Comment on How soon do you get there?
Egonallanon@feddit.uk 17 hours ago
Shit like this is why I avoid flying wherever possible. Such a miserable experience. I yearn for the day they finally somehow build that train tunnel across the Atlantic.
There is no way in the name of all that is good and holy in this fucking world I’m getting in a 3000 mile tunnel under the ocean.
Would it be any less safe than flying? Probably not. But for some reason I would rather fall out of the sky and die than be crushed and drown.
Honestly it probably would be way less safe because the network of pumps and fans and whatnot that would be needed to keep that tunnel both DRY and oxygenated would be insane. I’m also pretty sure the trains would need to be built like submarines to prevent the atmosphereic pressure from crushing them? Or maybe the tunnel? It honestly seems like an engineering nightmare.
If it were built at all, which it won’t be, a tunnel collapsing under the sea would be one of the most instantaneous deaths you could ask for. Like that billionaire tourist sub at the Titanic. Immediately crushed and gone.
DekSomBoon@lemmy.today 17 hours ago
This is also why travelling by train can often be overall faster than plane, despite the train being slower. The station is in the middle of the city, no security check, the platforms are closer to the street, etc.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 17 hours ago
If the two locations are close maybe, but most of the time I would say theyre not remotely as fast.
You can fly from New York to LA in 6 hours. On a train it would take like 3 days
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
Depends on what type of train it is. A passenger aeroplane travels around 800 km/hr, a ‘typical’ train about 150-200. However, the commercial high-speed Fuxing reaches an average speed of 320 km/hr, enabling to go from Beijing to Nanjing (1,020 km) in 3.2 hours.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
Meanwhile Amtrak trains: 74mph, unless you’re on the Acela, then top is 150mph.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 14 hours ago
Only because US train system is biased toward freight.
Not complaining, it is what it is.
That said, I don’t see any pragmatic way to build passenger high-speed rail across the US. Every state would want it to run for them - otherwise they won’t support it. Then every city, etc.
XiJinpingStanAccount@lemmy.ml 13 hours ago
Image
The US rail network is already kind of a disaster. A lot of major cities don’t even have passenger rail stations at all. There are entire STATES that don’t have a single amtrack station lol.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 11 hours ago
It would be most feasible to have like three high speed trains in the US. Up and down both coasts, and then east coast to west coast through the midwest, Denver, SLC etc.
That alone would be enough to replace a ton of car and plane trips, even if it didn’t provide service everywhere
DekSomBoon@lemmy.today 16 hours ago
Okay yea “often” was bit of an exaggeration on my part
wieson@feddit.org 16 hours ago
I suspect DekSomBoon is talking about sensible countries
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 15 hours ago
If, in this context, “sensible” means “smaller than half of Texas” maybe…
brian@programming.dev 12 hours ago
unless you’re in the US riding Amtrak. it’s never not been delayed for me, frequently by several hours
NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
100% I’ll just aim to be at the station 15-30min before boarding and even then I’m usually early