Electrics, was Re: Steam (NW Mailing List)

[NW Mailing List]

I generally agree that skimping on infrastructure is poor policy in  
the long run.  However, my comments were in the context of government- 
funded electrifications in the US (and Europe) which are somewhat  
"gold-plated", which is appropriate, given gov't's' lower cost of  
capital and the uncertainties of gov't maintenance subsidies.  You  
don't need 125 mph overhead line equipment for a freight RR.

OTOH, I don't really know how much could be saved in OHL construction  
by designing it for a max speed of 80 or so.  I read years ago the  
British Rail had a successful design of simple trolley wire (no  
catenary support) that was good for 60 MPH, and pantograph design has  
evolved since then.  (On the third hand, the mass of the catenary  
messenger wire cuts down on the need for feeders, etc.)

One good side effect of the limitations of electrification in super- 
heavy-haul service might be to deter US RRs' historic tendency to run  
enormous trains at low speeds thereby making them uncompetitive in  
the general or high-value freight market.

pete groom

On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:57 PM, NW Mailing List wrote:

NW Mailing List wrote:

>



> . . .


It is my opinion that shortcuts in infrastructure are a bad idea.   
Any heavy improvements, such as electrification, ought to be designed  
with excess capacity for the (hopefully) inevitable future growth in  
both freight and high speed passenger services.  Look at cities that  
only add a lane to a road when the congestion becomes intolerable.   
By the time the work is done, the newly completed roads are already  
at or beyond capacity.  It is more expensive short term, but less so  
long term, to design and build ahead of current needs.


> . . .