
High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network - gvb
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network.html
======
furyg3
For European HNers (or travelers) I plea for you to use the night trains, keep
them alive.

One example: Between Amsterdam & Bern - Skybus flies for €86 (1.5 hours) and
the CityNightLine train is €80 for a bed (11.5 hours). Other routes are
comparable, you can pay a bit more for your own (non-shared) compartment.

Economically it seems crazy to take these night trains, and I never even
bothered until a recent business trip from Amsterdam to Munich.

It was great for many of the reasons mentioned in the article and other
comments here: leave and arrive in the city center, no security, no gate
closing time, no baggage restrictions/pick-up/lost luggage, have a beer or
dinner on board at a real bar or table, use your laptop/phone/ereader whenever
you like, lie down, take a shower, whatever. Basically it's like flying the
night before with a free (albeit basic) hotel stay thrown in.

I'm worried that too many people dismiss the night trains too easily (like I
did), and that these will be relegated to the history books. In my opinion
that would really be a tragedy.

Plane travel has turned into a elementary school bus trip. The train is still
a grown-up alternative.

~~~
aclimatt
I'm not so sure.

I took the fated _Trenhotel Joan Miró_ that the author talks about. It was a
little over 100€ and covered the distance in twelve hours, like the author
said. After getting off that train, economically I could not fathom why
anybody would ever subject themselves to that experience again.

The 100€ got me a seat in the back of the train in a semi-reclined seat (the
least expensive ticket I could buy). I booked it about four weeks in advance.
For 150€, I could get an actual bed to sleep in (four to a compartment), and
the price/service level went up from there. If the train had free food or even
just free water, Wi-Fi, showers, and such like you describe (at least at that
price level), it'd potentially be a different experience. But Trenhotel's
stock is about as old as it gets, and what you get for the base price of 100€
makes for quite an unfortunate twelve hours.

I just went to Vueling, and I can fly from Barcelona to Paris for 40€ in two
hours. Even with security, time to/from the airport and such, I'm still saving
time and money. Copious amounts of baggage is the only thing left out, but I
could pay 100€ to check piles and piles of bags, and now I spend slightly more
than the Trenhotel and arrive five times faster.

High speed trains make sense for semi-long distances. Paris to Amsterdam is a
great example. Three hours on modern equipment is very doable, and a plane
ride can't beat that in time (fixed costs of security and required early
arrival are too high). Comfort is superior, and the price will come down. The
author makes the point that the cost is 2x but the travel time is only
slightly faster. These routes were just inaugurated, and the stock is fresh
out of the factory. Give it a few years, and they will come down. I'll bet you
the old "vintage" routes that the author pines over were pretty darn expensive
when they too were first inaugurated.

For the <4 hour trips, high speed rail is excellent, and I believe those
prices will fall. But anything longer than that, forget the night trains.
They're only semi-useful for tourists and backpackers, and I'm shocked they
still operate. I'll fly, thanks.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
If nations applied the same silly security theater to trains that they force
upon aircraft, the train advantage would be cut to ~2hr trips.

~~~
dragonwriter
A hijacked train doesn't make as good an improvised missile as a hijacked
plane, so the threat profile isn't the same -- so its not surprising that the
security treatment is different.

~~~
comicjk
Far easier just to shoot down the planes, assuming reinforced doors, air
marshals, and passengers aren't enough. No, I don't think there's anything
rational about it, beyond the rational calculation of shirt-term advantage by
politicians.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Far easier just to shoot down the planes

Not if they are taken control of near their targets.

Prevention is clearly better than response.

> No, I don't think there's anything rational about it

To the extent that some of the actual measures are theater, they are theater
that has a real reason for being presented in the particular context they are
presented in. Some of them may be irrational _as security measures_ , but they
aren't _completely arbitrary_.

------
lmm
Most European rail networks are not profitable. Night trains have
approximately never been profitable for anyone, anywhere. They survived only
due to government subsidy, and those same governments are not subsidizing the
high-speed trains. The price difference has nothing to do with high-speed vs
low-speed and everything to do with government subsidy.

Cheaper and easier transport will always increase demand; either you're for
cheap transport or against it, and if you're for it you accept that it will be
used by commuters living further away from the cities they work in. Making the
rail networks cheaper, as the author seems to advocate, would only increase
this effect. Or is the argument that leisure travellers care more about cost
and commuters care more about journey time? Maybe, but the rail network would
be completely unsustainable without commuter traffic.

And as someone who travelled by EuroCity, they weren't the land of milk and
honey this author portrays; they were (and still are, in Eastern Europe)
frequently several hours late, leading to missed connections. I do think there
are cases for some international trains to be scheduled more sensibly (Italy's
high-speed trains that then sit for 30 minutes in each station on the way up
are ludicrous; Eurostar has sped up by several minutes over the last few years
by eliminating less popular stops), but at some point you simply can't match
the speed advantage of true high-speed rail.

The specific route complained about here is a dogleg for connectivity reasons;
what you're not seeing on his map is the line from Calais (and thence from
Britain) coming down to meet it at Lille. There are winners and losers in any
routing decision (basically the high speed lines her are a tree centered on
Lille, so rather than two distinct lines from Paris to Brussels and Calais
there's one line that branches. Longer than a direct train, but it avoids
building two distinct lines), but as a Brit I'm profoundly grateful for this
one, which makes day trips to Paris or Brussels plausible in a way they simply
weren't before.

~~~
joosters
_those same governments are not subsidizing the high-speed trains_

In the UK at the moment, the government is about to blow £50 billion on a high
speed rail link. If that's not subsidizing, what is?

~~~
mseebach
Yes, I think this is closer to the real problem here: Politicians just loves
these big, glamorous infrastructure projects, and anything "train" also tastes
green, so that's double the glamour for the same money, and any unintended
consequences are, well, unintended, so who can _possibly_ blame them for it?

HS2 has already been heavily criticized for overly optimistically assuming
away all problems with the line, and it would not surprise me one bit if one
of the assumptions in the cost/benefit analysis is that all existing
passengers will use the new line at double (or whatever) the cost, and that
the older slower line can close.

~~~
d4rti
I believe that the plan is to run both as the current line is over capacity.

As an avid UK train user, but not frequently on that route I support high
speed rail plans in general.

I'd like them to build the phases in the opposite order - first the links in
the North, then down to London.

A sad fact of the rail privatization, and the rail in general is that
governments seem to prefer the large infrastructure projects rather than
ongoing subsidy. From an environmental standpoint commuting by train should be
much cheaper than by car, but for many places in the UK it is far more
expensive.

~~~
michaelt
What I can't figure out is: If rail is so efficient and road travel so
inefficient, why is it that rail travel costs more than road travel, even when
the government subsidises rail companies and heavily taxes fuel and parking?

~~~
lincolnq
Frustrating, isn't it?

To be fair, subway travel in dense cities like NYC tends to be substantially
cheaper than road travel in most cases. (Think taxi vs. subway -- the taxi can
sometimes, but not always, get you there faster, but you'll pay a lot more. If
you have multiple people in the taxi it becomes more competitive though.)

Also, are you counting the cost of the car? If you don't have to buy/rent the
car then road travel might look cheaper than it is.

Nonetheless, in general I agree with you. I suspect there's a greater demand
for rail travel, pushing prices up. Nearly everyone I know prefers rail when
they can, since they don't have to drive or sit in traffic, but chooses road
often, primarily for cost and convenience reasons.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
1) Was under the impression that NYC subway system receives massive subsidies?

2) Private minibus, illegal everywhere in the US, would be cheap like a city
bus and of course much faster than the subway.

------
jzwinck
In Italy, you can arrive at the station without a ticket, and go to a machine.
The machine supports multiple languages. You can buy a ticket in multiple
classes on multiple speeds of service (roughly "regular", "fast", "high-
speed"). These trains are frequent, well-connected to regional buses, and
clean. The high-speed ones are fairly expensive, but the regular ones are
fairly cheap.

This is the way to do train service. And it's heavily used.

P.S.: if you really want a slow night train for cheap, visit Zimbabwe. A
"first class" sleeper cabin is about $10 from Bulawayo to Victoria Falls, and
it's beautiful. But every part of the 1970's British train has long since been
stolen--the lights, the faucets, the toilets, etc. Still, $10, and it goes to
interesting places.

~~~
Morgawr
I'm sorry but you forgot the other side of the coin there. I am Italian
(living abroad now though) and until last year I had been traveling a lot
across Italy.

Trains are a joke in Italy, every Italian person would be able to tell you
that. While we mostly use trains to move around from town to town, the train
service itself is abysmal. Dirty trains, missed connections, delays because of
problems in the infrastructures/scheduling. I used to take regional trains to
go visit my (now ex) girlfriend living in the neighboring city from mine
(which is Bologna, a pretty big train exchange/junction between the north and
center of Italy). Every single day my train would wait literally 100 meters
away from the station, stuck there for an hour or so (outside of its
timetable) because somebody messed up the platform and there was another train
incoming.

Yes, we have a lot of ticketing machines where you can just go there and buy a
ticket in 10 minutes, but actually getting to your destination is a whole
different deal in Italy.

Also, thanks to the new high speed trains (especially connecting Milan and
Rome), the fares for normal regional trains have skyrocketed as well (they
want to push people on the HS ones). I clearly remember doing Bologna ->
Florence for 7 euros 5-6 years ago, last year I checked again and it had
skyrocketed to 20-25 euros. That's a massive increase for just a ~1 hour ride.

EDIT: Forgot to add that this is all in the North where the infrastructure is
more mature and stable. The south is way worse, don't get me started.

~~~
peteretep
Never been able to understand why Italians are so down on their country. I
spent a week there a couple of years ago, mostly travelling by train. Italians
I had spoken to had me believing I should be bracing myself for North Eritrea
in terms of infrastructure, police corruption, and so on... the reality is
that it feels just like France. Admittedly I never went south of Rome...

~~~
olifante
It's a latin thing. I'm Portuguese, and we're also devastatingly critical of
our country. Talking to a French colleague yesterday, he also bemoaned the
negativity of his countrymen. Spanish people also tend to be suffer from the
same problem. I wish I knew how to push people into constructive criticism.

------
mschuster91
In Germany, even the low-speed trains have met a powerful competition in form
of coach bus lines.

The coaches are brand new, offer free WiFi, and are vastly cheaper than even
the lowest-price DB tickets.

edit: another quite popular travel solution is car
sharing("Mitfahrgelegenheit"); this is especially useful if you _must_ drive
with your own car (e.g. because you carry stuff you can't transport in a
train/airplane) and want to lower your own travel costs.

~~~
pathdependent
Although Amtrak (esp on the East Coast) could not be construed as high speed,
I suspect they are having a problem with buses too. Previously, I used Amtrak
without fail to get from NJ to DC and back. Now, I take BoltBus or MegaBus
unless they are fully booked. The bus takes 1-2 hours longer but usually costs
about 1/5 to 1/6 the cost of Amtrak. Plus, they both have fantastic customer
service whereas Amtrak seems to not care at all about their customers.
(Admittedly, I've had some bad experiences on Amtrak, but I don't think they
are particularly unusual.)

~~~
jzwinck
Amtrak in the east surely does not care about "low tech" or "slower pace"
people one whit. For example, all eastern corridor trains are off-limits for
bicycles, all the time. And the NYC-Montreal service, while being the perfect
duration for a night train (11 hours or so), only runs during the day, making
it positively absurd for anyone to take the entire journey (it's not cheap
enough for the unemployed).

Some buses will take bicycles, and they have more services each day too.
Amtrak may as well not exist except for specific commuter services such as
NYC-Boston Acela (which is not value for money unless you're in the 1%).

NJ Transit, LIRR, and Metro-North are fairly cheap, compared to their
counterparts elsewhere in the first world. Too bad they're not long-distance.

~~~
superuser2
Amtrak is _excellent_ for Milwaukee<->Chicago. 1.5 hours, impervious to
traffic, clean, comfortable (like a first class airplane seat), $24. It gets
pretty high utilization too.

------
antr
The title to me is link bait, and the post considerably biased towards
pricing, which is an important factor, but not the main reason I use high-
speed rail. Not to mention that the author fails to mention how important, in
passenger volume terms, are some of the routes he mentions e.g. Barcelona-
Paris, come one, +800km on a train it isn't going to be cheap nor fast. High-
speed travel works for shorter distances under 500-600km, not this.

I travel on high-speed rail 2-3 of times a month, and this is my choice over
air travel because:

> Pricing: On average the train price is c. 20% more expensive than the plane,
> but that is one side of the story.

> Travel time: the fact is that the time I require to go to the airport is a
> minimum 30min ride (if I'm lucky) from city centre to airport. Add to that
> the need to be there 45min before the plane departs, and any of the usual
> delays. That's at least 1h 15min of my day gone in commuting to travel. If I
> travel by train my commute is not that different than that of going to work
> by bike, needless to say that the train gate closes 2min before departure,
> not 45min.

> Location: the train station being located at the city centre is extremely
> convenient, forget about getting a taxi and bumping into traffic, paying
> arbitrary "airport" fares, etc.

> Comfort: the leg space, seat width, baggage allowance, etc knocks out air
> travel. I can open my laptop on a tray way bigger than those on planes and
> comfortably work all the journey with my 3G/4G connection and get real work
> done.

