5 ms·

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time ra

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

osobo 5y ago
I'm fairly sure a mode of transportation that can carry thousands and doesn't fall out of the sky when something fails has other benefits, even if the fuel/passenger ration should be worse (which I doubt).
polycaster 5y ago
According to [1] a passenger train consumes about 2l per 100km per person. Whereas airtravel takes 4.9-5.9l per 100km for short ranges below 800km. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftstoffverbrauch?wprov=sfti1 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftstoffverbrauch?wprov=sfti...
- doikor 5y ago
  Most passenger rail in Europe is electric though.
  - 6510 5y ago
    If you'd want to be truly accurate (or pedantic) electricity is not a power source. In NL the trains run on wind.
mrtksn 5y ago
I checked it out and the number seems about right(like up to 2x but not too much). So, to beat an airplane on fuel efficiency you need to be at least 2 persons on an extremely fuel efficient small car. Surely, the actual costs calculations will need to include the infra and operational costs however if you check the energy consumption per passenger per distance[0], rail transport is always on the more efficient side of things. Unless the infrastructure and operational costs of trains are higher than airplanes, I don't see how airplanes can be more competitive. Is the rail infrastructure that much expensive? Maybe the argument can be made about convenience but on efficiency, trains look more efficient. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
- 6510 5y ago
  I bet there is a good bit of mandatory service. You cant just periodically cut off a few thousand from their job here and there just because it satisfies investors. The usual tracks either connect big cities or they run between urban centers and less populated areas. IOW run between every seat taken and almost empty.
- jseban 5y ago
  > Is the rail infrastructure that much expensive? Building and maintaining one runway at point A and one at point B is obviously much easier than building and maintaining a railroad between them.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    Is it? It's not that obvious to me at least. I suspect that it's more like function of distance, speed, landscape. Airports also tend to be at the middle of nowhere, IMHO you need to incorporate the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to get somewhere from that nowhere.
    - PoignardAzur 5y ago
      Well, there are lots of other factors, but the general reasoning holds. If you have ten airports, you have 10 * (10 + 1) / 2 = 55 airlines. If you have 10 train stations, you have only as many rail lines as you're willing to build, which means countries end up spending most of the effort and money on lines connecting major city centers. Also, if you have an international airport, you're connected to every capital city of the world. The logistic advantages of air travel are huge. Kerosene will need to get a lot more expensive before these advantages lose out.
      - joking 5y ago
        a plane also can make 4 round trips in the time the train takes to make 1, but on the other side, a train can move 500-600 people while the plane moves 160.
alkonaut 5y ago
I pay more than 100% fuel tax in my car, so a doubling for plane fuel doesn't seem so strange.

A Boeing 737 consumes 2.28 L/100 km per seat. Fuel prices would have to go parabolic before airline tickets approached rail ticket prices (nevermind the time rail takes, even on the fastest routes)

osobo 5y ago

I'm fairly sure a mode of transportation that can carry thousands and doesn't fall out of the sky when something fails has other benefits, even if the fuel/passenger ration should be worse (which I doubt).

polycaster 5y ago

According to [1] a passenger train consumes about 2l per 100km per person. Whereas airtravel takes 4.9-5.9l per 100km for short ranges below 800km. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftstoffverbrauch?wprov=sfti1 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftstoffverbrauch?wprov=sfti...

doikor 5y ago
Most passenger rail in Europe is electric though.
- 6510 5y ago
  If you'd want to be truly accurate (or pedantic) electricity is not a power source. In NL the trains run on wind.

mrtksn 5y ago

I checked it out and the number seems about right(like up to 2x but not too much). So, to beat an airplane on fuel efficiency you need to be at least 2 persons on an extremely fuel efficient small car. Surely, the actual costs calculations will need to include the infra and operational costs however if you check the energy consumption per passenger per distance[0], rail transport is always on the more efficient side of things. Unless the infrastructure and operational costs of trains are higher than airplanes, I don't see how airplanes can be more competitive. Is the rail infrastructure that much expensive? Maybe the argument can be made about convenience but on efficiency, trains look more efficient. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

6510 5y ago
I bet there is a good bit of mandatory service. You cant just periodically cut off a few thousand from their job here and there just because it satisfies investors. The usual tracks either connect big cities or they run between urban centers and less populated areas. IOW run between every seat taken and almost empty.
jseban 5y ago
> Is the rail infrastructure that much expensive? Building and maintaining one runway at point A and one at point B is obviously much easier than building and maintaining a railroad between them.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Is it? It's not that obvious to me at least. I suspect that it's more like function of distance, speed, landscape. Airports also tend to be at the middle of nowhere, IMHO you need to incorporate the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to get somewhere from that nowhere.
  - PoignardAzur 5y ago
    Well, there are lots of other factors, but the general reasoning holds. If you have ten airports, you have 10 * (10 + 1) / 2 = 55 airlines. If you have 10 train stations, you have only as many rail lines as you're willing to build, which means countries end up spending most of the effort and money on lines connecting major city centers. Also, if you have an international airport, you're connected to every capital city of the world. The logistic advantages of air travel are huge. Kerosene will need to get a lot more expensive before these advantages lose out.
    - joking 5y ago
      a plane also can make 4 round trips in the time the train takes to make 1, but on the other side, a train can move 500-600 people while the plane moves 160.

alkonaut 5y ago

I pay more than 100% fuel tax in my car, so a doubling for plane fuel doesn't seem so strange.