Live data from Hacker News

Europe is investing heavily in trains

nytimes.com

591–600 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#591
When doing these calculations, we really need to think strongly about electric airplanes.

By the time any major high speed rails are built, electric planes will exist.

Given electric planes can be fueled with green energy in many European countries there is not really an environment argument anymore. Well one could argue that its less efficient and that true but the difference is certainty much closer.

Electric planes will also make air-travel much cheaper, because the operational cost will be far, far lower just as with electric cars and the 'fuel' will be cheaper as well. The fuel is consider a major part of the cost right now and has the potential to be much lower.

Electric planes also require little buildup of infrastructure. In fact, electric planes will allow us to fly many more routes to smaller airports that are often not utilized much right now.

If we can get the absurd security restrictions removed and make air-travel within continents more like trains we can eliminate much of the wasted time as well.

Because electric planes have the potential to be much more quite while on the ground and on landing, airports can be build closer to population centers. And there are additional innovations that could make propellers in general more quite as well.

Planes allow for point to point transport rather then following a line of stations. Or rather you still might use stations but on much less granular scale.

From where I live I can reach a local airport in something like 10min with the bus. If I could fly from there to places like Paris, Milan or Berlin it would be quite amazing. Even if those flights only happen once 1 week or so. Or you just connect to some larger airport and get on a second plane there.

I feel like really major investment in high speed rail is misplaced. I much rather see more investment in local rail. And if you need to hope from city to city jumping into an electric plane would be better.

Now the technology is not fully there yet, specially in battery cells (and how to package them into plane). No proposed electric plane can fly Zürich->Berlin. But I think major investment in that sector would yield amazing results. The current electric plane companies are minimally innovative because they want to just get electric plane of the ground (and they are right to do so).

However once you really think threw all the implications of electric planes you could do so much more. Its like first generation EV were just traditional cars with batteries in them. When now in Tesla and BYD produce cars where the actual battery cells are a vital part of the cars structure.

With battery electric supersonic overland flights are a real possibility because you would fly high enough that air density and distance would make the sonic boom much less of a problem. We could rethink vertical launch as well.

In general a change in paradigm will force revising on many of the most basic assumptions of how traditional combustion planes look.

I would not be surprised if we fly around with electric vertical starting, supersonic flying wing airplanes in 30 years.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#592
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be more expensive to constantly fly back and forth to Dubai to load up than to simply pay the tax. Dubai is not that close to Paris. It takes about 7-8 hours. I don't know if you've been checking the news lately but Russia is out of the question for airplanes. They won't even return leased airplanes back anymore.

Switzerland, Norway and the UK are much closer though.

Switzerland and Norway at least would very likely accept such rules and implement them as well.

I'm Swiss and at least in Switzerland such a rule would automatically apply unless the population would do a referendum. And that would lead to a public vote that would almost certainty lose.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#593
post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have some pretty high estimates. We also have some low estimates too. Average of the estimates we have is not "at least 300 eur/ton".

195€-680€/ton is what the German government believes[0]. Who is advocating for significantly lower estimates? [0] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/14...

Passingly looking over that document it seems depending on what the CO2 is used for, it totally different.

Once you fix energy production, vehicles transport and heating most of those things are gone.

If we looked air air-travel in isolation it would be a lot lower.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#594
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't those actual scientists bring this up when he, you know, got a Nobel Prize for that? Or are you arguing here that Nobel Prize is a joke, and people who give it are total idiots?

The 'Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel' isn't really much like the actual Nobel Prizes (except maybe the Nobel Peace Prize, that one has proven to be a bit of a joke too, but at least it's a real Nobel Prize).

Yes it is. It gets promoted the same way by the foundation and it has the same recognition in the field.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are under the flight path? My point was that train lines are millions of miles/km and run through the center of settlements, by design. Almost everywhere in the world, unless you live in a suburb or village, you have a high chance that you will hear trains multiple times a day. I think there are less people under flight plaths than near trains. I guess it depends on luck how noisy they can be. I used to get…

From what I can tell it is take offs - aircraft coming in to land, even though they are much closer, tend to be inaudible. It might be because we are relatively high up (about 100m) and most of the distance between us and the airport is over the sea. Edit: Just checked on a map and when most aircraft take off from Edinburgh's runway into the prevailing wind they are pointing pretty much directly away from us which mi…

As far as I know, airports try to setup the operations to have planes descend over cities, and climb away from them, to minimize noise. Sometimes this is not possible because of winds, so there will be a reversal.

Sometimes it's not possible to avoid climbing over cities because the city ended up engulfing the airport (e.g. Heathrow) - so they will alternate directions to give various towns a break.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#596
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

The economics are quite involved, and can be easily skewed depending on what externalized costs you choose to include in your analysis. Superficially, flying has relatively lower infrastructure costs because it only needs the two endpoints (no road, no track, no bridges, no tunnels -- all expensive items). That impacts both the initial capital cost, and the ongoing investment in maintenance. Similarly, planes are fas…

Lets just be honest without a fairly high estimate for externality cost of fuel planes simply win.

And with electric planes you can go closer to cities, elimintation much infrastructure there and the externailty goes away for the most part.

So this seems just like an argument that we should make planes electric and invest a lot into that.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#597
post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the externalities of flying, especially when compared to (electric) trains?

... are miniscule but public-facing, thus suffering from the paper straw problem.

Around 2.4% of all global green house gas emissions, but responsible for 5% of global warming [1]. I wouldn't call it minuscule.

I think one of the reasons that aviation is so often in the spotlight in discussions about climate change is the existence of greener alternatives. Of course, those can't replace all flights, but they don't have to. Add to that the fact that air travel has exploded in recent years before Corona, and you certainly have to ask yourself whether taking five weekend trips a year from Zurich to Hamburg really improves our standard of living so much that we should put up with the downsides of it.

Personally, of course, I also like to travel and I think flying is a great invention that brings countries and people closer. Nevertheless, you have to be a bit critical about whether every flight is really necessary.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200218-climate-change-h...

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty sure land use for all those tracks, elevated rail beds, tunnels and bridges, stations is FAR higher than what the planes use. Single plastic usage is such a red herring...every time you load up your car with gas, you put in 15 gallons, that is ~50 kilograms. A plastic straw is 0.4 grams, 125,000 plastic straws to amount to the same hydrocarbon footprint. This is a very rough math, but you get the idea. Yo…

It might be a token problem but I think it's important to put this on the map for people to even realize it's a problem. Also, trains (in large parts of Europe anyway) run on electricity only of which a significant chunk is from nuclear power, which doesn't emit anywhere near as much CO2 to move as many people as a plane would. And the noise. trains are so quiet compared to planes.

The problem is that people have a limited amount of things they can care for. You bombard them with plastic straws bans, grocery bag bans, 100% gas taxes, diesel poisons, shaming flying and you amount to maybe 1% reduction in GHG.

Then when it come to bigger hitters, like industry, building insulation, agriculture etc. you will get exhausted and poorer people that just can't take it anymore. And then you end up with people thinking this is all so futile and so scared of the future that they don't want to even have kids anymore.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#599
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plane doesn't have to build and maintain km of tracks, it just uses airport facilities (subsidised usually) and untaxed kerosene. A high speed train can only go to a few destination, the tracks can hardly be repaid

For the plane, the start and end of the trip requires a second form of transport to get to the airport itself. So the existence of a plane does rely on some infrastructure. Some futurists are calling for aerotropolis to be built as new city models with the airport as the center of commerce, but most old world cities won’t have this.

I think the future we are looking for kind of looks like this:

You leave your house and you either jump on an electric bike or a self driving car of some kind. A 1-person 3-wheeled pod car would be very efficient if you are alone.

You get to a local mini-airport where electric helicopters transport you to the airport. Or maybe you just take the car to the local airport. Depends on where you live.

You jump into a electric plan and fly the city center you want to go to, or you land and jump in a second electric plane (this will happen less often as technology improves).

And then you do that same thing backwards to get the your destination.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem at least in parts of Europe is that trains are not always competitive in terms of pricing, especially when it comes to fast connections. Airplane tickets are sometimes just stupidly cheap. Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues. Nevertheless, I agree that it's more relaxed to go by train most of the time (unless it's super crowded) and I'll sometimes pay extra for that comfort.

> Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues. Wait, what? I am really surprised to read this.

Germany tried to privatise rail transport but kind-of half-assed it, so now you have a system which is basically the worst of both worlds: Not customer-centric at all, but at the same time investing more money in high-prestige projects (sometimes at the other end of the world) than in fixing the problems with badly maintained infrastructure at home.
Post reply on HN