> Flexibility: train frequency is much higher than that of planes, so finding
> a time that fits my agenda is not a problem. Add to that the fact that you
> can catch an early train if, for example, you finish your meeting/work
> early, without paying additional fees.

~~~
joosters
I think the article is really complaining about the difference between high-
speed and normal trains, rather than the train<->plane comparison.

In your own example, you could be catching a slower train and still get there
faster than the plane. It's not really the 'high speed' bit of the train that
matters much.

You can also argue that nowdays it matters even less. With WIFI/3G, as you
say, you can get useful work done on a train journey, so even if it takes a
bit longer, the travel is not dead/wasted time for business. This weakens the
case for high speed trains even more.

I agree with your points though, I've commuted London<->Paris by plane and
train, and the train is so much nicer.

~~~
antr
I get your point, but these are my two options:
[http://d.pr/i/Mnhm](http://d.pr/i/Mnhm)

Top row, slow-speed train; bottom row HST; first column departure time, second
column arrival time, third column travel time. If you need to be at a meeting
by 8.30am which train would you get? One has a travel time of 4h 16min vs 1h
38min, HST has a higher, marginal, price difference.

------
epaladin
I haven't been to Europe yet, but after living in Japan for a year and then
returning to the US, there's nothing I miss more than trains that go fast and
go everywhere. I could wake up, walk down the street, hop on the train, and be
350 miles away before getting bored of staring at the back of the seat.
They've managed to get by without much cannibalization of other services (you
can still get to anywhere on normal-speed trains) and it seems that revenue
ends up being at least more than operating costs. They obviously make a great
deal of sense in Japan, and perhaps less so in Europe and the US, at least for
cross-country service. Regional services would be fantastic for key areas, and
I don't see why we couldn't make it work. Unless we just skip right to
Hyperloop?

~~~
m_mueller
The big reason why Japanese high speed trains are so good and why they haven't
cannibalized anything, is that they've built new tracks for them _everywhere_.
Shinkansen aren't even compatible with normal tracks, they are wider (another
reason why they're so spacious and offer such a smooth ride). There's simply
nothing in the world that even comes close to the Japanese train system. As an
indicator, here's a list of the 50 most frequented train stations in the
world:
[http://www.japantoday.com/category/travel/view/the-51-busies...](http://www.japantoday.com/category/travel/view/the-51-busiest-
train-stations-in-the-world-all-but-6-located-in-japan).

~~~
ggreer
A clarification: Shinkansen use the same 1.435 meter standard gauge as the
continental railroad. Other trains in Japan use a narrower gauge. In modern
times, wider gauges don't have much of an advantage in comfort. For example,
the notoriously loud-and-shaky BART uses a 1.7ish meter gauge.

~~~
rdl
Broader gauges generally do allow wider cars, which is a plus for comfort.
Wide 2x2 seating with a wide aisle is nice to have; wide 3x3 or 3x2 is
probably not going to work on standard gauge.

------
rowyourboat
I never understood why HSTs are supposed to be in competition with planes.

For short trips (<500km), HSTs generally win against planes when comparing
door-to-door times, but so do cars. For longer trips, planes win. Period.

To me, the HST is what makes the train able to compete with the car for
medium-distance travel. Let's take an example from Germany: Hamburg to
Frankfurt. It's about 500km, which takes 4-5 hours by car. The HST link takes
3:30h - if you take the time from station to station. But that's not a fair
comparison, because generally you do not want to go from station to station
but from some place in Hamburg to some place in Frankfurt. If we add an hour
of traveling by local public transportation, we arrive at a local trip time of
4:30, in the same range as the car. The HST has made traveling by train a
viable option - not insanely fast, but comparable to the car.

Mass transit is slow compared to cars. HST is fast. Combine those, and HSTs
make public transport a viable alternative to going by car, time-wise.

------
Theodores
If I owned a railway I would like to use shipping containers to provide a
night train service.

The shipping containers would be self contained and appointed to budget hotel
chain standards - clean, smart and to the point functional. Each would contain
a small kitchen, toilet and shower. The beds would be bunks but with a bit
more space as there would not be a shared walkway as happens on existing
rolling stock. You would also be able to stow bicycles and other bulky luggage
items without blocking up the train walkway if you were willing to go without
much kitchen area.

During the day the mini-hotel shipping containers would sit at the docks, out
of the way, whilst the train went about its business delivering normal
shipping containers to wherever is needed. Then, early evening, the mini-hotel
shipping containers would be loaded up and the train would head off to
London/Glasgow/Plymouth to pick up customers. The train would trundle at a
nice sedate pace through the night with minimal stops and starts to arrive at
a sensible time at the other end (5.30 a.m. is too early, 7 is good).
Thereafter, back to the docks, unload and regular freight service for the
train.

To cope with seasonal demand and different passenger service levels (1st, 2nd
class), the train could be loaded up with a mixed load of regular shipping
containers and their mini-hotel variants.

Modern IT niceties such as wifi, 'swipe' door locks and mobile telephony would
make sure that everyone had a nice and secure journey. With 'aerogel' style
materials and double glazing the inside of the mini hotel would be insulated
from the noise of the train and the weather.

Current night trains in the UK do not provide a good night's sleep, you also
expect your belongings to be potentially stolen. With 'containerisation'
problem solved.

Would there be any takers? It all depends on price, however, if you are
expected to be in two places at once or work on a North Sea oil rig then a
decent night train would be quite tempting. If the business did not work out
then a buyer could be found for the deluxe shipping containers, they could be
transported by road to somewhere where a temporary workforce was needed or
even used as a hotel.

~~~
mschuster91
A nice idea - yet technically unfeasible.

First problem is the time and storage you need for loading/unloading a whole
train worth of carriages - I expect at least 30-60min, if not longer. And most
container facilities are not equipped with large storage areas, just for
short-term storage.

Second problem is power: a freight train carriage usually just has two
connections to its neigboring carriages: torque and the pneumatic brake line.
Basically you'd need to somehow add electricity infrastructure (which 'd then
again require specially modified freight carriages, and likely even different
locomotives. I'm not sure if freight-only locos carry the 1kV heating power,
which is (ab)used to provide electricity in passenger trains).

Third problem is maintenance and cleaning: container load/unload facilities
are not equipped with the place and the necessities for properly cleaning the
containers, and even less maintaining them.

~~~
pjc50
I think not so much as "unfeasible" as "does not offer any benefits that could
not be achieved with normal night train carriages".

------
lispm
German here. I have a Bahncard 100, which allows me unlimited train travel
(plus unlimited local public transport in many cities) in Germany with most
trains for one year. Fast or slow. I don't care. I usually pick the faster
one.

[http://www.bahn.de/i/view/DEU/en/prices/germany/bahncard.sht...](http://www.bahn.de/i/view/DEU/en/prices/germany/bahncard.shtml)

Deutsche Bahn also advertizes that they use renewable energy for my Bahncard
travel and they will expand this over the coming decades to 100%.

~~~
sami36
It also costs close to 5000 euros per year. That's a little more than you'd
lose to depreciation if you owned a luxury car. If you have to travel that
much inside Germany to make that card worthwhile for you, then you have a
problem. Either you need to relocate or inject some telecommuting into your
existing work habits. I'm going to go out on a limb here & suggest that many
people travel for travel's sake as a way to give themselves an inflated sense
of their own importance...or just find some glamour in being on the road all
the time.

~~~
lispm
Travel with a car long-distance is not an option. I'm not going to drive 400km
early in the morning with a car and be relaxed in the office at 9:30.

> If you have to travel that much inside Germany to make that card worthwhile
> for you, then you have a problem.

The 'problem' is called 'WORK'. A little bit more than 40000 people have such
a card.

> Either you need to relocate

No option.

> some telecommuting into your existing work habits.

Sure, I do that.

> I'm going to go out on a limb here & suggest that many people travel for
> travel's sake as a way to give themselves an inflated sense of their own
> importance...or just find some glamour in being on the road all the time.

Maybe it's not that good to 'go out on a limb here and give useless
suggestions. You seem to fail to understand that a lot of people have to
travel as part of their work to meet customers.

In my case I work with people which are located in different areas of Germany
and I have to meet them face to face quite often.

~~~
sami36
In my case I work with people which are located in different areas of Germany
and I have to meet them face to face quite often.

No, you don't. unless you're a handyman whose physical presence is absolutely
required, both you & your client are simply indulging in such an idiotic
wasteful behavior because it makes you both feel good. 1- Your client is
holding up to some anachronistic notion that having an employee physically
present informs them about your competence or diligence. 2-you like traveling
400 km & being at the office at 9:30, it makes you seem important, which you
may well be. just not enough to justify this ridiculously expensive card & all
the environmental impact its ownership entails.

For years, I used to fly coast to coast every week, consulting for a major IT
company in the US. It was completely idiotic even then. A knowledge worker's
physical presence is not really required in this day and age, it's all part of
some old heritage of employer-employee relationship we can't quite let go of.

Germany being Germany, rigid & set in its customs & ways of doing business, if
given no other choice & out of fear for my income, I would relunctantly agree
to such an arrangement. I just wouldn't go boasting around about how great of
a deal this card is.

------
paddy_m
He states that there was more air travel in Europe, and more trips taken in
general because of HSR on routes that used to be serviced by air, thus there
was no decrease in pollution, instead an increase. This is such a regressive
attitude towards transit. Travel makes us all richer, more of it is a good
thing (commuting is a different beast).

My understanding is that overnight trains and the other trains that were less
expensive were heavily subsidized and unprofitable. My guess is that HSR in
Europe is less subsidized and closer to profitable. Many forms of
transportation are subsidized (highways for cars, TSA for planes, HSR
projects). The subsidies distort choices and encourage inefficient waste by
not letting consumers decide with true information as to the costs of their
mode choice.

~~~
jonsen
_Travel makes us all richer, more of it is a good thing_

Sure, this world can now afford constantly to have about one million of its
people sitting in a chair in the sky.

------
yread
I think a lot of the differences boil down to once-a-day point-to-point
connection of classical or EuroCity trains versus corridors for frequent high-
speed trains. Thalys goes every 2 hours, Etoile de Nord once a day.

That's why bullet trains work so well in Japan, you can basically have 2
corridors one on each coast and they will pass through most of the important
cities removing the need for direct links.

I do agree with the article in most of the points. I have traveled Amsterdam-
Perpignan (the last french city before Barcelona) with Thalys and low-cost
night train (and TGV and Thalys on the way back) and I can attest that the
night train is indeed quite uncomfortable. At least I could take a gas
canister (for hiking) with me...

------
vmlinuz
In about 6 weeks, my girlfriend and I will be flying into Frankfurt - because
that was an available cheap flight via China from Hong Kong, where we live.

We will be travelling from Frankfurt to Strasbourg (fast train, 1 change),
from Strasbourg to Brussels (fast train, change in Paris), from Brussels to
Amsterdam (fast train, direct), and from Amsterdam back to Frankfurt (fast
train, direct). Total price for these train journeys, for two people, is €330
- because I booked the apparently hard-to-get cheap fares.

Compared with travelling by plane on low-cost carriers: We will mostly be
going from city centre to city centre. We will have power at our seats in at
least some cases. We will be free to get up and walk around for comfort. We
will be able to bring our own food and drink onboard. We will get to see some
of Europe passing by the window. And we will have to be on the platform a
couple of minutes before departure time, not an hour or more...

Trains make more sense, in terms of service and cost, over short-to-medium
distances. Barcelona to Amsterdam is probably over the line where flying makes
more sense. Our Strasbourg to Brussels journey will take around 5 hours, but
over 1 hour of that is time to change trains - and stations - in Paris, so I
think that still falls before said line.

------
Kequc
When you're looking at a 12+ hour train ride with two changes and 200€ vs a
1.5hr flight for 30€, as seem so often to be the options. To someone who hates
visiting airports more high speed trains can't get here quickly enough.

------
jff
Low Tech Magazine: Drawing arbitrary boundary lines sells. 150 year old
technology (trains) = ok, 100 year old technology (airplanes) = not ok.

------
PhantomGremlin
So many comments but only one passing mention of "Eurail" in this discussion.

[http://www.eurail.com/](http://www.eurail.com/)

So, help an American (potential tourist) out. Does using Eurail for a European
vacation make sense? For a family of 2 adults and 2 children?

E.g. getting the "15 days continuous" pass is $548 + $548 +$276 + $276 =
$1648. That doesn't seem unreasonable for being able to go pretty much
anywhere except UK.

Does that make sense?

~~~
CookWithMe
In addition to the itinerary, it also depends on your planing. If you want to
be very flexible, it's most likely cheaper than buying a long-distance ticket
at the station/in the train.

If you want to plan and book your trips ahead of time, it may well be that,
with early booking discounts, it's cheaper to book ahead of time. This would
also allow you to reserve seats/a table, which I'd recommend if you travel
with kids.

Also note that in Germany, and maybe in other countries as well, kids < 15
years travel for free with their parents if noted on their tickets.

If you travel a lot within one country, you may also want to check their
frequent traveler programs. E.g. in Germany, the DB sells cards that give you
25%, 50% or 100% off of the ticket price. The 25% one can be ordered for a
duration of only 3 months and costs 19 Euros, so it should pay off quickly!
Note, however, that it is an subscription that you need to cancel.

Enjoy Europe :-)

------
stuaxo
This is sad. I wonder if the high speed trains need to be this expensive
(through energy use etc). Also, if the lower speed ones are being shut merely
to move people onto the higher speed lines.

Certainly in the UK, with high speed one, they introduced an extra delay into
the old line to make it seem less competetive.

