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.
@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.
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
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.
@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.
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
@faercol Yeah, but those ones in cities are the best case noise reduction from no diesel engines ;)