<Student Sustainability Competition The Oil Drum DrumBeat: November 19, 2006>
<This Green Thinks Nature Even in the Dark? The Oil Drum: Local First Principle: End Fossil Fuel Subsidies>

123 comments on What Does an Undulating Plateau Really Mean?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Glenn on November 16, 2006 - 8:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
They must be worried that the rest of the freight rail system is not electrified and the rolling stock won't have it. This just shows the importance of building a system-wide electrification program.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
crzwdjk on November 16, 2006 - 4:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wonder if it might just be cheaper to electrify just that line and buy a few electric locomotives, rather than build all the fancy ventilation systems. Electric locomotives would also mitigate the noise impacts on the above-ground portions of the line, since they're much quieter than diesels.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on November 16, 2006 - 6:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Probably. I'll send a note to Rep. Nadler's folks about this.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on November 18, 2006 - 1:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The main problem I see in implementing Alan's plan is political. NYC draws commuters from 3 states, NY, NJ, CN, and the metro area stretches from Chesapeake Bay to Boston on the seaward side of the Apppalachians. There are dozens if not hundreds of politican subdivisions in this area.
  The Republicrat and Demican Congress has hamstrung itself with massive debt, and Amtrack, the logical agency is a favorite subject of abuse by the plutocrats in office. I predict endless dithering and fiddling about while the US burns. The only thing our government seems united on is tax advantages for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, and exporting capital to tax havens.
  Today I'm in my anarchist phase-lets kill 'em all and let God sort it out! How much biodiesel can we make from the average Congressman, Federal Judge and political toady. That fay fat-ass Carl Rove ought to make a few gallons!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jim burke on November 19, 2006 - 2:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"For New York, it's time to get serious about extending the reach of electrified mass transit deep into the outerboroughs and suburbs"

    In real terms this means:

-- more mountaintop removal to convert from imported oil to electricity generated by strip mined coal.

Sounds like a wonderful plan to me!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 19, 2006 - 3:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually it is.

Weighing the alternatives, carbon emissions go down#, oil imports go down, and in a couple of decades renewable wind electricity and/or nuke and/or Quebec Hydro will supplant the coal.

Sorry about the W VA plains, but the higher priority gains out weight the losses.

# The gains in efficiency significantly greater than the carbon of gasoline vs. carbon from coal.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 18, 2006 - 5:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is nonsensical to build the tunnels for diesel locos.  Energy for ventilation, extra costs. etc.

One solution (short-term) is to use dual-mode  locos (special built) that can run off of pantograph or 3rd rail in tunnel and switch to diesel once outside electrified zone.

Pantograph could be 25,000 or 50,000 V AC, 3rd rail is likely to be 750 V DC (could be AC).  3rd rail is limited in voltage but on-board transformers allow switches between voltages (EU some locos can operate on 3 different voltages & both AC & DC).

What agency is doing the preliminary design ?  Contact them as well.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Squalish on November 18, 2006 - 6:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Devil advocation:  Is it really so difficult to add on a battery car behind the locomotive car for shorter-tunnel-bound trains?  The motors are already electric anyway, all they have to do is shut off the diesel generator for five minutes.  They wouldn't need to specially build all-electric or dual-mode locos or super-ventilate the tunnels, just add a few cubic meters of batteries, flywheels, or flow batteries.  By my math, I get 8000kg of flywheel energy storage per 30 minutes of full-out acceleration of a 3000 horsepower locomotive.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 18, 2006 - 7:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Speciality locos, or significant adaptations, would be required for battery power as well.

IMHO, battery power would cost more.

Electrification would last at least 40 years before major refurbishment would be needed.  A single electrification would service tunnel capacity # of trains, batteries would be needed for each individual train.

Batteries have an efficiency/cycle loss much higher than electrification via grid, so higher energy costs.

Electrification can be easily and cheaply extended above ground for a number of miles.  And in the near future, for hundreds/thousands of miles (I hope).

So, I support electrification :-)

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on November 19, 2006 - 11:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I just can't see how a dual power locomotive couldn't be easily adapted since the traction motor is electric.  You'd just need to rig on some feelers for the electric lines, have something that adapted the current to the motor current (maybe even in the electric lines themselves) and a controller to control the power output.  Presto, electric train.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 19, 2006 - 12:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
IMHO, an existing diesel electric design could be adapted (and this is what should be done) to dual mode, but an existing diesel-electric loco would not be cheap to adapt.

Rearranging wires, adding a 3rd rail shoe or pantograph, mounting a transformer (where ?), new controls, etc. on an older loco would make me grind my teeth.

Far easier to do in a Cad/Cam program than to preexisting steel & wiring !

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on November 19, 2006 - 1:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Might be a PITA, but unlike PO, that really would just be an engineering problem.  Have you ever contacted any of the locomotive manufacturers to see if they have plans on hand for conversion or whether they've done any research into it?  I would hazard a guess that someone's put some thought into it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 19, 2006 - 1:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have had several conversations with Larry Conrad, VP Engineering at Brookville Equipment, the last US maker of small locos.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 18, 2006 - 7:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am an outsider, with limited local knowledge (but good will :-)

Can the Cross Harbor tunnel serve a passenger function ?

Return some of the PATH or NJ Transit trains "empty" during rush hour.

Example, early NJ train drops pax off in Manhatten at 7:15 AM.  It then proceeds by interconnections to Cross Harbor tunnel and return to service in NJ ?

This could reduce the need for a 3rd NJ Transit tunnel.

Also, could there be a demand for pax service (both ways) between Brooklyn & Queens and NJ ?  Perhaps bus terminals at new pax stops along freight lines.

Any thoughts from those with local knowledge ?

Thanks,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 18, 2006 - 9:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Cross harbor tunnel would go to Brooklyn. Path goes to Manhattan, they aren't that close together. Better off building another NJ transit tunnel.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 18, 2006 - 9:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There is a LIRR connection from Manhatten to Brooklyn terminus of Cross Harbor tunnel.  The major question is if Trains from NJ-Manhatten can get to LIRR ROW in Manhatten.  And if there is space capacity on LIRR lines for this shuttle service.

If a 3rd NJ Transit tunnel could be avoided, this could justify the Cross Harbor Tunnel.

Alan from New Orleans

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

123 comments on What Does an Undulating Plateau Really Mean?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version