Catenary would have to be ~24 feet above the rail to provide clearance for a 50kV contact wire and anything at ground potential (e.g. bridge, tunnel roof, etc) would have to be about 2 feet above that. Somewhere around 24 feet above the rail has been the standard height for contact wire in heavy electrifications in open country for a century, so that's not a show stopper. Maintaining adequate clearance between the top of a double stack AND maintaining clearance between the catenary and any bridge, tunnel or other such thing may very well be a show stopper.
When the Southern California Regional Rail Authority issues their report on the proposed electrification of the railroads in the LA basin, half of the estimated cost was just for increasing clearances.
- Erik
Carriers have been spending Billion$ over the past several years improving their on line clearance problems in order to be able to accomidate 20 foot 2 inch double stacks and auto racks. How much additional clearance would a catenary require? With current locomotives being approximately 16 feet high, how high would pantographs have to be to reach the wire at proper clearance above the 20 foot 2 inch cars?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
daveklepper A question was asked as why no major electrications. The answer was given that in the diesel age, as opposed to the steam age, it doesn't add up economically. Now, given that fact, why should electrication proceed? This is the question that might be asked to stay on topic.
A question was asked as why no major electrications. The answer was given that in the diesel age, as opposed to the steam age, it doesn't add up economically. Now, given that fact, why should electrication proceed? This is the question that might be asked to stay on topic.
I can think of two potential reasons offhand; I'm sure there will be more. The increase in traffic-handling potential (see Don Oltmann's blog piece for an amusing example) may become relevant at some point. Another is shared infrastructure with the commercial AC power grid, and the use of dual-mode locomotives as peak or distributed generation capacity.
I do think that some Federal contribution toward the cost of the electrification infrastructure -- even if that only takes the form of enhanced tax credits or whatever -- will be necessary. Welfare-economic concerns do apply, although I'm not going to debate them here.
Perhaps part of the answer is that outside of the NEC, there has been little emphasis on fast, frequent, convenient passenger rail service in the US. This is mostly because only the NEC (and part of the MI line) is owned by a corporation which runs passenger trains; the rest are private freight lines where electrification has been judged to not be cost effective.. Another related part is that many of the distances between metro areas in the US are not well-suited to passenger rail service.
So the answer is, given the current structure of US railroading, electrification will not proceed unless Diesel fuel becomes too expensive and/or emission standards become unattainable with Diesel.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
ecoli PNWRMNM The good thing about capitalist bubbles is that they self correct. So after the bubble self-corrects, can we get back all the money that was wasted on Foosball tables, masseurs, and catered dinners for dot com programmers, and spend it on a railroad infrastructure project?
PNWRMNM The good thing about capitalist bubbles is that they self correct.
The good thing about capitalist bubbles is that they self correct.
So after the bubble self-corrects, can we get back all the money that was wasted on Foosball tables, masseurs, and catered dinners for dot com programmers, and spend it on a railroad infrastructure project?
Of course not. The point is that private economic bubbles will self correct, while political bubbles will not self correct. Think of the Soviet Union for example.
Mac
in all and every business there is both internal and outside the company politics. the best example is the transcon of UP/CP started in the civil war. somethings never change. thank go for the UP/ "uncle Pete"/ union pacific railroad. we will see the 'BIG BOY" aliving breathing behemouth again. everything old is new again.
Overmod A 'proper' capitalist is going to look at effective ROI... and a primary criterion is 'what other place could I put the investment where it would earn more money, or involve less risk' (and preferably both). As noted, the electrification involves significant infusion of capital, for only delayed income, and the advantages are far more long-term than most analysts are looking. So why allocate capital to electrification, when the same investment could have been used for multiple projects with greater net profitability or growth potential... ...Webvan failed because its proponents didn't understand the right business model for an Internet company. I still suspect that if Bezos had gotten involved with it and run it properly, as an adjunct to a service already needing last-mile random access, it could have been made to work. As it was, it's a pity nobody remembered REA... ... and anyone who mistakes market cap for actual invested value needs to go back and reread their copy of Investing 101 or whatever... ;-}
A 'proper' capitalist is going to look at effective ROI... and a primary criterion is 'what other place could I put the investment where it would earn more money, or involve less risk' (and preferably both). As noted, the electrification involves significant infusion of capital, for only delayed income, and the advantages are far more long-term than most analysts are looking. So why allocate capital to electrification, when the same investment could have been used for multiple projects with greater net profitability or growth potential...
...Webvan failed because its proponents didn't understand the right business model for an Internet company. I still suspect that if Bezos had gotten involved with it and run it properly, as an adjunct to a service already needing last-mile random access, it could have been made to work. As it was, it's a pity nobody remembered REA...
... and anyone who mistakes market cap for actual invested value needs to go back and reread their copy of Investing 101 or whatever... ;-}
Though I have no expertise, I find some of the specific arguments against electrification persuasive. What I don't find convincing is the argument that I quoted from PNWRMNM that if it made sense, somebody would already be investing in it. Many things are thought not to make sense till somebody invests in them and succeeds.
I also don't find it convincing when people cite Solyndra as proof that government can never invest prudently, unless they agree that venture capitalists (who also invested in Solyndra) can never invest prudently, and that the private sector, which invested in the Milwaukee Road, the Rock Island, webvan.com, pets.com, myspace.com, Enron, CIT Group, WorldCom, etc, can never invest prudently.
As for market capitalization, it's a measure of the ROI expectation of investors whether or not their investment flows to the company in question. Imagine you're a Wall Streeter with $6B in your pocket: if you prefer to buy shares in the webvan.com IPO rather than lending the money to a railroad for an infrastructure project, that indicates you expect a better ROI from Webvan.
As for Bezos, I'd be more likely to believe he could have made Webvan profitable if he had demonstrated that consistently with Amazon itself. Henry may be right that Wall Streeters exhibit a myopic focus on short term results with respect to railroads, but they sure don't have that problem with Amazon:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/01/amazon_earnings_how_jeff_bezos_gets_investors_to_believe_in_him.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-24/same-old-amazon-all-sales-no-profit
desertdog schlimm This thread is becoming very ideological and political. Many of the issues dealing with railroads have political ramifications of one sort or another. As long as posters treat each other with due respect, I see nothing wrong with bringing in ideology or politics.John Timm
schlimm This thread is becoming very ideological and political.
This thread is becoming very ideological and political.
Many of the issues dealing with railroads have political ramifications of one sort or another. As long as posters treat each other with due respect, I see nothing wrong with bringing in ideology or politics.John Timm
ecoliThe question, of course, is whether the investors doing the expecting are correct. In
It's different. All you really need to look at with respect to economics of something like railroad electrification is (1) opportunity cost, and (2) stranded cost.
Meanwhile, an investment in catenary is basically only good for... running electrified rail service. (My approach is somewhat different, but I'm not pretending it's going to be 'sold' to investors as straight railroad electrification...). There is a huge amount of construction that isn't useful for many other purposes, but that is tied to ongoing profitability of railroad services, and that does not 'scale' well should the volume or type of those services change downwards. The electrical utility companies and the pre-Internet telephone companies understood the issues very well ... and often had to suffer when technology changes left them having to pay finance charges on very large amounts of obsolescent or outmoded property. (Anyone remember the AT&T medium-wave transatlantic station complex, or the investment in runways and fueling systems at Gander, or the fun involved with buildings equipped with the old type of multimode fiber with the little void defect up the middle...)
Webvan failed because its proponents didn't understand the right business model for an Internet company. I still suspect that if Bezos had gotten involved with it and run it properly, as an adjunct to a service already needing last-mile random access, it could have been made to work. As it was, it's a pity nobody remembered REA...
ecoliThe question, of course, is whether the investors doing the expecting are correct. In 1999, during the dot com bubble, the stock market valued webvan.com at $6 billion. CSX and NS valued Conrail at $10 billion. If capitalists are by definition always correct, then webvan.com had a greater expected return on investment than either the portion of Conrail acquired by CSX or the portion acquired
ecoli,
I have never claimed, and I do not think anyone else has either, that capitalists are by definition always correct. Not even the efficient market hypothesis does that. The notion is obvious rubbish.
There have been numerous bubbles in history taking as a working definition of a bubble a situation in which investors believe some asset can only go up in price without regard to the fundamental facts, earnings or reasonableness of earnings projections. I would, and have, argued that KCS stock selling for 24 times earnings when NS was selling at 12, indicates investors are placing more faith in KCS's projected growth than is reasonble.
The good thing about capitalist bubbles is that they self correct. Political bubbles, or restated political misallocations of capital, do not self correct.
As to electrification of railroads you have two mature financially sophisticated industries. The math on the projects is straight forward. Does that mean the planners can predict the future beyond that it will be much like the past. No, it does not. Is it reasonable to assume that government planners are better at predicting the future than private planners. I do not believe that either.
I do believe that the government has the capability to continue totaly idiot policies long beyond the time that the policies have been demonstated to be idiot. For that reason the less medling with the economy the government does the better the quality of life will be for everyone, with the possible exception of bureacrats and politicians who frankly I do not give a damn about.
PNWRMNM The fact that no one is stringing wire is evidence that the expected return on investment is less than on other projects. Mac
The fact that no one is stringing wire is evidence that the expected return on investment is less than on other projects.
The question, of course, is whether the investors doing the expecting are correct. In 1999, during the dot com bubble, the stock market valued webvan.com at $6 billion. CSX and NS valued Conrail at $10 billion. If capitalists are by definition always correct, then webvan.com had a greater expected return on investment than either the portion of Conrail acquired by CSX or the portion acquired by NS.
Except that webvan.com promptly went bankrupt without ever showing a profit.
This isn't an irrelevant example: I recall circa 2000 reading laments from railroad execs that Wall Street wouldn't give them the time of day because railroads were viewed as obsolete, low-ROI industries compared with the dot coms. Today railroads get much more respect, but at the same time, an enormous amount of capital is being poured into social networking companies whose business plans don't quite explain how they will ever show a profit. Might it be better invested in electrification?
In the long run, capitalism may optimize the allocation of financial resources. In the short run, not so much.
References: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/12/13/the-biggest-ipo-flops/ and http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-24/business/fi-6518_1_norfolk-southern.
zkr,
Why would you do such a thing and with whose money? Just because something is pretty does not mean it is a good idea.
In response to the previous post, where would the money for this project come from and why should it be done?
As an aside, the original poster's passion for electrification sounds a lot like the insistence on open access (and Roadrailers) from a previous member of these forums.
I would electrify the major corridors around the country, and the longer distances would be diesel. I would have FRA approved versions of the Talgo S730 for higher speeds/high speeds
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=403145&nseq=6 and FRA approved versions of the Stadler KISS's and FLIRTS for regionals and/or commuter services.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=405943&nseq=7
I do not consider myself an expert on this issue, and I am willing to except your opinion as at least as valuable as those of my complaining Canadian friends. We are way off topic. Canada seems even slower to electrify than the USA. At least we have seen New haven - Boston in our time, and will probably at least see SF-Gilroy, possibly also New Haven - Springfield.
daveklepper The complaints I heard are not from wealthy people. Possibly the isssue should be setled by Canadian posters.
The complaints I heard are not from wealthy people. Possibly the isssue should be setled by Canadian posters.
No, it can't be "settled" by the comments of a handful of Canadians on an American message board. Show me polls, scientific polls with adequate sample size for a population of 35 million that show that Canadians do not like their system and would prefer an American style for-profit system. Hint: you won't find any. I provided this link before with examples of polling that show the preference for the Candian system to be between 80 and 90 percent, and the fact that the person voted "The Greatest Canadian" by Candians in in a CBC contest is the former Premier of Saskatchewan whose main claim to fame is setting up universal healthcare should be an indication of how popular it is. Otherwise what you are presenting is anecdotal (and thus unacceptable as evidence) at best, and a reflection of your own biases at worst.
zkr123How come no other line has been electrified yet? It's been almost 60 years since Milwaukee road tore down the cross-country wires. It doesn't make sense.
