[HN Gopher] Cargo sous terrain - Underground cargo train in Swit... ___________________________________________________________________ Cargo sous terrain - Underground cargo train in Switzerland Author : sschueller Score : 94 points Date : 2022-04-29 12:16 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cst.ch) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cst.ch) | ZeroGravitas wrote: | The big competitor to this is autonomous EV trucks. I'm surprised | that hasn't got more attention. Seems like a game changer. | secretsatan wrote: | There's already a big push in Switzerland (And I thik across | the whole of Europe) to get cargo off roads and onto rail. EV | trucks still take up room on roads and cause congestion. | https://www.bav.admin.ch/bav/en/home/modes-of-transport/rail... | roydivision wrote: | My thought as well, trucks will always be more flexible, using | existing road infra. It's hard to see how tunnelling is a | better idea, cool as it sounds. | __m wrote: | With ev trucks you lose tons of freight capacity to the battery | since the maximum weight of the truck is limited by regulations | hwillis wrote: | That's really not a factor. The most popular semi truck in | America, the Cascadia, is rated for 52,000 lbs GVWR. Kenworth | T680 has a 64,000 lbs GVWR. Both far short of the 80,000 lbs | limit. | | The eCascadia has a 230 mile range on a 475 kWh battery. If | you make that 1.5 MWh, it'll handle essentially any trip a | single driver can make before his workday is over. A 1.5 MWh | battery works out to ~17,500 lbs. Subtract the engine, | exhaust, and fuel weight from those trucks and the majority | of tractor trailers on the road will still be under the legal | weight limit. | | The largest factor is the lack of charging (detouring to hit | a charger is very costly) and the cost of batteries that | size. | jhugo wrote: | One goal of a project like this is to reduce the number of | trucks on the road, which reduce quality of life for people | living near and using the roads, regardless of what powers | them. | Valgrim wrote: | If there's one thing I would absolutely require a Level 5 Full | Driving Automation for, it's for freight. | hkt wrote: | https://www.carscoops.com/2019/11/tech-genius-steve- | wozniak-... | | Might never happen. | cloudify wrote: | Probably because EV trucks would need to go through the current | Brenner motorway, that is a very trafficked road, from | Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Pass#Motorway | ): | | The ever-increasing freight and leisure traffic, however, has | been causing long traffic jams at busy times even without | border enforcements. The Brenner Pass is the only major | mountain pass within the area; other nearby alternatives are | footpaths across higher mountains at an altitude of above 2,000 | metres (6,600 feet). As a result, air and noise pollution have | generated heavy debate in regional and European politics. As of | 2004, about 1.8 million trucks crossed the Europa Bridge per | year. | nick238 wrote: | There's an alternative to _only_ on motorways and _never_ on | motorways: _sometimes_ on motorways. | | 90% of the time you can use ordinary roads, with autonomous | driving acting like a normal truck, giving the meat bags | plenty of space. The most congested 10% you can build | restricted access paths only for your smart trucks where they | can act more like a train, with minimal spacing, increasing | the traffic capacity of the road/tunnel/bridge/whatever so | the extra cost of constructing it pays off sooner and/or it's | cheaper in the first place because it's not built for drivers | so doesn't need to be as safe. | Arnt wrote: | https://www.cst.ch/en/what-is-cst/ makes it sound as if they're | trying to build small-diameter tunnels like the Boring Company, | but using the strengths of the format much more cleverly. | | The lack of humans means that they can build tunnels with fewer | escape routes and almost without regard to ventilation, the | centrally coordinated 30km/h speed ought to be cheaper than | building for the kinds of speeds one must expect from individual | drivers. | snickerbockers wrote: | what happens when something goes wrong (or just needs scheduled | maintenance) and they have to send a team down to work on it? | are the workers going to need scuba gear to breathe? | jcrawfordor wrote: | My guess would be portable ventilation equipment - already | commonly used for maintenance access to underground utility | infrastructure. They will probably need to provide access to | the tunnels from above at reasonably frequent intervals for | maintenance access (e.g. to "unstick" disabled vehicles) but | since these wouldn't be used for evacuation of more than a | small number of people requirements would be very relaxed. | The same accesses would serve to run blower ducts when work | is being performed, and workers would wear gas monitors. This | is all pretty standard for telecoms tunnels, sewers, etc. | | Safety evacuation requirements are also easier to meet when | you limit tunnel access to a trained workforce under a permit | system, compared to a situation where you have the general | public in the tunnels. Emergency rebreathers, for example, | can become part of your plan. A higher level of safety can be | assured for workers since a permit system means that a | control center will have positive accountability of everyone | in harm's way. | bombcar wrote: | Exactly. Miners have an elaborate safety setup that doesn't | have to be anywhere near what passenger tunnels have, | because the miners can be trained and react to the | situations as necessary, whereas the best you can hope for | passengers is they remember the safety briefing and how to | exit the vehicle quickly. | bobthepanda wrote: | Also, miners can be told to wait in a safety area with | supplies stocked for the very predictable amount of | miners, and so can go a longer without extraction. | | Obviously you still want to extract them as quickly as | possible but it's easier to manage. | hwillis wrote: | Why would they? There's nothing consuming the oxygen. You | don't need scuba gear to go spelunking. The only issue is | removing heat, and you probably don't need much airflow to do | that. | rtkwe wrote: | There are all sorts of ways for the environment to become | toxic; loads of chemical reactions consume oxygen [0], | gases leaking from the ground could displace the oxygen eg | Xenon gas, etc. Even without those over time maintenance | crews will consume the air in an area through both | respiration and equipment work. | | [0] One relatively common danger to bulk cargo ships is | rusting of transported cargo consuming the oxygen in a | enclosed space then crews becoming incapacitated when they | enter for maintenance or other activities. | jhgb wrote: | Inert gas in an automated subterranean cargo transportation | network could be interesting, though. No risk of fire? | numtel wrote: | It's closer to what Magway is doing in Britain | | https://www.magway.com/ | tbihl wrote: | I think your ventilation notion is wrong because intensive use | of this infrastructure will mean many, many electric motors | generating heat. There will also be refrigerated cars, | furthering the problem. Having said that, I strongly suspect | that they've incorporated the ventilation solution already. | | >they're trying to build small-diameter tunnels like the Boring | Company, but using the strengths of the format much more | cleverly. | | Agreed. It's scarcely possible to use tunnels less cleverly | than by putting large, single-occupant vehicles through them. | hwillis wrote: | a 95% efficient electric motor is still creating 15x less | heat than a diesel engine, and zero carbon dioxide. Traffic | will carry out hot air, heat will leave through the tunnel | walls, and convection will also carry out heat. At the very | least it is a MUCH less relevant issue. | koolba wrote: | And any cargo container that requires stricter temperature | tolerances itself be better insulated and refrigerated. | That's already how standard containers pulled by | 18-wheelers operate. | hwillis wrote: | OP's point with refrigerated containers is that they are | large sources of heat (since creating a cold volume heats | up the external volume by a larger amount), not that they | are more vulnerable to heat in the tunnel. | panick21_ wrote: | People act like Boring tunnel are designed to only ever allow | single Tesla threw. | | They did that because Tesla are available for them quickly. | | Do you really think those peope are to stupid to understand | that higher occupency can increase threwput? | Arnt wrote: | Ventilating well enough to cope with electric motors sounds | much less demanding than coping with having both combusion | engines and humans in the tunnels. | | Not to mention letting the humans escape alive in case a | vehicle crashes and burns. | arinlen wrote: | > Ventilating well enough to cope with electric motors | sounds much less demanding than coping with having both | combusion engines and humans in the tunnel. | | You will always have humans in the tunnel. How do you plan | to perform inspections, maintenance, and even emergency | support when a cart breaks down and blocks your tunnel? | robonerd wrote: | > _How do you plan to perform inspections, maintenance, | and even emergency support when a cart breaks down and | blocks your tunnel?