Live data from Hacker News

Europe is investing heavily in trains

nytimes.com

561–570 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#561
post #490
post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find a ticket from Madrid to Paris taking 10.5 hours for 226 EUR.

And you can find round trip tickets Madrid-Paris on RyanAir for 50 eur, and for 100 eur on regular airlines. In my comment I took 140 eur as typical price of airfare. Typical cost of rail is something closer to 250 eur. This also ignores the speed: if the prices were the other way around, with airfare twice as expensive as rail, I expect most people would still take the plane.

> Madrid-Paris on RyanAir for 50 eur, and for 100 eur on regular airlines

Airlines also typically charge for luggage, RyanAir charge extra for anything they can think of, including choosing a seat, and people booking at shorter notice subsidise those who book in advance. The cost difference for most passengers is probably smaller.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#562
post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? It's not that obvious to me at least. I suspect that it's more like function of distance, speed, landscape. Airports also tend to be at the middle of nowhere, IMHO you need to incorporate the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to get somewhere from that nowhere.

Well, there are lots of other factors, but the general reasoning holds. If you have ten airports, you have 10 * (10 + 1) / 2 = 55 airlines. If you have 10 train stations, you have only as many rail lines as you're willing to build, which means countries end up spending most of the effort and money on lines connecting major city centers. Also, if you have an international airport, you're connected to every capital cit…

Sure, there are advantages but advantages are not one sided. It's not like choosing between Netflix plans where you pay 9.99$ for 2 screen and HD streaming and you can upgrade to 14.99$ package with 4 screens and UHD streaming. It's more like choosing between Netflix and Amazon Prime. You might get fewer options to watch but you also get one day delivery and some really nice content too. Often, you end up having both.

Also, trains can switch lines, disconnect, run on the same line back to back etc.

Just look at the Europe railways map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_...

I suspect, with some standardisation and automation, you can end up having very good point-to-point travel options by train. Even better than airlines maybe. The current inefficiencies could be due to poor management and weak integrations. Can you imagine how great could be to have Europe and Asia wide rail network where automated carriages and rail switching systems coordinate to achieve travel from any train station to any train station?

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the UK is culturally very similar to the rest of Europe (much more similar then we are to the US, although there is some influence there). This fact is just obscured by the language barrier.

What language barrier? English is a Germanic language with a lot of French vocabulary. Close to Dutch. It isn’t like Basque or Hungarian.

Mostly British people's poor education in languages. It's not that other European languages would be hard for us to learn, it's that most people in the UK de facto don't learn another language to a useful level (presumably because English is so widely spoken that we can get away without doing so). Which makes it very difficult for most of us to engage with European culture, media, etc even though it's often quite similar to our own and I suspect would otherwise interest us.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#564

Trains are great for no more than 600km range trips. I live in Spain, and it's great to get into the train without doing all the procedures you do with a plane. I arrive to the station 10 mins before departure and I never had troubles. With airplanes I need to be there 1 hour before. Then you spend another 30 mins getting into the plane, following the instructions for just only 1h trip. The same trip Barcelona -> Mad…

The problem at least in parts of Europe is that trains are not always competitive in terms of pricing, especially when it comes to fast connections. Airplane tickets are sometimes just stupidly cheap.

Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues.

Nevertheless, I agree that it's more relaxed to go by train most of the time (unless it's super crowded) and I'll sometimes pay extra for that comfort.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#565
post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would that be? A typical 110 ton capacity freight train car weighs 33 tons unloaded. It has no problems staying on the tracks. I'm guessing at the numbers here but just to illustrate my point: If an empty bus weights let's say 10 tonnes, and an empty train 33 tons. And the load of the passengers around 7 tonnes. So in total you'd transport 40 tonnes of train as opposed to 17 tonnes of bus. Then obviously for th…

The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is much, much lower than rubber tyres on an asphalt road. From [1], the only comparable figures are the American train and the American bus. The bus is about half as efficient as the train. There are similar figures further down the page ("German environmental costs") -- 0.25MJ/passenger-km for long distance rail, 0.85MJ/pkm for regional rail, 1.14MJ/pkm for bus s…

> The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is much, much lower than rubber tyres on an asphalt road.

Exactly, and you need rolling resistance for traction. The heavier the load, the lower resistance you need, and vice versa, because the weight of the load increases resistance. Which is why you don't ship hay on trains, and don't ship iron on trucks.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#566

Trains are great for no more than 600km range trips. I live in Spain, and it's great to get into the train without doing all the procedures you do with a plane. I arrive to the station 10 mins before departure and I never had troubles. With airplanes I need to be there 1 hour before. Then you spend another 30 mins getting into the plane, following the instructions for just only 1h trip. The same trip Barcelona -> Mad…

I completely agree, except I think trains have a much higher competitive range, possibly up to 1,000 km . With a plane 1,000 km trip including all things you mention like arriving at the airport in advance, boarding, finding your way back to the city center, etc. would come easily to 4-5 hours when you calculate it door-to-door. This could be comparable to a train at 200-250 km/h. Also, trains tend to be more punctua…

I agree here, some lines and trains in Europe go up to 300 kmh (last one I've tried was actually in Spain, on par with French TGV).

Plus airports have this pesky habit of losing all your luggage, even on fairly trivial flights. Recently my journey was Geneva -> Barcelona -> Seville, and they lost my big luggage with complete paraglider (4000+ euro) and other stuff (cca 1000 euro). For a week, they couldn't even locate it, had to buy tons of stuff and rent basic paraglider from school and I started saying goodbye to all equipment. No real compensation for anything. Then it just showed up in place I told them to deliver to, not even apology (vueling airlines, but I blame airports for this more than airline).

That's just one sample out of quite a few on how to ruin your dream vacation by flying.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#567

Trains are great for no more than 600km range trips. I live in Spain, and it's great to get into the train without doing all the procedures you do with a plane. I arrive to the station 10 mins before departure and I never had troubles. With airplanes I need to be there 1 hour before. Then you spend another 30 mins getting into the plane, following the instructions for just only 1h trip. The same trip Barcelona -> Mad…

The problem at least in parts of Europe is that trains are not always competitive in terms of pricing, especially when it comes to fast connections. Airplane tickets are sometimes just stupidly cheap. Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues. Nevertheless, I agree that it's more relaxed to go by train most of the time (unless it's super crowded) and I'll sometimes pay extra for that comfort.

> Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues.

Wait, what? I am really surprised to read this.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#568

Trains are great for no more than 600km range trips. I live in Spain, and it's great to get into the train without doing all the procedures you do with a plane. I arrive to the station 10 mins before departure and I never had troubles. With airplanes I need to be there 1 hour before. Then you spend another 30 mins getting into the plane, following the instructions for just only 1h trip. The same trip Barcelona -> Mad…

The problem at least in parts of Europe is that trains are not always competitive in terms of pricing, especially when it comes to fast connections. Airplane tickets are sometimes just stupidly cheap. Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues. Nevertheless, I agree that it's more relaxed to go by train most of the time (unless it's super crowded) and I'll sometimes pay extra for that comfort.

> Also, in Germany trains are very often late or have other issues.

Yeah, try to travel by train in Germany during any of the christian holidays, and you'd think you're in india by how overcrowded and chaotic it is.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#569
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would it make Madrid - Paris train route competitive? No, not at all. Just to provide some data points: Madrid-Paris by train takes about 17-20 hours and costs between 261 and 350 Euros. By plane, it takes about two and a half hours and costs (in your example) around 170 Euros. Also take into account that for many international travellers, the time saved aspect is more relevant than the money saved aspect, as lifet…

Sleeper trains change the calculus a little, because you can sleep as you travel. While they're a foreign concept to many people, they are reasonably popular in Europe — not just among railfans — and in many parts of Asia are a very typical mode of transport. Going to sleep in one city centre and waking up in another is often far more convenient than the air travel alternative, especially for the many cities where th…

If we want the comparison to be completely fair, you need to take into account that hardly anyone lives in a major train station (or directly adjacent to one) and wants to travel to another major train station (or directly adjacent to one). More often than not, just getting to Paris is only a leg, then you need to get to Aix-en-Belle-Fountaine (fictional place, don't look it up), some 50 km away from Paris. Once you have that realisation, the same disadvantages exists for trains that you propose to take into account for planes.

> - Compare to a rail ticket for a specific train at a specific time, which is usually cheaper. The more expensive rail tickets often give you the option of multiple trains on a given day, which is a level of flexibility no air ticket gives you.

Virtually any airline outside of the no-frills-Ryanair sector happily sells you flexible tickets (often for price).

> If we want to really make it a fair comparison you should also probably compare the price to the business class flight ticket, considering that even the lowest class of train ticket gives you a comparable level of comfort to a typical intra-Europe business class airplane seat.

You must not have had the DB ICE4 experience. I'd rather jump off an office building than to sit in one of their second-class cars ever again. They are extremely space-constrained, and now they build the window walls slightly round (and rounder so than e.g. mid-range aircraft cabins), so you sit in there with an arm folded to the inside, like Ötzi. On my ride back, I shredded the already-paid ticket and bought a new one for First Class, which was only slightly better. No European airline even comes close to that awfulness (and yes, I've had non-Business Ryanair experiences).

Planes may be more uncomfortable, but at least they don't make you sit down for half a day.

> But for many people, having fewer steps in the journey

Are you aware how often you have to switch trains if you are doing point-to-point travel? Even within Germany, I have 4 switchovers between where I live and Berlin (that is, if I am lucky). With the plane? Sit down, stand up, Berlin.

> being able to comfortably work

Unless you travel First Class AND get a seat with a table AND somehow are able to work without internet, I don't see how that argument (which comes up every once in a while) works out for you. YMMV, depending on which country you are in.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you? Seems that connection does not run regularly either when it comes to time (I checked Trainline and on another date there actually was a connection much like that) or for that pricepoint. 10.5 hours is still longer than 2.5 (or maybe - if you include security checkpoint time - 3.5 hours) by plane.

I think you're underestimating the travel to/from the airport. Madrid city centre to airport takes 45 minutes, you should be at the airport at least 2 hours prior to the departure, Paris airport to city centre takes another hour. Even if you're a seasoned traveller who pushes it and come to the airport just one hour prior to departure, you should still count with at least 3h overhead.

Point is: You don't often need to travel to the city center, and choosing that as fictional final destination is giving trains an unfair advantage. Often you need to somewhere NEAR Paris.

Also, and this may be related to the airports I fly out of, but I have hardly ever had planned more than an hour of time from entering an airport terminal to the gate. In TXL (sadly closed now for the much inferior BER), I averaged 25 minutes. At Stuttgart, I once managed to get there in 20. It all comes down to being prepared for security, knowing which security controls are often underused and picking up the right departure times. rel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnNyUGhXTsw

Post reply on HN