8 ms·

> That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. The thing with economy, as always, is the price of an alternative. If these cost the same

by maratc 4y ago

> That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. The thing with economy, as always, is the price of an alternative. If these cost the same, it's one thing. Usually though, trains are more expensive. And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free.

jaggederest 4y ago
Maintaining the air is only free until we properly price externalities. Would add an extra ~€45 for the carbon emissions, making trains pretty cost competitive.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
>And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free. Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, and maintanence of airports is way more expensive than train stations. Also, the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel. This. Most people don't realise that the biggest reason flying is so cheap, is it's subsidised by the state in every contry in accordance to rules of international aviation, whereas train companies must pay taxes on any fuel they use.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  > Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, Kinda doubt if you count per passenger mile. Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Trains can transport way more people than usual planes though. Not even the largest A380 are comparable to ICE4 which are presumably going to be used on this route. https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 >Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars. In which context? I very much doubt that maintanence costs are similar or even cheaper for planes - for one, the plane maintanence has to be more thorough. Also, I would say that electric engines for trains are relatively simple compared to jet engines. Even cost supports this thesis: Poland bought 400-seat Pendolino for 400 millions for 20 trains. Comparable 777 costs 400 million... for one plane. 737s start from 100 million. What's expensive is infrastructure.
    - maratc 4y ago
      A 777 can take you from Warsaw to New York, which no train can do in any time. For a cost of 737, you can have five trains. But a 737 can make a 1000 km flight, be back, make another 1000 km flight, and be back — in the time it takes a train to make one-way 1000 km ride. Your points are valid, but it takes more 400-seat trains to provide for a good intercity connection where one plane can do it. Additionally, in the time the plane flights from point A to point B, the air has lots of space to accommodate other planes. But trains need to share the limited tracks resource — e.g. one one-way tracks, you can't have two trains going in opposite directions, or they will crash into each other. We have a one-way regional rail line that has double tracks only on the stations, so that's where the trains can pass one another. A failure of any train to be there on time wrecks the whole day schedule.
    - maratc 4y ago
      > What's expensive is infrastructure. Seems to be the case: > In 2011-2015 the Warsaw-Gdańsk-Gdynia route underwent a major upgrading costing $3 billion, partly funded by the European Investment Bank, including track replacement, realignment of curves and relocation of sections of track to allow speeds up to 200 km/h (124 mph), and modernization of stations. Note it was an "upgrading" of existing tracks.
- maratc 4y ago
  > Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, and maintanence of airports is way more expensive than train stations. Which is the reason that the bigger the distance, the cheaper flying is compared to trains. Constant costs are the same, but per-kilometer costs add up, and not in trains' favor. > Also, the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel. I guess the solution of making planes as expensive as trains are won't be very popular.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >I guess the solution of making planes as expensive as trains are won't be very popular. Or, at the very least, not tax electricity used by trains? Also, I think you overestimate the importance of plane ticket prices on people's voting patterns.
mupuff1234 4y ago
What makes track maintenance expensive?
- maratc 4y ago
  Track maintenance is expensive because you need to buy tracks, signalling systems, and railroad switches, and pay the people to install, check, and maintain them. Air is already there and requires no maintenance.
  - mupuff1234 4y ago
    A lot of that sounds like the initial investment you need to put it, I was more wondering about the maintenance part. I assume most of the equipment is supposed to last decades, and maintenance itself can be automated to a degree (use the trains themselves to run track diagnostics for example).

by maratc 4y ago

jaggederest 4y ago

Maintaining the air is only free until we properly price externalities. Would add an extra ~€45 for the carbon emissions, making trains pretty cost competitive.

KptMarchewa 4y ago

>And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free. Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, and maintanence of airports is way more expensive than train stations. Also, the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel. This. Most people don't realise that the biggest reason flying is so cheap, is it's subsidised by the state in every contry in accordance to rules of international aviation, whereas train companies must pay taxes on any fuel they use.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
> Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, Kinda doubt if you count per passenger mile. Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Trains can transport way more people than usual planes though. Not even the largest A380 are comparable to ICE4 which are presumably going to be used on this route. https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 >Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars. In which context? I very much doubt that maintanence costs are similar or even cheaper for planes - for one, the plane maintanence has to be more thorough. Also, I would say that electric engines for trains are relatively simple compared to jet engines. Even cost supports this thesis: Poland bought 400-seat Pendolino for 400 millions for 20 trains. Comparable 777 costs 400 million... for one plane. 737s start from 100 million. What's expensive is infrastructure.
  - maratc 4y ago
    A 777 can take you from Warsaw to New York, which no train can do in any time. For a cost of 737, you can have five trains. But a 737 can make a 1000 km flight, be back, make another 1000 km flight, and be back — in the time it takes a train to make one-way 1000 km ride. Your points are valid, but it takes more 400-seat trains to provide for a good intercity connection where one plane can do it. Additionally, in the time the plane flights from point A to point B, the air has lots of space to accommodate other planes. But trains need to share the limited tracks resource — e.g. one one-way tracks, you can't have two trains going in opposite directions, or they will crash into each other. We have a one-way regional rail line that has double tracks only on the stations, so that's where the trains can pass one another. A failure of any train to be there on time wrecks the whole day schedule.
  - maratc 4y ago
    > What's expensive is infrastructure. Seems to be the case: > In 2011-2015 the Warsaw-Gdańsk-Gdynia route underwent a major upgrading costing $3 billion, partly funded by the European Investment Bank, including track replacement, realignment of curves and relocation of sections of track to allow speeds up to 200 km/h (124 mph), and modernization of stations. Note it was an "upgrading" of existing tracks.
maratc 4y ago
> Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, and maintanence of airports is way more expensive than train stations. Which is the reason that the bigger the distance, the cheaper flying is compared to trains. Constant costs are the same, but per-kilometer costs add up, and not in trains' favor. > Also, the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel. I guess the solution of making planes as expensive as trains are won't be very popular.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >I guess the solution of making planes as expensive as trains are won't be very popular. Or, at the very least, not tax electricity used by trains? Also, I think you overestimate the importance of plane ticket prices on people's voting patterns.

mupuff1234 4y ago

What makes track maintenance expensive?

maratc 4y ago
Track maintenance is expensive because you need to buy tracks, signalling systems, and railroad switches, and pay the people to install, check, and maintain them. Air is already there and requires no maintenance.
- mupuff1234 4y ago
  A lot of that sounds like the initial investment you need to put it, I was more wondering about the maintenance part. I assume most of the equipment is supposed to last decades, and maintenance itself can be automated to a degree (use the trains themselves to run track diagnostics for example).