AR385
Topic Author
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:31 am

With France already linked with a great TGV system and other EU countries following suit, how is this changing the aviation landscape. Will airlines simply become in the long run only long -haul carriers while TGV railroads carry the masses around the EU? What is the outlook? What are the trends now? What's happening in France?
 
Siege2L
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:59 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:03 am

On flights within Continental France, for example, on AF 'la navette' or 'shuttle' flights, there should not be significant change considering the high-frequency of flights ( e.g. ORY-NCE, ORY-MRS, etc ) and loyalty to Flying Blue Members. The return tickets are reasonable considering the services offered to the 'Elites' - access to Salon l'espace or le Patio lounges, more threshold bonus miles, priority check-in, priority baggage handling, mileage accrual, and mileage redemption on code-share and Skyteam Alliance partners... when compared to TGV perks vs Flying Blue, AF continues to offer a very attractive product especially with the introduction of the new check-in procedures and streamlined security checks at Orly Airport. AF continues to improve their products from ground product ( Orly ) to aircraft ( CRJ1000 ), etc...

This does not apply to Thalys/Air France agreement between CDG and Brussels-Midi station as there are reciprocal agreements between both loyalty programs with the ability to earn miles/points and to check in at Brussels-Midi station for your entire journey involving your trip via air. Again, my statement is regarding flights/train service within Continental France.

My example is based on products and services on offer via Air France.

I cannot state fact or opinion regarding the services via easyJet, for example.
Flying higher than over your dreams...
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:32 am



Quoting Siege2L (Reply 1):

Interesting post.

I am actually doing a research paper on the EU and high-speed rail service and I am focusing on the Chunnel and a possible under-sea rail link between Ireland and the UK. One of my research articles says that the EU is pretty much investing money into upgrading the rail network to have high speed regional rail essentially complement air service. This person observed environmental impacts of air pax service versus high speed rail, and brought up jet emissions and airport congestion.

Should be interesting, and it might happen, but I still have doubts. However, a few years after the Chunnel opened, TML had a significant chunk of the pax between London and Paris...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
AR385
Topic Author
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:05 am



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 2):
One of my research articles says that the EU is pretty much investing money into upgrading the rail network to have high speed regional rail essentially complement air service.

But. What is the main point? Is it complementing or competing? What does your research say is more conveniento for the travelling public?
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:52 am

What countries in Europe really need to go along with their train travel is a "takkyubin" service like Japan. For about 10 euros per piece, in Japan I can take my fully loaded 30 kg suitcases to the nearest convenience store and have it delivered to my destination the next day.

Actually, I also this service just to send my luggage to and from the airport. It's really convenient.
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:07 am

Richard Quest did a thing on CNN awhile back about the effect of high-speed travel on aviation in Europe. It came down to a number: 4 hours. If the trip can be done within 4 hours on a train, the train wins out. If it takes longer than 4 hrs by train, the plane wins out. He did take the train hotel from Paris to Barcelona and said good things about that.

Here is a segment reposted on Youtube:
Train vs Plane

I can't find the full thing but it was good.

Richard Quest on CNN
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:54 am



Quoting Centrair (Reply 4):
Richard Quest did a thing on CNN awhile back about the effect of high-speed travel on aviation in Europe. It came down to a number: 4 hours. If the trip can be done within 4 hours on a train, the train wins out. If it takes longer than 4 hrs by train, the plane wins out. He did take the train hotel from Paris to Barcelona and said good things about that.

I'd agree with that...
Quite simply a 1h30m flight ends up being about 4 hours by the time you do checkin, security, boarding, taxiing, flight, taxiing, deboarding and collect your bags (customs in some places too). With the train you just turn up get onboard with your bag and get straight off at the other end simple as (chunnel has customs also).
High speed trains use considerably less energy than shorthaul flights and can use clean energy (ie they run on electricity which can be generated by windfarms, solar, hydro etc).
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
TriStar500
Posts: 4411
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 1999 9:50 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:54 am

LH has recently stopped all flying between CGN and FRA and is instead codesharing on the high-speed German Rail services between QKL, CGN and FRA.
Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
 
Siege2L
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:59 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:17 am

As far as the statement regarding a 1h30min flight duration ending in a total trip time of 4 hours is not applicable to most situations.

For example, priority access security lines ( LAX, ATL, etc... ), dedicated First Class Terminals ( LH @ FRA, AF @ CDG2, etc... ), and/or reduced minimum check-in times ( London City :10min latest check-in via AF, Washington,DC/National :15min via DL Shuttle, etc ) can drastically change the situation.

Most pax travelling on business between ORY - NCE with a same-day return or overnight, need not check-in baggage. Hotels provide toiletries for the overnight pax. Pax departing in the morning and returning at night on the same day do not have the need to check-in luggage.

Taxi times are generally reduced at ORY and in some cases, at CDG and DCA.

Fast-track security and customs control generally do not take a large block of time.

Keep in mind 1h30min flight durations are listed by airlines to reduce delayed arrivals to improve on-time performance status. These flights are generally :55mins - :75mins with some schedules adjusted during peak travel.

This was not posted to attack any previous statements, however, this was intended to offer the COMPLETE picture as such statements can be misleading to the less-informed or less-travelled flyer.

 Smile
Flying higher than over your dreams...
 
Aisak
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:56 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:20 am



Quoting AR385 (Reply 3):
What is the main point? Is it complementing or competing?

