Electrification in North America

[ndbprr]

The electric cost has not been the deal breaker in the past.  The cost of catenary and engines has been the deal breaker.  In addition maintenance crews on the PRR hated the catenary for a number of reasons.  Somebody had to inspect it after every storm for damage from tree limbs or wind.  Then there are repairs from wear, vibration, temperature extremes parting lines and other maintenance.  The big item however is wrecks.  In addition to tearing down the catenary in many cases it needed to be shut off so crews could clear the wreck.  With a diesel you can send the train on an alternate route.  With electric they all just back up and wait for the most part.  With over head wires you also need to keep the wrecker boom low so you you have to be very careful to not do more damage and still be able to clear the tracks.  A low boom is a accident waiting to happen.  There have been several test sections done over the years by the major railroads and the answer has always been no.  I don't see that changing.  I think it is more likely to see a nuclear powered engine then electrification.  And that isn't likely either. 

[eolafan]

Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics.

If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning! 

Why not take the correspondence PM? 

al

 

 

I agree and wish I had never made my initial posting.  I would like to apologize to all the members for my part in contributing  to the off topic comments.  I was wrong, learned a lesson and am sorry for what happened.  This will be my last posting on this thread, and no, I don't even want to continue it on PM.  

Wayne  

Wayne, I just read your private message to me...sorry to hear about your personal situation...keep a stiff upper lip buddy, and you will get through this OK.

[al-in-chgo]

Point of fact:  It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price.  Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out!  Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T".  I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.

My impression is that the situation was a bit more complicated than that. The electric utility deregulation bill was passed with good intentions by people who didn't have a very good idea of how utilities worked and an overly optimistic estimate for the cost of producing electric power. They also were thinking that the era of cheap oil and natural gas would last forever. Couple this with an almost complete lack of new generation built since the Jerry Brown administration and you had a good recipe for disaster.

If I had a say in planning the deregulation (with the benefit of some 20/20 hindsight), there would have been a couple of changes. Number 1 would have been phasing in time of day metering for all customers before starting the wholesale deregulation process. Number 2 would have made the power contracts based on the electricity delivered to the customer - the seller would have been responsible for establishing adequate transmission capacity to prevent the kinds of shenanigans done by the likes of Enron (they really were guilty of abusing the market).

What this has to do with railroad electrification is that gross uncertainty as to the price and availability of electric power will be a deal breaker. 

I hate to say it but you are almost certainly right.  Now, if every region of the U.S. contained a Columbia River Valley, we could generate the power hydroelectrically.  That wouldn't please some people, but given the opportunity and the challenges it probably would be done.  Heck, the Swiss are sensitive as all get-out about pollution but they generate so much power with their mountainous falling water that they sell the excess to Northern Italy at night! 

                   -- "Some of us prefer illusion to despair."    -  Nelson Muntz, The Simpsons. 

 

[erikem]

Point of fact:  It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price.  Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out!  Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T".  I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.

My impression is that the situation was a bit more complicated than that. The electric utility deregulation bill was passed with good intentions by people who didn't have a very good idea of how utilities worked and an overly optimistic estimate for the cost of producing electric power. They also were thinking that the era of cheap oil and natural gas would last forever. Couple this with an almost complete lack of new generation built since the Jerry Brown administration and you had a good recipe for disaster.

If I had a say in planning the deregulation (with the benefit of some 20/20 hindsight), there would have been a couple of changes. Number 1 would have been phasing in time of day metering for all customers before starting the wholesale deregulation process. Number 2 would have made the power contracts based on the electricity delivered to the customer - the seller would have been responsible for establishing adequate transmission capacity to prevent the kinds of shenanigans done by the likes of Enron (they really were guilty of abusing the market).

What this has to do with railroad electrification is that gross uncertainty as to the price and availability of electric power will be a deal breaker. 

[selector]

Whew!  I was hoping it would come to this. 

Thanks, everyone, even if we got into the weeds a bit.  It is good to have a dig at each other now and then, as long as the words don't become hurtful.

-Crandell

[sfcouple]

Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics.

If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning! 

Why not take the correspondence PM? 

al

 

I agree and wish I had never made my initial posting.  I would like to apologize to all the members for my part in contributing  to the off topic comments.  I was wrong, learned a lesson and am sorry for what happened.  This will be my last posting on this thread, and no, I don't even want to continue it on PM.  

Wayne  

[al-in-chgo]

Guys, the last post was almost nothing but politics.

If the Bergie-ometer goes off, don't say you didn't get fair warning! 

Why not take the correspondence PM? 

al

 

[Norman Saxon]

Wow, your logic and political ideas are strange to say the least.  May I recommend a few news sources for your consideration:  US News and World Report, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters News Service.  And stay away from FOX News.  We have become a very divisive country, which is not condusive to solviing our many problems.  There are no easy, one size fits all, solutions to these issues, but we can all benefit from the talents of everyone, regardless of political affiliation.    

I don't appreciate your condescending manner, name calling,  and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party.  There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.     

I read all news sources, and I see no real difference between Fox News, WSJ, and Reuters.  US News and World Report tends to lean too far left.

But I'm intrigue as to why you would suggest one "stay away from Fox News".  I find Fox willing to report news items that others ignore, and on the whole give a good balance between leftist and rightist views.  Why do you find that objectionable?

Point of fact:  It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990's, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price.  Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out!  Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a "T".  I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.

And of course there is a strong correlation between what happens to electricity markets and transportation markets, and what is now being debated on this thread aka railroad electrification.

The point is, I'm pointing out fact, and you accuse me of namecalling and "strange political ideas".  These aren't ideas, they are realities of what happens when people of a Marxist tilt try to oversee ostensibly private markets.  California is a beast, the 5th largest economy in the world, and it is sad to see that once great free market state embracing more and more of the Marxist philosophy, even more so than China and Russia it seems.  You cannot discount California's influence over the rest of the nation, and the path they are pushing the rest of us down is very discouraging to mainstream Americans.

[Flint Hills Tex]

Okay, guys, I found a really informative article on electrification using 3rd rail cross country at the following link:

http://www.railway-technical.com/etracp.shtml

They can get some pretty decent speed out of their trains, and I know the Hamburg commuter trains use 1,500 V DC (according to the article, AC transmission does not work via 3rd rail, but transformers on the locomotive could turn DC into 3 phase AC).

The diagrams appear to show a normal steel rail being used as the 3rd rail. Check it out!

[al-in-chgo]

I think the jury's out on cat for the BNSF route from Chicago to L.A.  Note that the Northern Transcon route has been shifted from pretty much pure ATSF's main line freight route Chicago - L.A., to exx-CB&Q mainline as far west as Cameron, to the west of Galesburg.  If I were Mr. Rose, I wouldn't sneer at a government subsidy (or outright grant) to electrify those busy lines, but I would be torn between the newer Transcon Mendota (IL) route and the previous Streator (IL) route if only one could be electrified because that would "lock in" the chosen route as the preferred one--perhaps the only one.

As for intercity third-rail in this country, forget it!  Let's get better crossing gates and nastier cab horns or else start embanking the lines, as IIRC most of the (British) Southern Rwy. is, before we can even think of third-rail out in the country-- or suburban areas for that matter. 

-  a. s.  

 

[TH&B]

l think electrification will happen when capacity and average train speed increases to the point when diesel locos become costly.  Maybe once the BNSF from the outskirts of Chicago to the outskirts of LA becomes fully double tracked all the way.  Then the next increases would be a third track or electric. Electric locos can have higher horse power and less down time and fewer engines could handle more traffic on just double track.   

 

So when speed and capacity needs to be increased to increase profit then they may electrify. And when they do it won't be crooked wooden poles, it will be state of the art electrification, the most durable and reliable setup possible. l say they'll start doing it in 10-20 years.

 

 The cost of both deisel and electricity will probably be very high in the future.

[KCSfan]

I don't appreciate your condensing manner, name calling,  and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party.  There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.     

Wayne  

Right on Wayne. The oil may be in Texas but the dipsticks are in DC!

Mark

[martin.knoepfel]

Two points from a European view.

Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.

As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary.

The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.

[diningcar]

Well we have all had time to comment and analyze. So let's make predictions about when the first significant electrification will occur. By significant let's make it 300-500 miles of a major traffic density corridor. And lets not make it a difficult operational corridor. I offer (but you may select your own) the UP between Omaha and Cheyenne or the BNSF Transcon between Wellington, KS and Clovis, NM.

And to leave wiggle room let's pick in ten year segments, 10-20-30-40-50-60 or more. My prediction is none in view or worth speculation.

[erikem]

The cost of energy generated in a highly efficient fixed power plant, whether it be hydro, nuclear, coal or even oil or gas fired has to be less than that generated by a relatively small on-board diesel engine. This advantage increases with every single additional penny in fuel cost as diesel continues its skyrocketing price climb.

The cost at the generator terminals will probably be lower for a fixed plant, but cost to the traction motor terminals is a different story. Having said that, it is possible to get significantly higher efficiencies with a fixed power plant than a mobile plant - don't think a combined cycle (combustion turbine with a steam bottoming cycle) plant would be practical on anything smaller than a ship - GE's latest plants are capable of 60% efficiency.

 

Then there is the pollution issue. Large fixed power plants which burn hydro carbons (the fuel used by the majority of US power plants) employ lower cost and more efficient air pollution control technology than is available for mobile diesel engine applications.

In addition, it may be practical to sequester the CO2 produced by a fixed power plant. The ultimate may be the integrated coal gasification plant combined with CO2 sequestration.

Back in 1990, Southern California Edison proposed electrifying the freight lines in the LA basin to reduce pollution and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority scheduled hearings on the feasibility of the idea. One product was the estimated cost, which worked out to $4 billion, half of which was for increasing clearances on the hundreds of overpasses. The electrification zone would have extended to the state line on the then UP, SP and AT&SF main lines to Arizona and Nevada.

I would expect the per mile costs of extending past the state line would have been much less than in CA - not as many overpasses to deal with. 

[erikem]

Let's assume that those lines require the services of 20,000 locomotives rated at 4,000HP each.

I was thinking along the lines of an updated BC Rail 6000 hp GF6C. With AC traction motors, and other advances made over the past 25 years, would not 8000 hp be most likely for modern freight electrics?

That sounds like a good candidate for intermodal frieght, but I'd suspect that coal trains would use lower power. I suspect that the RR's could get by with fewer 8,000 hp loco's than 4,000 hp locos. The reason for using the 4,000 hp figure was to get an order of magnitude estimate for the expected electric power demand from wide scale electrification and not that 4,000 hp diesels would be replaced one-for-one by 4,000 hp electrics. 

[sfcouple]

Two things I will offer:

1. Adjusted for inflation, todays gasoline (and diesel) are very close to what they were in 1981; which reinforces the point made above that these can and will adjust.

I have virtually no experience with economics but I've heard this argument before and have never understood it or really believed it.  And here's why:

                          1981                2008

Minimum Wage:     $3.35               $6.55

Gallon of Gas:         $1.38               $5.00 and rising fast.  

% Gas to Wage:     41%                 76% 

I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement.

Wayne 

Since we've elected to inject economics into this discussion, here's a quick reminder:  The minimum wage is an arbitrary number used by politicians to show how much they "care" about their constituents, but in reality does nothing except bar entry into the workforce by young adults aka high school kids trying to get their first part time job.  If we really cared about helping our young people obtain their first job experience, we'd eliminate the mininum wage and let them bargain with their prospective employers for a labor contract acceptable to both parties.  In fact, it is likely, given the fact that our ecomomy has been at full employment (most economists define full employment as an umemployment rate of around 7% or less) for several decades now, if the minimum wage were eliminated, real entry level wages might actually rise!

Also, the minimum wage is not an indicator of real average wages as you infer.

Finally, the fact that you folks in SF are paying close to $5.00 a gallon while the rest of the nation is paying around $3.50 a gallon is frankly an indictment of your State government.  If you really want change, you might think of starting there instead of trying to drag the rest of the nation into your socio-economic morass.

That being said, I do agree with your statement that the average wage earner is clueless when it comes to our nation's economic machine.  How else do you explain why they vote in people who think the way to lower gas prices is to eliminate tax breaks for domestic oil production and start taxing so-called "excess" profits of oil companies?  If not from oil companies, where else are we going to get our transportation fuels?  I don't see Google or Yahoo! building any new oil wells or refineries.  How about taxing their excess profits?

As for electrification, not going to happen.  We're more likely to return to reciprocating steam.......

You might want to consider spending more time reading what I actually said and less time bashing California's "socio-economic morass."

Minimum wage:  I get it.  My apologies for not being well versed in economic dynamics.  I've spend my adult life in scientific research and I'll leave the economic mumbo jumbo to experts like yourself.

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Wayne 

Wayne,

You stated "I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement" which I interpret as the average person's inability to correctly analyze the current economic situation, or in short, clueless.  How else do you explain the election of politicians who promised to do something about high energy costs in 2006, only to have those same energy costs rise 50%?  Clearly, the average American is clueless if they think raising the costs of domestic energy production will lower their retail prices.  You don't have to have an economics degree to understand that, but one does have to have some cognitive abilties beyond "we want change from the current policies."

It's not that I'm sympathetic to the oil companies, but you need to understand that it costs more for them to explore, drill, produce, and refine oil here in the USA than it is for them to do the same outside our boundaries.  If we take away tax incentives for domestic production, they'll just get it elsewhere.  That lack of domestic production is a large part of why speculators are running up the market price of oil.  At least domestic production is free from socio-political upheavals and/or anti-US production manipulation.  And for that matter, the profit margins for oil companies are still way below those of those California companies I referenced.  Shouldn't they fall under the same banner of "excess profits"?

Well, since you brought up Clinton, remember he is the one who paved the path to 9/11 via ignoring the growing threat of middle east extremism all the while blocking attempts to drill in ANWR etc.  But I'm not one to blame him soley for the rise in oil prices.  Bush has been just as cupable, in that he thinks oil should flow in a free market, yet with OPEC there is no real free market.  But the real villians in all this are those Senate Democrats who kept threatening filibusters if we okay'ed ANWR drilling, or tried to ease some of the more stringent environmental rules such as the 46 different blends of fuel as required by the EPA, et al.  Add to them the RINO's that promoted this ethanol fraud, which has raised both fuel prices and food prices.

However, it seems to me that all the energy price problems we are experiencing now can be traced back to California in some way or another.  It is California that is leading the charge to have CO2 regulated as a pollutant, California that lead the charge for those 46 different fuel blends, California that is leading the charge to force all of us into smaller less safe vehicles, California's congressional delegation that is blocking attempts at domestic hydrocarbon production, while at the same time blocking attempts are reviving nuclear power, California that caused the 2000 electricity crisis via their insane ISO rulemaking which encouraged energy traders to bid up market prices.  It is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that always knockes out pro-energy court cases.  It was your own Pelosi that knowingly and falsely promised that if the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 they'd lower energy prices, it is your own Barbara Boxer that heads the Senate EPW which is still trying to enact strict CO2 regulations even in the face of growing contrarian evidence that the climate models are 100% off......

But hey, don't let that stop you from completing the circle of economic suicide and letting the nutjobs take over the White House as well as Congress and the courts.  Just for the record, how DO these folks plan on lowering energy prices?  Or do you even know or care?

All we know for sure is that with Democrat control the rail industry will be reregulated.

As for voting for change, that's what the folks down in Venezuela thought.  And Peru.  And 1930's Germany......

Wow, your logic and political ideas are strange to say the least.  May I recommend a few news sources for your consideration:  US News and World Report, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters News Service.  And stay away from FOX News.  We have become a very divisive country, which is not condusive to solviing our many problems.  There are no easy, one size fits all, solutions to these issues, but we can all benefit from the talents of everyone, regardless of political affiliation.    

I don't appreciate your condescending manner, name calling,  and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party.  There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.     

Wayne  

[Norman Saxon]

Nanaimo 73 is completely correct. There is some excess capacity in electrical generation and this excess would cover the initial startup of electrification.

I disagree.  There is no current excess electical generation capacity, and projections of future consumption will only make things worse.  Of all the projected generation construction proposed even 10 years ago, how many have actually been built, let alone even turned a spade of dirt?

