Hacker News Reader

Comment by melling | Hacker News Reader

I live 4 miles from work. I left my house at 8:20am and arrived in my office at 9:25am.

Try to grab a train from San Francisco to LA. That's about 400 miles. How long would you expect that to take in this future of which you speak?

View on HN

Yes, flying is quick, but the more people who fly the larger the airports you need, and large airports need to be situated outside of urban centers.

Getting the Eurostar from London to Paris would take you no more than three hours (2:15 for the journey, checking in 45 minutes before departure). Flying from London to Paris would take two hours (1:15 for the journey, again checking in 45 minutes before departure), but you've got to get to and from the airport, whereas the train is taking you directly into the city.

Across medium distances (SF to LA, Paris to London, etc) high speed rail typically provides better passenger comfort, lower CO2 emissions, and travel times as fast as flying once you factor in transit.

From London's business district, it is actually faster to get to London City Airport than St. Pancras station for the Eurostar.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact that St. Pancras where the Eurostar terminates is one of the only train stations in London which is located such that trains heading out need to "turn around" to get where they are going. You'd think the Eurostar would terminate south-east of London since that's where the train travels, but this one breaks the rules.

Oh, and EasyJet is probably cheaper than Eurostar to Paris if you don't have a lot of advance notice. I still love the trains, but you didn't pick the best example!

The Erostar terminates in North London so that the vast majority of its passengers who are from north of London don't have to get across the city. Despite heading in the wrong direction its quicker than the underground.

You have ebbsfleet and Ashford for passengers from south of the city.

I'm having a hard time understanding your justification. Ebbsfleet is 25 miles ESE of London (Ashford 50+ miles), with no local (TfL) connections. I'm also curious to know the basis for your claim that "the vast majority" of Eurostar customers are from north of London. I hear lots of people live in Surrey, not to mention London proper.

My point is that London is the south east, by bringing the erostar round to north London it is easer for the whole country to use. There is probably an argument that they should have a station in South London but the Erostar is there to cater to the whole country, not just london.

Eurostar terminating in North London is because they wanted the high speed line to run to the East of London so it would be easier to connect it to the North of the UK for further possible direct links from Manchester/Liverpool/etc.

Also, it would have cost vastly more to put full high speed lines required in most of the way to London Waterloo.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

" The next plan for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link involved a tunnel reaching London from the south-east, and an underground terminus in the vicinity of Kings Cross station. However a late change in the plans, principally driven by the then Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine's desire for urban regeneration in east London, led to a change of route, with the new line approaching London from the east. This opened the possibility of reusing the underused St Pancras station as the terminus, with access via the North London Line that crosses the throat of the station.[26] "

> I live 4 miles from work. I left my house at 8:20am and arrived in my office at 9:25am.

You walked to work? Good on you... ;)

Or he lives RIGHT on the edge of a timezone ;)

Perhaps the future isn't evenly distributed.

Regarding the article, I'd like to see them plot the rate-of-change: how long it took to go from a month to a week to a day and so on, and then continue it into the present day. I think we've hit something of a cap on speed.

Not necessarily. IIRC, outside of the East Coast corridor, the rails only allow the trains to go ~35mph. There are also high-speed / bullet trains as well, none of which are available in the US (for now).

The train from LA to Flagstaff hits 70+mph at times, though the average is around 50mph once you factor in stops and waiting for freight to pass.

The biggest thing slowing down US passenger trains is that the routes are leased from freight lines and the freight trains take priority.

And inside the East Coast corridor, regular bicycles are prohibited on all Amtrak trains at all times. I would literally pay an extra $50 per bicycle round trip if they offered it, but they do not. Oh, and the train from NYC to Montreal runs slowly, which gives it an ideal duration for a night service, but none is ever offered. You have to do the 12-hour trip during the day, which for working people is nonsensical.

The future is rarely evenly distributed.

Have you considered biking? If the terrain is somewhat flat I guess it would take about half the time, and you will get daily, light exercise as an added bonus.

Edit: Also, I would be interested to know how long it would take by bike if you happen to know :-)

If you value the precious few minutes you have on this Earth, I suggest you get a job on the Internet instead of whatever the hell you're doing now.

If you jog you can get there in 30 minutes. :)

For reference, the plane flight itself was 2 hours. I didn't know I was going until 3 PM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com