4 ms·

Trains are incredibly expensive to maintain. The US still relies a lot on manual operations when running trains. I wonder if they will ever be able to fully aut

Trains are incredibly expensive to maintain. The US still relies a lot on manual operations when running trains. I wonder if they will ever be able to fully automate their travel.

Sharlin 5y ago
Not so. The whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off. Building the infrastructure is expensive. Recurring costs are much lower than other modes of land transport, ceteris paribus.
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  Land transport yes, but the operational cost of long distance trains is quite a bit higher per passenger-mile than planes
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Is it though? Or is it the fact that airlines are able to externalize their environmental costs, and are generally both under-taxed and subsidized. [edit] I'm not saying that rail isn't subsidized - it usually is, and often heavily, to be clear. It's the environmental impact that's the thrust of my claim.
    - diordiderot 5y ago
      > externalize their environmental costs It's that + Every step of the aviation industry is subsidized by state actors. oil companies are also incentivised to support as airlines are a massive consumer of karosene that would otherwise be a cheap byproduct of oil refining
- trainsarebetter 5y ago
  This. Rail lines don’t need much maintenance once installed. Compared to a hwy which starts to fall apart immediately. Trains are a relatively simple and robust transportation method. I wonder what the insurance costs look like between the different methods of transportation
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  Rail is much more expensive to maintain than roads on a per-kilometer basis - where are you getting your numbers from?
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    Do you have a source? I'd expect rail to be more expensive from a capital expenditure perspective (laying rail, ties, buying cars, etc) but much cheaper to operate (coefficient of friction is lower between train wheels and rails than with rubber tires and roads, optimal speeding and slowing causing less wear on tracks, less downtime as rail repairs are much simpler than road repairs, etc)
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      In the UK, Network Rail spends about £150k per track kilometer per year on maintenance and renewal. Track needs constant maintenance through ballast redistribution and compaction to maintain track geometry; the rail itself needs to be ground regularly to maintain its shape; points systems need to be maintained, as well as signaling systems, earthworks and embankments, even vegetation. Maintenance costs for major roads in the UK (trunk motorways and A roads) is something about half that.
      - buttercraft 5y ago
        You need to factor in the cost of moving goods for each.
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        I really don't, if my point is to rebut the statement "the whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off." I love trains. I used them all the time when I lived in the U.K. and in Japan. I've ridden Amtrak from New York to San Francisco, and the Orient Express. They are, however, very much not a one-and-done investment as is being suggested elsewhere in this thread. People are largely familiar with road maintenance, but most of them have no idea at all about maintenance of the railway.
arcticbull 5y ago
Rail infrastructure can be expensive (especially when done as inefficiently as in the US) but the actual economics of running trains are fantastic. They're the second-most efficient way of transporting goods and people - after marine shipping. A freight train can move 1 ton of cargo 480 miles using a single gallon of diesel. [1] Even city rail, Bart trains in SF average 249 miles per gallon equivalent. Not to mention you only need what - one or two people - manning a train carrying the average equivalent of 700 truckloads. Once you commit to putting it up, it's super cheap and efficient, which is why we do it. [1] https://www.aar.org/article/freight-rail-moving-miles-ahead-on-sustainability/ https://www.aar.org/article/freight-rail-moving-miles-ahead-... [2] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf
balaji1 5y ago
Rail networks have a lot more potential for automation and electrification. It is way too underestimated. It would be cool to see when Amazon gets into Rail.

Trains are incredibly expensive to maintain. The US still relies a lot on manual operations when running trains. I wonder if they will ever be able to fully automate their travel.

Sharlin 5y ago

Not so. The whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off. Building the infrastructure is expensive. Recurring costs are much lower than other modes of land transport, ceteris paribus.

saddlerustle 5y ago
Land transport yes, but the operational cost of long distance trains is quite a bit higher per passenger-mile than planes
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Is it though? Or is it the fact that airlines are able to externalize their environmental costs, and are generally both under-taxed and subsidized. [edit] I'm not saying that rail isn't subsidized - it usually is, and often heavily, to be clear. It's the environmental impact that's the thrust of my claim.
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    > externalize their environmental costs It's that + Every step of the aviation industry is subsidized by state actors. oil companies are also incentivised to support as airlines are a massive consumer of karosene that would otherwise be a cheap byproduct of oil refining
trainsarebetter 5y ago
This. Rail lines don’t need much maintenance once installed. Compared to a hwy which starts to fall apart immediately. Trains are a relatively simple and robust transportation method. I wonder what the insurance costs look like between the different methods of transportation
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Rail is much more expensive to maintain than roads on a per-kilometer basis - where are you getting your numbers from?
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  Do you have a source? I'd expect rail to be more expensive from a capital expenditure perspective (laying rail, ties, buying cars, etc) but much cheaper to operate (coefficient of friction is lower between train wheels and rails than with rubber tires and roads, optimal speeding and slowing causing less wear on tracks, less downtime as rail repairs are much simpler than road repairs, etc)
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    In the UK, Network Rail spends about £150k per track kilometer per year on maintenance and renewal. Track needs constant maintenance through ballast redistribution and compaction to maintain track geometry; the rail itself needs to be ground regularly to maintain its shape; points systems need to be maintained, as well as signaling systems, earthworks and embankments, even vegetation. Maintenance costs for major roads in the UK (trunk motorways and A roads) is something about half that.
    - buttercraft 5y ago
      You need to factor in the cost of moving goods for each.
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        I really don't, if my point is to rebut the statement "the whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off." I love trains. I used them all the time when I lived in the U.K. and in Japan. I've ridden Amtrak from New York to San Francisco, and the Orient Express. They are, however, very much not a one-and-done investment as is being suggested elsewhere in this thread. People are largely familiar with road maintenance, but most of them have no idea at all about maintenance of the railway.

arcticbull 5y ago

Rail infrastructure can be expensive (especially when done as inefficiently as in the US) but the actual economics of running trains are fantastic. They're the second-most efficient way of transporting goods and people - after marine shipping. A freight train can move 1 ton of cargo 480 miles using a single gallon of diesel. [1] Even city rail, Bart trains in SF average 249 miles per gallon equivalent. Not to mention you only need what - one or two people - manning a train carrying the average equivalent of 700 truckloads. Once you commit to putting it up, it's super cheap and efficient, which is why we do it. [1] https://www.aar.org/article/freight-rail-moving-miles-ahead-on-sustainability/ https://www.aar.org/article/freight-rail-moving-miles-ahead-... [2] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf

balaji1 5y ago

Rail networks have a lot more potential for automation and electrification. It is way too underestimated. It would be cool to see when Amazon gets into Rail.