Forbes article on electrification especially in North America. Article says major cost is getting sufficient clearance for CAT. Maintains batteries solution for meeting tunnel and bridge clearances. However IMO most dead areas that have insuffient clearances are rather short rail distances. IMO operating trains with a top and tail of electric DPUs would solve most of these problems except for tunnels longer than most trains. Those trains yes would need battery carrying locos. Horse shoe route and maybe just a few others in the east. Out west some tunnels already have enough clearance,
IMHO the major cost of electrification are the many delays trying to do potholing for the verticle poles. That work is hidden below ground and not sexy. Just look at Caltrain’s delays (just recently finished all poles) and the earlier delays in the New Haven - BOS installation of CAT mostly due to delays in erecting verticle poles.
For potholing there is the obvious rock in the ground, but also various utilities next to tracks and in some locations parallel haz Mat pipelines. (SP has many miles). That does not count utilities crossing ROWs at all kind of angles.
If the railroads are looking for equipment heights at around 21 feet, The clearance for electrification would be around 29 feet. That is a major obstacle. All the signal systems would have to be replaced as the locomotives would need to use the running rails for the ground return. There is the question of where would a reliable source of power come from. And the big one, where would the money come from to pay for all of this.
I have repeatedly noted my belief in battery-hybrid dual-mode-lite as a progressive solution to ‘electrification’. Whether the ‘engine’ part is diesel, biodiesel for zero-net-carbon, or blue hydrogen with sequestration for zero-carbon ought to be more or less ‘tech agnostic’ with respect to the form of the electrification; the key (as the Garrett engineers noted in the '70s) was to size and operate the trains as if they were limited by the onboard power, rather than go straight to 6000hp ‘straight electrics’ that require continuous access to high-voltage current with good short-term draw regardless of traffic.
The Chinese developed a perfectly good “potholing” solution suitable for HSR construction. I’m quite certain we could develop at least as good a solution once the ‘political will’ is there to implement OHLE “rollout” (first on severe grades and as ‘recharge points’ for dual-mode) but the issue here is demonstrated feasibility.
Meanwhile, the Indians happily operate full electrification with ridiculous overhead clearance (think clearance required for 25kV with doublestacks on skeleton flats!) and it looks every bit as ridiculous as you’d think it would, but it seems to be operable. Yes, there are better prospective solutions that involve dual-mode-lite, but again there’s proof in the real world how the trick can be done.
I note with no particular surprise (and more than usual quiet disappointment) that the Next Big Thing of battery/hydrogen light rail trains is being quietly abandoned (apparently in favor of battery trains with distributed recharge points). Remains to be seen whether the North American version of the fuel supply system can be made to work any better. But do NOT expect that straight hydrogen fuel-cell locomotives as replacements for diesel-electric units are going to be much of a successful development…
This is a critical question. For a nation with a federal government debt of more than $33.8 trillion, as well as gobs of state and local government debt, where will the money come from?
Someone will have to make a convincing case for the investors that electrification will pay back, in spades. Barring that, or a healthy infusion of taxpayer money, it’s not going to happen.
Let us also face the fact that the PRR segment of electrification on the NEC was done for the most part with federal money. FDR investing in the country to get it moving out of the Depression
If I’m not mistaken, the funds concerned were from the RFC (which was a Hoover-era program) and were in the nominal form of loans that PRR subsequently repaid.
I don’t know if NYC repaid their RFC loans for the ‘pump priming’ construction of the J3as, but someone who is a New York Central fan or historian will know. I don’t think Staufer said definitively in Thoroughbreds, but will check when I have time.
The financing for catenary need be no more complicated that Government guarantees of construction loans, to keep rates controlled and necessary tranches available, and setasides from taxes. To the extent the cat and wayside power are part of a larger ‘energy strategy’ – as they certainly should be – alternative capital and maintenance funding should be involved on some fair pro-rata basis.
In the original article in Forbes the areas of highest percentage of electrification seem to be the countries with government-owned railroads.
It would be interesting to find out how the various countries power the catenary.
If there is a financial case for electrification it will happen.
Those India double-stack trains with drover vans or whatever they are called there (cabooses) on the end are impressive, albeit still shorter than the typical US train.
However they do double up with a mid train locomotive and drovers van on some. They look to use 5-packs of flat cars.
I would argue that taxpayer funding spent on rail electrification would be a better investment than subsidizing personal vehicles. Never going to happen though for various political reasons. Plus we really can’t afford it anyway.
A problem with the “how in the world are we going to pay for this?” argument is it assumes we’re currently paying nothing and this is an entirely new expense. How much do railroads currently pay each year for diesel fuel? The fuel costs are paid from the rates they charge companies for moving their goods (and the companies pass the cost to the consumer), and I assume using fuel costs as an expense giving them a tax break, meaning they pay less tax (so we pay more). Ultimetly we all pay for it.
It is likely, once the infrastructure was in place, that using electricity (which could be generated by solar power, wind power, etc.) would be much cheaper per year than diesels.
The other issue that is not being addressed is where will the electricity formerly generated by locomotives come from once the catenary is strung. The existing power grid cannot handle the additional load from railroads.
Especially not when you include EVs - there are already grid capacity issues with charging them.
Every power source has its foes. Some people hate hydroelectric (gotta get rid of those darned dams), some hate wind turbines (unsightly, kill birds), some hate solar (for taking up what could be productive farm land), some hate nuclear (OMG! Chernobyl!), some hate the various fossil fuels.
Power source issues notwithstanding, money to build will be the issue. The railroads do use substantial amounts of fuel, which would theoretically be replaced by electricity.
Even setting aside construction, what’s the ROI for going with electricity? Social issues are not part of the discussion.
It’s the ROI that traditionally kills these. All the big studies for electrication of busy mainlines through the years have shown that they’re financially viable. But the rate is too slow and spread over too many years.
When they can get a better return elsewhere, their limited capital is going to go somewhere else rather than towards electrication.
It’s not all gravy once the electrification is built. The NEC was built around a century ago, and needs tens of billion$ just to bring it to a state of good repair.
??? Huh? I would hope that legitimate costs are being accounted for against sales revenue to arrive at true taxable income. Otherwise gonna fall down, go booom.
The government is good at unfunded mandates. PTC anyone?
Although I haven’t been following it closely, California is supposed to be trying to force all locomotives to be zero emissions by 2030 or 2035 depending on type of service. Some shortlines are worried that they won’t be able to afford the technology, that really isn’t there yet. Some expect that they would have to shut down.
Just force it nation wide, which isn’t above the realm of possibility, and it almost forces electrification. At least for heavily trafficed lines. It might lead to abandonment of lesser trafficed lines. The railroads might think the expense is not justified.