Very long-distance services causing timetable irregularities on trunk sections

[NCT]

Berlin - Prague - Vienna - Graz is an increasingly important international inter-city rail axis. The stylised service patterns in the 2026 timetable are as follows (state-run operators)

- Berlin - Prague - every 2 hours
- Prague - Vienna - direct train every 2 hours, in the other hour there's an interchange opportunity via Breclav with the same journey time (with one hole in the timetable; Regiojet runs additional services)
- Vienna - Graz - fast service every hour and semi-fast every hour

In the 2026 timetable, RJ251/175/177 Berlin - Vienna services call at Praha Holesovice only. If memory serves correctly, the equivalent services in the 2025 timetable did go into the main station (Praha Hlavni Nadrazi) and back out (or some of them?). Are there engineering works preventing these services from serving Hlavni Nadrazi? This isn't the end of the world for those starting or ending their journey in Prague, as the metro provides a frequent service between the two stations every 5 minutes, so the hourly / two-hourly pattern is sort of preserved. However, for journeys like Pilsen - Vienna or Usti nad Labem - Pilsen, bypassing Praha Hlavni Nadrazi does cause discontinuities in otherwise all-day hourly schedules

In the 2025 timetable Prague - Graz was 2-hourly direct all day. In the other hour the via Breclav opportunities connected with Vienna - Graz services. Thus there was an all-day hourly schedule with identical journey times (save those hours the Ostrava - Vienna services did not run). In the 2026 timetable:
- Change in train times due to the Koralmbahn means the Vienna arrival of Prague - Vienna and the departure of the fast Vienna - Graz are only 4 minutes apart. Inability to provide cross-platform interchange means the 4-minute connection time is not recognised - passengers have to wait an extra half hour for a slightly slower train. The takt structure has essentially been broken.
- The desire to run more direct Vienna - Venice/Triete service has meant fewer Prague - Graz services. This means only 2 trains a day has the fastest journey time. The Prague - Graz journey has the double whammy of both Prague end station irregularities and Vienna through / change problem.

Zurich - Milan

This is meant to be a half-hourly service quite cleverly put together:
- There's an hourly Zurich - Milan
- There's an hourly RE80 between Chiasso - Milan in the opposite half hour; and an hourly Zurich - Chiasso also in the opposite half hour. The two 'opposite half hour' services connect at Chiasso.
- The two sets of opportunities to travel provide a combined half-hourly schedule, giving a consistent all-day journey time of 3h17m or 3h12m.

Where this otherwise excellent half-hourly schedule gets disrupted:
- When the Milan - Basel service runs, the standard Lucerne - Arth-Goldau path is the 'wrong half hour' at Arth-Goldau, meaning the standard EC path is missing between Milan and Chiasso. It's probably infrastructure constraints on the Italian side or (possibly) over-conservative planning that prevents back-fill paths to be provided on the Italian side.
- When those Zurich paths run to/from Florence or La Spezia, they go via Milano Lambrate and Rogoredo, again disrupting the otherwise half-hourly timetable.

SBB reportedly 'bullied' SNCF into adopting clock-face timetable for the Lyria services. I find it slightly surprising it agreed to and implemented a timetable that drivers a coach and horse through Italian timetable regularity.

 

[30907]

1. Prague-Graz
I wonder if this is temporary @Austriantrain but it seems a valid criticism. Of course the Semmering Base Tunnel will change things again before too long...
The issue of avoiding Praha hl.n has arisen before and was due to engineering work. I suspect this time the idea is to give the fastest possible end-to-end time but I haven't checked.

2. Zurich-Milan.
The core service was 2-hourly when the base tunnel opened; it has been augmented by the daily Basel via Luzern service (which runs in Takt on the alternate hour, I don't understand your point), the Florence train and some recently-added extras. It isn't yet hourly, though I imagine it won't be long before it is.
I imagine the Florence train uses Lambrate because TI couldn't offer a decent path otherwise.

 

[NCT]

2. Zurich-Milan.
The core service was 2-hourly when the base tunnel opened; it has been augmented by the daily Basel via Luzern service (which runs in Takt on the alternate hour, I don't understand your point), the Florence train and some recently-added extras. It isn't yet hourly, though I imagine it won't be long before it is.
I imagine the Florence train uses Lambrate because TI couldn't offer a decent path otherwise.

In the northbound direction, the standard Zurich service departs Milano Centrale at xx:10, arriving at Lugano at xx:28 for an xx:30 departure towards Arth-Goldau.

EC178 towards Luzern has to depart Lugano at 12:02, which is approximately half an hour offset from the standard Milan - Zurich path. It's Milan departure ought to be 10:40 instead of 10:10. This would see it flighted with the 10:43 RE80. I don't know the details, but clearly RFI has deemed such flighting impossible. The 10:10 path out of Milano Centrale is non-standard towards Lugano. This means you can't use EC178 to go to Zurich and have the same journey time as the other xx:10 departures.

Frankly I don't get the Florence and La Spezia services. The Florence service uses the classic route and has a journey time far longer than the clockface services.
- Chiasso - Florence on EC37 takes 4h28m and arrives at 21:30
- Throughout the day you have the hourly journey opportunity with a change at Milano Central taking 3h5m

Given the very uncompetitive journey times and rather late arrival time, I can't see many through passengers using this service. Not serving Central Milan limits the service's attractiveness to the non-cross-Milan passengers.

To me it would have been more fruitful to prioritise clockface regularity and improve ticketing and connection terms (like what DB does where if your first train is delayed your ticket automatically turns into an 'any permitted').

 

[30907]

In the northbound direction, the standard Zurich service departs Milano Centrale at xx:10, arriving at Lugano at xx:28 for an xx:30 departure towards Arth-Goldau.

EC178 towards Luzern has to depart Lugano at 12:02, which is approximately half an hour offset from the standard Milan - Zurich path. It's Milan departure ought to be 10:40 instead of 10:10. This would see it flighted with the 10:43 RE80. I don't know the details, but clearly RFI has deemed such flighting impossible. The 10:10 path out of Milano Centrale is non-standard towards Lugano. This means you can't use EC178 to go to Zurich and have the same journey time as the other xx:10 departures.

Apologies, I didn't look at the detailed times.

Frankly I don't get the Florence and La Spezia services. The Florence service uses the classic route and has a journey time far longer than the clockface services.
- Chiasso - Florence on EC37 takes 4h28m and arrives at 21:30
- Throughout the day you have the hourly journey opportunity with a change at Milano Central taking 3h5m

Given the very uncompetitive journey times and rather late arrival time, I can't see many through passengers using this service. Not serving Central Milan limits the service's attractiveness to the non-cross-Milan passengers.

To me it would have been more fruitful to prioritise clockface regularity and improve ticketing and connection terms (like what DB does where if your first train is delayed your ticket automatically turns into an 'any permitted').

SBB evidently think there is a market for (tourist?) through trains to Venice/Florence/La Spezia in addition to the core service..
Ditto Luzern-Milan.
As with DB, tickets are automatically valid later if there's a delay, but TI do mandatory reservations so you have to rebook.

 

[NCT]

I don't get the La Spezia service either. When EC33 get to Pavia you can change onto IC669 which gets into La Spezia 30 minutes earlier. Threading EC33 between Genoa and La Spezia can't be good for the 'trying to be clockface' Liguria regional services.

The problem with through trains bypassing Milano Centrale is that you break a whole host of other connections. This is something SBB wouldn't tolerate on its home soil. I can only suspect that Trenitalia takes commercial risks on the Italian sections leaving SBB sufficiently protected, and SBB goes 'shrug' as the timetable infelicities aren't 'on my patch'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

1. Prague-Graz
I wonder if this is temporary @Austriantrain but it seems a valid criticism. Of course the Semmering Base Tunnel will change things again before too long...
The issue of avoiding Praha hl.n has arisen before and was due to engineering work. I suspect this time the idea is to give the fastest possible end-to-end time but I haven't checked.

The Prague through services still occupy standard paths. Standard service timings are
- Praha Hl. N arrival from Usti xx:25
- Praha Hl. N departure towards Breclav xx:37

In isolation, a 12-minute dwell at Praha Hl. N ought not to be a problem. I suspect the platforming and platform end conflicts associated with coming in on one line and going out on another is what breaks it. The through services sit at Holesovice for 21 minutes.

 

[Austriantrain]

1. Prague-Graz
I wonder if this is temporary @Austriantrain but it seems a valid criticism. Of course the Semmering Base Tunnel will change things again before too long...

The issue is not the lack of the tunnel, but the fact that as far as I know, there are no modern train sets able to run in both the Czech Republic and Italy (yet). At least for the current RJ Generation, I believe it is physically impossible to fit both countries‘ safety systems (there doesn‘t seem to be an example of an ES64U4 approved both in IT and CZ. Vectron seem to be able to run in both, so maybe Confortjet/RJ2 will be able too). ECTS will of course resolve this at some point anyway.

