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.
It takes energy to move mobile conversion software where?