[HN Gopher] TGV unveils high-speed trains of the future
___________________________________________________________________
TGV unveils high-speed trains of the future
Author : ingve
Score : 112 points
Date : 2022-09-15 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| thrillgore wrote:
| When I first saw the AGV2 trains years ago, I thought the nose
| looked tacky as hell but it looks a lot better with this
| prototype livery. Good job Alstom/SNCF. It'll never be as nice as
| the Atlantique EMUs but not bad.
|
| Can you also fix the byzantine booking system while you're at it?
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" In 2022, we don't want to go faster"_
|
| Yes we do!
|
| - _" the goal instead is high speed trains that accommodate more
| people"_
|
| No; we want legroom.
|
| - _"...while consuming less energy "_
|
| We don't want that either. Isn't your electricity nuclear power
| anyway? What's the problem with consuming too much clean energy?
| You're in direct competition with airline travel, so every bit of
| increased consumer attractiveness is a *net social benefit* with
| regards to climate change. What exactly is the hangup?
|
| Smells like cost-cutting MBA's shoving through unpopular changes,
| with a sugarcoating of social responsibility. This future sucks.
| I want my atomic flying cars back.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Do you know that TGV tickets are very expensive? It's easy to
| say "faster and larger" when you can afford it. But fitting
| more people on a train make transportation cheaper for the
| mass.
|
| I'm French and many friends and family would love to take TGV
| on holidays but have to ride by bus (search "cars Macron") or
| by ridesharing (Blablacar) due to the TGV prices.
|
| SNCF recently re-launched some quite old trains under the low-
| cost "Ouigo Intercites" brand, because demand for cheap-but-
| slow transportation is more and more popular. I took one from
| Nantes to Paris this summer (many hours longer than by TGV) and
| will prefer it next time too. I could fit my bike for free
| there (vs 10EUR in TGV, where I also usually have to
| disassemble beforehand).
| esel2k wrote:
| The article didn't mention it will get cheaper. To me it is a
| bit of a sugarcoating.
|
| Making faster - too hard More seats - more profit Less energy
| - more profit AND better company image
|
| Good MBA student.
| willyt wrote:
| Compared to UK trains the TGV is half the price, twice the
| speed and double the legroom and cleaner. TGV standard class
| seats are as good as the First class seats on the West Coast
| main line.
| Drunk_Engineer wrote:
| The bus is a much better travel option anyway. Trying to make
| travel plans with SNCF is a nightmare with their constant
| strikes.
| [deleted]
| lapinot wrote:
| In which world is the bus not a nightmare?! Waiting for it
| at a random bus parking where nobody knows where it
| arrives, almost no ability to walk around nor go to the
| bathroom, less space than train, no access to your big
| luggage.. I'm not even talking about speed or efficiency.
| mumumu wrote:
| Most buses on Europe have gps tracking and updated
| timetable available online, they are also fairly
| comfortable.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| Most? Can I see the data? I'm imagining you and I exist
| in parallel Europes.
| progval wrote:
| > Isn't your electricity nuclear power anyway? What's the
| problem with consuming too much clean energy?
|
| According to a 2019 poll, 69% of French people believe that
| nuclear "contributes to producing CO2 and climate change". (34%
| answered "a lot", 35% "a little", 13% "not really", 17% "no")
|
| Source: https://www.bva-group.com/sondages/francais-nucleaire-
| sondag...
| pasabagi wrote:
| Well, it does. Nuclear plants have very high embodied carbon,
| as they're made out of large amounts of steel and concrete.
|
| That's obviously not as bad as a coal plant or even a gas
| plant. But 'a lot' is still probably correct.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Over their 40+ years lifetime it becomes negligible.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Maybe? Because climate change is a self-feeding cycle,
| releasing large amounts of CO2 early, then amortizing
| that over decades of operation, is worse than a constant
| steady release.
|
| I guess you're probably right, nonetheless. It just
| annoys me when people post polls like this to prove that
| people in general are stupid, when polls generally show
| that ordinary people everywhere are way better on climate
| issues than political elites.
| tremon wrote:
| By that reasoning, a wind park isn't carbon-free
| electricity either. I wish you good luck on your campaign
| to convince the public, after that you can come back here
| and we'll talk again.
| cinntaile wrote:
| If we just look at how much CO2 something produces when
| it's ready-built we potentially ignore a huge part of the
| pollution. You usually do a life cycle analysis (LCA) and
| come up with a g CO2-equivalents/kWh. No energy source
| has 0g/kWh.
| triceratops wrote:
| Can a nuclear plant produce enough energy to capture all
| the carbon emitted in its construction? While still being
| profitable, obviously.
| himinlomax wrote:
| Several orders of magnitude over, yes.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Just thinking the problem through, I think that's very
| unlikely, unless you're in a pathological situation.
|
| So, for a nuclear plant to be profitable in a competitive
| market, it needs to produce energy for less than its
| competitors. If its competitors don't have to pay to
| capture carbon (through money or output) then they are
| always going to be cheaper per watt, and the plant is
| going to become unprofitable.
|
| The only way that would work is if you had chronic
| electricity undersupply (v. likely but also pathological)
| or if nuclear plants were way more efficient than
| alternatives (the opposite is true).
|
| Generally the argument for nuclear is you need a diverse
| range of energy sources to have a stable power supply,
| not that they are a great 'bang-for-buck' option. (An
| argument I agree with, fwiw).
|
| EDIT, PS: It's worth keeping in mind that carbon capture
| is largely an unsolved technical problem, and I think
| it's perfectly feasible that _it will never be solved_.
| The basic idea of burning fossil fuels for energy, then
| using energy to recoup the carbon from the atmosphere,
| just makes no sense at all. There 's no world where this
| would be cheaper than just not releasing the CO2 in the
| first place.
| DuskStar wrote:
| If you made all the alternatives also pay to capture
| their carbon cost, I think nuclear would be very
| competitive.
|
| Obviously it blows fossil fuels out of the water, but
| hydroelectric also uses huge amounts of concrete, and
| IIRC the energy return on investment (MWh you get out per
| MWh it takes to construct) for solar and wind is quite
| poor and so I'd expect that to take a while to pay off
| too.
| Retric wrote:
| Nuclear has a vastly worse EROI than grid PV solar.
| Nuclear lasts longer which somewhat offsets construction
| costs, but needs a vast workforce continually and a
| maintenance and power simply to operate.
|
| As a sanity check, sub 2c/KWh solar can't require that
| much energy simply because energy costs money. Nuclear on
| the other hand ends up having ~1,000 workers drive
| somewhere for 50 years which also takes energy, but
| that's often ignored.
|
| That said, people love to come up with all kinds of
| irrelevant comparisons using vastly outdated data to make
| things look worse for solar while ignoring Nuclear's
| downsides. For example France's capacity factor fell
| below 70% when they tried to ramp up production and
| things would look even worse on a 100% nuclear grid.
| cinntaile wrote:
| It seems highly unlikely that grid PV solar has a higher
| EROI than nuclear and I can't find anything that supports
| this either (I find plenty of graphs supporting the
| opposite).
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Absolutely hearsay here but a family member worked for SNCF as
| a mechanic for TGV trains (but not the locomotive) and has said
| that the pantograph was the limiting factor they had designed
| the last generation around. That it was designed as a wear part
| and the top and optimal speeds were chosen based on thresholds
| for unacceptable wear on the transmission lines themselves,
| which are much more difficult and expensive to replace. He told
| me never to expect TGV speeds to increase significantly until
| we saw them ripping out the powerlines and replacing them with
| an entirely new system.
|
| Again I don't know if this is true! But it seems reasonable
| enough to me. That conversation was about twenty years ago and
| plenty has changed with TGV in the mean time but sure enough no
| top speeds have increased on any line in the system in that
| timeframe, and new lines are deployed with the same speeds as
| the older ones.
| bombcar wrote:
| I've often wondered why a wheel rolling against the wire
| wouldn't be better, after all at those speeds you have a
| wheel rolling against the track _and bearing the weight of
| the train_.
| pmyteh wrote:
| Having a low sprung weight is important for pantographs,
| and getting the 25kV off a rotating contactor would
| introduce another unhelpful electrical interface I suspect.
|
| If you want to know _far_ more than you did before about
| overhead line electric systems for railways, from a
| predominantly British perspective, I can _strongly_
| recommend Gary Keenor 's (free) book:
|
| https://archive.org/details/overhead-line-electrification-
| fo...
| crocal wrote:
| This correct. Power lines wear induced by pantographs is the
| limiting factor for TGV top speed.
|
| The engineer that can solve this problem will allow top
| speeds in the range of 400/500 kph on /existing/ TGV tracks.
| Much better problem to solve than hacking a lame hyperloop.
| [deleted]
| q-big wrote:
| > The engineer that can solve this problem will allow top
| speeds in the range of 400/500 kph on /existing/ TGV
| tracks.
|
| How is this problem solved in China?
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_trains_in_China
| fhrow4484 wrote:
| They're maglev trains, so there's no pantograph involved
| there.
|
| https://youtu.be/_ZZMViMDjto at 16:40 explains the
| problem. It's in french, but you can get the gist
| visually as it's a for-kids documentary.
|
| Tldr is a wave on the cable is created at high speed,
| making it impossible for the train to stay in contact
| with the cable. The documentary also touches on another
| top speed limitation: how agressive the turn angles are,
| limiting the top speed.
| q-big wrote:
| > They're maglev trains, so there's no pantograph
| involved there.
|
| The linked wikipedia article also lists speeds of Chinese
| non-maglev trains.
| fhrow4484 wrote:
| Ah true, maybe they have higher operating costs on
| pantograph and/or the power lines maintenance?
|
| (I don't fully believe GP's comment of "The engineer that
| can solve this problem will allow top speeds in the range
| of 400/500 kph on /existing/ TGV tracks.", as narrow
| turns is probably a bigger contraint than the pantograph
| problem. Maybe a few of the more straight lines can
| benefit, but there's more constraints to solve before
| taking turns at 400/500 kph!)
| flyinghamster wrote:
| Wear and tear is always going to be a limiting factor. Back
| in 1955, SNCF began its early high-speed research with a
| record-setting 331 km/h run - this under 1500V DC catenary,
| boosted to 1800V for the run. Some aerial footage of the run
| shows spectacular arcing, and they switched pantographs when
| first one became too damaged.
|
| Newsreel in three parts (in French):
|
| 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AyPGkMoGE0
|
| 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpLf4M5OXeQ
|
| 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWjelxe_MU
| londons_explore wrote:
| Plane designers figured out long ago that for the best
| aerodynamics you don't actually want a pointy nose - a big
| hemisphere like the bottom of a raindrop performs best.
|
| So why does this have a pointier nose? Just for PR?
| marcinzm wrote:
| ...maybe the people who design trains and run expensive
| modeling on them understand the actual design constraints
| better than you do?
|
| Might be better to honestly ask why rather than starting by
| trying to insinuate that the people who designed this are
| idiots or did it only for PR.
| thrillgore wrote:
| I think pointier noses and air flow matter more for tunnel
| travel due to the piston effect, so it does matter here.
| carabiner wrote:
| No, commercial jets have a blunt nose for structural reasons
| and pilot visibility while landing. SR-71, F-16 and so on all
| have pointy noses.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Pointy noses in military craft are to reduce the radar cross
| section - it actually performs worse.
|
| A round nose has a flat bit at the front which reflects radar
| direct back towards the enemy that you're flying towards.
| Military planes generally have no surfaces facing directly
| forwards for that reason - even surfaces made of plastics
| reflect some radar when they get wet.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The F-16 has a targeting radar mounted on a flat bulkhead.
| It's nose is effectively transparent.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| As you go deeper into transonic and supersonic pointy nose
| is lower drag.
| cassepipe wrote:
| Two words for you to meditate upon : Chesterton, Fence
| snoth wrote:
| IIRC, it's more or less inspired by the Kingfisher's beak[1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingfisher
| jdlshore wrote:
| Your comment rubbed me the wrong way. Here's why, in case it's
| helpful:
|
| You act as if you have expertise in aerodynamics, but don't
| share the sort of details an expert would. An expert would say
| something along the lines of, "Cool fact: big hemispheres are
| more aerodynamic, but the TGV chose a pointy nose because of X,
| Y, Z." Or even, "Big hemispheres are more aerodynamic, but also
| involve engineering tradeoffs X, Y, and Z. I wonder if that's
| why they went with a pointy nose?"
|
| That kind of comment would be awesome! Informative and
| interesting. Instead, your comment across both arrogant and
| ignorant. Arrogant in that you assume that any deviation from
| your understanding is wrong, and ignorant because your proposed
| rationale is extremely unlikely, and flamebait besides.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| I assume on a train or everything else that is supposed to be
| on the ground you want downforce, whereas on a plain you might
| not mind less downforce and more lift? I would guess the shape
| helps with that.
| [deleted]
| masklinn wrote:
| The shape is quite similar to Shinkansen, which have it to
| limit compression waves when entering tunnels at high speeds.
| londons_explore wrote:
| This sounds like the reason...
|
| I can imagine that 100 year old bridges have a habit of
| dropping bricks on trains that send massive pressure waves
| every 10 minutes all day long...
| masklinn wrote:
| Bridges are not really the issue, they have a lot of space
| to dissipate the shockwave.
|
| However the manufacturer might be expecting a significant
| business through the alps, given the base tunnels
| Switzerland has been digging.
|
| That would make high-speed tunnel entry a larger concern
| than it's historically been for the french market (most of
| the tall mountains are on the edges of france so high speed
| lines don't have a surfeit of tunnels, probably unlike
| japan which is rather mountainous).
| Jiejeing wrote:
| Yes, in fact the first deployment of these trains will be
| over the france-italy frontier (despite what this article
| says, I read the opposite in french news, and premiering
| a TGV on the Paris network makes no sense at all).
| googlryas wrote:
| It would have been a better question if you left out the "Just
| for PR?". That gives the indication that you aren't
| particularly interested in the answer if that's the only reason
| you suspect.
|
| What exactly improves PR for a train having a pointy nose vs a
| rounded nose?
| Someone wrote:
| ?Maybe a desire to create some downforce to keep the train on
| its track?
|
| There also is a difference in velocity and in expected air
| pressure, airplanes don't have to bother about not creating
| pressure waves for planes passing them at a few meters distance
| while flying in the reverse direction and airplanes are
| relatively much longer than air planes compared to their width.
| That means that a much larger fraction of the air resistance
| comes from the sides of the train.
| agumonkey wrote:
| are you sure planes aerodynamics weren't tailored to 3d
| movements while a train isn't ?
| londons_explore wrote:
| So how many Wh/mile can it do?
| speedgoose wrote:
| The old one did around 20kWh/km and they claim 32% less CO2 per
| passenger. Perhaps including the construction too, but that
| shouldn't change a lot.
|
| So let's say 14kWh/km (or about 8 times the recommended food
| energy per day for an average person, per mile).
| londons_explore wrote:
| That actually seems like an awful lot...
|
| A tesla model 3 is 250 wh/mile. so 56 cars energy = 1 trains
| energy.
|
| The train has steel wheels (far lower rolling resistance) and
| a far more aerodynamic shape... But also has the downside of
| far more weight, probably less efficient motors and power
| electronics, limited regen ability, and faster speed (air
| losses are the third power of speed)
| seszett wrote:
| > _56 cars energy = 1 trains energy._
|
| These trains accommodate around 500 passengers though,
| while a car is generally max 5 passengers.
|
| So the trains are about ten times more efficient, and two
| to three times as far.
| speedgoose wrote:
| The train also has 740 passengers. 56 Tesla model 3 could
| fit 280 people (a bit tight in the middle back seat).
|
| And yes, the model 3 cannot average 300km/h. Still it shows
| that trains could be better.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Each TGV seats 500-700 people, about 100 to 500 times
| better than you RR average model 3. And goes a lot faster.
| I'd be curious to know the M3's mileage above 300 kph.
|
| I thought regenerative braking was a strong point of
| trains? The motor is probably of comparable efficiency, I
| expect power electronics to be worse, indeed.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The _train_ is capable of regen braking... But frequently
| the infrastructure is not. A train braking can be many
| megawatts of power, something that can 't be dumped on
| the electricity grid of a small town without a bit of
| planning in advance.
|
| So, where capacity to dump the power can't be certain,
| regen braking isn't done, or is at least limited.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Aww man, I wish we had these in Austria. Don't get me wrong, the
| trains here are nice, but they are sooo slow that most of the
| times it's quicker and cheaper to get to your destination by car
| on the Autobahn, especially if you just buy the ticket a few days
| before the journey without any discounts and pay full price.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| OBB is leading the pack on the sleeper train front though.
| Wien, Graz, Innsbruck, all linked up to the rest of Europe on a
| neat network of NightJet trains. The next generation of rolling
| stock for the sleeper cars looks amazing too.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Sure, but Graz - Vienna train route is still slow as shit and
| that's Austria's second city. The train travels at like
| ~100km/h average or something, which is pathetic compared to
| high speed trains in Germany or France.
|
| I get that this could be a limitation of the Austrian
| landscape making fast train infra challenging, but even a
| Flixbus traveling on the slow lane on the Autobahn gets you
| there ~30 min faster and at half the price of OBB.
|
| The trains are nice and the service is great, but the speeds
| are a joke for the price of the non-discounted tickets as
| even traveling on the autobahn by bus can be faster on most
| routes.
| esel2k wrote:
| Sitting on the TGV Lyria while writing this. I have to say it is
| a great feeling to travel across the country in a few hours.
| However I think it is the experience around it that make it
| difficult: Waiting lines at Gare the Lyon never knowing where
| your train comes and having huge qeues or just the idea that
| travelling with bags or family squeeze in the metro, still makes
| me think about flying or driving for certain use-cases.
|
| I think it is mostly a business train to get from A to B (bug
| cities).
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >Waiting lines at Gare the Lyon never knowing where your train
| comes
|
| The platform is announced in your booking application in
| advance. You can wait anywhere and if it isn't shown a few
| minutes before departure, you can go near the platform and see
| where it is on the screens.
|
| I'm French, I don't have a car so frequently travel by train
| and I've never waited in the station. Families aren't an issue
| for me either and it's easy to overtake people if you know
| where you're going. Especially in Gare de Lyon:
|
| - https://www.ratp.fr/sites/default/files/2019-08/gare-de-
| lyon...
|
| - http://estacions.albertguillaumes.cat/img/paris/lyon.png
| esel2k wrote:
| Thanks, I didn't know it is visible in the booking
| application. Normally the trip is arranged by a booking
| agency (business trip).
|
| I wanted to take kids (stroller etc) with me but I don't see
| them in the metro. How do you get from the big TGV train
| station to any place in Paris with small kids?
| mazugrin2 wrote:
| I've seen people with kids every time I've taken the metro
| in Paris. It seems pretty normal and no different than
| doing so on any other metro. I don't even think I
| understand this question. Is there something about the
| Paris metro that makes it harder than other metros when
| moving around town with children?
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| Stairs, pickpockets and the smell (I am French, used to
| work in Paris for 8years)
| kilolima wrote:
| This was not my experience recently. German and Italian
| stations publish printed posters of train schedules and
| platform numbers but did not see these in any train station
| in France. Instead, platform numbers are updated at the last
| possible minute probably to keep the crowd off the platforms,
| so everyone congregates around the central board waiting for
| their number, and then rush madly to the platform en masse.
|
| Also, on the French trains the connection platform numbers
| are only announced in French, so good luck if you're not a
| native speaker. Italian and German trains announce
| connections in English and also have LCD monitors on the
| bulkheads. All in all, I found the French train system the
| worst in Europe.
|
| (Also, the new French booking app and website is train-wreck
| level of broken awfulness. And forget trying to book a train
| ticket across a national border, or several!)
| MayeulC wrote:
| Agreed. I don't remember how it is in Gare de Lyon, but
| platforms are usually announced at the last minute for TGV
| (not TER). It may have something to do with Vigipirate, the
| counter-terrorism operation?
|
| Gare Part-Dieu in Lyon is one of the worst offenders,
| sometimes having to change platforms.
|
| We do not talk about the app. (TBH, I don't use proprietary
| apps, but they also somewhat neutered their website, though
| I think they still indicate platforms in real time?).
|
| The only thing I'm curious about... there are plenty of
| LCDs?
|
| Also, I still prefer the experience to taking a car or
| plane, and can run errands while waiting for the train.
| bondant wrote:
| I don't agree with all of what you said but if there's one
| thing I completely agree with it's the booking website. It
| is such a pain to book tickets on it.
| danw1979 wrote:
| Yup, I'd definitely travel from London to the south of France
| by train more often if it didn't mean the Gare du nord - gare
| de lyon change...
