5 ms·

It seems like they've chosen to not lay power lines down the length, which simplifies some things and allows them to reduce the tunnel size. But limits their dr

It seems like they've chosen to not lay power lines down the length, which simplifies some things and allows them to reduce the tunnel size. But limits their drivetrains to only short bursts of use before needing to be recharged.

mikeyouse 8y ago
Tesla batteries push extremely heavy cars 300+ miles.. if this loop is 5 miles, the "short bursts" would equate to 60 trips.
- gnode 8y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. These train cars will be going somewhat faster, and accelerating and decelerating a lot more than a typical long distance highway journey. Of course I'm sure they'll employ regenerative breaking, but even so, it's a lot of energy to load and unload from the battery over and over again.
semi-extrinsic 8y ago
They are, however, laying power lines to have illumination of the entire tunnel. Seems more like they're doing batteries because that's something they have already, not because it's the optimal solution.
- trainmew 8y ago
  I don't quite see the purpose of illuminating the entire tunnel unless they're using their autonomous driving tech which uses a camera. If so, they've just put a single point of failure on their lighting systems.
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    To show it off, obviously. It would be silly of them to use self driving tech when theres already solution on the market. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Flenser 8y ago
      It makes sense in that it: - reuses technology Tesla have already developed and are familiar with - increases sales of said tech - a controlled setting where they can get more data about real-world performance of their tech - introduces their tech to punters
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  The lines to power LEDs over a few miles are several orders of magnitude cheaper than lines and infrastructure capable of delivering power to a Subway car. The LA Metro runs on 750V DC.. the transmission and switching/transforming for that amount of power isnt cheap.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    You'll have to switch/transform/transmit exactly the same (or bigger) amount of power for charging batteries with this solution. And you'll definitely have more electricity losses when you have to go through a battery.
    - mikeyouse 8y ago
      But you can centralize that technology at the terminals instead of burying / waterproofing extremely thick cables for miles and miles. There's no doubt it will be less efficient, especially since the cars are carrying their batteries but the whole point of this is to cut CapEx by 90+% and eliminating miles of power lines is an important part of that effort. It's a lower level of importance over this 3 mile trip, but it's not uncommon for power upgrades/maintenance to be a multi hundred million dollar Annual outlay for large transit systems.
      - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        OTOH you are forgetting about the CapEx of the batteries, which looks to be in the ballpark of $1M-$10M depending on number of "skates" etc. That's $1M per mile of track (order of magnitude), which is the same as what METRANS estimates is the cost of retrofitting a third rail on existing rail track. As a rule of thumb, retrofits are significantly more expensive per mile, so I'd say odds are better than even the batteries are more expensive than a third rail. A well-executed new metro line development, like the MetroSur line in Madrid, runs at around $60M per mile total cost including everything, all the construction and the trains and the stations and property rights. If you want to improve on that by 90%+, you can't afford much more than just the batteries and the "skates" for this Dugout line.

mikeyouse 8y ago

Tesla batteries push extremely heavy cars 300+ miles.. if this loop is 5 miles, the "short bursts" would equate to 60 trips.

gnode 8y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. These train cars will be going somewhat faster, and accelerating and decelerating a lot more than a typical long distance highway journey. Of course I'm sure they'll employ regenerative breaking, but even so, it's a lot of energy to load and unload from the battery over and over again.

semi-extrinsic 8y ago

They are, however, laying power lines to have illumination of the entire tunnel. Seems more like they're doing batteries because that's something they have already, not because it's the optimal solution.

trainmew 8y ago
I don't quite see the purpose of illuminating the entire tunnel unless they're using their autonomous driving tech which uses a camera. If so, they've just put a single point of failure on their lighting systems.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  To show it off, obviously. It would be silly of them to use self driving tech when theres already solution on the market. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Flenser 8y ago
    It makes sense in that it: - reuses technology Tesla have already developed and are familiar with - increases sales of said tech - a controlled setting where they can get more data about real-world performance of their tech - introduces their tech to punters
mikeyouse 8y ago
The lines to power LEDs over a few miles are several orders of magnitude cheaper than lines and infrastructure capable of delivering power to a Subway car. The LA Metro runs on 750V DC.. the transmission and switching/transforming for that amount of power isnt cheap.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  You'll have to switch/transform/transmit exactly the same (or bigger) amount of power for charging batteries with this solution. And you'll definitely have more electricity losses when you have to go through a battery.
  - mikeyouse 8y ago
    But you can centralize that technology at the terminals instead of burying / waterproofing extremely thick cables for miles and miles. There's no doubt it will be less efficient, especially since the cars are carrying their batteries but the whole point of this is to cut CapEx by 90+% and eliminating miles of power lines is an important part of that effort. It's a lower level of importance over this 3 mile trip, but it's not uncommon for power upgrades/maintenance to be a multi hundred million dollar Annual outlay for large transit systems.
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      OTOH you are forgetting about the CapEx of the batteries, which looks to be in the ballpark of $1M-$10M depending on number of "skates" etc. That's $1M per mile of track (order of magnitude), which is the same as what METRANS estimates is the cost of retrofitting a third rail on existing rail track. As a rule of thumb, retrofits are significantly more expensive per mile, so I'd say odds are better than even the batteries are more expensive than a third rail. A well-executed new metro line development, like the MetroSur line in Madrid, runs at around $60M per mile total cost including everything, all the construction and the trains and the stations and property rights. If you want to improve on that by 90%+, you can't afford much more than just the batteries and the "skates" for this Dugout line.