Chinese style high-speed rail network needed for Europe

[Austriantrain]

Getting rid of the gaps in HSR lines that cause the network to be disjointed. Paris to Marseille is over and done with in 3 hours, Hamburg to Stuttgart takes 5 hours and that needs to improve.

Well, take out your crayon and draw.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Alon Levy already did.

Modeling High-Speed Rail for Germany

I’ve used a ridership model to construct a proposal for American high-speed rail – but what about the country I live in? There’s an election this year and one of the contested iss…

pedestrianobservations.com

 

[Austriantrain]

Alon Levy already did.

Modeling High-Speed Rail for Germany

I’ve used a ridership model to construct a proposal for American high-speed rail – but what about the country I live in? There’s an election this year and one of the contested iss…

pedestrianobservations.com

Thank you for the Link. Ist is extremely interesting in that it respects the polycentric nature of the country and the nature of its Takt timetable.

Some of the proposed HSL, however, seem very unrealistic to me, and their usefulness doubtful (eg the proposed Munich - Linz/Austria line).

 

[HSTEd]

Presumably a Chinese style network means one cheaply built on viaducts by simply liquidating anyone who objects to the construction?

 

[philosopher]

While the HSR network the Chinese has built is impressive, to me there are two big problems with their high speed network. One, from what I understand most of their stations are on the edges of cities. Two they have quite a lot of security theatre at stations such as luggage and walk through scanners. In effect two of the big disadvantages with air travel have been replicated on their HSR network.

Both these aspects of HSR should in my view not replicated in Europe. Eurostar and Spain does unfortunately have the security theatre although most European HSR networks do generally link city centres to city centres.

 

[JonasB]

Thank you for the Link. Ist is extremely interesting in that it respects the polycentric nature of the country and the nature of its Takt timetable.

Some of the proposed HSL, however, seem very unrealistic to me, and their usefulness doubtful (eg the proposed Munich - Linz/Austria line).

A Munich-Linz(-Vienna) line seems pretty useful to me, but it makes more sense in my opinion for it to take the detour via Salzburg.

But it was an interesting map, and seems like a good plan. Paris to Berlin in less than 5 hours has potential for a lot of passengers.

 

[johnnychips]

I do seem to remember having to put luggage through a scanner on the Shanghai Metro - or it may have been Beijing. Somebody told me it was an artificial job creation scheme, similar to ex French army veterans being given jobs as lock-keepers on canals with no boats. However, I may be talking rubbish, so perhaps someone who has visited China recently could confirm or negate.

 

[Austriantrain]

A Munich-Linz(-Vienna) line seems pretty useful to me, but it makes more sense in my opinion for it to take the detour via Salzburg.

That is exactly what I mean. Not going via Salzburg does nothing for inner-Austrian journey, and that is where the majority of the demand is.

Anyway, such a line is not on the cards. We can expect about 20 minutes journey time saving sometimes in the future, 15 from the upgrade of the Salzburg- Mühldorf - München line, another 5 from a new tunnel to the East of Salzburg. And there is talk about electrifying the Neumarkt - Simbach - Mühldorf line, which could lead to direkt Wien - München trains being faster than via Salzburg. Something like 3h30 Vienna - Munich is realistic within the next 10 years; beyond that, we are stuck.*

*At least, no current plans within Austria. However, the massive new line program currently running (Semmering base tunnel, Koralm railway, Brenner base tunnel) will be finished towards the end of the decade. Knowing Austria, something else will replace it; after all, the tunneling industry needs something to do…. So there might well be a new program after the current one. And new HSL in Austria nowadays means tunnels above all.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Well, take out your crayon and draw.

Eat your words. A purpose built system capable of at least 320kph. And it's better than what's already there.

I also don't get your hang up over me criticising Germany's HSR "network", when it looks like this. Just random, unexplainable gaps.

 

[dm1]

See, that's the difference between crayonistaing and actual transport planning.

The latter has at least some sense of reality to it.

The German high speed network (and high speed rail in Europe in general) looks the way it does for a reason. It's network topology is also not meant to look pretty, but rather to serve actual demand.

Yes, there are discussions to be had about how Europe's high speed network can be developed, but that discussion has to be based on reality and take local factors into account. Drawing straight lines on a map and saying "that'll do the trick" without any consideration of what those straight lines actually pass through is completely pointless.

In any case, the main development plan for German rail at the moment is the Deutschland-Takt, and while some higher speed lines and upgrades will be built, pure speed is less important than link times and connecting nodes in such a timetable. That is also the reason why Switzerland has no lines above 300km/h and likely never will - at least within our lifetime.

 

[Austriantrain]

See, that's the difference between crayonistaing and actual transport planning.

The latter has at least some sense of reality to it.

The German high speed network (and high speed rail in Europe in general) looks the way it does for a reason. It's network topology is also not meant to look pretty, but rather to serve actual demand.

Yes, there are discussions to be had about how Europe's high speed network can be developed, but that discussion has to be based on reality and take local factors into account. Drawing straight lines on a map and saying "that'll do the trick" without any consideration of what those straight lines actually pass through is completely pointless.

In any case, the main development plan for German rail at the moment is the Deutschland-Takt, and while some higher speed lines and upgrades will be built, pure speed is less important than link times and connecting nodes in such a timetable. That is also the reason why Switzerland has no lines above 300km/h and likely never will - at least within our lifetime.

There is really nothing to add to this.
Thank you!

 

[miklcct]

See, that's the difference between crayonistaing and actual transport planning.

The latter has at least some sense of reality to it.

The German high speed network (and high speed rail in Europe in general) looks the way it does for a reason. It's network topology is also not meant to look pretty, but rather to serve actual demand.

Yes, there are discussions to be had about how Europe's high speed network can be developed, but that discussion has to be based on reality and take local factors into account. Drawing straight lines on a map and saying "that'll do the trick" without any consideration of what those straight lines actually pass through is completely pointless.

In any case, the main development plan for German rail at the moment is the Deutschland-Takt, and while some higher speed lines and upgrades will be built, pure speed is less important than link times and connecting nodes in such a timetable. That is also the reason why Switzerland has no lines above 300km/h and likely never will - at least within our lifetime.

If there are two cities where the demand between themselves already warrant a high speed rail alone without any feeder traffic (e.g. two international finance centres with 10 million population each), pure speed will be more important than link times.

Link times are only important in a regional network (comparable to the C-trains in China which runs at mainly 140-200 km/h) within about 500 km where point-to-point traffic itself isn't significant to sustain a dedicated high speed rail.

 

[JonasB]

That is exactly what I mean. Not going via Salzburg does nothing for inner-Austrian journey, and that is where the majority of the demand is.

Anyway, such a line is not on the cards. We can expect about 20 minutes journey time saving sometimes in the future, 15 from the upgrade of the Salzburg- Mühldorf - München line, another 5 from a new tunnel to the East of Salzburg. And there is talk about electrifying the Neumarkt - Simbach - Mühldorf line, which could lead to direkt Wien - München trains being faster than via Salzburg. Something like 3h30 Vienna - Munich is realistic within the next 10 years; beyond that, we are stuck.*

And that is sort of the problem with the European rail network, a bit too much focus on the domestic market. München-Wien via Salzburg and Linz is less than 400 km so a good high speed train should be able to do it in less than 2 hours. I realize that is not likely to happen, but a travel time closer to 3 h instead of the 4 hours it takes today does not seem impossible.

 

[gingerheid]

Like their belt and road investments worldwide, rendered without competition to Chinese contractors and built using Chinese labourers?

And with a safety record that is completely acceptable by home standards, but which would be less at home in Europe?

 

[Austriantrain]

And that is sort of the problem with the European rail network, a bit too much focus on the domestic market.

I don’t agree. The domestic market is where the majority of demand is, and the greatest potential to shift from road and (in larger countries) air to rail. Rail invest must therefore prioritize domestic markets (of course, it’s also where taxpayers‘ money, with which all this is paid, comes from), which is not to say that international traffic should be forgotten about. But in most cases, major HSL investments for international travel alone will not be justifiable. We really don’t need more „ruins“ like Perpignan - Figueiras. International rail travel within Europe is usually vastly better in regions which do not place such a weight on HS travel.

 

[LOL The Irony]

See, that's the difference between crayonistaing and actual transport planning.

Our friend wanted some crayonistaing, they got some. Plus, doesn't the plan by Mr Neumann of Siemens call for dedicated, transcontinental high speed lines?

The German high speed network (and high speed rail in Europe in general) looks the way it does for a reason. It's network topology is also not meant to look pretty, but rather to serve actual demand.

It's not about looking pretty, it's about a network with nonsensical gaps in it, such as south of Ingolstadt and between Augsberg & Stuttgart. These really need filling in if Germany is to have a proper network.

 

[Austriantrain]

It's not about looking pretty, it's about a network with nonsensical gaps in it, such as south of Ingolstadt and between Augsberg & Stuttgart. These really need filling in if Germany is to have a proper network.

You are aware that Ulm - Stuttgart HSL is currently being built and Augsburg - Ulm planned?

Other than you, no one else has a magic wand (and a magic Bitcoin trove) to build *and* finance everything at once. As the UK are currently finding out with HS2 and NPR…

Honestly, your criticism is not really worth bothering with.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Other than you, no one else has a magic wand (and a magic Bitcoin trove) to build *and* finance everything at once. As the UK are currently finding out with HS2 and NPR…

Things cost money? Really? Never...

Honestly, your criticism is not really worth bothering with.

Neither are you. All of your counters have been a waste of time.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Having found this article about a DB/Lufthansa joint venture, it seems there will be a fast "super-sprinter" DB network from December 2021.
Journey times of less than 4 hours are promised from Köln to Hamburg, Berlin and München, with other services following linking the main German airports into the network.
There will be through airline ticketing, and the services will be branded Lufthansa Express.
DB to launch Lufthansa SuperSprinters | News | Railway Gazette International

It's not entirely clear if the services will call at city centre stations on departure, or just airport stations (will be a problem at Muenchen!).

The expansion will see the launch of SuperSprinter services on three routes.
Two limited-stop trains each way per day will link Düsseldorf, Köln-Deutz, Frankfurt Airport, Nürnberg and München, offering a journey time of 2 h from the airport to Nürnberg and 3 h to München, 30 min faster than DB’s regular-interval ICE services, and ‘precisely matching the departure and arrival times of the Lufthansa hub’.
A daily SuperSprinter will connect Hamburg to Frankfurt Airport in 3 h 45 min via Hannover and Frankfurt Hbf, and there will be three non-stop Köln – Berlin trains each way per day.

Anyway, it shows that DB are trying to maximise use of their HS network, and are trying to reduce journey times.
Presumably they have spare ICE resources for the new services.

 

[JonasB]

Presumably they have spare ICE resources for the new services.

If I'm not mistaken they still have ICEs on order.

 

[JonasB]

I don’t agree. The domestic market is where the majority of demand is, and the greatest potential to shift from road and (in larger countries) air to rail. Rail invest must therefore prioritize domestic markets (of course, it’s also where taxpayers‘ money, with which all this is paid, comes from), which is not to say that international traffic should be forgotten about. But in most cases, major HSL investments for international travel alone will not be justifiable. We really don’t need more „ruins“ like Perpignan - Figueiras. International rail travel within Europe is usually vastly better in regions which do not place such a weight on HS travel.

That high speed line should really have more trains, but is that due to the high speed line or SNCF's attitude to competition? There are other cross border HSLs that at least pre-covid saw a lot of trains.

 

[Austriantrain]

That high speed line should really have more trains, but is that due to the high speed line or SNCF's attitude to competition? There are other cross border HSLs that at least pre-covid saw a lot of trains.

There are actually not that many examples, and almost all in the Northern France-Benelux region, which is extremely densely populated and has historically been extremely well integrated cross-border.

And even there, only the Belgians have really built HSL which primarily serve a cross-border purpose (HSL Brussels - Lille, Liege - Aachen).*

Maybe you got me wrong, though. I am absolutely not against international HSL. I just think that
1. in most cases, you need at least a dual-purpose and domestic demand as well to justify the huge expense building it;
2. the idea that the main aim is to transfer journeys like London - Barcelona or Paris - Berlin from air to rail is wrong. It is never going to happen; and this is not where the major climate benefit will be. Focus on those journeys where a change of mode is more realistic- and these are also the kind of journey where a major impact climate-wise is to be expected because the number of journeys made is so much higher (and a large number of those journeys will be domestic).

*the only other country that has done something comparable is Switzerland - not HSL, but they routinely stump up their own money to improve rail links in neighboring countries (eg München - Lindau, Bourg-en-Bresse - Bellegarde). They have a very pragmatic idea of their own interests; in most countries politics will stand in the way („why pay for someone else?“).

 

[SHD]

That high speed line should really have more trains, but is that due to the high speed line or SNCF's attitude to competition? There are other cross border HSLs that at least pre-covid saw a lot of trains.

The Perpignan-Barcelona HSL was not built under SNCF Réseau’s responsibility, FWIW.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And even there, only the Belgians have really built HSL which primarily serve a cross-border purpose (HSL Brussels - Lille, Liege - Aachen).*

Plus Antwerp-Rotterdam with the Dutch.
Munich-Innsbruck-Verona will be a pretty much continuous HSL route in a decade or so.
Looks like there is momentum for Lyon-Turin again.
Then there's Rail Baltica, assuming it gets built, but no planned HSL to the west/Berlin.
Bordeaux-Burgos is edging forward too, on both sides of the Pyrenees.

