←back to thread

461 points axelfontaine | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
radicalbyte ◴[] No.44039248[source]
This 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.

replies(5): >>44039341 #>>44039455 #>>44041550 #>>44042055 #>>44044554 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.44039341[source]
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.
replies(5): >>44039436 #>>44040062 #>>44040486 #>>44041288 #>>44042023 #
1. bluGill ◴[] No.44041288[source]
> 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 who says slow down to others has no idea how they live or where their needs are. If you want to slow down and smell roses that is fine: go to a park and do so - meanwhile a lot of people need less time on transit so they get more time at home with their kids (or whatever else they do in life)

Larger loading gauges are a good things for a lot of reasons, but the ability to run double decker trains is not one of them.

replies(1): >>44044446 #
2. Denvercoder9 ◴[] No.44044446[source]
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.
replies(1): >>44045361 #
3. bluGill ◴[] No.44045361[source]
Trains can run fully automated today, and if you are running into capacity issues they should be. You may still need more personnel, but it is a different type of personnel and full automation gives enough other advantages as to be worth it.

If the size of your blocks are an issue, then that is a problem worth solving. If you are can't fit in all those trains, then you need to build more track not try to compromise. Yes track is expensive, but if you can't fit all the trains then the passenger volume is high enough to support it. This likely requires better operations though and some people see a loss of their direct train and don't see how a fast (fast is critical!) transfer is overall better for them.

replies(1): >>44048928 #
4. jabiko ◴[] No.44048928{3}[source]
> Trains can run fully automated today

That might be the case in very controlled environments such as a subway network, but in other, more heterogeneous environments GoA 4 is not there yet.