In light of today's news item about Amtrak's egregious fouling of the pristine air at Rensselaer, and thinking about rail passenger service generally in New York, is it not maybe time to think about electrifying the rest of the distance from Croton-Harmon upriver to Rensselaer? Would this massive project pay for itself in, say, thirty years? Fifty years?
Certainly creative financing could turn this into a needed infrastructure project with thousands of well-paying jobs for people in the Hudson Valley.
By the way, I have over the years spent, as a result of my relentless riding of The Lake Shore Limited, so much time at Rensselaer that I almost qualify to vote there. I know full well that the sensitivity these days in the Albany-Rensselaer area is more about Bakken crude CSX trains in Albany, than Empire Service and The Lake Shore Limited. Still, what about electrifying the old Hudson River Rail Road?
If we had a truly modern rail infrastructure, that would be just one of many electrification of RoW projects.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
May we please have a link to "today's news item about Amtrak's egregious fouling of the pristine air at Rensselaer". I can't convince my friend googoo to show it to me.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
henry6However, we have an energy cartel in this country which continues to hold us to coal and oil because 1) their investment nest eggs are there and, 2) they don't want to think nor want us to think, they don't want our politicians to think anything else. Politicians are afraid of change. Energy companies are afraid of losing lots of change if we went with more rail and more electric rail.
How true!! In the US alone, the proven reserves of oil, coal and natural gas are worth in today's dollars $28.5 trillion. Canada another $20.2 trillion. If anyone thinks for one second the companies that control such assets are going to look favorably at conservation and developing sustainable sources, i.e., anything that reduces the value of their assets, "there are several fine old bridges I can offer you quite cheaply."
gardendance May we please have a link to "today's news item about Amtrak's egregious fouling of the pristine air at Rensselaer". I can't convince my friend googoo to show it to me.
Johnny
schlimm If we had a truly modern rail infrastructure, that would be just one of many electrification of RoW projects.
You are as dumb as a box of rocks if you think any Class One such as UP or BN will electrify thier ROW's because think it is modern. Who do you think is going to fund all that investment? I am sure rate payers and shareholders would raise hell if they even thought of such a move.
Get real!
RRKen schlimm If we had a truly modern rail infrastructure, that would be just one of many electrification of RoW projects. You are as dumb as a box of rocks if you think any Class One such as UP or BN will electrify thier ROW's because think it is modern. Who do you think is going to fund all that investment? I am sure rate payers and shareholders would raise hell if they even thought of such a move. Get real!
By specifically discussing electrification north from Croton-Harmon to Rensselaer it is implicit that this would primarily affect passenger trains. So I'm not asking about UP or BNSF.
But now that you mention it, if the Trans-Siberian Railroad can be electrified its entire distance (and I think it is), why can't US roads do the same? Wouldn't that, in the long run, be cost effective? In thirty years? Fifty years?
Also, it's disappointing to see anyone here disparage another. schlimm is absolutely right about disagreeing without being disagreeable.
schlimm Keep in mind it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
What are you trying to do, Schimm? Upset the 'experts' and risk their refusal to continue gracing this board with their upbeat character and sunny demeanor?
schlimm RRKen schlimm If we had a truly modern rail infrastructure, that would be just one of many electrification of RoW projects. You are as dumb as a box of rocks if you think any Class One such as UP or BN will electrify thier ROW's because think it is modern. Who do you think is going to fund all that investment? I am sure rate payers and shareholders would raise hell if they even thought of such a move. Get real! Frankly your typically crude responses to a fairly simple proposal suggest someone who is pretty insecure. You may well think it is best for railroads to continue to use locomotives that other intelligent folks have decided are outdated economically. Had you read more carefully you would have noted I never said the shareholders should pay. Keep in mind it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Exactly who should/would pay? Taxpayers? You are hardly based in reality if that is the case. Perhaps in the case of Amtrak or other passenger lines, I can see that happening. But in the case of private railroads, with private property, you are suggesting a socialist solution that will not fly in the U.S. Comrade!
Convicted One schlimm Keep in mind it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. What are you trying to do, Schimm? Upset the 'experts' and risk their refusal to continue gracing this board with their upbeat character and sunny demeanor?
My demeanor has nothing to do with silly notions of illogical thinking. Your paradigm of what you think railroading should be, and what those who actually RUN the industry know what actually can be done given the economics are two very different things. I will trust those in charge of those private corporations over someone with zero experience or background.
And if you think that is a bad attitude, so be it.
Convicted One What are you trying to do, Schimm? Upset the 'experts' and risk their refusal to continue gracing this board with their upbeat character and sunny demeanor?
As opposed to your......?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Convicted One What are you trying to do, Schimm? Upset the 'experts' and risk their refusal to continue gracing this board with their upbeat character and sunny demeanor? As opposed to your......?
Schlimm and C.O. were born ignorant, and have been losing ground rapidly ever since.
BTW: There is no "PRISTINE" air in the greater Albany area.
Murray zugmann Convicted One What are you trying to do, Schimm? Upset the 'experts' and risk their refusal to continue gracing this board with their upbeat character and sunny demeanor? As opposed to your......? Schlimm and C.O. were born ignorant, and have been losing ground rapidly ever since. BTW: There is no "PRISTINE" air in the greater Albany area.
