this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
137 points (98.6% liked)

World News

49806 readers
2625 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I seriously think we need to ask serious questions if we're able to shift people point to point further, faster by first going 4 miles towards space for a fraction of the price of moving more people at once on an electrified railway stopping at multiple destinations, picking up and dropping off along the way.

Something cannot be right. How can they not compete and be profitable? What am I missing?

Outside of major cities in the UK trains tickets are ludicrously priced.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Planes don't have to maintain the sky, but trains need to maintain the rails.

Essentially any costs that can be externalized & paid by the public with air travel have been, like maintaining airports, etc.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Airlines pay landing fees though, they definitely aren't using the airport for free.

[–] Renohren@lemmy.today 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, but from A to B the plane does not use man made infrastructure and planes are for longer journeys than typical trains. Two airports cost a lot less than the constant maintenance of hundreds of miles of tracks, signaling, crossings, bridges and tunnels, forest overgrowth etc. plus the road infrastructure needed to maintain all parts of the train track corridor, even if it's a dirt road, it needs minimum maintenance.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago

You are correct, but I think the airports are privately owned though, it's just they need a lot less to maintain them in relative terms.

[–] Aliktren@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well. In the UK the rails and infrastructure used to be privately owned. But it turned out a private company couldn't be trusted with that level of safety within their remit. So it returned to government control quite some tine ago.

The train companies are private though. Well except for a handful that failed to meet requirements.

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the rails and infrastructure used to be privately owned. But it turned out a private company couldn’t be trusted with that level of safety within their remit

Google Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield rail crashes if you wanna know more.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh I remember why. I was considering including links to some of the causes of the end of railtrack. But I thought it shouldn't really come as a surprise to those already here that private companies and safety are seldom bedfellows.