8 ms·

A richly detailed article that delves into the French TGV speed record, the extra modifications they applied to what was already a high-speed system, and the le

A richly detailed article that delves into the French TGV speed record, the extra modifications they applied to what was already a high-speed system, and the lesser-known physical phenomena that set a performance envelope for this mode of traction. Then, in a switch of tone and pacing, admits that profitability potential is likely most important of them all. This is why networks -- rather than just individual lines -- are critically important. High-speed rail works best when it connects robust local transportation networks that already exist: between cities that they themselves have robust temporal and spatial transport coverage. It works best when faraway cities can be brought within commuting range, or further leisure destinations within daytrip range. Similarly, it works best when it extends the catchment area of an airport, rather than a service positioned to compete against point-to-point flights. But major infrastructure projects often suffer from messy political and public relations approaches that play up the project's impressiveness and prestige in isolation, while neglecting to emphasize or champion synergistic improvements to other parts of the network. Frequent and punctual "normal-speed" rail isn't as politically energizing, and local transit networks that serve the specific transport needs of a town are hardly exciting to regional audience, but without it, high-speed rail is just an expensive showpiece that doesn't serve a genuinely identifiable transport need. This is a risk with the California HSR as much as it is with ambitious efforts to bring western Europe's successful high-speed services further into the EU's east.

kortilla 7y ago
People still use airports all of the time for regional flights despite the airports having crap local connectivity. The California HSR can still be incredibly successful if it’s as easy to get to as the local airports (including the public transit poor SJC). What will kill it is terminating in places not even convenient enough for an airport location.
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  I recently took a round trip flight from Edinburgh to London and back. If I could do it over again, I would have just taken the train.
  - Paul_S 7y ago
    I had been doing a similar trip (100km from London) very often in the past and always took the train, over the years the journey time has gone down to a little over 5 hours. I took a flight once two years ago and when you add all the waiting, security, getting to and from the airport it works out almost exactly the same, except you're more tired and can't take as many suitcases. Now, imagine we had fast trains in the uk.
    - Symbiote 7y ago
      I was furious when I read about the government subsidy/bail-out of FlyBe last month. Many of their routes are very easily done by train -- Birmingham to Glasgow, London to Exeter, London to Newquay, London to Newcastle. Faster trains would make more places in Scotland a reasonable travel time away from London and Birmingham.
      - iso947 7y ago
        London to X sure Southampton to Leeds, Manchester to Cornwall, and of course Belfast to anywhere isn’t easy or fast by train
        bogle 7y ago
        The poor state of the UK railways is due to a massive lack of investment for most of the second half of the twentieth century. A huge wasted opportunity where the costs of the closures were never properly considered.
        iso947 7y ago
        Don’t conflate the majority of the beeching closures with a lack of investment. The problem was during the 80s when Japan and France were building new high speed railways, we weren’t. We’re now trying to catch up with HS2, which is sorely needed to free existing tracks for more and reliable services, but we need to use that as a springboard for 50 years of investment. HS2, npr, midland connect, then high speed Birmingham to Bristol/Cardiff, Cambridge, and Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow The key is to ensure we have schemes ready to go once construction winds up on the first parts, so the skills and equipment aren’t lost.
- nixass 7y ago
  People IN THE US still use regional flights because all sorts of public transport in the US are literally third world crap. EU and parts of developed Asia use a lot of inter-city trains. Munich<>Frankfurt (400km) is 3 hours with ICE, much less than going to the airport, wait for check in, boarding, flight, off the plane and to the city centre. It's around 110e too for returns
