General Discussion

rrnut282:

Using reductions in CO2 production to justify electrification of railroading is a paper lion.  Barring government mandate (most likely unfunded to make it worse) electrification will have to stand on its own merits.

Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.

These are the probable scenarios leading to near universal rail electrification:

1)      A private business investment by the railroads similar to the decision to dieselize.

2)      A government offer of public financing to railroads to make it financially feasible to voluntarily electrify.

3)      A government law making carbon caps that raise the operating cost of railroads to the point that it is cheaper to electrify, coupled with government offer of public financing to railroads to make it financially feasible to voluntarily electrify.

Item #1 is unlikely because the cost is too high to justify the investment.  Item #3 is the most likely scenario.   

I believe that you are right in your assessment that the first action on this matter is likely to be on the BNSF.

Bucyrus:

[Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.

I have a real problem with that statement.  Other voters may, too.

And of your scenarios, I agree, with the current politcal environment, #3 is most likely to happen.  By the time anything does happen, #2 may be more likely.  I just hope the unfunded costs, if this does happen, don't cripple railroading as we know it, or worse trigger more retrenchment.

Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns.  To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.

Bucyrus:

A couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification. Rail electrification for the traditional purpose may never happen, but there is a new purpose for rail electrification that may compel it to happen very soon.  That new purpose is a non-oil, non-carbon, national transportation system for the U.S.

 

The assumed reduced rail operating cost from electrification would shift the competitive balance and divert some road use, further reducing the carbon footprint and progressing toward national energy goals. 

 

At the same time, the gas tax, a user fee, needs to be increased to meet system maintenance and improvement needs.  The current below-cost recovery level subsidizes and encourages use of less energy-efficient road transportation.

There are other reasons to electrify such as improved efficiency, reduced highway accidents, and less asthma, but they do not justify government financing with taxpayer money.

Actually, road collisions, emissions (including impact on public health), travel time reduction are monetized for highway and transit improvement cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses for use of tax money.  A similar approach could be used to determine public benefit to justify a level of rail electrification federal grant assistance. 

It is the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint that calls for the federal solution.

As above there are a number of reasons for federal assistance beside oil supply and carbon footprint, albeit not the focus of some activists. 

Furthermore, the total scope of the federal solution to this crisis goes beyond the electrification of rail.  It also includes shifting the majority of truck haulage off of the highways and onto the rails.  Likewise, it calls for HSR to be introduced in conjunction with universal electrification to shift the majority of automobile traffic off of the highways.  And it goes on to include massive new rail line improvements, new routes, elimination of grade crossings, ECP brakes, PTC, and new terminal facilities to mesh with the increase in the long haul traffic previously handled by trucks.

 

Couldn't agree with you more; but reality may reign in the scope of electrification to the 25,000 miles level (from the previous thread) or less.       

 

Previous business models for electrification have weighed it against transport profit.  The new model weighs it against the prevention of a national crisis.  The two objectives are not comparable.  So there is no guarantee that electrification, according to the new purpose, will reduce costs.  The new purpose may call for sacrifice and higher costs in order to confront the national crisis just like the cost of going to war, for example.

 

While a national crisis may be prevented; the railroads are not alone in the equation.  Fuel costs for planes, trucks, buses, and automobiles would go up; and likely much higher than any resulting cost increase for rail alternative energy consumption.

 

Railroads say that electrification will be too costly without government funding.  If railroads cannot raise or risk the capital for electrification, would they be willing to borrow it if the government would lend it to them?  If they are not willing to borrow the money, and the government is willing to fund it anyway, and wants to fund it in the national interest, what role would government then play in the operation of the electrified railroads?  Wouldn’t the taxpayers insist on some form of direct government management of the public investment in electrification such as what is being done with GM and Chrysler?

 

While public demand for a government investment position in the respective railroads would be justified, this could be avoided by grants limited to the level that monetized public benefits would be achieved.  This approach would seem to favor the more viable, higher traffic volume, railroad electrification prospects and preclude universal mainline electrification. 

 

This does not offer a way around the I-81 Corridor and similar situations that would require substantial, costly, line relocation to bring the railway up to modern standards.  If, ironically, the Man from Omaha can invest in BNSF, why can't governments get stock in companies they invest in?  This would not be nationalization.  Furthermore the government would be in a position to trade the stock and recover the public money.

 

While one scenario would be for the government to offer a direct subsidy to the railroads in order to spur electrification, another scenario would be for the government to impose carbon caps that would make diesel operation so costly that they would have to electrify in order to survive.  If railroads cannot raise the capital to electrify on a voluntary basis, what will they do if the imposition of carbon caps forces them to electrify?

 

I agree that punitive, discriminatory carbon caps on railroads alone would be a disaster.  I could be wrong, but aren't carbon caps typically established near existing levels with provisions for trading?  Would truckers pay enough for railroad credits to at least partially finance electrification?

 

How would UP, CSX, NS, and BNSF each feel about becoming a small private operating component of a larger nationalized rail electrification system?

 

Maybe the question should be how would the railroads feel having a large block of stock controlled by the government?

      

schlimm:

Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns.  To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.

How so?

HarveyK400:

A couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification.......................

Harvey, Thanks for your comments, but when you respond within my quote, it may be confusing to others to as to what you are saying versus what I said.  You could go back and edit your post to change the color of your text and leave mine black.  You just click EDIT. 

schlimm:

htgguy:

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion?

 

Apparently the point was missed.  The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.

Now I have to say, just a minute. Let's look back over this discussion. You and I have had a bit of back and forth. You have posted some things that I have responded to. I have tried to do it in a spirit of goodwill, even if I have challenged you a few times. You've requested some clarification. You've asked questions. I've gone out and dug up information to support my position. I have, in return, asked some questions of you. This is at least the second time you have re-directed the conversation.

I think it was fair to ask what your point was when you post a reference to an article, without even including a link, that compared the CO2 emissions of flying from London to Los Angeles, which happens to be about 5500 miles, with the CO2 emissions of a British commuter. I get the point about the airplane, but the article raised other issues. The excerpt of the article you posted is the one that mentions trans-Atlantic flights and commuters. I didn't mix the two. They are not "staw men". So I posed some questions.

You know, schlimm, people are pretty much up to speed on the fact that air travel produces a lot of CO2. I enjoy intelligent debate and discussion on this message board when people can keep it fact based. I come here looking for new information. What you posted earlier about German rail commuters was a great piece of info and prompted me to do some research of my own, which may in some small part help someone else learn something.

If you have a viewpoint to advance, find some pertinent facts to use to support it and share them with the board.

Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)?  I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability.  Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.

htgguy:

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

Sorry, but the "straw man" reference was to your sarcastic speculations cited above.  I assume you are being funny/sarcastic, and not serious.  Since we were talking about electrification and one of the points raised by proponents was "green" issues, I thought this article was appropriate.  Sorry I didn't give the link.

I am as entitled to advance a viewpoint as anyone.  I try to give as many facts in support as most, more than some, less than some of the mechanical gurus in this forum.  I also try to avoid the "flaming" that seems so common here.

schlimm:

 Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

 

I read the whole report on this and can see why there is a confusion here now. This sentence,when taken out of the context of the article, is very mangled. The 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight . A commuter in England--especially in the London vicinity does tend to travel a fair bit hence his/her total mileage is pretty close to equal. But why it wasn't couched in those terms is kinda weird--

I would like to know why short hop flights were not questioned in the first place.

blownout cylinder:

The 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight .

I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest source and this is getting rather far from the original point, but... 

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Example:   Person A claims: Sunny days are good.Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong.  Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made." 

In his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations. 

schlimm:

"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"

I did NOT say that. Try attributing that to someone else---

htgguy:

schlimm:

Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?

Again. This is where the comment came from.

schlimm:

In his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations. 

"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"

Look again.  I cited htgguy.

jclass:

Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)?  I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability.  Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.

I am not sure I understand your question.  What I call the new purpose is basically the new reason to electrify, and that new reason is for the achievement of sustainability.  In this case, sustainability will be boosted by the use of renewable energy in the form of wind-generated electricity.  The use of renewable energy will accomplish the following two objectives:

1)      It will eliminate the use of oil, which will insure against a crisis of oil shock, should foreign sources of oil be interrupted

2)      It will eliminate CO2 emissions, which will help avert a climate crisis.

The previous main reasons or purpose for electrification was as follows:

1)        It would lower operating cost. 

2)        It would eliminate smoke during the steam age. 

The elimination of smoke during the steam age was an emissions issue similar to the CO2 emissions issue of the new purpose, but the objectives are quite different.  Up until a couple years ago, CO2 had never been considered to be nuisance or hazardous emission, so no previous objective of smoke abatement was based on the desire to eliminate the CO2 component of smoke emissions.  So the two reasons that make up the new purpose for electrification have never been part of the rationale of any previous analysis, proposal, or execution of railroad electrification. 

Because rail is low friction, it is inherently more energy efficient than either air or highway transportation.  So there is an economic attraction to shifting as much air and highway transportation to rail as possible.  And by shifting that present non-rail transport to rail, it can be powered by renewable electricity instead of oil-based, non-renewable fuels.  So electrified rail is the centerpiece of this sustainable transportation vision, not only for the traditional rail shipments of today, but for future shipments of much of what is today shipped by truck.  Likewise, passengers from air and highway will be diverted to rail and be thus powered by renewable energy.