• Throwaway@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well no. They’re inefficient. Think of the maintence, its ridiculous, even with modern electric trains.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Planes get all sorts of checks done based on hours of flight and we’re talking various levels starting at every-50h for certain things and going all the way to full engine overhauls every few tens of thousands of hours of flight (actual value depends on the engine).

          Even shitty-shit amateur prop planes are incredibly maintenance intensive and it’s worse for commercial aviation.

          The amount of maintenance done for trains is nowhere comparable to that and the reason is pretty obvious: a mechanical or structural failure in a plane in use has a very high likelihood of killing everybody in it, whilst for a train, it’s only some kind of failures in some subsystems in highspeed trains that might cause accidents with that many dead.

          “Assertive laughable ignorance” doesn’t even begin to describe the quality of your posts on this subject.

    • Lemmilicious@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      “inefficient”, yet consume much less energy than planes for the same route. You seem to be using a very odd definition of efficiency!

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason planes are cheaper is governments subsidize them. Don’t collect proper taxes on fuel and sales taxes. Trains don’t get the same treatment. Trains are actually more effecient, physics is a real thing. It takes a ton more fuel to keep a plane in the air. The only way it’s less efficient is if you are comparing a near empty train to a full plain.