Post #1083791

2026-04-12 01:08 UTC

How odd (and maybe disheartening) to consider that it can be cheaper to fly and expend all the energy need to lift a big metal tube up into the air and back down, than it is to travel along the rails.

Replies (2)

@jacksilver@lemmy.world 2026-04-13 14:47

I feel like people forget how much infrastructure is required to keep high speed rail running. Not only do you need the stations, but the tracks (bridges, tunnels, etc.) all need to be maintained. Additionally, when doing maintenance you can’t run the line, so you either need extra capacity so you don’t disrupt service or you end up with times you have to shut lines down. In comparison, planes just need a strip of flat land at takeoff and landing (you technically don’t even need an airport). You’re primary bottleneck is how fast you can get planes on/off the tarmac. One of the other big issues in rail vs plane is that high speed rail only works at certain grade levels and turn radiuses. So for example, I believe you couldn’t convert the existing northeast corridor in the US to 300mph rail from end to end simply due to the geography. You’d need to create a new route. Looking it up there are speed limits around 30-40mph for Amtrak around Baltimore and Wilmington.

Open ##1128806
@FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 2026-04-12 01:24

That tends to be the case though. Even in Europe that's true in many cases. I think so far only France has legislation on the books that makes it illegal for airfare to beat trainfare under a certain distance.

Open ##1957148