"Modernizing" the BNSF Transcon

[carnej1]

"Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal."

[daveklepper]

And also pulling through a tunnel?

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

MichaelSol: I'm curious where the price of $1.5 billion comes from? Compared to the post on page 1 about theNEC, this seems like a bargain.

Urban electrification is certainly more expensive than out in the country. Multiple track electification is certainly more expensive than one or two mainlines. Railway electrification costs have been steady for years. A Milwaukee-style DC electrification can be done for about $36,000 per mile ranging up to $1 million per mile for high voltage AC.

One of the biggest expenses in electrification is raising the highway bridges above the tracks - that item alone was half the estimated cost for electrifying the freight RR's in So Cal (from the electrification study). Cost per track mile in the country is going to be less. I'm also under the impression that there was considerable upgrading of the NH - Boston line as part of the project.

Your figure of $36,000/mile for a Milw style electrification sounds a bit low - my recollection is that would cover the cost of the contact wire. On the other hand, with advances in power electronics - a high voltage DC electrification does make sense.

Something else to consider - there have been major advances in electric energy storage technology (batteries, capacitors & flywheels) that would allow operation of the locomotives for short distances (maybe a couple of miles) without overhead. This would really be helpful when pulling into an intermodal terminal.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electrification would have a way of congealing the locomotive pool since straight electrics would be tied to the catenary. Dual-power locomotives would in theory not be tied to the catenary but unless the entire road fleet is so equipped, such locomotives couldn't be allowed to stray too far from the end of wire. As an example, Amtrak's dual-powers rarely get west of Albany or Buffalo.

As mentioned in other posts, the electricity would have to come from somewhere, and unless the local utilities have spare generating and transmission capacity, additional power plants and transmission lines would need to be built at appreciable expense, and getting permits for that construction would take more than a little time.

[edbenton]

Futuremodal I am having trouble but for once I agree with you reelectrifing Stevens pass will allow better utlization of that route

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

Probably not. All that would change would be the ultimate source of energy for moving the trains. UP would be better off spending its money to continue the double-tracking project.

Because of overload capacity which is not available in a diesel-electric locomotive, electric locomotives have more available short time horsepower.

This improves acceleration, as well as offering improved speed on grades. On the same track, an electrically-powered train operates, typically, at a higher average train speed. A rule of thumb is that electrification will improve track capacity by anywhere between 5 and 20% depending on a variety of factors including number of meets, grades, curvature, etc.

Which is why I believe UP would be better off electrifying it's Blue Mountain lines between Hinkle OR and Nampa ID, rather than electrifying the Sunset route. This is UP's big headache in terms of operational constraints, and due to the grades and other mountainous characteristics would provide the biggest bang for the buck in terms of increasing capacity to and from the PNW.

I'm not all that familiar with the Sunset route, but isn't it's alignment more in tune to a lot of flat running?

As for BNSF, they should look into re-electrifying the Stevens Pass line, since current train limits are around 25 to 30 per day, and they probably would gain by increasing that capacity to 35 or 40 per day. And not only in raw train numbers, but the types of trains that run over that line as well, in that electrifying would allow grain and coal trains to use that line once again without the operational fears of slow lugging and broken knuckles. This would also allow the Puget Sound bound grain trains and the Centralia coal trains to vacate the Columbia Gorge line, whose capacity problems are not as "fixable" with electrification.

[vsmith]

Also where would the electricity for all this come from, you'd have to build a lot of infrastucture that an awfull lot of people may not want in their back yard!

Not only that but what power source, Nat Gas is the only continuous fuel source that doesnt get the enviromentalist in a tizzy, Solar and wind are too sporatic, Coal?, plentiful but way expensive to build a clean powerplant. Nuke? dont even go there! Gas will have to hit $10 a gallon before people will warm up to Nuclear power again....too much baggage! Not just powerplants, but transmission lines, substations, switching stations, breakers, theres a LOT of extras that go along with electrification...where would these go, how do you get past the enviromentalist, the NIMBYs, and the weak-kneed politicians who won't back anything remotely threatening to their reelection campaigns...?

Dont get me wrong, personally I see it as inevitable that most of the US's lines will end up electrified in the next 50 years, its how we get there thats going to be a troubled path.
Were too deeply ingrained in Big Oil.

We'll see more Hybrid technology before we see moves toward electrification. The tipping point will be when we reach peak oil production in the next decade and it becomes obvious that we will have to cut the oil ambilical cord...but doing so is going to be very very painfull for most American businesses.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

MichaelSol: I'm curious where the price of $1.5 billion comes from? Compared to the post on page 1 about theNEC, this seems like a bargain.

Urban electrification is certainly more expensive than out in the country. Multiple track electification is certainly more expensive than one or two mainlines. Railway electrification costs have been steady for years. A Milwaukee-style DC electrification can be done for about $36,000 per mile ranging up to $1 million per mile for high voltage AC.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael, would you agree an electric has to be well designed to last 2-3 times longer, it's not guaranteed.
Some of the last mainline electric freight locomotives built were the 7 GMD GF6C for BC Rail. I believe they were worn out after 16 years.

http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/ttd/gf6c_2.html

Well, of course I think that a heavy DC electric will outlast an AC electric every time, but the Black Mesa & Lake Powell 50kvAC electrics reached nearly 30 years of 24/7 operation. Depends on mileage. The Tumbler line electrification was designed for a use level that did not materialize. I understand the traction motors were of a poor design and had to be rebuilt. That's pretty unusual for any locomotive; good grief, if EMD didn't have traction motors figured out by then ....

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Michael, would you agree an electric has to be well designed to last 2-3 times longer, it's not guaranteed.
Some of the last mainline electric freight locomotives built were the 7 GMD GF6C for BC Rail. I believe they were worn out after 16 years.

http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/ttd/gf6c_2.html

I doubt that they were worn out. No doubt they would need to have the electric equivilent of an overhaul. More likely, they were obsolescent technology with no ready market. The three US electric coal haulers are all using GE's, with the former Mexican locomotives for spares there would be no interest in them. And I can't think of any International Railway that would be able to use them without prohibitively expensive modification.

[Murphy Siding]

MichaelSol: I'm curious where the price of $1.5 billion comes from? Compared to the post on page 1 about theNEC, this seems like a bargain.

[nanaimo73]

Michael, would you agree an electric has to be well designed to last 2-3 times longer, it's not guaranteed.
Some of the last mainline electric freight locomotives built were the 7 GMD GF6C for BC Rail. I believe they were worn out after 16 years.

http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/ttd/gf6c_2.html

[MichaelSol]

The cost of electrifying 1500 miles of mainline today would be about $1.5 billion. Interest charges would be abut $135 million per year. The current savings in using commercial electric power sources rather than diesel fuel would be about $85 million per year assuming the mainline is rather heavily used. This also assumes insignificant regeneration. In mountain territory, these numbers would change substantially. The savings in fuel costs alone don't justify electrification at this point in time. However, maintenance savings might make enough of a difference. The motive power costs are about the same, but the electric engines last 2-3 times longer. The "real" savings kick in when the diesel-electric fleet reaches the replacement or rebuild point, 8-10 years.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

Probably not. All that would change would be the ultimate source of energy for moving the trains. UP would be better off spending its money to continue the double-tracking project.

Because of overload capacity which is not available in a diesel-electric locomotive, electric locomotives have more available short time horsepower.

This improves acceleration, as well as offering improved speed on grades. On the same track, an electrically-powered train operates, typically, at a higher average train speed. A rule of thumb is that electrification will improve track capacity by anywhere between 5 and 20% depending on a variety of factors including number of meets, grades, curvature, etc.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

Probably not. All that would change would be the ultimate source of energy for moving the trains. UP would be better off spending its money to continue the double-tracking project.

[nanaimo73]

If UP electrified the Sunset route, would that increase capacity, and lessen the amout of double tracking needed ?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
They're not earning their cost of capital....

The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.

Yep, they might make it this year. First time since forever.

Booming economy, low interest rates and good management. They just might make a real buck this year.

Keep talking like that one of those folks on that road might say something nice to you.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
They're not earning their cost of capital....

The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.

Yep, they might make it this year. First time since forever.

Booming economy, low interest rates and good management. They just might make a real buck this year.

[Anonymous]

If any current Western mainline needs electrification, it would be the UP from Hinkle OR to Nampa ID. If indeed a modern electrification would pay dividends, this line would be it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
They're not earning their cost of capital....

The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I would rather the smell of hasbrowns!

Yeah, I think biodiesel could be the wave of the future. If everyone switches to biodiesel, then the price of that will skyrocket too. Maybe if only the rail and trucking industry switched to it?

solz, Bio has a place but it is also a food sourse for people. Mabe a thought that might be considered would be the use of our abundant coal deposits. With the assistance of atomic heat sourses from the new reactor technologies being currently developed and studied, converted coal would make a very good synthetic diesel fuel. This is not really a new idea. Adolph Hitler was one that was behind the pioneering efforts in 1942-44 and powered his war machine with it (both diesel and gasoline). Needless to say those synthetic fuel plants were both a high priority and heavly defended as a targets of both the Royal, US 8th Air Forse and Luftwaffe (respectfully) during World War II. IF this technology were developed on a true industiral scale, We (the US) could tell a few folks to keep their oil, We have our own thank you very much. By the way that kind of solution would be a very pro-railroad type solution for haulage and usage not to mention a sourse of employment to engineering and construction types. . . My [2c]

[n012944]

If something like this was too happen you would need two things, someone to help underwrite the costs, i.e. power companies, and the goverment to give some LARGE tax breaks. Without both of these, the project would be dead in the water.


Bert

[Lyon_Wonder]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SchemerBob

OK, now this probably will never happen, but can anyone make a guess on how much it would cost to electrify the entire BNSF transcon from Chicago to Los Angeles?

And Amtrak can run Acela down it too! Of course that pipe dream won't likely happen either:)

[solzrules]

I would rather the smell of hasbrowns!

Yeah, I think biodiesel could be the wave of the future. If everyone switches to biodiesel, then the price of that will skyrocket too. Maybe if only the rail and trucking industry switched to it?

[silicon212]

Biodiesel is the wave of the future.

Besides, who WOULDN'T want to smell french fries as the units pass?

[youngengineer]

The BNSF would not do it because as any corporation they don't take risks. They down size not up size and try to get more ot of what they have. While the BNSF is double tracking what isn't double tracked on the transcon they continue to shed feeder lines and redundant mainlines. They sold the track over raton pass to the state of new mexico. Personally I can't see how just running intermodal is a good bussiness venture but hey I don't make those decisions.

I'm not sure what the purpose of Electrificaton would do. The cost in building the catanery alone would be exspensive, and than the locomotives. Not to mention the dwell time in yards to switch power out when changing from electric to non electric.

[solzrules]

With copper being what it is today, such a project could very well create a run on copper that would hurt the economy.

[Anonymous]

So are you saying we'd have to have communism--and the market distortions it permits--to have a fully electrified transcon?

[Anonymous]

Agree, electrifying the entire transcon not likely. The energy markets are uncertain. Who can predict what electric energy will cost in 10 years?

Now if we are talking a state-owned transcon (like the Trans-Siberian Rwy), different story. The central planning bureau would build dedicated power plants to provide power for the railroad at a fixed price.

[martin.knoepfel]

Catenary makes most sense where the effects of regenerative braking are important. I.e. mountain-sections - not the whole transcontinental. It would make sense as well to go to electric traction on the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-segment of the former PRR-mainline. And of course, commuter-railroads like the non-electrified METRA-lines or the Altamont-Express