[Peak Oil] The Days they Changed the Gauge.

[Sikon]

While the story in the opening post is an excellent historical illustration, the suggested method is exceptionally disruptive, more unpleasant than necessary, mixed with sociopolitical desires shared by few people, and thus unlikely to happen in the manner described. However, the technical characteristics of electric trains have some good aspects.

On average, U.S. trains have an energy intensity around 352 Btu/ton-mile. Nearly all trains in the U.S. are diesel-electric today, where the original energy comes from a diesel engine burning onboard fuel, a system with less efficiency than electric trains. Without spending the time to look up an exact figure, 200 Btu/ton-mile should be an approximate upper limit on the consumption of electric trains. Since total land shipments by trucks plus trains in the U.S. don't amount to more than around 6 trillion ton-miles, that can be used as an upper limit on the amount shipped by trains, which would actually be less.

The resulting energy requirement is under 1.2 quadrillion Btu of electricity (e.g. indirectly 2 to 3 quadrillion Btu thermal at power plants with usual efficiencies). For perspective, total U.S. energy usage of all types was 100.4 quadrillion Btu in 2004 as mentioned in the other peak oil thread.

So the energy needed is a relatively small amount, making it not difficult to come up with relatively pleasant methods for obtaining such.

Of course, what will actually happen is uncertain. Shipping with trucks is 30% of U.S. vehicle fuel consumption (mostly personal vehicles), while even diesel trains are almost 10 times more efficient than trucks per ton of cargo transported each mile, so the amount of fuel needed for trains is a very small percentage of total current fuel consumption even with just regular diesel trains. Diesel trains versus trucks have energy intensities of ~ 352 Btu/ton-mile versus 3200 Btu/ton-mile respectively. Since such a relatively tiny amount of fuel is needed for diesel trains anyway, the economics of producing biodiesel or synthetic fuel for them might possibly be preferred over the infrastructure cost of setting up an electric train system. Still, electric trains are the ultimate in efficiency once the infrastructure is installed, and they are particularly compatible with nuclear power.

[Sikon]

EDIT:

I just made a mistake in the preceding post with ton-mile figures from the reference.

This quote:

Since total land shipments by trucks plus trains in the U.S. don't amount to more than around 6 trillion ton-miles, that can be used as an upper limit on the amount shipped by trains, which would actually be less.

The resulting energy requirement is under 1.2 quadrillion Btu of electricity (e.g. indirectly 2 to 3 quadrillion Btu thermal at power plants with usual efficiencies). For perspective, total U.S. energy usage of all types was 100.4 quadrillion Btu in 2004 as mentioned in the other peak oil thread.

... should be replaced with:

Since total land shipments by trucks plus trains in the U.S. don't amount to more than around 2.6 trillion ton-miles, that can be used as an upper limit on the amount shipped by trains, which would actually be less.

The resulting energy requirement is under ~ 0.5 quadrillion Btu of electricity (e.g. indirectly ~ 1 to 1.5 quadrillion Btu thermal at power plants with usual efficiencies). For perspective, total U.S. energy usage of all types was 100.4 quadrillion Btu in 2004 as mentioned in the other peak oil thread.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Okay. Assuming the financial and logistical nightmare of converting the entire Great Western Railway to AC current via overhead cables is too much, what options are there? Diesel-electric won't be too stable without either massive cuts in diesel elsewhere, meaning the trucking industry will suffer or have to be replaced by the rail network (meaning even more micromanagement and rebuilding, if even possible). So should diesel become a problem, bio-diesel could always step in to an extent, though I'd rather not shift over to a fuel that is in contest with feedstock space too even with a comfortable margin between yield output and Calorific minimum required per capita right now.

Aside from coal, which is also very limited (likely no more than 20 years until a peak in the already low energy content of the US) and very dirty, do we have any other proposals? Fuel-cells are iffy, given they're both very delicate and very expensive and also not all that long-lasting either. I also doubt any current designs could deliver the horsepower needed as well.

I like the idea of a fully electric railway network that isn't just based in the urban environment. But without slave labour, it doesn't look like you'll be getting that way in the near future even starting now. Are there not areas of track that serve no real purpose (relatively) and could be cut out of the equation?

[Coyote]

Actually, if efficiency is the goal, Duchess, would it not be better to cluster multi-story, multi-generational housing along the rail lines themselves (perhaps connected by skyways or underground for safety while crossing tracks). That way the homes can be slaved off the intense power grid already being laid out for the trains, and, in the case of public transportation, the trains themselves are already there-- practically in everyone's front yard, without need for a car/bus ride to a distant station?

