NCRR electrification cost?

neroden wrote:If proposed commuter service in Raleigh came to pass, it would add several additional trips and probably justify electrification of the part of the corridor through Raleigh. Hopefully they'd have the sense to use the 25kV overhead system!

Good point! I had forgotten about the proposed commuter service. I think I saw somewhere (maybe on the NCRR's website) that a study is under way regarding what types of capacity improvements would be needed for a VRE-style commuter service in two segments on the NCRR. Hopefully, electrification will be one of the improvements mentioned.

george matthews wrote:Soon this line will be carrying many more trains when the Hitachi Javelin trains are used for domestic commuters coming from Kent to the City. These will travel at the same speed as Eurostar.

Eurostar max speeds are 186 mph (300 km/h). Javelin max speeds are 144 mph (225 km/h). They are no where near the same max speeds.

Does anybody have an idea of what it would cost to electrify the North Carolina Railroad from Raleigh to Charlotte?

The costs of electrification is around $1.6 Million per mile. Since it's 173 miles between Raleigh and Charlotte, electrification alone will cost $277 Million.

i ownder if they have gone for lower gearing allowing better accleration for the commuter trains . that would make sense with the more frequent stops . the big advantage of electrification is the short term power avaliable is alot higher than a diesel , allowing faster acceleration .

David Benton wrote:i ownder if they have gone for lower gearing allowing better accleration for the commuter trains . that would make sense with the more frequent stops . the big advantage of electrification is the short term power avaliable is alot higher than a diesel , allowing faster acceleration .

I have seen an analysis of the time saved by these trains. The cost of a fare is much higher; the time saved is rather little. However, the "classic" trains they are supposed to supplant have been made slower.
Yes, I have now seen that they are not as fast as Eurostar. By the time a commuter from Kent has changed to another train at Stratford, to get to the City, there will be few gains for him.

I occasionally want to take the train to reach the ferries in Dover. There might be some gain over the classic route but I wonder if I want to pay the extra money. The classic route was frustratingly slow, especially compared with travelling to Reading on the Great Western, or Peterborough on the East Coast.

I think the cost:benefit ratio that would make electrification of the NCRR feasible is quite a ways off. As others have pointed out, one train per hour per direction would be almost a minimum needed. That is not going to happen in the Triad for 20+ years at best, and probably never. The political and citizen interest there is simply too low. Charlotte and the Triangle may be there in 15 years.

The bigger question is the cost to electrify Raleigh to Union Station, and the early SEHSR studies found that to be cost-prohibitive for benefits received.

While everyone remains highly enamored of 186+ mph running for good reason, the changes in track geometry to reduce slow segments are perhaps more important. One of the first TGV lines, while topping out at 186 mph, averaged only 110 mph in the corridor. This means that the average speed was about 60% of the top speed. With a 110 max speed, rail planners at NCDOT rail still think they can get 85-87 mph average speeds with the right track geometry and station spacing between Richmond and Raleigh. This is an average speed of about 78% of the top speed.

What does the Acela average between Boston and Providence, probably its fastest city pair? 85.7 mph.

All this is to say that as long as NCDOT continues focusing on cutting out the slow sections and realigning curves so that there are very, very few slow sections along the NCRR, it may be possible to generate near-Acela levels of performance (which admittedly is not the crown jewel of HSR performance) with diesel technology and top speeds of 110 mph.

villager wrote:All this is to say that as long as NCDOT continues focusing on cutting out the slow sections and realigning curves so that there are very, very few slow sections along the NCRR, it may be possible to generate near-Acela levels of performance (which admittedly is not the crown jewel of HSR performance) with diesel technology and top speeds of 110 mph.

There are existing diesel locomotives that can achieve top speeds of 125 mph, I'm not so sure why the NCDOT goal is just 110 mph? Otherwise, I believe NCDOT's plans for the NCRR are great. I've read the corridor's width over its entire length is 200 feet, which is twice the width of a typical 100 feet wide rail corridor. If true, that should ease the expense of straightening curves for faster speeds.

villager wrote: What does the Acela average between Boston and Providence, probably its fastest city pair? 85.7 mph.

Fastest city pair for the Acela is between Wilmington and Baltimore ( 68.4 miles ). Some trains are carded to do this in 41 minutes ( average speed = 100.1 mph ). And note that this includes some slower running through the Baltimore tunnels and over some of the bridges. Get rid of the slower running, and my guess is you could cut off about 4 minutes ( i.e. average speeds in the 110 mph area ). Although the difference between averaging 87 mph and 100 mph only amounts to 9 minutes per 100 miles, psychologically when people hear triple-digit average speeds they automatically think bullet train.

Regarding electrification, given that diesel fuel prices are only headed up, plus you have noise and emissions, I feel all lines except very lightly traveled branch lines should be candidates to be electrified, whether or not speeds over 110 mph are contemplated. Electrified freight would have enormous operational cost savings over diesel, for example. The savings would be more than enough to pay back the admittedly steep cost of stringing wire within a decade, if not sooner. Electric locomotives also have roughly twice the service life, if not more, than diesels.

jtr1962 wrote: Regarding electrification, given that diesel fuel prices are only headed up, plus you have noise and emissions, I feel all lines except very lightly traveled branch lines should be candidates to be electrified, whether or not speeds over 110 mph are contemplated. Electrified freight would have enormous operational cost savings over diesel, for example. The savings would be more than enough to pay back the admittedly steep cost of stringing wire within a decade, if not sooner. Electric locomotives also have roughly twice the service life, if not more, than diesels.

Interesting concept. However, even though I agree with the long-term potential for cost savings (especially if the overreacting politicians have their way and ban all offshore drilling), I can't see any class 1 freight railroad wanting to make the huge investment that electrification requires. Because they're publicly traded companies, class 1 railroads would have to be able to show their shareholders good potential for a quick return on investment before the stock market would tolerate such a big expenditure.

tarheelman wrote: Interesting concept. However, even though I agree with the long-term potential for cost savings (especially if the overreacting politicians have their way and ban all offshore drilling), I can't see any class 1 freight railroad wanting to make the huge investment that electrification requires. Because they're publicly traded companies, class 1 railroads would have to be able to show their shareholders good potential for a quick return on investment before the stock market would tolerate such a big expenditure.

That's actually the problem and the reason IMO that many class 1s haven't already electrified. The cost savings would result in a payback period long beyond the typical tenure of a CEO. However, that short-term business mentality is gradually changing. It may get quick returns now but if hurts profitability down the road. Now that Warren Buffett is part owner of BNSF, I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification take off. Buffett has always been a very long term investor. If anyone sees the value in electrification, it would be him. My guess is if BNSF electrifies, the other class 1s will in time, if for no other reason than to retain a long-term competitive advantage. That in turn bodes well for improved passenger rail service.

Even ten years ago, BNSF was looking long-term, with the double-tracking of the Transcon.

jtr1962 wrote:However, that short-term business mentality is gradually changing. It may get quick returns now but if hurts profitability down the road. Now that Warren Buffett is part owner of BNSF, I wouldn't be surprised to see electrification take off. Buffett has always been a very long term investor. If anyone sees the value in electrification, it would be him. My guess is if BNSF electrifies, the other class 1s will in time, if for no other reason than to retain a long-term competitive advantage. That in turn bodes well for improved passenger rail service.

True---Buffet is a long-term investor. Only time will tell if he can change the short-term mentality of senior management enough for them to undertake this kind of expenditure.

I saw an estimate he other day that said they use $50M per mile of electrification as a rule of thumb number. I wish I could find the article quickly now, but can't seem to. Even over a shorter distance where economies of scale don't come into it that seems a vest overestimation to me. Half a billion for a 10 mile stretch!?! I think not. Maybe $5M is closer to the mark, but even that sounds top heavy. Maybe in an awkward urban area with land purchase and access issues etc, with bridge and culvert work.