Common Sense From Nonsense

[Anonymous]

so, if the public funds this lollapalooza, where is it that you propose the profits from operation should go?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electrification of selected main lines sounds good, but it raises some questions and creates a few problems.
1. Where would the electricity come from? Most utilities don't have that much excess generating capacity aside from peaking plants and if excess capacity was available, where would you put the additional transmission lines? Utilities run into opposition even when they want to install a new substation to serve a new subdivision.
2. The railroads would have to maintain two sets of motive power. Diesels would still be needed to work yards, branches and secondary main lines. Although diesels and electrics would still share a certain number of parts in common, there are still enough differences to complicate maintenance and straight electrics aren't that much simpler than diesel electrics.
3. Even with a government guarantee, would banks be willing to tie up that much capital on one project?
4. Mandating passenger service in return for government funding of such a project looks like a return to the bad old days of ICC regulation and virtually empty trains being run for the "public convenience and necessity". Also, who would pay for passenger equipment that probably wouldn't repay its investment?

Grade crossing elimination sounds like a much better idea on several levels, mainly for the reasons mentioned above.

[wallyworld]

In this country the Northeast Corridor is viewed by most as a solitary example of the potential of what is now known as high speed rail. What is less known is the fact that it was not always so.
The singular barrier to electrification is the capital cost. The Great Depression was one of the worst economic catastrophes in this country’s history. Yet, during this same period, the Pennsylvania Railroad electrified what is now known as The Northeast Corridor. The federal government through the WPA and RFC provided low cost loans in order to accompli***his massive project because it provided jobs sorely needed by its ultimate financier, the taxpayer.
While it can be debated whether or not we are now in a depression, one thing is clear, the number of jobs that provide a living wage are in a steep decline. I suggest that low cost loans be provided our rail carriers to electrify certain targeted lines. These would be lines that meet two criteria. An cooperative evaluation of these would be provided by a study undertaken by a committee of engineers in the public sector and railroad engineers in the private sector. These experts would determine the corridors where there is the most need for a viable alternative to air travel and the automobile. The other is a recognized need, which would be provided by the railroads if these corridors would accommodate the benefits of electrification in these corridors.
The benefit to the railroads would be increased capacity to carry tonnage and reduced running times. A secondary benefit would be a longer lifespan of motive power and a reduction in cost
of maintenance due to utilizing a technology with fewer moving parts when compared directly to diesel power. Another reason for all parties to undertake this study is to reduce damage to our atmosphere from emissions.
The creation of jobs is another. Providing a viable alternative to air and highway travel is another. The benefit to the public is based on a proviso that these loans can only be granted if the carriers agree to operate, albeit under a negotiated agreement, passenger service. This requires a public subsidy, perhaps through highway funds. However another benefit is the dismantlement of our federal operating company which is Amtrak which could be phased out as lines are completed.
Rather than build entirely new dedicated rights of way, let’s take an incremental approach based on cooperation and agreement. At least let the parties study the possibility. What have we got to lose?