this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
719 points (97.1% liked)

People Twitter

8289 readers
1159 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 39 points 2 days ago (4 children)

could have this if politicians didn't fight high speed rail so much

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world 31 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm a fan of high speed rail too, but I also wonder if it's ever going to be comparable to flying for long distances like this.

Like, even traveling in a direct line on a plane (which averages 600mph, or 2-3x the average speed of high speed rail), it still takes 6 hours from NYC to LA.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Anything under about 500 km is better by train. While the train is slower, once you count getting to and from the airport and in and out of the plane, you're still faster overall. Above that the plane will usually be faster. If you take the environmental cost into account, the train always wins.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's a direct train from Beijing to Kunming that's 11 hours, 1700 miles.

NYC to LA would be ~50% more, so you could do a high-speed sleeper.

But no, at that distance, flying is probably better.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Keep in mind that trains don't require extensive security checks and checking in times though.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

trains don’t require extensive security checks

[laughs in chinese]

checking in times though.

In the US, I regularly caught domestic flights arriving <1hr before departure, I don't think a 18 hour high speed train can compete with a 6 hour flight.

Then again, I just looked at the high speed trains from Beijing to Kunming for the next few days, and while none of the trains are booked solid, a lot of business and first class seats are sold out or <10 left.

Meanwhile a flight goes for less than half the price and takes <4 hours.

So IDK why that route even exists, let alone why anyone would choose it over a plane, but apparently they do.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Do people take the train for the entire trip, or do most get on/off as it goes? I have used trains that cross the entire country (UK) before but never used them from start to end.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Its difficult to get off the plane half way, though not impossible.

Keep in mind that trains don’t require extensive security checks and checking in times though.

pfft tell that to avalanche and jessie rasberry

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

As soon as Elon Musk builds his Hyperloop, we'll be traveling from NYC to LA in just a few hours. /s

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've never considered myself claustrophobic, but the mockups of Hyperloop I've seen freak me out a little.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Not claustrophobic at all, but the idea of entering that engineering system has me bugging.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Honestly, if trains were 1/3 as fast as planes, I'd take them.

My family lives about 800 miles away (by car, less as the crow flies), which takes about 14 hours by car, 2.5 hours by plane, and 45 hours by train (36 moving time). To be fair, it covers more ground (almost 2x at ~1400 miles), but driving that same roite would only be ~22 hours. To make up for the extra distance, the train would need to go about twice the speed, so 120-150mph, to match driving, which is completely feasible. If I could do that trip via train in one day, I'd do it vs taking the plane.

I don't think expecting trains to go 2-3x the speed of cars is unreasonable. I'd still probably take an airplane for longer trips, but anything within 1k miles or so should be reasonable to do by rail.

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

commercial planes are a bit subsonic, you're asking for 300-400 km/h trains. high speed rail is like 200 km/h

[–] Alfredolin@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

Although it is true the definitions for high speed trains mention 200km/h, it is good to know many lines exist with 300km/h or above as speed limit (and the speed limit is regularly driven on these lines).

High speed rail is enough for medium size trips that I would normally drive. When driving isn't feasible (more than 800 miles or so), I'd need faster than typical high speed rail.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

There is a point where planes become the better choice and transcontinental is definitely one of them.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 15 points 2 days ago

If only the train autistic people had took over the country instead of the nazi ones.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Those trains would have to be supersonic though, to do it all in one day.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You'd need a train going 1100mph (3x faster than the fastest current train) to make Miami to Las Vegas in 2 hours, but sure.

[–] Alenalda@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For reference that's like 1.5 times the speed of sound at sea level.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Oh look dear, the mach 1.5 train is going by again.

[–] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That looks like a fun gif, where'd ya get it?

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

It's from an anime called Chainsaw Man.

Fun fact: This scene is from the aftermath of the first and only attack by the devil named Gun, who stands in as a metaphor for gun violence (not very subtle, but that's the point)

[–] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 20 hours ago

Lol, in the manga I think it was crazier than this. There was just an immense scar across an entire continent in a straight line, as if a mile wide bulldozer just drove across everything. I don't remember if it targeted a government official or not, but I vaguely

spoilerremember control planting a piece of the gun devil as a lure.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

More like you would have your eardrums sent into a different dimension.