Costs of expanding the freight rail system?

Hi new here...
As the cost of a barrel of oil escalates, and as freight shipment moves away from trucks, I was wondering what the costs would be of significantly expanding the rail system.

Does anyone have any information, or can point me to sources for the following:

1) Average cost to construct 1 mile of rail.
2) Are there any viable alternates to diesel powered locomotives?
3) I know that currently 377 tonnes can be transported 1 mile by 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Are we at the top in terms of fuel efficiencies with the diesel locomotive or can more significant gains be made? (Say sacrificing speed or something)
4) Are there any other logistical or other problems with significantly increasing rail capacity?

Thanks!

[Russian]

2) In Europe electric locomotives are a very popular alrentive. As electricity can come from hydro dams, coal plants, etc., it makes sence to have it, especially with high traffic volume.
3) Efficency is constantly being improved (or so the RR's tell us), by the whole Green goat concept for instance. I think GE is building a mainline locomotive like that, that will be way more efficent.
4) Doubletracking, triple tracking etc., can be a problem in some areas such as tunnels, but otherwise I really don't see a problem. Why, so much rail lines have been abondened, I don't think putting them back online would be much of a problem, not mentioning building new routes. If RR lines could be layed cross-country 120 years ago, they can certainly do it today.

I don't really know much, just using my head here...

If there was a coup in Saudi Arabia by Bin Laden, or say a true geological oil supply issue driven by the insatiable demand from China et al, and oil prices skyrocketed, hobbling freight movement via truck (and obviously impacting rail too, but less so) it would seem to me that rail would be the best option. But the impression I’m getting is that you don’t hold out a lot of hope for the ability to quickly (say within 5-10 years) expand the RR infrastructure. Is that accurate? Has it been neglected too long, and are there too many special interests or other factors that would prevent a great renaissance in rail transport?
If not, what would it take to really make a difference? What would you do if you were a Rail Czar? Your job is to double or triple the capacity of the system, bearing in mind that diesel costs have increased significantly. Is it possible?

[LAHDPOP]

Originally Posted by FatherofTwo

But the impression I’m getting is that you don’t hold out a lot of hope for the ability to quickly (say within 5-10 years) expand the RR infrastructure. Is that accurate? Has it been neglected too long, and are there too many special interests or other factors that would prevent a great renaissance in rail transport?
If not, what would it take to really make a difference? What would you do if you were a Rail Czar? Your job is to double or triple the capacity of the system, bearing in mind that diesel costs have increased significantly. Is it possible?

One thing you need to keep in mind: you're obviously talking about a HUGE amount of capital to build this expansion. Who's gonna pay? The individual railroads? They can't. It's too much money, and too much financial risk; if the market goes sour, and oil prices suddenly drop through the floor, then they're left holding the bill for thousands of miles of trackage and signaling that are now excess. Plus, even if the prices and demand held constant, the RR's profit margins are in general very small. So to make back their investment money, they would have to be assured of an exponential increase in traffic flow. Since there's no guarantee of that, the stockholders (and lending institutions) are going to be very wary of such a huge spending spree, no matter how well intentioned it is.

No, the only answer would be for the Feds to step up and foot the bill. And in this country, that's not gonna happen any time soon. Sure, they pay for the roads the trucks use, and the airports and electronic airways the airlines use, but they want no part of paying for one cross-tie (unless it's the Alaska Railroad, but don't get me started on that...). And what if they did pay? Would that mean that they now have a hand in the decision making at the railroads? Would the Fed set freight prices? Would they mandate the use of rail wherever feasible? No, all of that would take an actual National Policy on rail, in more than just name. And that's something that this country simply does not have. These trains run for profit, and any decisions about capital investment have to pass the benefit vs risk test. I don't think such a huge, all-at-once expansion of capacity could ever pass such a test.