411–420 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the Germans I've met like to complain about the quality of Deutsche Bahn. But it is important to keep in mind that from the perspective of an American, Deutsche Bahn is a miracle.
Based upon slight experience of both, I would say rail in a third-tier German city can compare favorably with the Metro in Washington DC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Overhead wires would involve a significant infrastructure investment. Not too much of an issue with more densely populated areas like Europe - and countries like France and Japan already do use overhead wires - but it is not cost competitive in sparse locations like much of North America. It's true that it's contingent on a carbon-free source of hydrogen. But if something like thermochemical hydrogen production throu…
> "Countries like France and Japan already do use overhead wires" Don't most countries already use these? World wide, a third of all rails is electrified in some way, and for long-distance rail, that's bound to be overhead. Most European rail is electrified. So hydrogen or any other diesel replacement is only relevant for very rural, very sparsely used lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that subsidy look per trip, though?
Amtrack moves just shy of 17 million passengers in a year. Airlines in the US do that in 8 days. That's works out to roughly 45x as many passengers, with only what, 6x the subsidies?
probably this counts for at least a few billions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also intense competition among airlines which cuts costs to the bone. That doesnt happen for rail.
Not sure that's really true. Look at the low cost high speed carriers like Ouigo.
> Last year, SNCF relaunched overnight services between Paris and Nice, with tickets starting as low as 19 euros, about $21, for a midweek low-season ticket. That compares with 31 euros, not including baggage fees or the cost of airport transfers, for a short flight on EasyJet These prices are inconceivable in the US, where competition in air travel has essentially been eliminated.
This price isn't representative. To give you an idea, Lyon - Lille tomorrow is between $90 and $130 for a second class ticket. It's a three hours trip. For more context, the median salary in France is about $2000 after tax [1]. [1] https://www.lafinancepourtous.com/2021/06/28/salaire-median-...
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…
A Dyson sphère around the sun would make life on Earth rather miserable.
> Successful governments should be responsible for running sequestrators on tax funding.
“Sequestrators” don’t exist. There is some noise every now and then about a fancy new technology, and it gets accepted in pop science media as something that works, but we don’t really have anything practical. Besides, this would be a terrible idea, because it means we lower the cost of operations for the industry, generating profits for their private owners, whilst straining public budgets already stretched thin. This would need a radical change of how most governments operate.
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)
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…
The usual tracks either connect big cities or they run between urban centers and less populated areas. IOW run between every seat taken and almost empty.