[seanmcdirmid]

> Most of it is "dark territory" (no track sensors), unlike Europe.

Have you seen the USA? The places where they lack track sensors are basically out in the middle of nowhere with no one around for miles.

> One of the most lucrative rail systems in the US had an average speed of their trains in the single digits MPH!

That really isn't bad for freight. They optimize freight for throughput, not latency (something passenger rail is more concerned with).

[sudosysgen]

Track sensors are especially useful in they middle of nowhere.

And there are plenty of latency sensitive applications for freight rail which are developed in other places. They don't make sense in the US because the capability isn't there, not because there's no market for it.

[seanmcdirmid]

> They don't make sense in the US because the capability isn't there, not because there's no market for it.

There really isn't. Freight companies are responsible for maintaining investing in the rail, and if it doesn't make them money, they aren't going to put it there. Heck, a lot of places are single rail (meaning, no two way traffic at the same time), because it doesn't really make sense to dump more money into an extra set of tracks in those places.

[sudosysgen]

Again, you're conflating things. There is a market for low latency rail freight. The rail companies find that it's better to keep the rail as is and invest the profits somewhere else. That doesn't mean that the market doesn't exist.

The correct approach is for low latency rail freight to operate on passenger rail systems which already have the necessary speeds and flexibilities. This is structurally unfeasible in the US but it's still definitely a market that better rail systems can service at no extra cost.

[seanmcdirmid]

The freight companies own the railway, they optimize the rails for freight, which is why we move much more freight by train than Europe. Passenger service is something they do for the federal government subsidy and nothing more.

And actually, sharing tracks between passenger and freight service is something that they don't really do in Europe. Because they share tracks, American passenger trains have to build at a weight on part with freight trains. Most lines in Europe separate out passenger and freight service lines so they can run lighter trains for passenger service.

[sudosysgen]

A big part of why the US moves more by rail is simply because it moves more goods overland than in Europe.

Low latency freight for smaller, high value items is often done on passenger lines (or even passenger trains) because it doesn't put any scheduling pressure on passenger service.

As far as use of freight in Europe, the elephant in the room is that the EU uses a lot more sea freight than the US. Indeed, while the modal split for EU trucking is around 50%, it's around 70% in the US, and it thus seems clear that the real reason that there is less rail shipping within Europe is because there is much more competition from maritime shipping.

[nickbauman]

This is a perfect example of path-dependent policy. Because the decision was to select for freight, other kinds of rail are "unfeasible". I'm using scare quotes to suggest that it's not really unfeasible, it's a choice.

And since trucking capacity has been maxed out in the US for quite a while (Amazon is the big mover for this situation, even before covid), you can bet this path dependence is biting us now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence

[panick21_]

> And actually, sharing tracks between passenger and freight service is something that they don't really do in Europe.

Happens a lot in Switzerland.