Brainstorming A National Network

This thread raises the question of the economics of railroad electrification. In this country, dieselization made electrification for freight railroads not economical; diesels were almost as good as elecrics and didn't require the extra electrical infrastructure.
However, in the fifties, when dieselization completed, diesel fuel cost on the order of 8 cents a gallon.

Does the current and anticipated future cost of liquid fuel mean that mainline electrification in the US is now economically justified?

Joe , the main trunk here in New zealand , was partly electrified in the 80's . i mention this because the traffic density -frieght / passenger mix is probably similiar to the USA , outside the nec . It was done as part of many "think big" projects , designed to reduce NZ's dependence on foriegn oil . By the time it was finished in the mid eighties , the oil price had plumented . There was debate as to wether it was economically feasible to even bother turning the power on ( though this was partly a bargaining ploy between the raiway and the power providers ). Basically , the feeling was , electrification was not much cheaper to run than diesel locomotives .
Now oil is up again , yet theyre still talking bout going back to diesel . ( again how much of this talk is real , and how much is politics i don't know ) .
we also now will have some form of carbon tax , which may tip the balance in favour of electrification .

David Benton wrote:We also now will have some form of carbon tax

Mr Benton makes a vital point. As a gut feeling, the US is also going to have a carbon tax inside of ten years. I cannot tell you if it will be confiscatory or not. I DO NOT think it will replace the various motor fuels taxes; I think it will be an additional tax.

Where are how passenger rail will fit into the mix when air and line haul auto increase in absolute cost to use is anyone's guess.

As far as a separate railroad goes, my personal opinion is it is not economical. US would be better off creating tax incentives and DOT grants to the investor-owned railroads, tying those $$$ opportunities to timely access for Amtrak.

The question of dedicated passenger tracks vs mixed freight/passenger tracks need not be an either/or proposition. I expect that dedicated passenger tracks would be beneficial in heavy travel markets, but mixed traffic would probably be OK in smaller markets. Availability of land for right of way is also a factor in how it would ultimately work out.

DutchRailnut wrote:todays freight car or locomotives are just the same as a coal drag.
running 300 ton freight units with 150 ton freight cars makes no difference if you run 150 ton double stacks or 150 ton coalcars they do same damage.

Oh? How so? Here are some real time stats.

COAL 1 Engines 005801 | 006289 | 006354
02/03/07 20:39C | 135 loads | 000 empty | 19305 tons | 07290 feet

Stack Train Engines 004561 | 004845
02/03/07 22:55C | 104 loads | 000 empty | 05898 tons | 06602 feet

Auto Train Engines 004460 | 005201
02/03/07 22:23M | 067 loads | 000 empty | 04960 tons | 06349 feet

Now, how can you tell me that a 19305 ton coalie and a 5800 ton stacker do the same damage? Do the math there Jaap. It is obvious by the facts here, they are completely different animals. Can you tell me the tons per operative brakes on each? How about equivalent dynamic brakes?

A gallon of diesel fuel has about 41 KwHr's of energy in it. At a $1.50 a gallon, that's 3.7 cents a KwHr. And 2/3 of that energy actually will go out the exhaust. So the cost for useful energy is 11.1 cents a KwHr.

Electricity may cost 5 cents a KwHr, and let's say 80% ends up as useful energy. The actual cost is then 6.25 cents a KwHr.

So the power for an electric locomotive costs 40% less than a diesel locomotive. The electric locomotive will be simpler and thus more reliable and my guess less expensive.

So can that 40% savings in fuel cover the cost of the electric grid that has to be installed and maintained? I know U.P. thought quite hard about this fairly recently. Also electric engines would allow regenerative braking, where slowing the train would get put back into the wires as energy for other trains to use. This would up the energy savings further.

The possible carbon tax mentioned earlier could become a big factor in the economics also. Major reductions for railroads could only occur with engines under wire. (Unless maybe they went back to steam locomotives that burned bushels of corn!! )

Wire or no wire makes hardly a difference.
Generating power onboard is about the same price per Kw as getting it of the wire.
Hydro is carbon free but with lack of new Generating plants is running out of spare capacity, no new lakes no new Hydro.
Other powerplants other than Nuclear will leave about same carbon foot print per Kw as any onboard generation

I would think that the UP mainline, and the parallel BNSF mainline from the Powder River coalmines east, would be good candidates for electrification. In the case of those lines, I don't think there would be any advantage in building new railroads; maybe a tax credit, as Col P suggests, for electrification.
The only downside would be that engines would have to be changed from/to electric. How expensive is that? For Amtrak, engine changes seem to be big, time-consuming deals these days, compared to the speed of engine changes by NYC, Pennsy and NH "back in the day."
As far as regenerative braking, this has been given as an advantage of electric railroading for over 100 years. But as far as I know, electric commuter and rapid transit railroads don't seem to use it. Does Amtrak?
(My information here is old; it would please me to find out that regenerative braking is now widely used in the US.) I was never sure if there are practical problems in using regenerative braking, or if, when electricity was very cheap, they didn't want to spend the money on the extra equipment needed.
Can any of our electrical engineers enlighten me?

If generating power with an internal combustion engine is no different in cost then getting it from an electrical utility, than how can utilities even exist?

One of the interesting points about using the electrical grid as a source of power is the incredible potential for conservation. It's the easist way to provide a "new" power source. As an example, simply by replacing incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents, you could eliminate a huge consumer of electricity, freeing it up to be used elsewhere. (A million light bulbs, saving 40 watts a piece, would power thirteen 4000 hp locomotives.)

Years ago, there were many small electric plants; often, a factory or an institution like a state mental hospital, had its own power plant. Now we have fewer, bigger plants, owned by large utilities. But, smaller may be cheaper, not having to pay for various layers of profit. For example, the village of Rockville Centre, in Long Island, has a municipal power plant. My friend who lives there says his electric bill is half that in neighboring towns dependent on the large LIPA utility.
If the railroad network is to be rejuvenated with electric power, I'd love to see BNSF and UP, who share a joint Powder River line, build a mine-mouth power plant there and use it for their mainline rail operations. In the best sccenario, they would get tax credits that would make it feasible for them to build a plant that would have zero carbon emissions. With these lines electrified, the critical mass--to mix a metaphor--would be created to allow enough electric locomotive production to make electric engines cheaper than diesels. Perhaps an incentive for running passenger trains could be included. I figure the railroads could run a cheaper power plant than if they bought the power off the public grid.

There are three concurrent costs to electrification of Diesel territory:

- Cost of construction for catenary
- Cost of procurement for locomotives
- Cost of equipment, development and training for shops.

It's not just the cost of fuels, it's the total package. While the cost can be written off over time, the cost of making it happen will come in short order, with the loan costs also being paid back over time.

Is electrification economical given the total package? I do not know.

Remember, if a section of a railroad electrifies, Amtrak also has to buy new equipment: Whither THAT funding?

Maintaining the locomotive be it diesel or electric is at same intervals and just about takes as many people.
the catenay needs patrols, high tension gangs to adjust and maintain.

And hoggerken according the AAR in pueblo a coaltrain at 150 ton per car does the same damage to track if not less than a doublestack per truck due to doublestack traveling at higher speed.
the shared truck on deepwells aproaches the same 150 ton level due to fact two cars share the truck.


Edited by a Moderator, 2/5/07, 4:45PM

If any of our Members has some numbers about the cost effectiveness of mainline electrification in our $1.50/gal oil environment, it would be great to see them posted here!
Traditionally, the US has had cheaper oil than other industrialized countries so we lagged in railroad electrification. In Europe, most major railroad lines are electrified. With current diesel prices here in the $1.50/gal range, I would think mainline electrification would once again be on the table in the US. But, I have no numbers.

JoeG wrote:If any of our Members has some numbers about the cost effectiveness of mainline electrification in our $1.50/gal oil environment, it would be great to see them posted here!
Traditionally, the US has had cheaper oil than other industrialized countries so we lagged in railroad electrification. In Europe, most major railroad lines are electrified. With current diesel prices here in the $1.50/gal range, I would think mainline electrification would once again be on the table in the US. But, I have no numbers.

Wholesale prices of electricity have risen substantially in the past 2 to 3 years. It's not been a case of oil going up while electricity has stayed the same. Also, why would diesel fuel be much higher in Europe? Crude is crude as far as cost goes. I know that automotive fuels are far higher in Europe but that's heavily influenced by tax differences. Does anyone know the tax rates on rail fuels in Europe? For the most part, I doubt aviation fuel is way higher in Europe.