Should We Electrify Freight RR?

[pommie]

With the current economic crisis a Government could build the infrastructure as a way of generating some cash flow and reducing unemployment (instead of throwing it at the auto industry, one of which wasted it on developing a V8 that can run on 6 when cruising, but still a big engine even then, and they call that green ) , then make the railroad companies pay them back (interest free) at a pace that will not bankrupt them.
As to the cost of new loco's (1.75 to 2.25 million US$) if the change over takes 10 years about a quarter of the roster would be scrapped and replaced anyway (average lifespan in USA 40 years), so no extra cost there, the rest would be in for a rebuild in that time, so instead of replacing the prime mover and generator convert it to electric, the traction motors/bogie's/frame and body can all be reused.
I don't know but I think the bits needed would be cheaper than a new prime mover/generator.

Whether this would be political suicide for a Government or not I cannot say :hehe:

John, interesting read and something I never thought of.

Cheers David

 

[BobCass]

Hi All: You know there is another thing that enters the picture..Why are Highways subsidized and Railroads are not. Is it because cars use oil..Well Trains do to..I do believe that for some reason or other the oil industry has such a hold on the USA. Why is that? Well the car companies sure jumped on the band wagon on this. We are now such an Automobile society that it is going to cost us dearly to catch up with other countries. Now I want you guys to understand that I am American through and through..



Bob Cass

 

[SuperFudd]

Bob,

What makes you so sure those "other countries" are ahead of us (US)?

 

[BobCass]

Hi SuperFudd: I'm talking about "Railroad"..Not the economy, I have know idea about that..How come you are against Electrification? You keep trying to push your California HSR..Is it special..I know your proud of that and I guess you have a right to do so, but think positive on things..




Bob Cass

 

[StorkNest]

Paul

Paul, interesting points.

From a business perspective, people and perishable freight will get priority because of their fragile nature. No one will prioritize things like moving coal drags and bulk freight largely because it is non-perishable. You can leave a coal train sit for hours on a line and it is still good when it gets to the destination albiet late. It doesn't even complain.
Leave people stuck somewhere for even a little while, they get irritable like the times when I have seen local transit stop a train waiting for line clearance. That doesn't include the weather effect variable, no matter how good the heating/cooling system is rated, some passenger trains have temperate problems depending on weather. And that's on an electric transit system.
Only perishable food ranks near passenger since it can rot and spoil even in modern storage.
That's why some railroad games based on economic models treat passenger and perishable items with priority.

The best place for wind country wise by region in the USA would be the MidWest but that includes Tornado Alley.

I would rather see the existing electric infrastructure upgraded before adding to the load to any degree.

While nobody saw downsides of a car dependent culture, one of the main reasons roads get priority over rail is usually forgotten or never known. Without factoring that, some people draw wrong conclusions. The question needing to be answered here is this:
What is one of the primary reasons for the road network?
While rail can do some of the answer, it cannot match roads and that explains part of the reason road gets preference over rail.

America can never really be said to have abandoned electric. Cities always have used it though the method has changed over the years. Now outside cities, off the top of my head only the NorthEast and some small lines in other locations had electric. Only big non-NorthEast locations that did electric that I know of were Milwaukee Road (and only a portion of it) and Virginian. But most of the rail network was and still is non-electric so we never really eliminated something we did not have much of to begin with.

True.

I have little idea on how electric works in other countries so I'll take your word on it.

 

[cascaderailroad]

No...We should make longer trucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI6njiZT98E

I guess it has 88 tires ?

 

[johnwhelan]

Or a slightly different version

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8349923.stm

The intent here is to reduce accidents but it cuts fuel consumption by 20% and packs a few more cars etc on the same bit of road.

Cheerio John

 

[OzBoz]

Some one who thinks its just a religion obviously, actually an interesting court case in the UK has just given it that status.

Cheerio John

Actually John, that case was an anti discrimination case, where the judge ruled that a persons beliefs on climate change can be considered the same as his/her beliefs on religion, not that climate change was a religion.

Cheers

 

[johnwhelan]

Actually John, that case was an anti discrimination case, where the judge ruled that a persons beliefs on climate change can be considered the same as his/her beliefs on religion, not that climate change was a religion.

Cheers

Yes but my understanding it was to do with belief rather than fact which is fairly close to religion as far as I'm concerned.

Cheerio John

 

[paulzmay]

No...We should make longer trucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI6njiZT98E

I guess it has 88 tires ?

And it's truly evil to overtake... fortunately they aren't allowed into most cities, so you only see them on the long outback highways. They are, however one of the reasons that despite it's size and high degree of urbanisation, Australia sends a relatively small proportion of it's freight by rail.

Or a slightly different version

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8349923.stm

The intent here is to reduce accidents but it cuts fuel consumption by 20% and packs a few more cars etc on the same bit of road.

Cheerio John

It's interesting, but the fuel savings and space savings are pitiful when compared to what passenger rail can achieve. If a highway is busy enough to justify this kind of thing, then it's a fair bet that a rail service would be viable. At rush-hour occupancy, trains may well use a tenth of the energy per traveller of cars. 20% reduction starts to look a bit marginal...

Yes but my understanding it was to do with belief rather than fact which is fairly close to religion as far as I'm concerned.

Cheerio John

My understanding that it was more to do with his moral conviction that he should live and work in such a way that was consistent with reducing CO2 emissions (for instance he objected when someone was sent by plane to Northern Ireland to retrieve a Blackberry).

Paul

 

[johnwhelan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwhelan
Or a slightly different version

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8349923.stm

The intent here is to reduce accidents but it cuts fuel consumption by 20% and packs a few more cars etc on the same bit of road.

Cheerio John

It's interesting, but the fuel savings and space savings are pitiful when compared to what passenger rail can achieve. If a highway is busy enough to justify this kind of thing, then it's a fair bet that a rail service would be viable. At rush-hour occupancy, trains may well use a tenth of the energy per traveller of cars. 20% reduction starts to look a bit marginal...

Well yes but getting to the railway station takes a fair bit of the journey time and UK rail fares can be quite high. I think they now list a fare of over 1,000 pounds for one rail trip, walk up fare for a trip that has to be less than 1,000 miles since its only 838 miles from John o'Groats to Land's End and at the end of the day 20% fuel reduction isn't to be sneezed at.

Cheerio John

 

[Red_TVRM]

With the current economic crisis a Government could build the infrastructure as a way of generating some cash flow and reducing unemployment (instead of throwing it at the auto industry, one of which wasted it on developing a V8 that can run on 6 when cruising, but still a big engine even then, and they call that green ) , then make the railroad companies pay them back (interest free) at a pace that will not bankrupt them.
As to the cost of new loco's (1.75 to 2.25 million US$) if the change over takes 10 years about a quarter of the roster would be scrapped and replaced anyway (average lifespan in USA 40 years), so no extra cost there, the rest would be in for a rebuild in that time, so instead of replacing the prime mover and generator convert it to electric, the traction motors/bogie's/frame and body can all be reused.
I don't know but I think the bits needed would be cheaper than a new prime mover/generator.

Whether this would be political suicide for a Government or not I cannot say :hehe:

John, interesting read and something I never thought of.

Cheers David

Sort of cash for clunckers for the RR?

While the govt doing may seem like a good idea, let's not forget that the US govt doesn't have the cash on hand to do it, so doing it with a loan and then giving it to the roads is senseless.

Also oil is in no danger of running out in our lifetime. Let's clean up the money mess and use the oil and then look toward fixing something that isn't broke.

 

[OMG_internet]

I think they now list a fare of over 1,000 pounds for one rail trip

£1,002, for an FOR, walk up fare (It's somewhere, I forget where, to Kyle of Lochalsh). A fare that has never been bought, and is really just there because there have to be fares between every station. It has also been around for a while.

 

[paulzmay]

Well yes but getting to the railway station takes a fair bit of the journey time and UK rail fares can be quite high. I think they now list a fare of over 1,000 pounds for one rail trip, walk up fare for a trip that has to be less than 1,000 miles since its only 838 miles from John o'Groats to Land's End and at the end of the day 20% fuel reduction isn't to be sneezed at.

Cheerio John

True, but I'd be afraid that this kind of 'solution' is only a sticking plaster over the problems of energy security, CO2 emissions and congestion, and might just be a distraction from making the necessary structural change in the way the world travels.

And yes, UK rail fares don't help people make responsible travel decisions, but that's a topic for another thread entirely. As OMG says, it's only a theoretical fare, as it's saver equivalent is available all day...

Paul

 

[pommie]

Sort of cash for clunckers for the RR?

While the govt doing may seem like a good idea, let's not forget that the US govt doesn't have the cash on hand to do it, so doing it with a loan and then giving it to the roads is senseless.

Also oil is in no danger of running out in our lifetime. Let's clean up the money mess and use the oil and then look toward fixing something that isn't broke.

It would cost the Government a lot less than private enterprise, say it employs 50,000 workers for the ten year transition period, thats 50,000 unemployed, costing the Government, now employed for 10 years, paying the Government taxes and injecting more cash into the economy than when unemployed, read more taxes from the retailers, also more profits for the suppliers of the superstructure, more taxes, more profit for the steel mills, more taxes, and more profit for the iron ore mines, you guessed it, more taxes for the Government, add on the fact that these companies earning more profits will have to employ more staff and you get even more taxes and boosts to the economy, the question is can the USA Government not afford to do it

With the oil not running out in your life time, wanna bet, even if there is enough for another 100 years, just how is the Government going to pay for it then ??, also how about the pollution, keep using up oil like we are (yes we, the world is a lot bigger than the USofA) and we will not be able to breath without getting our daily dose of nutrients in one lung full

The main reason most Governments put money into the road system and not the rail is the tax on petrol, take half of the people off the road and onto the rail and the Government would probably go broke :hehe: :hehe:

Cheers David

 

[Red_TVRM]

Larger oil/gas finds are being found everyday. I do agree that we do not have an unlimited supply, but it is not running out anytime soon. Emissions laws go further to reduce pollution by hydrocarbons and be much less expensive than other approaches. Sadly we do have to get away from our currant form of energy generation and take a more nuclear approach (much like France).

I doubt I’ll be alive in 100 years; I don’t want to be 140 years old at all. So yeah we have enough oil to make it past my life time.

Roads=railroad not highway road.

The US government can’t afford to do as you suggest because we simply have spent too much on other things (not trying to be political). If you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, you’ve not accomplished anything. So borrowing to put people to work to give the work to the railroad interest free makes zero sense; but the US govt doesn’t deal in sense does it?

I’ve been to fifty countries so yeah I understand world is much bigger than America.

 

[StorkNest]

The main reason most Governments put money into the road system and not the rail is the tax on petrol..,

Respectfully incorrect. The main reason most countries put money into roads over rails was the answer I asked about here:

What is one of the primary reasons for the road network?

That being National Defense.
It didn't start in America either. President Eisenhower who pushed forward our development of the highway and road system got part of his inspiration from the German Autobahn network.
The strategic and tactical advantages roads have over rail in national defense means roads will always get priority. Unless you can find a way to show rail being superior and with all the cutbacks and rail line removals that's a hard sell.
National Defense trumps the price of petrol.

 

[SuperFudd]

David,

I you are actually worried about Global Warming/Cooling/Diming, I sugest you take it up with the Indians or the Chinese. We are doing fine here.

 

[paulzmay]

David,

I you are actually worried about Global Warming/Cooling/Diming, I sugest you take it up with the Indians or the Chinese. We are doing fine here.

Whilst those countries do have large and growing emissions, their emissions per capita are massively below those anywhere in the developed world. The USA, Australia and Canada, I believe lead the pack in that respect...

As for the national defence aspect - I'm sure that it has been used as a justification, but railways also have a long history of usefulness in times of war. If you want to move a lot of stuff quickly, it takes a lot of beating (though it is obviously vulnerable to attack). I also don't think that this is the overwhelming reason outside the USA, where the second half of the 20th century also saw massive increases in road building at the expense of the railways.

Whilst new oil discoveries are still being made, demand is still increasing (the recent recession being something of a blip in this upwards trend), and the view amongst many analysts is that the new fields are not keeping up with the depletion of old ones, leading to supply falling short of demand in a way that cannot be easily or cheaply remedied. A combination of shortages, and oil having to come from more expensive to extract sources (e.g. Canadian tar sands), will, in time, lead to oil being so expensive that it will have a massive slowing effect on the economy worldwide. Those nations least dependent on oil, and those who are most efficient with what they use will have a massive advantage over the others. That is what Peak Oil is all about - not when every well runs dry, but when the lack and cost of supply push the price of oil to stratospheric heights.

Paul

 

[Red_TVRM]

There are massive reserves of oil untouched and untapped in the US, there are oil fields not being utilized and new oil technologies developed as well.

When it comes to oil we will just have to agree to disagree as I sit in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico upon a production platform pumping oil to the beach.