[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 41 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: CSX_5349_GE_ES44DC.jpg (433 KB, 1251x815)
433 KB
433 KB JPG
>"But America has the best freight railroads in the world!"
When will this myth die?
>>
>>1865749
When someone else builds a better freight rail system
>>
>>1865757
Switzerland
>>
>>1865779
>t. can't into double stacks
>>
>>1865784
>quality of freight rail is solely determined by loading gauge
>>
>>1865785
I didn't say it was. But the ability to run double stacked containers makes moving them more economical. Let us know when Switzerland gets on America's level circa 1995
>>
>>1865787
why are you obsessed with double stack containers? there are many factors that determine how economic rail transport is
>>
>>1865809
Because they're integral to operating a modern freight rail system
>>
>>1865813
[citation needed]
>>
>>1865785
it's never worth feeding into these retards with a single argument that is blatantly bullshit yet they endless push it with even more half-assed fallacies
just a joke
dont give them a you
if you sound retarded repeating their comment
just ignore that autism
>>
If we have a look at statistics for 2019, as a pre-pandemic year, we find that measured in ton-kilometers (millions);
the US had 2 364 144.3,
the Russian Federation had 2 602 492.6,
Sweden had 22 222.5,
Germany had 113 114.0,
and Switzerland had 10 977.0.

Measured in total numbers, we see that the Russian Federation transported more ton-kilometers by rail in 2019 than the USA did. If we now look at market share vs road freight, which is a relatively good measure of how competitive railroads in the different countries are, we find that (in their respective countries):
the US railroads transported 71% of road transport,
Russian railroads transported 906% of road transport,
Swedish railroads transported 52% of road transport,
German railroads transported 36% of road transport,
Swiss railroads transported 67% of road transport.

Our numbers suggest that the US railroads are absolutely destroyed by Russian railroads. While the number seems almost absurd compared to the others, it is noted that 87% of Russia's freight turnover, excluding pipelines, travels by rail, higher than practically any other country in the world. We also see that despite Switzerland's comparatively tiny size, rail freight's market share there almost keeps up with that of the United States.

Furthermore, considering the vast size of the United States, and the well-known mechanism that rail freight is more competitive over longer distances, US rail freight is actually an embarrassment to the nation at large with its comparatively abysmal market share. Switzerland, a small European country which is, what, 100 kilometers across, almost keeps up with it, and Russia by far outperforms it - this despite neither of the two countries having a loading profile allowing for double stacks.

Sauce: ITF Transport Statistics
>>
>>1865927
How much of that Russian disparity is because they're more industrialized and involved in low-level manufacturing? A single steel mill transporting by rail over the course of a year will balance out a lot of consumer goods shipping inland from ports
>>
File: train.jpg (268 KB, 1280x720)
268 KB
268 KB JPG
>>1865757
>>1865779
Russia. Unironically. Although that will change for the worse in the coming years.
India is also giving it a run for its money.
USA is slowly being devoured by late stage capitalism, where they try to optimize the last 1% by depreciating their previous growth. They literally are making their offering worse by trying to cheat physics. Protip: physics always wins.
>>
>>1865931
You're entirely right on that, heavy industry does create far more ton-kilometers than consumer goods. Even so, Russian road transport (still 2019) only accounted for 286 976 mill. ton-km, while in the US road transport accounted for 3 315 290 mill. ton-km. It's honestly puzzling that US rail isn't performing better, the US has much more railroad per square km of country than Russia does too so it should be easier for the US to shift goods away from the roads.
>>
>>1865809
>why are you obsessed with double stack containers?
Because they are integral to any logistical system, as this fellow points out... >>1865813
...however, double stacking shines where you have a lot of traffic in a single direction, like - LA to Chicago or something. It is not that beneficial on short hauls, which predominate in Europe. I mean - EU is running trucks for most of the routes.
>>
>>1865927
>Russian railroads transported 906% of road transport,
Take into account that Russia is literally a country strung along the Trans Sib and BAM, there are no roads whatsoever that are truck capable and just a bout 90% of the country, economy wise - is Petersburg and Moscow, while haulage is done from far east to Europe.

It makes for an efficient rail system, but is also heavily skewed.
>>
>>1865933
>It's honestly puzzling that US rail isn't performing better, the US has much more railroad per square km of country than Russia does too so it should be easier for the US to shift goods away from the roads.

US railroads are being eaten away by a pointless chase of 'growth' expressed by ROI, not actual profit. So if they are now chasing operational efficiency of 60% by abandoning routes which offer less and/or doing silly shit like tearing down track, single tracking, running absurdly long trains ( via PSR ) or otherwise trying to make it less about a railroad, more about money. This will end with nationalisation in coming decades.
>>
>>1865936
It is absolutely skewed, but only skewed in the opposite direction of what many Western countries have done since 1960, building roads and letting the railroads decay. I find it interesting to look at what happens in a country going the other way.
>>
i think we first need to decouple 'america ships a lot of goods by rail freight' and 'america has the best rail freight system in the world' from each other, before they can be examined, as they are not one and the same.
>>
>>1865940
>This will end with nationalisation
There is zero chance the US nationalizes the railroads. Every single time a country tries to nationalize rail, the system collapses. Rail at its peak was built and maintained by private companies, and it clearly seems to work best that way.
>>
>>1865959
I guess we'll just wait for the status quo to change overnight then. Any time now
>>
>>1865959
You don't need to look far to find an example to the contrary. Conrail - formed after private entities failed to manage the railroad into profits. Granted, regulatory environment was different, but the symptom is the same. Currently the ball is simply rolling slower. But once it does reach a tipping point, either american railroads reform, or they will get nationalised. Railroads are too vital for a country to be failing.

The EU format - public ownership of infrastructure and private operators seems to work pretty well.
>>
File: jDZ6wM638612.png (33 KB, 872x454)
33 KB
33 KB PNG
>>1865927
Russia's rail system (and transport in general) is heavily oriented towards transport and export of bulk commodities, which render tonnage/modal share comparisons unhelpful. Just look at the disproportionate market share that pipelines command.
Whereas in the US, intermodal/consumer good s have a substantially higher share of the total freight market.
>>
>>1865927
>>1866004
And indeed, using https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroads-states/, we see that intermodal carloads are the plurality on the American rail system, reflecting a more complex economic pattern.
>>
>>1865968
>EU format
It works like ass and they just drive up prices in private cases or never improve anything in fully nationalized cases.
The best working ones tend to both nationalized companies and private alternatives that compete with each other like in Italy.
>>
File: NJu6z8314258.png (72 KB, 1509x463)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>1866006
Pic didn't attach.
>>
>>1866009
>It works like ass and they just drive up prices in private cases or never improve anything in fully nationalized cases.
specific examples
>>
>>1866019
Look up the average ticket costs and time delays on any network not part of the centralized networks across France, Germany, Netherlands and Italy.
Italians like to complain about theirs but they're honestly way above and beyond the alternatives where you get to pay more than a fucking flight for a 2 hour trip, with delays shifting it at least an hour later if not more. (that's not comparing it with actual flights either where the actual numbers get more depressing)
And that's not accounting for all the gypsy scammers that will beg-harass you for any longer trip that they no longer keep out thanks to Schengen's rules no longer being enforced properly.
>>
>>1866024
>Look up the average ticket costs and time delays on any network not part of the centralized networks across France, Germany, Netherlands and Italy.
no, you do it. you go and find the specific examples to back up the things you said, and bring them there and show me.
>>
File: DSYnIC050444.png (57 KB, 558x491)
57 KB
57 KB PNG
>>1866016
For Russian data, https://ar2019.rzd.ru/pdf/ar/ru/performance-overview_analysis-operating-results_transportation-logistics.pdf provides Russian Railways' 2019 operating results.
Russian Railways uses cargo weights as the main metric whereas American railroads prefer units (the difference itself pointing to the differing natures of their operating models), but clearly Russia's rail network is vastly more commodity-centric. And given its high market share, total containerized traffic in Russia must be substantially lower, in total and as a share of freight, than in the US. So then a substantial explanation for rail modal share differences between the US and Russia is that much of the cargo traffic that trucks haul/specialize in is simply less present in Russia.
>>
File: 1600911717816.png (405 KB, 1188x1663)
405 KB
405 KB PNG
>>1865927
> considering the vast size of the United States, and the well-known mechanism that rail freight is more competitive over longer distances
Vast majority of US freight traffic is short-haul. Rail does take over in the highest distance bands.
>>1865933
Much of Russia's settlement/development occurred along a few rail lines, the Trans-Siberian foremost among them, and occurred relatively early. Russia would've reached half its current population before 1900. This developmental pattern also lends itself to rail utilization. Half of US population growth occurred after 1950, and heavily occurred in areas that were not well-served by the already built-out rail system, at a time when they were starved for capital. This shift played a major factor in explaining why so many prominent northeastern railroads went bankrupt while their counterparts in other regions prospered.
>>
>>1866025
Sure, here's a quick example of Sweden where private actors are terrible, the networks are owned by the state and the old nationalized equivalent was terrible.
Stockholm to Malmo: $90-$170 and around 4.5 hour trip. Same route by flight: $60-$85 and one hour trip.
Well maybe that's just such a short and congested trip that they can charge such costs what about a longer one.
Biggest town in North Sweden to Stockholm around 640km on a regular train: $90-$120 and 6-7 hours of travel. Roughly the same time as it takes by car and can actually cost more than just driving there yourself depending on your car.
Flight for the exact same distance: $50-$75 and takes 1 hour 5 minutes.

Even worse?
All those trains are fully booked. For the Malmo-Stockholm route you have to order one day in advance. For the Northern one you have to order at least one week in advance if not more to get a spot.
>>
>>1865968
>the symptom is the same
No it's not. The government had spent a century by that point fucking over railroads by virtually every means possible.
Even in the 1930s, they were saying
> To the extent that the inroads made upon railroad traffic and revenues by other modes of transportation are not due to natural advantages which the latter possess, but are attributable to artificial advantages accruing to their competitors as a result of governmental favoritism in any respect, the railroads have a right to object. Such favoritism now exists in pronounced degree in the Important matters of regulation, taxation and subsidies."
A problem that only got worse with time.
If anything, it's amazing that the unreformed ICC-system managed to stagger on for almost fifty years after that.
>>
>>1866051
fucking them over by such measures as... the railway labor act, which means they play labor negotiations on easy mode
>>
>>1865959
[citation needed]
>>
>>1865932
As you've proven in other threads, you don't know much about US railroading and your disdain for America causes lapses in your own judgement, so your opinions can be discarded.
>>
>>1865749
nobody outside the US belives this
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (77 KB, 640x437)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
This confuses and enrages the Yuro
>>
>>1866051
>the symptom is the same
The _symptom_ is the same. Which is railroads doing the railroad thing not very well. The _reasons_ are different.
>>
>>1866132
I'm jumping up and down in rage at the picture of couplers. Here is your dopamine release. No need to thank me
>>
File: StrassenbahnPantograph.jpg (220 KB, 2272x1704)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>>1866132
this confuses and enrages the amerifat
>>
File: Capture.jpg (626 KB, 2560x1587)
626 KB
626 KB JPG
>>1866203
We did that over a century ago. Old news
>>
>>1865959
>There is zero chance the US nationalizes the railroads.
Zero chance with current US politics. If that shifts substantially, fuck knows; that's a "throw all the cards up in the air" scenario.
>>
>>1865757
Russia has mogged the US rail system for decades.
>>
>>1865749
When PSR causes it to collapse.
>>
>>1865933
>US to shift goods away from the roads.
This would be a godsend for regular motorists too. The interstate ring around my city is constantly clogged by giant 18 wheelers and wearing out the road far faster than car and delivery van traffic would.
>>
>>1866134
>railroads doing the railroad thing not very well.
At a very, very abstract level maybe.
The symptom in the era between the collapse of Penn Central and Conrail/4R/Staggers was "Northeastern railroads literally being unable to function, threatening semi-permanent loss of rail service to a key region of the country".
The symptom now is "Pretty Shite Railroading and other suboptimal practices threatening service interruptions at a time when every other transport option is also shitting the bed".
Rather different, with different causes, different prognoses, and different remedies.
Though at a high level, "restructure the regulatory environment so that actors can/will pursue good behavior/results rather than bad behavior/results" is also the same solution.
>>
>>1866517
Railroads weren't precisely flourishing during 1950 onward, up to the collapse of the Penn Central. The reason why PC got formed was an ill fated attempt to rescue both NYC and Pennsy by reducing redundancies.

