Railway Man Bucyrus Otherwise, the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement. That statement flies in the face of all evidence before me in my profession. There is no consensus among anyone anywhere about anything. RWM
Bucyrus Otherwise, the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement.
Otherwise, the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement.
That statement flies in the face of all evidence before me in my profession. There is no consensus among anyone anywhere about anything.
RWM
Consesus! The only concesus I can see is that everyone seems to agree that the other guys ideas are all wrong.
FRANTIC NAYSAYERS UNITE!
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
The only consensus appears to be that there's no consensus..
BucyrusAnd at this point, it is only a matter of intent, so no government policy or funding is in place now. Moreover, if the political climate changes or if there is inability to generate public funding, none of these elements of electrification may ever come to fruition, or even be started. However, at this point, I think it is clearly where we are headed. The intent is there and I don’t see a problem paying for it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
When I say that the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement, I should clarify that I do not mean to include every Californian, every member of congress and the administration, and every advocate of the green movement.
You used the term, consensus to characterize my statement, and that is the word that I should have used. Consensus refers to a majority of agreement within specific groups. So I would revise my statement to say that, within the group that includes the administration, congress, and the green movement, there is a consensus on the environmental and climate views.
Really? I am incredulous because I wear out my shoe leather trudging around between the feds, the states, and the major environmental groups such as Sierra Club on a daily basis and I don't think they could even agree on whether to order sandwiches for a meeting from Panera Bread or JimmyJohns. If one used the analogy that there is consensus to move the steering wheel of the ship of state to a new direction, then you might find agreement to change about 0.1 degrees.
I used to joke that there could be no such thing as a government conspiracy because you could never even get anyone to agree on to who to invite to the kickoff meeting to initiate the conspriracy. But now I don't think that's as funny as I used to having been a participant in some vast failures to accomplish anything despite having thrown billions of dollars at the problem.
Seriously, if you think there's a consensus among the administration, Congress, any of the 50 states, and even a few of the environmental NGOs -- much less a majority of them measured on their "influence" -- on climate and the environment -- than I am going to quit my job because my work on this planet is done. The major environmental groups I would characterize as infuriated with the Administration.
Murphy Siding BucyrusAnd at this point, it is only a matter of intent, so no government policy or funding is in place now. Moreover, if the political climate changes or if there is inability to generate public funding, none of these elements of electrification may ever come to fruition, or even be started. However, at this point, I think it is clearly where we are headed. The intent is there and I don’t see a problem paying for it. That really doesn't lead me to believe this is quite the slam-dunk you seem to be portraying. Wishing that BNSF would convert to electricity, even though it appears economically impossibe, is nothing more than a wish, even if some folks in the federal government and a lot of wishful thinking folks in California think it would be cool. In the end, the taxpayers would have to be convinced that the money required could not be used better somewhere else.
That really doesn't lead me to believe this is quite the slam-dunk you seem to be portraying. Wishing that BNSF would convert to electricity, even though it appears economically impossibe, is nothing more than a wish, even if some folks in the federal government and a lot of wishful thinking folks in California think it would be cool. In the end, the taxpayers would have to be convinced that the money required could not be used better somewhere else.
I did not say it was a slam-dunk. I am only referring to the intent at this moment and the willingness to spend public money. It may be economically impossible for BNSF to electrify with private capital, but government funding would be easy. Matt Rose said that is what it will take. The taxpayers did not object to paying $750 billion just to create jobs with no particular payback required other than to put people to work. I don’t see taxpayers holding anybody’s feet to the fire.
As I have mentioned in several other threads, this is not about the railroads making a private business decision to electrify based on efficiency payback. Instead, it is about a government decision to electrify rail in order to create a non-oil, zero-carbon, national transportation system in the name of national security and public safety. That idea is all over the place, including in the FRA. I must have posted 15-20 links in the last couple months echoing the same agenda. Boosters include BNSF, CSX, NS, and Trains magazine.
But I think I have included enough qualifiers to indicate that I am uncertain as to the completion of this national vision. The current spending that might be committed to this, and to other things is dependent upon a certain level of future prosperity, and at the same time, the burden of the current spending jeopardizes that future.
nanaimo73 billio Moreover, as a publicly traded entity itself, Berkshire Hathaway (meaning Warren Buffett and his trusted lieutenants) has its own set of shareholders to whom it management must answer. Do Berkshire Hathaway shareholders question Mr Buffett? Don't they fully trust him before they buy in?
billio Moreover, as a publicly traded entity itself, Berkshire Hathaway (meaning Warren Buffett and his trusted lieutenants) has its own set of shareholders to whom it management must answer.
Do Berkshire Hathaway shareholders question Mr Buffett? Don't they fully trust him before they buy in?
Warren Buffett is famous for his self-effacing no baloney performance evaluations. Stockholders flock to Omaha to hear him talk about the state of the company. If anyone has questions, he'll give them an answer. My guess is that if he buys into a company, he does his due diligence, asks tough questions, and is more than willing to answer to shareholders who would hold him to the same standard. (I say this having never met the "Oracle of Omaha"). If you want to check for yourself, real his comments on Berkshire Hathaway annual reports -- they are available on the company's web site, and go back for a good many years.
If Brekshire shareholders distrusted his financial judgement, then they'd be pretty stupid to buy shares in his company, don't you think? Especially given the P/E accorded its shares.
Of one thing I'm almost (99.999 percent) certain: if Warren Buffett took a high wad of scarce Berkshire Hathaway capital to blow on the idiotic large- (or small-) scale electrification of BNSF, then (in no particular order) Senor Buffett's judgement would swiftly be called into question, the wealth of Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would would be massively reduced, and reflecting that wealth reduction, the price of Berkshire Hathaway stock would plummet faster than a bomber in a power dive.
Railway Man Seriously, if you think there's a consensus among the administration, Congress, any of the 50 states, and even a few of the environmental NGOs -- much less a majority of them measured on their "influence" -- on climate and the environment -- than I am going to quit my job because my work on this planet is done. The major environmental groups I would characterize as infuriated with the Administration.
There is a consensus in Minnesota, if you can call a Democratic legislature and a Republican governor passing and signing legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions 15% by 2015 and 80% by 2050. That is exactly what happened here in Minnesota in 2007.
Gas and electric utilties in Minnesota are now dealing with conservation mandates that require them to spend the money that will reduce demand by 1 1/2% percent per year-with no end.
Sounds like our president will be jetting off to Copenhagen to put his stamp on some global consensus as well.
In the end this whole discussion will be moot, as after the AWG believers get their way and grind our economy into dust we won't have a need to burn coal or move freight.
Visit look4trains.com
We'll have a green economy when everyone accepts that electricity grows on trees.
-Crandell
selector We'll have a green economy when everyone accepts that electricity grows on trees. -Crandell
It could happen!
I mean Tiger Woods ran his SUV into a tree and a bunch of women fell out.
Who knew they grew on trees?
But I can see several scenereos where it would make economic sense to electrify:
Steady improvement in ability to extract natural gas, of which the USA has in abundance, and which is far more efficiently used in electric generating plants than in vehicles.
Breakthroughs on cleaning coal burning emmissions to lower cost of clean electricity vs petroleum.
Some of MIT's research on lower cost and inherently safer nuclear power plants coming to fruitiion and giving us much lower-cost electricity.
Couple this with the need for more transmission lines and the possible use of the Transcon for one, and the willingness of the power companies to share in the electrification costs, and the possibility of economic rewards just might occur. Just might. And, of course, added capacity, not nearly as much of a difference as with steam, but still a difference.
daveklepper But I can see several scenereos where it would make economic sense to electrify: Steady improvement in ability to extract natural gas, of which the USA has in abundance, and which is far more efficiently used in electric generating plants than in vehicles. Breakthroughs on cleaning coal burning emmissions to lower cost of clean electricity vs petroleum. Some of MIT's research on lower cost and inherently safer nuclear power plants coming to fruitiion and giving us much lower-cost electricity. Couple this with the need for more transmission lines and the possible use of the Transcon for one, and the willingness of the power companies to share in the electrification costs, and the possibility of economic rewards just might occur. Just might. And, of course, added capacity, not nearly as much of a difference as with steam, but still a difference.
Interesting. However, I think the first is unlikely-the natural gas that is easy to recover has been and is being recovered-gas wells are getting deeper, more expensive, and involve complex techniques like directional drilling and fracturing that are expensive. Improving ability to extract natural gas does not translate to more cost effective natural gas.
