EU high speed rail 'plan'

[quantinghome]

The EU commission have launched "a plan to accelerate high speed rail across Europe": https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news...e-high-speed-rail-across-europe-2025-11-05_en

Today, the European Commission is unveiling a comprehensive plan to accelerate the development of high-speed rail across the EU, offering passengers significantly reduced travel times. By boosting fast, comfortable, safe and reliable rail services, the plan supports the EU’s twin goals of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050 and strengthening Europe’s global competitiveness.

However, looking at the details the plan is not very ambitious at all:

Brussels - Berlin in 5h50 by 2040. That's the same average speed as London-Glasgow today.

Paris - Frankfurt in 3h45, no better than today.

Frankfurt - Vienna in 6h20, again, same as today - an average speed of less than 100km/h as the crow flies.

Spain is as ambitious as ever, and Eastern Europe is too, but many Western European countries seem to have completely lost their appetite for the sort of meaningful investment we saw in the 1990s and 2000s.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The EU commission have launched "a plan to accelerate high speed rail across Europe": https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news...e-high-speed-rail-across-europe-2025-11-05_en

However, looking at the details the plan is not very ambitious at all:

Brussels - Berlin in 5h50 by 2040. That's the same average speed as London-Glasgow today.

Paris - Frankfurt in 3h45, no better than today.

Frankfurt - Vienna in 6h20, again, same as today - an average speed of less than 100km/h as the crow flies.

Spain is as ambitious as ever, and Eastern Europe is too, but many Western European countries seem to have completely lost their appetite for the sort of meaningful investment we saw in the 1990s and 2000s.

Yep. There's a number of corridors that could be plugged. Cologne to Hannover/Berlin, Frankfurt to Berlin, Lille to Strasbourg (okay that one will primarily be for London traffic) - but yes, it was a bit limp.

 

[Tinginys]

This 'plan' seems to be merely a reiteration of existing collection of projects. Basically a press release reminding that there are some railway projects in the EU and they are still ongoing (as opposed to being cancelled). I doubt any of those projects will actually be accelerated per se.

The main problem with EU's railway system is not the speed or network density, but the fact that there is no system as such. It's a collection of individual systems of many countries, all with their own peculiarities, even if good number of those systems are actually pretty good on their own. This is a big problem and I think EC should take a way more assertive and even aggressive role in order to force more unification and standardization of railways. Current zoo of technologies and, especially, ticketing systems with respective national railway companies, just isn't doing much good to Europe. International routes (with some notable exceptions) often do not exist and if they do exist they tend to be quite bad and this needs to change. This is not to say that we can ever have China style 350 km/h lines crisscrossing all of Europe, but seamless EU-wide ticketing system and integration of some other systems should be possible and it's the EC who should have the prerogative to push it forward. Sadly, no signs of this happening yet.

 

[signed]

ticketing systems with respective national railway companies,

EU-led Reform of the ticketing system will start in 2026 (at the dismay of the Germans and French)

 

[Austriantrain]

but many Western European countries seem to have completely lost their appetite for the sort of meaningful investment we saw in the 1990s and 2000s.

"Many" is mostly Germany. I am not aware of major plans elsewhere in Western Europe that never get anywhere.

Also, contrary to the beliefs of many, including apparently the EU commission, high-speed is really not the end and all of everything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2025 ==

The main problem with EU's railway system is not the speed or network density, but the fact that there is no system as such. It's a collection of individual systems of many countries, all with their own peculiarities, even if good number of those systems are actually pretty good on their own. This is a big problem and I think EC should take a way more assertive and even aggressive role in order to force more unification and standardization of railways. Current zoo of technologies and, especially, ticketing systems with respective national railway companies, just isn't doing much good to Europe. International routes (with some notable exceptions) often do not exist and if they do exist they tend to be quite bad and this needs to change. This is not to say that we can ever have China style 350 km/h lines crisscrossing all of Europe, but seamless EU-wide ticketing system and integration of some other systems should be possible and it's the EC who should have the prerogative to push it forward. Sadly, no signs of this happening yet.

Oh, I believe that if you look towards Central Europe, you will see that international services get improved all the time. And while ticketing is still not ideal, it does not work too bad. Whereas on HS investment, Germany is the odd one out, for international services it is France and (but that is starting to change) Italy. Also Scandinavia, for obvious geographic reasons, and it is changing there too.

 

[Tinginys]

"Many" is mostly Germany. I am not aware of major plans elsewhere in Western Europe that never get anywhere.

Also, contrary to the beliefs of many, including apparently the EU commission, high-speed is really not the end and all of everything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2025 ==



Oh, I believe that if you look towards Central Europe, you will see that international services get improved all the time. And while ticketing is still not ideal, it does not work too bad. Whereas on HS investment, Germany is the odd one out, for international services it is France and (but that is starting to change) Italy. Also Scandinavia, for obvious geographic reasons, and it is changing there too.

I'm well aware of some of the positive developments, hence 'notable exceptions', but overall cross-border rail connections remain poor in Europe. I wish to see those changes accelerate and become widespread and systematic rather than sporadic and occasional. That's where EC has to step in and be firm in order to counter inward-looking national operators which are often too engaged in their own interests and completely ignore the bigger picture.

 

[NCT]

Yes, it just seems an amalgamation of all current national plans.

Germany does stand out - just because it's a large part of Europe and is right in the centre. It makes the UK look 'not too bad'. High speed is important in Germany and to/from Germany because there are still several routes where the air market is stronger than it ought to be.

France has a good base network but the pace of new construction seems to have slowed right down - the lines into Spain in particular. Of the larger countries only Spain and Italy seem to have multiple long-term projects going.

I really like Poland's and Czechia's plans but I worry if politics is going to derail them.

As for the European Commission - it has no mandate to do anything more than coordinating and encouraging national governments. It doesn't have the budget to fund multi-billion projects - there's the Connecting Europe Facility fund that's merely a trickle (and the money goes much further in Romania than in Germany). It can't just draw a line on map and compel national and local governments to grant planning permissions.

 

[Tinginys]

It doesn't need to be a direct action by the EC, since it doesn't have planning power indeed. What it does have, however, is some leverage and carrot and stick powers in respect of at least some national governments. I understand that it might be difficult to tell Germany and DB how to do things, but it's possible to direct, for example, the Baltic countries to get their act together and get Rail Baltica done properly without all the nonsense that is currently going on.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Completing the Fehmarn (Germany-Denmark) Rail Tunnel, the Brenner Base Tunnel (Austria-Italy) and the Mont Cenis Base Tunnel to connect Lyon and Turin will surely be key to faster train journeys on the routes they connect.

 

[Austriantrain]

France has a good base network but the pace of new construction seems to have slowed right down - the lines into Spain in particular.

Which is not surprising. Every new line they build as less ROI than the one before. In reality no business case at all, if you apply British standards.

And the way the one HSL to Spain is operated does not really encourage more investment.

What should not be forgotten: France has no money. And while a bit less severe, many european countries have the same problem. So it is realistic to expect that we will see less new HSR, not more.

 

[Amalie]

Which is not surprising. Every new line they build as less ROI than the one before. In reality no business case at all, if you apply British standards.

And the way the one HSL to Spain is operated does not really encourage more investment.

What should not be forgotten: France has no money. And while a bit less severe, many european countries have the same problem. So it is realistic to expect that we will see less new HSR, not more.

I do think that there are things some operators could do to improve timings without necessarily building more infrastructure.

For instance, the Paris-Milan TGV could have gotten ETCS so that it could’ve made use of the Italian HSL. Granted it’s a little late to do add that on the (current) old TGVs given that they’re planning on introducing new TGVs that I presume has precisely that. The Berlin-Amsterdam IC(E) on the other hand has lots of stops for complex historical reasons, but it could have an ICE Sprinter running twice a day skipping half or most of them.

 

[gravitystorm]

I do think that there are things some operators could do to improve timings without necessarily building more infrastructure.

Travelling between Vilnius and Warszawa, this is very true. The IC143 from Mockava to Warszawa (350km, 5h35!) gets an excessive 38 minutes at Suwałki for a reversal and waits further at Białystok for 47 minutes. There's an hour+ saving available just on that service, no infrastructure required, never mind any improvement if there were to be much needed linespeed improvements between Mockava and Białystock.

 

[Austriantrain]

I do think that there are things some operators could do to improve timings without necessarily building more infrastructure.

For instance, the Paris-Milan TGV could have gotten ETCS so that it could’ve made use of the Italian HSL. Granted it’s a little late to do add that on the (current) old TGVs given that they’re planning on introducing new TGVs that I presume has precisely that. The Berlin-Amsterdam IC(E) on the other hand has lots of stops for complex historical reasons, but it could have an ICE Sprinter running twice a day skipping half or most of them.

Of course, but no EU plan will achieve any of that. If they wanted to help, they should reduce approval proceedings/Environmental Impact Assessments or at least make them less complex, just as they have done for energy projects. It is one of few things that would really help - but would be enormously controversial.

 

[Tinginys]

Travelling between Vilnius and Warszawa, this is very true. The IC143 from Mockava to Warszawa (350km, 5h35!) gets an excessive 38 minutes at Suwałki for a reversal and waits further at Białystok for 47 minutes. There's an hour+ saving available just on that service, no infrastructure required, never mind any improvement if there were to be much needed linespeed improvements between Mockava and Białystock.

Talking of Mockava-Warszawa, journey times are getting cut by ~35 minutes with new December timetables and it will be done via combination of reduced number of stops as well as (I think) slightly shorter turnaround times in Suwalki and Bialystok.

Still, though, you are completely right with this example and I think journey times on this specific route, even without any significant infrastructure upgrades, could be cut by at least another 1.5 h between Mockava and Warsaw. For example, there could be a DMU (much easier and faster to turn around) or even a hybrid EMU/DMU trains instead of loco-hauled trains.
And with only somewhat minor infrastructure upgrade of installing signaling between Mockava and Kaunas (currently it has none!) we could have ~4.5-5h travel time instead of current 7+ on Kaunas-Warsaw through route if there was one.

Another perfect example would be service between Vilnius and Tallinn via Riga. Technically there is a service Vilnius-Riga-Tallinn with a change of trains in Valga/Valka, but it doesn't need to take ~11 hours and doesn't need to be so complicated and there doesn't need to be only 1 daily service. It could be much easier, faster, frequent and generally more civilized if the national governments and their respective train companies would simply agree on that.

I bet there are similar or at least somewhat comparable examples elsewhere. It's more about political will and agreements between operators/countries rather than physical infrastructure.

 

[The exile]

Yep. There's a number of corridors that could be plugged. Cologne to Hannover/Berlin, Frankfurt to Berlin, Lille to Strasbourg (okay that one will primarily be for London traffic) - but yes, it was a bit limp.

A connection like Cologne - Hanover hits the same issues (particularly at the Western end) as UK High speed rail - namely how to serve large population centres while at the same time avoiding costly construction through densely populated areas. It’s relatively easy to build HSLs when you’ve got two large population centres quite far apart and little in between (Berlin - Hanover for example) but it’s very difficult to ignore Duesseldorf, Essen and Dortmund. However, routing an HSL that way a)slows it down and b) makes it fiendishly expensive.

 

[quantinghome]

A connection like Cologne - Hanover hits the same issues (particularly at the Western end) as UK High speed rail - namely how to serve large population centres while at the same time avoiding costly construction through densely populated areas. It’s relatively easy to build HSLs when you’ve got two large population centres quite far apart and little in between (Berlin - Hanover for example) but it’s very difficult to ignore Duesseldorf, Essen and Dortmund. However, routing an HSL that way a)slows it down and b) makes it fiendishly expensive.

Just build a bypass, same as Montpellier, Lyon. Heck, Paris and Madrid have high speed rail bypasses; what makes the Ruhr so special?

 

[nwales58]

I see this as showing that Commission-level interest in high speed rail is in decline, maybe this is the fnal decade. Other priorities are now higher.

It’s years since I worked this area, but here is why I think this:

How EU policy comes about is a mixture of national governments, the parliament and the bureaucracy concurring that ‘we need something’. The Commission then turns a fuzzy idea such as the Single Market or Trans-European Networks into a string of plans for areas where it has competence (often, national governments then start running away from things they initiated). Plans collide with the real world, budgets and capacity to deliver (be it national legislation or managing to build a whole railway or motorway rather than just the bridges, or aligning food regulations but not lawyers).

After a decade or more some good outcomes are achieved, some work is futile, wasted or overtaken by new events.

TEN-T came from desires to increase economic competitiveness and link poorer regions.

High speed rail is only part of it but has survived the shift to the green agenda partly because it helps decarbonise other modes (and politicians like it nowadays). But so does rail freight. And maritime freight.

BUT … public and political priorities always change. Competitiveness and regional equality are still worries but now defence and energy resilience are too. Every member state has capital spending worries and interest rates are higher, costing more on past spending as well as new.

So developing the TENs will carry on but with less effort. International freight may get more effort than high speed passengers. Energy networks more than transport networks. And so on.

That is why this is a pretty thin ‘plan’.

 

[The exile]

Just build a bypass, same as Montpellier, Lyon. Heck, Paris and Madrid have high speed rail bypasses; what makes the Ruhr so special?

Bypassing a large part of your travelling public (including the state capital) is not a good idea (How many TGVs actually bypass Paris completely?) You also have the problem that bypassing south runs into topological problems, while you g north effectively requires you to go through (the edge at least)

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Bypassing a large part of your travelling public (including the state capital) is not a good idea (How many TGVs actually bypass Paris completely?) You also have the problem that bypassing south runs into topological problems, while you g north effectively requires you to go through (the edge at least)

There are plenty of TGVs from Lille Flandres / Europe bypassing Paris to Marseille, Bordeaux, Nantes, Brest to name but a few.

In Spain there are services from Seville, Malaga and Granada to Barcelona bypassing Madrid - any routing by the classic lines would be impossibly slow.

 

[Austriantrain]

Just build a bypass, same as Montpellier, Lyon. Heck, Paris and Madrid have high speed rail bypasses; what makes the Ruhr so special?

You clearly don’t understand anything about German demographisch compared to France or the UK. There will never be a HSL bypassing the Ruhr. Where would it go to that has so many more people that it would be justified?

 

[quantinghome]

Bypassing a large part of your travelling public (including the state capital) is not a good idea (How many TGVs actually bypass Paris completely?) You also have the problem that bypassing south runs into topological problems, while you g north effectively requires you to go through (the edge at least)

You clearly don’t understand anything about German demographisch compared to France or the UK. There will never be a HSL bypassing the Ruhr. Where would it go to that has so many more people that it would be justified?

Agree with Sir F on this. It's hardly a new concept - the main lines in Britain have worked like this for well over a century. The main lines bypass the biggest cities, which are served from branches. If every London to Glasgow train had to go through Birmingham and Manchester it would be very slow and a poor use of capacity through those cities.

 

[edwin_m]

Agree with Sir F on this. It's hardly a new concept - the main lines in Britain have worked like this for well over a century. The main lines bypass the biggest cities, which are served from branches. If every London to Glasgow train had to go through Birmingham and Manchester it would be very slow and a poor use of capacity through those cities.

However Britain is probably the most monocentric of the major European economies, with France not too far behind - the capital is way ahead of the size of any other city and most of the administrative functions are centred there. Germany is much more polycentric, probably because of its formation from smaller states in the 19th century and its federal structure, but also because it was severed from its capital for 45 years. Its national institutions are also distributed much more, so for example one of the highest courts is in the relatively small city of Karlsruhe.

In transport terms this means Germany needs a relatively uniform net with good connections between routes. The UK and France end up with weak orbital links but strong radials, and the demand to/from the capital means it can have separate services to different parts of the country even if these are in the same direction. The lack of a strong focus of demand in Germany means even the fastest trains will probably stop when they pass through each major population centre, so speeds will be low in those areas and there is no need for a high speed bypass but capacity enhancements may be necessary instead.

 

[quantinghome]

However Britain is probably the most monocentric of the major European economies, with France not too far behind - the capital is way ahead of the size of any other city and most of the administrative functions are centred there. Germany is much more polycentric, probably because of its formation from smaller states in the 19th century and its federal structure, but also because it was severed from its capital for 45 years. Its national institutions are also distributed much more, so for example one of the highest courts is in the relatively small city of Karlsruhe.

In transport terms this means Germany needs a relatively uniform net with good connections between routes. The UK and France end up with weak orbital links but strong radials, and the demand to/from the capital means it can have separate services to different parts of the country even if these are in the same direction. The lack of a strong focus of demand in Germany means even the fastest trains will probably stop when they pass through each major population centre, so speeds will be low in those areas and there is no need for a high speed bypass but capacity enhancements may be necessary instead.

Surely even in a polycentric network there is sufficient demand for through services that don't have to crawl through intermediate conurbations, as well as those that do? Particularly if we consider a European, rather than national, network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2025 ==

As we are getting into speculative territory I have created a new thread in the speculation sub-forum: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...prove-the-european-high-speed-network.294698/

this thread can be used to discuss the EU report itself.

 

[Austriantrain]

Agree with Sir F on this. It's hardly a new concept - the main lines in Britain have worked like this for well over a century. The main lines bypass the biggest cities, which are served from branches. If every London to Glasgow train had to go through Birmingham and Manchester it would be very slow and a poor use of capacity through those cities.

Well, you don’t seem to grasp the difference in demographic setup between the UK and Gernany either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2025 ==

Surely even in a polycentric network there is sufficient demand for through services that don't have to crawl through intermediate conurbations, as well as those that do? Particularly if we consider a European, rather than national,

No. Those avoiding lines would maybe serve a train or two an hour. And they are politically unfeasible anyway. So forget it - at least for the foreseeable Future. Maybe, maybe, when everything else is built and all your conurbations are over capacity, it might be possible in some cases.

But honestly, that is really the least important issue. Germany does not even build HSL between their conurbations, at least not anymore. They neither want to spend money on it nor do they have the political will to see the projects through against opposition.

Not unlike the UK really. Obviously different in that Germany is in the middle of Europe but still maybe best not to do too much Finger-pointing.

 

[The exile]

But honestly, that is really the least important issue. Germany does not even build HSL between their conurbations, at least not anymore. They neither want to spend money on it nor do they have the political will to see the projects through against opposition.

That’s a bit unfair - though it is true that the pace has slowed as the economy has faltered and the “Aufbau Ost” projects have been completed. The two major domestic gaps are Rhein/Ruhr to Hannover / Hamburg (probably no need for separate HSLs) and Frankfurt - Fulda - Erfurt. The plans for relief/ new build at the Hamburg end have been caught up in planning and vehement local opposition for at least a quarter of a century while eyes and money have been focussed further East where the shadows cast by reunification have been very long. In the meantime, there have been quite a few projects moving forward - albeit slowly (upper Rhine, Stuttgart, Dresdner Bahn in Berlin and the Vogelfluglinie). Grasping those two nettles is going to be very expensive in terms of both time and money and going to give rise to massive opposition - like getting High Speed access to London we’re not talking thinly-populated, economically depressed areas of flat empty countryside (they’ve mostly been done!)

 

[Austriantrain]

That’s a bit unfair - though it is true that the pace has slowed as the economy has faltered and the “Aufbau Ost” projects have been completed. The two major domestic gaps are Rhein/Ruhr to Hannover / Hamburg (probably no need for separate HSLs) and Frankfurt - Fulda - Erfurt. The plans for relief/ new build at the Hamburg end have been caught up in planning and vehement local opposition for at least a quarter of a century while eyes and money have been focussed further East where the shadows cast by reunification have been very long. In the meantime, there have been quite a few projects moving forward - albeit slowly (upper Rhine, Stuttgart, Dresdner Bahn in Berlin and the Vogelfluglinie). Grasping those two nettles is going to be very expensive in terms of both time and money and going to give rise to massive opposition - like getting High Speed access to London we’re not talking thinly-populated, economically depressed areas of flat empty countryside (they’ve mostly been done!)

I don't think it is that unfair. The jury is really out if Stuttgart21 is worth it. In the meantime, important stuff like the urgently needed Rhein/Neckar - Rhein/Main NBS or the four-tracking towards Basel is advancing very, very slowly. I do of course recognize everything that has been done towards the East of Germany, but the "old West" has been neglected, not only in railway terms - it is not only the railways falling apart in Western Germany, but the Autobahnen too. And being from Austria, I am highly aware of projects not moving - while Austria and now Italy too are busy constructing access lines to the Brenner base tunnel, nothing is happening on the German side and probably won't be for years. There are also serious plans in Austria to extend the Vienna - Wels new line towards Munich (albeit only sometimes towards the 2040s), but the way things are going on the German side, the new line would continue slow and single-track - andy maybe not even electrified. It is actually so bad that no neighbouring country can plan anything cross border at all.

Unlike most here, I am fully of the opinion that Germany, in the past decades, has done a lot for its railways, in the manner that is best for such a decentralized country with no single dominant city (which is the difference to the UK and France which I pointed out before). But they really have lost their mojo both in upkeep of the existing network (as everyone here is painfully aware) and in investing in future infrastructure.

 

[quantinghome]

But honestly, that is really the least important issue. Germany does not even build HSL between their conurbations, at least not anymore. They neither want to spend money on it nor do they have the political will to see the projects through against opposition.

Not unlike the UK really. Obviously different in that Germany is in the middle of Europe but still maybe best not to do too much Finger-pointing.

Hey, I'm not saying the UK is a paragon here. Please learn from our mistakes! (Although I would point out that the section of high speed line we ARE building is through the area that had most virulent opposition).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2025 ==

Unlike most here, I am fully of the opinion that Germany, in the past decades, has done a lot for its railways, in the manner that is best for such a decentralized country with no single dominant city (which is the difference to the UK and France which I pointed out before). But they really have lost their mojo both in upkeep of the existing network (as everyone here is painfully aware) and in investing in future infrastructure.

One look at a railway map of Germany shows there has been major investment in high speed rail which it deserves credit for. That's why it's so frustrating - it's a curate's egg (not sure how that translates - "good in parts"). There are at least a dozen high speed lines but they don't form a network that delivers high speeds except between certain city pairs (e.g. Cologne and Frankfurt). A few well-targeted investments could radically improve this.

 

[The exile]

Unlike most here, I am fully of the opinion that Germany, in the past decades, has done a lot for its railways, in the manner that is best for such a decentralized country with no single dominant city (which is the difference to the UK and France which I pointed out before). But they really have lost their mojo both in upkeep of the existing network (as everyone here is painfully aware) and in investing in future infrastructure.

That is certainly the case - I remember being told by a (very) senior RWE person how Germany had ignored for years the fact that they were benefitting from the fact that for all those years the post war infrastructure hadn’t reached the stage of needing a lot of maintenance and refurbishment and were failing to make provision for it. He was referring in particular to the tram and Stadtbahn tunnels in the Rhein/Ruhr and not to his own company (of course!!!!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2025 ==

One look at a railway map of Germany shows there has been major investment in high speed rail which it deserves credit for. That's why it's so frustrating - it's a curate's egg (not sure how that translates - "good in parts"). There are at least a dozen high speed lines but they don't form a network that delivers high speeds except between certain city pairs (e.g. Cologne and Frankfurt). A few well-targeted investments could radically improve this.

One for the problems was that such plans for a network as there were had to be turned on their heads virtually overnight in 1990. It’s certainly unlikely that a united Germany’s first priority for an HSL would have been Hannover - Wuerzburg had it not been already built.

 

[Austriantrain]

Hey, I'm not saying the UK is a paragon here. Please learn from our mistakes! (Although I would point out that the section of high speed line we ARE building is through the area that had most virulent opposition).

Yes, but unfortunately at such costs that the rest of HS2 fell apart... And no, that is not finger-pointing, we are doing exactly the same here, and new projects become unaffordable because of it. And yes, I was a bit ambigous. In the UK, the issue is more the lack of the will to spend money on rail. In Germany, it is that too, but at least as much the unwillingness to deal with opposition to projects, because someone somewhere always needs to get reelected.

One look at a railway map of Germany shows there has been major investment in high speed rail which it deserves credit for. That's why it's so frustrating - it's a curate's egg (not sure how that translates - "good in parts"). There are at least a dozen high speed lines but they don't form a network that delivers high speeds except between certain city pairs (e.g. Cologne and Frankfurt). A few well-targeted investments could radically improve this.

I am certainly not contradicting you. It is just that I don't think the "Ruhr avoiding HSL" is the main issue here. When you think that the NBS Bielefeld - Hannover seems to be in the doldrums too.

 

[NCT]

Which is not surprising. Every new line they build as less ROI than the one before. In reality no business case at all, if you apply British standards.

And the way the one HSL to Spain is operated does not really encourage more investment.

What should not be forgotten: France has no money. And while a bit less severe, many european countries have the same problem. So it is realistic to expect that we will see less new HSR, not more.

I was hoping other European countries would be rather better than the UK at long-distance rail investment ...

The airlines-on-rails operating model in France and Spain really don't help matters. It wouldn't take much to operate a Swiss-style timetable with Narbonne acting as a takt node and I think just that would boost ridership considerably, though ticketing needs to catch up too.

Completing Montpellier - Perpignan would create journeys new to rail - a 5h30 Paris - Barcelona journey time wouldn't take all the air demand away but still a decent chunk. Even by British standards it'd still have a good case IMO. The mystery is really why Bordeaux - Toulouse has still not started actual construction.