6 ms·

It takes quite a lot of maintenance unfortunately. Rails need constant work to keep them in good condition. So does the ballast. Signalling involves miles of c

It takes quite a lot of maintenance unfortunately. Rails need constant work to keep them in good condition. So does the ballast. Signalling involves miles of cables, lights, radio towers and motors that also degrade. The stations need staff, gates, ticket kiosks, displays. A frequent need is to add capacity. Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems. Adding capacity in a rail line can involve major earthworks, rebuilding bridges, totally replacing the signalling and so on. Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. There's no station infrastructure. No stations means no expensive employees. People drive cars themselves and cars can be driven safely even on quite degraded roads. Signalling is entirely local and so doesn't require much cabling, on high speed routes (motorways) there's usually little or no signalling required. Laying tarmac is much cheaper than laying rails. Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees. The government employees only do repairs and so don't have much strike power. Contrast to the railways which in Europe are frequently shut down for weeks at a time by strikes of drivers or crew. The capital investment in trains is worth it for only one reason - it's the highest capacity form of transport in seats per hour. It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations.

eesmith 7y ago
> Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Heathrow is at 98% capacity, for example, and it's difficult to add a new airport, or even new runway, for London. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport , which discusses the major earthworks, etc. involved. > Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. In the US fuel taxes only cover about 25% of "State/Local Road Spending", says https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-user-fees-user-taxes-categories-separated-out https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-u... . > Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees That's in the US, right? Fuel-tanker drivers in Portugal went on strike last year - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portugal-fuel-tanker-drivers-say-they-will-suspend-strike-negotiate-idUKKCN1V61AM https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portu... . Fuel-tanker drivers in France went on strike 3 years ago - https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begin-to-run-as-fuel-tanker-strike-rumbles-on https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begi... . > It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations. Care to elaborate? For many ordinary situations, train CO2 production is 1/2 or even less than planes, on a per-passenger basis. Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 "Train virtually always comes out better than plane, often by a lot. A journey from London to Madrid would emit 43kg (95lb) of CO2 per passenger by train, but 118kg by plane (or 265kg if the non-CO2 emissions are included), according to EcoPassenger." Of course, London-Madrid by train is about 24 hours, or 2.5 hours by flight. And of course, London-NYC isn't a train trip away, and there are unusual situations like Bergen, Norway—Aberdeen, United Kingdom where there are direct flights while Google Maps just laughs at me for asking for a train routing. But I'm curious about the ordinary cases where flights are more green than train - that is, where both are reasonable options to consider.
- Hamuko 7y ago
  >Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Is that somehow different for train stations?
  - eesmith 7y ago
    ... no? I mean, of course not - it costs money to maintain and upgrade train stations as well. But I am confused about your comment. There are two distinct statements. X = "Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems." and Y = "Rails need constant work to keep them in good condition". I don't believe X is correct, and I gave a counter-example about adding capacity to London. But that doesn't mean I think Y must necessarily also be invalid. While it seems you interpret my comment to mean that Y is correct? And I don't understand how one can draw that inference. So I don't understand the point of your comment.
    - Hamuko 7y ago
      And I don't really understand the point of talking about scaling airports when the issue was about scaling the number of airplanes that can move between places, since that's an universal problem with it comes to any method of transportation. If you want to move more buses, you need more bus terminals. If you want to move more planes, you need more airports. If you need to move more trains, you need more train stations. The point about scaling air traffic and scaling trains is that you need far less infrastructure to get a plane from place to place. You don't actually even need a huge, expensive airport to do so, since there are much smaller ones and even just tiny airstrips. And unlike trains, once they leave, they have pretty much unlimited room. How many tracks would a train station need in order to accomodate the same number of passengers leaving from Heathrow?
      - eesmith 7y ago
        The point is that most people don't want to simply go to some arbitrary small airport or tiny airstrip. Again, thu2111's statement was: > "Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems." ATC systems are not the only relevant part of infrastructure - airports are also important. You write "you need far less infrastructure". Sure. But airports are also needed for scaling, even if small/tiny airstrips are included, and my point was that airports were omitted from the infrastructure cost. You write "since there are much smaller ones ... tiny airstrips". That doesn't solve London's capacity problem, which is why a capacity question must include the cost of airports. You ask "How many tracks would a train station need in order to accomodate the same number of passengers leaving from Heathrow?" Heathrow has about 80 million passengers per year says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport . London Waterloo has about 94 million passengers per year says https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1668/estimates-of-station-usage-2018-19-key-facts.pdf https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1668/estimates-of-statio... , with 24 platforms says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Waterloo_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Waterloo_station . Looking at the aerial photo confirms there are 24 platforms, and it appears from Google Maps' satellite view that they are served by 7 rail lines, splitting into 24 platforms. So, 7 tracks are enough to accommodate the same number of passengers leaving from Heathrow. However, that answer doesn't make a whit of difference to my point, which is that if ATC is important cost facto to bring up when discussion air transit capacity, then airports are also an important cost factor.

