Commuter Rail Electrification

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:34 pm Is it still true that electric locomotives cost more than diesel locomotives?

Even if they were cheaper, it would cost you more to maintain a catenary-electrified railroad on top of the massive initial cost to build the catenary equipment, than to just maintain a normal line, this is why the borderline bankrupt MBTA and the state are not interested at all in investing in such an undertaking, and has only committed to the bare minimum of using Battery iEMUs on its shortest (and most useless) service, this seems to be something people like Senator Crighton, TransitMatters and their groupies can't seem to understand, or just prefer to ignore. This new Fairmount Line MacEMU thing has only further shown that the MBTA has no interest in playing to the full catenary electrification fantasy.

That being said, I have a question, I remember reading on this thread a while back someone saying that the Commuter Rail Union is opposed to electrification, I asked an engineer whether this was true or not, and to my surprise, he confirmed it. Is there a reason why the Union would be opposed to such a thing? Thanks.

Kind of ironic when I recently read that the MBTA has removed all trackless trolley buses and has decided that the use of the overhead bus electrification system is unnecessary when they can use battery powered buses.

diburning wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 9:23 amAlso realize that there aren't any "off the shelf" electric locomotives that meet US crashworthiness standards (due to us having heavier freight trains here).

That's much easier now that the FRA brought our crash standards more into alignment with the rest of the world.

mbrproductions wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 7:15 amEven if they were cheaper, it would cost you more to maintain a catenary-electrified railroad on top of the massive initial cost to build the catenary equipment, than to just maintain a normal line...

Electric is, in general, cheaper than diesel. It is more expensive in North America because we have so little electrification, and the railroads that are electrified have a severe case of only wanting to order stupidly bespoke equipment. Yes, there is a larger upfront cost to put the wire in, but long term, if we had enough of them, the locomotives/rolling stock are cheaper, require less maintenance, and cost less energy to run. They also aren't in the shop as much, so you don't need as many electric locomotives compared to diesel (although EMUs are generally better for commuter service). You might be able to run more service with less equipment since they go faster, and with faster, more frequent service, more people will want to ride on it, creating more ticket revenue.

That being said, I have a question, I remember reading on this thread a while back someone saying that the Commuter Rail Union is opposed to electrification, I asked an engineer whether this was true or not, and to my surprise, he confirmed it. Is there a reason why the Union would be opposed to such a thing? Thanks.

Seems suspicious. My guess is that they are using it as leverage to get paid more. Not that they don't deserve fair wages, but the differentiation between electric and diesel seems sort of dumb. If anything, wouldn't an engineer rather run a quiet, modern EMU over a screamer or F40PH-3CAT or whatever they're running up in Boston?

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 9:27 amKind of ironic when I recently read that the MBTA has removed all trackless trolley buses and has decided that the use of the overhead bus electrification system is unnecessary when they can use battery powered buses.

That was just boneheaded. If anything, they should expand trolleybuses, not get rid of them. They are very efficient and cost effective, which is why they are used all over the world.

EDIT: Combine posts

The power cost thing is interesting. LIRR is paying a stupidly high rate for their power from LIPA, I'm not sure exactly why. Because they have third rail substations powered off of the grid, they can't easily generate their own power like Amtrak can (although they buy much of theirs from the grid and convert it to 25hz for the PRR system).

The commuter lines often cite power costs as being higher than diesel fuel, as Amtrak is taking them for a ride, I guess to try to make up for shortfalls in other places, which seems like really bad policy, although I can't blame them too much, as they're chronically underfunded, so I guess they found a way to make some quick bucks. Amtrak also takes freight operators for a ride in trackage rights costs that are several times higher than on freight railroads, making NEC freight prohibitively expensive, even when it would otherwise make sense as a route.

MARC complained about high tariff rates. In the end, is Metro-North taking Amtrak for a ride in return?

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 7:15 pmMARC complained about high tariff rates. In the end, is Metro-North taking Amtrak for a ride in return?

MN doesn't (yet) run on Amtrak, so they could be taking them for a ride on power costs, but it's not in return for anything.

Seems suspicious. My guess is that they are using it as leverage to get paid more. Not that they don't deserve fair wages, but the differentiation between electric and diesel seems sort of dumb. If anything, wouldn't an engineer rather run a quiet, modern EMU over a screamer or F40PH-3CAT or whatever they're running up in Boston?

