Hacker News Reader

Comment by princekolt | Hacker News Reader

The article is great but it fails to address another main issue with high-speed rail in many locations: Having to network with slower traffic.

I recently took a 9.5h train trip from Berlin to Switzerland, and although the train does travel at the top speed of the section at several locations, we never reached the top speed of the train set (280km/h), and lots of times we were travelling at under 100km/h for switching tracks or whatever else. I didn't log it, but I'd guess we spent less than 50% of the travel time over 200km/h.

That's where Japan's Shinkansen was so groundbreaking. Sure, they also used this opportunity to migrate from a smaller gauge, but the decision to build a new network from scratch that doesn't interact with other networks at all paid off tenfold over the decades as trains started getting faster and faster.

View on HN

That's true, but the lower speeds in Germany are also what makes it possible to drop you right in the city center. The TGV approach is to make straight lines, and that means for smaller cities, you get dropped off somewhere out in the country outside the city.

If you've got a comfortable seat, wi-fi, power, and a dining car, spending a few extra hours on the train is not so bad. It beats spending that same time on a metro or regional train with a bunch of luggage. It most definitely beats spending the time going through airport security, walking a kilometer through a giant shopping mall with gates, waiting in a departure lounge, or waiting at baggage claim.

That said, there are reasons for each country's choices. France is much less dense than Germany, so acquiring land to make those straight lines is more feasible. France also has its population concentrated more in bigger cities rather than a lot of smaller ones like Germany, so as long as the TGV goes directly into the bigger cities, most people are happy. Japan is long and skinny, so average trip distances are longer and the speed is more important. Japan also has a big infrastructure budget to prop up the economy, so making straight lines that require loads of tunnels and bridges is not as much of a problem.

TGV works just fine on regular lines, and uses them when approaching most cities. In fact classic lines is where most tgv accidents happened. It gets dedicated high-speed lines for the main legs.

Most TGV will stop at city center train stations, if they don’t and drop you in the countryside it’s often for political or demographic reasons, or possibly because the rail lines were really unsuitable (iirc even at low speed tgv is somewhat limited in its ability to bend).

Running high speed trains on mixed mode rails (with commuter and freight traffic on the same lines) leads to one of two things: Either you slow your high speed train down (lowest common denominator) or you severely reduce capacity of slower commuter trains.

This is why the HS2 project in the UK will free up so much local commuter capacity. By taking all high speed trains off the existing lines, you can run many more trains on them.

For many connections in europe trains are faster and sometimes cheaper than planes when you add the additional time waiting at the airport etc...

https://www.dw.com/en/trains-vs-planes-whats-the-real-cost-o...

And look at the differences in carbon footprint in the article. The differences are gigantic.

In fact, the new generation of German high-speed trains (the ICE 4) has had its top speed reduced to 250 km/h, down from 330 km/h for the ICE 3, because there just aren't enough tracks in Germany where you can even exceed 250, and those few can be serviced by the ICE 3.

(Actually, the only one I can think of is Berlin-Munich. I used it last year between Nuremberg and Erfurt and saw a "290 km/h" display on the info screen.)

Cologne-Frankfurt is the other big one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne–Frankfurt_high-speed...

Cause Laufthansa a while back to stop flying between Cologne and Frankfurt, instead they’ll sell you a seat on the ICE train (code share) with full protection for your connecting flight.

"I'd guess we spent less than 50% of the travel time over 200km/h".

I think you want to measure travel distance here!

In Germany in the 80s the Transrapid, a maglev train was developed. Sadly, the technology was dropped in favor of the ICE, predominantly because that one could use the extensive existing rail network. The only Transrapid Line actually operating is the Shanghai airport line.

In hindsight the needed new network could have been an advantage, as very little of the current rails is capable of anywhere near the 300km/h operation the ice can do. Would also have avoided all those scheduling problems where slower regional trains are regularly delayed, as they have to let other (also delayed) high speed trains pass.

The flipside is that Shinkansen tickets are fairly pricy. In many other parts of the world they would have been undercut by cheap commuter flights decades ago.

Pricy compared to what? Trains in India?

Compared to Amtrak ticket prices in America, Shinkansen is an excellent value. It doesn't seem out-of-line with German ICE train prices either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com