From the article: ... This seems pretty inexpensive compared to the US. Some comparisons: Caltrain electrification (and other improvements) cost $2.7 billion. Brightline spent $5 billion extending...
From the article:
Around 40,000km have been electrified since 2014, versus 21,801 in all the years prior to 2014. With 94% of lines electrified as of 1 January 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged that Indian Railways will achieve 100% electrification within “a few months”.
...
The total expenditure on railway electrification since 2014 amounts to more than 46,425 crore rupees ($5.5bn), according to Indian Railways data. It will take some time for diesel locomotives to be totally retired and replaced by electric equivalents, but already the tide has significantly shifted, with 10,238 electric and 4,543 diesel locomotives as of December 2023.
This seems pretty inexpensive compared to the US. Some comparisons: Caltrain electrification (and other improvements) cost $2.7 billion. Brightline spent $5 billion extending its railway to Orlando. Their Las Vegas line is expected to cost $12 billion. [Deleted some incorrect info.]
...
Indian Railways has become the country’s largest consumer of electricity [...]
...
For the time being, however, electrification does not necessarily equate to decarbonisation. Around 70% of the country’s electricity continues to come from burning coal, despite an ongoing major policy push to boost solar power.
Aside from nixing all the diesel trains of course. Electrification is a long term investment. Diesel will be diesel, coal electricity can become solar/nuclear/wind electricity.
For the time being, however, electrification does not necessarily equate to decarbonisation. Around 70% of the country’s electricity continues to come from burning coal, despite an ongoing major policy push to boost solar power.
Aside from nixing all the diesel trains of course.
Electrification is a long term investment. Diesel will be diesel, coal electricity can become solar/nuclear/wind electricity.
I also wonder how it stacks up if you compare all the diesel locomotives combined output to the output of coal plants providing electricity for electric locomotives. It is just speculation from my...
I also wonder how it stacks up if you compare all the diesel locomotives combined output to the output of coal plants providing electricity for electric locomotives.
It is just speculation from my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if the coal plant is more efficient due to scale. As some added context, as far as I know diesel locomotives these days all are basically generators driving electric motors anyway.
Not to mention that a single large polluter can have all manner of efforts thrown at it while the decentralised problem of thousands of polluters is bloody difficult. That's more true for private...
Not to mention that a single large polluter can have all manner of efforts thrown at it while the decentralised problem of thousands of polluters is bloody difficult.
That's more true for private vehicles than a train network. It's still better to have EVs (trains included) powered by coal power stations than ICE engines polluting locally and making air quality worse where we breathe.
Maybe it comes out in the wash at a global level. But the most obvious difference to people is the one felt locally.
This Guardian article is old but looks into the issue (albeit in the context of the UK). To quote the expert whom they contacted to verify the figures: And that's just looking at carbon footprint...
This Guardian article is old but looks into the issue (albeit in the context of the UK). To quote the expert whom they contacted to verify the figures:
However you calculate it, though, electric trains are greener than diesel trains.
And that's just looking at carbon footprint afaik, not to mention other benefits like reduced air pollution.
Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none The other largely overlooked benefit of electric trains is that they are cheaper to operate/maintain and physically...
Comment box
Scope: information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
The other largely overlooked benefit of electric trains is that they are cheaper to operate/maintain and physically much lighter than diesel trains. This makes it feasible for transit agencies to run meaningfully more electric trains than diesel trains on the same route without any modifications to track alignment. Additionally, that train can accelerate and decelerate faster, and potentially run at a higher maximum speed in some areas, because it weighs less. Since electric trains have fewer mechanical failures than diesel trains, there are also fewer delays.
Increased frequency, reliability, and speed of service on a particular route almost always results in higher ridership as people decide to take the train instead of driving or flying. That has further benefits because transporting people by electric train will basically always be more energy-efficient than transporting people by literally any form of personal automobile (including electric) or airplane for a given number of miles.
Comment box Scope: information, links Tone: neutral Opinion: yes, at the end Sarcasm/humor: none Alon Levy has written a good deal about electrification costs and how agencies in the United States...
Comment box
Scope: information, links
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes, at the end
Sarcasm/humor: none
Alon Levy has written a good deal about electrification costs and how agencies in the United States repeatedly make poor (expensive) decisions, leading to higher costs and a much slower rollout. They published some recommendations formally in a TransitMatters report in 2021.
The Effective Transit Alliance has also released a report recommending electrification in the United States, though that report does not specifically comment on past failures to efficiently build infrastructure in the US.
California has spent $50 billion on high speed rail so far, and total cost is expected to be $100 billion.
This is not correct. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has spent about $11.2 billion on the project to date. Their 2024 Business Plan (see p. 53) explains the current appropriations, which are more like $21.7 billion, but not all of that has been spent yet. They have identified, but not yet received, an additional $13.6 billion in various funding from the state and federal governments to complete the Central Valley section.
Cost estimates for the entire Phase 1 project (which includes the Anaheim spur) range from $89 billion to $128 billion (2024 Business Plan p. 65). Some of the cost increases we've seen in the last decade were due to mismanagement, but a lot of it is just inflation because stakeholders are not funding the project quickly enough. (The longer you wait to release funding, the more you have to spend in nominal terms to finish a project.)
You can see cost estimates starting on p. 88:
Central Valley: $28.5 billion to $35.3 billion (base: $33.815 billion)
Northern California: $21.2 billion to $35.5 billion (base: $27.9 billion)
Southern California: $31.9 billion to $52.8 billion (base: $40.7 billion)
The Northern California segment is probably going to be the one they tackle next on account of Caltrain electrification being underway already, as well as that segment's overall lower cost. Additionally, the Northern California segment is fully environmentally cleared, whereas the Southern California segment is not yet.
Personally I think the Southern California segment should be re-routed to be more direct (skipping Palmdale) and therefore reduce infrastructure costs, but that would probably cost another $500 million in environmental review. It would probably also be politically challenging.
It is an expensive project, but equivalent highway/airport expansions would cost $179 billion to $253 billion (p. 65) while also being less efficient.
Thanks for clarifying. CHSR always gets demonized for being expensive and taking a long time, but everyone will love it once it's up and running. Instead of looking at CHSR as a failure when it's...
Thanks for clarifying. CHSR always gets demonized for being expensive and taking a long time, but everyone will love it once it's up and running. Instead of looking at CHSR as a failure when it's still very much still being built and calling all HSR in the US bad, people should look at what went wrong, so future projects can go more smoothly.
It's true that once something is built, people forget about what it originally cost or how long it took. But I'm wary of turning that into a "blank check" by treating costs and schedule as...
It's true that once something is built, people forget about what it originally cost or how long it took. But I'm wary of turning that into a "blank check" by treating costs and schedule as irrelevant, because there are tradeoffs. Maybe the government could have built other stuff instead?
Is anyone saying all HSR is bad? I haven't seen anyone arguing against Brightline's projects.
CHSR also costs more than a private HSR line because of all the conflicting interests in government projects. The route was shifted towards the 99 in the central valley and will stop in many towns...
CHSR also costs more than a private HSR line because of all the conflicting interests in government projects. The route was shifted towards the 99 in the central valley and will stop in many towns in that region because that was needed to get support from those voters and politicians. Brightline West is basically a non-stop trip between the Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas that uses existing right of ways in the highway median to avoid the red tape that comes from suitability studies and environmental impact studies.
CHSR could have been more straightforward if it wasn't a government project, but the benefits it will bring to the state is much greater because it stops in so many towns. Imagine if you could live in the central valley, but regularly commute to a job in San Francisco. Many people actually do this already, but it takes a lot longer and contributes more to road congestion and climate change. An express line like Brightline West wouldn't be work for this use case because it would largely pass all the communities in the central valley.
A blank check definitely shouldn't be given out, but CHSR is a long-term investment for the state. It seems like they have worked on their management issues and have been making more progress. Infrastructure is always expensive, but there really is no replacement for physical infrastructure.
I think avoiding environmental impact studies is smart. I haven't heard of anything that happened on the California High Speed Rail project that seemed particularly smart, but I don't follow it...
I think avoiding environmental impact studies is smart. I haven't heard of anything that happened on the California High Speed Rail project that seemed particularly smart, but I don't follow it very closely. Perhaps it's improved?
Offtopic, but what's with that comment box? I don't think I've seen that on other posts. Did you do that yourself? Always enjoy your commentary on transportation related things btw
Offtopic, but what's with that comment box? I don't think I've seen that on other posts. Did you do that yourself?
Always enjoy your commentary on transportation related things btw
Comment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Yes, I add the comment box myself. The purpose is to self-moderate and to make the intention/tone...
Comment box
Scope: comment response, information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
Yes, I add the comment box myself. The purpose is to self-moderate and to make the intention/tone of my comments unambiguous. The code I use is:
<small>
<details>
<summary>Comment box</summary>
* Scope: x
* Tone: y
* Opinion: z
* Sarcasm/humor: q
</details>
</small>
Strange key on the map in that article, with a 98–100% range and a separate ≥100% range. I guess greater than 100% means they built extra track just so they could electrify it.
Strange key on the map in that article, with a 98–100% range and a separate ≥100% range.
I guess greater than 100% means they built extra track just so they could electrify it.
They also drew Kashmir to include the Pakistan occupied part, but excluding the Chinese occupied part, which is a choice I have never seen before. Usually they’re either maximalists for the Indian...
They also drew Kashmir to include the Pakistan occupied part, but excluding the Chinese occupied part, which is a choice I have never seen before. Usually they’re either maximalists for the Indian claim or minimalists but rarely selective. And if they are selective they typically exclude PoK but retain Aksai Chin.
What’s even weirder is even though Kashmir doesn’t include the Chinese occupied region, they do include the disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian.
From the article:
...
This seems pretty inexpensive compared to the US. Some comparisons: Caltrain electrification (and other improvements) cost $2.7 billion. Brightline spent $5 billion extending its railway to Orlando. Their Las Vegas line is expected to cost $12 billion. [Deleted some incorrect info.]
...
...
Aside from nixing all the diesel trains of course.
Electrification is a long term investment. Diesel will be diesel, coal electricity can become solar/nuclear/wind electricity.
I also wonder how it stacks up if you compare all the diesel locomotives combined output to the output of coal plants providing electricity for electric locomotives.
It is just speculation from my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if the coal plant is more efficient due to scale. As some added context, as far as I know diesel locomotives these days all are basically generators driving electric motors anyway.
Not to mention that a single large polluter can have all manner of efforts thrown at it while the decentralised problem of thousands of polluters is bloody difficult.
That's more true for private vehicles than a train network. It's still better to have EVs (trains included) powered by coal power stations than ICE engines polluting locally and making air quality worse where we breathe.
Maybe it comes out in the wash at a global level. But the most obvious difference to people is the one felt locally.
This Guardian article is old but looks into the issue (albeit in the context of the UK). To quote the expert whom they contacted to verify the figures:
And that's just looking at carbon footprint afaik, not to mention other benefits like reduced air pollution.
Comment box
The other largely overlooked benefit of electric trains is that they are cheaper to operate/maintain and physically much lighter than diesel trains. This makes it feasible for transit agencies to run meaningfully more electric trains than diesel trains on the same route without any modifications to track alignment. Additionally, that train can accelerate and decelerate faster, and potentially run at a higher maximum speed in some areas, because it weighs less. Since electric trains have fewer mechanical failures than diesel trains, there are also fewer delays.
Increased frequency, reliability, and speed of service on a particular route almost always results in higher ridership as people decide to take the train instead of driving or flying. That has further benefits because transporting people by electric train will basically always be more energy-efficient than transporting people by literally any form of personal automobile (including electric) or airplane for a given number of miles.
Comment box
Alon Levy has written a good deal about electrification costs and how agencies in the United States repeatedly make poor (expensive) decisions, leading to higher costs and a much slower rollout. They published some recommendations formally in a TransitMatters report in 2021.
The Effective Transit Alliance has also released a report recommending electrification in the United States, though that report does not specifically comment on past failures to efficiently build infrastructure in the US.
This is not correct. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has spent about $11.2 billion on the project to date. Their 2024 Business Plan (see p. 53) explains the current appropriations, which are more like $21.7 billion, but not all of that has been spent yet. They have identified, but not yet received, an additional $13.6 billion in various funding from the state and federal governments to complete the Central Valley section.
Cost estimates for the entire Phase 1 project (which includes the Anaheim spur) range from $89 billion to $128 billion (2024 Business Plan p. 65). Some of the cost increases we've seen in the last decade were due to mismanagement, but a lot of it is just inflation because stakeholders are not funding the project quickly enough. (The longer you wait to release funding, the more you have to spend in nominal terms to finish a project.)
You can see cost estimates starting on p. 88:
The Northern California segment is probably going to be the one they tackle next on account of Caltrain electrification being underway already, as well as that segment's overall lower cost. Additionally, the Northern California segment is fully environmentally cleared, whereas the Southern California segment is not yet.
Personally I think the Southern California segment should be re-routed to be more direct (skipping Palmdale) and therefore reduce infrastructure costs, but that would probably cost another $500 million in environmental review. It would probably also be politically challenging.
It is an expensive project, but equivalent highway/airport expansions would cost $179 billion to $253 billion (p. 65) while also being less efficient.
Thanks for the corrections. My quick Googling for numbers went astray.
Thanks for clarifying. CHSR always gets demonized for being expensive and taking a long time, but everyone will love it once it's up and running. Instead of looking at CHSR as a failure when it's still very much still being built and calling all HSR in the US bad, people should look at what went wrong, so future projects can go more smoothly.
It's true that once something is built, people forget about what it originally cost or how long it took. But I'm wary of turning that into a "blank check" by treating costs and schedule as irrelevant, because there are tradeoffs. Maybe the government could have built other stuff instead?
Is anyone saying all HSR is bad? I haven't seen anyone arguing against Brightline's projects.
CHSR also costs more than a private HSR line because of all the conflicting interests in government projects. The route was shifted towards the 99 in the central valley and will stop in many towns in that region because that was needed to get support from those voters and politicians. Brightline West is basically a non-stop trip between the Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas that uses existing right of ways in the highway median to avoid the red tape that comes from suitability studies and environmental impact studies.
CHSR could have been more straightforward if it wasn't a government project, but the benefits it will bring to the state is much greater because it stops in so many towns. Imagine if you could live in the central valley, but regularly commute to a job in San Francisco. Many people actually do this already, but it takes a lot longer and contributes more to road congestion and climate change. An express line like Brightline West wouldn't be work for this use case because it would largely pass all the communities in the central valley.
A blank check definitely shouldn't be given out, but CHSR is a long-term investment for the state. It seems like they have worked on their management issues and have been making more progress. Infrastructure is always expensive, but there really is no replacement for physical infrastructure.
I think avoiding environmental impact studies is smart. I haven't heard of anything that happened on the California High Speed Rail project that seemed particularly smart, but I don't follow it very closely. Perhaps it's improved?
Offtopic, but what's with that comment box? I don't think I've seen that on other posts. Did you do that yourself?
Always enjoy your commentary on transportation related things btw
Comment box
Yes, I add the comment box myself. The purpose is to self-moderate and to make the intention/tone of my comments unambiguous. The code I use is:
And thanks, I try to make myself useful.
Strange key on the map in that article, with a 98–100% range and a separate ≥100% range.
I guess greater than 100% means they built extra track just so they could electrify it.
They also drew Kashmir to include the Pakistan occupied part, but excluding the Chinese occupied part, which is a choice I have never seen before. Usually they’re either maximalists for the Indian claim or minimalists but rarely selective. And if they are selective they typically exclude PoK but retain Aksai Chin.
What’s even weirder is even though Kashmir doesn’t include the Chinese occupied region, they do include the disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian.