Paul_D_North_Jr If the 'hidden agenda' is indeed related to no oil and less greenhouse gases, etc., their electrification push is barking up the wrong tree. Freight railroads use less than 4 % of all transportation fuel, Amtrak is only a smidgen of that, and most other urban rail transit is already electric. So even if those electrifications all could happen overnight, there still would not be much of an effect. Instead, it seems that some other - unstated - social and structural changes are contemplated in order for electrifcation to have the magnitude of benefits that are claimed - such as replacing the private auto with urban mass transit ? While those may be valid tools to worthwhile goals that should be debated, they have nothing to do with electrifying freight railroads, and in that context serve only to clutter up and obscure the discussion. - Paul North.
If the 'hidden agenda' is indeed related to no oil and less greenhouse gases, etc., their electrification push is barking up the wrong tree. Freight railroads use less than 4 % of all transportation fuel, Amtrak is only a smidgen of that, and most other urban rail transit is already electric. So even if those electrifications all could happen overnight, there still would not be much of an effect.
Instead, it seems that some other - unstated - social and structural changes are contemplated in order for electrifcation to have the magnitude of benefits that are claimed - such as replacing the private auto with urban mass transit ? While those may be valid tools to worthwhile goals that should be debated, they have nothing to do with electrifying freight railroads, and in that context serve only to clutter up and obscure the discussion.
- Paul North.
But the discussion here is about the Trains article, not about electrification as it has often been discussed and analyzed. And the Trains article is precisely all about massive social changes needed to address a looming crisis in transportation, energy, and climate. So, I don't think that the discussion is being cluttered and obscured by those issues.
Replacing the private auto with mass transit is definitely part of what the article advocates, along with taking the majority of trucks off of the highway. Look at the concept illustration at the beginning of the article. Notice the quaint little roadway has reverted back to a bucolic setting of the 1920s while the people and freight are on the rails. The basic freeway of today has been converted to a freight/passenger corridor.
The article focuses on rail electrification only as a component of a much larger National Energy Policy, and it presents that rail electrification focus for the benefit of a target audience that has an interest in railroads. But the article does clearly at least outline the larger agenda which has nothing at all to do with the economics of rail electrification as it pertains to private business return on private investment.
Specifically regarding your point where you said: “If the 'hidden agenda' is indeed related to no oil and less greenhouse gases, etc., their electrification push is barking up the wrong tree. Freight railroads use less than 4 % of all transportation fuel, Amtrak is only a smidgen of that, and most other urban rail transit is already electric. So even if those electrifications all could happen overnight, there still would not be much of an effect.”
First of all, I would not say that it is a hidden agenda, although the agenda might be overlooked if one were to expect the article to analyze rail electrification in a pure business sense as it usually is. And while it is true that rail is already the most fuel efficient transport means, the larger agenda is to use rail to assume most of the non-rail transportation function in the country, which is currently being performed by trucks and automobiles. Since trucks and autos are much less fuel-efficient than rail, replacing them with rail will be where the massive oil savings will result. And then by electrifying rail, even further oil savings will result. So the tree they are barking up is the right one for what they actually intend to accomplish.
To make even more crystal clear, this basic political agenda, which is the centerpiece of the Trains article, here is an essay written by Phillip Longman called, Back On Tracks. The author of the Trains article cites Mr. Longman who contributes some of his thinking to the Trains article. Here is the larger context of that thinking:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.longman.html
Bucyrus But the discussion here is about the Trains article, not about electrification as it has often been discussed and analyzed. And the Trains article is precisely all about massive social changes needed to address a looming crisis in transportation, energy, and climate. So, I don't think that the discussion is being cluttered and obscured by those issues. [snip] First of all, I would not say that it is a hidden agenda, although the agenda might be overlooked if one were to expect the article to analyze rail electrification in a pure business sense as it usually is. And while it is true that rail is already the most fuel efficient transport means, the larger agenda is to use rail to assume most of the non-rail transportation function in the country, which is currently being performed by trucks and automobiles. Since trucks and autos are much less fuel-efficient than rail, replacing them with rail will be where the massive oil savings will result. And then by electrifying rail, even further oil savings will result. So the tree they are barking up is the right one for what they actually intend to accomplish. [emphasis added - PDN]
First of all, I would not say that it is a hidden agenda, although the agenda might be overlooked if one were to expect the article to analyze rail electrification in a pure business sense as it usually is. And while it is true that rail is already the most fuel efficient transport means, the larger agenda is to use rail to assume most of the non-rail transportation function in the country, which is currently being performed by trucks and automobiles. Since trucks and autos are much less fuel-efficient than rail, replacing them with rail will be where the massive oil savings will result. And then by electrifying rail, even further oil savings will result. So the tree they are barking up is the right one for what they actually intend to accomplish. [emphasis added - PDN]
Sorry - I was less clear than I should have been. To clarify: I'm completely fine with the discussion on this Forum thread - it's the 'discussion' in the article which hijacked or perverted the traditional electrification subject matter - that I'm objecting to, similar to you, not the subsequent debate over it -in which I've also taken part.
You have analyzed that article well and completely here - I apologize for troubling you to have to respond yet again, but your comment above also has some new insight to it. Thanks for that, and the link to the other article, too.
Paul_D_North_Jr Bruce Kelly [snip] For me, one of the most stunning comments was Matt Rose saying BNSF would like to lease right of way for high-tension power lines. Not just the kind that criss-cross the track here and there in Cajon Pass, but the kind that would parallel the track, creating a new, ugly backdrop for photos. Oh well, guess they don't really run those trains purely for the benefit of pictures. Well, no one ever complained about the MILW's or the GN's power lines along their R-O-W spoiling the photos, did they ? Maybe what you're afraid of is something like this - [snipped] . . . But what I'm really looking for is a photo of one of the really massive PECo lattice towers that straddles over and across 2 or 3 tracks just south of the Flat Rock Tunnel on the ex-RDG line, right along the Schuylkill Expressway, just before the Belmont Ave. exit for Manayunk and Roxborough, etc. - looks like something from a Lionel train set. I guess I'll just have to keep looking, or go there and take one myself . . . - Paul North.
Bruce Kelly [snip] For me, one of the most stunning comments was Matt Rose saying BNSF would like to lease right of way for high-tension power lines. Not just the kind that criss-cross the track here and there in Cajon Pass, but the kind that would parallel the track, creating a new, ugly backdrop for photos. Oh well, guess they don't really run those trains purely for the benefit of pictures.
Well, no one ever complained about the MILW's or the GN's power lines along their R-O-W spoiling the photos, did they ?
Maybe what you're afraid of is something like this - [snipped] . . .
But what I'm really looking for is a photo of one of the really massive PECo lattice towers that straddles over and across 2 or 3 tracks just south of the Flat Rock Tunnel on the ex-RDG line, right along the Schuylkill Expressway, just before the Belmont Ave. exit for Manayunk and Roxborough, etc. - looks like something from a Lionel train set. I guess I'll just have to keep looking, or go there and take one myself . . .
FINALLY found - here's a link to a couple of decent photos of them, 1 from a little farther away, and 1 a little closer-up to show the immense scale of these monsters. If you look closely in all the photos, you can see another one in the far distance - but there appears to be a square-shaped one in between - I wonder how and why that arrangement came to be ? Add some aircraft anti-collision lights and I could easily imagine them terrifying little kids nearby at night as giant 'Transformers' toys that have come to life:
http://www.trainweb.org/railpix/crpix/cr-dblstacks1.jpg
http://www.trainweb.org/railpix/crpix/spl-703-02b-2-3-99.jpg
This next one is also available as a U.S. Postal Service 44-cent stamp - who knew ? [and a minor plug for this guy, who saved me the trouble of photographing these things myself, although I still think better photos of them could be had].
http://www.zazzle.com/conrail_engine_7741_at_pencoyd_penna_postage-172929045280618382
Paul_D_North_JrSorry - I was less clear than I should have been. To clarify: I'm completely fine with the discussion on this Forum thread - it's the 'discussion' in the article which hijacked or perverted the traditional electrification subject matter - that I'm objecting to, similar to you, not the subsequent debate over it -in which I've also taken part.
This sorta thing comes up about every 6 months or so…
Why do the forum readers think Trains Magazine should be fair, impartial or unbiased in the articles it prints?
We tend to view it as an insider trade magazine, when it is nothing more that an entertainment magazine.
I would no more expect Train’s to have a neutral standpoint than I would expect People Magazine to simply print the facts and let readers decide.
The magazine itself has long had an affinity for electric and traction power, simply because the readers and fans have an affinity for such.
Read Jim Wrinn’s “From the Editor” column…he states outright the reason for the article.
I have not found anywhere in the magazine anything that claims the article under discussion here to be the magazines “political” position, or the contents of the article to represent the publishers personal viewpoint.
In fact, when the magazine does print articles intended to represent its viewpoints, they often say so, and make sure the disclaimer at the end of the articles points out the author is a Trains staffer.
That said, this just may be the position and viewpoint Trains Magazine has…and they are entitled to it…it is after all, their magazine.
Look at Mr. Wrinn’s passion for geared steam…while everyone in the room may not be a steam fan, he certainly is…and he is entitled to slant the magazine towards steam when ever he chooses, he is the editor after all and if he decides a steam or Shay story will sell more magazines, then it is his job to make it so.
Now, I agree the article is not as much about discussing a profitable way Class 1 railroads can go to electric power and more the authors political viewpoint and personal agenda, and I would have liked to have seen an article that challenges Mr. Lothes’s statistics and claims follow right behind his, but then again, maybe there was no such article in hand for them to print.
So maybe Greyhounds, Mr.North, Bucryus and RWM could each submit such an article, or maybe collaborate on one?
It would be quite interesting to see the real world numbers and such all together in a written form.
23 17 46 11
edblysard This sorta thing comes up about every 6 months or so… Why do the forum readers think Trains Magazine should be fair, impartial or unbiased in the articles it prints? We tend to view it as an insider trade magazine, when it is nothing more that an entertainment magazine. I would no more expect Train’s to have a neutral standpoint than I would expect People Magazine to simply print the facts and let readers decide.
I don't expect them to be impartial, but I do expect them to be honest.
Not picking a fight here...
But why are you holding their feet to the fire for something they didn't write?
Trains didnt write the article, Scott Lothes did...is it up to Trains to research the author's "facts" for the article or is it up the author?
It seems there are some facts included, see page 28 and citation at the bottom of the page and page 29 top left...but the amount of truck to rail traffic switch is credited to Alan Drake of the Millennium Institute, a seriously "green" think tank.
Asking these guys why windmills, solar panels and hybrid automobiles wont really save the world is like asking NASA why we should not go back to the moon or go to Mars...good luck getting any reasonable or unbaised answer from either one.
And the volume of job promises comes from the same place, "Using dynamic simulation modeling, the Millenium Institutes Drake says his comprehensive plan for investing heavily in both railroad electrification and renewable enegry over the next 20 years could see the U.S. ....", obviously Drakes opinion, and not necessarily the authors or Trains magazines opinion, although the author wouldn't have included it if he didnt give it some creedence.
Point is, the author is offering this not as his sole opinion, but as the opinion of the Millennium Institutes Drake....he further states "Drakes vision for the future...." clearly suggesting this is one possible outcome based on one set of numbers, not a hard or established fact of electrification.
Again, I concure the author seems to agree with his source's estimates, or at the very least, hopes they are correct, but it is clear these numbers are the Institutes and Drakes "vision", not necessarily those of Trains magazine or its staff.
I point this out because there is an assumption that the article is Trains creation...it is not, it is the author's, Trains simply published it.
Note the disclaimer at the end, Mr Lothes is a freelance writter, not a Trains staffer.
