High Speed Trains Are Killing the European Railway Network (2013)
solar.lowtechmagazine.com
solar.lowtechmagazine.com
Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate, and that infrastructure is high maintenance. So we have almost no competition, high operating costs, and we've set it up so the people operating the trains are in opposition to each other and have no incentive or obligation to work together to lower prices or improve the service.
Nationalise it. All of it. And let's just accept that there are some things that simply shouldn't be run by the private sector.
And I realise that "Nationalisation" in the context of the EU is the wrong word. What I'm saying is the that EU should run the whole thing. Whatever that's called... Federalisation? I don't know.
The competition works differently. Our country wants train that will run from A to B, X times a day and companies will present their offers. Who has the best offer will run this route for Z years.
Nationalization was tried and doesn't work. It has to be supervised by state, but not run by them, that will lead to inferior service.
Edit: added ‘which in most cases has to be centrally coordinated.’
The real problem is that so many people need to travel within a narrow time window.
Also, in the south, lots of people are commuting 100 miles or more each way because they can't afford to live near where they work.
Rail travel in the UK is a victim of its own success in a perverse kind of way.
Asking seriously, I have no concept of rail pricing.
As an example: Southampton to London is a relatively short journey and IIRC the standard non-first class fare is over £70.
Below is a link to is a YouGov poll from November 2018 (see the second-to-last question).
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inline...
Every country polled had support for state-owned railways above 50%. The exceptions were Germany and the US. Of course, you have to view these polls with caution - it's a snapshot in time. Nevertheless, it's interesting that even in countries perceived to have reliable and affordable railways, support for state-run railways is high.
A Virgin Pendolino is a far more pleasant experience than the old British Rail equivalent.
I agree on the fare rises but rail remains subsidised while road and air travel are taxed.
There are valid criticisms against privatisation or how it was executed, but generally claiming that it hasn’t worked is not accurate. From a usage stand point, it has worked rather well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of...
But best of all: maintenance is paid by the new private company, but replacements/acquisitions are still paid for from taxes. Therefore it pays to scrimp on maintenance until stuff breaks, then get a replacement for free. Really bad incentive structure there. I sincerely doubt privatisation was a good deal overall.
This is wrong. Deutsche Bahn is 100 % owned by the Federal Republic of Germany: https://www.deutschebahn.com/en/investor_relations/ir_tochte...
I meant to say, that the Deutsche Bundesbahn was legally non-independent. It's successor is a stock company, even if wholly owned by the state. It was touted, using the structure and mindset of a public company, that costs could be reduced by increasing efficiency. With disappointing results.
False. (Factual) counterexample: On the Stockholm-Malmö route, there are three operators (SJ, MTR and Snälltåget). The number of passengers on each company's trains will depend heavily on their pricing strategies.
https://www.omio.co.uk/search-frontend/results/1307902350/tr...
One error I made is that there are only 2 operators: SJ and Snälltåget (MTR operates to Gothenburg, not Malmö). On the route to Gothenburg, the journey time is equal (~3h00), and again the companies depart within minutes of each other (e.g. Apr 18: SJ departure 12:33, MTR departure 12:43), and again there is only one physical rail route linking the cities [1].
[1] see https://www.openrailwaymap.org
To what extent is this a prerequisite for competition? The hour has 60 minutes, there is no need for all trains to depart and arrive in exactly the same minute.
Apart from that, it is also not possible for several aircraft to take off from the same runway at the same time. So there is no difference between trains and flights.
> Nationalise it. All of it.
That's a non sequitur. If you want better service, enforce it through regulation; if you want lower prices, use regulation to improve competition. You do not need a state monopoly.
Like, the company rents the traincar barebone and puts in seats, foodstalls, wifi, ac, etc.
Finally, while we are at modernizing, can we get maglev trains - with detaching and attaching passenger cabins? Because, the real slowdown in europe is local "little" emperors having a say where the train stops, and theire voters region is that one place, the ICE has to stop.
Um... are you counting the airports when making that comparison? And the air traffic control infrastructure? And the maintenance costs of the planes themselves vs the maintenance costs of the trains?
> Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world.
Are you counting the US freight railways in that? If so, you are badly mistaken.
Planes and their associated physical plant are pretty expensive too and suffer a lot of variable costs trains don't. Do you have figures?
Apart from that, your suggestion is not obvious.
The SNCF is a nationalized train system, and it arguably works well.
Britain's rail network was built privately and suffered after nationalization (and subsequently after privatization)
The US's nationalized passenger network is in dire shape. The private sector freight system is thriving.
It SO doesn't!. Apart from the flashy TGV Network, Frances Railways are a total mess. Try taking a Train in a rural area and you'll most likely find it's been replaced by a bus, or there's gaps of Hours between Services.
The French governement will soon, finally, Long after most of the rest of Europe, allow private companies to bid to provide the Government-subsidized local rail Services. The regional goverments who actually provide the subsidy are champing at the bit to be able to Dump SNCF, who can essentially Name their Price, with the regions then forced to give it them.
