[marquis]

I can sleep on a park bench that is on a non-stop roller-coaster (planes are a breeze) so for me sleeper trains are a delight, but I haven't take one in over 10 years since European flights got cheaper that trains. I do miss those long train rides across Europe, where you would meet people easily in the restaurant car. Amtrak I've never tried as I've never had the time nor inclination for train travel when in the U.S.

[bane]

Trains in Europe are a pleasure compared to most of the U.S. system. I'm not sure if it's because Amtrak shares track with cargo trains or what, but the ride is pretty bumpy, noisy and much beyond a few hours not worth it with nothing to do and noway to sleep. I've done 20+ hour trips twice on Amtrak and I'll never do it again. I can see doing maybe a D.C. to NYC trip, but the economics of such a trip don't really work out for me over a plane even if door to door the train is only slightly slower (in fact I actually like the drive better).

[AaronIG]

Higher freight traffic in the U.S. has partially something to do with it. Buffering strengths here require that a passenger train be able to withstand 800,000 pounds of force without deformation, leading to trains that are nearly twice as heavy (and thus slower) than trains in other parts of the world. Europe, on the other hand, doesn't have quite as stringent requirements, and instead of requiring rigid frames they mandate crumple zones, which are arguably just as safe. MetroLink in SoCal has started employing something similar on their cars.

To give an idea just how big freight traffic is in the U.S., freight by rail is something like 1.7 trillion ton-mile (39.9% of freight by ton-mile). The total across all modes in the EU is 1.4 trillion ton-mile, of which rail makes up 17%, so only about an eighth of the U.S. in freight. This has led to fairly different rail systems.

[fulafel]

Hopefully trains will again become competitive as politicians get around to pricing the considerable environmental externalities of air travel.

Edit: looks like this is coming along, http://theenergycollective.com/parthvaishnav/287406/icao-dea...

[altero]

Sure tax it to oblivion. Air travel impact per person is surprisingly low (comparable to driving). Trains have lot of fat which is not included in their footprint.

[zurn]

This is fiction. At best (long journeys) planes have per-seat co2 emissions comparable to an entire 5-person car, that's 5x. On journeys where planes actually compete with cars, double that. Add to that the 2-4x multiplier (greenhouse effect of co2 injected into upper atmosphere vs ground level).

These aren't controversial numbers, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati... . And really, a plane is more like a bus than a car, where planes lose by a lot more still.

But it's silly to compare to cars as if matching cars would be ok - car co2 emissions are also very bad.

[fractalsea]

Source on air travel being better than cars please.

I'm genuinely curious because I've always been told that flying is worse, and it would be nice to feel less guilty about flying.

Coming to think of it maybe planes are worse because of the fact that, even if driving is worse for the same distance, people are willing to go much further with planes because they are so much faster, and therefore end up polluting more overall.

[altero]

For start why is long distance flight 10x cheaper than train?

Air planes require much less personnel and have no tracks. Trains are still in 60ies with fat unions and zero innovations. Also how is 50 ton airplane less efficient than 5000 ton train?

And if train takes 5 days instead of 5 hours, you should also count in the foot print of person who is traveling. In one sleeping coupe you could fit 6 aircraft passengers...

Sure airplanes do make traveling easier, but that does not make them less efficient.

[blahedo]

No argument on planes being better than driving, but could you give a little more detail on the un-accounted-for "fat" you're attributing to trains?