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

81–90 of 654 posts

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#81

Post by room271 »

lrem wrote: post #37
mywittyname wrote: post #17

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.

It _really_ depends on the distances and sizes of the cities you're going to. Paris-London train is about 3 hours, which is likely less than you'll spend on getting to+from an airport. Paris-Berlin on the other hand is miserable, unless you love trains.

2hrs 16 min is the usual time for London to Paris. So much quicker and nicer than flying all round really.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#82

Post by inglor_cz »

mywittyname wrote: post #17

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.

Taking a train from Hamburg to, say, Malaga, would be pretty uncomfortable. The distance is too big and you would have to switch trains several times, with a risk of one train running late and missing the next connection.

But for distances up to 4-5 hours by train, especially if the connection is direct, it is better to take the train. While the flight time may be much shorter, the need to get to/from the airport (which tend to be far away from the city itself, if only because of noise issues) and to be at the airport 2 hours before departure will consume a lot of time.

Train stations, OTOH, are usually located fairly close to the city center, if not squarely in it, for historical reasons (most important railway links were built prior to 1870, when the cities were much smaller than today).

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#83

Post by mynameisash »

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…

> I mean, compared to the US, it’s a delight! For a similar city-to-city distance (Portland to Seattle), I’d love a 90min transit mode, especially if it was relatively cheap.

Fully agree. Years ago, I took Amtrak from Minnesota to Seattle, and it was 36 hours. I enjoyed most everything about it except that it took. So. Long. I rarely drive down to Portland, but if we had a ~1.5hr train, I'd probably do it several times a year. Same for Seattle to BC.

I may have a rose-colored perspective of Europe's rail, but I also really enjoy Paris Caen or Versailles. My kids loved the night train from Paris to Venice, too. And having just flown from the Midwest to Seattle with a layover, I would GLADLY trade that ~11 hour travel day (from arrival at the airport to getting picked up at SeaTac) for an ~18 hour cross-country TGV. It'll never happen, but I can dream.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#84

Post by rootusrootus »

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…

> Too expensive for the route

That's the one that surprised me the most. I shouldn't have been surprised, I suppose, given that even Amtrak is quite expensive compared to air travel, but I was a little shocked at just how expensive trains in Europe can be. Especially the good ones.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#85

Post by larschdk »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #44

I feel that when the total cost of rail is taken into account, there are only a few very high density areas or high traffic routes where they make sense. I was recently reading about how large stretches of China's bullet train system cost tens of billions of dollars, and ongoing expenditure of billions more, and have hardly enough traffic to justify their maintenance, let alone their construction costs. There are som…

Agree. Trains make perfect sense in metro areas like London, Berlin, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. Everywhere else, they are a complete waste of money, are difficult to run on a regular schedule, service only narrow corridors, are inconvenient to get to/from for daily commutes and increase total commute time 2+ times. To increase use of public transport, we need to increase convenience, not reduce cost.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#86

Post by saddlerustle »

simonsarris wrote: post #10
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.

This is mentioned near the end of the article but the reason those short domestic flights are so cheap in Europe is that commercial kerosene is currently tax exempt in every single EU member state. Jet fuel is cheaper per gallon in the EU than it is in the USA! (or was, before the current war) In typically tax-happy Europe this always struck me as odd, agree it is sad when you find out an airplane ticket is cheaper t…

Yes, but note usually around 30% of the ticket price of a european short-haul flight is already other taxes. This is compared to train tickets that include a 30%+ subsidy

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#87

Post by thebean11 »

monksy wrote: post #70
thebean11 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wrap my head around how expensive Amtrak is, given that it's so heavily subsidized by the government.

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.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#88

Post by jsinai »

Barrin92 wrote: post #22
uuyi wrote: post #3

Good on you Europe. Here in the UK we are heavily investing in rail replacement busses at the moment.

Bus networks are a pretty decent solution as well. Rail is very expensive and there's not that many regions where you can operate it economically. In particular with electrical busses becoming better you can shift a lot of traffic away from personal vehicles on existing infrastructure.

fyi GP’s post is sarcasm. In UK “rail replacement bus” means the train route is cancelled and there’s a replacement bus instead.

Bus networks can work over small high density areas. Johannesburg has been building a bus network with exclusive lanes for years, but it’s designed to work in conjunction with its part complete metro. Cambridge, UK, has limited “busways” which connect the local villages. However, over large distances, I fail to see how buses can be more efficient. A single train can move hundreds of people over hundreds of kilometres, at much higher speeds than a bus, and with very little pollution.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#89

Post by melenaboija »

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…

> Frequent delays bigger than 10min

Im an European having spent few years in US and also used to complain about this, until I learnt what delays mean in domestic US flights.

Not unusual to be few hours and already spent a couple of nights at the airport.

Re: Europe is investing heavily in trains

#90

Post by detritus »

namdnay wrote: post #42
fredoliveira wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is a European country. Not in the EU anymore, but you folks didn't move continents ;-)

To be pedantic, they never were on the continent :) Apart from Gibraltar I guess

*stares at continental shelf depth map around the UK described on old European map on wall
Post reply on HN