NCRR electrification cost?

Does anybody have an idea of what it would cost to electrify the North Carolina Railroad from Raleigh to Charlotte and also put in the track and grade crossing upgrades needed for 110 MPH operation?

tarheelman wrote:Does anybody have an idea of what it would cost to electrify the North Carolina Railroad from Raleigh to Charlotte and also put in the track and grade crossing upgrades needed for 110 MPH operation?

I have no idea. Those "crossing upgrades" that you talk about are also called "bridges," if you want your train to be running at a continuous speed.

tarheelman wrote:Does anybody have an idea of what it would cost to electrify the North Carolina Railroad from Raleigh to Charlotte and also put in the track and grade crossing upgrades needed for 110 MPH operation?

Electrification is only justifiable when there is an intensive service of trains to use it. Thus four trains an hour is excellent. The very minimum would be one train an hour, and I doubt that any line in Britain would be considered for electrification with such a sparse service. Five trains a day is not nearly enough.

The Boston to New Haven line might be a special case but to my eyes it needs more trains on it (I know about the bridges).

george matthews wrote:

tarheelman wrote:Does anybody have an idea of what it would cost to electrify the North Carolina Railroad from Raleigh to Charlotte and also put in the track and grade crossing upgrades needed for 110 MPH operation?

Electrification is only justifiable when there is an intensive service of trains to use it. Thus four trains an hour is excellent. The very minimum would be one train an hour, and I doubt that any line in Britain would be considered for electrification with such a sparse service. Five trains a day is not nearly enough.

The Boston to New Haven line might be a special case but to my eyes it needs more trains on it (I know about the bridges).

Thanks for the insight, Mr. Matthews. Based on what you're saying, we need more passenger traffic. Hopefully, once the track improvements are complete, the 79 MPH speed limit will cause ridership to increase enough to require at least one train an hour. That would make electrification feasible, thus opening the door to true high speed rail (i.e., > 110 MPH).

Thanks for the insight, Mr. Matthews. Based on what you're saying, we need more passenger traffic. Hopefully, once the track improvements are complete, the 79 MPH speed limit will cause ridership to increase enough to require at least one train an hour. That would make electrification feasible, thus opening the door to true high speed rail (i.e., > 110 MPH).

The original British Rail electrification - on the West Coast mainline was to replace steam. It included freight trains. But this meant that locomotives had to be changed when the train entered and left the electrified line. Nowadays the freight companies refuse to do that so there is diesel operation (GM Class 66) "under the wires". After privatisation the passenger operators began to do the same. I hate riding in a diesel train along an electrified line. I can remember in BR days being in a train from the south coast to the north that changed its loco on entering the West Coast Main line. It was an interesting little pause.

I suppose that the accountants have decided that changing loco is an unnecessary expense. And modern trains are mostly multiple units anyway.

Hybrid electro-diesels are a problem because all that extra fuel has to be dragged along the electrified route. The Southern region third rail network built a lot of electro-diesels to cope with unelectrified freight depots - but then the freight traffic disappeared. They were a useful type to take trains on both networks. Once I was on a train pulled by one of these that started in Bournemouth, switched to diesel and took the train to Reading. It was a stand-in for a failed diesel.

The thing is: unless freight trains also use the electric network it can't be justified by the very sparse passenger timetable on most American lines. In Europe of course everything is electric in many countries. The end of the oil age may change these calculations.

An alternative to electrification may be hybrid technology:

Hitachi are currently testing a hybrid version of the UK diesel High Speed Train and this technology is likely to be in their bid for the next generation Intercity Express Programme trains in the UK (see picture below):



The attached link gives an insight into hybrid technology:

http://www.jbce.org/files/hitachipresentation.pdf

Hitachi are currently testing a hybrid version of the UK diesel High Speed Train and this technology is likely to be in their bid for the next generation Intercity Express Programme trains in the UK (see picture below):

It would be mainly for trains beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness. But for Aberdeen at least I think the Scottish government will electrify. There is also the possibility of electrifying the Great Western, when the diesel would be used beyond Bristol to Swansea and Plymouth.

Chafford1 wrote:An alternative to electrification may be hybrid technology:

Hitachi are currently testing a hybrid version of the UK diesel High Speed Train and this technology is likely to be in their bid for the next generation Intercity Express Programme trains in the UK:

The attached link gives an insight into hybrid technology:

http://www.jbce.org/files/hitachipresentation.pdf

Thanks for the info on hybrid technology for HSR motive power. Given our lack of electrification outside of the NEC, something like this appears to be more feasible for the USA. Maybe there's hope for true HSR here after all.

george matthews wrote:

Hitachi are currently testing a hybrid version of the UK diesel High Speed Train and this technology is likely to be in their bid for the next generation Intercity Express Programme trains in the UK (see picture below):

It would be mainly for trains beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness. But for Aberdeen at least I think the Scottish government will electrify. There is also the possibility of electrifying the Great Western, when the diesel would be used beyond Bristol to Swansea and Plymouth.

