7 ms·

This is a strategic move: it makes it easier to move weapons within Europe and makes it much harder for Russia should they invade. Ideally you would want to do

This is a strategic move: it makes it easier to move weapons within Europe and makes it much harder for Russia should they invade. Ideally you would want to do this all over Europe.

pjc50 1y ago
Most of Europe is already on the same track width. I'm not sure whether the loading gauge (allowed size of train to fit under bridges) etc. is also standardized; it wasn't for the UK, which is why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains.
- Oarch 1y ago
  We absolutely can. They'd just be deeply uncomfortable.
  - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
    > They'd just be deeply uncomfortable. I rode these kind of trains in multiple countries and continents and there's nothing uncomfortable about them. Why do you say that?
    - walthamstow 1y ago
      I think they're joking. A double decker train is only feasible in the UK if everyone sits on the floor.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      Yeah, per sibling I think this is a joke about building a double decker train that's not tall enough for people to stand up in.
    - pmyteh 1y ago
      Because of the tight loading gauge in Britain, trying to cram two decks in would make it very small. It's been tried (once[0]) and they weren't able to make it fully double-decker, quick to load/unload, or especially comfortable. I agree that they're fine in countries with larger bridges and tunnels -- Amtrak's Superliners are palatial in size -- but not for us. (Except probably for the Channel Tunnel rail link, which is built to French gauge). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD
      - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
        I rode double decker trains in the Netheraland, US, Germany and France and they were very good - same space and I would say headroom as a normal train. I was not aware that the UK has a different gauge than Europe and US.
        pmyteh 1y ago
        Yes - to a surprising extent. The best diagram I've seen overlays them[0]. The British gauges are the smaller ones starting with W - with W6 being available essentially everywhere and the higher numbers on specially cleared routes to make it easier to move larger freight containers. GA and GB are standard Western European gauges: both taller and wider. There's a surprising amount of global variation as much of this stuff wasn't standardised until after most railways were built. AIUI that's even true in the US, where the routes in the West can often take double-stacked containers and Amtrak's Superliners, and further East they often can't. [0]: https://rfg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Loading-Gauge.jpg https://rfg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Loading-Gauge....
- dkdbejwi383 1y ago
  > it wasn't for the UK, which is why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains I think bridge heights are the bigger problem here
  - stuaxo 1y ago
    We have a few lines with decent guages. At almost every election before this version of Labour got in, the Tories would promise all sorts of rail projects then immediately cancel them after the election. One project was a goods "spine" (all projects were "spines" at this point), that invovled improving the loading guage from Southampton upwards. For routes where this happened I don't see why we couldn't upgrade the stations to a bigger loading guage and have double decker trains. I've noticed all the bridges we get on stations these days are much higher. I don't know if detailed guage maps exist - it would be interesting to know how many bridges and tunnels stand in the way of reguaging on various routes.
    - Reason077 1y ago
      > "For routes where this happened I don't see why we couldn't upgrade the stations to a bigger loading guage and have double decker trains." The costs would be high and the benefits negligible. Where more capacity is required, it's typically easier to lengthen existing trains, or run more trains, than to go adapting stations and building new unique double-decker trains that are only going to be compatible with a specific line. And, as mentioned elsewhere, double-deckers have a big disadvantage in lengthening dwell times (due to less doors per passenger), which could result in slower services.
      - mr_toad 1y ago
        Presumably you could use them on longer direct routes. London to Edinburgh non-stop is 4.5 hours, so a bit of extra time at each end wouldn’t make much difference.
    - crote 1y ago
      > I've noticed all the bridges we get on stations these days are much higher. Sounds like a classic case of "let's not make a future upgrade impossible". The material cost itself is only a small part of the total, so making the new bridges slightly higher is a rounding error in your budget. However, you're saving many millions if there were ever a full-line upgrade in the future, as you no longer need to do a full bridge replacement during that upgrade. As long as there is even the vaguest plan of an upgrade at some point in the future it makes sense to adhere to the new standard, just in case. It's the no-regret option.
- jabl 1y ago