Of course it makes "sense". Otherwise there would be electrified lines.
Virtually all trains move by electric traction. Electric motors turn the wheels of the locomotives. It all comes down to where it is most efficient to generate the electricity. So far, in the US, Canada and Mexico it has, with small exceptions, proven most efficient to generate the electricity on the train with diesel-electric locomotives.
The alternative, stringing overhead wire and using large power plants to generate the electricity, has been considered and evaluated. It was not selected. I imagine electrification is still examined from time to time. It keeps not being selected for use here.
Electrification is not a goal in and of itself. Efficient transportation is a goal.
The diesel builder keep improving their products. Natural gas in lieu of diesel is being tested again. The most efficient system will prevail.
NorthWestI think what he is asking is if diesels could be used as electrics by having an electric (or even just a car with a pantograph) pass current to the diesel's traction motors through the same type of connection used to connect slugs to their mothers. I'm interested myself.
I'd like to bump this. The NYC Subway IIRC doesn't allow their diesels to be electrically connected to the MOW subway cars. A large part of this is the accidental bridging of an isolated third rail section, but some is related to the safety of transferring the 600 volts.
DwightBranch daveklepper Again, I think this whole thing has gone way off topic, but some Canadians seem to have a different opinion of their health care than you do. Long waits for important treatment being the main complaint. I agree this has gone way off topic, but must point out that it was sent there by someone else, You are deluded if you believe that Canadians as a whole would want any system other than the one they have, with the possible exception of the very rich, who would like to be able to cut to the front of the line as they do here. Canada bans two-tiered healthcare, mandating that the rich wait as long as the poor. Do you know who Canadians voted the greatest Canadian of all time in a CBC poll a few years back? Tommy Douglas,Premier/Champion of Universal Health Care. Our system is very good for those who can afford it, just as a Ferrari is a very good car for those who can afford it, but it wouldn't make sense to spend our total transportation budget on Ferraris and assign them to the few who can afford it. We are the only country in the developed world without universal healthcare and that still mostly relies on private, for profit health care paid for with private, for-profit insurance.
daveklepper Again, I think this whole thing has gone way off topic, but some Canadians seem to have a different opinion of their health care than you do. Long waits for important treatment being the main complaint.
Again, I think this whole thing has gone way off topic, but some Canadians seem to have a different opinion of their health care than you do. Long waits for important treatment being the main complaint.
I agree this has gone way off topic, but must point out that it was sent there by someone else,
You are deluded if you believe that Canadians as a whole would want any system other than the one they have, with the possible exception of the very rich, who would like to be able to cut to the front of the line as they do here. Canada bans two-tiered healthcare, mandating that the rich wait as long as the poor. Do you know who Canadians voted the greatest Canadian of all time in a CBC poll a few years back? Tommy Douglas,Premier/Champion of Universal Health Care.
Our system is very good for those who can afford it, just as a Ferrari is a very good car for those who can afford it, but it wouldn't make sense to spend our total transportation budget on Ferraris and assign them to the few who can afford it. We are the only country in the developed world without universal healthcare and that still mostly relies on private, for profit health care paid for with private, for-profit insurance.
There are design trades in everything, from healthcare systems to railroad electrification. And the two topics are inter-related. That the U.S. has a high per capita expenditure on healthcare may have something to do with why we scrimp and make do with infrastructure projects -- such as not building more railroad electrification.
One participant starts dissing "capitalism" as being short-sighted and short-time return oriented at the expense of doing socially worthwhile things -- like railroad electrification. Someone suggests the Ferrel Gummint needs to fund the overhead wire, which gets someone else going about "government interference in the market", which gets others going that this thread has gotten off-topic political. Is it not off-topic to advocate for government infrastructure investment, but it becomes off-topic if someone expresses reservations about expanding the role of government, in this case to provide railroad electrification?
