3 ms·

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 r

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

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.