[struppi]

This is exactly the reason why I usually prefer a 6-hour train ride to a 1-hour flight (at least in Germany, Austria, Switzerland).

Train: Go to the station (near city center), arrive 10 mins before train departs, get on the train, read/work/eat/drink for 6 hours, get off the train. And then you are already at the city center of your destination!

The total time spent when flying might be shorter (4.5-5 hours), but that is not worth the hassle.

[toothbrush]

So much this. Not to mention the reduced environmental impact. Flying is absolutely catastrophic in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris accord doesn't cover even a fraction of it! (because flying occurs in "international space" and so it doesn't appear on any country's "balance sheet"... atrocious.)

[audunw]

> Flying is absolutely catastrophic in terms of greenhouse gas emissions

Uhm, flying is OK in terms of emissions per passenger mile. Not as great as train, but better than driving solo in a gasoline car.

The problem is transcontinental flights. While they're OK in terms of efficiency per mile, the number of miles is staggering.

The problem is, those trips can't be made by train.

So in terms of flying, I think the main focus should be not to fly long distance if it can be avoided. Sure, it's much better to take the train if possible, but if you fly between countries within europe a dozen times a year, that's not a catastrophe.

[cornholio]

I know Boeing proposed Methane turbofans, and they were estimated to have 60% less carbon emissions and cheaper than jet fuel - after eating the large development and infrastructure costs. You could take this even further, producing Hydrogen from clean electric energy is about three times more expensive than methane for the same energy content, leading to a moderate increase in the cost of even a low cost ticket.

But as with all radically new technology, there needs to be a strong industry, government and consumer push. The program that produced the Methane turbofan concept (SUGAR Freeze) has lost any political appeal.

[erezyehuda]

Costs aside, wouldn't replacing carbon emissions with methane be drastically worse? Doing a casual search says that methane is 2000-3000% more potent as a GHG.

[ufo]

I assume the methane would be the fuel, not the byproduct.

[JamesBarney]

I imagine you won't combust 100% of the fuel. So wouldn't it be both.

[schiffern]

>The problem is, those trips can't be made by train.

Transcontinental flights (one side of the continent to the other, see [1]) can usually be taken by train. You probably mean intercontinental flights.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_airspeed_reco...

[ghaff]

You're being pedantic. One can travel from New York to San Francisco (well, Emeryville) by train but it's going to take multiple days and, even if you handwave the existence of high-speed rail through two continental divides among other things, it's a very long trip. That's never going to be a mainstream replacement for even a subsonic 5 to 6 hour flight between a multitude of east coast-west coast city pairs.

[jacobolus]

If there were high-speed trains that could make cross-US trips in, say, 15 hours, and at comparable or cheaper cost vs. airplanes, I can imagine there might be demand. I would be willing to take those overnight.

But even if we could replace most <500 mile flights along the most popular routes (starting by connecting cities up and down the coasts), it would be a huge win as far as fuel economy is concerned.

[schiffern]

And you're being parochial. Who said "continent" was limited to North America?

The claim was that the trip can't be made, not that it can be made but is undesirable as compared with alternatives.

[logfromblammo]

> The problem is, those trips can't be made by train.

They can't now, but they could be. All that is required is a level of capital investment that can't ever be recovered while in competition with air and sea-surface travel...

The transatlantic tunnel has been a sci-fi fantasy since 1895. It could cost as little as $500 billion today.

[PsylentKnight]

> Not as great as train, but better than driving solo in a gasoline car.

It was my understanding that driving is better for shorter trips, because the overhead of taking off and landing is significant. I don't have a source. IIRC I read this in "Doing Good Better."

[llukas]

Is it still competetive vs car for supersonic flight?

[mehrdadn]

I'll point out that although it's indeed atrocious compared to a train ride, flying is still more efficient than driving a car. So if traveling is required and you're debating between driving vs. flying (say SF <-> LA), you should prefer flying unless you can carpool. I don't know the exact numbers since it depends on where you're going and what plane/airline you fly, but I would expect around 50-75 MPG for a reasonably full airplane [1], whereas your car might be more like 25-30 MPG on the highway, so you'd want at least 2-3 (ideally 4) people in the car to make it more efficient.

However the thing about flying is of course that it burns fuel at a much, much faster rate, so if it means the difference between you driving to workplace A vs. flying to workplace B regularly, then you'll be burning one hell of a lot more fuel by flying.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Airli...

[mmt]

Interestingly, the efficiency ratio you suggest appears to be reflected in the ratio between the overall cost (including ground transportation at the other end) of flying SFBA-SoCal and driving.

Whenever I've spot-checked, the break-even is at 2 people, which tends to make flying more attractive for time/fatigue reasons (only barely, at some points in history) even for 2, and sometimes worth the cost premium for 3. For a family of 4 or more, even with the increased fuel cost (but generally not other operating costs) of something like a minivan, driving saves too much money to pass up.

[mehrdadn]

That's interesting, thanks for mentioning this!

[Reason077]

That’s true today. But in the coming years and decades, ground transport will be largely electrified and it’s per-mile emissions greatly reduced.

Hopefully, aviation can be electrified too one day (or it’s emissions reduced with hybrid technology), but unlike ground transport, the technology is not quite here yet.

[smolder]

Hybrid tech doesn't help at all with with planes. There is no braking energy to be regained and batteries are too heavy. It has no place there until battery energy density approaches that of fuel, which would require a huuge breakthrough of some kind.

[Reason077]

The idea behind a hybrid aircraft is that eFans (electric fans) are more energy efficient than a turbofan, so you can burn less fuel for a given journey.

Companies including Airbus, Siemens, and Rolls Royce are actively working on this technology with a view to have working prototypes in the early 2020s.

Besides that, there is some "braking" energy to be recaptured during descent or when slowing the aircraft. This technology already exists today: The Pipistrel Electro can regen it's battery during descent. This is similar in principle to the ram air turbine (RAT) in conventional aircraft.

[smolder]

Well thanks for the pertinent info. I was pretty sure of myself that the cost benefit ratio wasn't there but if there are engineering efforts towards it there's at least potentially some merit.

I wonder, does the efficiency gain from efans and a generator apply to a single engine setup as well as it does to multi engine setups?

[mehrdadn]

With battery capacities being what they are you'll also have to hang tight for the moment when they stretch long enough to allow you to even have the choice of driving to the same place you can fly. (Or swap batteries on the way somehow... not sure how well that would work.)

[Reason077]

This is already solved in technology terms. Battery capacities and charging speeds are already good enough for almost all long-distance travel scenarios.

It’s now just a case of getting costs down and infrastructure built out. But that’s the easy part.

[mehrdadn]

> his is already solved in technology terms. Battery capacities and charging speeds are already good enough for almost all long-distance travel scenarios.

Really? It seems to me that decent EV ranges are around 150mi right now, with the best ones going to 300mi... meaning they generally might get you halfway from (say) SF to LA, and you can bet that none of them will get you all the way. And that's not even that long of a distance, depending on what your standards are. Now charging times run into multiple hours, right? How is that even remotely close to gasoline?

[Swizec]

I traveled with the French TGV a couple times and it is absolutely astounding how amazing it is. Large comfy chairs, quiet train, you can walk around, plenty of room for activities. There's even a bar where you can hang out with fellow passengers!

Plus first class tickets are like $20 more expensive than normal tickets and totally worth it.

Although I almost missed it because I'm used to all the buffer time you get with airplanes. Train leaves at 10:45, you better be there at 10:40 or you're gonna miss the darn thing.

[maeln]

Although I like our (maybe not for long) nationalized train system, I still have to mitigate your praises a bit :) .

One of my main issue is that train ticket are really expensive. Regional train are okayish, but TGV cost often way more than any other equivalent (plane/bus/car/...) and are sometimes not faster.

The second thing is that the network is historically completely centered around Paris. That lead to some very weird situation where, to go from the north-west to the south-west, you need to go all around France. And because of this, it is again faster and cheaper to just take a plane.

Finally, there is often delay or train being canceled, which is normal because lot more problem happen on the ground and such that when you are several thousand feet in the air, but they tend to communicate about it really badly. When your train have a problem, it is often really hard to know when you will have a new train, how much delay will you have, ...

On the other end, I agree with you. The train are so much comfortable. I really enjoy traveling in train way more than with any other form of transportation. I assume they are also a bit more ecological than cars and planes. The application of the SCNF to book ticket is also very good nowadays, never had a problem with it.

[Numberwang]

I'm totally with you, but it is truly annoying the amount of subsidies the flight industry get. I've often taken trains across Europe due to my preference, but when the plane ticket is €20 and the train ticket is €400 it seems I'm fighting against the system.

[peteretep]

> but it is truly annoying the amount of subsidies the flight industry get

Please could you illustrate some of those for me, as compared to rail?

[yrro]

UK here.

> Aviation is currently undertaxed, according to economists from the IMF and World Bank, compared to other forms of transport. Airlines pay no fuel duty and VAT is zero rated meaning that no tax is charged on sales and tax charged on inputs is refunded.

> ...

> CE Delft calculated in 2013 that the shortfall as a result of these two anomalies amounted to around €27 billion annually in Europe.

> ...

> At a global level, the World Bank and IMF favour a relatively low tax universally applied per tonne of CO2, which could then raise money for climate change mitigation.

> In the UK, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition considered in 2010 replacing APD with a per plane tax to include freight aircraft and provide an additional incentive to airlines to fill empty seats. However, this was dropped following concerns, the Government claimed, about concerns that it could be challenged legally as representing a proxy fuel tax (contrary to bilateral air service provisions with other countries).

> Another alternative would be a form of taxation that discouraged frequent fliers.

https://www.aef.org.uk/issues/economics/taxation/

[Reason077]

1. International airlines pay no tax on aviation fuel, despite their significant contribution to air pollution and climate change. In say, Europe, this represents a huge subsidy compared to ground transport, where fuel is heavily taxed.

2. Airports, particularly regional ones, are often owned by local governments and receive subsidies in order to encourage tourism and commerce in their region. In some cases, airlines receive direct subsidies from those airports in order to fly there.

3. Internationally, some airlines themselves are state-owned or state-subsidised. Gulf airlines such as Emirates and Qatar have been criticised for being significant beneficiaries of state subsidies.

This isn’t to say that rail isn’t subsidised too, of course. Even in countries where rail operates on a commercial basis, the physical infrastructure is usually government owned or financed in some way.

However, if airlines had to account for (and pay for) their environmental externalities, the costs of airline vs rail travel would work out very differently!

[ant6n]

Not just fuel taxes, also sale taxes. Plane tickets 0, train tickets 20%.

[Reason077]

Here in the UK, train tickets are also 0 VAT, whether domestic or international.

I expect that would also apply to international train tickets anywhere in the world. Policies on domestic tickets may vary.

[iguy]

> compared to ground transport, where fuel is heavily taxed

But isn't this basically a road tax? Fuel for agricultural machinery or industrial plants is also free of such taxes (typically).

[Uberphallus]

That's the exact same reason why nobody sane takes a train in France for anything that matters. Schedules violated every day, strikes, poor maintenance, and moreover, they killed almost all of the night trains, that were the cheapest option especially if you account for one night you save on accommodation.

[kiba]

All these security for air travel but not for a train which is also full of lot of people felt bizarre.

[donaltroddyn]

Well, the impetus for enhanced airport security was first the spate of hijackings in the late '60s to early '80s, and later 9/11.

While you can hijack a train, you can't fly it to a friendly country, and you can't fly it into a building, so it's a very different threat model.

[hanoz]

Locking cockpit doors has already solved both those problems.

[Uberphallus]

Germanwings would like to have a word with you.

[JamesBarney]

Are you referring to this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

[Uberphallus]

Yeah, the first officer locked himself in then started descent into a mountain.

[vonzeppelin]

But how does a suicidal pilot apply to airport security?

[ant6n]

..more like a homicidal pilot.

[samatman]

To be frank about it, trains are a much softer target, since they can be derailed with an explosion on the track, or even a bit of welding.

Blowing up an airplane requires either bringing an explosive on board, or the use of a rocket-propelled grenade or full-on missile. Quite aside from the risks of hijacking mentioned in a sibling comment.

[NLips]

However, blowing up a bomb on a cruising plane will probably kill everyone. Blowing up a bomb on a cruising train will probably not - many people will be far from the blast and derailing trains are more survivable than planes breaking up at altitude.

[dijit]

You can't hijack a train and take hostages to some other country; This was endemic in the 80s.

You also can't hijack a train and drive it into a building.

[anticensor]

You can divert it remotely by dispatch if the route is fully signalled. Trains cannot travel except what rails direct them to.

[amelius]

But is this still true for airplanes, given the switch to hardened cockpit doors?

[dijit]

It is still true; Holding a train full of passengers hostage is foolish because there's no possibility that a train driver could disengage the rails.

Holding a plane full of passengers hostage is less foolish because the pilots/flight attendants can be bribed and bartered- it's not a technical impossibility to do certain actions, so there is more of an incentive.

[Uberphallus]

Then you get Germanwings incidents

[amelius]

Which can't happen on trains and buses?

[endymi0n]

Buses, maybe. Trains: Nope. Doors are locked from the inside, usually aren't accessible while moving and even someone would get inside, well, you can't get off the tracks. You'll get a red signal and a forced braking shortly afterwards. It's really, REALLY hard (by design) to wreck something on purpose with a modern high speed train.

[slazaro]

Which wasn't a hostage situation or a hijacking to get elsewhere, and it has nothing to do with the passenger security theater which is what this thread is about...

[phyzome]

Shhhh, don't say it too loudly! The TSA is already trying to get their greasy fingers into train travel. :-(

[garmaine]

Lol, try living in California. 6-12 hour plane ride to anywhere. Trains? We have them. But why would you when it takes literally days to cross the country.

[dewey]

That's not a problem of trains it's a problem of the US train infrastructure. As you can see in Europe or Japan trains can be very fast and very efficient.

[Reason077]

Sure, but the distances between cities in a huge country like the USA tend to be much greater than in Europe or Japan. Even if you had high speed rail it’d still take a very long time to cross the continent!

High speed trains do exist, or are being built, in more densely populated US regions (eg Northeast corridor, California).

[lhopki01]

The distances between cities in California or the upper East coast isn't. Both places have a high enough population density to support a good train network.

No one is suggesting that you take train from New York to LA but rather that you take a train from LA to San Francisco or Boston to New York. Similarly in Europe most people don't take a train from London to Rome but people will often take a train from London to Paris or Barcelona to Madrid. Any flight of 3 hours or less is usually faster and more comfortable as a train ride.

[ghaff]

For those who don't know, people take trains between cities in the US Northeast Corridor all the time. In fact, that's pretty much Amtrak's only profitable region (money that it then loses in the rest of the country). And Amtrak actually has significant modernization plans in part because some routes are at capacity during busy times.

[TheCoelacanth]

There would be even higher usage if Amtrak service in the region was actually good instead of just passable. The fastest service between New York and DC averages only 82 mph and it's even slower if you go past either of those cities. The allegedly "high-speed" service between New York and Boston averages only 66 mph. That's not even hitting the upper end of highway speeds.

[gamblor956]

There is very low population density between the LA and SF metro areas, which are roughly 350 miles apart (400 miles from city center to city center). This is one of the reasons that a HSR has been such a hard sell.

[ant6n]

Big cities with nothing in-between is a good sell for HSR. Europe's two largest countries that have that population distribution pattern (France, Spain) rely heavily on very fast HSR (300-350km/h). The countries with more distributed, but also more dense population (UK, Germany) rely more on fast networks with more stops, but less maximum speed (200-250km/h).

[nickjj]

It takes around 4-5 days to cross the US by train.

The problem is, the regular seats are shoulder to shoulder, there's no showers, and everyone shares a bathroom. Plus, they gouge you relentlessly with food rates.

It doesn't seem like it would be a fun experience at all due to those conditions (but would be fun otherwise).

Of course you could spend $1,000+ each way to get a "sleeper seat" which comes with a shower and meals but then it's like you're essentially paying $700 for a shower and a touch of privacy. It's just off putting to me based on principle.