[HN Gopher] Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?
___________________________________________________________________
Where can you go in Europe by train in 8h?
Author : vortex_ape
Score : 338 points
Date : 2024-12-28 11:43 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.chronotrains.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.chronotrains.com)
| bitschubser_ wrote:
| If you now could just book a train between these cities on a
| common european platform (or local transportation provider...)...
| one could dream...
|
| just booking a train and getting a quote crossing multiple
| borders (without interrail) is just a nightmare :(
| 0xFF0123 wrote:
| Doesn't trainline support some of Europe now?
| sazor wrote:
| Trainline support most of the Europe. Used it from Poland to
| Portugal, not much of a hassle.
|
| It does miss some regional train tickets which could be found
| on local platforms but major lines are covered fine.
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Wow, that's some voyage. How was it?
| sazor wrote:
| The worst part is Germany as usual. Had to change some
| trains with buses on Gdansk-Berlin route.
|
| Other than that it was quite good and on schedule. I've
| used railpass so it was also cheap enough.
|
| My longest voyage was Moscow-London back in the days when
| Moscow-Berlin and Moscow-Paris trains existed (pre-
| covid).
| atoav wrote:
| As someone who often crosses the borders between Germany,
| Austria and Italy it is basically:
|
| 1. Enter my route at OBB (Austrians), DB (Germans) and
| Trenitalia (Italians) and see who is cheapest
|
| 2. Book one ticket for the whole trip
| MoreMoore wrote:
| Whenever I checked, trains from north Germany to Austria and
| back were always _significantly_ cheaper on the OBB site. It
| was bizarre.
| 4ad wrote:
| It's just price differentiation in action. A Polish ticket
| for the same train can be a third of the price of an
| Austrian ticket. People are rightfully pissed when this
| happens to them online, yet they seem to accept it for
| trains. I don't understand it.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Strange, I don't usually hear Austrians complain when
| they get paid 3x for the same job a person does in
| Poland.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Do they, though? In 2024/2025?
| epolanski wrote:
| A bit more than twice.
| 4ad wrote:
| Austrians moving to Poland doing any specific job will pe
| paid exactly the same as the Polish. Similarly a Pole
| working a job in Austria is paid the same as an Austrian
| doing the same job.
|
| The fact that there might be a wage difference between
| different countries might be interesting, but it us
| utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is a price
| difference between tickets sold _for the exact same
| train_. Not an Austrian vs. a Polish train -- literally
| the same actual train with the same finite, exact seats
| for sale.
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Really? When traveling from Poland to Germany, it's
| cheaper to buy a ticket from DB.
| 4ad wrote:
| I suppose it varies from case to case. I've only done
| Austria<->Poland, with tickets bought from AT/CZ/PL.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Trainline works well enough including refunds, seat selection,
| etc.
|
| It can't book the Eurostar as part of a larger trip and there
| might be similar limitations.
| bitschubser_ wrote:
| Wow thanks for the hint, I did not know trainline it even
| shows the connections I'm searching for where trainitalia,
| sbb and DB failed :)
| bpye wrote:
| Of course - they add their own fees, though I guess there's
| nothing wrong with using them to find a route.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I had a good experience earlier this year on a
| Paris/Berlin/Vienna/Venice/Stuttgart/Paris loop using
| raileurope.com and nightjet.com
|
| I guess it may be more expensive but I don't mind, I find the
| booking experience very clear cut as to what is refundable,
| what is nonrefundable etc, easy to pick which class for each
| segment and so on. no complaints.
| sloowm wrote:
| You can thank all local train operators for this. They have
| been fighting a shared ticketing system tooth and nail at the
| European level and the weak politicians in Europe who don't
| push for a shared system.
|
| There is a legislative proposal but that will take years and
| operators are going to try and get around it:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/spotlight-J...
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| What is the _rationale_ for fighting a unified system? A
| unified system would make it _easier_ to travel by train,
| which should in theory encourage people to do so _more_.
|
| Is this a problem of the operators within each country not
| wanting to be unified with _each other_ because then they 'd
| have to compete more directly? Or is this actually the
| operators between countries fighting over it for some reason?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Why isn't there a Google flights for trains? Do the operators
| hoard their data?
| OJFord wrote:
| ..Google Maps? (Or Citymapper, or ...)
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| In the end you'll just have to buy 3-4 different tickets that
| become obsolete once you lose your connection in Koln.
| folmar wrote:
| Not needed, at least in most Europe. Operators share data and
| you can get timetable information from any of them for all
| trains, including combined itinearies, and the expectation is
| you get information from your local train company.
| vertan wrote:
| All Aboard is doing this, check them out:
| https://allaboard.eu/book
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Given that the majority of the railway companies are state
| owned one could think that integrating them would be a easy
| thing for the EU to do.
| folmar wrote:
| You can (except for Germany I think, that stopped accepting the
| tickets issued from international tariff book few years ago),
| but this will get you the base price, without any possible
| discounts, so is usually way more expensive than tickets bought
| directly. But gives you tickets with date change/cancellation
| possible.
| Svip wrote:
| Title shared on HN left me somewhat disappointed. The actual time
| appears to be "Where can you go by train in 8h?", though that's
| somewhat less clear. It only seems to include central stations of
| larger cities, though I was hoping for a list of shortest travel
| times between stations in Europe, as more of a thought/data
| experiment. Or put another way; which two train stations in
| Europe have the least distance between them?
|
| Anyway, the shared feature is neat, but seems to be somewhat iffy
| once you get out of the bigger cities. If a route has 2 or more
| connections, it seems to struggle to show them. While true to its
| message, I still feel the restriction of 8 hours misses sleeper
| trains, where travel time is less essential compared to daytime
| trains.
|
| It's cute for discoverability, but for a specific train search, I
| would definitely defer to bahn.de, which basically includes all
| train stations in Europe.
| withinboredom wrote:
| My one and only sleeper train experience involved being woken
| up at 3am by police with guns to check passports. Never again.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Which route was this?
| lionkor wrote:
| My one and only 6 hour sleeper train was in Russia. It was
| cozy, amazing views at night, and they wake you when your
| destination is coming up.
|
| I think when you share anecdotes like yours, its good to
| share anecdotes like mine, to balance it out :)
| leobg wrote:
| Which route? Does it still exist?
| chupasaurus wrote:
| 6 hours is too short for any special trains (i.e. #001/2
| is Moscow - St.Petersburg 8 hour night train) so you can
| expect that at any route, also attendants have to wake up
| passengers by a rule.
|
| Added: GP is probably talking about a train that didn't
| cross a border.
| lionkor wrote:
| I believe it was Krasnodar to Sochi, along the sea, so
| you'd wake up and look out and see nothing but ocean on
| one side.
|
| This was like two years ago or so, so still exists
| probably
| TypingOutBugs wrote:
| I just took a sleeper train last night from Helsinki to the
| arctic circle and they had non-reclining seats with no light
| dimming. Got around an hours nap between 6am and 7am this
| morning. Took around 14 hours to go 1000km. Very much regret
| not paying for a proper cabin...
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Yeah, that's sleeper train travel 101. Either be young and
| not too tall and on a budget, or pay for a private cabin.
| CalRobert wrote:
| To counter that, the best sleeper train I ever took was from
| Beijing to Shanghai, and it felt like I'd travelled to the
| future (this was in 2008).
|
| Second best might be Portland, OR to Sacramento, though I
| might have liked it if had been more like travelling to the
| past (I miss proper dining cars).
|
| European ones have been cheap, cheerful, and uncomfortable,
| but this was 15 years ago for trips like Florence to Prague,
| IIRC.
| TypingOutBugs wrote:
| The Zephyr route from San Francisco to Chicago still has a
| proper dining cart, viewing cart, and is 52 hours long.
| Surprisingly comfortable and the only way you can access
| the Ruby Canyon in Colorado outside of a kayak.
| Gare wrote:
| > I was hoping for a list of shortest travel times between
| stations in Europe, as more of a thought/data experiment. Or
| put another way; which two train stations in Europe have the
| least distance between them?
|
| You mean most distance you can travel in X hours?
| Svip wrote:
| When I posted, the title on HN was "Shortest distance between
| stations in Europe", so it had nothing to do with "X hours".
| jorams wrote:
| > I was hoping for a list of shortest travel times between
| stations in Europe, as more of a thought/data experiment. Or
| put another way; which two train stations in Europe have the
| least distance between them?
|
| That would not be very interesting. I live close to a train
| station that's less than 5 minutes (by train) away from the
| nearest other train station. The other train station is the
| city hub with many connections to other cities. There is
| nothing interesting about this connection, it simply replaces a
| 20 minute bike or bus ride. There are many such connections.
| Svip wrote:
| I assume if you only observe the data in isolation. But
| compiling that data would provide an image of where the
| density of stations are higher. Again, we can assume that's
| probably around the bigger cities, but until we actual lay
| out the data, we are just assuming. Maybe it'll prove the
| data right, but maybe it will reveal something we didn't
| expect. Testing the obvious sometimes lead to unobvious
| observations.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| There is a website I love for seeing how to get almost everywhere
| in Europe by train: https://www.seat61.com/
| elygre wrote:
| And it gives details about everything you could imagine. It's a
| gold mine for train travel through Europe!
| kgeist wrote:
| I don't understand how it works. First time clicking on Poland,
| it showed a kind of a heat map around some city. Then I click on
| another location and nothing happens. OK, there's a "back"
| button, I go back, click on the map again in a different place
| and... nothing happens. No heat map. At some point in frustration
| I accidentally move the mouse while clicking and the map rotates
| upside down. Don't know, is it me, my browser, or there's
| something about the UI.
| MoreMoore wrote:
| Site is probably just overloaded and it's not responding
| properly because of it.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Select a start city/station. The heat map is destinations
| within the selected duration.
|
| If you pick Paris, most major cities in Western Europe are
| within 8 hours.
|
| Pick Madrid, far fewer destinations are marked.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Focus moves after first click. Second click shows route from
| first click to second click. You have to clear both "where
| from" and "where to" box on left top to return to heatmap mode.
| lysace wrote:
| Yeah - this UX has the potential to be dramatically improved.
|
| I also went through that investigational phase. Needing to do
| that is a very clear sign of a UX that's suboptimally
| designed, IMO.
| OJFord wrote:
| > the potential to be dramatically improved.
|
| I haven't seen the site you're describing, but that's a
| brilliantly optimistic spin of a line!
| lysace wrote:
| Just trying to adapt my normal northern european
| harshness into sunny and positive californian :).
