But you are assuming those were the only options available. Maybe the number of passengers between Berlin and Frankfurt is high enough that they could have 8 ICE Sprinter + 4-6 normal ICE

I think that if that were the case we would indeed see more ICE sprinters...

Hi guys,
I would like to get back to the network question. I do think that scrapping 8% of the network is indicative to an overall neglect of railways. the ranking of that EU report (who has in- or decreased their network) and which countries have how much investments into rail infrastructure per capita show the same picture: Spain of course rules and Germany - jugded by the size of its population - is as low as it gets. Thus the much lauded gradual network improvement is nothing but the only thing that can be done with the paultry means at hand.

I didn't find any current numbers, but a few years ago, the German network consisted of ~ 36.000 kilometers while the Spanish one was around 10.000 kilometers which results in a ratio of 0.00044 km of track per inhabitant or 0.1 km/km² in Germany and 0.00021 km track/inhabitant or 0.0198 km track/km² in Spain.

I think these numbers clearly show that the premise is wholly different in Spain than in Germany. While in Germany, all major and minor cities are connected with each other, in Spain whole regions are only minimally served by train services and tangential lines are often non-existant (as strange as it may seem, you have to go all the way back to Madrid from Cartagena if you want to go to Malaga). What Spain does now is catching up with other countries - it's only logical that the investments are rather high and that the newly build tracks in sparsely populated areas are built as high-speed lines. The lines in Germany that have been shut down in Germany during the past 20 years are mainly located in the eastern part and are usually of a very rural type - a type of lines that is non-existant in other western countrys as there they have been shutdown already half a century ago.


When the new central station opened, to compensate several minor lines serving the surrounding countryside were scrapped to compensate. It was assumed that anyone who wants to go to Perleberg or other faovrite spots for Berliners to spend the weekend in nature (and mind you, a 3.5 million city produces a lot of leisure traffic), would have a car and should use it to that purpose.

Sorry, but a correlation implies no causality per se. Not a single line has been shut down to compensate for the new central station. It would also not make sense as the costs invloved compare not even remotely. Perleberg btw. is still reachable from Berlin-Spandau hourly; I have no idea how you came up with that example. Btw, it's a city with 12.000 inhabitants in the middle of nowhere - a hourly connection is quite good for that.


Overregulation of trains access has as a rule always met with fierce consumer resistance in Germany, and there is no need to antagonize the passengers like in the worst Mehdorn times. Rather, offer a larger number of sprinters, do not suffocate the offer with abhorrent prices, and promote this new system well. I am sure it would work out, and if there were a few less stops in Limburg and Fulda and this slashes travel time by say 30 minutes, many people who have half an eye on the airplane would be attracted to trains.

Agreed.

I didn't find any current numbers, but a few years ago, the German network consisted of ~ 36.000 kilometers while the Spanish one was around 10.000 kilometers which results in a ratio of 0.00044 km of track per inhabitant or 0.1 km/km² in Germany and 0.00021 km track/inhabitant or 0.0198 km track/km² in Spain.

I think these numbers clearly show that the premise is wholly different in Spain than in Germany. While in Germany, all major and minor cities are connected with each other, in Spain whole regions are only minimally served by train services and tangential lines are often non-existant (as strange as it may seem, you have to go all the way back to Madrid from Cartagena if you want to go to Malaga). What Spain does now is catching up with other countries - it's only logical that the investments are rather high and that the newly build tracks in sparsely populated areas are built as high-speed lines. The lines in Germany that have been shut down in Germany during the past 20 years are mainly located in the eastern part and are usually of a very rural type - a type of lines that is non-existant in other western countrys as there they have been shutdown already half a century ago.

Well, Spain population density is far lower in Spain (91 hab km/² [2006] than in Germany 229 hab/km² [2008']). Though one would expect a less populated country to still have more railways/inhabitant to cover territory, it is obvious there is no case for Spain to have a rail network as dense as Germany.

Moreover, the initial design of many Germany railways in the 19th Century was not that bad considering its territory: some old tunnels, more gentle curves etc. The Spanish network was build mostly on cheap (Spain was much more poorer, a broken Empire, by the time it started building railways, whilst Germany was an emerging powerhouse), making it unsuitable for mere upgrades. The political logic of rail building in Spain also dictated the form of its network.

So it only makes senses for a country like Spain to have shed unprofitable tracks that were also impossible to upgrade.



Sorry, but a correlation implies no causality per se. Not a single line has been shut down to compensate for the new central station. It would also not make sense as the costs invloved compare not even remotely. Perleberg btw. is still reachable from Berlin-Spandau hourly; I have no idea how you came up with that example. Btw, it's a city with 12.000 inhabitants in the middle of nowhere - a hourly connection is quite good for that.



Agreed.[/QUOTE]

Well, Spain population density is far lower in Spain (91 hab km/² [2006] than in Germany 229 hab/km² [2008']). Though one would expect a less populated country to still have more railways/inhabitant to cover territory, it is obvious there is no case for Spain to have a rail network as dense as Germany.

You are totally right, that's why I have added the correlation between inhabitants and railway lines, which is still more than double of what is available in Spain.

With Berlins Hauptbahnhof being Europes biggest station; how much bigger is Grand Central Station in NYC?

Which still is the biggest in America, right?

berlin hauptbahnhof is not even germany`s biggest train station, neither by the number of trains or number of travellers per day, nor by the number of platforms or tracks.. the developers just had to make up some records for promo when they built it and so they called it the biggest cross-way-railstation in germany (or maybe europe)..

It's easy to find stations that match Berlin Hauptbahnhof when it comes to size. To give a few examples:

- Amsterdam Centraal (11 platforms)
- Brussels South (Gare du Midi) 22 platforms
- Paris Nord (with a whopping 44 platforms for trains and RER)
- Antwerp Centraal (14 platforms)
- London St. Pancras (15 platforms)

Berlin Hbf definitely isn't the largest one, but it sure is beautiful.

Berlin HB has 12 tracks if I remember correctly.

Other examples are Zürich HB (26 tracks, of which 18 stub and 8 passing), Milano Centrale (24 stub tracks, but 2 of them rarely used), Milano Porta Garibaldi (20 tracks, 12 stub and 8 passing).

I don't what is Germany's biggest station, but I know that Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof is the busiest.

I don't what is Germany's biggest station, but I know that Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof is the busiest.

Frankfurt has a lot of trains passing it sure, but the 'busiest' station in terms of passenger movements is Hamburg Main Station.

I think Leipzig is Germany's (and indeed Europe's) biggest station by floor surface area.

Today an ICE3 hit a tractor on a railway crossing near Lippstadt. Nobody was hurt. It is unknown why the tractor driver stopped on the tracks (probably some sort of technical problems).

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/01446/mkl_e_3_BM_Bayern__1446304s.jpg

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/01446/mkl_ni_DW_Heimat_L_1446302s.jpg

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/01446/mkl_e_4_BM_Bayern__1446305s.jpg

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/01446/mkl_e_2_BM_Bayern__1446303s.jpg

http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/01446/mkl_e_1_BM_Bayern__1446301s.jpg

SOURCE (http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article13563088/ICE-mit-Muentefering-an-Bord-kollidiert-mit-Traktor.html)

^^

Did the tractor driver survive?

Edit - Just re-read your intro. It survived.

That is why high-speed tracks and level crossing don't mix. Either close the crossing or build an over/underpass!!!

The vicinity of platforms and the level-crossing by itself suggests that this didn't happen on a dedicated high-speed line. What was the speed at the time of impact, BTW?

The vicinity of platforms and the level-crossing by itself suggests that this didn't happen on a dedicated high-speed line. What was the speed at the time of impact, BTW?

In Germany level-crossings are allowed till a trainspeed of 160km/h.

That is why high-speed tracks and level crossing don't mix. Either close the crossing or build an over/underpass!!!

I agree, with speeds like this anything stocked right at the middle of the crossing will definitely be a huge huge risk, not at that object but to that of the train..:ohno:

In Germany level-crossings are allowed till a speed of 160km/h.

That would be good but in case of Asian RR crossing most especially in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, level crossings often times eliminated or closed not because of the collission risks to road traffics but to prevent the proliferation of squatters along the side of the railtracks.

i dont see what the prlobem is, sh!t happens and the "poor weak european carriage" kicked the ass of the tractor

the problem is to have non-segregated highways with level crossings. Most railways should be segregated/grade-separated.

the problem is to have non-segregated highways with level crossings. Most railways should be segregated/grade-separated.

And the railway operators agree with you. New lines as a rule don't have level crossings, and on existing lines the number of level crossings is reduced every year. However, getting rid of all level crossings is not something you do overnight...

It's not worth something to scream about, level crossings simply exist and can't all be closed down at once just because of a couple accidents.

If you look at this crossing on Google Earth you can see that just that the next level crossing was being replaced at the time of the picture. If you follow the line you see even more new grade crossings. It's something that is taken seriously, not just here but all over Germany. And since it's a very large and relatively older network it just takes time to upgrade everything to the current standards.

edit:
basically the same what K said, that whats you get from being distracted and not press preview before posting.

With surprising clarity, a referendum in the state of Baden-Würtemberg favors the continuation of the Stuttgart Main Station reconstruction as planned. More than 50 % of voters are against the state's abandoning the project. The green prime minister says he will follow the decision, which is not binding, as not enough voters turned up to vote.

Bombardier Talent 2 (Deutsche Bahn BR442) is finally running

f8bfhc0LrLQ

U-P_DJDreGw

I agree, with speeds like this anything stocked right at the middle of the crossing will definitely be a huge huge risk, not at that object but to that of the train..:ohno:

I hope a 160 kph train would hurt what it hit more than the train itself, otherwise, the train was not constructed properly

Luckily, the tractor suffered more than the train did in this case... The train suffered some superficial damage but thats normal, the tractor was torn apart though, as was the tuck it was sitting on.

With surprising clarity, a referendum in the state of Baden-Würtemberg favors the continuation of the Stuttgart Main Station reconstruction as planned. More than 50 % of voters are against the state's abandoning the project. The green prime minister says he will follow the decision, which is not binding, as not enough voters turned up to vote.

^^
Very good news indeed! :okay:

Germans back new 4,1bln euro train station in referendum (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R99OV80.htm)

By JUERGEN BAETZ


Voters in one of Germany's wealthiest regions on Sunday solidly backed the 4.1 billion euro ($5.5 billion) construction of a disputed new underground train station in a referendum, official results showed Sunday.

A majority of 58.8 percent of Baden-Wuerttemberg state's voters rejected a motion that would have forced the government to cancel the construction contract with German railway operator Deutsche Bahn AG, the state election commission said.

According to results from all 44 of the state's electoral districts, 41.2 percent were in favor of the motion.

The project to take the state capital Stuttgart's main train station underground has proven hugely controversial. Tens of thousands turned out repeatedly last year to protest the project.

But the project's critics, who have said the infrastructure project is a waste of money and will lead to sizable cost overruns, conceded defeat late Sunday.

"The people have spoken," state governor Winfried Kretschmann -- himself among the project's critics -- told public broadcaster SWR, vowing to respect the outcome.

Supporters of the Stuttgart 21 train station maintain it will free up the city's packed center and help shorten journeys across Europe, for example for trains traveling between Paris, Munich and Vienna. They also said that canceling the contract could have resulted in huge fines of up to euro1.5 billion -- without getting any improvement to the state's infrastructure.

[...]

:cheers:





Deutsche Bahn to order trains for up to 2bln euro (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/deutschebahn-order-idUSWEA423720111205)

FRANKFURT | Mon Dec 5, 2011

Dec 5 (Reuters) - German rail operator Deutsche Bahn said it signed a framework agreement to order trains worth as much as 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion) from France's Alstom, Spain's CAF and Stadler Pankow GmbH.

Under the agreement, the companies would deliver as many as 400 multi-unit trains for use in regional rail traffic to Deutsche Bahn by the end of 2018.

Deutsche Bahn said the framework contract included a proposal for two different types of train and that a competitive process would determine the specific contract details for the manufacturers.

($1 = 0.7446 euros) (Reporting by Maria Sheahan)

:cheers:

^^ wow, any idea over which models might have been chosen? I guess for Stadler that would be the FLIRT as the KISS is more suburban-network oriented, what about Alstom and CAF?

^^ wow, any idea over which models might have been chosen? I guess for Stadler that would be the FLIRT as the KISS is more suburban-network oriented, what about Alstom and CAF?

Alstom has several trains in their Coradia range of products. Most likely candidates are Coradia LINT and Coradia Continental.

^^ wow, any idea over which models might have been chosen? I guess for Stadler that would be the FLIRT as the KISS is more suburban-network oriented, what about Alstom and CAF?

Well, in Germany Suburban (S-Bahn) operations mostly uses single deck stock, where in regional operations double deck trains are common. That's a bit the opposite from Switzerland really.

According to the press release that can be found on the websites of DB and Stadler, the framework contract contains two "train concepts", which I think means that Alsthom, Stadler and CAF are going to co-operate in the design and construction in some form.
The choice of the models is up to the administrations ordering the rail service.

The Stadler KISS is going to be used for inter city services as well (Austria's WestBahn), so why shouldn't it be possible to adopt it for regional services? Nevertheless that doesn't seem very likely to happen in Germany as DB signed an 1.8bln order for double decker coaches with Bombardier which contains driving units as well.

^^

What does this mean? I don't speak german and google translate does not work well when wanting to get into details:

Die Einzelvergaben an einen der drei Hersteller erfolgen im nachgelagerten Wettbewerb mit den Anforderungen der jeweiligen Verkehrsausschreibung. Die Auslieferung des ersten Fahrzeuges soll 25 Monate nach der Bestellung erfolgen.

Einen der drei means that this is actually a competition between the three companies to deliver one proposal and only one will be given the contract?

Ok, apparently I was wrong.
It says that the actual orders according to the specifications defined by the orderer of the respective service (= the Bundesland) will be given to one of the three companies through a bidding process, with delivery of the first train set due within 25 months after the order.

edit to clearify: There will be more than one order because the Länder are going to define individual specifications for each service they will tender. So DB might end up buying trains from all three companies.

Ok, apparently I was wrong.
It says that the actual order according to the specifications defined by the orderer of the respective service (= the Bundesland) will be given to one of the three companies through a bidding process, with delivery of the first train set due within 25 months after the order.

Thanks :cheers: in that case I'm sure DB will end up buying some very good trains given the good reputation of the three contenders!

Siemens has major problems delivering the Velaro D to Deutsche Bahn. There are so many delays that the launch of the ICE to London has to be postponed to the end of 2015, that's the best-case scenario. The end of 2016 is more realistic.

Source: Frankfurter Algemeine (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ice-nach-london-zug-im-verzug-11555322.html)

Meanwhile Eurostar says that the delivery of their new e320 trainsets (also from Siemens) will not be affected (https://twitter.com/Eurostar/status/145109915831250944), they will start operating trains from London to Amsterdam starting somewhere in 2014.

The upgraded highspeed railway line between Munich and Augsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich%E2%80%93Augsburg_railway) was opened five days ago. It now has four instead of two tracks and enables higher speeds for the trains. :)

Length of the Augsburg–Munich line: 61km
Length of the upgraded line: 44km
Line speed: 230 km/h for ICE traffic; 160 km/h for regional and goods traffic
Costs: 700 millions Euro
Construction time: 1998-2011

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Einweihung_Bahnstrecke_M%C3%BCnchen%E2%80%93Augsburg_2011.jpg

Press release by Deutsche Bahn with a nice VIDEO (http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/bahn/de/konzern/im__blickpunkt/muenchen__augsburg__20111212.html) (in German)

:cheers:

^^ Nice project. But I'm rather disappointed at the maximum speeds, I was expecting something on the 320km/h range.

^^ Nice project. But I'm rather disappointed at the maximum speeds, I was expecting something on the 320km/h range.

It's an upgraded line, not a new line. 230 kph is exactly what you expect for such projects.

Above 250 km/h would probably be around 2 Billions instead of 700 Millions.

...and make no sense at all for only 44km length.


The main issue on that stretch was a massive lack of capacity (especially for cargo and commuters between the two cities), not necessarily the travel time itself.


And, aditionally, on the same day in the southwest of both cities the long awaited tilting trains went into service so that the regional trains on the hilly, curvy and unelectrified Allgäubahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allg%C3%A4u_Railway_%28Bavaria%29) (Augsburg to Lindau via Kempten) can now run with up to 160kph and realize massive cuts in travel times (half an hour between Lindau and Augsburg, cutting the travel time to ca. 2 hours). The region is one of the last larger areas without any electrified railways in Germany; DB invested ca. 100m Euros over the last years to upgrate the tracks for tilting trains.
Press release by DB in German. (http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/bahn/de/presse/presseinformationen/by/by20111206.html)

Both projects together are probably the most important improvement on the railways of Bavarian Swabia over the last 50 years as they cover the two most important lines of the district.

^^ Any plans to electrify the lines?

No. They don't even manage to upgrate & electrify the partly single track Munich-Lindau line via Memmingen (which is used by the Munich-Zurich Eurocities) although it's been planned for quite some time now.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6036/6344905413_d9be44db1e_b.jpg

Nice, baut that's apparently at Amserdam Centraal. The train on the left certainly is a Dutch IRM/VIRM "Regiorunner".

^^ Any plans to electrify the lines?

Yes. Lindau - München will be electrified.

^^ Any plans to electrify the lines?

No. Although according to this source (http://www.all-in.de/nachrichten/allgaeu/ticker/rsaradio/RSA-Radio-Elektrifizierung-Bahnstrecke-Muenchen-Lindau-verzoegert-sich-weiter;art9573,719124) there is a slightly chance that this project could be realised around the year 2050.

Same politics by DB with the tilting trains in the region: The plans to introduce them date back to the mid-90ies at least and were delayed, postphoned and abandoned various times over the last 15 years. The trains (series 612) went into operation about 10 years ago without any date when the Allgäubahn would be ready for tilting trains, so they operated for a decade without tilting... :ohno:

Originally, Switzerland and Germany signed a declaration of intent to upgrate and electrify the Lindau-Memmingen-Geltendorf (-Munich) line until 2015 (with Switzerland borrowing 50m Euros without any interest as it's interested in creating a new connection to the Gotthard Base Tunnel), but it was postponed without any prediction when it will actually happen.

I don't quite get the fuss about München-Augsburg. I entered it into HAFAS to find out the best traveling speed before 10 December and after, assuming this is when the line started to operate with 230 kph. It turns out that before 10 Dec., an IC was fastest with 31 minutes, ICE took 34 min. Now it is again an IC with 26 min., the best performance by an ICE was 31 min., while RE are stable at 42 min. Are we really celebrating an acceleration of 5/3 min., which apparently works better for 200 kmh-operating ICs than ICEs capabale of 230 kmh? Please clue me in if I am missing something.
The present time had apparently already been achieved in 1960s.

I don't quite get the fuss about München-Augsburg. I entered it into HAFAS to find out the best traveling speed before 10 December and after, assuming this is when the line started to operate with 230 kph. It turns out that before 10 Dec., an IC was fastest with 31 minutes, ICE took 34 min. Now it is again an IC with 26 min., the best performance by an ICE was 31 min., while RE are stable at 42 min. Are we really celebrating an acceleration of 5/3 min., which apparently works better for 200 kmh-operating ICs than ICEs capabale of 230 kmh? Please clue me in if I am missing something.
The present time had apparently already been achieved in 1960s.

Maybe. But back then there was just a fraction of the current traffic volume on the line. The real improvement isn't speed but capacity. However, this has already been mention for those who care to read it.

Billions Upon Billions for Berlin-Munich Bullet Train (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,794125,00.html).

What about this article of the Spiegel english version?

Last news for the Munich-Berlin HSR?

Billions Upon Billions for Berlin-Munich Bullet Train (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,794125,00.html).

What about this article of the Spiegel english version?

Last news for the Munich-Berlin HSR?

This is just typical for the German press. While they get lots of money for advertisements for cars and "sponsored" supplements about automobiles, they will never criticize the billions being pumped into useless Autobahns, but as soon as the state sponsors any rail infrastructure beyond S-Bahn level, they talk of wasted money.
The highway on that route through Thuringia was opened long ago. Did we hear Spiegel back then complaining that there are not enough cars between Berlin and Munich to justify this?
Granted, some of the criticism in the article is right, some wrong decisions were made, but the flaw is also that it criticizes the project both for thinking too big (too much money, too ambitious to bring freight and passengers on a single line) and thinking too small (stopping at Erfurt instead of flying through Gera). Not accomodating for freight is one of the standard arguments against Stuttgart-Ulm, and the detour via Erfurt actually saves money, as Lepzig-Erfurt thus doubles as also part of the fastest route from Berlin and Dresden to Frankfurt and beyond. So, it seems Spiegel has no positive vision of how rail should be organized, it just criticizes from whichever vantage point it chooses, to deligitimize rail transport and receive more car advertisements.

This is just typical for the German press. While they get lots of money for advertisements for cars and "sponsored" supplements about automobiles, they will never criticize the billions being pumped into useless Autobahns, but as soon as the state sponsors any rail infrastructure beyond S-Bahn level, they talk of wasted money.

You are the anti-car bigot. Germany collects around € 60 bln./year in levies on fuel, truck tolls and cars (I'm not talking about VAT, which is a general tax, but specific taxes aimed solely at drivers, cars and the fuel they use). That is why the German Autobahnen is (mostly) toll-free for cars.

The highway on that route through Thuringia was opened long ago. Did we hear Spiegel back then complaining that there are not enough cars between Berlin and Munich to justify this?

No, because the route is heavily trafficked and part of it had been built before reunification anyway.

So, it seems Spiegel has no positive vision of how rail should be organized, it just criticizes from whichever vantage point it chooses, to deligitimize rail transport and receive more car advertisements.

I doubt very much such articles would have any meaningful impact on car-marker advertisement.

The article points to a crucial problem in Germany, indeed: they make trains stop too often out of political considerations and a fear of concentrating activity only in major cities. Merely cutting stops, and making trains pass through stations would speed up some services.

The ICE Sprinter Frankfurt-Berlin takes almost 40 min less than the normal ICEs stopping in the great metropolis of Fulda, for instance.

As for the "make a high-speed line freight-fit", that is indeed problematic, for the very precise reasons described on the article: freight requires very gentle grades, high-speed requires very wide curves - the combination of both in a hilly area like the Southern part of Germany means very expensive construction.

The article points to a crucial problem in Germany, indeed: they make trains stop too often out of political considerations and a fear of concentrating activity only in major cities. Merely cutting stops, and making trains pass through stations would speed up some services.

At the expense of loosing quite a few customers however. Don't you want the railway to try to make money?


The ICE Sprinter Frankfurt-Berlin takes almost 40 min less than the normal ICEs stopping in the great metropolis of Fulda, for instance.


True. But the fact that it only runs a couple of times a day shows that the market for non-stop trains Frankfurt - Berlin isn't really that big. So it's good that they didn't build the line solely for that market...

You are the anti-car bigot. Germany collects around € 60 bln./year in levies on fuel, truck tolls and cars (I'm not talking about VAT, which is a general tax, but specific taxes aimed solely at drivers, cars and the fuel they use). That is why the German Autobahnen is (mostly) toll-free for cars.

BH:Unlike some other countries, Germany does not exempt railways from gasoline tax, nor the environmental tax. Therefore you cannot claim that cars here pay for something the railway would not. If trains have in the last ten years become decisively more environment-friendly, whereas any technical improvements in fuel effictivity in cars has mainly been eaten up by the trend to heavier cars, this does not strike me as something which speaks against the overall societal benefit of trains.

Sub: I doubt very much such articles would have any meaningful impact on car-marker advertisement.

BH: You would be surprised how sensitive they are. The old Lufthansa-CEO Weber once refused to transport a newspaper edition from London to Frankfurt, as he was convinced it contained "lies." Also Spiegel had a scandal a while ago because of a negative report on wind energy, which turned out to have been sponsored by the major electricity producers.

Sub: The article points to a crucial problem in Germany, indeed: they make trains stop too often out of political considerations and a fear of concentrating activity only in major cities. Merely cutting stops, and making trains pass through stations would speed up some services.

The ICE Sprinter Frankfurt-Berlin takes almost 40 min less than the normal ICEs stopping in the great metropolis of Fulda, for instance.

BH: Agree with you there. I also believe that mid-size or small towns could do with less stops, as is the rule on the Frankfurt - Cologne route. Not every train every hour has to follow the same routine, and I would be happy if a number of trains would run Berlin-Halle-Nuremberg-Munich, or even Berlin-Munich express. Here really for once, markets should decide: is there more demand for express or stop everywhere ICEs and then provide them accordingly.
But in this case, Thuringia is a densely populated state, albeit there is no single dominant town such as Berlin or Munich at the two ends of the line. It makes sense to stop somewhere (this needn't have been Erfurt, that is clearly a political decision) in one of the mid-size cities from where there is relatively good onwards service to the other cities, which are strung up in a west to east direction.

Sub: As for the "make a high-speed line freight-fit", that is indeed problematic, for the very precise reasons described on the article: freight requires very gentle grades, high-speed requires very wide curves - the combination of both in a hilly area like the Southern part of Germany means very expensive construction.

BH: Possibly. But 4 billion Euros for more or less the only high speed route u/c in Germany after 2006 and for the foreseeable future. Whether per capita or per GDP, German investments into rail infrastructure are among the lowest in Europe.

I think that Germany density of population is enough for High Speed Lines, it is for France with less population so it must be for Germany. This would avoid the list of accidents on levels crossing points some of them really dramatics and improve the eficiency of the system. In my oppinion the future is to segregate traffics: 1st to be much more competitive with the planes in medium range distances ( wich is the case of Germany ) and to increase the ration of trains in the cargo mix transport ( wich is a key factor for manufacturer country like Germany also ). It cost much more yes but the future is HSL in the main corridors and segregation of traffics as much as possible in the rest. Just an oppinion, in others countries works !

Not every train every hour has to follow the same routine, and I would be happy if a number of trains would run Berlin-Halle-Nuremberg-Munich, or even Berlin-Munich express. Here really for once, markets should decide: is there more demand for express or stop everywhere ICEs and then provide them accordingly.

I think that if there was a market for more non-stop trains that DB would already be running them. A non stop Berlin - München train will take passengers away from a limited stop Berlin - München. It might be able to attract some new passengers, but that might not be enough to compensate for the cost of running an extra train.

Just look at what NTV/Italo is planning in Italy. They intend to run three non stop trains Milano - Roma, but 13 returns Milano - Roma with stops in Bologna and Firenze...

You could always find other examples. For example the TGV between Paris and Marseille runs ten times between 12 and 19.00 hrs, offering 3 non-stop, 4 single stop, and 3 two stop connections (and mind you, it could stop at many more cities). Now please do not say that France is so different and a stop in Avignon is less worthwhile than in Erfurt or Kassel.
Your comparison with the Italian route is not really adequate, Bologna and Florence are big and well visited towns, of course many trains should stop there. But I fail to believe that 2 ICE sprinters per day are all that are on demand between the major German cities.

I think that if there was a market for more non-stop trains that DB would already be running them.
The market is there. Just the tracks are missing. Without a really fast route there is almost no point in running non-stop services. Hence DBs reluctance to offer these services on a bigger scale.
It is the lack of by-passes and an incoherent high-speed network that virtually prevents non-stop services, not the lack of demand.

I think one thing is missing in Germany...
there is no someone from top (Chancellor of Germany or ministry of transport) with clear vision of high speed rails.
German should build high-speed rail like Spanish and French do.
There should me much more ICE Sprinter but also much more high speed lines. Why nobody s talking about building high speed line from Cologne to the east, why not speed up some line to 320 km/h etc. there are no vision....

German should build high-speed rail like Spanish and French do.


So basicaly they should build a network that is only useful to people who want to go to Berlin, is that what you are saying?

Spain and France are very different countries, with different population distributions. And even then, the Spaniards could learn a thing or two from the Germans too. Like better coordination between services.

The market is there. Just the tracks are missing. Without a really fast route there is almost no point in running non-stop services.

Suppose they would build a non stop, direct railway line from München to Berlin. And suppose that they manage to run a train every hour on it. Do you think that this line would ever repay itself?

The real competitor for Deutsche Bahn is the private car. If they can only claw back a few percent market share back from the car they will have a significant increase in passenger numbers. They cannot grow the same way if they concentrate on beating the airplane.
And to compete with the car they need to concentrate on the total network.

Spain and France are very different countries, with different population distributions. And even then, the Spaniards could learn a thing or two from the Germans too. Like better coordination between services.
We could learn a lot of each other that´s for sure, learning it´s always a two directions way, but what we say here is that Germany has enough industry and enough population to segregate traffics and develope a HSL system and improve freight lines capacity for the XXI century. DB needs others firms runnig in competency, the same for SNCF , Renfe etc ... Deutche autobahns have always the bigger part of the budget, and that must change for this century, is the reality which is knocking at the door on this, Europe must be oil independent as much as possible in the next years.

The thing about the German High Speed Network is that it is based on the Bundesverkehrswegeplan 1973 and that was a very good plan for it's time. It also included the upgrade to 200 km/h for many classic lines, something that the iconic br103 made possible as the locomotive of the intercity network. New lines were built on routes where it wasn't possible to upgrade. Nowadays it's a different story, completely new lines would indeed be interesting. But since there are already upgraded old lines the decision to go for a completely new line is politically much more difficult then when there isn't a 200 km/h line on the same route.

And let's not forget that in the late 1980s/early 1990s the 1973 plan was caught up by some historic happenings in Germany that also had a very big impact on the planning and the budget allocation of funding for transport projects. You all should know what happenings I'm talking about. And if you also have any idea of the size of the budgets that have been used the last 20 years on all the reunification projects it suddenly becomes very clear why Germany hasn't been building new high speed lines all over the country like France, Italy or Spain.

Deutche autobahns have always the bigger part of the budget, and that must change for this century, is the reality which is knocking at the door on this, Europe must be oil independent as much as possible in the next years.

Electric cars, biofuels... stop looking at the highway money as a pit to build more rail (or vice-versa),.

My clear opinion is that there's no reason for building high-speed long distance railways from tax money. It has sense to develop and maintain urban and suburban public transport from tax money 'cause it has a lot of social benefits. It may have sense between cities where there's a really high amount of traffic (e.g. Köln - Frankfurt).
I can't see that social benefits on a München-Berlin high-speed railway.

It may have sense between cities where there's a really high amount of traffic (e.g. Köln - Frankfurt).
I can't see that social benefits on a München-Berlin high-speed railway.

Maybe it will create a high amount of traffic?

Suppose they would build a non stop, direct railway line from München to Berlin. And suppose that they manage to run a train every hour on it. Do you think that this line would ever repay itself?
It certainly would.

The real competitor for Deutsche Bahn is the private car. If they can only claw back a few percent market share back from the car they will have a significant increase in passenger numbers. They cannot grow the same way if they concentrate on beating the airplane.
No, Deutsche Bahn is aiming for profitable services. The only high-margin market for DB is long distance travel. Distances between 200 and 900 km. Hence the focus on air travellers who are more likely to drop aeroplanes in favour of trains.

What you mean, however, is a general modal shift from road to rail. To achieve that it would be required to reduce to cost to use public transport services and/or increase the costs of keeping a car. Car-friendly urban developments don't just have to stop but even dismantled in some places. There won't be such a policy in Germany or any other European country in a foreseeable future.

And to compete with the car they need to concentrate on the total network.
It is way cheaper to build a high-speed network between big cities than laying tracks to every shopping centre in the country. Whatever you mean by total network. But there won't be a network that serves every hamlet in the country. It's just not going to happen. Not even with an unlimited amount of funds.

It certainly would.
In that case, what is keeping you from founding a company, and building the line. Looks like you could make a lot of money.

Honestly, if such a line would "certainly repay itself", don't you think that privat companies would be queueing up to build it?




No, Deutsche Bahn is aiming for profitable services. The only high-margin market for DB is long distance travel. Distances between 200 and 900 km. Hence the focus on air travellers who are more likely to drop aeroplanes in favour of trains.

Long distance travel in Germany means 100 to 400 km mostly. Just travel on an ICE and see how many people get off at every station.



What you mean, however, is a general modal shift from road to rail. To achieve that it would be required to reduce to cost to use public transport services and/or increase the costs of keeping a car.

No, what you need to do is to make the rail system comprehensive enough so that it can replace owning a car. Than you can actually ask more money for it, because you are now competing with the total cost of owning a car, in stead of just the marginal cost. That is why the train in Switzerland is so succesfull, despite the high fares.
But that means that your system must offer comfortable, convenient and foremost frequent connections between as many nodes on the network as possible. These connections don't have to be direct though. People don't mind transfers if they're reliable.


It is way cheaper to build a high-speed network between big cities than laying tracks to every shopping centre in the country. Whatever you mean by total network. But there won't be a network that serves every hamlet in the country. It's just not going to happen. Not even with an unlimited amount of funds.

I'm talking about a hierarchical network of course. I'm not against building new lines, but they need to integrate with the existing network.
That's the reason why a building a line from München to Berlin that doesn't have any interchanges with the existing network along its route is a waste of money.
A line that goes from Berlin to München must fulfill several purposes. Not only transport people from Berlin to München, but also from places in between to Berlin, and to München, and to other places in between. Only then will it be able to attract enough passengers. That 's why you just can't build a line along a straight line between those two places, and must look at other places en route, and ways to serve them.

The way the SNCF does it in France the high speed network basically only serves Paris. Whenever new high speed lines are opened travel times to Paris get reduced, but travel times between places on the old routes are often increased.
In France that is OK, because in France only Paris matters. But Germany is different.

The way the SNCF does it in France the high speed network basically only serves Paris. Whenever new high speed lines are opened travel times to Paris get reduced, but travel times between places on the old routes are often increased.
In France that is OK, because in France only Paris matters. But Germany is different.

Er, no. That only happens in a few cases, where maintaining the old timetables in classic lines would be worthless.
Generally, whan a TGV line is opened, the regional services on the classic line are maintained, and often increased.
Keep in mind the geography, you can´t pretend to run a service of many trains per day in a very unpopulated region.

And France, being bigger than Germany, has 20 million less inhabitants.
France has vast regions with very small population.
Spain is just as big as France, and has 20 million less inhabitants than France!

The point-to-point traffic in a given line X may not even be the half of the traffic, the big part of the traffic being through the intermediate stops.
But it can be just as true that the same point-to-point traffic in a given line Y might be the very main traffic.
And this, regardless of the length of both lines X and Y.

Er, no. That only happens in a few cases, where maintaining the old timetables in classic lines would be worthless.

Personally I don't know of a case where it didn't happen. But feel free to correct me.


Keep in mind the geography, you can´t pretend to run a service of many trains per day in a very unpopulated region.

And France, being bigger than Germany, has 20 million less inhabitants.
France has vast regions with very small population.
Spain is just as big as France, and has 20 million less inhabitants than France!

The point-to-point traffic in a given line X may not even be the half of the traffic, the big part of the traffic being through the intermediate stops.
But it can be just as true that the same point-to-point traffic in a given line Y might be the very main traffic.
And this, regardless of the length of both lines X and Y.

But this is the point I keep making: That France is different from Germany, and that thus Germany shouldn't copy France.

Hasn't there been a fairly sizable 'road to rail' shift in Germany's freight transport business in recent years, since DB's system was converted to 'open access'?

Mike

Of course, France, Italy and Spain are different from Germany, every country is different for sure, but what is common in most of european countries is density of population and metropolitain areas and the aim to develope better mass transport to link them. The HSL from Madrid to Seville was so hardly criticized at the beginnig that many people of Spain thought that was a waste of money, time has shown the contrary, and now is a very succesfull link. May be in Germany could be some of this example too, I´m sure it could. I just say that, a new rail plan for XXI Century.

what is common in most of european countries is density of population
Not any way.
Germany: 229 people/km2
France: 116
Spain: 93
So population density is approx. 2.5 times higher in Germany than in Spain which is quite a big difference.
Actually Germany has only 4 cities above 1 million (Berlin, München, Hamburg and Köln) but has not less than 11 cities of 400-700 thousand, and more than 20 of 200-400,000. In France there's only 11 cities over 200, and only 4(!) of them over 400.
The third largest city of France, Lyon is just smaller than Nürnberg which is only the 15th in Germany.
And added to this there're densely inhabitated regions having several cities and towns side by side, reaching each other's boundaries that make that even small or medium size towns like Erfurt, Kassel or Mannheim can be important centers and/or traffic junction points.
So I think the difference between German and French structures is great enough to make different transport sctructures.

Respect other continents Europe has a lot in common in terms of mass transport, German railway system should be just the German railway system that fits for the country, and this includes , at least I think some main HSL routes to speed up the link between major cities, What´s the point to have an entire IC fleet able to run up to 300 km/h, if this speed can not be reached in most of the railway system. I think that in Germany the complexity of planning infraestructures Is due to the complexity in federal system in which Landers have the capacity of transform and delay a proyect, and in sometimes these proyects become much less efective than it could have been. Just my thought.

The third largest city of France, Lyon is just smaller than Nürnberg which is only the 15th in Germany.
Problem is that you can't compare a French comunity with a German one so easily. In France, at no point comunities were merged on a larger scale, whereas that was common in all German states over the last decades. The town of Lyon basically kept its boundaries it had over centuries untill today whereas at most German cities suburbs were merged with the city itself at some point. E. g., the list in the case of Nuremberg can be found here. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eingemeindungen_in_die_Stadt_N%C3%BCrnberg)

And added to this there're densely inhabitated regions having several cities and towns side by side, reaching each other's boundaries that make that even small or medium size towns like Erfurt, Kassel or Mannheim can be important centers and/or traffic junction points.
Which is just as true for France. E. g. there are 1.3 million people in Greater Lyon (which is about the same as in Greater Nuremberg). It becomes more obvious when you compare the two capitals: Paris Marseille and Lyon combined would be about as large as Berlin, yet there live only 6 million people in Greater Berlin and 12 million in Greater Paris - hence, you have to compare metropolitan regions, not only the largest cities of those regions.

So I think the difference between German and French structures is great enough to make different transport sctructures.
Agreed on that one.

Nice railway system

In that case, what is keeping you from founding a company, and building the line. Looks like you could make a lot of money.

Honestly, if such a line would "certainly repay itself", don't you think that privat companies would be queueing up to build it?
I would if I could reap the socio-economic benefits of such a development somehow. But neither I nor any other private investor can tax individuals and companies. The state, however, can. So it is up to it to make the necessary investments.

Long distance travel in Germany means 100 to 400 km mostly. Just travel on an ICE and see how many people get off at every station.
The shorter the trip the more often it is taken. This axiom is valid on German rail as well. However, to judge the travelled distance on the location where people alight is ridiculous nonetheless.

No, what you need to do is to make the rail system comprehensive enough so that it can replace owning a car. Than you can actually ask more money for it, because you are now competing with the total cost of owning a car, in stead of just the marginal cost. That is why the train in Switzerland is so succesfull, despite the high fares.
But that means that your system must offer comfortable, convenient and foremost frequent connections between as many nodes on the network as possible. These connections don't have to be direct though. People don't mind transfers if they're reliable.
The ownership of motor vehicles in Switzerland has grown over the last 10 years [1] (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/11/03/blank/key/fahrzeuge_strasse/motorisierungsgrad.html). That alone can't be the reason for the surge in patronage on Swiss railways over the same period of time.

I'm talking about a hierarchical network of course. I'm not against building new lines, but they need to integrate with the existing network.
That's the reason why a building a line from München to Berlin that doesn't have any interchanges with the existing network along its route is a waste of money.
A line that goes from Berlin to München must fulfill several purposes. Not only transport people from Berlin to München, but also from places in between to Berlin, and to München, and to other places in between. Only then will it be able to attract enough passengers. That 's why you just can't build a line along a straight line between those two places, and must look at other places en route, and ways to serve them.
Integration with the existing network is vital for every addition to the railway network. This mustn't mean forced stops. And this is exactly the weakness of the German approach of high-speed rail. Awfully slow station passages in Göttingen, Fulda, Ingolstadt and soon in Erfurt cost valuable time. And this wastes a lot of potential the high-speed lines otherwise had. Berlin and München could very well be within 3 h of each other and take some air traffic down on rails. To achieve that we by-passes and/or fast station passages.

The way the SNCF does it in France the high speed network basically only serves Paris. Whenever new high speed lines are opened travel times to Paris get reduced, but travel times between places on the old routes are often increased.
In France that is OK, because in France only Paris matters. But Germany is different.
Germany isn't so different in so far as distances between major rail hubs are similar.

Integration with the existing network is vital for every addition to the railway network. This mustn't mean forced stops. And this is exactly the weakness of the German approach of high-speed rail. Awfully slow station passages in Göttingen, Fulda, Ingolstadt and soon in Erfurt cost valuable time. And this wastes a lot of potential the high-speed lines otherwise had. Berlin and München could very well be within 3 h of each other and take some air traffic down on rails. To achieve that we by-passes and/or fast station passages.


The only way you could achieve Berlin - München in 3 hours is by completely bypassing everything in between and going more or less in a straight line. You then would end up with an expensive HSL with one train per hour on it, with loadings below 30% most of the day.
So you need to integrate existing hubs in to it.
Now you could build paypasses around those hubs, but those bypasses will be expensive, and will never by heavily used.
SNCF build an expensive bypass round Lyon, that is used by only a handfull of TGVs every day. Most TGV on the Paris to the Med route still go via Lyon proper...

Edit: There is actually a good reason to have all trains on the future Berlin - München HSL stop in Erfurt. A logical service pattern would be to have trains run from Berlin alternatively to Frankfurt and München, and do the same with trains from Leipzig. Have those trains meet in Erfurt and you double the number of options to your customers...

The ownership of motor vehicles in Switzerland has grown over the last 10 years [1] (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/11/03/blank/key/fahrzeuge_strasse/motorisierungsgrad.html). That alone can't be the reason for the surge in patronage on Swiss railways over the same period of time.


The big surge in patronage on Swiss railways has a lot to do with the SBB paying attention to network design, and to psychology. SBB doesn't try to run it's trains as fast as possible. They do run their trains in a consistent pattern though. All Bern - Zürich ICs are non stop. All Bern - Basel ICs call at Olten. And so on.
By having a consistent network, with consistent stopping patterns you build reliability in to your network. And you make it user friendly, and so increase your mindshare.

And there even stopping consistently in small places (like Olten...) makes sense, as it increases the options available to your customers.

Not any way.
Germany: 229 people/km2
France: 116
Spain: 93
So population density is approx. 2.5 times higher in Germany than in Spain which is quite a big difference.
Actually Germany has only 4 cities above 1 million (Berlin, München, Hamburg and Köln) but has not less than 11 cities of 400-700 thousand, and more than 20 of 200-400,000. In France there's only 11 cities over 200, and only 4(!) of them over 400.
The third largest city of France, Lyon is just smaller than Nürnberg which is only the 15th in Germany.
And added to this there're densely inhabitated regions having several cities and towns side by side, reaching each other's boundaries that make that even small or medium size towns like Erfurt, Kassel or Mannheim can be important centers and/or traffic junction points.
So I think the difference between German and French structures is great enough to make different transport sctructures.

One must also look at the geography. France has one huge city and regional capitals spread in various regions, with few large towns between. In Spain, this is even more strong. The capital is smack in the middle, is large (metro has 6.000.000 people), and separated by a large semi-desert from other larger cities (Metro Barcelona - 5.000.000 people, Metro Valencia, Bilbao and Seville - cca. 1.000.000 each) that are situated on the coasts. It is a natural hub and spoke model. Spain also has a very rationalist aproach to rail: they do not even operate stop trains outside of the main metropolitan areas for example.

First, K_, you constantly repeat the logical fallacy how HSR can't work in Germany because most people get on or off along the way.

That's just ridiculous. *Of course* most people don't go all the way from Munich to Berlin because with the exception of some train fanatics everyone with half a brain's gonna fly instead of taking an ICE.

Create a service that does it in 2:25 and that's gonna change. Rapidly.

The only way you could achieve Berlin - München in 3 hours is by completely bypassing everything in between and going more or less in a straight line.


1. That's not true. Munich-Berlin is almost exactly the same distance as the Tokaido Shinkansen and that bypasses almost nothing and goes through areas with high population density in a country with some of the toughest noise regulations in the world.

In fact, take a random HSR line from anywhere in the Not-Germany-World and it's average speed will be more than 200 km/h, even significantly higher in many cases.

At less than 600 km by road that would be a <3h journey on just about any HSR line.


2. A bypass doesn't have to be somewhere out in the boondocks, often it's only the very center that's an issue. See: Osaka; or Munich. You could route trains through Pasing and go 200km/h almost all the way (of course, you don't need to because Munich's at the end of the line, but just point in case)

Edit: There is actually a good reason to have all trains on the future Berlin - München HSL stop in Erfurt. A logical service pattern would be to have trains run from Berlin alternatively to Frankfurt and München, and do the same with trains from Leipzig. Have those trains meet in Erfurt and you double the number of options to your customers...That's true, but you could just make a new station outside Erfurt. All your arguments for Erfurt are about the region and not the town; those going to Erfurt proper would survive an additional 10 min of regional service; heck, those in Munich and Berlin already look at a longer connection on S&U-Bahn in most cases.

You're comitting some fallacies here, too. ;)

The creation of new stations in the middle of nowhere is the main problem with the HSR systems of France, Spain and soon Italy: They fail to integrate into the existing rail network. It might work in Spain, where most of your clients travel from metro to metro and hence is doesn't make much of a difference if you go to a existing or a new station by bus or taxi, but it wouldn't work for Germany, where people live more equally spread over the territory and hence a very large share of your potential customers would take a regional/IC train e. g. to Nuremberg to board the ICE itself there.
For the same reason, non-stop connections would be less economic in Germany than e. g. in France, as more people live outside the large metropolis - for that reason, not the plane is the main competitor but the car. And you compete with that by offering fast connections along all of your network, not only between a few points. Excellent connections and decent possibilities to change trains are essential for that.

As repeated various times: You can't compare the infrastructure policy of Germany with that of Spain and others, as the respective geographies (among other factors) are totally different. There's no right or wrong here as both systems serve specific needs.

Granted, Germany is not the same as France, thus a different approach in traffic organisation is needed. But - and this some of you always seem to forget - at the same time Germany is very different from Switzerland, too. So as it doesn't make sense to compare German and French railways 1:1, the same can be said about comparing German and Swiss railways or even trying to adopt the Swiss system in Germany.

Distances in Germany are much longer and half of Germany's population lives within one of the ~10 metropolitan areas. About a third of Germany's population is inhabitant of the largest urban areas centering the aforementioned metro areas. And those urban areas are Essen, Berlin, Hamburg, München, Frankfurt, Köln, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, Nürnberg, Hannover and Mannheim - all counting at least 1 million inhabitants.
So there's definitely a case for High Speed Rail linking the largest urban areas, and for this kind of traffic it doesn't make sense to have all ICE trains stop in Göttingen, Ulm or Freiburg or even stop in Darmstadt (just 10 minutes after departing Frankfurt) or Wittenberg at all. Those cities are better served by Intercity trains. If you still want to stop there, it must not necessarily be at the main station, as the connecting possibilities there are rather limited. (Whilst in case of Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Nürnberg and co you better stop at the main station.)

The big problem German rail has (besides being generally underfinanced and suffering from wrong priorities - which is a general problem for all kinds of traffic in Germany), is the high speed network being fragmented. We build a short line here and a short line there, but there doesn't exist a single long distance line where a speed of 200kph and more can be run all the way.
Berlin-Nürnberg-München will come close to it, but still with too many slow sections remaining (and too many stops as well) - and traffic figures on this corridor aren't enough to justify it being top priority.
Germany's most travelled corridors are Köln - Frankfurt - Stuttgart - München and Hamburg - Frankfurt - Basel. Those should have priority in being upgraded to continuous high speed lines.
For this two corridors realization of the following projects is needed asap:
- Frankfurt - Mannheim (without stop in Darmstadt)
- Stuttgart 21 + Stuttgart - Ulm
- Hamburg - Hannover
- Frankfurt - Fulda
- Karlsruhe - Basel
- Frankfurt RheinMain plus (mainly capacity upgrades within Frankfurt)
as well as additional projects currently not planned:
- acceleration of trains in and around Frankfurt (especially Frankfurt - Hanau)
- Ulm - Augsburg new 250kph HSL along A8
By-passes so that not every single train has to stop there would make most sense in cases of Ulm, Freiburg, Göttingen, Fulda, and because of the high traffic volumes Mannheim also.

Concerning passenger numbers: The still existing air traffic on Köln - Frankfurt - Stuttgart - München (passenger services on Köln-Frankfurt and Köln-Stuttgart were ceased after opening of Köln - Frankfurt HSL) would be enough to fill all seats of hourly ICE trains only stopping in this four cities and/or Frankfurt Airport (possible shifts from car to train on this corridor not included)!

You're comitting some fallacies here, too. ;)

And those are?

The creation of new stations in the middle of nowhere is the main problem with the HSR systems of France, Spain and soon Italy:

I'm against green field stations in general but made an exception for Erfurt which is less a stop at Erfurt and more Mitteldeutschland Hbf.

They fail to integrate into the existing rail network.

I specifically said that there'd be a rail link and it's not like Erfurt is Madrid. A bypass with some noise mitigation and a short tunnel could pass the town 2-3km from the current station. A tram would be sufficient for that stretch.

but it wouldn't work for Germany, where people live more equally spread over the territory and hence a very large share of your potential customers would take a regional/IC train e. g. to Nuremberg to board the ICE itself there.

I'm not familiar with Nuremberg's geography but it should be possible to find something relatively close to the current main station that's got a good S-Bahn connection but still allows high speeds. Perhaps along the Südwesttangente?

For the same reason, non-stop connections would be less economic in Germany than e. g. in France, as more people live outside the large metropolis

But you can't stop everywhere. A train is mass transport; you need masses to transport for it to be efficient and effective.

- for that reason, not the plane is the main competitor but the car. And you compete with that by offering fast connections along all of your network, not only between a few points.

But the result of that policy is that DB is too slow to compete with the car for just about anything. The *only* way for a train (which generally won't go direct line. There will never be a ICE Freising-Jüterbog.) to compete with the car is to have a backbone that is so fast that it compensates for the additional time needed at the ends.

If I have the choice between 6h by train (1h to get to and from the ICE station; both for the journey as well as for the padding because you're regional train's unlikely to be on time. And 4h Berlin-Munich) and 6h by car, it's no contest. The car is cheaper, more comfortable and goes on your own schedule. Not only that, I could also spend about 3h in total to get to and from the airports and take a 1h flight.


At 3h for Berlin-Munich and if the trains were on time (so I'd only need to schedule 40min at beginning and end) I just might be convinced to take the train. And as other countries demonstrate, I'm not alone.


As repeated various times: You can't compare the infrastructure policy of Germany with that of Spain and others, as the respective geographies (among other factors) are totally different. There's no right or wrong here as both systems serve specific needs.

Yes, Spain, France, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, Italy and others are all completely different from Germany. A solution that works in all of them would never work here because we are so special and our solution, that is so perfect that DB Fernverkehr transports almost half as many people as the TGV alone does on a population base that is much smaller, is obviously superior.

Thanks Rohne, for a more specific approach than is usual on these pages. I have grown tired of speed-junkies (330 kmh or die!) and S-Bahn-junkies (no speed, but integration from door to door!) battling it out here without much change in arguments.
A few minor opinions here and there:
@ k: the Lyon bypass is not useless. Just type Paris - Marseille into HAFAS, then check their intermediate stops and you will see that not one of those TGVs stops in Lyon. And that is why Parisians make it to Marseille in 3 hrs 5 mins while Berliners, instad of being in Brennero in the same time (which is the equivalent distance) only make it to Saalfeld and in the future Nuremberg in the same time (Brennero takes 9.5 hrs). You really fail to see the potential a system as sketched by Rohne would have. The problem is this would take serious money and that is something Germany does not invest into rail infrastructure.
Having said that, I still tend to defend the present Berlin - Munich HSL route. Granted, a direct line could have passed through the Leipzig city tunnel, thus saving time over the usual reversal and backing out the same direction from Leipzig Hbf. It could have intermediate stops in Gera (admittedly not much of a town, but in vicinity to Zwickau, Chemnitz, and Jena, while Erfurt has Jena, Weimar, Eisenach, Gotha within reach), and the minor towns of Hof, Wunsiedel, which obviously should be stopped at rarely, but are about as important as Coburg and Bamberg on the actually constructed line.
However the u/c line has the big advantage that it will also cut travel times from Dresden and Berlin to Frankfurt by about 1 hour, while also allowing the kind of hub system at Erfurt as sketched by k.

But - and this some of you always seem to forget - at the same time Germany is very different from Switzerland, too. So as it doesn't make sense to compare German and French railways 1:1, the same can be said about comparing German and Swiss railways or even trying to adopt the Swiss system in Germany.

Distances in Germany are much longer
Merely because Germany is defined as a bigger region than Switzerland.

There are just 2 states in Germany which are bigger than Switzerland - Bavaria and Nether Saxony - both of which are more populous than Switzerland. 2 states smaller than Switzerland are also more populous (namely Baden-Württemberg and North-Rhine-Westphalia). Germany is generally more densely settled than Switzerland - the 16 states of Germany combined have less than 9 times the area of 23 cantons of Switzerland combined, but more than 10 times the population.

Most states of Germany would do well to adopt the Swiss railway system. Well, maybe with the exception of the sparsely settled Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Merely because Germany is defined as a bigger region than Switzerland.
What nonsense! We are still living in a time of nation states, so people are mainly mobile within the border of the nation states. You would prefer that all Lower Saxonians just move around Lower Saxony? Nice idea, but this is Germany, people work in Bavaria, go home for the weekend to Mecklenburg, then set out again. Face it, the total S-Bahn idea might work in Switzerland and the Netherlands, but you cannot import this into a country where traveling 600 km is a reality for commuters countr-wide. Some German agglomerations have great public transport systems, but just expanding them indefinitely does neither combat Germans' love for big gasoline guzzling cars nor their urge to jump into an airplane for distances which would not get a Frenchman/-woman int such an uncomfortable vehicle anymore.

@ k: the Lyon bypass is not useless. Just type Paris - Marseille into HAFAS, then check their intermediate stops and you will see that not one of those TGVs stops in Lyon.

I also see that there are not that many of them...



And that is why Parisians make it to Marseille in 3 hrs 5 mins while Berliners, instad of being in Brennero in the same time (which is the equivalent distance) only make it to Saalfeld and in the future Nuremberg in the same time (Brennero takes 9.5 hrs).

I won't deny that the French railway system serves Parisians very well. That it servers Parisians better than the German railway system serves Berliners.
However, whereas in France only Paris matters, it is not so that in Germany only Berlin matters.

I'd suggest you just take all the cities of more than 100000 inhabitants in France, and look up travel times (and frequencies) between them, and do the same for Germany. In France you often have to do with only one useable connection per day between two places that aren't Paris. Not so in Germany.

The big Problem in France is that because the system isn't integrated well you lose a lot of time at the ends. For example: The TGVs from Geneva to the Mediterranean all call at Avignon TGV. If (like me in one case) you are travelling to some small village near Avignon you lose about half of the time you gained on Valence - Avignon again during the transfer to Avignon Ville, and waiting for the infrequent local train.
The trains are faster, but except for Parisians the travel isn't that much faster.


You really fail to see the potential a system as sketched by Rohne would have. The problem is this would take serious money and that is something Germany does not invest into rail infrastructure.

Oh the system can be a lot better. That doesn't mean however that it should. How much would a bankrupt Germany be able to invest in to rail infrastructure? I think Germany is right in keeping the purse strings tight.
See what happend to Greece. Invested a lot in rail infrastructure. Now it doesn't have money to run trains over it...


Having said that, I still tend to defend the present Berlin - Munich HSL route. Granted, a direct line could have passed through the Leipzig city tunnel, thus saving time over the usual reversal and backing out the same direction from Leipzig Hbf.

I don't think that Berlin - München trains will call at Leipzig (and reverse there). Dresden - Leipzig - Erfurt (Frankfurt or München) trains will.
Anyway, it's a minor inconvenience, as long distance trains stop for 3 or 4 minutes at major terminals anyway, and 4 minutes is about what you need to reverse a modern train.

At 3h for Berlin-Munich and if the trains were on time (so I'd only need to schedule 40min at beginning and end) I just might be convinced to take the train. And as other countries demonstrate, I'm not alone.


If you need to schedule a 40 minute buffer at the beginning the system is a failure. In a good system you never spend more than 15 minutes in transit through a station.

(Look at the Cadiz - Sevilla timetable and the Sevilla - Madrid timetable and see what a potential RENFE is ignoring there...)

1) You must put the departures on the TGV Mediterranée into persepctive. These are TGV Duplex in double traction, their capacity is huge, much more than ICN operating Berlin-Leipzig-Munich. I found one hourly departure to Marseille, but 8 departures per hour to Lyon, continuing to Grenoble, Avginon, Nice, Besancon, St. Etienn, Geneva, Figueras (all or mostly Duplex). None of these trains stop at all stations, but a select number of imtermediate stations. (mornings 6.45 to 7.45)
By contrast you have one hourly departure from Berlin to Leipzig and Munich by ICN, with the odd private Interconnex competing on the run down to Leipzig. I do not think this amounts to a considerable share of the considerable traffic between the two cities. Capacity and what is on offer is on another planet from the TGV Mediterranee.
2) Naturally you are right about French interregional and regional service. This is the realm where France could learn from other countries. But Germany has its blind spots too. Try getting to the far end of Germany from Konstanz, Trier, Zwickau, and you will find rather stone age traveling times.
3) Sometimes you can waste money more by investing too little rather than too much. Take Cologne - Düren, speeding up to 250 for all of 39 km, to then slow down again and crawl towards Aachen. There is no significant gain in overall traveling time or attractivity to the route. The isolated routes of HSR in Germany must be patched together to a genuine system, only then will these investments make a genuine impact on the long distance travel market. As far as investments goes, I am surprised. Upping the rail infratructure investments from 4 to say 10 billion Euros and postponing a few useless Autobahn and airport runway extensions to compensate would not ruin Germany, it would secure DB and future private or foreign competitors agenuine share of the cake of the travel market. Your favorite example, Switzerland, is one of the highest per capita investors in Europe in rail infrastructure, and that is one of the reasons why they have the busiest rail system in Western Europe. Right now they are building a third (!) tunnel variation to connect the Basel-Zürich line through downtown Zürich to Oerlikon. The German pennypinchers ("Do not invest into large rail infrastrucure, just my local S-Bahn") would have a heartattack if they knew.
4) Finally, to my knowledge Berlin-Erfurt-Munich trains will to my knowledge stop alternatingly in Halle or Leipzig, with Halle offering a slight time advantage but Leipzig the more important destination of the two.

1) You must put the departures on the TGV Mediterranée into persepctive. These are TGV Duplex in double traction, their capacity is huge, much more than ICN operating Berlin-Leipzig-Munich. I found one hourly departure to Marseille, but 8 departures per hour to Lyon, continuing to Grenoble, Avginon, Nice, Besancon, St. Etienn, Geneva, Figueras (all or mostly Duplex). None of these trains stop at all stations, but a select number of imtermediate stations. (mornings 6.45 to 7.45)

The LGV Med serves Paris. And it serves Paris very well. Other places are not so well served. There is only one daily train between Lyon st. Exupery and Valence TGV, even though they are on the same high speed line...
The whole French TGV network basically operates to bring people to and from Paris. That's what having the capital in the same place for a couple of centuries does...
Germany is very different.

I sometimes have to travel from Switzerland to Belgium, and have the choice of going via France, or via Germany. The fastest way is by TGV, via Paris. By ICE via Köln is about an hour slower. However, traveling through Germany avoids having to change terminals in Paris, and the schedule gives me more options, so it is easier to plan my travel so that I leave comfortably after breakfast and still arrive before diner. And the food on the German trains is better too...



Your favorite example, Switzerland, is one of the highest per capita investors in Europe in rail infrastructure, and that is one of the reasons why they have the busiest rail system in Western Europe. Right now they are building a third (!) tunnel variation to connect the Basel-Zürich line through downtown Zürich to Oerlikon. The German pennypinchers ("Do not invest into large rail infrastrucure, just my local S-Bahn") would have a heartattack if they knew.


But what the Swiss do is think very hard firstly about what infrastructure will bring before they built it. The timetable for the trains that will run through that tunnel is already known. Infrastructure development is driven by the desired timetable. The motto is "as fast as needed" not "as fast as possible". And it is succesful.

When I visited Freiburg this autumn, I decided to visit Konstanz for a daytrip but I had to bury the idea since the fastest option would've taken 2,5h for that journey one-way (with 2 transfers) and I had no intention of spendig 5 hours in a Regionalbahn... Yet these are not very small towns, with populations 225,000 and 85,000 respectively. The distance between them is 105km as the crow flies, around 50% more by rail. I'm not sure whether this happens a lot in Germany or is it a special occasion.

The most direct line is via a small local line that runs trough the Black Forest mountains, and with all it twists and turns and slow speed doesn't make it the fastest route. The fastest route is a detour via Basel and Singen.

The big line through the Schwarzwald starts in Offenburg, north of Freiburg. From there there are a couple of direct IC trains to Konstanz, but that's also a 2,5 hour trip. It's not much faster then the local trains.

The thing about the German railways that there are enough similar city pairs that have a good connection, but also enough pairs like this one that don't. Konstanz is still a smaller town in Germany, right on the border and is not on a major railway line. This doesn't help to get there quickly by train. The car is by far the quickest option here, with a route of 125km. Although mostly not on the Autobahn it still takes you more then 1,5 hours according to Google Earth Directions.

I sometimes have to travel from Switzerland to Belgium, and have the choice of going via France, or via Germany. The fastest way is by TGV, via Paris. By ICE via Köln is about an hour slower. However, traveling through Germany avoids having to change terminals in Paris, and the schedule gives me more options, so it is easier to plan my travel so that I leave comfortably after breakfast and still arrive before diner. And the food on the German trains is better too...




But what the Swiss do is think very hard firstly about what infrastructure will bring before they built it. The timetable for the trains that will run through that tunnel is already known. Infrastructure development is driven by the desired timetable. The motto is "as fast as needed" not "as fast as possible". And it is succesful.
1. agreed there. Changing stations in Paris, except Nord and Est, is a nightmare. Rush through the endless caverns of RER or metro tunnels, cram onto an overloaded metro with just a little bit of baggage...
And the food in the onboard bistros of TGVs, nothing but plastic. Nor the claustrophobic seats. In all these categories the ICE and the German Hauptbahnhof system rather than directional stations are much preferable.
2. And Swiss planning precision, yes, desirable - seeing that here (Turkey) high-speed train routes announce their schedule about three days before their opening and then change them a couple of times ad hoc afterwards, and the opening of new routes usually depends on the prime minister's spontaneous agenda rather than any planning.

@ rebassapois: As I stated in my post above, the DB network of high speed and fast conventional lines covers many cities, but far from all. Koblenz is one of the cities that fell off the grid. Often it is the decision to promote one route as main corridor that saps off any infrastructure investments or decent services. In this case, DB opted to develop the route Karlsuhe-Freiburg-Basel-Zürich as the main hig speed to semi-high speed route to Switzerland rather than Stuttgart-Konstanz-Zürich, and now the latter is being kept down in order not to compete with the former. Also there is no fast east to west connection in southern Germany (existing or planned) south of Stuttgart - Munich.
However you should have gone. The route through the Black Forest is marvellous, one of the scenic highlights German rail has to offer.

Also there is no fast east to west connection in southern Germany (existing or planned) south of Stuttgart - Munich.


The line Basel - Schaffhausen is to be electrified by 2016, which will speed it up. This will enable a frequent service with optimal connections in Basel and Schaffhausen. In the more distant future electrifying Singen - Friedrichshafen is planned.

However you should have gone. The route through the Black Forest is marvellous, one of the scenic highlights German rail has to offer.
I did travel to Titisee so I didn't completely miss the scenery. :)

Now you could build paypasses around those hubs, but those bypasses will be expensive, and will never by heavily used.
By-passes will be rather short and therefore less expensive. They may remain lightly trafficked themself but are highly effective additions as they attract more traffic to the overall network and increase the load factor of the existing high-speed section.

The line Basel - Schaffhausen is to be electrified by 2016, which will speed it up. This will enable a frequent service with optimal connections in Basel and Schaffhausen. In the more distant future electrifying Singen - Friedrichshafen is planned.

The problem with Singen-Friedrichshafen isn't the fact it's not electrified, but the fact that it has so many single track sections. Überlingen station is in a trench and is single track, meaning many trains have to wait at Überlingen Therme (about 500m away) to pass that section. Then the line from Therme to Singen is pretty much all single tracked except for short sections at Radolfzell station. On the other side of Überlingen it's also one tracked all the way to Markdorf where the station has two tracks, but then becomes single tracked again all the way to Friedrichshafen.

Anyway, this is definitely not a priority section for double tracking or electrification. I'd like to see improvements on the connections from Schaffhausen to Friedrichshafen though. Would be nice to have a direct train. Oh and direct train from Zurich Airport to Schaffhausen (eliminate the need to change in Winterthur)

The problem with Singen-Friedrichshafen isn't the fact it's not electrified, but the fact that it has so many single track sections. Überlingen station is in a trench and is single track, meaning many trains have to wait at Überlingen Therme (about 500m away) to pass that section.

Running an intensive timetable on a single track line is not really a big challenge. All that is needed is good planning the right infrastructure and timekeeping. Double tracking the tunnel through Überlingen itself is not really an option.
The problem here is outdated signalling. After having stopped in Überlingen the IRE must wait till the RB is stopped in Überlingen Therme, as the signalling and the regulations doesn't permit simultaneous entries by trains from both sides there.
What would be doen here is modernise the signalling and train protection, and build a pedestrian underpass at Ü Therme, so that trains can enter the station from both directions at the same time and the timetable of both the IRE and RB trains can be sped up a bit.

The line Basel - Schaffhausen is to be electrified by 2016, which will speed it up. This will enable a frequent service with optimal connections in Basel and Schaffhausen. In the more distant future electrifying Singen - Friedrichshafen is planned.

Although mostly in Germany, that line has the last non-electrified lines in Switzerland, approaching Basel and at the other end approaching Schaffhausen. When that is electrified, Switzerland's rail network will be completely electric.

Although mostly in Germany, that line has the last non-electrified lines in Switzerland, approaching Basel and at the other end approaching Schaffhausen. When that is electrified, Switzerland's rail network will be completely electric.

Concerning passenger trains, yes. There are a few freight - only lines that are not electrified too.

Oh and direct train from Zurich Airport to Schaffhausen (eliminate the need to change in Winterthur)

That's planned for 2015...

But the result of that policy is that DB is too slow to compete with the car for just about anything.
There's an exception to that, and that is regular commuting within urban areas between destinations with limited parking. Or in other words, S-Bahn networks, at least on distances of up to 20 km one-way.

Cars aren't cheaper on such distances either when one takes various offers from the Verkehrsverbünde into account. The public transport ticket i use primarily for my daily commute comes up to about the same price as just the fuel for my car for the same commute.

About a third of Germany's population is inhabitant of the largest urban areas centering the aforementioned metro areas.
About half of the German population lives within the Blue Banana (40 million in the semi-continuous metro regions of Rhein-Ruhr-Cologne, Rhine-Main, Rhine-Neckar, Stuttgart, Munich) nicely matching what should be DBs primary long-distance high-capacity rail route. By the same logic it's not worth catering to any city outside that pattern with fast rail.

I support that logic btw. In the above sense at least.

Running an intensive timetable on a single track line is not really a big challenge. All that is needed is good planning the right infrastructure and timekeeping. Double tracking the tunnel through Überlingen itself is not really an option.
The problem here is outdated signalling. After having stopped in Überlingen the IRE must wait till the RB is stopped in Überlingen Therme, as the signalling and the regulations doesn't permit simultaneous entries by trains from both sides there.
What would be doen here is modernise the signalling and train protection, and build a pedestrian underpass at Ü Therme, so that trains can enter the station from both directions at the same time and the timetable of both the IRE and RB trains can be sped up a bit.



You seem to know your Bodensee railway well ;) I think with electrifying and improving signaling would be more than enough to improve service along that route. there doesn't seem to be much more need than that. Obviously I'd love a direct ICE connection between Zurich airport and Überlingen, but that's just selfish, especially when I take that route just two or three times a year.

About half of the German population lives within the Blue Banana (40 million in the semi-continuous metro regions of Rhein-Ruhr-Cologne, Rhine-Main, Rhine-Neckar, Stuttgart, Munich) nicely matching what should be DBs primary long-distance high-capacity rail route. By the same logic it's not worth catering to any city outside that pattern with fast rail.

Too black and white. The former is the route that should have top priority, but that doesn't mean that there's no need to integrate some others of the country's metro areas (Munich, Hamburg and Berlin don't belong to the Blue Banana) as well.

that doesn't mean that there's no need to integrate some others of the country's metro areas as well.
Sure. We'd have to put priorities on those though, within this secondary rank. Munich? Easy to integrate, reasonably close, interlocking regional zone anyway. Potential of continuing on towards Vienna. Hamburg? Well, could be worthwhile in the course of attaching Denmark and beyond. Berlin? Lowest priority. Economically vastly underperforming area with next to no people living in the wider area, costly to attach through long distance, no real destinations beyond it in a European network.

The sad reality though is that as far a priorization goes this is just inverted compared to that.

Berlin? Lowest priority. Economically vastly underperforming area with next to no people living in the wider area, costly to attach through long distance, no real destinations beyond it in a European network.



You make some good points, but i think maybe you are glancing over Berlin's position in regard to some Eastern European countries where there is actually quite a bit of growth, and where they are also getting to work on high speed rail. I think proper 300km/h connections to Berlin from Cologne and Munich are quite essential to integrating not only Berlin into Germany, but bringing Germany's economic powerregions closer to the eastern growth markets as well.

^^ Berlin is the city that needs most high speed rail links exactly because it is a bit further apart from the others (Leipzig, Hannover, Hamburg), allowing high-speed lines to maximize their utility by providing fast connections to other places.

But some ppl (not saying anyone here on SSC necessarily) hold the vision that Berlin should be isolated. I bet some would want the capital of Deustchland to be still located in Bonn, close to "the area where 40% of the population lives".

^^ The natural capital of Germany is Frankfurt, as it's not only the financial and one of the economical hearts of Central Europe as well as its most important transportation hub, but also has the longest tradition of being the or one of the politically most important German cities (in fact it had this role for ~1000 years until 1866, Berlin only got its importance with the rise of Prussia) :P

HSR trains want to be filled, so you need population. By this, and existing transport structures, Germany's priorities essentially have to be Köln - Frankfurt - Stuttgart - München and Hamburg - Frankfurt - Basel, definitely not any route to Berlin! Every other route (including ie Köln - Hannover - Berlin, Frankfurt - Erfurt - Leipzig - Dresden, Erfurt - Nürnberg or Frankfurt - Nürnberg) is by far not as important and thus shouldn't be started before the two main corridors are finished.
Berlin's already linked by HSR to Hamburg, Hannover and Leipzig/Halle, there's no urgent need for more. In fact, that could already be seen as too much as long as the top priority routes mentioned before are in their current shabby condition.

^^ Well, Berlin is THE most populated metro area in Germany. Roma is another example of a capital which is the most populous, but not the most important financial center.

Anyway, one of the reasons they had built those HSL to Halle and Hannover was the fact the communist dictators hadn't upgraded properly the (Eastern) Germany lines, so it was easy to build something new and modern from scratch (using crumbling lines in East Germany was not an option).

It is the same logic that dictated the rapid expansion of high-speed rail in Spain: the old rails were so crap it was easy to start a completely new system without caring much about legacy rail (that had been mostly replaced by buses in the 1980s anyway).

^^ Wrong and wrong.

1. Berlin's only the most populated city (but city proper doesn't tell anything about the real size of a city). The largest German Urban Area is the Ruhr area around Essen, the largest Metro Areas are Rhein-Ruhr (~ 11 million) followed by Frankfurt (~ 5 million). Berlin only comes third or fourth (~4,5 million - the newer definition with 6 million doesn't have anything to do with a Metro Area anymore) and is located kind of in the middle of nowhere, while there's still a very high population density beyond the borders of Rhein-Ruhr, Frankfurt, Rhein-Neckar and Stuttgart metro areas.

2. Berlin - Leipzig is not a new line, it's just a renovated and accelerated line that's existing for many many decades now. Because of very easy topography (virtually now hills or mountains, just a few forests and sometimes a small lake or river), it was not too much a problem speeding up the existing line which only has a few curves. That's why it's only 200kph, not 230 or 250, too. Same applies to Berlin-Hamburg (here even 230kph is permitted). The only new line which had to be built is Berlin-Hannover.

^^

1.

Additionally, the Frankfurt, Rhein-Neckar and Stuttgart wider metro areas are practically almost overlapping. Continuous area with ~15 million people in the same area as the "Berlin-Brandenburg" 6-million metro area (or the Netherlands, for comparison).

Munich has a similar (to Berlin) highly centralized metro area btw, albeit with population density more evenly spread than in Berlin, and with its edges along the Stuttgart-Munich HSR connecting it to the above continuous area.

2.

The Hannover - Berlin HSR history is complicated. It being built the way it was stemmed from the need to have a rail transit corridor through the GDR being preferably built in a place where no one lived. The line was fully planned before the Wall fell.

i think maybe you are glancing over Berlin's position in regard to some Eastern European countries where there is actually quite a bit of growth, and where they are also getting to work on high speed rail.
That would be? Poland and beyond? Similar argument, it takes ages to get a HSR to Warsaw, Riga or Tallinn built, and it's a matter of calculating economic yield versus costs. It doesn't take ages or dozens of billions to connect Budapest and Bratislava through a HSR via Vienna though, and that's similarly growing countries. Hence why we don't see a planned (London-) Paris - Berlin - Warsaw - Tallinn transeuropean HSR, but a (London -) Paris - Munich - Vienna - Budapest one.

You make some good points, but i think maybe you are glancing over Berlin's position in regard to some Eastern European countries where there is actually quite a bit of growth, and where they are also getting to work on high speed rail.
Just a note, we (Poland) effectively cancelled high speed rail until 2030 due to economical reasons, so crossing via Poland will probably be around 160km/h for the foreseeable future.

That would be? Poland and beyond? Similar argument, it takes ages to get a HSR to Warsaw, Riga or Tallinn built, and it's a matter of calculating economic yield versus costs. It doesn't take ages or dozens of billions to connect Budapest and Bratislava through a HSR via Vienna though, and that's similarly growing countries. Hence why we don't see a planned (London-) Paris - Berlin - Warsaw - Tallinn transeuropean HSR, but a (London -) Paris - Munich - Vienna - Budapest one.
Just for a sidenote, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are working hard on the Rail Baltic project that would create a 1435mm connection on the route Tallinn-Pärnu-Riga-Panevežys-Kaunas-Polish border with a top speed of 240km/h. If the necessary EU support becomes available, 2020-24 is a realistic date for completion. Unfortunately, for Poland the North-Eastern direction is not a priority concerning a HSR network.

While I agree that Köln-Frankfurt-München is the most important corridor in the country and therefore warrants transport infrastructures such as high-speed rail line more than any other. I object the perception that the development of a high-speed network offside this corridor would be a waste of resource.
Germany can afford a high-speed network that stretches as far as Hamburg and Berlin. Actually it cannot afford to leave some major cities isolated. High-speed lines to Berlin and Dresden are therefore a necessity.

The natural capital of Germany is Frankfurt, as it's not only the financial and one of the economical hearts of Central Europe as well as its most important transportation hub, but also has the longest tradition of being the or one of the politically most important German cities (in fact it had this role for ~1000 years until 1866, Berlin only got its importance with the rise of Prussia)
Frankfurt is not the natural capital of Germany. In fact it is no capital and it never was. It has always been a city of merchants. Hence it lacks the sparkling glamour that real capital cities like Karlsruhe, München, Dresden and Berlin have.

Besides, France and Spain both have high speed railways across sparsely settled countryside, for example in the case of France out of Paris.

If the most populous part of Germany is the Rhine valley between Wesel and Konstanz then Germany needs high speed railways along these bands - but Germany also needs high speed railways connecting sparsely settled east to Rhine valley rail stations. Like high speed railways to Berlin, Warszaw etc..

^^ Berlin is the city that needs most high speed rail links exactly because it is a bit further apart from the others (Leipzig, Hannover, Hamburg), allowing high-speed lines to maximize their utility by providing fast connections to other places.

Aren't you the guy who's always going on about the (word describing the economic opposite of Communism; which this forum apparently censors?! HUH??? :nuts:), that trains need to compete with cars on economics; yield management and all that?

If you follow the money there won't be an HSR to or from Berlin. As you mention those rail links are effectively development aid.

That doesn't mean they aren't a valid investment but I frankly don't understand when you of all people started to subscribe to the dirigisme way of doing things. Politically an HSR network without Berlin ain't happening (well, politically an HSR network ain't happening), so the whole discussion is beside the point.

Geographically and financially the natural center of German HSR is Frankfurt because it's reasonably close to everything and enough of a destination in itself to act as an actual center instead of a crossroads.

There's an exception to that, and that is regular commuting within urban areas between destinations with limited parking. Or in other words, S-Bahn networks, at least on distances of up to 20 km one-way.

I didn't really think of S-Bahns when talking about DB but you're absolutely correct. :)

But that is not true for commuting within the greater urban areas (i.e. the whole S-Bahn network) in general but only if your journey begins or ends at the center. For destinations along one line it is often but not always competitive; between spokes it's generally hopeless.

Aren't you the guy who's always going on about the (word describing the economic opposite of Communism; which this forum apparently censors?! HUH??? :nuts:), that trains need to compete with cars on economics; yield management and all that?

I have nothing against government investing in high-speed rail tracks as public ways (like highways, airport runways, navigation canals). That is ok, and it is good that governments invest in infrastructure. The condition is that the tracks are left for private operators to run trains at them without any central schedule, ticketing or fare coordination. I fiercely oppose governments operating vehicles for transportation of goods or people, instead of merely building the infrastructure (tracks, roads, runways etc.) needed to allow private uncoordinated, competing, non-collaborating traffic.

I have nothing against government investing in high-speed rail tracks as public ways (like highways, airport runways, navigation canals). That is ok, and it is good that governments invest in infrastructure. The condition is that the tracks are left for private operators to run trains at them without any central schedule, ticketing or fare coordination. I fiercely oppose governments operating vehicles for transportation of goods or people, instead of merely building the infrastructure (tracks, roads, runways etc.) needed to allow private uncoordinated, competing, non-collaborating traffic.

In other words: You are fiercely opposed to efficient use of tax payers' money?

No: he is just the best example of a perfect economist. Public costs, private profits.

But it's useless to start again replying him...

it's kind of funny that we (also our politicians, companies etc.) are discussing about connections of cities with "only" a few hundred km distance.
imagine this discussion in the us or china, russia etc where you have thousands of km distance between the big cities. :D
of course this is a very big topic, which is also very complicated (just take a look at stuttgart21) , but other countries would be happy if they "only" had to build a few hundred km tracks.

No: he is just the best example of a perfect economist. Public costs, private profits.

But it's useless to start again replying him...

Oh no no, it's just him who would like to return to the XIXc, a model which clearly didn't work well as history tells us. Economists do not necessaily ask for such a model.

Oh no no, it's just him who would like to return to the XIXc, a model which clearly didn't work well as history tells us. Economists do not necessaily ask for such a model.

The underlying question is whether one thinks competition, like democracy, freedom of speech or freedom religion, is a value justified on itself, regardless of other implications, or just a mean to achieve something else. I belong to the first camp when it comes to competition in economic activities that are non-essential (like transport).

I belong to the first camp when it comes to competition in economic activities that are non-essential (like transport).

How can you qualify transport as a non-essential economic activity? There is no trade at all without it and trade is the basis for achieving the low marginal costs of production that has allowed our current high standards of living! Even if we just talk about passangers the mobility of human capital is extremely important to reduce labor market distortions.

How can you qualify transport as a non-essential economic activity? There is no trade at all without it and trade is the basis for achieving the low marginal costs of production that has allowed our current high standards of living! Even if we just talk about passangers the mobility of human capital is extremely important to reduce labor market distortions.

Transport is not going to cease its existence in Germany if DB was dismantled and its assets sold, in parts, to different bidders. Germany would only lose the concept of a system operating as a "network", and would have to adjust to new realities (no more trains leaving Frankfurt to Stuttgart every 12 minutes past the hour). But we'd see, likely, lower prices.

A precedent: air transport, once organized in networks with the excuse of the need of central coordination and good use of the public resources sunk on runways, and the need to provide fairness with accessible fares to different parts of the country. And we can all fly nowadays because it is so cheap...

The underlying question is whether one thinks competition, like democracy, freedom of speech or freedom religion, is a value justified on itself, regardless of other implications, or just a mean to achieve something else. I belong to the first camp when it comes to competition in economic activities that are non-essential (like transport).

To people who really know the meaning of freedom and democracy the principle of "no taxation without representation" is self evident.
From that follows that when infrastructure gets built with tax payers' money, the tax payer has a right (via his representatives) to exert a certain level of control over it.
In other words, if my government uses my money to build some high speed railway line, I want it run in a way that maximizes value to myself. And I want my government to make sure that this happens.
Even if that means that private companies cannot maximize their profits. Nowhere is it written that the producers are solely entitled to the entire economic surplus.

But we'd see, likely, lower prices.
Considering DB crossfinances its long-distance public transport (non-subsidized) from profits in its short-distance public transport (subsidized) i doubt that'd happen. Especially since we'd pretty quickly have an oligarchical system forming, much like what already happened in cargo rail transport in Germany.

The underlying question is whether one thinks competition, like democracy, freedom of speech or freedom religion, is a value justified on itself
With regard to what you're proposing there's a certain single line in the German Constitution:

Property obligates. Its use shall serve the common good.

Handing off public property - and the use of a railway line built with state money is such - to select private entities in order for them to profit from it would be a violation of the above. Pretty simple actually, isn't it?

Handing off public property - and the use of a railway line built with state money is such - to select private entities in order for them to profit from it would be a violation of the above. Pretty simple actually, isn't it?

Is it a violation of the German constitution that private cars and trucks use the Autobahnen, instead of government-property Deustche TKW Ghmb? Or that private airlines use the runways of German airports? Actually, are other companies other than Lufthansa going to operate in the new Berlin airport?

Why is it so difficult for people to dissociate the TRACKS (which could be public property) with the VEHICLES (trains) using them, when the distinction is automatic in regard of other modes of transportation?

Why is it so difficult for people to dissociate the TRACKS (which could be public property) with the VEHICLES (trains) using them, when the distinction is automatic in regard of other modes of transportation?

Because public and private transport are completely different things.

Even airplanes are often coordinated between them (Star Alliance, Skyteam, ...). Point-to-point services offered usually by low costs is a particular case not reproducible on railways, simply because airplanes wander around in a 3D space, while trains move in a strictly unidimensional environment that often creates huge constraints.

Especially since we'd pretty quickly have an oligarchical system forming, much like what already happened in cargo rail transport in Germany.
Could you please explain this point? I'm very interested in the cargo question.

Could you please explain this point? I'm very interested in the cargo question.
We have a handful companies that pretty much own the market through subsidiary companies. Most of this has only consolidated to current ownership structures in the last 3-4 years, with these companies buying up all other competitors. There are nominally something like 100 cargo rail companies in Germany, dozens of which were "independent" at some point, but most of these are effectively owned by three big ones, with in some cases company structures that give you a headache.

Those big ones are currently DB Schenker, Fret SNCF TLP and SBB Cargo. Especially SNCF has been buying up small German companies in the past couple years, DB Schenker too though. HSL Logistics, Trenitalia (through TX Logistics) and to some extent Wincanton Rail hold onto smaller market shares, often through having a solid base in quasi-monopolies somewhere, e.g. HSL concentrates a lot on short cargo hauls in the northern deepwater ports, while Wincanton owns the entire rail infrastructure in a port on the Rhine. Other than that there's maybe only half a dozen still independent small companies remaining.

Why is it so difficult for people to dissociate the TRACKS (which could be public property) with the VEHICLES (trains) using them, when the distinction is automatic in regard of other modes of transportation?

Why is it so difficult to understand that for the government it is a _duty_ that tax payer money is well spend.
Currently the money spend on roads is not efficiently spend, exactly because access is unregulated, leading to traffic jams at some part of the day, and massive underutilisation for the rest of the time. Pleas don't inflict on the railways.
As to airports: If you really think that airlines are free to land whenever they want to at, for example, Frankfurt, than you now zilch about the airline industry.

When a railway line is build with tax payers' money the government has an obligation to make sure that the line produces maximum value for the public. The government has no such obligation to the train companies. That is what democracy and accountability mean. Companies may of course try to maximize their profit, but they are not entitled to having it easy.

The German State owns the network. If you really are so pro private enterprise, so pro free market as you claim you are then you should be aware what property rights are, and what they mean, and you should not have any problem that the owner of a piece of infrastructure should be allowed to make sure that it is used in accordance with what it conceives as its own interests.

Especially SNCF has been buying up small German companies in the past couple years, DB Schenker too though.
Thanks for the answer. Did this happen mainly due to bad economic conditions of the smaller companies, or due to "interesting" offers recieved by the bigger ones?

When a railway line is build with tax payers' money the government has an obligation to make sure that the line produces maximum value for the public.
...
the owner of a piece of infrastructure should be allowed to make sure that it is used in accordance with what it conceives as its own interests.

I think we should point out that, in railway, if infrastracture doesn't follow a rigid and regular timetable you're going to face serious system inefficiencies.
That's not an opinion, that's just the way it is. I think that sometimes we don't point out this because we consider it an obivious fact, but people not working or interested in railways may not know it.

What is more, it is well proven that a regular timetable will generate more passengers demand (and thus a higher usage ratio), since people will find a regular railway much easier to use.

Thanks for the answer. Did this happen mainly due to bad economic conditions of the smaller companies, or due to "interesting" offers recieved by the bigger ones?
Open investment strategy with high offers in many cases. Back in 2007/2008 when this happened the German industry was in damn good economic conditions. SNCF at that point invested up to half a billion Euro (definitely a sum in the hundreds of millions though) into buying up a multitude of small German freight companies, often companies in the 100-200 employee / 30-50 million turnover range. DB Schenker ran a similar strategy a bit earlier; Veolia tried it too, but bailed out of the run on the German freight market after half a year and sold their bought-up companies to SNCF.

What is more, it is well proven that a regular timetable will generate more passengers demand (and thus a higher usage ratio), since people will find a regular railway much easier to use.

There is no counter-prove to test your hypothesis (a highly competitive market with multiple, non-colluding operators offering similar routes).

Similar arguments of yours were laid down in the early 1990s when EU dismantled the state-regulated intra-European air market in favor of ample liberalization. Doomsday scenarios were predicted and, guess what, we gained Ryanair and Easyjet and cheap flights that killed dangerous, outdated, Third World night trains in Europe for most of it.

Until we have a truly liberalized rail market (not a mere collection of local monopolies like the UK franchises), we can't know for sure regular timetables is the best possible arrangement.

No country with a sizable network has ever tried that since WW-2.

Wait, man. What kind of counter-prove do you need? Any system, switching from "my next train will come at a random time" to "I'm sure to have a train within 60'", has seen a rise of demand. Isn't this enough? Should we set those systems back to a random timetable to prove the point?

I agree about the need to open the rail market, I think anyone capable of buying a train and respect safety laws should be allowed to sell its services, but the timetable is not a limit. Who manages the infrastructure is obliged to follow a repetitive timetable to keep the system efficient, this is a technical limit and not a political one.
Given that a certain type of train must run at a certain time for technical reasons, then you are free to open whatever you want. You can sell the slots with yield management, operators are free to choose how to invest their money (more confortable trains, better onboard services), and they're free to sell tickets again with yield management.
This is a decently free market.

As of today, profitable services are somehow taxed to pay "poor" services. I would simply change this by not charging taxes upon the service but by asking a higher price for profitable slots. Same result, but a market more free to decide.

Anyway, you'll never have perfect competition in railways... the system has the technical limit that you can't pass a slower train whenever you want.

You might see real competition only in the night trains market, since there are no or little "system timetable" boundaries... and still the question is not so easy.

Wait, man. What kind of counter-prove do you need? Any system, switching from "my next train will come at a random time" to "I'm sure to have a train within 60'", has seen a rise of demand. Isn't this enough? Should we set those systems back to a random timetable to prove the point?

Random time in the sense of often delayed trains is different than not-on-a-clock-face-schedule-because-someone-decided-time-should-be-measure-in-24h-of-60min-each.

But more important than that: you never had a situation of true competition for prices between non-colluding companies, in Germany or elsewhere. Your argument would only hold assuming that prices would be always the same, or at least centrally coordinated.

Once you bring price competition on, all hell breaks lose in the land of monopolistic, centralistic, soviet-Style railway management. Yes, people wanting to travel at odd times will be worse off. Yes, some cities will be vastly underserved but overall the population would see cheaper trains for the routes that encompasses majority of travel (exactly what happened with air market after the 1990s de-regulation).

Who manages the infrastructure is obliged to follow a repetitive timetable to keep the system efficient, this is a technical limit and not a political one.
Given that a certain type of train must run at a certain time for technical reasons, then you are free to open whatever you want. You can sell the slots with yield management, operators are free to choose how to invest their money (more confortable trains, better onboard services), and they're free to sell tickets again with yield management.
This is a decently free market.

But that assumes routes are fixed.

It would be the same of obliging all buses in a highway to make the same stops in a set of cities along the route. Or oblige airplanes to stop in specified airports (that still happens a bit out of protectionism).

As of today, profitable services are somehow taxed to pay "poor" services. I would simply change this by not charging taxes upon the service but by asking a higher price for profitable slots. Same result, but a market more free to decide.

This is another realm of problems, but it is getting tackled in Germany in the sense of, as a start, having the accountancy numbers for long-distance and regional operations separated. The real problem is that rigid timetables hidden unprofitable routes on the whole scheme of things. Add to that a relatively proportionality of fares according to distance, when it should be more or less ditched.

But it seems even the deeply discounted € 29 fares on ICEs causes some uproar because not all short relations can be bought with such discounts.

Anyway, you'll never have perfect competition in railways... the system has the technical limit that you can't pass a slower train whenever you want.

Sure. But then you can change philosophies. Today, you run empty trains in Germany to stick to a timetable that is recurrent on short intervals. Tomorrow, you could have spare capacity on track, not on rolling stock, by overbuilding tracks in lieu of running much-bigger-than-necessary-except-on-peak-time trains.

This is the logic that orientates barge transport on routes constrained by docks and locks, or air transport, and road transport as well. Overbuilt the infrastructure to reduce the excess capacity on vehicles by allowing them to operate in a far more customized and irregular pattern.

You might see real competition only in the night trains market, since there are no or little "system timetable" boundaries... and still the question is not so easy.
It depends. On heavily used freight routes, operating a passenger train is a nightmare.

Wants an example: the American railroads, by far and large the largest freight rail market in the World, optimized to that, but with deep flaws like lack of separation of ownership of ROW and tracks and operation.

Random time in the sense of often delayed trains is different than not-on-a-clock-face-schedule-because-someone-decided-time-should-be-measure-in-24h-of-60min-each.


In France RFI is forcing SNCF to run to a clockface schedule. The arguments RFI gives for doing that is that is that they need to make the network useable for competitors to SNCF. the way to do that is to create a regular schedule, create a path catalog, and sell those paths to those interested.
This is the way the network operators work in in the Netherlands, in Germany and in Switzerland, precisely those countries where rail freight deregulation has been advanced most.
Seems to kind of point towards "regular timetables are to everyone's advantage", right?
Of course, running a network in a way that maximises value to all stakeholders runs counter to your political agenda, which is why you have declared it to be wrong.

Doomsday scenarios were predicted and, guess what, we gained Ryanair and Easyjet and cheap flights ...

Ryanair's core business is rent seeking. That a vocal free market supporter like you likes Ryanair is baffling. Or maybe an indication how little you actually understand what you appear to defend.

In France RFI is forcing SNCF to run to a clockface schedule. The arguments RFI gives for doing that is that is that they need to make the network useable for competitors to SNCF. the way to do that is to create a regular schedule, create a path catalog, and sell those paths to those interested.
This is the way the network operators work in in the Netherlands, in Germany and in Switzerland, precisely those countries where rail freight deregulation has been advanced most.
Seems to kind of point towards "regular timetables are to everyone's advantage", right?
Of course, running a network in a way that maximises value to all stakeholders runs counter to your political agenda, which is why you have declared it to be wrong.

Regular timetables =/= timetables with recurrent paths every 60 minutes.

Ryanair's core business is rent seeking. That a vocal free market supporter like you likes Ryanair is baffling. Or maybe an indication how little you actually understand what you appear to defend.

There is nothing wrong with rent-seeking, if laws allow it. And I'm totally aware the Ryanair model is based on extracting money from the places they fly, then threatening to abandon them if not given more money (new tax exemptions, new airport facilities, revamped check-in areas etc). In cases like Malta, Spanish resorts, or cities not served by "traditional companies", they have the upper hand. So what? I don't agree with the idea, but as long as it is legal, no problems with that.

Regular timetables =/= timetables with recurrent paths every 60 minutes.

Give me one good reason why, with recurrent paths, they should not repeat every 60 minute.


There is nothing wrong with rent-seeking, if laws allow it. And I'm totally aware the Ryanair model is based on extracting money from the places they fly, then threatening to abandon them if not given more money (new tax exemptions, new airport facilities, revamped check-in areas etc). In cases like Malta, Spanish resorts, or cities not served by "traditional companies", they have the upper hand. So what? I don't agree with the idea, but as long as it is legal, no problems with that.

But why should it only go in one direction? If it's ok for private companies to seek to extract value from the government, the government should be able to do the same when it has the upper hand. When it owns a piece of infrastructure that private companies would really like to use for example...

If I am the owner of a shopping mall, can I stipulate that the shops operating in my mall are open from 6:00 till 22:00 7 days a week?
If I am the owner of a railway line, can I stipulate that however runs trains on it does so according to a timetable that I set?

Give me one good reason why, with recurrent paths, they should not repeat every 60 minute.

Because as one with knowledge of operations research or linear optimization knows, you can calculate an optimal interval for a given network, that might, or might be not, 60 minutes. With powerful computers, it is fairly easy (if intensive) to find an optimal interval, over which you can create multiples if you want.

It depends on the physical infrastructure, on the constraints etc. But it can be calculated.

the "minute" and the "hour" are abstract constructs, there is nothing magical about "hourly repeated" schedules instead of 52min repeated or 70min repeated ones, for instance.


But why should it only go in one direction? If it's ok for private companies to seek to extract value from the government, the government should be able to do the same when it has the upper hand. When it owns a piece of infrastructure that private companies would really like to use for example...

Because the government should be limited and confined, mingling as little as possible with private economic activity.

Because the government should be limited and confined, mingling as little as possible with private economic activity.

.... Yet you ask for it to build the tracks wherever it wants.

Anyway that statement of yours just doesn't make it worth it to try to debate with you any further, you just hold to your belief and that's what you're debating in here - it has nothing to do with railways but about free market policies and that's a very different topic. Since it's a belief I also guess it's totally worthless to tell you that the world realized long ago that a completely free market economy does not properly work and that regulation and coordination by the state to maximize social profit is needed, specifically that was learned during the great depression in the US.

Because as one with knowledge of operations research or linear optimization knows, you can calculate an optimal interval for a given network, that might, or might be not, 60 minutes. With powerful computers, it is fairly easy (if intensive) to find an optimal interval, over which you can create multiples if you want.


If you take an existing network, and try to calculate an optimal interval you will get nowhere. Any non trivial railway network is too complex for that. You have to do it the other way around, define a target interval, and use that in infrastructure planning. If you are going to pick an interval, why not 60 minutes?

In Kobe there exists an underground railway through the city centre, owned by a private company that does not run its own trains. This railway is used by four different private railway company. The schedule on that line is based on a 60 minute interval, with each company getting slots. That forces those companies to use 60 minute intervals on the rest of their networks too, but it is the only way this will work. You have to define a standard. And by keeping the standard constant you make it possible for the participating companies to engage in long term planning.


It depends on the physical infrastructure, on the constraints etc. But it can be calculated.

the "minute" and the "hour" are abstract constructs, there is nothing magical about "hourly repeated" schedules instead of 52min repeated or 70min repeated ones, for instance.


Acutally there is something special, almost magical, about the number "60". 60 is divisable by 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. That means that a 60 minute interval can be quite easily and trivially be divided in sub intervals of whole minutes. That is actually why there are 60 minutes in an hour.
So 60 is a good standard.


Because the government should be limited and confined, mingling as little as possible with private economic activity.

Setting clear standards so that cooperation and fair competition is possible is however a proper function of government.

Transport is not going to cease its existence in Germany if DB was dismantled and its assets sold, in parts, to different bidders. Germany would only lose the concept of a system operating as a "network", and would have to adjust to new realities (no more trains leaving Frankfurt to Stuttgart every 12 minutes past the hour). But we'd see, likely, lower prices.

A precedent: air transport, once organized in networks with the excuse of the need of central coordination and good use of the public resources sunk on runways, and the need to provide fairness with accessible fares to different parts of the country. And we can all fly nowadays because it is so cheap...

Worked a treat on most of the UK's buses, didn't it?:|

Worked a treat on most of the UK's buses, didn't it?:|

Well, you can get knock down fares in many routes, like London-Glasgow for £ 19 and Manchester-London for £ 9 with advance purchase.

For most people, there are now more offers, better buses and - bingo! - drivers don't strike because they will be promptly replaced.

Only hamlets in the countryside are far worse off like not having reasonable service or losing connections to nearby villages.

Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.

Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.

And interestingly these buses leave Berlin at 60 min intervals. Now why would that be...

Well, you can get knock down fares in many routes, like London-Glasgow for £ 19 and Manchester-London for £ 9 with advance purchase.

For most people, there are now more offers, better buses and - bingo! - drivers don't strike because they will be promptly replaced.

Only hamlets in the countryside are far worse off like not having reasonable service or losing connections to nearby villages.

Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.

Well done for deliberately missing the point. Intercity coaches are not the same as buses. Try looking at the enormously higher rate of fare increases versus inflation and ever declining patronage that afflict most British bus operations. Look at places that don't experience this. Most have integrated systems which are much more user friendly and still manage to have new buses.

As for that remark about striking, its rather desperate and complete rubbish. All manner of companies have experienced strikes in Britain, from local operators like Nottingham City Transport to multinationals like FirstGroup. And funnily enough, the services didn't remain shut down for weeks afterwards whilst they replaced their entire staff, not least because that would be illegal.

You appear to have a rather odd world view, in which everybody will benefit from a competition-based utopia which is plainly unachievable and the lower prices etc which will result, whilst at the same time nobody has the right to strike and is basically at the mercy of what their employers will be kind enough to give them, which will mean nobody can afford the services of all these competing businesses. All the while personal freedoms will be somewhat restricted, based essentially on your personal preferences.

Public Transport's primary competitor is the car, not another public transport service. I appreciate you think that public transport services/vehicles are somehow directly comparable to each car on the road in the way that they interact with users and infrastructure, but this is clearly nonsense. Public transport services are generally used and treated as infrastructure in themselves, and function best when co-ordinated. Imagine a world where, when driving somewhere, you had to pay double and wait for half an hour just to turn onto a different road.

A deconstruction of DB into small networks sold off would actually probably result in regional assemblies (already having planning authority for subsidized local public transport) taking them over or outright buying them up. This usually involves local companies as well. In many cases these would then refocus planning on providing even more stable use tables emphasizing the importance of local public transport, with interregional passenger and freight trains being reduced to use only excess capacity. At premium prices and on the conditions of the regional assembly of course.
Due to the interconnection between public transport planning authority and regional planning as a whole the resulting semi-privatized infrastructure company would also gain a hold over any outside company or agent - including the federation - wanting to build infrastructure through their territory.

At least that's what probably would happen in the richer south and west. In pisspoor east and north we'd probably have a rampage of private companies outbidding each other over the infrastructure blocks until they learn they've overreached and become insolvent, resulting in costsaving measures and the death of any rail infrastructure and services in those areas.

^^ I was thinking on breaking up the operations, not the infrastructure, would be controlled by a neutral federal agency, allowing whomever pays more for it to use it.

It´s time for some pictures:

As you might know, Deutsche Bahn awaits the delivery of her first Velaro D highspeed trains. There are 16 trains on order but DB will get most probably one more for free from Siemens because of delivery delays. :cheers:

Velaro D

Number of trains:
16 (probably 17 (http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/55/db-bekommt-17-velaro-als-verzugsentschaedigung.html))
Vmax:
320 km/h
Capacity:
460 passengers
Delivery date:
2012 - 2013
Contract value:
500 Million €uro

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/feature/industry/imo/feature-2010-04-velaro-d.jpg___http://www.abendblatt.de/multimedia/archive/00756/siemens_HA_Wirtscha_756183c.jpg

A Velaro D being fitted out in the Siemens plant in Krefeld.
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-82656-galleryV9-qbnw.jpg

Velaro D on a test run.
http://www.abload.de/img/velaro_d_mrlach1fy5n.jpg

The initial order was 15 trains (Class 407, if I remember correctly). The 16th has been ordered to replaced an ICE3MF damaged in an incident (one of the 6 Class 406 sets available for Paris-Germany services), and now a 17th has been added.

what are the chances of the Basel-Schaffhausen line being completely electrified? I know the -border section will be

Awesome!http://www.collegefun4u.com/track.php?u=4

what are the chances of the Basel-Schaffhausen line being completely electrified? I know the -border section will be
The plans are that the full electrification should be completed at the end of 2016.

source:
http://www.suedkurier.de/region/hochrhein/waldshut-tiengen/Hochrheinstrecke-voraussichtlich-bis-2016-elektrifiziert;art372623,5271875

It's only a 15km part of the line between Waldshut - Erzingen that is not part of the plans of the Regio S-Bahn Basel or the S-Bahn Schaffhausen. It would have been crazy if they would have decided to not electrify that part of the line.

what are the chances of the Basel-Schaffhausen line being completely electrified? I know the -border section will be
This railway line is rather lowly ranked on the priority list to say the least. So there is virtually zero chance of fund from Germany. So, unless Switzerland steps in I can't see it being electrified in a foreseeable time.

The initial order was 15 trains (Class 407, if I remember correctly). The 16th has been ordered to replaced an ICE3MF damaged in an incident (one of the 6 Class 406 sets available for Paris-Germany services), and now a 17th has been added.

^^
Correctamundo! :yes:
Maybe DB will get even more trains for free if Siemens will have to announce more delivery delays. :naughty:


Velaro D in action :rock:
UOJVZhhVay4

^^
Correctamundo! :yes:
Maybe DB will get even more trains for free if Siemens will have to announce more delivery delays. :naughty:

Velaro D in action :rock:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOJVZhhVay4">YouTube Link</a>

Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!

Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.

Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!

Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.

^^
The additional train (the 17th) doesn´t cost DB one €uro. It´s for free. DB gets 17 trains for the price of 16. :)

Sounds good for me. :D

Well, you can get knock down fares in many routes, like London-Glasgow for £ 19 and Manchester-London for £ 9 with advance purchase.

For most people, there are now more offers, better buses and - bingo! - drivers don't strike because they will be promptly replaced.

Only hamlets in the countryside are far worse off like not having reasonable service or losing connections to nearby villages.

Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.
Those are intercity buses. The problems of British local buses are well-documented. Jarrett Walker puts it most succinctly: take the bus that comes (http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/an-oxford-innovation-take-the-bus-that-comes.html)!
Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!

Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.
Not remotely strange. In such cases the common practice is for the vendor to compensate with either (a) free equipment or (b) $$$.

IIRC (in the US) SEPTA's two ALP-44s came about because the N-5 order ran late. This is a typical example.

Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!

Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.

As an earlier poster said, DB gets a free Velaro D, personally I wouldn't turn that offer down!

But also, as an aside, I can't believe you're actually suggesting anyone would still place an order with ansaldoBreda, that company is in a terrible state!

Not remotely strange. In such cases the common practice is for the vendor to compensate with either (a) free equipment or (b) $$$.

IIRC (in the US) SEPTA's two ALP-44s came about because the N-5 order ran late. This is a typical example.

When Siemens (again) was late delivering double deckers for Zürichs' commuters services they delivered an extra set free of charge as compensation.

It is indeed quite common.

If there is no need for new trains, but one or two more would be useful, then a new tender is dangerous and an agreement like these is better. Having a single or a pair of trains of a different type (in this example, it could be 16 Velaro D and a single TGV) only increases operating costs and complicates management. That's why prototypes and small series of vehicles are usually put out of service before than usual life length of a train.

In the pas, however, when trains were simpler prototype engines lasted longer, like SBB Ae 4/8 single example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_Ae_4/8 (42 years!).

Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!

Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.

Note to self. When Suburbanist comes into my shop offer him something extra for free. He'll decline and then buy something else. Not only that he'll opt for something with absolutely no economies of scale!

Note to self. When Suburbanist comes into my shop offer him something extra for free. He'll decline and then buy something else. Not only that he'll opt for something with absolutely no economies of scale!

I am not telling that economies of scale wouldn't exist, just that this kind of arrangement, especially considering they are being made by two "flagship companies", should be ringing the bell of
Competition authority in Bruxelles.

It seems collusion: we DB put out an unreasonably tight scheduled tender, Siemens bids and wins (and not Alstom, Bombardier, CAF or AnsladoBreda), but we are cool that you delay the trains because you will deliver couple more units.

That is why I prefer monetary fines for this kind of delay, it avoids the smell of corruption even if there is none actual corruption

But also, as an aside, I can't believe you're actually suggesting anyone would still place an order with ansaldoBreda, that company is in a terrible state!

lol Suburbanist is a total AnsaldoBreda troll. Whenever some negative news (i.e. facts) about AnsaldoBreda surfaces, he is the first to downplay it and say that nothing is wrong with AnsaldoBreda, and it is all the fault of the people ordering the trainsets ("they keep changing their order", etc.).

I don't know why this is. Maybe he has AnsaldoBreda stock. Maybe he works there. Maybe he has Italian roots and takes attacks on Italian companies personal?


But if you really want to laugh, read his explanations on how urban sprawl is the pinnacle of freedom and prosperity :lol:

It seems collusion: we DB put out an unreasonably tight scheduled tender, Siemens bids and wins (and not Alstom, Bombardier, CAF or AnsladoBreda), but we are cool that you delay the trains because you will deliver couple more units.


lol, AnsaldoBreda bid on a reasonably scheduled tender in the Netherlands, offering to do it for such a low price that they had to win the bid.
There are also delays, but UNLIKE Siemens, they don't offer a free train, but instead offer MORE delays, costing millions upon millions for, eventually, the Dutch traveller and tax payer.

I'd rather go with the Siemens scenario. A free train that works.

lol, AnsaldoBreda bid on a reasonably scheduled tender in the Netherlands, offering to do it for such a low price that they had to win the bid.
There are also delays, but UNLIKE Siemens, they don't offer a free train, but instead offer MORE delays, costing millions upon millions for, eventually, the Dutch traveller and tax payer.

I'd rather go with the Siemens scenario. A free train that works.

Whatever, the reasoning stay: that smells collusion to "keep the money in Germany" like some SNCF practices seem to be collusion with Alstom.

In 2012 that is totally unjustifiable.

Whatever, the reasoning stay: that smells collusion to "keep the money in Germany" like some SNCF practices seem to be collusion with Alstom.

In 2012 that is totally unjustifiable.

So you want Siemens to pay a fine, and then DB should use that money to buy one single trainset from a non-Germany manufacturer?

You were a lot less forgiving of AnsaldoBreda when they did far worse. Your double standards worry me, young Padewan.
Denmark and The Netherlands should get 10 extra trainsets from AnsaldoBreda for free for their horrible behaviour... too bad it would take till 2050 for them to arrive.

And they still won't work :bash: best thing AB could do is to DIE!

Forget AnsaldoBreda, I just mentioned them among other European train makers. Btw, it gave 43% discount to the Danish because of the delay on the IC4.

DB wouldn't buy one extra train initially, otherwise it would have ordered 17 and not 16 train sets first place. So it should get the fine and end of story. If it decides to order more trains, so be it: a new tender.

Unless, of course, DB were privatized and stopped getting public money. Then it should be free to take its own decisions.

In case of an accident it's more useful an extra train than 30 millions in abank account. DB discovered that when an ICE3MF was damaged beyond repair after an accident, requiring replacement by a French TGV. Cisalpino discovered that when it had to rent trains to replace the ETR 470 and late delivered ETR 610. And there are certainly many more examples where a single train (that isn't worth ordering alone via a tender) is well worth. By the way, the EU accept that. And even AnsaldoBreda, when it delivered two extra Sirio tramways to Goteborg. Or Iveco, as it gave some free buses to Milan because of problems with its products.

DB wouldn't buy one extra train initially, otherwise it would have ordered 17 and not 16 train sets first place. So it should get the fine and end of story. If it decides to order more trains, so be it: a new tender.
Delivering an additional train-set is the cheapest way for Siemens as it is the most beneficial compensation Deutsche Bahn (and its costumers) could get. Remember DB is rather short on rolling stock. So, one more train-set doesn't harm. It is a good deal for both companies. Nothing fishy, really.

Unless, of course, DB were privatized and stopped getting public money. Then it should be free to take its own decisions.

DB doesn't get public money for its long distance network.

A full length train ride on the S1 Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_%28Rhine-Main_S-Bahn%29) of the Rhine-Main S-Bahn.

8Nb76cPkEKM

(Was placed Wrongly by me in the Rhine-Ruhr transport thread)

By the way, when I watched this last night, I could only last a few minutes before having to turn the volume down, as the 'motor hum' (at least I think that's what was causing it) was too distracting for me. Is there any Heath and Safety regulation that would prevent train drivers from Not being allowed ear plugs of some kind?

When the train was at it's highest speed, the rush of wind going past would alleviate any noise, so it would be alright then.

In the USA, some railroads issue/allow their drivers to use noise-canceling headsets that are plugged into their radios.

Mike

By the way, when I watched this last night, I could only last a few minutes before having to turn the volume down, as the 'motor hum' (at least I think that's what was causing it) was too distracting for me.

I think you're actually referring to the air conditioning. It doesn't sound that loud, and remember the audio has been dynamic-range compressed, so don't infer too much from it.

I agree. Most of the noise in a modern train's cab (especially EMUs) is due to the air conditioning "wind", and to aerodynamic noise at high speeds.
Two types of noise which typically cameras tend to amplify.

Older machines where very noisy inside, while in modern trains much has been done to reduce this problem ;)

Munich

S Bahn S3 Railroad Monachium-Augsburg

Y64JalBqgE4
e7_HL239di8

Muncih Pasing (obecnie modernizowana)
R_Oq0zwYe0g
olqTBKtzZE0

Station Munich Moosach (S Bahn 1 / U Bahn 3)

udlbO3m92zo
4RBAkx8Re7Y

^^ very dangerous situation at the last video. DB should install some PSDs there. Not overnight, but on a long-term plan to make stations safer and platforms more physically isolated from the tracks.

Why waste money for saving lifes of people who can't understand the simplest rules of railway - no standing on the edge, no walking on the track? It better spend that money for satisfying actual paying customers?

^^ very dangerous situation at the last video. DB should install some PSDs there. Not overnight, but on a long-term plan to make stations safer and platforms more physically isolated from the tracks.

I swear to god, you are worse than a woman. Everywhere in railway section I see your replies about "fences, railroads not safe, not secure, and etc..." I think if railroads will have 10 foot fences, you still will find to complain about. Be REAL....

Why waste money for saving lifes of people who can't understand the simplest rules of railway - no standing on the edge, no walking on the track? It better spend that money for satisfying actual paying customers?

Saving life is always important. You can not count money = life.

Anyway thousands more people die walking on the stretts killed by drivers than walking on the edge of the platforms, nobody died on this video.

I swear to god, you are worse than a woman. Everywhere in railway section I see your replies about "fences, railroads not safe, not secure, and etc..." I think if railroads will have 10 foot fences, you still will find to complain about. Be REAL....

I just want them to be more isolated and segregated, in line with my philosophy that each type of vehicle must have its own ROW and be physically protected. Just that.

^^ very dangerous situation at the last video. DB should install some PSDs there. Not overnight, but on a long-term plan to make stations safer and platforms more physically isolated from the tracks.
Installing platform screen doors is difficult if a line is served by different types of rolling stock with doors in different places.

Installing platform screen doors is difficult if a line is served by different types of rolling stock with doors in different places.

Yes. They'd need then to install sliding PSDs or put the doors/gates on the stairs that give access to the platform, opening them only before a train that will stop is approaching.

Yes. They'd need then to install sliding PSDs or put the doors/gates on the stairs that give access to the platform, opening them only before a train that will stop is approaching.

Seriously, doors on the stairs? Sometimes I find it particularly hard to know whether you are trying to joke while fooling everyone into thinking that you say those things for real, or you actually believe your words.

^^ I think the majority of fatal incidents of passengers falling on tracks happen near stations, not along rural areas, for obvious reasons.

Putting a physical barrier to seal off platforms would help.

Seat bels on airplanes were once considered "a joke" and helmets once heavily frowned upon by motorcyclists.

99% incidents happens due to (mental) inability of some people to not cross the damn line!

Having a dedicated ROW - great! Just benefits of screening a to small for general use railways, compared to expenses and complicity of process. Unlike the mass urban transit and some stations of dedicated HSR, were PSD are easier to install and benefits are grater due to greater density of passengers.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7247/6902123788_47d41d6f6d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/6902123788/)


In 2008 I took this train from Copenhagen to Munich. The night train arrived 3h late to Munich. We went to the DB Travel-Info centre and received new tickets for Verona, we missed that connecting train because of the delay.

What is the situation nowadays? Are these long distance trains still slow and delayed?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7210/6902124702_170122d691_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/6902124702/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7112/6902123450_9663f4af8e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/6902123450/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7117/7048216271_c4c406dca4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/7048216271/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7127/7048215587_17576097cf_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/7048215587/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7274/6902122306_61b987b8a3_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/6902122306/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7066/6902121402_dfd20c429b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/6902121402/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7206/7048216609_1d76ebf26d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/7048216609/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/7048218481_59e1ed64a5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75512792@N06/7048218481/)

What is the situation nowadays? Are these long distance trains still slow and delayed?
I hope you realize that you can't derive a structural problem from a single incident.
Anyways, Süddeutsche Zeitung runs a live tracker of all long distance trains in Germany showing delays and reasons for a few weeks now: www.zugmonitor.sueddeutsche.de
Feel free to take your own conclusions!

^^ I think the majority of fatal incidents of passengers falling on tracks happen near stations, not along rural areas, for obvious reasons.

Putting a physical barrier to seal off platforms would help.

Seat bels on airplanes were once considered "a joke" and helmets once heavily frowned upon by motorcyclists.

Vast majority of people who get hit by trains are suicides you imbecile

Yes. They'd need then to put the doors/gates on the stairs that give access to the platform, opening them only before a train that will stop is approaching.

Yeah, so that people will get crushed during rush hour. :troll:

Vast majority of people who get hit by trains are suicides you imbecile

I was going to say the same, but you don't need to insult, suburbanist might have bizarre ideas but that precisely speaks well for him

Yeah, so that people will get crushed during rush hour. :troll:

Danger of falling on tracks is greater than danger of crushing on gates IMO.

Danger of falling on tracks is greater than danger of crushing on gates IMO.

Worthy proposals but shouldn't we focus on the greater danger first? The way to the train station on public roads?

Cars are dangerous, the only solution is to limit their speed to 30 km/h everywhere, install screen doors at all intersection and demand the constant use of the horn to warn endangered pedestrians.


Also, you're wrong. Stampedes might occur less frequently but can be extremely deadly and you can avoid falling on the tracks with a bit of prudence and common sense while there's nothing you can do if you get crushed by a mass of people.


I also don't see what's so dangerous about that specific platform. The escalator limits the number of people that can surface in any given time period and there is no reason for people to stop in that part of the platform so there is no overcrowding.

Cars are dangerous, the only solution is to limit their speed to 30 km/h everywhere, install screen doors at all intersection and demand the constant use of the horn to warn endangered pedestrians.
I actually would propose that all cars have to be preceded by a person with a flag. A horn is a nuisance. Car drivers have to submit a driving plan before taking to the road, and those plans are published, so the public can inform itself.
I propose that we make filing a driving plan very expensive for people who want to just drive whenever they want, and give reductions to people who can commit to a schedule beforehand...

Danger of falling on tracks is greater than danger of crushing on gates IMO.

The risk of both is vanishingly small, so it's really not relevant what is the higher risk...

In 2008 I took this train from Copenhagen to Munich. The night train arrived 3h late to Munich. We went to the DB Travel-Info centre and received new tickets for Verona, we missed that connecting train because of the delay.

You wouldn't have had to go to the travel centre for that, you could just have boarded the next available train to Verona.


What is the situation nowadays? Are these long distance trains still slow and delayed?

I've never had major delays on night trains the last couple of years. The night train to Köln I take regularly was punctual every time (I'm due to take that one again in two weeks time). We had maybe 10 minutes delay in Zagreb once.

Night trains actually have quite a bit of slack in their schedules so that they are usually on time. I once was on a Palermo - Milano train that managed to accumulate an hour of delay while still in Sicily, but arrived spot on time in Milano nevertheless.

Night trains actually have quite a bit of slack in their schedules so that they are usually on time. I once was on a Palermo - Milano train that managed to accumulate an hour of delay while still in Sicily, but arrived spot on time in Milano nevertheless.

Those abominations were eliminated from the Italian timetable last December. But that is for the Italian thread.

Seriously, doors on the stairs? Sometimes I find it particularly hard to know whether you are trying to joke while fooling everyone into thinking that you say those things for real, or you actually believe your words.
I know at least one station in Germany where you cannot access the platforms until a train has come to a full stop. Until then you're stuck behind a door with an electronic lock. Östrich-Winkel, west of Wiesbaden.

Those abominations were eliminated from the Italian timetable last December. But that is for the Italian thread.

Thank god what you just said is bullshit as usual. Night trains still exist in Italy.

S Bahn Munich

S7 Wolfratshausen-Hauptbahnhof

kSCbpDaMFzA
6t0bI_ZMMYc
7jziDKjOuu0

S3 Holzkirchen -Ostbahnhof
_il45UveNY4

You wouldn't have had to go to the travel centre for that, you could just have boarded the next available train to Verona.

not if it's some kind of discount tickets that only valid for that train/time or they have reservation seats.

not if it's some kind of discount tickets that only valid for that train/time or they have reservation seats.

You're entitled to it. After all, you can't help it if you miss your connection. It's one of the basic passenger rights imposed under EU law.

However, going to a Travel Center will assure you will get new reservations (if still possible) and tickets, so it will save the train crew hassle on board.

You're entitled to it. After all, you can't help it if you miss your connection. It's one of the basic passenger rights imposed under EU law.

However, going to a Travel Center will assure you will get new reservations (if still possible) and tickets, so it will save the train crew hassle on board.

You are usually instructed to take care of this at the information desk ("Service Point", in Neo-German), They usually check whether your train was actually delayed (if it is not obvious by the crowds at their desk), then stamp your ticket accordingly.

Sorry...errr......

You are usually instructed to take care of this at the information desk ("Service Point", in Neo-German), They usually check whether your train was actually delayed (if it is not obvious by the crowds at their desk), then stamp your ticket accordingly.

Actually the conductor on the delayed train will mention the delay on the back of the ticket if so asked, as he has to do that. That's all you need to claim your entitlement for other transportation.

Deutsche Bahn placed an order for 51 new Bombardier Talent 2 for 200 millions Euro. (http://www.naumburger-tageblatt.de/ntb/ContentServer?pagename=ntb/page&atype=ksArtikel&aid=1334317938850&openMenu=1013016724684&calledPageId=1013016724684&listid=1018881578399)

These trains will be used around the city of Leipzig where the construction of the City-Tunnel (for S-Bahn and regional trains) is almost completed. :)

Bombardier Talent 2 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Talent_2) ("Hamsterbacke" = "Hamster cheek") ;)
http://www.zughalt.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/RSX_klein.jpg

City Tunnel Leipzig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Tunnel_Leipzig)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Citytunnel_lpz.png

http://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/00/73/7e/a3/7569059.jpg

http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/media.media.eaa01cee-52b1-4f73-a710-71adb189d658.normalized.jpeg

Nice to meet Everybody.German's nice and famous in the world.I don't know and have been to German.I like the best football German.They're famous in the word.

These trains will be used around the city of Leipzig where the construction of the City-Tunnel (for S-Bahn and regional trains) is almost completed. :)
Or stay at the railyard until they're completely rusty. :lol:

Or stay at the railyard until they're completely rusty. :lol:

The 5 car version shown will anyway not be used on the Leipzig S-Bahn...

Or stay at the railyard until they're completely rusty. :lol:

^^
What´s the problem with these Talent 2 trains? I admit I´m not that good informed about railway issues. :D

The 5 car version shown will anyway not be used on the Leipzig S-Bahn...

^^
I just googled for a nice picture of this train. I´m deeply sorry that the number of cars isn´t correct. :(

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_2#Zulassungsverfahren
and for example
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/probleme-mit-modell-talent-die-bahn-wartet-auf-den-zug-1.1159672

^^
Thx, this sounds like a serious clusterfuck of problems. :ohno:

Boeing´s first ICE
http://www.flugzeug-bild.de/1024/tuiflyim-zug-zum-flug-db-30481.jpg

And I always thought DB only cooperates with LH...

^^
Thx, this sounds like a serious clusterfuck of problems. :ohno:

Boeing´s first ICE
http://www.flugzeug-bild.de/1024/tuiflyim-zug-zum-flug-db-30481.jpg
Why is a railroad company operating a plane for?

It isn't. Its an advertisement.

Oh, I see. Pretty extensive ad thpugh. Makes you think the company owns the plane.

There's also a DB Regio plane.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6087/6063691636_da74a80f01_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwi2muc/6063691636/)
D-ATUC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwi2muc/6063691636/) by bwi2muc (http://www.flickr.com/people/bwi2muc/), on Flickr

And I always thought DB only cooperates with LH...It's not just Lufthansa, several airlines have code share agreements with Deutsche Bahn like American Airlines, Qantas & China Airlines.

The DB also has deals with many airline including TUIfly (the operator of these 2 planes) with the Rail&Fly ticket. This ticket takes air passengers from the selected airlines to and from the airport (all German airports and even Basel and Amsterdam) from any railway station in Germany for €29.

"Zug zum Flug" (the train to the flight) is the slogan for this ticket, so the airplane ads are promoting this Rail&Fly ticket.

There are different kinds of cooperation.
A huge number of Airlines take part in Rail&Fly.
Then there's the codeshare connections of Qantas, American, China Airlines and some others on ICE trains from FRA to major German cities.
And additionally there's the AIRail service, a cooperation of DB and Lufthansa between FRA and Köln as well as Stuttgart. Those trains, where some seats are blocked for LH passengers, even have an LH code, and the served stations Köln, Siegburg and Stuttgart have their own IATA-Codes as the trains are to be booked like ordinary flights. AIRail even resulted in the cancellation of all flights between FRA and CGN, on FRA-STR there are only four daily flights left.

S Bahn Munich - Lane A Altomuster - Dachau
HpU-39ZwEDc

^^ Horrible sectors with single-line unprotected tracks, ungated crossing etc. S-Bahn should never be authorized to run on ungated crossings or not to be isolated so that pedestrians don't cross tracks outside designated crossings.

it's a bloodbath all right :weird:

Yeah we know that Suburbanist don't like "unsafe railway tracks", it's not worth to turn this into a discussion over and over and over again.


Btw, this is not really an S-Bahn line.... yet... well maybe never.

With 1 train per hour plus some extra trains using a 2 car DMU during the peak hours it's not really what you call a City-Line. The only reason why it has become an S-Bahn is because the line should be electrified by 2013. Then the line will be integrated with the S2 service, with 1 S2 train per hour that will be extended from Dachau to Altomuster. Therefor it has temporary become the S-Bahn line A, just to let people know that things are going to change. But even then it will remain just a small local railway, that just happens to be directly connected with the S-Bahn.


And as you can see in the video, there's no sign of the electrification right now (the video is dated 16.04.2012). It has to be seen if the electrification will actually be completed by 2013.

There's also a DB Regio plane.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6087/6063691636_da74a80f01_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwi2muc/6063691636/)
D-ATUC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwi2muc/6063691636/) by bwi2muc (http://www.flickr.com/people/bwi2muc/), on Flickr

It's not just Lufthansa, several airlines have code share agreements with Deutsche Bahn like American Airlines, Qantas & China Airlines.

The DB also has deals with many airline including TUIfly (the operator of these 2 planes) with the Rail&Fly ticket. This ticket takes air passengers from the selected airlines to and from the airport (all German airports and even Basel and Amsterdam) from any railway station in Germany for €29.

"Zug zum Flug" (the train to the flight) is the slogan for this ticket, so the airplane ads are promoting this Rail&Fly ticket.

There are different kinds of cooperation.
A huge number of Airlines take part in Rail&Fly.
Then there's the codeshare connections of Qantas, American, China Airlines and some others on ICE trains from FRA to major German cities.
And additionally there's the AIRail service, a cooperation of DB and Lufthansa between FRA and Köln as well as Stuttgart. Those trains, where some seats are blocked for LH passengers, even have an LH code, and the served stations Köln, Siegburg and Stuttgart have their own IATA-Codes as the trains are to be booked like ordinary flights. AIRail even resulted in the cancellation of all flights between FRA and CGN, on FRA-STR there are only four daily flights left.

^^
Cool! Didn´t know about this close cooperation between DB and all the airlines! :okay:

Thank you two for this information! :bow:

SNCF does the same with their TGV trains. You can see this if you book a plane ticket at for example KLM/Air France: when you choose to depart from Brussels, it's not unlikely that your trip will contain a TGV to Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle - with an AF flight number, even!

^I think Amtrak here in US does that with United at Newark Airport.

The best of Deutschland is his Railway System of transport, really whenever you want there is some way to go to your destin, i just love it.

S Bahn Munich S8 West: Herrsching - M.Pasing
c8a2BMCL3BQ :)

S6 Tutzing - Starnberg -Munich Pasing

6rFEPNXVE98

S2 Munich Laim - Petershausen -Munchen-Nurnberg
m_XvDB85YRk

Germany will have 770 IC coaches modernized by 2014 according to their press announcement:

Deutsche Bahn: Startschuss für die Modernisierung der Intercity-Wagen

Die Deutsche Bahn wird bis Ende 2014 rund 770 ihrer Intercity-Wagen umfangreich modernisieren und den Fahrkomfort für die Reisenden erheblich verbessern. Heute wurden im Werk Neumünster der DB Fahrzeuginstandhaltung die ersten modernisierten Intercity-Wagen vorgestellt. Rund 250 Millionen Euro investiert die DB, um die Wagen für ihren Einsatz bis 2023 fit zu machen. "Auch mit dieser Investitionsmaßnahme setzen wir die Modernisierung unserer Fahrzeugflotte konsequent fort. Wir machen das Unternehmen stark für eine nachhaltige Zukunft. Davon profitieren das System Bahn und insbesondere unsere Kunden", erklärte Dr. Rüdiger Grube, Vorstandsvorsitzender der DB AG. Die Modernisierung umfasst komfortsteigernde Maßnahmen wie die Erneuerung von 46.000 Sitzen mit Lederbezug in der 1. Klasse und Velourstoff in der 2. Klasse sowie den Einbau von Steckdosen. Auch Wandverkleidungen, Tische und etwa 42.000 Quadratmeter Teppich werden ausgetauscht. Die Bistrowagen erhalten eine neue Ausstattung. Zusätzlich wird in dem Servicewagen das Kleinkindabteil mit neuem Dekor versehen und der Bereich für mobilitätseingeschränkte Reisende vergrößert. Außerdem wird die Anzahl der Wagen, in denen Fahrräder mitgenommen werden können, von heute 129 auf 163 Fahrzeugen gesteigert. Technische Maßnahmen sollen die Verlässlichkeit der Fahrzeuge steigern. Diese konzentrieren sich auf die Bereiche Drehgestelle, Bremsen, Türen, Energieversorgung und Klimaanlagen. Über einer Million Fertigungsstunden sind insgesamt für die komfortsteigernden und technischen Umbauarbeiten kalkuliert. Eine besondere Herausforderung des Projekts stellt die Vielzahl an unterschiedlichen Wagentypen dar: Die Wagenflotte besteht aus 34 Bau- und Unterbauarten mit unterschiedlichen Varianten. Die Fahrzeuge sind teils 40 Jahre alt und kommen aus den Beständen der Deutschen Bundesbahn und der Deutschen Reichsbahn. Eine standardisierte Modernisierung ist somit kaum möglich. So wurden beispielsweise zu Beginn des Projektes für alle Varianten individuelle Zeichnungen für das neue Innenraumdesign angefertigt. Die Ingenieurleistungen erfolgt durch die DB Systemtechnik. Mit der Umsetzung sind die Werke Neumünster, Kassel und Nürnberg der DB Fahrzeuginstandhaltung beauftragt. Zum Fahrplanwechsel im Dezember 2012 ist geplant, die erste Intercity-Linie Stuttgart–Köln–Hamburg, komplett auf die modernisierten Wagen umzustellen (Pressemeldung Deutsche Bahn, 25.04.12).

This is what the coaches will look like afterwards:

http://www.ndr.de/regional/schleswig-holstein/neumuenster177_v-contentgross.jpg
Source: http://www.ndr.de/regional/schleswig-holstein/bahn539.html

Will the new Talent 2 also be used for the RB25 line between Köln-Hansaring and Marienheide?

^^
The Talent 2 is an electric trains, and the line doesn't have any wires. Therefor the Talent 2 cannot be used.

For now the current Diesel Talent 1 trains will still be used. From Dezember 2013 they will be replaced by new diesel trains by the 2nd generation Alstom Coradia LINT trains.

LINT 81
http://i.imgur.com/TerJp.jpg

LINT 54
http://i.imgur.com/7Inyb.jpg
http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2011/6/2011-06-21-Cologne/

^^Ok thanks. The Talent looks better than that.

^^Ok thanks. The Talent looks better than that.

Ol' hamstercheeks? I beg to differ

PKP (Polish State Railways) ready for EURO2012 guests from Germany....

http://www.rynek-kolejowy.pl/images/ankiety/dscf6700.jpg


:cheers:

haha, that`s great :D

They copied that from ÖBB, which did the same in 2008 ;)

They copied that from ÖBB, which did the same in 2008 ;)

Yes, I remember. Nice is slogan (you see on this picture Polish version - "Kolej porusza kibiców") which on other side of this EU44-005 is in German: Die Bahn bewegt Fans. Which I believe both in Polish and German can be understood in two ways.

You may see it in action from other side here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etuBefDOeBw

You may see in this video EU44-005 (manufactured by Siemens - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_ES64U4) painted as above which is pulling BWE train (Berlin-Warszawa-Express - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Warszawa-Express). Rare situation.

S Bahn Munich

S4 Geltendorf - M:Pasing i M:Ostbahnhof-Ebersberg.

dT7ArGQv-p0

tzFZzu1NSw0

1z7LxweeS14

I don't know if this has been posted before, but... good ol' 218s still got it!

Please prepare your woofers before listening to this...

Ha_VpXwEmLQ


This user always posts high quality video from Southern Germany and Switzerland.


BTW, I'm very curious about the project for the new quadri-engined diesel locos.

^^ The new diesel locomotives for the DB will be the Bombardier Traxx DE.
http://www.bombardier.com/wps/portal/en/transportation/media-centre?docID=0901260d8016ee96

http://i.imgur.com/KI9RQ.jpg


The DB has a framework agreement with Bombardier for 200 diesel locomotives, this means that the DB can order them in smaller batches when they need them and also with different specifications. They will be replacing all the older mainline diesel locomotives, the BR 215-225 & BR 232-234.

The 1st batch will be 20 locomotives that will be used on regional passenger trains around Frankfurt (M) and Munich. The first one will enter service in mid 2013.

^^ Are there still diesel passenger lines in N.R.W.?

^^
Yes, there are still diesel lines in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

To name a couple:

Köln - Trier (Eifel-Express)
Hagen - Warburg - Kassel (Sauerland-Express)
Köln - Marienheide (Oberbergische Bahn)
Krefeld–Kleve (Linksniederrheinische Strecke)
Essen – Borken (Der Borkener)
Bielefeld - Altenbecke (Der Leineweber)
Dortmund–Enschede NL (Westmünsterlandbahn)
Münster–Enschede NL (Euregio-Bahn)

Only DMUs and no diesel loco's are used on these lines.

Here's a complete list of regional lines in NRW, you can see from the Rolling stock if it's a diesel line (DMU's have numbers in the 600, for example 612, 624, 643).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regional_rail_lines_in_North_Rhine-Westphalia

^^ The new diesel locomotives for the DB will be the Bombardier Traxx DE.
http://www.bombardier.com/wps/portal/en/transportation/media-centre?docID=0901260d8016ee96


Interesting locomtive. In stead of one big prime mover these units will have four diesel engines. The advantages are a) redundancy and b)depending on load individual engines can be shut down.

Anyone got any new about the ICx trains? What is the delivery timeframe?
What signalling systems will be equipped for the international trains?

Found this timetable on a German forum for replacing currently in use ICE's (c/o bladewing@drehscheibe). "ab" means "starting"
IC ab 2015
ICE 1 ab 2020
ICE 2 ab 2025
ICE T ab 2028
ICE 3 ab 2030