GERMANY | Railways

[thun]

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).

[hans280]

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.

[K_]

Originally Posted by hans280

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.

[Isek]

Today construction started at Stuttgart HBf.

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

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

[Isek]

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

[ruslan33]

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

[FritzMitWitz]

Great Video.

[Deadeye Reloaded]

Yeah, über-awesome video!

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

[Gzdvtz]

Originally Posted by gramercy

make that Glasgow-Ankara

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.

[Darryl]

That video is great!

[LtBk]

Originally Posted by Isek

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.

[Baron Hirsch]

Originally Posted by Gzdvtz

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.

[goschio]

^
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.

[alphorn2]

Originally Posted by Isek

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.

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by alphorn2

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.

[K_]

Originally Posted by goschio

^
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...

[disturbman]

Originally Posted by K_

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.

[goschio]

Originally Posted by K_

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. .

[thun]

Originally Posted by alphorn2

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.

[alphorn2]

Originally Posted by flierfy

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.