>2015>not operating fully automated, electric locomotives in mainline freight service across North Americahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogMe9Zhlm-MWhen will American railroads modernize for the 21st century?
>first step on our way to Blaine the MonoNo thank you, I'm terrible at riddles.
>>775677>When will American railroads modernize for the 21st century?When the cost of electrification is lower than the cost of diesel.
>>775701So about 40 years ago?
>>775677When American railroads feel that it's a worthwhile investment.
>>775726/thread
>>775726Total electrification will never ever happen unless it costs $30M for fuel for one trip. Automation is also a stupid idea, if a pc messes up a pax train some people die but if a freight computerized train malfunctioned we could have BP oil spill 2.0.
>>775717Actually never since you completely ignored capital costs.
>>775717>40 years agoBy what metric? Businesses are motivated by profit if there was any gain to be found moving to electric they would have done it ages ago.Oh wait, you're that guy who has a hard on for that dead railway aren't you?
Several railroads considered it during the 1970s oil crisis (right around the time your beloved MILW was dieselized) but gave up their plans when oil prices dropped again. GM-EMD actually built a demonstrator in anticipation of this (which saw limited use on Conrail, before they de-electrified their freight operations).
>>775677Didn't we basically have this thread a short while ago? Also:>Electrification on parts where there are plenty of tornados each year>Everytime a tornado damages the infrastructure they'll have to spend extra resources to repair overhead catenaries in addition to the tracks, which causes additional delaysidontthinksotim.jpg
>>775796>Didn't we basically have this thread a short while ago?Welcome to /n/, where two niggers constantly recycle the same threads.
When the electrification infrastructure wont be needed - think hydrogen cells, super-batteries or zero point generators ;).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1dCBtx6AGcYou can only stretch the wires so far...
>>775792>>775794If 40 years ago corporations and the government had thought long-term and electrified like they had planned to do before short-term drops in oil prices led to them to revert to their bad habits, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are today. Also, the endgame for PTC is full automation and the elimination of human labor to reduce operating expenses and increase corporate profits. Look at what BNSF tried to do with that PTC vote just last year. Thankfully the unions were smart enough to realize what was going on, but that was just a taste of things to come.
>>775798Are you referring to all the recycled bicycle threads constantly posted on this board? I agree, those are wastes of space.
>>775832No I'm talking about trainguy's b8 threads and the MILWR austist who keeps reposting the same thread.
>>775828>Thinking the Fed is going to just throw money at railroads to electrify for practically no benefit.The endgame of PTC is full automation, but that's a very very very long way down the road. Railcars are very much a legacy design, and switching them involves a lot of manual labor.
>>775840>Thinking the Fed is going to just throw money at railroads to electrify for practically no benefit.I never said that, on the contrary I'm implying that since PTC is an unfunded mandate for Class I railroads, they'll look for ways to recoup the sunk costs of converting to PTC, like eliminating human labor.
>>775836So you have a problem with transportation-related threads on a transportation board? Got it.>if I disagree with the premise or argument it's a b8 thread or posted by an "austist"
>>775843>imma repeat the same shit 300 times>this is transportation related therefore I'm immune to criticismsI would love to see GE and EMD build locomotives for a fully electrified network in the United-State but unfortunately that's not going to happen. How many times do you have to create the same goddamn thread to blurt out the same argument. This is not going to happen.
>>775844People in the 1940s also thought that steam engines would never be replaced by diesel-electrics in mainline, long-haul freight service.
>>775850That's a GE E33 rectifier. It came on line in 1955 for the Virginian railroad. Then they were sold to New Haven and Pennsy then Conrail. They were scrapped when Conrail didn't want to dal with electrics.
>>775850They did thought. There's no evidence that the Class 1s were thinking that coal was still the future (yes I'm aware of that mobile coal power plant that was built but that thing went nowhere). Everyone outside of a few companies gradually moved to diesels once they were able to match the horsepower of their existing engines.Steam locomotives were battered by their wartime service and replacing them with diesels didn't require rebuilding a significant chunk of their network like it would with electrics. Stop dreaming, this shit isn't happening.
>>775852>There's no evidence that the Class 1s were thinking that coal was still the futureMost Class I railroads operating west of the Mississippi had converted to burning oil as fuel by the 1920s, so they weren't concerned about coal in their operations. The pictured locomotive class never burned anything but oil. I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that the main corridors from the Powder River Basin mines to the major metropolitan coal consumers within the Midwest could be electrified within our lifetimes.
