Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe is investing heavily in trains

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#101

Post by kergonath »

nfin wrote: post #57
skrbjc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your perspective from someone close to the situation there. I believe many Americans have a picture of a perfect system in Europe, but the truth is likely different. Can you elaborate on the negative aspects of the train system, as you see it?

my short answer would be: bad at punctuality. Frequent delays bigger than 10min. France for example is better at punctuality IMO. But granted: smaller population density, therefore less stops needed in rural areas. And lower population density made it also a lot easier to build many complete own tracks for fast trains (TGV). Also more centralized way of thinking, so if you are around Paris: good, if you live far away…

> smaller population density, therefore less stops needed in rural areas.

I see this argument regularly, but I do not find it very convincing. There are places in the US about the same size as France with much lower population densities as well. France is about the same size as Texas. Surely there are Texas-sized bits of land with similar densities as France in the US.

> Also more centralized way of thinking, so if you are around Paris: good, if you live far away of big cities, not so lucky.

The network is still very centralised, but it is much better than it used to be. Thanks to the Paris south and east bypasses, as well as progress on the high speed line in the south made things like Lyon-Lille, Lyon-Toulouse, Strasbourg-Nantes, or Marseille-Bordeaux quite nice. Lyon-Bordeaux is still a pain in the backside because of the mountains in the middle.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#102

Post by gpvos »

emn13 wrote: post #66
skrbjc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your perspective from someone close to the situation there. I believe many Americans have a picture of a perfect system in Europe, but the truth is likely different. Can you elaborate on the negative aspects of the train system, as you see it?

One bit that might surprise people is how fragmented it was (probably still is?). I'll see if I can find more sources, but e.g. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.67... illustrates some of the issues. Gauges vary. Voltages vary. Safety systems vary. Edit: here's a nice diagram from (of course) wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_system... Europe doesn't have a rail…

The thing is, you used to be able to buy a ticket from, say, Lisbon to Copenhagen, from any ticket booth, and just take any reasonable train on the (multi-day) route. But nowadays many national railway companies use yield management, so that original price is now the full price which is a lot higher, and actually you simply can't buy such tickets anymore, you must use booking systems that just cannot book all trains. In some countries such as France and Spain reservations are now obligatory for long-distance trains.

At some international ticket booths you can still book complicated trips, but if you try to book them yourself over the internet, you will have to cut up the trip into separate parts which are treated as separate trips for the travel guarantee, so if you miss a connection due to a delay beyond your control you don't have the right to take the next train if it's not part of the same trip.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#103

Post by occz »

Leherenn wrote: post #21
Fargren wrote: post #2

Living in Spain, I love trains and take them over airplane when it's an option. However, trains are often around twice as expensive as flying for may routes. I know nothing about trains, but intuitively I would expect the opposite, and I really wish it was more affordable, specially high speed rail.

Rail infrastructure is very expensive compared to planes. An airport is expensive, but once you've built it you're pretty much immediately connected to half the world. With a train station, you need a track to each surrounding stations, maintain them, and so on. Also, train doesn't scale down as well, it quickly becomes inefficient for the less dense routes. People are talking about subsidies (by not taxing fuel for…

>but trains are also directly subsidised to the tune of billions each year. The rail network just costs a ton to build and maintain.

Just wait until you hear about how subsidised the infrastructure for cars and trucks are.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#104

Post by emteycz »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #77
ithinkso wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different in Poland. Here, everyone always complains about the rail and it was shit like you wouldn't believe only like 15 years ago. I've been using trains only sporadically but the improvements are absolutely immense, I couldn't believe my eyes. Not perfect of course but holy shit did it improve, especially regional rails Of course we had to improve from much lower standards than Germany, I guess, so I have no…

I use trains here in Poland and although there have been big improvements, a lot of them are only a facade. Long distance PKP trains are still late everyday. The regional trains in my city tend to be over-packed, and from a technical pov they’re more like larger diesel buses than trains. However, in response to the earlier comment and this one as well, I would have to say that investment doesn’t always mean immediate…

Even a diesel bus on rails is much more efficient than a diesel bus on roads. It's also much easier to electrify than a fleet of buses, an much more ecological when you do (because no significant battery). Thus, anything on rails is a win.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#105

Post by recuter »

noahtallen wrote: post #61
skrbjc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your perspective from someone close to the situation there. I believe many Americans have a picture of a perfect system in Europe, but the truth is likely different. Can you elaborate on the negative aspects of the train system, as you see it?

I’m an American who recently took a train in Europe from Paris to Brussels. Some brief thoughts: - It was so fast! Under 90 minutes for a journey which would have taken a few hours by car. Clearly much faster than a plane on this particular route, due to extra waiting and security in airports. - It was also a very comfortable mode. If you’re traveling with friends, it’d be very easy to socialize around a table. Quiet…

Eurostar runs direct trains from London to Rotterdam & Amsterdam, 3.5 and 4 hours respectively.

You can't really compare to a similar route in the US because there are hardly any and hardly anybody uses them. The train routes in EU are busy and frequently full, just like planes. Obviously booking ahead is cheaper, how else could you do it?

Top tip, plan a head and read up a little bit on seat61:

https://www.seat61.com/trains-and-routes/london-to-amsterdam...

Top tip 2:

Overnight trains is one of the best ways to see Europe as a backpacker on the cheap. The routes are often scenic and the cost is frequently cheaper than anything else since you don't have to pay for accommodations.

Buses are a thing too. And they are not greyhound bad, but definitely not as good as trains.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#106

Post by atlasunshrugged »

As an American who doesn't drive, the experience of trains in the EU compared to the US is just delightful. Yes, there are super cheap flights and I used them often for longer haul trips but the trains were always amazing- I've done trips including Mariupol to Lviv, Budapest to Berlin, and Berlin to Munich and always had a great experience. The Romania-Chisinau line is quite old but part of its charm. I see a lot of people talking about the expense compared to the cheap flights- those are solid and I've used them a lot but after you factor in the waiting time at airports, the unexpected fees in case your bag is a kilo too heavy, the uber to and from a far away airport, etc. it's really not that much of a difference. There is no comparison to trains in the U.S. (e.g. I took one for 3 days from DC to LA; while I enjoyed it, it was a slough with no real food facilities for the passengers not in sleeper cars, old chairs, etc.). I hope there will be more investment, especially in the Baltics.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#107

Post by ghaff »

thebean11 wrote: post #87
monksy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes/No. You can get a California zephyer ticket from Chicago->Seattle for 160 in coach one way. That's a really good deal for 2k+ miles, generous baggage allowance, etc (if you can tolerate that). Sleepers can go 1k+ for the 2.5d. In the winter (what I did) was 600$. I'm also not paying for the efficency. I'm paying for the experience of the hotel, meals, convenence of travel, and the ability to watch out the window.

I remember trying to get from NYC to DC and the prices being higher than flights. I took a bus instead.

Buses on the northeast corridor will certainly be cheaper. Trains (especially Acela) are competing with flying given the huge amount of business travel.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#108

Post by arcticbull »

saddlerustle wrote: post #73
Sharlin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so. The whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off. Building the infrastructure is expensive. Recurring costs are much lower than other modes of land transport, ceteris paribus.

Land transport yes, but the operational cost of long distance trains is quite a bit higher per passenger-mile than planes

Is it though? Or is it the fact that airlines are able to externalize their environmental costs, and are generally both under-taxed and subsidized.

[edit] I'm not saying that rail isn't subsidized - it usually is, and often heavily, to be clear. It's the environmental impact that's the thrust of my claim.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#109

Post by Tushon »

thebean11 wrote: post #87
monksy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes/No. You can get a California zephyer ticket from Chicago->Seattle for 160 in coach one way. That's a really good deal for 2k+ miles, generous baggage allowance, etc (if you can tolerate that). Sleepers can go 1k+ for the 2.5d. In the winter (what I did) was 600$. I'm also not paying for the efficency. I'm paying for the experience of the hotel, meals, convenence of travel, and the ability to watch out the window.

I remember trying to get from NYC to DC and the prices being higher than flights. I took a bus instead.

I've never seen this personally (living in DC area since 2014). At best, flights were on par and you still had to transport from airport to destination vs being likely in the city center (as noted elsewhere in this thread already) and deal with all the other airport time. Bus is definitely cheaper today though with highly variable experience along the way.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#110

Post by kergonath »

Krasnol wrote: post #60
skrbjc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your perspective from someone close to the situation there. I believe many Americans have a picture of a perfect system in Europe, but the truth is likely different. Can you elaborate on the negative aspects of the train system, as you see it?

Deutsche Bahn is a weird construct. It's been separated into many subsidiaries in preparation for a privatisation. It never happened and while subsidiaries like Schenker work quite well and drive profits, others like those responsible for network or train maintenance create only costs and have been neglected. This results in delays in your daily experience with DB. DB's "punctuality" or the lack of it is actually a r…

It was quite similar in France. It was a step before privatisation, true, but the final step would have been the re-nationalisation of the infrastructure and maintenance branch, in a usual “privatise the profits and socialise the losses” that the European Commission seems to so love. Because efficiencies, or something.
Post reply on HN