Well we have all had time to comment and analyze. So let’s make predictions about when the first significant electrification will occur. By significant let’s make it 300-500 miles of a major traffic density corridor. And lets not make it a difficult operational corridor. I offer (but you may select your own) the UP between Omaha and Cheyenne or the BNSF Transcon between Wellington, KS and Clovis, NM.
And to leave wiggle room let’s pick in ten year segments, 10-20-30-40-50-60 or more. My prediction is none in view or worth speculation.
Electric engines can easily remain in service 30 years or longer, 50, maybe 60 years. This reduces annual depreciation compared to diesels. I regularly see the Ae 6/6 electrics in freight service in the town where I work. They date from the 1950s.
As to third rail compared to catenary. The UK-experience: the former Southern Railway electrified the more important mainlines and branches of its system with third rail. However, when Brithish Railways started to electrify the mainlines to Scotland - it lasted several decades until it was completed - the choice was 25 kV AC 50 Hz. The Eurostar high-speed-trains from London to the continent only ran on third rail in England until the high-speed-link to the Chunnel was completed. Now, they use 25kv 50 HZ drawn from catenary.
The French State Railways had third rail on the Mont-Cenis-mountain-railroad. AFAIK, this was to prevent damages falling rocks could cause on the catenary. The third rail was considered to be a less vulnerable design. Eventually, the French converted the Mont-Cenis-line to catenary (1,5 kV DC), too. The Italian side always ran with catenary.
l think electrification will happen when capacity and average train speed increases to the point when diesel locos become costly. Maybe once the BNSF from the outskirts of Chicago to the outskirts of LA becomes fully double tracked all the way. Then the next increases would be a third track or electric. Electric locos can have higher horse power and less down time and fewer engines could handle more traffic on just double track.
So when speed and capacity needs to be increased to increase profit then they may electrify. And when they do it won’t be crooked wooden poles, it will be state of the art electrification, the most durable and reliable setup possible. l say they’ll start doing it in 10-20 years.
The cost of both deisel and electricity will probably be very high in the future.
I think the jury’s out on cat for the BNSF route from Chicago to L.A. Note that the Northern Transcon route has been shifted from pretty much pure ATSF’s main line freight route Chicago - L.A., to exx-CB&Q mainline as far west as Cameron, to the west of Galesburg. If I were Mr. Rose, I wouldn’t sneer at a government subsidy (or outright grant) to electrify those busy lines, but I would be torn between the newer Transcon Mendota (IL) route and the previous Streator (IL) route if only one could be electrified because that would “lock in” the chosen route as the preferred one–perhaps the only one.
As for intercity third-rail in this country, forget it! Let’s get better crossing gates and nastier cab horns or else start embanking the lines, as IIRC most of the (British) Southern Rwy. is, before we can even think of third-rail out in the country-- or suburban areas for that matter.
They can get some pretty decent speed out of their trains, and I know the Hamburg commuter trains use 1,500 V DC (according to the article, AC transmission does not work via 3rd rail, but transformers on the locomotive could turn DC into 3 phase AC).
The diagrams appear to show a normal steel rail being used as the 3rd rail. Check it out!
I read all news sources, and I see no real difference between Fox News, WSJ, and Reuters. US News and World Report tends to lean too far left.
But I’m intrigue as to why you would suggest one “stay away from Fox News”. I find Fox willing to report news items that others ignore, and on the whole give a good balance between leftist and rightist views. Why do you find that objectionable?
Point of fact: It was the California ISO which set the ground rules for energy trading within the state back in the late 1990’s, and one of the rules was that all trades should occur at the highest offered bid price. Supposedly this was to prevent underselling to gain market share, but we all know how that turned out! Of course, when push came to shove, the California officials needed a scapegoat to cover their blantant incompetence, and that flightly Enron outfit fit the bill to a “T”. I say good riddance, since Enron was also a leading proponent of establishing a carbon trading market.
And of course there is a strong correlation between what happens to electricity markets and transportation markets, and what is now being debated on this thr
I agree and wish I had never made my initial posting. I would like to apologize to all the members for my part in contributing to the off topic comments. I was wrong, learned a lesson and am sorry for what happened. This will be my last posting on this thread, and no, I don’t even want to continue it on PM.
My impression is that the situation was a bit more complicated than that. The electric utility deregulation bill was passed with good intentions by people who didn’t have a very good idea of how utilities worked and an overly optimistic estimate for the cost of producing electric power. They also were thinking that the era of cheap oil and natural gas would last forever. Couple this with an almost complete lack of new generation built since the Jerry Brown administration and you had a good recipe for disaster.