I wouldn't be so sure, the engineers seem to really like the HSPs in general so I don't think whether or not the thing they are running is a diesel locomotive is what they care about, or maybe they are big fans of having an entire locomotive to themselves separate from everyone else on the train, every engineer I talked to likes running outbounds a lot more than inbounds in the cab car. Most likely whatever they prefer doesn't really matter much because you have to remember that the Commuter Rail Union is more than just the engineers, the other members also probably have a reason for this sentiment. If what you were saying earlier about electrics needing less time than diesels in the shop, then there is a reason for the maintenance workers to be opposed to electrification.

mbrproductions wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:27 amI wouldn't be so sure, the engineers seem to really like the HSPs in general so I don't think whether or not the thing they are running is a diesel locomotive is what they care about, or maybe they are big fans of having an entire locomotive to themselves separate from everyone else on the train, every engineer I talked to likes running outbounds a lot more than inbounds in the cab car.

I always thought they'd like the cab cars more because they're so much quieter, but that's at least plausible. Although EMUs are generally better/faster/more efficient, it would be interesting as to their reaction to a locomotive hauled train with a pair of ALP-46A/ACS-64 locomotives, one at each end. If that was their concern, they'd be all over that.

Most likely whatever they prefer doesn't really matter much because you have to remember that the Commuter Rail Union is more than just the engineers, the other members also probably have a reason for this sentiment. If what you were saying earlier about electrics needing less time than diesels in the shop, then there is a reason for the maintenance workers to be opposed to electrification.

That actually makes a LOT more sense. Job protectionism. I think they're wrong and have a short-sighted view, but at least as a knee-jerk reaction, it makes sense in a short-term sense.

The reason I say that they're wrong is that if they replaced diesel locomotives on lines being electrified with electric locomotives one for one, there would be a lot less shop work, as electrics don't have a diesel engine to maintain. EMUs are less clear, as each car/pair/trio is legally a locomotive under FRA regulation, so while they don't require all the diesel maintenance, there is some additional maintenance over a loco-hauled train, even though they're still cost effective because they're more reliable and efficient.

But all that is missing the forest for the trees. Losing the maintenance-intensive, diesel-guzzling absolute unit of a locomotive on one end of the train allows for more frequent service, which requires more equipment... so there is still plenty of maintenance work to go around. All the money saved by switching to electricity from diesel fuel could be spent on running more trains, buying more trains, etc. Plus, some current diesel shop mechanics could be retrained on maintaining electrical equipment in locomotives or along the right of way.

Commuter Rail employees are represented by numerous unions, not just 1, and the operating employees' unions have no reason to care less if the trains are powered by catenary, 3rd rail, hamster wheels, or diesel locomotives. One engineer might like diesel engines, but most only want a warm (or cold) cab with a comfortable seat and a propulsion system suitable enough to remain on schedule.

And as I've shown in links before the T's hands are tied they can slow walk all they want they have to use some type of alternative power as all Commonwealth entities have to do.

ElectricTraction wrote: I always thought they'd like the cab cars more because they're so much quieter, but that's at least plausible.

Cab cars are not desirable in a grade crossing collision. I have read that some engineers also like to feel how the locomotive is responding to the controls.

Its been too long for this poster to visit Boston.. The obvious reluctance of MBTA's middle management to go electric and also remove the trackless trolleys is hard to understand. Where in the management pyramid would these decisions be made? Is it an "INDEPENDENT" board ?

I always understood that even if the MBTA kept the trackless trolleys, they would have had to take down the wires for other roadworks projects being performed by Cambridge, sidelining the trolleys for an extended period.

In most cases, although they may offer advice, independent boards only have the power to accept/approve or reject management decisions brought to the board for consideration and replace senior management, but don't enjoy the power to force a manager to take one course of action or another absent firing senior managers until they find one who behaves exactly as the board wishes. I'm under the impression that historically when boards have rotated through a number of senior managers in short order, it has also generally left organizations struggling to retain talent and customers. I can't comment if the MBTA board enjoys more or less power to interfere with middle management decisions than other boards.

Red Wing wrote:And as I've shown in links before the T's hands are tied they can slow walk all they want they have to use some type of alternative power as all Commonwealth entities have to do.

Where have you shown this, what links did you provide and what were the main contents? I may have missed it.