On Sep 21, 10:59*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
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?

The cost of electrification has nothing to do with putting in the rails
more than half a century ago.

Jabber blather non sequitur.

That has nothing to do with my analysis of fossil fuel
replacement with clean technology today. Look at the
top of your screen and read the topic.

My position: Replace today the old and inefficient.

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,

Probably, but since that was already done over a half century ago at
land, labor and material rates much lower than now, what does that have
to do with anything in the future?

Jabber blather. What is the topic of this post? My position
is that fossil fuel locomotion will be replaced with electric
locomotion within 50 years.

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.

Babble.

Based on your use of the word babble as evidenced
in recent threads, the definition can only mean:

Babble: to inform, to describe scenerios and technologies,
or to accurately counterpoint assertions and opinions
said to be facts.

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -