Flying still cheaper than trains on most EU routes, study finds
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hell, it’s cheaper and faster to fly from Zurich or Munich to Hamburg via Barcelona, London or Dublin.
-
This post did not contain any content.
*shocked pickachu
How do you need a study for that?!
-
Hell, it’s cheaper and faster to fly from Zurich or Munich to Hamburg via Barcelona, London or Dublin.
But why though?
-
*shocked pickachu
How do you need a study for that?!
I understand why you write this, but collecting data is the first step when you want to change something.
Even if a femomenon sounds obvious, maybe it is not. Moreover the study analyses also why this happens, and it is pretty interesting.
-
*shocked pickachu
How do you need a study for that?!
wrote last edited by [email protected]Which is cheaper:
- lift 50 tons of metal off the ground burning 20,000 liters of fuel
- make 50 tons of metal run over the ground using electricity
How is this obvious?
-
But why though?
I'm not sure it's like this everywhere, but many airlines are more focused on financial products (like credit cards) for profit than flights. Here's something about it, no guarantee of quality, but it's enough to get the general idea: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/airlines-banks-mileage-programs/675374/
-
But why though?
Air travel is heavily subsidised, especially through very very very favourable tax rates on aviation fuel
-
But why though?
Direct flights between airports that don't serve as hubs for any airline are generally focused on business travel. If you fly via some airlines hub airport you can get cheaper tickets as the flights are more focused on stuffing as many people into a plane as possible.
-
*shocked pickachu
How do you need a study for that?!
In order to find out the intricacies of WHY, yes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Those price discrepancies are genuinely shocking
-
Hell, it’s cheaper and faster to fly from Zurich or Munich to Hamburg via Barcelona, London or Dublin.
-
*shocked pickachu
How do you need a study for that?!
For cross border routes only 45.9% were always cheaper by plane and for domestic ones only 15.2%.
-
*shocked pickachu
How do you need a study for that?!
See, studies are not there to show something is true. They are there to have a scientifically proven analysis as a base.
It's like when you are at work and everyone knows that meeting xy is inefficient. However, your boss still needs data and a slide deck to present hard facts to the management board.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.
A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.
Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.
300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.
4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.
150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.
It's not renewable but influences the economics.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It'a apples to oranges. Pricing policies are different. Only few get the cheapest airline tickets.
-
There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.
A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.
Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.
300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.
4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.
150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.
It's not renewable but influences the economics.
2 kWp means 2 kilo watt peak. It's the maximum they can produce and in no way the average.
-
There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.
A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.
Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.
300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.
4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.
150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.
It's not renewable but influences the economics.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here -
It's not like rails are in any significant way displacing solar panels.
If one were motivated, you could use the same land for tracks and for solar panels by raising the solar panels above the tracks and catenaries, making double use of the land at the expense of having to build platforms for the panels.
Finally, solar energy can't be used to transport passengers by plane since electric plane travel is not at a mass-market scale (nor is it even certain that they will ever be able to).
-
2 kWp means 2 kilo watt peak. It's the maximum they can produce and in no way the average.
You are right, I considered that.
The average per year is calculated from that number by roughly multiplying with 10 in Europe. I have looked that up and not multiplied by hours in a year.
-
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here -
It's not like rails are in any significant way displacing solar panels.
If one were motivated, you could use the same land for tracks and for solar panels by raising the solar panels above the tracks and catenaries, making double use of the land at the expense of having to build platforms for the panels.
Finally, solar energy can't be used to transport passengers by plane since electric plane travel is not at a mass-market scale (nor is it even certain that they will ever be able to).
The costs of the platforms would significantly reduce the efficiency of the solar cells.
My point is that planes have the advantage of not needing tracks which come with costs. There are the maintenance costs and the costs of not using them otherwise. We shouldn't be surprised if trains can't compete on many connections.
