• itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    The bullet train is wholly irrelevant here. It does not transport cargo now, does it? Build a fucking freight train line. Every time some tech bro suggests a solution involving pods, a civil engineer has a stroke

    • 474D@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like how you think you know better than Japan after skimming a simple article lol

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah - you are correct - they don’t use those lines for freight (I thought they may). Still - Japan has some of the best train networks in the world.

      I expect this idea to die. People act like because a thing was suggested or being looked into that it will automatically be done. “Solar Frickin’ Roadways” never went anywhere an this sounds unlikely to as well.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m still annoyed that solar frickin’ parking lots (canopies, not panels on the ground) aren’t mandated in all new lots.

        With all the mandated parking on the sprawl we could probably solve at least EV charging anxiety. And with some grid storage it would make a perfect use of otherwise wasted land. Plus keep the cars parked underneath cool.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The parking lots themselves are a big cost to the rest of us though. At least they could be offsetting some of the environmental costs of sprawl.

            Plus the electricity production should offset it in a few years, especially in the places wheee shaded parking is most desirable.

      • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They won’t. Anything on a bullet train line needs to go at a speed of a bullet train. If it goes slower, it slows down the bullet trains on the line.

        Cargo does not require bullet train speeds, only passengers do. The added expense does not translate to a better service. Cargo is not time sensitive like people are, so usually freight trains go under 100 km/h. This requires a whole lot less infrastructure and a whole cheaper locomotives and wagon compositions, as locomotives and wagons that go faster are more expensive and require more maintenance.

          • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            they don’t use those lines for freight (I thought they may).

            They won’t use the bullet train lines for freight.

              • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Tbh i just took it as a chance to talk about trains, not so much with the intent to correct you. Maybe someone would be wondering about it, you know ? I didn’t mean to come off as argumentative with you.

    • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it does have some cargo space, but not enough to matter in any significant way. IIRC it’s mostly just mail and parcels, but I might be mis-remembering.