Doesn’t Europe have an extensive passenger train network?
Also, I recently rode on Amtrak for a long trip from Columbia, SC to Baltimore, MD. This was my first time on any kind of train other than a subway or metro line. It had its drawbacks (incredibly long travel time and delays), but I always felt safe, and I had a lot more room than I would have had on any flight. The major drawbacks where the seats were somewhat uncomfortable and things like that are largely due to the fact that the cars were pretty old, and not inherent to train travel if it was properly maintained. The cost was much less, and the free parking was such a great bonus.
Europe has an extensive passenger train network, but most of it is not high speed rail.
I looked on travelling from Madrid to Paris and it takes 2 hours if you fly (and then some time before for travelling from the city center to the airport, luggage check-in etc.), 11 hours with train and 13.5 hours with car. I think there are high speed rails between Madrid and Barcelona and in France, but still it takes that long time. The cost is similar.
Trains are really good but they have limitations, each type of travel has its advantages.
When I checked how long distance it was between Columbia, SC and Baltimore, MD I realised it was much shorter than Madrid - Paris. So I checked Munich - Paris instead which is only a 10 km longer than Columbus - Baltimore. It takes 7 hours with train and 8.5 - 9 hours with car. The flight takes 1 hour 35 minutes but the estimated time for travelling from central Munich to the airport, transfer time, flight, transfer and travel to central Paris is 5 hours.
With delays, my actual time was around 11 hours. The last leg, from Washington, DC to Baltimore was actually on high speed commuter rail, and that was phenomenal. The cars were newer and the speed was far greater. I imagine if most traffic in the northeast US is like that, it’s actually pretty good.
Thanks for the European info. It’s interesting to know we have similar challenges. I would think, though, that high speed rail would be easier to implement in Europe since you don’t seem to have as many people stuck on automobile culture as we do in North America. However, I could see politics being an issue, wherever you go for various reasons.
Also, I recently rode on Amtrak for a long trip from Columbia, SC to Baltimore, MD. This was my first time on any kind of train other than a subway or metro line. It had its drawbacks (incredibly long travel time and delays)
I thought about taking an Amtrak to Boston for a trip since it was a vacation and I wasn’t in a huge rush travel wise. By “incredibly long travel time” in my case it would have gone from ~3 hours (two roughly one hour flights with a very short layover you’ve got to haul ass through because for some reason the relevant gates are both at the far ends of different concourses at Dulles) to about a day. Wasn’t in a rush, but that’s a bit too far to the other extreme.
and that’s the one legitimately good reason to oppose it. The city folk act like they are the only places in the world and completely ignore the rest of the country, the worlds largest ball of yarn wouldn’t exist without small towns, neither would wal-mikes.
It does, though there are some issues with track sizes that are being solved here and there every 10 years. Depends on what someone means by “high speed rail” though, since most people think “maglev” as if it isn’t almost the same bullcrap as hyperloop in terms of viability.
Doesn’t Europe have an extensive passenger train network?
Also, I recently rode on Amtrak for a long trip from Columbia, SC to Baltimore, MD. This was my first time on any kind of train other than a subway or metro line. It had its drawbacks (incredibly long travel time and delays), but I always felt safe, and I had a lot more room than I would have had on any flight. The major drawbacks where the seats were somewhat uncomfortable and things like that are largely due to the fact that the cars were pretty old, and not inherent to train travel if it was properly maintained. The cost was much less, and the free parking was such a great bonus.
Europe has an extensive passenger train network, but most of it is not high speed rail.
I looked on travelling from Madrid to Paris and it takes 2 hours if you fly (and then some time before for travelling from the city center to the airport, luggage check-in etc.), 11 hours with train and 13.5 hours with car. I think there are high speed rails between Madrid and Barcelona and in France, but still it takes that long time. The cost is similar.
Trains are really good but they have limitations, each type of travel has its advantages.
When I checked how long distance it was between Columbia, SC and Baltimore, MD I realised it was much shorter than Madrid - Paris. So I checked Munich - Paris instead which is only a 10 km longer than Columbus - Baltimore. It takes 7 hours with train and 8.5 - 9 hours with car. The flight takes 1 hour 35 minutes but the estimated time for travelling from central Munich to the airport, transfer time, flight, transfer and travel to central Paris is 5 hours.
With delays, my actual time was around 11 hours. The last leg, from Washington, DC to Baltimore was actually on high speed commuter rail, and that was phenomenal. The cars were newer and the speed was far greater. I imagine if most traffic in the northeast US is like that, it’s actually pretty good.
Thanks for the European info. It’s interesting to know we have similar challenges. I would think, though, that high speed rail would be easier to implement in Europe since you don’t seem to have as many people stuck on automobile culture as we do in North America. However, I could see politics being an issue, wherever you go for various reasons.
I thought about taking an Amtrak to Boston for a trip since it was a vacation and I wasn’t in a huge rush travel wise. By “incredibly long travel time” in my case it would have gone from ~3 hours (two roughly one hour flights with a very short layover you’ve got to haul ass through because for some reason the relevant gates are both at the far ends of different concourses at Dulles) to about a day. Wasn’t in a rush, but that’s a bit too far to the other extreme.
Yes and no. It depends on which part of Europe you are in.
It’s a bit like that in the States, with a lot of the infrastructure appearing to be concentrated in the Northeast.
Where there are lots of people close together, weird how that works…
No. Used to be everywhere. That’s just where people held onto it after.
and that’s the one legitimately good reason to oppose it. The city folk act like they are the only places in the world and completely ignore the rest of the country, the worlds largest ball of yarn wouldn’t exist without small towns, neither would wal-mikes.
It does, though there are some issues with track sizes that are being solved here and there every 10 years. Depends on what someone means by “high speed rail” though, since most people think “maglev” as if it isn’t almost the same bullcrap as hyperloop in terms of viability.