jclassPeople don't matter to these people. Back to finding enjoyment in trains.
It is possible to enjoy both people and trains, old and current, as well as appreciate that some advances in rail technology are desirable and necessary.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Ahh... isn't utopia great!
If everybody just stopped exhaling, we could really reduce the carbon footprint. Cap and trade?
Sorry to be sarcastic. People don't matter to these people. Back to finding enjoyment in trains.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar.
For as comprehensive and massive as this energy/transportation proposal is, there is still one more major component of it that has not received much attention. That component is energy conservation. In fact, that may be the first component to be implemented because it requires no funding and no time to build.
Conservation may begin as soon as next year after congress passes an energy bill. One of the centerpiece features of this legislation will be cap-and-trade. Without discussing the pros and cons of this curious mechanism, what is objectively clear is that it will raise the cost of energy derived from all non-renewable sources. Therefore it will reduce energy consumption by raising its cost.
Conservation sounds timid, but when driven by price rationing, it will be a very potent component in the campaign for national sustainability. And all it requires is a new law. Just look what happens to driving when gasoline rises to $4 per gallon. Think how much energy could be saved if every household in the U.S. reduced electricity use by 20%. There is easily enough elasticity in consumption for that amount of reduction to occur. The only reason that it has not is that it has not been forced by price yet. A reduction of residential consumption of that magnitude could easily liberate enough electrical capacity to electrify the railroads, even if they were expanded to include HSR and to assume substantial truck haulage.
The so-called smart grid will further refine this pricing/conservation principle of cap-and-trade by managing electric consumption according to the necessity of how it is used. The smart grid knows what you plug in or turn on, and how necessary it is. The smart grid then sets the price accordingly. It also sets the price according to periods of high and low collective average demand. It can encourage conservation by raising the price as your total rate of consumption increases. This is the future of energy distribution, however, it is a physical infrastructure system that will have to be built and paid for. It is called a smart grid because of the stinging pain it can deliver when you open your electric bill.
Great post!
I, for one, believe that the cost of initial electrification is grossly over-exaggerated. It should be amortized over the life of the railroad. I'd be delighted to hear what the amortized cost of the PRR's 1930s electrification is.
Here is a link to an interesting blog piece by someone who is espousing rail electrification for non-oil, sustainability reasons similar to the others I have linked.
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sunday-train-21st-century-steel.html
This author goes into a lot of detail about the logistics of train operations such as getting Rapid Freight Rail trains around the heavy rail trains. He also discusses the diversion of truck traffic to rail. He claims RFR will be faster than trucks door-to-door even if trucks have to haul from origination to the starting rail terminal and from the ending rail terminal to the destination. He advocates three types of rail service operating on the same corridor. The three types of rail operation are:
1) Emerging HSR passenger (110mph)
2) Heavy freight (conventional freight, 60 mph with 33 tons/axle loading).
3) Rapid Freight Rail for higher speed, priority delivery (100 mph with 25 tons/axle loading).
The author advocates an import fee on foreign oil to fund the electric rail vision.
BNSFwatcher [snip] As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn't, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. [snip]
To tie together internally within its own system and provide redundant sources of supply - those initial transmisison lines were at 132 KV, now 138 KV I believe, but 25 Hz.
Later, I believe Phila. Electric Co. added stubs on top for its 60 Hz. high-voltage transmission line 'overbuild', which made those tall towers even taller along certain lines. But I'll have to look to find any documentation to confirm or refute that thought, or a PECo Transmission & Distribution employee or expert to tell for sure.
I agree on the basic point. I'm sure no one objected to the Swiss Federal Rwys. stringing catenary through the Alps . . .
- Paul North.
I think electrically-powered railroads is a great idea. However, I wouldn't want to be the one telling the shipper that his delivery will be "next Monday, if the wind blows!". Utter silliness, and at 52x the cost of hydro power. Jeezum! They don't even consider hydro power a "renewable"! Solar = silliness, too, as is geothermal.
As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn't, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. Sorry. Nuclear is "the only way to go!", with "clean" coal doing the job until then, and beyond.
Ultimate silliness: "Global Warming"!
It seems to me that Nuclear energy is the only way to produce enough electricity to power what we need. France produces about 70% with the "N" word. It is the only way to produce what we will need into the 22nd century.
Dick
Mudchicken has stated emphatically that electricity transmission and electrified railroad rows don't mix.
Also, I suspect that by the time a "policy framework for transportation issues" is codified, the conditions underwhich it was created will have changed, and the framework will hinder what is needed.
Permit me to suggest a couple of [editorial insertions] that may clarify what was intended:
klahm [snip] 1) The current administration appears very likely to try to create and implement a policy framework for transportation issues that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something [i.e., the policy framework] that has never been done [by the government] before in the US (and may be an undertaking that can't possibly result in meaningful change [in the policy framework] in the [present] fractious political climate). [as opposed to/ distinguished from a meaningful change in the fractious political climate, which is a whole 'nother subject - PDN] [snip]
Is this closer to what was meant ? I'm not enough of a grammarian to know the correct name for this - but I know it when I see it !
LNER4472 There's one major flaw in this entire discussion. There's only one way that anything close to our current energy needs can be met with "renewable" energy: if nuclear power is regarded as part of the "renewable" package. Any attempt to meet our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. Even wholesale conversion to nuclear power (such as the French have done) will not be cheap, and frankly the problems are more"political" than financial or logistical--the old "NIMBY" or "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors. If such "green" energy sources are not used, there is little to be gained from electrification from a planetary/global perspective aside from potential increased efficiency of energy production and use.
There's one major flaw in this entire discussion.
There's only one way that anything close to our current energy needs can be met with "renewable" energy: if nuclear power is regarded as part of the "renewable" package. Any attempt to meet our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. Even wholesale conversion to nuclear power (such as the French have done) will not be cheap, and frankly the problems are more"political" than financial or logistical--the old "NIMBY" or "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors.
If such "green" energy sources are not used, there is little to be gained from electrification from a planetary/global perspective aside from potential increased efficiency of energy production and use.
The model of change that I have described and that is being widely promoted does indeed essentially require that the electricity for rail electrification be derived from wind energy, although there is a nod to the possibility of nuclear power as well. However nuclear power is as objectionable in green circles as carbon-based fuels are, although for somewhat different reasons. Like fossil fuel, nuclear is seen as being non-sustainable or non-renewable. Nuclear is also said to produce enough heat to add to the global warming problem. And dealing with the toxic nuclear waste is considered to be another environmental problem.
While renewable energy is preferred, there is some concession to the fact that electrification is better than diesel power even if the power for electrification comes from coal. This is because of the better efficiency of electrification plus the better ability to control emissions at large fixed plants rather than on individual locomotives. The acceptance of coal as a generating fuel is also intended to prevent the need to develop sufficient wind power before embarking on the rail electrification project. The proponents are willing to accept the temporary, continuing use of coal as the price of getting rail electrification done as fast as possible.
You mention that meeting our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. That is absolutely true, but that is the intention. The way this plan is detailed by the proponents, rail electrification will indeed be only a small portion of the whole plan. I would say that rail electrification would be less than 10% of the whole plan.
The plan is nothing less than a revolution in energy and transportation. Besides rail electrification, the plan calls for a national system of HSR. It also calls for a completely new power grid, and a complete conversion to renewable energy, not just for railroads, but for all uses. It calls for new railroads to be built, and massive rail infrastructure improvements. It calls for a whole new way of combining rail with trucking, which will require new terminal facilities.
The use of existing railroad right of ways for new transmission lines is viewed as a great advantage in mitigating the NIMBY problem.
Perhaps this isn't the forum to be discussing this on. Maybe we need a "Historical" forum. Anyhoo...
In 1805, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, of the "Corps of Discovery", coined the name "Maria's River", which CPT Meriwether Lewis named for his cousin Maria Wood. In 1889, John Frank Stevens 'discovered' the pass that the Great Northern Railway crossed the Rockies on. He named it "Maria's Pass", referencing it to the so-named river, which has headwaters there.
Lately, "PC"ers have railed at the use of "extraneous punctuation". The change, in the name of Camel's Hump, in Vermont is another example. The Burlington (VT) Free Press did an article on the removal of the apostrophy. All responses were negative, except for one. The only one in agreement was a high school ENGLISH teacher! He said it would "make his job easier, not having to teach punctuation! That, to me, is pretty scary!!!
All concerned lovers of our English language should go out, at night, if necessary, and replace the apostrophies on the road signs with a bit of adhesive tape! Take that!, "PC" fools!
