John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see the efficiency in a 400-600 mile
> strech of electrified track. ...

I never meant that you would stop with 400-600 miles,
but that would give you a segment on which you could
begin operating and where you would get substantial
benefits from the electrification.

There is a way to run with the same locomotive consist
under both wire and on non-electrified lines. Some
other posters have already alluded to that. I'll make
additional comments on that later.

What the railroad(s) need to do with a starter segment
is to pick a segment where there are multiple good
reasons for electrification -- such as grades, tunnels,
easy availability of electricity (from nearby coal or
hydro plants), etc.

>
> 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?

What the Milwaukee used was very old (by today's
standards) electric technology. Technology has made
huge leaps since then. And, basically anything you
want in electrification is available off the shelf,
though not necessarily in the U.S. -- though if the
move to electrification gets serious, a supply and
service industry will follow. (Look at how, when
light rail became a growth business in the U.S.,
Siemens started its U.S. subsidiary plant in
California.)


> 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.

As I've mentioned before, in Europe, many of the
railroads own their own generating capacity. This
includes a number of hydro plants, some with pumped
storage capability.


> 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.

Okay, I've been on the TGV and ICE engines. Yes, they
are a different type of engine with a very specific
application in mind. What I am talking about is
general utility engines that are used to pull most
freight and non-high-speed trains in Europe. In most
cases, you will find the same engine types in both
services.

-- Ernest