General Discussion

TH&B:

Electrification is only expensive because of the cost structure we measure by [emphasis added]. 

 So what "cost structure" do you measure by? 

Concentrating rail traffic on less routes and electrifying must be cheaper then running parralel lines between major centers.

Okay, densing up traffic flows is an economic advantage of railroads.  But who would own the "less routes," and, more important from an operating standpoint, who would dispatch (control) the movement of trains over them? 

Obviously the outlay costs are high enough that no compeditive company will dish out but..[huh? -- what does this mean?] ... 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.[I have no idea what the h@ll this means, either.]

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.

Maybe we need to outsuorce our railways to India and China, let those countries bear the cost of electrifying our lines, and then the whole blooming planet can live.

john_edwards:

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

 You may be right. I heard somewhere that the railroads serving the Los Angeles Basin might be required to electrify in the not too distant future. 

When you consider that the EPA is about to rule that California can impose stiffer air quality standards than Federal standards, you can see that at least partial electrification will be seriously considered.

TH&B:

Electric locomtives are cheaper

One would thinks so, but NJT is paying $8M each for some new electric locomotives!  You can purchase nearly 3 AC diesel electric locos for that.

 

If the PRR could not justify electrifying Horseshoe Curve (eight miles and four tracks) when they had the engines what makes you think Cajon Pass is a candidate?

Paul_D_North_Jr:

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.

 

I'd multiply your number by 5x, Paul, if we're talking large-scale, after we figure in all the changes to wayside signaling, grade-crossing signaling, industry spurs, terminals, overpasses, tunnels, environmental permitting, distribution and generation systems, communication systems, impacts on other industries and systems and communities, transit systems, passenger corridors, rolling stock, stations, maintenance facilities, skill sets, training, ad infinitum.  It's not just a matter of stringing wire any more, if we're doing a lot of it. 

It's fairly easy to build a boutique electrification on a single helper district or subdivision, because you can do everything as a special case.   Doing it on 25,000 miles is basically turning everything upside down.  The experience with PTC to date has been instructive in that regard.

RWM

  As I said above - 'We don't have enough money in this country to do it.'  That - 500 Billion Dollars - is almost a whole 'nother stimulus fund.  [And thanks for confirming my also above-noted respect for your knowledge and listing of all those 'other' items.]

- Paul North.

CSSHEGEWISCH:

When you consider that the EPA is about to rule that California can impose stiffer air quality standards than Federal standards, you can see that at least partial electrification will be seriously considered.

...and you can be sure the power plant is located outside the state of California (so you can eliminate the point source of the emissions in their warped little minds), plus you waste tons of energy transmitting the power back into the state on a broken down and worn out grid system  

First you must install, protect from the public, and maintain a high voltage overhead wire distibution system. (third rail will not work for long distance electrification)  You must buy electricity from a power company.  Power in France, 80% Nuke, 20% Hydro, China is building 60 new Nuke Power Stations, Power Stations in the USA are 50% Coal.  You must inspect the wire (each day??) and replace the Catenary "Contact Wire" often.  You will need a "Diesel powered Wire Train". 

Electrics cost much more to build than Diesel, low volume, custom designed, and dealing with Very High Voltage.  But, they last much longer, 30 or more years.  When they are done they are done, no secondary market.

Buy a new, mass produced Diesel from GE or EMD, run it 10 years and sell it to a Regional Railroad.  They run it another 10 years and sell it to a Short Line Railroad, then its retire to a Tourist Line.   A whole Secondary Industry has grown up around rebuilding road diesels.

 Since the critical assumption is that an overhead power distribution is a given, it would be interesting to consider the cost outlay as well as the practicality of over or under running third rail distribution versus overhead. Didnt the NYC use this?

The costs of electrification are substantial.  The catenary and power network are about the same as building a new track from scratch.  As others have posted, additional costly clearance issues are faced with bridges and tunnels.  In urban areas, this has been mitigated to some extent by elevated tracks - the Yin and Yang of building road underpasses so the railroad is stuck with maintenance costs.  Even so, raising bridges or lowering tracks may profoundly affect nearby structures, adding substantial costs for modification or dislocation. 

While a sharp dip (or rise?) in the tracks may not affect a non-electrified train, pantograph-catenary interaction may require reducing speed as for the Metra Electric at a number of locations. 

Electric locomotives are more expensive too - don't ask me why.  It seems you'd trade the turbo-charged 12-16 cylinder diesel for a transformer.  Dual cabs would not add that much if that is the case; or do the trains run push-pull fashion?  Straight electrics should not cost as much with standardized production as the custom-made $8M NJT units and the need for fewer higher-horsepower replacement units.  BNSF is putting more pull on each axle with an A-1-A + A-1-A 4,500 hp unit which seems to be the current practical limit for railroad diesels.  6,000 hp is still a bridge too far, even though a French builder offered a then-astounding 5,600 (metric?) hp unit some 30 years ago in a Railway Gazette ad.

I hear so much about that electrification is too costly and too impossible to maintain, but just taking a general look around the world most modern countrys find electrifying the railroads the  most cost effective.  Most of Europe especialy Germany the powerhouse of the European ecconamy, Japan, China and India are electric or in the process of being.  The costs are also exagerated by assuming one would electrify every mile, one would not electrify duplicate routes or branch lines, easpecialy the ones where you don't run through power anyways.  Of course there is no resale market for electric locomtives now, but once routes become electric then there would be.  As far as electric locomotives being more expensive to build new doesn't make much sense unless perhaps they are high speed locos wich would cost more then heavy low speed diesels.  A good low voltage DC electric motor is nothing but a diesel electric without the cost of the prime mover. 

 

I'm not sugesting the government take over or anything like that to electrify the railroads, I'm just questioning the logic that we use to avoid electrifying.  I suppose I understand why we can't afford it , but perhaps I don't understand why everyone else can. 

In a previous thread, I commented that much of the European and Asian electrification began before WWII, and needed to be rebuilt.  Many of the steam locomotives had been damaged or destroyed.  What's more, these countries had coal, but little oil resources, that led to coal-fired electric power and further electrification, building on the existing network.

We've had the discussion before about horsepower.  A 1,000 hp switcher is one application; but consider how many 4,000 hp units are needed for a 60 mph mainline freight. 

Another strike against a low voltage dc locomotive is the transmission loss and voltage drop in a comparatively short distance.  A substation is needed about every 5 miles for a 1,500 v system compared to about every 25 miles for a 25,000 v system.

OK, fair enough.  For starters, compare the distances between a couple of the bigger cities in Germany, Japan, and then in France.  Maybe also do Switzerland and Italy.  [Make sure they're all in miles.]

Next, compare those distances with the distances between New York City and Chicago, NYC and Boston, Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas, Seattle and Los Angeles, and any others you care to choose.

Then, see if there's a relationship in the magnitude of the distances in the U.S. as compared with those in Europe.  In my experience, that's a common fallacy among people from Europe when they come to the U.S. for the first time - esp. those from Germany.  They have no sense of the scale of this country - they think they can easily drive from NYC to Dallas in a day. 

As for the other countries that you reference - India and China - they are much larger, and I'm not familiar enough with the specific routes there to know if the relationship holds out there as well. 

To go to the next level of sophistication [which still isn't much], then look at the relative population densities - persons per square mile or square kilometer - for each of those metropolitan areas.  Again, observe if there's a relationship.

Finally, although you claim to eschew government ownership and funding of electrification, each of the countries that you mention has, I believe, installed electrification either as a state-owned railroad, or with significant government funding.  In several of those, it was a component of rebuilding from World War II's devastation, which practically took a generation to achieve.  The differences between those situations and ours, I think, explain much.

I'm pro-electrification.  But doing it in the U.S. is on a scale with first building the railroad network, or the Interstate Highway System.  We would all be better served by recognizing that it is a huge task that cannot be minimized, and must be placed in proper perspective to understand the financial, operational, electrical, political, environmental, and other challenges that are inherently involved.

- Paul North.

 

As stated Europe is not a good example because of the distances.  Try comparing the US to Russia and you will see very many similarities.  Beside France and many countries get most of their power from nuclear plants.  The greenies here want us all in candle lit caves like Bin Laden.  I predict brownouts and general power shut downs in areas in the very near future since most of power plants are operating well beyond their life expectancy now at power rates well in excess of design. Can't build nuclear because of Three Mile Island (it worked).  Can't build fossil fuel plants ( Global warming even though the temperature has dropped for ten consecutive years now).  Can't build anything because a bug or frog is more important then life as we know it. Electrifying anything isn;t going to happen.