@the25hurts.bsky.social
Apologies for jumping on late here, but USDOT published a report which outlined this at about the time you posted it. railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/cos...
The nice thing about 50kV is that it improves the economics of extending the wire beyond the LA basin. Catenary to SLC or Belen fits freight RR ops
The nice thing about 50kV is that it improves the economics of extending the wire beyond the LA basin. Catenary to SLC or Belen fits freight RR ops
December 3, 2025 at 1:09 AM
Apologies for jumping on late here, but USDOT published a report which outlined this at about the time you posted it. railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/cos...
The nice thing about 50kV is that it improves the economics of extending the wire beyond the LA basin. Catenary to SLC or Belen fits freight RR ops
The nice thing about 50kV is that it improves the economics of extending the wire beyond the LA basin. Catenary to SLC or Belen fits freight RR ops
The big problems with a TMSR like the LFTR are the moderator, which must be replaced periodically; the reprocessing, which can isolate nearly pure weapons grade U233; and lithium enrichment, which is its own proliferation nightmare. MCFRs downblend WGPu and SNF as their first step in fuel creation.
December 2, 2025 at 11:31 PM
The big problems with a TMSR like the LFTR are the moderator, which must be replaced periodically; the reprocessing, which can isolate nearly pure weapons grade U233; and lithium enrichment, which is its own proliferation nightmare. MCFRs downblend WGPu and SNF as their first step in fuel creation.
The natural question is how efficiency is measured. A T-MSR may have a smaller fissile inventory and be more space efficient, but it isn't going to be burning the transuranics. That's the mistake which brought down TransAtomic with their Waste Annihilating MSR. Thermal neutrons cannot fission U238
December 2, 2025 at 11:29 PM
The natural question is how efficiency is measured. A T-MSR may have a smaller fissile inventory and be more space efficient, but it isn't going to be burning the transuranics. That's the mistake which brought down TransAtomic with their Waste Annihilating MSR. Thermal neutrons cannot fission U238
I'm afraid the fission cross-section does not really have a bearing on whether materials are burned up. Uranium-238 and Thorium are fertile with thermal neutrons, but fission with fast neutrons. DU is almost all U238 and SNF is like 95% U238. Fast fission neutron economy can overcome poisons.
December 2, 2025 at 4:30 AM
I'm afraid the fission cross-section does not really have a bearing on whether materials are burned up. Uranium-238 and Thorium are fertile with thermal neutrons, but fission with fast neutrons. DU is almost all U238 and SNF is like 95% U238. Fast fission neutron economy can overcome poisons.
Nixon's affinity was for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder reactor which uses solid fuel in a molten sodium coolant. The Molten Chloride Reactor is another Molten Salt Reactor like the LFTR. The benefits of thorium power are largely attributable to the MSR, and the MCFR eliminates many LFTR problems.
December 2, 2025 at 4:22 AM
Nixon's affinity was for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder reactor which uses solid fuel in a molten sodium coolant. The Molten Chloride Reactor is another Molten Salt Reactor like the LFTR. The benefits of thorium power are largely attributable to the MSR, and the MCFR eliminates many LFTR problems.
That makes perfect sense. Once upon a time I would have been against anything but full electrification, but today, lets get what we can. My only concern is wiring up Union Station and the clearances involved there. I'd hate to make a future HST require batteries so it could creep into the platforms.
December 1, 2025 at 11:29 PM
That makes perfect sense. Once upon a time I would have been against anything but full electrification, but today, lets get what we can. My only concern is wiring up Union Station and the clearances involved there. I'd hate to make a future HST require batteries so it could creep into the platforms.
Are costs paid to design and build for the individual sections available? I find a few summary figures but it looks like design was procured as one contract by La Caisse. It should be cheaper as engineering is a percentage of the overall price and avoiding a 4 billion dollar tunnel drives that down
December 1, 2025 at 11:27 PM
Are costs paid to design and build for the individual sections available? I find a few summary figures but it looks like design was procured as one contract by La Caisse. It should be cheaper as engineering is a percentage of the overall price and avoiding a 4 billion dollar tunnel drives that down
That's all true, but to a certain extent does it matter? If we're using WGPu, DU, and SNF then we're getting paid to burn up the worst trash made. Having more fissile material in the core seems to be a feature not a bug, and the square-cube law means less structure must be built per kWh generated.
