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 June 8th, 2011, 04:34 PM   #1021
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385



Stupid me, thanks.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 9th, 2011, 03:11 PM   #1022
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
DB should kick people without reservations of trains when they are too full.
Yeah, I agree. It was a bit of a surprise the first time I took the train to FFM to see how a large number of Germans used this "international express" as a means of transport between German cities on mid-route (e.g. Saarbrücken-Mannheim). For instance most of the TGVs from Paris-Marseille stop underways in Valence, Avignon or Aix-en-Provences, but they stop so that people can get out. They mostly do not carry passengers between, say, Avignon and Marseille and it would be seen as inefficient for them to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
In France, once something is declared of "public utility" building can quickly proceed. And the French countryside is not that densily populated as the German, so building new lines is easy.
Jaein. On your first point, in pretty much any country in the world when something is declared of public utility (or whatever the national vernacular) then the State can expropriate and build. The difference is, getting such approval is comparatively quicker in France than in Germany. The reason is twofold: (1) the declaration is provided in the first place by the nation's highest court instance, so there's no appeal; and (2) the public utility is assessed against a zero-alternative, not against an alternative use of the same money. That said, the German "Planungsverfahren" is famously slow. Even my compatriotes in Denmark are tearing out their hair over the slowness of the German processes in connection with the future Fehmarn connection. According to Scandinavian logics things such as an environmental approval cannot last for much more than a year. In Germany they can.

On your second point, the density of population does undoubtedly make life easier in France. To this, add a flatter landscape than in Central and South Germany. However, our German brethren are also experts in finding reasons for doing nothing. One line runs through an area which is flat and thinly populated: Berlin-Hamburg. But here DB failed to capitalise from - for once - sharing the "easy conditions" of SNCF. An Ausbaustrecke was sufficient, and that was that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
In Germany the emphasis seems to be more on gradually improving existing services, and good integration.

I agree. I sometimes tell myself that the German approach is not really high-speed connections, but rather what I term a "fast-net approach". Success is not measured on how fast you can push passengers between 8-10 main cities, but rather on how much you can optimise travel times within the network as a whole.

Last edited by hans280; June 9th, 2011 at 03:26 PM.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2011, 06:05 PM   #1023
Baron Hirsch
Kara Tren Solcusu
 
Baron Hirsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berlin/Istanbul
Posts: 1,337
Likes (Received): 475

Germany is European Champion in Destroying Rail Network

While we are eagerly discussing the "network optimization" of DB and the Stuttgarters are streetfighting against rail investments, the bottom line is that Germany still prefers to destroy railway infrastructure and build Autobahns, all greenish propaganda to the contrary. A recent study by the EU has shown that in the last 1o years, the 27 member states have destroyed 2.2% of their rail network while their highway network has increased by 22%. The most drastic network closures took place in Latvia (-19.2), Poland (-12.4%), and Germany (-7.9%). In the nineties, the Germans had even scrapped 10.7% of the then existing network. The German Autobahn network increased by 9.4% in the same decade.
Some Western European states by contrast have increased their network: Spain (+8.5%), Italy (+5.0%), Belgium (+3.1%), France (+2.2%).
See the German website http://dmm.travel/news/artikel/lesen...eise-ab-36598/

This I believe is some indication that "network optimization" is, as some of us have argued, rather a formula to hide the apalling lack of investments by the German state into rail networks, a policy which unfortunately seems to be common sense from the Greens to the FDP throughout.
Baron Hirsch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2011, 06:36 PM   #1024
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

You can't draw such conclusions.

First of all, you should look at rail traffic more than network length. Some countries like Italy and Spain haven't shed many tracks from the network (though they should have), but many lines see few if any traffic because they lost competitiveness, particularly those that are of old design and alignment built in mountainous areas (= slow-moving railways uncompetitive with even 1+1 regional highways).

All European countries expanded their highway network, because road traffic is increasing far more than rail traffic and both modes of transport are not equally efficient for all journeys.

