daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 6th, 2010, 09:46 PM   #501
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Well, that's extremely italian: never subsidize anything, apart from things concerning me we invented the capitalistic communism

And, another point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
It's simple. Do it like Italy. Fast and high-speed trains (the most lucrative) have absolute priority. Everything else, if possible, might be schedule around those. Otherwise, you just wait 40 min in a station so your slow-moving, low ridership, money-losing regional train doesn't get in the way of a train moving 100km/h faster than you and stopping nowhere. Does it bother you? Buy a car and stop whining.
Most of those "40 min stops" are not due to right-of-way to faster trains (which usually will require 5, not 40 minutes), but to the TOTAL lack of coordination when creating the general timetable.
In most cases, schedules are created on a line basis: a point to point line, with its own timetable, forgetting that in some main regional stations you have two or more lines meeting, and those stations might work as hubs.
In the worst scenario, non-coincidences and long travel times are created with the specific intent to force people using "fast" and expensive connections.
In fact, apart from the HS network (which covers the most important axe, but just ONE), the fast connections are not that faster than the regional ones. So, to make them interesting, regional trains are artificially slowed down, and schedules have intervals resembling black holes.

Imagine DB killing half of its RE services, and then creating IC connections on the same routes, more expensive and not really faster. LOL

That's what I call a distortion of the market. Pretty interesting thing, who claims this model as the one to be followed, is the same person who find annoying "artificial creation of congestion on roads to attract people to rail".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
This is just wrong. If train was a superior solution, it wouldn't need artificial creation of congestion on roads (the modal of choice if they were properly funded for many...) to attract people to rail. And electric car are going to eliminate point-of-use pollution (and I don't give a dime about "scarce space" or other soft talking).
And we should stop whining? Our regional service is f**ked up on purpouse and we are here talking about cost efficiency of transit modes!

Want to hear another great italian trick? A great invention for transport planning!
You take a regional line, with its schedule and its share of users, and start cutting services here and there, for line maintenance reasons.
Then, you incredibly discover that with less trains, less people use them. So you decide the line is not worth to be kept open, and you close it
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 6th, 2010, 10:04 PM   #502
DiggerD21
spaghetti polonaise
 
DiggerD21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hamburg, Wroclaw
Posts: 2,540
Likes (Received): 1356

The italian schedule model (if it can be called like this) is even worse than the german one. Lots of connections (IC to IC, IC to regional services, regional services to regional services) are not coordinated, leading to the frustrating fact that you miss a possible connection by 10 minutes and have to wait 1 hour for the next train going to your destination. Also there is often no system in the scheduling.

Example: Parma (a fairly important city in northern Italy) to Brescia (another fairly important city in Northern Italy). If the direct connection by regional train doesn't suit your timetable: Either you take the regional trains via Cremona (and there you have to wait for 53 minutes, because your connection to Brescia departed 7 minutes before your arrival) or you take the IC from Parma to Milano Centrale and wait there for one hour for your connecting EC to Brescia (while the previous connection already departed 1 hour ago by schedule).

Lots of loss for travel time and senseless walking around at boring stations.
DiggerD21 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 10:27 PM   #503
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21257

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
Two non-connecting trains carry less people and earn less money, but cost the same as two coordinated trains, so they require more subsidy. That's strange: Suburbanist doesn't like subsidies, but he wants a system that being less efficient require more money (in the form of subsiedies of trains, new road infrastructure to replace disorganised trains, ...). That's a nonsense
I always wrote here: I support government buildings and maintaining, directly or indirectly, reasonable infrastructure for road (highways, parking garages etc.), water (channels, dams, navigation buoys), rail (tracks, stations, sidings) and air (runways, terminals, ATC) transportation.

What is done with such infrastructure should be of limited concern of government (safety, licensing, minimum standards of "devices" running over/on that infrastructure - cars, airplanes, trains, barges) and NO involvement and scheduling services or coordinating parties at all.

Once the infrastructure is built and being properly maintained, what private entities do or do not is of their concern. I would yell if a government is giving € 2 bln. to subsidize vehicle (trains) operation, but I'd be fine (provided the budget situation allows it) if the same government spent € 10 bln. building new high-speed tracks in the same country, because the latter is an intrinsic responsibility of government (in the broader sense), even if it would lower ridership and increase congestion. Capital investments in infrastructure are a very different kind of government economic activity than ongoing subsidization of vehicle operation.

Vehicle operation, IMO, is a matter of private supervised enterprise. The government is responsible, then, to build infrastructure the population, in the form of the private companies operating in a country or the individual-operated vehicles (=cars, motorbikes, bicycles), to build such infrastructure.

The more individual, atomized and independent a modal is, the more money it should get, but this particular statement is controversial.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 10:47 PM   #504
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

Quote:
Once the infrastructure is built and being properly maintained, what private entities do or do not is of their concern.
That's what Italy and Trenitalia did.

Italy has built a 125 km line for 7 billions (seven billions) euros and Trenitalia runs only 16 trains on it. You may be happy, but taxpayers certainly aren't.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 11:27 PM   #505
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The question is one about priorities. What kind of railway investments will benefit the largest amounts of people.
It is true that Frankfurt Hbf to München Hbf is not as fast as some services of similar length are in France.
However, once you compare travel times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Frankfurt" to "somewhere in the vicinity of München" with for example times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Lyon" to "somewhere in the vicinity of Toulouse" you will see that DB easily wins...
Bourge-en-Bresse to Carcasonne
523 km
5:05 h

Friedberg(Hessen) - Garmisch-Patenkirchen
527 km
5:53 h

It is time for you to concede that German railways are nowhere near as good as the French ones.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2010, 12:45 AM   #506
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21257

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
That's what Italy and Trenitalia did.

Italy has built a 125 km line for 7 billions (seven billions) euros and Trenitalia runs only 16 trains on it. You may be happy, but taxpayers certainly aren't.
Having been an Italian taxpayer (I'm not taxed as an EU-citizen living in Netherlands since I moved out of Milano), I don't think those € 7 billion were wasted. The € 0,7 billion the Treasury was sending to Trenitalia each year to cover operational losses, on top of assistance with financial debt service - that was wasteful.

We have a state-of-the-art high-sped railroad. While some pundits argue that "upgrading" on Milano-Bologna sector would "be a better choice" (as it has flat terrain for the entire stretch), any upgrade you could have done on the old lines would never get a Milano-Bologna train in 1h05. Ever. At most it would get 1h30, if every inch of the tracks had been modernized (something still lacking on Milano approach anyway, when completed, travel times will be further reduced by another 5 minutes). There is a limit of upgrading you can do in a rail line crossing heavily populated places, cramped stations that don't have space for sidings or outer tracks, and so. You will likely NEVER achieve 300 km/h commercial speed on a mere upgraded line!

The Bologna-Firenze high-speed sector was badly needed. It provided an alternative that shortened the Apennines crossings from a hobbling 1h40 to 0h37, with a sequence of tunnels of more than 50km in very geological challenging terrain - with seismic risks too.

Germany can spend tons of money, there will always be a financial feasibility limit for upgrades. For technical reasons, that usually mean no VMax over 250km/h - usually no VMax over 200km/h and many reduced speed sectors. And that means "upgraded" tracks will never get you from Frankfurt to Berlin in 2h15! Today, the fastest ICE connecting the German capital to its financial center takes 3h37, non-stop (actually, it stops in Berlin-Spandau). I doubt a 20 years modernization program would bring this figure below 2h50.

The Stuttgart21 is an essential piece to speed up connections between Frankfurt and München. That should be enough, there is enough demand on the major cities along that route to justify a high-speed corridor, even at expense of local commuters whose services are slow and will require permanent subsidization.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2010, 01:00 AM   #507
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

In my example I was thinking about the Milano-Torino line that today is one of the biggest waste made by Italian government. The others have also costed very, very much but they are quite used and justified (there I contest their cost and some wrong choices they made, like the path around Modena and the new Bologna station, with only four tracks and no access to the Adriatic line). Anyway travel time between Florence and Bologna before the HSL was one hour on an extremely fast line (180 km/h) considering that it ahs eben opened in 1934.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2010, 05:15 AM   #508
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by spag85 View Post
I think we all understand already what you have been saying in these several posts - we just don't agree with it.

The Bahn2000 approach works, the Swiss have by far the highest public transport modal share. It works _also_ because they don't build much more road infrastructure, which would induce traffic and hence produce pollution.

The timetable has to drive infrastructure decisions otherwise it is pointless.

Finally, railway operations research is not 2 or 3 clicks but an industry and timetable generation easily lasts 18 months for a good reason.
Germans also have this "village mentality." They think that their country is exclusively dotted with villages with no real cities. It cannot be that in Germany much more people demand milk runs than those demand ultra high speed big urban city center to big urban city center services. It is silly to call the demand for ultra high speed big urban city center to big urban city center services pointless.

Since Germans are so good at building timetable, they will find a way to build connecting train schedules for those ultra high speed trains arriving at and departing from big city center stations. That´s why I have been saying that it is time to stop obsessing over with the Swiss scheduling practice but instead taking the best of the Swiss and French practices. It is SO wrong to run ICE trains like RE at the expense of the demand for ultra high speed urban center services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
It is true that Frankfurt Hbf to München Hbf is not as fast as some services of similar length are in France.
It is also true that such services are not as fast as similar services in Japan, Spain, now even China and soon Korea. HBFs are also built so people cannot connect to other stations in the regions that are spokes of these HBFs, including vicinity stations, from there.

BTW, it is alright to build schedules for Darmstadt, Hagen, Dortmund, Wolfsburg, etc. just based on RE, IC departures, with the ICE trains left out.

Last edited by aab7772003; October 7th, 2010 at 12:10 PM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2010, 10:43 AM   #509
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Bourge-en-Bresse to Carcasonne
523 km
5:05 h

Friedberg(Hessen) - Garmisch-Patenkirchen
527 km
5:53 h

It is time for you to concede that German railways are nowhere near as good as the French ones.
I'll concede that if you can give me examples of the following:
a) An origin/destination pair (both in Germany) for which no solution is given by the german railways trip planner.
b) An origin/destination (both in Germany) pair for which the number of possible trips between them is less then the base pattern at the origin/destination. (ie, if there is a train every hour I should have a possible solution to travel every hour to any other station that is served every hour).

(There are lots of examples of both a and b if you replace Germany with France).
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2010, 03:24 PM   #510
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
a) An origin/destination pair (both in Germany) for which no solution is given by the german railways trip planner.
This is a rather pointless condition. The system simply refers to taxis once there is no PT option.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2010, 11:22 PM   #511
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Germany can spend tons of money, there will always be a financial feasibility limit for upgrades. For technical reasons, that usually mean no VMax over 250km/h - usually no VMax over 200km/h and many reduced speed sectors. And that means "upgraded" tracks will never get you from Frankfurt to Berlin in 2h15! Today, the fastest ICE connecting the German capital to its financial center takes 3h37, non-stop (actually, it stops in Berlin-Spandau). I doubt a 20 years modernization program would bring this figure below 2h50.
The main "problem" in terms of economic feasibility is that the German rail system is a "net" (like the Swiss one) and not a "spider" (like in France, Spain and to a certain point Italy).
There are several equally important north-south respectively east-west corridors where passengers spread. In France everyone is (or rather has to) go to Paris, in Spain to Madrid (in Italy, due to the geography, with one HSL you can cover most of the countries' ridership, too). Hence, passenger numbers on those corridors are much higher which justifies massive investments in only a few of them as you cover most passengers. That's not possible in Germany: If you build a HSL on most lines, ridership wouldn't get as high as it could justify the massive amount of money spent on a single line. And for the country it is much more difficult to derive an economic profit out of the investment. Therefore, one can easily argue (and would have a point) that the money would be better used to upgrate several existing corridors as a larger share of all train passengers would derive increased utility out of it and not only an exclusive circle. Therefore, the German practice isn't as "misguided" as it might look like. In fact, in that point of view, comparing the French and the German network is to a certain point like comparing apples and oranges.

To a certain point, that is also why the elder German HSLs are designed to be used by all kinds of trains (ICE, IC, freight, etc.) - it makes them profitable, whereas a line like Paris - Lyon can be profitable with TGVs only.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 12:22 AM   #512
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post
The main "problem" in terms of economic feasibility is that the German rail system is a "net" (like the Swiss one) and not a "spider" (like in France, Spain and to a certain point Italy).
There are several equally important north-south respectively east-west corridors where passengers spread. In France everyone is (or rather has to) go to Paris, in Spain to Madrid (in Italy, due to the geography, with one HSL you can cover most of the countries' ridership, too). Hence, passenger numbers on those corridors are much higher which justifies massive investments in only a few of them as you cover most passengers. That's not possible in Germany: If you build a HSL on most lines, ridership wouldn't get as high as it could justify the massive amount of money spent on a single line. And for the country it is much more difficult to derive an economic profit out of the investment. Therefore, one can easily argue (and would have a point) that the money would be better used to upgrate several existing corridors as a larger share of all train passengers would derive increased utility out of it and not only an exclusive circle. Therefore, the German practice isn't as "misguided" as it might look like. In fact, in that point of view, comparing the French and the German network is to a certain point like comparing apples and oranges.

To a certain point, that is also why the elder German HSLs are designed to be used by all kinds of trains (ICE, IC, freight, etc.) - it makes them profitable, whereas a line like Paris - Lyon can be profitable with TGVs only.
Please do not say that the following current and potential high speed lines are wasteful:

Frankfurt - Munich via Nürnberg
Frankfurt - Munich via Stuttgart
Frankfurt - Berlin via Hannover
Berlin - Hamburg
Frankfurt -Hamburg via Hannover
Cologne - Hamburg via Hannover
Frankfurt - Cologne

There are actually "corridors" in Germany too, but small cities cannot stand to be told on their faces that their cities are not as important as top- and second- tier German cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aab7772003 View Post

... It cannot be that in Germany much more people demand milk runs than those demand ultra high speed big urban city center to big urban city center services. It is silly to call the demand for ultra high speed big urban city center to big urban city center services pointless.

...

Since Germans are so good at building timetable, they will find a way to build connecting train schedules for those ultra high speed trains arriving at and departing from big city center stations.

...

It is SO wrong to run ICE trains like RE at the expense of the demand for ultra high speed urban center services.


... HBFs are also built so people cannot connect to other stations in the regions that are spokes of these HBFs, including vicinity stations, from there.

BTW, it is alright to build schedules for Darmstadt, Hagen, Dortmund, Wolfsburg, etc. just based on RE, IC departures, with the ICE trains left out.


Keep upgrading the Munich - Nürnberg line via Regensburg and see how fast it will get you eventually!

Last edited by aab7772003; October 8th, 2010 at 12:33 AM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 12:36 AM   #513
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

No. I'm rather saying that upgrating large parts of the conventional tracks isn't wasting money at all. Germany should clearly define a core network (something like Munich-Stuttgart, Nuremberg-Würzburg, Hannover-Hamburg and maybe Hannover-Ruhr as HSL still missing) and for the rest uprating would be a option worth thinking off. It might not be the worse option.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 01:05 AM   #514
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post
...Germany should clearly define a core network (something like Munich-Stuttgart, Nuremberg-Würzburg, Hannover-Hamburg and maybe Hannover-Ruhr as HSL still missing)...
Which is something DB is doing under the framework of the German federal system if you look at the high speed rail tracks DB is building or trying build.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 01:38 AM   #515
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
In my example I was thinking about the Milano-Torino line that today is one of the biggest waste made by Italian government. The others have also costed very, very much but they are quite used and justified (there I contest their cost and some wrong choices they made, like the path around Modena and the new Bologna station, with only four tracks and no access to the Adriatic line). Anyway travel time between Florence and Bologna before the HSL was one hour on an extremely fast line (180 km/h) considering that it ahs eben opened in 1934.
And in the 1990s the old tilting train ETR450 did make some journeys between Bologna and Florence in 40 minutes when the old line was extremley busy..and in desperate need of repairs......

For suburbanist :
The in the 1990' the ETR450 timing on the old line Milan-Bologna was 1h and 26 minutes.

Early in '80 (of the last century) the were plans to upgrade to old line Milan-Bologna with simple byapsses of the main 5-6 intermediate towns along the line. There was also a project for a modest upgrading and reparing of the "old" Bologna-Florence. That would have given a journey time of 1h and 55' on the Milan- Bologna-Florence journey.

This compares very favuorably with the present 1h 40' on the new 2 semi-high speed lines ( Please refer to : Oltre il Pendolino by Giovanni Klaus Koenig).

Excluding the Bologna undergound crossing the 2 semi-high speed lines Milan-Bologna and Bologna Florence have costed in excess of 14 billion Euros.

Another 7 billion Euros were spent for the HSL Rome-Naples. On the Rome-Naples HSL the same mistakes made on the other lines were repated.

On this line the journey times is 70 minutes for 204 kms. (178 km/h). Note that in the '70s- '80s on the historical line Rome -Naples via Formia the Rapidos and IC trains achieved average speed of about 140 km/h .

With a modest upgrading of the hitorical fast Rome_Naples line travelling time of about 70-75 minutes could have been achieved. The Roma -Naples needed only a small amount of doubling and an uppgrading to 220km/h of other sections.

From Milan to Florence the train travelling on the his HSLs has to switch from 3000 volt DC to 25 kV AC 4 times, loosing a lot of time (between 2 -3 and up to 5 -6 minutes at every switch of current).

From Milano to Naples the HS train has to change change voltage about 6 times.

If they had upgraded the old lines from Milan to Bologna, Bologna to Florence and Roma to Naples it would have been possibile to achieve the journey times now achieved with the new HSLs (sic!).

Although now they have included the DD Florence -Rome into the newly built HSL network, this line has been built between the 1970 and 1990 and is a conventional 3000 volt DC with top speed of 250 km/h. This mix traffic HSL was much better planned than the new ones.

With appropriate rolling stock, such as the old ETR450 tilting train, journey time on this 261 km long can be as short as 1h 25' and, in the past, journey times of 1h 10' were achiedved.

The ETR500 in not suited for the DD.

If they had improved / upgradd the historical lines between Milan and Naples then they will have had the monies to built a truly high speed main line between Milan and Naples and beyond., possibly all the way down to Reggio Calabria.

In this case a journey from Milan to Reggio Calabria in 4h and 30' or less ( 1250) would have been feasible.

Nowadays, with the HSLs "New Italian Styles", the journey between Milan and Naples takes a minimum of 4h and 55', for about 750 km..

The best journey time from Milan to Reggio Calabria is 9h and 27 minutes (with 2 HST trains).

In the planning of th Turin -Milan HSL even more ri·dic·u·lous mistakes were made.

If anythyng else the Italian of the "new HSL regime" is leading the world in NOT how to build true High speed lines.

Last edited by joseph1951; October 9th, 2010 at 03:24 PM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 08:43 AM   #516
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
This is a rather pointless condition. The system simply refers to taxis once there is no PT option.
That is not what I meant. I was talking about railway stations (or public transport stops if you want). The fact alone that you can plan a trip from address to address in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and even in the UK, but not in France is already telling. Try getting a comprehensive timetable from SNCF...
SNCF is to much focused on running the best and fastest trains, where the focus should be on the system as a whole. And there everyone who really wants to increase the value of the service offered is emulating the Swiss. Even the French are, nowadays. SNCF is gradually movign towards interval schedules too. RFF is forcing them too, as they found out how efficient it is.

What I was however originally referring to with my remark was the following: You can go to the sncf site, and enter two railway stations in the timetable query form. Two railway stations that have train service, and end up with a nice message saying that "unfortunately" it is not possible to travel by train between those two stations.
Two railway stations. Both served by the same railway company, and that company will flatly deny it is possible to travel from the one to the other by train. That company is SNCF.
Blows the mind really.
If you want to plan train trips in France you are better of using the German railways' planner. SNCF will often only give one or two solutions even when more exists.
There are plenty of examples also where two stations both have frequent service, but where to get from the one to the other there are only a handful of possible solutions. Because there is no coordination. You neglect a large market this way.

Coordinating schedules is cheap, but can increase the value of your network quite substantially. A clever company will grab such an opportunity to make more money with both hands.
Interval schedules use infrastructure more efficiently, and are therefore like by infrastructure companies. That is why RFF is forcing them on SNCF now. Interval schedules are also easier to plan, as you only have to plan one hour, which you then repeat over the whole year. Movement conflicts happen every hour (justifying the construction of extra infrastructure) or not at all.
A well coordinated interval schedule (the "Swiss Aproach") is the was to go, also for France and Germany.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 01:32 PM   #517
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21257

It's ONE of many possible industrial philosophies in regard of traffic management. Not the only one, not best one for all scenarios.

In this era of high computational powers, it should be completely irrelevant whether you are planning a cadenced timetable or not! It's just a OP mathematical problem that a good multi-core set could easily process. There is no purely technical reasons to use timetables with a 57, 64, 73, 48, 91 minutes - even if a cadenced (but non-hourly) timetable were adopted.

Trying to justify the opposite (that 60-minutes intervals are the global optimum) is just to fool with basic math and physic, as the division of a solar day in 24 hours of 60 minutes each is merely done for convenience.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 05:43 PM   #518
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
A well coordinated interval schedule (the "Swiss Aproach") is the was to go, also for France and Germany.
Well well, am schweizer Wesen soll die Welt also genesen. Just that you forget to mention that the Swiss railways despite the huge investments in it are still awfully slow and simply not competitive on medium and long distances.
__________________
Rippachtal.de

Last edited by flierfy; October 8th, 2010 at 05:52 PM.
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 05:58 PM   #519
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

Well, it is the optimum for a traveller to be able to rely on regular services as it cuts his costs of search for best connections. Even if this would mean a higher fare most would prefer to pay more (its a bit comparable to the flatrate bias).

And, believe it or not, scheduling trains IS complex and can't be done by two or three mouse clicks. And it won't be possible in the near future to do that.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2010, 06:19 PM   #520
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21257

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post
Well, it is the optimum for a traveller to be able to rely on regular services as it cuts his costs of search for best connections. Even if this would mean a higher fare most would prefer to pay more (its a bit comparable to the flatrate bias).

And, believe it or not, scheduling trains IS complex and can't be done by two or three mouse clicks. And it won't be possible in the near future to do that.
With computers and smartphones, it is borderline joking to say people still needs train running every 60 (instead of every 53 or 71) minutes! Want to scrap the searching costs? Buy a car. No schedule required.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium