Great issue...very informative on electrification...

[Jerry Pier]

Solar is a well established builder of stationary gas turbine gen sets. The Mercury 50 is such a device. Typical of such applications, it uses a single shaft industrial gas turbine such as those used in the Baldwin Westinghouse Blue Goose and the GE UP gas turbine locomotives back in the 50's. Because weight is not so important as with aero engines, industrial turbines tend to be large and heavy. (The specs on the Mercury 50 that I reviewed don't even mention weight; at least I could not find it.)  Industrial service as a rule does not encounter continuous changes in power demand, typical of locomotive service, that the aero derivative engine  handles better. 

Having said all of the above, I welcome anyone proposing to install a recuperated gas turbine in a locomotive. May it happen soon.

Jerry

[Anonymous]

carnej1

One of the major sources sited in the TRAINS article is the RAIL SOLUTIONS Virginia Website, essentially an interest group seeking rail improvements including electrification as an alternative to major rebuilding of Interstate 81 which connects Tn. With upstate NY via the Virginias and Pa.

http://www.railsolution.org/

 

Thanks for posting that link.  I looked up Rail Solutions in Virginia, but got a different Rail Solutions with freight car selection and sourcing to handle different applications.

 

I notice that if you read down in the link you posted, you come to “The National Plan,” and in that text, there is a link called, “steel interstate” that takes you to their rail electrification plan, which also sites Alan Drake, and sounds like the Lothes article.  This “steel interstate” essay seems like the most comprehensive piece so far. 

 

I wonder what the trucking industry thinks about this plan.  The plan still needs trucks to get the goods from the railhead to the door, but will the conventional trucking industry fill that need, or will a whole new short range service replace the trucking industry with its current long haul component?

 

This takes you directly to the steel highway essay:

http://www.railsolution.org/projects/steel-interstate.html

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Paul_D_North_Jr

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]

199

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.  - Paul North.

The Jerry Pinkepank article in the July 1970 all-electric issue of Trains mentions and extensively refers to the electrification studies that the SP was doing then of one of its southern California lines - Colton to Indio, and perhaps eventually to El Paso, Texas.  The thought then was that it, rather than over Donner Summit, would have more benefit, mainly due to uneconomically short-distance diesel territories being left at each end of the latter.  So I just wanted to point out that the RHLS Issue 199 may be of special interest from that aspect.

Pinkepank also mentioned possible electrification by UP, but noted that Santa Fe had decided against it post-World War II and was apparently sticking with that decisions. 

Interestingly, here's what Pinkepank had to say about actually implementing it:

''One thing about electrification -- there are no halfway decisions.''

David P. Morgan's review article in the same issue had this:

''Item:  If you would grasp the spirit of Pennsy's depression-bred catenary, read William Wister Haines's High Tension, an admirable novel of wire crews and their works by the same man who wrote the B-17 epic, Command Decision.''

High tension / William Wister Haines
Imprint	New York : Grosset & Dunlap, c1938 - 194 pp. Rockefeller Center, N.Y. : Pocket Books, 1948 - ''decorations by Robert Lawson'' - 299 pp. Bib. Util. #:  z1luac-b459311
Summary	Story of the men who put up high tension electric wires. After four years of the Depression, Jig and Beckett and their pal Shelly are at work on a big electric railroad job. Things go smoothly until Shelly begins to take an interest in their landlady's daughter. That and the arrival of Arthur, the super-mechanic, bring the story to a climax

Seems to be in the 'Special Wister Collection'' at LaSalle University's library, but no other libraries in Pennsylvania.  Amazon.com lists 3 for $20 and under, plus 1 at $75; eBay also appears to have a listing, so I suppose it can be purchased, if that's what it takes to obtain access to a copy.

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Railway Man

  [snip]  Besides, I do not think I would want to assume that an electrified operation would even want to be just like a diesel-electric operation, with the only difference being a pantograph on the locomotive instead of an exhaust stack.

RWM 

Well, OK - you should know . . . and please to excuse the impertinence, but . . .  . . . Wouldn't also changing the operating profile at the same time as the power source, then be in contravention of the observed 'railroad culture' phenomenon - discussed here several months ago - that more than 1 major change at a time usually dooms the innovation ?  Just askin', that's all. 

- PDN.

