4 ms·

Yeah the only use case where trains make sense to me, is really heavy cargo, where the lower friction of the wheels make it more efficient. That's a use case wh

by jseban 5y ago

Yeah the only use case where trains make sense to me, is really heavy cargo, where the lower friction of the wheels make it more efficient. That's a use case where both flying and trucks will be at a disadvantage. Transporting people in trains doesn't really make sense to me. You can fly if you need to go fast, take a bus if you have time, or drive a car if you want flexibility.

pg314 5y ago
According to the Brussels Institute of Statistics and Analysis [1], in 2017, 34% of all commuters in Brussels commuted by train versus 36.2% by car. It might not make sense to you, but it does to other people. [1] page 30 of https://bisa.brussels/sites/default/files/publication/documents/PerspectiveBrussels-Mini-Bru_2022-ENG.pdf https://bisa.brussels/sites/default/files/publication/docume...
- jseban 5y ago
  The train itself has to be heavier than the load just to stay on the tracks. It would only make sense if you already have an established cargo route, and you can in addition also reuse a large part of that track for people transport.
  - pg314 5y ago
    > The train itself has to be heavier than the load just to stay on the tracks. Why would that be? A typical 110 ton capacity freight train car weighs 33 tons unloaded. It has no problems staying on the tracks. Besides both buses and planes typically weigh much more than their freight (and planes need to lift all that weight 10km vertically), so I fail to see how that is an argument against trains.
    - jseban 5y ago
      > Why would that be? A typical 110 ton capacity freight train car weighs 33 tons unloaded. It has no problems staying on the tracks. I'm guessing at the numbers here but just to illustrate my point: If an empty bus weights let's say 10 tonnes, and an empty train 33 tons. And the load of the passengers around 7 tonnes. So in total you'd transport 40 tonnes of train as opposed to 17 tonnes of bus. Then obviously for that load rubber tires would be more efficient, and rail would be a bad fit. There's a minimum load per cubic inch for trains to make sense, you have to have really dense cargo. Like I said in another comment, subways in Paris run on rubber tires, it becomes especially inefficient with rail when there are frequent stops. It would make so much more sense, especially in the US, to develop premium Tesla buses that could use the existing freeway infrastructure, than to expand rail.
      - Symbiote 5y ago
        The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is much, much lower than rubber tyres on an asphalt road. From [1], the only comparable figures are the American train and the American bus. The bus is about half as efficient as the train. There are similar figures further down the page ("German environmental costs") -- 0.25MJ/passenger-km for long distance rail, 0.85MJ/pkm for regional rail, 1.14MJ/pkm for bus service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Passenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
        jseban 5y ago
        > The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is much, much lower than rubber tyres on an asphalt road. Exactly, and you need rolling resistance for traction. The heavier the load, the lower resistance you need, and vice versa, because the weight of the load increases resistance. Which is why you don't ship hay on trains, and don't ship iron on trucks.
        pg314 5y ago
        > Exactly, and you need rolling resistance for traction. No, you don’t. Look at e.g. gears: almost no friction, perfect traction. > Which is why you don't ship hay on trains No. You don’t ship it on trains because that is uneconomic. You keep your cattle close to your hay producing fields, where they can also graze. Also, by your reasoning, an empty train would not be able to move?
        jseban 5y ago
        Also the reason why trains can't run uphill, while cars and trucks can.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
Where there is enough population density and 'right of way' for trains, trains almost always make sense. Flying is better for NYC -> Colorado - LA but trains are better for NY -> DC corridor, and frankly, probably all the way down to Florida. There is the issue of 'downtown' and 'walkable cities'. If you arrive in Baltimore near an airport, you have to rent a car. In European cities, you hop on the Subway to the Hotel, that makes a big difference as well. But Boston->DC is ripe for train transformation. And 'established circuits' SF->LA->Vegas should be high speed - that California can't sort that out is really sad, it's a matter of organizational/systematic incompetence. There needs to be kind of a 'civic buy in' for it to work
- jseban 5y ago
  > Where there is enough population density and 'right of way' for trains, trains almost always make sense. You will come really close to that if you build a road that has the same level of right of way, and drive buses. The benefit of (expensive) bridges and tunnels are not unique for trains. Some of the subway trains in Paris run on rubber tires.

by jseban 5y ago

pg314 5y ago

According to the Brussels Institute of Statistics and Analysis [1], in 2017, 34% of all commuters in Brussels commuted by train versus 36.2% by car. It might not make sense to you, but it does to other people. [1] page 30 of https://bisa.brussels/sites/default/files/publication/documents/PerspectiveBrussels-Mini-Bru_2022-ENG.pdf https://bisa.brussels/sites/default/files/publication/docume...

jseban 5y ago
The train itself has to be heavier than the load just to stay on the tracks. It would only make sense if you already have an established cargo route, and you can in addition also reuse a large part of that track for people transport.
- pg314 5y ago
  > The train itself has to be heavier than the load just to stay on the tracks. Why would that be? A typical 110 ton capacity freight train car weighs 33 tons unloaded. It has no problems staying on the tracks. Besides both buses and planes typically weigh much more than their freight (and planes need to lift all that weight 10km vertically), so I fail to see how that is an argument against trains.
  - jseban 5y ago
    > Why would that be? A typical 110 ton capacity freight train car weighs 33 tons unloaded. It has no problems staying on the tracks. I'm guessing at the numbers here but just to illustrate my point: If an empty bus weights let's say 10 tonnes, and an empty train 33 tons. And the load of the passengers around 7 tonnes. So in total you'd transport 40 tonnes of train as opposed to 17 tonnes of bus. Then obviously for that load rubber tires would be more efficient, and rail would be a bad fit. There's a minimum load per cubic inch for trains to make sense, you have to have really dense cargo. Like I said in another comment, subways in Paris run on rubber tires, it becomes especially inefficient with rail when there are frequent stops. It would make so much more sense, especially in the US, to develop premium Tesla buses that could use the existing freeway infrastructure, than to expand rail.
    - Symbiote 5y ago
      The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is much, much lower than rubber tyres on an asphalt road. From [1], the only comparable figures are the American train and the American bus. The bus is about half as efficient as the train. There are similar figures further down the page ("German environmental costs") -- 0.25MJ/passenger-km for long distance rail, 0.85MJ/pkm for regional rail, 1.14MJ/pkm for bus service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Passenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
      - jseban 5y ago
        > The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is much, much lower than rubber tyres on an asphalt road. Exactly, and you need rolling resistance for traction. The heavier the load, the lower resistance you need, and vice versa, because the weight of the load increases resistance. Which is why you don't ship hay on trains, and don't ship iron on trucks.
        pg314 5y ago
        > Exactly, and you need rolling resistance for traction. No, you don’t. Look at e.g. gears: almost no friction, perfect traction. > Which is why you don't ship hay on trains No. You don’t ship it on trains because that is uneconomic. You keep your cattle close to your hay producing fields, where they can also graze. Also, by your reasoning, an empty train would not be able to move?
        jseban 5y ago
        Also the reason why trains can't run uphill, while cars and trucks can.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

jollybean 5y ago

Where there is enough population density and 'right of way' for trains, trains almost always make sense. Flying is better for NYC -> Colorado - LA but trains are better for NY -> DC corridor, and frankly, probably all the way down to Florida. There is the issue of 'downtown' and 'walkable cities'. If you arrive in Baltimore near an airport, you have to rent a car. In European cities, you hop on the Subway to the Hotel, that makes a big difference as well. But Boston->DC is ripe for train transformation. And 'established circuits' SF->LA->Vegas should be high speed - that California can't sort that out is really sad, it's a matter of organizational/systematic incompetence. There needs to be kind of a 'civic buy in' for it to work

jseban 5y ago
> Where there is enough population density and 'right of way' for trains, trains almost always make sense. You will come really close to that if you build a road that has the same level of right of way, and drive buses. The benefit of (expensive) bridges and tunnels are not unique for trains. Some of the subway trains in Paris run on rubber tires.