December 1, 2025 at 11:19 PM
That's all true, but to a certain extent does it matter? If we're using WGPu, DU, and SNF then we're getting paid to burn up the worst trash made. Having more fissile material in the core seems to be a feature not a bug, and the square-cube law means less structure must be built per kWh generated.
Dumb question, but have you given thought to the technical aspects of this system? Presumably the Metra Electric's 1.5kVDC would remain on the ME, and the new lines would instead use industry standard 25kVAC. It isn't a big deal, as RATP and SNCF manage it, I just wondered if you had thoughts.
December 1, 2025 at 8:26 AM
Dumb question, but have you given thought to the technical aspects of this system? Presumably the Metra Electric's 1.5kVDC would remain on the ME, and the new lines would instead use industry standard 25kVAC. It isn't a big deal, as RATP and SNCF manage it, I just wondered if you had thoughts.
Molten Chloride Fast Reactor is decent. No need to do online fuel reprocessing, no graphite moderator in the core, and no lithium enrichment. For that you get a reactor which can be fuel agnostic, running on WGPu, DU, SNF and Thorium. And tests are being run now: www.terrapower.com/future/
Our Commitment to a More Sustainable Future
Take a look at TerraPower's ongoing research and development projects that are set to transform the future of nuclear solutions.
www.terrapower.com
December 1, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Molten Chloride Fast Reactor is decent. No need to do online fuel reprocessing, no graphite moderator in the core, and no lithium enrichment. For that you get a reactor which can be fuel agnostic, running on WGPu, DU, SNF and Thorium. And tests are being run now: www.terrapower.com/future/
Ugh, we've finally gotten the FRA to back off on tank-like rolling stock, we've proven higher frequency commuter works with Caltrain electrification, and now we're going to chase the illusory savings of REM's extant ROW and destroy commuter rail infrastructure like it's the 60s again?
December 1, 2025 at 7:47 AM
Ugh, we've finally gotten the FRA to back off on tank-like rolling stock, we've proven higher frequency commuter works with Caltrain electrification, and now we're going to chase the illusory savings of REM's extant ROW and destroy commuter rail infrastructure like it's the 60s again?
Clearly the solution is shoulder bus stops on 290 and ramps down to a pedestrian path along the south side of the UP tracks to Berkley station! Looks like it'd be about a quarter mile or so.
November 27, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Clearly the solution is shoulder bus stops on 290 and ramps down to a pedestrian path along the south side of the UP tracks to Berkley station! Looks like it'd be about a quarter mile or so.
I-5's ROW cannot necessarily accommodate a HSL along its entire length. Most places it cannot are at interchanges, which have had retail build-up around them. Constructing along I-5 means taking some of the most valuable land along I-5, defeating the purpose of using I-5 to begin with.
November 25, 2025 at 9:34 PM
I-5's ROW cannot necessarily accommodate a HSL along its entire length. Most places it cannot are at interchanges, which have had retail build-up around them. Constructing along I-5 means taking some of the most valuable land along I-5, defeating the purpose of using I-5 to begin with.
SNCF was rejected by CHSRA because they proposed an DBOM contract given to a single consortium with cost plus contracts on both the construction and operation phases. This was forbidden by AB3034 and suggested against by ARRA. SNCF was looking for a handout, and CHSRA sent them packing.
November 25, 2025 at 9:29 PM
SNCF was rejected by CHSRA because they proposed an DBOM contract given to a single consortium with cost plus contracts on both the construction and operation phases. This was forbidden by AB3034 and suggested against by ARRA. SNCF was looking for a handout, and CHSRA sent them packing.
AB3034 specifies 2 hour 40 minute LA to SF travel time. It also indicates Fresno and Bakersfield will be included along the route. This is where any I-5 alignment falls apart as the branches to serve Central Valley population centers add 100 miles to the route.
www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bi...
www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bi...
AB 3034 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
www.leginfo.ca.gov
November 25, 2025 at 9:27 PM
AB3034 specifies 2 hour 40 minute LA to SF travel time. It also indicates Fresno and Bakersfield will be included along the route. This is where any I-5 alignment falls apart as the branches to serve Central Valley population centers add 100 miles to the route.
www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bi...
www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bi...
Did you ever find further evidence? Because SNCF America's presentation from 2009 calls for cost-plus design-build and operations/maintenance contracts, and penalties to the CHSRA if the D&B consortium was not chosen for the O&M contracts. AB3034 forbid this. drive.google.com/file/d/1Tt8t...
