Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

back-on-track.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 207 posts

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#51

Post by bloogsy »

pjmlp wrote: post #33
dbmueller wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 hours isn't that long, is it? plane cannot beat that by much

If it only took 4h, experience shows otherwise. In any case, that was just an example, I am not doing Germany - Portugal by train, unless forced to do so. It is more than 24h.

> In any case, that was just an example, I am not doing Germany - Portugal by train, unless forced to do so. It is more than 24h.

That's the point, we need to expand the rail network to make longer distance trips shorter, more comfortable, and affordable. Flying can't continue to be the default option.

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#52

Post by bnt »

tluyben2 wrote: post #45
Darmody wrote: post #5

As a European I love this. Not only because it's better for the environment but I really like trains. They are confy, fast and cheap. There's no need to pay extra for your baggage, you just hop in with your stuff, take a seat, read, watch a movie, listen to a podcast or sleep for a while and you're already at your destination.

Depends on what distances you are travelling I suppose; the prices for longer travel are, imho, very high and sure it is comfy but compared to a plane? Planes are cheaper and much faster. At the same price I think many would still take the plane. If trains were vastly cheaper, then maybe it would change a lot. But only inside the Netherlands, I only know a few commuters in my circles who go by train; the rest drive a…

Also, trains in the Netherlands are highly unreliable with regular unplanned shutdowns (due to natural factors like heavy rain or human factors like high suicide rates by jumping infront of trains). Also, commuters tend to be too comfortable (taking off their shoes, talking loudly on the phone or messy eating).

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#53

Post by dzhiurgis »

dEnigma wrote: post #26
dzhiurgis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not that comfortable. Sure you've got slightly more leg space than Ryanair, but difference is minimal. The only train I've really ever liked was Amtrak, but unsure whether I was somehow upgraded to their premium seats. Taking Canadian train after that was a torture. Also they are much more expensive. Which makes sense as tech itself is legacy. The cost of maintaining, lack of competition (especially with bus…

I've never been on a train and wished that I'd taken the bus instead (or that the line was replaced by buses). The ride is much smoother, I have more space for myself and my baggage and I can more or less comfortably use the toilet.

Nor did I. But many times I've looked at train prices and bus boy did I consider.

I've once missed my train in UK. Next one was something like 120 pounds vs 8 pounds for bus. I think it's the last time I've ever took bus.

IMHO difference in price should start to increase as electric bus TCO is already lower than diesel. The difference in XP should increase as less noise and pollution is added. Plus adding premium seats, air suspension would make a massive difference.

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#54

Post by pr0duktiv »

papaf wrote: post #32
pr0duktiv wrote: post #2

Glad that they’re working on it, right now flying is just cheaper on many cases. Need to go from Zurich to Paris? The TGV Train will cost you almost twice as much as a short direct flight. Berlin to Munich? Also cheaper by plane. Being a student with a limited budget, this very much affects my decision.

Also cheaper by plane. Being a student with a limited budget, this very much affects my decision. My tips would be: * Book at least a week in advance. * Buy a Bahn Card 25. * Get up early. If you do this Berlin -> Munich is €44.90 next Saturday on the 4 hour fast train. Also don't forget, it costs around €11 to go from Munich airport to the city.

Might have been a bad example, I was about to book the TGV from Zurich to Paris 5 weeks in advance for a weekend trip and I have the Swiss half-fare subscription (like BahnCard 50). Still would’ve been ~170€ instead of 90 CHF for a direct flight (both ways)

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#55

Post by DeusExMachina »

yulaow wrote: post #24
dzhiurgis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not that comfortable. Sure you've got slightly more leg space than Ryanair, but difference is minimal. The only train I've really ever liked was Amtrak, but unsure whether I was somehow upgraded to their premium seats. Taking Canadian train after that was a torture. Also they are much more expensive. Which makes sense as tech itself is legacy. The cost of maintaining, lack of competition (especially with bus…

I don't know which trains you took but here in europe even the less costly trains (regional trains) are far far far more comfy than any ryanair airplane (saying this as a 193cm man), especially if you want to stand up often or just want to have more than two bathroom every 150 people. If you take a fast train the experience is not even remotely comparable, they are more spacious, cleaner and offer more optionals. Yea…

Plus, train stations are often in the city centers, while airports are on the outskirts and are often not easy to reach.

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#56

Post by ReptileMan »

Central and South Europe have a shitload of mountains. Traversing them will be a total pain as infrastructure to build for high speed rail.

North of the alps and south of the Scandinavian is doable, but a lot of that territory is Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

You have a natural corridor that can connect france with finland - which maps nicely with the hanseatic league territories. But from Athens to Amsterdam there is no way to build competitive train service compared to flights.

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#57

Post by switch007 »

Darmody wrote: post #5

As a European I love this. Not only because it's better for the environment but I really like trains. They are confy, fast and cheap. There's no need to pay extra for your baggage, you just hop in with your stuff, take a seat, read, watch a movie, listen to a podcast or sleep for a while and you're already at your destination.

Comfort etc won’t last for long. In the UK new trains seem to mimic planes with their hard upright seats. Eg the LNER Azuma trains are horrible to travel on. They constantly cut corners on speccing trains. Ask anyone how the ride is on the new Caledonian Sleeper service...!

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#58

Post by ben-schaaf »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #8
Darmody wrote: post #5

As a European I love this. Not only because it's better for the environment but I really like trains. They are confy, fast and cheap. There's no need to pay extra for your baggage, you just hop in with your stuff, take a seat, read, watch a movie, listen to a podcast or sleep for a while and you're already at your destination.

They are not that comfortable. Sure you've got slightly more leg space than Ryanair, but difference is minimal. The only train I've really ever liked was Amtrak, but unsure whether I was somehow upgraded to their premium seats. Taking Canadian train after that was a torture. Also they are much more expensive. Which makes sense as tech itself is legacy. The cost of maintaining, lack of competition (especially with bus…

> Honestly I don't see how we can't replace trains with electric buses...

Oh geez. Even with our pretty crappy trains in Australia, I'd still take a train every time. Trains are faster, offer much smoother rides and are much more efficient than busses.

Re: More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights

#59

Post by postingawayonhn »

ced wrote: post #31
postingawayonhn wrote: post #12

Aviation only makes up about 2% of total global C02 emissions. Hardly even worth worrying about. Results will be much better if resources are focused on the big emitters (road transport, electricity/heating, and manufacturing).

Aviation only makes up about 2% of total global C02 emissions. Because the majority of humanity has never flown at all. What fraction of your CO2 emissions came from flying last year?

Fair point, though I don't see any major problem even if air travel was to increase by 2 or 3 times, so long as we make significant reductions in other areas.

I took 6 flights (~3,000km each).

I would start with the immediate implementation of a tax (10%?, 20%?) on all new ICE vehicle sales. Revenue from this tax would be used to subsidize the purchase of EVs.

Post reply on HN