4 ms·

> Electrifying US rail outside of switchyards won’t ever be practical Why is that? Russia, a considerably poorer country beset by endemic corruption and other

by jabl 5y ago

> Electrifying US rail outside of switchyards won’t ever be practical Why is that? Russia, a considerably poorer country beset by endemic corruption and other major issues, has managed to electrify the 9000+ km (considerably longer than any coast to coast US railway route) Trans-Siberian railway. With overhead lines, obviously.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Political and engineering will first, with cost a secondary concern (but still wielded as a reason not to). It makes sense, with enough clean energy, based on the cost of emissions offset by freight rail electrification to expend the capital required. Perhaps issue green government backed bonds to pay for it or print some more money. But we can’t build large infra projects in the US anymore, for a combination of reasons: nuclear power plants, California high speed rail, etc. [1] [2] [3] Personally, I would prefer electrified freight rail, I’m just unsure if the US knows how or can do it. I suggested third rail if the cost came down because in America, you can usually coax towards the right solution if you can show drastic cost savings/reductions (see the rapid renewables uptake as costs declined over the last decade). At a glance, it seems easier to throw down a third rail while doing track work versus the construction effort for thousands of miles of overhead gantries and 25kv power lines. You could pair this with HVDC transmission lines looking to use railroad right of ways to avoid NIMBYS (the SOO HVDC line in the Midwest, for example [4]), for power accessibility. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/infrastructure-megaprojects.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/infrastructure-megapro... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mega-projects-fail-infrastructure-energy-dams-nuclear https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mega-proj... [3] https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs... [4] https://www.soogreenrr.com/about/ https://www.soogreenrr.com/about/
- jrockway 5y ago
  I'm not sure that CAHSR is an example of why we can't build infrastructure. They're building it. There are YouTubers that have done drone flyovers of most of the first construction packages, and progress is being made pretty quickly. I have a feeling that too much has been done to cancel the project now. The corresponding Bay Area projects seem to be proceeding as well (CalMod, CalTrain electrification, etc). Texas Central also seems to be making progress on Dallas-Houston high speed rail. That said, I agree that the taxpayers don't feel like giving billions of dollars to BNSF and Union Pacific, so they probably won't electrify until there is no other option. Fuel costs just aren't high enough to make it profitable, and the environmental externalities are still free. (But, of course, you'd rather see a 500 car freight train burning fossil fuels than 500 tractor trailers driving down the interstate burning fossil fuels.)
  - AniseAbyss 5y ago
    The US government used to be able to create top notch infrastructure but something seemed to just break in the 1970s/80s. Unless things get so catastrophically bad (see Katrina) it is impossible to convince anyone to spend money.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      > it is impossible to convince anyone to spend money. They don't need to be convinced to spend money. They are spending more than ever. But you're dead on about it all being crisis-driven now. Or maybe it always was? WWII was clearly that, then the cold war/space race, then Star Wars, then GWAT (or GWOT?) -- Global War Against/On Terrorism, and now Covid - Build Back Better. Crisis spending is perfect cover for pork and grift, because anyone who questions it can be painted as unpatriotic.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        The fact that crisis-driven projects are successful points to the problem: delays. In any sufficiently big project, I'm coming around to the opinion that there's some amount of timeline that results in an effective "never". I think it's just that at some point, people stop caring? Or at least feeling like they have any motivation to hustle? And once that happens, the end result in lethargy and a grinding halt to actual progress. Even if checklist items seem to be getting ticked off.
    - jrockway 5y ago
      The government is spending money on infrastructure, it's just not very good infrastructure. You can open up any state's department of transportation website and find billions of dollars worth of ongoing projects for widening roads. These are not the projects people dream about, but they do satisfy the people that are invested in the suburbs. A lot of advocacy revolves around "live in a dense urban core, work in a dense urban core, and travel to other dense urban cores", and people just aren't doing that, so it does make some sense that politicians with 2 year terms aren't champing at the bit to do those projects instead of "widen congested freeway" (even though we know that never solves the problem).
- ZanyProgrammer 5y ago
  The Milwaukee Road had electrified freight rail as late as the early 1970s, so it’s not quite rocket science. https://streamlinermemories.info/Milw/Milw73EndofEra.pdf https://streamlinermemories.info/Milw/Milw73EndofEra.pdf

