What the US needs is to fix its rail system. eminent domain the whole thing, pay off the robber barons and just run it like it matters to get shit from here to there.
We’re not great at passenger rail, but we beat all of Europe when it comes to the amount of freight shipped via rail per capita, and all of Europe except Switzerland based on the percentage of total freight transported by rail.
What is the myth? It is a shadow of its former self. But it retain its mantle of the 1850s as the world’s largest rail network.
In a typical year, (USofA) freight railroads haul around 1.6 billion tons of raw materials and finished goods. Redesigned railcars have helped increase average tonnage. In 2022, the average freight train carried 4,089 tons, up from 2,923 tons in 2000.
According to official statistics data, as of October 2023, the overall traffic (in Russian rail freight) amounted to 1 billion 243.8 million tons
Smaller, by total track length:
The total length of line used by the Russian Railways is, at 85,500 kilometres (53,130 mi), one of the largest in the world, exceeded only by the United States.
The arc of Russia across the globe is likely what "wins" on east | west extent, but less total track carrying less tonnage.
“ It ships a lot of freight, but it does not do so effectively, quickly, nor safely, or flexibly.”
What does effectively even mean? If it weren’t effective people wouldn’t use it to ship.
But US freight tonnage is dominated by cheap bulk goods, most notoriously coal, though grain and bulk liquids (petroleum, industrial).[0]
There's also a lot of intermodal / containerised freight, but this is almost exclusively long-haul "land bridge" traffic, with very little trade or viability for short-haul freight (< 500 mi) or less-than-truckload (LTL) carriage.[1]
Cross-country carriage still takes 10--14 days, despite the fact that a through-routed train travelling at 79 MPH (peak speed on most freight lines) could in theory make the distance in about a day and a half. For time-sensitive goods, including much fresh produce, this means that truck or air freight is the only viable option.
I've gone digging for any recently published research on new innovations in traditional freight technologies and ... there simply isn't any to speak of.[2] Much of the underlying infrastructure is literally a century or more old. The last major powerplant revolution was the introduction of the diesel-electric locomotive which will have its centennial next year.[3]
Given the present obsession with electrified lorry projects, it seems to me to make far more sense to look at optimising rail-based delivery to provide for far more flexible routing, dynamic trainset assembly and disassembly, higher-speed fright,[4] integration of light freight (e.g., document and high-value product delivery) with high-speed rail systems,[5] or rail-trolly systems, in which local delivery occurs via either autonomous or small-trainset convoys which decouple from a through system and reach endpoints or local distribution centres at lower speeds on local rail or dedicated roadbed routes. Similar discussion from about a year ago here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32967216>
______________________________
Notes:
0. Some 10 year old values by modality here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6858737>
1. Yes, there's some of each, but in general, lorry-based over-the-road haulage dominates both markets.
2. Raised two years ago here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32611937>
3. <https://www.borail.org/collection/cnj-no-1000/>
4. At 120 mph, cross-country transit drops to just over a day, at 25 hours. At 160 mph, 18 hours, for same-day delivery as an option.
5. At 180 mph, typical of many high-speed rail systems, delivery time from San Francisco to Los Angeles is about 2h 15m, and routes such as NYC or Denver to Chicago, Dallas to Atlanta, or Miami to Washington, D.C., or Norfolk, VA, to Boston 5--8 hours.
Small autonomous train carriages fitting into the gaps of the bigger system and making use of abandoned/underused spurs.
I think this is them:
Interview with CEO on exactly what they offer at the moment:
https://www.railway-technology.com/interviews/i-dont-see-a-f...
>rail
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.
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.
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.
Trucks with team driving can already run coast to coast in about 3 days. This works fine for somewhat time sensitive loads.
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.
Or just put it on a boat?
The one sticky point might be gauge. We'd want something all agree upon. We'd want to avoid variable track gauge bogies.
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.
Having a railroad bridge with russia is inviting problems
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.
Rail is less efficient than water transport most of the time but it does not always apply to the local situation.
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
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.
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.
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.
Trains have to slow down a lot when going through rough terrain because there are curves involved. You can't go 80mph.
For the state of California to do a hostile takeover of the UPRR, spin off an operating company for the train part, and retain the rights of way while adjusting the attitudes of the executives, would save a large amount of money just by simplifying the High Speed Rail project. It would be well worth it and we can afford it.
Hopefully they bulldoze your neighborhood first. Mine? I know my neighbors would wage war…
let's not frame the heaps of collateral damage that would result in as only affecting 'robber barons'.
Not doubting you, just can't think of collateral damage.
"Wrong side of the tracks" used to be a phrase with meaning for a reason.
And I'm not sure if you're suggesting more train tracks would be laid in cities to divide communities? I assumed the discussion was about better utilizing the infrastructure we already have for rail.
Sure making the electric motor more powerful isn't that big of a problem: just look at electric trains. But making the batteries more powerful will require significant more research.