Depends on whether the second railroad actually holds the air rights (it may not in some types of conveyances) and, if so, whether the power company would be able to condemn an air rights crossing. Under STB case law, a crossing condemnation like this could conceivably be permissible (there’s a “Maumee” case that discusss the principle, but I don’t have the compete cite readily at hand). One issue with high voltage transmission lines, however, is that they can interfere with railroad signal systems.
[quote user=“Murphy Siding”]
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
I think this is part of what made BNSF attractive to Buffet.
The government wants the following:
-
Electrification of rail.
-
Use of rail corridors for new grid transmission to rail electrification and other uses.
-
Wind farms where the wind blows and land is available.
The use of rail corridors for electrical transmission will minimize the NIMBYS and speed up the transmission line approval process. The whole thing will be financed more by public money than by private capital. <
I did not mean to suggest that electrification of all of the heavy mainlines would take place at once. But now that Abo Canyon is nearly completed and the BNSF has been experimenting with longer and longer trains along this line, as well as high speed crossovers have been installed for years along this line the trans con between Chicago and Los Angeles is ripe for electrification. Probably only from Barstow to Galesburg. I would think that the heavily congested traffic lanes between Barstow and Los Angeles and Long Beach would remain dieselized for the near future, although the Alameda corridor would be easily electrified. They obviously had future electrification in mind when it was built. The trackage between Galesburg and Chicago is another area that would probably remain dieselized for some time.
The second BNSF mainline that would probably be electrified would be the Chicago - Seattle line. But first there would be trackage improvements made such as longer sidings and high speed turnouts. The Cascade tunnel would be easily electrified as it has already been electrified once. I am sure that Marias Pass snowsheds have more than enough height to support electrification as well. At the same time it would make sense to electrify the Spokane - Portland and Portland - Seattle routes.
Probably third would be the PRB line south and and east to Texas and Nebraska with the Denver - Galesburg section to follow. This quite possibly would force MRL to electrify there mainline as well.
More trains can be operated over electrified lines than can be operated over conventional diesel powered lines in the same 24 hour period. And electrification would put more safeguards in place, although the government has already addressed that concern.
Berkshire Hathaway has major holdings in utilities that produce electricity as well as in su
I’ve been thinking San Bernardino to Argentine (arrival and departure tracks only) would be more likely? And perhaps Northtown rather than Chicago on the Northern Transcon?
Wouldn’t BNSF then answer to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders? Not that most of us could afford even one share of their class A stock…but BH is more than just Warren Buffett…
You’re kidding, right? Because after this acquisition I will be a shareholder in the organization that controls BNSF. Prior to this action the company I own a share in controlled a percentage of BNI stock. And in my experience, Warren Buffet does more to answer to shareholders than almost any other leader of a publically traded company in the nation.
I too thought of San Bernardino but since UP has trackage rights over this portion there may be some problems. I don’t think UP wamts to buy electric’s for just that portion and I don’t believe they would like to pay the BNSF to haul all of there trains between San Bernardino and Barstow.
I also think the amount of traffic between Argentine and Galesburg would warrant electrification as well.
I also think that since much of the traffic on the Northern trans con travels through to Chicago that Galesburg would be the ideal electric terminal for both.
The one I question is Galesburg to Denver. I don’t know that traffic levels on this line would warrant the cost of electrification, although it is the most direct route between Denver and Chicago.
The PRB would be a natural for electrification due to the sheer volume of traffic in and out. Obviously the amount of diesel fuel saved here could be an argument for electrification.
It seems to me that if the BNSF begins electrificationit will have a ripple effect on the other major RRs to electrify there major lines as well.
Al - in - Stockton
He who has to much time on his hands this time of the year.
The only potentially postive economic rationale for electrification of which I am aware is the avoided cost of air emissions, and only if the cost per ton of avoided CO2, NOX, VOCs, and PMs are increased dramatically above current levels. There is no business case for electrification – not even the thinnest hope of one – if the only thing we are going to do with it is avoid buying diesel fuel and maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. Not at $8/gallon diesel fuel, either.
Debating which lines should be electrified first as a business case proposition is like saying, “Which company should we aquire first: the one that will lose $1 billion, the one that will lose $5 billion, or the one that will lose $10 billion?”
RWM
The lawsuits against wind generators and the government’s preference for wind power may seem to be at cross-purposes, but I think the conflict is an anomaly arising from the unforeseen contingency of bird kills. Otherwise, the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement. Those views do not simply demand that energy production is clean or low emission. They demand sustainability, and that requires energy to be from a renewable source such as wind and solar.
Nuclear is not renewable, so it does not support sustainability. Beyond that, the waste handling is thought to be an unacceptable risk of toxic emission, and waste storage itself is not sustainable. So, for as logical nuclear is as a substitute for coal, it is not acceptable to the green movement.
That statement flies in the face of all evidence before me in my profession. There is no consensus among anyone anywhere about anything.
RWM
Consesus! The only concesus I can see is that everyone seems to agree that the other guys ideas are all wrong.
FRANTIC NAYSAYERS UNITE!
The only consensus appears to be that there’s no consensus…
That really doesn’t lead me to believe this is quite the slam-dunk you seem to be portraying. Wishing that BNSF would convert to electricity, even though it appears economically impossibe, is nothing more than a wish, even if some folks in the federal government and a lot of wishful thinking folks in California think it would be cool. In the end, the taxpayers would have to be convinced that the money required could not be used better somewhere else.
When I say that the environmental and climate views of California perfectly match those of the current administration, congress, and the green movement, I should clarify that I do not mean to include every Californian, every member of congress and the administration, and every advocate of the green movement.
You used the term, consensus to characterize my statement, and that is the word that I should have used. Consensus refers to a majority of agreement within specific groups. So I would revise my statement to say that, within the group that includes the administration, congress, and the green movement, there is a consensus on the environmental and climate views.
Really? I am incredulous because I wear out my shoe leather trudging around between the feds, the states, and the major environmental groups such as Sierra Club on a daily basis and I don’t think they could even agree on whether to order sandwiches for a meeting from Panera Bread or JimmyJohns. If one used the analogy that there is consensus to move the steering wheel of the ship of state to a new direction, then you might find agreement to change about 0.1 degrees.
I used to joke that there could be no such thing as a government conspiracy because you could never even get anyone to agree on to who to invite to the kickoff meeting to initiate the conspriracy. But now I don’t think that’s as funny as I used to having been a participant in some vast failures to accomplish anything despite having thrown billions of dollars at the problem.
Seriously, if you think there’s a consensus among the administration, Congress, any of the 50 states, and even a few of the environmental NGOs – much less a majority of them measured on their “influence” – on climate and the environment – than I am going to quit my job because my work on this planet is done. The major environmental groups I would characterize as infuriated with the Administration.
RWM
I did not say it was a slam-dunk. I am only referring to the intent at this moment and the willingness to spend public money. It may be economically impossible for BNSF to electrify with private capital, but government funding would be easy. Matt Rose said that is what it will take. The taxpayers did not object to paying $750 billion just to create jobs with no particular payback required other than to put people to work. I don’t see taxpayers holding anybody’s feet to the fire.&n
Warren Buffett is famous for his self-effacing no baloney performance evaluations. Stockholders flock to Omaha to hear him talk about the state of the company. If anyone has questions, he’ll give them an answer. My guess is that if he buys into a company, he does his due diligence, asks tough questions, and is more than willing to answer to shareholders who would hold him to the same standard. (I say this having never met the “Oracle of Omaha”). If you want to check for yourself, real his comments on Berkshire Hathaway annual reports – they are available on the company’s web site, and go back for a good many years.
If Brekshire shareholders distrusted his financial judgement, then they’d be pretty stupid to buy shares in his company, don’t you think? Especially given the P/E accorded its shares.
Of one thing I’m almost (99.999 percent) certain: if Warren Buffett took a high wad of scarce Berkshire Hathaway capital to blow on the idiotic large- (or small-) scale electrification of BNSF, then (in no particular order) Senor Buffett’s judgement would swiftly be called into question, the wealth of Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would would be massively reduced, and reflecting that wealth reduction, the price of Berkshire Hathaway stock would plummet faster than a bomber in a power dive.
There is a consensus in Minnesota, if you can call a Democratic legislature and a Republican governor passing and signing legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions 15% by 2015 and 80% by 2050. That is exactly what happened here in Minnesota in 2007.
Gas and electric utilties in Minnesota are now dealing with conservation mandates that require them to spend the money that will reduce demand by 1 1/2% percent per year-with no end.
Sounds like our president will be jetting off to Copenhagen to put his stamp on some global consensus as well.
In the end this whole discussion will be moot, as after the AWG believers get their way and grind our economy into dust we won’t have a need to burn coal or move freight.
We’ll have a green economy when everyone accepts that electricity grows on trees.
-Crandell
It could happen!
I mean Tiger Woods ran his SUV into a tree and a bunch of women fell out.
Who knew they grew on trees?