131–140 of 207 posts
We would need a European infrastructure project for:
* major new transnational lines
* separation from passenger and cargo lines
* self coupling/decoupling wagons
And when you are on it, build some Thorium reactors to power them.
Relevant:
https://www.thelocal.se/20200116/sweden-reveals-plans-for-ov...
I really don't get why trains can be so expensive and what we need to do to fix that. To an extent, flying is just way too cheap. I mean, I was looking at a roundtrip london/barcelona just last week, it was $25. By train I'm looking at at least 10 hours, likely more like 15, and $300. Both the $25 and the $300 just seem wrong. Flying is way too cheap, but I also don't get how $300 per person is competitive against so…
Airlines do one hop, and revenue optimise by having the aircraft near-full on that hop, which entails an aggressive pricing model especially since there's usually direct competitors showing up in the same flight search. They also make a lot of ancillary revenue from charging you another $30 for your luggage. Long distance trains usually have several intermediate stages they can sell tickets on, often with no public t…
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…
Dutch rail infra was designed as a commuter network, and it shows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because politics. Trains are very national in the EU and even after this many years that still gets in the way of effective train based transportation. Plus heavy rail is flat out expensive to put down and maintain and the cars are and engines themselves all contribute the initial cost of establishing a line as well as maintenance. Then the kicker compared to airline travel, you cannot simply reroute a train. It is s…
> Because politics. Trains are very national in the EU Ah, of course, it's the 'free market' that's the solution. I mean it's complete shit in the UK, where I live, but am sure that's just an outlier. The U.S. healthcare industry is a strong proof that the private model for essential services works flawlessly and now there's Reds again running in the election campaigning for 'Medicare for All'. Outrageous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Airlines do one hop, and revenue optimise by having the aircraft near-full on that hop, which entails an aggressive pricing model especially since there's usually direct competitors showing up in the same flight search. They also make a lot of ancillary revenue from charging you another $30 for your luggage. Long distance trains usually have several intermediate stages they can sell tickets on, often with no public t…
This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. I'm not sure what the fix is - having multiple companies sharing the same track seem dubious but maybe that's answer. Either that or let a bunch of companies put down redundant lines.
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…
A large part of the comfort factor is that a direct train takes me from city center to city center, while a "direct" flight requires me to first get to the airport, then navigate the airport, then get from the destination airport to the city. That not only easily adds at least 2 hours to the trip (30 min x 2 spent getting to/from the airport, 30 minutes to get through the airport/security in the best case, 30 minutes to be there at the boarding time), you also spend at least half of the time actively having to do something.
A 4 hour train vs. a 1 hour flight? The flight shaves off one hour of wall-clock time at best, at the cost of being a lot more hassle. But you don't think about this when booking, nor about the luggage surcharge etc. You see "4:00" vs. "1:07" and "$99" vs. "$29".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I flew from Amsterdam to Dublin for €19. I then took the train from Dublin to Cork for ... €60. The distance from Amsterdam to Dublin is about 750km, three times as long as Dublin-Cork (you can also take the bus for €15 or some such, but last time I did that I got rather carsick, so I figured I'd take the train, not knowing how expensive it was!)
You can go from one side of The Netherlands from the other for about €20 on the train and you can have unlimited train travel for €350 a month (and considerably less for a given route).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, not only it is cheaper, it is much more effective regarding use of time. Zurich to Paris just takes too long by train, and doing night trains isn't always an option.
For some journeys, the train takes disproportionately longer (Zurich -> Vienna) but when you consider that the journey is way more comfortable on a train (more space, ability to walk around), train stations are in the middle of the city and there is no security or check in queue, the longer journey is more bearable
I really don't get why trains can be so expensive and what we need to do to fix that. To an extent, flying is just way too cheap. I mean, I was looking at a roundtrip london/barcelona just last week, it was $25. By train I'm looking at at least 10 hours, likely more like 15, and $300. Both the $25 and the $300 just seem wrong. Flying is way too cheap, but I also don't get how $300 per person is competitive against so…
Jet fuel is tax free, energy and diesel for trains is not. https://simpleflying.com/eu-jet-fuel-tax/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because politics. Trains are very national in the EU and even after this many years that still gets in the way of effective train based transportation. Plus heavy rail is flat out expensive to put down and maintain and the cars are and engines themselves all contribute the initial cost of establishing a line as well as maintenance. Then the kicker compared to airline travel, you cannot simply reroute a train. It is s…
Privatized trains are worse, in the UK they've just given the go ahead for a $140 billion high speed rail project, HS2. A decade ago we build HS1, a 67 mile track between London and the Channel Tunnel, for a total of $7.6 billion ($112m / mile). HS2 is longer but its 330 miles of tracks will cost $400m / mile. The project costs make absolutely no sense: London is a special weird place in the UK where everything you b…
See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590
The only other thing I'd add is that Euston is easily within walking distance of St Pancras. But given all this already extraordinary cost it seems like you might as well connect St Pancras and Euston HS lines and have the odd Eurostar service run from Birmingham.