• @reddig33
    link
    English
    -1628 days ago

    You’d think with current battery tech we wouldn’t need the overhead wire anymore.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4628 days ago

      Batteries are heavy and expensive. A wired power source is so much more efficient for rail it’s barely worth discussing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1328 days ago

      The best use of a battery on a train is a small one to handle junctions. You disconnect from the wire at the end of one set, go through the junction, and then reconnect at the other side. Saves a lot of ugly spaghetti wiring.

      Otherwise, no, just use wires.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1128 days ago

        You don’t even need that. Every electric train I know of has pickups on each car, and any break in the catenary or third rail is short enough that it can be bridged naturally by two cars, or sometimes even just one, if it has pickups at both ends.

    • Iron Lynx
      link
      English
      527 days ago

      That would mean that instead of an engine, you’re lugging around a battery pack, which is just as heavy while giving you a fraction of the range of an engine. Not to forget that battery cells have only a finite lifespan.

      Meanwhile, OHLE gives you infinite range and room for major weight savings. Plus you can keep running the same power system for decades.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      227 days ago

      Battery and hydrogen-powered trains exist, they’re mainly used on less frequented lines because it would be more expensive to electrify them.