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

401–410 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#401

Post by missedthecue »

simonsarris wrote: post #10
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.

This is mentioned near the end of the article but the reason those short domestic flights are so cheap in Europe is that commercial kerosene is currently tax exempt in every single EU member state. Jet fuel is cheaper per gallon in the EU than it is in the USA! (or was, before the current war) In typically tax-happy Europe this always struck me as odd, agree it is sad when you find out an airplane ticket is cheaper t…

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#402

Post by osobo »

missedthecue wrote: post #401
simonsarris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mentioned near the end of the article but the reason those short domestic flights are so cheap in Europe is that commercial kerosene is currently tax exempt in every single EU member state. Jet fuel is cheaper per gallon in the EU than it is in the USA! (or was, before the current war) In typically tax-happy Europe this always struck me as odd, agree it is sad when you find out an airplane ticket is cheaper t…

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

I'm fairly sure a mode of transportation that can carry thousands and doesn't fall out of the sky when something fails has other benefits, even if the fuel/passenger ration should be worse (which I doubt).

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#403

Post by polycaster »

missedthecue wrote: post #401
simonsarris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mentioned near the end of the article but the reason those short domestic flights are so cheap in Europe is that commercial kerosene is currently tax exempt in every single EU member state. Jet fuel is cheaper per gallon in the EU than it is in the USA! (or was, before the current war) In typically tax-happy Europe this always struck me as odd, agree it is sad when you find out an airplane ticket is cheaper t…

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

According to [1] a passenger train consumes about 2l per 100km per person. Whereas airtravel takes 4.9-5.9l per 100km for short ranges below 800km.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftstoffverbrauch?wprov=sfti...

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#404

Post by mrtksn »

missedthecue wrote: post #401
simonsarris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mentioned near the end of the article but the reason those short domestic flights are so cheap in Europe is that commercial kerosene is currently tax exempt in every single EU member state. Jet fuel is cheaper per gallon in the EU than it is in the USA! (or was, before the current war) In typically tax-happy Europe this always struck me as odd, agree it is sad when you find out an airplane ticket is cheaper t…

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

I checked it out and the number seems about right(like up to 2x but not too much). So, to beat an airplane on fuel efficiency you need to be at least 2 persons on an extremely fuel efficient small car.

Surely, the actual costs calculations will need to include the infra and operational costs however if you check the energy consumption per passenger per distance[0], rail transport is always on the more efficient side of things.

Unless the infrastructure and operational costs of trains are higher than airplanes, I don't see how airplanes can be more competitive. Is the rail infrastructure that much expensive?

Maybe the argument can be made about convenience but on efficiency, trains look more efficient.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#405

Post by shafyy »

systemvoltage wrote: post #324
__d wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics are quite involved, and can be easily skewed depending on what externalized costs you choose to include in your analysis. Superficially, flying has relatively lower infrastructure costs because it only needs the two endpoints (no road, no track, no bridges, no tunnels -- all expensive items). That impacts both the initial capital cost, and the ongoing investment in maintenance. Similarly, planes are fas…

I was expecting you to take a stance - either trains or planes, but your response was even better and painted a comprehensive high level picture. Thanks for taking the time. I agree with all these points, perhaps though I would challenge us about carbon-emissions with the following: If we want to progress as a civilization, is the idea to regress in and save energy expenditure in the short term; and/or in the long te…

> Once Fusion is solved, we will have the ability to sequestrate carbon to offset everything we do on earth

There are lot of IFs in your statement. Sure, it's theoretically possible to harvest so much energy that we can regard it as freely abundant without any real external costs. But this is not the case today, and probably won't be the case for hundreds of years - if ever.

* > Successful governments should be responsible for running sequestrators on tax funding. *

There's no such thing as large scale carbon sequestrations. It's unclear if this is a sensible solution to climate change in general. It makes much more sense to switch to renewables as quickly as possible and to limit emissions as much as possible. THAT's what a successful government should be responsible for, not for investing in false promises.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#406

Post by shafyy »

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.

Fucking love trains. I live in Berlin and visit Zurich often (that's where I'm from). I can just get into the train in the monrning, work, eat, drink and by the end of the workday I'm in Zurich. Extremely convenient, and not really more expensive than a flight if you book a couple of weeks in advanc, even for first class.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#407

Post by FeepingCreature »

zenogantner wrote: post #371
lqet wrote: post #26

Here 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.

I disagree: Travel time from Berlin to Munich went down from 6 hours to about 4 hours. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsprojekt_Deutsche_Einhe... That is a massive change. Subjectively, how a train trip feels on that route went from "quite exhausting in the end" to "oh I just opened my laptop, couldn't even finish what I had started".

Note that it's still four hours compared to one for a flight - and flights are still cheaper. Even if we assume two hours for arrival, boarding and an hour for local transportation in Berlin, flight would still win on price.

(I just checked for "Munich to Berlin next monday": 120€ cheapest for trains unless I want to sleep in them, 105€ for a flight, with more choice of time.)

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#408

Post by afiori »

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…

trains are weird because most European countries they are sorta nice but carry some kind of sizeable cruft. be if general disrepair or weird privatization incentives

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#409

Post by sva_ »

mcv wrote: post #287
sva_ wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overhead wires are not a solution on a large scale, and also an eyesore.

Overhead wires are most definitely a solution on a large scale, and are used as such all over the world. And especially in Europe.

0% chance that Germans would tolerate these in their landscapes. Also, how do you think this would work with a train going 400kmh+?

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#410

Post by doikor »

polycaster wrote: post #403
missedthecue wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

According to [1] a passenger train consumes about 2l per 100km per person. Whereas airtravel takes 4.9-5.9l per 100km for short ranges below 800km. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftstoffverbrauch?wprov=sfti...

Most passenger rail in Europe is electric though.
Post reply on HN