|
| ▲ | defrost 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| US annual freight tonnage per annum is much the same as Australia's (1.5 billion tonne /annum, IIRC). Australia has longer, more control complex trains (leading, trailing and midway locomotives). To the best of my knowledge the US has never once had a single train 7 km in length with 680+ cars and a gross tonnage of 99,734 tonne - Australia has set a record with such a train and moves smaller (but still at that scale) trains daily. ( That's over 4.3 miles in length carrying 109,938 short tons for any readers from Liberia, or Myanmar ) Tech-wise Australia also operates the world's first (and still only?) fully autonomous rail heavy haul routes. |
| |
| ▲ | stinkbeetle an hour ago | parent [-] | | "Australia" doesn't really set records, multinational mining companies do. The records might as well be set on another planet. There is virtually no population, roads or utilities, no agricultural land beyond low density cattle stations that need up to 50 hectares per head, no mountain ranges, no large rivers, and employing people to work on site out there is might be 3x more expensive than the rest of the economy. The records are set on private lines that operate outside normal rail regulations by agreement set down by state governments that are beholden to the mining companies. Comparing USA's freight rail network to Australia's on those numbers paints a misleading picture. 3/4 of it is iron ore and coal being carried relatively short distances (few 100s of km) from inland out to the nearest coastal port, and most of that is away from any significant population centers. By ton-mile, USA takes 5-6x more than Australia and much more interesting and varied conditions and freight types and destinations - not just ferrying it from a hole in the ground, across highway 1, then into a bunker at a shipping terminal. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Like everything, it all depends on your metric. Again, same freight tonnages as the US .. and with fewer people == vastly greater rail performance per capita, and similar tonnages in absolute numbers. The US is just another G20 country, and one sliding down the rankings on freedom, and democracy. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sschueller 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But how much of it is electrified? |
|
| ▲ | yogorenapan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Largest freight rail. Public transport for normal people is still shit compared to Europe. |
| |
| ▲ | BDPW 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And especially China. And Japan. | |
| ▲ | mrits 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Have you been to Europe? What area do you enjoy the public transportation? | | | |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That doesn't seem to be stopping europeans from moving to USA. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How fast does it move? How's the latency? |
|
| ▲ | panick21_ 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is kind of a dumb statement. Yes the US is one of the larges most populated countries and has been for a long time. Its just coping instead of actually engaging with the question about what makes railways good. The US put down lots of track in the 18-19th centuries as its industrial revolution was pre-car and its the biggest country where this happened. If you look into detail and not just very simple 'we transport this much cargo' you see the US system has many disadvantages and is not nearly as amazing as some US people barging make it seem. Frankly given the historical strength of railways in the US into the 20th century, the near perfect geography for rail and the lack of ports its quite embracing how little things are done with rail. |
