• What is the purpose of this website?

  The purpose of this website is to present a solution to the problems of highway congestion, lagging railroad freight traffic, and land-based shipping’s considerable and detrimental contribution to anthropogenic global warming.

• If the proposed electric well-car solution is deemed acceptable, who will move action forward?

  First in line (in no particular order) will be the researchers at trade associations, universities, government labs, and think tanks, who will envision, plan, analyze, accept, and reject various facets of the proposed railroad and its role in shipping logistics. These researchers will be extensively assisted by interested railroads, trucking companies, equipment suppliers, highway departments, and of course, shipping customers. Implementation will include designers, construction workers and companies, installers, power providers, steel companies and other material suppliers, manufacturers, bankers, union workers, and a plethora of vaguely connected but necessary auxiliary helpers as diverse as real estate agents and restaurant cooks. It will require leaders and laborers, and, lastly, a patient public. If this seems grandiose, observe as an example, the rise of Tesla and what has happened as a consequence of its creation, and what is about to be happening to automotive transport in general.

• Who will pay for it?

  The envisioned solution, or any other reasonable solution, will require an enormous effort and much treasure. (To think otherwise is to imagine a world that is progressing backwards.) Financing will be required from the railroads and truckers who expect to profit from the endeavor, governments who rightly impose mandates and regulations, foundations who wish to improve the human condition, environmentalists who picture a cooler planet, and ultimately everyone, whatever are their interests and motivations. There will be short-term losers, but as with more than a few inventions, eventually everybody will win.

• Can the proposed, intermodal well-car railroad compete with driverless trucks that are rapidly entering revenue service on the nation’s freeways and highways?

  Driverless trucks, as well as driverless trucks that may soon be battery powered, will indeed pose serious competition for railroads. Initially, absent a revolutionary technological response from the railroads, truckers are likely to make inroads into portions of the medium-haul shipping markets that are typically the domain of railroads. Eventually, routes of any length may be competitive. This is because trucking excels in expedience: Roads go everywhere, and over-the-road shipping distances are often shorter by road than by rail. Trucking offers timely point-to-point service that is, more often than not, on call -- a distinct advantage if timeliness is desired. It will be icing on the trucking cake if, at the same time, truckers drastically lower their carbon footprint by implementing electric propulsion. Truckers may avoid lengthy charging times if batteries are exchanged at conveniently located stations, much like tired horses were swapped out at pony express stations in 1860.

  On the other hand, shipping by rail is, in many cases, very economical. Railroads can operate more efficiently because the coefficient of rolling friction between steel wheels and steel rails is lower than the coefficient of rolling friction between rubber tires and concrete or asphalt roads. A railroad also does not have to contend with non-railroad traffic and seldom experiences traffic jams other than those due to single tracking. In contrast, trucks can generally count on frequent traffic delays that are usually unanticipated. The only solution to congested road traffic would appear to be more roads, a fix that increasingly pleases no one. Undeniably, another solution might be to decrease the volume of trucks on the roads through local sourcing, but current economic trends seem to favor larger, more-centralized enterprises that require greater trade amongst distant cities, states, and countries.

  The proposed intermodal freight shipping system addresses several of the shortcomings of both rail and road. Instead of locomotives and trains, well cars on the proposed railroad will operate as independent units like trucks on a freeway. Containers will be quickly transferred between modes at strategically located freight stations. (See additional details in the vision statement.) The result will be faster and more economical shipping, shipping that is more responsive to customer needs, less road congestion, greater safety, and a lower aggregate carbon footprint for both the trucking industry and railroads. Ultimately, computer algorithms will determine the most efficient and most economical shipping mode or modes whether it be by rail, road, or a combination of rail and road. To a certain extent, this is what is already happening today.

• Several railroads have investigated railway electrification, as it is generally accomplished through overhead catenaries. They have consistently concluded that railroad electrification is prohibitively expensive. Can the cost of electrification be reduced to the extent that it can be commonly feasible?

  Railroad electrification has had a long history. Experimentation in railroad electrification began as early as the late 1830s, and the first electric railroads became practical during the mid-1880s. From then on, electrification advanced rapidly, particularly as a means for powering urban transit systems. Some railroads also were electrified in New York and Chicago when local governments banned steam engines due to excessive smoke. Several railroads electrified long tunnels for the same reason, while cheap electrical power was the motivation for others. With more than 6,300 track miles electrified in the United States, electrification peaked in 1938. Afterwards, the pace of electrification declined with the advent and improvement of diesel-electric locomotives that, unlike steam engines, emitted far less smoke, could travel further without refueling, required no watering, and could be maintained much more economically. But, the most relevant reason for electrification’s demise was the cost of infrastructure. In terms of total capitalization, dieselizing a railroad proved far less expensive than electrifying the same railroad.

  The same circumstances largely exist today. However, new challenges are threatening the status quo: Carbon dioxide and other gasses that once were considered harmless externalities of diesel operations are now seen as costly problems. Moreover, several traditional railroad bulk freight markets are disappearing, while timeliness and service have gained greater importance in the thinking of consumer product manufacturers and distributors.

  Railroads could offset the costs of greenhouse gas remediation by electrifying. Were they to electrify, railroads could likely benefit from foreseeable new developments in high-voltage power transmission and battery technologies. If battery technology improves, and electrified well cars are able to travel further and further on battery power alone, proportionate segments of the catenaries or third rails that provide power to the well cars could be removed and utilized elsewhere. The future costs and maintenance of batteries are unknown as are the savings from overlooked benefits.

• Will there be sufficient natural resources of critical elements such as Li, Ni, and Co to build the batteries that may or may not be required for future cars, trucks, railroads, airplanes, and construction power tools as well as household contrivances such as vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, hedgers, shavers, and kitchen mixers?

  Perhaps. While the natural resources that contain critical elements are adequate in general, they may be inadequate in economically retrievable quantities. The infrastructures for developing and processing the natural resources to the extent required, currently are not in place and will be difficult to put in place considering that many, if not most, high-grade mineral deposits have already been tapped. Enterprise permitting is becoming lengthier and more expensive in addition. However, battery development is in its infancy, and battery chemistries and availability may change advantageously.

• Will electrical power, and in particular green power, be adequate to replace fossil fuels for all transportation applications?

  In the short term, no. While the rated capacity from wind- and solar-powered generators grew faster, at ~16%, than any other power source over the year ending in June 2020, backup capacity declined. Sufficient backup capacity that can be easily ramped up must be retained for use when the sun isn’t shining and winds cease to blow. Wind and solar energy currently cannot be readily stored and, like all electrical energy must be consumed as it is produced. A margin of safety that is only practical with base generation from natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and possibly geothermal must be expensed as an externality of green power. Moreover, in the longer term, as more and more solar and wind projects are envisioned, optimum sites for large-scale developments will be harder to find, in part because these sites will be off limits due to local opposition and set asides for parks and wildernesses.
  On a brighter note, small-scale nuclear generators that are safer than similar, but larger gigawatt-size nuclear facilities may be gaining acceptance. These generators can be manufactured in factories, transported nearly wholly intact, and installed at a site that has a miniscule footprint in comparison with wind and solar installations. Power from the first commercial small-scale nuclear generator should be available in as few as five years. In addition, conservation measures such as simple and relatively inexpensive innovations in housing, transportation, agriculture, industry, and other heavy consumers of electric power may positively alter electrical supply and consumption balances.

© Wind River Electric Rail

windriverrail@gmail.com