• sigh@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year 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?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t even have to be “European” question, but seems a lot like the same problem at any scale. Much more locally, here in Boston, the MBTA has had to make similar trade offs between the much higher and longer term investment of electrifying tracks, and multi-mode transit that you can introduce much sooner

    • EyesEyesBaby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.