Link
It points out the error in the FRA study.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The numbers presented in the article are compelling. Why would those in charge resist implementing something that seems like a no-brainer?
Do they know something we don't?
Ugh. I think the only way to do the justification properly is apple to apples. That is, replace diesel with electric - same trains, same HP/ton and calculate fuel/energy costs.
But, you absolutely can't start with some sort of avg fuel consumption. You have to model real trains on real routes.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Where is the cost of the electrical distribution network (catenary or 3rd rail) shown? Who maintains the electrical distribution network?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
AnthonyVThe numbers presented in the article are compelling. Why would those in charge resist implementing something that seems like a no-brainer? Do they know something we don't?
Class 1's have access to limited capital.
Just like ourselves, it's not good enough merely to show a return. Clearly, Class 1's have seen it a better investment in spending elsewhere like upgrading track, upgrading locomotive fleets, etc.
For example, my windows are old and about the best thing that can be said about their energy efficency is that they're better than nothing. New windows would pay for themselves in a few short years.
But that's a significant investment. Assuming the capital is available, it has to be the best use for those limited resources. Otherwise, it stays on the back burner.
Nobody, even the largest corporation, can undertaken every project that's projected to show a return.
The discount rates applied are rediculously low, which results in calculated project costs unrealistically low, artifically inflating the benefit/cost ratio by grossly under reporting the Net Present Value of future costs.
If this is the corrected version, I can not imagine how bad the original is.
Mac
Leo_Ames For example, my windows are old and about the best thing that can be said about their energy efficency is that they're better than nothing. New windows would pay for themselves in a few short years.
Do you know that replacement windows have an energy payback of "a few short years"? Or is this a sales claim by the people offering to provide new windows?
There are reasons for new windows -- the old ones may be unsightly, hard to open and close, require storm windows that have to be laboriously taken down and put up every season, and have cracks that let flies and other bugs get into the house.
The old windows may also leak more cold air into your house. But is that where all or even most of the air infiltration is coming from?
I read the Princeton, New Jersey study where a government agency modded a couple of duplex town houses for energy efficiency, kind of like David Wardale modding the 3450 steam locomotive. They found that the biggest sources of cold air exchange were 1) the "box sill" where the house rests on top of the foundation wall, and 2) the various light fixture, chimney, and toilet vent pipe penetrations into the ceiling below the unheated attic. Less-than-efficient windows were a minor factor. But the biggest source of infiltration was the wall separating the two halves of the duplex. You shouldn't jump to conclusions that your old windows are driving your heating bills because there are all kinds of people trying to sell you a lot of expensive stuff on claims of "energy efficiency."
Electrification is popular in Europe where the governments run the railroads and imported oil is made expensive for the same reasoning that the Japanese pay multiples of the price of rice sold in Arkansas, USA to get that staple from local farmers. It's a kind of mercantilist trade policy along with a desire for a certain kind of self sufficiency.
We discussed on another thread reasons why the privately owned U.S. (OK, U.S. and Canadian) railroads aren't standing in line to get wire strung. One of them is the maintenance on the catenary. Another is this "demand pricing" structure where the railroads want to run trains where and when they choose rather than park them in sidings when the power companies raise the price during times of peak demand.
If the impetus for electrification is to move to so-called renewable sources of energy (I say so-called because there are substantial resource inputs into the structures and collectors for those fuel-free power sources), which is motivated by the concerns of environmental impacts rather than oil being in any way expensive for in short supply right now, these variable and intermittent source magnify the problem of the power companies wanting to ration electricity to large commercial users with the railroads wanting and needing to run trains on their schedules.
Is this like our local grocery store paying a supplemental fee to the power company to have the bragging right of "100 percent wind and solar powered"? Apart from electricity being "fungible", that is, a "dirty" kilowatt from coal being indistinguishable from a "clean" kilowatt from wind, I am willing to accept that you could "allocate" electricity from clean sources to customers who have paid a "clean power" premium.
What makes this a fraud is that the "clean" sources are intermediate and variable whereas a food store has to run refrigeration equipment without interruption, that is, unless they want to sell me spoiled food, which a family member has complained that this particular food store has done on more than one occasion.
Forget that -- someone "at the U" with "inside knowledge of retailing" suggested to me that a result of this store's expansion within its host mall, it is keeping a lot of their refrigerated food inventory in reefer trucks parked out back, which are very much powered by #2 Diesel fuel supplemented by the required dose of DEF.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Who is the author of the article? What qualifications does he bring to the table.
I have not read the study; I would like to see a summary of it posted on this forum. It would be helpful if the person who posted the link could summarize the three or four major points of the article.
Senior railroad management is intelligent. Irrespective of what an academic or government official says, they are in the best position to know whether an investment in electricication would generate a positive return.
Getting the money for a capital investment, i.e. electriciation, is not difficult if the proposed capital project has a high probability of generating a return for the shareholders. The world is awash in money. Otherwise, it is no go.
Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
The incentive has to go to the power transmission companies. Would it make sence to shed parrel power line right of ways that are next to railroad tracks and also shed the paying of taxes but have to deal with the monster that is the railroad buracracy?
JPS1 Who is the author of the article? What qualifications does he bring to the table. I have not read the study; I would like to see a summary of it posted on this forum. It would be helpful if the person who posted the link could summarize the three or four major points of the article. Senior railroad management is intelligent. Irrespective of what an academic or government official says, they are in the best position to know whether an investment in electricication would generate a positive return. Getting the money for a capital investment, i.e. electriciation, is not difficult if the proposed capital project has a high probability of generating a return for the shareholders. The world is awash in money. Otherwise, it is no go. Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there.
#2 Diesel fuel is and will always be a more expensive way of making stuff happen than using electricity, provided you have a wire connection. If that were not the case, food stores would be using Diesel refrigeration compressor "sets" to run their coolers -- oh, wait, one store that claims to be 100% wind-powered does such a thing, if only because they couldn't expand their in-building chilled space in proportion to taking over the retail space when their mall neighbor moved out.
But the wire connection, especially the overhead wire over a rail line, can be expensive, both in its first cost as well as in recurring maintenance cost to keep it in shape to run trains under it. This article is quick to "call out" the FRA but it completely neglects these costs.
JPS1Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there.
It still would've generated a return for the shareholders. It just wasn't great enough to justify the investment.
For the projected 1.2 billion expense, they predicted an annual operating savings of 84 million with an 18.1 return on investment over a 29 year period.
It's not good enough just to generate a positive return on investment.
Paul MilenkovicBut the wire connection, especially the overhead wire over a rail line, can be expensive, both in its first cost as well as in recurring maintenance cost to keep it in shape to run trains under it. This article is quick to "call out" the FRA but it completely neglects these costs.
Both first and maintenance costs of electrification are discussed. At least you read it. For some, even a short article is too much. The point is the case for or against electrification was based on a shoddy FRA study.
Leo_Ames JPS1 Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there. For the projected 1.2 billion expense, they predicted an annual operating savings of 84 million with an 18.1 return on investment over a 29 year period. It's not good enough just to generate a positive return on investment.
JPS1 Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there.
I should have said optmized investment portfolio return given the other investment options or use of funds for the company.
A company usually would make the investment if the returns for the project were better than the alternatives.
Large corporations put together a list of proposed projects, usually ranking them on numerous criteria. They select the projects in the order of the returns, as well as the weighted composite criteria, until they reach a point on the list where going any further does make any business sense.
Who did the study that your are quoting from? Was it done by the railroad, an equipment supplier, a government agency, etc.?
Projecting a return over 29 years is risky. It assumes that the hurdle rate remains the same. This would be unusual. Also, the returns should be adjusted for estimated annual inflation.
Leo_Ames JPS1 Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there. It still would've generated a return for the shareholders. It just wasn't great enough to justify the investment. For the projected 1.2 billion expense, they predicted an annual operating savings of 84 million with an 18.1 return on investment over a 29 year period. It's not good enough just to generate a positive return on investment.
Leo,
An 84 Million dollar savings on a $1.2 billion investment is a 7 percent return on investment.
If your Weighted Average Cost of Capital is 11.5% and hurdle rate is 15%, no responsible management would make this investment. To do so would be like borrowing money at 11% while loaning it out at 7%.
JPS1Who did the study that your are quoting from? Was it done by the railroad, an equipment supplier, a government agency, etc.?
Did you read it? It is actually quite short. It names and links the criticized FRA study in paragraph one of this article.
schlimm JPS1 Who did the study that your are quoting from? Was it done by the railroad, an equipment supplier, a government agency, etc.? Did you read it? It is actually quite short. It names and links the criticized FRA study in paragraph one of this article.
JPS1 Who did the study that your are quoting from? Was it done by the railroad, an equipment supplier, a government agency, etc.?
I did not read it.
I expect people to summarize the thee or four key points in a reference and, if appropriate, provide a link for those who want to read it in depth. This is an expectation that stems from a career working for a major national and international financial institution.
The first question I posted was who wrote the article that you linked to and, more importantly, what are his qualifications. The second clause in the sentence is the most important one, i.e. qualifications.
The second question was who performed the PRR electrification study, which is a different animal.
Speaking as someone who did read it:
(1) it is not a study, it is a blog post, which is a very different thing with very different conditions for evaluation;
(2) actually clicking the link for the criticized FRA study produces nothing but a dead link at FRA, which tells me something about whether the OP actually followed the link to read the FRA paper when posting the link here. Finding the actual reference to the study, and posting a link to the actual content, would be the thing to do next...
Answering first JBS1.
1. Sorry if reading a few pages of a blog post is such a strain. In academia, we read longish research studies regularly. I feel no need to provide you with a summary.
2. I do not know the author's credentials. They may be adequate or not. Nevertheless, one can read the content and judge it on its own merits rather than base your evaluation on a false appeal to authority.
RME: I never said the posted link was to a study. It obviously is not. Your other point is well taken. I apologize for not checking the article's link. However, as I said to JBS1, is it possible to base comments on the blog post's contents?
Comparing electrification in the north American market vs Europe, Japan, maybe China has different metrics. Europe is a very mountainous area except the Beleux (sp) areas and a few other locations. That said there may be considerations not covered.
1. Flat land electrification requires long distances of relatively less HP/ trailing ton. Mountain areas it is differet.
2. With today's DPU technology the use of idling or low power settings diesels means they are only needed on steeper grades to get up and down those grades.
3. Onlly a few locations can justify any electrification at all. One such location for example would be the grade up and down NS the horse shoe curve.
4. Take a long manifest going from Harrisburg - Pittsburg. It has 2 or 3 locos up front, 2 in the middle & 1-2 on the rear end. This is a normaly manned helper district. Add 8000 - 10,000 HP on front and rear of electric motors. Front end crew moves to motors and rear is set up for DPU or manned pusher. Then only the mid train diesels will have to help up the grade. Going downgrade electric motors operate in regeneration with diesels only providing dynamic if needed.
4. That way electric consumption is reduced, diesel fuel useage is significantly reduced, there might be need for fewer diesel locos on any train, and there may be energy credits available.
5. NS is also sitting on a little natural gas near Harrisburgh. They may be able to protect their peak power demand using natural gas recupertative electric generation either with those reserves or gas on site storage + pipeline.
6. In conclusion taking total anticipated trailing HP needed would be a better measure of electrification may be installed. The greatest HP ( or KW hours ) required per track mile ( not route mile ) for an average day would be a good metric for deciding where a RR might electrify. But keeping CAT & Wire installation and maintenance per mile is about the same where ever it is installed. So why even consider flat land CAT ? Unfortunately there are not too many locations where CAT for helpers might provide a rate of return of investment.
The present USA fracking work caused a petroleum glut but middle east politics being what they are the glut could change to a shortage which would change electrification metrics.
blue streak 1 Comparing electrification in the north American market vs Europe, Japan, maybe China has different metrics. Europe is a very mountainous area except the Beleux (sp) areas and a few other locations. That said there may be considerations not covered. 1. Flat land electrification requires long distances of relatively less HP/ trailing ton. Mountain areas it is differet. 2. With today's DPU technology the use of idling or low power settings diesels means they are only needed on steeper grades to get up and down those grades. 3. Onlly a few locations can justify any electrification at all. One such location for example would be the grade up and down NS the horse shoe curve. 4. Take a long manifest going from Harrisburg - Pittsburg. It has 2 or 3 locos up front, 2 in the middle & 1-2 on the rear end. This is a normaly manned helper district. Add 8000 - 10,000 HP on front and rear of electric motors. Front end crew moves to motors and rear is set up for DPU or manned pusher. Then only the mid train diesels will have to help up the grade. Going downgrade electric motors operate in regeneration with diesels only providing dynamic if needed. 4. That way electric consumption is reduced, diesel fuel useage is significantly reduced, there might be need for fewer diesel locos on any train, and there may be energy credits available. 5. NS is also sitting on a little natural gas near Harrisburgh. They may be able to protect their peak power demand using natural gas recupertative electric generation either with those reserves or gas on site storage + pipeline. 6. In conclusion taking total anticipated trailing HP needed would be a better measure of electrification may be installed. The greatest HP ( or KW hours ) required per track mile ( not route mile ) for an average day would be a good metric for deciding where a RR might electrify. But keeping CAT & Wire installation and maintenance per mile is about the same where ever it is installed. So why even consider flat land CAT ? Unfortunately there are not too many locations where CAT for helpers might provide a rate of return of investment. The present USA fracking work caused a petroleum glut but middle east politics being what they are the glut could change to a shortage which would change electrification metrics.
And the basis for your rather sweeping conclusions? Do you actually know anything about European topography?
PNWRMNM Leo_Ames JPS1 Several years ago I read a proposal that was put forth to electrify the PRR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It was done a long time ago, and the times have changed, but the conclusion was that the return on the investment was not there. It still would've generated a return for the shareholders. It just wasn't great enough to justify the investment. For the projected 1.2 billion expense, they predicted an annual operating savings of 84 million with an 18.1 return on investment over a 29 year period. It's not good enough just to generate a positive return on investment. Leo, An 84 Million dollar savings on a $1.2 billion investment is a 7 percent return on investment. If your Weighted Average Cost of Capital is 11.5% and hurdle rate is 15%, no responsible management would make this investment. To do so would be like borrowing money at 11% while loaning it out at 7%. Mac
I quoted what the results were stated as. I did not calculate a thing.
JPS1Who did the study that your are quoting from? Was it done by the railroad, an equipment supplier, a government agency, etc.? Projecting a return over 29 years is risky. It assumes that the hurdle rate remains the same. This would be unusual. Also, the returns should be adjusted for estimated annual inflation.
We're talking the Conrail electrification study that has already been mentioned.
I don't have the issue of Trains handy from the past 5 years that had a detailed article about this, but here's a newspaper article from back in the day with the basic results and conclusions.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19800412&id=TackAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0m0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3915,2506468&hl=en
Double post...
I don't understand why you conclude that electification is only a benefit when pulling trains up a grade.
Burlington Northern studied electrification when fuel prices soared 40 years ago. The route mentioned as a candidate for electrification was to the Powder River Coal Basin.
https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/web_0681_Electrification.pdf
Euclid
Electrification for mountain grades only would result in short motive power districts on either side of the electrification, and would also inhibit the use of diesels on through runs, unless you use electric helpers only on certain runs.
CSSHEGEWISCHElectrification for mountain grades only would result in short motive power districts on either side of the electrification, and would also inhibit the use of diesels on through runs, unless you use electric helpers only on certain runs.
Inherent in the 'mountain grade only' models is that they represent helper districts. No one sane would consider removing diesels from a train and then reattaching a different set on the 'other side' of the electrified district even if it were extended over any particular mountain 'district'. There is some leeway about using the added power as pushers vs. snappers, but not very much about sizing both the electrification and the supplied external generation or grid-derived power (and power lines) needed to be able to lift entire trains over the grade with electric traction alone.
This situation changes, of course, if you have a long tunnel or other feature that has to be cleared of exhaust when diesel power is used. Even then, however, it's likely that the whole consist, including head end and DPUs, would be towed over the district or 'through the tunnel' rather than substituting power.
I have said for many years (and there was at least one very good Conrail study on this in the early 1980s that I think I have posted references to) that a better answer to this kind of electrification may often be to provide 'dual-mode lite' to locomotives used in this service, instead of dedicated pure electric locomotives. Here you have a pan or other pickup, and a light main transformer, in the extreme case providing only the additional horsepower gain that can be effectively used in the locomotive's traction motors and not substituting for the prime mover and generator power. This has all the effective advantage of substituting full electrics on the consist, with much less capital investment per unit, and of course allows the locomotives to work self-propelled services as needed or appropriate. While it might be desirable to keep the dual-mode engines close to a particular grade, they could be swapped at more convenient locations, for example division points or areas with fueling facilities, and run 'to and fro' rather than requiring fancy facilities at the physical change points at the end of catenary or third rail.
RME,
I am not clear on why one would want your dual mode lite engines.
Lets assume modern 6 axle 4,000 HP or so AC diesels as a basis of comparison. My vision is that you would attach a pan and whatever electrical gear is necessary to make them say 6,000 HP electrics while under wire. Not having easy access to modern tonnage rating charts I figure the diesels are rated today at about 2,000 tons at 10 MPH on a long 2.2% ruling grade.
As you and others have pointed out elsewhere, starting TE is a function of weight on drivers and attainable factor of adhesion. Since I specified AC diesels for comparison I see no way for your electrics to improve starting TE. That being the case the only benefit I see is getting up the hill at 15 MPH rather than 10 MPH. That seems very little benefit for a whole lot of capital investment and the operating cost of swaping power out somewhere, even at established crew change points.
Yes, you do not burn diesel fuel, but you will burn something to make the electricity. In addition you introduce a whole new set of complications in dealing with the electricity grid. The GN over Stevens Pass, a 70 mile long electric district over the Cascade Mountains, had "Amperage Orders" that limited the amount of power the electrics could draw from the not really unlimited power grid. Amp orders could knock you right back to 4,000 HP/unit, or even less.
What am I missing?
Mac McCulloch
Victrola1 Burlington Northern studied electrification when fuel prices soared 40 years ago. The route mentioned as a candidate for electrification was to the Powder River Coal Basin. https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/web_0681_Electrification.pdf
#2 Diesel was 82 cents/gal. in 1980 (article Jan. 1981). Currently it is $2.38, almost triple. As recently as 2014, it was over $4.00. So, perhaps it is time to rethink this, and not just for mountain stretches, as mentioned in the BN article.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.