3 ms·

I suspect that's why a competent government might invest more in these tracks as they might contribute a lot to delivery infrastructure. Especially in a consume

by xracy 1y ago

I suspect that's why a competent government might invest more in these tracks as they might contribute a lot to delivery infrastructure. Especially in a consumer-based economy where shipping goods is important.

krapp 1y ago
Let me know where you can find a competent government not currently trying to burn down its own consumer-based economy with tariffs and xenophobia and which doesn't consider trains a communist plot. And whether they take American passports.
- robocat 1y ago
  I'm not sure governments learn by seeing the mistakes of other governments. But consecutive New Zealand governments have made some big mistakes. Capitalist party sold the national rail to an Australian company because rail was inefficient and costing a ton. Privately run cut back staff significantly. A few years later the story was that that was failing privately run, so the socialist party bought it back at exhorbitant cost. Now current governmentis trying to sort out a massive budget blow-out to get "rail" ferries between North and South Islands working (roll-on roll-off). The private ferry (Bluebridge) is doing okay I think. I believe the lesson is that rail sucks here, economically speaking (whether privately run or publicly run). Unfortunately old voters love rail so the politicians pander to them.
  - tcmart14 1y ago
    Dumb American, so I could be totally off base. But New Zealand appears small enough on the map that just doing a shit ton of barges along defined coastal water routes makes a lot more sense than trains. In the US trains could be efficient, but we are also like 2,500 miles coast to coast.
    - o11c 1y ago
      The problem with water travel in New Zealand is that weather often closes ports. But it is true that NZ lacks the scale that many existing rail systems rely on, and also lacks high-speed roads (a good rule of thumb for driving anywhere in NZ is: look at how many miles it is on the map, calculate how fast you could go that far in America, then double the time).
    - khuey 1y ago
      New Zealand doesn't have inland waterways the way the US does so barges don't seem sufficient. They did actually get a fancy self-propelled barge for use transporting minerals on the West Coast of the South Island last year and it got pushed aground by a storm in its first couple weeks of service. It's been sitting in port in Nelson ever since being refloated. https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-to-innovate-new-zealand-coastal-shipping-grounds-in-storm https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-to-innovate-new...
  - cycomanic 1y ago
    The problem about New Zealand is that they hate investing in infrastructure and everyone loves the kiwi myth of the number 8 wire which means they just build provisional solution on top of provisional solution. The example of the ferries is a good one, the cost blow out was because they needed to build a new dock in Wellington. So instead of just living with the fact that yes building infrastructure as become expensive in a country which has seen a massive building boom (like many other places), the new Conservative government decides to cancel the ferry order without any alternative in place, and now the most important connection of the country is running on failing ferries which are more than 25 years old (there have been several incidents in the last couple of years where they were drifting powerless), and (especially considering the massive penalty for cancelling the contract) the new ferries will be just as expensive as the cancelled ones just being much smaller (the old contract was actually signed at quite advantageous economic times) and arriving much later. This is certainly not an example of rail not working. Trucks on the road are a massive disaster as well. Most roads are single lane, so it's not uncommon to be stuck behind trucks for long stretches, this is especially annoying considering that many roads are very windy and truck speed up when coming to passing lanes.
- nicoburns 1y ago
  Trains are as popular as ever almost everywhere in Europe.
  - wahern 1y ago
    Rail freight's share of shipping has been on a steep decline for decades in Europe: > Freight rail’s modal share has been in decline across Europe, both in terms of market share and the profitability of major operators. In France for instance, modal share declined by 50 percent, from around 30 percent in the 1980s to 15 percent today. By contrast, road transport has been steadily increasing. In 1980, less than 50 percent of goods were transported by road. This rose to more than 75 percent by 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/infrastructure/our-insights/bold-moves-to-boost-european-rail-freight https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/infrastructure/our-insig... By contrast, for most of that same period (1980-today) rail freight was growing its share in the US, though in the past decade or so growth has favored trucking.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Trains move as much freight as ever in the USA.
    - gnatolf 1y ago
      Not to take away from that fact, but the share of train-moved freight (over time) is more interesting. It probably highlights the complications of scaling train networks easily.
- aaomidi 1y ago
  Switzerland?
  - rjsw 1y ago
    Austria, France and Italy are currently copying Switzerland in building base tunnels [1] to mostly carry rail freight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_tunnel
adrr 1y ago
US is already the largest shipper of freight by train in terms of shipped tonnage and also total tracks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transportation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transportation_in_the_Uni...
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Not a very interesting data point since it doesn’t account for nation area, utilization, etc.
  - crote 1y ago
    Don't forget geography, and by extension type of freight. The United States doesn't have a lot of navigable waterways, and none go east-west. This means that any bulk goods you want to transport have to go via rail. There is no other option. As a result the railway network has been optimized to do bulk transport at the lowest price possible, even if it means sacrificing speed and quality. After all, coal doesn't care if it sits in a siding for several days. It's true that the US is shipping an awful lot of tonnes via rail, but this doesn't say anything about its ability to ship regular goods. Getting a single wagon from point to point in a timely manner is significantly more complicated than doing the same with an entire train.
  - adrr 1y ago
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freight_Shipping_in_the_United_States.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freight_Shipping_in_... Here’s tonnage miles by class. For comparison. There is only 20,000 miles of railway that Amtrak operates on. Thats a fraction of passenger railway compared to China and EU.

