WASHINGTON — A Federal Railroad Administration study on mainline electrification recommends that the railroad industry develop a prototype dual-mode freight locomotive and battery tender that could test the feasibility of leaving cost-saving gaps between sections of overhead catenary.
Over the decades, North American freight railroads have studied electrification but have always reached the same conclusion: Stringing wire over every mile of main line is prohibitively expensive and poses a colossal financial risk.
“Freight rail electrification has not been implemented to date by U.S. Class I railroads because of various economic, technical, and institutional barriers,” the report says. “The primary barriers to freight rail electrification were found to be its high up-front capital costs, high risks due to the uncertainty of electrification in the North American context, and the presence of alternative investments that carry less risk. Over time, changing technology and a shift from using electrification to reduce energy costs to using it to reduce emissions have potentially altered the impact and relevancy of some of these barriers, and created pathways to overcome them.”
The FRA study, released last month, notes that locomotive technology has changed considerably since the completion of the last known Class I railroad electrification study in 1980. Chief among those changes are the shift to AC traction and rapid improvements in batteries.
“Dual-mode or rapidly improving battery electric locomotive technologies could potentially navigate gaps in electrification and eliminate the large expense of raising clearances under bridges or through tunnels,” the report says. “Unlike the DC traction locomotive models considered during earlier electrification studies, modern high horsepower AC traction locomotives could be readily adapted into electric locomotives during an interim operating phase, changing the locomotive replacement costs and potentially delivering earlier benefits.”
Among the locomotive options the report considers:
- Converting existing AC-traction, diesel-electric locomotives to full electric instead of purchasing new electric locomotives.
- Pairing AC-traction, diesel-electric locomotives with tenders that either house batteries or use a pantograph and transformer to tap catenary when available, but run on diesel when overhead power is not available.
- The development of dual-mode freight locomotives that can operate at full power either as diesel-electrics or straight electrics.
“A research program to convert an existing AC traction locomotive to a dual-mode electric platform, develop an electric power tender, and investigate their combined performance and efficiency on an electrified test track could substantially reduce uncertainty in the cost of implementing intermittent electrification and its associated risk,” the report says.
Candidates for conversion would include Wabtec/GE AC4400, ES44AC, and ET44AH models as well as the Progress Rail SD70MAC and SD70ACe, the study said. Representatives of locomotive manufacturers Wabtec and Progress Rail did not respond to requests for comment on the study.
As for catenary, the report identified three important ways of bringing down initial costs of electrification.
First, intermittent electrification — or leaving gaps between catenary — would shave installation costs.
Second, railroads could partner with electric utilities to share risks and benefits of electrification projects. Railroad rights-of way could host electric transmission lines — giving utilities a far easier way to build new power lines from generating stations to metropolitan areas — that also could power catenary.
And, finally, railroads could seek public funding to aid in their decarbonization efforts.
The Association of American Railroads says stringing wire over freight main lines is a no-go. “Our position remains that overhead catenary is an unviable option for the nation’s freight rail network for a variety of reasons — including exorbitant costs,” spokeswoman Jessica Kahanek says.
The authors of the FRA study say more research is necessary.
“Dual-mode locomotives for freight service and intermittent electrification are two important approaches to improve project economics, but both require further research to prove their technical feasibility and determine more specific costs. Implementation strategies that include utility lease agreements for co-locating transmission lines in railroad right-of-way (ROW), or government partnerships or grant programs to capture the value of public health and climate benefits, offer the most promising pathways for improving freight rail electrification economics,” the report said. “Transferring some of the initial capital cost and risk of freight rail electrification from freight railroads to utilities and public agencies is critical to achieving freight rail decarbonization. Overall, several promising technologies and implementation strategies, taken together, offer a modern approach to railway electrification that is potentially more feasible than traditional electrification.”
The report also created a new economic formula that can be used to perform a cost-benefit analysis of proposed electrification projects.
It also notes that some technical and operational challenges must be overcome for electrification to become practical. Existing track circuits, for example, are DC and would need to be converted to AC. It’s also unclear how PTC systems would interact with overhead current. The common use of midtrain distributed power, meanwhile, would greatly complicate engine-changes at the end of electrified territories.
The FRA study, “Cost and Benefit Risk Framework for Modern Railway Electrification Options,” was authored by C. Tyler Dick and Rydell D. Walthall of the University of Texas at Austin, locomotive expert Michael E. Iden, and railroad economist James R. Blaze.
I failed to see a reason given for electrification.
The maximum extent of electric traction in the US was around 3100 miles. Today it is far less. And there are clear reasons for this that need no discussion here.
There would need to be a clear, compelling reason to spend the money. There really is no reason environmentally, financially, or for safety. It occurs to me that some bureaucrats at FRA needed a reason to justify their positions and came up with this in order to prove their paychecks are justified.
I would think another barrier would be the shear size of US freight trains. It takes a lot of current to equal 5-8 4400 HP Diesel electric locomotives. The amount of electricity and its infrastructure to electrify a transcon such as the BNSF Chicago to LA main line would be staggering.
Whichever FRA people’s names are on this one will probably be unemployed by the end of the week. But worth researching with how the technology is evolving, at least newer streetcar systems seem to work OK with the gaps in the overhead.
With the advancement of inverter technology the draw off DC third rail directly to the inverter cabinet is far more reliable than back in the days of the FL9. No one likes tripping over third rail so instead of installing a HV/AC overhead system, necessitating locomotives with step down transformers, an overhead LV/DC system that feeds the existing inverter. Install such systems in areas of high fuel demand such as grades. It could even back feed on the downgrade.
Class 1s worry about the next quarter and whether executive stock option are in the money. They payback on electrification is measured in years or a decade. The Wall Street masters could care less over that time horizon.
Mainline electrification has been around for over a century. If railroads thought it a great idea we’d have more of it.
And no, not every corporate cost analysis is prejudiced by Wall Street.
And where does the electricity to power this system come from?
The same place as any other electricity in this country – either renewable energy or fossil fuel plants which operate at an average thermal efficiency around 35% across the US. A diesel locomotive operates closer to 25% at best. In addition, this would enable the ability to recover a significant portion of energy we currently blow out through resistor grids while trains use dynamic braking downgrade.
Modern diesel electric locomotives are in the 30 to 35% range of efficiency.
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrification-of-u.s.-railways-pie-in-the-sky-or-realistic-goal
Efficiency is measured from fuel conversion to mechanical power; from fire to the wheels through various processes. The typical diesel-electric locomotive is ~40% efficient. Typical gasoline automobiles are ~25% efficient. EVs fed from the grid are >10% efficient.
We need to start exploring the feasibility of safe(r) nuclear liquid fluoride thoreum reactors, (LFTR) technology like China and a few other countries, that could be safer and applicable for smaller and more local power distribution, as well as strategically located railroad substation catenary power plants with overlap protection.
https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html
I agree with most of the above article, however I would suggest against the battery tenders, whereby I believe that batteries for lack of coverage would be better suited for light rail and commuter trains. If freight diesel locomotives are converted to dual fuel, as in NH FL9s on a larger scale, that would permit catenary construction as time, money, and resources permit, and not a costly one time catenary construction event.
And I might say that there has to be a standard and uniform, FRA approved, catenary voltage for the U.S. as well as with Canada and Mexico. Also, will freight train catenary be able to handle these modern 3 mile long freight trains, especially in the same electrified block???