Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Fellow European here. My understanding is street cars started out as futuristic marvels of modernity, but unlike their cousins trains & subways, they aged fairly poorly and don't generally do well in mixed city traffic today:

First, you can’t go faster than cars or avoid traffic (in practice), so there’s no obvious advantage like with trains. Secondly, buses got a lot cleaner, spacious, comfortable and quieter. The modern buses in European cities are not just on-par, but often more comfortable and allow higher speed on long stretches, because modern suspension beats aging fixed rail (it tends to be shaky, again unlike trains). So then what’s the point? Trams are electric? Given how buses are basically commodity in our oil-centric world, I can only imagine how trams look at the balance sheet in comparison.

Now, there are some exceptional cases where I really like trams. When the route has majority separate rail (typically in beautiful stretches of nature) but can switch into streets when needed to reach better. For instance, Tvärbanan in Stockholm is a tram that – while not always perfect – is universally appreciated by most.






I really like the idea that street cars, trains and subways could share a single network (kinda like they do in Tokyo, except Tokyo doesn't really have street cars, mostly trains - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KMYAEIXVzA).

It would allow trains to come from one direction, pass through the city undisturbed and emerge on the other side and continue.


Known as tram-trains, and an established model in Karlsruhe and Kassel, Germany.

The federal rail administration would never let this happen in the US

> First, you can’t go faster than cars or avoid traffic (in practice),

that is not true, in cities the car speed is usually limited to 50, a lot of trams go 70 on certain sections. Also "or avoid traffic" a lot of trams go completely separetely from the traffic.

> because modern suspension beats aging fixed rail (it tends to be shaky, again unlike trains).

Depends on the city, but a lot of cities that I visited have a very modern trams that are not shaky (helsinky, zurich, bratislava, riga, edinburgh, bordeaux...). Also the technology of the rail building has changed and the new lines are meant to be quiter and more stable

> Trams are electric? Given how buses are basically commodity in our oil-centric world, I can only imagine how trams look at the balance sheet in comparison

No idea what you mean by this but I would assume that the cost of running things is lower, the c02 profile is for sure https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint


> No idea what you mean by this but I would assume that the cost of running things is lower

I meant that light rail must be much more expensive, but now I’m not so sure. I hadn’t considered you can have more passengers per driver and if labor is dominating cost then yeah trams can be cheaper!

> a lot of cities that I visited […]

Have you accounted for the reliability of these networks? In my experience trams (or rather tracks and electrical- and signal systems) often break down when there’s snow in the winter, leaves in the fall or sun-bending in the summer, which may not be noticeable on visits. That can also increase costs, since the backup is usually buses and you need a task force who can go fix problems.

Maybe I’ve been unlucky, but my experiences relying on them everyday (in San Francisco and Gothenburg) have been disappointing.. it feels like those networks have been kept alive for nostalgic reasons.


> universally appreciated by most

60% of the time, it works every time




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: