Because diesel catching on fire is totally unheard of.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45130 readers
1282 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Because diesel catching on fire is totally unheard of.
On it's own? Pretty much unheard of. Usually is a leak and something else set it on fire.
Batteries on the other hand plenty of cases where the battery itself was the starting point. Is usually cause by a bad design or external factors? Yes, not saying otherwise.
And tbh Diesel is the worse example you could put as requires either high pressure or a continuous exposure to a flame as you could throw a lit match on it and it wouldn't set it on fire. Petrol/Gasoline on the other hand...
Both cases are "external factors causing a fire"
Imagine your car catching fire while you are pumping fuel...
I don't have to imagine, I saw it with my own eyes. Although it was a bike. Some random spark somewhere ignited the fumes, scary shit.
But cables ugly/s
And the same people who gripe about overhead cables apparently have no trouble staring at a street full of idling, polluting, and noisy cars. It's really impressive.
This is just a tram without the tracks? Guessing it is just for charging otherwise why not just have a tram which is much safer, more space and can basically drive itself
It has some benefits if they are worth or not I am not so sure.
It's easier to change the routes, either permanent or temporally. In the case of temporally if it has a second source of power like battery or non electrical engine it can like use a non electrified street if there is some emergency or construction or whatever.
You can change routes for special days easily without junctions or whatever is needed for trams without big issues.
And even if it needs to electrify a new zone it, it probably much faster than the work for adding new rails and junctions.
Exactly, you don't need to build tram tracks, and you can easily build routes uphill/downhill. I'm no expert on trams but I think it's pretty complicated to have them go through versatile environments without having to build tunnel systems etc, so building a network that makes even more remote corners of a city accessible is much easier.
How is a tram safer?
Let's face it: in most US cities there probably isn't much aesthetic for the power lines to spoil. Just like in the grey Soviet cities where they come from
Greetings from Winterthur, a pretty nice, human-friendly, town in Switzerland which bunch of old buildings. Also called the bike-city of switzerland. It turns out that the trade off is worth it. I rather have power lines than cars or fuel powered busses.
"The emissions of the bus are divided all amongst the ridership. Emissions per commuter are reduced so long as an average of 2 people use the bus over the course of its route"
"I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ"
This would mean that a bus has less than twice the emissions of a car. I doubt that (while still being pro-public transport).
What the actual fuck⁈ “Batteries can catch on fire.” Sure, whatever could go wrong with a 1000l tank of FUCKING GASOLINE.
AAAaaaaHHhh I hate people!
I heard we tried that in some German Cities way back in the 80ies or even late 70ies, but the technology wasn't that far yet and the overhead cables would get damaged when the buses engaged them, sometimes leading to complete outages of the tram network, and as such it was scrapped again. Glad to see that other places took it on later, we could really need that right now.
Trolley Buses are over 100 years old as a technology. They were super wide-spread in the entire eastern block and now cities in hungary, the czech republic and romania introduce a lot of newer (better) models: For example, Skoda has one that can easily integrate with exsisting tram infrastructure and has batteries to bridge smaller distances in places where there are no overhead lines.
trams!!!
Doesn't work in hilly cities. That's why San Francisco has trolleybuses too (and the historical cable cars, but those are more for tourists). They do have light rail where it does make sense though.
Lisbon is very hilly and uses trams
I looked it up and it can indeed go up to 13.5% inclination but they can only run powered cars, no attached wagons. That reduces capacity.
I don't want to shit on trams. I don't like this bus vs tram bashing in either direction. I'll happily take either improvement over a sea of cars...
Minor cosmetic changes like running above ground power infrastructure where it doesn't exist anymore?
Its much easier and cheaper to install above ground than in the ground. Bonus points you could open it to Electrical trucks for emission free cargo in the city.
here in Santiago we have more than 1000 Electric Buses In operation, they work great.
Trolleys can't divert trough an alternative route if the original route got blocked somehow (for example it got barricaded.) wich is a common occurrence here in Santiago.
I'm Czech and my city has a trolleybus network. Every single trolleybus has either a) diesel engine or b) battery backup, depends on their age. Hell, there are even entire lines where 1/3rd they run on batteries. But, they can be smaller, so the vehicle is lighter.
that still doesn't adress the cost of implementing it on the more than 300 bus routes there are in Santiago or how probable is that the infrastructure would get damaged or destroyed every time there are protests.
its not that costly tonimplement. Why do you think they were implemented back then, instead of running everything on diesel engines?
The upfrontninvestment might be higher, but the running costs are lower, since the electricity is far mor energy efficient and electric engines need way less maintenance than IC-engines.
Buses are lame. They combine the cons of public transit with the cons of driving a car in a city. I believe in tram surpremacy.
I love trams, light rail, and subway systems. I've had to think long and hard about why. Busses have notable advantages for flexibility and redundancy in the system, so why do I prefer to use a railed transit solution?
For light rail, grade separated trams, and subways it's easy: they're faster in the city. Like... WAY faster. They don't fight traffic so I wait a few minutes (at most) in any city with real transit solutions, ride for a short bit, hop off, and I'm there. Not having to deal with my car is freedom.
So... trams.... why trams over busses?
First of all they're bigger. There's more elbow room and it's easier to get on and off. It's easier for a group of people (see: me and the kids) to all climb on and make room. The doors are larger and it's easier to use multiple doors to load a large group so the people getting on and off a tram can go much faster. There is less shuffling along trying to wedge yourselves into the tram like you're forced to do on a bus.
Second, they're predictable and have a visible route. When I'm walking around, I can tell where the tram will be because I can follow the rails. I don't have to guess what the route will be or where I should go to meet it. Yes, busses have signs every so often, but it's not nearly the same as seeing the rails and knowing I'm on the route. This is especially true if they do move the bus route (which is what everyone who advocates for busses says is a good thing), and I don't know it. The bus is just gone.
Thirdly, the tram drives in a predictable path. I can be near it and know where it's going to go. In fact, whole big crowds of people do it all the time in plazas in Europe. You can walk near the rails and know that you're still safe. Check out the plaza in front of the main train station in Amsterdam. They chose to run the trams right through it, but not allow busses since they weren't safe and predictable enough.
Fourth, they're quiet. Trolley Busses get this too, but trams have had it a long time. They can co-exist with a people-oriented space without being too disruptive. When you sit in a cafe talking with your friends and the tram goes by it's no big deal. When a diesel bus goes by it's incredibly noisy.
Lastly, they're a community commitment. When a city installs a tram, the whole city knows that the route it travels will be supported for a long time. If you choose to live near a stop, you'll have transit. If you're choosing to start a business, you'll want to be close to the tram line so customers can easily get there. The same isn't nearly as true for a bus line. I haven't really pinned down why yet, but there's a very different feel to rolling along on a tram while looking at businesses to visit, and rolling along on a bus. You just don't have the same kind of connection to the street around you on a bus that you do on a tram.
You. You get it.
The tram supremacy doesn't lie in the inherent nature of the technology but in the way we treat it! Trams get:
- their own lane
- dedicated signals at intersections (often even priority)
- infrastructure money and thus planning effort
In short, they are (usually) treated like public transport. Busses on the other hand are too often treated like just another car that's thrown in with the rest but also has the obligations of public transport. If you treated trams like that (sharing the road, waiting behind cars) they would be even worse than busses.
When I was there I found those busses really cool. But to my knowledge, they're being phased out. They essentially combine the worst of bus and tram:
- relies on special infrastructure and thus cannot go anywhere, is more expensive than bus
- often shares the street with other cars being more vulnerable to traffic, uses tires (leading to fine particles)
Trams are surely better, but the simple infrastructure and relative simplicity of the drive train make trolley often cheaper than a diesel bus. Trolley buses with a small battery can also deviate from standard lines or bridge small areas between trolley lines.