10 ms·

I really wish we had high speed rail in Australia. I'd pick a 600km/h train over a plane any day.

by tty2300 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- mdendura 7y ago
  But isn't that down to Deutsche Bahn having lots problems with funding, industrial action etc?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The problems with it are: - It was split up. For example, the tracks and the rolling stock are owned by different companies. All these companies are owned by a holding and all use the DB brand, but they independently try to make a profit. That makes sense to economists trying to let the market organize as much as possible, but not to railway employees trying to run a railway. For example: before, the Bundesbahn built its infrastructure, balancing cost vs needs. Now, the infrastructure company optimizes for its own profit and cuts corners, no matter how much the companies operating the trains have to spend to compensate. - The government was planning to sell it on the stock market. In preparation, DB neglected its infrastructure to appear more profitable. Fortunately these plans were dropped, but the damage is done. Another insane decision that still contributes to this neglect: Maintenance is funded by the DB. Construction is funded by the Ministry of Transportation[1]. So the DB neglects infrastructure until it has to be replaced. - Probably the worst one: It competes with cars and trucks. The automobile industry is very powerful in Germany. Properly funding the DB would lower their profits so it doesn't happen. [1] and Digital Infrastructure. Yes, our ministry of transportation is responsible for the information highway. I am not making this up.
    - makomk 7y ago
      Note that EU rules require Deutsche Bahn and every other European train network to be split up in this way, with all the problems it entails. Germany bent the rules quite a bit over the years to keep the operation of its railways as tightly integrated as it could, but it couldn't last. The European Commission is pretty unhappy about the fact they're even under the same holding company.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        You're right, the federal government is not to blame for that. Thanks for the reminder.
      - def_true_false 7y ago
        As a counterpoint, the Czech Republic has seen a massive improvement in both prices and quality with the forced split and competition with other train companies.
        anoncake 7y ago
        Correlation does not mean causation. It's also possible that splitting and competition improves one railway but would make another worse. Maybe a railway is just organized well enough that splitting is not an improvement. If the timetable gets designed by the director's nephew, something needs to change. But if multiple competing teams produce proposals and the best one gets chosen, you already have the benefits of competing companies without the disadvantages. Or there may be cultural differences between the railway companies. Maybe one company is staffed by hard workers who are motivated by working at a state-owned railway rather than for some capitalist that isn't them and would be offended if you introduced competition hoping to get them to work harder. The other could be staffed by lazy bums who find working for the state distasteful and do need a kick in the arse. Forcing a split could also cause other reforms that outweigh the damage the split causes.
- theyinwhy 7y ago
  That's because DB is really bad. Everyone in Europe knows how bad DB is. It has nothing to do with high speed trains.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    I didn’t know that. But then again, I only moved to Berlin late last year and I came from the UK, which is much much worse.
    - theyinwhy 7y ago
      True
    - TotempaaltJ 7y ago
      I still cannot believe how bad British trains are. They seem to ignore that functioning train systems exist, and just do it their own (broken) way.
      - inferiorhuman 7y ago
        Yeah I'm trying to get Great Western Rail to honor a delay compensation claim. What an awful company.
    - endoftime5 7y ago
      I always hear my German colleagues complain about DB but having taken UK trains for a few years I can’t fault DB.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Complaining is just something Germans do though. We have a saying: "Not complaining is enough praise."
        quakeguy 7y ago
        Complaining is the german way to socialize.
- dasKrokodil 7y ago
  I think the main problem with the so-called high speed trains in Germany is that they don't have their own rail network, unlike the Shinkansen in Japan or the Maglev trains in China.
  - kuschku 7y ago
    The Deutschlandtakt project which is being planned right now actually would include many new rail connections purely for passenger rail, as e.g. the https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_K%C3%B6ln%E2%80%93Rhein/Main https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_K%C3%B6ln%E... already is.
- cm2187 7y ago
  How stable are maglev trains in a crash? At these sort of speeds can the train sustain an explosion on board?
GorgeRonde 7y ago
High speed train works well in France (and it's just 300km/h) because the country is small. Australia is huge. And so is the US. This would make sense along coasts though but you wouldn't be able to cross the country from sea to sea in a few hours of course. What's good with trains is that you can hop in at the very last moment (when the bell rings, happened to me a couple times) and the train stops in the center of cities, instead of the suburbs. This is the main reason why high speed train in France can compete with airplanes when crossing the country. By plane I must first reach the airport (30 mins), have some time ahead before embarking (30 mins), the flight is 1 hour long but the time to actually take off and pick back your luggages it's almost 2 hours long, and then you have to reach the center of your destination city (30 mins). By my generous estimates, it takes 3h30 to travel by plane North/South in France vs 4 hours by train. And because currently not every railroad segment can support high speed trains going at full velocity (but work is in progress) it could take 3 hours. 300 km/h Also note that Amdahl's law [1] applies in this context (there are diminishing returns in optimizing the speed of only one segment of the full path) and travelling the last kilometers accounts for a significant portion of the travel time. For instance the TGV has to slow down when entering cities (because of the noise) and at some point in the development of the high speed rail network, it might become more interesting to dig long tunnels under cities for these trains rather than increasing the train's maximum speed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > By plane I must first reach the airport (30 mins), have some time ahead before embarking (30 mins), the flight is 1 hour long but the time to actually take off and pick back your luggages it's almost 2 hours long, and then you have to reach the center of your destination city (30 mins). By my generous estimates, it takes 3h30 to travel by plane North/South in France vs 4 hours And then there is the inevitable delays before the plane will be allowed to take off and if you're lucky the same before you're allowed to land. And in NL, if you land on Schiphol if you're particularly unlucky they will land the plane on the 5th strip which is more accurately located in Haarlem and it takes about 15 minutes to taxi to the gate.
- Zardoz84 7y ago
awiesenhofer 7y ago
I always wondered about this as well. It seems like a nobrainer especially in SE Australia. Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, up to Brisbaine. Although 600km/h would probably be unnecessarily fast and not economically viable on these routes, a normal 300+ HSR would surely provide huge benefits.
- sanxiyn 7y ago
  Sydney-Melbourne is indeed no brainer. It is one of the busiest air route in the world.
  - netcan 7y ago
    Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane, even. Between those three, there's over 2,000 flights a week. The land issues are also easier than in most places. Ultimately though, these routes are pretty well serviced by flights. These trains are pretty amazing, but not cheaper or faster than flights.
    - fulafel 7y ago
      In trains, most of the cost is the fixed cost of the track and it makes sense to get its utilization way up. So the question of cost vs flights is a very dynamic one. Sounds like a good way for Australia to decrease its CO2 emissions would be to subsidize the track and try to get the air travelers to move over.
      - netcan 7y ago
        co2 is a legitimate reason, and may justify the investment. Costs.. agreed in theory. But in practice, modern low cost airlines supported by efficient airports are very hard to beat on price. There are economies of scale here too. Very best case scenario, HSTs are similar in price and convenience and it's a matter of taste.
jimworm 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia
099812477 7y ago
High-speed trains are starting to impact airline routes: https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-train-plane/ https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-trai...
- ddoolin 7y ago
  Surely this is good for everyone save airline operators. Less planes on busy routes, more options for those don't want to fly, etc.
ksec 7y ago
Apart from boarding experience in Airpot Terminal, I prefer flying on plane over train any day. Why is it boarding a train is 10x easier than on a plane?
- Fogest 7y ago
  Because you usually don't go through the crazy security areas and luggage areas.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    And there are many doors.

I really wish we had high speed rail in Australia. I'd pick a 600km/h train over a plane any day.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mdendura 7y ago
But isn't that down to Deutsche Bahn having lots problems with funding, industrial action etc?
- anoncake 7y ago
  The problems with it are: - It was split up. For example, the tracks and the rolling stock are owned by different companies. All these companies are owned by a holding and all use the DB brand, but they independently try to make a profit. That makes sense to economists trying to let the market organize as much as possible, but not to railway employees trying to run a railway. For example: before, the Bundesbahn built its infrastructure, balancing cost vs needs. Now, the infrastructure company optimizes for its own profit and cuts corners, no matter how much the companies operating the trains have to spend to compensate. - The government was planning to sell it on the stock market. In preparation, DB neglected its infrastructure to appear more profitable. Fortunately these plans were dropped, but the damage is done. Another insane decision that still contributes to this neglect: Maintenance is funded by the DB. Construction is funded by the Ministry of Transportation[1]. So the DB neglects infrastructure until it has to be replaced. - Probably the worst one: It competes with cars and trucks. The automobile industry is very powerful in Germany. Properly funding the DB would lower their profits so it doesn't happen. [1] and Digital Infrastructure. Yes, our ministry of transportation is responsible for the information highway. I am not making this up.
  - makomk 7y ago
    Note that EU rules require Deutsche Bahn and every other European train network to be split up in this way, with all the problems it entails. Germany bent the rules quite a bit over the years to keep the operation of its railways as tightly integrated as it could, but it couldn't last. The European Commission is pretty unhappy about the fact they're even under the same holding company.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      You're right, the federal government is not to blame for that. Thanks for the reminder.
    - def_true_false 7y ago
      As a counterpoint, the Czech Republic has seen a massive improvement in both prices and quality with the forced split and competition with other train companies.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Correlation does not mean causation. It's also possible that splitting and competition improves one railway but would make another worse. Maybe a railway is just organized well enough that splitting is not an improvement. If the timetable gets designed by the director's nephew, something needs to change. But if multiple competing teams produce proposals and the best one gets chosen, you already have the benefits of competing companies without the disadvantages. Or there may be cultural differences between the railway companies. Maybe one company is staffed by hard workers who are motivated by working at a state-owned railway rather than for some capitalist that isn't them and would be offended if you introduced competition hoping to get them to work harder. The other could be staffed by lazy bums who find working for the state distasteful and do need a kick in the arse. Forcing a split could also cause other reforms that outweigh the damage the split causes.
theyinwhy 7y ago
That's because DB is really bad. Everyone in Europe knows how bad DB is. It has nothing to do with high speed trains.
- ben_w 7y ago
  I didn’t know that. But then again, I only moved to Berlin late last year and I came from the UK, which is much much worse.
  - theyinwhy 7y ago
    True
  - TotempaaltJ 7y ago
    I still cannot believe how bad British trains are. They seem to ignore that functioning train systems exist, and just do it their own (broken) way.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Yeah I'm trying to get Great Western Rail to honor a delay compensation claim. What an awful company.
  - endoftime5 7y ago
    I always hear my German colleagues complain about DB but having taken UK trains for a few years I can’t fault DB.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Complaining is just something Germans do though. We have a saying: "Not complaining is enough praise."
      - quakeguy 7y ago
        Complaining is the german way to socialize.
dasKrokodil 7y ago
I think the main problem with the so-called high speed trains in Germany is that they don't have their own rail network, unlike the Shinkansen in Japan or the Maglev trains in China.
- kuschku 7y ago
  The Deutschlandtakt project which is being planned right now actually would include many new rail connections purely for passenger rail, as e.g. the https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_K%C3%B6ln%E2%80%93Rhein/Main https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_K%C3%B6ln%E... already is.
cm2187 7y ago
How stable are maglev trains in a crash? At these sort of speeds can the train sustain an explosion on board?

GorgeRonde 7y ago

High speed train works well in France (and it's just 300km/h) because the country is small. Australia is huge. And so is the US. This would make sense along coasts though but you wouldn't be able to cross the country from sea to sea in a few hours of course. What's good with trains is that you can hop in at the very last moment (when the bell rings, happened to me a couple times) and the train stops in the center of cities, instead of the suburbs. This is the main reason why high speed train in France can compete with airplanes when crossing the country. By plane I must first reach the airport (30 mins), have some time ahead before embarking (30 mins), the flight is 1 hour long but the time to actually take off and pick back your luggages it's almost 2 hours long, and then you have to reach the center of your destination city (30 mins). By my generous estimates, it takes 3h30 to travel by plane North/South in France vs 4 hours by train. And because currently not every railroad segment can support high speed trains going at full velocity (but work is in progress) it could take 3 hours. 300 km/h Also note that Amdahl's law [1] applies in this context (there are diminishing returns in optimizing the speed of only one segment of the full path) and travelling the last kilometers accounts for a significant portion of the travel time. For instance the TGV has to slow down when entering cities (because of the noise) and at some point in the development of the high speed rail network, it might become more interesting to dig long tunnels under cities for these trains rather than increasing the train's maximum speed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

jacquesm 7y ago
> By plane I must first reach the airport (30 mins), have some time ahead before embarking (30 mins), the flight is 1 hour long but the time to actually take off and pick back your luggages it's almost 2 hours long, and then you have to reach the center of your destination city (30 mins). By my generous estimates, it takes 3h30 to travel by plane North/South in France vs 4 hours And then there is the inevitable delays before the plane will be allowed to take off and if you're lucky the same before you're allowed to land. And in NL, if you land on Schiphol if you're particularly unlucky they will land the plane on the 5th strip which is more accurately located in Haarlem and it takes about 15 minutes to taxi to the gate.
Zardoz84 7y ago

awiesenhofer 7y ago

I always wondered about this as well. It seems like a nobrainer especially in SE Australia. Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, up to Brisbaine. Although 600km/h would probably be unnecessarily fast and not economically viable on these routes, a normal 300+ HSR would surely provide huge benefits.

sanxiyn 7y ago
Sydney-Melbourne is indeed no brainer. It is one of the busiest air route in the world.
- netcan 7y ago
  Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane, even. Between those three, there's over 2,000 flights a week. The land issues are also easier than in most places. Ultimately though, these routes are pretty well serviced by flights. These trains are pretty amazing, but not cheaper or faster than flights.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    In trains, most of the cost is the fixed cost of the track and it makes sense to get its utilization way up. So the question of cost vs flights is a very dynamic one. Sounds like a good way for Australia to decrease its CO2 emissions would be to subsidize the track and try to get the air travelers to move over.
    - netcan 7y ago
      co2 is a legitimate reason, and may justify the investment. Costs.. agreed in theory. But in practice, modern low cost airlines supported by efficient airports are very hard to beat on price. There are economies of scale here too. Very best case scenario, HSTs are similar in price and convenience and it's a matter of taste.

jimworm 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#Australia

099812477 7y ago

High-speed trains are starting to impact airline routes: https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-train-plane/ https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-trai...

ddoolin 7y ago
Surely this is good for everyone save airline operators. Less planes on busy routes, more options for those don't want to fly, etc.

ksec 7y ago

Apart from boarding experience in Airpot Terminal, I prefer flying on plane over train any day. Why is it boarding a train is 10x easier than on a plane?

Fogest 7y ago
Because you usually don't go through the crazy security areas and luggage areas.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  And there are many doors.