2 ms·
> Despite decades of development, only a handful of routes in Europe operate at anything like airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes
by matkoniecz 4y ago
> Despite decades of development, only a handful of routes in Europe operate at anything like airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes, require > 300 km/h or > 185 mph.
Not really, given massive fixed cost at airplane terminal and airports being typically harder to get to than train station.
When I was flying this summer, I was asked to come to airport 150 minutes before planned departure.
200 km/h train would still be faster for distances of about 700 km.
And even for longer routes benefits of comfort, larger possible baggage, lower stress and so on would make it a clear winner.
- IshKebab 4y agoYeah definitely. I'd rather take a train even if it was quite significantly slower. The real downside of train travel is the phenomenal cost.
- wskinner 4y agoI’ve never been asked to show up early for any domestic flight in the USA, let alone 2.5 hours early. I wonder why that is the case in the airports you’re using.
- cipher_system 4y agoAt least where I live, the 150 minutes before time is a side effect of Covid. A lot of airport staff were let go and restaffing with security clearances takes a while. This summer was exceptional, it will go back to normal like 60 minutes for domestic travel and maybe 90 minutes for international travel. Break even, time wise, here is around 500 km and then train is the better choice. But there are a lot of destinations that can only be served realistically by airplanes and that is not likely to change much during my life time.