>>1911084>Track signaling and monitoring devices already require dealings with electricity providers.At what are essentially residential hookups bought from whoever the local utility is. Big difference between that and the grid connections, equipment, and sheer amount of energy purchasing an electrified rail system would need if that's what you are alluding to.
>Lighter is not the equal of weightless. It's not unheard of for modern diesels to be ballasted for extra adhesion. They do not need to be lighter for freight applications.
>they themselves stated that electrics had 30% lower maintenance costs. But that same website says that electric locomotives cost about 30% more. There is some savings there, but it's not quite as substantial as you might think because of the higher unit cost.
>There's other emission products, like Carbon Monoxide and various Nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides are greenhouse gases. CO isn't though. But given the efficiency of steel wheels on steel rails, I just don't find emissions alone to be a good enough case for electrification on its own.
>Yeah they do.No. If acceleration mattered, railroads would put more diesels on their trains. You can only pull on a freight train so hard before you get a knuckle or drawbar anyway. Speed entering and exiting yards is strictly a product of turnout design, network congestion, and operating rules. Electric locomotives would not improve that.
>improving ability to meet the demands of time-sensitive customers is a must.Customers who want fast trains pay more for it already and railroads manage that by adding more power to those trains and just as importantly, give them dispatching priority over other trains. Electrification wouldn't necessarily have a benefit.
