Do you really save time? Train versus plane

[Niflmir]

Well, you have to consider that whatever time it would take you to get to the train station, it would also take you to get to the air port, assuming that they are located in similar places, which is false. Most airports are more remote because of the noise, so it would take longer to get there. Plus whatever time you add to the total makes the difference in time even more marginal in comparision to the total, favoring the trains.

So, the chart is in fact biased, in favor of flight.

As to the climate factor, engineers are quite clever people. Railway beds can be built in such a way that they are far less sensitive to frost heaving.

In other news, I am now a preferred customer of Deutsch Bahn. Now while I wait the 10-15 minutes for my train, if I arrive early, I get free coffee in their lounges.

 

[Polygong]

Ideally, I would like to see Via Rail send a few key employees for a year or so to Europe to learn how to run a train system properly. Or have a few of them come over here and teach. Not Britain though, British Rail is in dire need of improvement as well.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Well, you have to consider that whatever time it would take you to get to the train station, it would also take you to get to the air port, assuming that they are located in similar places, which is false. Most airports are more remote because of the noise, so it would take longer to get there. Plus whatever time you add to the total makes the difference in time even more marginal in comparision to the total, favoring the trains.

So, the chart is in fact biased, in favor of flight.

Well, the chart shows the staring point as the City center, which is as close as you can get to the train station, look closely and you'll see that there is a time to get to the airport and not the train station, you are already there according to it. It is definately bias in favour of rail.

As to the climate factor, engineers are quite clever people. Railway beds can be built in such a way that they are far less sensitive to frost heaving.

They aren't that clever, and geology differs grealy over small distances. In Europe the distances are quite short and managable for whoever runs the railroads. I our country a flight from Saskatoon to Winnipeg, crossing one half each of two provinces would be equivilant to flying from Berlin to Zagreb traversing 5 countries. We simply do not have the population density to support the maintenance of rail beds in our climate, in fact, neither does the US. That is why we cant compare ourselves to Europe and Asia.

It boils down to the question of "who is going to pay for it?". If the government pays for the infrastructure for rail travel, then the airline industry has every right to demand the same consideration.

In other news, I am now a preferred customer of Deutsch Bahn. Now while I wait the 10-15 minutes for my train, if I arrive early, I get free coffee in their lounges.

I live close to our airport, I can be there in 15 minutes, security is the wild card, but as long as I'm at the gate 20 minutes before departure I can get my upgrade to J class. Do it enough and you get good at it.;-)

 

[Tonington]

The bias is built in, now can you imagine 8,000,000 people in New York living in the city centre, it would be pretty crowded. If they took the average time to travel to the city centre from the outlying areas, where real people have to travel to or from at least once on their trip, (because not many folks live in downtown office buildings) it might not only be not so lopsided but may have a little reality thrown in. As it is, yes the variability between cities is minimized, but not when comparing apples to oranges.

Your method is also introducing bias. Not everyone lives on the edge of a city. In fact most do not live on the outer perimeter.

In any case, even if we went with your suggestion, or eliminated that portion of the allocation altogether, how has that changed the outcome in these three cases? Nothing has changed except the magnitude by which rail is still faster than air travel for medium range travel.

 

[Niflmir]

Well, the chart shows the staring point as the City center, which is as close as you can get to the train station, look closely and you'll see that there is a time to get to the airport and not the train station, you are already there according to it. It is definately bias in favour of rail.

Oh, you're right. They actually take it into consideration. It is not biased then--it is the genuine average. Or are you trying to argue that on average people live closer to the airport than the city centre?

People in Canada and the US could easily afford the maintenance if we drove less.

 

[Trex]

I love trains.
I highly recommend them.

As a Canadian consultant doing foreign work I fly constantly.
As a result I hate planes.
They are buses with wings.
Except buses have more leg room , more elbow room and are more comfortable.
And buses are cleaner.
But still I will admit buses suck.
Personally I rarely take a bus.

Trains are the answer.
Lets compare a train station to an airport.
Train stations are usually somewhat interesting and some European ones are architecturally fascinating.
International airports are horrible, crowded places full of sneezing people and eager strip search and groping afficianadoes .
And who ever had their bags lost on a train?

Sleeper trains are the best.
The tic,tic,tic of the rails and the gentle rocking puts me out like a light.
Beats the hell out of muscle spasms and blood clots back in coach on a transatlantic flight.

As a frequent flier I get bumped up to first class somewhat regularly.
Or I get a cheap upgrade.
The full blown sleeper pods in some newer first class sections are fine.
But whats to see?

Trains are the answer.
I highly recommend them.

Trex

 

[Johnnny]

i hate planes, and i especially hate the flight from Pearson to Vancouver airport!!!!! But i once had to fly from Vancouver to seoul and that was the worst 11 hours of my life.......

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm sorry L Gilbert, the way I have my computer set up the posts go from last on the top to first on the bottom and this chart was below, but here it is again

Oh that one. Didn't realize you were speaking of the same chart as Ton. Blonde moment. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

Um, is there any place with worse frost heaves or more varied extremes in climate than Canada?Roadbeds are engineered quite well to accommodate extreme heat and extreme cold. The machinery is more vulnerable. It also gets quite cold in the air: hence the specialized equipment like deicers for wings n stuff.

 

[Polygong]

Worse, no. But Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia have just the same issues.

 

[L Gilbert]

I would imagine, yes. I would imagine they've solved their issues with climactic effects on their railbeds, too.