function of the road will be taken over by the train stations, like it used to be 50-100 years back.

Russia is not exactly one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Yet they rely heavily on their rail system. Around it you see whole microeconomies evolve which feed on the trains and their passengers

I think we may well have an example in UK, namely the city of Peterborough. Although it's at the intersection of a couple of highways they are not of motorway standard. It's located 76 miles (122 km) from London on electrified main rail route to Scotland. With journey times of just 45 minutes to central London and 1-1/4 hrs to Leeds the station is heavily used by commuters and business travellers. Even Edinburgh (3-1/2 hrs) is quicker by rail as there's no airport nearby. Peterborough has seen huge growth in the past couple of decades with high speed communications being seen as one of the key reasons behind the expansion.

[Liamj]

...
The one serious problem I see for rail in urban settings is that tracks embedded in the street are a huge hazard for people on bicycles and small scooters. Anyone have a solution for that?

City i live in has dozens of diff tram lines, been riding here 5 years, have never seen an accident caused by their rails. Am sure its happened, but in no way a major problem here.
[edit for brevity]

[fastbike]

The one serious problem I see for rail in urban settings is that tracks embedded in the street are a huge hazard for people on bicycles and small scooters.

And huge SUV's aren't ?

Solution: Ban bikes

[The_Toecutter]

Electric trains vs. electric cars? I also say both.

Let's assume for a second that it is entirely possible to run a nationwide fleet of automobiles on electric batteries.

Well you really don't need to assume that, but indeed it still would take time to implement.

Basically, switch out our current ICE models for electric ones. Would our mounting transportation crisis be solved?

Not necessarily. Car use has to also be reduced to prevent the expansion of encroachment onto our environment.

Would it allow the continued expansion of suburbia unabated, petroleum-laden crops notwithstanding?

No. See above. We need to begin building upward, not outward.

Could it allow the continuation of the 'entitlement' mindset, with consumer-driven madness now brought to you in electric-car form?

The world doesn't have the resources to sustain unabated consumerism.

However, making all of our fancy gadgets last longer, instead of manufacturing them to last a few years, so that people don't keep buying new ones with every incremental improvement to technology, will allow us to keep a standard of living roughly similar to what we have, if not improved. But this requires the consumption to be trimmed, and that lost money has to come from some where(hint: trim the fat hiding in the profit margins).

I'm assuming, of course, that the cars would have to run on batteries charged overnight when the electrical grid is not near peak demand. It would seem to allow for better management of electric while it's "in the grid", allowing for a constant, steady demand rather than peaks and valleys. -OR- should we implement electric railways instead? -OR- both?

Both. Let the motorsports enthusiasts and those who prefer to liesurely tour with no set destination in mind the cars, and the rest wil gravitate towards other transit methods if they don't need a car AND if cars aren't advertised into their heads 24/7. Cars could still be affordable by the middleclass, but with sensible use and good public transit, car ownership and use in America could plummet to 1920s era levels, basically 1 car for every 3 driving age persons and about 4,000 miles per person travelled per year by car. By gollee, that's beginning to sound like Europe and Japan, who have excellent mass transit systems!

Recommend that and the auto industry and oil lobbyists will call you a commie.

I tend to think in terms of reimplementing rail as it provides a way for our nation to prioritize progress around things that matter, like community, versus our current individualistic mindset of 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

Individualism and collectivism can co-exist. It will take an educated and concerned public willing to hold the government bureaucrats and corporate slave drivers to the fire. Peak oil may bring about that, but if it does, expect civil war, because the power elite won't give up their control without a fight.

[freetoken]

One has to take into account the manufacturing, and maintenance, of electric vehicles.

Remember, the world is more than just the US, and the world demand for autos is growing!

The construction and maintenance of hundreds of millions, maybe upwards to a billion (worldwide, over the transition period), small electric vehicles will consume a large amount of petroleum based products.

Don't get me wrong - I like driving a car that is designed for the driving experience (like a good european sports sedan.) However, it makes much more sense for the world at large to move large quantities of people by rail.

-ft

[The_Toecutter]

One has to take into account the manufacturing, and maintenance, of electric vehicles.

All of these items associated with electric vehicles consume less recourses than a comparable gas vehicle. They really shine when it comes to maintenance: aside from the batteries and small matters like tires and brakes, they don't have any! This is what makes them so cheap to operate. On top of that, batteries are also recyclable, saving even more petroleum.

Remember, the world is more than just the US, and the world demand for autos is growing! The construction and maintenance of hundreds of millions, maybe upwards to a billion (worldwide, over the transition period), small electric vehicles will consume a large amount of petroleum based products.

And it will continue to grow so long as public transit systems are ignored and the auto industry continues to press their agenda. But 1 billion electric vehicles will certainly be more sustainable than 450 million petrol-powered vehicles. Especially since the electric will end up lasting 30 years on up, and over 500,000 miles.

Don't get me wrong - I like driving a car that is designed for the driving experience (like a good european sports sedan.) However, it makes much more sense for the world at large to move large quantities of people by rail.

With this I agree. But that doesn't discount the fact that people will buy cars. It's a matter of having adequate public transit so car ownership and useage is more relegated to liesure instead of the bulk of transportation. If car use in the third begins to model that of America(like it's doing today) instead of Europe, it's going to be a disaster. Otherwise it could be quite bengin to society itself.