Electric locomotives in the U.S.

[Philcal]

The question can arguably answered with one word. Oil. In the 1920's the U.S. was self sufficient in oil, and it was actually cheap. Substantial electrification had been done on roads such as the Pennsylvania, New Haven, Milwaukee Rd, Great Northern, Virginian, and others. The advent of the diesel-electric locomotive, pretty well arrested any further electrification in the United States.In Europe, on the other hand,even while coal was plentiful, electric traction proved a much cleaner, thus attractive alternative. The physical plant requirements for a purely diesel railroad are also considerably less costly than those of an electric road. The current spiking price of fossil fuels may bring electrification to the fore once again, but a complete phase over, will probably never occur.

[PBenham]

Electrification requires a rather heavy concentration of traffic in a limited area/space.There is another consideration. If a stretch of track is idle more than 80% of a full 24-hour day, electrification is not economically viable. There's the rub for freight service. Along with that is the utilization problem caused by straight electrics being tied to areas under wires, or next to a third rail. Then, these days, no one and I mean NO ONE can construct a power generating facility of any kind without winding up in court for years and years and years! We have a shortage of electrical generating capacity right now, and the situation won't improve in my lifetime (i'm 54) or in the life times of anyone over thirty right now. Those of you in your twenties will be elderly before new power generating facilities will be built. By then, the choices will be limited and VERY expensive. This will have far reaching consequences for the US economy, limiting its ability to grow.

[wallyworld]

An interesting part of the Ilinois Terminal story was the fact that they made a very diligent effort in studying the advantages of electric versus diesel power prior to dismantling the overhead but the conversion to diesel power had an adverse effect. Alot of their trackage in municipalities ran down city streets for many decades which regularly hosted freight drags whose electric motive power was fairly quiet.Once the decision had been made to convert to diesel power they parked a diesel in town and idled it to demonstrate how quiet they were.Despite this,the diesel powered freights had a noise level that was found to be objectionable prompting successful calls to have them removed, which led to reliance on trackage rights. Derailments on the lighter rail became common.Long delays on trackage rights movements were also common. In hindsight perhaps the conversion was a mistake from a motive power point of view.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

ITC was caught between a rock and a hard place on the diesel v. electric issue. The electrical system would have had to have been rebuilt to support the greater power demands of moving heavier freight trains and its own track and bridges would need to be upgraded because of heavier freight cars and better clearances. Street running was an additional hazard.

Assuming that the above-mentioned upgrades took places, new electric locomotives would have been more expensive than off-the-shelf diesels because of their small production numbers. Diesels and trackage rights were probably the best option at the time.

Also remember that much of Illinois Terminal in the Metro East area was not electrified and already ran with steam and diesel power.

[wallyworld]

Another disadvantage of continued electrical operation was the necessary upping the voltage to 1200. I dont know if they would have necessarily bought their motive power as they may have fabricated their own as they had in the past with the Classes B,C and D. Regardless It would have been interesting to see what a Class E would have looked like.They even looked at mu operation of diesels with electrics ala Milwaukee Road or mu operation of the D's.I don't agree, however, that trackage rights were a good thing and apparently neither did they as they rehabilitated an old Pennsy secondary line and their desire to return to their own trackage was a strong desire expressed by Dennis Wison, IT's most successful president. The Geeps did not distribute their weight as lightly as a four truck C or D and damaged lighter interurban rail.Many times crews were called only to be outlawed because no clearance was given.
As a fan, I wi***hey had pursued the electric way. As a realist, they could neither afford it nor would it have made much difference in the end. However, all this talk of interurban freight makes me wonder-what was the heaviest interurban freight hauler? I am away from home and dont have my reference books to fall back on. A CSSB Little Joe? I understand they never pulled their potential due to a lack of juice. True?

[daveklepper]

I heard the same thing, but never had it confirmed. Mitch, a South Shore engineer who is a regular on the TRAINS forum should know. I also have some other contacts.

The South Shore's trackage and right of way were sufficiently heavy so diesel freights are not any more of a problem than they were under electric power, from what I understand.

The only "interurban" electric freight today is the Iowa Terminal and the museum-freight railroad operation at East Troy, Wisconsin. Anyone know of others? I guess South Brooklyn division of New York's subway system occasionally uses on of its remaining steeple cabs instead of a diesel in freight service -on third rail, but that must be very rare. The CTA, possibly? Yakima freight is diesel, as far as I know.

Heavy hauling freight today seems to electric only on "captive" mine-to-power plant lines.

Europe is a different story. But in the UK freight is deisel even on electrified lines.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

South Shore was built to steam railroad standards right from the beginning, quite an unusual practice for an interurban. Most of Illinois Traction was built to the less demanding interurban standards, causing problems later, especially on the line through Bloomington.