It's all that New York State dairy air!
NKP guy In light of today's news item about Amtrak's egregious fouling of the pristine air at Rensselaer, and thinking about rail passenger service generally in New York, is it not maybe time to think about electrifying the rest of the distance from Croton-Harmon upriver to Rensselaer? Would this massive project pay for itself in, say, thirty years? Fifty years? Certainly creative financing could turn this into a needed infrastructure project with thousands of well-paying jobs for people in the Hudson Valley. By the way, I have over the years spent, as a result of my relentless riding of The Lake Shore Limited, so much time at Rensselaer that I almost qualify to vote there. I know full well that the sensitivity these days in the Albany-Rensselaer area is more about Bakken crude CSX trains in Albany, than Empire Service and The Lake Shore Limited. Still, what about electrifying the old Hudson River Rail Road?
In addition, the total number of Amtrak trains that operate between NYC and Rensselaer are about twelve daily in each direction, on average. The economies of scale are not there to justify electrification, any more than they are there to justify rebuilding the old NYC route via Albany Union Station (which may take the trains away from the NIMBYs, interestingly enough, unless of course Prince Andrew Cuomo gets involved).
The current regulatory environment also suppresses any initiative by the private railroads to engage in their own electrification, whether Amtrak would be permitted to use same or not. Liberal politicians talk a good game, but they won't walk the walk.
Most of the engines in Rensselaer are dual modes. So if idling engines are a real issue, why not set up a small bit of 3rd rail in the terminal at Rensselaer for HEP and air? Wouldn't need to electrify the whole line.
Please stop being rude to one another. Let's stick to the railroad topics and not venture off into insulting one another. It's not acceptable on this forum.
Thank you.
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
henry6True, 24 trains is not a mandate for electrifying but, since the electrification would only have to be installed from Poughkeepsie to Albany, it would in effect be an extension of the present MNRR system and could lead to additional service
Did you mean Croton-Harmon to Albany?
If indeed this electrification of the old Hudson River Railroad were to be undertaken, would it not be a better idea to use overhead catenary, as on the NE Corridor, from Penn Station to Rensselaer? At least Amtrak could use the same locomotives in both places. The third rail could be kept for a while (even forever), but as new equipment is acquired it could use pantographs. No doubt the sticking point, again, will be the low clearances into GCT. But we're Americans: We can solve problems if we want to.
I notice no one commented on my observation that the Trans-Siberian Railroad is electrified. How cost effective is that for them versus diesels? Why is it a good idea in one country but anathema (to some) in ours?
(And thanks to the moderator!)
NKP guy I notice no one commented on my observation that the Trans-Siberian Railroad is electrified. How cost effective is that for them versus diesels? Why is it a good idea in one country but anathema (to some) in ours?
The TSR has always been more of a strategic asset than a railroad built for profit. It runs through wilderness for quite a bit of its route. The railroad also has the state treasury behind it, without as much focus on ROI. Once electrification becomes cost effective, I think we will see it.
ndbprr . Every step has inherent losses making electricity the most expensive form of power and may use more fossil fuel then using it directly.
. Every step has inherent losses making electricity the most expensive form of power and may use more fossil fuel then using it directly.
henry6Trans Siberian RR is not 100% electrified but only in segments. Hudson Line is already third rail so why encumber the line with yet another structure and system? Dual locomotives will do the trick cheaper and with more versatility than a whole new structure...plus I like dualies for when power goes out as it often does, not by railroad but by power suppliers...
There are not enough trains running from New York City to Albany-Rensselaer to justify electrification either way. And there are the problems with conflicting electrification systems as noted.
blue streak 1ndbprrEvery step has inherent losses making electricity the most expensive form of power and may use more fossil fuel then using it directlySome posters here might challenge that statement. The new GE gas turbine recuperative standby (or continuous) electric generating system is stated to have a BTU to KW recovery of about 52%. This is a multi-fuel turbine that can use cheap natural gas (gas is the most efficient). Diesel Locos only recover 20-25%?
ndbprrEvery step has inherent losses making electricity the most expensive form of power and may use more fossil fuel then using it directly
If grid power was truly inefficient, then every home would have its own permanent electric generator. The matter of transmitting power at high voltage with minimal losses overcomes just about all notions of doing something like that, though. Also, Germany has been looking into using active railroad alignments for high-voltage power transmission—which is something that the USA only does with abandoned railroad alignments (one example off the top of my head is that of the former "Newark-Trenton Fast Line" interurban railroad south of New Brunswick in New Jersey).
Lemme see here, there's been a railyard at Renssalear for HOW long? People in the area certainly knew it was there, and the diesel fumes are only becoming a problem NOW?
Sounds like those whiners who buy a house near a airport because it's cheap and then complain about the noise, or people who buy a place out in the country and then complain about the "Eau de Bovine" that fills the air.
By God, I wish Commodore Vanderbilt were still alive! HE'D know what to do! Probably beat up the complainers, personally.
Something similar is happening in Portland, OR: http://koin.com/2014/06/09/neighborhood-using-drone-to-keep-residents-safe/
John Timm
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.