Should freight railroads consider catenary electrification? Absolutely not, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) stresses in a study “highlighting the overwhelming financial, operational and infrastructure challenges of transitioning the U.S. freight rail network” to OCS (overhead catenary system).
The 117-page Study of Catenary Electrification of the North American Class I Railroad Network (download below), conducted by consultant HDR, estimates the cost of electrifying the entire 139,000-mile U.S. freight rail network at $1.1 trillion, a figure the AAR says is “equivalent to 47 years of combined net income from all six Class I’s.” Additionally, the study “outlines significant energy demands, reliability concerns and other operational challenges that render catenary electrification infeasible for U.S. freight operations.”
Study of Catenary Electrification of the North American Class I Railroad Network makes no mention of a recently released Federal Railroad Administration study prepared by, among others, Railway Age Contributing Editor Jim Blaze. That study, Cost and Benefit Risk Framework for Modern Railway Electrification Options, is based on FRA’s Office of Research, Development & Test (RD&T) award of a contract in 2023 to the University of Texas at Austin for an updated re-examination of freight railway electrification.
According to AAR Senior Vice President of Safety and Operations Michael Rush, “Railroads continue to identify and invest in technologies that will make the industry more sustainable and resilient. Today, railroads can move a single ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel, but we are striving for further improvements. This study puts to bed any notions that catenary is a viable solution. Now is the time to focus investments and attention on alternatives that can truly work for freight rail. Railroads are actively working to develop sustainable solutions that balance environmental benefits with the operational demands and practical realities of freight transportation. This study reinforces the imperative of channeling investments into technologies that have the potential to deliver tangible benefits—without the insurmountable challenges posed by catenary electrification.”
Catenary electrification, AAR points out, poses:
- “Reliability Risks: Beyond its costs, catenary systems could also impact reliability by creating a single point of failure that could be susceptible to extreme weather events or hazards like falling trees. Interruptions to rail service could have significant consequences for the U.S. and global supply chain.
- “Strain on the Energy Grid: Powering freight rail through catenary electrification would require an additional 40–50 TWh of electricity—equivalent to the output of six new nuclear power plants, 11 million new solar panels, or 1,800 utility-scale wind turbines. This demand far exceeds the grid’s current capabilities and would require extensive infrastructure expansion.
- “Regulatory and Safety Hurdles: Securing the federal and state permits necessary for a project of this scale would take many years, possibly decades, diverting time and resources from more practical solutions. Additionally, catenary electrification introduces new safety risks, including potential hazards from high-voltage wires, as well as increased operational costs for system maintenance.
“The rail industry continues to pilot emerging technologies such as battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell locomotives that can potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants,” AAR says. “Despite billions in investments and an industry-wide push to unlock an alternative solution, a scalable zero-emissions path has not yet emerged. In the meantime, railroads are leveraging fuel optimization software and anti-idling technology, testing biodiesel and renewable diesel, and exploring fuel additives to lower emissions. Additionally, railroads are upgrading locomotives to higher emission-reduction tiers when practical to help advance sustainability through using today’s available solutions.”
Comments
“Why did AAR bother to release the HDR study? To whom is the AAR message addressed? It seems directed mostly toward counterpoints to the decarbonization strategy reports that are circulating in the various media. Isn’t freight rail electrification best left up to each AAR member railroad? Electrification is unlikely to be a mandate issued by the current Administration and the Congress.” – Jim Blaze
The HDR/AAR study “looks at OCS on all 139,000 U.S. route-miles. This is not an analysis of where and how can electrification be justified, as we worked to examine in the UT-Austin report. Yes, high voltage is dangerous. And compared to hydrogen? Yes, OCS is too expensive. Again, no comparison to any alternative. ‘Too expensive’ by itself is taken totally out of context. One can honestly say ice water at 32.01 F is ‘too hot’ if secretly comparing it to liquefied hydrogen at –423 F. But by itself, ice water is … ice water. A strain on the energy grid? Yes. But on the flip side, assume hydrogen fuel cells on all 139,000 route-miles and using grid energy for electrolysis (71% energy efficient) plus compression or liquefaction (75% efficient), and then fuel cells extracting electrons (50% efficient) to make tractive effort. Grid-to-rail efficiency is ~20% with H2 compared to ~82% with OCS … which creates greater ‘strain’? Again, contextual relativity is key. Why electrify all 139,000 U.S. route-miles when only 10% produce 30% of total rail GTMs and consume ~35% of rail energy? The UT-Austin report looked at selective corridors and pointed out a method for assessing the ‘low hanging fruit.’ Electrification of low-density main lines and branch lines. Really?” – Mike Iden, Union Pacific (ret.), Tier 5 Locomotive LLC and Railway Age Contributing Editor
“I guess HDR is unaware of recent FRA research report?” – Dr. Chris Barkan, Director – National University Rail Center of Excellence (NURail CoE) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
“Haven’t we already seen this movie?” – Jim Hoecker, Rail Electrification Council and Senior Counsel and Energy Strategist, Husch Blackwell