It seems to me that "we" have come to the concluion that, by publishing the article, Trains has somehow attempted or conspired to make the contents of the article valid, or that Trains considers the contents true and factual. when they have done nothing more that publish the story...you are shooting the messenger when you should be taking shots at the author of the message, or better yet, the authors "sources" for the assumptions stated in the article.
I am pretty sure of one thing though...the editors at Trains are most likely tickled pink at the reaction to the article, after all, their job is to sell magazines, and this article certanily has stirred the pot some, enough to generate 9 pages of discussion on this forum, which I think was the editors intent behind publishing it in the first place, generating discussion.
The article harks back to the "If we build a nuclear train we could..." and "If we build a nuclear airplane we could...', or my favorite, "When ambient temperature fusion is realized we can...."
All suppositions and dream chasing, and all based on hope that sometime in the future, these things might become real...if only we could...should we discourage the dream chasing simply because we dont agree with the proposed or supposed end results?
This is somewhat like "The worlds greatest locomotive" debate...should Trains refrain from publishing such a article simply because there is no one Greatest Locomotive in the world?
After all, that is a subject and an answer that depends totaly on subjective opinion, not on any real world facts that can be established, the criteria would depended on when the locomotive is built, where and what it is used for, and who is using it.
By the way, they did publish such an article, and it too generated a rather heated debate here.
So, if you dissagree with Mr. Lothes article and his conclusion, why don't you write an article that explains your point of view?
You seem to have the research capabilities, experience and the skill to do so, you and others seem to have access to more real world numbers and research, so why not write it?
I for one would be more than interested at a chance to read it, even if you do no more that "publish" it here in small incretments, it would make for a great article and a very interesting point of discussion.
Now, to make sure you can see where I stand on this.
I dont agree with the authors suppositions, nor do I accept Drakes "vision"...it is after all, the vision of someone who works for a think tank that is nothing more that the public front for a "green" political group, and I know just enough to understand that "dynamic simulation modeling" is simply a way of saying "we massaged the numbers to get our desired results, and ignored anything that didn't support our position".
I am pretty sure you wont see wires going up nationwide anytime soon, because the Class 1s have studied this to death, and come to the conclusion that the cost far exceeds any reasonable near term return.
You might see it happen in exclusive use on some routes, but only if the return on the investment is immediate and real in terms of profit.
If, by some sheer chance, this ends up being mandated by law, you will see railroads arguing it to the last breath, while at the same time desiging a way to make it happen, because railroad management is a crafty bunch, and they dont often bet all the farm on a single viewpoint.
So, when do we get to see the first installment of your article?
Seriously....
Ed,
I did go back and read Jim Wrinn’s introduction more than once, just to see how it correlates with the article. As you say, he does state outright, the reason for the article, but in my opinion, the article includes an overarching political agenda that Mr. Wrinn does not mention at all in his introduction. I suspect that he might believe that the article contains no such political agenda. Certainly these agendas are not advanced with flags and banners proclaiming them as such. It is very easy to be swept along with them without realizing it. Dan Rather would always contend that there was no political bias in the CBS news. Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about it where he explained that people like Rather simply don’t see their views on politics as political viewpoints. The just regard their viewpoint as the way things are and should be. They are not aware of an opposing point of view within a political context.
I am not saying that the magazine has broken any implied business agreement with its readers by publishing a politically motivated article. I agree that they are free to print anything they want. I also agree that nowhere does it say that the article in question reflects the political viewpoint of staff. But for me, that is somewhat beside the point. I don’t really care whether they concur with the agenda of the article.
If there is any issue with the performance of the magazine on this, it might be the advancing of a political agenda having nothing to do with railroads under the guise of an objective economics/engineering analysis about railroad electrification. But even so, they are free to do that. And we are free to point it out. In the end, the marketplace is free to decide whether or not they feel the magazine is being fair, and whether or not they want to patronize it if they feel that it is helping to advance a political agenda, which they disagree with.
As to your suggestion about composing an article on the true business economics of electrification, I have no particular interest in doing that. One person could spend a lifetime of research trying to make that calculation, and if one were to come to a conclusion, there is no guarantee that it would convince anybody else, let alone create a consensus. It would be an enormously complex appraisal that would involve not only engineering and economics, but also predicting the future of business cycles. I also see no need to pursue that question of whether or not railroad should electrify, since the railroads themselves are probably analyzing it on a continuous basis, and are probably best equipped to reach conclusions as parameters change.
If I were to write an article, it would be one to debunk the political agenda behind the Trains article on electrification. I wonder if they would run my article on that.
TH&BPlus the Russian railways are 3000 DC. That doesn't seem like a very logical voltage for either long distance or high capacity railroading.
Plus the Russian railways are 3000 DC. That doesn't seem like a very logical voltage for either long distance or high capacity railroading.
Lessee, the longest stretch of electrified track in the US was supplied with 3kVDC, so it isn't a completely illogical choice for long distances. Capacity is limited by how close you want to space the substations.
When the Russians started their electrification, the only real choices for long distance work were 3KVDC and low frequency (15 to 25 Hz) single phase AC using AC series motors. Going with AC would have required either a substantial low frequency transmission network or many frequency changer sets. An advantage of using DC is that the line can be fed from many asynchronous power systems (not easy to do with single phase AC) while maintaining continuity of the DC feeder.
erikem, that would be the Milwaukee's partial electrification of its Pacific Coast/ Puget Sound Extension, yes ? Interestingly, the subject article quotes several different distances for its length: ''At a combined length of 645 route-miles'' [in the text on page 25, col. 3, 3rd paragraph]; and, 438 miles from Harlowton, Mont. to Avery, Idaho, and 225 miles from Othello to Tacoma and Seattle, Wash. in the middle of the table of ''Major U.S. freight electrifications by type'' at the bottom of page 28, which totals to a slightly different 663 miles.
Does anyone know when the Russians started their electrification ? As I understand the history of the technology, those options mentioned by erikem would have been available in about the 1895 to 1915 time frame. That would have been during the Czar's reign and pre-Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. After that, both the New Haven and the PRR were using 11,000 volt 25 Hz AC for their initial electrified zones, so that had become a viable technology from then on. Wonder why the Bolsheviks didn't just toss out that project as well ?
