Live data from Hacker News

Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#91
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about automobile roads and highways? If there's any, on a mile-per-mile basis, it's probably The actual problem is that we have imposed a profitability imperative on some services and not others.

Everywhere except the US cars pay far more in petrol tax than roads cost. In Australia, where we have cheap petrol compared to Europe or Japan a little over half of petrol tax goes into roads or public transport. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-21/fuel-excise-not-being...

Does this tax pays for land value lost to parking requirements and for city roads? Because i know my petrol tax pays for roads in-between cities, I'm not sure it pays for city roads and for respiratory issues caused by cars.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#92
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…

This topic comes up periodically on HN and it typically ends in the same points:

1. Your entire country (UK) is smaller than 11 of our 50 states. The several hundred miles between London and Edinburgh pass through many smaller cities and towns, between which people travel. Between SF and LA is a pea soup restaurant and a handful of midsized, mainly agricultural settlements that can't be gotten around without a car (or pickup if we're being specific). SF/LAers aren't going to Stockton, or vice-versa.

2. Your entire continent, minus Russia, is smaller than the lower 48 states (2.5 vs 3.1 million sq miles), with a much higher population density and, again, actual places every 10 miles or so. I've bicycled across the US, there are stretches bigger than Western Europe that are full of nothin in particular.

3. Look at some population density maps. The US is light on corridors of sufficient size & density to make much sense for HSR considering the space between population centers: the Northeast (already served by HSR) and my native Chicago-Milwaukee-NW Indiana corridor (already served by commuter rail). Maybe Florida where they're actually building rail, surprisingly. Detroit area, maybe throw Ohio & Pittsburgh in (Amtrak partly covers it). The eastern 43% of China's land area (~1.6 million sq miles) contains 94% of the people (~1.3 billion people) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line In Japan you can basically draw a single, ~1400 mile line from Hokkaido in the north to Kyushu in the south that hits most of the population centers. Actually, they did that for you, it's called the Shinkansen and it is awesome.

4. This is actually the main point but I thought I'd sh!t on passenger rail first. The US has the largest and most extensively used rail network on the planet earth. We just use it to move freight, which doesn't breath, eat, use the lavatory, attempt to explode the vehicle it's on, or (to stay my sarcasm for a moment) complain when it's delayed. I haven't done the numbers here, but that probably offsets a lot more GHG/oil than replacing airports with passenger rail would.

5. To dovetail on earlier points, the US is largely defined by invisible cultural borders. To a disturbingly large extent, city people travel between cities and country people travel around the countryside. Each are often actually afraid of the other places. City people talk about 'flyover country' or make jokes about rednecks, incest, the banjo from Deliverance. Country people talk about 'inner city violence'. This is a newer, still emergent phenomenon and only partially true (hence it's placement last on my list).

All this said, I love Amtrak and ride when I get a chance to take a little time off and enjoy the scenic route. You see the country from a grounds-eye view that you can't from the air, and it's pleasant to walk around the cars and talk to people you otherwise wouldn't (I once chatted with Seth Green's mom - or a woman convincingly claiming to be Seth Green's mom - on the City of New Orleans). On the longer routes eg Empire Builder you can buy one ticket and stopover at interesting places along the way and get back on tomorrow's train with the same ticket. I'm looking forward to taking the train from Anchorage to Denali next year. But I'll be flying home at Christmas, with only 5 days off.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#93
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article—the author prefaces with their experience riding trains all over the world and has worked in rail. There is a ton of detail, much more interesting than the conclusion.

The article takes the premise that HSR should go 320 kph (200mph) and then explains why that is infeasible in many places. The article says much less about rail at 200kph (125mph). Which might serve to replace airplanes. Especially once CO2 externalities are priced in.

> The article takes the premise that HSR should go 320 kph (200mph) and then explains why that is infeasible in many places.

Top speed means close to nothing, and it's one of the reason why the definition of high speed rail is not tied to top speed.

Great Britain has a notorious high speed railway corridor whose top speed is only around 160mph, and the reason is that the railway line was designed with the express purpose of preserving a cruise speed close to the top speed of the trains available at the time.

It's absurd to talk about high speed railway if it was a drag race. The main challenge in high speed railway is making it possible for high speed trains to actually travel at speeds that high-speed trains can already reach. Lines need to overcome constraints imposed by speed, geography and infrastructure costs, and tradeoffs often lead solutions to not match optimal layouts to reach top speeds.

