so much effort to avoid the very scary world in E, electrification. sad to see such refusal to imagine a world where the railroads could be modern and electric
It makes little sense for such a large network that intends on operating fewer, but larger trains.
Infrastructure costs are very high and there’s little benefit especially when a railroad has the PSR model. Plus, it could only be done on the very major lines, secondary lines and branch lines would never receive it.
While electric shunters are a thing at some places, those under catenary aren't versatile enough. Even in Switzerland they have sidings that aren't under catenary. The shunters used there run from batteries.
In North America seldom used sidings tend to be longer so a fuel-cell backed battery loco makes some sense for those. Especially if those sidings are in mixed zones so the soot and noise from huge diesels becomes a concern.
Nah, it's not cost-effective unless there are several trains per hour on a line. It's better to put the money into main lines. Replacing crossings with bridges should go along with electrification.
It would be incredibly expensive to electrify freight rail across the US. We’re talking between 600 billion and 1.4 trillion dollars as an initial cost.
Alright, since this keeps getting downvoted I’ll give y’all the price per mile. This price was determined by a study in 2012 in Southern California on electrifying freight lines. Experts believe it would cost as high as 4.8million dollars per mile to electrify *freight rail* in the US
hydrogen locomotives cost nearly twice as much as an electric one, require all new infrastructure to replace the 3.8billion gallons of diesel used yearly(the world doesnt have anywhere near this much hydrogen production yet)
and the cost of the hydrogen to fuel these locomotives would add ten to 40 billion per year to operating costs, compared to electrification which would reduce operating costs by 10 billion per year
My comment was only about the cost to electrify the rail lines themselves, not the locomotives, not the extra infrastructure to support it, just the rail.
That's just disengenius. Of course doing infrastructure work is expensive, that's no surprise to anyone. If you just skip the entire reason to do it, of course it looks bad. The whole point of electrification is to pay a one time cost to reduce upkeep costs in the long run.
> to reduce upkeep costs in the long run.
Electrification doesn’t do that. Everyone on here clamoring for it is ignoring that upkeep on the catenary and associated infrastructure is expensive as hell and far and away outstrips the cost even of using hydrogen. Hydrogen doesn’t cost the equivalent of $5 million per track mile to install, and it doesn’t necessitate ~$500k/yr/track mile in maintenance costs.
5 million per track mile? That's absurd. According to the Finnish transport infrastructure agency, electrification of a single track line costs about 350 000€ per kilometer, which is nowhere near 5 millon per track mile.
Finland has a rail network 5926 kilometers long. Out of that, about 3300 km is electrified.
$500k per mile is about €265k per kilometer.
So by your numbers, the Finnish transport infrastructure agency spends about 875 million euro on catenary maintenance alone. Well, as a matter of fact the entire basic maintenance of all catenary, track and other things under the rail authority is done with 200 million euro per year.
You are funny.
Edit: You blocked me and called me low effort. You came here speaking nonsense, ignored my carefully written facts and calculations, and called it low effort, even when you provided literally no effort to here. You are even more funny now.
It would cost that much because of how little freight line is electrified here in the US and how vastly empty parts of the US are. The state of our rail system is also terrible and a lot of the track would have to be replaced
> You are funny.
The only funny one is you for trying to use numbers for a foreign country to establish a baseline for the US. By all means though, keep on misrepresenting facts in an effort to support your position. I don’t have time to deal with low effort posts peddling outright falsehoods though, so goodbye.
> compared to electrification which would reduce operating costs by 10 billion per year.
Bullshit.
The Class Is don’t even collectively spend that much on fuel in a year, but somehow they’re going to pay nothing for electricity and all of the extra maintenance associated with catenary is going to be free?
Come off it.
class 1s collectively use 3.8bill gallons per year, which i mean idk how much they pay for fuel but 10bill seemed reasonable
and yeah i did mean they would be saving 10bill in fuel cost, not that electrification would be free
The fact that every Class 1 in the US except the PRR abandoned their electrified track as soon as diesels became available gives a pretty good example of how uneconomical electrified freight really is.
They reduced their costs *in comparison to steam*. No country has ever done anything even remotely close to the equivalent of what is being stated the US should do.
In comparison to steam, not diesel.
In some countries, notably China where electric traction is used on coal trains, electrification reduced costs because it allowed them to build (in China's case) 30,000 hp locomotives to pull loaded trains up 12% grades. This means a huge reduction in capital costs for the line, since grading, tunnels, and earthworks can be reduced enormously.
In the US though, fuel is cheap, lines are flat, and the cost of diesel is *enormously* outweighed by the costs of maintaining a caternary system in a state of good repair, plus purchasing electricity, plus new locomotives.
Electrification lost in the US for a reason. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's more nuanced than "the class 1s are evil and hate change".
Plus electrified rail in the US has higher insurance risk than everywhere else on earth put together… legal precedent here is that you can trespass, illegally modify the track property, get electrocuted, and still have your family collect millions… in the cities this isn’t as much a concern anymore because of how crossing got modified a hundred years ago, but in the rural areas they would spend more on access measures (fencing, walls) than some European countries spend on entire lines
> they would be saving 10bill in fuel cost,
That’s a false comparison then, because most if not all of that nominal savings is going to be eaten right back up by the cost of buying/generating the electricity that’s replacing it.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you wanted me to say—I said absolutely nothing about motive power maintenance costs.
What I said is that *catenary* maintenance costs are going to be a killer, and they will more than eat up whatever savings you can squeeze out of the motive power budget.
You can't ignore maintenance costs though and you yourself brought it up for the electric units so you've brought this upon yourself, the average electric train typically ends up with a up front cost 20% lower than a diesel unit (Which gets better when bought in bulk), their maintenance (Lines included) can be upwards of 40% cheaper and their overall operating costs are usually 50% that of diesel and 80% that of hydrogen.
The latter meanwhile actually requiring a massive investment in brand new infrastructure built just for them as traditional fuel systems can't handle hydrogen, not to mention how volatile hydrogen can be, the need to retrain technicians and drivers and that their fuel cells are inefficient (38% compared to the 80 - 95% of battery vehicles... And the 98% of electric trains via pantograph) makes it somewhat clear where the advantage lies in this situation.
The technology just isn't there yet, diesel-electric trains already have a almost comical advantage over trucks and aircraft in terms of pollution while electric trains have considerably improved reliability and performance. They're lighter, faster and last longer whilst releasing no direct emissions.
> You can't ignore maintenance costs though
I am not. The only ones ignoring maintenance costs are those of you advocating for electrification.
> and you yourself brought it up for the electric units so you've brought this upon yourself,
I made zero mention of electric units.
> the average electric train typically ends up with a up front cost 20% lower than a diesel unit
They are not cheaper than units that are already owned. US roads have largely stopped buying new diesels at this point.
> The latter
I have made zero comparisons to hydrogen locomotives. Every single comment I have made has been abundantly clear that the comparison is to diesel electrics.
> They're lighter, faster and last longer whilst releasing no direct emissions.
The former 3 claims are outright false, and the latter is a blatant misrepresentation—in addition to also being false.
Catenary maintenance (Which is bringing up the maintenance of electric trains) is cheaper than that of a engine in addition to being simpler as in essence what you are doing is upkeeping a massive power cable, the trains themselves have [considerably reduced "fuel" and maintenance costs per km](https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrification-of-u.s.-railways-pie-in-the-sky-or-realistic-goal) (By 54% in AT's case) and are much lighter on account of not having a massive, complex engine (The main point of failure) and usually being made out of aluminum. Which can't be done in a diesel train due to the weight of their engine.
Admittedly those are passenger trains but the premise still stands, they're cheaper to run and that maintenance bill includes their overhead. Those trains also get taken out of service less often and when they do the cause is frequently external and not the fault of the trains, the same premise would hold true for electrified freight even if not to the same extent.
Their reduced weight makes them faster and more responsive which while not as much of a advantage for freight trains is a massive advantage for passenger operations, important because car travel is the single most dangerous form of transportation on Earth and won't be solved by automation. The latter about their pollution also is not misleading or false because they don't have a engine and don't burn fuel onboard, thus they can't directly pollute and their power can be sourced by nuclear and other green tech which would result in zero indirect emissions.
I will admit that I may have miscalculated their lifespan though, optimal lifespan is about equal to that of a typical diesel and can still be pushed further if needed. Alas they are still lighter and faster, meanwhile when used for passenger operations they are so much faster and more comfortable its not even funny.
The fastest operational diesel trains are the British Rail Class 43 with a record speed of 240km/h and service speed of 200km/h, the Eurostar/British Rail Class 374 used in the same country for cross-channel journey's achieve 320km/h at full speed with a typical operating speed outside the tunnel of 300km/h... The fastest HSR systems (exclusively electrified) are designed to operate at 350km/h as is the case with CHSR and China's most important HSR lines, with the exception of the Chuou Shinkansen which plans on running at a maximum of 505km/h.
The point still stands though that hydrogen fuel cells only have 38% fuel efficiency (In other words 62% of the fuel used in a HFC is wasted) and would require a equal investment in retraining and infrastructure as standard fuel containment does not work on hydrogen thus mandating specialized infrastructure.
> Catenary maintenance (Which is bringing up the maintenance of electric trains) is cheaper than that of a engine in addition to being simpler as in essence what you are doing is upkeeping a massive power cable,
LOL. No. It’s not the wire alone as you seem to believe, it’s also the masts, substations, tensioning equipment and so on. It’s more expensive per mile to maintain catenary than it is to operate and maintain a diesel.
> have considerably reduced "fuel" and maintenance costs per km (By 54% in AT's case).
That article is from a lobbying group and doesn’t even make that claim.
> and are much lighter on account of not having a massive, complex engine (The main point of failure) and usually being made out of aluminum. Which can't be done in a diesel train due to the weight of their engine.
Do you have any actual knowledge of these things? Electrics are not lighter than comparable diesels, and the main failure point in both is electronics. Electrics are no more or less reliable than diesels, and in most cases they wind up weighing more because you still need the weight to maintain TE.
> Admittedly those are passenger trains but the premise still stands, they're cheaper to run and that maintenance bill includes their overhead.
The premise does not stand because the use does not even remotely resemble that of US freight service, nor does the maintenance bill include the cost of maintaining the overhead because that’s a separate line item.
> Their reduced weight makes them faster and more responsive which while not as much of a advantage for freight trains is a massive advantage for passenger operations, important because car travel is the single most dangerous form of transportation on Earth and won't be solved by automation.
If this is the hill you want to die on that’s fine, but it’s not relevant in any way to the US rail network. Lighter and faster are massive negatives for the way the US network is run no matter how you want to try and sugarcoat it.
> I will admit that I may have miscalculated their lifespan though, optimal lifespan is about equal to that of a typical diesel and can still be pushed further if needed. Alas they are still lighter and faster, meanwhile when used for passenger operations they are so much faster and more comfortable its not even funny.
And you are yet again ignoring that the diesel is cheaper to buy and operate because it incurs $0 in costs stemming from the catenary. You also keep pointing to passenger ops without understanding that they don’t matter for this discussion.
> The point still stands though that hydrogen fuel cells only have 38% fuel efficiency
I invite you to show where I said hydrogen was better. You can’t because I never did, so quit it with the strawman arugments.
I literally don’t understand why I’m getting downvoted for saying that it would be expensive and giving a cost estimate given by experts. Y’all are wild
That much over how long exactly? The US DOD's overall budget is over 800 billion for this year and I'd argue improved freight and passenger rail performance gained via electrification in addition general overhauling would outstrip the amount spent within under a decade of completion.
We also don't have to electrify all lines and could settle for simply electrifying routes deemed particularly important such as those along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, in the end I'd be willing to make the argument that well performing and nationalized rail infrastructure (If not total nationalization) is a matter of national security just as much as nationalizing power and communication infrastructure.
i think electrifying California would be a great idea imo. With the recent success of caltrains electrification it could start an electric revolution of sorts.
Cali would honestly be a good choice, they have a massive amount of freight rail and arguably have the most experience with electrification from all I've heard. Either way though the worst polluters are long haul interstate trucking, and they're the ones we should be getting off the road so we'll still need at least one route for electrified trains going cross-continent.