Cost to run includes more than just the underlying infrastructure costs. Look at how much it costs to ship goods. Rail is over two orders of magnitude cheaper per ton mile than air, and about an order of magnitude cheaper than trucks, and about 1/3 of the cost of than boats. This suggests that the high infrastructure cost of rail has little impact on cost to run.
It makes sense in Japan. It is a small country with a high amount of population that is very concentrated.
In any other part of the world governments are the ones paying the bill for the rail networks meanwhile "private" companies are just adding their profit to the cost. There is no competition, there is no long term investments (until the government pays), customers are captive, ... It just doesn't work.
ICE, duration 5:40. Cost around 100€ With Bahncard 50: 76 €
Same with slow train: duration 11:00, cheapest ticket 29€
Flight around 200 Euros, Lufthansa 300+€, Flighttime 1:15, Travel time: around 3.5 hours.
Hamburg -> Frankfurt. 400km
IC, duration 3:30, Cost starting at around 75€, with Bahncard 50: 53€
Business Trips: company pays. Many business trips in one year: get a Bahncard 100. Company pays. Costs 4400€. Unlimited travel with full flexibility within Germany. For example one trip Hamburg<->Frankfurt per week and the Bahncard 100 is easily more convenient.
I don’t think this is expensive at all. Surely the car would be much more expensive (fuel + maintenance), so I do not share the author’s point of view.
I, for one, am incredibly happy for having a viable (much better, actually) alternative to the airplane.
Pretty poor design. There's a horizontal section between two windows that prevents you from looking out of the window comfortably, and the whole experience is extremely cramped.
Sadly I am yet to know a company that actually gets Bahncard for their employees. I have known a couple that expect people to use Bahncards. though.
No way. Eurowings is more expensive and Ryanair does not fly that route.
> yet to know a company that actually gets Bahncard
That's an easy calculation. It's cheaper once there is a certain amount of travels. But the travel usually has do be on company purpose. Companies then order 'Business Bahncard's for employees, which allows relatively flexible travel.
The calculation might be easier, but I am yet to know a company that actually offers them to the employees.
While I have been at several companies that require the employees to own such cards, buy the tickets themselves and submit the travel expenses later. So most people end up owning a 25 or 50 one.
As for the flights, those are the prices we pay on average on our weekly flights between our sites and customer locations across Germany. I did not check specifically for Hamburg -> Munich.
You'll find that in a bunch of companies. The company I worked for has occasionally even paid Bahncard 100 for some employees. All it took to get any Bahncard for employees was to provide a calculation that it was cheaper than the other options.
If people submit travel expenses, they might also be able to submit the expense for a bahncard.
Any capable controlling department will easily detect that a substantial amount of money can be saved. For a company with 200 employees and 50% of them traveling this might be a six digit figure.
Most people that work for us actually prefer train over flight for anything that’s within germany. Travel sometimes takes slightly longer, but is substantially more relaxed and you can actually make something in that time.
As for the bahncard, nice to know about. As mentioned, so far I know the variant on employee expenses.
Flying would be silly too: much less (environmentally) friendly with lines and security checks, which also leaves less time to work. I even have decent internet access the whole time, for free, which I would not have in an airplane.
I spend so little time at the train stations on either end and I can work the entire ride that I don’t feel like I wasted time. On the other hand almost any flight or car trip feels regretful.
I wish someone would take the idea of a business or first class flight, without the luxuries and inflated cost, and put that on a modern medium speed train. Something similar to this seat layout: https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2018/02/08/swiss-777...
Hauling drinks aren’t as expensive so no need to up-sell the service, just give me a snack station.
One row of 6 business class seats replaces what, 20-30 eco seats? That‘s where the cost comes from. So they need to be a factor of 3-5 more expensive because of space with everything else equal.
The point is just that you want "office class" on a train to be its own product. If I take a high speed train I am still probably just going to go and do some more work from a hotel, office or home.
So just make the slower train nice enough instead and save on the expensive track upgrades. Just don't try to sell me, or include, a 3€ water or a 25€ meal because then the extra time becomes a liability and you ruin the concept.
Local communities have been badly affected. People had to move. We have timetables that don't work, especially for people with children and jobs. 1 train per hour down from 2. Morning services that get you in to the city at stupid times (0808 and 0908). The train to one city dumps you at the less useful terminus, eventually, after it crawls though a busier line. The franchise is not meeting its contractual obligation for peak service frequency.
A lot to swallow just to get nicer new trains :/
That doesn't really jibe with what the author is complaining about. I get that there will be instances where the old system better serviced some parts of the network, but I believe for the vast majority of the people using the train, high speed lines have been an absolute boon.
Only on really short trips like Amsterdam - Brussels the train is the better option. And on those the normal train is only 15 minutes out of a total 2.5 hours slower than the expensive high speed train, while the high speed is more than twice as expensive.
Not to mention inconveniences like lack of liquids in hand luggage, expensive airport amenities (should you choose to use them), passing through the security theatre, and of course the actual cost of getting to the airport (in the UK, this can be more than the flight!).
I travel between Paris and Frankfurt a lot; a couple of Thursdays ago the 19h-23h train to Paris was cancelled, and I had to go to Fraport with the S-Bahn (I work close to Hauptbahnhoff), wait a queue of 65’ just to pass security (Fraport security is absurdly inefficient, with e.g. about 10 workers per luggage scanner), take a 70’ flight and then a 30’ taxi ride from CDG. I arrived home at the standard time.
With the train I go from city centre to city centre, I jump on the train upon arrival, and I have 4 hours of work/leisure; ample space, bug windows, a cafeteria and room to walk. The alternative is 4 hours of taxi queue security wait queue finger queue take off have a sandwich please close tray landing taxi, where you can get total 1h of work done if you get lucky (except if you have someone to call).
And the train is half the price.
Plane:
- Drive 30 minutes to Amsterdam airport
- Park and go to gate, takes me 20 minutes from parking to gate
- Boarding and waiting for take-off: 20 to 30 minutes
Train:
- 10 minutes bike to the station is the fastest
- Another 10 minutes to get from bike into train
- Highspeed train doesn't stop here, so 40 minutes train to Rotterdam
- Wait to switch to the highspeed train, 15 minutes
So they roughly take me the same time to get to. The only upside of the train is that it goes to Paris Nord instead of the airport. But the benefit of that greatly depends on what meeting you're trying to get to, because most larger offices in Paris are not in the middle of the city.
When taking into account the time required to get to/from the airport and the time required to actually get on the plane, it's just as fast to take the train. Taking into account comfort, stress, and effort required, the train wins by a very large margin.
If you book in advance, €35 tickets are very easy to get, and sub-€60 aren't uncommon either. The article compares last-minute train pricing with the cheapest air fares. If I want to take a plane to Paris tomorrow, I'd have to pay €366 as well. For virtually any date, booking a train is going to be cheaper than booking a plane.
If anything, the biggest problem with high-speed trains is that there aren't enough of them, and that they share too much infrastructure with traditional trains. They are not killing low-speed trains, reality is. Even without high-speed infrastructure, many of them would no longer exist: for longer distances, air travel is simply in every way superior. They are just far too slow and far too uncomfortable to compete.
Besides, actually running those trains is an absolute nightmare. The article suggests giving them priority in order to keep the timetable. In reality, in The Netherlands large portions of the network is transitioning to a train every 7.5 minutes. Any delay whatsoever is unacceptable: having a delayed long-distance train could result in the cancellation of literally dozens of local trains. Overnight trains could work, but that's not really desirable for medium-distance. It was fun while it lasted, but they are just no longer viable.
I regularly drive from Bern to Salzburg (Austria). To lazy to Google but AFAIK there are no more direct flights, the last I know of was about 400 dollars and with check in and getting to and from the airport did take about 4 hours. Using a nearby airport gets this to 5 hour or more.
Some cities are well and cheap connected per flight. Most however aren't
Citation needed. I'm just a single data point but I'd gladly pay more to be home w/ family a few minutes/hour earlier and considering how jam packed the ICEs often are I would say others share a similar sentiment (maybe for other reasons).
Most arguments in this article are based on price which to me is similar to people arguing over benchmarks in software/hardware products (i.e. performance of a product) while there are tens of other factors to consider, performance being just one of them.
I for one don't consider price at all (within reason, for me that means when the difference between choices is ~200-300€) when travelling on business (and the older I get for private travel as well). I favor comfort, speed, reliability of connections etc.
I basically disagree with almost everything in that article - but similar to his viewpoint mine is very subjective.
Good news, recently on HN. I love night trains!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19557848
As always: http://seat61.com/
In Spain and other European countries, there was a State monopoly on rail. Extremely bad for the customer. No company could offer cheaper prices or be smarter. It is a bureaucracy used for political parties to place their(mostly incompetent) family members and friends.
Although, that was a sample size of one, and I think I read somewhere it was one of the few profitable high speed routes.
For short to mid range trips - electric buses already are capable to cover them at nearly same comfort level but much lower cost.
For long range we'll have to stick to planes.
TLDR; The author basically explains that the old system of good regional (euro national) networks which happened to connect together was almost as fast as the high speed trains but much cheaper and more convenient. When high speed lines are added these international regional lines are typically shut down. Since the high speed trains are expensive this means that the new network basically only serves medium/short distance business travel, where the old network was affordable for anyone to take basically any distance.
Financially, maybe. In terms of the negative externalities impacting climate, high-speed trains are incomparable.
Give it a decade or two and we will have electrical air travel.
Paris-Marseille is 775km (481 miles), 3 hours by train, I don't think anyone actually takes airplanes to do this route if they don't have a connection afterwards.
Yes, using a form of travel invented in 1903 is far more high-tech than publishing articles to the global information network. Putz.
Here in Germany, cheaper trains seem to be available for many times I happened to check (IC vs ICE).
I am also happy about the reduction of my travel time, although the costs may have been too large (years and years of building new tracks and tunnels).
Building a strong rail backbone ties regional networks together (of Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor, and Metrolink) and will increase the utility/usefulness of each of those systems.