Question: What is the main action AC and DC systems have to deal with?

Answer: converting and transporting

Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). <hl> Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. <hl> Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.

Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: <hl> converting and transporting <hl> high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.

question: What is the main action AC and DC systems have to deal with?, context: Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.


Question: What type of losses happen during conversion and transmission in wires and electronics?

Answer: ohmic losses

Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? <hl> Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). <hl> Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.

Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: <hl> ohmic losses <hl> in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.

question: What type of losses happen during conversion and transmission in wires and electronics?, context: Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.


Question: What kind of losses take place in transformers and inductors during conversion/transmission process?

Answer: magnetic field losses

Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? <hl> Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). <hl> Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.

Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, <hl> magnetic field losses <hl> in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.

question: What kind of losses take place in transformers and inductors during conversion/transmission process?, context: Modern electrification systems take AC energy from a power grid which is delivered to a locomotive and converted to a DC voltage to be used by traction motors. These motors may either be DC motors which directly use the DC or they may be 3-phase AC motors which require further conversion of the DC to 3-phase AC (using power electronics). Thus both systems are faced with the same task: converting and transporting high-voltage AC from the power grid to low-voltage DC in the locomotive. Where should this conversion take place and at what voltage and current (AC or DC) should the power flow to the locomotive? And how does all this relate to energy-efficiency? Both the transmission and conversion of electric energy involve losses: ohmic losses in wires and power electronics, magnetic field losses in transformers and smoothing reactors (inductors). Power conversion for a DC system takes place mainly in a railway substation where large, heavy, and more efficient hardware can be used as compared to an AC system where conversion takes place aboard the locomotive where space is limited and losses are significantly higher. Also, the energy used to blow air to cool transformers, power electronics (including rectifiers), and other conversion hardware must be accounted for.


Question: What two systems were compare in the Soviet Union in 1970?

Answer: 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz

<hl> In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz ). <hl> The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at <hl> 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz <hl>). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at <hl> 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz <hl> ).

question: What two systems were compare in the Soviet Union in 1970?, context: In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.


Question: Which system had higher losses in overhead wires?

Answer: 3 kV DC

<hl> In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). <hl> The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at <hl> 3 kV DC <hl> and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

question: Which system had higher losses in overhead wires?, context: In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.


Question: Which system was used in Soviet Union after all calculations?

Answer: 3 kV DC

<hl> In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). <hl> The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at <hl> 3 kV DC <hl> and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

question: Which system was used in Soviet Union after all calculations?, context: In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.


Question: What came with lesser lesser cost mobile conversion hardware or stationary hardware?

Answer: stationary hardware

In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). <hl> Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. <hl> For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the <hl> stationary hardware <hl> in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.

question: What came with lesser lesser cost mobile conversion hardware or stationary hardware?, context: In the Soviet Union, in the 1970s, a comparison was made between systems electrified at 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC (50 Hz). The results showed that percentage losses in the overhead wires (catenary and contact wires) was over 3 times greater for 3 kV DC than for 25 kV AC. But when the conversion losses were all taken into account and added to overhead wire losses (including cooling blower energy) the 25 kV AC lost a somewhat higher percent of energy than for 3 kV DC. Thus in spite of the much higher losses in the catenary, the 3 kV DC was a little more energy efficient than AC in providing energy from the USSR power grid to the terminals of the traction motors (all DC at that time). While both systems use energy in converting higher voltage AC from the USSR's power grid to lower voltage DC, the conversions for the DC system all took place (at higher efficiency) in the railway substation, while most of the conversion for the AC system took place inside the locomotive (at lower efficiency). Consider also that it takes energy to constantly move this mobile conversion hardware over the rails while the stationary hardware in the railway substation doesn't incur this energy cost. For more details see: Wiki: Soviet Union DC vs. AC.


Question: What can be seen in the newly electrified lines?

Answer: "sparks effect"

<hl> Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect" , whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. <hl> The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.

Newly electrified lines often show a <hl> "sparks effect" <hl>, whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.

Newly electrified lines often show a <hl> "sparks effect" <hl> , whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue.

question: What can be seen in the newly electrified lines?, context: Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.


Question: What can electrification of modern trains effect?

Answer: patronage / revenue

<hl> Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue . <hl> The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.

Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in <hl> patronage / revenue <hl>. The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.

Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in <hl> patronage / revenue <hl> .

question: What can electrification of modern trains effect?, context: Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.


Question: How can better service quality be achieved?

Answer: rolling stock overhaul / replacement

Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. <hl> The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement , which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). <hl> Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.

Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and <hl> rolling stock overhaul / replacement <hl>, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.

The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and <hl> rolling stock overhaul / replacement <hl> , which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification).

question: How can better service quality be achieved?, context: Newly electrified lines often show a "sparks effect", whereby electrification in passenger rail systems leads to significant jumps in patronage / revenue. The reasons may include electric trains being seen as more modern and attractive to ride, faster and smoother service, and the fact that electrification often goes hand in hand with a general infrastructure and rolling stock overhaul / replacement, which leads to better service quality (in a way that theoretically could also be achieved by doing similar upgrades yet without electrification). Whatever the causes of the sparks effect, it is well established for numerous routes that have electrified over decades.


Question: What is a major factor whn it comes to electrification?

Answer: Network effects

<hl> Network effects are a large factor with electrification. <hl> When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

<hl> Network effects <hl> are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

question: What is a major factor whn it comes to electrification?, context: Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.


Question: What was the reason some electrifications were removed after a while?

Answer: through traffic to non-electrified lines

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. <hl> Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines . <hl> If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the <hl> through traffic to non-electrified lines <hl>. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the <hl> through traffic to non-electrified lines <hl> .

question: What was the reason some electrifications were removed after a while?, context: Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.


Question: What can be a drawback of electrification of long distance freight trains?

Answer: electrification to isolated areas

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). <hl> In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas , and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. <hl> The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend <hl> electrification to isolated areas <hl>, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend <hl> electrification to isolated areas <hl> , and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified.

question: What can be a drawback of electrification of long distance freight trains?, context: Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.


Question: Where can the issue of through traffic benefits occur?

Answer: long distance trips

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. <hl> This is mostly an issue for long distance trips , but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). <hl> In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for <hl> long distance trips <hl>, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

This is mostly an issue for <hl> long distance trips <hl> , but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports).

question: Where can the issue of through traffic benefits occur?, context: Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.


Question: What does the increasing demand for container traffic make companies use more often?

Answer: diesel trains

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). <hl> In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. <hl> The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of <hl> diesel trains <hl> even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.

question: What does the increasing demand for container traffic make companies use more often?, context: Network effects are a large factor with electrification. When converting lines to electric, the connections with other lines must be considered. Some electrifications have subsequently been removed because of the through traffic to non-electrified lines. If through traffic is to have any benefit, time consuming engine switches must occur to make such connections or expensive dual mode engines must be used. This is mostly an issue for long distance trips, but many lines come to be dominated by through traffic from long-haul freight trains (usually running coal, ore, or containers to or from ports). In theory, these trains could enjoy dramatic savings through electrification, but it can be too costly to extend electrification to isolated areas, and unless an entire network is electrified, companies often find that they need to continue use of diesel trains even if sections are electrified. The increasing demand for container traffic which is more efficient when utilizing the double-stack car also has network effect issues with existing electrifications due to insufficient clearance of overhead electrical lines for these trains, but electrification can be built or modified to have sufficient clearance, at additional cost.


Question: What is the other issue that comes to sight when using electrification system?

Answer: connections between different electrical services

<hl> Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services , particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. <hl> This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.

Additionally, there are issues of <hl> connections between different electrical services <hl>, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.

Additionally, there are issues of <hl> connections between different electrical services <hl> , particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards.

question: What is the other issue that comes to sight when using electrification system?, context: Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.


Question: Why the commuter lines built to different standards can cause be complicated?

Answer: the implications on the sections it is connecting

Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. <hl> This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting . <hl> Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.

Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of <hl> the implications on the sections it is connecting <hl>. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.

This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of <hl> the implications on the sections it is connecting <hl> .

question: Why the commuter lines built to different standards can cause be complicated?, context: Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.


Question: What is the solution many lines came up with in order to avoid replacing present rolling stock?

Answer: to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards

Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. <hl> Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. <hl> Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.

Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come <hl> to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards <hl> for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.

question: What is the solution many lines came up with in order to avoid replacing present rolling stock?, context: Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.


Question: Why are disel trains still used on electrified routes?

Answer: due to incompatibility of electrification standards

Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. <hl> In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route. <hl>

Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be <hl> due to incompatibility of electrification standards <hl> along the route.

question: Why are disel trains still used on electrified routes?, context: Additionally, there are issues of connections between different electrical services, particularly connecting intercity lines with sections electrified for commuter traffic, but also between commuter lines built to different standards. This can cause electrification of certain connections to be very expensive simply because of the implications on the sections it is connecting. Many lines have come to be overlaid with multiple electrification standards for different trains to avoid having to replace the existing rolling stock on those lines. Obviously, this requires that the economics of a particular connection must be more compelling and this has prevented complete electrification of many lines. In a few cases, there are diesel trains running along completely electrified routes and this can be due to incompatibility of electrification standards along the route.


Question: Which of two can be more efficiently electricified?

Answer: Central station

<hl> Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. <hl> While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

<hl> Central station <hl> electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

question: Which of two can be more efficiently electricified?, context: Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.


Question: How can electric power plant become more power efficient?

Answer: it will shut down its least efficient generators

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. <hl> While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators , thereby increasing efficiency. <hl> The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power <hl> it will shut down its least efficient generators <hl>, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power <hl> it will shut down its least efficient generators <hl> , thereby increasing efficiency.

question: How can electric power plant become more power efficient?, context: Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.


Question: How can electric train be more energy efficient?

Answer: by regenerative braking

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. <hl> The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. <hl> However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) <hl> by regenerative braking <hl> and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

question: How can electric train be more energy efficient?, context: Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.


Question: Which type of train continues to use energy while coasting or being stopped?

Answer: diesel

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. <hl> While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. <hl> The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and <hl> diesel <hl> locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

question: Which type of train continues to use energy while coasting or being stopped?, context: Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.


Question: What causes electric trains to waste energy?

Answer: cooling blowers

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. <hl> However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy. <hl>

Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run <hl> cooling blowers <hl> when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.

question: What causes electric trains to waste energy?, context: Central station electricity can often be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator. While the efficiency of power plant generation and diesel locomotive generation are roughly the same in the nominal regime, diesel motors decrease in efficiency in non-nominal regimes at low power while if an electric power plant needs to generate less power it will shut down its least efficient generators, thereby increasing efficiency. The electric train can save energy (as compared to diesel) by regenerative braking and by not needing to consume energy by idling as diesel locomotives do when stopped or coasting. However, electric rolling stock may run cooling blowers when stopped or coasting, thus consuming energy.


Question: Can renewable source of electricity be used in mobile power plants?

Answer: unsuitable

<hl> Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. <hl> According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.

Energy sources <hl> unsuitable <hl> for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.

question: Can renewable source of electricity be used in mobile power plants?, context: Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.


Question: What is the recent incentive in order to overcome oil scarcity?

Answer: to substitute other fuels

Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. <hl> Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. <hl> Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.

Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive <hl> to substitute other fuels <hl> for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.

question: What is the recent incentive in order to overcome oil scarcity?, context: Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.


Question: What type of natural resources is more scarce?

Answer: liquid fuel

Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. <hl> According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). <hl> Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.

Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of <hl> liquid fuel <hl> are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.

question: What type of natural resources is more scarce?, context: Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.


Question: What research can be used in the future if translated?

Answer: Soviet studies from the 1980s

Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. <hl> However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s . <hl>

Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated <hl> Soviet studies from the 1980s <hl>.

However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated <hl> Soviet studies from the 1980s <hl> .

question: What research can be used in the future if translated?, context: Energy sources unsuitable for mobile power plants, such as nuclear power, renewable hydroelectricity, or wind power can be used. According to widely accepted global energy reserve statistics, the reserves of liquid fuel are much less than gas and coal (at 42, 167 and 416 years respectively). Most countries with large rail networks do not have significant oil reserves and those that did, like the United States and Britain, have exhausted much of their reserves and have suffered declining oil output for decades. Therefore, there is also a strong economic incentive to substitute other fuels for oil. Rail electrification is often considered an important route towards consumption pattern reform. However, there are no reliable, peer-reviewed studies available to assist in rational public debate on this critical issue, although there are untranslated Soviet studies from the 1980s.


Question: What type of trains became more energy-efficient in the former Soviet Union?

Answer: electric

<hl> In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. <hl> Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

In the former Soviet Union, <hl> electric <hl> traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

question: What type of trains became more energy-efficient in the former Soviet Union?, context: In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.


Question: What year could be marked as year when electric railways more efficient than diesel ones?

Answer: 1965

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). <hl> But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. <hl> After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about <hl> 1965 <hl> electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

question: What year could be marked as year when electric railways more efficient than diesel ones?, context: In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.