Total Electrification

Frank wrote:

John_Perkowski wrote:Amtrak, outside the NEC, represents 1 movement/direction/day on many of these lines.

The Empire Corridor runs more than 1 train a day in each direction and could easily benefit from electrification (atleast from New York to Albany).

Lets just say that CSX would approve of electrification of the route
between Poughkeepsie and Albany/Rensselaer, which in my opinion they
absolutely will not, the cost would still be prohibitive for the 12 or so trains
each way. Diesels do a more than adequate job on this line and can run
through on at least a good share of the trains that go past Albany.
Outside of the presently electrified trackage in the north east, the only way that I could see any additional use of electric locomotives would be if
one or more of the major freight railroads were to electrify one or more
of their major main lines that Amtrak is already operating over. In the
very unlikely event that this were to happen some time in the future, then
and only then might Amtrak acquire additional electric locomotives to
operate their one a day train over such a line.
I know the cost of fuel has gone up dramatically over the past months and
years but today's diesels are likely the best ever designed and built and
the most fuel effcient as well. I think the freight railroads are probably
generally satisfied with the performance of their modern diesel locomotive
fleets.
Noel Weaver

Frank wrote:

John_Perkowski wrote:Amtrak, outside the NEC, represents 1 movement/direction/day on many of these lines.

The Empire Corridor runs more than 1 train a day in each direction and could easily benefit from electrification (at least from New York to Albany).

There aren't enough trains, even in spite of running more than one train per day. Not to mention, the "Empire Corridor" as Metro-North's Hudson Line is already electrified, to Croton-Harmon, which consists of almost 40 miles of four-track third-rail. Wouldn't make sense to replace that with catenary wire unless Metro-North would be rebuilding their Metropolitan MUs into Cosmopolitans (like those that run on the New Haven Line); it would make even less sense to build duplicate electrification, even if Metro-North could use it for its trains to/from Poughkeepsie. And as Mr. Weaver mentioned, there's CSX to deal with, who would not take kindly to electrification on their property that they are not going to use, and added infrastructure that would increase state taxation on their property.

The P32AC-DMs are already capable of 110 mph; upgrading the signaling to permit more running in that vein would be the most beneficial move and would be the most likely stepping-stone to increasing Empire Corridor service. Not like the Empire Corridor trains lack access to Manhattan, after all…

Over the long run, I believe that electrification of all major rail lines is a virtual certainty, and that the open access/dispatching priorities issue previously raised in several threads on the Amtrak forum will be folded into its resolution.

We all recognize now that the current state of power-generation and distribution technology limits the presently-feasible alternatives to coal and nuclear power; the other options, while appealing to the dreamers and less-technically-oriented, either can't be adapted for organized distribution, have technical problems that are very difficult to resolve, or are feasible only in a limited number of special situations.

Case in point; David Benton wrote:

On the frieght side i could see heavily graded sections been electrified , again hybrid locos using both when needed , and using regeneative braking when descending grades .

All of these things are possible, but the pace of change is slowed when the need to adapt to mass-market economic reality is present. As an example, complete transition away from steam to diesel and electric power took 35 years in the United States and 80 on a global scale.

On a more positive note, North America doesn't have to be the test case. That role will fall primarily to the French and Japanese, who have much more restricted access to fossil fuel.

Current economic trends will likely continue to inveigh against the highway-centered distribution system developed roughly 1945-1975. The problem isn't just the limited supply of fossil fuel; current societal trends are making it more difficult not just to recruit competent truckers, but to convince them to accept the longer hauls. If it goes more than 600 miles (one day's dispatch) it will likely go at least part of the way by rail.

Development, financing and control of the necessary physical plant is not a partisan issue in the world of realpolitik. The first call for Federal participation in the economy, in the form of a central bank and the power to regulate interstate commerce, came from the speaker's right. So the question is likely not whether the rail carriers will accept infrastructural subsidies, but what will be exacted in return.

Finally, over the very long run, it's possible, even likely, that some form of carbon-free alternative to the 18-wheeler will emerge. But unless the mistakes of the railroads over the last century are repeated, I don't think the motor carriers will ever again attain the prominent role they enjoyed c.1975.