More critically, unlike the US, in Switzerland, when freight is overtaken by passenger rail, the freight not only is supposed to but also can and does shunt aside to let the passenger rail through, and since the electrification is to permit ruling grades as steep as 2.6% (~1:40), freight is normally slower than passenger rail.

Hence the base tunnels ... to get longer freight trains moving at a speed to allow it to make more progress before shunting aside to allow passenger trains to overtake, the base tunnels allow the ruling grade to be brought down to 1.2% (~1:80) overland and 0.7% (~1:140) in the tunnels themselves.

The US already has the mainlines that allow longer freight trains to move at their own pace without constantly shunting aside to let passenger trains through. Electrifying those corridors will reduce their operating costs and also upgrade their capacity, given the higher power/weight ratio of electric versus diesel electric traction.

That upgrade in capacity will allow rail operators to chase business that is at present marginal.

And at the same time and more critically in terms of total impact on the status of the US as a dependent economy, the US mainlines tend to be 1% grades (1:100), and even lines crossing the Rockies can be routed so that the majority of the long haul route is at that grade. A combination of 100mph paths on the flatter terrain that include superelevation (banking) to allow curves to be taken at 90mph~100mph without excessive wear, and 40mph~50mph paths with 2.5% grades to cut out extended switchbacks in the rough terrain offers a substantially faster path for freight ... and at the same time the existing heavy freight paths with their existing capacity support faster conventional freight with lower operating costs.

Its not a conversion of existing capacity, but an upgrade of existing capacity and addition of new capacity.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.