• EyesEyesBaby@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Then spend the money on electrifying the rest, instead of spending lots of money on this temporary solution.

    • sigh@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not European so my understanding of the issue may be off, but I would assume the trains are run by a private company whilst the decision to actually electrify track probably includes government involvement in each country.

      Different countries may approach electrification at different paces, and having a vehicle capable of using both electrified, and non-electrified rail will give the companies flexibility in providing service along both types of routes.

      Seems like a non brainer?

      When we reach full electrification, these trains won’t be any worse off than any full electric variants. I suppose you can argue that the diesel engine becomes dead weight but like…how significant is that actually in contrast to…the rest of the entire train?

      • EyesEyesBaby@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I am an European and the vast majority of our rail tracks is electrified. It’s not “the future”. It’s now. In The Netherlands there are hardly any diesel trains transporting people.

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not that temporary, electrifying tracks can take decades. In Germany, many smaller towns are connected with routes that are only partially electrified, such a hybrid concept would allow the trains to run electric most of the time and only use the diesel engine on the most remote part of the journey. This is much better than not having a train access at all, where you would have to drive a car instead.