  > I'm not sure whether the loading gauge (allowed size of train to fit under bridges) etc. is also standardized It sure is standardized; the problem is that there are so many standards to choose from! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge for an overview. Britain is a bit special, in that as the first country to have extensive rail infrastructure, it also has the smallest loading gauges around. Later built railway networks tend to have bigger loading gauges.
- bluGill 1y ago
  > why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains. Those are not nice things. Double decker trains take longer to load/unload than regular trains for only a small increase in capacity. Single deck trains can make more stops in the same amount of time thus serving more people, or they can take less time in the stops thus getting people where they want to be faster. Time is important to humans, anyone who says slow down to others has no idea how they live or where their needs are. If you want to slow down and smell roses that is fine: go to a park and do so - meanwhile a lot of people need less time on transit so they get more time at home with their kids (or whatever else they do in life) Larger loading gauges are a good things for a lot of reasons, but the ability to run double decker trains is not one of them.
  - Denvercoder9 1y ago
    It depends entirely on the context. For routes where total travel time is mostly governed by moving time, and the stationary time in stops is negligible, the capacity boost from double-deckers easily outweighs the longer (un)loading times. The alternatives to increase capacity can also be problematic: with longer trains you start running out of platform length (and long platforms add walking time); while running more trains closer together requires more personnel and rolling stock, and is limited by signaling block size and braking distance.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Trains can run fully automated today, and if you are running into capacity issues they should be. You may still need more personnel, but it is a different type of personnel and full automation gives enough other advantages as to be worth it. If the size of your blocks are an issue, then that is a problem worth solving. If you are can't fit in all those trains, then you need to build more track not try to compromise. Yes track is expensive, but if you can't fit all the trains then the passenger volume is high enough to support it. This likely requires better operations though and some people see a loss of their direct train and don't see how a fast (fast is critical!) transfer is overall better for them.
      - 1y ago
- Reason077 1y ago
  ... however our new high-speed lines (HS1 and, eventually, HS2) are built to the largest European loading gauge (UIC GC).
mytailorisrich 1y ago
This only makes it potentially easier to move things from Norway and Sweden through the North of the country, and currently there are no railway from Norway to Finland (and they'll likely won't be) and Sweden to Finland has a single link (and would be destroyed within the first few hours of an invasion). So little actual difference.
- radicalbyte 1y ago
  It is extremely hard to put even a single land-based railway line out of action; just look at Ukraine. Yes lines are getting hit but there are engineering units who can repair them very quickly. You'd have to be within artillery range to really take it out.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    In this case I believe that there is only one link with the long Russian border within 200km (approx). What's more, the border between Sweden and Finland is along a river and so the railway crosses it on a bridge, two bridges, even. It is trivial to disable and no so easy to fix, especially if Russia has a good supply of drones and missiles (which is the actual issue for them as we have seen in Ukraine).
regularization 1y ago
> makes it much harder for Russia should they invade If taking over Finland would help Russia, why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking, to little protest from the UK and US? Russian had no use for it then, or now, other than the Karelian isthmus, which is part of Russia. Russia didn't raise much protest of Finland joining NATO. These notions of Russia having designs on Finland are loony.
- barbazoo 1y ago
  You assume a country has a cohesive long term strategy which is obviously not the case since there are ephemeral people involved.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  > why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking They tried, but weren't able to defeat them completely; a deal / armistice was made in the end. > Finland lost 12% of its land area, 20% of its industrial capacity, its second largest city, Vyborg, and the ice-free port of Liinakhamari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II
  - lazide 1y ago
    Russia has always wanted more ice-free ports. It's a major geographic problem.
- yencabulator 1y ago
  "For the taking" when Russia had already suffered some 1.3 million casualties from Finland alone.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
> Ideally you would want to do this all over Europe. Not just for military purposes either, economically it makes sense. Trains can just keep going to the edges instead of having to stop and their cargo moved to a different gauge. I've heard they're planning on doing the same in the Baltic states.
tonymet 1y ago
it's an absurd approach, and insane cost, if that's the goal.

This is a strategic move: it makes it easier to move weapons within Europe and makes it much harder for Russia should they invade. Ideally you would want to do this all over Europe.

pjc50 1y ago

Most of Europe is already on the same track width. I'm not sure whether the loading gauge (allowed size of train to fit under bridges) etc. is also standardized; it wasn't for the UK, which is why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains.

Oarch 1y ago
We absolutely can. They'd just be deeply uncomfortable.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  > They'd just be deeply uncomfortable. I rode these kind of trains in multiple countries and continents and there's nothing uncomfortable about them. Why do you say that?
  - walthamstow 1y ago
    I think they're joking. A double decker train is only feasible in the UK if everyone sits on the floor.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Yeah, per sibling I think this is a joke about building a double decker train that's not tall enough for people to stand up in.
  - pmyteh 1y ago
    Because of the tight loading gauge in Britain, trying to cram two decks in would make it very small. It's been tried (once[0]) and they weren't able to make it fully double-decker, quick to load/unload, or especially comfortable. I agree that they're fine in countries with larger bridges and tunnels -- Amtrak's Superliners are palatial in size -- but not for us. (Except probably for the Channel Tunnel rail link, which is built to French gauge). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD
    - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
      I rode double decker trains in the Netheraland, US, Germany and France and they were very good - same space and I would say headroom as a normal train. I was not aware that the UK has a different gauge than Europe and US.
      - pmyteh 1y ago
        Yes - to a surprising extent. The best diagram I've seen overlays them[0]. The British gauges are the smaller ones starting with W - with W6 being available essentially everywhere and the higher numbers on specially cleared routes to make it easier to move larger freight containers. GA and GB are standard Western European gauges: both taller and wider. There's a surprising amount of global variation as much of this stuff wasn't standardised until after most railways were built. AIUI that's even true in the US, where the routes in the West can often take double-stacked containers and Amtrak's Superliners, and further East they often can't. [0]: https://rfg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Loading-Gauge.jpg https://rfg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Loading-Gauge....
dkdbejwi383 1y ago
> it wasn't for the UK, which is why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains I think bridge heights are the bigger problem here
- stuaxo 1y ago
  We have a few lines with decent guages. At almost every election before this version of Labour got in, the Tories would promise all sorts of rail projects then immediately cancel them after the election. One project was a goods "spine" (all projects were "spines" at this point), that invovled improving the loading guage from Southampton upwards. For routes where this happened I don't see why we couldn't upgrade the stations to a bigger loading guage and have double decker trains. I've noticed all the bridges we get on stations these days are much higher. I don't know if detailed guage maps exist - it would be interesting to know how many bridges and tunnels stand in the way of reguaging on various routes.
  - Reason077 1y ago
    > "For routes where this happened I don't see why we couldn't upgrade the stations to a bigger loading guage and have double decker trains." The costs would be high and the benefits negligible. Where more capacity is required, it's typically easier to lengthen existing trains, or run more trains, than to go adapting stations and building new unique double-decker trains that are only going to be compatible with a specific line. And, as mentioned elsewhere, double-deckers have a big disadvantage in lengthening dwell times (due to less doors per passenger), which could result in slower services.
    - mr_toad 1y ago
      Presumably you could use them on longer direct routes. London to Edinburgh non-stop is 4.5 hours, so a bit of extra time at each end wouldn’t make much difference.
  - crote 1y ago
    > I've noticed all the bridges we get on stations these days are much higher. Sounds like a classic case of "let's not make a future upgrade impossible". The material cost itself is only a small part of the total, so making the new bridges slightly higher is a rounding error in your budget. However, you're saving many millions if there were ever a full-line upgrade in the future, as you no longer need to do a full bridge replacement during that upgrade. As long as there is even the vaguest plan of an upgrade at some point in the future it makes sense to adhere to the new standard, just in case. It's the no-regret option.
jabl 1y ago
> I'm not sure whether the loading gauge (allowed size of train to fit under bridges) etc. is also standardized It sure is standardized; the problem is that there are so many standards to choose from! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge for an overview. Britain is a bit special, in that as the first country to have extensive rail infrastructure, it also has the smallest loading gauges around. Later built railway networks tend to have bigger loading gauges.
bluGill 1y ago
> why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains. Those are not nice things. Double decker trains take longer to load/unload than regular trains for only a small increase in capacity. Single deck trains can make more stops in the same amount of time thus serving more people, or they can take less time in the stops thus getting people where they want to be faster. Time is important to humans, anyone who says slow down to others has no idea how they live or where their needs are. If you want to slow down and smell roses that is fine: go to a park and do so - meanwhile a lot of people need less time on transit so they get more time at home with their kids (or whatever else they do in life) Larger loading gauges are a good things for a lot of reasons, but the ability to run double decker trains is not one of them.
- Denvercoder9 1y ago
  It depends entirely on the context. For routes where total travel time is mostly governed by moving time, and the stationary time in stops is negligible, the capacity boost from double-deckers easily outweighs the longer (un)loading times. The alternatives to increase capacity can also be problematic: with longer trains you start running out of platform length (and long platforms add walking time); while running more trains closer together requires more personnel and rolling stock, and is limited by signaling block size and braking distance.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Trains can run fully automated today, and if you are running into capacity issues they should be. You may still need more personnel, but it is a different type of personnel and full automation gives enough other advantages as to be worth it. If the size of your blocks are an issue, then that is a problem worth solving. If you are can't fit in all those trains, then you need to build more track not try to compromise. Yes track is expensive, but if you can't fit all the trains then the passenger volume is high enough to support it. This likely requires better operations though and some people see a loss of their direct train and don't see how a fast (fast is critical!) transfer is overall better for them.
    - 1y ago
Reason077 1y ago
... however our new high-speed lines (HS1 and, eventually, HS2) are built to the largest European loading gauge (UIC GC).

mytailorisrich 1y ago

This only makes it potentially easier to move things from Norway and Sweden through the North of the country, and currently there are no railway from Norway to Finland (and they'll likely won't be) and Sweden to Finland has a single link (and would be destroyed within the first few hours of an invasion). So little actual difference.

radicalbyte 1y ago
It is extremely hard to put even a single land-based railway line out of action; just look at Ukraine. Yes lines are getting hit but there are engineering units who can repair them very quickly. You'd have to be within artillery range to really take it out.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  In this case I believe that there is only one link with the long Russian border within 200km (approx). What's more, the border between Sweden and Finland is along a river and so the railway crosses it on a bridge, two bridges, even. It is trivial to disable and no so easy to fix, especially if Russia has a good supply of drones and missiles (which is the actual issue for them as we have seen in Ukraine).

regularization 1y ago

> makes it much harder for Russia should they invade If taking over Finland would help Russia, why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking, to little protest from the UK and US? Russian had no use for it then, or now, other than the Karelian isthmus, which is part of Russia. Russia didn't raise much protest of Finland joining NATO. These notions of Russia having designs on Finland are loony.

barbazoo 1y ago
You assume a country has a cohesive long term strategy which is obviously not the case since there are ephemeral people involved.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
> why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking They tried, but weren't able to defeat them completely; a deal / armistice was made in the end. > Finland lost 12% of its land area, 20% of its industrial capacity, its second largest city, Vyborg, and the ice-free port of Liinakhamari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II
- lazide 1y ago
  Russia has always wanted more ice-free ports. It's a major geographic problem.
yencabulator 1y ago
"For the taking" when Russia had already suffered some 1.3 million casualties from Finland alone.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

> Ideally you would want to do this all over Europe. Not just for military purposes either, economically it makes sense. Trains can just keep going to the edges instead of having to stop and their cargo moved to a different gauge. I've heard they're planning on doing the same in the Baltic states.

tonymet 1y ago

it's an absurd approach, and insane cost, if that's the goal.