8 ms·

The fragmented nature of modern-day railways

139 points by lxm 4y ago

kkfx 4y ago
The real *ways (not just rails, also roads) issue is one: evolution. We start a project a day, with a certain set of needs and desires. The project takes time to be complete, let's say 10-15-20 years, at the end some parts of the network are still useful and valuable many others are not. Change them is hard, demand again more time, once done (IF done) we end up in the similar departure scenario. Society does not change that fast in general, but still do. In the past we have followed nature and people have started to follow transport networks, now with climate change, transport tech changes etc we experience issues. The sole solution is IMO: - do their best to create free networks, like privileging air and water transports who demand infra but only at their endpoints letting paths evolve much faster and simpler; - do their best to avoid LARGE infra, preferring capillar ones were surely there would be useless parts but being a small local size and much connected network any segment cost far less so both profitable ones and unprofitable ones can be operated. In the past we have seen something like this, for rails for instance: http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg overall the old network worked LESS well and cost A BIT more, but the old one allow many paths from A to B so allow flexibility, the new one is far more efficient AS LONG AS transportation needs do not change. We have seen the very same issue in modern just-in-time manufacturing and we see that solutions found so far are the same: less efficiency traded for more flexibility.
- dieortin 4y ago
  Why would we privilege air and water transports when they're the hardest ones to electrify by far? We're in a climate emergency, and should be doing the opposite.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Every time you read general emergency "no time left", TINA, you read "someone want to impose something with an excuse". Yes climate change and that's a disaster, NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years and the Green New Deal have nothing to do with the environment preservation, at least for the public and advertised parts. Air and water means flexibility, when the climate change migration happen, flood happen, permafrost melt etc so we need something that can evolve as needed depending on the kind of change, so far only air and water can. Railroads roads can't be moved quickly nor can't evolve in general beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane, despite what's advertised. Similar cities can't adapt, especially dense one, we need spread people avoiding being too spread to have still economy of scale and social proximity.
    - danhor 4y ago
      > NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years Where are you getting this from? Some people are estimating the lag to the maximum effect as low as ~10 years [1], with the popular consensus being ~30 years until the peak effects are reached (so probably a lot less time needed for any significant effects to be felt). If the 100+ years were true, it's very unlikely we'd be able to measure any large effects from emissions from 100+ years ago, while the average temperature have increased by 1°C [2]. In that time cumulative emissions have increased 16-fold (1920: 100 bT, 2020: 1.6 tT) so we'd be fucked without any recourse if that were true. That seems to be a sorry excuse to just say "fuck it, we'll just have to adapt when the time comes" The broad scientific consensus (ipcc) is that just continuing on like we do right now will have significant detrimental effects on humanity and that actions taking today can stop global warming by ~2040 [5]. > beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane Where are you getting this from? Or are you conflating environmental impact in general and global warming impact specifically for this argument? (Which I'd also not agree with, but that's a different point). And why would cities be less able to adapt? They seem to be better suited for adapting, with more indoor spaces and less energy & resource usage. Due to the concentrated nature a lot less area has to be adapted for climate change effects (and there certainly are cities that won't exist, primarily due to sea level rise, but that's also the case for non-cities). Air travel especially suffers from noise & pollution (not the co2 kind) concerns, which is (at least in europe) stopping many airports from expanding. It's also very limited in capacity. Water has great capacity, but can only use few fixed waterways, with most inland waterways requiring a significant amount of human intervention to make them suitable. Why would a ship be more flexible in travel & destination than a railroad or trucks? I also disagree with your hypothesis about the needed flexibility on most infrastructure projects in regards to time. Most railways & highways are by now more than 40 years old (with railways usually being much older) and very few parts have been deemed useless (at least in germany), because human development is pretty fixed in place, with most population centers 40 years age still having at least a significant population now. Usually the worst issue is that capacity is quickly reached in just a few years, but that's more of a nice problem to have. Climate change will have effects on human living, but if we let it get so extreme that formerly unlivable places in the north become very livable while those built up areas that are currently used by humans become unlivable, I doubt a functional global or large distance transport network will be available or even necessary on a larger scale. And regarding the Green New Deal: Recommendations from it[3] seems to outline needed actions for emissions cuts and approaches for mitigating climate change[4] in the near term pretty well. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/12... [2]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_... [4]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINA... P. 27 [5]: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... P 15, P 18
