Slightly off-topic, but couldn't help but notice on the Projects list a really cool version of the London tube. Unfortunately it seems it's from 2014 (there's even some quote from Boris as Mayor), so probably scrapped by now? Makes me wonder if these Austrian train designs are already set in stone or just a proposal that might or might not happen.
Shockingly it's not been scrapped - the deep tube programme is, to some extent, unscrappable.
"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.
> where as a flight would have been about €50. To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport.
Berlin AB ticket (for Tegel airport), EUR 2.80.
Berlin ABC ticket (for Schönefeld airport), EUR 3.40.
Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. 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; requi…
That's a misleading statement. From your linked article: "Trains in countries like Japan are predominantly electric and transport a much larger number of people per cabin than trains in the US. While it’s difficult to broadly compare trains between regions it’s safe to say that trains in European and Asian countries are far more fuel efficient than those in the US, making them a leading option for travel. In most cas…
Why are they 'surely' at least 2m? The beds on the Caledonian aren't that long. A standard (not King) bed is only 190 cm in most countries. You're not going to get a King-length bed on a train - that's not a reasonable expectation.
Im 180 and never felt a difference in length from my home bed to the sleeper train beds. They may be shorter but not so much that it bothered me. That’s why I assumed they were the same as home beds (standard length in Europe is 200).
What a great design. I like the simplicity and the lightness of it all. One thing I don't understand is the private berths. > Private berths are fitted in both First and Standard Class carriages and can be booked for business passengers or families travelling together. They are completely transparent, nice for the lightness. But bad for privacy. I can see many reasons why a business meeting would not want prying eyes…
If you often do this there are privacy films for your computer screen that drastically reduce horizontal viewing angles and greatly improve privacy.
The beds are surely at least 2m? What makes it uncomfortable for someone over 160?
Why are they 'surely' at least 2m? The beds on the Caledonian aren't that long. A standard (not King) bed is only 190 cm in most countries. You're not going to get a King-length bed on a train - that's not a reasonable expectation.
Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. 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; requi…
That's a misleading statement. From your linked article: "Trains in countries like Japan are predominantly electric and transport a much larger number of people per cabin than trains in the US. While it’s difficult to broadly compare trains between regions it’s safe to say that trains in European and Asian countries are far more fuel efficient than those in the US, making them a leading option for travel. In most cas…
Physics gets removed from the conversation when we start to view trains as endlessly more efficient than airplanes. They aren’t, and in the US part of that equation is the requirement to make passenger trains able to survive a full collision with a freight train, adding a great deal of weight and removing much of the physical advantage of low rolling resistance. Other examples are the overly prescriptive regulations for trains, which is a situation that the aeronautical industry has recently been able to make major gains on. Trains are great, but they’re not necessarily better for the environment or the users than airplanes because of their physics.
> where as a flight would have been about €50. To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport.
>To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport. Vienna should be less than 5€ for the airport + VOR ticket.
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…
Taking the night train between London and Edinburgh used to me and my partners absolute favourite way of making that journey. If you get yourself into a deep enough sleep (admittedly I didn't always manage) it can feel like magic to wake up at your destination having wasted no useful time; having not been irradiated or felt up; and not being subject to enforced retail operations.
Yeah generally I used to find a sleeping pill mandatory for sleepers, the downside being that one tends to leave at least one possession behind in the cabin the morning after.
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.
Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. 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; requi…
A 3 passenger car at 25 MPG significantly beat airlines in fuel efficiency per passenger mile assuming reasonably direct routes.
Busses and trains both crush aircraft from a physics standpoint assuming similar occupancy. Though of course with very low occupancy per cabin things can shift.