3 ms·
> Who do you think built them? We have the world’s largest rail network for a reason. I don't know if shear size is a great way to evaluate what method of rail
by CuriousCosmic 3y ago
> Who do you think built them? We have the world’s largest rail network for a reason.
I don't know if shear size is a great way to evaluate what method of rail ownership is superior. The US is literally the third largest country on earth so it makes sense that we have a lot of "largests" when it comes to infrastructure networks.
What probably would make more sense would be a rail density metric instead. Something like km of rail per sq km of land would work (but has it's own flaws). But that metric then shows a number of other countries that clearly beat the US despite having nationalised or hybrid rail networks.
A good example would be Japan which has roughly triple as much rail relative to the size of their country and I doubt many people would argue that Japan's rail network is less effective than the US rail network.
- lamp_book 3y agoIn the US, rail is used for freight, while in Japan it’s used for passengers. Both are successful in their own ways but Japan’s rail network is much more visible.
- CuriousCosmic 3y agoOh for sure but that's a very different discussion than just "largest rail network" as a qualifier for success. If we want to talk freight utilisation, Japanese freight rail usage is low because of the country's geography/generally easy access to water/maritime shipping (since shipping by water is always more cost/energy effective per tonne relative to rail). So a comparable example in that case would be China who has similar geography, a similar sized country, and a rail network roughly 70% the size of the US rail network (#2 largest network). However China moves nearly 3x more raw mass per year relative to the US and 50% more tonne kilometers per year relative to the US. Point being that US freight rail is massive because it geographically and economically makes sense for it to be so. Similar networks exist in other countries that take nationalised or hybrid rail approaches yet those countries consistently outperform US rail in basically every metric but shear size.
- criddell 3y ago> shipping by water is always more cost/energy effective per tonne relative to rail Is that true? I always thought it was the other way around. Rail has relatively low rolling resistance so I thought it would take a lot less energy to move the same weight by rail compared to water.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- quickthrowman 3y agoTry this experiment: Attempt to push a boat while swimming in the water, then try to push the same boat while it is on a trailer on land. Which one is easier to move?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- criddell 3y agoYeah, I can see that. At the same time, swimming speed isn’t very useful for anybody. What are the relative energy requirements to move ten thousand pounds at 30 mph in the water vs on rails?
- CuriousCosmic 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#US_Freight_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport... > | transport mode | Fuel consumption | > | ---------------------- | BTU per short ton-mile | kJ per tonne-kilometre | > | Domestic waterborne | 217 | 160 | > | Class 1 railroads | 289 | 209 | > | Heavy trucks | 3,357 | 2,426 | > | Air freight (approx.) | 9,600 | 6,900 | In other words waterborne freight is generally around 25% cheaper energy wise and far easier/cheaper to scale capacity relative to rail. It's also worth looking at some of the other numbers on that page. German numbers work out ocean freight to be over 3x cheaper energywise per tkm relative to rail.