Futurology

1851 readers

117 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

109

'UK first' battery powered train slashes fuel costs by up to 50 per cent (www.businessgreen.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I wonder if overhead wires make sense with the state of battery technology now? It must be cheaper to build battery-powered trains than install and maintain all that infra before you even factor in the cost of adjusting bridges and tunnels to accommodate the overhead wires.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Unlikely. Batteries are still incredibly expensive, also heavy and a consumable item (need to be regularly replaced). Overhead wires don't work for 1 train, but for all of them. They are also a mostly permanent installation with comparatively cheap maintenance (they are just steel+paint for the most part).

It's surely fine for a fringe route, where a train or two runs, and that would need electrification for a lot of track. So I'd assume there's a break even point somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What are you talking about?

Batteries have planety of drawbacks compared to overhead wires.

Weight - Batteries way a LOT, meaning that locomotives need to be stronger, meaning they will be heavier, meaning that need stronger bridges and sturdier tracks.
Lifetime - Batteries are consumed as they are used and recharged, they are also not as easy/cheap to replace as pantographs.
Range - Batteries has limited range, normal electric trains have unlimited range.
Charge time - Batteries need charging, normal electric trains does not.

Normal electric trains are technically the ideal transportation, you have unlimited range and don't need to carry the fuel.