future electrification routes?

It is important to note that India is ~1/3 the land mass and ~4.3x the population of the USA which suggests an average population density 12x what the USA supports. India also imports 86% of its oil and gas, while the USA is a net exporter of oil and gas, so India has an economic incentive to reduce its use of petrol and diesel (as much by building new coal power plants for electric trains as by using other cleaner fuel sources for electricity) that the USA does not have.

I don't think labor is a huge% of electrification costs.
Anything with hourly service should be worth going electric. Maybe two hourly.
New battery technology means a main route that splits into a few diverging routes may now be economic. As does partial electrification, electrifying the station stops, and the acceleration zones each side of them.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:40 pm You're comparing projects in the Soviet Union (and let's not overlook China) that were built with actual slave labor and in India, using caste system labor....

If those projects had to undergo the same types of environment impact evaluations, follow OSHA and other regulations around land acquisition and project management, and pay out US wages (if not union scale), they'd have never been started much less completed.

Engineering costs in the USA probably are 10 times what it is in Russia and India. Here you cannot go willy nilly potholing for column supports. There are underground utilities everywhere many not known. Fiber cable runs along tracks everywhere. Caltrain did not get its last pothole until about 6 months before service started.

That after many years of planning & engineering. Look how slow it is on the NEC potholing for the HSR CAT.

mbrproductions wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 9:46 amI wouldn't be holding my breath for any of these, but that goes especially for any Long Distance Amtrak route electrification.

The BNSF Southern Transcon is the single most obvious case for long-distance electrification in the United States. It hosts around 160 trains (or 90 or 250 depending on how you measure it I guess) per day, and electrification would both increase the capacity of the line, as well as provide a renewable energy corridor that could be a big money maker for BNSF. The CSX Water Level Route and B&O to Chicago is probably the 2nd or 3rd, maybe after the NS Pittsburgh Line.

For the Southern Transcon, robust DMs are key, since Amtrak rejoins it via Raton Pass in the middle of... nowhere. The CSX Water Level and B&O route to Chicago combined with NYP-Albany would get really close to a 100% electric route for the Lake Shore Limited.

mbrproductions wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:17 amThat line took 73 years to electrify, and most of the work was done in the time of the USSR, a socialist country where massive investments in public projects were part of the national ideology. The railroads and lines were all nationalized as well.

I don't find what the Soviets did relevant for US railroad electrification. We know it's technically feasible, it's just a question of who the stakeholders are, and how we get the incentives aligned.

electricron wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 2:06 pmI'm pretty sure the $/T to electrify will not be worth it for 2 passenger trains a day.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, except that I suggested a few miles here and there to connect Albany to the CSX Water Level Route, and the former NYC Water Level Route through Cleveland where it was split between CSX to the east and NS to the west such that there is a short section that is essentially only used by Amtrak.

The rest of the routes would need to be electrified on their own merit, with passenger use as a side benefit.

west point wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:19 pmEngineering costs in the USA probably are 10 times what it is in Russia and India. Here you cannot go willy nilly potholing for column supports. There are underground utilities everywhere many not known. Fiber cable runs along tracks everywhere. Caltrain did not get its last pothole until about 6 months before service started.

That after many years of planning & engineering. Look how slow it is on the NEC potholing for the HSR CAT.

That's a problem that needs to be solved in general. It shouldn't be 7x more expensive to build stuff here compared to France, which isn't exactly known for having insane hours or being free of unions and strikes. We have so many layers of useless consultants and subcontractors, along with way oversized work crews and arcane work rules.

A couple of points that I have mentioned elsewhere at the site.

First, if the MILW held there was any way to make electrification pay, why did they chop it up (I was there; but hardly part of the decision process) rather than plug the Avery-Othello gap? No $$$$? An electric utility reportedly offered (again; hardly privy) to rebuild the existing system, plug the gap, and provide new locomotives in exchange for a "cut" of the revenue.

On that same note, with considerably greater financial resources at hand immediately postwar, why didn't the PRR start stringing Westward; and why did Conrail chop up the electrified lines that did not have "ward of the State" passenger trains?

This reminds me of an encounter I had a few years ago riding from Rosenheim, DE to Munich Airport with a Ugandan gal - London School of Economics educated - who was with their Transport Ministry. Once she learned from me that I have railroad as part of my CV, she told me about "all the great things" they have planned for their railways - one of which was electrification. She asked me about electrification in the US. I said the railroad I was with chopped theirs up and the only place it remains (ignoring the METRA Electric) is where there are a lot of passenger trains like there are over here (Europe) and that is between Boston and Washington with New York and Philadelphia along the way. I showed her some photos of Union Pacific engines handling a Container train taken somewhere along the Overland Route and I said "look at the size of those engines, and then think of how many sub stations would there need be accross that lightly populated land. "that's why electrification never has and likely never will take hold in The States".

Munich Airport was at hand and she was traveling further, end of chat-chat. Once again; a real "heads up gal".

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 7:40 am A couple of points that I have mentioned elsewhere at the site.

First, if the MILW held there was any way to make electrification pay, why did they chop it up (I was there; but hardly part of the decision process) rather than plug the Avery-Othello gap? No $$$$? An electric utility reportedly offered (again; hardly privy) to rebuild the existing system, plug the gap, and provide new locomotives in exchange for a "cut" of the revenue.

On that same note, with considerably greater financial resources at hand immediately postwar, why didn't the PRR start stringing Westward; and why did Conrail chop up the electrified lines that did not have "ward of the State" passenger trains?

This reminds me of an encounter I had a few years ago riding from Rosenheim, DE to Munich Airport with a Ugandan gal - London School of Economics educated - who was with their Transport Ministry. Once she learned from me that I have railroad as part of my CV, she told me about "all the great things" they have planned for their railways - one of which was electrification. She asked me about electrification in the US. I said the railroad I was with chopped theirs up and the only place it remains (ignoring the METRA Electric) is where there are a lot of passenger trains like there are over here (Europe) and that is between Boston and Washington with New York and Philadelphia along the way. I showed her some photos of Union Pacific engines handling a Container train taken somewhere along the Overland Route and I said "look at the size of those engines, and then think of how many sub stations would there need be accross that lightly populated land. "that's why electrification never has and likely never will take hold in The States".

Munich Airport was at hand and she was traveling further, end of chat-chat. Once again; a real "heads up gal".

I've read that Pennsy partly didn't switch, as a guarantee to coal mines they would keep buying fuel from them.
Also, low rate government grants and loans helped pay for the electrification. I think they wanted to stick with steam, until 2nd gen diesels proved their worth.
I kinda wonder where the electricity for going over the mountains would have come from.
Conrail split with electrics because the supplier , another quasi government company, was overcharging electricity costs, to make up revenue, which is short sighted.

I believe this link answers why the US freight railroads did not electrify after World War 2, when they had their best bottom line financially.
https://www.railway.supply/en/electrics ... ent-wrong/
"The diesel-electric, of course, was the primary force that frustrated electrification. When the Pennsylvania undertook what proved to be the last major electrification in the 1930’s, diesel power was still unproven. But by the time the war was over, there was little doubt about what the diesel could do. The war left the railroads with some hard choices to make. With plant and equipment worn out, they were faced with large and costly renewal and replacement requirements. At the same time, the capital available for these needs was limited.
Some data developed by GE’s Earl Bill from a 1946 study of New York Central motive-power modernization between Harmon and Buffalo is revealing. The Central’s study, which compared capital and operating costs for electric, diesel-electric, and modern steam power, projected annual operating and fixed-charge savings of more than $2.9 million for electric power over those for steam. Comparable savings for diesel operation were just under $1.8 million. While this would seem to give a clear advantage to electrification, the picture changed when a return on investment was considered. A Harmon-Buffalo conversion to modern steam power would have cost $80.5 million, while dieselization would have cost $104.5 million and electrification $135 million. At these estimated costs, NYC’s return on the excess cost of electrification over modern steam power would have been 5.39 percent, while the return would have risen to 7.5 percent for the excess cost of dieselization over steam power. When the relative investments required for electrification and dieselization were compared, the return on the excess first cost of electrification was only 3.75 percent."
So, diesel electric locomotives was chosen by "every" existing railroad that had not already electrified.

Read the entire link, it is good reading and explains the choices made then with the conditions that existed then.

As GBN notes, CR decided to abandon its electric operation east of Harrisburg, an operating territory that - of and by itself - posed diseconomies of cost and service that could not be justified.

First, locomotive changes in each direction at Harrisburg made no sense in the context of the short hauls to the East. Use of the diesel power running through Harrisburg carried little, if any, effective incremental cost.

Second, electric locomotive utilization, reflecting short hauls between layovers at Harrisburg and other terminals to the east was the poorest of any class of motive power.

Third, the E-44s had passed the limit of economic service and were due for replacement.

Fourth, Polychlorinated Biphenols (PCBs), present in locomotive transformers and throughout the electric traction system implied significant costs for remediation on a massive scale.

Fifth, Conrail had no sufficient reason to expect that purchased power (KWHs) from Amtrak would be available on reasonable terms.

Finally, Conrail was at the time (1981) subject to a mandate to demonstrate its own long-term profitability. The electrified "island" east of Harrisburg was an expendable barrier to optimal network and financial performance.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 2:21 pm I believe this link answers why the US freight railroads did not electrify after World War 2, when they had their best bottom line financially.
https://www.railway.supply/en/electrics ... ent-wrong/
"The diesel-electric, of course, was the primary force that frustrated electrification. When the Pennsylvania undertook what proved to be the last major electrification in the 1930’s, diesel power was still unproven. But by the time the war was over, there was little doubt about what the diesel could do. The war left the railroads with some hard choices to make. With plant and equipment worn out, they were faced with large and costly renewal and replacement requirements. At the same time, the capital available for these needs was limited.
Some data developed by GE’s Earl Bill from a 1946 study of New York Central motive-power modernization between Harmon and Buffalo is revealing. The Central’s study, which compared capital and operating costs for electric, diesel-electric, and modern steam power, projected annual operating and fixed-charge savings of more than $2.9 million for electric power over those for steam. Comparable savings for diesel operation were just under $1.8 million. While this would seem to give a clear advantage to electrification, the picture changed when a return on investment was considered. A Harmon-Buffalo conversion to modern steam power would have cost $80.5 million, while dieselization would have cost $104.5 million and electrification $135 million. At these estimated costs, NYC’s return on the excess cost of electrification over modern steam power would have been 5.39 percent, while the return would have risen to 7.5 percent for the excess cost of dieselization over steam power. When the relative investments required for electrification and dieselization were compared, the return on the excess first cost of electrification was only 3.75 percent."
So, diesel electric locomotives was chosen by "every" existing railroad that had not already electrified.

Read the entire link, it is good reading and explains the choices made then with the conditions that existed then.

I have stated numerous times in numerous threads about the NYCRR doing a study on electrification between Harmon and Buffalo. T'was told I was crazy, well here it is in print.

If the Central didn't want to do it, with way cheaper labor, material cost, and no where near the environmental studies, why would CSX/NYS/Amtrak/Metro North want to make that investment on their railroads with that type of return. Likely a much smaller return at that.

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:28 pm If the Central didn't want to do it, with way cheaper labor, material cost, and no where near the environmental studies, why would CSX/NYS/Amtrak/Metro North want to make that investment on their railroads with that type of return. Likely a much smaller return at that.

I’ll agree when limiting the discussion to for profit freight and passenger train operations, but not for a non profit passenger trains.
All I ask is that there are a sufficient number of passenger trains to reduce cost per train to as small as possible. Or the new passenger train service needs electrification to achieve the proposed maximum speeds, like Acela or CHSR. Diesel electric locomotives have a lower maximum speeds than electric ones can do.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 7:40 amFirst, if the MILW held there was any way to make electrification pay, why did they chop it up (I was there; but hardly part of the decision process) rather than plug the Avery-Othello gap? No $$$$? An electric utility reportedly offered (again; hardly privy) to rebuild the existing system, plug the gap, and provide new locomotives in exchange for a "cut" of the revenue.

Presumably lack of capital. They had a DC system too, not 25kV AC. The electric utility offer may have been too lopsided for the railroad.

I showed her some photos of Union Pacific engines handling a Container train taken somewhere along the Overland Route and I said "look at the size of those engines, and then think of how many sub stations would there need be accross that lightly populated land. "that's why electrification never has and likely never will take hold in The States".

That's total nonsense. The 50kV split phase system providing 25kV/60 to the trains operated on the Shore Line is fed at just four points between Boston South Station and CHAPEL Interlocking in New Haven. ACS-64s have almost double the horsepower of a standard freight locomotive. Railroad right of way can carry power for hundreds upon hundreds of miles.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 1:58 pmI've read that Pennsy partly didn't switch, as a guarantee to coal mines they would keep buying fuel from them.

That doesn't pass the sniff test. The electrification systems of the time were powered by railroad-owned coal fired plants. Unless they were anthracite mines, and they thought the PRR could bring in cheaper coal for the electricity generating stations.

Conrail split with electrics because the supplier , another quasi government company, was overcharging electricity costs, to make up revenue, which is short sighted.

That's still a problem today with Amtrak, both for freight trackage rights as well as electricity. But the main reason Conrail went away from electrification is that they started to separate freight and passenger in general, removing freight from the NEC and Keystone Line.

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:28 pmIf the Central didn't want to do it, with way cheaper labor, material cost, and no where near the environmental studies, why would CSX/NYS/Amtrak/Metro North want to make that investment on their railroads with that type of return. Likely a much smaller return at that.

Diesel fuel was cheap back then, trains weren't nearly as large, and the cost of CO2 emissions still isn't priced into burning that diesel fuel.

There's also a public policy issue here. If you look at the cost to expand and maintain highways, increasing the speed and capacity of railroads and the resultant cost avoidance combined with increased economic activity makes it such that at least government subsidy of the financing cost makes a lot of sense.

Passenger railroads don't make money in the first place, they are a public good, so the question there, which is essentially just for commuter railroads, and between NYC and Albany, so it's not just a matter of the cost savings of diesel fuel, it's about faster and better and faster service with electrification.

The clearest and most obvious case for electrification is the BNSF Southern Transcon, where you have huge trains going over long distances, and where the power infrastructure can be partly powered and subsidized by the renewable energy that is available along the route.

electricron wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 3:06 pmAll I ask is that there are a sufficient number of passenger trains to reduce cost per train to as small as possible.

New Haven to Springfield is right on the line but it's connected to the NEC in New Haven, so additional NEC trains could be run up to Springfield. Poughkeepsie to Albany probably has the fewest, but you're connecting the largest city to the state capital, so it would make sense to add more of the newer, faster electric service.

Everything else I listed are routes that should be electrified for freight, high-density commuter service, or a few random segments, like 6 miles in Cleveland to connect the NYC Water Level Route for the Lake Shore Limited on a route that should otherwise be electrified on the merits of freight, the Amtrak NYC-Albany service, and MN to Poughkeepsie.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:19 pm

I showed her some photos of Union Pacific engines handling a Container train taken somewhere along the Overland Route and I said "look at the size of those engines, and then think of how many sub stations would there need be accross that lightly populated land. "that's why electrification never has and likely never will take hold in The States".

That's total nonsense. The 50kV split phase system providing 25kV/60 to the trains operated on the Shore Line is fed at just four points between Boston South Station and CHAPEL Interlocking in New Haven. ACS-64s have almost double the horsepower of a standard freight locomotive. Railroad right of way can carry power for hundreds upon hundreds of miles.

You would still have an immense number of substations to electrify the major mains in the country and there is also not an electric locomotive in the western world that is good for heavy haul the way we do it. Maybe the BBD motors on the Kiruna line in Sweden but that's a niche operation. European freights are short and fast, nothing like we operate.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:59 am

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:19 pm

I showed her some photos of Union Pacific engines handling a Container train taken somewhere along the Overland Route and I said "look at the size of those engines, and then think of how many sub stations would there need be accross that lightly populated land. "that's why electrification never has and likely never will take hold in The States".

That's total nonsense. The 50kV split phase system providing 25kV/60 to the trains operated on the Shore Line is fed at just four points between Boston South Station and CHAPEL Interlocking in New Haven. ACS-64s have almost double the horsepower of a standard freight locomotive. Railroad right of way can carry power for hundreds upon hundreds of miles.

You would still have an immense number of substations to electrify the major mains in the country and there is also not an electric locomotive in the western world that is good for heavy haul the way we do it. Maybe the BBD motors on the Kiruna line in Sweden but that's a niche operation. European freights are short and fast, nothing like we operate.

There's a number of locomotives that could be used.
I bet that an update of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_103 could be done. it's only 50 year old technology.
I'm sure a standard gauge version of the the 24 year old Indian WAG7 could be licensed. They do long drags, too.
Or having a Battery with pan locomotive paired with an diesel , which charges on downhills, when not collecting from overhead.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:59 am You would still have an immense number of substations to electrify the major mains in the country and there is also not an electric locomotive in the western world that is good for heavy haul the way we do it.

Mr. Dunville, I'm 100% with you.

European freight operations are some kind of joke; when I have visited Salzburg (not this year; Berlin got my €), a Bar on the 19th floor of the Arte Hotel provides an unobstructed view of "the action" - of which there is plenty. I couldn't help but laugh (to myself of course; I'm a guest in someone else's country) when I'd see these (maybe) 30 car Container trains - single stack of course. I will give them credit for one thing; they do move at something resembling passenger train speed.

All modern freight service engines in North America are electric locomotives, they just happen to carry a generator (the engine) in them instead of relying on external generators (aka power plants).