Do they run on renewables?
They run on overhead wires?
Europe is investing heavily in trains
41–50 of 654 posts
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#42Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#43More feasible than planes to electrify or switch to hydrogen (hydrogenify?)
You still have diesel trains ?!
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#44I feel that when the total cost of rail is taken into account, there are only a few very high density areas or high traffic routes where they make sense. I was recently reading about how large stretches of China's bullet train system cost tens of billions of dollars, and ongoing expenditure of billions more, and have hardly enough traffic to justify their maintenance, let alone their construction costs. There are some routes that are well utilized, but it seems that when you empower the government to make such infrastructure, there is massive malinvestment ... and its hard to know what the alternative could have been without such centralized planning.
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#45Living in Spain, I love trains and take them over airplane when it's an option. However, trains are often around twice as expensive as flying for may routes. I know nothing about trains, but intuitively I would expect the opposite, and I really wish it was more affordable, specially high speed rail.
Rail infrastructure is very expensive compared to planes. An airport is expensive, but once you've built it you're pretty much immediately connected to half the world. With a train station, you need a track to each surrounding stations, maintain them, and so on. Also, train doesn't scale down as well, it quickly becomes inefficient for the less dense routes. People are talking about subsidies (by not taxing fuel for…
Sure, but so are airports and so are roads. And all forms of infrastructure are sometimes prestige projects, and all are sometimes subject to political choices that while legitimate, in retrospect turn out to have been questionable.
It's possible that despite all that rail has higher costs - but it's also quite possible that the dominating factor is the unreasonably subsidized airline fuel. The tax-exempt status is absurd, especially given other fuel and power duties - not to mention that a reasonable accounting should be taxing fuel high enough to cover the costs of the climate-change externalities, which would result in an even higher price (as it happens, due to cloud formation, air travel causes even more warming than ground based fossil fuel consumption, though I'm unaware of whether that's a significant difference).
If indeed an honest accounting were to reveal that flight is still cheaper: great! But I seriously doubt it; and in any case it's certainly time to stop subsidizing air travel like this. Let the sector succeed or fail on its own merits, not by virtue of tax shenanigans.
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#46Here in Germany, for as long as I can remember, the government praises itself every year for investing as much in rail as never before. I have not noticed the service quality to change for the better over the last 15 years. The ever-rising investments seem to be only enough to keep the status quo of the crumbling infrastructure.
A youtuber explained that Italy overlayed high speed rail routes now and that it's pretty brilliant. Things are moving.
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article hints at why this is: > The fact remains that, despite the European Union’s support for rail, the bloc’s governments continue to grant enormous subsidies to airlines — in the form of bailout packages as well as low taxes on jet fuel — although that could change soon.
By definition, low taxes are not a subsidy. It is the trains that are heavily subsidized. The main reason behind the price difference is that there is plenty of competition between airlines for a given flight, eg Paris-Berlin, but no competition for the same train connection.
The argument that lower taxes isn't a subsidy is just stupid. It makes absolutely no meaningful difference if someone pays the same taxes as everyone else but then the government pay them some money, or if someone pays correspondingly lower taxes. In the end the recipient ends up with exactly the same amount of more money, and the government ends up with exactly the same amount of less money.
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#48It doesn't make sense to emphasize passenger travel over goods transport for rail. Rail's strength is efficient transport of heavy loads at slow speeds.
People are light and often want to go at high speeds.
Europe should reorient its rail network for rail transport, and passengers can travel by bus or plane.
But - Europe's rail network is completely reliant on subsidies, and its easier to get them when you're transporting politicians instead of lumber, steel, milk.
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
By definition, low taxes are not a subsidy. It is the trains that are heavily subsidized. The main reason behind the price difference is that there is plenty of competition between airlines for a given flight, eg Paris-Berlin, but no competition for the same train connection.
> By definition, low taxes are not a subsidy. The conspicuous lack of Pigouvian taxes on a fossil fuel for just one industry is definitely a subsidy. Someone else is paying for the externalities.
[deleted]
Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains
#50i love trains, it's cozy
too bad they are trying to make them insanely fast and silent af
life is meant to feel your surroundings