525
How soon do you get there? (reddthat.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/memes@sopuli.xyz
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 1 day ago (24 children)

Shit like this is why I avoid flying wherever possible. Such a miserable experience. I yearn for the day they finally somehow build that train tunnel across the Atlantic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 1 day ago (20 children)

    This is also why travelling by train can often be overall faster than plane, despite the train being slower. The station is in the middle of the city, no security check, the platforms are closer to the street, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

    unless you're in the US riding Amtrak. it's never not been delayed for me, frequently by several hours

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 23 hours ago (15 children)

    If the two locations are close maybe, but most of the time I would say theyre not remotely as fast.

    You can fly from New York to LA in 6 hours. On a train it would take like 3 days

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 21 hours ago* (8 children)

    Only because US train system is biased toward freight.

    Not complaining, it is what it is.

    That said, I don't see any pragmatic way to build passenger high-speed rail across the US. Every state would want it to run for them - otherwise they won't support it. Then every city, etc.

    Edit: for straight shots (point-to-point) across vast distances I don't see train ever matching planes (like NY to LA)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

    The US rail network is already kind of a disaster. A lot of major cities don't even have passenger rail stations at all. There are entire STATES that don't have a single amtrack station lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago* (1 child)

    It would be most feasible to have like three high speed rails in the US. Up and down both coasts, and then east coast to west coast through the midwest, Denver, SLC etc.

    That alone would be enough to replace a ton of car and plane trips, even if it didn’t provide service everywhere

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 17 hours ago

    We can't even build a single HSR line anywhere in the US

    We're a long ways away from being able to even think about trans-continental HSR

    We simply do not have the competence to do it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children)

    NYC to LA is 4000km, so a dead straight non stop rail route operating at the current peak of high speed rail (200mph) would still take 12 hours. As soon as you pick a real route and stops and account for that speed being unrealistically expensive you're looking at over 24h I think.

    The annoying thing is that rail infrastructure is also expensive to maintain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (4 children)

    Depends on what type of train it is. A passenger aeroplane travels around 800 km/hr, a 'typical' train about 150-200.

    However, the highest average speed of a commercial train is reached by the Fuxing, which goes 320 km/hr, enabling to go from Beijing to Nanjing (1,020 km) in 3.2 hours. The Shanghai maglev used to go faster, about 430 km/hr. So a train can certainly be faster than a plane on mid-long distances if we take pre-flight time into account.

    An experimental Maglev, the L0 Series, managed to go 600 km/hr. At that speed, you're honestly directly competing with planes at long distances.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

    Meanwhile Amtrak trains: 74mph, unless you're on the Acela, then top is 150mph.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

    Try closer to 30 average. Most rail isn't rated for above 50 outside the Northeast Corridor, and you're also pausing for hours at a time sometimes because freight rail gets priority treatment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago* (1 child)

    Not sure, and actually I think passenger gets priority, but there's so few compared to freight it porb leans that way..

    I still FUCKING LOVE Amtrak.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    Legally passenger gets priority, however to increase the already disgusting profit margins and decrease capital expenditures (why spend on infrastructure when you can pay dividends and do stock buybacks), they have been running longer and longer trains without increasing the length of sidings so when a passenger train wants to pass a 2 mile long freight train, there's literally nowhere the freight train can go to allow it to pass.

    The DoT could fine the railroads each time they do that until they either run shorter trains or build the appropriate sidings, but they choose not to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

    There is no way in the name of all that is good and holy in this fucking world I'm getting in a 3000 mile tunnel under the ocean.

    Would it be any less safe than flying? Probably not. But for some reason I would rather fall out of the sky and die than be crushed and drown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 20 hours ago

    Honestly it probably would be way less safe because the network of pumps and fans and whatnot that would be needed to keep that tunnel both DRY and oxygenated would be insane. I'm also pretty sure the trains would need to be built like submarines to prevent the atmosphereic pressure from crushing them? Or maybe the tunnel? It honestly seems like an engineering nightmare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 19 hours ago

    If it were built at all, which it won't be, a tunnel collapsing under the sea would be one of the most instantaneous deaths you could ask for. Like that billionaire tourist sub at the Titanic. Immediately crushed and gone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent