I'll try my best: S I M I L A R I T I E S : 1) Air and rail both get you to your destination. 2) Both receive govt. subsidies (although they are [a lot] less for rail in the US. 3) Both have hubs, and stations/airports. D I F F E R E N C E S : 1) Comfort wise, trains have more room for people to move around in and stretch out in. 2) Planes travel faster (although some foreign countries have trains which average 150MPH or so.) 3) Rails are mostly laid on land, with some over and underwater passages. Planes can travel between countries/continents.
Other people can probably get more in depth, but I hope this helps! Eric
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember the Land Grants from the US Government to the Pacific Railroads. Those were MAJOR MUSCLE GROUP subsidies... just 150 years old.
Given the time factors post Sept 11, I would say total travel time is faster by air above the 800 mile linear distance. Becki, you'll have to play with that number a tad to see where the breakpoint is ... considering we have to be at the airport 2 hours before wheels-up these days.
Good hunting on the paper, John
quote:Originally posted by Eric: I think you meant "Air vs. Rail"...
I'll try my best: S I M I L A R I T I E S : 1) Air and rail both get you to your destination. 2) Both receive govt. subsidies (although they are [a lot] less for rail in the US. 3) Both have hubs, and stations/airports. D I F F E R E N C E S : 1) Comfort wise, trains have more room for people to move around in and stretch out in. 2) Planes travel faster (although some foreign countries have trains which average 150MPH or so.) 3) Rails are mostly laid on land, with some over and underwater passages. Planes can travel between countries/continents.
Other people can probably get more in depth, but I hope this helps! Eric
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
posted
Yummykatz, you might research the dimensions of railcars and airliners. I did that a few months ago and can give you some ballpark figures, but not exact ones (I lost the details). I found the airliner dimensions at the Boeing web site. A narrow body airliner, such as a Boeing 737 seats six abreast in a cabin a little over 12 feet wide. An Amtrak Superliner coach seats 4 abreast in a space a little over 10 feet wide.
Some more differences: Trains with diners have kitchens on board for actual cooking. Airliners use pre-packeged meals which are heated up.
Trains offer opportunities to mingle with all passengers, not just the person next to you.
Trains take you through some of the most beautiful parts of the country, and some of the ugliest parts of the cities. Trains allow you to see things you can't from either a plane or a freeway. There's more "real life" along a rail line.
Planes give you a unique perspective on large geological formations (such as mountain ranges), the overall layout of cities, and the like.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
"Remember the Land Grants from the US Government to the Pacific Railroads. Those were MAJOR MUSCLE GROUP subsidies... just 150 years old."
Not really that much of a subsidy. The government granted the railroads alternate sections along the proposed rail routes, keeping the remaning sections. The land was isolated -- and therefore worth very little -- without the railroad, and since the government kept half the land along the railroads, they reaped the benefits of their construction.
Posts: 22 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Similarities: The 'good': An 'adventure' for those of us who enjoy travel (or at least don't mind it too much) The 'bad': Both do a rather poor job of announcing and explaining delays to passengers. A periodic PA announcement would go a long way to keeping people informed. More often than not, the PA stays silent as the delays get longer...and longer
Differences: Airports generally look 'safer' than train stations. Airports tend to be newer, and hence are better designed for getting around. Train stations, on the other hand, are often located in 'old downtowns'. Some of the locations are just flat-out unsafe! Some train station locations advise you to "wait in your car" for arriving train passengers, rather than outside on the platform, because of personal safety issues (i.e. thugs in the neighborhood). You never hear that advice about an airport! Grafitti: This 'social problem' has continued to worsen in the last 20 years. Though airplanes suffer minor etching and scrawls in the bathrooms, it is no comparison to the giant-sized multi-color spray painting you will see on rail facilities and freight equipment. Sense of adventure: Trains win this hands down. In spite of the troubles listed above, a (non-delayed) train ride is truly more enjoyable than an air journey. There's just more to see!
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think MPalmer said it perfectly. I will agree with everything he said. I will add that even when a train is late, it still wins hands down in the "Sense of Adventure" category, as long as you are prepared for it to be late.
The lack of PA announcements has been a complaint of mine for a long time in both planes and trains. One time, while landing in fog, our plane suddenly took off again and made a loop around the airport, then landed. We figured that the pilot was not lined up correctly and at the last minute went around for another try, but we were never told. Even after we landed, I tried to ask crew members about it, and nobody would say a thing. I think passengers have a right to know why things like that happen.
posted
Konstantin, I doubt your plane was not lined up correctly. In fog they use instrument landing systems (ILS) which define a very specific glidepath. It would be extremely difficult for a pilot and air traffic controllers to not know he was aimed right.
What is more likely is that there was an obstruction on the runway or another plane in the landing pattern and the landing had to be aborted when the pilot discovered it. In that case I can understand why they wouldn't explain it, because that would be a severe, potentially catastrophic failure of air and ground control coordination.
If there were severe winds or thunderstorms in the vicinity there may have been a wind shear problem, but you would have felt a sudden drop. Plus fog is usually accompanied by relatively calm air. I live near an airport and in windy conditions I have often seen planes make multiple attempts. One time I hard a pilot on the radio give up after his third attempt and he went to an inland airport.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
A plane aborting a landing because of something on the runway is NOT necessarily dangerous. Busy airports can have several planes a few miles apart coming in to land. Each plane obviously has to get out the way of the next coming in to land, and if it isn't quite quick enough, the next plane may have to abort and go around again, either the pilot deciding to do so, or on command of the air traffic controllers. It happens regularly. Of course, there could be many other explanations, but this is just one possible explanation.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trains are not only more comfortable than airplanes they are a cheaper way to move more people with less fuel. The country is nicer to look at, clouds or patches of brown & green don't do much for me. The idea of being in a flying pipe is not my idea of fun.
Posts: 6 | From: Dry ridge , Ky,USA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
