# Dual Mode usage vs. Electrification of freight railroads in the US - pros and cons



## GDRRiley (Oct 5, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> It might be worthwhile to have a separate thread on the comparison of electrification vs dual modes, to compare the costs and the pros and cons.


dual modes no matter what flavor are a bandage over not electrifying. At some point class 1 will need to put wires up because battery and hydrogen just wont cut it for them. 
The only deployment that makes some sense are some dual modes where they spend time on a mainline then go off onto a really low frequency branch line. Those branchlines for the US are unlikely to get wires so having a dual mode there makes some sense. but you've got to be at under 1 train an hour and very little to no freight for that to make sense.


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 6, 2022)

west point said:


> The ALC42Es make a lot of sense. Ex. An alc42E starts in BOD or NYP. After leaving WASH Ehrtr the CAT stops runs to Norfolk on diesel. A short piece of CAR or aybe a 489 car allows dieel to shut down for the layover. Enroute the RVR might have a short section of CAT to get best aceleration of of the station and saving brakes arriving by regeration. That is if RVR gets the planned ownership of the station tracks not CSX.


thats just a band aid over not putting wires up. CSX is going to need to put them up at some point, battery or hydrogen won't work for mainline freight


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 6, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> thats just a band aid over not putting wires up. CSX is going to need to put them up at some point, battery or hydrogen won't work for mainline freight


What makes you believe they will eventually leave diesel locomotives behind? Personally I would expect to see them using diesel locomotives 50 years from now barring a gigantic breakthrough in hydrogen or battery tech.


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 6, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> What makes you believe they will eventually leave diesel locomotives behind? Personally I would expect to see them using diesel locomotives 50 years from now barring a gigantic breakthrough in hydrogen or battery tech.


because at some point the largest diesel users in the world will want to move off of it. we can encourage that by forcing lower and lower emission engines along with retiring or rebuilding of all old engines to that standard.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 7, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> because at some point the largest diesel users in the world will want to move off of it. we can encourage that by forcing lower and lower emission engines along with retiring or rebuilding of all old engines to that standard.


Think that the ROI on putting up those wires is too low to justify


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 7, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Think that the ROI on putting up those wires is too low to justify


Even back in the 70s and 80s the ROI on a freight mainline with annual traffic density of 20 million gross ton-mi/mi, it only took 10-11 years for them to have payed back their investment

At some point a freight railroad will want some fed help and once 1 gets a major line down the rest will follow, then amtrak may need to get funding to fill in gaps so they can run all under wires


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 7, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> Even back in the 70s and 80s the ROI on a freight mainline with annual traffic density of 20 million gross ton-mi/mi, it only took 10-11 years for them to have payed back their investment
> 
> At some point a freight railroad will want some fed help and once 1 gets a major line down the rest will follow, then amtrak may need to get funding to fill in gaps so they can run all under wires


Ok if you include Fed help, that likely changes the equation dramatically


----------



## west point (Nov 7, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> At some point a freight railroad will want some fed help and once 1 gets a major line down the rest will follow, then amtrak may need to get funding to fill in gaps so they can run all under wires


all freight lines would electrify the high HP needs of routes to start electrifying. . The mountains grades in the west a good example. The Horshoe and CSX lines over the grade. As well the CSX and NS CIN - ATL as well as Louisville Nashville - CHA.

The Amtrak ALCs can work well on the flatter non electrified sections.


----------



## John819 (Nov 7, 2022)

The United States is predominantly non-electrified; Europe is almost all electrified. In a perfect world electrification would be the better solution but now the cost is too high (unless fossil fuels get outlawed or priced out-of-sight). And because of the current Federal deficit and rising interest costs don't look for help from that source unless it is required for the military. In short, we missed the train here in the 1930s.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 7, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> Even back in the 70s and 80s the ROI on a freight mainline with annual traffic density of 20 million gross ton-mi/mi, it only took 10-11 years for them to have payed back their investment
> 
> At some point a freight railroad will want some fed help and once 1 gets a major line down the rest will follow, then amtrak may need to get funding to fill in gaps so they can run all under wires


I had a long winded response queued up here about how the ROI simply is not high enough to justify the investment and how it would make more sense for the RRs to use that capital instead to buy each other, invest in different projects with higher returns and cost savings, or to simply pay it out in dividends rather than electrify. But instead I noticed something in that report you posted, and if you want to see why its not a helpful analysis and is based on flawed variables, please refer to PDF page 34, Figure 2. 

This key fuel cost assumption that drove the analysis proved to be off by a factor of about *20x*, as this assumes a real growth rate of diesel fuel cost at 9%, when in fact the actual real growth rate from 1980 to 2018 was essentially 0.08% (inflation adjusted on all these numbers, I got to the 2018 estimate by continuing to grow the 2010 number from the report at 9% until 2018). (FOTW #1103, October 14, 2019: Diesel Averaged 44 Cents More per Gallon than Regular Gasoline in 2018). Obviously the oil crisis drove this assumption, but this was a cataclysmic miss in terms of assumption accuracy. 

The upside for a freight RR to electrify needs to be higher than the value of returning the cash to their investors. Until that changes, or unless the Fed feels like eating that entire cost themselves, it wont happen.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 8, 2022)

I think I see an "Electrification of Freight Railroads" thread in our future  

Since the majority of our electrical power is still generated by fossil fuel and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future, since there are limitations on how much we can get from wind/solar and our aversion to building nuclear plants (unlike Europe), electrifying freight lines even if economically feasible still leaves us dependent on fossil fuels, albeit the higher efficiency of generating power at a power station instead of onboard a locomotive using internal combustion will help reduce fuel demand somewhat.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 8, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> I think I see an "Electrification of Freight Railroads" thread in our future
> 
> Since the majority of our electrical power is still generated by fossil fuel and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future, since there are limitations on how much we can get from wind/solar and our aversion to building nuclear plants (unlike Europe), electrifying freight lines even if economically feasible still leaves us dependent on fossil fuels, albeit the higher efficiency of generating power at a power station instead of onboard a locomotive using internal combustion will help reduce fuel demand somewhat.


It should also reduce emissions of what EPA calls "criteria pollutants" (PM, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, etc.) as all of the fossil fuel emissions will come from a smaller number of electric generating stations that should be easier to control, rather than having to worry about keeping emission-control equipment on thousands of locomotives in good working order.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 8, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> The upside for a freight RR to electrify needs to be higher than the value of returning the cash to their investors. Until that changes, or unless the Fed feels like eating that entire cost themselves, it wont happen.


And why should the taxpayers pay for an improvement that will only enrich the assets of a private company? Also, an electrified system is essentially an improvement on the railroad's property, thus increasing the value of the property, and thus the property taxes paid by the railroad. Why should a private railroad company want to do that?


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 8, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> And why should the taxpayers pay for an improvement that will only enrich the assets of a private company? Also, an electrified system is essentially an improvement on the railroad's property, thus increasing the value of the property, and thus the property taxes paid by the railroad. Why should a private railroad company want to do that?


We do need to change how we tax railraods as the existing value of property makes them resist any amount investments

at this point freight RR are going down an unsustainable path, they've cut almost all small customers and their traditional large customers are drying up, coal and oil aren't going to be moved around much in another 15-20 years.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> Ok if you include Fed help, that likely changes the equation dramatically


I'm figuring at some point they are going to want a test case and so they'll help 1 railroad out a bit.



John819 said:


> The United States is predominantly non-electrified; Europe is almost all electrified. In a perfect world electrification would be the better solution but now the cost is too high (unless fossil fuels get outlawed or priced out-of-sight). And because of the current Federal deficit and rising interest costs don't look for help from that source unless it is required for the military. In short, we missed the train here in the 1930s.


The cost isn't to high, even with our insane prices which is based on non materials costs; design, permits, ect. The class 1 could have paid for it over the last decaded. they made 150B in profit they gave to share holders.
Even at 5m a mile (which is insanely high, 1m is total possible) thats 30,000 miles under wire enough for them all to get their most important lines under wires


Touchdowntom9 said:


> I had a long winded response queued up here about how the ROI simply is not high enough to justify the investment and how it would make more sense for the RRs to use that capital instead to buy each other, invest in different projects with higher returns and cost savings, or to simply pay it out in dividends rather than electrify. But instead I noticed something in that report you posted, and if you want to see why its not a helpful analysis and is based on flawed variables, please refer to PDF page 34, Figure 2.


Class 1 won't be buying each other out and short of a project that lowers ops costs they refuse to invest in anything at this point.
We see them regularly put trains that are too long to fit down any sidings and destroy capacity, take more crews time but they refuse to invest.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> This key fuel cost assumption that drove the analysis proved to be off by a factor of about *20x*, as this assumes a real growth rate of diesel fuel cost at 9%, when in fact the actual real growth rate from 1980 to 2018 was essentially 0.08% (inflation adjusted on all these numbers, I got to the 2018 estimate by continuing to grow the 2010 number from the report at 9% until 2018). (FOTW #1103, October 14, 2019: Diesel Averaged 44 Cents More per Gallon than Regular Gasoline in 2018). Obviously the oil crisis drove this assumption, but this was a cataclysmic miss in terms of assumption accuracy.


I'm aware the report isn't perfect but over 1/2 the cost savings come from much lower operations cost of electric locos
Even with an ROI of 20-25 years thats still decent in the slow moving world of rail

How long do you think it takes a loco that burns 25% less fuel to pay of? its not quick


AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Since the majority of our electrical power is still generated by fossil fuel and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future, since there are limitations on how much we can get from wind/solar and our aversion to building nuclear plants (unlike Europe), electrifying freight lines even if economically feasible still leaves us dependent on fossil fuels, albeit the higher efficiency of generating power at a power station instead of onboard a locomotive using internal combustion will help reduce fuel demand somewhat.


The only real way to make railroading 0 emissions is connect it to the grid, the grids makeup will change over time and it then means its an external thing for the railroads.
Your just never going to be able to drag around enough energy to match a 5000 gal of diesel per loco


many of the lines around the NEC are state owned already and so they should just have wires put up, we don't even need to get freight RR onboard.


----------



## joelkfla (Nov 8, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> at this point freight RR are going down an unststanble path


Did you mean unsustainable?


----------



## west point (Nov 8, 2022)

Just make *"ALL"* all improvements for electrification improvements non taxable. Include CAT, Signals, rail, impeadance bonds, etc. As well any passenger train schedule improvements. ie the 2nd track improvements allowing no freight train interferrence.


----------



## Qapla (Nov 8, 2022)

If some form of induction or other wireless technology could be developed it would better for the rails than building overhead wires that need maintenance due to wind and/or other weather and car accident damage.


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 8, 2022)

Qapla said:


> If some form of induction or other wireless technology could be developed it would better for the rails than building overhead wires that need maintenance due to wind and/or other weather and car accident damage.


the issue is all the wireless tech we know is highly inefficient nor can it carry the level of power required. an electric loco can take 10MW of power and deliver 9 to the wheels and most trains would have 4-5 



joelkfla said:


> Did you mean unsustainable?


fixed my mistake


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2022)

Qapla said:


> If some form of induction or other wireless technology could be developed it would better for the rails than building overhead wires that need maintenance due to wind and/or other weather and car accident damage.


Now we are talking real expense  and huge added inefficiencies, just to save pennies on maintenance.


----------



## Qapla (Nov 8, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> the issue is all the wireless tech we know is highly inefficient nor can it carry the level of power required





jis said:


> Now we are talking real expense  and huge added inefficiencies,



Exactly why I said "developed"

It just seems, to me, that overhead electrification of all the rail lines is just another type of bandaid as much as continuing to rely on diesel. The cost of maintaining and repairing overhead in hurricane county can be just as bad as trying to maintain diesel emissions.

At the risk of being accused of comparing apple-to-oranges, I remember when cordless tools first started to appear. The drill/driver came first. Many in the "trades" thought they were "neat". Many even had one. But, when saws and other tools began to appear, they were a bit of a joke/novelty - who on a construction site really wanted a saw with a 3½" blade that couldn't cut much, and the battery didn't last. However, go to a construction site today - cordless tools abound and are even preferred by many.

Yes, currently there are no useable wireless options for running trains - but they could be developed.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 8, 2022)

west point said:


> Just make *"ALL"* all improvements for electrification improvements non taxable. Include CAT, Signals, rail, impeadance bonds, etc. As well any passenger train schedule improvements. ie the 2nd track improvements allowing no freight train interferrence.


Because property taxes are usually levied by local governments, you'd have to get the thousands of local governments through which the railroad lines run to all agree on this change, which does have the potential to reduce their tax revenues.

It would probably be easier to just nationalize all the railroad infrastructure and make it untaxable government property.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 8, 2022)

Qapla said:


> It just seems, to me, that overhead electrification of all the rail lines is just another type of bandaid as much as continuing to rely on diesel. The cost of maintaining and repairing overhead in hurricane county can be just as bad as trying to maintain diesel emissions.


Not just hurricane country. Periodically, the wire comes down in the NEC, usually making for an entertaining (if you're sitting at home) snarl-up of traffic and delays. I have two personal experiences: Once when high winds blew tree branches on the wire, and nothing could run out of Washington for several hours, which happened to be at about 5 PM on a weeknight as commuters were pouring out of the Metro waiting to get on their MARC or Amtrak trains heading north. About four of us found a taxi that took us up to BWI Station for about $70, where I found a MARC train in service and ready to take me the rest of the way to Baltimore. The other time, a NJT train crashed somewhere in New Jersey, bringing down the wire, and my Northeast Regional, which was supposed to get into New York at about 8 PM didn't get in until 3 in the morning.


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Not just hurricane country. Periodically, the wire comes down in the NEC, usually making for an entertaining (if you're sitting at home) snarl-up of traffic and delays. I have two personal experiences: Once when high winds blew tree branches on the wire, and nothing could run out of Washington for several hours, which happened to be at about 5 PM on a weeknight as commuters were pouring out of the Metro waiting to get on their MARC or Amtrak trains heading north. About four of us found a taxi that took us up to BWI Station for about $70, where I found a MARC train in service and ready to take me the rest of the way to Baltimore. The other time, a NJT train crashed somewhere in New Jersey, bringing down the wire, and my Northeast Regional, which was supposed to get into New York at about 8 PM didn't get in until 3 in the morning.


They seem not to do so that often where the infrastructure is not superannuated held together by proverbial chewing gum and toothpicks 

Japan, China and India the lands of typhoons and Monsoon storms seem not to suffer from as many problems that NEC in the US seems to.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 8, 2022)

Off the shelf technology is a electric motor with a small diesel engine for the final mile. IE you use the overhead wires to the intermodal yard than the diesel engine to pull the trainset under the cranes.

As for wires coming down, the constant tension system is quite good, but you still need a maintenance team.

The problem is who goes first. If the BNSF electrified, the price of diesel will suddenly drop and the UP will enjoy a record profit. So yeah the government should get involved, but that requires buy in by political figures. Who really like that gas and oil lobby funds.


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 8, 2022)

Qapla said:


> It just seems, to me, that overhead electrification of all the rail lines is just another type of bandaid as much as continuing to rely on diesel. The cost of maintaining and repairing overhead in hurricane county can be just as bad as trying to maintain diesel emissions.


Its the worldwide standard for a reason. Plenty of countries who have the same or worse weather than us make it happen just fine
Sweden or Russia is just as cold and remote (so was the MW) as the northern part of this country

East Asia regularly has hurricane weather and they deal with it just fine
3rd rail isn't an option as thats voltage limited and not a good thing to have near grade crossings


Qapla said:


> Yes, currently there are no useable wireless options for running trains - but they could be developed.


Theres no tech thats anywhere near close to what they need nor are freight RR going to spend money on R&D



MARC Rider said:


> Not just hurricane country. Periodically, the wire comes down in the NEC, usually making for an entertaining (if you're sitting at home) snarl-up of traffic and delays. I have two personal experiences: Once when high winds blew tree branches on the wire, and nothing could run out of Washington for several hours, which happened to be at about 5 PM on a weeknight as commuters were pouring out of the Metro waiting to get on their MARC or Amtrak trains heading north. About four of us found a taxi that took us up to BWI Station for about $70, where I found a MARC train in service and ready to take me the rest of the way to Baltimore. The other time, a NJT train crashed somewhere in New Jersey, bringing down the wire, and my Northeast Regional, which was supposed to get into New York at about 8 PM didn't get in until 3 in the morning.


Mostly that falls on the fact its 80 year old polls and support system. Its not an issue when you maintain them correctly.
Idealy we don't have trains crashing as we've got PTC and upkeep standards to stop that



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Off the shelf technology is a electric motor with a small diesel engine for the final mile. IE you use the overhead wires to the intermodal yard than the diesel engine to pull the trainset under the cranes.


last mile at this point can batteries, you run low power at low speeds and so its not a big deal. theres more than enough space in a US freight loco for 6-8MWh of batteries mixed with OCS equipment and you'll still need to add in concrete ballast. 



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The problem is who goes first. If the BNSF electrified, the price of diesel will suddenly drop and the UP will enjoy a record profit. So yeah the government should get involved, but that requires buy in by political figures. Who really like that gas and oil lobby funds.


It won't because the change won't happen overnight. Even if BSNF put all their stuff in LA to Barstow under wire then all the way to Chicago that wouldn't cut their entire fuel usage to 0.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 8, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> I'm aware the report isn't perfect but over 1/2 the cost savings come from much lower operations cost of electric locos
> Even with an ROI of 20-25 years thats still decent in the slow moving world of rail


You have to realize that the baseline for their ROI isn't just other rail projects, its the S&P 500 / investment market. If a railroad has a dollar in profit, they need to either reinvest it into their own business or to pay it out via dividend. The discount rate used by the shareholders of the railroads basically determines that unless your reinvestment can beat 9-10% returns per year in the S&P 500, then the railroads are obligated as a steward of their investors capital to pay it out in dividends. To make it clear, If BSNF announces their intention to electrify, they are getting sued by Warren Buffet and Berkshire that exact same day, and Buffett wins that suit and disposes of management. Essentially the formula now says to take the minimum amount to keep profits flat and to pay the rest out in dividends.

Why invest $10B into a project that returns that capital in 20-30 years when that money will double in the market in 7 years? The day this formula changes is when a RR determines that they will cease to operate without reinvestments, at which point they cut the dividend and reinvest, but almost certainly not via electrification. 

