future electrification routes?

Assuming there's funding for it (a big IF of course), any routes that would make sense down the road for future Amtrak electrification? And if they're owned by freight RR's, could host RR's be convinced to haul their freight via catenary sources? This is obviously speculative waaaay in the future...

Funding aside, I am not sure there are any routes that really stand out as a candidate for electrification, except maybe some that already operate partially over the Northeast Corridor. Convincing the host railroads that they should allow Amtrak to electrify would be the biggest challenge after funding (possibly a bigger challenge than funding). It would take a massive amount of electrification for many host railroads to feel any financial benefit from operating electric trains, and many of them would shy away from having high voltage wire strung up over their infrastructure. They would most likely see it as a hazard and a liability. Many of them see hosting Amtrak as a liability to begin with, and some fight it whenever Amtrak tries to extend an existing route or open a new one.

Now, all that said, I think the routes that would make the most sense to electrify are the Springfield shuttle and the south ends of the Northeast Regional services, since the trains that operate on those territories already primarily operate with electric locomotives. The Empire Service would probably make sense too, although Buffalo is a long way from New York, and those trains only operate under catenary between Sunnyside and the Empire Connection.

The only non-eastern corridor I could see for "Amtrak" electrification in the next decade or so is California's Capitol Corridor from San Jose to Sacramento, but with that alone there are issues such as the trains to Auburn, and of course the freight railroads.

Washington -- Richmond.

CSX wouldn't like it but it could move engine changes south to Richmond and allow VRE to take advantage of it as well.

Couple of thoughts:

ALB-NYP I can see being electrified someday (get rid of 3rd rail and go catenary all the way to NYP and to outside NYC for Metro North trains.)

Perhaps New Haven to Springfield.

I don't see much south of WAS for awhile. Still not enough Amtrak trains and I don't think VRE would be in a position to take care of it.

That said, the other Class Is do look at it from time to time (Trains magazine had a great article 2-3 months ago about Conrail's look into it a couple of decades back).

As oil prices get more expensive, we may see a return to it. (I think LNG and some of the other options may not work out as well as some might like.)

I can't speak for California or other points. But basically you need a LOT of trains to make it worthwhile.

I would think NHV-SPG and WAS-RVR would be logical next steps, as it would eliminate a number of in-route engine changes. Elsewhere in the country I think would be difficult for amtrak to invest in the facilities to service the electric locomotives.

As far as NYP to Albany goes, I think it would be great to see electric service, but there wouldn't be much of a time advantage since there presently isn't an engine change going out there (except for the occasional engine change at Albany for trains heading west/north).

Most parts of the country need better track, with diesel service running at 110 MPH before upgrading to electric track. This is what happened to NHV-BOS.

55: These are good thoughts for future electrification but unless each state funds these improvements they will not be built...

I do not see CT (and for a small percentage MA) funding electrifying the NHV-SPG line or VA for WAS-RVR...If Amtrak or MNCR had
total control of the NYP-ALB line as a single entity instead of the split at POU electrifying the line could be an option for future
high speed Hudson River line service...Remember that NYS is somewhat hesitant to commit large funding to the Empire Corridor
because of the Turboliner rebuild fiasco...

MACTRAXX

hi55us wrote:I would think NHV-SPG and WAS-RVR would be logical next steps, as it would eliminate a number of in-route engine changes. Elsewhere in the country I think would be difficult for amtrak to invest in the facilities to service the electric locomotives.

As far as NYP to Albany goes, I think it would be great to see electric service, but there wouldn't be much of a time advantage since there presently isn't an engine change going out there (except for the occasional engine change at Albany for trains heading west/north).

Most parts of the country need better track, with diesel service running at 110 MPH before upgrading to electric track. This is what happened to NHV-BOS.

It's not simply saving time from an engine change, it's operational flexibility and cost savings.

On high use routes, the capital costs of electrification are paid for by the operational savings.
You also can eliminate the one-off engines with 3rd rail shoes used for that route.
You also start to permit some flexibility with things like cycling trains from ALB to points "east" and "South".

NRGeep wrote:Assuming there's funding for it (a big IF of course), any routes that would make sense down the road for future Amtrak electrification? And if they're owned by freight RR's, could host RR's be convinced to haul their freight via catenary sources? This is obviously speculative waaaay in the future...

I don't think you'll find ANY of the major host railroads willing to add catenary to their operations, no matter who pays for it...EVER! The only way is for Amtrak to acquire lines that connect to the electrified NEC and they are major freight routes. They are unlikely to be sold off to Amtrak.

Greg Moore wrote:

hi55us wrote:I would think NHV-SPG and WAS-RVR would be logical next steps, as it would eliminate a number of in-route engine changes. Elsewhere in the country I think would be difficult for amtrak to invest in the facilities to service the electric locomotives.

As far as NYP to Albany goes, I think it would be great to see electric service, but there wouldn't be much of a time advantage since there presently isn't an engine change going out there (except for the occasional engine change at Albany for trains heading west/north).

Most parts of the country need better track, with diesel service running at 110 MPH before upgrading to electric track. This is what happened to NHV-BOS.

It's not simply saving time from an engine change, it's operational flexibility and cost savings.

On high use routes, the capital costs of electrification are paid for by the operational savings.
You also can eliminate the one-off engines with 3rd rail shoes used for that route.
You also start to permit some flexibility with things like cycling trains from ALB to points "east" and "South".

Adding catenary to the ALB line will do nothing to add any additional flexibility that isn't available now or assist in cycling equipment.

RE: NYP-ALB electrification, one thing to keep in mind is that with MNR owning the ROW between Spuyten Duyvil and Poughkeepsie any electrification extension on Amtrak's part will have to be approved by them first. Doing away with the 3rd rail and replacing it with catenary would require MNR replacing a large portion of their 3rd rail EMU fleet with dual mode EMUs akin to the M-8, M-10 or whatever would be in service at the time). And north of Croton-Harmon Amtrak would need permission from MNR to install the catenary poles, substations, etc. (assuming of course that MNR would have NO interest in extending the 3rd rail farther north).

As for NHV-SPG remember that Amtrak and ConnDOT have 100% control over the line (with the exception of the approach to SPG station) so they can do whatever they please with that particular corridor.

Other than that it's just all a matter of coming up with the dough

WAS-RVR electrification moves engine changes off of the through-tracks of Washington Union Station. That's something very much in the interest of Virginia's DRPT; it opens up a lot more terminal slots for them for both VRE and Amtrak Virginia. It won't be easy, though; CSX will rightly insist that they be able to run double-stacks under the wire, which will require non-trivial vertical clearances.

I don't see strong cases for NYP-ALB or NHV-SPG. The current setup for Amtrak and Metro North with jointly-ordered dual modes seems to be working out fine, although the next order should probably include more units than the P32 order did. NHV has the capacity to handle engine changes and transfers, although ConnDOT may eventually want to electrify for its commuter service, if that ever takes off.

Beyond that, I think you wait until the price of oil spikes up again, and Matt Rose pulls his systemwide electrification plans off the shelf. Given the slow pace of economic recovery, and the relative geopolitical stability of oil-producing regions, I think that will have to wait a considerable length of time.

Caltrain is planning to implement electrification between San Francisco and San Jose in a corridor they own being electrified by CHSR.. Most potential real HSR running on new tracks are planning electrification just like CHSR (XpressWest and Texas Central), assuming they actually get built. Electrification by CHSR in LA and Orange Counties might encourage Metrolink to buy electric locomotives just like Caltrain, although one commuter rail agency (MBTA) hasn't when possible.
What's apparent from these examples is that the freight railroad companies don't own these corridors. And I believe the freights will continue to oppose electrification of the corridors they own. That means implementing HSR in a corridor will be the driving force to quantify the expense of electrification, and to get approval to do so will require public ownership of the corridor.
The fastest any passenger train will ever go in a freight owned corridor is 125 mph on portions that a fully grade separate and 110 mph on portions with grade crossings. Those speeds can be achieved by diesel locomotives, there's really no need to electrify. FEC isn't planning to electrify for All Aboard Florida trains because it's just too expensive to do and it's not needed.

Is it established or assumed that UP is on board with Caltrain electrification from Santa Clara to Gilroy? (I realize they're planning it but I'm wondering whether there's room for separate tracks for the entire distance or UP can live with the overhead clearance restrictions.)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Chicago-Detroit, with its higher speeds, which are getting faster and Amtrak owning much of the line, it would at least logistically be a prime target. A great route for electrification would be the old Illinois Central, except it is electrified at 3000V DC in and around Chicago. But the IC is a fast railroad when the CN isn't running underpowered land barges.
Cheers,
Nick

ngotwalt wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned Chicago-Detroit, with its higher speeds, which are getting faster and Amtrak owning much of the line, it would at least logistically be a prime target. A great route for electrification would be the old Illinois Central, except it is electrified at 3000V DC in and around Chicago. But the IC is a fast railroad when the CN isn't running underpowered land barges.
Cheers,
Nick

I can't see Norfolk Southern allowing electrification between Chicago and Porter, and there's no point in electrifying that corridor unless you can do the whole thing. Rebuilding the line east of Kalamazoo will occupy both Amtrak and the state of Michigan for the foreseeable future. If the loose talk about an all-passenger route into Chicago ever materializes then that may be a different matter.