Why? Why have electric lines been abandoned?

I imagine that the cost to maintain the power supply system, along with the electric locomotives is greater than the cost to maintain diesels.

Correct! Not to mention the fact that, in the overall picture, today's modern diesel electric locomotives are actually more efficient that the rear coupler, than straight electric locomotives.

How was electrifying the rail lines possibly cost-effective in the first place? At one point in history, people thought electric was the future and envisioned every mile of rail in this country being electrified.

As far as pollution, how much pollution is the collective locomotive fleet in the USA putting out compared to, say, the collective trucking fleet? If I would hazard a guess, I would say less than 5%. You're "spending dollars to save pennies" at that point, figuratively speaking. In other words you are cracking down on locomotives which put out a tiny tiny fraction of the total pollution.

plenty of electric around these here parts, on the ex-PRR NEC.

In most other countries with extensive railway electrification, the railroads were nationalized and thus capital and maintenance costs were on the governments's dime, not that of individual companies as it was here.

TRAINS printed an article analyzing the costs of PRR electrifying it's line west of Harrisburg all the way to Pittsburgh (if I recell correctly) and concluded it would have put them in the hole big time had they gone through with it.

---PCJ

Mexico electrified in the late 1980's and de-electrified a short time later because the catenary was too low to clear double-stacked flatcars.

You have to remember WHY these railroads chose to electrify some of there lines.

New York Central electrified its lines into Grand Central Terminal because smoke pollution in the Park Avenue tunnel caused a terrible wreck, which lead to New York City banning steam operation in Manhattan.  As a result New Haven had to start running electrics as well.  But New Haven chose to go with A/C for their long distance trains to the city of New Haven in order to increase operational capacity (electric locomotives, especially at that time, could accelerate their trains much faster than steam power could).

Pennsy had to electrify into Manhattan because of the Hudson and East River tubes (as well as the NYC law).  Initially they went with third rail D/C, but again to increase capacity they went to A/C to Washington DC.

Great Northern, Boston & Maine, and Norfolk & Western had tunnel restrictions which limited the number of trains which could pass because of ventilation problems with steam locomotives.  Electrics could run through faster, and with no smoke to clear could run through more frequently.

Virginian and Milwaukee had heavy mountain grades which electrics could run faster than steam could at the time.

What happened was this:

The New York City electrifications still exist because of the tunnels and commuter service.

The Great Northern and Boston & Maine dieselized, and were able to provide adequate ventilation for the diesels.

Norfolk & Western relocated their line and built a new, larger tunnel with better ventilation, and faster steam locomotives which could pass through the tunnel in less time.

Milwaukee's electrification was obsolete by the early 1970's, and so was ended.

Virginian's system ended because of the merger in 1959 with the N&W.  because of the difference in grades the ex-Virginian tracks became a one-way line, with trains going the other way on the N&W tracks.  Since the electric locomotives couldn't return on the N&W tracks the electrification was ended.

While it is true that electrification was more expensive to set up, the actual maintenance on the locomotives was much lower than steam or diesels.  The reason for the higher purchase price was the lack of standard designs.

Back in the day, EMD touted that Diesel power would do twice the work, at half the cost of steam. This may have been true on the Norfolk and Western, but elsewhere, I'd venture to say that the relation of cost was more likely ten to one !  Yup, ten times the work at one tenth the cost.  We tend to think of steam in terms of the best machinery "out there" when in fact most roads rostered scads of old clunkers that were way past their time when Diesels became available. Some of this was no doubt due to the depression, but really...steam technology had peaked in terms of real substantial development after 1925. Most facilities to care for the steam fleets was majorly obsolete too.  With all costs spiraling out of control in the years after the war, steam became it's own worst enemy!  Electrics were cheaper than steam power, for sure...but Diesels were never that far behind, and got better with each technical innovation. The experimental EMD electrics built in the dash two era were most likely assembled in response to the possibility of Gov't funds headed their way under the right circumstances, but that's just hearsay.

Today, juice doesn't stand a chance, at least not here.

One issue with overhad wires is something we hall have on our O or S layouts:  Voltage Drops!  In the case of real railroads, the problem is amplified because of distance.  If you get the chance, if you get to an electrified line, look to see how many "power drops" there are.  These would be substations for places on the NEC and SEPTA's ex-Reading lines, and power feeds for DC commuter, heavy and light rail.

I believe the old Pennsy main from Harrisburg through Lancaster to Philly is still electrified for Amtrak service....... think HHP-8's and the like. No electrified freight service exist on the former PRR although the catenary poles are up on segments from hydro stations to sub-stations on the aforementioned line.

Not 100 % correct....the electrification started in the 1880's (in Switzerland) by private owned company when electric motor where already fairly well developped...diesel back then was still in very early stage of developpement. Also it was (again for Switzerland) a way to not be dependant on other countries for coal, (we do not have coal but we had more than enough hydro power) which became even more problematic during WWI due the difficulty to get coal from war torn countries..that's when it was decided to electrify the entire network as quickly as possible.

And even so the world first diesel powered locomotive was operated in Switzerland in 1912, with no great success, further developpement were stopped during WWI. If the first diesel engine would have been more reliable, it would have still lead to dependency on foreign energy (can't have that) so electrification was the best choice possible, back then and still today.

...which is why I quialified that by saying "most"

---PCJ

Electric traction is still the best way to run a high density passenger railroad: commuter, intercity, or high speed.  It may be more expensive in terms of capital and maintainance costs, but there is no comparison to horsepower per weight ratio of electrics.  For example, an AEM7 has about 7000 hp, vs. an F40 with 3000.  Thus, the electric can get an eight car train up to speed in less distance (usually much less) than a diesel with a four or even three car train.  For multiple unit passenger equipment the acceleration is even better due to traction motors distributed throughout the entire train.  Regenerative breaking and dynamic braking is also often stronger, especially with the MU's.

Bottom line: if you want to move large amount of people fast with limited track and frequent schedules, electric is still the only way to go.

As for freight, it had huge benefits in the steam era due to the ability to multiple unit locomotives and added horsepower.  However, today's diesels can be run in multiple units, and the added horsepower of electrics has little benefit with heavy train at low speeds; in that case tractive effort and weight benefits more than raw power.  In Europe where lighter freights must keep up with passenger trains electrics on freights are still the typical choice. 

All the railroads electrified in the 1940s-60s. Electric traction proved itself as superior as long ago as the 1890s. They just developed a way for the locomotives to carry their own individual powerplant on their backs. Saves all that money in infrastructure.

It looks like a pollution cure, so long as you pretend that the electricity is generated by burning unicorn flatus.

With the majority of electricity generated still being the end product of the burning of fossil fuels, you're simply relocating the pollution elsewhere.

Most electric vehicles, whose owners smugly declare that they are the protectors of "Gaia", are in fact coal-fired, steam turbine-electrics, with the firebox, boilers, turbines and generators hidden, miles away from view.

Many of the North American electrifications were built to deal with smoke in tunnels. In most cases the diesel electric addressed the smoke problem and was cheaper to operate than electrification.  Most North American electrification used either DC or 25 cycle AC, which resulted in high cost inefficient conversion equipment.  The final problem with electrification is the need for increased overhead clearance for double stack containers. Double stack has been very successful for railroads, giving them the opportunity to carry twice as much freight with the same crew size and infrastructure.  As far as the Milwaukee Road goes, they had a 50 year fixed price contract for power.  When that contract ran out that was the end of electrification for them.

Many of the electrified lines in England were in operation many years before the nationalisation of the railways in 1949. Quite a lot of the network was in place before the Great War, and a vast amount of electrification was completed during the 1920s and 30s.

until you try to recycle the battery...

You nailed it! The story that has yet to be told. Ever see the hazmats at a battery recycling facility? It's a dangerous place! Oh, but that's Not in my backyard.

The health effects of air pollution are heavily dependent on where the pollution occurs.  In highly populated areas, particulate pollution from internal combustion engines contribute to heart attack, asthma, stroke, etc. in direct proportion to their concentration.  Thus keeping the air clean in urban and suburban areas is more important than doing so in the wilderness.

It's also a lot easier to contain pollution in a controlled environment (recycling facility) than it is once the toxic substances are in the air.

If and when low cost solar power becomes available, electric cars and trucks will probably dominate cost-effectiveness as well as health issues.

Most batteries are now moving towards use of less toxic metals, such as lithium rather than cadmium and lead.

Old technologies are replaced by better new technologies .

Electrification certainly offers benefits -- particularly the ability to control the source of pollution.  So, in other words, you wouldn't want steam or diesel locomotives operating in tunnels or enclosed areas where there are cleaner alternatives, such as third rail or overhead wires.  However, as others have mentioned, the capital investment to build these systems is often cost prohibitive and only makes sense in certain more limited situations.

Moreover, electrification is not a panacea to air pollution or the other environmental effects associated with millions of people moving around everyday.  If electric cars become the dominant source of personal transportation, as opposed to ones powered by the internal combustion engine, the electric grid will be tasked with providing power sufficient to handle everyone plugging the cars in at night.  Thus, the source of grid power (coal, nat gas, nuclear) will matter a great deal in terms of determining whether electric cars or any other form of electric transportation, will offer environmental benefits vis a vis other alternatives.  Of course, less points of pollution are easier to control, but today's cars are very clean with which to begin, so it would be interesting to see an in-depth study of the relative costs and benefits.

All of this is a long way of saying that some people always want to believe that they have the power to predict the future.  I am sure the Pennsy thought electrification was the future.  Now they are bankrupt and gone and the only interstate passenger service in this country is via Amtrak.  Times change, and so do solutions.  With respect to cars, batteries / electric may become dominant, or they may not and the internal combustion engine might continue to be refined and advanced.  Or there could be something else.  No one knows for sure.  Illustrating this point perfectly is the fracking boom.  Who would have thought, even 5 years ago, that the US would be on the path to supplanting Saudi Arabia as the world's largest energy producer within a few years?  Once again, this illustrates human ingenuity and the fact why people should generally be optimistic about the future.  Whether it's batteries for cars or electrification for trains, or something else, people will continue to innovate and find better ways to do things.  This objective reality is often lost when people pine for the past, or somehow look at the past with rose colored lenses.  The reality is that today's technologies are far superior to those that existed 25, 50, or 100 years ago, and what comes next will surpass what we have. 

I was reading an article about the electric being used by the Pennsylvania RR and the Reading RR, they both used 25 hertz or cycles AC electric at the time and on into the 1980's when the GG-1's last ran. The cost to modernize a fleet of electric engines would be very high, so that may be one of the reasons electric engines in certain areas never really took off too well or stayed around for very long.

If Amtrak runs through Pennsylvania with electric engines they must have up-dated the electrical system for the over head wires. With electric you have to replace the older; transformers, insulators and wires(due to aging) for 60 hertz.

But with diesel engines you just need a more modern diesel engine & electric motors at the wheels and you can run.

Lee Fritz

I'm curious what extra training a crew member would have to have working in electrified territory. Also I'm guessing a serious derailment (taking out Electric lines) would disable the whole line.Well at least the electric locos....

Jerry

And if you plug into the Houston area, you are helping Warren Buffet.  There is a HUGE coal powered generating station south od Sugar Land.  It is supplied by coal hauled by bothe BNSF (Buffet's) and UP.  Add plant stack, loco stack, and various polution at the mine to the mix.

This sounds like plastic bags.  We were told plastic bags would be EASIER on the environment than paper. 

The PRR electrification from Wilmington to Washington was apparently funded by "New Deal" era Public Works Administration loans, to the tune of $77,000,000. The interest rate was 4% and the agreement included a one-year moratorium on interest payments. These loans paid for the construction of the fixed plant as well as for motive power (read GG1s).

NY Times Article January 31, 1934

 In highly populated areas, particulate pollution from internal combustion engines contribute to heart attack, asthma, stroke, etc. in direct proportion to their concentration.

This is true, but an MIT study a few years ago indicated that the major producer of soot in urban areas was restaurants and fast food chains that emitted smoke from steaks and burgers. It was soot from cooking animal fat that constituted the vast majority of pollution particulates.  

quote:

The smugness is justified  

The only people with bragging rights are those who choose to live near the places they need to go, and travel by foot or bicycle.

Right behind them are people who can travel by mass transit.

And in our "WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?" department:

Thorium Powered Car

No one wants a nuclear reactor in their area but they would be OK with this?!?!

Jerry

I worked for Conrail when they ran Electrics. They rebuilt the entire E33 Electric Locomotive fleet during 1980 and 1981. They also had two experimental Electrics from EMD that they were testing at that time. It was my understanding that the reason for ending the use of electric power was Amtrak. Amtrak had control of the electric power and raised the mileage rates that they were charging to a rate that made it uneconomical for Conrail to continue using it. Even where Conrail owned the track, as in the Enola Branch, the Low Grade, the Port Road Branch and the Morrisville Line, Amtrak still had the rights to and control of the power.  

Sorry, electrics and hybrids still pollute less--even while taking this into account. There is plenty of data as this has been studied extensively.

Jeff C

Sadly, this isn't the truth--but there are plenty of people who will believe it. Don't get me wrong--there are environmental costs involved with any kind of energy, but hybrids and electrics still pollute less than ICE vehicles.

Jeff C

This overlooks that places like Europe and Japan do not have domestic supplies of oil and the economics of transportation are entirely different.  In Europe most vehicles are diesel, not gasoline,even small scooters like the three-wheel  Piaggio Ape are diesel.

Well, I live in neighboring Oregon, on the same predominately hydro-electric power grid, and while Hydro doesn't  add to the air pollution problem, it DOES have enviromental issues of it's own. Ever heard of a little fishy called the Salmon, it's population is a small fraction of what it once was, the dams are an irrefutable part of it's decline.

 Hydro does have other advantages as well, like Flood control, Navigation and Recreation. I'm no Dam Hater, but Hydro does have it's negatives as well as positives. Hydro is not even enviro-neutral, it's values and costs are subject to the opinion of who you happen to be talking to about it, much like they are about costs/values of electric vehicles, road or rail, just depends on the perspective of those involved in the conversation, we all place differing values on a multitude of subjects.

Doug

Hydroelectric isn't the reason you see so many Leafs and Teslas in Washington. It's more a factor of the demographics of the population, IE young techno green geeks who make up a larger portion of the population than in say New York or Dallas. They see hydro as enviromently friendly which it isn't by a long shot. There's different impacts but it's a case of 6 of one half a dozen of the other, it's just easier to see smoke from a power plant stack than a lake behind a dam silting up or an entire ecosystem being flooded out of existence. Out of sight, out of mind if you will.

Jerry

Voltage drop is the main reason for the number of substations required per mile.

For example:

1)  whenever lower voltages are utilized, such as 600 volts DC to the third rail on the New York Transit Subways in NYC, Long Island Railroad, MTA Metro North Commuter Hudson and Harlem lines north of NYC through Westchester County suburbs,  PATH (Port Authority Trans Hudson) system between New York City/Trade Center and Hoboken/Jersey City/Newark NJ a substation is required almost every mile or two.

2) whenever higher voltage AC catenary is utilized, such as 11kV 25z on the former PRR mainline south of NYC (now AMTRAK Northeast Corridor) or 25kV 60Hz on the former New Haven line re-electrification north of NYC to Boston and on NJ Transit's Morris & Essex lines, substations could be located about every 20 miles or so.

Norb www.njhirailers.com

Not according to a study done by the Ohio State Physics Department:

Conclusion

At present, for the vast majority of the country, neither electric vehicles or comparable gasoline-powered vehicles holds a solid advantage over the other in cleanliness.  This balance will probably not change any time in the near future as the problem with electric vehicles is not inherent to them, but rather to the means by which we generate our electricity. 

If you are going to cite studies you should at least use ones less nebulous than "MANY STUDIES" and not those pushing agendas either.

OHIO STATE

Jerry