Commuter Rail Electrification

chrisf wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:51 am Performance of electric locomotives appropriate for commuter use simply won't be a problem. The AEM7 didn't fall into that category.

Agree.

Based on the current energy crisis, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the MBTA needs to do it's part through maximizing energy efficiency....

All the commuter rail agencies on the NEC should press into service, on an emergency basis, all available electric locomotives (and M8s?), regardless of ownership or contracts, assuming this will free up a smidgen of petroleum for US or European use.

Makes sense, Band A, but how many electric locomotives are there sitting around available? And would the T hire engineers from Amtrak while T engineers (Keolis, really) were trained?

The T has 16 milion dollars set aside for "Commuter Rail Transformation" in the 2022 Capital Improvement Plan. I'm sure it's "studies about studies" but at least there is some small amount of investment.

There's at best a handful of surplus serviceable electric locomotives out there. Amtrak may not need all 70-odd Sprinters, and SEPTA has an excess fleet since I believe their 15 were delivered early, but are intended to operate with new bilevel coaches not built yet. But that's probably it.

There's a bunch of very tired, very stored AEM7s still floating around from Amtrak, but at this point it would probably be pretty hard to return those to service.

the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the MBTA needs to do it's part through maximizing energy efficiency....

This is an interesting point, however if the United States is to involve itself in this conflict for the sake of the Ukrainian people, government spending will likely be focused on the Military and will likely not spare any money aside for projects such as this.

http://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2 ... Oct-21.pdf details about 16 million dollars in specific MBTA capitol projects on the NEC. None of them are directly related to electrification.

I'm suggesting taking emergency measures nationwide, everywhere possible, to reduce energy usage. And to save money on fuel. In order to deprive Russia of money, we need to reduce the quantity and price. A small swing in demand creates a huge change in price, which is one of the factors we have been experiencing. I imagine the MBTA's fuel costs are way over budget and they should be looking for ways to do something about it.

It would be easier and more beneficial long term if we just simply returned to the energy policy we had 24 months ago. We were energy independent and gas was only $2.20 a gallon...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Nonsense.
Changes in energy policy have only affected future projects, future drilling, piplines that weren't finished yet. We have no less oil and gas than we did a year ago.
Oil prices fluctuate on a world commodity market.

eolesen wrote:It would be easier and more beneficial long term if we just simply returned to the energy policy we had 24 months ago. We were energy independent and gas was only $2.20 a gallon...

If memory is correct, prices were low then because demand was low because we were in the depths of the pandemic. Would a return to that be "more beneficial?"

Investing in billions of dollars of infrastructure because two countries are engaged in a conflict seems like a bit of a stretch. If energy consumption is the base issue, then getting people out of their cars and into existing diesel fueled trains is a significant immediate step.

Agreed, if the United States is to really get itself into this conflict, then investing billions (trillions if we are talking more than just this) makes absolutely no sense, and even if it did it wouldn't happen anyway, all the big bucks would be going to the Military.

jaymac wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:13 am If memory is correct, prices were low then because demand was low because we were in the depths of the pandemic. Would a return to that be "more beneficial?"

This is correct. Oil prices, even in countries with high domestic extraction, fluctuate all the time, especially when there are significant geopolitical events. This is due to supply decreasing and delivery getting more complicated, but mostly it is due to OPEC controlling the market.

CRail wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 2:42 am If energy consumption is the base issue, then getting people out of their cars and into existing diesel fueled trains is a significant immediate step.

100%! Getting people to make that change is difficult, but once they make it once, they usually stick with it, of course as long as the service and OTP is sufficient

What happened to the former Amtrak HHP-8s?