I understand why they do it, but I am curious why there is nobody in this kind of position that is going for something that is better in technical terms, not just compatible. For example, 2 meters or even 2.5m would provide better load capacity and better stability for high speed curves, while keeping the width of the carriages the same in order to fit existing tunnels. For new freight lines even 3 meters may be much better that refitting to the relatively narrow standard.
Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
361–370 of 465 posts
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 far side of Finland? That’s the Baltic Sea. Sure, there’s a little bit of Sweden, but it’s so far north that there isn’t much rail infrastructure there - certainly little enough that it could quickly be destroyed at the beginning of a war.
If the supply line is blown up at the beginning of the war then what was the point of switching gauges.
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently the leading plan is to build another narrower track alongside the existing ones (so the old trains can keep operating), but it is still in the planning phase. [1] I am not convinced this project is ever going to pay for itself. I feel like you could move cargo from one train to another somewhere near the border for quite a long time with the money it is going to take to convert the entire rail network. Finl…
Estonia / Eastern Europe uses the Russian gauge.
The idea for the Baltics is that east-west lines can remain Russian gauge but north-south lines (esp. new ones) are European gauge.
Discussions of a Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel suggest that Finland would at least lay European gauge tracks to Espoo and Helsinki-Vantaa airport, and maybe also to Tampere.
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains. Those are not nice things. Double decker trains take longer to load/unload than regular trains for only a small increase in capacity. Single deck trains can make more stops in the same amount of time thus serving more people, or they can take less time in the stops thus getting people where they want to be faster. Time is important to humans, anyone…
It depends entirely on the context. For routes where total travel time is mostly governed by moving time, and the stationary time in stops is negligible, the capacity boost from double-deckers easily outweighs the longer (un)loading times. The alternatives to increase capacity can also be problematic: with longer trains you start running out of platform length (and long platforms add walking time); while running more trains closer together requires more personnel and rolling stock, and is limited by signaling block size and braking distance.
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was there a comparable large scale rail infrastructure change in some other country? Baltic states attempted this (project Rail Baltica). Lots of EU money were spent with no visible result. I guess, several people in Baltic states became super rich, but in terms of rail infrastructure nothing was done.
The work is very much ongoing in Lithuania: 114 km of railway is under construction, with tracks already laid in large parts of it. That is 43% of the initial phase (links to Poland and Latvia). Let's keep in mind that it's not just standard gauge track. It's a high-speed rail project (200-250 km/h) and, for any country, it takes time to build such a huge infrastructure.
I've read that (not tracks but) stations are the sources of big overruns for Rail Baltica.
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#366As someone from a country neighbouring russia, I wish my country decided to do this as well.
Every country in such position wishes for that (sans mandatory smaller part of population utterly brainwashed on some simplistic panslavic anti-soros fairy tales, when in reality russians cough cough soviets killed more slavs in past 150 years than all external adversaries combined, included nazi WWII warfare and genocides). I don't think russians like to acknowledge how hated their country actually is, universally,…
"Russia has been screwed up for the last eight hundred years, and Russia will be screwed up for the next eight hundred years."
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#367Here's a much better article from the Finnish public broadcaster giving more context: https://yle.fi/a/74-20161606 My comments: The important thing to note that at this point it's just a political posturing and an announcement of intent. They haven't shown any concrete technical plan how this would actually be executed. > "Of course, we are very pragmatic and realistic, we cannot do this in five years. Planning will…
>Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start. It is not that hard. Countries like Spain have already two different gauges and have the necessary technology in the trains to change between different systems.
Always loved going over the border from France as a kid and they would lift the whole train up and slide the old wheels out and put the new ones in and off you go!
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any competent shipper facing a train issue will just put the load on semis instead for 3-10x the price. Freight rail mainly exists as an low cost bulk carrier of convenience these days. Ships outcompete rail for bulk goods along inland waterways, and semis outcompete rail for network volume, ease of delivery, and adaptability to constraints.
> Any competent shipper facing a train issue will just put the load on semis instead for 3-10x the price. Did you not see how the markets recently reacted to certain components merely doubling in cost due to tariffs? In what world do you live in where the agricultural margins are high enough that the cattle ranchers can just casually absorb a threefold cost increase? Clearly they're eating the loss, because if they p…
Feel free to look up the ton-mile by distance numbers. Rail exceeds trucks by fairly narrow margins only for hauls between 1,000-2,000 miles. Below that distance, trucks dominate. Above that distance, trucks also dominate. Even in that band, it's like a narrow difference of like 35% vs 40%.
Note that the inverse situation is common at west coast ports, with short haul rail lines running to intermodal facilities so things can be loaded onto trucks for long haul. The cost of transloading to domestic containers often dominates keeping it on rails.
> The reason why rail freight tonnage is less than truck tonnage is long-haul vs short-haul. You deliver lumber from the timber yard to the finishing facility once. That's rail. You don't load up trucks with semi-finished logs on an industrial scale, you don't load them with coal, you don't load them with industrial quantities of gravel or sand or steel either.
Around here the timber arrives at the railyard by truck and aggregates are usually mined and transported locally, which is truck heavy. Grain is also majority truck these days from the BTS stats I can see, but basic materials isn't my industry.
Regardless, ton-miles aren't doubled counted. It's one ton, transported one mile. If rail took freight that extra distance, it'd get the same share (subject to all the usual caveats of industry numbers).
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it wasn't for the UK, which is why we can't have nice things like double decker commuter trains I think bridge heights are the bigger problem here
We have a few lines with decent guages. At almost every election before this version of Labour got in, the Tories would promise all sorts of rail projects then immediately cancel them after the election. One project was a goods "spine" (all projects were "spines" at this point), that invovled improving the loading guage from Southampton upwards. For routes where this happened I don't see why we couldn't upgrade the s…
> I've noticed all the bridges we get on stations these days are much higher.
Sounds like a classic case of "let's not make a future upgrade impossible". The material cost itself is only a small part of the total, so making the new bridges slightly higher is a rounding error in your budget. However, you're saving many millions if there were ever a full-line upgrade in the future, as you no longer need to do a full bridge replacement during that upgrade.
As long as there is even the vaguest plan of an upgrade at some point in the future it makes sense to adhere to the new standard, just in case. It's the no-regret option.
Re: Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge
#370This 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.
it's an absurd approach, and insane cost, if that's the goal.