Regarding CFL's and other conservation techniques, keep in mind you cannot conserve your way out of an energy shortage.  You either build new generation facilities, or you die.

In light of this, how can one convincingly argue for railroad electrification unless the railroads build their own generation facilities?

In fact, on a larger scale we might see some of the larger energy users do that very thing, e.g. providing their own energy needs internally.  BNSF has talked of buidling a CTL plant in Montana as a way of hedging continued rises in diesel prices. 

The point is, if the railroads opt for internal provision of energy sources to run the trains, I'm not sure electrification would be on the top of the list.  More likely it'd be CTL, or even a return to external combustion engines using coal.

Now, if it's the federal government that get's involved, that's a whole different story.  If the feds pay for stringing catenary, then yes electrification might become the prefered mode of propulsion.

[Norman Saxon]

Two things I will offer:

1. Adjusted for inflation, todays gasoline (and diesel) are very close to what they were in 1981; which reinforces the point made above that these can and will adjust.

I have virtually no experience with economics but I've heard this argument before and have never understood it or really believed it.  And here's why:

                          1981                2008

Minimum Wage:     $3.35               $6.55

Gallon of Gas:         $1.38               $5.00 and rising fast.  

% Gas to Wage:     41%                 76% 

I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement.

Wayne 

Since we've elected to inject economics into this discussion, here's a quick reminder:  The minimum wage is an arbitrary number used by politicians to show how much they "care" about their constituents, but in reality does nothing except bar entry into the workforce by young adults aka high school kids trying to get their first part time job.  If we really cared about helping our young people obtain their first job experience, we'd eliminate the mininum wage and let them bargain with their prospective employers for a labor contract acceptable to both parties.  In fact, it is likely, given the fact that our ecomomy has been at full employment (most economists define full employment as an umemployment rate of around 7% or less) for several decades now, if the minimum wage were eliminated, real entry level wages might actually rise!

Also, the minimum wage is not an indicator of real average wages as you infer.

Finally, the fact that you folks in SF are paying close to $5.00 a gallon while the rest of the nation is paying around $3.50 a gallon is frankly an indictment of your State government.  If you really want change, you might think of starting there instead of trying to drag the rest of the nation into your socio-economic morass.

That being said, I do agree with your statement that the average wage earner is clueless when it comes to our nation's economic machine.  How else do you explain why they vote in people who think the way to lower gas prices is to eliminate tax breaks for domestic oil production and start taxing so-called "excess" profits of oil companies?  If not from oil companies, where else are we going to get our transportation fuels?  I don't see Google or Yahoo! building any new oil wells or refineries.  How about taxing their excess profits?

As for electrification, not going to happen.  We're more likely to return to reciprocating steam.......

You might want to consider spending more time reading what I actually said and less time bashing California's "socio-economic morass."

Minimum wage:  I get it.  My apologies for not being well versed in economic dynamics.  I've spend my adult life in scientific research and I'll leave the economic mumbo jumbo to experts like yourself.

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Wayne 

Wayne,

You stated "I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement" which I interpret as the average person's inability to correctly analyze the current economic situation, or in short, clueless.  How else do you explain the election of politicians who promised to do something about high energy costs in 2006, only to have those same energy costs rise 50%?  Clearly, the average American is clueless if they think raising the costs of domestic energy production will lower their retail prices.  You don't have to have an economics degree to understand that, but one does have to have some cognitive abilties beyond "we want change from the current policies."

It's not that I'm sympathetic to the oil companies, but you need to understand that it costs more for them to explore, drill, produce, and refine oil here in the USA than it is for them to do the same outside our boundaries.  If we take away tax incentives for domestic production, they'll just get it elsewhere.  That lack of domestic production is a large part of why speculators are running up the market price of oil.  At least domestic production is free from socio-political upheavals and/or anti-US production manipulation.  And for that matter, the profit margins for oil companies are still way below those of those California companies I referenced.  Shouldn't they fall under the same banner of "excess profits"?

Well, since you brought up Clinton, remember he is the one who paved the path to 9/11 via ignoring the growing threat of middle east extremism all the while blocking attempts to drill in ANWR etc.  But I'm not one to blame him soley for the rise in oil prices.  Bush has been just as cupable, in that he thinks oil should flow in a free market, yet with OPEC there is no real free market.  But the real villians in all this are those Senate Democrats who kept threatening filibusters if we okay'ed ANWR drilling, or tried to ease some of the more stringent environmental rules such as the 46 different blends of fuel as required by the EPA, et al.  Add to them the RINO's that promoted this ethanol fraud, which has raised both fuel prices and food prices.

However, it seems to me that all the energy price problems we are experiencing now can be traced back to California in some way or another.  It is California that is leading the charge to have CO2 regulated as a pollutant, California that lead the charge for those 46 different fuel blends, California that is leading the charge to force all of us into smaller less safe vehicles, California's congressional delegation that is blocking attempts at domestic hydrocarbon production, while at the same time blocking attempts are reviving nuclear power, California that caused the 2000 electricity crisis via their insane ISO rulemaking which encouraged energy traders to bid up market prices.  It is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that always knockes out pro-energy court cases.  It was your own Pelosi that knowingly and falsely promised that if the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 they'd lower energy prices, it is your own Barbara Boxer that heads the Senate EPW which is still trying to enact strict CO2 regulations even in the face of growing contrarian evidence that the climate models are 100% off......

But hey, don't let that stop you from completing the circle of economic suicide and letting the nutjobs take over the White House as well as Congress and the courts.  Just for the record, how DO these folks plan on lowering energy prices?  Or do you even know or care?

All we know for sure is that with Democrat control the rail industry will be reregulated.

As for voting for change, that's what the folks down in Venezuela thought.  And Peru.  And 1930's Germany......

[sfcouple]

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Well, that I allegedly said "the average wage earner is clueless" happening to be a wholesale fabrication, that underscores your acknowledged political agenda that since you don't understand economics, you are going to rely on politicians to solve your problems for you. Good luck; that's my reference to Plato. My point is that the markets will adjust these things and that is the handicap suffered by electrification: the very fact that there are high prices is going to bring old wells back into production, shift consumers and industries to more economical approaches, and prices will climb back down. That is the risk to any highly capital intensive endeavor, and nobody is going to risk the capital over short term fluctuations. The cost of oil is going to have to represent a sea change and a permanent price change and that is unlikely at the present, particularly in the United States were demand is declining because of increased efficiencies. But, that probability creates investment risk. Risky enough that massive capital investment is just not in the cards, and particularly so when a much most cost-effective alternative continues to exist in the form of coal.

 

I really do not have a political agenda, in fact you and I would probably enjoy having a beer together.  I just look at things differently than you and have had different life experiences than you.  

I was only able to attend College because of the GI Bill of Rights enacted by the Kennedy/Johnson administration.  A significant portion of my retirement income is from Social Security which was started by FDR.  I was only able to purchase my first home because of the GI Bill.  When my only child was gravely ill I was able to take time off from work, without loosing my job, thanks to the Family Leave Law passed during the Clinton administration.  And finally, and not at all least, my only health care is through the Veterans Hospital.   

I proudly served my country during the Viet Nam War and my country in turn has provided me an opportunity to lead a decent life.   A Win Win situation.  So, I don't look upon  Government as the enemy, our Government and our Country has been an immeasurable help to me.  And if called again at age 62 I would proudly serve another tour in the Army.  

I hesitate to add another quote for fear of another lecture about Plato but here goes:  "If we were all angels we would not need a government."  (Can't remember the author).

I truly hope we can all come together to solve the many issues facing our country today and in the immediate future.  

Wayne  

 

[nanaimo73]

Let's assume that those lines require the services of 20,000 locomotives rated at 4,000HP each.

I was thinking along the lines of an updated BC Rail 6000 hp GF6C. With AC traction motors, and other advances made over the past 25 years, would not 8000 hp be most likely for modern freight electrics?

[blue streak 1]

Nanaimo 73 is completely correct. There is some excess capacity in electrical generation and this excess would cover the initial startup of electrification. Alsp remember the light bulb regs are gping to cut electrical consumption and we already now CFLs that are over 3 tiimes as efficient. (I am using some now with definite reduction of electrical consumption). LED technology will provide a 90% reduction. (note: all new RR and automobile traffic light installations are LED however the main reason for this installation is maintenance and not energy conservation. The reason we dont see more 50,000 hr LEDs for home useage yet is industry is taking almost all the present production; but that demand will soon be filled and then we will see some very innovative lighting schemes. Most people do not realize there are three colors of CFLs and the best daylight color costs the most and that's why they are not demanded more.

I have been working on an extensive post on this subject but need help and for some reason my PM will not receive. Some items of interest would be amount of HP assigned to certain routes, signal considerations, and costs of present electrification in the US and other countrys.   

[KCSfan]

  The cost of oil is going to have to represent a sea change and a permanent price change and that is unlikely at the present, particularly in the United States were demand is declining because of increased efficiencies.

Michael,

While I generally agree with most everything you post, I think you are wrong in regard to the above. I believe the cost of oil will continue to rise because it is a limited finite resource. Sure there will be dips in its price but the long range trend will be ever upward. I also think that any decline in demand resulting from improved efficiencies will be more than offset by increased consumption for highway and airline transport if for no reason other skyrocketing population increases both in the US and abroad.

Mark

[wsherrick]

Basically the problem is too much cash outlay for too little immediate return.  The railroads would have to invest in buying new fleets of locomotives to run on the electrified trackage in addition to laying the third rail or building the catenary system as well as electric generating systems to power it.

Now I've been following the "Could steam make a comeback?" thread, too. What I find interesting is that all of the steam proponents are 100% convinced that RRs would happily shoulder the costs of converting their entire locomotive fleets to coal fired, modern steam, as well as to recreate the no longer extant infrastructure neccessary, just because diesel has become so much more expensive than coal.

Please, nobody start the steam vs. whatever discussion on this thread! But why assume that RR execs would spend massive amounts of capital on a motive power switch of such magnitude, if it were tied to ONE source of primary energy, and by the same token state that electrification will never happen because of costs? It would make much mor sense to invest in versatile technology, and electrification is flexible, in that I can use any number of primary energy source, and get the added benefit (as has been pointed out several times) of saving energy via dynamic braking.

Pertaining to the argument about long distances being electrified, somone pointed out on the 2005 thread that the Trans-Siberian is electrified from Moscow to Vladivostok (a distance of 6,800 km or 4,216 miles). So distance, just by virtue of being great, is not a hindrance. As to costs, RRs already get federal and state funding to aid capacity projects. We have heard several times that electrification would raise mainline capacity (by how much? Anybody got some figures?), so RRs would not have to fund electrification on their own. Maybe power companies could get in on it, bartering a deal, for example: we (the power company) string up so-and-so-many miles of caternary/3rd rail, and you deliver our coal at a reduced rate/for free for x number of years.

Why not? You juice bugs sure felt like you had the right to take up pages of meaningless space on the other thread.

As to your last supposition about a trade value for value deal-that is a good idea and might have worked in the good old days when Capitalism wasn't hog tied by Government regulation. Today as we free fall towards a proto Marxist society such an arrangement is illegal.  It's called ,"collusion." Take a look at the Hepburn Act and the Sheman Anti Trust Act.

 

[MichaelSol]

Now I've been following the "Could steam make a comeback?" thread, too. What I find interesting is that all of the steam proponents are 100% convinced that RRs would happily shoulder the costs of converting their entire locomotive fleets to coal fired, modern steam, as well as to recreate the no longer extant infrastructure neccessary, just because diesel has become so much more expensive than coal.

Please, nobody start the steam vs. whatever discussion on this thread! But why assume that RR execs would spend massive amounts of capital on a motive power switch of such magnitude, if it were tied to ONE source of primary energy ...

"Why assume ...?" The answer is staring you in the face. That's exactly what happened when diesel, rather than electrification, replaced coal.

 

[MichaelSol]

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Well, that I allegedly said "the average wage earner is clueless" happening to be a wholesale fabrication, that underscores your acknowledged political agenda that since you don't understand economics, you are going to rely on politicians to solve your problems for you. Good luck; that's my reference to Plato. My point is that the markets will adjust these things and that is the handicap suffered by electrification: the very fact that there are high prices is going to bring old wells back into production, shift consumers and industries to more economical approaches, and prices will climb back down. That is the risk to any highly capital intensive endeavor, and nobody is going to risk the capital over short term fluctuations. The cost of oil is going to have to represent a sea change and a permanent price change and that is unlikely at the present, particularly in the United States were demand is declining because of increased efficiencies. But, that probability creates investment risk. Risky enough that massive capital investment is just not in the cards, and particularly so when a much most cost-effective alternative continues to exist in the form of coal.

 

[KCSfan]

A lot of what follows is based strictly on intuition and maybe someone who has access to more facts and figures than do I will confirm, or better yet begin to quantify, the economies that would result from these factors.

Maintenance costs for all electric motors would be significantly less than for diesel electric locomotives. With no on-board diesel engines and generators this seems to me to be a no brainer. This also means better utilization since less time spent in repair and waiting to be repaired translates into more hours available for actual service.

Both the initial and maintenance costs of diesel electrics will be increased as they are required to meet Tier III emissions compliancy. These could be very significant factors which are completely eliminated with all electric motors.

As electification progresses and production is ramped up to meet the demand for electric motors their initial cost is likely to be less than for a diesel electric locomotive of the same horsepower/tractive effort.

As previously mentioned all electric motors will return the power generated by dynamic braking to the grid as opposed to this energy being dissipated and completely lost by conventional diesel electrics.

The cost of energy generated in a highly efficient fixed power plant, whether it be hydro, nuclear, coal or even oil or gas fired has to be less than that generated by a relatively small on-board diesel engine. This advantage increases with every single additional penny in fuel cost as diesel continues its skyrocketing price climb. 

Then there is the pollution issue. Large fixed power plants which burn hydro carbons (the fuel used by the majority of US power plants) employ lower cost and more efficient air pollution control technology than is available for mobile diesel engine applications.

Mark

[doghouse]

 

Trading one form of energy for another.  Still, you have to make electricity and hydrocarbons are still the most economical.  Alternates don't have the capacity, yet.  Thats where the cost is.

[Flint Hills Tex]

Basically the problem is too much cash outlay for too little immediate return.  The railroads would have to invest in buying new fleets of locomotives to run on the electrified trackage in addition to laying the third rail or building the catenary system as well as electric generating systems to power it.

Now I've been following the "Could steam make a comeback?" thread, too. What I find interesting is that all of the steam proponents are 100% convinced that RRs would happily shoulder the costs of converting their entire locomotive fleets to coal fired, modern steam, as well as to recreate the no longer extant infrastructure neccessary, just because diesel has become so much more expensive than coal.

Please, nobody start the steam vs. whatever discussion on this thread! But why assume that RR execs would spend massive amounts of capital on a motive power switch of such magnitude, if it were tied to ONE source of primary energy, and by the same token state that electrification will never happen because of costs? It would make much mor sense to invest in versatile technology, and electrification is flexible, in that I can use any number of primary energy source, and get the added benefit (as has been pointed out several times) of saving energy via dynamic braking.

Pertaining to the argument about long distances being electrified, somone pointed out on the 2005 thread that the Trans-Siberian is electrified from Moscow to Vladivostok (a distance of 6,800 km or 4,216 miles). So distance, just by virtue of being great, is not a hindrance. As to costs, RRs already get federal and state funding to aid capacity projects. We have heard several times that electrification would raise mainline capacity (by how much? Anybody got some figures?), so RRs would not have to fund electrification on their own. Maybe power companies could get in on it, bartering a deal, for example: we (the power company) string up so-and-so-many miles of caternary/3rd rail, and you deliver our coal at a reduced rate/for free for x number of years.

[erikem]

Regarding locomotives, I'd guess BNSF would still need to purchase roughly the same number every year whether they electrified the Transcon or did not.

BNSF would probably need to step up their locomotive purchases for a few years, but I'd suspect that the locomotives would last longer (no wear and tear on the prime mover).

Production quantities would likely bring the price down to the same as or less than a similar power diesel - especially for AC traction motors. Something that might make electrification a lot more palatable would be putting batteries on the locomotives to allow for running while not under a wire - the work GE is doing on hybrid locomotive batteries would fit like a glove.