The trade off. I assume we want electrified competing railways, on duplicate lines and freeways and highways. What other country has all that nationaly. Europe may have competing operaters, but there is still only one railway system per country with one owner. Russia has no usefull transiberian highway or other railway to compete with.
United States has a lower population density and thinks it can afford way more then everyone else. So maybe there is a trade off, maybe getting everyone out of their cars ? Or consolidating all the railroads to ruduce millage and other rail competion ?
I'm a rail fan, and I like electric trains too, but I wouldn't want too many trade offs in order to complete electrification.
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.
Yes, and somebody is going to have to explain to me why electrification will attract a significant portion of the truck traffic off of the highways and onto railroads. RWM has described the major time overhead inherent with terminal transfer. I don’t see how a little increase in acceleration and deceleration of trains, which comes with electrification, is going to overcome that time overhead.
Bucyrus I have linked below, an essay by Alan Drake who is a main source cited in the Trains article, WIRED UP by Scott Lothes. In the article, author Lothes cracks open a door to peek inside of a political ideology whereby U.S. railroads are electrified as part of a national energy policy. The essay by Alan Drake throws that door wide open so we can really see what is being proposed in the Trains article. Reading down the page, you will come to the headings, “The First Step (Small),” “The First Step (Large),” and “Some Possible Incentives.” In these segments, Mr. Drake outlines the approaches for getting electrification done within six years. He points out that many railroads have a monopoly, so without competition from other railroads, they can drag their feet on electrification. He says: “This lack of competition stifles innovation. However, once a member of a duopoly innovates, the other member is compelled to match them.” So Mr. Drake wants to use tax incentives to entice railroads to electrify. When one electrifies, all the others will have to do likewise in order to compete with the one that was first enticed to electrify by taking advantage of the tax incentives. Mr. Drake refers to this a chain reaction. He does not want to use a fixed incentive because it will encourage cautious evaluation and delay. Instead, he proposes a system of declining incentives that would encourage a sort stampede into electrification in order to get the job done quick enough to meet the looming crisis in energy and climate. The link to the essay by Alan Drake as the first post in a blog format starting at the top of the page: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301
Holy Rail Anchors Bucyrus! I think you've uncovered the "secret source" for this bit of further nonsense from the Waukesha Commune:
Andy Cummings 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.
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.
So, just why isn't Associate Editor Cummings forthcoming with where he "heard the claim"? It's obvious that he just doesn't want us to know. The question is; why doesn't he want us to know? If I had to bet, and I do bet, I'd say he head this nonsense from the same source Trains used in this awful article on electrification.
It all fits in with their blatant attempt to manipulate us with this untruthful article on electrification. To believe this drivel cited by Cummings you have to buy in to the lies that 1) there is no rail on rail competition, 2) barges don't exist, 3) the Great Lakes don't exist, 4) rail customers can't change sourcing when rail transport cost more than changing sourcing would.
You also have to believe that the demand curve for rail freight transportation is a vertical straight line and that there are no changes at all in rail volume when rail prices change. I don't have any ocean front property in Arizona to sell anyone, but if any of you believe this stuff, I'll try to sell you some anyway.
These guys don't know how much freight diverted from rail movement because of the rail fuel surcharges. They just claim it didn't divert. Just like they claimed rail elecrification would divert 83 percent of truck frieght to rail movement and rail electrification would more than double the number of jobs in the US.
They don't know how much corn went down the Mississippi River on a barge instead of going somewhere on a train because of the rail fuel surcharges. They don't know how much freight just flat out didn't move because the rail charges went up. But they falsely claim they know, and they falsely claim they know the amount was zero. After all, the false claim that railroads are a monopolly is also made by Trains' source.
.If someone wants to promote a "National Energy Policy" that drastically changes our lives, go ahead. Just be honest about what you're doing and don't misrepresent it as an honest look at railroad electrification. And don't insult me with nonsense such as electrification will divert 83 percent of truck freight to rail and double the number of jobs in the US. (Just what would all the unemployed truck drivers do?)
Rather than hold to an iconoclastic view that US railroads are private and independent commercial entities; let's recognize that the railroads are part of a national transportation network. In that respect, nothing seems improper about seeking to exploit private rail transportation for the public's needs for reducing environmental impacts and dependence on oil. This is advantageous for the railroads.
The problem may be that the vehicle of tax incentives for achieving the desired results is flawed. The advantage on the public side is no need for public expenditure. As I see it, this leaves the railroads with the risk of miscalculating future business and with a substantial debt burden offset somewhat by tax relief.
Normally much depends on the financial market, on the availability of money and on interest rates in the private sector, for railroad electrification capital improvements. How much would electrification cost and is there enough money to lend in the private sector without jeopardizing other credit needs?
My thinking was that government funding assistance should be made available proportional to the expected public benefits. This also would reduce the exposure the railroads would incur with financing electrification.
Another step may be to guarantee bonds issued for electrification, much like Chicago was asked to do for the Olympics.
I have linked below, an essay by Alan Drake who is a main source cited in the Trains article, WIRED UP by Scott Lothes. In the article, author Lothes cracks open a door to peek inside of a political ideology whereby U.S. railroads are electrified as part of a national energy policy. The essay by Alan Drake throws that door wide open so we can really see what is being proposed in the Trains article.
Traditionally, the subject of U.S. railroad electrification has been analyzed in terms of whether the risk of the needed investment is worth taking by the individual railroads. In the ideology advocated by Drake and Lothes, the issue of private risk, has been entirely circumvented, so it is no longer the impediment.
Rather than waiting for private railroads to find their risk acceptable to proceed with electrification, Drake and Lothes want to use the carrots and sticks of government, coupled with public funding, to get the job done now. Their premise has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not private railroads want to take the risk to electrify as a business decision. Instead, they rise above that traditional impediment by pushing a national energy policy by the federal government to address an urgent crisis. Allan Drake puts it this way:
“The United States of America needs electrified rail done as soon as possible, given the growing crisis in energy and climate.”
Clearly, the objective of this rail electrification ideology as expressed by author Scott Lothes and Alan Drake is to create a non-oil transportation system. And clearly, their intent is to derive the power from renewable energy, as opposed to coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear. The predominate renewable energy source will be windmills. And even beyond that, they want to use railroad electrification to drive the development of renewable energy faster than it would otherwise occur. Allan Drake puts it this way:
“A combined policy of a national push for renewable energy with a national push for electrified transportation (railroads and Urban Rail) give the largest GDP, the largest reduction in Greenhouse Gases, and the largest reduction in oil consumption over decade and longer time horizons.”
Reading down the page, you will come to the headings, “The First Step (Small),” “The First Step (Large),” and “Some Possible Incentives.” In these segments, Mr. Drake outlines the approaches for getting electrification done within six years. He points out that many railroads have a monopoly, so without competition from other railroads, they can drag their feet on electrification. He says:
“This lack of competition stifles innovation. However, once a member of a duopoly innovates, the other member is compelled to match them.”
So Mr. Drake wants to use tax incentives to entice railroads to electrify. When one electrifies, all the others will have to do likewise in order to compete with the one that was first enticed to electrify by taking advantage of the tax incentives. Mr. Drake refers to this a chain reaction. He does not want to use a fixed incentive because it will encourage cautious evaluation and delay. Instead, he proposes a system of declining incentives that would encourage a sort stampede into electrification in order to get the job done quick enough to meet the looming crisis in energy and climate.
The link to the essay by Alan Drake as the first post in a blog format starting at the top of the page:
greyhounds...Now I'm sure the [edited by selector for political terms...] staff at Kalmbach Publishing and some others have picked up on the words "basic corporate economics" Such folks may seek to proclaim that this is clearly a case for government directed investment. After all, electrification would be "good". Just look at the wonder of Russia. Heck fire, they even printed a claim that it could more than double the number of jobs in the US. They might make that proclimation, but it would be a denial of reality. (Reality is such a drag to "True Believers") Government directed investment would be subject to the same risks and uncertainty as corportate investment. The government can't pee away money any more readily than the corporations can, at least not without disasterous results for our economy. Electrification may come about, but it should be the result of wise investment, not because someone thinks it's a really neat idea. ...
Now I'm sure the [edited by selector for political terms...] staff at Kalmbach Publishing and some others have picked up on the words "basic corporate economics" Such folks may seek to proclaim that this is clearly a case for government directed investment. After all, electrification would be "good". Just look at the wonder of Russia. Heck fire, they even printed a claim that it could more than double the number of jobs in the US.
