4 ms·

How's the geology compared to regions of the world that have a dense rail network? I've always found it strange that the stereotype for great rail infrastructur

How's the geology compared to regions of the world that have a dense rail network? I've always found it strange that the stereotype for great rail infrastructure was Switzerland, which would be last on my list of countries to equip. French TGV climbs 3.5%, German ICE climbs 4%. That simplifies a lot of the route planning. Rail bridges are surprisingly simple and cheap (open area, known loads, no salt) and tunnels are easier the simpler the rock. I'd say it's no harder than any of the other miracles that we're building on the regular.

brudgers 5y ago
Compared to the geography of Switzerland, it makes sense to talk of a trans-continental railroad in the US and is absurd in relation to Switzerland. You can put three Switzerland's (or one Portugal) in the Mojave desert. To put it another way, Europeans haven't built high speed rail from London to Baku for similar reasons. The tree lined cloisters where political theory makes all nation states equal is not a good model of physical reality.Swiss rail hasn't connected Bern to Baghdad.
- tpm 5y ago
  Europeans haven't built high speed rail from London to Baku mostly because they (we) can't agree that's in their best interest and then invest accordingly. The Swiss did vote for and consequently built things like the Gotthard Base Tunnel. The Chinese are also building a lot of rail infrastructure and are of a similar size to the US. But then they have higher population density. But it's probably more a question of political priorities than physical realities.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    It is a question of economics. Because it is engineering and cost benefit analysis is part of engineering. The US geography makes high speed rail at the Federal level economically infeasible. Air transport reaches everyone including Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
    - tpm 5y ago
      It's actually more complicated than that I think. Chinese geography is also not without complications. Europe has its own share of mountains etc., but also a huge rail coverage (even though in need of updates to make it faster and with higher capacity for persons). Now air transport can reach everyone, but is also especially climate unfriendly. Maybe in the future there will be electric or hydrogen airplanes, but if there is an option to use rail or plane mass transit, rail will always have lower energy demands. But historically the US has low energy (and fuel) taxes, and that will favor the planes. EU on the other hand is now talking about taxing aircraft fuels and if that happens and the taxes are sufficiently high, trains will be more attractive, even if currently travelling long distances by rail in the EU is a huge PITA.
1123581321 5y ago
Switzerland’s unusual geography, population distribution, and history have given them an unusual set of skills. :) I’d venture that American rail could have looked similar if the North American continent was made up of dozens of countries instead of just one, forcing at least one of those countries to use the Rockies more comprehensively.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

brudgers 5y ago

Compared to the geography of Switzerland, it makes sense to talk of a trans-continental railroad in the US and is absurd in relation to Switzerland. You can put three Switzerland's (or one Portugal) in the Mojave desert. To put it another way, Europeans haven't built high speed rail from London to Baku for similar reasons. The tree lined cloisters where political theory makes all nation states equal is not a good model of physical reality.Swiss rail hasn't connected Bern to Baghdad.

tpm 5y ago
Europeans haven't built high speed rail from London to Baku mostly because they (we) can't agree that's in their best interest and then invest accordingly. The Swiss did vote for and consequently built things like the Gotthard Base Tunnel. The Chinese are also building a lot of rail infrastructure and are of a similar size to the US. But then they have higher population density. But it's probably more a question of political priorities than physical realities.
- brudgers 5y ago
  It is a question of economics. Because it is engineering and cost benefit analysis is part of engineering. The US geography makes high speed rail at the Federal level economically infeasible. Air transport reaches everyone including Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
  - tpm 5y ago
    It's actually more complicated than that I think. Chinese geography is also not without complications. Europe has its own share of mountains etc., but also a huge rail coverage (even though in need of updates to make it faster and with higher capacity for persons). Now air transport can reach everyone, but is also especially climate unfriendly. Maybe in the future there will be electric or hydrogen airplanes, but if there is an option to use rail or plane mass transit, rail will always have lower energy demands. But historically the US has low energy (and fuel) taxes, and that will favor the planes. EU on the other hand is now talking about taxing aircraft fuels and if that happens and the taxes are sufficiently high, trains will be more attractive, even if currently travelling long distances by rail in the EU is a huge PITA.

1123581321 5y ago

Switzerland’s unusual geography, population distribution, and history have given them an unusual set of skills. :) I’d venture that American rail could have looked similar if the North American continent was made up of dozens of countries instead of just one, forcing at least one of those countries to use the Rockies more comprehensively.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]