Also, let's look at the territory that the Russians were interesting in electifying them. I'm no expert on any aspect of Russian history, but for sure they weren't interested in going to Siberia with wires then - more likely, mainly between and among the more populated and industrialized [?] areas at the European end of the empire, where the need and benefits would have been the greatest. In that context, 3,000 VDC and frequent substations would not have been such a huge obstacle, and would have been consistent with establishing the first electricity service in the same region as well. [I'm not saying that the 'houses' would have been run on 3,000 VDC, but maybe factories would, and they could all share from the infrastructure build-up and build-out, etc.]
ed, you make some good points. But a lot of that article was of the ''If pigs had wings . . . '' genre. I expect that a paid-subscription magazine with a substantial editorial staff to not just blindly publish something like that article uncritically, without any 'vetting' of 'fact-checking' or review at all. Now with the Internet and blogs, just about anyone has a virtual/ cyber- soapbox' available to them to write and post/ circulate/ publish just about anything they want - which it appears that Mr. Drake has already done elsewhere. So he doesn't need Trains to get his viewpoint out - and for that and many other reasons, Trains need not and should not take whatever and everything that is submitted and just publish it without any basic or 'reality check' review. [That's what our local newspaper has turned into with the downsizing of its editorial staff. As a result, it's both sad and funny to now see what the reporters write and gets published, and then gets jumped all over in comments about everything from spelling to grammar to locations to facts to the lack of a a decent basic report of 'what happened' - some have said that it's essentially no more than a transcript of the police/ fire/ EMS transmissions that are picked up on a scanner.]
Would we accept Trains publishing lengthy articles that essentially say that the Sun rises in the west - or that Amtrak should or has secret plans to bring back steam locomotives, or that some long-abandoned branch really serves an alien spaceship landing site? To retain journalistic or even fan-level credibility - accepting just for the moment your assertion that Trains is an entertainment and not a business magazine - somebody ought to be reading these submissions and seeing if they make intuitive sense, if they square with real-world experience and present-day objective conditions, and sorting out the facts from the opinions and the predictions or proposals, etc. - that's what a professional editor does. Back when I was asked to join the Law Review staff, it was explained that most of the staff time and work was simply a thorough 'source-checking' of all the submitted articles - looking up everything single reference and citation in them, reading and understanding them, and making sure that they stood for or supported the aspect that the author was relying on them for in his article. At that point, there wasn't a whole lot of judgment involved - that happened at the editor level, where the article underwent a more critical and skeptical review - ''Is this really the way it is ?'' or ''Is the purpose of this article to point out a flaw or inconsistency or possible improvement ?', or '''Is this view of the matter plausible, even if not mainstream ?'', or ''Is this advocating a change in policy or law ?'', or ''Does this tie together some things that were previously unconnected and show them in a new light ?'', etc. All of those are valid, but they are usually well-identified in either the introduction or an editor's preface note. I did not see where that happened here.
There's nothing wrong with advocating a viewpoint or a proposed course of action, as long as it's properly identified and labeled as such to the best of the publishing staff's ability - but this looked like the staff didn't even try - you know, 'asleep at the switch'. If that's the way it's going to be, fine - but then who needs the staff, and why pay for it when we can get it instantaneously and for free off the Internet ? This is a slippery slope that the Editor has gotten onto here, it appears to me.
Your point about the article generating interest here is true enough, which is a public relations man's / salesmans dream - I believe it was even a Santa Fe PR man who famously said, ''I don't care what you say about us, as long as you spell the name right'', in the context of reporting on a derailment ! But I disagree with that philosophy - here, the debate ought to be about the merits of electrification - yes, and including the political, national economic, and 'green' aspects of it - not whether the magazine has betrayed its readership by publishing a disguised manifesto of social change.
And yes - I'm giving some thought to writing such an article, particular in 'bites' here as you suggest. There's a lot of subject-matter ground to cover, more than you might imagine - and that's even without getting into all the nitty-gritty engineering details. Actually, it seems that a lot of it is here already - just scattered over several forums, many threads, and intermittent and discontinuous posts. But at the moment I'm too busy with some other things to make a commitment to it, at least until after January 1st - then maybe we'll see about that.
Thanks for both of your thoughtful responses above. [And hey -enjoy that book ! ]
I figure this thread will probably be locked pretty soon so most likely I'm wasting keystrokes, but I'm amazed that the number of posters who don't seem to understand the difference between the following arguments:
A. After reading the article the person posting does not agree with the the author's premise... i.e it is the not the governments job to use taxpayers money to fund major infrastructure programs for the benefit of private industry.
versus...
B .After reading the article the person posting is appalled that TRAINS magazine is part of the "mainstream media" and are brainwashing railfans into supporting a socialist plot to destroy the railroad industry..
The first argument is a valid point of argument about the subject at hand and involves the political aspects of the debate and the posters political views...the second is a case of poltical talk radio call- in show style soapboxing and is why so many threads get locked and deleted lately..
My point being that it is entirely possible to debate a subject on this forum, including political aspects, without the discussion degenerating into purely partisan/ideological bickering.....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 I figure this thread will probably be locked pretty soon so most likely I'm wasting keystrokes, but I'm amazed that the number of posters who don't seem to understand the difference between the following arguments: A. After reading the article the person posting does not agree with the the author's premise... i.e it is the not the governments job to use taxpayers money to fund major infrastructure programs for the benefit of private industry. versus... B .After reading the article the person posting is appalled that TRAINS magazine is part of the "mainstream media" and are brainwashing railfans into supporting a socialist plot to destroy the railroad industry.. The first argument is a valid point of argument about the subject at hand and involves the political aspects of the debate and the posters political views...the second is a case of poltical talk radio call- in show style soapboxing and is why so many threads get locked and deleted lately.. My point being that it is entirely possible to debate a subject on this forum, including political aspects, without the discussion degenerating into purely partisan/ideological bickering.....
In reference to your example above:
Some of this thread is “A.” I don’t know where you got “B,” but I don’t see it here. You may be inferring it, but I don’t see it existing.
Can you please cite examples of posts in this thread that meet your definition of “B”? Please refer to page number and number of the post from top of page. Thanks in advance.
carnej1 - I understand the difference, but prefer to focus on another view, viz.:
''C. After reading the article the person posting is astounded that an article that was supposed to be about 'electrification' was morphed into a public transportation policy/ alternative energy production and usage advocacy piece.''
It belongs better in the Journals of either Transportation Policy, Energy Policy, or Public Funding of Infrastructure, etc. - if there are such things - not Trains.
Further, I note that in your entire post above, the only 'rail' references are in your alternative B. - ''railfans'' and ''railroad industry'', 1 time each. The rest of your post seems to involve mostly political words and concepts, which necessarily - and properly - results from that nature of the original article. But if this thread gets locked - and sincerely I hope not - that's going to happen because the original article led to polarizing politics, not the inevitable reaction to same by the members of this Forum.
Paul North was wondering about the "square tower" visible in the background in the second photo. All transmission lines that I have seen rotate the phases every so often, and use a different style pole or tower to do this. This was very important when next to telegraph and phone lines that were sharing the same real estate. For one thing it kept induced hum low on the phone lines.
I have often wondered why they need to rotate or transpose the wires when there is no other lines near them.
Art
I
Andy CummingsBucyrusAssuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper. But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time. The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no. But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise. We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time. Folks — I've heard the claim made that electrification will never happen because railroads have the market power to pass fuel costs onto their customers via fuel surcharges. Thus, the benefits of electrification would go to shippers, not to railroads. The success with which railroads were able to pass high fuel prices on to customers in 2008 seems to bear this out. Further, because their competition (truckers) are less fuel-efficient as a general rule, by this theory, there would be no "tipping point," as Bucyrus refers to it. What alternative do shippers have but to pay fuel surcharges, however high they go, if the alternative is more costly still?On the flip side, if you're a shipper, it doesn't matter whether you're paying the railroads in the form of higher rates, or in the form of fuel surcharges; it's all money out the door. Thus, if electrification means lower fuel costs, and thus, lower fuel surcharges, railroads will look more attractive to shippers vis a vis trucks, and that could generate additional traffic, and thus, the revenue that would justify electrification. In theory. Be interested to hear you guys' thoughts on this subject.
BucyrusAssuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper. But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time. The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no. But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise. We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time.
Folks —
I've heard the claim made that electrification will never happen because railroads have the market power to pass fuel costs onto their customers via fuel surcharges. Thus, the benefits of electrification would go to shippers, not to railroads. The success with which railroads were able to pass high fuel prices on to customers in 2008 seems to bear this out. Further, because their competition (truckers) are less fuel-efficient as a general rule, by this theory, there would be no "tipping point," as Bucyrus refers to it. What alternative do shippers have but to pay fuel surcharges, however high they go, if the alternative is more costly still?
On the flip side, if you're a shipper, it doesn't matter whether you're paying the railroads in the form of higher rates, or in the form of fuel surcharges; it's all money out the door. Thus, if electrification means lower fuel costs, and thus, lower fuel surcharges, railroads will look more attractive to shippers vis a vis trucks, and that could generate additional traffic, and thus, the revenue that would justify electrification. In theory.
Be interested to hear you guys' thoughts on this subject.
Andy, whoever made that claim is wrong.
Your second paragraph has it right: The shipper (and behind him the consumer and/or taxpayer) ultimately pays for everything, including the overhead and profits of a railway. The shipper will pay to the railway only up to the point that the shipper perceives it makes more dollars for him to quit shipping by rail -- either he switches modes, switches sources, switches materials, or ceases shipping anything by any mode altogether.
edblysard [snip] Now, I agree the article is not as much about discussing a profitable way Class 1 railroads can go to electric power and more the authors political viewpoint and personal agenda, and I would have liked to have seen an article that challenges Mr. Lothes’s statistics and claims follow right behind his, but then again, maybe there was no such article in hand for them to print. So maybe Greyhounds, Mr.North, Bucryus and RWM could each submit such an article, or maybe collaborate on one? It would be quite interesting to see the real world numbers and such all together in a written form.
Now there was a great pair of articles. I think Martin also had this as a personal viewpoint, but he did a better job of supporting it. Sennhauser did an admirable job of demolishing it - a few years later he was the pipe-smokin', slide-rulin' Superintendent of the Erie Mining Railroad in Minnesota, later LTV, then Cliffs -
The other Erie [subtitle was something like, ''The case for the unadulterated railroad'']Trains, September 1973 page 41 Erie Mining's railroad ( EMX, MINING, MINNESOTA, "PATRICK, HOWARD S.", ROSTER, TRN )
Here's another great electrification review article - which I believe was already referenced in another post above:
The when and if of wires Trains, July 1970 page 38 future electrification projects ( ELECTRIFICATION, "PINKEPANK, JERRY A.", TRN )
You could worse than to basically take these articles, and just update the names of the railroads and the dollar figures, etc. for a starting point. What is Mr. Pinkepank doing now ? I wonder if Scott Lothes or Alan Drake ever read any of these, let alone tried to address the issues raised in them, on both sides of the issue. Some are no longer relevant, sure, but most are. Trains.com ought to make them all available on the website or on a CD, ETC.
edblysard So maybe Greyhounds, Mr.North, Bucryus and RWM could each submit such an article, or maybe collaborate on one? It would be quite interesting to see the real world numbers and such all together in a written form.
RWM
I hate to admit it, but when I read the article I missed the hidden political agenda. I just read it as an article that was just pro-electrification. Sure, I read the numbers of jobs etc, but just past it off as numbers someone came up with. I just don't put much stock in numbers some "expert" came up with anymore. Too often something predicted misses the mark.
Not knowing the author, I don't know if he's trying to push an agenda or the sources he uses were just the first or easiest for him to access. I guess I just read the article as entertainment.
I wonder if one of the negatives of electrification is that of motive power. If the class 1 railroads decided to electify, it certainly wouldn't be their entire systems. This would require locomotives that would be useless over parts, probably large parts, of their systems. Sure, you could run a diesel under wire, even MU with electrics, but a straight electric isn't much good without the wire. Dual powered units are possible, but the more things added, the more things that can fail. The electirc part of a unit in the shop because the diesel part is broken isn't of much use.
To have only electric operation would require enough extra engines to cover normal and unexpected shoppings plus traffic fluctuations. Because of that I don't think you can ever get away from needing a self-contained (diesel, CNG/LPG, million squirrels on tread mills, etc) unit. If you have to have self-contained units anyway, why go and make part of your system require something special that has no usefulness elsewhere?
It may be that any major electrification projects would result more from political decisions (uninformed though they may be) than economics.
Jeff
Railway Man A lot of work The article looks a lot like the real job, so not much fun Trains doesn't pay even remotely enough. RWM
1. Yes - even just the % of generation question last week was several hours. As a crude estimate - 100 hours or more, what with researching, writing, rewriting, editing for balance, comprehensive content without excessive detail, accuracy and readability, revising per comments from reviewers, etc. See also 2.
2. Parts would be fun - others would be drudge, or frustrating, or highly uncertain - so how do I handle those, in order to put my name on it ?
3. No idea - but presume that it would essentially have to be a 'labor of love' anyway. See 1. above. Is that accumulation of knowledge then marketable ? Probably not.
Paul_D_North_Jr Railway Man A lot of work The article looks a lot like the real job, so not much fun Trains doesn't pay even remotely enough. RWM 1. Yes - even just the % of generation question last week was several hours. As a crude estimate - 100 hours or more, what with researching, writing, rewriting, editing for balance, comprehensive content without excessive detail, accuracy and readability, revising per comments from reviewers, etc. See also 2. 2. Parts would be fun - others would be drudge, or frustrating, or highly uncertain - so how do I handle those, in order to put my name on it ? 3. No idea - but presume that it would essentially have to be a 'labor of love' anyway. See 1. above. Is that accumulation of knowledge then marketable ? Probably not. - Paul North.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Jeff raises above the usual legitimate concern about having to coordinate 2 radically different types of locomotives, and the resulting effect on motive power utilization, etc. Even the PRR was troubled by that problem, until it finished 'building-out' its electrification west of its north-south mainline towards the Susquehanna River and Harrisburg [Bezilla*, pg. 157, fn. 45, citing Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad, 1949, pp. 647-649].
However, this is another one of those instances when ''A page of history is worth a volume of logic''. Specifically, I was surprised to learn recently that even that great PRR mainline electrification had been completed - which was clearly internally motivated by economics, not a government mandate - such non-uniformity of motive power was apparently no longer a big problem: ''During the fall of 1943, for example, a month that saw a prodigous amount of traffic pass through the electrified region, the PRR had in regular service under the wires less than 100 steam engines.'' [Bezilla*, pg. 165, fn. 68, citing J. V. B. Duer in ''What Electric Operation Is Doing'', Railway Age issue no. 116 [?] (08 April 1944), pp. 685-86; emphasis added - PDN]. And since the PRR seemed OK with that - why should we not be OK with it as well ?
Perhaps the key to resolving this issue in future applications is to size the fleet of electrically-powered units to handle the lower end of the range of typical traffic volumes. Then, use the self-propelled units = diesels for the variations or peaks of higher demand, as well as the off-electrification portions of the system. That way, the more economical electrics would be pretty much fully employed, and the more expensive diesels used only on an 'as-needed' basis. When you think about it, that's a logical result from both a common-sense and 'industrial engineering' or 'micro-economics' principles of marginal cost, etc. Certainly that issue should or would be the subject of an essential study before proceeding with an electrification project.
[*Bezilla, Michael, Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad, 1895-1968, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980, ISBN: 0-217-00241-7]
Murphy Siding 4. No matter how you wrote the article, someone would feel you were pushing your *agenda* on them, somehow oblivious to the idea that using phrases like *mainstream media* is perceived in the same way.
Well, as U.S. President Harry S Truman famously said:
''If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.''
My observation and experience - which includes a number of public sector and group appearances - is that as soon as you take a position on almost anything - including whether the Sun rise in the east, it seems sometimes - with an audience bigger than just close family [and sometimes that isn't even much of a 'safe haven'], somebody is going to feel highly offended and object strenuously to your position - sometimes without even bothering to understand it. That just 'comes with the territory'. You have to be prepared and learn to deal with it in some reasonable and responsible way - including recognizing and distinguishing that their viewpoint may be anywhere from legitimate loyal opposition, to far-out wacko - or it'll drive you crazy. That's why I'll often respond with a 'Thanks' or concurrence to a post - just to let the poster know that they are being read by someone who thinks it has some validity, and that they are more than merely 'a voice in the wilderness'.
I agree the article makes some incredible claims for public benefits from electrification - like 83% diversion of long-haul trucking; but I think we need to recognized that there are national energy, environmental, and transportation policy issues surrounding railroads and the potential for railway electrification to address these needs that lie at the heart of the article. The point is not whether the railroads on their own can afford electrification as a business play; but whether sufficient public benefit would justify government involvement and funding assistance in the form of grants and other means.
Government involvement in electrification is a political policy matter of opposing views of the necessity for preparing for anticipated energy and environmental crises. Part of the problem seen by some people is that if a worsening energy situation comes to pass; electrification will come too late.
Electrification also is a political policy matter in the sense of whether public needs should be injected into private business decisions. Transportation historically developed as private business ventures. It wasn't until the 20th Century that governments got into building transportation facilities. Railroads and governments have wrestled with the question of whether to nationalize or privatize for a long time based on the perception of public necessity.
The reasons given for railroads not electrifying have been the increased long-term debt load for such a massive undertaking and the uncertainties of the business over a span of time. The sticking point from what has been written seemed to be that the debt load would sap short-tern profits despite anticipated future savings in the cases for the BNSF and UP studies. Electrification was beneficial; just not soon enough. Government assistance for electrification, justified on monetized public benefits, could overcome the obstacles of private financing and risk with new legislation to enable public-private partnerships.
In my opinion, the value of Trains is in it not being a trade organ providing little real information. I appreciate finding alternative views of issues along with the fan stuff. I am disappointed that the article in question was poorly researched; but this is the price given the lack of time for or interest in preparing better thought out articles by the experts among the readers. Nonetheless, it has stimulated discussion of a very important issue. If I want serious technical articles, I go to Railway Gazette International.
HarveyK400The reasons given for railroads not electrifying have been the increased long-term debt load for such a massive undertaking and the uncertainties of the business over a span of time. The sticking point from what has been written seemed to be that the debt load would sap short-tern profits despite anticipated future savings in the cases for the BNSF and UP studies. Electrification was beneficial; just not soon enough. Government assistance for electrification, justified on monetized public benefits, could overcome the obstacles of private financing and risk with new legislation to enable public-private partnerships.
Harvey, I have a couple of thoughts on this.
If railroads found that their electrification now made solid economic sense, private capital would flow to the task, and so far, that is not happening. The government may be willing to take a higher risk on financing electrification, but fundamentally, they bear no financial risk. As public sector, they cannot fail financially. So if their investment in electrification fails to return sufficiently in purely economic terms, we all pay the price.
However, beyond that, the government participation, as defined by its advocates, is motivated by objectives other than rail efficiency providing revenue return on investment. Their larger objective is to stop using oil and replace it with wind energy. While electrification is supposed to lower operating costs, that may not be the case at all when electrifying with wind energy. For that matter, businesses may end up with higher costs arising from switching from time-sensitive trucking to slower service by rail, even though rail is more energy efficient. If they don’t want to switch to rail, the government may impose taxes as an incentive to switch. Switching from truck to rail is part of the plan to replace oil.
Therefore, despite the possible outcome of higher costs, the larger goal of a non-oil, renewable energy economy will have been met. Then, from the government’s point of view, the public investment will have paid off, even though we may all end up paying more for having met that objective than we would have if the objective not been pursued. So, in those terms, electrifying the railroads with government participation may just amount to another energy tax for all of us in the name of reducing greenhouse gases. The railroad themselves may actually lose business because of electrification increasing their cost rather than lowering it, and still the non-oil objective will have been met.
edblysard Not picking a fight here... But why are you holding their feet to the fire for something they didn't write? Trains didnt write the article, Scott Lothes did...is it up to Trains to research the author's "facts" for the article or is it up the author? So, if you dissagree with Mr. Lothes article and his conclusion, why don't you write an article that explains your point of view? You seem to have the research capabilities, experience and the skill to do so, you and others seem to have access to more real world numbers and research, so why not write it? I for one would be more than interested at a chance to read it, even if you do no more that "publish" it here in small incretments, it would make for a great article and a very interesting point of discussion. So, when do we get to see the first installment of your article? Seriously....
I'll let my post of 7:01PM 10/16/2009 stand as the first and last installments of my "article".
I long ago did a "Literature Seach" on the issue of US railroad electrification. I found the two articles I cited in "Railroad History" to be concise, accurate and well documented. I can't see that I'd anything original to the topic, even if I had the time.
Here's a synopsis of why I don't think I can add anything original.
1) The US railroads have studied electrification at various times in the past. They continue to do so as conditions change.
2) They have not found economic justification for electrification, but that may change in the future.
3) There are no significant "Externalities" such as "Energy Independence" or reduced CO2 emissions (bogus in the 1st place) that would result from US railroad electrification. As demonstrated on this thread, not enough energy use is involved to matter. Without very real "Externalities", any government funding would be a misuse of economic resources.
4) Powering the trains with straight electric locomotives instead of diesel electric locomotives will not divert one pound of freight from truck to rail movement.
5) I'd have to stick to the truth. For my own set of values if nothing else. The "other side" in this discussion doesn't seem to abide by that constraint.
HarveyK400 I agree the article makes some incredible claims for public benefits from electrification - like 83% diversion of long-haul trucking; Electrification also is a political policy matter in the sense of whether public needs should be injected into private business decisions. Transportation historically developed as private business ventures. It wasn't until the 20th Century that governments got into building transportation facilities. Railroads and governments have wrestled with the question of whether to nationalize or privatize for a long time based on the perception of public necessity. The reasons given for railroads not electrifying have been the increased long-term debt load for such a massive undertaking and the uncertainties of the business over a span of time. The sticking point from what has been written seemed to be that the debt load would sap short-tern profits despite anticipated future savings in the cases for the BNSF and UP studies. Electrification was beneficial; just not soon enough. Government assistance for electrification, justified on monetized public benefits, could overcome the obstacles of private financing and risk with new legislation to enable public-private partnerships.
I agree the article makes some incredible claims for public benefits from electrification - like 83% diversion of long-haul trucking;
Well, first ask yourself why the source/author/magazine made such incredible claims. A good bet is that someone made up such fantasies because the reality of the situation didn't further their agenda. Such is the nature of "Activists".
Second, you've mischaracterized the Santa Fe and UP electrification studies. You've altered reality yourself. They didn't conclude that electrification would be beneficial. They concluded that electrification could be beneficial IF everything worked out to a projected scenario. That doesn't happen too often.
Third, you've rewritten history.by claiming that it wasn't until the 20th Century that governments got into building transportation facilities. The Erie Canal was obsolete when built and required protection from competitiion from the new, private funded railroads. But the New York State Government sure built the *** thing in the early part of the 19th Centruy.
There's an interesting history of the Chicago & Alton from the Northern Illinois University Press. I loaned it to a history buff friend a couple years ago and he's still got it. The first chapter is devoted to describing the transportation situation in Illinois around 1850. They basically cound't move anything or go anywhere away from the rivers with any efficiency.
