That's 40% of "ton-miles" - trains disproportionately move heavy, cheap goods (i.e. aggregate, coal), which makes that number potentially misleading. The percentage of freight moved by rail by "value" is closer to 15% (trucking is ~65%).

https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-num...

https://www.aar.org/facts-figures#:~:text=Freight%20rail%20a....

Why would one want to emphasize value over weight? If I load up a train with extremely expensive metals, jewels, artwork, etc. couldn’t I raise a countries rail by value measurement overnight?

I agree it's good to consider the whole picture, but ton-miles are probably the most important to consider given the increased diesel required to truck heavy loads, correct?

Plus congestion and labour etc.

And how does that compare to Europe?

The number isn’t misleading if we’re talking about efficient movement of goods.

I’m unclear why you’d care about value at all in the context of this discussion. In context weight and volume are the most relevant metrics.

So perhaps a priority could be to build more medium/high speed passenger rail, and get it off the freight lines?

Travelers and commuters win, cargo wins!

It is funny though, the US built it's current freight network in a comparatively low tech era, yet I doubt it could do it again in the current era due to funding and beauracracy.

This is a weird post. Could any highly industrialised nation build a new freight network today? Probably not. Mostly, it would be blocked by noise complaints and lack of land. Most nation-sized freight rail networks were built more than 100 years ago when population density was far lower and noise controls barely existed.

Also, have you heard of the Alameda Corridor is Los Angeles County? That project is incredible. The amount of soil moved for that project must be staggering. The dimensions: <<The centerpiece of the new Alameda Corridor would be the "Mid-Corridor Trench" a below-ground, triple-tracked rail line that is 10 miles (16 km) long, 33 feet (10 m) deep, and 50 feet (15 m) wide.>>

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor

Freight trains don't have to be louder than passenger trains. (Though from what I've heard, the US has incredible noisy trains, thanks also to lots of horn blaring?)

And quite a few industrialised countries around the world are building more rail lines.

The US already has an extensive freight rail network. It's the one part of their rail transport that works fairly well. Expanding that should be possible.

Especially because freight typically travels slower than passengers, so your track doesn't need to be as straight, so you have more leeway in planning.

> And quite a few industrialised countries around the world are building more rail lines.

Can you expound on this?

My own adopted home of Singapore is highly industrialised, and building more rail lines. China is reasonably industrialised and building more rail lines. Spain is building more, etc.

You can do some web searches. Alas, it's a bit hard, because Google seems to insists that I am only interested in new _high-speed_ rail lines, instead of all new rail lines. But if you are willing to only look at those, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_high-speed_rail_by_co... has a list.

The original post suggested to build more passenger rails to reduce burden upon freight rails. Does Singapore move any freight by rail?

Also, the original post wrote:

> the US built it's current freight network in a comparatively low tech era, yet I doubt it could do it again in the current era due to funding and beauracracy.

My reply was specific to that. Saying: The original post says little because _no_ highly industrialised nation could build a freight network from scratch given current land and noise constraints.

> Does Singapore move any freight by rail?

Not as far as I know.

However, if you can build any rail at all, you can build freight rail, too.

It's mostly in the US that freight rail is noisier than passenger rail. As explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39023890

If you are building new freight rail in your country, you can avoid problems (1) and (2) from that comment. Freight rail doesn't take more land than other rail (if anything, it has lower requirements, because lower speeds mean tighter curves are possible). And freight rail doesn't have to be noisier than passenger rail.

Freight is noisy in the US for two reasons: (1) much heavier than trucks on poorly maintained tracks and (2) required horn blaring for safety at road crossings.

Yes, the horn blaring is really crazy.

Why is it weird?

It's certainly not a US only problem. My city tore up all it's rail and now there are houses in the way so we can't put it back. On top of that, labour and materials are so expensive we probably couldn't afford it anyway.

Thanks for showing me that project, I had not heard of it. I am also excited to watch what Bright Rail are doing and if that translates into a country wide approach to high speed rail.

The reason is probably because, in the EU, passenger rail transport is prioritised over cargo. For example in Switzwerland rail cargo is mainly transported during the night because thats the only time the network isn't working at it's limit for the passenger trains.

In Canada, to my understanding, it's the other way round where passenger trains have been reduced because of the need for more cargo train trips. The USA might be similar.

Yeah, I understand that in the US the rail is actually owned by cargo train companies, so they give their trains priority.

Which is against the law.

In the USA most railroad are owned by the railroad company. When Amtrak wants to use a piece of rail they pay the railway.

But the USA is VAST. Freight trains are LONG. Not much of America's West is actually double track. And when you have a shorter Amtrack and a long freight train the Amtrack loses. The Amtrack has to wait until the freight train has passed.

As the freight trains run on PSR [1] there is no fixed time as to when they pass and thus the Amtrack can not run reliable.

As such it is easier for me to drive from West Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or even to drive to LAX and then fly to LAS than it is to take the train.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading

Amtrak blames freight trains for not following the law and the DoJ for not enforcing the law. Which is just one side of the story.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

wendover did a good viedeo about that a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74

the law says that passenger trains have priority, but nobody respects or enforces that.

I believe you, but why does your source claim otherwise?

"Under PSR, freight trains operate on fixed schedules, much like passenger trains, instead of being dispatched whenever a sufficient number of loaded cars are available."

So do they leave on a fixed schedule, or is there no fixed time? It sounds like the previous system had no fixed time (leave when ready) whereas in the PSR world - there is in fact a set schedule.

They don't leave on fixed time. This is a big part of the union complaints. The engineer needs to be on standby and be there in 2 (?) hours when the train is 'full'.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgezn/the-worst-and-most-eg...

My issue is Wikipedia claims it does not work this way anymore. They do not leave when the train is full - they leave on a fixed schedule.

Why is everyone here claiming that is not true? Is Wikipedia wrong?

So I started to read more, and you're right.

I spend a lot of time reading to what the union members said.

E.g.: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkzbq/28-freight-rail-worke....

That sentence doesn't match with the idea of a fixed schedule. A fixed schedule doesn't require you to be on-call, because you know when the train will leave.

I'm confused now.

AFAIK, Amtrak discontinued passenger service between LA and Las Vegas years ago.

That doesn't change the fact they are transporting half their freight by truck while the US transports a small fraction of that.. Also, US does have rivers and canal transport as well. Mississippi and Erie canal.