_ | | With pigs of course. Not the ones that go oink though: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigging | hwillis wrote: | The acceptable conditions for "workers in the tunnel | performing regular maintenance" and "a continuous stream | of random people" are pretty different. Probably >10x | less requirement for fresh air when >100x fewer people | are breathing it. Ambient humidity might be lower, and | even if it isn't the temperature only has to be workable | rather than comfortable or at ambient. Worst case, you | could shut everything down and let it cool off before | sending people in. | | Certain emergencies would also be much easier to handle | without people, like nitrogen purging a fire. | Realistically I don't think you'd want to shut down the | whole tunnel and wait for hours when you need to fix a | problem, but it might work if there aren't many problems. | It might work for routine maintenance if it's utilized | like most packing facilities- deliveries go out in waves, | with packing etc in between. | moralestapia wrote: | Yup. | | "Must be safe for humans" always shifts the costs an order | of magnitude. | bobthepanda wrote: | The London Underground actually has a heat problem despite | using electric propulsion. | | Most of the heat in that situation comes from braking. | Valgrim wrote: | I'm not sure heat is such a problem. The movement of the | cargo provides ample ventilation, the surrounding soil has a | great thermal mass, and in the worst case it's easier to pump | coolant through a pipe than to ensure a breathable, non-toxic | atmosphere at all time. | aaron695 wrote: | arinlen wrote: | > https://www.cst.ch/en/what-is-cst/ makes it sound as if | they're trying to build small-diameter tunnels like the Boring | Company, but using the strengths of the format much more | cleverly. | | This is ancient technology, literally over a century old. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway | | No need to name-drop the Boring Company, as it's just a | marketing company who bought a COTS tunneler. | | Nothing that this company presented was novel. The critical | aspect of putting together an railway network through tunnels | is a) it's collosal construction and maintenance costs, b) | property rights. | | The numbers of putting together a tunnel network hardly add up, | and ultimately projects fail because there is no way to make | the numbers work unless you expect to fleece local and central | governments. | | It's also quite strange that CST's marketing brochure does not | mention at all two of the main solutions to p2p logistics in | urban environment: hub and spoke model with the last mile | delivered with small electric cars/scooters/bicycles (Amazon | already employs this heavily), and drones. | panick21_ wrote: | Claiming Boring is only a marketing company is not accurate. | Even the first maschine they used was modified. The are are | building their own now and they just raised 600M to finish | engineering on Prufrock-3 and go into real production. | | Just as with other Musk companies, the first version isn't | that amazing and people fall over themselves laughting | declaring how it will never work and never be practical and | how they will never manage to produce them in real numbers. | | So its basically like Falcon 1 and Tesla Roaster/Model S. | | The leader of Boring is an engineer who was doing well at | Tesla. | | I think in 5-10 years it will be a very significant comapny. | jhgb wrote: | > as it's just a marketing company who bought a COTS | tunneler. | | You mean a marketing company that built their own tunneler, | surely. The one they originally bought isn't being used | anymore, as far as I know. | robonerd wrote: | They have two now apparently, one in California and one in | Texas. But public information on these is sparse, I've not | been able to find out much about them. This seems | uncharacteristic for an Elon Musk company; Musk and SpaceX | talk at length about their rockets for instance. There is a | different level of public interest between rockets and | boring, which might explain why there is more public | information about the rockets. Still, I'm not surprised | people are skeptical (or ignorant to the existence) of | these bores. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> There is a different level of public interest between | rockets and boring | | Or the simple practicalities of the later. I'm a member | of the public. What I know of the boring project comes | from the youtube videos of the _traffic jams_ in the | current Vegas tesla tunnel project. Building an | underground tunnel to bypass above-ground traffic | problems worked only on the Simpsons (Stonecutter | episode). In the real world such tunnels are just another | 1-lane road subject to all the same problems as they | would on the surface, plus a bunch of bonus problems. It | isn 't interesting because it isn't practical. | reaperducer wrote: | _This is ancient technology, literally over a century | old.