4 ms·

What I found interesting is that in the US the government had a huge role with developing the rail network while in the UK it was entirely done by the private s

What I found interesting is that in the US the government had a huge role with developing the rail network while in the UK it was entirely done by the private sector. I'm from the Netherlands where the rail network started out as a state owned company. It then got privatized by splitting ownership horizontally. Meaning one company owns the rail network while other companies provide train services on top of that network. This in contrast to Japan where ownership is split vertically. Multiple companies owning sections of the network including the train services. It amazes me that the Japanese model is able to achieve their famous punctuality. To see multiple privately owned companies working together in perfect harmony. In the Netherlands the railway system still needs state funding every year. I don't see how we could ever transition to the Japanese model. Which is a shame. I think the optimal solution needn't and shouldn't be government designed. To see countries like Norway where the state is subsidizing electric cars. Then meanwhile it's the state owned company Equinor still extracting huge amounts of oil for export. That oil might not get burned in Norway. But it's going to be burnt somewhere regardless how clean the energy in Norway is. Achieving clean transportation in one country doesn't mean we're solving the CO2 problem if the states are still allowing oil to be extracted and exported to other countries. The problem is perhaps best solved by achieving renewable energy sources. Either through electricity or producing renewable (combustible) fuel sources.

apexalpha 8y ago
You are now comparing a star-form rail network in the Netherlands that runs in a country of 300km by 400km to a fish-grate network that runs in Japan. Also, the famous punctuality comes from the Japanese High Speed train network, a network purpose built for a single model of train. There are no intersections, road crossings or freight or slow trains on that network. Obviously any Dutch train would also fare well on a purpose built track. But our tracks are shared with trains from the NS (Dutch Rail) as well as trains from the German (Arriva) and French (Veolia) operators, the German (ICE), French (TGV) and British (EuroStar) High Speed trains, thousands of tons of freight from DB Cargo and several other regional players. You're just comparing Apples and Oranges when you compare our open, star shaped rail grid to the Japanese purposebuilt Shinkansen
- bartimus 8y ago
  I'm not just comparing the Shinkansen. I'm comparing the whole Japanese network in its entirety. It isn't just a fish-grate network. It expands deep into the rural areas where it's highly integrated. Indeed they have multiple forms of trains and railways optimized for each purpose. If you take the train in Japan you might pass through numerous operators and types of railways. It's why it's so complicated to buy a ticket there. I'm comparing rail networks with rail networks and different forms of ownership. Why wouldn't I be allowed to make that comparison?
  - apexalpha 8y ago
    You are allowed to compare it but just make sure to compare the right numbers. The stereotype 'apology for 20 seconds delay' and stuff are all from high speed trains. Not from regular tracks. >In the Netherlands the railway system still needs state funding every year. I don't see how we could ever transition to the Japanese model. Which is a shame. Other than that you seem to see the Japanese system as some end goal that we should all try to achieve: but the Dutch system is already in the top 3 of punctuality as it is today. It does require some subsidies, but then so do roads or the military. It's just because it's not there to make a profit but to be an enabler of economic growth.
    - bartimus 8y ago
      It's also a cultural thing in Japan to be honorable with the service you provide. If a critical connection in Japan gets delayed it can have huge impact. Thanks to the vertical split of ownership you can always blame a specific operator for some outage. In Holland we often see a blame game where the operator blames the network owner. The network owner pretty much has a monopoly here. > the Dutch system is already in the top 3 of punctuality I've oftentimes tried to find such numbers but have never been successful. There's some efforts that attempt to compare European countries (I think Holland is not 3rd here). But not worldwide comparisons. The problem is also that countries have different ideas on what constitutes a train being "on time". Meanwhile in Europe 76% of all freight transport is still happening on the road. In Holland 72% of all private person-kilometers are happening on the road. Switzerland has an amazing rail network which is state owned (although it started out from privately owned companies). But also in Switzerland 75% of all person-kilometers are on the road. Let's say we'd want to get those trucks off the road and onto our wonderful railway network. I think it wouldn't even be possible. Could we run all those freight trains on the same railways as the passenger trains? We'd probably need separate specialized lines. Then we need to quadruple its capacity to accommodate for all the road kilometers. How much would that cost? Perhaps it's cheaper to subsidize electric vehicles. I'm not particularly against trains. Fine if it's viable. But I don't see how it will become the answer to the global warming problem. Also because of the other arguments mentioned in this thread (The hub and spokes model being inefficient).

apexalpha 8y ago

You are now comparing a star-form rail network in the Netherlands that runs in a country of 300km by 400km to a fish-grate network that runs in Japan. Also, the famous punctuality comes from the Japanese High Speed train network, a network purpose built for a single model of train. There are no intersections, road crossings or freight or slow trains on that network. Obviously any Dutch train would also fare well on a purpose built track. But our tracks are shared with trains from the NS (Dutch Rail) as well as trains from the German (Arriva) and French (Veolia) operators, the German (ICE), French (TGV) and British (EuroStar) High Speed trains, thousands of tons of freight from DB Cargo and several other regional players. You're just comparing Apples and Oranges when you compare our open, star shaped rail grid to the Japanese purposebuilt Shinkansen

bartimus 8y ago
I'm not just comparing the Shinkansen. I'm comparing the whole Japanese network in its entirety. It isn't just a fish-grate network. It expands deep into the rural areas where it's highly integrated. Indeed they have multiple forms of trains and railways optimized for each purpose. If you take the train in Japan you might pass through numerous operators and types of railways. It's why it's so complicated to buy a ticket there. I'm comparing rail networks with rail networks and different forms of ownership. Why wouldn't I be allowed to make that comparison?
- apexalpha 8y ago
  You are allowed to compare it but just make sure to compare the right numbers. The stereotype 'apology for 20 seconds delay' and stuff are all from high speed trains. Not from regular tracks. >In the Netherlands the railway system still needs state funding every year. I don't see how we could ever transition to the Japanese model. Which is a shame. Other than that you seem to see the Japanese system as some end goal that we should all try to achieve: but the Dutch system is already in the top 3 of punctuality as it is today. It does require some subsidies, but then so do roads or the military. It's just because it's not there to make a profit but to be an enabler of economic growth.
  - bartimus 8y ago
    It's also a cultural thing in Japan to be honorable with the service you provide. If a critical connection in Japan gets delayed it can have huge impact. Thanks to the vertical split of ownership you can always blame a specific operator for some outage. In Holland we often see a blame game where the operator blames the network owner. The network owner pretty much has a monopoly here. > the Dutch system is already in the top 3 of punctuality I've oftentimes tried to find such numbers but have never been successful. There's some efforts that attempt to compare European countries (I think Holland is not 3rd here). But not worldwide comparisons. The problem is also that countries have different ideas on what constitutes a train being "on time". Meanwhile in Europe 76% of all freight transport is still happening on the road. In Holland 72% of all private person-kilometers are happening on the road. Switzerland has an amazing rail network which is state owned (although it started out from privately owned companies). But also in Switzerland 75% of all person-kilometers are on the road. Let's say we'd want to get those trucks off the road and onto our wonderful railway network. I think it wouldn't even be possible. Could we run all those freight trains on the same railways as the passenger trains? We'd probably need separate specialized lines. Then we need to quadruple its capacity to accommodate for all the road kilometers. How much would that cost? Perhaps it's cheaper to subsidize electric vehicles. I'm not particularly against trains. Fine if it's viable. But I don't see how it will become the answer to the global warming problem. Also because of the other arguments mentioned in this thread (The hub and spokes model being inefficient).