eesmith 7y ago

> Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Heathrow is at 98% capacity, for example, and it's difficult to add a new airport, or even new runway, for London. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport , which discusses the major earthworks, etc. involved. > Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. In the US fuel taxes only cover about 25% of "State/Local Road Spending", says https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-user-fees-user-taxes-categories-separated-out https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-u... . > Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees That's in the US, right? Fuel-tanker drivers in Portugal went on strike last year - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portugal-fuel-tanker-drivers-say-they-will-suspend-strike-negotiate-idUKKCN1V61AM https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portu... . Fuel-tanker drivers in France went on strike 3 years ago - https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begin-to-run-as-fuel-tanker-strike-rumbles-on https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begi... . > It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations. Care to elaborate? For many ordinary situations, train CO2 production is 1/2 or even less than planes, on a per-passenger basis. Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 "Train virtually always comes out better than plane, often by a lot. A journey from London to Madrid would emit 43kg (95lb) of CO2 per passenger by train, but 118kg by plane (or 265kg if the non-CO2 emissions are included), according to EcoPassenger." Of course, London-Madrid by train is about 24 hours, or 2.5 hours by flight. And of course, London-NYC isn't a train trip away, and there are unusual situations like Bergen, Norway—Aberdeen, United Kingdom where there are direct flights while Google Maps just laughs at me for asking for a train routing. But I'm curious about the ordinary cases where flights are more green than train - that is, where both are reasonable options to consider.

Hamuko 7y ago
>Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Is that somehow different for train stations?
- eesmith 7y ago
  ... no? I mean, of course not - it costs money to maintain and upgrade train stations as well. But I am confused about your comment. There are two distinct statements. X = "Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems." and Y = "Rails need constant work to keep them in good condition". I don't believe X is correct, and I gave a counter-example about adding capacity to London. But that doesn't mean I think Y must necessarily also be invalid. While it seems you interpret my comment to mean that Y is correct? And I don't understand how one can draw that inference. So I don't understand the point of your comment.
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    And I don't really understand the point of talking about scaling airports when the issue was about scaling the number of airplanes that can move between places, since that's an universal problem with it comes to any method of transportation. If you want to move more buses, you need more bus terminals. If you want to move more planes, you need more airports. If you need to move more trains, you need more train stations. The point about scaling air traffic and scaling trains is that you need far less infrastructure to get a plane from place to place. You don't actually even need a huge, expensive airport to do so, since there are much smaller ones and even just tiny airstrips. And unlike trains, once they leave, they have pretty much unlimited room. How many tracks would a train station need in order to accomodate the same number of passengers leaving from Heathrow?
    - eesmith 7y ago
      The point is that most people don't want to simply go to some arbitrary small airport or tiny airstrip. Again, thu2111's statement was: > "Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems." ATC systems are not the only relevant part of infrastructure - airports are also important. You write "you need far less infrastructure". Sure. But airports are also needed for scaling, even if small/tiny airstrips are included, and my point was that airports were omitted from the infrastructure cost. You write "since there are much smaller ones ... tiny airstrips". That doesn't solve London's capacity problem, which is why a capacity question must include the cost of airports. You ask "How many tracks would a train station need in order to accomodate the same number of passengers leaving from Heathrow?" Heathrow has about 80 million passengers per year says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport . London Waterloo has about 94 million passengers per year says https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1668/estimates-of-station-usage-2018-19-key-facts.pdf https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1668/estimates-of-statio... , with 24 platforms says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Waterloo_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Waterloo_station . Looking at the aerial photo confirms there are 24 platforms, and it appears from Google Maps' satellite view that they are served by 7 rail lines, splitting into 24 platforms. So, 7 tracks are enough to accommodate the same number of passengers leaving from Heathrow. However, that answer doesn't make a whit of difference to my point, which is that if ATC is important cost facto to bring up when discussion air transit capacity, then airports are also an important cost factor.