I don't see the efficiency in a 400-600 mile strech of electrified track. What's the cost of changing engines at each end of the stretch, as well as the presumably duplicative rosters -- if you had the line between Amarillo and Winslow electrified, say, wouldn't you need three sets of locos to haul a train from Chicago to LA? Whereas now, a single set of BNSF power often runs through between Newark on CR shared assets and LA. That has got to mean greater investment and maintenance in a larger absolute number of locos. You are adding a complication to operation no matter what you do, and if anything at all goes wrong, you'll need extra locos to account for late trains, for instance.

In fact, the trend has certainly been to eliminate intermediate stretches of electrified track for freight operation. Do you seriously think that if the Milwaukee Road had closed its non-electrified gap the electrification would have lasted any longer than it did?

I'm not sure if Europe is a good analogy. I believe the railroads there, as state enterprises, electrified in some measure to provide predictable load for the state-owned electric utilities. Also, I believe there are often major differences between electric freight and passenger locos in Europe, just as there are between freight and passenger diesels here. Just look at the difference between a P42 and an ES44 -- it goes way beyond HEP. And this leaves out the electric locomotives designed into ICE and TGV type trains.