• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

    • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • LovesTha🥧@floss.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            @AllNewTypeFace @jonne Why wouldn’t freight go electric? I know some of the coal trains lines in Australia are electric, which I understand is a bit of a different beast to freight, but it is similar in most ways.

            • jonne@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

            • faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              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