US Rail electrification

@paigetrain posted:

sorry for asking but i have got to know

Why did we not electrify the US rail network especially after the 1970s oil crisis and what if the oil crisis  happens again?

It will not, as the U.S. has long been self sufficient with oil resources, and even sells oil on the world market.

not to mention electric locomotives are way more powerful than diesels when it comes to tractive effort and horsepower

Where would all that electrical power come from?

in fact most of the worlds most powerful locomotives are electric.

Yes, and those are ALL government supported rail systems!

also there are many green ways to power those catenaries such as wind farms, solar and hydroelectric power generation

Sure there are.

Face it we can't rely on trains fueled by dead dinosaurs forever

Really?

yes the upfront cost is high but in the long run it will be worth it

Again,,,,,,,,,,,just where will all that massive amounts of electric power come from?

here is a video i found that goes into detail on rail electrification

So,,,,,,,,,,it's on YouTube, so it MUST be factual?

please keep it civil

https://youtu.be/OI1ctMHnrfY

A company named "Wabtec" is working on a hydrogen/ battery powered locomotive. They are currently testing it in the real world hauling freight trains. Pretty neat stuff.

@paigetrain posted:

yes the upfront cost is high but in the long run it will be worth it

What economic model did you use to reach this conclusion?    John

There are some energy advantages to electrification, such as dynamic regeneration, and less local pollution. Even if some, and a small "some" indeed, is provided by alternative electricity rather than local Diesel engines, it would be a small step in the right direction. But the economic requirements, with modern-day costs of steel, wire, labor, and infrastructure and maintenance support, would probably run into the trillions.  Our commercial power grid, run as it is these days in a very inefficient, corrupt and expensive way, would be hard-pressed to provide reliable power. The railroads used to have their own power houses, you'll recall. But even the PRR and the LIRR, for two examples, buy power commercially.

The time to have done it was back when there were fewer political and economic roadblocks, and railroads pretty much ruled the country. The PRR did it, way back when, but stopped short at Harrisburg and DC.  In the last decade, Amtrak extended electrification on the former New Haven RR portion of the NEC to Boston, at a very high cost. A small step in the right direction, but a minuscule piece of the whole country.

Quoting a Wikipedia citation, about the costs for just the section that was improved and put into service in 2000:

"Service with electric locomotives between New Haven and Boston began on January 31, 2000.^[48] The project took four years and cost close to $2.3 billion: $1.3 billion for the infrastructure improvements, and close to $1 billion for both the new Acela trainsets and the Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8 locomotives."

Paigetrain

I watched the video, and I came away with nothing more than, yes, it is a good thing anytime we can lessen our carbon footprint. However, the video failed to consider both sides of this issue, never a good sign. 

Consider the economics. I assure you if it is financially in the best interests of the railroads, they will do it.  It is reasonable to expect the railroads would only be acting responsible to their shareholders to thoroughly examine and model scenarios of electrification vs. dieselization and act fiscally responsible.  So far they don't see it on a large scale.

Consider reliability. I know both systems are electric. One has many miles of wires and catenary equipment to bring the power from the source to the electric motor driving the motive trucks on the locomotive. The other system has an on-board diesel genset that provides the electric power to the motive trucks. Beyond those observations I cannot claim to know the reliability factor. I suppose if the US dept. of transportation wanted to fund several universities to do independent studies, I would be happy to read and be enlightened. The" Armchair Urbanist" maybe not so much.

Consider the big macro picture. All things considered. As with many arguments the best answer may well be somewhere in between.  Remember the western roads in the United States have many different environments' and geographies' when compared to the Urban locations in this country. Should you decide to electrify part of this huge system are you going to also electrify every yard, and every siding? Have you made yourself aware of the environmentally friendly improvements in modern diesel technology?

I am not an expert, but I know there are huge questions and considerations and I'm not ready to accept the "Urban Armchairs" answer to all, as having much validation

@Arthur P. Bloom posted:

Quoting a Wikipedia citation, about the costs for just the section that was improved and put into service in 2000:

"Service with electric locomotives between New Haven and Boston began on January 31, 2000.^[48] The project took four years and cost close to $2.3 billion: $1.3 billion for the infrastructure improvements, and close to $1 billion for both the new Acela trainsets and the Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8 locomotives."

