Live data from Hacker News

Europe is investing heavily in trains

nytimes.com

261–270 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#261

Time is money, so I don't think trains can ever compete with flying for long-distance travel (>1000miles). They could do like the USA does and make flying such a time-consuming pain in the ass that it's rarely worth it for trips under 5 hours.

Trains could easily beat air travel if they could skip the ridiculous security theater. Having to get to the airport 2 hours early is a whole lot of slack to let trains catch up.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source? I'd expect rail to be more expensive from a capital expenditure perspective (laying rail, ties, buying cars, etc) but much cheaper to operate (coefficient of friction is lower between train wheels and rails than with rubber tires and roads, optimal speeding and slowing causing less wear on tracks, less downtime as rail repairs are much simpler than road repairs, etc)

In the UK, Network Rail spends about £150k per track kilometer per year on maintenance and renewal. Track needs constant maintenance through ballast redistribution and compaction to maintain track geometry; the rail itself needs to be ground regularly to maintain its shape; points systems need to be maintained, as well as signaling systems, earthworks and embankments, even vegetation. Maintenance costs for major road…

You need to divide maintenance by the actual usage of the infrastructure. Railway can handle much larger usage of the infrastructure per km than a motorway can. You may need 4 motorway lanes to support the usage of a single train track in order to handle the same capacity. Per capita, rail costs tend to be a lot lower as rail can handle much more than 2x motorway throughput.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#263
I'd like to see trains and planes integrated to a greater extent. Many of the "hub to spoke" connections could be replaced by trains, that could actually arrive quicker than a plane. And trains are less affected by weather.

They could even check you into your flight while you're on the train.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#264

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…

> I hope there will be more investment, especially in the Baltics. There is an ongoing development, Rail Baltica, European gauge, being built to join Helsinki through the Baltic states, to Poland, which will link up with Germany. The end date has slipped (it was supposed to be in 2024, now it's pushed to 2026) but construction is already ongoing, and it looks quite promising.

Yes, I was thinking specifically about this. I was working for the Estonian gov a while back and thought it would be great for this to be pushed forward; unfortunately the mistiming probably would have killed that new mall that was built around one of the stations if covid didn't. But maybe they'll get that and the tunnel to Helsinki done at the same time :)

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well. In Germany the middle class flies or drives, the lower class takes the bus and the upper-upper-middle class drives teslas or takes ICEs

So who takes the train?

I think: ICE = Inter-City Express (train)

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to say. Trains have been chronically underfunded in the US for so long that I don't think the US even knows what decent train infrastructure is like. Amtrak hasn't had a guaranteed budget until the recent infrastructure bill passed and was originally designed to just be a publicly-funded holding company to sell off its rolling stock and lines.

We don't really want the trains (because of the way the US developed its cities). Let me give an example. In order to add a few more daily routes from Chicago to Milwaukee on Amtrak, a freight train would have to hold on a holding line for several hours in residential areas to let the Amtrak through. The increase in ridership, not just riders shifting their schedules, would have been at most a few hundred. So in orde…

This to me just argues for separate lines for passenger vs freight trains.

Especially if we are talking about installing high speed lines anyways, doesn't make sense to turn a freight line into a high speed line and then share it (other than the fact that you wouldn't need to eminent domain as much).

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#267
> Last year, SNCF relaunched overnight services between Paris and Nice, with tickets starting as low as 19 euros, about $21, for a midweek low-season ticket. That compares with 31 euros, not including baggage fees or the cost of airport transfers, for a short flight on EasyJet

These prices are inconceivable in the US, where competition in air travel has essentially been eliminated.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying in Spain and many parts of Europe is insanely and artificially cheap. I've seen bus passes more expensive, and the bus passes were the price I expected.

Yes. This is not sustainable.

Why?

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#269

It seems likely that hydrogen will replace diesel in trains. Companies like Alstom[1], PESA[2] and Talgo[3] are developing hydrogen trains. Germany has already started deploying them on a small scale[4], while Poland is planning to[5]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Coradia_LINT#iLint [2] - https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/poland-pesa-presented-a-hydr... [3] - https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/talgo-to-launch-…

Bad idea in mi opinion, this is a solved problem, overhead wires, the amount of energy lost between the converting water into hydrogen and then back into water to get electricity can be as high as 70%, it's just a bad idea when you can use that energy directly using wire to get the same job done

Overhead wires would involve a significant infrastructure investment. Not too much of an issue with more densely populated areas like Europe - and countries like France and Japan already do use overhead wires - but it is not cost competitive in sparse locations like much of North America.

It's true that it's contingent on a carbon-free source of hydrogen. But if something like thermochemical hydrogen production through nuclear [1] or solar takes off, hydrogen fuel represents an energy-dense fuel that could be used in lieu of fossil fuels in many applications.

1. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc57inf-2-att1_e...

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#270
post #26

Here in Germany, for as long as I can remember, the government praises itself every year for investing as much in rail as never before. I have not noticed the service quality to change for the better over the last 15 years. The ever-rising investments seem to be only enough to keep the status quo of the crumbling infrastructure.

All the Germans I've met like to complain about the quality of Deutsche Bahn. But it is important to keep in mind that from the perspective of an American, Deutsche Bahn is a miracle.
Post reply on HN