by jabl 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Political and engineering will first, with cost a secondary concern (but still wielded as a reason not to). It makes sense, with enough clean energy, based on the cost of emissions offset by freight rail electrification to expend the capital required. Perhaps issue green government backed bonds to pay for it or print some more money. But we can’t build large infra projects in the US anymore, for a combination of reasons: nuclear power plants, California high speed rail, etc. [1] [2] [3] Personally, I would prefer electrified freight rail, I’m just unsure if the US knows how or can do it. I suggested third rail if the cost came down because in America, you can usually coax towards the right solution if you can show drastic cost savings/reductions (see the rapid renewables uptake as costs declined over the last decade). At a glance, it seems easier to throw down a third rail while doing track work versus the construction effort for thousands of miles of overhead gantries and 25kv power lines. You could pair this with HVDC transmission lines looking to use railroad right of ways to avoid NIMBYS (the SOO HVDC line in the Midwest, for example [4]), for power accessibility. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/infrastructure-megaprojects.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/infrastructure-megapro... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mega-projects-fail-infrastructure-energy-dams-nuclear https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mega-proj... [3] https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs... [4] https://www.soogreenrr.com/about/ https://www.soogreenrr.com/about/

jrockway 5y ago
I'm not sure that CAHSR is an example of why we can't build infrastructure. They're building it. There are YouTubers that have done drone flyovers of most of the first construction packages, and progress is being made pretty quickly. I have a feeling that too much has been done to cancel the project now. The corresponding Bay Area projects seem to be proceeding as well (CalMod, CalTrain electrification, etc). Texas Central also seems to be making progress on Dallas-Houston high speed rail. That said, I agree that the taxpayers don't feel like giving billions of dollars to BNSF and Union Pacific, so they probably won't electrify until there is no other option. Fuel costs just aren't high enough to make it profitable, and the environmental externalities are still free. (But, of course, you'd rather see a 500 car freight train burning fossil fuels than 500 tractor trailers driving down the interstate burning fossil fuels.)
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  The US government used to be able to create top notch infrastructure but something seemed to just break in the 1970s/80s. Unless things get so catastrophically bad (see Katrina) it is impossible to convince anyone to spend money.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    > it is impossible to convince anyone to spend money. They don't need to be convinced to spend money. They are spending more than ever. But you're dead on about it all being crisis-driven now. Or maybe it always was? WWII was clearly that, then the cold war/space race, then Star Wars, then GWAT (or GWOT?) -- Global War Against/On Terrorism, and now Covid - Build Back Better. Crisis spending is perfect cover for pork and grift, because anyone who questions it can be painted as unpatriotic.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      The fact that crisis-driven projects are successful points to the problem: delays. In any sufficiently big project, I'm coming around to the opinion that there's some amount of timeline that results in an effective "never". I think it's just that at some point, people stop caring? Or at least feeling like they have any motivation to hustle? And once that happens, the end result in lethargy and a grinding halt to actual progress. Even if checklist items seem to be getting ticked off.
  - jrockway 5y ago
    The government is spending money on infrastructure, it's just not very good infrastructure. You can open up any state's department of transportation website and find billions of dollars worth of ongoing projects for widening roads. These are not the projects people dream about, but they do satisfy the people that are invested in the suburbs. A lot of advocacy revolves around "live in a dense urban core, work in a dense urban core, and travel to other dense urban cores", and people just aren't doing that, so it does make some sense that politicians with 2 year terms aren't champing at the bit to do those projects instead of "widen congested freeway" (even though we know that never solves the problem).
ZanyProgrammer 5y ago
The Milwaukee Road had electrified freight rail as late as the early 1970s, so it’s not quite rocket science. https://streamlinermemories.info/Milw/Milw73EndofEra.pdf https://streamlinermemories.info/Milw/Milw73EndofEra.pdf