 

[Austriantrain]

Plus Antwerp-Rotterdam with the Dutch.

Which is a route that also has a domestic purpose, which was my point.

Munich-Innsbruck-Verona will be a pretty much continuous HSL route in a decade or so.

It won’t. It will be a high-capacity route with maximum speeds of 200-250 km/h. And the primary reason to build it is freight; the primary reason to build it as a through higher-speed (not high-Speed!) line is the local opposition to additional tracks on the surface.

I wasn’t arguing against new cross-border infrastructure per se, just against the fallacy that distant pairs of big cities will provide a rationale for building continuous HSL lines between them and against the second fallacy that international travel is so much more important than domestic one. That is very rarely the case.

 

[DanielB]

Which is a route that also has a domestic purpose, which was my point.

The Breda - Noorderkempen section doesn't really serve any domestic purpose, that had been entirely built for international use. Same would apply to the section south of Zevenbergschenhoek in The Netherlands which is quite a lenghty part of the line not used for domestic purposes.

Plus Antwerp-Rotterdam with the Dutch.

Actually a Dutch project by the way, only in cooperation with the Belgians for the part between the border and Antwerp.

And I doubt if it had been build for domestic use only, especially the southern section. Even on the northern section most time is gained due to the straight route and not by it being an high speed route.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Maybe you got me wrong, though. I am absolutely not against international HSL. I just think that
1. in most cases, you need at least a dual-purpose and domestic demand as well to justify the huge expense building it;
2. the idea that the main aim is to transfer journeys like London - Barcelona or Paris - Berlin from air to rail is wrong. It is never going to happen ....

Frankly, it has to happen if our continent (and the world in general) is going to remain a pleasantly liveable place for our species. I really don't understand how so many people seem not to have clicked yet that the ecological state we've got ourslves into is deadly serious, and requires more than tinkering round the edges. Major changes in transport - such as most planes and private cars being retired asap, and accepting we have to move around more slowly - are a crucial part of the changes needed.

 

[Acfb]

Europe isn't too bad at rail integration with some major airports (CDG/FRA/AMS although Munich is still lacking) considering that Japan for example doesn't have any direct Shinkansen links to its major airports (it takes 50 minutes to get from Kansai airport to Shin Osaka for example). Although once Crossrail and HS2 is in operation Heathrow will become more comparable to Tokyo Haneda airport in terms of transport connections.

I'm still very surprised that there are some very short flights with viable rail alternatives that exist in Europe where there are rail alternatives that only take 1.5 hours such as FRA-STR, FRA-DUS and AMS-BRU. Lufthansa only just got rid of their extremely short Munich to Nuremberg flight but they are keeping their Frankfurt-Nuremberg flight for connections.

The aim should be to build HS2 in full and then eliminate all domestic flights to London airports within England (and improve rail connections to Devon/Cornwall as well). I would keep some non-London domestic flights such as Bristol-Newcastle, Teesside-Newquay and maybe even Manchester-Southampton for regional connectivity (last one is debatable though).

 

[dm1]

Slightly off-topic, but one of the main barriers to more domestic or short-distance flights being eliminated is the regulatory side of things, in particular when things go wrong.

In particular, if you can ensure that connections between trains and flights are guaranteed (i.e. If the train is delayed, its treated the same as a delayed connecting flight and the airline puts you on the next flight and/or pays compensation as necessary and vice versa ), then longer train journeys to a larger airport to catch a long-distance flight become far more attractive and connecting itineraries with these short flights could be removed.

Similarly you can then designate specific trains as "flight trains", that are timetabled and signalled to minimise delays, so that the reliability is as high as possible.

This has been done on a voluntary basis by a few airlines in Germany and Switzerland, but there is potential to apply this far more widely.

 

[HSTEd]

Frankly, it has to happen if our continent (and the world in general) is going to remain a pleasantly liveable place for our species. I really don't understand how so many people seem not to have clicked yet that the ecological state we've got ourslves into is deadly serious, and requires more than tinkering round the edges. Major changes in transport - such as most planes and private cars being retired asap, and accepting we have to move around more slowly - are a crucial part of the changes needed.

The problem is that steel-wheel-on-steel-rail systems simply aren't fast enough to break flights on these long journeys.

I know people laugh at it, but if you want to kill continental scale air travel you need something resembling the Chūō Shinkansen.
It's rated to accelerate significantly faster than a tube train and keep that up almost all the way to 505km/h.

A steel rail system that struggles to operate economically above 350km/h and takes ages to accelerate there simply can't compete with planes that can do treble that.