Crazy idea, but what if we were to use a wire? Like such that it doesn’t have any sort of contact with anything else. Then how about we, like, couple more of them together, meaning less congestion and less traffic jamming? Okay, and this is the least feasible part of my proposal, I know, but then What if we make it go on steel? So the wheel is steel and the floor, the wheel rests on, is steel as well. But because of the optimised friction, we can now make the contact surface super small. I think these improvements could really bring a massive benefit to the transportation industry.
No sarcasm though: Why do goods get delivered over long distances by a lorry? It doesn’t make sense financially and from an economy of scale perspective. It asks for trouble. The infrastructure gets used up super quickly, thanks to them being absurdly heavy, compared to the surface and what it can withstand. Plus, because it may seem like all of these lorries are going the same way, no they absolutely aren’t, they come from a thousand different directions and go through a thousand different directions. They only go through the same bottleneck, aka the pinnacle of inefficiency. It is way easier to transfer it from goods terminal A in city A to goods terminal B in city B and everyone just goes to the goods terminal and picks it up from there. It’s faster, more reliable and does not clog up the infrastructure. It’s good for the businesses providing the service because easier service means more money, customers benefit from it as well naturally because they get the goods faster and more reliably, and the taxpayer benefits most of all. Since they do not need to subsidise a motorway that breaks within 10 years anyway. On the other hand, we have a few megacorporations that make good money selling cars, so I can answer myself, why trains are a thorn in the eye of some infrastructure ministries around the world.
I can answer on why they don’t use trains if you like. I know a professor in logistics. It’s because it’s cheaper to use lorries.
Moving goods from the factory to the train, move it onto the train, transport it, then move it from the train to a lorry again and take it to the destination isn’t as efficient as we’d like
They used to have car trains though, and that I would love to have back. Imagine just driving onto a train car, leave it there and go into the normal train where you could eat, drink and sleep, and after a day or so wake up at your destination.
I would stop flying, given that the price was competitive. Which it wouldn’t be sadly, but one can dream.
That’s interesting, but do you think, is it because lorries are so heavily subsidised compared to trains? Because think of, for example, the Brenner-based tunnel in the EU. When that thing is finished, it’s going to be one of the longest tunnels in the world. That thing would bring unprecedented transport capacity through the Alps. And while 8 billion € may sound much for a single building, said building is going to be used for 200 years.
I’m curious, do you still think that if lorries had to reimburse the actual cost of transport that it would still be competitive under these conditions?
That’s not for me to answer. I honestly don’t know.
But from what I recall about our lorry/train discussion it’s the labour cost of switching transportation combined with the time it takes both to switch, but also trains rarely go directly to the destination you want. They tend to do stops, or detours.
So there are conditions where trains absolutely would be the better/cheaper option, but they’re pretty rare, so setting up one transport process instead of two is usually better, even if a few transports could be done cheaper/better.
But also yes, we spend a lot more money on improving our roads than we do on improving our railway networks.
I mean, how dumb is this? “Too often, national rules still force trains to stop at borders, when driving from one EU country to another. […]stopping trains at internal EU borders, and having to change crews and locomotives that are not certified for the next network’s national requirements[…]”
Yeah, this is still a problem. It’s being fixed however. It’s going to take until 2040, plus minus. Thanks to the EU standardising the gauge, the platform height, the electrification system, and most importantly, the protection system, it’s all really coming together. But rolling all of this infrastructure out takes time. Europe always was a fractured continent. Then the EU came and made life better. Problem is, due to the car mania in the 70s and the privatisation mania in the 90s, railway was neglected. In Austria, there were even discussions of privatising the national railway operator. And look at what good that has done Britain. Luckily it didn’t go through and the public perception really has changed about that. On the side of technological innovations, there are now many locomotives which are certified for multiple countries, which have all the necessary bits and bops for their protection system to drive in other countries. And when 2040 rolls around, all of that additional baggage is going to be obsolete anyway, thanks to everything being harmonised to ETCS and (mostly) 25kV 50Hz. Then most of the problems will disappear. And that may sound expensive and cumbersome, but all of that infrastructure has a finite usage duration anyway. So 2040 because everyone is essentially replacing the old stuff on the fly with the new harmonised stuff. And from there on out, it’s really going to be smooth sailing, technology-wise anyway.
Crazy idea, but what if we were to use a wire? Like such that it doesn’t have any sort of contact with anything else. Then how about we, like, couple more of them together, meaning less congestion and less traffic jamming? Okay, and this is the least feasible part of my proposal, I know, but then What if we make it go on steel? So the wheel is steel and the floor, the wheel rests on, is steel as well. But because of the optimised friction, we can now make the contact surface super small. I think these improvements could really bring a massive benefit to the transportation industry.
No sarcasm though: Why do goods get delivered over long distances by a lorry? It doesn’t make sense financially and from an economy of scale perspective. It asks for trouble. The infrastructure gets used up super quickly, thanks to them being absurdly heavy, compared to the surface and what it can withstand. Plus, because it may seem like all of these lorries are going the same way, no they absolutely aren’t, they come from a thousand different directions and go through a thousand different directions. They only go through the same bottleneck, aka the pinnacle of inefficiency. It is way easier to transfer it from goods terminal A in city A to goods terminal B in city B and everyone just goes to the goods terminal and picks it up from there. It’s faster, more reliable and does not clog up the infrastructure. It’s good for the businesses providing the service because easier service means more money, customers benefit from it as well naturally because they get the goods faster and more reliably, and the taxpayer benefits most of all. Since they do not need to subsidise a motorway that breaks within 10 years anyway. On the other hand, we have a few megacorporations that make good money selling cars, so I can answer myself, why trains are a thorn in the eye of some infrastructure ministries around the world.
I can answer on why they don’t use trains if you like. I know a professor in logistics. It’s because it’s cheaper to use lorries. Moving goods from the factory to the train, move it onto the train, transport it, then move it from the train to a lorry again and take it to the destination isn’t as efficient as we’d like
They used to have car trains though, and that I would love to have back. Imagine just driving onto a train car, leave it there and go into the normal train where you could eat, drink and sleep, and after a day or so wake up at your destination. I would stop flying, given that the price was competitive. Which it wouldn’t be sadly, but one can dream.
That’s interesting, but do you think, is it because lorries are so heavily subsidised compared to trains? Because think of, for example, the Brenner-based tunnel in the EU. When that thing is finished, it’s going to be one of the longest tunnels in the world. That thing would bring unprecedented transport capacity through the Alps. And while 8 billion € may sound much for a single building, said building is going to be used for 200 years.
I’m curious, do you still think that if lorries had to reimburse the actual cost of transport that it would still be competitive under these conditions?
That’s not for me to answer. I honestly don’t know. But from what I recall about our lorry/train discussion it’s the labour cost of switching transportation combined with the time it takes both to switch, but also trains rarely go directly to the destination you want. They tend to do stops, or detours. So there are conditions where trains absolutely would be the better/cheaper option, but they’re pretty rare, so setting up one transport process instead of two is usually better, even if a few transports could be done cheaper/better.
But also yes, we spend a lot more money on improving our roads than we do on improving our railway networks.
Also this should help: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/rail-transport-new-harmonised-eu-standards-support-cross-border-rail-2023-09-08_en
I mean, how dumb is this? “Too often, national rules still force trains to stop at borders, when driving from one EU country to another. […]stopping trains at internal EU borders, and having to change crews and locomotives that are not certified for the next network’s national requirements[…]”
Yeah, this is still a problem. It’s being fixed however. It’s going to take until 2040, plus minus. Thanks to the EU standardising the gauge, the platform height, the electrification system, and most importantly, the protection system, it’s all really coming together. But rolling all of this infrastructure out takes time. Europe always was a fractured continent. Then the EU came and made life better. Problem is, due to the car mania in the 70s and the privatisation mania in the 90s, railway was neglected. In Austria, there were even discussions of privatising the national railway operator. And look at what good that has done Britain. Luckily it didn’t go through and the public perception really has changed about that. On the side of technological innovations, there are now many locomotives which are certified for multiple countries, which have all the necessary bits and bops for their protection system to drive in other countries. And when 2040 rolls around, all of that additional baggage is going to be obsolete anyway, thanks to everything being harmonised to ETCS and (mostly) 25kV 50Hz. Then most of the problems will disappear. And that may sound expensive and cumbersome, but all of that infrastructure has a finite usage duration anyway. So 2040 because everyone is essentially replacing the old stuff on the fly with the new harmonised stuff. And from there on out, it’s really going to be smooth sailing, technology-wise anyway.