I do however have to refute @NCT ’s argument that Austria has priorized Vienna to Venice/Trieste services. In fact, both these and Prague - Graz - Villach are still offered and I fail to see why Vienna should not have Italy services. In Addition, and in significant difference to Budapest - Munich, through traffic between Graz and Prague really is not that heavy.

I do agree that the loss of an inmediate connection in Vienna is a really large drawback, but when Prague - Vienna switches over to 9car sets - a process that has already begun - it is simply not possible anymore on the same platform. Unfortunately, the structure of the new Austrian timetable with its „U-trains“ Salzburg- Villach - Vienna - a structure which I think is wrong and always have done so - has led to broken connections like this one both in Vienna and in Salzburg because of pathing constraints. Tongue in cheek, it seems the quaint city of Villach has become „point zero“ in Austrian timetabling.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

Frankly I don't get the Florence and La Spezia services. The Florence service uses the classic route and has a journey time far longer than the clockface services.
- Chiasso - Florence on EC37 takes 4h28m and arrives at 21:30
- Throughout the day you have the hourly journey opportunity with a change at Milano Central taking 3h5m

Given the very uncompetitive journey times and rather late arrival time, I can't see many through passengers using this service. Not serving Central Milan limits the service's attractiveness to the non-cross-Milan passengers.

You generally much seem to prefer „shuttle style“ services between major hubs and no through trains. While this is of course a perfectly valid opinion, the general preference in Central Europe has gone back towards (very) long-distance direct trains simply because the demand is there. Such services are among those that have seen the strongest growth recently (in Austria‘s case that means First and foremost Vienna - Frankfurt, even with its reliability problems, and then Budapest - Munich).

Also, rail inherently has disadvantages compared to road and air, the necessity of connecting among the most relevant. Reducing this necessity whereever possible is, in my opinion, one of the most useful things that can be done; increasing the need artificially by offering shuttles only runs directly against rail‘s market position. Never forget that there is no equivalent to London (or Paris) in Central Europe with its enormous „single point“ demand.

 

[NCT]

The issue is not the lack of the tunnel, but the fact that as far as I know, there are no modern train sets able to run in both the Czech Republic and Italy (yet). At least for the current RJ Generation, I believe it is physically impossible to fit both countries‘ safety systems. ECTS will of course resolve this at some point.

I do however have to refute @NCT ’s argument that Austria has priorized Vienna to Venice/Trieste services. In fact, both these and Prague - Graz - Villach are still offered and I fail to see why Vienna should not have Italy services. In Addition, and in significant difference to Budapest - Munich, through traffic between Graz and Prague really is not that heavy.

I think the Semmering tunnel should lead to better Wien Hbf arrival / departure times such that connecting journeys would have the same journey times as the best through services.

It's not that I don't think Vienna should have Italian services, it's just that the Koralmbahn has forced a choice that wasn't there in 2025 - back when Graz and Villach were separate routes. Of course it makes sense to give the Italian services the fast paths, but the consequence is necessarily that a previously existing homogeneity is now broken. To be this is a pretty fundamental breakdown of the taktfarhplan, and even if it's only 5 years it's still a pretty serious issue.

You generally much seem to prefer „shuttle style“ services between major hubs and no through trains. While this is of course a perfectly valid opinion, the general preference in Central Europe has gone back towards (very) long-distance direct trains simply because the demand is there. Such services are among those that have seen the strongest growth recently (in Austria‘s case that means First and foremost Vienna - Frankfurt, even with its reliability problems, and then Budapest - Munich).

Also, rail inherently has disadvantages compared to road and air, the necessity of connecting among the most relevant. Reducing this necessity whereever possible is, in my opinion, one of the most useful things that can be done; increasing the need artificially by offering shuttles only runs directly against rail‘s market position. Never forget that there is no equivalent to London (or Paris) in Central Europe with its enormous „single point“ demand.

I can understand direct trains if all they do is offer direct journeys. I'll even accept some performance risks as long as the 'on paper' paths can be found. Where the connectivity argument breaks down is by offering them you break a whole host of other connections. If the Vienna example is temporary, the Prague and Milan examples less so.

I don't mind very long distance services. I'd be happy if all Berliners did Hamburg - Prague and all Metropolitans did Prague - Budapest, as long as both service groups were homogeneous. While you lose some direct connectivity you give everybody else consistent all-day interchange opportunities. One of the principles of taktfahrplan is that even if you chop and change service destinations, you have consistent routings through the same nodes and passengers get the same journey time every hour or every half-hour regardless of direct or interchange. Real-life experience says in many instances you can't have your cake and eat it - running trains through a station that's set up for terminating moves is difficult and vice versa, and what happens in practice through trains come at the expense of loss of taktfahrplan integrity, and that's not a trivial issue.

Very long distance journeys are not railway's strong point. The railway should be maximising mode shares on car-distance flows and 3-4 hour flows where railway is most competitive against air. Loss of taktfahrplan integrity has the biggest impact on these core rail markets. I'm not convinced that the benefit of those Prague and Milan bypassing trains outweighs the network-wide costs.

In another part of the world SBB and DB has (finally) gone the opposite way - they have completely standardised the Basel - Hamburg service and made Frankfurt - Cologne HSL and the Rhine Valley routes into more self-contained / consistent operations. I wouldn't be surprised if the Prague and Milan trains eventually went the same way.

What I'm seeing is Germanic taktfarhplan railways going 'French', which to me is concerning. Italy has been doing taktfahrplan half-heartedly, and I think they should pick a lane (and the right one).

 

[Austriantrain]

I think the Semmering tunnel should lead to better Wien Hbf arrival / departure times such that connecting journeys would have the same journey times as the best through services.

It's not that I don't think Vienna should have Italian services, it's just that the Koralmbahn has forced a choice that wasn't there in 2025 - back when Graz and Villach were separate routes.

As I wrote, the real factor is the insistence on the „U train“ Vienna - Villach - Salzburg. Everything has to work in Villach, meaning trains have to leave Vienna slightly earlier than they ideally should (and arrive in Salzburg slightly later).

With the SBT, obviously faster and slower trains will switch paths from Vienna, but the tunnel and additional measures on the route will actually yield slightly more than 30 minutes, so indeed the Vienna hub timings will be slightly more relaxed. The published plans (from the PSO contract) show a thirty-minute shift of the Prague - Vienna service too, with still only 6 minutes connecting time. However, the Czech might not agree to this exact path and the Austrian timetable is not set in stone either, especially as the relevant PSO contract will have ended by then (the tunnel was originally planned to open this year).

On a more general point, while I agree with you that Takt „routes“ should never be broken, I don’t think that each and every train needs to run the entire (and always exactly the same) route. Having a direct train every second hour and an equivalent connection every other (or every 4 and every 2 hours respectively) can make a lot of sense. The German simplification is not meant for passengers, but as a way to at least somewhat reduce delays. If the German network was not in shambles, it would not have been necessary and probably would not have been done.

Even the Swiss are less rigid on this than they used to be: in weekends, some Geneva - St. Gallen train switch their destination to Chur, because there is demand for it.

I do agree with you that the Prague and Milan „station situations“ are bad examples though.

 

[NCT]

As I wrote, the real factor is the insistence on the „U train“ Vienna - Villach - Salzburg. Everything has to work in Villach, meaning trains have to leave Vienna slightly earlier than they ideally should (and arrive in Salzburg slightly later).

I don't think it's wrong to want Villach to be a xx:30 node. In the interim if there is a choice between preserving Villach node integrity and Vienna integrity I would prioritise Villach, as Vienna generally has higher frequencies (and a higher percentage of long-distance passengers coming from frequency land).

With the SBT, obviously faster and slower trains will switch paths from Vienna, but the tunnel and additional measures on the route will actually yield slightly more than 30 minutes, so indeed the Vienna hub timings will be slightly more relaxed. The published plans (from the PSO contract) show a thirty-minute shift of the Prague - Vienna service too, with still only 6 minutes connecting time. However, the Czech might not agree to this exact path and the Austrian timetable is not set in stone either, especially as the relevant PSO contract will have ended by then (the tunnel was originally planned to open this year).

I though SBT was going to provide a 40-minute time saving, so the xx:53 Vienna departure towards Graz would become something like xx:13. For Breclav - Graz those on the direct train would have a 20-minute journey time saving compared to now, while those on connecting trains would save 50 minutes.

On a more general point, while I agree with you that Takt „routes“ should never be broken, I don’t think that each and every train needs to run the entire (and always exactly the same) route. Having a direct train every second hour and an equivalent connection every other (or every 4 and every 2 hours respectively) can make a lot of sense. The German simplification is not meant for passengers, but as a way to at least somewhat reduce delays. If the German network was not in shambles, it would not have been necessary and probably would not have been done.

