System Type - Electric vs. Diesel

There are two main types of passenger high-speed rail systems: diesel and electric. There is some variation, but these are the two models of HSR.

Diesel HSR uses locomotives powered by diesel gasoline, have a top speed of 110 mph, and run on existing tracks shared by freight trains.

Electric HSR uses locomotives powered by overhead electric lines, have a top speed of 220 mph, and typically run on dedicated tracks built for high-speed passenger service.

The Acela system in the Northeast is a mixed system; it uses electric locomotives with a top speed of 150 mph and runs on shared tracks owned by Amtrak. Since the tracks were not originally designed for high-speed passenger service, and because of other rail traffic, in many areas the trains run much slower than the top speed.

While electric systems have higher speed, potentially more direct routes, and less congestion, they are also much more expensive to build. Construction costs for new, high speed, dedicated tracks range from $50M to $100M per mile.⁵ Costs to upgrade existing railroad tracks for use by high-speed passenger trains is in the $2M to $6M per mile range⁶⁷, although it can be as high as $37M⁸.

Travel time between St. Louis and Chicago is projected at 82 minutes for electric HSR versus 159 minutes for diesel HSR. Construction costs are projected at $23B⁵ for electric and $2.6B⁸⁹ for diesel.

A faster system would reduce travel time and attract more riders. To answer The Big Question (Is It Worth It?) we have to compare the additional costs for a dedicated, 220 mph, electric track to the additional benefits it brings. 

I won’t go into detail now for how I got these numbers (more on that later). The numbers for the 220 mph electric system come from an IDOT feasibility study⁵. While I think their projections are optimistic, I’ll be using their numbers for costs, ridership, and travel time to assess the costs and benefits.

In order to simplify the comparisons, I’m only considering trips between the major cities of Chicago, St. Louis, and Indianapolis.

The basic formula for determining if a rail investment is worth spending money on is:

Number of Riders times (Benefit per Rider minus Variable Costs per Rider) minus Fixed Costs¹⁰

The benefit per rider is the time and money saved by taking rail instead of driving or flying. Time savings are converted to dollars so that all costs and benefits can be directly compared¹¹.  Variable costs are the operating costs of the railroad and include fuel, employees, train cars, etc. Fixed costs include the initial construction costs of building or upgrading the rail system as well as the cost of routine track maintenance. 

 

Operating costs are similar; however, the construction costs are projected at over 10 times higher for electric. In order to compare the public money spent to the time and money saved by passengers, let’s look just at the St. Louis-Chicago route.
  

To determine the rate of return, the total rider benefit is divided by the total annual capital costs (which is construction plus annual maintenance).

The electric system does have higher benefits because more passengers will ride it and they will save more time. However, the small increase in rider benefits does not justify the much higher construction costs of building new track. For each dollar spent on construction, 18 cents worth of benefits return to the riders. For the 110 mph diesel system, each dollar spent on construction returns $1.22 worth of benefits to the riders.

While there may be additional benefits (safety, reduced pollution, future energy savings) from the electric system, it is unlikely they will justify the costs of construction.

I will be moving forward by examining a 110 mph diesel rail system which runs on upgraded existing track.