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

[GDRRiley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BlackDiamond]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

at this point freight RR are going down an unststanble path

Did you mean unsustainable?

 

[west point]

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]

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]

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

Did you mean unsustainable?

fixed my mistake

 

[jis]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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.

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.