5 ms·

> In China, high-speed rail is all electric with externally supplied electricity. This isn’t hard, it’s just not the freight rail standard yet. The engines are

> In China, high-speed rail is all electric with externally supplied electricity. This isn’t hard, it’s just not the freight rail standard yet. The engines are all diesel electric hybrids as it is, so displacing the diesel part is relatively straightforward. This is hilarious.

salawat 7y ago
I concur. The American Transcontinental railway system had it's foundations laid in a time where full electrical generation and distribution were not by any means solved problems. Furthermore, the safety issues that would come with trying to use any of the previous rail infrastructure, (which one would be mad not to given how much of it there is) would make things nigh impossible to make work safely given the fact there is quite literally nothing separating people from the tracks. Which is not something would worthwhile to have to implement everywhere given that would consume far more energy to establish than it would save in operation for a very long time. Also, China's "high speed" rail formula is great for moving people around, but definitely not a regime you want to have to design around for freight. Freight is generally far more massive/dense than the same volume of people. Acceleration of that load to/from excessively high speeds is an engineering nightmare. Not impossible, but definitely expensive. That's just the points I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure someone in the industry would have more insight than I.
- rbanffy 7y ago
  > Acceleration of that load to/from excessively high speeds is an engineering nightmare Apart from reusing the same rails of passenger cars, there is no need to accelerate freight to high speeds - it can comfortably cruise at the most efficient speed. Also, if the freighters have onboard batteries, not all of the railroad needs to have external power supplied by overhanging cables. Add regenerating brakes and the trains will be able to charge themselves every time they are going down a slope.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  I can't imagine upgrading the US freight rail system with basic catenary technology to be that expensive. You don't really need all the fancy tensioning technology and stuff for a train that goes above 50mph maybe once a month; an offset electric pole would be enough. It's not that much more a safety issue than the 50 year old wooden electric poles we already have running mains voltage all over the country. Also in contrast to passenger services the US frieght system actually has a lot of money being thrown around so it'll be able to afford it. That being said I still think this article is a bit of a shill piece. Reinforced glass windshields aren't going to affect shit, especially when they are already mounted 6 feet off the ground and thus out of range of most kicked up road debris.
winrid 7y ago
What makes it hilarious?
- mcv 7y ago
  I guess that the US doesn't even have electrified rail yet. This has been standard all over Europe for many decades now. It's really low hanging fruit, that the US apparently never bothered with. So the US is going to end with diesel trains vs electric trucks. The complete opposite of the situation in most of the rest of the world.
  - mdszy 7y ago
    No, the hilarious part is how the author thinks it's trivial to replace all existing railways that diesel trains use with electrified ones. That's an immense infrastructure project that is almost certainly not financially worth it.
    - silverreads 7y ago
      Depends on power transmission efficiency.
      - mcv 7y ago
        It depends primarily on how much they're used. Trains are used a lot in western Europe, which makes electrification very much worth it. But if you only get one train per day, it's probably better to stick to diesel.
      - mdszy 7y ago
        No. It depends on how much it costs to erect thousands upon thousands of miles of transmission lines.

salawat 7y ago

I concur. The American Transcontinental railway system had it's foundations laid in a time where full electrical generation and distribution were not by any means solved problems. Furthermore, the safety issues that would come with trying to use any of the previous rail infrastructure, (which one would be mad not to given how much of it there is) would make things nigh impossible to make work safely given the fact there is quite literally nothing separating people from the tracks. Which is not something would worthwhile to have to implement everywhere given that would consume far more energy to establish than it would save in operation for a very long time. Also, China's "high speed" rail formula is great for moving people around, but definitely not a regime you want to have to design around for freight. Freight is generally far more massive/dense than the same volume of people. Acceleration of that load to/from excessively high speeds is an engineering nightmare. Not impossible, but definitely expensive. That's just the points I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure someone in the industry would have more insight than I.

rbanffy 7y ago
> Acceleration of that load to/from excessively high speeds is an engineering nightmare Apart from reusing the same rails of passenger cars, there is no need to accelerate freight to high speeds - it can comfortably cruise at the most efficient speed. Also, if the freighters have onboard batteries, not all of the railroad needs to have external power supplied by overhanging cables. Add regenerating brakes and the trains will be able to charge themselves every time they are going down a slope.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
I can't imagine upgrading the US freight rail system with basic catenary technology to be that expensive. You don't really need all the fancy tensioning technology and stuff for a train that goes above 50mph maybe once a month; an offset electric pole would be enough. It's not that much more a safety issue than the 50 year old wooden electric poles we already have running mains voltage all over the country. Also in contrast to passenger services the US frieght system actually has a lot of money being thrown around so it'll be able to afford it. That being said I still think this article is a bit of a shill piece. Reinforced glass windshields aren't going to affect shit, especially when they are already mounted 6 feet off the ground and thus out of range of most kicked up road debris.

winrid 7y ago

What makes it hilarious?

mcv 7y ago
I guess that the US doesn't even have electrified rail yet. This has been standard all over Europe for many decades now. It's really low hanging fruit, that the US apparently never bothered with. So the US is going to end with diesel trains vs electric trucks. The complete opposite of the situation in most of the rest of the world.
- mdszy 7y ago
  No, the hilarious part is how the author thinks it's trivial to replace all existing railways that diesel trains use with electrified ones. That's an immense infrastructure project that is almost certainly not financially worth it.
  - silverreads 7y ago
    Depends on power transmission efficiency.
    - mcv 7y ago
      It depends primarily on how much they're used. Trains are used a lot in western Europe, which makes electrification very much worth it. But if you only get one train per day, it's probably better to stick to diesel.
    - mdszy 7y ago
      No. It depends on how much it costs to erect thousands upon thousands of miles of transmission lines.