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| Since train fans always like to point this out when it comes to
| flying: this is how far you can get in 8 hours _on the train_. It
| doesn't include the time to get to the station, the buffer time
| you need (if your train leaves at 0700 you can't plan to get
| there at 06:59), and the time to travel from the destination
| station to your actual destination. Actual travel time for an 8
| hour train ride is probably at least closer to 10 hours if not
| more.
| Scrapemist wrote:
| How is this different when flying?
| madcaptenor wrote:
| If anything it's less of an issue with trains than with
| flying - time from the street to the vehicle and vice versa
| is smaller with trains, and train stations are generally less
| remote than airports.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's not but a lot of people tend to write it off for trains
| because it's often city center to city center with no
| security. So it can be (usually is) at least less overhead.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| You can board a train within a few minutes of the departure
| time. You can just enter the train station and walk to the
| train you want to take. Train stations tend to be in the city
| center, where it's very easy to get to.
|
| Boarding an airplane ends a long time before the planned
| departure time. You need to go through security and border
| control. Airports tend to be in remote locations.
| numpad0 wrote:
| More startup/shutdown overhead in exchange for bigger peak
| velocity
| Svoka wrote:
| also, you can take overnight trains. I find it very
| comfortable - you wake up and enjoy your day in some nice
| town, then go back home. Great weekend getaway without really
| spending awake time on travel, airports, security etc
| timomaxgalvin wrote:
| The point this it out because it is true of flying. It isn't
| true of trains.
|
| Most trains you can board up to the departure time. There no
| need to be there more than 5 minutes before. The also take you
| to the city centre, which is probably both where you are coming
| from and where you are going to.
| matwood wrote:
| > if your train leaves at 0700 you can't plan to get there at
| 06:59
|
| True, but 6:50 is plenty early enough depending on if you know
| the station and the size.
|
| Getting to and from the stations are a wash because it's not
| like the airport drops you at the door either. Though, many EU
| cities have the train station near the city center which makes
| it easier for people to get to than the airport.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| > True, but 6:50 is plenty early enough
|
| I don't think so. That gives you a 10 minute margin, which
| can get uncomfortable quickly if there are any delays in
| getting there.
|
| If I can walk to a station and I know the route, 10 minutes
| margin is plenty enough. But if I have to drive+park or take
| public transport, I won't trust a 10 minute margin.
| louthy wrote:
| If there's a train every 30 mins then sure it's worth
| optimising, missing a train isn't like missing a flight
| most of the time.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| That is only true in the simplest scenario of taking a
| train on a flexible ticket and without any transfers.
|
| As soon as you have transfers in the mix (as you often
| would if travelling longer distances) or stricter
| tickets, not making it to the train is usually a really
| bad option.
| macintux wrote:
| Can we at least agree that for better or worse, train
| stations are typically smaller, faster to navigate, and
| missing significant security bottlenecks that cause
| significant delays in accessing airplanes?
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| That's not what we were discussing, but sure I'd agree
| with that.
| Symbiote wrote:
| It really depends on the route.
|
| When searching a journey, it's easy to see if the route
| with connections repeats every 20, 30, 60 minutes or
| something else.
|
| Stricter tickets mattering or not depends on the country.
| throw646577 wrote:
| It's also true of transfers (changes) on routine journeys
| in most of the world I would have thought. Because almost
| all services are regular. It is the arrival time at your
| destination you build time into, then you work backwards,
| right?
|
| IMO booking strict tickets (e.g. booking a seat) makes
| sense on only a small handful of routes in the UK, for
| example, and may even result in you being offered fewer
| possible options.
|
| There are some quite infrequent routes in rural areas
| where missing a connection is a bigger problem, but on
| those journeys I tend to consider my arrival time at that
| connection to be the starting point.
|
| For the train journeys I take it's pretty normal to have
| two or three changes, often including a trip across
| London. I rarely get into a situation where missing a
| train is a problem, because of the nature of the train
| timings. The last time I was delayed significantly was
| due to catastrophic flooding.
|
| The fundamental difference between air travel and train
| travel is that missed flights have to be rescheduled.
| Missed train journeys, not so much. In the UK if you miss
| the train you had booked a seat on, you can usually still
| travel on another one if it's a travel period covered by
| your ticket (e.g. only travelling at peak with a peak
| ticket). You just don't get a seat guarantee.
|
| ---
|
| An aside:
|
| Train travel is a flow state/mindset thing. Get one train
| earlier than you strictly need, find something to do
| while you're on the train (bonus points for something you
| can still do while standing). And then try to remember
| your journey is no more important than anyone else's,
| maybe a lot less, and you have no more right to
| timeliness or expedience than anyone else... maybe a lot
| less. As long as your journey is progressing, things are
| fine.
|
| The other week I was on a train and there was a thirty-
| something woman and her parents, taking up a lot of space
| around me and chatting incessantly and being silly, and I
| was just about to performatively put my headphones on
| (the rudest you're allowed to get when people are
| crossing the threshold of appropriate levels of noise)
| when it dawned on me that they were being silly because
| this thirtysomething woman was going to a hospital to
| find out whether her tumour had returned. And then it
| dawned on me from their route-planning discussion _which_
| hospital it likely was, and what that likely meant for
| her, and I hugged myself and read my book.
|
| I was on a train about 15 years ago, on a local journey,
| that was held outside a station about three quarters of a
| mile from where I worked. Stuck for _three hours_ on a
| cold train in winter with no working toilet.
|
| About an hour and a half in, people were getting very
| angry, until a member of the rail staff walked the line
| back to the train, boarded, and went through the carriage
| explaining carefully but respectfully exactly _why_ the
| train couldn 't get into the station and why we couldn't
| all walk along the track. Once they knew why, the angry
| people started chatting and sharing snacks and talking to
| strangers like they were old friends for whom life had
| suddenly become too short to be angry.
| timomaxgalvin wrote:
| You don't need a new ticket if you miss you transfer. You
| only have t be on time for the first train, which is
| probably waking distance in most cases.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Unless you don't happen to live within the city center. Train
| stations frequently have zero long term parking, while
| airport frequently have cheap or even free long term parking.
| If you need to take the train where I live, then you're
| better of driving to the airport and park there. Then take a
| train or bus to the city center and the train station.
|
| I did like to take the train more often, but travel times are
| just to slow. I'd need to set aside one day to just leave the
| country, then maybe I can get another train somewhere in
| Germany and then I can get pretty much anywhere in Northern
| Europe in a reasonable time. It's just that train travel in
| Denmark absolutely suck and is fairly pointless and you
| almost never travel more than 80-90kph.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Most transit systems tend to optimize getting to the city
| center. Getting to the airport is usually harder.
| CalRobert wrote:
| What airport in Europe has cheap or free long term
| parking?!??
| mrweasel wrote:
| Aalborg in Denmark used to be free, but is now ~24 USD
| for 8 days, $3 per started 24 hours. Parking by the train
| station is at least $30+ per day.
|
| Billund is $45 for a week and Copenhagen is $70 for a
| week. That covers the three busiest Danish airports.
| Parking is cheap, especially compared to the time save by
| taking the plane.
|
| I get its different from country to country and I guess
| I'm just really annoyed with the continued insisting that
| trains are better than planes, when there's almost no
| benefit to trains in my country. They are practically
| pointless, out matched by busses, planes and cars, unless
| you just happen to have a usage pattern that fit exactly
| with the layout and timetables.
| edwinjm wrote:
| Schiphol Amsterdam is EUR 124 for to weeks (EUR 8,26 per
| day). Not cheap, but for many people cheaper than taking
| a taxi.
| sloowm wrote:
| I'm not sure what the situation is in Denmark and guess you
| live in a less populated area. But if you travel by train
| you would ideally take public transport to the main hub. A
| decent network would connect you to a fairly big hub within
| 45 minutes. If you really live in the outskirts there
| should be some sort of hub where you can go by car.
|
| In Denmark specifically the border policy causes some
| slowdown. Other than that it probably has the same issue as
| the Netherlands where the trains that go across the border
| are infrequent and don't connect to major hubs. This
| creates a lot of friction in the entire network which makes
| the entire proposition fall apart. If you have to cross
| more than one border you really get into some hellish
| territory, speaking from experience.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| > airport frequently have cheap or even free long term
| parking
|
| Airport parking in Europe is pretty expensive. It could
| quite possibly be more than the flights for all passengers
| combined. A week at Brandenburg is about EUR150 Euros and
| at Heathrow is roughly the same (and needs a shuttle bus to
| the terminal, or it is over PS250 plus for the short stay).
|
| That is, however, still likely cheaper than a train to the
| airport in the UK and substantially less likely to have a
| cancellation cause you to miss a flight.
| ghaff wrote:
| That's within the range for major airports in thee US as
| well. Whether I drive in (rarely) or get a private car,
| it's not hard to spend as much on going to and from the
| airport as it is for the flight. There are more budget
| options but they're not great for me.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > Unless you don't happen to live within the city center.
| Train stations frequently have zero long term parking,
| while airport frequently have cheap or even free long term
| parking. If you need to take the train where I live, then
| you're better of driving to the airport and park there.
| Then take a train or bus to the city center and the train
| station.
|
| If you'd have to pay for long-term parking, why not instead
| pay for a taxi or Uber to the train station?
| dr_kretyn wrote:
| Sounds like you're living in an area where the parking at
| the airport is subsidized because other transportation
| options are suboptimal, likely because the airport is
| prioritized. I lived in many places in the EU and North
| America, and nowhere airport parking was cheap. Unless
| going for a day or two, it's cheaper to take a taxi both
| ways.
| throw646577 wrote:
| > if your train leaves at 0700 you can't plan to get there at
| 06:59
|
| Millions of train commuters in the UK optimise for just this
| sort of thing. Not one minute before, because the doors
| typically close 30s to a minute before departure, but 06:55 for
| sure.
|
| I am not a commuter, but later in the day I don't leave the
| house much earlier than twelve minutes before the train I want
| to get will leave the station, which is a third of a mile away
| on foot, and I will have time to get a ticket from the machine.
| Symbiote wrote:
| For a one-off journey with limited flexibility, I would
| normally plan to be at the station 15 minutes prior to
| departure.
|
| If it's a train that runs every half hour or so, and my
| ticket is flexible (which is common) I might cut that to 5 or
| so.
| skerit wrote:
| And if you need to catch some connecting trains, forgot about
| connections that are less than 15 minutes apart.
| chmod775 wrote:
| I always just arrive 5 minutes prior to departure. If I miss a
| train, not a big deal. I'll just take the next one sometime
| later. Most train tickets are flexible and merely specify the
| day you're going to take a particular connection. You might
| miss out on your seat reservation though.
|
| Also I might just be unlucky that it takes me >1h just to get
| from my apartment to the airport in Berlin, but generally
| trains beat airplanes for most destinations I have in Germany.
| For some destinations they're competitive, but rarely ever beat
| trains by more than a few minutes, while still being much more
| of a hassle. I'd rather relax in a comfortable train for 4
| hours with every amenity I could wish for, going straight from
| city center to city center, than deal with airports for two
| hours just to spend an hour in a cramped airplane while still
| having to organize transportation between the airport and the
| city each leg.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Good luck doing that in Iberian Penisula trains.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Train stations tend to be in the middle of the city, or close
| to it, while airports are a ways out. I also don't deal with
| bag check, security lines, etc. on the train.
| orwin wrote:
| my wednesday morning train is at 0654 and i arrive by bike
| between 0650 and 00652.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Another interactive map called chronotrains was discussed here in
| 2022, the original site is no longer available so I'm not sure if
| it is the same project just monetized.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32276017 (439 comments)
|
| In my view the previous version easier to use and more fun. Some
| similar projects:
|
| https://www.mapnificent.net/
|
| https://app.traveltime.com/
| Doohickey-d wrote:
| Another one; where you can get to without changing trains, and
| how long it takes: https://direkt.bahn.guru/
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Is this actual train journeys, including time traversing
| stations, or is it concatenated journey times? I think it might
| be the former, as Bristol to Paris was 4h40, Bristol to Reims was
| 5h52, but Paris to Reims was 46 mins. Similarly, Brussels to
| Cologne/Koln 1h48, Brussels to Berlin 6h05, but Berlin to Koln
| 4h02. Not much different, but still enough to pique my curiosity.
|
| FWIW the city straplines/blurbs were in English for me but the
| discount details [adverts?] were in French.
|
| Seems to be based on
| https://github.com/juliuste/direkt.bahn.guru, the issues of which
| note quite a few missing stations.
| ianbicking wrote:
| I notice if you look at Madrid it includes all of Spain and
| none of Portugal, and similarly from Lisbon. I assume this is
| because the schedules don't line up, because it wouldn't really
| make sense in terms of physical distance.
| pjmlp wrote:
| There are hardly any connecting trains between both
| countries.
|
| The connection to Vigo happens a few times a day, with
| regional trains, and to Madrid it is at most twice a day, if
| it runs.
|
| Then the regular CP strikes, delays and canceled trains.
|
| It isn't by chance that most families have cars, if we rely
| on trains and bus alone, better have enough time for
| travelling by land.
| notahacker wrote:
| I suspect the time traversing stations is an arbitrarily small
| wait time rather than actual typical connection intervals.
| Looks like they map based on the fastest train (even when
| that's once a day and the others take about 50% longer) and the
| assumption that if I walked from the station instead of
| boarding the train I could still get ~9 miles away by walking
| across open fields seems generous...
| portaouflop wrote:
| In Germany not so far because the train will be 2+ hours late
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Literally happened to me yesterday on the way back to Berlin. I
| arrived 2 hours late. In fairness there was what was labelled
| "a personal accident" on the track, which is a euphemism for
| somebody jumping in front of a train. Which unfortunately
| happens and needs to be dealt with properly and is not really
| something anybody can do much about.
|
| But delays are fairly common on that particular route (Berlin-
| Amsterdam). They use really old trains and they break down once
| in a while. Or the track is down for maintenance. Or whatever.
| Most of my journeys in the last three years there's always
| something. Before that it was more reliable.
| portaouflop wrote:
| Privatisation was a mistake - it's only gone downhill since
| they are able to make profit and cut costs.
|
| We need to get essential services such as public transport
| back under state control or the quality will continue to
| deteriorate
| ben_w wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Learn the lesson from the UK, who did privatisation first*
| and have witnessed things much worse than the current state
| of German trains (which are still _*excellent*_ in
| comparison, and I say that as one who moved from the UK to
| Germany in 2018).
|
| * or "harder", to the extent that German rail privatisation
| never went as far as in the UK. I understand there's a
| constitutional requirement here in Germany for government
| majority ownership of the rail system -- I wish it were so
| in the UK
| zelos wrote:
| To be fair though, it's not like the trains were exactly
| great in the UK _before_ privatisation.
| lewiscollard wrote:
| Yes, I find it difficult to understand why anyone old
| enough to remember what British Rail actually was (or
| capable of e.g. reading Wikipedia, to find out what it
| was), would like British Rail to be resurrected in
| anything like the form it had. It feels like pointless
| nostalgia most of the time; double arrows, rail blue, and
| jumpers for goalposts.
|
| And like, if one's model for maintaining a system depends
| on having a sensible government in power, _regardless of
| which particular political party you think is least
| competent_ you are going to have a rail system being run
| incompetently at least half the time. That's also what we
| got with "privatisation", of course; why would we expect
| any different?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Privatization has little to do with it in German. 'Die
| Bahn' is 100% public.
|
| We should actually identify the actual technical problems
| and focus on spending the money to fix them.
| epolanski wrote:
| I disagree here, privatization is good as there's more
| competition.
|
| It's really good we have Italo in Italy.
|
| Prices are down, service quality is up.
| sloowm wrote:
| There are things that can be done about people jumping in
| front of trains. Making sure the rails are not accessible
| with fences around them. Putting camera's at spots where
| people can get past the fences. In high risk stations you can
| put walls and gates in that only open when a train can be
| boarded.
|
| It's all just a lack of investment. If the budget for rail
| and other infrastructure matched the budget for car
| infrastructure rail would be way better than cars.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| > In high risk stations you can put walls and gates in that
| only open when a train can be boarded.
|
| That is only possible with fully standardized train units.
| Which is why you will see this in subways and dedicated
| high speed networks, but not on the common rail net.
| Platforms on a larger railway station have to accommodate a
| range of trains, from metro services (many doors at shorter
| intervals), to intercity trains (fewer doors, longer
| carriages), to special trains like night trains (a bunch of
| carriages from different ages strung together) and rented
| locomotives with spare carriages to fill gaps in the roster
| caused by late delivery of new trains.
|
| > Making sure the rails are not accessible with fences
| around them.
|
| There will always be spots where the rails are somewhat
| accessible outside of built-up areas.
|
| Besides, all of that is fighting symptoms. Spend the same
| money on prevention and you'll have much more impact.
| sloowm wrote:
| Makes sense why I've not seen gates in many places but
| metro networks and high speed.
|
| I agree that there will always be spots where the rails
| can be reached. As with many parts of human behavior, if
| there is more friction less people will do the thing.
| Since there are many instances where this is a temporary
| state and seeking and finding help can always be
| difficult I think creating that frictions is also
| worthwhile. Making sure people are prevented from feeling
| suicidal and being happier is something I also fully
| support.
| throwaway20241 wrote:
| (throwaway for obvious reasons)
|
| CW: suicide
|
| Coming from someone who has spent considerable time
| thinking about and planning suicide by train: lol no
|
| Unless you put up walls higher than the highest ladders
| available (so at least 5m I guess) or completely enlose
| every train track with a roof and everything, people will
| climb over things. There's either no space for large fenced
| areas around tracks (pretty much everywhere near
| civilization) or you're too far out for somebody to respond
| before a determined person can reach the track. And of
| course, nobody will permit the construction of the
| necessary infrastructure (call them NIMBYs if you want).
|
| Every escape door can be used to enter tracks. Make them as
| secure as you want them - keys are easier to get then you
| think.
|
| Rebuilding train stations to completely secure access to
| the tracks would involve standardizing all trains in every
| country in all of Europe.
|
| And (not applicable for high-speed trains) unless you want
| to spend billions and years to rebuild every train crossing
| to bridges, it will be impossible to completely secure the
| tracks.
|
| Most train suicides are impulsive decisions and can be
| prevented with better infrastructure. But if suicide by
| train is too difficult, I'll just jump on front of a car
| instead, or from a bridge, etc. "It's all just a lack of
| investment" so is terra forming Mars. But spend a fraction
| of this for better mental health and you can prevent many
| more suicides.
| Aachen wrote:
| (Without derailing the topic, I hope you are doing better
| now! You sound level headed and like someone we want in
| this world or on our jobs or in our friend groups.)
|
| I mostly figured the same as what you said (way too much
| infrastructure needed to mostly eliminate the
| possibility), though if you say most suicides are impulse
| decisions, wouldn't preventative infrastructure in a few
| key spots be sufficient to shave, idk, 10+% off the
| number of suicides by train?
| lagadu wrote:
| Even if it did prevent 10% of suicides by train, it
| stands to reason that a huge portion of those 10% would
| simply become suicides by jumping off a bridge.
| ascorbic wrote:
| Studies show that making particular suicide methods
| harder to access is an effective way to reduce overall
| suicide rates. That includes restrictions on poisons and
| firearms, but also physical barriers on bridges and train
| platforms.
| Tainnor wrote:
| DB is just an embarrassment. Yesterday, my direct train from
| Basel to Berlin was cancelled. I had to take a bus to the
| other station in Basel, take another train to Frankfurt, miss
| my connection there and take another one to Berlin - all the
| while, my seat reservation was of course obsolete and
| everything was packed full of people with luggage, even in
| the 1st class.
|
| Sure, you get a little bit of money back, but at that point,
| I understand why so many people prefer to fly or go by car.
| bloak wrote:
| > "a personal accident" on the track, which is a euphemism
| for somebody jumping in front of a train
|
| Removing a body from the track shouldn't take long, of
| course. The problem is if you need to do detailed forensics
| because it might have been a murder. At least, I am guessing
| that's the reason that sometimes a line stays closed for a
| long time with a lot of police vehicles parked in the
| vicinity (here in England), whereas on other occasions there
| is a death but only a few trains are delayed and for only
| 10-30 minutes.
|
| Interestingly, I have on at least one occasion heard about
| trains being held up because of a dead body on the track that
| wasn't hit by a train. That definitely sounds suspicious. But
| of course no further information is given to the general
| public. (Body placed by criminals but reported before it was
| hit or the train happened to be slow enough to stop in time?
| Or suicidal person drugs themselves before placing themselves
| on the track?)
|
| > not really something anybody can do much about
|
| Good video surveillance might help eliminate the need for a
| detailed investigation of the (perhaps) crime scene. But,
| yes, not an easy problem.
| lodovic wrote:
| 10 to 30 minutes isn't nearly enough time. In my country,
| when someone is hit by a train, that train is stopped on
| track and is only allowed to continue after it is fully
| cleaned up. The train company can't risk rolling into a
| crowded station when the front of the train still shows
| evidence of an impact such as having blood on it.
|
| Sometimes the front locomitive gets uncoupled earlier so
| the train can continue on a different track. But the rule
| is that passengers in the train should not be exposed to
| what happened outside the train. It's bad enough that the
| machinist had to witness it.
| phh wrote:
| In France you can go very far (Paris <=> Barcelona, 1000km in
| 6h47, Lille <=> Barcelona 150km in 8h32), but only in the 30
| biggest cities, and going from/to Paris. If you take two random
| points in the map (or even population), you'll likely not be
| able to do that route in a reasonable amount of time.
| ghaff wrote:
| France is known for being very Paris-centric in terms of
| transportation infrastructure.
| pjmlp wrote:
| And you will lose at least two connections.
| yashap wrote:
| Huh really? Whenever I've taken the train in Germany it's been
| pretty punctual, and looking at the board that's been the case
| for most trains. But maybe I just got lucky and/or it's changed
| over time.
|
| Flakiest trains I've experienced anywhere in Europe were in
| Italy - rolling strikes among train workers are crazy frequent
| and cause so many delays and cancellations.
| ctenb wrote:
| The geographical information is not 100% accurate. E.g. it labels
| "Enschede" as being in Germany, but it's in the netherlands. Cool
| app though.
| helpfulContrib wrote:
| Enschede is serviced by German rail operators though, so that
| might be a reason. In fact a lot of trains in this region of
| the world are operated by neighboring countries ..
| hagbard_c wrote:
| A rather incomplete list, at least for those starting from Sweden
| which only seems to allow access to neighbouring Scandinavian
| countries according to it. Well, no, I regularly - about once a
| month - take a train from there to the Netherlands, via Denmark
| and Germany. Given the presence of a _Book through Deutsche Bahn_
| button for all trips I 'd expect that option to be available but
| alas, it's Denmark or bust.
| yoavm wrote:
| You take a train from Sweden to the Netherlands in 8 hours?
| From where in Sweden? I've done the Stockholm - Amsterdam route
| a couple of times, and it's usually closer to 16 hours.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Amsterdam is 11 hours from Copenhagen, so from Malmo it's an
| extra 40 minutes or so.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| No, not in 8 hours, in something between 15 and 21 hours.
| What is missing in the list is the fact that you can be in
| Hamburg in about 8 hours, give or take a bit. In other words
| the fact that you can be 'on the continent' within the given
| timeframe.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Applying some leeway to the numbers would make this a nicer
| experience. There are some destinations which are e.g. 3 hours 2
| minutes away -- they only appear when 4 hours are selected, but
| it would make more sense to show them in the 3h bucket.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Think we killed it - needs to add some caching!
| betaby wrote:
| Meanwhile in Canada https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/via-
| rain-passengers-...
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| I'm amazed nobody left that train except for medical
| emergencies.
| tills13 wrote:
| I think in our defense there is simply not enough people and
| towns to support a rail network like this. A shame, really,
| 'cause a WestJet flight from Victoria to Calgary is way more
| expensive than it needs to be and don't even get me started
| about cross-country flights.
|
| I would accept if Via rail was cheaper. I have been looking at
| those cross-country trips and it's literally $4k CAD per
| person. I get that it's accommodation, too, but still.
| bpye wrote:
| Nearly two thirds of Canada's population live within the
| Windsor-Quebec City corridor - some 40 million people.
| Similarly Vancouver, BC - Portland, OR has relatively high
| population density. Population is not the reason for rail
| failing here.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| Would like to see an option for highlighting sleeper train
| routes. Eight hours sitting on a hard plastic seat is not the
| same as that in a bed.
| tzury wrote:
| About 20 years ago, I visited most of Europe's major cities over
| the course of a two-month trip, traveling primarily by night
| train. Each overnight ride saved me the cost of a hostel or
| guesthouse, and I'd arrive in a new city each morning feeling
| refreshed because of the train's sleeping accommodations.
|
| There used to be a similar service between Toronto and Montreal
| (both directions), where the train would pause for several hours
| midway so passengers would arrive at around 7:30 a.m. well-
| rested.
|
| I've taken that route as well, and it's remarkable how much you
| see while traveling by train. You pass through countless towns,
| villages, and beautiful scenery--experiences you simply can't get
| from flying.
| ant6n wrote:
| The state railways have large exited night trains as a form of
| transport, due to economics, although it's a much more
| sustainable form of transportation compared to aviation.
|
| Since Europe has a liberalized market in the rail sector, some
| startups are trying to fill the gap.
|
| European sleeper operates a night train on the route Brussel-
| Amsterdam-Berlin-Prague, using old rented rolling stock.
|
| I'm involved with Luna Rail (in Berlin), which is trying a more
| technical approach around rolling stock design to improve unit
| economics to make Night trains profitable.
|
| There's also a startup in the US, dreamstar, whose primary
| effort appears to be about getting track rights for now
| (something that's not such a big concern in Europe - here the
| barrier is rolling stock).
| endless1234 wrote:
| I'm sure you know of this, but just sharing the map for
| others: https://projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/Europe
| %20nigh...
|
| The situation is a lot better today than 10 years ago or so,
| largely thanks to OBB Nightjet. But yep, it's not only state
| railway companies anymore, as can be seen on the map
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> a much more sustainable form of transportation compared to
| aviation.
|
| Night trains are not like normal trains. They carry far fewer
| passengers per car. That doesn't make them as bad as flying
| on pure CO2 emissions, but night trains are not as efficient
| as "trains" generally. They are more comparable to luxury
| busses. But ... if the other option is an electric car, or
| even an electric aircraft, then even an electric night trains
| will likely no longer win on CO2 emissions.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > night trains will likely no longer win on CO2 emissions.
|
| The comparison is more complicated though isn't it? It
| isn't a comparison with a plane, it's a variable comparison
| with a plane, a taxi, and a hotel etc.
| ant6n wrote:
| Seating rail cars have 70-90 seats, whereas couchettes have
| 40-66 beds, but at lower emissions (lower speed->less drag)
| and higher occupancy (in Germany, occupancy is around 50%
| for day trains). It's pretty much a wash. If you mean
| luxury sleepers, they're worse sure. None of the startups
| are really targeting those luxury/low density levels,
| because of the overall poor impact.
|
| Flying has around 10x the co2eq emissions of trains
| (300g/km, including infrastructure, occupancy). Cars are
| still pretty bad, but also don't compete well for 1000km
| trips in Europe. It's basically only aviation at those
| distances.
|
| Electric airplanes that can do 1000km trips don't exist.
| They may exist one day in significant quantities... but
| perhaps only after we've used up all our carbon budget on
| the path to a 2-3C increase.
| ghaff wrote:
| I've taken a few night trains. They were mostly a fun
| experience, but they weren't in general especially time or
| cost efficient (though you have to factor in saving a night
| of hotel).
|
| It also helps if you're generally going city center to city
| center and aren't lugging large suitcases around. (Which you
| might think would be a better fit for trains but really
| aren't for the most part.)
| physhster wrote:
| I've been wondering how long it would take for a startup to
| figure out how to build train cars for cheaper than the
| incumbents. I know it's hard, but not as hard as building
| airplanes... As long as the authorities agree to certify
| them, and I could see a lot of corruption there.
| JBlue42 wrote:
| Curious about the issues you're having with rolling stock.
| Given Germany's industrial prowess, I would've thought that
| that wouldn't be an issue to manufacture, either for domestic
| use or export.
| ant6n wrote:
| For startups, building up the financing for buying rolling
| stock is very difficult. There's currently very little
| available on the rental market.
|
| It's difficult to just do a startup on general in this
| space (it's sustainable mobility, but involves hardware, an
| old industry, old tech).
|
| The state railways can afford rolling stock, but it's
| extensive and takes a long time. They are not too
| innovative either, so may not solve the economics issues
| with new approaches, because they are too conservative.
| yndoendo wrote:
| I would travel more around the USA if we had a decedent high-
| speed rail system. Spent too much time flying, red-eyes, and
| driving for work, 7-12+ hours one way, and hate those modes of
| transportation. They may get you from point A to B but your
| time is wasted along with the enjoyment of the trip.
|
| Unfortunately the Oil industry won over the politicians in the
| USA with donations, legal bribes, and they prevent the building
| of quality train travel. Bet that if majority of the USA left
| and spent time in countries with quality rail system, they
| attitudes would change dramatically and push for better. They
| would experience how much time they waste in traffic and
| queuing for boarding and de-bordering.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| Can you provide sources for the Big Oil conspiracy you cite?
| Because nationwide high speed rail isn't as easy - or
| practical - as you think. California hadn't been able to
| build a train a fraction of that distance without delays and
| squandering massive amounts of money.
|
| The PNW has been unable to build it from Portland to
| Vancouver.
|
| The US is many times larger than any European country or
| Japan. There are US states similar in size to EU countries
| with comparable rail networks.
|
| The US literally invented air travel, which made traveling
| long distances by train largely obsolete.
|
| Aircraft aren't limited to where they can go by rails.
|
| So please explain with all these concrete examples of failure
| how it's a corporate conspiracy and not general purpose
| government ineptitude?
| thatcat wrote:
| China, Russia, and India have high speed rail.
|
| Can you cite the reasons that these large countries are
| capable of building high speed rail while the US is not?
|
| Where is the recent innovation in US air travel? It has
| gotten considerably worse over the last 30 years.
| Supersonic passenger flights stopped in 2003 around the
| same time that TSA added hours to every flight.
| karaterobot wrote:
| None of that proves, or even implies a conspiracy by oil
| companies, which is what they asked for. It may be true,
| or not, but you haven't made an argument for it.
| thatcat wrote:
| The proof is in the profits that result from a favorable
| and otherwise illogical set of choices. Who even cares
| about the details? The oil and related industries are
| notoriously corrupt, introducing lead into gas knowing
| the toxic effects among other policy choices aimed at
| reducing alternatives to cars such as: https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
|
| Where's the logical argument against high speed rail that
| is based on physical limitations of reality and not
| simply uh its infeasible because policy?
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| > Who even cares about the details?
|
| This could be the greatest rebuttal to an argument I've
| ever seen on this site.
| mh- wrote:
| _> Who even cares about the details?_
|
| Intellectually honest debaters, which _should_ be what we
| 're striving for. This is a really disappointing
| response.
| voidfunc wrote:
| It's /r/fuckcars leaking into HN.
| thatcat wrote:
| You think asking someone else to do the research to prove
| a conspiracy for you is intellectually honest? Do we
| really need to get caught up in the details of how health
| insurance is a conspiracy to know that it is a
| conspiracy? Do conspiracies need to be coordinated to be
| successful or can they be informal, unspoken, and implied
| culturally so as to conceal their existence? Isn't
| worrying about those specific details actually a
| distraction? There is already proof that there are better
| systems by their existence world wide. Why don't you do
| the research to explain why the richest country in the
| world doesn't have a high speed train system and write a
| paper on it? Publish it on Arxiv, include physical
| reasons that it is not possible.
| vel0city wrote:
| The logical argument is even if you include my time in
| the airport on both ends it'll still be faster for me to
| fly from DFW to NYC or LAX than even the fastest trains
| of Europe, and probably still cost a comparable amount.
|
| If there was HSR between Houston and Dallas, sure I'd
| take that. Same for Dallas to Kansas City or something
| similar to that I'd love that. But that's about the
| distance where even the extra wait and commute time for
| the airport balances out the fact the plane is going to
| be flying straighter and faster. In the end I'm not going
| to take HSR to go to Orlando or Montreal from Dallas, I'm
| going to fly.
| ascorbic wrote:
| High-speed rail isn't meant for DFW to NYC distances.
| It's best for journeys of around 200-500 miles. So
| Boston-NYC-DC, or SF-LA. Or Houston-Dallas.
| Beijinger wrote:
| Policy, The Koch Brothers and "eminent domain" problems
| in the US.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| How many new destinations has your local airport added?
| Mine has added a ton in the last 30 years. How much
| additional capacity has your local airport enabled to
| travel? Mine has added a ton in the last 30 years. If you
| ignore the progress and then only point out the
| government regulation burdens you are painted a distorted
| picture (especially when you claim enforced 'market
| distortions' are at play on the rail side).
|
| China's rail does not operate at enough profit to pay off
| the original construction let alone for future
| maintenance.
|
| What you are referring to for flight is government policy
| around it, not the capabilities of flight. Supersonic was
| not feasible because nations didn't allow breaking the
| sound barrier over populated areas. Again government
| restriction, not a limit of the technology. Air flight
| does not require eminent domaining peoples land to add
| new destination. In fact new air travel
| destinations/destination changes/capacity gain growth
| over the last 30 years occurred in ways that rail never
| could.
| thatcat wrote:
| A ton of new destinations? wow what an amazing
| improvement! Is it possible that was just inevitable
| network effect and had nothing to do with intentional
| investments in R/D?
|
| It's almost as if the development of technology and
| politics are interrelated. Half the cost of building US
| airports were subsidized by the government when they
| added them.
|
| Path of development and real estate prices are related to
| accessibility. Most of the US is not accessible, there
| are an equal number of paved and unpaved roads in miles.
| Consider receiving mail in a rural area where it's going
| to be 3-5 days for an amazon prime package and the
| closest store is 30+ miles. If you randomly sample
| locations in the US you'll find that is actually really
| common, it's just not experienced by many people. Rail
| networks aren't about going on vacation, it's about
| developing real national infrastructure that creates
| efficiencies that boost multiple parts of the economy.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| > A ton of new destinations? wow what an amazing
| improvement! Is it possible that was just inevitable
| network effect and had nothing to do with intentional
| investments in R/D?
|
| No, not possible at all.
|
| Intentional investments in R&D led to more fuel-efficient
| and long-range aircraft technology such as the B787 and
| A350 which allowed new point-to-point routes between
| cities that were never before possible, abandoning the
| hub-and-spoke model of the past.
|
| Like Auckland-NYC nonstop.
|
| Imagine if they had to build rails between those two.
| thatcat wrote:
| Oh yes, the common US route of Auckland to NYC. Not
| having to stop when you make that flight must save a bit
| of time for 10s if not 100s of people.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| Your sarcasm is offset by your lack of knowledge and
| ignorance of facts.
| thatcat wrote:
| Your airplane facts are offset by your lack of train
| culture and ignorance of fundamental infrastructure
| efficiencies that are offered by high speed trains and
| not airplanes.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| > China, Russia, and India have high speed rail. Can you
| cite the reasons that these large countries are capable
| of building high speed rail while the US is not?
|
| One was colonised by wankers for nearly 100 years who
| built the railways, and they have been in maintenance
| mode ever since. The infrastructure is decrepit and
| people still ride on the outside of the trains in some
| cases.
|
| China has basically no safety standards. They can crash a
| train, hose it off without a care, and build a new one in
| its place with no improvements. They continue to have
| construction-related industrial accidents equivalent to
| the 1800s in the West.
|
| Russia is currently under embargo because they started a
| war and can't import parts to properly maintain their
| fleet of modern Western aircraft.
|
| The irony is two of the three countries you mentioned are
| in the top 5 fastest growing aviation markets (India
| being #2).
| badpun wrote:
| Russia hardly has high speed rail, it's just one line
| (Moscow to St. Petersburg) and top speed is just 200 km/h
| for most of the line.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| 2.5 times faster than any train in my wealthy, western
| country.
| aetherson wrote:
| I don't know which wealthy, western country you live in,
| but to be clear in the US Acela trains get up to 150 mph
| (241 kmh) -- admittedly in a short section, but with
| other sections that have a top speed of 135 mph (217
| kmh). The entire route from Washington to New York has an
| average speed ( _including stops_ ) of 90mph (140 kmh).
|
| Should Acela be faster? Probably! But people should be
| clear-eyed about what the reality of the situation is.
| aetherson wrote:
| I mean, the recent innovation in US air travel is that
| the TSA no longer adds hours to every flight. Like, is it
| maddening that we're curing a self-inflicted problem?
| Sure, of course it is. But the railfan community is also
| stuck in 2010. Every flight I've been on in the last 10
| years I've walked through a metal detector, not a
| scanner, I've kept my shoes and belt on, my laptop in my
| bag. It's like 2000 all over again, except that now we
| have to pay a nominal fee every 5 years or whatever it is
| to use PreCheck.
|
| Everyone should be mad that we dug this hole and then
| climbed out of it, but people shouldn't pretend that
| we're still in the hole.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Japan is almost all mountains, it's one of the worst
| geographies to build high speed rail where tunnels and turn
| radii need to be especially large. But they pulled it off
| anyway. The bullet train initially only connected metros
| like Tokyo and Osaka but today runs all the way to many
| remoter areas. The most recently added line connects Fukui
| prefecture, population 780k.
|
| The US has many areas with suitable population density to
| be served by high speed rail, and with more accomodative
| geography than Japan. It's just that in the US, it was
| considered fine to use government funds and authority to
| bulldoze land for the interstate system, but not for high
| speed rail.
| rpearl wrote:
| > California hadn't been able to build a train a fraction
| of that distance without delays and squandering[??] massive
| amounts of money.
|
| It costs money and time to build HSR. Fine. The J(N)R
| director who ran the shinkansen project literally lied to
| multiple levels of government to shield the (2x+) budget
| overruns. He resigned and then within a year of it opening
| he was given a medal for extraordinary contributions to
| Japan.
|
| > Because nationwide high speed rail isn't as easy - or
| practical - as you think.
|
| Who is claiming that it is easy? However, it is practical!
| It takes 6 hours to drive Tokyo to Osaka; it's 2hr by
| train. Trains leave every 5 minutes.
|
| A west coast HSR network is just obviously practical!
| Beijing-Shanghai HSR is 1300km; SF to Seattle would be the
| same. It'd be 4-5h on a train. Right now it's 2.5 hours on
| a plane plus a recommended 1.5 hours for security and
| boarding plus transfers on each side--I'd rather take a
| high speed train If I could! SF to LA could be ~3h. 90
| minutes on a plane plus lead time and transfer times and
| it's competitive. Again.
|
| > There are US states similar in size to EU countries with
| comparable rail networks.
|
| Oh, which ones?
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| I'm not sure about that. I'd imagine that trains are going to
| have the worst of both worlds. They will take a long time
| (closer to amount of time to drive to destination). They also
| will have costs approaching that of a flight. To me a train
| trip makes sense if you enjoy trains and feel that the travel
| itself is part of the reward.
| thatcat wrote:
| Maintenance cost and fuel costs are considerably lower for
| trains, why would they cost the same amount?
| bpye wrote:
| Lower emissions as well, which, I would hope we all care
| about.
| sbuk wrote:
| High speed rail in Europe (mainly France) runs at an
| average speed of 270km/h (167mph), usually city centre to
| city centre. It is often more convenient than flying, given
| check-in times and airport distance from cities. It's
| certainly quicker than driving.
| pontifk8r wrote:
| As a US person who has, You need to experience euro train
| travel. The whole experience, from booking using an app to
| waiting for a train. You'll find the apps are good, the
| schedule information accurate and up to date. The apps
| don't do stupid things mostly. When you arrive at the
| station, you'll find it generally clean and well
| maintained. Signage is clear and tied into the train
| information system. Arrival times accurate. You can get a
| nice sandwich if the shop is open. Intercity Trains are
| modern and fast. Lots of power ports to plug in your phone.
| Nice seats. Also great electronic signage in the train. You
| might even have good wifi. You would not be afraid to use a
| bathroom in a station or on a train. Best part is that you
| CAN rely on the trains. Nothing like Amtrak where if it's
| on time it's remarkable.
| gambiting wrote:
| Have you ever taken any trains in Europe? I cannot think of
| any route in any country where I've lived in Europe where
| driving would be even remotely close to taking the train,
| and in some cases it's faster than flying. Newcastle to
| London is 2h40m by train, about 5 hours of driving. Flight
| is 40 minutes but you're nowhere near the city centre, so
| once you take into account going through security plus
| necessary transfer times it's much longer. Brussels to
| Paris is an hour and a half on the train, driving is at
| least double that. Krakow to Warsaw is just over 2 hours,
| the drive is at least 3 hours and that's to the outskirts
| not city centre to city centre.
| lagadu wrote:
| Taking a fast train is _significantly_ faster than driving.
| On short and medium trips they 're even competitive with
| flying, if you factor the time it takes to get to/from the
| airport and associated lead time associated with airports
| vs showing within 5-10 minutes of departure right at the
| city centre.
| pembrook wrote:
| This is a false conspiracy narrative that belongs on Reddit
| in the r/fuckcars filter bubble.
|
| Sure, the automotive industry stood to benefit from the
| decline of rail travel in the US. But they didn't really need
| to do anything for that to happen on its own. Reality is far
| less interesting than that. Turns out when you have tons of
| fertile land, even pre-industrialization your population
| tends to spread out a bit (the vast majority of Americans
| used to be farmers). Today the US has 3-5X less population
| density than any country with high speed rail. Autos saw
| massive success in the US due to this fact, and their
| prevalence reduced the demand for rail travel as a side
| effect, it wasn't some top down evil conspiracy.
|
| It's fun to blame everything on evil big business or evil big
| government, but it's also important to look at the first
| principles and base properties of the issue at hand first.
| rebolek wrote:
| While you're right about average density, there are some
| spots with much higher density population that could
| certainly benefit from high speed train.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Here's the source. There were actual-court cases which
| found that oil and car manufacturers conspired to
| monopolize and convert local public transit to buses from
| rail.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_cons
| p...
|
| "Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its
| subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines--
| with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of
| California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering,
| Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks--gained control of
| additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[a] Systems
| included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland.
| NCL often converted streetcars to bus operations in that
| period, although electric traction was preserved or
| expanded in some locations. Other systems, such as San
| Diego's, were converted by outgrowths of the City Lines.
| Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of
| conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of
| buses, fuel, and supplies to NCL subsidiaries, but were
| acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the transit
| industry."
|
| This history also plays a large role in "Who Framed Roger
| Rabbit," as a bit of fun bonus lore...
| voidfunc wrote:
| Street cars != Intercity Rail
|
| Also I'd argue street cars are way worse than busses
| which have route flexibility.
|
| The bigger problem is Americans don't like being around
| other Americans and really don't like public transit.
|
| It's not some giant conspiracy.
| FredPret wrote:
| Local public transit in the US is a very different beast
| to getting across the country.
|
| Manhattan may have high population density, and the
| public transit that goes with it; but building passenger
| rail thousands of miles to the other side of a sparsely
| populated continent just doesn't add up in the same way.
| drtgh wrote:
| https://jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-
| cali... At the time, it seemed that Musk
| had dished out the Hyperloop proposal just to make the
| public and legislators rethink the high-speed train.
| He didn't actually intend to build the thing. It was more
| that he wanted to show people that more creative ideas were
| out there for things that might actually solve problems and
| push the state forward. With any luck, the high-speed rail
| would be canceled. Musk said as much to me [Ashlee Vance]
| during a series of e-mails and phone calls leading up to
| the announcement.
| wishinghand wrote:
| I'd take this comment more seriously if there weren't car
| companies that bought up rail networks and shut them down.
| Panzer04 wrote:
| For what it's worth, I somewhat agree. High speed rail in
| particular is super expensive, and airplanes are
| surprisingly cheap and flexible in comparison.
| epolanski wrote:
| I kinda agree, except on the car part, because cars
| dominate even densely populated areas where trams, metros
| and buses should.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Today the US has 3-5X less population density than any
| country with high speed rail.
|
| This may be true when averaged across the entire country
| (or even just the lower 48).
|
| But it is absolutely not true if you consider various zones
| of the country as candidates for good rail service.
|
| Several such zones exist, among them:
|
| 1. the north east corridor, perhaps one of the largest and
| densest conurbations in the world
|
| 2. the roughly rectangular shape formed with the NW corner
| in Minneapolis, the NW corner in Milwaukee, the SE corner
| in Detroit and SW corner in <wherever the hell that is>
|
| 3. The triangle in Texas formed by Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin
| and San Antonio
|
| All 3 have higher population densities than those found in
| non-urban parts of Europe; the latter have good to
| excellent train service, but none of these 3 do.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I don't understand the density argument: HST aren't
| supposed to connect every places, that's totally
| ineffective.
|
| Instead you build rails between major hubs (those that got
| the biggest airports usually) and add stops on some medium
| cities that happen to be on the way. It serves those living
| close enough of the connected cities that want to go close
| enough to another connected city. _close enough_ depends on
| the local connection options like regional trains, bus,
| bikes, trams... and if there's nothing you just grab a cab
| or rental car. The city of departure can be reached with
| your own personal car which is usually a bit cheaper and
| faster (therefore more range). Most travels destination are
| big cities or close enough (business, tourism...).
|
| Rail planing is a Pareto game.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > if we had a decedent high-speed rail system
|
| A decent high-speed rail system would be cool!
|
| But a decadent high speed rail system would be awesome!