The alternative is that the government does it themselves and leases the track or electricity access back to railroads serving them in a capital light model (similar to a mortgage lender who securitizes and sells off their mortgage loans to investors in order to make more loans. This is a good thing because if lenders kept all their loans on their books, you wouldn't be able to buy a home in the US because you couldn't ever find a lender with cash). 

At the end of the day to tie this all back home, electrification really isn't what is holding back Amtrak's growth and improvements. Amtrak really just needs to have access to track without railroad interference that they can maintain and dispatch over themselves. Ideally they can do this by building right next to the existing freight right of way or buying the track from them outright over time. The issue Americans have with rail travel isn't that you cant go 150mph, its that you go 20mph for a good amount of the route and show up 5 hours late.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 8, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> And why should the taxpayers pay for an improvement that will only enrich the assets of a private company? Also, an electrified system is essentially an improvement on the railroad's property, thus increasing the value of the property, and thus the property taxes paid by the railroad. Why should a private railroad company want to do that?


They shouldn't. I am not at all suggesting that they pay for it. My point is that they wont do it, and the government wont either (unless they get the RR's to agree to pay them for using the catenary at a rate where the government sees an ROI > the yield 30 year note, and that isn't happening either.


----------



## John819 (Nov 8, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> They shouldn't. I am not at all suggesting that they pay for it. My point is that they wont do it, and the government wont either (unless they get the RR's to agree to pay them for using the catenary at a rate where the government sees an ROI > the yield 30 year note, and that isn't happening either.


The government supports the trucking industry by building and maintaining (sort of) the highway system. The government builds airports and the air traffic control system. Railroads are the odd man out.

One possible solution would be for the government to own the railroad trackage and related facilities and then charge the railroads for usage. I believe that was the system in Great Britain before the pandemic bankrupted the private rail operators.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 8, 2022)

west point said:


> Just make *"ALL"* all improvements for electrification improvements non taxable. Include CAT, Signals, rail, impeadance bonds, etc. As well any passenger train schedule improvements. ie the 2nd track improvements allowing no freight train interferrence.


I know very little about how railroads are taxed, but if our current code increases their tax bill for improvements that they make, then we need to change it immediately. These self bankrupting cities see (NYC and Chicago) run unimaginable budget deficits, and then try to use businesses to bail themselves out. Its horrible for the economy.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 8, 2022)

John819 said:


> The government supports the trucking industry by building and maintaining (sort of) the highway system. The government builds airports and the air traffic control system. Railroads are the odd man out.
> 
> One possible solution would be for the government to own the railroad trackage and related facilities and then charge the railroads for usage. I believe that was the system in Great Britain before the pandemic bankrupted the private rail operators.


Well they also pay for it via gas taxes and toll roads, plus they (the gov) own the highway roads. I'm sure that the government would happily take over the railroads and maintain them through taxes and usage fees like highways, but the railroads (of course) were built privately and they aren't likely to ever walk away from something they invested so much in building. Also they likely have no interest in sharing it as they would have to follow schedules set by the rail owner similar to airline scheduling at airports. 

From a passenger rail perspective, it makes sense to have a gov owned rail system, but in reality we would likely have a situation where cargo railroads rapidly go bankrupt in covid like downturns because they have no assets to borrow against in tough times. I think the best solution involves passenger and cargo rail right next to eachother but not sharing track, simply just the ROW given how challenging it would be to build straight in any part of the USA these days.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 8, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> They shouldn't. I am not at all suggesting that they pay for it. My point is that they wont do it, and the government wont either (unless they get the RR's to agree to pay them for using the catenary at a rate where the government sees an ROI > the yield 30 year note, and that isn't happening either.


In general, the idea of government financing of "power by the hour" was debated in the post-WWII period of surplus hydroelectric capacity. The Pacific Northwest, already with major rail electrifications (and some interurbans, too) was a hotbed of interest. The debate, as best as I can recall it, got tangled up with McCarthyism. If the BPA sold power to an electric company that sold it to a railway, that was private enterprise. If the BPA sold it directly to the railways, that was socialism. With the unexpected death of U.S. Senator Richard L. Neuberger, the idea faded away.

Some samples of material cranked out in the controversy...


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 8, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Well they also pay for it via gas taxes and toll roads, plus they (the gov) own the highway roads. I'm sure that the government would happily take over the railroads and maintain them through taxes and usage fees like highways, but the railroads (of course) were built privately and they aren't likely to ever walk away from something they invested so much in building. Also they likely have no interest in sharing it as they would have to follow schedules set by the rail owner similar to airline scheduling at airports.


The feds heavily subsidizes trucking
The railroads have invested very little money compared to how much they make, they make 20-30% profit because they refuse to invest money. Airlines make ~5%
They've spent the last 50 years avoiding any bit of investment and actively removing tracks. Its hard to argue they've spent a lot of money on them in the last 50. 


Touchdowntom9 said:


> From a passenger rail perspective, it makes sense to have a gov owned rail system, but in reality we would likely have a situation where cargo railroads rapidly go bankrupt in covid like downturns because they have no assets to borrow against in tough times. I think the best solution involves passenger and cargo rail right next to eachother but not sharing track, simply just the ROW given how challenging it would be to build straight in any part of the USA these days.


rail moves so many required goods the overall markets changes very little in up and downturns
you may get a bit more carload lumber and stone ect, during house building high points but they've given up most of that market to road


Touchdowntom9 said:


> You have to realize that the baseline for their ROI isn't just other rail projects, its the S&P 500 / investment market. If a railroad has a dollar in profit, they need to either reinvest it into their own business or to pay it out via dividend. The discount rate used by the shareholders of the railroads basically determines that unless your reinvestment can beat 9-10% returns per year in the S&P 500, then the railroads are obligated as a steward of their investors capital to pay it out in dividends. To make it clear, If BSNF announces their intention to electrify, they are getting sued by Warren Buffet and Berkshire that exact same day, and Buffett wins that suit and disposes of management. Essentially the formula now says to take the minimum amount to keep profits flat and to pay the rest out in dividends.


No traditional industry has a quick ROI, an automaker building a factory is easily a 10+ year investment, even silicon fabs given their level of cost take 5-8 years to pay back and you want to keep them for 10+ years. The auto plants build in the 40-60s are mostly still around. NUMI in freemont which reused the existing build shell took 8+ years to break even. 

Announcing the goal to would not result in that. Theres a strong case that their core transcon route should be under wire.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> At the end of the day to tie this all back home, electrification really isn't what is holding back Amtrak's growth and improvements. Amtrak really just needs to have access to track without railroad interference that they can maintain and dispatch over themselves. Ideally they can do this by building right next to the existing freight right of way or buying the track from them outright over time. The issue Americans have with rail travel isn't that you cant go 150mph, its that you go 20mph for a good amount of the route and show up 5 hours late.


It is a major issue on busy lines like the NEC and in California, they get rolling stock that performs worse


----------



## cirdan (Nov 9, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> Even back in the 70s and 80s the ROI on a freight mainline with annual traffic density of 20 million gross ton-mi/mi, it only took 10-11 years for them to have payed back their investment
> 
> At some point a freight railroad will want some fed help and once 1 gets a major line down the rest will follow, then amtrak may need to get funding to fill in gaps so they can run all under wires



Didn't Conrail inherit a good many PRR GG1's but rather than retain them or replace them by new electrics, they replaced them by diesels.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 9, 2022)

jis said:


> Now we are talking real expense  and huge added inefficiencies, just to save pennies on maintenance.


Just the sort of thing buzzword-driven management want to embrace then.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 9, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Didn't Conrail inherit a good many PRR GG1's but rather than retain them or replace them by new electrics, they replaced them by diesels.


They also had a number of more modern E44 and E33 electrics. The reason they gave up on electric and switched to Diesel was I think more motivated by the rerouting of freight trains off of the Amtrak controlled Northeast and Keystone Corridors and onto their own trackage such as the Lehigh Line. Also the ability to run the same power through electrified and unelectrified territory rather than having to change power.



John819 said:


> One possible solution would be for the government to own the railroad trackage and related facilities and then charge the railroads for usage. I believe that was the system in Great Britain before the pandemic bankrupted the private rail operators.


That is still the system in Great Britain. Some operators ran into financial difficulty and their routes are now operated by the government as operator of last resort, others continue under private ownership.


----------



## John819 (Nov 9, 2022)

The State of Connecticut, which owns all railway tracks in the state which were part of Conrail, announced a five-year plan to fully electrify all passenger and freight lines. Passenger lines would include the Hartford-Springfield line to the state border.


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2022)

So which freight railroad is planning to acquire electric locomotives to use said electrified freight tracks?


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 9, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Didn't Conrail inherit a good many PRR GG1's but rather than retain them or replace them by new electrics, they replaced them by diesels.


conrail was a whole mess, amtrak was increasing pricing and they didn't expand their network to important connector lines they need
GE prototype 2 new locos and they were testing GM10B and GM6c 
GG1 were not really freight locos the E33 and E44 were


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> They also had a number of more modern E44 and E33 electrics. The reason they gave up on electric and switched to Diesel was I think more motivated by the rerouting of freight trains off of the Amtrak controlled Northeast and Keystone Corridors and onto their own trackage such as the Lehigh Line. Also the ability to run the same power through electrified and unelectrified territory rather than having to change power.


PC and Conrail also de-electrified their own tracks almost as fast as they could. So they literally had no use for any electric engines in short order. Amtrak actually acquired a bunch of E44s from Conrail but never really used them for anything.


AmtrakMaineiac said:


> That is still the system in Great Britain. Some operators ran into financial difficulty and their routes are now operated by the government as operator of last resort, others continue under private ownership.


I don't believe there is any main line trackage in UK owned by any private railroad. Only the Train Operating Companies and Rail Equipment Leasing Companies, at least some of them are still private.

But back to dual mode and electrification in the US. In the near future I only see electrification of select passenger routes and possibly some mixed us trackage. One prime candidate is the Washington DC to Richmond segment but the boss of the passenger side of that operation, DJ Stadler, erroneously believes that you cannot put catenary high enough to accommodate double stacks under them, never mind that such catenary exists all over the NEC as we speak. With such ignorance in management the future does not look very bright.

Then again, we can;t even get NJ Transit to electrify all its trackage, which they should have done long back instead of spending a King's ransom and then some on their fleet of first generation dual mode locomotives.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 9, 2022)

jis said:


> I don't believe there is any main line trackage in UK owned by any private railroad. Only the Train Operating Companies and Rail Equipment Leasing Companies, at least some of them are still private.


As far as I know HS1 (that is the high speed line between London St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel) is still at least partially owned by a private consortium.


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2022)

cirdan said:


> As far as I know HS1 (that is the high speed line between London St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel) is still at least partially owned by a private consortium.


It is a pretty complex arrangement between the government and HS1 Ltd. limited to period of 30 years after which it all reverts back to the government. Quoting from Wikipedia:


> By May 2009, LCR had become insolvent, and the government received an agreement to use state aid to purchase the line and to open it up to competition to allow other services to use it apart from Eurostar.[43] LCR's wholly owned subsidiary, HS1 Ltd, thus became the property of the Secretary of State for Transport.[44] On 12 October 2009 a proposal was announced to sell £16 billion of state assets including HS1 Ltd in the following two years to cut UK public debt.[45] The government announced on 5 November 2010 that a concession to operate the line for thirty years had been sold for £2.1 billion to a consortium of Canadian investors.[12] Under the concession, HS1 Ltd has the rights to sell access to track and to the four international stations (St Pancras, Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford) on a commercial basis, under the scrutiny of the Office of Rail & Road. At the end of thirty years, ownership of the assets will revert to the government.[44]


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 9, 2022)

jis said:


> So which freight railroad is planning to acquire electric locomotives to use said electrified freight tracks?


BNSF has been testing battery electric locos currently. the FLEX drive test I believe are over but 4 EMD Joule going to be bought for southern california they are expected to be in service by 2024. There are renders of SD70J that look as if there are space for a pantograph to be added



jis said:


> But back to dual mode and electrification in the US. In the near future I only see electrification of select passenger routes and possibly some mixed us trackage. One prime candidate is the Washington DC to Richmond segment but the boss of the passenger side of that operation, DJ Stadler, erroneously believes that you cannot put catenary high enough to accommodate double stacks under them, never mind that such catenary exists all over the NEC as we speak. With such ignorance in management the future does not look very bright.
> 
> Then again, we can;t even get NJ Transit to electrify all its trackage, which they should have done long back instead of spending a King's ransom and then some on their fleet of first generation dual mode locomotives.


California could likely see a growth in mixed traffic sections, BNSF by moving their main yard to barstow has opened up the ability to electrify everything west of that into the LA basin which then also means areas like the new San Clemente and Del Mar tunnels could be a lot simpler without diesels there

UP has been very anti wires on their routes which is why I think the state just needs to buy a bunch of their trackage and setup a class 2 to run on it. UP like all class 1 has no interest in carload freight which california really needs to grow. 

NJT like other state operators around the NEC who own trackage inability to even propose it is frustrating. It looks like MBTA may start planning needed to electrify lines and upgrade the end of the NEC with more power


----------



## jpakala (Nov 12, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> And why should the taxpayers pay for an improvement that will only enrich the assets of a private company? Also, an electrified system is essentially an improvement on the railroad's property, thus increasing the value of the property, and thus the property taxes paid by the railroad. Why should a private railroad company want to do that?


Taxpayers pay for both improvements & regular maintenance that enrich private company assets, such as all the locks & dams construction & maintenance for the barge operators, the ports, the airport construction & maintenance, the air traffic controllers, the roads, the public parking, the maritime infrastructure from buoys to rescues, and in fact in the past century my Dad was concerned that government contracts were an ever-increasing share of income.


