Hacker News Reader

> The reason people don't prefer the train vs. almost every other mode of transportation is because its extremely expensive. Making it faster isn't going to solve the root problem.

Many companies choose the faster transportation method over the cheaper one for business trips. Fast train connections to Hamburg, Germany or Stockholm, Sweden could make Copenhagen a more attractive city for business implementation. It isn't only about personal travel.

Valid point, but wonder if business-sponsored travel results in inflated price for other types of travel?

It often results in the opposite, with business travel indirectly subsidising personal travel. Charging inflated prices for business travel (whether it's for travelling in a higher class or booking with short notice) makes it easier for operators to provide lower cost offerings to fill the bulk of their seats for those who book in advance – most often tourists.

It is a matter of perspective, but I think the more accurate view is that personal travel is what keeps the trains (or the planes) running and business travel makes the profit. You need the "bulk" for flexibility, frequency and maintenance. That is why there are plenty of low cost airlines, but almost no business class only ones.

Differential pricing in itself becomes problem when it comes to something were the value is partly external. Countries that want to maximize utility will have to reconcile with the idea that some of the value won't be captured by the train company. Most countries don't charge different rates for roads, but try to make the best roads and then collect taxes.

But it's still much much faster to fly. Right now flying is cheaper and faster, you can't make the trains fast enough.

You can, because you just have to make them fast enough to be competitive. Really fast train will probably never be widespread because they require to much infrastructure. A train going 5 times the speed of a car requires a lot of very expensive track per hour of travel. That is why the Chinese maglev only travels ~1 minute at top speed. But going 2 to 3 times the speed of a car is competitive as the tracks are cheaper and airplanes are expensive (both in cost and time) to stop. It all of course depends on local factors, but from 2 times the speed of a car trains start taking a lot of passengers from airplanes.

(There is also other benefits, like that trains don't generally go away. There are many places in Europe that are relatively hard or expensive to fly to).

> But of cause just like everything else in government, the main aim of the future is to build up huge infrastructure projects... If they'd taken the money they would have spent on this large project and instead just lowered fares

Exactly. Why did they ever bothered building highways, ports and airports. That's just silly nonsense. They should have just taken the money and lowered the horse feed prices.

Shaving 20minutes off of a trip that takes more than an hour is not comparable to going from horses to cars. Current routes and travel times are perfectly fine when you ask the consumers, they just want it affordable. No one wants to take the train when flying costs almost the same.

Doesn't seem fine to me. Denmark has some of the highest taxes on cars, high taxes in general, is overall expensive and increasingly has dysfunctional politics and uncompetitive infrastructure [0]. Part of the benefit of being a small country is that you can exercise a greater degree of control. With a suitably high tax rate you can lower the barrier to entry to increase participation and make the most out of your population. It if of course up to each country to select their model, but I don't see the endgame of Denmark not upgrading their infrastructure. That isn't something they can win at. Even the US arguably can't anymore.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/med...

>No one wants to take the train when flying costs almost the same.

Sure they do if it's more pleasant. In the US, the train on the Northeast Corridor takes maybe a bit longer depending upon the specifics than flying and costs in the same ballpark (depending on whether Acela or regular coach, parking, etc.) And it's at capacity at peak times.

When you're not talking big money in the scheme of things, many will take whatever mode of transportation is most convenient and comfortable--especially for business travel.

If you really are very price sensitive, you're probably taking Megabus or something similar.

I personally am willing to pay up to a 200% premium to take the train versus flying if the length of the overall trip isn't more than 2x the length of an overall air trip (including security, getting to the airport, waiting in lines, waiting for baggage, late takeoffs, getting suck in holding patterns, extra security scans, etc).

A fast train is always a healthier and more pleasant experience than an airplane. Hint: trains have windows.

Disclosure: I'm a private pilot and have lifetime status on two major carriers. I still hate air travel.

I really wish the train network was working better Europe-wide. Maybe there should be a EU train company that integrates the national ones. The network should be able to substitute as many flights as possible.

Right now, even buying tickets or just getting information can be hard, and let's not start with all the local discount cards that you need to use to make it worthwhile.

You can find most information on seat61. Many countries just don't have very good infrastructure. It is often either slow in its own right or you have to transfer between trains, or even different operators. I think it is more of a "hard" than a "soft" problem.

You can always check out Interrail[0], I know multiple people (travelers) using it to get around Europe.

[0]: https://www.interrail.eu

While lower fares, which would necessitate subsidies for the Danish railways, are definitely needed, the railway infrastructure in Denmark does need an overhaul. It was the wrong decision not to electrify the tracks back in the 1990s, this could have allowed Denmark to buy off-the-shelf electric locomotives.

It's a new government, and I am hopeful that they actual intend to deliver some real improvements to the infrastructure. Considering where I am planing to move in the foreseeable future, I will need it. That being said, even as it is now, I would still prefer the train over car.

You're right that it needs to be cheaper, but they also need to make it much faster. Denmark is shaped like an L, in terms of there the tracks need to go to connect Jutland and the islands. So there's no shortcut from the largest city in Northern Jutland to Copenhagen (and honestly that mostly where you want to go).

Right now you can't take a morning train from Aalborg and be in Copenhagen for a morning meeting, you can drive, or fly and it's cheaper. By train you need to leave the day before... It's 400km and you can't get a morning train for a meeting at 9:00AM.

One hour between the largest cities isn't close to being fast enough. 30 minutes between them isn't fast enough.

Most of the country is barely serviced by train at all, so maybe a better idea would be to move local, shorter distance journeys from the roads to trains, or even just busses. I can't use public transport, I would spend 1 hour and 45 minutes getting to work... It's a 25 minute drive, in rush hour.

> In any case this is all just silly nonsense. The reason people don't prefer the train vs. almost every other mode of transportation is because its extremely expensive. Making it faster isn't going to solve the root problem.

Citation please. This strike me as being very NA centric.

I, for one, have a car for this exact reason. Trains are unreliable, slow and pricey in Denmark. Well, maybe not unreliable, but they're not reliable.

I've been on trains in 6 different countries. (n=1 etc.) They all are either very expensive (compared to buses, in some cases even compared to planes). Often they are subsidied on top.

Trains are quite expensive in Europe, especially in comparison to much lower European incomes.

>The reason people don't prefer the train vs. almost every other mode of transportation is because its extremely expensive.

This. Same for many other countries in Europe. Which borders on criminal from an environmental point of view, because the rail network is built & maintained with public money.

Also, it's not unusual for Europe to get to a place faster by car than by train - like, the whole of Germany.

> Also, it's not unusual for Europe to get to a place faster by car than by train - like, the whole of Germany.

That's due to the inflexibility of the train network, I guess. It's fast & easy to get from Hamburg's main station to Berlin's, but if your starting point is 45 minutes from Hamburg's and your goal isn't at Berlin central station, the car is likely just as fast. And that only gets worse if you're traveling to some small town where you need to switch trains.

Eh? There are plenty of HSR routes that are faster by train than by car in Germany. Munich to Berlin, for example.

And people are actually using the train over the airplane:https. Eurowings doesn't fly from Berlin to Nürnberg because so many people go by train: http://m.focus.de/finanzen/news/unternehmen/nach-streichung-...