Some sort of dual mode (power from catenary or battery) operation will make electrification considerably more practical. Two issues it addresses are how to deal with insufficient overhead clearance and trackage where overhead wires would be a problem, e.g. intermodal terminals using cranes.
The Southern California Regional Railroad Authority had a series of meeting and studies about electrifying the freight RR’s to reduce air pollution. Half of the projected cost was in raising overhead clearances.
The reducing air pollution aspect is slightly suspect as a fair amount of the particulate matter in the air comes from cooking.
It doesn’t, except insofar as there might be accompanying legislation relieving railroads of certain liabilities in return for adopting the electrification infrastructure "in the national interest’, at least to the point the stranded cost is amortized. There is a sort of precedent in the Price-Anderson act, or in Amtrak’s statutory immunity from any claims exceeding (I think) $225 million from any one accident.
An enormous percentage of ‘electrification’ cost is involved with clearances, particularly if a sensible voltage (at least 25kV for overhead) is to be used with stack-train clearance. (Here the Indian double-stack operation under wires is a very good example of what is technically necessary.) Dual-mode-lite avoids many of these problems both during construction and in operation, with the only thing ‘given up’ being the greater hourly or instantaneous power in the unwired areas. If there is any problem with accident or derangement of the catenary, it can be safely de-energized without meaningful delay to affected trains.
Remember - in today’s political world - railroads are the red headed step child - acknowledged to exist but not given ANY breaks and besides railroads are deep pockets.
It’s not just having the catenary overhead thats a problem it’s what happens when a train derails or the weather turns to crap in the winter. A line breaking on an electrified railroad line literally can bring it to a halt. Lord help your operations team if a transformer substation decides to play meltdown.
You’re talking about tying billions of dollars in capital up that would restrict operational flexibility with the rest of the system in freight situations. That’s why Conrail even under government control axed electrified freight operations the costs didn’t justify it.
If you were dumb enough to completely electrify the line.
With dual-mode lite, you clear whatever part of the infrastructure has fallen or been damaged (this is easier with constant-tension cat that has been properly detail-designed) and just motor through the gap like any other gap.
For those looking to the government to help fund railroad projects, they might want to keep in mind the U.S. total debt load. Americans are in hawk up to their ears; it is not just the U.S. government’s debt.
The approximate total debt burden that has to be serviced by Americans one way or the other is approximately $69.4 trillion. The major components of the debt include: U.S. National debt: $36.7 trillion, state government debt: $1.1 trillion, local government debt: $2.1 trillion, student loan debt: $1.8 trillion, residential mortgage debt: $12.6 trillion, credit card debt: $1.2 trillion, auto loan debt: $1.7 trillion, and corporate debt: $12.2 trillion.
At the end of 2024 federal government debt was approximately 123 percent of GDP. More importantly, the public debt reached 98% of GDP. Assuming the current curve does not bend significantly, the public debt is expected to reach 118.5% of GDP by 2035.
At the end of World War II, the U.S. government debt as a percentage of GDP stood at 106%. Most of it was held by Americans. However, as of December 2024, approximately 24 percent of U.S. national public debt, as evidenced by U.S. Treasury issues, was held by foreign investors. Japan, China, and the U.K. were the largest holders of U.S. government debt.
The other item is approx $7.26 Trillion of the National Debt is intergovernmental loans which in part are necessary for government operations with a country of this size. So the notion of net zero on the National Debt will probably never be achieved in my opinion. The government will need some borrowing to stay liquid and operate.
As an example of an intergovernmental loan/debt arrangement, Social Security is a Trust Fund that needs to invest it’s money in a low risk investment and I believe one of the most secure is the U.S. Treasury T-Bills. Now some people call that an IOU but it is actually an investment and it falls under intergovernment loans / debt. So in effect our Treasury is in debt to the Social Security Trust Fund. I don’t think that is a harmful practice myself.
Many other nations seem to have figured out electrification. For one, intermodal terminals, locals and switching typically use diesel power, limiting CAT to major routes.
Please note, this whole discussion about electrication stemmed from Balt’s contention that (diesel) freight trains can’t run adjacent to electrified higher or HSR passenger, then can’t run stacks under CAT. It wasn’t about who pays.
I don’t recall Balt contending diesel freight couldn’t run alongside HSR passenger on separate mains; I though the ‘argument’ was that any switches leading to the HSR side would involve crossing over the HSR tracks if at grade.
The running stacks under CAT is less a technical issue than a preference. I’d like to think that many of the current ‘problems’ (no pun intended) with existing catenary are related to plant age and issues with non-constant-tension design and construction, but there certainly have been concerns about the longevity of wayside storage, higher AC voltage and return conductivity, and various clearance and liability issues. It isn’t difficult to see why CSX (or other economically Class Is) would see poor cost/benefit from passenger-only catenary over non-fully-electrified routes.
He stated electric wires and some cargos mix badly. He responded negatively to the rules set in place about RF&P row. He contended no electrified rail lines carry much. Lots of feeble excuses.
The current height of double stacks and auto racks is 20 feet two inches (since cars tend to grow in both carrying capacity and physical dimensions over time, nobody can say that cars can’t get higher than 20 feet 2 inches above the top of the rail (not from the rail base or the sub grade).
Considering high voltage electricity’s ability to jump gaps - how high above the 20 foot 2 inches must the cat wire be to prevent any possibility a current jumping from the catenary to a passing train?
In the event of a derailment which will likely take out the catenary structure and drop energized line(s) on to the ground and into the general pile up that may or may not contain a variety of HAZMAT that can create catastrophic consequences especially if that electricity ignites a fire or explosion.
If one thinks East Palestine was a tragedy - remember it happened in functionally, the middle of nowhere. Think of a similar occurrence anywhere between Washington and Richmond - all of which is highly populated territory - territory that is IN the national new for a variety of reasons virtually every day of the year.
Since I know nothing about real railroading, could someone give me an answer to something I’ve been wondering.
Since there are a lot of problems with catenary, why is that the preferred way to electrify the train? What is the problem with the way subways get power from a rail?
It’s no more than about 750V at considerable amperage compared to overhead, usually with return current through running rails, which can lead to a variety of undesirable effects. Don’t even think of allowing anyone near the electrified third rail. Derailments can ‘pick’ the third rail and turn it into a spear; look up the unique horror that was the Malbone St. wreck, which was less a train accident and more a mass repeated electrocution.
The ‘correct’ alternative is one of the forms of ‘smart third rail’, which stems from a system GE developed for safe streetcars. That system provided a series of point conductors for the ‘hot’ side, and a conductive shoe completely under the skirts of the car that spanned more than one of the ‘points’ at a time. Using a variety of detecting techniques, traction power was only applied to a ‘point’ when the shoe was contacting it and the controller calling for power (or by extension regenerative braking) and as all the relays switching the power were under the street, there was no likelihood of malicious or witless contact.
Modern solutions soft-switch actual rail segments with appreciable contact area to get the same effect; the current is bussed or substation-supplied to comparatively short functional segments so great lengths of rail resistance are less problem than in regular three- or four-rail systems. However, the infrastructure can be more expensive and prone to tampering than constant-tension OHLE, and you will notice that the only use made of the system to date is in certain transit applications.
Most of the state owned railroads don’t have the freight traffic density of a Class 1 in the US.
One of the complications of electrification is that the track geometry has to be more tightly controlled than in non-electrified territory. This is especially important in curves as superelevation comes in to play as well.
Subways use a ground based 3rd rail system to distribute the electricity. Subways run in underground tunnels and the general population can only access the system at raised platform stations - thus keeping the general population AWAY from the danger part of electricity.
In above ground railroading, the general population can access the rights of way at any location on the right of way - with 3rd rail electrical systems being on ground level - the general population has to negotiate it as they move about the right of way - even if the right of way is fenced - trespassers will be trespassers and fences are not much of a impediment. Rail Fried Trespassers.
All these posts do not address CSX’s refusal to even allow design for future electrification poles on the new Long Bridge. To not allow even designs that would allow for electrification support poles seems rather petty. So, if in the future electrification of the separate passenger line from WASH to ALX is desired CSX can prevent it from happening.
CSX doesn’t want anything that doesn’t already exist. Feeble excuses abound even when one can see CAT and freight parallel around DC with various lines.