Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 22470 times:
Jokes aside, the AF passengers who want to connect between CDG and Strasbourg, will have from April 2013 the option of taking a high speed train connection, or an AF flight.
Passengers will be issued with a single ticket for both aircraft and train sectors and they will be able to check-in up to 15 minutes before the train departure time for their entire trip. Baggage loading and unloading service and dedicated baggage drop-off counters will be available. On the train, all passengers will travel first class, irrespective of their class of travel during their flight.
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 22276 times:
Your title is a bit provocative ! AF is not a train operator (and has no intention to become one AFAIK) ! The partnership between AF and the french railways is just a clever move, and will be a great benefit for many clients of both companies. In Europe in general and in France in particular, decision makers are keen on offering a good interconnectivity between rail and air...
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 22120 times:
Looks like that they realized that they can't do the job well (or at least profitably) themselves, so they give it to somebody else (possibly for a little income). That would be a good pragmatic strategy.
BTW, France with its TGV high speed lines, together with Switzerland (yeah, ok, them again) it is one of the few countries where I have found an excellent train service.
[Edited 2012-12-26 06:41:14]
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 21875 times:
It's a common phenomenon. LH, for instance, code-shares with the German Railways between Cologne and Frankfurt as well as Stuttgart and Frankfurt. Both make perfect sense and in the case of Cologne, the train has completely replaced the aircraft.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 21422 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 1): Your title is a bit provocative ! AF is not a train operator (and has no intention to become one AFAIK) !
Oh I know, I was putting some humor in it...
Quoting aloges (Reply 4): Both make perfect sense and in the case of Cologne, the train has completely replaced the aircraft.
I honestly admire the flexibility in some of the European countries, I could be wrong, but compared with the awful transport system and infrastructure we have in the vast majority of South America, the way Europe sees the transport is definitely the way to go.... the question is how many years will take to develop something like this over here...
DariusBieber From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 21192 times:
Rail travel throughout Europe is extremely planned out and connections are everywhere. It's not anything like it is in the Americas. That being said, Air France is making a move it sees fit to help them out. I know a bunch of people in Europe who would prefer taking the train rather than fly due to security, etc..
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19900 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 5): honestly admire the flexibility in some of the European countries, I could be wrong, but compared with the awful transport system and infrastructure we have in the vast majority of South America, the way Europe sees the transport is definitely the way to go.... the question is how many years will take to develop something like this over here...
Quoting DariusBieber (Reply 6): Rail travel throughout Europe is extremely planned out and connections are everywhere. It's not anything like it is in the Americas.
It is a question of geography and population density. It will take a long time before the need of a high speed train exists between NY and LA or between BA and SCL for instance. But there could be one between Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro or between Boston and NY or DC....
However even in Europe, some regions are not efficiently connected with the high speed train network : I live on the French Riviera (not exactly the most remote region in Europe) and we will not see a high speed line here before 2025 or 2030 at the earliest... Except if the italian railways build their own line from Turin or Milan to Nice, which is possible and may well happen before the french railways complete their own project from Nice to Marseilles.... If AZ follows AF example, it could leave them some room for future growth, as discussed in another thread here : Alitalia On Verge Of Bankruptcy - Again (by LAXintl Dec 23 2012 in Civil Aviation)
EGPH From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19762 times:
I was about to say before aloges beat me to it that LH are very friendly with the Deutsche Bahn ICE service. My partner was recently travelling in Germany on business and needed to visit several cities around Germany within the space of a week so she booked on a few LH flights to speed up the process and actually spent more time on the ICE than on LH flights. She certainly did not complain as the timings were very similar and there was no hassle of airport security every day.
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19219 times:
Well I took ICE once 4 years ago, from Nurnberg to Vienna, and although the first class seating was decent (with a small table, power plug, and for some part WIFI) the speed was not so high like the ticket price. I took something like 6 1/2 hours to complete the direct trip. I do not have a railway map at hand, but I guess that going along the Donau river, should not be more than 6-700 Km, rough estimate 100 Km/h, or 50 kt if you like.
Nothing to do with the TGV...
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19184 times:
AF has been doing this for years. They dropped all air service CDG-BRU a few years ago. All AF service is now on high speed trains bearing AF flight numbers and booked like any other flight. The advantage is that you wind up in the Brussels city center, not at the airport.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18470 times:
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 9): Nothing to do with the TGV...
That's because you weren't on a high-speed line. Only a high-speed train on a high-speed line will be able to run at high speed - and because Germany is a polycentric country with a very strong car industry lobby (and a few other things), our high-speed rail infrastructure is nowhere near as developed as it should be. If, however, you take an ICE train from Stuttgart to Cologne, you will probably not be longing for the TGV.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
PI4EVER From United States of America, joined May 2009, 599 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16684 times:
As an American unaccustomed to the availability and ease of rail travel as in Europe, I will opt for air and rail connections in a heartbeat. One of my favorite routes is the use of German Rail using coded LH flight segments for rail connections via FRA to STR. Easy connection to the ICE at Frankfurt Airport rail station and in less than 90 minutes, traveling in a First Class seat or shared compartment, with food and beverage included as if served on a LH flight, you arrive in central Stuttgart. Repeat for return trip via FRA back home.
I also rode the TGV Paris-Brussels as a coded AF flight and again high standards of service and travel performance in comparison to a short haul flight. Why fly London-Paris when you can opt for the Eurostar to continue your trip after a stopover?
And you can't complain about the scenery. If you have an option for an air and rail combination don't pass it up. A very pleasant travel experience.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16233 times:
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 13): I'm convinced that this is what should be done with Amtrak in the NorthEast Corridor.
What would it accomplish? It's not like ILG or HVN has much service, and most other airports have plenty of service, so the need to connect from another city is minimal. PVD is the one exception.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3253 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14323 times:
It's now just a partnership with SNCF (many airlines have codeshares with SNCF already, btw), but at one time, AF was actually considering buying high speed trains and operating them under its livery. There was talk of them buying a few AGV's. They would have looked good in AF livery, though I can't imagine how dirty they would have looked after a while, especially given AF's track record in the matter...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
all the advantages of intermodal transportation: more options, more flexibility, more frequencies and so on
However, most airports in the BosWash area would first have to be connected to the rail corridor. AFAIK, only EWR and BWI have train stations, pretty basic ones. In all honesty, I expect that the Anglo-American aversion to investments into infrastructure will make sure that the status quo won't improve anytime soon.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
polarexpress From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13363 times:
Just took ZFV-EWR-SAN-EWR-ZFV for the first time (ZFV being Philadelphia's 30th St Station). FWIW, I thought that it was a more civilized way of traveling between Philly and Newark rather than boarding a delay-prone, puddle-jumping prop. Only thing that was irritating was that the mobile app didn't recognize the train segment and thus couldn't display the QR code for the air segment on my phone - had to go to the desk for a paper ticket.
It seems that they've got a few codeshares with Amtrak for the following destinations, from south to north:
ZWI (Wilmington, DE)
ZFV (Philadelphia, PA)
ZTF (Stamford, CT)
ZVE (New Haven, CT)
lastrow From Germany, joined Dec 2010, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13365 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 11): That's because you weren't on a high-speed line. Only a high-speed train on a high-speed line will be able to run at high speed - and because Germany is a polycentric country with a very strong car industry lobby (and a few other things), our high-speed rail infrastructure is nowhere near as developed as it should be. If, however, you take an ICE train from Stuttgart to Cologne, you will probably not be longing for the TGV.
I do not think the main "problem" is the car lobby, but few other things ... mainly that Germany is a federation of countries (and sometimes we do not have speed limits on German autobahn).
We have seen that with high speed train connection between FRA and CGN where a stop at the 30.000 people "city" Montabaur is implemented, because the train passes the territory. (note that not every train stops in Montabaur though) There was a SPIEGEL article about it, a quick search with google yields now the following source: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/...chwindigkeitsstrecken/3559702.html (in German, sorry). Travel from Nuremberg to Hamburg is similar and despite the majority of track segments are high-speed (230,250 km/h), there are plenty of stops.
I like the idea of taking the train to get to a suitable airport. However, it should be an integrated offer by the airlines. This year, I needed to travel from MUC to the US on very short term. There we no (reasonable priced) seats free from my home MUC, but from FRA. I took the ICE from MUC to FRA then. Unfortunately on this line, a preceding train had problems, blocking the line. I arrived 2h late in FRA and it was indeed an unpleasant experience arriving at the Airport shortly before the check in was about to close. Luckily, the flight was 45 minutes late as well. But if I would have missed the flight, because the train service was late, no one would help me. This is a clear reason for me to check in to flight or train at my home (airport) what I did not see until then.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10540 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 16): all the advantages of intermodal transportation: more options, more flexibility, more frequencies and so on
Can you identify some cities that have so few options and flexibility to, for instance, Washington that a HSR link to PHL or JFK would be useful?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2706 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10177 times:
EWR is probably best positioned in the US for the train to rail connections as it is right on the NE corridor, which is the only real high speed rail in the US (as close as we get)
Sadly, it is linked via a rink a dink monorail which is slow, small and crowded
SCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10166 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10): AF has been doing this for years. They dropped all air service CDG-BRU a few years ago. All AF service is now on high speed trains bearing AF flight numbers and booked like any other flight. The advantage is that you wind up in the Brussels city center, not at the airport.
I remember reading that AFKL also plans to drop KL's AMS-BRU soon.
As much as Belgian government and SN blame FR for their situation, having most of your country at 1-1h15' from Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol certainly will not help for long-haul competition.
DariusBieber From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10175 times:
Quoting polarexpress (Reply 18): Just took ZFV-EWR-SAN-EWR-ZFV for the first time (ZFV being Philadelphia's 30th St Station). FWIW, I thought that it was a more civilized way of traveling between Philly and Newark rather than boarding a delay-prone, puddle-jumping prop. Only thing that was irritating was that the mobile app didn't recognize the train segment and thus couldn't display the QR code for the air segment on my phone - had to go to the desk for a paper ticket.
I'm new to the whole Rail service in America, they don't have TSA Officers and Security Checkpoints at the Rail Stations, do they? That way you can enter EWR's terminals right away.
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3160 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9882 times:
The only downside that I can see to using trains as an alternative is that passengers need to handle their own luggage until they reach an actual airport. Bags are tagged to their final destination at the origin train station, but stay with the passengers. That alone is the reason why there is still one daily flight between CDG and BRU. Passengers connecting in BRU to/from Africa simply did not want to take the train with the mountains of baggage they are carrying.
Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 24): having most of your country at 1-1h15' from Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol certainly will not help for long-haul competition.
BRU is clearly the smaller of the three, but these airports routinely "steal" passengers from each other because they are so close, and that goes for long-haul and short-haul. If you live in Lille or Maastricht for example, any non-stop out of BRU is overall a shorter trip than one commencing in your respective capital's airport.
If BRU doesn't have a non-stop, however, driving to CDG from Western Belgium to catch a non-stop flight is faster than connecting somewhere from BRU.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 27, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9248 times:
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 13): I'm convinced that this is what should be done with Amtrak in the NorthEast Corridor.
I agree with those who say I can't see what this could accomplish. Where would you be flying into and then connecting to via rail that you couldn't just fly directly to, or with an easier connecting flight than connecting train? You're neither going to move airports nor train lines to make it more convenient than just catching a connecting flight. Or are you talking about things like offering connections to places like Mystic and New Haven? I still think there aren't very many stops on the line at all where it isn't more convenient to just fly to the nearest airport and then take a car service.
Maybe more to the point, Amtrak doesn't need the business, and the airlines don't need to get more of their passengers hooked on Amtrak in the NEC. Amtrak has already pretty much destroyed the airlines in the NEC, and most of their trains run at capacity as it is. And they can't just run out and buy more because any profit they make on the NEC has to go to improvements and upgrades to the line - as everyone knows, the NEC can hardly even be considered a high speed line despite the Acela Express. The track, bridges and signaling system are only being upgraded as Amtrak has the money. And that needs to be done before they can add more capacity.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 27 Reply 29, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8361 times:
Codeshares with rail systems make a lot of sense. The pro-rating on conncting fares is likely much less than they would have to pay to LH or AF, it enables the carriers to offer connecting services with a neutral partner, it's a win/win situation for all involved.
Quoting lastrow (Reply 19): We have seen that with high speed train connection between FRA and CGN where a stop at the 30.000 people "city" Montabaur is implemented, because the train passes the territory
First of all, it is better to have a train at the same time every hour than occasional connecitons. Montabaur as well as Limburg and Siegbarg have a maximum of 1 train per hour, in off peak there can be a 2 hour gap. Most trains by-pass these cities at 300 km/h Only few, the evry early morning trains and the last train of the day stop at CGN airport as well as all the other stations before reaching FRA central. For me, living 20 minutes south of Limburg, using that station is sometime a good option over drivoinf 20 minutes to FRA airport and going the very same distance back by train. Not speaking of the parking fees, these stations have attracted a lot of new businesses.
Unlike France, Germany is polycentric and there is simply no single point which centres all HSR lines. FRA/CGN is a line which bundles several routes.
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 9): Well I took ICE once 4 years ago, from Nurnberg to Vienna, and although the first class seating was decent (with a small table, power plug, and for some part WIFI) the speed was not so high like the ticket price. I took something like 6 1/2
The ICE train NUE to VIE West Bhf. takes exactly 4 hrs 34 minutes. That#s not fast, but reasonable. In comparison., FRA/MUC via NUE takes approx 3 hrs 30. That is quicker than flying ,provided your final destination is in the city of MUC
SHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3661 posts, RR: 18 Reply 30, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8301 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 23): EWR is probably best positioned in the US for the train to rail connections as it is right on the NE corridor, which is the only real high speed rail in the US (as close as we get)
Sadly, it is linked via a rink a dink monorail which is slow, small and crowded
LGA actually isn't all that far from the Northeast Corridor rail line. The distance between the MAT and St. Michael's Cemetary, which is literally right by the Northeast Corridor rail line, is actually fairly similar to the distance between Terminal C at EWR and the Newark Airport rail station, and certainly significantly closer than the distance between any of the terminals at JFK and the LIRR's Jamaica Station. I think a monorail to a brand-new Amtrak Station by 31st Avenue just west of the BQE in Queens would do the trick, and would probably even draw connections to midtown Manhattan, to say nothing of points north. Delta, are you listening?
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 31, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7975 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 22): Can you identify some cities that have so few options and flexibility to, for instance, Washington that a HSR link to PHL or JFK would be useful?
every city that doesn't have service to DCA
The trek from IAD to the district is a cruel joke at best and the Silver Line extension is over half a decade from operating, so for the time being your best options into the city proper are DCA and Union Station... or a taxi from IAD if you feel like going broke right at the start of your trip. Hence, I'd rather fly to BWI and take the train from there than suffer through IAD, so if those train segments were sold as airline code shares, they'd be easily visible alternatives and you could book them directly.
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 27): Where would you be flying into and then connecting to via rail that you couldn't just fly directly to, or with an easier connecting flight than connecting train?
Manhattan
If Penn Station was available as a code-share destination from e.g. PHL, you'd have more options than the (rather convenient) train from EWR and the screwball trips from LGA and JFK.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
I understand that for people living close to these stations it is actually a real benefit having the new stops. However, from a planning point of view it would make sense to have straighter high speed lines and cover "Kleinstädte" (cities with less than 100.000 inhabitants) with IC / RE service. The number of stops haven an impact on the train (safety) operations, because the control segments are more fine grained than with dedicated long distance high speed tracks, for example as between Barcelona and Madrid.
Our colleague who was traveling between Nuremberg and Vienna missed probably the Railjet service of the Austrians back then which started operations at 2008/2009. Now this connection is quicker. The connection taking 4:34 appears to be a different train station in Vienna than central, I haven't been there so I do not know what difference it is between Vienna West Station and Main Station. Hopefully not a Ryanair trick selling Memmingen as Munich
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 35, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7104 times:
off topic, but I'd like to answer this anyway:
Quoting lastrow (Reply 34): The connection taking 4:34 appears to be a different train station in Vienna than central
The Westbahnhof is still the major station in Vienna; not very central, but well-connected. Their main station (Hauptbahnhof) is still under construction, you can find some info here: http://www.hauptbahnhof-wien.at/
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 27 Reply 36, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6653 times:
Quoting lastrow (Reply 34): The number of stops haven an impact on the train (safety)
Not at all, these stations have through tracks, the stops are made using dedicated station tracks.
Quoting lastrow (Reply 34): Our colleague who was traveling between Nuremberg and Vienna missed probably
Wien Westbf. is the station usually served from Germany and the Railjet operates to MUC. The ICE has been in ops on the NUE-VIE route since several years.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6639 times:
Today, I read in a relevant newspaper - FAZ - about the opening of the close to 2400km high speed train line from Bejing to Guangzhou. The trains cover the distance - including four stops - in 8 hours.
I wonder whether a high speed trans continental railroad from NYC and WAS to LAX, SAN, the Bay Area and SEA would be economically viable. Night trains could cover the distance in something like 14h. Instead of rushing to an early morning flight to JFK or spending 5 rather uncomfortable and short night hours to arrive from SFO at EWR at 5am or so one could travel quite relaxed the same way comfortably sleeping.
Of course, the same would be true for shorter distances like ORD - west coast.
The big problem, of course, would be that there is not any relevant US based industry producing high speed train infrastructure or trains. And most probably, a lot of US-patriots would consider it "un-desirable" to travel in something made in France or China...
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6349 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 37): most probably, a lot of US-patriots would consider it "un-desirable" to travel in something made in France or China...
Then these so called US-patriots should keep away from the Acela which was built by Bombardier and Alstom. Alstom is French...
theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5676 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 11): Germany is a polycentric country with a very strong car industry lobby (and a few other things), our high-speed rail infrastructure is nowhere near as developed as it should be.
You think Germany has high speed rail that is not that developed.... Try coming to the UK...
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5476 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 37): The big problem, of course, would be that there is not any relevant US based industry producing high speed train infrastructure or trains.
Add to that the dozens of NIMBY associations you will have every few hundred miles on the planned route to cross the country, and you will end with a sort of zig-zag track instead a straight line track.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 41, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5315 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 37): The big problem, of course, would be that there is not any relevant US based industry producing high speed train infrastructure or trains.
The other problem is topography. PEK-CAN is pretty flat, as it's basically along the coast. LAX-NYC is not.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5225 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 40): Add to that the dozens of NIMBY associations you will have every few hundred miles on the planned route to cross the country, and you will end with a sort of zig-zag track instead a straight line track.
The NIMBY associations are also very active in Europe, and that did not prevent the different countries from building high speed lines.... The general interest must win against particular interests.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 41): The other problem is topography. PEK-CAN is pretty flat, as it's basically along the coast. LAX-NYC is not.
Not an issue technically. It is just a question of cost.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 43, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5208 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 42): Not an issue technically. It is just a question of cost.
Cost, and folks' appetite for causing additional environmental damage.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
polarexpress From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5220 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 41): The other problem is topography. PEK-CAN is pretty flat, as it's basically along the coast. LAX-NYC is not.
Actually, the Beijing-Guangzhou line is routed through Wuhan in the center of the country. While Beijing-Wuhan is flat, the areas south of the Yangtze (Wuhan-Guangzhou) are quite mountainous, although the terrain is not nearly as rough as the Rockies. There's even a Chinese saying, "South by boat, North by horse" (南船北馬), indicating the easiest way to travel in the south was along rivers.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 27 Reply 45, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5017 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 43): Cost, and folks' appetite for causing additional environmental damage.
absoluteloy senseless , the costs would be exorbitant and could never be recovered with the revenue generated. Likely the revenue would not even cover the operating costs. For distances over 400 km, the aircraft is simply the better solution.
That applies for China as well, even though they have some advantages, higher population, meaning higher user potential and a backlog for infrastructure to build.
As to the NIMBY question, in a recen issue of Trains Magazine, they listed a synopsys how long it would take today to build a transcon railroad. Starting today, it would be finished in 2064 IIRC.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 46, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4997 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 45): absoluteloy senseless , the costs would be exorbitant and could never be recovered with the revenue generated. Likely the revenue would not even cover the operating costs. For distances over 400 km, the aircraft is simply the better solution.
I don't know why people think that all overland flying could be or should be replaced with rail.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
FlyingHollander From Netherlands, joined Jul 2011, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4922 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 45): they listed a synopsys how long it would take today to build a transcon railroad. Starting today, it would be finished in 2064 IIRC.
I would like to see what this timeframe is based on. I believe the Chinese built there HSR in 8 years. Why would it have to take the US 50 years?
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 46): I don't know why people think that all overland flying could be or should be replaced with rail.
Not all overland flying should be replaced by rail, but large city pairs within a 500mi radius should definitely be complemented by HSR.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 48, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4922 times:
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 47): Not all overland flying should be replaced by rail, but large city pairs within a 500mi radius should definitely be complemented by HSR.
While we might debate the 500 miles number some, I'd hope that we can agree that LAX-NYC is a lot more than 500 miles.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
FlyingHollander From Netherlands, joined Jul 2011, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4866 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 48): I'd hope that we can agree that LAX-NYC is a lot more than 500 miles.
Of course. A route like that doesn't make sense. (All I wanted to say was that a 50 year construction period is an exageration.) CHI-NYC would be ambitious enough at about 750mi.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 48): While we might debate the 500 miles number some
Of course such a number is arbitrary, but I believe most people would agree that it is somewhere between 200-700mi.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4830 times:
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 47): I would like to see what this timeframe is based on. I believe the Chinese built there HSR in 8 years. Why would it have to take the US 50 years?
Because you don't have NIMBY's in China. China is doing exceptional things in many fields, but is not a democracy for sure, and if you don't want a HST passing at ten feet of your bedroom, that's your problem, and you can't do anything except moving to other place, by yourself. In any western country, including U.S., you will have the NIMBY association of every single town making a protest about the rail being so noisy, dangerous and annoying.
The impact in the environment will be another issue, the images of China with the HST running through a grey/yellow atmosphere are not very pleasant, but that's not a problem for the Chinese government, now try that in the U.S. and you will have all the Ecologist organisations against you in one hour.
FlyingHollander From Netherlands, joined Jul 2011, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4787 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 51): Because you don't have NIMBY's in China.
I understand that things get doen easier in China and I dont expect the US to be able to build something like that in the same timeframe, but isn't 20-30 years a little more realistic than 50?
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4735 times:
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 49): Of course such a number is arbitrary, but I believe most people would agree that it is somewhere between 200-700mi.
I believe it is not so much a question of distance but rather of duration : how long will it take me to go from A to B by train vs by plane ?
But I do agree on the opportunity to build a NYC - LAX HSR : in reply 37 Ferroriavius estimated the trip would last 14 hours. Far too much to be competitive with a 5 hour flight, even with the security checks and all the inconveniences related to air travel today....
On a side note, train wins against plane on the ecological aspect : the carbon footprint of a passenger traveling by train is much lower than one traveling by plane.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 54, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4710 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 53): On a side note, train wins against plane on the ecological aspect : the carbon footprint of a passenger traveling by train is much lower than one traveling by plane.
That's largely dependent on how the electricity for the train is generated, isn't it?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Probably yes, it's all wild speculation. If you have a strong government applying its policies no matter what the public opinion says, and a strong PR campaign, maybe you can build the line, "technically", in 10 or 15 years, but the reality is different, the tendency is to hear more the voice of the citizens, not less, and with that in mind, the NIMBY's are gaining the battle almost everywhere, with the sole exception of countries where "Democracy" is an unknown word for most of its population.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 27 Reply 56, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 47): I would like to see what this timeframe is based on. I believe the Chinese built there HSR in 8 years. Why would it have to take the US 50 years?
Gonzalo was quicker.
One could also say that the US and Europe is ruled by the law wheras most other countries are ruled by decret and what the Mufti says is law. If I find the Trains issue I can write the key detaills here.
The other point is, even the Chinese line is viable only because a number of very large cities are served in between PEK and CAN and, a PEK CAN rail line would never work. Imagine such a transcon passenger line would be build, it would take in the existing NE corridor and branch out from Washington through the mountains to CVG and from there via IND to CHI. That would already leave out population centres like PIUT CLE DET and from CHI it would have to go to STL, MKC from where there would be less densely populated area till PHX The cost would not be in the triple digit billions but rather in what is called in the USA trillions.,
The next suprise would be capacity. One could run at best, one train every 5 minutes in each direction, but there would simply not be the number of people to fill those trains, not even in the NE cprridor.
Meaning, a lot of capacity is unused, whereas a runway at ORD and most other airports is filled to capacity.
Back to China, they have to upgrade their infrastructure, reading the text line here that PEK airport reached 80 million pax says it all.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 58, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3675 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 57): Not largely. In all likely cases, planes are less ecological than trains.
Even at the (not very clean) coal mix that we have in a lot of the eastern United States?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 57): Not largely. In all likely cases, planes are less ecological than trains.
Are you sure ?? I don't have idea really, but a brand new 777F probably leaves a smaller carbon footprint to move a given weight of freight from LAX to JFK compared with a train...and is much safer. Probably the same could be true for the newest models of passenger planes...
If someone has the numbers it will be nice to see who wins !!!
airmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 161 posts, RR: 40 Reply 60, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3396 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 57): In all likely cases, planes are less ecological than trains
Not quite that simple.
If you take into account only the carbon emitted by producing the kinetic energy (IOW by moving the vehicle), a train is certainly better than a plane. By how much depends on the production method (fossil or nuclear)
However, a train needs heavy ground infrastucture.
First, this infrastucture has to be built, and an HSR line has strict constraints on turn radius and alignments. So you will have to move a lot of dirt, produce lots of concrete, move lots of material and men and specialised equipment, built tunnels and bridges...And there is not only the line itself but electrical supply lines, intermediate power stations, access roads, signaling equipment, drainage, etc. All this produces lots of carbon and other stuff.
Then this infrastuctures cuts right through the countryside. The consequences can be mitigated, but it still has an impact.
Finally all this infastructure has to be maintained, which requires again moving equipment, materials and men all along the line
Obvioulsy, the terrain will have a high impact on this.
An airport is a massive infrastructure, but it is restricted to a very localized area, and a relatively small one. Most airports are under 50km². IOW a square 7 km x 7 km. or about the same as a theme park or a big factory.
Also, once built, the rail line is static : if you want to go someplace else you have to build a new line. Whereas once you've built an airport, you can go pretty much anywhere. So you have much more flexibility to adapt to fluctuations in demand.
Another aspect : the carbon production per unit distance is more or less fixed for the HSR. An airplane will produce more in take-off/climb and approach phases compared to cruise. So the carbon production per unit distance will be higher for short-haul flights, where these phases take up a higher proportion of the flight.
There are many other aspects to be added, but I hope you get the point. Overall, there seems to be some cutoff distance beyond which flying is not much more "un-ecological" compared to HSR, and I'd estimate it to be somewhere in the 1000-1500km range.
So hopefully now you can now fly with a conscience tranquille (at least when flying long haul !)
But closer to the actual topic, I found this DGAC powerpoint from 2011 while checking some stuff about carbon emissions (sorry, in french only) http://www.developpement-durable.gou...quetes-sur-la-complementarite.html
Basically it says that airplane-rail transfers are increasing in the 2 airports which have an on-site HSR station (CDG and LYS), and that the number one request from passengers is to have an integrated offer (one booking for the whole trip, luggage checked-in for plane and train trips). So the AF offer seems quite logical.
Azure From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2959 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 58): Even at the (not very clean) coal mix that we have in a lot of the eastern United States?
There is also a fair amount of nuclear power plants in the US...
I have used a carbon footprint calculator to compare a plane trip vs a train trip in France, on a standard route : Paris to Nice.
Paris to Nice by plane is 687 kms. 160 KgCO2ze
Paris to Nice by train is 981 kms. 24 KgCO2ze.
Now it would be interesting to compare these figures with the ones you can find in the US for a/ a same distance route b/ a longer route. I have done my share of the work here but if you want to give it a try, please do ! (here is a carbon footprint calculator for instance : http://www.actioncarbone.org/index.php/en/calculate)
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 60): So hopefully now you can now fly with a conscience tranquille (at least when flying long haul !)
Thanks, but I have never felt guilty when boarding a plane anyway
EWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 379 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 17): UA does have very limited code-sharing with Metra out of EWR.
Metra is the commuter rail system in Chicago. EWR has NJ Transit. About 6 weeks ago, maybe 3 weeks post-Hurricane Sandy, I flew into EWR and took NJT to New York Penn Station. It was about a 20 minute ride with 2 stops. The fare wasn't that bad, about $12.50. Even though the rail system was not back to full capacity, I didn't have long to wait. All-in-all, I found the experience to be satisfactory.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21292 posts, RR: 19 Reply 63, posted (5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
Quoting Azure (Reply 61): There is also a fair amount of nuclear power plants in the US...
Partially because the US is so big, the power generation mix in the US varies a lot from place to place. For instance, there's much more "traditional" hydroelectric in the western part of the country.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Sponsor Message: 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2012, 234 posts, 
From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 220 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 128 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 207 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined May 2007, 311 posts, 
From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 172 posts, 
From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