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| > There used to be a similar service between Toronto and
| Montreal (both directions), where the train would pause for
| several hours midway so passengers would arrive at around 7:30
| a.m. well-rested.
|
| That trip is 1h 15m by air with 30 flights a day each way. That
| train doesn't exist anymore because it's impractical and
| people's time is valuable. We stopped taking Conestoga wagons
| from New York to California for the same reason.
| sebtron wrote:
| That was an example of a train going slower on purpose to let
| people sleep a full night. A regular high-spees train could
| do that trip in 2-3 hours, beating a 1:15 flight in
| convenience by a huge margin.
| throw5959 wrote:
| Since we're citing European trains, let's also cite
| European airports - I can arrive to the airport for an EU
| flight 20 minutes before take off and still have plenty of
| time to get everything sorted out. And I'm out of the
| airport within 15 minutes after landing - usually stepping
| right into a subway or something. I don't think it's such a
| huge margin if you fix your airports, which is going to be
| many orders of magnitude cheaper than building high speed
| rail from everywhere to everywhere.
| bpye wrote:
| > I can arrive to the airport for an EU flight 20 minutes
| before take off and still have plenty of time to get
| everything sorted out.
|
| Maybe you can but none will recommend that you do, for
| example Paris recommends at least 2 hours [0]. And if you
| need to check luggage you have no chance if you're only
| 20 minutes early, on a train you just carry it onto the
| carriage.
|
| [0] - https://www.parisaeroport.fr/en/passengers/flight-
| preparatio...
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I took one of these trains. The service was short-lived
| though.
|
| It was called iDNight, by iDTGV, a former low cost high
| speed train operator in France. The idea was to run high
| speed trains at a slow speed during the night, turning a 3
| hour trip into an 8 hour trip so that you can get a full
| night, and also so it can leave as the departure station is
| closing and arrive as the destination station is opening,
| therefore exploiting downtime, I guess.
|
| These were not sleeper cars but regular high-speed train
| cars, not ideal for sleeping, but since most seats were
| vacant, at least in my experience, you could easily get two
| seats for yourself.
| riedel wrote:
| There is also flights in Europe that are faster. I recently
| traveled from Stuttgart to Vienna via night train. It was
| even more expensive. But this is not the point. Time sleeping
| in a night train is not lost. Also typically getting to the
| airport and from the airport into the city takes time. Same
| for airport security. And if there is enough wind that night
| one might even travel CO2 emission free.
| tpm wrote:
| Stuttgart to Vienna should take much less than the current
| 6+ hours, but the train network is heavily underinvested
| compared to alternatives.
| Beijinger wrote:
| "I'd arrive in a new city each morning feeling refreshed
| because of the train's sleeping accommodations."
|
| Aeh, where were you travelling? Many countries did not have
| sleeper trains. Don't get me wrong. I did the same, travelling
| at night in trains, and it saved me a night in a hotel. But I
| did not arrive well rested, I arrived train wrecked.
| airstrike wrote:
| 20 years ago?
| Beijinger wrote:
| Yes. It was called Interrail. You had to have an EU
| Passport to buy this ticket. And be below 26 years of age.
| I think it still exits.
| ben_w wrote:
| It's still around, I used it in 2016 aged 32.
|
| I've not heard of any age requirements.
|
| https://www.interrail.eu/en
| bpye wrote:
| There is a cheaper ticket for 12-27.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It still exists: https://www.interrail.eu/
|
| You don't have to be younger than 26 to buy one, not
| anymore, but it is cheaper if you are. If you are a EU
| citizen, it gets you free, unlimited travel by train in
| most European countries. If you are not a EU citizen,
| there is the Eurail pass that is similar.
|
| But that's the theory. In practice there are important
| limitations:
|
| - You can't use it in your home country, except for a
| single round trip: in and out.
|
| - If you make a reservation, you will have to pay
| reservation fees, and many long-distance and high-speed
| trains only have reserved seats.
|
| - Not all seats are available to pass owners, if you want
| to travel in these seats, you will have to pay full
| price.
|
| And considering that the pass itself is not that cheap,
| you really have some planning to do to see if it is worth
| it. In many cases, it isn't.
| sazor wrote:
| Not citizen but resident of EU country.
|
| Last summer Spain's Renfe offered huge discount for a
| pass for people under 31. Only for paper version though
| which is slightly less convenient but worth it anyway. I
| guess other eu countries could have similar seasonal
| discounts.
| bpye wrote:
| And to nit pick, it's not just the EU, for example the UK
| is still included post Brexit.
| sakjur wrote:
| For non-Europeans: https://www.eurail.com/en
|
| There are some home country limitations for Interrail,
| but I'm not really sure why the passes are still kept
| separate beyond that. It seems Eurail and Interrail are
| mostly identical beyond the residency/anti-residency
| requirements.
| freetanga wrote:
| Or no planning at all, as I did 26 years ago. Meet some
| people in a cafe in Paris, agree to all go to Amsterdam
| for 2 days, grab your bag and then find a hostel when you
| arrive. I spent 2 months without knowing where I was
| going to wake up the following day.
|
| No mobiles, only lifeline home being a pay phone call
| every week.
|
| Not the same stores in every city as it is today.
|
| Life was beautiful back then and we did not know it.
| blackmoon42 wrote:
| And if you have your 18th birthday, you might apply to
| discover EU. An EU lottery to give interrail passes to
| young adults for free.
| caseyy wrote:
| I thought the same as I was reading the comment you're
| responding to. Arriving rested after public transport? Get a
| load of that guy :) Not sure how anyone does that, but of
| course it would be nice to learn this dark magic.
| donalhunt wrote:
| First class sleeper cabins would count. Definitely not
| equivalent to a hotel room but better than a couchette.
|
| The definitely ran between Germany and the Netherlands in
| the 00s because I took at least one trip that way.
| bialpio wrote:
| "sleeper train" is the key here. Another keyword to search
| for is "couchette", I think that's how it's called in some
| places. See e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couchette_car and the map.
| Beijinger wrote:
| Sleeper train can be a great experience. Unfortunately,
| this was not an option when I was young either due to
| pricing or due to availability. At least in Europe with
| the InterRail ticket.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I've used the Caledonian Sleeper a couple of times. The
| first time it worked reasonably well, I got a reasonable
| amount of sleep. The second time not so much, not really
| any fault of the train, I just didn't relax enough to get
| a reasonable amount of sleep.
|
| Both times I'd say well rested would be a stretch. The
| first time felt a bit like a magic carpet in that I got
| somewhere while using up no useful hours but it still
| wasn't perfect.
| lagadu wrote:
| These are trains with sleeping cabins and actual beds you
| sleep in. It's better than many hostels.
| metabagel wrote:
| I rode in a sleeper car in December 1999 in Australia,
| between Melbourne and Sydney, and it was an unpleasant
| experience. It was a jerky, bumpy, noisy ride, somebody
| kept going between the cars for smoke breaks and the
| smell wafted into our cabin, and there was a baby crying
| in the cabin next door.
| antihero wrote:
| I think the key is to not get wasted on the train.
| Muromec wrote:
| Sleeper trains and being young help a lot. I always chose
| 10h sleeper over 5 hour bus or car when I had to do the
| trip between Odesa and Kyiv in my 20ies.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Being _short_ is probably the biggest decider - I went
| around the indochinese peninsula on sleepers a few years
| ago, and my wife, pretty much on par with the average
| height for the region, slept like a tot, found her bunk
| spacious, while I, several SDs above the average,
| awkwardly wedged myself into my coffin and encountered
| every jolt through my bones - and believe me there were a
| lot of jolts. They stop everywhere, and there's plenty of
| shunting.
|
| But then again some sleepers (Shiki-Shima in Japan) are
| like being in a luxury hotel. Rather enjoyed having a
| soak in the tub in my suite.
| TomK32 wrote:
| There's a map to prove you wrong. I counted 26 from the UK to
| Turkey and from that bit of Spain to Ukraine (a different
| gauge doesn't mean you can have nighttrains). The solid lines
| have sleeper wagons. Which are useless anyways if you are
| taller than 190cm. https://back-on-track.eu/night-train-map/
|
| Actually Spain seems to have more to offer according to this
| map http://www.night-trains.com/europe/
|
| edit: Nope, Spain is pretty almost void of night trains
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenhotel
| freetanga wrote:
| 20 years ago was quite a different story. Before low cost
| airlines, mobiles, and almost before the euro...
|
| I did a similar trip in the late 90s. Not 20 stays in
| train, but well above 10. Paris-Madrid, Rome-Paris,
| Bordeaux-Paris, to name a few.
| bpye wrote:
| I spent a couple weeks travelling by train across Europe a
| few years ago on an Interrail pass. I found sleeper cabins
| were generally pretty comfortable, though you do have to pay
| extra for them.
|
| If you were just sleeping in a seat then yes I can believe
| you felt awful the next day.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| > I'd arrive in a new city each morning feeling refreshed
| because of the train's sleeping accommodations.
|
| Oh man this has definitely not been my experience! Last I tried
| this I booked a "VIP" sleeper car with a private
| bathroom/shower, and it was anything but. The constant shaking
| of the train side to side coupled with a bunch of young
| American girls running up and down the halls screaming to each
| other all night meant I didn't get any sleep at all. To make
| things worse, the same girls making noise all night used up all
| the water, leaving me covered in soap with no way to rinse it
| off, and still 8+ hours until my hotel check-in. I can usually
| sleep anywhere regardless of noise or light or mattress
| quality, but sleeping a train is a new category of difficulty.
| kortilla wrote:
| Sleeper cars in the US cost more than a hotel for a night.
| Saving the cost of a hotel is not really a selling point
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Nowhere[1], if you're in Norway.
|
| I jest a little, but it's so bad here we've started to call it
| "bus replacement service" when the train is not cancelled, rather
| than "rail replacement service" when the train is cancelled.
|
| [1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/full-togstans-i-hele-norge-
| grunnet-...
| spinningarrow wrote:
| Is that a recent thing? I've taken trains several times of the
| last few years and always had an overwhelmingly positive
| experience.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| It's gotten quite a lot worse in the past few years. In 2023
| one quarter of all trains were delayed or cancelled.
|
| The gov't hasn't allocated enough for maintenance for several
| decades, and we're paying the price now.
|
| The National Audit Office recently released[1] a scalding
| report about it.
|
| [1]: https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/rapporter-
| mappe/no-2023-2024/s...
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| > The gov't hasn't allocated enough for maintenance for
| several decades, and we're paying the price now.
|
| Ah yes, the german approach.
| bpye wrote:
| It does amuse me somewhat that every country believes
| they have the worst train network, the UK is no
| different.
| sixothree wrote:
| These things always make me jealous of the travel privilege
| people have compared to where I live. By car there is nothing
| interesting within 6 hours of my house.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Waiting for the snarky comments about the Dutch NS so I don't
| have to make them :)
| switch007 wrote:
| I think every Dutchie who moans about their trains needs to
| spend a month in the UK LOL. I'm jealous of Dutch trains!
|
| 4 hour journey in peak time from Maastricht to Gronigen for 30
| EUR without advance purchase? Incredible.
|
| 40% discount in off-peak times and weekends for 67 EUR/year?
| Bargain. We have a 33% discount option which is available to
| everyone but it is only for trains in the south of England
| (there lots of others for young people, elderly people,
| disabled people etc)
|
| Very, very simple fare system in comparison to ours.
|
| Great connections from Schipol.
|
| I know it's not perfect - there are strikes, very busy trains
| etc.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Even the worst European system looks good compared to New
| Zealand. We just started a 32 day closure of all train lines in
| Auckland, the first of 96 planned for the year. They aren't far
| off needing press releases for when trains a running.
|
| https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537619/auckland-rail-shu...
| edwinjm wrote:
| You can complain about the Dutch NS, but in most countries,
| it's way worse.
|
| Some numbers people from other countries can only dream about:
|
| punctuality less than 5 minutes: 89.7% punctuality less than 15
| minutes: 97.0%
| derhuerst wrote:
| similar project: https://www.trainconnections.com/
| fforflo wrote:
| People living in central/western Europe: You have no idea how
| fortunate you are to be able to hop on a train and ride to
| another major city in a few hours. We mortals of the southeastern
| Europe feel detached from the rest of the world.
|
| Yeah, I know German trains occasionally are late, but I remember
| standing on the platform in Munich, envying those who could
| travel to Madrid or Brussels without going to the airport--
| security checks, yada.
| ChumpGPT wrote:
| It sounds romantic until they cancel your train or it is hours
| late, missed transfers, dirty cabins, etc. It's all a crap shoot
| on whether you get a nice train and everything goes smoothly.
| I've traveled by train in Germany, Poland, Czechia, Austria,
| Hungary, Ukraine, etc.
|
| Driving your vehicle is the best way to go if you want to enjoy
| the sights on the way.
| ekianjo wrote:
| 8hours without counting for delays and missed connections,
| something that the SNCF routinely experiences.
| bigblind wrote:
| Being visually impaired, I love the independence that the public
| transport network in Central Europe gives me. I live in the
| Netherlands, and frequently visit my parents in Belgium. I've
| also visited friends in Germany, all without relying on a sighted
| companion for transportation.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| What a shame we don't have yet a high-speed line between Lisbon
| and Madrid. Two "sibling" countries, intertwined Iberian history
| and heritage, yet to travel between the capitals it's a 17-hour
| journey passing through Lisbon, Porto, Vigo (Galicia) and then
| Madrid.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| It looks like they're constructing a high speed route from
| Madrid to Badajoz to be finished by 2030, with the goal of
| extending to Lisbon. [1]
|
| I lived in Madrid for a few years... It's hard to get anywhere
| from there by train outside of Spain, though it's definitely
| easier now than it used to be thanks to the high speed train to
| Barcelona.
|
| 1.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid%E2%80%93Extremadura_h...
| Rendello wrote:
| I saw that and thought it was a shame the line would take 15+
| years, then I remembered what year it's about to be.
| Beijinger wrote:
| Without checking, Brussels is probably your best starting point.
| You should be able to reach: Frankfurt, London, Paris, Amsterdam
| and many more.
| Beijinger wrote:
| Obviously: https://www.seat61.com/
| yumraj wrote:
| Question: many of these could be day trips, if train schedule
| permits, if one is trying to cover many cities during a single
| trip.
|
| I know it's not an ideal way to visit Europe, but just humor me
| please.
|
| What's a good city to make the base, which has good connectivity
| with as many different cities in different countries as possible,
| and is a good destination in itself?
| ascorbic wrote:
| Paris is probably your best bet by those criteria.
| ulrischa wrote:
| In Germany: Nowhere because the Deutsche Bahn is late again:
| https://www.dw.com/en/germany-a-third-of-long-distance-train...
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/14/its-the-sam...
| starbugs wrote:
| Well, nowhere wouldn't be that bad actually. At least, you
| wouldn't be that far from home. In practice, you go somewhere.
| But you usually end up in some place in the middle of nowhere
| in between your departure point and your destination. Also,
| it's freezing and the next train (which of course doesn't
| arrive on time) will be overloaded - that is, if you're lucky.
| Most of the time, there won't even be a train but a
| "replacement bus service" which commonly is a single small bus
| that about 200 people try to board simultaneously after they
| waited for about an hour and a half.
|
| The whole torture is accompanied by awkward excuses like
| "unexpected staff shortage", "technical disruption", "signal
| repairs", or "delay due to earlier journey" which you can look
| at in an app that tends to not work while you wait and freeze.
|
| Bonus: If all else fails, you can play "Bahn Bingo" while you
| reflect on the experience of your trip:
| https://www.bahnbingo.de/
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I clicked a city, and I have no idea how to "un click" it. I
| tried refreshing the page as well. It's stuck with the first city
| I clicked on.
| alexott wrote:
| For Germany it's far from reality... it shows from Paderborn to
| Dortmund in less than hour, but usually it's good if you get
| there in two hours by train...
| mlok wrote:
| For some reason the result page keeps reloading indefinitely, and
| it renders the site unusable on Brave/iOS :(
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| You might want to make that a little more biassed towards major
| train stations in regions with dense train networks. I wanted to
| see how far I could get from Amsterdam, but it kept localizing me
| to hyper-local stations like Duivendrecht or Zaandam, which isn't
| super useful =)
| hibikir wrote:
| The data needs refreshing: The time from my hometown in Spain to
| Madrid is almost 2 hours shorter than it claims, as a new line
| has opened.
|
| Ti might also be missing how new companies have recently caused
| speedups in other routes by skipping stations altogether: A stop
| on a high velocity train can be over 20 minutes if it has to go
| from full speed to zero and back again
| dinkblam wrote:
| why not create the same things for cars? would be great if you
| could see where you could go in 1/2/3 hours from your location.
| no current map or navigation service seems to be of help here
| mtmail wrote:
| It's computational more complex (thus expensive): more types of
| vehicles, more potential roads to travel, traffic or road
| limitations (maximum speed, width, allowed access). There's
| niche players like https://playground.traveltime.com/isochrones
| . Technical term is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochrone_map
|
| [Edit] https://withinhours.com/ seems easy to use
| arkensaw wrote:
| depends on the country. if you're in Ireland, only Ireland or a
| tiny bit of the UK
| arkensaw wrote:
| I had a chance to travel by rail from Amsterdam to Belgium and I
| chose a first class ticket, hoping to experience some real luxury
| (I've never travelled first class anywhere before)
|
| It was very disappointing. We had to wait on an exposed end of
| the platform away from regular commuters. When I boarded it was
| no more luxurious than a regular train. I got a meal which
| consisted of a sandwich which was, I swear, a 1" x 4" sliver of
| bread with broccoli pesto on it, and another piece on top. not
| even a full sandwich. I also got a lukewarm cup of coffee and a
| yoghurt.
| bgnn wrote:
| 1st class for such a distance isn't for luxury but for more
| space. You should check before buying anything.
| tlubinski wrote:
| They just launched a new high-speed train from Berlin to Paris
| with a travel time of 8 hours:
| https://apnews.com/article/germany-france-berlin-paris-highs...
| aziaziazi wrote:
| For those that think it's impossible for the USA because of the
| density or geography or oil economy, please have a look at that
| map:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Russia
|
| edit: traveled with the transiberian as a tourist, it was full of
| workers, business man, students, whatever, hopping on and of in
| different places for connections or destinations. Best human
| experience ever in all three classes.
|
| Edit2: definitely not high speed. I think that's a better way of
| life.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-28 23:00 UTC)