• Mihies@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 days ago

    But still, wouldn’t wires over the train make more sense - no distance limits, no charge time, lighter train, no batteries required and perhaps better efficiency. Infrastructure would be one time investment. 🤷‍♂️

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      Some of our railway routes are the oldest in the world. Tunnels and bridges weren’t built with the consideration of overhead electrification. So what do you do?

      Electrify the parts you can and have trains that can run without external supply for the bits you can’t electrify.

    • dillekant@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      There’s still a pay-off time. For inter-city travel where the distance is long or the usage is low, it might be worth doing this, if only in the short term.

      It might also break the cycle of no demand leading to no supply leading to no demand etc.

    • Baggins@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Those wires and associated infrastructure need maintenance, security and constant upkeep and monitoring.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yes, sure, like every technology out there. But the maintenance is cheap compared to initial investment. I guess one can compare it to batteries having limited cycles, faults and even catch fire.