4 ms·

Five hours, I assume, is the maximum amount of time an average person can enjoy sitting in a train. With overnight trains making a comeback, there are much more

Five hours, I assume, is the maximum amount of time an average person can enjoy sitting in a train. With overnight trains making a comeback, there are much more possibilities. I recently enjoyed falling asleep in Central Europe and waking up over the Alps near the sea. Trains are amazing.

chrisseaton 4y ago
It’s more comfortable to be on a train than a flight and people are happy taking ten hour plus flights no problem.
- Aachen 4y ago
  To be fair, you also get about three to four times the distance per minute out of it (850km/h pretty much the whole way as the crow flies vs 250 average if you're lucky plus curves). To be clear, I find it absurd that airplane companies are still allowed to sell tickets without pricing in externalities for trips with good and high-speed train connections like Paris–Madrid. However, for actually going somewhere far away there just isn't really another choice but to take that plane. Your only other choice is to never go there at all, or take out weeks of travel for a ship or something. It's still too cheap, at least those that go regularly can also afford for Climeworks to undo their environmental pollution, so I hate to be defending air travel here, but 10h flights are a different ball game than 10h train rides.
  - dieortin 4y ago
    The Paris-Madrid connection is not really good though, as you have to go all the way to the east of Spain and pass through Barcelona before heading west towards Madrid. Luckily, there are some lines under construction that will connect Spain to France through Irún, and which should make things much better.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Only because there are no viable alternatives to a 10 hour flight. But the alternative to a 10 hour train ride is a 1-2 hour flight.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  I don't happily take ten hour plus flights, I take them because if I need to go somewhere that takes that long by plane there's no viable alternative.

chrisseaton 4y ago

It’s more comfortable to be on a train than a flight and people are happy taking ten hour plus flights no problem.

Aachen 4y ago
To be fair, you also get about three to four times the distance per minute out of it (850km/h pretty much the whole way as the crow flies vs 250 average if you're lucky plus curves). To be clear, I find it absurd that airplane companies are still allowed to sell tickets without pricing in externalities for trips with good and high-speed train connections like Paris–Madrid. However, for actually going somewhere far away there just isn't really another choice but to take that plane. Your only other choice is to never go there at all, or take out weeks of travel for a ship or something. It's still too cheap, at least those that go regularly can also afford for Climeworks to undo their environmental pollution, so I hate to be defending air travel here, but 10h flights are a different ball game than 10h train rides.
- dieortin 4y ago
  The Paris-Madrid connection is not really good though, as you have to go all the way to the east of Spain and pass through Barcelona before heading west towards Madrid. Luckily, there are some lines under construction that will connect Spain to France through Irún, and which should make things much better.
rootusrootus 4y ago
Only because there are no viable alternatives to a 10 hour flight. But the alternative to a 10 hour train ride is a 1-2 hour flight.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
I don't happily take ten hour plus flights, I take them because if I need to go somewhere that takes that long by plane there's no viable alternative.