5 ms·

"functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled

"functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. I think the author has a very valid point when it comes to the cost of rail tracks. It's something the proponents always conveniently ignore. On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city. The travel time between, e.g., Berlin and Paris is something like four to five times as long as by plane. So unless someone develops a low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel are probably going to win any fair competition.

matkoniecz 4y ago
> low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel is either existing? > On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city. Traffic generated by rail station limited by capacity would require gargantuan airport to handle it, which would anyway require bus/train/car connections from within city taking even more space.
- slyall 4y ago
  A fun stat is: Daily passengers on the New York subway system is around the same as total daily passengers on every commercial flight in the US.
  - choeger 4y ago
    I can totally believe that. But it has 470 or so stations. That makes about 10k or so daily passengers per station. That's very roughly the same as Berlin. Additionally, the trains are quite slow, which ain't a problem for a metropolitan network, but you certainly cannot compare that system to a country- or continent-wide train network.
  - fanf2 4y ago
    In London, the Kings Cross + St Pancras complex handles about 340,000 passengers per day, and is about 0.3km x 0.5km. Heathrow handles about 240,000 passengers per day, and is about 3km x 5km.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  He is not entirely wrong about the capacity limits of the railway stations, though. European cities struggle with inadequate railway capacity all the time. The main problem is that the original railway stations were laid out in about 1840-1870, for much smaller passenger streams, and today find it hard to cope with modern requirements (a lot of commuters from the suburbia). But given that there is dense city infrastructure all around them, the only way to solve this is to build a new station underground, which is hideously expensive and slow. Berlin was somewhat "lucky" to have a good place to build their new Hauptbahnhof, a result of the former division of the city. Stuttgart is rebuilding and upgrading its railway network at a great expense, the construction works started in 2010 and are far from finished. In Prague, there is a lot of discussion what to do with the rail network in the center. You cannot just tear down whole tracts of buildings in a historical city, so yes, we will have to go the Stuttgart route and who knows what the budget (and) time overrun will be. I commute with a train daily. The lack of capacity is visible in chronic delays, sometimes up to 30 minutes. Fortunately I do not have to be at my office at a precise hour, but going to a medical appointment without wasting too much time is already a bit of a challenge. I even witnessed a 15 minute delay at 4:30 in the morning.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    If you have no space for larger train station, then you will have problem to fit airport there. Or even commuting infrastructure to reach airport.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      That is why airports are built in the middle of nowhere (also because of the noise). People can tolerate a longer commute to the airport and back, because few Europeans commute by air daily. Most of us fly at most several times a year.
johannes1234321 4y ago
If you want a truly working high speed rail network look to Japan. Shinkansen trains are punctual and fast. That is possible with political will. And yes, the German system is a fascinating mixture of really good parts and really bad parts. But while troubled, to large degrees it works to acceptable measure.
- rocqua 4y ago
  The article does state that the Japanese system runs at a massive loss.
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    Public roads also operate under massive loss. As long as society is willing to pay for it, I don't see a problem.
    - fooker 4y ago
      There you go, some societies are willing to pay for it, and some are not depending on whether it makes sense. If you are trying to say that some societies are wrong about it, that's a bit more of a tough sell.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    Is it as accurate as their claim about ease of buying new planes?
  - danhor 4y ago
    That's not accurate. Multiple shinkansen lines were pofitable before covid, making up huge losses in rural lines. The infrastructur was largely financed by the state, but that's true for any transport infrastructure.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
You would never fly Frankfurt-Paris, because the train is a much faster, more comfortable option. The Deutsche Bahn has significantly degraded over time, due to insufficient investment, but it's still an incredibly useful system. If you want to see what's possible with current technology, look at Chinese HSR. Beijing to Shanghai is a 20% longer distance than Berlin to Paris, yet it takes only half as long by train (just over 4 hours vs. 8-9 hours). If such a connection existed between Berlin and Paris, it would be very difficult to justify flying.
- danhor 4y ago
  CHSR is technologically impressive, but planning and operations of boarding and stations are superior with DB that treats HSR like normal trains and not ground-level planes (an issue with many HSR systems).
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    In Germany, the fact that you can just walk onto the platform at any time and that your ticket is checked after boarding is very convenient. However, on-time performance in Germany is horrendous compared to China, so I'm not willing to call Germany's operations as a whole superior. If I had to choose between my train arriving within half an hour of the scheduled time and having to board airplane style, I would board airplane style.
nibix 4y ago
> The travel time between, e.g., Berlin and Paris is something like four to five times as long as by plane. I think your estimate is quite off here: Train connections from Berlin to Paris take about 8.5 hours. Flights take 1 hour and 50 minutes plus the overhead time for traveling to and from the airport, security and taxiing. Just let's suppose that this will be 2.5 hours in total, which would be very fast. So we are comparing 8.5 hours with 4.5 hours. So, the factor is less than two rather than the four to five you suggested.
yccs27 4y ago
I don't think the problems with German rail apply universally. The prevalence of low-speed tracks and frequency of delays comes from a period of missing reinvestment following the (semi-)privatization of Deutsche Bahn. Not every network will have this issue.
lispm 4y ago
> a rail station has quite a limited capacity most new&large airports are far outside of cities (example: Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, ...) because of the enormous space needed and environmental problems is creates. Nearer airports will close operating at 10pm, whereas train stations will operate 24h no problem. Large projects for new train stations/systems in major cities (Hamburg-Altona, Stuttgart, ...) take a long time, but they exist. Large new airport projects near (!) major cities here in Germany don't exist. > Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. That's because Germany has dense population regions and there always will be stops in cities and a lot of passengers. It's an optimization question. Being able to run a train system with max 300kmph is much more expensive than at 250kmph and the advantages are not that huge. > They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. Planes are always crowded with a tiny personal space, difficult to board/leave, difficult to work in, difficult to reach, subject to a complex passage on an airport with all its rules&regulations, longer upfront booking, ... For example when I want to travel from Hamburg to Düsseldorf (400km) on wednesday morning, the price is around 35 Euros incl. local public transport tickets with my Bahncard 50 which I got from the company. There is no flight like that. Hamburg/Munich: >600km. Already too long for a business trip by train. Cost 60€ with Bahncard 50 incl. local public transport tickets. Time: 6:30 center to center. Flight: much more expensive, unreliable (I remember been waiting on friday evening two hours on the runway for the start), Munich airport is 40km outside, the Munich airport has long transit times. Time from city center to city center by flight is around four hours. The travel costs about three times as much. > Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. For certain longer trips, but if I want from Hamburg to Berlin, Frankfurt, ... I take the train. > especially if it's inside the city That's great: with an ICE I want to reach the city center and not some airport 40km outside (like in Munich). I want to be in a big hub where all the local transports are reachable. High-Speed trains here are connecting centers of a large local public transport system: local trains, underground trains, busses, ferries, ... When I travel by train between Hamburg and another major city, the tickets for much of the local transport systems for the start end destination cities are already included.
arinlen 4y ago
> "functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. This is a silly red herring. Top speed means nothing. The only key factor is door-to-door travel time, and it means nothing if a train goes 180km/m in some sections and 320km/h in others if in the end you reach your destination 1h earlier than b flying. > They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. Things that are completely unheard of in any sort of public transportation service, specially air travel! Please look at the Netherland's Schipol airport, one of the largest in the world and often used as the paragon of well functioning hub, and how they've been systematically cancelling and delaying flights throughout the year. > They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. No, not really. Only the lowest-cost low-cost operators tend to beat high speed railway on price, but they often have flights to airports well outside of city centers or even in suboptimal terminals with all sorts of hidden costs, and ultimately lead to a slower suboptimal experience.
adammarples 4y ago
They're so crowded these days, nobody uses them any more! I say I say

