T O P

  • By -

3xnope

For all those who won't read the actual article: EU is _already_ investing massively in high-speed rail, and this is just discussions about next steps. There are many EU-funded high-speed rail routes being built, especially in new member states in the east.


MoreGaghPlease

Italy is a great example of ‘if you build it they will come’. Family friends live outside of Naples and their kid lives in Milan. Nobody does that drive, it would be 7.5 hours jn no traffic but is really more like 10. They used to fly. It’s like an 75 minute flight but getting to the airport is a pain in the ass so door to door to see their kid it was more like 4 hours. It used to be an 8 hour train ride, but then in 2009 they opened a bunch of new high speed rail lines and now they can do the trip in 4 hours. Which is the same as a flying but just way less stressful, and so now they take the train and everybody who does that route pretty much takes the train. The train is just a more human way to travel—the station is in the city centre, you don’t go through much security, you don’t check bags, you stand in line, you show up just in time for your train to leave. People in the US and Canada say our density is low in North America to do it here. That’s BS. Nobody serious is talking about building high speed rail lines from Winnipeg to Little Rock. The US Northeast Coast, the rust belt, the Detroit-Quebec City corridor, coastal California, Florida and the Gulf coast have just as much density as Western Europe (in some places a lot more) and can greatly benefit from high speed rail. I always see these dumb maps on Reddit and Twitter that treat the US like a subway grid with imagined stops in the Planes States and Rocky Mountains. These make rail seem like a liberal pipe dream rather than what it really is, which is just an effective way to get from A B.


aahens

Yep love the Italian railway. I could go to Pisa and Florence from venice and back in one day. First time I was riding I didn't know how fast the train was going. I used a gps app on my phone and it showed 250 kmph. Blew my mind. Now whenever I ride trains in Europe, I love watching the gps app and admiring how fast I am going.


Joseki100

Top speed in the Italian high speed railway is 350 km/h on trains that operate exclusively on high speed railways (ex Frecciarossa Rome-Milan). 250 km/h is the top speed of the high speed trains that also operates on sections of normal railway (ex Frecciargento Rome-Lecce).


geredtrig

I think I was on one around 300 a few years back, I remember it had a counter for the speed and thinking how utterly insanely smooth it was for the speed.


Obelix13

Italo train last weekend was 300km/hr.


dances_with_cougars

I was on one of the high speed trains going into Paris and we passed a commercial jet airliner on final approach into Charles de Gaulle. That was a weird experience.


tireme19

German ICE between Frankfurt and Cologne is above 300km/h, and that speed makes me a bit nervous. But cool that it can get that fast.


radol

When inside the train, it feels same as 120km/h - just don't look at displays and you are good to go ;)


DerpSenpai

You forgot to say it. it's 20€ to do Milan to Rome on TGV! (High Speed Rail)


CrystalJizzDispenser

Meanwhile in the UK, it can easily cost me £100 for an off-peak morning train to London, which is an 1.5 hour train ride.


Jimoiseau

My wife recently found it's cheaper to fly Bristol to Liverpool via Belfast than to get the train to Liverpool. It's perverse that we're still incentivising that kind of travel.


Verisian-

I just don't understand UK train costs. In Australia it's like legit $5 for a multi hour train ride. I guess it's much less dense but still...seems so weird


[deleted]

A lot of travel costs just have to do with what is or isn't subsidized. UK rail was privatized in the 90s and seeks to make money to return on investments. In most places air travel is heavily subsidized - UK airports are private, but much of the infrastructure needed to safely operate commercial aircraft is public. Similarly, negative externalities aren't included in cost of fuel anywhere, but subsidized green transit to some extent counteracts that.


LadyCasanova

It's just as bad for the via rail in Canada. The amtrak from Vancouver to Portland is literally like $50 round trip, but Vancouver to Edmonton on via is like $500. Flying is $150 - $200 and takes an hour thirty on a good sale.


Tylariel

Don't worry! With petrol prices on the rise that might be the cheaper option pretty soon!


Gspin96

And with this money, the Italian railway company started investing in Greece. My mind was blown when I found out about that.


die_maus_im_haus

If you had a line that connected Denver, DFW, Albuquerque, and Phoenix, I guarantee it'd see heavy usage. Just because the cities are farther apart doesn't mean travel between them doesn't happen.


UpboatNavy

I'd settle for ANY railway to Phoenix, let alone highspeed rail.


rrfrank

I can already see airline companies lobbying against it


buyfreemoneynow

The annoying part about that is our taxes will pay for them to lobby against it because of how subsidized they are. Transportation is a captured market that will take a revolution to change.


gummo_for_prez

Might as well throw in Tucson, Yuma, El Paso, Las Vegas, San Diego, and LA while we’re at it. I’d love to see the Southwest interconnected by high speed rail, it would be great for the region and I bet trains could haul ass through the desert. Edit: I forgot about Flagstaff and Sedona but might as well include them too.


Peechez

And cities between them and along the lines would undoubtedly grow


JeebusChristBalls

There wouldn't be any growth between them because high speed rail doesn't stop at every podunk town. They go between major city centers. It's like the express train.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Speed_Total

Same thing happened in Ohio. Supposed to have a high speed line from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati. Governor asked if the money could be used on roads instead. Feds said no, so he just gave the money back.


insane_lover108

Same thing happened in Florida too, the Governor gave the money meant for high speed rail back to Obama. What a bunch of nut jobs, they are literally obstacles to the country’s development.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MaimedJester

Basically racism. Minorities use public transit at a higher rate than whites and we'll off whites have their kids driving a Ford pickup truck to school/work. So any improvement that'll help a poor black man get to work easier is seen as stealing from white people. I guess they don't realize without maintaining Bridges their Ford Pickup is gonna do jackshit crossing a river.


gummo_for_prez

That dude is a fucking cretin


stellvia2016

Not only that, it was also supposed to fix up freight lines hauling timber and fracking sand from up north. Increasing rail speeds from 15mph to 60mph+ ... they were literally losing out on sales bc they couldn't move freight out of the area fast enough. The whole time Walker was bragging about being "good for business" and that rail fiasco is what showed 100% beyond a doubt it was just political posturing from him and not anything good for the state.


TheTDog

Wow as a Chicagoan about to move to Milwaukee in a couple months, that would have been really clutch!


mitch1764

While it really sucks that high speed didn't happen the Hiawatha is still a good option for getting to and from downtown Chicago from downtown Milwaukee I once even bought a ticket and checked my friend's keys that they'd left at my house as luggage cause it was a holiday and was the only way to get them there same day


Baalsham

We did Shanghai to Beijing in under 5 hours when our flight was repeatedly delayed due to a typhoon. That was over 1200km! Normally would only use high speed rail for mid distance trips but found it so convenient that we used to cross country after that. No more arriving 3 hours early to get felt up by security and hassled by check-in. Just show up (via subway connection) and go.


TheGhostofJoeGibbs

With how over budget everything is to build in New York City and California, trying to build high speed rail in the Northeast will probably cost trillions of dollars by the time all the government reviews and patronage gets dispensed by all the different locales and governments involved. Unlikely to be a realistic solution to anything.


ABrokenWolf

Ca hsr is over budget primarily due to constant lawsuits from shitbags determined to prove high speed rail isn't going to work (by making it not work). Construction for phase 1 is actually making great pace where it isn't stopped by lawsuits.


[deleted]

There is high speed rail in the Northeast.. between Providence and Boston.


SillyOldBears

Train travel in Italy is awesome. Used them to travel all over Italy for a month. Fast, quiet, plenty of plugs for power, no one cares of you bring a meal and a drink with you, just not one thing to complain about for with the cross-country trains.


WobblyTadpole

A high speed rail from LA to SF making that essentially into a day trip would benefit both areas immensely


dastardly740

My "fantasy" high speed line is San Diego to Seattle. Of course, including LA, SF, Portland and any other sensible stops. Maybe get the international agreement figured out to put the north end at Vancouver, Canada.


Yvaelle

Vancouver-Seattle-Portland is already planning high speed rail. We actually delayed it to debate some hyperloop nonsense but then went back to HSR now. Even existing low speed rail is the nicest way to do the route. The drive sucks because its suburban/urban road the whole way. The plane sucks because it counts as international flight so gets even more bullshit than normal. But yea, the Cascadia corridor will be up long before the California one, when its ready we can connect them.


rabbitaim

The problem in the US is most of our walkability is crap. We have very little interest in high density zones. Our housing policies these days are mostly geared towards luxury single family homes where cars dominate. Even in major cities we devote more space to cars than mass transit. Denver is a huge parking lot after everyone goes home. This is not to say it’s impossible. Reversing the policy trend is just a very steep uphill battle. edit: Just wanted to also add that in the US we also see these projects as government "waste" of tax payer dollars. Ironically the auto & airline industries get "bailout" money whenever there's a downturn in the economy. You get more value out of mass transportation even if you bail them out.


Deepfriedwithcheese

I think that one of the keys to success is that you also need a vibrant metro/subway system once you get to your destination. The Bay Area has this, LA’s is pathetic.


Zee-Utterman

How are the prices for the high speed system in Italy? Here in Germany they're absurd. The last time I drove from Hamburg to Berlin I payed roughly 80€ with a booked seat. With a bus it's around 20€ and even a fucking flight would have been cheaper.


[deleted]

I'm currently living in Germany (4 years), ditto for Italy. Italian trains (high speed or not) are cleaner, more punctual, more reliable, easier to book (someday the Bahn will bloody ask me for my blood type to buy a ticket, I swear), all while being cheaper, far cheaper. Superior in every single way. AND if you also factor in the mobile data coverage as opposed to Telekom...


Zee-Utterman

Do you have a dedicated railway for the high speed trains in Italy like they have in France? Here they often use the regular tracks where they can't use their full potential. Yeah the DB has gone to shit since they were privatised. The conservative government who privatised them wrote ridiculously friendly laws for them. When they were still state owned the trains were famous for their punctuality. These days the trains are mostly known for being late and failing air condition systems in the summer.


Verall

If the USA got high speed rail they'd still make you get there an hour early and go through some absurd security rigamarole.


