Quoting PHKLM (Reply 49): Any Germans here to confirm it takes 2h30 from Munich to Stuttgart by ICE

That is so. The reason is the "Geislinger Steige" where the trains have to climg the Swabian Mountains between STR and Ulm. There are plans to level that line with tunnels, but the costs are , as usual, astronomical and eventually in no relation to the benefit.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 50): There are plans to level that line with tunnels, but the costs are , as usual, astronomical and eventually in no relation to the benefit.

But they will do so for the BAB8, that is correct right? Any chance they can build a double tunnel with one tube for the Autobahn and the other for trains? (Like bundling BAB3 and ICE CGN-FRA).

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 50): That is so

Thanks for clearing it up. I could have figured out myself as I am not unfamiliar with the terrain between STR and MUC.

I would think regional high speed rail is also better for the business traveler over air and auto. First you can go any time you want. There won't be a price penalty. But once you get on the train you have more uninterrupted work time than in a plane. Of course you get no real work time in a car. For a small additional fee you can get a first class seat and in the case of the ICE you can get served your meal at your seat. The meal isn't free but again you don't have to leave your work. Is it always the fastest way to go? Cheapest? No. Overall most efficient? I'd say yes.

If you have never used high speed rail (unfortunately I think this would mean most Americans) you are really missing out on an experience. If you've ever used the rail in the U.S. you can scrap that image. European rail is a far superior product when it comes to comfort. They tend to be very quiet. You don't get that racket from the wheels on the tracks that you get here. You don't get any kind of rocking motion. The rail lines are seamless and stable making for an enjoyable ride. The view is often beautiful as well. You just don't get the same experience by air or auto.

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 51): But they will do so for the BAB8, that is correct right? Any chance they can build a double tunnel with one tube for the Autobahn and the other for trains? (Like bundling BAB3 and ICE CGN-FRA

Wel, the BAB8 serves a far greater number of people and truckloads. There are plans for a rail tunnel as well, but that will take some time to be realized. Going from FRA to MUC used to be via STR, now since the HSR line between NUE and MUC os open, it is via NUE in a really competetive 3H10

Quoting VV701 (Reply 42): 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.

Indeed, and many people don't live around LHR or MAN. But you are not going to suggest that it is easier for most people in the Manchester or London region to get to their end destination if placed at the city periphery rather than at a surface transport hub in the centre, are you?

But this almost misses the point (from the passenger view). With short-haul flights, you spend much more of the travel time alert, waiting or moving compared to taking the train where you basically sit down, sleep or get to work.

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 21): 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.

What are you mad ?

I live in Canary Wharf.. LHR is the worst pain in the neck for me.

As from my flat in Island Gardens...

it's 45 min to St Pancras.
Then 1.50 to Brussels Midi by train. (Plus 20 min wait).
from Midi to the Sheraton is another 10 minutes

Thats 3h 5min (Did this 2 weeks ago)

it's 20 mins to LCY,
30 min checkin
By Plane its 1 hour to BRU
45 min from Airport to Gare Du Nord
5 min walk to the Sheraton.

Thats 2 hour 45.


LCY still wins.. just.

but for London Heathrow...

80 mins to LHR (inc 45 by tube, 25 by HEX (inc 10 min connection),
10 min walk to terminal
90 min check in (and thats being very generous for LHR these days)
By Plane its 1 hour to BRU
45 min from Airport to Gare Du Nord
5 min walk to the Sheraton.

Thats 4 hour 50 at an average pace.


I know this as ive done all three options many many times.

What i can say is...

BMI has just been slogged by this... The last weekend I did in BRU was with BMI from LHR as it was £50 all inc !!! Ive booked 2 other weekends just because of the price !!!

Lets check out some of the impacts of the French TGV on air traffic :

LGV sud-est, Rhone-Alpes, Mediterranee :
ORY : LYS : AF recently announced that they will reduce service to 1 daily flight.
ORY - GNB : Closed, was operated with 727s in the 1970s.
ORY - FNI : Closed
PAR - AVN : Very big reductions
MRS airport : MRS lost 1million PAX when the LGV mediterranee was inaugurated (almost 20% of traffic), ORY - MRS on U2 closed. Before the LGV 2 thirds of the PAX from Marseille to Paris were using air service, now the train has 65-70 % of the market.

LGV Atlantique :
Very big reduction on PAR-RNS, PAR-NTE and PAR-BOD

The recently inaugurated LGV est line :
PAR - SXB : big reduction, from 16 to 12 flights a day, all flights were A320 series, now some are Fokker70 or CRJ100
ORY - ETZ : Closed
ORY - BSL : AF reduced capacity from A320-A319 to EMB190, U2 closed it's BSL - CDG service


Future TGV services :

LGV est part 2, 30 minutes gain to Strasbourg, Mulhouse, Basel, Stuttgart and Zurich, Very high competition on PAR-SXB and PAR-BSL

LGV Bretagne - Pays de la Loire, 40 minutes gain from Paris to Rennes, 20 minutes from Paris to Nantes, AF will probably close PAR-RNS, reductions on PAR-NTE, important effect on ORY-LAI, ORY-BES and ORY-UIP.

LGV Sud Europe Atlantique, 50 minutes gain from Paris to Bordeaux, reduction from 3h00 to 2h10, very high competition on the line. Reductions on PAR-BIQ and PAR-PUF

LGV Bordeaux - Toulouse, combined with LGV Sud Europe Atlantique time reduction from 5h00 to 3h00 from Paris to Toulouse, very big effect on PAR-TLS (see ORY-MRS)

LGV Languedoc Roussillion : A little effect on ORY-MPL, big effect on ORY-PGF, LYS-BCN.

LGV Cote d'Azur : Important effect on ORY-TLN and ORY-NCE, air travel will stay strong as the fastest train will need 4 hours to do Paris-Nice

Some reductions on "province to province" routes such as SXB-LYS, SXB-BOD, SXB-MRS, LYS-NCE, LYS-TLS ...


I'm not talking about international lines such as PAR-AMS, PAR-LON, PAR-GVA, PAR-BRU.

[Edited 2007-12-03 12:38:37]

[Edited 2007-12-03 12:42:40]

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 55): it's 20 mins to LCY, 30 min checkin By Plane its 1 hour to BRU

So you're really leaving your flat 50 minutes before scheduled departure time for the flight??

Hey, you may well be, but I'd say that's hardly representative of most travelers .... even if it is LCY.


Jimbo

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 11): 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.

There's something similar that's been on offer for years now in Germany - called "Kuriergepäck". You buy the "ticket" for your baggage, it gets picked up at your house/office/wherever the day before you travel and gets delivered the day after you arrive.

Not sure what it costs, though... it's been 4 or 5 years since I sold those things...  

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).

That can only be for a oneway - at least for DB/2A, €39 is the standard "low fare" for international services.

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.

... or you simply get on board and buy the ticket inside the train. Works on ICEs and ICs, but don't try it on commuter trains, because that'll turn into a rather ugly event...  

You pay a bit more than if you'd have bought the ticket "outside", but it's possible nonetheless.

Quoting Indy (Reply 39): Heck if you take the ICE in Germany (may apply to all trains.. not sure) kids under 13 ride free.

It applies to all DB/2A services - and, if I'm remembering correctly here, it's for kids under 14.


In any case, regarding travel times by air and high speed trains - my personal example is always my Frankfurt-Zürich trip that I go on about every 14 days: I took the time while taking the train, and when flying, and I always measured the time from door to door - home to office.

The train was usually around 5-10 minutes faster.

For some reason, I still usually end up in a plane... even though flying on that route annoys the hell out of me.

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 55): I know this as ive done all three options many many times.

And hence I will not argue with you, and instead I will conclude that the nightmarish traffic I experienced twice (out of two attempts) going from my hotel on Westferry Circus to St Pancras was my usual bad luck. Admittedly, they were both during rush hour. It wasn't as long as going to LHR, but not that far off either. Never flew out of LCY, for no particular reason, I should try one day...

Quoting Group51 (Reply 54): But this almost misses the point (from the passenger view). With short-haul flights, you spend much more of the travel time alert, waiting or moving compared to taking the train where you basically sit down, sleep or get to work.

This is THE key factor ... right there  

We're all comparing 4hr flight trips, with 4hr train trips, but how much of that time is spent sitting/relaxing/working ... on a 4hr flight trip, where the flying time is 90 minutes or less, I'd guess at around less than one hour... with maybe 20 mins here and there sitting waiting. On a 4hr train trip, it's probably at least twice that time, with very little time spent "wasted' in lines.


Jimbo

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5): can use clean energy (ie they run on electricity which can be generated by windfarms, solar, hydro etc).

But they don't. Except for France (nuclear), most electricity in Europe comes from coal or gas power plants. I wonder if the energy sources are taken into account when calculating the carbon footprint of the train. Having said that, trains are still an extremely efficient means of transportation.

Quoting Aisak (Reply 8): When airports receive HST service we can start talking about complementing, until thenm HST is just taking away O&D passengers from the air.

The new Don Quijote airport will be the first to get an AVE link, let's see how that one works out. Do you know if BCN is going to get an AVE station in the end? As for MAD, the regional government keeps pushing for it but the national government doesn't seem to listen.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 23): 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.

Multi-modal transportation. That's the way to go in my opinion. Trains will win on some routes, airplanes on others. Put them together, create alliances between airlines and rail companies, and you can boost the possibilities of both.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 43): and yes aviation taxes are a PITA for all of us.

...and many more coming up, at least in the UK and Netherlands. In the days of the Green Crusade against Aviation, politicians have found out that aviation is easy to tax, and you can score "green points" while doing it as well. This may artificially tilt the balance towards rail in some cases, price-wise.

But rail transportation (in general, not just HSR) still remains very expensive, at least here in France. I would even consider trading time for money if the price difference with respect to air travel were considerable (as it should be if rail is so much more efficient). However, with U2 now attacking AF's monopoly on some intra-France routes, the price difference is very small on some routes, with flying often being the better choice. I think rail still has a very inefficient cost structure. If it's truly so efficient, fares should be much lower than air, and that is not what I see. Any LCC will take you further and for a lower cost than any train.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 61): Multi-modal transportation. That's the way to go in my opinion. Trains will win on some routes, airplanes on others. Put them together, create alliances between airlines and rail companies, and you can boost the possibilities of both.

CO and Amtrak actually have a codeshare at EWR, as that is A) an Amtrak station stop right smack in the middle of the N.E.C. and B) is a major CO hub.

The Ohio Hub project is apparently trying to propose something similar by linking CLE and DTW by rail. It would be interesting if Amtrak will operate out of the Ohio Hub. Then their codeshare with CO will be in effect at two CO hubs.

I also think that that's the idea. It will relieve some congestion at those airports, and the HSR systems in France seem to be powered by either the DMU/Advanced turbine locomotive or are electrified like the Eurostar and ICE trains in Germany. I think that their electricity for the most part comes from alternate/renewable energy at that. I know in some of the northern countries, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Northern Germany, etc all have large windfarms to produce electricity. Denmark actually leads the globe in MW of energy produced by wind energy, and Germany is up there as well...

As we speak, Denmark is still constructing massive off shore windfarms in the North Sea...

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 62): The Ohio Hub project is apparently trying to propose something similar by linking CLE and DTW by rail. It would be interesting if Amtrak will operate out of the Ohio Hub. Then their codeshare with CO will be in effect at two CO hubs.

I tell ya what, there's a ton of potential for the Ohio Hub if they can link the regions airports, especially through central Ohio, in addition to the CLE-DTW link.

Cinci-DAY-Springfield-CMH-CLE has a lot of potential ridership that could be so beneficial for each of the respective cities and their aiports if they're smart about it. I can't tell you how awesome it'd be to grab a train here in Springfield to catch a flight at CMH. I really don't prefer driving those 50 miles to save money over DAY.

Not only that, but adding a cross link to hook up IND-DAY-CMH-PIT to that network seems to have the potential to make a really nice system.

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 63): Cinci-DAY-Springfield-CMH-CLE has a lot of potential ridership that could be so beneficial for each of the respective cities and their aiports if they're smart about it. I can't tell you how awesome it'd be to grab a train here in Springfield to catch a flight at CMH. I really don't prefer driving those 50 miles to save money over DAY.

CMH is another airport that will be served by the Ohio Hub project actually. I think it will be part of the 3-Cs corridor (CLE-CMH-Cincinnati) I don't think the proposed rail goes all the way into Kentucky to link CVG though, but I think it should!

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 63): Not only that, but adding a cross link to hook up IND-DAY-CMH-PIT to that network seems to have the potential to make a really nice system.

Carnegie is the closest station planned to PIT, but I also think they should link PIT with the other major airports in the midwest. I really wish I was in a position to facilitate the planning and what not associated with this project. The merits and benefits are endless.

Funny... I read about Amtrak and potential high-speed rail networks in a recent issue of Planning magazine while at my internship. The article mentioned the Midwest High Speed Rail hub. I did a google search on that, and Ohio Hub came up as a match. I clicked on that, and that's how I found out about it.  

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 62): I think that their electricity for the most part comes from alternate/renewable energy at that.

Sorry to disappoint you: in Germany, coal is king. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Germany

Quoting R2rho (Reply 61): Except for France (nuclear), most electricity in Europe comes from coal or gas power plants.

The electric railroad lines in Norway gets the power purely from hydroelectric power plants  

Quoting Brendows (Reply 66): The electric railroad lines in Norway gets the power purely from hydroelectric power plants Smile

Lucky Norway. You have the topographic profile for that



eehh, no, the morons who believe that windmills and other alternate energy can provide the power source for an industrialized nation are the kings. Kings without brains and land.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 65): Sorry to disappoint you: in Germany, coal is ki

Quoting Group51 (Reply 54): But this almost misses the point (from the passenger view). With short-haul flights, you spend much more of the travel time alert, waiting or moving compared to taking the train where you basically sit down, sleep or get to work.

Well if the Conservatives win power and take up John Selwyn Gummer's proposal, MAN-LHR will not exist! See this article in tonight's Manchester Evening News.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 66): Quoting R2rho (Reply 61): Except for France (nuclear), most electricity in Europe comes from coal or gas power plants. The electric railroad lines in Norway gets the power purely from hydroelectric power plants

Also Switzerland, where virtually all trains use electric power and the main Swiss Federal Railway (SBB/CFF/FFS in German/French/Italian) operates its own hydro-electric plants to provide the electricity. The only diesel locomotives you see in Switzerland are switchers used in rail yards etc.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 65): Sorry to disappoint you: in Germany, coal is king. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energ...rmany

That part is disapppointing, but the article did say that they are becomming a world leader in developing renewable energy technologies, especially wind power. I guess they surpassed Denmark, becaused the article said that they're the largest generator of electricity from wind. I think that most of Denmark's energy comes from wind power.

On that note, Germany has a considerable network of high-speed rail. Too bad their electricity isn't all green. It's going greener, but not quite there yet...

Quoting R2rho (Reply 65): Sorry to disappoint you: in Germany, coal is king. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Germany

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 69): Also Switzerland, where virtually all trains use electric power and the main Swiss Federal Railway (SBB/CFF/FFS in German/French/Italian) operates its own hydro-electric plants to provide the electricity. The only diesel locomotives you see in Switzerland are switchers used in rail yards etc.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 70): On that note, Germany has a considerable network of high-speed rail. Too bad their electricity isn't all green. It's going greener, but not quite there yet...

Don't forget one this, all europen electric networks are interconnected, it means that some italian electricity will be used on german network as some french electricity anywhrere in Europe ...

On short haul a train using electricity will always be better then an A/C using kerozen. Kerozen will never be "green".

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 71): On short haul a train using electricity will always be better then an A/C using kerozen. Kerozen will never be "green".

You have a strong point there. No fossil fuel will be "green." It will always be black or dark brown -- the same color as smog... coincidence???  

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 71): Don't forget one this, all europen electric networks are interconnected, it means that some italian electricity will be used on german network as some french electricity anywhrere in Europe ...

Oh yeah, especially around the borders and what not...

AVE (Spanish TGV) had to introduce airline-like pricing (discounts for early purchase, etc.) as it was losing competitivity with the planes on the MAD-SVQ route.

We'll see what exactly happens on the MAD-BCN route once the line is finished, but predictions are that the AVE can eat up to a 40% of the share in the route, IB will be forced to downgrade the size of the planes on the 'puente' (while still providing the same frequencies) and the other carriers will generally sell tickets while they're priced below the train cost.

Obviously, on certain cases the flight will still be prefered (an important business district is being built close to Barajas) and there will still be an amount of connections on both airports.

It will be an interesting development to follow.

On the other hand, every attempt to fly a VLC-BCN route have been killed by the not-yet-AVE Euromed (speeds up to 220 km/h).

Quoting R2rho (Reply 61): Do you know if BCN is going to get an AVE station in the end?

They have built a "loop bypass" to the main line that gets close to the airport (El Prat village), and they intend to make it an intermodal station with a shuttle that will link both terminals. Therefore iit is not the same as CDG, but a similar thing to ORY with the orlyval and the underground. Not very effective from my point of view, I would have wished a direct link (in the end it's only a couple more kms)

Another thing will be to see which trains do use this bypass and stop there before entering the city or what is the intended use of it (i.e. if someone will be able to check-in baggage in -say- Lleida straight to SIN using the train+SQ flight)

By the way, we had a nice discussion in another thread about the train vs. airplane on travelling BCN-MAD, you can read it BCN#ID3574926" target="_blank">here

On the last 2 weeks I have travelled a bit around Japan using part of their shinkansen network and the quality and efficiency of the service is just amazing. Funnily enough, what is seen as a bit of "special experience" here in Europe (travelling on the TGV, ICE, etc.) in Japan is perfectly normal, and they make no fuss about it (you need to queue on the same ticket offices as local trains, the tickets itselves are unglamorously ordinary, etc.)

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 70): I guess they surpassed Denmark, becaused the article said that they're the largest generator of electricity from wind.

You're forgetting Spain there. Ranks number two in installed capacity. Denmark third, and as you correctly stated, Germany first. However, the share of renewable energy in these countries and in the EU is still low compared to other sources.

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 71): Don't forget one this, all europen electric networks are interconnected, it means that some italian electricity will be used on german network as some french electricity anywhrere in Europe ...

So, to put it into European perspective, check out the highly interesting EU energy portal: http://www.energy.eu/

Anyway, the only thing I wanted to say is that windmills may be a great addition, but they don't take care of most of Europe's energy needs - nor will they ever. Still, the share of renewables in the energy mix is increasing and going in the right direction.

Quoting Trinxat (Reply 74): Therefore iit is not the same as CDG, but a similar thing to ORY with the orlyval and the underground.

Oh no, what a mistake! The Orlyval was a huge commercial failure, and is still today a major PITA for the users of ORY. People take it because they have no choice, but everyone hates it. CDG on the other hand works great. Wonder how BCN will do...

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 57): So you're really leaving your flat 50 minutes before scheduled departure time for the flight?? Hey, you may well be, but I'd say that's hardly representative of most travelers .... even if it is LCY.

To be honest.. if you turn up 1 hour before you have a good chance of making an earlier flight at LCY.

Actually i'm going to BRU again in 2 weeks, not bought a ticket yet, but Eurostar is looking favourite. (Got enough Airmiles for the year).
I'm off there again in January twice.

But first I must suffer star alliance blight and fly LHR - JFK via IAD due to lameness of the alliance.

After reading all the messages on this thread, I believe so far the biggest impact of high-speed rail on air travel is the cross-Channel travel routes, especially between London and Paris/Brussels. With the full high-speed line now open on the UK side, it's only 2 hours 15 minutes between the city centers of London and Paris by Eurostar high-speed rail, which is definitely faster than going out from London city center to LHR, flying to CDG, and going back into Paris city center.

I wonder are the plans for a Eurostar station at CDG still in place? If that is still being planned, that could almost make CDG a de facto third airport for London, since from CDG to London St. Pancreas station will take probably around two hours' travel time.

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 71): On short haul a train using electricity will always be better then an A/C using kerozen. Kerozen will never be "green".

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 72): You have a strong point there. No fossil fuel will be "green." It will always be black or dark brown -- the same color as smog... coincidence??? Wink

It's way beyond that. Even a _kerozen_ train would be way, way greener than an airplane. You don't have to climb. That's a huge amount of lost energy.

Besides, not only is electricity arguably greener in itself - under normal operations any decelerating TGV actually regenerates electricity for other ones on the same line. That's a 80 percent reconversion of cinetical energy right there. You really only pay for the aerodynamic cost - but you factor it on 500 meters trains, not just a 65 meters aircraft (even if it did travel slower).

For all of these reasons TGV are orders or magnitude more energy-efficient. To the point that it looks really criminal and blatantly absurd to use aircrafts wherever a 3 hours ride would do.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 75): The Orlyval was a huge commercial failure, and is still today a major PITA for the users of ORY. People take it because they have no choice, but everyone hates it.