I will go way out on a limb and say that South Shore became more of an electric railroad and less of an interurban with the Insull purchase and rehabilitation beginning in 1926. Except for their length (60-61'), the MU cars were indistinguishable from steam road equipment, including dining and parlor cars with Commonwealth 6-wheel trucks, and the steeple cabs were exceptionally large. South Shore also operated a lot more freight service than most interurbans.

[wallyworld]

I would have to disagree with the statement the CSSB was built steam railroad standards from the beginning. Until the East Chicago bypass was constructed well after the Insull era, there was significant street running as well as the still existing main line down the streets of Michigan City. If the CSSB ran at a higher voltage, I might be inclined to agree that it would be more of a Class I electric rather than an interurban. I think the CSSB was as close to the line of not being classifiable as interurban as any. The six wheel parlors were closer to Class I equipment however they were the odd men out in the scheme of standardization and had a comparitively short life span before being converted to a more standard profile.The IT and CSSB did have two things in common; a good freight traffic base and conversion to diesel power to move it. The Piedmont and Northern in the Carolinas is an overlooked heavy hauler that created homebuilt motive power that was the template for Oregon Electric aka North Shore four truck haulers as well as IT. They hauled long strings of coal to Duke Power plants and looked pretty awesome in their later rebuildings complete with pantographs.. And, once again, this operation was dieselized. Freight operations powered by juicejacks on these lines all went south when interurban passenger service went away. The web site Dons Depot has some good photos of the equipment that give a taste of what this operation looked like.

[artpeterson]

I think there are two distinct phases to the South Shore's evolution - first, the Insull reconstruction and re-equipping to first class passenger hauling standards and then the later (post WWII) transformation of the line into a serious freight hauler.

The 1941 acquisition of the 100-ton ex-IC steeplecabs allowed SSL to retire the two 50-ton locomotives, which were then sold to Niagara Jct. Freight revenues rose in 1941 and would continue on an upward trend until 1948. But its the arrival of the "Little Joes" and the ex-NYC locomotives in the mid-50s that really transformed things!

Regarding the earlier question about CTA freight service, none since the spring of 1973 when the service to Lill Coal along the north side "L" stopped.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Street running, even with main lines, was long a part of steam railroading. Consider Monon in Lafayette, NKP in Erie, NYC in Syracuse, etc. South Shore's original voltage was 6600 volts AC, converted to 1500 volts DC to coincide with the IC's suburban lines to allow through service to Randolph Street. None of the heavy parlors (351-352) and diners (301-302) were converted to 4-wheel trucks, they were removed from service due to the Depression. South Shore did have two parlor cars built on 4-wheel trucks (353-354) that were converted to coach trailers. I will concede the short length of the passenger equipment as interurban in character, but about half of them were stretched to 77' without having to beef up the traction gear.

Unlike most interurbans, even ITC, freight cars were not restricted from any mainline trackage due to curves.

[Anonymous]

My favourite electric is the W-1 giant of the Great Northern. Sadly, they were only in service between 1947 and 1956. That´s just not enough for a loco that could develope 180.000 Ibs of tractive effort!!

[wallyworld]

CSHegewisch-I agree that street running did occur but it was an exception rather than a rule. You haven't convinced me. The South Shore has earned the title America's Last Interurban for a reason although it was built to a higher standard but then so was the Skokie Valley bypass of the CNS&M.( a similar section of the South Shore was known as the ideal section)As artpeterson pointed out the heavier motive power arrived on the scene late in the South Shore's existance as a private enterprise.The six wheel trucks of afew cars that had a short life that did not fit the standardised scheme of equipment does not make the case to this writer that the South Shore was not an interurban in character. The standard cars as originally delivered prior to modernization came with pantographs and trolley poles. With the exception of the curvature restrictions of the Bloomington line ITC had freight as its bread and butter hence its post electric existance-long freight drags were common without any restrictive problems, except perhaps the height of the underpasses on the city bypasses which IT used to avoid street running. Whether we consider it and interurban or not, we have to admire its tenacity as a road that survived. I wonder if the North Shore would have experienced a similar growth of passenger traffic as the South Shore had it survived.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

South Shore became known as the Last Interurban more because of its origins and its electric operation, by 1950 it was more of an electric railroad and less resembled an interurban than even North Shore or the Iowa freight interurbans.
The trolley poles on the first Insull MU cars and steeplecabs were more for possible operation on the other Insull lines than operation on their own lines, and were removed or replaced with a second pantograph in short order. Why they were even equipped with trolley poles is questionable since the MU cars would have never fit on North Shore, even as leasers; they were too wide and too heavy for the L and not equipped with radial couplers.
As far as possible passenger growth on North Shore for continued suburban service, I find it quite unlikely. North Shore was too close to C&NW's and MILW's North Lines, both of which were re-equipped with air-conditioned bi-levels, providing a real advantage over North Shore's antiquated equipment.

[wallyworld]

Maybe someone has the answer to this question that I have been curious over for some time although its a moot point but interesting from a historical point of view. Its in two parts: 1. Remember the annual passenger train speed surveys that Donald Steffee (sp?) did? Are they available somewhere on line? 2. Between Chicago and Milwaukee which road had the best regularly scheduled timings?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Maybe someone has the answer to this question that I have been curious over for some time although its a moot point but interesting from a historical point of view. Its in two parts: 1. Remember the annual passenger train speed surveys that Donald Steffee (sp?) did? Are they available somewhere on line? 2. Between Chicago and Milwaukee which road had the best regularly scheduled timings?

MILW did operate a few non-stop Chicago-Milwaukee runs scheduled for 75 minutes, average speed of 68 MPH.

[daveklepper]

I believe the North Shore could have survived if management had done the following after the Shore Line abandonment in 1952:

Worked with the CTA to consolidate shops at the CTA's Skokie Shopes and closed Highwood.

Then studied the remaining portion of the Shore Line north of highwood and kept only that portion where freight service was really profitable and only for the time that it was profitable.

Reduced the Mundeleine branch to single-track, with a portion of the former second track kept in position west of Deerpath only as a layup track so the commuter's Skokie local trains, which did get most of the business from the Shore Line when that line was discontinued, did not have to run, usually nearly empty, all the way up to North Chircago Junction or Waugegan Edison Court to lay-up overnight,

Some older steel cars rebuilt for one-man operation (when not on CTA tracks) and used as one-man cars for certain of the practical one-car off-peak trains.

The Northwestern suburban service is convenient if you work near the Travel Center, but the CNS&M directly served a much wider employment area and its connections to the transit system were more convenient.

The economies may have kept the CNS&M operating until subsidized commuter operations and government ownership became the norm.

The June issue notes that the old Pacific Electric Long Beach line handled 25,000 (or 20,000?) a day, but today's Blue Line handles 80,000!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The Shore Line was abandoned for passenger service in 1955, probably should have been abandoned much earlier since it paralleled (often on adjoining rights-of-way) the C&NW North Line.
Any savings from closing Highwood shops may have been negated from labor protection clauses in the existing union contracts. Skokie Shops would be an outside contractor so it may not have been possible to move work there due to the same agreements. Lay-up points are also governed by labor agreements, so laying up trains short of Waukegan or Mundelein may not have saved much cash. One-man cars would also have required changes in labor agreements, plus a major re-structuring of the fare structure. Zone fares did not exist at that time.
While using the L to get to the Loop put North Shore riders closer to their workplace than Union or North Western Stations, the L was also appreciably slower than either C&NW or MILW.

[wallyworld]

The North Shore did look at one man operation and a study was done to look at conversion costs. Shop drawings exists for this so it was seriously considered.
Another costs savings that did not occur that was also looked at favorably but economically impossible to implement was the retrofitting of roller bearings to replace the friction bearings on cars. One cost saving option that was never seriously considered was the lopping off of the Wisconsin trackage much as it was done in the CTA "take-over" study. The leasing of the line by the North Shore Commuters Association was only stalled by the lack of liability protection for the owners in the event the properties value was lowered during the term of the lease. I am old enough to remember Harold Mason, the road's president being attacked in various editorials for being non committal toward the preservation effort, particularly on WGN radio. They kept playing his "no comment" responses over and over. For a time, some villiages in my neck of the woods tried to convince The Milwaukee Road to run down the Soo Line from outside Grayslake to connect to the CNSM trackage at Mundelein and head west to reconnect with the Milwaukee at Roundout. Nice idea but the Soo was not in favor of it. I drive past the former Skokie Valley high speed right of way and think what a waste the abandonment was. There has been studies made over the years, priorities set and still the extension of the CTA up to Lake Cook Road on this right of way has yet to happen. The Mundelein branch intersects three current Metra lines. Had it survived, transfer between these three lines, with North and South destinations, would have been possible. Oh well....

[penncentral2002]

A lot of the issue why electric rail never became more common was initial development/infrastructure costs. The electricification was so expensive, so it only was economically feasible in a few markets (like the Northeast Corridor) or for urban systems (such as the urban subway systems). It cost way more per mile to build the infrastructure for the electric system than a non-electric system. And throughout American history, it is rare that more than the bare minimum gets spent on basic infrastructure.

Personally from a practical perspective, my favorite electric trains would be the Metrorail in DC which took me faithfully for work during the years that I lived there preventing me from having to drive in that awful traffic up there.

But from a design/railfan perspective, I prefer the Pennsylvania GG-1's because of that fabulous 1930s art deco design.

Whether the high gas prices/tightening demand will make electric locomotives more popular again remains to be seen. As of now, diesel prices haven't ran to the level to offset the costs of the major infrastructure improvements needed for electric rail - but with the rising global demand, perhaps electric locomotives might become a more attractive option again.

[2redeyes]

Why is modeling catenary systems so expensive? My Lionel EP-5 and MTH GG-1 in
O gauge are designed to run with the overhead system. Can anyone help out on this
idea?

[JanOlov]

How would the US electrics compare back then with the rest "world" as in Europe, in quality, future thinking etc. etc.?

[JonathanS]

One of the big reasons you do not see common carrier freight railroads in the USA using electrification is TAXES.  All those catenary supports, wire, and substations add value to the property that the local governments see as taxable real estate.  You would need a lot of operating cost avoidance to just break even.

You do see electrification being used by government agencies (AMTRAK, NJT, SEPTA, etc.) because they are immune from property taxes.  Also you see some utilites using electrification because they can simply pass on the additional taxes to the consumer as "cost of doing business" and the consumers cannot turn anywhere else to get electricity.

 

[Tom Curtin]

The question can arguably answered with one word. Oil. In the 1920's the U.S. was self sufficient in oil, and it was actually cheap.

Well, almost that word.  That --- plus the property tax essessment matter discussed in a more recent post.  Simply put, during the era when this country's railroads were planning their conversions from steam, the economics of diesl-electrics were unquestionable and unbeatable.  Diesel fuel was incredibly cheap --- as incredible as this may sound to somebody who wasn't around then, it was just a few cents a gallon!  A purely hypothetical discussion of how those economics would play out if railroads were converting from steam today, at today's oil prices,  might be fun to engage in but I have no idea where it would lead.

Something that hasn't been very widely written about, but neither is it a secret, is that in the late 70s, when it was a young and struggling enterprise, Conrail paid for an engineering study to analyze extending its electrification west from Harrisburg/Enola to Pittsburgh/Conway. This was something the PRR had always wanted to do but after WWII they never had the capital.  Remember. that in that period CR was still operating the PRR's full freight electrification east of Harrisburg.  In the 1970s it was still a spectacularly efficient operation that PRR had been able to install in the 30s, at depression-era prices.   The study that was done is said to have recommended electrifying, but the capital required (I don't know the details) was more than CR was willing to commit to.

[daveklepper]

Patience, maybe in our lifetimes!

[JanOlov]

I hope that they'll have the good taste and design some decent looking electrics then.....

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I hope that they'll have the good taste and design some decent looking electrics then.....

If they look like the EL-C's or E44's, I would be quite pleased, despite H. Reid's opinion regarding the EL-C's.

[JanOlov]

I hope that they'll have the good taste and design some decent looking electrics then.....

If they look like the EL-C's or E44's, I would be quite pleased, despite H. Reid's opinion regarding the EL-C's.

Eeerrmmm...... I think that you'll have to enlighten me Paul.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I hope that they'll have the good taste and design some decent looking electrics then.....

If they look like the EL-C's or E44's, I would be quite pleased, despite H. Reid's opinion regarding the EL-C's.

Eeerrmmm...... I think that you'll have to enlighten me Paul.

The E44's were PRR/PC/CR freight electrics rated at 4400 continuous HP and were numbered in the 4400 series.  They lasted in service from 1960 into the early 1980's and have a road-switcher carbody.

The EL-C's were VGN rectifier electrics rated at 3300 continuous HP and also had road-switcher carbodies.  H Reid, in his book "The Virginian Railway" described them as looking like "misshapen bricks".  The EL-C's were numbered VGN 130-141 and went to N&W when VGN was merged into N&W.  When N&W de-electrified, the EL-C's were sold to NH (11 for service, 1 for parts) as NH 300-310 and were re-classified as EF-4's.  They went to PC when NH was imposed on PC and were renumbered PC 4600-4610 and were re-classified as E33's.  They kept the same numbers on Conrail.

[arkansasrailfan]

Problems with electrification, 1)taxes 2)cost of installation 3)trying to find locomtives that will suit needs(remember that this is about freight railroads) 4)BIGGY if the power is cut, like in the Northeast Corridor a few times, the railroad is shut down, and that means finding the problem. so there you have it. electrification is good in a lot of ways (limitless power, green) but it has flaws that set it back, just like you don't see turbines(coal, gas, oil), steam engines out on the road today. A lot of railroads studied (during the 70s)electrification, but shied away at the cost.

[Phoebe Vet]

Actually, all trains in America are electric.  The locomotive drive is electric.  The deisel engine just drives a generator.  That system means they don't need overhead wires or third rails.