Please... no more 'meaningful change' ideas.
klahmThis is all most interesting, especially from the "policy wonk" perspective. Good points to provoke thought, especially "out of the box". But let's consider some realities: 1) The current administration appears very likely to try to create and implement a policy framework for transportation issues that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something that has never been done before in the US (and may be an undertaking that can't possibly result in meaningful change in the fractious political climate). Of course, the consultant and think-tank industries about the Beltway all want a piece of the action on this and thus are publishing their theses widely, in hope that policymakers notice and involve them in the process. Hence the proliferation of papers/articles/etc. 2) Implementation of policy can take many forms. Nationalization of industry is an extreme one. Tax incentives are others. Matching grants/loans/etc. can also be components of the mix. While it is certain that the federal government will be involved in this at some level(s), it is by no means certain that it will or must take the industrial nationalization form. It will take a major crisis, with no meaningful alternatives, to follow that radical path. 3) Incremental changes might pass Congress. Wholesale changes won't, absent a major crisis. Few Republicans dare to depart from the "party line", which would undoubtedly oppose most of the "alternative energy" initiatives, absent some revolutionary technology that would be so attractive that industries would run to it before Congress could hold its first hearing on the topic. Democrats are far less monolithic and enough would look out for the parochial interests of their districts in opposition to the leadership to block any radical, rapid change. 3) Electrification will reap the greatest and earliest benefits in high-density corridors, such as the BNSF Transcon, NS Chicago-NY, UP Overland, etc. Implementation of any of these would not be cheap, but the extreme dollar amounts discussed in some posts above for nationwide, rapid deployment are unlikely to be realized over the short term. And, as the BNSF "clean sheet" thinking reported in some of Bucyrus's references suggests, there may be ways to use synergies to spread costs over a broader industrial base, reducing marginal cost to the railroads (and public). All this suggests an incremental migration of railroad power sources away from the internal combustion engine and braking via friction and/or heat dissipation. But not an "overnight", "break the bank" approach.
Huh? Say what?
I've got one word of advice, "Paragraphs."
I did get enough out of your writing to understand that you believe the current administration will bring a new paradigm to transportation "that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something that has never been done before in the US"
That's not true. Anyonel who thinks about it will realize that the modes are simply different tools that do the same thing. They create time and place utility by putting a person or thing (i.e, a banana) where he/she/it needs to be when he/she/it needs to be there.
The modes have long been integrated in attempts to produce a "synergistic whole" as you put it. Sometimes it makes sense to use one tool, such as an aircraft, while at other times it makes sense to use another tool, such as a bus. Transportation pros realized this from the get go and have an established history of modal integration in an effort to produce a "synergistic whole".
Staying on the passenger side, I'll point out the formation of Northeast Airlines by New England railroads, the start of the Trailways Bus System as a "Santa Fe Trail" operation by the Santa Fe and the operation of steamship service by the Southen Pacific between New Orleans and New York.
The problem was not, as you falsely state, that no one had ever thought this way before. The problem was the dang government which actively blocked modal integration by forcing divestitures of multi-modal ownership.
I've often stated that I think the worst government regulatory rulling regading transportation was "In the Matter of Container Service" A rulling handed down in 1931 that greatly hindered intermodal freight movement for 50 years.
And now you'e out here saying (sans paragraphs) that no one has ever thought of this before. That just isn't true.
BNSFwatcher A small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel. [snip] Hays
[snip]
Hays
Thanks for the Stevens Pass clarification. Don't know why I was thinking Maria's Pass. And since you've now mentioned that at least twice here - how come it was named that ? I always thought that Marias was something like a corruption or a misapplication of a French word - kind of like Tetons for that mountain range. So who was "Maria", and why did they name a pass for her ? [For the record, somehow I do know I'm going to regret asking that question . . . ]. No "Sound of Music" answers, please.
Another double-entendr/e that I can use for the enjoyment of others - we have a "Camel's Hump" here in Pennsylvania, too - in Northampton County, a few miles northeast of the City of Bethlehem, just south of Rt. 22, between Rts. 512 and 191.
aricat First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.
First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.
In response to your post, greyhounds made some great points about the motivation behind this plan, and I just want to add to them in regard to your post.
Nationalization of railroads is the 600-pound gorilla in the living room all right. I don’t see how nationalization would be inconsistent with serving customers, as you suggest. I have no idea how it might affect Warren Buffet or his expectations, but I would not conclude that the participation of Warren Buffet proves nationalization is out of the question.
You say, “All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.” Actually, the opposite is the case with the topic of this thread and the sources I have referenced, including the Trains article in the last issue. This is precisely about electrification not as a private business decision, but rather, as a public policy decision regarding the safety, security, and general welfare of the United States. It is like FEMA responding to Katrina.
Nothing I have found directly advocates the nationalization of the railroads in connection with electrification. However, references do call for a National Transportation System and a National Energy Policy. The FRA calls for a National Rail Plan to promote sustainable transportation among other things.
Nationalization does not usually happen only out of necessity. It has its own self-motivated, gravitational pull, and looks for opportunities for fulfillment. The current political climate in the U.S. is unusually favorable to the basic concept of nationalization. Nationalization often advances itself by calling for a national policy or the need to address a crisis.
