The Electrification discussion

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Pictures like this disputes all the double stack trains and inability to clear the wires nonsense. Plus its a daily thing on the corridor, which I don't understand why people ignore those movements of freight on the corridor.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiA...mp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg
The reason why those rail advocates think the way they do, I've come up with a few rational ideas. They've never experienced or even seen trains outside of North America, to get an idea of where the rest of the world stands. Some just want to keep the status quo and stick with diesel trains pulling coaches in non fixed formations, which are considered outdated by the rest of the world.
 
Caesar La Rock said:
Pictures like this disputes all the double stack trains and inability to clear the wires nonsense. Plus its a daily thing on the corridor, which I don't understand why people ignore those movements of freight on the corridor.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiA...mp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg
The reason why those rail advocates think the way they do, I've come up with a few rational ideas. They've never experienced or even seen trains outside of North America, to get an idea of where the rest of the world stands. Some just want to keep the status quo and stick with diesel trains pulling coaches in non fixed formations, which are considered outdated by the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Can double-stacks fit through the Baltimore tunnels? And are they planning to put enough clearance in the new tunnel to accommodate double stacks? Of course, I think it would be best if they would bite the financial bullet and build a new freight rail bypass through Baltimore that runs through the harbor/industrial area and has a crossing roughly around the Harbor Tunnel. Either a tunnel or a high-level bridge would be fine. With connections to both CSX and the NEC/NS. Then they could repurpose the Howard Street Tunnel (site of the first mainline rail electrification in the US) for transit use. It's crazy that the main east coast freight line runs through a 150+ year old tunnel right through downtown Baltimore with mega freight trains carrying all sorts of flammable and toxic stuff.
 
Caesar La Rock said:
The reason why those rail advocates think the way they do, I've come up with a few rational ideas. They've never experienced or even seen trains outside of North America, to get an idea of where the rest of the world stands. Some just want to keep the status quo and stick with diesel trains pulling coaches in non fixed formations, which are considered outdated by the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it is more the other way around. Other than such things as the SEPTA picture, if anyone else outside India runs double stacks under electric overhead, please let me know. The nay sayers have seen the wire height in Europe, Japan, etc., which do not now nor have any intention of ever running high clearance traffic. Many of these that are even knowledgeable in these systems also feel that wire to clear double stacks is impractical if not downright impossible.

In the 1970's when the Northeast Corridor upgrades were being discussed I got to look at the Pennsy's clearance requirements. Unless otherwise constrained, the wire was to be no less than 22'-0" above top of rail. Unfortunately, was not able to get a copy. That was back when making copies was limited to justifiable need.
 
George Harris said:
Actually, I think it is more the other way around. Other than such things as the SEPTA picture, if anyone else outside India runs double stacks under electric overhead, please let me know. The nay sayers have seen the wire height in Europe, Japan, etc., which do not now nor have any intention of ever running high clearance traffic. Many of these that are even knowledgeable in these systems also feel that wire to clear double stacks is impractical if not downright impossible.

In the 1970's when the Northeast Corridor upgrades were being discussed I got to look at the Pennsy's clearance requirements. Unless otherwise constrained, the wire was to be no less than 22'-0" above top of rail. Unfortunately, was not able to get a copy. That was back when making copies was limited to justifiable need.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that people seem to think that Europe and Japan are the ultimate users of passenger trains in particular and trains in general. Unfortunately they are not all that aware of what goes on in some the largest users of trains for both freight and passenger as they are not in the Anglosphere, and those are the places which have huge loading gauges.

Here is an article from 2020 on Indian double stacks under catenary on the Western DFC, which incidentally shares trackage with regular passenger trains for some distance near Delhi and at various places in the state of Rajasthan. I just discovered that the catenary is actually a little over 28' above TOR. I thought it was a little lower. So it is a full 6' higher than the catenary on the NEC.

https://www.railjournal.com/freight...es-electric-double-stack-container-operation/
Incidentally the passenger WAP-7 and WAP-5 class electrics with high reach pantos operate seamlessly in high and standard catenary areas without a hitch.
 
