Using trains for transporting humans has never been profitable; it came about as an after thought when trains were the new hot tech, since the rails were already in place and the cabin of a stagecoach could be easily mounted on a railcarriage. There were even models built for quick swotching between rail and coach.
Trains are best suited for transporting goods, though places like Japan or South Korea might make that a lie.
If the Greens were serious about environmentally sound transports for humans, they'd endorse modernised zeppelins.
As a long-term 'customer' of the 'services' rendered by Deutsche Bahn, I'm in full agreement.
Also, what's so awesome about this posting is this: it is taken for granted that, first, that taking the train is somehow 'green', but--where's the electricity coming from? Sure, the socket, but in Germany, there's a sizeable share of lignite-deriving 'dirty' fuel involved.
Second, the shipping industry doesn't suffer from the same range of 'green' policies as the airline industry; typically, whatever oil that cannot be 'refined' is typically used to propel ships.
So, I for one would really like to see the 'carbon footprint' of these 48+ hour connections relative to air travel.
With modern filters and exhaust-cleaning technology, it is highly probable that a wood-powered steam-engine would be "greener" than an electrical train, if we don't calculate using tons/unit of energy/distance.
What I have failed to understand is why there's been no attempt do develop locomotives with a small nuclear reactor onboard. It would remove so much of potential logistical problems with railroads.
On the other hand, I'm no techno-magos or engine-seer so maybe it's just not feasible.
Using trains for transporting humans has never been profitable; it came about as an after thought when trains were the new hot tech, since the rails were already in place and the cabin of a stagecoach could be easily mounted on a railcarriage. There were even models built for quick swotching between rail and coach.
Trains are best suited for transporting goods, though places like Japan or South Korea might make that a lie.
If the Greens were serious about environmentally sound transports for humans, they'd endorse modernised zeppelins.
Don't make matters more complicated than they are already (see my above reply to cm27874.
You're, of course, correct.
Hey, that's one of our German ICE trains in the picture! Explains the 48 hours.
As a long-term 'customer' of the 'services' rendered by Deutsche Bahn, I'm in full agreement.
Also, what's so awesome about this posting is this: it is taken for granted that, first, that taking the train is somehow 'green', but--where's the electricity coming from? Sure, the socket, but in Germany, there's a sizeable share of lignite-deriving 'dirty' fuel involved.
Second, the shipping industry doesn't suffer from the same range of 'green' policies as the airline industry; typically, whatever oil that cannot be 'refined' is typically used to propel ships.
So, I for one would really like to see the 'carbon footprint' of these 48+ hour connections relative to air travel.
Sigh.
With modern filters and exhaust-cleaning technology, it is highly probable that a wood-powered steam-engine would be "greener" than an electrical train, if we don't calculate using tons/unit of energy/distance.
What I have failed to understand is why there's been no attempt do develop locomotives with a small nuclear reactor onboard. It would remove so much of potential logistical problems with railroads.
On the other hand, I'm no techno-magos or engine-seer so maybe it's just not feasible.
I remember Greta Thunberg crossing the Atlantic Ocean by boat, while her entourage (i.e., PR team) took the plane.