I've been in that camp for much of my career, and yes, tooling matters.
As you suggest however, tooling for that workload is pretty rare. I want something that focuses on enhancing the database development experience: that understands that there are development workflows for database code which are well controlled and rigorous. So many database tools are focused on being system administrative aids first, or giving you features for directly interacting and <ack> altering the running state of the database and its server from the tool.
The best tool I found for what I do was targeted at Oracle: Allround Automation's PL/SQL Developer (https://www.allroundautomations.com/products/pl-sql-develope...). It's a development oriented tool that, at least last I used it, was focused on serious development work rather than administrative work. Now, I haven't used it in almost 20 years when last I did Oracle development... but I haven't found anything for PostgreSQL that has that thoughtfully implemented database developer centric feature set.
Today I muddle through with DataGrip. DataGrip has just enough of what I need that it's marginally better to work with than just a simple text editor... and also narrowly avoids some misfeatures as not to negate it's utility.
"Unification to standard gauge on May 31 – June 1, 1886 [United States]
In 1886, the southern railroads agreed to coordinate changing gauge on all their tracks. After considerable debate and planning, most of the southern rail network was converted from 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge to 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) gauge, then the standard of the Pennsylvania Railroad, over two days beginning on Monday, May 31, 1886. Over a period of 36 hours, tens of thousands of workers pulled the spikes from the west rail of all the broad gauge lines in the South, moved them 3 in (76 mm) east and spiked them back in place.[6] The new gauge was close enough that standard gauge equipment could run on it without problem. By June 1886, all major railroads in North America, an estimated 11,500 miles (18,500 km), were using approximately the same gauge. To facilitate the change, the inside spikes had been hammered into place at the new gauge in advance of the change. Rolling stock was altered to fit the new gauge at shops and rendezvous points throughout the South. The final conversion to true standard gauge took place gradually as part of routine track maintenance.[6] Now, the only broad-gauge rail tracks in the United States are on some city transit systems."
An impressive feat, that is unlikely unachievable on a modern train network.
The tolerances are just a bit tighter, the risks and liabilities are higher, and the workforce just isn't "there" - this is from a time when rail was a huge money earner and could afford to employ a huge number of people. Today? Not so much, pretty much anywhere in the World.
There are ready-made machines that pull up track, and replace sleepers... it shouldn't be a major project to allow it to change the gauge of the rail as it resets it.
Once Spain and Portugal move from Iberian gauge that market will increase a lot. Which is kinda inevitable with the added environmental pressure on flights.
There are no ready-made gauge changing machines, though. Not exactly a big market for those.
So what? I'd there isn't a machine, you build one.
Large industries like mining and shipping and the military don't just stop because they can't buy a needed item off the shelf because there isn't a market for it. They build stuff all the time.
I worked in a factory for a few years, and can tell you that if industries followed your "can't do" attitude, commerce would stop.
Let’s say you have a problem and the only way to solve it is with a thingamabob. The thingamabob doesn’t exist, so you need to make the first one. Unknown to everyone, the military, the O&G/mining industry, and the rail industries all try to build one at the same time. Do you think they all cost the same? What about the time to design and build them?
The oil and gas people will call up some machinists and engineers the same day. Time is money and they need the problem solved. It doesn’t need to look pretty. I don’t think anyone would disagree that they would be the first with a thingamabob. First one might break, they’d get Bob on a Cessna from the nearest machine shop with a replacement.
The military would have some meetings, which would spawn more meetings, and eventually put out some requests for proposals. They’d review the proposals and ten years later they’d have their thingamabob. No doubt it would be the most expensive.
The rail industry… the modern, passenger rail industry in wealthy western countries? There might be proposals, or designs or prototypes with large amounts of money spent, but I think it is reasonable to say the thingamabob would never actually be built and used. Look at CAHSR or Stuttgart 21 or Turin-Lyon.
Switzerland has some for narrow (meter) gauge to standard gauge. I think it's to make the Glacier Express run without changing train. Had a bit of teething problems at the start but seems to be working well now.
That's not a "change gauge for a 100-wagon freight train" scale operation, and it's not "off the shelf" tech, but we're fairly close I think?
>There are no ready-made gauge changing machines, though. Not exactly a big market for those.
I'm not a train guy, but I'm pretty sure the machine that lifts the track up and allows them to swap out the ties is like 95% of what would be needed for a gauge changing machine.
> this is from a time when rail was a huge money earner and could afford to employ a huge number of people.
Well, back then the US had freshly banned slavery, so there was an ample workforce that could be hired for dirt cheap.
The Soviets and the Wehrmacht pulled off similar feats in WW2, but back then the rails and sleepers didn't have to be built to last many decades, so in addition to loads upon loads of forced labor from concentration camps and gulags, the work effort was massively reduced because easier technology could be used.
The BART discussion was where I first learned about the North American 2-day gauge change. A truly inspiring feat for so many engineers to come together across such a large amount of land area to Make It Happen.
Makes it even crazier that Bart would choose a non-standard gauge 75 years later. And now they're stuck paying for custom trains with less flexibility and longer lead times.
BART was always going to need custom trains for other reasons beyond track gauge. Electric third rail at those speeds isn't standard. 125kV pantagraph would mean big expensive tunnels and stations due to clearance requirements.
I also don't know where you're getting 125kV from. Many trains throughout the world use 25kV, especially high-speed ones (actually high speed, like 200+km/h), but BART uses 1000V, which is closer to a typical subway system.
Probably the biggest challenge is that there is way more rail traffic today and it's more tightly coupled in logistics chains and people's day to day lives. Disruptions are more expensive and harder to tolerate. And that's on top of the technical challenges, tolerances leave less room for error today.
It might be easier to change today than it was in 1886. Back then, trains were really the only means of travel between cities. Today, there are less passenger trains than back then, though more freight (even with trucks and planes). But freight diversions/delays could be scheduled well in advance and have alternative means. Not to mention, since then we've developed variable gauge train tech. A subset of trains could run during the cutover.
It's likely more costly today, but less disruptive.
Passenger travel is easy mode. The economic consequences of disrupted freight dwarf anything you could imagine from disrupted passenger travel of equal duration. That's why the US has always strived to do a really, really good job with their freight rail system, and US freight is still to this day generally considered the best freight rail system in the world, even as passenger rail lags well behind.
Remember that freight is more than just moving pallets of finished goods to Amazon warehouses. It doesn't matter if you've given the cows a month's advance notice, if they don't have feed they're still going to starve; and no matter how many KPIs you dangle at the silos, they're only going to hold x amount of reserve grain.
Any competent shipper facing a train issue will just put the load on semis instead for 3-10x the price. Freight rail mainly exists as an low cost bulk carrier of convenience these days. Ships outcompete rail for bulk goods along inland waterways, and semis outcompete rail for network volume, ease of delivery, and adaptability to constraints.
> Any competent shipper facing a train issue will just put the load on semis instead for 3-10x the price.
Did you not see how the markets recently reacted to certain components merely doubling in cost due to tariffs? In what world do you live in where the agricultural margins are high enough that the cattle ranchers can just casually absorb a threefold cost increase? Clearly they're eating the loss, because if they passed those costs onwards in the chain there'd certainly be huge economic consequences, as I said, and you wouldn't have felt the need to try and correct my premise. Anyway, I'd like to visit this world of yours, though only if you'd be buying the meals.
> Freight rail mainly exists as an low cost bulk carrier of convenience these days.
This is what happens when one tries to create a narrative from DoT statistics.
The reason why rail freight tonnage is less than truck tonnage is long-haul vs short-haul. You deliver lumber from the timber yard to the finishing facility once. That's rail. You don't load up trucks with semi-finished logs on an industrial scale, you don't load them with coal, you don't load them with industrial quantities of gravel or sand or steel either.
Once you have the logs processed into boards, then you use trucks to carry those boards to various short-haul destinations, where some of the boards are further processed into fence pickets and bird houses and old-timey sign posts that Roadrunner can inadvertently spin around so Wile E ends up taking a completely wrong turn. All of that stuff then goes to storefronts and warehouses (also short-haul) and as a result, the short-haul tonnage can count twice, three times, or even more, depending on just how many steps are being taken between "tree" and "birdhouse".
> Ships outcompete rail for bulk goods along inland waterways
Which is great along inland waterways, but if you're not located along them, you're probably using rail to get the bulk goods to the shipyard.
Feel free to look up the ton-mile by distance numbers. Rail exceeds trucks by fairly narrow margins only for hauls between 1,000-2,000 miles. Below that distance, trucks dominate. Above that distance, trucks also dominate. Even in that band, it's like a narrow difference of like 35% vs 40%.
Note that the inverse situation is common at west coast ports, with short haul rail lines running to intermodal facilities so things can be loaded onto trucks for long haul. The cost of transloading to domestic containers often dominates keeping it on rails.
> The reason why rail freight tonnage is less than truck tonnage is long-haul vs short-haul. You deliver lumber from the timber yard to the finishing facility once. That's rail. You don't load up trucks with semi-finished logs on an industrial scale, you don't load them with coal, you don't load them with industrial quantities of gravel or sand or steel either.
Around here the timber arrives at the railyard by truck and aggregates are usually mined and transported locally, which is truck heavy. Grain is also majority truck these days from the BTS stats I can see, but basic materials isn't my industry.
Regardless, ton-miles aren't doubled counted. It's one ton, transported one mile. If rail took freight that extra distance, it'd get the same share (subject to all the usual caveats of industry numbers).
Assuming an unlimited supply of semis and drivers to fit the demand. With limited supply big companies will be able to a compete for the available trucks at really high prices but small-mid businesses will be left out.
Small-mid businesses generally are not shipping on rail to begin with, unless they've been bundled as part of a larger shipment by an intermodal carrier. If you've ever tried to talk to a rail carrier, they really don't want to deal with companies under a certain size.
>Assuming an unlimited supply of semis and drivers to fit the demand.
If the US really wanted to get it done, they could involve the army and various state national guards. They have tons of trained semi and heavy truck drivers, way more than most people would assume. Most states also have tons of trained drivers for their massive snow plows and highway repair trucks and stuff. The only thing stopping these massive projects is money and lack of imagination.
I see several trains go by per day on my pretty sleepy tracks. You have no clue the amount of semis that would need to be built to accommodate your proposal, they just do not wait in the wings. Do you think all the bulk shipments are being done for fun and someone isn't waiting for 5000 gallons of HCL and 2000 tons of coal?
I'm well aware that it's a couple hundred trucks to replace a single train. I'm not sure you understand that this is what already happens. Rail carries around a quarter of freight ton-miles in the US. Trucks carry much more than that. All of the stuff that isn't bulk, time insensitive freight, or anything that surges in excess of the carefully scheduled rail capacity already has to spill over onto trucks. That includes things like disaster recovery shipments, unusual seasonal demand, and so on. There's also a population of truckers that work these temporary jobs, as well as a certain level of excess vehicle capacity in the fleet carriers to service it, plus whatever truckers can be pulled from other work to meet the demand.
Anyone looking at massive losses will pay the sticker shock to put it on trucks. Anyone who can afford to shut down instead will wait. That's the system working as intended.
Thanks for the response. I'm curious what percent of stuff that would normally end up on train ends up as spillover onto trucks. Any idea? I think stuff is quite finetuned already and there may only be an extra few percent of capacity in trucks. I agree, in a lot of cases it might work to just bite the bullet and wait or try a different apparatus. However the stuff on the trains typically is not slackable. That is, you aren't transporting computers and sofas via rail.
I was told a while ago "trains are great if you want to move a trainload of stuff, trucks are great if you want to move a few truckloads of stuff". I guess trains also need loading/unloading facilities and stations close to your origin and destination, and perhaps a hump yard somewhere.
Cargo ships beat everything hands down if there's a port close to your origin and destination, and lots of water in between.
> "Today, there are less passenger trains than back then"
I don't think this is true in Europe. Certainly in the UK, passenger rail volume since the 2010s has set records higher than in any previous years, exceeding numbers that were last seen before WW2. Today there are fewer miles of track than there were in that era, but modern signalling technology allows more trains to operate safely on the same tracks, and modern trains run much faster on average.
As for freight, the US actually moves a significantly greater portion of its freight by rail than Europe does. Rail has around 40% modal share for freight in the US vs only 17% in Europe. One reason for this is that in Europe many lines are congested with passenger traffic, leaving few slots for freight trains to operate - except late at night.
> As for freight, the US actually moves a significantly greater portion of its freight by rail than Europe does. Rail has around 40% modal share for freight in the US vs only 17% in Europe. One reason for this is that in Europe many lines are congested with passenger traffic, leaving few slots for freight trains to operate - except late at night.
It's also that rail tends to be more competitive for long haul traffic, and the US operators have big trans-continental freight networks well suited to that. In Europe there's a sharp drop off in modal share as freight crosses borders. Each national railway operator is in practice fiercely protective of its own turf, and there are a lot of hurdles to overcome. So in practice cross-border freight is largely done with trucks instead.
Despite the EU commission wanting to get some competition going on the rails and better interoperability requirements etc etc. for at least the past 30 years, the operators are still in the "discussion about preparing to setup a committee to discuss interoperability" phase.
> As for freight, the US actually moves a significantly greater portion of its freight by rail than Europe does. Rail has around 40% modal share for freight in the US vs only 17% in Europe.
Europe also has far more freight-friendly waterways. US rail is designed for dirt-cheap bulk transport for things like coal and grain. In most of Europe that's done by barge - but US geography doesn't really allow for that.
Since it's only 90 mm, I wonder if one could add some sort of a 45 mm lateral adapter between the rails and the ties on both sides. At least for low speed track parts...
Imagine one short "train" whose tail is able to pull up one rail of the track behind it. Then another train whose front is an automated thingamajig to take the loose rail and nail it down a specific distance from the fixed rail. How much play there is in the loose rail depends on how far apart these two train are. Notice that the nailer runs on the narrow rails while the nail-puller runs on the wide ones.
So odd - was listening to an account of this in an Audiobook just yesterday - "Why Nothing Works" by Marc Dunkelman. Was essentially making the point that this sort of thing would be several magnitudes of difficulty harder to pull off today, and certainly wouldn't happen within that timeframe.
'86, in the south? Let's not be racist and assume the labor was Chinese - surely it was 95% recently freed black slaves paid almost nothing + 'free' prison labor. (/s, a little).
This was 20 years after the Civil War. It consisted mostly of skilled and semi-skilled workers laborers that were White, African American and other immigrant labor. Chinese laborers were mostly concentrated in the West not the South. The reconstruction of the southern rail network involved many people who were part of the Southern economy and employment structure at that time
1886 is after The Compromise of 1877 which ended Reconstruction and lead to the rise of largely white supremacist Redeemer governments.
Though versions of the Convict Lease System had started earlier, even before the Civil War, it was in full force by 1886 and even accounted for a significant portion of many states’ annual revenue.
The supply of this labor was dramatically influenced by new laws that were selectively enforced, such as vagrancy laws that might apply to anyone traveling without immediate proof that they had an employer, “pig laws” that made petty thefts often convicted with poor standards of proof subject to extended prison sentences, and in some cases offenses like “mischief” and “insulting gestures”. There were even people who were impressed into this system as a result of violating the terms of a labor contract, which possibly becomes even more difficult to distinguish from slavery.
If you were caught up in this system, you were virtually powerless. Federal troops were long gone, there were instances of lawfully elected governments that had been overthrown by insurrection, and if you exposed the absurdity of this system and threatened it, you could easily be publicly lynched with no chance of repercussions for your murderers.
Ah yes, the 'absurdity' of enforcing laws and contracts; how dare a post-war society try to reestablish order without the constant supervision of federal troops. And of course, 'insulting gestures' clearly the backbone of any sinister system of oppression. It's amazing anything functioned at all without a daily constitutional check-in from the moral high ground
"'86, in the south? Let's not be racist and assume the labor was Chinese - surely it was 95% recently freed black slaves paid almost nothing + 'free' prison labor. (/s, a little)."
I made a more nuanced and historically grounded point, whereas your post was a sarcastic oversimplification. So no — you didn't say what I said. I emphasized the diversity and complexity of postbellum labor in the South; you gave a glib summary that oversimplifies it as mostly “recently freed black slaves paid almost nothing + ‘free’ prison labor.”
Your point is flat out misrepresenting the situation. Especially by listing White workers first. At that time, the only white workers in the south who would have been moving rail and driving spikes would have been on a prison work detail or in a similar severely legally compromised situation. Even getting white workers to couple cars didn’t happen until much later.
Again, you didn’t say what I said. I described a complex labor force with various roles and racial backgrounds. You gave a sarcastic oversimplification, and now you’re shifting to a narrower historical claim that contradicts your own original tone.
“Even getting white workers to couple cars didn’t happen until much later”
That’s an overstatement. While Black workers were indeed disproportionately given dangerous roles like coupling cars in the South, it wasn’t unheard of for white laborers - especially poor or immigrant - to do that work too
The labor structure wasn’t as racially absolute as you’re implying
I've got to be honest. The comment you're replying to is spot on.
The headline, "Model your domain, derive the rest" is fine by itself. But the paragraph underneath is just dismissible drivel; sure, I could click through the links to more detail, but you've not given me a reason to do so... you've not set the hook. Once I did click through the links, I'm either in the documentation, which is way too much, or at YouTube, etc. The opening paragraph doesn't give me enough reason to click through the links, and if I do I'm given what feels like a firehose.
I appreciate that's pretty harsh assessment of your landing page, but that's exactly how it strikes me and I think you need to hear it if your goal is really to capture audience. That landing page should give me the gist of what you do, several short paragraphs outlining the higher level features... I dunno, call them "selling points"... something that can give me cause to care enough to dig into some details. Once I care, then sure... I'll dive into the docs or watch a video.
As for the book ad other comments talk about: it's fine. I would expect that people that know what Ash Framework is also come to the page and having that out front isn't a problem and speaks to the existing community.
Personally, I already know what Ash Framework is, so I know you have some good selling points that could be summarized and that would be of interest to people. You just need to get them out front in as pithy a way as possible.
That's really helpful feedback and there are few comments mentioning exactly this and you're right, we can definitely explain more up front on the landing page so it's more obvious.
But even more than that I recommend Numberblocks. My kid loved that show and was doing multiplication by kindergarten, because he eagerly learned it from the show. And for a young kid's maths television program, some of the scripts and songs were surprisingly strong.
When your chief argument for your attaining political power is that you have been wrongly oppressed, you need need to identify the oppressors as a rallying point for would-be supporters. For Nazis, the Jews could be vilified as the cause of German suffering. For many progressives, that's "the deplorables" just as for conservatives it's the woke.
Of course, truth and the complexity of reality dilute and blunt the arguments of oppression which is precisely why you will never see your plan come to fruition. The world would be a nicer place, but those you need to act on your plan are the only ones that would be hurt by it.
Sal Mercogliano who runs "What's Going On with Shipping?" is one of the best informed commentators in the subjects of logistics and shipping. He's also a skilled presenter... enough so that I subscribe to his channel and I've not got any real special interest in subject (but I do recognize it's economic importance).
Also, in a different comment, his work at Campbell is mentioned, but I think that leaves open why he has anything important to say on the subject. His bio at the U.S. Naval Institute is more informative:
"Dr. Salvatore R. Mercogliano is an associate professor of history at Campbell University in North Carolina and adjunct professor at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He holds a bachelor of science in marine transportation from the State University of New York Maritime College, along with a merchant marine deck officer license (unlimited tonnage 2nd mate), a master’s in maritime history and nautical archaeology from East Carolina University, and a Ph.D. in military and naval history from the University of Alabama."
Wow I loved this "What's going on with US Ports" video. Subscribed. I love channels like this. People with a deep understanding that just report facts as they are.
That's the thing. "Mainstream" Media in the US are no longer bound to the fairness doctrine. Thus, we have corporate ownership which steers how a story is written or at all. Independent media beholden only to their viewers (not corporate benefactors) are incentivized to do what you want more effectively.
Thank goodness the alternative media is bound by the fairness doctrine and don't choose how to cover a story, or if at all, and not incentived to reinforce their audience's beliefs and extremify content for views.
At least they ensure they are well researched on the matters they talk about. Right?
Just when we thought everything was going well, in 1998, Erlang
was banned within Ericsson Radio AB (ERA) for new product
development. This ban was the second most significant event in
the history of Erlang: It led indirectly to Open Source Erlang and
was the main reason why Erlang started spreading outside Ericsson.
The reason given for the ban was as follows:
The selection of an implementation language implies a more
long-term commitment than the selection of a processor and
OS, due to the longer life cycle of implemented products.
Use of a proprietary language implies a continued effort to
maintain and further develop the support and the development environment. It further implies that we cannot easily
benefit from, and find synergy with, the evolution following
the large scale deployment of globally used languages. [26]
quoted in [12].
In addition, projects that were already using Erlang were allowed to continue but had to make a plan as to how dependence upon Erlang could be eliminated. Although the ban was only within
ERA, the damage was done. The ban was supported by the Ericsson technical directorate and flying the Erlang flag was thereafter not favored by middle management."
And to be completely fair....
"6.2 Erlang in recent times
In the aftermath of the IT boom, several small companies formed during the boom have survived, and Erlang has successfully rerooted itself outside Ericsson. The ban at Ericsson has not succeeded in completely killing the language, but it has limited its
growth into new product areas.
The plans within Ericsson to wean existing projects off Erlang did not materialise and Erlang is slowly winning ground due to a form of software Darwinism. Erlang projects are being delivered on
time and within budget, and the managers of the Erlang projects are
reluctant to make any changes to functioning and tested software.
The usual survival strategy within Ericsson during this time
period was to call Erlang something else. Erlang had been banned
but OTP hadn’t. So for a while no new projects using Erlang were
started, but it was OK to use OTP. Then questions about OTP
were asked: “Isn’t OTP just a load of Erlang libraries?”—and so
it became “Engine,” and so on."
As you suggest however, tooling for that workload is pretty rare. I want something that focuses on enhancing the database development experience: that understands that there are development workflows for database code which are well controlled and rigorous. So many database tools are focused on being system administrative aids first, or giving you features for directly interacting and <ack> altering the running state of the database and its server from the tool.
The best tool I found for what I do was targeted at Oracle: Allround Automation's PL/SQL Developer (https://www.allroundautomations.com/products/pl-sql-develope...). It's a development oriented tool that, at least last I used it, was focused on serious development work rather than administrative work. Now, I haven't used it in almost 20 years when last I did Oracle development... but I haven't found anything for PostgreSQL that has that thoughtfully implemented database developer centric feature set.
Today I muddle through with DataGrip. DataGrip has just enough of what I need that it's marginally better to work with than just a simple text editor... and also narrowly avoids some misfeatures as not to negate it's utility.