Yeah. @petter1@discuss.tchncs.de has a valid point but as we all know validity does not equal truth. regular rail is one of the most efficient modes of transit and high speed rail degrades due to the speed but high speed generally does not compete with regular rail as much as air travel due to the long distance which is not more efficient than the high speed rail. In addition high speed rail tends to be electrical while most regular rail is diesel or worse and the electricification alone brings its co2 per personmiles below the low speed. The other thing it competes with or replaces is car travel which it is more efficient than although Im not sure how that plays out with very efficient electric cars but my guess is it still would win by volume for even something like the aptera and of course the high speed rail is going much faster getting you there in timeframes more like air travel.
Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Of course, hi-speed trains are way better than personal cars and airplanes 😄
I just wanted to point out that the “fastest trains in the world” trophy is not something achieved saintly, but because it had to be the “best”, a la make big numbers bigger.
The growth of value for the people is minimal, but the (energy) costs are immense.
With trains, punctuation is way more important than max speed 😇
sunbytes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t know about fastest. Don’t Japan hold that title?
I’m just talking about the scale of them, and the average speed that they can manage (very important when looking at the scale of distances to travel).
HubertManne@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Its not because it had to be the best though. Its because it has to compete with planes. So im not sure what you mean by saintly but it was something needed to be more environmental since planes are not going anywhere.