this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
959 points (98.1% liked)
Greentext
6548 readers
1142 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I fly because it's fast, not because I like airplanes. Even the fastest train is way too slow to replace a plane for a long-distance trip. Then for shorter distances cars win out because of how convenient they are. There's no niche for passenger trains except for commuting into urban areas with no parking.
It doesn't help that in the USA train tickets seem to cost more than plane tickets. I think I'd still usually fly even if the train was free, so I'm certainly not going to pay extra for a slower method of transportation even if it is a little more comfortable.
Depends what you are thinking of as long distance. NY to LA? Sure. NY to Chicago would be 4-4.5 hours, downtown to downtown, with a proper train (typical French TGV speeds of 330 kmh / 205 mph). Faster than flying when you count the time and cost of getting to the airport etc., and that's by no means the fastest train. The fastest lines of the Shinkansen and the next generation TGV they're planning in France are over 1.5 times as fast as that.
Exactly this. People too often compare price and time of "train ride" vs. "flight", which the flight often wins. You need to compare the full travel, and train travel has a lot less overhead, which means a train travelling 100-200 km/h usually wins on stretches below 500 km.
But 500 km (or rather 310 miles since I'm in the USA) is at the upper end of the distance I'd drive. There isn't a distance for which a train is better than both flying and driving.
With what I've heard about the train infrastructure in the US, that doesn't surprise me. Personally, I only ever use a car if I'm travelling into the mountains or transporting a lot of luggage. I never drive if I'm travelling between cities with little luggage, if only because it's much less of a hassle to just hop on a train and get where I'm going.
So in most Western European countries I think that limit is actually more like 1000km, or if it includes crossing France even more than that, or if you're not close to the airport too. Beyond about 7 hours of train, flying starts to be faster and more convenient, most people around here find, but you can get quite far with a train in that time. I appreciate the current situation in the US isn't the same and it would cost money to upgrade the network, but I think the rest of the world does show that it's actually worthwhile.
It depends on what you mean by "shorter distances".
Going from Amsterdam to Paris by train is about the same time as going by plane, and actually a bit faster if you show up to the flight two hours early as recommend.
I've only flown couple of times and I like the way it feels during take off.
Guess I'm the opposite.