4 ms·

Isn't that because rail freight is pretty much a solved problem with little left to research? Each one of those you mentioned have been discussed, optimised and

by sofixa 4y ago

Isn't that because rail freight is pretty much a solved problem with little left to research? Each one of those you mentioned have been discussed, optimised and reorganised hundreds if not thousands of times across hundreds of countries during the last more than a century of rail history. The answers are there, just not everyone bothers to look and apply them. Autonomous electric trains exist. Scheduling optimisations to the second are well developed. However there's R&D into cheap electrifying with battery railcars - which is IMHO a dumb idea outside of niche railroads, electrification pays for itself in the medium to long term, a battery bandaid doesn't get you far. Ans there's also a kind of innovation from India - dedicated rail freight corridors.

dredmorbius 4y ago
There's a argument to be made for this. As of about 30 years ago, I had the opportunity to observe a freight yard at which the tech was 1920s -- 1930s vintage (electromechanical relays controlling switches). I suspect there are many such instances still in operation. To an extent, what works, works, but there are also limitations and sheer maintenance. But at a bigger-picture view, as I read what's being discussed for trucking, I keep thinking that far greater energy efficiencies are attainable by a switch to rail, though a huge problem remains in the flexibility and time elements. There have been expedited / express long-distance rail initiatives, though those have been on the range of ~14 days for coast-to-coast transit in the US. There is a very small number of Class 1 railroads in the US: Amtrak, BNSF, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, CSX, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific. One of those is passenger-only, and two are Canadian-owned. That leaves five US-owned freight carriers. As with the broadband industry, these tend to operate independent territories and routes.
- zip1234 4y ago
  Trucking is also highly subsidized via highway money, with gas/usage taxes covering less than half of roads..= Take that away or make trucks pay for wear and tear and maybe we would see more investment in rail. Long haul trucking almost shouldn't exist given how much cheaper and more efficient rail is.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    I recently ran across a mention that this was a deliberate decision made in the 1950s to help further break the power of railroad monopolies. The decision had merits at the time. Side-effects may be overwhelming those now, though I'll note that with only five US majors, centralisation within rail remains a concern.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      A better way to do that would have been something akin to the "Rail Packages" of the EU, most notably the open access part. Infrastructure should be separate from operations, and access should be given to anyone at equal priority and fees. Monopolies are effectively broken, and that works for rail as well any other type of infrastructure monopoly - ISPs, power, etc.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        I wish I could remember the source, as I believe it had more context. May have been Tim Wu's The Master Switch, though that doesn't quite seem right.

by sofixa 4y ago

dredmorbius 4y ago

There's a argument to be made for this. As of about 30 years ago, I had the opportunity to observe a freight yard at which the tech was 1920s -- 1930s vintage (electromechanical relays controlling switches). I suspect there are many such instances still in operation. To an extent, what works, works, but there are also limitations and sheer maintenance. But at a bigger-picture view, as I read what's being discussed for trucking, I keep thinking that far greater energy efficiencies are attainable by a switch to rail, though a huge problem remains in the flexibility and time elements. There have been expedited / express long-distance rail initiatives, though those have been on the range of ~14 days for coast-to-coast transit in the US. There is a very small number of Class 1 railroads in the US: Amtrak, BNSF, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, CSX, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific. One of those is passenger-only, and two are Canadian-owned. That leaves five US-owned freight carriers. As with the broadband industry, these tend to operate independent territories and routes.

zip1234 4y ago
Trucking is also highly subsidized via highway money, with gas/usage taxes covering less than half of roads..= Take that away or make trucks pay for wear and tear and maybe we would see more investment in rail. Long haul trucking almost shouldn't exist given how much cheaper and more efficient rail is.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  I recently ran across a mention that this was a deliberate decision made in the 1950s to help further break the power of railroad monopolies. The decision had merits at the time. Side-effects may be overwhelming those now, though I'll note that with only five US majors, centralisation within rail remains a concern.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    A better way to do that would have been something akin to the "Rail Packages" of the EU, most notably the open access part. Infrastructure should be separate from operations, and access should be given to anyone at equal priority and fees. Monopolies are effectively broken, and that works for rail as well any other type of infrastructure monopoly - ISPs, power, etc.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      I wish I could remember the source, as I believe it had more context. May have been Tim Wu's The Master Switch, though that doesn't quite seem right.