General Discussion

Victrola1:

Whatever happened to room temperature, super conductivity? There was a break through 20 years ago allowing it to be achieved under liquid nitrogen instead of liquid helium.

Unlike a battery, power in and power out with no chemical reaction. The efficiency achieved was supposed to be impressive. The prophets has us driving electric cars with super conductive gas tanks by 2010. That has not happened. 

If Buck Rogers ever delivers, would this technology be applicable to railroads? Could The coal tender of old become a tender of electricity stored in a super conductive medium?

It is certainly not a serious point of current consideration. 

 

 

 

According to the link below, it is not happening...yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor

htgguy -

Like Bucyrus above, I'm not advocating this - merely trying to explain it simply so that we can all grasp what is being proposed, and the implications of it.  That's just the where and why of the ''assertions about cutting the fuel savings by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude [that] need to include detailed answers to the questions I pose'' came from. 

Your points are completely valid and understood.  The 1-1/2 orders of magnitude is my interpretation of what the proponents think they will be able to achieve = no longer using most of the fuel that's now being used for surface road transport.  That figure is based on what I saw and found when answering some other questions about what percentage of liquid petroleum fuels is used by railroads, and what percentage of US generating capacity would be used if all railroads electrified, etc.  Whether that savings is actually achievable or not ranks right up there with the ''pigs with wings'' kind of thing, etc., and is certainly open to debate.  But those numbers as to the outer bounds of what might conceivably be done in someone's perfect world are legitimate - railroads use like a single-digit percentage, but the road vehicles use like 80+ percent - and so I'll get them for you.  I don't have time right at the moment, but expect to within the next day or so.

 I too had that kind of 'outside sales and service' lifestyle for about 13 years - the proposed systems won't work, and shouldn't, for the reasons you cite.  But as Don Oltmann correctly pointed out a couple weeks ago, the vast majority of auto fuel is used in commuting and around-town kinds of trips, and electrified commuter systems could make a big dent in that.  Long-haul passenger, like driving cross-country or airlines - I don't think it will work there either, but for under say 500 miles between the major cities and corridors, sure.  Trucking - I don't know whether the Over-The-Road or local pick-up/ delivery uses more fuel, but the OTR portion is clearly subject to diversion to rail.

Finally - does the 'htg' in your screen name stand for heating ?  Just curious, because I've had a short-course 'life experience' in HVAC matters over the past couple years in building a new house.  Send a PM if you like - no offense taken if you don't, either.

- Paul North.

carnej1:

And what legislation is planned or proposed to make this happen? The only "proof" that there is a secret master plan to electrify and possibly nationalise the U.S rail system is a single TRAINS article and a website or two?

There is no proof.  Right now it is just a case of, “where there is smoke, there is fire.”  But there is no proof that we are going to have national healthcare either, and yet it sure seems like it is headed that way.  A non-oil transportation agenda is clearly very popular with today’s decision makers.

carnej1:

I doubt any plan as far reaching as that would survive the inevitable changes from one adminstration to the next especially when the party in power loses it....

That certainly is true, and highly relevant to what we are talking about here.

Well, . . . would the $8 Billion in 'stimulus' funding for High-Speed Rail count as proof ?

  Like the requisite 'overt act' in furtherance of a conspiracy ?

Just askin', that's all. . . .

- Paul North.

Paul_D_North_Jr:

Now, however, it appears from the commentary above by Bucyrus that extensive government funding is contemplated and even necessary; and that the government may want to have a say in where that power comes from, and how.  Those appear to be the chief differences from past electrification proposals. 

Paul,

Yes, the chief difference is the new purpose.  That is why I underscore new purpose in my first post.  The new purpose is the overarching remedy to the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint.  All of the traditional reasons for electrification still apply as a component of the new purpose, but the two-prong crisis is completely unprecedented.  It has never been a part of previous analyses of rail electrification.  Also unprecedented is the method of bringing about the new purpose of near-universal rail electrification through public funding.  I see it as being more a national public agenda than it is a railroad agenda.  

If this were just the radical fringe pushing this agenda, it might be dismissed as being all talk and radical wishful thinking.  However, all four major railroads are discussing it.  BNSF in particular, seems quite serious about pursuing it.  Only UP seems wary of it.  I think one of the most significant aspects of this is the implication for the railroads becoming intertwined with a nationalized plant improvement that may be larger and more valuable than the railroads themselves. 

As you have mentioned, this rail electrification proposal is only one component of a national transportation system that will involve trains, trucks, cars, and airplanes.  But even beyond that, there is a fast track agenda to convert the country to renewable energy, and that requires another major component in the form of a new energy grid.  Renewable energy in the form or wind and solar installations must be placed in ideal locations for wind and sun, and the current grid does not go to those places. 

With the need for a new grid for new routing, comes the opportunity of making it a smart grid.  The smart grid not only delivers electricity to users, it knows how they use it, and it manages the use by pricing accordingly.  A big part of the renewable energy movement is to conserve, and the smart grid will force conservation of power by micro-managing its use.  So, the conversion to renewable energy and the new grid are huge undertakings on their own.  Rail electrification is just one more piece of low-hanging fruit in this vision.

In fact, one might wonder whether the renewable energy agenda is larger than the rail electrification agenda, and is merely using rail electrification as a carrot to entice railroad companies into allowing the use of their rights of way for the new power lines needed for the new grid.  One of the biggest impediments to the renewable energy agenda is the right of way acquisition for the necessary new power lines.  Running the new lines on ready-made rights of way belonging to the railroads may be the biggest plum of all in this game.  Maybe that is why UP is wary.  

I'm not sure if electrification can work unless we pour in truly frightening amounts of investment to electrify the main long-distance lines. Remember, Russia plans to do a massive electrification of their rail lines, and the cost for the Russian government is mind-boggling: around an estimated US$400 BILLION.

Here in the USA, to do such large scale electrification we have to consider the following:

1) The cost of putting up overhead wiring to cover as much as 45,000 miles of mainline tracks.

2) The cost of powering all that overhead wiring.

3) The cost of increasing tunnel and bridge clearances to accommodate overhead wiring.

4) The cost to railroads to buy over 6,000 new all-electric locomotives.

5) The cost to railroads to buy next-generation "well" railroad cars with lowered floors so they could accommodate doublestack containers without interfering with overhead wiring.

The total cost, in my estimation, could run as as much as US$500 billion, even if the cost is spread out over two decades. Besides, with today's EMD SD70M-2/SD70ACe and GE ES44DC/ES44AC locomotives, diesel-electric locomotives are far more environmentally friendly, and unlike gasoline, diesel fuel can be produced from far more sources than just crude oil (indeed right from the start diesel engines were designed to run off vegetable oil derivatives--the first prototype engine Rudolf Diesel built ran off peanut oil!), which means in the near future diesel-electric locomotives can be fueled with diesel fuel made from renewable plant sources.

Paul_D_North_Jr:

Well, . . . would the $8 Billion in 'stimulus' funding for High-Speed Rail count as proof ?

  Like the requisite 'overt act' in furtherance of a conspiracy ?

Just askin', that's all. . . .

- Paul North.

8 billion (and no, I'm NOT implying that is an insignificant chunk of public money) does not buy a complete electrification of the freight railroads (or even any electric freight at all, most likely)...most of those projects have been proposed for a while, well back into previous administrations...

SactoGuy188:

I'm not sure if electrification can work unless we pour in truly frightening amounts of investment to electrify the main long-distance lines. Remember, Russia plans to do a massive electrification of their rail lines, and the cost for the Russian government is mind-boggling: around an estimated US$400 BILLION.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Russia sitting on the 4th or 5th most proven reserves of crude oil??

Irony of ironies, all that oil and they're spending oil money (taxes on that oil) to electrify instead of building refineries to make diesel fuel.

 Not to squelch the pipe dream to harshly but I don't think you will see high tension lines strung along to many railroad tracks.  It will take an act of congress to pass a national law allowing such a thing to happen without every NINBY between LA and NY and FL and Washington state filing law suits up the wazoo.  Not to mention the environmental impact work that will have to be done.  Nobody and I mean nobody wants new high tension wires/poles within miles of their homes, they just don't.  And reason has nothing to do with it. 

Think Washington DC, lobyist for, lobyist against, getting re-elected, whatever.  Talk is cheap, planning is easy, getting it done is tougher than you think.  I'm 65 and I sure don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.

It's already happened - one of these disputes recently occurred in Springfield Township, Upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania with PPL wanting to install a new transmission line.  See the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's [''fFERC''] web page on ''Transmission Line Siting'' at:

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/siting.asp

- Paul North.

EDIT: The act of Congress was the ''Energy Policy Act of 2005'', or "EPAct2005''.  From page 5 the FERC brochure on ''A GUIDE TO THE FERC ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES PERMIT PROCESS'', at: [emphasis added - PDN]

First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.

A small clarification:  GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling.  The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe.  In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.)  GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel.

Anyhoo, the operative word is "Government".  At 52x the cost of hydro power, wind energy is silly!  Without government subsidy, it would go nowhere and a lot of birds would live.  Give us a network, supplied by nuclear power (non-PC), and it might work.  Lemme know, and I'll buy copper futures.

Hays

aricat:

First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.

Ay, there's the rub.  (somebody said that once.)

You see, you and I think of railroading as a business.  And as a business in North American it's doing quite well.  It serves its customers efficeintly.  It rewards its investors.  It provides good jobs with good pay and beinfits.  It pays taxes instead of draining the public for their hard earned dollars.  I think the Federal Railroad Administration said it well in October 2009 when they said:

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world. Generally speaking, and in relative comparison to other modes, freight railroads perform their functions and maintain the freight rail infrastructure without the need for government funds. Freight rail infrastructure maintenance and capacity enhancements, however, can only occur with Federal legislation and policies that allow rail carriers to earn revenues that are sufficient to encourage their continued investment in the system. Their investment meets National needs by enhancing safety, reliability, and capacity. Before 1980, when railroads were partially deregulated, they focused on survival. In recent years, they have been thriving and privately funded freight railroads have focused on enhancing the reliability of their service and their intermodal capacity. The recent economic downturn has slowed but not eliminated targeted projects that will enhance freight railroads capacity and competitiveness, thereby positioning them to better handle traffic as the economy recovers. "

The present economic structure and system seem to be doing quite well railroad wise.  Economic resources are added to the system where needed as needed (and removed as needed).  Unlike the bad old regulated days.

But there's another view.  An "Activist" view that does not consider railroads to be a business, but as an instrument of "Change".    Activists are all about "Change".  And if their desired "Change" can't be had voluntarily, they'll seek government fiat to force it upon us.  They develop good skills at manipulating the media.  (as shown in the November Trains article on electrification.)  This allows them to influence public opinion and to further their goals.  They also make stuff up predicting more than dire consequences if we do not accept their desired changes.

Believe it or not, there are people who lie awake at night worrying about the use of carbon as a fuel and about the resultant "Climate Change."  They seek a good night's sleep by forcing us to "Change" in the direction they want.  In this case the "Change" involves using railroads as a tool to force people from their cars and freight out of trucks.  None of this would be a free choice, and little, if any, of it would be good.

So not everyone views railroads as a business.  Some view them as a tool to be used to change the way we live.  If we don't want to make that change, it's our tough luck.  The activists want a good night's sleep.  Of course, the next morning most of 'em would just focus on something else to fret about.  It is their nature.

BNSFwatcher:

A small clarification:  GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling.  The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe.  In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.)  GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel.

Anyhoo, the operative word is "Government".  At 52x the cost of hydro power, wind energy is silly!  Without government subsidy, it would go nowhere and a lot of birds would live.  Give us a network, supplied by nuclear power (non-PC), and it might work.  Lemme know, and I'll buy copper futures.

Hays

aricat:

First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.

In response to your post, greyhounds made some great points about the motivation behind this plan, and I just want to add to them in regard to your post. 

Nationalization of railroads is the 600-pound gorilla in the living room all right.  I don’t see how nationalization would be inconsistent with serving customers, as you suggest.  I have no idea how it might affect Warren Buffet or his expectations, but I would not conclude that the participation of Warren Buffet proves nationalization is out of the question.

You say, “All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.”  Actually, the opposite is the case with the topic of this thread and the sources I have referenced, including the Trains article in the last issue.  This is precisely about electrification not as a private business decision, but rather, as a public policy decision regarding the safety, security, and general welfare of the United States.  It is like FEMA responding to Katrina.

Nothing I have found directly advocates the nationalization of the railroads in connection with electrification.  However, references do call for a National Transportation System and a National Energy Policy.  The FRA calls for a National Rail Plan to promote sustainable transportation among other things.

Nationalization does not usually happen only out of necessity.  It has its own self-motivated, gravitational pull, and looks for opportunities for fulfillment.  The current political climate in the U.S. is unusually favorable to the basic concept of nationalization.  Nationalization often advances itself by calling for a national policy or the need to address a crisis. 

What is definitely being called for is a national transportation system powered by renewable energy instead of oil.  Rail is the centerpiece of this plan.  The plan not only calls for rail electrification, but also a major expansion of rail capacity for both freight and passenger traffic.  A complete HSR system is just a small part of this plan.  Directly linked with this gigantic proposal, is the call for a national conversion from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, and a complete reconstruction and expansion of the national power grid.   

Taken all together, the enormous scope of this project can only be accomplished as a publicly funded, government project.  Furthermore, when you compare what will be new construction in this project to the existing private railroad plant, the size and value of the new part is much larger than the existing railroad plant.  Just the electrification of the railroads alone is too costly for the railroad companies to fund themselves with private capital, and BNSF has called for government financing for their electrification. 

Therefore, if this plan were implemented, the private railroad companies would be just a small component of it.  Even if the rest of the plan does not become a permanent nationalization, the government will be calling the shots for a long time until the public debt is paid off.  So if the railroads remain private in the context of this plan, they will be like the tail trying to wag the dog.