[cplchanb]

None of that, actually.

Why would they allow a third party to string wires which the third party has chosen and which may not match whatever technology or specs that they may eventually land on, especially considering how much standardization the North American rail network demands.

Worst case the third party tenant would be contractually obligated to remove or alter said wires if the industry goes VHS after ML chooses Beta.

great. fear mongering at its best. ML is getting DB to electrify. i doubt DB will choose a presto card bespoke solution over tried and test universal systems.

And then it creates precedent for accommodating demands from VIA, Exo, West Coast express, or whomever, who may have their own specs or choices.

And why would they then have to develop operating and maintenance procedures and methods, satisfy regulators and unions. Train their own personnell plus at minimum first reaponders and potentially contractors….. when there is absolutely no benefit to their own customers stakeholders and shareholders.

great lets just shrug our shoulders when things get a bit difficult and sweep in under the rug for the next generation to worry about. thats just lazy excuses and its quickly pushing canadian infrastructure down towards 2nd and even 3rd world country standards. how can india have more sophisticated rail infrastructure than us when we laugh at their seemingly lower class than us? thailand? phillipines?

our rail companies are a joke when it comes to innovation. their hydrogen trains are just a stopgap to avoid stepping into the pond.

 

[Bojaxs]

Just for context, U.K. & Europe are trying to electrify their freight lines, and it's proving to be a disaster. Energy prices go up and the freight companies pass the increase cost to their customers. At that point the customer determines it's cheaper to move their goods via trucking.

DB Cargo pulls the plug as energy costs signal red for electrified rail freight - The Loadstar

DB Cargo has withdrawn electric trains over escalating energy costs, but it is expected to be a permanent move.

theloadstar.com

 

[Sunnyside]

Why would share holders support a proposal that would eat into profits? There's a lot of people who have heavily invested their life savings into the freight railroads. Counting on them to support their retirement. The idea that they would support a campaign to spend billions to electrify the lines simply as a "feel good" gesture is not even a consideration. These investors are not willing to take that risk.
The freight rail companies have some of the best accountants in the world working for them. I have no doubt CN & CP have crunched the numbers on electrifying their lines, and in the end, the numbers still didn't add up. If you're so convinced that there is a business case for electrifying freight lines, then I would suggest you hand CN or CP your resume.

Not speaking from experience at all here, but intuitively I think electrifying entire railroads as they exist today is a non-starter. I'm sure that once you get to a (sparse) nation-sized network, the economics of putting wires on all your tracks changes dramatically. Look to history and it was RRs in a smaller area doing intercity movement. Shifting away from being a “rail truck” to a “land ship” intuitively doesn’t lend itself to smaller scale optimization. Electrifying between say, Detroit-Chicago during peak industrial capacity is very different from Calgary-Van today.

So, you’d either have to make that rail geography a reality and logistical viability (break up the RRs and make them compete with trucks on a smaller scale). Or, recognize the difficulty of that and/or the unprecedented novelty of actually electrifying one of the big 2/5 (US) as they exist today.

I am actually in favour of the former; at a high level, if your economic activity is dense enough that trucks move enough stuff, then logically (like people) you’d want to move to a more efficient mode. Rails merely gave up that niche and just chose a different path. You definetely, 110% need someone that ISNT a RR to do it this time though- it’s just not their business anymore.

 

[T3G]

great. fear mongering at its best. ML is getting DB to electrify. i doubt DB will choose a presto card bespoke solution over tried and test universal systems.

great lets just shrug our shoulders when things get a bit difficult and sweep in under the rug for the next generation to worry about. thats just lazy excuses and its quickly pushing canadian infrastructure down towards 2nd and even 3rd world country standards. how can india have more sophisticated rail infrastructure than us when we laugh at their seemingly lower class than us? thailand? phillipines?

our rail companies are a joke when it comes to innovation. their hydrogen trains are just a stopgap to avoid stepping into the pond.

Are you just discovering how the private sector works? When in the entire history of business has a private company done something that hasn't benefited their bottom line?

The only concern of the freight railroads is to do whatever they can to maximize profit and minimize costs. Pandering to people who think that electrifying a few lines will suddenly make our trains not a total joke does not generate profit and is therefore not in their interest.

 

[afransen]

None of that, actually.

Why would they allow a third party to string wires which the third party has chosen and which may not match whatever technology or specs that they may eventually land on, especially considering how much standardization the North American rail network demands.

Worst case the third party tenant would be contractually obligated to remove or alter said wires if the industry goes VHS after ML chooses Beta.

And then it creates precedent for accommodating demands from VIA, Exo, West Coast express, or whomever, who may have their own specs or choices.

And why would they then have to develop operating and maintenance procedures and methods, satisfy regulators and unions. Train their own personnell plus at minimum first reaponders and potentially contractors….. when there is absolutely no benefit to their own customers stakeholders and shareholders.

Personally I am convinced that electrificAtion is inevitable on every major railway in North america, because the opportunity cost of not reclaiming braking energy is growing. Clearly the railways are waiting to see if technologies can emerge - some combination of battery and hydrogen perhaps - that removes the need to invest in thousands of miles of OCS and supply feeds. Good on them.

Asking them to drop in a custom system for ML is really spitting into the wind.

- Paul

Is there any industry momentum behind aligning to a NA standard for electrification?

I imagine batteries will be very helpful for avoiding full deployment of OCS. But OCS can work very well with batteries by allowing in-motion recharging 10-20km stretches of OCS spaced strategically to recharge on-board batteries could enable nearly full electrification. The other interesting thing is that battery technologies for alternative chemistries are advancing. LFP will become the dominant chemistry in the coming years, as it is less constrained by rarer materials than NCM. Sodium ion is coming, and could enable cell costs as low as $40/kwh. Weight is less of an issue for rail vehicles due the low rolling resistance.

 

[just east of the creek]

No, it's because they have to answer to share holders who demand profits.

If modifying their lines to electric made economic sense, they would have done it already.

That a complex question. CN is currently considered a slightly undervalued blue chip stock with the potential to steadily increase dividend yields going forwards. This based on their performance metrics vs other Class 1 railways. Current returns have outpaced the index, leaving (in analysts eyes) room to grow those returns. Dividends have steadily increased over a 25 year period. Current market capitalization exceeds $95 billion and the largest shareholder is reported to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (in excess of 8%), underlining CN's longer term performance in terms of dividend yield and growth.

Statista would tell us that in 2021 Cn spent CDN$1.87 billion dollars in railway infrastructure across Canada in 2021. About CDN$350 million of that was in Ontario.

The message CN would give both investors and railway users is that CN certainly has one eye on the metrics of railroading and how it will continue to deliver those returns, and fending off activist shareholder groups (such as TCI). The other eye is on car volumes and velocity, service improvements. and the other metrics that drive its strength in the railway marketplace that is reflected in the all seeing - all knowing market places - NYSE and TSX.

Are we defending CN? Not necessarily, but when transformation of their freight lines from diesel (and their sector leading status in fuel consumption - 2021 ) to another fuel source makes sense, as you have rightly pointed out, then CN will undoubtedly look at those options. They are looking at zero emission locomotives currently (as are almost all other major Class 1 lines).

Freightwaves once estimated (2021) the cost of electrification at up to US$4.8 Million per mile in the most expensive areas and closer to US$2 million per mile elsewhere. This based on a 2012 study in California. (So current costs could obviously be very different). And other studies have pointed out that it might only make sense to electrify a portion of Class 1 rail lines - maybe 25 or 30%. CN currently has about 20,000 'route' miles

GO has about 350 km's or so of trackage, so 218 miles. One can see where the business case for GO - higher volumes, more stop/start etc makes more initial economic sense.

There may be data that is more up to date regarding CN's investments and Railway Electrification and it would be interesting to see it.

 

[Bojaxs]

Not speaking from experience at all here, but intuitively I think electrifying entire railroads as they exist today is a non-starter. I'm sure that once you get to a (sparse) nation-sized network, the economics of putting wires on all your tracks changes dramatically. Look to history and it was RRs in a smaller area doing intercity movement. Shifting away from being a “rail truck” to a “land ship” intuitively doesn’t lend itself to smaller scale optimization. Electrifying between say, Detroit-Chicago during peak industrial capacity is very different from Calgary-Van today.

Even for shorter distances, what's the point? The question that a freight RR company will always ask is if electrifying a line will allow it to move more freight quicker than it already can with diesel trains. The answer is a resounding "No". Speed is not a factor in the freight industry like it is in the passenger industry. A freight train can only travel up to a certain speed because they are carrying dangerous goods, and the risk of double stack containers falling is too great. An electric train and a diesel train will both take the same amount of time travelling from Vancouver to Toronto. So if that's the case, what's the point of electrifying? CN and CP can move large amounts of freight in a timely/ efficient manner with their existing trains and infrastructure. Better than any freight rail in Europe.

 

[Reecemartin]

There is way more to an EMU than just the motors.

Gearboxes (and final drives), transformers, invertor banks (and other control electronics), air compressors, HVAC, brakes, etc. are all sources of noise and/or vibration.


It has nothing to do with double-stacks, or autoracks, or hi-cubes, or any other overly-tall equipment. Those are easily solvable, and are already operating every day elsewhere in North America.

The issue stems from how much more difficult it is to deal with in the event of an accident. Or what additional and unwanted effects they may have in the event of an accident.

Dan

Of course there is.

But passenger coaches have lots of this stuff too . . .

It's silly to even debate EMUs over whether they are too loud for passengers from North America where we don't really use EMUs much less modern ones (CalTrains are basically the only exception)! Europeans and Asians and Australians can hear too!

 

[afransen]

Just for context, U.K. & Europe are trying to electrify their freight lines, and it's proving to be a disaster. Energy prices go up and the freight companies pass the increase cost to their customers. At that point the customer determines it's cheaper to move their goods via trucking.

DB Cargo pulls the plug as energy costs signal red for electrified rail freight - The Loadstar

DB Cargo has withdrawn electric trains over escalating energy costs, but it is expected to be a permanent move.

theloadstar.com

How is it possible that the variable cost is higher for electric vs diesel?

 

[MrGoose]

Even for shorter distances, what's the point? The question that a freight RR company will always ask is if electrifying a line will allow it to move more freight quicker than it already can with diesel trains. The answer is a resounding "No". Speed is not a factor in the freight industry like it is in the passenger industry. A freight train can only travel up to a certain speed because they are carrying dangerous goods, and the risk of double stack containers falling is too great. An electric train and a diesel train will both take the same amount of time travelling from Vancouver to Toronto. So if that's the case, what's the point of electrifying? CN and CP can move large amounts of freight in a timely/ efficient manner with their existing trains and infrastructure. Better than any freight rail in Europe.

That CN and CP don't want to electrify their rails is a by-product of their status as publicly traded rent-seeking oligopolies. It is well documented that the operational performance of the Class 1 Railroads has been declining over time and we can point to increased derailments, decreased crew sizes and the tragedy at Lac Megantic as proof of that.

CN and CP are only looking to maximize the next quarters profits for shareholders. Electrification would require a long-term investment into their infrastructure that would eat into short-term profits.

Just for context, U.K. & Europe are trying to electrify their freight lines, and it's proving to be a disaster. Energy prices go up and the freight companies pass the increase cost to their customers. At that point the customer determines it's cheaper to move their goods via trucking.

DB Cargo pulls the plug as energy costs signal red for electrified rail freight - The Loadstar

DB Cargo has withdrawn electric trains over escalating energy costs, but it is expected to be a permanent move.

theloadstar.com

This is a symptom of Europes insane energy policy, not an indictment of electrified freight railways. India and China are electrifying their railways fine because they didn't choose to rely on Russian natural gas for energy whilst shuttering their existing nuclear plants.

 

[Sunnyside]

Even for shorter distances, what's the point? The question that a freight RR company will always ask is if electrifying a line will allow it to move more freight quicker than it already can with diesel trains. The answer is a resounding "No". Speed is not a factor in the freight industry like it is in the passenger industry. A freight train can only travel up to a certain speed because they are carrying dangerous goods, and the risk of double stack containers falling is too great. An electric train and a diesel train will both take the same amount of time travelling from Vancouver to Toronto. So if that's the case, what's the point of electrifying? CN and CP can move large amounts of freight in a timely/ efficient manner with their existing trains and infrastructure. Better than any freight rail in Europe.

My point was that it might be desirable if your trying to cut into truck traffic. I explicitly said it's not for a Van-TO situation, and as long as long distances like that are the game, it won't happen. The game would have to change, or a parallel game would have to start up Anywho, in such a case you now need to stop more frequently, with smaller trains running to more locations within an urban area/agglomoration. Hardly is the concern speed of course, moreso the efficiencies gained/necessary to make that business model work today. But it is solidly fantasy, because the amount of infrastructure needed to make local freight work with rail, not just trucks, would be immense.

 

[crs1026]

The total fuel bill of the big six North American railroads for 2022 was $24.4B USD according to their 10K filings.
Where does that energy go? Well, we know that internal combustion diesels are only so fuel efficient, meaning much is released as heat from the units’ radiators
More critically, much of the momentum gained by acceleration is dissipated by collecting the energy in dynamic braking, and then exhausting all that energy as heat……the key being, we already reclaim it, but then we waste it.

That gives a sense of what a change in propulsion technology for railways could offer - the question is, do we have to string wires to do better.

- Paul

 

[Bojaxs]

My point was that it might be desirable if your trying to cut into truck traffic. I explicitly said it's not for a Van-TO situation, and as long as long distances like that are the game, it won't happen.

One of CN's most profitable lines is the track between Toronto and Montreal. Is this short enough? A good trucker can drop a load off at Montreal and bring back another load to Toronto within a day. Trucking companies in the GTA often hire drivers to do "Montreal runs" up the 401 & A10. CN and CP's Intermodal yards, and their tracks running from the GTA towards their Montreal yards significantly reduce the amount of trucks that make this run. But there is no case to be made for electrifying this stretch of track. The system works as is. Very efficiently and with room to grow capacity. Electrifying freight between Toronto and Montreal wouldn't increase the amount of freight they move between the two cities.

This is a symptom of Europes insane energy policy, not an indictment of electrified freight railways. India and China are electrifying their railways fine because they didn't choose to rely on Russian natural gas for energy whilst shuttering their existing nuclear plants.

Yes, and India & China also burn a ton of coal in order to power these electric, freight line. Where's the environmental factor?

 

[afransen]

One of CN's most profitable lines is the track between Toronto and Montreal. Is this short enough? A good trucker can drop a load off at Montreal and bring back another load to Toronto within a day. Trucking companies in the GTA often hire drivers to do "Montreal runs" up the 401 & A10. CN and CP's Intermodal yards, and their tracks running from the GTA towards their Montreal yards significantly reduce the amount of trucks that make this run. But there is no case to be made for electrifying this stretch of track. The system works as is. Very efficiently and with room to grow capacity. Electrifying freight between Toronto and Montreal wouldn't increase the amount of freight they move between the two cities.

Yes, and India & China also burn a ton of coal in order to power these electric, freight line. Where's the environmental factor?

Electrifying trucking will put pressure on RRs. Tesla's BEV semi can move a load at max GVW 800km, so Toronto-Montreal is well-within its range. It can do so at about 1 kwh per km, in the neighbourhood of $15/100km (100kwh per 100km), vs about $60/100km (40L per 100km) for diesel. On 1100 km round trip, that is a savings of $500. That is going to eat into the $150k premium for BEV trucks pretty quickly.

 

[MrGoose]

Yes, and India & China also burn a ton of coal in order to power these electric, freight line. Where's the environmental factor?

The environmental factor is that
1. The very large coal plants are more efficient and can be cleaner than thousands of smaller diesel generators. It becomes practical for soot capture at a single large plant than trying soot capture across many thousands of smaller mobile trains. An ICE is only about 37% percent efficient whereas a large steam turbine is closer to 70-80%. More usable energy per unit CO2.

2. They don't have to burn coal to power their electric freight lines. As new renewable technologies become cheaper and cheaper, (solar + grid storage is already cheaper than new coal) then over time the grid becomes less and less carbon intensive. Whereas without electrified rails, you will continue to have diesel burning trains from now until forever.

One of CN's most profitable lines is the track between Toronto and Montreal. Is this short enough? A good trucker can drop a load off at Montreal and bring back another load to Toronto within a day. Trucking companies in the GTA often hire drivers to do "Montreal runs" up the 401 & A10. CN and CP's Intermodal yards, and their tracks running from the GTA towards their Montreal yards significantly reduce the amount of trucks that make this run. But there is no case to be made for electrifying this stretch of track. The system works as is. Very efficiently and with room to grow capacity. Electrifying freight between Toronto and Montreal wouldn't increase the amount of freight they move between the two cities.

Electrifying rail would allow for more trips and reduced operating costs