Even train vloggers, who are an overly enthusiastic bunch, are starting to admit that trains don't always work well in Europe even though they should
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/22/world/europe/europe-trains-climate-goals.html
Posted by
Sweden
6344 posts
I assume this is about Jon Worth's trip across Europe? In that case, he is not a train vlogger, a better description would be train activist. You can read more about his project here: https://crossborderrail.trainsforeurope.eu
Posted by
Wengen
1625 posts
Yes. Trains could be better, if it weren't for the railways...
Posted by
Chicago
496 posts
The Washington Post today had a story related to this topic. Europe is trying to get more people to use trains, rather than planes, as a way to cut greenhouse gases. "Flight shame" is even entering the vocabulary. Here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2022/europe-trains-planes-lower-emissions/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f003
Posted by
San Francisco
14500 posts
If I were going from , say Berlin to Greece, it would be done by a train and ferry combination. One could still avoid flying if one rejected that option.
Posted by
London, England
137 posts
Yeah, Jon Worth regularly points out problems with cross-border train travel, but he's mostly speaking for and about business travellers like him who are less tolerant of delays and booking issues.
Yep, there's embodied carbon in railway lines, but still less than short-haul flights. Also remember that railway tunnels can last centuries if they're properly looked after.
Posted by
Sweden
6344 posts
This is another tempest in a teacup. The most popular areas in Europe
for the rich Europeans that are supposedly shunning planes for trains
cannot be reached by trains.
Tell me you don't understand his project without telling me you don't understand his project.
Also what is the carbon footprint of steel rails blasted through
mountains.
Negligible compared to the carbon footprint of flying.