[Railway Man]

 Paul, changing the operating profile isn't an innovation: it is done all the time, sometimes on a fairly broad scale.  So I don't think it violates the "one innovation at a time" rule. 

I don't think the rule is unique to railways, either, but is applicable to any farflung, complex, integrated endeavor.

I really don't know what electrification would do to change railways.  But I do know that if it was to be considered, I think we would want to take a hard look at the entire operating plan and profile, consider the ways that electrification might affect it, consider infrastructure alternatives, run a lot of operating scenarios and economic models, and determine just exactly how we would want to electrify and what we would want to do with it, and why the solution set we chose would be likely to be the best one.

RWM

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Paul_D_North_Jr

"Greedy and cash strapped politicians may try to assess the fixed structure property improvements of electrification at a rate of more than 100%."  - blue streak 1

"The issue of tax assessments could be resolved with legislative or Congressional relief." - HarveyK400

But it's the same cast of characters, esp. at the state level:  "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session.'' - In re: Estate of A.B., New York Surrogate's Court, 1826 [as best as I can recall]

The only real - though impermanent - solution is what RWM said recently over on another thread: Educate, inform, and persuade the politicians to "Don't kill the 'golden goose' of the freight railroads", or it will come back to bite us elsewhere in many other and more expensive ways.

- Paul North. 

As just one real-life example of this potential kind of problem- from a Los Angeles Times article today:

Senate blocks Medicare payment bill

The measure to overturn a scheduled 21% reduction in doctors' fees is blocked by a mixture of Republicans and centrist Democrats who objected that its $250-billion cost over 10 years was not offset.

Until yesterday, cancelling that reduction had seemed to be a 'motherhood and apple pie' kind of measure to which there would be little opposition.  Guess that expectation was a little flawed . . .

For the potential excessive taxing of railroad electrification infrastructure problem, one possible bulwark or 'last line of defense' that wasn't mentioned previously is that many state constitutions have provisions that usually require real estate tax rates to be uniform, expressly to prevent this kind of discrimination against an economic minority type taxpayer.  Those provisions are usually upheld pretty well by the state courts - albeit sometimes with exceptions, of which special breaks for farmers are the chief ones.  But that is usually rationalized on the grounds that it is 'merely' a concession in the 'assessed value' component of the tax calculations, and/ or is only affecting 'unimproved' property or not impairing investment decisions like this, and/ or is a special one-of-a-kind 'good thing' for society, etc.

- Paul North.

[carnej1]

Jerry Pier

Solar is a well established builder of stationary gas turbine gen sets. The Mercury 50 is such a device. Typical of such applications, it uses a single shaft industrial gas turbine such as those used in the Baldwin Westinghouse Blue Goose and the GE UP gas turbine locomotives back in the 50's. Because weight is not so important as with aero engines, industrial turbines tend to be large and heavy. (The specs on the Mercury 50 that I reviewed don't even mention weight; at least I could not find it.)  Industrial service as a rule does not encounter continuous changes in power demand, typical of locomotive service, that the aero derivative engine  handles better. 

Having said all of the above, I welcome anyone proposing to install a recuperated gas turbine in a locomotive. May it happen soon.

Jerry

 Jerry,

 Thanks for the intersting insight. The only weight specs I could locate for the Mercury 50 on the Cat website are for a turbogenerator package that includes the turbine, alternator and auxiliaries as one unit. Railpower was planning on using a different installation, IIRC, including a gearless system linking the turbine's shaft directly to the alternator. Some details are in this patent:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=5XokAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I very much doubt that the new Railpower industries (now a subsidiary of RJ Corman) has the rights to the design or any intention of entering that market, instead I suspect Railpowers original founder Frank Donelly retained them..

[Anonymous]

This thread has bifurcated into a discussion about the general feasibility of private rail electrification as it is usually analyzed on one hand; and on the other hand, a discussion about the Trains article, which advocates a government nationalization of rail electrification, based on a whole different set of reasons than what normally supports the case for private electrification.  To use a popular term, we could call the Trains proposal the “Public Option.”

 

The discussion of private electrification is academic at this point, because the private investment threshold has not been met.  The public option, however, is right on the front burner with no impediment unless enough taxpayers protest, and I think that unlikely.  There is no reason to doubt that the public electrification cannot be completed by 2015, windmills, distribution lines, and all. 

 

The concern has been expressed about the government raising taxes on the rail improvement of electrification.  With this hanging over the heads of rail executives, they would be unable to quantify the actual financial risk of the project.  But capital improvements go forward every day, so the specter of tax gouging on the improvements does not seem to be a showstopper.

 

However, with the public option for electrification, there would be plenty to worry about in terms of how much government interference would come with it.  Such interference could not only affect the publicly subsidized electrification improvement, but also, the closely connected private enterprise of the railroads that existed before the electrification.  I suspect that a lot of rail management would be very leery of this possibility. 

 

For example, once rail executives accept grants of taxpayer money, they might get a knock on the door from the "Pay Czar" who wants to reduce their pay because tax payers are offended by a corporation that takes a taxpayer subsidy, but has high-paid executives.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

            I was less than impressed with Scott Lothes’ article,” Wired Up,” because it wasn’t so informative. The   author didn’t tell us why railroad electrification was necessary, the benefits of electrification, what lines should be electrified, or why they should be electrified. He didn’t tell us what advantages electric locomotives have over diesel locomotives.

 

            The author omitted several important facts. He mentioned that the railroads cast their lot with dieselization after World War II, but he didn’t tell us that dieselization then was perceived as a less expensive way to replace steam since diesel fuel was not expensive, and it avoided the heavy infrastructure costs.

 

He omitted a discussion of the New Haven’s electrification, and the facts it was the first railroad to use 11 Kilovolts AC power transmission, and its class EP 3, a 2-C+C-2 electric passenger locomotive was the basis of the design of the Pennsylvania’s GG 1. He also overlooked fact the Virginian ordered four class EL-2B electric locomotives after WW II to replace some of its earlier electric locomotives when he discussed the Virginian’s electrification.

 

The author suggests the possibility of modifying existing diesel electric locomotives to power their traction motors directly from the catenaries. However, assuming long distance electrifications - to derive whatever benefits there are from electrification – the existing diesel locomotives would have to be equipped with transformers to step down the high line-voltages in the catenaries before the power is fed to the traction motors. Would it be possible to accommodate the necessary transformer(s) in existing diesel locomotives? Further, the author made a mistake when he said the power for the traction motors in diesel locomotives comes from the diesel engines when he must have meant to say that the power for the traction motors in diesel locomotives comes from their generators.

 

The author may have been too quick to dismiss Japanese and European railroad electrification technology. Certainly if high-speed rail service is one of the reasons for electrification then the Japanese and the European railroad electrification technologies are highly applicable.

 

  The author correctly points out the initial infrastructure cost is the most limiting factor for electrifying line-haul railroads especially since it would be most economically beneficial to electrify long segments. But this raises the question, who will pay for it?

 

The author reports that two railroads are studying electrification. Similar studies have been performed in the not too distant past, and their results have favored continued diesel operation. But regardless of what the electrification studies show, the table in the article showing the electrified route miles in the top ten countries with electrified railroads shows that on average at least half of the route miles in those counties are operated by diesel.

[Andy Cummings]

RudyRockvilleMD

Further, the author made a mistake when he said the power for the traction motors in diesel locomotives comes from the diesel engines when he must have meant to say that the power for the traction motors in diesel locomotives comes from their generators.

 

Rudy —

Actually, Scott got this one right. The diesel prime mover produces the energy that powers the traction motors. The generator's job is to convert the kinetic energy the diesel produces to electrical energy. A generator does not, however, produce energy. 

Best,
 

[HarveyK400]

Changing the profile would be a lot more costly after electrification. 

The existing NS in the I-81 Corridor is no speedway between Harrisburg and Knoxville, especially for those intermodals in the conceptual drawing.  Is a plan for relocation to take advantage of half the grading done for I-81; and what kind of profile and alignment does I-81 offer?

Strategically speaking, should electrification be extended in phases into Philadelphia and New Jersey to the north, and to Atlanta via Charlotte, Birmingham via Chattanooga, and Gulf to the south?  This could work with converting diesels to hybrid or straight electric.

I agree with RWM that the how, what, and why are crucial, even with government participation for justification to those opposed.  That could re-open the can of worms for open access.

[HarveyK400]

 Jerry,

You sold me on recuperating gas turbines, especially for high speed passenger service that may depend on non-electrified branches to reach destinations.  I wonder if it is too late to develop something for the Talgos ordered by Wisconsin that could transition over time to high speed service.

[Anonymous]

RudyRockvilleMD

 The author correctly points out the initial infrastructure cost is the most limiting factor for electrifying line-haul railroads especially since it would be most economically beneficial to electrify long segments. But this raises the question, who will pay for it?

The private citizens of the U.S. will pay for it through their taxes.  The author Scott Lothes, and the references he cites are all in agreement when it comes to paying for it.  They are advocating a nationalized project that will electrify most of the U.S. rail system, and take the majority of trucking and private automobile traffic off of the roads, thus creating a publicly owned, non-oil transportation system.  They advocate rail as playing a large role in this new system.  The private railroads cannot possibly pay for what is being proposed.   

[Anonymous]

Here is a paper by the AAR Policy and Economics Department describing the evolution of the U.S. railroad business from the beginning and into the future.  It says nothing about electrification, windmills, greenhouse gases, or a national transportation system.

 

http://www.aar.org/InCongress/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/Railroad_History_Sept2009.ashx

 

Under the heading, Prospects for the Future, in reference to government regulation, they give this warning:

 

“To keep their existing networks in top condition and to build the new rail capacity that America will need in the years ahead, railroads must be able to earn enough to pay for it.”

 

Here they call for help from government in the form of tax incentives, and second, their call for "partnerships" is as close as they come to asking for government funding of infrastructure and technological improvements:

 

“Policy makers can help by instituting tax incentives for expanding rail capacity and by entering into more partnerships with railroads to solve critical transportation problems.”

   

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Further on one of my above posts:

Railroad & Locomotive Historical Society's RAILROAD History No. 199 for Fall-Winter 2008 (= only 1 year ago) is the one with this article:

''Electrification Over the Sierra Nevada - SP without cab-forwards?  It could have happened.  By William D. Middleton'' - page 8 [through 15 ?]

See: http://www.rlhs.org/rrhistry/rrh199/rrh199.pdf 

So this is a contemporary article, written by one of the best people I can think of for the task.  To order, see: http://www.rlhs.org/rrhback.htm - $7.50 for R&LHS members, $16.00 for non-members.

 - Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

[snips]

Some more details on what this issue No. 181 contains, from the Index to the RLHS publications, under ''Electric railways'':

- "Railroads and Catenary," (Section introduction) - No. 181, pg. 79;

- "Risk and the Real Cost of Electrification," by William L. Withuhn - No.181, pp. 80-91;

- "Why the Santa Fe Isn't Under Wires," by Wallace W. Abbey - No.181, pp. 92-102;

And for those of us who are really into the details of this subject - from the next issue, No. 182 - ''New Haven catenary design'' - No.182, pp. 85-87.

To order, see: http://www.rlhs.org/rrhback.htm 

Alternatively, some libraries - esp. academic ones, such as at colleges /universities that are older or have well-established engineering and / or history curricula - may have this issue (and others) either in their 'stacks' or more commonly on microfilm/ microfiche/ microform, etc.  For example, Lehigh University over in Bethlehem - about 10 miles away from me - appears to have a pretty nearly complete collection of this publication on microfilm in its Fairchild-Martindale library.

- Paul North.

[chicagorails]

 

the rrs have enough land rightaway they can put up solar collectors to power trains and wont have to build nuclear or polluting coal plants

[Murphy Siding]

chicagorails

 

the rrs have enough land rightaway they can put up solar collectors to power trains and wont have to build nuclear or polluting coal plants

    While that sounds like a simple, cheap thing to do, I don't think it is, in reality.  Your yard probably has enough area to put up solar collectors and have enough *free* power for your whole house.  But, the hardware required to harvest all that *free* electricity would probably put it beyond your means to pay for it.

[rrnut282]

chicagorails

the rrs have enough land rightaway they can put up solar collectors to power trains and wont have to build nuclear or polluting coal plants

I'm sorry folks, the train won't be running today, it's too cloudy 

In reality, a mainline might be long enough to have parts of it in sunshine, somewhere, but getting to areas that need it, the resulting line losses may prove uneconomical.  Besides, many railroads prefer to run more/most trains at night so maintainers can work in the daylight.  If solar collectors are expensive, storing that energy until it's needed will be even more so.

Edit: I can't even spell train.  Must be foaming on the keyboard while on this website and the keys are sticking.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

chicagorails

  the rrs have enough land rightaway they can put up solar collectors to power trains and wont have to build nuclear or polluting coal plants

So you say.  OK, then - prove it !  Do you have any numbers to support that assertion ?  I've just 'done the math', so I do have some idea whether that's actually true or not.*  Here's an outline of what needs to be done:

Start with that the absolute maximum solar power falling on the earth anyplace is only about 1,000 Watts per square meter = 840 Watts per square yard = 93 Watts per square foot of land surface area - and that's only at the Equator at sea level at high Noon under a cloudless sky.  Then deduct/ reduce for northern latitudes like the US where the Sun in never directly overhead, nighttime, cloudy weather, etc.  Then reduce for the present state-of-the-art  peak efficiency of electricity-generating 'photo-voltaic' ['PV'] solar panels, which is only in the 15 to 20 % range.  Unless you're contemplating some kind of hot water or steam-generating solar collector to drive a generator ?  If so, what are the components and proposed configuration of same ?

Next, compare that possible power supply to the power requirements of a 1,000 ton passenger train at 150 MPH on level and on - say, a 1.0 % grade uphill; and also for a 10,000 ton freight train under the same circumstances.  Multiply by 50 to 100 to get an idea of the daily power requirements.  Don't forget to add some to save and store energy for cloudy days and nighttime, as well as peaks and contingencies, etc., to see if the solar collectors will even have enough power to do as you say - and that's before we look at their costs.

Finally, compute the likely installation/ construction cost for all those solar panels along those many miles of tracks, and the resulting operating cost mainly based on recovering = paying back that investment over a commercially reasonable time period - not more than 30 years, likely.  Compare that with the cost of power as obtained from any other source - including nuclear or coal plants.

If you still find that such solar power is cost-competitive with nuclear and coal, then please post your figures here.  That would be very informative for the rest of us.

*What I got:  Somewhat surprisingly, the power-supply aspect seems to be well within 'order-of-magnitude' feasible, even with a bunch of realistically adverse factors - except for figuring out how to provide practical power storage and recovery during nights, cloudy days, etc.  However, on the same basis the costs would be roughly 'order of magnitude' or 10 times higher than present commercial power rates - on the order of $0.80 to $1.00 per KiloWatt-Hour, which is likely a practical barrier that can't be overcome without some technical or financial breakthroughs or extraordinary funding arrangements, etc.  But I don't feel like publishing my work-product here at the moment.

- Paul North. 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

rrnut282

  "I'm sorry folks, the [train] won't be running today, it's too cloudy.  "

In reality, a mainline might be long enough to have parts of it in sunshine, somewhere, but getting to areas that need it, the resulting line losses may prove uneconomical.  Besides, many railroads prefer to run more/most trains at night so maintainers can work in the daylight.  If solar collectors are expensive, storing that energy until it's needed will be even more so. 

  That's funny !  [edited just a little bit - PDN]

You're right, the storage issue is the weak spot in all such solar and wind energy proposals.  But within the last week or two even the Wall Street Journal had a special section on alternative energy, which mentioned a couple of exotic tehniques such as storing energy in the form of compressed air in underground chambers or caverns, local batteries at/ in the curbside transformers in residential areas, etc. - and recently I read about a proposal to store the energy that is recovered from regenerative braking in flywheels, either on a locomotive or in a fixed trackside facility, etc.   So I expect that something better than the present-day's just ''use lots of batteries'' will come along eventually, but likely at a high cost as you correctly point out, too.

[Minor dissent, though: I don't agree that maintainers are the primary reason that most trains run at night - except when there's actually work-in-process or a curfew on a particular line.  They'll even run at night when none of that is occurring or planned.  Instead, it's because of such reasons as end-of-business day cut-offs for pick-ups and loads, getting to the destinatino in time to be delivered for the next day's business, and the 'network scheduling' - making connections with other trains, railroads, and interchanges, etc.] 

- Paul North.

[rrnut282]

Paul_D_North_Jr

[Minor dissent, though: I don't agree that maintainers are the primary reason that most trains run at night - except when there's actually work-in-process or a curfew on a particular line.  They'll even run at night when none of that is occurring or planned.  Instead, it's because of such reasons as end-of-business day cut-offs for pick-ups and loads, getting to the destinatino in time to be delivered for the next day's business, and the 'network scheduling' - making connections with other trains, railroads, and interchanges, etc.] 

- Paul North.

You're right, I was oversimplifiying to avoid a three page explaination.  You managed to get it down to 5 lines.

[Deggesty]

rrnut282

Edit: I can't even spell train.  Must be foaming on the keyboard while on this website and the keys are sticking.

No, Mike, for some reason, your keyboard has it in for you (as mine has it in for me). Now, if I could develop a link directly from my brain to the screen, all might be well.

Johnny

[Anonymous]

 

Here is a number crunching question:

 

1)      Assuming the electrification of a majority of railroads in the U.S., what is the total asset value of those railroads today?

2)      What would be the asset value of the new locomotives, catenary wire, distribution lines, and wind farms that would be needed to electrify the majority of railroads included in the first question?

 

You can go ahead and round off your answers.

 

Leave out other improvements that might be related to electrification such as line improvements, PTC, ECP brakes, grade separation, new rolling stock, and new terminal facilities.

[edblysard]

Deggesty

rrnut282

Edit: I can't even spell train.  Must be foaming on the keyboard while on this website and the keys are sticking.

No, Mike, for some reason, your keyboard has it in for you (as mine has it in for me). Now, if I could develop a link directly from my brain to the screen, all might be well.

Johnny

Your kidding, right?

Cause if this thing wrote then posted what I was thinking as I was thinking it, I would have been thrown out of here years and years ago!

I have to go over and edit what I write before I post, simply to have the chance to remove the foot from my mouth and all that!

[wallyworld]

 While largely an interesting thread, a great deal of it simply reinforces my initial comment that all of this is an obsessive tempest in a teapot and , in the end, just as in the original article, a wistful but moot point. By the time this is settled, Ill be debating this with  Mr Casey Jones face to face and everything will run on some new technology and this revolution will be as antiquated as the steam locomotive.

[Anonymous]

wallyworld

 While largely an interesting thread, a great deal of it simply reinforces my initial comment that all of this is an obsessive tempest in a teapot and , in the end, just as in the original article, a wistful but moot point. By the time this is settled, Ill be debating this with  Mr Casey Jones face to face and everything will run on some new technology and this revolution will be as antiquated as the steam locomotive.

 

Why do you consider it to be a moot point?  I read the article and have been reading the large body of on-line material that echos that article.  The last thing I would conclude is that near-universal U.S. rail electrification is moot, dead on arrival, or a tempest in a teapot.  On the contrary, it is about to shake the U.S. rail industry unlike anything else in history IMHO.

[Kevin C. Smith]

wallyworld

...all of this is an obsessive tempest in a teapot...

And there you have it-the definition of our common hobby!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Hey Kevin - I think this Additional Info from your Profile on here is just great:

''Interests: Just this one. Who needs more?''

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Bucyrus

  Here is a number crunching question: 

1)      Assuming the electrification of a majority of railroads in the U.S., what is the total asset value of those railroads today?

2)      What would be the asset value of the new locomotives, catenary wire, distribution lines, and wind farms that would be needed to electrify the majority of railroads included in the first question?

 

You can go ahead and round off your answers.

 

Leave out other improvements that might be related to electrification such as line improvements, PTC, ECP brakes, grade separation, new rolling stock, and new terminal facilities.

OK - I want to get this thread back on track, and this question - and its unstated implications and issues - is important enough to deserve at least an attempt at a serious - and seriously approximate - answer.  So I'll stick my neck out yet again, as follows:

A.  Total asset value of 4 Class I's - from ''Table 13 - 2008 Average Market Value'' of the STB's 'Railroad Cost of Capital - 2008' decision on Sept. 25, 2009, Docket No. EP_558_12, STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-No. 12): $108.6 Billion

[BNSF $31.6 B, CSX $21.3 B, NSC $21.7 B, UPC $33.9 B]

 B.  Total asset value of electrification: Approx. $80 Billion = 73.7 % of the above total asset value.

[20,000 Route-Miles at $4 Million per Route-Mile = 2 tracks, typically; based on Amtrak's 1997-2000 155 Route-Mile electrification from New Haven to Boston for $321 Million = $2.1 Million per Route-Mile, x 2.0 to allow for inflation since then, contingencies, misc. stuff, etc.]

