# MISC | At what point is a countries rail network 'good'?



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Momo1435 said:


> The Swiss people don't agree with you, why else would they use the train as much as they do, more then any other nation in the world?


Lack of road capacity and parking spaces.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

UK , Japan and Switzerland are actually 3 of the WORST networks out there ... and that is a direct consequence of their excelence HIGH standars. :lol:

Any tiny fault gets so much overrated that it matters much more than bigger faults in other networks.

:cheers:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

flierfy said:


> Lack of road capacity and parking spaces.


There is plenty of both over there actually. :lol:


100% electrification

rack-rail , funicular , urban transit , metro+troeelycar dense networks + other stuff


As an example:

Luserne has some 50.000 people living there (I think it's more) and its main station has like ... 15/16 tracks ??? huge quantity of trains (from local comuters to intercity) per hour ... a tiny town in the middle of nowhere like that in the UK would really be served with such high quality services ??? 


^^ Does anone still believe in santa and in what politicians say ??? :nuts:

Just look at Staffordshire(?) at Stoke-on-Trent with it's more than 450.000 and compare ... :lol:


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

sotavento said:


> Luserne has some 50.000 people living there (I think it's more) and its main station has like ... 15/16 tracks ??? huge quantity of trains (from local comuters to intercity) per hour ... a tiny town in the middle of nowhere like that in the UK would really be served with such high quality services ???


Doncaster is of similar size and there are more trains departing from its station.



sotavento said:


> Just look at Staffordshire(?) at Stoke-on-Trent with it's more than 450.000 and compare ... :lol:


Stoke has just 240'000 people but has also excellent intercity connections. 2 Intercities per hour to London alone that bridge the 260 km in 90 min.
Trains from Lucerne to Genève take almost 3 hours for the same distance.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

flierfy said:


> (Non-alpine) Switzerland is a densely populated and extremely rich country. These circumstances are favourable for rail traffic. Still, the southeast of England is nothing short of the Swiss rail network. Neither in density nor frequency.



The alpine parts of it are definitely not favourable for rail traffic though.
And if only one part of England is comparable to the whole of Switzerland - doesn't that say a lot about the quality of their rail network?


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Koen Acacia said:


> The alpine parts of it are definitely not favourable for rail traffic though.
> And if only one part of England is comparable to the whole of Switzerland - doesn't that say a lot about the quality of their rail network?


No, it doesn't say that. You haven't read carefully enough. I just compared the southeast of England to the non-alpine part of Switzerland because I know just this part. I didn't say anything about the rest of the England or the UK.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ Then tell us which rail network in Europe is better then the one in Switzerland.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

flierfy said:


> Swiss railways are slow and awfully expensive. [...] Which allows them to offer reasonable priced rail fares. Something Swiss railways fail to do.


No, they aren't:

From http://mct.sbb.ch/mct/en/reisemarkt/services/fuer-alle/familie/juniorkarte.htm?=

_With the Junior Card, your family outing costs even less because for a mere CHF 20.–, your child (6 to 16) can travel through Switzerland for free a whole year long. Only condition: It is accompanied by a parent holding a valid ticket*._ (20 CHF = 13 EUR)

From http://mct.sbb.ch/mct/en/reisemarkt/abos-billette/abonnemente/halbtax/halbtax-zusatzkarten.htm?=

_You can buy a 1-month travelpass to supplement your Half-Fare travelcard. This turns your Half-Fare travelcard into a GA travelcard for an entire month. 1-month travelpass 
for Half-Fare travelcard holders CHF 350.– second class_ (220 EUR)

_If you have a Half-Fare travelcard, you can buy 1-day travelpasses at particularly attractive prices. These give you unlimited travel for a day, just like a GA travelcard._ (between 27 and 42 EUR depending of the type, second class, the 27 EUR card is sold only by local municipalities and is not always available)

Swiss trains are slow, but as said this allows optimal conncetions. And often there is not enough capacity to add faster trains between big cities.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

I love the Swiss railways. Leave them alone!


