I had a US colleague stay with me in Ireland for a week and he was asking if it was possible to catch a train to England. It's amazing the geographic ignorance of some people and Americans seem to be especially afflicted. Maybe it's because the USA is so big, large cities so far apart, and public transport so terrible it doesn't occur to them that Europe is not the same.
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
544 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
11734 readers
862 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In their defense, I have no idea what the capital of Kentucky or Virginia is :/
PS: I don't know it for most states 🙃 actually, I didn't know California's, New York's or Illinois'...this is starting to look like a conspiracy to make your largest city not the capital, lol
Kentucky is Frankfort. Yes its spelled differently from Germany's one.
California is Sacramento, New York is Albany, and every once in a while the capital is the biggest or most important city like seriously, Philadelphia was nearly the nation's capital but fumbled even being the state capital.
Oh and ohio is fun here because Columbus has slowly grown to be the biggest city in ohio. Cleveland and Cincinnati are more historically significant while Columbus was just a big city focused on the university and business. But as the great lakes manufacturing and ohio River manufacturing fell by the wayside and Columbus kept growing it beat them out.
Yeah but I do know that I can't take a train from Hawaii to California, there's a big wet thing in the way.
Also the country's called Ireland, it's a hint.
this is starting to look like a conspiracy to make your largest city not the capital, lol
Usually this is because the capital doesn't generally change over time while the relative size of cities often does, especially on the scale of a century or more.
That's completely wrong. Many states moved their capital away from population centers on the coast into more geographically central locations inland. Other states deliberately planned their capitals to be in central locations when it was already clear where the population centers were going to be.
If anything the capital city only grows and becomes the population center. Population never drifts away from the capital.
Tell that to Albany, NY. Population is about 1.2% of NYC.
Or to Sacramento, CA which is the fourth largest city in the state.
Then there are states where the population doesn't really concentrate like that, like WV. Biggest city is the capital, but that's not saying much. That's largely a result of the geography, where most of the state is forested mountains, with people wherever there's a flat spot. It's beautiful, but wildly impractical for large population centers. The only reason Charleston is still the biggest city is the three-way interstate junction that meets at it, and that's thanks to Robert C Byrd using his influence to help his constituents.
What point of mine are you trying to refute here? Sacramento and Albany were never the population centers of their states as your theory suggests. They were selected because of their central geographic location as with the vast majority of US state capitals.
Its like your hung up on me saying "population drifts towards the capital" because it generally does but rarely overcomes any major metropol on the coast.
I live in West Virginia and a recurring joke is that we should just give up and rename the state to Robert C Byrd. His name is on everything.
Looking at China's provincial capitals and EU's capitals, they all look like they hoovered up all the population around them, why doesn't that happen in the US? Lemme guess...car culture?
No its just completely wrong theory. Population centers are usually on the edge of the state and capitals are deliberately kept in the geographic center of the state. If the population center isn't on the edge then its in the capitol.
You live in a world with the chunnel. The odds that a similar passage between islands formerly of the same empire is not so remote.
Maybe. On one hand, I'm inclined to agree, but I also don't know how many of these sorts of tunnels exist. There's one connecting mainland Japan with Hokkaido too.
Edit: The Wikipedia page lists oodles of underwater tunnels, but most are well below 15 km long, with the channel tunnel at 50.4 km.
The odds are and were actually zero since no such tunnel exists. And if people are aware of the chunnel spanning 20 miles they sure as hell would be aware of a tunnel between Ireland and England which would be a nigh impossible feat of engineering whether it went directly, or circuitously through Wales or Scotland.
Yes it doesn't exist, but the idea that it could exist and be unknown to an American tourist is not terrifically remote. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
I make no claims for the base knowledge of any of my countrymen - they will make a fool of me if I try. But the distance between ~Donaghadee in N.I. and Portpatrick in Scotland is roughly the same between Dover and Calais.
Not knowing the geographic or hydrological factors of either area, it doesn't seem to me to be much more impossible a feat than the chunnel was.
Yes there are parts of Ireland and Scotland which are close but the engineering challenge is so vast that it would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions. The channel tunnel was a major feat of engineering made possible by the relative shallowness of the channel and boring through soft rock and chalk.
The sea between Ireland and Scotland is 2-3x as deep and through granite & igneous rock. A tunnel isn't an option. People have proposed a bridge instead, assuming they can figure a way to sink piles 100-150m into the sea floor and build a 20 mile bridge over waters that can have 15-20m freak waves, high winds and storms. Or the seafloor that is scattered with thousands of tonnes of unexploded ordinance.
But even if they did all that, trains in Ireland / UK aren't even on the same track gauge. Nor would anyone to travel to the tip of Ireland to get to the hinterlands of Scotland, to change trains, to get another train to catch another train to get anywhere in England. Not when it would be easier and faster to get a ferry/coach or just fly.
So basically the idea comes up every now and again but it is not practical or feasible.
Facts, if you are aware of a tunnel I expect you to be subscribed to Tunnels & Bridges monthly, that kind of arcane knowledge is not for the faint of heart
Honestly, if I ever get out of this shithole and into a country with decent public transit and healthcare, it's going to feel like I stepped onto the USS Enterprise.
Is that a no?
Even for very long distances (where flying is almost mandatory unless you are ready to spend weeks traveling) trains make things easier.
For example I'm living in a small village in the south east of France and I will be traveling to the carribean in summer for family, I will be walking to the train station is my village to take the train, 2 changes later I will be in London from where I'll take the plane to cross the Atlantic.
Same thing on the way back but with a night train.
One of the factors is that the US is surprisingly huge. It takes EU tourists by surprise that a quick jaunt from NYC to visit their friend in Chicago is several days by road (unless you drive like an American roadtripper for fourteen hours a day) moreover, there's just huge tracks of land featuring not-too-exciting vistas (unless you plan your road trip to feature pretty routes, in which case multiply the distance by 1.3), so for the short while that airlines were regulated and we weren't worried (yet) about the air-travel carbon footprint (Huge. Enormous. Colossal.) it made sense to fly everywhere in the US.
Now that it's insanely expensive and inconvenient to fly, and we shouldn't be doing it, it's time for the US to build HSR for realsies, if the automotive / fossil fuel industrial complex will let us.
Not that I disagree that we need high speed rail, but "several days by road"? That's a day and a half tops.
It's a day and a half the way we Americans drive which is to run on coffee and fast food and burn above the speed limit for fourteen hours a day.
I am (or was, now I'm having doubts) of the belief that European motorists were more inclined to take their time, see some sights and not exhaust themselves in the transit. That may have been a late-20th century thing.
No, it is a 13 and a half hour drive according to Google, which would be according to the speed limit. We Americans would do it in a single day because hotels are expensive.
The US isn't as huge as you seem to believe (or Europe not as small). Europe is not as square, so its land area is much smaller, but the distances are comparable.
A trip from Hamburg to Vienna is not that much shorter than a trip from NYC to Chicago, but it's easily done by train in Europe: Board the NJ491 at 8pm in Hamburg central station (in the city centre, no need to be there more than a few minutes before boarding), have a good nights sleep, get your breakfast served at your bed (in the comfort category), take a shower and arrive well rested in Vienna (city center, no need to wait for your luggage) at 10am the next day.
Admittedly, a lot of people do fly from Hamburg to Vienna as well, as it can be cheaper than the train due to tax exemptions for the airlines (not everything is perfect in Europe), or they just don't like sleeping in a train, but these trains are usually well utilised.
EDIT: The link to truesize doesn't seem to work correctly, here's what I meant to show: 
The last time I was in the US I took a train from NYC to Chicago. It was very comfortable.
(they won't)
You're totally right and we'll never see it in our lifetimes... but damn it'd be cool to be able to take an express bullet train coast to coast in the states.
I love the multiple layers to it. Obviously European travel is not what he believes it to be, but neither is American airplane travel, and he must know that, but he's so desperate to pretend otherwise.
I've been in Germany two years and gone to France three times by train.
I honestly don't think people appreciate public transit enough. Trains are the fucking bomb and if people could make trains and trams and buses a priority I think the world would be a remarkably more fun and enjoyable experience.
Vote for the political parties, even at and especially the local level, that want to put more money into public infrastructure focused around public transit. Cars and planes have their places, but they should never be the priority when city planning and a strong country is one connected by high speed rail and convenient, reliable public transit.
I love traveling by train, but in Poland it's so fucked I have to either drive or waste days just to get somewhere. They just deleted train I could use to get to Warsaw in about 5h, now it's extra transfer, almost 7 hours, and I have to do it a day earlier, so extra night in a hotel vs 4,5h drive. The same with Berlin, I'd love to just ride a train, it's less than 4 hours drive vs 6,5 hour train ride (which is fine, I can go with that), price of the single ticket is more than gas for my car, so twice as much for two person – I could live with that, but the transfer time is under 30 minutes, which with notoriously unreliable trains means I would probably miss the connection and lost all my bookings (or just tried to go back with train/bus just to my village (already losing ~80€ for the tickets), and then grab a car.
I'm not familiar with Poland's political or train situation, but these problems are fixable. Vote for progressives, make it a priority, we need to start taking power back from the inept and corrupt and start fixing problems again.
I'm sorry your trains aren't good. Everyone deserves good trains.
load more comments
(3 replies)
In the US people will argue it's quicker to fly or drive than take the train then show up 2 hours early to be sure to make it through check-in and TSA security to be sure to make their flight on time. Then waste another hour waiting for luggage
load more comments
(22 replies)
view more: next ›