>>775860Coal lines are probably the most realistic corridors when it comes to North American electrification especially with the increase of traffic to export markets. The problem is maintaining supply and demand. The BR Rail line that was electrified was de-electrified because the coal traffic fell dramatically for instance.If a thread was based around the premise of coal/ore lines being electrified it could make for a neat guessing game.
660$,,, 550 Watts grid tie.,AMazon pays shipping!,,, this will produce 300$ per year.,why do you rent your power?
>>777357This right here is the start of the next great Milwaukee Road level electrification. Keep on truckin', BaconRider.
>>775781I don't understand whether you are against any automated train control altogether, or whether you favor tolerating either the risk of people dieing or that of a hazmat incident.
>>777446He's obviously against it because if a fully automatic train control fails you can have a massive hazmat situation.The reality of PTC is that the engineer will have to acknowledge his upcoming speed restrictions and stuff by hitting a button on a computer screen. If he doesn't then the train will be slowly be brought to a stop.It's silly, and stupid, and really unneeded, but some people in Washington have decided they know more about my job than me.
>>775794>Oh wait, you're that guy who has a hard on for that dead railway aren't you?I'm not the only one! He was giving me shit in another thread saying a follow him. I told him I'm not the only person that he constantly runs into. He ALWAYS posts about beloved railway and is bitter and butthurt about it. /rant
>>777414Shut the FUCK up.It's not that I don't agree with some of what you're saying, it's that you're fucking obnoxious about it.
>>777447I don't quite understand where you're coming from. Systems are interlocked and if they fail, the train simply stops. It does not roll madly like it does currently. Trains also require protection so they automatically stop after SPADs rather than posing a danger.It's more that the rest of the world knows better than you, not just some old hags.
>>777811>>777814You come in here and post angry responses to days old posts completely unrelated to you and claim that I'm the one bitter and butthurt?Dude, seriously calm down. I didn't realize posting about a dead railroad would trigger someone so bad. Could you at least post on-topic images when raging?
>>777818I didn't "come in here" looking for you.And it's not the subject matter but the way you post it that makes you a massive dragon dick.
>>777815>what is an alerter
>>775677>fully automatedare you retarded? Unlike in europe, freight trains here can easily carry eight or nine figures inside a single train. It's not worth risking an accident when you have that much money involved. Also, the whole idea that trains need to be electrified in order to be automated is naive. We could have had automated trains since the 70s but it doesn't happen because the risk just isn't worth it. They even gave up on remotely controlled trains too (save for yard work).And electrification will only happen if uncle sam foots the bill. Diesel is reliable enough and you don't have to negotiate different power rates with different utility companies, instead of a single rate with an oil company.
I propose we give each railroad the right to build six nuclear power stations for every 1000 miles of track it operates. Each plant will receive a 50% federal construction subsidy and local power companies will be required to purchase surplus power at going rates. Then watch how fast they make the switch.
>>780110You should definitely write your congressman with that proposal. He might even name the bill after you.
>>777853That doesn't help when you take a corner too fast killing a bunch of commuters. It's a fact that humans are the most error prone parts of a system. Don't blame Washington blame biology.
>>783114Germany can't be posted in the america league. No pros allowed.
>>783336>"Germany">"pros">over 20 times less freight moved by rail than the US>Czech locomotivetopest of kek
>>775860They still had to worry about water though.
>>783336
>>786579Fund it!
>>775677http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/bnsf-drones-will-patrol-the-track.htmlHow soon until drone trains?
>>775677you greatly underestimate the size of the american rail network.
>>775828>implying the railroads have been nationalizedthey're private companies. they pay property tax on their right of way and maintain their own signalling.
>>775865only if you can burn the coal near the mine to generate the juice. the problem is, we can't. most of our coal now is exported to shittier countries that dont mind the acid rain.
>>791726Never.God please never.I don't trust most yardmasters to watch my shove with a stationary camera. I'll be damned if I trust my job to somebody watching it with a drone.
>>775799I walk past that locomotive every day. They took it out to California and tested it pulling freight but it only produces about 1000 horse power and couldn't pull much in the mountains. Now it just sits in a building on property gathering dust. It would be the perfect switcher unit because we could leave the engine running indoors, but they don't want to run their multi-million dollar novelty at all.
>implying there will even be physical material to haul around anymoreDo you even post-scarcity?
>>775701not really, they will just sell the entire company to some other sucker when the fuel cost is too much, it's called kicking the ball down the road. This is why the land of the whopper has 18.7 trillion debt, because each king of the burgers just kick the debt problem to the next king in line. They all keep saying that "it's not my problem because the debt to gdp ratio is not 120% yet." it's 105% right now btw
>>775781you know what i wanna see? continuous feed intermodal transloading.
>>775850only in the east. there's a reason why santa fe got the first wartime diesels. sucks to have to transport treated water to all your division points. what nobody expected was that a new steam locomotive could see only a year or two in service before being replaced by diesels. that they were that much more economical.
>>795940I absolutely hate where this county is heading /headedThe biggest question is where do I bail to?
>bitches don't know about muh LocotrolRemote controlled trains have been a thing since the 1960s.
>>796022Meh, DP is hardly the same thing as having a guy with a belt pack or running a train from a remote location.
>mfw in 10 years automated trains will transfer goods to driverless trucks that are then moved onto pilotless planes
>>799206Don't forget about automated cranes/robots/drones for the movement between all these and the final few feet from the mid-size trucks to the consumer.Driverless bike messengers??? You think /messlife/s will develop neo-Luddite unions?
>>799206are you the same moron from the other thread?
>>799255No, I don't support ending humanity like some other tools on this board.
>>780110two things would happen:1. everyone within 100 miles of these power stations will sue the federal government because they don't want them built2. assuming it would somehow survive that lawsuit, the NRC requires nuclear power plants to be completely funded before construction starts. As a direct result, you'd need billions of dollars just to start construction and a few more million on top of that to get a license to operate
>>791931Speaking of coal burners>>799262Yay NIMBY'S! Stalwarts of progress.Nuclear power is a shit anyways.Unless they get fusion reactors working. Until then a diverse portfolio of renewable energy is the way to go.
>>796022Early Locotrol was responsible for quite a few derailments on the Milwaukee Road's Lines West due to loss of radio communication with the remote units when passing through long tunnels in the mountains.
>>803066No fail safe in case of communication loss?
>>805069What do you consider fail safe in that situation?
>>805089It not derailing for starters.Did they not send a test train out with receivers to check signal strength or something?
>>805229>Milwaukee Road on the west side of the Bitterroots was characterized by endless series of curves interspersed with many tunnels, all on a 1.7% compensated grade. The track in the tunnels was never upgraded. Over the period 1972 - 1975, the track outside the tunnels was raised 4-6 inches with many new ties and section rail relay. >Westbound trains had grain loads in 100-ton hoppers for the Pacific Coast export terminals on the rear yet lumber empties for St. Maries and Spokane on the point. Until Oct., 1973, one train per day each way was run with Locotrol, which had a lot of trouble maintaining continuity on this line. >Grain traffic to the Coast exploded starting in August, 1973. The derailment rate in the Bitterroots increased. At the beginning of Oct. 1973, operation of Joes west of Deer Lodge was terminated, manned helpers were terminated, and Locotrol took over 2-3 trains per day each way instead of one. >The derailment rate in the Bitterroots exploded - 24 derailments in 21 days. At the end of October, operation of the Joes was restored while efforts were made to improve the track geometry (less abrupt changes in grade at tunnel portals, better spiral approach to curves), and track repairs in tunnels was made (limited as to what they could do considering the tight clearances). The Joes were permanently withdrawn in June, 1974, but manned helpers were restored (using diesels), a tacit admission that Locotrol was just not reliable enough to get trains down the hill without incident. >There were multiple reasons for this disaster, and I don't think the various causes were ever ranked and quantified. Among the causes: >-Train make-up inducing extreme run-ins >-Replacement of electric power and manned helpers with Locotrol >-Locotrol loss of continuity in tunnels and canyons >-Poor track in the tunnels >-Problems in track geometry just outside tunnels (abrupt change in grade, weak spiral approach to curves) From rob_l at trainorders.com
>>805229You're a moron.Lots of things can cause loss of communication.Happens all the time on long trains with an EOT going over hills, through tunnels, and valleys. In your mind, how do you make a loss of communication with a DP locomotive "fail safe"? Do you have it start braking? Do you have it go to idle with the brakes cut out? Do you have it go into emergency? What is your definition of fail safe in this scenario?
>>805242> being this salty over remote controlled trains.I incorrectly assumed the loss of com caused derailments. >>805241Thanks
>>805289>Have no idea about DP.>Start yammering your big mouth like you're an expert on derailments and train handling.>Start insulting othersOkie doke
what is it about electrified lines that really bring out the autists?
>>805293Yeah I love trains but who really gives a fuck
>>805293>>805302Say the autists arguing about handlebars, "muh aero," "bike computers," and helmets.
>>805293What makes you say that?
>>805306this thread, for starters
>>805351What about it?
>>805291Never claimed I was an expert. I was just throwing out ideas etc. And I never actually insulted anyone.> you salty faggotNow I did.
>>805241I am quite sure that the train control systems pretty much upgraded between 1974 and 2015.Also top kek on a design which did not calculate with signal losses in tunnels / mountains. Probably tested in Pueblo, eh?(I am not a robot: omeig)
>>805421All of the locotrol units operating in the 1960s/1970s had problems with tunnels.>I remember when the SP was using these remote engines on Techahapi.. It was 1974 to 1975.. I was a fireman on the Los Angeles Bakersfield freight pool. I always loved to be on a train with these engines or have a remote train in the vicinity.. Because the remotes would always fail between Ilmon and Caliente around tunnel 1/2. When the remotes lost communication us fireman were put on the remote and run them manually.. in turn we made double pay.. as a fireman and then when we were placed into helper service as an engineer making engineer's pay from the point of manning the helper. Always made for a nice payday.
>>805293What is it about cycling that really brings out the autists?
>>812860What is it about 4chan that brings out the autists?
>>813309Memes.
>>796022We have a rock train here in Florida on the FEC that once it is parked at its destination the plant operators use remote control to back the whole thing in and unload it.FEC has experimented with remote control in its yard I believe.
>>783114What a happy train!
>>817294OH GOD I LOVE MEMES
what, usa doesn't have electric trains?
>>783364>being this retarted>a country the size of texas ships less freight than the US
>>823892>25% of the population>still less than 5% of the rail freightnice try, eurofag
>>823892The EU as a whole ships such little freight by rail.And that is comparable in size and population to the US.
>>823754For the most part no.The major issue is that here diesel is easier to procure (because it's easier to buy it bulk from one or two companies than power from ten or twenty power companies) and that double-stack containers require higher catenary. This is an issue because most tunnels and overpasses in the US don't have the clearance for both double stack containers and catenary.
>>823932>The major issue is that here diesel is easier to procure (because it's easier to buy it bulk from one or two companies than power from ten or twenty power companies) and that double-stack containers require higher catenary.The Milwaukee Road's electric division proves you wrong on both points. They only went through 3 different regional power companies to purchase the electricity needed to generate power all along their line. These were long term electric power contracts that were much cheaper than diesel fuel contracts (even before the 1970s oil shortages). Also, the default height of catenary on the Milwaukee Road was above the height of double-stack containers even in the 1970s. The major issue there was tunnel clearance, not catenary. It's pretty sad that both in terms of railroad electrification and passenger train speeds the United States is worse off today than it was in the 1960s.
>>823938Another option is having your own private power plants and trackside transmission infrastructure like how the big rail companies in Japan do it.
>>823953I'm guessing that would be more expensive in most cases than just contracting with large regional power companies. Unless you own your own source of power (coal mines or hydropower sites). It's too bad that power companies in the US never built their own mainline railroads, just interurbans and streetcar lines.
>>823938True, the MWRR was able to do it with only three power companies. However, they also were bought out.>It's pretty sad that both in terms of railroad electrification and passenger train speeds the United States is worse off today than it was in the 1960s.The issue there is that freight doesn't complain about loud/dirty diesel locomotives and passenger rail stops being seriously competitive after travel time increases past five hours. The average box of dildos can take a week to ship from NYC to LA by train but the average person wants to be there in eight hours. As for electrification, it's only useful in congested urban areas or mountain passes. The former demands quieter, cleaner locos while the latter benefits when it comes to tunnel ventilation and increased traction. The US itself is mostly flat land with three mountain ranges, outside of each electrification would be redundant.
>Driverless Trucks to Hit Alberta’s Oilsands Region Replacing $200,000/yr Operators; Big Layoffs ComingIt's only a matter of time now.
>>830530That's not how it works. In Nevada, so far the only US state to allow automated vehicles, you need a special endorsement on your license to operate one. Driverless ones aren't legal on public roads without an operator with the endorsement on their license.And even then, I don't get why you would want to use automated trucks in areas with dirt roads and steep grades and where wifi/satellite reception can be spotty especially when labor is so cheap.
>>796017Germany, that's where I would head. Learning German on my own atm just incase.
>>830564Anon you replied to, yeah that was one of my options.
>>830564>>831716>2015>being part of the EU
railroad is all privately owned by the freight lines. Federal government would have to give huge incentive for electrification or pay for it directly.
>>835244This is false based on historical evidence.
>>838567>Muh MLWR>Muh Pennsy>Muh New Yawk CentralYeah, bankruptcy sure is a sign of great ideas.
>>838567As it stands, there aren't any electric railroads left in the US. The central issue is that railroad companies can't also own their own power stations and sell excess power to the grid. As a result, they have to pay regular rates and that's what kills the whole thing. This is exactly how LA's streetcar system went bankrupt, along with having to pay for road maintenance.
>>838593>implying those railroads weren't intentionally destroyed from within by their top management for personal financial gain
>>775677>fully automatedThat is kind of dangerous. Imagine if a rogue AI would take control of a freight train carrying a lot of fuel.>electricWhy not have cyclists be the engine instead.
>>842312>rogue AII don't think you know how this all works.
>>838609your post is inaccurate on about 18 different levels.
>>775677For an expansive, sparsely used network like North America, diesel is probably more efficient than OHLE.
>>847541>sparsely usednope
>>847653So why isn't there a massive continent wide electrification program?
>>848809it's still a huge network, so there's building costs, tax increases, and new equipment to be bought.as long as diesel is cheap enough it's not profitable to electrify anymore.Ask Milwaukee Road guy about their electrified track. I would've been great to keep or expand had the company not gotten fucked by management.
>>848877Nearly every half decent country has or wants to have electrified railways. Less noisy, faster, and the pollution is released at the power plant rather than along the line in the form of carcinogenic diesel fumes. Everyone makes a fuss about it but how difficult is it to put up some wires? The US has more clearance around the tracks so low bridges and other obstacles shouldn't be an issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua2XH9rspW8
>>848809>>848877If management had been interested in maintaining the railroad business and growing it, they would have taken the 1969 and 1972 GE offers to expand and upgrade the electrification between Tacoma and Harlowton, MT. But top MILW management (of which two were former BN executives fresh off their successful merger of BN in 1970) wanted to shut down MILW and its competition with BN for traffic by getting BN to agree to a merger. One of the conditions was that MILW not invest money in track maintenance or upgrades on the western lines prior to the merger. So expanding or even maintaining electric operations was seen as a threat to merger conditions and MILW abandoned it in the middle of the biggest oil crisis in American history. The GE proposal confirmed that upgrading the track itself (deteriorated due to years of deferred maintenance) would be the biggest expense, the centenary and electric infrastructure was in fine shape overall. Even after the abandonment of electrification and the virtual destruction of the mainline track through the PNW via deferred maintenance, the deal fell through due to disagreements between MILW and BN over the cost of purchasing the timber and other assets of the Milwaukee Land Company (technically separate from the railroad but under the same parent company). But at that point a merger was unnecessary as far as BN and MILW management was concerned: the damage had been done and MILW was no longer an effective competitor to BN in the Pacific Northwest. The abandonment of the entire trackage west of Montana in 1980 was the final nail in the coffin, even though despite all the attempts to destroy it the Pacific extension was the only profitable route in the entire system (management attempted to hide this fact by cooking the books to make the western lines look like a money loser, but ICC hearings revealed this to be bogus and a net profit of about $12 million annually was revealed).
>>849824The Milwaukee Road's de-electification and abandonment is one of the largest corporate conspiracies in American history, but no one was ever successfully prosecuted (and likely never will be). Some choice quotes explaining the story more from credible sources:>It is interesting to note, in the 1969 version of "Welcome to the Milwaukee" binder made for new employees of the Engineering Department, the various divisions and departments of the RR were described, and details of each of the major terminals and yards throughout the system, and "stuff" you might generally expect for new engineers (civil) in the department. When it got to the Milwaukee Land Co, one of the first things noted was that "none of the lands owned by the Milwaukee Land Co are mortgaged." >That was an interesting legal and financial note, the only one, to mention to new employees. In 1972, HR Morgan, retired Electrical Engineer, told me during an interview at his house that "that's what they are trying to get at right now, those assets in the Milwaukee Land Co.. The industrial sites, and the townsites, and those trees out on the Peninsula are worth more than the whole rest of the railroad put together, and there are no mortgages on any of it. They want to strip mine that company, but they can't figure out how to get it loose from the railroad.">The Bankruptcy did it.>I should add, only two executive officers of the Milwaukee Road insisted, and were assured, that their employment contracts be guaranteed, not by the Milwaukee Road, but by the Milwaukee Land Company: William J. Quinn and Worthington Smith (the former BN executives).
>>849824>>849828>I've been asked some questions in recent weeks about the profitability of the PCE. I'm not sure why the subject has come up lately. But, FYI, the Milwaukee filed a Petition to abandon in which it used the prescribed ICC formula for direct costs and for allocated overhead costs. The formula had been designed to make abandonment more "necessary" if a RR wanted one, and so likely overallocated overhead costs, but the Petition to Abandon, Exhibit K, clearly spells out Milwaukee Road's operating costs west of Miles City as well as its revenues. >For 1976, the Petition to Abandon shows about $10.6 million in net revenue (although the ICC Office of Rail Public Counsel said that this should have been corrected to approximately $12 million. >What was missing from the net profit figure was the "bridge" traffic as under the ICC regs, mysteriously that was not considered "real" revenue because it neither originated or terminated on line. It was another ICC gesture under the rules to favor abandonment petitions. >However, BAH identified the Milwaukee's bridge traffic as being in excess of $20,000,000. The interesting convoluted part of the application process is that Milwaukee was allowed to include the expense of carrying bridge traffic, but not the revenue earned from it. >Adding the bridge revenue to the identified net revenue of the line based on those sources, the Milwaukee PCE earned, in 1976, over $30,000,000 in net revenue. That represented a 15.9% return on revenue (profit margin) and a 31% return on investment (assets). >By comparison, BN earned 4.6% return on revenue (NROI/Gross transportation revenue), and 3% return on assets in that year. The above quotes come from Michael Sol, who also wrote about the end of Milwaukee Road's electrification here (towards the bottom of the page):http://www.northeast.railfan.net/classic/MILWdata5.html
the autist is particularly antsy today
>>849841Cool shitpost m8.>An electrified railroad consists of five essential components: 1) track, 2) generation, 3) transmission, 4) motive power, and 5) support. Generation, that is substation equipment, on the Milwaukee Road was in remarkable shape. With improvements in insulation and other components, most of the equipment was actually better than when it was brand new, as various parts were overhauled over the years with the improved and upgraded components.>The overhead was in very good condition. We evaluated the overhead and determined that it had approximately half of its economic service life remaining. >The remaining locomotives were not worn out, or even close to the end of their economic service life. Rather, there were just not enough of them. In fact, they were performing far out of proportion to their rated horsepower, and far, far beyond the expected availability of diesel-electric motive power of not only the same age, but even of modern vintage.>When the decision to terminate the electrification was made, the only component of that system that was in actual engineering failure was the track. There were 31 derailments in one 28 day period on the Bitterroots, partly due to the pressure of business during 1973 and 1974.>Increases in diesel fuel costs over the next few years because of the oil embargo of March 1973 wiped out any gain, and more, because of the "need" to shut down that "worn out" electrification, and the "need" to apply those scrap dollars to perceived company problems. If the electrics had continued to run, the savings, at 1972 operating levels, in fuel costs between 1974 and 1980 would have been $64 million dollars.>The components that were not in failure were scrapped. The only part that was in actual failure, the track, was not addressed at all.http://www.northeast.railfan.net/classic/MILWdata5.html
>>849824>>849828>>849836>>849862
>>849862Honestly this is all went over my head and I don't really have a burning interest in the petty business deals which went on at some railway, but yes America had an electrified railway then like true degenerates de-electrified it because muh free market.
>>849885It was de-electrified because diesels make so much more sense on long distance networks. MILW failed because they were a shitty redundant railroad, not because of any conspiracy or free market nonsense.
>>849885>but yes America had an electrified railway then like true degenerates de-electrified it because muh free market.That's actually not a bad one sentence simplified summary of events. >>849891William J. Quinn pls go
>>775792>>775794Americans being american. Guys come on electric engines are more efficient fuel and maintance wise. Why the heck is the rest of the world going electric?
>>853808Capital costs are big. Simply put, it's really fucking expensive to string up catenary everywhere. Cities (especially in the latter 20th century) would fight against it too because they considered it an eyesore and electrocution hazard. Right now, one of the busiest commuter lines in the US (Caltrain, in San Francisco) is electrifying and is being sued because they'll have to cut down a few trees for the wires to operate safely. Of course the plaintiffs in the case (a local city) have no chance of winning it but point is it's proof that people will fight it because they hate trains in general.More importantly, power is an issue. Storms can knock out major parts of your system which means all your maintenance vehicles will have to be diesel. Electric power is another cost, and since the 60s railroads can't just build their own power plants to sell excess power onto the grid.Meanwhile electro-motive diesel power was figured out by the 70s and just werked. You can even go dual mode with a third rail or catenary (like Amtrak does in NYC) if you install a shoe/pantograph. Diesel has been fairly cheap and is very cheap now as we have an oil glut. Only sustained, long-term increases in oil costs could justify electric over diesel.That's not to say electrification shouldn't happen, but there's clear reasons why it didn't happen in the US.
>>853816These reasons exist everywhere.
>>853820Yes, but in the US all the railroads are more concerned with cost as they are all privately owned. When it comes to pure reliability, diesel is easier to service and repair as there's plenty of diesel engines around, but as many big electric motors. Someone who works on diesel engines in cars or ships can be used for diesel trains. It's cheaper to fix things, plain and simple. It also means more units can be made at a lower cost. This increases part availability and lowers maintenance costs even more.And again, power is an issue. RRs like having big dicks and don't like buying power from utilities and don't like playing politics with the few organizations in the US that are more powerful than them. It's easier to bargain with Chevron or Exxon and not PG&E, Edison, and their friends. They would normally just build their own plants and sell extra power to the grid, but federal law enacted in the 60s prohibits them from doing so.Then you have the massive capital cost, which seals it all up.Again, electrification is better than what we have now, but they won't spend the money to do it until diesel costs $10/gallon and stays there for at least three or four years. The reasons against it make complete sense from a money angle.
>>853820>>853825Another thing to consider: in most parts of the world, they rebuilt their railways following world war two. They rebuilt it as electric as due to postwar shortages, coal and oil were expensive.In the US, that never occurred. Some RRs used steam into the early 60s. Diesel trains offered all the advantages of electric ones but without the capital cost. More importantly RRs were already used to buying coal, water and oil for steam engines so just buying Diesel was a massive improvement. There was never a need to electrify, especially when there was no centralized Marshall Plan money and a centralized government-owned railway forcing it.
>>853827Actually, Marshall Plan moneys were intended to aid Euro railways in dieselizing, thereby making European nations more dependent on (at the time) American oil exports and reducing the power of railway labor unions to disrupt operations. Electrification helped with reducing the labor needed on trains but wasn't pushed by America. That was mostly a European decision.
>>853827I can't speak for Europe but the UK did not do this. A lot of our main lines are still not electrified, and people keep pushing electrification over diesel. It's only now some of the northern passenger lines have been electrified. A lot of the plan has been scrapped just now because of a £2bn cut to Network Rail's budget. Most freight is diesel as yards aren't electrified and some major gaps exist.Perhaps you are talking about Germany, it would made sense for them to have rebuilt their railways. The UK probably isn't so electrified because we don't rely on others for oil.
>>860560Have these been scrapped or are they still running?
>>860560
>>867268Wow. Big Muskie was cool and this pic is too.
>>867300Agreed.
>>775795Wish GM invested more heavily in manufacturing electric locomotives like GE did. Although I guess there has to be a market for them first.
>>775691huh?
>>775677You've got to be sitting me. This thread is 9 months old. Time to close this board down
shouldnt you be making another useless duplicate bike thread?
>>864224Pretty sure they still run. That is a mining company rr iirc.Plus the loco at the forefront is hooked up
>>874988Welcome to /n/, e/n/joy your stay :^)
>>876293The line was torn out over a decade ago, the locomotives were probably scrapped. Not really any other place they could have gone.
>>879014I did not take into account when the pic was taken. I feel stupid
>>881957Nice picture dude!You got any info on it? Is that a AC unit coupled to it?
When they finish installing PTC they'll also install electric catenary tbh.
>>884336Haha, no.PTC involves throwing up some radio towers, adding boxes to some switches, and installing some computers and software.Electrical overhead involves a crazy huge engineering project, limited utility of electric locomotives, and just huge levels of inefficiency for little practical gain.
>>775691I laughed. I love a good DT reference.
>>799540>Nuclear power is a shit anyways.being this stupid