this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
411 points (97.2% liked)
People Twitter
8280 readers
2061 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
commercial planes are a bit subsonic, you're asking for 300-400 km/h trains. high speed rail is like 200 km/h
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.