• MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    What amuses me is this reads like is written by an amazed american getting wowed by some things the rest of the world already has had for decades. Whats sad is Americans have this exceptionalism mentality where if an old tech like steam and diesel caused them to rule out rail… they never reconsider even if the tech advances.

  • zockerr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Americans discover what the rest of the world has known for a hundred years: that electric trains are just plain better

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, diesel electric weren’t that terrible either, I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard the generator running while on one of those. Obviously full electric is better, but they must’ve been a really terrible implementation to begin with if they had all the downsides mentioned in the article.

      • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Diesel-electric trains have the disadvantage of needing to carry their own fuel, making them heavier and increasing wear on the track. The engines need more maintenance as well, as they are more complicated.

        Aren’t most diesel trains diesel-electric, except perhaps for bus-like “sprinter” units?

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m not denying there’s downsides, but compared to cars the step from Diesel-electric to full electric isn’t that huge from an environment and experience perspective.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The new express route between San Jose and San Francisco will stop at 11 stations instead of seven, and take 59 minutes instead of an hour and five minutes.

    But going electric is so woke. There can’t possibly be real-world benefits! /s

    Because the trains are now quieter both onboard and in adjacent neighborhoods, it also might mean that more people are willing to live near the tracks. “I think they’re going to enable more development around the stations,” Steve Heminger, who represents San Francisco on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that operates Caltrain, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

    A feel-good story all around.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I love how somehow a rail line is too noisy for developments yet we see tons of developments next to highways and 6+lane roads

  • regul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was in SF this past week and took Caltrain down to Redwood City and back. I rode one of the express Baby Bullets, which is as fast as the diesel-electrics go. (The electric trains were sitting there at 4th and King, mocking me.) Let me tell you, I do not know how they think they can run HSR on this track in the state that it’s in. This is far and away the bumpiest ride I’ve ever had on Caltrain, and I used to commute on it twice a day for two years. I’m actually concerned about the state of the track. It’s great that they’ve run the wire, but I anticipate strict speed limits if they ever get the high speed rolling stock up from LA.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Dealing with bump and sway is mostly a matter of running a ballast cleaner/tamper/regulator along the track more regularly. Maybe replacing some rail. Unless the actual sub-foundation is bad; that gets really disruptive.

      Much cheaper than trying to ease curves, gradients, structure clearance, or provide grade separation.