Last edited:
Jis: Nailed it. Wow! 28 feet high overhead. There is surprisingly little knowledge of the Indian Railway system in the rest of the world, despite it being, I suspect by far, the highest volume railway system in the world. It would help to know more. Incidentially, while working in Hong Kong a potential British home country contractor came in to look at a certain project and starting talking about potential occasional Sunday shut downs. Was told no, absolutely not, it is our busiest day. He looked at us like we had just grown horns or a third eye on our heads. They had no comprehension of the population density.
 
George Harris said:
Jis: Nailed it. Wow! 28 feet high overhead. There is surprisingly little knowledge of the Indian Railway system in the rest of the world, despite it being, I suspect by far, the highest volume railway system in the world. It would help to know more. Incidentially, while working in Hong Kong a potential British home country contractor came in to look at a certain project and starting talking about potential occasional Sunday shut downs. Was told no, absolutely not, it is our busiest day. He looked at us like we had just grown horns or a third eye on our heads. They had no comprehension of the population density.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Sunday shutdown is unthinkable. Usually work windows are 2am to 4am or such.

But, when they replaced the Route Relay Interlocking by Electronic Interlocking at Howrah Station (India's busiest station in terms of daily passenger counts, on an average about 1 million per day) they did take the whole thing down for one day in the lowest traffic time of the year, and still it was chaos. They diverted a whole bunch of trains to alternate terminal, and short stopped many trains all over the network leading into Howrah and provided bus service from those points. But still, it was one royal mess. I don;t think they will ever do it again. Similar thing was done in Mumbai when they cut over the electrification from 3kV DC to 25kV AC, for the final cut over at CSMT (former Victoria Terminus and Mumbai Central to Churchgate.

BTW, in the article you can see a high reach pantograph on the top of the front electric loco ahead of the EMD unit. That one looks like an Indian manufactured (CLW) WAG-5. It is seen fully deployed. Concern has been raised here about effect of too much swaying. In general track quality in India has improved by leaps and bounds over the decades and at present I am not aware of any serious mainline track that is maintained so poorly as to cause a sway that will take the contact wire off the collection bar on one of those puppies. Actually fouled catenary is so rare that one does not hear of it much.
 
jis said:
BTW, in the article you can see a high reach pantograph on the top of the front electric loco ahead of the EMD unit. That one looks like an Indian manufactured (CLW) WAG-5. It is seen fully deployed. Concern has been raised here about effect of too much swaying. In general track quality in India has improved by leaps and bounds over the decades and at present I am not aware of any serious mainline track that is maintained so poorly as to cause a sway that will take the contact wire off the collection bar on one of those puppies. Actually fouled catenary is so rare that one does not hear of it much.
Click to expand...
In many things in Railway Engineering I see tendencies to simplify the complex, but issues of wire height is one where there tends to be complicate the simple. All you have to do is this: Determine the maximum sway you can have, take that angle multiply by height of wire, and that gives you the width of path the bar will have to deal with in relation to centerline of track. Now add potential offsets between wire position and centerline of track, add a safety factor based on either angle or simple length, and bingo! you now have the length needed for the wiping bar, or width of potential contact zone, whichever way you want to call it. Add on normal end of bar details. Done, build it.
 
George Harris said:
In many things in Railway Engineering I see tendencies to simplify the complex, but issues of wire height is one where there tends to be complicate the simple. All you have to do is this: Determine the maximum sway you can have, take that angle multiply by height of wire, and that gives you the width of path the bar will have to deal with in relation to centerline of track. Now add potential offsets between wire position and centerline of track, add a safety factor based on either angle or simple length, and bingo! you now have the length needed for the wiping bar, or width of potential contact zone, whichever way you want to call it. Add on normal end of bar details. Done, build it.
Click to expand...
In principle , yes , obviously.

In practice a wider contact surface on the pan means the high voltage gets closer to other things and there is a risk of arcing. The clearance plate used on many railroads is curved or at least tapered at the top for the simple reason that many bridges and tunnels are curved or arched. So a wide pan may restrict your ability to use the available height fully. This is the reason for example that many European countries need different pantographs . For example thru trains between Switzerland and Germany switch to a different pantograph even though the voltage and frequency are the same.

