Total Electrification

Is it possible for Amtrak to electrify all of the trackage they operate over be it over head wires or third rail so that they can be more environmentally sensitive and bring on more passengers that way? I know the freights would not like overhead wiring like NJT has even esp with Superliners being too high up but I would imagine that Third Rail could work right? It would save a ton of cash on fuel costs and again be more environmentally sound.

Since Amtrak owns less than two percent of all the trackage they operate over, then no. Not worth it if you're still going to operate one or two trains a day (or fewer) at average speeds of 40 mph or slower. Takes signaling upgrades to make it worthwhile; and the freight railroads gotta be on board with it as well. (I'd estimate that electrification alone of the rest of Amtrak's unelectrified national system would cost about $43 billion—that's taking the usual million-per-mile rough estimate and doubling it, because this is the USA after all.)

(FTR, diesel powers about 99 percent of the rail traffic in the USA; rough estimate.)

Electrifying on freight railroads would also restrict freight car use like double stacks or oversize loads ao freight carriers even if they got it for free and use for free would still object.

I'm still questoning the statement "more environmentally sensitive ".

I'm not sure this is valid on rights-of way hundreds of miles from existing generating facilities. No, check that, I'm positive that it's not.

Not to mention the safety issue of placing third rail on thousands of miles of ROW that are feature low platforms and are not fenced off.....

NJTRailfan wrote:Is it possible for Amtrak to electrify all of the trackage they operate over be it over head wires or third rail so that they can be more environmentally sensitive and bring on more passengers that way? I know the freights would not like overhead wiring like NJT has even esp with Superliners being too high up but I would imagine that Third Rail could work right? It would save a ton of cash on fuel costs and again be more environmentally sound.

Very short answer: No.

Mr. NJT, be it assured that the railroad industry (the "freights" if you wish) has conducted numerous feasibility studies regarding electrification. Aside from obvious extensions like the PRR Hbg to Pgh, these studies have included the UP Overland Route as well as the Canadian Pacific lines West of Winnipeg.

However, in very VERY succinct terms "the numbers ain't there'.

The only parameter for any future electrification projects is a high volume of passenger traffic. This brought about the obvious NH-Boston extension using of course public funds. But some, both here at this forum and elsewhere, have questioned the efficacy of that project. Quite likely had it not been for the "cabal of pols' with names such as Dukakis, Kennedy, and Pell, the project would have been a "never happen' and the "East End' would have simply become an "important feeder connection" such as the Springfield, Empire, Keystone, and Richmond corridors are considered. However, if it were to pass that MBTA and Shore Line East were to electrify their Corridor services, the efficacy noted would be enhanced.

With that having been said, other extension projects, namely 30 miles N White Plains to Brewster on the MTA Harlem Line, others on the MTA LIRR, and those along the NJT Long Branch line have come to pass. But at this time, the only possible candidate for electrification "from scratch" would be a "very iffy" LA-San Diego over now publicly owned ROW. Possibly if UP/SP Santa Barbara-LA Coast Line were conveyed to public ownership, that too could be considered.

Future railroad electrification in the USA will owe much to those pushing a "clean coal" political agenda. I could see politicians going for railroad electrification if and only if "clean coal" technology is touted as a solution for increased electricity production capacity, and furthermore, if the RR rights-of-way are used for additional power transmission lines (above the catenary, natch).

Buried in the PA state archives are the PRR plans for electrification west of Harrisburg. The PRR couldn't afford it. The obvious conclusion is that without substantial feddybux -- either through outright subsidy or tax incentives -- no other railroad is going to try it in the USA.

We should also note the PRR electrification of what is now the NEC was done with a government loan, which was paid off in full. But that was a different era, when people had very different views on how to finance transportation needs in the USA.

DutchRailnut wrote:Electrifying on freight railroads would also restrict freight car use like double stacks or oversize loads ao freight carriers even if they got it for free and use for free would still object.

Is it not possible to place catenary at heights sufficient to run double stacks?

Yes, it's actually been done in the Philadelphia - NJ area.

But there's still the issue of oversize moves in general, and the potential restriction on larger rolling stock and locomotives in the future, as well as the ongoing maintenance requirements of catenary.

This is low-amtrak relation, but I always thought the next great electrification project would be the Alameda Corridor - that's one of the busiest freight stretches in the country, in a environmentally poor-shape area. Before Mexico or Amtrak scrapped all their E60's, they would've made great doublestack haulers thru that new tunnel and out to the port. If the mods want to move this thread to appropriate place, I think this is a really neat and viable topic.

Sam Damon wrote:Future railroad electrification in the USA will owe much to those pushing a "clean coal" political agenda. I could see politicians going for railroad electrification if and only if "clean coal" technology is touted as a solution for increased electricity production capacity, and furthermore, if the RR rights-of-way are used for additional power transmission lines (above the catenary, natch).

Buried in the PA state archives are the PRR plans for electrification west of Harrisburg. The PRR couldn't afford it. The obvious conclusion is that without substantial feddybux -- either through outright subsidy or tax incentives -- no other railroad is going to try it in the USA.

We should also note the PRR electrification of what is now the NEC was done with a government loan, which was paid off in full. But that was a different era, when people had very different views on how to finance transportation needs in the USA.

Most rail corridors are not wide enough to accommodate the 500 to 765kV transmission facilities that would be needed to greatly expand the grid without acquiring more adjacent land. Moreover, placement of large backbone electric transmission places those lines at risk of damage from derailments with potential impact on reliability and economics. Clean coal technology already is touted, but the carbon sequestration component has yet to be solved and must be before coal will truly be clean.

About two years ago a large merchant electric transmission project proposed in New York State to go from upstate to NY City was defeated largely in part to opposition by NIMBYs who did not want the transmission towers built on the railroad right of way as the towers were perceived as "ugly."

While this posting diverts away from the topic of intercity passenger railroading (which in the USA has only one name...Amtrak), such appears relevant to the development of discussion here.

The most readable (but I'm sure to our professionals here such as Messrs. KenW2KB and Nasadowski too "general') work is "When the Steam Railroads Electrified" ISBN 0-89024-028-0 by William D Middleton. This work should be ex-libris with any hobbyist so interested.

From reviewing this and other related material regarding electric locomoitve operational efficiency, i.e. maximizing economy and efficiency of moving a ton or passenger mile of transportation, it was a "no contest" between modern steam, i.e. 4-6-2, 4-8-4 and electric. By the advent of 40's and 50's diesel power such as FT's, FA's, F-7, GP-7, electrics still had an edge. With the introduction of 60's power such as GP-35, U-25, and C-420 and even the 70's SD-40, and U-33 (Alco I guess was gone) efficiency was a "stand off", yet by the 80's with introduction of contemporary C-44's and SD-70's AC locomotives, the electric was the laggard.

Accordingly, we are back to my earlier posting's statement of "the numbers ain't there".

Regarding any "Green" issues and the corrollary "Amtrak should be setting the example", I respectfully defer to others.

Now, how would the price of oil affect the economics of electrification?

Total electrification just isn't going to happen until there's a BIG shift in attitudes w.r.t. railroads in the US>

That said, there's a good argument for extending some Amtrak wiring.

As for doublestacks? Just put the wire higher. Nothing magical about the height.

Clean coal isn't going to happen. Utilities don't even want it, now. Plant cost is approaching that of a nuke, operating costs are higher, siting is almost as bad, there's almost as much liability. And a 'clean coal' plant still depends on coal deliveries every day or two. And the utilities are NOT happy with the way the RRs are treating them.

Put it this way: utilities are canceling their plans for 'clean coal' plants, and submitting applications to the NRC for nukes - there's licenses for 5 units in now, and another 15 or 20 expected by the end of next year. This is minus Watts Bar #2, which the TVA says they will start work on (again)( this January.

Carbon sequestering is a big question mark, the newer emissions controls are adding complexity and costs, and may not be enough, anyway. On the flip side, today's new nuke designs are simpler, safer, make less waste, and cost less.

If the long term shift towards nuke continues, you'll see RR electrification for two reasons:

* RRs will lose coal traffic. Coal's a captive customer, i.e. a money machine. They'll have to start grabbing traffic from trucks, which means a huger increase in speed and performance.

* Cheap electricity and high oil prices (90 a barrel's a certainty, 100's easily possible) will make electrification look attractive.

Looking into a 'crystal ball', I'll go out on a limb and predict the first new freight electrification in the US will be in the southeastern part of the country.