OK, now this probably will never happen, but can anyone make a guess on how much it would cost to electrify the entire BNSF transcon from Chicago to Los Angeles?
Ok, I will bite on this…
Honestly, I would put it at somwhere between No Way In H#$# to Impossible.
Several things
-
The infastructure would be astronomical. All the yards, the sidings to cover. Getting it through cities, town, bridges and tunnels. Permits up the ying yang. I cant even imagine the cost of parts to cover 2 tracks for 3000 miles.
-
The equipment changeover. Every line that comes into the BNSF would have to have a yard, or some sorta of trackage, built to switchover head end power.
-
New engines, new repair programs, new training,a whole new slew of part numbers and bins. And the forming of one new huge department to repair and work on the electric side of it.
-
Lost reveue to construction on the line while it is being built. As it is now, Sabo (??spelling, the canyon in New Mexico) Canyon goes down to one track only for a littel ways and that gives them fits. I cant imagine the line dealing with that project. it would take years. Maybe even a decade.
I am sure there are plenty of other aspects I am missing but those are the ones off the top of my head
All the issues mentioned above plus also having high enough clearance for a doublestack.
Extending the NEC 232 miles to Boston (156 miles new electrifcation) cost $1.7 billion, not counting locomotives, but counting other things like replacement bridges.
Chicago to LA is 2200 miles.
Not every train would need to have electrics, especially to start with.
Why would you want to electrify the Entire BNSF main line for Purpose? Why to save little gas? It would Big Waste of Time and Money? You are talking about 5 to 10 Billion Dollars.[2c]
That was pretty much te conclusion of teh Southern Calirfornia Electrification study that took place 1990-92 - biggest expense was providing clearance for the doublestacks plus above and below the wire - estimate was that was going to be half the total.
BNSF and electricity only belong in the same sentence if it has to do with a BNSF coal train bringing coal to a power plant to make electricity LOL
I disagree. I think 20 Billion to electrify the Transcon makes sense. It would make big dent in the amount of imported oil needed by the USA. It would provide a modest increase in capacity. It would reduce noise and pollution. I donh’t expect the BNSF to invest all by themselves. I think the power companies should for their own interest help with the investment.
Locomotives: Dual power, the diesel is a slug for the electric under wire and the electric a slug for the diesel off wire. Either can be used separately when appropriate but can also be jumpered together.
Clearances: Raised where practical. Where not practical, center third rail with reduced voltage operation in concret roadbed track, power on only when train is present. Retractable shoes (rollers) make contact.
Right of way used for additional power line transmissions.
Right now power companies effectively burn a competitors product to make their own.
Well, I “Kind Of” agree. The BNSF Transcon, and the coal routes out of the Powder River Basin seem to have the train density needed to support main line electrification.
But! $20 billion is literally a 'bet the company" amount. Now I’m a gambler - I’m headed up to the dog track latter today. The First Rule is: Never, ever bet more than you can afford to loose.
If things don’t work out as I calculated in a Greyhound race, I’m out, max, about $24. I can afford that. If things didn’t work out as calculated on the BNSF electrification the company would be dead. They can’t afford to lay out $20 billion and not get a good return on their investment. They can’t “know” what things will be like 10 years out in terms of electricity costs, diesel fuel costs, etc. It would be taking quite a risk (quite a gamble.) And it’s more than they could ever afford to loose. Prudent management won’t take that risk.
And
Catenary makes most sense where the effects of regenerative braking are important. I.e. mountain-sections - not the whole transcontinental. It would make sense as well to go to electric traction on the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-segment of the former PRR-mainline. And of course, commuter-railroads like the non-electrified METRA-lines or the Altamont-Express
Agree, electrifying the entire transcon not likely. The energy markets are uncertain. Who can predict what electric energy will cost in 10 years?
Now if we are talking a state-owned transcon (like the Trans-Siberian Rwy), different story. The central planning bureau would build dedicated power plants to provide power for the railroad at a fixed price.
So are you saying we’d have to have communism–and the market distortions it permits–to have a fully electrified transcon?
With copper being what it is today, such a project could very well create a run on copper that would hurt the economy.
The BNSF would not do it because as any corporation they don’t take risks. They down size not up size and try to get more ot of what they have. While the BNSF is double tracking what isn’t double tracked on the transcon they continue to shed feeder lines and redundant mainlines. They sold the track over raton pass to the state of new mexico. Personally I can’t see how just running intermodal is a good bussiness venture but hey I don’t make those decisions.
I’m not sure what the purpose of Electrificaton would do. The cost in building the catanery alone would be exspensive, and than the locomotives. Not to mention the dwell time in yards to switch power out when changing from electric to non electric.
Biodiesel is the wave of the future.
Besides, who WOULDN’T want to smell french fries as the units pass?
I would rather the smell of hasbrowns!
Yeah, I think biodiesel could be the wave of the future. If everyone switches to biodiesel, then the price of that will skyrocket too. Maybe if only the rail and trucking industry switched to it?
And Amtrak can run Acela down it too! Of course that pipe dream won’t likely happen either:)
If something like this was too happen you would need two things, someone to help underwrite the costs, i.e. power companies, and the goverment to give some LARGE tax breaks. Without both of these, the project would be dead in the water.
Bert
solz, Bio has a place but it is also a food sourse for people. Mabe a thought that might be considered would be the use of our abundant coal deposits. With the assistance of atomic heat sourses from the new reactor technologies being currently developed and studied, converted coal would make a very good synthetic diesel fuel. This is not really a new idea. Adolph Hitler was one that was behind the pioneering efforts in 1942-44 and powered his war machine with it (both diesel and gasoline). Needless to say those synthetic fuel plants were both a high priority and heavly defended as a targets of both the Royal, US 8th Air Forse and Luftwaffe (respectfully) during World War II. IF this technology were developed on a true industiral scale, We (the US) could tell a few folks to keep their oil, We have our own thank you very much. By the way that kind of solution would be a very pro-railroad type solution for haulage and usage not to mention a sourse of employment to engineering and construction types. . . My [2c]
The composite after-tax cost-of-capital rate for railroads in 2004 was 10.1%, as calculated by the STB, based on the then-current cost-of-debt of 5.25%; a cost of common equity capital of 13.16%; and a capital structure mix comprised of 38.5% debt and 61.5% common equity. STB is currently calculating the 2005 cost of capital, but BNSF earned 10.1%. My guess for 2005 is a cost of capital of around 10.4%. BNSF is, in 2006, likely earning its cost of capital.