5 ms·

In 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 visibl

In 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 ago
Oh 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 ago
    Try 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 ago
      Yeah, 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 ago
        https://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.
      - quickthrowman 3y ago
        River barges are more efficient than trains, see the two sources below as well as the sibling comment. > Per one gallon of fuel: > A truck can carry one ton of cargo just 59 miles. > By rail, one ton of cargo can travel 202 miles. > An inland barge can carry one ton of cargo 514 miles. https://www.portoflittlerock.com/2023/10/the-benefits-of-river-transportation/ https://www.portoflittlerock.com/2023/10/the-benefits-of-riv... > The study shows that barges can move a ton of cargo 647 miles with a single gallon of fuel, an increase from an earlier estimate of 616 miles. In contrast, trains can move the same ton of cargo 477 miles per gallon, and trucks can move the same ton of cargo 145 miles per gallon. > https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-transport-wins-on-fuel-efficiency#:~:text=The%20study%20shows%20that%20barges,cargo%20145%20miles%20per%20gallon https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-transport-wins-....
      - zardo 3y ago
- lamp_book 3y ago
  Yeah I think China is a more fit comparison and highlights what the issue is in the US - very little central planning authority. People discuss the American “government” like it’s a monolith when it’s fiefdoms at all levels; it’s not surprising we can’t build anything anymore.
  - kiba 3y ago
    The problem is not the lack of centralized authority, it's the vetocracy, gridlock, and political resistance to anything that's not car-based pattern of development. Notice that we managed to build an interstate system and lot of other infrastructure.
    - lamp_book 3y ago
      I was referring to the problems you describe by that. All that infrastructure got built with PWA era pork barrel politics and many of the projects were highly illogical. The books The Power Broker and Cadillac Desert dissect these issues, the latter focusing on our hydrology infra which is as at least as, if not way more stupid than our roads. You’re right though that it’s not exactly about it being centralized.
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      We only managed to build an interstate system via a massive, centralised effort by the federal government to plan out and fund construction of the interstate highway system. The yellow book (designed by the federal govt) maps extremely closely to what became the final interstate system. The states did the actual building and own the actual land but the federal govt told them where to build, gave them the money, and otherwise forced their hand into the construction. I'm not necessarily saying federal control over all infrastructure is a good thing but it really was in large part due to the federal government that the interstate system actually happened.

In 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 ago

Oh 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 ago
  Try 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 ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      https://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.
    - quickthrowman 3y ago
      River barges are more efficient than trains, see the two sources below as well as the sibling comment. > Per one gallon of fuel: > A truck can carry one ton of cargo just 59 miles. > By rail, one ton of cargo can travel 202 miles. > An inland barge can carry one ton of cargo 514 miles. https://www.portoflittlerock.com/2023/10/the-benefits-of-river-transportation/ https://www.portoflittlerock.com/2023/10/the-benefits-of-riv... > The study shows that barges can move a ton of cargo 647 miles with a single gallon of fuel, an increase from an earlier estimate of 616 miles. In contrast, trains can move the same ton of cargo 477 miles per gallon, and trucks can move the same ton of cargo 145 miles per gallon. > https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-transport-wins-on-fuel-efficiency#:~:text=The%20study%20shows%20that%20barges,cargo%20145%20miles%20per%20gallon https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-transport-wins-....
    - zardo 3y ago
lamp_book 3y ago
Yeah I think China is a more fit comparison and highlights what the issue is in the US - very little central planning authority. People discuss the American “government” like it’s a monolith when it’s fiefdoms at all levels; it’s not surprising we can’t build anything anymore.
- kiba 3y ago
  The problem is not the lack of centralized authority, it's the vetocracy, gridlock, and political resistance to anything that's not car-based pattern of development. Notice that we managed to build an interstate system and lot of other infrastructure.
  - lamp_book 3y ago
    I was referring to the problems you describe by that. All that infrastructure got built with PWA era pork barrel politics and many of the projects were highly illogical. The books The Power Broker and Cadillac Desert dissect these issues, the latter focusing on our hydrology infra which is as at least as, if not way more stupid than our roads. You’re right though that it’s not exactly about it being centralized.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    We only managed to build an interstate system via a massive, centralised effort by the federal government to plan out and fund construction of the interstate highway system. The yellow book (designed by the federal govt) maps extremely closely to what became the final interstate system. The states did the actual building and own the actual land but the federal govt told them where to build, gave them the money, and otherwise forced their hand into the construction. I'm not necessarily saying federal control over all infrastructure is a good thing but it really was in large part due to the federal government that the interstate system actually happened.