3 ms·

The article doesn't mention airplanes at all, but it's planes that have truly shrunk (Western) Europe. London, Copenhagen and Amsterdam have only recently been

by tgv 5y ago

The article doesn't mention airplanes at all, but it's planes that have truly shrunk (Western) Europe. London, Copenhagen and Amsterdam have only recently been connected to the fast train network, or not yet. But the most important factor, IMO, is price. The article hails "its affordability. “The TGV was meant for everyone and not just the rich.”" While that might have been true in 1981, nowadays a high-speed rail ticket is on average more expensive than a plane ticket, and train capacity is still lagging behind. I wish this could be reversed, but that would require more intervention than the EC seems willing to do, not to mention some very costly investments.

Gravityloss 5y ago
If kerosene was taxed like other fuels and energy sources? Trains and their infrastructure are not exactly free enterprise either though...
rsynnott 5y ago
> While that might have been true in 1981, nowadays a high-speed rail ticket is on average more expensive than a plane ticket, I'm not sure how true this is when you factor in getting to and from the airport, or if you for some unaccountable reason want to bring anything larger than a laptop bag with you.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  From barcelona to amsterdam will cost about 50-100 bucks with luggage. Transfer to the airport costs 1-2 euros each side as both airports have excellent local train connectivity at regular local pricing. It takes 2 hours. With checkin and waiting hassles etc say 4. By high speed rail the same trip costs around 400, takes 12 hours and in most cases you have to transfer somewhere in Paris from one station to another by metro. There's simply no point in this. And there is no incentive for the rail companies in making this work. They fill up all their high-speed seats for in-country travel already so why bother making good deals for international through travelers? Better sell the same seat on the journey several times for a local commuter than once for long distance. For national travel you have a point, sure. In Europe national air travel is really rare. Even the biggest countries use their rail links for that. But on a European scale rail is not working at all.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
Indeed. Amsterdam has a fast line to Brussels and from there to Paris now (though a lot of the Belgian track is slow especially around/through the cities). But it's mainly been a huge money sink. It cost billions more than expected, the more local semi-highspeed trains (Fyra) that were purchased were dropping parts on the track and had to be banned. So now the fast track is used once per hour for a TGV (Thalys). Besides that it's used by the same slow trains that used the regular track before, because nobody wants to invest in another fast train since the Fyra disaster. It's been a huge failure.
- dddw 5y ago
  The fyra train contract was given to a company which didn't have any experience building high speed trains who promised it for cheap over a reasonably priced experienced manufacturer (siemens). A case of 'goedkoop, duurkoop' (buying too cheap might end up being expensive) imho.

by tgv 5y ago

Gravityloss 5y ago

If kerosene was taxed like other fuels and energy sources? Trains and their infrastructure are not exactly free enterprise either though...

rsynnott 5y ago

> While that might have been true in 1981, nowadays a high-speed rail ticket is on average more expensive than a plane ticket, I'm not sure how true this is when you factor in getting to and from the airport, or if you for some unaccountable reason want to bring anything larger than a laptop bag with you.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
From barcelona to amsterdam will cost about 50-100 bucks with luggage. Transfer to the airport costs 1-2 euros each side as both airports have excellent local train connectivity at regular local pricing. It takes 2 hours. With checkin and waiting hassles etc say 4. By high speed rail the same trip costs around 400, takes 12 hours and in most cases you have to transfer somewhere in Paris from one station to another by metro. There's simply no point in this. And there is no incentive for the rail companies in making this work. They fill up all their high-speed seats for in-country travel already so why bother making good deals for international through travelers? Better sell the same seat on the journey several times for a local commuter than once for long distance. For national travel you have a point, sure. In Europe national air travel is really rare. Even the biggest countries use their rail links for that. But on a European scale rail is not working at all.

GekkePrutser 5y ago

Indeed. Amsterdam has a fast line to Brussels and from there to Paris now (though a lot of the Belgian track is slow especially around/through the cities). But it's mainly been a huge money sink. It cost billions more than expected, the more local semi-highspeed trains (Fyra) that were purchased were dropping parts on the track and had to be banned. So now the fast track is used once per hour for a TGV (Thalys). Besides that it's used by the same slow trains that used the regular track before, because nobody wants to invest in another fast train since the Fyra disaster. It's been a huge failure.

dddw 5y ago
The fyra train contract was given to a company which didn't have any experience building high speed trains who promised it for cheap over a reasonably priced experienced manufacturer (siemens). A case of 'goedkoop, duurkoop' (buying too cheap might end up being expensive) imho.