SNCF Presentation.pdf
drive.google.com
November 25, 2025 at 9:09 PM
Did you ever find further evidence? Because SNCF America's presentation from 2009 calls for cost-plus design-build and operations/maintenance contracts, and penalties to the CHSRA if the D&B consortium was not chosen for the O&M contracts. AB3034 forbid this. drive.google.com/file/d/1Tt8t...
I'm pinning my hopes on California. They need an upgrade of their transmission grid, and AB2503 just exempted electric rail projects from CEQA. IMHO if the railroads were smart they'd realize the untapped resource sitting over their heads. The utilities should realize the route to sidestep regs.
November 25, 2025 at 8:12 PM
I'm pinning my hopes on California. They need an upgrade of their transmission grid, and AB2503 just exempted electric rail projects from CEQA. IMHO if the railroads were smart they'd realize the untapped resource sitting over their heads. The utilities should realize the route to sidestep regs.
They could try, but if the problem SEPTA seeks to resolve with the purchase is the Silverliner IV's tendency toward self-immolation then buying EMUs which cannot accept the power from SEPTA's wires without (probably) catching fire would seem to be inefficacious.
November 25, 2025 at 7:13 PM
They could try, but if the problem SEPTA seeks to resolve with the purchase is the Silverliner IV's tendency toward self-immolation then buying EMUs which cannot accept the power from SEPTA's wires without (probably) catching fire would seem to be inefficacious.
In a timeline where capital investments in transit are sane and logical? Sure. In this reality where UP's president is directing the president which US cities need US troops and freight railroads fixated on self-destruction can extort upwards of $2 billion for 110mph operation, probably not.
November 25, 2025 at 7:07 PM
In a timeline where capital investments in transit are sane and logical? Sure. In this reality where UP's president is directing the president which US cities need US troops and freight railroads fixated on self-destruction can extort upwards of $2 billion for 110mph operation, probably not.
I suspect we're all too used to dealing with government reports which clearly lay out the alternatives. There may be fingers on the scale, but at least the numbers are there. A company, especially a freight railroad hell bent on self-destructive behavior, has no such requirement for transparency.
November 25, 2025 at 6:54 PM
I suspect we're all too used to dealing with government reports which clearly lay out the alternatives. There may be fingers on the scale, but at least the numbers are there. A company, especially a freight railroad hell bent on self-destructive behavior, has no such requirement for transparency.
The advantage of electrification is as was evaluated by BNSF: uniform operation across all traffic. Without the cost of diesel fuel they can throw 30,000hp+ at a lowly manifest freight and let it operate over the railroad no different than a hot shot. As a result sidings aren't needed for overtakes.
November 25, 2025 at 6:44 PM
The advantage of electrification is as was evaluated by BNSF: uniform operation across all traffic. Without the cost of diesel fuel they can throw 30,000hp+ at a lowly manifest freight and let it operate over the railroad no different than a hot shot. As a result sidings aren't needed for overtakes.
Unfortunately a direct operational cost comparison cannot be drawn from the 10kft view of BNSF's analysis because as a company discussing their strategies with investors they integrated the repayment on capital expenditure into that fuel price comparison. Lower the capital cost and wire could work.
November 25, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Unfortunately a direct operational cost comparison cannot be drawn from the 10kft view of BNSF's analysis because as a company discussing their strategies with investors they integrated the repayment on capital expenditure into that fuel price comparison. Lower the capital cost and wire could work.
If I'm thinking of the same study, BNSF was looking at electrification in the early 2000s, which entailed extensive reconstruction of bridges and tunnels for wire to clear plate H equipment. Today more flexible motive power provides a means to avoid such major capital expenditures or special work.
November 25, 2025 at 8:20 AM
If I'm thinking of the same study, BNSF was looking at electrification in the early 2000s, which entailed extensive reconstruction of bridges and tunnels for wire to clear plate H equipment. Today more flexible motive power provides a means to avoid such major capital expenditures or special work.
The FRA appears to have agreed in their "Cost and Benefit Risk Framework for Modern Railway Electrification Options" published in January of this year. They lay out both dual mode conversions and Electric Tender options for freight electrification: railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/cos...
November 25, 2025 at 7:51 AM
The FRA appears to have agreed in their "Cost and Benefit Risk Framework for Modern Railway Electrification Options" published in January of this year. They lay out both dual mode conversions and Electric Tender options for freight electrification: railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/cos...