Here in Spain it's competing as no High Speed Train reach any airport.
Not that long ago, we only had one HST route being Madrid-Seville and that has prevented everyone but Iberia to fly that route.
Now Málaga is getting HST and I also expect no more AGP-MAD except for IB who has a large network to feed. P2P carriers such as Vueling won't be able to compete in price, schedule or overall time. Same will happen when BCN gets its HST service in early '08

When airports receive HST service we can start talking about complementing, until thenm HST is just taking away O&D passengers from the air.
 
TGV
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:37 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:31 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
Quite simply a 1h30m flight ends up being about 4 hours by the time you do checkin, security, boarding, taxiing, flight, taxiing, deboarding and collect your bags (customs in some places too). With the train you just turn up get onboard with your bag and get straight off at the other end simple as (chunnel has customs also).

Exact.

At the European level, these are the values commonly accepted (at least what we consider when making traffic forecast studies for high speed railway lines):

Train running time (from station to station):
2 hours - Rail Share 85 % - Air Share 15 %
3 hours - Rail Share 50 % - Air Share 50 %
4 hours - Rail Share 30 % - Air Share 70 %

The location of the stations versus the city center has also an influence. If good (example Paris and Marseille) the rail share will rise (Paris to Marseille is 65% for the rail share, with a 3 hours-3hours 15 running time).

An advantage of train is that the trip can be used for working, as you are seated in the train most of the time. While in the plane, when you have eliminated all time lost in queuing, safety control, boarding, take-off, landing, etc... you don't have much time (nor space !) to work.

[Edited 2007-11-30 01:38:31]
Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
 
AR385
Topic Author
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:36 am

With all the information posted above. What would be the result in the USA of TGV trains? In the long run, would they introduce a new competitive factor for airlines? Or is geography a big constraint for that?
 
scrubbsywg
Posts: 1095
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:16 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
Quite simply a 1h30m flight ends up being about 4 hours by the time you do checkin, security, boarding, taxiing, flight, taxiing, deboarding and collect your bags (customs in some places too).

Don't forget the part about actually GETTING to the airport. Eurostar departs paris from Gare du Nord in central paris, right on the metro and drops you off in central london. No need to pay 10 euro or whatever it is and an hour of your time just to get to and from the airport to the city.
 
LHBSL
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:10 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:22 pm



Quoting Siege2L (Reply 1):
I cannot state fact or opinion regarding the services via easyJet, for example.

Easy stopped their BSL-CDG flight with the opening of the new TGV line Basel-Strasbourg-Paris...

Regards
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:46 pm



Quoting AR385 (Reply 10):
With all the information posted above. What would be the result in the USA of TGV trains? In the long run, would they introduce a new competitive factor for airlines? Or is geography a big constraint for that?

I would guess that the US is so much bigger than European countries that flying is going to be a winner more often although with the size of the gaps between towns it'll be easier to find a space to put a HSR line than in the UK!
 
ctrl_alt_del
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 6:07 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:08 pm

From the 9th of December 2007 the TGV will run Munich-Paris daily, a journey of 6hrs 15mins with
and offer of 39 Euro (not clear if it's return or single). This will be an extremely attractive option
considering how long it takes from central Munich to the airport and from CDG to central Paris. In
this case there is not much difference in time needed. Indeed, it is probably much easier to get
work done on the TGV than if you have the constant switching of transport modes when flying.
 
Oryx
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:25 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:31 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 14):

This argument is only valid for trans-continental flights. High speed trains for the US are more aimed at high-density short connections like Washington and Baltimore. Again the four hour rule applies.

GOOGLE Maps tells me that it can take up to 90 minutes by car on this route. The distance of 40 miles should be less than 30 minutes by high-speed rail.

[Edited 2007-11-30 08:32:16]

[Edited 2007-11-30 08:32:47]
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:40 pm



Quoting Siege2L (Reply 7):
As far as the statement regarding a 1h30min flight duration ending in a total trip time of 4 hours is not applicable to most situations.

Absolutely it is ... sometimes more. The average airline passenger does not arrive at the airport 15 minutes before his/her flight, expecting to get through security in 5 minutes... even if it CAN be done. Even regular FFs (and I fly with 'em every week), get to the airport probably one hour before departure time (some 90 mins)... remember, FF's are always at the gate at first boarding call ... and so are leisure pax because they don't know better. Add travel time to the airport (usually worse than to a rail station) .. and possibly bag check/pickup at either end, and on AVERAGE, it's easily a 3hr or more trip ... I usually assume 4hrs minimum time to fly anywhere. There is much time 'wasted' in the premium lounges for the FF's ... they're not all arriving just in time.

The other big factor with airlines/airports is the unexpected! The chance of long lines at security one week, or a flight delayed by one hour, are not uncommon... and far more common than rail problems IMO.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
vv701
Posts: 5774
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:41 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
Quite simply a 1h30m flight ends up being about 4 hours by the time you do checkin, security, boarding, taxiing, flight, taxiing, deboarding and collect your bags (customs in some places too).

Yes.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
With the train you just turn up get onboard with your bag and get straight off at the other end simple as (chunnel has customs also).

Well, perhaps not quite. At least not unless you live at one station and are visiting the other.

To mark the opening of the St Pancras (London) to Gare du Nord (Paris) high speed line the Telegraph newspaper sent one reporter on the train in a race with another reporter travelling by air. They started the race in central London (by Big Ben) and finished it in central Paris (in the Parc du Champ de Mars by the Eiffel Tower).

The flight by BA via LHR took 4 hrs 40 mins.

The train via the Chunnel took 4 hrs 10 minutes.

The total elapsed time between leaving Big Ben and arriving at St Pancras was 15 minutes. This compares to the rather slow 40 minutes it took to get from Big Ben to Paddington station. But this difference was not critical. It simply means that the train traveller having started the journey in plenty of time arrived at St Pancras earlier than expected but caught the planned train. The air traveller also caught the planned flight but with not so much time to spare as expected.

I am not trying to suggest that the plane traveller could have beaten the train traveller. What I am trying to illustrate is that if speed is all important then where you start your journey is totally critical. If your journey time from your starting point to Paddington Station is quicker than your journey time to St Pancras Station then flying could save you a few minutes. But in the end the advantage of the train over the plane or the plane over the train is going to be so small that neither can really claim to offer a significant time advantage. Effectively in this case the quickest route is determined by where you start and finish your journey. But even then the time saved will not make a great difference.

However the train does win if other issues are considered.

What are these issues? Well, cost. Compare the single train ticket price of £56 with the plane ticket price of £96. (Of course the train fare is effectively subsidised as the cost of laying the track and digging the tunnel will never be recovered while the only subsidised part of the plane journey were the train journeys to and from the airports. But that is a concern of the tax payer not the passenger.) And if you are environmentally conscious then compare your train carbon emission footprint of .005 tonnes with your plane carbon emission footprint of 0.055 tonnes (both for a single journey).

.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1494
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:00 pm



Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
I am not trying to suggest that the plane traveller could have beaten the train traveller. What I am trying to illustrate is that if speed is all important then where you start your journey is totally critical. If your journey time from your starting point to Paddington Station is quicker than your journey time to St Pancras Station then flying could save you a few minutes. But in the end the advantage of the train over the plane or the plane over the train is going to be so small that neither can really claim to offer a significant time advantage. Effectively in this case the quickest route is determined by where you start and finish your journey. But even then the time saved will not make a great difference.

Very true, as very few people live in Central London near the Eurostar station, whereas more people live nearer an airport (bearing in mind the 5 airports around London).

And, at the other end, are you going to the centre of Paris, in which case Eurostar is likely to be faster, or to a business away from the centre, which may be nearer CDG or ORY?

Quoting TGV (Reply 9):
n advantage of train is that the trip can be used for working, as you are seated in the train most of the time. While in the plane, when you have eliminated all time lost in queuing, safety control, boarding, take-off, landing, etc... you don't have much time (nor space !) to work.

London's airports (apart from LCY) are not pleasant places at the moment, there is a high aggro factor (with the very high current levels of security) involved in short flights here...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:37 pm



Quoting AR385 (Reply 3):
Is it complementing or competing? What does your research say is more conveniento for the travelling public?

It's supposed to be complementing for the shorter regional distances. Now it takes about 3 hours to go from downtown London to downtown Paris, considerably shorter than if you were to take a plane from LHR to CDG or Orly. By the time you check in, clear security, and then how about those delays at LHR?? A 4 or 5 hour journey between Paris and London would be a good day I would think... I guess since I have never even been to Europe yet, it's really not my place to say anything, but this is a very interesting topic, and I am very interested in doing research on it...

Now for longer trips like London to Athens, Warsaw or Moscow, of course flying would be the better option...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
blueflyer
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:41 pm



Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
What I am trying to illustrate is that if speed is all important then where you start your journey is totally critical.

This is an excellent point that has often been overlooked. The opening of St Pancreas actually illustrates it very well. Many Eurostar customers begin their journey from Canary Wharf, from whence Waterloo was far more convenient, to a point that, for these customers, City and Heathrow are more competitive now than before.

At least, they have a choice, however. My employer's offices in Brussels are just a few minutes away from the airport, so a trip originating at that office to our Paris offices could be done faster by air than by train, at least at certain times of the day, but there simply aren't any flights between BRU and CDG (except for one morning flight to connect with SN's African services). On the other hand, I often stay in downtown Brussels across the street from a train station with high speed service to Paris, and given the traffic in Brussels during rush hour, there's no way a high speed train within walking distance of my hotel will be beaten by a plane ride requiring a long trip to the airport...

Quoting Siege2L (Reply 1):
This does not apply to Thalys/Air France agreement between CDG and Brussels-Midi station

Thalys no longer operates between CDG and Brussels. The service is provided by regular SNCF high speed trains, of which one car is subcontracted by AF to carry connecting passengers.

In 2010, passenger rail transport will be fully liberalized in Europe, with Deutsche Bahn already planning to send its trains from Germany to London and Virgin Railways from London to continental Europe. If, in conjunction with this liberalization, rail infrastructure could be further improved, I think we could see a very competitive, quality product that would give the airlines a run for their money.

