Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

    (yle.fi)
    461 points axelfontaine | 14 comments | 20 May 25 07:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source | bottom
    Show context
    indiantinker ◴[20 May 25 09:54 UTC] No.44039714[source]▶
    TBH, it seems like a questionable way to spend EU money. Technically, it's fascinating, but unless it's part of a broader geopolitical or long-term interoperability strategy, it's hard to justify the costs.

    In Spain, we already deal with both Iberian and standard gauges—trains like the Talgo models can change gauges with minimal delay. It's not seamless, but it works reasonably well. Spain also has the world's second largest high speed train network.

    What the EU could really benefit from is greater support for small companies and independent freelancers who are driving innovation. Unfortunately, governments (Spain included) often treat them as revenue sources, with high taxes and complex regulations, while large corporations can navigate around much of that with ease.

    replies(1): >>44039728 #
    1. varsketiz ◴[20 May 25 09:56 UTC] No.44039728[source]▶
    The goal is defence - to prevent easy russian train logistics deep into Finland.
    replies(5): >>44039811 #>>44040798 #>>44043398 #>>44044792 #>>44051635 #
    2. dotancohen ◴[20 May 25 10:08 UTC] No.44039811[source]▶
    Wants to prevent the Russians from fielding dual gauge technology like the Spanish?
    replies(3): >>44040051 #>>44040281 #>>44048841 #
    3. anticensor ◴[20 May 25 10:53 UTC] No.44040051[source]▶
    Finnish climate is not suitable
    4. 542354234235 ◴[20 May 25 11:26 UTC] No.44040281[source]▶
    Dual gauge trains are technically much more complicated, making them more expensive to build, maintain, repair etc. Dual gauge do not work well (or at all depending) in the cold climate of Finland and if they did, the changeover takes time which adds up when you are trying to move thousands of cars worth of material. Dual gauge trains still need changeover stations, which are themselves expensive and complicated, as well as being targets for attack.

    Unloading to new trains carry the same problems; expensive, time consuming, and make for excellent targets. Logistics are the least interesting part of war for most people, but are one of, if not the most, important part.

    5. burmanm ◴[20 May 25 12:27 UTC] No.44040798[source]▶
    Far easier is to just destroy the train tracks with explosives that connect between Finland and Russia (or demolish them like done in Salla after letting them rot).

    There's no defensive reason for this other than in the cabinet talks.

    replies(3): >>44043079 #>>44043783 #>>44043910 #
    6. thehappypm ◴[20 May 25 15:59 UTC] No.44043079[source]▶
    False.

    First of all it's not just so easy to destroy infrastructure in a way that can't be rebuilt quickly; thousands of miles of train tracks would be difficult to destroy. This is happening all over Ukraine.

    Second, blowing up your own country's rail infrastructure means you can't use it, either, which means you lose an advantage you have that your trains can move on your rails but your enemy's cannot.

    replies(2): >>44043477 #>>44043983 #
    7. citrin_ru ◴[20 May 25 16:30 UTC] No.44043398[source]▶
    Even if the goal is defence it doesn't look like the best way to spend many. Finland is not a huge country, logistic using track is possible and incompatible rail gauge is a weak defence. IMHO it would be better to spend money on military to get a fast effect and in 20-30 years at most the threat will likely will be no longer relevant.
    8. citrin_ru ◴[20 May 25 16:39 UTC] No.44043477{3}[source]▶
    Bridges are hard to rebuild quickly and they can be destroyed using glide bombs and cruise missiles. Ukraine struggles to do this because has very small air force and don't have enough tools to sufficiently suppress Russian air defence. NATO air force is stronger and can in theory acheive air superiority.
    9. inglor_cz ◴[20 May 25 17:16 UTC] No.44043783[source]▶
    IIRC Russian army had, prior to the outbreak of the current war, several tens of thousands of soldiers specialized just in emergency railway construction and repairs. IDK how many remain now.

    Russians aren't stupid, they know that the enemy will try to destroy the tracks when retreating, so they train to fix/bypass the problems quickly.

    That includes some transportable improvised bridges ready for deployment.

    10. dh2022 ◴[20 May 25 17:32 UTC] No.44043910[source]▶
    Far easier to re-build a few miles of tracks destroyed at the border then to re-gauge hundreds of miles of tracks....
    11. burmanm ◴[20 May 25 17:40 UTC] No.44043983{3}[source]▶
    If you look at the map you will see that there isn't multiple tracks coming from Russia to Finland. Some of them were even designed to be blown up if necessary (such as the Salla rail tracks).

    Finnish rail roads are mostly north-south bound (or west of Helsinki) which are not helpful to Russian advances. The only way for them to transport weaponry would be through east-west bound (near the border) and there isn't many. It's easy to take such out and they would not impact our infrastructure at all as they're not heavily used (if at all since eastern part of Finland is economically the weakest link anyway).

    It's quick and easy in the end to destroy. Rebuilding them under artillery fire isn't easy.

    12. chinathrow ◴[20 May 25 19:05 UTC] No.44044792[source]▶
    They might be too late.
    13. varsketiz ◴[21 May 25 06:32 UTC] No.44048841[source]▶
    Yes. Have them work for it.
    14. bell-cot ◴[21 May 25 14:10 UTC] No.44051635[source]▶
    Defense is the "headline" goal. Less-clicky (but similarly important) goals are (1) easing trade & travel with the countries which the Finns expect to be doing the great majority of their trade & travel with, and (2) getting massive EU funding for the rebuilding & modernization of a whole lotta old Finnish rail infrastructure.