I mean, diesel electric weren’t that terrible either, I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard the generator running while on one of those. Obviously full electric is better, but they must’ve been a really terrible implementation to begin with if they had all the downsides mentioned in the article.
Diesel-electric trains have the disadvantage of needing to carry their own fuel, making them heavier and increasing wear on the track. The engines need more maintenance as well, as they are more complicated.
Aren’t most diesel trains diesel-electric, except perhaps for bus-like “sprinter” units?
I’m not denying there’s downsides, but compared to cars the step from Diesel-electric to full electric isn’t that huge from an environment and experience perspective.
If you have frequent traffic on a line, it pays for itself in lower running and maintenance costs and improved speed and acceleration.
That, of course, assumes you have the right of way, which does not apply in large parts of the US, where freight operators for whom electrification doesn’t work own the lines.
The US freight companies are largely run by private equity, who squeeze everything they can out of existing infrastructure with minimal investment, which is shown by the handling of the East Palestine derailment (not just the derailment itself, but also the intentional blowing up of cars in order to free up the line faster).
They wouldn’t do an investment they only pays off long term like that.
Because going electric is very expensive, probably requires some legislation depending on where the railway is.
For example there are many very short railways inside cities to access docks or industrial zones, those tracks have usually one or two trains a day, which is very low traffic, and can be located extremely close to housing. In that case it’s really complicated to electrify it.
The issue is, if you want to go electric, you need 100% electric, not 95. So it makes way more sense for freight to go diesel-electric like today
The rest of the SF Bay Area has fast electric trains, just this section doesn’t because a bunch of racists in the 60’s pulled out during the planning phase to maintain separation from the “urban” folks.
In my city they built a new shiny east-west electric line that fails every week, and they took out the old north-south diesel line for upgrades (but not electrification), which was way more reliable.
Granted, I’m sure the reliability and power source are not correlated here, just my city transit commission (of late) is corrupt as fuck, so anything new sucks.
The north-south upgrades were supposed to be done two years ago… I yearn for the day…
Americans discover what the rest of the world has known for a hundred years: that electric trains are just plain better
I mean, diesel electric weren’t that terrible either, I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard the generator running while on one of those. Obviously full electric is better, but they must’ve been a really terrible implementation to begin with if they had all the downsides mentioned in the article.
I sometimes ride diesel-electric trains. It’s definitely noisier but it’s not super loud inside the carriages.
My country has some cheap CAF diesel stock that’s as noisy as a bus.
Then on the flip side we have the diesel electrics which are MUCH quieter, but you definitely feel the vibration when moving off
And finally the more uncommon full electrics which are better in every way… acceleration, noise, vibration, speed
Diesel-electric trains have the disadvantage of needing to carry their own fuel, making them heavier and increasing wear on the track. The engines need more maintenance as well, as they are more complicated.
Aren’t most diesel trains diesel-electric, except perhaps for bus-like “sprinter” units?
I’m not denying there’s downsides, but compared to cars the step from Diesel-electric to full electric isn’t that huge from an environment and experience perspective.
If you have frequent traffic on a line, it pays for itself in lower running and maintenance costs and improved speed and acceleration.
That, of course, assumes you have the right of way, which does not apply in large parts of the US, where freight operators for whom electrification doesn’t work own the lines.
deleted by creator
The US freight companies are largely run by private equity, who squeeze everything they can out of existing infrastructure with minimal investment, which is shown by the handling of the East Palestine derailment (not just the derailment itself, but also the intentional blowing up of cars in order to free up the line faster).
They wouldn’t do an investment they only pays off long term like that.
@jonne Yeah, many things need fixing ;)
Because going electric is very expensive, probably requires some legislation depending on where the railway is.
For example there are many very short railways inside cities to access docks or industrial zones, those tracks have usually one or two trains a day, which is very low traffic, and can be located extremely close to housing. In that case it’s really complicated to electrify it.
The issue is, if you want to go electric, you need 100% electric, not 95. So it makes way more sense for freight to go diesel-electric like today
The rest of the SF Bay Area has fast electric trains, just this section doesn’t because a bunch of racists in the 60’s pulled out during the planning phase to maintain separation from the “urban” folks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit
In my city they built a new shiny east-west electric line that fails every week, and they took out the old north-south diesel line for upgrades (but not electrification), which was way more reliable.
Granted, I’m sure the reliability and power source are not correlated here, just my city transit commission (of late) is corrupt as fuck, so anything new sucks.
The north-south upgrades were supposed to be done two years ago… I yearn for the day…