General Discussion

Railway Man:

Bucyrus:

I have a simple question: 

 

If all the railroads in the U.S. were electrified today, how much power would that require compared to the amount of electric power actually consumed today.

 

Power to run all railroads today = _____% of power actually consumed today.

 

ALL the railroads?  But quite a few of them already are electric, particularly transit.  How about we just take the Class 1 freight operations.  Data for 2008 is not yet available, so I will use 2007:

1. Class 1 freight consumed 566.9 trillion BTU
   
2. The U.S. generated 4,156,745 thousand megawatt-hours
3. That equates to 14,183 trillion BTU equivalent
   
4. That equates to 3.99 percent.

In other words, to electrify all freight operations of all U.S. Class 1 railroads, it would require a generation increase of 4 percent.  That kind of spare capacity exists, but often it is not in the right place at the right time. The problem is mostly one of transmission, storage, and reliability.  In some cases it may be less expensive to build new generation capacity at a specific location than to build new transmission lines, but that is not a "lack of generation capacity" problem per se.

(Note -- adding in all the passenger operations, including intercity, commuter, and transit, increases the BTU consumption from 566.9 trillion to 657.5 trillion)

RWM

Seems to me a network of transcontinental semi-autonomous railway power transmission lines and generation sources would provide some insurance against regional blackouts and help restore the public power grid.

Maybe trains could be parked for a few hours to get past an unusually high peak demand to gain an extra 3-4% current.  I wouldn't expect it to be more than one day every five years.  There needs to be a letter of understanding that the public grid capacity must keep up with a reasonable projected worst-case demand based on growth of demand and efficiency improvements like CFLs, LCD TVs and computers, and Energy Star products.

Andy Cummings:

Bucyrus:

Assuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper.  But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time.  The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no.  But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise.  We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time.

 

Folks —

I've heard the claim made that electrification will never happen because railroads have the market power to pass fuel costs onto their customers via fuel surcharges. Thus, the benefits of electrification would go to shippers, not to railroads. The success with which railroads were able to pass high fuel prices on to customers in 2008 seems to bear this out. Further, because their competition (truckers) are less fuel-efficient as a general rule, by this theory, there would be no "tipping point," as Bucyrus refers to it. What alternative do shippers have but to pay fuel surcharges, however high they go, if the alternative is more costly still?

On the flip side, if you're a shipper, it doesn't matter whether you're paying the railroads in the form of higher rates, or in the form of fuel surcharges; it's all money out the door. Thus, if electrification means lower fuel costs, and thus, lower fuel surcharges, railroads will look more attractive to shippers vis a vis trucks, and that could generate additional traffic, and thus, the revenue that would justify electrification. In theory.

Be interested to hear you guys' thoughts on this subject.

Andy,

I understand your point about there being no tipping point because railroads are able to pass on the higher fuel cost to the shipper.  But shippers then have to pass the cost on to the consumers, and consumers can reduce their consumption in response.  That is the alternative that you asked about above.  So the ability of the railroads to pass on the rising cost of fuel is not open-ended.  At some point, for example, the rising cost of electricity caused by the railroads passing on their added fuel costs for hauling the coal to make the electricity will cause consumers to use less electricity. 

While it is true that electricity is more or less a necessity, there is still a lot of flexibility in how much is consumed.  What would happen to the railroad business if all consumers reduced their electric consumption by 25%?  Moreover, railroads haul a lot of freight that is not as much of a necessity as coal for electricity, so its consumption is even freer to be reduced.

So, I think there is a tipping point, despite the ability for railroads to pass on the rising cost of fuel.  However, it may not be wise for railroads to wait for that tipping point.  This is because, as they wait and continue passing on costs that ultimately fall on the consumer, it slows down the economy.  And as the economy slows, it causes the tipping point to move further away.  If the economy is too slow, and railroad business falls too far, option to electrify offered by the tipping point may simply disappear.  In other words, the business may be too slow to justify the investment in electrification.

The conceptual drawing at the head of the article fleshes out comments I made in a previous thread on the Southeast/Atlantic Coast HSR corridor alternatives.  Substantial cost savings in grade separation, maybe electrification too, of a combined freight-(maybe not so) HSR corridor along the CSX A-Line could be realized and benefit both.  This concept also applies for Midwestern routes with significant freight traffic.

