Should We Electrify Freight RR?

[mlplap7902]

I really don't want to get in to the political or envrionmental asepect of this conversation, I just want to comment on the original question at hand and that is "should electric freight railroads elctrify". I think that in several well used routes electrification will pay for itself. One route that pops in my head is Philly to Chicago. If Conrail hadn't abandoned the former PRR electrification and tried to extend the current electrification even if it was only to Pittsburg, a big savings in fuel could have been made. And that would have also justified keeping the eastern lines electrified since it was having to change power in Harrisburg that was a big detractor to keeping it. Simply put the longer the run under catenary power the more savings. But it's really a matter of initial cost that most rail roads cannot cover. PRR borrowed extensively from the govt to erect thier electrfication project, the upside to that was as soon as they were running the electric trains the costs went down per mile even though they had such a large amount of debt to pay back. And the lower cost per mile was passed on to the customers almost immediately which acctually had the effect of attracting more customers increasing the railroads revenue and allowing them to pay back thier loans. So I do feel that there should be electrified freight railroads in this country. They would benefit from the higher adheasion, higher starting tractive effort and the ability to use regerative braking among other benefits, and if the catenary is high enough double stack container trains, which take priority over some pasenger trains in parts of the country would be able to make it from coast to coast even faster allowing the land bridges to be even less costly and more efficient than sending every container ship to the Panama canal or around south america that has cargo going between Europe and Asia. That is one of the most lucrative commodities the rail roads haul even though those containers are not destined for locations in the US. And the shipping companies don't want their cargo to be late that's for sure. And for coal electric traction would be perfect because of the the higher tractive effort since coal is heavy and usually takes thre to four diesel electrics to move a train through relatively low grade area and that number can double in mountainous areas. It would take usually only 2 electrics to handle most coal trains and possibly only 1 or 2 helpers on heavy grades. But not all the freight railroads need to be electrified. Branch lines for instance that have little daily traffic would not justify the cost. Not to mention if the traffic that does exist ceases to use the rails for transportation before the cost is met the money to electrify the branch would have been wasted. And even though the govt has been trying to pass legislation to regulate how many diesels are switching traffic in rail yards the amount of pollution from even the largest rail yard pales in comparison to all the trucks and cars that are constaly being used all arount thoses yards. A handfull of diesel yard switchers is more economical than electrifing the entire yard leaving the arrival and departure tracks electrified for road locos and thier maintenance facilities. Again I'm not looking at this from an envrionmental point of view or a political one simply from the point of view of the rail roads who are trying to survive by making money just like every other business.

 

[johnwhelan]

I really don't want to get in to the political or envrionmental asepect of this conversation, I just want to comment on the original question at hand and that is "should electric freight railroads elctrify". I think that in several well used routes electrification will pay for itself. One route that pops in my head is Philly to Chicago. If Conrail hadn't abandoned the former PRR electrification and tried to extend the current electrification even if it was only to Pittsburg, a big savings in fuel could have been made. And that would have also justified keeping the eastern lines electrified since it was having to change power in Harrisburg that was a big detractor to keeping it. Simply put the longer the run under catenary power the more savings. But it's really a matter of initial cost that most rail roads cannot cover. PRR borrowed extensively from the govt to erect thier electrfication project, the upside to that was as soon as they were running the electric trains the costs went down per mile even though they had such a large amount of debt to pay back. And the lower cost per mile was passed on to the customers almost immediately which acctually had the effect of attracting more customers increasing the railroads revenue and allowing them to pay back thier loans. So I do feel that there should be electrified freight railroads in this country. They would benefit from the higher adheasion, higher starting tractive effort and the ability to use regerative braking among other benefits, and if the catenary is high enough double stack container trains, which take priority over some pasenger trains in parts of the country would be able to make it from coast to coast even faster allowing the land bridges to be even less costly and more efficient than sending every container ship to the Panama canal or around south america that has cargo going between Europe and Asia. That is one of the most lucrative commodities the rail roads haul even though those containers are not destined for locations in the US. And the shipping companies don't want their cargo to be late that's for sure. And for coal electric traction would be perfect because of the the higher tractive effort since coal is heavy and usually takes thre to four diesel electrics to move a train through relatively low grade area and that number can double in mountainous areas. It would take usually only 2 electrics to handle most coal trains and possibly only 1 or 2 helpers on heavy grades. But not all the freight railroads need to be electrified. Branch lines for instance that have little daily traffic would not justify the cost. Not to mention if the traffic that does exist ceases to use the rails for transportation before the cost is met the money to electrify the branch would have been wasted. And even though the govt has been trying to pass legislation to regulate how many diesels are switching traffic in rail yards the amount of pollution from even the largest rail yard pales in comparison to all the trucks and cars that are constaly being used all arount thoses yards. A handfull of diesel yard switchers is more economical than electrifing the entire yard leaving the arrival and departure tracks electrified for road locos and thier maintenance facilities. Again I'm not looking at this from an envrionmental point of view or a political one simply from the point of view of the rail roads who are trying to survive by making money just like every other business.

I think that is the issue when we talk about costs which ones should we include in the decision. Ones that do not directly affect the railroad company or all costs that affect anyone.

Cheerio John

 

[mlplap7902]

I think that is the issue when we talk about costs which ones should we include in the decision. Ones that do not directly affect the railroad company or all costs that affect anyone.

Cheerio John

In terms of cost the big one that most railroads shy away from is that of builing the electrification and purchasing the equipment. And that is one that directly affects the railroad company. Those costs do end up being passed on to the customers of course, however with the lower maintenance costs and lower costs for thier "fuel" source (in this case the electricity could be termed thier fuel) and the ability to haul the same or more tonnage with fewer motors the cost of transportation still ends up going down which is attactive to the customers. And since electrics can start a train faster and stop a train better the average speed increases because there is less time accellerating or decellerating and more time at track speed. This allows travel times to decrease even though track speeds haven't increased just the amount of time the train spends at the track speed and that benefit is passed on to the customer. However for funding I am somewhat opposed to the government subsidising it. I'm opposed to the subsidising of the highways also because that is a huge amount of money that we as the tax payers end up paying. The subsidising also has the effect of making the compnaies dependant on that money just to keep themselves going after a while instead of doing what they need to do in order to survive without it. So out right subsidising should not be the way things are done, a loan however has to be paid back. If the government were to loan the money with a reasonable interest rate and payback period I'd be more inclined to say yes. Much the way that the PRR did back in the 20's and 30's. Then it would make the companies realize that they have to be able to attract customers and be competitive in order to turn a profit and be able to pay back thier loans instead of just running to "mommy" for more money every time the coffers run dry. Another mentality that should be adopted by the railroads is simply realizing that they need thier customers and not just telling themselves that thier customers will always be there. They should be asking themselves what they can do for thier customers and how can they attract new customers. The reality of it is that it's a business, and if a company fails due to bad management practices I say let them fail, stop giving them money to keep thier bad management system in place and continue to do the same things. That would force the others to realize that it's a cruel and harsh world and they need to be more inovative and competitive to survive. That would put less burden on the tax payers and the government to continue to have to keep them around.

 

[johnwhelan]

The reality of it is that it's a business, and if a company fails due to bad management practices I say let them fail, stop giving them money to keep thier bad management system in place and continue to do the same things. That would force the others to realize that it's a cruel and harsh world and they need to be more inovative and competitive to survive. That would put less burden on the tax payers and the government to continue to have to keep them around.

If I have a bad heart and suffer a heart attack because of air pollution then you are saying its my bad luck? I'm not allowed to spend my money via taxes to extend my life by implementing air pollution measures?

That's essentially what I mean by it depends which costs we include. There are direct costs that impact the railroad and indirect costs that affect others.

To reduce global warming it would be nice to be able to convert cars to electricity on overhead cables then people can make individual decisions. However practically speaking that can't be done. What can be done is to switch railroads over to electricity and reduce the global warming impart that way. The cost to reduce the global warming effect is born by individuals in both cases, often doing things via taxes is cheaper than individuals doing it themselves.

Cheerio John

 

[mlplap7902]

John,
I smoke (bad management practice), should other peoples tax dollars go to try to save my life if I end up with lung cancer? No! It's a bad decision on my part. Just the same though I'm not talking about peoples health here. And the air quality isn't being affected by railroads nearly as much as by cars and trucks. However you want to get in to a social or political debate I'd be more than happy to debate with you in another thread or I can give you my e mail address. I'm talking about the railroads here. I do believe they should be electrified (and not because of air pollution or the global warming scare). The ones that were should have stayed and been expanded rather than turned over to Diesel electrics. The cost of electrification is initially carried by the railroads and it's very high. Again I never once said that they shouldn't be able to borrow money from the government, just not out right having money given to them. And we as the tax payers end up paying that price just to see more failures. I personnaly am getting tired of seeing my money go to keep alive business failures (any business not just railroads). Not that electrification would be a failure at all because it wouldn't be. It makes more sense due to increased efficiency and capacity along with any environmental benefits real or imagined. If people want to feel good about it becase they are doing something good for the environment along the way so be it. Ultimately though it's the railroads that are going to have to decide if they want electrify or not. The government can help with one other aspect of it though, lower the taxes on thier right's of way and don't make electrified ROW's cost more than non electrified in taxes. The taxes on electrified ROW's were another deterrant from continued electrification because they ended up high enough to offset any cost savings by the railroad. Then again taxes is another thing I'd rather not debate here, especially since we both are on agreement that the railroads should be electrified, weather or not we agree on the reasons to me is a moot point since we both agree on that one point and that point is the subject of this thread. Your reasons are envronmental mine are mostly economic but the end result is the same.
Mark

 

[johnwhelan]

John,
I smoke (bad management practice), should other peoples tax dollars go to try to save my life if I end up with lung cancer? No! It's a bad decision on my part. Just the same though I'm not talking about peoples health here. And the air quality isn't being affected by railroads nearly as much as by cars and trucks. However you want to get in to a social or political debate I'd be more than happy to debate with you in another thread or I can give you my e mail address. I'm talking about the railroads here. I do believe they should be electrified (and not because of air pollution or the global warming scare). The ones that were should have stayed and been expanded rather than turned over to Diesel electrics. The cost of electrification is initially carried by the railroads and it's very high. Again I never once said that they shouldn't be able to borrow money from the government, just not out right having money given to them. And we as the tax payers end up paying that price just to see more failures. I personnaly am getting tired of seeing my money go to keep alive business failures (any business not just railroads). Not that electrification would be a failure at all because it wouldn't be. It makes more sense due to increased efficiency and capacity along with any environmental benefits real or imagined. If people want to feel good about it becase they are doing something good for the environment along the way so be it. Ultimately though it's the railroads that are going to have to decide if they want electrify or not. The government can help with one other aspect of it though, lower the taxes on thier right's of way and don't make electrified ROW's cost more than non electrified in taxes. The taxes on electrified ROW's were another deterrant from continued electrification because they ended up high enough to offset any cost savings by the railroad. Then again taxes is another thing I'd rather not debate here, especially since we both are on agreement that the railroads should be electrified, weather or not we agree on the reasons to me is a moot point since we both agree on that one point and that point is the subject of this thread. Your reasons are envronmental mine are mostly economic but the end result is the same.
Mark

If we had left it up to the good of companies you wouldn't even know that smoking is bad for you. It's good for profits, ie good for business.

Quite where the dividing line comes between what's good for business and what should be done by government is a matter of debate. The recent bailout of the banks who had been saying we need less government regulation will have a large impact on many people. I think in the UK its something like $60,000 new debt for every person living in the country.

I think my point is not so much we should do everything that is green and government is good but rather can we cost things out correctly. If there is an environmental cost can we put a $ figure on it. For instance if they had used the cash for clunkers money to electrify the most heavily used railroads the return on investment would have been much better and the amount of CO2 saved much higher. I'm looking for arguments to enable it to happen.

Obama is reputed to be offering 17% cut in emissions in the US at the current talks. This is one fairly cheap way it could be done.

Cheerio John

 

[mlplap7902]

Cash for clunkers unfortuneatley cost more than it actually made. It was a sham for the most part. Now the envrionmental impact of electrification really is priceless. Not that I believe too much in all the scare stories about global warming, however don't like seeing through smog when I want to see the night sky, and I'd rather pollute my lungs with my ciggarettes than to have to chew the chunks of the air I'm trying to breath in. The impact of electrification and capacity increases benefits even those who are still traveling on the highways. Putting more freight on rail and having less trucks on the road means less congestion. Increasing track speeds and having more regularly scheduled passenger trains that are able to travel at those higher speeds also means less people driving. Which means less pollution from cars. That also means less money spent on highway maintenance and expansion because the roads would see fewer cars and trucks. That is a savings that would be passed on to us as the taxpayers. However I'm still driven to my conclusions from economic views more than green ones. I'm for renewable sources of energy because of the fact that they are renewable and pollute less and in instances cost less after the initial installation is paid for. Less cost to produce = less cost to consumers means more dollars left in our pockets. This also means less costs to railroads to pay for electricity if they were to electrify which gets passed along to thier customers in lower transportation cost which again in the end is passed along to us in lower prices for goods.

And as for my smoking I started well after it was known that smoking was bad for you. I still started knowing it was a bad decision, no one twisted my wrist about it and the ciggarette companies had pulled thier adds from TV and billboards several years before I did. Granted I still waited until I was 18 even though I should have never started I've been smoking for the last 12 years and it's still a bad management decision. I still don't think that anyone else should pay for my bad decision.

But now off of the original question of weather or not the railroads should electrify. And yes it is still less costly than the amount of money it takes to build new lanes to highways per mile to electrify. But that cost needs to be repaid not just outright given to the railroads. Again loans work for this purpose. As long as they are used to the purpose of upgrading the ROW and electrification and have a reasonable interest rate. However if the money has to come from the government in the form of grants or subsidies then take it from the money that is used to build and maintain the highways, vast amounts of improvements can be made with a fraction of the money it takes to widen the highways and build new bridges so on and so forth. Small improvements on railroad infrastructure can have huge impacts on the operation of the railroad. But again electrification alone can increase the efficiency and capacity of a railroad and still lower the cost.

 

[gfisher]

I still don't think that anyone else should pay for my bad decision.

We won't. John Stossel did a TV documentary on this issue among others. The politicians who say that you are costing the rest of us money because you smoke are simply looking for an excuse to tax you. The fact of the matter is people who smoke die at an earlier age than the population as a whole, and so there is a significant reduction in the amount of pension benefits paid out by the government, and so you smokers are actually saving the rest of us money.

So says George, a former smoker.

 

[pommie]

Wayyyyyyy of topic here :hehe:

I still don't think that anyone else should pay for my bad decision.

With you as an individual everyone else pays very little, now multiply you by the hundreds of million smokers out there

Have a read here http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/64222

I am not preaching here, if you smoke its up to you, just showing you some info you might not of thought of :wave:

hmmmm 45 million smokers in the USA, each smoking about 20 a day, that's 900 million cigarettes (200 million for the UK) a day add the rest of the world, oooooh the pollution

Again not preaching as I was once a 50 a day man, quit cold turkey 20 odd years ago

Cheers David

 

[johnwhelan]

Again not preaching as I was once a 50 a day man, quit cold turkey 20 odd years ago

Cheers David

When you go off topic why not go the whole hog.

Strange that my dad quit cold turkey as well. Mind you that was after his brother had died of lung cancer and he had pneumonia combined with a heart attack. He wasn't expected to survive so mother brought him home and nursed him herself. During his recovery one of the doctors mentioned to him he might like to think about giving up, if he didn't his life expectancy would be roughly three months. If he did he might last a little longer.

Reality he died of heart / emphysema some years later and for his last twenty years or so the emphysema restricted what he could do considerably. My mother-in-law on the other hand after being widowed quite early was quite happy to carry on smoking and died of a heart attack which isn't that unpleasant a way to go. In earlier life when I rode motor cycles dying was never something that bothered me even though at least six friends managed to kill themselves on bikes, the thing that scared me was breaking my thigh bone. I'd seen a couple of friends get stuck in hospital for two years after bike accidents doing that. The emphysema side would worry me.

I suspect I'm still suffering from the passive smoke side, I still need a steam inhalation each day to keep my sinuses clear so I can hear many years later.

Cheerio John

 

[Tokkyu40]

I would think that the biggest problem is our personal vehicles. While I do love old gas guzzling muscle cars, I think if our own transportation could be made cleaner, than really the emissions of locomotives would be tolerable...

I ride a scooter. I like to pretend I'm a self superior elitist greenie, but in reality I wasn't driving the car enough to justify the insurance so I got rid of it.
Some freight lines don't get enough traffic to justify electrification, but wherever possible, it would certainly make good business sense in the long run. Government loans would make good investments and could turn a steady return for the treasury if scheduled properly.
I also think railroads should get infrastructure assistance to offset the government money spent subsidizing the "free" highways the trucks use.

Claude

 

[SuperFudd]

Why should our government compete with the banks?

 

[pommie]

Why should our government compete with the banks?

For the same reason your Government bailed the banks out of the mess they created, to save the economy going all the way down the poop pipes :hehe:

If the railroads do not electrify soon what is going to happen when (not if) the price of diesel goes over $10 a gallon (and then $20 etc), all of a sudden all of them will want to borrow $millions, and want it straight away, the banks (no Government intervention remember) will know how desperate they are and the interest on the loans will go through the roof, also the Railroads will suck up a lot of available lending cash, meaning that the ordinary person will have to pay a lot more in interest as well, thats your pocket I am talking about.
Also if the demand for diesel is high it means that the economy is also moving along quite nice, so the materials will cost more, low unemployment means the labour force to do the conversion will cost more and as every railroad will want new loco's all at the same time, guess what, they will cost more, the old demand and supply routine :hehe:

I said this in an earlier post, can they afford not to convert.

Cheers David

 

[mlplap7902]

My Dad quit smoking almost 30 years ago now, he too quit cold turkey. I've seen people die from emphysems and i know it's not pretty. My grandmother died of cancer which also isn't pretty.

Back on topic though, When the PRR did most of it's electrification it was during the great depression. This was not just by accident though. Although no one could have planned that there would be a depression the RR saw that at that time frame the materials were a lot cheaper and there was a ready work force jumping at the chance for a job. So it actually cost them less than it would have if the economy had been stronger. The same holds true for today. It will cost less to build a major electrification project while the economy is slow then it would when the economy it strong. And the sooner that it can start of course the better. However again it's the funding that hold everyone back. The government wants to keep susbidising it's highways and not spare a dime to lend to a railroad that, for a fraction of the cost of highway building can improve it's lines and increase it's efficiency and capacity. I say lend and the return on the investment will more than be enough. The spending on materials and the work force required to do a project of this nature would help to energize the economy and give jobs to construction workers and electricians who need them. Again though lending is not subsidising which can lead to dependance on the money. I say that the goverrnment should lend the money like they did for the PRR back in the depression. That actually worked and the major parts of the electrification still are in use today by AMTRAk. So by now it's paid for itself many times over. Simply put it should be done it's just a matter of where the cost is comming from.

 

[backyard]

It's not about money...

Gosh folks, the US-American government takes about thirteen-trillion dollars a year after your tax refunds are paid...

By 2025, it's projected to be twenty-five-trillion.

You can smoke your ass off & they will pay out $375 to bury you if you make it to Social Security.

The only progressive minded railroad in this nation is the Norfolk(people around Norfolk, VA pronounce it "Norfuc") Southern...they have huge cash reserves but still need help to develop a premium transportation logistic solution.

We all will enjoy the benefits of the network they wish to develop.

My observations are that fully-electric mainlines are essential to our progress.

I have a best friend that grew up into high school age in Cleveland, Ohio where the steel mills controlled the atmosphere...he became a CIT nerd.

His mother died a diabetic, his father received SS+Black Lung checks from bad coal mining practices...he grew up in Tennessee, mining coal.

This Earth reclaimed the smog that rendered the Upper States a black & white profile...no mass killing from smog occurred.

This thread is so ripe with assumptions & bad science that it hardly remains as basically a forum of opinions fostered by power junkies...& should be closed.

 

[pommie]

This Earth reclaimed the smog that rendered the Upper States a black & white profile...no mass killing from smog occurred.

This thread is so ripe with assumptions & bad science that it hardly remains as basically a forum of opinions fostered by power junkies...& should be closed.

interesting that you make an unsubstantiated statement (no mass killing from smog occurred.), then state that the thread should be closed as (This thread is so ripe with assumptions & bad science).

No1, the earth did not "reclaim" the pollution, the wind blew it around until it was to thin to see any more, my support for that statement, there is pollution in the Antartic, yet only a handful of people live there.

No2, my reason for stating that your comment is unsubstantiated,
"Air pollution costs the California economy more than $28 billion annually, according to a new study released today and co-authored by two Cal State Fullerton economics professors.

The study, which focuses on the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, also found that the life- and health-threatening pollution in these regions contributes to more than 3,800 premature deaths each year."

From here http://calstate.fullerton.edu/news/2008/091-air-pollution-study.html notice that I used an American University study not just some blog.

And as far as this statement "a forum of opinions fostered by power junkies" I'll just treat ignorance with the contempt it deserves.

Cheers David

 

[backyard]

I will not criticise the Great State of California as it is usually 5-years ahead of the rest of the country...ten years of Tennessee...

So, what other states are so erudite?

Oh gee, the wind blew the pollution away, I forgot the Earth has an atmosphere to help take care of man's pollution along with terra-firma...

The "feared" condition of polluted Antarctica is not what's melting the continent of Anartica...it's in it's own cycle of behaviour that we have no control whatsoever...what? Do I have a solution to prevent the terra-firma of Anartica from periodically showing?

My brother's Cummins powered Peterbilt only four years old will not be allowed in the State of California after 2010. Despite TeirIII requirements by the local government, no other state poses such restriction.

The power junkie is folk like AlGore, could not win presidency(or get votes from his own State of Tennessee, even his own county of residence), decides to focus on some theory that never-the-less wishes to control or at least scare the hell out of the population...still a theory...

All over the nation here, there are very dangerous places to be...mostly industrially oriented...that's a human factor of obvious proportions reluctantly admitted by workers participating in the damage...

You can alert people to the dangers that surround them, however they will persistently pursue a immediate danger regardless of the warning.

If they don't care, we don't care...

But rest assured, the lack of self awareness won't affect you....if your government persecutes you, that's your problem.

But I have so stated conservation, environmental awareness, recycling, restoration is a must for the sake of all living.

 

[StorkNest]

I will not criticise the Great State of California as it is usually 5-years ahead of the rest of the country...ten years of Tennessee...

California is not always ahead of everyone else.

Los Angeles did not have decent mass transit for some time hence it got the smog problem. Similar started happening in Dallas-Fort Worth when I lived there back in 1999 when DART was just drawings on a board. I lived right near the major airport and every morning the traffic going into Dallas and those leaving at night made me glad I went in the opposite direction. Only reason Dallas didn't get much of the same pollution problem is geography, more flatland didn't hold it all in the metro area.

Also some things you may not want to be ahead on. California has cities that rank on the top ten list for carjackings. And when I watched some of those real-life cop shows, about half of the video seems to come solely from an area between Texas and California.

Sure California has stuff going for it but like any state it has areas it could improve on too. I'm actually surprised there's no NEC-equivalent in the Southwest, you would think at least LA-Vegas for all the spoiled entertainment crowd:hehe: and LA-Sacremento for the Governator. LA-San Francisco seems natural. But all the Amtrak I see out there is diesel.

 

[Red_TVRM]

I will not criticise the Great State of California as it is usually 5-years ahead of the rest of the country...ten years of Tennessee...

Oh good then we are safe from BK for a few more years.

We can't afford not to do this?

I enjoy how people who have nothing invested in this country can make such bold statements. Perhaps it is the American people and industry that can best decide what it can and can't afford to do.

 

[johnwhelan]

I enjoy how people who have nothing invested in this country can make such bold statements. Perhaps it is the American people and industry that can best decide what it can and can't afford to do.

But the decisions they make have a major impact on people in other countries so shouldn't those other countries have the right to express an opinion?

Cheerio John