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

341–350 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#341

Post by atlasunshrugged »

vecinu wrote: post #305
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #106

As an American who doesn't drive, the experience of trains in the EU compared to the US is just delightful. Yes, there are super cheap flights and I used them often for longer haul trips but the trains were always amazing- I've done trips including Mariupol to Lviv, Budapest to Berlin, and Berlin to Munich and always had a great experience. The Romania-Chisinau line is quite old but part of its charm. I see a lot of…

> The Romania-Chisinau line is quite old but part of its charm. As a tourist when you have all the time in the world, I would agree it's part of the charm. When the development of your economy depends on such a neglected and terrible line, it's an unbelievable nightmare for people living in either country (Personal anecdotes support this).

Yeah I can imagine if you were a business traveler this would be a nightmare

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#342

Post by sudosysgen »

xyzzyz wrote: post #340
jhgb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, nobody is actually paying for CO2 emission externalities. At best, you can argue that maybe someone will be paying them some day in future, but it’s a big fat maybe. Because nobody is actually paying for these externalities, we don’t have any figures of how much those externalities cost — you can come up with some estimates, but as GOSPLAN experience shows, calculating prices outside of markets is a fool’s errand…

People are already paying for those externalities in extreme weather events caused by CO2, also from carbon taxes in other countries that wouldn't have been necessary otherwise, from people who have to buy more expensive cars and fuel, etc...

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#343

Post by gumby »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #300
gumby wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I…

EasyJet from Dublin to Milan is so cheap, as are international flights like KL to Taiwan These are distances that aren’t feasible to drive even if they were on the same landmass.

And as you say europe also has a dense road network. The fuel tax is interesting, definitely, but in my US/EU comparison price delta is often a factor of five or more.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#344

Post by Ericson2314 »

> Booking in advance, just as you would for a flight, can also save travelers a lot of money, Mr. Smith said, adding that he advises people to reserve their long-distance train travel one to three months ahead to avoid last-minute price hikes.

This is stupid. It's wasteful to fly an empty plain, but it should be cheaper to run an empty chain than mess with the schedule.

There's no economic reason to shake down unplanned travel like this.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#345

Post by ncmncm »

aurizon wrote: post #304
Nick87633 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A tanker that holds 80,000 pounds of kerosine will hold about 8000 pounds of LH2 in the same dimensionality. 0.07 = density of LH2, Density of water 1.0, kerosine 0.7 +/- varies with grade. So it take 10 times the cubeage plus Dewar grade insulation. At a permeant depot they will have a super refrigerator to condense boil off into LH2. They are trying to get a viable clathrate hydrate to hold a higher density form of…

The measure of fuel you need to carry is not weight, but energy content. It takes a much smaller weight of LH2 to match the energy content of diesel. So, correspondingly less than 10x volume. It is this better "gravimetric energy density" that makes LH2 an attractive fuel in many cases. You end up needing only about 2-3x tankage space, including the insulation.

Better gravimetric energy density doesn't make so much difference for a train, so its other advantages -- production on-site, zero emissions, carbon-neutral -- are more important.

At the trainyard, the LH2 would be banked in an underground tank where insulation is easy. It is not necessary to refrigerate it after it is liquified. It will gradually boil off, so you just make more anytime the level goes down, whether from boil-off or pumping out to a locomotive tank.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#346

Post by Ericson2314 »

ews wrote: post #4
Fargren wrote: post #2

Living 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.

RENFE (national railroad company) had no competitors until very recently, they opened the market just months ago. I am hopeful the new high speed companies (i.e Ouigo) makes the market much more competitive and lowers pricing in all tiers. Still, for same price and roughly same time, I always prefer using the train to the planes.

Trains are a very, very natural monopoly. Competition doesn't make sense, especially if your service frequency is any good.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#347

Post by xyzzyz »

sudosysgen wrote: post #342
xyzzyz wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, nobody is actually paying for CO2 emission externalities. At best, you can argue that maybe someone will be paying them some day in future, but it’s a big fat maybe. Because nobody is actually paying for these externalities, we don’t have any figures of how much those externalities cost — you can come up with some estimates, but as GOSPLAN experience shows, calculating prices outside of markets is a fool’s errand…

People are already paying for those externalities in extreme weather events caused by CO2, also from carbon taxes in other countries that wouldn't have been necessary otherwise, from people who have to buy more expensive cars and fuel, etc...

> People are already paying for those externalities in extreme weather events caused by CO2,

And others are benefitting from positive externalities of warmer weather, reducing need for heating, increases yields due to increased CO2 concentration etc. Thing is, it’s incredibly hard to put a number on net costs on climate change. The most serious recent attempt to do that had its author, William Nordhaus, a Nobel Prize in Economics. The estimated figure, by the way, is very low compared to the zeal of the activists.

Now, of course, the carbon tax proponents are not really interested in the actual costs. They either ideologically hate emissions, and their desire to institute carbon tax is vindictive in its nature, and all talk about “externalities” is for them just a distraction, or they are politicians who use carbon tax as an excuse to increase their political power and tax revenues. Nobody is motivated by actual economic efficiency, and calling them Pigouvian taxes is a distraction.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#348

Post by devoutsalsa »

Fargren wrote: post #2

Living 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.

Flying itself is often cheap, but the connections to & from the airport can make it less cheap. My bus to central Brussels from Charleroi cost more than the round trip flight from Copenhagen.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#349

Post by JetAlone »

Gigachad wrote: post #261
mywittyname wrote: post #17

Time is money, so I don't think trains can ever compete with flying for long-distance travel (>1000miles). They could do like the USA does and make flying such a time-consuming pain in the ass that it's rarely worth it for trips under 5 hours.

Trains could easily beat air travel if they could skip the ridiculous security theater. Having to get to the airport 2 hours early is a whole lot of slack to let trains catch up.

This is why I prefer riding high speed rail over the half as expensive domestic flights. If they take that away, I want to buy a horse.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#350

Post by KennyBlanken »

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #152
saddlerustle wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but note usually around 30% of the ticket price of a european short-haul flight is already other taxes. This is compared to train tickets that include a 30%+ subsidy

Airports, especially smaller ones, are heavily subsidized in Europe.

The US airline industry is massively subsidized. Every country heavily subsidizes air travel.

The federal government spends $2BN/year on Amtrak and people lose their damn minds.

Meanwhile, at the FAA, nearly $12BN/year...and that doesn't account for all the local and state funds used to subsidize airports. Or Department of Transportation spending...

Post reply on HN