It was launched solely to help Matra sell its technology outside. Due to the cost only a small part was strict Val (instead of having a full line from ORY to Paris). The whole investment was paid by taxpayers since otherwise the private company Matra could not make money on it (not a good selling point). Subsequently Matra was bought by Siemens. So in essence (french) tax payers and (world) travellers pay and endure an absurd, ineffective, politically driven system so that Siemens can better sell its technology. Ah the mind-blowing "vision" of politicians...

Quoting R2rho (Reply 61): If it's truly so efficient, fares should be much lower than air, and that is not what I see

Quoting Icna05e (Reply 79): That has got me puzzled for a loooong time also. I would like to know a bit more on that.

Why should trains be cheap, if there are customers ready to pay for expensive tickets?  

Business is not selling cheap, it is selling cheaper than the competition but as expensive as possible!

Do not forget that long distance railways in the EU are supposed to be profitable.

SNCF uses a yield management system, like airlines, and tries to raise, as much as possible, the average yield. Its ambition is not to sell cheap!

Quoting R2rho (Reply 75): You're forgetting Spain there. Ranks number two in installed capacity.

Sorry, I didn't even realize Spain had that much installed capacity, or I simply just forgot   

Quoting Glacote (Reply 78): For all of these reasons TGV are orders or magnitude more energy-efficient. To the point that it looks really criminal and blatantly absurd to use aircrafts wherever a 3 hours ride would do.

True, and how many do these trains usually accomodate, 2-3 hundred people per train, somewhere in that ballpark? The Ohio Hub (I know it's another reference to that, but bare with me here!) is proposed to have accomodations for 194 seaters between smaller city pairs, and as much as 300 on the more dense city pairs. I think Cleveland-Pittsburgh will have some 300-seaters going back and forth, and a total of 8 trains daily will operate between those two cities. I think 10-12 trains will run daily between Cleveland and Cincy, and I think these will all be 300-seat trains. I think there will be more seats going between these cities on rail, than there are on aircraft. Kinda similar to some of the TGV systems over in Europe.

I know this thread is mainly about Europe, but it's time the USA gets back on track  

Quoting Icna05e (Reply 79): But how come we have to pay so much for a train ticket still? SNCF should be way richer than it appears, it has roughly the same fares and has to pay for less energy

50 full fare second class PAX in a duplex from Paris to Lyon pay for its run. The 450 (or 950) others are pure profit. Less so on Marseille since the line was so expensive - but yes, TGV are insanely profitable. Now you have to pay for those empty night trains from say Toulouse to Lyon, or Paris "banlieues" trains...

Quoting Oryx (Reply 80): parts of that energy are recovered during idle descents.

How come? Does the aircraft regenerate kerozen somehow? I am pretty sure the energy used to lift the airplane is permanently lost.

Quoting Oryx (Reply 80): Additionally air density is much lower at cruise altitude (1/8 ?) thus aerodynamic drag is reduced significantly.

True enough, point taken. The power to overcome air drag grows with the cube of the speed...

Quoting Glacote (Reply 78): It was launched solely to help Matra sell its technology outside. Due to the cost only a small part was strict Val (instead of having a full line from ORY to Paris). The whole investment was paid by taxpayers since otherwise the private company Matra could not make money on it (not a good selling point). Subsequently Matra was bought by Siemens. So in essence (french) tax payers and (world) travellers pay and endure an absurd, ineffective, politically driven system so that Siemens can better sell its technology. Ah the mind-blowing "vision" of politicians...

Very well summarized, couldn't have put it better myself.

Quoting Icna05e (Reply 79): That has got me puzzled for a loooong time also. I would like to know a bit more on that. But how come we have to pay so much for a train ticket still?

My theory is that, having been state monopolies for such a long time (well, they still are), they have a much higher cost base than airlines who, specially in Europe, have had to be competitive or disappear. The new SNCF rates introduced this year actually take a small step towards airline-like pricing. Probably once rail networks open up to other competition they will become more competitive.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 82): I know this thread is mainly about Europe, but it's time the USA gets back on track

Do you have a link to the Ohio hub project? Looks interesting.

Quoting TGV (Reply 81): Why should trains be cheap, if there are customers ready to pay for expensive tickets?

You're right on that. To do, say, TLS-MRS, I can take the SNCF train (some 80EUR, and it's not even high speed!) or the only airline that flies the route (AF, some 200EUR). Both rates are far too expensive for a 400km (250mi) trip. But the train wins. (actually, the car wins)
However, if I go to Paris, I can fly AF for some 110-125EUR (even EZY for less if you book very early), or take the train for 90-150EUR and ride for 5.5-6.5hrs. Plane wins by far, but if the train had sufficiently competitive pricing I may trade my time for money.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna appear as a train basher - I love trains! But I think they should (and could) be more competitive.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 84): Do you have a link to the Ohio hub project? Looks interesting.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Hub


I'm really amazed when I look at Amtrak's route map the vast chasm that is Central Ohio. They have the line that borders the lake up north to Cleveland and a route that goes south through Cinci - and NOTHING that goes through the heart of the state.

This Ohio Hub certainly would be a boost to the local economies and could be a great compliment to the airports and highways.

Quoting TGV (Reply 81): Do not forget that long distance railways in the EU are supposed to be profitable

That is running the trains with a profit. If they would hgave to account the infrastructure, they would run at a great loss. The contribution from commuter trains for the infrastructure and freight is needed, to pay for all. As a stand-alone., long distance trains could not earn their keep. That is just a remark, I am not critizising that.

R2rho mentioned that the TGV subsidizes the ret banlieu. Possibly in France it does. In Germany, the states buy the local traffic services from Deutsche Bahn or private rail service providors. They just run the trains and the states have fomed organisations who sell the tickets, which are intermodal, rail/bus/ship where applicable. I think the US commuter authorities ahve a similar system.

The Swiss started a great system many years ago, the "HalbTax" - half fare card. Gerrmany has adopted that, calling it Bahncard. I pay ca. € 440 per year and get 50% reduction on every ticket I buy. That way, Frankfurt-Amsterdam and return is € 199,00, first class including seat reservation. No restriction, fully refundable with a € 15,00 handling charge. Frankfurt Munich is € 140,00 vv, for example. That way, rail is competetive with road travel and far better and more convenient than air.



.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 77): believe so far the biggest impact of high-speed rail on air travel is the cross-Channel travel routes, especially between London and Paris/Brussels.

VLM have done a comparison for BRU and ANR. Check out their website and a press release.

Is there an Underground station at LCY now?

Quoting Glacote (Reply 83): How come? Does the aircraft regenerate kerozen somehow? I am pretty sure the energy used to lift the airplane is permanently lost.

Nope, not Kerosene but flight miles which I would acount for as the net output of aircraft.  

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 44): 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...)

It may not be the case. I was surprised when I travelled from Madrid to Zaragoza on the AVE. My bags were scanned before I jumped into the platform. The same happened between Zaragoza and Barcelona. On top of that, I found the service in the Spanish trains superior to those offered by Deutsche Bahn (which was before my top-quality standard). For some background reference: I lived in Germany and I used DB a lot (from S-bahn to ICE in both classes). I have also used the french, dutch, swiss and english train systems.

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?

Depends on persons movement patterns. You just don't build something you don't or you won't need. Example: persons movements between Monterrey and Laredo may be important and may justify a HST in the long term, but goods outnumber by far persons movements, so a reliable goods train service may be more important (I am not considering road links here).

Train systems in Europe have demonstrated that a 3-tier model is required: regional services (stopping mostly everywhere), Inter-city services (running long distances between medium sized cities) and HST (running long distances between only the most important cities). The first two may share the entire track, provided it's double (one track for each direction) AND the schedule is coordinated so Intercity services can pass regional trains during scheduled stops.

HST services may share some parts of the first 2 tiers tracks, but they must be built to the standards required by an HST AND services must be well timed so slow running trains don't delay the faster ones. Additionally, capacity must be built to maximise the usage of the track with room to spare for potential delays. Here in the UK there are capacity problems in many lines into London which could be solved with double decker cars... but many bridges are too low so a double decker won't fit.

Seeing your profile, you may know that infrastructure for the first 2 tiers aren't there in Mexico. I only know of 1 double track system (Mexico-Queretaro) and it's only used for cargo!

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 47): 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.

PHKLM has a very valid point. Again looking at Mexico. The proposed HST between MEX and GDL must be routed through QET because a direct line (through TLC and MLM) would be too expensive due to the mountains. Through QET, Irapuato and La Piedad the terrain is not that rough, and building an HST will be cheaper (though several kms longer!). Additionally, such a routing would serve another important city pair (MEX-QET) and would allow for a potential expansion to SLP and MTY.

Regarding MTY there is also an issue with terrain. There must be lots of tunnels between MTY and SLW if you would link these 2 cities. Tunneling massively in Mexico is technically possible, but it could be expensive given the resilience requeriments for earthquakes.

Rail systems are meant to be mass transportation systems. You just can't outnumber the capacity you have with a train with a plane. Mexico may require more airports, but let me focus on rail systems:

- Some metropolitan areas or industrial corridors require regional trains (e.g. MTY, GDL and the Bajio corridor from QET to BJX). Competitors: coach companies (hey! you have 3 of the largest coach companies, fleetwise, in the world in Mexico! Think of ADO, IAMSA et al.)
- Some city pairs would benefit from HST systems: MEX-QET-GDL; MEX-QET-SLP-MTY. Anything south or east of MEX would be a nightmare due to terrain.
- Any train system should be developed using synergies with other transport systems, i.e. train systems work as a HUB system while coaches are more P2P systems.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 84): Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna appear as a train basher - I love trains! But I think they should (and could) be more competitive.

The problem of SNCF now is that we have not enough high speed rolling stock to cover the needs: even though Alstom is building around 2 Duplex trainsets per month, the total fleet is insufficient.
So there is no interest in lowering prices to have more passengers at the moment, raising the yield (to buy new rolling stock that will be useful when the competition arrives) is better (from the company point of view).

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86): If they would hgave to account the infrastructure, they would run at a great loss. The contribution from commuter trains for the infrastructure and freight is needed, to pay for all. As a stand-alone., long distance trains could not earn their keep. That is just a remark, I am not critizising that

Considering that TGV use mainly (in terms of train x km) the high speed lines, and that they are the only trains to use them, they pay alone for the high speed network, through their access charges.

What you say about commuters and freight is applicable only for conventional lines. It is in the suburbs of big cities (and especially Paris), that this point is debatable. However do not forget the infrastructure in these areas is dimensioned around peak hours requirement, and it is the commuter traffic that impacts more the needs: TGV service is more regular along the day.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86): R2rho mentioned that the TGV subsidizes the ret banlieu.

Due to the application of UE directives each activity (in France TGV + long distance trains, suburban and regional trains, freight trains) must have separate financial results. So there is no more this kind of “internal” subvention (which did exist 20 years ago, before the UE directives). The same obviously exists in countries where there are different operating companies.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 86): R2rho mentioned that the TGV subsidizes the ret banlieu

Actually, it was Glacote:

Quoting Glacote (Reply 83): 50 full fare second class PAX in a duplex from Paris to Lyon pay for its run. The 450 (or 950) others are pure profit. Less so on Marseille since the line was so expensive - but yes, TGV are insanely profitable. Now you have to pay for those empty night trains from say Toulouse to Lyon, or Paris "banlieues" trains...

But no worries  

I have just used the PAR-FRA ice train on the weekend. you cannot compare it to LON-PAR but the 3 hrs and 50 minutes are a lot of progress - it used to be over six hours. somehow it is quite cool to go by train to the centre of paris! I was also deeply impressed with all the TGV trains at the various stations in paris.

I've just come back from Paris by Eurostar and I must say I was wowed by how quick and easy it was... Both french & U.K immigration was done prior to boarding in Gare du Nord so when we arrive in St Pancras it was like arriving on a local train.

The new HS1 line makes such a difference.. we in London 30minutes after leaving Ashford... amazing and for one the U.K has ONE train line and station to be proud of... well done to all!!

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 85): This Ohio Hub certainly would be a boost to the local economies and could be a great compliment to the airports and highways.

Yes it will be, but it will not link airports like PIT or CVG though. It would be nice if the Pittsburgh - Carnegie - Newark - Columbus alighnment actually stopped at Pittsburgh International Airport instead of Carnegie, but then again, it would give that town a boost, and PAAC is planning on extending light rail service out to PIT...

I have been saying all along that advanced transit and high-speed rail is the way to go. On that note, wish me luck with my interview with SEPTA on Thursday! It's for the transit operations planner-GIS position