Enjoy!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/24.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/23.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/22.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/21.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/20.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/19.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/18.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/17.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/16.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/15.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/14.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/12.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/10.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/09.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/01.jpg

and a litle bonus, "Schwebebahn" in Wuppertal
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/13.jpg

Fantastic photo's!

Great pics!
from what i've heard the DB is pretty good and pretty cheap.

DB is pretty good. And ICE 3 is way cool! :D

Great pics!
from what i've heard the DB is pretty good and pretty cheap.

Perhaps pretty good in comparison to some other national railways companies. But it is definitely not cheap and the fare system is a mess. Sometimes even the employees at the ticket-counters are not able to give you the cheapest ticket to your destination. The italian railways (Ferrovie Statale) are cheap.

Perhaps pretty good in comparison to some other national railways companies. But it is definitely not cheap and the fare system is a mess. Sometimes even the employees at the ticket-counters are not able to give you the cheapest ticket to your destination. The italian railways (Ferrovie Statale) are cheap.

yes, the italian railways are the cheapest but the service is bad in general, especially for the regional service.

i'm ready to pay also 25-30% plus the current price if the service will be better. and this is the opinion of the many italian people.

ICE3 is for me the best highspeed train, the internal are wonderful

Agree with DiggerD21. They are pretty good on average, but not cheap. I just booked two tickets to Kempton for Feb from Frankfurt and comes to over €220 (and that includes one of the passengers with a Bahn Card)

I can fly to London for cheaper than that at the same short notice.

It used to be better, but the pricing system has deteriorated over the last few years. The worst part about the service is the restaurants and food on board the trains. The are of shocking quality and incredibly expensive - most people take their own food on board because of this.

Great pictures, Stevan!

Personally, I love DB. Their extensive system never ceases to amaze me and I have never seen anything nearly that spectacular anywhere else in the world (never been to Japan, though). Things are constantly being improved (new stations, trains, friendlier staff, ticketing machines everywhere, even in the deepest countryside). But I do realize that some of these improvements are made at the expense of others (ie, senior citizens). However, I agree with the previous posters - DB is not cheap at all and the ticket rates system is opaque and complicated. It takes quite a few trips for one to figure out how it works (if you travel over the weekends, Spar50 rates often give you the same discount as a Bahncard50 or Surf&Rail rates). But all in one, DB is a logistical masterpiece.

Nice pictures.
DB is one of the best rail systems of the world.

Here are a few pics of the new mainstation in Dresden (East-Germany) which is currently being renovated for around 200 million Euros.
Sir Norman Foster is the architect.


http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/93/3580593/1024_3731666139656333.jpg
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/93/3580593/1024_6239326466333239.jpg
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/93/3580593/1024_3563383637646136.jpg
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/93/3580593/1024_3730313732623062.jpg

I find it difficult to find new pictures on this project, so if anyone has a link to more pics please post it. :)

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8403/fosterperspective4mg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Dresden's main railway terminus, completed in 1898 to a design by Ernst Giese and Paul Weidner, is one of the largest in Germany and one of the most impressive late-nineteenth-century railway stations anywhere in Europe. Linking Dresden with Berlin and Prague, the railway played a significant role in the citys industrial and economic growth in the first half of the twentieth century. During World War II, however, Dresden's station was severely damaged in Allied bombing raids. Wartime destruction was compounded in the post-war period by poor maintenance, so that the building finally reached a state where remedial conservation was required.

Faced with this crumbling structure, the practice was commissioned to undertake the renovation and expansion of the station as part of a wider masterplan to revive the surrounding area. The station redevelopment removes various additions and alterations made to the building over the last hundred years in order to restore the integrity of the original design. Circulation within and through the station has been rationalised and the design allows for the future expansion of the station by extending the barrel-vaulted roof over the outer platforms by 200 metres, providing a cover for the new high-speed trains, which are almost twice the length of the old platforms. The central tracks have also been pulled back in order to create a large open space at the heart of the building, which can be used as a market place, or for cultural events.

The first element of this redevelopment to be carried out is the reconstruction of the 30,000-square-metre roof, a task made more urgent by the degraded and unsafe state of the old steelwork. Originally the roof was partially glazed, but after the war it was covered with timber, admitting no daylight. The entire structure has now been restored to its original condition and sheathed in a translucent skin of Teflon-coated glass fibre. This new roof transmits 13 per cent of daylight and significantly reduces the stations reliance on artificial lighting. At night, light reflects off the underside of the canopy, creating an even wash of illumination throughout the station, while from outside the whole structure radiates an ethereal silvery glow.

Text taken from: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/

Interesting, anyone know when completion is due?

I visited Dresden back in May. I did see a lot of construction, but didn't think it was such a huge project.

http://www.globalphotos.org/dresden/IMG_0847.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/dresden/IMG_0859.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/dresden/IMG_0870.jpg

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8403/fosterperspective4mg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Looks awesome!! Dresden is going to be so beautiful!! The only thing they need to do is raze these shitty buildings around the shopping mall (which can be seen here on the right hand side...)

Wow, that's gorgeous!

Thx for the pics Hkskyline.
I dont think it will be a very big project either. Its only 200 million, so thats actually less than what the renovation of the glass roof in Frankfurt HBF has cost.

Interesting, anyone know when completion is due?

thats a good question. I think nobody really knows when its going to be finished.

The grand opening of the mainstation was yesterday.

completion in 2010! damn too long!

It is going to be a much better and very nice station!
:okay:

Wowwww Cool and nice station :)

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8403/fosterperspective4mg.jpg

is that really how its going to look like?
Right now, while the station was already inaugurated, the tracks on the side are not covered with membranes!
Will they be covered later?

Here are some new pics from the station:


http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0916/default.aspx

I like how they combined the Old and the Modern Architecture, like the Glass Roof that is supported by these criss-cross Arcs from earlier times. Nice!

WOW! So cool! Reminds me of Riechstag! :cool:

What's the history behind the station?

Whilst I think Norman Foster is overrated as an architect, I'm very happy about this new station. Go Dresden!

Outside transport terminal looks quite good as well :

http://www.globalphotos.org/dresden/IMG_0253.jpg

woooww..
Wonderful Wonderful wonderful mix between old and modern architecture =)
Loved it! :)

Some pictures from inside. Remindes me a bit of New York

http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/2703/7246885ha9.jpg

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8540/7364262ys3.jpg

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5304/7260573jx1.jpg

Very interesting. I was in Dresden in 1995 and took a day trip there from Berlin. I didn't seem to remember the Bahnhof being that distinct at the time.

I wish I could like this refurbishment but I don't! I hope the square in front of the station will be redisgned, seems like an eyesore at this moment.

The interior looks good but the blandness of the exterior is something I would expect, say, Calatrava to have prevented.

The Stuttgart Main Staion will be redeveloped.

Its planned to replace the existing 150 years old station by a new underground through-station, including a 100 km long high speed line connecting Stuttgart with Ulm and the Stuttgart airport

Investments will be 5 billion€

the station will be "turned" 90° and enter and leave the city in a long tunnel

http://www.stuttgart21.de/site/stuttgart21/zubehoer__assets/de/bilder/themenbilder/durchgangsbahnhof__01,type=large.jpg

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8863/planungsgebiet00nt2.jpg

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6040/heute01vo7.jpg

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7074/heute00yi9.jpg

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5766/entwurf02ko4.jpg

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3919/entwurf03jd5.jpg

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8521/entwurf00cc5.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2407/entwurf00aog0.jpg

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9910/entwurf00a1pc7.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/167/entwurf00drc8.jpg

I can´t believe it. They will built it. :banana:
They discussing this project since nearly 10 years.
Do you know if they built now also the high-speed track to Ulm and the station at Stuttgart-Airport?

yes, they will
the new high speed line with a stop at stuttgart airport/trade fair was also part of the summit, that lead to the go-ahead for both projects.

Stuttgart 21 will cost 2.8 billion, the new HSL to Ulm wil cost 2.2 billion.
That makes the 5 billion all together.

I will believe it when they start construction.

Saw it on Monitor just 2 days ago, shame though Bahn cuts so many services now that it is going to the stock exchange. No more trains to Hof :?

No more trains to Hof :?

NNNNNEEEEEEIIIIIINNNNN!!!!!!!!!

http://www.fasthack.com/images/weblog/2006/03/hasselhoff.jpg

Questions:

Why is the Mercedes Benz logo on top of the tower that's part of the existing station?

What will happen to the station and associated track once the new one is opened?

It's probably just there as an advertisement. I bet it spins around too.

How about Alemania

Some of the picture look a bit blurry and coarse but interesting photo report. I personally do not like the DB because they are always late and expensive. Only the main ICE routes are reasonably fine.

DB is pretty good. And ICE 3 is way cool! :D

DB isn't pretty good at all and it's surely not cheap!
Every third train is late!!!:ohno:

More pics please!

Let me start with this random shot of Hamburg Hauptbahnhof:

http://i31.tinypic.com/vwu4x4.jpg

Sorry for the bad quality, it's a pretty cheap cam. ;)

Excellent photos!

Enjoy!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ppstevan/Restum%20serie/Restum%206%20-%20Urban%20Mix/24.jpg

Great pictures !

...

I concur with that earlier poster... more, please !!!!!

What's the passenger reputation of that "dosto" pulled by that 145 numbered loco ?

Here's my one contribution-- Dresden Hauptbahnhof
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1209/1152692419_27a056500b.jpg

wow funny, dead thread is alive again :cheers:

i am gonna search my hdd for new images so im am gonna post it here.

p.s. i forgot to post this pics i made last year:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1329/1331430353_bb554cef3c_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1325/1332316498_f63f257bf0_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1317/1331428763_9ce7473a59_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1076/1332314940_9edd95a9d7_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/1331425953_03c219ccbf_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1195/1331425061_0dd13341ee_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1289/840628770_0f9e1f6803_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1104/839759373_da13ecf674_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/840589692_b730341aab_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1120/839720669_632f7c1b50_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1370/840586716_8ff88f9774_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/840585856_79b2f5eb5d_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1196/820688723_1987ef4917_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1085/820686821_501e5df953_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1220/821559686_01a4deafd5_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/821558228_a8af4243c6_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/821557446_332d5072ee_o.jpg

:cheers:

Out of all the railway systems I've been on around the world, the German railway system comes second only to Switzerland (though I've not sampled Japan yet). Switzerland only wins because they're so darned punctual - I prefer the German rolling stock and stations.

I appreciate the pic's but would like to know where they are. If you have anymore don't be shy!

I try to identify some of idvs`s pictures

1. Cologne
2. Duisburg (Ruhr-Area)
3. Duisburg (Ruhr-Area)
4. Essen (Ruhr-Area)
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. Frankfurt?
9. Frankfurt?
10. Frankfurt?
11. Frankfurt
12. ?
13. ?
14. Frankfurt
15. Frankfurt
16. ?
17. Cologne

@Pics u didnt identified are from Wiesbaden HbF :)

Leichlingen Bf ... Next station after Solingen Hbf in direction to Köln Hbf
i just played a bit with my cam hehe

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2291/2235919041_3a421e8917_b.jpg

What I like about DB and the ICE in particular is the sheer volume. When I was wandering around Europe, I would always have a rail pass and I would love to just jump on an ICE and go where it took me. If I didn't like where I was, I would take ANOTHER one. They just ran like 5th Avenue busses. The other thing was they didn't require a reservation like the TVG does. It was just hit the station, hop on a train and go.

Plus the glass that can become opaque with a flick of a switch between the driver and the rest of the cabin is mondo cool!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/821557446_332d5072ee_o.jpg

This picture is amazing!

So are the rest of them as well. Good job!

I've travelled from Amsterdam to Wien Westbahnhof (CityNightLine) recently. Unfortunately it was night when travelling through Germany, so no pics. When riding into Frankfurt am Main was magnificent! Nice light on all high buildings, it looks great.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2403691258_69ea1b5ca6_b.jpg

When I think of Germany, two things come to my mind: Autobahns and Deutsche Bahn

I took DB from Berlin to Potsdam the first time I was in Germany. From what I remember it was pretty nice.

Any pic of the type of train I would've been on? This would've been 2004.

Great photos by the way.

amazing pictures... I think more pictures are needed...

Berlin Hauptbahnhof pix please! The train station of the future!

Berlin Hauptbahnhof pix please! The train station of the future!

Here are two by me:


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3068/berlinhauptbahnhofbyavefn7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/berlinhauptbahnhofbyavefn7.jpg/1/w798.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img135/berlinhauptbahnhofbyavefn7.jpg/1/)

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7903/berlinhauptbahnhofbyspuax3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/berlinhauptbahnhofbyspuax3.jpg/1/w795.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img80/berlinhauptbahnhofbyspuax3.jpg/1/)

I'll upload more next weekend when i'm back in berlin, i forgot my camera there so i can't transfer any pics at the moment :(

Can I request more photos of Munich Hbf bitte?

Danke!

I took the train to Munich from Switzerland - I was impressed by how large the main hall at Munchen Hbf was.

How old is the last version of ICE?

it is the ICE 3, built since 1999.

Can I request more photos of Munich Hbf bitte?

Danke!

I took the train to Munich from Switzerland - I was impressed by how large the main hall at Munchen Hbf was.

I think Munich is one of the more grotty stations of the big German cities which is quite strange when considering the excellence of the rest of their PT infrastructure. Perhaps it is due a renovation sometime soon?

Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hannover and Hamburg Hauptbahnhof pictures wouldn't go amiss though!

I remember waking up in Frankfurt Hbf last february, opening my eyes and seeing the big hall, just amazing.

Here you go. The pics are 2 hours old and not so good ;)

Frankfurt
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1844/sany0441fe5.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4861/ffmln4.jpg

and
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8817/sany0468ot2.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1703/sany0465nu6.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1909/sany0460un2.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5271/dakd2.jpg

I think Munich is one of the more grotty stations of the big German cities which is quite strange when considering the excellence of the rest of their PT infrastructure. Perhaps it is due a renovation sometime soon?

Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hannover and Hamburg Hauptbahnhof pictures wouldn't go amiss though!

I think Hamburg, Cologne and Berlin are the coolest stations in Germany.

Cologne is crap. The main building is ugly post-war architecture. But Hamburg, Leipzig and Frankfurt are really nice.

Cologne is crap. The main building is ugly post-war architecture. But Hamburg, Leipzig and Frankfurt are really nice.

Cologne Hbf is one of the most interesting in Germany, but it depends on what you like it's a question of taste.

http://www.team-ekpyrosis.de/nbak/pix/trip_to_Neuwied2/KoelnHBF.jpg
http://www.elloks.de/xA/sj_thalys_211105.JPG
http://www.heinzalbers.org/picture-spec0006.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_7IOWbyrL4kg/R_U7DAFtFqI/AAAAAAAALac/GeiVIOcNgbk/IMG_5866.JPG
http://mbrelax.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/_dsc0102wp.jpg
http://www.wiese.info/data/media/31/P5280026.JPG
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/172879713_4e7abcf66e.jpg?v=0

The main building is nice 50s architecture – I don't think that to be ugly:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/431002356_f953507230.jpg?v=0

Better than Munich Hbf. anyway.

There are plans to renovate and rebuilt the Munich station and also the Stuttgart station. But these plans exist now for over one decade (or more). A lot of discussion and planning was and is going on but nothing else.

I think Munich is one of the more grotty stations of the big German cities which is quite strange when considering the excellence of the rest of their PT infrastructure. Perhaps it is due a renovation sometime soon?

Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hannover and Hamburg Hauptbahnhof pictures wouldn't go amiss though!

I just remember Munich Hbf being huge - I was only in the station for about 10 minutes to meet a friend when I arrived by train from Zurich. It wasn't the most aesthetically pleasing station, but it seemed enormous looking up from the platforms.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/M%C3%BCnchen_Hbf_Panorama.jpg


Munich isn't aesthetical at all - and might not become for quite a while. It's functional and provides all the services you want. I must
say that I do not even dislike it. It's clean and safe. But beautiful? No. Maybe I'll go there these days to take some pictures.

The pity is that they hab a really nice model for reconstructing the whole building. But as public money normally is only invested
in traffic infrastructure - and not in buildings around - and as they did not intend to rebuilt or reconcept the rails, too, there seems
to be n way to find anyone who is going to help the financing.

So, I suppose we will keep this Fifties-style-building for many more years. And the worst gag is that they will propably even tear
down some parts of this building to create a new suburban line in the sousterrain, but then will have to rebuilt that old crap.

^^ I agree completely. Munich isn't the greatest station but it's far from bad. My arrival there was my first experience with Germany, so I was excited beyond belief. The station seemed huge and really busy.

Do you have any designs for what the station will look like if it gets rebuilt?

I found some more photos on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1280/1345390881_404fc424db_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2473346075_feb25c48c0_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1185652258_388acf3451_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3118275033_8d6539e76b_b.jpg

Munich is brilliant for public transport. It was so easy getting around. Every city should have a system like this...
http://www.perob.com/graphics/MVV-high.jpg

^^ I just love that there is a station named "Poing"! :lol:

^^ I just love that there is a station named "Poing"! :lol:

That's nothing compared to some other villages here:
May I introduce?

Kissing (http://www.kissing.de/tourismus/ortsplan-lage/lage-erschliessung), Petting (http://gemeinde-petting.eu/joomla/index.php)and Fucking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria). No joke!

"Fucking, Austria" btw. is a good example to show the importance of proper punctuation...

Especially Fucking and Petting are really close to each other, what means you can make a nice Triathlon out of it: Biking from Petting to Fucking.


If I had a rockband, I would once make a tour only through these three villages. Not for the ticket gains, but I'm sure, the tour shirt

"14.05.2009 Kissing
15.05. 2009 Petting
16.05. 2009 Fucking"

would be a bestseller.


Sorry for the OT.


Do you have any designs for what the station will look like if it gets rebuilt?

I'm afraid there is not much available anymore. I tried the websites of the town of Munich, of the Deutsche Bahn and even of the architects, but it seems they all took the images out of the web when the plans were cancelled.