Germany had a legacy of a fairly inefficient system inherited from DDR, and had to close many lines anyway. It also had many industrial railways leading to mining operations that are not shut down.

On the other hand, it invested a lot of money in new high-speed lines, modernization and so.

It is simply not a good indicator to look at network km count only.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2011, 08:42 PM   #1025
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 106

Actually, a lot of lines that are listed under "demolished" statistics were simply taken off the network by taking out switches or reorganizing signals. Other sections are sold to private companies for their non-public local cargo transport and are hence no longer counted as part of the network.

There is plenty of cut-down stemming from MORA-C (shutdown of unprofitable cargo blind lines) within the timeframe selected, other than that the EBA only reports about 15 former passenger connections shut down and taken out of service, often spread in multiple sections. Most of these didn't see any passenger transport for at least 2-3 years prior to shut-down order, some of them for decades. All of them are in rural areas; most are blind lines, none served interregional traffic.

And no, they're not all in the GDR. Only about half of them.
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 08:46 AM   #1026
Attus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rheinbach
Posts: 2,770
Likes (Received): 1039

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Hirsch View Post
Germany still prefers to destroy railway infrastructure and build Autobahns
Statistics are like bikini: they show many things but the most important ones are hidden.
In Spain there are lots of rail lines which are open, having two or three regional train daily, 10-15 passengers each. In Germany these kind of lines were closed. Which one is the better handling of the taxpayers' money?
Attus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 10:37 AM   #1027
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

It's an interesting little debate this.

The German rail system for many of us here in Britain, is something to admire, and certainly I think you'll find that most people find the cargo train operations run by DB Schenker and all the other operators to be pretty impressive.

The wagonload train operation in particular is something which surely must be seen as a success story, given that it consists of long trains - at least in the photos and videos I've seen - and DB Schenker cites it as being profitable.

Was the MORA-C impact that concerning? Did it not enable the wagonload system to become profitable, and at the same time encourage the rise of a whole host of small privately-run small-line freight operators?

As you all no doubt know, the wagonload concept in Britain pretty came to an end in the 1960s, when a massive chunk of the rail netowrk was shut down, and along with it a large number of marshalling yards - some of them almost brand new!

So in comparison, the German wagonload system looks pretty healthy in comparison. It certainly seems to keep the Maschen marshalling yard busy, along with all the others, not just in Germany, but in the neighbouring states as well, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and so on.

And finally, if my initial viewings of the aerial photos of Germany are anything to go by, a lot of the closed railway lines and yards in Germany still remain in place, so reopening them is a physical possibility at least.

In Britain, for most closed lines and yards, this is not possible - many are now home to housing estates and retail parks.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 12:22 PM   #1028
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
Trains or train movements? Does a train arriving and leaving count for one or two?
I asume it counts as one if the number doesn't change (eg a Geneva - St. Gallen service) but as two if the train number does change (eg. Chiasso - Zürich forming a Zürich - Chiasso).
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 12:25 PM   #1029
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Indeed, this statistics are too generic, it would be much more useful to discuss particular lines which were closed.

The whole point of rail transport is not simply having it. It should be relatively fast and transport a reasonable amount of people. If the lines could transport a reasonable amount of people if it was upgraded, but the government decides to close it, even while it has money to build highways, then it is being unfair. But if serves only small cities where people migrated to cars, what's the point? In this case the real question which you might want to ask is why they moved to cars.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 12:29 PM   #1030
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Yeah, I agree. It was a bit of a surprise the first time I took the train to FFM to see how a large number of Germans used this "international express" as a means of transport between German cities on mid-route (e.g. Saarbrücken-Mannheim). For instance most of the TGVs from Paris-Marseille stop underways in Valence, Avignon or Aix-en-Provences, but they stop so that people can get out. They mostly do not carry passengers between, say, Avignon and Marseille and it would be seen as inefficient for them to do so.
The idea is to fill trains. SNCF has a lot of rolling stock sitting idle in yards a lot of the time, which is not efficient. At the same time it's not offering good service on short distances. The way DB does it the network is also useable for spur of the moment short distance trips.



Quote:
That said, the German "Planungsverfahren" is famously slow. Even my compatriotes in Denmark are tearing out their hair over the slowness of the German processes in connection with the future Fehmarn connection. According to Scandinavian logics things such as an environmental approval cannot last for much more than a year. In Germany they can.
If you think that the Germans are slow, consider the British...


Quote:
One line runs through an area which is flat and thinly populated: Berlin-Hamburg. But here DB failed to capitalise from - for once - sharing the "easy conditions" of SNCF. An Ausbaustrecke was sufficient, and that was that!
And they were right. Don't forget that what mattes to the traveller is door-to-door times, not train speeds. The new Haupbanhof in Berlin for example, did also cost a lot of money. How much later would it have been build, had DB chosen to spend all that money on full HSL to Hamburg?

Quote:
I agree. I sometimes tell myself that the German approach is not really high-speed connections, but rather what I term a "fast-net approach". Success is not measured on how fast you can push passengers between 8-10 main cities, but rather on how much you can optimise travel times within the network as a whole.
Yes, and since the value of a network is proportional to the square of the points it connects its a good approach if you want to be profitable. It's the same approach the SBB has. And now even SNCF is picking up on it...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 03:17 PM   #1031
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The way DB does it the network is also useable for spur of the moment short distance trips.
Sure, but airlines are for example not useable for spur-of-the-moment short distance trips, and I would tend to argume that high-speed trains are a substitute for taking a plane rather than a substitute for taking a conventional train. This is/was certainly the thinking in France. In Germany, on the contrary, it looks like the ICE brand has been sold as an upgrade of an existing concept?

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
If you think that the Germans are slow, consider the British....
And if you consider the Indians then Germany looks even better? Yeah, yeah, yeah... if I compare with Dante's ice hell then my local railway station in January is a quite pleasant place to wait for a train. Remains the fact that there's nothing glorified about taking 10+ years to make a decision. Democratic accountability, sure. But not more than 10 years, please...

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Don't forget that what mattes to the traveller is door-to-door times, not train speeds. The new Haupbanhof in Berlin for example, did also cost a lot of money. How much later would it have been build, had DB chosen to spend all that money on full HSL to Hamburg?
Now then, even some of our friends in DB complain that it would have been so much better to lower the travel time on Hamburg-Berlin to less than 1h30. It would have allowed them to make a "Vollknote", etc. etc. Maybe the scaled-back concept on that line DOES make sense. But it came after more than a decade of German train enthusiasts explaining that the couldn't copy a French LGV concept because of their "Mittelgebirge" and their "Siedlungsstruktur". Well, as far as lame excuses were concerned Hamburg-Berlin led to quite a u-turn.

I guess your objection would apply equally to the French approach to "grand projects"? In this country there's almost always a project (one!) that shall enjoy absolute priority for the next 4-5 years. This seems to contrast with more federal countries (like in, but not limited to, Germany) where each region in each period of time is given "a slice of the cake".
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 03:49 PM   #1032
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Sure, but airlines are for example not useable for spur-of-the-moment short distance trips, and I would tend to argume that high-speed trains are a substitute for taking a plane rather than a substitute for taking a conventional train. This is/was certainly the thinking in France. In Germany, on the contrary, it looks like the ICE brand has been sold as an upgrade of an existing concept?
I still think that the main competitor of the train is the car, not the plane. Railways (and public transport companies in general) should concentrate on offering a services that allows people to do without a car altogether. That way you build a solid customer base that provides most of your income.

Quote:
Now then, even some of our friends in DB complain that it would have been so much better to lower the travel time on Hamburg-Berlin to less than 1h30. It would have allowed them to make a "Vollknote", etc. etc.
You would have had to at least reduce travel time to 1h20 for that. As it is now, 1h45 is good to have a node on both ends. One could even consider having an extra stop en route.




Quote:
I guess your objection would apply equally to the French approach to "grand projects"? In this country there's almost always a project (one!) that shall enjoy absolute priority for the next 4-5 years. This seems to contrast with more federal countries (like in, but not limited to, Germany) where each region in each period of time is given "a slice of the cake".
Well, I do consider having a democracy more important than having the fastest trains...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 04:57 PM   #1033
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Yeah, I agree. It was a bit of a surprise the first time I took the train to FFM to see how a large number of Germans used this "international express" as a means of transport between German cities on mid-route (e.g. Saarbrücken-Mannheim). For instance most of the TGVs from Paris-Marseille stop underways in Valence, Avignon or Aix-en-Provences, but they stop so that people can get out. They mostly do not carry passengers between, say, Avignon and Marseille and it would be seen as inefficient for them to do so.
That is easy to explain. France TGV lines, or most of them, connect Paris with other major city (Lyon, Lille, Marseille). Those trains don't stop on the 1st half of the journey, and then stop to drop passengers in stations until it reaches the final destination.

If SNCF opened TGV Atlantique routes for people travelling between Avignon and Marseille, it could waste capacity to haul people on the more lucrative Marseille - Paris route. Surely they could improve the situation by using historical trends and selling some seats for Avignon-Marseille on those TGVs.

In case of Germany, for the good and for the evil you don't find such high-speed lines. The average travel speed between Berlin and major German cities (Hamburg, Frankfurt, München) is much lower than in France. But that comparison is problematic because Berlin doesn't exert such influence and doesn't centralize traffic in Germany in any way similar to Paris over France.

One should notice that ICE services stop a lot. While many TGVs travel 2h non-stop, the most you find like that in the German network are ICE non-stop Berlin Spandau-Hannover (1h37).

Of course you have the ICE Sprint service, but I see it more as a niche category for now, as it operates only a handful of trips every weekday.


Quote:
I agree. I sometimes tell myself that the German approach is not really high-speed connections, but rather what I term a "fast-net approach". Success is not measured on how fast you can push passengers between 8-10 main cities, but rather on how much you can optimise travel times within the network as a whole.
This is a political decision more than a technical one, or at least a technical decision heavily influenced by politics. France has long pursued a "disinvestment" policy in its failing middle-size cities since WW2, for a variety of reasons not really relevant to this thread. In Germany, the idea of cutting of and marginalizing infrastructure investments in middle cities like Fulda, Kasel or Erfurt, would be unacceptable, and that reflects on infrastructure (not only rail) planning.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 08:58 PM   #1034
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Railways (and public transport companies in general) should concentrate on offering a services that allows people to do without a car altogether.
Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km. Less than that, they should use their cars. This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Well, I do consider having a democracy more important than having the fastest trains...
I totally agree that democracy is essential. In this vein, you should know that people in my native Denmark are very pround of their representative democracy. It is for precisely this reason that they organise national decision processes (and sometimes referendums) to decide on projects and priorities, and subsequently impose them on regions of the country. Which is why planning procedures rarely take more than 1-2 years. One part of the country cannot be allowed to block, or significanly influence, the decision making of the nation. That would be... undemocratic.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011, 11:43 PM   #1035
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3711

Even with high speed and upgraded conventional rails?
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 12:04 AM   #1036
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km.
? So you think that putting some draconian rules about how people should use InterCity trains will increase ridership?

Quote:
Less than that, they should use their cars.
You are making a very strange assumption that everyone has a car. On top of that also ignores that a large amount of train users are students, young adults without a car and elders, all of which don't find the driving alternative very attractive.

Quote:
This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.
That's a very strange line of thinking, you just made implicit that everyone has cars and that everyone will calculate what is the fastest alternative and use that. I've never met this kind of theorical person that you are imagining that goes on to calculate the best mode for each trip that he does and can very easily switch modes. Pretty much everyone that I know either uses only cars and never trains or only use trains (don't even have a car or doesn't like to drive).

