Mruh?

This is ridiculous. New diesels are low in sulphur, and electricity is far more expensive than diesel, since you have to burn fossil fuels to get it. This reduncancy will do nothing except eat up scarce capital.

Rob,
you fail to take into account the economies of scale that a power plant achieves verses many separate ICE trucks. There are loses, in the power lines, transformers, etc, but a large power-plant should squeeze more power out of a quantity of fuel then a small truck motor can.

Yes to high speed and inexpensive rail -for far too long the insanely greedy fat cats who profit from the oil, automobile and insurance industries (and control our top politicians) have blocked this most sensible method of transportation. Most of us can live very well without cars, insurance and oil, (but the idea scares the hell out of the fatcats). There are many excellent systems in the other developed nations that we can copy. What if millions and millions of American no longer had to keep a car. What if they could relax, read, and/or socialize on their short and long journeys for a change? Also we will probably develope ways to use solar & wind turbines with rail transport.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/japan_n700_bullet_train_environmental_5520

Electrification is a lot more than just throwing up some wires and yelling 'Ta Dah!'. Nobody builds electric locomotives to the standards required for North American frieght use at this time. Those days died (hard) with the end of the Milwaukee Road's electrification of the Rocky Mountains. Electricfication is also maintnence intensive, easily damaged by bad weather (snow, wind, ice, etc..), and (for the nimby crowd) ugly as sin.

There would be some benefits though if done right. An electric train going down a hill can pump the electricity from its dynamic braking back in to the line for another train going up hill. I recall reading that in the 30's that a 4000 ton train going down a hill would produce enough electricity (after losses) to bring a 2000 ton train up a hill.

Neat idea, won't happen for a long time.
-Lego

Electric is cost effective on an energy use basis. Diesel at $4.00 per gallon, with 30% LHV efficiency from fuel to mechanical power, the cost for mechanical energy is $98 per GJ. Electricity, at $0.06/kWh at 80% efficient motors (probably on the low for efficiency, but this could include transmission system losses in the overhead lines), results in a cost of $21 per GJ. In other words, electricity is 80% cheaper than diesel. This is the same reason electric cars make so much sense.

We cannot make diesel from alternative energy sources, but nuclear, wind, solar, etc can drive an electric locomotive. There is also no way to sequester carbon from the exhaust of moving vehicles such as cars or locomotives. We also don't import electricity from the middle east.

There is a reason all new high speed lines use electric. If diesel was so much better, and it is cheaper, there would be no reason for the extra expense of electrification. Remember the Milwaukee electrified lines were removed in the 70's, back when oil was cheap and electricity was relatively very expensive.

I'm with Rob. Electrification should be low priority. The RRs are already extremely efficient compared to highway transportation. The real priority should be in increasing the usage of RRs.

To do that, we do need upgraded track in many areas, double tracking on busy routes, and many more passenger trains that travel faster than highway travel - doesn't have to be 200mph! More routes and more frequent schedules.

I think fuel and cost factors are already driving more freight off trucks and onto rails.

funny that the 'nimby' crowd finds electrified rail and wind generators unsightly, but not coal, oil and ethanol plants...

"New 110 mph tracks for passengers and freight added to existing rail ROWs as a second step"

They did just that with the Acela and it was a bad idea as it limited the maximum possible speed. Using existing ROW will impose speed limits on any new rail lines. High speed rail is a very different beast.

Putting high speed rail on existing tracks isn't possible. For starters, most existing tracks won't be safe for high speed rail. Second, the tracks we already have are operating at maximum capacity carrying cargo. You need brand new, dedicated rails for high speed. This presents a few very major hurdles:
1) Securing right of way. You can either spend a fortune buying it (not good) or take it by force using eminent domain (also not good). If there's a third way I'd love to hear it.
2) Environmental impact. The same people screaming for us to build it will also be the same people to scream against it the minute those lines cross through a bird sanctuary or the breeding grounds of some endangered snail.
3) NIMBY factor. If he trains are going to go to the heart of a city that means passing by a lot of houses. I can't imagine too many people are going to want that.
4) Finance and operation. It's going to take a massive investment from the government to do this. Once the rails are built who will operate it? Will it be turned over to a private company? A quasi governmental agency (like the Postal Service)? Should the government operate (and if so you know the airlines will scream -rightly- of unfair competition)? I can see pros and cons to each approach.

Reality is the physical construction of the lines themselves will likely be the least challenging aspect. The real hurdles are the political issues surrounding it.

SOMEONE is comparing apples to oranges. Freight by rail is more efficient that freight by truck, which is great, so WHY does this mean we have to electrify the rail system? Makes utterly NO sense.

Capital will be extremely costly in the future, far more so than now, a redundancy like this, which will result in greater energy loss, will NEVER fly. Promote rail all you want, as long as it actually saves energy.

As an old time railroad electrician, I have a few thoughts. One of the other commentators implied that no one builds electrically powered locomotives but all of the locomotives that I’ve worked on since 1953 were driven by electricity. The diesel engine turns a generator that supplies electricity to four traction motors under the unit that in turn drive the wheels. I’ve worked on locomotives that were manufactured by General Motors, General Electric, American Locomotive Co., and Fairbanks Morse. My favorite locomotive to work on was GM’s GP9. It worked well and was easy to maintain, General Electric had a propensity to put maintenance items just out of arm’s reach.

If we wanted an electrified railroad system, General Motors or General Electric could build the locomotives for it, providing the electrical power for our railroad system would be another matter.

@ cyclocross

I beleive there is a difference between High speed rail and the proposed semi-High speed (100-110 mph) rail from the original article.

There are existing rail lines and/or ROW in North America that could support semi-High speed trains without as much effort needed as it would take to build High speed rail lines.

The rest of your concerns are valid when addressing the issues related to building a North American High speed rail line.

@ Legodragonxp

I believe that your claim "Nobody builds electric locomotives to the standards required for North American frieght use at this time" could be addressed in the 5+ years it would take to electrify the rail lines . If you would be willing to list your concern's ie -- weight, speed, grades, etc I will try to find any current information to address your response.

The railroad runs on Diesel Electric trains, and we still see Idiot Americans who think they can't make Electric trains. (Even when shown how many other countries are doing this)

Wake up America! sheesh.

Electrification of the existing rail system is a terrible idea. Railroads are being subsidized because they are not competitive with other forms of transportation. What the railroads lack is flexibility. You should be able to go from any point to any other point on your own schedule and not be limited by what the rest of the cars are doing. This is called Personal Rapid Transit. The concept could include freight and some major fraction of each of the other transportation systems. It should completely replace the existing rail system. Don't throw good money after bad. Reconceptualize. High speed trains, magnetic levitation and electric retrofits are all attempts to fix the wrong problem. The problem is lack of flexibility. It comes about by virtue of the fact that computers were invented after the railroads. Throw the current system out. Without reconceptualization, change can only bring about a bigger waste of money than it is right now.

Semi-high speed won't cut it in the Western US. For rail to be attractive it has to be as fast as air travel. When you factor in airport delays and security hassles a true high speed rail system like the TGV is comparable to air travel for most distances. A TGV from LA to SF or LA to Phoenix would be as fast (maybe even faster) than an airliner over those same distances. However a 100-110mph would end up being much slower. If you're going to build it, build it right.

Theodore: As I said yesterday in the Biden post, if anyone doubts the power of a good public transportation system, I challenge them to spend a month in Tokyo and see if they can maintain that doubt.

The Japanese system proves all doubters wrong and shows exactly how such a system should work. It is easier and cheaper than a car by so much it is not funny. Some trains in Tokyo run so often that they don't even have a schedule at rush hour - it just says "continuous", and one train pulls in seconds after the previous one pulls out. Except for deep in the country side, typical waits are under ten minutes, often five or less. Fares are low, schedules are easy to understand and access (every cell phone can do it). Costs for regular commuters are probably less than you spend on gas alone, let alone your car payment, insurance, or maintenance.

The train stations themselves are wonders - they become city centers if they aren't already, with lots of people and lively businesses all around. The biggest ones are so big you can spend days exploring them and never get bored.

There is no reason we cannot do this here. The problem, however, is a a major "chicken and egg" issue. The first train line doesn't connect many points. The second line connects many more, the third more yet...here is why.

Imagine the first line has five stations. How many possible trips are there? Well, you could start at any of five stations, and end at any of the remaining four...so 20 possible trips. Now imagine a second line is built that has four new stations, and shares one with the first line. Now how many possible trips are there? Well, nine possible starting stations, eight possible destinations...so 72 possible trips. Now how about a third line that shares one station with the second line? Hmmm....13 possible starts, 12 possible finishes...that's 156 possible trips. Wait...we have only increased the number of stations by a factor of 2.6 and the number of lines by a factor of 3, yet we have increased the number of possible trips by nearly a factor of 8! As you should be able to see, the value of of a train system (or "flexibility" in your words) increases exponentially with the number of lines. This is why they are hard to get going, but enormously valuable when sufficiently large.

@ Rob
Prices continue to fall for wind and solar, while the prices of fossil fuels continue to rise. In 10 years people will think it insane to run trains and trucks on fossil fuels, but it takes a decade at minimum to get some kind of electric train infrastructure in place. ICE efficiency for either diesel trucks or trains is only about 25%, whereas central power plants have efficiencies of 80-90% and electrical transmission losses average 7%. Also, electricity can be generated from anything: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, nuclear, fusion etc. You could build an infrastructure to last a century w/o worrying about how to generate the power (the Japanese bullet train track was designed to last that long). The system would pay for itself in ten years. The diesel engine is a dying technology. Time to move forward.

@ Lego
There are issues to come over, and no one said it would be cheap. But the alternative is wagon trains. The interstate highway system will become untenable in a decade or so.

@ Jeff
Kick ass comment.

@ Dave
Even with the increased efficiencies, in ten years it will be very expensive to ship via diesel train.

@ Aaron
Not to mention all the highpower electric lines that transport electricity all over the country.

@ Cyclocross
The problem with Acela was one of execution. There was no problem with the idea. Japan managed to do it with much less space and many greater hurdles (earthquakes, mountains).
Right of way: Eminent domain. The benefit of the many outweighs the rights of the few.
Environemental impact: No different than a new highway.
Nimby factor: $10 a gallon gas has a way of changing peoples' minds. See also, reasoning for eminent domain.
Finance: Yes, there are massive upfront costs. But maintaining all the roads and highways also costs billions per year. Tracks can be made that last 100 years, but roads have to be replaced every 10. The alternative is walking or cycling, since electric cars will be range limited, and biofuels are not scalable.
There are many other countries that do this from whom we can borrow operational models. This is not an unsurmountable issue.

@ Warren
Thanks for the great info. Converting a locomotive to get it's electricity from a line than a diesel generator would be simple.

@ Theodore
Rail has not been competitive for many reasons. Both big oil and the car companies have had subsidies and tax breaks for years. Oil has been $10-20 a barrel until a few years ago. I imagine the future will be short range electric cars and wired electric buses to rail hubs, then rail to another hub, from which you can go by taxi or bus to your final destination. This system is currently in place in Japan, minus the electric cars.

Heh, Chad said it better than I could...

Trains are to trucks what buses are to cars. If you can afford a car, you don't take the bus. If you can afford a truck, you don't send it on the rail.

I suspect many of you have never heard of Personal Rapid Transit. The concept is only about 50 years old. If you don't know what it is, you should do an image search for "Personal Rapid Transit". Now imagine that every railroad car and long distance truck can be sent driverless to its unique destination. Half of all long-distance automobile traffic, 95% of long-distance trucking and 70% of air transport would be absorbed by a national or possibly global rail system.

PRT systems being built or planned are only for small local areas. This is a mistake. Such systems are like bike paths. If they don't take you everywhere, they will not be as useful as they might be if they were universal in extent. A very short bike path is unlikely to be used at all. We need one universal system about as dense and extensive as the US interstate highway system. This big system then should then be extended into cities to meet local needs as well.

I see India and China as the best potential sites for initial development.

There always seems to be a Republican here spreading misinformation.

Electric locomotives are CHEAPER to operate, and have LESS maintenance. The ICE is very inefficient. The current locomotive fleet is hybrid diesel electric! Why? Because it's more efficient than straight ICE diesel!

So - how long do we want to be slaves to the Saudis?