this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
59 points (91.5% liked)
Technology
78482 readers
2594 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean a hundred years is not much for a technology your government decides to build society around.
I mean, in that kind of timeframe, there were pretty major shifts in transportation.
For a long, long time, ships up rivers and along coasts was the way serious transportation happened.
Then we had the canal-building era in the US. I assume that the UK did the same.
searches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_age
So that was maybe sixty, seventy years before rail was really displacing it.
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't think that rail had a uniquely short era where it was the prime, go-to option compared to other transportation technologies...and I don't think I'd say that the golden era was short enough to make the technology not a worthwhile investment, even if it was later, in significant part, superseded. A hundred years is a long time to wait around without engine-driven transportation, which would have been the alternative.