High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network

Page 2 of 4<1234>
September 2nd, 2014 at 5:22:53 AM permalink
1nickelmiracle
Member since: Mar 5, 2013
Threads: 24
Posts: 623
Personal experience looking for public transportation as an example. I can drive 17 miles to an Amtrak station. Advance cost to Atlantic City $140, last minute $200. Takes 12 hours compared by car 7 with $70 in tolls I believe. You have to leave on the train at 3-4am and actually arrive at 6pm, so longer than 12 hours. Only one route a day and leaving Atlantic City means leaving at 8am. This train is priced to not be used and it doesn't make any sense to me because the train still choo choos no matter who isn't on it. Our government pays to subsidize amtrak and for what reason for the usability makes no sense. I've yet to try it because Greyhound from Pittsburgh is a better value and gets free play at the casino while the train doesn't best of my knowledge. Greyhound has their own problems with pricing for short segments and charges more sometimes taking you far out of your way. Going to AC through NY costs even more by far costing hours wasted and this also doesn't make sense. It's all screwed up and I don't understand it either.
September 2nd, 2014 at 5:42:46 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: 1nickelmiracle
Still who is to blame, who is this guy blaming?


That's a good question, because it really is a grab bag of complaints
1) Modern marketing, where heavily advertising a few fares that are sold out quickly gives people the impression that travel is much cheaper than it is. He misses the old days when you paid for train trips by distance, not if you missed the internet fare, or if you bought your ticket minutes before your trip or months before.

2) He missed his overnight trips, as a romantic way to travel.

3) The never ending debate between energy efficiency and demand. My mother lived a truly energy efficient life when she was little. Toilets were ultimate in low flow (outhouses), low electricity usage (a single plug), highly efficient heating (a single coal stove), and recycling (5 people used one tub of water & coal was gathered that fell of the train). The author says the trains don't save energy because they encourage more travel. It sounds like the Mayor of London saying there will be no more runways, because people just take cheap flights to spend the weekend in Spain.

4) Many high speed trains can cruise at at up to 195 mph. Which is fantastic if you are going up to 300-500 miles with few intermediate stops. But the accumulated effect of stops, accelerating and decelerating, and changing trains, usually make long distance train travel much slower than flying. As enviable as Japans HSR is for riding in the core portion of Honshu, the air corridors to the extreme ends of the island Tokyo to Sapporo and Fukuoka are two of the four busiest air routes in the world.
September 2nd, 2014 at 7:58:17 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
3) The never ending debate between energy efficiency and demand. My mother lived a truly energy efficient life when she was little.


Not really. She lived a low-energy use life, which is not the same thing. That single coal stove probably did not keep the whole house warm, for example.

Quote:
4) Many high speed trains can cruise at at up to 195 mph. Which is fantastic if you are going up to 300-500 miles with few intermediate stops. But the accumulated effect of stops, accelerating and decelerating, and changing trains, usually make long distance train travel much slower than flying.


Ideally a high speed train should be a point-to-point express. No stops, no slow-downs. But that's not possible as long as you have one track. While aircraft are restricted to corridors, too, these change depending on conditions and are staggered by altitude. So that several planes can use the same corridor at the same time, even at different speeds, without getting in each other's way.

BTW, planes making several stops lose even more time and speed than trains. That's why such flights are far less common than they used to be. Mostly these days flights are point-to-point only, changing numbers with destinations.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
September 2nd, 2014 at 8:35:10 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Quote: 1nickelmiracle
Public transportation is all screwy with prices and it does turn people away paying so much for last minute purchase. My experience sees many many open seats so I don't understand it. .
Where I live buses are large, often stop in traffic to load disabled people. Have benches that indicate their only passengers are the poor. Why do we have expensive buses that annoy decent people just to "serve" the liquor store and welfare office?
September 2nd, 2014 at 9:01:05 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
It is 6:33 from Barcelona to Paris, and 1:33 to change stations, and then 3:17 from Paris to Amsterdam (total 11:22)


6:30 hours uninterrupted sleep doesn't strike me as a good night's rest. But to each their own.

There's much to miss from the past, in some areas. consider flying. In-flight meals were pretty much standard on all flights one hour or longer. That's gone. On the other hand flights are cheaper and more plentiful.

Quote:
You and Elon Musk. He made a big presentation last August that was critical of California for not planning a supersonic train.


Great minds and all that ;)

The idea's been kicking around for a long time. Take a maglev train, enclose it in an underground tube, suck out the air out of the tube, supersonic train. In SF it goes back even longer.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
September 2nd, 2014 at 9:33:28 AM permalink
1nickelmiracle
Member since: Mar 5, 2013
Threads: 24
Posts: 623
Quote: Fleastiff
Where I live buses are large, often stop in traffic to load disabled people. Have benches that indicate their only passengers are the poor. Why do we have expensive buses that annoy decent people just to "serve" the liquor store and welfare office?
I've taken city buses but not normally unless to take another bus out of town. You are right they are under used and often used by poor people. Problem I think is because there aren't enough buses and it gets inconvenient jerking around, trying to figure the schedule, etc. It's really hard to plan trying to get it right the first time. Lastly, white people are afraid and try to avoid minorities so most won't ride.
September 2nd, 2014 at 9:02:19 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
6:30 hours uninterrupted sleep doesn't strike me as a good night's rest. But to each their own.


