Most active commenters
  • paddy_m(4)
  • theshrike79(3)
  • celticninja(3)
  • wkat4242(3)

←back to thread

Finland announces migration of its rail network to international gauge

(yle.fi)
461 points axelfontaine | 19 comments | 20 May 25 07:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
vesinisa ◴[20 May 25 08:26 UTC] No.44039149[source]▶
Here'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 continue until the end of the decade, and maybe in 2032 we can start construction."

Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start.

replies(10): >>44039465 #>>44039611 #>>44039693 #>>44039743 #>>44039754 #>>44039771 #>>44039846 #>>44040123 #>>44040743 #>>44045724 #
cladopa ◴[20 May 25 09:34 UTC] No.44039611[source]▶
>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.

replies(2): >>44039699 #>>44044508 #
varsketiz ◴[20 May 25 09:50 UTC] No.44039699[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>44039773 #>>44039786 #>>44039826 #>>44042602 #
potato3732842 ◴[20 May 25 10:02 UTC] No.44039773[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>44039822 #>>44039942 #>>44040261 #>>44041645 #
1. theshrike79 ◴[20 May 25 10:10 UTC] No.44039822[source]▶
Russian military logistics _heavily_ depend on trains, everything that can go on a train, does so. Flight and vehicle stuff is mostly an afterthought.

Any hindrance we can put on the Finnish-Russian border to stop them just unloading 12 cars of fresh troops in the middle of the country is a good thing.

replies(1): >>44039892 #
2. paddy_m ◴[20 May 25 10:24 UTC] No.44039892[source]▶
Another fun note about Russian logistics, they aren't palletized or mechanized. Thought being that cranes don't look good in parades. The train side seems smart or at least interesting, the pallets incredibly dumb.

https://x.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716

replies(3): >>44040393 #>>44040490 #>>44040957 #
3. jabl ◴[20 May 25 11:41 UTC] No.44040393[source]▶
Why invest in forklifts, container infrastructure etc. if your military has a near-endless supply of uneducated conscripts you can order to shuffle around shells and other items?

(Of course a more thorough analysis would probably come to the conclusion that better logistics is worth it. There's still an opportunity cost for those conscripts who could do something else instead, like dying in zerg rushes on the Ukrainian front. And even though those conscripts are 'free' they still require chow and a place to sleep etc.)

replies(1): >>44040658 #
4. kranke155 ◴[20 May 25 11:51 UTC] No.44040490[source]▶
This is a debunked post I think.
replies(2): >>44040675 #>>44041356 #
5. smallstepforman ◴[20 May 25 12:13 UTC] No.44040658{3}[source]▶
“ endless supply of uneducated conscripts “

Now you’re just being silly.

replies(1): >>44041197 #
6. IAmBroom ◴[20 May 25 12:14 UTC] No.44040675{3}[source]▶
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1507056013245128716.html

Your cite?

7. theshrike79 ◴[20 May 25 12:45 UTC] No.44040957[source]▶
Compare this to the completely bonkers logistics of the US Military: https://youtu.be/iIpPuJ_r8Xg

Even Unicef has a massive logistics center in Denmark with pallets of stuff categorised and ready to be sent for any emergency: https://www.unicef.org/supply/warehousing-and-distribution

replies(1): >>44045057 #
8. bluGill ◴[20 May 25 13:09 UTC] No.44041197{4}[source]▶
Regardless of how much education they have - they are treated as uneducated.
9. celticninja ◴[20 May 25 13:25 UTC] No.44041356{3}[source]▶
i dont believe it is.
replies(1): >>44045022 #
10. paddy_m ◴[20 May 25 19:29 UTC] No.44045022{4}[source]▶
Trent and a lot of Ukranian war commentators have a habit of saying $X is catastrophic for the Russians (this is the worst on YouTube). Then those catastrophic things don't come to pass.

Related, I have seen one guy, over and over say "Why isn't Ukraine hitting Russian electric train transformer stations". I don't have a good answer, most of Russia's rail network is electric, transformers blow up easily, there are many of them, and they would be very slow to replace. Ukraine clearly has deep strike capabilities, and Russia cant defend every transformer. I don't think it's a humanitarian issue, or at this point even an issue with the US telling Ukraine they can't hit those targets.

replies(2): >>44045082 #>>44045545 #
11. wkat4242 ◴[20 May 25 19:33 UTC] No.44045057{3}[source]▶
Well yes but the US usually fights in faraway places to bring freedom (though the only thing they manage to 'liberate' is oil, see how Afghanistan and Iraq turned into hellholes as soon as they turned their backs)

Russia just likes to kill the shit out of their neighbours which is a lot easier logistically.

replies(1): >>44049126 #
12. wkat4242 ◴[20 May 25 19:35 UTC] No.44045082{5}[source]▶
Transformers are not very hard to replace or make though. All they are is some copper wound around iron. It will just be some added frustration and annoyance for them but no gamechanger. If they start doing it a lot Russia will just build a bigger electrical workforce and more backstock. They have plenty of people and the authorianism to make them do whatever they want. It's just a pissing contest. Russia did lots of cyberattacks on the Ukrainian electrical network in the years before the invasion. Didn't do anything either but send a message.

I would compare it to the Natanz cyber attack which reportedly cost a fortune and caused lots of business losses around the world. It only set the Iranian uranium refinement back a few percent.

Then Obama comes and talks to them, strikes a deal. That solved the issue entirely and cost much less. Of course then Trump comes and messes it all up again but that's another story.

replies(2): >>44045566 #>>44046252 #
13. celticninja ◴[20 May 25 20:23 UTC] No.44045545{5}[source]▶
Yeah sure, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the Russians do not use pallets for logistics and therefore struggle with logistics as a result.

So I stand by my statement that his assessment is not wrong, even if it isn't as outcome changing as some may hope. It is however one of the many straws heaped upon the camel's back.

As for the transformer issue, I would imagine that these are somewhat related. Their train based logistics are inefficient, so Ukraine doesn't need to stop the trains running. If they did the russians may find a more efficient solution.

replies(1): >>44046201 #
14. celticninja ◴[20 May 25 20:26 UTC] No.44045566{6}[source]▶
Do you mean stuxnet? That was a cyber attack, natanz was a blackout caused by a blast/explosion IIRC.
replies(1): >>44050428 #
15. paddy_m ◴[20 May 25 21:40 UTC] No.44046201{6}[source]▶
Crippling the Russian train system would be very much worth it. Russia would have to switch to limited diesel locomotives, and it would really hurt regular civilian logistics in those areas.
16. paddy_m ◴[20 May 25 21:47 UTC] No.44046252{6}[source]▶
Russia is importing shells from North Korea. Transformers are more complex than you give them credit for, and Russia has a very limited ability to manufacture anything, it would make a difference.
replies(1): >>44050545 #
17. theshrike79 ◴[21 May 25 07:24 UTC] No.44049126{4}[source]▶
And when most of their neighbours historically use the same rail gauge, it's a lot easier too :D
18. wkat4242 ◴[21 May 25 11:48 UTC] No.44050428{7}[source]▶
Natanz was the site of the facility targeted by stuxnet.

https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/natanz-enric...

19. earnestinger ◴[21 May 25 12:03 UTC] No.44050545{7}[source]▶
Logical explanation, there are better alternative targets. (Supply of deep strike is finite, one must prioritise)