We have re-invented trains for the 500th time. Good job world.
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
558 points (97.1% liked)
Fuck Cars
9375 readers
1082 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What about trains underground?
Maybe even powered by electricity.
Is this "ThE lOop"?
Is that like crabification for vehicles?
But this time, it's different!
My trains have black jack and hookers.
But it's an even worse version because with it the traffic on rail networks would explode, the complexity of the unit that moves everything increases (as well as cost), and it pisses away all the efficiency trains get from economies of scale. A 2 mile train will always be more efficient than this crap. And that's all before you consider the safety nightmare that this would cause.
From these comments it seemed like no one actually read what these are for? It actually makes a lot of sense to use existing, underutilized railway to deliver loads that would not require full train setups. This isn’t really a cars/trucks thing and I do blame Arstechnica for writing that shitty headline.
Yes, however, a lot of these rail lines have been needlessly abandoned and replaced with road shipping. Road shipping isn't really cheaper, they just get to put $10 of operational cost on the taxpayer for every $1 they spend. You're basically subsidizing artificially cheap shipping. Rail is the single most efficient means that we have of moving just about anything, but it's not as heavily taxpayer subsidized, and therefor not stonks. The correct answer would be to put those $10 of operational cost back on long and mid haul trucking companies and rebuild our freight rail networks, which, even without switching to electric trains, would significantly reduce emissions, make our roads safer, and drastically reduce long term maintenance costs on our highway infrastructure.
Road shipping isn't really cheaper, they just get to put $10 of operational cost on the taxpayer for every $1 they spend. You're basically subsidizing artificially cheap shipping.
Could you explain this? Is it because taxes pay for roads?
In a word, yes. Subsides to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars a year across the USA.
Heavy vehicles are the only thing that can put any meaningful wear on roads and streets, due to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law that says that the wear on the road is a function of the fourth power of the mass of the vehicle over the number of axles. A car puts 160,000 times as much wear on a road as a bike does, and the step up to heavy transportation vehicles involves a similarly massive jump. Every time a heavy truck moves a shipment over our roads, there is a real cost that we have to pay in maintenance that has no equivalent for personal vehicles.
Like YIMBY said, the short answer is yes. The long answer is that there's a complicated network of subsidies, write-offs, and car-related maintenance, bureaucracy, and clean-up that is supported by the taxpayer and doesn't pay for itself. It's not just repaving roads, which has to happen more and more often as vehicles get heavier and faster (road damage increases quadratically as vehicle weight increases), it's also paying for highway patrol to enforce road safety, paying for first responders to clean up accidents, paying for other maintenance to prevent wildfires and clean up roadside litter (even if you use prison crews, it doesn't cost nothing), paying to maintain other road-related infrastructure like signs and guardrails, as well as the multitude of oil and gasoline subsidies that become more and more important as we become more and more reliant on tractor-trailers to haul goods.
The ten dollars spent by taxpayers for every one dollar of operational cost actually applies to driving cars, I suspect that the cost to taxpayers for long haul trucking is quite larger.
Not sure if you are saying that this is what we should be doing because that is what the article is suggesting. Using rail in a more efficient manner, not roads.
Of course not, they're just going to make twenty different posts talking about genitals, as if that's a priority for semi truck drivers.
The biggest reason why companies use trucks instead of trains is that you can fill a semi truck and send it off a lot quicker than you can fill a whole train. I think rail cars capable of individual operation would work great in place of semis, because you get all the benefits of the smaller size, but you could also link them up into full trains for efficiency when possible.
But is is also a response to the train union striking? Just automate most of them.
That sounds like a horrible idea logistically, you still need to ship stuff from a cargo terminal to the location its needed and putting single containers on rail as their own "train" makes traffic a absolute nightmare there will never not be some kind of truck unless we can Teleport shit around or airships become a cheap, fast and reliable option.
The problem is mostly that we don't build rail spurs in industrial areas anymore. If we did, then these cars could detach from trains at a shunting yard, and split up to head to all their different destinations individually. But the only last-mile infrastructure we currently have is roads.
I have nothing intelligent to add, but I just want to say that I sincerely hate cars. This sub isn't a joke to me, I wish those god damn things were never invented.
I'm tired of breathing their cancer-causing fumes, I'm tired of the honking and screeching, I'm tired of worrying I'll get run over just walking around my neighborhood, I'm tired of micro plastics in my brain because some fat asshole was too lazy to ride a bike, I'm tired of climate change threatening global stability. Sorry for the rant.
Very well said! No apology necessary.
Now stop me if you've heard this before, but what if... and this is just a thought, don't get too worked up... but what if instead of just one of those, we hooked a bunch of them together and pulled them with something?
I'm not sure we have the technology to achieve such greatness, but if we did, we could call it a TRAnsportation Innovation Network or TRAIN for short.
HOLY SHIT GIVE THIS GUY A CONTRACT!
In before someone in the US calls it CoMmUNiSm!
This guy gets it.
Preesh
This is how you get the US to finally agree on a large scale train system: can them trucks.
What if you link a whole bunch of them together, and then instead of having each cart be self propelled, you could have one car that pushes all of the linked cars at once? Sounds way more efficient to me. If only there was a name for a long chain of linked cars...
HyperRailTrackerCarGroup™
I am now taking on investors.