I’m a fan of high speed rail too, but I also wonder if it’s ever going to be comparable to flying for long distances like this.
Like, even traveling in a direct line on a plane (which averages 600mph, or 2-3x the average speed of high speed rail), it still takes 6 hours from NYC to LA.
Anything under about 500 km is better by train. While the train is slower, once you count getting to and from the airport and in and out of the plane, you’re still faster overall. Above that the plane will usually be faster. If you take the environmental cost into account, the train always wins.
In the US, I regularly caught domestic flights arriving <1hr before departure, I don’t think a 18 hour high speed train can compete with a 6 hour flight.
Then again, I just looked at the high speed trains from Beijing to Kunming for the next few days, and while none of the trains are booked solid, a lot of business and first class seats are sold out or <10 left.
Meanwhile a flight goes for less than half the price and takes <4 hours.
So IDK why that route even exists, let alone why anyone would choose it over a plane, but apparently they do.
Do people take the train for the entire trip, or do most get on/off as it goes? I have used trains that cross the entire country (UK) before but never used them from start to end.
Honestly, if trains were 1/3 as fast as planes, I’d take them.
My family lives about 800 miles away (by car, less as the crow flies), which takes about 14 hours by car, 2.5 hours by plane, and 45 hours by train (36 moving time). To be fair, it covers more ground (almost 2x at ~1400 miles), but driving that same roite would only be ~22 hours. To make up for the extra distance, the train would need to go about twice the speed, so 120-150mph, to match driving, which is completely feasible. If I could do that trip via train in one day, I’d do it vs taking the plane.
I don’t think expecting trains to go 2-3x the speed of cars is unreasonable. I’d still probably take an airplane for longer trips, but anything within 1k miles or so should be reasonable to do by rail.
Although it is true the definitions for high speed trains mention 200km/h, it is good to know many lines exist with 300km/h or above as speed limit (and the speed limit is regularly driven on these lines).
High speed rail is enough for medium size trips that I would normally drive. When driving isn’t feasible (more than 800 miles or so), I’d need faster than typical high speed rail.
I’m a fan of high speed rail too, but I also wonder if it’s ever going to be comparable to flying for long distances like this.
Like, even traveling in a direct line on a plane (which averages 600mph, or 2-3x the average speed of high speed rail), it still takes 6 hours from NYC to LA.
Anything under about 500 km is better by train. While the train is slower, once you count getting to and from the airport and in and out of the plane, you’re still faster overall. Above that the plane will usually be faster. If you take the environmental cost into account, the train always wins.
There’s a direct train from Beijing to Kunming that’s 11 hours, 1700 miles.
NYC to LA would be ~50% more, so you could do a high-speed sleeper.
But no, at that distance, flying is probably better.
Keep in mind that trains don’t require extensive security checks and checking in times though.
[laughs in chinese]
In the US, I regularly caught domestic flights arriving <1hr before departure, I don’t think a 18 hour high speed train can compete with a 6 hour flight.
Then again, I just looked at the high speed trains from Beijing to Kunming for the next few days, and while none of the trains are booked solid, a lot of business and first class seats are sold out or <10 left.
Meanwhile a flight goes for less than half the price and takes <4 hours.
So IDK why that route even exists, let alone why anyone would choose it over a plane, but apparently they do.
Do people take the train for the entire trip, or do most get on/off as it goes? I have used trains that cross the entire country (UK) before but never used them from start to end.
Yes, I hadn’t thought of that.
Its difficult to get off the plane half way, though not impossible.
pfft tell that to avalanche and jessie rasberry
As soon as Elon Musk builds his Hyperloop, we’ll be traveling from NYC to LA in just a few hours. /s
I’ve never considered myself claustrophobic, but the mockups of Hyperloop I’ve seen freak me out a little.
Not claustrophobic at all, but the idea of entering that engineering system has me bugging.
Honestly, if trains were 1/3 as fast as planes, I’d take them.
My family lives about 800 miles away (by car, less as the crow flies), which takes about 14 hours by car, 2.5 hours by plane, and 45 hours by train (36 moving time). To be fair, it covers more ground (almost 2x at ~1400 miles), but driving that same roite would only be ~22 hours. To make up for the extra distance, the train would need to go about twice the speed, so 120-150mph, to match driving, which is completely feasible. If I could do that trip via train in one day, I’d do it vs taking the plane.
I don’t think expecting trains to go 2-3x the speed of cars is unreasonable. I’d still probably take an airplane for longer trips, but anything within 1k miles or so should be reasonable to do by rail.
commercial planes are a bit subsonic, you’re asking for 300-400 km/h trains. high speed rail is like 200 km/h
Although it is true the definitions for high speed trains mention 200km/h, it is good to know many lines exist with 300km/h or above as speed limit (and the speed limit is regularly driven on these lines).
High speed rail is enough for medium size trips that I would normally drive. When driving isn’t feasible (more than 800 miles or so), I’d need faster than typical high speed rail.
There is a point where planes become the better choice and transcontinental is definitely one of them.