Continental flights in the very near futur will be replaced by High Velocity trains 3

[0707]

Because of pollution, Continental flights in the very near futur will be replaced by High Velocity trains, because trains are much less polluent and will compete more and more in velocity with planes. Intercontinental flight planes will keep going on making sense but, they have to change to a less poluent combustible maybe hydrogen will be well positioned.

luis

 

[rb1957]

continental = transcontinental = intracontental .NE. intercontinental

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[3DDave]

Crossing a continent is "transcontinental," not "intercontinental"

Edit: too slow by a few seconds.

 

[0707]

when I said continental I meant Europe, Asia, North America,South America,Australia and Africa the Artic and Antartic we left them for planes. When I said intercontinental I meant between Australia end South America, North America and Europe or Asia, on and so on, I think there is no need to make a drawing.

regards

luis

 

[rb1957]

yes, we (I think) understand. you mean flights from LA to NYC (for example), ie within a continent; not NYC to London (intercontinental).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[0707]

You got it! rb1957

good luck

luis

 

[3DDave]

Thinking on this, the Trans-Siberian railway is actually intercontinental; between Europe and Asia.

 

[0707]

Even in this last case a grid of high velocity trains between Asia and Europe IMO makes sense. It already exist because we can go from Mascow to London or Paris by train in 24 hours or maybe less

luis

 

[3DDave]

It's 4 hours by most flights; from Moscow to London. Basically able to go for a weekend and be back fresh Monday morning instead of spending the entire weekend on a train and no time actually in the destination city. It only makes sense if walking was the alternative.

 

[0707]

It is about 2500Km from London to Moscow if you arrange a direct train from London to Moscow your time will be reduced to 7 or 8 hours. 4 hours by plane if you count the time of check in, the waiting time for your lagage and the rules of the actual pandemic, 4 hours will be easely transformed in 8 so the diference is not too big.

luis

 

[IRstuff]

The rules of pandemic would also apply to trains, would they not?

Moreover, unless you purchase a private compartment, you'll be sitting with a bunch of other people for at least twice as long, which means your probability of getting COVID-19 might be significantly higher on a train

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[0707]

I have nothing against planes, we are just argueing points of view. In the covid19 pandemic with the low cost planes the proximity between passangers is much more closer in planes than in high velocity trains.

luis

 

[3DDave]

I didn't pick the travel time. An expert in trains did. There seem to be flights leaving throughout the day. I cannot imagine that many trains leaving when a person wants to leave; so much time lost because the train is not available when one would like to leave.

Whatever times there are on the ground for a plane are similar for a train. It's only when those ground-times dominate the trip and the trip meets a traveler schedule that it works; which is why the Northeast corridor Amtrak routes are the ones that make money.

 

[rb1957]

According to Russiantrains …
"Since there's no express train from Moscow to Paris, you spend one and a half day onboard a well-equipped night train, taking you through half of Europe. You can choose one of the 3 travel classes, each offering different package inclusions, but all of them promise a comfortable bed with a table, air-conditioning, and lockable doors."
"comfortable" … yeah, right ! (consider the source !!) I don't see a bunch of people lining up for this train, for possibly $700 … but I couldn't get the booking site to work !? (SNAFU ?)

But we're imaging something different … possibly a bullet train like they have in Japan and China ?

But in the US, this from wiki …
"Plans for high-speed rail in the United States date back to the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. Various state and federal proposals have followed. Despite being one of the world's first countries to get high-speed trains (the Metroliner service in 1969), it failed to spread. Definitions of what constitutes high-speed rail vary, including a range of speeds over 110 miles per hour (180 km/h) and dedicated rail lines. Inter-city rail in the United States with top speeds of 90 miles per hour (140 km/h) or more but below 125 mph (201 km/h) is sometimes referred to as higher-speed rail.[1]
Amtrak's Acela Express (reaching 150 mph (240 km/h)), Silver Star, Northeast Regional, Keystone Service, Vermonter and certain MARC Penn Line express trains (all five reaching 125 mph (201 km/h)) are the only high-speed services in the country.
As of 2017, the California High-Speed Rail Authority is working on the California High Speed Rail project and construction is under way on sections traversing the Central Valley. Phase I is planned for completion in 2029, and Phase II is estimated to be completed before 2040."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[0707]

And so rb1957? If planes keep going on poluting 2,5% of world greenhouse effect they have to look for another combustible. FOR the moment, jet fuel could be reduced to intercontinental flights, continental travel will be with great advantages done by hight velocity less pollutant trains. Otherwise this will be a never ending story.

luis

 

[rb1957]

should "We", the whole collective/society, look to reduce a 2.5% contribution, or would attacking a, say, 40% contribution be more effective ?

"All" I think we are saying is that trains (conventionally powered) are not a very superior transportation over airplanes as regard to pollution when you have low volumes of passengers and long distances. Trains are very effective at moving long volumes/weights of freight over long distances.

Of course, part of this is what we are used to, our normal. maybe we have to adjust to a new normal in the future, when people/governments take our choices away.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[0707]

Ten carriages plus 50 passengers each, means 500, which is not an average plane lotation. what do you meant by conventionally powered, trains?

luis

 

[rb1957]

conventional powered trains = diesel trains like we're running today. even the high speed trains.

You proposed electrically powered trains, electricity from renewables. Possibly in Europe, possibly China, unlikely in the US.
Europe has an advantage in a high concentration of people, with an extensive rail network (and a more socially conscious society), although not much of the rail network is suitable for high speed trains (particularly very high speed).
China has an advantage in a more authoritarian government and a vast population.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[0707]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX32XzKXd6M

luis

 

[rb1957]

yep, conventional diesel, no? In Europe trains and airplanes compete, not so much in the US. This example looks to be conventional hi-speed train (125mpg = 200kph). I think their "1.5hr" trip is the "on train" time, like saying it's a 0.75hr (0.5hr ?) flight.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[moon161]

3 or 4 day work week, or reasonable amount of vacation. makes long distance rail a lot more attractive to US people. The netherlands are there at an average 29 hour work week. Right now a lot of the travel I'd like to do by train, Buffalo NY to NYC/New Jersey area for track meets or the beach is about $300 for 4 people, and not affordable compared to say, $150 for gas and tolls.

There's also a 2 week enforced quarantine if you're coming into NY from 'YOU CAN'T MAKE ME WEAR A MASK' states.