51–60 of 215 posts
One high-level design choice that they made is to entirely skip any kind of in-seat entertainment and screens and instead of plan around people showing up with their own tablets and phones (to which they provide power). This makes immense sense to me and I'm sure simplifies things on their side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"airfare-level prices"? In Germany and Austria my experience was that flying was generally cheaper than the train, and sleeper trains more expensive still. I'm on a (day) train between Berlin and Vienna this very minute and it costed me €99 (one way!) where as a flight would have been about €50. You can get cheaper tickets if booking well in advance (months) but the same applies to budget airlines.
The joke is that airfare is way too cheap compared to the damage it causes - be it noise, exhaust gases or land usage for airport infrastructure. In addition jet fuel in Europe is tax-free which enables these ultra low prices.
However the railway ought to be more expensive overall due to the other costs: requires build-out and maintenance of extensive ground based network, including some prime real estate; requires much longer occupancy of vehicles; requires much more man-hours for each vehicle crew. Sadly in most settings (like continental Europe) the fixed costs of rail are barely visible to our considerations due to the governmental funding. Meanwhile airplanes only require build-out of the end-points, and the crew required is minimal.
The only meaningful way of fixing the problems with rail is 1) high speed (Mach 0.5 ... 1); 2) de-coupling from wheels-on-rails as the source of noise, drag and speed limitation; 3) de-coupling from expensive on-the-ground infrastructure as cause of high costs and NIMBYism; 4) high automation, little to no amenities; 5) smaller vehicles, more frequent departures. All in all, going in the airplane-like direction. Hyperloop may just be the thing, if it ever becomes large scale commercial.
[1] per passenger * km. Example: https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-...
Elegant, comfortable travel across Europe * * For people exact height of 160cm
The beds are surely at least 2m? What makes it uncomfortable for someone over 160?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then problem of price still remains before wide popularity for sleepers or even just long daytrips. I'd love to use trains more often, but I'm not willing to pay through the nose. A trip in Central Europe I recently booked would've been over twice the price with a train, with maybe a couple of hours longer travel time when accounting for airport trips and waiting. Second class, just a daytime journey without sleeping…
The EU should force a carbon tax on plane fuel for intra-EU flights and subsidize rail with the money.
I'm always comparing the travel times between train and plane. I even account for the time going to the airport, airport transfer etc and if it's roughly the same (which it sometimes is) I'll get on a train but if Ryanair can offer 9 Euro flights (Berlin -> Brussels) this is not going to be a real competition.
Sleeper trains make so much sense for travel over land. They are often competitively priced with air travel, they pollute a lot less and the time saved can be huge when you consider that you spend time travelling when you would otherwise be asleep (although this is sometimes true for air travel, many/most people find it difficult to get quality sleep in economy class). The London - Edinburgh sleeper train (Caledonian…
Excited for our first overnight train ride in their new hotel-room style sleeper cars (with a private bath and shower) later this summer. Even for a family of 6, when you factor in the (saved) cost of overnight acommodations in either London or Edinburgh, it was one of the most affordable ways to travel between those two cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that Montana and North Dakota, which provide most of the mileage of the route, each have just one congressional district.
I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a regular train?
In the US I would take a sleeper train from Seattle to Chicago instead of a plane provided the sleeper train runs 180 mph on average. That would put me in Chicago in about 10-12 hours, meaning I could get to Union Station in Seattle, get on the train, sleep a full night, wake up, eat breakfast, and disembark in Chicago. The red-eye to Chicago, which is a comparable trip, really sucks because you only get about 3 hour…
I mean, I would pay airline-level prices for an autonomous electric air drone taxi from my house in Seattle to my destination in Chicago, and as crazy as that sounds, it still might be more realistic than what you're asking for.
In the US I would take a sleeper train from Seattle to Chicago instead of a plane provided the sleeper train runs 180 mph on average. That would put me in Chicago in about 10-12 hours, meaning I could get to Union Station in Seattle, get on the train, sleep a full night, wake up, eat breakfast, and disembark in Chicago. The red-eye to Chicago, which is a comparable trip, really sucks because you only get about 3 hour…
how are these comparable
If US had high speed rail I would have a different answer, but it doesnt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that Montana and North Dakota, which provide most of the mileage of the route, each have just one congressional district.
I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a regular train?
Since Amtrak has to exclusively use private cargo rail lines, none of which support high-speed rail, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
One high-level design choice that they made is to entirely skip any kind of in-seat entertainment and screens and instead of plan around people showing up with their own tablets and phones (to which they provide power). This makes immense sense to me and I'm sure simplifies things on their side.
Agreed. Southwest Airlines does this in the US, with "free" wifi access to their entertainment app/portal. I much prefer it to the often terrible seat-back screens on some other carriers.