One of my pet peeves is the use of shorthand terms when spelling out the numbers is much more effective: 

"The project took four years and cost close to $2,300,000,000: $1,300,000,000 for the infrastructure improvements, and close to $1,000,000,000 for both the new Acela trainsets and the Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8 locomotives."

Mitch

If "they" really want "green" energy, then the first thing "they" should promote is modern nuclear.  Until "they" do, I will not take anything "they" say seriously.

Jon

The PRR studied continuing electrification from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh 2 times, and I think Conrail did once, and each time, the cost could not be justified.   

As for green power, you have to remember that some places do not have great water flows to generate hydroelectric, the wind does not always blow, and here in the north, there is no sunshine about 14 hours a day in the winter.  

We have huge coal reserves that what has identified to date, will at least 500  years.    We have huge natural gas and oil reserves.     Why can't we use the resources we have until a real viable alternative becomes available.

Paigetrain,

Politics, politics, politics ...

Thank you for starting this thread, because the answers to your questions are very relevant to our future, as citizens and as rail enthusiasts.

Thank you also for requesting that people keep it civil, and to a large part they have so far, but there's currently too much emotion swirling in the political world, and not enough technical (i.e. detailed) discussion based on hard facts. Because most of us are not subject matter experts on the topics you've cited you're getting many opinions, mixed in with a few good hard facts from those that are.

Just a gentle piece of advice, hopefully taken with the respect intended: As part of a novel learning experience, it would be wise in the future to avoid posting a question that you know in advance currently only has a political answer.  This is how threads descend into chaos and get deleted.  You can help many, many of us to keep from falling into the political trap that our moderators so desperately want us avoid.

Thanks, and don't stop throwing out the questions, just temper them a little.  In return we'll try, unfortunately sometimes hopelessly, to keep from getting emotional with our answers.

Mike

Here in the great white north, I work for an oil and gas company. Energy sector checking in. Been doing this for a LONG time. EVERY winter, without fail, when we start having days with less than eight hours of sun (December to March, my PFP was taken at 15:30.), our wellsites which mostly rely on 4 36"x48" solar panels to supply 24v to a PLC, end devices and charge batteries for the other 16 hours of the day, stop working. They just nope out, one by one. We don't use grid power because the sites are remote. In Cali or AZ or NM? Sure. Not here. Expect to power a rail network with "green" energy when it's impossible to charge two rv batteries? Neat.

We haven't even figured it out what to do to dispose of the first generation of green energy things, never mind adding more. Bury dem blades yo!

Edit: Just to answer the 'well then what do you do?!' question - Lots of sites also have Thermo Electric Generators installed that use heated (by burning Natural Gas - why not? Well's right there, it's almost free energy) bimetallic strips to create electricity, inverse of how a breaker works inside your power jb at home. Some have EFOY setups that burn methanol to make electricity. Some we just gotta keep bringing batteries to.

It seems like everyone looks for a "Silver Bullet" that will solve everything in one shot.  In truth, it will require a combination of renewables and fossil/nuclear.  The trick will be in attaining the balanced use of all energy sources.

Rusty

The simple answer is that the cost of the installation of the overhead wires, supports, substations and all the other infrastructure required is so expensive that it can only be justified based on economics for very high density routes.  And the maintenance of such a system is expensive also.  Thus the NE corridor has been it.  There have been some other small installations, usually for "captured traffic" such as from coal mine to power plant but nor real additional freight railroad installations.  Hard to beat a Diesel engine where the power plant is carried along to power the electric motors.

Did the OP want us to consider passenger rail or freight with regards to electrification?  As far as the dissent regarding oil and coal, it is a finite resource, we are fortunate the dinosaurs lasted as long as they did.  At some point, not in our lifetime, that resource will be depleted.  Nothing wrong with looking at alternatives, at some point the technology may catch up with the desires or the fossil source will no longer exist pushing innovation.  Right now i don't see the investment in the infrastructure as cost effective.

@paigetrain posted:

sorry for asking but i have got to know

Why did we not electrify the US rail network especially . . . ?

yes the upfront cost is high but in the long run it will be worth it

Paige, it sounds like a great idea, but . . .