If I had a say in planning the deregulation (with the benefit of some 20/20 hindsight), there would have been a couple of changes. Number 1 would have been phasing in time of day metering for all customers before starting the wholesale deregulation process. Number 2 would have made the power contracts based on the electricity delivered to the customer - the seller would have been responsible for establishing adequate transmission capacity to prevent the kinds of shenanigans done by the likes of Enron (they really were guilty of abusing the market).
What this has to do with railroad electrification is that gross uncertainty as to the price and availability of electric power will be a deal breaker.
Wayne, I just read your private message to me…sorry to hear about your personal situation…keep a stiff upper lip buddy, and you will get through this OK.
The electric cost has not been the deal breaker in the past. The cost of catenary and engines has been the deal breaker. In addition maintenance crews on the PRR hated the catenary for a number of reasons. Somebody had to inspect it after every storm for damage from tree limbs or wind. Then there are repairs from wear, vibration, temperature extremes parting lines and other maintenance. The big item however is wrecks. In addition to tearing down the catenary in many cases it needed to be shut off so crews could clear the wreck. With a diesel you can send the train on an alternate route. With electric they all just back up and wait for the most part. With over head wires you also need to keep the wrecker boom low so you you have to be very careful to not do more damage and still be able to clear the tracks. A low boom is a accident waiting to happen. There have been several test sections done over the years by the major railroads and the answer has always been no. I don’t see that changing. I think it is more likely to see a nuclear powered engine then electrification. And that isn’t likely either.
The expense of stringing cantenary aside, wonder if it would be feasible, or possible, to retrofit some newer existing locomotives for pantograph power pickup when, or if, electrification should happen?
Depreciation and longevity are two different things – one an accounting rule set by law, the other an economic decision. Electric locomotives often have very long lives not because of any particular advantage of the technology compared to diesel-electric but because there’s often very little economic advantage in replacement. Many electrified railroads are one-offs with obsolete transmission and distribution systems there’s little point to replacing the locomotives without an expensive replacement of the overhead, too. Many electrified railroads are also state-owned and subject to different economic calculations than the investor-owned railroads of the U.S.
Diesel-electric locomotives are often replaced because the technology continues to progress (particularly reduction in f
The advisability of utilizing an accurate depreciation reserve is an economic necessity, and the depreciation schedules for locomotives are determined by the railroads themselves, not “set by law” except that the railroads must follow their own prescribed depreciation periods, and depreciation is ordinarily equivalent to “economic service life” or “useful life” which is economic longevity and which may have little to do with “longevity” under the rule that if you want to spend the money, you can keep any machine going forever.
The IRS adopts the STB depreciation rules.
"STB - Useful Life - For regulatory purposes, the Class I railroads are required to conduct depreciation studies on their equipment on a periodic basis. These studies are performed by an independent consultant. The depreciation studies are an accurate estimate of useful life not only for regulatory but also for tax purposes because they are based on the Iowa Curve methodology. The life that this study yields is known as the “average service life”. This average service life is determined through a relatively complicated, but quite reliable and accurate actuarial method called the Retirement Rate Method, also known as the Annual Rate Method in Iowa Curve publications. This method is commonly used for lifing assets and its results are widely accepted by statisticians and lifing experts. STB uses the results of the studies to insure that the railroads maintain an adequate depreciation reserve. The STB R-1 report, filed annually with the STB, Schedules 332 and 340, contains a composite rate for locomotives that is derived from the rate studies."
Among other things, careless attention to depreciation as an actual measure of useful or economic service life c
Several years ago the Santa Fe did an estimate on electrifying track between Chicago and L.A. The cost of it exceeded the net worth of the entire railroad!
The advisability of utilizing an accurate depreciation reserve is an economic necessity, and the depreciation schedules for locomotives are determined by the railroads themselves, not “set by law” except that the railroads must follow their own prescribed depreciation periods, and depreciation is ordinarily equivalent to “economic service life” or “useful life” which is economic longevity and which may have little to do with “longevity” under the rule that if you want to spend the money, you can keep any machine going forever.
The IRS adopts the STB depreciation rules.
"STB - Useful Life - For regulatory purposes, the Class I railroads are required to conduct depreciation studies on their equipment on a periodic basis. These studies are performed by an independent consultant. The depreciation studies are an accurate estimate of useful life not only for regulatory but also for tax purposes because they are based on the Iowa Curve methodology. The life that this study yields is known as the “average service life”. This average service life is determined through a relatively complicated, but quite reliable and accurate actuarial method called the Retirement Rate Method, also known as the Annual Rate Method in Iowa Curve publications. This method is commonly used for lifing assets and its results are widely accepted by statisticians and lifing experts. STB uses the results of the studies to insure that the railroads maintain an adequate depreciation reserve. The STB R-1 report, filed annually with the STB, Schedules 332 and 340, contains a composite rate for locomotives that is derived from the rate studies."
Among other things, careless attention to depreciation as an actual measure of useful