There were efforts to fix this by building state owned railroads and canals. The state railroads failed financially and as a means of getting people and goods moved. The canals worked except in the winter when they froze.
Finally, they got the Illinois Central going with the first railroad land grants. All this happened well before the 20th Century. We can have, and are having, a great discussion here. But please stick to the facts.
BucyrusHarveyK400The reasons given for railroads not electrifying have been the increased long-term debt load for such a massive undertaking and the uncertainties of the business over a span of time. The sticking point from what has been written seemed to be that the debt load would sap short-tern profits despite anticipated future savings in the cases for the BNSF and UP studies. Electrification was beneficial; just not soon enough. Government assistance for electrification, justified on monetized public benefits, could overcome the obstacles of private financing and risk with new legislation to enable public-private partnerships. Harvey, I have a couple of thoughts on this. If railroads found that their electrification now made solid economic sense, private capital would flow to the task, and so far, that is not happening. The government may be willing to take a higher risk on financing electrification, but fundamentally, they bear no financial risk. As public sector, they cannot fail financially. So if their investment in electrification fails to return sufficiently in purely economic terms, we all pay the price. However, beyond that, the government participation, as defined by its advocates, is motivated by objectives other than rail efficiency providing revenue return on investment. Their larger objective is to stop using oil and replace it with wind energy. While electrification is supposed to lower operating costs, that may not be the case at all when electrifying with wind energy. For that matter, businesses may end up with higher costs arising from switching from time-sensitive trucking to slower service by rail, even though rail is more energy efficient. If they don’t want to switch to rail, the government may impose taxes as an incentive to switch. Switching from truck to rail is part of the plan to replace oil. Therefore, despite the possible outcome of higher costs, the larger goal of a non-oil, renewable energy economy will have been met. Then, from the government’s point of view, the public investment will have paid off, even though we may all end up paying more for having met that objective than we would have if the objective not been pursued. So, in those terms, electrifying the railroads with government participation may just amount to another energy tax for all of us in the name of reducing greenhouse gases. The railroad themselves may actually lose business because of electrification increasing their cost rather than lowering it, and still the non-oil objective will have been met.
If oil production does not fall below rising demand and prices stay relatively unchanged, then the assumption would be correct that more expensive alternative energy sources and railroad electrification would reduce rail shipping. This is a gamble and hope too, perhaps based on a political philosophy denying of a rightful role of government in private industry regardless of public impact.
If oil production falls below the trend for higher demand, reaching "Peak Oil," then the overall costs of alternative energy sources and electrification capital funding and operations could be less than trucking and other modes and not require a tax for an incentive to use rail. To be sure, the cost of transportation will rise and cause some reduction in shipping overall; but railroads should be affected least while gaining substantial diversions from other modes affected more by higher energy costs.
I don't have any money in the game except as a consumer; but my bet would be to go for electrification now and be prepared for bad times rather than wait. I believe that the national government has a stake in the railroads inasmuch as they relate to other modes that are government-funded.
To compound the problem, if oil is in short supply, where in the line do you think railroads will be? Having more efficient diesel-powered trains won't help if railroads don't get the fuel to operate. Politically, there are a lot more truckers out there than railroaders.
Paul,
I was going to include the winged pigs in one of my responses but wimped out.
Maybe I missed the boat here…but did the author claim the figures provided by Drake as real, or did he simply quote Drake and his green world assumptions?
Because I have jus re-read the article, and I still come away from it thinking the author was clear the 83% shift in freight and the outrageous job increase were Drakes figures, based on the Millennium Institutes Dynamic Simulated models, and not the authors figures (or Trains figures for that matter) although he does seem to want such figures to be real.
Maybe more to the point is what irked me was the tone of so many postings…that of “I don’t like the political agenda of the article, nor do I believe the figures stated, so Trains should not have published it”.
What I am getting at is Trains most likely did do a little checking, and I am sure they did check to see if the author quoted Drake correctly…but it is not up to the magazine to check and see if Drakes figures are true and correct, after all, the numbers are based on a model, nothing concrete or real, and the article makes it clear that these numbers are part of a “what if” scenario, not an absolute “this will happen” claim.
Same as when the magazine publishes any article which claims, say, the Big Boy was the most powerful steam locomotive in the US, yet there is no way to really prove that, there are fans out there who claim the Alleghany or Berkshire is even more powerful…its all a subjective concept, and it all depends on your personal definition of powerful.
The entire article read to me as a big “What if” concept, not as a statement of fact or prediction of the future, but only as this author’s idea of what could be, if these social changes do come about.
Yes, it is a article with a lot of political overtones, but not much about railroads is not in some way connected to politics.
I don’t see the agenda being hidden in any way, the author is pretty much straight forward in his beliefs and statements that such social changes and social engineering are, in his opinion, the best solution to a problem he sees.
Should Trains forever refrain from publishing any article that mention the impact EMD’s Geeps had on railroading, allowing railroads to do away with thousands of steam related jobs, which is an example of social change/engineering that already has happened already?
Isn’t it up to you, the reader, to make up your own mind, based on the things you read, experience, hear and see in your life, or is it up to a magazine to tell you what is or is not true, correct or real?
Just because Drake is published somewhere else shouldn’t exclude any author who has a mind to from quoting him again, regardless of the believability of his models and his predictions.
No one gets their panties in a wad when an article about Amtrak, which is railroad politics at its worst, is published in Trains…and every one of said articles always makes reference to what Congress should do, and what the public ought to think or do, and every one has the agenda of promoting Amtrak for a political or personal purpose…nothing more heinous that what this author has done, yet no one seems upset when Trains runs such an article.
Personally, I think the author is neck deep in cow crap, and that being the case, Drake and the Millennium Institute should invest in snorkels, but that is just my opinion.
Of course, now that this is published in the forums, I guess the staff at Trains should grab a yardstick and go measure, in the interest of fairness and accuracy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.