future electrification routes?

Pretty much. Freight decided 50 years ago that electrified track was too complicated and limiting. That business case hasn't changed much in the favor of electricity vs fossil fuels.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

west point wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 11:12 am Even consideration of any freight electrification is DOA for at least the next 6 years. We have a fossil fuel national government coming in for 4 years and at least 2 years after that for a maybe consideration.

It would take billions in infrastructure to make the grid robust enough to handle the output needed to handle the EXTRA kilowatts needed for these grand plans of electric this and electric that. That will take fossil fuels to make the products needed and kilowatts to power the grid. As for the cash needed, last I looked the country is basically broke. Can not keep spending money like a sailor on shore leave with a credit card. Sooner or later the bill comes due.

Green energy is a "claim" and unless you get developing countries to buy in on the "claim" it makes no difference what we do as Americans. The air we breathe is the same as the air they breathe in China, Pakistan, India or any other developing country. Fossil fuel is the way they are going pull themselves out of poverty. (we have it lets use it and sell it). Developing countries do not care about the environment. The crap they put in air we will soon be taking a big breath of, it just takes a little longer to get here. Don't believe me, there are no large building fires near me nor is the Adirondack Park on fire. The smoke is from the wildfires in Cali. Just proving the environment is a closed system and the coal plants in China spewing their filth will soon be our filth and they don't care...

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:28 amThis is how I see it in my late reading of this thread. We're electrifying freight lines, which means:
[*]If the freight lines can get away with it, separating freight from passenger rail and making Amtrak maintain "their" track...

Amtrak currently uses freight routes, and that wouldn't change with electrification. Amtrak would be able to run electric on the freight lines.

[*]Or, setting limitations on how low the height of the caternary can be. The freight lines have gone double-stack, and will want the catenary tall enough to let that clear (24' is what I've seen from CSX).

This discussion again? The height is a non-issue. Acela operates on multiple sections with 19'00" ATR clearance, and SEPTA operates over two segments with 20'02" ATR clearance. Obviously if the freight lines were electrifying they would build it to Plate H clearance.

[*]Ether way, the freight companies will care not about the caternary if they're running diesel unless going electric is net-profitable on their bottom line in both the short and long term.

Electric freight would be massively beneficial in the long run.

[*]Also, the freight companies in thrall of PSR won't like having to go into PSR withdrawal or (gasp) actually implement it right.

They could continue to use PSR and DPU with electric locomotives. Some routes would be different due to needing engine changes when leaving and entering electric territory, and a larger proportion of freight would be hauled on the electrified iron interstates before leaving on non-electrified feeder lines, but the basic concept could still exist on an electrified system. Grade separating the iron interstates would actually help out PSR with DPU monsters, as the railroads would no longer have to worry about where grade crossings are.

Right now, the freight companies are happy where they are at and have no reason to change.

The problem here is short-term thinking.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:49 amPretty much. Freight decided 50 years ago that electrified track was too complicated and limiting. That business case hasn't changed much in the favor of electricity vs fossil fuels.

The problem is that the freight companies, like many publicly traded companies, think quarter to quarter, and not longer term. Longer term, electrification is the clear winner. There has never been a long-distance electrified freight railroad in the US. The PRR, Virginian, and Milwaukee systems were all relatively small.

The two largest things that the freight railroads are messing up on is operating ratio and electrification. They should look to take more traffic at a slightly lower profit margin, as it would increase overall profits, even though their operating ratio would go up. This appears to actually be happening, as someone finally realized that they are leaving business on the table. The second is freight electrification, which they have shortsightedly rejected on a few occasions. They should actively be going to the government looking for financing/funding/incentives for electrification.

Electrification and creation of the iron interstate system would change the way freight railroads operate for the better, creating more capacity and positioning the railroads in an even better position than they are now for the next time that king whomever in whateveristan farts the wrong way and the price of oil goes way up.

west point wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 11:12 am Even consideration of any freight electrification is DOA for at least the next 6 years. We have a fossil fuel national government coming in for 4 years and at least 2 years after that for a maybe consideration.

Unfortunately that might be the case... unless they don't talk about the environment and pitch it as the way to have the "BEST RAILROAD EVER" or something like that.

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 1:02 pmIt would take billions in infrastructure to make the grid robust enough to handle the output needed to handle the EXTRA kilowatts needed for these grand plans of electric this and electric that. That will take fossil fuels to make the products needed and kilowatts to power the grid. As for the cash needed, last I looked the country is basically broke. Can not keep spending money like a sailor on shore leave with a credit card. Sooner or later the bill comes due.

If the railroads included transmission lines over the traction wire system, it would actually help to build critical grid connections, and increase the potential to develop renewables, as many current renewable projects are limited by a lack of transmission capacity.

Green energy is a "claim"..."

Your uninformed bloviations about energy are highly tangential to the discussion of railroad electrification.

Basically, the long and short of it is that the only two routes that Amtrak should electrify for its own purposes are New Haven to Springfield and Poughkeepsie to Albany (when combined with MNRR electrification to Poughkeepsie and conversion to AC overhead wire).

CSX would have something to say about Poughkeepsie to Albany. Amtrak only leases the railroad.

Allouette wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:14 pm CSX would have something to say about Poughkeepsie to Albany. Amtrak only leases the railroad.

Amtrak bought it. CSX has trackage rights over it.

So.... you want to spend billions on grade separating tens of thousands of miles of railroad, build tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines, and replace tens of thousands of locomotives.

Who is paying for all that?

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:54 pmSo.... you want to spend billions on grade separating tens of thousands of miles of railroad, build tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines, and replace tens of thousands of locomotives.

Who is paying for all that?

Depends on who wants the profit. If the government ponies up the capital up-front, then the public should get part of the profits. If the Class Is want all the profits, then they should finance it themselves.

Green energy is a "claim"..."
Your uninformed bloviations about energy are highly tangential to the discussion of railroad electrification.

I like when people use big words in their blabbering. They think it makes them look smart. I tend to look at thing from a practical standpoint, if electrification was practical ALL the class 1s would be lining up to start hanging wire or they would have done it already. They are not. The cost to profit margin is negligible at best.

I will stand by my "claim" until such time that renewable energy becomes as useful as coal or petroleum products. At this time however it is not. Trying to rely on wind and solar to power a grid and supply enough kilowatt hours to run your steel interstate could be 25 to 50 years away. Batteries are not there yet either, the problem I see with your theory is lack of money, resources, and the will of the class 1s to make your grand plan happen. Lets not even get into the environmental studies that would have to occur before any such project could happen.

As mentioned with CSX/Amtrak between Poukeepsie and Albany the amount of lawsuits that would be filed by homeowners for blocking their view of the river would cost millions alone. An example two different spots one in Hudson one just south, in Hudson the rock cut was crumbling and in order to fix it Amtrak came in and covered it in shotcrete. You would have thought the world had ended. Lawsuits filed. Second example, a landowner cut all the trees down on her hillside causing erosion and thus the hill started to slide. She sued the railroad for lack of maintenance and they built her what we call the great wall. How do you think catenary would fly?? Lets not even think of Westchester County (Metro North RR) where the real money is.

In closing the government does not have the money needed for such a project and shareholders such as Mr. Norman who are long in Uncle Pete (UP) want in returns on their investment.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:49 am Pretty much. Freight decided 50 years ago that electrified track was too complicated and limiting. That business case hasn't changed much in the favor of electricity vs fossil fuels.

I agree. I posted this earlier and maybe I should repeat the post over and over again as it drops off the first page?
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. The same reason exists today with even longer returns of investment. Buying and then using Hydrogen-electric powered locomotives in mass as existing diesel-electric locomotives lifes expires seems a much cheaper way to achieve reduce carbon and air pollution emissions. But that will take a long time, refurbishing diesel-electric locomotives will still be a cheaper solution for freight train operators.
California has bought ten hydrogen-electric trainsets (ZEMU) for California Amtrak services. Another ZEMU is already in service on Arrow trains in San Bernadino County. When the most liberal state prefers hydrogen-electric over overhead electric catenaries for regular speed trains, why hang wires over freight tracks?

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:02 amI like when people use big words in their blabbering. They think it makes them look smart. I tend to look at thing from a practical standpoint, if electrification was practical ALL the class 1s would be lining up to start hanging wire or they would have done it already. They are not. The cost to profit margin is negligible at best.

You're conflating two related, but separate things. Electrification is absolutely practical for Class I's, it's a short-term vs. long term thinking. It's not going to pay back in a year or five years. It's something that's profitable in the 20-30+ year horizon and most publicly traded companies, unfortunately, are only thinking quarter to quarter, maybe year to year.

I will stand by my "claim" until such time that renewable energy becomes as useful as coal or petroleum products. At this time however it is not. Trying to rely on wind and solar to power a grid and supply enough kilowatt hours to run your steel interstate could be 25 to 50 years away. Batteries are not there yet either, the problem I see with your theory is lack of money, resources, and the will of the class 1s to make your grand plan happen. Lets not even get into the environmental studies that would have to occur before any such project could happen.

The argument isn't that the railroads have to directly use 100% renewables on day one. However, in the case of the BNSF Southern Transcon and the UP Sunset Route, with the right planning to install very high voltage transmission lines in parallel with the electrification, it is quite likely that the net benefit to the electricity grid would allow production and consumption of FAR more renewable energy than the total energy that the trains use.

Secondly, your argument is contradictory, because increasing grid transmission over long distances is precisely what makes more renewables practical by making a larger grid able to shift power from where it is available to where it is needed.

Thirdly, even if you just assume that the whole thing is powered by combined cycle gas turbines, you reduce your CO2 emissions by over 75%, reduce emissions of everything else even more, increase the capacity of the railroad significantly, and make freight move faster, keeping cars in transit less, making them more capital efficient at moving whatever stuff it is that the railroad wants to move.

As mentioned with CSX/Amtrak between Poukeepsie and Albany the amount of lawsuits that would be filed by homeowners for blocking their view of the river would cost millions alone. An example two different spots one in Hudson one just south, in Hudson the rock cut was crumbling and in order to fix it Amtrak came in and covered it in shotcrete. You would have thought the world had ended. Lawsuits filed. Second example, a landowner cut all the trees down on her hillside causing erosion and thus the hill started to slide. She sued the railroad for lack of maintenance and they built her what we call the great wall. How do you think catenary would fly?? Lets not even think of Westchester County (Metro North RR) where the real money is.

That's not how that all works. The railroad has right of way, and within their right of way, they can install the structures necessary to run trains. Including catenary.

In closing the government does not have the money needed for such a project and shareholders such as Mr. Norman who are long in Uncle Pete (UP) want in returns on their investment.

The issue is figuring out how to get companies to think longer term. You think over a 30 year horizon, and electrification is a no-brainer. I'm in support of the public-private partnership, so long as the government gets part of the profits from such an endeavor. Or potentially involve utilities and renewable energy developers as well.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:18 am You're conflating two related, but separate things. Electrification is absolutely practical for Class I's, it's a short-term vs. long term thinking. It's not going to pay back in a year or five years. It's something that's profitable in the 20-30+ year horizon and most publicly traded companies, unfortunately, are only thinking quarter to quarter, maybe year to year.
The issue is figuring out how to get companies to think longer term. You think over a 30 year horizon, and electrification is a no-brainer. I'm in support of the public-private partnership, so long as the government gets part of the profits from such an endeavor. Or potentially involve utilities and renewable energy developers as well.

Companies that think long term, 20-50 years in advance exclusively will not be around. Electrification is very expensive, the railroad operators would have to borrow so much they will enter bankruptcy at the slightest economic downturn, depression or recession. Paying huge interest payments will reduce their bottom line. Reduce profits mean less dividends. Less dividends means less investors, Eventually, the company enters bankruptcy or becomes a prime target for acquisition. Ultimately, the company ides.
There are valid reasons why companies highly value short term results, investors' confidence.
Railroad companies should not be in the business of providing or transmission of electricity. We have utility companies to do that, which they do very, very well. Do you think an utility company would make great train operators? Why do you think in reverse?

Ron, lest we forget that some electrified railroads in the past have been owned by electric utility companies:

Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee
Chicago, South Shore, and South Bend.
Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co.

The first two were recognized as railroads, as they handled interline ticketing and interline freight -well, that was before one folded and the other became a "Ward of the State".

Writing pages upon pages of empty words doesn't make you smart or right.

Arguably, this last election was lost in part based on people having had enough of others trying to force their world view on the nation, including Green Energy....

But do keep trying.



Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk