One major interface is the electric train on the ROW.

3 kV DC is used in some trains (Belgium, Italy, older Russian from memory) but one cannot transform HV DC down to 3 kV DC (only AC works that way). AC to DC and DC to AC power electronics are expensive, and one cannot afford them (unless the price has dropped a LOT in the last 4 years) every 30 miles. Even HV to 25 or 50 kV AC transformers are not cheap, but not as pricy as DC > AC power electronics.

AFAIK, no new systems are being installed with DC (some add-ons are of course). Russia went away from 3 kV DC and to AC (25 kV AC from memory).

Thanks for the Input !

Alan

Vicksburg bridge must be electrified.

KCS Meridian Speedway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SPlbDzLXIY&feature=related

To take pressure off Memphis, if nothing else.

And/or electric must be able to switch to diesel.

The most likely solution when overhead wire just will not fit (New Orleans Huey Long double track bridge will be tight at spots) is to fit a 3rd rail. Eurostar trains can switch from 25 kV AC to 1.5 kV DC third rail when they get close to London (no longer needed as of a year ago).

The beauty of rail is that innumerable issues have already been resolved somewhere in the world in the last century.

Best Hopes,
'
Alan

go for it, and good luck.

Trains are the future.

James

Alan,
With a certain amount of digging, you can lower the track within the tunnel to get the overhead wire to fit. This has been done in North London to get Eurostar trains from the Acton depot to St Pancras through the Hampstead tunnel (built in the late 1850s).
BobE

This is common approach, just lower the floor of the tunnel. Norfolk Southern is doing this to a East-West line to allow double stack containers.

Bridges can be more complex.

Best Hopes for solutions,

Alan

Or put in a third rail. A large Steel rail is much cheaper than a copper wire and can carry more electricity. And you don't have as many height clearance problems.

Alan,

It reads well; a great proposal! I have no technical criticism...so much for the TOD meat grinder. Do you want grammatical/punctuation corrections as well?

OH GOD NO !!

If you knew how many hours I have looked at this ...

Thanks, but NO thanks :-)

Alan

I understand...but there is a comma in the...

No, AC is still cheaper than DC for a substation every 30 miles. I just worry as electronics get cheaper, AC is going to become a dinosaur. But not yet. Say the railroad puts wind and solar along the way. Than it will be easier to interface to DC. But one humungous project at a time I guess.

I just worry as electronics get cheaper, AC is going to become a dinosaur.

Alas, "we" have no way of knowing if the doomer predictions of 'no IC's' will be the way things go, copper becomes expensive due to mass electrification, or some break-through with super-conductors make them truly room-temp - picking AC or DC might be seen as a bad move with the lens of history. (Great IC's should make DC 'better', no copper and no superconductors ruins the tradition of AC step up/step down transformers as 2 examples)

I'd worry more about government mandates being made not due to being the 'best' choice but because some quid crossed the right palms.

Perhaps Alan can toss into the mix suggestions about Open Records so if there is corruption, the parties can be fingered in the future or perhaps get lucky in preventing the public funds being used for private benefit.

Why would 110VAC become a dinosaur, compared to 110VDC?

After all, we won't be connecting houses to the grid at 12VDC, the line losses are too large at low voltages.

For long hauls, HVDC makes a lot of sense ... both because of the line losses and because the conversion to AC to feed into a regional grid eliminates the problem of synchronizing AC over long distances ...

... but what pressure does that place on the local grid to change over?

One explanation I've seen is that more and more appliances don't need AC. Computers, TV:s and such would work just fine with DC; they have chopper power supplies since that's cheaper than a transformer, and such devices can work with DC input as well (meaning that nowadays you can cheaply and efficiently convert one DC voltage to another without an AC transformer in between). I've heard of other appliances like fridges and washing machines that have variable frequency drives in order to run at the optimal frequency rather than the usual stop-start with the 50/60 Hz from the grid.

That being said, the potential savings from switching to a DC local grid are almost certainly not worth the hassle.

One place where we might see more DC equipment in the future is data centers. Nowadays it's quite wasteful that input AC is first rectified to DC for the UPS:es, then it's inverted back to AC since all the machines have AC input, and the the power supply in each machine rectifies it back to DC.

Also, the power feed line for 25kVAC is lighter, along with all associated support structure, than for 1.5kVDC - 3kVDC ... and the substations are not only more costly, but have to be put at closer intervals.

On the Sydney forum of the Australian railpage, bemoaning the failure to start the conversion from DC to AC is a recurrent theme. Its one of the big obstacles for electrification from the regional center of Newcastle to Maitland, the country town an hour rail commute up the line.

Alan, all I can say is "go ahead knock yourself out", continue the rhetoric, dream on and further encourage the cornucopians.
But, you had better get it done before the people start to move, before any economic collapse.

As usual assume BAU for the future. Even be so bold as to assume business growth.
Assume if capital is pulled from somewhere that no other department will suffer, and
Assume costs won't rise, assume construction, steel, copper and fuel costs remain steady while the job gets done. Assume a constant supply.

Assume there will be plenty of business for goods and personnel traffic to pay maintenance and wages.
Assume power generation will be continuous and low cost.
Assume we can engineer and buy our way out of any mess we get into.
We should expend all the energy we want now to build a better future for.........well who? Us, or future generations?
We should assume we know best for future generations, just as past generations knew and cared about what was best for us.

Of course, as the reality of our plight hits well and truly home, all kinds of desperate engineering feats will be posed and attempted.
Electrifying railways will be one of them.

While the cost of fuel and energy keeps rising but availability manageable the populace will continue to battle with what they have and can afford.
When shortages bite and hoarding begins, a new type of economy and political climate will emerge.
It's anyone's guess as to what life will be like then.
I assume it won't be BAU. We won't be moving billions of tons of freight around the country.
Unless it's coal.

Or as I have read before its because we'll have electric railways to be able to go on vacation, visit grandma and Disneyland.

No such assumptions required.

The schedule will change as the economy shrinks, but the job of 100% electrification can, and will, be finished in a world quite different from today. We can get a lot done in the next few years.

As for the doomers, the organization required to keep the rails going (useful even during social collapse in Liberia & Cambodia) may be one of the fundamental organizing principles in what is left.

And no, taking tourists to Disneyland is not the ultimate goal of electrified rail. You just applied your prejudices without reading or understanding my article.

Alan

Sorry, but behind on answering comments. Try to catch up tonight.