"Modernizing" the BNSF Transcon

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I disagree. I think 20 Billion to electrify the Transcon makes sense. It would make big dent in the amount of imported oil needed by the USA. It would provide a modest increase in capacity. It would reduce noise and pollution. I donh't expect the BNSF to invest all by themselves. I think the power companies should for their own interest help with the investment.

Locomotives: Dual power, the diesel is a slug for the electric under wire and the electric a slug for the diesel off wire. Either can be used separately when appropriate but can also be jumpered together.

Clearances: Raised where practical. Where not practical, center third rail with reduced voltage operation in concret roadbed track, power on only when train is present. Retractable shoes (rollers) make contact.

Right of way used for additional power line transmissions.

Right now power companies effectively burn a competitors product to make their own.

Well, I "Kind Of" agree. The BNSF Transcon, and the coal routes out of the Powder River Basin seem to have the train density needed to support main line electrification.

But! $20 billion is literally a 'bet the company" amount. Now I'm a gambler - I'm headed up to the dog track latter today. The First Rule is: Never, ever bet more than you can afford to loose.

If things don't work out as I calculated in a Greyhound race, I'm out, max, about $24. I can afford that. If things didn't work out as calculated on the BNSF electrification the company would be dead. They can't afford to lay out $20 billion and not get a good return on their investment. They can't "know" what things will be like 10 years out in terms of electricity costs, diesel fuel costs, etc. It would be taking quite a risk (quite a gamble.) And it's more than they could ever afford to loose. Prudent management won't take that risk.

And right now they can not borrow the money. They're not earning their cost of capital, and no lender could get reasonably get close to full value back by reposessing the electrification. The BNSF would have to generate the funds internally. They can get better bag for their buck elsewhere.

I also agree that any such new electrification will have to be a hybred system that allows trains to seamlessly switch from electric to diesel power. Dave's got a good concept. Put diesles and electrics on the same train. In electrified territory the electrics could feed juice to the diesels' traction motors. In non-electrified territory the diesels would generate power for their own motors and the electrics' motors.

The "old way" of electrifying everything seems to be way to wasteful.

It'd work and the BNSF wouldn't have to worry about how to handle trains to Phoenix, they'd just run the main line under electric power, then continue on without stopping on the Phoenix line under diesel power. But "working" and paying back the investment are two different things.

It might make sense economically, environmentally and as a way to lessen dependance on foriegn oil But the risk is too great for the BNSF to assume. The only solution I can see would be for the Federal Government (God, I hate saying this) to "insure" the BNSF against catostrophic loss. That would open up a whole can of worms. People like FM-Dave would be jumping up and down demanding that the BNSF bail out the obsolete Montana Wheat Farmers in return for the "insurance". It would become another avenue for congress folks to buy votes with pork projects they'd load on.

So, it ain't gonna' work economically or politically. Just put the diesels in run 8 and head for the west coast.

[daveklepper]

I disagree. I think 20 Billion to electrify the Transcon makes sense. It would make big dent in the amount of imported oil needed by the USA. It would provide a modest increase in capacity. It would reduce noise and pollution. I donh't expect the BNSF to invest all by themselves. I think the power companies should for their own interest help with the investment.

Locomotives: Dual power, the diesel is a slug for the electric under wire and the electric a slug for the diesel off wire. Either can be used separately when appropriate but can also be jumpered together.

Clearances: Raised where practical. Where not practical, center third rail with reduced voltage operation in concret roadbed track, power on only when train is present. Retractable shoes (rollers) make contact.

Right of way used for additional power line transmissions.

Right now power companies effectively burn a competitors product to make their own.

[FThunder11]

BNSF and electricity only belong in the same sentence if it has to do with a BNSF coal train bringing coal to a power plant to make electricity LOL

[erikem]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

All the issues mentioned above plus also having high enough clearance for a doublestack.

That was pretty much te conclusion of teh Southern Calirfornia Electrification study that took place 1990-92 - biggest expense was providing clearance for the doublestacks plus above and below the wire - estimate was that was going to be half the total.

[conrailman]

Why would you want to electrify the Entire BNSF main line for Purpose? Why to save little gas? It would Big Waste of Time and Money? You are talking about 5 to 10 Billion Dollars.[2c]

[nanaimo73]

Extending the NEC 232 miles to Boston (156 miles new electrifcation) cost $1.7 billion, not counting locomotives, but counting other things like replacement bridges.
Chicago to LA is 2200 miles.
Not every train would need to have electrics, especially to start with.

[edbenton]

All the issues mentioned above plus also having high enough clearance for a doublestack.

[canazar]

Ok, I will bite on this...

Honestly, I would put it at somwhere between No Way In H#$# to Impossible.

Several things

1) The infastructure would be astronomical. All the yards, the sidings to cover. Getting it through cities, town, bridges and tunnels. Permits up the ying yang. I cant even imagine the cost of parts to cover 2 tracks for 3000 miles.

2) The equipment changeover. Every line that comes into the BNSF would have to have a yard, or some sorta of trackage, built to switchover head end power.

3) New engines, new repair programs, new training,a whole new slew of part numbers and bins. And the forming of one new huge department to repair and work on the electric side of it.

4) Lost reveue to construction on the line while it is being built. As it is now, Sabo (??spelling, the canyon in New Mexico) Canyon goes down to one track only for a littel ways and that gives them fits. I cant imagine the line dealing with that project. it would take years. Maybe even a decade.


I am sure there are plenty of other aspects I am missing but those are the ones off the top of my head

[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?