4 ms·

The rail idea is good. It's too bad rail is so expensive to make compared to roads. Imagine if all roads were instead rail lines, computer controlled. Would

The rail idea is good. It's too bad rail is so expensive to make compared to roads. Imagine if all roads were instead rail lines, computer controlled. Would make self driving a lot easier to solve. No tire dust... Maybe if robots could lay the tracks down. OK this idea is out there, but it doesn't seem too crazy tbh.

triceratops 4y ago
> It's too bad rail is so expensive to make compared to roads... Maybe if robots could lay the tracks down My impression was that permitting, land acquisition, and delays due to legal battles make up a ton of the cost. At least in the US.
cycomanic 4y ago
> The rail idea is good. > It's too bad rail is so expensive to make compared to roads. Is that actually true? I mean, by what measure is rail more expensive? In comparison to rail road travel is massively subsidised. If we break down cost it would be interesting to see how they actually stack up against each other.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > I mean, by what measure is rail more expensive? Your average truck puts out 8 metric tons per axle [1], railroads have to deal with 20-25 tons per axle [2] (and records of 40 tons/axle in Australia [3]). That is an awful lot more force that needs to be distributed into the ground, particularly as trucks usually reach only 80 km/h whereas freight trains run at 120 km/h in Europe [4]. Additionally, road vehicles have way more tolerance for shoddy road conditions - small bumps and potholes won't bother them too much, even at higher speeds, whereas rail vehicles are really, really prone to (deadly) derailments when the track goes bad for whatever reasons. All of that makes constructing rail way more complex and as a result expensive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance [2] https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/325055/ https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/32505... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load [4] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCterzug#Geschwindigkeiten_und_Verkehrszeiten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCterzug#Geschwindigkeite...
  - formvoltron 4y ago
    Do trains really need to be so heavy? I was imaging things the size of cars or smaller on rails, moving around everywhere cars currently move around.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Unfortunately yes. A car or even a truck is standalone and its frame only has to account for the forces of itself moving and crash absorbance, whereas a railway car has to be able to withstand the pull and push forces of dozens of cars - the most basic train has one locomotive at the front and each car must be capable of transferring the entire pull force that the first one behind the locomotive gets, which is for European railways usually anything between 200 to 700 (MTAB IORE) kN. And the only way to achieve that capability is lots and lots of very thick steel.

triceratops 4y ago

> It's too bad rail is so expensive to make compared to roads... Maybe if robots could lay the tracks down My impression was that permitting, land acquisition, and delays due to legal battles make up a ton of the cost. At least in the US.

cycomanic 4y ago

> The rail idea is good. > It's too bad rail is so expensive to make compared to roads. Is that actually true? I mean, by what measure is rail more expensive? In comparison to rail road travel is massively subsidised. If we break down cost it would be interesting to see how they actually stack up against each other.

mschuster91 4y ago
> I mean, by what measure is rail more expensive? Your average truck puts out 8 metric tons per axle [1], railroads have to deal with 20-25 tons per axle [2] (and records of 40 tons/axle in Australia [3]). That is an awful lot more force that needs to be distributed into the ground, particularly as trucks usually reach only 80 km/h whereas freight trains run at 120 km/h in Europe [4]. Additionally, road vehicles have way more tolerance for shoddy road conditions - small bumps and potholes won't bother them too much, even at higher speeds, whereas rail vehicles are really, really prone to (deadly) derailments when the track goes bad for whatever reasons. All of that makes constructing rail way more complex and as a result expensive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance [2] https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/325055/ https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/32505... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load [4] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCterzug#Geschwindigkeiten_und_Verkehrszeiten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCterzug#Geschwindigkeite...
- formvoltron 4y ago
  Do trains really need to be so heavy? I was imaging things the size of cars or smaller on rails, moving around everywhere cars currently move around.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Unfortunately yes. A car or even a truck is standalone and its frame only has to account for the forces of itself moving and crash absorbance, whereas a railway car has to be able to withstand the pull and push forces of dozens of cars - the most basic train has one locomotive at the front and each car must be capable of transferring the entire pull force that the first one behind the locomotive gets, which is for European railways usually anything between 200 to 700 (MTAB IORE) kN. And the only way to achieve that capability is lots and lots of very thick steel.