I seriously doubt that the look of overhead wires would bring out more than 3 people to a meeting that might mention it in as an offhand comment.
Dont underestimate NIMBYs. In DC, they got the US congress to pass a law banning them.
I seriously doubt that the look of overhead wires would bring out more than 3 people to a meeting that might mention it in as an offhand comment.
I'd like to see the cost benefit of what battery/hybrid locomotives look like in 3 years before committing to full electrification. Keeping dumb metal tracks is preferable if the economics and performance of batteries starts to make sense as it is with cars.
https://www.ge.com/reports/leading-charge-battery-electric-locomotives-pushing-us-freight-trains/
Dont underestimate NIMBYs. In DC, they got the US congress to pass a law banning them.
Just have to say, that "Get There Get Home" poster, with the Designer Editorial, is great.
Can electric trains do anything akin what I know as regenerative braking from hybrid and electric cars? I can imagine an AC electric loco using a generator to supply power back to the overhead wire during breaking. I don't know the first thing about DC power grids, so I don't know if there is a reasonable analogy for DC trains.
Maybe the value proposition is too low to be worth the complexity. I'm just curious. It seems a shame to dump all the kinetic energy from an entire train every mile or so. I prefer to think of truly green ideas as things that actually use less energy, not just switch from fossil fuel to electricity.
I CAN imagine a future where you'd have a battery onboard capable of limping half the distance between stations, to ensure smooth transitions at phase changes and that a train never gets completely stranded under a down wire.
Thats the problem right there. People freak out every time any tree gets cut. Its the rich communities that tend to lose power the most, in my experience. In Quincy, I think our neighborhood has had two black outs in the past five years (and I’m rounding up, I only specifically remember one).
I would temper that — the T can be very indiscriminate with their cutting already, and there’s no getting around the fact that it sucks when they come and cut down the barrier between your house and the train. It may be inevitable, but I wouldn’t get surprised that people care about it. In many cases, it's a justified concern.
Moreover, train buffer zones tend to be mini-wildlife areas, so also not an unreasonable concern from an eco standpoint. Let's not conflate the fact that trees are worth preserving, wherever they are, whenever possible. The fact that wealthier communities might or might not be more vocal about preserving greenery is a completely separate issue from whether said preservation is a worthy goal or not. And, both of those issues are separate from whether trees will need to be cut to electrify the tracks; if it has to happen, so be it, but expect concerns and some opposition, that come from a generally quite reasonable place.
Yep, most (but not all) NIMBY's have legitimate concerns. We tend to dismiss them on here though.
Indeed. It doesn’t mean those concerns shouldn’t be overridden in the interest of the greater good. Both can be true.
A better alternative to batteries that doesn't need overhead wire is hydrogen trains. They are currently being run in Europe to replace diesel service and seeing wider adoption.
Don't need the electrical infrastructure, just the new trains and a couple hydrogen filling stations.
Also, the D line has frequent problems with trees/branches falling on the catenary lines and stopping service. Removing Trees on the ROW is going to help that.
Not currently being run, but "could be run".