this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
142 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

1331 readers
484 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The cost isn’t what they are demonstrating here. It’s the feasibility of the tech. Electric cars had to pass the feasibility test before anyone was going to pay the high new tech prices. I think Tesla’s were 100k to begin with? The range was about the same or less than a gas car but I can’t imagine it being successful if it only had a 150mile range.

Once people think the tech is good enough they will be hoping the price comes down so everyone can use it not just rich people

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

This isn’t just a feasibility demonstrator, it’s the first unit of a four unit order that’s supposed to enter service this year. The testing in Colorado is for federal certification to use the train in revenue service on railroads in the U.S. Setting a Guinness World Record was just a side effort for publicity and to show the full capabilities of the system.

[–] tomatolung@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

For those who are curious, they did this at the Transportation Technology Center near Pueblo acorrding to this article.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Save the hydrogen for better suited use-cases - trains are easily electrified and should be running on catenaries.

[–] bfg9k@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

For regional train lines/freight lines full electrification isn't feasible due to the length of track, diesels still rule the train world because of this

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I honestly think this is just cheaping out, and I bet electrification will pay off on a long enough horizon.

Fwiw, I think basically all of Sweden where I live is electrified - 80% of the rails, with the 20% principally being a freight line in the far north used for the purposes of transporting ore from the mines.

[–] bfg9k@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It works great for European countries sure, but when it costs roughly $5 million per kilometre to electrify track and there are for example 800kms between Melbourne and Sydney, the cost just gets astronomical, not to mention the headaches of getting 1000V DC across that distance.

A self-sustaining vehicle is really important for big countries with long inter-country rail lines that have no support infrastructure for hundreds of kilometres

load more comments
view more: next ›