Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on

Post by thrown_22 » Sun, Oct 16, 2022, 10:54 AM UTC

b800h wrote: post #16

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…

From the article: "Over longer routes, the relative hassle of getting to and from an airport instead of an HSR rail terminal is eroded by the higher speed of aircraft, even in places where the rail terminal is in a densely populated city center and the airport is way outside." I think in the case of the US, the distance makes the difference. The trouble of checking in at an airport is factored out by the length of th…

Post by mickdeek86 » Sun, Oct 16, 2022, 11:28 AM UTC

fanf2 wrote: post #112

mickdeek86 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (o…

The USA used to have a reputation for a can-do attitude to large engineering projects.

Post by matkoniecz » Sun, Oct 16, 2022, 12:19 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #60

matkoniecz wrote: post #25

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.

He is not entirely wrong about the capacity limits of the railway stations, though. European cities struggle with inadequate railway capacity all the time. The main problem is that the original railway stations were laid out in about 1840-1870, for much smaller passenger streams, and today find it hard to cope with modern requirements (a lot of commuters from the suburbia). But given that there is dense city infrastr…

Post by matkoniecz » Sun, Oct 16, 2022, 12:24 PM UTC

rogue7 wrote: post #109

I've thought about this and there's I think another reason coming from combinatorics. Consider a set of n cities. Being able to go from one city to another by plane only requires n airports. However, to have a complete rail network, one needs n (n-1) / 2 tracks. Hence the complexity analysis: one solution is linear, the other one is quadratic.

Post by danhor » Sun, Oct 16, 2022, 12:52 PM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #49

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…

You would never fly Frankfurt-Paris, because the train is a much faster, more comfortable option. The Deutsche Bahn has significantly degraded over time, due to insufficient investment, but it's still an incredibly useful system. If you want to see what's possible with current technology, look at Chinese HSR. Beijing to Shanghai is a 20% longer distance than Berlin to Paris, yet it takes only half as long by train (j…