As was pointed out in the article, some lines are better suited for electrification than others.
My favorite spot - Deshler - sees upwards of sixty trains daily. The east-west double track would be a decent candidate. The Toledo line (N-S) headed south would probably do well, too. North, not so much.
Lines like the St Lawrence Sub in NY, which normally see just two trains each day, plus a few locals, would be a harder sell.
Batteries would work for many shortlines (and possibly lines like the St Lawrence Sub). It would depend on the effective range of said locos.
Trains are already one of the most efficient ways to move cargo - and with Tier 4 locomotives, the exhaust is almost cleaner than the air coming in (I’m only being a little facetious).
And we must remember - that electricity has to come from somewhere. There is no electricity fairy, waving a magic wand.
The UP mainline which goes through Rochelle (possibly that BNSF line there too) and BNSF transcontinental line are very busy.
And Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, Charle Proteus Steinmetz and George Westinghouse can’t send it down from Heaven either.
But to maintian an overhead catenary system? It takes people and equipment. Shareholders won’t like that.
Remember when UP constructed catenary in Nebraska to test feasibility? How many dollars in stored diesel locomotives does UP have now?
Electrification in the US has been studied and analyzed several times. It’s always come up short. Things can certainly change, but…
-
The costs are upfront, and the payback is maybe 20 years out. Nobody can see 20 years into the future. It’s a big risk with an uncertain payback.
-
The US freight rail network is far more extensive than in other countries. You would have to put the mileage of India, China, and Russia together to exceed the US mileage. Their traffic is more concentrated. We have more lower density lines that won’t justify electrification.
-
Because of these lower density lines electrification will necessarily degrade locomotive utilization. I’ll use service to Phoenix as an example. IF the BNSF Transcon could justify electrification, how do they serve Phoenix? They’d have to change locomotives at the junction. They’d have all these expensive locomotives sitting still waiting for a train to arrive. Now, the locos just go on through. They’d lose that and have idled, expensive, investments. There
If a outside party were to assume the costs of building and maintaining the catenary and power supplies - I am certain the UP or some other carriers would spring for the costs of locomotives necessary to utilize that power source. The carriers will not accept the costs of the costs of building and maintaining the catenary system AND the costs associated with the locomotives.
Personally, I suspect the issue is constantly changing traffic patterns in the United States. How many times have we shifted from primarily East-West to more of North-South orientation. If we could keep traffic consistent on specific mainlines for 20+ years perhaps the payback would be there. However, the traffic patterns shift with the prevailing trade winds in this country.
Also the price of Diesel is another factor. Very cheap in the United States compared to Europe which shifts the cost vs benefit equation of electrical power quite a bit. Import European Diesel prices and watch that change along with much heavier use of Intermodal trains for long distance.
The question is why would a third party want to invest in the power distribution system when there are plenty of investments that promise a greater return? Another way to look at it is, why is it such a great deal for me to pony up the cash and not the railroad? If they can’t afford to build the system themself, why should I be assured that they can pay me for building it for them?
This has been discussed many times in the past (at least since the early Sixties). The only deal that seemed to make sense was for the power companies to use the railroads’ rights of way for their distribution systems and build the railroad’s power system on the side (the electrification being 60hz “toaster” current to do away with expensive conversion facilities). But the power companies don’t seem to have any problems locating their transmission lines on their own rights of way, so no one has ever bitten
Second, why would UP or anyone else “jump” at the opportunity to buy straight electric emgines AND pay someone for the overhead and juice? What advantage do straight electrics have over AC diesel electrics? (I won’t even mention the fleets of stored locomotives - many never to roll under their own power ever again)
High voltage lines tend to make very straight lines for long distancs before making a very quick turn. RRs with all their curves would cause much more in the way of transmission towers. Of course maybe PG&E should have done that.
Do you think European mainlines are that straight?
For those with access to Trains Magazine archives these articles may prove interesting
April 1962 “Why We Should Have Electrified 15 Years Ago”
December 1962 “Why We Didn’t Electrify”
July 1970 “The When and If of Electrification”
If you have to ask, it means you are a c
North American railroads will electrify when someone develops a battery that is more user friendly than diesel engines and the current battery tech available.
The same reasons (faster/easier refueling, longer distances between stops, less maintenance, high energy density than diesel fuel, etc) that caused diesel to replace steam.
The only power company transmission lines located along railroad rights-of-way that I know of came after abandonment of those railroads.
One is PSE&G’s power lines along the old North Jersey Rapid Transit interurban right-of-way (abandoned in 1929) and power lines located along the abandoned New York, West Shore & Buffalo in upstate New York, erected after the railroad was gone. Made sense, the railroad didn’t need it anymore. Those are shown in a well-done drone video tracing the old right-of-way. I don’t know what power company owns the lines.
There may be others but those are two that spring to mind.
Ad hominum attacks means you’ve lost the argument and know it
The article says that return on investment is not sufficient to justify electrification, yet it soldiers on with the notion that we must electrify simply because it is the way of the future.
Once again, the assumption is offered that we have a manufacturing technology infrastructure that can give us anything we want if only we ask for it. So if we ask for electrification that will justify the cost and thus give a return on investment, the technology sector will give the solution to make it happen.
This fairytale thinking ignores the fact that there are real barriers to advancing technology, and they are technical barriers. While breakthroughs are always possible, you can’t just conquer them because you decide to. Research has a cost, and successful results are not guaranteed just because research goes looking for them.
The article says that since return on investment is not sufficient to justify electrification, the solution is to have Government step in and pay for it. That means that the people should pay for it even though it will not return the investment to the people. Why would the people want to pay for something that offers no payback? It makes no sense until you add the one premise that is missing from the article.
With that premise, the objective of electrification is not cheaper rail transportation. Instead, the objective is de-carbonization. With that goal, rail electrification is a gold mine of payback. In the cost/benefit analysis of electrification for de-carbonation, the benefit is saving mankind from annih
Corrections: 1. Simply stating nicely what is your position is not a personal attack. Are you are ashamed of being a climate warming denier. 2. It’s spelled ad hominem.
Check out the Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension thread discussion link concerning the Milwaukee’s Electrification and why it would never be advantageous. Interesting side note to this discussion. Mentions very short length and inability to detour on other parallel railroads or participate in run through power unless a diesel power was maintained or connecting railroads were electrified.