8 ms·

Belt and Road. Containers already take a week on rail via Kazakhstan to Germany, instead of a month at sea.

by rado 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AstralStorm 6y ago
But do big enough trains exist? As in, is the container ship only 4x bigger than the train?
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  Is there a hard limit on how long a train can be?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kabouseng 6y ago
    Longest freight trains currently run upwards of 2km. You could make trains longer but various issues crop up such as ability to radio reliably the whole length of the train for telemetry and distributed locomotive control. Also the brake line systems typically used (air actuated) becomes a factor as well as safety (can't see the whole train)
    - bipson 6y ago
      And what happens if trains become significantly larger than segments. Trains cannot occupy a whole track from China to Vienna for themselves, right? You need bypasses, stops, segments, etc. Edit: typo
      - navaati 6y ago
        Oh wow, had't thought of that, I'm shivering from Factorio PTSD at the idea of handling kilometers long trains !
    - avar 6y ago
      There's going to be good reasons for why a ridiculously long train isn't worth it when it comes to cost-benefit, but these reasons just seem contrived: > radio reliably The cars are physically connected, why couldn't you run repeaters down its length? Presumably any issue you'd have with sightline radio on a >2km long train now you'd also have with a ~200 meter train halfway through a ~50 meter tunnel. > the brake line systems typically used (air actuated) And have N independent break systems with central control. It should be more not less safe, a complete failure of one system could be backed-up by another. > can't see the whole train So run CCTV on the same system you're using for the radio repeaters?
    - wahern 6y ago
      Which country? I'm not a train nut, but 2km seemed middling in the U.S., so I Googled it: > SMART Union transportation division spokesman John Risch told top rail regulator the Surface Transportation Board (STB) at an October hearing on CSX service problems the average U.S. train is up to 1.5 miles long (2.41 km), but CSX has routinely operated trains two or even three miles long since Harrison took over. -- https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/12/07/473390.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/12/07/47...
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Safety and the steepness of the track, among other things. Regular freight trains from China to Europe are a real thing by the way, no need to speculate. Service is running flawless as well.
    - MomoXenosaga 6y ago
      Yeah they use them for expensive goods that need to move faster than a ship and not as fast as a plane. Things like laptops and computer parts. A lot of industry is moving from the Chinese coast to remote provinces that don't have coastal access.
  - robocat 6y ago
    Aside: “Trains in Switzerland are not allowed to have 256 axles” - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298399
  - pasttense01 6y ago
    Another issue is at grade road crossings. There are limits as to how long you can close a crossing preventing road traffic from going through. The longer the train the longer the crossing is closed. I think the vast majority of railroads have at grade road crossings [exceptions might be high speed rail.] Does anyone know?
- tda 6y ago
  longest train according to wikipedia is 18.000 feet (3.4 miles). If a 40ft containers needs a 60ft car, and they are double stacked, then you can fit 30022 = 1200 TEU of containers on that train. A single large container vessel has 20.000+ TEU of containers onboard. So nope, trains are a lot smaller than container vessels
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  Why would we want to reproduce the exact same model? Maybe more, smaller trains would do just fine instead of a single gigantic one. Also, I'd say trains could be easier to automate, so having several smaller trains instead of a single huge one wouldn't be an issue, as you wouldn't add the cost of personnel. Trains can also go to different places easier, so you wouldn't have to move container several times.
prox 6y ago
Trains are cool, but a containership can move a lot more. A better option might be a second canal.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  It's a classic throughput v. latency problem. Ships are high throughput, high latency. Trains are low throughput, low latency. That said, train throughput seems straightforward to address: build more rails.
  - mavhc 6y ago
    Assume a train is going 100km/h, that's 28 metres per second 6m shipping container, let's say 7m, so 4 every second. Largest container ports do 40 million containers per year, that's about 1 per second.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      That's supposing the railway is filled bumper-to-bumper with 100 km/h freight trains. More like a conveyor belt than a railway.
      - mavhc 6y ago
        Given automation it's not far off what's possible. Obviously you'd have multiple tracks for slower parts and loading/unloading. Main problems would be politics and mountains.
      - fulafel 6y ago
        But if the rail is a shipping channel replacement, no need to limit to one track. Or if we are comparing to a busy port like eg Rotterdam, that also corresponds to a nexus of many shipping routes which would be equivalent to several tracks.
        yellowapple 6y ago
yellowapple 6y ago
Not to mention that rail seems like it'd be a lot easier and more feasible to electrify. I wonder how far away we are from being able to build rail bridges (or underwater tunnels?) to enable circumnavigation by rail? I'm picturing two loops - one arctic, one antarctic - and tunnels connecting those loops to the Americas (Alaska/Canada and Chile/Argentina), Scandinavia, Siberia, maybe even South Africa and Australia. Seems like something that should be achievable within the next century given the current rate of technological progress.
- eyko 6y ago
  I saw this really interesting idea a looong time ago: https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic-maglev/ https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlanti... and, personally, $175 billion felt like a lot back then but if it's still in the ballpark doesn't seem that unfathomable today.
- bkor 6y ago
  > Not to mention that rail seems like it'd be a lot easier and more feasible to electrify. That's actually quite difficult for this suggestion. The amount of Volts on these lines differ greatly across countries. In this case the intention is to connect multiple countries. In enough countries the tracks aren't electrified. A train which can handle the differences across countries is pretty unique. Tracks can differ in size and lots of trains only handle one electrical system. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/media/File:Europe_rail_electrification_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/medi... I've seen a few "solutions" to dump all containers from Asia in e.g. Spain. This so to "reduce" the backlog. Then have "trains" move the containers to the right place. Aside from loads of other reasons why this wouldn't work, just see how many electrical systems are in use. Aside from just: where are these magical ready to use trains? ;)
