3 ms·

And there's more to see out of the window, and you can take breaks (leave the train for a couple of hours to explore a city along the way, then continue on the

And there's more to see out of the window, and you can take breaks (leave the train for a couple of hours to explore a city along the way, then continue on the next). And of course it's much better on CO2 emissions. But trains need a lot of infrastructure and long delays are frequent.

nh2 2y ago
On most train tickets you cannot hop off for a couple hours. That would require a new ticket.
- GJim 2y ago
  [citation needed] This is quite common in Blighty; there is no need for another ticket (outside some time restricted fares where the ability to stop is limited). Indeed, it can be nice hopping off at a new city for a mooch around if you have time to do so. (Only slightly off-topic; We have the phenomenon of 'split tickets', where it can be cheaper to buy two tickets from A --> B --> C rather than one ticket from A --> C even when the train stops at B anyway! You don't even need to get out of the train at B if you don't wish to do so. Our ticketing system is a mess.)
  - nh2 2y ago
    > [citation needed] All saver tickets in German (which is what most people use), and most TGV tickets (even non saver) are bound to specific trains at specific times. https://www.bahn.de/faq/was-bedeutet-zugbindung https://www.bahn.de/faq/was-bedeutet-zugbindung The UK is the odd exception here. But it also doesn't have real high speed trains, except from the one that leaves the country, where hopping off is impossible (unless you want to end up in a dark tunnel under the sea and be arrested afterwards).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - switch007 2y ago
    Advances are also extremely common in/to/from England and sales are on the up. The government is working hard to replace off peak singles with advances. Flexible tickets are becoming unaffordable for certain journeys such as those on the ECML with LNER (aka The Government)
xethos 2y ago
Respectfully, I'm incredulous that you think trains need dramatically more infrastructure than aircraft. For that matter, I'd peg aircraft infrastructure as worse - the asphalt, the noise, the culling of all vegetation save scrubgrass, and all spread out over a massive area. At least a commuter train station can be (partially) covered and (IIRC from Germany) multi-layered Notably, I say noise, and I suspect reasonable people will point out how not-quiet trains can be. I think the only argument I need to make for how much quieter they are than aircraft is pointing out on a map where the (commuter) train yards are (routinely city-center) vs airfields (typically the outskirts, far from where people live) Aircraft require less infrastructure between points, but when you get there a rail yard doesn't require multi-kilometer runways (plural) and taxiways. PS - My god, I hadn't realized how pro-train / anti-aircraft I was until I started on; even having previously worked in aviation, suggesting it was a damn good idea to leave. Aircraft may be an incredible feat of human engineering, but like the personal automobile, we as a society have taken it too far and used them in places that could do with fewer of them, IMO.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Well-maintained, electric (obviously) commuter trains aren't that noisy. It's less annoying than a moderately busy road. In London complaints about noise from stations was more common at some point than from the train itself. ("The train now approaching platform 2 is the midnight forty-five South West Trains service to London Waterloo calling at London Waterloo only. This train is formed of eight carriages. If you see anything suspicious, call the British Transport Police on 1984. See it, say it, suck on it.")
- Scarblac 2y ago
  The stations arent the hard part, it's the rails. Cities were built around the train tracks. Say we wanted to double them all for more capacity, that means tearing down a lot of expensive real estate to make room.

nh2 2y ago

On most train tickets you cannot hop off for a couple hours. That would require a new ticket.

GJim 2y ago
[citation needed] This is quite common in Blighty; there is no need for another ticket (outside some time restricted fares where the ability to stop is limited). Indeed, it can be nice hopping off at a new city for a mooch around if you have time to do so. (Only slightly off-topic; We have the phenomenon of 'split tickets', where it can be cheaper to buy two tickets from A --> B --> C rather than one ticket from A --> C even when the train stops at B anyway! You don't even need to get out of the train at B if you don't wish to do so. Our ticketing system is a mess.)
- nh2 2y ago
  > [citation needed] All saver tickets in German (which is what most people use), and most TGV tickets (even non saver) are bound to specific trains at specific times. https://www.bahn.de/faq/was-bedeutet-zugbindung https://www.bahn.de/faq/was-bedeutet-zugbindung The UK is the odd exception here. But it also doesn't have real high speed trains, except from the one that leaves the country, where hopping off is impossible (unless you want to end up in a dark tunnel under the sea and be arrested afterwards).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- switch007 2y ago
  Advances are also extremely common in/to/from England and sales are on the up. The government is working hard to replace off peak singles with advances. Flexible tickets are becoming unaffordable for certain journeys such as those on the ECML with LNER (aka The Government)

xethos 2y ago

Respectfully, I'm incredulous that you think trains need dramatically more infrastructure than aircraft. For that matter, I'd peg aircraft infrastructure as worse - the asphalt, the noise, the culling of all vegetation save scrubgrass, and all spread out over a massive area. At least a commuter train station can be (partially) covered and (IIRC from Germany) multi-layered Notably, I say noise, and I suspect reasonable people will point out how not-quiet trains can be. I think the only argument I need to make for how much quieter they are than aircraft is pointing out on a map where the (commuter) train yards are (routinely city-center) vs airfields (typically the outskirts, far from where people live) Aircraft require less infrastructure between points, but when you get there a rail yard doesn't require multi-kilometer runways (plural) and taxiways. PS - My god, I hadn't realized how pro-train / anti-aircraft I was until I started on; even having previously worked in aviation, suggesting it was a damn good idea to leave. Aircraft may be an incredible feat of human engineering, but like the personal automobile, we as a society have taken it too far and used them in places that could do with fewer of them, IMO.

Symbiote 2y ago
Well-maintained, electric (obviously) commuter trains aren't that noisy. It's less annoying than a moderately busy road. In London complaints about noise from stations was more common at some point than from the train itself. ("The train now approaching platform 2 is the midnight forty-five South West Trains service to London Waterloo calling at London Waterloo only. This train is formed of eight carriages. If you see anything suspicious, call the British Transport Police on 1984. See it, say it, suck on it.")
Scarblac 2y ago
The stations arent the hard part, it's the rails. Cities were built around the train tracks. Say we wanted to double them all for more capacity, that means tearing down a lot of expensive real estate to make room.