In the first generation early data center where I work now, I have seen several very complex and less than robust systems Rube Goldberg would have been proud of get installed at great expense to achieve a marginal savings in power through efficiency. The trade offs have been becoming dependent on outside vendors to operate the systems through network / internet connections (we actually have to have people who work for another company in another region turn lights on and off) and for maintaining them, actual increased downtime and cost of maintenance, extremely disruptive installations........ of course the tax ramifications might make things not related to real world seem different to bean counters, but:

I just have to wonder if there may be some similar idea afoot here - chasing marginal efficiency improvements by taking advantage of tax writeoffs that will in turn rebuild something robust (albeit marginally less efficient) into something that will be less reliable and robust and shorter lived.

Just because something can be done technologically doesn't mean it should be done. Light switches last for years and we can change them in 5 minutes for a $4 identical part, and everybody knows how to use them. There's a lot of situations where the analog world, like rotary converters that don't care what the frequency is exactly, they will produce it as loads shift within tolerance for decades, and traction motors that don't care what the voltage is within reason and can take a tolerable variation in frequency at the same time.

I am not an EE. My BSE is Civil. Having said that, and that I will welcome a clarification from Brother Moxley or one of the EEs on the board – The basic rule of thumb is that the further you go from the source of the power the greater the voltage drop. A properly designed and maintained transmission system will minimize the loss. An 18% drop between Cos Cob and New Rochelle strikes me as being unacceptably high as does a power drop which is so high that you cannot operate an oil-fired steam generator. That does not sound like such a perfect system.

The ammeter on a locomotive not only measures amps, not volts, but generally measures what the traction motors are drawing rather than what is coming in through the roof.

The reasons for how we got there are legion. As a beginning I suggest reading To Hell in a Day Coach, The Wreck of the Penn Central, The Men who Loved Trains, and everything ever written by George Hilton (including about baseball) and John Kneiling (Trains Magazine's Professional Iconoclast) for an understanding of how screwed up things were.

There is a normal human tendency to look back at the 'Good Old Days” as being better. This is especially true if you were not there. To those of us who were there, believe me things are much better know and it is not a function of 60 cycle v 25 cycle but one of planning and management. Sure there are screw ups and problems. The systems are designed, operated and maintained by humans. There are planning decisions which I would heartily disagree with but at least somebody is thinking ahead rather than waiting for a total collapse. Unfortunately it is politics and economics which drives the decisions so unless we can go into sandbox mode most decisions will be based on some form of highest return per dollar coupled with the perception as held by whoever is in charge of overall public good and public necessity rather than the seemingly simple decision taken in a vacuum of which system is 'best'.

The EL-C/EP4/E33s are an interesting sidenote in the history of the NEC electrification. In terms of the development of the system they are not terribly significant.

During the 1920s the Virginian Ry had electrified 135 miles or so with an 11kv/25cycle system specifically to deal with severe grades. The Norfolk and Western had also electrified a shorter nearby segment of their line to deal with the Elkhorn Tunnel. The two operations were connected electrically but, being at the time competing railroads, they were not connected operationally. The N&W retired its electrification in 1950 after it bypassed the tunnel. The Virginian dieselized in the mid-fifties but retained its electric zone. The original VGN electrics were class EL-3A triple unit boxcabs. In 1948 they acquired the EL-2Bs, a pair of ginormous twin unit motor-generator locomotives. When the Virginian dieselized they made the decision to retain the electric zone but as the EL-3As were life expired they were retired and replace with the 12 EL-Cs. Note that these units are actually slightly younger than the the New Haven's EP5s.

In 1959 the Norfolk and Western absorbed the Virginian and began consolidating operations in the Virginia coalfields. This resulted in a pair of one-way main lines and having an isolated electric section which was only used in one direction simply did not work economically. It was finally shut down in 1962. The N&W had scrapped the EL-2Bs and since the EL-Cs were a far newer technology they were set aside in the hopes of selling them. One was converted to a slug. The Pennsylvania did not want them as there were only 12 and the PRR was well on the way to replacing (finally) the remaining P-5s with the E-44s.

Up in New Haven there was a problem. (Actually there were plenty of problems but I'm only going to deal with one here.) Not only was the electrical system wearing out due to to lack of money for maintenance but the freight diesel fleet was also getting older and suffering from the same lack of maintenance (due to lack of money) as everything else. The trustee needed freight horsepower. A significant amount of freight traffic still came across New York Harbour by barge and was delivered to the New Haven at Bay Ridge in Brooklyn. The PRR catenary on the Bay Ridge branch was still intact as the Long Island (still a PRR subsidiary) had a small fleet of B-1 Rats for freight on the branch.

The trustee was given a very good price on the EL-Cs. He could not have acquired equivalent diesel horsepower, new or used, at anywhere near as good a price. The result was that all twelve units (including the slug) were purchased and the eleven functional units were repainted and assigned to Bay Ridge – Cedar Hill service. This released diesels for service elsewhere. New electric freight motors were nothing more than a stopgap. If the New Haven had been in a better financial position they would never have been acquired. As it happened the Penn Central merger and the inclusion of the New Haven created new traffic patterns. Former PRR traffic to New England was routed to the Boston and Albany rather than maintain the car floats or shorthaul themselves by routing over the Lehigh and Hudson River. Most New Haven traffic from other railroads to the south was still routed over the Poughkeepsie Bridge. When the bridge disappeared in a cloud of smoke all of the remaining traffic moved to the B&A and started the dominoes falling to Conrail. This completely eliminated through freight on the mainline below Cedar Hill and with it any use for electric freight motors. Since they were no longer needed on the New Haven the now redesignated E-33s were moved to the former PRR.

There is no reason generally to expand the 25cycle systems or for that matter any fixed electrical system outside of certain situations where there is a health and safety consideration (that was the reason for the original New York Central electrification into Grand Central) or where there is a traffic density so high that it justifies the cost of the fixed infrastructure over the cost of lugging your powerplant with you (which is what modern diesels do). Think about the evolution of the trolley car or light rail vehicle or whatever you want to call it. It went from being horse drawn, to being pulled by a rope coming from a central power plant, to having electrons sent out over another rope to power the motors. Now they have small gensets, rechargeable batteries, capacitors and even roof mounted solar cells. A new system does not necessarily need to even consider a 600v overhead wire.

And yes, we do know how to fix the older things and keep them running but somebody has to provide the money.

GME

Just to try to make sure I am recalling correctly:

1) PRR, NYC, and NYNH&H had their own private passenger service prior to about 1965.

2) By Feb 1, 1969, Penn Central (PRR & NYC) came into being with the passenger services being PCs.

3) I think NYNH&H became part of PC about 1971. I am unsure on this.

4) Amtrack took over INTERCITY passenger travel May 1, 1971. The commuter services of PC was still PC.

5) As time went on and the commuter services were dragging down PC, several agencies took over the commuter rail (SEPTA, ConnDOT, etc). The right of way and the overhead were still PC.

6) When Congress stepped in to "save" PC, the non-rail business stayed with Penn Central. Conral aquired the railroads of many bankrupt NE railroads. The ex-PRR Broadway from Harrisburg to NY City to DC and all the overhead was not transfered to CR. Amtrak received the Northeast Corridor and the overhead.

7) The CR creation omitting the NEC and overhead was what lead to the downfall of the ex-PRR broadway moving freight by electricity. I think it lasted until 1982 due to the issue of an equipment trust on the E44s.

Congress and its advisors did not have the understanding of the cost savings of moving freight (electric or not) via the "Low Garde", Atglenn(?), and the Trenton Cut-off.

CR moved it's operation to the ex-Reading east of Harrisburg and the Southern Railway's interchange was moved from DC to Haggerstown(?).

PRR spent lots of money so save costs on the freight line east of Enola Yards.

I do not recall when the last of the ex-PRR passenger service was transfered to local polities but it was well past Amtrak in 1971. I wonder what might have happened if two tracks were left with CR and two were given to Amtrak? accounting nightmare but maybe a shared assetts format might have worked.

I am glad I saw the PC in 1969 when I stood at the 3-track grade crossing in Wormleysburg, PA and saw three electric powered freights pass. It was less than 60 seconds with my Super 8 movie camera to catch all three and I think all three were in the frame for an instance. BIG TIME electrified railroading at its finest.

DOug vV

Meanwhile in the Alps of Austria there is one other system still using 25 Hz power much to my own enjoyment, the Mariazell Railway. While there are no GG1s or EP-5s to be found there is a rare collection of early 20th century electrics dating back to the 20s and 30s. The transmission is so unique compared to the rest of Europe that apparently not one but two entirely different power stations had to constructed in its place to supply new demands. The catenary is electrified at 6500 volts AC and has been in continuous operation since 1911 (san ww2). Mariazell has become such a popular attraction in the nation that the company has even supplied new EMUs and locomotives alike running solely on 25Hz power. It's truly a marvel within the eyes of today's railroads and proves not only the fact that 25Hz power can be just as efficient on par with other frequencies but can be managed both in a straightforward and cost saving manner. Most likely we can learn a good thing or two from the Austrians,

Cameron

Are you sure this is a 25 cycle operation? I believed this part of the world ran on 16 2/3 cycles per second.

Doug,
For your timeline:

The Penn Central Merger was effective February 1st, 1968.
The railroad assets of the New Haven (not the corporation) were acquired by order of the ICC on December 31st.
The Penn Central bankruptcy was filed June 21st, 1970.
Amtrak took over intercity passenger service on May 1st, 1971.
Penn Central continued operating commuter trains (and for a short time an orphan RPO) until Conrail.

New Haven Passenger Service Pre-Amtrak divides into two major categories.

Commuter zones:

1. New York (GCT) => Stamford => Bridgeport => New Haven with branches to New Canaan, Danbury and Waterbury.

2. New Haven => New London

3. Boston => Providence with branches to Blackstone, Dedham, West Medway, Needham Heights, and Stoughton.

Long Distance (excluding the bus replacements and listed connections) Most long distance trains did not run through New York and terminated at GCT. the majority but not all of the through trains were Boston

1. New York => New Haven => Providence => Boston

2. New York => New Haven => Providence => Woods Hole

3. New York => New Haven => New London => Worcester

4. New York => New Haven => Hartford => Springfield [=> Montreal]

5. New York => Norwalk => Danbury => Pittsfield

Penn Central eliminated as much as they possibly could prior to Amtrak. Post Amtrak Penn continued to operate the remaining commuter service (on its entire system, and believe me they tried to get out of as much of it as they could) until either Conrail or direct takeover by a public agency. Amtrak eliminated the remaining long distance routes on the New Haven except for Boston, a New Haven => Springfield shuttle and the odd Montreal train. All of the Boston trains were eventually moved into Penn Station and converted to through trains

Cameron,

Mariazell is well worth the visit but it is such a non-standard operation that I would not argue that it proves that 25 cycle is the best possible system for all applications. Were it built new today I do not believe 25 cycle overhead would even be considered in light of the simpler, less obtrusive electric propulsion systems now available.

GME

Hi,

Thanks for the corrections.

I know about what happened but I am never sure I get the details correct.

Doug vV

At the risk of being pedantic, and perhaps wrong: I think he was commenting that it was strange that Mariazell used, and then 'stuck to', 25Hz power when everything around it, in 'that part of the world' LATER started using 16 2/3Hz (a consequence of using a round number of rpm on the power alternator, I think) as the nominal frequency.

The available sources don't note this, but while no one in Europe was yet using AC at more than 'toy' scale, Westinghouse was well into the practical design of large-scale high-kV single-phase electrification, and I would have to think this was at least a comparable precedent, in literature perhaps, guiding a development between 1907 and 1911. Now, if you look at contemporary electrification development, an 'alternative' spec for 15Hz (as on that little system in California) was developed, which promised advantages for a number of technical parameters. Supposedly the existence of 25Hz as a commercial/industrial standard was well enough established (including in Nee Haven shops at the time) to make its adoption preferable ... perhaps with the idea of sourcing/sinking power during the exigencies of high peaking loads with the 'industrial' equivalent of a grid.

(At least some of the contemporary electrification was three-phase high-voltage AC, where I think the lower line frequency 'works' much better in terms of motor poles vs. most efficient 'synchronous' speeds for the required large motor sizes). On the other hand, I do believe that the greater noted electrical efficiencies for that general frequency range were the principal reason why the low frequency in this range became so widely adopted, subsequently.

I'd also expect there to be a 'sticking point' between hydropower at 16-2/3 and 'later' grid-related development at 50Hz, keeping any railroad traction development of an intermediate frequency 'waiting' until a need, and a budget, for widespread electrification at 50Hz became desirable. (At which point 6kV was small potatoes indeed!)

Going back to the aforementioned war of the currents and frequencies, one has to remember that the initial use of electricity was for lighting, and arc lights were around long before Edison perfected the incandescent lamp. My library is not nearby, but I remember reading that DC was preferred for arc lights. But then electric motors came along, and the earliest ones were either DC or low frequency AC. The low frequency AC was also usable on arc lamps, to some degree, but an AC incandescent lamp would have a noticeable flicker running on 25 cycle, so as motors improved, the frequency got raised to today's current (bad pun-) 60 cycles. That frequency could accommodate arc lamps, incandescent lamps and later (and smaller) motors.

Again, this is from memory, but that should provide a capsule history. Now, when the New Haven electrified in 1907 they took a multi-million dollar gamble on what was the state of the art system at the time, at least for larger motors. the other requirement was the need for the same motors to operate on 650 VDC to get into Grand Central.

And yes. Virginia, a GG-1 could run on 600 VDC with some modifications, after all, it is a streamlined copy of the NH EP-3, less third rail shoes, DC switchgear, resistors, compressor and a few other things. The motors themselves would be OK, though- And just think, the little old New Haven actually set some of the engineering standards for 'The Standard Railroad of the World'.

The last heavy industrial use of 25 cycle AC around my neck of the woods was the Bethlehem Steel plant over in Pennsylvania. They used 25 cycle on some of the huge (5000 HP?) motors in the rolling mills. That plant has ben gone for many years now.

Now, how about that 400 cycle, used in aircraft and amplidyne excitation; let's not go there, OK?

Robert, you are not too clear on the dates but from 1903 onwards an electrified railway line was constructed between Rotterdam and the Hague in the Netherlands with 10kV and 16 2/3 Hz. Operation began in 1908.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

Traveling through Sunnyside two weeks back on the LIRR I saw new catenary structures erected around Harold and the Hell Gate interlocking. Is this the result of East Access or simply part of Amtrak's NEC renewal program. Being honest I will say they're rather spot on and look very much like the originals to date.

Cameron

Cameron, that's the Congestion Relief project, isn't it?

http://web.mta.info/capital/harold_alt.html

I am presuming that they'll put constant-tension in for the new construction, but I don't know for sure (and would like to!)

Thanks, Jos.

Cameron,
Since this horse is not yet too dead to beat I direct your attention the Summer edition of Classic Trains. In addition to the write up on Penn Central motive power which should clarify the reasoning behind some of the seemingly illogical decisions, on the bottom of Page 9 there is a first person account of commuting to Connecticut on the New Haven during the Penn Central / Conrail interregnium. It really does not sound too terribly efficient or flawless.
GME