I'm guessing that nearly double the price for a 20%-25% decrease in journey
time is more than a sane person would want to pay.

~~~
awjr
I'm wondering if this type of analysis has been done for HS2
([http://hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-
cost](http://hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost)). I can see
a situation where routes are closed to force uptake of the HS2 route thus
making HS2 a 'success'.

I would highlight that the cost of air flights is kept artificially low by the
lack of fuel duty or VAT on fuel. So flights do come across as cheaper. Of
note, in the UK public buses are able to claim a fuel duty rebate. I am unsure
on the situation with diesel trains.

------
drill_sarge
The price model of the rail company doesn't make much sense here (germany). I
can travel from Berlin to Paris cheaper, than I can from Frankfurt to Munich
for example. But then they have special offers for certain regions sometimes,
which you can combine with regular tickets for the rest of your route, which
makes it cheaper again. Or in combination with a flight ticket. Or traveling
in groups with special ticket, or traveling in a certain region with a
specific train and so on. It is so complicated and confusing that even the
staff at the train station can't always tell you whats the best ticket.

------
danmaz74
It's a bit disingenuous to compare prices from the 90s to today's without
accounting for inflation.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Paris-Amsterdam over the same route (the blue line) would now cost 66
euro"

The 'now' indicates he is probably accounting for inflation.

~~~
danmaz74
Possibly, but it's a very important thing to specify. It wasn't at all clear
to me he was :)

------
stcredzero
What unintended effects would the Hyperloop have? My limited experience with
the California train system is that it's no good unless you are in no hurry,
or your travel just luckily happens to coincide with the right time and place.

------
rdl
It was pretty amazing pricing DB train tickets vs. Eurail passes (I'm going to
30c3 and will probably be in Europe 25 DEC to 12 JAN). A single 2nd FRA-HAM-
BER trip costs more than a 5-travel-day pass, in first on ICE.

------
yoloswaggins
Cars are killing Horse Drawn Trolleys.

------
bane
I've ridden through bits of Central and Northern Italy, Rome to Florence to
Venice all on regular 'old trains. And little tiny bits of France as well.
I've also ridden trains in the U.S. from D.C. to Miami.

Italy was an absolute pleasure. An easy walk to the stations, even with
luggage. In Rome the rail network is an easy connection off of the subway
system and in Florence lets you off and on so near the old parts of the city
(which are fantastically walkable) that you don't even need a cab to get
there. Seats were comfortable for the 2 or 3 hours the trip took, had a table
to setup a laptop, read a book whatever. I sat in group of four seats that
faced each other and had a lovely chat with an elderly couple from Scotland on
holiday.

Florence to Venice was similar, except my destination was outside of Venice
and took a little more to get to from the station. No big deal and it beat
having to deal with a rental car for a few weeks.

Importantly, the ride was unbelievable smooth compared to other rail trips
I've taken.

Amtrak was my first long distance rail trip and was very bleh, seats were
okay, but nothing to do on the 20+ hour ride from D.C. to Miami. This was back
before laptops were common, but even with a pack full of gadgets I would have
run out battery long before I ran out of boredom. Impossible to sleep on the
train as it's noisy and jostles all over the place since we were on old
freight rails for the entire trip. People also get so bored they start pacing
the length of the train and with numerous stops were cars are split of and
rejoined to other trains, and waits of a couple hours each time this happens,
you feel like you make no progress at all. Trains were old, but in decent
shape and generally well maintained. I've heard sleeper cars provide for a
moderately better experience, but there's still the hours of boredom. I also
didn't see any scenery of note, either mile after mile of overgrown weeds or
industrial sections or really bad parts of towns we passed through. The worst,
stations are hard to get to/from at the end points without prearranged
transport and they aren't really all that nice. I regret the trip as flying
would have only been $100 more and much faster. Every once in a while I think
about taking the train North towards the better run North-East corridor parts
of the system, but that one experience kind of waived me off the whole thing
and with the stations so hard to get to and flying to my destinations faster
(even with security hassles included) and about the same cost it just isn't
worth it to me.

My experience in France was on much shorter, hour or two trips, and they were
"ok" if a bit run down. Graffiti on the trains, that sort of thing. Felt more
like extended commuter trains (which they probably were) then proper passenger
rail. It was somewhere between Italy and Amtrak in terms of comfort, but more
towards the Amtrak side in terms of desirability.

~~~
dworin
When people compare train travel in the US to Europe, they tend to forget the
huge differences in distance. Washington, DC to Miami is five times the
distance as Rome to Florence.

Trains are a better value than flying when the difference between the two
trips is only an hour or two, so that the advantage of not having to go
through security and getting dropped off downtown actually pays off. For
longer trips, the fast that a plane travels five to ten times faster really
shows.

That's why the North East Regional service, especially the shorter routes
(i.e. DC to New York or New York to Boston, and points in between) is much
more effective than flying. They also have free WiFi (with middling
reliability), more comfortable seats, and outlets in every row.

As an addition, I've also found that most people overlook how convenient,
affordable, and quick intercity bus service is in the US. On most routes, a
bus will offer more departures for about 1/5 the cost of the train and 1/10
the cost of flying. The seats aren't as comfortable, but for short routes,
it's only a little bit slower.

