The point made countless times still is the issue.
Can our country afford to spend the billions (trillions?) it would take to build electric power supplies and the grid for railroads? Forget profits or shareholders. Does our government have the money to do something of this scale?
We are not Europe. Texas is larger than any of the western European countries.
To electrify our entire system, including the vast stretches of the western U.S., is completely out of reach of our present ability, even if the railroads were nationalized and profits forgotten.
York1 John
Belgium is only larger than three states--Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island.
Why is this a all or nothing deal?
rdamon Why is this a all or nothing deal?
Backshop rdamon Why is this a all or nothing deal? Because if you do it halfway, you end up like the PRR. If they had extended it to Pittsburgh, it might still be in operation.
Because if you do it halfway, you end up like the PRR. If they had extended it to Pittsburgh, it might still be in operation.
Amtrak has ALL the former PRR electrified territory. Once Amtrak got the territory they kicked ConRail off of it for through trains. ConRail put their through freights on nominally Reading lines between Harrisburg, Philadelphia and North Jersey and then former NYC lines from North Jersey to Selkirk. ConRail put their through freights on the former B&O between Philadelphia and Potomac Yard.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAmtrak has ALL the former PRR electrified territory.
Not all. Couple electrified lines in PA didn't go to Amtrak. Off the top of my head:
A&S low grade, C&PD, Morrisville Line, among a few branches here and there.
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 Backshop People complain about the risk of nuclear powerplants without realizing that the USN has had literally hundreds of them online over the last 70 years without an accident. It's not the actual powerplants. It's the shareholder-driven companies running them I have no faith in.
Backshop People complain about the risk of nuclear powerplants without realizing that the USN has had literally hundreds of them online over the last 70 years without an accident.
People complain about the risk of nuclear powerplants without realizing that the USN has had literally hundreds of them online over the last 70 years without an accident.
It's not the actual powerplants. It's the shareholder-driven companies running them I have no faith in.
That's why we have the NRC.
zugmann BaltACD Amtrak has ALL the former PRR electrified territory. Not all. Couple electrified lines in PA didn't go to Amtrak. Off the top of my head: A&S low grade, C&PD, Morrisville Line, among a few branches here and there.
BaltACD Amtrak has ALL the former PRR electrified territory.
Guess I should have stated all MAJOR lines. NYC-DC and Harrisburg to Zoo in Philadelphia.
Low grade was pretty major.
MidlandMikeThat's why we have the NRC.
Oh, so now we trust the gov't? I thought many thought otherwise - ok back to electrification.
I grew up in the shadow of TMI. So, nuclear always had a stigma where I came from.
All those lines fed into the NEC. Without the NEC connection, they were all just short local lines. Now if the Reading had continued electrification passed West Trenton to meet up with an electrified CNJ to the Hudson, they might have had something.
MidlandMikeAll those lines fed into the NEC. Without the NEC connection, they were all just short local lines.
Yeah, but the point was that ALL former PRR electric lines didn't go to Amtrak.
Columbia & Port Deposit and Kearny lost their wire quick; Atglen & Susquehanna and much of the Morrisville line are simply gone. GE made a very attractive option in the rebuilt E44, but it didn't matter: even before the mid-Eighties I think much of the 'freight' electrification was gone.
I heard (and Don can confirm or disprove) that Amtrak got the rights to enough 25-cycle power that they could demand 'their' price for the other electrifications as well as the NEC proper.
zugmann MidlandMike All those lines fed into the NEC. Without the NEC connection, they were all just short local lines. Yeah, but the point was that ALL former PRR electric lines didn't go to Amtrak.
MidlandMike All those lines fed into the NEC. Without the NEC connection, they were all just short local lines.
Just the lines the were important to Amtrak and that Amtrak forced through freights off of.
zugmann I grew up in the shadow of TMI. So, nuclear always had a stigma where I came from.
During my elementary school years, I lived a few miles from the flood zone from LADWP's St Francis Dam where over 400 poeple drowned. I remember the dam failure being discussed in first grade and my first grade teacher was probably living in Ventura County when the dam failed. Given the choice between living downstream of the St Francis dam and next door to TMI, I would take TMI any day.
The take-away is that any source of energy has risks, with large dams likely posing more of a risk than a nuclear plant. Perhaps the lowest risk approach for powering electrifications is combined cycle gas turbines running on natural gas.
Erik_Mag zugmann I grew up in the shadow of TMI. So, nuclear always had a stigma where I came from. During my elementary school years, I lived a few miles from the flood zone from LADWP's St Francis Dam where over 400 poeple drowned. I remember the dam failure being discussed in first grade and my first grade teacher was probably living in Ventura County when the dam failed. Given the choice between living downstream of the St Francis dam and next door to TMI, I would take TMI any day. The take-away is that any source of energy has risks, with large dams likely posing more of a risk than a nuclear plant. Perhaps the lowest risk approach for powering electrifications is combined cycle gas turbines running on natural gas.
Watch 'Three Mile Island' on Netflix
Even if Amtrak wasn't charging high costs to get freight off of there - does anyone think that Conrail would have upgraded to the next generation of motors to replace the aging GG1s/E33s/E44s? And if they did, would they have expanded electric operations?
fun to think about.
Here is the CalTrain project to compare.
51 Miles $2.44B
https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification
https://www.caltrain.com/news/cost-caltrain-electrification-increases-project-track-2024
zugmannEven if Amtrak wasn't charging high costs to get freight off of there - does anyone think that Conrail would have upgraded to the next generation of motors to replace the aging GG1s/E33s/E44s? And if they did, would they have expanded electric operations? fun to think about.
Remember that even if the White Wonders didn't pan out so well, GE thought enough of the opportunity in 1980 that they produced, at their expense, rebuilt E44 4453, with nominal 6000hp, with the clear idea that running the remaining E44s through the 'program' would produce a reasonable fleet of motors. Presumably a suitable version of E60 could be built for any expanded service (as things turned out, they could have had a substantial number from Amtrak very cheap...)
But the real future was in the dual-mode-lite project (from the late 1970s to early 1980s) directed by Lawson and Cook, which developed an electric conversion 'package' for an existing locomotive (the example was a SD40-2, as the 'representative' good road power of the time, and still famous today). The premise (and in my view a highly intelligent one) was that consists pulled by these could run on unelectrified or electrified parts of the system without engine change or reblocking, without needing to reserve incompatible power. The summary of this study can be read here:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15203/PB81191314%5B1%5D.pdf
Among the conclusions I drew from the study was that further electrification for freight-only purposes was likely only with substantial subsidy (which, in the United States, would essentially be government-funded or government-mandated). That would be further leveraged if non-"electrified" locomotives were set up to be capable of taking power like road slugs (at much lower cost, and greater operating flexibility), and appropriate cabling provided to the dual-mode-lite equipment.
The detailed Volume II of this study is also available on the Web, and this has very specific detail modeling of a number of potential routes, including a discussion of the economics of progressive electrification.
(For those with the interest, Vol IV comprised a "wayside energy storage study" with contemporary approaches and equipment. That, too, is radically more 'implementable' now than it was then...)
azrail Worked well for the MILW, didn't it.
Worked well for the MILW, didn't it.
Is that why MILW went broke?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
rdamon Here is the CalTrain project to compare. 51 Miles $2.44B https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification https://www.caltrain.com/news/cost-caltrain-electrification-increases-project-track-2024
Interesting. That amount includes all the equipment, as well.
I envision freight rail electrification to be a wash for equipment. New electric locomotives would cost what new diesel locomotives costs....Some power conditioning equipment replacing the engine-generator set. Lower locomotive maintenance costs washing with catenary system maintenance costs.
Overmod zugmann Even if Amtrak wasn't charging high costs to get freight off of there - does anyone think that Conrail would have upgraded to the next generation of motors to replace the aging GG1s/E33s/E44s? And if they did, would they have expanded electric operations? fun to think about. Don Oltmann was there, and he has much to comment. Remember that even if the White Wonders didn't pan out so well, GE thought enough of the opportunity in 1980 that they produced, at their expense, rebuilt E44 4453, with nominal 6000hp, with the clear idea that running the remaining E44s through the 'program' would produce a reasonable fleet of motors. Presumably a suitable version of E60 could be built for any expanded service (as things turned out, they could have had a substantial number from Amtrak very cheap...) But the real future was in the dual-mode-lite project (from the late 1970s to early 1980s) directed by Lawson and Cook, which developed an electric conversion 'package' for an existing locomotive (the example was a SD40-2, as the 'representative' good road power of the time, and still famous today). The premise (and in my view a highly intelligent one) was that consists pulled by these could run on unelectrified or electrified parts of the system without engine change or reblocking, without needing to reserve incompatible power. The summary of this study can be read here: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15203/PB81191314%5B1%5D.pdf Among the conclusions I drew from the study was that further electrification for freight-only purposes was likely only with substantial subsidy (which, in the United States, would essentially be government-funded or government-mandated). That would be further leveraged if non-"electrified" locomotives were set up to be capable of taking power like road slugs (at much lower cost, and greater operating flexibility), and appropriate cabling provided to the dual-mode-lite equipment. The detailed Volume II of this study is also available on the Web, and this has very specific detail modeling of a number of potential routes, including a discussion of the economics of progressive electrification. (For those with the interest, Vol IV comprised a "wayside energy storage study" with contemporary approaches and equipment. That, too, is radically more 'implementable' now than it was then...)
zugmann Even if Amtrak wasn't charging high costs to get freight off of there - does anyone think that Conrail would have upgraded to the next generation of motors to replace the aging GG1s/E33s/E44s? And if they did, would they have expanded electric operations? fun to think about.
Don Oltmann was there, and he has much to comment.
In 1979, Conrail was in with both feet trying to figure out a power billing plan with Amtrak and the commuter agencies. Up until that point, PC was paying the whole amount and didn't really care which train used what amount of power. Power meters were installed in a bunch of equipment to see what consumption really looked like.
I suspect if Conrail had worked out a good deal on trackage rights, they's have stayed on the corridor instead of moving to the Reading/LV route. It was a lot faster.
There really wasn't anything wrong with the E33 and E44 fleet. Conrail was upgrading/overhauling them at Harrisburg in the late 70s.
What would have happened next? Stanley Crane showed up. Staggers happened. No new locomotive order after 1979 for three years. (save a partial GP40-2 order) So, E33/44s would have kept running.
...and Chase MD wreck wouldn't have happened...
E44s had suppression braking speed control on them. Downward cab signal change required 17# reduction if you were over the speed for that aspect. They also would apply the brakes if you didn't acknowledge a downward cab signal change. The B36-7s that sailed throught the cut section at Chase weren't equipped with either. Ricky Gates locomotives would have stopped on there own.
Overmod Columbia & Port Deposit and Kearny lost their wire quick; Atglen & Susquehanna and much of the Morrisville line are simply gone. GE made a very attractive option in the rebuilt E44, but it didn't matter: even before the mid-Eighties I think much of the 'freight' electrification was gone. I heard (and Don can confirm or disprove) that Amtrak got the rights to enough 25-cycle power that they could demand 'their' price for the other electrifications as well as the NEC proper.
Let's just say the "negotiation" over billing for power (and trackage rights) for Conrail on the NEC didn't turn out to be much of a negotiation in the end. Amtrak more or less dicated terms - and they didn't have much to do with collecting revenue from Conrail. Conrail walked away.
oltmanndI envision freight rail electrification to be a wash for equipment. New electric locomotives would cost what new diesel locomotives costs....Some power conditioning equipment replacing the engine-generator set. Lower locomotive maintenance costs washing with catenary system maintenance costs.
Anything wash out the addition of the catenary/ET dept/crews/cars?
oltmannd Overmod Columbia & Port Deposit and Kearny lost their wire quick; Atglen & Susquehanna and much of the Morrisville line are simply gone. GE made a very attractive option in the rebuilt E44, but it didn't matter: even before the mid-Eighties I think much of the 'freight' electrification was gone. I heard (and Don can confirm or disprove) that Amtrak got the rights to enough 25-cycle power that they could demand 'their' price for the other electrifications as well as the NEC proper. Let's just say the "negotiation" over billing for power (and trackage rights) for Conrail on the NEC didn't turn out to be much of a negotiation in the end. Amtrak more or less dicated terms - and they didn't have much to do with collecting revenue from Conrail. Conrail walked away.
And Amtrak hastened their trip out the door.
OvermodColumbia & Port Deposit and Kearny lost their wire quick; Atglen & Susquehanna and much of the Morrisville line are simply gone. ...
I knew the Atglen line was gone. However the Trenton Cutoff from its connection to the Harrisburg line at Glen, to Morrisville is still intact as can be seen on Google Earth. NS's map shows this and the Columbia-Lancaster line still there.
From the 2021 article about Caltrains' electrification:
Caltrain has announced that the Electrification Project cost has increased to $2.44 billion. This will require an additional $462 million over the initial estimate for the project, $129 million over the estimate made by the Federal Transit Administration earlier this year. The project is still expected to be completed by 2024.
Why was the original estimate off by nearly a half-billion dollars?
Why was the FTA's estimate off by over 100 million dollars within a year of the estimate?
These are the kinds of questions that make most people question programs like this, and will make many (most?) vote against upgrading rail lines in the future.
York1Why was the original estimate off by nearly a half-billion dollars?
Overmod York1 Why was the original estimate off by nearly a half-billion dollars? Californians have trouble with railroad engineering estimates and implementation. If you think this was unfortunate, review CAHSR.
York1 Why was the original estimate off by nearly a half-billion dollars?
Californians have trouble with railroad engineering estimates and implementation. If you think this was unfortunate, review CAHSR.
One article cited unplanned utility relocations and COVID Delays for ~$160M of it.
rdamon Overmod York1 Why was the original estimate off by nearly a half-billion dollars? Californians have trouble with railroad engineering estimates and implementation. If you think this was unfortunate, review CAHSR. One article cited unplanned utility relocations and COVID Delays for ~$160M of it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.