I was once on a German train (this must have been back in the early 1990s) where the pantograph somehow managed to swipe to the side of the catenary . From memory this was a very hot summer day so maybe the tensioning of the OHL may have been out of spec . The first thing i saw was a length of cable with insulators attached fly past the window . The train went into emergency brake and the conductor frantically ran up and down the train shouting to people to not open windows or attempt to leave the train. We waited for the best part of an hour until another train with a Diesel engine arrived and was positioned on the other track . We then transferred into this using walkways that were placed between the doors . As this train pulled away I looked back and saw the front of the broken down train was encased in a veritable spaghetti of cable .
 
Last edited:
George Harris said:
Many of these that are even knowledgeable in these systems also feel that wire to clear double stacks is impractical if not downright impossible..
Click to expand...
Probably because there's no point in wire that can clear double stacks when there isn't the structure clearance for double stacks...
 
eldomtom2 said:
Probably because there's no point in wire that can clear double stacks when there isn't the structure clearance for double stacks...
Click to expand...
That would be quite in line with the analogous attitude about passenger rail service as in there is no need to think about such when there is no track in place. Never risk having to spend a penny on any infrastructure construction or modification if you can help it 😁 Of course clearances have to be created like have been done for double stacks, if there is need to run them. And if not still given the ancient infrastructure with limited clearance one may need to create additional clearance for catenary even atop Plate A or smaller! Ask the Brits!
 
Last edited:
eldomtom2 said:
Probably because there's no point in wire that can clear double stacks when there isn't the structure clearance for double stacks...
Click to expand...
In other words, justify a very short sighted act by the fact that someone built something in the past without looking toward future possibilities. Not good thinking.

Makes me think of the contrast between, when, with cash assist from the state of Pennsylvania, clearances were enlarged on the old Pennsylvania Railroad mainline in the 1980's so double stacks could access the port areas at Philadelphia. It was done to just barely sufficient. It was noted in the discussion that the clearances in these tunnels had been improved two or three times previously. Contrast this when the tunnels on the CNO&TP and some other Southern Railway lines were enlarged in the 1960's the crown was set at 30 feet above top of rail, and the comment made that we want to do this once and never have to do it again no matter what the future is likely to hold. If it were ever decided to electrify the old Pennsy main line some clearance work would AGAIN be required. This is called not learning from history. For the ex-Southern Railway tunnels, no problem. Just get out there and string wire.
 
So what are the clearances for various tunnels? Chunnel, Gottard, other new tunnels in western Europe? Loco and EMU cars do need limited sway. But that just means that track will need surfacing machine passes more often. It would be interesting how much sway on the Capitol corridor since surfacing is done more often.

The mention of shorter spacing of support poles in India brings up the question what is their straightway spacing now? Curves of course are closer. Another question is how much the wire strays from center line at each support?

What is the planned height for the Hudson river Gateway tunnels?
 
Last edited:
Midnight trains found that Belgium loading gauge has the closest clearances for pantographs. The Belgium width of pantographs are so short that they will not work on some countries catenary. Conversely many pantographs are too wide to operate in Belgium.
 
west point said:
Midnight trains found that Belgium loading gauge has the closest clearances for pantographs. The Belgium width of pantographs are so short that they will not work on some countries catenary. Conversely many pantographs are too wide to operate in Belgium.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Belgium has a problem they need to fix. Look at some pictures where clearances have been made to just barely clear double stacks and you will see notches in overhead arch structures, including tunnels. If pantograph width is a problem something on that order should fix it. They should have at it. Maybe my mind is just warped because 55 years ago when I first began to work for a railroad company, one of the jobs of the Assistant Engineer's office was to check clearances in all doubtful locations and get the management to start on what to do where to improve clearances. At that time the target vehicles to clear were the tri-level auto carriers. There were also some lines where piggyback was even an issue, and one branch where it was flagged in the operating timetable that it would not clear Plate C.
 
Since Belgium uses 3KV DC on its conventional lines which is different from its neighboring countries (Netherlands is 1500V DC, Germany 15KV 16.7Hz AC, France 25Kv AC) there wouldn't be overlap of operation, except for multi voltage locomotives which are probably equipped with different pantographs to deal with this. I imagine any of the high speed lines with 25KV AC and through running with other European countries would have the necessary clearances.
 
west point said:
So what are the clearances for various tunnels? Chunnel, Gottard, other new tunnels in western Europe? Loco and EMU cars do need limited sway. But that just means that track will need surfacing machine passes more often. It would be interesting how much sway on the Capitol corridor since surfacing is done more often.

