this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
70 points (85.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9672 readers
4 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

One of those crashing while going "faster than an airplane" would seem more catastrophic than an airplane crashing.

Are these bullet trains safer than planes or as dangerous as regular trains?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Japan's bullet trains have famously never had a fatal crash in it's 59 year history.

This cannot be said of their conventional trains.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's what I wanted to hear! Amazing.

Hopefully, China's trains are as good as Japan's 😬

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These also have less probability of crashing than commercial airplanes.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh... Considering the Transrapid's fatal crash and it's very few operating hours, I can't imagine that to be true.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don't see your logic. That's like the only fatal Maglev crash so far and not even a commercial one (it's a test track). Every airplane also has limited operating hours.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you know how much maintenance and regulation goes into airplane management? All those regulations have been written blood.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

They would make a decent start on regulations for high speed rail. In addition to the regulations that have made existing high speed rail safe...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Trains derail on occasion. Planes crash on occasion. But at least with trains we're not accelerating the death of the planet

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But at least with trains we’re not accelerating the death of the planet

A mag lev train doing 500+mph is going to need a lot more energy than a normal train. It will probably be less than the plane but I'm thinking it won't be as much less as you might think.

Thae train is also doing those speeds at sea level vs the plane doing them at 35,000ft or higher, where there's less than 1/4 the atmosphere to fight.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's way less than planes wayyy less than lots of cars. In fact maglev trains use less energy than normal trains. This is because they do not make direct contact with the track, and less energy is required to pull them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much is required to keep it floating?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At 480 km/h (about 300 mph) 0.4 megajoules per passenger mile, all things combined including power to track, according to Stanford. Also apparently the energy needed increases at lower speeds due to something about lift.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

For reference https://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/January2019.pdf says

Jet airliners are surprisingly efficient, commonly requiring around 2 MJ/pkm (=3.22 MJ/pmile). With full flights and the latest airplane designs, they can do it at less than 1.5 MJ/pkm (=2.41 MJ/pmile)

So 6x is still a big difference. Not sure what I expected, but maybe this is smaller.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trains don't leave exhaust in the upper parts of the atmosphere, though, and depending on how the electricity was created, it could be neither did its energy source—though I suppose there's no avoiding that manufacturing any kind of plant and the train itself did cause emissions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@flux @QuinceDaPence Concrete and steel (for stations, track, etc) matter. So does the electricity used to maintain stations, not just propel the train. So lifecycle emissions of a train are immensely complicated, plus then you get into how to route a new rail line without destroying too many ecosystems.

Even so, clean electricity is the easy bit compared to making planes clean. More trains please.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@flux @QuinceDaPence The other common gotcha with new train lines (e.g. HS2) is:

What if we get a modal shift from internal flights to trains? If air demand is constrained by supply (i.e. landing slots), that means there will be more long-haul flights, and overall emissions increase!

There is some truth in this. But it just means we need to drastically reduce our aviation capacity, and increase prices, at the same time as building more train lines. We could start with a frequent flyer levy.

[–] ScorpionFrog 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The planet will be here long after we've died out

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

We can still make the bed before we leave though

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

As far as I am aware no country on earth is CO2 neutral, so for these trains the emissions are still positive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's the reason for this assumption?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

What assumption? It was just a thought, followed by a question.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's a maglev "train". Quite different technology and hard to derail at least. But yes there have been fatal accidents with maglev trains before.