Hacker News Reader

Since this is getting to be a bit popular, I'm going to push the "technology really doesn't matter" point a bit more here: in 1955 the French built this [0] (just look at the picture!) and sent it down a traditional (wooden sleepers, rocks for ballast) rail line between Bordeaux and Irun [1]. It got up to 333 km/h, which is faster than any TGV currently operates in the year 2020 on their fancy concrete HSR tracks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SNCF_BB_9004_photo_1.JPG

[1] Side note: that bit from Bordeaux to Irun is quite possibly my favorite train line in the world. Absolutely beautiful views towards the Irun end.

To be fair, That was a test run, where the locomotives and infra where specially prepared and did take some damage. This was a long way from operating at 320km/h every day - and today there is a 10% safety Margin, so tgvs have to be able to run at 352km/h without special prep or damage in order to be allowed to run at 320km/h during normal operation.

For comparison, a tgv test run in 2007 got up to 575km/h on fancy new track, also with some prep but no damage, but operating at this speed would make little economic sense at this point.

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

Great!

Even better, this steam-powered train, reaching 126 mph (203 km/h) in year 1938! [0]

Why do I know about this? Because I played Railroad Tycoon as a teenager in ~1990, and got fascinated by trains.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4_4468_Mallard

Reading the article I got them impression that when the author said:

> "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years."

They are referring specifically to the development of the technology I.E. the trains and rail equipment. Not to an actual infrastructure project.

The argument being that governments should find the infrastructure, and buy technologies developed using private funds.

Indeed this what we see in the rail industry where companies like Siemens develop rail “packages” which are then sold to multiple infrastructure projects with only minor customisation and modifications.

This is in contrast to the example project where a team wanted $250mil to develop new technologies, and also deploy them. Rather than just deploying an already developed technology.

High speed rail is also a bit of a red herring. In dense areas you’re not actually going to go fast! “Normal” trains would work fine and be helpful.

TGV and Shinkansen go really far! But what makes people in France or Japan take the train a lot is much more around local trains that are just going at normal speeds.

I think the counterpoint in the US is that most cities are very far apart and there is practically nothing in between. Obviously places like the northeast corridor or the Bay Area are much more dense. But even a route from SF->Seattle is mostly traveling through non-dense areas. That gets even better across the west and Midwest

Wires than that. Most people live on the border of the cities and the nothing. Suburbs are practically designed to make mass transit expensive and slow.

This is why I don't get why gondola lifts are not more popular for both people and cargo.

Maybe in cities the wind is an issue.

They used to be quite popular for cargo (IIUC trucks displaced them) and apparently they are becoming used again: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/01/aerial-ropeways-auto...

> The uncomfortable part of HSR, of course, is that no matter how perfect your government is, it's going to involve bulldozing some people's homes, conflicting with other government projects, and interfering with nature. Don't get me wrong, I'm not part of team "screw the law, bulldoze straight lines between cities, people and nature be damned". But there do need to be sacrifices made. And a strong, coordinated government can pass the laws and write the checks to make that happen.

It's worth pointing out that since the 1950s the government has been doing just that and more to build the vast network of interstate highways and state roads. People don't bat an eyelash at demolishing nature for a monster interchange, but propose more rail and suddenly it's so important to consider the environmental impacts and the eminent domain issues.

During the era of freeway construction they usually built the enormous interchanges through marginalized neighborhoods. Nobody with political power cares because they don't live there; nobody who lives there can prevent it happening.

Interstate highway construction slowed dramatically in the 70s after federal funds largely dried up except for the remaining critical arteries like the Colorado I70. Since then, a dozen highways proposals have come and gone because of eminent domain and environmental impact lawsuits in Southern California alone.

The I710 expansion, for example, was finally axed a few years ago after six decades of opposition from South Pasadena and the surrounding cities. At one point the state was considering a plan to tunnel under the town for about a $billion a mile because the opposition was so intractable (well funded and connected) before Caltrans gave up and started selling all the housing they'd been accumulating for decades for the project.

> the TGV is also profitable

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that this is only true if one excludes the capital costs associated with the railroad (tracks, right of way, and I think also rolling stock). If you factor in the infrastructure construction costs (and reasonable lifetimes for replacing rolling stock), a high speed trail line will never be profitable without significantly higher fare prices than are presently charged.

But that goes to further support your point that high speed rail can only be accomplished with government input.

To be fair, I think that the same argument can be made for the costs of interstate highway systems and passenger air travel.

Public transit is almost always unprofitable without some way of capturing the increased land value near the stations.

Supposedly some subways (eg Hong Kong?) own the land near the stations and use the rents to fund the subway, rather than just using fares.

A land value tax that goes back into public transit would probably work too.

Regular property tax works fine. Montreal recaptures the increase as values rise through transfer taxes and ocassional reassesments.

Unfortunately California doesn't have regular property tax thanks to Prop 13: even if values rise, taxes don't.

So high speed rail in California is always going to be a boondoggle.

Transfer taxes are avoided by the wealthy. See London and NYC. An LLC purchased property. From that point the LLC is bought/sold/merged and the assets never change ownership

Maybe that ought to be fixed as well.

Supposedly the Hong Kong metro is already profitable just via fares.

That's how it works in Japan. All the major train companies own the land around the major train stations and that's why you see all these department stores named after a train company.

Here's one, just follow the links to the group companies.

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

Yup, if you’ve spent time in Japan, you can see how stores, hotels and attractions are laid out to drive train passenger traffic.

The same was true for streetcars in the USA, many streetcar companies built amusement parks in the countryside at the end of their lines to encourage weekend trips.

I was told that Hong Kong metro makes more from real estate rental than ticket sales.

And just look at what we put next to our Bart stations: giant parking structures. Sigh.

As far as I know, the TGV is indeed profitable even subtracting that. I believe the maintenance of the tracks falls under SNCF Réseau (owned by SNCF) and the rolling stock falls under SNCF.

Figures for the profitability of the individual lines, with construction costs included, can be found here [0] in French. You'll see several lines with yearly rates of return in the ~7-15% range depending on how you measure things. I'd call that excellent, especially given that there are other massive benefits (environmental, health, safety, national security etc) involved that are not included in that calculation.

That said, I may be forgetting to include something, so I may be wrong. But, like you said, only further supports the point that high speed rail can only be accomplished with government input :)

[0] http://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques...

libed there a bit and have this to say: to cover thise extra costs, they would have to charge a ridiculous amount per ticket. like double the cost if a flight to those destinations. and they do. $300 for a 5 hour train ride. so i can totally see this being profitable all costs uncluded.

here's why i think they get customers. people don't like airports and plane travel, so they'll pay more for rail. car travel is unpleasant. cars are tiny and uncomfortable. their tolls are insane. like $50 in tolls for that same drive. less people have cars, and getting an license is a big expensive thing. they don't do roadtrips.

"High speed rail on a large scale is really something that has to come from the government."

We learned about this in highschool history.

From wikipedia:

The Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 were a series of acts of Congress that promoted the construction of a "transcontinental railroad" (the Pacific Railroad) in the United States through authorizing the issuance of government bonds and the grants of land to railroad companies.

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

All transportation is subsidized by government. Great investment; I'm completely on board. With the understanding that owners and operators pay back via taxes. (Whatever is fair, something modest.)

You can also, like the French or the Canadians or the Germans or really most countries, have your public transport infrastructure be outright publicly owned. Presuming the government is competent, of course.

If it's about the land then how come we can build freeways? Those essentially have the same problem

"It's about the land."

It seems that the tunneling was meant to solve this in urban areas. Open farmland is easier to manage, perhaps leasing the strip from the owners, gaining right-of-way over roadways by working with local governments.