Hacker News Reader

Comment by timwaagh | Hacker News Reader

I don't think they will be able to make it work. It's becoming ever more obvious that trains are monopolistic, require extensive infrastructure et cetera. On top of that they are slow, people just don't have the time to waste it on trains. I don't think we should be going backwards in time towards slow sleeper trains (where only perhaps an experienced Russian will catch a bit of shut eye). We should be moving forward towards high speed train moving at 500 or hyperloops that stand a chance versus a plane. Or just cleaning up the airplane space through more extensive use of biofuels, hydrogen and electric (for distances smaller than 300km).

View on HN

Conventional HSR is generally feasible up to about 1000km distance. The largest city in EU + UK/Switzerland (Paris) is within about 1000km of 13 of the next 19 largest cities (and connects 16 of the next 20 largest!), with Budapest, Katowice, Warsaw, Athens, Naples, and Lisbon all much further than 1000km. And Paris isn't exactly centrally situated.

HSR routes that connect all of the major cities in Europe together is a completely feasible proposition, although obviously the extremities of that route aren't going to be viable for thru traffic. Most of the population of Europe happens to live in a relatively compact region, and so most of the intercity traffic could easily be captured by a conventional HSR.

1000 kilometer in a 100km/h average German ICE (average on the trip I took including stops in between) is ten hours. Plane flying 900 can do it in one and a half. Even if it's the ideal center center trip and allowing for two hours of boarding and an hour to and from the airport, flying is nearly twice as fast. Now if it were to be the much faster French Thalys they can average 150 (including stops) on the route I did but it's still an hour difference. I'd say French Thalys is competitive up to 700km for direct center center trips. German style HSR is interesting only as an alternative to a car.

100km/h is very slow. China is running 350km/h lines all day every day. So with proper investment that train ride is more like 2 hours 40 minutes.

Which, per your numbers, is nearly twice as fast as the plane.

IMO we're thinking too small. Properly fast trains are a significant QOL improvement.

Air travel also requires extensive infrastructure, only at airports.

Are these train plans outlined not bullet trains?

As the article says it's too expensive to do much of that. Maybe a little will be done, but those will just be slightly faster trains running at 200 kph, not like a bullet train. The EU has little money and the nationals invest mostly in national infra.

Often more than 200kph. This website has a speed option in the menu, on the currently operating lines. HS2 for instance will have initial-use/design speeds of 3/400kph.

Don't worry. Europe is great at making monopoly, backwardness and technological regress "work"....

I know it's not so easy here policy wise. The general debate is a discussion on how to shoot ourselves in the foot with the most elan. But then you look at other places. And there maybe they are still growing and people have the right priorities. But that might be because these places are mostly just dirty and poor and everywhere is filled with cheaply built appartment blocks. At least there's something to look at here on your lazy Sunday afternoon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com