Significant comments and caveats - in no particular order:

1.  RWM often tells me my estimated costs are too low.  He's usually right, too - or at least has a legitimate basis for his difference of opinion.

2.  Total asset value does not include KCS, nor US routes of CN and CP.  Doing that would add maybe 20 % to the total asset value ? - reducing electrification percentage commensurately.  Also, these are the STB's figures from 2008 = recession year - I want to check what they are currently.

3.  Electrified route-mileage estimates vary from 8,000 to 10,000 to 20,000 to 50,000 or so.  I find the 20,000 range to be the most credible = 4 transcontinental routes or equivalent at 3,000 miles each = 12,000 miles, plus 5 north-south routes at 1,000 miles each = 5,000 miles, plus 3,000 miles for contingencies, duplication, errors, etc. As always with these exercises, 'YMMV' = ''Your Mileage May Vary'' [and hey - that term is really applicable here, too !]

4.  Does not include cost of wind farms - I have no idea what they cost.  And why those, instead of coal/ nuclear/ gas/ hydro/ solar or whatever other type of generating plant that could be used ?

5.  The total electrification cost may look to be scary and to be a 'bet the ranch' kind of proposition.  However:

a.  I believe it will take at least 20 years to implement - that's 1,000 miles per year, or 10 times what either Amtrak did in '97-'00 or the best of what the PRR did from 1928-1938 - because I think that will be about the maximum practical economic production capacity limit of the suppliers and contractors, consulting engineers, FRA review, etc., etc. 

b.  So, the annual investment would be on the order of only $4 Billion per year, or about 3.7 % of the total asset value per year.  Although that is about roughly equal to the current CAPEX = CAPital EXpenditures of those 4 railroads - in other words, their annual CAPEX budget would have to be doubled - it's less intimidating when viewed that way.  Some of that CAPEX for electric locomotives and other improvements would take the place of other CAPEX that would have occurred otherwise - such as new diesels, which may not be needed as much because the newest ones can be 'cascaded' down to lesser services.

c. This is more like a 'paying as you go' arrangement.  As an analogy - If you've ever bought a house - say, a $200,000 one - you probably had no more than $40,000 = 20 % down payment - if that, plus a couple cars with values - net of their financing - of less than $10,000 each = $20,000 total, plus misc. assets such as furniture, clothing, misc. savings, life insurance cash values, etc. - I'll be generous and say all of that might be worth another $40,000, for your total asset value of $100,000.  So you're committing to buying and paying for the next 30 years for another asset that's 200 % of your total present asset value - and of which 160 % [$200,000 price - $40,000 down payment = $160,000 to be borrowed to pay the rest of the purchase price] is going to be borrowed/ mortgage money.  Next to that, the railroads' investment in electrification looks pretty prudent - their percentages are less than half of yours.  And you'll be paying off that $160,000 at the rate of around $960 per month for the next 30 years at a 6.0 per cent interest rate. 

However, each of those $4 Billion annual investments will cost the railroads around $48 Million per month = $600 Million per year for the next 30 years at a 12.0 per cent interest rate, per the STB decision referenced and linked at the top.  So a major legitimate concern is that figure is in the ballpark of the railroad's total annual profits.  Worse yet, the next year's $4 Billion investment will require an additional similar series of payments, and so on in an ever-increasing linear escalation.  At the end of those 20 years, these railroads would be paying $960 Million = $1 Billion per month, or about $11.5 Billion per year.  Unless they find a major source of new revenue in this operation or other changes in market conditions elsewhere, that's not possible on a sustained basis, and the railroad has a substantial risk of default on its financial obligations.  So that's why there's presently no widespread rush to electrify, in my estimation - unless government aid and subsidies, etc. are involved.

6.  But why the METRA's Chicago-Aurora commuter line 'Racetrack' hasn't been electrified before or even now is inexplicable to me . . .

Comments, questions, and constructive criticisms invited, as usual.

- Paul North.