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > That's actually quite difficult for this suggestion. The amount of Volts on these lines differ greatly across countries. [...] Tracks can differ in size and lots of trains only handle one electrical system. Implementing an international standard for rail gauges and electrification voltages/frequencies is still currently much more feasible than electrifying cargo ships (unless nuclear-powered cargo ships become more widespread, which would be great, but that doesn't seem to be happening). Worst case scenario, you start from scratch (which is what we'd have to do here in the US, since electrified freight rail is basically nonexistent here).
NicoJuicy 6y ago
I don't think belt and road is a viable replacement for a container ship. The largest cargo ships can carry 24k containers at a cheaper rate... With 6 meter for a 20 feet container, that would be a train with 144 km. cargo. I wouldn't want to wait with my car at that intersection... Emergency cargo is transported with planes.
- fulafel 6y ago
  Most container ships are much smaller though.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Most trains are much smaller than the longest trains too. And they were used/build for a very specific purpose ( mining). These cargo ships were build for the same purpose.
    - rualca 6y ago
      > Most trains are much smaller than the longest trains too. Yes they are, and all it takes is a locomotive or two operated by a couple of engineers to move cargo faster.
- rualca 6y ago
  > that would be a train with 144 km. That comparison is pointless. It makes no sense to assume that railway must load at least the load carried by one of the world's largest container ships for cargo to be deliverable from point A to B. Another pointless comparison is the fact that container ships unload their cargo on ports for it to be transported through railway and roadway to their destination, thus it makes no sense to assume that railway should have to transport 24k containers from China to Rotterdam to then reroute it back to other locations. No, it can pretty much work point-to-point with a little shunting throughout the process.
LockAndLol 6y ago
Also allows for a lot of automation since everything is guided. The whole system could work seamlessly with little human intervention. Not to mention that rail has a much lower CO2 output since trains have to push air out of the way, not liquid.
- bkor 6y ago
  > Not to mention that rail has a much lower CO2 output since trains have to push air out of the way, not liquid. That's not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Water_transport_means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport... mentions: "The specific energy consumption of the trains worldwide amounts to about 150 kJ/pkm (kilojoule per passenger kilometre) and 150 kJ/tkm (kilojoule per tonne kilometre)" And for a container vessel: "Assuming a standard 14 tonnes per container (per teu) this yields 74 kJ per tonne-km at a speed of 45 km/h (24 knots)." This was calculated for a 14.000 TEU container vessel. Nowadays these container vessels are 20.000 TEU easily. Meaning, the energy per TEU is nowadays lower than above quoted figure. See also e.g. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-large-cargo-ships-much-more-fuel-efficient-than-cargo-trucks-or-trains https://www.quora.com/Why-are-large-cargo-ships-much-more-fu...
  - mavhc 6y ago
    But making renewable energy boats is very hard, whereas renewable energy trains is much easier
    - bkor 6y ago
      > But making renewable energy boats is very hard, whereas renewable energy trains is much easier Nitpicking: the word "boat" is not used for anything big. For small vessels I've seen loads of areas where they need to be electric. So the statement "making renewable energy boats" is inaccurate if you use "boat" instead of "vessel". The amount of different electrical train systems in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/media/File:Europe_rail_electrification_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/medi... Not everything is as nicely electrified as above map would suggest. There are tracks that aren't electrified while above map would suggest it is. Still, this could be assumed to be solvable. You need a significant amount of (additional!) trains vs the amount of container vessels. Which means additional track. After all of that is done the cost of transport will be significantly higher. If there was a renewable solution for container vessels then you'd need to replace way less. I'm not too sure about the "much easier" assumption if you take everything into account. A lot of container shipping companies are state owned (by e.g. China). Some aren't state-owned, though they've received a significant amount of state help in the past. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freight_ship_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freight_ship_companies. France helped CMA CGM various times in the last ~10 years. So although rail might be the best solution for the environment, I don't see it happening. The cost/price needs to be right, and if the cost is influenced artificially then a business/company might change things in ways that aren't expected, nor good for the environment. In an ideal world any decision would be taken with the environment in mind. In practice it's quite difficult. Even if you follow this as a country, if you're not big enough other countries might undercut your economy, thereby minimizing the effort of just one country. Various container shipping companies are ok with stricter regulations. But then they need to be checked and enforced. There's too much potential money to be made to ignore regulations. Note that captains of a vessel can be thrown in jail for various reasons, it's much stricter than financial industry (pay a fine and continue).
tomaskafka 6y ago
My friend from a logistics company has made a what-if-suez-got-blocked infographics eight years ago. Railway transport of a container was about 2x more expensive than a ship through Suez, and surprisingly not much faster. (Sorry, czech only) https://logio.cz/infografiky/co-se-stane-den-pote-co-zkolaboval-suezsky-pruplav/ https://logio.cz/infografiky/co-se-stane-den-pote-co-zkolabo...
- hef19898 6y ago
  They are faster bow, still more expensive so. Lead time was, if I remember correctly, around 2-4 weeks. Before the Suez blockage, I wouldn't be surprised if there were capacity issues on the new rail roads. By see, China to Germany is more around 6 weeks.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
I thought roughly 100K containers pass through Suez a day. That's about 1 a second. End to end they would stretch out 600KM - about 1/4 of the distance between German and Kazakhstan.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
You are underestimating something: the sea isn't controlled by a single nation, while a train from Kazakhstan to Germany requires crossing Poland, Belarus and Russia, a different (worse?) type of geopolitical risk.
- jjk166 6y ago
  Pretty tough to pass through the suez canal without going through a few nations' territorial waters