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway_ | | See also, the Chicago Tunnel Company: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company | | According to Wiki, Chicago's started running in 1906, and | London's in 1927. | graupel wrote: | Reminds me of the 2' wide electric trains that moved cargo under | the Chicago loop for many years: | https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/collex/exhibits/under-your-feet... | griffinkelly wrote: | I have a friend of mine who works for the city and he's been | able to go into the tunnels. He was working on a big repair | project on one because it flooded--they were sealing it and | pumping the water out. | marstall wrote: | cooler and more sensible notion of underground transit than that | promoted by mr musk! | tbihl wrote: | This reminds me of when they opened the Gotthard Base Tunnel | maybe 5 years ago. It replaced an old mountain railway that | connected the North and South ends of the country, and did so at | great expense connecting by a straight tunnel that made the route | much faster. It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place | to make achieve that increment of improvement. And this feels | like more of that same story. | | I envy them greatly. The US should be building 5-10 copies of | this same system in various regions, connected by a functioning | freight rail system for long haul. Our diffuse development | pattern and the enormous accompanying expense will be our | downfall. | bombcar wrote: | The US has many projects in the $9 billion range, but many of | them we never hear about because they're not all that | technically interesting, and much of the US is pretty easy to | rail over. | | For example, who knows or cares about the Alameda corridor? | https://www.acta.org even though it transfers tons of freight | every single day. | johnday wrote: | With no disrespect, there's something quite funny about a | freight corridor moving _tons_ of freight every day. In the | "there are dozens of us!" way. | bombcar wrote: | Heh if their TEUs are mostly laden they're moving 300,000 | tons inside LA every day, which is pretty close to a metric | fuckton. | arinlen wrote: | > This reminds me of when they opened the Gotthard Base Tunnel | maybe 5 years ago. (...) It takes an incredibly prosperous and | stable place to make achieve that increment of improvement. And | this feels like more of that same story. | | If should be noted that the Gottard Tunnel project was | subjected to a national referendum after making it clear the | project was astronomically expensive, it would take ages to | build, and it was virtually impossible to recoup the | investment. | sschueller wrote: | The GBT cost almost 10 billion. Still way less than the 22 | Billion the big dig in Boston cost that put the highway under | the city. Initial estimate was 2.8 Billion. | | Meanwhile the city of Zurich dug a 4.8 km train tunnel and | lost (permanently stuck and removal impossible because of | possible collapse) a TBM during work almost collapsing the | Bahnhofplatzt for just around 2 Billion. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_Tunnel | | [2] https://www.zvv.ch/zvv/de/ueber-uns/projekte/in- | betrieb/durc... | robonerd wrote: | It's not clear from your phrasing whether you know this | already, but America has an extensive freight rail network | already. It's the best in the world in fact. More than 40% of | all freight in America uses rail, while in Europe it's less | than 20%. | | Passenger rail is another matter entirely. Common wisdom about | trains in America seems to focus on passenger rail (which is | infamously abysmal in America.) But that absolutely does not | generalize to freight rail. | bobthepanda wrote: | Freight volume is one story. The comparison is a lot less | generous when you compare freight by value. | | US moves a lot of bulk freight by rail that isn't | particularly high value. I remember reading that freight | railroads are sometimes opposed to decarbonization plans | because a good deal of their volume is coal and oil. | robonerd wrote: | The rail lines are there, regardless of what they're used | for. Whatever structural problems exist in this domain | aren't addressed by building more more freight rail. | ithkuil wrote: | > It takes an incredibly prosperous and stable place to make | achieve that increment of improvement. | | fwiw, the Italy and Austra (with EU contribution) are building | a similar in the same mountain range a few km eastwards | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel | tbihl wrote: | I have very little knowledge of Italy or Austria (pretty | little of Switzerland, for that matter), but I gather that | Italy can reasonably be understood as a very stable place in | exactly the opposite way that the US is stable. Italian | places seem very stable, but the wider governance is not | enduring, whereas much of the US is held together by a strong | national government despite the fact that the places are | constantly in flux with most places built cheaply and not for | permanence. | | Also, it presumably required EU funds to push the project | through. My read of GBT and this new CST system is that both | are private ventures. That is to say, I take the Swiss | projects to be at the tail end of careful analysis, whereas | the others may be the result of political desire absent a | compelling business case, sort of like trying to make rail | transit work in Southern California. | seszett wrote: | > My read of GBT and this new CST system is that both are | private ventures | | The Gotthard Base Tunnel was built for the national Swiss | railway company, which is fully state-owned. CST seems to | be private, although among the largest investors are three | state-owned companies (La Poste, Swisscom and the Swiss | railway company). | | These kind of projects today are _always_ largely funded | with public funds in Europe (including outside the EU). It | is simply not realistic or desirable to leave them to | private entities. | rscho wrote: | Swiss railways are 51% state-owned, methinks. | rjsw wrote: | There is another base tunnel being built to the southwest | [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_d%27Ambin_Base_Tunnel | lom wrote: | This is dumb. Another one of those trains but less-efficient and | more costly. Digging tunnels is expensive, even more so across an | entire country. Taking out ventilation or escape routes will cut | the price, yes - but not enough. And what if something happens | inside the tunnel, batteries aren't famed for their | incombustibility... | gspr wrote: | I'd normally agree with you, but I don't think you fathom how | incredibly starved for space Swiss logistics is. There are | densely populated parts of the country where logistics capacity | is maxed out, but where there's no more space on roads or to | build more warehouses. My understanding is that the CST sprung | out of those problems. | mschuster91 wrote: | It's Switzerland, tunnels there always have the secondary use | of being usable as bunkers in a war. Also... it's Switzerland, | half the country is mountains. These guys know how to build | tunnels for cheap, if anyone can scale this to being cheap | enough it's them. | zinekeller wrote: | Im concurring with you and dissenting with lom. Switzerland | is very mountainous that trains laid on the surface will | actually be a very _very_ stupid proposition, with active | gearing and such and with reduced cargo weight to match. Yes, | they have indeed perfected trains on rugged slopes, but only | because back then tunneling is a very slow and manual | operation that it 's not economically and technologically | feasible. Lom would be right if the mountains are gentler | slopes, but I think lom haven't visited the Alps and | appreciate the problem. In this case, the tunnels are | actually a far better and more economical solution than | overground trains. | stardenburden wrote: | Interesting perspective. I have been to the Alps several | times, and do realize how limiting it can be. That's the | reason the CBT and Gotthard base Tunnel is so important and | plays such a central role. The problems start there, | upgrading these two massive pieces of infrastructure to | support these new types of trains (also note the vendor | lock in through novel systems) would be costly and probably | not possible without delays for current freight. | wongarsu wrote: | Trains are great, but are losing out to trucks, so I think | there's a lot of promise in "trains, but small" approaches, | even if none of them have taken off so far. | | Manual access is a concern, but from what I can tell the | vehicles are powered by induction instead of batteries. The | cargo might be the bigger fire risk. | arinlen wrote: | > Trains are great, but are losing out to trucks (...) | | They really aren't. It's already known that there's a | distance and throughpot threshold where roadway and railway | make more sense. The main blocker on the ralway side is that | infrastructure costs are quite high, and roadway's | flexibility always involves trucks handling the last mile. | stardenburden wrote: | Building entirely new infrastructure around an entire country | for something that can already be achieved by more | traditional means is a huge misallocation of money. | | > Taken off so far | | Other than the Beijing airport train there is no real other | maglev running. Even the Virgin Hyperloop has achieved more | than this project. And let's not get into what happened to | them recently... | hwillis wrote: | > even more so across an entire country. | | The website is very clear that the intent is for these tunnels | to be dug underneath cities, to relieve traffic burden from | road distribution. | exabrial wrote: | Ah I see: poke holes in the ground, much like Swiss cheese. | paganel wrote: | Even more things consumed won't help with climate change, quite | the contrary, otherwise nice little project. | kortilla wrote: | Is there a way for a train geek to score a ride on a cargo train | with the engineer? | mrsuprawsm wrote: | Building new trains is always