Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by masswerk 2107 days ago
> The mobile web as a whole has gotten faster

There are actually cases, were faster infrastructure had slowed down a system significantly. E.g., British railways (in various organisational form over the years) entertained rolling post office trains, which grabbed mail bags on the go, sorted the mail and dropped it again without any halts, since 1838. This played quite a role in the evolution of fast delivery of national news papers, up to 8 deliveries of mail per day in urban centers, etc. By the 1960s the procedure had become too dangerous for the increased speed of trains (with several firemen loosing their heads in accidents involving the scaffolds for handing over the mail bags) and the last Travelling Post Office ceased operations in 1971. Moral: by speeding up the network by a few miles per hours, mail delivery slowed down by a day.

Similarly, as mobile network speeds increased, expectations what could be done with this rose faster than the actual speed of infrastructure. Add high-res resources with previously unheard of page loads and you've established a system of ever increasing expectations and visions, which will be always bound to significantly outclass the real life capabilities of the infrastructure. As long as we stick to this paradigm, increasing network speed will always result in a slower web, due the Wirth factor involved. I'm afraid this will be even more true for any further significant speed-ups, like those promised by a fully operational 5G network. (Also, visions and concept that are apt to exploit and even challenge the capabilities of 5G will probably also pose a new challenge to any hardware on the end points, which may prove eventually financially challenging for an average user, by this introducing yet another significant gap and respective drops in average real-world performance.)

2 comments

That sounds fascinating. Is there an article or book about it?
You can see the (preserved) system in action in this video ("Absolute History" YT channel) together with a bit of backstory on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeMkOruNht8
Fascinating. I know what I'm doing for the next hour.

It does make an interesting comparison to the internet today. The Victorians had the wired telegraph for information, but without the trains most of the advancements of the 19th century would not have been possible. Looking naively at it, it seems the closest technology we have today would be flying drone swarms.

Another interesting aspect of Victorian railways: Originally, passenger coaches had compartments spanning the full width of the coach with doors on both sides, typically with room for 8 passengers. While this puts a maximum of passengers in a coach, each of the compartments is totally isolated and there is no shared infrastructure, like bathrooms or a chance to collect any sort of food, etc. Hence the train has to increase halts at stations to allow for any passenger needs (which may also collect a bit of extra profit at the stations). At some point, coaches with corridors where introduced, now offering room for just 6 passengers in any of the compartments. A drop of 25% in capacity! on the other hand, based on average speeds and frequency on your network, you may more than compensate for this by less frequent and shorter stops, by this increasing overall throughput of the system. Where is the exact point in the evolution of technology, of your system, and of market acceptance that this becomes a viable option? (Include any losses on side business at the stations in your considerations.)
I once saw a humble, but quite astounding artefact on TV: a box for mailing eggs, of course, Victorian. Behind this hides an entire system of postal service and mail train delivery. A, say, Cornish farmer would put fresh eggs for an individual customer in said box in the early morning. Those boxes were then collected by the postal service and shipped by train to London, where it was delivered to the customer's home, just in time for breakfast, the very same morning. (Amazon next day delivery pales in comparison.)
I’m confused, how did increasing speeds slow down service? There’s a safety issue there but I don’t see the connection to service.
Trains were too fast to safely hand off bags of mail between train stations and trains while the trains were in motion, so instead they had to stop the trains entirely, which was slower than before. (I'm not sure why they couldn't just slow down the trains; maybe it was more a combination of higher speeds and changing priorities).
These were just special coaches added to high speed express trains. So the system was interconnected to the system of HS passenger trains as a shared infrastructure.
Ok so high speed passenger service was slowed to make mail transfer safe?

I’m still having trouble figuring out how speeding up trains delayed mail service. Was it just a scheduling issue?

The network is an interconnected system relying on average speeds and throughput. Slowing down or adding halts for the safety of a particular service probably wasn't an option. Hence the end of service. (The speed of that particular service consequentially dropped back to stationary infrastructure and transit between those hubs, roughly what it had been before 1838.)
I think I’m getting it now. When high speed passenger service ran at 50mph it could also carry mail and deliver 8 times a day. When passenger service increased to 75mph it was too dangerous to carry mail the same way so mail service dropped back to once a day, probably on dedicated or slower trains.