Electrifying Freight Lines

Electrification would serve no use to CN for freight purposes, and would more likely be an issue.

On the contrary, freight lines are routinely electric in Europe and Japan. It actually slightly helps to hedge commodity prices against oil price fluctuations if a significant percentage of said commodity is transported via said electric freight.

And even with Electricity prices at the record highs they are at in Ontario, it would still be much cheaper than diesel-fuel, in fact electricity prices could double and it would still be cheaper to go electric.

And even with Electricity prices at the record highs they are at in Ontario, it would still be much cheaper than diesel-fuel, in fact electricity prices could double and it would still be cheaper to go electric.

If electricity was twice as cheap as diesel, the freight railroads would have already adopted it. The fact they haven't speaks loudly.

If electricity was twice as cheap as diesel, the freight railroads would have already adopted it. The fact they haven't speaks loudly.

On the contrary, it is the intense capital costs (and not to mention government red tape) of electrification (in the range of $5 Million to $7 Million per KM of track in the US for passenger lines, freight lines may have special needs on top of this, not sure if this cost would decrease or increase in Canada)that have discouraged this course of action - and in the case of a shared railroad corridor this would not only include electrifying the ROW but also replacing the rolling stock of passenger and freight services. The operating costs are easily more competitive and would arguably pay for any capital investment given a long enough timeline, especially with the inevitable rising cost of oil.

kaleb0 wrote:

Electrification would serve no use to CN for freight purposes, and would more likely be an issue.

On the contrary, freight lines are routinely electric in Europe and Japan.

Yes, and the freight trains in question are rather short and light by North American standards. The distances are short and most European freight operations look primitive compared to North American double stacks.

kaleb0 wrote: It actually slightly helps to hedge commodity prices against oil price fluctuations if a significant percentage of said commodity is transported via said electric freight..

Not really. The enormous capital costs, not to mention the enoromous catenary upkeep costs, tend to offset any savings. The economics of electrification are well known, and 1970s studies are still applicable. It doesn't make any sense for North American Class I freights.

kaleb0 wrote:And even with Electricity prices at the record highs they are at in Ontario, it would still be much cheaper than diesel-fuel, in fact electricity prices could double and it would still be cheaper to go electric.

Nope. The capital costs and recurring maintenance costs of electriciation make it uneconomic in the North American context, unless you're talking about very high levels of passenger traffic.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

kaleb0 wrote:

Electrification would serve no use to CN for freight purposes, and would more likely be an issue.

On the contrary, freight lines are routinely electric in Europe and Japan.

Yes, and the freight trains in question are rather short and light by North American standards. The distances are short and most European freight operations look primitive compared to North American double stacks.

kaleb0 wrote: It actually slightly helps to hedge commodity prices against oil price fluctuations if a significant percentage of said commodity is transported via said electric freight..

Not really. The enormous capital costs, not to mention the enoromous catenary upkeep costs, tend to offset any savings. The economics of electrification are well known, and 1970s studies are still applicable. It doesn't make any sense for North American Class I freights.

kaleb0 wrote:And even with Electricity prices at the record highs they are at in Ontario, it would still be much cheaper than diesel-fuel, in fact electricity prices could double and it would still be cheaper to go electric.

Nope. The capital costs and recurring maintenance costs of electriciation make it uneconomic in the North American context, unless you're talking about very high levels of passenger traffic.

This is quite an interesting discussion. Do either of you have references to back up your statements? I'd like to know more about this.

I have to disagree somewhat. While it is probably true that it is not feasible to electrify for the sake of freight alone due to the high captal costs of catenarys etc. it is certainly feasible to run freight trains on electrical power once the catenarys are there.

Referring to Europe in general makes no sense, as the differences from country to country are very large. While Britain or Denmark, where I reside have no domestic freight rail traffic to speak of, the Germans for example are running a large and efficient operation to support their suptantial industrial base, and electrified routes and transports dominate. Only short side lines run diesel.

In Denmark, which certainly hasn't been on the forefront to electrify our rail net, excactly the main freight transit corridor from the German border to the bridge to Sweden has catenarys. This is only partly the main passenger corridor, as it misses the country's second largest population center in central Jutland. The wires are there because of the transit freight, so the same trains can run all the way withaout an engine change (even though it would have made good sense to electrify the whole network decades ago because of the passenger traffic, but this is getting OT and into local politics).

Now to say that electric power is no good for freight trains is nonsense. It can deliver the same or better horse power, the locomotives have fewer break downs, are more stable in cold weather, emits much less pollution and not least they have better acceleration - aside from being cheaper to run. The latter is very important if you run a mixed operation of freight and passengers on crowded tracks as the freights will be faster in getting up to speed and out of the way.

Geographywise the best parallels to Canada is probably Russia or Sweden though. Russia I don't know that well and economically it is not really comparable, but Sweden I do. It is an advanced economy with a freight modal share well over 20 (still less than the 30+ in the US - I don't know the canadian figures - but never the less substantial). It is distancewise one of the largest countries in Europe with a low population density, very unevenly distributed, much like Canada or the US. It also has pretty harsh winters. The backbone of the freight operation is the mining and forestry industry in the very lightly populated far north, but industfial products for export and distribution of consumer goods are often done by rail too. All main lines are electrified. The interesting part is that the country also has one of the highest rail modal shares for intercity passengers, even though passenger traffic tends to be lighter in the far north where freight is heavy and vice versa. But it is still the prime example of freight and passengers not having to be mutually exclusive, if both are just planned properly in relation to each other, and electrifying is a central part of that.

The problem for freight is that a very large part of the network has to be electrified in order not to have to change locomotives all the time. This means that electrifying one line makes very little sense to freight operations - unless it is a very long one. In a country like Sweden there is access to catenarys almost all over because they have preferred to run their passenger trains that way even on many side lines where it otherwise would make no sense to put them up just for a few freight trains a day. In Canada only the central corridor would be electrified. Whether that just might be long enough to make it feassible for the freight lines to change engines and reap the savings of cheaper power - especially as oil prices soar - would have to be analysed. But for the sake of freight alone CN won't do it. In combination with an enhanced passenger traffic it might make sense to both.

trainviews wrote: Russia I don't know that well and economically it is not really comparable,

For reference, Russia runs long, heavy freight trains (second only to the US), and Russia has electrified pretty much everything, including the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

At current oil prices (as opposed to 1950s oil prices) it's always cheaper to run electric trains than diesels on busy lines (one-a-day branch lines are another matter), even accounting for the costs of maintaining the wiring. Unfortunately that doesn't account for the capital cost of electrifying lines in the first place. Those capital costs are the main deterrent to electrification for freight purposes. There is an oil price such that it becomes obviously worth it, but it's rather high; if oil prices hit the 2008 peak price permanently, I think that's large enough.

neroden wrote:

trainviews wrote: Russia I don't know that well and economically it is not really comparable,

For reference, Russia runs long, heavy freight trains (second only to the US), and Russia has electrified pretty much everything, including the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

At current oil prices (as opposed to 1950s oil prices) it's always cheaper to run electric trains than diesels on busy lines (one-a-day branch lines are another matter), even accounting for the costs of maintaining the wiring. Unfortunately that doesn't account for the capital cost of electrifying lines in the first place. Those capital costs are the main deterrent to electrification for freight purposes. There is an oil price such that it becomes obviously worth it, but it's rather high; if oil prices hit the 2008 peak price permanently, I think that's large enough.

Never underestimate the ability of any private sector transportation operation to pass along increased energy costs to the shippers by imposing "fuel surcharges."

In reality, freight electrification doesn't make sense in North America, or any other country with a well-developed rail freight sector. It takes a high volume of passenger traffic to justify electrification.

Note: This thread was split from a topic on the VIA Rail forum regarding the electrification of the Quebec-Windsor corridor and moved here.

Three US freight railroads actually do have electrification - the Navajo Mine Railroad, Deseret Power Railroad, and Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad. But they're all very different from most railroads: short lines (Black Mesa is the longest at 78 miles) disconnected from the national rail network, built relatively recently for the single purpose of moving coal from a mine to a generating station (which makes the electricity cheap). All use E60s, either custom built or secondhand from Amtrak, NJTransit, or the Mexican national railroad, with diesels for emergency backup.

I don't know how much those studies from the 70s are relevant anymore tho.....

that was before a real life, working (albeit still has bugs, but overall works) dual mode catenary/diesel loco existed. NJT's (and AMTs) ALP45DP. Ive been told there has been a LOT of interest in it, of course, who isn't being disclosed, but from NJT officals, they say that there are lots of different RRs who are following the evolution of this thing and its success in service.

Thats interesting because there aren't that many lines that have electric operations. So who are all these other folks interested in it? hmmmmmmm

Ive said it before in various other threads, namely in the BNSF forum, that a dual mode loco like this can allow the railroads to electrify only where it is cost effective and quick to do so, and leave other areas diesel. One of the biggest draw backs to having wire is basically its gotta be all or nothing. Now it doesn't have to be. For example, only main lines have to be wired, not yards and not sidings. You dont' need an engine change, and you don't need reacher cars to drill a siding or a customer. A simple push of a button (it really is that easy) will automatically change the loco from diesel to electric mode or vice versa.

Yes, the locos are more expensive, and wiring up the tracks is still very expensive as well, however they are going to save big time in operational costs, and the benefits could be realized right away - wire up a section of track and use it. Wire up another section of track and use that as soon as its done. Don't have to wire up a whole division or area and wiat for it to be done. Can do it piecemeal...and start realizing the benefits right away in the sections that are done.

Also, keep in mind, the ALP45 was built with severe Amtrak restrictions and requirements in mind. Both size and weight. A freight loco wouldn't necessarily have these requirements. The '45 has 2 caterpillar diesels in it, for weight savings. Nothing says that a common EMD or GE powerplant couldn't be put in a loco with less restrictions (4 axles, 288,000lbs, height for NY tunnels, etc like the '45 has. a 6 axle full height 400,000lb loco has a lot of room for stuff).

But I think all these people watching this is are just seeing if the basic concept of it works. Which it does.

neroden wrote:

trainviews wrote: Russia I don't know that well and economically it is not really comparable,

For reference, Russia runs long, heavy freight trains (second only to the US), and Russia has electrified pretty much everything, including the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

At current oil prices (as opposed to 1950s oil prices) it's always cheaper to run electric trains than diesels on busy lines (one-a-day branch lines are another matter), even accounting for the costs of maintaining the wiring. Unfortunately that doesn't account for the capital cost of electrifying lines in the first place. Those capital costs are the main deterrent to electrification for freight purposes. There is an oil price such that it becomes obviously worth it, but it's rather high; if oil prices hit the 2008 peak price permanently, I think that's large enough.

Not True Russia's rail system is only half Electrified and Diesel Locomotives out number Electric units by far across the system along with a few thousand Steam Locomotives scattered about the former USSR in there reserve fleet in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Many of these Steam Locomotives are intended to be use for State wide emergency's such as War, or weather related issues that might other wise take out Electric Power, pipe lines, refinery's, or tank farms. My sources for this info come from a few friends of mine who are retired Ukrainian Military adviser's and the wife's Grandfather who is retired from the (NKVD/KGB Military Railway officer)

I my self live in Ukraine on and off 3 months out of the year and the only trains that are under Electric wires are passenger trains. Diesels handle the rest. Freight trains across Eastern Europe are long yes but compared to Western Europe the Former Soviet bloc country's still have not caught up with upgrading cars from composite side boxcar's to all steel cars. Just about 65% of the Eastern Bloc country's still use composite side boxcar's and Gondolas system wide I see them all the time in Ukraine, Belarus, and in Russia cars range from 40 to 65ft some with 4 axles (2 trucks per car) some with 6 axles (2 trucks per car) Steel cars are mostly privately owned and in better shape compared to the Wood cars. With all being said the construction material's used in the cars construction make up a big difference in the tonnage that can be hauled.

Russia and former USSR
Soviet electric locomotive VL60pk (ВЛ60пк), c. 1960 Russia and other countries of the former USSR have a mix of 3,300 V DC and 25 kV AC electric railroads due to historical reasons.

The special "junction stations" (around 15 over the whole former USSR - Vladimir, Mariinsk near Krasnoyarsk etc.) were equipped with contact wiring switchable from DC to AC. Locomotive replacement is essential at these stations and is performed together with the contact wiring switching.

Most Soviet, Czech (USSR ordered the passenger electric locomotives to Czech Skoda factory), Russian and Ukrainian locomotives can only operate as DC or as AC. For instance, VL80 is an AC machine, with VL10 being something like a DC version of VL80. There were some half-experimental small-series like VL82, which could switch from AC to DC and were used in small amounts around the city of Kharkov in Ukraine. Also, the latest Russian passenger locomotive EP10 (experimental only?) is dual-system.

Historically, first the 3,300 V DC wiring was used due to vehicle simplicity. The first experimental track was in Georgian mountains, then the suburban zones of the largest cities were electrified for motor-car locomotive-less trains to be used - very advantageous due to much better dynamic of such a train compared to the steam one, which is important for the suburban service with frequent stops. Then the large mountain line between Ufa and Chelyabinsk was electrified.

For some time, electric railways were only considered to be suitable for suburban or mountain lines. In around 1950, a decision was made (according to the legend - by Joseph Stalin) to electrify the highly-loaded plain prairie line of Omsk-Novosibirsk. After this, electrifying the major railroads with 3,000 V DC became a mainstream.

25 kV AC contact wiring started in the USSR in around 1960, when the industry managed to build the rectifier-based AC-wire DC-motor locomotive (all Soviet and Czech AC locomotives were such; only the post-Soviet ones switched to electronically controlled induction motors). The first major line with AC power was Mariinsk-Krasnoyarsk-Tayshet-Zima; the lines in European Russia like Moscow-Rostov-on-Don followed.

In 1990s, some DC lines were rebuilt as AC ones to allow the usage of the huge 10 MWt AC locomotive of VL85. The line around Irkutsk is one of them. The DC locomotives freed by this rebuild were transferred to St. Petersburg region.

The Trans-Siberian Railway has been partly electrified since 1929 and entirely electric hauled since 2002. The system is 25 kV AC 50 Hz after the junction station of Mariinsk near Krasnoyarsk, 3,000 V DC before it and train weights are up to 6,000 tonnes.

SA3 couplerMain article: SA3 coupler

The simplified scheme of the SA-3 automatic couplers.
An animation of the SA-3 couplerThe Russian SA3 coupler works according to the same principles as the AAR coupler but is incompatible, it was introduced during the rebuilding of the railway network in Soviet Union after the Second World War and have since been used on the whole broad gauge network, including Finland and Mongolia. It is also used on the standard gauge networks of Iraq and on Malmbanan in Sweden for ore trains.

Russian trains are rarely longer than about 750 m (2,460 ft) and rarely exceed a maximum tonnage of about 6,000 t (13,000,000 lb), so it is not clear what potential load these couplings are capable of. The trains on Malmbanan are about 8,000 t (18,000,000 lb).
The force to break the SA-3 coupler is about 300 tonnes-force (2.9 MN; 660,000 lbf).
The maximum allowed tractive effort to the SA-3 is limited to 135 tonnes-force (1.32 MN; 298,000 lbf) by Russian white papers.
The proposed European automatic coupler is compatible with the Russian coupler but with automatic air, control and power connections. Implementation is permanently delayed except for a few users. The SA3 resembles a left-handed fist.

The Pennsylvania Rail Road had electric freight lines.

I'm not sure exactly when they de-electrified.

The Milwaukee Road certainly got their money's worth out of their electrification. Generating equipment and some locos purchased new in 1915 were in continuous service until 1973. Maybe Gilbert can help us out with some figures.

The system was 3,000 volt DC, same as the Russians. The system consisted of two separate electrified districts, in the Bitter Root Mountains of Montana and the Cascade Mountains of Washington. A non-electrified gap between these was operated with conventional power.

The Milwaukee avoided the problem of fueling generating plants by taking advantage of the potential for hydro power in the mountains. They constructed a series of small dams and hydro stations. Regenerative braking from trains descending grades fed additional power into the system, which could assist the hydro plants in lifting trains up.

The Milwaukee Road Coast Extension turned a midwestern granger into a transcon. The last of the railroads built across the northern tier of states, it had to use routes rejected by its competitors NP and GN. Right out of the box, it had to compete with NP, GN, UP, and the new Panama Canal.

The electrification helped hold down operating costs and made the Milwaukee more competitive. Unfortunately, it still lacked the profitability to enable the electrification of the "gap", or to allow continual upgrading of the initial installation. I remember when a topic of conversation was if the abandonment of the Coast Extension was hastened by the initial investment of electrification; or if the cost savings of the electrification actually prolonged the life of the Coast Extension.

I never worked on the electrified divisions, but later worked with two locomotive engineers who had. They both had high regard for the system, even in its fading years. There is an original boxcab unit preserved at the railroad museum in Duluth. You can sit in the cab and imagine what it must have been like.

Les

How about BC Rail in British Columbia, Canada and there Electric lines they seemed to run well well for there time before CN took over and removed everything after taking BC Rail over.