Clean coal is something I believe we will see developed, but once again, it won't be cheap. And just because coal is getting cleaner doesn't mean other technologies are standing still. When it comes to technology improvements affecting emmissions and efficiency, the internal combustion locomotive hasn't been standing still. The "status quo" is a moving target in this case. Nukes are just about as politically unpopular as dirty coal.
Count me among those who just don't see large scale electrification as likely in the forseeable future.
Railway Man [snip] There is no business case for electrification -- not even the thinnest hope of one -- if the only thing we are going to do with it is avoid buying diesel fuel and maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. Not at $8/gallon diesel fuel, either. [snip] RWM
With respect - be careful here. Consider the following:
For convenience in the calculations, assume the typical/ average cost for installing the catenary and associated work - local substations, etc. - at $1 Million per Track-Mile - that's about what Amtrak paid 10 -15 years ago for high-speed from New Haven to Boston, which would not be needed for freight railroads. Some estimates range up to twice that; also, no 'show-stopper' tunnel enlargements, bridge raisings, transmission power supply extensions, signal system replacements, etc. would be needed. If, for example, that cost ought to be $2 Million per Track-Mile - then just increase the relevant following figures proportionately, i.e., double them accordingly.
At 20 % Return On that Investment over/ within 10 years, savings of almost $240,000 per year per Track-Mile would be needed = $667 per Track-Mile per day.
For each 1,000 HP-HRs., at 20 HP-HR per gallon = 50 gallons at $3.00 per gallon costs $150.
Equivalent electricity is 746 KWHR at 8.00 cents per KWHR = 0.746 MWHR at $80.00 per MWHR = $60, or about 40 % of the cost of the $3.00 diesel fuel = $1.20 per gallon.
So savings per 1,000 HP-HRs. is $90, or about 60 % of the cost of the $3.00 diesel fuel = $1.80 per gallon.
$667 per Track-Mile per day/ $90 per 1,000 HP-HRs. =
7.41 x 1,000 HP-HRs. per Track-Mile per day = 7,410 HP-HRs. per Track-Mile per day, is needed to generate those savings.
Oddly enough, the faster the trains go through each such mile, the less savings accrue to that mile from each train - so more locomotives/ trains are needed to generate those savings. For example:
At 10 MPH, the locomotives will be dragging through that mile for 0.10 hour. So, 7,410 HP-HRs. per Track-Mile per day / 0.10 Hr. = 74,100 HP through that mile, which would be 25 ea. 3,000 HP units or 17 ea. 4,400 HP units. This would be characteristic of a very slow and steep grade, with maybe 6 trains a day at full power.
More realistically, at 20 MPH, the locomotives will be marching through that mile for 0.05 hour. So, 7,410 HP-HRs. per Track-Mile per day / 0.05 Hr. = 148,200 HP through that mile, which would be about 50 ea. 3,000 HP units or 34 ea. 4,400 HP units. This would be typical for a steep grade, with maybe 8 to 12 trains per day ascending it, again at full power output.
At a much faster and more typical 40 MPH, the locomotives will be running through that mile for 0.025 hour. So, 7,410 HP-HRs. per Track-Mile per day / 0.025 Hr. = 296,400 HP through that mile, which would be about 100 ea. 3,000 HP units or 67 ea. 4,400 HP units. This would be typical for a moderately graded main line, with maybe 25 to 35 trains per day running over it, at full power - but that's not likely. Also, this traffic volume is starting to approach the limit for a single track, even with a 2 or 3 track main line configuration. If we assume instead that those units are working at typically 2/3 of rated power, then about 150 ea. 3,000 HP units or 100 ea. 4,400 HP units would be needed - say, 40 to 50 trains per day running over each track.
At 60 MPH and full power, it's the same as the last set of numbers; if those are running at half-power on average, then it would be 300 ea. 3,000 HP or about 200 ea. 4,400 HP units, or 50 to 60 trains per day, which is likely more than a single track could handle reliably.
BUT - if diesel fuel costs increase to where the savings margin is say, twice as high - or about $5.00 per gallon - then the catenary is economic at these traffic levels even for $2 million per Track-Mile installation costs. Alternatively, if the diesel fuel savings margin doubles, but the catenary installation cost is still only in the $1 million per Track-Mile range, then the catenary is economic at half these traffic levels or average speeds.
Diesel maintenance cost savings seem to be only around 10 % of the fuel cost savings, which is why I didn't consider them - as well as all the other quantifiable and intangible aspects - here.
The general conclusion that I extrapolate from this is that - without considering any air pollution economics - catenary is most economic on high-horsepower, slow-moving grades with a merely decent amount of traffic; and least economic on high-speed line segments where only a moderate horsepower level is needed to maintain desired speeds, unless huge traffic levels are present. However, few rail lines are uniformly of one characteristic or another from end-to-end. So, to avoid motive power changing utilization hassles, each line will have to be considered on its own merits. But at $8.00 per gallon - that's almost 4 times the savings of this simple example - so all of these scenarios would be worthy of further investigation.
This was a timely opportunity for me to work through some other aspects of this - mainly, the effect of higher speeds on the economics. As always, I'll appreciate any constructive comments and criticism.
Beyond this, and as to the main topic here: Naahh, Buffett bought BNSF on its own merits, as it now is. Electrification might provide some synergy benefits if and when it happens, but it's merely speculative and hence worth little to him now. In the meantime, he'll be happy with BNSF as long as it keeps up its present improving track.
- Paul North.
Paul: Two key assumptions:
Paul- seems to me, you would also have to factor in the cost of electricity being quite a bit higher, as it would have to come from as yet, not built power plants. Ironically, the new power would have to come from low-emission power plants, that would have to be built to provide juice for no emission locomotives. That factor in itself, would lead me to believe it ain't gonna happen.
Railway Man Paul: Two key assumptions: 1. You can really electrify for only $1 million/mile, all-in. Or even $2 million. Did you figure into that what you're going to do with all the clearance issue? What about the sunk cost into grade-crossing signaling, wayside signaling, and communication systems? Because they don't work any more.
1. You can really electrify for only $1 million/mile, all-in. Or even $2 million. Did you figure into that what you're going to do with all the clearance issue? What about the sunk cost into grade-crossing signaling, wayside signaling, and communication systems? Because they don't work any more.
You mean ''can't'', correct ? Agree, for $1 Million per route-mile or even per track-mile - that's why my 'scaling-up factor' comment. But at $2 Million per track-mile = $4 Million to $6 Million a route-mile for 2 or 3 tracks, respectively - that's say, $500 Million per 100 miles or $5 Billion per 1,000 miles, about $11 Billion for the 2,200 mile BNSF TransCon line. I don't think we can say for sure that ''It can't be done ! '' for those kinds of amounts, can we ?
Yes, I considered those and 'assumed those issues away', rather than fight with them - see the underlined portion of my 2nd full paragraph. More realistically - just as with the motive power utilization, each proposed route or line segment would have to be gone over carefully to see if there are any 'show-stoppers' like that there. If we look at the $300 Million or so costs of the 1995 ConRail double-stack clearance program or the similar current Norfolk Southern 'Crescent Corridor' tunnel and clearance enlargement program, that provides a likely range for that kind of thing. As with route 'locations', it may be a combination or the balance of the unique present characteristics of each line and its available opportunities with the resources or ability = benefit of savings incentive, as against the costs, to establish a priority list. As the project or network gets larger, it can more readily absorb or justify that kind of thing.
Wiht regard to the communications and signals - I don't deny that some of that is needed, but can we say uncategorically that it will be the 'worst case scenario' - that all lines and routes have that problem, throughout their entire length, in all systems regardless of age or technology, and that the only 'fix' is a complete replacement ? I certainly don't have the EE expertise to say one way or the other, but I think that would be an uncommonly pessimistic and adverse set of circumstances for that to occur. I believe that recent and current digital technology is immune to that problem - and would not the future/ coming PTC technology for most of those same lines obviate the conflict as well ? Also, I'm in the midst of reading a technical paper from the mid-1970's that seesm to indicate while that was a notable problem with the early 20th century electrifications, it was not expected to be that major of a problem for future installations. And again, in view of the magnitude and likely duration of the project, it may be that the replacement costs could be absorbed, or will occur with normal replacements and upgrades that would take place anyway.
Railway Man 2. Is it realistic to think that cost of electricity will be uncoupled from cost of diesel fuel, if the cost of diesel fuel increases by 2.5X?
