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

Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#71

Post by alex028502 »

alex028502 wrote: post #19

Maybe the emphasis on high speed in not necessary. People already seem to love sitting around in all kinds of environments.. bars, watching netflix, or programming for a lot of people here. What if instead of figuring out what kind of rails would be needed to move a train at the speed of flight, we figured out what kind of rails were needed to economically move the equivalent of a first class lounge from Los Angeles…

It should also leave every 20 mins with no late penalty (lots of spare capacity) so that you don't have to get there early just in case. That "buffer" standing around is also a waste of time. We invent a way to get there super fast and then we have to optimise it to the point where we have to get there an hour early to make it work reliably.. because a traffic jam or security delay can destroy everything.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#72

Post by alex028502 »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #51
alex028502 wrote: post #19

Maybe the emphasis on high speed in not necessary. People already seem to love sitting around in all kinds of environments.. bars, watching netflix, or programming for a lot of people here. What if instead of figuring out what kind of rails would be needed to move a train at the speed of flight, we figured out what kind of rails were needed to economically move the equivalent of a first class lounge from Los Angeles…

Good idea. But also, why not invest in virtual presence so we don't need to travel so much? Except if we want to.

Good point. The same kinds of technologies that allow us to make use of the travel time allow us to not travel at all.. two prong strategy

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#73

Post by matthewmacleod »

mattlondon wrote: post #34
leoedin wrote: post #3

What I find odd about this is that... Trains are the go-to means of intercity transport across much of Europe. The term "High speed rail" isn't strictly defined, but seems to kick in somewhere between 110 and 155 mph. Pretty much every intercity train in the UK is running at 125mph for at least some of their journey. Europe is full of functioning high speed rail networks - TGV, ICE, Eurostar, networks in Spain and It…

London-Edinburgh is only just faster by train. There is not much in it TBH. It is about the break even point I guess. There are other benefits like you can use your phone and get up and walk around more easily. If you go first class you can actually get some work done at tables and stuff. But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IM…

But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IMO (or you get some huge off-peak super saver special one-time discount or whatever)

The standard off-peak walk-up fare (i.e. the maximum you will ever pay) between London-Edinburgh is £82, and the peak-time fare is £176. Cheaper if you book a couple of weeks in advance.

It can cost less than this to fly sometimes, but in practice not by that much unless you’re doing awkwardly-timed no-baggage Ryanair flights from Stanstead or whatever.

I have done that trip hundreds of times over the years and I think I’ve only ever flown when engineering works made it in feasible to take the train. Usually it’s no competition.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#74

Post by mickdeek86 »

jsinai wrote: post #48
bmitc wrote: post #5

Riding the high-speed rail in China made me so envious of that setup. If we had that in certain locations in the U.S., it would be absolutely amazing. You just show up a half hour before your train (gotta get there earlier in certain huge stations) and basically walk on. The train ride is buttery smooth with a lot of space, and you can order food from the next station to be delivered to you if you don't want any of t…

> If we had that in certain locations in the U.S., it would be absolutely amazing. You just show up a half hour before your train (gotta get there earlier in certain huge stations) and basically walk on. Security theatre in the US means you don’t just walk on the train. You sit in a waiting room with no ambition for capacity and get escorted to the platform by friendly security guards. Quite an experience if you’re n…

Amtrak is you just walk on, unless they've changed it since last year. One time the conductor even let me bring a bicycle on against the rules.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#75

Post by ribawuwym »

The answer is very simple actually. Railroad is a cheap and primitive tech and doesn't support anything high speed. Several advancements are pushing track quality toward faster speed and toward the point of convergence where it will cease to be cheap.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#76

Post by rendall »

bmitc wrote: post #42
rendall wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is going on in the U.S. that we can't do this stuff? Strong property rights, NIMBY local democracy with the good and bad that implies, free speech whereby this is all discussed by everyone with an opinion about it whether or not it's uninformed, that kind of thing. Personally, I'd rather have the US style even though it's inefficient when it comes to HSR.

20 years is a long time and basically means it will never happen by that fact alone. The Green Line extension for Boston's MBTA has taken 16 years and still isn't done and has cost several billion dollars. It was discussed even longer than that. New York's subway systems experience the same delays and costs. It's embarrassing. Free speech, land/property rights, etc. are important, but they are just excuses, as they d…

> Free speech, land/property rights, etc. are important, but they are just excuses, as they don't seem to be the things actually slowing down these projects.

Why do you say that? What is slowing them down?

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#77

Post by lyschoening »

Negativity aside, the article makes fair arguments against setting expectations for rail speed too high. The thing is, trains do not have to be faster than 300kph/185mph to compete with planes.

Modern trains are infinitely more comfortable than modern planes, so they do not need to match planes in travel times. A modern train features silent travel, ample leg room, unpressurized air and no seat belts. Reliability is key and that does require infrastructure investment.

Rail infrastructure will always require subsidies but the costs do not have to be astronomical. Meanwhile, the cost of air traffic emissions are carried by society, which can't go on much longer.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#78

Post by mattlondon »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #73
mattlondon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London-Edinburgh is only just faster by train. There is not much in it TBH. It is about the break even point I guess. There are other benefits like you can use your phone and get up and walk around more easily. If you go first class you can actually get some work done at tables and stuff. But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IM…

But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IMO (or you get some huge off-peak super saver special one-time discount or whatever) The standard off-peak walk-up fare (i.e. the maximum you will ever pay) between London-Edinburgh is £82, and the peak-time fare is £176. Cheaper if you book a couple of weeks in advance. It can cost less th…

Where are you getting those fares?!

London Edinburgh flight with Ryanair is £14 (fourteen) for tomorrow. On train it is £197 for tomorrow.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#79

Post by cycomanic »

habibur wrote: post #28

> Indeed, as far as I know there isn’t a single HSR route anywhere on Earth that operates profitably on ticketing revenue The key part.

I agree this is a key part. I would argue no transport network exists without massive subsidies. Simply decouple the infrastructure operation from the operation of trains.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#80

Post by rocqua »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #39
choeger wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. I think the author has a very valid point when it comes to the cost of rail tracks. It's something the proponents always conveniently ignore. On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, espec…

If you want a truly working high speed rail network look to Japan. Shinkansen trains are punctual and fast. That is possible with political will. And yes, the German system is a fascinating mixture of really good parts and really bad parts. But while troubled, to large degrees it works to acceptable measure.

The article does state that the Japanese system runs at a massive loss.
Post reply on HN