Also, whenever a train needs to serve an intermediate station, they need to spend a great deal of time decelerating, stop at the station to serve passengers, and accelerate again. Sometimes it's feasible for infrastructure operators to spend money on a sideline to skip that station, but on some cases that's simply not realistic. Take for example Paris-Amsterdam and Paris-Cologne, which have to pass through Brussels and where the bulk of the train trip is spent passing through the inner city of Brussels alone where the top speed is 20km/h.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#94

The article seems to be completely littered with factual errors. 1. The author says that HSR projects are about a third below passenger projections everywhere. Everyone who has taken the TGV between Bordeaux and Paris, the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt and many of the other lines in Europe knows that it is trivially not true. The Bordeaux Paris train is often sold out several times a day. 2. The author says the S…

Add: This quote seems to false. Even in Tokaido Shinkansen (extremely utilized), it is said that rails are replaced about every 10yr. In Tohoku Shinkansen, officially said that it replaced about every 35 yr.

> A typical Japanese maintenance schedule has each segment of rail reground, to exacting tolerances, every 6 months while total replacement is required every 5 years.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#95
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel is either existing? > On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city. Traffic generated by rail station limited by capacity would require gargantuan airport to handle it, which would anyway require bus/train/car connections from within city taking even more space.

A fun stat is: Daily passengers on the New York subway system is around the same as total daily passengers on every commercial flight in the US.

I can totally believe that. But it has 470 or so stations. That makes about 10k or so daily passengers per station. That's very roughly the same as Berlin. Additionally, the trains are quite slow, which ain't a problem for a metropolitan network, but you certainly cannot compare that system to a country- or continent-wide train network.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article—the author prefaces with their experience riding trains all over the world and has worked in rail. There is a ton of detail, much more interesting than the conclusion.

A clarification. They’ve not worked in rail. They’ve worked in hyperloop. A fantasy technology that does not, and probably never will, exist. Imagine being able to destroy the idea of constructing rail in a few paragraphs of a tiny blog and then choosing to work on hyperloop, which has all the problems mentioned about rail but also throws in creating and maintaining a vacuum pipe in addition.

> A clarification. They’ve not worked in rail. They’ve worked in hyperloop. A fantasy technology that does not, and probably never will, exist.

Hyperloop is a marketing project which is based on the assumption that a few PR drones can be lowder than anyone with any cursory knowledge on transportation engineering.

The same goes for the boring company, where the company tries very hard to pretend they invented digging holes in the ground while using COTS tunnelers.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes – if you're willing to fly from Stansted at 7:20am with no luggage, like I said above, you may be able to take a £14 Ryanair flight – though I doubt you can book this for tomorrow. If you can make these work, they're the cases where it's more cost-effective to fly.

A £197 train ticket is a walk-up, peak-time fare from Euston, which will take you via Birmingham. Not the way you'd to want to travel to Edinburgh – go off-peak up the East coast, and the walk-up fare is £82.

One of the good things about the UK rail ticketing system is that—while complex—all ticketing information is publicly available. You can look up the available fares between any pair of stations using the BR Fares site – e.g. https://www.brfares.com/!fares?orig=KGX&dest=EDB

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#98
post #21
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…

"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…

> "functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time.

This is a silly red herring. Top speed means nothing. The only key factor is door-to-door travel time, and it means nothing if a train goes 180km/m in some sections and 320km/h in others if in the end you reach your destination 1h earlier than b flying.

> They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled.

Things that are completely unheard of in any sort of public transportation service, specially air travel!

Please look at the Netherland's Schipol airport, one of the largest in the world and often used as the paragon of well functioning hub, and how they've been systematically cancelling and delaying flights throughout the year.

> They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.

No, not really. Only the lowest-cost low-cost operators tend to beat high speed railway on price, but they often have flights to airports well outside of city centers or even in suboptimal terminals with all sorts of hidden costs, and ultimately lead to a slower suboptimal experience.

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#99
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…

But why do this over just flying. You can show up 30-45 mins before any domestic flight and leave as soon as you land on the other end.

Might have heard the news, by chance, in the last 20 years even? There’s a climate crisis out there that warrants changes?

Re: Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

#100
post #89
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.

Its mostly car culture in the US that is to blame. The freeway network in the US would have had the same problems but it was pushed through due to political will.

Agreed.
Post reply on HN