• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What is with Europe's train fetish?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Efficiency? It's a shame America doesn't have a nice rail system.
Click to expand...

actually turns out that argument actually speaks in favor of airplanes
Click to expand...


Your Government seems to prefer to subsidise the airlines over rail.....

Airlines are exempt from paying most fuel taxes, and they benefit from government
spending on airport infrastructure to the tune of $3.3 billion annually. All told, the airline industry gets more than $6 billion in subsidies annually. By comparison, Amtrak received little more than $500 million in federal funding this year. Source

BTW that subsidy does NOT include the post 9/11 bailout package.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
30min. to get from one end of england to the other on a train.
Click to expand...
if you're on one of the high speed lines and can get on a high speed train it still takes a long time. 4 or 5 hours on a train to get from edinburgh to london. plane wouldn't take near so long.
Click to expand...
hehe, it took me 4 hours last time I went to DFW just to get on the plane. Doesn't that make me just 30min. off 😛
 
I went to Europe last year and took the train everywhere. I loved it. The French trains went 300 km/hr, which is very fast. The train system was very efficient, very cheap, and very effective.

I could travel all over France with their train pass for around $40. That's on a kick ass train that cruises very fast.

In the US, it would cost me about $100 to go from Philly to NY on an Amtrak Acela train which does not go nearly as fast. They advertise 150 mph, but realistically in most corridors the train will never see 150 mph, it'll go about 110 tops. To go the distance I went in France, it would cost me about $300
 
Originally posted by: zugzoog
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Efficiency? It's a shame America doesn't have a nice rail system.
Click to expand...

actually turns out that argument actually speaks in favor of airplanes
Click to expand...


Your Government seems to prefer to subsidise the airlines over rail.....

Airlines are exempt from paying most fuel taxes, and they benefit from government
spending on airport infrastructure to the tune of $3.3 billion annually. All told, the airline industry gets more than $6 billion in subsidies annually. By comparison, Amtrak received little more than $500 million in federal funding this year. Source

BTW that subsidy does NOT include the post 9/11 bailout package.
Click to expand...
what does this post have to do with what you quoted?

 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I went to Europe last year and took the train everywhere. I loved it. The French trains went 300 km/hr, which is very fast. The train system was very efficient, very cheap, and very effective.

I could travel all over France with their train pass for around $40. That's on a kick ass train that cruises very fast.

In the US, it would cost me about $100 to go from Philly to NY on an Amtrak Acela train which does not go nearly as fast. They advertise 150 mph, but realistically in most corridors the train will never see 150 mph, it'll go about 110 tops. To go the distance I went in France, it would cost me about $300
Click to expand...


Yeah the trains you're thinking of there are the TGV's "Train Grand Vitesse" which basically means "Quick Train". They truly rock. The first
TGV's started service in 1981 and could do 270km/h back then. The modern ones cruise at 360km/h.

I love the way it's virtually silent inside... did you notice that?

Reliability is sweet in the main Euopean countries, if your ticket says you'll arrive at 20:27, it will. Very often even if there's a delay they compensate also.
Unfortunately Britain is cursed with dated rail lines which are a pain for the public as they really aren't tolerant of varying weather conditions.

Trains are a decent mode of public transport. They are quick and are often electric thus reducing the pollution output of the country as a whole (France is pretty high on the list when it comes to nuclear power useage).
 
Trains were pretty handy to get around when I lived in Germany, to get up to Munich to go and party and to get around Munich itself once we were there.
I took a train in the US (Amtrak) to get from Baltimore to Chicago, and I must say it's mighty nice to be able to get up and walk around while you're on such a long trip. They also had a smoking car... it was cool to lounge around in there and strike up conversations with other travellers.
 
ElFenix - You ever taken some trains through Europe? It's pretty amazing how it all works and how effecient it is. It's very reliable and easy to use. Comparing it to an airport isn't really possible because of workers and equipment needed at an airport. If you haven't used them before you might not understand how effeciently it all works.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
30min. to get from one end of england to the other on a train.
Click to expand...
if you're on one of the high speed lines and can get on a high speed train it still takes a long time. 4 or 5 hours on a train to get from edinburgh to london. plane wouldn't take near so long.
Click to expand...
Except that there's the whole passenger screening process for the airplane so you need to tack on an hour or two to the actual plain ride to get through security.

ZV
 
Infrastructure that is already in place, somewhat efficient, and comfortable. Plus the not-so-great distances that we have in North America, and there you go.
 
You can take a lot more luggage on a train, I suppose that might be a small advantage.
Flying, I can only take a carry on and a certain weight of luggage, but we were able to move my ex all the way out here from the Maritimes on the train with all the crap she had to bring(several hundred pounds of boxes and suitcases).
 
I took the train from Germany to Paris cost me like 110$ it was pretty cool, except for the smoking... cough cough

Train Ride from NY to DC is like 200$ thats why we don't use the train to expensive.
 
Originally posted by: loic2003


Yeah the trains you're thinking of there are the TGV's "Train Grand Vitesse" which basically means "Quick Train". They truly rock. The first
TGV's started service in 1981 and could do 270km/h back then. The modern ones cruise at 360km/h.

I love the way it's virtually silent inside... did you notice that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they were pretty comfortable and I was surprised at how fast they went. I have a video on my computer of the train ride, it's pretty cool.

I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the TGV, and when France opened up one of their newer lines they wanted to show the world how fast it could go. They cranked up the voltage and made some adjustments on the cars, and took it over 320 mph (515.3 km/h)
 
I took the train from Vienna, Austria to Frankfurt, Germany for 39 Euros! Crazy cheap! It took 9 hours and the seats had almost full recline so I slept the whole way!

In other words ===> Cheap + Comfortable + Safe = :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i understand that it works, but why rails instead of something else that worked, say, planes?
Click to expand...
Much cheaper for the passenger and Europe is not as vast as the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top