7 ms·

Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of

Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. Since externalities aren't priced in, diesel-electric locomotives haul most trains in the US. More passenger rail isn't really being built in the US, because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. Since externalities aren't priced in, the responsibility for transportation is largely distributed to individuals, who make daily use of road vehicles on roads that the governments fund, and travel long-distance by commercial airlines that make use of airports that governments support.

pmart123 8y ago
Another issue is the local public transportation in most US cities isn’t adequate so travelers want to transport their vehicle with them. Although, rideshare services help alleviate this issue.
- swish_bob 8y ago
  Motorail? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail)
  - smush 8y ago
    I've had visions of this but in a subway / hyperloop tunnel below the ground. Getting stops every 30 miles or so, just tracking along the interstates.
PaulHoule 8y ago
Some other issues are that high speed rail is not green, and it is not affordable either. So far as adding more passenger rail lines, it isn't easy. For instance, plans for HSR in California are unrealistic because you don't save any time from SF to LA unless you can go from downtown to downtown. Sure you can build track in the Central Valley, but it would be pretty hard to take enough land by eminent domain to build a track into the cities even if these people were not the most feared NIMBYs on the planet.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jpatokal 8y ago
  There is existing right-of-way into both SF and LA Union station though, and the HSR plans intend(ed) to use this. Sure, you can't run the HSR at full speed on existing track, but this alone is not necessarily a deal-breaker.
abalone 8y ago
You are correct to point out that governments subsidize roads, making this an unfair compare. Trucking is built on the highway system, a massive capital expenditure which is completely paid for by taxpayers as a gift to the trucking industry. Massive capital expenditures are often part and parcel of transportation infrastructure; what's different here is the political will to fund it.
- honopu 8y ago
  Trucking pays for fuel costs in addition to a road use tax I believe, I know they tear up roads, especially overloaded dump trucks etc, but without an alternative there’s really no better option. If and when they go electric, then you’ll start to see some legislation around miles driven etc which I believe California has looked into since they aren’t getting the federal or state tax rev share off of the fuel itself coming out of pumps.
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    Trucks should pay for the damage they cause to the roads but that would put prices up which would be unpopular even though it should result in lower general taxation.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Calling it a gift to the trucking industry implies there wasn't originally a strategic motivation to getting it done and that individuals don't also greatly benefit. Trucking is a business with razor thin margins so that "gift" very much gets spread around. Sure cars are bad for the environment but pretending that the interstate system doesn't greatly benefit basically everyone in the country is foolhardy.
  - abalone 8y ago
    Nobody said the interstate system doesn’t benefit people. I merely pointed out it invalidates the argument that investing in green transportation infrastructure is too costly because “the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years.”
kposehn 8y ago
Well put. Until they have a good reason, the major freight railroads (BNSF/UP/CSX/NS/CN/CP/KCS) will continue to be all-diesel. Also, as emissions requirements have gotten more stringent they've moved to rebuilding older power (which gets around the current Tier-4 requirements instead of buying as much newer motive power. In fact, a number of the most recent-gen units have been stored as they're often 15% less efficient than the previous generation (Tier-3). I do believe a move to electric with catenary is inevitable, most likely via 50KV/50HZ to allow for greater distance between substations. However it won't happen for some time until legislation mandates it.
- narag 8y ago
  Excuse if this is an absurd idea, I really don't know. But... Wouldn't it be possible to use (giant) batteries? It sounds terribly dangerous, but possible?
  - johannes1234321 8y ago
    There are experimental train engines with pantograph for mainlines and batteries for the "last mile" the issue is that for freight you often have heavy trains which need lots of power, pulling the required batteries would need lots of power as well, not to mention charging times. More likely in the short term are electric engines, with a Diesel generator for the last mile (i.e. Bombardier TRAXX)
  - kposehn 8y ago
    Power density is the main issue. There are some experiments with batteries, for sure, but you can't really create the same density of stored energy as diesel that would actually fit on a frame and can be recharged in some semblance of a normal time. IIRC it was bandied back and forth but you'd only get a few hours of peak load, vs a diesel which can run at peak power for days before running out of fuel.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      I wonder if batteries, motor and third rail connections could be added to the flat cars that carry shipping containers. Skip the engine all together, and make trains fully dynamic. Probably not worth the cost. It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes.
jcranmer 8y ago
> Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. There's a decent amount of mainline freight rail that was electrified 100 years ago but has since been ripped out. It turns out that electrification has a lot of operational constraints that make it a less-clearly-good proposition. One obvious constraint is loading gauge issues--you need about another 2 feet of clearance for the wires. And if one bridge or tunnel along your entire route isn't high enough, you can't move along the double-stacked containers. You also need a lot of infrastructure for the tractive power substations, and if you don't have enough of them, you literally can't run more trains if the traffic demands it (and too many means infrastructure costs you're not benefiting from). The operational inflexibilities of electric locomotives in partially-electrified systems should have course be obvious. That said, there are substantial benefits to having electric motors driving your wheels... which is why virtually all diesel locomotives are actually diesel-electric locomotives: electric locomotives that use a diesel generator onboard rather than hooking up to electrical catenary or third rail.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  One possibility is a diesel-electric locomotive that also has a pickup on the top. That way part of the lines can be electrified, and the diesel fills in the gaps.
  - rwh86 8y ago
    Batteries are now a viable option. They can pull power from the overhead lines or third rail when available and run on batteries when power isn't available. The LiFePO4 batteries are a drop-in replacement for existing diesel generators, so producing them is easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      For a single small passenger car without any grade, maybe. From that video: 90kw/hr of battery. At peak power output of 180kw, you could run that for 30 minutes. The ubiquitous GE Dash-9 used in freight service here in the US generates >3000kw and can run all day. They're also usually run in multiples to pull long heavy trains. I wouldn't expect to see battery powered trains in the US anytime soon, except maybe short passenger-only lines on the east coast (which are probably viable for electrification anyway).
Ericson2314 8y ago
I like that repeating rhetoric. The US fundamentally doesn't understand investment.