Yes, based on my casual observations. I thought of that, too, as I wrote the above - although I don't think we've had an extended period of high diesel fuel prices to be able to draw any conclusions from direct observation and correlation of those 2 price trends. Diesel or any other pourable fuel oil is not a major fuel supply for power plants, so the risk of an increase in cost of a direct input isn't there. Nor is electricity a ready substitute for high-price diesel fuel, with the notable exception of railroad electrification - I don't think that plug-in battery-powered Over-The-Road trucks are even a gleam in anyone's eye yet. There's no major user or market that I can think of where coal would be an economic substitute for highed-priced diesel or any other liquid petroleum, unless the coal-to-synthetic diesel liquification projects get traction. From what I've read in the Wall Street Journal lately, it seems that the price of coal is more closely tied to natural gas as a substitute fuel. If you've got or are aware of a contrary view or data set, I'd like to be able to review it. Also, if electric prices start to rise, that will bring on-stream and justify some of the currently slightly more expensive and hence presently only marginally economic production, such as solar, wind, hydro, etc., which may alleviate those increases somewhat.
Thanks for the comments.
Some very interesting analysis. A statistic I came across jumped out:
In 2006 25% (240,000 km) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction and about 36% of electric system is 25 KV AC.
From a layman's viewpoint, I will leave it at a few points. 1. If this were 1942 and the Manhattan Project were being discussed or the early 60's and the Apollo program being proposed in this forum, for better or worse, neither would have occurred. 2. Taking the "Green" issue out of the argument, electrification was seen as a sensible (i.e., cost effective) project on heavy traffic routes abroad back in the 60's and onward. 3. If the engineering staffs in other countries don't seem to have encountered "insurmountable" engineering problems with clearance and signaling, is there some reason why we can't find solutions? I imagine Siemens USA has plenty of programs ready to go.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It seems to me that there are three possible scenarios that would lead to rail electrification:
1) An increase of oil fuel cost.
2) A nationalized effort to create a non-oil transportation system.
3) An increase of carbon cost.
I think the most likely is #3, which as a secondary effect, will cause #2 to come into play.
Today’s news seems to indicate a strong likelihood of #3.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126003232518778287.html
http://trueslant.com/jeffmcmahon/2009/12/07/copenhagen-carbon-dioxide-endangerment-finding/
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/06/epa-wields-timely-stick-ruling-co2-a-public-danger-before-copenhagen-climate-decision/
schlimm Some very interesting analysis. A statistic I came across jumped out: In 2006 25% (240,000 km) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction and about 36% of electric system is 25 KV AC. From a layman's viewpoint, I will leave it at a few points. 1. If this were 1942 and the Manhattan Project were being discussed or the early 60's and the Apollo program being proposed in this forum, for better or worse, neither would have occurred. 2. Taking the "Green" issue out of the argument, electrification was seen as a sensible (i.e., cost effective) project on heavy traffic routes abroad back in the 60's and onward. 3. If the engineering staffs in other countries don't seem to have encountered "insurmountable" engineering problems with clearance and signaling, is there some reason why we can't find solutions? I imagine Siemens USA has plenty of programs ready to go.
It's tiresome and counterproductive to tout Europe/Asia as some sort of railway role model for us railroaders in the U.S. that we would instantly adopt if only we were not so xenophobic, arrogant, ignorant, and mean-spirited. We already do adopt every good practice they have, and they do the same, if it's feasible. But with your assumption you're asking me to prove a negative. Please treat us with respect, and you'll get the same in return.
Paul_D_North_Jr You mean ''can't'', correct ? Agree, for $1 Million per route-mile or even per track-mile - that's why my 'scaling-up factor' comment. But at $2 Million per track-mile = $4 Million to $6 Million a route-mile for 2 or 3 tracks, respectively - that's say, $500 Million per 100 miles or $5 Billion per 1,000 miles, about $11 Billion for the 2,200 mile BNSF TransCon line. I don't think we can say for sure that ''It can't be done ! '' for those kinds of amounts, can we ? Yes, I considered those and 'assumed those issues away', rather than fight with them - see the underlined portion of my 2nd full paragraph. More realistically - just as with the motive power utilization, each proposed route or line segment would have to be gone over carefully to see if there are any 'show-stoppers' like that there. If we look at the $300 Million or so costs of the 1995 ConRail double-stack clearance program or the similar current Norfolk Southern 'Crescent Corridor' tunnel and clearance enlargement program, that provides a likely range for that kind of thing. As with route 'locations', it may be a combination or the balance of the unique present characteristics of each line and its available opportunities with the resources or ability = benefit of savings incentive, as against the costs, to establish a priority list. As the project or network gets larger, it can more readily absorb or justify that kind of thing. Wiht regard to the communications and signals - I don't deny that some of that is needed, but can we say uncategorically that it will be the 'worst case scenario' - that all lines and routes have that problem, throughout their entire length, in all systems regardless of age or technology, and that the only 'fix' is a complete replacement ? I certainly don't have the EE expertise to say one way or the other, but I think that would be an uncommonly pessimistic and adverse set of circumstances for that to occur. I believe that recent and current digital technology is immune to that problem - and would not the future/ coming PTC technology for most of those same lines obviate the conflict as well ? Also, I'm in the midst of reading a technical paper from the mid-1970's that seesm to indicate while that was a notable problem with the early 20th century electrifications, it was not expected to be that major of a problem for future installations. And again, in view of the magnitude and likely duration of the project, it may be that the replacement costs could be absorbed, or will occur with normal replacements and upgrades that would take place anyway.
