Class I electrification potential?

The North American energy market is undergoing the biggest change in 60 years right now as a result of "fracking." Natural gas prices have plummeted and look to stay low for a long time-- long enough that big manufacturers such as Dow Chemical are moving production back into North America from China.

Natural gas at present isn't a great fuel for personal automobiles-- for one thing, nobody wants a self-serve CNG fueling station. However, it's ideal for fleet vehicles such as delivery trucks and city buses.

Clearly, locomotives fall into the definition of "fleet vehicles" and I know there are companies out there working to build road units that can run off the stuff. The disadvantage of gas is that it is very volatile-- much more so than diesel-- and can cause all sorts of problems in a leak situation or a wreck. It seemed to me, when thinking about it, that the best way for a railroad to use nat gas to power their locomotives would be to separate the motors and the generators-- i.e., electrify.

This long introduction leads me to my question-- or questions. Does anyone know at what price-per-kW electricity becomes competitive with diesel? How expensive it would be for, say, Union Pacific to electrify the Overland Route, or BNSF the Transcon? What the obstacles would be aside from stringing catenary (for example, is anyone building heavy electric locomotives suitable for North American freight service)? And do any of the Class I's have plans already drawn up for just such a thing?

There once was the Milwaukee Road, which had extensive electrification. But it went bankrupt and the copper was sold for scrap.

Conrail had some E44 locomotives in the 1970's which ran on electrified portions of the Pennsylvania (the North East Corridor).

I don't know why either failed.

You'd best research why the previous attempts failed, before proposing any new electrification.

The issue with electrification is the high up front costs coupled with a rate of return that stretches out over many years. That is not something that appeals to most RR's and their shareholders.

hotbike wrote:There was once the Milwaukee Road... Conrail had some E44s... I don't know why either failed...

The Milwaukee's Pacific Extension was a marginal operation to begin with that should probably never have been built, period-- it put the road into bankruptcy within about 10 years of opening. And the electrification suffered from being discontinuous- one section through the Rockies, another through the Cascades, necessitating multiple engine changes.

My understanding is that Conrail quit running electrics on the Corridor because Amtrak jacked the utility charges through the roof.

amtrakhogger wrote:The issue with electrification is the high up front costs coupled with a rate of return that stretches out over many years. That is not something that appeals to most RR's and their shareholders.

Yes, I know. I'm just wondering at what point higher diesel prices and tougher emissions regulations start to make electrification competitive again-- such that management would be able to justify those capital expenditures by pointing to (say) long-term power supply contracts from the utilities.

Now they are trying natural gas, which the locomotive prime movers can also burn. EMD and GE have been able to make their engines still efficient, while adding pollution control. If they get to a point where fuel becomes too expensive, or the pollution standards get too tight, then the cost of the infrastructure of electrification might become viable.

A recent powerpoint presentation by Bombardier on potential design concepts for freight locomotives which match or exceed contemporary North American diesel electrics in performance (particularly in tractive effort and axle loading).
http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/ConferencesWork ... _print.pdf

I gather this may have been aimed at decision makers for the possible electrification of the Alameda freight corridor in Los Angeles (which seems to be one of the few U.S electrification prosals still getting some serious consideration, at least from Government entities)..

I think the cost versus the rate of return for building the electric infrastructure is probably the biggest reason most railroads show little to no interest in electrification. Money talks.

As far as Conrail and the Milwaukee go, I think their electric portions caused some logistical headaches. Neither railroad was electrified in its entirety, so the need was still there for diesel locomotives. This meant that power changes were necessary, which can cause train delay. In addition to delays, hostler crews had to be maintained to swap out or add power to trains as they passed through terminals where the catenary began or ended. It is a whole lot easier to run a railroad on which all the locomotives can travel anywhere, because then the power can run through terminals where servicing is not needed. This is just speculation on my part. Logistics of different power sources may have been only a small piece, but I think it probably contributed to the demise of electric freights in the US.