The UK tender for the Intercity Express Programme envisages 3 versions:

1) Electric - an Electric Multiple Unit
2) 'Bi-Mode - essentially an Electric Multiple Unit with a diesel powercar tacked on one end - for use on part-electrified lines (e.g.Aberdeen, Inverness).
3) 'Self Powered' - i.e. diesel.

The hybrid technology if adopted would apply to the diesel powertrains for 2) and 3) above.

I would have thought such technology would be ideal for the Mid-West and South East High Speed Rail projects in the USA.

Chafford1 wrote: I would have thought such technology would be ideal for the Mid-West and South East High Speed Rail projects in the USA.

It would be. Hybrid technology would allow the new part of the Southeast HSR corridor (Petersburg to Raleigh) to be built for 125-150 MPH speeds. Likewise, it would also enable the existing parts of the corridor (including the NCRR) to be upgraded for such speeds.

As of now, the plan for the Southeast corridor is for maximum speeds of 110 MPH, which is why I was wondering what it would cost to electrify the Raleigh to Charlotte portion of the NCRR. I'd like to see true HSR which, IMO, would be no slower than 125 MPH.

Theres some great energy use fiqures and comparisons in that link . (looks like a pdf of a power point presentation ) .
I wondering if cantenary supply can be added to the mix , having some cantenary either side of stations to assist with accleration , and up grades etc .

Electrification is only justifiable when there is an intensive service of trains to use it.

Surely the exact break-even point is determined by the relative prices of diesel and electricity (and for that matter the price of wiring), and also by the relative cost, and fuel efficiency, of diesel vs. electric locomotives at the desired speeds?....

All those factors are changing.

There are 'incremental' or system-compatibility issues too. Suppose, for instance, VRE decides to electrify (which they probably should). Then it starts to be tempting (if the capital budget is there) to electrify to Richmond, for a more intensive and faster Northeast Regional service which can run through to New York without having to switch engines or use dual-modes....

And then it becomes tempting to electrify the SEHSR corridor to Raleigh, so that speeds can be brought way, way up. (since, after all, it's already electrified the rest of the way to DC) and then once all *that* is done, electrifying the NCRR starts to seem plausible.

I agree that 5 trains a day doesn't seem like enough to justify electrification under any circumstances, but I think under some circumstances (extension of existing electrified system, high speeds wanted, high price of diesel relative to electricity) 1 per hour is a rather higher bar than necessary.

There are 'incremental' or system-compatibility issues too. Suppose, for instance, VRE decides to electrify (which they probably should). Then it starts to be tempting (if the capital budget is there) to electrify to Richmond, for a more intensive and faster Northeast Regional service which can run through to New York without having to switch engines or use dual-modes....

Yes, incremental is certainly a good way. But I really don't think we are anywhere near the point where 5 trains a day would be enough to justify it. At that frequency, the way to replace the use of oil would probably be hydrogen fuel cells.

There may well be a justification for continuing south of Washington for a pendulum service (trains not turning at Washington but further south - just as NJT trains ought to turn at New Rochelle or New Haven). In such a case frequency should increase to at least the edge of the Washington commuter region.

I guess my criticism of "one per hour" as a minimum level is based on the asymmetry of travel at different times of day.

For instance, Eurostar has no departures from London between 20:05 and 5:25 -- 9 hours 20 minutes.

I suspect that something approximating 12 trains in each direction per day is the actual minimum for electrification to seem worth it. That's an average of 1 per hour, but likely it would be no trains in the wee hours, a few at midday, and a bunch in the mornings and evenings.

Currently the NCRR is running 3 passenger trains each direction each day, 4 on some segments. SEHSR is proposed to consist of 4 trips each direction each day to start with (and I'm guessing those would be additional); still not enough, even if we assume a few extras. If proposed commuter service in Raleigh came to pass, it would add several additional trips and probably justify electrification of the part of the corridor through Raleigh. Hopefully they'd have the sense to use the 25kV overhead system!

For instance, Eurostar has no departures from London between 20:05 and 5:25 -- 9 hours 20 minutes.

I suspect that something approximating 12 trains in each direction per day is the actual minimum for electrification to seem worth it. That's an average of 1 per hour, but likely it would be no trains in the wee hours, a few at midday, and a bunch in the mornings and evenings.

Soon this line will be carrying many more trains when the Hitachi Javelin trains are used for domestic commuters coming from Kent to the City. These will travel at the same speed as Eurostar.