Basically you arrived at a non-sensical conclusion by ignoring all other modal choice aspects except for speed. One of the most important ones being left out is fidelity. People don't like to calculate on every trip what is the fastest at the moment, this calculation wastes time. Most people will simply go with what they are familiar with. If they use trains regularly, most likely they will use for newer trips, even if a car would theorically be better, because people prefer to stick to their known way of doing things. Similarly, most people that use cars for everything won't consider trains even if they are faster in some theorical route. Most won't even calculate and many won't even know how fast the train trip is.

Trains don't need to be faster point-to-point, they need to have a competitive speed. If the train is immensely slower, people will get pissed off and migrate, even if they need to buy a car, for example. If it is just slower, but not that much, then the advantages of train traveling, like being able to do something else instead of driving, not having to find a parking, saving money by not needing a car, etc, can make it competitive despite the speed disadvantage.

On top of that, you didn't even mention any advantage for your proposal, which makes it even further non-sense.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 12:04 AM   #1037
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km. Less than that, they should use their cars. This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.
It's quite shocking to see how many people apparently don't get that travel time isn't the only - and for a lot of people not even the most - important influence on the choice of the preferred mode of transport.
__________________
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 June 11th, 2011, 12:37 AM   #1038
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
? So you think that putting some draconian rules about how people should use InterCity trains will increase ridership?
One does needs to apply draconian penalties to achieve this aim. All it takes is widening stop spacing.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 07:02 AM   #1039
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
? So you think that putting some draconian rules about how people should use InterCity trains will increase ridership?
No, I think that increasing ridership is not the only relevant success parameter. The Indian trains, for example, travelling at 30 km/h and stopping everywhere, have a high ridership. The "ridership" is even sitting on the roofs and hanging out of the windows. In the fellow Asian economy Japan, highspeed trains link the major economic centres with a travelling time of little more than 2 hours. I put it to you that the latter makes economically much more sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
You are making a very strange assumption that everyone has a car. On top of that also ignores that a large amount of train users are students, young adults without a car and elders, all of which don't find the driving alternative very attractive..
This is a realistic assumption. I have in hand a study of car ownership per age cohort that I can share if you're interested. It is true that young households in France - where the oldest member is 16-19 years old - have only 0.6 cars on average. However, from age 25 every household has one car, and this remains the case until the age rises above 75 years old. (I should add that France is internationally low in this respect: US and Canada has many more than just 1 car per household.) How many 80 yo people do we see on TGV trains?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
Trains don't need to be faster point-to-point, they need to have a competitive speed. If the train is immensely slower, people will get pissed off and migrate, even if they need to buy a car, for example. If it is just slower, but not that much, then the advantages of train traveling, like being able to do something else instead of driving, not having to find a parking, saving money by not needing a car, etc, can make it competitive despite the speed disadvantage.
Well, I live in a country where most people prefer driving and consider public transportation as somehow inferior. (I think it has to do with the French notion of "espace vitale" - in a car you are in your private sphere.) On top of this comes the price factor. You see very few families in TGV trains. The marginal cost of stuffing a child into a car is zero, the cost of buying a train ticket is non-trivial. Consequently the ridership is mostly business people (and well-healed travellers in mid-life). These people would definitely be less inclined to take the train between Marseille and Paris if the train stops more than twice on the only 740 km.

And, as I said, they'd be disinclined to take the train from Paris to Lille unless they happen to have a trip from city centre to city centre. The distance is 211 km. If you go from suburb to suburb by care then the travel time is between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. The train from Gare du Nord takes 1 hour, to which you must then add local transport at both ends. The train has no time advantage. - Which is why I keep repeating my mantra: highspeed traffic needs to be optimised on the medium to long distances (400-800 km) to provide an attractive alternative to air traffic.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 09:50 AM   #1040
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3711

What about non TGV trains? Also, people in France don't like mass transit?
LtBk 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 10:47 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