great, but I'm curious why they | chose to go for what appears to be a small loading gauge, thus | preventing them from using shipping containers. | | I was under the impression that containerisation and | palletization of cargo leads to huge efficiencies, but surely | this setup would require much more labour-intensive (or machine- | intensive) loading and unloading than just slapping a shipping | container on a rail-car? | kkfx wrote: | I'm always skeptical to such big-infra projects for a reason: | they are not flexible. We design something today that will be | ready after more than a decade on scale hoping to have correctly | projected future needs. | | Surely trains are very efficient and commercial-only on-rail | transports for non perishable/non urgent goods can ALSO run on | renewable when there is enough energy also stabilizing the grid | and leaving perhaps a side channel for perishable/urgent goods, a | thing no other practical means can do BUT they are still not | flexible. We design a network hoping that in a decade and for | more decades it will be useful to pay it back. | | That's why I'm for air and water transports: a | plane/chopper/drone a ship/sub/* can go anywhere on air/water, we | all needs infra on departure and arrivals places. They cost more | in operational terms, but they are flexible and cost far less in | infra terms. Development of "flying cars/taxis" and "new cheap | ships" seems to prove that such line of thoughts have various | advocates. Surely that scale only in a distributed and not that | densely populated world, are we heading to a mass genocide | perhaps? | Markoff wrote: | Not a train, it doesn't have railway tracks, even on website they | call it "vehicle" since it has regular wheels. | | Also they PLAN to start operation in 2031, which is so far it | might as well never happen. | markvdb wrote: | Swiss time, not Musk time. | | Sorry, couldn't resist. | sschueller wrote: | The Gotthard Base Tunnel was voted on in 1992 and work started | in 1999. It was finished 2016. Switzerland plans very long | ahead into the future even for local transportation systems. A | lot of time is invested in planning which pays out big time in | the end. | | This project is under evaluation in some Cantons (St. Gallen | and Thurgau) for viability and may never be completed. | scarier wrote: | I'm always amazed every time someone tried really hard to invent | new technology that's just a worse train. I love the overall | concept, but damn they're making it way more complicated than it | needs to be. | kumarsw wrote: | I recall someone (possibly Adam Something on YouTube | complaining about a similar idea) coining the term "Not a | Train" to describe concepts such as Hyperloop and this, the | idea being that they are (1) futuristic and exiting and (2) | because they are different, allow for arguments that the | upfront costs will be much lower than trains, whose costs are | well studied and known to be high. | | Usually these systems are more costly and have lower throughput | than trains because: 1. Trains use existing, mature technology | and there are plenty existing manufacturers 2. Because trains | are coupled together into trains, throughput is higher because | there is not a need to space self-driving carriages apart 3. | Because trains are coupled together, the expensive bits go in | the locomotives and the carriage construction is simpler and | cheaper | mschuster91 wrote: | The problem with trains is that you need large signalling | blocks and distances between trains and blocks for safety | reasons - a fully loaded freight train can have a braking | distance of well over 1.000 meters, and accelerating and | decelerating them takes a lot of time and energy. Also, | shunting carriages between trains takes up lots of space for | the yards, a lot of time to couple/uncouple and verify the | correct operation of the brakes. | | The CST system seems to operate at almost zero distance | between carriages, which even with the lower speed of 30 km/h | should still have a greater total bandwidth than an | equivalent-sized two track railway system. Also, it can | operate 24/7 unlike rail systems (because of noise complaints | and co-existence with passenger trains), which should further | increase the available bandwidth. | margalabargala wrote: | I can't comment on the Swiss, but in the US if you live | next to a dedicated freight line, the train company can and | will send trains through at all hours of the night and the | only thing you can do about it is find somewhere else to | live. CSX, Union Pacific, BNSF, etc could not care less | about noise complaints. | | If you find yourself living next to tracks, the best you | can do is try to drown out the noise like this person did | [0] | | [0] https://biotinker.dev/posts/seismograph.html | sidewndr46 wrote: | My personal experience was that after a few weeks I just | ignore it and sleep through all the noise. The actual | train itself was very quiet because of how slow it moved. | The real issue was they are required to blow the train | horn multiple times at each road crossing. This is | extremely loud, since it is a horn. | | The only really odd thing I noticed was there was a wall | that would squeak as the freight train approached. I | suspect this had to do something with the houses | construction however. | bombcar wrote: | If the residents in an area get together with their local | government and work with the railroad, they can often get | the crossings covered to a no-horn Quiet Zone. | | The main cost is the double-sided crossing guards | necessary, and/or closure of some crossings deemed no | longer necessary. | | https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and- | trespass... | sidewndr46 wrote: | This was in Alabama. The local government is generally | interested in hookers or embezzling funds. | mschuster91 wrote: | In Europe, most railways are mixed between freight and | passenger trains - in some cases, you have everything | from high-speed long distance trains, regional trains, | city trains and freight trains on the same set of tracks. | | As the railways here belong to the nation states instead | of the private freight companies, freight trains are at | the bottom of the barrel in priority... and given that it | takes a lot of energy to accelerate a fully laden freight | train, most operators tend to run freight trains | exclusively at night where the amount of stops is | minimal. | anonAndOn wrote: | If you put your house in the acoustic shadow of a tall | cinder block wall with a row of trees behind it, you can | deflect a great deal of that noise. Build it for shade, | just not from the sun. | jcrawfordor wrote: | A conventional train and close headways are not an either- | or proposition. Freight trains can (and do in places) | operate under computerized moving block systems that allow | for headway as short as relative braking distance. | Automatic train operation with moving blocks is a | relatively mature technology available from a couple of | major vendors. | | There are certainly advantages to single-unit cars that | avoid the need for shunting, but the maintenance cost on | these will be tremendously higher on a per-unit basis. Hard | to say that it's a clear win. | wongarsu wrote: | Trains are great for bulk transport. If you want to ship the | daily output of a steel mill or move a military division | worth of vehicles, trains are unbeatable. But if you want to | ship less than a couple of train cars worth of stuff, they | quickly lose out to trucks. That's the market most of these | "not a train"s are targeting. | | That's why this proposal has tiny cars and even tinier | overhead vehicles. It's not so much a train-but-worse, but a | truck-but-on-tracks. | | Of course we could just put autonomous small vehicles on | existing train tracks, but that won't happen in the next two | decades because they are incompatible with the existing users | of those rails. | bombcar wrote: | Much of US rail is literally trucks on trains - not even | containers but actual trailers. | | https://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/ways-of- | shipping/equipme... | | This allows a quicker switch to last-mile whilst still | moving much of the distance on rail. | willyt wrote: | I think the innovation is the removal of manual handling | involved in transferring goods to a train or between trucks at | a logistics hub. By making the modules small enough that they | will ultimately be able to trundle autonomously at low speed | from the loading bay at a small factory to the hub and then | travel at relatively high speed to the end destination without | requiring sophisticated AI to guess what the humans around it | will do. The modules can pop then pop up in dense city centre | environments and postal workers can distribute parcels the last | few hundred meters or the module can trundle autonomously for | the last few hundred meters at very low speeds on battery | power. Or likewise trundle around and between manufacturing | areas at low speeds transporting parts along a supply chain. | jsnell wrote: | That's not what this is though. These carriages will just be | going from delivery hub to delivery hub. The deliveries to | hubs will be by trucks. | | The last mile transport to stores will be by van or bike. And | that's a metaphorical last mile; the density of the hubs | appears to be pretty low, with e.g. 2-3 hubs in Zurich. | | The thing they claim makes this work is bundling all | deliveries going to the same receiver (across all suppliers) | into the same carriage on the sending end, which then makes | it easy to optimize that last mile delivery with small | vehicles. | | This doesn't seem very compelling. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Once upon a time, motors were incredibly expensive. Not just | the motors, but the logistics for the motors. The care and | feeding of a coal burning steam engine requires lots of space | and people with shovels. | | So factories had a single motor, a giant steam engine that fed | a complicated web of pulleys and crankshafts. | | Electric motors killed those old single motor factories. | | The same logic results in a single locomotive pulling a giant | train. You need a human per locomotive, keeping the messy | diesel in one place helps a lot, diesel engines need a lot of | maintenance, etc. | | In 2021, electric motors and batteries are cheap and tiny. | Trains on a dedicated track don't need humans. Automated swarms | of small motors are the future. | bombcar wrote: | Most US trains have a locomotive engineer and a conductor in | the lead cab, and the rest of the power units are remotely | controlled and unmanned. That's two employees on the train | for 3800 tons of freight. | | Rail where each car is powered is usually called light rail | when used for passengers, but I guess there wouldn't be much | stopping light rail being used for freight. | | The key now isn't the motors but the remote controlling. | folkrav wrote: | How is this a worse train? | scarier wrote: | Because it needs far more complicated and expensive cars for | no real benefit. | ddalex wrote: | The benefit is the modularity - trains don't solve the last | mile problem, individually router containers on autonomous | drives do. | yakak wrote: | This is not a real last mile solution either. We once had | the almost the same level of modularity by detaching cars | in motion and letting them coast.. | | Really this is more about not messing with the existing | mix of safety and liability defenses used to keep the | current situation on the current tracks. These systems | have to be sufficiently different because we aren't going | to do a flag day to full automation. | scarier wrote: | CST isn't built to solve the last mile problem either--it | explicitly shows cargo being delivered to and picked up | from central hubs. | go_elmo wrote: | have you factored in the cost of human labor in your judgement? | I mean swiss-level salaries. Thats 4k+ usd / month for retail | workers. Thats what makes autonomous infrastructure cheaper in | the long run than having anyone loading anything on an already | overcrowded train net. | scarier wrote: | The issue isn't how automated it is-- it's easy to automate | trains and automatically load pallets. Making each car | responsible for autonomous navigation in two dimensions and | self-loading becomes a much more complicated engineering | problem. | saiya-jin wrote: | More like 7-8k/month if you count true employer's expenses on | average employee for persons operating & maintaining complex | machineries/connected IT systems. | andbberger wrote: | just as dumb as all of the other 'definitely not a train' | startups, but what makes this one particularly funny is that | switzerland already has the best freight rail system in the | world. | noxer wrote: | I hope they use it to transport garbage or stuff to recycle with | any free capacity. All the diesel trucks that just move garbage | around is such a waste of resources. | Animats wrote: | This is very strange. Long distance tunnels for small cargoes. | | Now, doing that under a city might make sense. Chicago had a | system like that.[1] There was dense coverage under downtown | Chicago, with most streets tunneled and connections to many | buildings. But this was before trucks. It was a solution to the | "last mile" problem, getting goods from the railroad stations to | business buildings. | | The costs of unpacking big trucks or freight cars to put things | in small containers would dominate the transportation cost. | Manhattan has that problem. There's a whole industry that unloads | tractor-trailers in New Jersey and repacks the contents onto | smaller trucks for delivery. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company | rtkwe wrote: | This could move packages and mail easily. Those are already | containerized, packed and repacked multiple times as they move | through the mail system. Larger shipments could be palletized | to a form that fits inside these vehicles and be quickly moved | too. | astrobe_ wrote: | For those learning French who might be puzzled by the spelling, | the correct french word for something underground is "souterrain" | (it is also a noun for an underground tunnel). Probably they | chose that spelling to suggest that it is not cargo buried | underground, or something illegal (there's that meaning too, like | "underground economy": _economie souterraine_ ). | rosetremiere wrote: | Anyone knows the relation with the swissmetro project (see | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro though it very much | reads like an ad) ? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-29 23:00 UTC)