To reiterate: “your proposal is ... to move the diesel generators OFF the train, and then incur transmission losses to get the power TO the train? Can you explain why you want this bad idea?”
Unless you want on-train nuclear power plants, well now that’s cool.

-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Anyone who asks this question has never breathed CA air. They are batshit environmentalists and I 100% get it. If you need more energy, but don't have to spew smoke to get it... /And then they ban nuclear...pic.twitter.com/ASiOuOoXZn
-
Also, for passenger rail, electric trains can accelerate/brake faster than the existing diesel trains, which matters for passenger quite a lot (5-10 minute off the SF-SJ run) and may or may matter for freight in economically important ways.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Maintenance is an afterthought to be handled by The Unmentionables, far below the pay-grade of an average Policy Wonk.
End of conversation
-
-
-
It's almost Keynes theory but for energy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hello from@the East where we have much more efficient electric trains driven by nuclear energy and hydro (nuke and hydro are an unbeatable combination). Unlike diesel trains they are much lower in maintaince as you don’t have to repair a huge Diesel engine and with brushless moto
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Urban studies phd may not understand that when people talk "renewables", electricity isn't just "in the air" for the taking. Certainly doesn't seem to understand how electricity even gets to a motor to begin with and how much it costs to send it. Explains global warming panic.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.