I wasn’t aware that Russia’s mainline was completely electrified…My wife is from Russia and she tells me that Russia relies almost completely on rail for its longhaul…trucking is much less important in Russia and is generally confined to local work and perishables from Asia. Maybe we (in North America) need to look more closely at what the Russians and Chinese are doing…they appear to be way ahead of us…As far as passenger rail goes…my wife says people don’t generally drive long distances in Russia…that travel by train is still “mainstream”…ahead of driving and flying…
Also very interesting about PRR’s electrified Philly to Washington corridor… PRR was way ahead of its time…
Actually, the PRR wired from New York City [Sunnyside Yard on Long Island] to Washington, D.C. [Potomac Yard a little further south]; plus Philadelphia to Harrisburg [Enola Yard on the west shore of the Susquehanna River]; and to ‘close the triangle’, the Port Road branch mainly on the east side of the Susquehanna from the Harrisburg area south to the main line about midway between Baltimore and Wilmington; plus a few more lines that were either parallel to, cut-offs, or low-grade alternatives to them.
I’ve just finished reading most of “ELECTRIC TRACTION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD: 1895-1965” by Michael Bezilla, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, c. 1980, ISBN 0-271-00241-7, Lib. Cong. 79-65858, which is his Ph.D. thesis in History turned into a book. Although he says ‘‘I have made an effort to appeal to both interests [historian and rail buff], realizing that I risk satisfying neither’’ (Acknowledgments), it’s very readable.
The more interesting part of the book - which intentionally takes it out of the usual recitation of facts and events - is that ''It is also a study of how a great corporation attempted to manage an important element of technologic
I think that the most likely time for electrification on US railroads would have been in the 1970’s. This would have been true especially after the 1973 energy crisis. I think that both SP and UP did consider it. One question I have was the SD-40-2 that great that it deterred electrification? I make the case that yes it was!
(1) I think that there are currently too many political questions that could greatly affect the viability of railroads to make such an investment right now.
(2) I was told by a high ranking Santa Fe official that they considered electrification in the 1970s, but decided against it. He indicated that the investment wasn’t what really shot the deal down. The though of surrenduring the ability to run their trains to people who make decisions about the power grid was ultimately what killed the deal.
I doubt it…right now we’re all at the mercy of oil producing countries who don’t necessarily like us. Much better to be dependent on the Hoover Dam people…just my opinion of course.
If railroads electrified they would consume a huge amount of electricity right? In turn, that would raise energy costs for us right?
On the contrary, I too am liking the issue. I am currently on the article about the Smithsonian’s transportation director. I have liked the issue a lot over all.
I think my concerns about electrifying rail lines in the USA comes down to this: the ENORMOUS up-front cost of the installation.
I cite the following problems:
The cost of putting up many thousands of miles of overhead wiring. And I do mean many thousands of miles.
The cost of the Class I railroads having to buy as many as 6,000 new electric locomotives if we were to phase out diesel-electric locomotives.
The enormous cost of raising tunnel clearances or daylighting shorter tunnels to accommodate overhead wiring. I can imagine how much that would cost CSX and NS to do this on their rail routes through the Appalachians.
Finding the means to power up all these many thousands of miles of overhead wiring.
The worst problem of all, the height of the overhead wiring may not accommodate domestic doublestack container trains, which means we end up reducing capacity for container freight service.
Let us look at it this way. A diesel electric thermal efficiency is some 25%+. Modern power plants are about 40%+??. If these figures are close to correct the oil used in power plants to generate power (oil doesn’t have to be refined as diesel does which also saves energy) is not as much as the diesel used for the same ton miles. This assumes the energy needed is traded 1 for 1 (I know not likely) then we still have a net reduction in oil used?
The electrification article in November 2009 Trains was just plain awful.
It failed to deal with major issues, such as “where does the electricity come frome?” and presented false information as unchallenged fact. (i.e. It could create 175 million jobs, it could divert 83% of the truck traffic to rail.) This is garbage.
That would be more than double the number of jobs the US had in 2006 before the recession. Such a claim is flat out garbage. Diverting 83% of the truck traffic to rail couldn’t be done if the railroads had free power.
I never thought I’d see such garbage in the pages of Trains Magazine.
Pardon the minor cut and paste job, the above I agree with you completely.
My question to you about the above part is this, where will the oil come from to make the diesel fuel in 20 years? The oil companies have been able to find it so far, but there are no more guarantees than the ability to make sufficient electricity. The only reasonable way to make diesel fuel is from mineral oil extracted from the ground, converting coal or natural gas isn’t economically viable with any technology known at the present. It is straight forward to produce electricity from either of those sources as well as others. Trying to build a new powerplant is no harder than trying to build a new refinery. And as to the person who says what will happen if a powerplant goes down will the public demand first call on the available power ahead of the railroad? What happens if a refinery goes down, will the public be any more reasonable?
Oil fueled power plants are becoming scarcer and scarcer in the U.S, many have been converted to Natural Gas fuel. Coal and Nuclear plants both generate much more power than coal. If you’re speculating that there would be some new plant construction to power railroad electrification I would bet anything none of them would be oil fired…
Logically, If petroleum becomes scarcer and scarcer then using alternate sources of hydrocarbon to produce synthetic diesel becomes viable. The economy of synthetic fuels you mention is in relation to the price of oil, if that skyrockets due to declines in production synfuels become more attractive…
Actually I do think electrification may eventually happen on a large scale, but not in the near term.
If we’re not careful this thread will turn into another “bring back steam” argument, LOL!
I think they will be able to find adequate oil supplies for a lot longer than 20 more years. In my opinion, a lot of the impetus behind the so-called peak oil theories and the supposed crisis of quickly running out of oil are part of an anti-fossil fuel agenda. In other words, they are creating a false crisis that we are almost out of oil, which is intended to force us to give up hope for continued oil use, the
The oil 20 years from now will come from basically the same sources it comes from now, underground oil wells.
We’ve been “running out” of oil ever since Edwin Drake drilled the 1st oil well in Pennsylvania in 1859. Back then, nobody knew of oil anywhere other than in that part of Pennsylvania so it was reasonable to reason that when those well went dry the world would be out of oil. We’ve got petroleum resources here in the US. The dang government just locks most of 'em up along with not allowing power plants or refineries to be built.
But this begs the question avoided by that awful Trains article on electrification. To electrify the US railroads new power plants would have to be built. (No, the railroads can’t be powered by windmills.) These power plants would have to be nuclear or coal. The dang government won’t allow either one. This means the plan of “Researcher” Alan Drake of the Millennium Institue, Trains Magzine’s chosen expert on railroad electrification, has a major flaw. (Actually, his plan has several major flaws,. but hey, he’s Trains’ chosen expert.)
We’re headed for freezing in the dark. If we don’t starve to death in a homeless shelter first.
Where in this country will you find an OIL FIRED ELECTRIC POWER PLANT TODAY??? Electricity is mostly produced by coal; followed by nuclear, hydroelectric and natural gas. Oh yea, and lastly the wind farms.
Since oil is no longer a significant source for electricity, it destroys your whole agrument.
While oil continues to decline in popularity as an electricity fuel, in places such as New York, oil still comprises about 8 percent of the state’s electricity fuel mix
Oil fired near PHL airport
New one being built at Woodfin, NC - 20 miles north of Asheville
Martin’s Creek, PA plant - “The two oil or natural gas units have a generating capacity of 832 megawatts each and operate in times of peak electricity demand. The units were built in 1974 and 1976, respectively, to burn crude or No. 6 fuel oil. In 1996, PPL modified the units so they could burn natural gas as well.”
“Martins Creek’s coal-fired Units 1 and 2, which had a generating capacity of 150 megawatts each, were shut down Sept. 14, 2007, under a voluntary agreement with state environmental agencies. They began commercial operation in 1954 and 1956, respectively.”
[emphasis added - PDN] Note that these oil-fired units are for ‘peaking’ use, which may be suitable for supplying railroad electrification loads; they have now essentially replaced the former coal units; and are over 5 times larger than the coal units they replaced.