Hacker News Reader

Comment by andriamanitra | Hacker News Reader

Currently the leading plan is to build another narrower track alongside the existing ones (so the old trains can keep operating), but it is still in the planning phase. [1] I am not convinced this project is ever going to pay for itself. I feel like you could move cargo from one train to another somewhere near the border for quite a long time with the money it is going to take to convert the entire rail network. Finland is only connected to Sweden and Norway by land in the North so it's not really going to connect the Finnish rail network to Europe either (unless the Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel [2] gets built, but it does not seem likely at this time).

[1] https://yle.fi/a/74-20161793

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki%E2%80%93Tallinn_Tunne...

View on HN

> I am not convinced this project is ever going to pay for itself.

The subtext is not economic: it's "in the event of being invaded by Russia, can we minimize the delays in moving NATO materiel by rail to the front while denying Russia equally easy access to the rails".

Assuming Russia waits 30-50 years until Finland has new tracks :))

Well, the last Russian invasion of Finland was over 80 years ago, and presumably Russia will continue to exist in some form..

It will take that long for them to replace their military stockpiles.

The silver lining in the horrific invasion of Ukraine is that the Russian bear's belly is not just exposed, but raw from shaving nicks.

Granted, it still takes a lot to kill a bear - but the West only wants deterrence, not occupation of Russia.

I understand that but it is still economic: I highly doubt fixing a minor delay in material movement is the most effective use of these billions.

I don’t think it’s a minor delay. In other places where gauge changes are necessary, I think it typically takes on the order of an hour or a few hours, so if you need a big logistics operation across the border from Sweden into Finland, that bottleneck is going to absolutely murder your throughput.

I hadn't considered throughput but that's a good point. Under normal circumstances even a few hours is meaningless but if you need to get lots of trains across the border in a short span of time it starts to accumulate.

The land border between Sweden and Finland is in the far north where few people live. It would be preferred to not do switches there because that means you need to build/maintain a town for all the needed workers (and families), and said town won't provide much opportunities for any other jobs. In short if you must switch gauges you really want to to be in a smaller city (maybe 100k people) that has other reason to exist so you have a pool of people to hire, who have other reasons to live there and thus have family there.

It is not a minor delay and in case of war such a delay can easily cost billions.

And if there isn't a war, the benefits of a interconnected and integrated european railwail network are potentially huge. 300 km/h trains connecting Finnland with Spain with no delay or bumps? That would be something.

> 300 km/h trains connecting Finnland with Spain with no delay or bumps?

Bit tricky this: either you cross the Baltic by ferry and resume at Tallinn, or you have to go a long way round north from Helsinki and come down again through Sweden, across Oresund and through Denmark.

Couldn't they build something similar to the eurotunnel but with denmark and sweden?

There is a bridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge

And more tunnels are getting build.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link

Oh. I should've looked it up before making a statement on it. My apologies and thanks for the correction.

That bridge is going to be incredibly easy to destroy, should a big enough country wish that. And it definitely isn't going to be rebuilt quickly enough to matter for a war.

With nukes, you can destroy anything. Otherwise the kerch bridge is still standing.

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

Russia does not want that bridge to fall. Ukraine likely does but wasn't able to execute (outside of artillery range by now, limited access to long-range missiles, utter lack of sea power in the area, failure to anticipate circumstances enough to take it out while they still had control over area). All other countries are trying to not get involved, including not selling Ukraine (many) long-distance high destructive power missiles.

I wouldn't generalize from that to "nobody could destroy a bridge".

"I wouldn't generalize from that to "nobody could destroy a bridge".

Moving goalposts?

"That bridge is going to be incredibly easy to destroy"

Of course bridges can be destroyed. Also Ukraine would have succeded by now, if it really would have changed the war and justify the efforts.

(It doesn't anymore, since russia has the land train connections)

But it really ain't "incredibly easy", if that bridge is guarded. The failed attempts document as much - and Ukraine knows how to destroy things by now.

Yeah, I meant the northern way, but a tunnel into the baltics, or a normal, peaceful landconnection over St.Petersburg would of course make more sense for connecting Helsinki. Or connecting Helsinki with Stockholm via Åland.

All nice concepts. All quite expensive obviously.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/03/08/will-a-bridge-acros...

https://ferryshippingnews.com/aland-islands-tunnel-is-back-o...

> 300 km/h trains connecting Finnland with Spain with no delay or bumps?

Have you seen a map of the region?

The Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel would be expensive, but in the current climate of hostilities with Russia, the EU could support it just to make a point.

It would also enable high-speed services from Finland to Central Europe - Rail Baltica to Tallinn is currently being built, so Helsinki-Warsaw could be a plausible connection, doable in less than 8 hours. (More than ideal, but trains that run for 8 hours from one end of their journey to another are commonplace in Central Europe.)

Estonia / Eastern Europe uses the Russian gauge.

Rail Baltica will connect the Baltics to European rail network using 1435mm gauge. It is scheduled to be fully operational in 2030.

The idea for the Baltics is that east-west lines can remain Russian gauge but north-south lines (esp. new ones) are European gauge.

Discussions of a Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel suggest that Finland would at least lay European gauge tracks to Espoo and Helsinki-Vantaa airport, and maybe also to Tampere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com