• ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
    634·
    2 days ago

    You listed “Transit Enthusiasts” and “Bottoms” as if that isn’t the same thing

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    2 days ago

    I’m not afraid of flying. I’m too big for the planes. Trains are much nicer for people more than two standard deviations taller than average.

  • Lemmilicious@feddit.nu
    7·
    2 days ago

    Haha I’m scared of sounding like I don’t like high speed rail, which I do! I love trains in general, I’m interrailing right now! Buuut I felt this was a relevant place to link this fascinating article (slightly click-baity headline) about how high speed rail in Europe is actually not constructed in a very good way, because it ends up eliminating many of the positive sides with the European railway network: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network/

    Edit: fixed typo

      • Lemmilicious@feddit.nu
        1·
        3 hours ago

        That’s really a great article, thanks for the link!

        Still, there’s plenty of criticism in the article I linked that is not touched on, I hardly think it becomes irrelevant by reading Jon Worth’s writing! Even with his proposals I’m really not sure if we would get back the cheap and still relatively fast connections that have been removed. To me there’s not a clear benefit to getting rid of the old “low-speed” rail even if we fix SNCF.

    • AbsentBird@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Is it really hurting the low speed networks? I would imagine there are many stations that high speed rail doesn’t go to. Let goods travel long distance low speed, let people go fast.

      • Lemmilicious@feddit.nu
        1·
        3 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.eeEnglish
          1·
          2 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.

  • 56!@lemmy.ml
    79·
    2 days ago

    From my experience, environmentalists don’t like large construction projects of any kind.

    Edit: This comment is based on growing up with environmentalist parents who strongly dislike HS2.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      17·
      2 days ago

      Funny, as I’m a staunch environmentalist, and I’m fine with large projects if they have a few things:

      • a purpose that serves society (and not just shareholders)
      • a plan for mitigating environmental impacts (e.g., and environmental impact assessment --> environmental management plans)
      • A compensation and offsetting plan for impacts that can’t be mitigated
      • A plan for closure and reclamation
    • Phineaz@feddit.org
      14·
      2 days ago

      It depends on the kind. There are groups that would prefer to see human presence reduced to a speck so nature can thrive. There are groups that somehow care for one single bog or meadow but fail to see the bigger picture. There are also those that simply want to protect everything and do support large projects provided they fulfill a lot of regulations. There are also people such as myself who have given themselves to Realpolitik: Local environmentalism is pointless if global protection fails (some drama added for effect)

      • 56!@lemmy.ml
        2·
        2 days ago

        There are groups that somehow care for one single bog or meadow but fail to see the bigger picture

        This is mainly what I was thinking about. People care a lot more about things local to them, rather than a railway which probably won’t have any nearby stations.