On Sep 21, 8:23*pm, wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
the US says it isn't going to happen.

It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
first place. *If the economics make it worth it, then it will
happen.

Most of the track has been there and paid for since at least WWII, so
that's a red herring.

Why is it a red herring? Aren't those railroad right of ways,
improvements, depots and corridors exactly what the original
conversation was about, ie, enticing more commerce to go
to these exact areas which will not have to be constructed,
but only electrified?

And electrifying track costs more than laying track since you not only have
to build complicated stuff (compared to 2 steel rails nailed to wood) along
the track, you have to build the stuff to get electricity to the track.

Cite.

I assert that it costs more to bulldoze thousands of acres
of land, grade it, pay for an infrastructure of access roads,
drainage, signal lights, and cross-ties, than it does to
electrify this existing infrastructure, which may or may
not be able to use the existing rails. The scrap metal
value alone of the rails would go considerably
towards offsetting the new development if indeed as
you say they cannot be applied in some way.

---
Mark



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.