SPAIN | Railways

[Gadiri]

From High-Speed Railway Networks around The World

El moderno Alvia S-130, un tren idóneo para Larga Distancia

El Alvia S-130 es el tren de altas prestaciones y rodadura desplazable más moderno.

Fabricado conjuntamente por Talgo y Bombardier, fue puesto en servicio en noviembre de 2007, destaca por todas las posibilidades y comodidades que supone para los viajeros, además de su rodadura de eje desplazable, que le permite circular por vías de Alta Velocidad y por la red convencional.

Gracias a estos trenes, que permiten adaptarse al distinto tamaño de las vías, Renfe ha podido reducir ostensiblemente el tiempo de viaje en numerosos trayectos, convirtiendo al tren en el medio de transporte más competitivo, por su rapidez, comodidad y seguridad.

El Alvia S-130 es popularmente conocido como "patito" ("el hermano pequeño del pato", el S-102) puede alcanzar una velocidad comercial máxima de 250 km/h.

[Gadiri]

From High-Speed Railway Networks around The World

Remodelación de los trenes AVE S-100, Madrid - Sevilla

En este video pordrás ver cómo se están remodelando los 18 trenes que han realizado el servicio de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Sevilla, para renovar la flota de Alta Velocidad y conseguir que siga siendo la más cómoda y moderna del mundo.

Los trabajos de renovación los está realizando el fabricante de las unidades, Alstom, en los talleres de Renfe en La Sagra, Toledo. El proceso de remodelación tiene una duración aproximada de 3 años, finalizando en verano de 2009

Como puedes ver, la labor de Renfe Integria es fundamental para poder desarrollar nuestra actividad con garantías y calidad.

[Gadiri]

From High-Speed Railway Networks around The World

El Alvia de Renfe, un tren fantástico para Larga Distancia

El Alvia -o serie 130, que ése es su nombre técnico- es un tren de altas prestaciones capaz de alcanzar una velocidad punta de 250 km/h y que recorre numerosos trayectos de Larga Distancia de Renfe.

Su rodadura desplazable, que le permite utilizar tanto las vías de Alta Velocidad como las convencionales, unida a sus excepcionales prestaciones, hacen que sea el tren idóneo para recorrer trayectos de amplia duración por toda la península.

Comprueba en este video sus características y la modernidad de este modelo.

[Gadiri]

Los viajeros de Media Distancia de Renfe en Galicia y Castilla y León estrenan nuevos trenes

Serie 599 de CAF

En las próximas semanas, los viajeros de los servicios de Media Distancia de Renfe en la línea Madrid-Ávila Salamanca, al igual que los usuarios de las ciudades de Vigo, Santiago de Compostela y A Coruña serán los primeros en disfrutar de los nuevos trenes diesel de Renfe Media Distancia, la serie 599, fabricados por la compañía española CAF.

Estos nuevos trenes cuentan con las mejores prestaciones y comodidades -también en Accesibilidad para las Personas de Movilidad Reducida- y están preparados para alcanzar una velocidad máxima de entre 160 y 180 km/h, idónea para las distancias que recorren cada día los trenes de Media Distancia de Renfe.

En total son 50 los nuevos trenes diesel que Renfe va a incorporar, de forma paulatina, al servicio ferroviario de Media Distancia, dentro de un ambicioso plan de renovación de la flota de trenes de Renfe. En 2010 se habrán incorporado 122 nuevos trenes de Media Distancia convencional en toda España y la edad media del parque de trenes de este servicio de Renfe bajará hasta los nueve años

Renfe trenes Media Distancia serie 599

[Gadiri]

Renfe te muesta el nuevo tren eléctrico de Media Distancia

Serie 449 de CAF

Renfe presenta los nuevos trenes eléctricos que incorporará a partir de este año para realizar los trayectos de Media Distancia.

En total serán 57 los nuevos trenes eléctricos que la Dirección General de Cercanías y Media Distancia de Renfe incorporará, de forma paulatina, al servicio ferroviario.

Estos 57 nuevos trenes, fabricados por la compañía española CAF (serie 449), cuentan con las mejores prestaciones y comodidades -también en Accesibilidad para las Personas de Movilidad Reducida- y están preparados para alcanzar una velocidad máxima de entre 160 y 180 km/h.

Renfe prevé incorporar en los próximos años 107 nuevos trenes eléctricos o Diesel al servicio ferroviario de Media Distancia, que suponen una inversión global de 594,9 millones de euros.

Este video te permitirá conocer las prestaciones y comodidades de que disponen los nuevos trenes eléctricos de Renfe.

Renfe Media Distancia s449

[Gadiri]

Anuncio LAV Madrid-Valencia "391 kilómetros"



'391 KM. Línea Madrid - Valencia', de Zapping para ADIF

[Mare_nostrvm]

Merci beaucoup pour ces vidéos Gadiri.

Thank you very much for those videos Gadiri.

I quote the last 2 messages of the previous page for those videos could be seen as well in this page..

Originally Posted by Mare_nostrvm

Here a video about the updating and modernisation of the Spanish Renfe trains fleet during the last years..

Originally Posted by Gadiri

From High-Speed Railway Networks around The World

Renfe Trenhotel 7ª generación



Tren 922, interior Tren Hotel, Barcelona - A Coruña - Vigo, 2009

[arriaca]

The official magazine "via libre" about railway news has now an english version.

This is the link http://www.spanishrailwaysnews.com/

[yoladeuche]

Originally Posted by Zero Gravity

Anyways, my question is: How the hell was Spain able to pull off a HSR-Network like this? How did they finance it? What was the idea behind it? Why did they choose building rail instead of motorways? I couldn't find anything really answering my questions on wikipedia or when googling it, but im sure a lot of you know.

What is so mind-boggling to me is the rapid expansion of the network as of lately. Their network is already bigger than the LGV network, by far bigger than the german HSR-Network(which is in my eyes actually a joke; a bad one) and still continies to grow. Where did they get the money and political will to do all this? I don't understand how they did it

Enlighten me please!

I have been thinking about this, and I'm going to adventure a partial explanation for the money part. Besides the funding coming from the UE (directly by subsidies and indirectly by low rates fuelling easy credit from French and German banks, which has increased consumption and tax revenues) , it seems to me that our high level of expenditure on infraestructure is also explained by our comparatively low level of expenditure on social policies.

I mean, in many regions of Spain you don't find subsidies to single mothers, a developed network of social workers, caretakers for the elderly people, affordable housing for low-income families: I mean, you don't find this at the same level as in France or as in the UK. The ratio nurses/hospital patients is much lower than , say, the UK (although the equipment and staff training is probably about the same, or better, if one believes the horror stories about the NHS). Here it's expected than families care for their elders and sick ones, but it's also expected parents will help/finance their offpring to buy a flat.

So compared to other countries, we have had a flow of "easy money" coming out of the blue for a number of years and it has been decided to spend it on infraestructure (more than on people). Now we are spending lots of money on unemployment benefits (while Social Security and tax revenues have decreased), so we expect a decline in infraestructure investment, too.

And why rail? I presume it' because Spain is like a void space with most of the population concentrated on some spots (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Malaga, Zaragoza, Bilbao) which tend to be 300-600 km apart: an ideal map for a HSR network (no NIMBYs on most of the rail line).

[jovibo]

Very interesting :

Each Madrid-Valencia high-speed train consumes 487.6€ in electricity per journey. (Link: http://www.spanishrailwaysnews.com/n...t=3559&cs=home).

If that were true, the amortization/repayment should be very fast (taking out the cost of the infrastructure, of course). But compared with costs to build motorways, airports and railways, I suppose that building railways (and making people to get trains) should be the best option in the long run.

Regards.

[Zero Gravity]

Seems a little low, but it doesn't matter; trains are indeed much cheaper than an expansive motorway system. What most people forget is that freeways are highly subsidized while railway track is mostly on its own regarding funding. This creates the frustrating side effect of train tickets often being more expensive than driving with car(atleast where i come from, austria, its like that).

But when you look at the bigger picture it becomes clear that railways are indeed much cheaper from a macro-economic point of view, than motorways, especially long-term.

[stingstingsting]

Originally Posted by Maxx☢Power

Cue angry reply from Suburbanist.

HAHAHA good one.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by Zero Gravity

Seems a little low, but it doesn't matter; trains are indeed much cheaper than an expansive motorway system. What most people forget is that freeways are highly subsidized while railway track is mostly on its own regarding funding. This creates the frustrating side effect of train tickets often being more expensive than driving with car(atleast where i come from, austria, its like that).

But when you look at the bigger picture it becomes clear that railways are indeed much cheaper from a macro-economic point of view, than motorways, especially long-term.

Your assertions are plain wrong. First, at least in Europe, fuel taxes range from high to outrageous. Part of it is general taxes (VAT), but a huge chunk, the majority of fuel price indeed, is usually comprised by special levies that fall only over road fuel. This generates billions for European countries, which should be enough to pay for maintenance and expansion of highway network.

Second, while in case of road transport only the infrastructure is kept up-to-date by government agencies (not even that in case of toll-roads), rail transport usually involves deficit operations at least on regional network of the VEHICLES. When you last saw government subsidizing cars (they are taxed to death, also)? Please, don't come with the anti-car standard reader of "externalities".

Third, rail doesn't transport people from their actual origin and destination save for a tiny, small fraction of traveler whose origin and destination are - say - within a 200m radius from train stations. This mean you can't measure "efficiency" only as moving 600 people from A to B, at least not when comparing rail with road private transport.

This being said, the Spanish rail network is quite well-managed: it didn't halt development of the best highway network in Europe (considering pop. density, area etc) and it is heavily focused on high-speed rail, while crappier lines from Franco's time and before were closed mercilessly as they would make eternal money-losing operations incapable of competing with anything else.

[Andres_Low]

our assertions are plain wrong. First, at least in Europe, fuel taxes range from high to outrageous. Part of it is general taxes (VAT), but a huge chunk, the majority of fuel price indeed, is usually comprised by special levies that fall only over road fuel. This generates billions for European countries, which should be enough to pay for maintenance and expansion of highway network.

At the end it´s all about the trade balance and energy dependance, fuel generates millions today, so electricity does. The Spanish government is worried about the negative trade balance, lets say that Fuel comes from Arabia, electricity is locally generated.

Second, while in case of road transport only the infrastructure is kept up-to-date by government agencies (not even that in case of toll-roads), rail transport usually involves deficit operations at least on regional network of the VEHICLES. When you last saw government subsidizing cars (they are taxed to death, also)? Please, don't come with the anti-car standard reader of "externalities".

Subsidized regional trains are as valid as subsidized bus transport, we all know that some routes wouldn´t be covered by companies and still people that needs to travel. Public service is good, common good, this is not America. Oh! and what about pple using their cars for work.. and getting fuel tax credits? or scrappage schemes...

Third, rail doesn't transport people from their actual origin and destination save for a tiny, small fraction of traveler whose origin and destination are - say - within a 200m radius from train stations. This mean you can't measure "efficiency" only as moving 600 people from A to B, at least not when comparing rail with road private transport.

Again this is not America. You forgot the wide metro/tram networks in the main Spanish cities. And... you gonna love it, as far as I remember free parking space included in your Preferente ticket.

This being said, the Spanish rail network is quite well-managed: it didn't halt development of the best highway network in Europe (considering pop. density, area etc) and it is heavily focused on high-speed rail, while crappier lines from Franco's time and before were closed mercilessly as they would make eternal money-losing operations incapable of competing with anything else.

Freight transport still needs a boost in Spain, and some of those lines will still be used for this purpouse. Figures say the rail transport cannot go worse in Spain so future is bright specially in the mediterranean corridor and the Basque country for staters.

[437.001]

Why bother trying to reason with Suburbanist when he clearly won´t try to see reason anyway?

[Zero Gravity]

Your assertions are plain wrong. First, at least in Europe, fuel taxes range from high to outrageous. Part of it is general taxes (VAT), but a huge chunk, the majority of fuel price indeed, is usually comprised by special levies that fall only over road fuel. This generates billions for European countries, which should be enough to pay for maintenance and expansion of highway network.

Youre missing the point. It's not that highway networks can't be paid for with fuel tax or a little bit of vat. It's that from a macroeconomic point of view a vast highway system is more expensive than a vast railway system.

I do not pursue any ideology here. I'm neither pro-rail nor am i pro-car. I'm pro-cheap-and-effiecient. I don't think we should stop mainting highways nor stop building railways.

I think there needs to be a more economic approach to this, ideologist thoughts tend to consume a shitload of money. In this case, too much if you ask me. In Europe most countries tend to focus on a big and reliable highway system and neglect the railway system.

IMHO there should be a shift of focus, and we should try to get as much traffic as possible off the roads and onto rail(especially freight). Particularly cities should have a vast system of public transportation in order to avoid road congestion. Commuters are the major reason why so many roads are jammed at rush hour. Why not get them in by rail instead? Of course there is no way to build rail lines so everyone will be in a 15-minute walk radius. As you go further out the city, pop density declines, so that wouldnt be economical. So why not create park+ride hubs where these out-of-reach-people can drive to the nearest train station, park there and continue their journey via public transportation?

Apart from that, Inter-city services should be expanded as well, and they should be faster than they are nowadays; Evrything east of france and north of italy(i'm not so sure about that though) is shit. The german "Hochgeschwindigkeitsnetzwerk" for example is a disgrace and the DB is in an outrageous financial situation, and all that although germany is the 4th biggest economy in the world....what a shame....


But other than that, keep your roads and drive as much as you like. But we need to get traffic away from them, and i do not see how that interferes with your believes. With less traffic, maintenance is going to be an aweful lot cheaper, especially when you get rid of all the trucks. And you can personally enjoy driving on a not-crowded road.

Second, while in case of road transport only the infrastructure is kept up-to-date by government agencies (not even that in case of toll-roads), rail transport usually involves deficit operations at least on regional network of the VEHICLES. When you last saw government subsidizing cars (they are taxed to death, also)? Please, don't come with the anti-car standard reader of "externalities".

Third, rail doesn't transport people from their actual origin and destination save for a tiny, small fraction of traveler whose origin and destination are - say - within a 200m radius from train stations. This mean you can't measure "efficiency" only as moving 600 people from A to B, at least not when comparing rail with road private transport.

I hope I answered these two questions as well. Once again, imho a big railway system will be a lot cheaper than maintaing a vast highway system.

And the other point i have answered as well. Not everyone can be in that 10-minute or whatever radius, just use a hybrid solution and let these people drive to their nearest railway station and then they shall continue by train.

i hope my points came across

[Coccodrillo]

Suburbanist finds 2 billions € for a motorway carrying 4.000 people a day "a good planning for future developments" and 100 millions subsidies for a rail line carrying 4.000 every hour "a waste of money". How can you argue with such propositions?

[437.001]

Originally Posted by Coccodrillo

Suburbanist finds 2 billions € for a motorway carrying 4.000 people a day "a good planning for future developments" and 100 millions subsidies for a rail line carrying 4.000 every hour "a waste of money". How can you argue with such propositions?

Don´t ask me, I do not argue, I just sit and watch the telly.

[makita09]

Third, rail doesn't transport people from their actual origin and destination save for a tiny, small fraction of traveler whose origin and destination are - say - within a 200m radius from train stations. This mean you can't measure "efficiency" only as moving 600 people from A to B, at least not when comparing rail with road private transport.

In my city of 250,000 about 10% live within 200m of a station, but about 50% live within 500m. 100% of the population is within a 10-15 minute bus ride available with an add-on fare to the train ticket.

Human beings are normally OK with walking a bit more than 200m. The ones that aren't can go and get stuck in traffic.

[stingstingsting]

Tarmac isn't good for one's diet.

Otherwise, there's always this thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=813

P.S. I walk 2km from my workplace to my home everyday, not a station and not 200m (but that of course pales in comparison to other's commutes).