[HN Gopher] Europe is investing heavily in trains ___________________________________________________________________ Europe is investing heavily in trains Author : prostoalex Score : 296 points Date : 2022-04-11 19:51 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | hardwaresofton wrote: | Shameless plug for my friends substack all about public transit: | | https://lovetransit.substack.com | | It's wonderful and bounces back and forth between japan, sweden, | and greater europe | TheMagicHorsey wrote: | I feel that when the total cost of rail is taken into account, | there are only a few very high density areas or high traffic | routes where they make sense. I was recently reading about how | large stretches of China's bullet train system cost tens of | billions of dollars, and ongoing expenditure of billions more, | and have hardly enough traffic to justify their maintenance, let | alone their construction costs. There are some routes that are | well utilized, but it seems that when you empower the government | to make such infrastructure, there is massive malinvestment ... | and its hard to know what the alternative could have been without | such centralized planning. | larschdk wrote: | Agree. Trains make perfect sense in metro areas like London, | Berlin, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. Everywhere else, they are a | complete waste of money, are difficult to run on a regular | schedule, service only narrow corridors, are inconvenient to | get to/from for daily commutes and increase total commute time | 2+ times. To increase use of public transport, we need to | increase convenience, not reduce cost. | tonmoy wrote: | You can't just look at the income from fare and use that to | justify the construction cost. The train may have brought | development and investment into the area that wouldn't have | happened otherwise earning tax for the government in other | ways. Highways/interstates in the US would have been an | infinite percentage of loss with your original assumption since | they don't produce anything directly. | riffic wrote: | Skate towards where the puck is going to be. This is a wise | investment for the future of mobility. | efxhoy wrote: | Rail travel here in Sweden is unfortunately not reliable at all. | In february only 75% of long distance and 90% of short distance | trips were on time. Many departures were canceled due to a myriad | of problems ranging from technical issues with the tracks caused | by poor maintenance, to staffing problems caused by staff being | off sick or failures of the new staff planning system to allocate | staff. The problems aren't uniform, some parts of the country are | worse affected. | | The train is fantastic when it runs but it takes a heavy toll on | quality of life for thousands of commuters when they unexpectedly | have to spend several hours a day every week waiting for trains | that don't work. Today my partner spent 3 hours on what should be | a 70 minute commute. | | Instead of spending much more on maintenance (which has been | underfunded and mismanaged for years) to increase reliability the | government is spending billions to build a new fancy high speed | line between Stockholm and Gothenburg. I guess maintenance and | reliability aren't sexy enough for political campaigning. | | Stats in Swedish: https://www.sj.se/sv/om/om- | sj/hallbarhet/punktlighet.html | ATsch wrote: | I wish this was true. European leaders have been speaking a great | deal about how much they are going to invest into trains and how | they are the future of green transport, but then in reality they | are unwilling to do the things that are needed to improve trains | or even actively sabotage them. (see e.g. | https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2021/derailed-europe-ra...) | | Austria is pretty much the only country in the EU that is | actually making genuine strides in this area. | golemotron wrote: | Do they run on renewables? | avianlyric wrote: | Like most developed countries, Europe has mostly electric | trains for passenger transport. | thriftwy wrote: | They run on overhead wires? | occz wrote: | Depends on the country. In Sweden, mostly yes. Entirely fossil- | free, with some nuclear in the mix. | 12baad4db82 wrote: | In Germany 100% of the ICE and IC trains are run on renewable | energy. | | https://www.bahn.de/service/ueber-uns/umwelt | | You can even buy green energy from the Deutsche Bahn | | https://www.dbstrom.de/ | ParksNet wrote: | It doesn't make sense to emphasize passenger travel over goods | transport for rail. Rail's strength is efficient transport of | heavy loads at slow speeds. | | People are light and often want to go at high speeds. | | Europe should reorient its rail network for rail transport, and | passengers can travel by bus or plane. | | But - Europe's rail network is completely reliant on subsidies, | and its easier to get them when you're transporting politicians | instead of lumber, steel, milk. | fundatus wrote: | Not sure about other countries, but Germany's long distance | trains are run for-profit. Only commuter trains are subsidized. | Tracks are paid for by taxes - but so are streets. | gpvos wrote: | In most European countries, even if the financing is | organized differently than in Germany, the long-distance | trains bring in the most money and would be profitable if run | entirely commercially. | sschueller wrote: | The not so long ago completed Alp transit Gotthard Basistunnel | was primarily dug for cargo, yes passengers also go through it | but the idea is for fast, clean cargo transit all the way from | Amsterdam to Italy through the Swiss alps. | randomsearch wrote: | According to a relative who has spent a lifetime being a | transport nerd, rail is actually more suited to people | transport and roads to goods. | | The reason is surprisingly obvious in hindsight. You bring 1000 | people into a city centre train station and then they deliver | themselves to their final destination. But goods either have to | be sent to single purpose custom built lines and depots (eg | power stations) or else transferred to road and taken onwards | in a multitude of vehicles. | | I am personally very good at delivering myself autonomously on | foot for several miles, and I will even transfer myself to | another train in minutes without external equipment. Coal is | generally less cooperative. | | Worse, if you decide to keep people in cars, you have to build | parking spaces absolutely everywhere they might possibly want | to go, whereas most goods just need to be dropped off. | | People on trains, goods on lorries. | Aperocky wrote: | > I am personally very good at delivering myself autonomously | on foot for several miles | | Meanwhile in America people drive a 2 ton vehicle to deliver | themselves to the parking lot next block (guilty as charged). | foepys wrote: | No, just no. You obviously don't have experience with European | infrastructure. Rush hour traffic on any German Autobahn will | quickly tell you that adding more busses and cars is the worst | idea here. | | European roads are also impossible to build and maintain | without subsidies but somehow nobody or at least very few | people talk about that. | mywittyname wrote: | Time is money, so I don't think trains can ever compete with | flying for long-distance travel (>1000miles). | | They could do like the USA does and make flying such a time- | consuming pain in the ass that it's rarely worth it for trips | under 5 hours. | inglor_cz wrote: | Taking a train from Hamburg to, say, Malaga, would be pretty | uncomfortable. The distance is too big and you would have to | switch trains several times, with a risk of one train running | late and missing the next connection. | | But for distances up to 4-5 hours by train, especially if the | connection is direct, it is better to take the train. While the | flight time may be much shorter, the need to get to/from the | airport (which tend to be far away from the city itself, if | only because of noise issues) and to be at the airport 2 hours | before departure will consume a lot of time. | | Train stations, OTOH, are usually located fairly close to the | city center, if not squarely in it, for historical reasons | (most important railway links were built prior to 1870, when | the cities were much smaller than today). | andbberger wrote: | high speed night trains can compete at longer distances but | capital costs become problematic. they would be more cost | competitive if rail received the same amount of subsidy that | air does | oh_sigh wrote: | I don't think anyone is expecting people to start taking a | train from London to Istanbul, unless they are doing it for the | trip in itself. The sweet spot for trains is travel > 100 miles | and < 500 miles, so say Paris-Nice like is highlighted in the | article. | occz wrote: | In around the 150-800 km span, high speed rail reigns supreme | over all other modes of transport. Above that, airplanes start | making more sense, but for any trips in that span HSR should | really be the default. | lrem wrote: | It _really_ depends on the distances and sizes of the cities | you're going to. Paris-London train is about 3 hours, which is | likely less than you'll spend on getting to+from an airport. | Paris-Berlin on the other hand is miserable, unless you love | trains. | gpvos wrote: | Or unless you take a night train. Get in in the evening, | sleep most of the way and wake up at your destination. That | can actually save you time compared to a flight, or be a lot | more comfortable than, e.g., getting up at 4 AM to take a | flight to a meeting in the morning somewhere. | room271 wrote: | 2hrs 16 min is the usual time for London to Paris. So much | quicker and nicer than flying all round really. | mywittyname wrote: | This is exactly my point, trains can't compete with point-to- | point travel at 500mph. So injecting a bunch of padding on | either side of flights is the best way of making train travel | more appealing. | smcl wrote: | Those points are usually fairly far outside of their | respective cities though, to be fair. Planes are always | going to be preferable for long journeys, London-Istanbul | is a trip only big train fans would plan to take by rail. | But I can take some really nice direct train journeys where | I am - Budapest, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, Belgrade and more. | And since I end up in the city centre it's usually a quick | tram or subway to where I'm staying, or hopping another | train onwards to a smaller town. And travelling on the | train with friends and a beer is really pleasant :-) | sschueller wrote: | I can hop in a train at Zurich main station in Switzerland and | be in Paris in 4 hours or I can get in another one and be in | Milan in 3 and half hours. On my trip I can use the internet, | go to the restaurant or relax in the quiet carriage. No | turbolance, no weather delays and the ride is very quiet. | | How much work can you really get done going via airplane? How | much time do you waste going through security and how well can | you work crammed into a tiny seat? | | Sometimes taking it a bit slower is also good for your health. | DrBazza wrote: | Yup. Door to door from south east England to the French Alps | is nigh on identical if you take a plane and all then | ceremony around that, or just jump on the Eurostar and travel | mostly at 140mph or so. | anamax wrote: | Zurich to Paris (489km) is shorter than San Francisco to Los | Angeles (559km). | | Europeans think that 100km is a long way while Americans | think that 100 years is a long time. | Gigachad wrote: | Trains could easily beat air travel if they could skip the | ridiculous security theater. Having to get to the airport 2 | hours early is a whole lot of slack to let trains catch up. | Shadonototra wrote: | i love trains, it's cozy | | too bad they are trying to make them insanely fast and silent af | | life is meant to feel your surroundings | Aperocky wrote: | Maybe when you get off at the station then, train as an utility | should aim for the lowest common denominator. | tistoon wrote: | ..and Canada is yet the only G7 country to not have a high-speed | train. | | In fact, in Canada, trains are slow, expensive and not well- | deserved that you are better-off using your car or plane | -\\_(tsu)_/- | | Barcelona-Madrid | 503km | 2h30 by train | 46$CAD (33 euros) | | Toronto-Montreal | 541km | 5h by train | 93$CAD (68 euros) | reggieband wrote: | My dream is a high-speed train from Vancouver to Kelowna and | Calgary, with an optional leg to Edmonton. Like a Rocky | Mountain Express. I believe this would be a massive driver of | economic growth for the West Coast of Canada. | | What hurts my soul is that Canada has the wealth to afford it, | the engineering chops to build it but we lack the political | will. Even more I feel we lack the belief and the vision. | blamazon wrote: | One thing that's cool about intercity train travel is that, while | high speed rail is an ~=obvious economic miracle, trains can be | slow and still be commercially competitive. | | I would much rather take an overnight sleeper train than either | an early morning flight or a night flight with hotel room. The | sleeper train will arrive right to the city center and save a lot | of hassle and I always sleep like a rock on sleeper trains. | | My impression is that Europeans are 'waking up' to this | fundamental difference in value proposition vs aeroplanes and | overnight trains are becoming more popular. | gpvos wrote: | Also, train companies were (and RENFE still is) neglecting | night trains because their marketing department and direction | were more interested in snazzy high-speed trains, so they | didn't upgrade old train stock and stopped night services that | were still filled to the brim with passengers. | pm90 wrote: | I think there's a good value proposition for high speed rail | when it comes to business travel, which is usually same day. | But for non business travel, overnight does seem good. However, | there is simply not a culture of overnight train in the US. In | India, it is really common and many routes can be quite | delightful. | SergeAx wrote: | Typical distance between European capitals is ~500km. It is less | than an hour net time by plane, but adding travel from city | center to the airport, check in, security check, waiting time, | waiting for luggage, travel from destination airport to city | center - all those are compounding into 4-5 hours door to door | depending on road traffic. High speed train is about the same or | even better, and you have internet connection on board all the | time. | chernevik wrote: | The price comparison with air travel is why a serious carbon tax | might make sense. | gigatexal wrote: | That's going to be tough: the bit about competing with low cost | flights. We flew Ryan air to Italy for 50 bucks a person each | way. By train would have been much more expensive and taken a ton | longer. | | But let's see how they build this out. I do love living in a | Berlin. The public transit system is amazing. It's not perfect. | But it's reliable enough that I do not miss my car. | lqet wrote: | Here in Germany, for as long as I can remember, the government | praises itself _every year_ for investing as much in rail as | never before. I have not noticed the service quality to change | for the better over the last 15 years. The ever-rising | investments seem to be only enough to keep the status quo of the | crumbling infrastructure. | DominikPeters wrote: | That seems wrong. New high speed lines are being built and have | recently opened (e.g. Berlin-Munich, soon Stuttgart-Ulm). The | number of passengers using high speed trains (ICEs) is steadily | increasing: from 75 million trips in 2009 to 99 million trips | in 2019. To increase the number of trips like that, lots of | investment in rolling stock / signalling / lines is needed. | https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/162877/ | Etheryte wrote: | The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per | capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to | ~1.19 trips per person per year. Not to say there is no | progress, but rather that the number of trips is low to begin | with. If you contrast the money spent with the end result of | roughly one trip per person per year, things are not that | rosy. | ascar wrote: | > The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per | capita... | | Which is still an absolute number. Just in another context. | | It's a relative improvement of 32% which is approximately | 3% per year. Not ground breaking, but a nice steady | improvement. | | ICE usage is also much higher (~6x ) than in-country plane | usage to give another point of context. [1](percentage of | domestic flights) [2](total air passengers) | | I think trips per capita is misleading as a high percentage | of the population isn't doing much in-country long distance | travel to begin with. | | [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/20 | 21/06... | | [2] https://knoema- | com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/knoema.com/atlas/G... | Goronmon wrote: | _The numbers seem large when they 're in absolutes, but per | capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to | ~1.19 trips per person per year._ | | I mean, if the goal is to make the smallest number, why | stop at "per person per year"? If you instead reflected the | number as "per person per second" then you would see that | the improvement is barely measurable. | noirbot wrote: | But that seems like a reasonably understandable number? | For all that everyone talks about how amazing trains are | in other countries, I'm a little surprised to learn that | I take Amtrak more in the US than the average German | citizen takes DB, which is generally a much better | system. | | That said, that seems like a pretty good improvement, | percentage-wise, but a lot of folks talk about trains in | Europe as if it's so amazing that everyone is taking it | all the time. I'd be curious of that number relative to | the number of flights taken per year per capita. | DominikPeters wrote: | Looks like in 2019 there were 200-250 million airplane | trips starting or ending in Germany. So maybe the | surprise is how little average people travel rather than | how little they rail. | ascar wrote: | Also all international trips are irrelevant for | comparison as the ICE traffic is national. | noirbot wrote: | Give or take. There's plenty of trains between countries | in Europe that would also be within driving distance. | | In my mind, the optimal realistic situation is to have | rail for longer distances (1-8 hours), but not trans- | oceanic obviously, and then either ICE or local light | rail for smaller trips | ascar wrote: | The relevant point is that there are no (or very few) | international ICE trains. Cross-border are usually slower | Euro-city trains that shouldn't be included in the ICE | statistics. | noirbot wrote: | Yea, that doesn't seem like that useful of a number, | since Frankfurt is a fairly major layover airport for | international travel. | | I guess the more specific question would be how many | Germans fly to elsewhere in Germany or Central Europe vs. | taking a train. I generally have to either do a long car | trip or a flight to get around in the US outside of some | specific corridors. Presumably most of Europe has the | option to take the train instead, but are they? | carlhjerpe wrote: | And yet layover flights are decreasing since the 2 engine | restriction was "lifted". A 787 can fly non stop for as | long as would be comfortable for someone to be on a | plane. | | According to Wendover Productions. | twelvechairs wrote: | > I take Amtrak more in the US than the average German | citizen takes DB | | Its more than ICE trains not more than the whole of DB. | Its 100m ICE trips per year but 2600m DB trips per year | in 2019 (c. 31 per capita per year) | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/936254/deutsche-bahn- | pas... | noirbot wrote: | Sure, but then the better US comparison includes things | like the Chicago/NYC/Boston/DC/Atlanta train systems, | which I'd imagine a decent number of folks in those | cities take more than 31 times a year. Heck, I think I've | taken more than 31 MTA rides per year and I don't even | live in NYC. | ascar wrote: | City train systems are not offered by Deutsche Bahn AG, | but by local city carriers, so they are not part of that | statistic. E.g. Munich is mostly run by MVG and had 596 | million passengers in 2018 [1], which aren't included in | the numbers above. DB only runs the S-Bahn in Munich. | | But yes, the 2600m DB passengers probably mixes long | distance and short distance service to some degree. | | https://dewiki.de/Lexikon/M%C3%BCnchner_Verkehrsgesellsch | aft | ascar wrote: | > I'm a little surprised to learn that I take Amtrak more | in the US than the average German citizen takes DB | | Amtrak had 31.3 million passengers in 2016 [1]. That's | 0.095 passengers per capita. And that's on all Amtrak | trains, while the German number is just for the ICE high- | speed trains. Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains only had | 3.5 million passengers in 2019 or 0.01 per capita. [2] | | Per capita is just not a useful number for this | discussion. | | [1] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/en | glish/p... | | [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155658/acela- | high-speed... | noirbot wrote: | Sure, but Amtrak is a weird comparison since its "real" | service area isn't anywhere close to the full population | of the US. There's plenty of whole states that don't have | an Amtrak station in them. Most EU countries have a much | lower median distance to a train station than the US | does. | | I'm not expecting to have them be similar numbers. My | original point was purely anecdotal - I usually take 1-3 | Amtrak rides a year and I don't even live in a part of | the country that has good Amtrak service. It's odd to me | that folks in a country with much better service use it | less than I feel like I would use Amtrak if I could. | beaconstudios wrote: | You probably just travel more than most people. Also, | America is much bigger than any given European country | and that leads to greater travel distances. | ascar wrote: | My point wasn't to dismiss your anecdotal evidence, but | just to highlight that the number per capita can be | easily misleading. Yes Amtrak doesn't serve a lot of the | US and IIRC has effectively only a single high-speed | line. But the average German citizen is using high-speed | railway 100 times more often than the average US citizen | (for the obvious reasons we both mentioned). You're just | not the average citizen. | | I'm pretty sure many Germans don't use the ICE at all. | While service is a lot better, the way to and from the | high-speed train station often makes it inefficient, | especially because the German autobahn is also world- | class and doesn't suffer from a "last miles" problem. | luciusdomitius wrote: | Well it could be per capita in decade for a ten-fold | increase, but given that a human career lasts around 4 | such periods, this metric would not be too useful. | Etheryte wrote: | Per capita is a standard way to contextualize things in | statistics and since the original measure is per year, | per capita per year. The point is not to "make the | smallest number". 99 million trips per year alone doesn't | tell us anything. If it was made by 1 million people, the | scale is big, if it was made by 100 million people, not | so much. That's why contextualizing per capita is | important. | agumonkey wrote: | A youtuber explained that Italy overlayed high speed rail | routes now and that it's pretty brilliant. Things are moving. | NoLinkToMe wrote: | Absolutely loved taking the train in Italy, fast, convenient, | cheap, good amenities. Of course the country very much lends | itself for rail (more or less an elongated territory that can | run a very fast high-capacity north/south backbone, with | slower but more ubiquitous horizontal offshoot rail to the | various smaller cities and villages), but it was still very | well done. Especially considering how much tunnelling was | required. | | My big concern is that we're not really moving towards a | single european market nor a single european train | infrastructure system. I'm not sure if it can thrive as a | patchwork of different ticketing systems and different rail | systems. Without it it can't compete for international | travel. And without it it's hard to get the right economies | of scale. | moonchrome wrote: | Just solving urban transport with train would be a huge | thing here in Croatia. Rails are so shit that if you need | to commute it's faster to travel through peak rush hour | with a car than ride a train. It's depressing really | because good rails would really connect less developed | places near the capital and offload the pressure on city. | isaacimagine wrote: | I live in Italy and can attest that the high-speed rail | running along the backbone of the Italian peninsula is really | nice: it's clean, faster than a regional flight (no need for | security, etc.), quiet, and it's fun to watch the hills roll | by out the window. | agumonkey wrote: | I only remembered the regional one which was so strange. | twic wrote: | I went from Rome to somewhere like Florence by train. Fast, | easy, reasonably priced, and it was a short walk from my | seat to a cafe car where a team of sharply uniformed | gentlemen made me an excellent espresso! | mikepurvis wrote: | At least they're speaking into a culture that _wants_ to hear | about investment in rail, regardless of whether the work being | done feels like it 's yielding tangible improvements or not. | | Here in Canada, it sometimes feels like they're almost ashamed | of what little they're spending and even try to hide it away, | or spread the big capital expenses over multiple years to make | it look like even less. | lorenzfx wrote: | > Here in Germany, for as long as I can remember, the | government praises itself every year for investing as much in | rail as never before. | | Unfortunately, that's not true (the investment part). In | preparation for the IPO (that never happened because of the | crash) Deutsche Bahn was heavily tuned for profit since the mid | 90s which led to a massive decrease in investment. As rail | infrastructure has a rather long service life, a lot of those | cost-cutting measures have only beginning to be felt rather | recently. Now not only do the investments that have not been | made have to be made up for, but the funding gap has caused the | infrastructure to decay even further. | | Also, a lot of money has been spent on vanity projects like | Stuttgart 21, instead of much-needed extension of freight lines | like the one in the upper Rhine valley. | Lamad123 wrote: | At least you have that option!! Sounds better than unmaintained | "crumbling infrastructure." | toshk wrote: | Deutsche Bahn is a disaster. Extreme delays up to 2 hours more | often then not. Rude staff. Forcing moms with kids out of the | train by police. Travelled for 3 summers through germany, now | just take the plane. | [deleted] | ithinkso wrote: | It's different in Poland. Here, everyone always complains about | the rail and it was shit like you wouldn't believe only like 15 | years ago. I've been using trains only sporadically but the | improvements are absolutely immense, I couldn't believe my | eyes. Not perfect of course but holy shit did it improve, | especially regional rails | | Of course we had to improve from much lower standards than | Germany, I guess, so I have no idea if our expectations of good | are the same but nevertheless | mszcz wrote: | Yeah, around that time I was still in college and used trains | a lot. I remember we had a running joke about everything | inside the trains we traveled in had some sort of sticky, | yucky film. When you grabbed something and then let go you | could kind of feel the train clinging to you. The heating in | the winter was always either broken or turned to 11. My | friend once, by accident, melted a big chunk of his shoe on | the radiator under his seat. | | I've recently traveled by that same line. The train has | changed a bit, the film seems to be gone but the ~100km trip | takes 5 minutes longer than it used to, averaging <50km/h... | So still ways to go. | | edit: spelling | cromka wrote: | > My friend once, by accident, melted a big chunk of his | shoe on the radiator under his seat. | | This happened to me while on a train to Warsaw 20 years | ago, as a high-school student. Ironically I travelled to | the Parliament where Buzek, the at-the-time PM, came back | from Athens having signed the EU Treaty of Accession to | give an impromptu press release. Crazy how much progres we | had seen since, and how many set backs. | tester756 wrote: | Here (southern Poland) | | I do believe that trains are really good in compare to what | we had like decade or so ago | | Quiet, looking modern, clean, reasonable seats and their | "placement" strategy | | For comparison: monthly ticket price is like 10% of minimal | wage (or 50% of that for students) for distance around | 100km/day | scyzoryk_xyz wrote: | I use trains here in Poland and although there have been big | improvements, a lot of them are only a facade. | | Long distance PKP trains are still late everyday. The | regional trains in my city tend to be over-packed, and from a | technical pov they're more like larger diesel buses than | trains. | | However, in response to the earlier comment and this one as | well, I would have to say that investment doesn't always mean | immediate visible effects. The biggest investment to make in | rail is in the infrastructure. You don't feel as a passenger | which parts of the track are old and which are new, and they | are pretty expensive to build and maintain. | | I also would wonder how much freight rail is in that | investment, because that we don't see or feel at all. | hilbert42 wrote: | I can't help but feel much of this argument is relative. | From my experience (I'm no longer a European resident) | almost all of the European rail network that I've traveled | on (and that's quite a lot) beats much of the | infrastructure in Anglophone countries--and I'm referring | to both track and rolling-stock). | | (...Perhaps my view has been formed by the fact that I've | come from a low base in Anglophone countries, so everything | seems much better in Europe.) | emteycz wrote: | Even a diesel bus on rails is much more efficient than a | diesel bus on roads. It's also much easier to electrify | than a fleet of buses, an much more ecological when you do | (because no significant battery). Thus, anything on rails | is a win. | scyzoryk_xyz wrote: | Agreed - especially in the context of how unbelievably | clumsy the US is at doing trains. | | Here in western Poland however it was a bit easier - lots | of tracks remained since 19th century. And with these | diesel buses popping up, an opportunity presented itself | to go relatively low investment and lots of political | bang. Those trains are usually way too packed in my | personal experience. | | Similarly, Pendolino high speed rail was developed and | implemented to huge fanfare. Only the tickets ended up | being so expensive that basically only the upper-upper- | middle class wants to take them. Why take the high-speed | train at double the price to get you there twice as fast, | when all you need is to get there? | luciusdomitius wrote: | Well. In Germany the middle class flies or drives, the | lower class takes the bus and the upper-upper-middle | class drives teslas or takes ICEs | carlhjerpe wrote: | So who takes the train? | komadori wrote: | I think: ICE = Inter-City Express (train) | axiomsEnd wrote: | Poland made a huge step back when it comes to trains after | 1990 - there is a good book by Karol Trammer "Ostre ciecie" | about disastrous cuts. | | On the other hand - Pendolino is a real step forward, and | at least Cracow is trying to improve general quality and | invest in intra-city trains, which maybe not the fastest, | but still much better than buses or trams. | mickotron wrote: | At least your trains run on time, or at all. I guess your | criticism is based on the level of service you have become | accustomed to in your country, which is incredibly good by | world standards. | sshagent wrote: | As someone who uses UK trains semi frequently, and German | trains less so....I'd take your trains in a heart beat | phendrenad2 wrote: | In the US, trains are seen as ancient cowboy technology. Trying | to build more train infrastructure is surely an uphill battle. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | It's hard to say. Trains have been chronically underfunded in | the US for so long that I don't think the US even knows what | decent train infrastructure is like. Amtrak hasn't had a | guaranteed budget until the recent infrastructure bill passed | and was originally designed to just be a publicly-funded | holding company to sell off its rolling stock and lines. | erosenbe0 wrote: | We don't really want the trains (because of the way the US | developed its cities). Let me give an example. In order to | add a few more daily routes from Chicago to Milwaukee on | Amtrak, a freight train would have to hold on a holding | line for several hours in residential areas to let the | Amtrak through. The increase in ridership, not just riders | shifting their schedules, would have been at most a few | hundred. | | So in order to get a few hundred cars off the road, Amtrak | would have to build a holding track (carbon cost), add more | rolling stock to the route, burn more diesel, and a | residential neighborhood full of children would have had | diesel trains idling for hours a day. | | The total economic and environmental value of the program | was negative by most measures. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | This seems poorly argued to me. You're making a number of | assumptions here which I don't see why they would hold: | | 1. Amtrak ridership will barely grow, at most by a few | hundred riders per day. If you're this bearish on trains | then naturally you'll think nobody wants to take the | train and you don't think Amtrak should build more | trains. You're coming into this assuming that nobody | wants to ride the train. | | 2. Building dedicated track between Chicago and Milwaukee | would be cost prohibitive for Amtrak or otherwise | infeasible. The majority of the cost for building track | comes from acquiring ROW (so purchasing the land), grade | separations, and utility relocations needed for laying | the track. Chicago to Milwaukee in particular is one of | the cases where these costs are probably _lowest_ as much | of the ROW is cheap to acquire (outside of the direct | Chicagoland area), the land is fairly flat so grade | separations are rarely needed and utility relocations are | cheap to build. | | 3. The opportunity cost in carbon for added vehicles on | the road would somehow be less than the opportunity cost | for rolling stock to idle. Even if freight rail continues | to refuse to electrify in perpetuity, the added carbon | from private vehicle emissions will quickly dwarf extra | carbon emissions from idling freight cars. | | I think you're coming at this from a "trains are stupid, | here's why" perspective rather than an unbiased cost and | carbon perspective. These arguments change in areas where | ROW acquisition is expensive or grade separations and | utility locations are difficult, but Chicago to Milwaukee | has very few of these problems. In particular the problem | in this part of the US is that while rail works to move | from city-to-city, most Midwestern cities (other than | Chicago) have no actual transit to speak of. Once the | Amtrak drops you into Milwaukee, if there's nowhere to go | via train, then you're stuck, in which case you may as | well drive the whole way. That goes back to the fact that | rail in the US has been historically and systematically | underfunded. | erosenbe0 wrote: | Trains kill lots of people and the noise is excruciating. | They also impede other traffic when at grade, and require | massively expensive carbon guzzling infrastructure when not | at grade. The stations are often designed or located more | optimally for getting freight to and from, rather than | people. | | The bathrooms are less claustrophobic though. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Trains kill lots of people | | Vastly fewer, per passenger mile, then passenger cars, | comparable to busses, less than scheduled airline flights. | ls15 wrote: | > Here in Germany, for as long as I can remember, the | government praises itself every year for investing as much in | rail as never before. I have not noticed the service quality to | change for the better over the last 15 years. The ever-rising | investments seem to be only enough to keep the status quo of | the crumbling infrastructure. | | And the ticket price inflation is twice as high as regular CPI. | gtirloni wrote: | I've used trains many times in Germany and they are far far | from crumbling. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Trains are incredibly expensive to maintain. The US still | relies a lot on manual operations when running trains. I wonder | if they will ever be able to fully automate their travel. | Sharlin wrote: | Not so. The whole point of trains is that expenses are | largely one-off. Building the infrastructure is expensive. | Recurring costs are _much_ lower than other modes of land | transport, ceteris paribus. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Rail is much more expensive to maintain than roads on a | per-kilometer basis - where are you getting your numbers | from? | Symbiote wrote: | High speed rail is much more expensive to maintain than | ordinary rail. Motorways are also more expensive to | maintain than normal roads, but I think the railway has | more capacity than both. | | The comparison for a freight railway vs. an equivalent | road is obvious: private companies who need the entire | capacity, like mines, build railways. | | (I will leave it to someone else to find figures for high | speed rail vs. an equivalent motorway.) | Karrot_Kream wrote: | Do you have a source? I'd expect rail to be more | expensive from a capital expenditure perspective (laying | rail, ties, buying cars, etc) but much cheaper to operate | (coefficient of friction is lower between train wheels | and rails than with rubber tires and roads, optimal | speeding and slowing causing less wear on tracks, less | downtime as rail repairs are much simpler than road | repairs, etc) | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | In the UK, Network Rail spends about PS150k per track | kilometer per year on maintenance and renewal. Track | needs constant maintenance through ballast redistribution | and compaction to maintain track geometry; the rail | itself needs to be ground regularly to maintain its | shape; points systems need to be maintained, as well as | signaling systems, earthworks and embankments, even | vegetation. | | Maintenance costs for major roads in the UK (trunk | motorways and A roads) is something about half that. | Symbiote wrote: | All Network Rail railways: PS4479M / 20,000 miles of | track = PS140000/km | | Strategic Road Network: PS700M / 4,436 miles = PS98000/km | | Not included: cost of pollution, injuries and deaths on | the roads. | | Not considered: potential and actual capacity of the | roads vs the railways, potential for historic | underinvestment meaning higher current costs, whether | these statistics mean a single track/road lane or all the | tracks/lanes, usage costs for passengers and freight. | | A breakdown of the railways costs would be useful for a | better comparison, i.e. major lines only. | | https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp- | content/uploads/2021/07/Ann... | | https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploa | ds/... | buttercraft wrote: | You need to factor in the cost of moving goods for each. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | You need to divide maintenance by the actual usage of the | infrastructure. Railway can handle much larger usage of | the infrastructure per km than a motorway can. You may | need 4 motorway lanes to support the usage of a single | train track in order to handle the same capacity. Per | capita, rail costs tend to be a lot lower as rail can | handle much more than 2x motorway throughput. | saddlerustle wrote: | Land transport yes, but the operational cost of long | distance trains is quite a bit higher per passenger-mile | than planes | arcticbull wrote: | Is it though? Or is it the fact that airlines are able to | externalize their environmental costs, and are generally | both under-taxed and subsidized. | | [edit] I'm not saying that rail isn't subsidized - it | usually is, and often heavily, to be clear. It's the | environmental impact that's the thrust of my claim. | trainsarebetter wrote: | This. Rail lines don't need much maintenance once | installed. Compared to a hwy which starts to fall apart | immediately. Trains are a relatively simple and robust | transportation method. I wonder what the insurance costs | look like between the different methods of transportation | arcticbull wrote: | Rail infrastructure can be expensive (especially when done as | inefficiently as in the US) but the actual economics of | running trains are fantastic. They're the second-most | efficient way of transporting goods and people - after marine | shipping. | | A freight train can move 1 ton of cargo _480_ miles using a | single gallon of diesel. [1] | | Even city rail, Bart trains in SF average 249 miles per | gallon equivalent. | | Not to mention you only need what - one or two people - | manning a train carrying the average equivalent of 700 | truckloads. Once you commit to putting it up, it's super | cheap and efficient, which is why we do it. | | [1] https://www.aar.org/article/freight-rail-moving-miles- | ahead-... | | [2] | https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf | krsdcbl wrote: | I think there's two factors playing into this: | | first, Germany has had a high level of sefvice quality with | trains for the last 15 years, compared to much of the world, | there's little to improve | | and second, DB had become a HUGE holding company of many kinds | of business endeavours and rail service is not in the states | hand anymore, while the company "optimizes" for profit which | makes travel aside of high traffic routes become worse and | worse and coverage deteriorates. | AnonCoward4 wrote: | And in addition to that they also removed a lot of rail lines, | especially goods traffic. It would've been a boon to have fewer | trucks on the motorway and probably better for the environment. | novembermike wrote: | European trains don't really do that much freight though. | They tend to be optimized to carry people. America is | actually way ahead of Europe in terms of rail freight, | something like 10x depending on the measurement. | cheschire wrote: | Having commuted with both american and german rail systems | before, my educated guess it's likely due to who owns the | rails. American rail freight companies have far more | control over prioritization than european freight | companies. | | DB Netz owns the vast majority of german rail and therefore | prioritizes what makes them the most money. Historically | that's been carrying people due to all the government and | company subsidies they get for supporting commuters and | students. During COVID times the rail freight increased | dramatically because the personen trains were offline. I | suspect that will have generated some inertia towards | freight, but it will take years to see and only if the | right folks at DB crunch the right numbers. | | On the american side, I've sat for 20 or 30 minutes | regularly (up to an hour on the worst days) while our | commuter train had to wait for the rail owner's freight | train to roll through. And that's a regularly scheduled | commuter!! | einpoklum wrote: | But why couldn't DB Netz do both people and freight, if | both are profitable (after subsidies for passenger | traffic)? i.e. why does it have to be a choice? | barry-cotter wrote: | Because things which are designed to be good at one thing | will not be as good at other things. There's only so much | rail network and given a conflict either freight is a | priority or passengers are. You can't have two number 1 | priorities. | chiph wrote: | I'm pretty impressed with India opening dedicated freight | corridors. It's double-track that is optimized for | longer, heavier freight trains. It seems obvious that the | different operational patterns of freight and passenger | rail means they each should have their own tracks. The | only thing they did "wrong" IMO was to have level | crossings where cars & trucks can get hit by the trains. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd6EW9QsRto | jhgb wrote: | Russia is ahead of the US, even in absolute tonne-km terms. | And I don't know about other EU countries, but we (Czech | Republic) seem to be transporting almost exactly as many | tonnes per capita per year as the US, despite the fact that | we have mixed rail traffic. The US just wins on tonne-km | since it's larger, so the average distances are larger as | well. But purely the volume of freight seems to be about | the same, despite heavy passenger traffic. | sien wrote: | It's really worth looking at freight modal share by | transport type. The US does do really well. As does | Australia. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usa | g... | vkou wrote: | Is it possible that the investments are targeted at improving | rail service for regions that you don't live in? | skrbjc wrote: | Thanks for your perspective from someone close to the situation | there. I believe many Americans have a picture of a perfect | system in Europe, but the truth is likely different. Can you | elaborate on the negative aspects of the train system, as you | see it? | nfin wrote: | my short answer would be: bad at punctuality. Frequent delays | bigger than 10min. | | France for example is better at punctuality IMO. But granted: | smaller population density, therefore less stops needed in | rural areas. And lower population density made it also a lot | easier to build many complete own tracks for fast trains | (TGV). Also more centralized way of thinking, so if you are | around Paris: good, if you live far away of big cities, not | so lucky. | jmcgough wrote: | I haven't taken European trains, but Amtrak in the US is | often atrociously late. They pay to rent tracks from | freight companies and have to cede right-of-way to not | block them. | melenaboija wrote: | > Frequent delays bigger than 10min | | Im an European having spent few years in US and also used | to complain about this, until I learnt what delays mean in | domestic US flights. | | Not unusual to be few hours and already spent a couple of | nights at the airport. | kergonath wrote: | > smaller population density, therefore less stops needed | in rural areas. | | I see this argument regularly, but I do not find it very | convincing. There are places in the US about the same size | as France with much lower population densities as well. | France is about the same size as Texas. Surely there are | Texas-sized bits of land with similar densities as France | in the US. | | > Also more centralized way of thinking, so if you are | around Paris: good, if you live far away of big cities, not | so lucky. | | The network is still very centralised, but it is much | better than it used to be. Thanks to the Paris south and | east bypasses, as well as progress on the high speed line | in the south made things like Lyon-Lille, Lyon-Toulouse, | Strasbourg-Nantes, or Marseille-Bordeaux quite nice. Lyon- | Bordeaux is still a pain in the backside because of the | mountains in the middle. | Krasnol wrote: | Deutsche Bahn is a weird construct. | | It's been separated into many subsidiaries in preparation for | a privatisation. It never happened and while subsidiaries | like Schenker work quite well and drive profits, others like | those responsible for network or train maintenance create | only costs and have been neglected. This results in delays in | your daily experience with DB. DB's "punctuality" or the lack | of it is actually a running gag here in Germany. | | tl;nr: mismanagement. | kergonath wrote: | It was quite similar in France. It was a step before | privatisation, true, but the final step would have been the | re-nationalisation of the infrastructure and maintenance | branch, in a usual "privatise the profits and socialise the | losses" that the European Commission seems to so love. | Because efficiencies, or something. | noahtallen wrote: | I'm an American who recently took a train in Europe from | Paris to Brussels. | | Some brief thoughts: | | - It was so fast! Under 90 minutes for a journey which would | have taken a few hours by car. Clearly much faster than a | plane on this particular route, due to extra waiting and | security in airports. | | - It was also a very comfortable mode. If you're traveling | with friends, it'd be very easy to socialize around a table. | Quieter than a car or plane as well. | | - Love being able to hop on/hop off without a huge ordeal or | waiting in a long line. | | - Too expensive for the route. I would have to book much | further in advance to think it was worth it. I think maybe 6x | the cost of driving, if I compared to a similar route in the | US. | | - Obviously this is a high speed route. That doesn't exist | between all cities. | | - Looking at other tickets, connecting between two routes can | be tricky. For example, if I wanted to go from Amsterdam to | London, I'd might transfer to a different train in Paris. | That adds a huge amount of time. | | I mean, compared to the US, it's a delight! For a similar | city-to-city distance (Portland to Seattle), I'd love a 90min | transit mode, especially if it was relatively cheap. | | Obviously there are still some route and cost drawbacks, but | there just isn't much comparable in the US. It's a much | better system, obviously, even if it's not perfect. At least | they _have_ high speed rail! | mynameisash wrote: | > I mean, compared to the US, it's a delight! For a similar | city-to-city distance (Portland to Seattle), I'd love a | 90min transit mode, especially if it was relatively cheap. | | Fully agree. Years ago, I took Amtrak from Minnesota to | Seattle, and it was 36 hours. I enjoyed most everything | about it except that it took. So. Long. I rarely drive down | to Portland, but if we had a ~1.5hr train, I'd probably do | it several times a year. Same for Seattle to BC. | | I may have a rose-colored perspective of Europe's rail, but | I also really enjoy Paris <-> Caen or <-> Versailles. My | kids loved the night train from Paris to Venice, too. And | having just flown from the Midwest to Seattle with a | layover, I would GLADLY trade that ~11 hour travel day | (from arrival at the airport to getting picked up at | SeaTac) for an ~18 hour cross-country TGV. It'll never | happen, but I can dream. | wolverine876 wrote: | > It'll never happen, but I can dream. | | Sorry, but people give up too easily. This isn't a fusion | power plant. We only have to vote for it. | yywwbbn wrote: | Minneapolis to Seattle is around the same distance as | Madrid to Warsaw. And for that trip you'd need ~4 | transfer and it would take ~30 hours in total. So it | doesn't seem that much better. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Too expensive for the route | | That's the one that surprised me the most. I shouldn't have | been surprised, I suppose, given that even Amtrak is quite | expensive compared to air travel, but I was a little | shocked at just how expensive trains in Europe can be. | Especially the good ones. | ghaff wrote: | The capital of the EU to the capital of France in an | adjacent country is pretty much the definition of good | train travel in Europe. Also anything TGV in France. As | sibling noted, Eurostar from London is also great. Various | other routes are pretty good. | | Prices are pretty high by and large especially if you | haven't booked well in advance. | | As someone else mentioned, very fragmented in Europe | generally. I actually try to take trains in Europe but not | always a great option especially when traversing multiple | countries. | recuter wrote: | Eurostar runs direct trains from London to Rotterdam & | Amsterdam, 3.5 and 4 hours respectively. | | You can't really compare to a similar route in the US | because there are hardly any and hardly anybody uses them. | The train routes in EU are busy and frequently _full_ , | just like planes. Obviously booking ahead is cheaper, how | else could you do it? | | Top tip, plan a head and read up a little bit on seat61: | | https://www.seat61.com/trains-and-routes/london-to- | amsterdam... | | Top tip 2: | | Overnight trains is one of the best ways to see Europe as a | backpacker on the cheap. The routes are often scenic and | the cost is frequently cheaper than anything else since you | don't have to pay for accommodations. | | Buses are a thing too. And they are not greyhound bad, but | definitely not as good as trains. | gbear605 wrote: | Long distance trains in the US are frequently full, they | just don't run as often. And the US does the same thing | where it's cheaper in advance. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | We have the same buses as you these days. Megabus exists | to connect many larger metropolitan areas. More or less | the same vehicles as you'd find for similar services in | Europe. Sadly, none of the "sleeper bus" variety that | have existed (from time to time) in Europe. | avianlyric wrote: | On this specific example | | > Amsterdam to London | | Eurostar runs a direct route, with passport control in | Amsterdam. But looking at any link from Europe to London | that isn't directly served by Eurostar (i.e. any city | except Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels) is going to suck. | prennert wrote: | Depends what you optimize for. I used to travel from | Germany to London and had to change in Brussels. Yes you | have to wait a bit, but not like at an airport. The | walking distances and wait times are very small and the | trains connect timewise so it is fairly stress free. | | If you want to play it super save, you can stop for a | good meal in Brussels as you are taking a break in the | middle of a city, rather than hanging around in an | airport. | laurencerowe wrote: | I've taken Eurostar from London and changed in Paris for | Grenoble and Brussels for Amsterdam (before the direct | train.) It was completely fine. No different from any | other train journey with a change. | | I think it may have taken a while to get from Brussels to | Amsterdam because that line hadn't yet been upgraded at | the time but the journey time wasn't far off what it | would have been getting to and flying from | Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted. | lqet wrote: | A short answer for Germany would be: the system is operating | at its absolute limits. The results are employee burnout and | bad reliability. | | An example: a few years ago, they introduced a new way to | reduce delays caused by trains arriving so late at their | destination that they cannot make their scheduled return | trip. This is the so-called "Pofalla-Turn", named after the | manager who supported it: if a train has a delay of over 30 | minutes, the train will often just stop at some station and | the passengers are told "the train ends here". They then have | to figure out their journey using alternative trains. | | Just imagine this happening on a flight. I often witness | completely helpless tourists lost at my local rail station | who don't speak the language and cannot understand why the | train _they have an expensive ticket and reservation for_ | just stopped, drove back, and left them stranded here. | | If you are meeting/visiting someone in a city more than 200 | km away, and if you tell them that you plan to take the | train, the usual response is: "Oh, good luck". | jhgb wrote: | > the train will often just stop at some station and the | passengers are told "the train ends here". They then have | to figure out their journey using alternative trains. | | In the Czech Republic, what would happen in that case would | be that the railway company would shuttle the passengers to | their destination using buses. This doesn't happen in | Germany? | [deleted] | ls15 wrote: | The typical scenario is that passengers can just take | another train. Depending on the ticket, the railway is | responsible for refunding cost for alternative | transportation (EU law), but there can be frustrating | edge cases where people are left stranded, because there | is no alternative, but a lot of bureaucracy. The railway | may be responsible for refunding accommodation then, but | I think this would not necessarily be the case for | monthly tickets, student tickets and so on, when there is | no explicit booking for a canceled train like with a | regular ticket. | jhgb wrote: | What I meant was that the buses are provided if there's | no other option, like another train. | ls15 wrote: | In some cases, but not always. Probably depends on | multiple factors. | lioeters wrote: | My most memorable train experience in Germany was when | Deutsche Bahn left me in Munich in the middle of the | night. I had a connection there but my first train was | ~10 minutes late, and my second train had already left. | So I spent the whole night at the train station until | ~5am when I could catch another train in the direction I | needed. I've taken many train trips in the Czech | Republic, and that has never happened. | ls15 wrote: | I never take the last possible connection of a day, | because of this risk. | bombcar wrote: | Amtrak does that sometimes (the train and/or crew die on | the rails) but then they produce a bus from somewhere and | get you to your destination. | | At least in the US, once a company has accepted you on your | journey they have to _eventually_ get you to your | destination, or get you to agree to give up. One time the | train even stopped and told people trying to make a | connection to get out; they 'd called taxis to meet the | other train. | zimpenfish wrote: | > if a train has a delay of over 30 minutes, the train will | often just stop at some station | | I've seen that happen in London, sadly, although it's less | of a problem given the general frequency and other | alternatives (bus, etc.) Also the "if the train is going to | be delayed enough to cause payouts, just take it out of | service before the deadline" trick. | emn13 wrote: | One bit that might surprise people is how fragmented it was | (probably still is?). I'll see if I can find more sources, | but e.g. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=1 | 0.1.1.67... illustrates some of the issues. Gauges vary. | Voltages vary. Safety systems vary. Edit: here's a nice | diagram from (of course) wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/ | wiki/Railway_electrification_system... | | Europe doesn't have a rail system, it has dozens of systems; | and they're not all compatible - which given this all | originated in pre-EU times, is hardly surprising. | | And that also means that it can take quite a long time to | travel by rail, despite high-speed rail. If you need to cross | rail-system borders - some of which are even intra-national | like in France, you may need to change trains and/or take | illogical routes. If, however, you're lucky and your route is | on the happy path - then it can be quite competitive with | short-haul flights both in hassle (if not quite speed) and | cost. | | Then there's the fact that operators are fragmented too, so | booking a ticket or finding the optimal route can be | surprisingly tricky once you need to cross several borders. | I'm not sure this is _worse_ than navigating airline booking | systems, mind you, but it sure isn 't efficient either. | gpvos wrote: | The thing is, you _used_ to be able to buy a ticket from, | say, Lisbon to Copenhagen, from any ticket booth, and just | take any reasonable train on the (multi-day) route. But | nowadays many national railway companies use yield | management, so that original price is now the full price | which is a lot higher, and actually you simply can 't buy | such tickets anymore, you must use booking systems that | just cannot book all trains. In some countries such as | France and Spain reservations are now obligatory for long- | distance trains. | | At some international ticket booths you can still book | complicated trips, but if you try to book them yourself | over the internet, you will have to cut up the trip into | separate parts which are treated as separate trips for the | travel guarantee, so if you miss a connection due to a | delay beyond your control you don't have the right to take | the next train if it's not part of the same trip. | Sharlin wrote: | Nothing is perfect, but also remember that people always find | things to complain about, particularly if they don't have | personal experience of less well functioning systems. | uoaei wrote: | By that logic, no one should complain about anything, | because we don't live in literal hell. But that is of | course preposterous. | Sharlin wrote: | That's not what I meant. Only that the fact that people | complain about X in both A and B does not tell much about | the relative quality of X in A compared to B because the | expectations and standards may be very different. | laurencerowe wrote: | It's good to complain and improve things but having moved | to the US I now miss even British trains! | dijit wrote: | Parent: people often complain because it's the worst | they've ever had, take it with a pinch of salt. | | You: well you can't complain about anything then can | you!? | | ---- | | You can complain, but it's good to have an understanding | of what you're complaining about, the parent is right. We | are quick to complain about imperfection when a lot of | what we have is truly quite good. | | Sometimes it's legitimate criticism, sometimes it's being | spoiled. | | Any criticism that is not specific can (and probably | should) be dismissed outright. Complaints and criticism | should always be specific. | lelandbatey wrote: | They're not saying there's no reason to complain. They're | pointing out a very valid phenomena. For those of us on | the total outside, it helps us temper bad feedback. | Otherwise, you can end up with a situation like the | following: | | Person A from place without infrastructure X: wow, life | with infrastructure X sure would be better. I wonder if | we should invest in X? | | Person B from place with infrastructure X: There's lots | of problems and it annoys me daily. | | Note that in this situation, the wrong conclusion is to | say _" well, then maybe infrastructure X is a bad idea"_. | We want to avoid that line of thinking (since it's not an | appropriate conclusion given the statements), so it's | worth pointing out many tempering factors, such as those | mentioned by the parent comment. | neoyagami wrote: | I went to germany a cuple of years ago, and my experience was | delightful, here in chile in the years of the coup, the rail | system was almost completely dismantled in favor of trucks and | buses, I dream the day I could travel in train to the north of | the country in a moderate modern train :) | hilbert42 wrote: | _" The ever-rising investments seem to be only enough to keep | the status quo of the crumbling infrastructure."_ | | It's quite a while since I've traveled by Deutsche Bahn but I | found it very efficient and on time when I did. What do you | reckon is the reason for the crumbling infrastructure? There | was huge reinvestment after the war to renew war-damaged | infrastructure and rail infrastructure usually has a very long | life (many rail bridges and viaducts built in the mid 1800s are | still in service today). | | Was that war reconstruction rushed/not well implemented or | what? | Fargren wrote: | Living in Spain, I love trains and take them over airplane when | it's an option. However, trains are often around twice as | expensive as flying for may routes. I know nothing about trains, | but intuitively I would expect the opposite, and I really wish it | was more affordable, specially high speed rail. | Glawen wrote: | A plane doesn't have to build and maintain km of tracks, it | just uses airport facilities (subsidised usually) and untaxed | kerosene. A high speed train can only go to a few destination, | the tracks can hardly be repaid | KptMarchewa wrote: | A lot of time those tracks are already paid for by freight | trains. | | The track tax is just what governments choose to do - | especially since cargo trucks barely pay any road access tax. | Leherenn wrote: | Rail infrastructure is very expensive compared to planes. An | airport is expensive, but once you've built it you're pretty | much immediately connected to half the world. With a train | station, you need a track to each surrounding stations, | maintain them, and so on. Also, train doesn't scale down as | well, it quickly becomes inefficient for the less dense routes. | | People are talking about subsidies (by not taxing fuel for | instance) for planes, but trains are also directly subsidised | to the tune of billions each year. The rail network just costs | a ton to build and maintain. | emn13 wrote: | Sure, but so are airports and so are roads. And all forms of | infrastructure are sometimes prestige projects, and all are | sometimes subject to political choices that while legitimate, | in retrospect turn out to have been questionable. | | It's possible that despite all that rail has higher costs - | but it's also quite possible that the dominating factor is | the unreasonably subsidized airline fuel. The tax-exempt | status is absurd, especially given other fuel and power | duties - not to mention that a reasonable accounting _should_ | be taxing fuel high enough to cover the costs of the climate- | change externalities, which would result in an even higher | price (as it happens, due to cloud formation, air travel | causes even more warming than ground based fossil fuel | consumption, though I 'm unaware of whether that's a | significant difference). | | If indeed an honest accounting were to reveal that flight is | still cheaper: great! But I seriously doubt it; and in any | case it's certainly time to stop subsidizing air travel like | this. Let the sector succeed or fail on its own merits, not | by virtue of tax shenanigans. | BurningFrog wrote: | Yeah, rail infrastructure costs O(distance) while plane | infrastructure costs O(trips). | occz wrote: | >but trains are also directly subsidised to the tune of | billions each year. The rail network just costs a ton to | build and maintain. | | Just wait until you hear about how subsidised the | infrastructure for cars and trucks are. | julienb_sea wrote: | Construction of road infrastructure can be compared to | construction of tracks and stations, and it's fair to say | taxpayers foot the bill in full for both. | | The difference is that trains operate at a loss even with | high ticket prices and operational subsidies are necessary | for market viability. That is not the case with car and | truck usage. | burlesona wrote: | At least in the US, local road networks in the suburbs | and rural areas bleed money terribly, and as fuel taxes | have not kept pace with inflation even the inner city | streets and crowded highways can barely break even. | namdnay wrote: | The major subsidy to planes is that you don't have to clean | up the CO2 you spew out | emn13 wrote: | But even beyond that - fuel and other power sources have | been taxed well before climate change was a political | issue, and jet fuel is exempt from all of that. It smacks | of regulatory capture. | gunfighthacksaw wrote: | The train feels more civilized. | | You can afford to have a bit more space to sit, wider aisles to | walk and can fit a much nicer kitchen. | | Bigger tables too so you can spread out your | work/shopping/food. | | If you haven't tried train food before I highly recommend it. | It's stereotypically good in the same way plane food is | stereotypically bad. | ews wrote: | RENFE (national railroad company) had no competitors until very | recently, they opened the market just months ago. I am hopeful | the new high speed companies (i.e Ouigo) makes the market much | more competitive and lowers pricing in all tiers. Still, for | same price and roughly same time, I always prefer using the | train to the planes. | ceejayoz wrote: | The article hints at why this is: | | > The fact remains that, despite the European Union's support | for rail, the bloc's governments continue to grant enormous | subsidies to airlines -- in the form of bailout packages as | well as low taxes on jet fuel -- although that could change | soon. | Hermel wrote: | By definition, low taxes are not a subsidy. It is the trains | that are heavily subsidized. The main reason behind the price | difference is that there is plenty of competition between | airlines for a given flight, eg Paris-Berlin, but no | competition for the same train connection. | Ma8ee wrote: | The argument that lower taxes isn't a subsidy is just | stupid. It makes absolutely no meaningful difference if | someone pays the same taxes as everyone else but then the | government pay them some money, or if someone pays | correspondingly lower taxes. In the end the recipient ends | up with exactly the same amount of more money, and the | government ends up with exactly the same amount of less | money. | jhgb wrote: | > By definition, low taxes are not a subsidy. | | The conspicuous lack of Pigouvian taxes on a fossil fuel | for just one industry is definitely a subsidy. Someone else | is paying for the externalities. | [deleted] | namdnay wrote: | Flag-carrier Airlines are heavily subsidized by the | implicit guarantee that the state will do everything it can | to bail them out | pc86 wrote: | They are if other industries consuming the _same product_ | pay different tax rates. In this example, an airline | purchasing 1L of kerosene pays a different rate than a | train purchasing the same 1L of the same kerosene. That 's | the textbook definition of a subsidy. | [deleted] | vmception wrote: | Flying in Spain and many parts of Europe is insanely and | artificially cheap. I've seen bus passes more expensive, and | the bus passes were the price I expected. | kergonath wrote: | Yes. This is not sustainable. | cryptoz wrote: | Same in the US. I would love to take the train from Seattle to | SF, but, it costs so much more than a flight would, and takes a | very long time compared. Sleeper cars make the price nearly | double, and for such a long trip, train seats without a sleeper | are somehow worse than plane seats. | | I have taken many Amtrak short trips, like 1h, and 50% of the | time the train leaves more than 1h late (and 100% it leaves | late, some amount). So I leave my departure location after I | was meant to arrive at my arrival location. | | In 2005 I took a night train from Budapest to Belgrade, but not | really - the ticket I paid for, the platform sign, the ticket | agent, all told me that. But once on the train passing the | border, the passport checker told me that the route hadn't gone | to Belgrade in some time, and that I would be dumped at 2am in | Novi Sad, where I was meant to buy a bus ticket. Tickets closed | and Euros not accepted. Was a difficult time to resolve, but I | bought overpriced Dinars from some travellers with my Euros and | got a last minute ticket. Arrived in Belgrade to find 0 hotel | rooms due to a football match. | | I love trains. But the process needs improvement, just like | airplanes. Long-distance travel without a car is honestly quite | difficult in Europe and USA imo. | | Planes will sell you tickets that don't exist and then pretend | like a night in a hotel makes up for it. They abuse you at | security. They treat you like trash and everybody deals with | it. | | Please make trains better, Amtrak, and EU. Please. | dwighttk wrote: | Every improvement you are asking for (except for lower | prices) is going to cost more money. | Johnny555 wrote: | Does it really cost money to have the Belgrade train | destination sign say "must buy bus ticket and transfer in | Novi Sad"? | dwighttk wrote: | Oh yeah a sign would work... (I was thinking continuing | the train to the stated destination.) | ciupicri wrote: | I find it odd that the train ticket didn't get you to your | final destination. If the train doesn't travel on some part | of the route, the railway company usually gets you on a bus | for that part and you don't have to do anything. Just get off | the train and hop in the bus. | | N.B. Hungary has been an EU member since 2004, but Serbia is | still not. | lost_soul wrote: | If I had to apply an "aggravation factor", air travel is | worse. The train just doesn't seem to bug me as much. One | difference is that when the train arrives I'm in the city | center. When the plane arrives I'm at the airport. | simonsarris wrote: | This is mentioned near the end of the article but the reason | those short domestic flights are so cheap in Europe is that | commercial kerosene is currently tax exempt in every single EU | member state. Jet fuel is cheaper per gallon in the EU than it | is in the USA! (or was, before the current war) | | In typically tax-happy Europe this always struck me as odd, | agree it is sad when you find out an airplane ticket is cheaper | than a corresponding train. | saddlerustle wrote: | Yes, but note usually around 30% of the ticket price of a | european short-haul flight is already other taxes. This is | compared to train tickets that include a 30%+ _subsidy_ | wasmitnetzen wrote: | Airports, especially smaller ones, are heavily subsidized | in Europe. | andy_ppp wrote: | "Follow the money..." | KarlKemp wrote: | I believe this is a remnant of some complications with | regards to taxation in an international context, similar to | duty-free shopping. | | Another consideration may be the consequences of possibly | diverging tax rates for kerosene: if it's much cheaper to | fill up in, say, Spain, than it is in France, it might become | cheaper to carry the fuel for the return leg, even if the | increased weight increases fuel consumption. | | I'm not saying that any of this _justifies_ the state of | affairs. But it 's possible to arrive at it even with mostly | good intentions. | PaywallBuster wrote: | as I remember, the discussion went that if EU implemented a | tariff on on jet fuel companies would simply load their | planes elsewhere, e.g. Russia/Dubai where there's abundant | fuel with little to no tax | | not so relevant for the shorter trips intra-EU, but still a | factor | dkural wrote: | It'll be more expensive to constantly fly back and forth to | Dubai to load up than to simply pay the tax. Dubai is not | that close to Paris. It takes about 7-8 hours. I don't know | if you've been checking the news lately but Russia is out | of the question for airplanes. They won't even return | leased airplanes back anymore. | megablast wrote: | Most flights are local. | | They aren't going to russia for the Paris London flight. | verve_rat wrote: | If they did do that then the EU could introduce a tariff on | the fuel they import when they fly back in. | | There would be rules around a fuel flight vs a legit | passenger/cargo service, assuming they don't want to tax | the extra fuel left in a plane at the end of a flight. | | But that seem like a pretty straightforward problem to | solve. | cinntaile wrote: | I bet this keeps a lot of national airlines afloat and | they're already barely afloat, if they start taxing kerosene | they'll require even more subsidies from their governments. | pydry wrote: | There's also intense competition among airlines which cuts | costs to the bone. That doesnt happen for rail. | hilbert42 wrote: | I used to travel frequently between Vienna and Paris (to visit | relatives in Paris) and I quickly stopped flying between the two | cities when I discovered the city-to-city train then called the | _' Mozart'_ (it ceased service in 2007): | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_(train). | | I found that whilst the duration of the flying time was | considerably shorter than the train trip the overall flying time | was still quite long given all the rigmarole at the airports and | getting to and from them. | | I found that traveling this intercity circuit on the _Mozart_ | much more enjoyable and relaxing than flying even though the trip | took typically between 13 and 14 hours (Wiki says 13h10), the | food was quite excellent (for a train) and the trips were in the | daytime so there was much scenery to look at. When not doing that | I could occupy myself with written /paperwork work or read a book | and not be interrupted. What was really excellent about the | _Mozart_ was that it was not only an intercity train but also it | took me directly to the very heart of both cities--there was no | need to travel to the outskirts of the cities to their airports | (I 've always found traveling to and from airports a nuisance and | pain so I've always considered train travel a great advantage | over flying (except when flying exceptionally long distances, | intercontinental, etc.). | | I've not done that circuit for quite some years now and I'm sorry | to see the _Mozart_ service terminated. After reading the article | I did a check on its replacement service and it seems that now a | section of the trip is by TGV and that there are now two changes | between the cities. Despite the introduction of the TGV, the | travel time between Paris and Vienna is 13h15 -- which is all of | 5 minutes longer than the nominal time taken by the _Mozart._ | Shame really. | | Nevertheless, I cannot help but believe that Europe's investment | in passenger train transport will pay off handsomely. When I was | doing a lot of traveling around Europe by train I found most of | the services quite excellent--much more so than in Anglophone | countries--and I reckon that the main reason for this is that | culturally the Europeans seem to be much more at home with and | adapted to train travel. As such, it's very unlikely that that | investment in trains will be wasted. | monksy wrote: | As someone who just rode in a sleeper car for the second time. I | like amtrak when I can do this. It's completely unreasonable for | a round trip, but I did Chicago->Seattle and Chicago to Boston | (Where I"m currently here.. and will be flying back tomorrow). | | It's a mostly great experience... all due to the scenery you're | watching, not so much everything else. | | What worries me if it becomes more privatized: You'll see the | experience drop a lot more, features you need for long distance | trips (big seat+power outlet) removed. You'll get a lot more | stressed employees who will create conflicts etc. | | What I would like to see: | | - More prioritization on autonomous cars | | - More frequent routes | | - Infrastructure improvements for faster service (We could and | should have a hub/spoke model for ICE like passenger rail) | | - Support with integration into the communities they connect | into. (Build the town around it) Create a standard that local | rental car companies are working with the passengers arriving and | leaving. | | - General equipment refreshes (A lot of it is maintenance by | schedule rather than reactory.. a lot of the experience is pretty | dirty) Also there is an attitude with the coach passengers that | the train is a trashcan because it's already pretty dirty. Being | in coach is freaking brutal if you have to be on it more than 9 | hours or overnight. | | Btw Their employees are a lot more helpful about being | functionally helpful when something goes wrong. Airline employees | just escalate and pull the "screw you, you won't get help" when | something goes wrong in person. (Yea I'm looking at you IAH gate | agent that just left the desk right before boarding.. the captain | was playing secretary). No the empire builder doesn't have WIFI.. | but how will dinner work.. they're more than helpful at | explaining it, etc. | bgorman wrote: | The Brightline is probably the nicest railway experience in | North America, and it is 100% private. (South Florida) | thebean11 wrote: | I can't wrap my head around how expensive Amtrak is, given that | it's so heavily subsidized by the government. | ghaff wrote: | Well, it's not really. It makes money on the Northeast | Corridor and loses it on (most of)the rest of the country. A | profitable Amtrak would basically service Boston to DC. | chrisbolt wrote: | Part of the reason that Amtrak is expensive is that it's so | slow. For a flight from Chicago to Seattle you only need to | pay pilots/flight attendants/etc for around 5 hours of work, | whereas for Amtrak it's 46 hours or more. | | Wendover Productions goes into detail: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA | monksy wrote: | Yes/No. | | You can get a California zephyer ticket from Chicago->Seattle | for 160 in coach one way. That's a really good deal for 2k+ | miles, generous baggage allowance, etc (if you can tolerate | that). | | Sleepers can go 1k+ for the 2.5d. In the winter (what I did) | was 600$. I'm also not paying for the efficency. I'm paying | for the experience of the hotel, meals, convenence of travel, | and the ability to watch out the window. | thebean11 wrote: | I remember trying to get from NYC to DC and the prices | being higher than flights. I took a bus instead. | gbear605 wrote: | Train prices go up a lot (a factor of 2 or more) when | it's close to the time of the train, since the price is | based on how full the train is currently booked. You | might get cheaper train trips by booking further out. | | Buses will still beat the cost, but they're slower and | less comfortable. | ghaff wrote: | Buses on the northeast corridor will certainly be | cheaper. Trains (especially Acela) are competing with | flying given the huge amount of business travel. | Tushon wrote: | I've never seen this personally (living in DC area since | 2014). At best, flights were on par and you still had to | transport from airport to destination vs being likely in | the city center (as noted elsewhere in this thread | already) and deal with all the other airport time. Bus is | definitely cheaper today though with highly variable | experience along the way. | supertrope wrote: | If you consider the time-money spent in security | checkpoints and riding taxis it's a wash. Amtrak is able | to charge more because it's a better experience than a | flight! But only on the NY-DC route. | uuyi wrote: | Good on you Europe. Here in the UK we are heavily investing in | rail replacement busses at the moment. | Barrin92 wrote: | Bus networks are a pretty decent solution as well. Rail is very | expensive and there's not that many regions where you can | operate it economically. In particular with electrical busses | becoming better you can shift a lot of traffic away from | personal vehicles on existing infrastructure. | jsinai wrote: | fyi GP's post is sarcasm. In UK "rail replacement bus" means | the train route is cancelled and there's a replacement bus | instead. | | Bus networks can work over small high density areas. | Johannesburg has been building a bus network with exclusive | lanes for years, but it's designed to work in conjunction | with its part complete metro. Cambridge, UK, has limited | "busways" which connect the local villages. However, over | large distances, I fail to see how buses can be more | efficient. A single train can move hundreds of people over | hundreds of kilometres, at much higher speeds than a bus, and | with very little pollution. | tonyedgecombe wrote: | Rail replacement buses are what the rail companies lay on | when they can't run their trains because of some failure. It | isn't an investment in the way you interpreted it. | fredoliveira wrote: | The UK is a European country. Not in the EU anymore, but you | folks didn't move continents ;-) | chrisseaton wrote: | In the UK, 'Europe' in this kind of context has almost always | meant 'the continental mainland'. That's not a Brexit thing - | that's the terminology for as long as I've been alive. | avianlyric wrote: | Culturally we generally consider Europe to mean continental | Europe i.e. Europe without the islands. Thus the U.K. being | an island nation isn't part of Europe. | | But the definition of Europe will change depending on who | you're talking to and what your talking about. | namdnay wrote: | To be pedantic, they never were on the continent :) | | Apart from Gibraltar I guess | detritus wrote: | *stares at continental shelf depth map around the UK | described on old European map on wall | IshKebab wrote: | Ha yes well... "the continent" refers to the European | land mass. C.f. "continental breakfast". But the UK is | part of the European continent in the continental shelf | sense. The word "continent" is not really well defined. | Here's a nice video about it: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrsxRJdwfM0 | rootusrootus wrote: | It does seem poorly defined. If it were the land mass, I | would expect that Europe extended all the way to the | other end of Russia. | DrBazza wrote: | Never you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland | jbverschoor wrote: | You can invest all you want, but if you can't manage it properly, | people will keep flying... Get better management and then invest | ChildOfChaos wrote: | Certainly not in the UK, our ticket prices keep going up | massively and the service is getting worse and worse, putting on | smaller and smaller trains and more delays and cancellations than | ever, with most train stations badly run down. | | It's a complete joke. The trains are far worse and largely more | expensive than they were ten years ago. | beaconstudios wrote: | Well our train service is highly privatised, and in a way that | does not engender competition. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | As an American who doesn't drive, the experience of trains in the | EU compared to the US is just delightful. Yes, there are super | cheap flights and I used them often for longer haul trips but the | trains were always amazing- I've done trips including Mariupol to | Lviv, Budapest to Berlin, and Berlin to Munich and always had a | great experience. The Romania-Chisinau line is quite old but part | of its charm. I see a lot of people talking about the expense | compared to the cheap flights- those are solid and I've used them | a lot but after you factor in the waiting time at airports, the | unexpected fees in case your bag is a kilo too heavy, the uber to | and from a far away airport, etc. it's really not that much of a | difference. There is no comparison to trains in the U.S. (e.g. I | took one for 3 days from DC to LA; while I enjoyed it, it was a | slough with no real food facilities for the passengers not in | sleeper cars, old chairs, etc.). I hope there will be more | investment, especially in the Baltics. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Sadly, anyone noticeably younger than me missed the chance to | ride the Hellas Express (Dortmund to Athens). 3 days, 2 nights. | Rode it twice. Then Yugoslavia came apart, war broke out, and | the Hellas Express was no more. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | That would have been incredible. I had actually started one | journey in Athens and did the usual beach thing on an island | before flying to Hungary to begin a train trip up to Germany | (where I was starting a new job some days later). I would | certainly have taken a train if I could. I had a chance to | spend a few days in Albania and Serbia just before the | pandemic and was very pleasantly surprised as to the | countries. I don't know why but Albania I had a picture in my | head as a very Soviet brutal country stuck in the mid 1900's | but I think I saw far more prosperity in Tirana than say in | Skopje. | hdjjhhvvhga wrote: | I remember going to Crimea one summer some 20 years ago, it | took almost 40 hours but boy it was something I'll never | forget! Especially the babushkas with local produce, pelmeni | and so on at every stop so you could buy them (so cheaply) just | grabbing them from their hands through the window. Delicious | food, great views and an excellent company. | | On the other side of the equations are superfast trains like | the TGV, this one is expensive but in my humble opinion it is | faster than plane on routes like Paris-Lyon and I'll take train | over plane on any day at distances shorter than 500-700km. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Ah that sounds amazing! On the trains in Ukraine they did | still have the babushkas hawking produce and fish at the | stops and I have had some lovely conversations on these | trains but I would have loved to go to Crimea. A Siberian | railway trip is still on the bucket list but I will wait | until things are less contentious and so I'm not putting | dollars into the hands of the Putin regime. | pilsetnieks wrote: | > I hope there will be more investment, especially in the | Baltics. | | There is an ongoing development, Rail Baltica, European gauge, | being built to join Helsinki through the Baltic states, to | Poland, which will link up with Germany. The end date has | slipped (it was supposed to be in 2024, now it's pushed to | 2026) but construction is already ongoing, and it looks quite | promising. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Yes, I was thinking specifically about this. I was working | for the Estonian gov a while back and thought it would be | great for this to be pushed forward; unfortunately the | mistiming probably would have killed that new mall that was | built around one of the stations if covid didn't. But maybe | they'll get that and the tunnel to Helsinki done at the same | time :) | gandalfian wrote: | Here in the UK the train to London is five hours and PS75. The | coach is PS15 and eight hours. Four people in a car perhaps PS10 | a head. Trains are nicer but there is something annoyingly | mysterious about the ecomomcs of it all. | riazrizvi wrote: | It's a question of economy of scale. The amount of road vehicle | that has been built over the last 150 years vastly supersedes | the amount of train over an even longer period. More train, | means better train. Hopefully advances in computer aided design | will allow some narrowing of that gap. | | EDIT: There is also an inherent feature in trains that greatly | reduces the rate of progress. With toad vehicles there is very | good decoupling between the track and the vehicle, from a | design pov. With trains the chassis design is more coupled to | the track design. And since you can't really upgrade track | easily, on both train and road, there are more constraints in | new train design. | elthor89 wrote: | It is there but I wish there was a more comprehensive network of | high speed rail in Europe. | | Going from Amsterdam to Spain the plane seems to win on price and | travel time. | | One thing that isn't infrastructure but could easily be improved | is buying international train tickets. So often I see that one | needs to call or you can only book one month ahead. | | Surely we could have solved that by now.. | dmitriid wrote: | Flying from Stockholm to Copenhagen (or even Malmo or | Gothenburg) is often a better alternative to trains. Thankfully | there's now an express train to Gothenburg, but that's about | it. | ATsch wrote: | It is absolutely possible, however government leaders have | stubbornly blocked it: https://www.investigate- | europe.eu/en/2021/european-governmen... | DominikPeters wrote: | I agree that ticketing is terrible. But note that you can take | the train from Amsterdam to Barcelona or even Madrid or Sevilla | using essentially only high-speed lines (the only segments that | aren't high-speed are Amsterdam to Lille and Avignon to | Perpignan). So at least on those routes, one can't really | complain about the comprehensiveness of European HSR. Amsterdam | to Barcelona can be done in 12h17 with two changes, giving an | average speed of 100km/h (measuring straight-line distance!). | emn13 wrote: | Note that if you travel from The Netherlands to Spain you might | be traversing 6 different railway electrification systems that | vary in critical stuff like voltages (and by more than a factor | 10!) and possibly Hz, and some are AC and some are DC (not | kidding). Also there will be at least 2 incompatible track | gauges involved. And I bet other stuff like communications and | routing systems are incompatible and safety critical too. | | As a result, such a trip would take a long time, even if high- | speed rail is a possibility for part of the trip; it's not | possible for a simple train to go even most of the way; you'll | need to change trains multiple times not just due to logistical | issues, but simply to be on a train that can even use the rail | you need to traverse. | | If we can't fix that (and that's a _really_ hard and expensive | problem), we 're never going to get a fast connection from the | netherlands to spain. | | And I'm sure you can find even worse scenarios (say, tack on | denmark and germany to that route for 2 more technologically | incompatible systems!). Baltic states still use a soviet- | derived system, and much of eastern Europe a yet different one. | andbberger wrote: | incredible almost everything you said is wrong! | | > Note that if you travel from The Netherlands to Spain you | might be traversing 6 different railway electrification | systems that vary in critical stuff like voltages (and by | more than a factor 10!) and possibly Hz, and some are AC and | some are DC (not kidding). Also there will be at least 2 | incompatible track gauges involved. And I bet other stuff | like communications and routing systems are incompatible and | safety critical too. | | none of this is nearly as problematic as you seem to think it | is. modern powertrains traverse various electrification | schemes without difficulty. signaling systems are trending | towards ETCS, trains that traverse incompatible signaling | systems (eg the eurostar) simply carry a set of onboard | signaling equipment for each standard. gauge changes are the | most challenging technical limitation in your list, but are a | solved problem. spanish talgo's regularly change gauges at | speed [1] | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiH4kt14yGw | ATsch wrote: | > modern powertrains traverse various electrification | schemes without difficulty. | | Indeed, however the majority of currently existing stock is | only fitted for operation in at most one or two countries | | > signaling systems are trending towards ETCS | | "trending towards" is doing a lot of work here, ETCS | rollout has been stalling for ages. New train sets are | still being delivered today that do not really support it. | Most countries have somewhat understandably not been in a | hurry to make the huge investments required to replace | their current, working systems with ETCS. | | > trains that traverse incompatible signaling systems (eg | the eurostar) simply carry a set of onboard signaling | equipment for each standard. | | Yes, which is extremely expensive and also requires full | re-certification for every country, which means that in | practice most trains are only certified for one or two | countries at most. | | None of these would be unsolvable with some more willpower | of course, but they are still absolutely an issue today. | m2fkxy wrote: | I believe you could get from the Netherlands to Spain in | just two trips: Amsterdam > Paris in Thalys, and Paris > | Madrid in AVE (seasonal) or > Barcelona in TGV (neither | involve track gauge change). You could do that in the span | of a day and still have spare time, depending on how well | the schedules match. | pilsetnieks wrote: | > Baltic states still use a soviet-derived system | | Rail Baltica [1] (already being constructed) is using | European gauge. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Baltica | aarroyoc wrote: | There's no gauge change. Spain high-speed tracks already use | the international one (older tracks still use Iberian gauge). | There are already high-speed trains that go to France without | stopping at the border. | m2fkxy wrote: | yes, Madrid <> Marseille, Lyon, and Paris on AVE, and TGV | services on Paris <> Barcelona. No track gauge change, | direct link. | david927 wrote: | People want to use trains and we want people to use trains -- | which means whatever is left over is an irrelevant detail. We | should subsidize it more and invest more. | | I lived in the south of France for a while and it always struck | me that instead of one huge, heavy engine pulling ten cars, | arriving once an hour, along that stretch (from Cannes to | Menton), it would be better served to have light, individual cars | that ran every five minutes. (More like a large tram.) | | We can do so much better. And it will happen the minute we get | the greed of the oil/auto/airline industries from getting in our | way. | ape4 wrote: | More feasible than planes to electrify or switch to hydrogen | (hydrogenify?) | pg_bot wrote: | Batteries are still too heavy and take too long to recharge for | most commercial travel by plane. If we had better batteries, | planes would become electric. | | Hydrogen has an infrastructure problem. Planes aren't designed | for holding hydrogen and they would need to be redesigned | entirely to accommodate for using it as a fuel. Hydrogen is | hard to store and transfer as it tends to embrittle a wide | variety of metals. There are also no hydrogen refueling | stations near airports, you would have to build all of that | infrastructure as well. You might be able to generate hydrogen | on demand via a chemical reaction with something like NaOH and | Silicon or Aluminum, but I haven't run the numbers to see if | that would be technically possible, economically feasible, or | safe for passenger travel. Theoretically you could use | hydrogen, but it would cost trillions of dollars to get | everything up and running without some sort of breakthrough. | sschueller wrote: | Switzerland is one of the few countries that is 100% | electrified (decision was made in 1902) and has 5,196 km of | rail. | | China has 100,000 km electrified which is 66% of their rail | while the US has only 2,025 km electrified which is 0.92% | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tr... | namdnay wrote: | You still have diesel trains ?! | gpvos wrote: | Depends on the country. Most of the UK away from London and | apart from a handful of main lines is diesel. Elsewhere in | Europe, most rural lines still are. It's likely many of these | will switch to either hydrogen or battery trains, the latter | possibly with shorter stretches of overhead wire to recharge. | paddez wrote: | Most of the intercity trains in Ireland are powered by | diesel. | | I believe there's a long term electrification plan for the | greater Dublin area, but I don't see a change from using | DMU's for a while. | Symbiote wrote: | Wikipedia shows the percentage of electrified railway for all | countries. It's 56% for the EU+UK. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran. | .. | fosk wrote: | Caltrain in the Bay Area, the capital of world technology, is | still a....diesel train. I can't help but chuckle whenever I | see one. | ibiza wrote: | Did you miss the wires strung above the tracks? They're | working on it: | | https://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain | _... | jlmorton wrote: | However, it's moving to electric, with the first electric | locomotive undergoing testing now, and the first electric | fleet arriving this spring, with fully electric service | expected to begin in two years. | xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: | It seems likely that hydrogen will replace diesel in trains. | Companies like Alstom[1], PESA[2] and Talgo[3] are developing | hydrogen trains. Germany has already started deploying them on a | small scale[4], while Poland is planning to[5]. | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Coradia_LINT#iLint | | [2] - https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/poland-pesa-presented-a- | hydr... | | [3] - https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/talgo-to-launch-hydrogen- | train... | | [4] - https://constructionreviewonline.com/news/construction-of- | hy... | | [5] - https://www.orlen.pl/en/about-the-company/sustainable- | develo... | TeeMassive wrote: | I'm not against using Hydrogen but the problem is always what | are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more efficient | energetically and emission wise? | pantalaimon wrote: | Most Hydrogen is produced from Methane by steam reforming | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming | gopalv wrote: | > what are they producing Hydrogen with and how is it more | efficient energetically and emission wise? | | Even if it is just Blue hydrogen being burnt here, the | splitter plants can have some carbon capture in it which | would be impossible to install on a moving train (beats | diesel and also direct LNG burning). | | That said, with trains there's no real argument against | electrification. The wheels have been electrically driven for | a few decades now. It's not like they need to come up with | motors or work out batteries. | wolfgang000 wrote: | Bad idea in mi opinion, this is a solved problem, overhead | wires, the amount of energy lost between the converting water | into hydrogen and then back into water to get electricity can | be as high as 70%, it's just a bad idea when you can use that | energy directly using wire to get the same job done | sva_ wrote: | Overhead wires are not a solution on a large scale, and also | an eyesore. | analog31 wrote: | I'd like to see trains and planes integrated to a greater extent. | Many of the "hub to spoke" connections could be replaced by | trains, that could actually arrive quicker than a plane. And | trains are less affected by weather. | | They could even check you into your flight while you're on the | train. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-11 23:00 UTC)