>>1735639>You just increased the biggest costs to railroads--fuel and personnel (as you'll need more locomotives and more crews)--as well as increasing capital and maintenance costs (as you'll need to add more capacity and maintain more miles of track).How? Locomotives are needed to haul weight, weight is the same. Crew costs - possibly, albeit shorter trip times might leverage this somewhat. Regarding capacity - depends where is it. In my other post I already said that RRs have very little incentive to electrify. But - in key places, such as mountains, or with already existing double track - this would be neglible or yield a net benefit.
>They can do that right now, there's just no demand for it.They really can't. You are limited in the 4400hp package of your average 6-axle diesel. With a hp/t of your average intermodal, that is merely 4400t gross weight. Add another 4400hp for "moar powar" and your train becomes 1.92 hp/t because the extra loco is extra 180t of dead weight. It makes the train less efficient, as on flatter section you waste one loco, and on a hill you need to haul extra 180t of stuff.
From what I understand, the US RRs have standarized on the 4400hp locomotives because of reliability of the design and lack thereof of the 6000hp locos from the early 2000s. Nowadays, having each loco a standard power brick regardless of make makes it easier to dispatch trains.
But for certain stretches of railroads - especially the hillier ones - you _want_ more power locomotives in a single package, as this is more efficient. Diesels, topped at 6000hp. You can get, off the shelf, 12000hp electric, 6 axle locomotive right now. You could get, if you shop around, 16000hp, possibly. Two of such locos as a helper mid-train would make it fly uphill, increasing efficiency.
You could get 10000hp electric back in the 70s. Pic related.
