I'm afraid by that time ('74-75) the Milwaukee probably couldn't pay the light bill anyhow. And, in the short run they didn't want to use up precious/costly crew time changing out engines, en route. The electric locomotives were aging, they would have required significant maintenance on a non-standard product, with little manufacturer support, and there was no capital for long term maintenance or upgrade of the catenary either.

It's a shame about the Milwaukee electrics, but I'm glad I got to see them, before they were gone. Electrics lagged in the US because most of the country found less costly work arounds to smoke and fire problems during the steam era. And, when the diesel-electrics came along in the 40's, offering performance with tonnage similar to the electrics, without the need for a catenary infrastructure, it put off, again, the need to consider railroad electrification. These projects ended up being isolated exceptions in American railroading of the last century.

New proposals to electrify rail lines will need a sustained national investment policy which rewards such long term capital commitments. The payoffs may be significant, especially if petro-fuel really is now on a rising "real" cost curve, but so is the risk and commitment of capital for electrification. Our national policy and market bias toward rewarding very short term performance, make these types of capital investment decsisions by the private sector difficult, if not impossible. We probably need a thorough rethinking of that policy bias to acheive electrification in the next 20-30 years.