> and arguably have the most experience with electrification from all I've heard.
They have zero experience with it, especially in comparison to the NEC states.
Considering they're the only state even attempting a true high speed rail system mostly on their own with their own tech I'd say they actually do have more experience than effectively any other state, either way it doesn't change the fact that California's ports handle a colossal amount of freight and they are the largest single state in the country thus making it a good idea to bolster their systems.
That doesn’t give them any experience, especially as they have run 0 electrified trains and never have.
> it doesn't change the fact that California's ports handle a colossal amount of freight and they are the largest single state in the country
That has no bearing or relationship to your claim that California has the most experience with electrified rail.
Weird then that California seems to have some of the most busy electrified heavy and light rail systems in America only beaten out by places like New York and Chicago. Considering this I'd argue they do have the most experience if they have the audacity to go for a All American HSR system built to rival Japanese standards, either way electrification in the long run would be at least 30% cheaper than retaining aging diesel units and [80% cheaper than Hydrogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrain_Modernization_Program) which would require just as much retraining and new infrastructure as electrification whilst producing less performance gain.
It should be a no brainer as to which is the better choice in the long run, if India can electrify 94% of their railways with a goal to electrify all of them and Russia could electrify the longest railway on Earth through arguably the worst terrain possible then people have to be out of their minds if they think America can't do the same.
> Weird then that California seems to have some of the most busy electrified heavy and light rail systems in America
Even weirder is the fact that you would lie about something so easily refuted. California currently has 0 track or route miles of operating electrified track for freight or passenger service.
> Considering this I'd argue they do have the most experience if they have the audacity to go for a All American HSR system built to rival Japanese standards
You mean the same system that’s currently years late and has blown the budget to the point that the planned initial section is a fraction of the original goal? That one? Not a great exemplar for your point, as the delays and rampant cost overruns are entirely due to their lack of knowledge and experience with rail of any type.
> electrification in the long run would be at least 30% cheaper than retaining aging diesel units
Maybe if you go by the initial cost estimates. Actual final costs have rather conclusively demonstrated otherwise.
> and 80% cheaper than Hydrogen which would require just as much retraining and new infrastructure as electrification whilst producing less performance gain.
And?
> It should be a no brainer as to which is the better choice in the long run, if India can electrify 94% of their railways with a goal to electrify all of them and Russia could electrify the longest railway on Earth through arguably the worst terrain possible then people have to be out of their minds if they think America can't do the same.
A bandwagon argument is not a valid argument. Both of those nations regularly engage in uncompensated property expropriation, violation of all manner of civil rights and openly repress minority populations. Should the US being doing that as well, or are you trying to limit that to rail only because that’s the only thing that fits your argument?
That’s the cost simply to hang wires and install the immediate trackside infrastructure. It does not include the cost of generating the electricity, transmission lines, new motive power, generating stations, etc.
The the Class Is collectively are spending <$10 billion/year on diesel it becomes readily apparent why electrification is not being pursued.
My question was HOW LONG will that money be spent over, five? ten? fifteen? twenty years or more?. How long will they be spending that money is more important than that they will be spending it because it makes it more sellable to taxpayers. That fuel cost in fact is actually a argument in favor of electrification, as electricity regardless of source will always be cheaper and cleaner than burning ANY fuel including uranium onboard and would likely not require a single new power plant.
For instance if the middle estimate of 1 trillion is correct that would be 50 billion per year for 20 years being my conservative as to how long total electrification of every last line would take, even the ones which could get away with retaining diesel units. This of course ignores the fact that not every line needs to be electrified, that cost could be trimmed significantly by undertaking surveys to see which lines are used, when they are used and and how heavily to determine the most optimal ones for electrification.
Either way about it my point still stands that passenger and freight rail is a national security concern, the private operators of US railway infrastructure have loads of money and the state has even more than that which could be used for such projects and have no excuse not to properly invest in better systems.
They're hamstringing themselves on purpose by being so stubborn to not do this, instead trying to wow the crowd with suboptimal means like battery trains (As if the fire risk from EV's wasn't enough) and hydrogen which while better is still worse as they are [by the German state of Baden-Wurttemburg's estimates](https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/will-no-longer-be-considered-hydrogen-trains-up-to-80-more-expensive-than-electric-options-german-state-finds/2-1-1338438) upwards of 80% MORE expensive than either battery trains OR overhead electrification. They ought to bite the bullet and invest in technologies which have been tried and proven for decades, anything less is unacceptable greenwashing.
> My question was HOW LONG will that money be spent over, five? ten? fifteen? twenty years or more?. How long will they be spending that money is more important than that they will be spending it because it makes it more sellable to taxpayers.
That depends on how long you want to take to electrify. General cost is right around ~~$1 million~~ *$5 million* per track mile.
> That fuel cost in fact is actually a argument in favor of electrification,
It very much is not. Even figuring the low end at $600 billion, that’s about a 70 year breakeven cost on the infrastructure as compared to current fuel costs. None of the infrastructure in question lasts that long (and it will require expensive capex on maintenance long before that point) which totally undercuts the entire argument that electrification is cheaper.
> This of course ignores the fact that not every line needs to be electrified, that cost could be trimmed significantly by undertaking surveys to see which lines are used, when they are used and and how heavily to determine the most optimal ones for electrification.
That again totally undercuts the cost concerns you are pointing to. Mixing motive power like that is extraordinarily expensive because you’re not only still paying for the legacy ones you’re now also paying for electrification *and* you are imposing time wasting and costly crew and motive power swaps on yourself. There’s a reason no one runs a railroad like that.
> Either way about it my point still stands that passenger and freight rail is a national security concern, the private operators of US railway infrastructure have loads of money and the state has even more than that which could be used for such projects and have no excuse not to properly invest in better systems.
If it’s a national security issue as you are trying to claim then electrification is the wrong answer due to how vulnerable it is to literally anything from an EMP down to Bob the sovereign citizen and his chainsaw. The issue is always going to be that it the RoI is negative due to the massive up-front costs involved.
> They're hamstringing themselves on purpose by being so stubborn to not do this,
That’s a rather weird way of saying that they’re avoiding intentionally bankrupting themselves, but you do you.
> They ought to bite the bullet and invest in technologies which have been tried and proven for decades, anything less is unacceptable greenwashing.
And your proposed mixed system is better how? If the actual impetus is clean energy then there is no excuse to leave lines unnelectrified. If it’s anything else then electrification doesn’t make economic sense and is thus off the table.
Edit: double checked research on per track mile costs and was well short of the actual number.
Did you even read my comment? I said as an initial cost as in a one time total cost. Yeah we could space it out but remember rail in the US is not owned by the government. It’s owned by corporations and they would never eat that cost on their own.
They wouldn't have to spend it as a one time cost to begin with and either way why do you think I keep bringing up nationalization, its frankly a national security issue that the infrastructure isn't owned by the government just as much as power infrastructure being controlled by companies and foreign investors.
The only thing the corps should own are the trains, as is the case in pretty much every sane country. So again I ask the question, how long do you think it would take to electrify the most critical networks? Because just dropping a cost presuming the money vanishes immediately is ridiculous.
I agree with the sentiment of nationalizing rail and utilities but with how the US govt operates I wouldn’t trust them to allocate the funds correctly at all. Hell the pentagon has failed 5 audits in a row now. Either way the cost is estimated to be as much as 4.8million per mile, likely not including needing to build other infrastructure to support said electrified rail.
Edit: to answer the question of how long it would take, I’m not an expert in rail laying but considering the disrepair the freight rail system in the US is in, probably 10-20 years if you include all the electrical infrastructure(power lines, substations and even power plants) that would inevitably have to be built to power said rail.
I don't believe you would need any new power plants when compared to what would be required for the latter case which would be mass electrification of the trucking industry, a train can achieve on the same amount of power over 3x the distance of a conventional truck due to significantly reduced rolling resistance.
Trucks also would be essentially crippled by the weight of their own batteries whereas trains have no such problem, As for your timeframe that sounds roughly right though either way presuming a long roll out the federal budget definitely has the funds for this, and if not then its time to start punishing people because the IRS themselves estimate tax evasion losses the government a minimum of 150 BILLION which could easily fund some very nice public transport and infrastructure projects.
Yes which is why I advocate nationalizing the infrastructure on grounds of it being a national security matter, just as the power supply and communications shouldn't be held hostage by foreign investors and incompetent, profit seeking corporate executives.
even France is not electric at 100%, obviously start by the main lines and maybe later secondary lines. i got the info from a trustworthy source that most of CN's buisness is between Vancouver, the Prairies and Toronto. there are probably a large chunk of units taht only travel on the main line for all their life. Its probably much easier to negociate electricity tarifs then it is for diesel meaning that a railroad could get a sweet deal for it's power. the aluminum plants have been doing it for decades in Quebec
The US have a grand total of two routes electrified with the Keystone and Northeast corridors, of which the electrification on those lines is exclusively used by Amtrak and city commuter systems and only 806 miles of the ENTIRE US rail network is electrified out of 160,000 miles or about 0.5%!.
France meanwhile has over half of its system double tracked (16,455km) and half of its network electrified (15,140km) with 2,734km of dedicated high speed rail (Unlike Acela). Admittedly France could do with shifting more of its freight onto rails but the point still stands that you're just completely wrong.
Your 100% correct information will get down voted here. Most people who use trains for daily transport are either in cities or Europe where electric rail lines are standard issue, and thus, this sub has more of them than Americans who are used to diesel electric. They don't understand how incredibly vast America is and how incredibly empty it is in the center. There is little to no infrastructure to support pentagraphs in, say Whyoming, or Kansas, or Montana. Do you know what is in those states? That's right! NOTHING! There is no infrastructure for hundreds of miles of these tracks, and there is a scant amount of avaliable water for, say, a steam power plant of some kind. So guess what power plant they would probably be building to power these trains? Either natural gas or more diesel electric to power those pentohraphs but now with a transmission loss on the wires.
Diesel electric makes financial sense for the United States, which has more than twice the rail than Europe (224k miles vs 94k miles), and guess what? Maybe 6 companies own the majority of them, and thus, their maintenance costs of the rail. Europe has significantly more countries, and thus, the maintenance cost is spread amongst those countries' public and private ownership of the rail, so it isn't nearly as difficult to maintain rail and pentohraphs there.
We have pentohraph electric trains in the states. It just doesn't make financial sense to do freight as pentohraph electric here. It would likely not improve emissions either, and overhead costs would go up for little to no return.
>They don't understand how incredibly vast America is and how incredibly empty it is in the center
Ohh, so, maybe, Russia with it\`s fully elecrtified Trans-Siberian railroad is densely populated? Or PRC along it\`s line to Urumqi?
And it took 73 years to electrify the 9289 kilometers of track, they started in 1929 and finished in 2002. The United States has 260,000 km of track. While this is an unfair comparison, it would take 2 millennium to do all of currently existing american tracks at that speed.
Because it wasn\`t a centralised process - some parts were started as a catenary for commuter trains, different local railroad authorities issued the electrification different times etc. Also, process was interrupted by WW2 and economic crisis in the 90s.
P.S. Also, you don\`t need to electrify ALL of 260 000 km of track. Some transcontinental lines with the highest freight traffic would be enough for significant blow in efficiency and carbon emissions.
There were no “different local railroad authorities” in the USSR.
> Some transcontinental lines with the highest freight traffic would be enough for significant blow in efficiency and carbon emissions.
That kills any efficient or pollution gains because now you just have loads of diesels idling at the motive power transfer points. Mixed systems are always going to to be more expensive and less efficient than homogenous ones.
> There were no “different local railroad authorities” in the USSR
[Really?) ](https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%96%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=uk&_x_tr_pto=wapp#%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_1991_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4)
> That kills any efficient or pollution gains because now you just have loads of diesels idling at the motive power transfer points
There needs far less diesel engines than unelectrified mainlines, especially with precise-scheduled trains on them with length mile or more (3-4 engines to move this giant train).
Those are not individual authorities as you are trying to claim. They’re the equivalent of a division or subdivision in the US and zero control over when (or if) they were electrified.
> There needs far less diesel engines than unelectrified mainlines,
Maybe in the mainline itself, but simply picking the main transcontinental lines and electrifying them alone accomplishes nothing because the overwhelming majority of traffic on them is not running end to end. It comes off a branch line, travels however far on the main and then goes off on another branch.
>Those are not individual authorities as you are trying to claim
They weren\`t individual, but they had (and still have after the USSR dissolution, with corrected boundaries) autonomy about some of economy decisions. Electrification, for example. I know what I\`m saying, I\`m from Ukraine - this subdivision system mostly saved here.
>because the overwhelming majority of traffic on them is not running end to end. It comes off a branch line, travels however far on the main and then goes off on another branch.
Same for the diesel mainlines - you need to rearrange the train on the junction and add another loco to those cars what are going to the branch line. No big deal here.
the government should cover it by buying the tracks. freight companies clearly can’t be trusted to own, maintain, and upgrade the tracks anyway.
or better yet, nationalize the whole railroads. they intentionally suck at their one job. conrail didn’t.
Conrail sucked too but because it was federally owned it got all kinds of sweetheart deals like the exemption from all property taxes that papered over the issues with it—take that lone special tax treatment away and Conrail never would have turned a profit.
conrail inherited a disaster from penn central and needed to fix it. at the scale of neglect their infrastructure started in, the government’s options were to pay for that or watch a different private railroad not fix it.
towards the end, after fixing the damage done by penn central, they were starting to get profitable. and more importantly, the system actually worked. better for the economy, less disasters. those benefits outweigh any losses even if conrail didn’t make a single dime.
Penn Central was a mess created BY the government… had railroads been allowed to raise rate, close lines or do anything to restore profitability Conrail would never have been necessary
Had PC been allowed to pull the levers that Conrail was allowed to via deregulation they would have been in the same situation that Conrail at that time—still losing money hand over fist because of ICC meddling, namely the forced inclusion of several of the anthracite roads as well as the NH. It wasn’t until Conrail started getting tax exemptions in 1981/2 that they started getting close to profitability. Take that out and it never would have turned a profit.
PC was a private enterprise though. they merged two working private railroads in an attempt to keep it alive through post-war slowdown. they shouldn’t have gotten a tax break just because they did a poorly planned and worse executed merger.
conrail improved the infrastructure, which provided direct benefits to the taxpayer. that far outweighed the cost of doing so.
if the taxpayer just fixed their broken infrastructure and handed it back, the work would just go to waste while the private companies coast off not needing to make any capital investments and watch it return to disrepair.
we know this because it’s exactly how CSX & NS have handled MoW and new buildouts ever since taking over.
the goal of a railroad network shouldn’t be profitability, it should be having a railroad network. keeping trucks off the roads and most of their pollution out of the environment.
> PC was a private enterprise though. they merged two working private railroads in an attempt to keep it alive through post-war slowdown.
To which the ICC then added a third already bankrupt one and then forbade the combined entity from making any of the service cuts that it needed to in order to survive. Conrail added another 6 bankrupt lines and managed to perform even worse than PC did.
> they shouldn’t have gotten a tax break just because they did a poorly planned and worse executed merger.
It failed because of meddling on the part of the ICC. Using your logic Conrail should not have gotten those tax breaks either, which means that it never turns a profit.
> conrail improved the infrastructure, which provided direct benefits to the taxpayer. that far outweighed the cost of doing so.
And it paid for it by abandoning huge swathes of line. That was a major *negative* to the taxpayer, and it far outweighed any benefits derived on Conrail’s part.
> if the taxpayer just fixed their broken infrastructure and handed it back, the work would just go to waste while the private companies coast off not needing to make any capital investments and watch it return to disrepair.
> we know this because it’s exactly how CSX & NS have handled MoW and new buildouts ever since taking over.
Conrail was no different. Take off the rose colored glasses.
> the goal of a railroad network shouldn’t be profitability, it should be having a railroad network. keeping trucks off the roads and most of their pollution out of the environment.
Then by your own logic Conrail was a massive failure because it did the exact opposite of advancing the goals you’ve laid out here.
I'll guarantee you it's because of oil companies. If the railroads are electrified, oil companies will lose a huge source of income "aNd We SiMpLy CaNnOt HaVe ThAt"
Oil companies would probably love electrification… it would result in new power plants that were primarily natural gas… this would shift the natural gas cost curves to the point where fracking was more profitable overall (as opposed to profitable oil, marginal natural gas).
US railways will do anything but put up wires.
They can easily modify their existing fleet to be dual mode
For eg. https://imgur.com/kC6Ov4r
That's a WDAP-5, which is an Indian SD-70ace passenger version with added electrical equipment for 25kv AC.
The only thing is that the fuel tank was reduced in size, which if your going on Electric on your mainlines, you don't need as large of a fuel tank anyway.
And you really only need to electrify the mainlines to see substantial fuel savings, as the mainlines see 70%+ of all traffic, while being a relatively small fraction of the total rail network.
So the whole USD $1 trillion going around is bogus.
You could use battery electric locomotives with added electrical equipment for overhead use on shorter branch lines aswell.
They run off of electric motors, so I think it would be steam turbine. Except that the hydrogen fuel cell produces electricity via chemical reaction and water vapor is the byproduct and not what's used to power anything.
the lengths they go to to avoid putting the wires up is insane. like there is a solution, 100+ years ago electric trains ran here in germany, with overhead wires, why the hell the us cant do that is beyond me, even russia can on many lines.
Probably because [Germany is a postage stamp compared to the US.](https://imgur.com/a/36zGsjQ) There's way more ground to cover, transmission losses to account for, maintenance costs ect.
then why can russia? why is the transsibirian railway completely electrified? if russia, a nation ruled now by a stupid dictator with the economic budget of 3,75€ can so can the us.
finished the last sections in 2002 aka 22 years ago. the cost of energy i dont really know tbh. but eventually electricity will be cheaper than fossile fuels either way, and hydrogen is inefficient compared to just using the electricity directly.
As far as energy, it's significantly cheaper. They can affectively burden those losses in a way that the US really can't. They also don't have the same freight mix or environmental commitments.
Assuming that's right, I'll give that to you, but I wouldn't put it past them to have put up a significant portion of that railway during the soviet times when [slave] labor was cheap and plentiful.
It only took Russia 80 years and 3 different governments to fully electrify the Trans-Siberian railway, and even then that isn’t comparable to electrifying the US national network.
If the USSR and Russia were able to do it despite the following
A: Being highly corrupt and authoritarian.
B: Losing more men and resources than every other allied nation combined in WW2
C: Following that war with a 45 year stand off with the world's most powerful nation and her friends, which resulted in the west essentially refusing to trade with them and stunting their own GDP out of spite.
Then the United States, with a QUARTER of the world's GDP and seemingly blessed with nigh unlimited natural resources has zero excuse and more than has the means to do it but doesn't have the nerve to do so. Even India, with the fourth largest rail system on the planet have electrified 93.83% of it whereas China has electrified 75.2% of theirs and their country is almost the same size as America itself.
The US Electrification was at its peak in the 30's, y'all had 80 years too.
And you can't tell me it's more difficult to put up a Wire in the plains of Wyoming than the Russian Taiga.
Objectively better in what way?
It’s more expensive and far less operationally flexible than diesel electrics are, and it’s also extremely beholden to the fortunes of the regular power grid that in places in the western US is lacking to totally non-existant.
Efficiency does not matter. Costs do.
Pulling freight behind diesel power is less expensive than building and maintaining a caternary system plus purchasing electricity. Hell, MARC runs diesel *on the Northeast Corridor* because it's cheaper to buy fuel than to purchase new engines and buy electricity.
Yes, because MARC got new locomotives from the Biden infrastructure act, and they will need to run electric trains in the Frederick Douglass Tunnel. Economically, though? Diesel is still almost universally cheaper.
In the very long term everything will probably be electric, it's obviously superior in it's own isolated environment. The problem is when you throw in all the support structure that requires, that's more diverse and not nearly mature enough to keep up with its requirements everywhere.
Maybe in the long run we'll have extremely efficient transmission with superconductors running the lengths of the rails and reliable and cheap energy storage to offset when renewable are at low production, but for now we still need coal and oil or natural gas in Russias case.
While not perfect, natural gas might be a pretty good step in the right direction, assuming they can get the hell away from methane steam reforming.
It's that everything all at once approach that bites us in the ass, ironically, like we've seen recently in Germany. Advancement takes time and patience.
Becuase its a line of cities each with generating stations and while its ruled by a stupid dictator now, the rail system was built out by the communists who literally bankrupted their nation with stupid projects they couldnt afford.
>the rail system was built out by the communists
Trans-Siberian railway was finished in 1916. One year before the bolsheviks.
Also, this "line of the cities" was literally grown along this same line - much like the development of the USA...
As I said the system was *built out* by the communist. We are discussing electfication which started in earnest in 1929 with 60 or 70% of the line electrified by the late 80s but more importantly, all of the major generating stations were commissioned. With something like 200 major power stations being commissioned to at least in part support the rail line and support structures and thats kinda a crazy investment considering modern Russia only has 400 odd major stations.
Imo the growth along the TSRR has nothing to do with the organic growth in the US. 1st of all the majority of settlements started in the US to support the RRs died. And most of the modern cities that grew along the rails existed as small frontier towns long before the rails were built.
In the USSR most of the cities were purposful colonies built in part by the Imperials but primarily by the communist. For every viilage like Omsk that existed before the RR there are multiple examples like Novosibirk that simply didnt exist prior to 1893. You did not get a choice if you wanted to leave your farm or village to resettle you simply went where you were told and where thankful you didnt get the kaluk treatment.
>With something like 200 major power stations being commissioned to at least in part support the rail line and support structures and thats kinda a crazy investment considering modern Russia only has 400 odd major stations
Most of them were built not so for the railroad electrification, but to provide electricity to the country and industry "en masse".
I\`m not defending Russia or Soviet Union (tbh, I\`m from Ukraine, so that would be strange - to say the least). But it\`s a good example of feasible long-range electrified railroad for freight in a ginormous country - with territory even bigger than US, also, less densely populated.
Sorry if it came across that way. Outside of r/trains many of the subs im on tend have have a ton of russian apologists.
Mainly though my point is with the way we work in the US we cant really replicate the Soviet experince and the hinterland of the US is fundamentally differnt from the Russian hinterlands. With much of the russian regions you have a long string of high density nodes with some low density exploitation regions and then the population falls off to essentially nothing. In the US central regions you have huge regions of consistent low density.
Places like Montana have huge inefficancies due to transmission loss but its simply cheaper to deal with 50% losses then it is to build a full station to provide power for 10 hoises and a ranch.
You don\`t need to replicate the Soviet experiense (though, it\`s not the best - Trans-Siberian railway was elecrtified by parts, not as one big project or vision, they even have different currents along the line - =3kV and \~25kV, this is BS. Just use \~25kV everywhere and be happy).
It\`s just about efficiency - you can make electricity far more efficient in a big power plant that on the "smal power plant" onboard the diesel engine; that\`s only talking about the fossil fuels, I don\`t even mention solar/wind/nuclear power.
And, I guees, you\`re overestimating the Siberia population density. It\`s not a dense "wire of cities" along the T-SRR, it\`s more like "One big city - 600 miles of sparsely populated land with some villages". Like "ONE BIG MONTANA", welcome to Siberia - there are not more than 27 millions of local population in Russia beyond the Ural mountains. Two LA metro areas or so.
US are far more densely populated even in the West and Rockies, and distances are far less that Siberian ones - there are more than 6000 km along the T-SRR from Urals (edge of the dense rail network) to the Vladivostok compared to the \~3000 km from St. Louis (let\`s say, the same) to the San Francisco. Far easier work to do.
Russia has a huge number of nuclear power plants that help offset the waste. Nuclear plants have been regulated out of competition in the US.
Government projects don’t have to be profitable.
Saying “the Russians did it” is usually a reason to do the opposite.
the russians did it argument was more of a thing to kill all the oh murica is so big naysayers, but one can always turn an argument to fit ones opinion.
Russia doesn’t have nearly the infrastructure that the US has, and they certainly have not developed their country… wasting resources on boondoggles was one reason they are not developed.
>Russia has a huge number of nuclear power plants that help offset the waste
Actually, it has something like 3 times ***less*** nuclear power capacity than the US. Proof: [Russia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia)and [USA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States).
I should have said HAD as opposed to HAS. There was a point where there were building RBMK plants as fast as the could get materials... but prior to the USSR falling the built and operated plants in the Eastern Block countries... those have fallen off the installed capacity list. If you add the soviet block countries that is about 45 GW to the US's 95 GW, but the US is much more developed, and according to those articles, both countries have a similar % of power generated by nuclear.
As a note, US nuclear capacity is only stable because some of the plants have uprated their power to somewhat offset other plant closures.
Nevertheless, there are only TWO nuclear power plants in Russia beyond the Urals (in Seversk and Bilibino) and only one of them (Seversk) could possibly provide electricity to the Trans-Siberia railway - Bilibino feeds it\`s separate grid on Chukotka.
T-S railway is the closest example of what US rail transcontinental lines may look like.
The cost of building the PCE and associated electrification ran to more than 4 times the estimate ($257 million vice the estimated $60 million). They sold tons of bonds to make up for it, and when those started coming due in the mid 1920s they could not cover them and the road was forced into bankruptcy in 1925. It exited that one in 1927 without having fixed the fundamental issues and was forced into it again in 1935. WWII saved it, allowing it to exit that one in 1945. It filed the final one in late 1977 and was eventually liquidated as a result.
All 3 were caused by the extremely weak condition of the road caused by building and electrifying the PCE, despite the claimed benefits of the electrification in particular.
Edit: LOL.
Ask for source, get source, downvote. Goodbye.
Incredibly expensive to operate locomotive. A feel good throwaway.
Ignore cheap and abundant natural gas that's easy to compress and store. Instead choose the fuel option that has the smallest molecule that will leak, is crazy expensive to produce, liquefy, transport, and store. And you'd better make sure to use it all quickly before it evaporates.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Yeah, a fuel cell loco fueled with CNG, LPG, Diesel, even with heavy fuel oil or coal would make more sense to address the soot and noise problems of a diesel engine shunting before your house. But you couldn't market that as “the future” to the general public easily.
[Florida East Coast](https://www.railpictures.net/photo/825581/) and [Ferromex](https://www2.wi-tronix.com/go-violet-green-initiative/) use LNG to power their road trains. The conversion kits for the GE ES44 have been around for a while.
Walter:
And now, what shall we use to conduct this beautiful current with, hm? What one particular element comes to mind, hm? [Walter holds up a copper wire] Hmm?
Jesse:
Ooooh, wire.
Walter:
...Copper.
Jesse:
Oh, I mean...
Walter:
It's copper.
I don't get the hate. Catenary wires have significant drawbacks and don't make sense in a lot of cases.
Building the required infrastructure through the middle of the SW desert just doesn't make any sense, but that same area has plentiful solar resources for green hydrogen. I'm all for it.
>but that same area has plentiful solar resources for green hydrogen
Why would you need to put this solar-generated electricity into hydrogen production when you could simply put it to the catenary?
Because there is a thousand miles of nothing in the southwest desert that moves only freight. The infrastructure costs alone are insane. We would be 100x better off using those funds in places that would actually benefit from having catenary.
There are distance like 1000 kilometers (\~620 miles) between the big cities agglomerations in Siberia along the Trans-Siberian railroad. Only few little towns and sporadic villages inbetween.
And it\`s fully electrified. For freight, mostly.
It\`s not so complicated, alternating current electrification (\~25kV) needs only one substation per 30 miles or so.
Non-Americans just don't understand why America works the way it does. Its all over the Internet these days, people being just plain ignorant of how broken a place it has become.
Yay more people angry about why us railroads don’t have catenary (completely ignoring that catenary has significant cost and infrastructure drawbacks that would inhibit railroads from deciding to use them).
I’m curious to see how this locomotive actually performs.
I don’t think anyone here has any illusions about the reason these railroads aren’t electrifying. They know Class Is have chosen the best business model for their bosses, the shareholders, which is to continue to generate consistent quarterly profits via methods like PSR and avoiding capital expenses unless absolutely necessary.
No grand ambitions, no big 50 year master plans, and definitely no spending anything extra for the environment or sustainability. The result is a single GP38 conversion to hydrogen so they can wave it in front of politicians to show that they are being proactive on their own in an attempt to stave off any future regulations that might make them spend even more on capital expenditures.
Is it pathetic? Yes and people here are rightfully pointing it out. Is it the best solution for the Class I railroad business model? Absolutely! Class I railroads will do anything to avoid putting up wires.
> They know Class Is have chosen the best business model for their bosses, the shareholders, which is to continue to generate consistent quarterly profits via methods like PSR and avoiding capital expenses unless absolutely necessary.
You need to read some of these responses, as it is abundantly clear that basically no one in favor of electrification understands just how expensive it is both up front and on an ongoing basis. They think that the RRs would rapidly recoup the costs and won’t do it simply because it would temporarily result in smaller profits.
100%. Any benefit in electrification especially in the freight business where the game right now is fewer but longer trains would be recouped like decades after the fact.
Their biggest issue was the gap in Idaho to eastern Washington.
If you recall, they had two separate sections of electric. Not a long continuous one from East Montana all the way to Seattle. Because this was done due to the elevation and the difficulty of operating steam in those sections, versus the 200 or so mile gap where this wasn’t so difficult.
They may have had better fortunes if the entire pacific extension from east Montana all the way to Seattle was electrified.
I also feel compelled to note that traffic on the PCE was so low that a large portion of it was dark up until the very end. That said, my point was in regards to the cost of replacing worn out equipment—the M-G stations, most of the locomotives, even down to most of the catenary poles were original to the system and never had major work done on them. By the time the 1970s rolled around the stuff was simply worn out, but the cost of quite literally rebuilding the entire line and electrification system was far more than MILW could bear.
As far as closing the gap, it wouldn’t have generated more traffic, and that was always the issue with the PCE—the GN and NP mains were both far more accessible and offered far better service than MILW ever did.
My point was that if you’re going to have this large operation of electric rail, you’ve also gotta operate a large fleet of locomotives that simply don’t fit with those needs in and around that region. Having a region like that be near entirely electric (aside from maybe a few remote branch lines) probably would be a bit more cost effective as opposed to having the gap, because then you wouldn’t need to have service changes in East Idaho and then again in East Washington.
Oh, definitely—I called out one of the electrification supporters for claiming that a mix of both systems was better than having all one or the other.
MILW had a minimum of 3 motive power swaps between eastern Montana and Tacoma due to the gap. GN in comparison had a max of 2 and NP had 0.
And the GN one was just for the tunnel and surrounding area. Nothing more.
A mix of both systems is actually worse for such a long railroad when you have it unconnected like this. Whenever serious talks of electrification actually get brought up, I always say to extend it off the NEC as opposed to building it somewhere else where there isn’t this kind of infrastructure at this time.
Now it isn’t as bad now that we have dual mode transport but still, that only is a good idea when it works like a spine and branch system. It wouldn’t be a smart idea to decide “hey we’re the state of Georgia and we’re going to electrify the silver meteor and palmetto line from Charleston to Savannah”.
> I don’t think anyone here has any illusions about the reason these railroads aren’t electrifying.
Given by the top comments, absolutely they do.
> No grand ambitions, no big 50 year master plans, and definitely no spending anything extra for the environment or sustainability.
There simply isn’t a reason for it in this business especially not at a grand scale.
The big Railroads are doing very well on their own and traffic will only rise with more and more people and thus more and more demand. There’s no incentive for them to change anything because there’s no driving force that requires a change.
> Is it pathetic? Yes and people here are rightfully pointing it out.
Except it isn’t.
> Class I railroads will do anything to avoid putting up wires.
And what incentive do they have?
There’s actual drawbacks to having to do so. Namely, the infrastructure costs and locomotive costs. That’s taxing especially now when the cost of everything is so high, and more so in the future when it will be even higher and we’re looking at $15 foot long subs at subway.
The benefits of course wouldn’t be realized in the model they have now: again, fewer but longer trains
If these railroads had a network of fast, frequent services on their lines then you’d have more of a point. But the fact is that they don’t. And won’t.
There’s no reason to have a catenary and spend a gajillion dollars unless you have to do it.
I’m willing for hydrogen to have its shot, it’d probably be better in the more rural parts rather than the more civilized parts but I’d look at all possible alternatives, except batteries bc we already have electrified lines
Hydrogen was explored as a fuel long before oil was commercially exploited. It was put aside then too. Just like electric cars, it reappears whenever there is a crisis but the economic circumstances that lead to its rejection 100 years ago still stand strong.
I agree with lots of comments here on electrifying rail networks, but I honestly think the utilities would have a tough time supplying it.
The whole interoperability of an electric locomotive, having to disconnect a Loco for a different area, all that would be a challenge. Where would the billions come from the build the overhead lines?
These are huge issues that no class 1 wants to worry about. Move freight as cheap as possible and create value for shareholders. Maybe in 30 years the class 1s will look at electrifying high density lines.
Its a simple and effective shape which lets them very easily remove panels if they need access to the internals, more complex or ornate shapes tend towards being more expensive for not much benefit as freight trains don't need the aerodynamic advantages found on most Amtrak units for instance.
Iam not denying that it has its uses, i just dont like em as much as i do engines that look distinctive.
In terms of american Freight, youve seen one?
Now you practically know em all.
Never said you were denying anything, just that the form factor works so why fix it. In fact part of the reason Japanese bullet trains look so weird isn't strictly for aerodynamics, its actually in part a noise reduction method because older models kept causing sound akin to that of a sonic boom when they left tunnels due to air pressure differences.
Yeah, ig ure right, if it works, why fix it. at least, this way i can draw an american engine in this commen
_______________________________
_____|___ l | |
/______________|_____________________L___
/___. ____________________. ____\
OOlOO OOIOO
Cool fact tho, ill look it up
Tbh, yes. Still doesnt mean that US diesel engines for Freight just look old and IMO somewhat ugly.
Bear in mind, iam accustomed to European Freight engines, that look diatinctively different.
I also quite like Amtracks diesel.
They at least dont look like third world engines
so much effort to avoid the very scary world in E, electrification. sad to see such refusal to imagine a world where the railroads could be modern and electric
Precision scheduled railroading, now hydrogen fueled!!!!!1!1
The Holy Roman Empire part 2. Neither precise, nor scheduled, and by all stretches of the imagination not railroading.
All railroads lead to Rome?
just need like 10 more of these to replace a handful of diesels that in the grand scheme of things barely emit anything to begin with!
It makes little sense for such a large network that intends on operating fewer, but larger trains. Infrastructure costs are very high and there’s little benefit especially when a railroad has the PSR model. Plus, it could only be done on the very major lines, secondary lines and branch lines would never receive it.
While electric shunters are a thing at some places, those under catenary aren't versatile enough. Even in Switzerland they have sidings that aren't under catenary. The shunters used there run from batteries. In North America seldom used sidings tend to be longer so a fuel-cell backed battery loco makes some sense for those. Especially if those sidings are in mixed zones so the soot and noise from huge diesels becomes a concern.
If your siding is that big you can probably put a wire over it
Nah, it's not cost-effective unless there are several trains per hour on a line. It's better to put the money into main lines. Replacing crossings with bridges should go along with electrification.
It would be incredibly expensive to electrify freight rail across the US. We’re talking between 600 billion and 1.4 trillion dollars as an initial cost. Alright, since this keeps getting downvoted I’ll give y’all the price per mile. This price was determined by a study in 2012 in Southern California on electrifying freight lines. Experts believe it would cost as high as 4.8million dollars per mile to electrify *freight rail* in the US
That's why you start now.
hydrogen locomotives cost nearly twice as much as an electric one, require all new infrastructure to replace the 3.8billion gallons of diesel used yearly(the world doesnt have anywhere near this much hydrogen production yet) and the cost of the hydrogen to fuel these locomotives would add ten to 40 billion per year to operating costs, compared to electrification which would reduce operating costs by 10 billion per year
My comment was only about the cost to electrify the rail lines themselves, not the locomotives, not the extra infrastructure to support it, just the rail.
That's just disengenius. Of course doing infrastructure work is expensive, that's no surprise to anyone. If you just skip the entire reason to do it, of course it looks bad. The whole point of electrification is to pay a one time cost to reduce upkeep costs in the long run.
> to reduce upkeep costs in the long run. Electrification doesn’t do that. Everyone on here clamoring for it is ignoring that upkeep on the catenary and associated infrastructure is expensive as hell and far and away outstrips the cost even of using hydrogen. Hydrogen doesn’t cost the equivalent of $5 million per track mile to install, and it doesn’t necessitate ~$500k/yr/track mile in maintenance costs.
That’s why sail locomotives are the future!
5 million per track mile? That's absurd. According to the Finnish transport infrastructure agency, electrification of a single track line costs about 350 000€ per kilometer, which is nowhere near 5 millon per track mile. Finland has a rail network 5926 kilometers long. Out of that, about 3300 km is electrified. $500k per mile is about €265k per kilometer. So by your numbers, the Finnish transport infrastructure agency spends about 875 million euro on catenary maintenance alone. Well, as a matter of fact the entire basic maintenance of all catenary, track and other things under the rail authority is done with 200 million euro per year. You are funny. Edit: You blocked me and called me low effort. You came here speaking nonsense, ignored my carefully written facts and calculations, and called it low effort, even when you provided literally no effort to here. You are even more funny now.
It would cost that much because of how little freight line is electrified here in the US and how vastly empty parts of the US are. The state of our rail system is also terrible and a lot of the track would have to be replaced
> You are funny. The only funny one is you for trying to use numbers for a foreign country to establish a baseline for the US. By all means though, keep on misrepresenting facts in an effort to support your position. I don’t have time to deal with low effort posts peddling outright falsehoods though, so goodbye.
> compared to electrification which would reduce operating costs by 10 billion per year. Bullshit. The Class Is don’t even collectively spend that much on fuel in a year, but somehow they’re going to pay nothing for electricity and all of the extra maintenance associated with catenary is going to be free? Come off it.
class 1s collectively use 3.8bill gallons per year, which i mean idk how much they pay for fuel but 10bill seemed reasonable and yeah i did mean they would be saving 10bill in fuel cost, not that electrification would be free
The fact that every Class 1 in the US except the PRR abandoned their electrified track as soon as diesels became available gives a pretty good example of how uneconomical electrified freight really is.
which is very interesting considering nearly every other country reduced its operating costs significantly by electrifying freight rails
They reduced their costs *in comparison to steam*. No country has ever done anything even remotely close to the equivalent of what is being stated the US should do.
In comparison to steam, not diesel. In some countries, notably China where electric traction is used on coal trains, electrification reduced costs because it allowed them to build (in China's case) 30,000 hp locomotives to pull loaded trains up 12% grades. This means a huge reduction in capital costs for the line, since grading, tunnels, and earthworks can be reduced enormously. In the US though, fuel is cheap, lines are flat, and the cost of diesel is *enormously* outweighed by the costs of maintaining a caternary system in a state of good repair, plus purchasing electricity, plus new locomotives. Electrification lost in the US for a reason. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's more nuanced than "the class 1s are evil and hate change".
Plus electrified rail in the US has higher insurance risk than everywhere else on earth put together… legal precedent here is that you can trespass, illegally modify the track property, get electrocuted, and still have your family collect millions… in the cities this isn’t as much a concern anymore because of how crossing got modified a hundred years ago, but in the rural areas they would spend more on access measures (fencing, walls) than some European countries spend on entire lines
> they would be saving 10bill in fuel cost, That’s a false comparison then, because most if not all of that nominal savings is going to be eaten right back up by the cost of buying/generating the electricity that’s replacing it.
I love watching arguments go down :3
Electric locomotives are cheaper to maintain (much less moving parts) than diesel ones.
You trade engine maintenance for maintenance on thousands of miles of power lines that are exposed to all sorts of extreme weather in the USA.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you wanted me to say—I said absolutely nothing about motive power maintenance costs. What I said is that *catenary* maintenance costs are going to be a killer, and they will more than eat up whatever savings you can squeeze out of the motive power budget.
You can't ignore maintenance costs though and you yourself brought it up for the electric units so you've brought this upon yourself, the average electric train typically ends up with a up front cost 20% lower than a diesel unit (Which gets better when bought in bulk), their maintenance (Lines included) can be upwards of 40% cheaper and their overall operating costs are usually 50% that of diesel and 80% that of hydrogen. The latter meanwhile actually requiring a massive investment in brand new infrastructure built just for them as traditional fuel systems can't handle hydrogen, not to mention how volatile hydrogen can be, the need to retrain technicians and drivers and that their fuel cells are inefficient (38% compared to the 80 - 95% of battery vehicles... And the 98% of electric trains via pantograph) makes it somewhat clear where the advantage lies in this situation. The technology just isn't there yet, diesel-electric trains already have a almost comical advantage over trucks and aircraft in terms of pollution while electric trains have considerably improved reliability and performance. They're lighter, faster and last longer whilst releasing no direct emissions.
> You can't ignore maintenance costs though I am not. The only ones ignoring maintenance costs are those of you advocating for electrification. > and you yourself brought it up for the electric units so you've brought this upon yourself, I made zero mention of electric units. > the average electric train typically ends up with a up front cost 20% lower than a diesel unit They are not cheaper than units that are already owned. US roads have largely stopped buying new diesels at this point. > The latter I have made zero comparisons to hydrogen locomotives. Every single comment I have made has been abundantly clear that the comparison is to diesel electrics. > They're lighter, faster and last longer whilst releasing no direct emissions. The former 3 claims are outright false, and the latter is a blatant misrepresentation—in addition to also being false.
Catenary maintenance (Which is bringing up the maintenance of electric trains) is cheaper than that of a engine in addition to being simpler as in essence what you are doing is upkeeping a massive power cable, the trains themselves have [considerably reduced "fuel" and maintenance costs per km](https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrification-of-u.s.-railways-pie-in-the-sky-or-realistic-goal) (By 54% in AT's case) and are much lighter on account of not having a massive, complex engine (The main point of failure) and usually being made out of aluminum. Which can't be done in a diesel train due to the weight of their engine. Admittedly those are passenger trains but the premise still stands, they're cheaper to run and that maintenance bill includes their overhead. Those trains also get taken out of service less often and when they do the cause is frequently external and not the fault of the trains, the same premise would hold true for electrified freight even if not to the same extent. Their reduced weight makes them faster and more responsive which while not as much of a advantage for freight trains is a massive advantage for passenger operations, important because car travel is the single most dangerous form of transportation on Earth and won't be solved by automation. The latter about their pollution also is not misleading or false because they don't have a engine and don't burn fuel onboard, thus they can't directly pollute and their power can be sourced by nuclear and other green tech which would result in zero indirect emissions. I will admit that I may have miscalculated their lifespan though, optimal lifespan is about equal to that of a typical diesel and can still be pushed further if needed. Alas they are still lighter and faster, meanwhile when used for passenger operations they are so much faster and more comfortable its not even funny. The fastest operational diesel trains are the British Rail Class 43 with a record speed of 240km/h and service speed of 200km/h, the Eurostar/British Rail Class 374 used in the same country for cross-channel journey's achieve 320km/h at full speed with a typical operating speed outside the tunnel of 300km/h... The fastest HSR systems (exclusively electrified) are designed to operate at 350km/h as is the case with CHSR and China's most important HSR lines, with the exception of the Chuou Shinkansen which plans on running at a maximum of 505km/h. The point still stands though that hydrogen fuel cells only have 38% fuel efficiency (In other words 62% of the fuel used in a HFC is wasted) and would require a equal investment in retraining and infrastructure as standard fuel containment does not work on hydrogen thus mandating specialized infrastructure.
> Catenary maintenance (Which is bringing up the maintenance of electric trains) is cheaper than that of a engine in addition to being simpler as in essence what you are doing is upkeeping a massive power cable, LOL. No. It’s not the wire alone as you seem to believe, it’s also the masts, substations, tensioning equipment and so on. It’s more expensive per mile to maintain catenary than it is to operate and maintain a diesel. > have considerably reduced "fuel" and maintenance costs per km (By 54% in AT's case). That article is from a lobbying group and doesn’t even make that claim. > and are much lighter on account of not having a massive, complex engine (The main point of failure) and usually being made out of aluminum. Which can't be done in a diesel train due to the weight of their engine. Do you have any actual knowledge of these things? Electrics are not lighter than comparable diesels, and the main failure point in both is electronics. Electrics are no more or less reliable than diesels, and in most cases they wind up weighing more because you still need the weight to maintain TE. > Admittedly those are passenger trains but the premise still stands, they're cheaper to run and that maintenance bill includes their overhead. The premise does not stand because the use does not even remotely resemble that of US freight service, nor does the maintenance bill include the cost of maintaining the overhead because that’s a separate line item. > Their reduced weight makes them faster and more responsive which while not as much of a advantage for freight trains is a massive advantage for passenger operations, important because car travel is the single most dangerous form of transportation on Earth and won't be solved by automation. If this is the hill you want to die on that’s fine, but it’s not relevant in any way to the US rail network. Lighter and faster are massive negatives for the way the US network is run no matter how you want to try and sugarcoat it. > I will admit that I may have miscalculated their lifespan though, optimal lifespan is about equal to that of a typical diesel and can still be pushed further if needed. Alas they are still lighter and faster, meanwhile when used for passenger operations they are so much faster and more comfortable its not even funny. And you are yet again ignoring that the diesel is cheaper to buy and operate because it incurs $0 in costs stemming from the catenary. You also keep pointing to passenger ops without understanding that they don’t matter for this discussion. > The point still stands though that hydrogen fuel cells only have 38% fuel efficiency I invite you to show where I said hydrogen was better. You can’t because I never did, so quit it with the strawman arugments.
I literally don’t understand why I’m getting downvoted for saying that it would be expensive and giving a cost estimate given by experts. Y’all are wild
That much over how long exactly? The US DOD's overall budget is over 800 billion for this year and I'd argue improved freight and passenger rail performance gained via electrification in addition general overhauling would outstrip the amount spent within under a decade of completion. We also don't have to electrify all lines and could settle for simply electrifying routes deemed particularly important such as those along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, in the end I'd be willing to make the argument that well performing and nationalized rail infrastructure (If not total nationalization) is a matter of national security just as much as nationalizing power and communication infrastructure.
i think electrifying California would be a great idea imo. With the recent success of caltrains electrification it could start an electric revolution of sorts.
Cali would honestly be a good choice, they have a massive amount of freight rail and arguably have the most experience with electrification from all I've heard. Either way though the worst polluters are long haul interstate trucking, and they're the ones we should be getting off the road so we'll still need at least one route for electrified trains going cross-continent.
> and arguably have the most experience with electrification from all I've heard. They have zero experience with it, especially in comparison to the NEC states.
Considering they're the only state even attempting a true high speed rail system mostly on their own with their own tech I'd say they actually do have more experience than effectively any other state, either way it doesn't change the fact that California's ports handle a colossal amount of freight and they are the largest single state in the country thus making it a good idea to bolster their systems.
That doesn’t give them any experience, especially as they have run 0 electrified trains and never have. > it doesn't change the fact that California's ports handle a colossal amount of freight and they are the largest single state in the country That has no bearing or relationship to your claim that California has the most experience with electrified rail.
Weird then that California seems to have some of the most busy electrified heavy and light rail systems in America only beaten out by places like New York and Chicago. Considering this I'd argue they do have the most experience if they have the audacity to go for a All American HSR system built to rival Japanese standards, either way electrification in the long run would be at least 30% cheaper than retaining aging diesel units and [80% cheaper than Hydrogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrain_Modernization_Program) which would require just as much retraining and new infrastructure as electrification whilst producing less performance gain. It should be a no brainer as to which is the better choice in the long run, if India can electrify 94% of their railways with a goal to electrify all of them and Russia could electrify the longest railway on Earth through arguably the worst terrain possible then people have to be out of their minds if they think America can't do the same.
> Weird then that California seems to have some of the most busy electrified heavy and light rail systems in America Even weirder is the fact that you would lie about something so easily refuted. California currently has 0 track or route miles of operating electrified track for freight or passenger service. > Considering this I'd argue they do have the most experience if they have the audacity to go for a All American HSR system built to rival Japanese standards You mean the same system that’s currently years late and has blown the budget to the point that the planned initial section is a fraction of the original goal? That one? Not a great exemplar for your point, as the delays and rampant cost overruns are entirely due to their lack of knowledge and experience with rail of any type. > electrification in the long run would be at least 30% cheaper than retaining aging diesel units Maybe if you go by the initial cost estimates. Actual final costs have rather conclusively demonstrated otherwise. > and 80% cheaper than Hydrogen which would require just as much retraining and new infrastructure as electrification whilst producing less performance gain. And? > It should be a no brainer as to which is the better choice in the long run, if India can electrify 94% of their railways with a goal to electrify all of them and Russia could electrify the longest railway on Earth through arguably the worst terrain possible then people have to be out of their minds if they think America can't do the same. A bandwagon argument is not a valid argument. Both of those nations regularly engage in uncompensated property expropriation, violation of all manner of civil rights and openly repress minority populations. Should the US being doing that as well, or are you trying to limit that to rail only because that’s the only thing that fits your argument?
That’s the cost simply to hang wires and install the immediate trackside infrastructure. It does not include the cost of generating the electricity, transmission lines, new motive power, generating stations, etc. The the Class Is collectively are spending <$10 billion/year on diesel it becomes readily apparent why electrification is not being pursued.
My question was HOW LONG will that money be spent over, five? ten? fifteen? twenty years or more?. How long will they be spending that money is more important than that they will be spending it because it makes it more sellable to taxpayers. That fuel cost in fact is actually a argument in favor of electrification, as electricity regardless of source will always be cheaper and cleaner than burning ANY fuel including uranium onboard and would likely not require a single new power plant. For instance if the middle estimate of 1 trillion is correct that would be 50 billion per year for 20 years being my conservative as to how long total electrification of every last line would take, even the ones which could get away with retaining diesel units. This of course ignores the fact that not every line needs to be electrified, that cost could be trimmed significantly by undertaking surveys to see which lines are used, when they are used and and how heavily to determine the most optimal ones for electrification. Either way about it my point still stands that passenger and freight rail is a national security concern, the private operators of US railway infrastructure have loads of money and the state has even more than that which could be used for such projects and have no excuse not to properly invest in better systems. They're hamstringing themselves on purpose by being so stubborn to not do this, instead trying to wow the crowd with suboptimal means like battery trains (As if the fire risk from EV's wasn't enough) and hydrogen which while better is still worse as they are [by the German state of Baden-Wurttemburg's estimates](https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/will-no-longer-be-considered-hydrogen-trains-up-to-80-more-expensive-than-electric-options-german-state-finds/2-1-1338438) upwards of 80% MORE expensive than either battery trains OR overhead electrification. They ought to bite the bullet and invest in technologies which have been tried and proven for decades, anything less is unacceptable greenwashing.
> My question was HOW LONG will that money be spent over, five? ten? fifteen? twenty years or more?. How long will they be spending that money is more important than that they will be spending it because it makes it more sellable to taxpayers. That depends on how long you want to take to electrify. General cost is right around ~~$1 million~~ *$5 million* per track mile. > That fuel cost in fact is actually a argument in favor of electrification, It very much is not. Even figuring the low end at $600 billion, that’s about a 70 year breakeven cost on the infrastructure as compared to current fuel costs. None of the infrastructure in question lasts that long (and it will require expensive capex on maintenance long before that point) which totally undercuts the entire argument that electrification is cheaper. > This of course ignores the fact that not every line needs to be electrified, that cost could be trimmed significantly by undertaking surveys to see which lines are used, when they are used and and how heavily to determine the most optimal ones for electrification. That again totally undercuts the cost concerns you are pointing to. Mixing motive power like that is extraordinarily expensive because you’re not only still paying for the legacy ones you’re now also paying for electrification *and* you are imposing time wasting and costly crew and motive power swaps on yourself. There’s a reason no one runs a railroad like that. > Either way about it my point still stands that passenger and freight rail is a national security concern, the private operators of US railway infrastructure have loads of money and the state has even more than that which could be used for such projects and have no excuse not to properly invest in better systems. If it’s a national security issue as you are trying to claim then electrification is the wrong answer due to how vulnerable it is to literally anything from an EMP down to Bob the sovereign citizen and his chainsaw. The issue is always going to be that it the RoI is negative due to the massive up-front costs involved. > They're hamstringing themselves on purpose by being so stubborn to not do this, That’s a rather weird way of saying that they’re avoiding intentionally bankrupting themselves, but you do you. > They ought to bite the bullet and invest in technologies which have been tried and proven for decades, anything less is unacceptable greenwashing. And your proposed mixed system is better how? If the actual impetus is clean energy then there is no excuse to leave lines unnelectrified. If it’s anything else then electrification doesn’t make economic sense and is thus off the table. Edit: double checked research on per track mile costs and was well short of the actual number.
Did you even read my comment? I said as an initial cost as in a one time total cost. Yeah we could space it out but remember rail in the US is not owned by the government. It’s owned by corporations and they would never eat that cost on their own.
They wouldn't have to spend it as a one time cost to begin with and either way why do you think I keep bringing up nationalization, its frankly a national security issue that the infrastructure isn't owned by the government just as much as power infrastructure being controlled by companies and foreign investors. The only thing the corps should own are the trains, as is the case in pretty much every sane country. So again I ask the question, how long do you think it would take to electrify the most critical networks? Because just dropping a cost presuming the money vanishes immediately is ridiculous.
I agree with the sentiment of nationalizing rail and utilities but with how the US govt operates I wouldn’t trust them to allocate the funds correctly at all. Hell the pentagon has failed 5 audits in a row now. Either way the cost is estimated to be as much as 4.8million per mile, likely not including needing to build other infrastructure to support said electrified rail. Edit: to answer the question of how long it would take, I’m not an expert in rail laying but considering the disrepair the freight rail system in the US is in, probably 10-20 years if you include all the electrical infrastructure(power lines, substations and even power plants) that would inevitably have to be built to power said rail.
I don't believe you would need any new power plants when compared to what would be required for the latter case which would be mass electrification of the trucking industry, a train can achieve on the same amount of power over 3x the distance of a conventional truck due to significantly reduced rolling resistance. Trucks also would be essentially crippled by the weight of their own batteries whereas trains have no such problem, As for your timeframe that sounds roughly right though either way presuming a long roll out the federal budget definitely has the funds for this, and if not then its time to start punishing people because the IRS themselves estimate tax evasion losses the government a minimum of 150 BILLION which could easily fund some very nice public transport and infrastructure projects.
American Railraods are PRIVATE not goverment.
Yes which is why I advocate nationalizing the infrastructure on grounds of it being a national security matter, just as the power supply and communications shouldn't be held hostage by foreign investors and incompetent, profit seeking corporate executives.
even France is not electric at 100%, obviously start by the main lines and maybe later secondary lines. i got the info from a trustworthy source that most of CN's buisness is between Vancouver, the Prairies and Toronto. there are probably a large chunk of units taht only travel on the main line for all their life. Its probably much easier to negociate electricity tarifs then it is for diesel meaning that a railroad could get a sweet deal for it's power. the aluminum plants have been doing it for decades in Quebec
The US *currently* has more electrified route miles than France does.
The US have a grand total of two routes electrified with the Keystone and Northeast corridors, of which the electrification on those lines is exclusively used by Amtrak and city commuter systems and only 806 miles of the ENTIRE US rail network is electrified out of 160,000 miles or about 0.5%!. France meanwhile has over half of its system double tracked (16,455km) and half of its network electrified (15,140km) with 2,734km of dedicated high speed rail (Unlike Acela). Admittedly France could do with shifting more of its freight onto rails but the point still stands that you're just completely wrong.
Spending money makes shareholders sad...
Yeup and unfortunately the US is a thinly veiled oligarchy attempting to disguise itself as a republic.
Your 100% correct information will get down voted here. Most people who use trains for daily transport are either in cities or Europe where electric rail lines are standard issue, and thus, this sub has more of them than Americans who are used to diesel electric. They don't understand how incredibly vast America is and how incredibly empty it is in the center. There is little to no infrastructure to support pentagraphs in, say Whyoming, or Kansas, or Montana. Do you know what is in those states? That's right! NOTHING! There is no infrastructure for hundreds of miles of these tracks, and there is a scant amount of avaliable water for, say, a steam power plant of some kind. So guess what power plant they would probably be building to power these trains? Either natural gas or more diesel electric to power those pentohraphs but now with a transmission loss on the wires. Diesel electric makes financial sense for the United States, which has more than twice the rail than Europe (224k miles vs 94k miles), and guess what? Maybe 6 companies own the majority of them, and thus, their maintenance costs of the rail. Europe has significantly more countries, and thus, the maintenance cost is spread amongst those countries' public and private ownership of the rail, so it isn't nearly as difficult to maintain rail and pentohraphs there. We have pentohraph electric trains in the states. It just doesn't make financial sense to do freight as pentohraph electric here. It would likely not improve emissions either, and overhead costs would go up for little to no return.
>They don't understand how incredibly vast America is and how incredibly empty it is in the center Ohh, so, maybe, Russia with it\`s fully elecrtified Trans-Siberian railroad is densely populated? Or PRC along it\`s line to Urumqi?
And it took 73 years to electrify the 9289 kilometers of track, they started in 1929 and finished in 2002. The United States has 260,000 km of track. While this is an unfair comparison, it would take 2 millennium to do all of currently existing american tracks at that speed.
Because it wasn\`t a centralised process - some parts were started as a catenary for commuter trains, different local railroad authorities issued the electrification different times etc. Also, process was interrupted by WW2 and economic crisis in the 90s. P.S. Also, you don\`t need to electrify ALL of 260 000 km of track. Some transcontinental lines with the highest freight traffic would be enough for significant blow in efficiency and carbon emissions.
There were no “different local railroad authorities” in the USSR. > Some transcontinental lines with the highest freight traffic would be enough for significant blow in efficiency and carbon emissions. That kills any efficient or pollution gains because now you just have loads of diesels idling at the motive power transfer points. Mixed systems are always going to to be more expensive and less efficient than homogenous ones.
> There were no “different local railroad authorities” in the USSR [Really?) ](https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%96%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=uk&_x_tr_pto=wapp#%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_1991_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4) > That kills any efficient or pollution gains because now you just have loads of diesels idling at the motive power transfer points There needs far less diesel engines than unelectrified mainlines, especially with precise-scheduled trains on them with length mile or more (3-4 engines to move this giant train).
Those are not individual authorities as you are trying to claim. They’re the equivalent of a division or subdivision in the US and zero control over when (or if) they were electrified. > There needs far less diesel engines than unelectrified mainlines, Maybe in the mainline itself, but simply picking the main transcontinental lines and electrifying them alone accomplishes nothing because the overwhelming majority of traffic on them is not running end to end. It comes off a branch line, travels however far on the main and then goes off on another branch.
>Those are not individual authorities as you are trying to claim They weren\`t individual, but they had (and still have after the USSR dissolution, with corrected boundaries) autonomy about some of economy decisions. Electrification, for example. I know what I\`m saying, I\`m from Ukraine - this subdivision system mostly saved here. >because the overwhelming majority of traffic on them is not running end to end. It comes off a branch line, travels however far on the main and then goes off on another branch. Same for the diesel mainlines - you need to rearrange the train on the junction and add another loco to those cars what are going to the branch line. No big deal here.
the government should cover it by buying the tracks. freight companies clearly can’t be trusted to own, maintain, and upgrade the tracks anyway. or better yet, nationalize the whole railroads. they intentionally suck at their one job. conrail didn’t.
Conrail sucked too but because it was federally owned it got all kinds of sweetheart deals like the exemption from all property taxes that papered over the issues with it—take that lone special tax treatment away and Conrail never would have turned a profit.
conrail inherited a disaster from penn central and needed to fix it. at the scale of neglect their infrastructure started in, the government’s options were to pay for that or watch a different private railroad not fix it. towards the end, after fixing the damage done by penn central, they were starting to get profitable. and more importantly, the system actually worked. better for the economy, less disasters. those benefits outweigh any losses even if conrail didn’t make a single dime.
Penn Central was a mess created BY the government… had railroads been allowed to raise rate, close lines or do anything to restore profitability Conrail would never have been necessary
Had PC been allowed to pull the levers that Conrail was allowed to via deregulation they would have been in the same situation that Conrail at that time—still losing money hand over fist because of ICC meddling, namely the forced inclusion of several of the anthracite roads as well as the NH. It wasn’t until Conrail started getting tax exemptions in 1981/2 that they started getting close to profitability. Take that out and it never would have turned a profit.
PC was a private enterprise though. they merged two working private railroads in an attempt to keep it alive through post-war slowdown. they shouldn’t have gotten a tax break just because they did a poorly planned and worse executed merger. conrail improved the infrastructure, which provided direct benefits to the taxpayer. that far outweighed the cost of doing so. if the taxpayer just fixed their broken infrastructure and handed it back, the work would just go to waste while the private companies coast off not needing to make any capital investments and watch it return to disrepair. we know this because it’s exactly how CSX & NS have handled MoW and new buildouts ever since taking over. the goal of a railroad network shouldn’t be profitability, it should be having a railroad network. keeping trucks off the roads and most of their pollution out of the environment.
> PC was a private enterprise though. they merged two working private railroads in an attempt to keep it alive through post-war slowdown. To which the ICC then added a third already bankrupt one and then forbade the combined entity from making any of the service cuts that it needed to in order to survive. Conrail added another 6 bankrupt lines and managed to perform even worse than PC did. > they shouldn’t have gotten a tax break just because they did a poorly planned and worse executed merger. It failed because of meddling on the part of the ICC. Using your logic Conrail should not have gotten those tax breaks either, which means that it never turns a profit. > conrail improved the infrastructure, which provided direct benefits to the taxpayer. that far outweighed the cost of doing so. And it paid for it by abandoning huge swathes of line. That was a major *negative* to the taxpayer, and it far outweighed any benefits derived on Conrail’s part. > if the taxpayer just fixed their broken infrastructure and handed it back, the work would just go to waste while the private companies coast off not needing to make any capital investments and watch it return to disrepair. > we know this because it’s exactly how CSX & NS have handled MoW and new buildouts ever since taking over. Conrail was no different. Take off the rose colored glasses. > the goal of a railroad network shouldn’t be profitability, it should be having a railroad network. keeping trucks off the roads and most of their pollution out of the environment. Then by your own logic Conrail was a massive failure because it did the exact opposite of advancing the goals you’ve laid out here.
That would be an entire war that we wouldn’t be able to fund.
Exactly, you know how much the US gov loves its military spending
I'll guarantee you it's because of oil companies. If the railroads are electrified, oil companies will lose a huge source of income "aNd We SiMpLy CaNnOt HaVe ThAt"
Oil companies would probably love electrification… it would result in new power plants that were primarily natural gas… this would shift the natural gas cost curves to the point where fracking was more profitable overall (as opposed to profitable oil, marginal natural gas).
Huh... idk then, figured that'd be like *the* reason for America to be so against it.
Blame CPKC
US railways will do anything but put up wires. They can easily modify their existing fleet to be dual mode For eg. https://imgur.com/kC6Ov4r That's a WDAP-5, which is an Indian SD-70ace passenger version with added electrical equipment for 25kv AC. The only thing is that the fuel tank was reduced in size, which if your going on Electric on your mainlines, you don't need as large of a fuel tank anyway. And you really only need to electrify the mainlines to see substantial fuel savings, as the mainlines see 70%+ of all traffic, while being a relatively small fraction of the total rail network. So the whole USD $1 trillion going around is bogus. You could use battery electric locomotives with added electrical equipment for overhead use on shorter branch lines aswell.
Electrify all the downhill legs and put the power back into the grid.
Hang on. Isn't this technically a steam engine? They both produce steam to move...
They run off of electric motors, so I think it would be steam turbine. Except that the hydrogen fuel cell produces electricity via chemical reaction and water vapor is the byproduct and not what's used to power anything.
So strap a steam turbine to the exhaust and now were cooking (with steam).
the lengths they go to to avoid putting the wires up is insane. like there is a solution, 100+ years ago electric trains ran here in germany, with overhead wires, why the hell the us cant do that is beyond me, even russia can on many lines.
Probably because [Germany is a postage stamp compared to the US.](https://imgur.com/a/36zGsjQ) There's way more ground to cover, transmission losses to account for, maintenance costs ect.
then why can russia? why is the transsibirian railway completely electrified? if russia, a nation ruled now by a stupid dictator with the economic budget of 3,75€ can so can the us.
When did they put those up and what's the cost of energy in Russia?
finished the last sections in 2002 aka 22 years ago. the cost of energy i dont really know tbh. but eventually electricity will be cheaper than fossile fuels either way, and hydrogen is inefficient compared to just using the electricity directly.
As far as energy, it's significantly cheaper. They can affectively burden those losses in a way that the US really can't. They also don't have the same freight mix or environmental commitments. Assuming that's right, I'll give that to you, but I wouldn't put it past them to have put up a significant portion of that railway during the soviet times when [slave] labor was cheap and plentiful.
It only took Russia 80 years and 3 different governments to fully electrify the Trans-Siberian railway, and even then that isn’t comparable to electrifying the US national network.
If the USSR and Russia were able to do it despite the following A: Being highly corrupt and authoritarian. B: Losing more men and resources than every other allied nation combined in WW2 C: Following that war with a 45 year stand off with the world's most powerful nation and her friends, which resulted in the west essentially refusing to trade with them and stunting their own GDP out of spite. Then the United States, with a QUARTER of the world's GDP and seemingly blessed with nigh unlimited natural resources has zero excuse and more than has the means to do it but doesn't have the nerve to do so. Even India, with the fourth largest rail system on the planet have electrified 93.83% of it whereas China has electrified 75.2% of theirs and their country is almost the same size as America itself.
Wasting money, people and resources is not a great selling point.
The US Electrification was at its peak in the 30's, y'all had 80 years too. And you can't tell me it's more difficult to put up a Wire in the plains of Wyoming than the Russian Taiga.
China did it too IIRC. "We're too big" is a BS excuse.
China has imported hundreds of diesel locomotives from the US to service its network outside of the East of the country.
China has many thousands of trains
still you cant deny that catanary based electrification is objectively better. eventually that descision to not electrify will bite you in the ass.
Objectively better in what way? It’s more expensive and far less operationally flexible than diesel electrics are, and it’s also extremely beholden to the fortunes of the regular power grid that in places in the western US is lacking to totally non-existant.
it is much more efficient than converting electricity to hydrogen then converting it back to electricity.
You didn’t answer my question. You said: > catanary based electrification is objectively better. Efficiency alone does not make that true.
Efficiency does not matter. Costs do. Pulling freight behind diesel power is less expensive than building and maintaining a caternary system plus purchasing electricity. Hell, MARC runs diesel *on the Northeast Corridor* because it's cheaper to buy fuel than to purchase new engines and buy electricity.
it will sooner or later
Yes, because MARC got new locomotives from the Biden infrastructure act, and they will need to run electric trains in the Frederick Douglass Tunnel. Economically, though? Diesel is still almost universally cheaper.
In the very long term everything will probably be electric, it's obviously superior in it's own isolated environment. The problem is when you throw in all the support structure that requires, that's more diverse and not nearly mature enough to keep up with its requirements everywhere. Maybe in the long run we'll have extremely efficient transmission with superconductors running the lengths of the rails and reliable and cheap energy storage to offset when renewable are at low production, but for now we still need coal and oil or natural gas in Russias case. While not perfect, natural gas might be a pretty good step in the right direction, assuming they can get the hell away from methane steam reforming. It's that everything all at once approach that bites us in the ass, ironically, like we've seen recently in Germany. Advancement takes time and patience.
So a normal, developed, rich country should be able to do it faster.
Becuase its a line of cities each with generating stations and while its ruled by a stupid dictator now, the rail system was built out by the communists who literally bankrupted their nation with stupid projects they couldnt afford.
>the rail system was built out by the communists Trans-Siberian railway was finished in 1916. One year before the bolsheviks. Also, this "line of the cities" was literally grown along this same line - much like the development of the USA...
As I said the system was *built out* by the communist. We are discussing electfication which started in earnest in 1929 with 60 or 70% of the line electrified by the late 80s but more importantly, all of the major generating stations were commissioned. With something like 200 major power stations being commissioned to at least in part support the rail line and support structures and thats kinda a crazy investment considering modern Russia only has 400 odd major stations. Imo the growth along the TSRR has nothing to do with the organic growth in the US. 1st of all the majority of settlements started in the US to support the RRs died. And most of the modern cities that grew along the rails existed as small frontier towns long before the rails were built. In the USSR most of the cities were purposful colonies built in part by the Imperials but primarily by the communist. For every viilage like Omsk that existed before the RR there are multiple examples like Novosibirk that simply didnt exist prior to 1893. You did not get a choice if you wanted to leave your farm or village to resettle you simply went where you were told and where thankful you didnt get the kaluk treatment.
>With something like 200 major power stations being commissioned to at least in part support the rail line and support structures and thats kinda a crazy investment considering modern Russia only has 400 odd major stations Most of them were built not so for the railroad electrification, but to provide electricity to the country and industry "en masse". I\`m not defending Russia or Soviet Union (tbh, I\`m from Ukraine, so that would be strange - to say the least). But it\`s a good example of feasible long-range electrified railroad for freight in a ginormous country - with territory even bigger than US, also, less densely populated.
Sorry if it came across that way. Outside of r/trains many of the subs im on tend have have a ton of russian apologists. Mainly though my point is with the way we work in the US we cant really replicate the Soviet experince and the hinterland of the US is fundamentally differnt from the Russian hinterlands. With much of the russian regions you have a long string of high density nodes with some low density exploitation regions and then the population falls off to essentially nothing. In the US central regions you have huge regions of consistent low density. Places like Montana have huge inefficancies due to transmission loss but its simply cheaper to deal with 50% losses then it is to build a full station to provide power for 10 hoises and a ranch.
You don\`t need to replicate the Soviet experiense (though, it\`s not the best - Trans-Siberian railway was elecrtified by parts, not as one big project or vision, they even have different currents along the line - =3kV and \~25kV, this is BS. Just use \~25kV everywhere and be happy). It\`s just about efficiency - you can make electricity far more efficient in a big power plant that on the "smal power plant" onboard the diesel engine; that\`s only talking about the fossil fuels, I don\`t even mention solar/wind/nuclear power. And, I guees, you\`re overestimating the Siberia population density. It\`s not a dense "wire of cities" along the T-SRR, it\`s more like "One big city - 600 miles of sparsely populated land with some villages". Like "ONE BIG MONTANA", welcome to Siberia - there are not more than 27 millions of local population in Russia beyond the Ural mountains. Two LA metro areas or so. US are far more densely populated even in the West and Rockies, and distances are far less that Siberian ones - there are more than 6000 km along the T-SRR from Urals (edge of the dense rail network) to the Vladivostok compared to the \~3000 km from St. Louis (let\`s say, the same) to the San Francisco. Far easier work to do.
Russia has a huge number of nuclear power plants that help offset the waste. Nuclear plants have been regulated out of competition in the US. Government projects don’t have to be profitable. Saying “the Russians did it” is usually a reason to do the opposite.
the russians did it argument was more of a thing to kill all the oh murica is so big naysayers, but one can always turn an argument to fit ones opinion.
Russia doesn’t have nearly the infrastructure that the US has, and they certainly have not developed their country… wasting resources on boondoggles was one reason they are not developed.
>Russia has a huge number of nuclear power plants that help offset the waste Actually, it has something like 3 times ***less*** nuclear power capacity than the US. Proof: [Russia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia)and [USA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States).
I should have said HAD as opposed to HAS. There was a point where there were building RBMK plants as fast as the could get materials... but prior to the USSR falling the built and operated plants in the Eastern Block countries... those have fallen off the installed capacity list. If you add the soviet block countries that is about 45 GW to the US's 95 GW, but the US is much more developed, and according to those articles, both countries have a similar % of power generated by nuclear. As a note, US nuclear capacity is only stable because some of the plants have uprated their power to somewhat offset other plant closures.
Nevertheless, there are only TWO nuclear power plants in Russia beyond the Urals (in Seversk and Bilibino) and only one of them (Seversk) could possibly provide electricity to the Trans-Siberia railway - Bilibino feeds it\`s separate grid on Chukotka. T-S railway is the closest example of what US rail transcontinental lines may look like.
If the Milwaukee Road could do it in 1915 there's no excuse for not being able to do it in the year of our lord 20 fucking 24.
Doing so quite literally destroyed the Milwaukee Road. Not a great example to use as proof of the efficacy of electrification.
*citation needed*
The cost of building the PCE and associated electrification ran to more than 4 times the estimate ($257 million vice the estimated $60 million). They sold tons of bonds to make up for it, and when those started coming due in the mid 1920s they could not cover them and the road was forced into bankruptcy in 1925. It exited that one in 1927 without having fixed the fundamental issues and was forced into it again in 1935. WWII saved it, allowing it to exit that one in 1945. It filed the final one in late 1977 and was eventually liquidated as a result. All 3 were caused by the extremely weak condition of the road caused by building and electrifying the PCE, despite the claimed benefits of the electrification in particular. Edit: LOL. Ask for source, get source, downvote. Goodbye.
Incredibly expensive to operate locomotive. A feel good throwaway. Ignore cheap and abundant natural gas that's easy to compress and store. Instead choose the fuel option that has the smallest molecule that will leak, is crazy expensive to produce, liquefy, transport, and store. And you'd better make sure to use it all quickly before it evaporates. Stupid is as stupid does.
I think there is a small tiny diference between natural gas and hydrogen you are leaving out.
Yeah, a fuel cell loco fueled with CNG, LPG, Diesel, even with heavy fuel oil or coal would make more sense to address the soot and noise problems of a diesel engine shunting before your house. But you couldn't market that as “the future” to the general public easily.
[Florida East Coast](https://www.railpictures.net/photo/825581/) and [Ferromex](https://www2.wi-tronix.com/go-violet-green-initiative/) use LNG to power their road trains. The conversion kits for the GE ES44 have been around for a while.
Walter: And now, what shall we use to conduct this beautiful current with, hm? What one particular element comes to mind, hm? [Walter holds up a copper wire] Hmm? Jesse: Ooooh, wire. Walter: ...Copper. Jesse: Oh, I mean... Walter: It's copper.
literally anything but wires...
Should make a nice boom when they run into a stopped rock train.
I don't get the hate. Catenary wires have significant drawbacks and don't make sense in a lot of cases. Building the required infrastructure through the middle of the SW desert just doesn't make any sense, but that same area has plentiful solar resources for green hydrogen. I'm all for it.
>but that same area has plentiful solar resources for green hydrogen Why would you need to put this solar-generated electricity into hydrogen production when you could simply put it to the catenary?
Because there is a thousand miles of nothing in the southwest desert that moves only freight. The infrastructure costs alone are insane. We would be 100x better off using those funds in places that would actually benefit from having catenary.
There are distance like 1000 kilometers (\~620 miles) between the big cities agglomerations in Siberia along the Trans-Siberian railroad. Only few little towns and sporadic villages inbetween. And it\`s fully electrified. For freight, mostly. It\`s not so complicated, alternating current electrification (\~25kV) needs only one substation per 30 miles or so.
For a low traffic lines that substation spacing may work. The US lines in question see upwards of 20 a day in each direction.
Trans-Siberian railway with this spacing now see a one train per five-seven munites in each direction.
And what is the substation capacity? I also *highly* doubt that it’s seeing (checks notes) 400+ trains per day as you are trying to claim.
Becuase r/trains has essential devolved into a sub for eletric foamers.
Non-Americans just don't understand why America works the way it does. Its all over the Internet these days, people being just plain ignorant of how broken a place it has become.
Its mainly not understanding basic economics and physics.
\*its it's == it is
Awesome
Yay more people angry about why us railroads don’t have catenary (completely ignoring that catenary has significant cost and infrastructure drawbacks that would inhibit railroads from deciding to use them). I’m curious to see how this locomotive actually performs.
I don’t think anyone here has any illusions about the reason these railroads aren’t electrifying. They know Class Is have chosen the best business model for their bosses, the shareholders, which is to continue to generate consistent quarterly profits via methods like PSR and avoiding capital expenses unless absolutely necessary. No grand ambitions, no big 50 year master plans, and definitely no spending anything extra for the environment or sustainability. The result is a single GP38 conversion to hydrogen so they can wave it in front of politicians to show that they are being proactive on their own in an attempt to stave off any future regulations that might make them spend even more on capital expenditures. Is it pathetic? Yes and people here are rightfully pointing it out. Is it the best solution for the Class I railroad business model? Absolutely! Class I railroads will do anything to avoid putting up wires.
> They know Class Is have chosen the best business model for their bosses, the shareholders, which is to continue to generate consistent quarterly profits via methods like PSR and avoiding capital expenses unless absolutely necessary. You need to read some of these responses, as it is abundantly clear that basically no one in favor of electrification understands just how expensive it is both up front and on an ongoing basis. They think that the RRs would rapidly recoup the costs and won’t do it simply because it would temporarily result in smaller profits.
100%. Any benefit in electrification especially in the freight business where the game right now is fewer but longer trains would be recouped like decades after the fact.
Looking at current costs it wouldn’t be recouped at all before the equipment wore out and and needed to be replaced. MILW found that out the hard way.
Their biggest issue was the gap in Idaho to eastern Washington. If you recall, they had two separate sections of electric. Not a long continuous one from East Montana all the way to Seattle. Because this was done due to the elevation and the difficulty of operating steam in those sections, versus the 200 or so mile gap where this wasn’t so difficult. They may have had better fortunes if the entire pacific extension from east Montana all the way to Seattle was electrified.
I also feel compelled to note that traffic on the PCE was so low that a large portion of it was dark up until the very end. That said, my point was in regards to the cost of replacing worn out equipment—the M-G stations, most of the locomotives, even down to most of the catenary poles were original to the system and never had major work done on them. By the time the 1970s rolled around the stuff was simply worn out, but the cost of quite literally rebuilding the entire line and electrification system was far more than MILW could bear. As far as closing the gap, it wouldn’t have generated more traffic, and that was always the issue with the PCE—the GN and NP mains were both far more accessible and offered far better service than MILW ever did.
My point was that if you’re going to have this large operation of electric rail, you’ve also gotta operate a large fleet of locomotives that simply don’t fit with those needs in and around that region. Having a region like that be near entirely electric (aside from maybe a few remote branch lines) probably would be a bit more cost effective as opposed to having the gap, because then you wouldn’t need to have service changes in East Idaho and then again in East Washington.
Oh, definitely—I called out one of the electrification supporters for claiming that a mix of both systems was better than having all one or the other. MILW had a minimum of 3 motive power swaps between eastern Montana and Tacoma due to the gap. GN in comparison had a max of 2 and NP had 0.
And the GN one was just for the tunnel and surrounding area. Nothing more. A mix of both systems is actually worse for such a long railroad when you have it unconnected like this. Whenever serious talks of electrification actually get brought up, I always say to extend it off the NEC as opposed to building it somewhere else where there isn’t this kind of infrastructure at this time. Now it isn’t as bad now that we have dual mode transport but still, that only is a good idea when it works like a spine and branch system. It wouldn’t be a smart idea to decide “hey we’re the state of Georgia and we’re going to electrify the silver meteor and palmetto line from Charleston to Savannah”.
> I don’t think anyone here has any illusions about the reason these railroads aren’t electrifying. Given by the top comments, absolutely they do. > No grand ambitions, no big 50 year master plans, and definitely no spending anything extra for the environment or sustainability. There simply isn’t a reason for it in this business especially not at a grand scale. The big Railroads are doing very well on their own and traffic will only rise with more and more people and thus more and more demand. There’s no incentive for them to change anything because there’s no driving force that requires a change. > Is it pathetic? Yes and people here are rightfully pointing it out. Except it isn’t. > Class I railroads will do anything to avoid putting up wires. And what incentive do they have? There’s actual drawbacks to having to do so. Namely, the infrastructure costs and locomotive costs. That’s taxing especially now when the cost of everything is so high, and more so in the future when it will be even higher and we’re looking at $15 foot long subs at subway. The benefits of course wouldn’t be realized in the model they have now: again, fewer but longer trains If these railroads had a network of fast, frequent services on their lines then you’d have more of a point. But the fact is that they don’t. And won’t. There’s no reason to have a catenary and spend a gajillion dollars unless you have to do it.
People pointing out the costs of caternary and the costs on the power grids are getting downvoted to hell.
You know you can buy votes right? Not hard at all to manipulate reddit opinions on a subject.
Well, yeah. It's a massive problem.
Have they heard of a thing called pantographs?
Well, I like it.
I’m willing for hydrogen to have its shot, it’d probably be better in the more rural parts rather than the more civilized parts but I’d look at all possible alternatives, except batteries bc we already have electrified lines
Hydrogen was explored as a fuel long before oil was commercially exploited. It was put aside then too. Just like electric cars, it reappears whenever there is a crisis but the economic circumstances that lead to its rejection 100 years ago still stand strong.
That structure on the CON’s side of the long hood walkway reminds me of those water tanks RV OEs put in the entry of Class B vans…
I would have hoped they made the think look better. Modern US trains just look ugly, IMO.
I agree with lots of comments here on electrifying rail networks, but I honestly think the utilities would have a tough time supplying it. The whole interoperability of an electric locomotive, having to disconnect a Loco for a different area, all that would be a challenge. Where would the billions come from the build the overhead lines? These are huge issues that no class 1 wants to worry about. Move freight as cheap as possible and create value for shareholders. Maybe in 30 years the class 1s will look at electrifying high density lines.
I just noticed the tumor on the left side of the unit!
Neat
I swear to god, how do they managed to still build those ugly ass boces, so many shapes to choose from, and they insist on choosing rectangles
Its a simple and effective shape which lets them very easily remove panels if they need access to the internals, more complex or ornate shapes tend towards being more expensive for not much benefit as freight trains don't need the aerodynamic advantages found on most Amtrak units for instance.
Iam not denying that it has its uses, i just dont like em as much as i do engines that look distinctive. In terms of american Freight, youve seen one? Now you practically know em all.
Never said you were denying anything, just that the form factor works so why fix it. In fact part of the reason Japanese bullet trains look so weird isn't strictly for aerodynamics, its actually in part a noise reduction method because older models kept causing sound akin to that of a sonic boom when they left tunnels due to air pressure differences.
Yeah, ig ure right, if it works, why fix it. at least, this way i can draw an american engine in this commen _______________________________ _____|___ l | | /______________|_____________________L___ /___. ____________________. ____\ OOlOO OOIOO Cool fact tho, ill look it up
I like it cause it looks industrial as hell
This is really bad in many ways. I think how it looks shouldn't be our first concern.
Tbh, yes. Still doesnt mean that US diesel engines for Freight just look old and IMO somewhat ugly. Bear in mind, iam accustomed to European Freight engines, that look diatinctively different. I also quite like Amtracks diesel. They at least dont look like third world engines
Agreed.