A new report by environmental campaign group Greenpeace says that air travel within Europe is up to 30 times cheaper than traveling by more sustainable trains.
I don’t think train can compete with a long distance means of transportation that is
1- equally or less time consuming.
2- works very similarly across countries.
3- only needs infrastructure at the start and end stops instead of for the whole journey.
What we need is to figure out a way to use less polluting, carbon neutral or non-polluting fuel for airplanes, and less of it with more efficient designs.
I don’t think train can compete with a long distance means of transportation
That’s true. Trains can compete mid-range, or should be able to compete. With better infrastructure and organization (high speed rail, coordinated timetables, unified booking, …), this range can be extended. There will always be a certain distance after which planes are the better choice.
But we still should invest to push this point further into the distance, to make planes as obsolete as possible. Trains should be the cheapest option between short distance (bus) and long distance (plane). If they are not, we are doing something wrong in creating incentives.
I want to see long distance high speed night trains. I want to see trains riding bumper to bumper. I want to go overnight from Berlin to Oslo. Or Paris up Bucharest. Porto to Utrecht.
The plane is not that fast. You have to factor in travel to the airport (outside the city), check-in, security gates, boarding, baggage claim on the destination, which can add up to 3h or more per trip. With a train, you start in the city center and just hop on board.
To your last point, believe it or not, but planes are getting significantly more efficient. Huge wide-bodies like the 747 are retiring in part because airlines don’t want to lug around 4 engines, when the 787 can do the same trip with 2.
The a320 neo has a much better engine than previous generations, and same thing with the 737 max (crashing problems aside).
Right, so the 737-MAX are very fuel efficient. No argument there. But saying “the parenthetical about ignoring the crashing problems is doing a lot of work in this comment about fuel efficiency” is just nonsense.
Depends on when long distance starts for you. I’m very much open to take a train across Europe if it’s reasonably priced and convenient, even if it takes considerably longer. Really wouldn’t mind an overnight train either for example, if they weren’t so damn expensive (and constantly booked out).
Anything that’s less than 3-4 hours by plane is fine by me to switch to the train for 8-10 hours imo.
Agree about the long distance being subjective. I live abroad and have a job so for me it’s not an option to use 2 days of my holiday time just to travel back and forth for one visit home. So I definitely mind that it takes considerably longer.
Well 3000 km is about 2h30 by plane. A train that goes 180km/h without any stops will still take 17h. I agree all the check in and travel to the airport definitely sucks, and I’d rather board on a train any day. But even with that nuisance, a regular plane going a typical cruise speed of 900km/h will still leave trains in the dust for anything farther than say 2000 km and make it worth it.
I don’t think train can compete with a long distance means of transportation that is
1- equally or less time consuming.
2- works very similarly across countries.
3- only needs infrastructure at the start and end stops instead of for the whole journey.
What we need is to figure out a way to use less polluting, carbon neutral or non-polluting fuel for airplanes, and less of it with more efficient designs.
That’s true. Trains can compete mid-range, or should be able to compete. With better infrastructure and organization (high speed rail, coordinated timetables, unified booking, …), this range can be extended. There will always be a certain distance after which planes are the better choice.
But we still should invest to push this point further into the distance, to make planes as obsolete as possible. Trains should be the cheapest option between short distance (bus) and long distance (plane). If they are not, we are doing something wrong in creating incentives.
I want to see long distance high speed night trains. I want to see trains riding bumper to bumper. I want to go overnight from Berlin to Oslo. Or Paris up Bucharest. Porto to Utrecht.
The plane is not that fast. You have to factor in travel to the airport (outside the city), check-in, security gates, boarding, baggage claim on the destination, which can add up to 3h or more per trip. With a train, you start in the city center and just hop on board.
To your last point, believe it or not, but planes are getting significantly more efficient. Huge wide-bodies like the 747 are retiring in part because airlines don’t want to lug around 4 engines, when the 787 can do the same trip with 2.
The a320 neo has a much better engine than previous generations, and same thing with the 737 max (crashing problems aside).
Ok but that caveat is doing a lot of work there
Oh don’t worry, planes crash no more than once in their lifetime…
In a comment about efficiency? No, it doesn’t.
it’s relevant. the worldwide 737-MAX fleet had very low carbon footprint for like a year or a bit more!
Right, so the 737-MAX are very fuel efficient. No argument there. But saying “the parenthetical about ignoring the crashing problems is doing a lot of work in this comment about fuel efficiency” is just nonsense.
I mean, the entire fleet was very efficient while it was grounded
Depends on when long distance starts for you. I’m very much open to take a train across Europe if it’s reasonably priced and convenient, even if it takes considerably longer. Really wouldn’t mind an overnight train either for example, if they weren’t so damn expensive (and constantly booked out).
Anything that’s less than 3-4 hours by plane is fine by me to switch to the train for 8-10 hours imo.
Agree about the long distance being subjective. I live abroad and have a job so for me it’s not an option to use 2 days of my holiday time just to travel back and forth for one visit home. So I definitely mind that it takes considerably longer.
Well 3000 km is about 2h30 by plane. A train that goes 180km/h without any stops will still take 17h. I agree all the check in and travel to the airport definitely sucks, and I’d rather board on a train any day. But even with that nuisance, a regular plane going a typical cruise speed of 900km/h will still leave trains in the dust for anything farther than say 2000 km and make it worth it.