General Discussion

Electrification is only expensive because of the cost structure we measure by.  Concentrating rail traffic on less routes and electrifying must be cheaper then running parralel lines between major centers.  Obviously the outlay costs are high enough that no compeditive company will dish out but....   a 4 tracked electric railway between the biggest centers in the USA with some sort of open access might be more cost effective and incease productivety of  railroads.  And some sort of easement so that long term investments can be more practical. 

 Electric locomtives are cheaper and require less maintance, the overhead wires require more maintanance, but with reduced milage of the railways and concentration of traffic it should be cost effective.  China and India are electrifying and the USA is outsourcing everything to those places, now how does that make sense ??  I think we're stuck in our ways, and dying.

To quote Robin Williams: "Reality - What a concept!".......some reality needed here....badly. 

I've never seen an electirc train (1 to 1 scale of course). Many people seem to be fascinated with them and want them nationwide NOW. I realize they are eventually inevitable, but is there some rail fan thing that makes them more fun to watch than diesels?

Having grown up in New York (DaBronx) and lived in Japan, I have seen electric railroads.  If you check out the infrastructure, you'll quickly realize that the locomotives are only a minor expense!

Then, too, overhead catenary does a permanent number on the maximum height of cars and carloads on electrified track.  If electric operation was really that much cheaper, Conrail would have raised the wire, not torn it down.

The OP makes it sound so easy...  "Four tracks between two big cities..."  Right.  Who decides where those tracks go, and who pays for it?  If you want to see a furball of shippers, NARP faithful, politicians, real estate speculators, BANANAs and NIMBYs, that would be a sure way to start one.

Don't get me wrong.  I think that electrification is the long-term solution to making railroads 'greener.'  It's just that we should approach the whole thing with eyes wide open and the skeptic sense in full operation.  Building the infrastructure will take time and $$$, and significant lengths of it have to be well nigh finished before they can be used.  Wearing rose-colored glasses won't make the process faster or less expensive.

Chuck

If it had a good ROI, the railroads would do it.  They are not stubborn nor stupid....generally.

tomikawaTT:

Wearing rose-colored glasses won't make the process faster of less expensive.

Good one!

Another one to file away and use later.

Diesels are more fun to watch--you can feel and smell their power, and several diesels are needed for the power of one electric locomotive.

I've ridden behind GG-1's, AEM-7's, and on Acela; but my most memorable experience was standing next to a British Intercity 225 locomotive as it started moving.  They are NOT silent; when you have that much electricity so close to the ground, huge fans are needed to blow out sparks.

TH&B:

Electrification is only expensive because of the cost structure we measure by.  Concentrating rail traffic on less routes and electrifying must be cheaper then running parralel lines between major centers.  Obviously the outlay costs are high enough that no compeditive company will dish out but....   a 4 tracked electric railway between the biggest centers in the USA with some sort of open access might be more cost effective and incease productivety of  railroads.  And some sort of easement so that long term investments can be more practical. 

 

 Electric locomtives are cheaper and require less maintance, the overhead wires require more maintanance, but with reduced milage of the railways and concentration of traffic it should be cost effective.  China and India are electrifying and the USA is outsourcing everything to those places, now how does that make sense ??  I think we're stuck in our ways, and dying.

 While I would not write off large scale electrification in the long term it is very difficult to see how you could implement this in the near future without completely restructuring (some would say destroying then rebuilding) the entire railroad industry. If the suggestion is that the Federal government should buy out the Class One railroads and then fund the new infrastructure and set up an open access scheme I would not hold my breath (nor do I find that desirable).

 American industry outsources to those countries due to their dirt cheap labor costs, not their transportation infrastructure..... 

Maglev:

Diesels are more fun to watch--you can feel and smell their power, and several diesels are needed for the power of one electric locomotive.

I've ridden behind GG-1's, AEM-7's, and on Acela; but my most memorable experience was standing next to a British Intercity 225 locomotive as it started moving.  They are NOT silent; when you have that much electricity so close to the ground, huge fans are needed to blow out sparks.

