• fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    In Europe there is definitely a difference between TGV quality lines and the regional ones which are rarely better than taking the car, sadly (speaking from my years of experience).

    I wonder what the map would look like if you at least greyed out the slow lines.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    The US absolutely needs more and better trains. But also, the US has large areas with no population. That’s why when you look at electoral maps you need to control population density.

    Even with a high quality rail system with support for populated areas of the US the map would still have large gaps and wouldn’t be nearly as full as the EU map.

    Simply putting two maps side by side and saying “this one bad” isn’t great. Yes, it’s absolutely bad, but for the exact reasons this map shows.

    • hayvan@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      US also has the advantage of being one big federation with established standards bodies and a federal budget. A train that goes Between Belgium, Netherlands, Germany has to pass through 3 different electrical standards (yes, they are very different), 2 traffic regulations (left or right side), and 3 signalization standards. And they make it work.

      • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Are you willing to pay the profit loss of keeping a station running? I’d wager trains aren’t cheap.

        • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          We’re already paying to connect rural villages to infrastructure. Do you think connecting a rural village in the middle of nowhere to the street network is profitable? Of course it isn’t. Same for water, wastewater, electricity, and internet.

          Besides, a train station doesn’t have to be fancy. If you make it so that people can pay for their ticket on board of the train, all you need is a concrete platform. Relatively cheap, and last approximately forever.

          • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            all you need is a concrete platform. Relatively cheap, and last approximately forever.

            And electricity, and employees, and maintenance, and amenities, and land ownership or leasing cost, and utility taxes, and environmental impact costs, and….

            • Niquarl@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Tbh do you really need all of that at any train station? Now you could sell the tickets on a website or with a machine. Land yes, that’s true. Don’t actually need really any amenities although would be good of course. Even electricity barely needed if it’s day only. Seriously at the end of the day you dont even need a roof.

      • cashsky@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Exactly. Every state has a major population hub. Excluding major cities is pretty bad. Except Wyoming. No one fucking lives in Wyoming. Why are they even a state…

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          23 hours ago

          In the vague defense of Wyoming and the other great planes states, quite a lot of their population growth was hindered or outright shrank due to the dust bowl which they haven’t recovered from. It’s kinda like how Russia goes through a population dip every 20 years or so due to the sheer number of people who died during WW2.

    • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      And, living in enclaves as I have, I always think we don’t have much. But it’s kinda terrifying how bad the US have it.

      • Hadriscus@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Well, they make up for it with planes. They can move around. It’s just awfully polluting

      • Jayjader@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        For the unaware:

        map of passenger train network in France, comparing 1930 to 2014. the caption states the total length of the network has shrunk by 16,000 km over this period

        In the small town where I grew up, the train station got turned into a supermarket + gas station + mcdonalds (yes, really 🤮 ). To take a train to anywhere else in France, you first have to drive 25 minutes (not the longest, but really defeats the point of taking local / regional trains).

  • Bloefz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    And still here in Europe they are not a meaningful alternative to the plane. Taking for example an Amsterdam to Barcelona is an exhausting 12-14h deal (almost 10x as long) and 5x more expensive.

    What we need is express trains that go from A to B without stopping anywhere, avoiding city centres and constantly running max speed. If I’m going to Barcelona I don’t want to stop in Schiphol, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Brussels, and various cities in France. There should just be a dedicated departure just for that (and judging by how many planes go back & forth daily these trains could certainly be filled). This would cut down on that exhausting travel time a lot. But we lack the high-speed network capacity for that. And won’t have it for at least 15 years even if they decided to build them now :( So planes it is.

    • dangrousperson@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      honestly I wouldn’t mind it taking 12 hours, but it also being more expensive just doesn’t make any sense at all. Europe needs to stop subsidizing air travel and needs to up its rail subsidies

      • ranzispa@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes. In Italy train travel, and especially bus travel, is still somewhat affordable. In most other places you feel just stupid in paying 100€ to cross 300 kilometres when you can go much farther with 30€ on a plane…

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      Twelve hours to get across a whole continent is fine.

      I think we must stop thinking of the whole world being just a few hours away. Travel has to include some actual travelling again.

      • grammerly_dave@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Amsterdam to Barcelona isn’t crossing an entire continent, though.

        And you still haven’t countered his point about planes being faster and cheaper.

        Let’s stop being tribalists and look for real solutions to real problems, eh?

        spoiler

        Just kidding, I know that’s asking too much of you people.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The will never be enough capacity to connect capitals with no intermediate stops. And let me tell you, it’s in general a stupid idea.

      12h is not a big deal if travelled overnight. Which is currently not possible. So this what we really miss, not constant 300 km/h direct connections.

      And of course, we need to stop taxing passenger rail companies. And maybe re-nationalise them, while we are at it. Forcing free market in the railway has been one of the biggest mistakes of the European Union.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        There was a concept I thought was neat. Imagine around stops you had a parallel set of tracks with cars that would connect to the train and passengers would have X number of minutes to transfer between the parallel trains before they decouple.

        So a ‘fast lane’ train wouldn’t actually stop, it would just couple to another train that does pretty much nothing but transfer passengers to and from the stop.

        Though the reality is that would require a lot of work when the counter argument can be “fly a plane direct instead”

      • Bloefz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think 12h is a big deal, for business travelers it makes the whole trip pointless. And for leasure travelers it means paying for a really expensive sleeping cabin or “sleep” in an uncomfortable seat.

        I agree the privatisation was a big mistake, also in healthcare, energy etc.

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I agree the privatisation was a big mistake, also in healthcare, energy etc.

          Privatizing is always a mistake. Profit is waste and theft. Making public services for-profit is inevitably going to turn to shit.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        The will never be enough capacity to connect capitals with no intermediate stops.

        Do you mean demand? Currently there is not enough capacity.

        Counter-examples to your negativity are found in Japan, Korea and China.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          There are no such examples for what the user I replied to is proposing.

          They want one high-speed train per each European capital.

      • pirat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Interesting, well-written and nerdy report from 2013! I wonder if the aspects of the trans-European rail situation (pricing, travel times, frequencies, interconnectivity, train changes etc.) have gotten better or worse since then.

  • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    It gets cut off here, but Estonia only has like 4 lines or something, all from the capital in the north. No interconnection between the other cities except through the capital, and for two of the lines about 30 km away from the capital. It really sucks, I wish there was more and I’m also hoping for Rail Baltica to be ready sooner rather than later. And I REALLY wish there was a way to connect Tartu, Viljandi and Pärnu to each other directly - right now you have to make a near 200 km detour to get between the first two, and Pärnu is disconnected altogether until Rail Baltica is finished, the Tallinn-Pärnu line is dead. Sadly though, that dream route of mine (which would connect two culturally significant cities (Tartu and Viljandi) to each other and to the future Rail Baltica line in a slightly less detour-y fashion) will likely never exist because of all the wetlands in between those cities. I am glad they’re being preserved, but… trains would be nice.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Ok… so why isnt the east coast covered in rails? The western states pulls the average way down.

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s a problem that is easily solved by building less trains in places with no people and more trains in places with lots of people.

      To be clear, the U.S has plenty of places that could easily support rail transit, and High-speed rail. That they are not getting built is just good old political failure.

      • Bloefz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Also I read that in the US Amtrak gives priority to cargo trains even though laws exist expressly forbidding that, so that a 200km trip with no stops ends up taking 4 hours.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          That’s not Amtrak’s fault.

          Most of the rails are actually railroad company property, they’re not government property like the highways are. On most rails, you’re on the property of CSX, UP, BNSF etc. And they give their trains priority over that interloper Amtrak.

        • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s true - they do this by making their trains longer than the sidings.

          You’d think they’d make that illegal, but no. Political failures are incredibly common in the world of rail

            • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              24 hours ago

              Its also so they can use less crews to run trains. A 2 person crew can run a long train that otherwise would require 2 or even 3 crews.

            • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              It’s a mix of both, really. They would not be losing significant time by actually going to the sidings and letting passenger trains go by, and time is less significant in freight anyway. The longer trains let them do some (fairly questionable) optimizations in their freight delivery though, and since they go unpunished, they go for it.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        it’s important to stress that rails only work in densely populated areas. it’s very economically stupid to build railways in thinly populated areas. unfortunately, i see way too many idiots advocating that public transport be built everywhere, which smears the reputation of the whole public transport system, because it is then perceived as economically stupid and inefficient. public transport needs to focus on the cities and inter-city rail.

            • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              More like we decided to invest billions(trillions) into building freeways instead of our rails. And then air travel became cheap.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          There’s also a lot of benefit in connecting different densely populated areas by rail, and those rail lines can then serve some of the less populated areas in between. E.g since we’re discussing the US, there’d be value in having high speed rail between NYC and Chicago, because people need to travel between those cities, even if in between there are a lot of sparsely populated areas. Sadly right now it’s not a real option because the train is slow af compared to just taking a plane, but if the system functioned well and they had actual high-speed trains like we do in Europe or Asia, there’d be a LOT of benefit in connecting densely populated areas through sparsely populated areas and adding a few stops in between. Fewer people would be driving cars from small towns to the cities, etc.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 days ago

          The USSR had like half the US’s population density. They ran trains even to remote villages. Sometimes there wasn’t even a platform, just a dude with a locomotive and a car who would stop if anyone looked like they needed a ride or to take their animals to market. Today, Japan maintains unmanned platforms in places with daily ridership <10.

          China runs HSR to towns even as small as 120K (probably smaller, but that’s the smallest town I’ve stayed in), the primary way to get between cities in Vietnam is by bus (or motorbike, but those aren’t allowed on highways).

          What’s stupid and inefficient is prioritizing cars over public transit.

          • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            In principle I agree with you, but I want to nitpick some things because I’m an asshole.

            The USSR had like half the US’s population density. They ran trains even to remote villages

            Not the greatest example, because a lot of human lives were lost in building the Siberian railroads. I’ve read reports of 300k people, though of course with it being Soviet Russia… Nobody knows for sure.

            Today, Japan maintains unmanned platforms in places with daily ridership <10

            This sounds stupid inefficient, but it’s actually not. Build a railroad to a destination with daily ridership <10? Very inefficient Build a railroad with actual usage, but also serve stops in between that have nearly no daily ridership? Actually a good idea, because you already build the railroad for the most part and those people also need transport.

            China runs HSR to towns even as small as 120K

            Lol to me that’s a medium sized city. Second biggest city of my country is fewer than 120k. We don’t have high speed rail, but we will eventually, between the capital/biggest city and the rest of Europe. For now, rail still exists for most towns above 20k.

            the primary way to get between cities in Vietnam is by bus (or motorbike, but those aren’t allowed on highways).

            Buses actually suck for inter-city transit, trains are way better (and at these speeds and distances, cars are OK too). Are you sure motorbikes aren’t allowed on highways at all? In most countries in the world, they are. Mopeds are not, though - since mopeds can’t go as fast as highway traffic usually does.

            • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              I’ve read reports of 300k people, though of course with it being Soviet Russia… Nobody knows for sure.

              The records were opened in the 90s, any reports before that were little more than SWAGs. After the 90s, they had the names of the workers involved so you can have very exact estimates.

              Lol to me that’s a medium sized city. Second biggest city of my country is fewer than 120k. We don’t have high speed rail, but we will eventually, between the capital/biggest city and the rest of Europe. For now, rail still exists for most towns above 20k.

              OK, but there’s 100 cities in America bigger than that. But also it’s simply the smallest Chinese town I’ve spent time in, I’m certain smaller towns have trains. The density was somewhat greater than the average American town, but it meant you could take a public electric scooter or bike across town in 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes.

              This sounds stupid inefficient, but it’s actually not. Build a railroad to a destination with daily ridership <10? Very inefficient Build a railroad with actual usage, but also serve stops in between that have nearly no daily ridership?

              Yes and no? As far as I am aware the JRs don’t build platforms~~ anymore.~~ in towns with small ridership, but due to japan’s rural population crisis, they simply have platforms in shrinking towns, and if it’s already built it’s cheap to maintain. Low or negative interest loans with regulations to punish companies for providing substandard service could facilitate the construction in theory, but I am not aware of any specific location where that’s occurred.

              Buses actually suck for inter-city transit, trains are way better (and at these speeds and distances, cars are OK too). Are you sure motorbikes aren’t allowed on highways at all? In most countries in the world, they are. Mopeds are not, though - since mopeds can’t go as fast as highway traffic usually does.

              Vietnam has some political, social, and geographical issues that make building both city and intercity rail very difficult.

              Mopeds are not, though - since mopeds can’t go as fast as highway traffic usually does.

              Except for CT08 and I think CT10? outside Hanoi, you 100% cannot take a motorbike on a CTXX. There’s other major roads you can take bikes on, and I’ve taken my bike on a highway that was under construction, but don’t take them on the other CTs.

              Presumably those countries have a minimum speed limit. VN just bans anything with <4 wheels. I can tell from personal experience and word of mouth, even if you’re doing 100+, you will be stopped and lucky if they let you off without a shakedown. I was lucky enough they believed I got forced on by traffic and was trying to find an exit.

              This kinda sucks because it increases the time to get between some places by over 2x

    • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      It also doesn’t acknowledge that a lot of that is just empty space.

      Yes, we have a lot of empty space, but we have very few N/S passenger trains out west.

      For example, a train from Albuquerque to Denver is a 45 hour one way ride because you have to go to Chicago from Albuquerque, then back to Denver. This is a 6 hour drive. There is also nothing from El Paso to Albuquerque. However this does not show the train from Belen to Santa Fe that goes through Albuquerque.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 days ago

    Goes to show how successful the oil and automobile lobbyists. The US passenger railway network is a fucking flop. When will they finally use electric locomotive instead of the pollution belching diesel electrics.

  • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I once decided to take the train from Denver to Chicago rather than flying. Just to see the country.

    One train per day.

    Just fucking one train per day.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 days ago

      Amtrak, and the dots in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois saw this and added just a second train between Msp And Chicago daily and ridership exploded, trains sold out. A frequent thing that they do to save money is cut trips, but it’s doing so much more harm than good. They’re now finally realizing that if you want ridership people want options, they want to be able to arrive close to when they want, and some may want to just show up day of and ask when the next train is.

      Here in Seattle they just added a 5th or 6th roundtrip to Portland because each time they do, ridership goes up. Turns out there’s a lot of people who would rather not drive.

      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Driver here! I love my car, she is incredible and comfy and has an amazing sound system.

        …if I have the option, 100% bus or train, I don’t want to drive. I’d much rather put on noise cancelling headphones and zone out and read or something then pilot a deathmobile (who, I will repeat, I love her very much because she’s best)

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think that’s something most forget here in north America. It’s about having the option, and the vast majority just want to be able to say “hey you know, I don’t feel like driving five hours today”

      • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        To be fair, I took that train back in the early 2000’s. If they’ve improved the service then great.

        It was a great trip, and I recommend it, but as a European I was just gobsmacked by the lack of daily options!

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Don’t hate on Amtrak, they have been beaten to pulp by lack of interest and investment but still are making meaningful improvements every year.

        One of the biggest issue is that rail was privatised way back when and the cargo rail got the ownership of the tracks. This just means that products, patient as they are get priority.

        The North East corridor is getting tunnels rebuilt, added frequency. North Carolina has funded a major rail extension and so on. It’s very slow but it might be necessary for it be that way to not attract attention from the GOP. Slow incremental gains until it reaches escape velocity.

        It shouldn’t be that way but Amtrak is doing well considering how little help they’ve gotten.

  • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why is no one concerned that europe has taken the place of mexico??? Where is mexico now??? How is this not international news?