Re:More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights
by DiogenesKynikos on Saturday February 15, 2020 @01:25PM
(#22336906)
200 miles is way too short for the break-even point.
If you take into account the time overhead for airplanes, the break-even point is about 4 hours. For modern high-speed rail (speeds of over 200 mph), that's about 800 miles (NYC to Chicago, or Paris to Vienna). Most European high-speed rail lines outside France and Spain don't operate at that speed yet, but it's not uncommon for newly-built high-speed lines (which is why it's common in China).
Re:More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights
by LatteLazy on Saturday February 15, 2020 @07:39PM
(#22339063)
4 hours at 200mph is 800 miles. But no train does that over distance. Even the Japanese, with dedicated infrastructure for bullet trains and minimal political issues stop every few hundred km because they're at a city people want to get on or off at...
Re:More emphasis on trains in Europe to replace flights
by DiogenesKynikos on Sunday February 16, 2020 @04:15AM
(#22340671)
The fastest Beijing - Shanghai trains take 4:18 to travel 809 miles.
The maximum speed that trains operate at in regular commercial service is 350 km/h (217 mph), so average speeds of nearly 200 mph are possible nowadays.
There are a few factors to rail that make it unsuitable for long distance.
First, there is 10s of 1000s of miles of track, all of which has to be laid, maintained, controlled and signalled. It has to be inspected and repaired and monitored and upgraded. Plus, you can't go directly anywhere. You can't take a train to Barcelona from London. You have to go via Dover for the tunnel, then lille because its a city and there's not track not via lille.
The air maintains itself and you can fly basically direct to wherever.
Plus a shit tonne of political interference (here in the UK we have stations basically next to each other no one will close and HS2 take a huge diversion to avoid politically sensitive areas, and that's just in one nation, try getting them to agree on train safety standards). For an airport, you basically just need a mile of tarmac and a tin shed. I don't think you even have to have radar anymore, just transponder tracking...
Plus, as you point out, the plan can carry 7 loads of people in the same time that the train can carry 1. So all things being equal (which they're not) you'd pay only 1/7th...
Plus, the costs for the Barcelona London route are basically fixed. The fact no one wants to make that journey in the winter just means the assets are unused. If no one wants to fly London to Barcelona in November, you can just switch the route and take people to their ski holidays instead. So planes are more versitile and has much higher utilisation rates than most trains.
Trains make sense but only over shorter distances. Anything over about 200 miles and planes win.