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. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
53 points (98.2% liked)
Green Energy
2229 readers
37 users here now
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
Those wires and associated infrastructure need maintenance, security and constant upkeep and monitoring.
and yet magically most of the rest of the world manages that just fine
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.