Steph001 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 315 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6817 times:
In Germany LH has tends to replace short flights from or to FRA (as FRA-STR, FRA-CGN) by high speed trains. The time of travel to or from FRA remains about the same. I know also that Air France does that on CDG-BRU. Is this only an European approach , or are there similar tendencies / concepts elsewhere around the world?
Brubiac From Bouvet Island, joined Nov 2003, 217 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6763 times:
SNBA will start soon also with the highspeedtrain between BRU - CDG. It's much cheaper to operate.
SNBA operates only 1 flight a day between BRU and CDG. The aircraft departs at BRU for a positioningflight to CDG, than came back with pax. Then they did a pax flight back to CDG and came afterwards back empty as a positioningflight. Never understood why.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7836 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 6635 times:
The distances in intracity markets in Europe is relatively short. A good high speed train should easily beat the plane. Also factor in that the train stations are often in or close to the city centers, whereas airports are not. Couple the time spent with security, travel time to/from the airport and those added transit costs, the train can often come out ahead.
In the US Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services (Northeast direct, Superliner, and Acela Regional/Express) competes well with the airlines shuttle services. The fact that both coexist with relatively large operations says a lot. But the airlines have an advantage that DCA, LGA, and BOS are REALLY close to the central business district and have decent transit options available as well.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
VCE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 6583 times:
Also in Italy (except for trips longer than 700km where to take a flight is anyway more convenient) the high speed train is more used. For a simple reason: to catch the train it's necessary to go to the central stations, to take a plane you need sometime to go at 40km out of the city.
VCE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6536 times:
In Italy the Government has approved in 2001 a program of investments regarding the high speed train network. Within 2007-2008 the nowadays high speed train network should be doubled, and Italy should have the largest European high speed train network.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1267 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6417 times:
Regarding the high-speed service in the Northeast of the US...
The new Acela trains are certainly impressive, but they are still limited to speeds of roughly 125 miles per hour or less for the majority of the route due to the need of the rail line to wind around a variety of obstacles. Even with more centralized stations and a much more streamlined check-in procedure, the trains are hard pressed to beat airplanes time-wise on routes much over 150 or 200 miles. Thus, going from Washingtn, D.C. to Philadelphia may be faster on the train for a businessman, going from DC to Boston is still faster by plane.
On top of this, the Acela is extremely expensive. Amtrak made a huge investment in their network to get it up-and-running, and thus the prices are steep. A ticket on a shuttle flight in the Northeast is often cheaper than taking the train, especially if you are willing to take an LCC. The price to go from Washington to NYC can be 5 to 10 times Southwest’s rates from BWI to Long Island.
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6430 times:
The US is way behind Europe in this regard..
Eventually, I would expect a bullet train-type operation between SEA and YVR, SEA and PDX, PDX and EUG, LAX-SAN, MIA-MCO, and maybe ORD-MKE. I'm sure there's many other possible candidates. Will it completely replace flights? I doubt it.
Matt777 From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6370 times:
HAHA, today it appeared a good article in the italian newspaper Corriere della Sera about the Milan-Rome route via High Speed EuroStar Trains or Plane. They are reducing the times with new investments. It has gone down from 4:30 to 3:50 hs.
FlyPIJets From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 956 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6223 times:
I suspect the bullet train in Japan substitutes for a lot of domestic air service.
But, I'm not sure directly. Here's what I mean. I have noticed that some internet booking engines are actually offering a rail leg for a city pair flight. I have only seen this when booking to Europe. Are airlines in Europe now "code sharing" with rail?
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6126 times:
so is the rail industry stealing from the airline market place? Obviously trains will not travel on eternity bridges over oceans anytime soon...
Maybe that is why the US is behind the world with respect to high-speed trains, Boeing's short haul fleets would die and they lobby against rail transportation; hence most of their lead in front of Airbus.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6059 times:
There are at least 20 "corridors" in North America worth having a high-speed train infrastructure. Bombardier is now investing in the "JetTrain", which is powered by a jet engine, to tackle these markets.
In fact, high-speed trains, with a speed of 125 mph (200 km/h), which is the speed limit considering the state of the rail infrastructures in North America, is a much better choice for distances less than 300 miles (500 km). For instance, YUL-YYZ, LAX-SAN, ORD-STL or DFW-IAH are perfect examples of city pairs that could be much better served by high speed trains than by flights.
It would also free up many precious slots at busy airports that could be put to a better use and probably delay for many years, maybe forever, heavy investments in new terminals, new runways, etc.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33579 posts, RR: 71
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5985 times:
The Acela is hardly high-speed. America's first high-speed train system, the Florida "Overland Express" is ready to roll. It will run between Miami and Tampa via Orlando, with more routes to follow. The Orlando-Tampa route has been chosen, and Bombardier will be the train supplier. Construction is set to start within a few months.
There is no airline service between Orlando and Tampa, way too short a distance, but it will give airlines a real run for thier money on the very busy Miami-Orlando and Miami-Tampa corridors.
Though it should still be noted that compared to what Japan and Europe have, the new Florida system is yet again, at the bottom of the defintion of high-speed rail.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5958 times:
In order for Acela to compete with the Northeast air shuttles, the costs for the needed improvements to the rail infrastructure alone is over $1 Billion, and the gov't is not exactly willing to pay out that kind of money to an entity that has failed to turn a profit since its' creation.
Goose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5932 times:
*shrug* In many places, trains are not looked upon as replacements for flights, but for car traffic - much like mass transit in a major city looks to a light rail system to supplement or enhance bus services and road networks.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8947 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5904 times:
There will never be high-speed trains in the US for 2 main reasons:
1) Americans don't like government subsidized businesses and you can't have good public transportation without government subsidies. Pick any country with good rail and public transportation, they're all heavily subsidized.
2) Gasoline is too cheap in the US and it's not going to go up any time soon.
Again, look at countries with good public transportation and compare their gasoline prices with ours.
Acela is not High Speed train. For most of the journey between Boston and NYC it only breaks 100mph for a brief period of time. When you factor in the stops and getting to/from the station, I can drive from Boston to NYC faster than the train. It takes me 3.5 hours door-to-door.
FLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7467 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5873 times:
Most of the people on this forum don't understand why the LCC are not so popular in France, and why there is no French domestic LCC. Most of you think that AF is responsible for this situation, as it is supposed to be "protected" by the government.
The reality is different and much more simple :
The TGV (High speed train) is the biggest competitor on the short distances...and the first TGV line in France (PARIS-LYON) was inaugurated more than 20 years ago : in 1981.
Today it takes 1h45mn to go from Paris downtown to Lyon downtown, the flight between ORY and LYS is 55 mn, add to this the Check-in time, the time to go to ORLY airport, and then From LYS-St Exupery to the city.
The TGV now goes to Marseille (2h45mn from Paris ), to Lille (55mn), to Bordeaux, Nantes, etc...
Look what is going on now between Paris and Brussel : a Thalys TGV every 30 minutes from 7AM to 9PM...
No doubt that the plane can't compete under a 3 hours ride.
The TGV will soon go from Paris to AMS, CGN, SXB from LYON to MILAN, and when the tracks will be operational for full speed all the way on the British side, it should take less than 2h30 to go from LONDON to PARIS...
According to serious sources, British Airways is reported to be joining a consortium to fund a high speed Eurostar Rail route from Heathrow to Paris. This would free up a significant number of slots at both LHR and CDG where high-speed train rail links to AMS and BRU relieve pressure on slots.
AF is studying the same thing between London and CDG airport...
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6646 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5821 times:
ADP sees efficiency as key to countering rail competition
Kurt Hofmann, Paris (21Nov03)
French airports authority Aeroport de Paris (ADP) has identified improving efficiency as central to countering increased competition, notably from the planned growth of high-speed international rail links.
ADP operates the Paris airports of Charles de Gaulle, Orly and Le Bourget, and chief executive Hubert de Mesnil is aware of the likely impact of an expanding high-speed rail network from the French capital.
“The fact that, in a timeframe of about 10 years, TGV trains will be running from Paris to cities like Barcelona and Amsterdam, [means] we will lose passengers to ground [transport], because people won’t accept long journeys to [the airport] and long waiting times inside airports.”
He believes to compete with this and other competitive threats, ADP needs to improve efficiency.
For example he points to a need to improve transport links connecting Charles de Gaulle to the city. Around 80% of passengers currently arrive at Charles de Gaulle via private car, and a high-speed rail link to the city is unlikely before 2010.
At Orly, ADP will modify the terminal for domestic shuttle flights to cut waiting times for passengers. “If we gain just five minutes less waiting time, that helps us against the TGV,” he says.
ADP is also targeting faster processes on the ground to help meet the needs at Charles de Gaulle of its biggest customer, Air France. “Just 60% of all Air France flights can board passengers via airbridges,” he says. “We have to increase that to 85% in three or four years at the latest.”
Future developments will also reflect the dual-hub policy adopted by Air France with new partner KLM and its Amsterdam hub. “So far we don’t know how the merger between Air France and KLM will look,” says Mesnil. “We had our first meetings with Schiphol Airport to find out what the consequences are for us and how we maybe can work together.”
While the Dutch authorities insisted on assurances of a continued prominent role for Schiphol within the alliance, Mesnil himself notes that the Charles de Gaulle could also find itself facing increased competition. “If Amsterdam Airport is working more efficiently than Charles de Gaulle, so the Dutch airport could have more business,” he says.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Bobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5809 times:
Brubiac: the demand on BRU-CDG should be greater than one flight a day. What happened? Are the business people traveling with Thalys?
It is a compromise. SN Brussels had to arrange for the Thalys route to be extended from central Brussel out to BRU. I think they are, effectively, leasing a trailer. They could add frequencies, but only a small number of Paris trains would normally terminate in Brussel - other trains also go on to other destinations, and therefore it would be less convenient to send them to BRU too.
In future it would be nice (on the map) to route Brussels-Köln trains via the airport, but services are shared with DB; who are very proud of their 1 hour service from Köln to FRA, and friendly with LH.
Even without the SN Brussels/Thalys deal, it's trivial for travellers to get any Thalys from CDG to the centre of Brussels, then change onto a train to the airport.
are there similar tendencies / concepts elsewhere around the world?
Eurostar would very much like to control the London-Paris and London - Brussels markets. There's currently a price war. Eventually, one of the airlines will pull out - unless Eurostar runs out of money first - then we could expect a codeshare to either CDG or Paris Nord.
According to serious sources, British Airways is reported to be joining a consortium to fund a high speed Eurostar Rail route from Heathrow to Paris.
They would rather eat their own children, surely? Even BA would be scared by the cost of an HST line (mostly underground) from the CTRL to LHR.
They would happily to lobby for (perhaps have some involvement in) Crossrail from LHR to Stratford. A while ago, before St Pancras became such a magnet for improved services, and when Crossrail was still stuck on the drawing board (which it still may be), they were lobbying hard for an LHR-Waterloo shuttle.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6646 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5742 times:
Amadeus to provide distribution services for Eurostar
Victoria Moores, London (24Jul03)
Competition between rail and air services is set to intensify following the introduction of Amadeus as the global distribution service (GDS) for Channel Tunnel train operator Eurostar.
Under the new distribution agreement the high-speed rail provider’s schedules will be presented in exactly the same way as airline data, enabling travel agents to compare Eurostar routes and competing air services directly.
The booking process for the train service will also be identical to the airline model, with the system using regular air-travel commands and the automated airline ticketing standard ATB2.
Competition between rail and air services has intensified since the emergence of low-cost airlines. The opening of a Eurostar fast-line in the UK this autumn, enabling the trains to travel at their maximum speed, will only add to the fray.
Using the new line, trains on the London-Paris route will take just over 2h 30min while the duration of London-Brussels will be 2h 20min.
The cross-over between the two modes has intensified in recent years with Eurostar offering interline agreements on its services; partners include British Airways (BA), Virgin Atlantic, US Airways and Korean Air.
Amadeus, which is primarily owned by Air France, Iberia and Lufthansa, is currently developing its presence in the sector and has 18 existing rail customers.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
QANTAS747 From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5622 times:
I was reading a train magazine in Australia, about the Lettrain they are trialling in the US. With the eye for upgraded rail infrastructure, and establishment of hisgh speed rail in OZ mainly between SYD-CBR and SYD-MEL with and eye for extending to BNE and ADL. But australia is a big country and planes are jstified in this end of the world. But its great to see them using aircraft technology inb rail services. The only other downside to VHST is that they tend to be expensive. eg. the Shinkansen system in Japan, is very, very efficient,and me being a tourist having a JR Pass, wazs cost effective. But some of the prices werew like 10000 Yen for short s4ectors, in Japan, this is normal, but in other places around the world air travel could continue to be cheaper, hence the age of LCC