4 ms·

Being from the EU for me all trains are electric (except many in Germany only) so I do not feel any special excitement but observe a thing: the idea of all wago

by kkfx 2y ago

Being from the EU for me all trains are electric (except many in Germany only) so I do not feel any special excitement but observe a thing: the idea of all wagon individually powered is ancient, very ancient, like monorails. Both ideas never get spread simply because they are too expensive instead of cheap, in practice. Electric motors are not expensive as diesel one, they are much more compact etc etc etc but are still much more expensive than a simple wagon without any engine. Meanwhile a larger electric locomotive it's still fast (for instance France TGV, Japan Shinkansen etc) and hyper-fast accelerations are not much welcomed by passengers, so it sound extra added complexity for little to no return. Something not different than some modern tram projects (city buses with electric motors, no battery, and a special trolley to allow get dedicated aerial electricity while rolling on wheels) that in theory sounds good (much less expensive in capex than create new rails in cities) but in practice have so much problems and costs that they are abandoned or will not be replaced because of that. For my little experience USA rails are much older than most EU ones (meaning, they are much less upgraded) and while that's might sound bad from some "modern" people actually IMVHO it is not much because so far ALL RAILS prove too be simply too costly for most usages, only some freight-only rails are effectively interested, passengers ones can't survive without big public contributions while offering a good service. The Swiss choose to waste an immense amount of resources to keep the service level high, pushing nearly empty trains around, all other countries tend to scale back (while formally state the contrary).

shiroiushi 2y ago
>the idea of all wagon individually powered is ancient, very ancient, like monorails. Both ideas never get spread simply because they are too expensive instead of cheap, in practice. >Meanwhile a larger electric locomotive it's still fast (for instance France TGV, Japan Shinkansen etc) What are you talking about? The shinkansen doesn't have any locomotives: all the cars are powered. >all other countries tend to scale back (while formally state the contrary). Japan is constantly scaling up their train service. The shinkansen is usually at full capacity, or more, which is why they're busy building the new maglev line from Tokyo to Nagoya (and later Osaka). The shinkansen system is quite profitable.
- kkfx 2y ago
  > The shinkansen doesn't have any locomotives: all the cars are powered. Maybe it's a translation issue: for locomotive I mean a both a dedicated wagon with no passengers and a single or two wagons with motors and passengers while all the others have no motors are just pushed/pulled by the "locomotive". > Japan is constantly scaling up their train service. Japan is not Tokyo, Osaka alone, it's much vast than that and economically it's passengers rails get MUCH from the State to be sustained. The issues with passengers is that you need to move them everywhere at every time, and a country is not few large (and unsustainable) cities sucking the entire country resources just to stand. You might have specific paths at specific times running at full/nearly full/overfull capacity, but we have 24h/day, 365 day/year. Or a system can satisfy 99% of the people needs or it's wasted resources, that's why https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/european-governments-railways-road-building-report-motorways-funding-rail https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/european-gover... and anyway take a look at http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg as a good dimension. I bet the situation in Japan it's not much different in that historical perspective. Consider a thing: having cars, buses, metro, trains means under-utilizing all, it's very expensive. Having a single tool that scale means efficiency. That's why in the past we have decided the "convergence toward IP" even if IP it's not the cheaper signaling protocol, not the simplest, the point is that we need it anyway, so for scaling it's better doing next-to-anything with it. For similar reasons we choose a convergence to electricity because we need it anyway so it's logic to try using it for all. Despite all the claims and the so far little tangible progress the transportation future is by air, because not needed to maintain large and fragile and hyper-expensive to evolve ground infra it's much cheaper than the energy we still need to flight especially with chopper-alike devices (like drones).
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Maybe it's a translation issue: for locomotive I mean a both a dedicated wagon with no passengers and a single or two wagons with motors and passengers while all the others have no motors are just pushed/pulled by the "locomotive". That's exactly what a locomotive is. The shinkansen trains don't have them. All the cars have motors and propel themselves. >The issues with passengers is that you need to move them everywhere at every time, and a country is not few large (and unsustainable) cities sucking the entire country resources just to stand. What are you talking about? Cities are very sustainable, that's why humans have been building them and living in them for thousands of years now. Cities are the engines of any modern economy. And no, you don't need to move passengers 24x7; most people sleep at late hours so you can shut things down at those times and let the few people who need to travel use other means. >Consider a thing: having cars, buses, metro, trains means under-utilizing all What are you talking about? Trains and buses here in Japan are not under-utilized at all. Cars are, but that's a problem everywhere and one of many reasons people shouldn't use them so much. >the transportation future is by air No, it really isn't, thanks to basic physics. Maybe if someone invents a low-energy anti-gravity device. Anyway, WTF is your point with all this? You just seem to be rambling with no point.
jonp888 2y ago
> the idea of all wagon individually powered is ancient, very ancient, like monorails. Both ideas never get spread simply because they are too expensive instead of cheap, in practice. > it sound extra added complexity for little to no return What on earth are you going on about? The vast majority of all current and new passenger trains in the EU are multiple units with no power car, because they are pretty much better in every possible way. They are cheaper to build and cheaper to operate(mainly due to being lighter overall) and can be shorter without reducing passenger capacity. Only a couple of the wagons are powered, more is not needed. > hyper-fast accelerations are not much welcomed by passengers Passengers want to get where they are going quickly. No train accelerates at a speed which causes discomfort to passengers.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Maybe it's a translation issue: I simply say most trains in the world are not self-propelled wagons but one ore two with motors and the others pulled/pushed by them. And no, in the EU most trains have a single or two locomotive, only metros have SOME all powered trains. > Passengers want to get where they are going quickly. No train accelerates at a speed which causes discomfort to passengers. Maybe you haven't used Milan's red lines where accelerations are enough to catapult anyone standing distracted at every start or stop. Remember that sometimes trains are crowded and nowadays it normal to have toilets always open because trains collect anything instead of freely discharging in nature, since more than two decades, so it's normal to have people standing while in start/stop phases.
  - danielhep 2y ago
    That's just not true. The most exported high speed train is the Siemens Velaro which has motors along the whole train. And multiple units are very common in regional and suburban trains, S Bahn style services.

by kkfx 2y ago

shiroiushi 2y ago

>the idea of all wagon individually powered is ancient, very ancient, like monorails. Both ideas never get spread simply because they are too expensive instead of cheap, in practice. >Meanwhile a larger electric locomotive it's still fast (for instance France TGV, Japan Shinkansen etc) What are you talking about? The shinkansen doesn't have any locomotives: all the cars are powered. >all other countries tend to scale back (while formally state the contrary). Japan is constantly scaling up their train service. The shinkansen is usually at full capacity, or more, which is why they're busy building the new maglev line from Tokyo to Nagoya (and later Osaka). The shinkansen system is quite profitable.

kkfx 2y ago
> The shinkansen doesn't have any locomotives: all the cars are powered. Maybe it's a translation issue: for locomotive I mean a both a dedicated wagon with no passengers and a single or two wagons with motors and passengers while all the others have no motors are just pushed/pulled by the "locomotive". > Japan is constantly scaling up their train service. Japan is not Tokyo, Osaka alone, it's much vast than that and economically it's passengers rails get MUCH from the State to be sustained. The issues with passengers is that you need to move them everywhere at every time, and a country is not few large (and unsustainable) cities sucking the entire country resources just to stand. You might have specific paths at specific times running at full/nearly full/overfull capacity, but we have 24h/day, 365 day/year. Or a system can satisfy 99% of the people needs or it's wasted resources, that's why https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/european-governments-railways-road-building-report-motorways-funding-rail https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/european-gover... and anyway take a look at http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg as a good dimension. I bet the situation in Japan it's not much different in that historical perspective. Consider a thing: having cars, buses, metro, trains means under-utilizing all, it's very expensive. Having a single tool that scale means efficiency. That's why in the past we have decided the "convergence toward IP" even if IP it's not the cheaper signaling protocol, not the simplest, the point is that we need it anyway, so for scaling it's better doing next-to-anything with it. For similar reasons we choose a convergence to electricity because we need it anyway so it's logic to try using it for all. Despite all the claims and the so far little tangible progress the transportation future is by air, because not needed to maintain large and fragile and hyper-expensive to evolve ground infra it's much cheaper than the energy we still need to flight especially with chopper-alike devices (like drones).
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Maybe it's a translation issue: for locomotive I mean a both a dedicated wagon with no passengers and a single or two wagons with motors and passengers while all the others have no motors are just pushed/pulled by the "locomotive". That's exactly what a locomotive is. The shinkansen trains don't have them. All the cars have motors and propel themselves. >The issues with passengers is that you need to move them everywhere at every time, and a country is not few large (and unsustainable) cities sucking the entire country resources just to stand. What are you talking about? Cities are very sustainable, that's why humans have been building them and living in them for thousands of years now. Cities are the engines of any modern economy. And no, you don't need to move passengers 24x7; most people sleep at late hours so you can shut things down at those times and let the few people who need to travel use other means. >Consider a thing: having cars, buses, metro, trains means under-utilizing all What are you talking about? Trains and buses here in Japan are not under-utilized at all. Cars are, but that's a problem everywhere and one of many reasons people shouldn't use them so much. >the transportation future is by air No, it really isn't, thanks to basic physics. Maybe if someone invents a low-energy anti-gravity device. Anyway, WTF is your point with all this? You just seem to be rambling with no point.

jonp888 2y ago

> the idea of all wagon individually powered is ancient, very ancient, like monorails. Both ideas never get spread simply because they are too expensive instead of cheap, in practice. > it sound extra added complexity for little to no return What on earth are you going on about? The vast majority of all current and new passenger trains in the EU are multiple units with no power car, because they are pretty much better in every possible way. They are cheaper to build and cheaper to operate(mainly due to being lighter overall) and can be shorter without reducing passenger capacity. Only a couple of the wagons are powered, more is not needed. > hyper-fast accelerations are not much welcomed by passengers Passengers want to get where they are going quickly. No train accelerates at a speed which causes discomfort to passengers.

kkfx 2y ago
Maybe it's a translation issue: I simply say most trains in the world are not self-propelled wagons but one ore two with motors and the others pulled/pushed by them. And no, in the EU most trains have a single or two locomotive, only metros have SOME all powered trains. > Passengers want to get where they are going quickly. No train accelerates at a speed which causes discomfort to passengers. Maybe you haven't used Milan's red lines where accelerations are enough to catapult anyone standing distracted at every start or stop. Remember that sometimes trains are crowded and nowadays it normal to have toilets always open because trains collect anything instead of freely discharging in nature, since more than two decades, so it's normal to have people standing while in start/stop phases.
- danielhep 2y ago
  That's just not true. The most exported high speed train is the Siemens Velaro which has motors along the whole train. And multiple units are very common in regional and suburban trains, S Bahn style services.