^^ just click on Traffic -> Central Train Station Munich
http://www.auer-weber.de/eng/wettbewerbe/index.htm

^^ just click on Traffic -> Central Train Station Munich
http://www.auer-weber.de/eng/wettbewerbe/index.htm

Whow, thank you. I had searched under "projects" and did not even realize the button "competitions". Stupid ...

^^ I just love that there is a station named "Poing"! :lol:

When I was in Munich, we stayed with a friend in Aufhausen on the S-Bahn line to Erding, so we'd go through Poing station to and from central Munich. Personally, I found 'Grub' to be a lot more entertaining :lol:

We had a night out in Schwabing and crashed at another friend's place near St. Quirin Platz one night when I was there, I was so impressed by the station when we caught the u-bahn the next morning. Another reason to love Munich...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1212/1097935130_7d763f7067_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1178/1259426479_880a77611d_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/529838094_e6141ec014_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2417/2965145393_623fc1b10e_b.jpg

:drool:

Looks like a random U-Bahn station in Frankfurt, let's say Messe ;-)

uhm not really ;) most U-Bahn stations in Frankfurt are pretty ugly and old-fashioned, and Messe is the exception there ;)

While Munich is underground-design-wise the Moscow of the 21th century...


Regarding the modernization of Munich Hbf.: According to the German Wikipedia, the "München 21" project (which wants to transform the station to a underground non-terminus (how is it called in English? Well, a normal station) still an long-term option (and therefore taken into account in the planning phase for the second S-Bahn tunnel). So I don't think, they'll replace the current building soon.
Anyhow, I don't see how it would be necessary, the Hbf. offers really everything you can expect and even more. And, most important, it's save and works perfectly.
Regarding the architecture of the 50ies, it might not be the poshiest building but its very functional and clean designed (everything else wouldn't have been possible because they had to replace the war ruin quickly). The only thing that really would be good to be done would be a redesign of the main front.

Do you have any photos of Munich Hbf before the war?

I guess it was bombed by the Allies?

I think my grandfather was involved in the bombing of Dresden somehow... he might have been a pilot. I'm not sure whether to be proud of that.

I saw these for the first time in Düsseldorf a week or so ago:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/422_027-3_S2_Dortmund-Westerfilde.jpg/799px-422_027-3_S2_Dortmund-Westerfilde.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3467/3291894223_ef759a243e.jpg

New "Mittelrheinbahn"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/TR460507_KB_20081013.jpg/800px-TR460507_KB_20081013.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Desiro_ML.JPG/800px-Desiro_ML.JPG

New doubledecker trains, delivery starting in 2011:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2djqm4y.jpg

Nice looking new regional train, Bombardier Talent 2 (delivery starting in late 09):

http://www.ejgerlach.de/blog/media/39_DBA442212_BerlinInnotrans250908_119.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/DBAG_Baureihe_442.JPG/799px-DBAG_Baureihe_442.JPG

^^ Nice updates, thanks! It's good that DB is securing new rolling stock. Some of the stock there is looking a little shabby.

^^
422 will replace the loco push-pull trains in the Rhein/ruhr S-Bahn services soon. Talent 2 will do the same job at S-Bahn Nürnberg. The 442 and double decker fronts ate quite ugly IMO.


The new EMU for regional services in Bavaria (mainly Augsburg, Regensburg and Munich-Passau):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/DBAG_Baureihe_440.JPG/800px-DBAG_Baureihe_440.JPG

[…]
Talent 2 will do the same job at S-Bahn Nürnberg.
[…]

And on the RE line Aachen–Köln–Siegen of DB Rheinland.

How is this project progressing? Any news?

Saw it on Monitor just 2 days ago, shame though Bahn cuts so many services now that it is going to the stock exchange. No more trains to Hof :?

That's what happens when you privatize. Deutsche Bahn should stay in public hands.

That's what happens when you privatize. Deutsche Bahn should stay in public hands.

I beg to differ. This is not a consequence of privatisation per se, but rather of what we might call "privatisation with ill intent". There's no reason you cannot privatise a company and then offer it (or its competitors) public subsidies to keep up minimum service levels in areas where doing so is commercially unviable but socially necessary. You may even organise a public tender: "We need 6 trains per day to Hof. Who will do it for the smallest subsidy?"

What I suggest is not just a pie in the sky. The Aussies, for example, are very adept at this. The water companies charge insanely high water rates in arid parts of the country - reflecting the actual cost of piping water to Alice Springs and beyond - which then the government beats down, through public subsidies, to affordable prices at the tap. The subsidies, thus, are on the public accounts, the cost of maintaining settlements in the desert for everyone to see. The problem is...

...companies like DB have cross-subsidised lossmaking lines for ages with money they scored on lucrative monopolies elsewhere. The problem arises if the goverment wants to privatise the company WITHOUT doing the honest thing and paying a direct subsidy a-la-Australia.

I have read several reports on the DB. In order to make its number look more promising it has cut down maintenance levels below subsistence, ie it is consuming its infrastructure slowly as it does not keep it up to maintain the good level it has now.

Funny in this regard is that it does already what privatisation has shown most rail companies do once they are privatized already before the Bahn is privatized. But you can bet that once its privatized that trend will only increase, we have seen this already many times before. It always ends with the infrastructure lying in rumble and the revenue from these practices being found on private accounts of the shareholders. The tax payer however has to come up do undo the caused damage afterwards.

Thats nothing else than making a fortune out of taxpayer money over the long run. Thats what privatisation of railway companies is all about.

I beg to differ. This is not a consequence of privatisation per se, but rather of what we might call "privatisation with ill intent". There's no reason you cannot privatise a company and then offer it (or its competitors) public subsidies to keep up minimum service levels in areas where doing so is commercially unviable but socially necessary. You may even organise a public tender: "We need 6 trains per day to Hof. Who will do it for the smallest subsidy?"

What I suggest is not just a pie in the sky. The Aussies, for example, are very adept at this. The water companies charge insanely high water rates in arid parts of the country - reflecting the actual cost of piping water to Alice Springs and beyond - which then the government beats down, through public subsidies, to affordable prices at the tap. The subsidies, thus, are on the public accounts, the cost of maintaining settlements in the desert for everyone to see. The problem is...

...companies like DB have cross-subsidised lossmaking lines for ages with money they scored on lucrative monopolies elsewhere. The problem arises if the goverment wants to privatise the company WITHOUT doing the honest thing and paying a direct subsidy a-la-Australia.

OK, I can see where you are coming from. I don't have a problem with privatizing rail services (the operators of the trains) but I am fervent in my belief that the infrastructure (railways, terminals, etc.) stay in public hands. The private rail service providers can pay a fee for the rights to run trains on a certain route or routes, but the central government owns and maintains the track and stations.

This is the situation with air travel in the U.S. Private airlines with most airports and accompanying infrastructure owned by the government.

This is the most incredible thing I've ever seen. Hides the ugly (though debatable) of the rail tracks and gives it a high-tech feel. These projects really do surprise me they're so wonderful!

OK, I can see where you are coming from. I don't have a problem with privatizing rail services (the operators of the trains) but I am fervent in my belief that the infrastructure (railways, terminals, etc.) stay in public hands. The private rail service providers can pay a fee for the rights to run trains on a certain route or routes, but the central government owns and maintains the track and stations.

This is the situation with air travel in the U.S. Private airlines with most airports and accompanying infrastructure owned by the government.

We have the same thing in say 80% of Europe - including UK, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece (tough they do not have private rail operators), Italy, Spain etc. Furthermore in 2010 every train operator from the EU shall be able to operate in the entire Union...

This is the most incredible thing I've ever seen. Hides the ugly (though debatable) of the rail tracks and gives it a high-tech feel. These projects really do surprise me they're so wonderful!

But this project is the best example for what is going wrong with railways in Germany! DB is only interested in building huge projects like this one (or more HSLs) and everything else seems unimportant! With the money of Stuttgart 21 it probably could be possible to renovate all stations of a Bundesland which would be a better investment than this huge waste of taxes!

Communal elections a few weeks ago showed what the people of Stuttgart think about it: the party "Die Grünen" gained so many voters (28% which is very much for them!) in the city because they are against this overdimensioned project!

^^^^ So you're saying small, more local stations are falling due to lack of funding?

That's kind of like the debate we're having in the US, where political figures are fighting Obama's HSR plan because they see a better investment in reviving passenger rail travel in speeds around 100 MPH.

In part they're right, but I still want to see HSR in the US, so maybe we should have two bills? lol

[…]
DB is only interested in building huge projects like this one (or more HSLs) and everything else seems unimportant! With the money of Stuttgart 21 it probably could be possible to renovate all stations of a Bundesland which would be a better investment than this huge waste of taxes!
[…]

Stuttgart 21 is the baby of the politicians in Stuttgart, so don't blame DB for it!

Stuttgart 21 is the baby of the politicians in Stuttgart, so don't blame DB for it!

Yup. Here in France they'd have created a dedicated HS station in the outer suburbs and subsequently ran only trains with end-station in Stuttgart into the centre of town. (The philosphy being that having to run through heavily urbanised areas in itself kills the idea of high speed...) But, in a federal country it is not possible to ride roughshot over local interests. And that can sometimes cost a looOOOT of money. :lol:

For a neighbour its really good news. It will speed up all the passenger transport tremendously. Vienna has a similar project, although the railwaystation will be overground new connection tunnels are build that create drive through situation, speeding up the trains that go via Vienna but don't end there dramatically. Not to start about the increase in capacity.

Stuttgart 21 is the baby of the politicians in Stuttgart, so don't blame DB for it!
All the "21"-Projects are DB projects at heart. They might have had considerable input from other sources, but DB snatched the input up willingly.
Most other 21-Projects only cost 7- or 8-figure sums though, and most had the DB components dropped by now anyway.

I was in favour of Stuttgart 21 untril a few days ago, but after the elections in Germany and the idea that the Green Party gained so many votes just for their protest against this project, I started reading about Stuttgart 21 in different (!) sources.

I dont't like to say so (because I'm a huge fan of HSR), but it seems that I was quite wrong all the time. It seems that all the protests are quite reasonable. Astonishing enough that not only the Green Party (which is normally very much in favour of almost any rail project) fought against this idea, but also organisations like "Pro Bahn" (founded for the interests of rail passengers) and many other ecological and social organisations. They all do favour the HRS line to Ulm, but say it would be far cheaper, more reliable and not costing much time to connect it to an upgraded and improved "old" station.

As I said, I read much about the pros and cons of Stuttgart 21 in the last days, and dare to give a summary:


The main argument for Stuttgart - when all those project 21 ideas were developed in the early 90ies - was the huge waste of time when trains chance their direction. But as today, the rolling stock hat totally changed and the classic locomotive/car-combination is not in use anymore in passanger rail traffic, this argument has lost its power. Today, the regular stop of an Intercity Express in Stuttgart is 4 minutes. In Hannover, a station of similar size and importance, its 3 or 4 minutes, depending on the line. So even if Stuttgart 21 could provide train stops of 2 minutes or less, this option would not be considered because far too many people use to enter or leave the train here.


The second effect of Stuttgart 21 is the reduction of transit time to Mannheim and Ulm.
While in the Mannheim direction, a reduction of 2 minutes is realistic, in the Ulm direction the trains will even need more time to leave Stuttgart because of a second stop at Stuttgart Airport/Trade Fare Center. Point is that whenever the supporters of Stuttgart 21 tried to convince of their project, they included the HRS line Wendlingen-Ulm as well to make S21 sound faster. But this line is not depending on Stuttgart 21 and would as well work with the "old" Stuttgart station. Also, this project is favoured by everybody, including the Green Party, Pro Bahn and else. So it would onlybe fair to compare Stuttgart 21 + HRS to Ulm with Stuttgart Kopfbahnhof + HRS to Ulm. And here, the speed advantages of Stuttgart 21 are totally ruined by the Airport stop.

Now a solution might be to spare the Airport stop. But that station and that stop was one of the key arguments for drilling through the mountain instead of first using the old route through the valley.

In addition, it must be said that Stuttgart Airport is a regional one, far less important than Munich or Frankfurt, what means that only very few passengers from Mannheim, Ulm or even longer distances will take this direction to get their plane. So there's not much sense in connecting this airport to the long distance railway net.


Other technical arguments against S21 are:
- the tunnel from the station up to the airport is too steep. Trains going up will have a poor acceleration, trains going downwards will have to go with half speed because they have to stop at the bottom.
- For many directions, the way from/to the new station is longer than it is now, meaning losses of up to 5 minutes.
- In case there is a problem with the S-Bahn, the "regular" Central Station cannot be used as backup/bypass anymore, meaning that the whole S-Bahn-traffic will break down.
In case there is a problem in one of the tunnels, there will be no bypass connecting Stuttgart to the railway net. One mayor incident in one of the two tunnels, and the whole Central Station totally breaks down.
For trains that change their direction in Stuttgart, there is no efficient solution. They have to leave the station after a few minutes and will have to be brought back again later, because they otherwise would block one of the rare platform rails.


But the main argument against Stuttgart 21 is the fact that it is extremely costy. Even now, it is, although the calculation is very optimistic, and in future for sure it will become even far more expensive.

So, to keep the costs of Stuttgart 21 as low as possible (still too high for an easy agreement, but well...), the project reduces infrastructure whereever possible, with dangerous affects on future developement and reliability.

The new station will only have 8 tracks (today 16), with any kind of further expantion totally impossible, what seems to be quite okay today but might turn out not to be enough in 20 or 30 years. Also, it will only work as long as every train is on time, but might cause disasters when anything is not going well anymore, ehen trains have to wait for important connection trains.

Many crossings on the rails around Stuttgart 21 are supposed to the cheap version, without any grade separation. Also, some connection rails will be single tracked instead of double tracked.
This means conflicts are sure from the moment any train is delayed.

Now you could say that this could be solved by spending some more money, but that is exactly the main conflict point in the actual discussion: Bahn and polititians have an interest in talking the costs down, and that's what obviously happens here in the moment: in a few years, they might tell us that in order to increase the capacity or reliability, some crossings, single track passages or other "cheap" versions should be upgraded. So the costs will have to rise even more, or the alternative would be a huge white elephant.



The alternative - upgrading the old station - is explained on www.kopfbahnhof-21.de. The site has no international section, s I just want to give the link to one short movie (http://www.kopfbahnhof-21.de/index.php?id=207)showing the idea of an integrated timetable, providing shorter connection times for almost every rail passanger. A concept that is not possible in a reduced, 8-track station.

From Frankfurt

http://www.imaginas.gr/gallery/pictures/FRA_trains_imaginas1.jpg

TGV and ICE in Frankfurt am Main Hbf

http://www.imaginas.gr/gallery/pictures/FRA_trains_imaginas4.jpg

Mulheim am Main

http://www.imaginas.gr/gallery/pictures/FRA_trains_imaginas5.jpg

Frankfurt Sud

http://www.imaginas.gr/gallery/pictures/FRA_trains_imaginas7.jpg

Finally Stuttgart 21 is under way. Today they announced permission to start construction. It is sheduled to start construction in February. The 4.5 billion costly project will include the rearrangement of the main rail lines in Stuttgart.

The main objective of the project Stuttgart 21 is to
change the Stuttgart central train station from a dead
end station to a transit station. Therefore, an area of
roughly 250 acres in downtown Stuttgart would not be
used for railway purposes such as railway tracks and
maintenance stations but for business units and
apartments. It is expected, that retail, service and
entertainment businesses will create 24.000 jobs and
that living space for 11.000 people will be built in these
areas. In the course of the project cityrail tracks
underground will be relocated as well as streets, sewage
pipes and underground pipelines.
Through the change of the central station it is necessary
to completely rearrange roughly 56 km of railway and
cityrail tracks, whereas 28 km of these tracks run through
mostly mined tunnels.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21

https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/media_fast/626/stuttgart21_2010.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Karte_Stuttgart_21_aussen_Kartenwerkstatt.png

my absolute favourite project in europe

my only beef is that they wont build a 360 kph line till münchen :(

Well, plannings for the HSL from Stuttgart to Ulm are under way. But you are right there will be continuous 330 or 360 kph track to Munich. The tracks from Munich to Augsburg are widened from 1x2 to 2x2 right now. But speed will be limited to only 230! A shame for Germany but if you consider that Augsburg is only 40 km from Munich it is oki.

So let's sum up

Stuttgart - Ulm 250 kph
Ulm - Ausburg 200 kph :lol:
Augsburg - Munich 230 kph

Not really impressing...

especially since it should be part of an inter-european hsl: London-Paris-Stuttgart-München-Wien-Budapest-Bucharest-Istanbul

i'll probably die before that connection exists, imagine that at 360 kph

...London-Paris-Stuttgart-München-Wien-Budapest-Bucharest-Istanbul.....imagine that at 360 kph

:drool:

:drool:

make that Glasgow-Ankara :nuts:

Well, plannings for the HSL from Stuttgart to Ulm are under way. But you are right there will be continuous 330 or 360 kph track to Munich. The tracks from Munich to Augsburg are widened from 1x2 to 2x2 right now. But speed will be limited to only 230! A shame for Germany but if you consider that Augsburg is only 40 km from Munich it is oki.

So let's sum up

Stuttgart - Ulm 250 kph
Ulm - Ausburg 200 kph :lol:
Augsburg - Munich 230 kph

Not really impressing...

No, not impressive at all. That said, I think they have in mind another new line Ulm-Augsburg for 250 km/h. This would be part of an ensemble with the planned line Frankfurt-Mannheim and ulitmately link Cologne with Munich at (reasonably) high speed.

My more fundamental problem is an element of the German psyche which seems to make true high-speed virtually impossible: any medium sized city shall be, and remain, connected to the main network. - And not only that but through the old railway station in the city centre. It's very unlike, for example, in France where people have the same attitude to HS rail as they have to Autoroutes: they should pass reasonably close by the main cities, but they should never, ever run through the urban environment.

Given that the train between Stuttgart and Munich must, imperatively, run through the "Altstadt" of Ulm and Augsburg with speeds probably not exceeding 100 km/h there's not much point in investing in 300+ km/h between the towns. Afterward can then the "Town Kings" of these medium-sized cities use the low speed as an argument that each ICE must, imperatively, stop in their town. After all "only 3-4 minutes will be lost. It's not like this is a FAST train.... " :ohno:

Well, it may stop every 100 km but it should decelerate and accelerate fast!

make that Glasgow-Ankara :nuts:


Well, I used a flight mileage calculator to calculate that route...works out to about 3500km...assuming that rail is not as straight-going as a flight, let's say 4200km.

At a total average speed of 200-220kph (I don't think we'll see more than that for at least 50 years), it would work out as about 20 hours, Glasgow-Ankara :) (Assuming of course no gaps between trains, so let's say it would be an ideal 24-30 hours)

edit: For some perspective, it looks like Glasgow-Ankara currently takes about 108 hours...so it would be quite an improvement!

Well, I used a flight mileage calculator to calculate that route...works out to about 3500km...assuming that rail is not as straight-going as a flight, let's say 4200km.

At a total average speed of 200-220kph (I don't think we'll see more than that for at least 50 years), it would work out as about 20 hours, Glasgow-Ankara :) (Assuming of course no gaps between trains, so let's say it would be an ideal 24-30 hours)

edit: For some perspective, it looks like Glasgow-Ankara currently takes about 108 hours...so it would be quite an improvement!

it would be about 4000 kms, not much more than that
at an average of 300 it would be 13 hrs :drool:

it would be about 4000 kms, not much more than that
at an average of 300 it would be 13 hrs :drool:

Or you could fly in less than two hours.... ;)

Great project for Stuttgart. I took the train through there 15 years ago and the station was a dump. I'm sure it hasnt improved with age....

Or you could fly in less than two hours.... ;)

Great project for Stuttgart. I took the train through there 15 years ago and the station was a dump. I'm sure it hasnt improved with age....

as opposed to, say, Detroit Hbf.?

Great! :)
I know Stuttgart 21 is more than just controversial but I think it will be a huge improvement and a great addition to the axis Paris-Bratislava as envisioned by the transeuropean networks plan.

Alone the creation of that tunnel and the new railway station should save a lot of of time.

I know that the speeds of the line to Ulm are a bit disappointing, but in Austria we are not used to anything better anyway ;) At least the connection Vienna-Munich should be possible within 3 hours in the not too far away future. An average speed of roughly 100 kmph is hardly what you would consider high speed, but it would be still at least an hour less than before...

and then you have the new main railwaystation of Vienna which is going to be constructed in the next years (in 2012-13 the first part should start to operate). This alone could cut the time of a train crossing Vienna coming from Bratislava or Budapest, or Prague by maybe even half an hour?

How come you Austrians haven't invested much in HSR?

Mountains?

Anyway there are some mixed traffic 230 km/h lines under construction or planning, the Vienna-Salzburg and Vienna-Villach lines (however not everywhere for 230 km/h).

Or you could fly in less than two hours.... ;)


...at a much cheaper price. No point for such long distance high speed rail.


Anyway, I am happy that S21 finally goes ahead. It was about time that west Germany gets some serious investments in its ifrastructure and not only east-Germany.

...at a much cheaper price. No point for such long distance high speed rail.

I'm not sure you realize, that within a few years, there will be an almost continuous line from Lisbon/Seville/Malaga-Cordoba-Madrid all the way through Zaragoza-Barcelona-Avignon-Lyon-Paris to London / Brussel-Amsterdam

granted, there will be a gap in downtown Barcelona (although it is an uninterrupted tunnel) and the channel tunnel will be only 160 kph and there is also a gap in between Brussel-Antwerp

but even so, the train will be able to go theoretically non-stop at max speed from Lisbon to Barcelona and from Barcelona to the entrance of the Chunnel or Brussel

I am not saying that we should skip every major town, but between the major towns we should build 300-360

...at a much cheaper price. No point for such long distance high speed rail.

Do not overidealize flying. First of all, a flight Frankfurt - Istanbul takes almost 3 hours. Plus you must add the time it takes to get there from downtown, and get from your arrival airport to civilization again. Plus some time for check-in, security controls, baggage claim etc. Furthermore, in the time of climate change, we must hope that someday the tax privileges for air flight and private cars will be cancelled and climate-friendly rail and bus services privileged instead. If low cost environmental-hazardous flights continue at the present rate, then of course any rail connection beyond a 3-5 hours radius would be meaningless.

as opposed to, say, Detroit Hbf.?

Dont know what youre trying to say, but the fact that Detroit is a shithole has no bearing on the fact that Stuttgart HBF was in desperate need of an upgrade. :bash: On that same note, I'm certain that the new terminal at DTW is better than anything Stuttgart has to offer...

Do not overidealize flying. First of all, a flight Frankfurt - Istanbul takes almost 3 hours. Plus you must add the time it takes to get there from downtown, and get from your arrival airport to civilization again. Plus some time for check-in, security controls, baggage claim etc. Furthermore, in the time of climate change, we must hope that someday the tax privileges for air flight and private cars will be cancelled and climate-friendly rail and bus services privileged instead. If low cost environmental-hazardous flights continue at the present rate, then of course any rail connection beyond a 3-5 hours radius would be meaningless.

Ok but a three hour flight plus an hour of check in and security does not take longer than a 13 hour train ride. I'm a big fan of HSR, but at longer distances, it becomes useless. Amsterdam -> Paris, train rules, but from the UK to Turkey? Come on now....:nuts:

Dont know what youre trying to say, but the fact that Detroit is a shithole has no bearing on the fact that Stuttgart HBF was in desperate need of an upgrade. :bash: On that same note, I'm certain that the new terminal at DTW is better than anything Stuttgart has to offer...



Ok but a three hour flight plus an hour of check in and security does not take longer than a 13 hour train ride. I'm a big fan of HSR, but at longer distances, it becomes useless. Amsterdam -> Paris, train rules, but from the UK to Turkey? Come on now....:nuts:

It's not so far-fetched...it takes an hour to get to most London-area airports+2 hours for check-in+4 hour flight (UK-Turkey)+0.5-1 hour from Turkish airport to city center. This results in almost 8 hours real time compared to 13...yes, the train will definitely cost more over such a huge distance, but the time difference would be quite negligible - 8 or 13 hours are both pretty much 1 day or 1 night travel time.

^^I think once the TEN corridors have become a bit more firmly entrenched (which is another way to say, when the Alpine corridors have been drilled and when the Germans and Austrians finally shift their a**es and start building rather than renovating...) then we'll see a new generation of trains catering largely to business people. By this I mean, fast trans-border trains equipped with business centres, television news services, meeting rooms, etc.

Your little calculation, v_florin, half-convinced me: to go on vacation or mini-break across Europe I'd still prefer the 3-4 hour flight to a 12 hour train ride. However, if I have work to do then I might well prefer the train. For those of us who work in an office one thing is certain: a short to medium-duration flight totally smashes one working day. When flying, all the time there's something to attend to: to the airport, check in, security control, boarding, transfer.... Once one is seated in a train one is at ease and "in the office".

Dont know what youre trying to say, but the fact that Detroit is a shithole has no bearing on the fact that Stuttgart HBF was in desperate need of an upgrade. :bash: On that same note, I'm certain that the new terminal at DTW is better than anything Stuttgart has to offer...

That's rich. How about comparing Detroit airport to a city of that size here. Like, erm München. Or Frankfurt.... both of these have better airports..

and take a look at a Stuttgart size city in Michigan, that is, before everyone fled because they closed all the factories..



Ok but a three hour flight plus an hour of check in and security does not take longer than a 13 hour train ride. I'm a big fan of HSR, but at longer distances, it becomes useless. Amsterdam -> Paris, train rules, but from the UK to Turkey? Come on now....:nuts:

IF a line like that existed, most people would use it for shorter distances

it wouldn't be only people travelling from turkey to the uk
think about all the possible connections

IF a line like that existed, most people would use it for shorter distances it wouldn't be only people travelling from turkey to the uk think about all the possible connections

The problem with international highspeed in Europe is it got off to a wrong start: the state railway operators founded outsourced companies such as Eurostar, Thalys or the late Cisalpino for these lines and founded seperate ticketing systems, and in part platforms and did not coordinate any train correspondences. This is pretty much how the split up corridor London-Berlin works at the moment: one train to Brussels, change plattform, do border formalities, wait endlessly. Then go Brussels-Cologne, wait again, change again, then you do Cologne-Berlin. Because of the split up ticketing from three different companies, the final price is usually horrendous.
They forgot that the great advantage of railways is that they are a network, which has been rediscovered for the Paris-Frankfurt and Paris-Munich cooperation of SNCF and DB. Not many people boarding a Munich-Paris train will do the whole route, but you will still have more passengers than if there was a seperate train for Munich-Stuttgart, Stuttgart-Strasbourg, and Strasbourg-Paris.Another thing which will make sense once there are longer highspeed routes is highspeed night trains, which according to my knowledge are only envisaged in China so far.

That's rich. How about comparing Detroit airport to a city of that size here. Like, erm München. Or Frankfurt.... both of these have better airports.

whatever you say, you're the one that brought detroit into this discussion in the first place. Honestly I don't know why or where you were going with that. However your lack of responce to my initial point says to me that you agree with me that Stuttgart hbf is a dump and was in desparate need of an upgrade.

I agree with the second part of your post though...

The problem with international highspeed in Europe is it got off to a wrong start: the state railway operators founded outsourced companies such as Eurostar, Thalys or the late Cisalpino for these lines and founded seperate ticketing systems, and in part platforms and did not coordinate any train correspondences. This is pretty much how the split up corridor London-Berlin works at the moment: one train to Brussels, change plattform, do border formalities, wait endlessly. Then go Brussels-Cologne, wait again, change again, then you do Cologne-Berlin. Because of the split up ticketing from three different companies, the final price is usually horrendous.

I half agree and half disagree with your position, Baron. To test your position I went on the SNCF Voyages site and checked out the price and availability of throughfare tickets from London to Berlin. Such tickets can be bought and the price is not, to my mind, horrendous. The cost is 194 Euros for a single fare - which is more than you pay with low-cost airlines, certainly, but not more than you pay with the flag carriers. That said...

...it is of course true that one has to change trains on a couple of occasions. I speculate that one reason for this is that the duration of the trip (9 1/2 hours) is such that no one operator has been inclined to offer point-to-point services on the route. Maybe it has also been held back by protectionism in individual countries. In that case things should start changing in 2011 with the new EU rules on third-party access.

I would also agree that the passport and security measures around Eurostar are a disgrace. I can say this, with my head held high, as a Dane because the opening of the cross-border link between Denmark and Sweden was accompanied by a decision to abstain from all controls in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing as any local train line in any of the two countries. In the words of the then Danish Minister of Justice, "of course we lose the protections of border controls. But, in the interest of fraternity, who cares if a criminal is in Stockholm or Copenhagen?" Well.... let's just say the Brits, with their insular mentality, have not yet quite aspired to this level of Renaissance thinking. :lol:

https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/media_fast/626/stuttgart21_2010.JPG



Am I the only one who doesn't like the architecture, or is it not an object of conversation here?

It looks horrible. And no, it will not get better with time.

Have all the lessons from 1970's "crack architecture" been lost?:bash: What looks ultra cool today looks like, crap tomorrow?

I understand the arguments about moving the station's direction, and it's an important argument. But seeing these visualisations makes me wonder who's been sniffing the white stuff again.

^^ Time will tell, but I doubt today's neo-Jetson architecture will be as badly received in the future as 1970s architecture. The post-war motto was "build it fast and build it cheap," and it was the only period in the past few centuries when people disliked things like atria and worthwhile things. The '60s and '70s were an extreme anomaly. The failure of their attempts shouldn't stop us from being ingenuous and progressive.


I would also agree that the passport and security measures around Eurostar are a disgrace. I can say this, with my head held high, as a Dane because the opening of the cross-border link between Denmark and Sweden was accompanied by a decision to abstain from all controls in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing as any local train line in any of the two countries. In the words of the then Danish Minister of Justice, "of course we lose the protections of border controls. But, in the interest of fraternity, who cares if a criminal is in Stockholm or Copenhagen?" Well.... let's just say the Brits, with their insular mentality, have not yet quite aspired to this level of Renaissance thinking. :lol:

I think you summed that up rather nicely.

It's not so far-fetched...it takes an hour to get to most London-area airports+2 hours for check-in+4 hour flight (UK-Turkey)+0.5-1 hour from Turkish airport to city center. This results in almost 8 hours real time compared to 13...yes, the train will definitely cost more over such a huge distance, but the time difference would be quite negligible - 8 or 13 hours are both pretty much 1 day or 1 night travel time.


In Frankfurt it takes me 20 minutes from the city centre to the airport (10 minutes to central station). Check in time is generally an hour for domestic/european flights and 2 hours for intercontinental flights. And keep in mind, that not everybody wan't to go to city centre. Most people live in the suburbs which are better connected (by motorway) to the aiport than to the central station.

London is an extreme case and not the norm.

I half agree and half disagree with your position, Baron. To test your position I went on the SNCF Voyages site and checked out the price and availability of throughfare tickets from London to Berlin. Such tickets can be bought and the price is not, to my mind, horrendous. The cost is 194 Euros for a single fare - which is more than you pay with low-cost airlines, certainly, but not more than you pay with the flag carriers. That said...

...it is of course true that one has to change trains on a couple of occasions. I speculate that one reason for this is that the duration of the trip (9 1/2 hours) is such that no one operator has been inclined to offer point-to-point services on the route. Maybe it has also been held back by protectionism in individual countries. In that case things should start changing in 2011 with the new EU rules on third-party access.

I would also agree that the passport and security measures around Eurostar are a disgrace. I can say this, with my head held high, as a Dane because the opening of the cross-border link between Denmark and Sweden was accompanied by a decision to abstain from all controls in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing as any local train line in any of the two countries. In the words of the then Danish Minister of Justice, "of course we lose the protections of border controls. But, in the interest of fraternity, who cares if a criminal is in Stockholm or Copenhagen?" Well.... let's just say the Brits, with their insular mentality, have not yet quite aspired to this level of Renaissance thinking. :lol:

Sorry, a bit late answering this days. Concerning the prices: DB offers train rides anywhere in Germany to London starting at a really affordable 49 Euros. Problem is you have to use an ICE and not a Thalys between Cologne and Brussels, onl 2 operating per day in comparison to much more frequent Thalys (and DB even has a 10% share in Thalys).
Protectionism is definitely involved. DB wanted to buy shares of Eurostar, but this caused an uproar and SNCF bought the free shares to prevent this.
Even if we have to live with GB isolating itself from Schengen, there could be other possibilities. For ex, before Czech Rep. joined Schengen, on the Dresden-Prague route, border police from both countries entered the train in Dresden, half an hour before the border and had enough time to drag out anybody before the short stop at the border or if need be force them to take the nect train back. Of course these were 99% not criminals, but hapless tourists which did not understand the European visa landscape.
It would be great if someday Thalys would be extended into Germany beyond Cologne (they claim they do not have the capacity for this at the moment) and ICE rides to London. Since SNCF has said it wants to serve the Frankfurt-Berlin route, I am sure this will stur up DB to bugger in on WestEuropean routes, as their trains are generally more popular than the TGV style ones.

In Frankfurt it takes me 20 minutes from the city centre to the airport (10 minutes to central station). Check in time is generally an hour for domestic/european flights and 2 hours for intercontinental flights. And keep in mind, that not everybody wan't to go to city centre. Most people live in the suburbs which are better connected (by motorway) to the aiport than to the central station.

London is an extreme case and not the norm.

In Vienna most people live in the city proper and the new main station is certainly a lot better located to serve all parts of the city than the airport which is located in Schwechat. But then there is no real high speed rail here, which is a pity. Such a thing would be great between Vienna and Budapest or Vienna and Prague. The only thing which is immanent is that travel times between Vienna and Munich are going to fall from 4 hours to 3 hours. Thats hardly high speed either, even if it means that large parts are ready for 200 kmph.

My own experience with Frankfurt is that it can take ages only to get from one part of the airport to another one and as I consider missing a plane far worse than missing a train I tend to calculate in a lot of additional time as you never know. Traffic jam, chaos at the airport... the number of possible scenarios is nearly endless.

So, if I had the option between a flight and a train trip that takes 2-3 hours longer I would still take the train and feel pretty confident to have not wasted time at all.

Sorry, a bit late answering this days. Concerning the prices: DB offers train rides anywhere in Germany to London starting at a really affordable 49 Euros. Problem is you have to use an ICE and not a Thalys between Cologne and Brussels, onl 2 operating per day in comparison to much more frequent Thalys (and DB even has a 10% share in Thalys).
DB runs three not two pairs of trains between Frankfurt/M and Bruxelles. It's still a rather infrequent service but enough to take advantage of special ticket offers.

I just read on the website of DMM that ICE trains have been technically cleared to use the Channel tunnel. Earlier restrictions on the grounds that ICE's are not as fireproof as TGV's have been scratched. Let's see if this will actually lead to more competition in the business...
Am I the only one who doesn't like the architecture, or is it not an object of conversation here?

It looks horrible. And no, it will not get better with time.
From the experience with the Berlin underground train stationsI can tell you that the first thing people will save on is appearance. So since everyone is so worried about the price of S21, they will do the same as for Berlin Hauptbahnhof, scratch the fancy roof structure and make it look like any underground tunnel with naked heavy concrete. Maybe in the case of S21, that would be an improvement... Oh and the thing with natural sunlight flooding into the underground station, that is a nice story the engineers always tell, but never works, judging from the gloomy Potrsdamer Platz station.

Oh and the thing with natural sunlight flooding into the underground station, that is a nice story the engineers always tell, but never works, judging from the gloomy Potrsdamer Platz station.

That's a bloody insult! It works very well with the new metro stations in Copenhagen. Well... that is, it WOULD work very well if there ever was any natural sunlight in our country. :lol:

Was the now-cancelled Frankfurt 21 project similar to Stuttgart 21? And are there any other railprojects with the number 21? Also, what does "21" mean, anyway?

21st Century?

My more fundamental problem is an element of the German psyche which seems to make true high-speed virtually impossible: any medium sized city shall be, and remain, connected to the main network. - And not only that but through the old railway station in the city centre. It's very unlike, for example, in France where people have the same attitude to HS rail as they have to Autoroutes: they should pass reasonably close by the main cities, but they should never, ever run through the urban environment.

Given that the train between Stuttgart and Munich must, imperatively, run through the "Altstadt" of Ulm and Augsburg with speeds probably not exceeding 100 km/h there's not much point in investing in 300+ km/h between the towns. Afterward can then the "Town Kings" of these medium-sized cities use the low speed as an argument that each ICE must, imperatively, stop in their town. After all "only 3-4 minutes will be lost. It's not like this is a FAST train.... " :ohno:

Actually the German aproach is in many ways superior to the French (and the French appraoch is in any ways not suitable to a country as densily populated as Germany).
The improvements in trains speeds might be less impressive, but the improvements in travel speed for a large amount of passengers are. By running HSTs "reasonable close" to urban areas, but not through them you add extra trasfer time costs to the total trip. In France much of the time gain on the TGV is sometimes lost at the first transfer one must make to get to the final destination. The French TGV is a great ground level airline, but it's not that great a public transport network. I prefer the DB approach.

The improvements in trains speeds might be less impressive, but the improvements in travel speed for a large amount of passengers are. By running HSTs "reasonable close" to urban areas, but not through them you add extra trasfer time costs to the total trip. In France much of the time gain on the TGV is sometimes lost at the first transfer one must make to get to the final destination.

I think you mix facts with fiction. By "fiction" I mean a superimposition of the transport patterns you have seen in German unto a French reality. However, the realities are different. If the TGVs ran like the ICEs, through the country with 6-10 stops, then we would have the problem you describe. But that is normally not the case. If there is a need for more than 3 stops on a certain route then two trains are used. One stops here, another stops there. The best example is the Thalys trains Paris-Brussels. Not ONE SINGLE of them stops in, or at, Lille - a town the size of Cologne. Because... there are other trains for that.

They call this a point-to-point concept, and it is feasible because the French network is incredibly monocentric. Only a tiny fraction of middle- to long-distance train travels in France involve changing trains.

Was the now-cancelled Frankfurt 21 project similar to Stuttgart 21? And are there any other railprojects with the number 21? Also, what does "21" mean, anyway?
Sure, there is for instance Neu-Ulm 21 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10438284@N07/2236788445/). This project comprised lowering the whole railway line as well as a complete remodelling of the station.

There have been propositions for Frankfurt 21 and München 21, too. Both would have meant to build underground pass-through stations instead of the current dead end ones. But only Stuttgart 21 went into a somehow advanced phase of planning though.


@ hans21: Besides of the higher population density in Germany, you realise that Germanys rail network is comletely different from France's, don't you? The main difference is that Germany has a rail "net", which means that there are lots of hubs in medium or small citys connecting whole regions to the "core lines" (Augsburg and Ulm are great examples, everyone who lives south of these cities uses these two stations to jump on the ICE). In order to provide decent connections for these people, it makes sense to have regular stops for ICE trains to allow cross-connections. In France instead, where the whole rail system and traffic volume is orientated to Paris, you have far less hubs and it makes much more sense to have less stops and buildt dedicated HSR stations in the middle of nowhere to speed up trains.
Another effect of it is that passenger amounts in Germany spread on different lines and there aren't many main corridors with such a high amount of passengers like e. g. Lyon-Paris or Madrid-Barcelona. Therefore, in Germany building a massive HSL in lots of cases isn't justified. Finally, I would say that in Germany it needs easily 20 years or more to build a HSL (or motorway) from scratch because of legal restrictions, etc.. Upgrating the existing line is way more easier.

In the case of Stuttgart - Munich, the planned upgrate makes sense to me: a new line between Stuttgart and Ulm which takes long-distance traffic from the old lines (it has a top speed of 70km/h on some stretches and freight trains need extra locomotives to push up on the Alb mountains) on the stretch where it really means massive cuttings in travel time and upgrating the rest where - because of the needed stops in Ulm and Augsburg and the protected environment on the west of Augsburg - a new line wouldn't make much sense.

I think you mix facts with fiction. By "fiction" I mean a superimposition of the transport patterns you have seen in German unto a French reality. However, the realities are different. If the TGVs ran like the ICEs, through the country with 6-10 stops, then we would have the problem you describe.

Repeat again what "problem" we would, according to me, have if the TGVs ran as a network? I don't remembering claiming anything like that...


But that is normally not the case. If there is a need for more than 3 stops on a certain route then two trains are used. One stops here, another stops there. The best example is the Thalys trains Paris-Brussels. Not ONE SINGLE of them stops in, or at, Lille - a town the size of Cologne. Because... there are other trains for that.

Thalys is indeed a good example. Convenient travel from Belgium to anywhere else in France but Paris and Lille has more or less disappeared. From Brussel to any French place in between Brussel and Paris you now need more time than you needed before...
It's the same between Paris and Strassbourg. Paris - Strassbourg is now faster, but most other places in the French northeast now have less long distance trains than before. The result is that speed gains are less than great for a lot of people.

The problem with a different train for every market is that it reduces the number of available options to the traveller.
If you have a train doing A - B - D and another doing A - C -D, you end up with two train services, and still no way to get from B to C...

And when the trains that are offered are badly coordinated you get the situation that you win an hour on Geneva - Avignon because of the TGV, and then lose it again because in Avignon you have to transfer from one station to another first, and then wait over an hour for a regional service to your final destination. The value of a well coordinated network is proportional to the square of the points it connects. The SNCF has decided to forgo that advantage...

They call this a point-to-point concept, and it is feasible because the French network is incredibly monocentric. Only a tiny fraction of middle- to long-distance train travels in France involve changing trains.

Indeed, and the SNCF refuses to even suggest trips on its website with more than two changes, which means that there are station pairs within the SNCF network that they will not sell you tickets for. But the result is not as userfriendly as a true network is. From Switzerland to almost any place in Germany I have a connection every hour, or every two hours, nicely spaced. To places France I often have only one practical connection, or even none at all, even when the place has a railway station...

Repeat again what "problem" we would, according to me, have if the TGVs ran as a network? I don't remembering claiming anything like that....

The "problem" is that a TGV train loses almost 10 minutes each time it stops. In my book HS is for people who travel at least 400 km without change of train. It is unfair to these people to stop the train once every 100 km. (Yes, I know... you'll now be telling me "my book" is unprintable...)


Thalys is indeed a good example. Convenient travel from Belgium to anywhere else in France but Paris and Lille has more or less disappeared. From Brussel to any French place in between Brussel and Paris you now need more time than you needed before...

I don't think that's true. You have connections doing Brussels-Lille in 35 minutes. Since the Northern French connections from Lille to the surroundings have - to my knowledge - not been cut back the opening of the new line to Brussels must have improved connections, if perhaps not DIRECT connections, between the Belgian capital and northern France.

[…]
The best example is the Thalys trains Paris-Brussels. Not ONE SINGLE of them stops in, or at, Lille - a town the size of Cologne. Because... there are other trains for that.
[…]

City of Lille: approx. 225 000 inhabitants.
Agglomeration Lille: 1 Million inhabitants.

City of Cologne: 1 Million inhabitants.
Agglomeration Cologne: More than 3 Million inhabitants.

City of Cologne: 1 Million inhabitants.
Agglomeration Cologne: More than 3 Million inhabitants.

OK, perhaps Cologne is a tad bigger. But to get anywhere near 3 million you'd need to add Bonn and I daresay a chunk of the Ruhr district as well.

OK, perhaps Cologne is a tad bigger. But to get anywhere near 3 million you'd need to add Bonn and I daresay a chunk of the Ruhr district as well.

No, not really.

Cologne/Bonn is 3,8 Million.

Rhine-Ruhr is 7,5 Million.

Together more than 11 Million.

Whole NRW is 18 Million, the biggest state of Germany, bigger than eastern Germany plus Berlin.

No, not really.

Cologne/Bonn is 3,8 Million.


Well, yes. I went on Wikipedia to check, and it appears that, in order to get to 3 million inhabitants (let alone 3.8 million) you'll have to include towns like Leverkusen and Gladbach in the Cologne/Bonn figure. Fair enough, but then you can attribute just under 2 million people to the larger Lille region. I'm not pulling this figure out of a top hat: there are more than 1.9 million people in the "Euroregion Lille" that the authorities in Departement Nord and the neighbouring Belgian municipalities like to talk about.

To get back to my main point, I also went on Google Maps, and I may inform you that the distance from Hamburg to Munich is almost identically the same as the distance from Paris to Marseille. I remind you that the fastest trains between the two French cities take just over 3 hours and stop nowhere. (This is commonly considered as being too slow, and upgrades are planned.) To my knowledge - but I'm ready to be taught if others know better - DB is nowhere near lowering the travel time from the Elbemetropole to the Isar to three hours? Or, perhaps they'll want to start with the new connection Berlin-Munich which is considerably shorter and hence can be easily brought within the 2-2.5 hours band?

My childish provocation is not JUST a childish provocation. I feel that our German friends on this forum are getting a tad schitzophrenic in their argumentation. It would be perfectly respectable to say "we are against modern highspeed train travel. It's not a good solution for our country". (Americans, for example, say this all the time.) But instead we get these half-baked explanations according to which Germany and DB is in favour of highspeed traffic, but.... when someone dares to point out that the effective speed on much of the network falls way short of what most people would consider as HS then the answers become increasingly shrill and aggressive-defensive.

It sometimes remind me of the argumentation of the arch-spoilers from VIEREGG-RÖSSLER who, back in the 1990s would again and again propose alternative high-speed concepts. When someone dared to point out that their concepts often fell short of the performance benchmarks applied elsewhere, the response was equivalent to "Huh!? It's FAST ENOUGH, yes it is!!!" (Scowl....)

The "problem" is that a TGV train loses almost 10 minutes each time it stops. In my book HS is for people who travel at least 400 km without change of train. It is unfair to these people to stop the train once every 100 km. (Yes, I know... you'll now be telling me "my book" is unprintable...)

The solution is to do like the Japanes, and run both non stop and local services. Between Tokyo and Osaka there is a station about every 25km or so, and they run both "locals" and "express" trains there.

So if you have a line A - B - C -D you run a train that stops everywhere, and one that goes not stop, not A - C - D and A - B - D which is less usefull.

I don't think that's true. You have connections doing Brussels-Lille in 35 minutes. Since the Northern French connections from Lille to the surroundings have - to my knowledge - not been cut back the opening of the new line to Brussels must have improved connections, if perhaps not DIRECT connections, between the Belgian capital and northern France.

The problem is that the Brussels - Lille trains all halt at Lille Europe. Furthermore most of them are Eurostars, which you need to turn up for 20 minutes in advance for the stupid check in. The trains to other parts of Northern France leave from Lille Flandres. So you have an extra station transfer to make, and you have the extra check in.
A direct train Brussel - Lille via the existing line could do it in 1h25. To Lille Flandres that is as fast as the Eurostar if you inlcude the extra friction...

That's where DB is far better. By integrating long distance and regional trains in such a way that you can easily transfer from one to the other you save time too.

To get back to my main point, I also went on Google Maps, and I may inform you that the distance from Hamburg to Munich is almost identically the same as the distance from Paris to Marseille. I remind you that the fastest trains between the two French cities take just over 3 hours and stop nowhere.

It's true that the trains run faster, but do the passengers travel faster? Don't just compare trip times major station to major station, but consider minor stations too.

Just compare for example Holzkirchen - Elmshorn with Gisors - Fos-sur-mer. I picked these paris because the distances are similar, and the proportion fo the trip on high speed is also the same. DB easily beats SNCF here. And the reasons are that changing trains in a major German city does not involve a 50 minute trip on the underground, nor do you have to wait two hours for a connecting regional train...

In the German approach the investments benefit larger areas, because the system is better integrated.

The solution is to do like the Japanes, and run both non stop and local services. Between Tokyo and Osaka there is a station about every 25km or so, and they run both "locals" and "express" trains there.

You're preaching to a converted man. I'm very much against this idea that every train shall stop everywhere. It's also how lines such as Paris-Marseille and Paris-Strasbourg operate.However, the remaining issue is where the on-route stations are located and how fast the non-stop trains can pass through them. The French solution, having "pendler stations" outside the major cities, is not merely motivated by knee-jerk centralism. There's a very real problem in that almost every station located in a large French town is a terminus ("Kopfbahnhof"). So, if you service the city centres then you REALLY lose a lot of time. This is one main reason why we have much less "Taktverkehr" in France and a lot of towns serviced by 2-5 dedicated, direct trains to Paris per day - which then DO start and end in the city centres.

My understanding (do you know more?) is that the Japanese have dedicated HS stations that can be passed at close to Vmax? The main problem as I see it in Europe (we'll see about the new Stuttgart, but my main concerns right now are Antwerp and Rotterdam....) is that these city stations invariably involve using, at least for a few miles, the legacy railway architecture. Which in turn compels the train to slow down dramatically and lose a lot of time - even if it happens to be non-stop.


That's where DB is far better. By integrating long distance and regional trains in such a way that you can easily transfer from one to the other you save time too.

I understand your point, and I myself have quietly admired the extreme efficincy - and, hence, intermodality - with which stations like FFM operate. The contrast with places like Gare du Nord is crass. At GdN TGVs and Thalyses routinely clutter up the tracks for 40-50 minutes before even being readied for use. This is ridicuously inefficient and could easily be used to create a better integration with the local hub. Having said that...

...I look forward to the extremely interesting experiment that will be the opening of competition in 2011. It is a foregone conclusion that DB and SNCF will start competing on each others' networks. The French rail magazines are already busy (1) moping; and (2) crowing. Moping because France has invested much more in modern HS tracks close to Germany than vice versa. It's perceived as the neighbour now reading himself to "parasite" on French investment. Crowing because they expect to use the line prolongation to Strasbourg (Paris-Strasbourg in 1h50 - you must admit it's great!?) and the new bridge at Kehl to punch a French fast-nonstop concept through to Stuttgart and Frankfurt.And this time, THIS TIME (so they tell each other...) we'll be our own masters and not have to consent to idiotic stops in "Milchkannen" like Kaiserslautern and Mannheim. Well...

...I think they could be in for a rude surprise. OK, when I travel Paris-FFM (which is quite often) I often figure the stop in Kaiserslautern, where very few people get in and out, must be motivated by politics plus the fact that the train anyway drives so slowly there that there's little to lose. However, Mannheim is a BIIIIG junction where German people change for trains to all over the nation. But.... we'll see. Maybe the French concept will be successful in Germany. Maybe not.

It's true that the trains run faster, but do the passengers travel faster? Don't just compare trip times major station to major station, but consider minor stations too.

Just compare for example Holzkirchen - Elmshorn with Gisors - Fos-sur-mer. I picked these paris because the distances are similar, and the proportion fo the trip on high speed is also the same. DB easily beats SNCF here. And the reasons are that changing trains in a major German city does not involve a 50 minute trip on the underground, nor do you have to wait two hours for a connecting regional train...

In the German approach the investments benefit larger areas, because the system is better integrated.
It's certainly not wrong to connect intercity services with local trains conveniently. This, however, can't be an excuse for the lack of a sophisticated high-speed network. Germany spends as pretty much on high speed lines as France does. It just doesn't get it right. The German high speed network is just a collection of fractions which are aimlessly spread all over the country.

Germany needs to aspire competitive travel times on key connections. Hamburg-München in less than 4 h would be one of them. Traveller from Holzkirchen to Elmshorn would benefit of such improvements as well.

My understanding (do you know more?) is that the Japanese have dedicated HS stations that can be passed at close to Vmax? The main problem as I see it in Europe (we'll see about the new Stuttgart, but my main concerns right now are Antwerp and Rotterdam....) is that these city stations invariably involve using, at least for a few miles, the legacy railway architecture. Which in turn compels the train to slow down dramatically and lose a lot of time - even if it happens to be non-stop.

Well yes, the Shinkansen are entirely new lines and are a different guage to the rest of the network so must be new lines the whole way. And yes, apart from the really major stations they are pretty much Vmax the whole way as well.

^^
Once again, the reason is that the German rail network is completely different from those of centralised countries like France or Spain. We don't have central axises like Paris-Lyon, Paris-Brussels or Madrid-Barcelona! On lots of corridors, building a massive HSL isn't justifieable because the passengers spread on various routes, and therefore, only a few corridors have a really high volume of traffic. HSL make more sense on "core lines" where several lines meet and run on the same route for some time. There's a good reason why the first really long HSL in Germany connected the quite unimportant cities Hannover andWürzburg (where the main corridors split to Stuttgart, Nuremberg and Munich) or to build a relatively short HSL between Cologne and Frankfurt (again, the traffic splits there to Basel, Stuttgart and Würzburg-Nuremberg/Munich). That's the explanation why the system seems to be fractioned and spread across the country if you look at the HSLs only. The most important stretches were buildt first, that's the easy explanation. ;) Time will show if and when the so-called gaps (which often are conventional lines allowing trains to go 200 or more km/h!) ar filled.
Another issue is that there are numberous smaller and medium hubs. In an integrated network, some main HSL corridors don't make sense for the majority of travellers: If you want to go from a less important place A to B, and you can choose between a conventional train going slowly on a direct route or using a fancy 360km/h high speed service for a stretch - which means that you have to do a detour and change trains twice and loosing therefore the time you save on the HSL - what's the better choice? Germany has its HSR integrated in the "normal" rail services which isn't the worse choice. It's simply another approach and leads to better services for large regions, and not only some few cities.
Besides,you have to keep in mind that constructing a HSL is much more expensive in Germany because of the mountaineous terrain than in France, so the same amount in investments doesn't result in the same length of tracks.

Btw.: When the new HSLs Ulm-Stuttgart and Nuremberg-Erfurt(-Leipzig) will be finished, Germany has three parallel running high speed corridors from the north to the south of the country. That's not exactly an incomplete network, is it?

...I look forward to the extremely interesting experiment that will be the opening of competition in 2011.

It will be interesting indeed. One clever thing the DB could do is not only run trains to Paris, but run them to Lille Europe as well, to connect with Eurostar services...

Actually, that is not what DB has planned. On the one hand, it wants to operate on the Channel Tunnel itself, probably in extension of its present Frankfurt-Colgne-Brussels line (so Frankfurt-London via Brussels). How the security arrangements could be made is an open question (the check-in procedure used by Eurostar could not be copied 1:1.)
The other line they have sometimes boasted they will one day run is Frankfurt - Marseille (I suppose via the ring line around Paris). SNCF on the other hand has threatened to barge in on DB's core business and to run Frankfurt-Göttingen-Berlin, a much frequented rail connection (I do not know whether as an extention of present services Paris-Frankfurt or as a seperate line).
However, in recent days, it looks like DB and SNCF are once again looking for a cooperation, both in organization of services and buying new stock. Ultimately I believe this will be of more use for passengers, as we can see on the Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart lines, which are much more interconnected and offer more attractive ticket prices than the Thalys network, which DB sees more like a rival, despite the fact that they own a 10% share of it.

The other line they have sometimes boasted they will one day run is Frankfurt - Marseille (I suppose via the ring line around Paris). SNCF on the other hand has threatened to barge in on DB's core business and to run Frankfurt-Göttingen-Berlin, a much frequented rail connection (I do not know whether as an extention of present services Paris-Frankfurt or as a seperate line).

They wouldn't need to go via Paris. They can use the LGV Rhin-Rhone once that's finished, and in the mean time use the same route Strassbourg - Marseille TGVs take...

They wouldn't need to go via Paris. They can use the LGV Rhin-Rhone once that's finished, and in the mean time use the same route Strassbourg - Marseille TGVs take...

Yes, thank you, I guess that is what they are waiting for, to then run Frankfurt-Mannheim-Karlsruhe, turn over the Rhine somewhere around Mulhouse or Basel and then continue along the Rhin-Rhone and Marseille LGVs.

Besides,you have to keep in mind that constructing a HSL is much more expensive in Germany because of the mountaineous terrain than in France, so the same amount in investments doesn't result in the same length of tracks.

Thun, I agree with many of the points you made (perhaps unfairly I have not bothered to quote them), but I think some of your arguments come a bit cheap at the price. I might counter that Spain, Japan and now China have had to overcome much more formidable mountains than the German "Mittelgebirge". But, you're right, France has it easier.

Another point that annoys me a bit is the way excuses tend to morph over time. We had heard about the difficult topography for 15 solid years by the time DB started on a new(ish) line between Hamburg and Berlin. HERE - or so we thought - Germany finally had an equally easy landscape to work with as the French. But... alas, no new 300+ km/h line was build because an "Ausbaustrecke" was en-tire-ly sufficient. (Although DB officials privately admit it would have been so much better if the train were 10 minutes faster - allowing a "Vollknote"....)

Btw.: When the new HSLs Ulm-Stuttgart and Nuremberg-Erfurt(-Leipzig) will be finished, Germany has three parallel running high speed corridors from the north to the south of the country. That's not exactly an incomplete network, is it?

Well, China has a totally incomplete network. The "completeness" is not just about the number and length of tracks but how well they are tied together. The most "complete" stretch I know of is Hannover-Würzburg, which geographically is in the wrong place, but nobody could have foreseen the reunification when it was built. What are the other north-south corridors? Munich-Nürnberg? Not much of a corridor. Or Cologne-Frankfurt?

Once again, the reason is that the German rail network is completely different from those of centralised countries like France or Spain. We don't have central axises like Paris-Lyon, Paris-Brussels or Madrid-Barcelona! On lots of corridors, building a massive HSL isn't justifieable because the passengers spread on various routes, and therefore, only a few corridors have a really high volume of traffic. HSL make more sense on "core lines" where several lines meet and run on the same route for some time. There's a good reason why the first really long HSL in Germany connected the quite unimportant cities Hannover and Würzburg (where the main corridors split to Stuttgart, Nuremberg and Munich) or to build a relatively short HSL between Cologne and Frankfurt (again, the traffic splits there to Basel, Stuttgart and Würzburg-Nuremberg/Munich). That's the explanation why the system seems to be fractioned and spread across the country if you look at the HSLs only. The most important stretches were buildt first, that's the easy explanation. ;) Time will show if and when the so-called gaps (which often are conventional lines allowing trains to go 200 or more km/h!) ar filled.
That tells me how little you know about the German high speed network. You furthermore misjudge the distribution of population in this country. There are very well axes of aggregations which included the 5 or 6 cities of national importance.
Now, high speed railways are meant to connect exactly these main conurbations, not small and medium sized towns. They are served by slower trains. And this is where the German high speed networks fails to deliver. High speed services are simply not quick enough.

^^
I guess you didn't get my point. In what way, according to you, I don't have knowledge of the German HS network exactly? Population distribution is not the main criteria for the layout of the high speed network, the amount of travelers and how to provide good services for most of them are.
German HSR does connect the main cities, too. But it doesn't necessarily on dedicated HSLs, but on a combination of upgrated lines and new lines. And these new lines are primarily situated where they make most sense - the point is that these locations do not automatically have to be the largest cities (If it would be that way, the Ruhr region would be full of HSLs - in fact, there isn't a single one). In fact, there's not a single ICE line Würzburg-Hannover or so, but these are the hubs where several lines meet and share the HSL between the two cities.

@ Hans: I didn't mention Spain or China with a single word. ;) However, there's obviously no way to argue on that fact. i honestly can't judge the Chinese situation, but the Spanish: Yes, terrain is quite mountaineous there, too. And building a "French-styled" high speed network makes perfect sense because there's little between Madrid and the coasts where it would make sense to stop. Besides, Spain doesn't have a real rail network (where cross-connections would make sense) to integrate in the new HSLs, so you really can focus on connecting the largest cities and densely populated regions (=coasts) amongst each other as fast as possible).

The three HSL north-south connections we'll see in the future are (from west to east) Munich-Stuttgart-Mannheim-Frankfurt-Cologne(-Brussels), Munich-Nuremberg-Kassel-Hannover-Hamburg and Munich-Nuremberg-Erfurt-Leipzig-Berlin. Each one a combination of dedicated HSLs and upgrated stretches resulting in more than 200km/h on the largest part and including some stretches of the newest HSLs with 300km/h top speed. In the northern part, east-west connections are quite good already (Berlin-Hannover-Ruhr, Hamburg-Münster-Ruhr). The largest gap in the future will be the central east-west connection (Frankfurt-Erfurt(-Leipzig-Dresden).

^^I guess we shall then just have to agree to disagree. As I see it, Germany has the following pieces of HS track: (1) Hannover-Wurzburg; (2) Berlin-Wolfsburg; (3) Cologne-Frankfurt; (4) Ingolstadt-Nurnberg; and (5) Mannheim-Stuttgart. This is based on the EU Commission's definition of high-speed rail as offering continuous track with service speeds of no less than 250 km/h. Of course there are several quite serviceable "Ausbaustrecken" here and there allowing (except where they doodle through old city centres at speeds rarely exceeding 120 km/h....) quite decent effective travel speeds. However, this does not in my definition (nor in that of the EU) qualify as a HS network.

^^I guess we shall then just have to agree to disagree. As I see it, Germany has the following pieces of HS track: (1) Hannover-Wurzburg; (2) Berlin-Wolfsburg; (3) Cologne-Frankfurt; (4) Ingolstadt-Nurnberg; and (5) Mannheim-Stuttgart. This is based on the EU Commission's definition of high-speed rail as offering continuous track with service speeds of no less than 250 km/h. Of course there are several quite serviceable "Ausbaustrecken" here and there allowing (except where they doodle through old city centres at speeds rarely exceeding 120 km/h....) quite decent effective travel speeds. However, this does not in my definition (nor in that of the EU) qualify as a HS network.

Semantics don't matter really. What matters is how fast you move people from where they are to where they want to go to. And there integration is the key.

A case to illustrate the differences, and how they affect the passengers. I often have to travel from Switzerland to Belgium. That involves getting from Basel to Brussel.
There are basically three routes from Basel to Brussel. There is the traditional route via Strassbourg and Luxembourg. I never take this route anymore, as it is the slowest, and the SNCF really is going to extrem lenghts to make this train unattractive.
There is the route via Paris. Technically this is the fastest. Shortest trip time 5:43, but involving a change of stations in Paris.
Via Köln with the ICE is 6:20.
Now there are two interesting notes to make here:
- The route via Köln has could be made half an hour faster by better coordinating connections in Köln. That makes it as fast as via Paris, but with a lot less high speed track...
- From most places in Switzerland you are actually as fast in Belgium via Köln as via Paris, as the trains to Germany have easier connections with the Swiss network in Basel...

In France SNCF is only interested in transporting people to/from Paris. In Germany DB must operate a network however, because the population distribution is o different.

Today construction started at Stuttgart HBf.

http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1044166.html

Only in Germany: There were 1500 protestors against that project.

There is an awesome video that shows a ride on the tracks of the new line from Ulm to Stuttgart21.

rbM0RtOXmxI

This project is really stunning. German engineering and architecture at it's best !

Great Video.

Yeah, über-awesome video! :okay:

P.S.: Note the TGV and the Lufthansa A380! :D

make that Glasgow-Ankara :nuts:

Oh jeez, Western European trains are prohibitevly expensive as it is, I honestly can't imagine anybody in his right mind taking such a trip via train.

That video is great!

Today construction started at Stuttgart HBf.

http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1044166.html

Only in Germany: There were 1500 protestors against that project.

Its like that everywhere.

Oh jeez, Western European trains are prohibitevly expensive as it is, I honestly can't imagine anybody in his right mind taking such a trip via train.

I have done Berlin - Istanbul many times. It presently takes about 44 hours, and is relaxing trip in comfortable Eurocitys up to Budapest and then in older but fully functional sleepers where you have usually a cabin to your self.
If you spend a little bit of energy on finding the right price, prices are competitive to flying. And you get to see some of Central and Southeastern Europe's scenery from the window. Highspeed along this line would take much of the romanticism out of this trip, but would make it timewise more competitive.

^
Yes, it might be romantic and an adventure but it is not an economical travel option. Over such distances, rail has no chance against the plane.

Only in Germany: There were 1500 protestors against that project.

These aren't your usual NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard). The project consists of a high speed line towards Ulm and the replacement of the current 16 track terminus station by an 8 track underground one.

The high speed line has relatively little opposition.

However there are very good reasons to oppose the burying of the main station, and a majority (!) of the inhabitants do. Many consider reducing the track count a dumb idea since it prevents the simultaneous meeting of 16 trains for quick changeover between all of them. Also, the trains in the underground station can't wait for delayed connections since they have to clear their track for incoming trains. The travel time saved by the station is only about 5 minutes. So in summary you get reduced capacity and 5 minutes travel time reduction for a very hefty price tag - only because Deutsche Bahn wants to sell the land currently occupied by the station.

These aren't your usual NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard). The project consists of a high speed line towards Ulm and the replacement of the current 16 track terminus station by an 8 track underground one.

The high speed line has relatively little opposition.

However there are very good reasons to oppose the burying of the main station, and a majority (!) of the inhabitants do. Many consider reducing the track count a dumb idea since it prevents the simultaneous meeting of 16 trains for quick changeover between all of them. Also, the trains in the underground station can't wait for delayed connections since they have to clear their track for incoming trains. The travel time saved by the station is only about 5 minutes. So in summary you get reduced capacity and 5 minutes travel time reduction for a very hefty price tag - only because Deutsche Bahn wants to sell the land currently occupied by the station.
This is not correct. The proposed station will have a bigger capacity than the present one which is horribly short of capacity and far from dealing with 16 trains simultaneously.

^
Yes, it might be romantic and an adventure but it is not an economical travel option. Over such distances, rail has no chance against the plane.

Wait till oil hits 200$ a barrel...

In France SNCF is only interested in transporting people to/from Paris. In Germany DB must operate a network however, because the population distribution is o different.

The argument is going on since so long that I don't understand anymore what is at stake here.

From my point of view, the TGV does very well what it was designed for. France human and physical geography makes it worthwile to have long point-to-point HSLs centered on Paris. These lines are the most profitable, the ones that are generating the most traffic. And by chaneling inter-province movements on those mainlines you maximize profit and investment. Economically speaking, that's very logical and desirable. In this scheme, the "beet-field" stations are just anecdotical, most of the trains originated in "Hauptbahnhöfe".

The true HSN is still incomplete and with the developpment of Regional and IR network (in the hand of local governement since the mid 00s) the bad side of this hyper-centralization should grow thinner in next decades.

Wait till oil hits 200$ a barrel...

Even at that price it would be cheaper and more convenient to fly that distance.

Sitting in a train for more than 5-6 hours is just weird if there is a quicker and cheaper option available. .

These aren't your usual NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard). The project consists of a high speed line towards Ulm and the replacement of the current 16 track terminus station by an 8 track underground one.

The high speed line has relatively little opposition.

However there are very good reasons to oppose the burying of the main station, and a majority (!) of the inhabitants do. Many consider reducing the track count a dumb idea since it prevents the simultaneous meeting of 16 trains for quick changeover between all of them. Also, the trains in the underground station can't wait for delayed connections since they have to clear their track for incoming trains. The travel time saved by the station is only about 5 minutes. So in summary you get reduced capacity and 5 minutes travel time reduction for a very hefty price tag - only because Deutsche Bahn wants to sell the land currently occupied by the station.

Regional trains that begin/end in Stuttgart Hbf. might be able to stop in front of each other on one track (so you have one platform for two trains, on going e. g. to the east and one to the west). It works fine that way e. g. in Augsburg. Therefore, 8 tracks do not necessarily have to equal only 8 trains at the same time.

This is not correct. The proposed station will have a bigger capacity than the present one which is horribly short of capacity and far from dealing with 16 trains simultaneously.

The capacity increase was computed by assuming that local trains need to stop 6 minutes in the terminus station and only 1 minute in the new underground one. That is not realistic: In Zurich, local trains stop 5 minutes in the terminus part and 2 minutes in the underground one.

There are capacity problems in the old terminus station, but they can be fixed for a much lower price by building some short bridges and tunnels that allow conflict free departures.

But most importantly: A station with only 4 tracks per direction forever prevents the meeting of a large number of trains that allows changeover from every train to every other train - a highly successful concept used in Switzerland.

Sitting in a train for more than 5-6 hours is just weird if there is a quicker and cheaper option available. .

It's no different than sitting in an airplane for 5-6 hours.

It's no different than sitting in an airplane for 5-6 hours.

It is, it is much more relaxed. Especially since many modern trains have improved leg room etc. nowadays. You can move about, change the scene by going to the dining car etc. In the cramped space of average economy class airliners, things become more claustrophobi quickly. Recently after being kept waiting on the runway for four hours (something not so unusual this winter), passengers created an uproar, attacked the pilot, opened the emergency exit, etc. all due to a feeling of claustrophobia.
I think there is no question that train travel can be made much more agreeable than flying. The question is really though whether people are willing to accept the overall longer travel time on distances 300km+ and whether railways can keep upt the uneven competition if airlines continue to be subsized by being granted tax-free petrol.

^^Baron, I think you're being unfair to the railways when you speak of the "overall longer travel time on distances 300km+". It used to be a dictum that trains are mostly faster than planes, on a point-to-point basis, when the train travel takes at most 3 hours. With the airport security hysteria of recent years I guess the limit is more like 3.5 hours, and statistics showing the relative share of railways in collective transport seem to corroborate this. Hence, if I am right then modern state-of-the-art railways give trains an "overall shorter travel time" on distances <800km.

But most importantly: A station with only 4 tracks per direction forever prevents the meeting of a large number of trains that allows changeover from every train to every other train - a highly successful concept used in Switzerland.

So successfull that SBB is building a four track underground station under Zürich HBF that will be used for long distance trains from 2013 onwards...

Even at that price it would be cheaper and more convenient to fly that distance.

I doubt it. Fuel makes up a large part of the price of flying. When oil went over 100$ a barrel none of the airlines in Europe were making money. Even Ryanair was operating at a loss, and was only saved because of the crisis lowering oil demand (and thus prices).

At 200$ a barrel count on many lines being discontinued. Then trains come back in to the picture for longer flights.

Remember that we can run a train on nuclear power, but so far have not found a way to do the same thing with a plane...


Sitting in a train for more than 5-6 hours is just weird if there is a quicker and cheaper option available. .

I prefer 8 hours in the train to 2 hours flying anytime. Don't forget that you also need to get to the aiport and back. With a good integrated system your trip starts at your local station, not in some far away airport. Their are far more railway stations than airports.

If I want to visit my relatives (most of who live two countries away...) I have two options.
1) train - plane - train
2) train al the way.

Option 1) takes 6 hours.
1 1/2 hour to the airport.
1 hour waiting/hanging around/trying not to strangle the employees at the security check.
1 1/2 hour flight.
1/2 hour getting of the plane, collecting luggage etc...
1 1/2 hour getting to my final destination by train.

option 2) takes 8 hours. I have a departure every hour, and never have more than 10 minutes waiting time for connections. So I spend most of that time in a comfortable train, watching DVDs or just surfing the internet.

Price of option 2 is about a third of option 1. Even less when there's two of us.
To me it's a no brainer, especially as by train I can leave after breakfast, and be at my destination before dinner. To me that is perfect timing. Lunch I have on the train. All the plane options either require me to leave earlier or accept arriving later.

For longer distances there is the night train. Fortunately the train to our favorite holiday destination is still going strong.

... and whether railways can keep upt the uneven competition if airlines continue to be subsized by being granted tax-free petrol.

Actually railways don't pay taxes on their fuel or energy use either in most European countries, so air doesn't enjoy an unfair advantage here.

But most importantly: A station with only 4 tracks per direction forever prevents the meeting of a large number of trains that allows changeover from every train to every other train - a highly successful concept used in Switzerland.
A concept that doesn't work out in Germany anyway. Even if there were the funds that the Swiss could afford and the TOC was as reliable as the SBB there are still a lot of major stations that simply don't have enough platforms to serve all trains at the same time.

A concept that doesn't work out in Germany anyway. Even if there were the funds that the Swiss could afford and the TOC was as reliable as the SBB there are still a lot of major stations that simply don't have enough platforms to serve all trains at the same time.

So you're saying there's not enough money and not enough platforms? And spending lots of money to reduce the number of platforms is a good idea, then?

I agree, though, that Deutsche Bahn needs to improve punctuality for the meetup concept to work well. However the current station works better in the face of bad punctuality, since trains can wait for connections - which they can't in the underground one, because they have to clear the tracks for the next trains.

Note that the meetup concept is used more or less in other stations already, for example Mannheim and Ulm. Even if you can't do it perfectly everywhere, there's no reason not to do it as well as you can where you can.

So you're saying there's not enough money and not enough platforms? And spending lots of money to reduce the number of platforms is a good idea, then?
Maybe not this way. But providing a non-terminus station is basically a good idea.

However the current station works better in the face of bad punctuality, since trains can wait for connections - which they can't in the underground one, because they have to clear the tracks for the next trains.

It all depends how many trains/directions you need to serve during one timetable "pulse".
With the new setup they can have four trains arrive simultanously from four different directions. Two minutes later four more trains arrive. You then have eight trains standing at the platforms. You let them all stay four minutes, then you have four departures, and two minutes later another four departures. Every train has a six minute stop, but you only have used up about 10 minutes of station capacity, so you can repeat that six times. In practice you could have four "pulses" per hour. You could use two for long distance trains, and two for regional trains. That means that for transfers from regional trains to regional trains and from long distance trains to long distance trains transfer times will be short. Only from regional trains to long distance trains can there be a 15 minute wait, but that is acceptable.
(This is buy the way how the SBB runs Bern Hbf. The long distance trains arrive and leave on the top of the hour and the half hour, many regional trains however are bundled around the quarters.)

I think that thus used the eight tracks would be sufficient.

If you spend a little bit of energy on finding the right price, prices are competitive to flying.

Can you please give examples just for comparison? I'm really curious.

Why Stuttgart 21 is designed for top speed 250 km/h? Most new high speed lines around the world are designed now for speed even faster than 300 km/h. Most high speed lines in Germany are still for 250 km/h Have you got any plans about upgrade them to 300 km/h?

Why Stuttgart 21 is designed for top speed 250 km/h? Most new high speed lines around the world are designed now for speed even faster than 300 km/h. Most high speed lines in Germany are still for 250 km/h Have you got any plans about upgrade them to 300 km/h?

because they are cheap

of course being german, they have a thousand ways of justifying it, but basically they are too mean and cheap to do a proper job

^^I appreciate your little provocation, Gramercy. However, I think you're barking up the wrong tree: it's not because the Germans are cheap, it's because they are very provincial. Every well-functioning highspeed network that I know of works like an autoroute (Autobahn, freeway, watever...) on rails. Like the car on a fast road the highspeed train CAN always do a detour and visit a city centre, but it MUST never do this.

The Germans don't like the idea of train lines running around their medium-sized provincial cities. It wouldn't be "fair". It would mean the new investments are chiefly for some Germans rather than other Germans. On top of this comes one political and one practical constraint: (1) local politicians are much more powerful than, say, in France and Britain and they'll fight dirty to secure that every train on the line must stop in their city; (2) the Germans are European champions in changing trains. Almost every long-distance train travel involves changing at some junction, so designing the network for a fast passthrough of non-stop trains does not seem to make sense to them.

IMO both problems could be overcome if they put their minds to them. But, seeing as they do not, it would be madness to raise the line speed to 300 km/h. The trains have to slow down in order to drive through some city centre once every 100 km! This alone would pretty much eliminate any advantage of really high speeds. 300 km/h as opposed to 250 km/h makes a noticable difference only when you drive at least 300 km nonstop.

^^
Oh god, didn't you learn anything on the last 5 pages? German HSR works different than the French or Spanish one, just like the rest of the German railway system does. That doesn't mean that it's worse, just that it fultills a somehow different purpose. Fullstop.

Its 250km/h because the plans are quite old, I think. And it passes a mountain range which means steep tracks. And finally Stuttgart - Ulm is so short that there'll practically no difference between 250 and 300km/h which would hardly justify a more expensive HSL.

And for your interest, hans: There'll be no stop on that route.

first of all, this line should connect to the french and the austrian border
we should think of this as a Paris-Istanbul connection, but everyone except the french are too short-sighted to do that
this line should be the high-speed backbone on the scale of europe from east to west
and thats why it should be 360 as opposed to 250

and for the record, i don't buy any of their excuses:
the line is only this long, because they are too cheap even to connect stuttgart with munchen, the terrain is nowhere near as difficult as it will be on the riviera or as it is in japan, and the fact that the plans are old just shows they don't have the balls to do it fast and good

the only countries that have what it takes are: France, Spain, Japan, China

Nobody in Germany needs a Paris-Istanbul high speed rail. 360km/h high speed rail is a waste of tax money. People can fly such distances.

Do we have to be dogmatic about everything in this forum? I find there are two main problems with the DB way of building & operating highspeed rails. The one is, as Hans mentioned: if you want to run a high-speed network, than it only pays off if the high-speed stretch is long. The 300 km/h Stuttgart-Ingolstadt HSL recently had to reduce its speed to 160 km/h temporarily, and this ran up only a ten-minute delay, as the stretch is too short to make any difference (Ingolstadt-Munich continues at a snail's pace). So to build short stretches of ultra-highspeed is really a waste of tax-payers money: the most comic example is Cologne-Düren (towards the Belgian border), where trains speed up to 250 kmh for all of 40 km!
The question of having or not having in-between stations on these long stretches of high-speed are not really to be solved by dogmatic debate (must stop - must not stop), but by flexible operation. The Berlin - Frankfurt non-stop train (ICE-Sprinter) runs the whole distance for little over 3 1/2 hours; it only runs twice a day and demands mandatory reservation and a stiff surcharge of 11,50 Euros. Still it manages to be crammed full. The ordinary ICE's need over 4 hours because they stop in several medium-size Lower Saxony and Hesse towns. While there is no reason to close down these cities to ICE traffic completely, there is also no need why every single ICE must stop in Fulda or Göttingen and people travelling from Berlin to southwestern Germany must choose between losing half an hour or paying a fine. The TGV Mediterranee for example runs a flexible progrma in sometimes stopping in towns like Aix and sometimes not, and does not demand extra if it does not. So build those in between stations, see if people use them, if not, reduce the stops accordingly. Flexible operating, some non-stop trains and careful planning in construction can do much more to improve German high-speed than a fetishism for speeds of 300 or 360 kmh.

Oh god, didn't you learn anything on the last 5 pages? German HSR works different than the French or Spanish one, just like the rest of the German railway system does.

Thun, I wish you would relate to what I say rather than what you THINK I say. OK, so you may have taken offence from the word "provincial", but I'm not advocating a French/Hispanic solution for Germany. I'm a fluent German speaker and a monthly reader of German railway magazines, so please don't tell me I haven't a clue.

And it passes a mountain range which means steep tracks. And finally Stuttgart - Ulm is so short that there'll practically no difference between 250 and 300km/h which would hardly justify a more expensive HSL.

This is precisely what I'm talking about! If you bother to re-read my posting you'll see that the point about 250-versus-300 is exactly what I said. But, if you absolutely want confrontation, let me mention that there are no "mountain range" to cross between Berlin and Hamburg. One or two decades ago the whole world of highspeed lovers were waiting to see what ultra-highspeed solutions Deutsche Bahn would come up in this flat landscape where their habitual argument about "Mittelgebirge" for once did not apply. Well... the whole world was disappointed.

And for your interest, hans: There'll be no stop on that route.

That route (between Wendlingen and Ulm) is 60 km long. Of course there are no stops. There are no stops on the 740 km between Paris and Marseille either.

And on that note...

The question of having or not having in-between stations on these long stretches of high-speed are not really to be solved by dogmatic debate (must stop - must not stop), but by flexible operation. The Berlin - Frankfurt non-stop train (ICE-Sprinter) runs the whole distance for little over 3 1/2 hours; it only runs twice a day and demands mandatory reservation and a stiff surcharge of 11,50 Euros. Still it manages to be crammed full. The ordinary ICE's need over 4 hours because they stop in several medium-size Lower Saxony and Hesse towns. While there is no reason to close down these cities to ICE traffic completely, there is also no need why every single ICE must stop in Fulda or Göttingen and people travelling from Berlin to southwestern Germany must choose between losing half an hour or paying a fine. The TGV Mediterranee for example runs a flexible progrma in sometimes stopping in towns like Aix and sometimes not, and does not demand extra if it does not.

...I totally agree with the Baron about a need for flexible programs. The idea that every train must stop everywhere is IMO radically unsound. The only point I would say that his lordship passes over a bit too casually is the issue of dedicated versus legacy railway stations. Even if it were decided to send several sprinters, or quasi-sprinters with a few stops, down the line every day then the passtrough of city centres and old railway stations en route would be a serious drag. The TGV stops in Aix, Avignon and Valences take place in dedicated stations which can, if the train is NOT destined to stop, be passed through at 300 km/h. A TGV visits a city centre only if it has that city as its end station. IMHO this is the Achilles heel of the German system: even the "fast" trains lose so much time driving in slow-motion through towns such as, like you mentioned, Fulda and Kassel...

...I totally agree with the Baron about a need for flexible programs. The idea that every train must stop everywhere is IMO radically unsound. The only point I would say that his lordship passes over a bit too casually is the issue of dedicated versus legacy railway stations. Even if it were decided to send several sprinters, or quasi-sprinters with a few stops, down the line every day then the passtrough of city centres and old railway stations en route would be a serious drag. The TGV stops in Aix, Avignon and Valences take place in dedicated stations which can, if the train is NOT destined to stop, be passed through at 300 km/h. A TGV visits a city centre only if it has that city as its end station. IMHO this is the Achilles heel of the German system: even the "fast" trains lose so much time driving in slow-motion through towns such as, like you mentioned, Fulda and Kassel...
Cut DB some slack. This was the first highspeed route they built and they did not quite foresee the future of high-speed rail yet. They have learned from that to some degree. The Berlin - Hannover HSL, which otherwhise follows the 19th c. rail route, circles around Stendhal, so as not to pass by the city center (except in the early mornings and late at night).
The Cologne - Frankfurt HSL was built French style, avoiding medium-size cities such as Bonn and Koblenz, although they are far larger than Göttingen or Fulda. Granted, the in-between stops in Limburg and Montabaur were mostly to satisfy regional politicians, and to my knowledge see only a stop early in the morning and late at night. The stop in Siegburg, a remote suburb of Bonn, however seems to generate enough traffic for an hourly stop. To repeat, the problem is the hodgepodge of different systems not operated or built under a common concept.

While there is no reason to close down these cities to ICE traffic completely, there is also no need why every single ICE must stop in Fulda or Göttingen and people travelling from Berlin to southwestern Germany must choose between losing half an hour or paying a fine. The TGV Mediterranee for example runs a flexible progrma in sometimes stopping in towns like Aix and sometimes not, and does not demand extra if it does not.

There is however a very good reason for having a service pattern that repeats every hour. So a particular service either doesn't stop in a station, or it stops there every hour.
The irregular schedules on the French TGV network have as main disadvantage that a lot of the time gets lost due to the lack of tight coordination.
If I travel from Switzerland to some place in the Rhone - Alpes region I first need to take one of the two daily TGVs from Geneva to Avignon. This TGV stops at Avignon TGV. There I then need to take a bus to Avignon Centra, where i may or may not have a good connection with a regional train. Last time I went through there we lost all the time gained on the high speed line this way.
A more intelligently designed system would have hourly TGVs from Lyon to Avignon Centre, and hourly conventional trains from Geneva to Lyon. If you coordinate things properly you can save travelers a lot of time.

A good system gives the traveller the option to go when he wants. To the average traveller a train that takes 4 hours, but runs every hour, has a higher value than a train that takes 3 hours, but only runs twice a day.

The French can learn a lot from the Germans (and especially the Swiss) when it comes to network design.

When I want to travel from Switzerland to Belgium I'm often faster via Germany, even though the top speeds are lower in Germany. it's just that via Germany I waste less time in transfers...

Cut DB some slack. This was the first highspeed route they built and they did not quite foresee the future of high-speed rail yet. They have learned from that to some degree.

I don't disagree with you, and I'd say the best is still to come. The Rhein-Main/Rhein-Neckar connection which DB is about to embark upon is apparently going to - after long and tortuous negotiations - going to bypass both Mannheim and Darmstadt, be laid out for 300 km/h, and connect with Frankfurt-Cologne line at Frankfurt Airport. That's going to create what we might call Germany's first "true" highspeed line from Cologne at full speed, avoiding all city-centres, until its next stop in Stuttgart. :cheers:

The irregular schedules on the French TGV network have as main disadvantage that a lot of the time gets lost due to the lack of tight coordination.

My personal perspective might be different. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I live in Paris? :)

But, of course you're right. The main advantage of the TGV concept can at the same time be a problem. The point-to-point concept implies that the trains running out of Paris in direction Marseille do one out of three things in Lyon: (1) pass by without stop at top speed; (2) stop at the highspeed station next to St. Exupery airport; (3) stop in the city centre - but in that case it's their end station. In terms of maximising the travel speed between any two points on the line it's ideal. But it doesn't allow "Taktverkehr". And it can be a royal pain if one needs to change trains. Luckily...

...most people in France don't need to change trains. Statistics show that a majority of medium to long-distance trips made by French people in France have Paris as either their starting or end point. :)

I don't disagree with you, and I'd say the best is still to come. The Rhein-Main/Rhein-Neckar connection which DB is about to embark upon is apparently going to - after long and tortuous negotiations - going to bypass both Mannheim and Darmstadt, be laid out for 300 km/h, and connect with Frankfurt-Cologne line at Frankfurt Airport.
Well, you seem to know more than most of us. The most recent news was the drop of the proposed Mannheim bypass. I would be surprise but also delighted if it would go through nevertheless.

That's going to create what we might call Germany's first "true" highspeed line from Cologne at full speed, avoiding all city-centres, until its next stop in Stuttgart.
All trains call at Frankfurt(M)Flughafen. There is no way and no need to skip this station.

I based my comment on the following document, posted by Deutsche Bahn: http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/shared/de/dateianhaenge/infomaterial/projektbau/daten__fakten__neubaustrecke__rhein__main__neckar.pdf.

But... if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. I'm also sorry to hear that, according to you, Frankfurt Flughafen is intended as a "Pflichthalt" on this line. I thought - naively perhaps - that it would serve in a capacity similar as St. Exupery on the Paris-Marseille line.

I based my comment on the following document, posted by Deutsche Bahn: http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/shared/de/dateianhaenge/infomaterial/projektbau/daten__fakten__neubaustrecke__rhein__main__neckar.pdf.

But... if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. I'm also sorry to hear that, according to you, Frankfurt Flughafen is intended as a "Pflichthalt" on this line. I thought - naively perhaps - that it would serve in a capacity similar as St. Exupery on the Paris-Marseille line.
It's not intended it is rather set in stone. There are no dedicated tracks to allow full speed through services in the first place. And the radius of the link to the Riedbahn just east of the station doesn't seem to be designed for too great velocity anyway.

@ Hans: So you basically see the point it makes sense that German ICEs call at the historic Hauptbahnhöfe and not on the open field like the TGV can? Well, if you could come up with an idea how to explain the desperate need to build bypasses for all medium cities for some few ICE Sprinter (like you say) to tyx payers and environmentalists, why don't you share it with us. ;)
I never said that the ICE Sprinter isn't a good idea, but the lines where it really works are probably quite limited as most German travellers don't share the same destination (like Paris in France or Madrid in Barcelona) but change more often trains. That's why Germany has a dense network and not some loose spider's net like France or Spain. ;)

Trying to plan the Wendlingen-Ulm line for more than 250km/h now would cuase delays of several years or even decades because the whole permission process would start again. And that for a line that is desperately needed.
Another thing is that it will be used for freight trains, too (as the current line is way too steep for heavier trains), so 300km/h maybe wouldn't be possible anyway? :dunno:

@ Hans: So you basically see the point it makes sense that German ICEs call at the historic Hauptbahnhöfe and not on the open field like the TGV can? Well, if you could come up with an idea how to explain the desperate need to build bypasses for all medium cities for some few ICE Sprinter (like you say) to tyx payers and environmentalists, why don't you share it with us.

I think there is a basic issue of philosophy here. If ICE/TGV lines are seen as an improvement of an existing railway network then, indeed, there may be little reason for any of this. However, this is not how TGV was sold to the French populace. It was sold as a replacement for the domestic air traffic. The fact that these "rail planes" could, and did, continue onto the legacy railway line was at the time seen as something absolutely secondary. It still is.

Which is why there were few words of protest when, for example, the first LGV from Paris to Lyon was optimised to bypass Dijon at a distance of about 40 km. It deprived Dijon the privilege of being situated on the country's main railway line, but, hey, the plane between Paris and Lyon does not make an intermediate landing in Dijon, so why should the TGV?

It is also whey the TGVs Paris-Marseille that stop in Avignon and Aix en Provence did not originally allow on-passengers from these towns to Marseille. The stop was for people to get out only. This has since changed, but as you need a prior seat reservation to travel on TGVs effectively they are not used for local traffic of less than 100 km. - Tell you the truth, the first time I took the ICE Paris Est-Frankfurt I was surprised to see people get in at Mannheim in order to travel to FFM. This kind of transport, I thought, was surely for the local - not the international - trains?

So then, if the German government had followed a TGV concept, they would have started with a few, long, fast lines connecting Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart. During this process they would have told citizens in all agglomerations of less than 1 million people to "die Klappe halten", because this investment was not for them. In this Bahnkonzept it makes 100% sense to bypass most of the historic Hauptbahnhöfe in the country. If ICEs are used to transport people from Kaiserslautern to Mannheim then it makes none. But, then again...

...the trust of my argument is that only people travelling more than 200 km without changing trains should be allowed on ICE/TGV trains. Only thus can you avoid a pollution of the highspeed concept.

...the trust of my argument is that only people travelling more than 200 km without changing trains should be allowed on ICE/TGV trains. Only thus can you avoid a pollution of the highspeed concept.

But thus you also keep those trains from making money...
Most people travelling on the trains in Germany don't travel 200 kph. If you take the line Basel - Mannheim for example, you 'll see that most people who travel on that line only travel a few stops.
The SNCF would run on such a line a train pair Basel - Köln, and one train pair Basel - Mannheim and one trainpair Basel - Frankfurt... etc..
DB in stead runs an hourly service that stops at all major places, offering more frequent service between more city pairs than SNCF would. Such a service has a higher value to the customer.

...most people in France don't need to change trains. Statistics show that a majority of medium to long-distance trips made by French people in France have Paris as either their starting or end point. :)

That's a chicken-and-egg problem. Since traveling by train in France is only convenient if it is to or from Paris, mostly only people traveling to or from Paris will take the train. The others drive.

Anyway, we will see a "takfahrplan" being implemented in France too. RFF is going to impose one on SNCF...

All trains call at Frankfurt(M)Flughafen. There is no way and no need to skip this station.

And it makes good sense to stop there. This way the train can pick up airline passengers, thus reducing the need for short haul flights.

I based my comment on the following document, posted by Deutsche Bahn: http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/shared/de/dateianhaenge/infomaterial/projektbau/daten__fakten__neubaustrecke__rhein__main__neckar.pdf.

But... if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. I'm also sorry to hear that, according to you, Frankfurt Flughafen is intended as a "Pflichthalt" on this line. I thought - naively perhaps - that it would serve in a capacity similar as St. Exupery on the Paris-Marseille line.

It makes a lot of sense though. The travel time from FFM to Stuttgart is going to be 53 minutes, which means that with hourly trains you can create nice hubs in both FFM and Stuttgart.

I think there is a basic issue of philosophy here.

That's all what I'm trying to say. You'll hardly find two German cities which create that amount of travellers beween each other that you could justify a non-stop 360kph HSL. Germany is not France and neither Spain with one single central rail hub. In the case of Italy it works only because you can quite easily bundle north-south traffic on one single HSL, so it isn't comparable to Germany either.
Therefore, the ICE concept with speeding up traffic between the old hubs is more appropriate because a lot more travellers have an advantage out of it.

That's a chicken-and-egg problem. Since traveling by train in France is only convenient if it is to or from Paris, mostly only people traveling to or from Paris will take the train. The others drive.

Not quite chicken and egg. The studies I saw (more than ten years ago, but still...) included everyday travel by car, bus, train and plane at distances exceeding 300 km inside France. (But excluding holiday travels - where families at least invariably "crowd into the car".) It was this study that showed a majority of travels to or from Paris.

It makes sense, I suppose. Most of these "déplacements" will have been for business or work purposes. Only one fifth of the French population lives in Paris. But one third of the economy lies in Paris. More than half of the "large scale commercial" economy (leaving out farming, tourism, shopping, construction...) lies in Paris. And, the parts of the LSC economy that are not located in Paris depend on at least weekly contacts with business parters who are in Paris for the continuation of their business. It is this situation where half the "people with money" live in Paris and where the other half are in concstant contact with Paris, that has given us the monocentric network that is the LGV lines.

Okay, but in that case, you are signing off international travels to the airlines completely. Granted, national traffic still far surpasses international traffic even in the European Union. But nowadays HSL is a success between London, Paris and Brussels, and possibly soon France and Spain will link up their networks. Are we in Central Europe just to shrug our shoulders and accept that between Paris and Vienna or between Berlin and Venice people will always fly, so we should not even bother to create an attractive railway net between places so far apart?

Most people travelling on the trains in Germany don't travel 200 kph. If you take the line Basel - Mannheim for example, you 'll see that most people who travel on that line only travel a few stops.

You don't cite me correctly, K. (For starters, who said anything about 200 kph? We were not discussing speed... :lol:) Of course there are more people on local trains than on the big TGV/ICE lines. There are also far more passengers on any one of the Paris Metro's lines every day than on the Eurostar. But it doesn't follow that the Eurostar shall be forced to stop five times in the Parisian suburbs.

My point is, there are high-speed trains and regional trains. Local areas such as the Rheintal that you mention SHOULD be well served with frequent and fast connections. (Why not though REGIONAL highspeed trains? The Brits have started in the south east, the Dutch and the Belgians are beginning. We even have a tad of that in Northern France...) All I'm saying is, there should ALSO be trains running 500 km through the country without having to stop or slow down. Is that thought offensive to you?

It makes a lot of sense though. The travel time from FFM to Stuttgart is going to be 53 minutes, which means that with hourly trains you can create nice hubs in both FFM and Stuttgart.
Which is a rather bad idea. The bigger and more important hubs are Frankfurt/M and München. A decent travel time would be 2 h which requires Frankfurt/M-Stuttgart to be quicker than 50 min.

That's all what I'm trying to say. You'll hardly find two German cities which create that amount of travellers beween each other that you could justify a non-stop 360kph HSL.
There are seven/eight cities that justify fast services between them. Just because DB doesn't offer such services doesn't mean there is no demand for it.

You don't cite me correctly, K. (For starters, who said anything about 200 kph? We were not discussing speed... :lol:) Of course there are more people on local trains than on the big TGV/ICE lines. There are also far more passengers on any one of the Paris Metro's lines every day than on the Eurostar. But it doesn't follow that the Eurostar shall be forced to stop five times in the Parisian suburbs.

Sorry, my typo. I meant 200km. What I mean is that wone of the great advantages of a train over a plane is that a train can serve a whole lot of destination pairs at once easily, whereas a plane only serves two points.
DB makes advantage of that.


My point is, there are high-speed trains and regional trains. Local areas such as the Rheintal that you mention SHOULD be well served with frequent and fast connections. (Why not though REGIONAL highspeed trains? The Brits have started in the south east, the Dutch and the Belgians are beginning. We even have a tad of that in Northern France...) All I'm saying is, there should ALSO be trains running 500 km through the country without having to stop or slow down. Is that thought offensive to you?

The thought of having trains run 500km non stop through the country is not offensive to me. However, on that kind of distances the market usually isn't there to justify a train every hour. And in my opinion a train service that runs less than once an hour is not justifiable.
So having a train every hour with a few well thought out stops is the best solution. Especially if you integrate it well with the other sevices. The SCNF might be faster from TGV station to TGV station than DB is, but the overal system speed is higher in Germany, which means that most people, who do not live near a TGV station, are better served. In France when a TGV line opens the level of service usually drops everywhere nearby, except for a few privliged places.
I'm not interested that much in a train service that is competitive with air. I don't fly anyway. I'm interested in a train service that gets me from my local station to my destination with the least fuss, and the least hanging around in stations.
The best illustration of the value of tight integration is the fact that from Switzerland to Belgium you are often as fast via Germany as via France...

And in my opinion a train service that runs less than once an hour is not justifiable.

Er... why would that be? This means, just as an example, that the entire train service in the Russian south and east are not "justifiable". I'll grant you that it makes sense to have hourly services between, say, Basel and Zürich (yes, I know, I know... they have had Halbstundentakt for some years now. The Swiss railway lovers couldn't get them arms down...) or Munich and Nürnberg, but are you saying that areas and countries that cannot justify hourly service should have no trains at all?

I'm not interested that much in a train service that is competitive with air. I don't fly anyway.

That's obviously a key part of our disagreement. I fly far more often than I like. At least 20-25 times a year, and mostly within Europe. Moreover, it's employer paid so I couldn't care less about the costs. I'd sorely like to be able to sit into a train in Paris and travel to Frankfurt, to Amsterdam or to Zurich in less than 3 hours (all of which should be possible - they're all nearer Paris than Marseille). But... I wouldn't take the train from CH to Belgium. I'd fly. :)

The thought of having trains run 500km non stop through the country is not offensive to me. However, on that kind of distances the market usually isn't there to justify a train every hour. And in my opinion a train service that runs less than once an hour is not justifiable.
Not a single ICE line between Frankfurt/M and Stuttgart or Basel operates an hourly service. I don't get you why these services weren't justified.
The best illustration of the value of tight integration is the fact that from Switzerland to Belgium you are often as fast via Germany as via France...
Can you prove it? The queries I started return the message that the SNCF is way faster than anything else.

Can you prove it? The queries I started return the message that the SNCF is way faster than anything else.

Good point. I also went on the DB and SNCF travellers sites and it appears that the fastest you can travel between Zurich and Brussels is 6h43. This is obtained by a combination of (1) taking the TGV (!) to Paris-Est; (2) walking from Paris-Est to Paris-Nord; and (3) taking the TGV clone Thalys from Paris-Nord to Brussels.

Geographically, Zurich-Frankfurt-Brussels would seem to make more sense but... there you go, it is slower.

That's obviously a key part of our disagreement. I fly far more often than I like. At least 20-25 times a year, and mostly within Europe. Moreover, it's employer paid so I couldn't care less about the costs. I'd sorely like to be able to sit into a train in Paris and travel to Frankfurt, to Amsterdam or to Zurich in less than 3 hours (all of which should be possible - they're all nearer Paris than Marseille). But... I wouldn't take the train from CH to Belgium. I'd fly. :)

Business travel is different than leasure travel. My impression is that when on business the middle of the day is important, whereas when I'm visiting friends or relatives it's the evenings that count. When I visit my relatives in Belgium I want to be there before dinner. It just turns out that this means I have to leave at nine weather I fly or take the train. The train is howevertwo to three times cheaper, and the ICE trains through Germany are quite comfortable. Isually spend the whole trip doing stuff on my laptop.

Not a single ICE line between Frankfurt/M and Stuttgart or Basel operates an hourly service. I don't get you why these services weren't justified.


You can board an ICE in Basel at 8:12 and be in Köln exaclty 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 9:12 and be in Köln exactly 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 10:13, at 11:12, 12:12, 13:12 and so on. Leave Basel an hour later, and you're in Köln an hour later. That throughout the whole day. That is an hourly service to me. I agree that some of these departures require a change in Mannheim, but that is not a big obstacle. It's by well coordinating services that you make it possible to travel between two destination pairs every hour, with the travel time not being dependent on when you leave. That is convenient for the traveller and saves time.

Can you prove it? The queries I started return the message that the SNCF is way faster than anything else.

I can prove it. The SNCF might be "way faster" between major TGV stations, but it all changes once you are not travelling between major stations. The other thing is that both Switzerland, Germany and Belgium have trains running to a fixed hourly schedule, so that if one potential route is half an hour faster than the other it doesn't really matter in the end.

the other thing is that my regular trips illustrate quite pointetly how speading up trains can bring absolutely nothing if not coordinated.
It used to be that the trains from Brussel to Köln arrived there at a quarter to the hour, and the train to Basel left from Köln at five minutes to the hour. That gave a nice tight ten minute transfer. Now that the new high speed railway has been opened between Liege and Aachen the trains from Brussel arrive half an hour earlier. But the train to Basel still leaves at its old time. So I now have to spend 40 minutes hanging around Köln Hbf... And my total travel time has not changed. If they would have moved the departure time from Brussels half an hour in stead, then because of better connections my total trip time would have been reduced by an hour. Once the new line from Basel to Karlsuhe is finished they will probably move the Köln - Basel services a bit around too (but they have to keep them anchored at the Swiss timetable at Basel). So that half an hour improvement between Basel and Karlsruhe will probably buy me a full hour saving in travel time.

This is something the SBB knows very well. By optimising the way different services work together you can save a lot of travellers a lot of time, at relatively modest costs.

Now let me give you a very concrete example: I want to get from Spiez to Hasselt. And I want to arrive there before 19:00 (that's when my brother serves dinner :-)

Now let's see what the planner at www.bahn.de gives me:

Via Germany:

+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Spiez | | 08:23 | ICE 276 |BR FW |
| Frankfurt(Main)Hbf | 13:08 | 13:29 | ICE 14 |BT |
| Liège-Guillemins | 15:43 | 16:18 | IR 2938 | |
| Hasselt | 17:16 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Fahrzeit: 8:53;

Via France:
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Spiez | | 08:23 | ICE 276 |BR FW |
| Basel SBB | 09:55 | 10:02 | TGV 9214 |RP GP BW |
| Paris Est | 13:34 | | Übergang | 30 Min. |
| Paris Nord | | 14:25 | THA 9339 |RP GP BW RO KK |
| Bruxelles-Midi | 15:47 | 16:15 | R 8305 | |
| Hasselt | 17:15 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Fahrzeit: 8:52;


Via France is exactly one minute faster. Then via Germany. The route Via France also requires me to walk from Paris Est to Paris Nord., which is fine when the weather is good, but not if there's a downpour.
Notive how in both cases I leave on the same train :-)

Now look at the next departure:

+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Spiez | | 09:25 | IC 819 |FB UA BR MB HD KK |
| Bern | 09:54 | 10:04 | IC 962 |FB RE UA BR MB HD KK |
| Basel SBB | 10:55 | 11:12 | ICE 508 |BT WN FW |
| Köln Hbf | 15:05 | 15:44 | THA 9448 |RP GP BT |
| Liège-Guillemins | 16:47 | 17:18 | IR 2939 | |
| Hasselt | 18:16 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+

Notice how I have a 40 minutes layover in Köln, and another half hour in Liège. The railways could make this trip faster for me by almost an hour just by better coordinating their schedules. No expensive new lines would be needed for that...

Just imagine a schedule like this:

+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Spiez | | 09:25 | IC 819 |FB UA BR MB HD KK |
| Bern | 09:54 | 10:04 | IC 962 |FB RE UA BR MB HD KK |
| Basel SBB | 10:55 | 11:05 | ICE 508 |BT WN FW |
| Köln Hbf | 14:55 | 15:05 | THA 9448 |RP GP BT |
| Liège-Guillemins | 16:15 | 16:18 | IR 2939 | |
| Hasselt | 17:16 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+

A whole hour faster, and the only thing needed would be:
- move the ICE from Basel to Köln a bit, and shave a few minutes of the stop in Mannheim.
- move the Thalys half an hour, and shave a minute from the stop in Aachen.
This also leads to Köln becoming a nice hourly hub too. You can let all other major long distance trains arrive there just before the hour and leave after the hour, just like in Basel.
You see what you can achieve without heavy investments?

The differences between the German and the French railways become even clearer when you try to plan and book a trip on their respective websites. It's quite astonishing really that the German website is a better place to plan train trips in France than the SNCF website... And the German onlibne trip planner can plan between two street adresses, taking local transport in to acount too. So can the Dutch online planner, the Swiss one, the Brittish one and even the Belgian one. Where is the equivalent for France?

Good point. I also went on the DB and SNCF travellers sites and it appears that the fastest you can travel between Zurich and Brussels is 6h43. This is obtained by a combination of (1) taking the TGV (!) to Paris-Est; (2) walking from Paris-Est to Paris-Nord; and (3) taking the TGV clone Thalys from Paris-Nord to Brussels.

Geographically, Zurich-Frankfurt-Brussels would seem to make more sense but... there you go, it is slower.

Well, ICE is generally more comfortable and cheaper. However, it depends on where you are coming from, and where you are going to. That Zürich - Brussel is fastest with the TGV is only because there is a direct TGV. If you come from somewhere else in Switzerland the picture changes completely... See my other post.

It's also only recently that SNCF is willing to sell you tickets on a fast routing via Paris, as previously they didn't believe one could get from Paris Est to Paris Nord in half an hour. SBB however allready sold such tickets last year.
Also notice how you can get vrom Zürich to Brussel in 6:45 if you leave at 7:02 or 9:02, and then again at 13:02. Even though there are five departures from Zürich or Basel to Paris only three are usable. What if you can only leave after 10, but still want to be in Brussel before dinner? Then you go via Germany :-)

You can board an ICE in Basel at 8:12 and be in Köln exaclty 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 9:12 and be in Köln exactly 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 10:13, at 11:12, 12:12, 13:12 and so on. Leave Basel an hour later, and you're in Köln an hour later. That throughout the whole day. That is an hourly service to me. I agree that some of these departures require a change in Mannheim, but that is not a big obstacle. It's by well coordinating services that you make it possible to travel between two destination pairs every hour, with the travel time not being dependent on when you leave. That is convenient for the traveller and saves time.
This is the combined service of three different lines rather than a single one. That's not exactly what you were saying.

A whole hour faster, and the only thing needed would be:
- move the ICE from Basel to Köln a bit, and shave a few minutes of the stop in Mannheim.
- move the Thalys half an hour, and shave a minute from the stop in Aachen.
This also leads to Köln becoming a nice hourly hub too. You can let all other major long distance trains arrive there just before the hour and leave after the hour, just like in Basel.
You see what you can achieve without heavy investments?
When you change in Basel and Köln so often you should have noticed that Basel SBB has a lot more platforms and probably less capacity constrains on the approaching rail line. If you want to change this you actually have to invest quite massively. Nothing less than a complete new station would be required. Just to save you an hour.

Well, ICE is generally more comfortable and cheaper.DB is well known for its comfort:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/2361282680_de5717dddf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moe/2361282680/)
Moe_ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moe/) - Flickr.com

DB is well known for its comfort:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/2361282680_de5717dddf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moe/2361282680/)
Moe_ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moe/) - Flickr.com

The only time I ever had to travel standing on a high speed train was in France...

When you change in Basel and Köln so often you should have noticed that Basel SBB has a lot more platforms and probably less capacity constrains on the approaching rail line.

Being there quite often I wouldn't say that. Köln Hbf can have eight long distance trains in the station at the same time. This ought to make a nice "taktknoten" possible.

The only time I ever had to travel standing on a high speed train was in France...

Me too. But, then again, SNCF usually obtains a load factor on its trains above 75% (another thing they share with the passenger planes), whereas the ICEs "im Hochheiligen Stundentakt" are usually half-empty. Wonder why? :lol:

Being there quite often I wouldn't say that. Köln Hbf can have eight long distance trains in the station at the same time. This ought to make a nice "taktknoten" possible.
An Intercity hub has to provide interchanges not only between Intercity services but regional and local lines as well. Your suggested pattern fails that. There are furthermore capacity constrains on the Hohenzollern bridge that prevent properly synchronized services.

Germany needs more high speed rail lines. For a country of 80 million people, it is behind in the development. The current Hamburg-Munich line needs to be upgraded from Munich-Ingolstadt, Nurnburg-Wurzburg, and Hannover-Hamburg. There also needs to be a few west-east HSLs like Berlin-NRW. I think having faster connections around the country would help in bringing more people aboard and also helping the extension of the LGV Est Euro

Me too. But, then again, SNCF usually obtains a load factor on its trains above 75% (another thing they share with the passenger planes), whereas the ICEs "im Hochheiligen Stundentakt" are usually half-empty. Wonder why? :lol:

That's easy. It makes more sense to have your trains run, even half empty, than have them sit idle in a siding. SNCF obtains it's high load factor mostly by running less trains.

[QUOTE=flierfy;52443967]An Intercity hub has to provide interchanges not only between Intercity services but regional and local lines as well. Your suggested pattern fails that.

Dat depends. One solution the SBB uses is to have long distance trains meet on the xx:00 and xx:30 pulse, and have the locals meet on xx:15 and xx:45. That gives short transfer times when getting from one local to another (which is important, as these are short trips) and transfer times between local and long distance of at most around 15 minutes.

There are furthermore capacity constrains on the Hohenzollern bridge that prevent properly synchronized services.

There are four tracks serving eight platforms. (and two tracks serving the S-Bahn platforms, but I'm keeping them out of it). That should not lead to capacity constraint. You can have trains depart at 2' intervals.

Germany needs more high speed rail lines. For a country of 80 million people, it is behind in the development.

In the race for the fastest trains it is indeed running behind. In the race for providing a system that is highly usable it is way ahead of the SNCF. It's not the train speed that is important, it's the travelling speed that counts. What matter is how quickly and how often one can get from one place to another. Just pick two random small towns 400km apart in Germany and in France and compare travel times by train. DB comes out ahead in most such comparisons.

K, you repeatedly make the point for 400 km destinations, where the network system rules, okay. But what about the 400k+ destinations? Say Vienna-Berlin (ca. 1000km), Cologne-Napoli? Leipzig-Bordeaux? Shall we just passively look on that such destinations are the almost exclusive resort of budget airlines - as market percentage-wise, this is definitely the case at the moment in Germany? Can we trust that one day, their bubble will burst, politicians will wisely tax flying as the environmentally hazardous and socially costly madness that it is? Or will we have to offer them some alternative in the next 10 years on rails?

There are four tracks serving eight platforms. (and two tracks serving the S-Bahn platforms, but I'm keeping them out of it). That should not lead to capacity constraint. You can have trains depart at 2' intervals.
The bridge carries just 2 trains at once apparently due to load restrictions. That makes it already difficult to get the 34 scheduled trains through this bottle neck continuously. There is simply no space for pulsative time table pattern.

Dat depends. One solution the SBB uses is to have long distance trains meet on the xx:00 and xx:30 pulse, and have the locals meet on xx:15 and xx:45. That gives short transfer times when getting from one local to another (which is important, as these are short trips) and transfer times between local and long distance of at most around 15 minutes.
This requires a greater frequency of the services calling at the station. Something I can't see happening anytime soon.

K, you repeatedly make the point for 400 km destinations, where the network system rules, okay. But what about the 400k+ destinations? Say Vienna-Berlin (ca. 1000km), Cologne-Napoli? Leipzig-Bordeaux? Shall we just passively look on that such destinations are the almost exclusive resort of budget airlines -

Distances of a 1000km are best served by night trains. However my point is that a publicly funded railwaynetwork should serve as many people as possible for the needs they have. And also the target is not air travel, but car travel. Air travel is actually quite energy efficient over larger distances.
Also people are not travelling from Cologne to Napoli, but from somehwere in NRW, to somewhere in Campania. It's in my opinion useless to invest a ton of money to cut two hours of travel time on a particular route, only to add some of that back in through friction at the points where the HST network connects with the conventional network. SNCF to much asumes that people will drive their cars to the TGV station. I want the rail system to make it possible for people to forego cars altogether.

That's easy. It makes more sense to have your trains run, even half empty, than have them sit idle in a siding. SNCF obtains it's high load factor mostly by running less trains.

Of course. But you miss my point. The best way to future railway expansions is to turn a reasonable profit on the lines you most recently built.

The Portuguese, for example, (until they changed strategy a few years ago...) were busily spending money on providing railway service to as many people as they could, and across the country. At the same time, in neighbouring Spain most of the effort went into boosting capacity between a handful of cities whose citizens already demonstrably wanted faster services and were prepared to pay handsomely for the accomodation.

In my humble opinion the Spanish approach has worked better. Railway expansions should focus on the, hopefully few, bottlenecks and priority stretches rather apply a soft and social democratic objective of "making the railways work for all".

^^
Then again, you're comparing apples and oranges as you can hardly compare the Spanish transportation network with the Portugese.
In Spain the HSL makes much more sense because distances are way higher and there's basically no city of importance between, lets say Madrid and Sevilla (or an other city near the coast) so 360kph trains on dedicated lines make much more sense as you save a lot of time.
In Portugal, cities tend to be smaller but more resulting in the distances between the most important cities being much smaller (like e. g. having Coimbra and Leiria between Porto and Lisbon) which makes 300kph-HSLs somehow pointless if you want to provide good service for more than the largest two cities (the only ones where such a line could make sense, probably). As well, Portugal already had a much denser conventional rail network compared to Spain to base their development on. So starting with upgrating the existing network in order to provide better services in large parts of the country makes much more sense than building a super-cool HSL and let rail services in the rest of the country go down the train, I suppose.
In Spain on the other hand, building the HSL between Madrid and Córdoba and Sevilla did improve the service a lot but had negative effects only for very few (if any) travellers. Replacing the old rail spider from Madrid to the coasts HSLs in Spain doesn't mean cutting lots of people from rail services. Building a HSL between Lisbon and Spain with only one or two stops between while letting the old line go down would do so.

Sorry if this is a tad bit OT, but since some of you seem quite knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate any advice you may have to give...

I live in the US and I'm going to Berlin next month. We're going to take the ICE to Hamburg. Do you think it's necessary to reserve our tickets online before we leave? Or will it be ok to get the tickets at the train station in person? Is buying them at the train station a lot more expensive? What would you recommend? Thanks!

Sorry if this is a tad bit OT, but since some of you seem quite knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate any advice you may have to give...

I live in the US and I'm going to Berlin next month. We're going to take the ICE to Hamburg. Do you think it's necessary to reserve our tickets online before we leave? Or will it be ok to get the tickets at the train station in person? Is buying them at the train station a lot more expensive? What would you recommend? Thanks!
I for one haven't bought a ticket at the ticket office for decades. I always book my tickets on-line for long-distance travel. Saves me time and hassle at the station. And don't forget to book seats if you don't want to hang around in the aisle for the 2 h trip.

Buying at the counter costs some Euros service charge more (which is a shame). More important, DB has some sort of yield management running, so buying online in advance can save you lots of money if you find some special deal. You just might want to play around with different connections on the DB website. On the other hand, you buy tickets for one fixed connection so you can't change to another train afterwards.

Distances of a 1000km are best served by night trains. However my point is that a publicly funded railwaynetwork should serve as many people as possible for the needs they have. And also the target is not air travel, but car travel. Air travel is actually quite energy efficient over larger distances.
Also people are not travelling from Cologne to Napoli, but from somehwere in NRW, to somewhere in Campania. It's in my opinion useless to invest a ton of money to cut two hours of travel time on a particular route, only to add some of that back in through friction at the points where the HST network connects with the conventional network. SNCF to much asumes that people will drive their cars to the TGV station. I want the rail system to make it possible for people to forego cars altogether.

That is where you are wrong. Trains have no choice but to compete with both cars and planes at the same time. And this is the first time I heard somebody claim that planes are more energy-efficient or environment-friendly than trains. This is nonsense.
While I completey sympathize with your desire to live car-free, you should not be blind to the disastrous effects of other modes of transportation. And while I adore night trains, the few such trains left in Western Europe are defintely nowhere near offering a travel alternative.
A little odd sample of train times between major cities in Europe that roughly equal the Paris - Lyon distance, where high speed trains have won over airplanes almost completely:
Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille St. Charles 3h:06 mins, direct train
Paris Est - München Hbf 6h: 09 mins, one change
Hannover Hbf - London St. Pancras 7h: 32 mins, two changes
Köln Hbf - Milano Centrale 8h:40 mins, 2-4 changes
Berlin Hbf - Budapest Keleti 11h: 56, direct
Hamburg Altona - Oslo 16h: 21 mins, 6 changes
So, many of these destinations most people will believe are too distant from each other to go any other way but fly. But, they are essentially no more apart than Paris and Marseille. So, please, stop bickering that a trans-European network of HSL is hopeless. Of course not everybody actually wants to go from downtown Köln to downtown Milano. But both stations are hubs with ample onward connections. And actually, a few people, especially business travellers often do need to go from downtown.

Of course. But you miss my point. The best way to future railway expansions is to turn a reasonable profit on the lines you most recently built.


A "reasonable profit" can be had with an hourly service that has only an average load factor of around 30%.

That is where you are wrong. Trains have no choice but to compete with both cars and planes at the same time. And this is the first time I heard somebody claim that planes are more energy-efficient or environment-friendly than trains. This is nonsense.

This is not nonsense. Especially when comparing high speed trains with planes. Both high speed trains an planes spend most of their energy on overcoming aerodynamic drag. But planes do it at an altitude where the air is a lot thinner.
Aerodynamic drag increases dramatically at high speeds. A HST at 350 kph consumes twice the energy one running a 225 kph does. A study by a British Universcity came to the conclusion that flying from London to Edinburgh would consume about the same amount of energy as travelling the same trip by a hypothetical high speed train.
(See here (http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/research/download/Transport%20Energy%20Consumption%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf))
Getting good energy consumption figures for High Speed trains is not easy. But the point is that whereas conventional trains are easily more energy efficient than cars and planes, (very) high speed trains aren't automatically. Don't forget that trains often don't travel via the most direct route. Amsterdam - London by plane is a lot shorter than by train.

That doesn't mean that HSTs are not a good idea. They are, as they can be powerd by nuclear energy, which planes can't. However, there are traffic flows where both the geography and the demand makes planes the best choice. Especially on longer distances. Planes are at the moment by far the most energy efficient way to cross the Atlantic for example...

A little odd sample of train times between major cities in Europe that roughly equal the Paris - Lyon distance, where high speed trains have won over airplanes almost completely:

Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille St. Charles 3h:06 mins, direct train
Paris Est - München Hbf 6h: 09 mins, one change

In stead of comparing Paris - Marsielle with Paris Munchen, compare for example
"somewhere 50 km to the northeast of Paris to somehwere 50 km to the west of Maresilles" with
"somewhere 50 km to the southeast of Münich to somewhere 50 km to the northwest of Hamburg."

Not everyone is going downtown to downtown. In the case of France the SNCF will often even refuse to offer you any transportation between rural towns at oposite sides of teh country...

Hannover Hbf - London St. Pancras 7h: 32 mins, two changes
Köln Hbf - Milano Centrale 8h:40 mins, 2-4 changes
Berlin Hbf - Budapest Keleti 11h: 56, direct
Hamburg Altona - Oslo 16h: 21 mins, 6 changes

I believe that improving speeds on Berlin - Praha - Wien - Budapest is a good idea, but I doubt that building a dedicated line that does not include these cities is ever going to make sense.
I also doubt it would be possible to offer any form of train service between Hamburg and Oslo that would be more energy efficient than a plane. The Geography between those places just doesn't allow it.


So, many of these destinations most people will believe are too distant from each other to go any other way but fly. But, they are essentially no more apart than Paris and Marseille. So, please, stop bickering that a trans-European network of HSL is hopeless.

I have never said that a trans European network of HSL is hopeless. I have however tried to make a case that from the point of view of the average passenger a lot of gain can be made through integration and coordination and incremental improvements. That's what the DB is doing, and that is what prompted this thread...

Of course not everybody actually wants to go from downtown Köln to downtown Milano. But both stations are hubs with ample onward connections. And actually, a few people, especially business travellers often do need to go from downtown.

Indeed, Köln is a hub with good onward connections. That is because the DB actually pays attention to its' network. Avignon TGV for example is not a well connected hub. As a result a lot of the time gained on the TGV is lost by people arriving there who need to travel onwards.

The point I'm arguing here is not that HST's and HSL's are pointless. The point I'm arguing here is that integrating highs speed trains with existing train services leads to lower average travel time for more passengers than trying to run your trains as fast as possible at the expense of integration. So from the point of view of most passengers an "improved line" allowing 250kph that serves existing, well established transportation hubs at convenient timings will actually be perceived as being faster than a 330kph line that skirts the centres and stops at greenfield "trainports".

In stead of comparing Paris - Marsielle with Paris Munchen, compare for example
"somewhere 50 km to the northeast of Paris to somehwere 50 km to the west of Maresilles" with
"somewhere 50 km to the southeast of Münich to somewhere 50 km to the northwest of Hamburg."
Small towns benefit from high speed services as well as cities where these trains call. Travelling from Pinneberg to Garmisch would quicker when there were a decent intercity service between Hamburg and München.

Soissons - Carnoules is almost an hour faster than Pinneberg - Garmisch despite the transfer in Paris.

In the race for the fastest trains it is indeed running behind. In the race for providing a system that is highly usable it is way ahead of the SNCF. It's not the train speed that is important, it's the travelling speed that counts. What matter is how quickly and how often one can get from one place to another. Just pick two random small towns 400km apart in Germany and in France and compare travel times by train. DB comes out ahead in most such comparisons.

You are correct, and in this case the DB approach is superior. However, most people are traveling between the big cities, or at least from small town to big city. The notion that everybody in germany is taking the train from one small town in bavaria to another in NRW is being over emphasized here. I travel a lot to Duesseldorf for work which I like because it is easy from me to daytrip via ICE to NL to see clients there for the day. It is also super easy to get back to the airport in Frankfurt. The vast majority of people Ive met on the train are traveling between big cities (of course this is a reflection of the fact that I am travelling during the week in non vacation periods). Very few people are traveling more than 300 km. My mother lives in Berlin and sometimes I like to see her as well when i have the time. Taking the train from Dus to Berlin is a PITA as it does stop in every mid sized town such as bochum or wolfsburg. Ironically enough, I see few people entering or exiting the train at these stops. Germany though cannot be presented with a network that is as focused on one place (such as paris) as it has a more evenly distributed population. A logical answer for the Germans would lie in more "sprinter" services that skip secondary towns like the Berlin Frankfurt route. All in all it is easier to readjust schedules than to lay new tracks and in this regard the french are ahead. Regardless of network, you'll see very few people traveling super long distances (berlin-vienna-budapest) beyond a couple of backpackers and rail fans. The idea of spending a night in a strange bed on the train is probably appealing to only a few and will never grab large market share. I'd rather spend 4 plus hours on the ICE to berlin from duesseldorf versus the aggrivating 45 minute plane ride, but the idea of spending 8 or 10 hours on a train (regardless of how fast it is) is a luxury of time that most people cannot afford.

but the idea of spending 8 or 10 hours on a train (regardless of how fast it is) is a luxury of time that most people cannot afford.

True. On such distances only sleeper trains make sense. You catch one in the evening, go to bed and in the morning you're at your destination. That's way more time-efficient than super-lond HSLs or even flying in most cases.

True. On such distances only sleeper trains make sense. You catch one in the evening, go to bed and in the morning you're at your destination. That's way more time-efficient than super-lond HSLs or even flying in most cases.

That depends if you want to spend a night on a train. Personally, I'd rather not. I'm usually solo in Europe so if I didnt have this personal preferance I guess it could be a viable option. However, if my wife was with me (or I actually lived in Europe), she would never let me leave a day early:lol:. My guess is that you dont have any children either... :)

:) Then again, what if you don't want to hurry to/around/away from cramped airports. Not too comfortable either. I also kow families which enjoy taking overnight trains because it's much more relaxing (for both parents and children) than sitting in a car for a whole day. Unfortunately, they often are way too expensive.

Taking the train from Dus to Berlin is a PITA as it does stop in every mid sized town such as bochum or wolfsburg. Ironically enough, I see few people entering or exiting the train at these stops. Germany though cannot be presented with a network that is as focused on one place (such as paris) as it has a more evenly distributed population. A logical answer for the Germans would lie in more "sprinter" services that skip secondary towns like the Berlin Frankfurt route.


You need both the capacity, and the market for having direct and skip-stop services. However, it can be done, as the Japanes demonstrate.

I'd rather spend 4 plus hours on the ICE to berlin from duesseldorf versus the aggrivating 45 minute plane ride, but the idea of spending 8 or 10 hours on a train (regardless of how fast it is) is a luxury of time that most people cannot afford.

I find the whole idea that people don't have the luxury of time to spend 10 hours on a train a bit odd when I see the masses on the motorways to the south in summer. People drive for 10 hours, often even two days in a row to get to their summer holidays. I wonder why there aren't more "daytime" motorrail trains.

When you're getting from A to B it quite often means you have to offer up a day to it anyway. Ofcourse it matters a lot wether it's travel for business or for pleasure. When I visit relatives the evenings are important. During the day I don't do a lot, and spend a lot of it reading anyway. I can do that as well on a train. So for me, anything that allows me to get up at my normal time, and then get to my destination befor dinner is ok. I therefore don't mind an 8 hour train trip. I occupy myself doing things I would also be doing if I was still at home, or allready at my destination.

The thing that strikes me a lot is that many railways are to much dominated by engineers, that to much attention is given to technical solutions, and to just having the fastest trains around. Not enough attention is given to psychological aspects. It is however attention to the psychology of travel that has made the Swiss Railways so successful. People enjoy being on a train a lot more than standing on a platform. For that reason speeding up the trains, but introducing longer waits at stations and more complicated transfers reduces the value your investments in fast trains and new lines. SBB could probably run a couple of trains a day between Geneva and Zürich that are faster then the fastest they have now, but they know they would lose more passengers if they abandon their network concept.

When I use the SBB planner it apologises when the only solution it can offer me includes a long layover. When I use the RENFE planner I have to explicitely tell it that I'm happy with short transfers, and even then it will warn me against it. As if I'm not able to change trains in half an hour, even in a station that I'm unfamiliar with. It does show a difference in philosophy. I know what I prefer though...