~~~
bane
I think outside of the Big Northeast cities, train travel in the U.S. is
problematic because of the distance to stations and the lack of facilities at
those stations to handle long-term parking. Other transit options aren't much
help as well. Buses don't cut it for most of the U.S. outside of urban and
semi-urban centers for similar reasons (transit to/from the stations). Taxis
"work" to fill this in, but are very expensive.

To give an idea in my area, I live about 35 miles from D.C. in a pretty normal
suburb (no boondocks). I have a commuter bus I can take at 5:30am that's not
far from my house (about 3 miles and semi-walkable but there's no way I can
take luggage). On the return trip, if I don't make it back to the commuter
stop by 4:30pm I have to spend the night in the city or take a taxi (very
expensive).

Driving takes about 2-3 hours in traffic, and there's no long-term parking at
reasonable rates (parking is available near the station at about $27 a day).

A taxi would work, but it's the same distance as driving and probably north of
$100-150 for the trip each way.

There are two Amtrak stations a bit closer than the city, but not much and the
transit options are either drive and have no place to park at all or taxi.

Even if I moved in closer to the city, unless I'm within walking distance to
one of the D.C. metro I'm still largely in the same boat with slightly less
time and money penalties.

So even if I wanted to take the train on a trip that had comperable time to
air travel (say to New York on the Accella), the time and cost involved make
it far less convenient.

I have taken intercity bus services before because the cost is remarkably
cheaper. D.C. to NYC for <$50 in about 4.5 hours. But still with the same
issues as the train.

~~~
dworin
That speaks to the problem of train travel on the opposite end: it's really
only feasible in the half-dozen or so American cities that have highly
reliable, built-out intra-city public transportation. If you need a car when
you get there, the train doesn't work. That's one of the reasons I'm so
skeptical about any high speed rail that terminates in LA.

Many of the inter-city buses also stop at Park-and-Rides outside of the
downtown cores, so that people can both drop off their cars and get picked up
by people who have them.

~~~
bane
California is a very strange place to consider for rail, especially an LA<->SF
line. LA is a car focused mess with useless public transport and huge
sprawling connected cities and SF, though better downtown, has a huge Bay Area
with similarly craptastic public transport (though not quite as bad as LA).

------
delinka
i.e. competition changes markets.

~~~
skrebbel
Very little railroading in Europe have anything to do with markets and
competition. Most rail companies are either state monopolies, or state-
endorsed almost-monopolies. Replacing a cheap option by an expensive and just
slightly better option is very typical monopolist behaviour, and that's what
this article is about.

~~~
d4rti
Or the UK's disastrous worst of all worlds system, of which the best run piece
is run by the State! [1]

Unless you're willing to build redundant train routes between cities it's not
really possible to have competition for train journeys.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-22700805](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22700805)

------
squozzer
I like trains. Really! But maybe the proper question is not, "Why build high-
speed rail?" but "Why travel at all?"

Especially the example given about those who live in Barcelona and commute to
London by air. Probably not just because it's cheaper -- I'm sure the
differences in weather had a minor influence too.

But you might have heard about this thing we have in Bonerland called the
Internet. Al Gore invented it, so it has to be green. Maybe you Euro-peons
should check it out.

~~~
walshemj
Realy - you have been drinking the video conferencing salesmans cool aid FTF
beats the internet hands down for 90% of all workers

------
auctiontheory
Anecdote: In France, the system sold me a ticket for a non-existent day. I
knew I was returning to Paris on a Saturday, so to buy my ticket I clicked on
Saturday the 24th of May on one of those typical select-a-date web map UIs
you've all seen. Except that the 24th of May was Sunday - I didn't double
check my purchase against a calendar.

So on "Saturday," ticket in hand, I was evacuated from my seat and had to
stand for a couple of hours - of course everyone pretended not to speak
English - and I suppose I should be grateful I wasn't defenestrated into the
French countryside.

Earlier, at the small station, I had let a woman who was obviously in a hurry
pass ahead of me to buy a ticket. She said to me "obviously you are not a
French man." :-)

