Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by fyfy18 on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @02:29AM (#19551537)

For comparison, in the UK there are around 8 trains per hour during peak times between London and Cambridge (around twice the distance of DC-Baltimore). I'd imagine there are cities that have even more per hour in central Europe.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by mikekchar on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @03:19AM (#19551771)

Although according to Google Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000. Probably a more realistic comparison would be Bristol and Southampton/Portsmouth where there is realistically 1 train an hour (technically 2, but the second one has a change and runs 8 minutes after the first one).

Comparing trains from London is not really fair because virtually every train in the south ends up in London eventually. Somewhat tragically, I once tried to take a train from Watford to visit Hatfield House, some 14 miles away. I think it took me 3 hours getting in and out of London :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by masklinn on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @05:07AM (#19552275)

> Although according to Google Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000. Probably a more realistic comparison would be Bristol and Southampton/Portsmouth where there is realistically 1 train an hour (technically 2, but the second one has a change and runs 8 minutes after the first one).

OTOH between Macon (pop 34000) and Lyon (pop 500000) there is up to 4 trains / hour at commute times (1 an hour otherwise), over a slightly longer distance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by ovi256 on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:34AM (#19552122)

>Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000

You really have to look at the metro population.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by mikekchar on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:48AM (#19552180)

London has a population of over 8 million and 14 million for the metro population. I was trying to pick something that had even close to a similar population density of of Washington Baltimore in the UK. Comparing to London is like comparing to NYC.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by richardhod on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @09:43AM (#19563218)

that's a story and a half you could tell. No buses? And I wonder why blablacar hasn't taken off in the UK

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by mises on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @07:49AM (#19553044)

Part of the problem with starting that here is that many railroads have to just stop roads dead for 5-10 minutes every time they go by. Even if it's a fast train and it's 2-4 minutes, that would cause a crazy traffic increase here, because you've just lost between 27 and 53% of your roads' capacity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by keytarsolo on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @08:35AM (#19553351)

In a high traffic area, you'd just use bridges and tunnels. Level crossings in central Europe are usually only on minor roads in smaller towns.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t... by randomsearch on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:11PM (#19558092)

London and Cambridge are exceptional cities for political and economic reasons, so that’s not a good comparison.

[ Parent | on HN ]