Another person weighs in about the Canadian healthcare system, and yet someone else has to set the record straight on that and other healthcare systems of industrial trading partners. Does the record need to be set straight on the latest not-quite-straight attempt at straightening of the record? As was said before me, I am " sent there by someone else."
Whether the Canadians like what they have I suppose is arguable. That the Canadian system has long wait times is demonstrable with data, and maybe people in Canada put up with the waits instead of staring into the abyss of the U.S. system, which receives "medical tourists" from Canada, I don't know.
It is suggested, however, that the U.S. is an outlier among its industrial trading partners in not having universal healthcare, even going so far as to suggest that adequate healthcare is only available to "the few" in the U.S..
Where do I begin? The U.K.'s National Health Service, I guess, is something close to "socialized medicine" where the government operates the hospitals and clinics? But there is a two-tiered-ed ness to the British system as I understand that persons of means can go to private doctors? The Canadian system is what we call "single payer", so the clinics and hospitals supply medical services and receive government reimbursement, but their system requires everyone to wait in line. Or travel to the U.S..
As to the U.S. not having universal healthcare and relying on private, for profit providers, isn't the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act supposed to bring about universal healthcare? And isn't the healthcare system in many of the European countries different from the U.K. and Canada and more like a mandate to purchase a healthcare plan, that is somewhat but not completely unlike "Obamacare"?
And to the extent that Obamacare appears to be a work-in-progress with respect to universal coverage, are not most persons in the U.S. covered under some kind of health plan, either employer provided, Medicare (a semi-Canadian style single-payer plan for the over-65), and Medicaid for people qualifying on account of low income?
So isn't the suggestion (I suppose a person will come back at me with "I didn't say that", but it is strongly implied through the chain of analogies), the suggestion that healthcare in the U.S. is reserved for a lucky few is just plain wrong? That the purpose of Obamacare is to include the unfortunate few without a healthcare plan into what is regarded overall a pretty good U.S. healthcare system, maybe using mandated coverage and government assessment of what works in medicine and what expensive medical procedures are one step removed from shamanism ("witch doctors") so as to "bend the cost curve", freeing up money for worthwhile things like -- railroad electrification?
And if so many wrong things are stated about comparative healthcare delivery in the industrial countries, what does it say about the correctness of views expressed on railroad electrification?
There are many cultural, political, economic, and historical factors that go into why the healthcare system is the way it is and also go into why the state of electrification on U.S. railroads is what it is. To start with "the railroads are short-sighted short-term investment oriented, the government needs to step in" is not only a simplistic answer, it is overtly political, and persons with differing political perspectives should be allowed to respond?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Another consideration, besides catenary, is the cost of the electric generation and transmission infrastructure. In the old days the utility may have been able to spread some of the costs to general ratepayers, but since utility deregulation, I think the costs will probably fall to the railroad.
NorthWest I think what he is asking is if diesels could be used as electrics by having an electric (or even just a car with a pantograph) pass current to the diesel's traction motors through the same type of connection used to connect slugs to their mothers. I'm interested myself.
I think what he is asking is if diesels could be used as electrics by having an electric (or even just a car with a pantograph) pass current to the diesel's traction motors through the same type of connection used to connect slugs to their mothers. I'm interested myself.
I have read that General Electric has stated that they could build a Dual Mode (Pantograph/Diesel Electric) Evolution series locomotive if a buyer was interested.
IIRC, this was in response to Norfolk Southern conducting studies on electrifying the Crescent Corridor.
They may also have had mind the proposed electrification of the Alameda Freight Corridor to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (although that plan does not seem to have current support for the two "tenant railroads:BNSF and UP)
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
zh,
Yes. More asset means more tax, subject to the vagarities of state law of course.
Not quite sure what you have in mind, but MILW figured out how to run diesels ahead of electrics with the electrics controlled by diesel MU cable.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.