Once the infastructure is in place, which commuter rail system is cheaper to run and maintain per passenger mile electric or diesel?
Electric
[(-D][(-D][(-D]
If electric is cheaper, why is it cheaper and why are there not more electified commuter railways in North America?
You asked about, once the infrastucture was in place.
Building that infrastructure, which possibly could include another power plant, isnt attractive to a short sighted and public money poor American public.
It’s cheaper, in part, due to the more energy efficient locomotives. Diesels, carry more weight around with them, which uses more fuel. They also work better when they stay idling when they aren’t running, which uses more fuel. The reciprocating motion inside the engine contributes to more maintenance.
I’m not sure on this, but I think Diesel units may currently be cheaper, due to the widespread market for them across the country. If the manufactures pour their resources into technology for them, and to improve the efficiency of their production, then they may end up cheaper than a comparable electric unit.
With electric units, when they arent being needed, you can pretty much turn them off, or at least down to a minimum of loads, which uses a lot less energy. the electrics, getting their energy from the wire, carry less weight, and can run faster. A large generating plant can generate energy very efficiently, and can shift that energy to other uses if the railroad doesn’t need it. So they can sell that to other customers, lowering the cost for the railroad.
These are just some thoughts I had, I don’t have any information to send to you.
James
Electric engines are more reliable and last longer than diesel-engines.
Electric enginges can produce energy while slowing down (regenerative breaking).The traction motors work as generators, supposed there is another train on the system that uses this energy. On mountain railroading, you can save as much as one third of the elctricity bill. That is why electrification makes sense in commuter and mountain-railroading (besides subways and high-speed-trains). With diesels, regnerative breaking would be possible too, for example by using large batteries, but I don’t know of any large-scale-application with diesels. It seems, the batteries are to expensive or have to little storage capacity.
There have also been battery electric locos (most for use in mines) which use regenerative braking to partially recharge their batteries.
On the London Underground they use battery locos for works trains when they thave to turn the power. These locos can recharge their batteries either from a stationary power line or from the third rail when the power is on.
The regenenerative effect DOES NOT pay for all the daily maintenance and inspection of the catenary. (Major$$$$) Electric locomotives are NOT maintenance free. When the time for replacements of major parts comes due, the associated costs are considerably more.
DOES NOT pay for the additional specialized equipment required to operate under the catenary.
DOES NOT pay for the extra security to keep up with the electrocution hazzard.
Catenary, once set in place, DOES NOT work forever w/o maintenance.
Most electricity comes from coal and gas fired utility plants. The further you send electricity through a grid and further grom the generating plant, the more energy you lose/waste. To paraphrase the first law of thermdynamics: “You can’t win, you can’t break even, you can’t get out of the game.” The pollution issue is displaced and NOT eliminated!!! (ie - all you are doing is moving the point source of the pollution to somewhere else- something the hordes of quack environmentalists conveniently forget ) …Think about it!
People promoting this [MORONS] also think you only build your highway once and never maintain it - The driveways to their homes are disaster areas!
so when Austin TX first looked at light rail - the electric system’s initial cost estimate was about $250 million. that got shot down as too expensive. they came back with a diesel proposal with an estimated initial cost of about $60 million. now these are not apples to apples comparisons because the electric proposal involved some street running and new ROW costs while the diesel proposal is almost all on currently owned ROW.
now if we assume that the electric proposal spent 1/2 of the $250 million on ROW stuff - that still leaves $125 million of operating equipment, including track and overhead that need to be maintain vs $60 million of diesel operating equipment. so the maintenance rate for electric would need to be about 1/2 the maintenance rate for diesel - just to be equal in cost.
something to think about.
dd
Electric trains can accelerate faster between stations then deisels ever can, one importent reason alone. Electric utility surce is a major part of electric trains. If you can use state of the art power source the electric train can be far more efficient then deisel. The electric turbines run constat at the most efficent rpm compared to deisels that spool up and down and are often idling or running at less then max efficiency. If the rail traffic is high enough like a busy commuter or light rail line the electric trains become very eficient, and then add regeneration for braking. There is a threshold for making electric trains efficient, but when it’s met then they can be very efficient, but if not they can easily be very inefficeint.
Doesn’t have to be catenary, could be third rail.
How about solar power (or some sort of electric/solar power combination)? Maybe batteries and charging stations.
A monorail system?
CC
They are the same morons that promote hydrogen as an alternative energy source.
Very heavy density, over 80,000 passsengers daily – ekectric
Below that figure diesel
The advocates of diesel obviously never heard or understood the idea of nuclear power plants. They produce electric energy w/o polluting, and at astonishing low costs.
Many diesel engines are scrapped after 20 years, when the prime mover should be replaced. Many electrics serve for 40-60 years. Makes a difference in depreciation.
Mudchicken:
-
Regenrative braking with EMUs and certain traffic density will cut your energy expenses by 40-50%. The cool part - the more trains you run, the more energy you reclaim.
-
Constant tension catenery is almost maintenence free. And without 100+ mph traffic it lasts pretty long time.
-
Electrocution hazard? Oh boy - so how many thousands of people died this year by electrocution along the NEC? How about Europe?
-
You ofc assume that diesel fuel automagically appears in the locomotive fuel tank. Oil does not need to be drilled, transported, refined, blended, transported and finally poured into the tank.
Really…
Actually efficiences are comparable - with electrics doing eensy weensy better.
- Pollution - current state-of-art power plants are about 40% efficient and pollute far less (per kW) then small diesel engines (small in comparsion). Experimental plants start to achieve 50%+ efficency. It is far easier to control pollution in one place, then in 200 places - especially in smogged cities.
I’ll go with MC (no surprise). Financially, the only place electric is marginally cost-effective is on very high density lines, such as New York or parts of the Chicago system. Elsewhere the cost of the capital investment swamps the other savings. As to pollution, the latest diesels from GE and EMD are as ‘clean’ as the latest fossil fuel power plants (nuclear is politically hopeless in the US) and far better than most of the power plants in use.
Catenary – even the latest flavours – requires constant maintenance. Really. Check the NEC if you don’t believe me. So does third rail.
And, by the way, someone was killed just the other day trying to retrieve a football (really) from a substation related to a catenary…
True only if comparing Elec MUs with diesel loco hauled coaches.
Diesel MUs will have similar performance to electric MUs. Limiting factor is passenger comfort ~0.1g max.
Regenerative braking doesn’t generate enough electricity to reduce costs by that amount. Example provided in “When the Steam Roads Electrified”: There was a proposal to build an electrified railroad to haul New Mexico coal to tidewater without including a power plant. The proposal stated that regenerative braking from loaded coal trains going downhill would provide enough electricity to power empties going uphill. The ICC denied an operating certificate to this proposal since they determined that the finances were unrealistic.
The Mudchicken has already answered the other issues quite well, this is just some additional supporting evidence.
LOL, that sounds like 99.99999% of the roads here in Pennsylvania. If you’ve ever driven on our turnpike, you know what I’m talking about 
The PRR was almost universally electrified in the Eastern Pennsylvania- North East corridor region . Currently, only that portion still utilized by Amtrak and the local Commutor authorities (e.g. SEPTA, NJTransit) are still electified.
If Electric power is more cost effective than dieselation, why was the catenary over the frieght lines removed. I suspect one reason electrication has been maintained is the lack of thermal pollution, which cannot be eliminated from diesels. A diesel locomotive idling inside a stub terminal station, such as Pennsylvania Station in Manhatten, is going to through off an awful lot of heat, especially if the air conditioning has to be maintained in the passenger cars. If that engine is in a confined area, it will not only build up carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, it will eventually overheat as well. The tunnel motors used by the DR&G worked only because the train moved through the tunnel. It did not intentionally stop and idle.