this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
8488 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think train can compete with a long distance means of transportation that is
1- equally or less time consuming.
2- works very similarly across countries.
3- only needs infrastructure at the start and end stops instead of for the whole journey.
What we need is to figure out a way to use less polluting, carbon neutral or non-polluting fuel for airplanes, and less of it with more efficient designs.
The plane is not that fast. You have to factor in travel to the airport (outside the city), check-in, security gates, boarding, baggage claim on the destination, which can add up to 3h or more per trip. With a train, you start in the city center and just hop on board.
To your last point, believe it or not, but planes are getting significantly more efficient. Huge wide-bodies like the 747 are retiring in part because airlines don't want to lug around 4 engines, when the 787 can do the same trip with 2.
The a320 neo has a much better engine than previous generations, and same thing with the 737 max (crashing problems aside).
Ok but that caveat is doing a lot of work there
In a comment about efficiency? No, it doesn't.
it's relevant. the worldwide 737-MAX fleet had very low carbon footprint for like a year or a bit more!
Right, so the 737-MAX are very fuel efficient. No argument there. But saying “the parenthetical about ignoring the crashing problems is doing a lot of work in this comment about fuel efficiency” is just nonsense.
I mean, the entire fleet was very efficient while it was grounded
Oh don't worry, planes crash no more than once in their lifetime...
That's true. Trains can compete mid-range, or should be able to compete. With better infrastructure and organization (high speed rail, coordinated timetables, unified booking, ...), this range can be extended. There will always be a certain distance after which planes are the better choice.
But we still should invest to push this point further into the distance, to make planes as obsolete as possible. Trains should be the cheapest option between short distance (bus) and long distance (plane). If they are not, we are doing something wrong in creating incentives.
I want to see long distance high speed night trains. I want to see trains riding bumper to bumper. I want to go overnight from Berlin to Oslo. Or Paris up Bucharest. Porto to Utrecht.