Enthusiasts have long been taken by electrics because of their relative rarity.  The fans on electric locomotives are for cooling purposes, not to blow out sparks(??).  The NH EP-5's were also noted for their loud cooling fans.

Well, let's see here - - - say, 25,000 route-miles to electrify, at around 3 Million Dollars per mile average - though 'Your Mileage May Vary' - is 75 Billion Dollars, so maybe somewhere between that and 100 Billion Dollars would be needed.  [RWM has been very persuasive in other threads on some of the outlandish cost elements that can be encountered in the urban areas and other special places for High Speed Rail, and this is of like kind.]

Up until about 8 months ago I would have said, 'We don't have enough spare money in this country to do that'.  Now, with the various stimulus funds and the Federal printing press running, I'm not so sure, since they dwarf this.  On the other hand, the stimulus competes for and pre-empts this kind of spending, and maybe some other aspects - like inflation - do mean that we won't have enough money.  It amounts to around 300 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the U.S., or maybe 1,350 dollars per family [2 parents plus 2.5 children = 4.5 x 300].  Don't know how popular that will be.

For the railroads themselves, electrifying with their own funds or borrowed money would amounts to a 'bet the company' gamble, the costs are so large.  By definition, that's not prudent or reasonable, and especially not now, not in this economy, and with the credit markets still so screwed up.  So it would be a breach of the fiduciary duty that the board of directors and the company's officers owe to the shareholders - and banks and other lenders are not stupid, they know the risks that would be involved as well.  So it's not gonna happen, unless a way can be found to manage that risk much better - and that doesn't seem to be on the horizon. 

We may be stuck in our ways, as the Original Poster says, but it's hard to see how to get the 'critical mass' necessary to implement this change without seriously risking killing the patient with the cure [to mix metaphors there].

- Paul North. 

Where it gets interesting is where various interests intersect.  If we are going to string new wires for a power grid and/or do some elecrified HSR, then the increment for frt RRs may not be quite so "bet the company-ish".

.....I've been around quite a few power producing wind mills, and for the life of me, I just don't understand what some of our citizens have against them......Even some of my friends back in Pennsylvania, told me recently they are "ugly", and can't stand them...Boggles my mind.  There are dozens and dozens of them in my home area of Pennsylvania taking advantage of wind power to produce power for the grid.

Personally, I believe we need to take advantage of all kinds of energy sources, in a sensible balance.

oltmannd:

  Where it gets interesting is where various interests intersect.  If we are going to string new wires for a power grid and/or do some elecrified HSR, then the increment for frt RRs may not be quite so "bet the company-ish".  [emphasis added - PDN.] 

In other words, get the power transmission companies/ organizations to pay for or at least share a good portion of the costs for the poles / towers along the R-O-W [Q]

Kind of like the high-tension transmission line 'over-build' by Phila. Electric Co. [and maybe others] of the PRR and Reading RR electrifications - such as along the Schuylkill Expressway - and along the former B and O [now CSX] along I-95 from around Ridley Park down to Chester and maybe even as far as to the Claymont, Delaware area [Q]

I wrote about a 3 or 4 page paper recommending just that about 10 years ago [went no place that I know of].  One very qualified transmission and cell phone tower structural engineer then and now with Penna. Power and Light Co. [now 'PPL'] - who's also a railfan - told me that it wouldn't be all that popular with the power companies - indirect routings, hampered access, risk of losing the towers and line in the event of a derailment [gee, thanks, guys    ]. 

That notwithstanding - that was then, and this was now, after the 2003 black-out and other events - such as the proliferation of wind farms, etc. - which have considerably raised the awareness of need for such improvements to the transmission grid. 

Yep, I still think that would be a good idea.  So now it's you, and me, and who else [Q]

- Paul North.

I'm going to bet that the first Electrified freight line will be in SoCal: LA Basin to Barstow and Bakersfield.  The reasons are obvious if you think of where the big "push to green" has been in the past.  There is enough traffic in Cajon pass and Tehachapi to justify this area.

John