Electric vs Diesel Commuter Railraods

[wccobb]

One MORE point not yet made: The "bean-counters" rule the roost. Top management follows.
IF: electric commuter RRs gave the better return, there would be NO diesel commuter RRs. IF: tightly wound rubber bands gave the best financial returns, tightly wound rubber bands would be the ONLY commuter RRs.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Depreciation rates are determined by generally accepted accounting principles and tax law since they affect income. Under current tax law, the economic life of a locomotive is 15 years regardless of type and depreciation is calculated accordingly. Capital rebuild programs are based on this and other parts of the Tax Code. As such, an electric locomotive may last longer with relatively less maintenance but it is still fully depreciated after 15 years.

Most electrification proposals in the post WW2 era involved electrification of main lines only and left branch lines and yards to be worked by diesels. You would then have two locomotive fleets, one which is tied to the catenary and another one which could be free-running but in practice would be restricted to lighter duties.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by paulsafety

Diesel - buses - are probably the least expensive since tax dollars repair the guideway.

http://www.reason.org/lightrail/
http://www.reason.org/ps336.pdf

I hate to be such a killjoy - I prefer trolley rides and electric commuter trains, but, hey, the post is about expenses not what's most fun to ride or railfan....

I quickly read a good chunk of the first study. I appears to me that they started at the conclusion and worked back to the arguement. [:D] They didn't do any regression or correlation analysis between their measures. They ignore highway miles as a variable. And that's just for starters. For a better analysis from a conservative think-tank, try Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation's "Does Transit Work?" http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich2new.cfm

[paulsafety]

Diesel - buses - are probably the least expensive since tax dollars repair the guideway.

http://www.reason.org/lightrail/
http://www.reason.org/ps336.pdf

I hate to be such a killjoy - I prefer trolley rides and electric commuter trains, but, hey, the post is about expenses not what's most fun to ride or railfan....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

The advocates of diesel obviously never heard or understood the idea of nuclear power plants. They produce electric energy w/o polluting, and at astonishing low costs.

Many diesel engines are scrapped after 20 years, when the prime mover should be replaced. Many electrics serve for 40-60 years. Makes a difference in depreciation.

I'm not trying to be an advocate one way or the other, but doesn't nuclear waste from nuclear power plants qualify as pollution? Just a question...

[TH&B]

Never say "never", it is not on the table now but electrifeing routes like Chicago to Los Angles may well be practical one day. If these lines should start getting a realy good operating ratio and ever start making some real $$$ and the railroad starts to look for even more efficient and more capacity and faster freight trains, there might be something in electrification.

[Anonymous]

Population density is key. Japan, which is about the size of "overcrowded" California with 30 million residents, has about 100 million. The former West Germany was about the size of Pennsylvania, but with ten times the population and almost as much non-arable land.

[ndbprr]

Be careful when comparing the US and Europe. traffic denisty, availablity of cheap power, distances all play a role. The PRR electrification would have spanned nearly all of Europe. To consider crossing the vastnes of this country with electric power is not cost practical. That is why you will never see mag lev here. It would be great to have mag lev sleds that you could board with your car and be from Chicago to St. Louis in an hour so you could conduct business and return but not in my lifetime or anyone else here

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

Electric trains can accelerate faster between stations then deisels ever can, one importent reason alone.

True only if comparing Elec MUs with diesel loco hauled coaches.

Diesel MUs will have similar performance to electric MUs. Limiting factor is passenger comfort ~0.1g max.

Electric locos beat diesel locos, and electric MUs beat diesel MUs. But yes, electrification buffs do tend to hopefully exaggerate the difference.

[TH&B]

How much down time at the shop has the Amtrak AEM7 over it's life span compared to say a diesel freight unit of similar age ?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Motive power utilization is also an issue that needs to be addressed. Vernon L. Smith noted in his defense of American steam that locomotive utilization in Europe was pretty low and included a high amount of shop time. It appears that the difference in motive power utilization between Europe and the United States hasn't changed that much.

In the United States prior to Amtrak and local transit authorities, it was not uncommon for the diesels used for suburban service to also be utilized in the long-haul passenger pool or in local freight and transfer service. This option would have not been available if suburban lines were electrified.

[pacificelectric]

i'm glad this topic is being discussed here. i'm from europe, where a good deal of freight and passenger traffic runs on electrified lines even many low density lines are electrified (for economical and operational reasons).

i strictly support the opinion of uzurpator and wonder frequently why the commuter rail systems or amtrak corridors (pac. surfliner, ...) aren't electrified!

and guys calling us morons should've a look over the edge of the mug they're obviously sitting in.

and concerning the freight lines in the east: pulling the plug on the lines running inland from the NEC is pretty much amtrak's fault ... they prized the use of their infrastructure that conrail had to find alternative routes (the non-electrified ones) and saw no efficiency in once or twice changing engines on relatively short runs ...

peter

[Anonymous]

But isn't electrification the best for long-haul, heavy-use grind? I'm thinking of the landlocked (no connection) Lake Powell and Black Mesa RR, which connects a coal field to a generation plan hundreds of miles away and operates with strictly 50,000 V AC. And I'm guessing no subsidies were given.

[oltmannd]

Even on the PRR, utilization of electric locos in frt svc was poor. When CR rerouted much of the former PRR frt onto the RDG and LV routes, east of Harrisburg (because Amtrak was charging an arm and two legs for the car-miles and KW-HRs), the locomotive utilization became hideous. CR found it was cheaper in the long run to run diesels under the wire. (However, an unintended consequence due at lest in part to this decision, was the wreck as Chase MD)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

In about 1964, there was an article in TRAINS which discussed the re-electrification of NH's freight service west of New Haven. Freight service had pretty much been dieselized by 1958, which left only the passenger service using the wires, which created load and rate problems since most power was being used during peak periods at higher rates. NH decided to re-electrify some through freights between Cedar Hill and Bay Ridge to even out the load and get a better base rate. The former VGN EL-C's were purchased at this time to provide the power for the freights. The author opined that this was a special situation since the catenary was already in place and did not provide a good example for possible future electrifications.

[jeaton]

Going back to the original question, when the 1929 era cars of the Illinois Central's electrified suburban service were nearing the end of their lives, rumor had it that the IC was considering conversion to diesel operation. I am sure that for any given seating capacity, non-electrified cars would be much less costly to buy than the electric cars, but of course, that is offset by the cost locomotives.

Chicago Metra now owns and operates that service and they are in the process of replacing the 1970 era cars, but staying with the electrified operation. I doubt that the Metra spent a million bucks on a consultant to study the issue, but I would have to think that somebody ran some numbers. After all, the issue is governed by dollars, not tradition.

Jay

[TH&B]

One major problem for electrifying the freight lines in the USA is unless you wire up virtualy all lines including the many lines that run less the a hand full of trains per day, you'll have to change engines where the wires end. This is a major problem even though one wouldn't realy think it is. But anywhere in the world where this happens on railways it always turns into an opperating nightmare. I can think of many European locations where the units are changed out because of change in voltage / freaquency or to deisel. A source of delays.

[mhurley87f]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

Quite a few European countries (notably Italy and Switzerland) got into electrification in a big way in the 1930's. In part this has been part of a desire by the governments not to be too reliant on any one fuel source. The French generate most of their electricity from nuclear power but they also have a considerable amount of hydro electric power. I'm not sure what the Dutch use but their railways are about 90% electrified. The Irish are current developing bio mass crops such as elephant grass for when they run out of peat. Meanwhile some grain farmers in Britain have developed a bio-ethanol subsitute for gasoline which WIlthshire Police are using in their cars (they can run on either conventional gasoline or this new subsitute!).

The overwhelming reason that Switzerland and Italy electrified virtually the whole of theri Rail networks was the absence of Coal in those countries. France had some Coal, mainly in the North along Calais - Lille axis, and a a smaller coalfield(s) in the Clermont Ferrand area, and relied extensively on Coal shipped from South Wales, the low countries, Germany, and I guess from time to time, from Norfolk and Newport News.

What Italy and Switzerland did have was their topography, which couldn't be better for generating hydro-electricity, and France likewise developed hydro schemes in the Alps etc. before they opted for Nuclear generation.

[TH&B]

-mclare-
I would say population density of Europe is the most major reason for electrifying the rails. Not the only reason of course but many of the other reasons are themselves due to dense population. Also, look at the USA, the areas where there is some electrifiction to any large extent (the North East) is also densly populated. Electric trains reduce emissions of the train, espesialy importent in tunnels for passenger trains and densly populated areas. Electric trains also have a high hp to weight proportions and can accelerate faster then deisel, not a requirement for heavy freight.

The Dutch electrification has become technologicaly out dated being a lower voltage DC system that cannot handle the higher speeds, horse power and density of todays traffic. It used to be quite adequet for their short subway / streetcar type frequent national rail service. The Dutch railways are in the long expensive proccess of upgrading the system to high voltage AC.

[Tulyar15]

One of the reasons GNER has decided to look into electrifying the line from Leeds to Hambleton junction is so that it can increas the productivity of its class 91 electric locos and the Mk4 passenger cars that run with them. Whereas the diesel High Speed Trains can do a maximum of about 1,200 miles a day before they have to refuel GN ER calculate that this short infilling electrification will enable them to get 1400+ miles a day out of their electric trains.

The business case for this may be further boosed by a new park and ride station which would not only be served by GNER's train but also by the electric commuter trains which lin Leeds with Bradford, Skipton and Ilkley.

[nobullchitbids]

One point not yet made:

One "changed engines at New Haven" to leg the final miles to Grand Central Station -- which is underground. Because of the problem with fumes, steam and diesel long were prohibited there.

I suspect that the Europeans well may operate under similar restrictions in many areas, tilting the balance toward electric.

Also, in Europe, the price of gasoline would make an American drop his shorts -- we're talking three dollars (euros) a liter in some areas. Most of this is tax, but it reflects a commitment in Europe to mass transit over personal automobiles, many of which are too large to fit on old European streets (I still remember my German teacher bringing back pictures of her Volkswagen driving down streets with opposing wheels on opposing sidewalks!). Of course, as already has been mentioned, above a certain traffic density, economies of scale favor electric -- and that is what the Europeans have.

[Anonymous]

another thing to consider is power failure, if the power fails for any reason your stuck with a lot of useless steel. With diesel engines they run all the time, outside electricity or not.

mononfan865

[jwillard44]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fgrcl

QUOTE:


People promoting this [MORONS] also think you only build your highway once and never maintain it - The driveways to their homes are disaster areas!

They are the same morons that promote hydrogen as an alternative energy source.

I can think of a couple scenarios in which hydrogen might be very efficient.

1. If the hydrogen is generated off shore (perhaps in an atoll) by atomic power not subject to environmentalist whacko restriction, and then tankered (verb?) to the destination for use by modified internal combustion engines or fuel cells.
2. If individuals use solar power to generate their own hydrogen which is then pumped into their converted automobiles. This would have some real advantages if it should take hold, but would require a fairly large investment in equipment to join the party.

Actually, with the new gas turbines being so much improved over the days of the UP - GE turbine engines, I am surprised they haven't made a comeback. Look at what it takes to put 6,000 horse in a helicopter. And they run forever (well, almost).

Joel in Ogden

[Tulyar15]

Quite a few European countries (notably Italy and Switzerland) got into electrification in a big way in the 1930's. In part this has been part of a desire by the governments not to be too reliant on any one fuel source. The French generate most of their electricity from nuclear power but they also have a considerable amount of hydro electric power. I'm not sure what the Dutch use but their railways are about 90% electrified. The Irish are current developing bio mass crops such as elephant grass for when they run out of peat. Meanwhile some grain farmers in Britain have developed a bio-ethanol subsitute for gasoline which WIlthshire Police are using in their cars (they can run on either conventional gasoline or this new subsitute!).

[Anonymous]

Interestingly enough, though, according to a recent article I read in FORBES, the Chinese will probably buy their next round of reactors from us--there are competing systems marketed by GE and by Westinghouse.

[Anonymous]

Not an authority, but France has built many nuclear power plants during the last 25 years while the US has built none. China intends to build a bunch. I think they're exploring the use of "pebble bed" technology which would make the risk of a meltdown almost nonexistent. I just hope they're some "Edisons" in the US who can bring something to market that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to everyone for their input. Based on the financial and pollution considerations electrification in North America seems like a lost cause but, if it is a lost cause maybe we should look to Europe. To me it appears that the number of diesels to electrics is the reverse of North America. Is electrification more effiecient in countries with high population densities? Why have the Europeans gone in for electrification in such a big way? Could North America learn from the Europeans?

[ndbprr]

It wasn't until Conrail was established that the PRR freight catenary was deactivated. Even under the PRR it had limitations. No branch line work and no deviations if there was a wreck. Change out of motive power at branches, yards, termination of the catenary. For freignt, diesels gave the PRR what it was looking for when it electrified. The passenger denisty and utilization was nearly always succesful in spite of some early set backs. Catenary creates massive problems with wrecks and rerailing cars when you can't lift a boom more vertical. Storms required extra vigilance particularly after high winds. Had diesles been available when the decision was made initially regarding electric locomotion the PRR probably would never have done it according to most experts and old employees.

[Leon Silverman]

The PRR was almost universally electrified in the Eastern Pennsylvania- North East corridor region . Currently, only that portion still utilized by Amtrak and the local Commutor authorities (e.g. SEPTA, NJTransit) are still electified.
If Electric power is more cost effective than dieselation, why was the catenary over the frieght lines removed. I suspect one reason electrication has been maintained is the lack of thermal pollution, which cannot be eliminated from diesels. A diesel locomotive idling inside a stub terminal station, such as Pennsylvania Station in Manhatten, is going to through off an awful lot of heat, especially if the air conditioning has to be maintained in the passenger cars. If that engine is in a confined area, it will not only build up carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, it will eventually overheat as well. The tunnel motors used by the DR&G worked only because the train moved through the tunnel. It did not intentionally stop and idle.