• AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you have frequent traffic on a line, it pays for itself in lower running and maintenance costs and improved speed and acceleration.

    That, of course, assumes you have the right of way, which does not apply in large parts of the US, where freight operators for whom electrification doesn’t work own the lines.

    • LovesTha🥧@floss.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      @AllNewTypeFace @jonne Why wouldn’t freight go electric? I know some of the coal trains lines in Australia are electric, which I understand is a bit of a different beast to freight, but it is similar in most ways.

      • jonne
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The US freight companies are largely run by private equity, who squeeze everything they can out of existing infrastructure with minimal investment, which is shown by the handling of the East Palestine derailment (not just the derailment itself, but also the intentional blowing up of cars in order to free up the line faster).

        They wouldn’t do an investment they only pays off long term like that.

      • faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because going electric is very expensive, probably requires some legislation depending on where the railway is.

        For example there are many very short railways inside cities to access docks or industrial zones, those tracks have usually one or two trains a day, which is very low traffic, and can be located extremely close to housing. In that case it’s really complicated to electrify it.

        The issue is, if you want to go electric, you need 100% electric, not 95. So it makes way more sense for freight to go diesel-electric like today