4 ms·

That's a misleading statement. From your linked article: "Trains in countries like Japan are predominantly electric and transport a much larger number of peopl

That's a misleading statement. From your linked article: "Trains in countries like Japan are predominantly electric and transport a much larger number of people per cabin than trains in the US. While it’s difficult to broadly compare trains between regions it’s safe to say that trains in European and Asian countries are far more fuel efficient than those in the US, making them a leading option for travel. In most cases outside of the US, trains are probably at least as efficient as buses and are much more efficient than cars and planes." Yours, Physics.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bdamm 7y ago
Physics gets removed from the conversation when we start to view trains as endlessly more efficient than airplanes. They aren’t, and in the US part of that equation is the requirement to make passenger trains able to survive a full collision with a freight train, adding a great deal of weight and removing much of the physical advantage of low rolling resistance. Other examples are the overly prescriptive regulations for trains, which is a situation that the aeronautical industry has recently been able to make major gains on. Trains are great, but they’re not necessarily better for the environment or the users than airplanes because of their physics.
- bigmanwalter 7y ago
  Trains are amazing when they are built for people to take. Unfortunately, trains in the US were built for industrial transport. Trains for people have a few cars and go really fast. Trains for cargo have hundreds of cars and go really slow.
dexen 7y ago
Physics is on the airplane's side [0]. The drag of rolling over rails, and of going through the dense air at ground level pressure is naturally much worse than that of flying up high for any non-trivial speeds. Right now the trains may be ahead in some regions thanks to their slow speeds, and thanks to the electrification - with the assumption electricity is generated from sources other than fossil fuel. But if you tried to set up railway at travel time comparable to airways, you'd quickly find yourself doing away with rolling in favor of maglev or maybe air cushion, and also trying to lower the air drag as much as possible. Both are non-trivial engineering challenges - cue the Hyperloop languishing in protracted development. Both have been solved by air travel decades ago. Meanwhile electrification of the air travel is already underway. Quiet SSTs[1] are up next. And yes, SSTs are rather fuel efficient, thanks to the even higher operating altitude, and also the natural efficiency of the jets at high speeds. I will miss the railways. It used to be a great adventure back when I was a kid. [0] well if you disregard travel time, then the sailing ships would be the kings [1] relevant: the X-59, and the Boom

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bdamm 7y ago

Physics gets removed from the conversation when we start to view trains as endlessly more efficient than airplanes. They aren’t, and in the US part of that equation is the requirement to make passenger trains able to survive a full collision with a freight train, adding a great deal of weight and removing much of the physical advantage of low rolling resistance. Other examples are the overly prescriptive regulations for trains, which is a situation that the aeronautical industry has recently been able to make major gains on. Trains are great, but they’re not necessarily better for the environment or the users than airplanes because of their physics.

bigmanwalter 7y ago
Trains are amazing when they are built for people to take. Unfortunately, trains in the US were built for industrial transport. Trains for people have a few cars and go really fast. Trains for cargo have hundreds of cars and go really slow.

dexen 7y ago

Physics is on the airplane's side [0]. The drag of rolling over rails, and of going through the dense air at ground level pressure is naturally much worse than that of flying up high for any non-trivial speeds. Right now the trains may be ahead in some regions thanks to their slow speeds, and thanks to the electrification - with the assumption electricity is generated from sources other than fossil fuel. But if you tried to set up railway at travel time comparable to airways, you'd quickly find yourself doing away with rolling in favor of maglev or maybe air cushion, and also trying to lower the air drag as much as possible. Both are non-trivial engineering challenges - cue the Hyperloop languishing in protracted development. Both have been solved by air travel decades ago. Meanwhile electrification of the air travel is already underway. Quiet SSTs[1] are up next. And yes, SSTs are rather fuel efficient, thanks to the even higher operating altitude, and also the natural efficiency of the jets at high speeds. I will miss the railways. It used to be a great adventure back when I was a kid. [0] well if you disregard travel time, then the sailing ships would be the kings [1] relevant: the X-59, and the Boom