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

Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

swisscom.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 362 posts

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#81

Post by alFReD-NSH »

wpdev_63 wrote: post #53
singhrac wrote: post #4

I would honestly pay significantly higher taxes if we could get Swiss-quality train service in parts of the US (and especially if they have good internet). When I traveled Boston to NY in the past, compare my flight experience vs Amtrak. Flight: - Take $25 Uber to airport and get there 1 hour early to go through security and wait. - Fly to JFK (1h 20m) - land, wait to get off, go through terminal again, then take $50…

The main problem with the US interstate train system is that it's run on freight train lines. Amtrak and Acela do not actually own the railway they use and they can only go a certain speed due to the grade of the track. I don't think you would be willing to pay the amount of taxes you would need to, to completely redo the railways haha. Anyways Amtrak are barely turning a profit as it is and while it would be great t…

Living in the Netherlands and Flixbus is no competition to the trains here. As for travel inside of country, most of the passengers are travelling for work and normally employers pay for travel costs and if not it would be tax deductible, so they would naturally take trains. A lot of lines are already at maximum capacity during rush hour. As for travel to outside of the country, trains move a lot more passengers than Flixbus. Cheap train tickets are always bought early for holiday season.

I find public transport more expensive compared to minimum wage keeping other countries that I lived before, but the quality is high.

Trains are fast and reliable here and there's continuous improvements on the trains and their tracks. Every year they would announce that decrease in travel time due to improved tracks or higher frequency for some routes.

The only problem is that when something goes wrong extreme weather, signal failure, problem on the tracks in the rush hour, then that route stops working and all neighbouring routes become delayed or overcrowded. Luckily I only experience it every few months.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#82

Post by throw0101a »

ubanholzer wrote: post #44
macspoofing wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People tell me the reasons that everything is more expensive than in Switzerland US is cheaper than Switzerland for pretty much any product. If you are talking about train service, then the reason for that is because US (and Canada) prioritize freight traffic. Freight traffic is much more efficient in North America than in Europe [1] and unfortunately (or fortunately) is prioritized over passenger traffic. Honestly,…

Switzerland moved 40% of all freight traffic kilometerd to the rails too, which is really a lot. ( https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfsstatic/dam/assets/10547450/maste... )

The passenger modal share for rail in CH is 21%:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...

For the US it is 0.3%.

Given that CH is land-locked, it's not surprising that freight modal share is 46%, because it has to get inland from a port in some way:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...

This is higher than the US, but give that 127M Americans (40%) live in counties that are on the coast, it's probably not too hard to get things to them:

* https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html

* https://www.livescience.com/18997-population-coastal-areas-i...

Heck, Los Angeles county has a population (10M) larger than CH (8.5M), and would be the 10th largest state (between NC and MI):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...

So a good number of Americans can get goods pretty direct without long distance inland shipping.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#83

Post by tryptophan »

atoombs wrote: post #67
foota wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads don't break even, why should we expect trains to?

I never understand this line of thought. We invest in infrastructure to enable people to move between places, commune with one another, and trade goods. We've invested a tremendous amount in roads. Why do we expect other things like the USPS, Amtrak, etc. to generate profits when they're an expenditure in infrastructure?

The argument goes that if nobody is willing to pay the price for something(passenger rail), and chooses another alternative(driving), then it means that the service is not worth having and subsiding it would just be a waste of taxpayer money.

Of course its not that simple, because driving is subsidized(I would prefer every road to be a toll road and get rid of the general taxes that used to go to roads)...but you get the point.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#85

Post by nickik »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #32

They are using the same technique they use in Japan. In Tokyo, you get full signal strength, wherever you are (even in tunnels going underwater). That's because they have mobile antennas everywhere , including lining all the railway lines. I'll bet that their service ain't so cheap, though (I was roaming, when I was there, and that was definitely not cheap).

In Switzerland we defiantly do not have that, specially not in tunnels.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#87

Post by gruez »

dbetteridge wrote: post #78
bleepblorp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada's population density figure is deceptively low because most of Canada's landmass is completely uninhabited. Most of the Canadian far north has an even lower population density than the Sahara desert. Canada's population is tightly clustered into a small number of urban areas that have population densities comparable to places like Philadelphia or Vienna. Despite this, Canada's population centers have nowhere n…

This is all accurate, but people still expect reception and speed when travelling between those dense population centres by road or rail. Much like Australia, this means providers build the infrastructure to supply those areas but then the cost is recovered from the dense population areas. Theres also some capatilism nonsense oligopolies thrown in there, but that's the core issue.

> This is all accurate, but people still expect reception and speed when travelling between those dense population centres by road or rail.

Why doesn't the consumer have a choice? I'd be willing to sacrifice coverage in rural areas in exchange for 50-80% discounted tariffs, for instance.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#88

Post by niij »

smcl wrote: post #30
niij wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely population density plays a huge role in the relatively lower coverage of both US and Canada compared to Europe. Switzerland: 206/sqkm Germany: 240/sqkm Eurozone as a whole: ~100/sqkm Canada: ~4/sqkm USA: 35/sqkm

The key phrase in the comment you're replying to is "in the few percent of the territory that’s covered". The vast majority of the Canadian population live in highly urbanised pockets.

They do, but they want reception outside of those densely urbanized pockets. They want reception on the highways between the cities, at their lake house, or if they live in a rural area. The denser population subscribers still pay for the infrastructure in low-density areas.

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#89

Post by Dylan16807 »

macspoofing wrote: post #52
pansinghkoder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF-LA SF-Sacramento SF-Tahoe SF-Napa SEA-PDX Austin-Dallas-Houston LA-Las Vegas-Phoenix-Tucson And I am not talking snail Amtrak 70 mph train. I am suggesting 150 mph that runs in most Europe. What is holding US back in public transport?

>What is holding US back in public transport? Rail freight transport. What is holding Europe in rail freight transport? Passenger rail. You choose one or the other. Personally I think America made (or fell into) the correct decision.

How so? If we prioritized passengers, then rail freight will regularly take several extra hours to get places. Would that even be a real problem? Would anything else bad happen?

Re: Stable 1.2 Gigabit/s Internet achieved in moving train in Switzerland

#90

Post by PTOB »

jdminhbg wrote: post #20
jeffbee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't even need to pay higher taxes. The American system of private cars on public roads is dramatically more expensive than the Swiss train system.

The American train system is also drastically more expensive than the Swiss train system.

This is true. The USA has over 10x the population and 238x the land area. A national train system = dollar amounts that the human mind can't really grasp.
Post reply on HN