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

Across Kazakhstan by rail

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Across Kazakhstan by rail

#91

Post by ryanlol »

distances wrote: post #52
ryanlol wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ridiculously nice rail travel options in Europe, but they are expensive. https://www.belmond.com/trains/europe/venice-simplon-orient-... https://www.belmond.com/trains/europe/scotland/belmond-royal... https://www.goldeneagleluxurytrains.com/trains/golden-eagle-... Bonus trans-sib option, technically starts in Europe: https://www.goldeneagleluxurytrains.com/journeys/trans-siber...

Quite luxury price indeed, $18k for the two-week Trans-Siberian ride.

18k per person for minimum of 2 pax ;)

Re: Across Kazakhstan by rail

#92

Post by soared »

lmm wrote: post #72
soared wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The descriptions in this thread and your photo are interesting because you don’t need to travel all the way to Kazakhstan/etc like most commenters. In Wyoming/Colorado/Idaho/Montana you can drive for tens of hours and see the exact same thing!

Wyoming/Colorado/Idaho/Montana are further away than Kazakhstan, and very difficult to get to without flying.

Sorry I meant the internet’s “royal you” - the one that assumes everyone is American.

Re: Across Kazakhstan by rail

#93

Post by iso1210 »

jerrre wrote: post #84
iso1210 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well HS2 is a belated attempt to start building a high speed, high capacity network, about 30 years later than France, and look at the trouble that brings. There is no public appetite in the UK for more rail capacity, or for faster services, so the only way to control numbers and prevent people from being (mostly) left behind is to increase costs on the busiest services. This is fortunate too, the UK does not want to…

Isn't "Rail subsidies per passenger km (in euro-cents)" a bit of a strange metric? If the UK would half the amount of passengers, this metric would double, but it would definitely not be an improvement I'd say?

Rail subsidy per person

UK: €64

France: €203

Germany: €209

The UK makes a conscious decision not to subsidise its rail network to the extent of France and Germany. I'd rather we had spent the last 40 years building high speed lines, but as a country we didn't want that.

My list would be

* HS2 as now planned, extended up the east coast to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen

* Plymouth -> Exeter -> Bristol -> Birmingham -> Cambridge -> Norwich

* Swansea->Cardiff->Bristol->London

* Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull

With junctions to allow services to run as appropriate for demand (e.g. Swansea-Cardiff-Bristol-Birmingham once an hour, continuing to Manchester or Leeds, Swansea-Cardiff-Bristol-London twice an hour, Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh, etc)

Had we done that we'd have the capacity to offer cut price, but alas we didn't.

As it stands, trains - especially cross country ones - are massively crowded even with the price as high as it is, because people prefer to take a dog-slow overcrowded train from Reading to Manchester, rather than to take a cheaper coach.

Re: Across Kazakhstan by rail

#94

Post by anticodon »

avmich wrote: post #78
anticodon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will find people that mourns Soviet Union in all parts of the former USSR and among all age groups. Just like the opposite opinion. But percent of people mourning USSR would be quite big. This has nothing to do with western stereotypes about dreadly life in USSR (mostly invalid propaganda) or various dictators (can you, without checking Wikipedia/Google, name the president of Kazakhstan, and say if it is a author…

> One goal was to destroy a global economic competitor. I don't know what you mean here, but USA was trying to prevent USSR from collapsing.

Yeah, bees opposing honey, as we say in Russia in such cases.

Re: Across Kazakhstan by rail

#95

Post by willyt »

iso1210 wrote: post #93
jerrre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "Rail subsidies per passenger km (in euro-cents)" a bit of a strange metric? If the UK would half the amount of passengers, this metric would double, but it would definitely not be an improvement I'd say?

Rail subsidy per person UK: €64 France: €203 Germany: €209 The UK makes a conscious decision not to subsidise its rail network to the extent of France and Germany. I'd rather we had spent the last 40 years building high speed lines, but as a country we didn't want that. My list would be * HS2 as now planned, extended up the east coast to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen * Plymouth -> Exeter -> Bristol -> Birmingham ->…

But the TGV network makes a profit as does the intercity network in the UK. So those subsidies are for commuter rail which make dense cities viable economic centres. If you don't subsidise those services then many more people are either forced to drive or they don't make a trip. If you take Kings Cross station as an example it would be literally impossible for 750,000 cars to pass through that area in the morning rush hour and once they got to their destination you would need 4.8 square miles of car parking area with circulation aisles. There are five more major rail termini in London with passenger number as high or higher than that and another five smaller ones that probably add up to one more. Major European and Asian cities are not viable without commuter rail. I would argue that the higher the subsidy, the better lubricated your cities are.

The problem with the UK is that if you compare HS2 to comparable French lines, we are 10 times less efficient at procuring public projects than they are. They can cross the Massif Central for ~€30m/mile, we cross the Midlands for ~€300m/mile. In flat country their costs are much lower, Paris-Bordeaux cost ~€10m/mile.

Re: Across Kazakhstan by rail

#96

Post by avmich »

anticodon wrote: post #94
avmich wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One goal was to destroy a global economic competitor. I don't know what you mean here, but USA was trying to prevent USSR from collapsing.

Yeah, bees opposing honey, as we say in Russia in such cases.

Just a fact :) . Stubborn thing...
Post reply on HN