A couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification. Rail electrification for the traditional purpose may never happen, but there is a new purpose for rail electrification that may compel it to happen very soon. That new purpose is a non-oil, non-carbon, national transportation system for the U.S.
Near universal electrification has always been the road that might have been taken, but never was. Maybe when EMD toured their demonstrator #103, they doomed electrification as well as steam, even though electrification had not arrived yet, at least not as a widespread standard.
Ever since, there has been an on-going reevaluation of the economics of electrification. As technology changes, and oil prices rise, electrification hovers on the edge of economic feasibility as the replacement for diesel electric locomotives. However, there is the perpetual trade off between the lower operating cost of electrification, and its major capital investment. The problem, however, is not so much in the financial comparison of the money in that trade-off as it is in the uncertainty of the future, which must be relied upon to generate the business necessary to pay back the investment.
Here is a paper about BNSF contemplating electrification. In the other thread, I referred to a “tipping point” where the market price of oil would rise so high that it will become preferable to electrify. However, Matt Rose speculates that the economic tipping point will soon arrive in the form of U.S. government-imposed carbon caps driving up the operating cost of oil-powered locomotives.
Bucyrus, you said you wanted to put together something more comprehensive on this - and by golly, you did. Very well-written - I followed almost all of it on my first perusal, and really appreciate all the links and summaries. I’d say you’ve summarized the ‘movement’ and the various issues associated with and resulting from it pretty well and concisely for the space utilized.
I remain skeptical of the entire environmental movement. I’m interested in making wise use of resources - natural, labor, and capital. I’m concerned that we are embarking on a massive misallocation of resources, which in the end will kick people living at or close to the margin in the teeth.
In other words, this huge capital investment would be done because politicians think it is a good idea, and because belief in the climate change theory has attained critical mass in our society.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
This is truly something different, and I am convinced that it will lead to universal electrification commencing very soon, and perhaps completed within ten years. The only thing that could derail this plan is if current poor economic conditions deteriorate so fast and far that the nation cannot come up with the money. Otherwise it will happen because it must happen. Our very survival depends on it.
Whatever happened to room temperature, super conductivity? There was a break through 20 years ago allowing it to be achieved under liquid nitrogen instead of liquid helium.
Unlike a battery, power in and power out with no chemical reaction. The efficiency achieved was supposed to be impressive. The prophets has us driving electric cars with super conductive gas tanks by 2010. That has not happened.
If Buck Rogers ever delivers, would this technology be applicable to railroads? Could The coal tender of old become a tender of electricity stored in a super conductive medium?
It is certainly not a serious point of current consideration.
First, a brief review: Historically, mainline U.S. railroads alone financed all of their electrifications by themselves - including the PRR’s 1930s anti-Depression loans from the government, since those were soon repaid - typically for only one of the following purposes or to cope with one of the following conditions:
Tunnels - the smoke from steam locomotives was recognized from the ‘get-go’ - by the railroads themselves, without any government intervention or requirement or mandate - as just not tolerable - e.g., the B&O, B&M at Hoosac Tunnel, GN at Marias Pass, Detroit’s St. Clair River tunnels, PRR into NYC, NYCentral at Cleveland, etc.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I Just to be clear, I need to say that I am not advocating this. I am just connecting all the dots to draw the picture of a movement. Let me explain what I meant when I said, “Our very survival depends on it.” I say that as being the premise of this new purpose agenda for publicly funded rail electrification, not as my personal viewpoint. If you read the article by Scott Lothes called WIRED UP and the references in it, clearly they advocate electrification for the reasons that I have mentioned. And the premise of the most important reason is that our survival as the human race depends on preventing the destruction of the climate. So when you connect all the pieces of the reasoning behind this sweeping proposal, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that our very survival depends on it.
I can’t help but wonder what net effect on our atmospheric physics 100 million giant windmills will have scattered here and there in fields and on hilltops around the globe. Taking energy out of the atmosphere on a scale like that…won’t it eventually become another “D’Oh!” when our undertanding accumulates to the point at which we now understand carbon-related problems and the problems associated with our usage of fossil fuels?
As for the physics and engineering required to extract the energy from the wind…no way it’ll ever be ‘free’. One thing we all know too well…energy usage in converted form is costly, no matter who offers it to us. It’s just that I don’t think we know all the costs, just as we didn’t when we started the industrial revolution.
So are we to believe that we will have trains stopping at every town with a population of more than 200 in order to allow those people to ditch the automobile? Will the trains run multiple times per day? Will there be a straddle crane in Wadena (and hundreds of other small Minnesota cities) to load and unload the containers that are currently being transported by highway? Is there room for a straddle crane under the catenary, or will there be a hybrid switcher stationed here to place the well cars on the siding that constitutes an intermodal yard? Paul, I respect your p
And what legislation is planned or proposed to make this happen? The only “proof” that there is a secret master plan to electrify and possibly nationalise the U.S rail system is a single TRAINS article and a website or two?
I doubt any plan as far reaching as that would survive the inevitable changes from one adminstration to the next especially when the party in power loses it…
I don’t think Paul was proposing any kind of panacea…nor do I think he was suggesting that electrification is one. Rather, that it’s got the possibility of saving resources. [swg]
A great point! I use public transport on 2 of the days I work, but the other 3-4 days it’s not an option for many of the reasons that you outlined.
Once things get to the tipping point referenced above I think some change in what’s an acceptable level of inconvenience is needed. You can’t do what you can’t do and change happens.
Like Bucyrus above, I’m not advocating this - merely trying to explain it simply so that we can all grasp what is being proposed, and the implications of it. That’s just the where and why of the ‘‘assertions about cutting the fuel savings by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude [that] need to include detailed answers to the questions I pose’’ came from.
Your points are completely valid and understood. The 1-1/2 orders of magnitude is my interpretation of what the proponents think they will be able to achieve = no longer using most of the fuel that’s now being used for surface road transport. That figure is based on what I saw and found when answering some other questions about what percentage of liquid petroleum fuels is used by railroads, and what percentage of US generating capacity would be used if all railroads electrified, etc. Whether that savings is actually achievable or not ranks right up there with the ‘‘pigs with wings’’ kind of thing, etc., and is certainly open to debate. But those numbers as to the outer bounds of what might conceivably be done in someone’s perfect world are legitimate - railroads use like a single-digit percentage, but the road vehicles use like 80+ percent - and so I’ll get them for you. I don’t have time right at the moment, but expect to within the next day or so.
I too had that kind of ‘outside sales and service’ lifestyle for about 13 years - the proposed systems won’t work, and shouldn’t, for the reasons you cite. But as Don Oltmann correctly pointed out a couple weeks ago, the vast majority of auto fuel is used in commuting and around-town kinds of trips, and electrified commuter systems
There is no proof. Right now it is just a case of, “where there is smoke, there is fire.” But there is no proof that we are going to have national healthcare either, and yet it sure seems like it is headed that way. A non-oil transportation agenda is clearly very popular with today’s decision makers.
That certainly is true, and highly relevant to what we are talking about here.
Yes, the chief difference is the new purpose. That is why I underscore new purpose in my first post. The new purpose is the overarching remedy to the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint. All of the traditional reasons for electrification still apply as a component of the new purpose, but the two-prong crisis is completely unprecedented. It has never been a part of previous analyses of rail electrification. Also unprecedented is the method of bringing about the new purpose of near-universal rail electrification through public funding. I see it as being more a national public agenda than it is a railroad ag