High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network.html

by gvb • 13 years ago

230 212 13 years ago

mschuster915• 13 years ago

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.

chaz2• 13 years ago

In the northeast US, too. If I wanted to go from Manhattan to Boston this afternoon: $200 by plane, $75-100 by train, $15 by Boltbus. All take about 4 hours. Plane is going to cost more because it's a bit of a haul to get to JFK or Newark airports -- about $8 + 1 hour by public transportation, or about $50 + 30 min by taxi. Planning out a week or two, though, airfare can be as little as $75. Train stays the same price.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

At least part of the issue is that Boltbus is traveling on heavily subsidized highways. On the Northeast Regional, ticket fares more than cover costs. In comparison, only about 50% of highway construction and maintenance is paid for by highway and gas taxes and trucking fees, with the rest coming from general taxes. New York in particular is a state which funds highway maintenance heavily out of general tax revenue.

Still, I think air travel is the clear loser in the comparison. The public transit route to LGA or JFK is a bus trip through not very pleasant parts of Harlem and Queens, and is just a huge PITA with luggage. Strolling into Penn Station is a breeze.

Toenex• 13 years ago

There is a similar ticket price disparity here in the UK too. You can travel from Manchester to London and back for less than £30 on the coach but it will cost over £100 for a similar journey by train. The downside is the time it takes; nearly 5 hours each way on the coach versus just over 2 on the train.

Personally I never consider using the coach as I own a car and would always perceive it to take longer than it would for me to drive, although it would cost a lot less. Whilst I would travel by train over taking the car as I'm not that keen on driving and somewhat perversely actually enjoy it. However, my main reason for not travelling by coach is that they always make me feel sick.

rahoulb2• 13 years ago

I went to a one day conference in London and, to save costs, decided to take the coach overnight (depart Leeds at 1am and then leaving London at 9pm in the evening - sleeping on the coach both ways).

The train worked out at £40ish each way (I didn't know I was going till a couple of weeks in advance, if it had been months I'm sure I could have bought tickets for less).

Using Megabus, I paid £4 to get there, £8 to get back ... and then had to pay £9 to get a taxi from the city centre to my house.

pathdependent• 13 years ago

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.)

rayiner2• 13 years ago

My wife and I ride Amtrak all the time between Wilmington and DC, because with a 1 year old the extra room is a godsend. We've had uniformly positive experiences with the customer service, both the Red Caps who always give us a hand with the stroller and finding a seat at the end of a car, to the ticketing protocol that automatically refunds no-shows (although unfortunately that's changing in March).

aroch• 13 years ago

MegaBus around here has some pretty horrid customer service. Buses are frequently quite late (by several hours even), drivers then speed at 10-15MPH over the posted limit to try and make up time. The built in WiFi is generally either broken or basically inoperable (EDGE mobiledata is faster!). On top of that, the drivers are usually asshats about everything.

jzwinck2• 13 years ago

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.

yoodenvranx• 13 years ago

Yeah, riding train in Germany is just too expensive. Unfortunately I still have to use it because currently it is more flexible than the bus lines. I really hope that the competition will drive the train prices down, but that's something I don't believe in...

Visiting my girlfriend at the other and of Germany costs 220 Euro if I pay the full price. Sometimes you get cheaper tickets but that's still too much. Just visiting each other twice a month cost about 400 Euro which woudl be better invested in a vacation or something similar.

rixx• 13 years ago

Prices won't go down, probably, but bus lines will diversify. They work really well and many people use them.

Random comparison: Stuttgart–Berlin is 6 hours, 140€ by train and 8 hours, 25€ by bus, going two or three times a day.

claudius• 13 years ago

Train prices are not too high, the other means of transport are too cheap – both regular cars and coaches receive heavy subsidies and cause existential costs for the environment without having any advantage whatsoever.

And if you get a BahnCard 50, the price cap for a return ticket is 140 € second class (~200 first class). The (underpriced) BahnCard 100 is at about 4000 €/year second class (and 7000€ for first), which is also a completely reasonable price to ask for a year’s worth of transportation.

hessenwolf• 13 years ago

Luckily, DB are raising their prices, in some cases by over 8%, to remain competitive.

darklajid• 13 years ago

Care to share some links? I just declined meeting my brother today, because the trip (70km) costs vastly more money than I'd spend on a train ticket and still a lot more than the route costs by car. We're talking about slow trains (Regionalverkehr) here..

That said, I haven't actually encountered those coaches before..

mschuster915• 13 years ago

Sure, just go on meinfernbus.de. ADAC/Deutsche Post have launched the "Postbus", and if you're into carsharing, I recommend mitfahrgelegenheit.de.

CookWithMe2• 13 years ago

I was really excited about the coach bus lines - until I took a trip with one. Did you take a (longer) trip with one yet?

In an IC(E), I can open my 13" Laptop and work fine, even if the person in front of me lowers their seat. On the particular bus I was riding, the table was just too small. Plus, the bus has much more unexpected movements than a train, I couldn't even look on a tablet screen for too long without feeling some travel-sickness. It was a very long, very boring ride.

The WiFi, btw, was a joke on the autobahn. It was working a bit in the cities...

Also, the trip took more than an hour longer than was planned, and the traffic on the autobahn was absolutely fine (I did the same trip with a car a couple of times). Driving into the cities took lots of time, but again the traffic probably would have looked the same any other average day.

It definitely is cheaper though...

mercer• 13 years ago

I regularly travel between Amsterdam and Berlin, and I have had the same experience.

I avoid the bus because it sucks, I avoid flights because they actually feel longer and more exhausting, and because the door-to-door advantage is only two hours (out of 6 or 7 total). Whenever I can, I take the train.

mschuster915• 13 years ago

I've done lots of trips since the first coach lines started... and yes, the WiFi quality tends to suck (but so does your cellphone internet).

prawn• 13 years ago

The buses can be pretty decent in Turkey also.

delinka• 13 years ago

i.e. competition changes markets.

skrebbel• 13 years ago

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.

d4rti5• 13 years ago

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

stuaxo2• 13 years ago

Although, often in perverse ways; if you are running the premium (high speed) service and the slower one, why not push everyone onto the premium service.

Well, it might be really expensive for most consumers, perhaps they should be protected from this sort of thing - since the market inherently has no idea of morals or what is best for people, maybe we should decide ourselves.

Kequc• 13 years ago

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.

danmaz742• 13 years ago

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

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

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

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

danmaz742• 13 years ago

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

gvb• 13 years ago

His comparison on the "Paris - Brussels - Amsterdam" route is using today's prices:

"The relatively modest time gain of the Thalys has a steep price. The fare for the Étoile du Nord was a fixed amount calculated according to a rate per kilometre. Converted to the current kilometre charges of the Belgian, French and Dutch railways, a single ticket Paris-Amsterdam over the same route (the blue line) would now cost 66 euro, regardless of whether you buy it two months in advance or right before you leave.

[...]

You can still travel cheaply by low speed train between Paris and Amsterdam -- over the same route that was covered by the Étoile du Nord. But you have to be very patient: the trip takes 7 to 8 hours and you have to switch trains 5 to 6 times (Paris-Maubeuge-Jeumont-Erquelinnes-Charleroi-Brussels-Amsterdam). A one-way trip costs €66, half the price of the most common fare of the Thalys.

The "Barcelona - Paris" route was completed recently (December 15, 2013), so presumably both fare figures are current.

stuaxo2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

I'm wondering if this type of analysis has been done for HS2 (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.

lmm6• 13 years ago

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.

joosters4• 13 years ago

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?

Shivetya• 13 years ago

usually these projects are pandering to donors and expected donors. There have been numerous reports that many high speed rail lines only serve to allow the very well off to live where they want with access to other places they need.

The build out costs are not the same as funding day to day operations. Usually subsidizing implies the fare is lowered because of government spending.

lmm6• 13 years ago

Sure, but the best-guess calculation is that it's going to be worth that £50 billion in terms of economic return for the country (even if not all of that is realized as revenue for the government/train operator). But night trains can't be justified even with that kind of logic, only on some kind of social "it's good for people to be able to travel even if it's not economically reasonable" grounds.

mseebach8• 13 years ago

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.

growse3• 13 years ago

Worth pointing out that £14.4b of that is earmarked as contingency. Actual 'budget' is more like £35b. And I believe (but would have to check) that includes spending money on new trains, which we're going to do anyway.

drill_sarge• 13 years ago

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.

vmlinuz• 13 years ago

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.

rowyourboat• 13 years ago

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.

antr2• 13 years ago

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.

joosters4• 13 years ago

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.

antr2• 13 years ago

I get your point, but these are my two options: 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.

jzwinck2• 13 years ago

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.

colanderman2• 13 years ago

LOL. Last time I was in Italy (on a trip across Europe), I wanted to get a ticket to get to France. I tried one of those machines… wouldn't let me buy tickets for the route I wanted (commuter rail to Paris). Actually tried two or three; there were several kinds.

Stood in line for an hour plus. Guy at the desk claims no-one there speaks English (fine, but that was a lie as the attendant next to him was). We use our phrasebook to order tickets. Walking away from the counter, we realize they're for a train that leaves in ONE MINUTE. Of course we don't make it. Eventually we found customer service tucked away in a dirty corner. They were able to right everything, but seriously… my experience getting train tickets in Italy was NOT as rosy as you paint it.

(Only place worse was France, where the damn airport tram ticket machines needed 18€ of COINS.)

ricardobeat2• 13 years ago

I think the parent was referring to trains within Italy. It's train system is really good, you can go almost everywhere, easily buy a ticket on the spot for a fixed fare, and they are quite comfortable.

Morgawr2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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...

codfrantic2• 13 years ago

Last year I did exactly that. Was in Lucca, wanted to go to Florence for the day. Came to the station, bought a ticket, all very easy, even shows you what trains are available and allows you to choose a specific one, which I did.

On the train, conductor came past. Must have been a bad day because this lady was furious at us that we didn't stamp our ticket... No idea we had to (since we chose the specific train on the machine...) She was gonna let it slide this time but next time we would pay a huge fine...

7 seconds later we heard her shout exactly the same story to basically every other tourist in the cabin :P

Protip to TrenItalia, when printing the ticket, show a big warning on the screen that you need to stamp the ticket to make it valid ^_^.

epaladin• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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....

ggreer• 13 years ago

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.

dicemoose• 13 years ago

That's a great point, the Tokaido Shinkansen (the first bullet train line in Japan) was created in the 60's but the Tokaido Main line is still going strong. The Tokaido Shinkansen is also very profitable. It'll be interesting to see how things change when the even faster Linear Motor car comes into service.

The competition for the High Speed Rail in Japan is really domestic air flights.

yread2• 13 years ago

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...

paddy_m• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

furyg3• 13 years ago

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.

csmuk2• 13 years ago

My one experience of a sleeper (London-Scotland) was horrid. Farts, sick, snoring, alcohol noises and smells all night.

I hope things are better on the mainland. If not, I'd rather take a plane.

I flew back from Glasgow to Stansted for a small fortune to avoid the experience.

tpholland• 13 years ago

I take the London-Edinburgh sleeper fairly regularly, and have only ever had good experiences.

That said, although in theory standard-class passengers have to share, this has only ever happened to me once. I can imagine that if you drew the short straw it could be terrible.

The other big down-side is that you can't have a proper wash on the train; luckily there are some pretty good public swimming baths between Waverley station and our client's offices.

leothekim• 13 years ago

Somewhat off-topic - I found EasyJet to be a cheap alternative to trains going from London to Edinburgh. RyanAir is another one, though they have a reputation of claiming to fly you to one city, only to land in a different one because its airport fees are slightly cheaper [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Alleged_misleading_adve...

tomblomfield• 13 years ago

I've taken this route a couple of times - the Caledonian sleeper. I had this romantic vision of linen tablecloths and breakfast in bed.

Instead, I got instant coffee and a single croissant served in a vacuum-packed plastic wrapper.

One time, the train even ended up in a Glasgow by mistake.

aclimatt• 13 years ago

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.

secabeen• 13 years ago

Interesting. If trains only make sense for trips of <4 hours, how does that impact the California High-Speed Rail project?

alexeisadeski33• 13 years ago

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

yread2• 13 years ago

These routes were just inaugurated, and the stock is fresh out of the factory.

Well Thalys trains were made in 1995-6 and it shows. They actually have comparable leg room as airplanes (at least with legacy carriers)

gaius3• 13 years ago

The Stena Line ferry to Holland is also superb, it can be very cheap, or you can get a "captain class" cabin that was actually bigger than my flat...

baddox• 13 years ago

Basically it's like flying the night before with a free (albeit basic) hotel stay thrown in.

But that's not a good thing for many use cases, like tight business travel or vacations where I'd rather not spend a vacation day traveling if unnecessary.

lmm6• 13 years ago

If you're leaving at (say) 8pm on Friday evening, an overnight train arriving Saturday morning is much more convenient than a plane landing at midnight; likewise for getting back in time for work on Monday morning. What's the use case where it doesn't fit?

dagw• 13 years ago

I know someone who liked to take the night train for business travel the few times it was possible. Flying he had to get up at 4 am to catch a 6 am flight for a 9 am meeting. With the train he hopped on the evening before, enjoyed dinner and a drink or two in the restaurant, got a full nights sleep, woke up at 7, took a shower, ate breakfast and arrived at the meeting rested.

Admittedly it was very rarely that meeting locations and train schedules lined up so it wasn't like he did it often.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

I always take the night trains when I travel in Europe, but it is infrequent enough that I am not going to be able to save them. This makes me sad as well.

raverbashing2• 13 years ago

no baggage restrictions/pick-up/lost luggage,

Stories are plenty of people that get their baggage stolen while they are sleeping

Your comment is loaded with romantic idealism (which I won't say I don't have as well) but is sorely lacking on the practicality of it

Yes, I like getting to the city center. In Wien this cost me around 4€. In Paris, 17€ (the more expensive bus) or 10€ for the cheapest bus (you can take the RER as well), yes, if you take Ryanair it's probably more to get there.

But staying in a train all night doesn't make me enthusiastic anymore. I'd rather cope with the hassles of air travel but it will still get me somewhere faster.

lispm3• 13 years ago

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...

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

sami362• 13 years ago

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.

pjmlp2• 13 years ago

Either you need to relocate or inject some telecommuting into your existing work habits.

Not always an option.

As an example, I live in NRW but our customers are scattered around Germany.

Luckily I am located on our headquarters, but many of my colleagues need to go everywhere and not all clients appreciate phone conferences.

lispm3• 13 years ago

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.

walshemj3• 13 years ago

4,090 euros for all rail travel in germany (BahnCard 100) is a very good deal I am jealous.

For example if I work in central London again my season ticket for a 65 mile journey (bedford to London) is over 6000 euros a year.

squozzer• 13 years ago

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.

walshemj3• 13 years ago

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

Theodores• 13 years ago

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.

mschuster915• 13 years ago

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.

stcredzero2• 13 years ago

Only technically infeasible in the current infrastructure. Say a new continent opened up and there was a chance to build the rail system from scratch. Such a facility could be planned for. Maybe this is how travel will work on Mars? (With redundant self contained power, for safety.)

pjc503• 13 years ago

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

ricardobeat2• 13 years ago

How many people would feel comfortable alone inside a locked metal box travelling at 60mph? I know I wouldn't. Not to mention it would be stupidly wasteful to build and haul around a couple hundred toilets, beds and sinks, it would more than triple the carried weight and fuel expense.

stcredzero2• 13 years ago

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.

auctiontheory• 13 years ago

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." :-)

rdl2• 13 years ago

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.

bane3• 13 years ago

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.

dworin3• 13 years ago

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.

bane3• 13 years ago

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.

pcrh• 13 years ago

Some years ago I took Amtrak from Chicago to Seattle, and then down the coast to SF and LA. It was a slow trip, but very enjoyable. In particular the spectacular scenery in the Rockies viewable from the observation cars (I traveled during fall). I would thoroughly recommend it!

amogles• 13 years ago

My experience was the opposite. I've done various shorter and longer Amtrak trips on my various visits to the US. I've done Raleigh NC - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Dallas, which is really just a concatenation of some shorter and some longer legs. I've also done Chicago - San Francisco, which is a really long trip (two mights and more than two days), plus I did Chicago - Albuquerque which is about 24 hours. The latter two lines pass some of the most amazing scenery I've ever seen from a train. I was never bored at all on any of these trips. I rode in sleeper for which all meals are included as is free coffee whenever you want it. Although not top notch 5 star cuisine, the dining car was definitely on par with the best I've seen on any European train in recent years. And yes, it was a real dining car with table linen and all the niceties, not the airplane style gunk on a diminutive plastic tray that is sadly becoming more and more common on European trains too. Then there was an observation lounge with extra large windows so you could take in the scenery or chat to random people who for some reason were all the most fascinating bunch of individuals you could imagine. Then there was also a bar car where you could hang around if you craved for a drink in between somethings. Besides the usual drinks there were even craft beers and other local specialities of the areas we passed through. The staff were absolutely fantastic and always answered questions courteously and had some nice stories and anecdotes to tell. The worst part of those trips was actually arriving as I didn't want it to be over.

yoloswaggins• 13 years ago

Cars are killing Horse Drawn Trolleys.

jff• 13 years ago

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

PhantomGremlin• 13 years ago

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

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?

yodsanklai• 13 years ago

I think it really depends on your itinerary. 15 days is a short time to visit Europe. Maybe it could make sense if you plan on visiting only one or two countries and smaller cities. But if you want to see let say, Paris, Roma and Berlin. I don't think it's a good option.

codfrantic2• 13 years ago

How many countries do you expect to visit, doing 4 / 5 countries in 15 days would seem like the best idea. Any more and you'll be on the train non-stop..

https://www.google.com/search?q=US+vs+EUROPE+size&tbm=isch&t...

CookWithMe2• 13 years ago

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 :-)

High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network

Related Stories