The mention of shorter spacing of support poles in India brings up the question what is their straightway spacing now? Curves of course are closer. Another question is how much the wire strays from center line at each support?

What is the planned height for the Hudson river Gateway tunnels?
Click to expand...
I did not see an exact diagram, but the current document store on the project has an appendix from 2017 stating this (and much more on the subject):
The tunnel diameter proposed for the Project is not large enough to accommodate freight trains:
- The proposed new passenger rail tunnel would have an inside diameter of approximately 25 feet and an outer diameter of approximately 28 feet to provide appropriate clearances for Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT passenger trains and enough space for bench walls (in which certain utilities are located), overhead contact system (to provide electric power to the trains), and emergency evacuation paths.
- However, to accommodate freight trains, the tunnel would have to be larger in diameter. To accommodate freight trains with double-stacked containers, which are typical on the nation’s freight system today, the tunnel’s interior diameter would have to be increased to approximately 30 feet, for a total tunnel diameter of approximately 33 feet.
Click to expand...
Then it goes on the discuss the obstacles to freight trains on the corridors leading into and out of the tunnels.

Full documents here: Hudson Tunnel Project FEIS
 
George Harris said:
In other words, justify a very short sighted act by the fact that someone built something in the past without looking toward future possibilities. Not good thinking.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of the works required to allow double stacks on European lines.
 
eldomtom2 said:
I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of the works required to allow double stacks on European lines.
Click to expand...
Actually, i think I do, at least in part. You don't try to do it all at once. Find the routes that have the best benefit/cost ratio and start there, even if it is only a couple hundred km. Who knows? With your postage stamp size countries, maybe even shorter. At the same time, start looking at lengthening sidings on single track likes so that you can increase train length, and thereby reduce the number of trains. When you start seeing the reduction of over the road trucks it will increase enthusiasm for the concept.
 
George Harris said:
Actually, i think I do, at least in part. You don't try to do it all at once. Find the routes that have the best benefit/cost ratio and start there, even if it is only a couple hundred km. Who knows? With your postage stamp size countries, maybe even shorter. At the same time, start looking at lengthening sidings on single track likes so that you can increase train length, and thereby reduce the number of trains. When you start seeing the reduction of over the road trucks it will increase enthusiasm for the concept.
Click to expand...
Indians are carrying out a double stack plan based on an overall traffic flow analysis that would be more or less impossible to do in the US due to the fragmented nature of the rail network. So in general in the US more trackage overall has to be enabled in order to carry such in an unpredictable traffic flow situation presented by the constantly changing nature of track ownership etc..

In India 92% of all routes are currently electrified. Double stacks cannot be operated on the general legacy network since they were not originally built or electrified with such clearance. They can only be operated in specific upgraded sections and mostly on completely new network called the DFC (Dedicated Freight Corridors), that too not all of them, but only a designated subset of them. It is based on global traffic flow planning connecting external access ports with inland ports.

There is neither a commercial case nor a plan to convert everything to be able to carry Double Stack, as in balance, that is not considered to be a prudent investment. In the future segments can be converted as needed, but most such would be on the DFCs and not the legacy network. One thing different between Indians and the US or Europe is that Indians seem not to shy away from making investments to lay out a thousand km long new route on new RoW, so it is likely that most double stack capable routes will be new routes not converted classic routes which are more than saturated already with passenger traffic.
 
If you ask me, Amtrak missed a large opportunity to have a long electrified line when the Milwaukee Road line to Seattle went bankrupt and was abandoned.
Milwaukee Road's electrification crossed five mountain ranges covering 656 route miles of their main line in two separate divisions: 440 miles between Harlowton, Mont., and Avery, Ida., 216 miles between Othello, Wash., Seattle and Tacoma. They even had their own power stations. No railroad company picked up the route and it probably could have been picked up on the cheap. Much of the ROW is still there but not much else.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top