top 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 131 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Yeah why doesn't Europe have trains?

Europe definitely doesn't have trains already.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Still too much plane for local journeys

    And is France train are not cheaper than planes or buses... Which is stupid, they should start to properly taxe Airlines

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Do you happen to use Dvorak?

    Sorry for the random question out of this air, but the in/is typo is something that happens a lot to me while being nearly impossible on "standard" keyboard layouts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    We do. Not as much as we used to because privatisation is a plague upon mankind, also we have very diverse geography which makes developing new lines prohibitively expensive, even more so when you're a private company. Add to that a lack of political backing and yeah, it's all rather turgid, even if there are some extremely recent talks concerning transeuropean night trains and such.

    Those are going to be for our nice flat and speedy routes no doubt, but hey, it's an effort in the right direction.

    But yeah, things are not gonna get better fast as long as we are cursed with privatisation. What a shit show to see our glorious TGV reduced to a shell of its former self.

    Meanwhile I just got an article yesterday that Wuhan is now connected to the super high speed network and the first 450kph train now connects it to Shanghai. Last time I was there the train was already TGV levels of speed and much more modern, and only a year later they are leaving us on the fucking dust...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    China sees investment in mass transit as a loss leader. It costs more to put in than it generates in fairs, but the boost to connected economic zones pays back the cost several times over.

    The US sees investment in mass transit as a detriment to the airline, automotive, and fossil fuel industries. It would shrink the economy in three places where the nation has tried to goose growth for the last 60 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I never really understand why historically trains were so rare in the US. They had loads of trains at one point left over from the industrial Revolution and then they seemed to decide to get rid of them all. Even Beaching didn't shut down that many lines

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm from Europe. What's a train?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    If you're on a long tube that travels quickly on the ground from one city to another, and everyone is talking in Spanish, you're in a train.

    If you're in a long tube that travels quickly on the air from one city to another, and everyone is talking English, you're on a plane

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    My total journey from Berlin home this week was about 50 minutes late, and the connection after the ICE was not pretty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Apparently Germany's problem is that they run all the high-speed trains on the normal lines which means all of the normal trains have to work around them. Obviously you can't have a normal train in front of a high-speed train so if the high-speed train is delayed by even a small amount it has a knock-on effect where a bunch of local service trains have to sit around waiting for the line to clear.

    Everyone else runs high-speed rail on their own tracks. So everyone gets to do what they want and not affect anybody else.

    The French do it better than the Germans, which is just not an acceptable state of affairs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    50 minutes isn't that bad tbh. I dont remember the last time I flew that there wasn't a delay. Hell even the whole arriving 2 hours before ,finding parking, going through security is all so much more of a hassle.

    I'd much rather walk 5 minutes to the local subway head to the hauptbahnhof and wait 50 extra minutes for my train. I can at least go get a reasonably priced coffee while I wait.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    As someone who boycotted the TSA for like 5 years and only took Amtrak, the tickets are not always cheaper. I mean sure, you can get across the country for like $100.

    Even when I was doing Boston-Baltimore on the Acela, it was routinely slightly cheaper to fly.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Amtrak is not cheaper, but trains in other countries are. Because Amtrak, specifically, sucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    AmTrak is designed to suck. Freight lines own most of the rails, and while they are required to give priority to passenger trains, they avoid this in several ways. Like having the freight trains too long to fit on side rails so the passenger trains are required to stop instead to make way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Americans can't do high speed rail because we have aircraft, automobile, and petroleum industries who don't want us to.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Americans can't do trains because it requires public infrastructure (rails), which apparently we are allergic to.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    I've read articles in the past about high speed trains and/or just new train lines in general would get held up by little towns who didn't want to lose the commuter traffic since it was the only thing keeping them afloat. There are too many towns that exist literally just to serve motorists and now nobody wants to get rid of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Anybody who is making money off existing transportation is going to be against public transportation. Cab companies lobby against rail everywhere, from city to burbs or airport to downtown. Trucking, for obvious reasons. Passenger rail can carry cargo at night. And of course anybody selling fuel to the mass of cars, the petro industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    They are just very short sighted. Just lobby to have a station and a have commuter stops and people will flock to those "cheaper" areas to live bringing in tons of tax revenue and boosting the local economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    These small towns would still be an hour+ away from large cities, even with European speed high speed rail.

