4 ms·
> 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.
by 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.