  - ghaff 7y ago
    And yet Europe has all those discount airlines that people apparently use. A Munich-Frankfurt route is a lot like a Boston or DC to NYC route, which is indeed popular by train in US. (Though traveling that by plane is also popular for reasons I don't understand outside of some fairly specific circumstances like an early morning meeting.)
    - gutnor 7y ago
      Borders. That's the problem in the EU. Cooperation for massive infrastructure project beyond a single line or a tunnel is very hard to achieve. Discount airlines are discount mostly because of tax incentive to develop small local airport around the EU. Of course they are popular. In the UK, from London, it is basically cheaper to get anywhere in the EU than anything north of Birmingham.
  - Sharlin 7y ago
    Interstate rail in Europe is still very far from optimal, and long-distance rail service has been declining due to cheap state-subsidized air travel. Overnight service, a natural mode of longer-distance transport, has been scaled back in recent decades, but is now making a comeback due to climate concerns.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    A country in the EU and a state in the US are equivalent (for discussion on transport - in other contexts there are significant differences). Nobody flies between cities in one state, just like nobody flies between cities in one EU country. When going to a different country things change - the distances are now large enough that you fly because it is faster. Remember, Chicago to New York City is almost the same distance as Munich to Moscow! (Note that rail advocates will tell you that Chicago to NYC is just barely in high speed rail range, anything farther even rail advocates don't pretend to be competitive. Chicago to New York City is not very far on the scale of the US, so of course we fly. Yes I will agree that our rail system in the US isn't great, but flying doesn't compete with the rail system, driving does. A good rail system in the US would only negatively affect some short flying routes, it would however mean less people drove.
agumonkey 7y ago
> But major infrastructure projects often suffer from messy political and public relations approaches that play up the project's impressiveness and prestige in isolation, while neglecting to emphasize or champion synergistic improvements to other parts of the network. Is this studied or monitored ? something that could give directions to avoid waste or corruption~ for politicians ?
- Bluestrike2 7y ago
  That's likely to be closely related to the same dynamics that make maintenance funding so politically difficult. Big new projects are visible, whereas things like maintenance funding or less obvious improvements...aren't, and that difference in political impact can lead to serious agency problems. A politician accrues easy political capital with big, new projects because they're so obvious. Most articles and papers I've seen on the subject emphasize much more rigorous project-specific cost-benefit analyses. This 2016 CBO paper[0] covers both the history, current situation, and three potential reforms: charging for actual use, cost-benefit analysis, or carefully linking funding to performance metrics. This is a separate Brookings paper discussing the subject as well.[1] Viewing projects less in isolation and more as part of a connected complex system could be more readily captured in cost-benefit analyses, and be more resilient against perverse agency problems. 0. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50150-Federal_Highway_Spending-OneCol.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-... 1. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_highway_infrastructure_kahn_levinson_paper.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_high...
- bluGill 7y ago
  So long as people vote for soundbites it will happen. Politicians will look to attach their name to anything that breaks ground so long as it looks good.
sporkland 7y ago
> Frequent and punctual "normal-speed" rail isn't as politically energizing Having lived for 7+ years in both Boston and San Francisco and visited Paris a few times and trains that are 2 minutes apart is life changing in terms overall experience. You've given me a new cause to rally around.