The problem of financial resouces in today's economy has bothered me as well.  Which is the priority: the limited benefit of isolated 220mph HSR lines or railway mainline electrification that could be shared with suburban and faster intercity passenger services? 

The most recent MHSRA plan calls for an electrified 220mph HSR line between Chicago and Saint Louis along the CN from Chicago to Champaign.  Would the CN be electrified to Carbondale or over the faster Edgewood Cutoff to West Paducah, Nashville, Memphis, and New Orleans and support the City of New Orleans and expanded Amtrak services?  Would the Illini, Saluki, and Superliner City of New Orleans even be compatible with HSR, especially if UIC, but not FRA compliant?

Andy -

Good questions.  Unfortunately, the rail and potential-rail shipping market is not a monolithic uniform entity about which we can make generalized broad sweeping statements that will then be universally true.  Instead, that market - at least for this purpose - is composed of several differentiated segments or 'cases' - each of which needs to be considered separately to analyze and understand what will and will not work.  I don't have the time at the moment to launch into that dissertation, so I'll just attempt to clarify the 'tipping point'' reference, as follows:

The 'tipping point' to which Bucyrus referred above is not between rail and truck, but between diesel-powered rail and electric-powered rail.  Stated simply and qualitatively only (in words, not numbers), it's something like this:

Annual savings from electric operation = basically diesel fuel costs - electric power costs,

as balanced against the:

Annual costs - mainly capital recovery, such as interest, amortization, taxes, and insurance, etc. - of the capital cost / investment of the electrification infrastructure, such as the catenary wires and poles, transformers, etc.

When those annual fuel and other operating savings are perceived or reliably predicted to become big enough to be equal or greater than the annual costs to repay the investment, then that 'tipping point' will have been reached, and the investment in electrification will start to occur.  It's very similar to the decision many young people have to make in deciding whether they should rent or buy their own living space, etc. - trading savings by eliminating an ongoing expense to support repaying a capital investment instead.

 If the railroad has enough 'market power' to be able to charge a rate that includes a hefty fuel surcharge, it's still going to have that same market power after it electrifies.  The legal and economic cost basis for the fuel surcharge component will have vanished, but the objective market conditions that made the shippers willing to pay a higher rate will still be in place and in effect.  The shippers of course will try to claim that the rail fuel costs have hence gone down, so the rate should too - but that ignores the railroads' need to use those savings to repay the investors in the railroad's electrification - it's not just to be passed through to the shippers.  Also, as you aptly noted, ''It's all just money out the door'', and the alternative - truck -  is more costly still .  Unless, of course, the fuel costs for trucks and rail both drop, as they have from 2008 through 2009 - in which case a new equilibrium of market share between those 2 modes will be re-established at some market-determined level.

The different case is if the railroad does want to attract more traffic that's not now on the train, for whatever reason.  The electrification may be able to lower the rail cost structure and hence the rates enough for that to serve as an incentive to the shipper to attract that traffic to rail from the trucks, at a profit that is acceptable to the railroad.  In those cases the electrification becomes a market-penetration tool.  But that should occur only if the railroad is satisfied that the lower rate will cover all of the costs of the electrification plus a profit - no sense in giving away any of that advantage.

I'll let someone else pick up the response from here on.

- Paul North.

I would not say that electrification couldn’t be done.  My only objection is to the premise of the article, which includes its specific reasons why we should electrify, and advocates doing so as a collective, taxpayer funded, federal project.   As large of a sea change as electrification would be, having the federal government do it would be an even larger sea change. 

The specific reasons to electrify from the article:

1)      Less traffic congestion.

2)      Less air pollution.

3)      Less energy consumption.

4)      Higher capacity transportation.

5)      Higher capacity and improved electric grid [smart grid?].

6)      Aiding and speeding the development of alternative energy.

7)      Renewable energy development.

8)      Better national defense.

9)      Less fuel use.

10)  Less greenhouse gas emissions.

11)  Increase of 13% in GDP in 20 years.

12)  Adds 175,000,000 new jobs.

13)  Reduces greenhouse gases by 38% within 20 years.

14)  Reduces oil consumption by 22% within 20 years.

15)  A “non-oil policy.”

To me, it is clear that the ideas and reasoning expressed in Mr. Lothes’ article have many adherents, and are being pushed as a political ideology.  Generally, it falls under the umbrella of a command and control, central planning economy that is built around the green movement, and so-called, sustainability.  Because the cornerstone of sustainability is reducing consumption, coercion is a prominent component of this ideology.  Mr. Lothes touches on its application when he says that local governments could become electrification catalysts by outlawing diesels.

Another major component of sustainability is the war on the private automobile and the role it plays in suburban living.  I think that it is quite telling that in the lead illustration of the article, the role of highways and motor vehicles has been obviously reduced quite sharply.

For the perception of balance, author Lothes makes a nod to nuclear power by saying that new power lines could transmit electricity produced by wind or nuclear plants, but the foregone conclusion of the article seems to be that the electrification will be powered by renewable energy, and not nuclear, coal, or other fossil fuels.  Indeed, he sees the need for additional power for rail electrification, as a way to spur the development of renewable energy, leading one to wonder which one of the two is really the main objective.  

It will be interesting to see whether the management of railroad companies get onboard this bandwagon, or whether they see it as running against their interests as private sector businesses.

Isn't one of the main issues for NOT electrifying, is not just cost, but cost up front and long term investment?  While the Santa Fe main from Chicago to LA is being electrified the Sunset route or UP mainline can underbid the BNSF and there is the trucking companys too.  It's alot of work to gain customers and while spending your efforts on the technolagy of electric trains, you might be loosing the race.

It's not all just about money, because I'm sure a busy transcon can run very cost effective electric.  

CSSHEGEWISCH:

Ulrich:

Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it.

The example of Russia is a poor one since the former Soviet Union was a command economy and the bottom line was hardly a factor in the decision to electrify.

I realize the difference..although the bottom line still does matter..even in a command economy. So what factors drove Russia to electrify?..Russia has an abundance of oil...

Just judging by the limited stats in the Trains article, the US has far too many railroad miles for it's population compared to Russia or China.  The fact that Russia doesn't even have a paved transiberian hiway makes a big difference in choosing electric traction. 

Even as a rail fan, the changes required in the US to make electrifeing look good would be a shock.  Reduce track millage big time, ie consolidate routes even more.............. alot more !

Paul_D_North_Jr:

Annual costs - mainly capital recovery, such as interest, amortization, taxes, and insurance, etc. - of the capital cost / investment of the electrification infrastructure, such as the catenary wires and poles, transformers, etc.

PDN has pointed out something that may be the 800# gorrilla. Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%.  AMTRAK does have an advantage of not having to pay these taxes. All we have to do is remember the confiscatory industrial propery taxes in New York State to see what happened to both industry and the RRs. Those taxes certainly helped kill the NYC's passenger operations. The reduction enabled the water level route to reduce from 4 to 2 tracks in most places. 

Now with that in mind my ABCD RR will want to upgrade ROW by correcting any track problems before electrifying. I will want to straighten curves, ease grades, get rid of sags, rebuild or replace bridges, etc. So a $10M upgrade on XYZ's jurisdiction that I make on my RR will allow the tax assesor to give it a $20M improvement assestment because my RR becomes more fluid. (that word again).  

I would believe that any HSR on existing RR ROW will need to address these problems.

RWM any thoughts??

TH&B:

Even as a rail fan, the changes required in the US to make electrifeing look good would be a shock.  Reduce track millage big time, ie consolidate routes even more.............. alot more !

If you consolidate routes you end up putting all your eggs in one basket .

The consolidation that has occurred has come back to bite RRs more than once. Examples.:

1. CSX - SAL "S" line Petersburg -  Raleigh.

2.  CSX - B&O Parkersburg - St. Louis line.

3. BN - SP&S  Pasco - Spokane

4. BN Stampede pass route (sold, purchased back, and now mothballed only

I'm certain others may be cited

Routes mothballed to maybe return another day

11. NS SOU - Saluda grade

12. CSX (buckham Branch operating) Orange/Richmond   -  Clifton Forge

13. UP - D&RGW -  Tennessee Pass

14. UP - SP Monoco route near Oakland, Ca

OTHERS??

I would agree that straightening curves is less costly before electrification.  This can get to a point that it might be easier to start from scratch between end-points.  It seemed that the high speed alternatives for the Southeast Corridor left less than 20% of the CSX alignment intact from Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC. 

Typical railroad grades are much less significant for HSR.

The issue of tax assessments could be resolved with legislative or Congressional relief

The issue you do not address is the cost and need for grade separation and the temporary tracks this might require.

blue streak 1:

Paul_D_North_Jr:

Annual costs - mainly capital recovery, such as interest, amortization, taxes, and insurance, etc. - of the capital cost / investment of the electrification infrastructure, such as the catenary wires and poles, transformers, etc.

PDN has pointed out something that may be the 800# gorrilla. Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%.  AMTRAK does have an advantage of not having to pay these taxes. All we have to do is remember the confiscatory industrial propery taxes in New York State to see what happened to both industry and the RRs. Those taxes certainly helped kill the NYC's passenger operations. The reduction enabled the water level route to reduce from 4 to 2 tracks in most places. 

Now with that in mind my ABCD RR will want to upgrade ROW by correcting any track problems before electrifying. I will want to straighten curves, ease grades, get rid of sags, rebuild or replace bridges, etc. So a $10M upgrade on XYZ's jurisdiction that I make on my RR will allow the tax assesor to give it a $20M improvement assestment because my RR becomes more fluid. (that word again).  

I would believe that any HSR on existing RR ROW will need to address these problems.

RWM any thoughts??

Privatize the Interstate Highway System?   Let it be self supporting?  Auction it off to pay the National Dept?

"Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%."  - blue streak 1

"The issue of tax assessments could be resolved with legislative or Congressional relief." - HarveyK400

But it's the same cast of characters, esp. at the state level:  "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session.'' - In re: Estate of A.B., New York Surrogate's Court, 1826 [as best as I can recall]

The only real - though impermanent - solution is what RWM said recently over on another thread: Educate, inform, and persuade the politicians to "Don't kill the 'golden goose' of the freight railroads", or it will come back to bite us elsewhere in many other and more expensive ways.

- Paul North.

SactoGuy188:

I think my concerns about electrifying rail lines in the USA comes down to this: the ENORMOUS up-front cost of the installation.

I cite the following problems:

1) The cost of putting up many thousands of miles of overhead wiring. And I do mean many thousands of miles.

In real terms the cost of this has come down, particular with the development of 50KV Electrification in South Africa; a country where a high proportion of its network is electrified. Whilst it is true the initial cost may seem given the 50+ year life span providing a financial mechanism can be divised to enable it to be paid back over such a period it's doable. This is in practice is probably the biggest stumbling block.

SactoGuy188:

2) The cost of the Class I railroads having to buy as many as 6,000 new electric locomotives if we were to phase out diesel-electric locomotives.

 Not really; the diesel-electric locos could be made dual mode; with rectifers being very small  these days it should not be too difficult. Electric locos also last longer too.

SactoGuy188:

3) The enormous cost of raising tunnel clearances or daylighting shorter tunnels to accommodate overhead wiring. I can imagine how much that would cost CSX and NS to do this on their rail routes through the Appalachians.

 In Britain, with our limited clearances we've managed to do this AND enhance the loading gauge. One solution involves digging out the base and using concrete slab track which reduces the rail height.

SactoGuy188:

4) Finding the means to power up all these many thousands of miles of overhead wiring.

I think over people on this forum have calculated that it would only need about 4% extra electricity and that this is within the spare capacity at present existing.

SactoGuy188:

5) The worst problem of all, the height of the overhead wiring may not accommodate domestic doublestack container trains, which means we end up reducing capacity for container freight service.

 See my response to (3) above.

 As with all big projects the way to do it would be a phased approach. In other words to break it down in to manageable chunks. But experience in Europe and elsewhere shows that as the electrified network grows so so the economies of scale achieved by better rolling stock utilisation.