Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h? • Hacker News Board

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#271

Post by lukan » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:34 PM UTC

ascorbic wrote: post #240

vel0city wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical argument is even if you include my time in the airport on both ends it'll still be faster for me to fly from DFW to NYC or LAX than even the fastest trains of Europe, and probably still cost a comparable amount. If there was HSR between Houston and Dallas, sure I'd take that. Same for Dallas to Kansas City or something similar to that I'd love that. But that's about the distance where even the extra wait…

High-speed rail isn't meant for DFW to NYC distances. It's best for journeys of around 200-500 miles. So Boston-NYC-DC, or SF-LA. Or Houston-Dallas.

"High-speed rail isn't meant for DFW to NYC distances. "

Why not? Include comfortable, silenced sleeper cabins and I rather take spend a night in a bed and wake up the next morning rested and fresh, than going through the stress of flying.

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#272

Post by geraldwhen » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:36 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #246

pembrook wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false conspiracy narrative that belongs on Reddit in the r/fuckcars filter bubble. Sure, the automotive industry stood to benefit from the decline of rail travel in the US. But they didn’t really need to do anything for that to happen on its own. Reality is far less interesting than that. Turns out when you have tons of fertile land, even pre-industrialization your population tends to spread out a bit (the…

I kinda agree, except on the car part, because cars dominate even densely populated areas where trams, metros and buses should.

You haven’t lived until you’ve been assaulted by a homeless person on a bus in the US!

Buses are a joke. We cannot have public transit here without security to match, like at airports.

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#273

Post by lukan » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:37 PM UTC

gcanyon wrote: post #268

kortilla wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sleeper cars in the US cost more than a hotel for a night. Saving the cost of a hotel is not really a selling point

This is the part that really frustrates me. Not that I've researched, but it seems like trains should have basically unlimited space for passengers, at very little increase in cost -- a five-mile-long train takes maybe 1-2 more people to operate than a 1-mile train? So why doesn't the U.S. lean into the sleeper concept? If we could increase speeds to 90mph and have affordable sleeper cars, trips of up to 1,000 miles…

"a five-mile-long train takes maybe 1-2 more people to operate than a 1-mile train"

Likely a bit more. Also there is maintainance, the extra weight, the extra cost of buying more waggons .. but still I agree, thay this should be the direction.

Still, a 5 mile train will have problems at most train station ..

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#274

Post by chgs » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:37 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #64

portaouflop wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privatisation was a mistake - it’s only gone downhill since they are able to make profit and cut costs. We need to get essential services such as public transport back under state control or the quality will continue to deteriorate

Agreed. Learn the lesson from the UK, who did privatisation first* and have witnessed things much worse than the current state of German trains (which are still *excellent* in comparison, and I say that as one who moved from the UK to Germany in 2018). * or "harder", to the extent that German rail privatisation never went as far as in the UK. I understand there's a constitutional requirement here in Germany for gover…

British rail was a joke before privatisation. Now the complaint is mainly around the cost of popular trains, and the performance of state run franchises like northern

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#275

Post by chgs » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:41 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #254

portaouflop wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privatisation was a mistake - it’s only gone downhill since they are able to make profit and cut costs. We need to get essential services such as public transport back under state control or the quality will continue to deteriorate

I disagree here, privatization is good as there's more competition. It's really good we have Italo in Italy. Prices are down, service quality is up.

In the U.K. it’s grey, you can choose a service from London to Manchester that’s far faster than pre privatisation for a reasonable off peak fee, or you can choose a slower service with a change at crewe which costs far less than under British Rail and take about the same time (3h30)

Under nationalisation plans were afoot to close Marylebone, today Chiltern is one of the highest rated services going

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#276

Post by vel0city » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:46 PM UTC

ascorbic wrote: post #240

vel0city wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical argument is even if you include my time in the airport on both ends it'll still be faster for me to fly from DFW to NYC or LAX than even the fastest trains of Europe, and probably still cost a comparable amount. If there was HSR between Houston and Dallas, sure I'd take that. Same for Dallas to Kansas City or something similar to that I'd love that. But that's about the distance where even the extra wait…

High-speed rail isn't meant for DFW to NYC distances. It's best for journeys of around 200-500 miles. So Boston-NYC-DC, or SF-LA. Or Houston-Dallas.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/dfw-airport-destinat...

So the top destinations out of Dallas are Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Austin, Phoenix, Houston, Orlando, Chicago, and New York.

So HSR would potentially be competitive with maybe two of the top 10 destinations when comparing to air travel for DFW. I'm a proponent for the Texas HSR projects, but I don't think it's going to really radically change how most North Texans travel.

Partially because of the above (only 2 of the top 10 flights), but also because while it'll be nice to just take a train instead of driving to Houston, I'm probably going to have to rent a car or do a lot of ride hailing once I get there. Outside of a small section of a lot of these cities downtown areas you practically need a car to get around or be willing to make a lot of sacrifices.

So I'd love to take HSR to visit family in Clear Lake. I could take DART from my home, HSR to Houston, take METRO to the Bay Area Park and Ride, and then...walk several miles with my family's luggage a few miles on maybe paved sidewalks with a few kids under 3. Ride hailing is pretty much out of the question with little kids, good luck on them having adequate child seats available.

But I'll still champion and argue for the Texas HSR projects, even though I might personally not use it a lot. Maybe transit will improve where I want to go. I hope so. And even then I'll still probably take it to watch a Silver Boot series sometime. But there will be others who will be able to leverage it, and that means fewer cars on the road for me for these trips I'm somewhat forced to choose the car.

But I don't like people acting like there's no logical reason for HSR to be the dominant way for people to travel in the US. As we both agree, trips like DFW-NYC don't make much sense taking a train for most travellers.

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#277

Post by chgs » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:47 PM UTC

bpye wrote: post #227

tills13 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in our defense there is simply not enough people and towns to support a rail network like this. A shame, really, 'cause a WestJet flight from Victoria to Calgary is way more expensive than it needs to be and don't even get me started about cross-country flights. I would accept if Via rail was cheaper. I have been looking at those cross-country trips and it's literally $4k CAD per person. I get that it's accom…

Nearly two thirds of Canada's population live within the Windsor-Quebec City corridor - some 40 million people. Similarly Vancouver, BC - Portland, OR has relatively high population density. Population is not the reason for rail failing here.

Americans (and yea Canada is basically America) love to point out their vast empty plains.

Truth is that there are millions living in areas which rail makes sense but it doesn’t happen because they don’t want it.

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#278

Post by pembrook » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:51 PM UTC

aziaziazi wrote: post #251

pembrook wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false conspiracy narrative that belongs on Reddit in the r/fuckcars filter bubble. Sure, the automotive industry stood to benefit from the decline of rail travel in the US. But they didn’t really need to do anything for that to happen on its own. Reality is far less interesting than that. Turns out when you have tons of fertile land, even pre-industrialization your population tends to spread out a bit (the…

I don’t understand the density argument: HST aren’t supposed to connect every places, that’s totally ineffective. Instead you build rails between major hubs (those that got the biggest airports usually) and add stops on some medium cities that happen to be on the way. It serves those living close enough of the connected cities that want to go close enough to another connected city. _close enough_ depends on the local…

If you ran high speed rail between the two most populated cities in the US (NYC and LA), it'd be a 14 hour journey. And there's not that many conveniently placed major cities along the way where it even makes sense to add more than a few stops.

I know we have a lot of rail enthusiasts here, but the average person tends not to like being stuck in a tube for 14 hours...even if that tube is substantially nicer and more roomy than an airplane.

Let's not even talk about the cost of constructing that route.

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#279

Post by benhurmarcel » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:51 PM UTC

ricardobayes wrote: post #150

What a shame we don't have yet a high-speed line between Lisbon and Madrid. Two "sibling" countries, intertwined Iberian history and heritage, yet to travel between the capitals it's a 17-hour journey passing through Lisbon, Porto, Vigo (Galicia) and then Madrid.

It’s a shame they removed the night train too. I took it a few years ago, it was convenient.

Re: Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?

#280

Post by GuB-42 » Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 11:55 PM UTC

freetanga wrote: post #243

GuB-42 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still exists: https://www.interrail.eu/ You don't have to be younger than 26 to buy one, not anymore, but it is cheaper if you are. If you are a EU citizen, it gets you free, unlimited travel by train in most European countries. If you are not a EU citizen, there is the Eurail pass that is similar. But that's the theory. In practice there are important limitations: - You can't use it in your home country, except f…

Or no planning at all, as I did 26 years ago. Meet some people in a cafe in Paris, agree to all go to Amsterdam for 2 days, grab your bag and then find a hostel when you arrive. I spent 2 months without knowing where I was going to wake up the following day. No mobiles, only lifeline home being a pay phone call every week. Not the same stores in every city as it is today. Life was beautiful back then and we did not k…

I understand what you are talking about, and you can still do that, but it is going to be expensive. Or at least, expensive for a typical 20-something heading out to explore the world.

Times have changed, and now like it or not, we are in the internet and smartphone age. The best travel deals are online, the cheapest accommodations are also found online. The Interrail pass is a bit of a relic, it can still be useful, but if you have no plan and limited cash, you are probably better off chasing last minute deals on your trusty smartphone.

And yes, I think we have lost something, disconnecting is hard, and stores tend to be all the same these days, and finding something interesting to bring back home is becoming a difficult task now that you can order everything online.

But I also think we gained something. The language barrier is breaking down. More and more people speak decent English as a secondary language, smartphones come with pretty decent translators, plane tickets are ridiculously cheap if you are not too picky. Getting in touch or keeping contact with people on the other side of the planet is almost too easy, great for exchange. When travelling in a group (even a temporary group), having mobile phones cuts down on the time waiting for people to gather, and offers more freedom than "let's meet at a precise place at a precise time", which is one of the most annoying parts of travelling in a group.

Now, I talked a lot about "cheap". That's because while travelling, I consider using money to be like cheating. You can do everything (well, almost) with money. Want to do a smartphone-less trip, randomly hopping into trains? You can, with money. Finding a ho(s)tel without price-checking online first? Sure, with money. Cheapening out is a good way to keep a "no plan" travel unplanned. But yeah, now there are smartphones involved.

And life is still beautiful. In my opinion, more beautiful than it has ever been, but in different ways.