3 ms·

Here in bc Canada we had profitable intercity rail (bc rail), a previous conservative government were elected with the promise they wouldn’t sell it, they inste

Here in bc Canada we had profitable intercity rail (bc rail), a previous conservative government were elected with the promise they wouldn’t sell it, they instead leased it for 99 years cheaply and that was the end of passenger rail for most the province. Greyhound took up the slack but 10ish years ago they pulled out leavings nearly no way to get between cities without a car. There are now some private bus companies but as I understand it they are really expensive with terrible schedules. It’s honestly sad how public transport was left to rot/fail/or sold off in North America. And how people now go “it won’t work here! Europe is more dense! Things are too far apart” Ignoring it did and was (at least in bc) a few short decades ago

systemtest 2y ago
That's a bummer. I'm happy with European rail. For instance, it is 36 hours by FlixBus from Amsterdam to Porto, but if you use high-speed rail (Eurostar, TGV, Iryo) it is only 23 hours, faster than going by car.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Traveling 2,000km in the US would take me like 5 hours including an hour in the airport each way. Even if you made it two hours on departure that's six hours of total travel time. Compared to a 23 hour train trip. Distances like that, trains just don't make sense IMO.
  - snovv_crash 2y ago
    Europe has airports as well, of course. We're discussing other transport here though.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Sure, but people lament the lack of trans-national US trains. If even taking high speed rail in a region of the world known for good trains (Europe), a normal-ish kind of travel pattern would take 23 hours versus 5 hours, why would people choose the train? Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro-train. I'm super excited for the prospects of the Texas bullet train. Trains can make a lot of sense to a certain distance. But why would you pick it for a 2,000km trip?
  - katbyte 2y ago
    Sure they do when you have proper high speed rain. That journey could be 10 relaxing hours at 300kph. No security, no awful plane noise and seats. Quiet comfy and relaxing (or overnight and you can sleep) It’s also far better for the environment, and should be cheaper if you take plane subsidies and apply them to trains. Also your math is wrong 5 hours with 1 hour each side (generous) is 7 hours. With 2 hours each side that’s 9 hours. Either way I would much rather take a comfortable train for 10 hours then suffer in a plane for 5. (The reason 2000km takes so long for op is its 7+ train changes, if you made 7+ plane changes it would be very long too)
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > Also your math is wrong 5 hours with 1 hour each side (generous) is 7 hours. With 2 hours each side that’s 9 hours. Its a three-hour flight not a five hour flight. Five hours is including the one hour on each side. And you wouldn't have two hours on the arrival side, you're not having to wait through security. Chances are on the arrival side its less than an hour. Sure, maybe customs slows you down, but I've never had customs take as long as security and the consequences of being a little slow are much less. But there are no customs flying domestically, and I'm not sure what customs are like flying within the eurozone anyways. > Either way I would much rather take a comfortable train for 10 hours then suffer in a plane for 5. It's not 10 hours on the train, its 23 hours on the train. And it's not 5 hours on a plane, its three hours. The person said they were taking HSR. Its a 23 hour ride taking HSR. > The reason 2000km takes so long for op is its 7+ train changes, if you made 7+ plane changes it would be very long too Sure, but generally speaking you don't have to when flying You often don't even need to change planes once. That's the whole point. Rail is great for certain distances, but past that there grows a lot of complexities. You're not going to take a single shot HSR trip 2,000km practically anywhere. You're going to have times where the train stops. You're probably going to have to change trains, potentially even change to a non-HSR for a leg of the trip. Meanwhile planes don't need to change 7 times to go 2,000km. > should be cheaper Sure, if you value two days of your vacation at nearly $0. Or two days of seeing your family while gone on a business trip at $0. Personally, two days of travel would have to be radically cheaper for me to think it worth it.

systemtest 2y ago

That's a bummer. I'm happy with European rail. For instance, it is 36 hours by FlixBus from Amsterdam to Porto, but if you use high-speed rail (Eurostar, TGV, Iryo) it is only 23 hours, faster than going by car.

vel0city 2y ago
Traveling 2,000km in the US would take me like 5 hours including an hour in the airport each way. Even if you made it two hours on departure that's six hours of total travel time. Compared to a 23 hour train trip. Distances like that, trains just don't make sense IMO.
- snovv_crash 2y ago
  Europe has airports as well, of course. We're discussing other transport here though.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Sure, but people lament the lack of trans-national US trains. If even taking high speed rail in a region of the world known for good trains (Europe), a normal-ish kind of travel pattern would take 23 hours versus 5 hours, why would people choose the train? Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro-train. I'm super excited for the prospects of the Texas bullet train. Trains can make a lot of sense to a certain distance. But why would you pick it for a 2,000km trip?
- katbyte 2y ago
  Sure they do when you have proper high speed rain. That journey could be 10 relaxing hours at 300kph. No security, no awful plane noise and seats. Quiet comfy and relaxing (or overnight and you can sleep) It’s also far better for the environment, and should be cheaper if you take plane subsidies and apply them to trains. Also your math is wrong 5 hours with 1 hour each side (generous) is 7 hours. With 2 hours each side that’s 9 hours. Either way I would much rather take a comfortable train for 10 hours then suffer in a plane for 5. (The reason 2000km takes so long for op is its 7+ train changes, if you made 7+ plane changes it would be very long too)
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > Also your math is wrong 5 hours with 1 hour each side (generous) is 7 hours. With 2 hours each side that’s 9 hours. Its a three-hour flight not a five hour flight. Five hours is including the one hour on each side. And you wouldn't have two hours on the arrival side, you're not having to wait through security. Chances are on the arrival side its less than an hour. Sure, maybe customs slows you down, but I've never had customs take as long as security and the consequences of being a little slow are much less. But there are no customs flying domestically, and I'm not sure what customs are like flying within the eurozone anyways. > Either way I would much rather take a comfortable train for 10 hours then suffer in a plane for 5. It's not 10 hours on the train, its 23 hours on the train. And it's not 5 hours on a plane, its three hours. The person said they were taking HSR. Its a 23 hour ride taking HSR. > The reason 2000km takes so long for op is its 7+ train changes, if you made 7+ plane changes it would be very long too Sure, but generally speaking you don't have to when flying You often don't even need to change planes once. That's the whole point. Rail is great for certain distances, but past that there grows a lot of complexities. You're not going to take a single shot HSR trip 2,000km practically anywhere. You're going to have times where the train stops. You're probably going to have to change trains, potentially even change to a non-HSR for a leg of the trip. Meanwhile planes don't need to change 7 times to go 2,000km. > should be cheaper Sure, if you value two days of your vacation at nearly $0. Or two days of seeing your family while gone on a business trip at $0. Personally, two days of travel would have to be radically cheaper for me to think it worth it.