• intelisense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        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.