Belt and Road. Containers already take a week on rail via Kazakhstan to Germany, instead of a month at sea.

by rado 6y ago

Belt and Road. Containers already take a week on rail via Kazakhstan to Germany, instead of a month at sea.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AstralStorm 6y ago

But do big enough trains exist? As in, is the container ship only 4x bigger than the train?

NullPrefix 6y ago
Is there a hard limit on how long a train can be?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kabouseng 6y ago
  Longest freight trains currently run upwards of 2km. You could make trains longer but various issues crop up such as ability to radio reliably the whole length of the train for telemetry and distributed locomotive control. Also the brake line systems typically used (air actuated) becomes a factor as well as safety (can't see the whole train)
  - bipson 6y ago
    And what happens if trains become significantly larger than segments. Trains cannot occupy a whole track from China to Vienna for themselves, right? You need bypasses, stops, segments, etc. Edit: typo
    - navaati 6y ago
      Oh wow, had't thought of that, I'm shivering from Factorio PTSD at the idea of handling kilometers long trains !
  - avar 6y ago
    There's going to be good reasons for why a ridiculously long train isn't worth it when it comes to cost-benefit, but these reasons just seem contrived: > radio reliably The cars are physically connected, why couldn't you run repeaters down its length? Presumably any issue you'd have with sightline radio on a >2km long train now you'd also have with a ~200 meter train halfway through a ~50 meter tunnel. > the brake line systems typically used (air actuated) And have N independent break systems with central control. It should be more not less safe, a complete failure of one system could be backed-up by another. > can't see the whole train So run CCTV on the same system you're using for the radio repeaters?
  - wahern 6y ago
    Which country? I'm not a train nut, but 2km seemed middling in the U.S., so I Googled it: > SMART Union transportation division spokesman John Risch told top rail regulator the Surface Transportation Board (STB) at an October hearing on CSX service problems the average U.S. train is up to 1.5 miles long (2.41 km), but CSX has routinely operated trains two or even three miles long since Harrison took over. -- https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/12/07/473390.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/12/07/47...
- hef19898 6y ago
  Safety and the steepness of the track, among other things. Regular freight trains from China to Europe are a real thing by the way, no need to speculate. Service is running flawless as well.
  - MomoXenosaga 6y ago
    Yeah they use them for expensive goods that need to move faster than a ship and not as fast as a plane. Things like laptops and computer parts. A lot of industry is moving from the Chinese coast to remote provinces that don't have coastal access.
- robocat 6y ago
  Aside: “Trains in Switzerland are not allowed to have 256 axles” - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298399
- pasttense01 6y ago
  Another issue is at grade road crossings. There are limits as to how long you can close a crossing preventing road traffic from going through. The longer the train the longer the crossing is closed. I think the vast majority of railroads have at grade road crossings [exceptions might be high speed rail.] Does anyone know?
tda 6y ago
longest train according to wikipedia is 18.000 feet (3.4 miles). If a 40ft containers needs a 60ft car, and they are double stacked, then you can fit 30022 = 1200 TEU of containers on that train. A single large container vessel has 20.000+ TEU of containers onboard. So nope, trains are a lot smaller than container vessels
vladvasiliu 6y ago
Why would we want to reproduce the exact same model? Maybe more, smaller trains would do just fine instead of a single gigantic one. Also, I'd say trains could be easier to automate, so having several smaller trains instead of a single huge one wouldn't be an issue, as you wouldn't add the cost of personnel. Trains can also go to different places easier, so you wouldn't have to move container several times.

prox 6y ago

Trains are cool, but a containership can move a lot more. A better option might be a second canal.

yellowapple 6y ago
It's a classic throughput v. latency problem. Ships are high throughput, high latency. Trains are low throughput, low latency. That said, train throughput seems straightforward to address: build more rails.
- mavhc 6y ago
  Assume a train is going 100km/h, that's 28 metres per second 6m shipping container, let's say 7m, so 4 every second. Largest container ports do 40 million containers per year, that's about 1 per second.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    That's supposing the railway is filled bumper-to-bumper with 100 km/h freight trains. More like a conveyor belt than a railway.
    - mavhc 6y ago
      Given automation it's not far off what's possible. Obviously you'd have multiple tracks for slower parts and loading/unloading. Main problems would be politics and mountains.
    - fulafel 6y ago
      But if the rail is a shipping channel replacement, no need to limit to one track. Or if we are comparing to a busy port like eg Rotterdam, that also corresponds to a nexus of many shipping routes which would be equivalent to several tracks.
      - yellowapple 6y ago

yellowapple 6y ago

Not to mention that rail seems like it'd be a lot easier and more feasible to electrify. I wonder how far away we are from being able to build rail bridges (or underwater tunnels?) to enable circumnavigation by rail? I'm picturing two loops - one arctic, one antarctic - and tunnels connecting those loops to the Americas (Alaska/Canada and Chile/Argentina), Scandinavia, Siberia, maybe even South Africa and Australia. Seems like something that should be achievable within the next century given the current rate of technological progress.

eyko 6y ago
I saw this really interesting idea a looong time ago: https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic-maglev/ https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlanti... and, personally, $175 billion felt like a lot back then but if it's still in the ballpark doesn't seem that unfathomable today.
bkor 6y ago
> Not to mention that rail seems like it'd be a lot easier and more feasible to electrify. That's actually quite difficult for this suggestion. The amount of Volts on these lines differ greatly across countries. In this case the intention is to connect multiple countries. In enough countries the tracks aren't electrified. A train which can handle the differences across countries is pretty unique. Tracks can differ in size and lots of trains only handle one electrical system. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/media/File:Europe_rail_electrification_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/medi... I've seen a few "solutions" to dump all containers from Asia in e.g. Spain. This so to "reduce" the backlog. Then have "trains" move the containers to the right place. Aside from loads of other reasons why this wouldn't work, just see how many electrical systems are in use. Aside from just: where are these magical ready to use trains? ;)
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > That's actually quite difficult for this suggestion. The amount of Volts on these lines differ greatly across countries. [...] Tracks can differ in size and lots of trains only handle one electrical system. Implementing an international standard for rail gauges and electrification voltages/frequencies is still currently much more feasible than electrifying cargo ships (unless nuclear-powered cargo ships become more widespread, which would be great, but that doesn't seem to be happening). Worst case scenario, you start from scratch (which is what we'd have to do here in the US, since electrified freight rail is basically nonexistent here).

NicoJuicy 6y ago

I don't think belt and road is a viable replacement for a container ship. The largest cargo ships can carry 24k containers at a cheaper rate... With 6 meter for a 20 feet container, that would be a train with 144 km. cargo. I wouldn't want to wait with my car at that intersection... Emergency cargo is transported with planes.

fulafel 6y ago
Most container ships are much smaller though.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Most trains are much smaller than the longest trains too. And they were used/build for a very specific purpose ( mining). These cargo ships were build for the same purpose.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > Most trains are much smaller than the longest trains too. Yes they are, and all it takes is a locomotive or two operated by a couple of engineers to move cargo faster.
rualca 6y ago
> that would be a train with 144 km. That comparison is pointless. It makes no sense to assume that railway must load at least the load carried by one of the world's largest container ships for cargo to be deliverable from point A to B. Another pointless comparison is the fact that container ships unload their cargo on ports for it to be transported through railway and roadway to their destination, thus it makes no sense to assume that railway should have to transport 24k containers from China to Rotterdam to then reroute it back to other locations. No, it can pretty much work point-to-point with a little shunting throughout the process.

LockAndLol 6y ago

Also allows for a lot of automation since everything is guided. The whole system could work seamlessly with little human intervention. Not to mention that rail has a much lower CO2 output since trains have to push air out of the way, not liquid.

bkor 6y ago
> Not to mention that rail has a much lower CO2 output since trains have to push air out of the way, not liquid. That's not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Water_transport_means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport... mentions: "The specific energy consumption of the trains worldwide amounts to about 150 kJ/pkm (kilojoule per passenger kilometre) and 150 kJ/tkm (kilojoule per tonne kilometre)" And for a container vessel: "Assuming a standard 14 tonnes per container (per teu) this yields 74 kJ per tonne-km at a speed of 45 km/h (24 knots)." This was calculated for a 14.000 TEU container vessel. Nowadays these container vessels are 20.000 TEU easily. Meaning, the energy per TEU is nowadays lower than above quoted figure. See also e.g. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-large-cargo-ships-much-more-fuel-efficient-than-cargo-trucks-or-trains https://www.quora.com/Why-are-large-cargo-ships-much-more-fu...
- mavhc 6y ago
  But making renewable energy boats is very hard, whereas renewable energy trains is much easier
  - bkor 6y ago
    > But making renewable energy boats is very hard, whereas renewable energy trains is much easier Nitpicking: the word "boat" is not used for anything big. For small vessels I've seen loads of areas where they need to be electric. So the statement "making renewable energy boats" is inaccurate if you use "boat" instead of "vessel". The amount of different electrical train systems in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/media/File:Europe_rail_electrification_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe#/medi... Not everything is as nicely electrified as above map would suggest. There are tracks that aren't electrified while above map would suggest it is. Still, this could be assumed to be solvable. You need a significant amount of (additional!) trains vs the amount of container vessels. Which means additional track. After all of that is done the cost of transport will be significantly higher. If there was a renewable solution for container vessels then you'd need to replace way less. I'm not too sure about the "much easier" assumption if you take everything into account. A lot of container shipping companies are state owned (by e.g. China). Some aren't state-owned, though they've received a significant amount of state help in the past. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freight_ship_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freight_ship_companies. France helped CMA CGM various times in the last ~10 years. So although rail might be the best solution for the environment, I don't see it happening. The cost/price needs to be right, and if the cost is influenced artificially then a business/company might change things in ways that aren't expected, nor good for the environment. In an ideal world any decision would be taken with the environment in mind. In practice it's quite difficult. Even if you follow this as a country, if you're not big enough other countries might undercut your economy, thereby minimizing the effort of just one country. Various container shipping companies are ok with stricter regulations. But then they need to be checked and enforced. There's too much potential money to be made to ignore regulations. Note that captains of a vessel can be thrown in jail for various reasons, it's much stricter than financial industry (pay a fine and continue).

tomaskafka 6y ago

My friend from a logistics company has made a what-if-suez-got-blocked infographics eight years ago. Railway transport of a container was about 2x more expensive than a ship through Suez, and surprisingly not much faster. (Sorry, czech only) https://logio.cz/infografiky/co-se-stane-den-pote-co-zkolaboval-suezsky-pruplav/ https://logio.cz/infografiky/co-se-stane-den-pote-co-zkolabo...

hef19898 6y ago
They are faster bow, still more expensive so. Lead time was, if I remember correctly, around 2-4 weeks. Before the Suez blockage, I wouldn't be surprised if there were capacity issues on the new rail roads. By see, China to Germany is more around 6 weeks.

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

I thought roughly 100K containers pass through Suez a day. That's about 1 a second. End to end they would stretch out 600KM - about 1/4 of the distance between German and Kazakhstan.

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

You are underestimating something: the sea isn't controlled by a single nation, while a train from Kazakhstan to Germany requires crossing Poland, Belarus and Russia, a different (worse?) type of geopolitical risk.

jjk166 6y ago
Pretty tough to pass through the suez canal without going through a few nations' territorial waters