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

Europe is investing heavily in trains

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#291

Post by sokoloff »

lillecarl wrote: post #259
noirbot wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, that doesn't seem like that useful of a number, since Frankfurt is a fairly major layover airport for international travel. I guess the more specific question would be how many Germans fly to elsewhere in Germany or Central Europe vs. taking a train. I generally have to either do a long car trip or a flight to get around in the US outside of some specific corridors. Presumably most of Europe has the option to ta…

And yet layover flights are decreasing since the 2 engine restriction was "lifted". A 787 can fly non stop for as long as would be comfortable for someone to be on a plane. According to Wendover Productions.

But there’s still a connection/hub-and-spoke system. You could fill a 787 with enough fuel to fly from Columbus, OH to Venice, but you couldn’t fill it with enough people to make it make sense.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#292

Post by mcv »

einpoklum wrote: post #203
cheschire wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having commuted with both american and german rail systems before, my educated guess it's likely due to who owns the rails. American rail freight companies have far more control over prioritization than european freight companies. DB Netz owns the vast majority of german rail and therefore prioritizes what makes them the most money. Historically that's been carrying people due to all the government and company subsid…

But why couldn't DB Netz do both people and freight, if both are profitable (after subsidies for passenger traffic)? i.e. why does it have to be a choice?

I think they do. The Dutch railway definitely does. But a lot of freight is actually transported over rivers, which is very efficient. Though also still by trucks, sadly, which is not.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#293

Post by Nick87633 »

ncmncm wrote: post #276
TeeMassive wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against using Hydrogen but the problem is always what are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more efficient energetically and emission wise?

Hydrogen can be produced electrically from water. A positively stupendous amount of electrolysis equipment will need to be built out, but there will be demand for as much as can be produced. Burning hydrogen produces mainly water. Burned in an engine, it also produces nitrous oxides, so probably some ammonia would be dissolved in to scavenge that. Liquid hydrogen takes up a lot more room than kerosene. The insulated…

Just because the tank is light, doesn't mean that a completed fuel carriage will be much lighter than any other car.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#294

Post by ncmncm »

ascar wrote: post #202
Etheryte wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to ~1.19 trips per person per year. Not to say there is no progress, but rather that the number of trips is low to begin with. If you contrast the money spent with the end result of roughly one trip per person per year, things are not that rosy.

> The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita... Which is still an absolute number. Just in another context. It's a relative improvement of 32% which is approximately 3% per year. Not ground breaking, but a nice steady improvement. ICE usage is also much higher (~6x ) than in-country plane usage to give another point of context. [1](percentage of domestic flights) [2](total air passengers) I thin…

32% is a remarkably large change in a demographic behavior. Of course the majority make no trips, and a relative few take it frequently.

More meaningful numbers would be how many use it 5 times or more in a year, and how many miles they traveled. Anybody who doesn't use the train at all doesn't really count, unless there was a likelihood of enticing them aboard.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#295

Post by gumby »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #281
lotsofpulp wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet US airlines (United/American/Delta/Southwest/Alaska/JetBlue) are barely profitable, if not losing money many years. The most hated airline, Spirit, has the most consistent profit margin 10%+, but all the others are near 0% most years.

Air travel is expensive. Airframe maintenance is expensive and labor intensive. Pilots are highly skilled professionals and need to be paid as such. Jet fuel is expensive. Handling baggage is a logistical challenge. Due to the nature of aircraft, they have low limits on passenger capacity. The government subsidizes air travel into rural areas through the Essential Air Services with about 1/6th the budget it puts into…

Why are airfares so much cheaper in Europe and Asia than they are in the US?

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#296

Post by ascari »

gandalfian wrote: post #221

Here in the UK the train to London is five hours and £75. The coach is £15 and eight hours. Four people in a car perhaps £10 a head. Trains are nicer but there is something annoyingly mysterious about the ecomomcs of it all.

Train services are totally a joke in the UK.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#297

Post by nicoburns »

hilbert42 wrote: post #243
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use trains here in Poland and although there have been big improvements, a lot of them are only a facade. Long distance PKP trains are still late everyday. The regional trains in my city tend to be over-packed, and from a technical pov they’re more like larger diesel buses than trains. However, in response to the earlier comment and this one as well, I would have to say that investment doesn’t always mean immediate…

I can't help but feel much of this argument is relative. From my experience (I'm no longer a European resident) almost all of the European rail network that I've traveled on (and that's quite a lot) beats much of the infrastructure in Anglophone countries—and I'm referring to both track and rolling-stock). (...Perhaps my view has been formed by the fact that I've come from a low base in Anglophone countries, so every…

As a UK resident, I can't help but wonder which group you're including the UK in. We're both a European and an anglophone country!

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#298

Post by m2fkxy »

lobochrome wrote: post #288

Observations from a frequent train traveller in Germany and Japan: - Train Travel works when the frequency of trains is so high that you do not need to think about "a" connection, but instead just choose the "next" connection. - Any significant number of delayed trains are a problem when one has important appointments. Morning meetings require an overnight trip, even if an early morning connection would usually work.…

> Electrification of lines is just not happening anymore in Germany. It's politically more sexy to do something with Hydrogen. Very odd.

"Odd" is a fine euphemism to describe Germany's energy strategy.

> By trying to remodel stations cheaply for commerce, most stations in Germany have become unpleasant to navigate. Signage is particularly bad (compared to Japan)

Yes... Parisian train stations are also becoming gigantic shopping malls that happen to have train tracks in their premises... an infuriating experience.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#299

Post by jounker »

rootusrootus wrote: post #84
noahtallen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m an American who recently took a train in Europe from Paris to Brussels. Some brief thoughts: - It was so fast! Under 90 minutes for a journey which would have taken a few hours by car. Clearly much faster than a plane on this particular route, due to extra waiting and security in airports. - It was also a very comfortable mode. If you’re traveling with friends, it’d be very easy to socialize around a table. Quiet…

> Too expensive for the route That's the one that surprised me the most. I shouldn't have been surprised, I suppose, given that even Amtrak is quite expensive compared to air travel, but I was a little shocked at just how expensive trains in Europe can be. Especially the good ones.

If you are a german resident, and you make two or more long distance rail trips a year, then you a buy a bahncard 25 or bahncard 50 which give you (respectively) 25% or 50% ticket discounts.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#300

Post by Karrot_Kream »

gumby wrote: post #295
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air travel is expensive. Airframe maintenance is expensive and labor intensive. Pilots are highly skilled professionals and need to be paid as such. Jet fuel is expensive. Handling baggage is a logistical challenge. Due to the nature of aircraft, they have low limits on passenger capacity. The government subsidizes air travel into rural areas through the Essential Air Services with about 1/6th the budget it puts into…

Why are airfares so much cheaper in Europe and Asia than they are in the US?

Asia often doesn't have any infrastructure in place of air travel. The US and Europe have large roadways and rail networks for transportation which means airfare is more expensive in relation. Much of Asia has no road or rail network in place that can support the capacity that air travel offers and many governments in Asia cannot fund a road or rail project of sufficient magnitude to offer a compelling alternative. In Europe jet fuel is mostly untaxed and distances in Europe are shorter so less fuel is spent moving passengers from city-to-city.
Post reply on HN