• cmfhsu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well a battery electric train is probably useful for those routes with a section that isn’t powered.

    Not sure if it would be awfully cleaner than a diesel electric train, because those are already pretty efficient as I understand it.

      • cmfhsu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Because there already are tracks without electricity where I live. When coming from a nearby major city by me, the train has to stop for 40 minutes while they switch from an electric to diesel power car. Same process while taking a train into the city, switching from diesel to electric.

        • teolan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          But even in that case it’s 10x better to have more frequent, cheaper diesel trains than having insanely expensive and heavy battery trains.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not a rail expert, but I thought for some reason that rails without electricity would be too old/unmaintained to be allowed to serve passenger traffic, lol.

          40 minutes? I would have imagined that everyone would hop off at the station, they’d then drive out to a parking junction, and then drive back the electric train to the station for people to load in again. Isn’t it also very expensive to take the train (you’re from the US I assume)? Not weird that no one wants to take it when it’s in such bad situations :/