Tme how you will deal with the induced frequency problems in rail with coded frequencies for wayside signaling and grade-crossing predictors. Count how many grade-separations you have that are non-clearing for catenary, and how much it will cost to deal with them. Tell me how you plan to deal with the terminal areas. Tell me how you plan to deal with the EIS for the project and what mitigation might be required. Tell me how you plan to build the transmission lines and generating capacity, and do the EIS for that, and what mitigation might be required.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-12-07/
Yes, based on my casual observations. I thought of that, too, as I wrote the above - although I don't think we've had an extended period of high diesel fuel prices to be able to draw any conclusions from direct observation and correlation of those 2 price trends. Diesel or any other pourable fuel oil is not a major fuel supply for power plants, so the risk of an increase in cost of a direct input isn't there. Nor is electricity a ready substitute for high-price diesel fuel, with the notable exception of railroad electrification - I don't think that plug-in battery-powered Over-The-Road trucks are even a gleam in anyone's eye yet. There's no major user or market that I can think of where coal would be an economic substitute for highed-priced diesel or any other liquid petroleum, unless the coal-to-synthetic diesel liquification projects get traction. From what I've read in the Wall Street Journal lately, it seems that the price of coal is more closely tied to natural gas as a substitute fuel. If you've got or are aware of a contrary view or data set, I'd like to be able to review it. Also, if electric prices start to rise, that will bring on-stream and justify some of the currently slightly more expensive and hence presently only marginally economic production, such as solar, wind, hydro, etc., which may alleviate those increases somewhat. Thanks for the comments. - Paul North.
Really? You think the price of diesel fuel could go up by 2.5X and that will have no effect on electricity prices? You believe that a whole lot of people wouldn't figure out how to repurpose coal and natural gas to make diesel fuel, instead of burning it in power plants? Heck, I've got projects that have already come across my desk that propose to do just that, near-term.
Sorry if a few questions offend you. The point still remains that 25% of the world railway lines (and most of the new constructions) are electrified, while very little is here. And why is that? Adopt every good practice? If feasible? I guess it depends on how you define feasible.
Unlike myself, Paul North has some knowledge in the area, yet you always seem to have a rationale for why this and that can't be done. I am not touting Europe/Asia. I am only suggesting the US rail needs surely cannot be so unique as to be almost on a tangential course from everyone else's.
schlimmThe point still remains that 25% of the world railway lines (and most of the new constructions) are electrified, while very little is here. And why is that?
Off topic, but you asked.
Murphy SidingI understand graduates of college in Finland have higher scores in science and math that college grads in America. College grads in Japan have better spelling skills. Why can't the colleges here keep up with them?
It probably goes back all the way to grade school. And it is true of many countries besides the ones you mentioned as examples. And the best and brightest born here have not been going into engineering or the sciences for many years. I don't know why (though I have some speculative thoughts on these topics), but these trends do not bode well for our future prosperity.
Murphy SidingYes-any or all of American rail lines *could* be electrified. Will American taxpayer be willing to spend the Gazillion dollars required to do it? I don't think so. If it made economic sense for private industry to do it, it would have already been done.
The reason for private industry to electrify has always been different than the reason the taxpayers might be asked to do it now.
