5 ms·

I'd say 5 hours is about the limit where the train makes more sense practically than flying. An eight hour train isn't worth it IMO compared to a 1.5 hour fligh

I'd say 5 hours is about the limit where the train makes more sense practically than flying. An eight hour train isn't worth it IMO compared to a 1.5 hour flight.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Consider a sleeper service!
- magduf 7y ago
  Sleeper services are usually much, much more expensive than a regular seat, so it doesn't help in trying to compete with air service (where you don't need sleeper service because it's so much faster).
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    I used to do a hard sleeper from Beijing to shanghai or Hangzhou (overnight train), and it was definitely cheaper than flying at the time. But hard sleepers aren’t for the feint of heart, especially if you get a dreaded top berth. Sleepers are appreciated on planes enough that they charge a lot for them (a 12+ hour long haul in business class is mostly sleep, in economy it’s watch whatever movie you can find).
    - magduf 7y ago
      Sleepers on planes certainly are expensive (you're talking about business or first class to get that space), but you don't feel the need for it as much because it's only that useful on long-haul flights. There's no such thing, usually, as a train that goes the same route as a 14-hour plane flight: such a train would have to somehow cross an ocean.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        > such a train would have to somehow cross an ocean. Beijing to Western Europe via Moscow could technically be done by train. The first leg is 8 hours which should count as a long haul.
        magduf 7y ago
        That's why I added the word "usually" in there. Try taking a train to Australia or Japan (from outside those countries), between the Americas and Europe or Asia, etc.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Generally anything separated by water should fly, but even just going across the continent I think flying wins out; eg why train from shanghai to Urumqi for 2-3 days when you can just fly for 5 or 6 hours?
        magduf 7y ago
        Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make before with my first sentence. A 5-6 hour flight isn't that hard to do in a seat; you don't need a sleeper for that. But a 2-3 day trip on a train isn't something you want to do in a regular upright seat.
  - komali2 7y ago
    I see your point, and understand it, but on the same note, food like pasture raised egg/milk etc is more expensive than the factory farmed version. Isn't it worth comparing not only the financial cost, but the ethical one and the environmental impact of decisions?
    - magduf 7y ago
      Is pasture-raised dairy actually more ecological? Sounds like it requires a lot of land.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
Depends on how long the trip to/from the airport is. Railway stations tend to be in city centers. Edit: also, you can get stuff done on your notebook in the train, but often times not on a plane b/c of the excessive check-in, gating, boarding, security, customs ceremony
hyperbovine 7y ago
There is no such thing as a 1.5h flight. With security, traffic to and from the airport, "allow extra time for <x>", and actual airtime, you're looking at 4h door to door for pretty much the shortest travel distance that it makes sense to fly (LA to SF or DC to NY). The train compares much more favorably when you factor everything in.
- the8472 7y ago
  Some of those things don't apply outside america. E.g. in europe or japan congestion-free public transport to the airport exists and internal flights have very low security overhead. On the other hand those places also have high speed rail.
- jdlshore 7y ago
  This is a popular sentiment, but didn't ring true for me as a frequent traveler. I've been taking regular 1h45m flights in the past few months, so I added up my actual travel time for those trips. It did take 4h15m when everything was included... but the part that was unique to air travel (arriving earlier at airport, security) only added up to 40 minutes. It's true that a 1.5h flight would take me 4h, but most of that extra time is universal to all travel. An equivalent 1h30m train ride would take me 3h20m. Not that much more favorable.

I'd say 5 hours is about the limit where the train makes more sense practically than flying. An eight hour train isn't worth it IMO compared to a 1.5 hour flight.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

Consider a sleeper service!

magduf 7y ago
Sleeper services are usually much, much more expensive than a regular seat, so it doesn't help in trying to compete with air service (where you don't need sleeper service because it's so much faster).
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  I used to do a hard sleeper from Beijing to shanghai or Hangzhou (overnight train), and it was definitely cheaper than flying at the time. But hard sleepers aren’t for the feint of heart, especially if you get a dreaded top berth. Sleepers are appreciated on planes enough that they charge a lot for them (a 12+ hour long haul in business class is mostly sleep, in economy it’s watch whatever movie you can find).
  - magduf 7y ago
    Sleepers on planes certainly are expensive (you're talking about business or first class to get that space), but you don't feel the need for it as much because it's only that useful on long-haul flights. There's no such thing, usually, as a train that goes the same route as a 14-hour plane flight: such a train would have to somehow cross an ocean.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      > such a train would have to somehow cross an ocean. Beijing to Western Europe via Moscow could technically be done by train. The first leg is 8 hours which should count as a long haul.
      - magduf 7y ago
        That's why I added the word "usually" in there. Try taking a train to Australia or Japan (from outside those countries), between the Americas and Europe or Asia, etc.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Generally anything separated by water should fly, but even just going across the continent I think flying wins out; eg why train from shanghai to Urumqi for 2-3 days when you can just fly for 5 or 6 hours?
        magduf 7y ago
        Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make before with my first sentence. A 5-6 hour flight isn't that hard to do in a seat; you don't need a sleeper for that. But a 2-3 day trip on a train isn't something you want to do in a regular upright seat.
- komali2 7y ago
  I see your point, and understand it, but on the same note, food like pasture raised egg/milk etc is more expensive than the factory farmed version. Isn't it worth comparing not only the financial cost, but the ethical one and the environmental impact of decisions?
  - magduf 7y ago
    Is pasture-raised dairy actually more ecological? Sounds like it requires a lot of land.

tannhaeuser 7y ago

Depends on how long the trip to/from the airport is. Railway stations tend to be in city centers. Edit: also, you can get stuff done on your notebook in the train, but often times not on a plane b/c of the excessive check-in, gating, boarding, security, customs ceremony

hyperbovine 7y ago

There is no such thing as a 1.5h flight. With security, traffic to and from the airport, "allow extra time for <x>", and actual airtime, you're looking at 4h door to door for pretty much the shortest travel distance that it makes sense to fly (LA to SF or DC to NY). The train compares much more favorably when you factor everything in.

the8472 7y ago
Some of those things don't apply outside america. E.g. in europe or japan congestion-free public transport to the airport exists and internal flights have very low security overhead. On the other hand those places also have high speed rail.
jdlshore 7y ago
This is a popular sentiment, but didn't ring true for me as a frequent traveler. I've been taking regular 1h45m flights in the past few months, so I added up my actual travel time for those trips. It did take 4h15m when everything was included... but the part that was unique to air travel (arriving earlier at airport, security) only added up to 40 minutes. It's true that a 1.5h flight would take me 4h, but most of that extra time is universal to all travel. An equivalent 1h30m train ride would take me 3h20m. Not that much more favorable.