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Cant you buy unlimited travel on all bus and trains in switzerland for like £4000 a year?


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ Then tell us which rail network in Europe is better then the one in Switzerland.


The French rail network is at least two steps ahead of the Swiss. Their integrated high speed network is absolutely top draw. The French have sussed it. Connect the cities with trains that beat air traffic, carry large bulks of people within the big metro areas and leave the flat, nearly unpopulated areas to other means of transport that are more suitable to the individual demand there.

And even the English rail network despite its flaws is still better. They have a proper high speed network for decades with frequent services and acceptable travel times. The substance that Victorian England left its successors in network density and architectural brilliance is still unmatched. The rolling stock is pretty new. And their train accesses match the platform heights.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

You don't need high speed rail in Switzerland. It gives you more time to view the outstanding landscapes.
I used swiss railways once, on my way from Hamburg to Milan (I was not fit for flying and had too much luggage).

I arrived in Basel with the night train from Hanover on time and had 6 minutes to get the connecting train (IC). In Arth-Goldau (near Lucerne lake) I had to change to the EC Zurich-Milan. It was just getting out of the train, crossing the platform and waiting two minutes for the connecting train. Very convenient.

For Switzerland it is more imporrtant to have synchronised timetables than building HSR-rail. Building and maintaining the latter in a mountaneous country would cost too much.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Coccodrillo said:


> No, they aren't:
> 
> _You can buy a 1-month travelpass to supplement your Half-Fare travelcard. This turns your Half-Fare travelcard into a GA travelcard for an entire month. 1-month travelpass
> for Half-Fare travelcard holders CHF 350.– second class_ (220 EUR)


That's effectively 449Fr with 99Fr for the half-fare card included.
I get 1-month travelcard for Berlin-Brandenburg for €176,30 without a half-fare card. And Berlin-Brandenburg is almost as big as Switzerland.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

flierfy said:


> Doncaster is of similar size and there are more trains departing from its station.
> 
> 
> Stoke has just 240'000 people but has also excellent intercity connections. 2 Intercities per hour to London alone that bridge the 260 km in 90 min.
> Trains from Lucerne to Genève take almost 3 hours for the same distance.


Theres now way you can compare the FLAT straights of the southern sections of both WCML/ECML to the windy alpine crossnation Luzern-Geneva. :lol:

But then again ... bein Luzern a 50km deviation from the main city (Zurich) ... how many tph do you have in the UK linking suck exotic locations as (random examples):

Doncaster-Ipswich ???
Doncaster-Gloucester ???


Or any other random middle cities ??? and remenber that the entire switzerland has about 1/3rd of Londinium's population. hno:


Same reasoning could be made when comparing the "_oh so great"_ Shinkansen of Japan with the London-Aberdeen Flying Scotsman services ... or any other random good.her-bad.there anywhere else. :cheers:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Theres now way you can compare the FLAT straights of the southern sections of both WCML/ECML to the windy alpine crossnation Luzern-Geneva. :lol:
> 
> But then again ... bein Luzern a 50km deviation from the main city (Zurich) ... how many tph do you have in the UK linking suck exotic locations as (random examples):
> 
> ...


Doncaster-Ipswich ??? every 30mins peak times. every 60mins off peak. (involves a train change tho in London)

Doncaster-Gloucester ??? every 30mins peak times. every 60mins off peak. (involves a train change tho in Birmingham)

Thats pretty good for such a random route...

Transpennine Express runs trains every 15mins on a lot of routes (yes, even the hilly, tight curve routes)


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Republica said:


> Cant you buy unlimited travel on all bus and trains in switzerland for like £4000 a year?


