6 ms·

>rail Wrong niche. This is in the same market as conventional air freight.

by schiffern 3y ago

nvy 3y ago
Air freight is phenomenally inefficient compared to rail.
- ethagknight 3y ago
  Rail is phenomenally inefficient crossing oceans compared to air freight
  - mc32 3y ago
    Hmm, if we ever built the Alaska-Siberia overland railway connection (bridges + tunnels) it would become a possibility to make efficient from what is now an impossibility. It’s doable. Tunnels and bridges necessary would not be beyond what we have built elsewhere with current technology. The weather may be challenging in Winter though.
    - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
      How is building a rail system for transporting freight to and from the U.S. that runs through Russian territory a good/feasible idea? Even if Russia agreed, Putin or whatever strong-man dictator they have next could suddenly decide it was a bad idea, and to block U.S. freight. Then we have no rail transport AND a grounded air fleet that would take time to get operational at the same output it is today.
      - mc32 3y ago
        I didn't mean tomorrow ("if we ever.."), or the day after. I meant one day when the US and Russia get along as well as China and the US do. It's not like we'll be at not-war war long into the future. Building the bridges and tunnels would take probably a decade or two, the way we build things. But if we did, then much of China's trade that goes over airfreight could come over via rail... one day.
      - BirAdam 3y ago
        When goods stop crossing borders, soldiers start crossing borders. The easiest way NOT to go to war is to have open trade.
        photonbeam 3y ago
        Best way to avoid war is to have the border be open ocean. Having a railroad bridge with russia is inviting problems
        nradov 3y ago
        That's a nice little platitude but it's not supported by the historical record.
        BirAdam 3y ago
        Eh, the USA’s history seems to confirm it. I’m not really sure about others, but I’d be surprised if countries that are dependent upon one another were at war with one another.
    - seer 3y ago
      Where is Mr Wilford when you need him? Sorry couldn’t resist the Snowpiercer Reference - where they connect alaska to russia with a long ass bridge. To be fair it does look like a “technically possible but ruinously expensive” kinda project.
    - nradov 3y ago
      If there was actually demand for faster high-volume shipping between East Asia and North America then logistics companies would just buy faster ships. The technology for that already exists and is far cheaper than building a railroad tunnel across the Bering Strait. Shipyards are capable of building freighters with more hydrodynamic hulls and powerful turbine engines. So far no one is really asking for those, which indicates the market doesn't exist.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        it exists in the form of air freight, which is stupidly more expensive, but also stupidly faster. so there is a market, just apparently not one in-between.
    - ethagknight 3y ago
      That’s several thousand miles of additional journey on your way to Shenzen or wherever? Massive amounts of track, tunnel and bridge that has to be maintained in extreme conditions and across multiple nations at odds with each other? Or just put it on a boat?
      - mc32 3y ago
        I don't think it would be as problematic as you suggest. The Trans-Siberian railway already operates at similar distances. Also China is building their belt-and-road network. We could get goods from China, Japan, Korea and Russia all on this rail system. The one sticky point might be gauge. We'd want something all agree upon. We'd want to avoid variable track gauge bogies.
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    Clearly, we need more airship transport.
- newsclues 3y ago
  Most of the time but some remote locations it is not nor does it require rail volume. Rail is less efficient than water transport most of the time but it does not always apply to the local situation.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Pareto principle means you should prioritize the 80%+ use case. Most of the time is what you want to spend all your time/money optimizing while making also the other use cases possible.
    - newsclues 3y ago
      I think this is a terrible way to apply the Pareto principle. 80% of the time a hammer is a better tool than a screwdriver does not mean you should not use screwdrivers and just get better with a hammer. Different tools for the job is more effective than one universal tool for everything
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  Travel time of 8 hours vs 3 weeks... most things being transported by plane are ones where time is of the essence.
  - Retric 3y ago
    There’s such a huge time gap between our current rail and air that many things that are somewhat time sensitive end up flying which would use a reasonably quick rail network. NYC to LA is well under 2,800 miles so getting just about anywhere in the continental US on rail in under 48 hours is a completely reasonable standard. Yet, people moving from Texas to Florida don’t just park a U-Haul on a flatbed and fly, because it’s not just slow but also unpredictable. It can take weeks or even months in some cases because the network is optimized for coal and wheat etc which don’t care about delays just cost.
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      You think a completely reasonable standard is for a train to average 58 mph all the way across the united states without stopping? What about all the slowdowns due to extremely rough terrain? The fact people have to be swapped out? The fact that not all cars are going all the way across the country and also have to be swapped out? 58mph average is insane.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Train’s don’t need to slow down for rough terrain because they can’t handle rough terrain and either route around it or tunnel through it. What they do need to slow down for is the rail network itself. Poor track conditions, missing block signal systems, and Trains without an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train control system "may not exceed 79 mph." Freight trains really could travel a mostly Class 6 network at 120MPH in the US, we have regulations all the way to class 9. They don’t because that’s not rail is optimized for.
        DoesntMatter22 3y ago
crote 3y ago
How much air freight really needs to be transferred by air, though? Air freight makes sense when you need to get something across an ocean in less than a month, or across the continent in less than a day. If the US were to invest in running the railroads efficiently, getting a package from NYC to LA in less than 72 hours should be possible - that's fast enough for regular Amazon shipping. If you electrify the railroads you could avoid an awful lot of CO2 emissions. There are currently already container trains running from China to Europe (or at least there used to, before Russia started a war). It's a viable midpoint between ocean freight and air freight.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If the US were to invest in running the railroads efficiently, getting a package from NYC to LA in less than 72 hours should be possible Still need air for every other pair of destinations. And in the meantime, I’d be shocked if that freight leg had enough volume to justify that expense over a couple more planes.
- nradov 3y ago
  US freight rail companies have already invested heavily in efficiency and are now pretty much the most efficient in the world. What you seem to be asking for is a reduction in latency. You can't have both high efficiency and low latency: those metrics are in direct conflict with each other. Trucks with team driving can already run coast to coast in about 3 days. This works fine for somewhat time sensitive loads.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  I think freight trains in Europe are much faster than in the US, but also much shorter (though there are plans to make them a little longer) and lighter (no double-stacked containers). So they are more costly but you get stuff from A to B faster. Electrified locomotives are better than diesel electric (e.g. an electric locomotive has 2x - 3x the power, ~6MW-9MW compared to ~3MW, so you need less locomotives, less moving parts means less maintenance etc.), but while it works in dense Europe, it's too costly to build and maintain cross US.
  - 3y ago

>rail Wrong niche. This is in the same market as conventional air freight.

nvy 3y ago

Air freight is phenomenally inefficient compared to rail.

ethagknight 3y ago
Rail is phenomenally inefficient crossing oceans compared to air freight
- mc32 3y ago
  Hmm, if we ever built the Alaska-Siberia overland railway connection (bridges + tunnels) it would become a possibility to make efficient from what is now an impossibility. It’s doable. Tunnels and bridges necessary would not be beyond what we have built elsewhere with current technology. The weather may be challenging in Winter though.
  - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
    How is building a rail system for transporting freight to and from the U.S. that runs through Russian territory a good/feasible idea? Even if Russia agreed, Putin or whatever strong-man dictator they have next could suddenly decide it was a bad idea, and to block U.S. freight. Then we have no rail transport AND a grounded air fleet that would take time to get operational at the same output it is today.
    - mc32 3y ago
      I didn't mean tomorrow ("if we ever.."), or the day after. I meant one day when the US and Russia get along as well as China and the US do. It's not like we'll be at not-war war long into the future. Building the bridges and tunnels would take probably a decade or two, the way we build things. But if we did, then much of China's trade that goes over airfreight could come over via rail... one day.
    - BirAdam 3y ago
      When goods stop crossing borders, soldiers start crossing borders. The easiest way NOT to go to war is to have open trade.
      - photonbeam 3y ago
        Best way to avoid war is to have the border be open ocean. Having a railroad bridge with russia is inviting problems
      - nradov 3y ago
        That's a nice little platitude but it's not supported by the historical record.
        BirAdam 3y ago
        Eh, the USA’s history seems to confirm it. I’m not really sure about others, but I’d be surprised if countries that are dependent upon one another were at war with one another.
  - seer 3y ago
    Where is Mr Wilford when you need him? Sorry couldn’t resist the Snowpiercer Reference - where they connect alaska to russia with a long ass bridge. To be fair it does look like a “technically possible but ruinously expensive” kinda project.
  - nradov 3y ago
    If there was actually demand for faster high-volume shipping between East Asia and North America then logistics companies would just buy faster ships. The technology for that already exists and is far cheaper than building a railroad tunnel across the Bering Strait. Shipyards are capable of building freighters with more hydrodynamic hulls and powerful turbine engines. So far no one is really asking for those, which indicates the market doesn't exist.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      it exists in the form of air freight, which is stupidly more expensive, but also stupidly faster. so there is a market, just apparently not one in-between.
  - ethagknight 3y ago
    That’s several thousand miles of additional journey on your way to Shenzen or wherever? Massive amounts of track, tunnel and bridge that has to be maintained in extreme conditions and across multiple nations at odds with each other? Or just put it on a boat?
    - mc32 3y ago
      I don't think it would be as problematic as you suggest. The Trans-Siberian railway already operates at similar distances. Also China is building their belt-and-road network. We could get goods from China, Japan, Korea and Russia all on this rail system. The one sticky point might be gauge. We'd want something all agree upon. We'd want to avoid variable track gauge bogies.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  Clearly, we need more airship transport.
newsclues 3y ago
Most of the time but some remote locations it is not nor does it require rail volume. Rail is less efficient than water transport most of the time but it does not always apply to the local situation.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Pareto principle means you should prioritize the 80%+ use case. Most of the time is what you want to spend all your time/money optimizing while making also the other use cases possible.
  - newsclues 3y ago
    I think this is a terrible way to apply the Pareto principle. 80% of the time a hammer is a better tool than a screwdriver does not mean you should not use screwdrivers and just get better with a hammer. Different tools for the job is more effective than one universal tool for everything
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
Travel time of 8 hours vs 3 weeks... most things being transported by plane are ones where time is of the essence.
- Retric 3y ago
  There’s such a huge time gap between our current rail and air that many things that are somewhat time sensitive end up flying which would use a reasonably quick rail network. NYC to LA is well under 2,800 miles so getting just about anywhere in the continental US on rail in under 48 hours is a completely reasonable standard. Yet, people moving from Texas to Florida don’t just park a U-Haul on a flatbed and fly, because it’s not just slow but also unpredictable. It can take weeks or even months in some cases because the network is optimized for coal and wheat etc which don’t care about delays just cost.
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    You think a completely reasonable standard is for a train to average 58 mph all the way across the united states without stopping? What about all the slowdowns due to extremely rough terrain? The fact people have to be swapped out? The fact that not all cars are going all the way across the country and also have to be swapped out? 58mph average is insane.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Train’s don’t need to slow down for rough terrain because they can’t handle rough terrain and either route around it or tunnel through it. What they do need to slow down for is the rail network itself. Poor track conditions, missing block signal systems, and Trains without an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train control system "may not exceed 79 mph." Freight trains really could travel a mostly Class 6 network at 120MPH in the US, we have regulations all the way to class 9. They don’t because that’s not rail is optimized for.
      - DoesntMatter22 3y ago

crote 3y ago

How much air freight really needs to be transferred by air, though? Air freight makes sense when you need to get something across an ocean in less than a month, or across the continent in less than a day. If the US were to invest in running the railroads efficiently, getting a package from NYC to LA in less than 72 hours should be possible - that's fast enough for regular Amazon shipping. If you electrify the railroads you could avoid an awful lot of CO2 emissions. There are currently already container trains running from China to Europe (or at least there used to, before Russia started a war). It's a viable midpoint between ocean freight and air freight.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If the US were to invest in running the railroads efficiently, getting a package from NYC to LA in less than 72 hours should be possible Still need air for every other pair of destinations. And in the meantime, I’d be shocked if that freight leg had enough volume to justify that expense over a couple more planes.
nradov 3y ago
US freight rail companies have already invested heavily in efficiency and are now pretty much the most efficient in the world. What you seem to be asking for is a reduction in latency. You can't have both high efficiency and low latency: those metrics are in direct conflict with each other. Trucks with team driving can already run coast to coast in about 3 days. This works fine for somewhat time sensitive loads.
KingOfCoders 3y ago
I think freight trains in Europe are much faster than in the US, but also much shorter (though there are plans to make them a little longer) and lighter (no double-stacked containers). So they are more costly but you get stuff from A to B faster. Electrified locomotives are better than diesel electric (e.g. an electric locomotive has 2x - 3x the power, ~6MW-9MW compared to ~3MW, so you need less locomotives, less moving parts means less maintenance etc.), but while it works in dense Europe, it's too costly to build and maintain cross US.
- 3y ago