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

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

chronotrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 428 posts

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

#281

Post by pembrook »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #247
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…

> Today the US has 3-5X less population density than any country with high speed rail. This may be true when averaged across the entire country (or even just the lower 48). But it is absolutely not true if you consider various zones of the country as candidates for good rail service. Several such zones exist, among them: 1. the north east corridor, perhaps one of the largest and densest conurbations in the world 2. t…

The problem is the equivalent driving times aren't crazy on those routes either though.

When you factor in that you need a car in both your departing city and destination city (except for NYC), AND the fact that nearly every household in those regions owns one or multiple cars (which is not true in higher density/higher urbanization countries)...it begins to not make sense especially given the massive upfront cost of construction.

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

#282

Post by thfuran »

pembrook wrote: post #152
yndoendo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would travel more around the USA if we had a decedent high-speed rail system. Spent too much time flying, red-eyes, and driving for work, 7-12+ hours one way, and hate those modes of transportation. They may get you from point A to B but your time is wasted along with the enjoyment of the trip. Unfortunately the Oil industry won over the politicians in the USA with donations, legal bribes, and they prevent the buil…

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…

>the vast majority of Americans used to be farmers

The vast majority of every agricultural society used to be farmers.

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

#283

Post by mnky9800n »

pembrook wrote: post #281
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today the US has 3-5X less population density than any country with high speed rail. This may be true when averaged across the entire country (or even just the lower 48). But it is absolutely not true if you consider various zones of the country as candidates for good rail service. Several such zones exist, among them: 1. the north east corridor, perhaps one of the largest and densest conurbations in the world 2. t…

The problem is the equivalent driving times aren't crazy on those routes either though. When you factor in that you need a car in both your departing city and destination city (except for NYC), AND the fact that nearly every household in those regions owns one or multiple cars (which is not true in higher density/higher urbanization countries)...it begins to not make sense especially given the massive upfront cost of…

You highlighted it. The real problem is when you get somewhere you still need a car.

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

#284

Post by mnky9800n »

pembrook wrote: post #278
aziaziazi wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone wants to think about how practical things are. A high speed sleeper train across America would be cool. People should do more cool shit.

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

#285

Post by thfuran »

lukan wrote: post #273
gcanyon wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ..

And at road crossings and passing loops and so on. Really long trains are a fairly significant logistical challenge.

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

#286

Post by lukan »

thfuran wrote: post #285
lukan wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ..

And at road crossings and passing loops and so on. Really long trains are a fairly significant logistical challenge.

Yeah, I would rather go with smaller, but automated trains. But in germany for example this would mean, basically changing everything installed electronically there already is.

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

#287

Post by ghaff »

pembrook wrote: post #281
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today the US has 3-5X less population density than any country with high speed rail. This may be true when averaged across the entire country (or even just the lower 48). But it is absolutely not true if you consider various zones of the country as candidates for good rail service. Several such zones exist, among them: 1. the north east corridor, perhaps one of the largest and densest conurbations in the world 2. t…

The problem is the equivalent driving times aren't crazy on those routes either though. When you factor in that you need a car in both your departing city and destination city (except for NYC), AND the fact that nearly every household in those regions owns one or multiple cars (which is not true in higher density/higher urbanization countries)...it begins to not make sense especially given the massive upfront cost of…

I do take Acela from Central Massachusetts to NYC but mostly because I hate driving into NYC so much. (And don't need a car when I get there.) It basically involves driving an hour in the wrong direction to south suburban Boston. I could drive to New Haven and for a longer drive I'd get a shorter/cheaper trip.

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

#288

Post by s1artibartfast »

Beijinger wrote: post #139
tzury wrote: post #80

About 20 years ago, I visited most of Europe’s major cities over the course of a two-month trip, traveling primarily by night train. Each overnight ride saved me the cost of a hostel or guesthouse, and I’d arrive in a new city each morning feeling refreshed because of the train’s sleeping accommodations. There used to be a similar service between Toronto and Montreal (both directions), where the train would pause for…

"I’d arrive in a new city each morning feeling refreshed because of the train’s sleeping accommodations." Aeh, where were you travelling? Many countries did not have sleeper trains. Don't get me wrong. I did the same, travelling at night in trains, and it saved me a night in a hotel. But I did not arrive well rested, I arrived train wrecked.

I traveled by sleeper train in india, around 2010. They had beds, but every time I woke up, there were 3-4 Indian dudes that had come into our cabin and climbed on my bed to get some shut eye.

It wasn't threatening or anything, just a wild experience and insightful lesson in cultural differences

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

#289

Post by ghaff »

aetherson wrote: post #244
thatcat wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China, Russia, and India have high speed rail. Can you cite the reasons that these large countries are capable of building high speed rail while the US is not? Where is the recent innovation in US air travel? It has gotten considerably worse over the last 30 years. Supersonic passenger flights stopped in 2003 around the same time that TSA added hours to every flight.

I mean, the recent innovation in US air travel is that the TSA no longer adds hours to every flight. Like, is it maddening that we're curing a self-inflicted problem? Sure, of course it is. But the railfan community is also stuck in 2010. Every flight I've been on in the last 10 years I've walked through a metal detector, not a scanner, I've kept my shoes and belt on, my laptop in my bag. It's like 2000 all over agai…

I tend to show up fairly early because neither myself nor my limo companies like the stress. But the idea that you need to show up hours early just isn't true in general.

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

#290

Post by bongodongobob »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #247
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…

> Today the US has 3-5X less population density than any country with high speed rail. This may be true when averaged across the entire country (or even just the lower 48). But it is absolutely not true if you consider various zones of the country as candidates for good rail service. Several such zones exist, among them: 1. the north east corridor, perhaps one of the largest and densest conurbations in the world 2. t…

I will speak to the Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, Minneapolis/St Paul region.

Rail is not going to happen until you don't need a car in those cities. Chicago you could do, but the others are not pedestrian friendly. Anyone traveling within that region will have a 95% chance of already owning a car. Unless the train gets you from Chicago to Minneapolis in an hour, people are just going to drive. The risk with car rental and money spent on Uber's isn't worth it.

I feel like these types of comments come from people that live in NYC or LA. The rest of the country is so fuckin sparse. Your "walkable cities" idea doesn't make any sense and is completely unfeasible outside of major metro areas which land wise in the US is like 99%.

Post reply on HN