Some of the improvements I think of include a high speed connection from LHR to the Eurostar lines terminating both at Paris Nord and Brussels Midi. BA, VS and BD could set up check-in desks at both train stations and it would further reduce the need/appeal of flights between LHR on the one hand, and BRU and CDG on the other. BRU also needs a connection to the high speed train service, and AMS needs its high speed link to be completed, something that is apparently scheduled to be done in 2009 (and I've sworn never again to get to AMS by high speed train until it's done, too many bad experiences...). CDG is ready, you can get a high speed train to most large cities in France already, the only missing link is a better integration between Air France's and SNCF's reservation systems so passengers can get their SNCF tickets when they check in with Air France, and vice versa.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no clothes.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:07 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
High speed trains use considerably less energy than shorthaul flights and can use clean energy (ie they run on electricity which can be generated by windfarms, solar, hydro etc).

They can also use dirty energy (ie they run on diesel, or on electricity which is generated by coal or natural gas burning plants, nuclear plants whose waste is much much worse than CO2). And not every train is full (or near full). A 500 seat train only 1/4 full isn't as efficient as a 150 seat plane with 125 passengers.

HST in Europe are a real success on short-haul (won't dispute the 4 hours mentioned above) but don't forget some realities.

Longhaul to shorthaul connections are much superior plane-to-plane, than plane-to-train. I would imagine that the majority of air passengers LHR-CDG are not point-to-point but connecting via BA/AF hubs. And a plane-to-train connection is as inconvenient as transferring from a network to a low-cost airline. While AF may have given up on CDG-BRU, SN hasn't - but likely for connecting passengers rather than true O&D.

Not everybody wants to travel city centre to city centre (or airport to airport, for that matter). i.e. a passenger who lives in the suburbs would have to travel to city centre to catch the train, when an airport could be closer. Depending on the passenger's origin (home & office) and destination (hotel & office) one of the options is going to be better than the other - and it isn't always going to be the train.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:08 pm



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 21):
In 2010, passenger rail transport will be fully liberalized in Europe, with Deutsche Bahn already planning to send its trains from Germany to London and Virgin Railways from London to continental Europe. If, in conjunction with this liberalization, rail infrastructure could be further improved, I think we could see a very competitive, quality product that would give the airlines a run for their money.

Some of the improvements I think of include a high speed connection from LHR to the Eurostar lines terminating both at Paris Nord and Brussels Midi. BA, VS and BD could set up check-in desks at both train stations and it would further reduce the need/appeal of flights between LHR on the one hand, and BRU and CDG on the other. BRU also needs a connection to the high speed train service, and AMS needs its high speed link to be completed, something that is apparently scheduled to be done in 2009 (and I've sworn never again to get to AMS by high speed train until it's done, too many bad experiences...). CDG is ready, you can get a high speed train to most large cities in France already, the only missing link is a better integration between Air France's and SNCF's reservation systems so passengers can get their SNCF tickets when they check in with Air France, and vice versa.

I think this is pretty much what my research is suggesting, that high speed rail may get competitive with the airline industry, but the airlines could codeshare with HSR on shorter distances, especially if passengers are going to connect in either AMS, CDG, FRA, LHR or the like to get to ex-Europe or other international destinations. It would be a win-win-win-win situation... The pax win, the airlines and railroads make money (assuming proper financing approaches are used), and the environment doesn't suffer as much.

With Germany going to send their trains to LHR, that would mean even more traffic going through the Chunnel, which already handles more than 4 million riders annually.

I wish we had somethink like that here in the states, although I think HSR would be more viable in places east of the Mississippi river due to continuous settlement pretty much. Cities are much closer in proximity to one another; large urbanized areas lie within a few hundred miles or less of one another. You go west of the Mississippi, and you have one or two major metropolitan areas, then several hundred miles before you come to any somewhat major civilization. Then you get to the west coast, where there is pretty much a linear spatial pattern of civilization along the immediate coast and in some interior areas of California and the Pacific Coast...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
vv701
Posts: 5774
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:24 pm



Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 23):
I think this is pretty much what my research is suggesting, that high speed rail may get competitive with the airline industry

Is high speed rail really 'competitive' or are you excluding the very high infrastructure costs - that is the track, land and - in the case of the Chunnel - the excavation costs? As I see it ticket prices are competitive but with the extraordinary high infrastructure subsidies that price competitiveness is down to the tax payer's subsidy.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:47 am



Quoting ANother (Reply 22):
Longhaul to shorthaul connections are much superior plane-to-plane, than plane-to-train. I would imagine that the majority of air passengers LHR-CDG are not point-to-point but connecting via BA/AF hubs. And a plane-to-train connection is as inconvenient as transferring from a network to a low-cost airline.

I disagree. Plane-to-train connections at many airports in Europe that have railway stations under or immediately adjacent to the airport terminal can often be very convenient and you don't have to deal with long security check lines before boarding the train. On Wednesday I made a connection from a flight arriving at GVA to my train home in less than 10 minutes, including the walk from the aircraft to passport control and the walk from there to the GVA airport railway station (with carryon baggage of course) and a minute or so to purchase my ticket from a self-service machine. I was walking in my door at home (25 km from GVA airport and a 5 minute walk from my local station) 40 minutes after the aircraft had parked at the gate. I've done it almost as fast at several other airports in Europe. A connection between two flights at almost any airport in less than 30 minutes is a rarity these days.

Obviously it depends whether you have a lot of heavy baggage to deal with between plane and train.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:02 am



Quoting Siege2L (Reply 7):
As far as the statement regarding a 1h30min flight duration ending in a total trip time of 4 hours is not applicable to most situations.

For example, priority access security lines ( LAX, ATL, etc... ), dedicated First Class Terminals ( LH @ FRA, AF @ CDG2, etc... ), and/or reduced minimum check-in times ( London City :10min latest check-in via AF, Washington,DC/National :15min via DL Shuttle, etc ) can drastically change the situation.

Most pax travelling on business between ORY - NCE with a same-day return or overnight, need not check-in baggage. Hotels provide toiletries for the overnight pax. Pax departing in the morning and returning at night on the same day do not have the need to check-in luggage.

Taxi times are generally reduced at ORY and in some cases, at CDG and DCA.

Fast-track security and customs control generally do not take a large block of time.

Keep in mind 1h30min flight durations are listed by airlines to reduce delayed arrivals to improve on-time performance status. These flights are generally :55mins - :75mins with some schedules adjusted during peak travel.

This was not posted to attack any previous statements, however, this was intended to offer the COMPLETE picture as such statements can be misleading to the less-informed or less-travelled flyer.

I was refering to 1h30 flight times (ie time in the air) but I can see how you could mistake that for blocks time. At LAX as you have used in an example... it is not uncommon to have to wait 15 mins after door closing for other aircraft to leave the gate area, a 15 min taxi then often hold for another 10 mins... so 40 mins there. Or at arrival in LAX a 15 min taxi then often a hold while departing aircraft clear the gate, then engine shutdown and tow onto the gate. So 25 mins there... similar at other airports also so it is possible that you spend nearly an hour on the plane on the ground plus the 1h30m flight and the time for boarding and deboarding etc. Airports are often located further from the cities than train stations... so a long taxi ride is needed vs a quick trip on the metro or a short taxi ride.
The other factor is that you can use your cellphone on the train the whole time which is good for business, and you can use your laptop in comfort or do paperwork etc with a lot more space.
Obviously in the US things are a little different as your city design is often more suburban and public transport (with the exception of NY) is not very well established (although LAs rail metro network is surprisingly quite good! albeit small).

Quoting TGV (Reply 9):
An advantage of train is that the trip can be used for working, as you are seated in the train most of the time. While in the plane, when you have eliminated all time lost in queuing, safety control, boarding, take-off, landing, etc... you don't have much time (nor space !) to work.

 checkmark 

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 12):
Don't forget the part about actually GETTING to the airport. Eurostar departs paris from Gare du Nord in central paris, right on the metro and drops you off in central london. No need to pay 10 euro or whatever it is and an hour of your time just to get to and from the airport to the city.

 checkmark 

Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
To mark the opening of the St Pancras (London) to Gare du Nord (Paris) high speed line the Telegraph newspaper sent one reporter on the train in a race with another reporter travelling by air. They started the race in central London (by Big Ben) and finished it in central Paris (in the Parc du Champ de Mars by the Eiffel Tower).

The flight by BA via LHR took 4 hrs 40 mins.

The train via the Chunnel took 4 hrs 10 minutes.

Thats a very useful example! Especially in Europe it is much easier to get around on trains than elsewhere.

Quoting ANother (Reply 22):

They can also use dirty energy (ie they run on diesel, or on electricity which is generated by coal or natural gas burning plants, nuclear plants whose waste is much much worse than CO2). And not every train is full (or near full). A 500 seat train only 1/4 full isn't as efficient as a 150 seat plane with 125 passengers.

They sure can (although highspeed trains tend to be exclusively electricity... TGV, ICE, Japans system etc). Even if they use a coal power plant the amount of pollution from that to power the train is less than an aircraft (for modern coal stations, I'm not sure about ancient ones or Chinese ones they build a new one every few days in China! crazy!).
Actually a 1/4 full train is as efficient as a 3/4 full jetplane (a turboprop is considerably more efficient than a jet)... a trains energy is used purely for driving it forward mechanically. A plane uses its energy to produce thrust (a lot of energy is wasted there) and has a higher drag as it uses wings to generate lift which a train does not have to do.
Having said all that I love planes of course but I think that where available short flights should be replaced by highspeed trains.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12395
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:29 am

There can be several advantages and one disadvantage for some for high speed trains vs. air travel.

Where the journey is to start or end - It works best if both the journey start and end are close to or with quick local transit to/from the main train stations you can get such high speed train service at. If either or both ends of a journey are in the suburbs distant from HS train service stops, then air travel, even including local travel at each end, security and baggage handling may be shorter in overall time of travel.

Weather. The odds are many times greater on a given day that air flights will be affected by weather including severe winter or summer storms. Only the most severe weather will stop HS train service.

Timing. Trains may operate overnight or at very late or very early hours, where airports may have overnight time curfews.

Room and convenience of baggage. Trains offer far more leg and work room and you can carry your own bags and keep them close to you, no need to check in and have your bags get lost. No limits on size of your 'carry on' luggage - all of it can be.

Security. While on some trains there may be some security checks, you don't have the liquids limits, or need to take off your shoes, and but for rare situations, any x-ray checks of bags as with flights.

Still there are times when even a short fight may be a lot better than a train. For example in the USA, between LGA and DCA. You can get lucky if at both ends if traveling off-peak as to vehicle traffic to use a cab to the respective airports, little time use to get through security and so on. If you only have carry-ons of small enough size, then security isn't a problem. One big difference at to flying is the view. It doesn't get much better than flying up from DCA to LGA, approaching LGA from over the Hudson River at sunset or dusk on a clear night just west of a glowing NY City. .
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:43 am



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 21):

Re integration of AF and SNCF - it is funny enough that AA is actually code-sharing the whole TGV network. Little known but makes a big difference. I exclusively fly AA over the pond and that's one of the reasons.
 
FURUREFA
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:26 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:06 am



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 19):
Very true, as very few people live in Central London near the Eurostar station, whereas more people live nearer an airport (bearing in mind the 5 airports around London).

I concur; last Sunday it took me more time to get from St. Pancras to my dad's house in Holland Park, Kensington then it would have to go to Heathrow...

Matt
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:48 am



Quoting VV701 (Reply 24):
Is high speed rail really 'competitive' or are you excluding the very high infrastructure costs - that is the track, land and - in the case of the Chunnel - the excavation costs? As I see it ticket prices are competitive but with the extraordinary high infrastructure subsidies that price competitiveness is down to the tax payer's subsidy.

The papers I have been reading really didn't observe any bit of the financing part of these projects. It was mostly about the ethics (environmental impacts/highway and airway congestion) and what not of constructing high speed rail projects in urban areas.
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:01 am

IATA has an interesting analysis here

Quote:
Aviation makes the highest net contribution of all modes when expressed in terms of passenger journeys. Airlines not only more than "pay their way" in terms of their tax and user charge payments, they do so on a higher proportionate basis than the other transport modes.

Rail and light rail (urban transit) networks are heavily subsidised. In addition to operational or fare subsidies, these modes also typically fail to cover their infrastructure costs through the user or access charges they pay.

 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:40 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
Quite simply a 1h30m flight ends up being about 4 hours by the time you do checkin, security, boarding, taxiing, flight, taxiing, deboarding and collect your bags (customs in some places too). With the train you just turn up get onboard with your bag and get straight off at the other end simple as (chunnel has customs also).

Problem with relying on this is that it will only take one major security incident on a train...especially a train going to/from the UK, for station security to ramp up to equal that of airports. I also think that the decrease in London to Paris flights, for example, is not all due to the train, but the fact that regional airports and airlines are picking up on people avoiding LHR and CDG... by plane.
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
keno
Posts: 1809
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:46 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:23 pm

Reims-Champagne which used to have Ryanair services has its fate sealed for good since the opening of TGV Est. It's now possible to take a nonstop TGV to CDG which only takes 30 minutes, compared to about 2 hours previously.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:36 pm



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 21):
the only missing link is a better integration between Air France's and SNCF's reservation systems so passengers can get their SNCF tickets when they check in with Air France, and vice versa.

The systems are integrated already, at least for Reservations - you can book SNCF rail in Amadeus, which is the system used by AF. What there isn't though is interline ticketing, because SNCF doesn't use electronic tickets. Eurostar do, though (they are hosted in the SNCF Reserail system but are now using Amadeus for all travel agent and GDS distribution, and to host their e-tickets), so you will soon be able to use airline tickets to interline with Eurostar. Integrating rail and air travel distribution is a high priority for the EU at the moment, to enable mixed-mode journeys and take advantage of the increasing integration between air and high-speed rail transportation in Europe.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:37 pm

I think for a TGV/ICE travelling time under 4 hours the train has advantages. You leave/arrive in the city-center, you don't have check-in times, you can take anything in your hand-luggage, the second (economy) class is more comfortable and most important no security harassment (still, and I hope it stays like this).
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:57 pm



Quoting Voodoo (Reply 32):
Problem with relying on this is that it will only take one major security incident on a train...especially a train going to/from the UK, for station security to ramp up to equal that of airports. I also think that the decrease in London to Paris flights, for example, is not all due to the train, but the fact that regional airports and airlines are picking up on people avoiding LHR and CDG... by plane.

You mean like the London train bombings or the Madrid train bombings? Increased checks for sure but nothing that inconvienences travellers like at airports... the differance being that a plane can be used as one huge flying missile that can destroy an entire building/suburb/infrastructure. A train can't be used as such.

Quoting ANother (Reply 31):
IATA has an interesting analysis here

but IATA would say that though wouldn't they?  Wink
its called protecting themselves and trying to discredit competition.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:54 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
but IATA would say that though wouldn't they?

Do you mean it is wrong, simply because of the source? Once you have read it lets have a debate on the facts.
 
davehammer
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:20 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:23 pm

My girlfriend and I went on a trip round Europe last year using both rail and air to go on the following route. LTN to CIA on FR. Rome to Milan on Italian Intercity Service. Milan to Paris on the TGV. ORY to SXF on U2. Amsterdam to Berlin by regular train. Amsterdam to Paris by Thalys. Paris to Barcelona by Tren Hotel Elipsos and then around Spain by train ultimately reaching Santander where we got the leisurely ferry back to Plymouth.

Flying low cost obviously stress levels were going to be increased but compared to the seamlessness of the entire European train network flying was infinitely more stressful. Going by train we obviously saw some amazing sights such as the TGV journey through the Alps, the Spanish and Italian countryside, but we also had the opportunity not to have to stand in queues all day long sit back, relax and go city centre to city centre. My girlfriend had never used High Speed rail much before, being originally from Denver, CO and said that next time we go to Europe for pleasure we're taking the train! This has been made even easier for me by the HST link to Paris, meaning that I can drive from my house near Bromley, SE London to Ebbsfleet Station in 30 mins and be in the Centre of Paris about 3hrs 30 after leaving home. HST1 also will have a station at Stratford East London within the next couple of years. 10 mins from Canary Wharf on the Jubilee Line, again making Eurostar a good option for businesses. Domestic services from St Pancras and Kings Cross are right on the doorstep and Euston is also within spitting distance for journeys northward.

That said, if going from London for Business to anywhere but Paris, Lille or Brussels I'd still fly. I'm 40 mins from LGW through the back lanes, and usually no more than 1 hour from STN. I avoid LHR if I can, and there's virtually always convenient flights to most of the places I want to visit for very competitive fares.

So after that ramble I'd say that there is definite scope for High Speed Rail to compliment short haul air travel, but the high speed network will need to expand to a couple more places yet. I welcome having such choice for travel!
 
Indy
Posts: 3942
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:38 pm

Provided TGV works like DB in Germany it should be much easier for shorter routes. You just walk up and buy your ticket and get on the train. You don't get bent over a barrel for walking up last minute and buying a ticket. And you don't get treated like a terrorist prior to boarding. High speed rail regionally is great.

Heck if you take the ICE in Germany (may apply to all trains.. not sure) kids under 13 ride free.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
Group51
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:10 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:07 pm



Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
The flight by BA via LHR took 4 hrs 40 mins.

The train via the Chunnel took 4 hrs 10 minutes.

I carried out a comparison of air and train times for travel between London and Manchester city centre for my work. This was before the Pendolino trains started running. The flight was cheaper than the train, but you had to add on tube fare to Paddington, train fare to Heathrow and train fare to Manchester Picadilly. The timings ended up roughly comparable, and thus I had to say 'take the cheapest route', which was air. Now the Pendolinos are running, with big discounts for advance bookings, there is no competition really.

Recently, I had to fly back from Manchester to LHR because I'd booked late and the train cost too much. The plane was late and there can't have been more than 20 on-board - this on a 6pm flight!
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:40 pm



Quoting Indy (Reply 39):
Provided TGV works like DB in Germany it should be much easier for shorter routes. You just walk up and buy your ticket and get on the train. You don't get bent over a barrel for walking up last minute and buying a ticket. And you don't get treated like a terrorist prior to boarding. High speed rail regionally is great.

That's my take on it as well.

I actually just booked Lancaster-Pittsburgh-Lancaster on AMtrak for Christmas (By all means not high-speed, but the segment into Harrisburg is 110 mph.) THat will take about 8 hours due to a 2 hour layover in Harrisburg, but it's better than driving 2 hours into either PHL or BWI, waiting to check my bag and go through security, which can take up to 2 hours, then wait for my plane, the I travel the 1hr 20 minutes to PIT, then I wait for my bags... Ok, so maybe flying will only be a little shorter than my train ride, but it's more than $50 more expensive... not worth it...

Now, if only we could get our representatives to consider making the entire keystone corridor a high speed rail corridor. Well, let's just say that it will not happen in this century... old   tombstone 
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
vv701
Posts: 5774
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:02 am



Quoting Group51 (Reply 40):
I carried out a comparison of air and train times for travel between London and Manchester city centre for my work. This was before the Pendolino trains started running. The flight was cheaper than the train, but you had to add on tube fare to Paddington, train fare to Heathrow and train fare to Manchester Picadilly.

Not everyone starts their journey at Manchester Picadilly and ends it at London Euston. Most people neither start or end their journey at a main line station or an airport.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:49 am



Quoting ANother (Reply 37):
Do you mean it is wrong, simply because of the source? Once you have read it lets have a debate on the facts.

No, I'm sure its right if you look at it from a certain point of view and use certain data and statistics... thats the wonderful thing about statistics is that you can pick and choose what you like to get the result you desire. I notice is doesn't refer to the costs associated with airport development or that for people to travel by plane they have to either drive on roads, ride on a bus, ride on a train, or walk (not many do that I would imagine...). Airports cost billions of $ to build, maintain and the associated infrastructure to support them costs taxpayers (unless its a tollroad) money.
All I am saying is that IATA does have vested interests in putting across one point of view... but it was an interesting read thankyou and yes aviation taxes are a PITA for all of us.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
lijnden
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:34 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:53 am

Pro's:
1) Travelling by train is far less stressful than travelling by air.
2) Time factor on short hauls is often also in favour of the rail system.
3) You can socialize more with fellow passengers

Cons:
1) Security with the rail system (basically the whole public transportation sector) is an issue. Today you still can take a train or bus without being checked. Recent attacks like the ones in Madrid and London have not triggered any obvious changes in safety protocols. I also know people that took LPG operated cars into the Eurotunnel train last summer without any problem. I think when security will be at the same level as the airline industry, travel time and costs will raise dramatically. (To compare: when I go to a football match the security is better...)
2) The discussion if it is environmentally greener is also a question. The focus and impact on the environment of the airline industry is well known. Pollution and the impact of trains and busses remains a mystery.
3) Seating is limited and often people have no seats in trains and busses during rush hours.
4) Public transportation is still not able to stand on its own feet. Huge amounts of subsidized money are always needed to keep it running. Figures on the efficiency of routes are simply not known. De-regulation of the public transportation system in the EU will probably never happen.

My choice: The car!
Be kind to animals! Next trip: ORF-ORD-NRT-IAH-ORF
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:49 am



Quoting Lijnden (Reply 44):
My choice: The car!

That gives you more flexibility, indeed, but you also never know if you get there in the estimated time. Simple calculation, I have to go to AMS - RAI exhibition on Wednesday. By car., it would take me approximately 4 hours, if I avoid the rush hour around CGN and the Randstad. Back the same. Costs for gas only ab out 60 Euro plus the costs for the car.

By train I have to backtrack 30 km to FRA airport train station, with changing trains in Utrecht it takes me total transit time ca. 4:30, relaxed in a 1st class ICE seat. Costs, with Bahncard 50 zero VAT ca. Euro 180,00 + ca. Euro 20,-- Fraport parking. Making that back and forth on the same day by car is simply too much hassle these days, by train it is comfortable.

By air, it would still be quicker, but buying these 1 or 2 extra hours for an addtional Euro 500,00 is simply not cost effective.

With the opening of the new line to Paris, air is still quicker from my personal point, but again, train with Bahncard 50 is cost wise more advanbtagedous, unless an air ticket is bough weeks iun advance.

It all depends where you live and where you want to go. With HSR, destinations like MUC CDG ANS, BRU make sense to use rail, London would be moe than 6 hours and that rules this one out.

Generally, air is more flexible than train and it all comes back to the point, from 3000 meters runway, you can fly everywhere, on 300 km HSR track, trains can just serve the resulting city connections.

From the tax payers view, rail is subsidized to reduce congestion on the ropads, which is OK, air pays its own way and generates a lot of income, including taxes.


One more thing- for the costs of 300 km HSR, a whole new airport could be build, including runway and terminals, the efficiency in terms of passengers handled, of that airport, could be far greater than that of the HSR line..
powered by Eierlikör
 
AR385
Topic Author
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:57 am

Which way should a hypothethetical medium size third world country with new found riches go then? Should it start building airport infrastructure like crazy or rather develop a top of the line TGV rail system, ceteris paribus? Should it develop both? And if so, what type of formula should it use to determine wether a region gets an airport or a rail node?
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 46):
Which way should a hypothethetical medium size third world country with new found riches go then? Should it start building airport infrastructure like crazy or rather develop a top of the line TGV rail system, ceteris paribus? Should it develop both? And if so, what type of formula should it use to determine wether a region gets an airport or a rail node?

This depends on a lot of variables.
First of all, terrain. Think of the CGH-SDU route in Brazil. This is an excellent route to cover by HST, if it not were for the terrain. Building HST tracks is very expensive because of the limited allowed curve radius and slope gradient. TGV and ICE2 systems have proved these allowances can be reduced significantly today, but terrain is still an important factor.

Second, city pairs. Are you talking about linking two major metropolis at around 500 km/h from each other, or a country that has its population spread over the entire country? When linking two cities, a HST is a better option because it will see substantial rail volume. Argentina is a country not suitable for HST because of the enormous distances between cities, however the exception is AEP-COR, and indeed this route will be covered by HST in the (hopefully not too distant) future.

Airport infrastructure is generally easier to develop, it does not require so much land acquisition and it opens up regions for tourism and trade. In countries that have small a small number of people that need to travel often and fast, the plane is a good option. Take SRE-LPB for example, this route is viable by air, but it wouldn't pay to build a HST line.
When wealth increases, HST becomes a more serious option. Take Chile for example, SCL-PMC is a route that is served by Autopista 5 (Highway) that sees a lot of bus traffic, and by a large number of daily flights of LAN and it's LCC competitors. Volume simply becomes large enough because more people are able to travel. It is not unthinkable that in 2 decades or so PMC-SCL is replaced by HST, with a few stops down the line and an extension to Valparaiso.

Airport infrastructure can be very valuable for bringing in tourists from other countries, for example BRC sees a lot of tourism from South America that arrives by plane, a rail connection to AEP wouldn't do much good. However, COR-ROS-AEP is a good route because it sees a lot of business and VFR traffic.

And, please note there are hybrid structures as well. For a developing country 300+ km/h is most likely not necessary. When 200km/h suffices you will see requirements for track layout will become much more flexible and hence construction costs will decrease. Trains can run high-speed between major city pairs and then run on existing track at lower speeds to smaller cities. Argentina is now working with Siemens (I think) to evaluate high-speed diesel trains for the track to COR.

[Edited 2007-12-02 04:38:44]
 
worldrider
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:26 am

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:59 pm



Quoting Ctrl_alt_del (Reply 15):
From the 9th of December 2007 the TGV will run Munich-Paris daily, a journey of 6hrs 15mins with
and offer of 39 Euro (not clear if it's return or single).

Sure not return! HST is not that cheap, an LCC is often cheaper..
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: Impact Of TGV Systems In Europe

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:27 pm



Quoting Ctrl_alt_del (Reply 15):
From the 9th of December 2007 the TGV will run Munich-Paris daily, a journey of 6hrs 15mins with
and offer of 39 Euro (not clear if it's return or single). This will be an extremely attractive option
considering how long it takes from central Munich to the airport and from CDG to central Paris. In
this case there is not much difference in time needed.

Strange. I cannot find this train on the DB website. AFAIK there will be a service running from Stuttgart to Paris directly and that will take only 3h40. Coming from Munich you have to change trains in Stuttgart, but I am surprised to see this will add 2h30 to the journey. Any Germans here to confirm it takes 2h30 from Munich to Stuttgart by ICE and then only 3h40 to Paris from Stuttgart by TGV?