The presence of overhead equipment for electrification is orthogonal; the real issue is loading gauge, a cross-section profile that defines the minimum car size that the most restrictive segment of a line must support. Usually, tunnels end up being the limiting factor, since these tend to be much costlier to design to accommodate larger cars. For instance, CSX carries double-stack containers on Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and Washington under catenary, with a vertical clearance above top of rail of 5.54 m [1]. Compare with UIC G2 gauge, which only offers 4.65 m ATOR [2].
I don't know why parent is talking about triple stacking containers. That's completely infeasible; the tallest common loading gauge in America (AAR Plate H, or 6.3 m) doesn't even come close to fitting 7.8 m = 3 × 2.6 m (about the height of a container).
[1] http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/S...
This is a great comment and really interesting. Can you suggest a reliable source to read more about rail standards and loading constraints?
The American rail network is optimized for freight. Outside of a few lines in the Northeast it's not really an option for intercity travel. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to San Francisco (a 6-7 hour drive) there's only one train per day, it's expensive, and it takes twelve hours to make the trip. It's more of an amusement park ride than a way to get somewhere.
But if you want to get something shipped rail is cheap and reliable (if not particularly fast).
Re:Why Britain has ‘ghost trains’
by jsprogrammer on Thursday July 23, 2015 @04:12PM
(#9938187)
They don't have to be double stacked and often aren't. However, I have seen a number of double stacked trains and I'm sure it is highly dependent on the route (no short tunnels, etc) and shipping demand.
A curious case of technological leapfrogging (in a sense; I rather prefer the electrified network even at the cost of no double stacked freight trains).