5 ms·
That headline was so misleading. I'm interested in the topic and saw that link on HN, but scrolled away because dieselgate is "obviously" about emissions and I
by Yizahi 3y ago
That headline was so misleading. I'm interested in the topic and saw that link on HN, but scrolled away because dieselgate is "obviously" about emissions and I assumed that nothing new will come from the article about train emissions, we all know already they are big polluters but we kinda have to deal with it.
They should have mentioned something about vendor lock or right to repair in the headline.
- rsynnott 3y ago> I assumed that nothing new will come from the article about train emissions, we all know already they are big polluters but we kinda have to deal with it. ... Eh? Trains, to be clear, are not big polluters; not sure what made you think that.
- krisoft 3y agoEspecially since these trains in particular are electric.
- Yizahi 3y agoIn absolute values, not relative per ton of cargo or compared to other modes of transport. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, for that I'm sorry. I do support trains everywhere and think they are the best land transport we have by far. I was merely thinking that a diesel engine is a diesel, even if a train vendor fudge the emissions somehow (hence the reference to the Volkswagen dieselgate, I thought it meant) it wouldn't matter much on the planetary scale. Thus not particularly interesting. But instead this was all about electronics and malicious locks, which wasn't apparent from the headline.
- aftbit 3y agoIMO this is really what Dieselgate was about. Not specifically fudging the emissions, but hiding secret code to do so during specific test profiles, then lying about it afterwards. Analogously, these trains hid secret code to disable them after being taken to certain locations.
- mschuster91 3y ago> ... Eh? Trains, to be clear, are not big polluters; not sure what made you think that. Modern diesel engines yes, but the old ones? They got barely any emission controls, only for locomotives built after the 90s there is regulations [1]. On top of that comes brake dust [2] which is only irrelevant in powered-car electric passenger trains with regenerative braking - every other train releases insane amounts of it, no surprise given that the brakes have power outputs in the megawatt range. [1] https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-emissions-locomotives https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engin... [2] https://www.railwaygazette.com/vehicles/reducing-brake-dust-to-improve-air-quality/57959.article https://www.railwaygazette.com/vehicles/reducing-brake-dust-...
- dirtyhippiefree 3y agoRight above you it explicitly states the trains are •electric• and not diesel. RTFA
- mschuster91 3y agoAs said: Electric trains are not emissions-free due to the brake dust.
- lillecarl 3y agoBy that measure nothing is emissions free, me walking down the road will generate a bit of rubber / asphalt dust. Also regenerative braking... Trains are amazing
- jacquesm 3y agoWhat is it with this thread? You're the second person to bring up the most wild stuff. When I walk I kick up dust. And I breathe. I guess I'm also not emissions free even when I cycle? Brake dust and all that?
- Symbiote 3y agoMany trains have rheostatic brakes, where the kinetic energy is converted to heat using a bank of resistors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking
- londons_explore 3y ago> we all know already they are big polluters but we kinda have to deal with it. There is a lot of variation in train emissions, but most modern ones (electrified) have minimal emissions - and far lower than electric cars even, per passenger mile or per tonnage transported. Even the oldest ones in common use (diesel electric) are more efficient per ton-mile and passenger mile than a typical car.
- Yizahi 3y agoI've tried to explain myself in the comment below, sorry for the confusion.