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

Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

yle.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 465 posts

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#281

Post by Cthulhu_ »

phkahler wrote: post #268
potato3732842 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like this results in a categorical difference in difficulty. Gauge switching infrastructure is common at borders. Yeah stopping and switching is slower than driving right through but it's not the end of the world in the long tail of military logistics.

And if you're Russia wanting to invade Europe, it's better to do the Gauge switching right near your own border rather than on the far side of Finland. So while this may make it harder to invade Finland, it makes it easier to invade Europe as a whole.

The objective they try to achieve is not to slow down Russia's invasion into Europe, but to stop them at the border by being able to move assets throughout Europe relatively quickly. If they gain a proper foothold and full access to "euro gauge" rails, it's a different fight.

Of course, if it does go that far, tanks and trains can move rolling stock, rip up the tracks, blow up bridges and other infrastructure behind them if they're forced to retreat.

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#282

Post by hedora »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #236
sbuttgereit wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand.... "Unification to standard gauge on May 31 – June 1, 1886 [United States] In 1886, the southern railroads agreed to coordinate changing gauge on all their tracks. After considerable debate and planning, most of the southern rail network was converted from 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge to 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) gauge, then the standard of the Pennsylvania Railroad, over two days beginning on Monday, May 31,…

An impressive feat, that is unlikely unachievable on a modern train network. The tolerances are just a bit tighter, the risks and liabilities are higher, and the workforce just isn't "there" - this is from a time when rail was a huge money earner and could afford to employ a huge number of people. Today? Not so much, pretty much anywhere in the World.

In the US, rail tolerances seem to be getting looser over time, and derailments are still uncommon.

I’d guess that overseas modern non-high speed trains could deal with it. The passengers might not put up with it though.

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#283

Post by iggldiggl »

mikewarot wrote: post #49

Conversion to a narrower gauge should be a fairly straightforward process, unless concrete sleepers are in use. New axles or outright replacement of trucks shouldn't take multiple years of effort. We did such things in the US in month long long ago.

> unless concrete sleepers are in use

Which they are, as even a quick search would have shown.

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#284

Post by Cthulhu_ »

dotancohen wrote: post #119
varsketiz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main goals of this is to not have the russian gauge available in case russians attack, so that logistics deeper into Finland cant happen easily with the same train, so backwards compatability is not desired.

But if the Spanish can muster dual gauge trains, what's to prevent the Russians from doing the same? Or is the Finnish gauge a state secret?

It's less about what the Russians can do and more about how fast European and NATO countries can move assets to a potential invasion front line; as it stands, they're slowed down at the borders needing to switch to the different gauges.

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#285

Post by Reason077 »

pjc50 wrote: post #38
radicalbyte wrote: post #26

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.

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.

... however our new high-speed lines (HS1 and, eventually, HS2) are built to the largest European loading gauge (UIC GC).

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#286

Post by wbl »

FpUser wrote: post #223
kibwen wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, a country can pursue many things simultaneously, which is often more generally effective than pursuing a single thing to the detriment of all others, thanks to diminishing returns.

>"...than pursuing a single thing..." Where did I say about single thing: "...weapons and other more effective preventive measures..." Looking from the other angle - should Russia attack it'll trigger article 5. Russia can not win conventional war with NATO. It is just laughable. They're not that suicidal. And if they are it'll escalate to nuclear and then the railroad will be your last worry.

Russia can however win the US dithering, western Europe being scared of cruise missile strikes while their propagandists ask if it's worth dying for a few little towns.

We need to have resolve!

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#287

Post by wbl »

nradov wrote: post #258
IAmBroom wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the distant past of the 1990s, it was.

Right, under Soviet military occupation.

"Do you have Russian soldiers in Finland?" "Yes, hundreds of thousands" "Where are they stationed?" "Along the border, six feet deep".

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#288

Post by Cthulhu_ »

radicalbyte wrote: post #26

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.

> 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.

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#289

Post by alexey-salmin »

jabl wrote: post #34
cake-rusk wrote: post #20

The rest of europe should move to the broader guage. It is more stable.

The difference is so marginal it doesn't matter, and is certainly not worth the cost. Both the heaviest cargo trains and the fastest passenger trains (ignoring monorails, maglevs etc., just normal style trains running on two steel rails) on the planet run on standard gauge.

The rail gauge doesn't really matter but personally I wish Europe adopted the Russian loading gauge with 3.750m wide cars opposed to 3.080m wide. It makes a big difference on the comfort of sleeping carriages, you also have +2 seats on 2nd/3rd class sitting carriages and +1 seat on the 1st class.

That's of course completely impossible but one can dream.

Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

#290

Post by Cthulhu_ »

regularization wrote: post #265
radicalbyte wrote: post #26

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.

> 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.

> 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

Post reply on HN