londons_explore 4y ago
An automated system could be made for this. Imagine two tracks side by side. Now have a mechanism above that lifts goods off one train and into another. The mechanism could work on moving trains such that a 30 mph train could unload all its cargo and have it all loaded into a neighbouring train also moving at 30 mph. Such a mechanism would be expensive, but only needs to exist at cargo borders, and the cost would be dwarfed by the value of the trade it enables.
- Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
  What's the benefit of moving during the operation? It seems like it would add a lot of cost and complexity for no clear benefit.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    There isn't any benefit, it only eats up capacity of two tracks that could be used by other, faster trains. If you need to move cargo from one train to another, just do it somewhere away from the main tracks.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Something like a container crane? I'd argue even that is too complicated. Bulk cargo like grain is often unloaded like this [1]: doors on the bottom of the wagon that allow dumping the cargo next to the rail, or in some configurations below it. Loading happens by dumping stuff in from the top. Now it doesn't take much to make a structure to have one train drive below and lightly to the side of another, enabling one train to dump their cargo into the other. The problem with all those solutions is that they have to be built, and before the war Ukraine had little reason to invest. Shipping bulk goods by ship was cheaper, thus train infrastructure for them was neglected. It's the same story as Europe underinvesting in port infrastructure for unloading oil and lpg because in peace time pipelines were cheaper. 1: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/unloading-crushed-stone-railway-car-bulk-cargo-wagons-high-platform-work-149370179.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/unloading-crushed-stone-rail...
- sschueller 4y ago
Linda703 4y ago
[dead]
gambler 4y ago
Hm, after reading the title I monetarily thought the article would talk about the implosion of Union Pacific and complications of switching to a different provider. FYI: https://www.manufacturing.net/labor/news/13118134/union-pacific-lays-off-500-managers-250-other-rail-workers https://www.manufacturing.net/labor/news/13118134/union-paci... https://www.wsj.com/articles/union-pacific-to-cut-nearly-3-000-jobs-11579798292 https://www.wsj.com/articles/union-pacific-to-cut-nearly-3-0... https://www.thepacker.com/news/transportation/union-pacific-shipping-snafu-amplifies-shipping-delays-ocean-shipping-costs https://www.thepacker.com/news/transportation/union-pacific-... https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sd9kqw/union_pacific_thefts_seem_to_be_a_direct_result/ https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sd9kqw/union_paci... https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/s6c04a/trash_from_cargo_thieves_derails_17_union_pacific/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/s6c04a... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/14/los-angeles-cargo-theft-union-pacific https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/14/los-angeles-... https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2022/union-pacific-shipping-restrictions https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2022/union-pacific-shi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDxp8lUXDz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDxp8lUXDz0 Meanwhile at the top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF_5jng3RYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF_5jng3RYM TLDR version. UP switched to some fancy "efficient" system several years ago, laid off thousands of employees. At the time many people predicted collapse of the company in a couple of years. Three years later it is plagued by rampant theft and trash on the tracks. This year it refused to ship fertilizer during planting season. It also refused to ship additives to diesel fuel earlier this year (amidst general truck shipping issues and skyrocketing fuel costs). Meanwhile the CEO is smiling like a Cheshire Cat and giving out Bloomberg interviews about efficient management.
inglor_cz 4y ago
So my grandpa was an engineer and I love railways... "different signaling systems, different voltages for electrical trains" isn't that much of a problem nowadays. There are almost always enough multi-system engines available that can cross borders and cope with those changes. We have a jumble of voltages in Czechia and yet another voltage on our German/Austrian borders, and trains go through without a hitch, not even slowing down, full speed. A break of gauge is a different beast: a real tough problem. Even the railcars are wider on wide-gauge railways, which means that they cannot pass through some European tunnels etc. Frankly, the only solution is to re-gauge the entire Ukraine to 1435 mm and introduce a new fleet of railway vehicles there. As an added bonus, that would complicate further Russian invasions in the future, as the Russian army still heavily relies on rail for its logistics. This will be expensive, but the EU could pay for that, plus a lot of that work could be done by European contractors.
- kposehn 4y ago
  1. Agreed for the most part, though I think a startup could overcome the break-of-gauge limitations pretty fast with moderate investment (and less red tape). 2. There are multiple different ways of handling BofG; the holdup is just deploying it effectively. 3. For loading gauge, using EU grain hauling stock with variable gauge (or swapped) bogies would be ideal - this avoids issues with larger cars and heavier axle loads. (Edit) 4. The unit nature of grain trains makes the problem easier to solve since outside of gauge changes you deal with large cuts of cars. No need to swap couplers on every car as you only hook on the ends (Europe uses hook & buffer, while the former USSR uses SA3) 5. Brazil has the largest network of dual gauge track in the world and has optimized it quite well; 1600mm gauge engines frequently handle 1000mm with the help of idler cars that allow them to couple up. Some lessons to be learned here.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > I think a startup could overcome the break-of-gauge limitations pretty fast with moderate investment (and less red tape) I am not sure what the angle is, here. Variable-gauge trains are things we can build, and as a matter of fact there are a bunch of them crossing the French-Spanish border every day. It’s not some magical disruptive technology that boring old engineering firms could not crack. It would not solve the issues already mentioned, which is that infrastructure is built for a set gauge, and wide-gauge carriages cannot physically fit in some places in a narrow-gauge network. And the red tape is not at this level anyway, it has to do with certification, with which the startup-ness of the designer won’t help. Not everything is best solved by just setting up a startup.
Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
My suggestion is that we build a dedicated freight network of Soviet gauge and SA3 couplers and leave the existing network for passengers. We're only going to need more capacity for climate-friendly transportation of both passengers and freight, and stronger tracks and couplers for heavier trains is going to help with efficiency of the latter.
- jabl 4y ago
  The EU already has a project to introduce a replacement for the screw couplings used in EU rail freight today, the Digital automatic coupling (DAC). The "digital" part AFAICT comes from the ability to also connect air (for pneumatic brakes) and data cablings, not only mechanical.
bell-cot 4y ago
Zzz. At scale, railroads (at least in the US) mostly move grain in covered hopper cars - https://www.up.com/customers/track-record/tr071321-what-is-a-covered-hopper-rail-car.htm https://www.up.com/customers/track-record/tr071321-what-is-a... If you've got enough single-gauge RR infrastructure and equipment, but a problem with a gauge change along the route, then building a one-way grain transfer facility is d*mn easy. Full hopper cars, gauge "U", get pushed onto an elevated railroad track. Empty hopper cars, gauge "P", sit ready on another track, below the full cars. In between are a bunch of crude welded-sheet-metal chutes. You open the loading hatches on the lower rail cars, then open the dump gates on the upper rail cars, and gravity moves the grain. (Yes, this requires some equipment and intelligence to do, and some time to build. It's late-1800's technology.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
floehopper 4y ago
Jon Worth's [1] CrossBorderRail project [2] aims to highlight missing cross-border rail links in Europe. He's recently embarked on a huge rail and bike journey that crosses every internal border inside the European Union (and EFTA countries) that you can cross by train. En route he's stopping off to organise a meeting in the political capital of each country to discuss the missing rail links with local activists. [1]: https://twitter.com/jonworth https://twitter.com/jonworth [2]: https://crossborderrail.trainsforeurope.eu/ https://crossborderrail.trainsforeurope.eu/
california2077 4y ago
This would be a perfect place to try Hyperloop-like solution at scale.
- warning26 4y ago
  Regauging the railways too expensive? Not a problem, we'll just build a series of vacuum sealed maglev railways instead. Much cheaper. Wait a minute...
kzrdude 4y ago
There is a lot more wheat to ship than could ever fit on rail cars. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61583492 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61583492 "Ukrainian farmers have 20 million tonnes of grain they cannot get to international markets" Let's say you could ship 10 ton (10,000 kg) per train car; that's still 2 million rail cars. The longest possible freight train would be 100 cars or so - so now we're down to 20,000 grain train runs needed for the export. It's not possible, not enough rail capacity, not enough rail cars and engines or days in a year to do it.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Apparently hopper cars can hold ~100 tons. Still some tough arithmetic.
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    Now I learned thought that "In 2020, U.S. Class I railroads moved nearly 1.5 million carloads of grain." Apparently it's almost possible in that sense.
    - coredog64 4y ago
      It’s almost as if the US actually does have a good rail system, except it’s been optimized for freight. /sarc.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Let's say you could ship 10 ton (10,000 kg) per train car; What if we don't underestimate by a full order of magnitude? [0] > The longest possible freight train would be 100 cars or so Why? Freight trains over 100 cars are fairly routine. [0] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/commentary-moving-grain-is-a-major-market-for-u-s-and-canadian-railroads https://www.freightwaves.com/news/commentary-moving-grain-is... : “Rail’s economic advantage comes in large part from each railroad car’s capacity of up to 100 tons”
  - deleted 4y ago
AlbertCory 4y ago
If you are not a train buff, this comment is not for you. (I wouldn't claim I'm one myself, but let's say I'm a "sympathizer.") I just heard about this rather large model railroad [1], up near Skyline on private land (this is in the Bay Area). When I say "rather large" I mean "you can ride on it." It's members-only. I'm not a member. (If you were only 60 years old, you'd be the youngest.) They have giant workshops where you build things to maintain the railroad. [1] https://www.pvarr.org/ https://www.pvarr.org/
- Stevvo 4y ago
  You would love the UK. Many cities have steam railroads of similar gauge in public parks. They are also run by clubs of old men, but offer rides to kids all day on the weekend instead of hiding out in the hills!
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    I hasten to add I'm not a train spotter (that's what you call them over there, right?) I don't have a model train of any gauge.
    - hinoki 4y ago
      Trainspotting is like birding for trains. You keep track of which engines and rolling stock you’ve seen, go on trips to see new engines etc. So it’s a different type of train nerd from railroad modelling.
- bombcar 4y ago
  There's one in Bonita near San Diego: https://chulavistalivesteamers.org https://chulavistalivesteamers.org
- ireflect 4y ago
  One in Vancouver, BC too: https://bcsme.org/ https://bcsme.org/
photochemsyn 4y ago
It's a bit surprising to see an article on modern-day rail that doesn't at least mention China's remarkable advances in rail. You can love or hate their state-sponsored, approach, but it seems undeniable that Chinese rail is the most advanced in the world at present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China
- mlindner 4y ago
  Because the conversation is about rail transport between Europe and post-soviet Europe. It would in fact be surprising to see China being mentioned at all, given it's complete irrelevance to the conversation at hand. And no I'd pretty easily say that Chinese rail is not the most advanced in the world. That award would go to Japan. (China buys (or steals) their technology from Japan and also Europe.)
cenriqueortiz 4y ago
One clear benefit of ensuring disparity of rail systems across adjacent countries is protection from an impromptu invasion. IIRC for some countries during the WWs, that was a main reason for the differences and was in fact effective. I wonder if the rail systems difference helped avoid Russia using the rail system for the invasion of Ukraine.
- idlehand 4y ago
  Russia and Ukraine have the same gauge. The reason the railroads weren't used to invade is because Ukraine managed to damage the connecting infrastructure enough. Turns out that railroads are a lot better defensively than offensively, in an era of widespread drone usage.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    Not sure how drones are related – denying rail use from an advancing enemy has always been easy. A destroyed railroad bridge cannot be replaced with a temporary ponton bridge, for one.
ajuc 4y ago
Poland actually has some wide-gauge railways connecting Ukraine to Silesia region in Poland (originally for moving coal, steel and sulphur between Ukraine and industrial part of Poland, now used for various things including moving refuges out of Ukraine). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linia_Hutnicza_Szerokotorowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linia_Hutnicza_Szerokotorowa So it's not true that all the reloading has to happen on EU border. We also have trains that can move from standard to wide gauge and back with minimal delays. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW_2000 but there are also more modern versions. The main problem is simply too small capacity of railway transport compared to sea transport. We'd have to increase the number of cargo trains Poland and Ukraine owns by orders of magnitude to move all that grain in a reasonable time.
Animats 4y ago
China's Belt and Road initiative is forcing more railways in Asia to support "standard gauge" (1435 mm) width, which China and Europe, while the Soviet-era countries use 1520mm. The goal is to be able to run freight from China to Europe.[1] Some track is dual-gauge. There's enough difference between 1435mm and 1520mm to use a 3-rail system. Plain track isn't too hard, but switches are complicated. [1] https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/chinas-belt-and-road-chugging-along-in-central-asia/ https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/chinas-belt-and-road-chugging-...
- divbzero 4y ago
  This map [2] shows a proposed railway running through Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan. Presumably it would continue through Turkmenistan and Iran to Turkey? [2]: https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/12/10/awaiting-on-kyrgyzstan-to-allow-chinas-railway-through-central-asia-and-to-the-middle-east/ https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/12/10/awaiting-on...
- Gare 4y ago
  > There's enough difference between 1435mm and 1520mm to use a 3-rail system. Can you provide an example? I've only seen 4-rail dual-gauge systems for those gauges.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Why would you need 4 rails? | | | | | | Left wheel uses left rail. If narrow gauuge, the right wheel uses the innner rail. If wide gauge, the right wheel uses the outer rail.
    - innocenat 4y ago
      Because rails are 3 dimensional and has width. Between 1435mm and 1520mm there's only 85mm space. I am not even sure if you could mount two rail that close.
      - justsomehnguy 4y ago
Hellbanevil 4y ago
[dead]
cozzyd 4y ago
Russia can't blockade the Danube, I imagine grain must be going to Izmail/Reni/Giurguleşti, where it can be taken to Romanian ports by barge...
- petre 4y ago
  Already being done but it's not enough. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2022/6/16/photos-romanian-port-becomes-key-transit-hub-for-ukrainian-grain https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2022/6/16/photos-roman...
Ericson2314 4y ago
I feel like we should pick a broad gauge and dual-gauge everything to be standard guage and that.
palm-tree 4y ago
Interesting to see the ways in which even railways have technical debt!
5etho 4y ago
FYI during world war I, armys could laid a track in 2 days during world war II german wehrmacht also build the railways and change gouge in real time time to real hot war solutions, send nato ships to odessa to unblock the port is it just impossible to ship grain by train, the same as it is impossible to install android on iphone 13

139 points by lxm 4y ago

kkfx 4y ago

The real *ways (not just rails, also roads) issue is one: evolution. We start a project a day, with a certain set of needs and desires. The project takes time to be complete, let's say 10-15-20 years, at the end some parts of the network are still useful and valuable many others are not. Change them is hard, demand again more time, once done (IF done) we end up in the similar departure scenario. Society does not change that fast in general, but still do. In the past we have followed nature and people have started to follow transport networks, now with climate change, transport tech changes etc we experience issues. The sole solution is IMO: - do their best to create free networks, like privileging air and water transports who demand infra but only at their endpoints letting paths evolve much faster and simpler; - do their best to avoid LARGE infra, preferring capillar ones were surely there would be useless parts but being a small local size and much connected network any segment cost far less so both profitable ones and unprofitable ones can be operated. In the past we have seen something like this, for rails for instance: http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg overall the old network worked LESS well and cost A BIT more, but the old one allow many paths from A to B so allow flexibility, the new one is far more efficient AS LONG AS transportation needs do not change. We have seen the very same issue in modern just-in-time manufacturing and we see that solutions found so far are the same: less efficiency traded for more flexibility.

dieortin 4y ago
Why would we privilege air and water transports when they're the hardest ones to electrify by far? We're in a climate emergency, and should be doing the opposite.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Every time you read general emergency "no time left", TINA, you read "someone want to impose something with an excuse". Yes climate change and that's a disaster, NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years and the Green New Deal have nothing to do with the environment preservation, at least for the public and advertised parts. Air and water means flexibility, when the climate change migration happen, flood happen, permafrost melt etc so we need something that can evolve as needed depending on the kind of change, so far only air and water can. Railroads roads can't be moved quickly nor can't evolve in general beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane, despite what's advertised. Similar cities can't adapt, especially dense one, we need spread people avoiding being too spread to have still economy of scale and social proximity.
  - danhor 4y ago
    > NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years Where are you getting this from? Some people are estimating the lag to the maximum effect as low as ~10 years [1], with the popular consensus being ~30 years until the peak effects are reached (so probably a lot less time needed for any significant effects to be felt). If the 100+ years were true, it's very unlikely we'd be able to measure any large effects from emissions from 100+ years ago, while the average temperature have increased by 1°C [2]. In that time cumulative emissions have increased 16-fold (1920: 100 bT, 2020: 1.6 tT) so we'd be fucked without any recourse if that were true. That seems to be a sorry excuse to just say "fuck it, we'll just have to adapt when the time comes" The broad scientific consensus (ipcc) is that just continuing on like we do right now will have significant detrimental effects on humanity and that actions taking today can stop global warming by ~2040 [5]. > beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane Where are you getting this from? Or are you conflating environmental impact in general and global warming impact specifically for this argument? (Which I'd also not agree with, but that's a different point). And why would cities be less able to adapt? They seem to be better suited for adapting, with more indoor spaces and less energy & resource usage. Due to the concentrated nature a lot less area has to be adapted for climate change effects (and there certainly are cities that won't exist, primarily due to sea level rise, but that's also the case for non-cities). Air travel especially suffers from noise & pollution (not the co2 kind) concerns, which is (at least in europe) stopping many airports from expanding. It's also very limited in capacity. Water has great capacity, but can only use few fixed waterways, with most inland waterways requiring a significant amount of human intervention to make them suitable. Why would a ship be more flexible in travel & destination than a railroad or trucks? I also disagree with your hypothesis about the needed flexibility on most infrastructure projects in regards to time. Most railways & highways are by now more than 40 years old (with railways usually being much older) and very few parts have been deemed useless (at least in germany), because human development is pretty fixed in place, with most population centers 40 years age still having at least a significant population now. Usually the worst issue is that capacity is quickly reached in just a few years, but that's more of a nice problem to have. Climate change will have effects on human living, but if we let it get so extreme that formerly unlivable places in the north become very livable while those built up areas that are currently used by humans become unlivable, I doubt a functional global or large distance transport network will be available or even necessary on a larger scale. And regarding the Green New Deal: Recommendations from it[3] seems to outline needed actions for emissions cuts and approaches for mitigating climate change[4] in the near term pretty well. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/12... [2]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_... [4]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINA... P. 27 [5]: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... P 15, P 18

londons_explore 4y ago

An automated system could be made for this. Imagine two tracks side by side. Now have a mechanism above that lifts goods off one train and into another. The mechanism could work on moving trains such that a 30 mph train could unload all its cargo and have it all loaded into a neighbouring train also moving at 30 mph. Such a mechanism would be expensive, but only needs to exist at cargo borders, and the cost would be dwarfed by the value of the trade it enables.

Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
What's the benefit of moving during the operation? It seems like it would add a lot of cost and complexity for no clear benefit.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  There isn't any benefit, it only eats up capacity of two tracks that could be used by other, faster trains. If you need to move cargo from one train to another, just do it somewhere away from the main tracks.
wongarsu 4y ago
Something like a container crane? I'd argue even that is too complicated. Bulk cargo like grain is often unloaded like this [1]: doors on the bottom of the wagon that allow dumping the cargo next to the rail, or in some configurations below it. Loading happens by dumping stuff in from the top. Now it doesn't take much to make a structure to have one train drive below and lightly to the side of another, enabling one train to dump their cargo into the other. The problem with all those solutions is that they have to be built, and before the war Ukraine had little reason to invest. Shipping bulk goods by ship was cheaper, thus train infrastructure for them was neglected. It's the same story as Europe underinvesting in port infrastructure for unloading oil and lpg because in peace time pipelines were cheaper. 1: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/unloading-crushed-stone-railway-car-bulk-cargo-wagons-high-platform-work-149370179.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/unloading-crushed-stone-rail...
sschueller 4y ago

Linda703 4y ago

[dead]

gambler 4y ago

Hm, after reading the title I monetarily thought the article would talk about the implosion of Union Pacific and complications of switching to a different provider. FYI: https://www.manufacturing.net/labor/news/13118134/union-pacific-lays-off-500-managers-250-other-rail-workers https://www.manufacturing.net/labor/news/13118134/union-paci... https://www.wsj.com/articles/union-pacific-to-cut-nearly-3-000-jobs-11579798292 https://www.wsj.com/articles/union-pacific-to-cut-nearly-3-0... https://www.thepacker.com/news/transportation/union-pacific-shipping-snafu-amplifies-shipping-delays-ocean-shipping-costs https://www.thepacker.com/news/transportation/union-pacific-... https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sd9kqw/union_pacific_thefts_seem_to_be_a_direct_result/ https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sd9kqw/union_paci... https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/s6c04a/trash_from_cargo_thieves_derails_17_union_pacific/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/s6c04a... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/14/los-angeles-cargo-theft-union-pacific https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/14/los-angeles-... https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2022/union-pacific-shipping-restrictions https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2022/union-pacific-shi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDxp8lUXDz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDxp8lUXDz0 Meanwhile at the top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF_5jng3RYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF_5jng3RYM TLDR version. UP switched to some fancy "efficient" system several years ago, laid off thousands of employees. At the time many people predicted collapse of the company in a couple of years. Three years later it is plagued by rampant theft and trash on the tracks. This year it refused to ship fertilizer during planting season. It also refused to ship additives to diesel fuel earlier this year (amidst general truck shipping issues and skyrocketing fuel costs). Meanwhile the CEO is smiling like a Cheshire Cat and giving out Bloomberg interviews about efficient management.

inglor_cz 4y ago

So my grandpa was an engineer and I love railways... "different signaling systems, different voltages for electrical trains" isn't that much of a problem nowadays. There are almost always enough multi-system engines available that can cross borders and cope with those changes. We have a jumble of voltages in Czechia and yet another voltage on our German/Austrian borders, and trains go through without a hitch, not even slowing down, full speed. A break of gauge is a different beast: a real tough problem. Even the railcars are wider on wide-gauge railways, which means that they cannot pass through some European tunnels etc. Frankly, the only solution is to re-gauge the entire Ukraine to 1435 mm and introduce a new fleet of railway vehicles there. As an added bonus, that would complicate further Russian invasions in the future, as the Russian army still heavily relies on rail for its logistics. This will be expensive, but the EU could pay for that, plus a lot of that work could be done by European contractors.

kposehn 4y ago
1. Agreed for the most part, though I think a startup could overcome the break-of-gauge limitations pretty fast with moderate investment (and less red tape). 2. There are multiple different ways of handling BofG; the holdup is just deploying it effectively. 3. For loading gauge, using EU grain hauling stock with variable gauge (or swapped) bogies would be ideal - this avoids issues with larger cars and heavier axle loads. (Edit) 4. The unit nature of grain trains makes the problem easier to solve since outside of gauge changes you deal with large cuts of cars. No need to swap couplers on every car as you only hook on the ends (Europe uses hook & buffer, while the former USSR uses SA3) 5. Brazil has the largest network of dual gauge track in the world and has optimized it quite well; 1600mm gauge engines frequently handle 1000mm with the help of idler cars that allow them to couple up. Some lessons to be learned here.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > I think a startup could overcome the break-of-gauge limitations pretty fast with moderate investment (and less red tape) I am not sure what the angle is, here. Variable-gauge trains are things we can build, and as a matter of fact there are a bunch of them crossing the French-Spanish border every day. It’s not some magical disruptive technology that boring old engineering firms could not crack. It would not solve the issues already mentioned, which is that infrastructure is built for a set gauge, and wide-gauge carriages cannot physically fit in some places in a narrow-gauge network. And the red tape is not at this level anyway, it has to do with certification, with which the startup-ness of the designer won’t help. Not everything is best solved by just setting up a startup.

Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago

My suggestion is that we build a dedicated freight network of Soviet gauge and SA3 couplers and leave the existing network for passengers. We're only going to need more capacity for climate-friendly transportation of both passengers and freight, and stronger tracks and couplers for heavier trains is going to help with efficiency of the latter.

jabl 4y ago
The EU already has a project to introduce a replacement for the screw couplings used in EU rail freight today, the Digital automatic coupling (DAC). The "digital" part AFAICT comes from the ability to also connect air (for pneumatic brakes) and data cablings, not only mechanical.

bell-cot 4y ago

Zzz. At scale, railroads (at least in the US) mostly move grain in covered hopper cars - https://www.up.com/customers/track-record/tr071321-what-is-a-covered-hopper-rail-car.htm https://www.up.com/customers/track-record/tr071321-what-is-a... If you've got enough single-gauge RR infrastructure and equipment, but a problem with a gauge change along the route, then building a one-way grain transfer facility is d*mn easy. Full hopper cars, gauge "U", get pushed onto an elevated railroad track. Empty hopper cars, gauge "P", sit ready on another track, below the full cars. In between are a bunch of crude welded-sheet-metal chutes. You open the loading hatches on the lower rail cars, then open the dump gates on the upper rail cars, and gravity moves the grain. (Yes, this requires some equipment and intelligence to do, and some time to build. It's late-1800's technology.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

floehopper 4y ago

Jon Worth's [1] CrossBorderRail project [2] aims to highlight missing cross-border rail links in Europe. He's recently embarked on a huge rail and bike journey that crosses every internal border inside the European Union (and EFTA countries) that you can cross by train. En route he's stopping off to organise a meeting in the political capital of each country to discuss the missing rail links with local activists. [1]: https://twitter.com/jonworth https://twitter.com/jonworth [2]: https://crossborderrail.trainsforeurope.eu/ https://crossborderrail.trainsforeurope.eu/

california2077 4y ago

This would be a perfect place to try Hyperloop-like solution at scale.

warning26 4y ago
Regauging the railways too expensive? Not a problem, we'll just build a series of vacuum sealed maglev railways instead. Much cheaper. Wait a minute...

kzrdude 4y ago

There is a lot more wheat to ship than could ever fit on rail cars. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61583492 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61583492 "Ukrainian farmers have 20 million tonnes of grain they cannot get to international markets" Let's say you could ship 10 ton (10,000 kg) per train car; that's still 2 million rail cars. The longest possible freight train would be 100 cars or so - so now we're down to 20,000 grain train runs needed for the export. It's not possible, not enough rail capacity, not enough rail cars and engines or days in a year to do it.

maxerickson 4y ago
Apparently hopper cars can hold ~100 tons. Still some tough arithmetic.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  Now I learned thought that "In 2020, U.S. Class I railroads moved nearly 1.5 million carloads of grain." Apparently it's almost possible in that sense.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    It’s almost as if the US actually does have a good rail system, except it’s been optimized for freight. /sarc.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Let's say you could ship 10 ton (10,000 kg) per train car; What if we don't underestimate by a full order of magnitude? [0] > The longest possible freight train would be 100 cars or so Why? Freight trains over 100 cars are fairly routine. [0] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/commentary-moving-grain-is-a-major-market-for-u-s-and-canadian-railroads https://www.freightwaves.com/news/commentary-moving-grain-is... : “Rail’s economic advantage comes in large part from each railroad car’s capacity of up to 100 tons”
- deleted 4y ago

AlbertCory 4y ago

If you are not a train buff, this comment is not for you. (I wouldn't claim I'm one myself, but let's say I'm a "sympathizer.") I just heard about this rather large model railroad [1], up near Skyline on private land (this is in the Bay Area). When I say "rather large" I mean "you can ride on it." It's members-only. I'm not a member. (If you were only 60 years old, you'd be the youngest.) They have giant workshops where you build things to maintain the railroad. [1] https://www.pvarr.org/ https://www.pvarr.org/

Stevvo 4y ago
You would love the UK. Many cities have steam railroads of similar gauge in public parks. They are also run by clubs of old men, but offer rides to kids all day on the weekend instead of hiding out in the hills!
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I hasten to add I'm not a train spotter (that's what you call them over there, right?) I don't have a model train of any gauge.
  - hinoki 4y ago
    Trainspotting is like birding for trains. You keep track of which engines and rolling stock you’ve seen, go on trips to see new engines etc. So it’s a different type of train nerd from railroad modelling.
bombcar 4y ago
There's one in Bonita near San Diego: https://chulavistalivesteamers.org https://chulavistalivesteamers.org
ireflect 4y ago
One in Vancouver, BC too: https://bcsme.org/ https://bcsme.org/

photochemsyn 4y ago

It's a bit surprising to see an article on modern-day rail that doesn't at least mention China's remarkable advances in rail. You can love or hate their state-sponsored, approach, but it seems undeniable that Chinese rail is the most advanced in the world at present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_China

mlindner 4y ago
Because the conversation is about rail transport between Europe and post-soviet Europe. It would in fact be surprising to see China being mentioned at all, given it's complete irrelevance to the conversation at hand. And no I'd pretty easily say that Chinese rail is not the most advanced in the world. That award would go to Japan. (China buys (or steals) their technology from Japan and also Europe.)

cenriqueortiz 4y ago

One clear benefit of ensuring disparity of rail systems across adjacent countries is protection from an impromptu invasion. IIRC for some countries during the WWs, that was a main reason for the differences and was in fact effective. I wonder if the rail systems difference helped avoid Russia using the rail system for the invasion of Ukraine.

idlehand 4y ago
Russia and Ukraine have the same gauge. The reason the railroads weren't used to invade is because Ukraine managed to damage the connecting infrastructure enough. Turns out that railroads are a lot better defensively than offensively, in an era of widespread drone usage.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Not sure how drones are related – denying rail use from an advancing enemy has always been easy. A destroyed railroad bridge cannot be replaced with a temporary ponton bridge, for one.

ajuc 4y ago

Poland actually has some wide-gauge railways connecting Ukraine to Silesia region in Poland (originally for moving coal, steel and sulphur between Ukraine and industrial part of Poland, now used for various things including moving refuges out of Ukraine). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linia_Hutnicza_Szerokotorowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linia_Hutnicza_Szerokotorowa So it's not true that all the reloading has to happen on EU border. We also have trains that can move from standard to wide gauge and back with minimal delays. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW_2000 but there are also more modern versions. The main problem is simply too small capacity of railway transport compared to sea transport. We'd have to increase the number of cargo trains Poland and Ukraine owns by orders of magnitude to move all that grain in a reasonable time.

Animats 4y ago

China's Belt and Road initiative is forcing more railways in Asia to support "standard gauge" (1435 mm) width, which China and Europe, while the Soviet-era countries use 1520mm. The goal is to be able to run freight from China to Europe.[1] Some track is dual-gauge. There's enough difference between 1435mm and 1520mm to use a 3-rail system. Plain track isn't too hard, but switches are complicated. [1] https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/chinas-belt-and-road-chugging-along-in-central-asia/ https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/chinas-belt-and-road-chugging-...

divbzero 4y ago
This map [2] shows a proposed railway running through Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan. Presumably it would continue through Turkmenistan and Iran to Turkey? [2]: https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/12/10/awaiting-on-kyrgyzstan-to-allow-chinas-railway-through-central-asia-and-to-the-middle-east/ https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/12/10/awaiting-on...
Gare 4y ago
> There's enough difference between 1435mm and 1520mm to use a 3-rail system. Can you provide an example? I've only seen 4-rail dual-gauge systems for those gauges.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Why would you need 4 rails? | | | | | | Left wheel uses left rail. If narrow gauuge, the right wheel uses the innner rail. If wide gauge, the right wheel uses the outer rail.
  - innocenat 4y ago
    Because rails are 3 dimensional and has width. Between 1435mm and 1520mm there's only 85mm space. I am not even sure if you could mount two rail that close.
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago

Hellbanevil 4y ago

[dead]

cozzyd 4y ago

Russia can't blockade the Danube, I imagine grain must be going to Izmail/Reni/Giurguleşti, where it can be taken to Romanian ports by barge...

petre 4y ago
Already being done but it's not enough. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2022/6/16/photos-romanian-port-becomes-key-transit-hub-for-ukrainian-grain https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2022/6/16/photos-roman...

Ericson2314 4y ago

I feel like we should pick a broad gauge and dual-gauge everything to be standard guage and that.

palm-tree 4y ago

Interesting to see the ways in which even railways have technical debt!

5etho 4y ago

FYI during world war I, armys could laid a track in 2 days during world war II german wehrmacht also build the railways and change gouge in real time time to real hot war solutions, send nato ships to odessa to unblock the port is it just impossible to ship grain by train, the same as it is impossible to install android on iphone 13