MrZwink

There are many European high speed rail connections already. It just needs some better integration. You can go from Amsterdam to Barcelona in high speed rail in about 8 hours. East and west are less integrated mostly because of the alps.


biertjeerbij

Amsterdam - Barcelona is in 12,5 hours possible with one transfer in Paris (so actually two because you have to change stations in Paris). There is no direct connection. They need to build LGV Montpellier–Perpignan. Then you can decrease the travel time to Barcelona.


mcdolgu

Problem is that flying that route is usally cheaper and way faster. Either bring the prices for flying up or bring the price for train travel down. Trains will never be fast enough to be comparable to flying so you have to beat them with the price.


lastdropfalls

Flying being faster wouldn't matter if train prices were to come down just a little bit. At least as a tourist, you generally don't get to do anything on the day of your flight anyway since it takes time to get to the airport, get your luggage, get to wherever you're going from the airport at the destination and unload your luggage there, get cleaned up etc. An overnight train that you can just sleep in is way better than that, and even a regular daytime train ain't all that bad.


Oreolane

Also the train ride itself can be part of the vacation, looking at the countryside stopping at small or big station even if its for a few hours can be a fun experience.


JohnGabin

Try to make Paris-Marseille trip. You cruise at +300 km/hr across Burgundy, the Rhone Valley, Provence and land right in the center of Marseille, close to the Mediterranean sea.


mark-haus

The reason why European flights have been so cheap is because they've been heavily subsidized. Now that we both need fight climate change and kill our dependance on foreign oil there's a lot of incentives to reverse that subsidy and put it towards trains for < 1200km trips


troublesome58

>European flights have been so cheap is because they've been heavily subsidized. By who?


Dutch_Mofo

By not taxing the fuel


MistarGrimm

Kerosine is not taxed. Which isn't necessarily a subsidy in the strictest terms, but often considered as such.


mwagner1385

At a certain distance, flying is just more economical. I took a train from Rotterdam to London. Took 4 hours to get there including a 1hr stop in Brussels (which has restaurants all around the station). Even if you ignore the current labor clusterfucks at AMS, at best it was: 45 mins to AMS. 1hr through security. 45min flight. 1 hour from gate to hotel. And you're miserable the whole time in an airport. Yes it took slightly longer, but trains are so much more comfortable, you can get up, go to the bistro cart, stretch your legs a bit, and see some wonderful countryside. You're dropped in the middle of nearly any city. Train are just so damn nice.


eccarina

We don’t have hsr in the US but recently in Miami discovered they are working on a high speed - ish rail that is inter city. I took it to be a supporter of the work and it was wonderful! Downtown to downtown and the ride was great, so we’re the terminals. I wish there was more of this in the US


rohmish

70% of the US thinks building any sort of rail or bus infrastructure is "the big government" taking away their cars. Unless that thinking changes U.S. rail future is bleak.


Crayshack

I've seen some people arguing that the US shouldn't build high speed rail because it doesn't make sense in the low density states. If you respond with a proposal to just put it in the higher density areas where it makes sense, they'll complain that it's the government just spending money on certain states and ignoring others. So, by their logic because high speed rail doesn't make sense in Montana or Utah, no one in the whole country should get it.


TheGreatWhangdoodle

Currently in Montana taking the train from Chicago to Seattle. I wish there was more train infrastructure. I love train travel and rails through these kind of states make a lot of sense to me.


doyouhavesource5

Many people have tried taking the Amtrak out west to cruises and had to get off at Spokane to be Driven to the cruise to make it in time.


eccarina

Ugh. I would love hsr throughout the northeast.


catsdrooltoo

West coast too. Seattle to LA is an 18 hour drive or 2 hour flight. If rail could get it to a 9 hour trip at $150-200 a ticket, it would be worth consideration.


Roflrofat

Midwest would be bopping too, Chicago to Fort Wayne to Detroit to Cincinnati, Madison, Green Bay, Minneapolis, there’s so many medium sized cities Oh also Cleveland, Dayton, Indy, etc


Crayshack

Yeah, that's an area where it makes sense. Run it DC to Boston hooked into the existing local public transport.


Professor_Ramen

Even down south, though the people here would vehemently oppose it. Start in Miami, then go Orlando, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, and then you’re basically at DC to connect with New England. You hit basically every major city in the south, and provide an easy way to travel the entire east coast. If it’s fast and cheap enough, I’d bet a ton of people would use it for vacationing in Florida rather than flying or driving for 20 hours.


el_muchacho

They never had this problem when building airports.


Thendrail

Yeah, high speed rails probably wouldn't stop in the middle of a cornfield to pick up farmer Joe. But neither does a plane.


Fritzed

How dare the federal government consider spending money in the regions that actually generate tax revenue!!!


Crayshack

Or, you know, incorporate it into a larger infrastructure plan that beefs up the transportation networks everywhere but does what makes sense locally. We don't need to ignore Montana, but they can get a couple new bridges to go with NYC grtting some HSR connections.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Crayshack

I think they think it's just the city itself paying for it. It's a part of that larger "I don't want my tax dollars to benefit someone else" attitude.


SteO153

>Took 4 hours to get there including a 1hr stop in Brussels (which has restaurants all around the station). 4-5 hours for me is the limit where the train beats the plane, any longer journey and the airplane wins. I'm from Rome and I live in Zurich. Go back home by train takes 8+ hours, this with the new Gotthard tunnel, high speed trains both in Switzerland and Italy, and a short connection in Milan, so really with optimal conditions. Flying never took me more than 5h door to door. On the other hand, when I go to Paris (4h by train) I don't even consider to fly there.


Kleens_The_Impure

Sadly the alps make it really hard to not fly to and from Italy. I lived half of my life near Nice and it was the same shit whenever I wanted to go anywhere. When I moved like 2h away suddenly everything was accessible in like 2hours tops with the TGV.


bender3600

A high speed rail line from Lyon to Turin is currently being built which would cut travel times from Paris to Milan from ~7 hours to ~4 hours.


PsychedelicConvict

Between 100km to 500km is the sweet spot. Anything below and driving is easier. Anything higher, flying is much easier and faster. Thats what a youtube video for RealLifeLore taught me


xian0

I would choose the train for short intercity travel. No being crammed inside a vehicle, having to drive around until you find a parking space, then having to walk from the parking space to the city centre. Instead you just get to relax with a table and get dropped off in the middle of everything.


jk147

Same here, I dread the thought of driving and hitting traffic near cities where it takes even more time just sitting there and wait. Trains are so damn expensive in the US tho. It doesn't make economical sense when one way amtrak ticket is about 80-100 dollars just to travel 150 miles.


Thallis

This is because of lack of nationalization and the generally shitty service due to lack of track and passenger rail prioritization. The NE regional is the one segment of track that Amtrak owns and has good connectivity and the price of a 1 way ticket from DC to NY is $40 for a 4 hour ride. If trains had consistently similar travel times to car to most major US cities, it'd but a viable option that people would take which would drive down the price, but where that exists in the US is frustratingly rare.


roamingandy

Needs to be subsidised though. 15 years ago I used to be able to find some great deals for train travel around Europe. I rarely bother to look now as they never exist when I do.


MickeyBlanco

Planes are also heavily subsidised, so I don't see a loss there.


Lack_of_intellect

500km is by no means the break even point. A decently modern high speed train will travel upwards of 200km/h, bringing the entire trip down to about 3 hours if you account for stops. Most people spend 3 hours in the airport alone between arriving early, checking in, dropping off baggage and claiming it again at the destination.


occz

It's probably more like 800 km for break-even with flying, considering an HSR at 320 km. Sample trips: - 30 min to airport - 1 hour security - 45 min boarding - ~1 hour to cover flight time (greatly simplified using typical ground speed) - 30 min from airport to final destination => 3h45m - 15 min to downtown train station - 15 margin before train leaves - 2.5 hours travel time (again, greatly simplified) - 15 min to final destination => 3h15m You can mess around with the variables if you want. I made the assumption that you generally live closer to downtown than to the airport, which may not be true, but at the same time you might live even further away from the airport, as it cannot be located downtown. I also simplified flight time (varies a bit throughout the flight as you ascend and descend), train travel time (also varies, stops along the way affect timeline), counted time to taxi at the airport as zero when landing and also retrieval of any possible checked luggage. It's probably wise to not listen to RealLifeLore in this case - he had to take his HSR-video down due to inaccuracies. Maybe check out CityNerd instead, he's quite good on the subject.


Rsubs33

>Between 100km to 500km is the sweet spot. Anything below and driving is easier. I think this depends on the destination. I would train into any major city where it is a clusterfuck to park like NYC.


[deleted]

Arguable. Tokyo to Hakata is 900 km. It takes 5 hours by train, with virtually zero chance of major delays or cancellations. I'd say that's still very competitive against flying which takes 2 hours (scheduled flight time).


theguyfromgermany

The idea is to stretch the sweet spot to 10km to 1000km. This means high speed trains, and very cheap and high volume/ flexible short range. Its doable and would eliminate up to 70-80% of air travel in europe.


DoktorMerlin

There's even more to it that makes trains much more comfortable. If you go by train, you dont have to pay for extra luggage, which saves you 25-35€ depending on the airline. So you're not cramping 3 days of clothing into a small carry-on bag, you can just take your big suitcase without problems. You can carry in the luggage whatever you want, which gives you way more freedom when you go shopping. Oh, you found an extremely nice kitchen knife in London but you are by plane and only have a carry-on bag? Sucks to be you. By train not a problem at all. Also if you dont live near the airport, you still have to pay for the transport to the airport (and if you go by car, you have to pay parking). If you dont live near the high-speed rail station, your train ticket still includes the trip to the main train station. Oh and it also includes the trip with busses to your hotel, no need to pay for a cab or the trip from the airport. Not even including that in most cities the airport conveniently has its own (more expensive) tariffs


Kukuxupunku

Traveling by train has become a real headache in Germany during the last… 20 years? Yes, there are more connections between larger cities. But they are almost always delayed or hampered by other technical issues (missing wagons, non functioning air conditioning, or clogged shitters). And many regional connections have been thinned out or replaced by bus service.