Adults about 2000 € (1866 UK £), 16-25/more than 65 years 1500 €, 6-16 years 1000 € (children up to 16 tavel for free only with parents). There are discounts for husband/wife, sons, etc.



flierfy said:


> That's effectively 449Fr with 99Fr for the half-fare card included.
> I get 1-month travelcard for Berlin-Brandenburg for €176,30 without a half-fare card. And Berlin-Brandenburg is almost as big as Switzerland.


Nearly all people that use the train more than 3 times per year for "long" distances have an half fare card. 350 CHF = 230 EUR, something more than 176, this is true.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

flierfy said:


> The French rail network is at least two steps ahead of the Swiss. Their integrated high speed network is absolutely top draw. The French have sussed it. Connect the cities with trains that beat air traffic, carry large bulks of people within the big metro areas and leave the flat, nearly unpopulated areas to other means of transport that are more suitable to the individual demand there.


Your last point might be a good point for France, but the situation in the Swiss mountains is completely different therefor you can't say that it's a bad point for Switzerland. First, the mountain railways are highly touristic and therefor are an economic asset for Switzerland. Secondly, the environment, the railways don't pollute the fresh Alpine air, cars do. And thirdly, some of the valleys wouldn't be reachable in the winter if it wasn't for the railways. The mountain passes are usually closed because of the snow, mountain resorts like St. Moritz would be cut of from the rest of the country if wasn't for the trains. And that wouldn't be to good for a region that is known for it winter sports. 


flierfy said:


> And even the English rail network despite its flaws is still better. They have a proper high speed network for decades with frequent services and acceptable travel times. The substance that Victorian England left its successors in network density and architectural brilliance is still unmatched. The rolling stock is pretty new. And their train accesses match the platform heights.


It's only fast on the main North South routes that all go to London. If you're not on of these mainlines the trains aren't that fast. And to be honest, to make speed an excellent point instead of just a good point it needs a real HSR network with speeds over 300 km/h from London to the North. 

The Victorian heritage is actually something that works against the British network right now. Since it's a real hindrance to increase the capacity to cope with the growing passenger numbers especially around London. 

As for platform heights, that's indeed a good point of the British network but Switzerland is catching up, all new trains have low floor access and on many stations the platforms are raised.

You still don't convince me that these are better, because I still see more excellent points in the Swiss network


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> It's only fast on the main North South routes that all go to London. If you're not on of these mainlines the trains aren't that fast. And to be honest, to make speed an excellent point instead of just a good point it needs a real HSR network with speeds over 300 km/h from London to the North.


This is being worked on, but I don't think much effort is going as its really not that needed. The main thing that is needed is to just increase the length of trains. The average speed is 97mph on a lot of the 125mph routes which is very good. I think 140mph is more of a speed they should aim for as you wouldn't need to 'waste' money on whole new tracks. Its really the signals that need upgrading. The trains can already reach the speeds fine, like the 390s, 225s and 395s...

They main thing that impresses me about our rail network is the high quality diesel rail. In most countries tracks are only diesel as they cba upgrading them so are left to rot at low speeds on 90mph and below. Whilst the ones in Britain are 90mph-125mph and very frequent in a lot of places! (yes I know some older trains only run at 75mph)

Where else do you get high speed diesel trains like this...








The HST is the mother of all high speed diesel dating back to 1975 and still looks great!


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ We'll since the Swiss network is completely electrified, you don't see to many diesel trains in Switzerland. Only some freight locomotives are not electric, but that is just to prevent changing locomotives at some industrial lines that can't have overhead wires.

That brings me to another excellent point of the Swiss rail network, it's for the largest part run on hydroelectricity. Making it one of, if not the cleanest railway networks in the world, it doesn't hurt the clean alpine air.


----------



## disturbman (Aug 28, 2008)

The fast diesel train is clearly not an argument here. It's isntead the result of choosing not to electrify the mainlines. Anybody could have such trains. I'm wondering if Denmark doesn't have fast diesel train since they also have decided not to take on the electrification process. To electrify a track is costly but electric trains are much more efficient than diesel run trains and in the long run it makes more sense to have overhead on heavy used mainlines than not.

