>>1516022>It's the low hanging fruit of emission reduction. Yet no one wants to even talk about it.It isn't. Railroads are scarily efficient, with locomotive engines nearing efficiencies that are rivalled only by stationary plants.
>>1516022>It would eliminate a massive amount of diesel. Making working conditions for railroaders a lot better. Provide cheaper and more reliable operations for the railroads. Make railroads better neighbors.Western diesel locomotives are very clean, at least in comparison to cars and trucks. Stationary coal plants are cleaner tho. Granted - we are still talking about burning carbon/hydrocarbons, but it's not like there are pic-related running around anymore.
That being said. There is no real mcguffin for the US railroads to chase. At least, not a one that would justify the cost of implementing it. In operational practice - electric trains offer higher hp per ton ratio - your average 4000hp diesel could be replaced one-to-one with 8000hp electric locomotive. Intrestingly - this would not incur higher fuel costs because physics is the same for everyone. If running on the flat - if speeds are kept the same, energy usage is the same. Higher power would allow the RR to run trains at higher speeds, but that would cause faster deterioration of the physical plant. With one exception - in mountain railroading, getting twice the power allows to get to the top at half the time at no additional cost ( potential energy is stored ) - this is why the swiss run Gorthard trains with 1300T of weight with 10000hp front end power.
Realistically speaking, how much of US railroading is done over the mountains and, how much physical plant could be cut off if travel time over those sections was reduced by 50%? Does that justify capital expenditure and operational complications?
>contd