Trains.com

Main Line Electrifications

17704 views
131 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, October 14, 2005 11:07 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

QUOTE: Originally posted by rpwood

1. With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines?

No. There are no rumblings.

QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.?

No. Traffic levels will not rise enough to pay for electricification, not unless the government radically changes tax law (that is, subsidize the installation costs).

QUOTE: 3. Which road(s) would benefit the most?

Better way to phrase this would be, "Which railroads would puni***heir equity holders the worst by doing this?"

QUOTE: 4. Where would potential electrifications be most likely?

Any place the taxpayer can be gulled into paying for it.

QUOTE: My own observations and opinions on the subject are:
- This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ's, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time.


No, it's not kept on the back burner. It's not even in the dustiest box in the dimmest recess of the oldest warehouse. This is a very capital-intensive industry already; why make it worse?

QUOTE: It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1's could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan's in the east and the Rockies in the west.

Perhaps, but this is like giving someone the choice of walking the plank over 20 fathoms of water or 200 fathoms of water.


Nobody on this RR even whispering about electrification. Capacity issue are being addressed by adding/lengthening sidings, a bit of double track here and there, better trains dispatching and train control systems, more efficient network design, intermodal terminal expansion, etc.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, October 14, 2005 11:02 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines or have special engines that are very expensive.

Dave H.


Agreed that locomotive productivity is part of the puzzle. But...

The real issue is what's the cost to deliver HP to the rear coupler of the locomotive consist. - including capital, energy, maintenance and locomotive ownership costs.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, October 14, 2005 10:38 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

As has been brought up earlier, dual-mode sounds nice on paper for short electric zones in a diesel world but a dual-mode locomotive would be more expensive and that extra investment would spend a lot of time not justifying its existence and earning a return. As I pointed out earlier, dual-mode locomotives are still tied to the electric zone, it's just not as obvious.

If dual-mode is such a great idea, why didn't PRR or NYC order any dual-mode power after the FL9 proved itself?


[:D] "Reliable FL9" is an oxymoron!

The REAL question is why did the NH go back for seconds.....

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Friday, October 14, 2005 8:39 AM
For additional lines to be electrified the overriding cost will be the power cost. Without cheap guaranteed power no industry or givernment can afford to take the risk with the capital. Since nuclear is frowned upon thanks to our doomsayers and greenies. That leaves only two sources of power that are cheap. Wind and hydroelectric. Wind probably can't generate enough and the enviro people would have a cow over more dams and pristine wilderness demands so don't look for anything in North America ever IMHO.
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 14, 2005 7:46 AM
As has been brought up earlier, dual-mode sounds nice on paper for short electric zones in a diesel world but a dual-mode locomotive would be more expensive and that extra investment would spend a lot of time not justifying its existence and earning a return. As I pointed out earlier, dual-mode locomotives are still tied to the electric zone, it's just not as obvious.

If dual-mode is such a great idea, why didn't PRR or NYC order any dual-mode power after the FL9 proved itself?
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, October 14, 2005 1:27 AM
I still think the SD60MAC killed electrification for 30 years.
Dale
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:05 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
[For electification to pay for itself long hauls are necessary. The longer the better. I believe the place to start would be the first crew change point. I would think the loading loops should be the last place to be electified. Some of the Powder River mines shut down for periods which would waste the investment. Logically the place to start would be with Union Pacific from Bill to North Platte.


Spot electrification would work for select segments of track (upgrades, tunnels) if the electrical engineers can figure out a way to incorporate the bi-powered FL9 concept into the mix. Could New Haven's 600v work with multiple units and with adaquate power? What about a connection that takes in 3600v, converts a portion of that to the specs of diesel traction motors and spits out the rest via the dynamic brake grids?
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • 65 posts
Posted by gfjwilmde on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:51 PM
I grew up in New York City and Amtrak was in it's infancy when i was finishing junior high school. I had bought a book when Amtrak was in it's fifth year. In it was a photo of an ex NYC(Cleveland Terminal) electric unit pulling a reinstated New York-Chicago train up the Park Ave. viaduct past 125th station in Harlem. When i used to hang out in Grand Central Station in Manhattan, I seldom seen any of these heavy units doing any kind of road work. They were basically there to switch the station after trains had arrived or before departures. Although the engine change was in Croton-Harmon, NY(a mere 30+ miles north of the city), the sight to see such an old engine still being used to haul the mix of various streamlined cars was somewhat impressive to me. At the time, they were said to be the oldest units Amtrak was using to haul trains. I often wonder what the railroading landscape would have looked like if the freight railroads(especially the eastern one's) would have had a different view when the demise of steam engines was at hand and the need for new powerful locomotives were at stake. I also believe that Amtrak's decision to charge Conrail more money to use it's mainline and it's catenary system hastened the demise of RF&P's Pot Yard. Without the need to change from electric to diesel and back again, there was no need to classify trains there anymore. I worked with an oldtimer when I first started with Amtrak in Washington, DC., whom recalled the engine house and servicing tracks being full of Conrail's electric(G's, E33's & E44's). Many of those trains(& engines) were destined for Enola Yard which too was partly electrified. The few trains(he said) that were heading towards the northeast, often ran with diesels instead of electrics because of the high trackage(& catenary) utilization fees Amtrak were charging. The concept worked for many years, but as always, greed gets in the way.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
the sophisticated hobo
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, October 8, 2005 1:58 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Isambard

Can anyone comment regarding potential electrification of Canadian railway mainlines in view of climbing diesel fuel rates and increasing traffic density e.g. the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor or the Calgary-Vancouver or Edmonton -Vancouver routes? Viable propositions or pipe dreams?

I don't think there is any chance at all of the Canadian Railways electifing their mainlines, at least until an American railroad has done it first and the new freight electrics are proven. CN has such a flat route through the Rockies that it is not necessary. CN does not even need AC traction locomotives. Canadian Pacific strung a quarter mile of catenary in Rogers Pass in 1972 to test it in winter conditions. This is just west of the west end of the Mount MacDonald tunnel. I don't know if it is still in place. I can't see CP being a leader in electification.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I still wonder why the first leg of the route out of the Powder River Basin couldn't be electified as far as the first crew change point?

For electification to pay for itself long hauls are necessary. The longer the better. I believe the place to start would be the first crew change point. I would think the loading loops should be the last place to be electified. Some of the Powder River mines shut down for periods which would waste the investment. Logically the place to start would be with Union Pacific from Bill to North Platte.
Dale
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 7, 2005 7:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned.

Costs of any project are almost always up front. Something doesn't sound right here.

"The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years." Guess what the negative cash flow period is for a new road diesel. Does Withun say? Isn't that important to know?

What was the risk analysis of staying with the same system, based on the well known historical trends that diesel fuel costs always trend up, while electric power costs almost always trend down?

This is the part that is usually missing: the analysis of the risk of not changing.

In 1970, electric power price per kilowatt hour averaged 8 cents in the US. In places like Montana with abundant Hydroelectric resources, the price was closer to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel was less than 8 cents per gallon.

This year, electric power costs are at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour in Montana (industrial), and range from 2.39 cents in Washington state (industrial) to 7 cents in Eastern states.

Diesel fuel has gone up from 8 cents per gallon in the early 1970s to $1.17 for railroads in 2004 to $2.19 this year. While we happen to think it's just awful, this isn't that far off the historical trend that has existed since WWII and, indeed, confirms that trend.

How does Withun deal with that historical probability in his analysis? I am curious.

Given that the historical trends have been well defined and accepted -- Bonneville Power Administration noted and recognized them, in fact emphasized them, in a railroad electrification proposal made to the Milwaukee Road and several other Western railroads (GN, NP, UP, and SP) in the early 1950s -- I have an impression from the description of the Withun article that it is likely that the real "risk" factor was not assessed. The question is interesting enough that I will get the paper and read it.

This is a standard business school problem: to do a risk analysis for the change, but not for staying the same. A single risk or sensitivity analysis is fairly meaningless without the corresponding risk analysis. It is the comparison of risks that is important, not "a" single risk.

After all, the risk of the staying the same is high. Most businesses ultimately fail when they stay the same, not when they change.

Best regards, Michael Sol



It's not that the costs were upfront. It's that they were so large and upfront.

It was a "bet the compny" proposition with a reasonable chance that they could loose. All the analysis came down indicating the risk was too great. Claiming the analysis were wrong, every one of them, is a road to nowhere. A way needs to be found to mitigate the risk.

This wasn't a case of one management team arriving at the wrong conclusion, something that does happen. There were numerous independant electricfication studies done. Not one of them produced an electrification project.

I don't think a diesel purchase involves much negative cash flow. GE will finance its equipment. The diesel locomotive will begin to produce revenue ton miles almost as soon as it arrives on the property. That revenue will offset the finance charges. And diesels can be bought incramentally on shorter lead times that electrification. There's more certainty in the projections with the shorter time frames. Remember, if the projections about diesel fuel costs, electricity costs, etc. ten years out are wrong, the company will be destroyed. They're risking "other people's money" on what will happen ten years from now. Not exactly a prudent thing to do.

Why don't we quit arguing over old analysis and try to come up with a way to reduce the risks of electrification? I think that's the key.

There is a need to:

1) convert existing diesel electrics to also operate as straight electrics - reducing the capital costs greatly.

2) deal with the electric current in a way that doesn't require rebuilding of the entire signal system. Including grade crossing protection.

3) assure an uninteruptable adequate power supply

4) keep "pet" projects such as open access, Amtrak, lower freight rates for farmers, etc. out of the process.

Do these four things and the risks of electrification will be reduced significantly. Will they be reduced enough to justify it, who knows?


Your #4 is inconsistent with #'s 1, 2, and 3. If you want the taxpayers to aid in funding such an enterprise, you'll have to accept conditions to that aid. Otherwise, you better let the stock and bond holders know that they will be footing the bill.

And by "taxpayers aid", we mean anti-trust exemption as well as direct subsidy.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, October 7, 2005 5:35 PM
I still wonder why the first leg of the route out of the Powder River Basin couldn't be electified as far as the first crew change point?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • 964 posts
Posted by TH&B on Friday, October 7, 2005 5:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines ...
How much do you think that problem costs?


The costs would be as high as cascading train delays caused by power not being available on time at power change points. This is a commun problem on European railways where different electrifications meet. This can somtimes be solved with the added costs of supplying extra engines or dual purpose engines.

In Skandinavia some freight rail service failed to materialize due in part for the very expensive charges for use of expensive dual electrics from Sweden to Germany though Denmark wich uses a different "better" power source. Some trains where then run using diesels through out wich is discouraged by long tunnels and most traffic ends up on the hiway. I don't know how things are by now.

So to the answer for how expensive? Loosing the bussiness can be the cost.

Stations where they exchange power are a rail fans dream, but a railroads nightmare.

How did the MILW handle this? The "gap" must have been a problem.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 785 posts
Posted by Leon Silverman on Friday, October 7, 2005 2:04 PM
Michael Sol complains about missing the analysis of NOT changing.
My engineering mathematics training included a technique called "Curve fitting" where you take a number of simingly unrelated data points and generate a mathematical formula for a curve that will predict other points on that curve or graph.
This is a very useful tool. However, if a data point is left off the curve, it will not effect the final formula. Consequently, I am frequently suspect of "mathematical Proofs".
The points generated by not changing were ignored and therefor had no effect on the figures generated. The results may not have been accurate, but they provided justification to the the people who didn't want to change anyway.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Friday, October 7, 2005 1:55 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned.

Costs of any project are almost always up front. Something doesn't sound right here.

"The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years." Guess what the negative cash flow period is for a new road diesel. Does Withun say? Isn't that important to know?

What was the risk analysis of staying with the same system, based on the well known historical trends that diesel fuel costs always trend up, while electric power costs almost always trend down?

This is the part that is usually missing: the analysis of the risk of not changing.

In 1970, electric power price per kilowatt hour averaged 8 cents in the US. In places like Montana with abundant Hydroelectric resources, the price was closer to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel was less than 8 cents per gallon.

This year, electric power costs are at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour in Montana (industrial), and range from 2.39 cents in Washington state (industrial) to 7 cents in Eastern states.

Diesel fuel has gone up from 8 cents per gallon in the early 1970s to $1.17 for railroads in 2004 to $2.19 this year. While we happen to think it's just awful, this isn't that far off the historical trend that has existed since WWII and, indeed, confirms that trend.

How does Withun deal with that historical probability in his analysis? I am curious.

Given that the historical trends have been well defined and accepted -- Bonneville Power Administration noted and recognized them, in fact emphasized them, in a railroad electrification proposal made to the Milwaukee Road and several other Western railroads (GN, NP, UP, and SP) in the early 1950s -- I have an impression from the description of the Withun article that it is likely that the real "risk" factor was not assessed. The question is interesting enough that I will get the paper and read it.

This is a standard business school problem: to do a risk analysis for the change, but not for staying the same. A single risk or sensitivity analysis is fairly meaningless without the corresponding risk analysis. It is the comparison of risks that is important, not "a" single risk.

After all, the risk of the staying the same is high. Most businesses ultimately fail when they stay the same, not when they change.

Best regards, Michael Sol



It's not that the costs were upfront. It's that they were so large and upfront.

It was a "bet the compny" proposition with a reasonable chance that they could loose. All the analysis came down indicating the risk was too great. Claiming the analysis were wrong, every one of them, is a road to nowhere. A way needs to be found to mitigate the risk.

This wasn't a case of one management team arriving at the wrong conclusion, something that does happen. There were numerous independant electricfication studies done. Not one of them produced an electrification project.

I don't think a diesel purchase involves much negative cash flow. GE will finance its equipment. The diesel locomotive will begin to produce revenue ton miles almost as soon as it arrives on the property. That revenue will offset the finance charges. And diesels can be bought incramentally on shorter lead times that electrification. There's more certainty in the projections with the shorter time frames. Remember, if the projections about diesel fuel costs, electricity costs, etc. ten years out are wrong, the company will be destroyed. They're risking "other people's money" on what will happen ten years from now. Not exactly a prudent thing to do.

Why don't we quit arguing over old analysis and try to come up with a way to reduce the risks of electrification? I think that's the key.

There is a need to:

1) convert existing diesel electrics to also operate as straight electrics - reducing the capital costs greatly.

2) deal with the electric current in a way that doesn't require rebuilding of the entire signal system. Including grade crossing protection.

3) assure an uninteruptable adequate power supply

4) keep "pet" projects such as open access, Amtrak, lower freight rates for farmers, etc. out of the process.

Do these four things and the risks of electrification will be reduced significantly. Will they be reduced enough to justify it, who knows?
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canada, eh!
  • 737 posts
Posted by Isambard on Friday, October 7, 2005 10:45 AM
Can anyone comment regarding potential electrification of Canadian railway mainlines in view of climbing diesel fuel rates and increasing traffic density e.g. the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor or the Calgary-Vancouver or Edmonton -Vancouver routes? Viable propositions or pipe dreams?

Isambard

Grizzly Northern history, Tales from the Grizzly and news on line at  isambard5935.blogspot.com 

  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, October 7, 2005 2:05 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.?


Most of the European ones may have been but the Southern railway in England electrification programme in the 1920's and 1930's was done under private ownership.
The French TGV's were originally going to be gas turbine (as was the first British Advanced Passenger Train) but the oil price hike after 1974 saw the decision to go for electric TGV's instead.

As for the problem of changing locos, the Southern Region of British Rail solved that by developing the electro-diesel - an electric loco with a small diesel engine. Also I believe some railroads in the vicinity of New York city fit pick up shoes to their diesel locos so they can draw power from the third rail when running on electrified lines thereabouts.
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, October 7, 2005 12:00 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned.

Costs of any project are almost always up front. Something doesn't sound right here.

"The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years." Guess what the negative cash flow period is for a new road diesel. Does Withun say? Isn't that important to know?

What was the risk analysis of staying with the same system, based on the well known historical trends that diesel fuel costs always trend up, while electric power costs almost always trend down?

This is the part that is usually missing: the analysis of the risk of not changing.

In 1970, electric power price per kilowatt hour averaged 8 cents in the US. In places like Montana with abundant Hydroelectric resources, the price was closer to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel was less than 8 cents per gallon.