matkoniecz 4y ago

> low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel is either existing? > On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city. Traffic generated by rail station limited by capacity would require gargantuan airport to handle it, which would anyway require bus/train/car connections from within city taking even more space.

slyall 4y ago
A fun stat is: Daily passengers on the New York subway system is around the same as total daily passengers on every commercial flight in the US.
- choeger 4y ago
  I can totally believe that. But it has 470 or so stations. That makes about 10k or so daily passengers per station. That's very roughly the same as Berlin. Additionally, the trains are quite slow, which ain't a problem for a metropolitan network, but you certainly cannot compare that system to a country- or continent-wide train network.
- fanf2 4y ago
  In London, the Kings Cross + St Pancras complex handles about 340,000 passengers per day, and is about 0.3km x 0.5km. Heathrow handles about 240,000 passengers per day, and is about 3km x 5km.
inglor_cz 4y ago
He is not entirely wrong about the capacity limits of the railway stations, though. European cities struggle with inadequate railway capacity all the time. The main problem is that the original railway stations were laid out in about 1840-1870, for much smaller passenger streams, and today find it hard to cope with modern requirements (a lot of commuters from the suburbia). But given that there is dense city infrastructure all around them, the only way to solve this is to build a new station underground, which is hideously expensive and slow. Berlin was somewhat "lucky" to have a good place to build their new Hauptbahnhof, a result of the former division of the city. Stuttgart is rebuilding and upgrading its railway network at a great expense, the construction works started in 2010 and are far from finished. In Prague, there is a lot of discussion what to do with the rail network in the center. You cannot just tear down whole tracts of buildings in a historical city, so yes, we will have to go the Stuttgart route and who knows what the budget (and) time overrun will be. I commute with a train daily. The lack of capacity is visible in chronic delays, sometimes up to 30 minutes. Fortunately I do not have to be at my office at a precise hour, but going to a medical appointment without wasting too much time is already a bit of a challenge. I even witnessed a 15 minute delay at 4:30 in the morning.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  If you have no space for larger train station, then you will have problem to fit airport there. Or even commuting infrastructure to reach airport.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    That is why airports are built in the middle of nowhere (also because of the noise). People can tolerate a longer commute to the airport and back, because few Europeans commute by air daily. Most of us fly at most several times a year.

johannes1234321 4y ago

If you want a truly working high speed rail network look to Japan. Shinkansen trains are punctual and fast. That is possible with political will. And yes, the German system is a fascinating mixture of really good parts and really bad parts. But while troubled, to large degrees it works to acceptable measure.

rocqua 4y ago
The article does state that the Japanese system runs at a massive loss.
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  Public roads also operate under massive loss. As long as society is willing to pay for it, I don't see a problem.
  - fooker 4y ago
    There you go, some societies are willing to pay for it, and some are not depending on whether it makes sense. If you are trying to say that some societies are wrong about it, that's a bit more of a tough sell.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  Is it as accurate as their claim about ease of buying new planes?
- danhor 4y ago
  That's not accurate. Multiple shinkansen lines were pofitable before covid, making up huge losses in rural lines. The infrastructur was largely financed by the state, but that's true for any transport infrastructure.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

You would never fly Frankfurt-Paris, because the train is a much faster, more comfortable option. The Deutsche Bahn has significantly degraded over time, due to insufficient investment, but it's still an incredibly useful system. If you want to see what's possible with current technology, look at Chinese HSR. Beijing to Shanghai is a 20% longer distance than Berlin to Paris, yet it takes only half as long by train (just over 4 hours vs. 8-9 hours). If such a connection existed between Berlin and Paris, it would be very difficult to justify flying.

danhor 4y ago
CHSR is technologically impressive, but planning and operations of boarding and stations are superior with DB that treats HSR like normal trains and not ground-level planes (an issue with many HSR systems).
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  In Germany, the fact that you can just walk onto the platform at any time and that your ticket is checked after boarding is very convenient. However, on-time performance in Germany is horrendous compared to China, so I'm not willing to call Germany's operations as a whole superior. If I had to choose between my train arriving within half an hour of the scheduled time and having to board airplane style, I would board airplane style.

nibix 4y ago

> The travel time between, e.g., Berlin and Paris is something like four to five times as long as by plane. I think your estimate is quite off here: Train connections from Berlin to Paris take about 8.5 hours. Flights take 1 hour and 50 minutes plus the overhead time for traveling to and from the airport, security and taxiing. Just let's suppose that this will be 2.5 hours in total, which would be very fast. So we are comparing 8.5 hours with 4.5 hours. So, the factor is less than two rather than the four to five you suggested.

yccs27 4y ago

I don't think the problems with German rail apply universally. The prevalence of low-speed tracks and frequency of delays comes from a period of missing reinvestment following the (semi-)privatization of Deutsche Bahn. Not every network will have this issue.

lispm 4y ago

> a rail station has quite a limited capacity most new&large airports are far outside of cities (example: Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, ...) because of the enormous space needed and environmental problems is creates. Nearer airports will close operating at 10pm, whereas train stations will operate 24h no problem. Large projects for new train stations/systems in major cities (Hamburg-Altona, Stuttgart, ...) take a long time, but they exist. Large new airport projects near (!) major cities here in Germany don't exist. > Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. That's because Germany has dense population regions and there always will be stops in cities and a lot of passengers. It's an optimization question. Being able to run a train system with max 300kmph is much more expensive than at 250kmph and the advantages are not that huge. > They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. Planes are always crowded with a tiny personal space, difficult to board/leave, difficult to work in, difficult to reach, subject to a complex passage on an airport with all its rules&regulations, longer upfront booking, ... For example when I want to travel from Hamburg to Düsseldorf (400km) on wednesday morning, the price is around 35 Euros incl. local public transport tickets with my Bahncard 50 which I got from the company. There is no flight like that. Hamburg/Munich: >600km. Already too long for a business trip by train. Cost 60€ with Bahncard 50 incl. local public transport tickets. Time: 6:30 center to center. Flight: much more expensive, unreliable (I remember been waiting on friday evening two hours on the runway for the start), Munich airport is 40km outside, the Munich airport has long transit times. Time from city center to city center by flight is around four hours. The travel costs about three times as much. > Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. For certain longer trips, but if I want from Hamburg to Berlin, Frankfurt, ... I take the train. > especially if it's inside the city That's great: with an ICE I want to reach the city center and not some airport 40km outside (like in Munich). I want to be in a big hub where all the local transports are reachable. High-Speed trains here are connecting centers of a large local public transport system: local trains, underground trains, busses, ferries, ... When I travel by train between Hamburg and another major city, the tickets for much of the local transport systems for the start end destination cities are already included.

arinlen 4y ago

> "functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. This is a silly red herring. Top speed means nothing. The only key factor is door-to-door travel time, and it means nothing if a train goes 180km/m in some sections and 320km/h in others if in the end you reach your destination 1h earlier than b flying. > They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. Things that are completely unheard of in any sort of public transportation service, specially air travel! Please look at the Netherland's Schipol airport, one of the largest in the world and often used as the paragon of well functioning hub, and how they've been systematically cancelling and delaying flights throughout the year. > They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. No, not really. Only the lowest-cost low-cost operators tend to beat high speed railway on price, but they often have flights to airports well outside of city centers or even in suboptimal terminals with all sorts of hidden costs, and ultimately lead to a slower suboptimal experience.

adammarples 4y ago

They're so crowded these days, nobody uses them any more! I say I say