Opinion: China should build high speed rail to connect Luhansk and Kashgar by train travel

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Distance between Luhansk and Kashgar is not that much. Only 3068 km. By comparison, distance between LA and NYC is 3935 km. Also, there is only flat plain between Luhansk and Kashgar, which is very suitable for trains. Recently, China developed 1000 km/h maglev trains which are faster than passenger planes, and has much lower cost and much less wait time.

@White and Green with M/S @mike2000 is back @nahtanbob @aziqbal @Mohsin A @KAL-EL @khansaheeb @Ich @Abdul Rehman Majeed @zectech @Deino @kingQamaR @MeFishToo @gambit @Get Ya Wig Split @SD 10

 

[Hack-Hook]

not really , the demands is not high enough.
now if the war ends and that railroad extend into the heart of Europe then that's another thing but let be honest for such long routes aircraft are more economically feasible .
you want that high speed train for businessmen travel and tourist and honestly they are on a tight schedule and even one day shorter travel time means a lot to them .

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

not really , the demands is not high enough.
now if the war ends and that railroad extend into the heart of Europe then that's another thing but let be honest for such long routes aircraft are more economically feasible .
you want that high speed train for businessmen travel and tourist and honestly they are on a tight schedule and even one day shorter travel time means a lot to them .

Planes are much more expensive. Trains cost much less. Trains are also very safe compared to planes. If there is a deranged man on a plane going on a rampage, the passengers are helpless. On the ground, people can flee outside and save their lives.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Planes are much more expensive. Trains cost much less. Trains are also very safe compared to planes. If there is a deranged man on a plane going on a rampage, the passengers are helpless. On the ground, people can flee outside and save their lives.

the infrastructure for trains specially the hyper-speed ones are a lot more expensive than airplanes .
for passrengers specially at long distant the airplanes are a lot more preferable , for cargo trains are preferable but normal one not high speed ones

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

the infrastructure for trains specially the hyper-speed ones are a lot more expensive than airplanes .
for passrengers specially at long distant the airplanes are a lot more preferable , for cargo trains are preferable but normal one not high speed ones

Planes are much more expensive to build and service compared to trains. Especially airports.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Planes are much more expensive. Trains cost much less. Trains are also very safe compared to planes. If there is a deranged man on a plane going on a rampage, the passengers are helpless. On the ground, people can flee outside and save their lives.

Building infrastructure is hyper-expsensive planes are much cheaper to operate and much safer than trains

Planes are much more expensive to build and service compared to trains. Especially airports.

No you're all wrong about this

 

[Hack-Hook]

Planes are much more expensive to build and service compared to trains. Especially airports.

100% wrong.
a train specially a fast one is probably several time the price of a passenger plane
and building the infrastructure for it is 100s or better say 1000s of time more expensive than building several airplanne and airport for the route