4 ms·

Well, if there was no air travel, rail lines everywhere would likely be practical... again. If trains could go 250km/h on average, that 5000km trip would take

by ant6n 5y ago

Well, if there was no air travel, rail lines everywhere would likely be practical... again. If trains could go 250km/h on average, that 5000km trip would take 20 hours - that's plausible for an overnight trip, leave 6pm, arrive 10am. A flight over this is distance is probably a much more stressful red eye. Sure this is quite speculative, but perhaps less so than hyperloop dreams, or supersonic aircraft that somehow have no environmental impact.

sokoloff 5y ago
6 PM to 10 AM is only 16 hours. Even with 3 time zones, you’d only be at 19 hours. 250kph straight line equivalent is unlikely given the terrain in the way (Rocky Mountains, primarily).
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Tonnels, we are made massive ones through the alps in europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Gotthard is impressive, but it took the Swiss 17 years to build it. Nearby, Brenner Base Tunnel is under construction between Italy and Austria, and it is expected to take 25 years to complete. I can't imagine how long would it take to tunnel through the Rockies. Look at the map, they are far wider than the Alps. Getting through the Rockies is like getting from Denmark to Croatia.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Better get started soon then! Once you make a tonnel, it stays there forever, it's a good investment
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Indeed, if we want tunnels to make a rail network cross the Rockies, we had really better get started, since you'd need 5 east-west routes to make trains practical ("less impractical"?) to cross the Rockies. No one is going to take an additional 1000 mile (7+ hour) diversion north-south to pass through a tunnel to repeat that north-south diversion on the other side.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      Use the Army Corps of Engineers, Navy Sea Bees, something like that. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikan_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikan_Tunnel going between islands under the Japan Seas in an earthquake area. Think BIGGRRRR! (Aggressively so, instead of sissying around!) edit: also not to forget about 'Nuclear Tunnel Boring Machines/Subterrene' https://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2015/06/nuclear-powered-drilling-machine.html https://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2015/06/nuclear-power... cf. "Trans-Planetary Subway Systems A Burgeoning Capability by Robert M. Salter February 1978" https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6092.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6092.html
- ant6n 5y ago
  China built tens of thousands of km of high speed rail for 350km/h. Largely using prefab elevated tracks, with occasional tunnels. Again it’s difficult, but possible if a replacement for air travel was considered a necessity.
cortesoft 5y ago
That seems a strange argument… yes, if we didn’t have planes, trains would be our best option… but it would be a much worse experience. 20 hours is a lot longer than the 5 it takes me to fly to New York. If there was no air travel, I would just travel a lot less. If you want to argue that the environmental cost of air travel is too great to allow it to happen is one thing, but done act like it wouldn’t make the travel experience a lot worse.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  I'd like to see a graph of miles flown per year by decile. internet foo Found this. As I suspected, hockey stick graph. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/airlines.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/airlines.aspx Half the people in the US don't fly at all. 25% fly 1-2 times a year. People that don't fly at all, and people that fly 1-2 times year. Probably wouldn't be much impacted if they had to take a high speed train instead of a plane.
- ant6n 5y ago
  It’s not a strange argument. Read the discussion again, which starts with the thesis > All overland passenger transport should be rail. Then it was claimed that this is impossible. My argument is saying it’s possible to have rail replace rail, for example if air travel was severely restricted.

by ant6n 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

6 PM to 10 AM is only 16 hours. Even with 3 time zones, you’d only be at 19 hours. 250kph straight line equivalent is unlikely given the terrain in the way (Rocky Mountains, primarily).

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Tonnels, we are made massive ones through the alps in europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Gotthard is impressive, but it took the Swiss 17 years to build it. Nearby, Brenner Base Tunnel is under construction between Italy and Austria, and it is expected to take 25 years to complete. I can't imagine how long would it take to tunnel through the Rockies. Look at the map, they are far wider than the Alps. Getting through the Rockies is like getting from Denmark to Croatia.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Better get started soon then! Once you make a tonnel, it stays there forever, it's a good investment
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Indeed, if we want tunnels to make a rail network cross the Rockies, we had really better get started, since you'd need 5 east-west routes to make trains practical ("less impractical"?) to cross the Rockies. No one is going to take an additional 1000 mile (7+ hour) diversion north-south to pass through a tunnel to repeat that north-south diversion on the other side.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Use the Army Corps of Engineers, Navy Sea Bees, something like that. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikan_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikan_Tunnel going between islands under the Japan Seas in an earthquake area. Think BIGGRRRR! (Aggressively so, instead of sissying around!) edit: also not to forget about 'Nuclear Tunnel Boring Machines/Subterrene' https://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2015/06/nuclear-powered-drilling-machine.html https://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2015/06/nuclear-power... cf. "Trans-Planetary Subway Systems A Burgeoning Capability by Robert M. Salter February 1978" https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6092.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6092.html
ant6n 5y ago
China built tens of thousands of km of high speed rail for 350km/h. Largely using prefab elevated tracks, with occasional tunnels. Again it’s difficult, but possible if a replacement for air travel was considered a necessity.

cortesoft 5y ago

That seems a strange argument… yes, if we didn’t have planes, trains would be our best option… but it would be a much worse experience. 20 hours is a lot longer than the 5 it takes me to fly to New York. If there was no air travel, I would just travel a lot less. If you want to argue that the environmental cost of air travel is too great to allow it to happen is one thing, but done act like it wouldn’t make the travel experience a lot worse.

Gibbon1 5y ago
I'd like to see a graph of miles flown per year by decile. internet foo Found this. As I suspected, hockey stick graph. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/airlines.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/airlines.aspx Half the people in the US don't fly at all. 25% fly 1-2 times a year. People that don't fly at all, and people that fly 1-2 times year. Probably wouldn't be much impacted if they had to take a high speed train instead of a plane.
ant6n 5y ago
It’s not a strange argument. Read the discussion again, which starts with the thesis > All overland passenger transport should be rail. Then it was claimed that this is impossible. My argument is saying it’s possible to have rail replace rail, for example if air travel was severely restricted.