5 ms·

That appears to be about 650 miles (1050km). That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. However, the train will likely make a few stop

That appears to be about 650 miles (1050km). That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. However, the train will likely make a few stops, making Berlin/Paris more accessible from other cities on the route. Where there are high-speed routes today, hopefully 300 mph maglevs will be running in 50 years.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
madduci 4y ago
I hope the price will be affordable and cheap compared to flight tickets. Unfortunately ICE is very expensive to date
- lispm 4y ago
  With a Bahncard 50, one pays between 60 and 80 Euros for an ICE from Hamburg to Munich, one way. My Lufthansa flight next week is 300 Euros. There is also the Bahncard 100, which currently costs 4.144 Euros for mostly all trains and public transport for one year in all of Germany.
- pimeys 4y ago
  The European air traffic is subsidized quite often, trains not that much. Just take all that government money out from flying and put it to trains, suddenly they become much cheaper.
buro9 4y ago
> That appears to be about 650 miles (1050km). That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. Not sure that is true. When you have a high speed train, going from the centre of a city to the centre of another city... and can subtract time to get to airport, time in airport security, time to wait to board a plane, time to taxi, time to circle before landing, time to get to the city, time to safety margin most of the above... the train comes out at least comparable on time (not an order of magnitude off), cheaper, greener, and centre-to-centre. For me... European trains are so nice in comparison to flying that unless there is a time penalty of more than double to triple the real time spent flying (which in this case does not feel true)... then the train wins. It's also a very productive journey. I can't do meetings on a train, but 6-7 hours uninterrupted in a comfy chair with power and internet is still coding / making slides / etc.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  Not everyone can work in a train because not every job is suitable for that. If all you want is to get from point A to point B and you are not paid for that, the extra time is a burden. Another con is this scenario: you need to go from Berlin to Paris for an activity that takes 2-3 hours (ex: paperwork that requires your presence on site or a very important meeting). With a plane you fly in, do the thing and fly out same day. With the train, you spend 2 days. I had to do this a lot 20 years ago between Bucharest, Romania, and Sofia, Bulgaria; about 370km, no highway, inconvenient flight times, train took ~ 6 hours each direction etc. I was driving there and back, 4 hours door to door each direction, the gas was a lot cheaper than the hotel and sometimes traveling 2-5 people in a car. Double the distance and the plane is the attractive option vs train.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    To give some more concrete numbers, I estimated the time from Google's office in Berlin (Tucholskystraße 2, 10117 Berlin, Germany) to Google's office in Paris (8 Rue de Londres, 75009 Paris, France). Option 1 (plane + taxi) - taxi to BER (45m), check-in/security/wait (1h), BER-CDG flight 1h45m, exit (20m), taxi to the Paris office (1h) = about 5 hours. Option 2 (plane + bus) - bus in Berlin takes 50 minutes, in Paris takes 1 hour, so about the same, but I'll add about 30 minutes because the schedules might not mesh so well = about 5.5 hours. Option 2 (train) - taxi to Berlin Hbf (6m) or walk (25m), train to Gare de l'Est (7 hours), taxi (13m) or walk (28m) to the Paris office = about 7.5 hours. Agreed, 5 extra hours makes a same-day visit tougher (10 hours of travel vs 15). Plus, to start there's only one day-time direct train route, while there are more flight options.
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      You're much more likely to be able to do useful work on the uninterrupted 7 hour train journey, compared to all the 1-hour bits of the plane journey. There will presumably be free Wi-Fi and power sockets. You'll be interrupted once to show your ticket, that's all.
      - 4y ago
maratc 4y ago
> That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. The thing with economy, as always, is the price of an alternative. If these cost the same, it's one thing. Usually though, trains are more expensive. And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free.
- jaggederest 4y ago
  Maintaining the air is only free until we properly price externalities. Would add an extra ~€45 for the carbon emissions, making trains pretty cost competitive.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free. Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, and maintanence of airports is way more expensive than train stations. Also, the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel. This. Most people don't realise that the biggest reason flying is so cheap, is it's subsidised by the state in every contry in accordance to rules of international aviation, whereas train companies must pay taxes on any fuel they use.
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    > Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, Kinda doubt if you count per passenger mile. Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      Trains can transport way more people than usual planes though. Not even the largest A380 are comparable to ICE4 which are presumably going to be used on this route. https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 >Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars. In which context? I very much doubt that maintanence costs are similar or even cheaper for planes - for one, the plane maintanence has to be more thorough. Also, I would say that electric engines for trains are relatively simple compared to jet engines. Even cost supports this thesis: Poland bought 400-seat Pendolino for 400 millions for 20 trains. Comparable 777 costs 400 million... for one plane. 737s start from 100 million. What's expensive is infrastructure.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

madduci 4y ago

I hope the price will be affordable and cheap compared to flight tickets. Unfortunately ICE is very expensive to date

lispm 4y ago
With a Bahncard 50, one pays between 60 and 80 Euros for an ICE from Hamburg to Munich, one way. My Lufthansa flight next week is 300 Euros. There is also the Bahncard 100, which currently costs 4.144 Euros for mostly all trains and public transport for one year in all of Germany.
pimeys 4y ago
The European air traffic is subsidized quite often, trains not that much. Just take all that government money out from flying and put it to trains, suddenly they become much cheaper.

buro9 4y ago

> That appears to be about 650 miles (1050km). That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. Not sure that is true. When you have a high speed train, going from the centre of a city to the centre of another city... and can subtract time to get to airport, time in airport security, time to wait to board a plane, time to taxi, time to circle before landing, time to get to the city, time to safety margin most of the above... the train comes out at least comparable on time (not an order of magnitude off), cheaper, greener, and centre-to-centre. For me... European trains are so nice in comparison to flying that unless there is a time penalty of more than double to triple the real time spent flying (which in this case does not feel true)... then the train wins. It's also a very productive journey. I can't do meetings on a train, but 6-7 hours uninterrupted in a comfy chair with power and internet is still coding / making slides / etc.

AdrianB1 4y ago
Not everyone can work in a train because not every job is suitable for that. If all you want is to get from point A to point B and you are not paid for that, the extra time is a burden. Another con is this scenario: you need to go from Berlin to Paris for an activity that takes 2-3 hours (ex: paperwork that requires your presence on site or a very important meeting). With a plane you fly in, do the thing and fly out same day. With the train, you spend 2 days. I had to do this a lot 20 years ago between Bucharest, Romania, and Sofia, Bulgaria; about 370km, no highway, inconvenient flight times, train took ~ 6 hours each direction etc. I was driving there and back, 4 hours door to door each direction, the gas was a lot cheaper than the hotel and sometimes traveling 2-5 people in a car. Double the distance and the plane is the attractive option vs train.
- eesmith 4y ago
  To give some more concrete numbers, I estimated the time from Google's office in Berlin (Tucholskystraße 2, 10117 Berlin, Germany) to Google's office in Paris (8 Rue de Londres, 75009 Paris, France). Option 1 (plane + taxi) - taxi to BER (45m), check-in/security/wait (1h), BER-CDG flight 1h45m, exit (20m), taxi to the Paris office (1h) = about 5 hours. Option 2 (plane + bus) - bus in Berlin takes 50 minutes, in Paris takes 1 hour, so about the same, but I'll add about 30 minutes because the schedules might not mesh so well = about 5.5 hours. Option 2 (train) - taxi to Berlin Hbf (6m) or walk (25m), train to Gare de l'Est (7 hours), taxi (13m) or walk (28m) to the Paris office = about 7.5 hours. Agreed, 5 extra hours makes a same-day visit tougher (10 hours of travel vs 15). Plus, to start there's only one day-time direct train route, while there are more flight options.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    You're much more likely to be able to do useful work on the uninterrupted 7 hour train journey, compared to all the 1-hour bits of the plane journey. There will presumably be free Wi-Fi and power sockets. You'll be interrupted once to show your ticket, that's all.
    - 4y ago

maratc 4y ago

> That’s around the point where many people will still prefer to fly. The thing with economy, as always, is the price of an alternative. If these cost the same, it's one thing. Usually though, trains are more expensive. And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free.

jaggederest 4y ago
Maintaining the air is only free until we properly price externalities. Would add an extra ~€45 for the carbon emissions, making trains pretty cost competitive.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
>And for a good reason — maintaining the tracks costs a lot of money, while maintaining the air is free. Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, and maintanence of airports is way more expensive than train stations. Also, the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > the biggest reason is tax free plane fuel. This. Most people don't realise that the biggest reason flying is so cheap, is it's subsidised by the state in every contry in accordance to rules of international aviation, whereas train companies must pay taxes on any fuel they use.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  > Maintanence of planes is way more expensive than trains, Kinda doubt if you count per passenger mile. Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Trains can transport way more people than usual planes though. Not even the largest A380 are comparable to ICE4 which are presumably going to be used on this route. https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/v15f0ux8dk07ap7/ICE4.pdf?dl=0 >Also, planes (and rockets) are _kind of_ simple when compared with trains or cars. In which context? I very much doubt that maintanence costs are similar or even cheaper for planes - for one, the plane maintanence has to be more thorough. Also, I would say that electric engines for trains are relatively simple compared to jet engines. Even cost supports this thesis: Poland bought 400-seat Pendolino for 400 millions for 20 trains. Comparable 777 costs 400 million... for one plane. 737s start from 100 million. What's expensive is infrastructure.