kortilla 7y ago

People still use airports all of the time for regional flights despite the airports having crap local connectivity. The California HSR can still be incredibly successful if it’s as easy to get to as the local airports (including the public transit poor SJC). What will kill it is terminating in places not even convenient enough for an airport location.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago
I recently took a round trip flight from Edinburgh to London and back. If I could do it over again, I would have just taken the train.
- Paul_S 7y ago
  I had been doing a similar trip (100km from London) very often in the past and always took the train, over the years the journey time has gone down to a little over 5 hours. I took a flight once two years ago and when you add all the waiting, security, getting to and from the airport it works out almost exactly the same, except you're more tired and can't take as many suitcases. Now, imagine we had fast trains in the uk.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    I was furious when I read about the government subsidy/bail-out of FlyBe last month. Many of their routes are very easily done by train -- Birmingham to Glasgow, London to Exeter, London to Newquay, London to Newcastle. Faster trains would make more places in Scotland a reasonable travel time away from London and Birmingham.
    - iso947 7y ago
      London to X sure Southampton to Leeds, Manchester to Cornwall, and of course Belfast to anywhere isn’t easy or fast by train
      - bogle 7y ago
        The poor state of the UK railways is due to a massive lack of investment for most of the second half of the twentieth century. A huge wasted opportunity where the costs of the closures were never properly considered.
        iso947 7y ago
        Don’t conflate the majority of the beeching closures with a lack of investment. The problem was during the 80s when Japan and France were building new high speed railways, we weren’t. We’re now trying to catch up with HS2, which is sorely needed to free existing tracks for more and reliable services, but we need to use that as a springboard for 50 years of investment. HS2, npr, midland connect, then high speed Birmingham to Bristol/Cardiff, Cambridge, and Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow The key is to ensure we have schemes ready to go once construction winds up on the first parts, so the skills and equipment aren’t lost.
nixass 7y ago
People IN THE US still use regional flights because all sorts of public transport in the US are literally third world crap. EU and parts of developed Asia use a lot of inter-city trains. Munich<>Frankfurt (400km) is 3 hours with ICE, much less than going to the airport, wait for check in, boarding, flight, off the plane and to the city centre. It's around 110e too for returns
- ghaff 7y ago
  And yet Europe has all those discount airlines that people apparently use. A Munich-Frankfurt route is a lot like a Boston or DC to NYC route, which is indeed popular by train in US. (Though traveling that by plane is also popular for reasons I don't understand outside of some fairly specific circumstances like an early morning meeting.)
  - gutnor 7y ago
    Borders. That's the problem in the EU. Cooperation for massive infrastructure project beyond a single line or a tunnel is very hard to achieve. Discount airlines are discount mostly because of tax incentive to develop small local airport around the EU. Of course they are popular. In the UK, from London, it is basically cheaper to get anywhere in the EU than anything north of Birmingham.
- Sharlin 7y ago
  Interstate rail in Europe is still very far from optimal, and long-distance rail service has been declining due to cheap state-subsidized air travel. Overnight service, a natural mode of longer-distance transport, has been scaled back in recent decades, but is now making a comeback due to climate concerns.
- bluGill 7y ago
  A country in the EU and a state in the US are equivalent (for discussion on transport - in other contexts there are significant differences). Nobody flies between cities in one state, just like nobody flies between cities in one EU country. When going to a different country things change - the distances are now large enough that you fly because it is faster. Remember, Chicago to New York City is almost the same distance as Munich to Moscow! (Note that rail advocates will tell you that Chicago to NYC is just barely in high speed rail range, anything farther even rail advocates don't pretend to be competitive. Chicago to New York City is not very far on the scale of the US, so of course we fly. Yes I will agree that our rail system in the US isn't great, but flying doesn't compete with the rail system, driving does. A good rail system in the US would only negatively affect some short flying routes, it would however mean less people drove.

agumonkey 7y ago

> But major infrastructure projects often suffer from messy political and public relations approaches that play up the project's impressiveness and prestige in isolation, while neglecting to emphasize or champion synergistic improvements to other parts of the network. Is this studied or monitored ? something that could give directions to avoid waste or corruption~ for politicians ?

Bluestrike2 7y ago
That's likely to be closely related to the same dynamics that make maintenance funding so politically difficult. Big new projects are visible, whereas things like maintenance funding or less obvious improvements...aren't, and that difference in political impact can lead to serious agency problems. A politician accrues easy political capital with big, new projects because they're so obvious. Most articles and papers I've seen on the subject emphasize much more rigorous project-specific cost-benefit analyses. This 2016 CBO paper[0] covers both the history, current situation, and three potential reforms: charging for actual use, cost-benefit analysis, or carefully linking funding to performance metrics. This is a separate Brookings paper discussing the subject as well.[1] Viewing projects less in isolation and more as part of a connected complex system could be more readily captured in cost-benefit analyses, and be more resilient against perverse agency problems. 0. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50150-Federal_Highway_Spending-OneCol.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-... 1. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_highway_infrastructure_kahn_levinson_paper.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_high...
bluGill 7y ago
So long as people vote for soundbites it will happen. Politicians will look to attach their name to anything that breaks ground so long as it looks good.

sporkland 7y ago

> Frequent and punctual "normal-speed" rail isn't as politically energizing Having lived for 7+ years in both Boston and San Francisco and visited Paris a few times and trains that are 2 minutes apart is life changing in terms overall experience. You've given me a new cause to rally around.