4 ms·

It's a classic throughput v. latency problem. Ships are high throughput, high latency. Trains are low throughput, low latency. That said, train throughput se

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
      > But if the rail is a shipping channel replacement, no need to limit to one track. By this analogy, no need to limit to one port, either. But even this analogy doesn't quite hold true, because tracks v. ports are apples v. oranges. The proper comparisons here would be tracks v. navigation routes and ports v. rail depots.
      - fulafel 6y ago
        Sure. Upthread the concern was about rail bottlenecks being one track.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Assume a train is going 100km/h That's quite an assumption. Yeah, that might be a reasonable (if brisk) cruising speed, but the average is probably gonna be a fair bit slower than that, especially when passing through cities or mountains. > 6m shipping container, let's say 7m, so 4 every second. Technically 8 (under the above assumption), since containers can double-stack (though not all tunnels offer enough clearance for it). Still, real-life throughput's usually gonna be a lot lower than this theoretical maximum (by at least an order of magnitude, if not more), namely because trains can't really be packed end-to-end on a track when moving at any useful speed; they ain't exactly able to stop on a dime, so for safety reasons there's gonna be a fair bit of distance between trains. Further, if you're going to count the time it takes for ports to load/unload containers, then it's only fair to do the same for train depots.
eyko 6y ago
This ignores the fact that train lines crossing multiple sovereign countries and their respective borders is more complicated to negotiate. If you're a country with access to the sea, you need to build a port, and ships, and you have access to global trade. In other words, most countries can cut out dozens of middlemen.
- hef19898 6y ago
  China to Europe is working flawless, thanks to Chinas new Silk Road. Same for for trucking.
  - bkor 6y ago
    https://theloadstar.com/look-to-trucks-as-china-europe-rail-hits-delays-and-capacity-is-squeezed/ https://theloadstar.com/look-to-trucks-as-china-europe-rail-... “There can be delays of up to seven days on the route – and no one expected this to happen. We are now running up to 50 trucks a week from China to Europe,” The truck bit is because they're switching to trucks to avoid the congestion on the train. It's partly due to success, partly due to problems on other modalities (air+container vessel). Also "China-Europe rail services had been suffering from recent delays caused by military movements at the Kazakh-China border, and there had also been congestion issues at the Poland-Belarus border hub of Malaszewicze." Though you could also summarize this as growing pains. It's pretty normal and expected to run into issues as usage greatly increases. The article does mention that the cost was subsidized by the Chinese government. Not sure how much economies of scale would apply here (more usage, lower cost, less need to subsidize). 2020 had a crazy jump on the amount of cargo on Chine-Europe by rail. Strategically, it's an issue that all countries between origin and destination can influence the movement of goods with this method. It's less of a factor with shipping.
    - billfruit 6y ago
      I'm not sure of the route, but does the rail line needs to traverse lake Van through a ferry, since there is no rail connectivity around the lake? Or may be they are taking the norther routes through Russia.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
Low throughout and very low latency = planes.
usrusr 6y ago
It's cost/latency problem, throughout eventually scales with market demand.
bkor 6y ago
> Trains are low throughput, low latency. I think there are a lack of people working in logistics in these comments. The modality depends on the circumstances. And this is _not_ about throughput vs latency, it's about cost. A container vessel is cheaper because of the reduced friction and the ability to scale. Those cost savings are very beneficial to loads of shipped goods. It's not always beneficial though, in which case another modality is used. If a plane/train would be the cheapest option it would've been used. > Trains are low throughput, low latency. This is too simplistic. You can ship by air/truck/train/barge/vessel. A train is _not_ low latency. It takes a while before the entire train is full (stacked). It's way quicker to drive off with a container on a truck. For a long distance, a train is sometimes a solution. For short distances there is too much of a delay. Train/Barge are quite similar in this. > That said, train throughput seems straightforward to address: build more rails. Ugh. How does this address that a track and trains are often quite different across countries? It's a pretty simplistic view. Depending on the need the right solution is chosen. But you cannot just ignore that a big vessel uses way less energy per container than anything else. Thereby it'll be significantly cheaper. A company can and does use different modalities depending on the need. Meaning, if urgent, by air. But a combination of modalities is easily possible. Meaning, the majority on a big container vessel. Then any unexpected things by train (China->Europe).
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > I think there are a lack of people working in logistics in these comments. I do work in logistics, thanks for asking :) > And this is _not_ about throughput vs latency, it's about cost. "Cost" is a tricky subject. Yes, price-wise a container ship is usually cheaper (past a certain distance), but that's only one aspect of cost-to-business. Transit time is another aspect, since it imposes its own costs - both tangible (e.g. spoilage) and intangible (inventory "in limbo" for longer). EDIT: not to mention externalized costs, like pollution. Right now trains and ships are both pretty bad (and trucks even worse), but - per another comment of mine in this thread - trains (and trucks) can at least be electrified, meaning they could ultimately derive their power from solar/wind/nuclear/geothermal/etc. Ships have fewer options there; the only feasible option of which I'm aware is nuclear, and that doesn't seem to be very common at all. That said: > If a plane/train would be the cheapest option it would've been used. And there are a lot of situations where a train is indeed the cheapest option, or at least cheaper than a ship. And that could be improved further with better economies of scale - i.e. more rails, and more trains on those rails. > A train is _not_ low latency. I meant compared to ships. Obviously there are yet-lower-latency modes of freight transportation, including trucks (depending on distance; at longer distances, trains and even ships eventually overtake trucks, but for short distances they're about as good as it gets), but compared to ships, trains are definitely the "low latency" option, both due to better speed and due to loading/unloading times. > How does this address that a track and trains are often quite different across countries? We're talking about a situation where a rail connection already exists, which would mean that the issue of different rail standards across countries would already be addressed. > A company can and does use different modalities depending on the need. Obviously. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

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
    > But if the rail is a shipping channel replacement, no need to limit to one track. By this analogy, no need to limit to one port, either. But even this analogy doesn't quite hold true, because tracks v. ports are apples v. oranges. The proper comparisons here would be tracks v. navigation routes and ports v. rail depots.
    - fulafel 6y ago
      Sure. Upthread the concern was about rail bottlenecks being one track.
yellowapple 6y ago
> Assume a train is going 100km/h That's quite an assumption. Yeah, that might be a reasonable (if brisk) cruising speed, but the average is probably gonna be a fair bit slower than that, especially when passing through cities or mountains. > 6m shipping container, let's say 7m, so 4 every second. Technically 8 (under the above assumption), since containers can double-stack (though not all tunnels offer enough clearance for it). Still, real-life throughput's usually gonna be a lot lower than this theoretical maximum (by at least an order of magnitude, if not more), namely because trains can't really be packed end-to-end on a track when moving at any useful speed; they ain't exactly able to stop on a dime, so for safety reasons there's gonna be a fair bit of distance between trains. Further, if you're going to count the time it takes for ports to load/unload containers, then it's only fair to do the same for train depots.

eyko 6y ago

This ignores the fact that train lines crossing multiple sovereign countries and their respective borders is more complicated to negotiate. If you're a country with access to the sea, you need to build a port, and ships, and you have access to global trade. In other words, most countries can cut out dozens of middlemen.

hef19898 6y ago
China to Europe is working flawless, thanks to Chinas new Silk Road. Same for for trucking.
- bkor 6y ago
  https://theloadstar.com/look-to-trucks-as-china-europe-rail-hits-delays-and-capacity-is-squeezed/ https://theloadstar.com/look-to-trucks-as-china-europe-rail-... “There can be delays of up to seven days on the route – and no one expected this to happen. We are now running up to 50 trucks a week from China to Europe,” The truck bit is because they're switching to trucks to avoid the congestion on the train. It's partly due to success, partly due to problems on other modalities (air+container vessel). Also "China-Europe rail services had been suffering from recent delays caused by military movements at the Kazakh-China border, and there had also been congestion issues at the Poland-Belarus border hub of Malaszewicze." Though you could also summarize this as growing pains. It's pretty normal and expected to run into issues as usage greatly increases. The article does mention that the cost was subsidized by the Chinese government. Not sure how much economies of scale would apply here (more usage, lower cost, less need to subsidize). 2020 had a crazy jump on the amount of cargo on Chine-Europe by rail. Strategically, it's an issue that all countries between origin and destination can influence the movement of goods with this method. It's less of a factor with shipping.
  - billfruit 6y ago
    I'm not sure of the route, but does the rail line needs to traverse lake Van through a ferry, since there is no rail connectivity around the lake? Or may be they are taking the norther routes through Russia.

NicoJuicy 6y ago

Low throughout and very low latency = planes.

usrusr 6y ago

It's cost/latency problem, throughout eventually scales with market demand.

bkor 6y ago

> Trains are low throughput, low latency. I think there are a lack of people working in logistics in these comments. The modality depends on the circumstances. And this is _not_ about throughput vs latency, it's about cost. A container vessel is cheaper because of the reduced friction and the ability to scale. Those cost savings are very beneficial to loads of shipped goods. It's not always beneficial though, in which case another modality is used. If a plane/train would be the cheapest option it would've been used. > Trains are low throughput, low latency. This is too simplistic. You can ship by air/truck/train/barge/vessel. A train is _not_ low latency. It takes a while before the entire train is full (stacked). It's way quicker to drive off with a container on a truck. For a long distance, a train is sometimes a solution. For short distances there is too much of a delay. Train/Barge are quite similar in this. > That said, train throughput seems straightforward to address: build more rails. Ugh. How does this address that a track and trains are often quite different across countries? It's a pretty simplistic view. Depending on the need the right solution is chosen. But you cannot just ignore that a big vessel uses way less energy per container than anything else. Thereby it'll be significantly cheaper. A company can and does use different modalities depending on the need. Meaning, if urgent, by air. But a combination of modalities is easily possible. Meaning, the majority on a big container vessel. Then any unexpected things by train (China->Europe).

yellowapple 6y ago
> I think there are a lack of people working in logistics in these comments. I do work in logistics, thanks for asking :) > And this is _not_ about throughput vs latency, it's about cost. "Cost" is a tricky subject. Yes, price-wise a container ship is usually cheaper (past a certain distance), but that's only one aspect of cost-to-business. Transit time is another aspect, since it imposes its own costs - both tangible (e.g. spoilage) and intangible (inventory "in limbo" for longer). EDIT: not to mention externalized costs, like pollution. Right now trains and ships are both pretty bad (and trucks even worse), but - per another comment of mine in this thread - trains (and trucks) can at least be electrified, meaning they could ultimately derive their power from solar/wind/nuclear/geothermal/etc. Ships have fewer options there; the only feasible option of which I'm aware is nuclear, and that doesn't seem to be very common at all. That said: > If a plane/train would be the cheapest option it would've been used. And there are a lot of situations where a train is indeed the cheapest option, or at least cheaper than a ship. And that could be improved further with better economies of scale - i.e. more rails, and more trains on those rails. > A train is _not_ low latency. I meant compared to ships. Obviously there are yet-lower-latency modes of freight transportation, including trucks (depending on distance; at longer distances, trains and even ships eventually overtake trucks, but for short distances they're about as good as it gets), but compared to ships, trains are definitely the "low latency" option, both due to better speed and due to loading/unloading times. > How does this address that a track and trains are often quite different across countries? We're talking about a situation where a rail connection already exists, which would mean that the issue of different rail standards across countries would already be addressed. > A company can and does use different modalities depending on the need. Obviously. Nobody's arguing otherwise.