The American taxpayers are going to cough up a Gazillion dollars for the imminent climate legislation. Several U.S. rail execs and experts have commented that this legislation may force them to electrify as the cheaper alternative. Minnesota taxpayers are soon going to cough up dollars for renewable energy mandate legislation that has already been passed. U.S. taxpayers are going to cough up our “fair share” of a $10 billion joint contribution with other countries to hand over to China, so they can afford to clean up their CO2 emissions.
schlimm The point still remains that 25% of the world railway lines (and most of the new constructions) are electrified, while very little is here. And why is that?
Isn't that because those rail lines are primarily passenger lines? Perhaps American taxpayers would favor paying for electrification if they were already riding on the lines in question.
Montreal is electrifing 4(?) commuter lines. Doesn't NJT have plans for more wires?
schlimm Sorry if a few questions offend you. The point still remains that 25% of the world railway lines (and most of the new constructions) are electrified, while very little is here. And why is that? Adopt every good practice? If feasible? I guess it depends on how you define feasible. Unlike myself, Paul North has some knowledge in the area, yet you always seem to have a rationale for why this and that can't be done. I am not touting Europe/Asia. I am only suggesting the US rail needs surely cannot be so unique as to be almost on a tangential course from everyone else's.
Anything can be feasible when there is a inexhaustible supply of capital. Capital available to the North American carriers is limited by the profit motive. If the carriers can't make a profit off the capital invested....the capital will no longer be available on the capital markets.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Being no expert, I would guess that electrification took off elsewhere partly because of the availability of oil. The US used to produce most of the oil it consummed. Other countries had to import most, if not all of their oil. If you could assure yourself of a relible supply of electricity, but not of oil, electrification may look a lot better.
On the surface, it may look like things have changed here to tip the balance in favor of electrification. Obviously, it really hasn't because they aren't doing it. It's always said there are two sides to a story. Often, there are many sides, some we don't even think of. Unfortunately, we usually only see the one that we think makes the most sense to ourselves and dismiss the others.
And just because it hasn't happened on a large scale yet, doesn't mean it won't in the future. It will happen when it makes sense, economically, politically, or a combination of the two and not before.
Jeff
passengerfanNow that the BNSF has no shareholders to answer to I would just about bet they will be the first of todays RRs to electrify at least there major mainlines. I believe the government will do it with the BNSF using tax credits to repay the government.
Would you please elaborate on this? Do you believe that the government would offer this deal to all U.S. railroads?
Bucyrus passengerfanNow that the BNSF has no shareholders to answer to I would just about bet they will be the first of todays RRs to electrify at least there major mainlines. I believe the government will do it with the BNSF using tax credits to repay the government. Would you please elaborate on this? Do you believe that the government would offer this deal to all U.S. railroads?
BNSF still has shareholders to answer to...and will have shareholders to answer to even if and after the Berkshire Hathaway deal is done. As for electrification...regardless of ownership, electrification will only come to pass if it makes economic sense over the long term.
I haven't read all of the postings in this thread in great detail, so it's possible that I missed something, but it seems to me from a cursory review that an important issue is being overlooked.
If there were large scale railroad electrification in this country, where is the additional electricity going to come from?
That's an important question because the amount of additional generating capacity and transmission facilities that would be required to support electrification of the the freight railroad network would be huge (some engineering type person on this thread might be able to make a rough estimate of the additional power requirements based on a conversion of current railroad fuel usage). Most of this additional power will likely have to come, directly or indirectly, from coal, something that's not considered a particularly environmentally friendly source of energy these days. Of course, it's possible to make it look like this isn't happening, by government mandates or the like requiring the rail electricity to be generated by non-coal sources. But this is just a shell game, since such a mandate would simply cause a larger portion of non-rail electricity to be generated by coal than would otherwise be the case. The only way this would not occur is if the project actually caused an increase in non-coal electric supply by the amount needed to support rail electrification AND that increase would not have occurred but for the rail electrification.
This consideration also factors into the price equation a railroad considering electrification would have to look at before making such a massive investment Some of the posts indicate that rising prices of oil in the future would push railroads into electrification. Maybe so. But what would happen to the cost of electricity if there were a large scale rail conversion to electricity? Such a large increase in demand would almost certainly cause the price of electricity to increase, particularly for industrial users. The cost of the additional generating and transmission infrastructure required would alone lead to that, not to mention supply-demand market considerations. And what would happen to the cost of electricty if coal use by utilities were penalized by governmental action, something that even now is on the table?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.