3 ms·

Now do China.

by Zambyte 16d ago

Now do China.

win311fwg 16d ago
Technically a large landmass, but essentially nothing happens in the western half. For the sake of travel it is a relatively small country. Whereas NY->LA is the route the USA would need to most service if it were to get serious about such a thing. The short-run corridors are already reasonably well serviced. Trouble is most people doing the NY->LA run are going to choose flight instead.
- Zambyte 16d ago
  People would absolutely choose trains over flying if we actually had modern train infrastructure. NY to LA would be about 11 hours at 250 MPH. That's 100 MPH slower than the fastest passenger train, but seems like a reasonable estimate for an average speed including stops. The difference between chilling on public transit for 8 hours and chilling on public transit for 11 hours is not that big of a deal for most people. Driving is essentially not an option for most people for this trip too.
  - win311fwg 16d ago
    > NY to LA would be about 11 hours at 250 MPH. There are no trains in regular service that operate at anywhere close to those speeds. There are trains technically capable of doing it (and much more), sure, but the economics quickly stop making sense when you start pushing that much air. And flight still gets you there meaningfully faster, door-to-door, even if there were people theoretically willing to pay excessively to reach 250 mph, so there is still no reason for those who need to prioritize time to take the train. > The difference between chilling on public transit for 8 hours and chilling on public transit for 11 hours is not that big of a deal for most people. Of course, most people have no reason to travel from NY->LA in the first place. Especially not on a regular basis. The primary users will be business customers and they tend to be quite time sensitive. Furthermore, even if there was that 250 mph train, it is unlikely that it would beat air on price, so those who don't care about time are still apt to choose the cheapest option. At best there is a small segment of people who are both willing to give up their time and spend more just to avoid flying, but you can't realistically make trains work with a small number of riders.
- sheafification 14d ago
  > Technically a large landmass, but essentially nothing happens in the western half. Depends what you mean by "western half," I suppose, but China is definitely not a relatively small country. Shanghai to Chongqing is about the same distance as Chicago to Dallas; Beijing to Kunming is about the same as D.C. to Denver.

Now do China.

by Zambyte 16d ago

Now do China.

Technically a large landmass, but essentially nothing happens in the western half. For the sake of travel it is a relatively small country. Whereas NY->LA is the route the USA would need to most service if it were to get serious about such a thing. The short-run corridors are already reasonably well serviced. Trouble is most people doing the NY->LA run are going to choose flight instead.

Zambyte 16d ago
People would absolutely choose trains over flying if we actually had modern train infrastructure. NY to LA would be about 11 hours at 250 MPH. That's 100 MPH slower than the fastest passenger train, but seems like a reasonable estimate for an average speed including stops. The difference between chilling on public transit for 8 hours and chilling on public transit for 11 hours is not that big of a deal for most people. Driving is essentially not an option for most people for this trip too.
- win311fwg 16d ago
  > NY to LA would be about 11 hours at 250 MPH. There are no trains in regular service that operate at anywhere close to those speeds. There are trains technically capable of doing it (and much more), sure, but the economics quickly stop making sense when you start pushing that much air. And flight still gets you there meaningfully faster, door-to-door, even if there were people theoretically willing to pay excessively to reach 250 mph, so there is still no reason for those who need to prioritize time to take the train. > The difference between chilling on public transit for 8 hours and chilling on public transit for 11 hours is not that big of a deal for most people. Of course, most people have no reason to travel from NY->LA in the first place. Especially not on a regular basis. The primary users will be business customers and they tend to be quite time sensitive. Furthermore, even if there was that 250 mph train, it is unlikely that it would beat air on price, so those who don't care about time are still apt to choose the cheapest option. At best there is a small segment of people who are both willing to give up their time and spend more just to avoid flying, but you can't realistically make trains work with a small number of riders.
sheafification 14d ago
> Technically a large landmass, but essentially nothing happens in the western half. Depends what you mean by "western half," I suppose, but China is definitely not a relatively small country. Shanghai to Chongqing is about the same distance as Chicago to Dallas; Beijing to Kunming is about the same as D.C. to Denver.