Towns and villages laid out lengthwise, all the housing within a walk or electric tram ride to the nearest heavy duty rail line. In major cities (where a single train hub would be impractical), there'd be more rail lines that seperate, course through the city at every-other-block intervals, and then reconnect into one large megaline. This would also be reducing the footprint on all the nearby pastureland that will be needed to grow food as close as possible-- to further reduce transport grid needs.

The ability to evacuate a town or city would be greatly expanded if needed, no more New Orleans style dropping of the ball.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If you can afford to produce such housing and do it in a decent time and get the people to understand why they need to move, then that would be even better. The suburbs have been going for decades and are the first to be rid of in this world, then we can deal with smaller towns and cities that are not necessary and incorporate villages as need be.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, if efficiency is the goal, Duchess, would it not be better to cluster multi-story, multi-generational housing along the rail lines themselves (perhaps connected by skyways or underground for safety while crossing tracks). That way the homes can be slaved off the intense power grid already being laid out for the trains, and, in the case of public transportation, the trains themselves are already there-- practically in everyone's front yard, without need for a car/bus ride to a distant station?

Towns and villages laid out lengthwise, all the housing within a walk or electric tram ride to the nearest heavy duty rail line. In major cities (where a single train hub would be impractical), there'd be more rail lines that seperate, course through the city at every-other-block intervals, and then reconnect into one large megaline. This would also be reducing the footprint on all the nearby pastureland that will be needed to grow food as close as possible-- to further reduce transport grid needs.

The ability to evacuate a town or city would be greatly expanded if needed, no more New Orleans style dropping of the ball.

I'm not saying this is ideal, I'm saying it could be done in six months, Coyote, so there is a big difference between the two. Our leadership is going to wait so long to do anything about peak oil that non-ideal solutions which can be implemented in less than a year to reduce consumption are going to be necessary, even if they suck like shit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The New Haven got 1,800 h.p. locomotives out of a 660 volt DC third-rail system, Skimmer. Wikipedia is not the end-all of knowledge, and the current upper limit of third-rail systems is about 1,000 volts, of which we can probably push it a bit further, especially with aluminum, which is a better conductor.

And I’d use wilkepdia rather then my books specifically on electric trains why exactly? Because I’m not fucking stupid maybe?

1000 volts is NOTHING by the standards of modern electrification systems which run at anything from 11,000 to 50,000 volts (actually we had 11,000 volt systems in 1912) and support much higher currents then any third rail. This is just as important as the voltage and the result is not only restricted locative performance but also a strict limit on how many locomotives can run on a given length of track.

If you wanted to cite an example of third rail power, then you should have noted that one of the first such locomotives in the US, the Class D serving Grand Central Station and built in 1904, could produce 3,000hp in a burst and 2,200hp continuously from 660 volt DC third rail. The key thing was though, that only one such locomotive could run on a circuit at a time, and they had two substations for just 2 miles of track inside a tunnel. Third rail is both voltage and current limited, no one ever bothers to mention amperage when talking about electric trains but it matters a great deal. You might one hell of an engine off a DC third rail system, but that will be the only thing it runs. Meanwhile with a high voltage AC overhead system, a couple substations can power several hundred miles of track with several dozen trains running at once.

Third rail has a huge cost advantage over overhead wires, if it was practical for long distances and high densities it would have been used far more extensively. The reality however is that no one is going to pay to build substations every ten miles for 150,000 route miles of track already existing in the US, and they aren’t going to force themselves to always have ten mile gaps between trains.

It would be far more practical to invest in overhead wires, backed by dedicated and purpose designed electrical feeder systems. It will cost about two million per route mile, perhaps less of the transformers are ordered in bulk all at once, but 300 billion dollars is well within the US budget is spread over 25 years. Some big additional costs, probably more then will be involved, since we’ll need dozens of power plants to meet the additional electrical demands but it still wont matter. Federal highway spending alone is about 30 billion per year already.

The resulting system will have far higher capacity, be computable with far more existing locomotives and equipment designs and will be generally superior in every way except maintenance costs. Those costs shouldn’t matter if a huge quantity of highway traffic is shifted onto the railroads. You don’t need to seize property, or cripple the US population to do it.

I agree completely.

This proposal was an emergency measure which could be executed in months with the goal being to prevent mass starvation by at least keeping the railroad network operating as we completely run out of oil so that not even enough diesel was available for the railroads. If that operation is severely limited, well, it's better than no railroad network at all, because that means everyone in the cities dies.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Okay. Assuming the financial and logistical nightmare of converting the entire Great Western Railway to AC current via overhead cables is too much, what options are there? Diesel-electric won't be too stable without either massive cuts in diesel elsewhere, meaning the trucking industry will suffer or have to be replaced by the rail network (meaning even more micromanagement and rebuilding, if even possible). So should diesel become a problem, bio-diesel could always step in to an extent, though I'd rather not shift over to a fuel that is in contest with feedstock space too even with a comfortable margin between yield output and Calorific minimum required per capita right now.

Aside from coal, which is also very limited (likely no more than 20 years until a peak in the already low energy content of the US) and very dirty, do we have any other proposals? Fuel-cells are iffy, given they're both very delicate and very expensive and also not all that long-lasting either. I also doubt any current designs could deliver the horsepower needed as well.

I like the idea of a fully electric railway network that isn't just based in the urban environment. But without slave labour, it doesn't look like you'll be getting that way in the near future even starting now. Are there not areas of track that serve no real purpose (relatively) and could be cut out of the equation?

Coal dust. Locomotives have been designed to run off of coal dust before. Diesel locomotives. You can make a diesel engine run (though engine wear is very high) off a slurry of coal dust and water. That will allow us to continue to use our existing railroad locomotives as long as we have even utterly extremely low-grade coal.

But a permanent solution must be found there, because western civilization collapses without railroad. Full electrification powered through nuclear power-plants is the only way to maintain even 1900 standards of living. If we lose the railroads the vast majority of the population of the western world will starve to death.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One interesting line of research might be to see if we can make something combustible out of oil shale more cheaply than we can turn it into actual oil. If we can grind oil shale into dust and mix it with water, say, and get it to work like those diesel experiments, that would be a big relief. It might also work in some gas turbine engines, like the ones the Union Pacific used in the 1950s and 1960s to haul up to 10% of their cargo. They were also designed to operate on coal dust slurry, though they actually ended up using Bunker C oil, which is basically what is left over when everything else has been distilled from oil.

[Ender]

Actually, if efficiency is the goal, Duchess, would it not be better to cluster multi-story, multi-generational housing along the rail lines themselves (perhaps connected by skyways or underground for safety while crossing tracks). That way the homes can be slaved off the intense power grid already being laid out for the trains, and, in the case of public transportation, the trains themselves are already there-- practically in everyone's front yard, without need for a car/bus ride to a distant station?

Towns and villages laid out lengthwise, all the housing within a walk or electric tram ride to the nearest heavy duty rail line. In major cities (where a single train hub would be impractical), there'd be more rail lines that seperate, course through the city at every-other-block intervals, and then reconnect into one large megaline. This would also be reducing the footprint on all the nearby pastureland that will be needed to grow food as close as possible-- to further reduce transport grid needs.

The ability to evacuate a town or city would be greatly expanded if needed, no more New Orleans style dropping of the ball.

Except it means living right along the train tracks, which is really not that reat a place to be. My current apartment is maybe 500 yards from the tracks and ground level, but I can still feel it in the floor when a train goes by, not to mention the noise. And I usually wake up at 3:42 AM when that one goes by. Keep in mind I also live and sleep on an aircraft carrier - I'm used to catapults and catches constantly going off, the movement of the boat, the dull roar of the props. And the train still gets to me. Living by the rails sucks.


Also, didn't it come up in the other thread that electric trains were only good for passengers, but couldn't handle cargo due to the weight forcing the contacts togehter and the combination of high voltage and high friction resulting in sever errosion, like we see in railgun experiments? Or was that only high speed, third rail types?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except it means living right along the train tracks, which is really not that reat a place to be. My current apartment is maybe 500 yards from the tracks and ground level, but I can still feel it in the floor when a train goes by, not to mention the noise. And I usually wake up at 3:42 AM when that one goes by. Keep in mind I also live and sleep on an aircraft carrier - I'm used to catapults and catches constantly going off, the movement of the boat, the dull roar of the props. And the train still gets to me. Living by the rails sucks.


Also, didn't it come up in the other thread that electric trains were only good for passengers, but couldn't handle cargo due to the weight forcing the contacts togehter and the combination of high voltage and high friction resulting in sever errosion, like we see in railgun experiments? Or was that only high speed, third rail types?

Electric trains easily handle cargo, either AC or DC power, too. The problem is with third rail. Also, the tracks cannot be designed for much more than 110mph, maybe 120 - 125mph if you are really pushing it and have very high quality reinforced engineering, if you're going to run freight along the route, as the weight of the freight trains will destroy the careful roadbed and supports required for the high-speed operations.



There's an image of electric freight operations on a railroad which, quite sadly, no longer exists.