pmart123 8y ago

Another issue is the local public transportation in most US cities isn’t adequate so travelers want to transport their vehicle with them. Although, rideshare services help alleviate this issue.

swish_bob 8y ago
Motorail? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail)
- smush 8y ago
  I've had visions of this but in a subway / hyperloop tunnel below the ground. Getting stops every 30 miles or so, just tracking along the interstates.

PaulHoule 8y ago

Some other issues are that high speed rail is not green, and it is not affordable either. So far as adding more passenger rail lines, it isn't easy. For instance, plans for HSR in California are unrealistic because you don't save any time from SF to LA unless you can go from downtown to downtown. Sure you can build track in the Central Valley, but it would be pretty hard to take enough land by eminent domain to build a track into the cities even if these people were not the most feared NIMBYs on the planet.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jpatokal 8y ago
There is existing right-of-way into both SF and LA Union station though, and the HSR plans intend(ed) to use this. Sure, you can't run the HSR at full speed on existing track, but this alone is not necessarily a deal-breaker.

abalone 8y ago

You are correct to point out that governments subsidize roads, making this an unfair compare. Trucking is built on the highway system, a massive capital expenditure which is completely paid for by taxpayers as a gift to the trucking industry. Massive capital expenditures are often part and parcel of transportation infrastructure; what's different here is the political will to fund it.

honopu 8y ago
Trucking pays for fuel costs in addition to a road use tax I believe, I know they tear up roads, especially overloaded dump trucks etc, but without an alternative there’s really no better option. If and when they go electric, then you’ll start to see some legislation around miles driven etc which I believe California has looked into since they aren’t getting the federal or state tax rev share off of the fuel itself coming out of pumps.
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  Trucks should pay for the damage they cause to the roads but that would put prices up which would be unpopular even though it should result in lower general taxation.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Calling it a gift to the trucking industry implies there wasn't originally a strategic motivation to getting it done and that individuals don't also greatly benefit. Trucking is a business with razor thin margins so that "gift" very much gets spread around. Sure cars are bad for the environment but pretending that the interstate system doesn't greatly benefit basically everyone in the country is foolhardy.
- abalone 8y ago
  Nobody said the interstate system doesn’t benefit people. I merely pointed out it invalidates the argument that investing in green transportation infrastructure is too costly because “the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years.”

kposehn 8y ago

Well put. Until they have a good reason, the major freight railroads (BNSF/UP/CSX/NS/CN/CP/KCS) will continue to be all-diesel. Also, as emissions requirements have gotten more stringent they've moved to rebuilding older power (which gets around the current Tier-4 requirements instead of buying as much newer motive power. In fact, a number of the most recent-gen units have been stored as they're often 15% less efficient than the previous generation (Tier-3). I do believe a move to electric with catenary is inevitable, most likely via 50KV/50HZ to allow for greater distance between substations. However it won't happen for some time until legislation mandates it.

narag 8y ago
Excuse if this is an absurd idea, I really don't know. But... Wouldn't it be possible to use (giant) batteries? It sounds terribly dangerous, but possible?
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  There are experimental train engines with pantograph for mainlines and batteries for the "last mile" the issue is that for freight you often have heavy trains which need lots of power, pulling the required batteries would need lots of power as well, not to mention charging times. More likely in the short term are electric engines, with a Diesel generator for the last mile (i.e. Bombardier TRAXX)
- kposehn 8y ago
  Power density is the main issue. There are some experiments with batteries, for sure, but you can't really create the same density of stored energy as diesel that would actually fit on a frame and can be recharged in some semblance of a normal time. IIRC it was bandied back and forth but you'd only get a few hours of peak load, vs a diesel which can run at peak power for days before running out of fuel.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    I wonder if batteries, motor and third rail connections could be added to the flat cars that carry shipping containers. Skip the engine all together, and make trains fully dynamic. Probably not worth the cost. It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes.

jcranmer 8y ago

> Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. There's a decent amount of mainline freight rail that was electrified 100 years ago but has since been ripped out. It turns out that electrification has a lot of operational constraints that make it a less-clearly-good proposition. One obvious constraint is loading gauge issues--you need about another 2 feet of clearance for the wires. And if one bridge or tunnel along your entire route isn't high enough, you can't move along the double-stacked containers. You also need a lot of infrastructure for the tractive power substations, and if you don't have enough of them, you literally can't run more trains if the traffic demands it (and too many means infrastructure costs you're not benefiting from). The operational inflexibilities of electric locomotives in partially-electrified systems should have course be obvious. That said, there are substantial benefits to having electric motors driving your wheels... which is why virtually all diesel locomotives are actually diesel-electric locomotives: electric locomotives that use a diesel generator onboard rather than hooking up to electrical catenary or third rail.

WalterBright 8y ago
One possibility is a diesel-electric locomotive that also has a pickup on the top. That way part of the lines can be electrified, and the diesel fills in the gaps.
- rwh86 8y ago
  Batteries are now a viable option. They can pull power from the overhead lines or third rail when available and run on batteries when power isn't available. The LiFePO4 batteries are a drop-in replacement for existing diesel generators, so producing them is easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    For a single small passenger car without any grade, maybe. From that video: 90kw/hr of battery. At peak power output of 180kw, you could run that for 30 minutes. The ubiquitous GE Dash-9 used in freight service here in the US generates >3000kw and can run all day. They're also usually run in multiples to pull long heavy trains. I wouldn't expect to see battery powered trains in the US anytime soon, except maybe short passenger-only lines on the east coast (which are probably viable for electrification anyway).

Ericson2314 8y ago

I like that repeating rhetoric. The US fundamentally doesn't understand investment.