Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#121

Post by johansch »

tombone12 wrote: post #102
johansch wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says 18 days and 12000 km. That's just ~28 km/h on average. I ride my bicycle faster than that :).

That seems like a very low speed while the train is actually in motion, although apparently[1] american freight trains average around ~40 km/h. I would guess mostly it is various delays that keeps the average that low, and it seems most data is just distance/time estimates, not actual averages of instantaneous speed measurement. [1] A bit old but fairly indicative as far as I can tell: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/si…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/01/28/why-china...

However, this article says:

"The exit customs inspection for the Su’Man’Ou trains is done on-location in the bonded zone. The next time these containers will need to go undergo a customs inspection will be at the border of the EU, and they will typically not be opened until they arrive at their destination."

and

"These cargo relays are generally very simple procedures: the incoming train and the outgoing train are lined up side by side and a crane moves the containers from one to the other. At Khorgos Gateway, a new junction on the Silk Road Economic Belt on the border of Kazakhstan and China, this transfer can be done in just 47 minutes."

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#122

Post by crdoconnor »

jessaustin wrote: post #112
crdoconnor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also blockades. This lets China continue trading with Europe if access to the straits of Malacca or Suez canal are cut off.

If we're considering such scenarios, train shipping seems much more vulnerable to interruption. After all the tracks transit many states rather than just one or two.

If we're assuming that, say, Kazakhstan is the belligerent then yes.

If it's the United States then trains across central Asia are harder to stop and require bombing a third country (unlike a shipping blockade which just requires a threat and which doesnt require pissing off a third party).

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#123

Post by Ericson2314 »

mikeash wrote: post #91
Ericson2314 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rail would seem in principle to far and away be the most efficient, so I hope these prices change to reflect that.

Do you mean more efficient than ships? Ships are far more efficient. They can scale up far larger, making for much lower fuel consumption per ton, and don't need to maintain much (or often any at all) infrastructure between terminals. Trains exist just because a substantial minority of the planet's surface isn't covered by water.

Really?! I recall reading something I could not find saying rail was far in away the most efficient.

I'd think the drag of ships in water vs rail in air would also be far, far greater, but I've never taking fluid mechanics and trains do move a lot faster.

Then again one ship can carry as much as 50 trains or so?

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#124

Post by Ericson2314 »

Silhouette wrote: post #108
mikeash wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean more efficient than ships? Ships are far more efficient. They can scale up far larger, making for much lower fuel consumption per ton, and don't need to maintain much (or often any at all) infrastructure between terminals. Trains exist just because a substantial minority of the planet's surface isn't covered by water.

Indeed. It's hard to intuit because of the sheer scale of the vessels, but modern container shipping is almost magical in its capacity and efficiency. I once saw an estimate that the cost in resources to transport a container all the way from China to the UK on a ship was actually less than the cost of putting that container on the back of a lorry and transporting it just a few hundred miles to a distribution centre…

Well trucks are awfully inefficient.

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#125

Post by Ericson2314 »

conanbatt wrote: post #101
thecabinet wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What principle is that? Prices reflect reality, not the other way around.

If only willpower were enough to bend prices into personal preferences

Other things affect price besides energy efficiency. Railroads could charge a premium for speed. Also, existing rail routes could be sub-optimal.

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#126

Post by mikeash »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #123
mikeash wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean more efficient than ships? Ships are far more efficient. They can scale up far larger, making for much lower fuel consumption per ton, and don't need to maintain much (or often any at all) infrastructure between terminals. Trains exist just because a substantial minority of the planet's surface isn't covered by water.

Really?! I recall reading something I could not find saying rail was far in away the most efficient. I'd think the drag of ships in water vs rail in air would also be far, far greater, but I've never taking fluid mechanics and trains do move a lot faster. Then again one ship can carry as much as 50 trains or so?

Ships are about 2.5x more efficient than trains according to this: http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-co...

Drag is indeed huge, but so are the ships.

One interesting thing about ships is that drag depends heavily on speed. If fuel efficiency becomes a greater concern, they can go a bit slower to compensate. Of course, that increases other costs....

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#127

Post by jessaustin »

crdoconnor wrote: post #122
jessaustin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're considering such scenarios, train shipping seems much more vulnerable to interruption. After all the tracks transit many states rather than just one or two.

If we're assuming that, say, Kazakhstan is the belligerent then yes. If it's the United States then trains across central Asia are harder to stop and require bombing a third country (unlike a shipping blockade which just requires a threat and which doesnt require pissing off a third party).

Any nation would be hard-pressed to unilaterally close the Strait of Malacca. Pirates might occasionally delay or steal individual shipments, but I doubt even Malaysia and Indonesia could close it down together, if by some miracle they could agree to do so. Egypt would have a better chance closing Suez, but that's one of their few remaining sources of foreign cash so it would really hurt.

If for some reason USA wanted to stop a train, a few payments to the poorest dictator along the route would get it done. They wouldn't even have to stop anything permanently to make shipping much less reliable.

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#128

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mvid wrote: post #11
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about CO2 impact, but one problem is that these trains are running pretty empty back to china (china doesn't want to import so much from Europe by rail). I think they are running 50 trains a year, with a heavy subsidy to make it affordable (half the cost).

Maybe China could import the trains back by container ship... one way train line.

That...makes sense. The containers at least can come back by ship, assuming there is enough capacity. Then you just have the engine to get back.

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#129

Post by Ericson2314 »

mikeash wrote: post #126
Ericson2314 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really?! I recall reading something I could not find saying rail was far in away the most efficient. I'd think the drag of ships in water vs rail in air would also be far, far greater, but I've never taking fluid mechanics and trains do move a lot faster. Then again one ship can carry as much as 50 trains or so?

Ships are about 2.5x more efficient than trains according to this: http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-co... Drag is indeed huge, but so are the ships. One interesting thing about ships is that drag depends heavily on speed. If fuel efficiency becomes a greater concern, they can go a bit slower to compensate. Of course, that increases other costs....

I'm thinking if we built it train the size of a container ship and rolled it at 15 knots, it would probably be more efficient. But we won't, so I rest my case.

Re: First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

#130

Post by mikeash »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #129
mikeash wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ships are about 2.5x more efficient than trains according to this: http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-co... Drag is indeed huge, but so are the ships. One interesting thing about ships is that drag depends heavily on speed. If fuel efficiency becomes a greater concern, they can go a bit slower to compensate. Of course, that increases other costs....

I'm thinking if we built it train the size of a container ship and rolled it at 15 knots, it would probably be more efficient. But we won't, so I rest my case.

Yeah, I bet ship-sized trains would be more efficient. I think there may be some practical difficulties in building such things though.
Post reply on HN