this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
57 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

40 readers
2 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Did the UK not electrify their rail network??

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah, this is the real question

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago

Bits of it are. Entirely depends where you are.

[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Most of the UK network is electrified with a third rail. Some is overhead, but significant parts are not electrified at all.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cool, but come on, put some over head wires up!

[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I wonder if overhead wires make sense with the state of battery technology now? It must be cheaper to build battery-powered trains than install and maintain all that infra before you even factor in the cost of adjusting bridges and tunnels to accommodate the overhead wires.

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago

Unlikely. Batteries are still incredibly expensive, also heavy and a consumable item (need to be regularly replaced). Overhead wires don't work for 1 train, but for all of them. They are also a mostly permanent installation with comparatively cheap maintenance (they are just steel+paint for the most part).

It's surely fine for a fringe route, where a train or two runs, and that would need electrification for a lot of track. So I'd assume there's a break even point somewhere.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What are you talking about?

Batteries have planety of drawbacks compared to overhead wires.

  • Weight - Batteries way a LOT, meaning that locomotives need to be stronger, meaning they will be heavier, meaning that need stronger bridges and sturdier tracks.
  • Lifetime - Batteries are consumed as they are used and recharged, they are also not as easy/cheap to replace as pantographs.
  • Range - Batteries has limited range, normal electric trains have unlimited range.
  • Charge time - Batteries need charging, normal electric trains does not.

Normal electric trains are technically the ideal transportation, you have unlimited range and don't need to carry the fuel.

[–] sonori 3 points 1 week ago

Don’t forget acceleration, one of the main reasons passenger trains care about weight is that you can get up to and down from line speed quicker, thusly saving trip time and allowing for more frequency/capacity from the same number of trains and drivers.

The extra weight from the batteries means you don’t get said benefits from going to battery electric as compared to overhead line.

[–] BlackLaZoR@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

slashes fuel costs by up to 50 per cent

And the cost of the battery will be recovered in... How many years?

[–] voidx@futurology.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

come on, guy

12ft.io/https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4377445/uk-battery-powered-train-slashes-fuel-costs-cent

[–] voidx@futurology.today 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

no it sure doesn't, I apologize for my somewhat condescending tone

I tried a few paywall breakers but none of them work.

For that site, think unless you're subscribed, that url is just that page with the "continue reading" as part of the html with the rest of the article not actually there.

subscribers would have a different url with the entire article. its not javascript based paywall, which 12ft.io is quite adept at passing up, generally, so I assumed it'd work.

this is why we dont assume!!

[–] voidx@futurology.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's alright. Yeah sites have caught up with tools like 12ft these days.

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

booooooooooooo