Live data from Hacker News

Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

citylab.com

51–60 of 334 posts

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#51
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also trains can derail, which takes the whole line out of action.

Planes operate at the whim of the weather. High winds are way more common than train derailments, and they take out a hub, not a line.

Trains aren't hurricane proof either so we can take those right off the table. Of the rest, it takes very exceptional storms to blockade an airport for more than a few minutes. Delays that occur because of snow and fog are not because the commercial airliners can't fly in those conditions, but because the ground infrastructure can't clear the snow quickly enough, or because the reduction in visibility means increasing separation requirements on approach to landing and therefore reduces overall throughput. In places where it snows a lot there exists sufficient infrastructure to handle it (Chicago, Denver, Moscow). Even thunderstorms are not typically a big problem for commercial airliners and their airports; the controllers declare holds while the storm passes directly overhead and they're back in business in under an hour. And hubs that systematically are hammered by storms aren't hubs for much longer, a luxury that any railroad executive would kill for.

This is particularly impressive if you compare average airliner delays to average Amtrak delays.

Modern airliners are remarkably good at handling typical bad weather.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#52
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never thought of that. Just replace the roads with rails. Remove redundant links in the highway network. Sounds like a job for a graph algorithm straight out of CS 261.

I'm not sure you can just replace highways with railroads. Changing modes isn't completely free--you have to have enough parking for passengers, freight handling equipment for freight, and in some cases, you might have to load entire vehicles onto railcars. This cancels out a lot of the benefits of rail. But, you can definitely reuse or expand the same right-of-way you had for some of the trunk highways and run rail…

“enough parking for passengers, freight handling equipment for freight, and in some cases, you might have to load entire vehicles onto railcars.”

There is no successful rail station anywhere on Earth that has any of that junk.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#53
post #21
post #11

No mention of China. They built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail in 15 years. They’ll be at 24,000 miles by 2025. The low/medium speed maglevs also seem interesting: https://gbtimes.com/china-tests-new-generation-of-maglev-tra... A 70-100 mph maglev would be useful in a few large cities.

I'd take a 100mph maglev to LA from San Francisco if it meant faster than airport boarding, on-time departure and arrival, and a seat where I can put my legs up for the same price or less than a flight.

Does it have to be maglev? Does it have to be that slow?

Modern trains with wheels on rails are typically between 200 and 300 km/h: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-...

*edit: replaced old link with a better one.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you can just replace highways with railroads. Changing modes isn't completely free--you have to have enough parking for passengers, freight handling equipment for freight, and in some cases, you might have to load entire vehicles onto railcars. This cancels out a lot of the benefits of rail. But, you can definitely reuse or expand the same right-of-way you had for some of the trunk highways and run rail…

“enough parking for passengers, freight handling equipment for freight, and in some cases, you might have to load entire vehicles onto railcars.” There is no successful rail station anywhere on Earth that has any of that junk.

Which is why you can't just replace links in the highway network with rail.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#55
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planes operate at the whim of the weather. High winds are way more common than train derailments, and they take out a hub, not a line.

Trains aren't hurricane proof either so we can take those right off the table. Of the rest, it takes very exceptional storms to blockade an airport for more than a few minutes. Delays that occur because of snow and fog are not because the commercial airliners can't fly in those conditions, but because the ground infrastructure can't clear the snow quickly enough, or because the reduction in visibility means increasin…

> This is particularly impressive if you compare average airliner delays to average Amtrak delays.

> Modern airliners are remarkably good at handling typical bad weather.

Why are you comparing modern airliners to archaic rail systems? Amtrak is far from the shining example of modern rail.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#56
post #50
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's relevant to mention [1] and [2]. A lot of things can get done if you aren't constrained by economic and political considerations. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19549466 [2] https://www.ft.com/content/ca28f58a-955d-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee...

Everyone is constrained by economic considerations. It's not like China has unlimited money. They are just choosing sectors and making bets on what to prioritize and what to ignore, same as everyone else.

You're right, but it's still relevant to note whether something is successful on its own accord, or whether it's being propped up by the government. If something can't be profitably done in a country as dense as China, there's no hope of it ever working in the US. At that point you might as well go with planes and spend the savings on carbon sequestration methods instead.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#57
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also trains can derail, which takes the whole line out of action.

Planes operate at the whim of the weather. High winds are way more common than train derailments, and they take out a hub, not a line.

Even volcanic eruptions crop up with surprising frequency and result in vast disruptions to air traffic. Those disruptions can last for weeks and can shut down a single hub or potentially multiple hubs across a region depending on which way the ash cloud blows.

As an example, every few years the volcano on Bali comes to life and hundreds, if not thousands, of flights get delayed or canceled.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#59
post #28
post #11

No mention of China. They built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail in 15 years. They’ll be at 24,000 miles by 2025. The low/medium speed maglevs also seem interesting: https://gbtimes.com/china-tests-new-generation-of-maglev-tra... A 70-100 mph maglev would be useful in a few large cities.

I think it's relevant to mention [1] and [2]. A lot of things can get done if you aren't constrained by economic and political considerations. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19549466 [2] https://www.ft.com/content/ca28f58a-955d-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee...

For what it's worth, the Interstate Highway System and connecting roadways also receive special financial and political consideration, often and infamously to the detriment of working class/politically-disadvantaged middle class (and often minority) communities.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#60

Trains are a messy, loud and dangerous way of moving stuff. But yes, it's fuel efficient. But so fucking dangerous and primitive in so many ways. Rail needs a lot of technology, and then it will be amazing. I don't think it's thsy far off.

> Trains are a messy, loud and dangerous way of moving stuff.

How so?

Post reply on HN