I’ve never understood the aesthetic argument given the railways themselves — and indeed major roads — are something I find extremely ugly.

I've literally never heard this argument before. It's baffling.

I have heard "wind turbines are ugly", which I extremely disagree with (they're huge impressive things), but at least it's sort of justifiable because you might see them. Who the hell is staring at railway tracks?

And who could possibly care about aesthetics when we're talking about something so important? Clean energy is not about which color you paint the bikeshed, it's not about your personal preferences.

I certainly agree that asthetics should come after function here, particularly because we need to try to slow environmental degradation. On the subject of roads and rail being ugly, I think it may be a degree of normalisation - if you looked at the general opinion of rail and road at the time of invention, you might well find the same reservation about their asthetics as for wind turbines. (see https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/ind_rev/rs/denaul... and also probably for windmills).

More recently the opposition to HS2 in the UK has produced many arguments about asthetics, mainly due to route location.

TBH I'd prefer to see smartrail systems rather than a rehash of an existing transportation system. Something like: http://openprtspecs.blogspot.com/2016/

When sacrifices have to be made, aesthetics probably is going to be one of the first things to go. But in this case we're talking about a technology that is an improvement over diesel while still maintaining the aesthetic and safety of the countryside. Just because you consider it a lower priority doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into the equation at all.

I never found railways or roads ugly. But find them extremely polluting for the environment in loud sound(trains are terrible at this), toxic chemicals (volatile asphalt compounds, wheel dust, fumes and specially petrol oils in the case of trains), lights and so on.

It is also very bad for the environment because it divides the territory in two and animals and humans could not cross easily like they did in the past for millions of years. You can not cross or it is extremely inconvenient crossing whole cities because of trains.

On the other hand, trains make transportation way cheaper and territories to prosper.

I also find electrical posts ugly and dangerous stuff.

Electric trains are pretty quiet. Even Japan's bullet trains can sneak up on you.

Well... that makes sense given that you already find them ugly. But then why would you like to make them even more ugly?

You never understood why people think they’re ugly given that you think they’re ugly as well? What?

I’ve never understood why electrification makes it worse when it’s ugly without, and when the alternatives are also ugly.

The point is electrification via gantries makes it much more ugly.

A railway line disappears into the ground somewhat, and to some people is actually attractive, even with emissions from a combustion engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenfinnan_Viaduct

Electric gantries are seen to many people are far more intrusive to the landscape, and even destructive to landmarks, since they stick up into the air.

By way of comparison, the Royal Border Bridge, with relatively lightweight and specifically designed gantries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/60163_To...