This year, electric power costs are at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour in Montana (industrial), and range from 2.39 cents in Washington state (industrial) to 7 cents in Eastern states.

Diesel fuel has gone up from 8 cents per gallon in the early 1970s to $1.17 for railroads in 2004 to $2.19 this year. While we happen to think it's just awful, this isn't that far off the historical trend that has existed since WWII and, indeed, confirms that trend.

How does Withun deal with that historical probability in his analysis? I am curious.

Given that the historical trends have been well defined and accepted -- Bonneville Power Administration noted and recognized them, in fact emphasized them, in a railroad electrification proposal made to the Milwaukee Road and several other Western railroads (GN, NP, UP, and SP) in the early 1950s -- I have an impression from the description of the Withun article that it is likely that the real "risk" factor was not assessed. The question is interesting enough that I will get the paper and read it.

This is a standard business school problem: to do a risk analysis for the change, but not for staying the same. A single risk or sensitivity analysis is fairly meaningless without the corresponding risk analysis. It is the comparison of risks that is important, not "a" single risk.

After all, the risk of the staying the same is high. Most businesses ultimately fail when they stay the same, not when they change.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, October 6, 2005 10:32 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines ...

How much do you think that problem costs?

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, October 6, 2005 10:27 PM
Well, in the 1970s, there was a government program for railroad electrification, administered by the FRA. No one took advantage of it. Milwaukee Road's legal department had run it through to final FRA approval, but Chairman Quinn failed to present it to the Board: politics trumped economics.

I do note that the railroads gladly participated in the 3R and 4R programs when government money was otherwise available, and gladly took advantage of government efforts to cut back on "excess capacity" by eliminating future needed capacity.

Whether government intervention into railroad infrastructure modernization would or wouldn't "work," the railroads jumped in with both feet to the extent that it created the basis for our modern infrastructure, however one might feel about that infrastructure.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, October 6, 2005 8:57 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports.


No, we haven't shut down the country to repair huricane damage and fight the war. The O'Hare expansion got the go ahead, only to be stopped in court. But the Government was ready to act. Same with a lot of highway projects. The Interstate Highway System was constructed at the height of the Cold War. We can do more than one thing at a time.

Mainline freight electrification in the US would produce tremendous benifits - think of what would happen to the price of diesel fuel if the railroads didn't need near as much - but the risks of the huge capital costs have to be mitigated. There is a role for the government here in mitigating the risks.

How to structure this is an interesting question. The government can't assume all the risks or money will be wasted. And the taxpayers should get their money back. But expecting a private company to go into a negative cash flow situation for a decade is unrealistic. And any govt funds would include "strings" - these must be minimized. The railroads don't want to become puppets on those strings.

Right now, I don't have a clue as to how such a thing shold be structured - but it sure would be good if those perisables out of California (half of what is consumed in the US, not to mention Canada) could ride in the reefer units drawing power from the overhead wire instead of small diesel gen sets. And a train going downhill in dynamic could feed power to a train going uphill instead of wasting the energy, and, and, and!!


Hmmm. Government participation in rail infrastructure modernization? We covered that in the Open Access thread.

Chalk up another for OA!


Yep! This is why it won't work. People will try to drag in their pet, unproven, projects like Amtak and Open Access. Instead of keeping it a straight project to electrify the main freight lines they'll try to load it up with their "pets".

The politicians will join in so they can "make a difference" and wield power.

Just buy some more diesel electrics and move the freight. Oh well, it was worth a thought.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 6, 2005 7:31 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports.


No, we haven't shut down the country to repair huricane damage and fight the war. The O'Hare expansion got the go ahead, only to be stopped in court. But the Government was ready to act. Same with a lot of highway projects. The Interstate Highway System was constructed at the height of the Cold War. We can do more than one thing at a time.

Mainline freight electrification in the US would produce tremendous benifits - think of what would happen to the price of diesel fuel if the railroads didn't need near as much - but the risks of the huge capital costs have to be mitigated. There is a role for the government here in mitigating the risks.

How to structure this is an interesting question. The government can't assume all the risks or money will be wasted. And the taxpayers should get their money back. But expecting a private company to go into a negative cash flow situation for a decade is unrealistic. And any govt funds would include "strings" - these must be minimized. The railroads don't want to become puppets on those strings.

Right now, I don't have a clue as to how such a thing shold be structured - but it sure would be good if those perisables out of California (half of what is consumed in the US, not to mention Canada) could ride in the reefer units drawing power from the overhead wire instead of small diesel gen sets. And a train going downhill in dynamic could feed power to a train going uphill instead of wasting the energy, and, and, and!!


Hmmm. Government participation in rail infrastructure modernization? We covered that in the Open Access thread.

Chalk up another for OA!
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, October 6, 2005 7:21 PM
The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines or have special engines that are very expensive.

Dave H.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, October 6, 2005 6:23 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

There may be a Federal role for fixed investments other than electrification but we can't even get Amtrak's capital neeeds covered.


Please don't bring Amtrak into this. Amtrak is guaranteed to loose any money invested in it. This thing will create, not destroy, the country's wealth. It's not Amtrak. Joining the two will only make this less likely to occur.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Crozet, VA
  • 1,049 posts
Posted by bobwilcox on Thursday, October 6, 2005 6:01 PM
There may be a Federal role for fixed investments other than electrification but we can't even get Amtrak's capital neeeds covered.
Bob
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, October 6, 2005 5:46 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports.


No, we haven't shut down the country to repair huricane damage and fight the war. The O'Hare expansion got the go ahead, only to be stopped in court. But the Government was ready to act. Same with a lot of highway projects. The Interstate Highway System was constructed at the height of the Cold War. We can do more than one thing at a time.

Mainline freight electrification in the US would produce tremendous benifits - think of what would happen to the price of diesel fuel if the railroads didn't need near as much - but the risks of the huge capital costs have to be mitigated. There is a role for the government here in mitigating the risks.

How to structure this is an interesting question. The government can't assume all the risks or money will be wasted. And the taxpayers should get their money back. But expecting a private company to go into a negative cash flow situation for a decade is unrealistic. And any govt funds would include "strings" - these must be minimized. The railroads don't want to become puppets on those strings.

Right now, I don't have a clue as to how such a thing shold be structured - but it sure would be good if those perisables out of California (half of what is consumed in the US, not to mention Canada) could ride in the reefer units drawing power from the overhead wire instead of small diesel gen sets. And a train going downhill in dynamic could feed power to a train going uphill instead of wasting the energy, and, and, and!!
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, October 6, 2005 3:43 PM
Regarding tunnels, a center third rail electrification would make more sense than overhead catenary which would limit clearances and preclude double stacks. This could be DC at 3000V
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 785 posts
Posted by Leon Silverman on Thursday, October 6, 2005 3:32 PM
These discussions compare the actions of the Milwaukee Railroad with various European railroads. Milwaukee financed, built, and ultimately discarded electrication as a private corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the European railroad electrification financed and built by Government Organizations, equivalent to Britrak, Polandtrak, Germantrak, etc.? The fact that it might take a railroad like Union Pacific ten years to realize a positive return on investment means that electrication in the USA could only be financed by the US government. Considering our current preoccupation with the war on terror and hurricane recovery efforts, this is not likely to happen no matter what the economics are, even if you could claim it would ultimately eliminate our dependency on oil imports.
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Thursday, October 6, 2005 12:44 PM
A few years ago I saw some video of large dump trucks at an open pit mine which ran on diesel engines. When they were climbing out of the pit they used catenary. Is this common ?

These trucks apear to be full electric.
http://www.mining-technology.com/contractors/transportation/gia/

Dale
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, October 6, 2005 12:29 PM
It would be a genuine shame to *lose* an interesting thread with 73 views and 1026 views, over petty bickering.[V] Come on, guys-don't suck the fun out of this.

Thanks

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,537 posts
Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, October 6, 2005 9:48 AM
As a railway engineer, I will consider any technology which will help my railroad run better, last longer, and be cost effective. Power beams, if they ever prove feasible. Big springs. Whatever.

Mr. Sol appears to feel that his point has been missed; I haven't missed it. I am well aware of it.

Perhaps, however, he has missed mine?

End of participation.

James C. Hall, PhD, PE
Jamie

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy