3 ms·

I am a train fan, used to do it all the time with the family though Europe. Now I can not afford it anymore and flying is always cheaper. Not much faster with t

I am a train fan, used to do it all the time with the family though Europe. Now I can not afford it anymore and flying is always cheaper. Not much faster with the obstacles, nor more confinient, but simply more economic. How on earth that is possible remains one of the best kept secrets (to me). But I am sure there is a boat load of tax money involved.

magduf 8y ago
AFAICT, it mostly comes down to poor government regulation and wastefulness and monopolism. Trains get guaranteed right-of-way and don't have to compete with each other for the same routes, but airplanes do. Airplanes surely use orders of magnitude more energy/fuel per passenger to move people between two points, but incredibly they still cost less. America is probably the poster child for how bad this can be, by looking at Amtrak. For all but the shortest routes along the northeast corridor, taking the train is slower, many times MUCH slower (like going cross-country), yet it can cost far, far more. Taking an Amtrak from DC to Seattle is horribly expensive and takes days, compared to an airplane which is a fraction of the cost and takes 6 hours or so. Why would anyone take an Amtrak for a long route like this? Mainly, it's just people who want the quaint experience of "seeing the country"; for actual travel between these points it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Even on the northeast corridor it doesn't make much sense for many cases/routes. Even worse, it's frequently much cheaper to take a bus (such as MegaBus) for inter-city trips in the NE corridor than Amtrak, if you don't mind it being slow (but not that much slower than Amtrak).
- gambiting 8y ago
  Even in Europe it can be difficult to do cross-country, even though the connections are excellent, fast, and on time. The problem is cost - I can travel within one country for reasonably little money, and 99% of the time beating flying on cost. But taking a train from Paris to Berlin or Berlin to Warsaw? Suddenly we're looking at hundreds of euros, in which case it's almost always cheaper to fly. I don't really understand why.

magduf 8y ago

AFAICT, it mostly comes down to poor government regulation and wastefulness and monopolism. Trains get guaranteed right-of-way and don't have to compete with each other for the same routes, but airplanes do. Airplanes surely use orders of magnitude more energy/fuel per passenger to move people between two points, but incredibly they still cost less. America is probably the poster child for how bad this can be, by looking at Amtrak. For all but the shortest routes along the northeast corridor, taking the train is slower, many times MUCH slower (like going cross-country), yet it can cost far, far more. Taking an Amtrak from DC to Seattle is horribly expensive and takes days, compared to an airplane which is a fraction of the cost and takes 6 hours or so. Why would anyone take an Amtrak for a long route like this? Mainly, it's just people who want the quaint experience of "seeing the country"; for actual travel between these points it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Even on the northeast corridor it doesn't make much sense for many cases/routes. Even worse, it's frequently much cheaper to take a bus (such as MegaBus) for inter-city trips in the NE corridor than Amtrak, if you don't mind it being slow (but not that much slower than Amtrak).

gambiting 8y ago
Even in Europe it can be difficult to do cross-country, even though the connections are excellent, fast, and on time. The problem is cost - I can travel within one country for reasonably little money, and 99% of the time beating flying on cost. But taking a train from Paris to Berlin or Berlin to Warsaw? Suddenly we're looking at hundreds of euros, in which case it's almost always cheaper to fly. I don't really understand why.