| jacobriis wrote:
| You can connect in Lille, France for TGV service to
| Montpellier and Marseilles.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| There used to be a TGV direct from London to Marseille, at
| least during the summer season, iirc.
|
| But, IMHO, it's much more convenient and faster to fly from
| Heathrow to Marseille.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I've only done that trip a once by rail. I was blown away by
| the rail option, it was great. Despite Gare du Nord being
| disorganised and gross, it was the best international travel
| I've ever done by a huge margin.
|
| One is likely to need a connection at both ends and
| connecting from a rail hub is a lot simpler than from an
| airport (and less subject to rip off airport pricing). I
| loved the space, the comfort, the views and the display
| showing the speed.
| j-pb wrote:
| To think that we could have maglev trains in europe for 40 years
| now...
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| It was a political decision back than. German stopped being
| great long time ago and the Transrapid cancellation was just
| the beginning of German downturn. The energy crisis will be the
| last episode of Germany's long depression.
| tremon wrote:
| _the last episode of Germany 's long depression_
|
| Last or latest? Calling it the last makes it sound hopeful,
| but your post doesn't exactly read like that.
| thrillgore wrote:
| As appealing as Maglev trains are, the world still invests
| heavily in steel wheel trains due to reliability and easier
| scaling out to meet demand. We haven't solved issues with
| magnet reliability on maglevs on the scale that steel wheel
| trains have resolved.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I was about to gripe about trains in the US, but it looks like
| Amtrak is buying models that look pretty similar to these ones
| for the next generation of Acela trains[1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avelia_Liberty
| gumby wrote:
| Between NY and Boston I've never seen the speeds claimed on
| that Wikipedia page -- not even close.
|
| I only once rode NY->DC and it felt a bit faster, but not
| hugely so.
|
| I didn't conduct any formal measurements, but I use to be a
| frequent TGV, ICE, and Shinkansen rider and you can tell you're
| moving fast by just looking out the window.
| rst wrote:
| Current Acela trains run at the advertised top speed for a
| stretch of about 50 miles in Rhode Island, and another even
| shorter bit in New Jersey. Elsewhere, they're limited to far
| slower speeds by track (about comparable to European commuter
| rail lines).
| synacksynack wrote:
| http://www.realtransit.org/nec7.php has some interesting
| charts and analysis of the speed limits on the various
| segments of the Northeast Corridor. Note that the values
| shown are not necessarily what it achieves in practice, but
| there's seemingly potential to address that via operational
| changes and small, targeted capital spending.
| masklinn wrote:
| Yes the US priorities on rail (freight) means Acela is... not
| very good. IIRC the current train set has a maximum speed of
| 240km/h, and because so little of the way is dedicated the
| average speed end to end is around 110 I think. Kph. On the
| fastest section between NYC and DC it's 130, or 80 mph.
| That's a car's speed.
|
| Boston to DC is 735km which Acela covers in 6h45 minutes.
|
| By comparison Paris to Marseilles is 862km which the TGV
| covers in 3h.
|
| In fact, the "Mistral" which preceded the TGV and ran from
| 1950 to 1981 covered the distance in 6h40. That's how bad
| Acela service is: it compares disfavorably to best-of-class
| trains _from the 60s_.
| gumby wrote:
| Despite many claims that Acela is swift, the killer
| argument is looking at the time difference between Acela
| scheduled time vs regular trains with only a few stops on
| the same route.
|
| I happily pay more for Acela because the carriages are more
| comfortable but if the time is inconvenient I am happy to
| book a regular train.
| bombcar wrote:
| Standard "heavy rail" Amtrak (think: Pacific Surfliner, two
| stories tall with thundering diesel,
| https://www.pacificsurfliner.com/plan-your-trip/ ) can run
| at 120 MPH if the track has positive track control. By some
| definitions that makes it "high speed rail" heh.
|
| Which the Surfliner didn't in my day (and I think it still
| doesn't) - but it would hit 90 MPH through Camp Pendleton
| and I swear my GPS clocked it at 100 once.
|
| Still would beat a car LA station to San Diego station
| during rush hour traffic.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I ride the NY<->DC NER and Acela pretty regularly, and I can
| tell the difference between the two (especially when it's the
| "nonstop" Acela). NY<->BOS I agree, though -- it's always
| felt exactly as fast as the NER.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _on that Wikipedia page_
|
| The page which says it isn't expected to start service until
| 2023?
| jtlisi wrote:
| For the NYC to BOS stretch the Acela is handicapped by
| politicians in Connecticut.
|
| https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/30/opinion/path-
| better-n...
| baud147258 wrote:
| well, if the SNCF could also pour some of that money in
| secondary/regional lines too, it'd be swell
| hadrien01 wrote:
| That's on regional administrations, not the SNCF
| thrillgore wrote:
| I thought the SNCF *was* all the regional authorities and
| also the owners of the rail lines.
| hadrien01 wrote:
| The SNCF is currently the only operator of regional train
| lines in France, but it's the regions that decide what
| lines are run and on what budget. They also own or lease
| the trains. The rails are indeed owned by SNCF Reseau.
| julienchastang wrote:
| There is also "Chemins de fer de Provence"[0] separate
| from the SNCF. I took it once in the 80s when I was kid
| traveling from Nice to somewhere in the Maritime Alps for
| a day. I remember a rickety old train that did not travel
| fast, but nevertheless had its charms.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemins_de_fer_de_Provence
|
| Edit: The French Wikipedia page is quite a bit more
| interesting:
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemins_de_fer_de_Provence
| saryant wrote:
| Some regions operate TER trains themselves.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| " the first test phase will start in the Czech Republic at the
| end of 2022."
|
| Interestingly, while we have 0 km of passenger high-speed rail in
| CZ, we have a testing facility that half of Europe uses when
| testing their high-speed trains. [0].
|
| Hey, at least something.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velim_railway_test_circuit
| knerz wrote:
| Are there any high-speed rail lines in planning in Czechia? I
| am desperate for a high speed Berlin-Prague-Vienna link.
| jonp888 wrote:
| Yes, a new high speed line will be built between Dresden and
| Prague, mostly in tunnel to replace the current slow and
| restricted line which had to stay in the river gorge.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| There are, but, as we say in Czech: "the paper can tolerate
| anything". I will certainly be opening a bottle of Malbec the
| day when the works actually start.
|
| HSRs would be very useful, as the contemporary railway
| network is badly overloaded and at the edge of its capacity.
| Every irregularity, including planned repairs, unleashes a
| hurricane of delays all over the main corridors.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Build two cities, quick!!, on the two ends of the testing
| facility!
| giomasce wrote:
| It's a circle!
| mikeyouse wrote:
| 50% savings right out of the gate
| soperj wrote:
| I don't normally update comedy, but this tickled.
| julienchastang wrote:
| I recently took the TGV from Avignon to Paris. It was fast, clean
| (a notable improvement from the past), efficient and on time. I
| was left with my usual feeling: why can't we have this in the US?
| It will never happen. A confluence of NIMBY, onerous regulation,
| a judicial system that ensures private contractors have the upper
| hand in legal disputes, just to name a few reasons will always
| mean this kind of infrastructure will remain out of reach for
| most Americans especially those living outside the northeast
| corridor.
| pkulak wrote:
| Well, California is working on it, but taking a constant stream
| of abuse for going over budget. Not sure who else is ever going
| to sign on for this process. I can't remember the last time and
| entire nation cared this much about an over-budget freeway
| program; and there have been plenty.
| rr888 wrote:
| Two big differences. The distance between US cities is much
| further than Europe (aside from the NE USA which does have high
| speed rail). Also European cities have nice downtowns and good
| public transport so people do want to go from one city center
| to another. As opposed to the USA where no one wants to go from
| say downtown Houston to downtown Denver.
| antongribok wrote:
| North-East USA does not have high speed rail. Amtrak Acela is
| not high speed rail.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| How long does it normally take to travel between Houston and
| Denver? If you're flying, I'm _guessing_ it takes more than
| four hours between the center of each city because of, _e.g._
| , airport security theater, check-in, _etc_.
|
| At TGV speed, I believe that train connection would be about
| four hours.
| vondur wrote:
| Not easy here. You see the results of the California high speed
| rail project. Billions spent with basically nothing to show for
| it. Buying the land up near the cities they would service is
| super expensive. I was hoping they could at least connect the
| Central Valley cities. It may allow people to live where it's
| cheaper and commute to the LA area.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-15 23:01 UTC)