Electrification as environmental palliative

Near the end of last week’s blog post, I noted nothing railroad related was happening on the political front. The day before I posted, President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress talked about spending a trillion dollars on “infrastructure.” Nothing was said about how much would be spent on railroads, so I stand by my statement.

Nonetheless, there has been a bit of wrangling since about the administration’s withdrawal of transportation funds from Caltrain’s electrification program. Caltrain’s contractors, reasonably likely to lose money if the project is canceled, have agreed to extend the project start deadline in order to give Caltrain time to cement the funding, expected to be under review at least until a 2018 federal budget is put in place.

So, what’s the big deal about electrification?

Caltrain is in California, remember, so the obvious answer is environmental. An electric locomotive or EMU (electric multiple unit) is just a diesel or DMU (diesel multiple unit) without the fossil-fuel consuming, carbon-producing diesel power plant.

For electrified railroads, the power plant is somewhere other than on the railroad property, although it can be, and presumably can also be a solar, wind or hydroelectric plant. No hydrocarbons consumed, no pollution—perhaps, as the jury is still out on wind and solar. Hydroelectric has fallen out of favor because of its effect on water supplies and riparian wildlife.

Like their battery-powered automobile counterparts, Leaf, Volt, Tesla, etc., electrified trains can zip along and provide little visual, auditory or olfactory evidence of their passing beyond the sight of the train itself. This would presumably assuage the sensitivity outbreak of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yards) currently seemingly intentionally moving in next to railroad tracks to complain about the noise and pollution.

There are some serious advantages to all-electric traction, regenerative braking usually cited as the main among them. In both diesel and electric, braking is accomplished by turning the traction motors into generators to dissipate kinetic energy by turning it into electricity. The difference being that, in diesels, the current is simply run through heavy resistors that dissipate the electrical energy as heat; whereas, in electric locomotives, the current can be fed back into the feeder lines (overhead or third rail), returning some of the power that was put into accelerating the train.

Two other advantages for electric trains are weight and speed. Although electric locomotives generally require switchgear and other electrical equipment on board to modify and use the current coming from the overhead wires or third rails, they can generally be made lighter than diesels. This logically results in lower unit maintenance, and would result in lower track maintenance, were the locomotives the only factor involved in track wear. On freight railroads, lighter locomotives are a distinct disadvantage. A heavier locomotive with the same traction motors can start a heavier train. It is those heavy freight cars that are a greater factor in track wear, as well.

Electrified track is logically costlier to build than is non-electrified track; and overhead wire is costlier than third rail. Added to track structure and the extra rail are above ground structures to hold the wire, the wire and adjunct transmission lines, controls and other distribution equipment, and a distinctly more complex electronic setup for signal systems. If power plants that can supply the line do not exist, they must be built, whether conventional, solar, wind or hydro power.

Overhead wire—called catenary—is also a little unsightly, so the same NIMBYs who don’t like diesels are less likely to enjoy the sight of catenary. Overhead wires also get distinctly more dense and complicated, and, yes, ugly, in terminal areas.

Then there is long-term maintenance. Catenary, like rail, must be periodically replaced or refurbished, and not always at the same time. Some estimates double the cost per mile for maintaining a catenary line over straight, non-electrified rail.

In all fairness, I should point out that a large part of the European rail system is electrified. But Europe tends to run shorter, faster, and lighter trains for both passenger and freight, and there are fewer regulations for crush/crash resistance that allow those trains to be lighter. Also in fairness, major electrified sections of the American rail system have reverted to diesel operation for some of the reasons mentioned above, while a bare few electrified lines and the Northeast Corridor have hung on since the early 20th century. I assume that the major privately held railroads would be electrifying as I write this if they saw it as being both consumer friendly and cost effective.

So, what’s the answer? Is Caltrain doing the residents of its service area any favors by electrifying? If they’re looking for cheaper, I’d say the answer is initially no, for reasons of initial cost and long-term maintenance. The exclusive use of solar or wind power could eventually knock down the marginal costs of powering the system enough to overcome the higher maintenance costs, but that’s very speculative. Battery power, which could conceivably eliminate the catenary, is in the wings, but so far limited to short-route (under 10 miles) light rail or trams. Exotic power distribution modes, now in development or demonstration phases, could also change that.

On the other hand, if they’re looking for a pure California experience, visually environmentally friendly no matter the cost, then electrification is the thing for them. The caveat being that it’s the thing “for them,” not for the federal government to pay for or subsidize so Californians can get that “feel good” experience.

©2017 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

(Charles A. Turek is a writer and novelist based in Albuquerque, NM. After four decades working in areas of the insurance industry related to transportation, he now writes on all aspects of American railroading. Charles is a political conservative but believes in public funding of passenger rail as a part of the federal government’s constitutionally conservative obligation to provide for defense and public infrastructure so that private enterprise may flourish.)