5 ms·

> Of course actual railways are more efficient. They will continue to be built where possible. Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the abo

by ssl232 4y ago

> Of course actual railways are more efficient. They will continue to be built where possible. Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. > This is a tunnel network to get the goods into the middle of cities without putting an ever increasing number of trucks onto the city streets to distribute them throughout the city. The article suggests this is to be a national network, not local. If it were just for the "last mile" wouldn't they just use above-ground trains to get the goods to the outskirts of the city before using the underground network to get them into the middle?

ThePadawan 4y ago
> Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. Depends on your definition of "efficient" - I imagine it's definitely more efficient to ship a cargo container full of grain than a CST pod full of grain simply because they are higher volume. If your goal however is "get cereal boxes into an urban supermarket", then cargo rail is probably less efficient, yes. > The article suggests this is to be a national network, not local. If it were just for the "last mile" wouldn't they just use above-ground trains to get the goods to the outskirts of the city before using the underground network to get them into the middle? I seem to have phrased it poorly then - yes, that is exactly what CST wants to do. The goal is not to replace urban truck traffic with CST.
- tonfa 4y ago
  > The goal is not to replace urban truck traffic with CST. Though reducing that traffic is one goal. """ In urban areas, city logistics can reduce delivery traffic by 30%. """ I guess this is achieved because deliveries get aggregated by destination in the logistical center (where they have space for such buffering), while currently many places might still receive multiple deliveries per day (depending on sender). """ In the CST system, the goods are already sorted and bundled by destination when transported in the tunnel. This bundling process means that they are optimally prepared for the subsequent micro-distribution process. """
tonfa 4y ago
> Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. I think CST vs. cargo rail are very much complementary. Cargo rail need huge logistical centers and rail yard for sorting, those can be outside of town. CST provide the delivery network from those logistical centers to urban areas. In fact the first leg of CST is from the biggest swiss post logistical center (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3197669,7.8162172,1399m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3197669,7.8162172,1399m/data...) to the biggest Swiss city.
aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
>Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights Lol, no they don’t. Do you know how long it takes for a freight train to stop?
- mkr-hn 4y ago
  They might be referring to the signals on the track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_signalling
masklinn 4y ago
> Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. Grade separation is a thing in much of the world. And building a country-spanning network of heavy-duty underground tunnels isn't exactly cheap, even compared to a fully grade-separated train network.
- mkr-hn 4y ago
  On the other hand, having a national network of tunnels built and maintained is great for when an asteroid strikes off the coast of New York and you only have a few hours to get people to safety. Handily, they're also full of supplies and battery power.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    Not really. In Cold War context, Switzerland used to mandate nuclear bunkers maintained and stocked for that purpose, they’re been decommissioning those for decades. Starving in a tunnel is not helpful, and if you’re supposed to plan for an asteroid hitting New York directly affecting Switzerland, a network of cargo tunnels are more likely to collapse on you than save you. Even tunnels which were built with that purpose in mind (like Lucerne’s Sonnenberg) have huge logistical problems caused by their scale.
    - mkr-hn 4y ago
      It was a joke about disaster movies. One of them even had tunnels in its plot. There's a disaster movie set in Australia that goofs on the tendency for all asteroids to hit off the coast of New York by having the news come hours before the disaster reached them.

by ssl232 4y ago

ThePadawan 4y ago

> Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. Depends on your definition of "efficient" - I imagine it's definitely more efficient to ship a cargo container full of grain than a CST pod full of grain simply because they are higher volume. If your goal however is "get cereal boxes into an urban supermarket", then cargo rail is probably less efficient, yes. > The article suggests this is to be a national network, not local. If it were just for the "last mile" wouldn't they just use above-ground trains to get the goods to the outskirts of the city before using the underground network to get them into the middle? I seem to have phrased it poorly then - yes, that is exactly what CST wants to do. The goal is not to replace urban truck traffic with CST.

tonfa 4y ago
> The goal is not to replace urban truck traffic with CST. Though reducing that traffic is one goal. """ In urban areas, city logistics can reduce delivery traffic by 30%. """ I guess this is achieved because deliveries get aggregated by destination in the logistical center (where they have space for such buffering), while currently many places might still receive multiple deliveries per day (depending on sender). """ In the CST system, the goods are already sorted and bundled by destination when transported in the tunnel. This bundling process means that they are optimally prepared for the subsequent micro-distribution process. """

tonfa 4y ago

> Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. I think CST vs. cargo rail are very much complementary. Cargo rail need huge logistical centers and rail yard for sorting, those can be outside of town. CST provide the delivery network from those logistical centers to urban areas. In fact the first leg of CST is from the biggest swiss post logistical center (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3197669,7.8162172,1399m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3197669,7.8162172,1399m/data...) to the biggest Swiss city.

aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago

>Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights Lol, no they don’t. Do you know how long it takes for a freight train to stop?

mkr-hn 4y ago
They might be referring to the signals on the track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_signalling

masklinn 4y ago

> Wouldn't this underground network be more efficient than the above-ground railways for cargo? Cargo trains above ground need to stop at lights, need human drivers, etc etc. Grade separation is a thing in much of the world. And building a country-spanning network of heavy-duty underground tunnels isn't exactly cheap, even compared to a fully grade-separated train network.

mkr-hn 4y ago
On the other hand, having a national network of tunnels built and maintained is great for when an asteroid strikes off the coast of New York and you only have a few hours to get people to safety. Handily, they're also full of supplies and battery power.
- masklinn 4y ago
  Not really. In Cold War context, Switzerland used to mandate nuclear bunkers maintained and stocked for that purpose, they’re been decommissioning those for decades. Starving in a tunnel is not helpful, and if you’re supposed to plan for an asteroid hitting New York directly affecting Switzerland, a network of cargo tunnels are more likely to collapse on you than save you. Even tunnels which were built with that purpose in mind (like Lucerne’s Sonnenberg) have huge logistical problems caused by their scale.
  - mkr-hn 4y ago
    It was a joke about disaster movies. One of them even had tunnels in its plot. There's a disaster movie set in Australia that goofs on the tendency for all asteroids to hit off the coast of New York by having the news come hours before the disaster reached them.