This is an obviously bullshit list made by a low-paid intern
If you mess around with statistics, you might get high numbers from the U.S. in terms of amount of freight carried, as U.S. Class 1 railroads do indeed carry a great deal of freight. However, it tends to be bulk freight, so you get a lot of wheat, corn, coal, gravel, and the like.
The argument is fundamentally dumb as hell, because the Soviet Union had some of the most advanced and used rail-networks on the planet, and they were literally build in the biggest country to have ever existed.
The argument is fundamentally dumb as hell, because the United States had one of the most advanced and used rail-networks on the planet for a long long time. We literally already had one and it worked great and that was with fucking steam trains and dudes laying track with big hammers. It’d be easier to do now than it was then!
Oh boy if you think that argument is pervasive in the US, just try advocating for rail in Canada :sadness: Some hardliner social democrat I know explained to me how impossible it was with our size, even though a huge percentage of the population live in the Windsor-Montreal corridor.
You can take trains between Lisbon and Moscow, but not a high speed train. You'll have to transfer between several low speed trains, but there are a few high szeed segments.
Europe is quite a bit behind China in terms of high speed rail and freight rail, actually. Because Europe is not one country, there's an absolute mess of different railway standards, including different gauges, electrification systems, signalling systems, and manual couplers that are inefficient. For example, that trip from Lisbon to Moscow would require at least 3 gauge changes along the way. China has one main rail gauge and one uniform system, allowing wagons full of freight to ride on one railway network all the way from Xinjiang to Beijing.
This is an obviously bullshit list made by a low-paid intern
If you mess around with statistics, you might get high numbers from the U.S. in terms of amount of freight carried, as U.S. Class 1 railroads do indeed carry a great deal of freight. However, it tends to be bulk freight, so you get a lot of wheat, corn, coal, gravel, and the like.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The argument is fundamentally dumb as hell, because the Soviet Union had some of the most advanced and used rail-networks on the planet, and they were literally build in the biggest country to have ever existed.
The argument is fundamentally dumb as hell, because the United States had one of the most advanced and used rail-networks on the planet for a long long time. We literally already had one and it worked great and that was with fucking steam trains and dudes laying track with big hammers. It’d be easier to do now than it was then!
Oh boy if you think that argument is pervasive in the US, just try advocating for rail in Canada :sadness: Some hardliner social democrat I know explained to me how impossible it was with our size, even though a huge percentage of the population live in the Windsor-Montreal corridor.
You can take trains between Lisbon and Moscow, but not a high speed train. You'll have to transfer between several low speed trains, but there are a few high szeed segments.
deleted by creator
Europe is quite a bit behind China in terms of high speed rail and freight rail, actually. Because Europe is not one country, there's an absolute mess of different railway standards, including different gauges, electrification systems, signalling systems, and manual couplers that are inefficient. For example, that trip from Lisbon to Moscow would require at least 3 gauge changes along the way. China has one main rail gauge and one uniform system, allowing wagons full of freight to ride on one railway network all the way from Xinjiang to Beijing.
"I dunno, according to these numbers the american rail is already in the top 12. Maybe we should just get more highways? :thinking-about-it:"