752
A leisurely trip (media.piefed.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 161 points 1 week ago

Why not just take the High Speed Rail and get there in 45 minutes instead?

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 78 points 1 week ago

Hey now, don't knock the Big Boy. He could reach 80mph, that's much faster than most of our rail in the US.

Oh, I'm just kidding. I've only gotten to see 4014 up close once but man is it impressive.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 29 points 1 week ago

back when America knew how to dominate the rail scene

The US still dominates freight rail.

[-] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 week ago

When this baby hits 88Mph, you’re gonna see some serious shit

[-] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

Eastwood, Clint Eastwood.

Nice to meet you Mr Estwoud.

idk if I want to ride a train that goes at Mach 2.3 personally.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago

I'll wait until it's proven, then I'll go find a g suit.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 days ago

Speed doesn't hurt. Acceleration does. As long as it's made to accelerate reasonably slowly to reach that speed, you'll be fine.

That's gonna be a while. Current speed record from what I see for passenger trains is around 350 miles per hour. The quick math I did for getting from NYC to Miami in 45 minutes needed like 1,700mph. From what I'm seeing even the experimental stuff right now doesn't get above 400mph.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago
[-] EldritchFeminity 2 points 6 days ago

Laughs in supercruise

Concorde is a tailless aircraft design with a narrow fuselage permitting four-abreast seating for 92 to 128 passengers, an ogival delta wing, and a droop nose for landing visibility. It is powered by four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 turbojets with variable engine intake ramps, and reheat for take-off and acceleration to supersonic speed. Constructed from aluminium, it was the first airliner to have analogue fly-by-wire flight controls. The airliner had transatlantic range while supercruising at twice the speed of sound for 75% of the distance.[5]

The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996, aided by a 175 mph (282 km/h) tailwind, by the British Airways G-BOAD, in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from take-off to touchdown.[227] On 13 February 1985, a Concorde charter flight flew from London Heathrow to Sydney in a time of 17 hours, 3 minutes and 45 seconds, including refuelling stops.[228][229]

Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft without using afterburner. Many supersonic military aircraft are not capable of supercruise and can maintain Mach 1+ flight only in short bursts with afterburners. Aircraft such as the SR-71 Blackbird are designed to cruise at supersonic speed with afterburners enabled.

Some fighter jets are capable of supercruise but only at high altitudes and in a clean configuration, so the term may imply "a significant increase in effective combat speed with a full weapons load over existing types".[1] One of the pre-eminent military examples of supercruise is the F-22 Raptor, for which supercruise was defined as "the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration."[2]

One of the best-known examples of an aircraft capable of supercruise, and the only notable non-military example, was the Concorde. Due to its long service as a commercial airliner, the Concorde holds the record for the most time spent supersonic; more than all other western aircraft combined.[3]

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Laughs in mach 3.2

Try to keep up.

[-] EldritchFeminity 1 points 5 days ago

The SR-71 has the speed, but Concorde has the endurance. :3

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago
[-] errer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Just railgun the Europeans across the country

[-] nocturne@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I looked at taking a train from Albuquerque to Denver for a concert, the trip takes 2-3 days and goes from Albuquerque toto Chicago to Denver and one way cost more than a round trip flight. For reference, it is a 7ish hour drive.

Their long hauls are definitely more vacation based, where the ride is part of the journey - and if you're not into that then I get how you feel. Amtrak has been doing a great job at refocusing on corridors. The east coast obviously, then they're working hard on a few key ones like:

  • Minneapolis to Chicago
  • Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
  • California corridor
  • Eventually, here's hoping, the Frontrange: Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Fort Collins-Cheyenne.

Those are all shorter trips that don't make much sense to fly with how short it is, and with a few daily trips makes traveling between those cities much easier. Personally those are much better usages of Amtrak's time. I've taken the Portland-Seattle-Vancouver one multiple times and it's so much nicer than driving - but it's max 4 hours.

I wish they'd upgrade their long haul routes to go faster. There's one from SLC to SF I'm interested in, but it takes 18 hours, vs 11 by car or 2 by plane. If it was faster than driving, I'd consider it to avoid the airport.

I don't blame them for focusing on the easier trips though.

Same, but with the limited funding I get why. Shorter trips like that make money, long hauls don't - and since they don't own the tracks they can't even upgrade them or begin to do anything. I will say 18 is a lot (especially in a coach seat), but there is a positive of not having to drive. I usually take my steam deck and just zone out. Overnights though are tough in coach, for that you really have to want to be there.

Yeah, if I want to go anywhere interesting, it would be an overnight trip, with kids. A sleeping room is way too expensive, so it's a nonstarter. If it was 3x the speed, it would probably be fine, especially if they left in the morning instead of the evening.

So yeah, the only train I take is the commuter, and only to go to the airport because there's no connection from the train to my work (there's a way to get there, but the trip would take 2 hours each way). The commuter can't go very fast because it has to stop every 5-10 miles, but it's fine since it goes about as fast as a car.

So yeah, here's hoping Amtrak can make enough on the east coast to be able to upgrade the west coast.

[-] nocturne@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Their long hauls are definitely more vacation based, where the ride is part of the journey

I get that, but I was looking for an alternative to driving 14 hours round trip. Even if the trip took 7 hours each way, I am not driving it. But to go from 7 hours to 45 hours is insane. For a show on the 5th of November in Denver I have to leave Albuquerque on the 3rd, then leave Denver on the 6th to get back home on the 8th. $171 for the cheap seats each way.

I live near SLC and go get to San Francisco is about 18 hours, and that's a straight shot. Coach costs about $120, each way, which is about the same price as a non-budget airline. There's only one train each day and it runs from midnight to about 6PM the next day.

By car it's about 11 hours and about 2 hours by airplane.

So it's:

  • slower
  • not cheaper, perhaps more expensive if you don't mind budget flights
  • less flexible - one train/day in most cases

There are tons of places I just can't get to, like Las Vegas.

If I was retired or something when spending more time was totally fine, I'd consider taking the train. But as it stands, it's just not a practical option unless the train is the destination.

[-] slowmorella@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago

are you in the same school as this picard maneuver guy?

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
752 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

8322 readers
1351 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS