4 ms·

This reminds me of when they opened the Gotthard Base Tunnel maybe 5 years ago. It replaced an old mountain railway that connected the North and South ends of t

This reminds me of when they opened the Gotthard Base Tunnel maybe 5 years ago. It replaced an old mountain railway that connected the North and South ends of the country, and did so at great expense connecting by a straight tunnel that made the route much faster. It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place to make achieve that increment of improvement. And this feels like more of that same story. I envy them greatly. The US should be building 5-10 copies of this same system in various regions, connected by a functioning freight rail system for long haul. Our diffuse development pattern and the enormous accompanying expense will be our downfall.

ithkuil 5y ago
> It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place to make achieve that increment of improvement. fwiw, the Italy and Austra (with EU contribution) are building a similar in the same mountain range a few km eastwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  I have very little knowledge of Italy or Austria (pretty little of Switzerland, for that matter), but I gather that Italy can reasonably be understood as a very stable place in exactly the opposite way that the US is stable. Italian places seem very stable, but the wider governance is not enduring, whereas much of the US is held together by a strong national government despite the fact that the places are constantly in flux with most places built cheaply and not for permanence. Also, it presumably required EU funds to push the project through. My read of GBT and this new CST system is that both are private ventures. That is to say, I take the Swiss projects to be at the tail end of careful analysis, whereas the others may be the result of political desire absent a compelling business case, sort of like trying to make rail transit work in Southern California.
  - seszett 5y ago
    > My read of GBT and this new CST system is that both are private ventures The Gotthard Base Tunnel was built for the national Swiss railway company, which is fully state-owned. CST seems to be private, although among the largest investors are three state-owned companies (La Poste, Swisscom and the Swiss railway company). These kind of projects today are always largely funded with public funds in Europe (including outside the EU). It is simply not realistic or desirable to leave them to private entities.
    - rscho 5y ago
      Swiss railways are 51% state-owned, methinks.
      - Dasateam 5y ago
        100%, only the cargo subsidiary is 35% owned by private logistics companies.
- rjsw 5y ago
  There is another base tunnel being built to the southwest [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_d%27Ambin_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_d%27Ambin_Base_Tunnel
bombcar 5y ago
The US has many projects in the $9 billion range, but many of them we never hear about because they're not all that technically interesting, and much of the US is pretty easy to rail over. For example, who knows or cares about the Alameda corridor? https://www.acta.org https://www.acta.org even though it transfers tons of freight every single day.
- johnday 5y ago
  With no disrespect, there's something quite funny about a freight corridor moving tons of freight every day. In the "there are dozens of us!" way.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Heh if their TEUs are mostly laden they’re moving 300,000 tons inside LA every day, which is pretty close to a metric fuckton.
arinlen 5y ago
> This reminds me of when they opened the Gotthard Base Tunnel maybe 5 years ago. (...) It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place to make achieve that increment of improvement. And this feels like more of that same story. If should be noted that the Gottard Tunnel project was subjected to a national referendum after making it clear the project was astronomically expensive, it would take ages to build, and it was virtually impossible to recoup the investment.
- sschueller 5y ago
  The GBT cost almost 10 billion. Still way less than the 22 Billion the big dig in Boston cost that put the highway under the city. Initial estimate was 2.8 Billion. Meanwhile the city of Zürich dug a 4.8 km train tunnel and lost (permanently stuck and removal impossible because of possible collapse) a TBM during work almost collapsing the Bahnhofplatzt for just around 2 Billion. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_Tunnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_Tunnel [2] https://www.zvv.ch/zvv/de/ueber-uns/projekte/in-betrieb/durchmesserlinie.html https://www.zvv.ch/zvv/de/ueber-uns/projekte/in-betrieb/durc...
robonerd 5y ago
It's not clear from your phrasing whether you know this already, but America has an extensive freight rail network already. It's the best in the world in fact. More than 40% of all freight in America uses rail, while in Europe it's less than 20%. Passenger rail is another matter entirely. Common wisdom about trains in America seems to focus on passenger rail (which is infamously abysmal in America.) But that absolutely does not generalize to freight rail.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Freight volume is one story. The comparison is a lot less generous when you compare freight by value. US moves a lot of bulk freight by rail that isn’t particularly high value. I remember reading that freight railroads are sometimes opposed to decarbonization plans because a good deal of their volume is coal and oil.
  - robonerd 5y ago
    The rail lines are there, regardless of what they're used for. Whatever structural problems exist in this domain aren't addressed by building more more freight rail.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      that kind of depends on your definition of "problem." One thing that is potentially a problem is that freight rail has been so optimized and cost cut to the bare bones that the network is now extremely brittle. This tends to impact passenger rail more than freight rail (passenger rail is legally supposed to have priority, but in practice this has never been enforced and the freight carriers usually just make passenger rail take the hit instead of freight), but this is a problem in major hubs like Chicago. And I bring up coal and oil, to say that if major changes were to happen in those markets and they dried up, the American freight rail network is not set up to easily pivot to things like fast freight that might take its place, and then we would have a freight rail network that is great for addressing a nonexistent market. Fast freight needs generally straighter, faster lines than what exists today.

ithkuil 5y ago

> It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place to make achieve that increment of improvement. fwiw, the Italy and Austra (with EU contribution) are building a similar in the same mountain range a few km eastwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel

QuarterReptile 5y ago
I have very little knowledge of Italy or Austria (pretty little of Switzerland, for that matter), but I gather that Italy can reasonably be understood as a very stable place in exactly the opposite way that the US is stable. Italian places seem very stable, but the wider governance is not enduring, whereas much of the US is held together by a strong national government despite the fact that the places are constantly in flux with most places built cheaply and not for permanence. Also, it presumably required EU funds to push the project through. My read of GBT and this new CST system is that both are private ventures. That is to say, I take the Swiss projects to be at the tail end of careful analysis, whereas the others may be the result of political desire absent a compelling business case, sort of like trying to make rail transit work in Southern California.
- seszett 5y ago
  > My read of GBT and this new CST system is that both are private ventures The Gotthard Base Tunnel was built for the national Swiss railway company, which is fully state-owned. CST seems to be private, although among the largest investors are three state-owned companies (La Poste, Swisscom and the Swiss railway company). These kind of projects today are always largely funded with public funds in Europe (including outside the EU). It is simply not realistic or desirable to leave them to private entities.
  - rscho 5y ago
    Swiss railways are 51% state-owned, methinks.
    - Dasateam 5y ago
      100%, only the cargo subsidiary is 35% owned by private logistics companies.
rjsw 5y ago
There is another base tunnel being built to the southwest [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_d%27Ambin_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_d%27Ambin_Base_Tunnel

bombcar 5y ago

The US has many projects in the $9 billion range, but many of them we never hear about because they're not all that technically interesting, and much of the US is pretty easy to rail over. For example, who knows or cares about the Alameda corridor? https://www.acta.org https://www.acta.org even though it transfers tons of freight every single day.

johnday 5y ago
With no disrespect, there's something quite funny about a freight corridor moving tons of freight every day. In the "there are dozens of us!" way.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Heh if their TEUs are mostly laden they’re moving 300,000 tons inside LA every day, which is pretty close to a metric fuckton.

arinlen 5y ago

> This reminds me of when they opened the Gotthard Base Tunnel maybe 5 years ago. (...) It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place to make achieve that increment of improvement. And this feels like more of that same story. If should be noted that the Gottard Tunnel project was subjected to a national referendum after making it clear the project was astronomically expensive, it would take ages to build, and it was virtually impossible to recoup the investment.

sschueller 5y ago
The GBT cost almost 10 billion. Still way less than the 22 Billion the big dig in Boston cost that put the highway under the city. Initial estimate was 2.8 Billion. Meanwhile the city of Zürich dug a 4.8 km train tunnel and lost (permanently stuck and removal impossible because of possible collapse) a TBM during work almost collapsing the Bahnhofplatzt for just around 2 Billion. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_Tunnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_Tunnel [2] https://www.zvv.ch/zvv/de/ueber-uns/projekte/in-betrieb/durchmesserlinie.html https://www.zvv.ch/zvv/de/ueber-uns/projekte/in-betrieb/durc...

robonerd 5y ago

It's not clear from your phrasing whether you know this already, but America has an extensive freight rail network already. It's the best in the world in fact. More than 40% of all freight in America uses rail, while in Europe it's less than 20%. Passenger rail is another matter entirely. Common wisdom about trains in America seems to focus on passenger rail (which is infamously abysmal in America.) But that absolutely does not generalize to freight rail.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Freight volume is one story. The comparison is a lot less generous when you compare freight by value. US moves a lot of bulk freight by rail that isn’t particularly high value. I remember reading that freight railroads are sometimes opposed to decarbonization plans because a good deal of their volume is coal and oil.
- robonerd 5y ago
  The rail lines are there, regardless of what they're used for. Whatever structural problems exist in this domain aren't addressed by building more more freight rail.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    that kind of depends on your definition of "problem." One thing that is potentially a problem is that freight rail has been so optimized and cost cut to the bare bones that the network is now extremely brittle. This tends to impact passenger rail more than freight rail (passenger rail is legally supposed to have priority, but in practice this has never been enforced and the freight carriers usually just make passenger rail take the hit instead of freight), but this is a problem in major hubs like Chicago. And I bring up coal and oil, to say that if major changes were to happen in those markets and they dried up, the American freight rail network is not set up to easily pivot to things like fast freight that might take its place, and then we would have a freight rail network that is great for addressing a nonexistent market. Fast freight needs generally straighter, faster lines than what exists today.