Anyway, the english railroad system is facing or going to face capacity problem in the long run and HST might be the only option here. It would be good if it was build at the wider continental gauge, the english gauge being a bit tight. The good thing is, England is quite densely populated so railroad is allways a sensitive investment.

Where as to know if it's Europe's or World's best railroad system... this is conversation that will never end so I will try not to participate.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ We'll since the Swiss network is completely electrified, you don't see to many diesel trains in Switzerland. Only some freight locomotives are not electric, but that is just to prevent changing locomotives at some industrial lines that can't have overhead wires.
> 
> That brings me to another excellent point of the Swiss rail network, it's for the largest part run on hydroelectricity. Making it one of, if not the cleanest railway networks in the world, it doesn't hurt the clean alpine air.


The main point that I was making is, that the diesels in the UK are not dirty old trains like in most countries, but nice clean refined and fast trains...


----------



## disturbman (Aug 28, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> The main point that I was making is, that the diesels in the UK are not dirty old trains like in most countries, but nice clean refined and fast trains...


And like I said it's not a point. Most diesel trains looks old and dirty because they run on small regional lines with a very small amount of pax. It's then not economical to renew the trains and everything else on the line (rails, stations...) as often as you will do it on a first class line (thinking a national or regional mainline - an IC relation). You are in fact mistaking the power mode (Diesel) with the type of service (IC).

And this is just the result of UK choosing not to electrify their mainlines.



There is many exemple of fast and clean diesel trian all over the world.

Denmark:
- IC3
- IC4

International:
- Coradia
- Desiro

Japan:
- KiHa 281 Limited Express (IC)
- 2000 Series Limited Express (IC)
- KiHa 110 Regional 

France:
- Turbotrain Not a diesel but anyway.
- AGC

Germany:
- An oldy
- ICE TD

And then the "crappy trains"...

Japan:
- KiHa 20
- KiHa 40

United Kingdom
- Class 101

Then there is many more but I'm bored...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Momo1435 said:


> You still don't convince me that these are better, because I still see more excellent points in the Swiss network


Neither am I convinced that Swiss railways were the best in the world. They're simply not good enough on too many important criteria.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

disturbman said:


> United Kingdom
> - Class 101
> 
> Then there is many more but I'm bored...


The Class 101 hasn't been in service for several years now...

I guess the 'worst' diesel train the UK has is the Class 153
They came in service in 1987 as then 155 but have since been split into single cars...

Top speed is only 75mph but they don't run on high speed routes anyway...

But even then they are not that bad...


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Doncaster-Ipswich ??? every 30mins peak times. every 60mins off peak. (involves a train change tho in London)
> 
> Doncaster-Gloucester ??? every 30mins peak times. every 60mins off peak. (involves a train change tho in Birmingham)
> 
> ...


:cheers:



off-the-record: yes ... I know that ... that's precisely why I chose those particular random cities ... but most people don't seem to even bother checking their facts.

Most of the _*"still surviving"*_ british network has_ better_ and _more frequent_ services than anywhere else on earth even in the small rund down routes to nowhere. :lol:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

disturbman said:


> The fast diesel train is clearly not an argument here. It's isntead the result of choosing not to electrify the mainlines. Anybody could have such trains. I'm wondering if Denmark doesn't have fast diesel train since they also have decided not to take on the electrification process. To electrify a track is costly but electric trains are much more efficient than diesel run trains and in the long run it makes more sense to have overhead on heavy used mainlines than not.
> 
> Anyway, the english railroad system is facing or going to face capacity problem in the long run and HST might be the only option here. It would be good if it was build at the wider continental gauge, the english gauge being a bit tight. The good thing is, England is quite densely populated so railroad is allways a sensitive investment.
> 
> Where as to know if it's Europe's or World's best railroad system... this is conversation that will never end so I will try not to participate.


As a matter of fact just the other day I was researching something about some old Cravens bogies and I happened to find out that the "old" bogies I was looking for were basically the same ones that most of the british MkI coaches have on them ... what we considered usable for speeds of up to 90km/h you use for speeds of 140/160 km/h ... go figure. 

The same happens with electrifications and track infraestructure ... we here have a "lighter" version of the same 25Kv 50Hz trackage that the french use on their LGV's ... we have a speed limit of 140km/h (pushed to 160km/h on a couple of sections) and they run the same matterials at 280/320 km/h. hno:


By the way ... british diesel EMU's run at 160/200km/h while the danish run at 140/180 km/h.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> As a matter of fact just the other day I was researching something about some old Cravens bogies and I happened to find out that the "old" bogies I was looking for were basically the same ones that most of the british MkI coaches have on them ... what we considered usable for speeds of up to 90km/h you use for speeds of 140/160 km/h ... go figure.
> 
> The same happens with electrifications and track infraestructure ... we here have a "lighter" version of the same 25Kv 50Hz trackage that the french use on their LGV's ... we have a speed limit of 140km/h (pushed to 160km/h on a couple of sections) and they run the same matterials at 280/320 km/h. hno:


I guess it happens in a lot of places, but nothing seemed to come bad out of it. The MK1 coaches didn't run at their top speed much anyway as back then the tracks in a lot of places didnt take it. 90Mph was like the highest...


----------



## da_scotty (Nov 4, 2008)

Well some are just having a fight between 2 country's, I just want to point out another suggestion:

The netherlands!

This is not because I'am from the netherlands, but because of me having travelled a lot.

-The main advantage of the dutch railway network is it's amazing high freqeuncy's.. 
Basic frequency's are at least 2 trains per hour, with usually 2 local trains and 2 intercity's on mainlines, and between large urban area's 6+ trains per hour per direction is not rare.

-The next main advantage is it's huge coverage of railway line's in the netherlands, there is barely any city with more than 25.000 inhabitants that doesnt have a railway connection.

-Although this is one of the most heard complains in the netherlands, the trains generally run on time, I believe that some 90% of the trains run on time (with a delay of just 5 minutes being counted as delayed) and if you count trains on time within 5 minutes I believe it is something 97% of the trains being on time. I think only switserland and Japan can beat or equal this

Disadvantages are at the other hand:
-somewhat low speeds
-somewhat expensive tickets, but not as expensive as the UK for example

the low speeds on the other hand is not such a problem, station density is high, and as there are no "real" intercity services, fast train accelaration is more of a must than high speed, as the time gained by travelling 200 instead of 140on short distances is almost minimal

I'am interested what you think...


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

^^ Swiss and Dutch networks are similar...


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Forgive me for fantacising, but I'll regard a system like this as good.

Coverage - all cities and towns, with cities enjoying a good urban rail network

Speeds - 125mph(200km/h) on mainlines and 100mph(160km/h) on minor lines; fast entry and exit to and from stations, grade separated junctions preventing bottle-necks

Capacity - separation of fast and slow lines where necessary (4/6-track lines)

Frequency - Clock-face timetable, decent turn-up-and-go on urban/suburban lines.

Convenience - stations located in city and town centres as well as park-and-ride type ones.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

^^ I so agree


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

Worst in the world. Definitely. At least among industrialized nations.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Facial said:


> Worst in the world. Definitely. At least among industrialized nations.


You talking about the US passenger rail "network" here?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Manchester Planner said:


> You talking about the US passenger rail "network" here?


I was just thinking that. England can't have the worst. Its not the worst anyway by miles...


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

You English bashing yourselves for worst rail network?

Have no fear, an American is here.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Facial said:


> You English bashing yourselves for worst rail network?
> 
> Have no fear, an American is here.


lmao


----------

