5 ms·

Most if the investment in trains is the terrain under the rails, which is already made. Converting all existing routes to high speed is a no brainer, which will

Most if the investment in trains is the terrain under the rails, which is already made. Converting all existing routes to high speed is a no brainer, which will be delayed beyond all reasonable duration just because they're all government organizations. Probably much longer than it'll take us to have driverless medium-distance ubers. I compared trains to airplanes recently - from Vienna to Swizerland by train because a plane was a bit too expensive. I like trains, but it was not a pleasant experience: - boarding was about as fussy as with airports, maybe a bit more so since I had to stow my own luggage. - I had to change trains 3 times, moving a 20 kg luggage and a 10 kg backpack with often as little as 8 minute leeway in an unknown train station - did not have significantly more room, surprising enough. A seat is a seat, and you can go to the bathroom just as easily in a plane - did I mention it took 8 hours? I don't think cars will be a contender for the long range, not soon. You're right with rolling distance, and also air drag. They don't go well over 100-150 mph. But if their range increases enough, they might just squeeze trains out of their niche. Trains lose hard to ubers on short trips, and to planes on longer ones. They're already subsidized by the government. With any less passengers, and a strong need of upgrading to very high speed, it may start to make sense to drop a lot of them and focus on the rest.

lycopodiopsida 5y ago
> Converting all existing routes to high speed is a no brainer, which will be delayed beyond all reasonable duration just because they're all government organizations. It varies between "not easy" and "not possible", certainly far away from a "no brainer". High-speed train routes are very sensible to curvature and have to be built as plain as possible. Second problem: if other, slower, trains also use high-speed routes all kinds of ugly things happen and the high-speed trains are not so high-speed in anymore - it is one of the main reasons why german DB trains are so slow and unreliable. In practice, countries with good high-speed train networks (Japan, France, China) have separate high-speed routes which are used only by high-speed trains. Which turns the necessary investment up to 11.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Yet another reason why we'll end up with ubers + planes. Separate lines is not really feasible in most of EU. I'm mostly pissed at the subsidizing part. There is a comment in this thread saying we should tax air companies more to convince people to take trains. I hate this with a burning passion. If an industry isn't working anymore, the solution isn't to throw money at it. It can find its own place, probably a mix of cargo and dedicated high speed lines. Anyways, it's still early - right now there are precious few electric ubers, and none that are self driving.
  - lycopodiopsida 5y ago
    I think it is certainly true that planes are subsidized - they are not paying tax on fuel, for example, and I can't think of any good reason why it should be the case. I am not so bullish on trains, however - it takes a long time to build the lines and it will again benefit only few big cities. As with bikes, it is a discussion of city inhabitants for city inhabitants, for the rest of us car is still the only comfortable solution because it can take you anytime anywhere.

lycopodiopsida 5y ago

> Converting all existing routes to high speed is a no brainer, which will be delayed beyond all reasonable duration just because they're all government organizations. It varies between "not easy" and "not possible", certainly far away from a "no brainer". High-speed train routes are very sensible to curvature and have to be built as plain as possible. Second problem: if other, slower, trains also use high-speed routes all kinds of ugly things happen and the high-speed trains are not so high-speed in anymore - it is one of the main reasons why german DB trains are so slow and unreliable. In practice, countries with good high-speed train networks (Japan, France, China) have separate high-speed routes which are used only by high-speed trains. Which turns the necessary investment up to 11.

radu_floricica 5y ago
Yet another reason why we'll end up with ubers + planes. Separate lines is not really feasible in most of EU. I'm mostly pissed at the subsidizing part. There is a comment in this thread saying we should tax air companies more to convince people to take trains. I hate this with a burning passion. If an industry isn't working anymore, the solution isn't to throw money at it. It can find its own place, probably a mix of cargo and dedicated high speed lines. Anyways, it's still early - right now there are precious few electric ubers, and none that are self driving.
- lycopodiopsida 5y ago
  I think it is certainly true that planes are subsidized - they are not paying tax on fuel, for example, and I can't think of any good reason why it should be the case. I am not so bullish on trains, however - it takes a long time to build the lines and it will again benefit only few big cities. As with bikes, it is a discussion of city inhabitants for city inhabitants, for the rest of us car is still the only comfortable solution because it can take you anytime anywhere.