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

ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

deutschebahn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#131

Post by ekunazanu »

cyberax wrote: post #129
ekunazanu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And humans prefer cars. No. People who do not have access to other modes of high quality transit, and are already used to cars, prefer cars.

Nope. When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. Actually, people prefer literally _anything_ else including transit. See: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960... Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could. Bikes are a f…

> When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars.

> Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow.

Your entire argument seems to revolve around car vs bikes. I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure. This simply means not prioritizing cars above other modes of transit. For urban environments (high density areas) cars are sub-optimal at best and other alternatives like rail, buses, bikes, and trams are simply better. Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars.

> Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could.

Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks.

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#132

Post by amy214 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #126
chmod775 wrote: post #52

This article communicates what this is about very poorly, so I'm not surprised a lot of people are asking "what is so special about this train?". The answer is: Nothing. Many ICE trains have the capability to go that fast* - and some already surpassed these speeds on test tracks decades ago. It's really nothing special to make a train go these speeds. What this test was supposed to show is that the real track (not a…

It's also worth noting that ICE train does not mean internal combustion engine train , which was my second read (my first read being some super-deportation-train probably doesn't need to be clarified as even as I imagined that I knew it couldn't be right). It means "Intercity train", which a quick lookup clarifies as an express train between two cities that's longer than a commuter train but with fewer stops than you…

I realize a turbo deportation train is quite dystopic but accolades to the ICE Advanced Research Project Apparatus (IARPA) for this development. I hope this advanced deportation tech can be tech transferred into the civilian space because rail transport has lagged for 150 years or more.

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#133

Post by cyberax »

jerven wrote: post #105
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive intuition says adding more roads and lanes would finally solve the bottlenecks, right? And it does, briefly. But after a little while it's back to bumper to bumper. That’s induced demand [1]: when new capacity just encourages more driving. Counterintuitively perhaps, bike lanes, road diets and public transport actually work better. Give people other ways to move around, and you take pressure off the road system…

I would like to state that good bike lanes and trains also have induced demand. The Netherlands and Switzerland, have demand for more of both (as well as more demand for car lanes as well) It is just that trains and bikes are much more efficient in terms of land use. The 3 lane road in front of my house is "good" for 16,000 cars a day. The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passeng…

> The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passengers a day.

But that's not true. Your chances of living within 5 minutes of a train stations are slim, unless train stations are spammed everywhere. And if stations are spammed everywhere, then they become inefficient.

Meanwhile, cars are only mildly affected by additional 400-500 meters of distance.

There's a great resource: https://www.geoapify.com/isoline-api/ - it shows isochrones for different commute methods.

> A train line can carry about 10x the traffic of a car lane (in practice) with similar ground usage.

In practice, a train line effectively is only slightly better than cars, unless you enshittify your city into a Manhattan-style dense hell.

Moreover, self-driving cars with mild carpooling (think 4-6 people per vehicle) blow ANY transit mode out of the water in speed and efficiency. It's not even close. A good approximation of this are airport pickup vans (the ones that you arrange in advance).

> To add the adding of one lane to the A1 for 18KM costs half the total of the leman express infrastructure. But has significantly less benefits in total transit capacity.

Yeah. Imagine that instead of wasting money on useless transit (see: Seattle ST3), we used them to incentivize companies to build more offices outside of dense city cores.

Then these lanes wouldn't even be necessary!

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#134

Post by cyberax »

ekunazanu wrote: post #131
cyberax wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. Actually, people prefer literally _anything_ else including transit. See: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960... Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could. Bikes are a f…

> When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. > Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow. Your entire argument seems to revolve around car vs bikes. I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure. This simply means not prioriti…

> I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure

And here comes the propaganda. Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_?

I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan.

> Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars.

If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes?

> Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks.

Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#135

Post by ekunazanu »

cyberax wrote: post #134
ekunazanu wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. > Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow. Your entire argument seems to revolve around car vs bikes. I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure. This simply means not prioriti…

> I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure And here comes the propaganda. Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan. > Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city…

> Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_?

Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. Think streets with trees, and lively public spaces for people to hang out.

> If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes?

No one is being forced. If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. The 'hellscapes' have more to do with the housing crisis and zoning laws than transit infrastructure.

Idk why most people think urban density is a problem to be solved (using tech like self driving for eg), because it ultimately always circles back to the fact that density is the only sustainable way for cities to develop and grow in the long run. Even if it is not perfect.

> I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan.

It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Imagine the increased stress, lesser free time, and lower quality of life from all the noise and pollution.

> Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.

When exactly will most people have the option to opt-out, and how likely and how exactly will it happen?

I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#136

Post by Kim_Bruning »

cyberax wrote: post #120
Fulgen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands proved you can do bike lanes quite well, not every country has to be a nightmare for life quality like the US aspires to be.

You're thinking of Amsterdam? I used to live there. Bikes are used there ONLY because there's no alternative to them. Transit takes too long, and there's no space for cars. And yet still around 20% of commutes in Amsterdam are by car. > not every country has to be a nightmare for life quality like the US aspires to be. The US is far, far, far ahead of Europe in urban quality of life that it's not even funny, if you d…

I've worked in Amsterdam. Used to take my car out to a park and ride station out in "the province" and joined the first standup of the day out of the "long yellow office building" [1], then a short walk to the tall grey one to actually get coding.

In or near Amsterdam I've seen and/or used busses, trains, ferrys, trams, bicycles, cars; and aircraft on approach to Schiphol looked like they almost flew past the window.

I also kind of like New Amsterdam (New York). It's cozy!

Can't argue with taste I guess. %-)

[1] Intercity trains: Long, Yellow, with electricity, free wifi, a place to sit, and you can bring your own Starbucks on board. Do try to avoid rush hour, or you'll be taking "standup" a bit too literally.

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#137

Post by Kim_Bruning »

cyberax wrote: post #133
jerven wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to state that good bike lanes and trains also have induced demand. The Netherlands and Switzerland, have demand for more of both (as well as more demand for car lanes as well) It is just that trains and bikes are much more efficient in terms of land use. The 3 lane road in front of my house is "good" for 16,000 cars a day. The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passeng…

> The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passengers a day. But that's not true. Your chances of living within 5 minutes of a train stations are slim, unless train stations are spammed everywhere. And if stations are spammed everywhere, then they become inefficient. Meanwhile, cars are only mildly affected by additional 400-500 meters of distance. There's a great resource: https://w…

Or, you know, DO put offices in dense city cores, say within 5-15 minutes of a train station. (that or telecommute). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ

And, a lot more stations are within say a 15 minute reach if you use a bike O:-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UxCbmT9elk

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#138

Post by cyberax »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #136
cyberax wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking of Amsterdam? I used to live there. Bikes are used there ONLY because there's no alternative to them. Transit takes too long, and there's no space for cars. And yet still around 20% of commutes in Amsterdam are by car. > not every country has to be a nightmare for life quality like the US aspires to be. The US is far, far, far ahead of Europe in urban quality of life that it's not even funny, if you d…

I've worked in Amsterdam. Used to take my car out to a park and ride station out in "the province" and joined the first standup of the day out of the "long yellow office building" [1], then a short walk to the tall grey one to actually get coding. In or near Amsterdam I've seen and/or used busses, trains, ferrys, trams, bicycles, cars; and aircraft on approach to Schiphol looked like they almost flew past the window.…

> I've worked in Amsterdam.

So did I. And I had to be at the office at 7:30am. Even when the weather outside was "bracing".

> [1] Intercity trains: Long, Yellow, with electricity, free wifi, a place to sit, and you can bring your own Starbucks on board. Do try to avoid rush hour, or you'll be taking "standup" a bit too literally.

So basically, you wasted around 2 hours a day on the commute?

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#139

Post by cyberax »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #137
cyberax wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passengers a day. But that's not true. Your chances of living within 5 minutes of a train stations are slim, unless train stations are spammed everywhere. And if stations are spammed everywhere, then they become inefficient. Meanwhile, cars are only mildly affected by additional 400-500 meters of distance. There's a great resource: https://w…

Or, you know, DO put offices in dense city cores, say within 5-15 minutes of a train station. (that or telecommute). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ And, a lot more stations are within say a 15 minute reach if you use a bike O:-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UxCbmT9elk

> Or, you know, DO put offices in dense city cores

And then what? How do you get there?

Your time budget is 30 minutes (the average commute in the US). Go on, try to play around.

> that or telecommute

Yes. But if you telecommute, then why bother with all those trains and dense offices?

> And, a lot more stations are within say a 15 minute reach if you use a bike O:-)

That's already too much for commutes and will result in commutes inferior to the current status quo in the US.

Re: ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

#140

Post by cyberax »

ekunazanu wrote: post #135
cyberax wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure And here comes the propaganda. Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan. > Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city…

> Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or any…

> it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B

OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!

> Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc).

This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK.

> From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around.

So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses.

> No one is being forced.

People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here.

> If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people.

No, they make it more inescapable.

> It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours.

Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense.

> I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.

You simply have never thought about the _effects_ of urbanism. Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions.

I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.

Post reply on HN