Either way - where on the arrow between 'bretty gud' and 'utter systemic collapse' we are is fairly irrelevant - the vector points is towards 'usc'. As you know, it takes a long time to kill a railroad.

US has a track history of waiting until the collapse happens before it starts to act ( and frankly, not just US ) and the only two tools a state has to fix such a collapse is either throw money at it until it ceases to be ( see: 2008 banking ) or outright nationalisation of an industry.
Protip: I'm not aware of any successful 'throw money at it until fixed' scheme working for railroads. So if UP & Friends don't get their game together, they are getting Uncle-Sammed.
>>
>>1866009
I was speaking in the context of what railroads are meant to do - hauling freight. EU format works well because it introduces competition between train operators - a coal mine can always choose a different carrier for its coal, as infrastructure is shared.

For passenger rail - it is best left to the state. Private operation does not seem to work. Unless it is the state franchising specific routes - I think.
>>
>>1866004
Of course, the economy at large has a major impact on transportation in different countries. Russia has received an increase in containerised transports in recent years too, due to the New Silk Road, but that accounts for only a small portion of the total freight volume.

>>1866037
That's an interesting figure too. Railroads in the US seem to be competitive mainly at distances over 500 miles, which together with what I pointed out in >>1865933 regarding rail coverage, suggests underperforming railroads compared to containerised, intermodal transports in the EU, where rail is also competitive at shorter distances. I don't know US railroading that well, being european, but it seems to me you may have some issues with your railroads.
>>
>>1866782
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split
EU figures for tonne-km also show the overwhelming majority of it being road transport, with rail actually losing market share by that metric with time (tonne-km being a metric which ought to favor railroads, of course). Some of that is geography: Europe is relatively compact and key industrial centers were often located around water, allowing maritime transport of bulk commodities.
Eurostat doesn't seem to analyze modal split by distance band. We can try to proxy by looking at national data.
>>
>>1866813
Biggest factor in high rail modal split in the EU seems to be whether they were legacy Eastern bloc, followed by being Central European. And even the Baltic countries have seen marked declines in rail's market share as they socially and economically continue to converge with the more advanced economies.
Central European countries are geographically aided by lacking options for water transport, and by national-level policies to explicitly encourage rail transport at the expense of road transport. This include additional subsidies, high taxes and tolls on road transport, regulation of which kinds of goods can be shipped by road, and development of new infrastructure like the Gotthard Base Tunnel or the Netherlands' Betuwe.
>>
File: DMM276561.jpg (156 KB, 900x1111)
156 KB
156 KB JPG
>>1865779
>Switzerland
Country with lower GDP than Matterhorn amusement ride at Disneyland.
>>
File: 1QWZQS190481.png (38 KB, 937x480)
38 KB
38 KB PNG
>>1866815
US DOT analysis of ton-miles.
https://www.bts.gov/content/us-ton-miles-freight
The Eurostat chart does not include pipelines; removing pipelines from the US data we find
2010 rail modal share of 41.9% and 2020 rail modal share of 33.3%. Noticeable decline (the Global Financial Crisis/high 2008 diesel prices are major factors in elevating rail's performance), but the US still compares favorably to European countries.
>>
File: j5ke2O759509.png (48 KB, 1268x691)
48 KB
48 KB PNG
>>1866818
By weight and value the vast majority of freight in the US moves by truck.
Circumstances favoring this include a very permissive regulatory environment, low fuel prices, wide availability of transport operators to fill a variety of niches, 74% of goods by weight and 57% of goods by value moving short distances, and a heavy cultural/economic focus on speed/convenience.
>>
>>1866820
Even with that, rail's EU-wide goods distribution doesn't look very different from that in the US.
Using, say, Germany as another case, its 2019 road-rail weight ratio was 9.62 against 10.3 in the US.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Transport/Goods-Transport/Tables/goods-transport-lr.html
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/
>>
File: e8cODr798979.png (123 KB, 686x575)
123 KB
123 KB PNG
>>1866869
NTA. But of course. Improving the infrastructural basis and network connectivity would attract more users. As it is, Rosstat shows road transport moving the overwhelming majority of cargo by weight.
https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/Publ_TR_2021.docx
So then we could improve the safety, average speeds, time-performance, cost, and reliability of short-to-medium distance road transport.
We could also make long-distance trucking of high-value/time-sensitive cargo easier and cheaper to do, encouraging growth in that segment and providing support to non-traditional customers far beyond the ring roads.
Of course, Russia's economic structure and economic geography make the market for non-commodity freight relatively smaller than in comparable countries.
>>
>>1865749
i had no idea this crossing type existed
>>
>>1865940

>US railroads are being eaten away by a pointless chase of 'growth' expressed by ROI, not actual profit. So if they are now chasing operational efficiency of 60% by abandoning routes which offer less and/or doing silly shit like tearing down track, single tracking, running absurdly long trains ( via PSR ) or otherwise trying to make it less about a railroad, more about money.

Up to the nationalizing which will never happen this is exactly correct. The American railroads are turning to shit because they only want the low hanging fruit. The class 1's don't want to fix track, service industries or help the American economy. They want to pick up their train from scabs in LA and hand it off to scabs in Chicago then cash their fat check for doing nothing.
>>
>>1866206
To be fair it only happened thanks to Pennsy and New York Central rivalry. Although fucking Norfolk Southern and CSX decided to be assholes and destroy electrified lines after gutting Conrail
>>
File: EF200-14_20090520.jpg (2 MB, 3186x2298)
2 MB
2 MB JPG
>>1866132
>>1866203

Meanwhile in Asia
>>
>>1867247
Holy hell. That's probably 20 cars they're pulling
>>
>>1867079
does that even exist in Europe?
>>
someone explain to me like a retard how PSR destroyed the American Freight Train
>>
>>1867253
only saw that sold for model rail
but never irl
>>
>>1867277
In theory - PSR means that trains are dispatched on a schedule no different to passenger railroads. If there are 4 loads, you carry a train with 4 loads. Of there are 500, you carry 500. This is in contrast to how american RRs were operated on the "as needed" basis. It is not much different to how EU railroads are operated - as they need to share infrastructure with passenger trains, and thus need to reserve a slot over a given line.

PSR essentially means running a railroad like a clockwork, chasing as much of equipment usage as possible. There is a case to defend, that having locomotives idling without work because currently there is none, or the equipment pool does not balance itsself, causes bloat, thus cost. Likewise - I read somewhere that freight cars tend to see very little usage over their lifetime - mostly spending their time as mobile storage units.

In practice however, PSR degenerated to running as long of a train as slowly as possible either because of stupidity, equipment imbalances, general incompatibility of work culture with this approach, insufficient infrastructure or push of the management to save everything as much as possible.

PSR is trying to run an american freight railroad in a manner that japanese run their commuter trains. Japanese are running their schedules with 10 second ( or so ) precision because even a minute of delay causes a cavalcade of delays on the entire system. Try to run 10000t freights with such precision when management is breathing down your neck to save cost, infrastructure is crumbling, locomotives are barely operating and you are short on motive power anyways.
>>
File: crossing.jpg (384 KB, 1024x768)
384 KB
384 KB JPG
>>1867253
Rarely, I reckon. Unless we include tram-over-rail crossings. There was one near my ( pic rel ) but was dismantled some time ago.

The thing is that there really never was a railroad competition in europe - with several companies building over their own ROW, so if lines were to cross, there usually was an actual station being built to leverage the extra connectivity.

Otherwise - a flyover was preferred.
>>
>>1867300
Russian Railways is a state-owned company. It receives direct subsidies from the Russian government for operations and for capital projects. Users of its freight service also receive subsidies per container shipped.
The net amount doesn't compare to what a road user de facto receives, but it's not trivial.
>NEARLY the amount proportional to the wear they cause
Which could be solved by adjusting the taxation/licensing/fees regime. If, for political reasons, no one wants that to happen, then that is the topic for investigation. Switzerland has a policy to shift trans-Alpine freight traffic onto rail, so that would be a good place to start.
>Rail can't compete with free infrastructure
Or rather, it provides another barrier to rail's competitiveness; rail modal share isn't zero, so obviously it can offer a unique value proposition that customers will accept. But, there are niches and market segments/demands that rail is ill-positioned to serve, which is why countries maintain high-performance road networks to the best of their abilities.
>>
File: Road-trains-11.jpg (1.13 MB, 1863x1195)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
>>1867326
>Which could be solved by adjusting the taxation/licensing/fees regime. If, for political reasons, no one wants that to happen, then that is the topic for investigation. Switzerland has a policy to shift trans-Alpine freight traffic onto rail, so that would be a good place to start.

It actually can't. If it was up to trucking companies, they would run like they do in Australia - road trains over dirt roads with a bridge where it is necessary. Moreover - the scale of infrastructure that was built to handle truck traffic but rarely sees it happen is staggering and trucking companies would not be able to sustain it on their own. No road sees enough lorries to warrant 4 level interchange just for trucks. But they are using it which enhances their flexibility which is pretty much the reason why trucks are so competitive against rail.

Russia, in a way, shows that without governmental input, trucks remain a solution to the last mile problem.

Also - road trains are badass.
>>
>>1867277
> someone explain to me like a retard how PSR destroyed the American Freight Train

Think about a railroad like your personal car... you can save a shitload of money if you never do any maintenance, drive it like a high schooler on pcp and generally do everything wrong so long as you manage to sell it to someone who doesn't know what they're looking at before it literally blows up.
>>
>>1867325
>The thing is that there really never was a railroad competition in europe
>mfw I just realized a crossover is a symbol of competing rail infrastructure
mind blown anon, thanks
>>
>>1867195
Other railroads installed some electrification. New Haven, N&W, Virginian, Milwaukee Road, and a number of smaller operators all did. Conrail gave up electric freight operations long before NS and CSX got a hold of them.
>>
>>1867327
Can this be a tractor/truck thread now please as we don’t have one and I’m range banned from making threads
>>
File: EnQpHC877208.png (1.37 MB, 1907x933)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB PNG
>>1867327
The issue anon complained about was licenses and taxes not raising revenues sufficient to cover the cost of repairing the damage, creating moral hazard and de facto subsidy whereas rail fares, charges, and access fees more closely correspond to the cost of keeping the infrastructure up and running. That problem can absolutely be solved. As you point out, doing so would not cause mass abandonment of road transport, but it would limit shippers' free lunches and more properly match costs to those inflicting them.
>they would run like they do in Australia
Most trucks in Australia ply the routes between the major metropolitan areas on regular Australian motorways. Road trains are epic but their use case doesn't generalize.
> but rarely sees it happen is staggering
And that's fine, to an extent, depending upon the level of excess capacity and whether there are any real prospects of it being used, even in a war scenario.
> trucking companies would not be able to sustain it on their own
Funding structures are set up so that busy routes subsidize everything else; every other argument aside the strength of networks isn't a matter of mere addition or subtraction, so those little lines contribute more than they seem to.
>>
File: iEyULk090822.png (302 KB, 1744x848)
302 KB
302 KB PNG
>>1867327
>Russia, in a way, shows that without governmental input, trucks remain a solution to the last mile problem.
They're used for transport in basically all distance bands in Russia. Ton-km is a generally a good metric, but it's distorted in Russia because much of what they do is moving raw materials from Siberia into Europe or the Urals or China, and because purchasing power/the consumer goods market is lower than in other countries.
But median distance trucks travel is still 2/3 that of the US, which implies a decent amount of stuff being shipped end-to-end on trucks.
>>
>>1867079
It's called a diamond here, we have a couple on my RR just due to the track geometry/layout in some yards.
>>
>>1865837
>source
>>
>>1865749
While freight takes presidence over passenger transport you will have no fast passenger transport.
>>
>>1866203
Very nice, now let's see double stacks running under the wires in Europe. Oh, wait.
>>
>>1867327
>road trains are badass
But not close to as efficient as real trains, which can be many many times longer for the same number of people running it.
Road freight's advantage is in flexibility, not base efficiency. At short distances, flexibility dominates. At long distances, efficiency is king. The cut-over depends on the details; bulk cargo usually goes to train (or ship!) way sooner than small specialty cargo.
>>
>>1869377
It's not just distance, it's weight. A trip of just a few hours is better by train if it's something like several cars full of loose rice, a trip halfway across the country with pallets of bagged rice destined for grocery stores is better by truck.
>>
File: file.png (1.44 MB, 1920x700)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB PNG
>>1869398
and yet, here's the UK's largest grocery retailer - the third largest retailer in the world by revenue, apparently - bringing in fresh produce from Spain and the wider Mediterranean via rail freight, all the way to the goods yards connected to the Channel Tunnel link. from there the containers are cross-docked onto lorries, headed either to their country-wide distribution centres where they're destuffed and sent to supermarkets, or to their London freight yards where they're placed onto trains again headed for Scotland. you can watch them yourself, lumbering through the slow tracks at Doncaster every so often.
>Tesco was the first UK retailer to start running a dedicated rail service from Spain using temperature-controlled containers. It’s now established five weekly train services from Spain to its Barking depot, carrying an incredible 35,000 loads of fresh produce like oranges and lemons, cucumbers, peppers and tomatoes.
>Why is Tesco is making that investment? Because moving goods by train is kinder to the environment than using lorries.
>https://www.tescoplc.com/updates/2021/how-tesco-is-turning-to-trains-to-help-cut-the-emissions-it-takes-to-get-food-on-our-plates/
>>
>>1865932
>Russia. Unironically.
Compare frieght train sizes, their cargo load and deadweight in Russia and US and willl see you can't be more wrong.
>>
The UK has more soul than every other country put together
>>
>>1869474
poor effort
>>
>>1869498
Yeah?
>>
>>1869771
yeah
>>
>>1869474
Those two units on the right just look like buses. >>1869771 is much better
>>
>>1865933
>You're entirely right on that, heavy industry does create far more ton-kilometers than consumer goods.
In which case look at Australia. In 2016 (last year of data) the US had 2.6m ton.km. Australia had 400k ton.km. that's for an economy 15x smaller.

But no one would say Australia has the best rail system. Even if parts of it are highly advanced.
>>
>>1869935
I will remind you that I am still at the platform in Townsville waiting for my train to Noosa
>>
File: 1608718329855.jpg (109 KB, 1000x668)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
>>1869474
This is what they took from you.
>>
>>1870010
>50 years of development of diesel power in the UK
>single american loco wipes it off within a decade
>>
>>1870063
Indeed. Strange how things go, huh.
>>
File: class_87.jpg (372 KB, 1100x736)
372 KB
372 KB JPG
>>1870070
I am subscribed to a channel which produced this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIpsEvVeJfw

Until then I had quite rosy view of UK railroads, mainly because of thousands of hours spent playing OG Transport Tycoon and TTDeluxe back in the nineties. Until watching that I didn't know just how disturbing class 59/66 was on british railroads.

Pic rel - class 87, best single section locomotive in TT.
>>
>>1865959
>Rail at its peak was built and maintained by private companies, and it clearly seems to work best that way.
Yeah but it's privately owned now and on an express train to nowhere.
>>
File: gommunism.jpg (36 KB, 480x335)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>1865932
>late stage capitalism
>>
>>1866061
Right Anon, all those locks the US Army Engineers built, the public airports, and the giant multibillion dollar interstate highway system had 0 effect
>>
>>1869935
Without looking at Australian rail freight for more than 10 seconds, my impression of it is that it's mostly very long trains with heavy bulk goods. That's practically a no-brainer to put on trains, and even the worst rail freight systems in the world would still get the heavy bulk.
I personally look a lot at how well rail competes with road when I gauge the success of rail freight, because a punctual, reliable and commercially viable rail freight system attracts a lot of goods that otherwise would be shipped by road. With that in mind, ton-km (yes, I do argue against myself too) isn't an accurate metric of how well rail freight performs in a given country, as the heavy bulk goods that goes on rail anyway will inflate that number.
>>
>>1870953
You realise just one state in Australia is practically the world's iron ore source right, Australia ships a LOT of heavy ores by rail, you have to have real knowledge to work with the stats around this
>>
>>1865749
I just want comfy small town railroad systems maybe even trolley systems from town to town.
>>
>>1870530
Indeed, we're living it.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.