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.
- Paul North.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Paul: Two key assumptions:
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
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.
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.
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.
Visit look4trains.com
selector We'll have a green economy when everyone accepts that electricity grows on trees. -Crandell
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only consensus appears to be that there's no consensus..
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
BucyrusOtherwise, the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement.
passengerfanThe government seems to be placing to much hope in Wind and Solar energy to supply our power needs for the future. Here in California where pending lawsuits against the wind generators could shut them down for three months each year we are going to be in a bind for power if that happens.
The lawsuits against wind generators and the government’s preference for wind power may seem to be at cross-purposes, but I think the conflict is an anomaly arising from the unforeseen contingency of bird kills. Otherwise, the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement. Those views do not simply demand that energy production is clean or low emission. They demand sustainability, and that requires energy to be from a renewable source such as wind and solar.
Nuclear is not renewable, so it does not support sustainability. Beyond that, the waste handling is thought to be an unacceptable risk of toxic emission, and waste storage itself is not sustainable. So, for as logical nuclear is as a substitute for coal, it is not acceptable to the green movement.
California is on the cutting edge of the sustainability movement, and that movement prefers wind-generated electricity. However, what it prefers more than renewable energy is conservation. Conservation is the centerpiece of sustainability. The lawsuits against windmills are a clash between conservation and consumption. Consumption demands windmills and conservation reduces the number of windmills and their related bird kills. The only alternative resolution is making windmills bird-safe.
The only potentially postive economic rationale for electrification of which I am aware is the avoided cost of air emissions, and only if the cost per ton of avoided CO2, NOX, VOCs, and PMs are increased dramatically above current levels. 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.
Debating which lines should be electrified first as a business case proposition is like saying, "Which company should we aquire first: the one that will lose $1 billion, the one that will lose $5 billion, or the one that will lose $10 billion?"
nanaimo73 passengerfanProbably only from Barstow to Galesburg. The second BNSF mainline that would probably be electrified would be the Chicago - Seattle line. I've been thinking San Bernardino to Argentine (arrival and departure tracks only) would be more likely? And perhaps Northtown rather than Chicago on the Northern Transcon?
passengerfanProbably only from Barstow to Galesburg. The second BNSF mainline that would probably be electrified would be the Chicago - Seattle line.
The second BNSF mainline that would probably be electrified would be the Chicago - Seattle line.
I've been thinking San Bernardino to Argentine (arrival and departure tracks only) would be more likely? And perhaps Northtown rather than Chicago on the Northern Transcon?
I also think the amount of traffic between Argentine and Galesburg would warrant electrification as well.
I also think that since much of the traffic on the Northern trans con travels through to Chicago that Galesburg would be the ideal electric terminal for both.
The one I question is Galesburg to Denver. I don't know that traffic levels on this line would warrant the cost of electrification, although it is the most direct route between Denver and Chicago.
The PRB would be a natural for electrification due to the sheer volume of traffic in and out. Obviously the amount of diesel fuel saved here could be an argument for electrification.
It seems to me that if the BNSF begins electrificationit will have a ripple effect on the other major RRs to electrify there major lines as well.
Al - in - Stockton
He who has to much time on his hands this time of the year.
passengerfan Now 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. They are the only RR in this position. All of the others have shareholders to answer to while Warren Buffet would probably encourage electrification.
Now 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. They are the only RR in this position. All of the others have shareholders to answer to while Warren Buffet would probably encourage electrification.
You're kidding, right? Because after this acquisition I will be a shareholder in the organization that controls BNSF. Prior to this action the company I own a share in controlled a percentage of BNI stock. And in my experience, Warren Buffet does more to answer to shareholders than almost any other leader of a publically traded company in the nation.
passengerfan Now 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. They are the only RR in this position. All of the others have shareholders to answer to while Warren Buffet would probably encourage electrification. It sure would mean a lot of new jobs installing and producing everything necessary for electrification. I believe they would only need to electrify the major mainlines such as the transcontinental LA to Chicago, Seattle to Chicago. Powder River to Texas and midwest. Chicago to Denver and Kansas City to Texas. They have enough newer diesel power to handle all other lines that would not have the traffic to warrant electrification at the present time and could slowly electrify other lines as the twenty year lifespan of the diesels wear out. Al - in - Stockton
Wouldn't BNSF then answer to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders? Not that most of us could afford even one share of their class A stock...but BH is more than just Warren Buffett...
I did not mean to suggest that electrification of all of the heavy mainlines would take place at once. But now that Abo Canyon is nearly completed and the BNSF has been experimenting with longer and longer trains along this line, as well as high speed crossovers have been installed for years along this line the trans con between Chicago and Los Angeles is ripe for electrification. Probably only from Barstow to Galesburg. I would think that the heavily congested traffic lanes between Barstow and Los Angeles and Long Beach would remain dieselized for the near future, although the Alameda corridor would be easily electrified. They obviously had future electrification in mind when it was built. The trackage between Galesburg and Chicago is another area that would probably remain dieselized for some time.
The second BNSF mainline that would probably be electrified would be the Chicago - Seattle line. But first there would be trackage improvements made such as longer sidings and high speed turnouts. The Cascade tunnel would be easily electrified as it has already been electrified once. I am sure that Marias Pass snowsheds have more than enough height to support electrification as well. At the same time it would make sense to electrify the Spokane - Portland and Portland - Seattle routes.
Probably third would be the PRB line south and and east to Texas and Nebraska with the Denver - Galesburg section to follow. This quite possibly would force MRL to electrify there mainline as well.
More trains can be operated over electrified lines than can be operated over conventional diesel powered lines in the same 24 hour period. And electrification would put more safeguards in place, although the government has already addressed that concern.
Berkshire Hathaway has major holdings in utilities that produce electricity as well as in such firms as GE that produce wind generators and just about everything else necessary for electrification. I realize they also produce diesels. But in China they also produce heavy electrics. They are fully capable of producing heavy electrics here if necessary in the US.
The government seems to be placing to much hope in Wind and Solar energy to supply our power needs for the future. Here in California where pending lawsuits against the wind generators could shut them down for three months each year we are going to be in a bind for power if that happens. And I would not bet that it won't happen. Nuclear power plants like Rancho Seco need to be brought out of mothballs and reactivated and additional Nuclear plants built. California has a ban on coal fired generating plants and new dams are out of the question in California for power or any other reason. And remember California is on the verge of building a HSR system that will be fully electrified as will the Peninsula commuter rail system Caltrain between San Francisco and Gilroy.
When the RRs return to pre-recession traffic levels and those stored power units come back on line for the UP and BNSF many of the older at present stored units will be banned from California for new emissions laws going into effect in the very near future. Those units that do not meet the emission standards of California will be permanently banned. That is just another reason it would be in BNSF's best interest to look to electrification of the southern trans con as soon as possible. Its going to get very expensive for both the UP and BNSF to be changing power in Arizona, Oregon and Nevada for all trains with older units before entering California.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus I think this is part of what made BNSF attractive to Buffet. The government wants the following: 1) Electrification of rail. 2) Use of rail corridors for new grid transmission to rail electrification and other uses. 3) Wind farms where the wind blows and land is available. The use of rail corridors for electrical transmission will minimize the NIMBYS and speed up the transmission line approval process. The whole thing will be financed more by public money than by private capital. I bet it will begin within five years unless we have a complete economic collapse in the meantime. I think this is more like conjecture on your part. To me, it appears to be what Bycyrus thinks the government wants. I just don't see the connection between Berkshire Hathaway buying BNSF, and BNSF electrifying. Pehaps the government wants a chicken in every pot as well? Because BNSF hauls chicken feed, and because B-H is buying BNSF, can we conlude that B-H bought BNSF for the purpose of putting a chicken in every pot?
Bucyrus I think this is part of what made BNSF attractive to Buffet. The government wants the following: 1) Electrification of rail. 2) Use of rail corridors for new grid transmission to rail electrification and other uses. 3) Wind farms where the wind blows and land is available. The use of rail corridors for electrical transmission will minimize the NIMBYS and speed up the transmission line approval process. The whole thing will be financed more by public money than by private capital. I bet it will begin within five years unless we have a complete economic collapse in the meantime.
The use of rail corridors for electrical transmission will minimize the NIMBYS and speed up the transmission line approval process. The whole thing will be financed more by public money than by private capital. I bet it will begin within five years unless we have a complete economic collapse in the meantime.
Gee, I did not mean to suggest that I have some kind of legal proof that the government will cause BNSF to electrify. I am just reading the writing on the wall, and there is a lot of it pointing to national rail electrification for sustainable transportation.
Here is a link to the plan. You could dismiss this as just a special interest think tank piece:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301
But here is the same plan as the new mission statement from the FRA:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf
Here it is from BNSF Matt Rose:
http://www.joc.com/node/410836/
I should clarify that when I say the government wants these items, I mean the party in power wants them. And 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. But just to be clear, while I expect it, I am not advocating it. In fact, I disagree with much of the rationale being used to support it.
Murphy Siding Could the second railroad simply say "no thanks" and refuse to execute an agreement, thus ending the first railroad's plans? ( Not to say that railroads would ever do anything to trip up a competitor.)
Could the second railroad simply say "no thanks" and refuse to execute an agreement, thus ending the first railroad's plans? ( Not to say that railroads would ever do anything to trip up a competitor.)
Depends on whether the second railroad actually holds the air rights (it may not in some types of conveyances) and, if so, whether the power company would be able to condemn an air rights crossing. Under STB case law, a crossing condemnation like this could conceivably be permissible (there's a "Maumee" case that discusss the principle, but I don't have the compete cite readily at hand). One issue with high voltage transmission lines, however, is that they can interfere with railroad signal systems.
If it doesn't own the land, or the air rights, it certainly would need to execute an agreement, and potentially money would change hands.
Just curious> if a railroad, say BNSF for example, uses its rail corridors for new grid transmission, does it need to ask permission from other railroads, like UP, when it crosses UP's rail corridor?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.