What is definitely being called for is a national transportation system powered by renewable energy instead of oil. Rail is the centerpiece of this plan. The plan not only calls for rail electrification, but also a major expansion of rail capacity for both freight and passenger traffic. A complete HSR system is just a small part of this plan. Directly linked with this gigantic proposal, is the call for a national conversion from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, and a complete reconstruction and expansion of the national power grid.
Taken all together, the enormous scope of this project can only be accomplished as a publicly funded, government project. Furthermore, when you compare what will be new construction in this project to the existing private railroad plant, the size and value of the new part is much larger than the existing railroad plant. Just the electrification of the railroads alone is too costly for the railroad companies to fund themselves with private capital, and BNSF has called for government financing for their electrification.
Therefore, if this plan were implemented, the private railroad companies would be just a small component of it. Even if the rest of the plan does not become a permanent nationalization, the government will be calling the shots for a long time until the public debt is paid off. So if the railroads remain private in the context of this plan, they will be like the tail trying to wag the dog.
BNSFwatcherA small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel. Anyhoo, the operative word is "Government". At 52x the cost of hydro power, wind energy is silly! Without government subsidy, it would go nowhere and a lot of birds would live. Give us a network, supplied by nuclear power (non-PC), and it might work. Lemme know, and I'll buy copper futures. Hays
A small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel.
Anyhoo, the operative word is "Government". At 52x the cost of hydro power, wind energy is silly! Without government subsidy, it would go nowhere and a lot of birds would live. Give us a network, supplied by nuclear power (non-PC), and it might work. Lemme know, and I'll buy copper futures.
Ay, there's the rub. (somebody said that once.)
You see, you and I think of railroading as a business. And as a business in North American it's doing quite well. It serves its customers efficeintly. It rewards its investors. It provides good jobs with good pay and beinfits. It pays taxes instead of draining the public for their hard earned dollars. I think the Federal Railroad Administration said it well in October 2009 when they said:
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the
The present economic structure and system seem to be doing quite well railroad wise. Economic resources are added to the system where needed as needed (and removed as needed). Unlike the bad old regulated days.
But there's another view. An "Activist" view that does not consider railroads to be a business, but as an instrument of "Change". Activists are all about "Change". And if their desired "Change" can't be had voluntarily, they'll seek government fiat to force it upon us. They develop good skills at manipulating the media. (as shown in the November Trains article on electrification.) This allows them to influence public opinion and to further their goals. They also make stuff up predicting more than dire consequences if we do not accept their desired changes.
Believe it or not, there are people who lie awake at night worrying about the use of carbon as a fuel and about the resultant "Climate Change." They seek a good night's sleep by forcing us to "Change" in the direction they want. In this case the "Change" involves using railroads as a tool to force people from their cars and freight out of trucks. None of this would be a free choice, and little, if any, of it would be good.
So not everyone views railroads as a business. Some view them as a tool to be used to change the way we live. If we don't want to make that change, it's our tough luck. The activists want a good night's sleep. Of course, the next morning most of 'em would just focus on something else to fret about. It is their nature.
It's already happened - one of these disputes recently occurred in Springfield Township, Upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania with PPL wanting to install a new transmission line. See the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's [''fFERC''] web page on ''Transmission Line Siting'' at:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/siting.asp
EDIT: The act of Congress was the ''Energy Policy Act of 2005'', or "EPAct2005''. From page 5 the FERC brochure on ''A GUIDE TO THE FERC ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES PERMIT PROCESS'', at: [emphasis added - PDN]
3 The Commission has also interpreted “withholding approval” as including a state’s denial of an application for a transmission project.''
So, if the state can't or won't approve a transmission line - because of environmental opposition, for example - but that FERC thinks is needed, then FERC has the power to step in and grant the needed approvals. In effect, the power company may still get its approval in the end, either the 'easy way' or the 'hard way'.
- PDN.
Not to squelch the pipe dream to harshly but I don't think you will see high tension lines strung along to many railroad tracks. It will take an act of congress to pass a national law allowing such a thing to happen without every NINBY between LA and NY and FL and Washington state filing law suits up the wazoo. Not to mention the environmental impact work that will have to be done. Nobody and I mean nobody wants new high tension wires/poles within miles of their homes, they just don't. And reason has nothing to do with it.
Think Washington DC, lobyist for, lobyist against, getting re-elected, whatever. Talk is cheap, planning is easy, getting it done is tougher than you think. I'm 65 and I sure don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.
SactoGuy188 I'm not sure if electrification can work unless we pour in truly frightening amounts of investment to electrify the main long-distance lines. Remember, Russia plans to do a massive electrification of their rail lines, and the cost for the Russian government is mind-boggling: around an estimated US$400 BILLION.
I'm not sure if electrification can work unless we pour in truly frightening amounts of investment to electrify the main long-distance lines. Remember, Russia plans to do a massive electrification of their rail lines, and the cost for the Russian government is mind-boggling: around an estimated US$400 BILLION.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Russia sitting on the 4th or 5th most proven reserves of crude oil??
Irony of ironies, all that oil and they're spending oil money (taxes on that oil) to electrify instead of building refineries to make diesel fuel.
Paul_D_North_Jr Well, . . . would the $8 Billion in 'stimulus' funding for High-Speed Rail count as proof ? Like the requisite 'overt act' in furtherance of a conspiracy ? Just askin', that's all. . . . - Paul North.
Well, . . . would the $8 Billion in 'stimulus' funding for High-Speed Rail count as proof ?
Like the requisite 'overt act' in furtherance of a conspiracy ?
Just askin', that's all. . . .
8 billion (and no, I'm NOT implying that is an insignificant chunk of public money) does not buy a complete electrification of the freight railroads (or even any electric freight at all, most likely)...most of those projects have been proposed for a while, well back into previous administrations...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Here in the USA, to do such large scale electrification we have to consider the following:
1) The cost of putting up overhead wiring to cover as much as 45,000 miles of mainline tracks.
2) The cost of powering all that overhead wiring.
3) The cost of increasing tunnel and bridge clearances to accommodate overhead wiring.
4) The cost to railroads to buy over 6,000 new all-electric locomotives.
5) The cost to railroads to buy next-generation "well" railroad cars with lowered floors so they could accommodate doublestack containers without interfering with overhead wiring.
The total cost, in my estimation, could run as as much as US$500 billion, even if the cost is spread out over two decades. Besides, with today's EMD SD70M-2/SD70ACe and GE ES44DC/ES44AC locomotives, diesel-electric locomotives are far more environmentally friendly, and unlike gasoline, diesel fuel can be produced from far more sources than just crude oil (indeed right from the start diesel engines were designed to run off vegetable oil derivatives--the first prototype engine Rudolf Diesel built ran off peanut oil!), which means in the near future diesel-electric locomotives can be fueled with diesel fuel made from renewable plant sources.
Paul_D_North_JrNow, however, it appears from the commentary above by Bucyrus that extensive government funding is contemplated and even necessary; and that the government may want to have a say in where that power comes from, and how. Those appear to be the chief differences from past electrification proposals.
Paul,
Yes, the chief difference is the new purpose. That is why I underscore new purpose in my first post. The new purpose is the overarching remedy to the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint. All of the traditional reasons for electrification still apply as a component of the new purpose, but the two-prong crisis is completely unprecedented. It has never been a part of previous analyses of rail electrification. Also unprecedented is the method of bringing about the new purpose of near-universal rail electrification through public funding. I see it as being more a national public agenda than it is a railroad agenda.
If this were just the radical fringe pushing this agenda, it might be dismissed as being all talk and radical wishful thinking. However, all four major railroads are discussing it. BNSF in particular, seems quite serious about pursuing it. Only UP seems wary of it. I think one of the most significant aspects of this is the implication for the railroads becoming intertwined with a nationalized plant improvement that may be larger and more valuable than the railroads themselves.
As you have mentioned, this rail electrification proposal is only one component of a national transportation system that will involve trains, trucks, cars, and airplanes. But even beyond that, there is a fast track agenda to convert the country to renewable energy, and that requires another major component in the form of a new energy grid. Renewable energy in the form or wind and solar installations must be placed in ideal locations for wind and sun, and the current grid does not go to those places.
With the need for a new grid for new routing, comes the opportunity of making it a smart grid. The smart grid not only delivers electricity to users, it knows how they use it, and it manages the use by pricing accordingly. A big part of the renewable energy movement is to conserve, and the smart grid will force conservation of power by micro-managing its use. So, the conversion to renewable energy and the new grid are huge undertakings on their own. Rail electrification is just one more piece of low-hanging fruit in this vision.
In fact, one might wonder whether the renewable energy agenda is larger than the rail electrification agenda, and is merely using rail electrification as a carrot to entice railroad companies into allowing the use of their rights of way for the new power lines needed for the new grid. One of the biggest impediments to the renewable energy agenda is the right of way acquisition for the necessary new power lines. Running the new lines on ready-made rights of way belonging to the railroads may be the biggest plum of all in this game. Maybe that is why UP is wary.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.