3 ms·

But again, if electricity is cheap enough, why not electric trains like we do in Europe? Or hydrogen if you need some energy storage on board? See http://www.im

But again, if electricity is cheap enough, why not electric trains like we do in Europe? Or hydrogen if you need some energy storage on board? See http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-trains-be-the-future-of-rail http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-train... I bet that this would be much better for the environment than algae.

ac29 8y ago
>why not electric trains like we do in Europe? While electrification of the US freight rail network certainly may happen, you have to remember the US is twice as large as the EU (9.1M sq km vs 4.5M sq km) and only a quarter the population density (33 vs 117 per sq km). Long distance passenger train routes don't really make sense (electrified or not, very few people want to spend 2 days on the train when a flight is 4 hours), meaning rail in the US is almost entirely freight.
- ip26 8y ago
  I haven't gone deep into the economics, but I've found rail cost several times as much for a 30 hour ride with nowhere to sleep, compared to the 2 hour flight or 20 hour drive. So of course ridership is low. Some intersection of actually-competitive pricing and higher speed tracks, and it seems like rail would have the potential to be plenty competitive. Lower vehicle purchae, maintenance & fuel costs, greater comfort. If I could make a 2 hour flight in 4 or 6 hours by train for 90% of the cost, I'd probably never fly again.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  China has a similar size to the USA and has invested heavily in HSR as an alternative to flying. Beijing to Guangzhou is 9 hours by train, which is pretty competitive with a flight when considering travel time to/from airports as well as the other hassle. China also does a lot of freight and has gone through a lot of electrification (75%). Freight runs between Beijing and Lhasa, which is similar to NYC to LA.
nradov 8y ago
Short range commuter rail will be electrified in some places like Caltrain. http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Electric-Multiple-Unit-EMU-trains.html http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/... Hydrogen is probably a dead end. It's too bulky, hard to handle, and the energy efficiency is terrible. Most hydrogen fuel today is produced from natural gas, which is just stupid.
toast0 8y ago
To my knowledge, Europe doesn't have an extensive network of freight railways, instead it has a working network of passenger rail, with lots of electrification. The US freight network hasn't yet managed to fully rollout positive train control, electrification seems like a much harder problem. Moving freight requires a lot more power than moving people, and also has a lot more sidings and things. Some lines run double height cars, which I'm guessing would add additonal complications.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Europe has freight rail, they often use separate tracks, and most of it is electrified. China has a lot of freight, is as large as the USA, and has a decent amount of electrification as well.

ac29 8y ago

>why not electric trains like we do in Europe? While electrification of the US freight rail network certainly may happen, you have to remember the US is twice as large as the EU (9.1M sq km vs 4.5M sq km) and only a quarter the population density (33 vs 117 per sq km). Long distance passenger train routes don't really make sense (electrified or not, very few people want to spend 2 days on the train when a flight is 4 hours), meaning rail in the US is almost entirely freight.

ip26 8y ago
I haven't gone deep into the economics, but I've found rail cost several times as much for a 30 hour ride with nowhere to sleep, compared to the 2 hour flight or 20 hour drive. So of course ridership is low. Some intersection of actually-competitive pricing and higher speed tracks, and it seems like rail would have the potential to be plenty competitive. Lower vehicle purchae, maintenance & fuel costs, greater comfort. If I could make a 2 hour flight in 4 or 6 hours by train for 90% of the cost, I'd probably never fly again.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
China has a similar size to the USA and has invested heavily in HSR as an alternative to flying. Beijing to Guangzhou is 9 hours by train, which is pretty competitive with a flight when considering travel time to/from airports as well as the other hassle. China also does a lot of freight and has gone through a lot of electrification (75%). Freight runs between Beijing and Lhasa, which is similar to NYC to LA.

nradov 8y ago

Short range commuter rail will be electrified in some places like Caltrain. http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Electric-Multiple-Unit-EMU-trains.html http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/... Hydrogen is probably a dead end. It's too bulky, hard to handle, and the energy efficiency is terrible. Most hydrogen fuel today is produced from natural gas, which is just stupid.

toast0 8y ago

To my knowledge, Europe doesn't have an extensive network of freight railways, instead it has a working network of passenger rail, with lots of electrification. The US freight network hasn't yet managed to fully rollout positive train control, electrification seems like a much harder problem. Moving freight requires a lot more power than moving people, and also has a lot more sidings and things. Some lines run double height cars, which I'm guessing would add additonal complications.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Europe has freight rail, they often use separate tracks, and most of it is electrified. China has a lot of freight, is as large as the USA, and has a decent amount of electrification as well.