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

How far can you go by train in 5h?

chronotrains-eu.vercel.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 457 posts

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#351

Post by mytailorisrich »

kurthr wrote: post #226

You can also go Beijing to Shanghai in 4.5 hours. That's over 1200km or 750mi averaging above 260km/hr. I think it's the fastest long distance passenger service available and has the benefit of being central Shanghai to south-central Beijing (rather than north-east where PEK airport is). That made it noticeably better than business air travel between the two cities. You could also ride the Pudong maglev (at 430km/hr…

Beijing to Hongkong is about 2,450km and takes 9h by high speed train, which is more than 270km/h average as there are a few stops along the way. I believe that the advertised speed is about 350km/h.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#352

Post by ThunderSizzle »

mitchdoogle wrote: post #330
black_puppydog wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also shows an effect that the focus on high speed rail brings: rural areas are often very badly connected. Here in France they've even kept shutting down regional lines. That creates the train equivalent of "fly-over states": areas that you see from the train while going through, but that it would be impractical to go to .

Except "flyover" states are not just rural areas. There are tons of big cities in non-coastal areas of the US. I don't think people who use the term are maliciously doing it, but it does diminish the lives of millions of people as unimportant and inconsequential compared to the "important" areas on the coasts

Well, yes. New Yorkers and Californians see the rest of the country as useless, and most don't bother to learn that entire cities exist outside of their coastal regions.

It's also part of the current hyperpoliticalization we're seeing.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#353

Post by redtexture »

aimor wrote: post #242
redtexture wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IRS allows business travelers 58.5 cents a mile. That is closer to your total cost of use of your automobile. IRS 2022 Business milage rates: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-issues-standard-mileage-rat...

I thought that was so high, so I ran the numbers using some median and average values and I got pretty close. The average vehicle costs $40k, is owned for 11 years, gets driven 13k miles per year, burns 25 mpg, gas costs $3/gal, insurance is $1500 per year, and the vehicle needs $900 per year in maintenance and repairs. A lot of people spend far less than this (my car cost me $0.384/mile so far), and some spend far m…

Businesses generally are allowed to depreciate automobiles over five years, and you might guess it is because they get a fairly high amount of use.

And built into the IRS rate is probably an expectation of significant repairs.

That changes the capital costs.

Most people are paying 4.00 to 5.00 dollars a gallon these days.

At a generous $4.00 a gallon, and as you indicate, .04 gallons per mile, gas alone is lately above 0.16 cents a mile. At $5, that would be 0.20 cents.

Generously (on the thrifty side) estimating, at minimum, capital, insurance and maintenance doubles cost of gasoline alone.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#355

Post by mrgriscom »

hunterb123 wrote: post #345
ryukafalz wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American here, I’d disagree about Hawaii and Alaska but agree about the non-state territories. The non-state territories being unable to vote and not having representation in the legislature means that they don’t get as much attention in national politics, so they’re less top of mind. (Yes, both of those situations suck and I wish we would change them.)

They don't have representation (in the US) and are unable to vote (in US elections) because they aren't US citizens and don't pay (US) taxes. But if you're a US citizen living over there and you made money from sources other than from that territory, you would have to pay US taxes.

Residents of the US territories are US citizens with the exception of American Samoa

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#356

Post by dragonwriter »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #352
mitchdoogle wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except "flyover" states are not just rural areas. There are tons of big cities in non-coastal areas of the US. I don't think people who use the term are maliciously doing it, but it does diminish the lives of millions of people as unimportant and inconsequential compared to the "important" areas on the coasts

Well, yes. New Yorkers and Californians see the rest of the country as useless, and most don't bother to learn that entire cities exist outside of their coastal regions. It's also part of the current hyperpoliticalization we're seeing.

> New Yorkers and Californians see the rest of the country as useless,

I've known lots of both (more of the latter), none of whom believe anything like that.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#357

Post by mikotodomo »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #81
secretsatan wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more rail improves the more I'm tempted to take it, with flying you have the additional time cost of just dealing with the airports, turn up an hour early, then get put in the metal tube where they won't serve you drink till they're up in the air, and you can't bring your own. A train may take longer sometimes, but I find the whole thing much less stressful, you're not strapped to the seat, you have leg room, eve…

It's hard to overstate how different the European rail experience is from the American experience. SF LA is a 50m, $50 flight. It's approx. 9h and $400 by rail. In practice, the last time I attempted that route it took 15h because the train had issues halfway and none of the assigned seats had power or legroom.

wow wtf, american trains are so bad. the government should force those companies to fix it

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#358

Post by chrisseaton »

thejackgoode wrote: post #349

Five hours, I assume, is the maximum amount of time an average person can enjoy sitting in a train. With overnight trains making a comeback, there are much more possibilities. I recently enjoyed falling asleep in Central Europe and waking up over the Alps near the sea. Trains are amazing.

It’s more comfortable to be on a train than a flight and people are happy taking ten hour plus flights no problem.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#359

Post by redtexture »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #257
tomjakubowski wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highways and rail create different kinds of disruption in neighborhoods. Highways constantly have traffic, creating noise and pollution all the time. Railroads are mostly quiet, with loud traffic in short bursts. Passenger railroads are narrower than urban highways. The US-101 freeway cuts through Echo Park and Westlake in Los Angeles, taking up as much as 330 feet of width, counting on/off ramps. California HSR has…

I have no love for highway pits but to play if off like an HSR pit is some quaint little light rail is simply farcical. You're being dishonest or ignorant. The fact that you compare max-width of one to min-width of the other rules out one option. A pit is a pit. You're limited to crossing at a few specific points no matter how narrow it is and traveling to those points accounts for the bulk of the distance covered. T…

High speed rail is like having a jet plane go by, given the intent to run at, say 150 to 200 miles per hour, and has its own troublesome neighbor issues.

All corridors are troublesome.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#360

Post by redtexture »

awiesenhofer wrote: post #316
redtexture wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the strong argument against high speed rail in the USA. We don't even have anything close to regional rail, and highspeed rail would consume all public capital that would be used to improve regional rail systems.

> public capital that would be used to improve regional rail systems could be used, but we all know thats not how it works ...

Commuter rail expansion and operations is the primary capital consumption area now, and there are more than a few such local / regional rail systems that could use several billion dollars each, on a continuing basis, for equipment, roadbed and station expansion.
Post reply on HN