    Like for me, the nearest "big town" is about 100 miles from me, which is about a 2hr drive. And, at least from some quick googling, it looks like most commuter rail in France tops out at about 100mph. A train would not bring in more people haha

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You'd be suprised how many people commute more than an hour by car. The prospect of having affordable housing with more job opportunities will certainly bring in more people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    France spends ~$15 million/mile for high speed commuter rail. Which means that line would cost $1.5 billion.

    I don't think it's bringing in that many more people. Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities it would go through

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Implying the line would stop at the town and not carry on to the next. Also, how much is being spent on building and maintaining freeways?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, while I'm a huge advocate for an American Shinkansen, there's really 4 zones of America for train speeds. East of the Appalachians its fast and easy and rail already works easy. West of them but east of the Mississippi, you're gonna need high speed rail, but it'll be somewhat similar to Europe. Between the Mississippi and the west coast, you're gonna need high speed rail and quite a bit of patience. And on the west coast, you'll hit up small cities, but honestly it'd be a great second high speed line after the New York-Chicago

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That is so odd... I've only ridden Amtrak a few times, but I was amazed at how many stops were just some small town that happened to lie on the rail line.

    Most small towns that lie on a major highway and are supported by commuter traffic are only going to support a truck stop and a few fast food restaurants at best. Sure, a true high speed rail line would likely only stop in larger metropolitan areas, so those meager income sources may dwindle. But on the other hand if I were a rail commuter in one of those rural/suburban areas, I'd be much more likely to spend some time doing a bit of shopping or lingering in a restaurant during that transition from the train to my car after work, than if I were just passing through in my car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Ignoring trains for a minute, there are even examples of towns in America being against new highways for the same reason. Breezewood, Pennsylvania is the town you see in that one meme image of "america". The state did some weird tax/federal funding loop shenanigans by routing a highway through some little pit stop town and, now that the laws have been relaxed, the county and the businesses don't care to fix it.

    Although laws have been relaxed since then, local businesses, including many traveler services like fast food restaurants, gas stations and motels, have lobbied to keep the gap and not directly connect I-70 to the Turnpike, fearing a loss of business. In order for a bypass to be considered, Breezewood's own Bedford County must propose it, which is "just not an issue that really appears on the radar for us," Donald Schwartz, the Bedford County planning director, said in 2017.[1]

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To be honest, I haven’t seen anyone else mention the real reason: America allowed private companies to buy and own the lands under the rails in the 1800s in order to deal with the massive distances across the US to connect the West and East. 150 years later and just a few companies own almost all the track and rail across America. Almost all private, not public land. Public citizens and communities have very little control over the railways going through their communities. These companies lobby against and make it difficult to introduce new, public rail lines for a multitude of reasons. This is one of very many examples of how corporations abuse law, monopolistic practices, and media to lessen the power of American citizens.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Meanwhile, right wing parties in Quebec are fighting against a tramway project in Quebec city, that the entire country agreed to pay for, for which we have already invested half a billion, build stations, etc. They call it "War on cars".

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Honest fuck this.

    So you love driving and more people on the road will get off the road and take the train. It means you can drive even more! Why wouldn't you want that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Because they don't give a shit about driving? They care a lot more about their family members that own car dealerships, or are involved with the petrochemical industry.

    Or they saw that American rightwing grifters talk like this so they are cargo culting the fuck out?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The monkey paw grants your wish but all the trains are built by Boeing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Honestly I think it's just sticker shock. I would say that as soon as we get some people would be more willing to get more, but no, because people are hesitant to expand existing rail. MARTA please expand, I beg you. Oh great spirits of public transit, I pray that you soften the NIMBYs' hearts.

    It's so upsetting that every small town in my state has an old historic train stop but none of them are actually passenger train stops anymore. Once you see it you can't unsee it. I am 15 minutes from my town's historic train stop which is a steak house now. My parents are about the same distance from theirs, probably even closer, but it's a museum or something. Can I just take a walk to the train, ride down, and see them? Nope. Gotta deal with the hellscape that is metro Atlanta traffic.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Glorious coal for scenic steam locomotives. It’s a win-win

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    In theory, you could make a carbon-neutral coal-burning steam locomotive. You would need to make synthetic coal out of atmospherically-captured CO2. But in theory it would be possible...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And what's wrong with that? Who says the coal has to be a net source of power?

    Synthetic fuels are actually a pretty viable method of decarbonizing, especially for hard-to-decarbonize applications like aviation. Sure, you don't get net energy out of them, but who cares? Thanks to dirt cheap solar, our civilization has stupidly abundant access to energy. It's only portable energy or energy when we want it that costs a lot. But people have seriously proposed making even gasoline from atmospherically derived carbon. Sure, it's just a fancy battery. But the Joules/dollar you get from the grid is so much cheaper than what you get from gasoline that it may be worth it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Copilot’s deep think says it would take a 2K passenger train to be more environmentally friendly than 2K electric cars, given a coal-steam train and electric cars recharged by a coal fired power plant.

    But that’s irrelevant, electric cars lose the coolness factor against steam trains. Choo-choo electric drivers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Well I don’t know anyone who works in either designing mass transportation nor makes environmental impact analysis, so no one could give me an accurate guess, hence why I specified that I asked.

    I cannot express the depth of disappointment i feel here.

    I even let it ‘think’ some extra time, come on

    I sincerely hope you are never responsible for so much as brunch

    I’ll make it my goal to ensure I’m supervising every single brunch you’re going to for the rest of our lives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Too much work for shitposting after work, don’t you think?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A baseless answer is a baseless answer regardless of origin though. I'd argue more thought went into getting the LLM to give me an estimate that it would've if I just typed "yeah 600 passengers on a coal train are probably better". But hey, do feel free to hate on LLMs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why would Americans care about trains when they're gonna be a billionaire any day now and have their own private jet?

    /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Cheaper? come to the UK, where flying can be less expensive than rail

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I’m a huge train and transit advocate and I try to take Amtrak every chance I get. But “tickets are cheaper” does not feel like a blanket statement we can make. Maybe on very specific, usually short legs, like Chicago to Milwaukee. Someone correct me if I’m wrong or there’s more nuance but once a trip goes past 3 or 5+ hour mark, the price seems to skyrocket past airfare.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh, that is definitely true in the U.S.

    Also, I've found that rail travel is inconvenient in the U.S. I can't confirm, but it seems like the Amtrak only comes through my (Midwest) area once a week, on Wednesdays or something like that. So, if I plan a trip, I need to plan around.

    Midwest to the East Coast is so much cheaper and faster by air. I want to travel by rail - and you'd think it should be cheaper - but it's totally not.

    Part of it, I believe, is that Amtrak leases the usage of the rail lines from the shipping companies, so it must adhere to their schedules of shipping freight. The USA spends so much on upgrading its highway system; if they used a fraction of that money towards rail travel we would be set. But certain companies keep lobbying Congress to keep us locked in a model where we are totally reliant on cars and gasoline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also true in many cases in Europe.

    You can get a flight ticket for under 20€ between Germany and UK (RyanAir), and have to pay tenfold that for a train ticket.

    Or a 30€ ticket to Romania per plane. Booking a train to Romania is much more difficult and expensive and also easily over 100€.

    I would wish that train tickets are cheaper than plane tickets, but if you cross country borders, booking train tickets becomes expensive and difficult in Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Not even going international on a train can be more expensive.

    It cost me almost the same price to take the ICE (not that one yanks) from one part of Germany to another, to visit my mom than it was for me to fly from Germany to Latvia on Ryanair

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    In Europe when you book ahead of time and are not too specific about the dates you can fly much cheaper. If I want to go from Amsterdam to Barcelona I can get a much much cheaper flight. Why would I go for the option that is slower and more expensive?

    I wish trains where cheaper I'd take them more often.

    I once heard someone make the argument flying is cheaper because a plane can fly from one airport to almost any other airport. So when you own a plane you can use it in a much more flexible way. A train can only go over a fixed track, yes you can use switches etc. But when you build an airport basically any plane can go there immediately. For trains it doesn't work like that. Make matters even worse in Europe usually train operators are national and most trains don't cross borders beyond a few stations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    This again? The answer is no one knows. We heard legends about it but the prophecy says line go up!

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is there any parody porn about TSA? I want to masturbate to it. As long as it's not too noncon (like TSA in real life), I don't really care about the details (I'm ok with any gender, large insertions/fisting, etc.).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Yeah i got used to TSA sexually assulting me just to get to the to my plane

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›