Opinions on trains and planes.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:16:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:40:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Tom P wrote:
JamesStep wrote:
One factor that's often not considered is that around 25% of
people
consider themselves nervous flyers, according to some surveys.
Many
of these people would probably prefer train travel if it was
comparable to airlines in cost and time.

James

I commute regularly 250 miles inside Germany, sometimes by plane,
sometimes by rail. It is comparable in terms of cost and time -
but
as
time goes by I am getting more nervous travelling by high speed
train
than by air. Trains are intrinsically less safe than airplanes for
many reasons-
- an airplane has two engines. If one stops, it carries on
flying.
A train has dozens of wheels and axles. If just one of these
breaks
at high speed, you're dead.

So how many people have died as a result of a single wheel or axle
on
a train breaking?

101 on the InterCityExpress near Eschede, Germany in 1998. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCityExpress

You're late--this has already been discussed.

Not when I posted it. And I'm one of the ones who discussed it.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Jochen Kriegerowski wrote:
"Eugene Miya" schrieb
Who has a 400 kph train?

Europe. The French TGV currently holds the speed record, with 574.8
kph (But the German ICE is just slightly slower)
It's the tracks, and the frequent stops, that limit the speed to 320
kph.

The US with the long distances between towns would be ideal for
high speed trains running at 400+ kph.

First you have to completely rebuild the infrastructure to allow such
speeds. This includes in many cases acquiring new rights of way and
in mountainous areas would often mean rerouting the tracks completely.

This man understands.

I do see some of this mentioned in the SF-LA discussion (welded
rail, etc.). I've also seen some of this in Europe, too (not that I go
out of my way, but I've got friends who want to see some of this so, I'm
taking them.

Whatever the final outcome it will be interesting. The plane makers are
likely to get the short end of the stick (just like Grumman did)
beholded to oil and steel makers.

--

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:13:07 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote in message
news:j5gqk.169$482.96@trnddc06...
I don't like to get up early in the morning ..

I would have thought that 5 hours is going to be the absolute max.

A few years ago in Germany we rode the ICE from Munich to Berlin,
a trip of about seven hours. That was a bit much no matter how
comfrotable teh ICE was and next time I think we'd probably fly.

I have to hash over European travel with whom I occasionally travel for.
While I like the train travel, and the plane travel, some places are
best reached by car. I've been asked to make an appearance at a serious
dog-and-pony show in Pisa. It would be one thing being reimbursed, but
doing this as an official courtesy between governments. This is not to
say that I want to drive a car to Pisa. This isn't a "Go see the Tower"
trip. But the mix of International, then regional, then local trains,
planes (I did look into flights) for such a comparatively short
distance (I can see why the NSF wants me to visit).

I have enough mixed feelings about the hub and spoke model.

--

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:42:11 -0700 (PDT), PeterL
wrote:
European trains and public transportation are supported by huge tax
subsidies. Also Europe as a whole are smaller geographically than
either the US or Canada. So the two cannot be compared.

Comparison has to happen. Better comparisons are necessary.

That's a misconception. Taken as a whole Europe is not all that
much smaller than the USA. The road distance from Nordkapp to
Gibralter is on the order of 6000km or about 1440 miles, and the
air distance from Lisbon to Kiev is abbout 2100 miles. From
Lisbon to Moscow is about 2425 miles.

I will be in Nordkapp in about 2 months. I've now been to Gibralter.
I would not say that the areal differences like size are the big issue.

They have different land use policies and a much older infrastructure.
They had a WW which allowed them to rebuild a lot of stuff.

Citing distance numbers reminds me of the Team America film.

clearly the Lower 48 and Europe are of comparable size.

I would say
cloudily the Lower 48 and Europe are of comparable size.
--

In article ,
Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article j5gqk.169$482.96@trnddc06,
"James Silverton" wrote:
cattle-car, skinflint conditions, two hour check-ins

In the United States, the cost to redo the railroad to allow for fast
rail transport would cost in the billions, easily and congress has never
been that friendly to the railroad industry.

Mostly true.

In addition, I have been traveling by air an average of 3-4 times a year
for the past 30 years and I have never waited anywhere near close to 2
hours to check into a flight.

I just had my first 4 day lay over in Alaska. And I had a boarding
pass in hand. But my luggage was essential. And they weren't it on.
It started with a 13-14 hour lay over at Ted Stevens Intl. Airport.
I once spoke to a woman last year on Alaska Air and there were
times she had 5 day lay overs to get home to the Aleutians.

And that's to say nothing of passenger rage. That's a separate story

I don't like to get up early in the morning but,

It would take me as long to get to an Amtrak station as it would to get
to the nearest airport. If rail travel grew significantly in popularity,
there would also be very long lines to board trains.

Maybe, maybe not.
I think part of it has to do with service distances.
I think we have to get shorter distances down first. I've stopped
parking my cars at airports now and ride trains to them now.

--

"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
...


But are the majority of travelers (on the train) business travelers or
are they just average people traveling for other reasons? I think the
latter. The exception would be if the train is a commuter type where in
the morning and late afternoon most of the passengers are going to or
coming from work.


Take the Eurostar on a morning from London to Paris or Brussels
on a morning and you'll see an awful lot of people travelling on business.
The same is true on most of the high speed lines between major cities.

I can remember traveling by train as a child and much of the enjoyment of
the trip was watching the changing scenery, seeing the small, rural
communities that one would never see if flying pass by, talking to the
other passengers, playing cards or games, etc. People just lived a
slower more gregarious life then.


Actually in Europe the high speed lines are in direct competiton with the
airlines and for journeys of up to 450 miles or so compete very effectively
in journey times. So much so that the train has taken more than 80% of
the business on lines like London-Paris.

You dont see that much scenery when zipping along a TGV track
at 185 mph.

Keith

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...

Nope, in most cases what happens is the train limps into the next
station

Unfortuantely, history makes tthat an optimistic appraisal:

Eschede disaster


Which was the exception

The ICE accident near Eschede that happened on 3 June 1998 was a
severe railway accident and the worst ever to involve a
high-speed train, as well as the worst railway accident since
modern Germany's foundation in 1949. Trainset 51, travelling as
ICE 884 "Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen" from Munich to Hamburg, derailed
at 200 km/h (125 mph), killing 101 and injuring 88.

The cause of the accident was a wheel rim which broke and damaged
the train six kilometres south of the accident site. The wheel
rim penetrated the carriage floor and lifted the check rail of a
set of points close to Eschede station. The broken-off check rail
then forced the point blades of the following set of points to
change direction, and the rear cars of the trainset were diverted
to a different track. They hit the pillars of a street overpass,
which then collapsed onto the tracks. Only three cars and the
front powerhead passed under the bridge, the rest of the 14-car
train jackknifed into the collapsed bridge.


A pretty exceptional sequence of events you'd have to say. Try
flying a 747 into a mountain as a contrast and see how many
survivors there are.

Since the TGV entered service they have been involved in a
number of incidents of wheel and bogie failure without fatalities
as well as a number of high speed derailments. The most spectacular
was the 1993 incident at Haute Picardie when sink hole 7 metres
long and 1.5m wide opened up under the track. Depite the fact that
the last four trailers and the rear power unit derailed only one
passenger was injured.

Then there was the incident when a TGV hit an asphalt laying machine
stranded on a grade crossing while doing more than 80mph

The engineer was slighly injured and no passengers were hurt

Keith

In message Stefan Patric
wrote:

FWIW, I found this link on maglevs interesting, particularly the fact
based on actual tests that maglev trains are 78% noisier than
conventional track trains, and, of course, the Vactrain, a maglev with a
projected top speed of 5000 mph (8000Kph). Will never happen.

If we could get to one fifth of that in nationwide reliable longhaul
system we'd have something interesting.

In message Hatunen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:00:06 -0600, DevilsPGD
wrote:


What makes you think that check-in and security would be any less stupid
on trains vs planes?

I don't think anyone is afraid that hijackers will fly a train
into a skyscraper.

You forget, we're dealing with a culture of fear, not dealing with
actual threats.

All it would take would be to wait for one or two bombs and you'd get
the masses ready to give up more freedoms.

In message Hatunen
wrote:

So it was when we went from Waterloo Station to Paris ten years
ago. They didn't look at passports at Paris because they had
already done so at London.

Flying from the larger airports in Canada to the US is the same. It's a
real joy.