Kashmon wrote:

can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You mean obsession in flying a 60 minutes sector or driving half a day...

Live 10 mins walk from Union Station in DC. No way would I take a flight to NYC. Well, I would if the fare was between $5-$15. Bring on more and quicker trains is all I ask.

9w748capt wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

It's so costly and inefficient because we've built our cities around the car and not the person. The horribly inefficient design of modern American cities (look at our beloved OKC) is to blame. No wonder we're so fat. I'll never understand at what point our planners decided it was illegal to actually walk somewhere.

What does gutting city trains have to do with HSR between city pairs?

Because HSR - and any mass transit really - doesn't work if you need a car at either end. If there aren't adequate local transit options when you step off the HSR in Dallas or Houston or wherever, then why would you take the HSR? Especially in the DFW area - no wonder DART usage has been far below capacity - why would you take the train when there are 20 lane freeways (many of them un-tolled), plus free parking everywhere you go?

This is not a unique issue with HSR. Taking a plane has the same issue.

c933103 wrote:

And also are you trying to say high speed rail does not make money because companies use profit from high speed rail to maintain other socially important lines?

No. Commuter trains subsidize high speed rail, not the other way around.

c933103 wrote:

lol Running trains nonstop 18 hours a day is low utilization rate? That's far more frequently used than runway of most airports.

There is an aircraft taking off or landing every two minutes at major airports. How often do the most high frequency HSR trains run? On most lines, maybe one per hour. Two tops, and that's already a very, very busy route. How often do those trains have to run to make a profit? Well, as I said, the Tokaido Shinkansen is one of the only routes worldwide to make a profit. So, take its every ten minute frequency as a rough guesstimate.

Sounds like an article from the 90s. This is a joke when you think of it with Amtrak in mind.

freakyrat wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

If there aren't stops at secondary cities, it will be quite difficult to obtain rights of way. There are lots of land owners who want to fight eminent domain acquisition of rights of way for this project. If people living in between San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth perceive no benefit to themselves and their communities, they are likely to opposevthe whole high speed rail project.

Eminent Domain will not be necessary as the Texas Central High Speed Rail project is being built along a power transmission line easement.

An easment is a limited right to use someone else's land. A power transmission line easment generally allows the use of the land to transmit power. If someone wants to use the land for something else they either have to be granted that permission by the land owner or take it through the process of eminent domain.

The only benefit of using an existing easment may be lower appraised value.

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And also are you trying to say high speed rail does not make money because companies use profit from high speed rail to maintain other socially important lines?

No. Commuter trains subsidize high speed rail, not the other way around.

Your own word said otherwise and that's what the situation is.

c933103 wrote:

lol Running trains nonstop 18 hours a day is low utilization rate? That's far more frequently used than runway of most airports.

There is an aircraft taking off or landing every two minutes at major airports. How often do the most high frequency HSR trains run? On most lines, maybe one per hour. Two tops, and that's already a very, very busy route. How often do those trains have to run to make a profit? Well, as I said, the Tokaido Shinkansen is one of the only routes worldwide to make a profit. So, take its every ten minute frequency as a rough guesstimate.

If an HSR track is only used like one or two times per hour then obviously something was not designed correctly? Most HSR systems I have experienced run about 6-12 trains every hour on each track?

c933103 wrote:

Your own word said otherwise and that's what the situation is.

No. You might want to brush up your reading comprehension skills...

c933103 wrote:

If an HSR track is only used like one or two times per hour then obviously something was not designed correctly? Most HSR systems I have experienced run about 6-12 trains every hour on each track?

...as well as your research skills because there is not a single high speed rail line that runs at more than 6 trains per hour in each direction (said Tokaido Shinkansen).

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Your own word said otherwise and that's what the situation is.

No. You might want to brush up your reading comprehension skills...

c933103 wrote:

If an HSR track is only used like one or two times per hour then obviously something was not designed correctly? Most HSR systems I have experienced run about 6-12 trains every hour on each track?

...as well as your research skills because there is not a single high speed rail line that runs at more than 6 trains per hour in each direction (said Tokaido Shinkansen).

This is the weekday schedule for Tokaido Shinkansen, departing from Tokyo station for Osaka direction. Leftmost digits are hour and digits to the right are minutes. I believe you can count how many trains depart the station onto Tokaido Shinkansen every hour.

It is interesting to see this discussion here. HSR is bashed by people who probably never saw it and never used it. It is like the blind discussing colours.

Last December a new HSR section on the ICE line between Munich and Berlin was opened, pushing the travel time under 4 hours. The passenger numbers doubled. So instead of 1.8 million passengers on that connection last year they expect 3.6 million this year. German Rail (Deutsche Bahn) already plans to add more trains to meet demand.
The bancruptcy of Air Berlin probably contributed though.

Aliqiout wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If there aren't stops at secondary cities, it will be quite difficult to obtain rights of way. There are lots of land owners who want to fight eminent domain acquisition of rights of way for this project. If people living in between San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth perceive no benefit to themselves and their communities, they are likely to opposevthe whole high speed rail project.

Eminent Domain will not be necessary as the Texas Central High Speed Rail project is being built along a power transmission line easement.

An easment is a limited right to use someone else's land. A power transmission line easment generally allows the use of the land to transmit power. If someone wants to use the land for something else they either have to be granted that permission by the land owner or take it through the process of eminent domain.

The only benefit of using an existing easment may be lower appraised value.

Some easements put severe restrictions on land use especially by farmers. Some natural gas pipeline easements prohibit farmers from driving heavy farming equipment across the pipeline right of way. This increases the costs of conducting their own business on their own property.

TWA772LR wrote:

We have the worlds largest GDP per capita (...)

Intelligence of your own government ranks the United States at number twenty worldwide:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 4rank.html

ei146 wrote:

It is interesting to see this discussion here. HSR is bashed by people who probably never saw it and never used it. It is like the blind discussing colours.

I've ridden the ICE between FRA and Munich for example. I don't bash it because I think it is an important component of transportation but I also think it doesn't work everywhere and in fact without major subsidies we'd have very little of it today and rail in general would not be profitable. Rail, high speed or not is a far less efficient method of long distance transportation than air. It's a lot easier and cheaper in most circumstances to build an additional runway than it is to build a HSR line. For example, if LHR had 3 or 4 runways we'd not have the Chunnel today. In China where land is abundant and it costs nothing for the government to build on it, it's a cheap place to build HSR. By contrast in the U.S. where HSR lines would require major land acquisition, HSR is very expensive and therefore non-existent.
Just a few days ago on a different thread about the busiest air route someone questioned why there is no HSR between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Cost is the answer, mainly cost of buying the land. In the time (decades), while Malaysia and Singapore discuss building a HSR line, Malaysia has build a mega airport in KUL, and Changi has built 3 terminals at SIN.

[quote="9w748capt"][quote="Kashmon"]can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....[/quote]

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?[/quote]
A

MartijnNL wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

We have the worlds largest GDP per capita (...)

Intelligence of your own government ranks the United States at number twenty worldwide:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 4rank.html

How adorable. You trust the CIA.

airbazar wrote:

ei146 wrote:

It is interesting to see this discussion here. HSR is bashed by people who probably never saw it and never used it. It is like the blind discussing colours.

I've ridden the ICE between FRA and Munich for example. I don't bash it because I think it is an important component of transportation but I also think it doesn't work everywhere and in fact without major subsidies we'd have very little of it today and rail in general would not be profitable. Rail, high speed or not is a far less efficient method of long distance transportation than air. It's a lot easier and cheaper in most circumstances to build an additional runway than it is to build a HSR line. For example, if LHR had 3 or 4 runways we'd not have the Chunnel today. In China where land is abundant and it costs nothing for the government to build on it, it's a cheap place to build HSR. By contrast in the U.S. where HSR lines would require major land acquisition, HSR is very expensive and therefore non-existent.
Just a few days ago on a different thread about the busiest air route someone questioned why there is no HSR between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Cost is the answer, mainly cost of buying the land. In the time (decades), while Malaysia and Singapore discuss building a HSR line, Malaysia has build a mega airport in KUL, and Changi has built 3 terminals at SIN.

I agree that air transport is faster and probably more effective for longer distances but true, frequent high speed rail is more efficient on the long run than air travel....it just takes to much fuel to make the planes as efficient on trains. My point and I think that of many on their tread is that HSR is much more useful on city pairs under 200 miles...and if we link the train line into the airport (a la CDG) it becomes a non-brainer. EWR is on the NEC, so that's the easy no-brainer over JFK...but if we truly upgraded the line and you could be in downtown Philly in 45 minutes it would simply be a much easier and more efficient model. Using a plane (especially a 50 or 70 seat RJ) to fly back and forth between NYC and Philly (or MKE and ORD, or SAN and LAX) is silly. Notice how the European carriers have integrated trains into the network. I'm pretty sure AF's only way to BRU is by train now (I know KL still runs it) and its only a mater of time before LYS and GVA are also only train linked. Back here in the U.S. the air traffic system has gotten so busy in the northeast that airlines (DL in particular) have abandoned most very short hops (gone from LGA and JFK are ALB, BDL, PVD) as they just aren't worth the slots.

9w748capt wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

Are you dumb enough to think that only federal money pays for roads and highways? Each state has it's own fuel tax on top of the federal fuel tax. Not to mention, each state charges you licensing fees for your vehicle that is also supposed to help pay for roads. The biggest problem is, much like our Social Security, States and the feds spend that money on other things then complain about not having any money. Between state and federal fuel taxes, in Washington State, I pay about $0.66 a gallon for gas in tax. I also pay $192 a year to register my car. The state collects a ton of money but spends most of it on bike paths, mass transit and only God knows what else.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a discretionary spending problem.

Sancho99504 wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

Are you dumb enough to think that only federal money pays for roads and highways? Each state has it's own fuel tax on top of the federal fuel tax. Not to mention, each state charges you licensing fees for your vehicle that is also supposed to help pay for roads. The biggest problem is, much like our Social Security, States and the feds spend that money on other things then complain about not having any money. Between state and federal fuel taxes, in Washington State, I pay about $0.66 a gallon for gas in tax. I also pay $192 a year to register my car. The state collects a ton of money but spends most of it on bike paths, mass transit and only God knows what else.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a discretionary spending problem.

Fuel tax and registration money is not enough to cover the costs necessary to maintain existing infrastructure, the federal fuel tax is at 1993 levels. The true solution would be to raise the gas tax to proper levels or just toll all highways so people realize the cost of roads.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

Eminent Domain will not be necessary as the Texas Central High Speed Rail project is being built along a power transmission line easement.

An easment is a limited right to use someone else's land. A power transmission line easment generally allows the use of the land to transmit power. If someone wants to use the land for something else they either have to be granted that permission by the land owner or take it through the process of eminent domain.

The only benefit of using an existing easment may be lower appraised value.

Some easements put severe restrictions on land use especially by farmers. Some natural gas pipeline easements prohibit farmers from driving heavy farming equipment across the pipeline right of way. This increases the costs of conducting their own business on their own property.

Right, so building in an existing easment can be even harder than building elsewhere. In your example the railway would habe to buy rights from the farmer and get permission from the gas line operator (Not very likely). Barring that, emminet domain would have to be used against the farmer and pipeline operator.

Sancho99504 wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

A

Those roads are paid for through fuel taxes not general expenditures.

Here is on reason why HSR wont work in the USA....POLITICS. It wont be HSR for very long. A proposed HSR from Chicago to St Louis would stop only in Springfield. But cities served along the route like Normal, IL and Alton, IL complained in the proposal that their communities would be hurt if they were left out. So there you go, spend billions upgrading the Amtrak Chicago-St Louis run only to have it stop in every Amtak station along the way. Time savings??? 15 minutes.

Below is a glimpse of the timetables for HSR service available from Shanghai to Nanjing on a typical workday like this Thursday, May 10th, totaling 184 frequencies throughout the day, as a quick check at China Rail’s official website http://www.12306.cn shows

Note how frequencies get increased on the 300 km sector btwn the two metropolises to handle pax loading across peak time periods, with a travel time of 1-2 hours at differentiating prices. The morning 8:00-9:00 hour gets 14 frequencies

By contrast, there is only one early morning NKG-PVG flight, one late night PVG-NKG flight offered by MU codesharing with CZ, almost certain for connecting traffic

Bricktop wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

We have the worlds largest GDP per capita (...)

Intelligence of your own government ranks the United States at number twenty worldwide:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 4rank.html

How adorable. You trust the CIA.

Of course there are more sources. I only mentioned this one, because it seemed fit for TWA772LR, for him being American. At the moment he is spreading fake news. The facts are speaking against him. The United States does not have the world's largest GDP per capita. By no means.

Sometimes your taxes pay for stuff you don't want. Deal with it.

Person A prefers taking public transit and the train while person B prefers driving and flying. Big whoop.

Anyways, high speed rail can work in the U.S. but only on certain routes. People dreaming of transcontinental HSR should stop now and lower their standards. Before we (most American cities outside the Northeast) even get true HSR (around 220 mph.) we need to improve local and regional transport (better bus service, light rail, commuter rail, etc.). On intercity corridor routes we have to improve reliability and travel time with better track, upgraded signals, more capacity especially on corridors shared with freight, and grade separate crossings. I took the Pacific Surfliner roundtrip between LA and San Diego and I think that's what most American cities should be aiming for in the short term. 90 mph. intercity service with multiple trips daily and limited stops complemented by commuter rail service. I'm not familiar with the LA-San Francisco segment, but instead of trying to jump straight to HSR that will cost many billions and over a decade to build find ways to improve the existing route.

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And also are you trying to say high speed rail does not make money because companies use profit from high speed rail to maintain other socially important lines?

No. Commuter trains subsidize high speed rail, not the other way around.

This is incorrect. So far as we know, every HSR line, by which I mean one engineered for top speeds of 300km/h / 186mph, has made continuous profits after a point no later than five years after opening, after the passenger counts ramp up to equilibrium. And the caveat is only necessary because the accounting on some of the Chinese lines is somewhat opaque, but most of the questionable lines either haven't opened in their entirety or have only done so within the last five years. The core of their network is quite profitable. The five year ramp-up period has come to the severe detriment of countries that structured the construction debt to start demanding payments right at opening, most notably for Eurostar, but Korea and Taiwan also had to restructure debt in the first five years of their HSR systems.

Amtrak does not operate any true HSR lines, but Acela (top speed 150mph) in the Northeast, along with other Northeast Corridor services, makes enough to self-fund the maintenance of the existing Northeast Corridor infrastructure; the rest of the country requires subsidy, and critical upgrades in the NEC need government support to be completed in a timely manner. Overall, though, conventional intercity rail services (slower, and generally compatible with operating in mixed traffic on freight-primary lines) do require modest governmental subsidy. Commuter trains, which connect cities to their suburbs at conventional speeds, usually require large public subsidy; that subsidy is much larger still in the Americas, and smaller to almost nothing in East Asia (Japan still has private companies operating commuter trains at a profit).

One thing I will say about the HSR routes that have really solidified dominance in the market over air; take a look at them in light of modern airline business practices. They may be large travel markets, but unless they are still subject to a regulatory monopoly, we are for the most part talking about routes that have, or would have had, completely trash yields. WAS-NYC, LON-PAR, MAD-BCN, and the rest, are all places where airline profits go to die. Their only saving grace is that their sectors are so short that you can squeeze more flights out of your frames, which is great if your big cost center is poor utilization and not high cycle count; that's some airlines but not really your short-haul specialists. And where those cities have constrained airports, like LGA or LHR, it's far cheaper for everyone to just abandon those short-sector trips to rail, than it is to amass the slots and gates and land for airport expansion to try to serve the market.

Italianflyer wrote:

High speed rail can't compete with medium-longer haul connecting markets like BRU-LON-DUB or obviouly BRU-LON-N.America.

However the feeder "flight" could be done by train. For example Paris Charles de Gaulle airport has a high speed train station, the trains stop right at the airport. Several of these trains actually got a flight number on them so they're bookable as if they were a flight.

So let's say you want to get from Brussels to Los Angeles. You could then take the train from Brussels to Paris CDG and transfer there for a flight to Los Angeles. You don't need to fly from Brussels to Paris because the train can take you there.

mham001 wrote:

I like how when something good happens in CA, it's all about 'CALIFORNIA!' but when things go bad its the 'US'. No, the current horrid situation going on in California, as well as your list of ailments, is very much a CALIFORNIA! problem.

Yes, because the other HSR lines in the U.S (hint there are none, ACELA is not truly HSR with an average line speed of 66MPH) and they got built so efficiently, too.

I don't know a single state in this union that builds infrastructure well.

mxaxai wrote:

Jakarta (CGK) to Yogyakarta (JOG). Only 250 nm and probably the busiest route in Indonesia, except perhaps Jakarta to Bali (which is far too long for rail). Especially with existing ground transport in Indonesia being extremely slow this could be quite competitive. However, air fares in Indonesia are also extremely low, as little as USD 20 a week in advance..

The busiest route in Indonesia by far is Jakarta (CGK and HLP) to Surabaya (SUB), which is about 800 km. There are currently about 50 flights per day from CGK and 17 flights per day from HLP. There are plans for a high speed railway, but they have now started only on the first section from Jakarta to Bandung (150 km), where the train would compete with road transport mainly (there is only 1 daily flight between Jakarta and Bandung, by Wings Air). These three cities are the largest cities of Indonesia, with about 32 million people in Greater Jakarta, 8 million in Greater Bandung, and 9 million in Greater Surabaya.

GoEuro has published a list of European routes on which it is faster to take the train vs the plane.

1. London - Paris
2. London - Manchester
3. Brussels - London
4. London - Amsterdam
5. London -Edinburgh
6. Barcelona - Madrid
7. Rome - Venice
8. Amsterdam - Paris
9. Milan - Rome
10. Munich – Frankfurt

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wildlife/countryside/a20120131/european-flight-routes-quicker-by-train-bus/

Watch Out, Airlines. High Speed Rail Now Rivals Flying on Key Routes

In Europe & China this seems a yesterday discussion, it would have been a topic 10-20 yrs ago. HST is far more convenient, comfortable & productive than air, but cheaper too.

The longer travel time on the train is more than compensated by real space, big seats and tables, 4G / Wifi. You can really have work done. Your boss experiences, understands and supports.

http://tummyfull.blogspot.nl/2012/05/paris-to-amsterdam-by-thalys.html

And you arrive in city centers, not a far off mega hub. You jump in the taxi / underground & you're there. No waiting lines & often 15+ frequencies a day. Me / many other air travellers switched over more than a decade ago.





What the Chinese achieved in the HST area is mindbogglingly impressive, a 8th world wonder. The speed at which they rolled out thousands of kilometers of high speed rail, across mountainous areas, deserts and swamps is nearly scary.

Since 2008 China has spent an estimated $360 billion to build 22,000 km (13,670 miles) of high-speed rail . It is expected to add another 15,000 km (9,321 miles) by 2025.

The Chinese are not saying so/ making inspiring animations, they do so it as we speak. While at it, they also put 3100NM of subway in their biggest 25 cities. And will double it in a few years, dwarfing even London and Paris. And they have build 100.000 electric busses a year.

But, ho, ho, isn't this government subsidized? Yes of course, massively, hundreds of billions, with enormous success. And they don't care a second about how we think / feel about that. The French showed the way 40 yrs ago.

Make a call & they'll put HST in California too, in half the time & half the costs..or less . And no, that's not even an overstatement.

https://medium.com/@parismarx/chinas-high-speed-train-map-puts-u-s-transportation-to-shame-272e6694c04d

Indeed it is hard not to be impressed by what China has achieved in HSR within such a short period of time span, but in the meantime, they've also been building/expanding state-of-the-art aviation infrastructure in equally impressive manner, as well as building expressway networks criss-crossing the country, etc, in a way that features an integration of different modes of transportation supplementing/complementing each other in accordance with the specific national conditions

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

So far as we know, every HSR line, by which I mean one engineered for top speeds of 300km/h / 186mph, has made continuous profits after a point no later than five years after opening

That is just not remotely true. Paris-Lyon is the only profitable HSR route in Europe, there goes your narrative right there. Also, you people have become pretty loose with the definition of high speed rail. Acela is not high speed rail. German ICEs are not high speed rail (with very few exceptions). High speed rail is not just defined by maximum speed, but also by running on a dedicated track, without which the avera speed drops significantly. Both Acela and the ICE don't run on dedicated tracks (with very few exceptions).

c933103 wrote:

This is the weekday schedule for Tokaido Shinkansen, departing from Tokyo station for Osaka direction. Leftmost digits are hour and digits to the right are minutes. I believe you can count how many trains depart the station onto Tokaido Shinkansen every hour.

Well, I was only counting the Nozomi trains which are the only ones that matter for someone trying to get from Tokyo to Osaka. You are right that other less expressy trains also use those tracks. Meanwhile, that only reinforces my argument that you need insanely high track utilization to return a profit on HSR.

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

This is the weekday schedule for Tokaido Shinkansen, departing from Tokyo station for Osaka direction. Leftmost digits are hour and digits to the right are minutes. I believe you can count how many trains depart the station onto Tokaido Shinkansen every hour.

Well, I was only counting the Nozomi trains which are the only ones that matter for someone trying to get from Tokyo to Osaka. You are right that other less expressy trains also use those tracks. Meanwhile, that only reinforces my argument that you need insanely high track utilization to return a profit on HSR.

"Insanely high track utilization"
It's probably insane to those who haven't experienced the train?
And you would book on other trains too when Nozomi become full
Plus part of the point of HSR is more than point A to point B anyway

airbazar wrote:

ei146 wrote:

It is interesting to see this discussion here. HSR is bashed by people who probably never saw it and never used it. It is like the blind discussing colours.

I've ridden the ICE between FRA and Munich for example. I don't bash it because I think it is an important component of transportation but I also think it doesn't work everywhere and in fact without major subsidies we'd have very little of it today and rail in general would not be profitable. Rail, high speed or not is a far less efficient method of long distance transportation than air. It's a lot easier and cheaper in most circumstances to build an additional runway than it is to build a HSR line. For example, if LHR had 3 or 4 runways we'd not have the Chunnel today. In China where land is abundant and it costs nothing for the government to build on it, it's a cheap place to build HSR. By contrast in the U.S. where HSR lines would require major land acquisition, HSR is very expensive and therefore non-existent.
Just a few days ago on a different thread about the busiest air route someone questioned why there is no HSR between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Cost is the answer, mainly cost of buying the land. In the time (decades), while Malaysia and Singapore discuss building a HSR line, Malaysia has build a mega airport in KUL, and Changi has built 3 terminals at SIN.

People seem to forget dual use of railway lines. One big point to rail is freight. In Europe you have often daytime use by HSR and freight use during the night and early hours. You also often mix in local trains. At least that is the way for Europe.
There is of course a big difference in areas of the world were you have big population centers around 4 hours of rail time apart compared with the areas where population centers are further apart.
One of the differences in the USA is, that railroad tracks are old and mostly not build with speed in mind. The system has also not seen upgrades like tracks in other parts of the world.
The preference for road for people and freight, is often based on users of railroads pay directly for the track, whereas users of roads do not pay directly for the roads. If every car and truck would pay for all road use according to weight and distance directly, the disadvantage for rail could easily disappear.

c933103 wrote:

Plus part of the point of HSR is more than point A to point B anyway

Part of the point, maybe. But in order to curtail losses, many smaller stops are being eliminated right now (see for example how the number of stops in the french TGV network is dwindling). It's only the express trains that have money making potential on big trunk routes.

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And also are you trying to say high speed rail does not make money because companies use profit from high speed rail to maintain other socially important lines?

No. Commuter trains subsidize high speed rail, not the other way around.

This is incorrect. So far as we know, every HSR line, by which I mean one engineered for top speeds of 300km/h / 186mph, has made continuous profits after a point no later than five years after opening, after the passenger counts ramp up to equilibrium. And the caveat is only necessary because the accounting on some of the Chinese lines is somewhat opaque, but most of the questionable lines either haven't opened in their entirety or have only done so within the last five years. The core of their network is quite profitable. The five year ramp-up period has come to the severe detriment of countries that structured the construction debt to start demanding payments right at opening, most notably for Eurostar, but Korea and Taiwan also had to restructure debt in the first five years of their HSR systems.

Amtrak does not operate any true HSR lines, but Acela (top speed 150mph) in the Northeast, along with other Northeast Corridor services, makes enough to self-fund the maintenance of the existing Northeast Corridor infrastructure; the rest of the country requires subsidy, and critical upgrades in the NEC need government support to be completed in a timely manner. Overall, though, conventional intercity rail services (slower, and generally compatible with operating in mixed traffic on freight-primary lines) do require modest governmental subsidy. Commuter trains, which connect cities to their suburbs at conventional speeds, usually require large public subsidy; that subsidy is much larger still in the Americas, and smaller to almost nothing in East Asia (Japan still has private companies operating commuter trains at a profit).

One thing I will say about the HSR routes that have really solidified dominance in the market over air; take a look at them in light of modern airline business practices. They may be large travel markets, but unless they are still subject to a regulatory monopoly, we are for the most part talking about routes that have, or would have had, completely trash yields. WAS-NYC, LON-PAR, MAD-BCN, and the rest, are all places where airline profits go to die. Their only saving grace is that their sectors are so short that you can squeeze more flights out of your frames, which is great if your big cost center is poor utilization and not high cycle count; that's some airlines but not really your short-haul specialists. And where those cities have constrained airports, like LGA or LHR, it's far cheaper for everyone to just abandon those short-sector trips to rail, than it is to amass the slots and gates and land for airport expansion to try to serve the market.

True, I remember when the Eastern Shuttle was a cash cow in the NEC with hourly service. Then Amtrak revamped the Metroliner, then introduced Acela and has dominated the NEC. The new Acela II cars will have more capacity and Ex DL CEO who is now running Amtrak, wants DMUs and EMUs trains to concentrate corridor services. And the Surfliner between LA and San Diego proves you do not need to be HSR to dominate a market.

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Plus part of the point of HSR is more than point A to point B anyway

Part of the point, maybe. But in order to curtail losses, many smaller stops are being eliminated right now (see for example how the number of stops in the french TGV network is dwindling). It's only the express trains that have money making potential on big trunk routes.

The point is more relevant on routes with lower load factors, but even on main routes they could be used to connect passengers to fast train.
And the profitability of such type of train actually depends on pricing model.

[/quote]
You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on![/quote]
That's a pretty myopic statement. Yes it is subsidized but guess what, roads benefit 100% of the population. HSR only benefits a small subset of people who live on the line itself. And you still need those roads in order to get to the train station.

N717TW wrote:

I agree that air transport is faster and probably more effective for longer distances but true, frequent high speed rail is more efficient on the long run than air travel....it just takes to much fuel to make the planes as efficient on trains.

And yet an airplane ticket is cheaper than a HSR ticket. How is that possible? Europe had HSR long before the creation of LCC. Look at the growth of LCC vs. the growth of HSR over same period of time and it's obvious which form of transportation is better and more efficient, even for sub 300Km distances. The idea that HSR is faster for distances under 300Km ignores the fact that people don't always live close to train stations, that people still need to drive to get to a train station, and that parking in a big city is prohibitively expensive. For example, it might be faster by train from Boston to NYC than by air, but if I have to spend 2 hours in traffic getting to Boston, then paying $30/day for parking anywhere near the station, then paying a train ticket that costs more than a plane ticket, how does that make HSR better than flying. Then that line only connects Boston and NYC. It doesn't help me if I want to go to Albany for example. But a runway at the airport can take me to many different destinations within a 300KM radius. Long story short, HSR only works where you have a dense population zone at both ends of the line and a lot of movement between those 2 zones. London to Paris is a good example. In the U.S. it's out of the question because most of the people who could afford a HSR ticket live in the suburbs, sometimes closer to an airport than to a major train station.

Zoedyn wrote:

Below is a glimpse of the timetables for HSR service available from Shanghai to Nanjing on a typical workday like this Thursday, May 10th, totaling 184 frequencies throughout the day, as a quick check at China Rail’s official website http://www.12306.cn shows

Note how frequencies get increased on the 300 km sector btwn the two metropolises to handle pax loading across peak time periods, with a travel time of 1-2 hours at differentiating prices. The morning 8:00-9:00 hour gets 14 frequencies

By contrast, there is only one early morning NKG-PVG flight, one late night PVG-NKG flight offered by MU codesharing with CZ, almost certain for connecting traffic

A even crazier example would be CAN-WUH (445nmi/512mi) right after Wuguang HSR open (about 4 hrs by train). CZ tried to fight that by operating hourly air shuttles between the two cities (along with CAN-CSX), lose badly, and greatly cut service afterward. Nowaday, there's only 3 RT flights between CAN and CSX, and something like 9 RT flights between CAN and WUH, way down from 20+ daily roundtrips.

The golden rule used by Japanese is the "4-hour standard". Below 4 hrs travel time, train (HSR, or HSR + Fast Train) wins. Above that Air wins. Air pairs like Tokyo and Osaka is the exception, rather than the norm, with the demand between the two cities being extremely large (HSR still has something like 93-7 shares advantage over air).

airbazar wrote:

In the U.S. it's out of the question because most of the people who could afford a HSR ticket live in the suburbs, sometimes closer to an airport than to a major train station.

That might be a logical assumption in flyover country but not in the northeast and on the west coast.

Killing every business case by isolating cost & demand ROI within a limited scope & applying a finance / market / society philosophy left behind by the obvious winners. That's where it's brought you. The "lefties" won this one and Trump is also moving there (strong, interfering, financing government).

airbazar wrote:

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on!

That's a pretty myopic statement. Yes it is subsidized but guess what, roads benefit 100% of the population. HSR only benefits a small subset of people who live on the line itself. And you still need those roads in order to get to the train station.

Likewise road benefit only those live along the line. Unless you expand the road network to cover the whole country. But then you could also expand the rail network to cover the whole country.
As for travelling to take HSR, why need road when you have rail connection?

N717TW wrote:

I agree that air transport is faster and probably more effective for longer distances but true, frequent high speed rail is more efficient on the long run than air travel....it just takes to much fuel to make the planes as efficient on trains.

And yet an airplane ticket is cheaper than a HSR ticket. How is that possible? Europe had HSR long before the creation of LCC. Look at the growth of LCC vs. the growth of HSR over same period of time and it's obvious which form of transportation is better and more efficient, even for sub 300Km distances. The idea that HSR is faster for distances under 300Km ignores the fact that people don't always live close to train stations, that people still need to drive to get to a train station, and that parking in a big city is prohibitively expensive. For example, it might be faster by train from Boston to NYC than by air, but if I have to spend 2 hours in traffic getting to Boston, then paying $30/day for parking anywhere near the station, then paying a train ticket that costs more than a plane ticket, how does that make HSR better than flying. Then that line only connects Boston and NYC. It doesn't help me if I want to go to Albany for example. But a runway at the airport can take me to many different destinations within a 300KM radius. Long story short, HSR only works where you have a dense population zone at both ends of the line and a lot of movement between those 2 zones. London to Paris is a good example. In the U.S. it's out of the question because most of the people who could afford a HSR ticket live in the suburbs, sometimes closer to an airport than to a major train station.

Do you realize that plane tickets are cheaper than trains while more people take the train than planes? Plane cannot win over customers from the experience they provided, so the only way they can compete is to offer a lower price to undercut the train.

Swadian wrote:

There's not many large cities that close to each other in the US. Most cities in Asia and Europe drawf American cities in population. Most "large" American cities are "medium" by world standards.

Not sure what World you live in...

Dallas (the 9th largest in the US) is bigger than all Euro Metros except LON, PAR, MAD, MOW*, IST* (*aren't in the OECD numbers). Unless you consider metros under 3 million to be "large" (and there are too many of those in both the US and Europe to count) your assertion the most European cities dwarf US cities rings false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_urban_zone

*OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and happens to be the only comparable metric I could find for both the US and Europe.

What are the Benefits $$ & Costs $$ of putting a HST track down for the next 100 years?

Making your infrastructure more independent of oil / fossil fuels and open to sustainable / nuclear power?

Leave that out & you are running in the dark, clinging to short term certainties.

Companies go for short term benefits. Leaving it to the market has predictable outcomes.

Jamake1 wrote:

It’s a shame that none of those high speed rail markets are in the US.

With the exception of the NE Corridor, the cities are too spread out. Planes are faster and that includes some of the high speed rail boondoggles tax payers are being forced to pay for. For short haul, you are better off with your own car.

drgmobile wrote:

What an odd article. Is there anything particularly new here? High speed rail has been an integral part of transportation networks in certain parts of the world (i.e. Europe, parts of Asia) for decades. and in the U.S. Northeast since 2000. I'm not sure it's seen purely as competition in the way the article suggests. In some parts of the world rail is often integrated with air transport for shorter haul routes, which frees up capacity for long-haul flights.

Perhaps that Eurostar recently expanded service into Netherlands and announced upcoming direct connection to Switzerland and Germany from London in next few years?

9w748capt wrote:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-build-the-poorer-we-get?utm_content=buffere71ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

What the article describe apply to places where their economy are decaying but not anywhere else

9w748capt wrote:

c933103 wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-build-the-poorer-we-get?utm_content=buffere71ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

What the article describe apply to places where their economy are decaying but not anywhere else

Wrong.

That's a convincing argument.