3 ms·

This does not scale economically when regular rail already has a difficult time being profitable. Switzerland has the most dense rail network in the world and

This does not scale economically when regular rail already has a difficult time being profitable. Switzerland has the most dense rail network in the world and is 100% electrified. However even before the pandemic SBB cargo was in the red. To reach our climate goals we need to increase the amount of cargo on rail (currently around 46% of cargo is by rail). There is no way around it but they will need government funding to reach those goals. Such gimmicks have extremely high costs. Each on of those needs maintenance. A regular cargo car is quite dumb and can take a lot of abuse.

bs7280 5y ago
I believe Switzerland has nationalized their railroad network, much like the US has nationalized our road network. Its supposed to take a loss so that the rest of the economy benefits.
- sschueller 5y ago
  SBB cargo is by law supposed to be self sustaining[1] and operate like a regular business unlike passenger rail. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2DNK2lrSKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2DNK2lrSKA
bobthepanda 5y ago
So this leads to an interesting set of problems. High speed, or even decently fast rail, needs track that is generally less curvy, maintained to a higher standard, etc. and that costs money. European cargo networks generally don't make money because track access fees are really high, particularly, if, say, you want to use that new 250kph tunnel through the Alps that cost billions of dollars. American freight rails are profitable, but that's because they totally shit on passenger rail. The tracks are congested, and in extremely poor shape. But that's fantastic for freight rail; a lot of what moves by freight rail doesn't necessarily need to be truly quick. China split the difference by building a whole new high-speed passenger rail network to free up space for freight trains on the older network. This seems to work out, but China Railways has a balance sheet that would make Westerners blanche.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The balance sheet would only make westerners miss a beat if they aren't aware of the balance sheet of the alternative, roads and cars, which is an order magnitude worse pound for pound.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    No, there's not really a universe in which the high speed lines to Urumqi or Lhasa really make any (financial) sense. They literally do not sell enough tickets to pay to energize the wires.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Again, you're still doing what I said you shouldn't do. Compare those to highways to nowhere in the United States, or to many northern roafs in Canada. They are not used nearly enough to justify paying for their maintenance either, but we understand their necessity so that everyone is connected.
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        I mean, there’s also a non-high speed rail connecting those areas as well. The high speed rail was unnecessary. It’s the same way we don’t have a six lane interstate going to Alaska from the lower 48, but a two lane road.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        Upgrades to the rail system were necessary. The shared passenger and cargo lines weren't workable.

bs7280 5y ago

I believe Switzerland has nationalized their railroad network, much like the US has nationalized our road network. Its supposed to take a loss so that the rest of the economy benefits.

sschueller 5y ago
SBB cargo is by law supposed to be self sustaining[1] and operate like a regular business unlike passenger rail. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2DNK2lrSKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2DNK2lrSKA

bobthepanda 5y ago

So this leads to an interesting set of problems. High speed, or even decently fast rail, needs track that is generally less curvy, maintained to a higher standard, etc. and that costs money. European cargo networks generally don't make money because track access fees are really high, particularly, if, say, you want to use that new 250kph tunnel through the Alps that cost billions of dollars. American freight rails are profitable, but that's because they totally shit on passenger rail. The tracks are congested, and in extremely poor shape. But that's fantastic for freight rail; a lot of what moves by freight rail doesn't necessarily need to be truly quick. China split the difference by building a whole new high-speed passenger rail network to free up space for freight trains on the older network. This seems to work out, but China Railways has a balance sheet that would make Westerners blanche.

sudosysgen 5y ago
The balance sheet would only make westerners miss a beat if they aren't aware of the balance sheet of the alternative, roads and cars, which is an order magnitude worse pound for pound.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  No, there's not really a universe in which the high speed lines to Urumqi or Lhasa really make any (financial) sense. They literally do not sell enough tickets to pay to energize the wires.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Again, you're still doing what I said you shouldn't do. Compare those to highways to nowhere in the United States, or to many northern roafs in Canada. They are not used nearly enough to justify paying for their maintenance either, but we understand their necessity so that everyone is connected.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      I mean, there’s also a non-high speed rail connecting those areas as well. The high speed rail was unnecessary. It’s the same way we don’t have a six lane interstate going to Alaska from the lower 48, but a two lane road.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Upgrades to the rail system were necessary. The shared passenger and cargo lines weren't workable.