Electrification Harrisburg-Pittsburgh: could it happen?

[ayezee]

Wouldn't electrifying an existing high frequency corridor owned by Amtrak or purchasable by Amtrak make more sense. I know people have thrown out multiple of these corridors. With saying that I think funds should be put towards one of these corridors or the future NEC high speed right of way instead of a primary freight line unless Norfolk southern is interested in electrifying this area and contributing financially.

With what money, and freight companies wont necessarily agree to sell them the routes Amtrak needs the most.

Well possibly with state money since any of the routes with a high enough frequency for Amtrak to buy or electrify are state supported.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Love me some Pittsburgh. Srsly. And I'd love to give the city

a second frequency of the Pennsylvanian, or better, revive

the Broadway Ltd route and push on thru to Cleveland and

Chicago.

But. BUT. Spending many millions on a second train Philly-

Pittsburgh -- and never mind electrifying it -- is not in my

top 20 projects. Spending tens of billions on a new route

for HSR, with three or four Alpine-style base tunnels, is

not in my wish-list top 60.

Lemme see. Electrify. (1), New Haven-Hartford-Springfield.

(2) D.C.-Richmond. (3) Pontiac-Detroit-Dearborn-Ann Arbor-

Kalamazoo-Chicago (at least Amtrak and Michigan DOT

own most of this right of way).

Maybe just maybe (4) NYC-Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-

Buffalo-(Erie-Cleveland-Toledo-Fort Wayne-Chicago) .

Possible if CSX insists that the proposed 110-mph

corridor tracks be far separated from the existing

freight tracks.

But none of these electrification schemes are where

I'd put the money from the next stimulus.

First has to be the NEC, especially the NYC-DC part:

big work in Penn Station, new tunnels under the Hudson,

double track to Newark, new Portal Bridge, constant

tension catenary, new bridge over the Susquehanna

and another river in MD, new tunnels under Baltimore,

big work in Union Station. (Whew.) New bridge over

the Potomac. Upgrades D.C.-Richmond. Upgrades

Richmond-Petersburg. Restored Richmond-Raleigh line.

Take the Cardinal daily. Extend the Palmetto down the

Florida East Coast route, or somehow into Florida. Add

second frequency on Silver Star, Silver Meteor, the

Crescent, Palmetto, Cardinal, Carolinian, and (# 21 LOL)

the Pennsylvanian. Second frequency on the Capitol Ltd.

and on the Lake Shore Ltd, with daylight stops in Cleveland.

Overnight second frequency on Adirondack NYC-Montreal,

and the Maple Leaf NYC-Toronto. Extend the Vermonter

to Montreal. Extend the Ethan Allen deeper into Vermont.

Start with a couple of trains Boston-Worchester-Springfield-

Hartford-New Haven-NYC. Make or restore a connection

Ann Arbor/Dearborn/Detroit-Toledo-points east even if

it makes a third frequency on most of the Lake Shore Ltd

route. Add frequencies to Virginia trains. Make a NYC-

D.C.-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-

Atlanta-Macon-Savannah-Jacksonville-South Florida.

[Yes, that's a new long distance route, not allowed

under current law.] Take Sunset Ltd daily. Add second

frequency to Sunset Ltd. Add frequencies New Orleans-

Lafayette-Lake Charles-Beaumont-Houston-San Antonio

for corridor service. Restore train New Orleans-Florida.

Connect Dallas-Ft Worth-Houston somehow, any how.

Restore train Chicago-Kansas City-Topeka-Wichita-

Oklahoma City-Ft Worth-Austin-San Antonio-Houston.

[Also not legal now.] Add train New Orleans-Baton Rouge-

Alexandria-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth-Abeline-Midland-

Odessa-El Paso-L.A. [Not legal now. New train would

mean a third frequency of the Sunset El Paso-Tucson-

Maricopa (standing in for Phoenix)-L.A.] Build and restore

tracks for service into Phoenix. Start a train New Orleans-

Memphis-Carbondale-St Louis-Kansas City-Omaha.

[That's a third frequency Kansas City-St Louis extended

at both ends, and another illegal new route.] Add another

frequency Kansas City-St Louis for four trains a day, and

maybe extend west to Topeka. A "long-distance corridor":

Chicago-Quad Cities 10 X a day, Chi-Quad Cities-Iowa City

8 X a day, Chi-QC-IC-Des Moines 6 X a day, Chi-QC-IC-

DM-Omaha 4 X a day, Chicago-QC-IC-Des Moines-

Omaha-Denver 2 X a day. And I'd probably extend that

train Denver-Salt Lake City thru Wyoming before putting

a billion into Harrisburg-Pittsburgh. It becomes a restored

Pioneer Salt Lake-Pocatello-Boise-Portland-Seattle

[illegal now]. Add another frequency to Empire Builder

Chicago-Seattle/Portland. Corridor: Add daily trains

Seattle-Spokane via Stampede Pass, and Portland-

Spokane. Add another frequency Chicago-Milwaukee-

St Paul-Minneapolis-St Cloud-Fargo-Grand Forks [illegal

at this time]. Add Duluth-Minneapolis-St Paul-Chicago.

Corridor: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati/Louisville.

New or restored long distance corridor train [not legal

at this time]: Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville-Nashville-

Huntsville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Mobile-New

Orleans/Florida; an alternative route: Chicago-Indy-

Louisville-Nashville-Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

(Reportedly the track between Chicago and Florida is

in truly horrible shape. And I'm not sure how much

end-to-end traffic we'd get. But there sure are lot of

big and growing Sunbelt cities in between. Upgrade

Battle Creek-Lansing-Flint to 110 mph like the main

Wolverine line. Revive the proposed Three Cs & a D line,

Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati. That's about

60 projects before ponying up a billion or more to

upgrade Harrisburg-Pittsburgh. Without mentioning

completing the California HSR. And not counting a few

I must have forgotten. LOL.

 

[fairviewroad]

PHL - PIT might be a bit of a challenge

Ah, my bad! ^_^

I'm probably not the first person to sub the Pittsburgh airport code for the Pittsburgh Amtrak code, though. One

of those cases where Amtrak uses the less-intuitive version.

 

[jis]

PHL - PIT might be a bit of a challenge

Ah, my bad! ^_^
I'm probably not the first person to sub the Pittsburgh airport code for the Pittsburgh Amtrak code, though. One

of those cases where Amtrak uses the less-intuitive version.

What is more.... it uses the PIT code for Pittsfield in Massachusetts!

 

[fairviewroad]

PHL - PIT might be a bit of a challenge

Ah, my bad! ^_^
I'm probably not the first person to sub the Pittsburgh airport code for the Pittsburgh Amtrak code, though. One

of those cases where Amtrak uses the less-intuitive version.

What is more.... it uses the PIT code for Pittsfield in Massachusetts!

Yeah, you have to wonder what they were thinking.

 

[Train2104]

I'm probably not the first person to sub the Pittsburgh airport code for the Pittsburgh Amtrak code, though. One

of those cases where Amtrak uses the less-intuitive version.

I don't know if it's just because I'm a railfan, but as a college student in Pittsburgh I find PGH the more intuitive one...

 

[afigg]

I agree. What would be the point? There are so many other rail priorities, even within the state of Pennsylvania. Double-daily diesel service PHL-PIT would be far, far better than single-daily electric service. I realize those aren't mutually exclusive goals (more frequencies and electrification) but the amount of $$ required to electrify is dizzying when you realize it won't actually lead, in and of itself, to more service.

No one would spend money for electrification for a single daily service. If an electrified corridor, either on the existing route or a new HSR line through the mountains, were to be built, it would have to be for over a dozen trains a day. Hourly service frequencies or better.
Pittsburgh with a MSA population of 2.3 million and Philly with a MSA pop of 6 million are 2 major cities about 300 miles apart, a good distance for HSR. They are also in the same state which means the state economy benefits from more efficient travel between the 2 cities and simplifies the politics (see CA HSR). There is already an electrified corridor for passenger trains running about 1/3 of the distance from Philly to Harrisburg which is something that no other city pair off of the NEC can claim.

But Pennsylvania is not ready to get serious about building an expensive HSR line from HAR to PGH. Will have to wait until the CA HSR project gets a lot further along, probably wait for Texas to start building a Dallas - Houston HSR corridor, and for the population growth pattern in PA to change the balance of power in the state legislature. Also, PA has to fix the state transportation, SEPTA and Pittsburgh transit funding crisis in the near term. If Pittsburgh can expand its light rail system in the interim with a major E-W line, that would provide a more useful system for the PHL-PGH trains to connect to. Then PA might be ready to get started on building a HSR line from HAR to PGH.

In the meantime, once PA has addressed its current transportation funding shortfall and has a new Governor, continue to upgrade the eastern Keystone, make modest investments in the western Keystone and add a second and then third daily PHL-PGH train with improving trip times and grow the passenger base.

 

[railiner]

Are any of the MBTA regional trains on the North Station side electrified? If so, perhaps the Boston to Portland route could someday be electrified as well...

And speaking of Boston.....if the NHV to SPG line is eventually electrified, perhaps the 'Inland Route' remainder, SPG-WOR-BOS could be as well....

 

[Eric S]

Are any of the MBTA regional trains on the North Station side electrified? If so, perhaps the Boston to Portland route could someday be electrified as well...

And speaking of Boston.....if the NHV to SPG line is eventually electrified, perhaps the 'Inland Route' remainder, SPG-WOR-BOS could be as well....

Nope, none of MBTA's northside lines are electrified. FWIW, MBTA does not operate electric trains (loco-hauled or EMU) on the electrified NEC Boston-Providence-Wickford Junction. MBTA Commuter Rail is a strictly diesel (or diesel-electric if you prefer) operation.

 

[Keystone]

what about natural gas powered locomotives?

the line will not be electrified, better to put the money into building a new, shorter, faster alignment between harrisburg and pittsburgh

 

[Anderson]

Natural gas locomotives are likely to be a "thing" in the medium-term (i.e. 5-10 years), though I can't speak to their usefulness or utility on the passenger front vs. freight (which they're currently being developed for). The lag at this point is just the nature of R&D.

 

[bgiaquin]

Wouldn't electrifying an existing high frequency corridor owned by Amtrak or purchasable by Amtrak make more sense. I know people have thrown out multiple of these corridors. With saying that I think funds should be put towards one of these corridors or the future NEC high speed right of way instead of a primary freight line unless Norfolk southern is interested in electrifying this area and contributing financially.

That is why I think the New Haven to Springfield line is a good candidate for electrification, Amtrak already owns it. Plus, eliminating the engine change at New Haven (except for the Vermonter) would be a good benefit.

 

[keystone]

pa is the right state to test natural gas locos. they even have a fund to promote the use of natural gas. the first thing the route needs is tilting trains followed by restored capacity. after that we can talk about hsr. remember 300 miles to pittsburgh from philly and only another 90 miles to nyp so its 20 million to 6 million to 2.3 million. pittsburgh is much larger than upstate ny. id also point out that once you get to pittsburgh you can move on to columbus and piggy back on the columbus chicago plan ultinately giving you the best route between ny and chicago

 

[benjibear]

Being from PA, I highly doubt this line will ever be electrified any time soon if at all. My dream would be a twice daily train to Pittsburgh, increased speed, and better timing. However, I would be amazed if it happens in my lifetime (over the next 40 years or so).

PA has a lot of transportation issues. Our bridges are one of the worse in the nation. When they do repairs, to me it appears like a band aide fix to get by another 10 years at the most. To me they don't appear like long range solutions. Same with our roads. They "fix" roads to help with congestion, which it does help but doesn't eliminate it enough. Roads that were fixed 10-15 years ago have huge capacity issues. There is one intersection near my house that they are currently rebuilding for the third time in the last 15 years. The current fix is what was discussed 15 years ago and was deemed to expensive, it was never done, and now I am not sure it is enough.

 

[henryj]

People that write this stuff and ask these kinds of questions just don't understand the economics of modern railroading. It is frightfully expensive to electrify a route with the cost of the overhead wires and electric supply and then it has to be maintained. The powerful modern diesel locomotive has rendered this all but useless economically and that is what a freight railroad looks at. Will this save us any money? And right now it just won't. In addition the NS is spending billions(along with the states) to increase capacity and speed on its current corridors to handle more inter-modal traffic to take some of these trucks off the interstates and they only have so much money to spend each year. Non of these freight railroads give a rats hind end about Amtrak or passenger trains. So if Amtrak wants electrification extended they would have to finance it themselves and for one little train a day to Pittsburgh that just won't happen. The European railroads are government funded and run mostly passenger trains on short headways, but even there I saw lots of diesel powered trains running under little used wires, particularly in the former East Germany. The Russians electrified when steam power was the only other alternative and so they just keep it. Except for the NEC and a few west coast corridors, we have nothing like the passenger traffic the Europeans have and probably never will. Electrification is just not feasible economically. when it is, then it will happen.

When I took my trip to New Zealand they were trying to fund the extension of electrification on the North Island since they have no source of oil of their own, but traffic is sparse and money is in short supply and except for commuter trains in Wellington and Auckland there is really no need for it.

 

[ericr]

I'm probably not the first person to sub the Pittsburgh airport code for the Pittsburgh Amtrak code, though. One

of those cases where Amtrak uses the less-intuitive version.

I don't know if it's just because I'm a railfan, but as a college student in Pittsburgh I find PGH the more intuitive one...

I've seen most most of the people I know from Pittsburgh abbreviate it PGH.

 

[Barciur]

it. Except for the NEC and a few west coast corridors, we have nothing like the passenger traffic the Europeans have and probably never will.

And in those places that we DO have passenger traffic like the Europeans do, we HAVE electrified railroads

 

[henryj]

The other point that I did not make is, we already have electrified railroads and have had since the Diesel Electric locomotive was invented. These engines are powered by electric motors and they do it without wires and all the other paraphenalia that straight electrics require and they have the flexibility to go anywhere, not just where the wires are. They just carry their electricity power plant on board with them and only generate their electricity as needed. Basically, at this point, the only advantage to straight electric power is it can be generated by using fuels other than diesel fuel, such as coal or nuclear. The economics then for converting would only come into play when the costs of liquid fuels reaches the breaking point, and I don't see that happening for many years.

 

[Paulus]

The other point that I did not make is, we already have electrified railroads and have had since the Diesel Electric locomotive was invented. These engines are powered by electric motors and they do it without wires and all the other paraphenalia that straight electrics require and they have the flexibility to go anywhere, not just where the wires are. They just carry their electricity power plant on board with them and only generate their electricity as needed. Basically, at this point, the only advantage to straight electric power is it can be generated by using fuels other than diesel fuel, such as coal or nuclear. The economics then for converting would only come into play when the costs of liquid fuels reaches the breaking point, and I don't see that happening for many years.

There are significantly greater levels of acceleration possible with electric trains compared to diesel, especially at high speed, and electric trains use about 1/3rd the energy of diesel trains, which can be a significant source of savings (mainly for passengers and high speed freight). As well, you can save a significant amount of money by using fewer locomotives (there are 13,000hp electric locomotives in common revenue service, diesel maxes out at 6,300hp so far), both in terms of initial capital outlay and in terms of locomotive maintenance costs (~100-200K per year). That's over and above the reduced maintenance costs and higher reliability of an electric locomotive in the first place.

That said, I do not think that freight will electrify, though I think it increasingly likely on the part of commuter and high frequency intercity passenger lines.

 

[henryj]

The other point that I did not make is, we already have electrified railroads and have had since the Diesel Electric locomotive was invented. These engines are powered by electric motors and they do it without wires and all the other paraphenalia that straight electrics require and they have the flexibility to go anywhere, not just where the wires are. They just carry their electricity power plant on board with them and only generate their electricity as needed. Basically, at this point, the only advantage to straight electric power is it can be generated by using fuels other than diesel fuel, such as coal or nuclear. The economics then for converting would only come into play when the costs of liquid fuels reaches the breaking point, and I don't see that happening for many years.

There are significantly greater levels of acceleration possible with electric trains compared to diesel, especially at high speed, and electric trains use about 1/3rd the energy of diesel trains, which can be a significant source of savings (mainly for passengers and high speed freight). As well, you can save a significant amount of money by using fewer locomotives (there are 13,000hp electric locomotives in common revenue service, diesel maxes out at 6,300hp so far), both in terms of initial capital outlay and in terms of locomotive maintenance costs (~100-200K per year). That's over and above the reduced maintenance costs and higher reliability of an electric locomotive in the first place.

That said, I do not think that freight will electrify, though I think it increasingly likely on the part of commuter and high frequency intercity passenger lines.

All this may be true, but it favors frequent passenger service much more than the occasional freight train. Like we said, freight railroads will electrify when it makes economic sense. What stops them in their tracks is the high initial costs and the lack of flexibility. The closest candidates would be the BNSF transcon and the UP;s Chicago to Ogden route, both of which have been studied before. Even then they are not going to string wires over yards, inter-modal facilities, branch and secondary lines and so on, so you will see lots of locomotive switch outs and diesels employed everywhere except the main.

 

[TVRM610]

Well you don't see many Dash-9's switching in yards or going out on secondary lines so that's not a big deal.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh line be electrified for one train a day... The question is - could the Keystone Corridor be expanded to Pittsburgh.

 

[henryj]

Well you don't see many Dash-9's switching in yards or going out on secondary lines so that's not a big deal.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh line be electrified for one train a day... The question is - could the Keystone Corridor be expanded to Pittsburgh.

Of course it could. All you need is a few billions and NS permission and you can do it. It would take Federal and State money as I don't think NS would be interested.

 

[TVRM610]

Exactly... Which is why it hasn't been done.

But I don't think anyone thinks that Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Philadelphia wouldn't make a great corridor. It makes sense...

 

[PRR 60]

The two big advantages of electrified operation are lower energy cost and much lower locomotive maintenance costs. Those savings have to offset the cost of maintaining the catenary and supply system, and the higher cost of signal and track maintenance caused by the electric induction and return current. That is why electrifying a railroad for a couple of trains a day does not work.

 

[railiner]

The other point that I did not make is, we already have electrified railroads and have had since the Diesel Electric locomotive was invented. These engines are powered by electric motors and they do it without wires and all the other paraphenalia that straight electrics require and they have the flexibility to go anywhere, not just where the wires are. They just carry their electricity power plant on board with them and only generate their electricity as needed. Basically, at this point, the only advantage to straight electric power is it can be generated by using fuels other than diesel fuel, such as coal or nuclear. The economics then for converting would only come into play when the costs of liquid fuels reaches the breaking point, and I don't see that happening for many years.

There are significantly greater levels of acceleration possible with electric trains compared to diesel, especially at high speed, and electric trains use about 1/3rd the energy of diesel trains, which can be a significant source of savings (mainly for passengers and high speed freight). As well, you can save a significant amount of money by using fewer locomotives (there are 13,000hp electric locomotives in common revenue service, diesel maxes out at 6,300hp so far), both in terms of initial capital outlay and in terms of locomotive maintenance costs (~100-200K per year). That's over and above the reduced maintenance costs and higher reliability of an electric locomotive in the first place.

That said, I do not think that freight will electrify, though I think it increasingly likely on the part of commuter and high frequency intercity passenger lines.

All this may be true, but it favors frequent passenger service much more than the occasional freight train. Like we said, freight railroads will electrify when it makes economic sense. What stops them in their tracks is the high initial costs and the lack of flexibility. The closest candidates would be the BNSF transcon and the UP;s Chicago to Ogden route, both of which have been studied before. Even then they are not going to string wires over yards, inter-modal facilities, branch and secondary lines and so on, so you will see lots of locomotive switch outs and diesels employed everywhere except the main.

It is interesting when you look back at the history of the PRR electrification.....they extended their wires over many freight only locations back then...such as the Trenton Cut-Off, the line to Potomac Yard, and IIRC even the Port Road?