Discussion with a friend on rail transport

[Cal]

I was discussing (well, debating) with a friend about rail transportation. We were discussing about the Surfline, and how to make it better (they live along the NEC). I find their ideas irrational, and I'm very curious to hear some of your opinions.

Here are some points they made

-Nationalize the railways and make it a private company that's owned by the government (similar to Germany's Deutsche Bah) and ensure it's properly funded.
-Seize the ROW along the to upgrade and electrify (which would increase capacity due to higher running speeds and acceleration, decrease time making it more competitive, and net zero emissions)
-Or build new ROW for the whole corridor (again by seizing the land)

They want this to happen nation wide on all major railway lines (including the Surfline and other corridors) stating that it wouldn't be that difficult to do (at least the seizing of the land and ROW). They also say that the government would need to be fixed first, and that we should learn from China which built it's high speed rail lines very quickly (which I agree, but I find the possibility of it nonexistent). I find all of these ideas completely irrational. Tell me some of your thoughts and I will happily pass them on.

 

[87YJ]

Ask him to live in China for a few years, then report back.

 

[TinCan782]

That is a lot of land that would have to be "seized", either existing private right-of-way (major RRs) or land to create new, dedicated ROW for passenger.
Don't think that would work out too well!
"Fixing" the government wouldn't be a piece of cake either.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

The United States of America, for better or worse, isn't even Canada much less China. Trying to make it/us something it/we ain't is doomed to failure. The're dreaming, and it's not a dream I particularly share even though I'm a huge rail fan and a bit of a socialist. Things will continue to evolve in their own haphazard way, and we may all be surprised where we end up.

 

[jiml]

Nationwide, the topography and sheer size of most of North America doesn't lend itself to electrification, so that's off-the-table on all but shorter high-frequency routes. You can fit several European countries in one state (or province). Seizing additional land is a step beyond that and unlikely to gain traction. (I'm sure there are similar examples in the US, but Toronto's second international airport has been stalled on this and other NIMBY issues since the 1970's.) Nationalization of existing infrastructure has been discussed previously using various models, including those where private companies run trains on government-maintained rails. Again the scope of the project is unmatched anywhere but Russia or China, where resistance is unlikely, and there isn't a record of success with previous government ownership of complete railways in North America - reference Conrail or Canadian National before their return to the private sector.

Specific to the Surfline, there's definitely some room for improvement on its most heavily-travelled portions, i.e. south of L.A., but double-tracking alone may prove too costly for even rail-friendly California to swallow before considering add-ons such as electrification. Cutting through the hills north of San Diego, seizing a few ocean-view properties and construction along the shoreline could each be the stumbling blocks and collectively stall the project for many years. (@Cal might be around to see it completed, but unfortunately many of us won't.) Is it a good idea? Probably. Will it happen?

 

[danasgoodstuff]

If I was going to write an alternative history of US Rail, it would have consolidation taking place during or just after WWII and the Milwaukie Road's electrified passes over the rockies and cascades would be hooked up to the Northern Pacific's route on the rest of the run to the PNW and so on to provide a viable system that could compete and complement the Interstate Highway system. Not necessarily nationalization - better regulation that didn't encourage abandonment and better management on the private side could've produced a better result. But it would've taken a vision that no one on either side seemed to have. And I'm not sure any do now either.

 

[neroden]

I was discussing (well, debating) with a friend about rail transportation. We were discussing about the Surfline, and how to make it better (they live along the NEC). I find their ideas irrational, and I'm very curious to hear some of your opinions.

Here are some points they made

-Nationalize the railways and make it a private company that's owned by the government (similar to Germany's Deutsche Bah) and ensure it's properly funded.
-Seize the ROW along the to upgrade and electrify (which would increase capacity due to higher running speeds and acceleration, decrease time making it more competitive, and net zero emissions)
-Or build new ROW for the whole corridor (again by seizing the land)

They want this to happen nation wide on all major railway lines (including the Surfline and other corridors) stating that it wouldn't be that difficult to do (at least the seizing of the land and ROW). They also say that the government would need to be fixed first, and that we should learn from China which built it's high speed rail lines very quickly (which I agree, but I find the possibility of it nonexistent). I find all of these ideas completely irrational. Tell me some of your thoughts and I will happily pass them on.

Your friend is entirely correct, of course. They're just describing what every other developed country in the world, and some underdeveloped countries, *already did*.

Our bonkers political system at the federal level does not currently allow this to happen.

It's off topic to discuss the major political changes necessary to make it possible for the US to act like a modern developed nation. (Abolish the Senate.)

 

[Cal]

Your friend is entirely correct, of course. They're just describing what every other developed country in the world, and some underdeveloped countries, *already did*.

Our bonkers political system at the federal level does not currently allow this to happen.

It's off topic to discuss the major political changes necessary to make it possible for the US to act like a modern developed nation. (Abolish the Senate.)

In a perfect world, it could happen and would work. But it's not a rational idea for our current situation.

 

[20th Century Rider]

In a perfect world, it could happen and would work. But it's not a rational idea for our current situation.

For better or for worse... off topic or on topic... Amtrak is dependent upon the government for funding and regulations; so whoa's me! Watch out when Nov 22 comes along and Amtrak employees without the vacs are let go.

 

[jiml]

If I was going to write an alternative history of US Rail, it would have consolidation taking place during or just after WWII and the Milwaukie Road's electrified passes over the rockies and cascades would be hooked up to the Northern Pacific's route on the rest of the run to the PNW and so on to provide a viable system that could compete and complement the Interstate Highway system. Not necessarily nationalization - better regulation that didn't encourage abandonment and better management on the private side could've produced a better result. But it would've taken a vision that no one on either side seemed to have. And I'm not sure any do now either.

It's difficult to fathom (except for us older folks and ardent railfans) that there was once such a significant part of a North American railway electrified.

 

[basketmaker]

I was discussing (well, debating) with a friend about rail transportation. We were discussing about the Surfline, and how to make it better (they live along the NEC). I find their ideas irrational, and I'm very curious to hear some of your opinions.

Here are some points they made

-Nationalize the railways and make it a private company that's owned by the government (similar to Germany's Deutsche Bah) and ensure it's properly funded.
-Seize the ROW along the to upgrade and electrify (which would increase capacity due to higher running speeds and acceleration, decrease time making it more competitive, and net zero emissions)
-Or build new ROW for the whole corridor (again by seizing the land)

They want this to happen nation wide on all major railway lines (including the Surfline and other corridors) stating that it wouldn't be that difficult to do (at least the seizing of the land and ROW). They also say that the government would need to be fixed first, and that we should learn from China which built it's high speed rail lines very quickly (which I agree, but I find the possibility of it nonexistent). I find all of these ideas completely irrational. Tell me some of your thoughts and I will happily pass them on.

How is it that "zero net emissions" come into play for electrification?

 

[danasgoodstuff]

How is it that "zero net emissions" come into play for electrification? View attachment 24836

It doesn't, unless it's hydro power and that has other costs. No free lunch, but lots of hard choices that take lots of math and research to make intelligently. And which can be skewed by all sorts of self-interest and clouded judgement.

 

[neroden]

How is it that "zero net emissions" come into play for electrification?

It's just a matter of time. I can't believe you posted 2012 data, which is now 9 years out of date. Go find some recent numbers.

The electric grid is going 100% renewable remarkably quickly, as more and more wind farms, solar farms, and battery installs are built. The deployment curve for solar is exponential, so don't be fooled by the apparently-small numbers; when it increases by 50% every year, which it does, it gets big quite suddenly.

The last coal plant in New York closed a couple of years ago; things have been moving fast. 2012 data is from a bygone era.

OK, I'll give you a freebie: EPA eGrid link for 2019 (still two years out of date!)

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

 

[basketmaker]

It doesn't, unless it's hydro power and that has other costs. No free lunch, but lots of hard choices that take lots of math and research to make intelligently. And which can be skewed by all sorts of self-interest and clouded judgement.

The comment does not relate to "costs" of providing power. That is going to be there no matter what. I am referring to the emissions created. Even if all transportation were electric there would still be an emission produced making the power to power them. Now if we were 100% nuclear power generating stations that would be a major improvement in emissions.

 

[joelkfla]

The comment does not relate to "costs" of providing power. That is going to be there no matter what. I am referring to the emissions created. Even if all transportation were electric there would still be an emission produced making the power to power them. Now if we were 100% nuclear power generating stations that would be a major improvement in emissions.

Why do you not include hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar?

 

[basketmaker]

Why do you not include hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar?

I agree hyrdo and geothermal are great ideas also but limited as to where they are feasible. Wind is a blight on the landscape not to mention aviary. Solar has major issues after service life with toxic waste.

 

[basketmaker]

It's just a matter of time. I can't believe you posted 2012 data, which is now 9 years out of date. Go find some recent numbers.

The electric grid is going 100% renewable remarkably quickly, as more and more wind farms, solar farms, and battery installs are built. The deployment curve for solar is exponential, so don't be fooled by the apparently-small numbers; when it increases by 50% every year, which it does, it gets big quite suddenly.

The last coal plant in New York closed a couple of years ago; things have been moving fast. 2012 data is from a bygone era.

OK, I'll give you a freebie: EPA eGrid link for 2019 (still two years out of date!)

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

Appreciate the link. Very informative and interesting. One quick item I notice was that gas is actually up from 2012 by 6.44%. My assumption is that is due to many coal fired plants converting to gas as a much cleaner fuel.

 

[cirdan]

That is a lot of land that would have to be "seized", either existing private right-of-way (major RRs) or land to create new, dedicated ROW for passenger.
Don't think that would work out too well!
"Fixing" the government wouldn't be a piece of cake either.

yup, people have been trying to "fix" the government virtually since day one.

 

[cirdan]

Nationwide, the topography and sheer size of most of North America doesn't lend itself to electrification, so that's off-the-table on all but shorter high-frequency routes. You can fit several European countries in one state (or province). Seizing additional land is a step beyond that and unlikely to gain traction. (I'm sure there are similar examples in the US, but Toronto's second international airport has been stalled on this and other NIMBY issues since the 1970's.) Nationalization of existing infrastructure has been discussed previously using various models, including those where private companies run trains on government-maintained rails. Again the scope of the project is unmatched anywhere but Russia or China, where resistance is unlikely, and there isn't a record of success with previous government ownership of complete railways in North America - reference Conrail or Canadian National before their return to the private sector.

Specific to the Surfline, there's definitely some room for improvement on its most heavily-travelled portions, i.e. south of L.A., but double-tracking alone may prove too costly for even rail-friendly California to swallow before considering add-ons such as electrification. Cutting through the hills north of San Diego, seizing a few ocean-view properties and construction along the shoreline could each be the stumbling blocks and collectively stall the project for many years. (@Cal might be around to see it completed, but unfortunately many of us won't.) Is it a good idea? Probably. Will it happen?

I don't know about China's non HSR lines, and I have seen lots of photos of diesels. But in Russia quite a lot of long distance corridors are electrified, and have been for a long time, despite often running through very sparsely populated regions. I think the explanation lies in the high number of nuclear plants supplying very cheap electricity.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree hyrdo and geothermal are great ideas also but limited as to where they are feasible. Wind is a blight on the landscape not to mention aviary. Solar has major issues after service life with toxic waste.

Wave action hydro and heat pump geothermal have the potential to become extremely abundant when fully realized. Modern turbines have minimal impact on birds compared to cats and windows. Solar panels would greatly benefit from a robust recycling industry but people who criticize solar power often criticize recycling as well so good luck with that.

I think the explanation lies in the high number of nuclear plants supplying very cheap electricity.

These days nuclear power is among the most expensive forms of utility scale power generation available. Nuclear plants require the most time and money to build, have a terrible record with overruns, are nearly impossible to fund with private capital alone, and create so much liability that no private insurer can protect them. If Russian power is cheap it's because they can build to a price, ignore expensive safety regulations, and pay a pittance to anyone who is harmed by waste or disaster.

 

[cirdan]

Nuclear plants require the most time and money to build, have a terrible record with overruns, are nearly impossible to fund with private capital alone, and create so much liability that no private insurer can protect them. If Russian power is cheap it's because they can build to a price, ignore expensive safety regulations, and pay a pittance to anyone who is harmed by waste or disaster.

I think in western countries so few plants are being built that every plant is more or less designed from scratch which is the recipe for cost overruns. I think there is often also a deliberate low balling of cost estimates juts to get approvals in an environment that doesn't really like or want them. The Russians used to build their plants more or less on a production line, with plants of the same generation typically being identical down to the smallest detail. This made costs and delivery much more predictable, as well as safety reviews, upgrades and technology migrations. I don't know much about China but assume they have a similar approach.

 

[Barb Stout]

It's just a matter of time. I can't believe you posted 2012 data, which is now 9 years out of date. Go find some recent numbers.

The electric grid is going 100% renewable remarkably quickly, as more and more wind farms, solar farms, and battery installs are built. The deployment curve for solar is exponential, so don't be fooled by the apparently-small numbers; when it increases by 50% every year, which it does, it gets big quite suddenly.

The last coal plant in New York closed a couple of years ago; things have been moving fast. 2012 data is from a bygone era.

OK, I'll give you a freebie: EPA eGrid link for 2019 (still two years out of date!)

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

I just heard on our local radio station that our "local" power company PNM has reported that the San Juan power-generating plant (coal-fired) shuttering will be done before the renewable energy generating power "plants" (or whatever they would be called) will be on-line. They are looking for other sources, but people are now worried about energy shortages next summer. Shudder. This whole closing thing has been in the works for almost as long as I've lived here. I don't know/understand why they couldn't have made sure the renewable sources were on-line before they started taking the coal one off-line.

 

[neroden]

I agree hyrdo and geothermal are great ideas also but limited as to where they are feasible. Wind is a blight on the landscape not to mention aviary. Solar has major issues after service life with toxic waste.

You've been reading disinformation.

Glass-fronted skyscrapers kill dozens of times more birds than wind turbines. So do cats. If you aren't working to ban outdoor cats and ban glass-fronted skyscrapers, you don't have an argument against wind turbines.

And if you don't like how wind turbines look, don't look at them. I don't like how nuclear plants look, but I don't use that as an argument against them.

The predominant form of solar, silicon crystalline, does not have any toxic waste issues AT ALL. None. Completely nontoxic.

Thin-film solar, which has a couple of toxic waste issues, are used only in large solar farms and the cleanup and control process has been extremely reliable. Unlike the extremely sloppy and poorly-controlled cleanup processes for nuclear.

 

[neroden]

I think in western countries so few plants are being built that every plant is more or less designed from scratch which is the recipe for cost overruns. I think there is often also a deliberate low balling of cost estimates juts to get approvals in an environment that doesn't really like or want them. The Russians used to build their plants more or less on a production line, with plants of the same generation typically being identical down to the smallest detail. This made costs and delivery much more predictable, as well as safety reviews, upgrades and technology migrations. I don't know much about China but assume they have a similar approach.

Despite that, nuclear still costs too much, even in China and Russia, which is why China's abandoning it in favor of wind, solar, and batteries. I actually know why nuclear's unaffordable, from a first-principles basis; it's because it creates a hot mixed chemical stew, which is very expensive to contain.

 

[neroden]

Appreciate the link. Very informative and interesting. One quick item I notice was that gas is actually up from 2012 by 6.44%. My assumption is that is due to many coal fired plants converting to gas as a much cleaner fuel.

Yes, coal to gas conversions have been very common. Also coal plants have been dismantled and replaced with new small gas plants, often in other locations.

There are three reasons, in addition to reducing pollution.
(1) Coal at the power plant is inextricably expensive even when coal at the mine face is very cheap, because hauling rocks across the country is expensive. It is far cheaper to pump a gas like methane across the country. So coal plants which are not located next door to mines closed first. This has obvious implications for rail: the coal-by-rail business is dying.
(2) Coal doesn't ramp up or down easily to meet demand. Demand varies throughout the day as people turn electronics on and off. Coal provides inflexible, unhelpful "baseload". By contrast, gas can be turned on and off fast, ramped up and down to meet quickly-changing demand. This also allows it to complement fluctuations in solar and wind production, which remain an issue as long as we have low deployment of batteries (battery deployment is increasing fast, but it has been low.)
(3) Gas turbines can be built and installed quickly. Not as fast as solar panels, but fast.