• Lemmilicious@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    So the article is very long so let me TL;DR a little. It mentions that when high speed rail is build, existing low-speed rails are often removed. Those removes routes are a little slower but often MUCH cheaper. I would say, like the author, that more expensive trains that are a little faster doesn’t rhyme well with “let people go fast”. He also has examples of night trains being removed in favour of a high speed rail, which hardly is a time-save if you count sleeping at night! Great examples in the article.

    High speed rail doesn’t have to hurt low-speed rail, it just has the way we’ve been doing it in Europe.

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Hmm. I see the argument, but it seems to be more like an issue with pricing than a flaw with HSR. Once high speed track is in service it should be able to run plenty of trains all around the clock, I can see how it could make low speed rail seem redundant.

      I’d think it would make more sense to keep the low speed tracks and use them for freight, and also make high speed rail cheaper to ride.

      • Lemmilicious@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t disagree with you, I didn’t mean to say that there’s no way of HSR being good, just that maybe we’re not doing it quite right! Maybe just fixing pricing would be possible, I don’t know what. I also don’t know if they actually got rid of the old tracks or just of the train route. I just want both HSR and the old trains back haha!