Ever since working for my local mass transit system, I've

>>986263
Firstly, because the train would need gianormous batteries to store all the energy they'd need during a day
Secondly, because you'd have to maintain and replace those batteries which is fuckexpensive
And thirdly, you'd have to maintain the charging stations and move trains to and from there, also you'd need lots of those because all trains would be charging at the same time overnight.

Self-powered trains already exist, they're called diesel trains. But anywhere where you have a certain level of traffic the diesel system becomes uneconomical a nuisance for the same reasons (limited range, costlier maintenance, need to take trains to fueling stations).

File: aged 22.jpg (86KB, 960x538px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 960x538px

>>986263

trains be slowing?

>>986266
Yeah, we have a couple of trolleys that go over a bridge on battery power for a small section of track. I see both of them in the yard during operating hours often.

And I suppose a diesel train running through downtown every 5 minutes might bother some people.

So a diesel train only makes since with fewer, larger loads? And a bus is small and flexible in a way that would not work for a larger LRV?

Other than practical problems of operating said trains like >>986266 mentioned

I would assume that most countries or rail companies simply would not be willing to spend a shit ton of money overhauling their fleet of existing EMU's in such a short space of time that an overhead system could be done away with in our lifetime.

File: MILW_E78_Three_Forks_MT_9_28_71_s1.jpg (253KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x664px

>>986263
Because overhead catenary is objectively the most efficient means of delivering power to trains that has ever been devised. Only anti-train crony capitalists and contrarian shills hate railroad electrification.

File: energy_density_batteries_vs_gasoline[1].jpg (65KB, 868x621px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 868x621px

>>986263
Electric motors are the most efficient type of motors, with over 96% efficiency (compared to 30% of diesel and 26% of turbine engines).

But batteries have 1% of the energy density of gasoline and diesel.

So removing the batteries and adding a steady source of energy, you have the most efficient vehicle yet produced on earth.

>>986279
eliminate crossings-at-grade first, for safety's sake.

also lines west was a boondoggle.

>>986263
because of electricity autists

Well thanks for the answers.

>>986311
You don't really have to tho. Japan has plebty if at-grade crossings and the accidents is once in a blue moon.

You only need them if the train happens to cross major mororway or if you're doing them HSR

diesal trains produce a lot of pollution. And trains will often idle for long periods in one spot, which produced a lot of concentrated pollution and is very annoying...

>>986266
Diesel-Electric, not Diesel. There hasn't been a locomtive in decades that has been powered like a traditional truck. Diesel-Electric locomotives use the prime mover to generate electricity via an alternator, the generated electricity is used to power the unit's traction motors. Don't go running your damn mouth about railroading if you haven't a damn clue what your talking about.

File: fgc331.jpg (373KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1024x683px

>>986270
>So a diesel train only makes since with fewer, larger loads? And a bus is small and flexible in a way that would not work for a larger LRV?
Basically, yes. There's examples of low-capacity diesel operation using small trains on previously existing lines that have otherwise become unprofitable. Noone except the 3rd world and burgerland would open a new diesel low-capacity passenger line nowadays.
Pic related brand new trains went into service on monday on a non-electrified line with low demand.

>>986514
Fuck you I know perfectly well they're diesel-electrics you autist it's just that like you said yourself there haven't been diesel units in decades so it's obvious I mean diesel-electric.

>>986500
>And trains will often idle for long periods in one spot, which produced a lot of concentrated pollution and is very annoying...
You know any engine produced in the last 20 years has automatic shutdown systems that will kill the engine when it's idling, right?

>>986500
diesels at idle produce very little exhaust. they might be fuckhueg with like a hundred cylinders but theyre only going at like 300 rpms at idle with no load. not to mention all the space in a locomotive to put in emissions systems. the only time they bellow smoke is when moving a shitton of freight and thats at the most efficient as possible

Electrification is more efficient than either diesel locomotive or diesel multiple unit OP

>>986270
>>986526
>LRV
Stop

>>986642
>American
Stop

There is no such thing as "light" or "heavy" rail, rail is rail, trains are trains.

This train for instance is used for intercity mainline services in Spain, Netherlands, Germany and France, the same type of service you would use a Genesis P40 in USA.

Trains are trains, what matter is what use do you give them, either metro, intercity, suburban, commuter, etc.

>>986643
Did I step in a pile of autism when I called them LRVs?

It's what we call them at work and heavy rail for any tracks under FRA rules.

>>986279
watching you progress from an ME autist to a full sperg lord has been hugely entertaining these last three years.

File: 4507.1079462160.jpg (226KB, 1024x711px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1024x711px

>>986667
Not an argument.

Without knowing anything about it, I'd have to assume that it's more economical.

>>986514
Diesel-hydraulics no longer being built? I think companies like Vossloh and Electroputere are going to disagree with you on that.

>>986526
Nothing says my arguement is valid and your wrong like calling someone an autist, you unintelligent fool.

>>989301
Hello, reddit.
The Milwaukee Road autist is a genuine sperg and has been vocal about it for years now, no need to get defensive on his behalf.