I do agree with you that the Prague and Milan „station situations“ are bad examples though.

My point is that, in the real world of constrained financial resources and station layouts not designed to handle every possible move, having complex operating patterns does in practice mean takt being broken. Prague and Milan examples are not just isolated exceptions. Frequency, performance and direct connectivity are traded off against each other in the real world of finite resources, and allowing a frequent service to operate with lower delays is for passengers' benefit. Some people want to have everything and to me that's wanting to have your cake and eat it - you have to choose.

While a lot of primary delays in Germany are currently infrastructure related, the timetable structure is nevertheless in itself a source of primary delays. The Dutch understand that at the frequencies they want to operate they want their service patterns to be more homogeneous, even though on paper their infrastructure is capable of accommodating more clever routings.

 

[43096]

I do however have to refute @NCT ’s argument that Austria has priorized Vienna to Venice/Trieste services. In fact, both these and Prague - Graz - Villach are still offered and I fail to see why Vienna should not have Italy services. In Addition, and in significant difference to Budapest - Munich, through traffic between Graz and Prague really is not that heavy.

How much traffic is there from stations between Prague and Brno and stations beyond Vienna? And as you say, there are still through trains anyway (including a Berlin to Villach service!), on a journey that would take up much of a day anyway.

I'm not sure quite why there is so much wailing about this from others.

 

[Austriantrain]

I though SBT was going to provide a 40-minute time saving, so the xx:53 Vienna departure towards Graz would become something like xx:13.

No, it is 30 and a bit. The 40+ minute saving between Vienna and Graz consists of the SBT and accelarated paths with less stops elsewhere (the „fast“ service group). These additional 10 minutes already are in the current timetable.

So with SBT the current xx:53 fast path will become a xx:28 departure; the xx:24 slow path will move to xx:58 (approx 30 from the tunnel itself, the rest from better paths between Vienna and Wiener Neustadt).

 

[30907]

So with SBT the current xx:53 fast path will become a xx:28 departure; the xx:24 slow path will move to xx:58 (approx 30 from the tunnel itself, the rest from better paths between Vienna and Wiener Neustadt).

Implying a 2-hourly Praha-Graz is once again possible

 

[NCT]

No, it is 30 and a bit. The 40 minute saving between Vienna and Graz consists of the SBT and accelarated paths with less stops elsewhere (the „fast“ service group). These additional 10 minutes already are in the current timetable.

So with SBT the current xx:53 fast path will become a xx:28 departure; the xx:24 slow path will move to xx:58.

Ah I see (and of course my maths was off by 10 minutes ...) so there'll be a choice in whether it's Breclav - Vienna or Vienna - Villach that shifts by half an hour if the state operators want a perfect hourly takt. Nothing preventing the fast path becoming half hourly though, so a ~xx:58 fast path (assuming a semi-fast can run directly behind) can be used for those services that can afford to be 30-minutes off at Villach, though how those paths are divided between OeBB and Westbahn would become interesting.

Incidentally I've just noticed that from March, some of the Breclav paths do connect into Westbahn services, which would give Breclav - Graz journey time comparable to the 2025 timetable, if we ignore issues with inter-operator ticketing ...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

Come to think of it, does anything need to move at all?

The semi-fast should be the core 'takt' paths - as it's the only service for those secondary stations. The post SBT xx:58 semi-fast path will be the one that connects out of the path from Breclav and arrives into Villach in the correct half-hour. The semi-fast journey time to Graz is only a few minutes longer so there should be no (material) worsenment compared to the 2025 timetable.

There are other services arriving from the north/east of Vienna in the other half hour. Who's to say the Breclav half hour is more important than the other half hour?

 

[Austriantrain]

Ah I see (and of course my maths was off by 10 minutes ...) so there'll be a choice in whether it's Breclav - Vienna or Vienna - Villach that shifts by half an hour if the state operators want a perfect hourly takt.

The plans had a Prague arrival in Vienna at xx:22, which would comply with the minimum connecting time. No idea if this is really going to happen. The xx:58 and xx28 departures are more or less fixed though, as all further connections depend on it. The semi-fast could indeed conceivably run a bit later if different Rolling stock with faster passenger exchange and thus shorter stops are used, e.g the LD KISS (class 4706, on order for the Vienna - Salzburg service and with enough options for more).

 

[43096]

The plans had a Prague arrival in Vienna at xx:22, which would comply with the minimum connecting time. No idea if this is really going to happen. The xx:58 and xx28 departures are more or less fixed though, as all further connections depend on it. The semi-fast could indeed conceivably run a bit later if different Rolling stock with faster passenger exchange and thus shorter stops are used, e.g the LD KISS (class 4706, on order for the Vienna - Salzburg service and with enough options for more).

But the RailJet KISS can't be used over the Semmering - or at least not until the base tunnel opens - as I understand it?

 

[Austriantrain]

But the RailJet KISS can't be used over the Semmering - or at least not until the base tunnel opens - as I understand it?

Yes, that would be after SBT opens.

 

[NCT]

The plans had a Prague arrival in Vienna at xx:22, which would comply with the minimum connecting time. No idea if this is really going to happen. The xx:58 and xx28 departures are more or less fixed though, as all further connections depend on it. The semi-fast could indeed conceivably run a bit later if different Rolling stock with faster passenger exchange and thus shorter stops are used, e.g the LD KISS (class 4706, on order for the Vienna - Salzburg service and with enough options for more).

Interesting ...

An xx:22 arrival suggests a 3-minute journey time increase / additional offset compared to the current xx:49 ... Where does the Nordbahn upgrade come into it - is there a projected date for its completion? IIRC that's supposed to decrease intercity Breclav - Wienna journey time by about 10 minutes (but seemingly without changing the nodal symmetry times - trains will just arrive at / depart Wien Hbf earlier / later).

If SBT saves 30 minutes and the extra 5 minutes come from having a better path - can that better path be realised before 2030?

The 2040 infrastructure plan (https://www.bmimi.gv.at/themen/verkehrsplanung/ausbauplan/zielnetz.html, appendices C and D) envisages 2 fast paths an hour between Vienna and Villach - Westbahn seems to be accelerating the realisation of this output. Also interestingly Salsburg and Villach are shown a 15/45 nodes - presumably driven by the Salzburg - Neumarkt tunnel?

 

[Austriantrain]

Interesting ...

An xx:22 arrival suggests a 3-minute journey time increase / additional offset compared to the current xx:49 ... Where does the Nordbahn upgrade come into it - is there a projected date for its completion? IIRC that's supposed to decrease intercity Breclav - Wienna journey time by about 10 minutes (but seemingly without changing the nodal symmetry times - trains will just arrive at / depart Wien Hbf earlier / later).

I really don’t know anything more about this; nor do I know which paths would be proposed on the Czech site. I would not even bet on the paths being changed at all. Of course Austria will have Consulted with the Czechs before planning on an xx:22/xx:38 path at Wien Hbf, but that would have been years ago and certainly not finally agreed back then. The plans might have changed.

EDIT: one aspect of the whole thing could be to separate the Vienna - Breclav - Brno and Poland as well as the Bratislava/Vienna - Breclav - Prague paths so that frequencies can be increased towards hourly.

If SBT saves 30 minutes and the extra 5 minutes come from having a better path - can that better path be realised before 2030?

The better paths between Vienna and Wr Neustadt are contingent on the trains being able to run via Ebenfurth instead of via Baden. That route is not faster, but much less used, whereas via Baden, LD trains have to thread between regional express and S-Bahn. There are several measures yet to be implemented before that alternative route can be used (eg rebuild Ebenfurth, enable ETCS for 200 kph running, four track the northern approach to Wiener Neustadt). If it is ready before 2030, it won‘t be by much.

The 2040 infrastructure plan (https://www.bmimi.gv.at/themen/verkehrsplanung/ausbauplan/zielnetz.html, appendices C and D) envisages 2 fast paths an hour between Vienna and Villach - Westbahn seems to be accelerating the realisation of this output. Also interestingly Salsburg and Villach are shown a 15/45 nodes - presumably driven by the Salzburg - Neumarkt tunnel?

Exactly, and with the northern Inntal approach saving an equivalent amount towards the West (the timings at Buchs are basically set in stone, and any paths over the Arlberg where trains don‘t Cross at Landeck, at the summit and at Bludenz will lengthen Journey times and reduce reliability). In Addition, a tunnel south of Golling-Abtenau would shave off some minutes there too, so that the 15/45 node would work.

However, all this is up in the air right now. Nobody expects DB to finish the northern Inntal approach before the 2040s, and cost estimates for Neumarkt - Salzburg have risen by so much that it might well be unaffordable, especially as Austria will have severe budgetary restrictions in the years to come.

It might well be that money - if and when available - will be poured into the Neue Innkreisbahn (NIB) instead.