----------



## joelkfla (Nov 12, 2022)

jpakala said:


> Taxpayers pay for both improvements & regular maintenance that enrich private company assets, such as all the locks & dams construction & maintenance for the barge operators, the ports, the airport construction & maintenance, the air traffic controllers, the roads, the public parking, the maritime infrastructure from buoys to rescues, and in fact in the past century my Dad was concerned that government contracts were an ever-increasing share of income.


None of those things you listed are private assets; they are all public assets.


----------



## jpakala (Nov 12, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> None of those things you listed are private assets; they are all public assets


----------



## jpakala (Nov 12, 2022)

Private companies that could not operate without such taxpayer-provided assets or, like the railroads, would have to pay for their construction and maintenance by themselves, are the direct beneficiaries. Millions of taxpayers never fly, never use locks & dams, etc. and so they do not even indirectly benefit.


----------



## west point (Nov 12, 2022)

The best proposal IMO is. -=

Take some older diesel units sepecially tier 1 and convert them to AC traction elecric locos For the conversion provide for them to be connected to a diesel loco. At same time convert some AC traction diesel locos to tke power from the converted electric diesels.

Operationally connect one or two diesels to each end of the electric loco. when in yards or flat land tracks operate the diesel such that it provides power to both electric and diesel traction motors. Once a train reaches a significant grade CAT is installed, and used with diesels either idled or shut off and the electric loco provides power to it and attached diesel loco(s), Back to flat track or yards reverse process. Some what as a cow and calf works. This provides for full diesel power being provide power to more traction motord eliminating the reduced diesel power under train speeds less than 0 to 9-15 MPH. Certainly gets train out of yards and stops faster.

Of course this also improves regeneration for the train now traveling down the steep slopes. As an after thought this would allow diesel locos to be built with higher HP than the present 4400 HP liimits. Then a D - El - Diesel cofiguration could be just D - E. Certainly more fuel efficient running a 6600 diesel throttle 8 instead of 2 - 3300 HP diesels as one example,


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 12, 2022)

Maintenance

You just gave me a headache try to follow your plan. The people who have to maintain the equipment are not going to like you either.

Driving a new truck temporarily, this model has a TV screen for a gauge panel. Totally freaked out when the display show 65 mph and I was going into a 40 mph curve/ramp. Put the brake pedal down to the floor, fell the speed drop even more, but the gauge said 65 mph still. Yeah the TV locked up, and yes I did see the outside world was going very slow by, but no clue how fast I was going into that curve.

Technology and the Maintenance of said technology requires a lot of work. Simple solution are best.


----------



## jis (Nov 12, 2022)

Oddly enough Indian Railways tried some of that and decided it is not cost effective, and discontinued the program. Instead they are simply scrapping old diesels and acquiring new electrics. I think others who try it will come to the same conclusion that the overall cost of ownership such complex Javkalopes is not justifiable.


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 12, 2022)

progress rail will rebuild or build you new any of their Joule lineup of battery locos. 
now whats not clear is if EMD will build you one with a pantograph that can bypass the batteries and run under pure electric

traditional dual modes in a single carbody are a real mess and rightfully no one wants to deal with them.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 14, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> traditional dual modes in a single carbody are a real mess and rightfully no one wants to deal with them.


There are quite a few successful applications of dual modes, including Amtrak's own.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2022)

Here is a nice little video explaining many basic concepts in electrified railways...


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 14, 2022)

cirdan said:


> There are quite a few successful applications of dual modes, including Amtrak's own.


And Amtrak appears to be doubling down on it. NJ Transit as well (I wouldn't use NJ Transit as an example to stand behind though...)


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> And Amtrak appears to be doubling down on it. NJ Transit as well (I wouldn't use NJ Transit as an example to stand behind though...)


Actually Amtrak in ALC42E is using an architecture that is very different from the ALP45DP. The entire HV electricals are in a different car which plugs into the Diesel-electric engine to provide an alternative power source, and a few more powered axles. This is distributed power, though not as distributed as in the Hitachi Class 8xx dual modes in Europe. In these there is no locomotive at all.

The problem of trying to stuff all the parts of a high power diesel prime mover and a high horsepower electrical HV in a single unit on 4 axles causes axle loads to be high which causes higher speed operations difficult and damages the track much more. That is what makes the NJT style single unit containing everything undesirable. the ALC42E method spreads out the weight and provides more axles to transmit the power to the track thus making it more track friendly and capable of higher speeds.


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 14, 2022)

cirdan said:


> There are quite a few successful applications of dual modes, including Amtrak's own.


I don't think I'd describe most of them as successful. They come with much higher upkeep and locos that try and fit it all in are a mess.

a unit like a stadler FLIRT does okay because from the start it was built to be an EMU which you could add a special car to which has an alternative power source be that hydrogen+battery, battery or Diesel or Diesel+battery


----------