by xracy 1y ago

krapp 1y ago

Let me know where you can find a competent government not currently trying to burn down its own consumer-based economy with tariffs and xenophobia and which doesn't consider trains a communist plot. And whether they take American passports.

robocat 1y ago
I'm not sure governments learn by seeing the mistakes of other governments. But consecutive New Zealand governments have made some big mistakes. Capitalist party sold the national rail to an Australian company because rail was inefficient and costing a ton. Privately run cut back staff significantly. A few years later the story was that that was failing privately run, so the socialist party bought it back at exhorbitant cost. Now current governmentis trying to sort out a massive budget blow-out to get "rail" ferries between North and South Islands working (roll-on roll-off). The private ferry (Bluebridge) is doing okay I think. I believe the lesson is that rail sucks here, economically speaking (whether privately run or publicly run). Unfortunately old voters love rail so the politicians pander to them.
- tcmart14 1y ago
  Dumb American, so I could be totally off base. But New Zealand appears small enough on the map that just doing a shit ton of barges along defined coastal water routes makes a lot more sense than trains. In the US trains could be efficient, but we are also like 2,500 miles coast to coast.
  - o11c 1y ago
    The problem with water travel in New Zealand is that weather often closes ports. But it is true that NZ lacks the scale that many existing rail systems rely on, and also lacks high-speed roads (a good rule of thumb for driving anywhere in NZ is: look at how many miles it is on the map, calculate how fast you could go that far in America, then double the time).
  - khuey 1y ago
    New Zealand doesn't have inland waterways the way the US does so barges don't seem sufficient. They did actually get a fancy self-propelled barge for use transporting minerals on the West Coast of the South Island last year and it got pushed aground by a storm in its first couple weeks of service. It's been sitting in port in Nelson ever since being refloated. https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-to-innovate-new-zealand-coastal-shipping-grounds-in-storm https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-to-innovate-new...
- cycomanic 1y ago
  The problem about New Zealand is that they hate investing in infrastructure and everyone loves the kiwi myth of the number 8 wire which means they just build provisional solution on top of provisional solution. The example of the ferries is a good one, the cost blow out was because they needed to build a new dock in Wellington. So instead of just living with the fact that yes building infrastructure as become expensive in a country which has seen a massive building boom (like many other places), the new Conservative government decides to cancel the ferry order without any alternative in place, and now the most important connection of the country is running on failing ferries which are more than 25 years old (there have been several incidents in the last couple of years where they were drifting powerless), and (especially considering the massive penalty for cancelling the contract) the new ferries will be just as expensive as the cancelled ones just being much smaller (the old contract was actually signed at quite advantageous economic times) and arriving much later. This is certainly not an example of rail not working. Trucks on the road are a massive disaster as well. Most roads are single lane, so it's not uncommon to be stuck behind trucks for long stretches, this is especially annoying considering that many roads are very windy and truck speed up when coming to passing lanes.
nicoburns 1y ago
Trains are as popular as ever almost everywhere in Europe.
- wahern 1y ago
  Rail freight's share of shipping has been on a steep decline for decades in Europe: > Freight rail’s modal share has been in decline across Europe, both in terms of market share and the profitability of major operators. In France for instance, modal share declined by 50 percent, from around 30 percent in the 1980s to 15 percent today. By contrast, road transport has been steadily increasing. In 1980, less than 50 percent of goods were transported by road. This rose to more than 75 percent by 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/infrastructure/our-insights/bold-moves-to-boost-european-rail-freight https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/infrastructure/our-insig... By contrast, for most of that same period (1980-today) rail freight was growing its share in the US, though in the past decade or so growth has favored trucking.
- nradov 1y ago
  Trains move as much freight as ever in the USA.
  - gnatolf 1y ago
    Not to take away from that fact, but the share of train-moved freight (over time) is more interesting. It probably highlights the complications of scaling train networks easily.
aaomidi 1y ago
Switzerland?
- rjsw 1y ago
  Austria, France and Italy are currently copying Switzerland in building base tunnels [1] to mostly carry rail freight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_tunnel

adrr 1y ago

US is already the largest shipper of freight by train in terms of shipped tonnage and also total tracks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transportation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transportation_in_the_Uni...

JKCalhoun 1y ago
Not a very interesting data point since it doesn’t account for nation area, utilization, etc.
- crote 1y ago
  Don't forget geography, and by extension type of freight. The United States doesn't have a lot of navigable waterways, and none go east-west. This means that any bulk goods you want to transport have to go via rail. There is no other option. As a result the railway network has been optimized to do bulk transport at the lowest price possible, even if it means sacrificing speed and quality. After all, coal doesn't care if it sits in a siding for several days. It's true that the US is shipping an awful lot of tonnes via rail, but this doesn't say anything about its ability to ship regular goods. Getting a single wagon from point to point in a timely manner is significantly more complicated than doing the same with an entire train.
- adrr 1y ago
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freight_Shipping_in_the_United_States.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freight_Shipping_in_... Here’s tonnage miles by class. For comparison. There is only 20,000 miles of railway that Amtrak operates on. Thats a fraction of passenger railway compared to China and EU.