They might make that proclimation, but it would be a denial of reality. (Reality is such a drag to "True Believers") Government directed investment would be subject to the same risks and uncertainty as corportate investment. The government can't pee away money any more readily than the corporations can, at least not without disasterous results for our economy.
Electrification may come about, but it should be the result of wise investment, not because someone thinks it's a really neat idea.
...
A wise investment is different for the government than a private for-profit corporation. The latter is interested foremost in making a profit for investors - that's why things like environmental quality and an energy policy get in the way. A government should want to make investments that pay for themselves; but a lot more goes into the equation than the monetary return on investment. For instance, we are coming to realize that a better-educated and employable workforce supports a more competitive economy that has monetary value rather than just a fiscal burden that taxes (pun intended) earnings. We also recognized that preventive health care can save money in the long run by early detection and treatment of illnesses.
The UP went ahead on double-tracking the Sunset route and is now caught in the current, unexpected, business downturn; but the risk didn't thwart the project. Electrification has a similar risk; but as a national policy, the government can afford to step in with assistance to see that it gets done for the public benefits in addition to expected corporate profits.
Here's a link to a fair photo of one of the lattice towers/ pylons that straddles the tracks, as I mentioned previously. It's not the biggest or boldest tower, nor the best photo - but we're getting closer. Notice how the conventional catenary frame/ bridge in the foreground then runs through the opening in the tower's base, and the catenary wires are then suspended from the inside of the tower.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alankin/2182556847/in/photostream/
Interesting, for sure. I'll keep looking, nad post anything better that I find.
Thanks much, greyhounds !
No. 181 (Autumn 1999)160 pages. Features a social and economic history of toy trains, from floor-running “dribblers” of the 1840s to the microprocessor locomotives today. Also slavery on antebellum railroads, why the Union Pacific and Santa Fe did not electrify, and “Liquidating the Rock,” a personal account of dismantling the CRI&P.
$7.50 for members, $12.50 for non-members, includes shipping, per http://www.rlhs.org/rrhback.htm
From: http://www.rlhs.org/rrhistry/backissues.html
Also stumbled across the following - Issue No. 199, at: http://www.rlhs.org/rrhback.htm [emphasis added - PDN]
Electrification over the Sierra Nevada. Middleton examines the what if & why not? Bill Howes tells how the B&O maintained high diner standards despite escalating costs. Art in the Age of Steam is show and tell on 12 pages. The Lackawanna used radio in 1914 to battle a blizzard. Stourbridge Lion was the first locomotive steamed on rails in the Americas? Maybe. 27 years of research suggests maybe not. William Jennings Bryan and the 1896 Campaign is the whistle-stop pioneer story. 35 pages of book reviews. 2008 R&LHS Awards. Memorials to Charles Smith, James Larson, David Sweetland & others.
$7.50 for members, $16.00 for non-members, includes shipping.
Looks like lots of other interesting stuff there, too . . .
Thanks again.
Thanks so much for adding some facts and sensible commentary to this discussion. I very much appreciate it.
I'm really having a difficult time comprehending that Trains would print anything claiming that railroad electrification has the potential of doubling the number of jobs in the nation. Are they actively trying to destroy any journalistic credibility they may have? Come on, Trains, your readers have common sense-you need to as well.
greyhounds If anyone wants good information about electrification in the US, I'd suggest they do what I did. Order a back issue of "Railroad History" from The Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Inc. Specifically the autumn 1999 issue, #181. This issue contains two articles on the subject. 1) "Risk and the Real Cost of Electrification" by William L Withuhn, who was then curator of transportation at the Smithsonian and, 2) "Why the Santa Fe Isn't Under Wires" by Wallace W. Abbey. Here's the first paragraph from the Abbey article: "Three times between the 1940's and the 1970's, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe studied the economic feasilbity of electrifying some or all of the most important parts of the railroad. Three times the Santa Fe decided not to risk the big leap. Three times the opportunity to do what many other railroads were taling about doing had to be sacrificed to basic corporate economics." In other words, the Santa Fe studied the issue a lot and found out that the numbers just didn't come out in favor of electrification. One source Abbey used was John Angold who worked on all three studies and retired from the Santa Fe in 1979 as Assistant to the Chief Mechnical Officer. It would have been far better if Trains had used similar sources, with first hand knowledge of the situation, instead of some Washington, DC activist pushing an agenda with absurd claims. The first of the Santa Fe studies was done in the 1940's. It had a logical enough, and by now very familiar, beginning. "The first (study) was prompted by the widely held belief that nationwide, petroleum supplies were running low." (This was in the 1940's) The railroad also knew it was in the process of replacing its entire steam locomotive fleet. Instead of replacing all the steam with diesel electrics it might have made sense to do at least some of the replacing with straight electrics. There was concern about the availablity of electricity. One utility enthusiastically wanted to sell the Santa Fe off peak power. No, that wasn't going to work. The railroad runs 24/7. Obviously, the Santa Fe didn't put up the wires. Now the BNSF is doing another electrification study. That's good. Things change. Just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it won't work now. The studies came to naught and the Santa Fe went with, and stayed with, all diesel electrics. Why? Well, the electrification numbers looked good if, and only if, all the assumptions made worked out just right. But the expenses were all up front and very real.while the benifits were 10 years down the road and subject to a lot of "What Ifs". The electrification would double the railroad's bonded indebtedness and would create a negative cash flow for nine or ten years. Then, after 9 or 10 years of cash flowing out the door they could see some benifits. But no one can predict 10 years out. What would be the avaialability of diesel fuel and electricity, what would they cost. They could only make educated guesses. It was a "Bet the Company" gamble and if things didn't work out the result would have been a bankrupt Santa Fe. The Union Pacific study basically came to the same conclusion. If everything worked out as planned, electrification would be a good, indeed a very good, investment. But sensativity analysis revealed that it was way too risky. If the out year assumptions didn't hold up electrification would be a disaster. Like the Santa Fe, the Union Pacific had concerns about the availabilly of electricity to run its trains. If you're really interested in electrification I'd suggest trying to get that copy of "Railroad History" and throw the Trains article in the trash. Now I'm sure the [edited by selector for political terms...] staff at Kalmbach Publishing and some others have picked up on the words "basic corporate economics" Such folks may seek to proclaim that this is clearly a case for government directed investment. After all, electrification would be "good". Just look at the wonder of Russia. Heck fire, they even printed a claim that it could more than double the number of jobs in the US. They might make that proclimation, but it would be a denial of reality. (Reality is such a drag to "True Believers") Government directed investment would be subject to the same risks and uncertainty as corportate investment. The government can't pee away money any more readily than the corporations can, at least not without disasterous results for our economy. Electrification may come about, but it should be the result of wise investment, not because someone thinks it's a really neat idea. It's important to note that no one actually knows if the electrification in Russia was a sound decisiion. The people there don't really live that well. A significant reason for their low standard of living is that the government directed investments into things. These investments don't appear to have been very good. Russian railroad electrification may have been one of the really bad decisions. To hold it up as something we should emulate without question is a stance I'm coming to expect from Trains Magazine.
If anyone wants good information about electrification in the US, I'd suggest they do what I did. Order a back issue of "Railroad History" from The Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Inc. Specifically the autumn 1999 issue, #181.
This issue contains two articles on the subject. 1) "Risk and the Real Cost of Electrification" by William L Withuhn, who was then curator of transportation at the Smithsonian and, 2) "Why the Santa Fe Isn't Under Wires" by Wallace W. Abbey.
Here's the first paragraph from the Abbey article: "Three times between the 1940's and the 1970's, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe studied the economic feasilbity of electrifying some or all of the most important parts of the railroad. Three times the Santa Fe decided not to risk the big leap. Three times the opportunity to do what many other railroads were taling about doing had to be sacrificed to basic corporate economics."
In other words, the Santa Fe studied the issue a lot and found out that the numbers just didn't come out in favor of electrification. One source Abbey used was John Angold who worked on all three studies and retired from the Santa Fe in 1979 as Assistant to the Chief Mechnical Officer. It would have been far better if Trains had used similar sources, with first hand knowledge of the situation, instead of some Washington, DC activist pushing an agenda with absurd claims.
The first of the Santa Fe studies was done in the 1940's. It had a logical enough, and by now very familiar, beginning. "The first (study) was prompted by the widely held belief that nationwide, petroleum supplies were running low." (This was in the 1940's) The railroad also knew it was in the process of replacing its entire steam locomotive fleet. Instead of replacing all the steam with diesel electrics it might have made sense to do at least some of the replacing with straight electrics.
There was concern about the availablity of electricity. One utility enthusiastically wanted to sell the Santa Fe off peak power. No, that wasn't going to work. The railroad runs 24/7.
Obviously, the Santa Fe didn't put up the wires. Now the BNSF is doing another electrification study. That's good. Things change. Just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it won't work now.
The studies came to naught and the Santa Fe went with, and stayed with, all diesel electrics. Why? Well, the electrification numbers looked good if, and only if, all the assumptions made worked out just right. But the expenses were all up front and very real.while the benifits were 10 years down the road and subject to a lot of "What Ifs". The electrification would double the railroad's bonded indebtedness and would create a negative cash flow for nine or ten years. Then, after 9 or 10 years of cash flowing out the door they could see some benifits. But no one can predict 10 years out. What would be the avaialability of diesel fuel and electricity, what would they cost. They could only make educated guesses. It was a "Bet the Company" gamble and if things didn't work out the result would have been a bankrupt Santa Fe.
The Union Pacific study basically came to the same conclusion. If everything worked out as planned, electrification would be a good, indeed a very good, investment. But sensativity analysis revealed that it was way too risky. If the out year assumptions didn't hold up electrification would be a disaster.
Like the Santa Fe, the Union Pacific had concerns about the availabilly of electricity to run its trains.
If you're really interested in electrification I'd suggest trying to get that copy of "Railroad History" and throw the Trains article in the trash.
It's important to note that no one actually knows if the electrification in Russia was a sound decisiion. The people there don't really live that well. A significant reason for their low standard of living is that the government directed investments into things. These investments don't appear to have been very good. Russian railroad electrification may have been one of the really bad decisions. To hold it up as something we should emulate without question is a stance I'm coming to expect from Trains Magazine.
Visit look4trains.com
Regarding your photos, it just shows how difficult is is to get any kind of decent photo with the tight quarters around Eastern roads. For my money, the electrification is a point of interest on the photos. I say point taken.
Thanks.
Now that the magazine has finally arrived in my mailbox I will join the chorus of critics. The article lacks depth and balance, as many of the posts have shown. But indirectly it has become very informative through the ensuing discussion!!
I will comment on the many references in the thread to electrification in other countries. Many of those were converting directly from steam locomotives to electric, so the savings were easily massive enough to justify the cost. Some countries had domestic supplies of coal readily available for thermal generating stations while oil needed the use of foreign exchange, or was restricted by a trade embargo. And of course the train frequency was generally an order of magnitude higher than on most North American routes.
The length of train run was also typically much shorter, so overseas the territory to be electrified was of manageable size. Over here many train runs cross half the continent. Stopping the train to change locomotives part way reduces any benefits considerably, so realistically for any corridor it has to be all or nothing, and "all" will require a massive commitment. The railroads already squeeze their capital budgets for double tracking, siding extensions, track and bridge renewals, etc., and these programs will continue to be of more immediate benefit, and critical to survival.
Dual-power locomotives are of course feasible, but that introduces complexities in controls and compromises in function. In diesel mode the power available is limited to the on-board "generator set" and regenerative braking is not an option. Such locomotives are necessary for specific territories and were only bought for that assignment.
A very significant point is that dual power locomotives have often been chosen instead of simply extending the electrification the relatively short distances in commuter districts. If another 20 miles of electrification can't be justified, or afforded, where does that leave the case for 2,000 miles?
John
Paul_D_North_JrWhy couldn't the featured article on such an important subject have been written by someone with better qualifications and knowledge, such as the dean of all things electric on rails - William D. Middleton [presuming he's still alive and capable], an outside observer such as Fred Frailey, Larry Kauffman, or Tom Murray, or even a retired senior executive such as Rob Krebs, Robert Downing, Paul Tellier, David Levan, etc. ?
I sure would like to hear Trains editor, Jim Wrinn answer that question. I would like to get his take on the theme of the article, which I perceive to be entirely different from the common theme that has run through all of the other explorations of electrification that have appeared in Trains in the past.
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 - PECo monopoles along CSX/ former B&O and I-95 at East Feltonville, south of Philadelphia:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=189614
Or this - PECo lattice towers along former RDG, now NS, at West Falls, middle northern edge of Philadelphia:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=29134
Or this - same area, but looking the other way:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=19436
Or this clutter - at 'the connection'' just south of Norristown:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=42865
But this doesn't look too bad - NS coal train under SEPTA's Airport Line catenary:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=16494
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 . . .
greyhounds The electrification article in November 2009 Trains was just plain awful. [Emphasis added - PDN] It failed to deal with major issues, such as "where does the electricity come frome?" and presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage. That would be more than double the number of jobs the US had in 2006 before the recession. Such a claim is flat out garbage. Diverting 83% of the truck traffic to rail couldn't be done if the railroads had free power. I never thought I'd see such garbage in the pages of Trains Magazine.
It failed to deal with major issues, such as "where does the electricity come frome?" and presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage.
That would be more than double the number of jobs the US had in 2006 before the recession. Such a claim is flat out garbage. Diverting 83% of the truck traffic to rail couldn't be done if the railroads had free power.
I never thought I'd see such garbage in the pages of Trains Magazine.
Lest anyone doubt the accuracy of Mr. greyhounds' assertions:
''Doing so [i.e., $250 to $500 billion to electrify 7,000 to 14,000 miles of main lines for 100 MPH freights], Drake says, has the potential to put 83 percent of today's truck traffic onto electrified rail lines.'' - Page 30, col. 2, 1st paragraph.
'' . . . Drake says his comprehensive plan . . . over the next 20 years could see the U.S. . . . add 175 million jobs . . . ''. - Page 31, col.2, 2nd paragraph.
Unfortunately for Trains, I have to 'pile on' and agree with greyhounds on this. Why couldn't the featured article on such an important subject have been written by someone with better qualifications and knowledge, such as the dean of all things electric on rails - William D. Middleton [presuming he's still alive and capable], an outside observer such as Fred Frailey, Larry Kauffman, or Tom Murray, or even a retired senior executive such as Rob Krebs, Robert Downing, Paul Tellier, David Levan, etc. ? Instead we get pop-culture magazine level mush by a free-lancer with artistic experience, which in its most important part quotes merely a think-tank research paper writer and an unknown - at least to me - Phillip Longman who wrote an article in the January 2009 Washington Monthly [Is it connected with the state, the D.C., or something else ? That was never stated, either]. I'm underwhelmed, to say the least.
We've done far better in this thread to address and work through the issues.
I'm convinced electrification of the principal Class I mainlines is coming, within the next 10 - 20 years or so. Although it appears to be not economically justified at the moment, that's why this is so important - that will change comparatively soon. When it does, the difference for main line operations over diesels will be as much of an improvement as diesels were over steam - no more refueling stops or facilities or logistics needed, far less moving parts and sub-systems to maintain hence lower expenses, much higher availability, and longer service lives before rebuilding, etc.
But you shouldn't have to look to me for those predictions or analysis - I didn't write or get paid for that article. Someone else did, and we deserved better than that.
I'll likely have more to say/ write on electrification - but not that article - later on, unless I get 'voted off the island' or whatever the equivalent would be here.
edblysard True, most of the wires were put up under the Soviet system...something a lot of the posters here dont realize is the labor cost in communist nations is next to nothing...China, USSR and communist Korea simply conscript "citizens" to build such projects. The "Minister of Railroads Deputy Director" simply shows up in a village or community, commands all able bodied people to report to a given location tomorrow morning, and they do so...they have or had no choice in the matter, unless they liked prison.
True, most of the wires were put up under the Soviet system...something a lot of the posters here dont realize is the labor cost in communist nations is next to nothing...China, USSR and communist Korea simply conscript "citizens" to build such projects.
The "Minister of Railroads Deputy Director" simply shows up in a village or community, commands all able bodied people to report to a given location tomorrow morning, and they do so...they have or had no choice in the matter, unless they liked prison.
That's the difference between market and command I guess.. in a command economy the minister commands and in a market driven economy the cheap labor just shows up on its own..
23 17 46 11
norfolk southern has a new rechargeable locomotive that is being tested now. rechargeables are less expensive than putting up all the electric lines.
Ulrich CSSHEGEWISCH Ulrich Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it. The example of Russia is a poor one since the former Soviet Union was a command economy and the bottom line was hardly a factor in the decision to electrify. I realize the difference..although the bottom line still does matter..even in a command economy. So what factors drove Russia to electrify?..Russia has an abundance of oil...
CSSHEGEWISCH Ulrich Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it. The example of Russia is a poor one since the former Soviet Union was a command economy and the bottom line was hardly a factor in the decision to electrify.
Ulrich Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it.
Befroe we say "can't be done" though we should at other countries like Russia..they've done it.
The example of Russia is a poor one since the former Soviet Union was a command economy and the bottom line was hardly a factor in the decision to electrify.
I realize the difference..although the bottom line still does matter..even in a command economy. So what factors drove Russia to electrify?..Russia has an abundance of oil...
I am no expert on Russian railway history, but I believe the mass electrification of the railroad system happened in the Soviet era before much of the country's oil reserves had even been discovered..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Bucyrus... To me, it is clear that the ideas and reasoning expressed in Mr. Lothes’ article have many adherents, and are being pushed as a political ideology. Generally, it falls under the umbrella of a command and control, central planning economy that is built around the green movement, and so-called, sustainability. Because the cornerstone of sustainability is reducing consumption, coercion is a prominent component of this ideology. Mr. Lothes touches on its application when he says that local governments could become electrification catalysts by outlawing diesels. ...
Cities were able to impose railway electrification when it was the only option to steam power and irrelevant to the autos and trucks of the day. Banning diesel railway locomotives would seem to be nigh impossible legally without similar sanctions against cars and trucks. FWIW diesels are more efficient than gas engines.
htgguy Electrifcation has not happened because it does not provide an acceptable return on invested capital. Period. End of discussion. When it does provide an acceptable return on capital, it will happen.
Electrifcation has not happened because it does not provide an acceptable return on invested capital. Period. End of discussion. When it does provide an acceptable return on capital, it will happen.
I agree, but that is a different discussion than this one.
I agree that electrification has not happened yet because it does not provide an acceptable return on invested capital. However, this thread is based on the Trains article on electrification called WIRED UP by Scott Lothes, and in that article, author Lothes is advocating something entirely different than waiting for an acceptable return of capital.
He champions immediate electrification as a nationalized or publicly funded transportation improvement for the greater social benefit of reducing greenhouse gases and improving other measures of “Sustainability.”
Advocate Lothes attempts to bolster his case by throwing in claims of substantial GDP increase and massive job creation as a result of such a socialized project, but offers no compelling evidence that these claims are anything more than attempts to sell his political agenda.
htgguyHaving just read this thread, I can't decide if I should laugh or cry....And, who made the comment about once in a while we might have to just park the trains for a few hours? That's feasible? We can just stop what we are doing, and then start again in a few hours, and no harm is done? Not my understanding of railroading, or any other serious business... Jim
Having just read this thread, I can't decide if I should laugh or cry.
Jim
I made that comment. Railroads frequently hold trains for hours, even days, for weather-related high winds, flooding, landslides, and avalanches, and for fire and hazmat events. Utilities ask other businesses to reduce or suspend their operations as well. Furthermore, railroad speed restrictions are imposed in areas for extreme hot weather, especially in the late afternoon, that likely would correspond to peak power demand threatening capacity. I think electrification would add only slightly to the interruptions already experienced by railroads; but I acknowledge that it is a price that needs to be evaluated.
Would BC Rail's Tumbler Ridge electrification (82 +/- miles, 1983-2000) rank as the the shortest-lived electrification of such magnitude, at least in North America?
If GM (and others) could produce dual-mode locomotives in the 1950s, why would GE today portray dual-mode as merely "possible" with several years needed for development? OK, an FL9 with third-rail shoe (and a few had pantographs) is a long way from a heavy-haul unit for lugging stacks and coal long-distance and over mountains. Surely RWM, PDN, and a few other number crunchers can help figure out how to put all the parts inside one package.
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.
daveklepperPrivatize the Interstate Highway System? Let it be self supporting? Auction it off to pay the National Dept?
Privatize the Interstate Highway System? Let it be self supporting? Auction it off to pay the National Dept?
If not paying the national debt, privatizing the Interstate system would solve, at least temporarily, the shortfall in the absurdly low fuel tax without technically raising or imposing new taxes. That would be quite a change for the trucking and busing industries and put railways on a more competitive footing. However, the problem of disengaging Interstate highways from urbanized area road networks may be insurmountable beside impractical.
htgguyIn 6 pages, no one has raised the idea that if electrification is such a great idea, why doesn't one of the major railroads take advantage of the miriad of cost savings and effieicency available and just do it?
htgguyElectrifcation has not happened because it does not provide an acceptable return on invested capital. Period. End of discussion. When it does provide an acceptable return on capital, it will happen.
I have raised that idea over and over. And I agree with the other points you have mentioned here.
In 6 pages, no one has raised the idea that if electrification is such a great idea, why doesn't one of the major railroads take advantage of the miriad of cost savings and effieicency available and just do it? They would obviously have all their competitors on the ropes-why, if BNSF would but electrify routes leading from the PRB, it would be only a matter of time before Union Pacific hauled few if any coal trains correct?
The other thing that has me shaking my head are all the comments like "Well, if it only requires a 2%, or 3%, or 4% increase in electrical generation, we can squeeze that out of what we have, no problem!". How do you KNOW this? WHERE is the generating capacity? HOW will the power (that you just KNOW is waiting to be used) get to where it needs to be? And, who made the comment about once in a while we might have to just park the trains for a few hours? That's feasible? We can just stop what we are doing, and then start again in a few hours, and no harm is done? Not my understanding of railroading, or any other serious business.
But I guess we can hope that this proposed change is good for us, and why worry?
SactoGuy188 I think my concerns about electrifying rail lines in the USA comes down to this: the ENORMOUS up-front cost of the installation. I cite the following problems: 1) The cost of putting up many thousands of miles of overhead wiring. And I do mean many thousands of miles.
I think my concerns about electrifying rail lines in the USA comes down to this: the ENORMOUS up-front cost of the installation.
I cite the following problems:
1) The cost of putting up many thousands of miles of overhead wiring. And I do mean many thousands of miles.
In real terms the cost of this has come down, particular with the development of 50KV Electrification in South Africa; a country where a high proportion of its network is electrified. Whilst it is true the initial cost may seem given the 50+ year life span providing a financial mechanism can be divised to enable it to be paid back over such a period it's doable. This is in practice is probably the biggest stumbling block.
SactoGuy188 2) The cost of the Class I railroads having to buy as many as 6,000 new electric locomotives if we were to phase out diesel-electric locomotives.
2) The cost of the Class I railroads having to buy as many as 6,000 new electric locomotives if we were to phase out diesel-electric locomotives.
Not really; the diesel-electric locos could be made dual mode; with rectifers being very small these days it should not be too difficult. Electric locos also last longer too.
SactoGuy188 3) The enormous cost of raising tunnel clearances or daylighting shorter tunnels to accommodate overhead wiring. I can imagine how much that would cost CSX and NS to do this on their rail routes through the Appalachians.
3) The enormous cost of raising tunnel clearances or daylighting shorter tunnels to accommodate overhead wiring. I can imagine how much that would cost CSX and NS to do this on their rail routes through the Appalachians.
In Britain, with our limited clearances we've managed to do this AND enhance the loading gauge. One solution involves digging out the base and using concrete slab track which reduces the rail height.
SactoGuy188 4) Finding the means to power up all these many thousands of miles of overhead wiring.
4) Finding the means to power up all these many thousands of miles of overhead wiring.
I think over people on this forum have calculated that it would only need about 4% extra electricity and that this is within the spare capacity at present existing.
SactoGuy188 5) The worst problem of all, the height of the overhead wiring may not accommodate domestic doublestack container trains, which means we end up reducing capacity for container freight service.
5) The worst problem of all, the height of the overhead wiring may not accommodate domestic doublestack container trains, which means we end up reducing capacity for container freight service.
See my response to (3) above.
As with all big projects the way to do it would be a phased approach. In other words to break it down in to manageable chunks. But experience in Europe and elsewhere shows that as the electrified network grows so so the economies of scale achieved by better rolling stock utilisation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.