While every other country comes to that conclusion, somehow in the US we keep deciding that running wires is too expensive and we can save money with hydrogen fuel cells or fast charging batteries.

Probably because the cost numbers for systems that have never been demonstrated can get away with magical optimism, while existing technologies are constrained by historical data.

There should be pretty reliable data on electrification costs for a freight railway and how the operational costs add up. If it were a substantial business advantage over diesel-electric, why aren't the privately owned rail companies doing it already?

Running wires here, on a train network carrying a billion tonnes per annum, is a bit silly for various valid engineering reasons.

Battery trains make sense, they're on order ATM:

https://www.riotinto.com/news/releases/2022/Rio-Tinto-purcha...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-20/challenge...

    Rio Tinto purchased the four 7MWh FLXdrive battery-electric locomotives from Wabtec Corporation with production due to commence in the United States in 2023 ahead of initial trials in the Pilbara in early 2024.

    The locomotives, used to carry ore from the company’s mines to its ports, will be recharged at purpose-built charging stations at the port or mine. They will also be capable of generating additional energy while in transit through a regenerative braking system which takes energy from the train and uses it to recharge the onboard batteries.

> why aren't the privately owned rail companies doing it already

It prevents double stacking rail cars

"freight railway". Why only freight?