I think you misunderstood me. The old trains were sleepers. The new HSR is during the day (one in morning and one in afternoon)

PARIS GARE LYON -BARCELONA SANTS
07:15 -> 13:40 (6h 25m)
14:07 -> 20:40 (6h 33m)

BARCELONA SANTS -> PARIS GARE LYON
09:20 -> 15:53 (6h 33m)
16:20 -> 22:45 (6h 25m)

Under the old trains (1974-2013) you would leave work, get on the train and pay €70 for a sleeper bunk, plus buy dinner on the train. You would arrive in the morning refreshed and ready to go to work (or play).

Now you have to leave work in the middle of the day, go to the train and pay €130 to €230, not sleep and get in to the city, pay for a hotel room, and the next day you will have shelled out possibly 5 times as much money between the train fare and the hotel room.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:26:10 AM permalink
1nickelmiracle
Member since: Mar 5, 2013
Threads: 24
Posts: 623
I looked into taking Amtrak to Reno once and a cabin doubled the price for the trip. Small too for the long trip. Might have almost been two days stuck on the train but can't remember how long exactly.
September 3rd, 2014 at 7:09:54 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
I think you misunderstood me. The old trains were sleepers. The new HSR is during the day (one in morning and one in afternoon)


Ok. But now I'm thinking a 6:30 hour journey can hardly be called "high speed."

Quote:
Now you have to leave work in the middle of the day, go to the train and pay €130 to €230, not sleep and get in to the city, pay for a hotel room, and the next day you will have shelled out possibly 5 times as much money between the train fare and the hotel room.


Or you could fly.

I repeat: if train-friendly Europe can't make a go of "high speed" passenger trains, then the Americas would be well advised to stop even toying with the idea. I'll repeat, too, that "high speed" trains might work in point-to-point routes across relatively short distances, but not as traditional trains with several stops along the way.

The Mexico-Leon example is a good one. It's too long to drive roundtrip in one day (though I've done it twice), and too short to fly. A high speed train might be worth it provided you could make the trip in less time than it takes to drive. And that is the crux of the matter. It would likely stop at Tepotzotlan (just outside Mex City), San Juan del Rio (just outside Queretaro), Queretaro, Celaya, Irapuato and Guanajuato before reaching Leon. With so many stops, the average speed, including time spent idle at stations, should be around 95-105 kph, which is about the same as driving.

Consider, too, if you drive you have a car available to move about your destination. Granted navigating Guanajuato is nightmarish at best, but with a GPS it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
September 3rd, 2014 at 8:07:36 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
Ok. But now I'm thinking a 6:30 hour journey can hardly be called "high speed."
Or you could fly.

They advertise that it can reach speeds of 320 kilometres per hour, but with slowdowns and stops the average speed is about half that amount.
Driving is more like 10 hours. In a few years it should drop to a 5:30 journey when they finish upgrading the entire track.

But it is a 90 minute flight. So depending on your cost to get to the airport it could be a whole lot cheaper to fly.

Quote: Nareed
I repeat: if train-friendly Europe can't make a go of "high speed" passenger trains, then the Americas would be well advised to stop even toying with the idea. I'll repeat, too, that "high speed" trains might work in point-to-point routes across relatively short distances, but not as traditional trains with several stops along the way.

Even though I like HSR for some cases, I have to admit I wonder what some planners are doing. Even in the Northeast corridor I admit that I always take the low speed trains. The high speed trains usually cost double, and there is only a tiny improvement in the arrival time (sometimes 15%).

They try to make HSR attractive by making it easy to use the computer.

Quote: Nareed
The Mexico-Leon example is a good one. It's too long to drive roundtrip in one day (though I've done it twice), and too short to fly. A high speed train might be worth it provided you could make the trip in less time than it takes to drive. And that is the crux of the matter. It would likely stop at Tepotzotlan (just outside Mex City), San Juan del Rio (just outside Queretaro), Queretaro, Celaya, Irapuato and Guanajuato before reaching Leon. With so many stops, the average speed, including time spent idle at stations, should be around 95-105 kph, which is about the same as driving.

Consider, too, if you drive you have a car available to move about your destination. Granted navigating Guanajuato is nightmarish at best, but with a GPS it shouldn't be too much of a problem.


It is not a slam dunk. I imagine the Mexico City- Queretaro route will work OK because there is a lot of money moving back and forth.

But I would hope that they could get the average speed up above 95-105 kph. That's pretty slow.
Page 2 of 4<1234>