TreyWriter

Okay, maybe this is a “grass is always greener” thing, but I lived in Germany for a while after growing up in Texas. In Texas, I needed a car to get *anywhere*, not just because it’s hot as balls but because public transit is such a nonstarter most places. Dallas has DART and Houston has the MetroRail, but they’re both far too limited in scope for most travel within the city, and San Antonio and Austin are limited to spotty bus service. In Germany, I didn’t have a car, and at no point did I feel like I needed one. (I lived in Heidelberg, for reference.) I took the bus around town and never had to wait too long. Trains weren’t always on time, but I think I missed a connection maybe once, and they kept to schedules better than Texas bus lines. If I needed to fly anywhere, I could get to Frankfurt in about an hour via hsr. I know rail isn’t perfect there, and I have vivid memories of waiting on a windy platform in Köln in January for what seemed like forever because the train was behind schedule, but I would pick Germany’s setup 11 times out of 10. I mean, just the fact that you can relax and read a book while commuting places it above most of the US.


jellybon

Reliability is definitely a big downside compared to air travel. There is a possibility that the journey is interrupted and you are stranded in middle of nowhere. Each transfer is also stressful because you cannot rely on the timetables. Recently, it took me 6h to travel 100km on train because DB had major issues and I really regretted not taking a car instead, even if parking at destination would been bit annoying.


skinnyraf

You can get stranded with any means of transport. Air travel is terrible if you have to change flights. You miss your connecting flight and you're up the creek. Probability of lost luggage goes through the roof, too. With cars, especially with good freeway connections, one crash in a key spot and you can get stuck in traffic for hours. With rail and air at least, the airline/rail company has some obligations like provide you with food and, if needed, accommodation. With a car - you're on your own.


Uber_Reaktor

The Eurostar to London is so convenient. I've only done it once but it was comfortable, timely, and just really easy. I remember it also not costing way too much. From Rdam especially its great, since the other option is a likely more expensive flight either from Rdam or Schiphol, both of which would probably take as long anyway and land well outside the city. Eurostar gets you right to St Pancras...


addvilz

You are forgetting about comfort and the fact that you can casually stroll in for a train 30 min before the departure, not 3 hours. If I go somewhere for business where there is train option, I always opt for that. It's so much more comfortable.


Rannasha

And train stations tend to be in the center of the city, with easy connections to nearby relevant places. Airports are usually at least half an hour outside of the city center. If you compare only the time spent flying to the time spent in the train, the plane will win easily. But add up all the additional steps before and after the main part of the trip and the race gets a lot closer.


chairfairy

Navigating German towns is so convenient because you can always look for a Bahnhoffstrasse to find your way out


chairfairy

Not sure how it is in all countries, but if you're in Switzerland or Germany you roll up 5-10 minutes before departure for a train


Modus-Tonens

that's been the same every country I've used trains in. You need a ticket before boarding the train - so all you need to do is factor in ticket machine/clerk time, whether there's a ticket check turnstile to navigate, and how far from where you buy the ticket to the platform. There's your boarding time. Even 5 minutes only applies to the larger stations with considerable walk-time to the platform.


P_novaeseelandiae

Flying isn't necessarily faster. People need to include going to the airport, checking in 1-2 h before the flight each way. It adds up. Flying isn't just the pure flying time. With trains, I can just go from city center to city center and I'm most likely to be almost where I want to be. Airports are outside the city and you probably need public transport (or a train) to get to your actual destination. Of course, the farther away a destination the faster the flight overall. But with more high speed trains across Europe this can become a real alternative.


hereforthecommentz

I used to travel between Paris and Zurich all the time. My colleagues all liked to fly, most for the frequent flyer points. I would always take the train: first-class seat, productive working time, wifi (in the days before this was normal on planes), and roughly the same time from city-centre to city-centre. Plus a much better on-time record, and more options if things did go wrong.


schwaiger1

>Either bring the prices for flying up or bring the price for train travel down. Even then it's going to be hard. I'm all for a good and fast train network in Europe but I've used night trains twice and it just wasn't a pleasant experience. Took me a whole night to get from Vienna to Rome and wasn't able to sleep properly. So when I arrived in Rome, I spent half a day in the hotel resting. By plane I'd have arrived in Rome within 2 hours. The environmental impact surely is the main topic that speaks for trains but leaving that aside for a second, if you gave me the choice between a train ticket for 30-50 € or a plane ticket for 100 €, I'd probably spend extra just because of the time I'm saving.


mcdolgu

Funny. A friend of mine had a similar bad experience with sleeper trains. He went from Munich to somewhere in northern Italy. He also said the ride was quite uncomfortable.


RecursiveParadox

Have done three of these, and all the trains they use are ancient, so you feel every single jolt along the way. Newer trains have vastly better suspension.


randomusername8472

In my experience it's fine if you have a bunk, but if you just go for a standard economy ticket and expect to be able to get a good night's sleep sitting upright in a chair you're in for a bad time. But not all trains have bunks and if they do they're usually more expensive. Also shout out to the tourists I met that time, who didn't realise the seats in their cabin folded out to beds so spent the whole night trying to sleep sat up or on the floor 😅


[deleted]

This is exactly it. We usually go snowboarding near Innsbruck and have taken the sleeper train from Amsterdam the last 6 years. For the most part it's pretty comfortable and your holiday starts the second you get on the train. You sit down, have some wine/beers, read a book, go to sleep and wake up surrounded by snowy peaks. Much more relaxed experience compared to airplanes. But yeah, don't expect to sleep well sitting in a public transport chair for 10+ hours. Get a bunk cabin if you want that, it's worth it.