The cost is not just "high", but is really, really high.  Railroads are corporations, in the USA, and the railroad property and infrastructure is privately owned by them, unlike in Europe, where railroads are state owned, funded, and operated.  Railroad companies do not have the money to electrify the U.S. rail network.  Neither does our government.  Remember, to electrify somebody has to:

• Pay to build catenary structures and buy many thousands of miles of braided overhead wire.
• Pay to raise some low-clearance bridges, tunnels, and other structures, so that the overhead catenary will fit.
• Pay for all new locomotives.  (And pay to design them.  No heavy freight electric locomotives are currently produced here.)
• Pay off loans on existing locomotives and dispose of them.
• Pay the cost to build more electric power capacity.

It's the money.  That's why "we" did not electrify the U.S. rail network.

@KOOLjock1 posted:

If "they" really want "green" energy, then the first thing "they" should promote is modern nuclear.  Until "they" do, I will not take anything "they" say seriously.

Jon

I see some problems with nuclear power that have yet to be solved:

1. accidents, like Chernobyl and Japan and three mile island

2. "green" disposal of spent fuel

3. public fear of the above

While I am a supporter of electrification, it must be done in places where it can be justified for social and economic reasons.  Taking public subsidy out of the equation, Europe's electrification in large part is due to closer distances between major population centers where higher speed trains can compete against the airlines for passengers and goods.  We sometimes forget how huge the US truly is.

In the west in particular, the distances between population centers is fairly large and even then those population centers don't always have large populations.

Here in Arizona the vast majority of the states population is based in two metropolitan areas, Phoenix and Tucson.  The rest of the state is very rural.  There has been talk and some study of an electrified rail route between the two cities on a route that bypasses the current Union Pacific route.  Such a venture may be justifiable at some point in the future, but the reality is that it is not realistic now.

Taking that into account, I still hold hope for innovation in the industry to develop new technologies.  It happened before in the transition from steam to diesel electric.  It will happen again.  The only constant in this world is change after all.

@RoyBoy posted:

I see some problems with nuclear power that have yet to be solved:

1. accidents, like Chernobyl and Japan and three mile island

2. "green" disposal of spent fuel

3. public fear of the above

1.  Chernobyl was not a "modern" nuclear facility... even by American 1950's standards.  Fukishima was built in a quake-prone and tsunami-prone region.  Three Mile Island released a minuscule amount of radioactive steam... less radiation than many Americans get from their granite counter tops.

2.  Spent fuel rods in France, India and elsewhere are immediately reprocessed in a facility on-site for reuse.  We don't do that here because of a stipulation in the SALT II treaty with a country that no longer exists.

3.  Education.

Jon  

Perhaps the easiest fact to digest is that the railroads use about 3% of the annual fossil fuel used in the USA, and deliver about 42 percent of the gross ton miles. If you want to know what the biggest polluter is, just look in your driveway and at that 18-wheeler on the interstate.

I had one of my career assignments in the "Electric Locomotive Study Group" of a major locomotive builder.  While we built and sold electric locomotives with a short time rating of up to 10,000 horsepower (for domestic passenger service), the starting tractive effort, what size train the locomotive could start, was no better than a U30C due to adhesion limitations.

Electrification does not provide any flexibility vs a self-contained power unit.  There has to be catenary everywhere an electric locomotive would run.  A diesel can run anywhere.

All, or nearly all, overseas electric railroads are government agencies where cost is no issue, and a significant portion of that traffic is passenger, where the installed HP to reach high speed is a benefit, and the relatively low starting tractive effort is not a liability.  I have inspected and photographed overseas railroads that are electrified.  Their freight trains are so short that I was able to photograph an entire train in one frame.

I would also like to point out that the 1934 PRR electrification cost was supported with long term loans at very favorable rates by Uncle Sam, not by a private company.

The OPEC embargo in the early 1970's resulted in very serious consideration in the mid1970's of further electrification of American railroads. Extremely high capital investments were projected to be required on the part of the utilities and/or railroads to enable any significant expansion. Consequently further consideration was terminated. In fact in a somewhat unrelated move the Milwaukee Road decided in this same time period to retire its electrified equipment.