5 ms·

Or just use a train. Like if you want to travel from Moscow to Vladivostok (6 days) you'd better use this: http://thegoodlife.ru/image/962-mv.html http://thego

Or just use a train. Like if you want to travel from Moscow to Vladivostok (6 days) you'd better use this: http://thegoodlife.ru/image/962-mv.html http://thegoodlife.ru/image/962-mv.html + separate dining car. Traveled on these, quite interesting experience. Definitely it is a good time to think where you are going.

intopieces 8y ago
Unfortunately, trains are difficult to build in the US, which is a car-focussed culture.
- rndgermandude 8y ago
  Not really that difficult, you got a ton of empty space between cities where you can put rails. Then do the stations outside of the crowded city centers, just like airports. For "short" routes, I'd prefer trains. E.g. I prefer Cologne/Berlin by train in Germany, would even if the station was - just like an airport - outside of the city. The train ride is a lot more relaxed, not really longer if you calculate the total travel time, more space, no security theater (and related queuing), luggage check, etc.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Arbitraging a fickle TSA policy (less intense enforcement on rail vs. air travel) is not a good reason to build permanent infrastructure. Rail and air operators will be similarly incentivized to carry as many passengers per trip as they can, so I would expect seat sizing/comfort to converge.
    - ant6n 8y ago
      The cost to provide a large amount of space is much cheaper for rail.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        A train takes three days to do what an airliner can in six hours. So a marginal sqft of train car needs to cost something like 1/12th a marginal sqft of airliner just to break even on a per-ticket basis.
        ant6n 8y ago
        That's only true for Amtrak in the US, where trains are pitifully slow, and on top of that you picked one of the least favorable relations in terms of distance and speed. High speed rail achieves up to 200km/h (avg) as the bird flies, commercial aviation in the medium range may do about 400km/h on average (e.g. the 960km of New York - Chicago in about 2:30). Consider that the turn-around of an airplane is about an hour, and for a train it's likely less than that, and the 1/12 factor you bring up may end up being much less in practice. Or put another way, there are plenty of medium/high speed rail operations that are profitable while giving a large amount of space to passengers.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- zrail 8y ago
  There is an absolutely gigantic rail network in the United States. It's almost entirely privately owned by freight rail companies and they're not interested in passenger traffic. Amtrak is the basically only long haul passenger traffic carrier and for almost all of their routes they do not get priority above freight traffic. This makes it very difficult to stay on schedule, which leads to a bad reputation, which leads to decreases in passenger traffic. The only real exception to this rule is the Acela express train on the eastern seaboard. There, Amtrak owns most of the rail and thus can run their passenger trains at a faster speed with priority. Acela gets good reviews and has tons of traffic.
manigandham 8y ago
Long distance passenger train travel in the US is unreliable and relatively expensive. I've had trains that are 9 hours late to arrive, effectively cancelling the entire trip.
opportune 8y ago
I've always wanted to take the trans-siberian (except I'd take the route that ends in Mongolia, from which you can take a train to Beijing), but I wouldn't say that it's something you "better" use if you value your time at all and aren't traveling for pleasure. There are one-way nonstop flights from Moscow to Vladivostok for $200, which takes only 8-9 hr and is half the price of the train.
- Zanni 8y ago
  I did the trans-Mongolian train (Beijing to Moscow through Mongolia). The first bit is well worth it. The back half (Irkutsk to Moscow) is days and days of unrelieved boredom, with no stops longer than 10 minutes and no scenery.

intopieces 8y ago

Unfortunately, trains are difficult to build in the US, which is a car-focussed culture.

rndgermandude 8y ago
Not really that difficult, you got a ton of empty space between cities where you can put rails. Then do the stations outside of the crowded city centers, just like airports. For "short" routes, I'd prefer trains. E.g. I prefer Cologne/Berlin by train in Germany, would even if the station was - just like an airport - outside of the city. The train ride is a lot more relaxed, not really longer if you calculate the total travel time, more space, no security theater (and related queuing), luggage check, etc.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Arbitraging a fickle TSA policy (less intense enforcement on rail vs. air travel) is not a good reason to build permanent infrastructure. Rail and air operators will be similarly incentivized to carry as many passengers per trip as they can, so I would expect seat sizing/comfort to converge.
  - ant6n 8y ago
    The cost to provide a large amount of space is much cheaper for rail.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      A train takes three days to do what an airliner can in six hours. So a marginal sqft of train car needs to cost something like 1/12th a marginal sqft of airliner just to break even on a per-ticket basis.
      - ant6n 8y ago
        That's only true for Amtrak in the US, where trains are pitifully slow, and on top of that you picked one of the least favorable relations in terms of distance and speed. High speed rail achieves up to 200km/h (avg) as the bird flies, commercial aviation in the medium range may do about 400km/h on average (e.g. the 960km of New York - Chicago in about 2:30). Consider that the turn-around of an airplane is about an hour, and for a train it's likely less than that, and the 1/12 factor you bring up may end up being much less in practice. Or put another way, there are plenty of medium/high speed rail operations that are profitable while giving a large amount of space to passengers.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
zrail 8y ago
There is an absolutely gigantic rail network in the United States. It's almost entirely privately owned by freight rail companies and they're not interested in passenger traffic. Amtrak is the basically only long haul passenger traffic carrier and for almost all of their routes they do not get priority above freight traffic. This makes it very difficult to stay on schedule, which leads to a bad reputation, which leads to decreases in passenger traffic. The only real exception to this rule is the Acela express train on the eastern seaboard. There, Amtrak owns most of the rail and thus can run their passenger trains at a faster speed with priority. Acela gets good reviews and has tons of traffic.

manigandham 8y ago

Long distance passenger train travel in the US is unreliable and relatively expensive. I've had trains that are 9 hours late to arrive, effectively cancelling the entire trip.

opportune 8y ago

I've always wanted to take the trans-siberian (except I'd take the route that ends in Mongolia, from which you can take a train to Beijing), but I wouldn't say that it's something you "better" use if you value your time at all and aren't traveling for pleasure. There are one-way nonstop flights from Moscow to Vladivostok for $200, which takes only 8-9 hr and is half the price of the train.

Zanni 8y ago
I did the trans-Mongolian train (Beijing to Moscow through Mongolia). The first bit is well worth it. The back half (Irkutsk to Moscow) is days and days of unrelieved boredom, with no stops longer than 10 minutes and no scenery.