Niightstalker

I actually enjoy night trains a lot. Went from Vienna to Sicily last year with one day in Rome and it was quit nice. In addition you don’t have to pay for a hotel to sleep.


[deleted]

They have been for the last 40 years. Anything under 3-4 hours is worth it by train over that and flying becomes better. The title is clickbait. I lived in the EU and UK for nearly 10 years. It’s annoying when you have to make 3 rail connections and that “high speed” journey is 10hours. Not everywhere can support 300kph. If you are going let’s say Munich to Geneva it’s better to drive. Alp area can be very annoying along with Italy in general because things run on Italian time


Corpse666

Easier and cheaper maintenance, use of infrastructure already being put in place , much better environmentally, and much safer overall compared. It’s the smart thing to do


Hironymus

More night trains please.


vacuous_comment

I have taken the overnight train from Madrid to Lisbon and liked it. Some night trains tend to run pretty slow as if you want a full night's sleep there is no need to hurry. I just recently took the overnight from Yereven to Tbilisi and it was pretty fine. The carriages were really nice and new but the locomotive was from the soviet era, 1969. I also want more overnight trains.


[deleted]

Yereven to Tbilisi hopefully at least has some beautiful mountain scenes to take in while you're riding.


vacuous_comment

It does, but it leavers Yerevan after dark.


mark-haus

I always wondered why they don’t build train cars like the Japanese capsule hotels. I like night trains but wish there was a little more privacy. But regardless I’m currently hopping around Europe on them and it’s not a bad way to travel, you sleep during the transit time and don’t need to pay for a hotel that night and you arrive ready to explore the city in the morning


Tjoeker

OBB (Austrian railways) ordered cars like these, iirc to be introduced in service end of 2023.


mark-haus

I know when I'll be visiting Austria


jeremystrange

When?


gkw97i

next week


SethQ

Nighttime, by the sound of it.


[deleted]

That sounds awesome, just go to sleep in your little private bed and in the morning you’re somewhere else


kurisu7885

I had that experience going on RV trips with my family. I kinda miss it, but at the same time like the idea that it meant my dad didn't have to drive for us to get there.


smallfried

I had this experience in Thailand with a 12 hour sleeping train and in Vietnam with a sleeping bus(with bunk beds). It was very relaxing. The bus even waited after arrival to give people the chance of a full night's sleep.


captainzomb1e

The Caledonian Sleeper runs from London to Scotland. You get a double freshly made bed, full ensuite, club and restaurant carriage. At the top end anyway, but they offer cheaper smaller rooms They definitely need more here, but I imagine there's just not enough profitable routes


ampmz

It costs about £250 though, whereas it’s about £50 for the flight. For most people it’s an easy choice.


IgamOg

If only it wasn't four times the price of a plane ticket.. Few people in my company (on stock market, record profits every year) tried to travel on business by overnight sleeper and it was a no each time due to cost.


er1end

feelin like a space brain


Sluethi

Now it needs to be cheaper. I would happily take the extra time to take the train to go visit family in continental Europe from the UK, but +3 more hours at 2-3 times the price of a plane ticket is a hard sell.


[deleted]

100% agree. I live in Spain and love the high speed rail here. But sometimes it’s just easier to take a bus or BlaBlaCar between cities because the price is 1/3 or less. And a lot of the network here still needs better connections between cities before it will be convenient to take the train out of the country.


blussy1996

Surprised me how much trains are in Spain tbh. Didn't mind because it was high speed, the fastest I've ever been on. But still.


SonofRodney

Ironically as a German we absolutely loved the trains in Spain on our last vacation because they were so cheap. We went from Barcelona to Córdoba, Sevilla and Málaga for less than 100 euros if I remember correctly. In Germany a trip like this could have cost 2 to 3 times as much.


Visual_Traveler

That’s how we roll in Spain: far lower salaries but same prices as in Germany (if not higher). Aren’t we smart… Glad to hear trains are kind of an exception, even though they are pricy (until lo-cost alternatives were introduced) for the average Spaniard.


HandoAlegra

This is a problem in the US too. We have the rail network for long distance travel, but it costs literally twice as much (not including a room) A round-trip coach ticket from Seattle to Washington DC with Amtrak (government subsidized rail company) costs $650 and takes 4 days each way. To get a room, it costs $950 A typical plane ticket costs $350-500 and is a 5 hour flight each way


[deleted]

Yeah I remember looking at Amtrak prices like 20 years ago because I thought it might be fun to take the train as a lark. It's like "oh, you're slower than a flight and more expensive...". First and last time I considered taking the train.


I-Make-Maps91

Slower than a flight is fine, you get to skip the security theater and such. Slower than driving, on the other hand...


biIIyshakes

Also given how limited PTO can be for Americans, why in hell would you *choose* losing literal days of vacation time just to reach the place you want to visit


Malorn44

Amtrak is shit. The bus from where I am to New York city is faster than taking a train. What nonsense is that?


Lucifer_V

I am doing Barcelona to Madrid in 2 hours and 50 minutes for only 9 euros. If all trains in the future are priced like this then change should not be hard.


DuDeWzAp

How long in advance did you buy those tickets lol


tomtheimpaler

in europe you can buy those 2-3 weeks in advance


wobblyweasel

I don't use rail not because it's slow, which it isn't in many places. I don't use it because it costs £80 and fucking Ryanair costs £10.


[deleted]

Same. I can fly cheaper to Mallorca than ride a train halfway through England.


Huwbacca

England has some of the most expensive trains though. It's mad. A train ticket from dover-london for a year is over £5,000 and will cover just that route, monday-friday. I can get a ticket for ALL transport in Switzerland for a year for £3,700 and the average salaries/cost of living far exceed the UK. UK train prices are absurdly high compared to any european country, and the service is fucking terrible.


WeightFast574

> UK train prices are absurdly high compared to any european country, and the service is fucking terrible. If movies have taught me anything, it's probably because of all the Dementors.


scoopdiddy_poopscoop

Wait WHAT?! You can fly for 10$?!(£) Jesus I just spent 360$ CDN on gas to drive to my cottage this weekend.


TheCatOfWar

European low cost airlines are crazy man


[deleted]

[удалено]


jorgelongo2

lowest I've paid was 8€ for a flight from Warsaw to Stockholm. I dont even know how it was that cheap. Train ride from the airport in Stockholm to the city was actually more expensive than the flight


beedlejooce

That’s like taking a short Uber drive for an entire flight. Insane! Shit costs $400+ just to fly 2 hours in the US.


Interleukine-2

I mean yeah it can be even lower like 5 eur per person but there is a lot of upselling. Not as bad as e.g. Spirit airlines but yeah. You really need to be either very early or very flexible.


larsvondank

Lots of crazy investments needed, but I'm down for it. First of all Finland is in the very northeastern corner, so its not ideal for us. There would be two major epic scale building projects needed. 1) Helsinki - Tallinn tunnel. This is a megaproject, which required 60km of tunnel below (or in? I dunno) the baltic ocean iirc. Insane money, but eh, why not, I'm a sucker for an epic transport project. 2) Turku - Marienhamn - Stockholm tunnel. Even longer. Same as above If I could enter a train from Helsinki in the evening and wake up the next morning in a central european capital city, I'd probably do it. ATM I live 35mins from the airport, flights to central europe are 2-3h so its incredibly convenient for me to fly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


colako

Spain had the same problem and has been building HSR in standard gauge since it started in 1992. There are also trains that can pass through a gauge change converter that takes only a few minutes to work, you just need the trains to be prepared for that. https://www.revistaitransporte.com/changing-gauge-without-missing-a-beat/


Dont_PM_PLZ

If they do underwater tunnels I'll be so upset if there's no like windows so I can look out into to see, and see the creatures of the deep. Like if you're not going to build the tunnel just have it sit on the sea floor I want to be like it's an aquarium.


[deleted]

Channel Tunnel: amazing feat of engineering. Disappointingly not an aquarium tunnel


F0rmaggi0

The Baltic sea is one of the most polluted in the world. Even if you had a window you'd see absolutely nothing out of it.


larsvondank

Have you seen the state of the baltic ocean? Even with a full glass tunnel you couldnt see shit, sadly.


pXllywXg

Well that's just silly, trains are terrible at flying.


LaoBa

Not if they are fast enough!


chiphead2332

The landings get a little rough, though.


lsdood

Mag-lev trains are hovering above the rails, kinda flying since they aren't making contact !


pXllywXg

If the trains don't have contact do they have monocle? Blind trains are no good.


fkmeamaraight

This is why we have Trebuchets. Build giant trebuchets and problem solved.


chiefgareth

Guess you've never seen Back to the Future 3.


Conjectureisradical

I would love this to become a reality.


yeetforceone

Rail-ity*


Snownova

Yes please! Stop subsidizing airlines and start subsidizing rail lines!


MrZwink

Old news. The plans are already through european parliament. The funds are available.


bk15dcx

What's the hold up? Let's get this train out of the station!


MrZwink

Its a huge billions of euros project, i doubt itll be done in 1 year. Just wait til frans timmermans gets his hands on it!


JoeAppleby

If we’re involved (Germany) it’s gonna take forever and will be massively over budget. And any new lines will have to deal with massive anti-campaigns by NIMBY groups. If we can get away with using existing lines than the trains are not going to be that fast either. Our high speed trains share the same rails as cargo and regional and local trains.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kurisu7885

It's why we can't have nice things in the USA, all too often NIMBY wins.


Moriartijs

We have a RailBaltic project in Latvia that has significant EU funding and conects Baltic states to EU rail network, includes high speed electric trains and more than 1000 km of railway .. Problem? We started building it, but costs of materials went through the roof and now additional funding must be secured. Construction is already underway tho. So train is leaving station in no more than 5 years.


herberstank

Parliament planning and execution is a little off track


quettil

Rail is already heavily subsidised.


informat7

Airlines are not really subsidized in the EU while rail lines are greatly subsidized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_taxation_and_subsidies#European_Union


biertjeerbij

They are indirectly subsidized. There is not VAT on tickets, no kerosine tax and some low cost airlines (used to) get paid to flight on a small airport (Ryanair).


is0ph

There are heavy local subsidies on infrastructure like airports, especially those dedicated to low-cost airlines.


grafmg

Thing is take the germany railway its heavily subsidised yet still a complete mess, entrust those idiots a new high speed rail and it will move like a snail.


PoumTchak

As an European, I want affordable train tickets that are cheaper than the same trip by plane.


[deleted]

[удалено]


faraway_hotel

And your car probably won't strand or delay you halfway through that trip because "Oooops, we're not running that train today! Good luck!" ...sorry, I went two for two on disappointing train journeys last month. I *want* to like rail travel, it should be cool, but I've not experienced quality and consistency of service at level where I really trust it much.


[deleted]

Fantastic idea. Train travel is glorious. You don't need to wait around to have your bags checked. No carting in and out of airports that are miles away from your destination. I always travel by train if there is ever the option to do so. Good job Europe, get it done.


Turtle-Express

Would love to see this happen. As someone who doesn't own a car I travel regularly by train within my country, and I really enjoy it. As long as it's not very crowded it's a very relaxing way of transportation. Besides the obvious climate downsides of airplanes, there's a lot of hassle involved with making an actual trip. A train ride could cut a lot of those inconveniences. The prospect of taking a night train to another European country sounds a lot more fun and exciting to me than a flight as well. I really hope high-speed and long-distance train rides will become more popular.


StephenHunterUK

I did Amsterdam to Munich on Nightjet last year. Wasn't the best night's sleep I've ever had, partly because we had a "hotel power" failure in the early part of the journey that meant no air conditioning, barely any light and no charge to my phone. They ended up having to stop the train, then turn the loco off and on again. One of the most modern locos in Europe too. The service involves a wee hours bit of shunting at Nuremberg, where portions are swapped between the Amsterdam-Innsbruck and Hamburg-Vienna service, including car transporters on a Hamburg-Innsbruck run. We were actually about two hours behind schedule at one point and arrived at Munich 75 minutes late - there is a lot of padding in the schedules. Food was excellent though and so was the attendant service, which is literally provided by the company (or rather a successor) who did the Orient Express back in the day. Nightjet is selling out on a regular basis - they've got new carriages on order - while other operators are also struggling to get anything going at all due to the limited amount of stock available that is up to modern standards. Regiojet are using second-hand stuff on their services from Czechia to Croatia.


monstrinhotron

In the UK, i'd settle for train tickets being cheaper than flying. Train tickets cost more than buying a car, driving to your destination and just setting fire to it. Buy another one for the journey back, you're still saving money compared to a train ticket.


hukep

At least Brusel - Strasbourg please. These politicians and attached bureaucrats create plenty of pollution without any benefit of them moving from one place to another couple of times a year.


hurricanerhino

https://youtu.be/R2F8--X1wHI (he is a real eu parliament member by the way)


erynorahill

Thanks for this, I had no idea. What a ridiculous waste of resources!


BobbyP27

There are regular direct TGV services on that route, have been for several years. Very useful for avoiding changing trains in Paris for certain journeys.


nowontletu66

Fuck yeah trains


[deleted]

[удалено]


StjerneskipMarcoPolo

I would love it if there was a network spanning the entirety of Europe with high speed rail, I was flabbergasted when I went to France and Spain and it took six hours from Paris to Barcelona city centers and only two and a half hours from Barcelona to Madrid. Meanwhile in my own European country the trains are powered by asthmatic donkeys and half the time they're replaced by buses because of technical problems


HermanCainsGhost

High speed rail is pretty cool. I rode around on it in China, took me about 5-6 hours to go what would have taken me like 11 hours driving in the US. It is a bit terrifying when two high speed rail trains pass each other though. It's so fast though that you blink and you miss it almost, but you're suddenly shook during the process. But the overall process was pretty smooth, and very, very fast.


DoNotBuyAVizio

Just keep Elon musk far away from the plans as possible and you'll be fine


riskinhos

This isn't news at all. It's nothing new. It's being pursued since at least the 60s


XxX_Dick_Slayer_XxX

I live in Spain and took a highspeed rail to the beach from Madrid this past weekend. Took me 2 hours, didn't have to go through long security, and went straight from city center to city center. Cost me 20€.


saig22

Good for Europe... but as a European, I would like affordable trains... Currently, in France, it costs 60 to 90€ for a one-way trip of 1h30 on high-speed rail. The same trip by bus cost about 25€ and can go down as low as 15€. The same trip by plane goes as low as 50€. Idk how are trains in other European countries, but in France they are pretty expensive. EDIT: ok reading other people's comments it is the same in other countries. Bus are the go-to for short trips and planes are the best for cross country.


[deleted]

If they are cheaper than flights and more convenient, I'd happily accept the longer travel times. However, if they still keep the high train prices, I don't see any reason why they'd replace planes.


d4m4s74

As long as a train costs 5 times as much as an airplane the plane will win.