7 ms·

Flying is miserable because consumers demand low prices. There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains.

numpad0 3y ago
High speed rail tends to be better because trains are supported not by air but by rails on the ground. Weight penalties are significantly reduced. One aspect of HSR vs air that I have bit of issues but are rarely mentioned is what car people call NVH characteristic - Noise, Vibration, and Harshness - are much worse in HSR than airplanes. It's a bit of in-between with high speed taxing, windy day in a high rise building and rollercoaster ride all the way to the destination. Airplanes are magic carpets once up there, and that can be more comfortable than trains.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  Which high speed train are you comparing to? I find aircraft much noisier than any train. More like magic vacuum cleaners, they seem to be the best use of noise-cancelling headphones and earplugs aren't uncommon. Vibration depends on how well the track is maintained, but there are certainly fewer surprises (turbulence). There are videos online of people balancing coins on trains — I did this myself once from Malmö to Copenhagen Airport, though that is only 200km/h. I'm not sure what harshness is in this context.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    Tokaido Shinkansen N700/700S. There are lots of upsides to HSR such as extremely good seat pitch and total absence of security theater, and it's true that the airliners has a loud constant white noise, but when it comes to noise and vibrations, I feel airplanes less... intermittent and less interrupting. Those Recaro camp chairs aren't too bad either.
kibwen 3y ago
The expense of railway lies in acquiring the land and laying the track in the first place. Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. Of course, getting those land rights is often an insurmountable nightmare in its own right.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  > Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. I'll need to see some evidence for that claim. 1. The relatively slower speed of trains means that the amount of person-hours of labor for the crew is similar or greater than for a plane. And railroad employees generally have even better union contracts than airline employees. 2. Airlines don't have to build a track, but neither do they need to maintain a track. That cost is not negligible.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    There are fewer crewmembers, though. The FAA requires a 50:1 ratio for flight attendants. (Famously, JetBlue in the US ripped out two rows of seats in its original A320s to get to a round multiple of 50, and then used the extra room to get the largest seat pitch in economy.) To give a bit of comparison, there are 16k employees at JR Central, who operate the Tokaido Shinkansen in addition to normal rail lines; there are 90k employees at Delta. (JR Central has a market cap of $26B and Delta has a market cap of $23B.)
    - labcomputer 3y ago
      Notice that I did not specify the number of crew members, just the number of labor hours.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        That's fair. I suppose one benefit of trains is all the intermediate traffic. Every flight attendant is only really serving an A->B flight, or an A->B->C flight with an intermediate stop. Trains can make many stops and have higher turnover, and combined with the generally higher capacity of a train, I wonder if the passenger-hours per employee ends up being a wash.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Well, other than the interest on the bonds, because no one pays for any infrastructure or otherwise with outright cash.
tyingq 3y ago
>There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains. I'm not sure how successful it's been, but this article[1] for Deutsche Bahn's "ICE" first class makes it look attractive to me. I think because space isn't as much a premium, the upcharge for first class on a train can be a much smaller jump than the economy -> first class jump on a plane. [1] https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-review/ https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-rev...
- ghaff 3y ago
  First class on a train relative to standard seating is also much less of a big deal than planes in general.
nharada 3y ago
Isn't the counter-example in America cars? It's definitely cheaper to have an econo-box but instead we drive 8 seat tanks to get groceries.
- dboreham 3y ago
  You never know when you'll need to pick up a sofa on sale at Costco.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Plus at Costco couches only come in 2-packs even though lots of the time just one would last you the week.
bobthepanda 3y ago
Flying can get expensive fairly quickly. One major source of this is landing fees; at heavily congested airports the price to get a new slot, or buy someone out of an existing one, is quite high because of a lack of space and alternatives. Most of the airports in the Northeast are chronically congested, to the point where I believe DCA and all the New York area airports have caps on flight movements. And there's no 'cheap' airport in the NYC area either, which is a common tactic for Ryanair et al (fly into an airport over 50 miles away for the cheaper landing fees, which means cheaper tickets, but also probably means the passenger is making up the difference getting to their final destination.)

numpad0 3y ago

High speed rail tends to be better because trains are supported not by air but by rails on the ground. Weight penalties are significantly reduced. One aspect of HSR vs air that I have bit of issues but are rarely mentioned is what car people call NVH characteristic - Noise, Vibration, and Harshness - are much worse in HSR than airplanes. It's a bit of in-between with high speed taxing, windy day in a high rise building and rollercoaster ride all the way to the destination. Airplanes are magic carpets once up there, and that can be more comfortable than trains.

Symbiote 3y ago
Which high speed train are you comparing to? I find aircraft much noisier than any train. More like magic vacuum cleaners, they seem to be the best use of noise-cancelling headphones and earplugs aren't uncommon. Vibration depends on how well the track is maintained, but there are certainly fewer surprises (turbulence). There are videos online of people balancing coins on trains — I did this myself once from Malmö to Copenhagen Airport, though that is only 200km/h. I'm not sure what harshness is in this context.
- numpad0 3y ago
  Tokaido Shinkansen N700/700S. There are lots of upsides to HSR such as extremely good seat pitch and total absence of security theater, and it's true that the airliners has a loud constant white noise, but when it comes to noise and vibrations, I feel airplanes less... intermittent and less interrupting. Those Recaro camp chairs aren't too bad either.

kibwen 3y ago

The expense of railway lies in acquiring the land and laying the track in the first place. Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. Of course, getting those land rights is often an insurmountable nightmare in its own right.

labcomputer 3y ago
> Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. I'll need to see some evidence for that claim. 1. The relatively slower speed of trains means that the amount of person-hours of labor for the crew is similar or greater than for a plane. And railroad employees generally have even better union contracts than airline employees. 2. Airlines don't have to build a track, but neither do they need to maintain a track. That cost is not negligible.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  There are fewer crewmembers, though. The FAA requires a 50:1 ratio for flight attendants. (Famously, JetBlue in the US ripped out two rows of seats in its original A320s to get to a round multiple of 50, and then used the extra room to get the largest seat pitch in economy.) To give a bit of comparison, there are 16k employees at JR Central, who operate the Tokaido Shinkansen in addition to normal rail lines; there are 90k employees at Delta. (JR Central has a market cap of $26B and Delta has a market cap of $23B.)
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    Notice that I did not specify the number of crew members, just the number of labor hours.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      That's fair. I suppose one benefit of trains is all the intermediate traffic. Every flight attendant is only really serving an A->B flight, or an A->B->C flight with an intermediate stop. Trains can make many stops and have higher turnover, and combined with the generally higher capacity of a train, I wonder if the passenger-hours per employee ends up being a wash.
bobthepanda 3y ago
Well, other than the interest on the bonds, because no one pays for any infrastructure or otherwise with outright cash.

tyingq 3y ago

>There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains. I'm not sure how successful it's been, but this article[1] for Deutsche Bahn's "ICE" first class makes it look attractive to me. I think because space isn't as much a premium, the upcharge for first class on a train can be a much smaller jump than the economy -> first class jump on a plane. [1] https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-review/ https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-rev...

ghaff 3y ago
First class on a train relative to standard seating is also much less of a big deal than planes in general.

nharada 3y ago

Isn't the counter-example in America cars? It's definitely cheaper to have an econo-box but instead we drive 8 seat tanks to get groceries.

dboreham 3y ago
You never know when you'll need to pick up a sofa on sale at Costco.
- vel0city 3y ago
  Plus at Costco couches only come in 2-packs even though lots of the time just one would last you the week.

bobthepanda 3y ago

Flying can get expensive fairly quickly. One major source of this is landing fees; at heavily congested airports the price to get a new slot, or buy someone out of an existing one, is quite high because of a lack of space and alternatives. Most of the airports in the Northeast are chronically congested, to the point where I believe DCA and all the New York area airports have caps on flight movements. And there's no 'cheap' airport in the NYC area either, which is a common tactic for Ryanair et al (fly into an airport over 50 miles away for the cheaper landing fees, which means cheaper tickets, but also probably means the passenger is making up the difference getting to their final destination.)