• CamaradaD
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    All aboard the Socialist Train! Next stop: the future!

    • JucheBot1988OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      To be fair, the US does have two high speed rail lines:

      1. That dumb Acela Express thing (federal government project!) that goes slightly faster than a normal freight train, and

      2. That bit of track in California connecting nowhere to nowhere. It’s about a hundred miles long, and took something like fifteen years to build.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Poland have few hundred km of “high” speed rail, mostly going 150km/h, rarily up to 200. Trains are the variations of the italian Pendolino, ironically called “pierdolino” due to large amount of fuckups and corruption every big program in Poland inevitably involves.

        • JucheBot1988OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          “high” speed rail, mostly going 150km/h, rarily up to 200.

          That’s still faster than the fastest train in the United States.

            • JucheBot1988OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Honestly, size and resources are the only reason the US hasn’t collapsed yet. It’s badly-run even by the standard of modern capitalist nations.

  • folaht
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Until this year I thought the train was the transportation of the past.

    But trains are the cheapest form of long-range transport on land as they are electric that don’t need heavy batteries.
    The largest competitor to the train is the ship.
    Ships can carry lots and lots of containers and don’t need any kind of road maintenance.
    The only two disadvantages of ships are that they are slow moving and the fact that they can only be cheaper when the cost of gasoline/diesel/bunker fuel remains low.

    • FuckBigTech347
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Gasoline? I thought large ships run on diesel?

      Either way, both come from crude oil so I guess it doesn’t matter that much.

    • HaSch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Just being curious, what did you think last year would be the transportation of the future, and why?

      • folaht
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The dominant transportation of today, ever larger container ships.

        They can carry more than any other vehicle by far and don’t need to pay for road maintenance. Not to mention, you don’t need to cross in-between-nations borders that might ask for exuberant custom fees, go into civil war, go to war with you, etc.

  • AgreeableLandscape☭
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Also, China’s newer high speed tracks are all built to allow top speeds of 400 kph or higher, whereas lines, even new ones, in Europe often cap out at speeds in the 300s, with 400 tracks being less common.

  • Shrike502
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Fuckin Brits got us beat?! That’s a crying shame.

  • Muad'DibberA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    2007 China to EU and Japan: “I’m about to wreck this man’s whole career.”

    • JucheBot1988OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      “Bide your time, hide your strength, then troll the heck out of everybody” – Deng Xiaoping

    • Muad'DibberA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I love that someone memed the “US: But at what cost??!!” thing