National Defense, Parallel Non Oil Transport=Electrifcation RR's

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

erikem

PNWRMNM:  If electrification is right, why have the carriers not done it?  There are two likely possibilities the return on investment is not sufficient to support the investment, or the carriers do not believe they can finance it on the open market even at today's historically low interest rates.  Answer #2 is just a variation on #1.

And there's a bit more subtle point. In order for electrification to be economical, the cost of electricity from the grid must be substantially less than the cost of electricity from a traction alternator connected to a diesel engine. A related point is that electrification would require more installed capacity, which in the last couple of decades has mainly been plants that can run on oil or natural gas. Since natural gas prices have until very recently tracked oil prices, it was likely cheaper to burn diesel fuel in the locomotive than oil or natural gas in a central power station.

It hasn't helped that deregulation of the electric power market has led to wild swings in prices on the spot market, which makes buying diesel fuel look a lot safer in comparison. A major part of the reason for the wild swings is that generating capacity has not kept up with demand and that makes electrification a riskier choice..

- Erik 

 

"In order for electrification to be economical, the cost of electricity from the grid must be substantially less than the cost of electricity from a traction alternator connected to a diesel engine."

It already is - less than half !, I believe.  Consider a modern diesel, such as a 4,400 HP GE C44-9, which burns 210 gals. of diesel fuel per hour in Run 8, per Al Krug at - http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/dash9.htm and http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm  At $3.00* per gallon in the tank, that's $630 per hour, or $143 per 1,000 Hp-Hrs. 

To provide the same power with a comparable electric - assuming losses in the portions of the transmissions on-board the locomotives are about equal for both types of power - 4,400 HP = 3,283 KW (1 HP = 0.746 KW); at 8 cents = $0.08* per KWHr to the meter catenary, that would cost $263 per operating hour at the same full-power rating, or $60 per Hp-Hrs. 

So, the difference = savings of $367 per 4,400-HP Locomotive-hour or $83 per 1,000 Hp-Hrs. means that electric power is only about 42 % as expensive as diesel fuel ! 

The problem is, of course, that it costs a huge amount of capital investment money to erect the catenary and make the other infrastructure changes** to the railroad to accomodate electrification.  So even those impressively lower fuel operating cost savings aren't enough in most circumstances to repay the cost of the wires.  It takes a lot of electric locomotive units grinding away in Run 8 or its equivalent for hours on end creating those savings at the example rate of $367 per 4,400-HP-Hr/. for each locomotive, or $83 per 1,000 Hp-Hrs., to repay those amounts.  And the faster those locomotives go, the more miles they cover each hour, which means that more miles of catenary is needed for those savings to be racked up for each of those hours (and more expensive catenary, too, for those higher speeds). 

As a very crude and rough "for-instance":  Assume catenary costs $1 Million per Track-Mile to install.  At 6.00 % rate of return/ interest, to repay that principal plus interest over 30 years is about $6.00 per month per $1,000 in principal, or $6,000 per month for that $1 Million of catenary, or $200 per day per Track-Mile. 

If the electrified trains average 40 MPH, that 40 miles will take 40 x $200 per day = $8,000 per day of savings to repay the cost of the catenary.  At $367 in savings per 4,400 HP-Hrs. (1 locomotive in Run 8 the whole way), that 40 miles would take $8,000 per day / $367 per Locomotive = about 22 locomotives working through it at full-power, or 44 locomotives at half-power, or 88 at one-quarter power, and so on. 

When we consider that 44 locomotives at half-power is from 15 trains with 3 locos to 22 trains with 2 locos per day - there are not that many lines with that traffic density, or with those high levels of power demands.  Further, keep in mind that a flat grade uses even less power than half-throttle - and a descending grade uses none, and that the quantity and value of the regenerated 'juice' is comparatively small, yet all those miles need catenary overhead, too.  Which is not to say that electrification is not economically justified for some routes - just that it isn't for many routes, let alone all of them.      

(*As usual, if you don't like my numbers - particularly the diesel fuel price, KWHr. rates, and catenary installation costs - then substitute your own preferred values, repeat the calculations - and then post the results here too, please.  The $3.00/ gal. diesel is based on current market price, less fuel taxes.  The 8 cents is my 'guess-timate' of a fair price for a bulk purchase of electric power - for the next 4 months, I'll per paying a little less than even that for on-peak power at my house from PP&L, hardly a 'fly-by-night' utility.  For more depth, dig into the PJM grid data to see how much the price can vary hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and month-to-month.  The $1 Million per Track-Mile for the catenary is just about what Amtrak paid for Hartford - Boston electrification in 1995 - 2000.) 

Erik's point about the wild swings in electric prices is valid - but as we're seeing now, gas prices are heading up again, and diesel prices are even higher and likely to stay above gas for a long time to come.

Mac - With regard to your answer #2 above: Last October 2010 NS issued and sold $250 million in 100-year bonds at a nominal interest rate of 6.00 % - which was well-received, because with its slight price premium the actual rate was 5.95%, as I recall - for "general corporate purposes".  So the financing is available if the return is there, because 6 % is way below any internal 'cut-off' criteria that the railroads use to evaluate proposed capital investments - which leaves us with your answer #1 above.

(**See my next post regarding the Table of Contents from the AREMA Manual of Railway Engineering.) 

- Paul North. 

[henry6]

PNWRMNM

Henry,

See you post on Page 5 dated 1-25-11 at 7:53AM.  What do your words mean if not that you think electrifying freight railroads is the right thing?

Mac

My comments were directed at the train of reasoning not the assertion.  Maybe it didn't seem clear to you..  But I have not necessarily approved of the assertion at the beginning of this topic.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Anyone who is considering or debating the issue of electrification should review and contemplate the subjects that are discussed in "Chapter 33 - Electrical Energy Utilization" of the AREMA 2010 Manual for Railway Engineering.  The Table Of Contents (only) is publicly available 'on-line' (without being a dues-paying member - and when that website is not 'down', as it appears to be at the moment), at:

http://www.arema.org/publications/mre/AREMA_MRE_2010_TOC-Vol3_Ch33.pdf 

- Paul North.

[schlimm]

@Paul:  Thanks for the post. I'm thinking that your calculation (quite impressive!) should also include one more factor in capital costs.  Although putting up catenary is pricey, I was under the impression that electric locomotives have a longer useful life than Diesel and may be cheaper per horsepower unit to buy.  Also, on the operating expense part, it takes less total gross horsepower to move a given load at the same speed etc. b/c fewer units and less weight (no prime mover inside).

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

schlimm - You're welcome !  Glad you could follow it.  The 'leap' ahead might not be so far, now would it ?

Yes on the longer useful service life; no to cheaper per HP to buy historically and currently, although that disadvantage would likely decrease for large standardized orders from either US builder.  For simplicity, I ignored it as a 'wash' - it wouldn't have a huge effect anyway, because there typically would be only be a dozen or so locomotives per 100 Track-Miles of catenary, so the investment costs are much more sensitive to the latter component.    

Yes on the less total gross HP part, unless the train speed is limited by the Tractive-Effort from the locomotives, in which case they would have to be ballasted to about the same aggregate gross weight as the diesels they replace.  Compare the 7,000 HP, 202,000 lbs. B-B AEM-7/ ALP-44 class electrics with Krug's 4,400 HP, 415,000 lbs. C-C C44-9 model - the former will excel at high speed service for the reason you suggest, the latter at slogging up a heavy grade. Again, for this exercise I ignored it to "Keep It Simple" and to be a little conservative. 

Thanks for your thoughtful and perceptive follow-up comments.

- Paul North.   

[PNWRMNM]

Paul,

Thank you for supplying some credible ball park numbers.  We should also include cost of maintaining the wire.

One other factor no one else has mentioned is that the cost of wire, and much of its maintenance, is a fixed cost.  Fixed costs are OK to good if growing traffic causes cost per unit of output to fall over time, but He!! if traffic is down or diverted. 

UP had about 2000 or its 7700 unit fleet parked at the end of 2009, just under 25%.  They burned no fuel in that condition.  If UP was 80% electrified the cost of the wire would continue on undiminished.  By definition if you don't make the bond payments, you are bankrupt.  For that reason I expect any management contemplating electrification will apply a higher hurdle rate to it than to a typical capacity expansion project.  I know I would if it were me.

For the record I do not accept the proposition that electrification in and of itself enhances freight capacity.

Mac 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Mac - Good points. 

Someplace over the last year or so I saw a report and study from the Penn Central/ COnrail era which included the costs of maintaining their catenary, even handicapped with years of prior under-maintrenance.  It was surprisingly low - under $2,000 per Track-Mile per year or so, if I recall correctly, mostly done by expensive 'wire trains'.  The experts who wrote the report thought it would drop by half or so with a modern catenary design and installation, and maintenance done by hi-rail truck with elevating platforms instead.   Mechanical wear to the wire would be a function of number of trains or locomotives; adjustments and repairs due to weather would be nearly a constant as you suggest, such as due to cyclical seasonal changes, etc.  So I'd not be concerned about that fixed cost. 

But, the fixed charges for the catenary would be a legitimate concern, for the reason you mention - it raises the 'break-even' point for the enterprise, just like any other major capital investment such as a line relocation or intermodal terminal, etc. - or even those stored UP locomotives, which I'm sure the UP is still paying for even though they're not in revenue service.  The only saving grace might be that if traffic dropped a lot, the cost of electricity might also drop accordingly, depending on the electric power plant fuels market (entirely different discussion).  For one very high-density route I considered similarly, the calculated ROI turned out to be in the range of 20% over 10 years, so it can be done, but only with discretion.

I too have a hard time seeing how electrification adds much to freight capacity, other than marginally from faster acceleration away from sidings and stops or slow orders, and up short grades, etc.  The comparison should be with just adding more diesels of similar HP to the line - would that improve train performance and capacity just as much ?  And note that in both instances, all that expensive HP is mostly idling away on less-than-ruling-grades, level segments, and downgrades, so those ownership costs are not contributing anything meaningful to the bottom line. 

- Paul North. 

 

[schlimm]

The Siemens ES 64 Euro Sprinter has become the most common electric freight (and in the City Sprinter version, passenger locomotive. Amtrak's new ACS-64 is a version), with a B-B configuration, 8,600 HP/67,000 lb.ft. TE.  Some German drivers say it is prone to slipping in the Fall. 

The ACS-64, a passenger loco with additional costs, costs about $6.6 mil. each - made largely in the US.  How much do the GE ES44AC's go for @4400 HP?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I think around $2 - $2.5 Million each, plus or minus a little bit.  But the ACS-64 is almost twice the HP as the ES44AC, so on a $/ HP basis, is $767 per HP vs. $455 to $569 per HP or thereabouts.  So yes, the electric's initial capital cost is a bit more, but would likely drop to a competitive range if the builder's volume went from a few dozen to a few hundred per year, don't you think ? 

Thanks for the data, too - I didn't know some of that.  How much does the ES 64 / ACS-64 weigh ?  But you know, that almost doesn't matter - with all that HP on just 4 axles, and the gross weight ceiling imposed by max. allowable axle loads x 4 - it's almost equal to 2 ES44AC's in HP, but with only 1/3 the number of axles which have to have similar weights, so yeah - it's going to be roughly 3 x as slippery as the ES44AC. 

That's 2,150 HP per axle.  I can recall seeing discussions about wherther 750 or 1,000 HP per axle on a diesel-electric was too much for reliable adhesion and useful HP . . .

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

PNWRMNM

  For the record I do not accept the proposition that electrification in and of itself enhances freight capacity.  

 

Ahh, yes - but nevertheless consider this, from my some of my 'ruminations' over a late lunch:

A railroad that electrifies - the "E-road" here - will have much higher fixed costs for the wires as noted above - but much lower variable/ marginal operating costs than its 'equivalent' competitors, and in a much better position than it was vis-a-vis non-rail competition, such as trucks.   

So, to use both of those characteristics to its advantage, the E-road lowers its rates to just a little below the equivalent of the $143 per 1,000 HP-Hrs. that its competitors still have to pay for diesel fuel.  Now if those competitors try to meet that lower price, then they'll be running at an operating loss, which they can't sustain or continue for long, because they'll run out of cash.  Hence that's the competition's rate 'floor', and so the E-road can capture more traffic from them. 

Now, with that slightly lower rate, the E-road doesn't have quite as much savings per ton-mile over diesel operations as it perhaps had planned on - based on the calculations above - with which to pay back its electrification investment loans.  But with some of that additional captured traffic volume - all of which is contributing revenue way above the E-road's marginal fuel operating cost floor of around $60 per 1,000 HP-Hrs. - the E-road can more than make up that small loss in revenue, at the expense of the non-electrified roads. 

And now, with additional traffic, the E-road has to either run more trains or run the existing trains faster, so as to keep up with the volume.  To do that, it will probably add locomotives and/ or HP to each train, to get them over the road faster.  This increase in traffic and speed-up continues until a new equilibrium is reached that the E-road and the market are comfortable with.   

To the casual observer, it may seem as if the electrification has indeed enhanced freight capacity.  But it hasn't - instead, what the electrification has done is to change the marginal revenue vs. marginal cost curve structure so that it is to the E-roads' economic advantage to carry more freight volume with more trains and more power, etc.  And to not do so would leave the E-road vulnerable to possibly not being able to pay the higher fixed charges for its electrification investment as quite astutely noted above. 

So - What does anyone think of this scenario and explanation ? 

- Paul North.

[PNWRMNM]

Paul,

I think your initial assumption is wrong.  You seem to be saying that E-road, with higher fixed costs but lower variable cost, has a cost advantage over its competitors.  That is not so, the carrier with the lowest total cost has an advantage over its competitors.

Consider the historical positions of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific.  For years GN had lower capitalization per mile, and hence lower fixed costs per mile than did NP.  GN also had significantly lower ruling grades than the NP which gave GN lower variable costs per ton mile.  GN could always live on a lower rate than the NP could, or restated, the GN would always be more profitable than NP at any particular freight rate.  Hill's genius is that he figured out the principle early and applied it systemwide.  One of the things he did early on was reduce ruling grades on the cheaply built St Paul and Pacific that he took over and was his foundation property.  Most of this work was done in the 1880's.

If E-road buys the traffic with lower rate they would simply run more trains.  Running faster trains just for the sake of speed simply increases the cost of locomotives and electricity.  Faster speed translates poorly, if at all, into increased capacity.  On single track territory you get more capacity by adding sidings to meet additional opposing trains.  Oh drat, more fixed costs and higher break even volumes.

In double track territory increasing train speed does not do much since it takes longer to stop from higher speeds, so the number of trains per hour will not increase porportionally to an increase in top speeds.  In addition most of the freight network is constrained to top speeds of 60 or 70 MPH with lots of slowdowns for curves, junctions, yards, and all kinds of not so obvious issues.

If E road lowers its total cost by electrifying it is a clear winner.  If E road ends up with a higher total cost than before, E road will be tempted by buy the traffic, operate on a cash flow basis and hope to service the debt, but if their total cost is higher than the competition's they will loose the game if it goes on long enough.

Mac

[schlimm]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Thanks for the data, too - I didn't know some of that.  How much does the ES 64 / ACS-64 weigh ?  But you know, that almost doesn't matter - with all that HP on just 4 axles, and the gross weight ceiling imposed by max. allowable axle loads x 4 - it's almost equal to 2 ES44AC's in HP, but with only 1/3 the number of axles which have to have similar weights, so yeah - it's going to be roughly 3 x as slippery as the ES44AC. 

That's 2,150 HP per axle.  I can recall seeing discussions about wherther 750 or 1,000 HP per axle on a diesel-electric was too much for reliable adhesion and useful HP . . .

- Paul North.

I had heard that the GE ES44AC locs cost almost double the DC version, but that might be an error.

As far as the ES 64 goes,  the Austrian version has a continuous power output rating of 6,400 KW (short-time 7000 KW), and the weight is 211,200 lbs. (96,000 kg).  It would be helpful if the GE website gave as much technical data as Siemens' does.

[WilliamKiesel]

The comments and discussions posted have been most useful and informative.

The thoughts shared have been very helpful to understand the pros and cons for creating a parallel non oil based transport system for the purpose of national defense in a constrained oil future.

A hearty thank-you to all persons who have made posts.

[BaltACD]

Figures I have been able to see show a price difference between the ES44DC & ES44AC being about $400K difference with the AC pricing in at about $2M.  On CSX both versions of the ES44 are ballasted to 432K pounds.  The unballasted weight is nominally 410K.

schlimm

 

I had heard that the GE ES44AC locs cost almost double the DC version, but that might be an error.

As far as the ES 64 goes,  the Austrian version has a continuous power output rating of 6,400 KW (short-time 7000 KW), and the weight is 211,200 lbs. (96,000 kg).  It would be helpful if the GE website gave as much technical data as Siemens' does.

[schlimm]

So the GE Diesels weigh twice as much and produce just over half the HP of the electrics?

[BaltACD]

Straight electrics have always had more power potential than diesel-electrics....they don't have to carry their power source and it's fuel (ie. the diesel & generator/alternator) they can pull the power from the wire and devote most of the locomotives weight to the electrical components that are needed to operate.

From a engineers perspective with a max tonnage train, I don't know that I would want a engine with 8K HP and only 100 tons of weight.  Without wheel slip control far beyond anything that has been placed in production that combination sounds like excessive wheel slip waiting to happen.

schlimm

So the GE Diesels weigh twice as much and produce just over half the HP of the electrics?

[blue streak 1]

As I understand it and anyone can correct me:

1. Take 2 - 6 axel 8000HP electric motors and their output would be limited to about 400,000# total tractive effort (present coupler and drawbar limits). 4000 HP output of each of the motors (close to present new diesel locos max output)  comes at about 12 MPH (?). As speed increases the tractive effort would need to remain at the 400,000# figure but as the speed increases the HP goes up to the 8000 HP limit each motor at about 24 MPH?.

2. We know NS often adds 2 SD-60Es helpers to the front of trains going up Horseshoe that allows the trains to climb that hill at above 25 MPH.

3.NS also often adds front helpers for east bound trains as well.

4. If the trains are really heavy rear helpers may also be added.

5. It would seem that their freights could have just 2 - 8000 HP motors on this route. Then NS would not need front end helpers but some heavy trains might still need rear end helpers?.

6. A measurement of how much more costly a 8000HP motor will cost vs. a 4000HP motor would need to be calculated. I do not believe that a 8000 HP motor would cost much more than 1 - 1/2 times a 4000 HP motor. Can anyone find any cost figures? 

 

[schlimm]

blue streak 1: I think if you read some of the posts on the previous page, you will find actual information concerning the current model Siemens electric locomotive.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Murphy Siding:

WilliamKiesel:  [snip]  Had the PRR had the will and courage, the electrification should not have ended at Harrisburg. It should have been built to Pittsburgh. Had it been, it would have been more of a factor in WWII than it was. . . . And, had there been electrification to Pittsburgh, there would have been sufficient earnings to to have perhaps avoided a Penn Central merger.

      I think you're flirting with revisionist pipedreams now.  I seem to remember that PRR electrified because the government was willing to foot a lot of the bill during the depression to make jobs for the unemployed.   [snip]       

     Electrification of the PRR to Harrisburg would not have brought sufficient earnings to stop the inevitable. 

[snip]

I agree that electrification of the PRR to Pittsburgh - or at least Johnstown - was a missed opportunity.  If you read Mike Bezilla's excellent history - really, of PRR's interaction with the technological innovation and development of all types of locomotives - you'll see that was because the PRR: 1) had a lot of trouble liking a decent heavy-duty electric freight locomotive - even though other railroads did, such as the N&W and VGN just a couple hundred miles to the south; and 2) the K4's for passenger service and the L-class Mikados and I-class Decapods, etc. for freights were so darn good that they raised a pretty high bar for any electric to clear.  As Bezilla said, it was the only proposed electrification to be killed by steam locomotives - and post-WW II, by diesels.  

I also agree that electrification of the PRR to Pittsburgh Harrisburg would not have brought sufficient earnings to stop the inevitable Penn Central merger and bankruptcy.

- Paul North. 

See:

The electrification that might have been

Pennsylvania from Enola to Pittsburgh

by Bezilla, Michael 

Trains - March 1978 (St. Louis Union Station painting on cover)

electrification  prr