# GERMANY | Railways



## LuckyLuke

I know a bit late but better late than never!  

Some Facts:

- The station will be the largest in Europe (I'm not sure if it will the the largest in the world) and the most expensive in the world.
- The 321 m long glass roof of the east-west hall is constructed as a lattice shell of almost square net elements varying in dimension
- By 2010 transport planners estimate more than 55 million long-distance visitors to Berlin and 85 million regional passengers.

Design: Meinhard von Gerkan 
Client: Deutsche Bahn AG 
Construction period: 996-2006
Gross floor area:180,000 m²


----------



## LuckyLuke

*Construction picctures from the last month*


----------



## Bitxofo

I saw the works in November.
It will be a wonderful station!

Nice rendering.
kay:


----------



## Justme

Year, it's a great station, when will they start on the highrise tower?


----------



## Jaroslaw

At this rate they won't get done for the World Cup.  

And those estimates about visitors to Berlin... pure propaganda.


----------



## Nodder

Today they actually started tilting the towers over the tracks.

Here are some illustrations:


----------



## jetsetwilly

Forgive my ignorance, but is this an upgrade of an existing station, or a new giant terminus for Berlin?

It looks like a fantastic design either way!


----------



## LuckyLuke

Justme said:


> Year, it's a great station, when will they start on the highrise tower?


Unfortunately I guess they will never build it. This tower should be the Deutsch Bahn headquaters but since the Deuschte Bahn built the DB tower at the Postdamer Platz this tower won't be needed. But who know maybe in some years ...


----------



## LuckyLuke

jetsetwilly said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but is this an upgrade of an existing station, or a new giant terminus for Berlin?
> 
> It looks like a fantastic design either way!


Well, I wouldn't call it an upgarde because the whole station is new. On the same place there was the old mainstation.


----------



## Jaroslaw

Actually part of the station has already been open for a year, all the S-Bahn trains between Ost-Bhf. and Zoo stop here. Kind of pointless since there is nothing out there. And like the rest of new Berlin, this thing somehow leaves me cold. Maybe the sheer money spent makes it cold... 

Anyway, here are some pics I took last August.


----------



## Q.

Really fascinating project, I really must visit Berlin someday soon.


----------



## Justme

Year, I stopped on an S-bahn there a year ago, to visit the Bundestag. It does seem odd, as there isn't much there, and a couple of the reasons it feels somewhat cold, is that it is such a big structurestation, but very few passengers use it so far.

It is also devoid of shops still. I don't know if they plans shops here, and a large shopping arcade would be perfect once it is fully operational. However, I suspect from my experience with many German developments that they will omit such things.

Hopefully I am wrong.


----------



## GNU

LuckyLuke said:


> Well, I wouldn't call it an upgarde because the whole station is new. On the same place there was the old mainstation.



Its a totally new station.There was a big trainstation in its place,but it got totally destroyed in the war.After the war only the very small historic S-Bahn station survived and was used.
The old Lehrter trainstation wasnt Berlins mainstation though.It was one of many big stations with the Anhalter trainstation being the biggest and therefore the mainstation.
Btw.the construction works are well in time and should be finished before the worldcup starts.


----------



## DaDvD

Wonderful station!


----------



## Falubaz

when we can see the underground part of the station??? when it'll be ready? does anyone know?


----------



## LuckyLuke

*Some pictures of the tilting of the first 2 towers*





















Source: http://www.ekunkel.de/Fotos/BL-135/LB-135.html


----------



## beta29

Falubaz said:


> when we can see the underground part of the station??? when it'll be ready? does anyone know?


It will be ready in the middle of 2006. Also the U55 wil be ready then.


----------



## Falubaz

oh, thanks, that's pretty soon now!!


----------



## tille

sorry, but i just had to mention this: a.f.a.i.k. it will 'only' be the largest 'crossing railway station' (Kreuzungsbahnhof) of Europe.. which would make it somehow not comparable with 'regular train stations'.. that's at least what I found on the homepage of Die Bahn.. `.´..but still it is of course a mega-mega-station.. - ..and probably just a bit oversized..
It's just a shame that they 'cut off' about 1/4 of the roof in order to get it ready for the Football Worldcup 2006...

anyways.. - ..still a mega-mega-station..:]

And here's my cup of pix (..sorry if I post them again, I first posted them in the comon picture-forum..)









..no Glass-Wurst (Glass-Saussage) to see yet - but the river spree is already in its new bed..









..Glass-Wurst is almost ready in autumn '04..









..the two towers ("slices of toast") are slowly rising..









..entrance to the new 'Tiergarten Tunnel' is still a bit hidden underneith the train station..









..view underneith the rails..









..view from the inside to one of the growing towers..









..an ICE-Train passing by..

I again only posted a few pictures here..
..please feel free to see the rest of the 62 pictures of
berlin's new central train station 'Hauptbahnhof'
at my picture-post-homepage bilderbook.org..

..happy browsing..!

..greetz, t..


----------



## HelloMoto163




----------



## Bitxofo

earthJoker said:


> No it isn't, Frankfurt and Leipzig is bigger, well even Zürich is bigger (350'000 pesengers/day and 26 tracks).


Please, read the post number 69!


----------



## coolminx

*all/luckyLuke ...*

there are some *Videos* on the "youTube"-page ...

this is cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHIidHSSV2U&search=hauptbahnhof
(please *resize to fullscreen* ("size" => 2nd left symbol))

and that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdPPBFJ0HuU&search=hauptbahnhof


----------



## GNU

edit


----------



## GNU

Here are a few pics of the new mainstation in Dresden (East-Germany) which is currently being renovated for around 200 million Euros.
Sir Norman Foster is the architect.



































I find it difficult to find new pictures on this project, so if anyone has a link to more pics please post it.


----------



## LuckyLuke

Dresden's main railway terminus, completed in 1898 to a design by Ernst Giese and Paul Weidner, is one of the largest in Germany and one of the most impressive late-nineteenth-century railway stations anywhere in Europe. Linking Dresden with Berlin and Prague, the railway played a significant role in the citys industrial and economic growth in the first half of the twentieth century. During World War II, however, Dresden's station was severely damaged in Allied bombing raids. Wartime destruction was compounded in the post-war period by poor maintenance, so that the building finally reached a state where remedial conservation was required.

Faced with this crumbling structure, the practice was commissioned to undertake the renovation and expansion of the station as part of a wider masterplan to revive the surrounding area. The station redevelopment removes various additions and alterations made to the building over the last hundred years in order to restore the integrity of the original design. Circulation within and through the station has been rationalised and the design allows for the future expansion of the station by extending the barrel-vaulted roof over the outer platforms by 200 metres, providing a cover for the new high-speed trains, which are almost twice the length of the old platforms. The central tracks have also been pulled back in order to create a large open space at the heart of the building, which can be used as a market place, or for cultural events.

The first element of this redevelopment to be carried out is the reconstruction of the 30,000-square-metre roof, a task made more urgent by the degraded and unsafe state of the old steelwork. Originally the roof was partially glazed, but after the war it was covered with timber, admitting no daylight. The entire structure has now been restored to its original condition and sheathed in a translucent skin of Teflon-coated glass fibre. This new roof transmits 13 per cent of daylight and significantly reduces the stations reliance on artificial lighting. At night, light reflects off the underside of the canopy, creating an even wash of illumination throughout the station, while from outside the whole structure radiates an ethereal silvery glow.

Text taken from: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/


----------



## Justme

Interesting, anyone know when completion is due?


----------



## hkskyline

I visited Dresden back in May. I did see a lot of construction, but didn't think it was such a huge project.


----------



## VicFontaine

LuckyLuke said:


>


Looks awesome!! Dresden is going to be so beautiful!! The only thing they need to do is raze these shitty buildings around the shopping mall (which can be seen here on the right hand side...)


----------



## samsonyuen

Wow, that's gorgeous!


----------



## GNU

Thx for the pics Hkskyline. 
I dont think it will be a very big project either. Its only 200 million, so thats actually less than what the renovation of the glass roof in Frankfurt HBF has cost.


----------



## GNU

Justme said:


> Interesting, anyone know when completion is due?


thats a good question. I think nobody really knows when its going to be finished.


----------



## LuckyLuke

The grand opening of the mainstation was yesterday.


----------



## tq

completion in 2010! damn too long!


----------



## Bitxofo

It is going to be a much better and very nice station!
kay:


----------



## Rat

Wowwww Cool and nice station


----------



## pflo777

is that really how its going to look like?
Right now, while the station was already inaugurated, the tracks on the side are not covered with membranes!
Will they be covered later?


----------



## GNU

Here are some new pics from the station:


http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0916/default.aspx


----------



## FallenGuard

I like how they combined the Old and the Modern Architecture, like the Glass Roof that is supported by these criss-cross Arcs from earlier times. Nice!


----------



## redstone

WOW! So cool! Reminds me of Riechstag! 

What's the history behind the station?


----------



## city_thing

Whilst I think Norman Foster is overrated as an architect, I'm very happy about this new station. Go Dresden!


----------



## lindenthaler

wow funny, dead thread is alive again :cheers:

i am gonna search my hdd for new images so im am gonna post it here.

p.s. i forgot to post this pics i made last year:


























































































































































:cheers:


----------



## Svartmetall

Out of all the railway systems I've been on around the world, the German railway system comes second only to Switzerland (though I've not sampled Japan yet). Switzerland only wins because they're so darned punctual - I prefer the German rolling stock and stations.


----------



## brisbanite

I appreciate the pic's but would like to know where they are. If you have anymore don't be shy!


----------



## Ewok71

I try to identify some of idvs`s pictures

1. Cologne
2. Duisburg (Ruhr-Area)
3. Duisburg (Ruhr-Area)
4. Essen (Ruhr-Area)
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. Frankfurt?
9. Frankfurt?
10. Frankfurt?
11. Frankfurt
12. ?
13. ?
14. Frankfurt
15. Frankfurt
16. ?
17. Cologne


----------



## lindenthaler

@Pics u didnt identified are from Wiesbaden HbF


----------



## M.Schwerdtner

Leichlingen Bf ... Next station after Solingen Hbf in direction to Köln Hbf
i just played a bit with my cam hehe


----------



## interesting monster

What I like about DB and the ICE in particular is the sheer volume. When I was wandering around Europe, I would always have a rail pass and I would love to just jump on an ICE and go where it took me. If I didn't like where I was, I would take ANOTHER one. They just ran like 5th Avenue busses. The other thing was they didn't require a reservation like the TVG does. It was just hit the station, hop on a train and go.

Plus the glass that can become opaque with a flick of a switch between the driver and the rest of the cabin is mondo cool!


----------



## ahsm

This picture is amazing!

So are the rest of them as well. Good job!


----------



## Timon91

I've travelled from Amsterdam to Wien Westbahnhof (CityNightLine) recently. Unfortunately it was night when travelling through Germany, so no pics. When riding into Frankfurt am Main was magnificent! Nice light on all high buildings, it looks great.


----------



## M.Schwerdtner




----------



## serdar samanlı1

When I think of Germany, two things come to my mind: Autobahns and Deutsche Bahn


----------



## He Named Thor

I took DB from Berlin to Potsdam the first time I was in Germany. From what I remember it was pretty nice. 

Any pic of the type of train I would've been on? This would've been 2004.

Great photos by the way.


----------



## Kuvvaci

amazing pictures... I think more pictures are needed...


----------



## serdar samanlı1

Berlin Hauptbahnhof pix please! The train station of the future!


----------



## Spam King

serdar samanlı;28458296 said:


> Berlin Hauptbahnhof pix please! The train station of the future!


Here are two by me:








I'll upload more next weekend when i'm back in berlin, i forgot my camera there so i can't transfer any pics at the moment


----------



## city_thing

Can I request more photos of Munich Hbf bitte?

Danke!

I took the train to Munich from Switzerland - I was impressed by how large the main hall at Munchen Hbf was.


----------



## Kuvvaci

How old is the last version of ICE?


----------



## Patrick

it is the ICE 3, built since 1999.


----------



## Svartmetall

city_thing said:


> Can I request more photos of Munich Hbf bitte?
> 
> Danke!
> 
> I took the train to Munich from Switzerland - I was impressed by how large the main hall at Munchen Hbf was.


I think Munich is one of the more grotty stations of the big German cities which is quite strange when considering the excellence of the rest of their PT infrastructure. Perhaps it is due a renovation sometime soon?

Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hannover and Hamburg Hauptbahnhof pictures wouldn't go amiss though!


----------



## Timon91

I remember waking up in Frankfurt Hbf last february, opening my eyes and seeing the big hall, just amazing.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

gramercy said:


> IF a line like that existed, most people would use it for shorter distances it wouldn't be only people travelling from turkey to the uk think about all the possible connections


The problem with international highspeed in Europe is it got off to a wrong start: the state railway operators founded outsourced companies such as Eurostar, Thalys or the late Cisalpino for these lines and founded seperate ticketing systems, and in part platforms and did not coordinate any train correspondences. This is pretty much how the split up corridor London-Berlin works at the moment: one train to Brussels, change plattform, do border formalities, wait endlessly. Then go Brussels-Cologne, wait again, change again, then you do Cologne-Berlin. Because of the split up ticketing from three different companies, the final price is usually horrendous. 
They forgot that the great advantage of railways is that they are a network, which has been rediscovered for the Paris-Frankfurt and Paris-Munich cooperation of SNCF and DB. Not many people boarding a Munich-Paris train will do the whole route, but you will still have more passengers than if there was a seperate train for Munich-Stuttgart, Stuttgart-Strasbourg, and Strasbourg-Paris.Another thing which will make sense once there are longer highspeed routes is highspeed night trains, which according to my knowledge are only envisaged in China so far.


----------



## czm3

gramercy said:


> That's rich. How about comparing Detroit airport to a city of that size here. Like, erm München. Or Frankfurt.... both of these have better airports.


whatever you say, you're the one that brought detroit into this discussion in the first place. Honestly I don't know why or where you were going with that. However your lack of responce to my initial point says to me that you agree with me that Stuttgart hbf is a dump and was in desparate need of an upgrade.

I agree with the second part of your post though...


----------



## hans280

Baron Hirsch said:


> The problem with international highspeed in Europe is it got off to a wrong start: the state railway operators founded outsourced companies such as Eurostar, Thalys or the late Cisalpino for these lines and founded seperate ticketing systems, and in part platforms and did not coordinate any train correspondences. This is pretty much how the split up corridor London-Berlin works at the moment: one train to Brussels, change plattform, do border formalities, wait endlessly. Then go Brussels-Cologne, wait again, change again, then you do Cologne-Berlin. Because of the split up ticketing from three different companies, the final price is usually horrendous.


I half agree and half disagree with your position, Baron. To test your position I went on the SNCF Voyages site and checked out the price and availability of throughfare tickets from London to Berlin. Such tickets can be bought and the price is not, to my mind, horrendous. The cost is 194 Euros for a single fare - which is more than you pay with low-cost airlines, certainly, but not more than you pay with the flag carriers. That said...

...it is of course true that one has to change trains on a couple of occasions. I speculate that one reason for this is that the duration of the trip (9 1/2 hours) is such that no one operator has been inclined to offer point-to-point services on the route. Maybe it has also been held back by protectionism in individual countries. In that case things should start changing in 2011 with the new EU rules on third-party access.

I would also agree that the passport and security measures around Eurostar are a disgrace. I can say this, with my head held high, as a Dane because the opening of the cross-border link between Denmark and Sweden was accompanied by a decision to abstain from all controls in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing as any local train line in any of the two countries. In the words of the then Danish Minister of Justice, "of course we lose the protections of border controls. But, in the interest of fraternity, who cares if a criminal is in Stockholm or Copenhagen?" Well.... let's just say the Brits, with their insular mentality, have not yet quite aspired to this level of Renaissance thinking. :lol:


----------



## LMB

Isek said:


>


Am I the only one who doesn't like the architecture, or is it not an object of conversation here? 

It looks horrible. And no, it will not get better with time.

Have all the lessons from 1970's "crack architecture" been lost?:bash: What looks ultra cool today looks like, crap tomorrow? 

I understand the arguments about moving the station's direction, and it's an important argument. But seeing these visualisations makes me wonder who's been sniffing the white stuff again.


----------



## sergiogiorgini

^^ Time will tell, but I doubt today's neo-Jetson architecture will be as badly received in the future as 1970s architecture. The post-war motto was "build it fast and build it cheap," and it was the only period in the past few centuries when people disliked things like atria and worthwhile things. The '60s and '70s were an extreme anomaly. The failure of their attempts shouldn't stop us from being ingenuous and progressive.



hans280 said:


> I would also agree that the passport and security measures around Eurostar are a disgrace. I can say this, with my head held high, as a Dane because the opening of the cross-border link between Denmark and Sweden was accompanied by a decision to abstain from all controls in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing as any local train line in any of the two countries. In the words of the then Danish Minister of Justice, "of course we lose the protections of border controls. But, in the interest of fraternity, who cares if a criminal is in Stockholm or Copenhagen?" Well.... let's just say the Brits, with their insular mentality, have not yet quite aspired to this level of Renaissance thinking. :lol:


I think you summed that up rather nicely.


----------



## goschio

v_florin said:


> It's not so far-fetched...it takes an hour to get to most London-area airports+2 hours for check-in+4 hour flight (UK-Turkey)+0.5-1 hour from Turkish airport to city center. This results in almost 8 hours real time compared to 13...yes, the train will definitely cost more over such a huge distance, but the time difference would be quite negligible - 8 or 13 hours are both pretty much 1 day or 1 night travel time.



In Frankfurt it takes me 20 minutes from the city centre to the airport (10 minutes to central station). Check in time is generally an hour for domestic/european flights and 2 hours for intercontinental flights. And keep in mind, that not everybody wan't to go to city centre. Most people live in the suburbs which are better connected (by motorway) to the aiport than to the central station. 

London is an extreme case and not the norm.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

hans280 said:


> I half agree and half disagree with your position, Baron. To test your position I went on the SNCF Voyages site and checked out the price and availability of throughfare tickets from London to Berlin. Such tickets can be bought and the price is not, to my mind, horrendous. The cost is 194 Euros for a single fare - which is more than you pay with low-cost airlines, certainly, but not more than you pay with the flag carriers. That said...
> 
> ...it is of course true that one has to change trains on a couple of occasions. I speculate that one reason for this is that the duration of the trip (9 1/2 hours) is such that no one operator has been inclined to offer point-to-point services on the route. Maybe it has also been held back by protectionism in individual countries. In that case things should start changing in 2011 with the new EU rules on third-party access.
> 
> I would also agree that the passport and security measures around Eurostar are a disgrace. I can say this, with my head held high, as a Dane because the opening of the cross-border link between Denmark and Sweden was accompanied by a decision to abstain from all controls in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing as any local train line in any of the two countries. In the words of the then Danish Minister of Justice, "of course we lose the protections of border controls. But, in the interest of fraternity, who cares if a criminal is in Stockholm or Copenhagen?" Well.... let's just say the Brits, with their insular mentality, have not yet quite aspired to this level of Renaissance thinking. :lol:


Sorry, a bit late answering this days. Concerning the prices: DB offers train rides anywhere in Germany to London starting at a really affordable 49 Euros. Problem is you have to use an ICE and not a Thalys between Cologne and Brussels, onl 2 operating per day in comparison to much more frequent Thalys (and DB even has a 10% share in Thalys). 
Protectionism is definitely involved. DB wanted to buy shares of Eurostar, but this caused an uproar and SNCF bought the free shares to prevent this. 
Even if we have to live with GB isolating itself from Schengen, there could be other possibilities. For ex, before Czech Rep. joined Schengen, on the Dresden-Prague route, border police from both countries entered the train in Dresden, half an hour before the border and had enough time to drag out anybody before the short stop at the border or if need be force them to take the nect train back. Of course these were 99% not criminals, but hapless tourists which did not understand the European visa landscape.
It would be great if someday Thalys would be extended into Germany beyond Cologne (they claim they do not have the capacity for this at the moment) and ICE rides to London. Since SNCF has said it wants to serve the Frankfurt-Berlin route, I am sure this will stur up DB to bugger in on WestEuropean routes, as their trains are generally more popular than the TGV style ones.


----------



## Slartibartfas

goschio said:


> In Frankfurt it takes me 20 minutes from the city centre to the airport (10 minutes to central station). Check in time is generally an hour for domestic/european flights and 2 hours for intercontinental flights. And keep in mind, that not everybody wan't to go to city centre. Most people live in the suburbs which are better connected (by motorway) to the aiport than to the central station.
> 
> London is an extreme case and not the norm.


In Vienna most people live in the city proper and the new main station is certainly a lot better located to serve all parts of the city than the airport which is located in Schwechat. But then there is no real high speed rail here, which is a pity. Such a thing would be great between Vienna and Budapest or Vienna and Prague. The only thing which is immanent is that travel times between Vienna and Munich are going to fall from 4 hours to 3 hours. Thats hardly high speed either, even if it means that large parts are ready for 200 kmph. 

My own experience with Frankfurt is that it can take ages only to get from one part of the airport to another one and as I consider missing a plane far worse than missing a train I tend to calculate in a lot of additional time as you never know. Traffic jam, chaos at the airport... the number of possible scenarios is nearly endless. 

So, if I had the option between a flight and a train trip that takes 2-3 hours longer I would still take the train and feel pretty confident to have not wasted time at all.


----------



## flierfy

Baron Hirsch said:


> Sorry, a bit late answering this days. Concerning the prices: DB offers train rides anywhere in Germany to London starting at a really affordable 49 Euros. Problem is you have to use an ICE and not a Thalys between Cologne and Brussels, onl 2 operating per day in comparison to much more frequent Thalys (and DB even has a 10% share in Thalys).


DB runs three not two pairs of trains between Frankfurt/M and Bruxelles. It's still a rather infrequent service but enough to take advantage of special ticket offers.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

I just read on the website of DMM that ICE trains have been technically cleared to use the Channel tunnel. Earlier restrictions on the grounds that ICE's are not as fireproof as TGV's have been scratched. Let's see if this will actually lead to more competition in the business...


LMB said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't like the architecture, or is it not an object of conversation here?
> 
> It looks horrible. And no, it will not get better with time.


From the experience with the Berlin underground train stationsI can tell you that the first thing people will save on is appearance. So since everyone is so worried about the price of S21, they will do the same as for Berlin Hauptbahnhof, scratch the fancy roof structure and make it look like any underground tunnel with naked heavy concrete. Maybe in the case of S21, that would be an improvement... Oh and the thing with natural sunlight flooding into the underground station, that is a nice story the engineers always tell, but never works, judging from the gloomy Potrsdamer Platz station.


----------



## hans280

Baron Hirsch said:


> Oh and the thing with natural sunlight flooding into the underground station, that is a nice story the engineers always tell, but never works, judging from the gloomy Potrsdamer Platz station.


That's a bloody insult! It works very well with the new metro stations in Copenhagen. Well... that is, it WOULD work very well if there ever was any natural sunlight in our country. :lol:


----------



## Jim856796

Was the now-cancelled Frankfurt 21 project similar to Stuttgart 21? And are there any other railprojects with the number 21? Also, what does "21" mean, anyway?


----------



## Coccodrillo

21st Century?


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> My more fundamental problem is an element of the German psyche which seems to make true high-speed virtually impossible: any medium sized city shall be, and remain, connected to the main network. - And not only that but through the old railway station in the city centre. It's very unlike, for example, in France where people have the same attitude to HS rail as they have to Autoroutes: they should pass reasonably close by the main cities, but they should never, ever run through the urban environment.
> 
> Given that the train between Stuttgart and Munich must, imperatively, run through the "Altstadt" of Ulm and Augsburg with speeds probably not exceeding 100 km/h there's not much point in investing in 300+ km/h between the towns. Afterward can then the "Town Kings" of these medium-sized cities use the low speed as an argument that each ICE must, imperatively, stop in their town. After all "only 3-4 minutes will be lost. It's not like this is a FAST train.... " hno:


Actually the German aproach is in many ways superior to the French (and the French appraoch is in any ways not suitable to a country as densily populated as Germany).
The improvements in trains speeds might be less impressive, but the improvements in travel speed for a large amount of passengers are. By running HSTs "reasonable close" to urban areas, but not through them you add extra trasfer time costs to the total trip. In France much of the time gain on the TGV is sometimes lost at the first transfer one must make to get to the final destination. The French TGV is a great ground level airline, but it's not that great a public transport network. I prefer the DB approach.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> The improvements in trains speeds might be less impressive, but the improvements in travel speed for a large amount of passengers are. By running HSTs "reasonable close" to urban areas, but not through them you add extra trasfer time costs to the total trip. In France much of the time gain on the TGV is sometimes lost at the first transfer one must make to get to the final destination.


I think you mix facts with fiction. By "fiction" I mean a superimposition of the transport patterns you have seen in German unto a French reality. However, the realities are different. If the TGVs ran like the ICEs, through the country with 6-10 stops, then we would have the problem you describe. But that is normally not the case. If there is a need for more than 3 stops on a certain route then two trains are used. One stops here, another stops there. The best example is the Thalys trains Paris-Brussels. Not ONE SINGLE of them stops in, or at, Lille - a town the size of Cologne. Because... there are other trains for that. 

They call this a point-to-point concept, and it is feasible because the French network is incredibly monocentric. Only a tiny fraction of middle- to long-distance train travels in France involve changing trains.


----------



## flierfy

Jim856796 said:


> Was the now-cancelled Frankfurt 21 project similar to Stuttgart 21? And are there any other railprojects with the number 21? Also, what does "21" mean, anyway?


Sure, there is for instance Neu-Ulm 21. This project comprised lowering the whole railway line as well as a complete remodelling of the station.


----------



## thun

There have been propositions for Frankfurt 21 and München 21, too. Both would have meant to build underground pass-through stations instead of the current dead end ones. But only Stuttgart 21 went into a somehow advanced phase of planning though.


@ hans21: Besides of the higher population density in Germany, you realise that Germanys rail network is comletely different from France's, don't you? The main difference is that Germany has a rail "net", which means that there are lots of hubs in medium or small citys connecting whole regions to the "core lines" (Augsburg and Ulm are great examples, everyone who lives south of these cities uses these two stations to jump on the ICE). In order to provide decent connections for these people, it makes sense to have regular stops for ICE trains to allow cross-connections. In France instead, where the whole rail system and traffic volume is orientated to Paris, you have far less hubs and it makes much more sense to have less stops and buildt dedicated HSR stations in the middle of nowhere to speed up trains.
Another effect of it is that passenger amounts in Germany spread on different lines and there aren't many main corridors with such a high amount of passengers like e. g. Lyon-Paris or Madrid-Barcelona. Therefore, in Germany building a massive HSL in lots of cases isn't justified. Finally, I would say that in Germany it needs easily 20 years or more to build a HSL (or motorway) from scratch because of legal restrictions, etc.. Upgrating the existing line is way more easier.

In the case of Stuttgart - Munich, the planned upgrate makes sense to me: a new line between Stuttgart and Ulm which takes long-distance traffic from the old lines (it has a top speed of 70km/h on some stretches and freight trains need extra locomotives to push up on the Alb mountains) on the stretch where it really means massive cuttings in travel time and upgrating the rest where - because of the needed stops in Ulm and Augsburg and the protected environment on the west of Augsburg - a new line wouldn't make much sense.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> I think you mix facts with fiction. By "fiction" I mean a superimposition of the transport patterns you have seen in German unto a French reality. However, the realities are different. If the TGVs ran like the ICEs, through the country with 6-10 stops, then we would have the problem you describe.


Repeat again what "problem" we would, according to me, have if the TGVs ran as a network? I don't remembering claiming anything like that...



> But that is normally not the case. If there is a need for more than 3 stops on a certain route then two trains are used. One stops here, another stops there. The best example is the Thalys trains Paris-Brussels. Not ONE SINGLE of them stops in, or at, Lille - a town the size of Cologne. Because... there are other trains for that.


Thalys is indeed a good example. Convenient travel from Belgium to anywhere else in France but Paris and Lille has more or less disappeared. From Brussel to any French place in between Brussel and Paris you now need more time than you needed before...
It's the same between Paris and Strassbourg. Paris - Strassbourg is now faster, but most other places in the French northeast now have less long distance trains than before. The result is that speed gains are less than great for a lot of people.

The problem with a different train for every market is that it reduces the number of available options to the traveller. 
If you have a train doing A - B - D and another doing A - C -D, you end up with two train services, and still no way to get from B to C...

And when the trains that are offered are badly coordinated you get the situation that you win an hour on Geneva - Avignon because of the TGV, and then lose it again because in Avignon you have to transfer from one station to another first, and then wait over an hour for a regional service to your final destination. The value of a well coordinated network is proportional to the square of the points it connects. The SNCF has decided to forgo that advantage...



> They call this a point-to-point concept, and it is feasible because the French network is incredibly monocentric. Only a tiny fraction of middle- to long-distance train travels in France involve changing trains.


Indeed, and the SNCF refuses to even suggest trips on its website with more than two changes, which means that there are station pairs within the SNCF network that they will not sell you tickets for. But the result is not as userfriendly as a true network is. From Switzerland to almost any place in Germany I have a connection every hour, or every two hours, nicely spaced. To places France I often have only one practical connection, or even none at all, even when the place has a railway station...


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> Repeat again what "problem" we would, according to me, have if the TGVs ran as a network? I don't remembering claiming anything like that....


The "problem" is that a TGV train loses almost 10 minutes each time it stops. In my book HS is for people who travel at least 400 km without change of train. It is unfair to these people to stop the train once every 100 km. (Yes, I know... you'll now be telling me "my book" is unprintable...)



K_ said:


> Thalys is indeed a good example. Convenient travel from Belgium to anywhere else in France but Paris and Lille has more or less disappeared. From Brussel to any French place in between Brussel and Paris you now need more time than you needed before...


I don't think that's true. You have connections doing Brussels-Lille in 35 minutes. Since the Northern French connections from Lille to the surroundings have - to my knowledge - not been cut back the opening of the new line to Brussels must have improved connections, if perhaps not DIRECT connections, between the Belgian capital and northern France.


----------



## JoKo65

hans280 said:


> […]
> The best example is the Thalys trains Paris-Brussels. Not ONE SINGLE of them stops in, or at, Lille - a town the size of Cologne. Because... there are other trains for that.
> […]


City of Lille: approx. 225 000 inhabitants.
Agglomeration Lille: 1 Million inhabitants.

City of Cologne: 1 Million inhabitants.
Agglomeration Cologne: More than 3 Million inhabitants.


----------



## hans280

JoKo65 said:


> City of Cologne: 1 Million inhabitants.
> Agglomeration Cologne: More than 3 Million inhabitants.


OK, perhaps Cologne is a tad bigger. But to get anywhere near 3 million you'd need to add Bonn and I daresay a chunk of the Ruhr district as well.


----------



## JoKo65

hans280 said:


> OK, perhaps Cologne is a tad bigger. But to get anywhere near 3 million you'd need to add Bonn and I daresay a chunk of the Ruhr district as well.


No, not really.

Cologne/Bonn is 3,8 Million.

Rhine-Ruhr is 7,5 Million.

Together more than 11 Million.

Whole NRW is 18 Million, the biggest state of Germany, bigger than eastern Germany plus Berlin.


----------



## hans280

JoKo65 said:


> No, not really.
> 
> Cologne/Bonn is 3,8 Million.


Well, yes. I went on Wikipedia to check, and it appears that, in order to get to 3 million inhabitants (let alone 3.8 million) you'll have to include towns like Leverkusen and Gladbach in the Cologne/Bonn figure. Fair enough, but then you can attribute just under 2 million people to the larger Lille region. I'm not pulling this figure out of a top hat: there are more than 1.9 million people in the "Euroregion Lille" that the authorities in Departement Nord and the neighbouring Belgian municipalities like to talk about. 

To get back to my main point, I also went on Google Maps, and I may inform you that the distance from Hamburg to Munich is almost identically the same as the distance from Paris to Marseille. I remind you that the fastest trains between the two French cities take just over 3 hours and stop nowhere. (This is commonly considered as being too slow, and upgrades are planned.) To my knowledge - but I'm ready to be taught if others know better - DB is nowhere near lowering the travel time from the Elbemetropole to the Isar to three hours? Or, perhaps they'll want to start with the new connection Berlin-Munich which is considerably shorter and hence can be easily brought within the 2-2.5 hours band? 

My childish provocation is not JUST a childish provocation. I feel that our German friends on this forum are getting a tad schitzophrenic in their argumentation. It would be perfectly respectable to say "we are against modern highspeed train travel. It's not a good solution for our country". (Americans, for example, say this all the time.) But instead we get these half-baked explanations according to which Germany and DB is in favour of highspeed traffic, but.... when someone dares to point out that the effective speed on much of the network falls way short of what most people would consider as HS then the answers become increasingly shrill and aggressive-defensive. 

It sometimes remind me of the argumentation of the arch-spoilers from VIEREGG-RÖSSLER who, back in the 1990s would again and again propose alternative high-speed concepts. When someone dared to point out that their concepts often fell short of the performance benchmarks applied elsewhere, the response was equivalent to "Huh!? It's FAST ENOUGH, yes it is!!!" (Scowl....)


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> The "problem" is that a TGV train loses almost 10 minutes each time it stops. In my book HS is for people who travel at least 400 km without change of train. It is unfair to these people to stop the train once every 100 km. (Yes, I know... you'll now be telling me "my book" is unprintable...)


The solution is to do like the Japanes, and run both non stop and local services. Between Tokyo and Osaka there is a station about every 25km or so, and they run both "locals" and "express" trains there. 

So if you have a line A - B - C -D you run a train that stops everywhere, and one that goes not stop, not A - C - D and A - B - D which is less usefull.



> I don't think that's true. You have connections doing Brussels-Lille in 35 minutes. Since the Northern French connections from Lille to the surroundings have - to my knowledge - not been cut back the opening of the new line to Brussels must have improved connections, if perhaps not DIRECT connections, between the Belgian capital and northern France.


The problem is that the Brussels - Lille trains all halt at Lille Europe. Furthermore most of them are Eurostars, which you need to turn up for 20 minutes in advance for the stupid check in. The trains to other parts of Northern France leave from Lille Flandres. So you have an extra station transfer to make, and you have the extra check in. 
A direct train Brussel - Lille via the existing line could do it in 1h25. To Lille Flandres that is as fast as the Eurostar if you inlcude the extra friction...

That's where DB is far better. By integrating long distance and regional trains in such a way that you can easily transfer from one to the other you save time too.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> To get back to my main point, I also went on Google Maps, and I may inform you that the distance from Hamburg to Munich is almost identically the same as the distance from Paris to Marseille. I remind you that the fastest trains between the two French cities take just over 3 hours and stop nowhere.


It's true that the trains run faster, but do the passengers travel faster? Don't just compare trip times major station to major station, but consider minor stations too. 

Just compare for example Holzkirchen - Elmshorn with Gisors - Fos-sur-mer. I picked these paris because the distances are similar, and the proportion fo the trip on high speed is also the same. DB easily beats SNCF here. And the reasons are that changing trains in a major German city does not involve a 50 minute trip on the underground, nor do you have to wait two hours for a connecting regional train...

In the German approach the investments benefit larger areas, because the system is better integrated.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> The solution is to do like the Japanes, and run both non stop and local services. Between Tokyo and Osaka there is a station about every 25km or so, and they run both "locals" and "express" trains there.


You're preaching to a converted man. I'm very much against this idea that every train shall stop everywhere. It's also how lines such as Paris-Marseille and Paris-Strasbourg operate.However, the remaining issue is where the on-route stations are located and how fast the non-stop trains can pass through them. The French solution, having "pendler stations" outside the major cities, is not merely motivated by knee-jerk centralism. There's a very real problem in that almost every station located in a large French town is a terminus ("Kopfbahnhof"). So, if you service the city centres then you REALLY lose a lot of time. This is one main reason why we have much less "Taktverkehr" in France and a lot of towns serviced by 2-5 dedicated, direct trains to Paris per day - which then DO start and end in the city centres. 

My understanding (do you know more?) is that the Japanese have dedicated HS stations that can be passed at close to Vmax? The main problem as I see it in Europe (we'll see about the new Stuttgart, but my main concerns right now are Antwerp and Rotterdam....) is that these city stations invariably involve using, at least for a few miles, the legacy railway architecture. Which in turn compels the train to slow down dramatically and lose a lot of time - even if it happens to be non-stop. 




K_ said:


> That's where DB is far better. By integrating long distance and regional trains in such a way that you can easily transfer from one to the other you save time too.


I understand your point, and I myself have quietly admired the extreme efficincy - and, hence, intermodality - with which stations like FFM operate. The contrast with places like Gare du Nord is crass. At GdN TGVs and Thalyses routinely clutter up the tracks for 40-50 minutes before even being readied for use. This is ridicuously inefficient and could easily be used to create a better integration with the local hub. Having said that...

...I look forward to the extremely interesting experiment that will be the opening of competition in 2011. It is a foregone conclusion that DB and SNCF will start competing on each others' networks. The French rail magazines are already busy (1) moping; and (2) crowing. Moping because France has invested much more in modern HS tracks close to Germany than vice versa. It's perceived as the neighbour now reading himself to "parasite" on French investment. Crowing because they expect to use the line prolongation to Strasbourg (Paris-Strasbourg in 1h50 - you must admit it's great!?) and the new bridge at Kehl to punch a French fast-nonstop concept through to Stuttgart and Frankfurt.And this time, THIS TIME (so they tell each other...) we'll be our own masters and not have to consent to idiotic stops in "Milchkannen" like Kaiserslautern and Mannheim. Well...

...I think they could be in for a rude surprise. OK, when I travel Paris-FFM (which is quite often) I often figure the stop in Kaiserslautern, where very few people get in and out, must be motivated by politics plus the fact that the train anyway drives so slowly there that there's little to lose. However, Mannheim is a BIIIIG junction where German people change for trains to all over the nation. But.... we'll see. Maybe the French concept will be successful in Germany. Maybe not.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> It's true that the trains run faster, but do the passengers travel faster? Don't just compare trip times major station to major station, but consider minor stations too.
> 
> Just compare for example Holzkirchen - Elmshorn with Gisors - Fos-sur-mer. I picked these paris because the distances are similar, and the proportion fo the trip on high speed is also the same. DB easily beats SNCF here. And the reasons are that changing trains in a major German city does not involve a 50 minute trip on the underground, nor do you have to wait two hours for a connecting regional train...
> 
> In the German approach the investments benefit larger areas, because the system is better integrated.


It's certainly not wrong to connect intercity services with local trains conveniently. This, however, can't be an excuse for the lack of a sophisticated high-speed network. Germany spends as pretty much on high speed lines as France does. It just doesn't get it right. The German high speed network is just a collection of fractions which are aimlessly spread all over the country.

Germany needs to aspire competitive travel times on key connections. Hamburg-München in less than 4 h would be one of them. Traveller from Holzkirchen to Elmshorn would benefit of such improvements as well.


----------



## makita09

hans280 said:


> My understanding (do you know more?) is that the Japanese have dedicated HS stations that can be passed at close to Vmax? The main problem as I see it in Europe (we'll see about the new Stuttgart, but my main concerns right now are Antwerp and Rotterdam....) is that these city stations invariably involve using, at least for a few miles, the legacy railway architecture. Which in turn compels the train to slow down dramatically and lose a lot of time - even if it happens to be non-stop.


Well yes, the Shinkansen are entirely new lines and are a different guage to the rest of the network so must be new lines the whole way. And yes, apart from the really major stations they are pretty much Vmax the whole way as well.


----------



## thun

^^
Once again, the reason is that the German rail network is completely different from those of centralised countries like France or Spain. We don't have central axises like Paris-Lyon, Paris-Brussels or Madrid-Barcelona! On lots of corridors, building a massive HSL isn't justifieable because the passengers spread on various routes, and therefore, only a few corridors have a really high volume of traffic. HSL make more sense on "core lines" where several lines meet and run on the same route for some time. There's a good reason why the first really long HSL in Germany connected the quite unimportant cities Hannover andWürzburg (where the main corridors split to Stuttgart, Nuremberg and Munich) or to build a relatively short HSL between Cologne and Frankfurt (again, the traffic splits there to Basel, Stuttgart and Würzburg-Nuremberg/Munich). That's the explanation why the system seems to be fractioned and spread across the country if you look at the HSLs only. The most important stretches were buildt first, that's the easy explanation.  Time will show if and when the so-called gaps (which often are conventional lines allowing trains to go 200 or more km/h!) ar filled.
Another issue is that there are numberous smaller and medium hubs. In an integrated network, some main HSL corridors don't make sense for the majority of travellers: If you want to go from a less important place A to B, and you can choose between a conventional train going slowly on a direct route or using a fancy 360km/h high speed service for a stretch - which means that you have to do a detour and change trains twice and loosing therefore the time you save on the HSL - what's the better choice? Germany has its HSR integrated in the "normal" rail services which isn't the worse choice. It's simply another approach and leads to better services for large regions, and not only some few cities.
Besides,you have to keep in mind that constructing a HSL is much more expensive in Germany because of the mountaineous terrain than in France, so the same amount in investments doesn't result in the same length of tracks.

Btw.: When the new HSLs Ulm-Stuttgart and Nuremberg-Erfurt(-Leipzig) will be finished, Germany has three parallel running high speed corridors from the north to the south of the country. That's not exactly an incomplete network, is it?


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> ...I look forward to the extremely interesting experiment that will be the opening of competition in 2011.


It will be interesting indeed. One clever thing the DB could do is not only run trains to Paris, but run them to Lille Europe as well, to connect with Eurostar services...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Actually, that is not what DB has planned. On the one hand, it wants to operate on the Channel Tunnel itself, probably in extension of its present Frankfurt-Colgne-Brussels line (so Frankfurt-London via Brussels). How the security arrangements could be made is an open question (the check-in procedure used by Eurostar could not be copied 1:1.) 
The other line they have sometimes boasted they will one day run is Frankfurt - Marseille (I suppose via the ring line around Paris). SNCF on the other hand has threatened to barge in on DB's core business and to run Frankfurt-Göttingen-Berlin, a much frequented rail connection (I do not know whether as an extention of present services Paris-Frankfurt or as a seperate line). 
However, in recent days, it looks like DB and SNCF are once again looking for a cooperation, both in organization of services and buying new stock. Ultimately I believe this will be of more use for passengers, as we can see on the Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart lines, which are much more interconnected and offer more attractive ticket prices than the Thalys network, which DB sees more like a rival, despite the fact that they own a 10% share of it.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> The other line they have sometimes boasted they will one day run is Frankfurt - Marseille (I suppose via the ring line around Paris). SNCF on the other hand has threatened to barge in on DB's core business and to run Frankfurt-Göttingen-Berlin, a much frequented rail connection (I do not know whether as an extention of present services Paris-Frankfurt or as a seperate line).


They wouldn't need to go via Paris. They can use the LGV Rhin-Rhone once that's finished, and in the mean time use the same route Strassbourg - Marseille TGVs take...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

K_ said:


> They wouldn't need to go via Paris. They can use the LGV Rhin-Rhone once that's finished, and in the mean time use the same route Strassbourg - Marseille TGVs take...


Yes, thank you, I guess that is what they are waiting for, to then run Frankfurt-Mannheim-Karlsruhe, turn over the Rhine somewhere around Mulhouse or Basel and then continue along the Rhin-Rhone and Marseille LGVs.


----------



## hans280

thun said:


> Besides,you have to keep in mind that constructing a HSL is much more expensive in Germany because of the mountaineous terrain than in France, so the same amount in investments doesn't result in the same length of tracks.


Thun, I agree with many of the points you made (perhaps unfairly I have not bothered to quote them), but I think some of your arguments come a bit cheap at the price. I might counter that Spain, Japan and now China have had to overcome much more formidable mountains than the German "Mittelgebirge". But, you're right, France has it easier. 

Another point that annoys me a bit is the way excuses tend to morph over time. We had heard about the difficult topography for 15 solid years by the time DB started on a new(ish) line between Hamburg and Berlin. HERE - or so we thought - Germany finally had an equally easy landscape to work with as the French. But... alas, no new 300+ km/h line was build because an "Ausbaustrecke" was en-tire-ly sufficient. (Although DB officials privately admit it would have been so much better if the train were 10 minutes faster - allowing a "Vollknote"....) 



thun said:


> Btw.: When the new HSLs Ulm-Stuttgart and Nuremberg-Erfurt(-Leipzig) will be finished, Germany has three parallel running high speed corridors from the north to the south of the country. That's not exactly an incomplete network, is it?


Well, China has a totally incomplete network. The "completeness" is not just about the number and length of tracks but how well they are tied together. The most "complete" stretch I know of is Hannover-Würzburg, which geographically is in the wrong place, but nobody could have foreseen the reunification when it was built. What are the other north-south corridors? Munich-Nürnberg? Not much of a corridor. Or Cologne-Frankfurt?


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> Once again, the reason is that the German rail network is completely different from those of centralised countries like France or Spain. We don't have central axises like Paris-Lyon, Paris-Brussels or Madrid-Barcelona! On lots of corridors, building a massive HSL isn't justifieable because the passengers spread on various routes, and therefore, only a few corridors have a really high volume of traffic. HSL make more sense on "core lines" where several lines meet and run on the same route for some time. There's a good reason why the first really long HSL in Germany connected the quite unimportant cities Hannover and *Würzburg (where the main corridors split to Stuttgart, Nuremberg and Munich*) or to build a relatively short HSL between Cologne and Frankfurt (again, the traffic splits there to Basel, Stuttgart and Würzburg-Nuremberg/Munich). That's the explanation why the system seems to be fractioned and spread across the country if you look at the HSLs only. The most important stretches were buildt first, that's the easy explanation.  Time will show if and when the so-called gaps (which often are conventional lines allowing trains to go 200 or more km/h!) ar filled.


That tells me how little you know about the German high speed network. You furthermore misjudge the distribution of population in this country. There are very well axes of aggregations which included the 5 or 6 cities of national importance.
Now, high speed railways are meant to connect exactly these main conurbations, not small and medium sized towns. They are served by slower trains. And this is where the German high speed networks fails to deliver. High speed services are simply not quick enough.


----------



## thun

^^
I guess you didn't get my point. In what way, according to you, I don't have knowledge of the German HS network exactly? Population distribution is not the main criteria for the layout of the high speed network, the amount of travelers and how to provide good services for most of them are.
German HSR does connect the main cities, too. But it doesn't necessarily on dedicated HSLs, but on a combination of upgrated lines and new lines. And these new lines are primarily situated where they make most sense - the point is that these locations do not automatically have to be the largest cities (If it would be that way, the Ruhr region would be full of HSLs - in fact, there isn't a single one). In fact, there's not a single ICE line Würzburg-Hannover or so, but these are the hubs where several lines meet and share the HSL between the two cities.

@ Hans: I didn't mention Spain or China with a single word.  However, there's obviously no way to argue on that fact. i honestly can't judge the Chinese situation, but the Spanish: Yes, terrain is quite mountaineous there, too. And building a "French-styled" high speed network makes perfect sense because there's little between Madrid and the coasts where it would make sense to stop. Besides, Spain doesn't have a real rail network (where cross-connections would make sense) to integrate in the new HSLs, so you really can focus on connecting the largest cities and densely populated regions (=coasts) amongst each other as fast as possible).

The three HSL north-south connections we'll see in the future are (from west to east) Munich-Stuttgart-Mannheim-Frankfurt-Cologne(-Brussels), Munich-Nuremberg-Kassel-Hannover-Hamburg and Munich-Nuremberg-Erfurt-Leipzig-Berlin. Each one a combination of dedicated HSLs and upgrated stretches resulting in more than 200km/h on the largest part and including some stretches of the newest HSLs with 300km/h top speed. In the northern part, east-west connections are quite good already (Berlin-Hannover-Ruhr, Hamburg-Münster-Ruhr). The largest gap in the future will be the central east-west connection (Frankfurt-Erfurt(-Leipzig-Dresden).


----------



## hans280

^^I guess we shall then just have to agree to disagree. As I see it, Germany has the following pieces of HS track: (1) Hannover-Wurzburg; (2) Berlin-Wolfsburg; (3) Cologne-Frankfurt; (4) Ingolstadt-Nurnberg; and (5) Mannheim-Stuttgart. This is based on the EU Commission's definition of high-speed rail as offering continuous track with service speeds of no less than 250 km/h. Of course there are several quite serviceable "Ausbaustrecken" here and there allowing (except where they doodle through old city centres at speeds rarely exceeding 120 km/h....) quite decent effective travel speeds. However, this does not in my definition (nor in that of the EU) qualify as a HS network.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> ^^I guess we shall then just have to agree to disagree. As I see it, Germany has the following pieces of HS track: (1) Hannover-Wurzburg; (2) Berlin-Wolfsburg; (3) Cologne-Frankfurt; (4) Ingolstadt-Nurnberg; and (5) Mannheim-Stuttgart. This is based on the EU Commission's definition of high-speed rail as offering continuous track with service speeds of no less than 250 km/h. Of course there are several quite serviceable "Ausbaustrecken" here and there allowing (except where they doodle through old city centres at speeds rarely exceeding 120 km/h....) quite decent effective travel speeds. However, this does not in my definition (nor in that of the EU) qualify as a HS network.


Semantics don't matter really. What matters is how fast you move people from where they are to where they want to go to. And there integration is the key. 

A case to illustrate the differences, and how they affect the passengers. I often have to travel from Switzerland to Belgium. That involves getting from Basel to Brussel.
There are basically three routes from Basel to Brussel. There is the traditional route via Strassbourg and Luxembourg. I never take this route anymore, as it is the slowest, and the SNCF really is going to extrem lenghts to make this train unattractive. 
There is the route via Paris. Technically this is the fastest. Shortest trip time 5:43, but involving a change of stations in Paris.
Via Köln with the ICE is 6:20.
Now there are two interesting notes to make here:
- The route via Köln has could be made half an hour faster by better coordinating connections in Köln. That makes it as fast as via Paris, but with a lot less high speed track...
- From most places in Switzerland you are actually as fast in Belgium via Köln as via Paris, as the trains to Germany have easier connections with the Swiss network in Basel...

In France SNCF is only interested in transporting people to/from Paris. In Germany DB must operate a network however, because the population distribution is o different.


----------



## Isek

Today construction started at Stuttgart HBf. 

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

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


----------



## Isek

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


----------



## thun

@ Hans: So you basically see the point it makes sense that German ICEs call at the historic Hauptbahnhöfe and not on the open field like the TGV can? Well, if you could come up with an idea how to explain the desperate need to build bypasses for all medium cities for some few ICE Sprinter (like you say) to tyx payers and environmentalists, why don't you share it with us. 
I never said that the ICE Sprinter isn't a good idea, but the lines where it really works are probably quite limited as most German travellers don't share the same destination (like Paris in France or Madrid in Barcelona) but change more often trains. That's why Germany has a dense network and not some loose spider's net like France or Spain. 

Trying to plan the Wendlingen-Ulm line for more than 250km/h now would cuase delays of several years or even decades because the whole permission process would start again. And that for a line that is desperately needed.
Another thing is that it will be used for freight trains, too (as the current line is way too steep for heavier trains), so 300km/h maybe wouldn't be possible anyway? :dunno:


----------



## hans280

thun said:


> @ Hans: So you basically see the point it makes sense that German ICEs call at the historic Hauptbahnhöfe and not on the open field like the TGV can? Well, if you could come up with an idea how to explain the desperate need to build bypasses for all medium cities for some few ICE Sprinter (like you say) to tyx payers and environmentalists, why don't you share it with us.


I think there is a basic issue of philosophy here. If ICE/TGV lines are seen as an improvement of an existing railway network then, indeed, there may be little reason for any of this. However, this is not how TGV was sold to the French populace. It was sold as a replacement for the domestic air traffic. The fact that these "rail planes" could, and did, continue onto the legacy railway line was at the time seen as something absolutely secondary. It still is. 

Which is why there were few words of protest when, for example, the first LGV from Paris to Lyon was optimised to bypass Dijon at a distance of about 40 km. It deprived Dijon the privilege of being situated on the country's main railway line, but, hey, the plane between Paris and Lyon does not make an intermediate landing in Dijon, so why should the TGV?

It is also whey the TGVs Paris-Marseille that stop in Avignon and Aix en Provence did not originally allow on-passengers from these towns to Marseille. The stop was for people to get out only. This has since changed, but as you need a prior seat reservation to travel on TGVs effectively they are not used for local traffic of less than 100 km. - Tell you the truth, the first time I took the ICE Paris Est-Frankfurt I was surprised to see people get in at Mannheim in order to travel to FFM. This kind of transport, I thought, was surely for the local - not the international - trains? 

So then, if the German government had followed a TGV concept, they would have started with a few, long, fast lines connecting Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart. During this process they would have told citizens in all agglomerations of less than 1 million people to "die Klappe halten", because this investment was not for them. In this Bahnkonzept it makes 100% sense to bypass most of the historic Hauptbahnhöfe in the country. If ICEs are used to transport people from Kaiserslautern to Mannheim then it makes none. But, then again...

...the trust of my argument is that only people travelling more than 200 km without changing trains should be allowed on ICE/TGV trains. Only thus can you avoid a pollution of the highspeed concept.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> ...the trust of my argument is that only people travelling more than 200 km without changing trains should be allowed on ICE/TGV trains. Only thus can you avoid a pollution of the highspeed concept.


But thus you also keep those trains from making money... 
Most people travelling on the trains in Germany don't travel 200 kph. If you take the line Basel - Mannheim for example, you 'll see that most people who travel on that line only travel a few stops. 
The SNCF would run on such a line a train pair Basel - Köln, and one train pair Basel - Mannheim and one trainpair Basel - Frankfurt... etc..
DB in stead runs an hourly service that stops at all major places, offering more frequent service between more city pairs than SNCF would. Such a service has a higher value to the customer.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> ...most people in France don't need to change trains. Statistics show that a majority of medium to long-distance trips made by French people in France have Paris as either their starting or end point.


That's a chicken-and-egg problem. Since traveling by train in France is only convenient if it is to or from Paris, mostly only people traveling to or from Paris will take the train. The others drive.

Anyway, we will see a "takfahrplan" being implemented in France too. RFF is going to impose one on SNCF...


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> All trains call at Frankfurt(M)Flughafen. There is no way and no need to skip this station.


And it makes good sense to stop there. This way the train can pick up airline passengers, thus reducing the need for short haul flights.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> I based my comment on the following document, posted by Deutsche Bahn: http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/sh...akten__neubaustrecke__rhein__main__neckar.pdf.
> 
> But... if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. I'm also sorry to hear that, according to you, Frankfurt Flughafen is intended as a "Pflichthalt" on this line. I thought - naively perhaps - that it would serve in a capacity similar as St. Exupery on the Paris-Marseille line.


It makes a lot of sense though. The travel time from FFM to Stuttgart is going to be 53 minutes, which means that with hourly trains you can create nice hubs in both FFM and Stuttgart.


----------



## thun

hans280 said:


> I think there is a basic issue of philosophy here.


That's all what I'm trying to say. You'll hardly find two German cities which create that amount of travellers beween each other that you could justify a non-stop 360kph HSL. Germany is not France and neither Spain with one single central rail hub. In the case of Italy it works only because you can quite easily bundle north-south traffic on one single HSL, so it isn't comparable to Germany either.
Therefore, the ICE concept with speeding up traffic between the old hubs is more appropriate because a lot more travellers have an advantage out of it.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> That's a chicken-and-egg problem. Since traveling by train in France is only convenient if it is to or from Paris, mostly only people traveling to or from Paris will take the train. The others drive.


Not quite chicken and egg. The studies I saw (more than ten years ago, but still...) included everyday travel by car, bus, train and plane at distances exceeding 300 km inside France. (But excluding holiday travels - where families at least invariably "crowd into the car".) It was this study that showed a majority of travels to or from Paris. 

It makes sense, I suppose. Most of these "déplacements" will have been for business or work purposes. Only one fifth of the French population lives in Paris. But one third of the economy lies in Paris. More than half of the "large scale commercial" economy (leaving out farming, tourism, shopping, construction...) lies in Paris. And, the parts of the LSC economy that are not located in Paris depend on at least weekly contacts with business parters who are in Paris for the continuation of their business. It is this situation where half the "people with money" live in Paris and where the other half are in concstant contact with Paris, that has given us the monocentric network that is the LGV lines.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Okay, but in that case, you are signing off international travels to the airlines completely. Granted, national traffic still far surpasses international traffic even in the European Union. But nowadays HSL is a success between London, Paris and Brussels, and possibly soon France and Spain will link up their networks. Are we in Central Europe just to shrug our shoulders and accept that between Paris and Vienna or between Berlin and Venice people will always fly, so we should not even bother to create an attractive railway net between places so far apart?


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> Most people travelling on the trains in Germany don't travel 200 kph. If you take the line Basel - Mannheim for example, you 'll see that most people who travel on that line only travel a few stops.


You don't cite me correctly, K. (For starters, who said anything about 200 kph? We were not discussing speed... :lol Of course there are more people on local trains than on the big TGV/ICE lines. There are also far more passengers on any one of the Paris Metro's lines every day than on the Eurostar. But it doesn't follow that the Eurostar shall be forced to stop five times in the Parisian suburbs. 

My point is, there are high-speed trains and regional trains. Local areas such as the Rheintal that you mention SHOULD be well served with frequent and fast connections. (Why not though REGIONAL highspeed trains? The Brits have started in the south east, the Dutch and the Belgians are beginning. We even have a tad of that in Northern France...) All I'm saying is, there should ALSO be trains running 500 km through the country without having to stop or slow down. Is that thought offensive to you?


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> It makes a lot of sense though. The travel time from FFM to Stuttgart is going to be 53 minutes, which means that with hourly trains you can create nice hubs in both FFM and Stuttgart.


Which is a rather bad idea. The bigger and more important hubs are Frankfurt/M and München. A decent travel time would be 2 h which requires Frankfurt/M-Stuttgart to be quicker than 50 min.


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> That's all what I'm trying to say. You'll hardly find two German cities which create that amount of travellers beween each other that you could justify a non-stop 360kph HSL.


There are seven/eight cities that justify fast services between them. Just because DB doesn't offer such services doesn't mean there is no demand for it.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> You don't cite me correctly, K. (For starters, who said anything about 200 kph? We were not discussing speed... :lol Of course there are more people on local trains than on the big TGV/ICE lines. There are also far more passengers on any one of the Paris Metro's lines every day than on the Eurostar. But it doesn't follow that the Eurostar shall be forced to stop five times in the Parisian suburbs.


Sorry, my typo. I meant 200km. What I mean is that wone of the great advantages of a train over a plane is that a train can serve a whole lot of destination pairs at once easily, whereas a plane only serves two points. 
DB makes advantage of that.




> My point is, there are high-speed trains and regional trains. Local areas such as the Rheintal that you mention SHOULD be well served with frequent and fast connections. (Why not though REGIONAL highspeed trains? The Brits have started in the south east, the Dutch and the Belgians are beginning. We even have a tad of that in Northern France...) All I'm saying is, there should ALSO be trains running 500 km through the country without having to stop or slow down. Is that thought offensive to you?


The thought of having trains run 500km non stop through the country is not offensive to me. However, on that kind of distances the market usually isn't there to justify a train every hour. And in my opinion a train service that runs less than once an hour is not justifiable. 
So having a train every hour with a few well thought out stops is the best solution. Especially if you integrate it well with the other sevices. The SCNF might be faster from TGV station to TGV station than DB is, but the overal system speed is higher in Germany, which means that most people, who do not live near a TGV station, are better served. In France when a TGV line opens the level of service usually drops everywhere nearby, except for a few privliged places.
I'm not interested that much in a train service that is competitive with air. I don't fly anyway. I'm interested in a train service that gets me from my local station to my destination with the least fuss, and the least hanging around in stations. 
The best illustration of the value of tight integration is the fact that from Switzerland to Belgium you are often as fast via Germany as via France...


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> And in my opinion a train service that runs less than once an hour is not justifiable.


Er... why would that be? This means, just as an example, that the entire train service in the Russian south and east are not "justifiable". I'll grant you that it makes sense to have hourly services between, say, Basel and Zürich (yes, I know, I know... they have had Halbstundentakt for some years now. The Swiss railway lovers couldn't get them arms down...) or Munich and Nürnberg, but are you saying that areas and countries that cannot justify hourly service should have no trains at all? 



K_ said:


> I'm not interested that much in a train service that is competitive with air. I don't fly anyway.


That's obviously a key part of our disagreement. I fly far more often than I like. At least 20-25 times a year, and mostly within Europe. Moreover, it's employer paid so I couldn't care less about the costs. I'd sorely like to be able to sit into a train in Paris and travel to Frankfurt, to Amsterdam or to Zurich in less than 3 hours (all of which should be possible - they're all nearer Paris than Marseille). But... I wouldn't take the train from CH to Belgium. I'd fly.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> The thought of having trains run 500km non stop through the country is not offensive to me. However, on that kind of distances the market usually isn't there to justify a train every hour. And in my opinion a train service that runs less than once an hour is not justifiable.


Not a single ICE line between Frankfurt/M and Stuttgart or Basel operates an hourly service. I don't get you why these services weren't justified.


K_ said:


> The best illustration of the value of tight integration is the fact that from Switzerland to Belgium you are often as fast via Germany as via France...


Can you prove it? The queries I started return the message that the SNCF is way faster than anything else.


----------



## hans280

flierfy said:


> Can you prove it? The queries I started return the message that the SNCF is way faster than anything else.


Good point. I also went on the DB and SNCF travellers sites and it appears that the fastest you can travel between Zurich and Brussels is 6h43. This is obtained by a combination of (1) taking the TGV (!) to Paris-Est; (2) walking from Paris-Est to Paris-Nord; and (3) taking the TGV clone Thalys from Paris-Nord to Brussels. 

Geographically, Zurich-Frankfurt-Brussels would seem to make more sense but... there you go, it is slower.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> That's obviously a key part of our disagreement. I fly far more often than I like. At least 20-25 times a year, and mostly within Europe. Moreover, it's employer paid so I couldn't care less about the costs. I'd sorely like to be able to sit into a train in Paris and travel to Frankfurt, to Amsterdam or to Zurich in less than 3 hours (all of which should be possible - they're all nearer Paris than Marseille). But... I wouldn't take the train from CH to Belgium. I'd fly.


Business travel is different than leasure travel. My impression is that when on business the middle of the day is important, whereas when I'm visiting friends or relatives it's the evenings that count. When I visit my relatives in Belgium I want to be there before dinner. It just turns out that this means I have to leave at nine weather I fly or take the train. The train is howevertwo to three times cheaper, and the ICE trains through Germany are quite comfortable. Isually spend the whole trip doing stuff on my laptop.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Not a single ICE line between Frankfurt/M and Stuttgart or Basel operates an hourly service. I don't get you why these services weren't justified.


You can board an ICE in Basel at 8:12 and be in Köln exaclty 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 9:12 and be in Köln exactly 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 10:13, at 11:12, 12:12, 13:12 and so on. Leave Basel an hour later, and you're in Köln an hour later. That throughout the whole day. That is an hourly service to me. I agree that some of these departures require a change in Mannheim, but that is not a big obstacle. It's by well coordinating services that you make it possible to travel between two destination pairs every hour, with the travel time not being dependent on when you leave. That is convenient for the traveller and saves time.



> Can you prove it? The queries I started return the message that the SNCF is way faster than anything else.


I can prove it. The SNCF might be "way faster" between major TGV stations, but it all changes once you are not travelling between major stations. The other thing is that both Switzerland, Germany and Belgium have trains running to a fixed hourly schedule, so that if one potential route is half an hour faster than the other it doesn't really matter in the end. 

the other thing is that my regular trips illustrate quite pointetly how speading up trains can bring absolutely nothing if not coordinated. 
It used to be that the trains from Brussel to Köln arrived there at a quarter to the hour, and the train to Basel left from Köln at five minutes to the hour. That gave a nice tight ten minute transfer. Now that the new high speed railway has been opened between Liege and Aachen the trains from Brussel arrive half an hour earlier. But the train to Basel still leaves at its old time. So I now have to spend 40 minutes hanging around Köln Hbf... And my total travel time has not changed. If they would have moved the departure time from Brussels half an hour in stead, then because of better connections my total trip time would have been reduced by an hour. Once the new line from Basel to Karlsuhe is finished they will probably move the Köln - Basel services a bit around too (but they have to keep them anchored at the Swiss timetable at Basel). So that half an hour improvement between Basel and Karlsruhe will probably buy me a full hour saving in travel time.

This is something the SBB knows very well. By optimising the way different services work together you can save a lot of travellers a lot of time, at relatively modest costs. 

Now let me give you a very concrete example: I want to get from Spiez to Hasselt. And I want to arrive there before 19:00 (that's when my brother serves dinner 

Now let's see what the planner at www.bahn.de gives me:

Via Germany:



Code:


 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
 | Spiez                   |        |  08:23 | ICE  276 |BR FW           |
 | Frankfurt(Main)Hbf      |  13:08 |  13:29 | ICE   14 |BT              |
 | Liège-Guillemins        |  15:43 |  16:18 | IR  2938 |                |
 | Hasselt                 |  17:16 |        |          |                |
 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
 | Fahrzeit: 8:53;

Via France:


Code:


 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
 | Spiez                   |        |  08:23 | ICE  276 |BR FW           |
 | Basel SBB               |  09:55 |  10:02 | TGV 9214 |RP GP BW        |
 | Paris Est               |  13:34 |        | Übergang | 30 Min.        |
 | Paris Nord              |        |  14:25 | THA 9339 |RP GP BW RO KK  |
 | Bruxelles-Midi          |  15:47 |  16:15 | R   8305 |                |
 | Hasselt                 |  17:15 |        |          |                |
 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
 | Fahrzeit: 8:52;

Via France is exactly one minute faster. Then via Germany. The route Via France also requires me to walk from Paris Est to Paris Nord., which is fine when the weather is good, but not if there's a downpour.
Notive how in both cases I leave on the same train 

Now look at the next departure:



Code:


 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
 | Spiez                   |        |  09:25 | IC   819 |FB UA BR MB HD KK |
 | Bern                    |  09:54 |  10:04 | IC   962 |FB RE UA BR MB HD KK |
 | Basel SBB               |  10:55 |  11:12 | ICE  508 |BT WN FW        |
 | Köln Hbf                |  15:05 |  15:44 | THA 9448 |RP GP BT        |
 | Liège-Guillemins        |  16:47 |  17:18 | IR  2939 |                |
 | Hasselt                 |  18:16 |        |          |                |
 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+

Notice how I have a 40 minutes layover in Köln, and another half hour in Liège. The railways could make this trip faster for me by almost an hour just by better coordinating their schedules. No expensive new lines would be needed for that...

Just imagine a schedule like this:



Code:


 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
 | Spiez                   |        |  09:25 | IC   819 |FB UA BR MB HD KK |
 | Bern                    |  09:54 |  10:04 | IC   962 |FB RE UA BR MB HD KK |
 | Basel SBB               |  10:55 |  11:05 | ICE  508 |BT WN FW        |
 | Köln Hbf                |  14:55 |  15:05 | THA 9448 |RP GP BT        |
 | Liège-Guillemins        |  16:15 |  16:18 | IR  2939 |                |
 | Hasselt                 |  17:16 |        |          |                |
 +-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+

A whole hour faster, and the only thing needed would be:
- move the ICE from Basel to Köln a bit, and shave a few minutes of the stop in Mannheim. 
- move the Thalys half an hour, and shave a minute from the stop in Aachen.
This also leads to Köln becoming a nice hourly hub too. You can let all other major long distance trains arrive there just before the hour and leave after the hour, just like in Basel.
You see what you can achieve without heavy investments?

The differences between the German and the French railways become even clearer when you try to plan and book a trip on their respective websites. It's quite astonishing really that the German website is a better place to plan train trips in France than the SNCF website... And the German onlibne trip planner can plan between two street adresses, taking local transport in to acount too. So can the Dutch online planner, the Swiss one, the Brittish one and even the Belgian one. Where is the equivalent for France?


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Good point. I also went on the DB and SNCF travellers sites and it appears that the fastest you can travel between Zurich and Brussels is 6h43. This is obtained by a combination of (1) taking the TGV (!) to Paris-Est; (2) walking from Paris-Est to Paris-Nord; and (3) taking the TGV clone Thalys from Paris-Nord to Brussels.
> 
> Geographically, Zurich-Frankfurt-Brussels would seem to make more sense but... there you go, it is slower.


Well, ICE is generally more comfortable and cheaper. However, it depends on where you are coming from, and where you are going to. That Zürich - Brussel is fastest with the TGV is only because there is a direct TGV. If you come from somewhere else in Switzerland the picture changes completely... See my other post.

It's also only recently that SNCF is willing to sell you tickets on a fast routing via Paris, as previously they didn't believe one could get from Paris Est to Paris Nord in half an hour. SBB however allready sold such tickets last year.
Also notice how you can get vrom Zürich to Brussel in 6:45 if you leave at 7:02 or 9:02, and then again at 13:02. Even though there are five departures from Zürich or Basel to Paris only three are usable. What if you can only leave after 10, but still want to be in Brussel before dinner? Then you go via Germany


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> You can board an ICE in Basel at 8:12 and be in Köln exaclty 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 9:12 and be in Köln exactly 3:53 minutes later. You can board one at 10:13, at 11:12, 12:12, 13:12 and so on. Leave Basel an hour later, and you're in Köln an hour later. That throughout the whole day. That is an hourly service to me. I agree that some of these departures require a change in Mannheim, but that is not a big obstacle. It's by well coordinating services that you make it possible to travel between two destination pairs every hour, with the travel time not being dependent on when you leave. That is convenient for the traveller and saves time.


This is the combined service of three different lines rather than a single one. That's not exactly what you were saying.



K_ said:


> A whole hour faster, and the only thing needed would be:
> - move the ICE from Basel to Köln a bit, and shave a few minutes of the stop in Mannheim.
> - move the Thalys half an hour, and shave a minute from the stop in Aachen.
> This also leads to Köln becoming a nice hourly hub too. *You can let all other major long distance trains arrive there just before the hour and leave after the hour, just like in Basel.*
> You see what you can achieve without heavy investments?


When you change in Basel and Köln so often you should have noticed that Basel SBB has a lot more platforms and probably less capacity constrains on the approaching rail line. If you want to change this you actually have to invest quite massively. Nothing less than a complete new station would be required. Just to save you an hour.



K_ said:


> Well, ICE is generally more comfortable and cheaper.


DB is well known for its comfort:


Moe_ - Flickr.com


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> DB is well known for its comfort:
> 
> 
> Moe_ - Flickr.com


The only time I ever had to travel standing on a high speed train was in France...


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> When you change in Basel and Köln so often you should have noticed that Basel SBB has a lot more platforms and probably less capacity constrains on the approaching rail line.


Being there quite often I wouldn't say that. Köln Hbf can have eight long distance trains in the station at the same time. This ought to make a nice "taktknoten" possible.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> The only time I ever had to travel standing on a high speed train was in France...


Me too. But, then again, SNCF usually obtains a load factor on its trains above 75% (another thing they share with the passenger planes), whereas the ICEs "im Hochheiligen Stundentakt" are usually half-empty. Wonder why? :lol:


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Being there quite often I wouldn't say that. Köln Hbf can have eight long distance trains in the station at the same time. This ought to make a nice "taktknoten" possible.


An Intercity hub has to provide interchanges not only between Intercity services but regional and local lines as well. Your suggested pattern fails that. There are furthermore capacity constrains on the Hohenzollern bridge that prevent properly synchronized services.


----------



## G5man

Germany needs more high speed rail lines. For a country of 80 million people, it is behind in the development. The current Hamburg-Munich line needs to be upgraded from Munich-Ingolstadt, Nurnburg-Wurzburg, and Hannover-Hamburg. There also needs to be a few west-east HSLs like Berlin-NRW. I think having faster connections around the country would help in bringing more people aboard and also helping the extension of the LGV Est Euro


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Me too. But, then again, SNCF usually obtains a load factor on its trains above 75% (another thing they share with the passenger planes), whereas the ICEs "im Hochheiligen Stundentakt" are usually half-empty. Wonder why? :lol:


That's easy. It makes more sense to have your trains run, even half empty, than have them sit idle in a siding. SNCF obtains it's high load factor mostly by running less trains.


----------



## K_

> flierfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Intercity hub has to provide interchanges not only between Intercity services but regional and local lines as well. Your suggested pattern fails that.
> 
> 
> 
> Dat depends. One solution the SBB uses is to have long distance trains meet on the xx:00 and xx:30 pulse, and have the locals meet on xx:15 and xx:45. That gives short transfer times when getting from one local to another (which is important, as these are short trips) and transfer times between local and long distance of at most around 15 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are furthermore capacity constrains on the Hohenzollern bridge that prevent properly synchronized services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are four tracks serving eight platforms. (and two tracks serving the S-Bahn platforms, but I'm keeping them out of it). That should not lead to capacity constraint. You can have trains depart at 2' intervals.
Click to expand...


----------



## K_

G5man said:


> Germany needs more high speed rail lines. For a country of 80 million people, it is behind in the development.


In the race for the fastest trains it is indeed running behind. In the race for providing a system that is highly usable it is way ahead of the SNCF. It's not the train speed that is important, it's the travelling speed that counts. What matter is how quickly and how often one can get from one place to another. Just pick two random small towns 400km apart in Germany and in France and compare travel times by train. DB comes out ahead in most such comparisons.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

K, you repeatedly make the point for 400 km destinations, where the network system rules, okay. But what about the 400k+ destinations? Say Vienna-Berlin (ca. 1000km), Cologne-Napoli? Leipzig-Bordeaux? Shall we just passively look on that such destinations are the almost exclusive resort of budget airlines - as market percentage-wise, this is definitely the case at the moment in Germany? Can we trust that one day, their bubble will burst, politicians will wisely tax flying as the environmentally hazardous and socially costly madness that it is? Or will we have to offer them some alternative in the next 10 years on rails?


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> There are four tracks serving eight platforms. (and two tracks serving the S-Bahn platforms, but I'm keeping them out of it). That should not lead to capacity constraint. You can have trains depart at 2' intervals.


The bridge carries just 2 trains at once apparently due to load restrictions. That makes it already difficult to get the 34 scheduled trains through this bottle neck continuously. There is simply no space for pulsative time table pattern.



K_ said:


> Dat depends. One solution the SBB uses is to have long distance trains meet on the xx:00 and xx:30 pulse, and have the locals meet on xx:15 and xx:45. That gives short transfer times when getting from one local to another (which is important, as these are short trips) and transfer times between local and long distance of at most around 15 minutes.


This requires a greater frequency of the services calling at the station. Something I can't see happening anytime soon.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> K, you repeatedly make the point for 400 km destinations, where the network system rules, okay. But what about the 400k+ destinations? Say Vienna-Berlin (ca. 1000km), Cologne-Napoli? Leipzig-Bordeaux? Shall we just passively look on that such destinations are the almost exclusive resort of budget airlines -


Distances of a 1000km are best served by night trains. However my point is that a publicly funded railwaynetwork should serve as many people as possible for the needs they have. And also the target is not air travel, but car travel. Air travel is actually quite energy efficient over larger distances.
Also people are not travelling from Cologne to Napoli, but from somehwere in NRW, to somewhere in Campania. It's in my opinion useless to invest a ton of money to cut two hours of travel time on a particular route, only to add some of that back in through friction at the points where the HST network connects with the conventional network. SNCF to much asumes that people will drive their cars to the TGV station. I want the rail system to make it possible for people to forego cars altogether.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> That's easy. It makes more sense to have your trains run, even half empty, than have them sit idle in a siding. SNCF obtains it's high load factor mostly by running less trains.


Of course. But you miss my point. The best way to future railway expansions is to turn a reasonable profit on the lines you most recently built. 

The Portuguese, for example, (until they changed strategy a few years ago...) were busily spending money on providing railway service to as many people as they could, and across the country. At the same time, in neighbouring Spain most of the effort went into boosting capacity between a handful of cities whose citizens already demonstrably wanted faster services and were prepared to pay handsomely for the accomodation. 

In my humble opinion the Spanish approach has worked better. Railway expansions should focus on the, hopefully few, bottlenecks and priority stretches rather apply a soft and social democratic objective of "making the railways work for all".


----------



## thun

^^
Then again, you're comparing apples and oranges as you can hardly compare the Spanish transportation network with the Portugese.
In Spain the HSL makes much more sense because distances are way higher and there's basically no city of importance between, lets say Madrid and Sevilla (or an other city near the coast) so 360kph trains on dedicated lines make much more sense as you save a lot of time.
In Portugal, cities tend to be smaller but more resulting in the distances between the most important cities being much smaller (like e. g. having Coimbra and Leiria between Porto and Lisbon) which makes 300kph-HSLs somehow pointless if you want to provide good service for more than the largest two cities (the only ones where such a line could make sense, probably). As well, Portugal already had a much denser conventional rail network compared to Spain to base their development on. So starting with upgrating the existing network in order to provide better services in large parts of the country makes much more sense than building a super-cool HSL and let rail services in the rest of the country go down the train, I suppose.
In Spain on the other hand, building the HSL between Madrid and Córdoba and Sevilla did improve the service a lot but had negative effects only for very few (if any) travellers. Replacing the old rail spider from Madrid to the coasts HSLs in Spain doesn't mean cutting lots of people from rail services. Building a HSL between Lisbon and Spain with only one or two stops between while letting the old line go down would do so.


----------



## Darryl

Sorry if this is a tad bit OT, but since some of you seem quite knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate any advice you may have to give...

I live in the US and I'm going to Berlin next month. We're going to take the ICE to Hamburg. Do you think it's necessary to reserve our tickets online before we leave? Or will it be ok to get the tickets at the train station in person? Is buying them at the train station a lot more expensive? What would you recommend? Thanks!


----------



## flierfy

Darryl said:


> Sorry if this is a tad bit OT, but since some of you seem quite knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate any advice you may have to give...
> 
> I live in the US and I'm going to Berlin next month. We're going to take the ICE to Hamburg. Do you think it's necessary to reserve our tickets online before we leave? Or will it be ok to get the tickets at the train station in person? Is buying them at the train station a lot more expensive? What would you recommend? Thanks!


I for one haven't bought a ticket at the ticket office for decades. I always book my tickets on-line for long-distance travel. Saves me time and hassle at the station. And don't forget to book seats if you don't want to hang around in the aisle for the 2 h trip.


----------



## thun

Buying at the counter costs some Euros service charge more (which is a shame). More important, DB has some sort of yield management running, so buying online in advance can save you lots of money if you find some special deal. You just might want to play around with different connections on the DB website. On the other hand, you buy tickets for one fixed connection so you can't change to another train afterwards.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

K_ said:


> Distances of a 1000km are best served by night trains. However my point is that a publicly funded railwaynetwork should serve as many people as possible for the needs they have. And also the target is not air travel, but car travel. Air travel is actually quite energy efficient over larger distances.
> Also people are not travelling from Cologne to Napoli, but from somehwere in NRW, to somewhere in Campania. It's in my opinion useless to invest a ton of money to cut two hours of travel time on a particular route, only to add some of that back in through friction at the points where the HST network connects with the conventional network. SNCF to much asumes that people will drive their cars to the TGV station. I want the rail system to make it possible for people to forego cars altogether.


That is where you are wrong. Trains have no choice but to compete with both cars and planes at the same time. And this is the first time I heard somebody claim that planes are more energy-efficient or environment-friendly than trains. This is nonsense.
While I completey sympathize with your desire to live car-free, you should not be blind to the disastrous effects of other modes of transportation. And while I adore night trains, the few such trains left in Western Europe are defintely nowhere near offering a travel alternative. 
A little odd sample of train times between major cities in Europe that roughly equal the Paris - Lyon distance, where high speed trains have won over airplanes almost completely:
Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille St. Charles 3h:06 mins, direct train
Paris Est - München Hbf 6h: 09 mins, one change
Hannover Hbf - London St. Pancras 7h: 32 mins, two changes
Köln Hbf - Milano Centrale 8h:40 mins, 2-4 changes
Berlin Hbf - Budapest Keleti 11h: 56, direct
Hamburg Altona - Oslo 16h: 21 mins, 6 changes
So, many of these destinations most people will believe are too distant from each other to go any other way but fly. But, they are essentially no more apart than Paris and Marseille. So, please, stop bickering that a trans-European network of HSL is hopeless. Of course not everybody actually wants to go from downtown Köln to downtown Milano. But both stations are hubs with ample onward connections. And actually, a few people, especially business travellers often do need to go from downtown.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Of course. But you miss my point. The best way to future railway expansions is to turn a reasonable profit on the lines you most recently built.


A "reasonable profit" can be had with an hourly service that has only an average load factor of around 30%.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> That is where you are wrong. Trains have no choice but to compete with both cars and planes at the same time. And this is the first time I heard somebody claim that planes are more energy-efficient or environment-friendly than trains. This is nonsense.


This is not nonsense. Especially when comparing high speed trains with planes. Both high speed trains an planes spend most of their energy on overcoming aerodynamic drag. But planes do it at an altitude where the air is a lot thinner. 
Aerodynamic drag increases dramatically at high speeds. A HST at 350 kph consumes twice the energy one running a 225 kph does. A study by a British Universcity came to the conclusion that flying from London to Edinburgh would consume about the same amount of energy as travelling the same trip by a hypothetical high speed train. 
(See here) 
Getting good energy consumption figures for High Speed trains is not easy. But the point is that whereas conventional trains are easily more energy efficient than cars and planes, (very) high speed trains aren't automatically. Don't forget that trains often don't travel via the most direct route. Amsterdam - London by plane is a lot shorter than by train. 

That doesn't mean that HSTs are not a good idea. They are, as they can be powerd by nuclear energy, which planes can't. However, there are traffic flows where both the geography and the demand makes planes the best choice. Especially on longer distances. Planes are at the moment by far the most energy efficient way to cross the Atlantic for example...



> A little odd sample of train times between major cities in Europe that roughly equal the Paris - Lyon distance, where high speed trains have won over airplanes almost completely:
> 
> Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille St. Charles 3h:06 mins, direct train
> Paris Est - München Hbf 6h: 09 mins, one change


In stead of comparing Paris - Marsielle with Paris Munchen, compare for example 
"somewhere 50 km to the northeast of Paris to somehwere 50 km to the west of Maresilles" with 
"somewhere 50 km to the southeast of Münich to somewhere 50 km to the northwest of Hamburg."

Not everyone is going downtown to downtown. In the case of France the SNCF will often even refuse to offer you any transportation between rural towns at oposite sides of teh country...



> Hannover Hbf - London St. Pancras 7h: 32 mins, two changes
> Köln Hbf - Milano Centrale 8h:40 mins, 2-4 changes
> Berlin Hbf - Budapest Keleti 11h: 56, direct
> Hamburg Altona - Oslo 16h: 21 mins, 6 changes


I believe that improving speeds on Berlin - Praha - Wien - Budapest is a good idea, but I doubt that building a dedicated line that does not include these cities is ever going to make sense.
I also doubt it would be possible to offer any form of train service between Hamburg and Oslo that would be more energy efficient than a plane. The Geography between those places just doesn't allow it.



> So, many of these destinations most people will believe are too distant from each other to go any other way but fly. But, they are essentially no more apart than Paris and Marseille. So, please, stop bickering that a trans-European network of HSL is hopeless.


I have never said that a trans European network of HSL is hopeless. I have however tried to make a case that from the point of view of the average passenger a lot of gain can be made through integration and coordination and incremental improvements. That's what the DB is doing, and that is what prompted this thread...



> Of course not everybody actually wants to go from downtown Köln to downtown Milano. But both stations are hubs with ample onward connections. And actually, a few people, especially business travellers often do need to go from downtown.


Indeed, Köln is a hub with good onward connections. That is because the DB actually pays attention to its' network. Avignon TGV for example is not a well connected hub. As a result a lot of the time gained on the TGV is lost by people arriving there who need to travel onwards.

The point I'm arguing here is not that HST's and HSL's are pointless. The point I'm arguing here is that integrating highs speed trains with existing train services leads to lower average travel time for more passengers than trying to run your trains as fast as possible at the expense of integration. So from the point of view of most passengers an "improved line" allowing 250kph that serves existing, well established transportation hubs at convenient timings will actually be perceived as being faster than a 330kph line that skirts the centres and stops at greenfield "trainports".


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> In stead of comparing Paris - Marsielle with Paris Munchen, compare for example
> "somewhere 50 km to the northeast of Paris to somehwere 50 km to the west of Maresilles" with
> "somewhere 50 km to the southeast of Münich to somewhere 50 km to the northwest of Hamburg."


Small towns benefit from high speed services as well as cities where these trains call. Travelling from Pinneberg to Garmisch would quicker when there were a decent intercity service between Hamburg and München.

Soissons - Carnoules is almost an hour faster than Pinneberg - Garmisch despite the transfer in Paris.


----------



## Justme

K_ said:


> I've seen longer lines at security. But my problem is not the queuing. It's the fact that I have to surrender my dignity to a group of would be concentratrion camp guards all for no purpose at all. Last time I flew I had to take of my shoes, my belt, had to pass through the detector twice and was then manually frisked to boot.
> All because our politicians want to show they can make us do whatever they want. That makes me angry. It's a pointles waste of tax payer money, and it's harrasment to boot.


maybe it's because you look stressed, or angry, you certainly sound like you would in these circumstances. Security would pick up on this. I travel a lot, by both train and plane, and I fly through security at airports. The only hassle I have is that I usually carry a lot of really big expensive camera gear and this sometimes gets an extra check. No problems at all though. And there is peace of mind that once I put it in my overhead baggage it will still be there when I leave the plane. Unlike on a train where I can't close my eyes lest it gets nicked at one of the many stops.



K_ said:


> But I hope you don't run in to any traffic jams or a distruption in public transport, because then you're in trouble.


Again I don't get your point. Please explain the difference between these two circumstances: 
a) Run into heavy traffic or P.T. disruption on way to airport: risk missing plane.
b) Run into heavy traffic or P.T. disruption on way to train station: risk missing train.



K_ said:


> The public transport to the central station is often part of the system that will take charge of you beyond that. So your trip really allready starts in your suburb.


Again, I don't get this at all. Where I live, as with most cities, there is public transport options to either the central station or airport. What is your point?



K_ said:


> People think that airports are time consuming because they are. You spend a lot of the time at an airport just waiting. Waiting is not fun. Time moves faster when you're moving.


That's your personal preference. I have a different one. And it seems, since far more people fly for these longer journey's than travel on a train, most people agree with me. I would imagine if most agreed with you, they would be taking the train ;O)


----------



## hans280

Justme said:


> That's your personal preference. I have a different one. And it seems, since far more people fly for these longer journey's than travel on a train, most people agree with me. I would imagine if most agreed with you, they would be taking the train ;O)


Not so fast, Justme. For that to happen there would first have to BE a train. Afficionados such as K prefer to go almost anywhere by train, it is true, but most of us perceive this option only if train travel point-to-point takes at most 3 1/2 hours. That's the nub of the argument: if taking the train from Munich to Hamburg, or from Stuttgart to Berlin takes, say, five hours then most people go by plane. 

That's the main problem I have with the German "net philosophy" according to which it makes no sense to simply measure speed improvements between to points on a newly built HS line. "One needs to consider the impact throughout the railway network..." Because, this lends itself to the conclusion that an improvement of, say, 10% on travel times throught the primary and secondary network is infinitely superior to a gain of 1 1/2 hours between a couple of select cities. The problem is, if you cut 10% off the travel times between Stuttgart and Berlin then people will keep flying. Much more radical solutions are called for to compete with the planes. 

Having said that, I do disagree with Justme, because like K I detest airports and air travel. My job is as a "writer" and in order to get some work done on a travel day I need to SIT DOWN IN A QUIET PLACE and not move for a couople of hours. The 3 1/2 hours on a train between Paris and Geneva give me that. The 50 minutes in the air, plus 20 minutes to check in, plus 40 minutes in a lounge, plus 20 minutes to recuperage my luggage, plus 45 minutes to get to the airport, plus 30 minutes to get from the airport.... don't provide that. They provide me with a headache.


----------



## thun

In most cases, your argumentation doesn't make sense for Germany.
E. g. Munich -Hamburg takes maybe around 6 hours. Getting from Munich Hbf. to the airport alone takes 40min. plus waiting for the flight, going back to the centre in Hamburg, etc. leaves virtually no time to saven by flying. Then again, it's only a matter of personal preference and price competition (assuming that you go centre to centre, but if one should live next to the airport and wants to go to a place near an airport, a HSL wouldn't make him switch to train either).

The distances in Germany aren't so large that building a HSL would have such a huge impact on saving time than in France or Spain.
In a comparision between plane and HSR, the first looses most time when going to the airport and waiting there and catches up during the actual flight. The shorter the distance, the more important these losses become - and the slower a HSR can be to compete in travel time. Simple mathematics. And Munich - Hamburg is the longest domestic flight which competes with ICEs, I'd say.


----------



## hans280

thun said:


> In most cases, your argumentation doesn't make sense for Germany. E. g. Munich -Hamburg takes maybe around 6 hours.
> ...
> The distances in Germany aren't so large that building a HSL would have such a huge impact on saving time than in France or Spain.
> ...
> And Munich - Hamburg is the longest domestic flight which competes with ICEs, I'd say.


OK, maybe my argumentation is faulty, Thun, but so is your aritmetics. The distance between Munich and Hamburg, as the crow flies, is 610 km. This is a funny number, because its 50 km shorter than Paris-Marseille but 100 km longer than Paris-Bordeaux. Hence your point about geographic distances is not, I think, well taken. The distance between the "capital of the north" and the "capital of the south" is PRECISELY the kind of distance that has for the last 30 years motivated direct 300+ km/h tracks in France and Spain.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> While the question of what potential train passengers demand from a rail system is worht debating, we have been carried away by details and not everyone's personal preferences and itineraries are actually that interesting. Can we stop these childish discussions about where it is more fun to drink your cappucino - at the airport or on the train?


Basically we started about "mesh" versus "hub and spoke" networks. My point is that since trains will always be slower than planes so you need a network that minimizes detours and transfer costs. The DB does this better than SNCF in my opinion.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Not so fast, Justme. For that to happen there would first have to BE a train. Afficionados such as K prefer to go almost anywhere by train, it is true, but most of us perceive this option only if train travel point-to-point takes at most 3 1/2 hours. That's the nub of the argument: if taking the train from Munich to Hamburg, or from Stuttgart to Berlin takes, say, five hours then most people go by plane.


It would be interesting to see the market shares for both modes on those routes. Don't forget that if you fly to Munich you're still 40 minutes away from the downtown.


----------



## thun

hans280 said:


> OK, maybe my argumentation is faulty, Thun, but so is your aritmetics. The distance between Munich and Hamburg, as the crow flies, is 610 km. This is a funny number, because its 50 km shorter than Paris-Marseille but 100 km longer than Paris-Bordeaux. Hence your point about geographic distances is not, I think, well taken. The distance between the "capital of the north" and the "capital of the south" is PRECISELY the kind of distance that has for the last 30 years motivated direct 300+ km/h tracks in France and Spain.


Ok, but then again, by contrast to France and Spain, there is a far larger number of medium to large cities (and long distance rail cross-connections) between these two. So, one has to ask if it wouldn't make sense to provide better service for them, too. And we can start were we already have been.


----------



## Justme

hans280 said:


> Not so fast, Justme. For that to happen there would first have to BE a train. Afficionados such as K prefer to go almost anywhere by train, it is true, but most of us perceive this option only if train travel point-to-point takes at most 3 1/2 hours. That's the nub of the argument: if taking the train from Munich to Hamburg, or from Stuttgart to Berlin takes, say, five hours then most people go by plane.
> 
> That's the main problem I have with the German "net philosophy" according to which it makes no sense to simply measure speed improvements between to points on a newly built HS line. "One needs to consider the impact throughout the railway network..." Because, this lends itself to the conclusion that an improvement of, say, 10% on travel times throught the primary and secondary network is infinitely superior to a gain of 1 1/2 hours between a couple of select cities. The problem is, if you cut 10% off the travel times between Stuttgart and Berlin then people will keep flying. Much more radical solutions are called for to compete with the planes.


One must not assume that I am against trains. I do enjoy train travel and always, when the travel time itself is as fast as, or faster on a train, I choose that mode of travel. Basically, within Germany I always travel by train. Living in Frankfurt which is rather central does help this. I also generally travel by train to somewhere like Paris or even Amsterdam. If the journey time is under four hours, train is usually my choice. 

But I choose that for time. I don't find trains any more comfortable than flying.



hans280 said:


> Having said that, I do disagree with Justme, because like K I detest airports and air travel. My job is as a "writer" and in order to get some work done on a travel day I need to SIT DOWN IN A QUIET PLACE and not move for a couople of hours. The 3 1/2 hours on a train between Paris and Geneva give me that. The 50 minutes in the air, plus 20 minutes to check in, plus 40 minutes in a lounge, plus 20 minutes to recuperage my luggage, plus 45 minutes to get to the airport, plus 30 minutes to get from the airport.... don't provide that. They provide me with a headache.


Well, for your reason I can certainly see the justification of your choice. As a writer, it would benefit to be in one spot for a longer time.

Being a photographer though, this isn't an issue for me. I also get restless being in one spot for too long and find the changes offered when flying to be quite refreshing and it speeds up the journey time in my mind.

I guess we are all different.

The thing is, I really like your post, as you give logical reasons why you prefer train travel, and even though I feel differently, I can see and understand your point. It doesn't seem to me that you expect everyone else to have your opinion here which is different to how K writes.

You write "I detest airports" which is a entirely valid point regarding your opinion. I detest Brussel Sprouts but my wife loves them ;O)

I personally love a good modern airport. But I also love a good train station. I guess I love travelling :O) :cheers:


----------



## Justme

K_ said:


> It would be interesting to see the market shares for both modes on those routes. Don't forget that if you fly to Munich you're still 40 minutes away from the downtown.


Well, I always use the train when I travel to Munich from Frankfurt and have few issues with it. Sure, it could be faster, but it is sufficient and there is no need for me to fly.

That said, not everyone wants to get to downtown Munich. Many years ago I travelled to Munich every second weekend. Downtown wasn't my destination though. This is the case in many other area's.

I fly to London to see family several times a year. They live not too far from Heathrow airport, so Heathrow is a perfect arrival point. From Heathrow I can get a coach that goes straight to their town and a short walk later at the hotel or their house.

If I went by train, I would arrive at St Pancras. A lovely station and a delight to visit. But then I would have to lug my baggage through the streets and the tube to the train station that goes to the town I need to get too, and the train station at the other end is nowhere near any hotels. It would take me both much longer, more changes, more hassle and more money.

Other times I need to fly to London for business. Then, my destination is Canary Wharf. It is still easier to land at London City and get either a short taxi or the DLR to Canary Wharf than arrive at St Pancras and make my way there.

If on the otherhand, central London was my destination, and sometimes it is. Arriving at St Pancras would be a good arrival point.


What I am trying to say is that not every form of travel is tourism related and downtown the destination. Sometimes the airports are actually closer to where we need to go.


----------



## K_

Justme said:


> Again I don't get your point. Please explain the difference between these two circumstances:
> a) Run into heavy traffic or P.T. disruption on way to airport: risk missing plane.
> b) Run into heavy traffic or P.T. disruption on way to train station: risk missing train.


My point is that "missing plane" means "pay a lot of money to get on the next flight wich might nog be for a couple of hours, whereas "missing trains" means "hop on the next available train" which is probably going to be somewhere in the next hour.




> Again, I don't get this at all. Where I live, as with most cities, there is public transport options to either the central station or airport. What is your point?


Most cities in Europe don't have airports at all. So it's 
a) public transport to the nearest train station
versus 
b) public transport to the nearest train station then train to the airport in another city.

Now when I want to go to Belgium from Switzerland, because of the "mesh" nature of the DB network option a) means that I'll be progressing towards my final destination a lot sooner than with options b) which both involve travelling _away_ from my final destination for at least an hour. Which is why I think that the "gradual improvement to the mesh" approach of Deutche Bahn is in my opinion a better idea than "build a ground level airline" approach of SNCF. 

Other advantages have to do with the difference in the nature of the carriage contracts you have when travelling all the way by one mode, versus having a break of mode. When you travel by train you are essentially traveling on on single contract of carriage from your starting station to your final station. Suppose your trip is : S-Bahn to Köln Hbf, Thalys to Brussels, Eurostar to London. If in this case your S-Bahn gets distrupted Thalys has to accept you on their next service at no additional charge, and so does Eurostar. Try to get the same service out of Ryanair if you're late at the airport...


----------



## K_

Justme said:


> What I am trying to say is that not every form of travel is tourism related and downtown the destination. Sometimes the airports are actually closer to where we need to go.



Sometimes it indeed is. But in Switzerland there are two major international airports (three if you count Basel, but that one's actually in France) but there are hundreds of railway stations... In some areas a third of the population even has a train station within walking distance.


----------



## Koen Acacia

K_ said:


> Basically we started about "mesh" versus "hub and spoke" networks. My point is that since trains will always be slower than planes so you need a network that minimizes detours and transfer costs. The DB does this better than SNCF in my opinion.


One way to look at Germany is that it's much more of a "mesh" network than France is. Another way, I suppose, is that it's more of a series of interconnected, but still somewhat autonomous, hub-and-spokes systems: Berlin and environment, Hamburg and environment, and so on.
Eventually, of course, you'd want both those regional networks _and _the connections between those networks to be as fast as possible, the only question is where to start: do you begin with upgrading the local networks, or do you start with really fast lines between cities like Hamburg and Munich?

My guess would be that most of the traffic is not on the 600 km-distances, but rather on the commute-style less-than-100km distances. Stuff like Lübeck-Hamburg, or Augsburg-Munich. As long as there's room for improvement on that type of distance, I'd say that that would make a lot more sense than focussing on the interregional lines. And besides: having strong regional networks around Hamburg and Munich would mean that you're feeding a LOT more people into that future high-speed line between those two cities than without those networks.


----------



## Justme

K_ said:


> My point is that "missing plane" means "pay a lot of money to get on the next flight wich might nog be for a couple of hours, whereas "missing trains" means "hop on the next available train" which is probably going to be somewhere in the next hour.


a) You must be seriously unreliable if you keep missing trains and planes. It has happened so few times to me that I have to really think hard to remember them.

b) Not all train services in all countries allow you to use the next train on the same ticket, likewise not all flights will bar this. I can only personally remember one missed flight in the last 10years and that was a BA flight back to frankfurt from London. They put me on the next flight 30minutes later for free.



K_ said:


> Most cities in Europe don't have airports at all. So it's


a) All major cities have airports and many of the smaller ones still have regional airports. I travel a lot across Europe and never once has a destination I wanted to get to not had an airport. 

b) But if it doesn't, well I guess train is the way to go then. Not exactly rocket science. So when it does, we have the choice, when it doesn't we just use train. It's a pretty useless point though to say flying is not as good as train travel because the smaller towns don't have airports. 



K_ said:


> Other advantages have to do with the difference in the nature of the carriage contracts you have when travelling all the way by one mode, versus having a break of mode. When you travel by train you are essentially traveling on on single contract of carriage from your starting station to your final station. Suppose your trip is : S-Bahn to Köln Hbf, Thalys to Brussels, Eurostar to London. If in this case your S-Bahn gets distrupted Thalys has to accept you on their next service at no additional charge, and so does Eurostar. Try to get the same service out of Ryanair if you're late at the airport...


You seem to have a very doom and gloom personality. Always taking about disruptions and problems. I fly a lot as I have already said (and I use the train a lot as well) and to be honest, I have not had many serious disruptions on either service.

But trains can have just as hard disruptions as flying. Remember the recent snow a couple of weeks back? This caused serious disruptions to both airports and trains. Frankfurt airport was closed. But, so was Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof. The difference is this. When Frankfurt airport was closed, people were left stranded in Frankfurt, which has loads of hotels for them to find a bed for the night. All, except maybe the budget airlines would generally offer to pay for the bed and even many budget airlines do this.

When DB closed down their lines, they done so immediately across all the trains in that region. In other words, wherever you were in Germany at the point they shut down, the trains pulled into the next station regardless of how big or small and emptied the passengers. No free hotel, and in hundreds of cases this left tens of thousands of people trapped in a tiny village with no hotel rooms available, stuck outside in the blizzard with no where to go. In some cases, the station was so small it shut down at night and locked the doors, so they couldn't even lie on the cold stone floor inside.

And this is also not mentioning the people a few weeks before that were stuck for 16hours in the ice cold in the Channel Tunnel.

Both trains and planes can have disruption problems. Don't try to suggest that one is worse than the other because both can be terrible.


----------



## thun

Justme said:


> a) You must be seriously unreliable if you keep missing trains and planes. It has happened so few times to me that I have to really think hard to remember them.


Suicide, technical defects, etc. It doesn't have necessarily to be ones own fault to miss a plane because of problems on the train to the station. Obviously, you rarely use trains.




> All major cities have airports and many of the smaller ones still have regional airports. I travel a lot across Europe and never once has a destination I wanted to get to not had an airport.


So cities like e. g. Regensburg, Würzburg, Kiel, Bern, etc. are small cities for you because they don't have an airport? Taking yourself as a reference for the average traveller doesn't work here. There is a very large share of people (probably even the majority) for which using a plane would be a detour ar described.




> Both trains and planes can have disruption problems. Don't try to suggest that one is worse than the other because both can be terrible.


True, but your comparing apple with oranges. Situations like the one you described happens very rarely. A traveller using rail to go to the airport hardly gets stuck in a snow storm. Smaller problems are a way more important risk.
I once had to catch a taxi to get from a Munich suburb (where the train stopped and DB said that they'll send busses - unfortunately they did need more than 90min to do so, so I would have had plenty of time to get to the airport in normal circumstances) to the airport to catch my plane because the S-bahn line was shut due to a suicide. It costed some 80€ (the actual flight 20 plus 20 for the train ticket) just to jump on the plane (and I'm not even talking about how stressful it was). A few minutes later I would have come too late and have lost 120€ (as both the airline and DB says that it isn't their fault). That hardly can happen to you when travelling by rail the whole way. You might come late, too, but you won't be on such a risk. And if you have to go for a longer time to the airport than from Frankfurt city to Frankfurt airport (let's say about 90min, which isn't the rare exception in Germany)), that risk obviously gets bigger which makes the choice for the train more likely.


----------



## Justme

thun said:


> Suicide, technical defects, etc. It doesn't have necessarily to be ones own fault to miss a plane because of problems on the train to the station. Obviously, you rarely use trains.


Year, but maybe I'm just not silly. If I see problems on the u-bahn, I'd just call a taxi. This would be the same for heading to the Hauptbahnhof or the airport. 

Another thing is, I always have travel insurance. It costs next to nothing and lasts a year. If I did miss a train or a plane, and if I had to pay for the next service, the insurance would cover it. It also covers for lost baggage, medical emergencies and the like. 



thun said:


> So cities like e. g. Regensburg, Würzburg, Kiel, Bern


I've been to all those places except Bern, and I travelled by train. It was the most logical choice from Frankfurt. That said, Bern does have an airport with direct flights from places like Amsterdam, London, Berlin etc.

However, I will also add that those small towns are rarely primary destinations for international tourists. Most will pass through on a journey but not as a destination unless they are visiting relatives. 

The point is, a tourist would use the fastest method generally to get to that place. So, if Kiel was the destination say from Lisbon, a train would be out of the question, but a flight to Hamburg, and then a train to Kiel would be the best option.



thun said:


> True, but your comparing apple with oranges. Situations like the one you described happens very rarely.


A disruption is a disruption is a disruption. Apples to Apples mate. It doesn't matter if the trains are down or the planes. Both are disruptions.


----------



## K_

Justme said:


> b) Not all train services in all countries allow you to use the next train on the same ticket, likewise not all flights will bar this.


you seem to be unaware about your rights as a train passenger. If you miss a connection and it's the railways fault (delayed train), than they have to accept you on board the next train available, even if you have an "IRT" type ticket. I've once traveled on the Köln - Brussels ICE with a Thalys ticket for example.


----------



## thun

Justme said:


> Year, but maybe I'm just not silly. If I see problems on the u-bahn, I'd just call a taxi. This would be the same for heading to the Hauptbahnhof or the airport.


But you're the rather the exception than the norm. If you live on the countryside (like lots of people do), You can't choice between train and/or a taxi. And obviously you can't foresee problems before you start your travel (again, just let someone jump in front of a train and the line is blocked for hours). 




> However, I will also add that those small towns are rarely primary destinations for international tourists. Most will pass through on a journey but not as a destination unless they are visiting relatives.


It's not about international tourists, it's about travellers in general. And tourists aren't the majoritiy on neither trains nor domestic flights. 



> The point is, a tourist would use the fastest method generally to get to that place. So, if Kiel was the destination say from Lisbon, a train would be out of the question, but a flight to Hamburg, and then a train to Kiel would be the best option.


No-one to agrue with you in that case. It would be better to talk about routes were trains and planes can compete. Hardly someone would use a plane to get from Frankfurt to Cologne either because the ICE is by far the more logical alternative.


----------



## Justme

K_ said:


> you seem to be unaware about your rights as a train passenger. If you miss a connection and it's the railways fault (delayed train), than they have to accept you on board the next train available, even if you have an "IRT" type ticket. I've once traveled on the Köln - Brussels ICE with a Thalys ticket for example.


Ah... yes. Well, I presume you are saying that if I had a train from say from Frankfurt to Lubeck, and the train was late and I missed my Lubeck connection, then yes they would put me on the next train for free.

Sounds familiar. If I have a flight from Frankfurt to Bristol and the plane to Amsterdam was delays, I will be put on the next flight for free as well.

So what's the difference?


----------



## Justme

thun said:


> But you're the rather the exception than the norm. If you live on the countryside (like lots of people do), You can't choice between train and/or a taxi. And obviously you can't foresee problems before you start your travel (again, just let someone jump in front of a train and the line is blocked for hours).


Whether I am particularly good at not missing trains or planes is beside the point. I don't do anything special, I just don't **** around. If other people can't be as organized it's not my problem. 



thun said:


> It's not about international tourists, it's about travellers in general. And tourists aren't the majoritiy on neither trains nor domestic flights.


I don't get the point here. Let's be honest, most people visiting Würzburg, or any of these small German towns, will be Germans. They don't attract international visitors as a primary destination. And Germans would generally drive or get the train anyway because the distances are not that far. 



thun said:


> No-one to agrue with you in that case. It would be better to talk about routes were trains and planes can compete. Hardly someone would use a plane to get from Frankfurt to Cologne either because the ICE is by far the more logical alternative.


Exactly, I agree here. The funny thing is, some people on this thread think I am anti train, just because I prefer flying for longer distances. Yet, despite the fact I always say if the journey is 3-4 hours or less by train, I am likely to choose the train over flying. What I disagree with though is that flying is so uncomfortable and airports are so horrible etc. Maybe flying budget airlines is a horrible experience, but I am not an expert there. In all my countless flights, I have only ever flown a budget airline once. I didn't like the experience either to be honest, but then I have also had horrible train journeys (a recent one was the train journey between Christchurch and Picton in NZ. Possibly the most uncomfortable 6 hours in the last few years) and you don't want to miss that train either as the next one is 24 hours later ;O).

I find each type of transport has it's advantages and disadvantages, which is why, I, coincidently like most people, would use the train for distances of 3-4 hours or less, and then flying for over that.


----------



## kato2k8

Koen Acacia said:


> My guess would be that most of the traffic is not on the 600 km-distances, but rather on the commute-style less-than-100km distances.


Rough passenger split for DB:

- commuter : ~1400 million / year (S*)
- regional : ~180 million / year (RB/RE*)
- long-distance : ~120 million / year (IC/ICE)

*- some S-Networks of course travel out to distances up to 100 km from their center. RE trains in some regions may travel in excess of 200 km. Nominal legal differentiation between "short-distance" and "long-distance" in Germany is 50 km.

Of course a lot of traffic on the IC/ICE lines is relatively short-distance too. Average distance travelled on IC/ICE was ~287 km in 2007; i.e. for every person travelling a 600 km distance, there would have been statistically three people doing 90 km journeys.

If we express it in pkm (passengers * distance) and money, S/RB/RE short-distance trains account for ~48 billion pkm/year (turnover 7.8 billion €), while IC/ICE account for ~34 billion pkm/year (turnover 3 billion €).


----------



## kato2k8

czm3 said:


> I have a question. Does the 8 billion Euro price tag reflect profits to be made from the sale of the new land?


No, it doesn't. However, that money is going to DB - who is actually going to make money off of it; the DB share in the building costs amounts to 1.1 billion Euro, the estimated worth of the real estate to be sold is 1.4 billion Euro (and that's probably a low estimate - DB made 600 million off of selling some land related to the project just in 2009 alone).

The price tag varies on who you ask btw. The official price tag for S21 including NBS Wendlingen - Ulm and the airport link with new station there according to the contract signed in 2007 is 4.8 billion Euro. This price tag, financing-wise, splits into: DB 1.1 billion, Baden-Württemberg state 1.6 billion, federal government 1.6 billion, EU subsidy 0.5 billion.

There are estimates assuming between 6.9 billion and 8 billion including inflation and cost increases in the building industry as a final price tag around 2022; these estimates however come from studies ordered by opponents of S21, so they're effectively worthless (never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself).


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Even when you have buried freeways and parking lots, you don't do maintenance and you don't refuel your car underground, for instance.


What do you mean by that? I do know quite a few "underground" petrol stations for example. (Integrated in car parks).


----------



## erbse

kato2k8 said:


> Oh, and education? State matter. Even if S21 wouldn't be built, not a single cent from that could be used to finance schools.


You know that's plain BS. Where there's a will, there's a way.
We shouldn't finance schools but teachers, btw.


Anyway, let's get back to S21. I'm glad they're demonstrating every week against this rubbish. It's more and more people who do.
No one actually wants this. The only one who's clapping hands is the Deutsche Bahn earning billions with this shite, you know.


----------



## IcyUrmel

Althougt I am a member of this board for a very long time, althougt im am very interested in (and always was very in favour of) railway infrastructure, I tried not to get involved into this thread. It will just cost too much time, I guess.
But I think I can't ignore this discussion any longer, just because the project is too important to be ignored. So let my give my two cents, one after the other...

I was a big fan of this project as well, I even visited the exhibition in the station tower twice. And I was amazed. I was really happy about it all and couldn't wait for it to be started, until...

... until I read an article about cannibalism in Germany. Cannibalism between infrastructure projects, all competing for the same, far too few money. 

So when I started informing myself about the whole topic, I could not prevent myself from being informed about the dark side of S21. I learned seeing this project more objective - not only the DB side as before. And I had to admit that while German Railways had mainly presented propaganda and soft facts, reliable numbers and arguments were mostly provided by the opponents. Opponents like the Green party and every big German economic organisation. Also independent traffic clubs opposed the project, even "Pro Bahn", an organisation of train passangers. Who else? The IG Metall, the big German industrial trade union.

Now the green Organizations may apper to be a group of NIMBYs, but why should the local industrial trade union oppose such an investment?

Because S21 it is not effective at all. Yes, spend those € 6 bn on railway infrastructure (I would even like my country to spend far more than it does!), but spend it on useful projects. Avoid what traffic experts call "cannibalism effect", Stuttgart21 killing many far more necessary projects in the surrounding.

Of course, we have to build the HSL from Stuttgart to Ulm, to bypass one of the slowest parts of German "high Speed" Network. But you could easily connect that HSL to the Terminus Station as well (would be even a shorter route because it would not pass by the airport).
But although the HSL Wendlingen-Ulm and not S21 cuts of most of the travel time, all the big effords up to now concentrated on Stuttgart21 only, with the HSL still being in an earlier planning phase. Up to now, they have not even planning permission for some of the most crucial parts, they will have to recalculate the costs for the HSL soon, and when they find out that it might cost 4 instead of 2.2 bn, the Stuttgart-Ulm-Project will sum up to a realistic amount of € 10 bn. The worst case would be that S21 has already been started when the whole mess becomes obvious.

Allow me to concentrate on some "cannibalized" projects that are very close or even connected to Stuttgart, just to make sure my opposition against S21 has nothing to do with a PIMBY mentality (Please in my BY).

We have to finish the freight line from the Dutch border to the Swiss border, a line which has been promised to both countries in bilateral contracts long ago. We're building on that line for 20 years now, and not half of the work is done. Not even the most frequented part between Mannheim and the Swiss border has the promised four tracks yet. They have not even started building in many parts, althougt it was promised to be finished until the opening of the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

We have to improve the tracks from Ulm to Augsburg. This would only cost a few % of the S21 sum, because the design of the line would allow far higher speeds. It lacks minor upgrades, like signalling, curve elevation or the removal level crossings. Only few kilometers would have to be totally redesigned. But this project that might cut off something like 10 minutes of travel time has been taken out of the list of the most urgend projects, wehat means it will take several decades to get it started.

We urgently have to reinstall the second track from Stuttgart to Zürich. This would be a cheap thing to do, because the right of way and even the ground is still there - there used to be 2 tracks until the French removed one as a compensation after WWII. Still, no money available.

There are several lines in the surrounding of Stuttgart waiting for electrification. No money available, ironically, because when S21 is finished with their money, those Cities will even lose their direct connection Stuttgart anymore. Diesels are not allowed in the new underground station...


This was all about the costs of the station, about money that would be needed elsewhere for rail infrastructure as well.

There are also lots of technical disadvantages, for many people with the new station travelling to Stuttgart will become worse. But that would be too much for now. I'll check this thread regularily and then will explain why the new station will be worse than the actual terminus.

So long,

Urmel


----------



## czm3

I think people should remember that although DB is going to make a profit by selling the land, the state will have a larger property tax base because of it. This will mean more money for schools, etc for many decades to come.


----------



## Suburbanist

IcyUrmel said:


> A
> Because S21 it is not effective at all. Yes, spend those € 6 bn on railway infrastructure (I would even like my country to spend far more than it does!), but spend it on useful projects. Avoid what traffic experts call "cannibalism effect", Stuttgart21 killing many far more necessary projects in the surrounding.
> 
> Of course, we have to build the HSL from Stuttgart to Ulm, to bypass one of the slowest parts of German "high Speed" Network. But you could easily connect that HSL to the Terminus Station as well (would be even a shorter route because it would not pass by the airport).


This issue exists in every major project. Some of the shortcomings of this reasoning (analyzing improvements possible with "x" bln. Euro and taking the project which improves the overall system the most) are:

(1) government would never take disruptive projects that can, in a longer term, revolutionize rail transport. Most European countries would never had invested massively in dedicated high-speed lines (like France, Italy and Spain) because there is just so much that could be done with minor improvements in the overall network - and we would still need 4h to travel from Paris to London.

(2) big projects that isolated seem wasteful can have ripple effects years down the road. A station redevelopment can generate hundreds of millions Euro in property taxes over a decade, and bring valuable land to the real estate market. If DB makes a profit selling the land, it would be ok.


----------



## IcyUrmel

czm3 said:


> I think people should remember that although DB is going to make a profit by selling the land, the state will have a larger property tax base because of it. This will mean more money for schools, etc for many decades to come.


So far, so correct, but spending those 6 bn on *useful *railway projects will raise the benefits. I don't think we shouldn't modernize the Stuttgart rail hub. Of course we have to. but not if the price is so high and the advantages are so low (and if even for many passangers the sum of disadvantages is bigger than the sum of advantages).

Instead, you could spend a third of the amount on the modernization of the actual terminus including a connection to the HSL, and spend the rest on far more important projects all over the country. Economists have already calculated that the traffic congestion in the German freight rail system will cost between 0.5 and 1 % of a possible economic growth. From the day the current economic crisis is over, economists say that we could produce more if we were able to transport more. Our roads are congested for the last decades, and our rails have been congested for a while until the finance crisis caused a decrease again.

My country is willing to spend something like 1.5 bn per year on new railway infrastructure, and about 2 bn to maintain the existing one. I know this figure is embarassing, but it is fact and won't change until the whole country's attitude to traffic changes (what might never happen). This means Stuttgart21 would theoretically need the total German budget for four years, meaning every other German railway infrastructure project is delayed for four years.
Of course, the real calculation is different, but the result is the same. 6 bn, the budget of four years, into a project with very little benefits to railway traffic.



Suburbanist said:


> This issue exist in every major project. Some of the shortcomings of this reasoning (analyzing improvements possible with "x" bln. Euro and taking the project which improves the overall system the most) are:
> 
> (1) government would never take disruptive projects that can, in a longer term, revolutionize rail transport. Most European countries would never had invested massively in dedicated high-speed lines (like France, Italy and Spain) because there is just so much that could be done with minor improvements in the overall network - and we would still need 4h to travel from Paris to London.
> 
> (2) big projects that isolated seem wasteful can have ripple effects years down the road. A station redevelopment can generate hundreds of millions Euro in property taxes over a decade, and bring valuable land to the real estate market. If DB makes a profit selling the land, it would be ok.


As I said - I don't mind spending huge amounts of money in railway developement including HSL. But taking your Paris-London example, what happens in Stuttgart is that they are digging an underground connection from the north of Paris to the Gare de Lyon, and then discover that they cannot afford to build the HSL to the Channel in time. 

In Stuttgart, they are spending 6 bn on the new station to cut 5 minutes off the travel time from Mannheim to Ulm, but behind Mannheim and behind Ulm, you could easyly cut off 10 or 20 minutes by continuing the HSL towards Frankfurt or Augsburg. Greater improvements on more important routes for far less money.

So, to bring the financial aspect to an end, as long as there's not money for everything, we should use € 6 bn on 200 kilometers of HSL or some thousand kilometers of classical track improvements instead of using it to demolish and replace one (still functional) station.


----------



## K_

IcyUrmel said:


> We urgently have to reinstall the second track from Stuttgart to Zürich. This would be a cheap thing to do, because the right of way and even the ground is still there - there used to be 2 tracks until the French removed one as a compensation after WWII. Still, no money available.


Actually that would not be that easy. Not if you want modern speeds. Nowadays you build a double track railway with larger track centre distance, and the current right of way wouldn't fit that. 
I also doubt it would really be needed. Currently the line has a RE and an IC every two hours. If you'd increase both to once an hour having a single track line with some strategic passing loops would be sufficient. Having a single track line in what was once a double track alignment has advantages too. NMBS managed to increase speeds on Liège - Luxemburg by single tracking the line, as it allowed stretching some curves. 
With a "taktfahrplan" trains always cross each other at the same location. You only need to double track these sections. The rest can be single track.


----------



## czm3

IcyUrmel said:


> So far, so correct, but spending those 6 bn on *useful *railway projects will raise the benefits. I don't think we shouldn't modernize the Stuttgart rail hub. Of course we have to. but not if the price is so high and the advantages are so low (and if even for many passangers the sum of disadvantages is bigger than the sum of advantages).
> 
> Instead, you could spend a third of the amount on the modernization of the actual terminus including a connection to the HSL, and spend the rest on far more important projects all over the country. Economists have already calculated that the traffic congestion in the German freight rail system will cost between 0.5 and 1 % of a possible economic growth. From the day the current economic crisis is over, economists say that we could produce more if we were able to transport more. Our roads are congested for the last decades, and our rails have been congested for a while until the finance crisis caused a decrease again.
> 
> My country is willing to spend something like 1.5 bn per year on new railway infrastructure, and about 2 bn to maintain the existing one. I know this figure is embarassing, but it is fact and won't change until the whole country's attitude to traffic changes (what might never happen). This means Stuttgart21 would theoretically need the total German budget for four years, meaning every other German railway infrastructure project is delayed for four years.
> Of course, the real calculation is different, but the result is the same. 6 bn, the budget of four years, into a project with very little benefits to railway traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said - I don't mind spending huge amounts of money in railway developement including HSL. But taking your Paris-London example, what happens in Stuttgart is that they are digging an underground connection from the north of Paris to the Gare de Lyon, and then discover that they cannot afford to build the HSL to the Channel in time.
> 
> In Stuttgart, they are spending 6 bn on the new station to cut 5 minutes off the travel time from Mannheim to Ulm, but behind Mannheim and behind Ulm, you could easyly cut off 10 or 20 minutes by continuing the HSL towards Frankfurt or Augsburg. Greater improvements on more important routes for far less money.
> 
> So, to bring the financial aspect to an end, as long as there's not money for everything, we should use € 6 bn on 200 kilometers of HSL or some thousand kilometers of classical track improvements instead of using it to demolish and replace one (still functional) station.


I understand your point of view. Personally I regard this project more as one that will improve the city of Stuttgart verses one that will drastically improve rail service.

In Boston the government spent almost 15 billion dollars burying interstate 93 through downtown. The new road doesnt have a lot more capacity than the old road did, but from the street level perspective, the city is now a much nicer place. People (especially on this eurocentric forum) will blast American urban planning for having large highways cutting through city centers. It is really no different in Europe except there the "highways" are railroads and rail yards. A quick glance with google earth can show this. Stuttgart will be a much nicer place with the completion of this project and for that reason alone it is worthwhile.


----------



## Isek

*Protest turn violent*

Protests against the new rail hub of Stuttgart turn crazy. Several thounsands of people (mainly eco-freaks and lefties) gather every Monday to protest against the project, which is still on hold due to many legal disputes from NGOs and private persons. Yesterday they turned down fences and entered the site. Police did not act against those violence but will think about their further policy.

http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/s...emo-teilnehmer-stroemen-aufs-baugelaende.html

Just look at the slide of pictures and the type of people gathering every Monday. I still wonder how much energy they activate for this protests just to act against the state policy. This reminds me on that old days of Startbahn West riots in Frankfurt - 9 policemen heavily injured 2 dead!


----------



## Justme

I can almost smell those hippies from here.

What was the startbahn west riots about?


----------



## goschio

Hate these kind of protesters. Goddam hippies! hno:

Hopefully the government remains strong and continues with the project.


----------



## Isek

Justme said:


> What was the startbahn west riots about?


Well, it was against the construction of the runway. But moreover it was against the politics, the police, the capitalism, the system, the nazis, the US, the non-lefties, the non hippies, the citizenship ect... Simply everything that is not THEIR system.

Protests broke down after 2 policemen were shot down by lefties. Another 9 officers were also hit but did survive.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startbahn_West


----------



## Baron Hirsch

I have been a hippy, certainly anti-imperalist, and I have protested against the one or other traffic construction program in my time. But I always protested against road construction or airport extensions. The idea was to further transport modes that are compatible with living in cities, where otherwise valuable public space is often so casually sacrificed for the deified car (and Stuttgart is a prime example of this), and to promote transport that does less harm to the environment, such as walking, cycling, and public transport. 
It is sad to see that nowadays protesters which claim to stand for the same ideals oppose investments into rail infrastructure, while they are casually looking on to the further extensions of roads and airports. It seems that they see it as God-given that long distance travellers will fly (not seeing that for example between Paris and Marseille people do not fly anymore), and the constant "Green" argument that the money is needed for freight infrastructure makes me think that all they want is for the trucks to disappear from the highways so they can enjoy their cars more. Yes, Stuttgart 21 is far from perfect, there is probably potential to save money in there, but Berlin Hauptbahnhof was far from perfect, but nobody would have thought about rioting against it; people wanted an improvement in rail infrastructure, people were and still are fighting the construction of useless thoroughfares and city highways in Berlin instead.
It seems the car industry has these S21 opponents perfectly manipulated and they do not even realize it.


----------



## Justme

^^ Interesting post thanks. I personally get annoyed by protesters of any sort of transport improvements. I am confident enought to bet that most of those protesters who protested about the Frankfurt airport expansion, went on to make use of that expansion when they next flew. I suspect they also use the improved road infrastucture as well.

I believe in a freedom of market for transport options, I use rail when it is the best system, which to be honest, is for the majority of my travels within Germany. I use air when that is a better method, and if road is the best option, I will use that.

I support the Stuttgart 21 project because it will have great benefits for the city of Stuttgart, not only in improved rail infrastucture but also in provided a better urban environment in that part of town.

I also support air infrastucture improvements because there are plenty of times I have to fly.

And well, although rail is a great option between many major cities in Germany, getting to regional centers or smaller places usually requires far too many changes, and horrific costs which makes road by far the best option.

Then again, I'm not too fond of protesting anyway. I generally believe that if all the energy and money that went into protesting was channeled into actually solving the problems instead of complaining about them, we would live in a far cleaner world than we live in today.


----------



## Dase

@ Justme/goschio: calling those protesters, who consist of basically every part of the population, hippies, is of the same argumentative quality as a nazi comparison in online discussions. Godwin's law, anyone? 

@ Baron Hirsch: if you'd at least tried to follow this discussion and read a few of the contributions, you would've known by know that the protests are not against investments into railroad infrastructure, on the contrary, numerous arguments try to show that the railroad infarstructure can be improved much more for the same money. I'd recommend you to read #226. You argue as if the only improvement that could be made to railroad infrsstrcutrure in SW Germany would be S21, which is just plain wrong, as numerous independent studies have shown.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Dase said:


> @ Baron Hirsch: if you'd at least tried to follow this discussion and read a few of the contributions, you would've known by know that the protests are not against investments into railroad infrastructure, on the contrary, numerous arguments try to show that the railroad infarstructure can be improved much more for the same money. I'd recommend you to read #226. You argue as if the only improvement that could be made to railroad infrsstrcutrure in SW Germany would be S21, which is just plain wrong, as numerous independent studies have shown.


Well, I do follow the discussions, plus the ones on fr-online, süddeutsche, and so on. You might be right that the underground station has a negative effect on local transport, hard to tell from a distance. And DB has mastered the art of turning a train's direction out of a terminus, reversing often in as little as 3 or 5 minutes, so probably no huge loss of time there. What turns me down, and particularly in the statements by the official Greens and of FR, is the fact that Wendlingen - Ulm is described as a wasteful prestige project because freight trains would have a difficulty to use it. Let them use the old route, where they will have much larger capacity once all long-distance trains use the new one! 
I firmly believe we need to create rail alternatives to flying and to highways, and in the 21st century, that means HSR. I have yet to see a contribution that runs, "Yes, we want a High Speed Rail Connection to Munich, but..." 
And if there is not enough money for rail projects, that is because parties like the FDP manage to draw subsidies to as idiotic things as the hotel business, and the CDU throws out huge amounts of money to subsidize the car industry (Pendlerpauschale, Abwrackprämie), but when it comes to railways, they cry, "Oh let's cut down on subsidies, what an evil thing in our free market economy." This is the right point to protest, not one admittedly over-ambitious railway project.


----------



## Justme

Dase said:


> @ Justme/goschio: calling those protesters, who consist of basically every part of the population, hippies, is of the same argumentative quality as a nazi comparison in online discussions. Godwin's law, anyone?
> 
> @ Baron Hirsch: if you'd at least tried to follow this discussion and read a few of the contributions, you would've known by know that the protests are not against investments into railroad infrastructure, on the contrary, numerous arguments try to show that the railroad infarstructure can be improved much more for the same money. I'd recommend you to read #226. You argue as if the only improvement that could be made to railroad infrsstrcutrure in SW Germany would be S21, which is just plain wrong, as numerous independent studies have shown.


Sorry, they are all still a bunch of stinking hippies to me 

Tough luck to them then, as it seems to be going ahead.


----------



## Suburbanist

I can smell 70's leftism over the last two pages, but, as I always say, it is freedom of speech. To say that cars are not suitable for cities would be like saying, in 1920, that electricity and telephone were not suitable for urban life too. Cars are there, are going to stay there, even if countries have to fight wars to fuel them until a better replacement (electric, hydrogen cells, whatever) becomes mainstream.

As the Germans, likewise European citizens in every other EU country, have chosen to drive far more than take trains (according to EUROSTAT, cars account for 83% of kmXpax motorized land travel in Germany, buses and trains sharing the other 17%), it is the role of the government to support this fair and wise option of Germans and build roads, highways, parking garages and so. You can't throw most transportation money in what transports 11% of total land motorized traffic LOL.

This point clearly made, I've written before that the Stuttgart-21 is a project in the right direction. It will enable the creation of the sort of "island" of high-density, HS track-centered development that, some decades from now, could connect with similar developments in other German cities, allowing the following:

(1) provide a state-of-the-art infrastructure for those who want to use the rail

(2) increase the segregation between housing and office arrangements where you get by car and where you get by (work, study, have fun) by rail to the benefit of both

(3) enable further developments of a HSR link all the way from Frankfurt to München without creating a choke point at Stuttgart.

This incremental approach (let's invest in 100 small projects instead of throwing all in 2 big projects) backfires on the long term. It just postpones the problems the big project are meant to address. You can rectify a curve there, enlarge a bridge here, double tracks elsewhere, but while doing this you are only postponing - in the case - the choke point effect in Stuttgart.

Of course, this reasoning is used to oppose almost all new high-profile high-speed rail program, be it for tracks or station construction. Just take a look of what's happened in London (St. Pancras), Zaragoza-Barcelona HSL, or what is happening now with the "Grande Stazioni" Trenitalia project of investing € 7 bln. in 9 major train stations on Italian expanding HS axes (Roma Tiburtina, Firenze Campo di Marte, Bologna (underground), Venezia, Torino and others).

There will ALWAYS be a list of small rail projects for which there are no funds because, contrary to roads, tax money collected from rails never adds up their whole cost while gas taxes are cash cows for many European governments. So, it is quite easy to find a loose coalition of interested parties with a vulture-approach to any fund whenever a big-name rail project appears.

The Stuttgart 21 is just the last example of that.


----------



## Svartmetall

I could simply turn around and say your posts smack of neo-liberalism and conservatism at its worst, but that would simply be telling SSC something we all already know.


----------



## Isek

Hooorray! They start tearing down the "Nordflügel".

http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/bw/-/id=1622/nid=1622/did=6812888/1idpfmg/index.html

Look at those protesters working them self up in a lather of righteous anger! :lol:


----------



## alphorn2

Isek said:


> Hooorray! They start tearing down the "Nordflügel".
> 
> http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/bw/-/id=1622/nid=1622/did=6812888/1idpfmg/index.html
> 
> Look at those protesters working them self up in a lather of righteous anger! :lol:


It's all been said before:

A majority (58%) of people who are supposedly benefitting from this don't want it.

Since approval, the costs have exploded from 2.8 to 4.1 billion euros.

The travel time benefits are minimal, about five minutes on the Munich-Frankfurt route (and the high speed line to Ulm can be realized without Stuttgart 21).

Fault tolerance and capacity are reduced (8 tracks instead of 16), preventing synchronized timetables.

There isn't much need for the areas gained, similar empty areas nearby have remained unused for ten years already.


----------



## Isek

Look at those interview at 1:00 a S21 supporter gets a massive menace by some lefti. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcsdaM6T2c

Look at those people gathering every day at a time where everybody normal is working. Crazy, crazy.


----------



## Suburbanist

alphorn2 said:


> The travel time benefits are minimal, about five minutes on the Munich-Frankfurt route (and the high speed line to Ulm can be realized without Stuttgart 21).


Well, it has been the German policy to make incremental time travel upgrades instead of massive new HSL construction, hence you need to take 5 min here, 7 min elsewhere, 4 min there to keep reducing travel times.

You can't discard a project just because "travel time benefits are minimal". If you are not building a new state-of-the-art HSL Munchen-Frankfurt, then you need a lot of small and expensive projects to keep improving travel times.


----------



## earthJoker

You need to invest money where you get the most benefit (minutes) per €

Why don't they just make a voting for the project?


----------



## czm3

Isek said:


> Look at those interview at 1:00 a S21 supporter gets a massive menace by some lefti.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcsdaM6T2c
> 
> Look at those people gathering every day at a time where everybody normal is working. Crazy, crazy.


Wow, what the hell is wrong in Stuttgart? Why are the protesters crying? Are they afraid of progress? This video (and these protests) show how mass hysteria can form. It's a train station for god's sake.

Filthy hippies need to get a job. People like that suck much more money out of the state with their endless unemployment. Video like this would be expected from a place like Berlin or cottbus, but not from (economically healthy) Baden W.


----------



## Suburbanist

earthJoker said:


> Why don't they just make a voting for the project?


Most Western democracies, for the better and for the worse, don't work like Switzerland.


----------



## earthJoker

It was possible in Bavaria.


----------



## aab7772003

alphorn2 said:


> It's all been said before:
> 
> A majority (58%) of people who are supposedly benefitting from this don't want it.
> 
> Since approval, the costs have exploded from 2.8 to 4.1 billion euros.
> 
> The travel time benefits are minimal, about five minutes on the Munich-Frankfurt route (and the high speed line to Ulm can be realized without Stuttgart 21).
> 
> Fault tolerance and capacity are reduced (8 tracks instead of 16), preventing synchronized timetables.
> 
> There isn't much need for the areas gained, similar empty areas nearby have remained unused for ten years already.


Especially that ICE trains are supposed to stop at all the state capitals PLUS the secondary cities in these states enroute.

It is almost impossible to build dedicated high speed lines in Germany. 

Did those crying protesters actually care about that building in the past?

It is just as fast, perhaps even faster, as to travel between Frankfurt and Munich via Nürnberg these days. 

Stuttgart can get ready to play a bigger role for the future or remain as it is while constantly fantasizing about it is a legitimate rival to Munich in the local press.


----------



## hans280

aab7772003 said:


> Especially that ICE trains are supposed to stop at all the state capitals PLUS the secondary cities in these states enroute.
> 
> It is almost impossible to build dedicated high speed lines in Germany.


I couldn't possibly agree more, aab! That said, we are all "slaves of our past". When high-speed came to France it was sold to all the population of all the country as "our new jetplane on rails". Even the design of the first generation of TGV trains was dictated by this. It was not very aerodynamic. The design was totally dictated by a wish to make the snout and cabin of the train look like the front 7 metres of a passenger aircraft - to bring home, again, the message that this is NOT a train to connect neighbouring cities but a "faux plane" to connect remote parts of the country. 

I have the impression, however, that this was NOT how the ICEs were sold to the German public? When I read German newspapers these days (and certain postings on this forum) I get the impression that the thinking is that ICE should bring improvements within an existing railway network infrastructure? If so,this would effectively impede changes that speed up - just as an example - Munich/Hamburg by refusing to let the train stop in any town with less than 1 million inhabitants. 

That's, in my view, the main difference. To the French public, the planes between Marseilles and Paris did not land in Lyon and therefore the TGVs between Marseilles and Paris should not stop in Lyon either. To the German public. the trains between Hamburg and Munich used to stop in Kassel, and therefore the ICEs should also stop in Kassel.


----------



## alphorn2

czm3 said:


> Are they afraid of progress? [...] Filthy hippies need to get a job.


Why do you assert they don't want progress? They want the maximum progress for their tax money, and Stuttgart 21 has way too few benefits for its huge pricetag. And do you think all 58% of Stuttgart inhabitants who oppose the project are dirty and unemployed?



aab7772003 said:


> It is just as fast, perhaps even faster, as to travel between Frankfurt and Munich via Nürnberg these days.


Why do you bring up travel time? In terms of travel time, this station is quite irrelevant. The new one saves about five minutes. What really saves time the high speed line between Stuttgart and Ulm, and that is not what these people protest.



hans280 said:


> To the German public. the trains between Hamburg and Munich used to stop in Kassel, and therefore the ICEs should also stop in Kassel.


Why do you advocate Stuttgart 21 if you want fewer stops? Stuttgart 21 will actually increase the number of stops between Munichand Frankfurt by adding Stuttgart airport.


----------



## aab7772003

alphorn2 said:


> Why do you assert they don't want progress? They want the maximum progress for their tax money, and Stuttgart 21 has way too few benefits for its huge pricetag. And do you think all 58% of Stuttgart inhabitants who oppose the project are dirty and unemployed?
> 
> 
> Why do you bring up travel time? In terms of travel time, this station is quite irrelevant. The new one saves about five minutes. What really saves time the high speed line between Stuttgart and Ulm, and that is not what these people protest.
> 
> 
> Why do you advocate Stuttgart 21 if you want fewer stops? Stuttgart 21 will actually increase the number of stops between Munich and Frankfurt by adding Stuttgart airport.


The 5-minute time saving probably does not take the possible future high speed lines between Frankfurt and Stuttgart into account. What about making the city a new major railroad junction between Paris and eastern Europe? Many German cities have ICE connections to the airports and trade fair grounds. Stuttgart Airport happens to have the trade fair grounds on-site and sits right next to a major autobahn. 

In other European cities besides Switzerland, new four-platform high speed stations will be built way beyond the centers of non-capital or medium-size cities with only bus connections to the city centers to make the high speed rail journey 30 minutes faster. When you want to have the traditional German integrated railway network PLUS high speed rail PLUS urban renewal PLUS the latest development trend in the railroad development within Germany, you will end up with an expensive project.

It is perplexing that many citizens in Stuttgart do not take the economic growth provided by the land freed up by the current station into serious considerations. It is rather obvious that these citizens are so emotionally fired up without looking at the big picture. The big picture is more than just the Stuttgart - Ulm high speed line. It is not and will not be the first time citizens in a city oppose to a large-scale projects because of anti-all-development grass-roots movements.


----------



## czm3

alphorn2 said:


> Why do you assert they don't want progress? They want the maximum progress for their tax money, and Stuttgart 21 has way too few benefits for its huge pricetag.


They'd rather keep their old dingy station, so yeah. I was at Stuttgart hbf about 10 years ago, I'm sure it hasn't improved with age. There are huge benefits here, with the majority going to Stuttgart itself not the DB service. Unfortunately few in that city seem to have any vision.



> And do you think all 58% of Stuttgart inhabitants who oppose the project are dirty and unemployed?


I don't see 58% of stuttgarters protesting this development in the afternoon on a weekday so no I don't. Then again, despite their opposition I doubt they're crying about it either.... €4B over ten years isn't that much either. This is much worse than that transrapid debacle in Munich a few years back....


----------



## goschio

Isek said:


> Hooorray! They start tearing down the "Nordflügel".
> 
> http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/bw/-/id=1622/nid=1622/did=6812888/1idpfmg/index.html
> 
> Look at those protesters working them self up in a lather of righteous anger! :lol:


Very nice. Those smelly hippie protesters will be exhausted soon.


----------



## Justme

earthJoker said:


> You need to invest money where you get the most benefit (minutes) per €
> 
> Why don't they just make a voting for the project?


What point is voting? It's not like the general public really have any knowledge in this area. If you ask people to vote for public transport infrastructure, you'd probably always get a no vote since most people drive and pay enough taxes in that area. They wouldn't want to pay again for public transport.


But why stress over it. It's getting done now anyway.


----------



## Justme

alphorn2 said:


> Why do you assert they don't want progress? They want the maximum progress for their tax money, and Stuttgart 21 has way too few benefits for its huge pricetag. And do you think all 58% of Stuttgart inhabitants who oppose the project are dirty and unemployed?


Are you trying to tell me they are that concerned over tax expenditure? They should be so lucky! By the looks of those protesters, and the fact they are protesting instead of working, I can safely assume I pay a hell of a lot more tax than they do, so technically, I should have a bigger say ;O)

As for the 58% of Stuttgart inhabitants who oppose the project, well, it's a tax question isn't it. Ask the same people of Stuttgart if they pay too much tax and see what the result is.

Life is not always perfect. We all have to pay tax, and 90% of it goes to things we personally never use. Why should my tax money go to German Universities since I will never use them? Hey, I guess it should because others need them. That's life.


----------



## earthJoker

Justme said:


> What point is voting? It's not like the general public really have any knowledge in this area. If you ask people to vote for public transport infrastructure, you'd probably always get a no vote since most people drive and pay enough taxes in that area. They wouldn't want to pay again for public transport.


Because they are the ones that are paying the shit: The taxpayers.

And you couldn't be more wrong about the public vote, we have over 150 years of experiences in it and there have been several voting for infrastructure. The longest tunnel of the world is currently constructed on the basis of a public vote.

I know that the Germans are afraid of too much democracy, but the case in Bavaria showed that it is a way to settle a disputed decision.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^^ I disagree. The Switzerland particularly history might have made direct voting a good solution. However, the major problem is that infrastructure decisions put under direct voting is that they are not binary mutually exclusive questions like pro-death penalty or against-death penalty, pro-Mosques or against-Mosques, pro-homosexual partnerships or against and so on...

Most people will never use 90% of infrastructure built in any city. So you could easy reason that people would vote against most projects unless a wider, national vote was put on, say, a national rail investment program, so people couldn't vote yes to the line they will use and give a no to everyone else. However, then you have another problem: local people affected directly by those plans (e.g., the ones whose houses will be demolished and who are going to be relocated) will cry out that their individual rights have not been respected.

Moreover, Switzerland has a long history of local compromises about how the State functions are financed. Public finances work quite different in Germany.

In any case, results in Switzeland sometimes are suboptimal. They don't build a second road Gotthard tunnel, yet they unfairly give trucks heading from Uri to Ticino preference for crossing the tunnel when there are queues. Were CH part of EU, that would be ruled out as anti-fair trade practice.


----------



## earthJoker

Suburbanist said:


> Most people will never use 90% of infrastructure built in any city. So you could easy reason that people would vote against most projects unless a wider, national vote was put on, say, a national rail investment program, so people couldn't vote yes to the line they will use and give a no to everyone else. However, then you have another problem: local people affected directly by those plans (e.g., the ones whose houses will be demolished and who are going to be relocated) will cry out that their individual rights have not been respected.


You can look at the voting of the Glattalbahn, which will only be used by a few, that this is not really the case. Infrastrucural votings have good chances as soon as you can explain the benefits. Of course a voting has to be done on the same scale as the project, so probably this one would be voted by whole Baden-Wüttenberg.


> Moreover, Switzerland has a long history of local compromises about how the State functions are financed. Public finances work quite different in Germany.
> 
> In any case, results in Switzeland sometimes are suboptimal. They don't build a second road Gotthard tunnel, yet they unfairly give trucks heading from Uri to Ticino preference for crossing the tunnel when there are queues. Were CH part of EU, that would be ruled out as anti-fair trade practice.


Switzerland is part of the fair transport agreement, this priority queuing is only given to ensure the lokal supply. The EU is actually monitoring it.


----------



## Suburbanist

earthJoker said:


> Switzerland is part of the fair transport agreement, this priority queuing is only given to ensure the lokal supply. The EU is actually monitoring it.


As it usually happens, CH carved out special provision to accommodate AlpTransit within the EU treaties. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad, as CH is not part from UE, but is still unfair. If they cherish the "move stuff from roads to rail", they should be the first to give example and haul their Ticino-bound supplies by rail. Because Italy has to be supplied too, CH only passes the bill, in form of traffic, to Austria - but this is a discussion for another topic.


----------



## Isek

There is a pretty awesome live-stream of the happenings around the "Nordflügel"!

http://webcam.schrem.eu/


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> ^^^ I disagree. The Switzerland particularly history might have made direct voting a good solution. However, the major problem is that infrastructure decisions put under direct voting is that they are not binary mutually exclusive questions like pro-death penalty or against-death penalty, pro-Mosques or against-Mosques, pro-homosexual partnerships or against and so on...


The choices don't have to be binary. When the rebuild of the Bahnhofplatz in Bern was put to a vote a few years ago the voters got to choose between several alternatives. 



> Most people will never use 90% of infrastructure built in any city. So you could easy reason that people would vote against most projects unless a wider, national vote was put on, say, a national rail investment program, so people couldn't vote yes to the line they will use and give a no to everyone else. However, then you have another problem: local people affected directly by those plans (e.g., the ones whose houses will be demolished and who are going to be relocated) will cry out that their individual rights have not been respected.


That's why you must make sure that there is something in it for most people. That is why for example the SBB published a table that showed how much time would be gained, for each (major) station pair in Switzerland when the Rail2000 timetable was designed. This to show that (almost) everyone would benefit. It's also for this reason that the new line from Bern to Olten is also used for freight at night. Removing trains from the old line at night means less noise for the people living along that line, so they got something out of the project too. 




> In any case, results in Switzeland sometimes are suboptimal. They don't build a second road Gotthard tunnel,(...).


The fact that they don't vote the way they according to your opinion ought to doesn't mean it's suboptimal. However that's not really an issue. It's a small price to pay for living in a free and prosperous country...


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> As it usually happens, CH carved out special provision to accommodate AlpTransit within the EU treaties. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad, as CH is not part from UE, but is still unfair. If they cherish the "move stuff from roads to rail", they should be the first to give example and haul their Ticino-bound supplies by rail. Because Italy has to be supplied too, CH only passes the bill, in form of traffic, to Austria - but this is a discussion for another topic.


Switzerland transports more domestic freight by rail than any European country, so they are definitely setting the right example.


----------



## Justme

There was a vote. The vote was for the government which is currently in power. We vote the government in, to make these very decisions. If we don't like how they used their time in office, we vote them out in the next election.

Now, what is the point in voting in a government, whether local, state or federal, when we don't actually want them to do their job, but insist that everything must have seperate votes so the public can decide?!

No. The government was elected, and if you don't like their decisions, vote them out. But they were voted in to make such decisions.

So, why continue to complain about all this. In a few days the wing will be rubble on the ground, and construction will begin.


----------



## K_

Justme said:


> No. The government was elected, and if you don't like their decisions, vote them out. But they were voted in to make such decisions.


What if you like some of their decisions, and don't like some others?


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> What if you like some of their decisions, and don't like some others?


Then you have to compromise. Twisted and hijacked as some political platforms might be (for instance: pro-gay marriages and environwackos banding together in reciprocal support), they work better than atomized decisions.

Moreover, you can't just cast votes easily on complex issues. One thing is like to choose the new design of a Bern's plaza. Other thing is how to approach the intricate issues of air traffic management and airport expansion in a whole country, whereas you can't just vote for a runway here but not there, a new CDA-equipped airport here but not with a better control tower or so.

I strongly support, for instance, national-level laws, that could, then, be put to vote, to provide a general framework to each infrastructure area (air transport, road transport, electricity production and distribution and so), whereas strong anti-NIMBY provisions would be determined, with protection and proper compensation for those affected directly (but not a dime for things like "lost of community character" of "deterioration of social fabric").

The better example of misuse of direct vote are California's ballot propositions. They curtailed the ability to raise taxes, and imposed a lot of obligatory expenses. As a result, California is pretty much financially broken in terms of its public finances.


----------



## Coccodrillo

K_ said:


> Switzerland transports more domestic freight by rail than any European country, so they are definitely setting the right example.


Around 28% rail share of domestic transport (in ton*km), 44% in total share (in ton*km), 66% in transalpine traffic (in ton).

=================

About Stuttgart 21: reducing the number of tracks is not really a good idea...even going from 16 stub to 8 passing.


----------



## Justme

K_ said:


> What if you like some of their decisions, and don't like some others?


Huh? Isn't that _always_ the case? Who likes every decision the government ever makes? There is no possible way any elected government could ever make everyone totally happy. Every single person is different.


----------



## K_

Justme said:


> Huh? Isn't that _always_ the case? Who likes every decision the government ever makes? There is no possible way any elected government could ever make everyone totally happy. Every single person is different.


That is a very strong argument in favor of direct democracy.


----------



## Justme

K_ said:


> That is a very strong argument in favor of direct democracy.


Only for someone on a monologue.

Then again, protesters tend to love the sound of their own voice, especially at high volumes.


----------



## Thelis

*Who buys Arriva Deutschland?*

Following the takeover of Arriva by DB (Schenker) it has to sell Arriva Deutschland (Germany).

According to Eurailpress.de  approx. 30 companies are interested. 

We should be able to name some. Who? Why? Who do we prefer? 

Abellio (former NedRailways)
DSB
HHA (Hamburg Hochbahn)
SNCF (possibly via Veolia/Keolis)

I will add companies to this opening post.


----------



## Thelis

*Who buys Arriva Deutschland?*

Following the takeover of Arriva by DB (Schenker) it has to sell Arriva Deutschland (Germany).

According to Eurailpress.de  approx. 30 companies are interested. 

We should be able to name some. Who? Why? Who do we prefer? 

Abellio (former NedRailways)
DSB
HHA (Hamburg Hochbahn)
SNCF (possibly via Veolia/Keolis)

I will add named companies to this opening post.


----------



## manrush

OBB.

Amidioinitrite?


----------



## Svartmetall

I'd prefer SJ to take over. They run their railways efficiently enough and turn a profit overall too.


----------



## Alseimik

DSB of Denmark is very interested in this for sure, they already won one rail in Germany, and their main foreign focus is Germany. 

They got a rather bad reputation in Denmark, but that's because its a government owned company, which didn't get the needed money to maintain the rail system, but in the last years they been doing much better! and that's partly from the money in foreign rails.

Edit: I now heard that there's 10 companies, where DSB is one of them. But DSB has some problems, because its owned by the Danish government, which is liberal, at the moment, and therefore wish to sell DSB. So, a few weeks ago DSB lounged a cellphone company, which was closed 4 days later by the government, who where pissed off, they say its because DSB is only meant to do railways, but its probably because they don't want DSB to do too good.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

*The sh*t has hit the fan.​*


----------



## gramercy

what i want to know is this: what are the alternatives these NIMBY terrorists are offering?

dont travel? leave downtown stuttgart like its been bombed? drive to paris?


----------



## G5man

This in a sense would be like building Diridon station in San jose to this standard. What I wonder is if people would have minded something above ground.


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ The project plan to reduce the number of track from 16 (stub end) to 8 (passing), so reducing the possibility to make good connections and maybe capacity, and this isn't really a good achievement for a 5 billion project.


----------



## goschio

Very nice. Hope the hippies learned their lesson.


----------



## gramercy

i doubt it very much that the planners of db got it wrong and these nimbys got it right

also, on a sidenote, if the platform is long enough than it can serve 2 trains simultaneously, they can wait behind each other same as next to each other in a stub


----------



## Elilo

Coccodrillo said:


> ^^ The project plan to reduce the number of track from 16 (stub end) to 8 (passing), so reducing the possibility to make good connections and maybe capacity, and this isn't really a good achievement for a 5 billion project.


thats rubbish...

it doesn't matter if there are 16 stub track or 8 passing tracks...
what matters is that there are currently only 5 tracks that lead into the dead end station with 16 tracks....the new station will have 4 track on each side passing the 8 tracks station

so its not a bad idea at all


----------



## Coccodrillo

In my opinion building only 8 tracks (even if you can use them for two short trains each at a time) is risky if traffic rise further and a symmetric timetable planned, but except that I like the project.

Just like the 4 tracks on the east-west line in Berlin Hauptbahnhof.


----------



## Elilo

ok it might be a little risky but there's still the station in bad cannstatt near by...which can absorb rising traffic as well just in case.

but i dont think it will be necessary...for example the mainstation in hamburg has just 8 passing tracks as well and theres much more traffic than in stuttgart.


----------



## Justme

Odd all the complaints about turning the station into a pass through. After years of running rail networks, it has clearly been seen that pass through stations are far more efficient, which is why most modern stations are built that way. Surely, if it were to disadvantage Stuttgart to change to a pass through, then everything every network in the world has found out all of a sudden is wrong.

I also find it amazing how the Greens are so against this project. They don't want us to fly and tell us to use the trains, but then they oppose so many rail infrastructure programs. We would have had a maglev line between Berlin and Hamburg by now if the Greens didn't oppose it.


----------



## K_

Justme said:


> I also find it amazing how the Greens are so against this project. They don't want us to fly and tell us to use the trains, but then they oppose so many rail infrastructure programs. We would have had a maglev line between Berlin and Hamburg by now if the Greens didn't oppose it.


The Greens want you to stay at home and grow your own food, sew your own clothes etc...
Germany really needs a "Grunliberale Partei", like Switzerland.


----------



## aab7772003

K_ said:


> The Greens want you to stay at home and grow your own food, sew your own clothes etc...
> Germany really needs a "Grunliberale Partei", like Switzerland.


But then Jürgen Trittin has no qualms about flying first class and business class when traveling; he knows very well that he will seriously pollute the environment with his indulgence


----------



## gramercy

where is teleportation when you need it


----------



## Bloomy

I dont see a problem with connecting the airport to the railway. There aren´t that many airports in Baden-Württemberg, Airport Stuttgart is the only big airport. So it vastly improves the connections for people who don´t live in Stuttgart (and have to use the S-Bahn right now, which takes 30min from the station to the airport, +5min to get from the train to the S-Bahn and +0 to 20min wait time for the right S-Bahn to arrive). I think the connection to the airport is a big advantage and not a disadvantage.

The problem with delayed trains you described already exists with the current station, an arriving train that´s delayed for a few minutes already causes rails to be blocked because it crosses those rails. It also already causes other trains to wait for passengers.

And about Kopfbahnhof21: The project isn´t that much cheaper. Some components that are said by the critics to be too cheap in the calculations for S21 are even cheaper in the calculations for K21. Plus you also have to subtract the money the EU is willing to spend on S21 (and not on K21) and now also the fact that contracts for S21 have to be breached, which is hardly legal and also estimated to costs of ~1,4 billion €. Also, for the faster track to Ulm that´s included in K21 you need space for the rails. Which means you´ll have to remove a whole line of houses in Bad Canstatt. I think there would be even more people protesting against K21 than against S21.


----------



## flierfy

Coccodrillo said:


> In my opinion building only 8 tracks (even if you can use them for two short trains each at a time) is risky if traffic rise further and a *symmetric timetable* planned, but except that I like the project.


You might be obsessed with it in Switzerland. The rest of the world can live without it.



Coccodrillo said:


> Just like the 4 tracks on the east-west line in Berlin Hauptbahnhof.


There are actually just 2 mainline tracks.


----------



## Suburbanist

flierfy said:


> You might be obsessed with it in Switzerland. The rest of the world can live without it.


While I have nothing against the Swiss (well, I have, they refuse to build a 2nd Gotthard road bore...), I don't understand why some people want a model that might be fit for a decentralized, small and politically treacherous country like Switzerland to another country very different, in the case, the most populated country in Europe with distinct population centers (Frankfurt, Rhein-Ruhr, München, Berlin) and an area that, contrary to CH, doesn't warrant centrally planning a whole system like it was a big overground metro.

Germany has different realities from Switzerland. If it were to have the same rail transport model, it is unlikely that high-speed corridors like Frankfurt-Köln or Hamburg-Berlin would have been built because "there is so much to improve in local tracks before and that will bring overall journey times lower to more people".


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> You might be obsessed with it in Switzerland. The rest of the world can live without it.


Germany has a symmetric, interval timetable. So have other countries. The concept isn't even Swiss, as it is the Dutch that came up with this idea.
What the Swiss are "obsessed" with, is producing as much value as possible given the existing infrastructure. Why that would be a bad thing to copy is beyond me.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> What the Swiss are "obsessed" with, is producing as much value as possible given the existing infrastructure. Why that would be a bad thing to copy is beyond me.


Swiss plan their rail system with (IMO) an outdated practice of focusing on reducing, marginally, journey times overall, without creating any decent high-speed corridor like Zürich-Genève or Basel-Lugano.

In a certain way they have to do it because of a very fragmented decision process, but it's their business after all.

In that context, that passengers travelling from Genève to Zürich will probably never have a 320 km/h dedicated HSL full of tunnels to use, having to cope with ordinary Intercity trains instead that call in other places, is just a nuisance as "majority of people never travel so far and investment in local improvements yields more overall journey time reduction".

Again, that might work for Switzerland, but it wouldn't work for Germany. Germany can't and shouldn't plan it's rail investments about an obsession of "how the new timetable will be like". They need to reduce, drastically, travel time between major population centers if they want a rail system capable of providing healthy competition to air travel as they said they want.

I'd bet that if any country that has ever built a HSR in Europe (save for the Eurotunnel, which is a particular case) had taken an approach like the Swiss, the overall high-speed, segregated, dedicated to long-distance travel only trackage in Europe would be 1.000km in the best case scenario.

Germany is already lacking shinny new HSR tracks over which private operators can run trains built with state-of-the-art design and features. If they slowed down major projects in the name of improving live of commuters (who, counted as either a % of trafficXkm or, let alone, % of total passengers, will be always the majority of users of a subsidized rail system - though Italy is in its way to change that), they would be stuck even further behind.

If the Swiss model had been replicated in Europe, a Thalys train Frankfurt-Brussels wouldn't exist, for instance. A Frankfurt-Paris high-speed train capable of competing with rail wouldn't either...

But there are those who still think Germany would be better off with no new HSR but an "improved network of night-trains" instead hno: Some ppl slept in 1984 and never woke up.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> What the Swiss are "obsessed" with, is producing as much value as possible given the existing infrastructure. Why that would be a bad thing to copy is beyond me.


Because the existing infrastructure lacks the ability to cut travel times significantly for distances between 400 and 800 km. The Swiss approach can't compete with other modes of transport in this range.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Symmetry (that is more than a cadenced timetable) is a property of the timetable, that ease planification and may reduce costs, and is absolutely unrelated to speed. It doesn't mean that all trains must stop everywhere. For example the Italian high speed timetable is symmetric. Even the Milano-Roma non-stop.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ That will end with N.T.V., coming soon to offer HS services in Italy


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ what a stupid reply ^^


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That will end with N.T.V., coming soon to offer HS services in Italy


Want to bet on that?


----------



## Coccodrillo

I certainly don't want


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Don't you think NTV is in for serious business? Unbounded by any need of keeping a "day long service", something even forward-thinking Trenitalia is obliged to, they will be able to undercut Trenitalia prices running only at peak times, when Trenitalia trains are fuller.

I read that a German competitor already applied to run HS services on Frankfurt-Hamburg-Berlin Route. Does anyone know of that?


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Don't you think NTV is in for serious business? Unbounded by any need of keeping a "day long service", something even forward-thinking Trenitalia is obliged to, they will be able to undercut Trenitalia prices running only at peak times, when Trenitalia trains are fuller.


This is completely unreleated to the structure of the timetable. You can have a symmetric timetable even with one train per day.

NTV will probably have cadenced trains, on slots given by the infrastructure manager (even if choosen following NTV's desires).

It's like studying grammar and vocabulary at school: you don't use all the words you learned in any speech just like you don't use all the slots that exist in a symmetric timetable on every hour of every day of every year.


----------



## thun

Suburbanist said:


> Again, that might work for Switzerland, but it wouldn't work for Germany. Germany can't and shouldn't plan it's rail investments about an obsession of "how the new timetable will be like". They need to reduce, drastically, travel time between major population centers if they want a rail system capable of providing healthy competition to air travel as they said they want.


Its a misconception to believe that HSR can only compete against air travel if its done the French way with a more or less complete network of HSR and stations on the green field (which even France really does only have on the Marseille - Paris and Paris - Lille corridor). DB prefers to see the ICE as a service integrated into their intercity and regional services with easy access and easy switches at the most important network hubs. Its a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, there are fewer corridors in Germany that would really justify a continuous HSL with only a few stops - unlike in Spain, France or Italy.
Of course they should speed up some connections and add more HSLs where its necessary. But we won't see a network like the Spanish one on the long run. And Germany probably wouldn't need one either.



> I'd bet that if any country that has ever built a HSR in Europe (save for the Eurotunnel, which is a particular case) had taken an approach like the Swiss, the overall high-speed, segregated, dedicated to long-distance travel only trackage in Europe would be 1.000km in the best case scenario.


You are wrong to believe that "true" HSR and a compact integrated schedule like the Swiss one are two things that can't come together. Of course they could. The schedule structure doesn't forbid to speed up connections, it just says that trains should meet at the hubs in predefined intervalls. If a HSL could speed the trains up without falling out of the meeting times, the Swiss would certainly build one (in fact they did some pretty large investments into their network like the new line between Bern and Olten to speed up trains). But if this can't be done (quite understandable, as the distances in that case are just too short to speed up a train to cut travel time 30min or so), it would be throwing money into the bin as most people would arrive earlier at their change station and then sit around waiting for their connecting regional train, without any cuts in real travel time. It simply doesn't make sense.



> If the Swiss model had been replicated in Europe, a Thalys train Frankfurt-Brussels wouldn't exist, for instance. A Frankfurt-Paris high-speed train capable of competing with rail wouldn't either...


Why do you think so? Of course it could exist. Let's assume a Swiss style schedule integrated for both Germany and Belgium with trains meeting at the main hubs on the full hour. If a Thalys would be able to cut travel time from Frankfurt to Brussels for 60min, with a integrated Swiss style schedule that would cut travel time for most passengers one hour as they would arrive at the interchange station Brussels one intervall earlier. If it would cut travel time only by 50min, for these passengers travel times wouldn't be cut by a single minute, but they could experience 50 minutes sitting around at Brussels Midi. Wouldn't really make sense.
Just like a HSL in such a system on rather short distances (like the ones between the Swiss major hubs) wouldn't make any sense. There's no strong domestic flight market to compete with, and a real HSL wouldn't cut travel times very much on such short distances - in fact, cutting stops on the way would result in longer travel times for most passengers as you would force them to make detours to get to a HSR stop.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ That is the whole problem: planning works and imagining only time reductions that are hourly-spaced (or its fraction) are worth. Damn, you first reduce travel time, it requires billions and years of work. Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.


I assure you that it is not as simple as it may seem...even if you don't plan connections.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> You are wrong to believe that "true" HSR and a compact integrated schedule like the Swiss one are two things that can't come together. Of course they could. The schedule structure doesn't forbid to speed up connections, it just says that trains should meet at the hubs in predefined intervalls. If a HSL could speed the trains up without falling out of the meeting times, the Swiss would certainly build one (in fact they did some pretty large investments into their network like the new line between Bern and Olten to speed up trains). But if this can't be done (quite understandable, as the distances in that case are just too short to speed up a train to cut travel time 30min or so), it would be throwing money into the bin as most people would arrive earlier at their change station and then sit around waiting for their connecting regional train, without any cuts in real travel time. It simply doesn't make sense.


The Swiss rail operations are an unique product to the geography, population size and the size of Switzerland. Germany should take the best of French and Swiss practices and make them its own. 

Actually, DB has tried to improve the HSR infrastructures around Frankfurt with many schemes, but the only scheme has come into fruition is the FRA airrail terminal. 

Honestly, Darmstadt, Hagen, Wolfsburg, etc. do not need to be any kind of ICE hubs and even stations. People from these cities should travel via IC services to the bigger cities in their own federal states to catch the ICE trains. Forcing DB to have many ICE stations in Germany is like forcing Lufthansa to create 5, 6 MUC-sized hubs within Germany.

The common people in Germany are now actually afraid of local RE services being cut. Letting DB beef up its ICE services in a profitable and meaningful manner is another incentive for DB to provide more local service in addition to the local service subsidies. 

Check these articles out:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,699847,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,716217,00.html


----------



## thun

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That is the whole problem: planning works and imagining only time reductions that are hourly-spaced (or its fraction) are worth. Damn, you first reduce travel time, it requires billions and years of work. Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.


Which in the Swiss case isn't that easy as it is not only adjusting the schedules of a few connecting trains, but changing the schedules for all (!) trains. The Swiss have at their mayor hubs the same intervalls when most trains meet. If you speed up lets say Basel - Zurich 10 min and then let the trains at Zurich leave 10min earliers, then you need to adjust trains in Bern, back in Basel, in St. Gallen and elsewhere for 10 min in order to get the system working. That's almost impossible. Hence, speeding the first service up for 10 min won't cut travel time if you don't want to go to Zurich HB as it would mean to have an extra 10 min waiting time.


@ aab: You're absolutely right. In an ideal case, Germany should adopt a mixture of the French and the Swiss system. However, I think better integration (and above all more reliable services) would bring much more comfort and utility for most passengers than investing all the money into speeding up some few connections. The German rail system has a lot of hubs (unlike the French one), in that aspect it is quite comparable to the Swiss one.

Btw.: According to reports of "Die Zeit" the main problem of the German rail network aren't slow HST services but a massive lack of capacities for freight trains. A study suggested that all (!) the money which is planned to go into HSLs should be invested in upgrating the existing lines and create more capacities for freight and regional trains as it would be more valuable for the economy.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> Which in the Swiss case isn't that easy as it is not only adjusting the schedules of a few connecting trains, but changing the schedules for all (!) trains. The Swiss have at their mayor hubs the same intervalls when most trains meet. If you speed up lets say Basel - Zurich 10 min and then let the trains at Zurich leave 10min earliers, then you need to adjust trains in Bern, back in Basel, in St. Gallen and elsewhere for 10 min in order to get the system working. That's almost impossible. Hence, speeding the first service up for 10 min won't cut travel time if you don't want to go to Zurich HB as it would mean to have an extra 10 min waiting time.
> 
> 
> @ aab: You're absolutely right. In an ideal case, Germany should adopt a mixture of the French and the Swiss system. However, I think better integration (and above all more reliable services) would bring much more comfort and utility for most passengers than investing all the money into speeding up some few connections. The German rail system has a lot of hubs (unlike the French one), in that aspect it is quite comparable to the Swiss one.
> 
> ...


What is so wrong with some passengers experiencing dead time at the major stations?
Germans should understand that Switzerland is just little bit larger than Bavaria.
DB is a national firm. There is nothing wrong to invest lots of money on HSR for journeys to and from and between 15 to 20 largest cities within Germany, as well as to major cities in neighboring countries. With the technology of today, ICE services between Frankfurt and Munich and v.v. should be just around two hours.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Don't you think NTV is in for serious business? Unbounded by any need of keeping a "day long service", something even forward-thinking Trenitalia is obliged to, they will be able to undercut Trenitalia prices running only at peak times, when Trenitalia trains are fuller.


NTV intends to run something like 15 return journeys a day on Milano - Roma. So I suppose they do intend to run a "day long" service. After all their intention is to target business travellers. People going to meetings in Rome, that you know, sometimes do end an hour later or an hour earlier...


----------



## K_

aab7772003 said:


> What is so wrong with some passengers experiencing dead time at the major stations?


Psychology.

Time moves differently when in a moving vehicle.Trains are more comfortable than stations.
And it is annoying that you have to wait while you could be continuing on to your destination.
For example: When the new HSL between Aachen en Liège opened this shaved half an hour of travel times for Köln - Brussel trains. However for passengers coming from the South arriving in Köln to change for a train to Belgium the time gained just means half an hour more dead time in Köln hbf. This means that optimizing the schedule itself has the potential of saving time for many passengers. 
But DB does a pretty good job here anyway, not like SNCF. If you want to travel from Geneva to somewhere in the Provence you can now take a TGV to Avignon, but because this train arrives in Avignon TGV, and local trains to other places leave from Avignon Centre you lose all the time gained on the HSL in the railway station transfer. 
it pays to pay attention to the whole system. People don't travel from TGV station to TGV station. They travel from one home to another. Or from a home to a business meeting...
Things are improving though, with SNCF also going to a regular patterned timetable. (As RFF has discoverd how handy that is...)


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Psychology.
> 
> Time moves differently when in a moving vehicle.Trains are more comfortable than stations.
> And it is annoying that you have to wait while you could be continuing on to your destination.


It's rather the other way around. In (bigger) stations I have to opportunity to shop and to eat while I'm virtually trapped in a train.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> It's rather the other way around. In (bigger) stations I have to opportunity to shop and to eat while I'm virtually trapped in a train.


The idea that time moves faster when you're moving is not something I just made up. And while it's true that you can eat in the bigger stations you also can eat on the train.
But the most important point I was making is that coordinating schedules is a cheap way of improving travel times, so it should not be overlooked.


----------



## aab7772003

K_ said:


> Psychology.
> 
> Time moves differently when in a moving vehicle.Trains are more comfortable than stations.
> And it is annoying that you have to wait while you could be continuing on to your destination.
> For example: When the new HSL between Aachen en Liège opened this shaved half an hour of travel times for Köln - Brussel trains. However for passengers coming from the South arriving in Köln to change for a train to Belgium the time gained just means half an hour more dead time in Köln hbf. This means that optimizing the schedule itself has the potential of saving time for many passengers.
> But DB does a pretty good job here anyway, not like SNCF. If you want to travel from Geneva to somewhere in the Provence you can now take a TGV to Avignon, but because this train arrives in Avignon TGV, and local trains to other places leave from Avignon Centre you lose all the time gained on the HSL in the railway station transfer.
> it pays to pay attention to the whole system. People don't travel from TGV station to TGV station. They travel from one home to another. Or from a home to a business meeting...
> Things are improving though, with SNCF also going to a regular patterned timetable. (As RFF has discoverd how handy that is...)


The problem is that too many Germans are having the "RE mentality." No matter how you improve systematic timetable, you cannot dramatically reduce travel time to and from and between 15 to 20 largest cities within Germany, as well as to major cities in neighboring countries. Incremental scheduling improvements without dedicated high speed rail lines will not even effectively achieve travel time reduction between Frankfurt and Munich.

Optimizing the ICE and RE schedules is not the same as operating ICE like running RE. Again, the Swiss solution fits like a glove for Switzerland because rail operation wise Switzerland is really just another German federal state.


----------



## spag85

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That is the whole problem: planning works and imagining only time reductions that are hourly-spaced (or its fraction) are worth. Damn, you first reduce travel time, it requires billions and years of work. Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.


I think we all understand already what you have been saying in these several posts - we just don't agree with it.

The Bahn2000 approach works, the Swiss have by far the highest public transport modal share. It works _also_ because they don't build much more road infrastructure, which would induce traffic and hence produce pollution.

The timetable has to drive infrastructure decisions otherwise it is pointless.

Finally, railway operations research is not 2 or 3 clicks but an industry and timetable generation easily lasts 18 months for a good reason.


----------



## spag85

aab7772003 said:


> The Swiss rail operations are an unique product to the geography, population size and the size of Switzerland.


Not a disagreement, rather a side note: when clock-face scheduling was first introduced in the 30's in the Netherlands, the Dutch also thought that their geography is unique.

The modern success of clock-face schedules (started in Switzerland) shows, however, that local situations are not always that "unique" as some opponents might argue...


----------



## spag85

flierfy said:


> It's rather the other way around. In (bigger) stations I have to opportunity to shop and to eat while I'm virtually trapped in a train.


I wish you were right, timetabling would be much easier -- however experience shows that passengers feel that transfer time passes 1.5-3x times slower than in-vehicle time.

Having said that, it is indeed very important to improve station (and even platform) services to occupy waiting passengers and this is really a way to reduce perceived travel time.


----------



## K_

aab7772003 said:


> The problem is that too many Germans are having the "RE mentality." No matter how you improve systematic timetable, you cannot dramatically reduce travel time to and from and between 15 to 20 largest cities within Germany, as well as to major cities in neighboring countries. Incremental scheduling improvements without dedicated high speed rail lines will not even effectively achieve travel time reduction between Frankfurt and Munich.


The question is one about priorities. What kind of railway investments will benefit the largest amounts of people.
It is true that Frankfurt Hbf to München Hbf is not as fast as some services of similar length are in France.
However, once you compare travel times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Frankfurt" to "somewhere in the vicinity of München" with for example times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Lyon" to "somewhere in the vicinity of Toulouse" you will see that DB easily wins...


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> The question is one about priorities. What kind of railway investments will benefit the largest amounts of people.
> It is true that Frankfurt Hbf to München Hbf is not as fast as some services of similar length are in France.
> However, once you compare travel times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Frankfurt" to "somewhere in the vicinity of München" with for example times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Lyon" to "somewhere in the vicinity of Toulouse" you will see that DB easily wins...


But the demographic structure of Germany is different! And distances are higher! If you keep improving point-to-point connections to fringe places, you will never have a high-speed connection between München and Frankfurt, for instance, let alone Frankfurt or München and Berlin.

Being less crowded, they can leave such "small place near Hamburg to small place near Düsseldorf" traffic for cars.



spag85 said:


> It works _also_ because they don't build much more road infrastructure, which would induce traffic and hence produce pollution.


This is just wrong. If train was a superior solution, it wouldn't need artificial creation of congestion on roads (the modal of choice if they were properly funded for many...) to attract people to rail. And electric car are going to eliminate point-of-use pollution (and I don't give a dime about "scarce space" or other soft talking).



> The timetable has to drive infrastructure decisions otherwise it is pointless.


Imagine if Germans analyzed their airport expansion program trying to figure out the timetable of airlines that would likely operate there... Vehicle operation is better left alone for a competitive, at lest semi-non-cooperative market scenario. Then the market adjusts itself.




> Finally, railway operations research is not 2 or 3 clicks but an industry and timetable generation easily lasts 18 months for a good reason.


It's simple. Do it like Italy. Fast and high-speed trains (the most lucrative) have absolute priority. Everything else, if possible, might be schedule around those. Otherwise, you just wait 40 min in a station so your slow-moving, low ridership, money-losing regional train doesn't get in the way of a train moving 100km/h faster than you and stopping nowhere. Does it bother you? Buy a car and stop whining.


----------



## Wilhem275

Suburbanist said:


> It's simple. Do it like Italy. Fast and high-speed trains (the most lucrative) have absolute priority. Everything else, if possible, might be schedule around those. Otherwise, you just wait 40 min in a station so your slow-moving, low ridership, money-losing regional train doesn't get in the way of a train moving 100km/h faster than you and stopping nowhere. Does it bother you? Buy a car and stop whining.


That is true, but I would think twice before proposing the italian way as a virtuous transportation example... mainly for the lack of a general plan.

We have a population expanded distribution similar to (and maybe worse than) Germany's, and we apply a point-to-point french model.

In central Veneto, where I live, they applied this method for the last decades. Building lots of new roads, spreading new residential areas along (not around: along) them, and when they get to full capacity, building again new roads.
Final result: we have no more free space. The transit network is a discontinuous grid of roads, mostly slow and congested, and creating public transport vectors is almost impossibile, or at least highly inefficient, due to the lack of "main centers".
Possible evolutions: none. Game over.


----------



## Coccodrillo

(edit: I was replying to Suburbanist)

I know I loose my time as you simply don't want to understand, but high speed trains in a coordinated timetable and carry more passengers and so earn more money, and all that for little expense. But they can also be faster, for the simple reason that a bunch of randomly placed trains is slower and of more difficult management than a well planned timetable (that requires months and engineers to be created...not only two clics)...sure in empty lines like the Spanish ones it's easier...but usually it is not the case as in Europe generally there is a problem of saturation. Even France is planning to make a regular interval timetable as it discovered that it is much better.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Wilhem275 said:


> That is true, but I would think twice before proposing the italian way as a virtuous transportation example... mainly for the lack of a general plan.


The lack of planification led Italy to have a lot of railways, and to a lot of new infrastructures, that carry (pax*km in proportion to the number of inhabitants) one third of swiss traffic, mainly because connections are too large (50 minutes between trains) or too risky (5 minutes, that is, nearly impossible) making a lot of trips non feasible.

Two non-connecting trains carry less people and earn less money, but cost the same as two coordinated trains, so they require more subsidy. That's strange: Suburbanist doesn't like subsidies, but he wants a system that being less efficient require more money (in the form of subsiedies of trains, new road infrastructure to replace disorganised trains, ...). That's a nonsense :nuts:


----------



## thun

What if a car is not a option for whatever reason?
And what if I would have a fancy smartphone, but trains running unregularily (and typically when I don't need them)? Then most people would still be willed to pay higher fares and have regular services.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> Trying to justify the opposite (that 60-minutes intervals are the global optimum) is just to fool with basic math and physic, as the division of a solar day in 24 hours of 60 minutes each is merely done for convenience.


Some other bases (like 20 instead of 60 minutes) may also work even if they may not repeat every hour.

But telling that structured timetables are not worth studying and that trains should running randomly is like saying that teching grammar to children is a limit to their freedom to speach :nuts:


----------



## Suburbanist

Coccodrillo said:


> But telling that structured timetables are not worth studying and that trains should running randomly is like saying that teching grammar to children is a limit to their freedom to speach :nuts:


I didn't say necessarily random, but in intervals different than 60 and its easy divisors (30, 20, 15, 12, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 1). People are not supposed to memorize the timetable of their trains, they are supposed to CONSULT the timetable before leaving the home, if possible, supposed to buy a ticket online also.


----------



## thun

But if they are enabled to memorize the timetable, they will find it more convenient than being forced to consult the schedulefor every single trip. And, as I said twice already, they will be fine paying a price premium for that convenience.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> The main "problem" in terms of economic feasibility is that the German rail system is a "net" (like the Swiss one) and not a "spider" (like in France, Spain and to a certain point Italy).
> There are several equally important north-south respectively east-west corridors where passengers spread. In France everyone is (or rather has to) go to Paris, in Spain to Madrid (in Italy, due to the geography, with one HSL you can cover most of the countries' ridership, too). Hence, passenger numbers on those corridors are much higher which justifies massive investments in only a few of them as you cover most passengers. That's not possible in Germany: If you build a HSL on most lines, ridership wouldn't get as high as it could justify the massive amount of money spent on a single line. And for the country it is much more difficult to derive an economic profit out of the investment. Therefore, one can easily argue (and would have a point) that the money would be better used to upgrate several existing corridors as a larger share of all train passengers would derive increased utility out of it and not only an exclusive circle. Therefore, the German practice isn't as "misguided" as it might look like. In fact, in that point of view, comparing the French and the German network is to a certain point like comparing apples and oranges.





aab7772003 said:


> ...
> 
> Frankfurt - Munich via Nürnberg
> Frankfurt - Munich via Stuttgart
> Frankfurt - Berlin via Hannover
> Berlin - Hamburg
> Frankfurt -Hamburg via Hannover
> Cologne - Hamburg via Hannover
> Frankfurt - Cologne
> 
> ...


It does not change that fact that there are very obvious "centers of gravity" in the German long-distance network.



thun said:


> In France everyone is (or rather has to) go to Paris, in Spain to Madrid (in Italy, due to the geography, with one HSL you can cover most of the countries' ridership, too). Hence, passenger numbers on those corridors are much higher which justifies massive investments in only a few of them as you cover most passengers. That's not possible in Germany: If you build a HSL on most lines, ridership wouldn't get as high as it could justify the massive amount of money spent on a single line. And for the country it is much more difficult to derive an economic profit out of the investment. Therefore, one can easily argue (and would have a point) that the money would be better used to upgrate several existing corridors as a larger share of all train passengers would derive increased utility out of it and not only an exclusive circle. Therefore, the German practice isn't as "misguided" as it might look like. In fact, in that point of view, comparing the French and the German network is to a certain point like comparing apples and oranges.





thun said:


> Therefore, one can easily argue (and would have a point) that the money would be better used to upgrate several existing corridors as a larger share of all train passengers would derive increased utility out of it and not only an exclusive circle. Therefore, the German practice isn't as "misguided" as it might look like. In fact, in that point of view, comparing the French and the German network is to a certain point like comparing apples and oranges.


Quite misguided actually. DB is going to London all the way now. Can you just transport passengers to all these destinations across Europe from various big city centers in Germany at the current speed in the long term? No. The silly incremental upgrade talk is based on zero network growth and the same small service areas.

Where is the vision? All these silly arguments would be similar to people who are against airport runway constructions because they only fly half-way across the world a couple of times a year at most and do not believe that many people for far away would be interested in reaching their destinations and regions.


----------



## thun

"All these" being London? :lol:

I'm afraid you can't compare DBs foreign operations with their domestic network. They operate a only a few foreign lines (like the ones to London and Milan) and will never run dense, integrated network. So they of course can choose the most profitable and fastest lines for that. But in Germany they have to cover most of the country with adequate services, so incremental upgrates (as you call them) certainly make sense. they wouldn't do on services like the London route though. Again, apples and oranges. 

Who says that there has to be network growth on a large scale at all? It makes sense to build a core network, for sure. But where it isn't economically justifiable to build a HSL, upgrating the existing lines for much less money might be the better option. There are only a few corridors (in every country, not only Germany!) where a HSL makes really sense. The money is invested better somewhere else (other passenger services or increased freight capacity). Efficient and convenient rail services don't necessarily have to be HSR, although some people here easily forget about that (or have never heard at all).


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> "All these" being London? :lol:
> 
> I'm afraid you can't compare DBs foreign operations with their domestic network. They operate a only a few foreign lines (like the ones to London and Milan) and will never run dense, integrated network. So they of course can choose the most profitable and fastest lines for that. But in Germany they have to cover most of the country with adequate services, so incremental upgrates (as you call them) certainly make sense. they wouldn't do on services like the London route though. Again, apples and oranges.
> 
> Who says that there has to be network growth on a large scale at all? It makes sense to build a core network, for sure. But where it isn't economically justifiable to build a HSL, upgrating the existing lines for much less money might be the better option. There are only a few corridors (in every country, not only Germany!) where a HSL makes really sense. The money is invested better somewhere else (other passenger services or increased freight capacity). Efficient and convenient rail services don't necessarily have to be HSR, although some people here easily forget about that (or have never heard at all).


A "few" foreign "lines"? Such as London, Paris, Baudrecourt, Strasbourg, Brussels, Liege, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Linz, Innsbruck, Salzburg, Vienna, Milan, Verona, Basel, Bern, Interlaken, Zurich, Copenhagen, Prague, etc.? Services between the foreign and German destinations are completely integrated into the DB system timetable, according to all the timetables found on the trains to and from those aforesaid destinations. Please do not imagine that these services are some kind of overnight sleeper services for a moment.

By the way, the so called "core" network in Germany is the heavily subsidized RE, IRE services. If it were "economically justifiable," it would not be heavily subsidized! 

When you build an HSR line, the original tracks are relegated to the IRE, RE, IC and freight services. There comes the increased freight capacity.



aab7772003 said:


> ...
> 
> Keep upgrading the Munich - Nürnberg line via Regensburg and see how fast it will get you eventually!


Believing that it is possible to upgrade the 19th-century-standard Nürnberg - Würzburg - Aschaffenburg - Frankfurt line into the 21st century standard is just pure fantasy!

TODAY, the travel time between Paris and Munich is 6.25 hours with only the Paris - Strasbourg high speed tracks. It will be reduced to around 4.75 hours in the future when Stuttgart 21 and the second phrase of LGV Est are completed. It is obvious to see that the travel time between Paris and Munich would last as much as 8 hours with the "incremental" upgrades only. 

Stuttgart is neither Munich nor Paris. Even the future Wien Hauptbahnhof will be a through train station. If Stuttgart were not jammed into a valley, a surface through train station would be considered instead. 

Efficient and convenient rail services don't necessarily have to be HSR, yes, in a closed service area of Switzerland or the Netherlands, indeed! By the way, "some people" here conveniently forget about other many factors, such as the EU European rail network development plan, when they only want to believe the infallibility of the Swiss system.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Well well, am schweizer Wesen soll die Welt also genesen. Just that you forget to mention that the Swiss railways despite the huge investments in it are still awfully slow and simply not competitive on medium and long distances.


How can the Swiss Railways at the same time have "to many passengers" as their main concern and not be competitive... On quite a few "medium" distances the SBB is even a lot faster than all the available alternatives. (Brig - Zürich for example).

Given the Geography the Swiss railways are quite fast actually, and the "system speed" is pretty good, because of little time lost in transfers.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> With computers and smartphones, it is borderline joking to say people still needs train running every 60 (instead of every 53 or 71) minutes!


The reason for a train every hour (or every half hour) is that many other activities also go by the hour or the half hour. I don't work multiples of 53 minutes, few people do. 

I have a smartphone that gives me real time information about departures of local public transit. Still I find it convenient that to go home I just have to leave the office at x:15 and x:45



> Want to scrap the searching costs? Buy a car. No schedule required. :cheers:


Yeah, there are absolutely no "searching" involved when you operate a car... right. 
You tell me where to find that iPhone app that gives me voice directions to the nearest free parking spot...


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ It's ONE of many possible industrial philosophies in regard of traffic management. Not the only one, not best one for all scenarios.


Every single transit system that want to a cadenced timetable has seen it's use increase substantially. It is one of the most effective way of increasing passenger numbers. It is so singularly effective that everyone is adopting it.



> In this era of high computational powers, it should be completely irrelevant whether you are planning a cadenced timetable or not! It's just a OP mathematical problem that a good multi-core set could easily process. There is no purely technical reasons to use timetables with a 57, 64, 73, 48, 91 minutes - even if a cadenced (but non-hourly) timetable were adopted.


The important thing is that the whole system uses the same pattern. So you could indeed use 57 minutes, as long as everyone did so. If you are going to standardise the interval country or europe wide, the logical choice is 60 minutes.



> Trying to justify the opposite (that 60-minutes intervals are the global optimum) is just to fool with basic math and physic, as the division of a solar day in 24 hours of 60 minutes each is merely done for convenience.


It is indeed done for convenience. What do you have against public transport being convenient?


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> How can the Swiss Railways at the same time have "to many passengers" as their main concern and not be competitive


Because other transport modes still carry much more passengers than public transport services.


K_ said:


> On quite a few "medium" distances the SBB is even a lot faster than all the available alternatives. (Brig - Zürich for example).
> Given the Geography the Swiss railways are quite fast actually, and the "system speed" is pretty good, because of little time lost in transfers.


You seem to have a rather bizarre perception of the word fast. The SBB struggles on almost all routes to keep up with the speed of road traffic. Maybe not on routes to Brig. But almost almost everywhere else. Not to mention that it never beat air traffic.


----------



## Coccodrillo

flierfy said:


> Because other transport modes still carry much more passengers than public transport services.


Yes, but only in general. On main destinations this is not true. Rail share between the cities of Bern and Zürich is 88%, and 73% between Zürich and St. Gallen. On the Gotthard this is 50% for passengers and 66% for freight.



flierfy said:


> You seem to have a rather bizarre perception of the word fast. The SBB struggles on almost all routes to keep up with the speed of road traffic. Maybe not on routes to Brig. But almost almost everywhere else. Not to mention that it never beat air traffic.


True, but the main problem is still capacity, not speed.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Because other transport modes still carry much more passengers than public transport services.


The modal share of public transport in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. I'd call that a success. And in urban areas the majority of trips are made on public transport. 



> You seem to have a rather bizarre perception of the word fast. The SBB struggles on almost all routes to keep up with the speed of road traffic. Maybe not on routes to Brig. But almost almost everywhere else. Not to mention that it never beat air traffic.


Can you tell me which airline beats the SBB on speed?


----------



## Coccodrillo

K_ said:


> The modal share of public transport in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. I'd call that a success. And in urban areas the majority of trips are made on public transport.


Around 25 to 30% considering all trips in passengers*km, obviously more in urban areas.



K_ said:


> Can you tell me which airline beats the SBB on speed?


Swiss/Darwin/FlyBaboo on Lugano-Geneva


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> The modal share of public transport in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. I'd call that a success. And in urban areas the majority of trips are made on public transport.


What is your definition of "urban areas"? And are you sure PT accounts for >50% of all motorized trips in Switzerland, or at least of all the commute trips?


----------



## LtBk

Isn't the mode share based on total passenger mileage?


----------



## Coccodrillo

It depends. In pax*km around 25% of swiss traffic uses public transport.

The numbers of trips in cities not done by private vehicles is quite high. See here: http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/ouvd...ommunications/Mobilite/Theorie/U. Haefeli.pdf (pages 3 and 4, among others).

And about subsidies, swiss railways and public transport systems are paid by the users from 50 to 70% (that is much) following the regions and the criteria. Obviously most small and regional lines run nearly on subsidies, but that's normal and is part of the duties of the government.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Can you tell me which airline beats the SBB on speed?


Swissair is faster between Zürich and Milano than any train the SBB has to offer. Rail is also slower from Zürich to Frankfurt/M, Paris or München.


----------



## thun

You know that you have to add more or less an hour of bus ride to get from Maplensa to Centrale FS (if you want to do a point-to-point comparision with the train), don't you?
The Malpensa Express train takes 40min to Cadorna station, too.


----------



## LtBk

I haven't experienced riding SBB or DB, but I can you tell that you guys have it good compared to many countries, especially the US.


----------



## rheintram

Switzerland has a great integrated system, but SBB will have a hard time in the future competing on a liberalized European market. The problem is Swiss narrow-mindedness. Because of their extreme federalism, Switzerland voted to deliberately weaken SBB in order to strengthen other local, partly canton-owned railway companies. While this might serve the interests of the cantons, it will make SBB insignificant on a European scale I fear.


----------



## Suburbanist

thun said:


> You know that you have to add more or less an hour of bus ride to get from Maplensa to Centrale FS (if you want to do a point-to-point comparision with the train), don't you?
> The Malpensa Express train takes 40min to Cadorna station, too.


But you are not likely to be heading to the area near Milano Centrale. If you want a point-to-point comparison of both modes, you'd have to model a probabilistic spatial function based on destinations and origins of Zurich-Milano traffic. Just to assume people will be heading to and from the vicinities of a train station and add the time it takes to the airport is wrong as it is to assume everybody is heading to the hotel next door to the airport terminal.

For instance: in Milano, a major destination is the city fairgrounds, which is faster to reach from the airport than from the central station.


----------



## thun

At least the new one, yes.
But if you head to any point in the city itself, you'll end up at Centrale (if you take the bus) or Cadorna (Malpensa Express)(wich is only a bit more central) and take the metro, tram or bus. If you want to travel to almost any other location in Northern Italy, you'll have to go from Malpensa to Centrale as well. If you want to go to the Como/Varese region, you can change trains at Chiasso or Como, of course, which makes it probably more convenient than waiting for luggage in the airport as well.
Finally, all that equals out the fact that you are forced to go to Centrale (or Como) by train - at least for a comparision we here are capable of doing as neither you nor I have access to exact destination data for the travellers.


----------



## thun

double post


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> For instance: in Milano, a major destination is the city fairgrounds, which is faster to reach from the airport than from the central station.


Milano Centrale-Rho Fiera is 15 minutes by train (but not all trains passing there also stop).

Anyway the first two trains to Milan are often full (few if no free places ==> there are people travelling standing) and also in the other direction in the evening.


----------



## K_

rheintram said:


> Switzerland has a great integrated system, but SBB will have a hard time in the future competing on a liberalized European market. The problem is Swiss narrow-mindedness. Because of their extreme federalism, Switzerland voted to deliberately weaken SBB in order to strengthen other local, partly canton-owned railway companies. While this might serve the interests of the cantons, it will make SBB insignificant on a European scale I fear.


What is good or bad for SBB is not really important. What matters is that the transport system is efficient. If someone else does it better than SBB, so the better if they manage to outcompete the SBB. The significance of SBB on a European scale is no concern.
And I think you shouldn't underestimate the SBB. SBB is already running regional train services in Germany that were formerly ran by DB, and they are bidding for the Piedmont services if I recall correctly.


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> At least the new one, yes.
> But if you head to any point in the city itself, you'll end up at Centrale (if you take the bus) or Cadorna (Malpensa Express)(wich is only a bit more central) and take the metro, tram or bus. If you want to travel to almost any other location in Northern Italy, you'll have to go from Malpensa to Centrale as well. If you want to go to the Como/Varese region, you can change trains at Chiasso or Como, of course, which makes it probably more convenient than waiting for luggage in the airport as well.
> Finally, all that equals out the fact that you are forced to go to Centrale (or Como) by train - at least for a comparision we here are capable of doing as neither you nor I have access to exact destination data for the travellers.


Malpensa might be a long way off Central Milano. Travelling by Aeroplane is still quicker. And that makes the service of the SBB look even worse.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Swissair is faster between Zürich and Milano than any train the SBB has to offer. Rail is also slower from Zürich to Frankfurt/M, Paris or München.


Well, SBB doesn't offer any train to Milano. Beyond Chiasso these trains are Trenitalia trains...
Looking at domestic Swiss air routes you'll see that there are not a lot of them. Want to take a guess as to why that would be the case?

Domestic routes exist from Geneva to Zürich and from Lugano to Bern, Zürich and Geneva. Geneva Zürich is only used by people connecting with other flights, as it doesn't really save you time compared to the train. We'll see what happens with te flights to Lugano once the Gotthard base tunnel is in operation. 
But even then, on routes that are served by air the train still does move significantly more people. Why would that be?


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> What is your definition of "urban areas"? And are you sure PT accounts for >50% of all motorized trips in Switzerland, or at least of all the commute trips?


I'll get better figures when I find them, but generally speaking public transport dominates in two fields: Transport within the city area (in Zürich the modal share of the car for trips within the city itself is only about 10%) and medium and long distance commuters. (Which shows that the SBB can compete with the car on medium and long distances). 
The ZVV has some interesting figures on it's website, which I can't find at the moment. I'll look them up when I come back from my appointment with the "Blümlisalp"


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Well, SBB doesn't offer any train to Milano. Beyond Chiasso these trains are Trenitalia trains...


That doesn't make it better for the SBB.


K_ said:


> Looking at domestic Swiss air routes you'll see that there are not a lot of them. Want to take a guess as to why that would be the case?
> 
> Domestic routes exist from Geneva to Zürich and from Lugano to Bern, Zürich and Geneva. Geneva Zürich is only used by people connecting with other flights, as it doesn't really save you time compared to the train. We'll see what happens with te flights to Lugano once the Gotthard base tunnel is in operation.
> But even then, on routes that are served by air the train still does move significantly more people. Why would that be?


The only reason for that is proximity. Being faster than air travel in a small area isn't particularly difficult. Competing with air traffic beyond these short distances is. And this is where the Swiss rail strategy fails miserably.


----------



## thun

So, you're amitting that SBB is faster than air travel, but at the same moment complain that they aren't?!?

Let's compare Zurch HB to Milano Centrale (if you don't want to do the maths, I'll have to ):
The fastest train Zurich - Milan I found is 3:41. Flight might be half an hour, plus an hour to get from Malpensa to Milano Centrale plus 11min to get to Zurich airport which is sums up to 1:41. You should be there an hour earlier for check in (at least the airline says so) and might need half an hour to get your baggage (in the case of Malpensa: if you're lucky). Then we are talking about only 30min time advantage for the plane - of course, you still have to add some minutes to get to the bus, buy the bus ticket, wait for the bus to leave, so we're under half an hour. And if you're unlucky the bus will get stuck in a jam on the autostrada

So, where do you take the time advantage for the plane from you're claiming it has? Most travellers on that route will probably prefer the train (given similar prices), as they have to board it exactly once and get of once - much more convenient, isn't it?

If you want to argue that one is not likely to travel to the Centrale neighbourhood (although there are lots of hotels for tourists), here's the maths for a travel from Zurich HB to Milan Duomo metro station: Add roughly ten minutes for the train and subract 20min for the plane (as you would use the train to Milan and then the metro).

Still, regarding the fact that we're talking about a railway across one of the higher passes in the Alps, that's not bad at all. If the Gotthard base tunnel will be open, the train will be the faster option in any case.


We might want now go back on topic, shoudn't we?


----------



## Coccodrillo

German's NIMBYs visiting the italian comittee of Valsusa: http://www.notav.eu/article-5040--0-0.html

(the website doesn't really say anything interesting, but it's a sign that NIMBYs talk to each other)


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> That doesn't make it better for the SBB.
> 
> The only reason for that is proximity. Being faster than air travel in a small area isn't particularly difficult. Competing with air traffic beyond these short distances is. And this is where the Swiss rail strategy fails miserably.


But your complaint was first that SBB couldn't even compete on medium distances with cars. When we showed you that it does succesfully compete with cars on medium distances you changed to complaining about connections with neighboring countries. 
And while complaining about SBB you give an example (Zürich - Milano) where SBB is doing exactly that what you claim it is not doing enough: Invest in high speed rail...


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> So, you're amitting that SBB is faster than air travel, but at the same moment complain that they aren't?!?


The conclusion that rail is fast on short distances that are not relevant for air traffic is common sense and no achievement of the SBB.



thun said:


> Let's compare Zurch HB to Milano Centrale (if you don't want to do the maths, I'll have to ):
> The fastest train Zurich - Milan I found is 3:41. Flight might be half an hour, plus an hour to get from Malpensa to Milano Centrale plus 11min to get to Zurich airport which is sums up to 1:41. You should be there an hour earlier for check in (at least the airline says so) and might need half an hour to get your baggage (in the case of Malpensa: if you're lucky). Then we are talking about only 30min time advantage for the plane - of course, you still have to add some minutes to get to the bus, buy the bus ticket, wait for the bus to leave, so we're under half an hour. And if you're unlucky the bus will get stuck in a jam on the autostrada


It's hilarious how you add time freely on the air travel and it's still way faster than rail. I'd just like to know for what exactly you buy a bus ticket. It takes 60 min from the airport to Piazza Duomo by rail. This is as central as you can get. So no need for a bus actually. Except for time wasting, maybe.



thun said:


> So, where do you take the time advantage for the plane from you're claiming it has? Most travellers on that route will probably prefer the train (given similar prices), as they have to board it exactly once and get of once - much more convenient, isn't it?


Only if you can afford the additional time it takes by rail.



thun said:


> Still, regarding the fact that we're talking about a railway across one of the higher passes in the Alps, that's not bad at all. If the Gotthard base tunnel will be open, the train will be the faster option in any case.


That remains to be seen. Travel times of 2:40 h are predicted for the route through the new tunnel. That is still no impressive speed to achieve an outright victory over other transport modes. I presume that even this accelerated rail service won't displace air travel on this route completely.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> But your complaint was first that SBB couldn't even compete on medium distances with cars. When we showed you that it does succesfully compete with cars on medium distances you changed to complaining about connections with neighboring countries.


It complain that the SBB is awfully slow almost everywhere. The SBB can't compete with road traffic on medium distances. Hence the great modal split for private cars.
You only showed that the SBB is faster on route to one particular mountain valley. This is, however, an exception rather than a rule.


K_ said:


> And while complaining about SBB you give an example (Zürich - Milano) where SBB is doing exactly that what you claim it is not doing enough: Invest in high speed rail...


Just that it isn't high speed by todays standards. Average commercial speed will hardly exceed 100 km/h on routes through the new Gotthard tunnel. Such a speed was considered high speed in the 1930s but not in the 21th century.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> It complain that the SBB is awfully slow almost everywhere. The SBB can't compete with road traffic on medium distances. Hence the great modal split for private cars.


Modal share for PT is high for two classes of trafic: Inner city trafic, and medium distance city to city traffic. That is not without a reason. It proves that on medium distance trail _can_ compete with road traffic. 



> You only showed that the SBB is faster on route to one particular mountain valley. This is, however, an exception rather than a rule.


I can give you other examples. 

Geneve - Zürich: 2h42 minutes by train (every half hour). Distance 280km. That's an average of just above 100kph. And that is about as fast as you can get from Geneva to Zürich by car.



> Just that it isn't high speed by todays standards. Average commercial speed will hardly exceed 100 km/h on routes through the new Gotthard tunnel. Such a speed was considered high speed in the 1930s but not in the 21th century.


The new services will actually have a commercial speed that will substantially exceed 100km/h. 
But in the end what counts is not vehicle speed. It's system speed. People don't travel from HST station to HST station. They travel from their front door to another front door. SBB performs better here than most railways in Europe, as witnessed by their success.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> That remains to be seen. Travel times of 2:40 h are predicted for the route through the new tunnel. That is still no impressive speed to achieve an outright victory over other transport modes. I presume that even this accelerated rail service won't displace air travel on this route completely.


How can being faster than any other mode on a route not lead to dominating it?
I wouldn't be surprised if passenger numbers on the route showed double digit growths in the first decade after the opening of the tunnel.


----------



## thun

flierfy said:


> It's hilarious how you add time freely on the air travel and it's still way faster than rail. I'd just like to know for what exactly you buy a bus ticket. It takes 60 min from the airport to Piazza Duomo by rail. This is as central as you can get. So no need for a bus actually. Except for time wasting, maybe.


You didn't show proper reading skills there. You need the bus to get to Milano Centrale, if you want to (which a lot of people want to do...). I posted two comparisions, one to Centrale, one to Duomo.  The times aren't exact travel times (which I never said to be), but quite realistic assumptions, so it has to be good enough. If you want to proove that the plane is fast enough to be the better choice, feel free to post your travel schedule here.
By the way, I never said that the train was quicker, I said its quick enough to compete with the plane on that route. Why is it? Look at the next paragraph.



> Only if you can afford the additional time it takes by rail.


That's the whole point. The plane is less than half an hour faster, but you have to change the mode of transport two (to Centrale) or three (to Duomo) times, which means carrying all your baggage, search for the right direction, etc. And, of course, you'll have to queue at the check-in and at the baggage claim, and wait at the gate whereas you'll sit down exactly once in the train and stand up once to leave it (well, you still have to walk five minutes to the metro if you want to go to Duomo).
The fact remains that the plane isn't that much faster that it would equal the much higher convenience for most traveller to get onto a train and leave it. As well - if that's important to you - the train takes a scenic route and is more environment friendly. Travel time isn't everything, you know? Especially if we talk about a few minutes only.



> That remains to be seen. Travel times of 2:40 h are predicted for the route through the new tunnel. That is still no impressive speed to achieve an outright victory over other transport modes. I presume that even this accelerated rail service won't displace air travel on this route completely.


Well, travel time will be one hour less, Zurich - Milan in 2:41. That means that the train arrives in Milan when you might still be at Malpensa.
Of course it won't outplace air travel completely as people might catch an connecting flight at either Zurich or Malpensa. But it will certainly mean that for those travelling from city to city it will. So yes, I'm 100% sure that in the future it will be the fastest mode of transport.


----------



## DiggerD21

You guys are just talking about travel time for this specific route Zurich-Milano. Think about the ticket price as well.

Standard ticket price with the EC train between both cities is 59 euro one-way. If you are a in possession of a customer card number the price can go down as low as 9,10 €, as far as I have seen in the trip planner of trenitalia. 

The cheapest ticket price for a flight between both cities at Swiss International Airlines is 110 € one-way. Standard Economy fare seems to be 155 €. Add to that the cost of the transfer from Malpensa to a central location in Milan. For the Malpensa Express to Cadorna station: 11 € one-way (14,50 € roundtrip). For the bus-shuttle: 7,50 € (one-way, no round trip ticket available). I suppose the Zurich Airport is within the Zurich'spublic transport tariff area and therefore I leave these transport costs aside.

So that means in the end you pay for going from city centre to city centre:

by train: 59 € (one-way), 118 € (round trip)
by plane: at least 117,50 € (one-way), 234,50 € (round trip)

If you ask me, that's a big difference for being just a little bit faster by plane and only makes sense IMO if you have to get a connecting flight in Zurich or Malpensa.


----------



## LMB

DiggerD21 said:


> You guys are just talking about travel time for this specific route Zurich-Milano. Think about the ticket price as well.


What does all that have to do with " Stuttgart 21 - 4.5 bn Eur for new rail hub", which is the subject matter?


----------



## LMB

IcyUrmel said:


> The alternative - upgrading the old station - is explained on www.kopfbahnhof-21.de. The site has no international section, s I just want to give the link to one short movie showing the idea of an integrated timetable, providing shorter connection times for almost every rail passanger. A concept that is not possible in a reduced, 8-track station.


Thanks for the in-depth analysis. Now I know what's going on. 

There is one more aspect: aesthetics. The old station is ugly, but quite unusual, so it's easily remembered. It's _the thing_ of Stuttgart (possibly one of many, sorry never been there yet). The new station is downright horrible. It looks like a bad dream of a coke-sniffing architect, who's stuck in 1970's. I'm not at all an architect, not even a humanist, but I hate it. How is it possible that a bunch of specialists saw it and accepted it? It looks suspicious.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Nothing. There is a moderator who can split the thread?


----------



## LMB

IcyUrmel said:


> I just want to give the link to one short movie showing the idea of an integrated timetable, providing shorter connection times for almost every rail passanger.


Sorry, but I completely disagree with the logic behind the film. It argues that what is good for Switzerland, will be good for Stuttgart. 

I beg to differ. My arguments: 
* Swiss arguments supporting the ITF may be manipulated. The Swiss failed to invest in HST (more properly _High Speed Lines_), and will be naturally prone to produce lies about how useful their solution is. Lies are far cheaper than investments. I heard somewhere (read: _unconfirmed_) that Swiss trains have the lowest average trade speed in Central and Eastern Europe, because in order to prevent delays, average speed of trains is lowered. Surely that will work in Switzerland due to mountainous terrain and short distances, but this technique will fail for a TGV to Paris, or an ICE to Hamburg. A TGV to Paris will spend ca 1/3 of its time in "bad" mountainous are, and then the terrain is flat like a table, and speeds exceed 320km/h. 

* Regional trains are rarely profitable. While some trains are surely packed to the maximum, some other trains are very often filled 15%, and they run not because there's need, but there's the "Stundentakt". That will probably change (hopefully! -> energy efficiency*), and there will be more room at the station. 

* I'd rather take a HST from point 1 to point 2, than take an RE and have to transfer twice, even if option A means that there are fewer trains per day. Just a personal opinion.

That, of course, does not mean that the new station does make sense. If I remember correctly, there's an S-Bahn station underneath the old station - if there's congestion, 6 billion euro (read: original 4b plan + 50% overrun) could buy Stuttgart a very, very nice second underground station in whatever depth and/or direction, or a widening of the existing tunnel.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Just two notes.

1) Symmetry in a timetable is like grammar for a language, a way to structure the thing. You can have both fast trains and a symmetric timetable, if the infrastructure allow it.

2) An hourly frequency is the minimum to make a service attractive on short distances, and usually if trains are full in peak hours then an hourly frequency off peak is usually justified.


----------



## K_

LMB said:


> Sorry, but I completely disagree with the logic behind the film. It argues that what is good for Switzerland, will be good for Stuttgart.
> 
> I beg to differ. My arguments:
> * Swiss arguments supporting the ITF may be manipulated. The Swiss failed to invest in HST (more properly _High Speed Lines_), and will be naturally prone to produce lies about how useful their solution is. Lies are far cheaper than investments.


Firstly the Swiss currently have about 80km of high speed railways in operation (and about 70km under construction), so they invested far from nothing...
Secondly the argument is not manipulated, as anyone with access to a Swiss timetable can easily verify.



> I heard somewhere (read: _unconfirmed_) that Swiss trains have the lowest average trade speed in Central and Eastern Europe, because in order to prevent delays, average speed of trains is lowered. Surely that will work in Switzerland due to mountainous terrain and short distances, but this technique will fail for a TGV to Paris, or an ICE to Hamburg. A TGV to Paris will spend ca 1/3 of its time in "bad" mountainous are, and then the terrain is flat like a table, and speeds exceed 320km/h.


Commercial speeds on intercity connections are quite good. Average speed on Geneva - Zürich for example is about 105 km/h, which compares quite favorable to for example comparable countries like the Netherlands or Belgium (especially since these don't have the difficult geography)
Switzerland still has a lot of regional railways that are not that fast, and that do lower the average, but these are trains that in countries like France have been largely replaced by buses, which are even slower. As a result when one compares the system speed of public transportation between Switzerland and other European countries Switzerland compares very well.



> * Regional trains are rarely profitable. While some trains are surely packed to the maximum, some other trains are very often filled 15%, and they run not because there's need, but there's the "Stundentakt". That will probably change (hopefully! -> energy efficiency*), and there will be more room at the station.


Regional trains are rarely profitable europe wide. But fare recovery for regional trains is fairly high in Switzerland compared to the rest of europe. The marginal cost of the extra trains that fill the gaps in the timetable to make it regular is rather low, and they do result in more customers.



> * I'd rather take a HST from point 1 to point 2, than take an RE and have to transfer twice, even if option A means that there are fewer trains per day. Just a personal opinion.


That is indeed personal. My personal perference is exactly the oposite. I want flexibility when I travel. So a service ever hour with changes is of more use to me than a direct service once or twice a day.
It seems that most railway travellers are like me. The story of the direct Bern - Paris TGV here is quite telling: There used to be two direct trains from Bern to Paris. Now there is only one. 
The reason is that it lost passengers, since the introduction of the Basel - Paris TGVs. People from Bern willing to go to Paris seem to prefer the services that involve a change in Basel, because they are nicely integrated in the Swiss interval schedule, over the direct train. Mostly because it gives you more travel options.


----------



## LMB

K_ said:


> Firstly the Swiss currently have about 80km of high speed railways in operation (and about 70km under construction), so they invested far from nothing...
> Secondly the argument is not manipulated, as anyone with access to a Swiss timetable can easily verify.


You're missing the point - what does the "access to timetable" have to do with the accuracy of the Swiss example in Stuttgart? And where do you prove me wrong? 70km is indeed proving me right. Czech Republic offers more than that, being half poorer. 

But please, no elaboration on the topic of HSL in Switzerland, the accusation was about the Swiss model not fitting Stuttgart. 



K_ said:


> That is indeed personal. My personal perference is exactly the oposite. I want flexibility when I travel. So a service ever hour with changes is of more use to me than a direct service once or twice a day.


Flexibility does not exist in Germany due to lack of competition, and thus extreme prices. One simply has to buy the ticket in advance, otherwise train is no competitor to car/plane. I hope SBB can offer more affodable connections.


----------



## K_

LMB said:


> But please, no elaboration on the topic of HSL in Switzerland, the accusation was about the Swiss model not fitting Stuttgart.


Now, that was not your argument. Wat you wrote was:



> Swiss arguments supporting the ITF may be manipulated. The Swiss failed to invest in HST (more properly High Speed Lines), and will be naturally prone to produce lies about how useful their solution is. Lies are far cheaper than investments.


You basically claimed that SBB lied about the advantages of the ITF. I tell you that you can verify for yourself that when SBB makes claims like "the new timetable gives an reduction in travel times due to better connections at the hubs" that this is a claim that is verifiable by anyone. Calling in a suspicien that this might be a lie is completely unfounded.




> Flexibility does not exist in Germany due to lack of competition, and thus extreme prices. One simply has to buy the ticket in advance, otherwise train is no competitor to car/plane. I hope SBB can offer more affodable connections.


You again misunderstand what I am talking about. If I want to go from Bern to Köln (or any other major city in Germany) I have to choice to leave at 6:04, 7:04, 8:04, 9:04, 10:04 and so on. That thanks to an integrated timetable. When I want to go from Bern to some major city in France however I usually have only one or two convenient departure times. 
An integrated interval timetable is easier to integrate in your other activities. That means you get to use your time more efficiently. A train every hour that takes four hours saves more time than a train that takes three hours but only runs twice a day. 

In Switzerland btw a train ticket always costs the same, weather you buy it a year or a second before departure.


----------



## aab7772003

K_ said:


> ...
> 
> You again misunderstand what I am talking about. If I want to go from Bern to Köln (or any other major city in Germany) I have to choice to leave at 6:04, 7:04, 8:04, 9:04, 10:04 and so on. That thanks to an integrated timetable. When I want to go from Bern to some major city in France however I usually have only one or two convenient departure times.
> An integrated interval timetable is easier to integrate in your other activities. That means you get to use your time more efficiently. A train every hour that takes four hours saves more time than a train that takes three hours but only runs twice a day.
> 
> ...


Stuttgart 21 is NOT designed to annihilate the system timetable concept. Baden Württemberg is not an independent country like the the compact Switzerland. Stuttgart 21 is designed to better connect the city and the state with the rest of Germany and the rest of Europe. If the terminus concept were as efficient as these anti Stuttgart 21 experts claim, there would be many more newly termini around the world.


----------



## K_

aab7772003 said:


> Stuttgart 21 is NOT designed to annihilate the system timetable concept.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that. But one of the arguments of the opponents of S21 is that an ITF with the old station would work better than the new one. I'm not entirely convinced of that argument (I think you could get a good, well coordinated timetable with the new station too). However someone needed to argue that that an ITF was even a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baden Württemberg is not an independent country like the the compact Switzerland. Stuttgart is designed to better connect the city and state with Germany and the rest of Europe. If the terminus concept were as efficient as these anti Stuttgart 21 experts claim, there would be many more newly termini around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent poll the majority of the inhabitants of Baden Württemberg wouldn't mind become part of Switzerland  But we digress.
> 
> Stuttgart 21 is an impressive project. I'm not entirely sure however if it is indeed an optimal way to spend a huge amount of tax payer money. However, I do notice that SBB is also pouring a huge amount of money in a project to get more through platforms in Zürich...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Modal share for PT is high for two classes of trafic: Inner city trafic, and medium distance city to city traffic. That is not without a reason. It proves that on medium distance trail _can_ compete with road traffic.


No, it only proves that rail achieves a favourable modal split on medium distances between areas very well served by PT. These very well served areas make up just a fraction of the settled area of Switzerland.



K_ said:


> Geneve - Zürich: 2h42 minutes by train (every half hour). Distance 280km. That's an average of just above 100kph. And that is about as fast as you can get from Geneva to Zürich by car.


That the SBB is not even faster than road traffic on this high-profile route actually highlights the slowness of intercity connections in Switzerland. I know that you can't admit it. But for any unbiased observer it is clear to see. Swiss railways lack speed on the longer distances.



K_ said:


> The new services will actually have a commercial speed that will substantially exceed 100km/h.


I was talking about average commercial speed. And this won't exceeding 100 km/h substantially. The SBB intents to cut travel time from Zürich to Lugano to 2 h. 2 h for 200 km.


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> You didn't show proper reading skills there. You need the bus to get to Milano Centrale, if you want to (which a lot of people want to do...). I posted two comparisions, one to Centrale, one to Duomo.  The times aren't exact travel times (which I never said to be), but quite realistic assumptions, so it has to be good enough.


Before you question my reading skill you better review your own phrases. You did not mention for where you intended to take the bus.

Beside that the trip from Malpensa to Milano Centrale doesn't require a bus anyway.



thun said:


> If you want to proove that the plane is fast enough to be the better choice, feel free to post your travel schedule here.


I leave it to you to make obscure calculations with biased assumptions. I stick to the hard facts. And these are the economical viability of air services on such short distance. Which is only possible when the competing rail service is simply not fast enough.



thun said:


> That's the whole point. The plane is less than half an hour faster, but you have to change the mode of transport two (to Centrale) or three (to Duomo) times, which means carrying all your baggage, search for the right direction, etc.


I don't know how you made your research. I for one get different routes. From Malpensa to Duomo I have to change just once, at Milano Cadorna. And it takes only 40 min by train and metro.



thun said:


> Well, travel time will be one hour less, Zurich - Milan in 2:41. That means that the train arrives in Milan when you might still be at Malpensa.
> Of course it won't outplace air travel completely as people might catch an connecting flight at either Zurich or Malpensa. But it will certainly mean that for those travelling from city to city it will. So yes, I'm 100% sure that in the future it will be the fastest mode of transport.


We'll find out the actual modal shift in 6 or 7 years time.


----------



## flierfy

LMB said:


> What does all that have to do with " Stuttgart 21 - 4.5 bn Eur for new rail hub", which is the subject matter?


We discuss the Swiss rail strategy to find out whether it is favourable for Stuttgart or not.


----------



## thun

flierfy said:


> Before you question my reading skill you better review your own phrases. You did not mention for where you intended to take the bus.





thun said:


> *Let's compare Zurch HB to Milano Centrale* (...) *get to the bus, buy the bus ticket, wait for the bus to leave*(...)


Hm. All in one paragraph. It's not too hard to understand, is it?



> Beside that the trip from Malpensa to Milano Centrale doesn't require a bus anyway.


Of course you could take the train to Cadorna and the metro from there. Which takes about the same time, is more expensive and you have to change the mode of transport once more. There are only some few Frecciarossi to Centrale (the only direct trains and 5 euros more expensive). Oh: Bus every 20min, Malpensa Express every 30min, Frecciarossa every now and then. The bus is the most obvious choice to Centrale. 




> I leave it to you to make obscure calculations with biased assumptions. I stick to the hard facts.


"Hard fact" = biased personal preference?



> And these are the economical viability of air services on such short distance.


Which no-one questioned.


> Which is only possible when the competing rail service is simply not fast enough.


Wrong. Of course both at the same time can be viable and in most cases are, simply due to the fact that people don't exclusively travel from city centre to city centre and/or have individual preferences.



> From Malpensa to Duomo I have to change just once, at Milano Cadorna. And it takes only 40 min by train and metro.


Which is exactly the result I calculated for the Malpensa - Duomo route on a rough guess (Malpensa-Centrale 1 hour by bus, Malpensa-Duomo is 20 min faster due to the Malpensa Express). :cheers:


Still, is a mode of transport that is something between 20 and 45min (depending on the location you're heading to) worth 60€ more or double the price of an alternative? Probably yes if your company pays for it, probably not if you have to do so yourself. There you have it, both can be viable at the same time.


----------



## aab7772003

flierfy said:


> We discuss the Swiss rail strategy to find out whether it is favourable for Stuttgart or not.


... which is really not by any stretch of the imagination.

The whole debacle is all caused by the people who have no international perspective and insist on saving every brick and tree branch.

They are all used to their RE/IRE/verkehrsverbund services, and probably have not even tried the high speed rail between Cologne and Frankfurt! Meanwhile, those young protesters are too busy with the Mitfahrzentrale and do not know that they have lost much money because they do not subscribe to Bahncard.

If the Swiss system were this universally good, you would think that there would be quite a few rail systems around the world emulating the Swiss system now.


----------



## K_

aab7772003 said:


> If the Swiss system were this universally good, you would think that there would be quite a few rail systems around the world emulating the Swiss system now.


Since quite a few rail systems are actually emulating it you could be indeed tempted in to thinking it was a good idea. That and the fact that it is hugely successful wherever it is implemented.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> No, it only proves that rail achieves a favourable modal split on medium distances between areas very well served by PT. These very well served areas make up just a fraction of the settled area of Switzerland.


Actually the "very well served areas" is where the majority of the Swiss live, but go on, ignore facts as you want. 



> That the SBB is not even faster than road traffic on this high-profile route actually highlights the slowness of intercity connections in Switzerland. I know that you can't admit it. But for any unbiased observer it is clear to see. Swiss railways lack speed on the longer distances.


Sigh...

I'll repeat: The biggest, most pressing problem the SBB has right now, that what occupies its management, that what it's CEO is now losing his sleep over is the following:
The SBB has to many customers. It's services are too popular. The demand for it's trains is outgrowing it's capacity to put more trains on the rails.
In other words: The SBB is actually doing _too_ well.
How can you claim that a company that is suffering from being to successful is somehow not doing those things that it ought to do in order to become successful.



> I was talking about average commercial speed. And this won't exceeding 100 km/h substantially. The SBB intents to cut travel time from Zürich to Lugano to 2 h. 2 h for 200 km.


And for a route that has a huge mountain range in the middle of it that is mightely impressive. Can you give me an example of anywhere in the world where a similar route operates faster?


----------



## aab7772003

K_ said:


> Since quite a few rail systems are actually emulating it you could be indeed tempted in to thinking it was a good idea. That and the fact that it is hugely successful wherever it is implemented.


Which ones specifically? 

Just remember that real HIGH SPEED on major city center to major city center routes is an essential part of the formula for success.

There is a hierarchy in any system timetable; not all stations are created equal. Those tiny stations at the end of those one-track lines with hourly services during day-light hours coordinate with the major rail hubs, not the other way around.


----------



## czm3

LMB said:


> What does all that have to do with " Stuttgart 21 - 4.5 bn Eur for new rail hub", which is the subject matter?


x2


----------



## thun

> Just remember that real HIGH SPEED on major city center to major city center routes is an essential part of the formula for success.


Except that it isn't. If it would be the case, only small parts of France, Spain, Italy, Germany would have economical successful rail operations in Europe. Obviously, that isn't the case.
The "formula to success" (if you want to formulat a universal one) is to prvide good service at reasonable prices for your customers. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean "real" high speed services.

It would be like saying that a large intercontinental network is an essential element for the success of an airline, ignoring that there are lots of regional and national airlines on the market as well.



> There is a hierarchy in any system timetable; not all stations are created equal. Those tiny stations at the end of those one-track lines with hourly services during day-light hours coordinate with the major rail hubs, not the other way around.


Which of course isn't done in Switzerland as well. Your point is what exactly?


----------



## K_

aab7772003 said:


> Which ones specifically?


The "Integrales Taktfahrplan", or ITF isn't really a Swiss invention. The Dutch fist implemented it, including a system of nodes, with a clear hierarchy of trains. The next ones to implement it were the German railways, for their nationwide Intercity Network. Then came the Swiss, and the Belgian. Since then the ITF has also been implemented for regional traffic in Germany, and France is also gradually introducing interval schedules. Many regions in France already operate on interval schedules. 
So it seems that railways operators in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and now even France and to a certain extent Italy all seem to think it is a good idea. 
Don't let these facts keep you from acting as if the whole idee is just a silly Swiss idea...

Now, what has this to do with Stuttgart 21. Not a lot really. Only that the opponents of S21 claim that an ITF isn't possible with the new station. Some proponents of S21 seem to think that defending the ITF means opposing S21, which is how the pros and cons of an ITF got dragged in to this discussion.
For the record. I'm not against S21 per se, but lack sufficient data to really have a definite opinion (yet). However that a few trees have to be cut for the project is not an argument against it. Also the argument that an ITF would be impossible with the new station is not convincing me, so I think I can at the same time defend the ITF, without having to be subjected to the suspicion that I might be radically opposed to S21.


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> Are you serious? Berlin-Hamburg is flat like a plate whereas Zurich - Milan crosses a mayor mountain range.


The topography might be challenging. It is, however, no insurmountable obstacle and no reason to be so slow.
The mountainous character of the rail line is currently defused by well-known engineering projects. Yet travel time between Zürich and Milano still won't nowhere near 100 min that are achieved elsewhere. The reason for this is the small-mindedness of the SBB and its dogmatic stopping pattern. Compulsive calls in small town stations like Zug or Arth-Goldau are hindering an intercity service much more than any massif.


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ 50% of the passengers do not go to Zürich and most change in Arth Goldau. Zug is a quite important financial city and well used (and being at the end of a single track line, together with Arth Goldau, trains have to stop to wait for crossings). A (really needed) new Zürich-Milano line would require a total of 200 km tunnels, that is, quite a lot of money.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> The reason for this is the small-mindedness of the SBB and its dogmatic stopping pattern. Compulsive calls in small town stations like Zug or Arth-Goldau are hindering an intercity service much more than any massif.


The "dogmatic stopping pattern" results in more people taking the train in Switzerland than anywhere else. If results is what you gauge success by than the SBB is quite successful.


----------



## flierfy

Coccodrillo said:


> 50% of the passengers do not go to Zürich and most change in Arth Goldau. Zug is a quite important financial city and well used (and being at the end of a single track line, together with Arth Goldau, trains have to stop to wait for crossings). A (really needed) new Zürich-Milano line would require a total of 200 km tunnels, that is, quite a lot of money.


Which is not surprising. Calling in small towns encourages people to use this intercity even for short trips. Meanwhile the city to city trips are done 5000 m above.


----------



## Suissetralia

flierfy said:


> Which is not surprising. Calling in small towns encourages people to use this intercity even for short trips. Meanwhile the city to city trips are done 5000 m above.


And what's wrong with that? Rail infrastructure if quite expensive, specially in Switzerland and more specifically those railroads built in the Alps as in this case, so it might be more efficient to share part of the passangers doing the direct Milan-ZH route between the rail and the plane than putting a lot of money in new rails to improve speed and capacity while there are already two large airports in each of the two cities, two airports which independently of this decision will continue to operate because they serve many other destinations, so the expenditure in infrastructure in this case to allow the route is minimal.


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ That's why there should be fast trains where possible, in addition to stopping trains, both in a symmetric timetable (just like Italian high-speed trains do).


----------



## aab7772003

Dase said:


> @ aab7772003: since when is DB a private company? Just because it's a Stock company does not mean it's private. Please get your facts straight. Additionally, arguing with profit needs in the case of Stuttgart 21 is kind of strange considering the amount of subsidies involved.


I believe that Wikipedia is more accurate than you are in this case. The fact that the German government is a big shareholder of DB does not mean that the DB is a federal transport department. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bahn

If you are talking about subsidies, do you actually know how much individual state governments subsidize their local rail services? Maybe you should calculate and amortize the construction costs of old rail lines and see whether they will make money back if at all. Where in the rest of the world you can get to travel in such an unlimited manner in one day within one federal state with those "Länderstickets"? For example, Bavaria is twice the size of Taiwan!



aab7772003 said:


> Actually, the current bi-hourly Nürnberg - Munich express RE services traveling on the same ICE Nürnberg - Munich high speed tracks with travel time almost as fast as the Nürnberg - Munich ICE services are jammed packed every departure.


5 people can travel on these services for 28 Euros round trip in one day. Go to Switzerland, the country seems to make every German experience explosive orgasm these days with its "perfect" rail service thanks to the supposedly "pioneering" system timetable, and find yourself shocked to learn that you probably need to pay 28 Euros one way for the equivalent services in Switzerland!


----------



## thun

Well, I would be very surprised if a profitoriented DB would build Stuttgart 21 if it would have to pay itself for it.
It's indeed profit oriented to some point, but they wouldn't invest that much money in saving only some few minutes for their ICEs as you claim. 

Cost of living is generelly higher in Switzerland. And like everywhere else, the Swiss rail operators have to balance their prices, too. As long as their trains are packed, one can hardly argue that their prices are too high for the provided service.
And even if the single fare might be even higher than in Germany, e. g. in contrast to the Bahncard 100 the Generalabo is quite affordable in Switzerland. Lots of commuters have these and can basically travel for free on every mean of public transport in the whole country.


By the way, I'm absolutely in favour of the RE on the Munich-Nuremberg HSL as they provide a good service and are a good example how a HSL can provide direct utility for those who aren't joining the exclusive club of long-distance travellers. In fact, such services should be introduced on other HSLs, too.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> Well, I would be very surprised if a profitoriented DB would build Stuttgart 21 if it would have to pay itself for it.


I would be very surprised as well if DB would run all those RE, IRE, etc. without the heavy state government state government subsidies. I would be very surprised that private companies alone would build all these intercontinental airports. By the way, no profit-oriented private firms would have built the Chunnel and established the Eurostar services alone.



thun said:


> It's indeed profit oriented to some point, but they wouldn't invest that much money in saving only some few minutes for their ICEs as you claim.


Not when DB could build the genuine, complete Stuttgart - Mannheim - Frankfurt Süd - Frankfurt Flughafen - Köln Deutz (when the final destination of the service is not Köln Hauptbahnhof but elsewhere further up north) - Köln Hauptbahnhof HSR tracks! In such routing, another 30 minutes could be *easily* shaved off from the Stuttgart - Köln trip. 



aab7772003 said:


> It only saves a couple of minutes here and there in Germany because all those NIMBYs force DB to build HSR tracks here and there and local governments makes DB ICE trains stop at stations like Hagen. The travel time between Cologne and Fankfurt would be 50 minutes instead of one hour without the two unnecessary stops!






thun said:


> Cost of living is generelly higher in Switzerland. And like everywhere else, the Swiss rail operators have to balance their prices, too. As long as their trains are packed, one can hardly argue that their prices are too high for the provided service.
> And even if the single fare might be even higher than in Germany, e. g. in contrast to the Bahncard 100 the Generalabo is quite affordable in Switzerland. Lots of commuters have these and can basically travel for free on every mean of public transport in the whole country.


I am sure that the Swiss rave about how cheap the German rail fares are. They sure are envious of the amazingly affordable DB "Länderstickets" too.



thun said:


> By the way, I'm absolutely in favour of the RE on the Munich-Nuremberg HSL as they provide a good service and are a good example how a HSL can provide direct utility for those who aren't joining the exclusive club of long-distance travellers. In fact, such services should be introduced on other HSLs, too.


I am pretty sure that similar services for the Stuttgart - Ulm route would be introduced in the future as well. ICE travels in Germany are not exclusive at all, especially often enough you can get then 19-Euro fare on the Cologne - Frankfurt sector three days before the departure date. With the the Bahncard 25, the trip would just cost 15 Euros. There is the Bahncard 50 too.


----------



## thun

I wasn't exactly refering to high inter city fares but rather to the fact that investing in HSL only would be a wrong decision. No matter if DB would be profit-oriented or not. The regional trains are the backbone of both rail transport and their services.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> I wasn't exactly refering to high inter city fares but rather to the fact that investing in HSL only would be a wrong decision. No matter if DB would be profit-oriented or not. The regional trains are the backbone of both rail transport and their services.


Yes, with the heavy state government subsidies. It has more to do with the visions of the state governments and how much they would pay DB to realize these visions. 

It seems funny that many Germans have no problems with supposedly spending small sums of money on those supposedly much more useful railway lines that do not even benefit too much people living in the areas that the rail tracks pass through. 

I am sure that many environmentally conscious Germans, including the Greens, would NOT prefer autobahns and planes to dominate in long distance travels. 

If Germans decided to turn all the federal states into independent nations tomorrow, they could abandon all the ICE trains and canceled all the high speed rail construction projects. 

What a ridiculous nonsense.

The backbone of rail systems is the national long distance trunk routes, with regional services branching out from these trunk routes. DB is called, DB, *not* NRW, BW, Bayerische Bahn, etc.

http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/sh...nts/information__material/konzernleitbild.pdf


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> I am sure that many environmentally conscious Germans, including the Greens, would NOT prefer autobahns and planes to dominate in long distance travels.


Conscious Germans who are not greenbrainwashed would favor massive investment in new autobahns as they are the mean of choice of travel of majority of intercity traffic where they are present.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Conscious Germans who are not greenbrainwashed would favor massive investment in new autobahns as they are the mean of choice of travel of majority of intercity traffic where they are present.


It takes someone really conscious to tell what they like apart from facts. Many people HATE driving long distance and they would do as much as they can to avoid it.


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> It takes someone really conscious to tell what they like apart from facts. Many people HATE driving long distance and they would do as much as they can to avoid it.


Sure they do, but autobahns are not a road version for high-speed rail lines. They are mostly used for medium-distance driving and intercity commuting.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Sure they do, but autobahns are not a road version for high-speed rail lines. They are mostly used for medium-distance driving and intercity commuting.


This is a discussion on Stuttgart 21, not your soap box for your automobile propaganda. 

Do NOT claim that you actually know that Cologne and Düsseldorf need a ten-lane autobahn between them.


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> This is a discussion on Stuttgart 21, not your soap box for your automobile propaganda.


Let's just be respectful. I'm not the one who brought highway comparisons here, Swisstralia mentioned and brought the issue up. Let's not mix the discussion of the other thread.

As long as you consider my arguments as "propaganda", it will hard to have any discussion. Still, it's nice to be more courteous on a forum that is NOT the local anti-car, kill the car, ban the car NGO wall post.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Let's not mix the discussion of the other thread.


But you do that with your "car, car and more car" talk all the time in all the threads.

You have once again slipped in one of your trademark comments:



Suburbanist said:


> Conscious Germans who are not greenbrainwashed would favor massive investment in new autobahns as they are the mean of choice of travel of majority of intercity traffic where they are present.


Why don´t you just visit those car fetishist discussion boards and let those car fetishists have cyber sex with you instead?

By the way, this board has the highway/bridge section for people like you who even want to drive to the Moon.


----------



## Suburbanist

*Back to topic*

Does anyone one know what is the cost breakdown of Stuttgart 21 project (as for systems, land acquisition, construction and so)?


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Does anyone one know what is the cost breakdown of Stuttgart 21 project (as for systems, *land acquisition*, construction and so)?


One of the key selling points of this project is to drastically reduce the land needed for railway infrastructures.

http://www.das-neue-herz-europas.de...97-b64e-e980b70215eb&culture=en-GB&Print=true


----------



## aab7772003

A refreshingly different take on Stuttgart 21:
http://www.sightofthenavigator.com/2010/08/antwerp-central-a-comparison-for-stuttgart-21/

It is so much nicer than hearing nonsense from those small-minded people who think that DB is a government agency that should just focus on their local transit needs.


----------



## venom6

I searched videos about this project and i really like it. Just amazing!

Can someone tell me whats going on? As far as i know they are building it and a lot of people are against it. Is the reason the price of the project? They dont want so much money to waste on this or what?

Danke für die infos


----------



## Baron Hirsch

venom6 said:


> I searched videos about this project and i really like it. Just amazing!
> 
> Can someone tell me whats going on? As far as i know they are building it and a lot of people are against it. Is the reason the price of the project? They dont want so much money to waste on this or what?
> 
> Danke für die infos


The arguements are roughly -

a) the new concept is too expensive and there will be a lack of more important investments

b) the new station will be less efficient as a local transport hub, as there will be less tracks than in the present dead-end station

c) the new HSR connected to the line will not accommodate freight

d) those in power did not discuss the S21 plan with the people

e) it is better to live a slow life than run highspeed trains


None of these really seem to me a reason to go demonstrating for weeks on end in one of the biggest popular resistance movements the country has seen for years, beating even the uproar against the extension of running atomic power plants. i am also only following this from a far and am puzzled. 
In other places where central stations have or are being replaced or torn down, such as Berlin, Vienna, Istanbul, people have argued for the importance the old train stations have had in history or for their aesthetic value. Only last week for the first time an architecture historian (not from stuttgart) for the first time elaborated Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof's place in architecture history to me. This, a city's attachments to its most important buildings, i could understand. Is it that in materialist Schwabenland people are afraid to argue based on their emotions and are thus resorting to discussing practicalities, such as how many local trains can pass their station per hour?


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> None of these really seem to me a reason to go demonstrating for weeks on end in one of the biggest popular resistance movements the country has seen for years, beating even the uproar against the extension of running atomic power plants. i am also only following this from a far and am puzzled.


A lot of modern protest movements are more about the protests themselves than about the cause. They take on a momentum of their own. People take part so they can later tell stories about having been there. It's a bit like a big rock concert. Great place to pick up girls too.


----------



## venom6

^^ Thank you for the quick reply! As i saw on youtube videos the construction is in progress. The demonstrations will end in a few weeks, people cant force the leadership to stop the project as its in progress. Look in Hungary people were demonstrating since 2006 September for 4 years against the liar prime minister Gyurcsány. Did he resign? No.
People had to wait 4 years til next vote.

Our Metro 4 project in Budapest costs 1 million 785 thousand euros and nobody knows what will be the final price. They delay the end date every year. It was 2013 last year but now they mention 2015 when we will able to ride on it. It should cost a way less, but corruption and money is stolen out from this construction. Are people fed up? Yes.
We cant do anything, this is not a reason to make a demonstration.

I will keep an eye on "Stuttgart 21" as i like this project


----------



## stingstingsting

Hi can anyone give more pics of Stuttgart Hbf and the layout/position on the map, especially with respect to how Stuttgart 21 will be positioned?

Thanks IA.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

I found this article in German which breaks down some of the key differences between the official "S21" and the alternative "Kopfbahnhof21" concepts that are now being discussed in arbitration. In a refreshingly non-partisan way, the author states that both concepts are not as antagonistic as the government and the protesters describe them to be, but that there is room for compromise in there. 
What I found most important: apparently in the arbitration, people are not discussing whether Stuttgart needs a Munich-bound HSR at all. They are now discussing whether the HSR can be more successfully integrated with an underground through station or an above ground terminus (or a combination of the two). Thank God they are no longer discussing whether the HSR should be custom-built for freight or whether environmentally righteous people should want to travel no further than Bietigheim-Bissingen.
And yes, for you fanatical lovers of the Swiss integrated schedule, that is mentioned too in the article, as it is from Switzerland.
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/inter...er_kompromiss_bei_stuttgart_21_1.8176483.html


----------



## kato2k8

aab7772003 said:


> The backbone of rail systems is the national long distance trunk routes, with regional services branching out from these trunk routes. DB is called, DB, *not* NRW, BW, Bayerische Bahn, etc.


*cough*

Technically, DB is just a holding. Which has about 500 subcompanies that *are* called e.g. "SüdostBayernBahn", "WestFrankenBahn", "DB Regio NRW" etc. for regional services. And these do act separate for the most part. Long-distance transport is completely separate under DB Fernverkehr.


----------



## aab7772003

kato2k8 said:


> *cough*
> 
> Technically, DB is just a holding. Which has about 500 subcompanies that *are* called e.g. "SüdostBayernBahn", "WestFrankenBahn", "DB Regio NRW" etc. for regional services. And these do act separate for the most part. Long-distance transport is completely separate under DB Fernverkehr.


The common people, especially those people committing violence and chaos under the influence of emotional ignorance, just think everything is simply DB. 

I was talking about the actual network. These regional trains run services more or less from the big rail hubs that connect with the long distance services, the true backbone of the network.


----------



## thun

So they are the backbone of the actual network in the sense that they feed a otherwise pointless long-distance network?
In terms of ridership, the regional services are far more important for obvious reasons, too. Regardless of the model applicated to pay for them.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> So they are the backbone of the actual network in the sense that they feed a otherwise pointless long-distance network?
> In terms of ridership, the regional services are far more important for obvious reasons, too. Regardless of the model applicated to pay for them.


No, the long-haul network is the backbone. 
Please do not utter and repeat the nonsense that Hamburg - Berlin, Frankfurt - Munich, Cologne - Frankfurt, Stuttgart - Munich, Munich - Nürnberg, etc. routes depend regional traffic for survival. 
The manic depressive obsession with the commuter rail network is utterly pointless. 
Without the massive subsidies, oh the almighty and important commuter passengers would not pay for the true costs of their commuter rides.


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> No, the long-haul network is the backbone.
> Please do not utter and repeat the nonsense that Hamburg - Berlin, Frankfurt - Munich, Cologne - Frankfurt, Stuttgart - Munich, Munich - Nürnberg, etc. routes depend regional traffic for survival.
> The manic depressive obsession with the commuter rail network is utterly pointless.
> Without the massive subsidies, oh the almighty and important commuter passengers would not pay for the true costs of their commuter rides.


By subsidizing regional transport, the government is essentially preventing new job centers that would spur elsewhere if employers started having difficulties to hire people because commutes cost so much and housing near their facilities is so expensive for employees to live there. In US, where such subsidization is far lower than in Europe, we have greater sprawl of job centers in any metro area. Just look at a random edge city with many office parks.


----------



## thun

aab7772003 said:


> The manic depressive obsession with the commuter rail network is utterly pointless.
> Without the massive subsidies, oh the almighty and important commuter passengers would not pay for the true costs of their commuter rides.


Well, if the regional railways wouldn't be subsidized, lots of people in fact wouldn't use it, causing probably even higher economic costs elsewhere - resulting in negative impacts on the performance of the whole economy (and ecology, for that matter). Think about work time lost in traffic jams, high costs to upgrade the road network, time lost in cargo logistics due to the jammed roads, etc.

The car doesn't pay for the true costs of theis rides, too. So, what exactly is your point - apart from a manic depressive obsession with opposion against a good offer of public transport? :cheers:


----------



## thun

Suburbanist said:


> By subsidizing regional transport, the government is essentially preventing new job centers that would spur elsewhere if employers started having difficulties to hire people because commutes cost so much and housing near their facilities is so expensive for employees to live there. In US, where such subsidization is far lower than in Europe, we have greater sprawl of job centers in any metro area. Just look at a random edge city with many office parks.


Which, even it would be true, isn't a bad thing. The sprawling leads to massive land use which in Western Europe isn't exactly the best thing as the population density is already quite high. And personally, I wouldn''t want to live in endless, boring Amican-styled suburbs, for that matter.
A simple sprawl doesn't automatically lead to new jobs as you suggest it would.


----------



## Attus

Suburbanist said:


> By subsidizing regional transport, the government is essentially preventing new job centers that would spur elsewhere if employers started having difficulties to hire people because commutes cost so much and housing near their facilities is so expensive for employees to live there. In US, where such subsidization is far lower than in Europe, we have greater sprawl of job centers in any metro area. Just look at a random edge city with many office parks.


It works in a bidirectional way. Actually most of the North American cities do not have a historic city center while European cities usually have one. In Europe workplaces were located in city centers so that transport infrastructures (both roads and public transport) were built there to make it easier to reach the workplace. Following it new employers started new businesses in the city center because it is the place of good transport insfrastructure (sometimes even large factories were built in narrow downtown streets), new shops opened here since it is the place that can be reached easily by customers, etc. But since there were travel destinations for lots of people, new insfrastructures were needed ... any the whole thing begun again and again. 
Meanwhile in America the settlement structure was far less centralized and following it the infrastructure, too, became less centralized and new offices, shops and employers followed the traffic infrastructures making the settlement structure even more spread, etc.

Actually I mean it is the main reason why public transport in Europe was always much more popular than at the other side of the Atlantics because we in Europe do have such populized driving directions which rarely exist in America. 

In Stuttgart, too, everyone want to reach the city center. It is the main travelling direction in and around the city. That's why the S-Bahn was built in the 70's. Long distance trains have significantly less passangers.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> By subsidizing regional transport, the government is essentially preventing new job centers that would spur elsewhere if employers started having difficulties to hire people because commutes cost so much and housing near their facilities is so expensive for employees to live there. In US, where such subsidization is far lower than in Europe, we have greater sprawl of job centers in any metro area. Just look at a random edge city with many office parks.


In France regional public transport is subsidized out of a payroll tax. It was the employers themselves that asked for this system, since PT allows them to recruit employees in a larger area.


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> Well, if the regional railways wouldn't be subsidized, lots of people in fact wouldn't use it, causing probably even higher economic costs elsewhere - resulting in negative impacts on the performance of the whole economy (and ecology, for that matter). Think about work time lost in traffic jams, high costs to upgrade the road network, time lost in cargo logistics due to the jammed roads, etc.
> 
> The car doesn't pay for the true costs of theis rides, too. So, what exactly is your point - apart from a manic depressive obsession with opposion against a good offer of public transport? :cheers:


The point:



aab7772003 said:


> Please do not utter and repeat the nonsense that Hamburg - Berlin, Frankfurt - Munich, Cologne - Frankfurt, Stuttgart - Munich, Munich - Nürnberg, etc. routes depend regional traffic for survival.


Good public transportation is not just the commuter rail alone. 
Since these maniacs are getting so crazy about killing Stuttgart 21, they might just as well pop out more of those bloody eyeballs to kill the heavily subsidized local transportation.


----------



## LtBk

Are employment centers outside of the central city in Europe are well served by mass transit in general?


----------



## thun

Well, it depends on the local situation, I would say.
But big centres like e. g. a car plant are generally connected to the public transport network (railroad, tram, e. g.), yes.


----------



## thun

aab7772003 said:


> The point:
> Good public transportation is not just the commuter rail alone.


Yet: Good public transport is not the long-distance rail alone. :bash


----------



## aab7772003

thun said:


> Yet: Good public transport is not the long-distance rail alone. :bash


To the commuter-train-crazed you, everything evolves around commuter trains and services that stop at every freaking farm enroute. Unlike you who is possessed by the supreme/absolute infallibility of the subsidized-to-death commuter train services, I do not go around preaching that current commuter services should be terminated.



aab7772003 said:


> Good public transportation is not just the commuter rail alone.
> Since these maniacs are getting so crazy about killing Stuttgart 21, they might just as well pop out more of those bloody eyeballs to kill the heavily subsidized local transportation.


What makes those maniacs think that they deserve subsidized-to-death commuter train services if they think that the state of Baden Württemberg and the rest of Germany do not deserve high speed rail services that will maintain Germany´s global competitiveness? Germany is having both. Using their small-minded argument mostly based on cost the other way around, these small-minded people should instantly realize that they do NOT deserve subsidized-to-death commuter train services.


----------



## LtBk

Kampflamm said:


> This winter's been a huge disaster. Hourlong delays, bad service...and DB officials knew this was going to happen. To be honest I don't think they're a good alternative to driving anymore. I chose DB over my car twice last year for city trips within Germany and both times something went horribly wrong (stuck in Essen for an hour for example, a 30 minute delay was racked up on the trip between Cologne and Hamburg and one of the carriages with my seat reservation magically went missing).


So you not going to use rail anymore?


----------



## K_

Kampflamm said:


> This winter's been a huge disaster. Hourlong delays, bad service...and DB officials knew this was going to happen.


And I travelled from Belgium to Switzerland in the mids of that "disaster" and arrive on my destination half an hour later. ANd that was mostly because we were delayed in Belgium.
One of the advantages of DB is that they run so many trains at regular intervals that even if the system gets in a mess there isually still is a train going your way at more or less the time you want. In my case I just ended up taking other trains then originally planned.

If I compare that with france where missing a single train can make you late four hours (happend to me), or where the whole country sometimes goes on strike making travel impossible for weeks (happend last year) I know what I prefer...
Mostly I'm note really away of time passing anyway. Getting from the Benelux to Switzerland will eat up a day anyway. I just bring along a few good books.


> To be honest I don't think they're a good alternative to driving anymore. I chose DB over my car twice last year for city trips within Germany and both times something went horribly wrong (stuck in Essen for an hour for example, a 30 minute delay was racked up on the trip between Cologne and Hamburg and one of the carriages with my seat reservation magically went missing).


Well, in my case the choice is rather straightforwards, as I don't have a car (as I prefer to spend my money elsewhere, like on not being in debt). 
If I divide what a car would cost me by the time it could potentially save me I end up with a hourly rate way above what I earn. So it's not worth it.


----------



## Coccodrillo

flierfy said:


> As if driving were a nuisance.


For me it is (even when travelling as passenger).


----------



## Kampflamm

LtBk said:


> So you not going to use rail anymore?


Only if I have to. To be honest, if you're planning a vacation on the spot (ie say a week from today or something like that), rail travel really isn't any cheaper than driving by car. A one way ticket from say Cologne to Hamburg will probably cost you around €100. Then you've got the added stress of being dependent on others. If you drive by car you can just decide yourself when to leave and when to head back. I guess it's just a personal preference. I'm not crazy about driving either but DB has to be one of the shittiest companies in Europe.



> And I travelled from Belgium to Switzerland in the mids of that "disaster" and arrive on my destination half an hour later.


A friend of mine works in Frankfurt and travels there on a daily basis from a Cologne. There must have been 90 minute delays both in the morning and evening throughout all of December. And that connection (Cologne-Frankfurt) is supposed to be on the best in all of Germany.


----------



## LtBk

That's nothing compared to Amtrak. Any planned improvements for DB or any future competitors?


----------



## TheKorean

^Thats not true, have you taken Amtrak in NE region?


----------



## Wilhem275

flierfy said:


> As if driving were a nuisance.


I love driving! And I have a passion for automobiles.
But going straight on a Highway for hours is out of my concept of "driving", that's really a nuisance. A complete waste of my time.


----------



## LtBk

TheKorean said:


> ^Thats not true, have you taken Amtrak in NE region?


I was referring to Amtrak outside of Northeast, and no I haven't.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> One of the advantages of DB is that they run so many trains at regular intervals that even if the system gets in a mess there usually still is a train going your way at more or less the time you want. In my case I just ended up taking other trains then originally planned.


You're rather lucky that you travel through Germany along its most frequently served corridors. Elsewhere in the country there are no services to fall back on to.


----------



## LtBk

Railways in Germany can't be that bad.


----------



## Nexis

Give the Northeastern US 4 decades and will have a system 3x better then Germany...... But i thought Germany had the best European network? It seems to meet the needs of everyone...


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> As if driving were a nuisance.


I don't find driving that much of a nuisance. Owning a car however is. Having to fork out 150 CHF per month for parking at my home, then again another 200 CHF per month for parking where I work. And that is before I would have moved a km. And then we're not even mentioning all the other expenses and nuisance. No, I prefer to contract my transportation needs out to professionals most of the time. There's a lot of taxis you can take with the money you save not owning a car...
I travel daily on the Swiss Railway network, which is supposed to be expensive, and my monthly pass costs less then what I'd spend in fuel alone on my commute.

I prefer to reserve my driving to situations where it can be fun. A car is a good vehicle to explore an out of way place. Last summer I took the train all the way from Switzerland to Scotland and rented a car there.


----------



## K_

LtBk said:


> Railways in Germany can't be that bad.


Indeed. One advantage of the interval timetable and integrated network aproach of the DB (and the SBB, the NS, the NMBS) is that in cases of disruptions it degrades gradually.
That's an advantage over air. People complain about the chaos and delays last winter, but forget that it was still possible in most cases to get to your final destination, albeit with maybe less comfort and some delays.
At the airports the story was different. There people were just stuck for days. 
I travelled from Switzerland to Belgium before Christmas, to spend Christmas eve there. Our route was night train from Zürich to Köln, and then the Thalys high speed train to Brussel. The Thalys was about an hour late in Brussel, because there had been heavy snow fall, and since it was the first train of the day, and the rails weren't visible it had to travel at a slower speed.
However, we made it to our destination. If we'd elected to fly we would never have made it out of Switzerland, and would have missed spending Christmas with our relatives altogether.

I know a bit about what goes on behind the scene in railway companies. One big advantage of rail is that the "failure modes" are such that it can cope with much more extreme situations than airline or even private transport. The SBB can cancel 40% of their IC trains, and still bring everyone to their destination with not more that 5 minutes delay. But then SBB is ofcourse the benchmark when it comes to reliability. DB has structural problems, but all in all they still do quite well, compared to countries like Italy or even France.


----------



## LtBk

Whenever there is a huge snow storm, all forms of transportation gets fucked.


----------



## Kampflamm

Problem is that DB had huge delays even when there wasn't any snow on the ground. What's more they seem to not give a crap about regional commuters. Every year I attend a trade fair in Düsseldorf and every f'ing year the trains are completely full (thanks to that you usually rack up a delay of about 20 minutes on a trip that should take no more than 30). How about adding a couple of carriages or an extra train in between the 2 scheduled connections? Nope, hasn't happened for years now.


----------



## K_

Kampflamm said:


> Problem is that DB had huge delays even when there wasn't any snow on the ground.


They indeed have some structural problems with some rolling stock. I hope that now that high speed trainsets are build by a single company, and not by a consortium of what are normally competitors they might become more reliable.
But that said, my experience is generally positive. Not as reliable as SBB, but better than Trenitalia or even SNCF


> What's more they seem to not give a crap about regional commuters. Every year I attend a trade fair in Düsseldorf and every f'ing year the trains are completely full (thanks to that you usually rack up a delay of about 20 minutes on a trip that should take no more than 30). How about adding a couple of carriages or an extra train in between the 2 scheduled connections? Nope, hasn't happened for years now.


The thing is of course that there are two DB's that run trains. There is DB Reise and Touristik, which runs the long distance network, and there is DB regio, which runs regional and commuter trains as a subcontractor to the different German States. The two are separate companies, although part of the same holding. But the important distinction is that when it comes to regional transportation it's not DB that decides which trains run where with what rolling stock. So you should direct your complaint at VRR, not DB.


----------



## apinamies

By far worst railway in company in Europe and World is VR Oy. Finnish state railway company. :bash:


----------



## manrush

How comparable are the services between the DB affiliates and the various private railways, such as Metronom, NordOstSee Bahn, NordWest Bahn and Interconnex?


----------



## thun

Basically, they all are integrated into the same fare system and the authorities define the standards for every service. So they are in fact quite comparable. However, private operators tend to use on average newer stock.


----------



## pebe

the interconnex is the only exception as it stands outside any other fare system.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> That would be against my notions of personal privacy and akin to a Police State. Public transportation, OTOH, is optional. All air passengers are scanned, screened and traced, why shouldn't train passengers be?


Given that the current security theatre imposed on the airline passenger serves no real purpose (other than allowing politicians to be seen to do "something") why should it be inflicted on railway passengers too?
Anyway, if you're against the police state you should love the fact that in Europe you can still walk up to a ticket desk at a railway station, buy a ticket using cash and travel to the other side of the EU without there being a paper trail...


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Given that the current security theatre imposed on the airline passenger serves no real purpose (other than allowing politicians to be seen to do "something") why should it be inflicted on railway passengers too?
> Anyway, if you're against the police state you should love the fact that in Europe you can still walk up to a ticket desk at a railway station, buy a ticket using cash and travel to the other side of the EU without there being a paper trail...


Nominal ticketing is not related to a police state. Opting to use public transportation means you surrender some of your privacy to share an airplane or train with strangers, maybe stranger who are terrorists (and you don't want that), so it is more than reasonable to surrender some data that helps catch terrorists.


----------



## pietje01

^^ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)


----------



## Suburbanist

pietje01 said:


> ^^ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)


Is there a liberty for travel anonymous on public transportation? I think the option to use transit or commercial airplanes instead of car or private jet automatically renders your expectation of privacy bar lowered.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Is there a liberty for travel anonymous on public transportation?


Is there a good reason for not allowing anonymous travel on public transporation?

As far as I can see there isn't.


----------



## AlexNL

Cue the vandalism and terrorism prevention cards.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Nominal ticketing is not related to a police state. Opting to use public transportation means you surrender some of your privacy to share an airplane or train with strangers, maybe stranger who are terrorists (and you don't want that), so it is more than reasonable to surrender some data that helps catch terrorists.


Given the the preferred mode of transportation for terrorists is the private car it is more than reasonable to require cars be searched at every intersection as that surely will help to catch some terrorists...


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Given the the preferred mode of transportation for terrorists is the private car it is more than reasonable to require cars be searched at every intersection as that surely will help to catch some terrorists...


No, because car is a PRIVATE mean of transportation as is the bicycle and the Segway.

================

I have an unrelated question: does DB have any plans for more ICE Sprinter services (like those connecting Berlin-Frankfurt and Frankfurt-München non-stop)?

Such services usually saves a lot of time on those routes, and should be expanded to cover more routes like München-Berlin (I couldn't find ICE Sprinter on this route) and maybe some direct Köln-Berlin not-stop services also.

Italy has introduced some direct trains like those on its HS lines and they have been a huge success.


----------



## imbee

money (4.1 billion euro!!!) was reserved for stuttgart21. Other projects depend on that project. nobody can say nowadays if stuttgart 21 will be built. we will have to wait


----------



## Svartmetall

Suburbanist said:


> No, because car is a PRIVATE mean of transportation as is the bicycle and the Segway.


I'm sorry, but that doesn't address his point that private vehicles have, more often than public vehicles, been the site of terrorist activity. Should we, therefore in the interest of public safety be checking cars at roadblocks?

You can't argue that people should forego their personal freedoms to use public transport and then say that private vehicles are exempt from any security considerations. That just seems double standard to me.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> I have an unrelated question: does DB have any plans for more ICE Sprinter services (like those connecting Berlin-Frankfurt and Frankfurt-München non-stop)?
> 
> Such services usually saves a lot of time on those routes, and should be expanded to cover more routes like München-Berlin (I couldn't find ICE Sprinter on this route) and maybe some direct Köln-Berlin not-stop services also.


Services like that have never been that successfull in Germany (think about the Metropolitan in earliers days). Germans are to used to trains functioning like mass transit.



> Italy has introduced some direct trains like those on its HS lines and they have been a huge success.


Doesn't surprise me. But how much of the success of Trenitalia's premium trains is due to the low quality of it's non premium trains?
The main thing the E*AV and other premium trains offer over conventional trains in Italy is that they actually get cleaned regularly.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

K_ said:


> Services like that have never been that successfull in Germany (think about the Metropolitan in earliers days). Germans are to used to trains functioning like mass transit.


I beg to disagree. The Sprinter is one of the most popular services in the German system, it was always sold out to the last seat. Admittedly, the only Sprinter on the Köln-Berlin run was scraped ages ago, but it was never promoted as such. As the idea is that Sprinters serve typical business travel connections (get up early; reach your destination by 9 or 10; have your meetings and be back on the train home by 1700 hrs and arrive for a late dinner with your spouse), there are no such services on long distance connections, but I would bet they will be introduced when Berlin - München is oeprable in 4 hours (6 years from now). 
I would seriously hope they develop the sprinter further, as not every train has to stop in Göttingen, but trains from Berlin to Frankfurt that save 30 minutes of traveling time have a huge potential. This would come close to the French TGV system, which also provides services with alternating stops and overall traveling time on the same route. Such a system is practiced in Germany only on the Köln-Frnakfurt line, where Siegburg, Montabaur, and Limburg are only stopped at by every second train (or less).


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Doesn't surprise me. But how much of the success of Trenitalia's premium trains is due to the low quality of it's non premium trains?
> The main thing the E*AV and other premium trains offer over conventional trains in Italy is that they actually get cleaned regularly.


I was referring to the Milano-Roma (Milan-Rome) route. They have high speed trains (stopping in Bologna and Firenze SMN) on normal service and some ES*AV-Fast trains that use the same rolling stock, but don't stop, taking 2h50 for the whole journey (instead of 3h35).

It is akin to the German ICE Sprinter, though there is less time difference.

(Just as background: the fastest entirely non-high speed option between that pair of cities takes 6h43).


----------



## Coccodrillo

The fastest Milan-Rome before the opening of the Milan-Bologna-Florence HSL, but after the opening of the Florence-Rome HSL, took exactly 4 hours.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> I beg to disagree. The Sprinter is one of the most popular services in the German system, it was always sold out to the last seat. Admittedly, the only Sprinter on the Köln-Berlin run was scraped ages ago, but it was never promoted as such. As the idea is that Sprinters serve typical business travel connections (get up early; reach your destination by 9 or 10; have your meetings and be back on the train home by 1700 hrs and arrive for a late dinner with your spouse), there are no such services on long distance connections, but I would bet they will be introduced when Berlin - München is oeprable in 4 hours (6 years from now).


For business travelers however you need to offer lots of trains. A businessman finishing a meeting an hour earlier wants to hop on the train an hour earlier...
The sprinters were probably popular because they ran at busy times. However I see the SBB struggling to get people on trains that run out of the normal pattern, so I doubt their general usefulness.
It is not efficient to offer a particular train service only a few times a day and have it sit idle in the yards the rest of the day (as SNCF is wont to do). 
So if offer a non stop service the whole day, every hour, or not at all...



> I would seriously hope they develop the sprinter further, as not every train has to stop in Göttingen, but trains from Berlin to Frankfurt that save 30 minutes of traveling time have a huge potential. This would come close to the French TGV system, which also provides services with alternating stops and overall traveling time on the same route. Such a system is practiced in Germany only on the Köln-Frnakfurt line, where Siegburg, Montabaur, and Limburg are only stopped at by every second train (or less).


The way the SNCF does it you lose a lot of network effects. In France it is quite possible that two stations on the same line both have frequent service, and still it's not practical to travel by train between the two.
A good network, with a clear hierarchy and structure will always attract more passengers than a network that is ran as a collection of city pair connecting services...

Ideally you have a local service, a limited stop service and a non stop service , at least every hour. More if demand justifies it.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> I was referring to the Milano-Roma (Milan-Rome) route. They have high speed trains (stopping in Bologna and Firenze SMN) on normal service and some ES*AV-Fast trains that use the same rolling stock, but don't stop, taking 2h50 for the whole journey (instead of 3h35).
> 
> It is akin to the German ICE Sprinter, though there is less time difference.
> 
> (Just as background: the fastest entirely non-high speed option between that pair of cities takes 6h43).


It's not entirely the same, as the non stop trains Roma - Milano run about every hour (or even every half hour). Looking at the current schedule I would improve it like this:
- Every half hour Milano - Roma Tiburtina - Napoli (no need to reverse in and out of Termini, and lose 20 minutes)
- Every half hour Milano - Bologna -Firenze - Roma Tiburtina (to change for Napoli) - Roma Termini.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Milan-Rome no stop trains are integrated in a swiss-style symemtric timetable and they simply use cadenced path which are not used outside rush hour. Confusion and problems rises with Turin-Milan-Rome-Naples trains which skip Milan Centrale stopping in Garibaldi and destroying suburban trains...

By the way this thread should be about Germany, not about timetable structures...


----------



## flierfy

Coccodrillo said:


> Milan-Rome no stop trains are integrated in a swiss-style symemtric timetable and they simply use cadenced path which are not used outside rush hour. Confusion and problems rises with Turin-Milan-Rome-Naples trains which skip Milan Centrale stopping in Garibaldi and* destroying suburban trains*...


I very much doubt that they destroy something.


----------



## Coccodrillo

This junction with its old signalling system is a limiting factor, now there aren't too many trains and these are more or less logically places and it works, but I'm feared for the future. A few years ago there was a worse example, a Genova-Milano Garibaldi Eurostar running via this junction and created whithout any planning so that it delayed some other trains along this route because Trenitalia wanted it as fast as possible (by the way its average load was 40 (forty) people on 9 coaches).


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

Surprise, surprise...



> *Germany's Bahn and Siemens reach train order deal*
> 
> BERLIN, April 14 | Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:46am EDT
> 
> *BERLIN, April 14 (Reuters) - German national rail operator Deutsche Bahn has reached a deal for a new order worth over five billion euros for high-speed trains from producer Siemens, industry sources told Reuters on Thursday.*
> 
> "The parties have agreed," an industry source familiar with the negotiations said, declining to be named.
> 
> "We are in the final end phase of the talks," a spokesman for Deutsche Bahn said.
> 
> The deal involves the purchase of 300 high-speed ICE trains and would be the largest order ever by Deutsche Bahn.
> 
> (Reporting by Markus Wacket, writing by Brian Rohan)




More information in German:



> *300 Züge für Bahn
> Siemens steht vor Fünf-Milliarden-Auftrag
> 
> Die Lieferung von 300 ICE-, IC- und EC-Zügen mit einem Volumen von rund 5 Milliarden Euro entspricht dem bislang größten Bahnauftrag in Deutschland. Die neue Generation, die unter dem Projektnamen „ICx“ läuft, soll langfristig die alten Züge ersetzen.*
> 
> [...]


----------



## Suburbanist

joseph1951 said:


> When I lived in USA it was common to buy last minute aeroplane tickets at the Check in. And yet nowadays some people are advocating the advance and compulsory purchase of train tickets and the abolition of train conductors. It does not take long to issue an on-board train ticket,
> 
> Futhermore: to sell a ticket is no different than to sell a drink...
> 
> Flexibility is one of the advantage of a satisfactory mass trasportation system.


If you have ubiquitous machines in every station, and machines that can self-report errors online (both are run-of-the-mill terminals available for many operations like movie theater ticketing, airport check-in, car park payment etc.), there is no reason to spend money on conductors, the number of conductors can be severely reduced. I *really* don't see what problem is that for people to buy tickets at machines in the station (or via their smartphones, internet, whatever) at this day and age. However, if you have on-board ticketing you need to assure conductors will check every person in every sector if you want to avoid fare dodgers (like those annoying teenagers who abscond in the bathroom to travel between 2 stations 7 min. apart) and an impression that you can travel for free.

Even in big metropolitan areas, more and more systems are gated (subways) or honor-based controlled without on-board selling of tickets. People just figure a way to buy their metro cards before going through a gate.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> If you have ubiquitous machines in every station, and machines that can self-report errors online (both are run-of-the-mill terminals available for many operations like movie theater ticketing, airport check-in, car park payment etc.), there is no reason to spend money on conductors, the number of conductors can be severely reduced. I *really* don't see what problem is that for people to buy tickets at machines in the station (or via their smartphones, internet, whatever) at this day and age. However, if you have on-board ticketing you need to assure conductors will check every person in every sector if you want to avoid fare dodgers (like those annoying teenagers who abscond in the bathroom to travel between 2 stations 7 min. apart) and an impression that you can travel for free.
> 
> Even in big metropolitan areas, more and more systems are gated (subways) or honor-based controlled without on-board selling of tickets. People just figure a way to buy their metro cards before going through a gate.


For local transport that is indeed possible, but expanding it to intercity travel is another matter. In The Netherlands they're moving to a chip card based system for the whole country, but they stil don't know what they'll do with passengers arriving from abroad.
SBB fortunately still sells tickets on board. What they do is they just make the on board tariff more expensive. The conductor may choose to wave the on board surcharge if you have a good reason for not having a ticket all the way to your final destination. (Having started your trip in Italy for example).

However, it's interesting to not that private operators, running in open access have no problem whatsoever with selling tickets on board...


----------



## AlexNL

The Dutch also have a surcharge for tickets bought on board of the train at the price of € 35 in addition to the ticket price. This is their way of forcing passengers to use the ticket vending machines (or, use a subscription).


----------



## Gadiri

> *La Deutsche Bahn investit dans de nouveaux trains rapides​*
> Source : La Tribune.fr - 15/04/2011
> 
> Copyright Reuters
> Selon le Handelsblatt, l'opérateur public va prochainement annoncer la commande de *300 trains de nouvelle génération à Siemens*, pour un montant total de *5 milliards d'euros*.
> 
> La Deutsche Bahn (DB) va *renouveler d'ici à 2020 l'intégralité de son parc de trains à grande vitesse*. L'opération se fera en plusieurs étapes. Selon le quotidien économique allemand Handelsblatt, Siemens, son fournisseur historique va recevoir une première commande de l'opérateur ferroviaire public de près de 5 milliards d'euros pour l'achat de 300 trains de nouvelle génération.
> 
> *Baptisé pour le moment ICx, ces trains entreraient en service en 2015 d'abord pour remplacer les trains inter-régionaux (IC) puis les premiers ICE mis en service voici tout juste 20 ans*. Cet investissement qui est en *négociation avec Siemens* depuis des mois doit être approuvé le 21 avril par le conseil de surveillance de la DB.


http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises...investit-dans-de-nouveaux-trains-rapides.html

Sum-up :

DB wants to buy 500 new trains to Siemens for 5 billions euros. All HST will be replace before 2020. Regional trains will be replace and then HST.


----------



## maniei

I know I'm not the first one to ask this question, but anyways:

1) Why is Deutsche Bahn buying new trains for its IC-service? Why dont they just buy Velaros for their ICE-service, and use today's ICE 1&2 as IC's?

2) What will happen with today's ICE 1&2?

3) What will happen to today's IC-trains. Will they be converted to regional trains or sold?

Thanks in advance


----------



## K_

maniei said:


> I know I'm not the first one to ask this question, but anyways:
> 
> 1) Why is Deutsche Bahn buying new trains for its IC-service? Why dont they just buy Velaros for their ICE-service, and use today's ICE 1&2 as IC's?
> 
> 2) What will happen with today's ICE 1&2?
> 
> 3) What will happen to today's IC-trains. Will they be converted to regional trains or sold?
> 
> Thanks in advance


To answer your questions in reverse order:

3) Most IC trains will need to be run with HSL compatible stock in the future, as the number of services that don't use a HSL at last for part of the route will be quite limited. DB is gradually adding HSL segments to its network, and the way the German Railway Network operates it makes sense for DB Reise Und Touristik to just operate a fleet of HSL compatible trains. Most of the stock currently in use on IC services is nearing the end of its economic life, but quite probably there will be buyers for the carriages.

2) By 2020 the ICE 1&2 will be nearing the end of their economic life, so they will also be gradually replaced by the new trains.

1) See the answer to questions 2&3


----------



## makita09

I can see a lot heading to eastern europe as they ramp up their services over the coming years.


----------



## thun

AlexNL said:


> Umm, yes they are? DB has ordered 137 Twindexx double deck coaches from Bombardier. Press release


Partly true. In fact, they shift train sets already ordered for regional services (DB ordered over 800 carriages!) to the long distance division to provide an interim solution untill the ICx is ready. Those trains will go into regional services after enough ICx stock is in service to run it on all IC routes.

I guess that there will be a few private operators in Germany as well who will be interested in those carriages. Or they will be sold around the world, as it is good tradition for DB.


----------



## De Magellaan

Suburbanist said:


> If you have ubiquitous machines in every station, and machines that can self-report errors online (both are run-of-the-mill terminals available for many operations like movie theater ticketing, airport check-in, car park payment etc.), there is no reason to spend money on conductors, the number of conductors can be severely reduced. I *really* don't see what problem is that for people to buy tickets at machines in the station (or via their smartphones, internet, whatever) at this day and age. However, if you have on-board ticketing you need to assure conductors will check every person in every sector if you want to avoid fare dodgers (like those annoying teenagers who abscond in the bathroom to travel between 2 stations 7 min. apart) and an impression that you can travel for free.
> 
> Even in big metropolitan areas, more and more systems are gated (subways) or honor-based controlled without on-board selling of tickets. People just figure a way to buy their metro cards before going through a gate.


It's all about *service* not about making things unnecessarily complicated for the traveller (security checks , no onboard ticketing etc) because some people may take advantage of it. That's not the way to attract new costumers.


----------



## Dase

thun said:


> Partly true. In fact, they shift train sets already ordered for regional services (DB ordered over 800 carriages!) to the long distance division to provide an interim solution untill the ICx is ready. Those trains will go into regional services after enough ICx stock is in service to run it on all IC routes.


I have not seen that stated explicitely anywhere. It is pretty unlikely that the low-density routes that will see those trains are going to be serviced by the ICx anytime soon. The train sets are not just shifted, they are specially adjusted for long distance services. The 800 carriages are more like a LOI and only now, those 137 have actually been ordered. 



thun said:


> I guess that there will be a few private operators in Germany as well who will be interested in those carriages. Or they will be sold around the world, as it is good tradition for DB.


Actually, it is quite a tradition of DB to rather let their old carriages rot or destroy them instead of selling them to competitors.


----------



## Suburbanist

De Magellaan said:


> It's all about *service* not about making things unnecessarily complicated for the traveller (security checks , no onboard ticketing etc) because some people may take advantage of it. That's not the way to attract new costumers.


Has usage of Dutch trains, just across German border, decreased because of the OV-Chipkaart or mandatory pre-boarding ticket purchase?

As DB requires subsidies to pay for regional services, it should not be in the business of being convenient, but just providing efficient service. Public services that are not self-financing need to restrain their ancillary spending because that will reduce subsidies required to run the service itself.

Manpower is expensive in Germany, it would be a good thing to shed off some couple thousand conductor jobs in the long term.



Dase said:


> Actually, it is quite a tradition of DB to rather let their old carriages rot or destroy them instead of selling them to competitors.


Depending on the competition scenario, that would make perfectly sense.


----------



## De Magellaan

Suburbanist said:


> Has usage of Dutch trains, just across German border, decreased because of the OV-Chipkaart or mandatory pre-boarding ticket purchase?


That's hard to say as there are so many other variables at play. Mobility is increasing in society so train usage tends to go grow anyway. 
But its feasible it would have grown more if there was better service. The NS had a better reputation before it was 'privatized' and still had services like catering on intercity trains and onboard-ticketing. I do think that matters when attracting new train users. 



> As DB requires subsidies to pay for regional services, it should not be in the business of being convenient, but just providing efficient service. Public services that are not self-financing need to restrain their ancillary spending because that will reduce subsidies required to run the service itself.
> 
> Manpower is expensive in Germany, it would be a good thing to shed off some couple thousand conductor jobs in the long term.


Ideally I would like the railway companies to make their own decisions when it comes to offering these services and being convenient. If a company offers a lot of convenience it might attract enough new costumers to be able to run their train services with less subsidies. If not, then perhaps it's a better idea to not have that extra convenience. Let the market decide how convenient it has to be. 
Of course the market conditions depend a lot on how much subsidies there are, so it all depends on how much people are willing to spend on a public service. I realize that in these economic times that's not a whole lot.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Has usage of Dutch trains, just across German border, decreased because of the OV-Chipkaart or mandatory pre-boarding ticket purchase?


As far as I know there are is only one local Dutch trains service that crosses in to Germany. All the others are actually German services that cross in to the Netherlands. In most cases it appears they just "import" whatever tarrif system and practices they have.



> As DB requires subsidies to pay for regional services, it should not be in the business of being convenient, but just providing efficient service. Public services that are not self-financing need to restrain their ancillary spending because that will reduce subsidies required to run the service itself.
> 
> Manpower is expensive in Germany, it would be a good thing to shed off some couple thousand conductor jobs in the long term.


Most conductors that could be shed have already been. One man operation is quite common.


----------



## Rohne

It's worth mentioning, that the ICX won't be a new product category. It will just be a technology platform. A 250-280kph version will replace the ICE1 and ICE2 trains running current ICE services, while a 230km/h variant will replace the trains currently used for IC services.
DB's product categorys will remain as they are: ICE as fast premium product, mainly for high speed services between Germany's large metropolitan regions, that will gradually get more and more high speed sections - and IC as secondary long distance trains with more stops in smaller towns, less comfort and lower speeds.


----------



## K_

De Magellaan said:


> Ideally I would like the railway companies to make their own decisions when it comes to offering these services and being convenient. If a company offers a lot of convenience it might attract enough new costumers to be able to run their train services with less subsidies. If not, then perhaps it's a better idea to not have that extra convenience. Let the market decide how convenient it has to be.


In Austria the first open access operator "Westbahn" is completely ignoring Suburbanist's suggestions. They are going to run a tight interval service, they will have a simple tariff system, and you will be able to purchase tickets on board without a fuss...


----------



## Suburbanist

Germany is a big (geographically) country. It needs more than 2 + 1 service categories, don't you all think?

I am considering the ICE Sprinter a particular category because it is a distinctive service despite the common name.

Germany could introduce a service with fewer stops than regular ICEs but more than ICE Sprinter and running more often.

They could also put some trains running only on high-speed sectors, and use connections to reach cities on classical or upgraded lines.


----------



## thun

Germany is not Spain. We like things sorted. Hence, we don't need a individual category for every train on the schedule. 

I rather think that reintroducing the Inter Regio (maybe classified as a regional service) would be more attractive for most customers.


----------



## Suburbanist

thun said:


> I rather think that reintroducing the Inter Regio (maybe classified as a regional service) would be more attractive for most customers.


Long-stretched regional trains with gazillion stops in 300km routes are the receipt for lower operational performance, delays and network disruptions. You would rather have compact regional routes instead.


----------



## thun

Not at all.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Germany is a big (geographically) country. It needs more than 2 + 1 service categories, don't you all think?


Sure that is why there are ICE, IC, EC, IRE, RE, RB, S (and that's just DB...)


----------



## Asakaze

sekelsenmat said:


> What does RZD stand for?


Rossiyskie zheleznye dorogi, i.e. the Russian Railways. 

The cars from Berlin seem to especially popular. Although it's 8 hours faster if you change trains in Moscow.
Russian trains are usually fully booked during the holidays in summer and winter. Apart from that, it depends on where you want to go. I used the Rossiya last year, and about half of the people on it were tourists.

It's possible to buy sleeper reservations for the Ukraine and Russia at every booth of the German railways and most other European railway companies, although the clerks often don't know about this. I'm not sure about the basic fare, though.


----------



## Gadiri

chornedsnorkack said:


> Now, regarding German railways: there is now regular Moskva Express between Berlin and Moskau, as well as express trains from Berlin to beyond Moskva, like I think direct trains Berlin-Novosibirsk, Berlin-Astana.
> 
> Novosibirsk is not much closer to Berlin than Alashankow is. What kind of rolling stock do Germans use for direct trains beyond Moscow, and what are the technical requirements to get through?
> 
> What kind of rolling stock is on order for future services beyond the 1520 mm break of gauge, and could Germans start direct trains Berlin-Urumqi or Berlin-Beijing?


From : EUROPE | Eurostar and Inter-country Railways 



> *Bientôt un train direct Paris – Moscou
> 
> 06/04/2011*
> 
> *Après le Moscou – Nice lancé *en septembre dernier, RZD annonce la mise en circulation d’un train reliant *Moscou à Paris en 41 heures *à compter de décembre prochain. C’est Mikhaïl Akoulov, son vice-président qui vient de l’annoncer dans le quotidien La Pravda. *Depuis trois ans, il est possible de relier Paris à Moscou en 49 heures*, mais une seule voiture part de Paris pour être rattachée au *train Berlin – Moscou à l’arrivée dans la capitale allemande*. Il *s’agira cette fois d’un train entier, qui circulera via Berlin au « minimum trois fois par semaine, et cinq fois maximum »*, a précisé Mikhaïl Akoulov*. A terme*, la liaison sera assurée par des* trains neufs, issus des usines de Siemens et de Tver Carriage Works*.


http://www.ville-rail-transports.com/content/15715-bientôt-un-train-direct-paris-–-moscou




> *Soon a direct train Paris - Moscow
> 
> 06/04/2011*
> 
> *After Moscow - Nice launched last September*, RZD announces the release of a train from *Moscow to Paris in 41 hours from December*. It Akoulov Mikhail, vice-president who just announced in the newspaper Pravda. *For three years, it is possible to link Paris to Moscow in 49 hours*, but only one car from Paris to be attached to *the train Berlin - Moscow on arrival in the German capital*. *This time an entire train, which will travel via Berlin to the "minimum of three times per week and maximum of five times,"*said Mikhail Akoulov. *Eventually, the route will be serviced by trains new, from the Siemens factory and Tver Carriage Works*.


----------



## GEwinnen

The Deutsche Bahn (DB) signed a contract with Siemens for 230 new ICX trains for 6 bln. €


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

^^
:cheers1:



> *New standards in long-distance travel
> DB AG and Siemens AG sign a multi-billion euro contract*
> 
> *CEOs of DB and Siemens, Dr. Rüdiger Grube and Peter Löscher, sign a multi-billion euro contract in the presence of Federal Minister of Transport Dr. Peter Ramsauer and Chairman of the DB Supervisory Board, Professor Utz-Hellmuth Felcht.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Berlin, May 9, 2011) Deutsche Bahn AG and Siemens AG today officially signed the multi-billion euro contract for construction of up to 300 new long-distance trainsets. The signing took place at the DB Akademie in Potsdam, in the former Kaiserbahnhof.
> 
> The Chairman of the Management Board and CEO of Deutsche Bahn AG, Dr. Rüdiger Grube, and Peter Löscher, Chief Executive Officer of Siemens AG, signed the 8,000-page contract in the presence of the Federal Minister of Transport, Building and Urban Development, Dr. Peter Ramsauer, and the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Deutsche Bahn AG, Professor Utz-Hellmuth Felcht. DB will immediately order 130 trainsets from the framework order agreement valid until 2030. An order of an additional 90 trainsets is planned. The potential order volume for the 220 trainsets totals some six billion euros. DB can order the remaining 80 trainsets at any time.
> "This is a good day for the Germany economy. The trainsets, from their body shells through their final assembly, will be made entirely in Germany. This order will safeguard thousands of jobs, including many in the mid-sized supplier industry," explained the Federal Minister of Transport, Building and Urban Development, Dr. Peter Ramsauer. The Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Deutsche Bahn AG, Professor Utz-Hellmuth Felcht, said: "We are ensuring sustainable and successful further development of the company through the procurement of the new ICx trainsets."
> 
> DB CEO Grube commented: "With the ICx, we are laying the cornerstone for the long-distance transportation of the future and setting new standards in terms of reliability, environmental compatibility and comfort. The rail system will benefit as a result. Our customers in particular can look forward to riding on the most modern trains in the world."
> 
> *Up to 30 percent less energy consumption*
> 
> "The energy efficiency and modularity of these vehicles offers unrivaled economical operation, while the flexible interior structure will provide a whole new level of comfort for passengers. The ICx is thus setting new standards for transportation between metropolitan areas and cities," said Siemens CEO Peter Löscher.
> 
> The ICx will form the backbone of DB's long-distance transportation system in the future. The technical basis for the ICx is an innovative platform concept. However, it also incorporates tried-and proven components already successfully used in assorted fitting and equipment variants in other train series around the world. Despite technical standardization of the vehicles themselves, the ICx provides a high level of flexibility for assembling up to 24 different train configurations. This is made possible by “power cars,” train cars equipped with all the components that drive units have. As a result, the trains can be easily adapted to the volume of passengers and level of performance required. In addition, the platform concept ensures considerably lower maintenance and service costs.
> 
> *Power cars enable flexible configuration of trainsets*
> 
> There will be two ICx variants. The first is a seven-part multiple-unit train with three driven power cars. It reaches a top speed of 230 kilometers per hour and has 499 seats. This trainset will be used primarily in what is currently the IC network. Relatively few of the route sections in this network can be driven at over 200 kilometers per hour, meaning this top speed is fully sufficient.
> 
> The second variant is a ten-part multiple-unit train with up to five power cars and 724 seats. It has a top speed of 249 kilometers per hour. These ICx trainsets can thus replace the ICE 1 and ICE 2 fleet presently operating at a usual speed of 250 kilometers per hour. In terms of running technology, all ICx trainsets are able to run at 249 kilometers per hour. The existing fleet of ICE 3 trains is available for speeds of over 250 kilometers per hour. Each of the two ICx variants includes a fully equipped on-board restaurant with either
> 17 or 23 seats, as well as a bistro with a standing area. In addition, the trains have a family compartment and eight reservation-only bicycle storage slots.
> A new seating generation offers passengers more room while at the same time increasing the number of seats. When the seat is adjusted, the backrest no longer reclines backwards but instead moves within the shell contour of the seat. All the first-class seats in the ICx are equipped with electrical outlets and with reading lamps that can be turned on as needed. In second class, each double seat has one electrical outlet. Every car is equipped with up to six ceiling screens and one monitor for passenger information per entryway. For travelers with limited mobility, each train has a built-in boarding assistance ramp and handicapped accessible lavatory.
> 
> *Weight reduction of 20 tons*
> 
> Thanks to its significantly improved aerodynamic form, the ICx has far less running resistance than the ICE trains currently in use. As a result of the lighter weight construction, it was also possible to reduce the weight for a 200-meter long train by some 20 metric tons. Energy consumption per passenger is up to 30 percent lower than in comparable existing trains.
> One focal point of the contract was specification of quality criteria. For the first time in Europe, two ICx trainsets will be put through 14 months of trial operation, 12 of those in passenger service, before series production begins.
> This will make it possible to identify improvement potential early on. The contract parties also agreed on a seven-month monitoring phase during which the data from the trainsets in operation will be fed directly back to Siemens. In addition, Siemens and DB will for the first time define joint milestones in the design and production phase that must be unanimously approved.
> The first ICx trainsets are expect to enter into service in 2016. The new trains will be commissioned by line. Use of ICx trainsets for transportation in Germany will be given priority over neighboring European countries.






































































































*SOURCE*


----------



## Sopomon

Deadeye Reloaded said:


> ^^
> :cheers1:


I really hope that isn't the final design, it's quite ugly at the moment.


----------



## thun

Apparently, the edgy design is going to save up to 30% energy.
These are certainly artist impressions, we'll see how that thing will turn out.
It looks somehow similar to the Velaro D, I think it will look somehow similar to that in the end.


----------



## K_

Sopomon said:


> I really hope that isn't the final design, it's quite ugly at the moment.


That's just a matter of taste. I actually quite like the design.


----------



## Sopomon

K_ said:


> That's just a matter of taste. I actually quite like the design.


True, it is just a subjective opinion, but something just seems...not right


----------



## Koen Acacia

Deadeye Reloaded said:


>


It really looks like that train has four types of beer on board. :cheers:


----------



## K_

Koen Acacia said:


> It really looks like that train has four types of beer on board. :cheers:


Well, it's a German train after all


----------



## Svartmetall

Sopomon said:


> I really hope that isn't the final design, it's quite ugly at the moment.


It's slightly more angular - reminds me more of the first ICE trainsets actually! Bit of a retro look. I quite like it!


----------



## AlexNL

It also reminds me somewhat of the Venturio train concept:


----------



## KingNick

Can't help it, but those second class seats look anything but comfy.

On the other hand the energy consumption reduction is definitely very good news.


----------



## K_

KingNick said:


> Can't help it, but those second class seats look anything but comfy.


They will probably be similar to the ones currently in use, which are quite comfy. The folding seats shown in one of the pictures are not representative for those in the rest of the train however.


----------



## mgk920

K_ said:


> Well, it's a German train after all


Say what? A REAL German train will have more than just four kinds of beer!

:cheers1:

Mike


----------



## K_

mgk920 said:


> Say what? A REAL German train will have more than just four kinds of beer!
> 
> :cheers1:
> 
> Mike


Things aren't always according to the stereotypes. To wit: Nowadays the food on German trains is much better than on French trains...


----------



## TedStriker

K_ said:


> Things aren't always according to the stereotypes. To wit: Nowadays the food on German trains is much better than on French trains...


And meanwhile British trains have both better food and beer than either French or German trains. No honestly, they do...


----------



## Railfan

Where are the Japanese trains within this discussion?


----------



## Koen Acacia

mgk920 said:


> Say what? A REAL German train will have more than just four kinds of beer!
> 
> :cheers1:
> 
> Mike


Well, they have four on tap, so who knows how many they have bottled.. :cheers:


----------



## KingNick

K_ said:


> They will probably be similar to the ones currently in use, which are quite comfy. The folding seats shown in one of the pictures are not representative for those in the rest of the train however.


For the sake of the german arses, let's hope you're right.


----------



## K_

TedStriker said:


> And meanwhile British trains have both better food and beer than either French or German trains. No honestly, they do...


Including my favorite: The Caledonian Sleeper. Best beds I ever had on a train, and a good whisky bar


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Food onboard trains is overrated and restaurant cars eat up (pun intended) valuable space on platforms and train consists. A couple of vending machines spread long the train could do the job. No reason for an on-board board.

Indeed, I think the existence of restaurant cars incentive people to walk on a train, which is detrimental to safety.


----------



## thun

Of course it is.
In fact, I think we should replace all those standard seats with loos so that no-one ever has to stand up during the travel because he wants to have a dump affecting the trains stability and maybe causing a derailing.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ If people were required to wear seatbelts on trains, particularly around departing/arrival, like airplanes, trains could then accelerate/decelerate with greater intensity.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ If people were required to wear seatbelts on trains, particularly around departing/arrival, like airplanes, trains could then accelerate/decelerate with greater intensity.


Yet another example of why I am happy to live in a world where you have no say in how railways are run.


----------



## manrush

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Food onboard trains is overrated and restaurant cars eat up (pun intended) valuable space on platforms and train consists. A couple of vending machines spread long the train could do the job. No reason for an on-board board.
> 
> Indeed, I think the existence of restaurant cars incentive people to walk on a train, which is detrimental to safety.


While we're at it, why don't we get rid of bathrooms aboard airplanes. I mean, it forces passengers to get up and walk on the plane. This is detrimental to safety. :|


----------



## Suburbanist

manrush said:


> While we're at it, why don't we get rid of bathrooms aboard airplanes. I mean, it forces passengers to get up and walk on the plane. This is detrimental to safety. :|


It is detrimental to safety, to the point use of washrooms is forbidden under turbulence, on climbing and landing phases. Here and there you can read news about passengers hurt, sometimes severely, because unexpected turbulence hit a plane while they were not wearing seat belts. That is why I always keep my seat belt fastened while seated on a plane.

If trains had this concept of departing and arriving phases, passengers would be forbidden to walk during fast acceleration and deceleration phases, which could EASILY be multiplied by 2 or more in high-speed train sets. Indeed, the emergency braking deceleration is so different and higher than the regular braking parameters for comfort only, not as much for technical issues with the trains. Faster acceleration and deceleration would, in completely segregated high-speed rails like Hamburg-Berlin Spandau, easily take 3-5 minutes out of a 1h trip. It is almost a 10% travel time gain.

In lines with specific speed reductions, warning of seat and fasten your seat belt could be flashed around. Then, in a high-speed route like Milano-Roma, full of some urban sectors and a bunch of curves, you could gain up to 11 minutes using acceleration within the specifications of already existing and functioning rolling stock, only by sacrificing a bit of comfort.

However, the highest potential gains from travel time reduction lie exactly in trains like German ICEs, that stop somehow often, but not in every station. Trains travelling 3h non-stop don't have much to gain from increased acceleration or deceleration. Trains stopping every 6 minutes would not benefit much either, because seat belt-wearing train passengers means trains cannot depart until everyone is seated and prepared to depart, which will naturally increase the time stopped on stations a bit. You can counteract that imposing a "be-on-platform-5-min-before-schedule-departure-or-don't-board" rule.

But then you can get rid of restaurant cars, which opens space for more paying costumers, and build galleys like airplanes instead. You order and eat food in your seat, nor from a free-flowing lounge over rail.

In cases of collisions, having passengers with seat belts would increase survivability should an accident like Eschede happen again.

The rail industry has so much to learn from the airline business...


----------



## goschio

Walking around in trains, bistro/restaurant, no strict seat assignments etc are exactly the advantages that make trains an alternative to flying.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Depending on the train you are using, assignments are strict - like on high-speed trains usually running with high occupancy rates and compulsory seat reservation like Thalys or Eurostar (Paris-London). The question, however, is to sacrifice comfort for speed, making travel journeys faster. There is a limit in what you can achieve in terms of top speed only, so accelerating faster might be a way to gain time.


----------



## Cirdan

I completely agree with goschio on this. And it's not so much assignments, not just the lack of seatbelts, it's also the lack of fast excelaration itself and never really feeling the speed of the train, which makes it much easier to read a book, work on a laptop or play cards than it is in a car or on a plane. Your idea takes away possibly the biggest advantage of rail, and 5 minutes per hour isn't worth that.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> If trains had this concept of departing and arriving phases, passengers would be forbidden to walk during fast acceleration and deceleration phases, which could EASILY be multiplied by 2 or more in high-speed train sets.


You are wrong in your assumption that acceleration could easily be multiplied by 2 in high speed sets. 



> Indeed, the emergency braking deceleration is so different and higher than the regular braking parameters for comfort only, not as much for technical issues with the trains. Faster acceleration and deceleration would, in completely segregated high-speed rails like Hamburg-Berlin Spandau, easily take 3-5 minutes out of a 1h trip. It is almost a 10% travel time gain.


Speeding up acceleration in long distance trips will not gain a lot of time. It is on short distance, frequently stopping services that high acceleration yields the biggest advantages. But there having "departing" and "arriving" phases, and seat belts is a complete non starter.
Increasing the acceleration of the ICE trains on Berlin Hamburg might save maybe a minute or two, at a very high cost.



> In lines with specific speed reductions, warning of seat and fasten your seat belt could be flashed around. Then, in a high-speed route like Milano-Roma, full of some urban sectors and a bunch of curves, you could gain up to 11 minutes using acceleration within the specifications of already existing and functioning rolling stock, only by sacrificing a bit of comfort.


You could even run faster if you got rid of passengers altogether. Is that what you are aiming at? 



> However, the highest potential gains from travel time reduction lie exactly in trains like German ICEs, that stop somehow often, but not in every station. Trains travelling 3h non-stop don't have much to gain from increased acceleration or deceleration. Trains stopping every 6 minutes would not benefit much either, because seat belt-wearing train passengers means trains cannot depart until everyone is seated and prepared to depart, which will naturally increase the time stopped on stations a bit. You can counteract that imposing a "be-on-platform-5-min-before-schedule-departure-or-don't-board" rule.


However, all this is incompatible with the "as a railway I must try to make as much money as possible" rule. I mean, you want to shave a few minutes of a trip, and then force passengers to add 5 minutes of loitering aimlessly on a uncomfortable platform to their trip? Do you think that this wil really yield more income?



> But then you can get rid of restaurant cars, which opens space for more paying costumers, and build galleys like airplanes instead. You order and eat food in your seat, nor from a free-flowing lounge over rail.


You don't need seat belts to have an excuse to get rid of restaurant cars. That it forces you to get rid of restaurant cars is a huge disadvantage of forcing train passengers to wear seat belts.



> In cases of collisions, having passengers with seat belts would increase survivability should an accident like Eschede happen again.
> 
> The rail industry has so much to learn from the airline business...


In Casualties per pkm the railway industry performs better than the airline industry. I don't see the need here to adopt airline practices.


----------



## kato2k8

K_ said:


> You are wrong in your assumption that acceleration could easily be multiplied by 2 in high speed sets.


Most high-speed sets accelerate pretty slowly actually. Urban commuter trains can hit twice that - without seatbelts.


----------



## K_

kato2k8 said:


> Most high-speed sets accelerate pretty slowly actually. Urban commuter trains can hit twice that - without seatbelts.


At low speeds acceleration is determined by the ratio of powered to unpowered axles. At higher speeds it's installed power that is the important factor.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Depending on the train you are using, assignments are strict - like on high-speed trains usually running with high occupancy rates and compulsory seat reservation like Thalys or Eurostar (Paris-London). The question, however, is to sacrifice comfort for speed, making travel journeys faster. There is a limit in what you can achieve in terms of top speed only, so accelerating faster might be a way to gain time.


You're not going to gain a lot by faster acceleration. And don't forget that the first minutes after a train leaves is when a lot of standing up and walking a round still takes place. People putting their luggage away. Getting their laptop out or still looking for their reserved seats...
The other thing is that if Eurostar wanted to speed up London - Paris a bit all they have to do is do away with the 30 minute check in time.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> The other thing is that if Eurostar wanted to speed up London - Paris a bit all they have to do is do away with the 30 minute check in time.


With the proposed London-Frankfurt Eurostar services, we'll see how platform control will be managed at Frankfurt Hbf. I don't know the layout of that station to know whether they can build another extra platform with easiness or not.

To get rid of 30-min check-in, they would have to have more customs officers. I'm sure that keeping customs officers in foreign territory as the Eurostar requires is expensive. There are probably a lot of overhead costs in keeping and managing a bunch of immigrations agents from UK stationed in Frankfurt, Bruxelles and Paris.

But let's see if they are able to reduce check-in times or not. Part of it lays on German ability to speed up security checks. part on British customs. However, with not so many daily departures, I don't see the point of having a huge detachment of 12 immigration officers per turn + 20-25 people working in security checks and organizing the queues.

I'm also curious about how Germans are going to manage custom: will they let if to the French under Schengen agreemtn or will they help the French stationing some agents in London also?


----------



## Augusto

Suburbanist said:


> I'm also curious about how Germans are going to manage custom: will they let if to the French under Schengen agreemtn or will they help the French stationing some agents in London also?


They will probably let it to the French in London. This is already like this for the London-Brussels Eurostar, no matter if they stop at Lille (France) on their way or not.


----------



## Suburbanist

Augusto said:


> They will probably let it to the French in London. This is already like this for the London-Brussels Eurostar, no matter if they stop at Lille (France) on their way or not.


In practice, the new costs will be mostly on the British, then, with new staff in Frankfurt.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> In practice, the new costs will be mostly on the British, then, with new staff in Frankfurt.


Why couldn't the existing customs staff at Frankfurt do it?


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Why couldn't the existing customs staff at Frankfurt do it?


Are there British customs officials stationed in Frankfurt? Not even FRA airport have pre-clearance facilities.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Are there British customs officials stationed in Frankfurt? Not even FRA airport have pre-clearance facilities.


There is both a presence of the Bundespolizei, and Customs officers at Frankfurt HBF. Just like at the airport.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> There is both a presence of the Bundespolizei, and Customs officers at Frankfurt HBF. Just like at the airport.


Are there legal ground for German customs officers enforce British immigration practices, laws and regulations?


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Are there legal ground for German customs officers enforce British immigration practices, laws and regulations?


If it is not deemed necessary for British custom officials to check UK bound flights at Frankfurt airport, why would they need to check UK bound trains at HBF?


----------



## krulstaartje

K_ said:


> If it is not deemed necessary for British custom officials to check UK bound flights at Frankfurt airport, why would they need to check UK bound trains at HBF?


Because there's no passport checks on arrival in St Pancras. There's only the police for random luggage checks.

In Brussels and Paris there's two checks, both local police and British passport checks.


----------



## K_

krulstaartje said:


> Because there's no passport checks on arrival in St Pancras. There's only the police for random luggage checks.
> 
> In Brussels and Paris there's two checks, both local police and British passport checks.


If the British police wants to check passports on departure in Frankfurt themselves than they only have to travel there... 
Or they can check passports on arrival.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> If the British police wants to check passports on departure in Frankfurt themselves than they only have to travel there...
> Or they can check passports on arrival.


IT is not that simple. It the British set shop in Frankfurt, they can refuse entry to people there. In such situations, the deported/entry-denied person must be processed by German authorities. On an airplane, that is easy: people are put on a plane and de-planed on an international arrival area. But what will happen in Frankfrut Hbf?

It is not about Germans or other Europeans, but about non-Europeans that the English deem unacceptable, or have expired visas, or are a risk to security, and the Germans must have a look on such people.


----------



## kato2k8

Suburbanist said:


> On an airplane, that is easy: people are put on a plane and de-planed on an international arrival area. But what will happen in Frankfrut Hbf?


Simple, you deport them back to the UK ("safe third country of origin") with the next train going out, forcing either the UK or Eurostar to foot the bill. It's done all the time with people arriving by airplane from other EU countries. Their nationality is irrelevant - the only thing that counts is which country they arrived from.


----------



## Suburbanist

kato2k8 said:


> Simple, you deport them back to the UK ("safe third country of origin") with the next train going out, forcing either the UK or Eurostar to foot the bill. It's done all the time with people arriving by airplane from other EU countries. Their nationality is irrelevant - the only thing that counts is which country they arrived from.


Sure.

But that would only work if trains German-London don't stop to catch passengers in Bruxelles. Or else international non-Schengen stations are set like airports: controls done always on arrival. But then you'd have to get the British to authorize unprocessed passengers to take a train over UK soil before being checked.

Or you put a check in Calais or Dover and everybody disembarks, a pretty bad solution IMO.


----------



## thun

Or the UK could simply join Schengen, of course. ;-)


----------



## KingNick

Why are we having this discussion in 2011? What a shame...


----------



## webeagle12

KingNick said:


> Why are we having this discussion in 2011? What a shame...


bc 2012 world going to end


----------



## Isek

I do not like the new ICX design.


----------



## AlexNL

Great input, Isek, really valuable. I especially love it that you don't provide any justifications or reasons at all.


----------



## kato2k8

It looks like a fattened ICE3 with a Stola...


----------



## Suburbanist

I don't like the shape of windows. I'd rather have trains with more rounded-shaped windows, in slightly smaller sizes. The ICE windows are too big IMO.


----------



## gramercy

the front somehow doesnt look too aerodynamic


----------



## thun

AS it is said in the press release, apparently the edgy design helps saving energy (up to a third or so). And this is not a ultra fast high speed train, so you can't really compare it with the Velaro or so.


----------



## Momo1435

It does look a bit weird on the render, but that's probably because of the render and not so much the actual design of the train.


----------



## Dase

Suburbanist said:


> I don't like the shape of windows. I'd rather have trains with more rounded-shaped windows, in slightly smaller sizes. The ICE windows are too big IMO.


So you prefer cars with shotting holes as well? Or would that just be another thing to make trains lesse attractive? :nuts:


----------



## Suburbanist

Dase said:


> So you prefer cars with shotting holes as well? Or would that just be another thing to make trains lesse attractive? :nuts:


I think trains like Thalys or Eurostar have a better design. The Italian "Freccia" trains also.

Too big and too squared windows make a train looks like it were a shopping street, with people on display. Or a Big Brother of sorts.


----------



## Gadiri

From moroccan forum

After the new Velaro D, Deutsche Bahn ordered 300 new ICX to replace the remaining ICE 1 and 2




http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news118638.html


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Stupid me, thanks.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> DB should kick people without reservations of trains when they are too full.


Yeah, I agree. It was a bit of a surprise the first time I took the train to FFM to see how a large number of Germans used this "international express" as a means of transport between German cities on mid-route (e.g. Saarbrücken-Mannheim). For instance most of the TGVs from Paris-Marseille stop underways in Valence, Avignon or Aix-en-Provences, but they stop so that people can get out. They mostly do not carry passengers between, say, Avignon and Marseille and it would be seen as inefficient for them to do so. 



K_ said:


> In France, once something is declared of "public utility" building can quickly proceed. And the French countryside is not that densily populated as the German, so building new lines is easy.


Jaein. On your first point, in pretty much any country in the world when something is declared of public utility (or whatever the national vernacular) then the State can expropriate and build. The difference is, getting such approval is comparatively quicker in France than in Germany. The reason is twofold: (1) the declaration is provided in the first place by the nation's highest court instance, so there's no appeal; and (2) the public utility is assessed against a zero-alternative, not against an alternative use of the same money. That said, the German "Planungsverfahren" is famously slow. Even my compatriotes in Denmark are tearing out their hair over the slowness of the German processes in connection with the future Fehmarn connection. According to Scandinavian logics things such as an environmental approval cannot last for much more than a year. In Germany they can. 

On your second point, the density of population does undoubtedly make life easier in France. To this, add a flatter landscape than in Central and South Germany. However, our German brethren are also experts in finding reasons for doing nothing. One line runs through an area which is flat and thinly populated: Berlin-Hamburg. But here DB failed to capitalise from - for once - sharing the "easy conditions" of SNCF. An Ausbaustrecke was sufficient, and that was that! 



K_ said:


> In Germany the emphasis seems to be more on gradually improving existing services, and good integration.



I agree. I sometimes tell myself that the German approach is not really high-speed connections, but rather what I term a "fast-net approach". Success is not measured on how fast you can push passengers between 8-10 main cities, but rather on how much you can optimise travel times within the network as a whole.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

*Germany is European Champion in Destroying Rail Network*

While we are eagerly discussing the "network optimization" of DB and the Stuttgarters are streetfighting against rail investments, the bottom line is that Germany still prefers to destroy railway infrastructure and build Autobahns, all greenish propaganda to the contrary. A recent study by the EU has shown that in the last 1o years, the 27 member states have destroyed 2.2% of their rail network while their highway network has increased by 22%. The most drastic network closures took place in Latvia (-19.2), Poland (-12.4%), and Germany (-7.9%). In the nineties, the Germans had even scrapped 10.7% of the then existing network. The German Autobahn network increased by 9.4% in the same decade.
Some Western European states by contrast have increased their network: Spain (+8.5%), Italy (+5.0%), Belgium (+3.1%), France (+2.2%).
See the German website http://dmm.travel/news/artikel/lesen/2011/06/deutschland-baut-noch-immer-massiv-gleise-ab-36598/

This I believe is some indication that "network optimization" is, as some of us have argued, rather a formula to hide the apalling lack of investments by the German state into rail networks, a policy which unfortunately seems to be common sense from the Greens to the FDP throughout.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ You can't draw such conclusions.

First of all, you should look at rail traffic more than network length. Some countries like Italy and Spain haven't shed many tracks from the network (though they should have), but many lines see few if any traffic because they lost competitiveness, particularly those that are of old design and alignment built in mountainous areas (= slow-moving railways uncompetitive with even 1+1 regional highways).

All European countries expanded their highway network, because road traffic is increasing far more than rail traffic and both modes of transport are not equally efficient for all journeys.

Germany had a legacy of a fairly inefficient system inherited from DDR, and had to close many lines anyway. It also had many industrial railways leading to mining operations that are not shut down.

On the other hand, it invested a lot of money in new high-speed lines, modernization and so. 

It is simply not a good indicator to look at network km count only.


----------



## kato2k8

Actually, a lot of lines that are listed under "demolished" statistics were simply taken off the network by taking out switches or reorganizing signals. Other sections are sold to private companies for their non-public local cargo transport and are hence no longer counted as part of the network.

There is plenty of cut-down stemming from MORA-C (shutdown of unprofitable cargo blind lines) within the timeframe selected, other than that the EBA only reports about 15 former passenger connections shut down and taken out of service, often spread in multiple sections. Most of these didn't see any passenger transport for at least 2-3 years prior to shut-down order, some of them for decades. All of them are in rural areas; most are blind lines, none served interregional traffic.

And no, they're not all in the GDR. Only about half of them.


----------



## Attus

Baron Hirsch said:


> Germany still prefers to destroy railway infrastructure and build Autobahns


Statistics are like bikini: they show many things but the most important ones are hidden.
In Spain there are lots of rail lines which are open, having two or three regional train daily, 10-15 passengers each. In Germany these kind of lines were closed. Which one is the better handling of the taxpayers' money?


----------



## TedStriker

It's an interesting little debate this. 

The German rail system for many of us here in Britain, is something to admire, and certainly I think you'll find that most people find the cargo train operations run by DB Schenker and all the other operators to be pretty impressive. 

The wagonload train operation in particular is something which surely must be seen as a success story, given that it consists of long trains - at least in the photos and videos I've seen - and DB Schenker cites it as being profitable. 

Was the MORA-C impact _that _concerning? Did it not enable the wagonload system to become profitable, and at the same time encourage the rise of a whole host of small privately-run small-line freight operators? 

As you all no doubt know, the wagonload concept in Britain pretty came to an end in the 1960s, when a massive chunk of the rail netowrk was shut down, and along with it a large number of marshalling yards - some of them almost brand new! 

So in comparison, the German wagonload system looks pretty healthy in comparison. It certainly seems to keep the Maschen marshalling yard busy, along with all the others, not just in Germany, but in the neighbouring states as well, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and so on. 

And finally, if my initial viewings of the aerial photos of Germany are anything to go by, a lot of the closed railway lines and yards in Germany still remain in place, so reopening them is a physical possibility at least. 

In Britain, for most closed lines and yards, this is not possible - many are now home to housing estates and retail parks.


----------



## K_

Coccodrillo said:


> Trains or train movements? Does a train arriving and leaving count for one or two?


I asume it counts as one if the number doesn't change (eg a Geneva - St. Gallen service) but as two if the train number does change (eg. Chiasso - Zürich forming a Zürich - Chiasso).


----------



## sekelsenmat

Indeed, this statistics are too generic, it would be much more useful to discuss particular lines which were closed.

The whole point of rail transport is not simply having it. It should be relatively fast and transport a reasonable amount of people. If the lines could transport a reasonable amount of people if it was upgraded, but the government decides to close it, even while it has money to build highways, then it is being unfair. But if serves only small cities where people migrated to cars, what's the point? In this case the real question which you might want to ask is why they moved to cars.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Yeah, I agree. It was a bit of a surprise the first time I took the train to FFM to see how a large number of Germans used this "international express" as a means of transport between German cities on mid-route (e.g. Saarbrücken-Mannheim). For instance most of the TGVs from Paris-Marseille stop underways in Valence, Avignon or Aix-en-Provences, but they stop so that people can get out. They mostly do not carry passengers between, say, Avignon and Marseille and it would be seen as inefficient for them to do so.


The idea is to fill trains. SNCF has a lot of rolling stock sitting idle in yards a lot of the time, which is not efficient. At the same time it's not offering good service on short distances. The way DB does it the network is also useable for spur of the moment short distance trips. 





> That said, the German "Planungsverfahren" is famously slow. Even my compatriotes in Denmark are tearing out their hair over the slowness of the German processes in connection with the future Fehmarn connection. According to Scandinavian logics things such as an environmental approval cannot last for much more than a year. In Germany they can.


If you think that the Germans are slow, consider the British...




> One line runs through an area which is flat and thinly populated: Berlin-Hamburg. But here DB failed to capitalise from - for once - sharing the "easy conditions" of SNCF. An Ausbaustrecke was sufficient, and that was that!


And they were right. Don't forget that what mattes to the traveller is door-to-door times, not train speeds. The new Haupbanhof in Berlin for example, did also cost a lot of money. How much later would it have been build, had DB chosen to spend all that money on full HSL to Hamburg? 



> I agree. I sometimes tell myself that the German approach is not really high-speed connections, but rather what I term a "fast-net approach". Success is not measured on how fast you can push passengers between 8-10 main cities, but rather on how much you can optimise travel times within the network as a whole.


Yes, and since the value of a network is proportional to the square of the points it connects its a good approach if you want to be profitable. It's the same approach the SBB has. And now even SNCF is picking up on it...


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> The way DB does it the network is also useable for spur of the moment short distance trips.


Sure, but airlines are for example not useable for spur-of-the-moment short distance trips, and I would tend to argume that high-speed trains are a substitute for taking a plane rather than a substitute for taking a conventional train. This is/was certainly the thinking in France. In Germany, on the contrary, it looks like the ICE brand has been sold as an upgrade of an existing concept? 



K_ said:


> If you think that the Germans are slow, consider the British....


And if you consider the Indians then Germany looks even better? Yeah, yeah, yeah... if I compare with Dante's ice hell then my local railway station in January is a quite pleasant place to wait for a train. Remains the fact that there's nothing glorified about taking 10+ years to make a decision. Democratic accountability, sure. But not more than 10 years, please... 



K_ said:


> Don't forget that what mattes to the traveller is door-to-door times, not train speeds. The new Haupbanhof in Berlin for example, did also cost a lot of money. How much later would it have been build, had DB chosen to spend all that money on full HSL to Hamburg?


Now then, even some of our friends in DB complain that it would have been so much better to lower the travel time on Hamburg-Berlin to less than 1h30. It would have allowed them to make a "Vollknote", etc. etc. Maybe the scaled-back concept on that line DOES make sense. But it came after more than a decade of German train enthusiasts explaining that the couldn't copy a French LGV concept because of their "Mittelgebirge" and their "Siedlungsstruktur". Well, as far as lame excuses were concerned Hamburg-Berlin led to quite a u-turn. 

I guess your objection would apply equally to the French approach to "grand projects"? In this country there's almost always a project (one!) that shall enjoy absolute priority for the next 4-5 years. This seems to contrast with more federal countries (like in, but not limited to, Germany) where each region in each period of time is given "a slice of the cake".


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Sure, but airlines are for example not useable for spur-of-the-moment short distance trips, and I would tend to argume that high-speed trains are a substitute for taking a plane rather than a substitute for taking a conventional train. This is/was certainly the thinking in France. In Germany, on the contrary, it looks like the ICE brand has been sold as an upgrade of an existing concept?


I still think that the main competitor of the train is the car, not the plane. Railways (and public transport companies in general) should concentrate on offering a services that allows people to do without a car altogether. That way you build a solid customer base that provides most of your income.



> Now then, even some of our friends in DB complain that it would have been so much better to lower the travel time on Hamburg-Berlin to less than 1h30. It would have allowed them to make a "Vollknote", etc. etc.


You would have had to at least reduce travel time to 1h20 for that. As it is now, 1h45 is good to have a node on both ends. One could even consider having an extra stop en route. 






> I guess your objection would apply equally to the French approach to "grand projects"? In this country there's almost always a project (one!) that shall enjoy absolute priority for the next 4-5 years. This seems to contrast with more federal countries (like in, but not limited to, Germany) where each region in each period of time is given "a slice of the cake".


Well, I do consider having a democracy more important than having the fastest trains...


----------



## Suburbanist

hans280 said:


> Yeah, I agree. It was a bit of a surprise the first time I took the train to FFM to see how a large number of Germans used this "international express" as a means of transport between German cities on mid-route (e.g. Saarbrücken-Mannheim). For instance most of the TGVs from Paris-Marseille stop underways in Valence, Avignon or Aix-en-Provences, but they stop so that people can get out. They mostly do not carry passengers between, say, Avignon and Marseille and it would be seen as inefficient for them to do so.


That is easy to explain. France TGV lines, or most of them, connect Paris with other major city (Lyon, Lille, Marseille). Those trains don't stop on the 1st half of the journey, and then stop to drop passengers in stations until it reaches the final destination.

If SNCF opened TGV Atlantique routes for people travelling between Avignon and Marseille, it could waste capacity to haul people on the more lucrative Marseille - Paris route. Surely they could improve the situation by using historical trends and selling some seats for Avignon-Marseille on those TGVs.

In case of Germany, for the good and for the evil you don't find such high-speed lines. The average travel speed between Berlin and major German cities (Hamburg, Frankfurt, München) is much lower than in France. But that comparison is problematic because Berlin doesn't exert such influence and doesn't centralize traffic in Germany in any way similar to Paris over France.

One should notice that ICE services stop a lot. While many TGVs travel 2h non-stop, the most you find like that in the German network are ICE non-stop Berlin Spandau-Hannover (1h37).

Of course you have the ICE Sprint service, but I see it more as a niche category for now, as it operates only a handful of trips every weekday. 




> I agree. I sometimes tell myself that the German approach is not really high-speed connections, but rather what I term a "fast-net approach". Success is not measured on how fast you can push passengers between 8-10 main cities, but rather on how much you can optimise travel times within the network as a whole.


This is a political decision more than a technical one, or at least a technical decision heavily influenced by politics. France has long pursued a "disinvestment" policy in its failing middle-size cities since WW2, for a variety of reasons not really relevant to this thread. In Germany, the idea of cutting of and marginalizing infrastructure investments in middle cities like Fulda, Kasel or Erfurt, would be unacceptable, and that reflects on infrastructure (not only rail) planning.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> Railways (and public transport companies in general) should concentrate on offering a services that allows people to do without a car altogether.


Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km. Less than that, they should use their cars. This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre. 



K_ said:


> Well, I do consider having a democracy more important than having the fastest trains...


I totally agree that democracy is essential. In this vein, you should know that people in my native Denmark are very pround of their representative democracy. It is for precisely this reason that they organise national decision processes (and sometimes referendums) to decide on projects and priorities, and subsequently impose them on regions of the country. Which is why planning procedures rarely take more than 1-2 years. One part of the country cannot be allowed to block, or significanly influence, the decision making of the nation. That would be... undemocratic.


----------



## LtBk

Even with high speed and upgraded conventional rails?


----------



## sekelsenmat

hans280 said:


> Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km.


? So you think that putting some draconian rules about how people should use InterCity trains will increase ridership?



> Less than that, they should use their cars.


You are making a very strange assumption that everyone has a car. On top of that also ignores that a large amount of train users are students, young adults without a car and elders, all of which don't find the driving alternative very attractive.



> This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.


That's a very strange line of thinking, you just made implicit that everyone has cars and that everyone will calculate what is the fastest alternative and use that. I've never met this kind of theorical person that you are imagining that goes on to calculate the best mode for each trip that he does and can very easily switch modes. Pretty much everyone that I know either uses only cars and never trains or only use trains (don't even have a car or doesn't like to drive).

Basically you arrived at a non-sensical conclusion by ignoring all other modal choice aspects except for speed. One of the most important ones being left out is fidelity. People don't like to calculate on every trip what is the fastest at the moment, this calculation wastes time. Most people will simply go with what they are familiar with. If they use trains regularly, most likely they will use for newer trips, even if a car would theorically be better, because people prefer to stick to their known way of doing things. Similarly, most people that use cars for everything won't consider trains even if they are faster in some theorical route. Most won't even calculate and many won't even know how fast the train trip is.

Trains don't need to be faster point-to-point, they need to have a competitive speed. If the train is immensely slower, people will get pissed off and migrate, even if they need to buy a car, for example. If it is just slower, but not that much, then the advantages of train traveling, like being able to do something else instead of driving, not having to find a parking, saving money by not needing a car, etc, can make it competitive despite the speed disadvantage.

On top of that, you didn't even mention any advantage for your proposal, which makes it even further non-sense.


----------



## thun

hans280 said:


> Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km. Less than that, they should use their cars. This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.


It's quite shocking to see how many people apparently don't get that travel time isn't the only - and for a lot of people not even the most - important influence on the choice of the preferred mode of transport.


----------



## flierfy

sekelsenmat said:


> ? So you think that putting some draconian rules about how people should use InterCity trains will increase ridership?


One does needs to apply draconian penalties to achieve this aim. All it takes is widening stop spacing.


----------



## hans280

sekelsenmat said:


> ? So you think that putting some draconian rules about how people should use InterCity trains will increase ridership?


No, I think that increasing ridership is not the only relevant success parameter. The Indian trains, for example, travelling at 30 km/h and stopping everywhere, have a high ridership. The "ridership" is even sitting on the roofs and hanging out of the windows. In the fellow Asian economy Japan, highspeed trains link the major economic centres with a travelling time of little more than 2 hours. I put it to you that the latter makes economically much more sense. 



sekelsenmat said:


> You are making a very strange assumption that everyone has a car. On top of that also ignores that a large amount of train users are students, young adults without a car and elders, all of which don't find the driving alternative very attractive..


This is a realistic assumption. I have in hand a study of car ownership per age cohort that I can share if you're interested. It is true that young households in France - where the oldest member is 16-19 years old - have only 0.6 cars on average. However, from age 25 every household has one car, and this remains the case until the age rises above 75 years old. (I should add that France is internationally low in this respect: US and Canada has many more than just 1 car per household.) How many 80 yo people do we see on TGV trains? 



sekelsenmat said:


> Trains don't need to be faster point-to-point, they need to have a competitive speed. If the train is immensely slower, people will get pissed off and migrate, even if they need to buy a car, for example. If it is just slower, but not that much, then the advantages of train traveling, like being able to do something else instead of driving, not having to find a parking, saving money by not needing a car, etc, can make it competitive despite the speed disadvantage.


Well, I live in a country where most people prefer driving and consider public transportation as somehow inferior. (I think it has to do with the French notion of "espace vitale" - in a car you are in your private sphere.) On top of this comes the price factor. You see very few families in TGV trains. The marginal cost of stuffing a child into a car is zero, the cost of buying a train ticket is non-trivial. Consequently the ridership is mostly business people (and well-healed travellers in mid-life). These people would definitely be less inclined to take the train between Marseille and Paris if the train stops more than twice on the only 740 km. 

And, as I said, they'd be disinclined to take the train from Paris to Lille unless they happen to have a trip from city centre to city centre. The distance is 211 km. If you go from suburb to suburb by care then the travel time is between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. The train from Gare du Nord takes 1 hour, to which you must then add local transport at both ends. The train has no time advantage. - Which is why I keep repeating my mantra: highspeed traffic needs to be optimised on the medium to long distances (400-800 km) to provide an attractive alternative to air traffic.


----------



## LtBk

What about non TGV trains? Also, people in France don't like mass transit?


----------



## sekelsenmat

hans280 said:


> No, I think that increasing ridership is not the only relevant success parameter. The Indian trains, for example, travelling at 30 km/h and stopping everywhere, have a high ridership. The "ridership" is even sitting on the roofs and hanging out of the windows.


Obviously the indian government should start investing in faster inter-regional trains. But this brings an interresting question, so do you think that India should copy the French model and have 1 car for each of it's 1,3 billion inhabitains? You know, that's more then double the amount of cars in the world today. What would power that? imported Oil?



> This is a realistic assumption. I have in hand a study of car ownership per age cohort that I can share if you're interested. It is true that young households in France - where the oldest member is 16-19 years old - have only 0.6 cars on average. However, from age 25 every household has one car, and this remains the case until the age rises above 75 years old. (I should add that France is internationally low in this respect: US and Canada has many more than just 1 car per household.) How many 80 yo people do we see on TGV trains?
> 
> Well, I live in a country where most people prefer driving and consider public transportation as somehow inferior. (I think it has to do with the French notion of "espace vitale" - in a car you are in your private sphere.) On top of this comes the price factor. You see very few families in TGV trains. The marginal cost of stuffing a child into a car is zero, the cost of buying a train ticket is non-trivial. Consequently the ridership is mostly business people (and well-healed travellers in mid-life). These people would definitely be less inclined to take the train between Marseille and Paris if the train stops more than twice on the only 740 km.


All of those considerations are about France, but this thread is about Germany, not France. I go very rarely to France, but from comments here it seams to me that the France railways has only two kinds of services:

* TGV trains which can only be used for higher distances and costs a good amount of money to use. Are also annoying to use regularly because of the fare management, reservation, etc
* Regional stop-everywhere trains, thus too slow for inter-regional usage

With this rail structure, it's not a surprised that people don't consider that not having a car at all is an option. In Germany, things are very different, there are many kinds of services. When I lived in Germany I commuted daily 50km using a Inter Regional Express (IRE) train. In France it seams that this kind of train that stops every 50km doesn't exist. So in France I would not be able to commute daily using trains, revenue loss of the rail company. At that point I also bought a BahnCard, so had no car and I was using trains for pretty much all of my trips in Germany. If I had to buy a car, I would most likely not use trains at all. Lost ridership, lost modal share, lost revenue, lost fidelity for the rail company.

Similarly in Poland also most people using long-distance trains are traveling between 50km and 300km and those trains stop every 50km. For Germany and Poland, your proposal would likely reduce ridership to something like 10% of the current levels for long-range trains.



> Which is why I keep repeating my mantra: highspeed traffic needs to be optimised on the medium to long distances (400-800 km) to provide an attractive alternative to air traffic.


InterCity is not a sinonim to highspeed rail. InterCity is like a very fast inter-regional train. Maybe you wanted to say something like ICE should stop less to be faster? ICE is closer to high-speed rail.

I'm not objected to having services which make fewer stops, as long as there are still other options. I think at least 3 kinds of differente services are required:

* slower, stop everywhere regional train (like RB)
* fast, stop every 50km inter-regional train (like RE, IRE, IC)
* very fast, few stops, High Speed Rail (ICE)


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km. Less than that, they should use their cars.


Your are joking, right? You really think that people shouldn't travel, say, Bern - Zürich by train? What should people do who don't have cars? I can't use my car, because I don't have one. I don't have one because I don't see the point of owning one.



> This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.


300 kph "normal" speed? You are really joking here. 
And wether it is faster to drive is not important. We see that even train services that are slower than driving attract a lot of passengers. So apparently there is a demand for them. 
On Geneve - Bern - Zürich - st. Gallen the SBB making lots of money, but according to you this should not even exist?


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> Basically you arrived at a non-sensical conclusion by ignoring all other modal choice aspects except for speed. One of the most important ones being left out is fidelity. People don't like to calculate on every trip what is the fastest at the moment, this calculation wastes time. Most people will simply go with what they are familiar with. If they use trains regularly, most likely they will use for newer trips, even if a car would theorically be better, because people prefer to stick to their known way of doing things.


Which is why psychology is so important in public transport planning. You need to design your network and timetable so that people base the mental map of their surroundings on it. That is why successful train networks have interval schedules, a logical network hierarchy and well designed information displays.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> One does needs to apply draconian penalties to achieve this aim. All it takes is widening stop spacing.


Indeed. But there is this little matter of wanting, as a service provider, to make money. That means going where your passengers want you to go to, stopping where your passengers want you to stop. The train has the huge advantage over the plane that you can easily serve many points with one service.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> No, I think that increasing ridership is not the only relevant success parameter. The Indian trains, for example, travelling at 30 km/h and stopping everywhere, have a high ridership. The "ridership" is even sitting on the roofs and hanging out of the windows. In the fellow Asian economy Japan, highspeed trains link the major economic centres with a travelling time of little more than 2 hours. I put it to you that the latter makes economically much more sense.


I don't get your point. Ridership is significantly higher in Japan than in India. So the network that makes economically much more sense in your view, is also the network with the highest ridership. Only Switzerland has higher train ridership. 



> This is a realistic assumption. I have in hand a study of car ownership per age cohort that I can share if you're interested. It is true that young households in France - where the oldest member is 16-19 years old - have only 0.6 cars on average. However, from age 25 every household has one car, and this remains the case until the age rises above 75 years old. (I should add that France is internationally low in this respect: US and Canada has many more than just 1 car per household.) How many 80 yo people do we see on TGV trains?


On Switzerland a third of the households are now one person households, and this is pattern one now sees in the rest of Europe too. One person households in urban areas often have no car. In Zürich the number of public transport trips per person average to one per day...



> Well, I live in a country where most people prefer driving and consider public transportation as somehow inferior. (I think it has to do with the French notion of "espace vitale" - in a car you are in your private sphere.)


One reason is that in many areas in France they don't even try to offer good public transport. There are exceptions, ofcourse. Even in France public transport gets used it is decent.



> On top of this comes the price factor. You see very few families in TGV trains. The marginal cost of stuffing a child into a car is zero, the cost of buying a train ticket is non-trivial.


I do see a lot of families on trains. Even in France. And that is because the cost of putting a child on a train is trivial, compared to putting them in a kind of straightjacket (as is now required) in a car. In Switzerland parents can buy a "junior card" for their kids for 30 francs (op to the age of 16) that allows them unlimited free travel if they're travelling with their parents. But even SNCF has offers that mean that a couple with two kids pays more or less the same as what two adults would pay...



> Consequently the ridership is mostly business people (and well-healed travellers in mid-life). These people would definitely be less inclined to take the train between Marseille and Paris if the train stops more than twice on the only 740 km.


You either don't travel a lot, or don't look very carefully. If families wouldn't be so disinclined to travel by train as you claim I wouldn't have to travel 1st class to have some peace...



> And, as I said, they'd be disinclined to take the train from Paris to Lille unless they happen to have a trip from city centre to city centre. The distance is 211 km. If you go from suburb to suburb by care then the travel time is between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. The train from Gare du Nord takes 1 hour, to which you must then add local transport at both ends. The train has no time advantage.


It would be as fast as a taking a car if they added some stops in the suburbs of Paris and Lille to some of the direct services. If in other words they integrated the services better. 

Anyway, I commuted three years from a suburb of Bern to suburb of Zürich. By public transport. By car I would probably have been as fast, but it would have cost a lot more, and you can't read your email while you're driving.




> - Which is why I keep repeating my mantra: highspeed traffic needs to be optimised on the medium to long distances (400-800 km) to provide an attractive alternative to air traffic.


Trains don't need to offer an attractive alternative to air They need to offer something that passengers are willing to pay for. Success is measured in paying passengers. On this count Paris - Lille is successful.
For many people travel time is not everything. A car has the huge disadvantage of requiring you to do your own driving, plus it is very expensive unless you use it a lot.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Hi guys, 
I would like to get back to the network question. I do think that scrapping 8% of the network is indicative to an overall neglect of railways. the ranking of that EU report (who has in- or decreased their network) and which countries have how much investments into rail infrastructure per capita show the same picture: Spain of course rules and Germany - jugded by the size of its population - is as low as it gets. Thus the much lauded gradual network improvement is nothing but the only thing that can be done with the paultry means at hand.
I saw the effects in Berlin, a town which is arguably the best in the country for car-free living, a bike and the S-U-Bahn network gets you almost everywhere in town and where inner-city dwellers as a rule are as described in the Zürich example often without private car. When the new central station opened, to compensate several minor lines serving the surrounding countryside were scrapped to compensate. It was assumed that anyone who wants to go to Perleberg or other faovrite spots for Berliners to spend the weekend in nature (and mind you, a 3.5 million city produces a lot of leisure traffic), would have a car and should use it to that purpose. 
To your other points: the de facto organization of ICE traffic is nothing but a slightly more fancy, slightly more fast version of the IC. That is obvious, if you look at schedules. IC going at 200 kmh could easily replace the ICE's; when after the Eschede disaster all ICE had to be withdrawn and checked, most delays by the emergency services on routes such as the Berlin - Wolfsburg line was just about 15 minutes. Many ICE lines in Germany nowadays spend most or all of their route on lines which do not permit them to surpass IC in speed. To mask the difference, IC have been reduced to something which previously would have been marked Interregio, i.e. long distance trains that stop at ridiciously small towns where no IC would have stopped in the 1980s. 
The way to make the ICE more than a chique IC would certainly not be the overregulative approach our advocates of the free market, i.e. Hans and Suburbanist, shut out short distance commuters per rule, per obstrusive reserve only regulations or per price, but rather really going for market principles. Overregulation of trains access has as a rule always met with fierce consumer resistance in Germany, and there is no need to antagonize the passengers like in the worst Mehdorn times. Rather, offer a larger number of sprinters, do not suffocate the offer with abhorrent prices, and promote this new system well. I am sure it would work out, and if there were a few less stops in Limburg and Fulda and this slashes travel time by say 30 minutes, many people who have half an eye on the airplane would be attracted to trains.


----------



## Suburbanist

*hans280* pointed a very important issue: it is futile to calculate travel time from station to station when the trip is short enough to warrant a car drive.

When a trip is long - say Paris - Marsielle -, any time lost getting from your house to Paris Montparnasse and then from Marseille station to your destination is not that relevant because your other otpion (drive) will take much longer regardless.

In short trips, like Paris-Lille or Avingon-Marseille, the time spent travelling non on the TGV is significant, and can tilt the balance in favor of driving, assuming you have one (and, as pointed, in Western Europe most households own at least one car, in France I guess more than 80% of households excluding student houses own a private car) .

That happens because, with a car, if you destination AND origin aren't both within a very short distance of the HSR stations involved, a car car avoid this hub-and-spoke movements and head straight to the destination, bypassing congested streets in downtown altogether. If you transform a 40min Paris (Metro + RER) ride + 16 minutes tram ride in Lile + 4 minutes waiting vehicles to come + 6 minutes walking, you already ate up 66 minutes going not on transit, on a very optimistic assumption.

If you are going form a Paris suburb to a Lille suburb, you'll need 70-90 minutes total to commute to HSR stations. 

By then, depending where you are located whether do you want to drive, all HST time advantage is gone.

Of course many people will still catch the TGV, because they don't want to spend extra money in car driving + wear/tear, because they intend to drink, because they are afraid of the Autoroute or else. Not all people decide the same way. I have driven many times from Northern Italy (Milano) to Sicilia on 15-18h journeys spending twice the value of an air fare, jsut because I enjoy driving there. That doesn't make my extreme prefernece for driving uniform across the Italian costumers, for instance.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Indeed. But there is this little matter of wanting, as a service provider, to make money. That means going where your passengers want you to go to, stopping where your passengers want you to stop. The train has the huge advantage over the plane that you can easily serve many points with one service.


Passengers are an inhomogeneous group of people. Almost everyone travels between a different pair of stations. So, calling at stations is as advantageous as it is disadvantageous. The solution is to set up services of different stopping patterns. And one of these must be a service that runs fast and doesn't call for several hundred kilometres.


----------



## thun

@ suburbanist: As K_ pointed out, this is only the case in unsatisfact integrated networks which force passengers to do long detours to connect with other (in that case long distance) services. From that point of view, SNCF urgently has to offer a slower version of the TGV (especially in the Paris suburbs) which stopps at more stations to allow direct connections. Fierfly is right here.

And of course, you'll never be able to build a train network which offers faster alternatives to the car for all theoretically possible trips in a country - in fact, nobody claimed that. But then again, travel time isn't the only, and for a lot of people not even the most important - factor in the choice of tranport mode.


----------



## Wilhem275

I believe conventional rail will never gain a reduction of time so significant it can compete with driving time.
But I still think it is, in most cases, the best option: considering the mere travel time is misleading, since while I'm driving I'm obliged to only do that (unless I'm a moron who texts or reads his newspaper while doing it) and I get stressed by that, on the other hand while I'm on a train or bus I can do active tasks, for work or entertainment.
My standard trip, from Venice outskirts to Brescia, needs 120' by car or 40'+120'+5' by public transport, and still I like the second option, since I can do whatever I want for almost 140'.
The time wasted is 120' or 100% in first case, 25' or 15% in the latter one, and my time is precious.
I think it's stupid to think of a train trip as a totally inactive time spent sitting in a moving box: today's tecnologies allow us to do plenty of productive things while we are moving. Things which cannot be done while driving.

I have a passion for automobiles, I'm the moderator of what is probably the most important forum about cars in Italy. I love driving. And that's why I HATE having to drive in those cases which give me no other option. I HATE driving 100-150 km of highways, or even more, mainly because I'm surrounded by retards who don't do that properly and often put me in danger, and also because it's incredibly boring. I get angry and stressed and I don't like that.
I'm just like K_: I don't want to have a car because I'm obliged to have one, I want the freedom to choose. And I'm ready to pay for it, if needed.

A couple of years ago, in Leipzig, I saw a train with a smart claim printed on its side: Auto haben, Bahn fahren. Having a car, travelling by train.
That's exactly what I want: keeping my passion for driving, dedicating proper free time to it with adequate relax to enjoy the activity, and moving around with public transport.


----------



## kato2k8

K_ said:


> I asume it counts as one if the number doesn't change (eg a Geneva - St. Gallen service) but as two if the train number does change (eg. Chiasso - Zürich forming a Zürich - Chiasso).


All DB statistics on trains per day count in train movements, i.e. a train stopping at a station and continuing counts as two.


----------



## kato2k8

TedStriker said:


> Was the MORA-C impact _that _concerning? Did it not enable the wagonload system to become profitable, and at the same time encourage the rise of a whole host of small privately-run small-line freight operators?


MORA-C eliminated 1,000 out of 2,100 cargo access points on the DB freight network. The result was for most of these customers _not_ a switch to private operators but a switch to road transport, and in a lot of the affected areas considerable expansion of truck freight companies.

The primary thing that made the wagonload system more profitable was abandoning most marshalling yards - not exactly part of MORA-C, but happened in almost the same timeframe (started a bit earlier). This is an ongoing process still.

Current final plans will only keep these marshalling yards for long-distance freight:
- one for Southwest Germany (Mannheim)
- one for North East Germany (Potsdam-Seddin)
- one for South East Germany (Halle)
- two for North Germany (Hannover-Seelze and Hamburg-Maschen)
- two for the Ruhr and Cologne area (Hagen and Cologne-Gremberg)
- two for Bavaria (Nuremberg and Munich-North)

(this means exactly one for each major Metropolitan area in Germany btw - except Rhine-Main and Stuttgart, which are serviced from Mannheim in Rhine-Neckar in the middle)

Likely surviving minor stations would be Stuttgart-Kornwestheim and Bischofsheim as feeder stations for Mannheim and Osnabrück and Rostock-Seehafen for infrastructure reasons.


----------



## sekelsenmat

> Stuttgart 21 rail project construction to restart
> 
> Published: 10 Jun 11 17:16 CET
> 
> Construction work on the controversial Stuttgart 21 rail project is to restart next week after a two-month pause to assess the future of the project following a state election in Baden-Württemberg.
> 
> The southwestern German state's new government, which is a centre-left coalition of Greens and Social Democrats, decided not ask for a longer building freeze at a meeting of Stuttgart 21 stakeholders on Friday.
> 
> The main reason is money: If the state government had demanded a further pause, it would have had to contribute to a fund to reimburse Deutsche Bahn for expenses the delay is causing.
> 
> Those would soar into the tens of millions of euros by the time a so-called “stress test” to probe the viability of the project is finished in July.
> 
> The government was hoping Deutsche Bahn would decide by itself to delay the project further, but the company confirmed Friday that construction would resume as soon as possible.
> 
> “We want to move up construction activities to next week,” said Deutsche Bahn infrastructure manager Volker Kefer.
> 
> Stuttgart 21 consists of a massive construction effort, involving rebuilding the city’s main train station underground and turning it around 90 degrees, as well as laying 57 kilometres of new tracks. The aim is to make the city a major European rail hub.
> 
> But opponents mounted massive protests against the project last year, calling it too expensive and unnecessary. In October, more than 100 demonstrators were injured in a violent clash with police.
> 
> The demonstration was followed by lengthy talks between state officials, national rail provider Deutsche Bahn and Stuttgart 21 opponents. But officials ultimately decided to go ahead with the project after making a few minor changes to plans.
> 
> Some believed the state’s new left-leaning government would more strongly challenge the project because the Greens opposed it before the the election, but they have so far failed to do so.
> 
> State officials have promised citizens will have the opportunity to vote on the future of the project, probably in the autumn.
> 
> But backing out could cost the state government hundreds of millions of euros in compensation fees to Deutsche Bahn.


http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110610-35587.html


----------



## TedStriker

kato2k8 said:


> MORA-C eliminated 1,000 out of 2,100 cargo access points on the DB freight network. The result was for most of these customers _not_ a switch to private operators but a switch to road transport, and in a lot of the affected areas considerable expansion of truck freight companies.
> 
> The primary thing that made the wagonload system more profitable was abandoning most marshalling yards - not exactly part of MORA-C, but happened in almost the same timeframe (started a bit earlier). This is an ongoing process still.
> 
> Current final plans will only keep these marshalling yards for long-distance freight:
> - one for Southwest Germany (Mannheim)
> - one for North East Germany (Potsdam-Seddin)
> - one for South East Germany (Halle)
> - two for North Germany (Hannover-Seelze and Hamburg-Maschen)
> - two for the Ruhr and Cologne area (Hagen and Cologne-Gremberg)
> - two for Bavaria (Nuremberg and Munich-North)
> 
> (this means exactly one for each major Metropolitan area in Germany btw - except Rhine-Main and Stuttgart, which are serviced from Mannheim in Rhine-Neckar in the middle)
> 
> Likely surviving minor stations would be Stuttgart-Kornwestheim and Bischofsheim as feeder stations for Mannheim and Osnabrück and Rostock-Seehafen for infrastructure reasons.



I understand your point Kato. And on the one hand, the reduction in cargo access points from 2100 to 1000 may sound extreme - especially if for most wagonload customers, this meant a switch to road-only operations. 

However, I still retain my respect for the wagonload operation that exists in Germany, despite the impact of MORA-C. 

For a start, at least there is a wagonload system! And it appears to me to be thriving. Do you not agree? Does the fact that, even with the rationalisation plan you mention, Germany will still be left with nine, full-scale marshalling yards in service signify that the wagonload operation is in good health?

Admittedly, this has much to do with Germany's position at the centre of Europe, which allows for network connections in virtually all directions of the compass. 

However, doesn't it also have something to with the positive impact that MORA-C has had in reducing inefficiencies?

I'm only making suggestions here, as I don't have access to all the data and information that would enable me to know for sure, but I can only suspect that the wagonload system is in better health now after MORA-C than it had been before it. 

Also, with regards to those 'lost' wagonload customers. Is it not possible that some of these became customers of the road transport companies in Germany that own intermodal equipment and use the Kombiverkehr services?


----------



## kato2k8

TedStriker said:


> Does the fact that, even with the rationalisation plan you mention, Germany will still be left with nine, full-scale marshalling yards in service signify that the wagonload operation is in good health?


Not when we're coming down from at least 50+ full-scale marshalling yards 



TedStriker said:


> Is it not possible that some of these became customers of the road transport companies in Germany that own intermodal equipment and use the Kombiverkehr services?


Pretty much all intermodal terminals in Germany for road/rail are owned by subsidiary companies of DB Schenker. The two dozen or so that aren't are located in coastal or inland ports, are trimodal road/rail/water terminals and are usually owned by either the local port authority or one of a handful giant freight companies like Wincanton (there's a handful owned by local big-business companies - BASF for example has a trimodal terminal in its own harbour in Ludwigshafen).

Intermodal transport is still in its baby stage in Germany though. There's a lot of expansion potential there, often with road freight companies getting into it.


----------



## TedStriker

kato2k8 said:


> Intermodal transport is still in its baby stage in Germany though. There's a lot of expansion potential there, often with road freight companies getting into it.


Kato, are you not being harsh? I can only imagine that you live in Germany, which might explain why you're being so negative about the country - it's human nature to be critical of anything close to home. 

"Baby stage"? Intermodal transport in Germany has been up-and-running, in the sense of carrying heavy goods vehicles, since the 1960s. And because of the generous loading gauge, trains in Germany can carry 4m-high semi-trailers piggyback style - and many of them therefore do, with these trailers in the ownership of a large number of different road transport companies. 

Surely it's true to say that in Europe, Germany has the most refined intermodal service network for Continental traffic, along with Switzerland, Northern Italy and Scandinavia. 

Compare Germany with France, for example. The rail network in France does not have a loading gauge that can accept 4m-high semi-trailers - unless of course an operator is using the special Modalohr wagons. And only the SNCF-run LorryRail has access to these. 

Meanwhile in Britain, well, the loading gauge is so small that we're never going to see piggyback services operate beyond the HS line between Folkstone and Barking (London). 

So in European terms, I think it's true to say that intermodal transport is well-advanced in Germany - just as advanced, in fact as the North American system, even if the latter is more well-known, simply because of the size of the North American network, and it's bias towards freight traffic.


----------



## TedStriker

kato2k8 said:


> *Pretty much all intermodal terminals in Germany for road/rail are owned by subsidiary companies of DB Schenker. The two dozen or so that aren't are located in coastal or inland ports, are trimodal road/rail/water terminals and are usually owned by either the local port authority or one of a handful giant freight companies like Wincanton (there's a handful owned by local big-business companies - BASF for example has a trimodal terminal in its own harbour in Ludwigshafen).*
> QUOTE]
> 
> Does it matter that most terminals in Germany are run by DUSS, the DB Schenker subsidiary? The reason I ask this is because DB Schenker does not by itself retail the intermodal network within Germany.
> 
> Instead DB Schenker is in partnership with a lot of road transport operators via Kombiverkehr. It is Kombiverkehr that runs the network for Continental traffic, and it runs it in order to service not only DB Schneker, but also the other shareholders - in other words, the road transport companies.
> 
> Also, I know by having spent many moments glancing over aerial photos of Germany, that there exist plenty of locations which would be ideal for any private company to use as intermodal terminals. As such, I don't think it would be too hard for non-DB Schenker services to be set-up.


----------



## TedStriker

kato2k8 said:


> *Not when we're coming down from at least 50+ full-scale marshalling yards *
> QUOTE]
> 
> 50?!?!?!
> 
> That's surely an insane number of yards!
> 
> Even a centrally-planned, Communist-run economy would struggle to justify having 50 full-scale yards covering the territory of Germany I reckon.


----------



## kato2k8

TedStriker said:


> Even a centrally-planned, Communist-run economy would struggle to justify having 50 full-scale yards covering the territory of Germany I reckon.


DB currently operates 25 marshalling yards still. Of these 5 have double marshalling humps, 20 have one hump (one planned to have second reactivated, two with second hump shut down, one currently inoperational for planned complete new construction).
It's not so much about territory, it's about capacity. Before the yards became computer-controlled we _did_ need that number of yards.



TedStriker said:


> Surely it's true to say that in Europe, Germany has the most refined intermodal service network for Continental traffic, along with Switzerland, Northern Italy and Scandinavia.


Sure, but it doesn't have any really significant market presence yet. Almost all intermodal transport is container transport btw.

If we look at the statistics for 2005, total freight modal split for Germany:

- Road transport: 3,100,000 kilotons (77.50%)
- Pipeline transport: 96,000 kilotons (2.40%)

- Regular Rail transport: 265,888 kilotons (6.65%)
- Intermodal Rail transport, containers: 46,066 kilotons (1.15%)
- Intermodal Rail transport, trailers: 4,187 kilotons (0.10%)
- Intermodal Rail transport, "rolling highway": 1,159 kilotons (0.03%)

- Regular Coastal Shipping: 179,474 kilotons (4.49%)
- Intermodal Coastal Shipping, containers: 48,280 kilotons (1.21%)
- Intermodal Coastal Shipping, trailers: 16,354 kilotons (0.41%)
- Intermodal Coastal Shipping, "rolling highway": 37,073 kilotons (0.93%)

- Regular Riverine Shipping: 218,059 kilotons (5.45%)
- Intermodal Riverine Shipping, containers: 18,911 kilotons (0.47%)

1.28% for freight transport in intermodal service on rail? That does say baby stage to me


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Those statistics only tell part of the story though. 

If you were to analyse specific corridors, such as the trans-Alpine corridor or that between Lubeck and South Germany/Northern Italy, you'd find, I think, that intermodal transport has a much higher share of the overall market, and most of this traffic consists of semi-trailers. 

If I'm right, the reason why coastal shipping features so highly in the figures above is down to the short sea traffic with Denmark, Sweden and Finland. If you omit this market, and focus just on the overland market within central Europe, certainly on the North-South axis, I'm sure that intermodal takes a greater share than numbers above suggest.


----------



## derUlukai

berlin hauptbahnhof is not even germany`s biggest train station, neither by the number of trains or number of travellers per day, nor by the number of platforms or tracks.. the developers just had to make up some records for promo when they built it and so they called it the biggest cross-way-railstation in germany (or maybe europe)..


----------



## AlexNL

It's easy to find stations that match Berlin Hauptbahnhof when it comes to size. To give a few examples:

- Amsterdam Centraal (11 platforms)
- Brussels South (Gare du Midi) 22 platforms
- Paris Nord (with a whopping 44 platforms for trains and RER)
- Antwerp Centraal (14 platforms)
- London St. Pancras (15 platforms)

Berlin Hbf definitely isn't the largest one, but it sure is beautiful.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Berlin HB has 12 tracks if I remember correctly.

Other examples are Zürich HB (26 tracks, of which 18 stub and 8 passing), Milano Centrale (24 stub tracks, but 2 of them rarely used), Milano Porta Garibaldi (20 tracks, 12 stub and 8 passing).


----------



## LtBk

I don't what is Germany's biggest station, but I know that Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof is the busiest.


----------



## JoFMO

LtBk said:


> I don't what is Germany's biggest station, but I know that Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof is the busiest.


Frankfurt has a lot of trains passing it sure, but the 'busiest' station in terms of passenger movements is Hamburg Main Station.


----------



## Jeff Hawken

I think Leipzig is Germany's (and indeed Europe's) biggest station by floor surface area.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

Today an ICE3 hit a tractor on a railway crossing near Lippstadt. Nobody was hurt. It is unknown why the tractor driver stopped on the tracks (probably some sort of technical problems).














































*SOURCE*


----------



## Fatfield

^^

Did the tractor driver survive?

Edit - Just re-read your intro. It survived.


----------



## Suburbanist

That is why high-speed tracks and level crossing don't mix. Either close the crossing or build an over/underpass!!!


----------



## Rebasepoiss

The vicinity of platforms and the level-crossing by itself suggests that this didn't happen on a dedicated high-speed line. What was the speed at the time of impact, BTW?


----------



## AAPMBerlin

Rebasepoiss said:


> The vicinity of platforms and the level-crossing by itself suggests that this didn't happen on a dedicated high-speed line. What was the speed at the time of impact, BTW?


In Germany level-crossings are allowed till a trainspeed of 160km/h.


----------



## wheel of steel

Suburbanist said:


> That is why high-speed tracks and level crossing don't mix. Either close the crossing or build an over/underpass!!!


I agree, with speeds like this anything stocked right at the middle of the crossing will definitely be a huge huge risk, not at that object but to that of the train..hno:


----------



## wheel of steel

AAPMBerlin said:


> In Germany level-crossings are allowed till a speed of 160km/h.


That would be good but in case of Asian RR crossing most especially in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, level crossings often times eliminated or closed not because of the collission risks to road traffics but to prevent the proliferation of squatters along the side of the railtracks.


----------



## gramercy

i dont see what the prlobem is, sh!t happens and the "poor weak european carriage" kicked the ass of the tractor


----------



## Suburbanist

the problem is to have non-segregated highways with level crossings. Most railways should be segregated/grade-separated.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> the problem is to have non-segregated highways with level crossings. Most railways should be segregated/grade-separated.


And the railway operators agree with you. New lines as a rule don't have level crossings, and on existing lines the number of level crossings is reduced every year. However, getting rid of all level crossings is not something you do overnight...


----------



## Momo1435

It's not worth something to scream about, level crossings simply exist and can't all be closed down at once just because of a couple accidents.

If you look at this crossing on Google Earth you can see that just that the next level crossing was being replaced at the time of the picture. If you follow the line you see even more new grade crossings. It's something that is taken seriously, not just here but all over Germany. And since it's a very large and relatively older network it just takes time to upgrade everything to the current standards.

edit:
basically the same what K said, that whats you get from being distracted and not press preview before posting.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

*S21 wins referendum*

With surprising clarity, a referendum in the state of Baden-Würtemberg favors the continuation of the Stuttgart Main Station reconstruction as planned. More than 50 % of voters are against the state's abandoning the project. The green prime minister says he will follow the decision, which is not binding, as not enough voters turned up to vote.


----------



## imbee

Bombardier Talent 2 (Deutsche Bahn BR442) is finally running


----------



## Jay

wheel of steel said:


> I agree, with speeds like this anything stocked right at the middle of the crossing will definitely be a huge huge risk, not at that object but to that of the train..hno:


I hope a 160 kph train would hurt what it hit more than the train itself, otherwise, the train was not constructed properly

Luckily, the tractor suffered more than the train did in this case... The train suffered some superficial damage but thats normal, the tractor was torn apart though, as was the tuck it was sitting on.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

chornedsnorkack said:


> Merely because Germany is defined as a bigger region than Switzerland.


What nonsense! We are still living in a time of nation states, so people are mainly mobile within the border of the nation states. You would prefer that all Lower Saxonians just move around Lower Saxony? Nice idea, but this is Germany, people work in Bavaria, go home for the weekend to Mecklenburg, then set out again. Face it, the total S-Bahn idea might work in Switzerland and the Netherlands, but you cannot import this into a country where traveling 600 km is a reality for commuters countr-wide. Some German agglomerations have great public transport systems, but just expanding them indefinitely does neither combat Germans' love for big gasoline guzzling cars nor their urge to jump into an airplane for distances which would not get a Frenchman/-woman int such an uncomfortable vehicle anymore.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> @ k: the Lyon bypass is not useless. Just type Paris - Marseille into HAFAS, then check their intermediate stops and you will see that not one of those TGVs stops in Lyon.


I also see that there are not that many of them...




> And that is why Parisians make it to Marseille in 3 hrs 5 mins while Berliners, instad of being in Brennero in the same time (which is the equivalent distance) only make it to Saalfeld and in the future Nuremberg in the same time (Brennero takes 9.5 hrs).


I won't deny that the French railway system serves Parisians very well. That it servers Parisians better than the German railway system serves Berliners.
However, whereas in France only Paris matters, it is not so that in Germany only Berlin matters.

I'd suggest you just take all the cities of more than 100000 inhabitants in France, and look up travel times (and frequencies) between them, and do the same for Germany. In France you often have to do with only one useable connection per day between two places that aren't Paris. Not so in Germany.

The big Problem in France is that because the system isn't integrated well you lose a lot of time at the ends. For example: The TGVs from Geneva to the Mediterranean all call at Avignon TGV. If (like me in one case) you are travelling to some small village near Avignon you lose about half of the time you gained on Valence - Avignon again during the transfer to Avignon Ville, and waiting for the infrequent local train.
The trains are faster, but except for Parisians the travel isn't that much faster.



> You really fail to see the potential a system as sketched by Rohne would have. The problem is this would take serious money and that is something Germany does not invest into rail infrastructure.


Oh the system can be a lot better. That doesn't mean however that it should. How much would a bankrupt Germany be able to invest in to rail infrastructure? I think Germany is right in keeping the purse strings tight. 
See what happend to Greece. Invested a lot in rail infrastructure. Now it doesn't have money to run trains over it...



> Having said that, I still tend to defend the present Berlin - Munich HSL route. Granted, a direct line could have passed through the Leipzig city tunnel, thus saving time over the usual reversal and backing out the same direction from Leipzig Hbf.


I don't think that Berlin - München trains will call at Leipzig (and reverse there). Dresden - Leipzig - Erfurt (Frankfurt or München) trains will. 
Anyway, it's a minor inconvenience, as long distance trains stop for 3 or 4 minutes at major terminals anyway, and 4 minutes is about what you need to reverse a modern train.


----------



## K_

inanutshell said:


> At 3h for Berlin-Munich and if the trains were on time (so I'd only need to schedule 40min at beginning and end) I just might be convinced to take the train. And as other countries demonstrate, I'm not alone.


If you need to schedule a 40 minute buffer at the beginning the system is a failure. In a good system you never spend more than 15 minutes in transit through a station. 

(Look at the Cadiz - Sevilla timetable and the Sevilla - Madrid timetable and see what a potential RENFE is ignoring there...)


----------



## Baron Hirsch

1) You must put the departures on the TGV Mediterranée into persepctive. These are TGV Duplex in double traction, their capacity is huge, much more than ICN operating Berlin-Leipzig-Munich. I found one hourly departure to Marseille, but 8 departures per hour to Lyon, continuing to Grenoble, Avginon, Nice, Besancon, St. Etienn, Geneva, Figueras (all or mostly Duplex). None of these trains stop at all stations, but a select number of imtermediate stations. (mornings 6.45 to 7.45)
By contrast you have one hourly departure from Berlin to Leipzig and Munich by ICN, with the odd private Interconnex competing on the run down to Leipzig. I do not think this amounts to a considerable share of the considerable traffic between the two cities. Capacity and what is on offer is on another planet from the TGV Mediterranee.
2) Naturally you are right about French interregional and regional service. This is the realm where France could learn from other countries. But Germany has its blind spots too. Try getting to the far end of Germany from Konstanz, Trier, Zwickau, and you will find rather stone age traveling times. 
3) Sometimes you can waste money more by investing too little rather than too much. Take Cologne - Düren, speeding up to 250 for all of 39 km, to then slow down again and crawl towards Aachen. There is no significant gain in overall traveling time or attractivity to the route. The isolated routes of HSR in Germany must be patched together to a genuine system, only then will these investments make a genuine impact on the long distance travel market. As far as investments goes, I am surprised. Upping the rail infratructure investments from 4 to say 10 billion Euros and postponing a few useless Autobahn and airport runway extensions to compensate would not ruin Germany, it would secure DB and future private or foreign competitors agenuine share of the cake of the travel market. Your favorite example, Switzerland, is one of the highest per capita investors in Europe in rail infrastructure, and that is one of the reasons why they have the busiest rail system in Western Europe. Right now they are building a third (!) tunnel variation to connect the Basel-Zürich line through downtown Zürich to Oerlikon. The German pennypinchers ("Do not invest into large rail infrastrucure, just my local S-Bahn") would have a heartattack if they knew.
4) Finally, to my knowledge Berlin-Erfurt-Munich trains will to my knowledge stop alternatingly in Halle or Leipzig, with Halle offering a slight time advantage but Leipzig the more important destination of the two.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> 1) You must put the departures on the TGV Mediterranée into persepctive. These are TGV Duplex in double traction, their capacity is huge, much more than ICN operating Berlin-Leipzig-Munich. I found one hourly departure to Marseille, but 8 departures per hour to Lyon, continuing to Grenoble, Avginon, Nice, Besancon, St. Etienn, Geneva, Figueras (all or mostly Duplex). None of these trains stop at all stations, but a select number of imtermediate stations. (mornings 6.45 to 7.45)


The LGV Med serves Paris. And it serves Paris very well. Other places are not so well served. There is only one daily train between Lyon st. Exupery and Valence TGV, even though they are on the same high speed line...
The whole French TGV network basically operates to bring people to and from Paris. That's what having the capital in the same place for a couple of centuries does...
Germany is very different.

I sometimes have to travel from Switzerland to Belgium, and have the choice of going via France, or via Germany. The fastest way is by TGV, via Paris. By ICE via Köln is about an hour slower. However, traveling through Germany avoids having to change terminals in Paris, and the schedule gives me more options, so it is easier to plan my travel so that I leave comfortably after breakfast and still arrive before diner. And the food on the German trains is better too...




> Your favorite example, Switzerland, is one of the highest per capita investors in Europe in rail infrastructure, and that is one of the reasons why they have the busiest rail system in Western Europe. Right now they are building a third (!) tunnel variation to connect the Basel-Zürich line through downtown Zürich to Oerlikon. The German pennypinchers ("Do not invest into large rail infrastrucure, just my local S-Bahn") would have a heartattack if they knew.


But what the Swiss do is think very hard firstly about what infrastructure will bring before they built it. The timetable for the trains that will run through that tunnel is already known. Infrastructure development is driven by the desired timetable. The motto is "as fast as needed" not "as fast as possible". And it is succesful.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

When I visited Freiburg this autumn, I decided to visit Konstanz for a daytrip but I had to bury the idea since the fastest option would've taken 2,5h for that journey one-way (with 2 transfers) and I had no intention of spendig 5 hours in a Regionalbahn... Yet these are not very small towns, with populations 225,000 and 85,000 respectively. The distance between them is 105km as the crow flies, around 50% more by rail. I'm not sure whether this happens a lot in Germany or is it a special occasion.


----------



## Momo1435

The most direct line is via a small local line that runs trough the Black Forest mountains, and with all it twists and turns and slow speed doesn't make it the fastest route. The fastest route is a detour via Basel and Singen.

The big line through the Schwarzwald starts in Offenburg, north of Freiburg. From there there are a couple of direct IC trains to Konstanz, but that's also a 2,5 hour trip. It's not much faster then the local trains.

The thing about the German railways that there are enough similar city pairs that have a good connection, but also enough pairs like this one that don't. Konstanz is still a smaller town in Germany, right on the border and is not on a major railway line. This doesn't help to get there quickly by train. The car is by far the quickest option here, with a route of 125km. Although mostly not on the Autobahn it still takes you more then 1,5 hours according to Google Earth Directions.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

K_ said:


> I sometimes have to travel from Switzerland to Belgium, and have the choice of going via France, or via Germany. The fastest way is by TGV, via Paris. By ICE via Köln is about an hour slower. However, traveling through Germany avoids having to change terminals in Paris, and the schedule gives me more options, so it is easier to plan my travel so that I leave comfortably after breakfast and still arrive before diner. And the food on the German trains is better too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what the Swiss do is think very hard firstly about what infrastructure will bring before they built it. The timetable for the trains that will run through that tunnel is already known. Infrastructure development is driven by the desired timetable. The motto is "as fast as needed" not "as fast as possible". And it is succesful.


1. agreed there. Changing stations in Paris, except Nord and Est, is a nightmare. Rush through the endless caverns of RER or metro tunnels, cram onto an overloaded metro with just a little bit of baggage...
And the food in the onboard bistros of TGVs, nothing but plastic. Nor the claustrophobic seats. In all these categories the ICE and the German Hauptbahnhof system rather than directional stations are much preferable. 
2. And Swiss planning precision, yes, desirable - seeing that here (Turkey) high-speed train routes announce their schedule about three days before their opening and then change them a couple of times ad hoc afterwards, and the opening of new routes usually depends on the prime minister's spontaneous agenda rather than any planning.

@ rebassapois: As I stated in my post above, the DB network of high speed and fast conventional lines covers many cities, but far from all. Koblenz is one of the cities that fell off the grid. Often it is the decision to promote one route as main corridor that saps off any infrastructure investments or decent services. In this case, DB opted to develop the route Karlsuhe-Freiburg-Basel-Zürich as the main hig speed to semi-high speed route to Switzerland rather than Stuttgart-Konstanz-Zürich, and now the latter is being kept down in order not to compete with the former. Also there is no fast east to west connection in southern Germany (existing or planned) south of Stuttgart - Munich. 
However you should have gone. The route through the Black Forest is marvellous, one of the scenic highlights German rail has to offer.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> Also there is no fast east to west connection in southern Germany (existing or planned) south of Stuttgart - Munich.


The line Basel - Schaffhausen is to be electrified by 2016, which will speed it up. This will enable a frequent service with optimal connections in Basel and Schaffhausen. In the more distant future electrifying Singen - Friedrichshafen is planned.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

Baron Hirsch said:


> However you should have gone. The route through the Black Forest is marvellous, one of the scenic highlights German rail has to offer.


I did travel to Titisee so I didn't completely miss the scenery.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Now you could build paypasses around those hubs, but those bypasses will be expensive, and will never by heavily used.


By-passes will be rather short and therefore less expensive. They may remain lightly trafficked themself but are highly effective additions as they attract more traffic to the overall network and increase the load factor of the existing high-speed section.


----------



## Spam King

K_ said:


> The line Basel - Schaffhausen is to be electrified by 2016, which will speed it up. This will enable a frequent service with optimal connections in Basel and Schaffhausen. In the more distant future electrifying Singen - Friedrichshafen is planned.


The problem with Singen-Friedrichshafen isn't the fact it's not electrified, but the fact that it has so many single track sections. Überlingen station is in a trench and is single track, meaning many trains have to wait at Überlingen Therme (about 500m away) to pass that section. Then the line from Therme to Singen is pretty much all single tracked except for short sections at Radolfzell station. On the other side of Überlingen it's also one tracked all the way to Markdorf where the station has two tracks, but then becomes single tracked again all the way to Friedrichshafen.

Anyway, this is definitely not a priority section for double tracking or electrification. I'd like to see improvements on the connections from Schaffhausen to Friedrichshafen though. Would be nice to have a direct train. Oh and direct train from Zurich Airport to Schaffhausen (eliminate the need to change in Winterthur)


----------



## K_

Spam King said:


> The problem with Singen-Friedrichshafen isn't the fact it's not electrified, but the fact that it has so many single track sections. Überlingen station is in a trench and is single track, meaning many trains have to wait at Überlingen Therme (about 500m away) to pass that section.


Running an intensive timetable on a single track line is not really a big challenge. All that is needed is good planning the right infrastructure and timekeeping. Double tracking the tunnel through Überlingen itself is not really an option.
The problem here is outdated signalling. After having stopped in Überlingen the IRE must wait till the RB is stopped in Überlingen Therme, as the signalling and the regulations doesn't permit simultaneous entries by trains from both sides there. 
What would be doen here is modernise the signalling and train protection, and build a pedestrian underpass at Ü Therme, so that trains can enter the station from both directions at the same time and the timetable of both the IRE and RB trains can be sped up a bit.


----------



## Frank IBC

K_ said:


> The line Basel - Schaffhausen is to be electrified by 2016, which will speed it up. This will enable a frequent service with optimal connections in Basel and Schaffhausen. In the more distant future electrifying Singen - Friedrichshafen is planned.


Although mostly in Germany, that line has the last non-electrified lines in Switzerland, approaching Basel and at the other end approaching Schaffhausen. When that is electrified, Switzerland's rail network will be completely electric.


----------



## K_

Frank IBC said:


> Although mostly in Germany, that line has the last non-electrified lines in Switzerland, approaching Basel and at the other end approaching Schaffhausen. When that is electrified, Switzerland's rail network will be completely electric.


Concerning passenger trains, yes. There are a few freight - only lines that are not electrified too.


----------



## K_

Spam King said:


> Oh and direct train from Zurich Airport to Schaffhausen (eliminate the need to change in Winterthur)


That's planned for 2015...


----------



## kato2k8

inanutshell said:


> But the result of that policy is that DB is too slow to compete with the car for just about anything.


There's an exception to that, and that is regular commuting within urban areas between destinations with limited parking. Or in other words, S-Bahn networks, at least on distances of up to 20 km one-way.

Cars aren't cheaper on such distances either when one takes various offers from the _Verkehrsverbünde_ into account. The public transport ticket i use primarily for my daily commute comes up to about the same price as just the fuel for my car for the same commute.



Rohne said:


> About a third of Germany's population is inhabitant of the largest urban areas centering the aforementioned metro areas.


About half of the German population lives within the Blue Banana (40 million in the semi-continuous metro regions of Rhein-Ruhr-Cologne, Rhine-Main, Rhine-Neckar, Stuttgart, Munich) nicely matching what should be DBs primary long-distance high-capacity rail route. By the same logic it's not worth catering to any city outside that pattern with fast rail.

I support that logic btw. In the above sense at least.


----------



## Spam King

K_ said:


> Running an intensive timetable on a single track line is not really a big challenge. All that is needed is good planning the right infrastructure and timekeeping. Double tracking the tunnel through Überlingen itself is not really an option.
> The problem here is outdated signalling. After having stopped in Überlingen the IRE must wait till the RB is stopped in Überlingen Therme, as the signalling and the regulations doesn't permit simultaneous entries by trains from both sides there.
> What would be doen here is modernise the signalling and train protection, and build a pedestrian underpass at Ü Therme, so that trains can enter the station from both directions at the same time and the timetable of both the IRE and RB trains can be sped up a bit.




You seem to know your Bodensee railway well  I think with electrifying and improving signaling would be more than enough to improve service along that route. there doesn't seem to be much more need than that. Obviously I'd love a direct ICE connection between Zurich airport and Überlingen, but that's just selfish, especially when I take that route just two or three times a year.


----------



## Rohne

kato2k8 said:


> About half of the German population lives within the Blue Banana (40 million in the semi-continuous metro regions of Rhein-Ruhr-Cologne, Rhine-Main, Rhine-Neckar, Stuttgart, Munich) nicely matching what should be DBs primary long-distance high-capacity rail route. By the same logic it's not worth catering to any city outside that pattern with fast rail.


Too black and white. The former is the route that should have top priority, but that doesn't mean that there's no need to integrate some others of the country's metro areas (Munich, Hamburg and Berlin don't belong to the Blue Banana) as well.


----------



## kato2k8

Rohne said:


> that doesn't mean that there's no need to integrate some others of the country's metro areas as well.


Sure. We'd have to put priorities on those though, within this secondary rank. Munich? Easy to integrate, reasonably close, interlocking regional zone anyway. Potential of continuing on towards Vienna. Hamburg? Well, could be worthwhile in the course of attaching Denmark and beyond. Berlin? Lowest priority. Economically vastly underperforming area with next to no people living in the wider area, costly to attach through long distance, no real destinations beyond it in a European network.

The sad reality though is that as far a priorization goes this is just inverted compared to that.


----------



## MattN

Suburbanist said:


> Transport is not going to cease its existence in Germany if DB was dismantled and its assets sold, in parts, to different bidders. Germany would only lose the concept of a system operating as a "network", and would have to adjust to new realities (no more trains leaving Frankfurt to Stuttgart every 12 minutes past the hour). But we'd see, likely, lower prices.
> 
> A precedent: air transport, once organized in networks with the excuse of the need of central coordination and good use of the public resources sunk on runways, and the need to provide fairness with accessible fares to different parts of the country. And we can all fly nowadays because it is so cheap...


Worked a treat on most of the UK's buses, didn't it?:|


----------



## Suburbanist

MattN said:


> Worked a treat on most of the UK's buses, didn't it?:|


Well, you can get knock down fares in many routes, like London-Glasgow for £ 19 and Manchester-London for £ 9 with advance purchase.

For most people, there are now more offers, better buses and - bingo! - drivers don't strike because they will be promptly replaced.

Only hamlets in the countryside are far worse off like not having reasonable service or losing connections to nearby villages.

Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.


And interestingly these buses leave Berlin at 60 min intervals. Now why would that be...


----------



## MattN

Suburbanist said:


> Well, you can get knock down fares in many routes, like London-Glasgow for £ 19 and Manchester-London for £ 9 with advance purchase.
> 
> For most people, there are now more offers, better buses and - bingo! - drivers don't strike because they will be promptly replaced.
> 
> Only hamlets in the countryside are far worse off like not having reasonable service or losing connections to nearby villages.
> 
> Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.


Well done for deliberately missing the point. Intercity coaches are not the same as buses. Try looking at the enormously higher rate of fare increases versus inflation and ever declining patronage that afflict most British bus operations. Look at places that don't experience this. Most have integrated systems which are much more user friendly and still manage to have new buses.

As for that remark about striking, its rather desperate and complete rubbish. All manner of companies have experienced strikes in Britain, from local operators like Nottingham City Transport to multinationals like FirstGroup. And funnily enough, the services didn't remain shut down for weeks afterwards whilst they replaced their entire staff, not least because that would be illegal.

You appear to have a rather odd world view, in which everybody will benefit from a competition-based utopia which is plainly unachievable and the lower prices etc which will result, whilst at the same time nobody has the right to strike and is basically at the mercy of what their employers will be kind enough to give them, which will mean nobody can afford the services of all these competing businesses. All the while personal freedoms will be somewhat restricted, based essentially on your personal preferences.

Public Transport's primary competitor is the car, not another public transport service. I appreciate you think that public transport services/vehicles are somehow directly comparable to each car on the road in the way that they interact with users and infrastructure, but this is clearly nonsense. Public transport services are generally used and treated as infrastructure in themselves, and function best when co-ordinated. Imagine a world where, when driving somewhere, you had to pay double and wait for half an hour just to turn onto a different road.


----------



## kato2k8

A deconstruction of DB into small networks sold off would actually probably result in regional assemblies (already having planning authority for subsidized local public transport) taking them over or outright buying them up. This usually involves local companies as well. In many cases these would then refocus planning on providing even more stable use tables emphasizing the importance of local public transport, with interregional passenger and freight trains being reduced to use only excess capacity. At premium prices and on the conditions of the regional assembly of course.
Due to the interconnection between public transport planning authority and regional planning as a whole the resulting semi-privatized infrastructure company would also gain a hold over any outside company or agent - including the federation - wanting to build infrastructure through their territory.

At least that's what probably would happen in the richer south and west. In pisspoor east and north we'd probably have a rampage of private companies outbidding each other over the infrastructure blocks until they learn they've overreached and become insolvent, resulting in costsaving measures and the death of _any_ rail infrastructure and services in those areas.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I was thinking on breaking up the operations, not the infrastructure, would be controlled by a neutral federal agency, allowing whomever pays more for it to use it.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

It´s time for some pictures:

As you might know, Deutsche Bahn awaits the delivery of her first Velaro D highspeed trains. There are 16 trains on order but DB will get most probably one more for free from Siemens because of delivery delays. :cheers:

*Velaro D*

*Number of trains:* 
16 (probably 17)
*Vmax:* 
320 km/h
*Capacity:* 
460 passengers
*Delivery date:*
2012 - 2013
*Contract value:*
500 Million €uro










*A Velaro D being fitted out in the Siemens plant in Krefeld.*









*Velaro D on a test run.*


----------



## Coccodrillo

The initial order was 15 trains (Class 407, if I remember correctly). The 16th has been ordered to replaced an ICE3MF damaged in an incident (one of the 6 Class 406 sets available for Paris-Germany services), and now a 17th has been added.


----------



## gramercy

what are the chances of the Basel-Schaffhausen line being _completely_ electrified? I know the -border section will be


----------



## iamawesomezero

Awesome!


----------



## Momo1435

gramercy said:


> what are the chances of the Basel-Schaffhausen line being _completely_ electrified? I know the -border section will be


The plans are that the full electrification should be completed at the end of 2016.

source:
http://www.suedkurier.de/region/hoc...ich-bis-2016-elektrifiziert;art372623,5271875

It's only a 15km part of the line between Waldshut - Erzingen that is not part of the plans of the Regio S-Bahn Basel or the S-Bahn Schaffhausen. It would have been crazy if they would have decided to not electrify that part of the line.


----------



## flierfy

gramercy said:


> what are the chances of the Basel-Schaffhausen line being _completely_ electrified? I know the -border section will be


This railway line is rather lowly ranked on the priority list to say the least. So there is virtually zero chance of fund from Germany. So, unless Switzerland steps in I can't see it being electrified in a foreseeable time.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

Coccodrillo said:


> The initial order was 15 trains (Class 407, if I remember correctly). The 16th has been ordered to replaced an ICE3MF damaged in an incident (one of the 6 Class 406 sets available for Paris-Germany services), and now a 17th has been added.


^^
Correctamundo! :yes:
Maybe DB will get even more trains for free if Siemens will have to announce more delivery delays. :naughty:


*Velaro D in action :rock:*


----------



## Suburbanist

Deadeye Reloaded said:


> ^^
> Correctamundo! :yes:
> Maybe DB will get even more trains for free if Siemens will have to announce more delivery delays. :naughty:
> 
> Velaro D in action :rock:
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOJVZhhVay4">YouTube Link</a>


Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!

Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

Suburbanist said:


> Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!
> 
> Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.


^^
The additional train (the 17th) doesn´t cost DB one €uro. It´s for free. DB gets 17 trains for the price of 16. 

Sounds good for me.


----------



## hammersklavier

Suburbanist said:


> Well, you can get knock down fares in many routes, like London-Glasgow for £ 19 and Manchester-London for £ 9 with advance purchase.
> 
> For most people, there are now more offers, better buses and - bingo! - drivers don't strike because they will be promptly replaced.
> 
> Only hamlets in the countryside are far worse off like not having reasonable service or losing connections to nearby villages.
> 
> Incidentally, when I was in Berlin there were ads for direct buses to HAmburg and Hannover starting € 14.99 each way.


Those are intercity buses. The problems of British local buses are well-documented. Jarrett Walker puts it most succinctly: _take the bus that comes!_


Suburbanist said:


> Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!
> 
> Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.


Not remotely strange. In such cases the common practice is for the vendor to compensate with either (a) free equipment or (b) $$$.

IIRC (in the US) SEPTA's two ALP-44s came about because the N-5 order ran late. This is a typical example.


----------



## Sopomon

Suburbanist said:


> Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!
> 
> Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.


As an earlier poster said, DB gets a free Velaro D, personally I wouldn't turn that offer down! 

But also, as an aside, I can't believe you're actually suggesting anyone would still place an order with ansaldoBreda, that company is in a terrible state!


----------



## K_

hammersklavier said:


> Not remotely strange. In such cases the common practice is for the vendor to compensate with either (a) free equipment or (b) $$$.
> 
> IIRC (in the US) SEPTA's two ALP-44s came about because the N-5 order ran late. This is a typical example.


When Siemens (again) was late delivering double deckers for Zürichs' commuters services they delivered an extra set free of charge as compensation.

It is indeed quite common.


----------



## Coccodrillo

If there is no need for new trains, but one or two more would be useful, then a new tender is dangerous and an agreement like these is better. Having a single or a pair of trains of a different type (in this example, it could be 16 Velaro D and a single TGV) only increases operating costs and complicates management. That's why prototypes and small series of vehicles are usually put out of service before than usual life length of a train.

In the pas, however, when trains were simpler prototype engines lasted longer, like SBB Ae 4/8 single example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_Ae_4/8 (42 years!).


----------



## makita09

Suburbanist said:


> Very strange contract arrangement: I delay your order and then, instead of getting fined or a price reduction, I have your order increased!
> 
> Non-sense: with delay, DB should get money and put a tender for new units. Maybe Alstom, CAF or andaldoBreda could take those orders.


Note to self. When Suburbanist comes into my shop offer him something extra for free. He'll decline and then _buy_ something else. Not only that he'll opt for something with absolutely no economies of scale!


----------



## Suburbanist

makita09 said:


> Note to self. When Suburbanist comes into my shop offer him something extra for free. He'll decline and then buy something else. Not only that he'll opt for something with absolutely no economies of scale!


I am not telling that economies of scale wouldn't exist, just that this kind of arrangement, especially considering they are being made by two "flagship companies", should be ringing the bell of
Competition authority in Bruxelles.

It seems collusion: we DB put out an unreasonably tight scheduled tender, Siemens bids and wins (and not Alstom, Bombardier, CAF or AnsladoBreda), but we are cool that you delay the trains because you will deliver couple more units.

That is why I prefer monetary fines for this kind of delay, it avoids the smell of corruption even if there is none actual corruption


----------



## Silly_Walks

Sopomon said:


> But also, as an aside, I can't believe you're actually suggesting anyone would still place an order with ansaldoBreda, that company is in a terrible state!


lol Suburbanist is a total AnsaldoBreda troll. Whenever some negative news (i.e. facts) about AnsaldoBreda surfaces, he is the first to downplay it and say that nothing is wrong with AnsaldoBreda, and it is all the fault of the people ordering the trainsets ("they keep changing their order", etc.).

I don't know why this is. Maybe he has AnsaldoBreda stock. Maybe he works there. Maybe he has Italian roots and takes attacks on Italian companies personal?


But if you really want to laugh, read his explanations on how urban sprawl is the pinnacle of freedom and prosperity :lol:


----------



## Silly_Walks

Suburbanist said:


> It seems collusion: we DB put out an unreasonably tight scheduled tender, Siemens bids and wins (and not Alstom, Bombardier, CAF or AnsladoBreda), but we are cool that you delay the trains because you will deliver couple more units.


lol, AnsaldoBreda bid on a reasonably scheduled tender in the Netherlands, offering to do it for such a low price that they had to win the bid. 
There are also delays, but UNLIKE Siemens, they don't offer a free train, but instead offer MORE delays, costing millions upon millions for, eventually, the Dutch traveller and tax payer.

I'd rather go with the Siemens scenario. A free train that works.


----------



## Suburbanist

Silly_Walks said:


> lol, AnsaldoBreda bid on a reasonably scheduled tender in the Netherlands, offering to do it for such a low price that they had to win the bid.
> There are also delays, but UNLIKE Siemens, they don't offer a free train, but instead offer MORE delays, costing millions upon millions for, eventually, the Dutch traveller and tax payer.
> 
> I'd rather go with the Siemens scenario. A free train that works.


Whatever, the reasoning stay: that smells collusion to "keep the money in Germany" like some SNCF practices seem to be collusion with Alstom.

In 2012 that is totally unjustifiable.


----------



## Silly_Walks

Suburbanist said:


> Whatever, the reasoning stay: that smells collusion to "keep the money in Germany" like some SNCF practices seem to be collusion with Alstom.
> 
> In 2012 that is totally unjustifiable.


So you want Siemens to pay a fine, and then DB should use that money to buy one single trainset from a non-Germany manufacturer?

You were a lot less forgiving of AnsaldoBreda when they did far worse. Your double standards worry me, young Padewan.
Denmark and The Netherlands should get 10 extra trainsets from AnsaldoBreda for free for their horrible behaviour... too bad it would take till 2050 for them to arrive.


----------



## Wilhem275

And they still won't work :bash: best thing AB could do is to DIE!


----------



## Suburbanist

Forget AnsaldoBreda, I just mentioned them among other European train makers. Btw, it gave 43% discount to the Danish because of the delay on the IC4.

DB wouldn't buy one extra train initially, otherwise it would have ordered 17 and not 16 train sets first place. So it should get the fine and end of story. If it decides to order more trains, so be it: a new tender.

Unless, of course, DB were privatized and stopped getting public money. Then it should be free to take its own decisions.


----------



## Coccodrillo

In case of an accident it's more useful an extra train than 30 millions in abank account. DB discovered that when an ICE3MF was damaged beyond repair after an accident, requiring replacement by a French TGV. Cisalpino discovered that when it had to rent trains to replace the ETR 470 and late delivered ETR 610. And there are certainly many more examples where a single train (that isn't worth ordering alone via a tender) is well worth. By the way, the EU accept that. And even AnsaldoBreda, when it delivered two extra Sirio tramways to Goteborg. Or Iveco, as it gave some free buses to Milan because of problems with its products.


----------



## flierfy

Suburbanist said:


> DB wouldn't buy one extra train initially, otherwise it would have ordered 17 and not 16 train sets first place. So it should get the fine and end of story. If it decides to order more trains, so be it: a new tender.


Delivering an additional train-set is the cheapest way for Siemens as it is the most beneficial compensation Deutsche Bahn (and its costumers) could get. Remember DB is rather short on rolling stock. So, one more train-set doesn't harm. It is a good deal for both companies. Nothing fishy, really.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Unless, of course, DB were privatized and stopped getting public money. Then it should be free to take its own decisions.


DB doesn't get public money for its long distance network.


----------



## IanCleverly

A full length train ride on the S1 Line of the Rhine-Main S-Bahn.






(Was placed Wrongly by me in the Rhine-Ruhr transport thread)

By the way, when I watched this last night, I could only last a few minutes before having to turn the volume down, as the 'motor hum' (at least I think that's what was causing it) was too distracting for me. Is there any Heath and Safety regulation that would prevent train drivers from *Not* being allowed ear plugs of some kind?

When the train was at it's highest speed, the rush of wind going past would alleviate any noise, so it would be alright then.


----------



## mgk920

In the USA, some railroads issue/allow their drivers to use noise-canceling headsets that are plugged into their radios.

Mike


----------



## makita09

IanCleverly said:


> By the way, when I watched this last night, I could only last a few minutes before having to turn the volume down, as the 'motor hum' (at least I think that's what was causing it) was too distracting for me.


I think you're actually referring to the air conditioning. It doesn't sound that loud, and remember the audio has been dynamic-range compressed, so don't infer too much from it.


----------



## Wilhem275

I agree. Most of the noise in a modern train's cab (especially EMUs) is due to the air conditioning "wind", and to aerodynamic noise at high speeds.
Two types of noise which typically cameras tend to amplify.

Older machines where very noisy inside, while in modern trains much has been done to reduce this problem


----------



## Matz32Z

Munich

S Bahn S3 Railroad Monachium-Augsburg










Muncih Pasing (obecnie modernizowana)









Station Munich Moosach (S Bahn 1 / U Bahn 3)


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ very dangerous situation at the last video. DB should install some PSDs there. Not overnight, but on a long-term plan to make stations safer and platforms more physically isolated from the tracks.


----------



## XAN_

Why waste money for saving lifes of people who can't understand the simplest rules of railway - no standing on the edge, no walking on the track? It better spend that money for satisfying actual paying customers?


----------



## webeagle12

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ very dangerous situation at the last video. DB should install some PSDs there. Not overnight, but on a long-term plan to make stations safer and platforms more physically isolated from the tracks.


I swear to god, you are worse than a woman. Everywhere in railway section I see your replies about "fences, railroads not safe, not secure, and etc..." I think if railroads will have 10 foot fences, you still will find to complain about. Be REAL....


----------



## Hubert Pollak

XAN_ said:


> Why waste money for saving lifes of people who can't understand the simplest rules of railway - no standing on the edge, no walking on the track? It better spend that money for satisfying actual paying customers?


Saving life is always important. You can not count money = life.

Anyway thousands more people die walking on the stretts killed by drivers than walking on the edge of the platforms, nobody died on this video.


----------



## Suburbanist

webeagle12 said:


> I swear to god, you are worse than a woman. Everywhere in railway section I see your replies about "fences, railroads not safe, not secure, and etc..." I think if railroads will have 10 foot fences, you still will find to complain about. Be REAL....


I just want them to be more isolated and segregated, in line with my philosophy that each type of vehicle must have its own ROW and be physically protected. Just that.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ very dangerous situation at the last video. DB should install some PSDs there. Not overnight, but on a long-term plan to make stations safer and platforms more physically isolated from the tracks.


Installing platform screen doors is difficult if a line is served by different types of rolling stock with doors in different places.


----------



## Suburbanist

Gag Halfrunt said:


> Installing platform screen doors is difficult if a line is served by different types of rolling stock with doors in different places.


Yes. They'd need then to install sliding PSDs or put the doors/gates on the stairs that give access to the platform, opening them only before a train that will stop is approaching.


----------



## Vaud

Suburbanist said:


> Yes. They'd need then to install sliding PSDs or put the doors/gates on the stairs that give access to the platform, opening them only before a train that will stop is approaching.


Seriously, doors on the stairs? Sometimes I find it particularly hard to know whether you are trying to joke while fooling everyone into thinking that you say those things for real, or you actually believe your words.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I think the majority of fatal incidents of passengers falling on tracks happen near stations, not along rural areas, for obvious reasons. 

Putting a physical barrier to seal off platforms would help.

Seat bels on airplanes were once considered "a joke" and helmets once heavily frowned upon by motorcyclists.


----------



## XAN_

99% incidents happens due to (mental) inability of some people to not cross the damn line!

Having a dedicated ROW - great! Just benefits of screening a to small for general use railways, compared to expenses and complicity of process. Unlike the mass urban transit and some stations of dedicated HSR, were PSD are easier to install and benefits are grater due to greater density of passengers.


----------



## NordikNerd

In 2008 I took this train from Copenhagen to Munich. The night train arrived 3h late to Munich. We went to the DB Travel-Info centre and received new tickets for Verona, we missed that connecting train because of the delay.

What is the situation nowadays? Are these long distance trains still slow and delayed?


----------



## thun

NordikNerd said:


> What is the situation nowadays? Are these long distance trains still slow and delayed?


I hope you realize that you can't derive a structural problem from a single incident.
Anyways, Süddeutsche Zeitung runs a *live tracker of all long distance trains in Germany* showing delays and reasons for a few weeks now: www.zugmonitor.sueddeutsche.de
Feel free to take your own conclusions!


----------



## twentyfivetacos

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I think the majority of fatal incidents of passengers falling on tracks happen near stations, not along rural areas, for obvious reasons.
> 
> Putting a physical barrier to seal off platforms would help.
> 
> Seat bels on airplanes were once considered "a joke" and helmets once heavily frowned upon by motorcyclists.


Vast majority of people who get hit by trains are suicides you imbecile


----------



## Kampflamm

Suburbanist said:


> Yes. They'd need then to put the doors/gates on the stairs that give access to the platform, opening them only before a train that will stop is approaching.


Yeah, so that people will get crushed during rush hour. :troll:


----------



## Vaud

twentyfivetacos said:


> Vast majority of people who get hit by trains are suicides you imbecile


I was going to say the same, but you don't need to insult, suburbanist might have bizarre ideas but that precisely speaks well for him


----------



## Suburbanist

Kampflamm said:


> Yeah, so that people will get crushed during rush hour. :troll:


Danger of falling on tracks is greater than danger of crushing on gates IMO.


----------



## inanutshell

Suburbanist said:


> Danger of falling on tracks is greater than danger of crushing on gates IMO.


Worthy proposals but shouldn't we focus on the greater danger first? The way to the train station on public roads?

Cars are dangerous, the only solution is to limit their speed to 30 km/h everywhere, install screen doors at all intersection and demand the constant use of the horn to warn endangered pedestrians.


Also, you're wrong. Stampedes might occur less frequently but can be extremely deadly and you can avoid falling on the tracks with a bit of prudence and common sense while there's nothing you can do if you get crushed by a mass of people.


I also don't see what's so dangerous about that specific platform. The escalator limits the number of people that can surface in any given time period and there is no reason for people to stop in that part of the platform so there is no overcrowding.


----------



## K_

inanutshell said:


> Cars are dangerous, the only solution is to limit their speed to 30 km/h everywhere, install screen doors at all intersection and demand the constant use of the horn to warn endangered pedestrians.


I actually would propose that all cars have to be preceded by a person with a flag. A horn is a nuisance. Car drivers have to submit a driving plan before taking to the road, and those plans are published, so the public can inform itself.
I propose that we make filing a driving plan very expensive for people who want to just drive whenever they want, and give reductions to people who can commit to a schedule beforehand...


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Danger of falling on tracks is greater than danger of crushing on gates IMO.


The risk of both is vanishingly small, so it's really not relevant what is the higher risk...


----------



## K_

NordikNerd said:


> In 2008 I took this train from Copenhagen to Munich. The night train arrived 3h late to Munich. We went to the DB Travel-Info centre and received new tickets for Verona, we missed that connecting train because of the delay.


You wouldn't have had to go to the travel centre for that, you could just have boarded the next available train to Verona.



> What is the situation nowadays? Are these long distance trains still slow and delayed?


I've never had major delays on night trains the last couple of years. The night train to Köln I take regularly was punctual every time (I'm due to take that one again in two weeks time). We had maybe 10 minutes delay in Zagreb once. 

Night trains actually have quite a bit of slack in their schedules so that they are usually on time. I once was on a Palermo - Milano train that managed to accumulate an hour of delay while still in Sicily, but arrived spot on time in Milano nevertheless.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Night trains actually have quite a bit of slack in their schedules so that they are usually on time. I once was on a Palermo - Milano train that managed to accumulate an hour of delay while still in Sicily, but arrived spot on time in Milano nevertheless.


Those abominations were eliminated from the Italian timetable last December. But that is for the Italian thread.


----------



## kato2k8

Vaud said:


> Seriously, doors on the stairs? Sometimes I find it particularly hard to know whether you are trying to joke while fooling everyone into thinking that you say those things for real, or you actually believe your words.


I know at least one station in Germany where you cannot access the platforms until a train has come to a full stop. Until then you're stuck behind a door with an electronic lock. Östrich-Winkel, west of Wiesbaden.


----------



## rheintram

Suburbanist said:


> Those abominations were eliminated from the Italian timetable last December. But that is for the Italian thread.


Thank god what you just said is bullshit as usual. Night trains still exist in Italy.


----------



## Matz32Z

S Bahn Munich

S7 Wolfratshausen-Hauptbahnhof














S3 Holzkirchen -Ostbahnhof


----------



## webeagle12

K_ said:


> You wouldn't have had to go to the travel centre for that, you could just have boarded the next available train to Verona.


not if it's some kind of discount tickets that only valid for that train/time or they have reservation seats.


----------



## AlexNL

webeagle12 said:


> not if it's some kind of discount tickets that only valid for that train/time or they have reservation seats.


You're entitled to it. After all, you can't help it if you miss your connection. It's one of the basic passenger rights imposed under EU law.

However, going to a Travel Center will assure you will get new reservations (if still possible) and tickets, so it will save the train crew hassle on board.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

AlexNL said:


> You're entitled to it. After all, you can't help it if you miss your connection. It's one of the basic passenger rights imposed under EU law.
> 
> However, going to a Travel Center will assure you will get new reservations (if still possible) and tickets, so it will save the train crew hassle on board.


You are usually instructed to take care of this at the information desk ("Service Point", in Neo-German), They usually check whether your train was actually delayed (if it is not obvious by the crowds at their desk), then stamp your ticket accordingly.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Sorry...errr......


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> You are usually instructed to take care of this at the information desk ("Service Point", in Neo-German), They usually check whether your train was actually delayed (if it is not obvious by the crowds at their desk), then stamp your ticket accordingly.


Actually the conductor on the delayed train will mention the delay on the back of the ticket if so asked, as he has to do that. That's all you need to claim your entitlement for other transportation.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

Deutsche Bahn placed an order for *51* new Bombardier Talent 2 for 200 millions Euro.

These trains will be used around the city of Leipzig where the construction of the City-Tunnel (for S-Bahn and regional trains) is almost completed. 

*Bombardier Talent 2 ("Hamsterbacke" = "Hamster cheek")* 









*City Tunnel Leipzig*


----------



## romaticer

Nice to meet Everybody.German's nice and famous in the world.I don't know and have been to German.I like the best football German.They're famous in the word.


----------



## thun

Deadeye Reloaded said:


> These trains will be used around the city of Leipzig where the construction of the City-Tunnel (for S-Bahn and regional trains) is almost completed.


Or stay at the railyard until they're completely rusty. :lol:


----------



## K_

thun said:


> Or stay at the railyard until they're completely rusty. :lol:


The 5 car version shown will anyway not be used on the Leipzig S-Bahn...


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

thun said:


> Or stay at the railyard until they're completely rusty. :lol:


^^
What´s the problem with these Talent 2 trains? I admit I´m not that good informed about railway issues.  



K_ said:


> The 5 car version shown will anyway not be used on the Leipzig S-Bahn...


^^
I just googled for a nice picture of this train. I´m deeply sorry that the number of cars isn´t correct.


----------



## thun

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_2#Zulassungsverfahren
and for example
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtscha...-talent-die-bahn-wartet-auf-den-zug-1.1159672


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

^^
Thx, this sounds like a serious clusterfuck of problems. hno:

Boeing´s first ICE


----------



## KingNick

And I always thought DB only cooperates with LH...


----------



## krnboy1009

Deadeye Reloaded said:


> ^^
> Thx, this sounds like a serious clusterfuck of problems. hno:
> 
> Boeing´s first ICE


Why is a railroad company operating a plane for?


----------



## thun

It isn't. Its an advertisement.


----------



## krnboy1009

Oh, I see. Pretty extensive ad thpugh. Makes you think the company owns the plane.


----------



## Momo1435

There's also a DB Regio plane.


D-ATUC by bwi2muc, on Flickr



KingNick said:


> And I always thought DB only cooperates with LH...


It's not just Lufthansa, several airlines have code share agreements with Deutsche Bahn like American Airlines, Qantas & China Airlines. 

The DB also has deals with many airline including TUIfly (the operator of these 2 planes) with the Rail&Fly ticket. This ticket takes air passengers from the selected airlines to and from the airport (all German airports and even Basel and Amsterdam) from any railway station in Germany for €29. 

"Zug zum Flug" (the train to the flight) is the slogan for this ticket, so the airplane ads are promoting this Rail&Fly ticket.


----------



## Rohne

There are different kinds of cooperation.
A huge number of Airlines take part in Rail&Fly.
Then there's the codeshare connections of Qantas, American, China Airlines and some others on ICE trains from FRA to major German cities.
And additionally there's the AIRail service, a cooperation of DB and Lufthansa between FRA and Köln as well as Stuttgart. Those trains, where some seats are blocked for LH passengers, even have an LH code, and the served stations Köln, Siegburg and Stuttgart have their own IATA-Codes as the trains are to be booked like ordinary flights. AIRail even resulted in the cancellation of all flights between FRA and CGN, on FRA-STR there are only four daily flights left.


----------



## Matz32Z

S Bahn Munich - Lane A Altomuster - Dachau


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Horrible sectors with single-line unprotected tracks, ungated crossing etc. S-Bahn should never be authorized to run on ungated crossings or not to be isolated so that pedestrians don't cross tracks outside designated crossings.


----------



## gramercy

it's a bloodbath all right :weird:


----------



## Sopomon

Momo1435 said:


> Siemens and the DB has made a compromise on the delivery of the new Siemens Velaro D ICE 3 stets, after a meeting organized by the German transport minister. The 1st 8 sets of the 16 sets that are on order will be delivered from now until November so that they can be introduced into service with the next timetable that will start in December.
> 
> source in German:
> http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article106324778/Siemens-liefert-der-Bahn-endlich-acht-ICEs.html
> 
> Although the sets have been ordered for international services to the Benelux, France and London they will now be used only for domestic services because they are still not approved for the use in all the other countries. Earlier the DB only wanted to accept them when they were fully approved to the specifications in the order. But now they will use them domestically to ease the effect of the ongoing problems that are caused by shortage of the current domestic ICE fleet until they get their full approval for the international use.
> 
> 
> The Velaro D ICE 3, Baureihe 407
> 
> 
> 
> Velaro D , tz 4702 by GeraldB's railfotos, on Flickr



Urgghhhh, I wish they integrated the "hump" on the roof into the design better, it just looks silly in its current state.
Or maybe it's just me, but I think I prefer the old Velaro design. However the e320 units could be quite good looking.

EDIT: Aw, shucks, I meant to use the other photo, otherwise it looks like I'm complaining about a communications antenna lol.


----------



## thun

Momo1435 said:


> Siemens Velaro D ICE 3


According to Siemens its called "Velaro D" (series 407) and has nothing to do with "ICE 3" (Series 403 and 406). In fact, the ICE 3 was buildt in a cooperation by Siemens and Bombardier, whilst the Velaro family was developed from the ICE 3 by Siemens alone.
On the other hand, DB apparently called the sets "new ICE 3", so its quite confusing.


----------



## inanutshell

> Or maybe it's just me, but I think I prefer the old Velaro design. However the e320 units could be quite good looking.


The Velaro D and the EuroStar e320 are, to me, the best example of how much of a difference a paint job can make.

I don't know any other train where there's such a pronounced difference. The Hikari RailStar gets an honorable mention though.


----------



## MarcVD

K_ said:


> Retrofitting ETCS to existing stock is pretty expensive, as you have to replace the instrumentation in the drivers' cabin. However, there is no reason why, once the TBL+ balises start broadcasting ETCS telegrams that they should stop broadcasting TBL+ info. So using both systems in paralel seems to be likely.


Well, I did not made up this story. It is something that SNCB has officially
communicated. The stock that cannot be upgraded to ETCS will disappear
by 2023. That's what they say, future will tell...


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## rheintram

Velaro D in its DB livery is not very elegant at all...


----------



## thun

The whole IC(E) livery is sh** imo.


----------



## Suburbanist

Livery is extremely secondary for State (de facto) rail monopolists who don't have to fight for passenger market share as they are sole operators.


----------



## AlexNL

That's not true. Even monopolists pay attention to livery and style. The ÖBB Railjet for example has even won a design award!

Taste is personal, either you like it or you don't. The DB Fernverkehr AG color scheme is white with a red line, and I think it's beautiful. On a shiny train, that is. I like it on the Velaro D, I just think the _en profil_ shot is sh*t 

What I dislike is that - according to my information - the Velaro D no longer has the "Smart Glass" windows as seen in ICE 3, where passengers could have a look over the driver's shouder. If the driver wants that, of course.


----------



## Sunfuns

Who in their right minds is choosing transportation options based on livery??? 

For majority it's some combination of speed, convenience and price... For me long distance train is the preferred choice if it takes no more than 4-4.5 h, is faster than with a car, doesn't cost significantly more than a plane and my final destination is a big city with good public transportation. Basel-Paris would be a good example.


----------



## AlexNL

Livery is important in an open access market, as it helps to distinguish your brand among others. Thalys has done a great job at this: almost everyone recognizes the deep, warm red color of a Thalys train and the Thalys brand. This helps Thalys to stand out among ICE and (later) Fyra, even if they were to use the same rolling stock.

The same goes for Eurostar, since they'll be using the same trains as Deutsche Bahn. I think a Velaro e320 looks absolutely beautiful:

Kensington Gardens by portemolitor, on Flickr


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ It looks ok, not as good as an AGV or a V-250 though (in my opinion).

As for translucent glasses peeking into the cabin, I'm glad they are getting rid of that security failure. I think they should tint or paint the existing glasses as well, passengers have no business peeking into the engineer doing his/her job, and the engineer has no job putting a "performance" for an audience as well.


----------



## AlexNL

I prefer the look of a Pendolino or AGV as well, but it certainly doesn't look bad. 

I do disagree about the translucent glass - right now it's already up to the driver to decide whether or not he wants to give a show. If he does, he simply presses a button and the people can look over his shoulder. By default, the screen is dimmed - it's also dimmed when the train lowers pantographs etc.

From what I've read, the Velaro D will not have the vestibules immediately behind the driver's cab, as some safety equipment will be there. That's the reason why the translucent glass had to go. Furthermore, compartiments are gone too, it's all "Grossraumwagen" in Velaro D.


----------



## Maadeuurija

a diesel locomotive in Kiel harbor


----------



## Silly_Walks

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ It looks ok, not as good as [...] a V-250 though


Now i KNOW you're just trolling.


----------



## Sopomon

Silly_Walks said:


> Now i KNOW you're just trolling.


DURRR DURRRRRR DURRRRR DURRRRRRR

Christ that thing just looks ridiculous. And still, none of them are in commercial service right? (Sorry for O/T)

On topic; I don't think that the DB livery is bad, it's very iconic, and has clean lines, it looks very "professional" for lack of a better word. It's just that I think Siemens dun goofed with the aesthetic design of the Velaro D and ended up making it look more like a humpback whale than a train. And unfortunately, the DB livery in this case doesn't compliment it at all.


----------



## thun

The Fiat Multipla of train design. :cripes:


----------



## AlexNL

Sopomon said:


> DURRR DURRRRRR DURRRRR DURRRRRRR
> 
> Christ that thing just looks ridiculous. And still, none of them are in commercial service right? (Sorry for O/T)


Correct, but that will change within a few months.


----------



## Suburbanist

Well, I think at the end of the day it is a matter of purely aesthetic preferences. I like trains with flat "noseheads" like the V250 or my favorite, the Talgo 250










Of course there is no such train running in Germany, because DB don't order trains from Spain for political reasons (which is another reason why DB should be broken and privatized). It uses its special relationship with Siemens to "keep the money in Germany" and that should be repudiated in the EU common market.


----------



## AlexNL

Suburbanist said:
 

> Of course there is no such train running in Germany, because DB don't order trains from Spain for political reasons (which is another reason why DB should be broken and privatized). It uses its special relationship with Siemens to "keep the money in Germany" and that should be repudiated in the EU common market.


That is not true: a couple of months ago DB closed a deal with Alstom (French), Stadler (Swiss) and CAF (Spanish) for a framework agreement for the supply of new trains for the Regionalverkehr. The first batch of trains stemming from this deal is a bunch of new Alstom Coradia LINT trains for the Regionalverkehr around Cologne.

The reason for this can be found in disappointment over the German industry: not only did Siemens let down DB with the much delayed Velaro D (which has literally set the ICE to London project back by a few years!), Bombardier let down DB as well with the troubled TALENT 2 trains. Then there's tough negotiations about the ICx and the fact that the state-of-the-art ICE 3 trains (built by Siemens and Bombardier's predecessor, ADtranz) has got quite a share of problems.


----------



## Momo1435

Here's how the EMUs produced by CAF will look like. The DB has made a framework agreement with CAF, Stadler and Alstom for 400 regional EMUs. 


















source: http://www.lks.es/C/AA/DI/DD/portfo...language/es-ES/Regional-train-for-DB-CAF.aspx


----------



## Coccodrillo

DB also has a few Talgo sets for night trains.


----------



## MarcVD

Coccodrillo said:


> DB also has a few Talgo sets for night trains.


Are they still used ? Last time I went to Berlin, I saw a few units rotting
away in a siding along the east-west line, not far from Ostbahnof...


----------



## Momo1435

DB only got the Talgo sets as a return order after the Spanish used German technology for their 1st HSL (Madrid-Sevilla) and a Spanish order for Siemens locomotives (Eurosprinter, Class 252). I doubt they would have got them without political involvement.

They aren't used anymore, 2009 was the last year in service. They where up for a mid-life refurbishment, the DB didn't want to spend more money on them. Since then they have been used for a couple of special trains. But now they are awaiting a second life somewhere else or the scrappers.


----------



## Atomicus

Momo1435 said:


> Here's how the EMUs produced by CAF will look like. The DB has made a framework agreement with CAF, Stadler and Alstom for 400 regional EMUs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> source: http://www.lks.es/C/AA/DI/DD/portfo...language/es-ES/Regional-train-for-DB-CAF.aspx


Looks like a revised version of the ones we got here in Madrid.


----------



## Wilhem275

Momo1435 said:


> But now they are awaiting a second life somewhere else or the scrappers.


And that's a pity, since I used them twice (B>M and HH>M) and they had the best reclining night seats I've ever tried, combined with an excellent ride quality.

A couple of months ago I had another B>M, this time with ordinary X coaches, and the travel quality was not even near to the Talgo's one.

If DB wants to scrap those trains, I hope they may sell those reclining seats, I'd install them at home 

I don't know if they're still awaiting death at Warschauer Str. depot... I don't recall seeing them again this year.


----------



## Momo1435

^^ They are now in Hamm, the DB uses the former freight yard there as a long term storage for trains that have gone out of service. They even gave it a fancy name: Stillstandsmanagement Hamm

Here's a video of the talgo cars going from Berlin to Hamm, they connected all the sets together to make 1 long 50 car train.








Atomicus said:


> Looks like a revised version of the ones we got here in Madrid.


They do indeed.

The DB still has to place an actual order for the CAF trains. Stadler and Alstom have already seen an order from the framework agreement.

btw here's how the Stadler and the Alstom trains look like.

Stadler Flirt 3









http://www.eurailpress.de/article/v...n-stadler-und-alstom-fuer-vrr-leistungen.html


Alstom Coradia Continental (upgraded version of the BR440)









http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/...ontinental-regional-trains-to-deutsche-bahn-/


To make the recent orders for new EMUs types complete, the DB also ordered double deck EMU's from Bombardier. These came out of the framework agreement for the double deck coaches. The 4-car EMU will have 2 motor cars at the 2 ends and 2 regular double deck coaches in between.









http://www.bombardier.com/en/corporate/media-centre/press-releases/details?docID=0901260d801f81e5


----------



## Sunfuns

Having seen quite a few trains in Europe now and ICE's have the best design, but that's a matter of taste of course... I like the color scheme in particular.


----------



## AlexNL

The Coradia Continental is obviously happy about becoming reality, look at it smile :lol:


----------



## Wilhem275

I tried the BR440 on a quick round trip M<->Augsburg and I didn't like it. The windows are a joke, small and weirdly higher than the seats.
Claustrophoby at its best... we rode that train to see the new 4-track Muenchen - Augsburg, but "seeing" was almost impossible.

But I understand the plan: making windows so high that they let you see only a little above the omnispread noise barriers... :bash:


About the Doppelstock EMUs: always wondered how would those coaches be as MU (the DMU already exists), but I'm pretty worried about the M+T+T+M setup... in Italy we had some "unfortunate" results with the shi**y TAF trains...

About ICE 3 and Velaro D shape: the white-with-red-stripe scheme was innovative in the 90s on the ICE1, making them a stunning piece of industrial design (and still is, IMO).
On the ICE 3 it was well applied, but the train itself showed a dynamic and equlibrate shape.
This is what the Velaro D is missing: too many pieces in the front, and no more of that linear shape of its predecessor. It seems bulky.
The Eurostar livery, with its full-yellow front, hides this pretty well; the ICE livery does not.
And I think that on traditional coaches the ICE livery is not that good... probably because they miss the typical "cool detail": the black stripe on the windows.

I've seen this on an Italian HST, due to a recent change of colour scheme: it lost the black windows stripe, and now it seems an old carriage...


----------



## thun

The 440 is a bit weird, that's true. I frankly don't think its a big step forward.

Those new EMUs all look pretty ugly to me. The double decker is ok.

@ Talgo: really a pitty they were put out of service. Having used an Talgo night train in Spain I have to say they are way superior to conventional sleeper coaches in terms of ride quality.


----------



## inanutshell

Wilhem275 said:


> About the Doppelstock EMUs: always wondered how would those coaches be as MU (the DMU already exists), but I'm pretty worried about the M+T+T+M setup... in Italy we had some "unfortunate" results with the shi**y TAF trains..


Well, DB's sitting on a million billion Doppelstock coaches, so whatever the problem you can be certain that for the next 30 years the solution will involve Doppelstock coaches.

Of the single-level EMUs I don't like the CAF version. The other two look pretty good though.


----------



## thun

Apparently the FLIRT 3 uses the same front as the BLS-Stadler KISS. The best front design of all FLIRTs imo has the NSB version, though.


----------



## walker wiefel

I like the happy-face 









http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/...ontinental-regional-trains-to-deutsche-bahn-/


----------



## Jay

yea it's much nicer than the angry faces of some trains.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> As for translucent glasses peeking into the cabin, I'm glad they are getting rid of that security failure.


Why is that a security failure? For DB it used to be even a source of extra income...


----------



## aleander

He is afraid of terrorists breaking in and steering trains into skyscrapers.


----------



## Suburbanist

I read that they are going to cancel the Nurberg-Praha train service as of Dec. 2012. It was apparently killed by bus competition (the market is heavily concentrated in both cities and the trains stops too much, thus slower).

They'd route services currently running on that route to Münche Hbf.


=============================



K_ said:


> Why is that a security failure? For DB it used to be even a source of extra income...


Terrorists could gain access to the driver's cabin and take control, if only for a few moments, of a train, like deploying emergency braking in a rural stretch of tracks then having armed men in the wood gunning down passengers as they exit the trains - for instance.


----------



## aleander

Suburbanist said:


> Terrorists could gain access to the driver's cabin and take control, if only for a few moments, of a train, like deploying emergency braking in a rural stretch of tracks then having armed men in the wood gunning down passengers as they exit the trains - for instance.


Y'know, if they can pull that off, they could just mine the tracks. And before you think that fencing the tracks off is enough, there's RPGs, molotov cocktails and remote-detonation IEDs. Because Germany is like Afghanistan, man.


----------



## AlexNL

Suburbanist said:


> Terrorists could gain access to the driver's cabin and take control, if only for a few moments, of a train, like deploying emergency braking in a rural stretch of tracks then having armed men in the wood gunning down passengers as they exit the trains - for instance.


And they can't do that when the panel and the door is made out of wood or plastic, as opposed to sturdy glass? :')


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> In the 80ies you could leave Hamburg for Basel every hour, and always have the same time en route. Nowadays this is no longer the case. The lack of integration leads to quite long layovers at times, which is inefficient.


A Basel-Hamburg trip is not a commuting one. Any reasonable person should be EXPECTED to plan in advance for a journey like this, as just not counting on showing up and catching next train as if it were a subway!

For sake, Germany is not Switzerland. It's 5 times bigger, it has areas with very different ditribution profiles (compare Brandenburg with Anschalt with NRW with Bayern...)


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> A Basel-Hamburg trip is not a commuting one. Any reasonable person should be EXPECTED to plan in advance for a journey like this, as just not counting on showing up and catching next train as if it were a subway!


This is not about being able to turn up when you want. 
This is about maximizing the value of your product.
It's about not forcing people to plan their day around their travel. If I have a meeting that ends at 16:00 I don't want to have wait till 18:24 for my next train home. In the IC79 timetable there existed hourly departures. There are still hourly trains on all parts of the route, but because the arrivals and departures aren't any longer coordinated in the main hubs their usefulness has been reduced. 
It's about integration. Having a good network maximizes the value of the whole chain. 
It's also about maximising the value of the infrastructure.


----------



## K_

AlexNL said:


> But, if you have the time, money and expertise and think there's a market for a certain train, you can set up your own train operating company and run it. That's what HKX does, too.


The problem is that your potential for making money depends on the value of your offering. And the value of a network increases with the square of the number of points you connect. If you start with just a few trains you are still a long way from offering anything approaching that what DB offers, and could even offer...
Integration is key. Something even RENFE is starting to discover, it appears...


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> This is not about being able to turn up when you want.
> This is about maximizing the value of your product.
> It's about not forcing people to plan their day around their travel. If I have a meeting that ends at 16:00 I don't want to have wait till 18:24 for my next train home. In the IC79 timetable there existed hourly departures. There are still hourly trains on all parts of the route, but because the arrivals and departures aren't any longer coordinated in the main hubs their usefulness has been reduced.
> It's about integration. Having a good network maximizes the value of the whole chain.
> It's also about maximising the value of the infrastructure.


Any trip that doesn't have departures as frequent as 6 per hour requires some timetable checking.

YOU (and a few nich people) probably think it is better to spend 8h in a train than depart 1h30 later and travel only for 5h30.

There is no point in having fixed routes or station service categories when your demand varies along the day/week/season. 

Switzerland might get away with it. Germany doesn't.

You fantasy of having hourly departures from Sevilla to Ümea would obviously put a cripple on direct trips where they are warranted, and kill any peak-only direct commuter service.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> You fantasy of having hourly departures from Sevilla to Ümea would obviously put a cripple on direct trips where they are warranted, and kill any peak-only direct commuter service.


And again you show how fortunate we are to live in a world where you are not involved in the operation of railways...


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> It's no longer that well integrated, not like it used to be.
> 
> In the 80ies you could leave Hamburg for Basel every hour, and always have the same time en route. Nowadays this is no longer the case. The lack of integration leads to quite long layovers at times, which is inefficient.
> 
> For that reason rail advocacy groups in Germany want an integral, coordinated interval timetable for the whole country:
> http://www.deutschland-takt.de/


An interval timetable doesn't have to be integrated. And that's what we have and what we can afford.
A wholly integrated Deutschland-Takt, however, requires enormous amounts of investment. But the funds for railways in this country are barely enough to keep up current services. The whole idea of a Deutschland-Takt is therefore a pipe dream.


----------



## Suburbanist

flierfy said:


> An interval timetable doesn't have to be integrated. And that's what we have and what we can afford.
> A wholly integrated Deutschland-Takt, however, requires enormous amounts of investment. But the funds for railways in this country are barely enough to keep up current services. The whole idea of a Deutschland-Takt is therefore a pipe dream.


Germany has a lot of international traffic with Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Austria, reasonable traffic with Poland and Belgium and not that minor traffic with Luxembourg and Czech Rep.

It would have to tweak its whole network or just ditch high-speed line project for the sake of unnecessary integration.

Again, people don't travel Garmisch-Parternkirchen - Emden as a day trip. Makes no sense to adopt a "build to schedule" philosophy in German when you have three 5 major populational areas (Rhur connurbation, Frankfurt, München, Berlin, Hamburg (+ Hannover partially)).


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> An interval timetable doesn't have to be integrated. And that's what we have and what we can afford.
> A wholly integrated Deutschland-Takt, however, requires enormous amounts of investment. But the funds for railways in this country are barely enough to keep up current services. The whole idea of a Deutschland-Takt is therefore a pipe dream.


And that's rather unfortunate, isn't it. Imagine being able to make the whole network an order of magnitude more usefull at just a relatively small incremental cost. Capitalists usually love things like that, but they've fallen a bit out of favor recently. Maybe that's why it's indeed going to remain a pipe dream.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Again, people don't travel Garmisch-Parternkirchen - Emden as a day trip. Makes no sense to adopt a "build to schedule" philosophy in German when you have three 5 major populational areas (Rhur connurbation, Frankfurt, München, Berlin, Hamburg (+ Hannover partially)).


"Build to schedule" makes a lot of sense, since it allows you to save costs without sacrificing value.

Look at how private companies in Japan do it...


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Germany is not Japan. Germany is not Switzerland. Germany is not Netherlands.

The DB lines are not a giant subway/metro train system.


----------



## LtBk

Does Germany have plans for upgraded or even HSR train lines to Czech Republic and Poland?


----------



## Momo1435

^^ The line from Berlin to the Polish border at Frankfurt (Oder) is now being upgraded to 160 km/h. It's not that a big of an upgrade and it takes ages to be completed (Wiki says the completion date has slipped from 2013 to 2020). 

As for the Czech Republic, there are studies being done for a 300 km/h High Speed Line from Dresden to Prague. No decision has been made on the line, but the DB has said that it won't be completed before 2030. In Germany this will connect to the for 200 km/h upgraded Berlin - Dresden line, this should be completed somewhere at the end of this decade (there's no official target completion date). 

Another project to the Czech Republic is studied, the 200km/h upgrade of the Regensburg–Pilsen line for a better connection between Bavaria and Prague. Again it's just a study and no time frame has been given, other that a decision won't be expected before 2015.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> And that's rather unfortunate, isn't it. Imagine being able to make the whole network an order of magnitude more usefull at just a relatively small incremental cost.


Small funds just won't be enough. Switzerland spend billions of francs to prepare its rail network for integrated rail services. So Germany had to spend tens of billions of euros to do the same. That's huge amounts of money for relatively small gains.


----------



## sekelsenmat

LtBk said:


> Does Germany have plans for upgraded or even HSR train lines to Czech Republic and Poland?


I think that in our current stage lines are not the biggest obstacle here, but the small amount of frequencies.

Wrocław-Berlin has only 1 train per day in each direction, that's far too few so that it is not very useful. If they could make 3 trains per day it would be way more useful.

Wrocław-Dresden has 3 trains per day which is the bare minimum to be useful.

Warsaw-Poznan-Berlin probably has many trains per day, so here things are ok.

Sadly they seam to have given up on trains from Prague to Nurenberg. It was cancelled and that was quite useful for going from Wrocław to Munich. Prague-Munich probably still runs, but if it does it is in a not reasonable frequency or too slow because it didn't appear in my DB search for Wroclaw-Munich some time ago ... DB recommended taking the bus from Prague to Munich instead!


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Small funds just won't be enough. Switzerland spend billions of francs to prepare its rail network for integrated rail services. So Germany had to spend tens of billions of euros to do the same. That's huge amounts of money for relatively small gains.


Germany spends billions on completely useless projects. I guess that makes it harder to spend billions on useful stuff. 
And lots of small gains add up in the end. Don't forget who your competition is. You don't have to wait two hours for your car. Even if it is to drive to the other side of the country. Neither should you have to wait long for a train.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Sadly, while Germoney is slow enough to develop HSR for internal services and for international services mostly relies on the attractivity of the lines already built in France or other countries, it has all but given up on HSR to its eastern neighbors, i.e. Poland, Czech R., and even Austria. The dismal state of connections shown above however does not mean that any kind of connections would not be demanded. Obviously, when trains are slower than cars or even buses, services will be less frequent. DB now runs buses to Prague, but the private ALEX trains still run Munich-Prague. The German side even refuses to dedicate itself to an upgrade of Munich-Salzburg or Munich-Innsbruck. The Merkel government is, even more than its predecessors, a slave to the car industry.


----------



## gramercy

Baron Hirsch said:


> a slave to the car industry.


i dont think even german railway enthusiasts comprehend the extent to which their car companies have shat all over their railways..


----------



## K_

gramercy said:


> i dont think even german railway enthusiasts comprehend the extent to which their car companies have shat all over their railways..


No, I don't comprehend. Please explain...


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Germany spends billions on completely useless projects. I guess that makes it harder to spend billions on useful stuff.
> And lots of small gains add up in the end. Don't forget who your competition is. You don't have to wait two hours for your car. Even if it is to drive to the other side of the country. Neither should you have to wait long for a train.


Again, you apply the flawed Swiss paradimg to any other country in the World! I assume your major complaint about train services in Western US is that they don't have a every-15 departure for a Salt Lake City - Denver train...

German is spending a lot of money on interesting infrastructure such as HSR in sectors of the route München-Berlin.

Nobody travels on that rout "on the whim". Many people will fly.

When distances are long, such as several hundred kms, time you save en-route can compensate to reduced frequency. You just wait one extra hour at a station instead of remaining seated one extra hour en-route and having trains every 30min instead of every 2 hours. OF course, any people with QI > 80 will just check departure times.

I bet you are pretty much against every single high-speed line built in Europe and maybe thing the train+ferry scheme in Calais was better than the Eurotunel if only they had more trains in Northern England with timed transfers for routes nobody cares about.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Again, you apply the flawed Swiss paradimg to any other country in the World!


Once again you demonstrate how little you know (or care).

If the "Swiss Paradigm" is flawed, then why are rail advocates in other countries so eager to see it adopted? (BTW, it's not "Swiss" at all, the Dutch were first).



> I assume your major complaint about train services in Western US is that they don't have a every-15 departure for a Salt Lake City - Denver train...


I don't complain about train services in the Western US. That I leave to the people living there. However I do see that there is a Tokyo - Hiroshima train every 20 minutes. So some railways (and this is a private company) do seem to think that there is a point to high frequency service over long distance.




> Nobody travels on that rout "on the whim". Many people will fly.


Nobody travels that "on a whim". But I asume that you are amongst that tiny minority that has never had a meeting run out?





> When distances are long, such as several hundred kms, time you save en-route can compensate to reduced frequency. You just wait one extra hour at a station instead of remaining seated one extra hour en-route and having trains every 30min instead of every 2 hours. OF course, any people with QI > 80 will just check departure times.


Most people prefer spending time on a train rather than on a station. That is an established fact that of course cannot be true because it doesn't fit your worldview...
And yes, people will check departure times. And many people will see "oh, there is only a train every other hour" and choose to drive in stead. You've just lost another customer. A train every hour is the minimum if you want to get people out of their cars. Really.

What I am pointing out here is that DB runs hourly from Hamburg to Frankfurt, and hourly from Frankfurt to Basel, and also hourly from Frankfurt to many other places.
If they would coordinate their schedules better they could offer hourly connections on a lot more city pairs, without having to spend a lot on infrastructure and without having to run many more trains. That would create more value and get you more customers.
And making more value means making more money. You seem to be in favor of that, but apparently only as long as it doesn't involve improving the product...



> I bet you are pretty much against every single high-speed line built in Europe and maybe thing the train+ferry scheme in Calais was better than the Eurotunel if only they had more trains in Northern England with timed transfers for routes nobody cares about.


I'm not against every high speed route. I however think the HSL-Zuid was a mistake. I am in favor of running a railroad as a network. I also am in favor of the state managing the tax payer's money in a prudent way, so infrastructure that is paid for by taxes must be planned to maximize value returned to the tax payer.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

Looking at Finnish schedules, the densest line is the Helsinki-Tampere line.

Which has 3 types of trains.

Hourly clockface schedule of trains taking 1:46 with same 5 stops:
6:06 continues Jyväskylä-Pieksämäki
7:06 terminates Tampere
8:06 terminates Tampere
9:06 continues Jyväskylä
10:06 continues Seinäjoki-Oulu-Rovaniemi
11:06 terminates Tampere
12:06 continues Jyväskylä
13:06 continues Seinäjoki-Oulu-Rovaniemi
14:06 continues Seinäjoki
15:06 terminates Tampere
16:06 continues Seinäjoki-Oulu
17:06 terminates Tampere
18:06 continues Pori
19:06 continues Seinäjoki
20:06 continues Jyväskylä
21:00 - exceptionally earlier, same stops, Tampere 22:52
22... - missing
23:06 - reaches Tampere as usual, 0:52.
So - the trains beyond Tampere have several hours intervals - but they still obey hourly schedule as far as Tampere.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> My point however is that the main competition for the train is the car, not the plane. Compare Toulouse - Bordeaux (be sure to pick a date after june 22nd) with München - Stuttgart and now ask yourself: In which city will business travellers drive their car to an appointment with then other city, and where will they take a train?


They take the car in both cases as the car is faster and cheaper.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> It'd be interesting to make the following comparison: Total population of the cities within 4 hours from Paris versus total population of the cities within 4 hours of Frankfurt. And do the same for other major cities.


Despite being disadvantaged by lying in the middle of a sparsely populated country and being denied of areas in the west due to the proximity of an ocean Paris could still win this race.


----------



## LtBk

When is HSR line from Stuttgart to Munich going to be completed?


----------



## flierfy

LtBk said:


> When is HSR line from Stuttgart to Munich going to be completed?


There isn't even a high speed line proposed. So there won't be any in the next couple of decades.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> My point however is that the main competition for the train is the car, not the plane. Compare Toulouse - Bordeaux (be sure to pick a date after june 22nd) with München - Stuttgart and now ask yourself: In which city will business travellers drive their car to an appointment with then other city, and where will they take a train?
> 
> If you want to get people out of their cars frequent departures are a must.


Well, fast (few stops) high-speed lines in France, UK and other places have proven to be the biggest competitors of air, not car, travel.

Not many people traveled by car relations such as Paris-Lyon, Paris-Bruxelles, Milano-Roma (a nice, but long 5h15 purely highway driving time + stop + time spent in-and-out both cities' roads). But many people used to fly those routes and the number of flights between those city pairs have decreased substantially.

As for the bogus frequent departure argument, let's assume two scenarios of travel between cities H and J.

_Scenario 1 - frequent departures on merely improved tracks_
Departures every 60 minutes
Travel time 220 minutes
======================
Expected travel time for random (non-timetable checking) passenger: 0,5 * 60 + 220 = 250 minutes (4h10)

_Scenario 2 - few departures on purely high-speed operation_
Departures every 180 minutes
Travel time 100 minutes
=======================
Expected travel time for random (non-timetable checking) passenger: 0,5 * 180 + 100 = 190 minutes (3h10)

On the example above, you can shove off 1h of travel time even having just 1/3 of the departure frequency and reducing travel time by 55% (faster tracks, fewer intermediate stops).

It is an extreme case, but the principle holds: if you have 1-per-hour instead of 1-per-half-hour service, but you ax 30 min of the travel time, you are essentially left with the same situation *for the dumb, "don't bother me with timetables ever" passenger-type* who'd just spend more time idling at a station instead of traveling on a slower train.

Now if you assume only, say, half of passengers will check timetables and be able to plan accordingly, you end up with a net total aggregated travel time reduction. And this is something most people favoring network consistency over speed of everything else do miss.


----------



## LtBk

flierfy said:


> There isn't even a high speed line proposed. So there won't be any in the next couple of decades.


Why?


----------



## Momo1435

LtBk said:


> When is HSR line from Stuttgart to Munich going to be completed?


There will only be a new line between Stuttgart and Ulm, the Ulm - Munich will be just an upgrade of the existing line.


* The new high speed line between Stuttgart and Ulm (83.2 km) with a max speed of 250 km/h should be completed in 2019. 

* The upgrade of the Ulm - Augsburg line (85m) to 200 km/h should be finished in 2015.

* Augsburg - Munich (61.9 km) was already upgraded before 2003 to 230 km/h.


The Stuttgart to Munich line was originally projected to be a high speed line in the original plans for a High Speed Network for West Germany in the 1970s. History caught up with this line in 1990 when all the money and resources were transferred to the reunification projects. But after this delay the line in a reduced form is now actually under construction.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Is the route via Nürnberg faster for Frankfurt-München trains with that new high-speed line there?


----------



## Momo1435

Current timings between Frankfurt and Munich are 3:37 via Mannheim-Stuttgart and 3:15 via Nuremberg. So yes currently the route via Nuremberg is faster, but significantly.

But that will change again when all the new lines on the route via Stuttgart are completed including the new Frankfurt - Mannheim line. Those will cut the time by almost an hour.


----------



## flierfy

LtBk said:


> Why?


Because of a misguided policy of transferring funds elsewhere.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Well, fast (few stops) high-speed lines in France, UK and other places have proven to be the biggest competitors of air, not car, travel.


I don't deny that. However, a lot more people travel by car than by air, even on long distances. If you can capture a few % of the car market this results in a far bigger increase in passenger numbers than capturing the air market. I know quite a few Germans who commute every weekend from Switzerland to Germany by car, not by air, often driving 6 hours or more. The reason many give for using a car is that they can leave at a time convenient to them.
If you want to get these people as customer for your train you must offer them departures convenient to them too. 

The UK is not a good example to support your assertion btw, as it has no HSR network. What it has is a fairly well integrated conventional network with good speeds on the mainlines, and robust growth in passenger numbers. Proving that in a densely populated area an incremental approach has its merits...




> Not many people traveled by car relations such as Paris-Lyon, Paris-Bruxelles, Milano-Roma (a nice, but long 5h15 purely highway driving time + stop + time spent in-and-out both cities' roads). But many people used to fly those routes and the number of flights between those city pairs have decreased substantially.


Actually before Thalys a lot of people drove. And lot of people still do. Most of the Thalys passengers are new passengers, people who wouldn't have travelled to Paris if it weren't for the frequent, convenient rail service.



> As for the bogus frequent departure argument, let's assume two scenarios of travel between cities H and J.


It's not bogus because you call it bogus...



> _Scenario 1 - frequent departures on merely improved tracks_
> Departures every 60 minutes
> Travel time 220 minutes
> ======================
> Expected travel time for random (non-timetable checking) passenger: 0,5 * 60 + 220 = 250 minutes (4h10)
> 
> _Scenario 2 - few departures on purely high-speed operation_
> Departures every 180 minutes
> Travel time 100 minutes
> =======================
> Expected travel time for random (non-timetable checking) passenger: 0,5 * 180 + 100 = 190 minutes (3h10)
> 
> On the example above, you can shove off 1h of travel time even having just 1/3 of the departure frequency and reducing travel time by 55% (faster tracks, fewer intermediate stops).


Now assume that some of the passengers arrive at the station using another service. This other service has also departures every 180 minutes...
In the most extreme case the layover at the transfer station will be 180 minutes, adding 180 minutes to total travel time.
Now is it so hard to wrap your mind around the concept that coordinating services in such a way that such long layovers are avoided adds value, and thus potential revenue?
And if you have frequent services on all lines you have more possibilities to reduce layover times.

edit: BTW, if you build a dedicated HSL and then only run a train every 180 minutes over it you've just wasted a huge amount of taxpayers money with very little return...


> It is an extreme case, but the principle holds: if you have 1-per-hour instead of 1-per-half-hour service, but you ax 30 min of the travel time, you are essentially left with the same situation *for the dumb, "don't bother me with timetables ever" passenger-type* who'd just spend more time idling at a station instead of traveling on a slower train.


It's not about the "dumb, don't bother me with timetables" passenger. It's about someone on a schedule. Frequent departures make it easier to be able find one that fits your schedule. If your meeting ends at 1600 you want to be on the move in the direction of home as soon as possible afterwards.

Thalys runs trains from Paris to Brussel every half hour for most of the day, and offers businessmen the possibility of buying a ticket that allows them to take any one of them, without extra formalities. Now why would they do that if there was no demand or added value in that?

It's not about not having to consult a timetable. It's about offering convenience to your customers.



> Now if you assume only, say, half of passengers will check timetables and be able to plan accordingly, you end up with a net total aggregated travel time reduction. And this is something most people favoring network consistency over speed of everything else do miss.


What you seem to be consistently miss is that people don't plan in a vacuum. It's not as if they don't have anything else to do but travel.

If you have to be somewhere at 10 AM, then a fast train that gets you there at 6:30 in an hour is of less use to you than a train that gets you there at 9:50 in 1 1/2 h. Frequent departures make it easier to fit your travel in the rest of your day. I always look up train times in advance. Everybody does. But everybody likes choice.

You also seem to consistently miss that people don't travel station to station. They travel door to door. And when it comes to door-to-door travel good integrated systems win over "airline on the ground" style systems. If you want an extreme example try to find out how to get from Girona to Madrid on RENFE...


----------



## chornedsnorkack

K_ said:


> edit: BTW, if you build a dedicated HSL and then only run a train every 180 minutes over it you've just wasted a huge amount of taxpayers money with very little return...
> 
> It's not about the "dumb, don't bother me with timetables" passenger. It's about someone on a schedule. Frequent departures make it easier to be able find one that fits your schedule. If your meeting ends at 1600 you want to be on the move in the direction of home as soon as possible afterwards.
> 
> Thalys runs trains from Paris to Brussel every half hour for most of the day, and offers businessmen the possibility of buying a ticket that allows them to take any one of them, without extra formalities. Now why would they do that if there was no demand or added value in that?


Brussels is a branchpoint. Paris-Brussels trains can continue Brussels-Amsterdam or Brussels-Liege-Cologne.

What should be the interval of Cologne-Brussels-Paris trains?


----------



## K_

chornedsnorkack said:


> Brussels is a branchpoint. Paris-Brussels trains can continue Brussels-Amsterdam or Brussels-Liege-Cologne.
> 
> What should be the interval of Cologne-Brussels-Paris trains?


Currently Köln - Brussels - Paris runs almost every two hours. Additionally there are 4 ICE trains. It would be convenient if DB added a few ICE services and Thalys added an extra afternoon departure to have a hourly service throughout the day on Köln - Brussel. (and thus also on Köln - Paris).
Improving the connections in Köln would be a good idea too. And having a a few late trains to Köln. Currently the last train from Brussel to Köln is already at 19:28

Ideally the railways would cooperate to create a pan european network, with coordinated transfers in nodes like Brussel, Lille Europe, Köln,Frankfurt Flughafe etc... with departures at least every two hours, but preferably every hour. It doesn't matter that for example Paris - Köln could involve a change in Brussel every other hour, as long as convenient transfer and through ticketing is available.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Ideally the railways would cooperate to create a pan european network, with coordinated transfers in nodes like Brussel, Lille Europe, Köln,Frankfurt Flughafe etc... with departures at least every two hours, but preferably every hour. It doesn't matter that for example Paris - Köln could involve a change in Brussel every other hour, as long as convenient transfer and through ticketing is available.


That is socialistic, Stalinist-style central planning of an entire economic sector by bureaucrats! Not only harmonizing regulations but dictating every single detail of services! 

*Competition* is more important than micro-management and cartelization of international train services.

I suppose you are old enough to remember the dread times when ICAO and other organizations did that - with air travel - within Europe. All major airlines were state-controlled, and politics got its way to mingle with flights schedules etc.

The arguments were incredible close to yours: create a network, facilitate ticketing, "fair pricing", collaboration... and the result is that 25 years after major de-regulation there is no longer a central planning of air routes, yet - despite high oil prices -, never so many people traveled on plane in Europe. But I'm sure some people mourn open-date tickets, fixed prices that changed just twice a year, networks that "looked good" on maps with, gosh, coordinated schedules to allow transfer.

If they got out of the business of setting train routes, a periods of controlled chaos would be followed by some market-driven rationalization and unstable market dominance. Probably we'd see trains becoming like airplanes, less perks, less overpaid crew, more newcomers to the market, some "Ryanair of rails"... but ticket prices would likely plummet on more competitive routes where majority of travelers is to be found.


----------



## thun

Competition isn't opposed to network effects.


----------



## MattN

double post


----------



## MattN

Suburbanist said:


> If they got out of the business of setting train routes, a periods of controlled chaos would be followed by some market-driven rationalization and unstable market dominance. Probably we'd see trains becoming like airplanes, less perks, less overpaid crew, more newcomers to the market, some "Ryanair of rails"... but ticket prices would likely plummet on more competitive routes where majority of travelers is to be found.


Just like what happened on British buses.:|


----------



## Stainless

Suburbanist said:


> I suppose you are old enough to remember the dread times when ICAO and other organizations did that - with air travel - within Europe. All major airlines were state-controlled, and politics got its way to mingle with flights schedules etc.


Trains are not planes. It takes a long time to transfer between planes do to landing and offloading luggage. However it is easy to get off one train and onto another in under 10 mins, so I think a network with some coordination would be beneficial. Within Europe not that many people take connecting flights, especially with economy airlines, as their flights don't meet up or in the case of Ryanair, even allow through ticketing. This is because they cannot guarantee the connection. Trains however are typically more punctual, so they can use this to their advantage and serve more connecting passengers.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> That is socialistic, Stalinist-style central planning of an entire economic sector by bureaucrats! Not only harmonizing regulations but dictating every single detail of services!
> 
> Competition is more important than micro-management and cartelization of international train services.
> 
> I suppose you are old enough to remember the dread times when ICAO and other organizations did that - with air travel - within Europe. All major airlines were state-controlled, and politics got its way to mingle with flights schedules etc.


1) politics still mingles itself in flight schedules. A lot even. see the subsidies Ryanair gets. That the deregulated airlines got better at rent seeking is no surprise.
2) railways are very different than airlines. The cost structure is entirely different, and so are the operational constraints. A busy railway corridor cannot operate without the infrastructure manager imposing some order. RRF went to an interval schedule to make competition possible!
3) network effects are more important with trains. When the TGV from Paris to Zürich arrives in Basel there is a train to Bern and Interlaken standing opposite it. This way for almost zero incremental cost the railway manages two add two important destinations to the market served by the Lyria TGV. I find it really rather astonishing that you are against such profit maximizing behavior.
4) cooperation is not socialist. It is human. It is even capitalistic. If you take part in an software ecosystem like for example the iPhone or MS-Windows you have to play by the rules imposed by the leaders of that environment. Apple doesn't want developers operating in the iOS ecosystem to behave in a way that reduces the value to end customers. In the same vein Infrabel, RFF, RFI etc. should make sure that the participants in the railroad ecosystem behave in a way that does not reduce the value of the network to those who in the end have financed it...

If an private company owned a railway line, and it would force the companies running over it to adhere to a schedule, would that be "stalinist"?


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> No, you have it in fact completely the wrong way round. If most people on the ICEs are (as you implicitly accept) bound for other destinations in Switzerland it is very important that those trains call at Basel SBB, as that is where the trains to other parts of Switzerland leave from. Terminating the train at Basel Bad. Bf. will increase travel times quite substantially.


With the Herzstück line in place Badischer Bf will offer connection to almost all railway lines in and around Basel. Further connections are made in Zürich and Bern respectively.



K_ said:


> Don't underestimate the potential. But the main point is that upgrading the existing network keeps it integrated. Building a completely new network that is not integrated with the old one means that a lot of the time gained on the new network is lost again during the transfers between the old and the new.
> A classic example is Avignon in France, where anybody who has a destination somewhere other than Avignon itself will a lot of the time gained on the HSL during the transfer from Avignon TGV to Avignon Ville, and the wait for a local there.
> In fact for trips that involve for example a local to Lyon, a TGV from Lyon to Avignon, and a local from Avignon again the time gained by the TGV is usually negligible.
> Now the French approach will work in France, because there the railway's purpose is to transport Parisians. Germany is different, and far more multi centric.


No-one aims for disintegration, but for significant time savings. And these can only be achieved by long continuous high-speed lines. The LGV Sud-Est and Méditerranée are exactly this. These railways were primarily conceived to bring the three largest conurbations in France within 3 hours of each other. Serving Avignon is just a secondary purpose on this way.
On all ends, however, these lines are extremely well integrated as Paris, Lyon and Marseille for that matter are not only important railway hubs but are also served by a rather dense public transport networks.

This concept of ultra fast trunk routes would work in Germany even better then in France as Germany has a bigger number of large cities which all would benefit greatly if they were moved closer together.


----------



## Suburbanist

flierfy said:


> This concept of ultra fast trunk routes would work in Germany even better then in France as Germany has a bigger number of large cities which all would benefit greatly if they were moved closer together.



Exactly. For instance, a very high speed (300-350) line between Berlin and München would help a lot and be competitive with air travel.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Suburbanist said:


> Exactly. For instance, a very high speed (300-350) line between Berlin and München would help a lot and be competitive with air travel.


Well, Berlin-Munich should be the least of your concerns, since as off 2017 it will be for large sections 300 kmh. You might still rant about the missed opportunities due to the fact that the Berlin-Leipzig/Halle section is only 200 kmh, but still the fastest trains can do Berlin-Munich in 4 hrs once its completed. The question is rather whether other sections should not be connected at unconventional speeds, such as Cologne-Berlin, Cologne-Hamburg, Frankfurt to Fulda (HSR) and to Erfurt etc....


----------



## Coccodrillo

As said by Baron Hirsch a new HSL on the Berlin-München corridor is under construction. Could have it been built on a better and faster alignment? Maybe, but now it's under construction, and it's obviously out of discussion to build a new line parallel to an already new and fast line.



flierfy said:


> With the Herzstück line in place Badischer Bf will offer connection to almost all railway lines in and around Basel. Further connections are made in Zürich and Bern respectively.


What if you are on a Frankfurt-Interlaken train and want to go to Zürich?


----------



## flierfy

Baron Hirsch said:


> Well, Berlin-Munich should be the least of your concerns, since as off 2017 it will be for large sections 300 kmh.


Not exactly 300, but 250 km/h.



Coccodrillo said:


> What if you are on a Frankfurt-Interlaken train and want to go to Zürich?


Change in Olten.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

flierfy said:


> Not exactly 300, but 250 km/h.


No, believe it or not, this is really 300 kmh. Berlin-Lepzig/Halle 200, Leipzig/Halle-Erfurt-Ebensfeld 300, then the short bit Ebensfeld-Nürnberg whatever conventional speed that is, Nürnberg-Ingolstadt 300, then Ingolstadt-München a rather high but conventional speed. This might not quite be French speed standards, but it will definitely be the best speed between any two German big cities with 600 km+ distance. 
This line was designed during a short period when the German rail system leaned towards the French model. The present policy is once again not to be too ambitious as far as speed is concerned (=have to protect the poor airlines, heaven forbid a German state company would want to be their competitor).


----------



## Sunfuns

Coccodrillo said:


> It might be nice from a theoretical point of view, however the Hauenstein line (Basel-Olten) is nearing capacity at 400 trains per day so international trains have to sue an existing slot, replacing an IC.


I think this will need some rather expensive solution in the next 20 years anyway. Swiss population is still growing rapidly, so it's just logical that more infrastructure will need to be built.


----------



## flierfy

Baron Hirsch said:


> No, believe it or not, this is really 300 kmh. Berlin-Lepzig/Halle 200, *Leipzig/Halle-Erfurt-Ebensfeld 300*, then the short bit Ebensfeld-Nürnberg whatever conventional speed that is, Nürnberg-Ingolstadt 300, then Ingolstadt-München a rather high but conventional speed.


The right-of-way of this stretch might be designed and built for 300 km/h. The equipment, however, that is currently being installed, will allow only speeds up to 250 km/h.


----------



## Coccodrillo

edit: wrong thread


----------



## derUlukai

K_ said:


> At the moment quite a few sections of the line already allow 250kph. There is a new line planned around Freiburg, and once all the works are completed travelling Mannheim - Basel at 250 kph will be possible.


still with that new line trains will have to reduce speed considerably when passing through mannheim, karlsruhe, freiburg and possibly some other villages. (and will be indirectly forced to stop there since passing these stations without a stop is inefficent and barely time-saving if you have to slow down to 100km/h or so)




flierfy said:


> The right-of-way of this stretch might be designed and built for 300 km/h. The equipment, however, that is currently being installed, will allow only speeds up to 250 km/h.


..and that is really a shame and should be a reason to disintegrate the deutsche bahn group, as this is a serious impediment of competition, since DB ordered a lot of new trainsets that can only reach 249km/h and surely does not want that competitors run their 300km/h trains on the new german "highspeed" line, so DB Netz installed that poor equiqument..





Baron Hirsch said:


> No, believe it or not, this is really 300 kmh. Berlin-Lepzig/Halle 200, Leipzig/Halle-Erfurt-Ebensfeld 300, then the short bit Ebensfeld-Nürnberg whatever conventional speed that is, Nürnberg-Ingolstadt 300, then Ingolstadt-München a rather high but conventional speed. This might not quite be French speed standards, but it will definitely be the best speed between any two German big cities with 600 km+ distance.
> This line was designed during a short period when the German rail system leaned towards the French model.


and again, EVERY train will have to slow down considerably each time when passing such prominent cities as erfurt, halle, ingolstadt and bamberg so you can`t say that this is a replication of the french model. we are repeating the mistakes of the hannover-würzburg line here. the only quite accaptably planned HSL in germany is frankfurt-köln, where stations can be passed with full speed.
ebensfeld-nürnberg and ingolstadt-münchen have a maximum speed of 160km/h if i recall correctly.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ That is pretty egregious. And unacceptable. It would be like the new Willy Brandt airport shortening the runways on BER to protect Lufthansa (which flies mainly through MUC and FRA hubs) from having competition setting up a long-distance hub in the capital.

The French are very good with their project in which they don't force trains to intermediate stops just to avoid the costs of some spurs. Even the Italians are building the Passante in Bologna, allowing through trains at reasonable speeds.


----------



## derUlukai

well, some supporters of this DB practice argue that with the slow passages through those villages, higher speeds than 250km/h would not bring a big advantage in traveltime at all, so it would be reasonable to impose this kind of speed limit. to me, this shows only how bad planning of this project has been.


----------



## K_

derUlukai said:


> still with that new line trains will have to reduce speed considerably when passing through mannheim, karlsruhe, freiburg and possibly some other villages. (and will be indirectly forced to stop there since passing these stations without a stop is inefficent and barely time-saving if you have to slow down to 100km/h or so)


Any Basel - Frankfurt train will have to stop in Freiburg and Karlruhe anyway, as the demand is not high enough for both a non stop, and a limited stop service.


----------



## K_

derUlukai said:


> still with that new line trains will have to reduce speed considerably when passing through mannheim, karlsruhe, freiburg and possibly some other villages. (and will be indirectly forced to stop there since passing these stations without a stop is inefficent and barely time-saving if you have to slow down to 100km/h or so)


Depends. DB has not problems running 220 kph through villages and towns on other lines...


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> No-one aims for disintegration, but for significant time savings. And these can only be achieved by long continuous high-speed lines. The LGV Sud-Est and Méditerranée are exactly this. These railways were primarily conceived to bring the three largest conurbations in France within 3 hours of each other.


The main difference is that there are no large centres of population in between Paris and Lyon, so building a line that only serves the endpoints is practical. Again look at a map of population densities in Europe and see how different France and Spain are from Germany.
In France when a HSL is opened it often means a reduction in service (and an increase in travel times) for the cities that are on the old line the new one replaces. Wether that is acceptable depends on the population of these places. In Germany there are a lot of people living in between the main urban areas, much more so than in France. That means that you often cannot justify service reduction on the old corridors. The demand for traffic between the endpoints is might however not always sufficient to fill trains on both the old and the new corridors at high service levels.
Take again Basel - Mannheim: A new direct line from Basel to Mannheim is only justifiable if there is a market for a non stop train every hour between those cities. (If there was a market for such a train it would already exist)
And if it were build, DB would not be able to reduce the number of Basel - Freiburg - Offenburg - Karlsruhe - Mannheim trains, as these places are important enough to warrant at least an hourly service. 
All those trains would cost money. Would they make money also? I don't know.
And then there is the need for increased freight capacity. I don't think that the Basel - Mannheim corridor generates enough passenger and freight traffic to justify having two freight tracks, two 250kph tracks through the existing towns, and a separate 300+kph line.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> There is a new line planned around Freiburg, and once all the works are completed travelling Mannheim - Basel at 250 kph will be possible.


K, do you know where they stand on this bypass around Freiburg? I have not followed the German debate in recent years, but I lived in Basle in earlier days. Back then, the DB rhetoric spoke of a freight-only line around Freiburg with Vmax set at 160 km/h. I confess I wondered already then if that argument wasn't a "red herring": the German public is notoriously sensitive to the prospect of their town becoming "abgehängt" so I could readily imagine that a few international ICEs would also run around Freiburg. The question is, do we know for a fact that the line is now being planned for 250 km/h?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

While I also see the Basel-Mannheim design as fairly good by German standards, your argumentation, K, is defintiely off. If the demand on the Western fringe of Germany was really so low as you describe, then Bonn, Koblenz, and Mainz would only see a couple of local trains now that you can bypass these cities at 300 kmh on the Cologne-Frankfurt hight-speed line. The fact is that both lines HSR and Rhine Valley route, are teaming with traffic. There is still an hourly IC service running north to south through the valley, accompanied by often two REs and a couple of slow trains on most stretches of that route. On the other hand, the HSR is doing good business on commuters between Brussels, Cologne, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Munich. This is the most inhabited, richest, most business intensive part of the country. You can hardly have too many lines there.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> The main difference is that there are no large centres of population in between Paris and Lyon, so building a line that only serves the endpoints is practical. Again look at a map of population densities in Europe and see how different France and Spain are from Germany.


I'm not sure this argument is historically correct. True, the actual line between Paris and Lyon crosses some pretty underpopulated parts of France, but the saturated older train line that the LGV replaced ran via Dijon. Knowing German public debate, I think that in this country it would have been near-impossible to cut a town of such size out of the railway map. 



K_ said:


> Take again Basel - Mannheim: A new direct line from Basel to Mannheim is only justifiable if there is a market for a non stop train every hour between those cities. (If there was a market for such a train it would already exist)


This is an extremely "German" argument, K, and I'm not sure it holds water. The HSLs of several other countries serve as "Autobahns" for trains that may start and/or end somewhere that is not located on the trunk-line. It is flat wrong to say that the feasibility of a highspeed link between Mannheim and Basel depends on the traffic between these two towns. It depends on the traffic between Mannheim and Basel, and between Zurich and Karlsruhe, and between Freiburg and Darmstadt.... :cheers:


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> The French are very good with their project in which they don't force trains to intermediate stops just to avoid the costs of some spurs. Even the Italians are building the Passante in Bologna, allowing through trains at reasonable speeds.


Italian HSLs are built more on a German than a French-style. Tunnels through Bologna and Firenze are new, but don't have tracks for non-stop trains and have a quite limited speed limit (certainly not more than 160 km/h). The lines themselves have many intermediate access junctions, although those on the Firenze-Roma line and one on the Roma-Napoli line are regularly used.


----------



## derUlukai

hans280 said:


> K, do you know where they stand on this bypass around Freiburg? I have not followed the German debate in recent years, but I lived in Basle in earlier days. Back then, the DB rhetoric spoke of a freight-only line around Freiburg with Vmax set at 160 km/h. I confess I wondered already then if that argument wasn't a "red herring": the German public is notoriously sensitive to the prospect of their town becoming "abgehängt" so I could readily imagine that a few international ICEs would also run around Freiburg. The question is, do we know for a fact that the line is now being planned for 250 km/h?


from what i`ve heard it is planned for only 130km/h now, so those fancy "highspeed" trains can just as well have a stop in freiburg.. hno:



K_ said:


> Depends. DB has not problems running 220 kph through villages and towns on other lines...


but exactly this won`t be technically possible neither on the rheintalbahn nor on the berlin-munich route..



K_ said:


> Any Basel - Frankfurt train will have to stop in Freiburg and Karlruhe anyway, as the demand is not high enough for both a non stop, and a limited stop service.


that`s some sort of chicken-egg-problem - if you build the lines so that you are forced to an extreme slowdown every few kilometers, then "real" highspeed (sprinter) trains cannot get a sufficient advantage in travel-time and thus there will be not enough demand for both kinds of service.


----------



## Wilhem275

Suburbanist said:


> Even the Italians are building the Passante in Bologna, allowing through trains at reasonable speeds.


100-110 km/h  The aim of that tunnel is to add capacity and make the HS network indipendent from other traffic.

There will still be non-stop Milan-Rome services, but they'll be just a minority.

It is a good example of what K_ is trying to explain about the German network: there is enough demand for Milan-Rome non-stop services, but not enough for a non-stop line; so you still have to build a less direct line through other towns and slow down considerably in towns bypass, trying to lose as less as possible travel time.

Which is exactly what the Germans are building, the only difference being the space they can use for connecting existing stations without going underground (and not always: Lepizig). And probably the fact they have the guts to keep much higher speeds while running through stations.

And, just as the Germans use to do, the advantage of Bologna bypass (for HS services) is not about max speed you can keep, but being connected straight with the HSLs without loss of time


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> The main difference is that there are no large centres of population in between Paris and Lyon, so building a line that only serves the endpoints is practical. Again look at a map of population densities in Europe and see how different France and Spain are from Germany.
> In France when a HSL is opened it often means a reduction in service (and an increase in travel times) for the cities that are on the old line the new one replaces. Wether that is acceptable depends on the population of these places. In Germany there are a lot of people living in between the main urban areas, much more so than in France. That means that you often cannot justify service reduction on the old corridors. The demand for traffic between the endpoints is might however not always sufficient to fill trains on both the old and the new corridors at high service levels.


The necessity of a HSL does not emerge by the towns it by-passes, but the cities it does connect. There are more conurbations in Germany than in France which are also bigger in total which would make a core of high speed lines even more viable.

Whether services on the by-passed line are cut depends solely on the towns themself. Once they are by-passed they have to fill the trains themself and can no longer hold the travellers between the big cities hostage for their services.



K_ said:


> Take again Basel - Mannheim: A new direct line from Basel to Mannheim is only justifiable if there is a market for a non stop train every hour between those cities. (If there was a market for such a train it would already exist)
> And if it were build, DB would not be able to reduce the number of Basel - Freiburg - Offenburg - Karlsruhe - Mannheim trains, as these places are important enough to warrant at least an hourly service.
> All those trains would cost money. Would they make money also? I don't know.
> And then there is the need for increased freight capacity. I don't think that the Basel - Mannheim corridor generates enough passenger and freight traffic to justify having two freight tracks, two 250kph tracks through the existing towns, and a separate 300+kph line.


Mannheim-Basel is a rather bad examples on this matter as it is lies on the fringe of the country. It is barely justifiable to speed up services on this line anyway.
On the core lines, however, it would make perfectly sense to provide the possibility of skipping the intermediate stops. This way the distance from Hamburg to Frankfurt/M could be travelled in 2,5 h as it is possible in every other developed country. Just not in Germany where parochial thinking prevails.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ IIRC, Magdeburg authorities were absolutely mad when the city was made "less important" by stopping being an almost obligatory stop for trains between Berlin and Hannover. I think many places want to inflate their importance by requiring everyone else to stop at their stations.

Netherlands suffers from this problem as well.

An analogy I make is like a city starts opposing a highway bypass (but not the rest of the highway) because drivers will stop slowing down and stopping for shopping in the overpriced stores along the main square of that town.


----------



## flierfy

Wilhem275 said:


> It is a good example of what K_ is trying to explain about the German network: there is enough demand for Milan-Rome non-stop services, but not enough for a non-stop line; so you still have to build a less direct line through other towns and slow down considerably in towns bypass, trying to lose as less as possible travel time.


Milano and Roma are connected by a chain of three HSLs. The high-speed journey between the two most important cities of Italy is only interrupted by the passage of two cities which themself are rather big and decently important. Consequently non-stop service connect Milano and Roma in less than three hours. This is pretty much the opposite of what we've got in Germany.
Here we have compulsory speed drops in rather unremarkable towns such as Göttingen, Kassel or Fulda. Erfurt will soon join this bunch of obstructions. Neither do we have a sensible planned network. While the five HSLs in Italy form one backbone in the core of the country, HSLs in Germany are spread loosely over the country.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ And Germany is the only country where they put a speed limit on a high-speed flat-out rail line because of concerns with noise affecting some stupid birds in a natural reserve.

this remembers me of early 18th Century history, when the Prussians collected a lot of tolls on waterways and horse roads and were adamantly against early development of railways because it would shift the balance of power within Germanic areas.


----------



## hans280

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ IIRC, Magdeburg authorities were absolutely mad when the city was made "less important" by stopping being an almost obligatory stop for trains between Berlin and Hannover. I think many places want to inflate their importance by requiring everyone else to stop at their stations.


Yeah, according to the French railway press it was a nasty surprise for SNCF when they were told that the new highspeed service Paris-Frankfurt was to have "Pflichthalt" in Kaiserslautern. It wouldn't happen in France. It wouldn't happen in Spain either. 

Anyway, think of the opening scene in Dürrenmatt's "Der Besuch der alten Dame". The townfolks stand on stage listening to a passing train. Then the mayor says with a doomsday voice "the trains don't stop in our town anymore". Apparently in the psyche of an average German provincial town it is a nightmare scenario to become "abgehängt".


----------



## thun

flierfy said:


> Milano and Roma are connected by a chain of three HSLs. The high-speed journey between the two most important cities of Italy is only interrupted by the passage of two cities which themself are rather big and decently important. Consequently non-stop service connect Milano and Roma in less than three hours. This is pretty much the opposite of what we've got in Germany.


Problem is: You're ignoring (or not knowing) that the Italian network differs significantly from the German one: In Italy, basically all long-distance travel of considerable length for real HSR is North-South and viceversa and limited to a few lines (basically only three: The two on the East and West coast and the corridor Bologna-Firenze-Rome). You don't have such a concentration in Germany so you have to have more stops/hubs to connect your network, hence push up customer value, passenger numbers and ultimately revenues. On the contrary, in Italy in terms of economics it's way easier to upgrate the most important corridor (Milan-Rome) and speed it up more significantly as you create customer value for most of your customers (other than in Germany).

Those arguments were exchanged numerous times in this thread, though.


----------



## flierfy

^^ And you're ignoring the fact that Germany could have done exactly the same. Simply concentrate on one or two corridors and spend the available resource there to create a continuous high-speed network rather than this piecemeal approach which is nothing short of a botch-up.


----------



## Wilhem275

flierfy said:


> Here we have compulsory speed drops in rather unremarkable towns such as Göttingen, Kassel or Fulda. Erfurt will soon join this bunch of obstructions.


Would it have been possible to build a pure-HSL with no connection to the existing network?
In terms of infrastructure, yes, sure; but it would have been a segregated HS network (as the Italian one), useless in terms of non-HS traffic.

What is appreciable of Hannover - Wuerzburg is the optimal integration with existing lines.
On a slightly different scale we may compare it with the Florence - Rome new line (built 1970s-90s), non-stop between the two cities but with many connections to minor cities. The model you like is probably similar to that one, I suppose.
Consider that cities along that line are way smaller than those German cities you cited. The bigger is Arezzo with 100k inhab., the others are 7-20k. All summed up they don't reach Göttingen 

We're having a similar debate in North-Eastern Italy, about Milan - Venice line. ABS or NBS? Problem is NE Italy is made of many small/medium sized towns, lots of urban sprawl, but no big cities (not even Venice itself). I'm on the ABS side, in this case.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> While I also see the Basel-Mannheim design as fairly good by German standards, your argumentation, K, is defintiely off. If the demand on the Western fringe of Germany was really so low as you describe, then Bonn, Koblenz, and Mainz would only see a couple of local trains now that you can bypass these cities at 300 kmh on the Cologne-Frankfurt hight-speed line.


That is not what I am describing. I'm am talking about the demand on the route from Basel to Mannheim. 
ICEs originating in Basel are often run as double sets, but these leave Basel rather empty. It's in the in between stations that most people get on, in Freiburg, Baden, Offenburg and Karlsruhe. So you can't skip these stations if you want to fill the train.
I know that the Rhine Valley line North of Mannheim is teaming with traffic. However South of Karlsruhe (and I take this line quite regularly) the trains are a lot emptier...
The big need there is for more freight capacity.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> ^^ And you're ignoring the fact that Germany could have done exactly the same. Simply concentrate on one or two corridors and spend the available resource there to create a continuous high-speed network rather than this piecemeal approach which is nothing short of a botch-up.


Your job is now to find two corridors that cover a large enough proportion of the German population so that the investment you propose is justified...
So: Which two corridors?


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> Yeah, according to the French railway press it was a nasty surprise for SNCF when they were told that the new highspeed service Paris-Frankfurt was to have "Pflichthalt" in Kaiserslautern. It wouldn't happen in France. It wouldn't happen in Spain either.


But then Germany isn't France, or Spain... Again, look at a map showing population density.
(BTW. Kaiserslautern is about as big as Avignon...)


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Milano and Roma are connected by a chain of three HSLs. The high-speed journey between the two most important cities of Italy is only interrupted by the passage of two cities which themself are rather big and decently important. Consequently non-stop service connect Milano and Roma in less than three hours. This is pretty much the opposite of what we've got in Germany.


Sure. If you go by "build first, and look which of our partners in the EU we can beg for money later" you can build a lot of infrastructure. Again, in Germany that doesn't work.
And in Italy quite a bit of the gains you make on the high speed lines are lost again the moment you want to be somewhere else than near the main railway terminal. Just look at Milano, where most urban railway lines don't even come in Centrale.



> Here we have compulsory speed drops in rather unremarkable towns such as Göttingen, Kassel or Fulda.


Kassel is a about the size of Florence... And don't forget that because of the good integration with the rest of the network those stops serve a larger area than just the town.
Germany has a different urban structure. The largest urban area is not a city, but a region, the Ruhr Region. It is impossible to serve a place like that with just a single main station (where would you put it?). The German railway network doesn't just serve points, it has to serve areas.


----------



## LtBk

> This way the distance from Hamburg to Frankfurt/M could be travelled in 2,5 h as it is possible in every other developed country. Just not in Germany where parochial thinking prevails


That's assuming if those developed countries have HSR. Besides, Germany is not the only country with parochial thinking.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> This concept of ultra fast trunk routes would work in Germany even better then in France as Germany has a bigger number of large cities which all would benefit greatly if they were moved closer together.


But the large cities in Germany are already closer together than the large cities in France. France is a much bigger country...


----------



## M-NL

Suburbanist said:


> And Germany is the only country where they put a speed limit on a high-speed flat-out rail line because of concerns with noise affecting some stupid birds in a natural reserve.


JR East designed the E5 and E6 to make less noise at 320 km/h then the old models at 275 km/h. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't have to.


----------



## hans280

K_ said:


> But then Germany isn't France, or Spain... Again, look at a map showing population density.
> (BTW. Kaiserslautern is about as big as Avignon...)


My point precisely! It's only a minority of the TGVs between Paris and Marseilles that stop in Avignon. Which is why the French don't understand the German insistence that every train MUST stop in Kaiserslautern. 

The reason for this has IMHO less to do with population density per se than with the German network structure. Kaiserslautern is not a big place (and only a few people usually get off the TGV there), but it could be important for those who need to change trains (e.g. to go to Koblenz? Or Homburg?). As for France.... well don't get me started. The network is so mono-centric (or Paris-centric) that those who get out in Avignon manifestly plan to stay in Avignon.


----------



## K_

hans280 said:


> My point precisely! It's only a minority of the TGVs between Paris and Marseilles that stop in Avignon. Which is why the French don't understand the German insistence that every train MUST stop in Kaiserslautern.


That TGV that stops in Kaiserslautern also stops in Forbach. The ICEs on that route however don't. I wonder why.


----------



## thun

flierfy said:


> ^^ And you're ignoring the fact that Germany could have done exactly the same. Simply concentrate on one or two corridors and spend the available resource there to create a continuous high-speed network rather than this piecemeal approach which is nothing short of a botch-up.


No they couldn't. At least not if you (=politicians whose bloody job is to do so) want to serve as many citizens as possible.
By speeding up one or two corridors a lot admittedly you would increase customer value for those near that corridor. But for the vast mayority of passengers/citizens, things wouldn't have changed at all as they would then need to take bigger detours without saving time (as they would loose the time they gain on the HSR immediately when getting there and away from it - the net benefit in that case wouldn't be different to the preexisting slower and more direct connection). So speeding up more lines a bit less (or building a real HSL network step by step over a longer time) in fact serves more citizens, increases overall net customer value and ultimately has the bigger economic benefit (something a German should be particularly found of). Sounds a bit complicated but it's really dead simple. :nuts:

And we didn't even talk about the specific cirumstances of Germany traffic policy related to the reunification. Oh, hang on, we did about 50 times already.


----------



## Suburbanist

If you speed up a line enough that it is VERY fast, even connections requiring some back-tracking to the few key high-speed stations are also sped up.

It is the airport logic: people will travel to inconvenient locations if they can greatly gain time after reaching them.

In Italy, it is common that you have a route along the major HSR axis where it is faster for you to backtrack to a major station than follow on the "general direction of travel" with a slower train. 

Even highways are a good comparison: a highway where you can drive at 130 km/h is often a better proposition for medium distance driving than following some old rout going through all cities, even if that involves some backtracking to/from the highway itself when your locations are not adjacent to it.


----------



## Nexis

Seems like an accident waiting to happen...


----------



## kato2k8

Nexis said:


> Seems like an accident waiting to happen...


That railway crossing was closed in 2010. Replaced by a tunnel for pedestrians. Cars have to take a 4 km detour now.


----------



## Rohne

Suburbanist said:


> Making Germany a bit more Berlin-centered wouldn't be a bad thing, though that would go far beyond transportation (it would involve pulling the financial institutions from Frankfurt to Berlin, for instance)


If you argue for a center, then this shouldn't be Berlin as its lying far too remotely. This center would rather be Frankfurt as it's in the demographic and geographic center of not only Germany, but Central Europe as well. Its Metro Area counts more inhabitants with a higher population density than Berlin's; Mannheim and the Metro Areas of Stuttgart and Rhine-Ruhr are not far away. And naturally (the division of Germany after WWII only played a minor role) Frankfurt had become one of Germany's economic powerhouses and most densely populated areas, the financial center and most important traffic junction (FRA Airport, Frankfurter Kreuz and the most important railway station for long distance travel).

But I agree with you that the German approach to HSL lines with a stop every 20km in rather small towns and building unconnected lines here and there is absolutely nonsense. At first, Germany should concentrate all HSR spending on the corridors Hamburg - Hannover - Frankfurt - Basel and Cologne - Frankfurt - Stuttgart - Munich, with regular stops only in these mentioned cities, and bypasses around all other cities. So that some trains running on the HSL tracks can still stop in the smaller cities while through trains can bypass them without having to slow down.
For some cities it might even make sense to build a new station at the HSR line (ideally where there are already other tracks so that connections to other regional trains are possible) as stopping at the old central station would lose too much time - Ulm would be such an example.


----------



## kato2k8

Rohne said:


> Ulm would be such an example.


Actually, the prime examples would be precisely those cities mentioned as primary stops by you: Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich.

I'd also dispute whether Hanover is really worth the 8 minutes a stop would cost a 300 km/h ICE.



Rohne said:


> Frankfurt had become one of Germany's economic powerhouses


Frankfurt is more like the London of Germany in an economic regard...

The geographic center of Germany is near Kassel btw. The geographic center of the economically relevant areas around Germany is somewhere around Mannheim.


----------



## Rohne

kato2k8 said:


> Actually, the prime examples would be precisely those cities mentioned as primary stops by you: Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich.


Yeah, let's start trains Freiburg - Kiel, stopping in every small town like Kassel, Göttingen etc, but not in Frankfurt, Hannover and Hamburg :lol:



> The geographic center of Germany is near Kassel btw. The geographic center of the economically relevant areas around Germany is somewhere around Mannheim.


Both are somewhat in the neighborhood of Frankfurt. As there are different calculating methods, geographic centers aren't single points but rather regions, and Frankfurt's definitely located in those.


----------



## Wilhem275

thun said:


> There were plans for two other "21" projects in the 90ies for Frankfurt and Munich (pretty similar to Stuttgart). They were abandoned because of financial issues though.
> I guess that Stuttgart 21 really only makes sense in combination with HSL Stuttgart-Ulm. The main reason for the Leipzig tunnel is not to speed up IC(E)s but to create an integrated S-Bahn Leipzig/Halle.





derUlukai said:


> i think the frankfurt21 project was way too large-scaled (like stuttgart21), while a "small" solution as pointed out by wilhelm275 would still be very useful and resembles more or less the proposed "kombibahnhof"-solution of stuttgart. additionally a bypass of hanau and finally a highspeedline to fulda (mottgers-spange) would be of great advantage and probably by far more beneficial than stuttgart21 or even the new berlin-munich line.


Yep! I know there were a lot of "21s", but I use to imagine rail infrastructures less scenic and more effective 
My idea about Frankfurt is much simpler that F-21, as long as a 4 km tunnel under a city center can be defined "simple"...
No frills, just using the same route of today with the Riedbahn (or its future HS evolution) entering via F-Stadion, Niederrad, then going underground roughly in the same spot as the S-Bahn tunnel does.
A 4 (or 6) track station just under the existing Hbf, not enormous but well integrated with the above platforms; then a 2 track tunnel up to just past F-Ost.

From F-Ost you can set up an evolution in time of the corridor:
1) dedicated 2 tracks at least up to Hanau-Wilhelmsbad
2) Hanau bypass along the A66 up to Hanuer Kreuz
3) Completing the line to Fulda (ABS, Mottgers-Spange or whatever)
4) NBS to Nantenbach
EDIT, I forgot: 5) And finally a new Würzburg - Nürnberg line...

This would pretty much complete the "fast X" München - Köln and Basel - Hamburg; together with the existing lines everything would be done, except for the poor Rurh - Hamburg corridor which seems to be forgotten by God himself...



Rohne said:


> Yeah, let's start trains Freiburg - Kiel, stopping in every small town like Kassel, Göttingen etc, but not in Frankfurt, Hannover and Hamburg :lol:


I think he meant that today most of the time gained on fast lines is wasted with slow access to the cities; and that is true for those he mentioned.


In fact my idea about Frankfurt is based on the same concept: it's stupid to think and build large-scale HSLs while entering the cities is still an agony. FIRST develop better acces, then speed up the lines.

I'm surprised to read here so much "We want superfast lines" in disregards of nodes, it seems an Italian infrastructure forum :lol:


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Making Germany a bit more Berlin-centered wouldn't be a bad thing, though that would go far beyond transportation (it would involve pulling the financial institutions from Frankfurt to Berlin, for instance)


Actually from a transportation point of view having a polycentric country is far more efficient. In countries where everything is centralised in the Capital you have a lot of full trains running in one direction during the peak hour whereas in the other direction they will be empty. It's far more profitable for the railway if the peak hour traffic means trains are well loaded in both directions.


----------



## Sunfuns

K_ said:


> Actually from a transportation point of view having a polycentric country is far more efficient. In countries where everything is centralised in the Capital you have a lot of full trains running in one direction during the peak hour whereas in the other direction they will be empty. It's far more profitable for the railway if the peak hour traffic means trains are well loaded in both directions.


Don't you think this argument is only relevant for commuter traffic? People aren't commuting between Paris and Marseille...


----------



## K_

Sunfuns said:


> Don't you think this argument is only relevant for commuter traffic? People aren't commuting between Paris and Marseille...


This isn't just about commuting to jobs. Weekend traffic, and business traffic to/from Paris is highly directional, depending on time of day, and which day of the week it is, with trains lightly loaded in the oposite direction, or just parked until the flow reverses. It is not very efficient. One of the consequences is that SNCF needs higher average loadings to break even than DB does.


----------



## Rohne

Wilhem275 said:


> No frills, just using the same route of today with the Riedbahn (or its future HS evolution) entering via F-Stadion, Niederrad, then going underground roughly in the same spot as the S-Bahn tunnel does.
> A 4 (or 6) track station just under the existing Hbf, not enormous but well integrated with the above platforms; then a 2 track tunnel up to just past F-Ost.


As Frankfurt Hbf is over-congested with all kinds of traffic, priority is on reorganizing the whole apron as well as widening Frankfurt-Süd - Hbf from 2 to 4, and Stadion - Hbf from 4 to 6 tracks. Hbf's tracks 1 to 6 will then be dedicated to long distance traffic (those trains will also use the 2 new tracks to Stadion).
Besides the fact that ICEs shall use the southern line to Hanau (instead of the northern via F-Ost, but that shouldn't be too much of an issue for an eventual short NBS to the HSLs to Würzburg/Fulda bypassing Hanau), the only major difference to your proposal is, that long distance trains still use the surface instead of a tunnel. An additional tunnel for long distance trains isn't ruled out in the long term but time savings won't be much more than 2 minutes.



> From F-Ost you can set up an evolution in time of the corridor:
> 1) dedicated 2 tracks at least up to Hanau-Wilhelmsbad
> 2) Hanau bypass along the A66 up to Hanuer Kreuz
> 3) Completing the line to Fulda (ABS, Mottgers-Spange or whatever)
> 4) NBS to Nantenbach
> EDIT, I forgot: 5) And finally a new Würzburg - Nürnberg line...


Those would surely help a lot. Yet, nothing is planned by now, there's not even a decision whether to plan the Mottgers-Spange or upgrade Hanau-Fulda to 4 tracks or whatever. But it doesn't have anything to do with Frankfurt main station itself.


----------



## derUlukai

wasn`t the part of reorganizing the apron and more tracks from stadion and frankfurt-süd to HBF part of the frankfurt+ program (including also a new bridge over the main)?
why should the ICEs use the southern line to hanau instead of the northern line which looks less curved, doesn`t go directly through a city (offenbach) and is planned for a 4track upgrade and a speedlimit of 200km/h afaik? (ok, it is about 1km longer than the southern line, but that should not be an object)
i also doubt that the tunnel hbf-ffm ost would save only 2minutes if trains could speed up to 200kmh directly at hbf and hold that speed at least until hanau instead of taking the curvy route from hbf through sachsenhausen. of course it would be really expansive (not only the tunnel but also the additional underground-station at hbf) and also i read somewhere that the commerzbank tower would rule out such a tunnel as its foundations would block the route, but i suppose one could find another route for the tunnel (again that`s a matter of costs..).
if you take a look at the current ice-network you can see that highspeed routes from frankfurt to fulda and frankfurt-mannheim should clearly have a higher priority than nürnberg-erfurt or stuttgart-ulm.. also bypassing mannheim with 1or2 lines should not hurt the metropolitan region that much. it is absurd that DB now plans frankfurt-mannheim not even as a highspeed-route..


----------



## Rohne

derUlukai said:


> wasn`t the part of reorganizing the apron and more tracks from stadion and frankfurt-süd to HBF part of the frankfurt+ program (including also a new bridge over the main)?


Yes, "Frankfurt Rhein/Main Plus" is the name of the program.
More to be found in this pdf (1,6MB).



> why should the ICEs use the southern line to hanau instead of the northern line which looks less curved, doesn`t go directly through a city (offenbach) and is planned for a 4track upgrade and a speedlimit of 200km/h afaik? (ok, it is about 1km longer than the southern line, but that should not be an object)


The northern line is 1,5km longer and the speedlimit is not higher than on the southern line (160kph max, mostly less) and the curve east of Südbahnhof where southern and northern lines merge is extremely narrow allowing only slow speeds. In the meantime - we're talking of decades here - until a tunnel to Hbf is built, all trains from the northern line would have to slow down there. Because of the Main Triangle this curve cannot be accelerated. The 2 additional tracks planned along the northern line are for the S-Bahn only. Currently there aren't any S-Bahn trains using the northern line, which instead is (and will be) heavily used by freight traffic.
There will also be a reorganisation of the tracks east of Südbahnhof (some plans can be found here). The tracks from the southern line, which will be used by long distance and fast regional trains, will directly continue to the future long distance platforms 1 to 6 of Hbf, while the tracks from the northern line are directly continuing as the tracks for slow regional trains to the northern part of Hbf and for freight trains to Louisa. Thus, long distance trains using the northern line would have to switch tracks anywhere between Südbahnhof and Hauptbahnhof, meaning less capacity as no parallel passages would be possible then.
So it really makes sense to concentrate long distance trains on the southern line until a completely new line to Hanau with an acceptable speed limit of above 200kph is built.



> i also doubt that the tunnel hbf-ffm ost would save only 2minutes if trains could speed up to 200kmh directly at hbf and hold that speed at least until hanau instead of taking the curvy route from hbf through sachsenhausen.


A tunnel would make FrankfurtHbf - FrankfurtOst ~2km shorter (roughly 5 vs 7km), but trains also need time and distance to brake or accelerate, so the difference of travel speed and time savings on such a short stretch is rather low. Taking into account the high costs, priority for such a project naturally can't be very high, especially as there are still tens or hundreds of billions of euros needed for Germany to build an acceptable high speed network.



> if you take a look at the current ice-network you can see that highspeed routes from frankfurt to fulda and frankfurt-mannheim should clearly have a higher priority than nürnberg-erfurt or stuttgart-ulm.. also bypassing mannheim with 1or2 lines should not hurt the metropolitan region that much. it is absurd that DB now plans frankfurt-mannheim not even as a highspeed-route..


I completely agree with you, but... this is Germany... :bash:
Frankfurt-Mannheim is still planned for 300kph, but without Mannheim bypass. I don't know which concept they currently have for Darmstadt, as it changes every few weeks. Best would be not to stop in Darmstadt at all, the hourly ICs between (Hamburg-Kassel-)Frankfurt and Heidelberg(-Stuttgart-Munich-Austria) are enough of long distance traffic for a rather small city which is located on the very short stretch between Frankfurt and Mannheim directly neighboring the 2 million Frankfurt Urban Area.


----------



## derUlukai

ok, thanks for clerification. but one point on the regional-trains on the north-route concept is still unclear to me, as afaik those regional-trains (nearly?) all stop in offenbach, which can`t be served on the north-route. does this mean that offenbach will be served only by s-bahn in the future?
also, where could a completely new (highspeed) line frankfurt-hanau be built?


----------



## Wilhem275

Thanks for the document - it gives a nice overview of the plans.


----------



## maniei

On Frankfurt-Mannheim-HSR:

The most important thing is that the Rhein-Main-Region is suffocating from all the rail-freight-traffic!
Action is needed, and so far the HSR project has been the only "saviour" available.

-Currently the project has gotten in disfavour at the ministry of transport, because it is highly doubted that this project would ease the rail-freight problem, let alone solving it. It has been degraded in priority.


-Under these circumstances officials from Darmstadt and the Southern-Hesse Region (this region desperately needs this project to be connected to the ICE-network at all) have conducted another concept to resolve the issue:

Build the new track for freight rail only! 
This would relieve the two existing Frankfurt-Mannheim corridors, and you could lead the ICE via the existing corridor via Darmstadt (after giving it an upgrade).
That new track could be built with few trouble, since Darmstadt and Mannheim would be passed.
This concept would actually solve all the problems at once.


-Now the ministry of transport has commissioned a study to ultimately find out about the gain of a passenger-track vs. a freight-track. 
The result of this study is still awaited, and is the missing link to all the uncertainty.


-In parallel the head of Deutsche Bahn still insist on building the project as it has been - as a HSR.
Although he said that he is waiting for the result of the study as well, and would act according to it.
In the same context he also repeated that the DB would be obliged to stop in Darmstadt and Mannheim and that there would be nothing to discuss about. 



Sources in German; by the newspaper of southern Hesse, that is following the events very closely:

http://www.echo-online.de/region/suedhessen/Ruf-nach-Neubautrasse-fuer-Gueterzuege;art24719,2597081
http://www.echo-online.de/region/darmstadt/Bahn-hat-groessere-Probleme-als-den-ICE;art1231,2822685
http://www.echo-online.de/region/darmstadt/Bahnchef-ICE-Trasse-muss-kommen;art1231,2873126


----------



## flierfy

maniei said:


> Build the new track for freight rail only!
> This would relieve the two existing Frankfurt-Mannheim corridors, and you could lead the ICE via the existing corridor via Darmstadt (after giving it an upgrade).
> That new track could be built with few trouble, since Darmstadt and Mannheim would be passed.
> This concept would actually solve all the problems at once.


No, it wouldn't as high-speed trains would still run on ridiculously slow tracks.


----------



## maniei

flierfy said:


> No, it wouldn't as high-speed trains would still run on ridiculously slow tracks.


So?

The ICE speeding with 300 kph is not really a priority here.

1) Relieve the freight burden
2) Dont have freight trains run through densely populated area (at nights)
3) Close the gap frankfurt-Mannheim 
4) Find a way to stop in Darmstadt and Mannheim also
5) Make an investment that brings a financial gain.

These are the major priorities!


----------



## 33Hz

Seems that people are talking at cross purposes...

The local towns want better local service over a distance of 70km.

DB wants a high speed line that will eventually become part of a Frankfurt - France axis in a European context.

Couldn't they build the HSR but send freight that way at night?


----------



## Wilhem275

Freight is not on the move only at night


----------



## 33Hz

No, but it's less of a problem going through towns in the day.


----------



## K_

Sunfuns said:


> Same goes for those trains actually arriving and departing as scheduled. I have an impression that not everything is right in that department at least in the part of Germany I know best (Baden Wurttemberg). Trains from Germany arrive in Basel late quite often and I have an impression that the punctuality is getting worse instead of better...


I think it's getting better. Trains now arrive in Basel Bad. Bf early quite often, because of the Katzenbergtunnel.


----------



## Wilhem275

Well, ok, but if problems persist on the northern part, this will be just a temporary solution...
Compensating delays on a stretch with an oversized schedule on another is not a solution at all.


----------



## K_

Wilhem275 said:


> Well, ok, but if problems persist on the northern part, this will be just a temporary solution...
> Compensating delays on a stretch with an oversized schedule on another is not a solution at all.


That is true. But speeding up trains on that route will only start to be useful if you can cut enough time to make the ICEs arrive 20 minutes earlier, so they arrive in time for the xx:30 pulse at Basel. There is still a lot needed here. I don't expect major changes in the schedule and timings on the route before 2017.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ people travelling to Basel don't care about whatever ridiculous "pulse" they have decided upon in Switzerland! It is very pretentious for the Swiss to expect neighboring (and bigger) countries like Germany (and they do the same in Italy) should just conform to whatever network patterns they already have.

But, hey, you are the one that was going berserk one year ago or so over the fact the high-speed trains between Belgium and Germany have longer trasnfer times for passengers coming from Switzerland... you have an extremely Helvetic-centered view of transportation in which everything must fit the Swiss system, God forbids they need to cut down couple regular train paths in Switzerland (which are frequent, so it shouldn't matter) to make way for an international express service.


----------



## thun

EVERY passenger (customer) that does not travel to Basel SBB but only one single station further cares for the integration.
There are pleny of ignoramuses around that don't even get the most basic concepts of travelling and providing services, aparently.


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> EVERY passenger (customer) that does not travel to Basel SBB but only one single station further cares for the integration.
> There are pleny of ignoramuses around that don't even get the most basic concepts of travelling and providing services, aparently.


You are ignorant yourself. The majority of rail passengers travel within and between larger cities. These people would greatly benefit from faster intercity services. No need for them to fit services into the straight-jacket that an integrated timetable is.
Most services to Basel don't terminate there anyway but continue to Bern or Zürich. With frequent tram services in these three cities picking up passengers it would be well worth accelerating ICE services on the way there.


----------



## GhostOfDorian

flierfy said:


> You are ignorant yourself. The majority of rail passengers travel within and between larger cities. These people would greatly benefit from faster intercity services. No need for them to fit services into the straight-jacket that an integrated timetable is.
> Most services to Basel don't terminate there anyway but continue to Bern or Zürich. With frequent tram services in these three cities picking up passengers it would be well worth accelerating ICE services on the way there.


If you want to travel from Freiburg to Paris, the most and fastest connections are still running over Basel SBB. It makes a lot of sense, if the ICE from the north arrives at the same time than the TGV Zürich-Paris. If the ICE Frankfurt-Interlaken has a prompt interchange facility to Zürich and Chur, you have a lot more fast connections between Frankfurt and Zürich than with direct trains. This gives you more flexibility. Time to wait on your train is also travel time.


----------



## thun

Considering that the route via Basel is the single most important connection between Germany and Switzerland, it would be fatuous to think of Basel as an isolated terminus where most people travel to.
Especially considering that the trinational metro area in itself creates lots of internal traffic and hence demands an integrated public traffic system.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Baron Hirsch said:


> DB had to go through a lot of fights with NIMBYs to cancel the ICE stop at the Zoo, just three S-Bahn stops west of Hauptbahnhof (admittedly the Zoo is better interconnected to local metro and bus lines than Hbf).


Wouldn't they have to cancel the ICE stop at Zoo anyway if they route trains via Jungfernheide to Spandau instead of via the cross-town line?


----------



## flierfy

GhostOfDorian said:


> If you want to travel from Freiburg to Paris, the most and fastest connections are still running over Basel SBB. It makes a lot of sense, if the ICE from the north arrives at the same time than the TGV Zürich-Paris. If the ICE Frankfurt-Interlaken has a prompt interchange facility to Zürich and Chur, you have a lot more fast connections between Frankfurt and Zürich than with direct trains. This gives you more flexibility. Time to wait on your train is also travel time.


I don't know where you looked, the fastest way from Freiburg(Breisgau) to Paris is via Offenburg and Strasbourg.

Regardless of that the route via Basel wouldn't be harmed if the ICE service arrived earlier in Basel SBB. In fact traveller would have more time changing trains.


----------



## flierfy

Woonsocket54 said:


> Wouldn't they have to cancel the ICE stop at Zoo anyway if they route trains via Jungfernheide to Spandau instead of via the cross-town line?


They would indeed. Yet, most ICE services still run on the Stadtbahn route through the town to Berlin Ostbf though.


----------



## Wilhem275

flierfy said:


> Regardless of that the route via Basel wouldn't be harmed if the ICE service arrived earlier in Basel SBB. In fact traveller would have more time changing trains.


That would not be a problem for people going to Basel city or changing train there; but then you'd have a train sitting for 10+ minutes waiting for its slot to go on...



flierfy said:


> They would indeed. Yet, most ICE services still run on the Stadtbahn route through the town to Berlin Ostbf though.


Yep. In a distant future, whenever the Dresdner Bahn will be completed (from B-Hbf) and upgraded, you may choose to send to Dreden some of the ICEs now terminating at Rummelsburg, via the N-S tunnel... but right now the Stadtbahn is still the best options to go from Spandau to Rummelsburg.
Unless... you may want to send at least one of the two ICE2 from Hannover to BER, and then to Rummelsburg. In that case you may separate the trainset in Spandau and follow two different routes.

Well, if BER will ever open :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Wilhem275 said:


> That would not be a problem for people going to Basel city or changing train there; but then you'd have a train sitting for 10+ minutes waiting for its slot to go on...


That is already happening. The TGV from PAris to Zürich is made to wait in Basel, sometimes up to ten minutes. Whether this is due to mistrust of the punctuality of all neighboring countries or due to incompatible slots on the French and Swiss side I do not know. It makes all this talk of on the minute connections our Swissified contributors praise rather superfluous.




Wilhem275 said:


> Yep. In a distant future, whenever the Dresdner Bahn will be completed (from B-Hbf) and upgraded, you may choose to send to Dreden some of the ICEs now terminating at Rummelsburg, via the N-S tunnel... but right now the Stadtbahn is still the best options to go from Spandau to Rummelsburg.
> Unless... you may want to send at least one of the two ICE2 from Hannover to BER, and then to Rummelsburg. In that case you may separate the trainset in Spandau and follow two different routes.
> 
> Well, if BER will ever open :lol: :lol: :lol:


DB is slowly trying to move its long-distance services from the Stadtbahn onto the Jungfernheide stretch. This route saves something like 4-5 minutes traveling time, but does not allow for the line to begin in the much frequented Ostbahnhof but in the middle of nowhere station Südkreuz. This solution puts potential ICE users in the east of the city at a disadvantage, forcing them to do rather long S-Bahn rides to get to the ICE. However with the intent to use the Stadtbahn for more frequent Regionalbahns to Potsdam, some of the Braunschweig-bound ICEs now depart from Südkreuz and use the Jungfernheide route.


----------



## Attus

In Berlin the situation is quite weird. 
There are two main crossing lines: East-West (the Stadtbahn) and the new North-South one. Statbahn is fulfilled, the two tracks of regional and long distance services is overweighted even now, and were critical before 2006. N-S tunnel has lots of free capacity, the lower level station of Hauptbahnhof (Berlin Central Station) is pretty emtpy, usually you can see 5-7 (often 8) empty tracks there. Travel times from almost every starting points to Hauptbahnhof and vice versa is shorter through the N-S tunnel than through Stadtbahn. 
So, we may see that almost all long distance services should go to the basement of Hbf. 
However, the Hbf. is located in the middle of nothing, having very poor city transport connections. The connected stations Südkreuz and Gesundbrunnen are not much better.
The stations Ostbahnhof and Zoologischer Garten would be perfect for travellers but, what a pity, they both are in Stadtbahn.


----------



## Suburbanist

Attus said:


> However, the Hbf. is located in the middle of nothing, having very poor city transport connections.


When U55 is finally linked with U5 that willl change though.


----------



## flierfy

Attus said:


> However, the Hbf. is located in the middle of nothing, having very poor city transport connections. The connected stations Südkreuz and Gesundbrunnen are not much better.
> The stations Ostbahnhof and Zoologischer Garten would be perfect for travellers but, what a pity, they both are in Stadtbahn.


Ostbahnhof isn't particularly well connected either. ICE services calling there can be attributed mainly to the location of the ICE depot in Rummelsburg I suppose.

Lehrter Bf on the other hand is improving. It won't be placed in the middle of nowhere for too much longer. The area around the station is going to be developed. And with a new S-Bahn, a new metro and an extended tram line its intra-city connectivity will also be vastly improved.

As for the spare capacities on the Tiergarten route. These will remain vacant at least as long as one of the two southern approaches hasn't been built yet. The mainline tracks of the Dresden line are essential for the entire rail hub Berlin. Once this upgrade is finished the subsurface train shed of Lehrter Bf will become a lot more livelier.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Connectivity is not everything. It is true that Ostbahnhof has no other rail connection, but it is a lively station with many commuters. On the other hand, Gesundbrunnen is a very well connected station with an U-Bahn and S-Bahn tracks in several directions, but the long distance platforms remain painfully empty (admittedly services are too rare there. 
The Lehrter Bf. is indeed extremely busy, it is the only one of the stations inaugurated in 2006 which is a success. I also believe when the lines that should have existed already in 2006 are finally built it will work fairly well (i.e. U5, S21, and the tram extension towards Naturkundemuseum). If then either U5 or the tram would be extended into Moabit, many WEst Berliners could give up their nostalgia for the Zoo. 
@flierfly: I do not understand your argumentation: you know that Dresden bound trains already depart in the cellar of Lehrter Bf., don't you ? Are you saying the fact that these trains use the Anhalter Bahn through Berlin is already enough so the Anhalter Bahn has reached its limits? As all these trains will continue to use the same route between Südkreuz and Lehrter Bf even if the Dresdner Bahn is ever built (may the God of iron punish Wowereit and his NIMBY-aversion to the Dresdner Bahn), what will make the difference?


----------



## GhostOfDorian

flierfy said:


> I don't know where you looked, the fastest way from Freiburg(Breisgau) to Paris is via Offenburg and Strasbourg.
> 
> Regardless of that the route via Basel wouldn't be harmed if the ICE service arrived earlier in Basel SBB. In fact traveller would have more time changing trains.


The TGV needs from Basel SBB to Gare de Lyon 3.03 h. The ICE needs from Freiburg to Basel SBB 0.43 h. Including 0.11 h time for changing trains, the miminum travel time could be 3.57 h between Freiburg and Paris.

But you' re right. Traveltime Freiburg Gare de l' Est via Straßburg is only 3.38 h, with changing train twice and time for each changing 0.11 h. Your connection via Straßburg is the best argument for coordinating the pulse.


----------



## Wilhem275

Baron Hirsch said:


> (may the God of iron punish Wowereit and his NIMBY-aversion to the Dresdner Bahn)



:lol: :lol: :lol: I suppose the poor dispatcher controlling the Kramerkurve is offering human sacrifices to that God in order to see the Dresdner complete :lol:


Oh, poor missing link...


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ people travelling to Basel don't care about whatever ridiculous "pulse" they have decided upon in Switzerland! It is very pretentious for the Swiss to expect neighboring (and bigger) countries like Germany (*and they do the same in Italy*) should just conform to whatever network patterns they already have.


Actually basically all trains in Lombardia region in Italy (especially those north of Milan) received new scheduled in December 2008, on a structure determined by the schedule of Cisalpino trains, that is, from a fixed point in...Arth Goldau!

(the fact that Cisalpino paths are too strict causing a lot of delays to Milan's S9 and S11 services is another matter)

(this structure - although it doesn't work for Cisalpino because of their unrealistic paths - allow for good connections between all trains, so that Lecco-Firenze, Novara-Bologna, Como-Naples, Zürich-Rome, Lugano-Venice relations are all possible because - how incredible it is! - also HS trains are integrated into this structured timetable)


----------



## Sunfuns

Isn't DB paying the state for the use of the network? As I understand it EU rules mandate a strict separation between infrastructure owners and operators.


----------



## Wilhem275

It's probably DB Bahn who's paying DB Netz for network usage.


----------



## AlexNL

All operators pay DB Netz for the use of tracks, platforms and facilities such as cleaning of toilets. When it comes to train paths, DB Netz offers several 'products' (named 'Trassen') that have their own specialities.

The Regionalverkehr, whether operated by DB or not, usually goes for one of the basic options. That means they get a train path at a fair price. Operators like DB Fernverkehr, CityNightLine and Thalys usually buy 'premium paths'. A premium path is more expensive, but trains will get a higher priority. 

This explains why you aren't allowed to take Fernverkehr trains with a ticket such as the Schönes-Wochenende-Ticket, as the train path itself is actually more expensive for DB.


----------



## Wilhem275

So... if in German it's "Trassen" and in Italian is "Traccia"... may it be "Traces" in English?

Doesn't sound right...


----------



## Coccodrillo

_train path(s)_, maybe?

It's _sillon_ in French.


----------



## MattN

You're right, it is just train paths in English.


----------



## 437.001

Coccodrillo said:


> _train path(s)_, maybe?
> 
> It's _sillon_ in French.


And _surco_ in Spanish.


----------



## AlexNL

"treinpad" in Dutch. "pad" is Dutch for several words: "path", "toad" (the animal, not relevant in this case) but also "trail".


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

This video is probably from Germany so I guess it should be posted here. opcorn:





:uh:


----------



## TedStriker

*Grube: Germany should be model for Europe's railways*


GERMAN Rail (DB) CEO Dr Rüdiger Grube has called on European governments to adopt the structure of Germany's railway industry to foster competition and increase market share.

Unveiling DB's annual Competition Report, Grube argued that with 25% of German passenger services (by train-km) in the hands of private operators, and 28.6% of freight, Germany has fostered a competitive environment for rail services without adopting the full vertical separation prescribed in European legislation.

"Given the positive trend in Germany we have no sympathy with the European Commission's efforts to destroy Europe's integrated railway systems," Grube says. "The successful German model should be an example for other countries to follow that will finally encourage more competition on their railways."

DB says that rail's competitive position is under threat from the lack of security in future infrastructure funding; the lengthy certification process for new rolling stock, which has become a significant risk for operators in Germany; and the lack of progress in tackling what it terms "distortions in intra-European competition" in opening passenger markets.


From International Railway Journal, May 21st, 2013.


----------



## AlexNL

In the Netherlands, a company called WC-Eend (a brand of toilet cleanser) once used the slogan "Wij van WC-Eend adviseren WC-Eend" ("Us at WC-Eend recommend you to use WC-Eend"). That slogan applies to Grube's statement just fine. ;-)


----------



## M-NL

^^But you can't deny that given the plethora of railway companies Germany is one of the few European countries where competition on the rail network actually seems to work (and not just on a few secondary lines).


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Up to a point, that is true. However, the competition works more on tendering of schedule services (where competition is actually fierce) than on allocation of slots for domestic long-distance services (something like Italo (NTV) does in Italy)


----------



## AlexNL

Competition in _Fernverkehr_ does seem to work in Germany, indeed, for example with InterConnex or HKX. However, there have been several occassions on which DB has been the subject on an antitrust investigation.

What's most important to me is that capacity allocation and traffic management are completely separated from any operator. Cooperation is fine (and should be there), but any possibility of corruption or giving priority to its own company should be avoided. I don't care how the infrastructure maintenance is laid out - in France that job is done by SNCF Infra!


----------



## SAS 16

> What's most important to me is that capacity allocation and traffic management are completely separated from any operator. Cooperation is fine (and should be there), but any possibility of corruption or giving priority to its own company should be avoided. I don't care how the infrastructure maintenance is laid out - in France that job is done by SNCF Infra!


Isn´t the operator of the german railways a company of the DB holding group? Then if it is true how can you asure than they don´t favour other DB companies?


----------



## TedStriker

*Britain has best railway, says new CILT president*


The European Commission reckons Britain has the best railway in Europe and is urging other member states to follow and adapt to the UK rail system, according to Jim Steer, the new president of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.

The statement came during Steer’s speech at the president’s inauguration lunch in London, where he set out his agenda for the next twelve months.

As well as citing his presidential priorities for the next year, he announced the EU is encouraging other members to adapt the British example in managing railways as it believes it is the best in the continent.


From Logistics Manager, 21st May 2013


----------



## Robi_damian

TedStriker said:


> *Britain has best railway, says new CILT president*
> 
> 
> The European Commission reckons Britain has the best railway in Europe and is urging other member states to follow and adapt to the UK rail system, according to Jim Steer, the new president of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.
> 
> The statement came during Steer’s speech at the president’s inauguration lunch in London, where he set out his agenda for the next twelve months.
> 
> As well as citing his presidential priorities for the next year, he announced the EU is encouraging other members to adapt the British example in managing railways as it believes it is the best in the continent.
> 
> 
> From Logistics Manager, 21st May 2013


They don't travel by train do they? I do not see how the UK has a better rail system than Germany or Austria, for example.


----------



## TedStriker

^^

No, I know what you mean. 

I think the emphasis of Jim Steer had been on the political structure of the UK rail system with regards to the separation of infrastructure management from train operations. 

This has been a model for success in the UK, certainly for freight operations and also for some passenger operations, although it's also quite true that many passenger trains in the UK are obviously run by companies where bean counters are in control, so they can have awful seat configurations and are very often too short in length and therefore overcrowded.


----------



## Suburbanist

Robi_damian said:


> They don't travel by train do they? I do not see how the UK has a better rail system than Germany or Austria, for example.


People often criticize UK rail system without much reason. UK operates a denser network that is more fragile by means of design of the early 1800s (London-centric, lack of electrification etc)

However, these things are not a by-product of the institutional structure of the rail system in UK as of now, but a legacy of decades past. Britain had coal, and plenty of it, and no neighbor casting its eyes over it, so it never faced the urgency to electrify that Switzerland or Germany did.

Its rail infrastructure were also not severely damaged during WW2, to the point where they had to reconstruct (and indirectly upgrade) many bridges, stations and what else in Germany.

What people often complain about are prices, but that is more anecdotal these days: last-minute ICE fares are very expensive, as are walk-up fares in UK.

Last-minute travel in Germany that involves 2 ICEs, one regional train and one private-operated trains is costly. 

As for the overall pricing scheme, regional travel is cheaper in Germany than in UK, but that is a result of public policy on subsidization of local commuter train networks in many of the länder.


----------



## K_

Robi_damian said:


> They don't travel by train do they? I do not see how the UK has a better rail system than Germany or Austria, for example.


I would say that in some respects the UK system is better than the German one, in others not.
For a country with hardly any dedicated high speed the system is reasonable fast, but it could be a bit better integrated.


----------



## K_

TedStriker said:


> ...although it's also quite true that many passenger trains in the UK are obviously run by companies where bean counters are in control, so they can have awful seat configurations and are very often too short in length and therefore overcrowded.


That's not so much because of the bean counters, but because of the age of the network. The British loading gauge doesn't allow double deck trains, and the maximum length of passenger trains is also more restricted then on the continent. Which means that trains do indeed tend to be more cramped than German ones. DB can run 16 car ICE consists on all it's main lines. In the UK trains on the West Coast Mainline are limited to 11 cars... Many other lines have even shorter maximum consist. 
That said, DB is planning to pack seats closer too in the new ICx sets...


----------



## Road_UK

Suburbanist said:


> People often criticize UK rail system without much reason. UK operates a denser network that is more fragile by means of design of the early 1800s (London-centric, lack of electrification etc)
> 
> However, these things are not a by-product of the institutional structure of the rail system in UK as of now, but a legacy of decades past. Britain had coal, and plenty of it, and no neighbor casting its eyes over it, so it never faced the urgency to electrify that Switzerland or Germany did.
> 
> Its rail infrastructure were also not severely damaged during WW2, to the point where they had to reconstruct (and indirectly upgrade) many bridges, stations and what else in Germany.
> 
> What people often complain about are prices, but that is more anecdotal these days: last-minute ICE fares are very expensive, as are walk-up fares in UK.
> 
> Last-minute travel in Germany that involves 2 ICEs, one regional train and one private-operated trains is costly.
> 
> As for the overall pricing scheme, regional travel is cheaper in Germany than in UK, but that is a result of public policy on subsidization of local commuter train networks in many of the länder.


It's not the density of the network, that's fine. It's the poor service and astronomical prices for a single journey.


----------



## 437.001

TedStriker said:


> *Britain has best railway, says new CILT president*
> 
> 
> The European Commission reckons Britain has the best railway in Europe and is urging other member states to follow and adapt to the UK rail system, according to Jim Steer, the new president of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.
> 
> The statement came during Steer’s speech at the president’s inauguration lunch in London, where he set out his agenda for the next twelve months.
> 
> As well as citing his presidential priorities for the next year, he announced the EU is encouraging other members to adapt the British example in managing railways as it believes it is the best in the continent.
> 
> 
> From Logistics Manager, 21st May 2013


This sounds exactly like the kind of thing that someone who doesn´t ever use the railway would say.

Not that British railways are bad at all, don´t get me wrong. But... :sly:


----------



## Suburbanist

Road_UK said:


> It's not the density of the network, that's fine. It's the poor service and astronomical prices for a single journey.


UK fares are not expensive if you buy them in advance. Exactly like German ICE and long-distance IC-fares.


----------



## Road_UK

They are hell expensive, even on commuter trains. Why would I want to buy a single from Stevenage to King's Cross in advance?


----------



## K_

Road_UK said:


> It's not the density of the network, that's fine. It's the poor service and astronomical prices for a single journey.


I've never paid "astronomical prices" for a single journey in the UK... And the service was usually OK. The only time I suffered a large delay was when the police stopped the train to take a statement from the driver. In my experience they usually keep the passengers well informed, something you can't say from for example the French of Belgian railways...


----------



## K_

Road_UK said:


> They are hell expensive, even on commuter trains. Why would I want to buy a single from Stevenage to King's Cross in advance?


An anytime single from Stevenage to King's Cross is 13,20 UKP. For a 50km trip that is not expensive. Driving this by car will be both more expensive and slower...


----------



## flierfy

This isn't the right place to discuss rail fares in Britain.


----------



## Sopomon

I can usually travel from Edinburgh-London for about £40.
I've managed to snag first-class seats at £30 on occasion too.


----------



## Road_UK

Leeds - Stevenage once for £92. A big difference to Innsbruck - Turin for €65. Both times I bought a ticket before boarding. Mayrhofen - Munich Airport (200 km) 37€.


----------



## Jonesy55

dp


----------



## Jonesy55

Fares can be expensive but they can be very cheap, it just depends when you buy them and for which routes.

I just looked at Leeds-Stevenage, single tickets for immediate travel are £85, tickets to travel on Monday are £42.50, tickets for travel on June 27 are available at £13

Journey takes 1h47 for 265km, so average speed 148km/h, which isn't up to HSR standards but good for conventional rail.


----------



## K_

Road_UK said:


> Leeds - Stevenage once for £92. A big difference to Innsbruck - Turin for €65. Both times I bought a ticket before boarding. Mayrhofen - Munich Airport (200 km) 37€.


Mayrhofen - Munich Airport takes 3 hours, for about 200km. Not very fast... The UK train you are comparing with is more than twice as fast on average. Maybe German trains could be faster if they ware allowed to charge more...


----------



## Road_UK

K_ said:


> Mayrhofen - Munich Airport takes 3 hours, for about 200km. Not very fast... The UK train you are comparing with is more than twice as fast on average. Maybe German trains could be faster if they ware allowed to charge more...


It's not that bad. It's getting out of the Zillertal valley first, which is 30km. Takes an hour on the local privatised Zillertalbahn (www.zillertalbahn.at to give you an impression on what that train is like) or 20 mins by car. At Jenbach, at the end of the valley you'll have the option to jump on the ICE which will cost you as much as on any other train, and it will get you to Munich Hbf in one hour. From there the S-Bahn to the airport in 30 mins. I've only done it once, normally I drive.


----------



## Matz32Z

S Bahn Munich 






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwJlHBloKI


----------



## Svartmetall

Can you please take any discussions about UK train fares to the relevant GB rail thread. 

Thanks.


----------



## Road_UK

We've already moved from Britain to Austria, and then we got on the train to Munich. 

Geez.


----------



## K_

Road_UK said:


> It's not that bad. It's getting out of the Zillertal valley first, which is 30km. Takes an hour on the local privatised Zillertalbahn (www.zillertalbahn.at to give you an impression on what that train is like) or 20 mins by car. At Jenbach, at the end of the valley you'll have the option to jump on the ICE which will cost you as much as on any other train, and it will get you to Munich Hbf in one hour. From there the S-Bahn to the airport in 30 mins. I've only done it once, normally I drive.


That the ICE will cost you "as much as any other train" is not correct. DB has three product categories. If you take a regional train in stead of an ICE you will pay less. Faster ICE services are also more expensive then slower ones. You need to take this in account when comparing DB's prices with other companies.


----------



## K_

DB wants to move the yearly timetable change to october:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ecember-timetable-change-date-questioned.html

Looks like a good plan to me. The second weekend in December is probably the worst possible moment to effectuate a timetable change. DB's suggestion is to use the dates we change to and from daylight savings time. I think that the best solution would probably be to have the major timetable change in March, and the minor one in October.


----------



## M-NL

That makes a lot of sense. And then they can also scrap a lot of the rules regulating the daylight savings time changes. They used to cover a full 4 pages of the German rule book, whereas for instance in the Netherlands it is a short single paragraph (but where there are several other nonsensical rules, so not everything is better there).


----------



## Road_UK

K_ said:


> That the ICE will cost you "as much as any other train" is not correct. DB has three product categories. If you take a regional train in stead of an ICE you will pay less. Faster ICE services are also more expensive then slower ones. You need to take this in account when comparing DB's prices with other companies.


At Jenbach I can buy a ticket to Munich at any time of the day and buy a ticket to Munich and use any train I wish for the same price. This includes IC, ICE, RE, EC or the S-Bahn. Either DB or ÖBB. It's on a ÖBB ticket.


----------



## K_

Road_UK said:


> At Jenbach I can buy a ticket to Munich at any time of the day and buy a ticket to Munich and use any train I wish for the same price. This includes IC, ICE, RE, EC or the S-Bahn. Either DB or ÖBB. It's on a ÖBB ticket.


When you buy a ticket Jenbach - München in Jenbach you don't buy an ÖBB ticket. You buy an international ticket, and the price is calculated according to the SCIC-NRT tariff. With such a ticket you can indeed take any train, as DB considers it equal to a ticket at ICE price level. It will (if I'm not mistaken) cost you 33,- euro to München.

Now if you look up times and prices on the DB website you'll notice something:
- Jenbach to München with the EC costs you 32,50 but using regional trains it's 28,60. This is because here the DB uses the SCIC-NRT tariff only for the Austrian part, and uses it's own domestic tariff for the DB part. And the domestic DB tariff has different prices for different levels of trains. 
(BTW, you might not have noticed, but if you buy your ticket in Austria you'll pay VAT on the Austrian part, but not on the German part. If you buy it from DB you'll pay VAT on the German part, but not on the Austrian part...)

And faster ICEs are more expensive then slower ones:
For example: Köln - Frankfurt is 69,- on an ICE via the new line, 49,- if you go via the old line, 46,- if you take an IC, and 37,50 if you take local trains. Cheapest advance fare is 19,-


----------



## Road_UK

Wow! German train travel is even more complicated than I thought! You're right about the Jenbach to Munich price. 

One time I traveled by train from Mayrhofen to Sneek, Netherlands and back one week later. I bought the return tickets one day before departure at Jenbach. Jenbach - Sneek costed at around 200€, and I was entitled to use any train I wanted at anytime of the day, including ICE. No seat reservations. My return journey costed around 55€, again no seat reservations, but I had to stick with the trains and times as printed on the ticket, including the local Arriva train in the Netherlands, two ICEs from Arnhem to Munich and an EC to Italy calling at Jenbach. Of course I've missed my connection in Munich, so they've stamped my ticket which entitled me to use any train home.


----------



## Attus

^^ Actually it is _international _train travel, which is really complicated. Domestic tickets are far simplier. However for trains of DB Fernverkehr (IC, ICE trains) it can be a little bit complicated, too.


----------



## Suburbanist

They should abolish year timetable changes altogether. Just roll schedule changes whenever there is a substantial number of proposed changes accumulated on the desk, more or less like airlines do with their own schedules.

This being said, if a fixed timetable change D-day is to exist, 2 weeks prior to Christmas is the worst period to do it.


----------



## Road_UK

You can't do it like that at any time on short notice. People use trains daily to go to work, you can't expect them to check the timetables first before they set their alarms. Train departures are already unreliable enough as it is...


----------



## Attus

^^ One change yearly has a very good reason: train schedules (unlike plane schedules) make a very large network of cennecting train and bus services. So if you change the scheduling of one train, you must reschedule all the connecting trains and buses, and all the buses that connect to a connecting train...


----------



## Road_UK

Once a year is fine, but not every time they feel like it, which is what Suburbanist suggests.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> They should abolish year timetable changes altogether. Just roll schedule changes whenever there is a substantial number of proposed changes accumulated on the desk, more or less like airlines do with their own schedules.


Anything to make rail travel less attractive is OK with you it appears...


----------



## Suburbanist

Road_UK said:


> Once a year is fine, but not every time they feel like it, which is what Suburbanist suggests.


I'm not suggesting they do it every other day, but that they do it whenever they have reason for major adjustments. Likely once every few months, always with advance announcements.

This way, we'd stop this situation whereas a new infrastructure project is completed (say, Stuttgart Hbf.) but timetables are not improved for other 2/3 months for the only reason of expecting a fixed timetable schedule change.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not suggesting they do it every other day, but that they do it whenever they have reason for major adjustments. Likely once every few months, always with advance announcements.
> 
> This way, we'd stop this situation whereas a new infrastructure project is completed (say, Stuttgart Hbf.) but timetables are not improved for other 2/3 months for the only reason of expecting a fixed timetable schedule change.


So basically if an airport manages to finish som extension a few months ahead of time they are allowed just tell the airlines: "Half of you now have to move your flights to the afternoon as of next wednesday". That fine with you?

The reason why timetable changes need to be carefully planned is that changing a train path has effects everywhere. DB can't for example just say to the SBB: From next month on the ICE's from Freiburg will arrive 10 minutes earlier in Basel. Just doesn't work.


----------



## Momo1435

In the Netherlands you already see that although the biggest changes still happen in December the fixed timetable changes that happen every 2 or 3 months become more and more important. They are not just there for rolling stock adjustments but also for some major timetable changes.

I wouldn't be surprised that this will happen more and more, so much that it will indeed be the end of the regular yearly timetable. And this might actually happen because the timetables are so complex, having more moments that a change can take place will make it easier for the planners then always having to wait for that 1 moment in December. It makes it more easier to make changes in phases, for example when new infrastructure projects are not fully completed on time.

The winter timetable in the Netherlands is also a good example of railways becoming more flexible. The ability to change the timetable with just 1 days notice for extreme weather can also be used for other events, like major disruptions or sudden changes in traffic flows. It shows that the railways are not static organizations anymore when it comes to timetables. The computers and the software that the planners use also get better every year, making it easier to plan complex changes. 

But I don't think this will mean that the whole timetable will become fully dynamic, most of the trains will keep the same timings all through the year. Simply because a majority of the customers don't want to constantly change their travel patterns. Changes should only be made for the better, not for change itself.


----------



## K_

In the Netherlands things are a bit different, in that trains run so frequently on all routes that changes in one part don't have big effects on other parts.

In Germany it's different. When the NBS Wendlingen - Ulm will be put in service the timetable of all IC/ICE west of Stuttgart will change. This might also require changes in the timings of trains from the South-East to the North. This will anyway require changes to all local trains, all buses feeding those trains etc.
When the NBS Mattstetten - Rothrist opened in 2004 the timetable of 75% op de the Swiss trains changed. Idem when the LGV Rhin - Rhone opened. Things like that need careful planning in advance. The 2004 SBB timetable was 20 years in the making...


----------



## Sunfuns

K_ said:


> In the Netherlands things are a bit different, in that trains run so frequently on all routes that changes in one part don't have big effects on other parts.
> 
> In Germany it's different. When the NBS Wendlingen - Ulm will be put in service the timetable of all IC/ICE west of Stuttgart will change. This might also require changes in the timings of trains from the South-East to the North. This will anyway require changes to all local trains, all buses feeding those trains etc.
> When the NBS Mattstetten - Rothrist opened in 2004 the timetable of 75% op de the Swiss trains changed. Idem when the LGV Rhin - Rhone opened. Things like that need careful planning in advance. *The 2004 SBB timetable was 20 years in the making...*


Really? In that case how is the work on post-Gotthard/Ceneri base tunnel timetable proceeding? :cheers:


----------



## K_

Sunfuns said:


> Really? In that case how is the work on post-Gotthard/Ceneri base tunnel timetable proceeding? :cheers:


Quite well I asume. Some details have already been published. The definitive timetable will be ready in 2014, for an opening in December 2016.


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Looks like a good plan to me. The second weekend in December is probably the worst possible moment to effectuate a timetable change. DB's suggestion is to use the dates we change to and from daylight savings time. I think that the best solution would probably be to have the major timetable change in March, and the minor one in October.


With major engineering works done mainly in spring, summer and autumn it makes more sense to change time tables at the end of the year and not in spring. It is therefore rather favourable to change very little in the year.


----------



## NordikNerd

I have read that all trains through Rosenheim, Bavaria are cancelled due to the flood. What does is it look like in the Dresden area, Sachsen? 

Any trains cancelled yet ?


----------



## Road_UK

No. All trains from Munich going Austria bound are cancelled. Nothing else.


----------



## thun

There is information on that on http://www.bahn.de/blitz/view/index.shtml. However, things can change quite rapidly in these hours.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

thun said:


> There is information on that on http://www.bahn.de/blitz/view/index.shtml. However, things can change quite rapidly in these hours.


To sum up that info in English:
- no trains at all between Rosenheim and Salzburg, trains Munich-Vienna are redirected via Passau (+30/60 min)
- trains between Prague and Dresden run on a different route through the Czech R. and have 120 min delays
- no trains from Munic to G.-Partenkirchen or beyond
- trains via Rosenheim - Innsbruck are running, albeit a few cancellations


----------



## Autostädter

Some pictures of the new Leipzig/Halle - Erfurt - Nuremberg high speed line, which is U/C and expected to open 2016/17. 
- Layed out top speed: 300 km/h
- Length: 123 km (Halle - Erfurt) + 107 km (Erfurt - Ebensfeld/Nuremberg)

Leipzig Hbf: 








Source: Wikipedia, by Appaloosa

Halle Hbf:








Source: Wikipedia, by Bettenburg

Bridge over Saale/Elster river wetlands. Length: 8614 m - the longest bridge in Germany:








Source: Wikipedia, by Ingbife

Unstruttalbrücke:








Source: Wikipedia, by Störfix

Bibratunnel:








Source: Wikipedia, by Störfix

Finnetunnel








Source: Wikipedia, by Störfix

Gänsebachtalbrücke:








Source: Wikipedia, by Ingbife

Erfurt Hbf:








Source: Wikipedia, by Platte


----------



## Autostädter

Now to the Erfurt - Ebensfeld section, which is far more spectacular, as it crosses the Thüringer Wald mountains.

Geratalbrücke Wischleben:








by Störfix

Geratalbrücke Ichtershausen:








by Störfix

Tunnel Behringen:








by CTHOE









by CTHOE

Wümbachtalbrücke:








by Michael Sander

Ilmenau:








by Ingbife









by Ingbife

Source: Wikipedia


----------



## Autostädter

Tunnel Silberberg:








by Störfix

Oelzetalbrücke:








by Störfix

Tunnel Felckberg:








by Störfix

Massetalbrücke:








by Störfix

Rehtalbrücke:








by Störfix

Dunkeltalbrücke:








by Störfix


----------



## Autostädter

Grubentalbrücke:








by Störfix

Goldbergtunnel:








by Störfix

Bleßbergtunnel:








by Störfix

Truckenthal Brücke:








by StefanX112

Theuern section:








by StefanX112

Gruempentalbruecke:








by Störfix


----------



## Autostädter

Talbrücke Froschgrundsee:








by Störfix

Itztalbruecke:









Kiengrundbrücke:








by Störfix

Talbruecke Weissenbrunn:








by Störfix

Tunnel Lichtenholz-Süd








by Störfix

Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg%E2%80%93Erfurt_high-speed_railway


----------



## NordikNerd

Hochwasser-Chaos in Germany

Berlin-Hannover is closed and all trains Munich-Salzburg cancelled until june 23rd. 

I hope nothing will happend to the ICE's Hamburg-Berlin. I plan to go there soon.

Any info about which railway line is used for the rerouted trains Dresden-Prag ?


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Read details here: http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/flooding_in_austria_and_germany.shtml


----------



## NordikNerd

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Read details here: http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/flooding_in_austria_and_germany.shtml


I have read that,it doesn't say anything about Hamburg-Berlin yet and no info on the new route Dresden-Prague. Any signs of improving water levels in these areas ? Is Lauenburg or Buchen along the Hamburg-Berlin ICE-line ?


----------



## Wilhem275

Büchen is on the main line Hamburg - Berlin, Lauenburg is not on it.

Lauenburg is directly on the Elbe river, while Büchen is just on the Elbe-Lübeck-Kanal, so should not be at risk.


----------



## thun

All lines affected by the floodings:









Deutsche Bahn via http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama...e-das-hochwasser-die-bahn-behindert-1.1697209


----------



## Coccodrillo

A German loco, likely now used by an Italian railway construction/maintenance company, being transported on the A1 Bologna-Milano on 8 May 2013:

http://i42.tinyREMOVETHISpic.com/dzcpqc.jpg

edit: it had been idle in Bologna San Ruffillo sation (on the Bologna-Firenze line) for some year together with its sister 202 505, and has been used during the construction of the parallel high speed line.


----------



## Road_UK

Unfortunately the link is not active.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Some URLs are (temporary?) banned because of *that*, so you have to copy and paste the URL in a new window removing the "REMOVETHIS" part.


----------



## XAN_

Coccodrillo said:


> A German loco, likely now used by an Italian railway construction/maintenance company, being transported on the A1 Bologna-Milano on 8 May 2013:
> 
> http://i42.tinyREMOVETHISpic.com/dzcpqc.jpg
> 
> edit: it had been idle in Bologna San Ruffillo sation (on the Bologna-Firenze line) for some year together with its sister 202 505, and has been used during the construction of the parallel high speed line.


Why in the hell transport it over road? Isn't it simpler to send it as a part of a freight train?


----------



## TedStriker

^^


It may not be capable of running at 100kph (as I can't see the image I don't know what type of locomotive it is. Is it a shunter?)


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ The image is perfectly visible, if you read my posts...


----------



## thun

No it isn't. And the link doesn't load if you click on it.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

I can see the picture. Just delete "removethis" in the address just like Cocco said.


----------



## thun

:wallbash:


----------



## extrawelt

*Saale-Elstertal-Bridge*























































 source ​


----------



## extrawelt

...*more informations by *  Frank Eritt ​


----------



## Suburbanist

Time travel reduction poster from the 1930s (seen on the Deutsche Technikmuseum Berlin)


Deutsches Technikmuseum by eurograd, on Flickr

It probably takes now more than 12h to reach Kaliningrad and it is a pity not much further improvement was done on travel times to Hamburg last 70 years


----------



## Suburbanist

The Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin has a lot of old rolling stock on exhibition there, on two former loco sheds. I spent a whole day at the museum (it covers many other subjects besides trains), but couldn't stay that long in the shed because it was extremely hot there.


Deutsches Technikmuseum by eurograd, on Flickr


----------



## Wilhem275

The garden of the museum is great for railfans... you're in the middle of a wood, with ghost tracks, the squeacking U1 and U2 trains just beside it, the N-S mainline trains on the run, and U7 rumbling underground (you can even see it down a manhole in the corner of the museum).

For other ghost tracks in the woods, check out the Schöneberger Südgelände by Priesterweg station (S2-S25).

Hamburg is now more than half an hour nearer to Berlin, and 45' if you consider Spandau; I would call that an improvement...
Consider that the shorter the overall time, the harder to reach new marginal gains. The linear distance between them is 250 km, even a HSL perfectly straight from center to center would offer you just 30' less than today's time. Considering you have full grown cities around those centers, it's difficult to achieve a way shorter time.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Suburbanist said:


> It probably takes now more than 12h to reach Kaliningrad and it is a pity not much further improvement was done on travel times to Hamburg last 70 years


Put it that way - it took huge efforts and investments post-1989 to reach these standards again in the case of Hamburg. In the case of Cologne, only the Berlin-Hannover HSL manages to knock off some of the time of the 1930s standard. And there are still some other major intercity connections where the 1930s standard has not been reached again yet, the most embarrasing being Berlin-Dresden, where speeds have deteriorated post-reunification and the track improvement is being delayed since 23 years. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Bahn in German.
As for Berlin-Kaliningrad, I did it one time in the 1990s when there was still a direct sleeper compartment and I remember leaving Lichtenberg around 21 h and arriving in Kaliningrad around noon the next day.


----------



## Iwan

Suburbanist said:


> It probably takes now more than 12h to reach Kaliningrad


I am afraid there's no direct connection to Kaliningrad. It takes 5h46m to get from Berlin to Tczew (via Poznań and Bydgoszcz).


----------



## jonasry

Iwan said:


> I am afraid there's no direct connection to Kaliningrad. It takes 5h46m to get from Berlin to Tczew (via Poznań and Bydgoszcz).


From 2003 to 2012 there was an direct overnight service. Left Berlin-Lichtenberg 21:45 arriving 14:01 next day in Kaliningrad. It was quite unexpectiblyt removed this year due to a massive hike in track usage tariffs. It was a attached to the Berlin-Kiev train which also was ditched.

http://newswave.eu/popular-tourist-train-route-kaliningrad-berlin-sacked/


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> It probably takes now more than 12h to reach Kaliningrad and it is a pity not much further improvement was done on travel times to Hamburg last 70 years


I'd say that on average travel from anywhere in Berlin to anywhere in Hamburg is probably twice as fast now then it was 70 years ago...


----------



## RobMarPer

*Wuppertal Schwebebhan von oben*


----------



## Matz32Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt_YE7oq1I0


----------



## RobMarPer

German Railways


----------



## erka

Yesterday I had to change trains at Hamburg-Harburg. I waited 30 minutes and saw 12 (!) heavy freight trains passing by (and lots of passenger trains, of course). Mostly containers but also steel, iron ore/coal and cars. It was in the middle of the day. Incredible amount of freight trains.


----------



## Silly_Walks

erka said:


> Yesterday I had to change trains at Hamburg-Harburg. I waited 30 minutes and saw 12 (!) heavy freight trains passing by (and lots of passenger trains, of course). Mostly containers but also steel, iron ore/coal and cars. It was in the middle of the day. Incredible amount of freight trains.


How strange for a port city :lol:


----------



## erka

Silly_Walks said:


> How strange for a port city :lol:


The port of Rotterdam, which is a lot larger than that of Hamburg, sees far less freight trains (mostly because of the Rhine river inland transports by ship). I was surprised by the frequency. Hamburg must have one of the highest modal split for freight by rail of all larger ports.


----------



## tunnel owl

erka said:


> The port of Rotterdam, which is a lot larger than that of Hamburg, sees far less freight trains (mostly because of the Rhine river inland transports by ship). I was surprised by the frequency. Hamburg must have one of the highest modal split for freight by rail of all larger ports.


That´s the reason they plan to build additional tracks between Hannover and Hamburg. Latest thing to hear from was the idea to build a freight-line like Betuwe-line instead of HSL for passengers.

Kind regards


----------



## thun

erka said:


> (mostly because of the Rhine river inland transports by ship).


That exactly is the explanation. Rotterdam (and Antwerp) are directly connected with the industrial centres of the Blue Banana via the Rhine whereas up the Elbe there's, well, only farmland and the occasional town. 
Port of Hamburg's hinterland (meaning: the industrial centres of West Germany) indeed have to be connected by rail.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

In your face Siemens and Bombardier: 
Deutsche Bahn orders new trains from Skoda Transportation! :siren:




> *DB signs contract for Škoda Transportation push-pull trains*
> 
> 05 Aug 2013
> 
> *GERMANY: Deutsche Bahn signed a €110m contract for Škoda Transportation to supply six double-deck push-pull trainsets on August 5.*
> 
> The trainsets are to be used on regional services linking Nürnberg, Ingolstadt and München which DB Regio is to operate on behalf of the Land of Bayern for 12 years from December 2016. This includes operation at up to 190 km/h on the Nürnburg - Ingolstadt high speed line.
> 
> Each trainset will comprise five double-deck intermediate coaches and a double-deck driving car, with a Type 109E locomotive. The trainsets will have 705 seats in two classes, with power sockets, wi-fi and pressure-tight bodies for passenger comfort when passing trains running at up to 300 km/h on the high speed line.
> 
> The contract 'confirms that Škoda Transportation can be ranked among the biggest world producers of rolling stock', said Tomáš Krsek, Chairman of the Škoda Transportation board. 'The conclusion of this contract is proof of the high quality and competitive ability of our rolling stock. We will supply a modern train with top technical equipment to Germany. *The reference from the giant Deutsche Bahn opens the door to the entire world.*'
> 
> DB Chief Executive Rüdiger Grube said Škoda Transportation's entry to the German market would help to increase competition, and the supplier's long history in the rail sector meant DB was confident that it would fulfil expectations.
> 
> *Impression of push-pull trainset for DB Regio (Image: Skoda Transportation)*


----------



## KingNick

Good call! Pretty sure that Skoda locos will operate just fine. Why limit the service to 190 km/h though and not to the locos Vmax?


----------



## SAS 16

^^ good news for fair european competition enviroment....


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Another news, not so good. ICE 3 trains will continue to be short in stock and to operate at less than planned capacity. Inspection intervals were shortened a few years back after an accident. Now DB wants to make the vehicles safer, but the Federal Railways Office does not approve of the upgrade, as they need to see that the changes will not impair other safety features of the trains. See in German http://dmm.travel/news/artikel/lesen/2013/08/es-bleibt-bei-proppenvollen-ice-3-52842/


----------



## thun

Wilhem275 said:


> ICE traffic North-South was supposed to go through it, instead of reversing in Hbf. But I don't know if all connections are ready (actually I believed they were far behind with the tunnel).


Originally the opening was planned to be in 2009. They did plan with S-Bahn, regional and intercity services, but from december only S-Bahn will use the tunnel. That might change in the future, or the S-Bahn becomes that popular that it will clog up all slots. We'll have to see.
Regarding service improvements: It's said that travel times on the (new) S-Bahn Mitteldeutschland will be cut by up to 40mins with the new tunnel.

That's how the network will look like:









Quite interestingly, S-Bahn Mitteldeutschland will use a silver paint scheme in the future although it's operated by DB




























Two class 442 EMUs: Left the normal DB paint scheme (like used for S-Bahn Nuremberg), right S-Bahn Mitteldeutschland. The train is a Bombardier Talent 2/


----------



## Baron Hirsch

thun said:


> Originally the opening was planned to be in 2009. They did plan with S-Bahn, regional and intercity services, but from december only S-Bahn will use the tunnel. [/IMG]


Thanx for the info. However, to correct, there are a few odd Intercites and possibly ICEs which will use the tunnel from this December onwards. However, the vast majority of long-distance trains will continue as before to reverse in the terminus. While I think a city the size of Leipzig deserves an S-Bahn that actually runs through the center and does not only circle around it, it would have been useful if long-distance routes had been better integrated into the system, especially the HSL to Erfurt.


----------



## thun

Photos of the 4 tunnel stations:
*
Hauptbahnhof*




















*Markt*




















*Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz*




















*Bayrischer Bahnhof*



















Source: user Carot @German SSC thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1603772 (see for more photos)



DB and the Free State of Saxonia did put an English project website online: http://www.citytunnelleipzig.de/de/kontakt-informationen/english-information.html


----------



## thun

First tests:


----------



## AlexNL

Interesting architecture, looks great :banana:


----------



## Wilhem275

Really really nice.


----------



## dimlys1994

And do you have construction photos of the new overground stations on S-Bahn Leipzig route?


----------



## Autostädter

Leipzig now has certainly the best looking S-Bahn in Germany both in terms of train design and livery! :cheers:
And also some of the best looking underground stations.


----------



## Wilhem275

They remind me...


----------



## Isek

Also i'm not a friend of the class 442 EMU design (IMO they look not S-Bahnish more Regionaltrainish) the stations are really fast and have excellent design. They seem to fit into a city of several million and not to an 0.5 million town.


----------



## Kampflamm

This one looks awesome...at least it gives off the impression of not even being underground:


----------



## dan72

How many s bahn lines will use the underground station?
Will some use the above ground station?
Whats the frequency like for s bahn


----------



## Attus

^^
Here is the network.

Basically all lines have a 30 minutes frequency.


----------



## rheintram

Why are these stations that huge? I really like them, but they seem almost too huge for Leipzig.


----------



## thun

Because we simply can't throw enough money to those Ossis. :yes:


----------



## CB31

^^ Those are soime amazing stations, can´t believe how beautiful they're. 

And very nice pictures, thanks for sharing.


----------



## mikoCZ

Deutsche Bahn in der Tschechischen Republik:


----------



## Isek

rheintram said:


> Why are these stations that huge? I really like them, but they seem almost too huge for Leipzig.


Because stations are built regarding more or less German wide S-bahn standards (exceptions for Berlin and Hamburg). This means 215 m long platforms which may be oversized for 1million potential S-bahn users in Leipzig but not for the 3 million of Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Cologne-Dusseldorf or Munich. Some lines in this areas run 10 minute services during peak and still are crowded using 215m trainsets.


----------



## Isek

There is movement in the project for a new central station in Munich. 

The office of Auer + Weber was contracted to do the general planning for the new station. The new station will be built around the second city cross rail for suburban trains with two more platforms around 42 m deep. 










Munich central has about 450.000 passengers daily as one of the busiest stations worldwide and is a local hub for metro links (U1, U2, U4 and U5).


----------



## dimlys1994

Isek said:


>


^^And what about underground platforms for high speed rail? Still no movement?


----------



## Isek

Munich 21? Chancelled
Maglev airport link? Chancelled

It is a pity to see so little development in one of the richest cities of the planet.


----------



## Wilhem275

Two higly debatable projects. I always failed to see the pros of having through long distance services in Munich, since it will always be an end point from many destinations (too far from Berlin, too far from Cologne, too far from Verona and Wien).

Before having a long distance tunnel in Munich, I think more German cities should have one.


----------



## Suburbanist

The greatest rail shame for Germany is to have ditched the Transrapid maglev technology and go for half-measures with conventional rail when it comes to high-speed rail.

With maglev, you'd be travelling TODAY in 2h30 between Frankfurt and Berlin.


----------



## thun

dimlys1994 said:


> ^^And what about underground platforms for high speed rail? Still no movement?


What for? Munich is the terminus of nearly all ICE/TGV/Railjet calling there. And always will be.


----------



## dimlys1994

When I said underground platforms for high speed rail, I meant Munich 21. Thanks anyway


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Deutsche Bahn has pretty much perfected the art of reversing direction and moving out of busy termini in a matter of 3-4 minutes, even in Munich, Frankfurt, or Leipzig, where passenger turnover alone would make most rail companies have much longer stopovers even if the station was two-directional. before spending billions on a rail tunnel under a major city, there are many more efficient ways of increasing travel times and comfort, such as completing the HSR projects in the vicinity. For Munich that would include the Stuttgart-Ulm HSR, the upgrade on the access lines to Innsbruck and Salzburg, a better or new connection to Pilzn and Prague, etc. 
concerning the new hauptbahnhof: the Auer & Weber project above is the original prize-winner, but now DB has asked them to downsize the project, as their design would be too high above their cost expectations. It will most likely look less grand, just like Berlin's Hbf is not quite what the architect had hoped for. I wonder about the render for the surrounding streets, which appear here as empty concrete squares. Right now these are busy car and most especially tram thoroughfares. What is the plan here? Put trams underground? Divert them away from the station? Or scrap them all together? Or is this just a fanciful render which is not actually part of the proposed project?


----------



## flierfy

Wilhem275 said:


> Two higly debatable projects. I always failed to see the pros of having through long distance services in Munich, since it will always be an end point from many destinations (too far from Berlin, too far from Cologne, too far from Verona and Wien).
> 
> Before having a long distance tunnel in Munich, I think more German cities should have one.


It is no contradiction to terminate almost all intercity services in a city without a railway terminus. As Berlin demonstrates rail services can be operated far more efficiently with through stations.

It would be favourable to extend the Nürnberg-Ingolstadt high-speed line to München via airport. Such a line would require a cross-city tunnel for instance.


----------



## Wilhem275

I agree on those advantages, and München could also benefit a lot from a double main stop for all main services. I just think it's not a priority, right now 

About the HSL, I would keep both options (to Hbf and to Ost), in two different phases.
In phase one, building the line from Ingolstadt to the Airport, then routing it via Neufarhn as the S1. Of course with a serious upgrade of the Regensburg line. It would not be a great detour (+ ~6 km).
Phase two, city tunnel + HSL to Ost.

By keeping both ways, "wide region" services could be estabilished, as ICs Nürnberg - Salzburg or Prague - Stuttgart via both München airport and city. Just examples...


----------



## thun

Munich doesn't need a high speed tunnel. The Stammstrecke 2 is way, way more important for the city. A high speed tunnel could imo only make sense when the upgrate to Salzburg will be buildt. But neither a HSL Ingolstadt - Airport - Munich nor the upgrate of the Mühldorf-Salzburg line would require it, they can work without a tunnel just as well (probably a few minutes slower, but not that much that billions of euros for a tunnel would be a necessary investment). But that's an academic discussion as München 21 won't be buildt.

Regarding the trams: I guess they simply didn't want to destroy the impression by showing (realistic) traffic. There's simply no space to put trams underground around the Hauptbahnhof as there are already underground structures directly under the streets on all three sides of the station (S-Bahn on the north, U-Bahn on the south and east).


----------



## Coccodrillo

I heard that some surface tracks will be retained in Stuttgart Hbf after the completion of the Stuttgart 21 project. Is that true? If not, 8 tracks seems too few to me, even if otherwise the project is very nice...


----------



## LtBk

Slightly off-topic, but it's interesting to see Stuttgart moving ahead with big projects like Stuttgart-21 while Munich doesn't do much.


----------



## Attus

Coccodrillo said:


> I heard that some surface tracks will be retained in Stuttgart Hbf after the completion of the Stuttgart 21 project. Is that true? If not, 8 tracks seems too few to me, even if otherwise the project is very nice...


I myself are absolutely against Stuttgart21. However I don't think that 8 tracks would be few as trains can (and will) terminate in other stations. The current surface level station had 16 tracks, but many trains terminate there and stay there for 5-10-20-30 minutes.


----------



## TedStriker

Attus said:


> I myself are absolutely against Stuttgart21.


Why's that?


----------



## Coccodrillo

Attus said:


> I myself are absolutely against Stuttgart21. However I don't think that 8 tracks would be few as trains can (and will) terminate in other stations. The current surface level station had 16 tracks, but many trains terminate there and stay there for 5-10-20-30 minutes.


Even if 8 tracks may handle enough trains by quantity, having few tracks might mean that less connections between trains will be possible.

(yes, Suburbanist, I know you think making connections longer or impossible would be a great improvement, no need to say that)


----------



## thun

Coccodrillo said:


> I heard that some surface tracks will be retained in Stuttgart Hbf after the completion of the Stuttgart 21 project. Is that true?


Afaik it isn't. And it wouldn't make sense as DB wants to make urban development possible on the current railway areal.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Then enough space to add more through tracks should be reserved. Maybe so as to have up to 12 tracks?

I like the idea behind the project (and the urban redevelopment is also ok), but not its implementation.


----------



## Attus

TedStriker said:


> Why's that?


Because it costs 7 billion euro with no, or only a few benefits.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Stuttgart 21 will reduce travel times on through ICEs by almost 16 minutes (when the whole project is completed, not only the station). That is pretty impressive.


----------



## TedStriker

Attus said:


> Because it costs 7 billion euro with no, or only a few benefits.


It's pretty darn sexy though. (I'm a big fan of big infrastructure projects).


----------



## tunnel owl

Wilhem275 said:


> Before having a long distance tunnel in Munich, I think more German cities should have one.


Absolutely correct. My favorite has been Frankfurt21. This would have created a real advantage not only in saving time but also for the reliability of the ICE-network. It´s a core of the german network and linking Hbf. and Ostbahnhof would have created two clear corridors: Cologne-Frankfurt-Nuremberg and Hannover/Leipzig-Frankfurt-Mannheim-Stuttgart/Basel. Maybe even more important than Stuttgart21.

Kind regards


----------



## Sunfuns

There are lies, big lies and statistics


----------



## flierfy

thun said:


> The 1.388 are the official number published by the statistic offices. The 1.5 is your wet dream for some point in the future. Can you spot the difference?


1.5 million are no wet dream but a population projection by the very same office which published the number you cite.


----------



## Suburbanist

Does HKX plan on expanding their service, adding more trains per day?


----------



## dimlys1994

Today on Youtube. I don't know German well, but it seems that Stuttgart 21 project enters into a new phase. Groundbreaking for one of the shaft for future S21 tunnel towards Stuttgart Central station. Which one I have no idea:






Maybe you have an answer?


----------



## KingNick

The red part is now under construction (PFA 1.6a):


----------



## dimlys1994

KingNick said:


>


From Central Station towards airport and Ulm. Thanks!


----------



## Nexis




----------



## dimlys1994

Stuttgart 21 update:


----------



## GambitGO

Hey guys, I need your help. I love trains, particularly the ICE. I run an application on my Mac which allows me to use HD movies as living background: MY LIVING DESKTOP ( information here http://www.mylivingdesktop.com/ ). I've searched on Youtube for some train scenes to download but I haven't found anything usefull. I need movies recorded on steady cameras (1080p ) which show the scenary before, during and after the train went away. The camera cannot follow the train ( the background can make you dizzy otherwise  ). I wonder if someone here can help me where to find such stuff...Thank you in advance. By the way, I would be very grateful if you can help me to find ICE, TEE wallpapers too. Unfortunatelly Railpictures.net has only small pictures... Thanks again.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

The new City-Tunnel Leipzig will be opened today! :apple:

Please post all pictures you can find from this event!


----------



## Kampflamm

IKEA-esque (Leipzig Markt):














































Source: http://panoramastreetline.com/city-tunnel-leipzig-architektur-stationen-P3151#


----------



## Kampflamm

Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz:





































Source: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/12/02/gl...leuschner-platz-s-bahn-station-by-max-dudler/




























Source: http://panoramastreetline.com/city-tunnel-leipzig-architektur-stationen-P3151#




























Source: http://www.thevandallist.com/wilhelm-leuschner-platz-station-max-dudler/300-11112013-2kmn7959/


----------



## Wilhem275

Sweet, absolutely sweet. I'll sure visit it in September '14 (my usual visit to Berlin for InnoTrans).

It seems to me that the tracks have a very steep incline at the northern portals (something over 30/1000 if not even 40), does anyone have a chart with all the gradients of the line?


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

More pictures from the opening ceremony. 

*Dr. Rüdiger Grube (CEO of Deutsche Bahn) is happy.*








































































*SOURCE*


----------



## KingNick

Dat design :drool:


----------



## Sopomon

Those stations are positively cavernous, the only one I've seen that is similar in size is the Canary Wharf Jubilee Line station


----------



## thun

The line *(Ulm -) Senden - Weißenhorn* in the Ulm agglomeration was reopened yesterday for passenger services (it was a cargo-only line since 1966): http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/neu-ulm/Video-Das-Baehnle-faehrt-wieder-id28111647.html


----------



## Suburbanist

Which German railway station has highest train (not passenger) traffic per day?


----------



## Sunfuns

^^ Interesting question… I checked some obvious candidates and the answer might be Frankfurt HBf with about 1,700 trains a day. I couldn't find data for all major stations, though. Hamburg HBf and Munich Hbf are the obvious "competitors" - both have a higher passenger volume than Frankfurt.


----------



## Wilhem275

Also, we should distinguish if "traffic" include traffic stopping or also running through. But that's probably useless, since all traffic stops in all main hubs. Also, including freight traffic is pointless, since all main hubs have freight bypasses.


----------



## Suburbanist

Isn't Berlin Hbf busier, maybe, if we include S-Bahn traffic?


----------



## Wilhem275

I believe its S-Bahn traffic is comparable to F and M city tunnels. I'd say there's a little less in Köln.

Maybe one day, with S21...


----------



## thun

-- deleted --


----------



## Baron Hirsch

german wikipedia has the statistics, albeit differentiates between category of trains:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnhof#Meistfrequentierte_Fernbahnh.C3.B6fe_in_Deutschland 
frankfurt boasts the most long-distance trains (342), munich the most local (597), and frankfurt the most s-banns. do not want to spend the night doing the math, but looks like munich actually wins closely followed by frankfurt.


----------



## Wilhem275

Apart from S-Bahn, I'd say Köln Hbf moves more trains than Hamburg Hbf, since it has much more capacity on both sides (and they use it). Maybe Deutz should be included.


----------



## Sunfuns

Baron Hirsch said:


> where did you get the passenger statistics? it is also an interesting question.
> off hand i am surprised that frankfurt has less passengers despite having the much larger station. but then again it is local passengers that make up the lion's share of traffic and frankfurt is much smaller than either of the other two cities. as stated above berlin hbf is not a transfer point for s- and u-bahn and thus probably has less passengers than zoo, friedrichstraße or alex.


Just from wikipedia so who knows how precise (original DB link doesn't work anymore)… They claim 450,000 for Munich and Hamburg main stations, 350,000 for Frankfurt


----------



## Suburbanist

Does Germany has a plan to end the bizarre 16.7 Hz electrification and switch it to 25kV 50Hz so that it can be synchronized with the German (European) electric grid?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

none whatsoever. that would be such a huge project that it would bind all resources for years to come. and remember germany has a huge grid of regional lines that would have to be changed too, and then switzerland and austria would have to follow, all for a handful of border-crossing trains. db is concentrating on buying ice trains that work with different electric grids instead.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> none whatsoever. that would be such a huge project that it would bind all resources for years to come. and remember germany has a huge grid of regional lines that would have to be changed too, and then switzerland and austria would have to follow, all for a handful of border-crossing trains..


It would be a huge job indeed, and it wouldn't really serve a purpose.


----------



## Suburbanist

Baron Hirsch said:


> none whatsoever. that would be such a huge project that it would bind all resources for years to come. and remember germany has a huge grid of regional lines that would have to be changed too, and then switzerland and austria would have to follow, all for a handful of border-crossing trains. db is concentrating on buying ice trains that work with different electric grids instead.


But this would not be about the trains, but the grid. DB Netz effectively operates a shadow electric grid in Germany (for the difference in frequency). If it converted to 50Hz from the non-standard 16.7 Hz, it could use electricity from the regular grid.


----------



## Attus

Suburbanist said:


> But this would not be about the trains, but the grid. DB Netz effectively operates a shadow electric grid in Germany (for the difference in frequency). If it converted to 50Hz from the non-standard 16.7 Hz, it could use electricity from the regular grid.


Do you think all the trains that are operating in Germany are fit to work under 25kV 50Hz?


----------



## Suburbanist

Attus said:


> Do you think all the trains that are operating in Germany are fit to work under 25kV 50Hz?


No, but you can start converting lines slowly, over a 20-year horizon. You can start with high-speed lines where only ICE trains can operate..


----------



## M-NL

Why would you want to? Most rolling stock is not suited, a lot of changes are needed to the current overhead lines and the current track circuits, PZB and LZB may not work with 25 kV 50 Hz.

The shadow grid also has an advantage: although changing the frequency will cost some effeciency, it also allows DB to synchronise the overhead frequency throughout their network without the need for many neutral sections.

If you were to change from 1.5 kV or 3 kV DC to 25 kV AC there is something to gain. With this change there isn't. Also check the EU rules: You are supposed to use 25 kV AC on HSLs, with the exception of countries that already have 15 kV AC and some lines in Italy with 3 kV DC. There is no obligation to switch to 25 kV on conventional lines, you can continue to use the national standard of a country as long as it's one of the 4 standardised systems.


----------



## dimlys1994

Today:



> http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/12/16/deutsche-bahn-announces-e4-6bn-infrastructure-investment-in-2014/
> 
> *Deutsche Bahn announces €4.6bn infrastructure investment in 2014*
> 16 DEC, 2013
> 
> Deutsche Bahn (DB) is to spend €4.6 billion in 2014 on upgrades to Germany’s national rail network, the company has said.
> 
> Announcing the investment plan, DB said that throughout the year modernisation work will be carried out on more than 3,000 kilometers of track and 2,350 points.
> 
> Dr Volker Kefer, member of the management board for technology and infrastructure at DB, said: “Just for the maintenance, we will spend about €200 million more than last year.”
> 
> Key projects include:
> 
> 
> The construction of a third track on the Hamburg-Hannover line between Lüneburg and Stelle.
> Improvement works on the Frankfurt-Fulda line’s Schlüchterner tunnel alongside a refurbishment of Frankfurt Central’s long-distance platforms.
> Bridge works on the Rosenheim-Salzburg segment of the Munich-Salzburg line.
> Main lines replaced on the Karlsruhe-Mannheim line between Graben-Neudorf and Karlsruhe-Hagsfeld.
> Munich-Ingolstadt line upgraded to allow 200 km/h operating speeds.
> Integration of the high-speed Erfurt-Halle line with the completed City-Tunnel Leipzig.


----------



## Attus

Suburbanist said:


> No, but you can start converting lines slowly, over a 20-year horizon. You can start with high-speed lines where only ICE trains can operate..


What do you think, how much lines exist where only ICE trains can operate?


----------



## Suburbanist

Attus said:


> What do you think, how much lines exist where only ICE trains can operate?


Hannover - Fulda - Würzburg, Köln - Frankfurt, Berlin - Hannover?


----------



## AAPMBerlin

Suburbanist said:


> Hannover - Fulda - Würzburg, Köln - Frankfurt, Berlin - Hannover?


hno: no, only Köln-Frankfurt!


----------



## Attus

Suburbanist said:


> Hannover - Fulda - Würzburg, Köln - Frankfurt, Berlin - Hannover?


A way too much. There's only one: Köln-Frankfurt.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

germany has quite a different system from france, spain, italy. hsl's are basically ic lines where trains that are able to go 230/250, while conventional trains go 200/160 and stop more often. only 2 hsl's are capable of 300 kmh: frankfurt-cologne and nuremberg-ingolstadt. while the former is operated as a dedicated line, the latter follows the mixed concept as described above. i do not know if trains capable of 300 kmh are even allowed to go that fast while there are regional expresses (160 kmh) and slower ice's on the line. one may question what is the bigger waste of money: to construct lines capable of 300 kmh and then run slow trains on them or to reserve them only for long-distance travelers. i am afraid db will follow the former concept for the future leipzig-nuremberg line.


----------



## Attus

^^Munich - Nuremberg (München - Nürnberg) RE trains are actually IC trainsets with class 101 locos so that they can go by 200 km/h. And yes, ICE trains are definitely allowed to go by 300 any time.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

like what? reducing berlin-munich to 4 hrs from previously 6 promises enormous potential to draw passengers out of planes and into trains. it is worth discussing whether this had to be via erfurt or could have followed a more direct route. it is normal to start with few trains and increase later. with new trains in a few years, we will hopefully see more than just the hourly departures db has so far limited itself to on ice services.


----------



## Wilhem275

I don't think this project is wrong, speeding up M-B was a real necessity. What I don't understand is why voluntarily limit freight traffic on the route due to the presence of tunnels.

Ok, there are some 2% slopes which don't respect the TSI's limits of 1,25%, but that doesn't mean no freight train at all can use the line... especially the faster (and lighter) container trains.


----------



## Suburbanist

I think München-Berlin rail traffic will increase a lot after the project is completed.

However, in hindsight this route should have used Transrapid maglev technology, which allows tighter curves and steeper grades without compromising speed.


----------



## bavarian urbanist

Suburbanist said:


> I think München-Berlin rail traffic will increase a lot after the project is completed.
> 
> However, in hindsight this route should have used Transrapid maglev technology, which allows tighter curves and steeper grades without compromising speed.


Which would have resulted in incompatibility with any other rail-based transport. Maglevs should be for city-airport-links and the like.


----------



## Suburbanist

bavarian urbanist said:


> Which would have resulted in incompatibility with any other rail-based transport. Maglevs should be for city-airport-links and the like.


You could have transfer stations between both systems, like people transfer between third-rail and overhead wire trains in Berlin for instance.


----------



## Wilhem275

Which works just because the incompatible system is limited to a relatively small area.

I'm studying right now the level of traffic mixing that is planned on the new ABS/NBS around the node of Nürnberg (long distance + local + freight), this would have been impossible with a Maglev.
And your answer will be: the Maglev shouldn't have touched Nürnberg, so there'd have been no need to mix traffic.
Yes, but there would have been not enough money to build both a Maglev line and the improvements in Nürnberg and other cities, so to reduce a bit of long distance time, everything in the middle would remain congested...

In Italy there are already enough problems due to the separation of HS from standard network (different feeding system); with totally incompatible track structures, rail projects would become rather impossible...


----------



## Attus

The traffic between Munich and Berlin definitely does not prove the need for a brand new transit tool (let it be an ICE, a Maglev, an idontknowhy), calling only the two end points.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ A Maglev could still call at Nürnberg and Leipzig.


----------



## flierfy

Attus said:


> The traffic between Munich and Berlin definitely does not prove the need for a brand new transit tool (let it be an ICE, a Maglev, an idontknowhy), calling only the two end points.


They are two of the three largest cities in the country. The amount of traffic on this route does perfectly well warrant such an investment. Especially if it spares us from even more air traffic.


----------



## Suburbanist

In any case, waht happened to the maglev project to link the airport with München Hbf?


----------



## 33Hz

AlexNL said:


> An end has come to the drama surrounding the Velaro D: the EBA has given approval for revenue service operation of the first 4 trains.


What has been the source of the hold up?


----------



## AlexNL

33Hz said:


> What has been the source of the hold up?


Software related issues, mostly. Among one of the issues, EBA considered the time between pulling the emergency brake and the train actually starting to brake to be a second too long.


----------



## JumpUp

On 21st of December the first public service was done with the new ICE 3 Velaro (BR 407):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n85vfewU6ZY

Those train were originally scheduled to enter service in December 2011. Now they still need the approval for the networks of France, Belgium, Eurotunnel, Netherlands, UK to finally get a service Frankfurt/Amsterdam - Brussels - London. It's a loooong way for that.

Currently the trains only run with one segement around Germany. There are 4 trains available but only 1 in service! More are expected to come soon...


----------



## Suburbanist

Wilhem275 said:


> In Italy there are already enough problems due to the separation of HS from standard network (different feeding system); with totally incompatible track structures, rail projects would become rather impossible...


Germany uses 15kV AC electrification, which is much more viable for a high-density traffic of HSTs (especially as they have some sectors with steeper grades) than using 3kV DC. So they didn't go for a new 25 kV AC networks like Spain, France and Italy did. 

In Italy, the _Diretissima_ HSL still suffers from having been electrified with 3kV. Germany doesn't have such problem.


----------



## M-NL

AlexNL said:


> An end has come to the drama surrounding the Velaro D: the EBA has given approval for revenue service operation of the first 4 trains.


So all the trains could be in service within a month. As far as I know all sets are ready to be handed over to DB and taken into service, with the handover department of DB being the limiting factor at this moment.
That also means that in the next 6 months we will find out if the Velaro D is more reliable then the ICE3 (403/406) (Why they chose to call the Velaro D ICE3 as well remains a mystery, because there would have been nothing wrong with calling it ICE4).


----------



## KingNick

Suburbanist said:


> In any case, waht happened to the maglev project to link the airport with München Hbf?


Gone for good.


----------



## Wilhem275

Where it deserved...


----------



## AlexNL

M-NL said:


> So all the trains could be in service within a month. As far as I know all sets are ready to be handed over to DB and taken into service, with the handover department of DB being the limiting factor at this moment.


Siemens will probably have to do some retrofitting on the sets that have not yet been handed over to DB, and EBA will probably want to see those sets tested as well before formal approval is given.


> That also means that in the next 6 months we will find out if the Velaro D is more reliable then the ICE3 (403/406) (Why they chose to call the Velaro D ICE3 as well remains a mystery, because there would have been nothing wrong with calling it ICE4).


That has probably something to do with the way in which the BR 403/406 is called internally: ICE 2.2. DB used a trick to be able to order those sets, it made it appear as if it was a succession to the ICE 2 order, hence the 2.2 monikor. Upon delivery DB presented them as ICE 3.


----------



## Crownsteler

Why did they have to call them ICE 2.2 initially?


----------



## M-NL

AlexNL said:


> Siemens will probably have to do some retrofitting on the sets that have not yet been handed over to DB, and EBA will probably want to see those sets tested as well before formal approval is given.


 Given the problem I expect it's just a firmware update. However given the complexity of the object I would be surprised if a thorough test drive of every individual set wasn't part of the delivery procedure.



AlexNL said:


> That has probably something to do with the way in which the BR 403/406 is called internally: ICE 2.2. DB used a trick to be able to order those sets, it made it appear as if it was a succession to the ICE 2 order, hence the 2.2 monikor. Upon delivery DB presented them as ICE 3.



Your argument is all the more reason to call the 407 ICE4, since they have already used a numbering shift in the past. Calling it ICE3 is kind of the same as Porsche does with the 911: all models since 1989 have had a different internal number (e.g. 991 for the current model), with few parts from the different models being interchangeable.

The best argument for sticking with ICE 3 is that 407 can couple with 403 and 406 sets. You can't use them interchangeable however because the differences in seating arrangement will screw up seat reservations.

In the end it doesn't really matter. For most passengers an ICE is an ICE regardless of the model and the real enthusiasts will probably use the class number to avoid confusion when referring to a particular model.


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## mikoCZ

Weisseritztalbahn


----------



## Wilhem275

Weird stuff:








http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=422865


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ew/first-blast-for-the-falkenberg-tunnel.html
> 
> *First blast for the Falkenberg tunnel*
> 11 Mar 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GERMANY: Construction of the 2·6 km Falkenberg tunnel as part of the upgrade of the Hanau - Aschaffenburg - Würzburg corridor was ceremonially launched on March 6 with a first blast triggered by Gerswid Herrmann, wife of Bayern transport minister Joachim Herrmann.
> 
> The twin-bore tunnel is the longest of three mined tunnels and one cut-and-cover tunnel which are being built as part of an 8 km cut-off under construction between Laufach and Heigenbrucken. This will replace the existing alignment through the 160 year old 926 m long Schwarzkopf tunnel around 500 m further north.
> 
> The new flatter alignment is scheduled to open in 2017, enabling line speeds on the busy corridor to be increased from 70 km/h to 150 km/h and removing the need for banking locomotives on freight trains.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

*Wendling-Ulm on track*

Deutsche Bahn reported positively about its work on Stuttgart-Wendling-Ulm HSR. 4000 m of tunnels have already been dug between Ulm and Wendling, 400 m within Stuttgart city limits. Costs have been 10% less than expected. 3 new tunnels will be started in the coming months. The constructors are stilling awaiting permission on some sections subject to revision, but report that negotiations are ongoing in a constructive atmosphere and they hope to have all missing permissions by early 2015. The HSR could then commence operations in 2021. Wendling-Ulm is to increase speeds between Stuttgart and Munich, a part of the corridor Paris-Stuttgart-Munich-Vienna-Budapest. 
(Summary of a German report on DMM website)


----------



## Suburbanist

What about the above-ground and station works?


----------



## dimlys1994

Suburbanist said:


> What about the above-ground and station works?


Others could know everything, but personally I recomend you to subscribe to S21Bau.TV Youtube channel - it has some very interesting construction videos


----------



## SerdarOrtac

What about Stuttgart 21 ?


----------



## dimlys1994

From Global Rail News:



> http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/03/18/db-signs-agreement-for-munster-redevelopment/
> 
> *DB signs agreement for Münster redevelopment*
> 18 Mar, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Deutsche Bahn.
> 
> Deutsche Bahn (DB) and the city of Münster have signed an urban development contract to begin the refurbishment of the city’s main rail station.
> 
> Work is set to begin on a new concourse this autumn ahead of a 2016 completion.
> 
> The city of Münster will contribute €5 million to the project


----------



## dimlys1994

Today:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/.../db-orders-s-bahn-mitteldeutschland-emus.html
> 
> *DB orders S-Bahn Mitteldeutschland EMUs*
> 20 Mar 2014
> 
> GERMANY: Deutsche Bahn placed a €146m contract for 29 Bombardier Talent 2 electric multiple-units on March 20, the 13th firm order under a €1bn framework agreed in 2007.
> 
> The 19 three-car and 10 five-car EMUs are to be manufactured at Bombardier's Hennigsdorf site. They are due to enter service from autumn 2016 on S-Bahn Mitteldeutschland services from Halle and Gaschwitz, running through the Leipzig City-Tunnel to Dessau and Lutherstadt Wittenberg.
> 
> Bombardier said the air-conditioned EMUs would offer 'seats with generous spacing and roomy multi-purpose compartments for bicycle transport', as well as a group seating area for up to 14 passengers. They will have in-car CCTV, real-time passenger information displays and an accessible toilet.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...hsen-transport-authority-orders-own-emus.html
> 
> *Mittelsachsen transport authority orders own EMUs*
> 02 Apr 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GERMANY: Transport authority Verkehrsverbund Mittelsachsen has awarded Alstom a €150m contract to supply 29 Coradia Continental 160 km/h electric multiple-units and maintain them for 16 years.
> 
> The EMUs are to be built at Alstom's Salzgitter plant and are due to enter service in June 2016 on Elektronetz Mittelsachsen II services to Elsterwerda, Dresden Chemnitz, Zwickau and Hof. Operation of these services is to be put out to tender by the transport authority.
> 
> The order placed on March 26 covers 13 three-car units each with a capacity of 320 passengers, and 16 five-car units able to carry up to 520 people. There are options for up to 23 more EMUs. According to Alstom, roof-mounted traction equipment will enable the units to offer a spacious interior, with multi-purpose areas for wheelchairs, bicycles and pushchairs.
> 
> As the registered entity in charge of maintenance, Alstom will maintain the new fleet at a facility near Chemnitz


----------



## Barry1

Cool photos! Especially last one,amazing. Everything is looking there so inviting and comfortable. Love it. thanks for this.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

The first new Class 430 EMU made by Bombardier/Alstom was presented yesterday in Frankfurt. kay:

DB Regio Hesse has ordered 91 of these trains for 500 million €uro. :siren:
They will be used on the S-Bahn network of the Rhine-Main Metropolitan Region. :yes:

Press release by DB (in German). 

Vmax: 140 km/h


----------



## thun

Obviously, new competition by coach lines hurts Deutsche Bahn intercity services. Today, they bring back the Interregio as a low-cost long-distance alternative on Hamburg - Berlin line (19,90 EUR one-way): http://www.sueddeutsche.de/reise/reisen-mit-der-deutschen-bahn-rueckkehr-des-interregio-1.1937492


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Are they reducing ICE services or just adding more?


----------



## thun

Adding more, I think. This IR doesn't really compete with ICEs which take half the time and four time the money.


----------



## Suburbanist

thun said:


> Adding more, I think. This IR doesn't really compete with ICEs which take half the time and four time the money.


you can buy ICE fares to Hamburg for as little as 19, can't you?


----------



## Momo1435

^^ Only if you book early enough, there's only a limited number of tickets available with the lowest prices. 

These new IRE trains will have fixed low prices, it will be interesting for last minute travelers. And also for families and groups since the Schönes-Wochenende-Ticket can be used in these trains.

There's only 1 return trip per day, it's not like it's going to be that much competition to the ICE for now.


----------



## Sunfuns

ICE might consider lowering their prices. It might actually pay off with significantly higher ridership (it did in Spain). Right now I think ICE's are more expensive than analogous services elsewhere in Europe.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

ICE does not really have a problem with low passenger numbers. As long as the new sets (ICX) are not introduced, trains will continue to be fairly full. I believe the intercity buses are rather drawing customers away from the Regionalexpress, which some people ride across the country on SchöneWochenendTicket (although that fare is not as attractive as it used to be). 
DB could experiment by offering some cheaper starting fares for ICEs, or rather come up with some low-cost sub-company to operate more trains like this IR for people for whom price is more important than speed. DB cannot afford to compete with its ICE, mainly targeting middle-class long-distance commuters and business people, against the intercity bus companies.


----------



## bavarian urbanist

In my opinion it was a stupid idea to legalise long distance busses. They take up far too much space on the road, are ugly and don't have enough space for tall people. Additionally, they are starting a price war with riddiculously low prices.


----------



## Kampflamm

Are tall people being forced to ride them? And god forbid people could actually profit from additional choices. We can't have that in Eco-Socialist Germany. Nope, you'll ride the train for €120 and like it. :nono:

Why are you complaining about their poor design anyway? Do you drive on the Autobahn for the scenery?


----------



## Svartmetall

bavarian urbanist said:


> In my opinion it was a stupid idea to legalise long distance busses. They take up far too much space on the road, are ugly and don't have enough space for tall people. Additionally, they are starting a price war with riddiculously low prices.


Huh? Even if it is at a low price, I would still not ride a bus unless the train was ridiculously priced by comparison. If it is within my means, I would still take the train rather than the bus. It's quieter, the ride is smoother, it's easier to get up and walk around etc etc. Many countries have an effective multi-modal transport system. Having good levels of competition ensures you as a consumer are getting the best deal. Monopolies can lead to abuse.


----------



## bavarian urbanist

Kampflamm said:


> Are tall people being forced to ride them? And god forbid people could actually profit from additional choices. We can't have that in Eco-Socialist Germany. Nope, you'll ride the train for €120 and like it. :nono:
> 
> Why are you complaining about their poor design anyway? Do you drive on the Autobahn for the scenery?


Ahh stop that eco-socialist bullshit. It doesn't exist. 
Of course, choice is good, but buses ar shit anyway. 
(I'm not forced to ride them, I just don't want to live in a country without rails. Buses are so 1960ties.)


----------



## LtBk

I rather ride trains too.


----------



## Kampflamm

I'd rather drive my car. Actually cheaper than booking a DB train ticket a couple of days in advance.


----------



## Suburbanist

If DB isn't losing market, then it doesn't have reason to lower the price of tickets. 

If DB starts losing market, it is on an excellent position to compete, since its resources and network dwarf any other.


----------



## telemaxx

Kampflamm said:


> I'd rather drive my car. Actually cheaper than booking a DB train ticket a couple of days in advance.


I'm not sure about that. If you already have a car and don't consider the fixed cost (purchasing price, insurance, tax), then it might be true that fuel, wear and fees (parking, etc.) are cheaper than a Normalpreis. But in a fair comparison I guess that a car is more expensive.


----------



## Sunfuns

Suburbanist said:


> If DB isn't losing market, then it doesn't have reason to lower the price of tickets.


One would of course have to estimate the potential effects properly, but it could be that they'd increase market share and increase profits at the same time by doing so. Normal companies try to grow not merely keep the status quo.


----------



## K_

telemaxx said:


> I'm not sure about that. If you already have a car and don't consider the fixed cost (purchasing price, insurance, tax), then it might be true that fuel, wear and fees (parking, etc.) are cheaper than a Normalpreis. But in a fair comparison I guess that a car is more expensive.


Drving for example from Basel to Berlin will cost about 100,- euro in fuel alone. The normal price for a second class ticket on that route is about 140,-
But anyone who travels more than a few times a year by train will do good obtaining a bahncard, and then taking the train long distance will be cheaper than driving, even when you buy tickets at the last minute... With the added bonus that you don't have to drive yourself.

In my case I don't even have a car at all. Never had a car, and the accumulated savings so far are quite significant.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

We've had this discussion many times before. DB has as potential competitors not so much the private rail companies, which have admittedly attracted some of the local traffic, but hardly any long-distance relations; railways in general must compete with airplanes (for long-distance city to city relations); and with car (basically at all levels). Now long-distance buses add to the list of competitors. Should DB try to be cheap and offer rock-bottom comofort, put little effort into speed in order to compete with buses or should they try to offer speed and comfort as well as chains from point to point with other traffic services to impress potential car drivers or should they aim at high-speed city to city connections to grab air passengers? Any way the priority goes, it will probably be to the detriment of competition with one of the other traffic carriers. Nonetheless DB of course is a good position to face these challenges, if their executives don't sleep on the job, as they apparently have been in the first years of bus competion in Germany. But then again, executive posts there seem to be a well-funded retirement position for goverment officals....


----------



## Robi_damian

bavarian urbanist said:


> In my opinion it was a stupid idea to legalise long distance busses. They take up far too much space on the road, are ugly and don't have enough space for tall people. Additionally, they are starting a price war with riddiculously low prices.


In the UK buses are legal since forever, operate a multitude of routes, are much cheaper than trains for most distances and not all that slow (except if you go to, say, Scotland), as the UK does not have HSR to begin with.

The result? Rail travel is growing like there's no tomorrow, and has shown no signs of slowing down over the past 10 years.


----------



## Suburbanist

Germany should have built a maglev network to take care of providing infrastructure to air competition, which would free up more space for fast, but not ICE-level comfortable, trains to compete with cars (like 3+2 seating, limits on luggage, no catering, fare gates etc).


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Drving for example from Basel to Berlin will cost about 100,- euro in fuel alone. The normal price for a second class ticket on that route is about 140,-
> But anyone who travels more than a few times a year by train will do good obtaining a bahncard, and then taking the train long distance will be cheaper than driving, even when you buy tickets at the last minute... With the added bonus that you don't have to drive yourself.
> 
> In my case I don't even have a car at all. Never had a car, and the accumulated savings so far are quite significant.


Except that you can only afford not to own a car when live in an area which is very well served by public transport. These areas, however, tend to be rather expensive to live in. Which means that you didn't save too much. At least you didn't save much money.

Furthermore is the Basel to Berlin ticket quite a bargain because it is a very well served main route. If you travel only this distance than you are certain better off taking DB. If you do, however, go to Nürnberg instead or anywhere else off this main line you will find out that ticket prices aren't always so favourable. And once you go to a remote town, let alone villages and hamlets, you may even discover that rail travel isn't even an option.


----------



## Fatfield

Robi_damian said:


> In the UK buses are legal since forever, operate a multitude of routes, are much cheaper than trains for most distances and not all that slow (except if you go to, say, Scotland), as the UK does not have HSR to begin with.
> 
> The result? Rail travel is growing like there's no tomorrow, and has shown no signs of slowing down over the past 10 years.


Megabus takes 6 hours 40 minutes to get from Sunderland to London (approx 260 miles/416 km). National Express takes 7 hours 30 minutes. Yes they're a lot cheaper than using the train but from Sunderland I can use Grand Central which takes just under 3 hours 50 minutes or use the ECML from Newcastle which takes as little as 2 hours 36 minutes but the average time is about 3 hours. It takes 20 minutes by car from my house to all the starting points. Not hard to see why the train is the better option.


----------



## Mackem

Fatfield said:


> Megabus takes 6 hours 40 minutes to get from Sunderland to London (approx 260 miles/416 km). National Express takes 7 hours 30 minutes. Yes they're a lot cheaper than using the train but from Sunderland I can use Grand Central which takes just under 3 hours 50 minutes or use the ECML from Newcastle which takes as little as 2 hours 36 minutes but the average time is about 3 hours. It takes 20 minutes by car from my house to all the starting points. Not hard to see why the train is the better option.


This is true now, but only because the competition pushed the rail industry to develop a more flexible and attractive fare structure. DB is still pretty well protected by the lawmakers - remember they are one of the largest bus operators in Germany and even on freight there are truck bans on Sundays. The only open access operator is HKX, otherwise the franchise bidding system replaces one monopoly with another. The relative de-regulation of coach travel will probably have an effect of increasing the size of the market for travel as new entrants bring a degree of innovation. DB is good but can be better and some competition won't do it any harm.

In the UK rail still has a lot to learn - try being asked for £400 fare for 3 from London to Sheffield at 6am on a bank holiday on an empty train (we already had tickets for later in the day but a death in the family necessitated an early return). They wanted more because it was travel before 9 on a bank holiday, there was no-one working so it was hardly a rush.


----------



## Fatfield

Mackem said:


> This is true now, but only because the competition pushed the rail industry to develop a more flexible and attractive fare structure. DB is still pretty well protected by the lawmakers - remember they are one of the largest bus operators in Germany and even on freight there are truck bans on Sundays. The only open access operator is HKX, otherwise the franchise bidding system replaces one monopoly with another. The relative de-regulation of coach travel will probably have an effect of increasing the size of the market for travel as new entrants bring a degree of innovation. DB is good but can be better and some competition won't do it any harm.
> 
> In the UK rail still has a lot to learn - try being asked for £400 fare for 3 from London to Sheffield at 6am on a bank holiday on an empty train (we already had tickets for later in the day but a death in the family necessitated an early return). They wanted more because it was travel before 9 on a bank holiday, there was no-one working so it was hardly a rush.


Personally I don't think long distance coach travel is a viable option in a country the size of Germany. It will probably work in the Rhine-Ruhr-Main regions due to the closeness of the high population centres but going from Hamburg to Munich would probably be to far.

The fare structure in the UK is ridiculous. My Norwegian cousin came over a few years ago and went to see her father in London before coming up to Sunderland. She walked into KX ticket office expecting a similar fare set up as Norway. She got a shock. £195.00 for a walk on single in 2nd class. She could've flown up and got a taxi from the airport for less than £100.


----------



## thun

^^
That's plain wrong. Just have a look on the extense of intercity coach travel in Spain or Scotland. Or the US or Australia. Admittedly, they have a far less dense passenger rail network but the population density in fact is a lot less than in Germany. It works especially well with large population centres far away from each other and decent distances between the cities - Hamburg - Berlin would be a very good example.

In fact, this could even be routes where even overnight coaches (maybe with beds?) could find a market.


----------



## Fatfield

thun said:


> ^^
> That's plain wrong. Just have a look on the extense of intercity coach travel in Spain or Scotland. Or the US or Australia. Admittedly, they have a far less dense passenger rail network but the population density in fact is a lot less than in Germany. It works especially well with large population centres far away from each other and decent distances between the cities - Hamburg - Berlin would be a very good example.
> 
> In fact, this could even be routes where even overnight coaches (maybe with beds?) could find a market.


Scotland is a small country which is why intercity coach travel is viable. It works in the US & Australia because the only other viable public transport is flying. Do you really want to be on a coach for 2, 3 or 4 days when you can fly in less than 8 hours? I've done it and it isn't much fun, believe me. 

The point is long distance coach travel isn't very attractive when you have other options available. Hamburg to Berlin would take approx 9 hours by coach and is probably on the limit to which people would want to travel. People would still use the coach service but that would be because of financial constraints rather than preferred choice.

Putting beds on coaches would reduce pax capacity so would bump up prices thus negating any financial savings using the coach instead of the train.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> Except that you can only afford not to own a car when live in an area which is very well served by public transport. These areas, however, tend to be rather expensive to live in.


These areas also tend to be where the well paid jobs are, so that balances again. 




> Furthermore is the Basel to Berlin ticket quite a bargain because it is a very well served main route. If you travel only this distance than you are certain better off taking DB. If you do, however, go to Nürnberg instead or anywhere else off this main line you will find out that ticket prices aren't always so favourable. And once you go to a remote town, let alone villages and hamlets, you may even discover that rail travel isn't even an option.


Basel Nürnberg is 96,- normal price. With Bahncard it's less of course. What is your point? 

I'm not bothered by the fact that I can't reach every point in Germany. I have no need for this.


----------



## thun

Fatfield said:


> The point is long distance coach travel isn't very attractive when you have other options available.


Maybe to you, but in general that's plain wrong. Have a look on Madrid - Barcelona for example: There's a very fast train connection, yet it is the best served coach line in all of Spain, too. Both modes of transport apparently complement each other and take their share of the market - as economic theory suggests.
This principle works in Germany, too. Like it would in any other country in the world.



Fatfield said:


> Putting beds on coaches would reduce pax capacity so would bump up prices thus negating any financial savings using the coach instead of the train.


Yet it would be a viable way to serve routes which don't have the high demand you need to make an overnight train work. E.g. there are no overnight trains to the Bavarian Alps although these are amongs the most popular tourist destinations of Germans - why shouldn't it work? You certainly would pay extra (like you do on an overnight train) but effectively save a day of travelling? Again, it works around the world, why shouldn't it here?


----------



## LtBk

Keep in mind that the US doesn't have much of passenger rail network.


----------



## Suburbanist

thun said:


> Yet it would be a viable way to serve routes which don't have the high demand you need to make an overnight train work. E.g. there are no overnight trains to the Bavarian Alps although these are amongs the most popular tourist destinations of Germans - why shouldn't it work? You certainly would pay extra (like you do on an overnight train) but effectively save a day of travelling? Again, it works around the world, why shouldn't it here?


I'm not sure "it works around the world".

There is a fundamental problem with night trains:

- to be comfortable enough to attract high-paying costumers, you need individual/family suites with their own bathroom, separated and locked - that is expensive and reduces the train capacity. These costumers can fly to MUC and take a short train or ski resort bus to their final destination... 

- to be 'efficient' (aka couchettes) you need to reduce the level of comfort to the point where people wouldn't be willing to use anyway (e.g., people who don't consider a night surrounded by strangers as a "substitute for a hotel's night").


----------



## thun

You heard that trains are composed of different wagons, haven't you?


----------



## Sunfuns

Yes, but he is not wrong really as is evident by the continuously diminishing number and traffic share of night trains. I don't think they will go completely extinct just yet, but it will be a tiny niche market unless something drastic changes in the overall economic landscape making flying unaffordable.


----------



## Coccodrillo

thun said:


> Again, it works around the world, why shouldn't it here?


Night buses with beds? Likely because they would be forbidden by road safety laws...


----------



## MarcVD

Coccodrillo said:


> Night buses with beds? Likely because they would be forbidden by road safety laws...


Apparently not :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aunch-bus-beds-travel-London-Scotland-15.html


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ I didn't know that, thank you. However, I wonder for how long they will be allowed (as will non-urban buses without mandatory seat belts).


----------



## flierfy

Fatfield said:


> The point is long distance coach travel isn't very attractive when you have other options available. Hamburg to Berlin would take approx 9 hours by coach and is probably on the limit to which people would want to travel.


It takes 3h10' form Berlin to Hamburg by coach. That's twice the travel time as the fastest rail service but nowhere near 9 hours.


----------



## Fatfield

thun said:


> Maybe to you, but in general that's plain wrong. Have a look on Madrid - Barcelona for example: There's a very fast train connection, yet it is the best served coach line in all of Spain, too. Both modes of transport apparently complement each other and take their share of the market - as economic theory suggests.
> This principle works in Germany, too. Like it would in any other country in the world.


The two most important, and largest, cities in Spain. Not hard to see why you've picked them as your example. How many people travel by coach the whole journey as opposed to how many travel only part of the whole journey? Any other examples?


----------



## Fatfield

flierfy said:


> It takes 3h10' form Berlin to Hamburg by coach. That's twice the travel time as the fastest rail service but nowhere near 9 hours.


Its a mistake, I meant Munich. Never noticed it myself either.


----------



## thun

Fatfield said:


> The two most important, and largest, cities in Spain. Not hard to see why you've picked them as your example. How many people travel by coach the whole journey as opposed to how many travel only part of the whole journey? Any other examples?


Most important point: Two cities where all modes of transport (train, plane and coach) can compete with each other and you can observe that every single one has its market share (and hence justification). ALSA runs up to seven coaches per hour. So there's definitely a market for coaches despite fierce competition by train and plane.

And we didn't even talk about the hundreds of routes where decent direct train connections between big and medium cities don't exist. There are plenty of those in Germany, too, by the way.


----------



## Suburbanist

There is a potential for a cheaper high-speed service (that takes 2h30 instead of almost 8h by bus). However, the tricky thing about low-cost high-speed rail is that it might cannibalize the 'flagship' service.

Most passengers of the Ouigo, for instance, I think around 55%, would have used the TGV had Ouigo been not in place.


----------



## Fatfield

thun said:


> Most important point: Two cities where all modes of transport (train, plane and coach) can compete with each other and you can observe that every single one has its market share (and hence justification). ALSA runs up to seven coaches per hour. So there's definitely a market for coaches despite fierce competition by train and plane.
> 
> And we didn't even talk about the hundreds of routes where decent direct train connections between big and medium cities don't exist. There are plenty of those in Germany, too, by the way.


Can you answer the two questions I posed? Also are there any other routes in Spain with the same criteria as Barcelona-Madrid? Can you also give me some examples of the German routes too?


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> There is a potential for a cheaper high-speed service (that takes 2h30 instead of almost 8h by bus). However, the tricky thing about low-cost high-speed rail is that it might cannibalize the 'flagship' service.


You should never be afraid to cannibalise your own products. Steve Jobs already knew that 
Better you do it, then someone else.



> Most passengers of the Ouigo, for instance, I think around 55%, would have used the TGV had Ouigo been not in place.


That means that the Ouigo made SCNF a lot of new customers...

Important is that there is a clear distinction between the products. 

I would really welcome someone setting up a cheap long distance bus network in Switzerland. even though I would personally never use it.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

There are two things at stake here. For big city to big city connections, ICE will always be the faster connection (Berlin to Cologne or Munich), but big cities will always have a high number of poorer residents (students, large families, recent arrivals) who together make up enough customers to fill some buses that will not appeal to middle-class travelers at all. Then again there are the mid- to small-size towns not on the HSR grid where bus speed is competitive (Berlin-Stralsund for example) and many passengers will not want to pay the extra price for a train just for the comfort. These are also the kind of relations where DB has started to introduce buses. 
And in one thing K is right: DB had better come up with some offer for the rock-bottom passengers if it does not want to lose more customers, even if some regular passengers will switch to cheap offers too if a kind of 3rd-class long distance train is introduced.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ But how could DB come up with a high-speed/low-cost product without jeopardizing its existing business?

It can run some 2nd-class only ICEs, without a Bistro car (just vending machines), with seats with reduced pitch.

As for students, they have little income but they can plan their travels far in advance, usually, thus benefiting from discounts.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Yes, the answer is not exactly easy. Like SNCF run nofrills ICEs? Except for the comfortable space, there is anyways not so very much you could save on. 
Have some artifically slow Services like the new IRE Hamburg-Berlin? Making Trains extra slow involves extra costs too. 
But another Thing would be to have Prices start at more competitive Levels. I just checked Prices for Berlin-Munich by ICe or IC. At full Price they would be 140 E, then a saving Price for a ride 3 days away would be 100, but for a ride 3 months from now (Maximum advanced booking time) it is still between 75 and 100 Euros. If I was in desparate Need for saving Money, that would not be the way to travel.


----------



## thun

Fatfield said:


> Can you answer the two questions I posed? Also are there any other routes in Spain with the same criteria as Barcelona-Madrid?


Madrid - Seville for example. Nevertheless it should be true for 95% of cities between which AVEs run. You can google coach schedules yourself.


> Can you also give me some examples of the German routes too?


In Germany the coach market is developing quickly. Just search www.busliniensuche.de for connections between any given two cities to compare coaches with train schedules from bahn.de. E.g. I found 7 coaches and 24 trains between Hamburg and Munich for tomorrow. The train is at least double the price of the most expensive coach.


----------



## Attus

Baron Hirsch said:


> For big city to big city connections, ICE will always be the faster connection (Berlin to Cologne or Munich)


It is not true. Airlines are faster, even if you measure it point to point (e.g. Berlin Alexanderplatz to Munich Theresienwiese). And there are lots of domestic flights in Germany. E.g. from Cologne to Berlin, tomorrow, Air Berlin has 9 flights, Germanwings has 11 flights.


----------



## doc7austin

> I find the Munich - Amsterdam a really useful connection: I can arrive from Verona with an EC in the evening and get to a lot of places in western Germany and NL by the morning.


Deutsche Bahn recommends other alternatives: MXP-AMS on Easyjet, 4 times a day


----------



## Suburbanist

Verona-Amsterdam trips by land (rail or road) are and will be a small niche market at best.


----------



## Wilhem275

By "Verona" I mean all N-E Italy and by "Amsterdam" I mean basically all western Germany and the whole Benelux. Doesn't seem too small, to me.

In the afternoon I'm doing business in the center of Padova, and then I'm having breakfast with a friend in Bonn, without the hassle of finding where to sleep (did it a few months ago).


----------



## LtBk

Any news on the new Frankfurt-Mannheim HSR? I couldn't find any updates.


----------



## Sunfuns

Baron Hirsch said:


> Yes, it looks bleak for CNL. The above-mentioned train are mostly well packed, never went to Copenhagen that way, *but night trains to Paris are usually packed to the last and they are not exactly cheap.* And as German HSR does not provide super-fast access all across the country, trips from Hamburg, Munich or Berlin to Paris will always be more attractive overnight.
> If DB really wants CNL to survive, it will have to come up with some complete new concept. Of course shrinking services down to a minimum will not help. But I guess the trend is to provide HS services for mid-range distances and just leave all long-distance transport to air companies. A shame.


Do they make a profit even when full? I'm guessing not or otherwise someone would be willing to run more not less of them.


----------



## MarcVD

doc7austin said:


> CNL train to Copenhagen and Paris will be cut from December 2014 (maybe earlier).


Can I please ask you what is your source for that information ?
Many thanks in advance !


----------



## K_

doc7austin said:


> With the cancellations of the Copenhagen and Paris CNL trains, the following service might experience a cut, because the overall business case is lost:
> Munich - Amsterdam (lost through car Munich - Paris)
> Zuerich - Hamburg (lost through cars Paris - Hamburg/Berlin)


The München - Amsterdam train could be combined with Zürich - Amsterdam and Zürich - Hamburg. That would probably keep the München - Hamburg alive as well.


----------



## MarcVD

Can somebody explain me why Thalys trains take twice the time of RE trains for the
trip between Köln and Dusseldorf ? I booked a return journey between Brussels and 
Dusseldorf for the next week-end, outbound with ICE + RE, and inbound with Thalys,
and noticed that the RE takes 30 minutes, while the Thalys needs an entire hour.
Different routing ? By the way, wonder of the yield management : Thalys trip in first
class was less expensive that second class, amusing...


----------



## doc7austin

> Can I please ask you what is your source for that information ?
> Many thanks in advance !


The "Drehscheibe" Magazin, the 257th edition.


----------



## doc7austin

> Can somebody explain me why Thalys trains take twice the time of RE trains for the
> trip between Köln and Dusseldorf ? I booked a return journey between Brussels and
> Dusseldorf for the next week-end, outbound with ICE + RE, and inbound with Thalys,
> and noticed that the RE takes 30 minutes, while the Thalys needs an entire hour.


The tracks between Cologne and Dusseldorf are heavily used by so-called "Taktverkehr". Any additional traffic (e.g. Thalys) only gets the less favourable slots on the tracks. 


> By the way, wonder of the yield management : Thalys trip in first
> class was less expensive that second class, amusing...


Thats a very common occurence (also with Deutsche Bahn).
Most of the times a very restrictive First Class fare is cheaper than a more flexible second class fare.


----------



## bill623

Will WL173 Siemens or Bombardier manufacturing


----------



## MarcVD

doc7austin said:


> The tracks between Cologne and Dusseldorf are heavily used by so-called "Taktverkehr". Any additional traffic (e.g. Thalys) only gets the less favourable slots on the tracks.


That doesn't sound reasonnable... Even if "less favourable slots" are allocated,
I can't possibly see how a direct train can take twice the time of one that makes stops en route.

In french-speaking forums it is said that Thalys operations on the german network are deliberately sabotaged. 

I'm just trying to understand...


----------



## Jeff Hawken

MarcVD said:


> That doesn't sound reasonnable... Even if "less favourable slots" are allocated,
> I can't possibly see how a direct train can take twice the time of one that makes stops en route.
> 
> In french-speaking forums it is said that Thalys operations on the german network are deliberately sabotaged.
> 
> I'm just trying to understand...


The timetable is optimized around providing best journey times and cross-platform connections for those trains which are there at the same minutes past each hour. Any train which is in an irregular path - regardless of its overall origin and destination - has to fit in between those regular-interval services. That means it has to wait time at junctions and stations en route, and maybe even for platform availability at Koln Hbf.
The alternative is to force the local trains out of the way to allow the irregular express service to pass, which means that in certain hours of the day (whenever the Thalys runs) the local timetable is destroyed, and connections lost. That is the way the French would do it, so I am not surprised that they view the logical German method as tantamount to sabotage.
Personally I prefer the German method (almost) every time.


----------



## Suburbanist

Jeff Hawken said:


> The timetable is optimized around providing best journey times and cross-platform connections for those trains which are there at the same minutes past each hour. Any train which is in an irregular path - regardless of its overall origin and destination - has to fit in between those regular-interval services. That means it has to wait time at junctions and stations en route, and maybe even for platform availability at Koln Hbf.
> The alternative is to force the local trains out of the way to allow the irregular express service to pass, which means that in certain hours of the day (whenever the Thalys runs) the local timetable is destroyed, and connections lost. That is the way the French would do it, so I am not surprised that they view the logical German method as tantamount to sabotage.
> Personally I prefer the German method (almost) every time.


The problem with this philosophy is that, when tracks are very busy, you can't possibly run a fast international train service, one that is not suitable to be run 16x/day.

Switzerland is an (extreme) example of problems brought by this cult to repeated-interval timetable.


----------



## K_

MarcVD said:


> Can somebody explain me why Thalys trains take twice the time of RE trains for the
> trip between Köln and Dusseldorf ?


Strangely this is only in the direction of Düsseldorf - Köln, not the other way round. From Köln to Düsseldorf Thalys only needs 23 minutes, which is as much as the ICE or IC takes. 
I think that it is Thalys' own fault that the reverse takes so long. Let me explain:
In the direction Köln - Düsseldorf Thalys leaves at xx:19 and arrives at xx:42. Given the symmetric nature of the interval timetable (on of its many advantages) that means that in the opposite direction the train should leave Düsseldorf at xx:18 and arrive in Köln at xx:41.
However, Köln is where the food is brought on board, so Thalys probably wanted a longer stop there, thus an earlier arrival. Looking at the timetable I notice that the stop in the Essen - Paris direction is 15 minutes, with an arrival in Köln at xx:29. That would require a departure in Düsseldorf at xx:08. Quite probably there was not fast path available for that departure time. 
So I conclude that it is most probably Thalys' requirement for an asymmetric timetable that causes the issue. 
And it's indeed a consequence of a difference in culture, where France seems to believe that a few direct trains a day are preferable over plenty of options involving connections. It's maybe because in France the main purpose of the railways is transporting people to/from Paris, whereas in Germany the railways are supposed to form the backbone of a system that intends to cover the whole country...




Suburbanist said:


> The problem with this philosophy is that, when tracks are very busy, you can't possibly run a fast international train service, one that is not suitable to be run 16x/day.
> 
> Switzerland is an (extreme) example of problems brought by this cult to repeated-interval timetable.


Given that SBB is very successful you cannot escape the conclusion that they must be doing something right. What you fail to grasp is that it's the passengers that matters, not the trains. It is how fast you move people, not vehicles. It's not how fast trains go from Bern to Zürich, it's how fast someone can get from his house in Bern a meeting in an office in Zürich... And how reliable and frequent.
And that does require an integral approach. And that is increasingly being copied everywhere.

BTW, the only place where international trains systematically have to yield to local trafic is, afaik, Italy...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

K_ said:


> Given that SBB is very successful you cannot escape the conclusion that they must be doing something right. What you fail to grasp is that it's the passengers that matters, not the trains. It is how fast you move people, not vehicles. It's not how fast trains go from Bern to Zürich, it's how fast someone can get from his house in Bern a meeting in an office in Zürich... And how reliable and frequent.
> And that does require an integral approach. And that is increasingly being copied everywhere.
> 
> BTW, the only place where international trains systematically have to yield to local trafic is, afaik, Italy...


Can't we ever discuss something on this thread without it becoming ideological? It just gets boring when high speed-cultists clash with the Takt-cultists for the 531st time. As you said yourself, in this case this is probably not the problem at all, just Thalys's route management. Any many trains, not just Thalys, have regular long stopovers in Köln Hbf, because there are just many trains needing to use a limited number of tracks. 
If Thalys would really like to make a difference for passengers from the Ruhr Area, it could bypass Cologne all together via Herzogenrath. The night train Berlin/Hamburg-Paris used to do that when it still ran via Brussels. But that would mean more seriously entering territories beyond Cologne than Thalys is prepared to.
And K, the holy "Takt" does not always work well for DB. It is a turn-off when you want to travel a serious distance across Germany, have to interrupt your work or snoozing or reading and jump onto another train and start searching for a seat again. But most especially, those connections often enough do not work: serious delays are rather common on the German net, and then you either have to wait 3/4 of an hour for the next train somewhere in the middle of the journey, or a train perfectly on time is left sitting there for ages just to wait for the passengers from the connecting train. I am sorry this is a serious hindrance, call it "psycho" if you will. for many travelers.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> Can't we ever discuss something on this thread without it becoming ideological? It just gets boring when high speed-cultists clash with the Takt-cultists for the 531st time.


Well, it is annoying when advocating running a railway as efficiently as possible is called a "cult". 



> As you said yourself, in this case this is probably not the problem at all, just Thalys's route management. Any many trains, not just Thalys, have regular long stopovers in Köln Hbf, because there are just many trains needing to use a limited number of tracks.


Euh. Your statement is contradictory. The fact that Köln Hbf is a busy station with limited track capacity does not lead to trains needing long stopovers. More the contrary..



> If Thalys would really like to make a difference for passengers from the Ruhr Area, it could bypass Cologne all together via Herzogenrath. The night train Berlin/Hamburg-Paris used to do that when it still ran via Brussels. But that would mean more seriously entering territories beyond Cologne than Thalys is prepared to.


What do you mean by that? I dont think the Paris - Hamburg/Berlin night train ever ran via that route. Or do you mean that after Aachen it turned north? I doubt it would save time...




> And K, the holy "Takt" does not always work well for DB. It is a turn-off when you want to travel a serious distance across Germany, have to interrupt your work or snoozing or reading and jump onto another train and start searching for a seat again. But most especially, those connections often enough do not work: serious delays are rather common on the German net, and then you either have to wait 3/4 of an hour for the next train somewhere in the middle of the journey, or a train perfectly on time is left sitting there for ages just to wait for the passengers from the connecting train. I am sorry this is a serious hindrance, call it "psycho" if you will. for many travelers.


Just if you haven't noticed, but even France is moving to an interval timetable. And if you haven't noticed, but nowhere in Europe do people travel by train more then in Switzerland. Must be that changing trains isn't that big a hindrance in the end...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Okay, I see you are in your "An der Schweiz soll die Welt genesen"-mood, so the gloves are off.

1. Köln Hbf, however strained, manages to provide enough space for stopping trains (often two separate trains on the same platform). However to run into the 4 possible directions, the tracks converge soon after, so priorities must be set. As Köln is also a site for train to train transfers and as one of the trains is often late, departure schedules are often upset by a few minutes.
2. Notice on http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/map.php?file=maps/germany/germany.gif a rail which runs diagonally from Duisburg to Aachen via Krefeld, M.Gladbach and Herzogenrath. This is the route the night train used to take, as it taking in passengers from Cologne in the middle of the night was not considered an option. Daytime services via this route would of course depend on a serious increase in passenger demand from the Ruhr or places east of there.
3. Possibly the Takt works wonders for Switzerland, you will know the system there better than me. But DB is not such a precise animal. On any given day, walking to your train station, you will must likely see some signs for some long-distance trains such as "delayed 30 min", "delayed 45". This is not so bad if you know your train will get you there in the end, but if because of this you miss connections, late arrivals often add up to more than an hour and frantic attempts at replaning your route (as not all Germany is perfectly in Takt).


----------



## Sunfuns

I think this perfect connections only works perfectly in a relatively small country where hardly any rail journey is more than 3 h. In a larger country where you have true long distance traffic, regional traffic plus the local one it becomes a bit more complicated. Traffic patterns are also different (meaning where people want to go) so I don't think there is a one size fits all model.


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> 1. Köln Hbf, however strained, manages to provide enough space for stopping trains (often two separate trains on the same platform). However to run into the 4 possible directions, the tracks converge soon after, so priorities must be set. As Köln is also a site for train to train transfers and as one of the trains is often late, departure schedules are often upset by a few minutes.


All the more reason to stick to a strict interval timetable without any exceptions. The whole reason for interval timetables is to get the best use out of your infrastructure. You work out one hour in detail, solve all the conflicts, and just repeat it... It's not a Swiss invention btw. The Dutch came up with the idea. It's the only way they could manage to run that many trains on their network. It was then later copied by DB for their IC network.
When the SBB announced their intention to introduce a interval timetable everyone in the country thought they were nuts.



> 2. Notice on http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/map.php?file=maps/germany/germany.gif a rail which runs diagonally from Duisburg to Aachen via Krefeld, M.Gladbach and Herzogenrath. This is the route the night train used to take, as it taking in passengers from Cologne in the middle of the night was not considered an option. Daytime services via this route would of course depend on a serious increase in passenger demand from the Ruhr or places east of there.


Firstly I don't think the night train took that route that often. It is probably not faster. I have an old timetable here (from 1987) and it shows all the night trains to Hamburg and beyond (they went as far as Copenhagen then) calling at Köln. 
Anyway. especially now, I don't think that trip times via Mönchengladbach would be faster. You'd would lose passengers to from Köln though, (and any that connect there). And if you can move your base of operations away from Köln the problem with the long stop for Paris bound trains disappears as well, and the train could get a fast path in both directions. 



> 3. Possibly the Takt works wonders for Switzerland, you will know the system there better than me. But DB is not such a precise animal. On any given day, walking to your train station, you will must likely see some signs for some long-distance trains such as "delayed 30 min", "delayed 45". This is not so bad if you know your train will get you there in the end, but if because of this you miss connections, late arrivals often add up to more than an hour and frantic attempts at replaning your route (as not all Germany is perfectly in Takt).


Well. you are here convincingly arguing against allowing exceptions, because indeed, these mess things up. 
There are a few international routes I regularly travel. One is Köln - Basel. And here because DB has coordinated the schedules of Köln - München services with Frankfurt - Basel services the end result is that there is an hourly connection from anywhere in the Rhine valley to Basel. Some direct, some with changes. Then in Basel some ICE's continue to Zürich, others to Bern and Interlaken, but always with a connecting train so that both Zürich and Bern have hourly connections to Germany. 
And yes, if I were to go to Hamburg, I would probably take the direct Basel - Hamburg train. However, you sometimes have other constraints. And having a well integrated network gives more options, and thus more value. 
SBB does this quite well with the TGVs to/from France. The Paris - Zürich TGVs give a cross platform connection with trains to Bern and Interlaken in Basel. Which makes the one daily direct TGV from Paris to Interlaken in fact completely superfluous. But SNCF insisted. This is clearly again a cultural difference. If you can't get there by direct train from Paris the place doesn't exist apparently...
Very different however with the TGVs from Geneve to points in Southern France. If only SNCF would coordinate the timetables of their intersector TGVs better in a few hubs (ok, they've started to do some of that) a whole lot more destinations would become viable from Geneve. But alas, in most cases all the gain the LGV Sud brings to those trains gets lost in badly timed connections. 

No, that SMA now gets asked to design timetables for everyone in Europe isn't really an accident...


----------



## KingNick

EU rules do not require a tendering for public service contracts as far as rail transport is concerend (see Art 5 subpara 6 Regulation (EC) 1370/2007).


----------



## AlexNL

Why would it be illegal for BVG to win a tender set out by the Senate, if the same happens in other member countries? As an example: RATP, the operator of most public transport servers in the Île-de-France area, is wholly owned by the French state. Yet, RATP operaters public transport throughout the EU and worldwide. RATP was even in the race for the S-Bahn tender, but decided not to continue (as Tagesspiegel writes).

I think that BVG would have liked to participate in the tender, but that their financial position doesn't let them. As per Wikipedia, between 2003 and 2012 BVG has been unable to turn a profit which would most likely exclude them from participating in the S-Bahn tender.


----------



## dimlys1994

Passanger and freight trains collided near Mannheim station, no information about casuialties yet:


----------



## Sunfuns

Five people seriously injured it is now being reported. Speed was very low as it's right next to the station.

http://www.dw.de/train-accident-in-mannheim-leaves-dozens-injured/a-17827368


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Am I the only one that thinks that it sounds a little strange to have the sub-heading starting with the words "a private freight train"?

To me sounds like DW wish to stress that the fact that a non-DB train was involved, as if that were significant in some way.


----------



## tunnel owl

AlexNL said:


> I think that BVG would have liked to participate in the tender, but that their financial position doesn't let them. As per Wikipedia, between 2003 and 2012 BVG has been unable to turn a profit which would most likely exclude them from participating in the S-Bahn tender.


Things are a little bit different. From 1984 until 1993 BVG operated the S-Bahn in West-Berlin. During this time the Südring was rebuilt and thanks to this it has best tranfer solutions between U-Bahn and S-Bahn.

Nowadays BVG is legally a AöR (very special and hard to translate), comparable to the status of a national broadcasting TV institution. It is owned by Berlin council but operates as company idendepent. 

As it is common and still legal, EU cities can order public transport from a municipal company without tendering, if the company itself does not take part at any tendering in or outside the community. This is what BVG and Senat do and they have no interest to change this status.

So BVG would not take over S-Bahn by themselves again, they must be forced to do so and that is what they officially said in 2012. It is unlikely that this will happen, because financial status of BVG is bad anyway. It operates since 2013 with a small profite which is unique since decades but it still has debts of about 700 Mill. Euros. This thing said, if Senat would force BVG to take over S-Bahn, everything has to be decided new, apart from the fact, that BVG does not have enough personal to manage this.

Sorry beeing OT here for reailways, but I think it must be explained here for better understanding the S-Bahn Berlin.

BTW, HEV in Budapest is historically somewhat different from normal state-railway operation if I recall correctly. Was it ever to be considered as a "real" heavy railroad? Long time ago BVG was owner of the NME and Niederbarnimer Eisenbahn, because they wanted to extend their service on those small railway lines. But those small railways had not much in common with state-railway lines. Paris RER A/B seems to have a unique position regarding this.


----------



## Momo1435

According to the DB there were 35 injured, 4 serious. 

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellsc...zte-bei-zugunglueck-in-mannheim-13077513.html

More images from the article:





























The freight train was run by the Dutch company ERS Railways, but a Austrian locomotive was used on this train from Duisburg to Sopron in Hungary.


3 tracks at Mannheim are closed because of the accident, this will mean that some trains will skip the station today.


----------



## Suburbanist

Is that an ICE-1?


----------



## Momo1435

Nope, it's a standard IC push-pull set.


----------



## GhostOfDorian

^^ No, those are traditional IC-cars. DB uses ICE 1 only for ICE services.


----------



## KingNick

Looks like one of those trains ran a signal.


----------



## Suburbanist

KingNick said:


> Looks like one of those trains ran a signal.


Another demonstration of why ECTS is needed network-wide in Europe.


----------



## Wilhem275

TedStriker said:


> ^^
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks that it sounds a little strange to have the sub-heading starting with the words "a private freight train"?
> 
> To me sounds like DW wish to stress that the fact that a non-DB train was involved, as if that were significant in some way.


They are learning from FS, then. FS is specialized in this kind of "informative diversion"...

And yes, it is something disgusting and ridiculous at the same time.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Another demonstration of why ECTS is needed network-wide in Europe.


Germany does have a train protection system already, and I am sure both trains and the line were equipped with it. The presence of a TPS does not completely exclude the possibility of an accident.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Germany does have a train protection system already, and I am sure both trains and the line were equipped with it. *The presence of a TPS does not completely exclude the possibility of an accident.*


Sure enough, certain accidents could still happen, like derailment due to to faulty rail, or a chassis breaking out due to premature unobserved wear. However, most train accidents today are a result of path intrusion, a train being somewhere it shouldn't be at that time. TPS virtually eliminate this problem.


----------



## Wilhem275

TPS or not, SPAD or not, there is something odd about the position of the switches seen in the pictures.
This is the place: http://goo.gl/maps/47gJK



















Whether the movement had been authorized or not, that double switch was not in a safe position, because it didn't protect the main line from intrusion.

The question here is that the siding was configured for routing another train:









In fact the double switch was set in a safe position to protect the green path, but leading to a conflict on the red one.

There isn't an actual safe position for that switch, since the whole siding lacks a safe dead end before merging into the main tracks... but my opinion is that, in case of parallel movements (red and green) that double switch should be kept straight.
There still would be an accident, but probably with less serious consequences (and not involving passenger traffic).


----------



## kato2k8

Wilhem275 said:


> probably with less serious consequences (and not involving passenger traffic).


The green path would be set for the regular S1 commuter train following into the station about 2-3 minutes later by timetable.


----------



## Wilhem275

Frankly, I believed those tracks were a siding... what a weird setup that station: with 9 passenger tracks available, the NBS from south goes straight into track 2 and four other paths have to squeeze into track 1.

Also, the FAZ article says the freight train was going from Duisburg to Hungary, I guess it's the opposite...


----------



## MarcVD

Wilhem275 said:


> There isn't an actual safe position for that switch, since the whole siding lacks a safe dead end before merging into the main tracks... but my opinion is that, in case of parallel movements (red and green) that double switch should be kept straight.
> There still would be an accident, but probably with less serious consequences (and not involving passenger traffic).


If left straight as you suggest, this could have led to a head-on collision, 
much worse that the accident that actually happened. As you said, it is
not possible to have a 100% safe switch position with this track plan, but
I think DB engineers made the right choice.


----------



## MarcVD

Suburbanist said:


> However, most train accidents today are a result of path intrusion, a train being somewhere it shouldn't be at that time. TPS virtually eliminate this problem.


Not really. A TPS would trigger emergency brakes in case of signal passed
at red, but the accident would be avoided only if there is enough space
for braking between the signal and the point to protect. In stations this
is almost never the case, and trains, specially heavy freight ones, cannot
stop abruptly. In stations, track plans are usually too crowded to
leave enough space between signals and points to come to a complete stop.
It might very well be, in this accident, that the TPS triggered the brakes, but
did not manage to stop the train before the collision occured.

The main benefit of TPS is not really that it stops trains when a red signal is
passed. It's much more the fact that the deceleration of the train is
controlled when a signal is passed at caution (yellow) to ensure it will be
able to stop at the red that follows.


----------



## Road_UK

I am posting this here as well (also posted this in the international railway thread)

If you can understand German, then you'll find this 30 minute documentary interesting. It's about the ICE service from Frankfurt to Paris, following the driver, two conductors (a German and a Frenchman) , the caterers and information about the preparations etc...


----------



## bongo-anders

I don´t understand german that well but is it correctly understanded that they have skipped the 2+1 solution between Lübeck and Puttgarden with the socalled 2+0 solution instead?


----------



## mikoCZ

Something from history ...


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...an-new-line-to-reach-fehmarn-belt-tunnel.html
> 
> *DB and Schleswig-Holstein plan new line to reach Fehmarn Belt tunnel*
> 07 Oct 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _With bores for both road and rail traffic, the 18 km Fehmarn Belt tunnel between Germany and Denmark is scheduled to open in 2021_
> 
> GERMANY: Under a letter of intent signed by Schleswig-Holstein’s Minster for Transport, Economy, Labour & Technology, Reinhard Meyer, and DB Netz CEO Frank Sennhenn a double-track electrified line on a new alignment would be built between Lübeck and Puttgarden to serve the Fehmarn Belt tunnel, due to open in 2021.
> 
> The letter of intent supports a treaty agreement between the Danish and German governments signed in 2008 committing both countries to enhance transport links on either side of the Fehmarn strait. DB Netz says that when the new line is completed, the existing single-track route would be decommissioned, enabling rail traffic to be routed away from the centre of several small towns along the route, including Ratekau, Grossenbrode and Sierksdorf. Nevertheless, the letter incudes a commitment to retain a local passenger service between Lübeck and Puttgarden via the new alignment
> 
> ...


----------



## bongo-anders

I saw the news in the danish media today.


But i have to rephrase my guestion from the danish subforum.


The old plan was to install electrification on the old line when the tunnel opens in 2021 and then build out to double track in 2027,
but if the old line will not be in use anymore they have (as I see it) to build the new line before 2021.

Is that correct?


Here is a map of both the current line and the future one.


----------



## TedStriker

Going off on a tangent, I found this gem featuring some fantastic 1990 images of the railway system in the former East Germany at that time. 

Although I don't speak German I combined the footage with my powers of common sense to figure out what was going on. 

Traffic misery in the GDR 1990 (BR Report 5/17/90 with Friedrich Merz)


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...h-airport-northern-rail-link.html?channel=542
> 
> *Work starts on Munich airport northern rail link*
> Monday, October 27, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _GERMAN federal transport minister Mr Alexander Dobrint, Bavarian transport minister Mr Joachim Herrmann, and Dr Volker Kefer, German Rail (DB) board memer for infrastructure and services, formally launched construction of a new rail link to Munich Franz-Jozef Strauss International Airport in groundbreaking ceremony near the Bavarian town of Neufahrn bei Freising on October 27_
> 
> The 2.3km Neufahrn Curve will branch off the Airport – Neufahrn line between Airport Visitor Park station and Neufahrn, crossing the A92 motorway and curving northeast on an embankment to join the Munich – Regensburg line south of Pulling. The double-track electrified line is due to open in December 2018 and will cut journey times by around 30 minutes for rail passengers travelling to the airport from towns to the north and northeast, such as Freising, Regensburg, Landshut, and Passau.
> 
> The €91m project is being jointly financed by the state of Bavaria and the German federal government. DB will pay the state around €10m over a 20-year period through track access charges for using the new link
> 
> ...


Map of planned improvements north of Munich, Neufahrn Curve is in Orange:


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/tendering-starts-for-german-czech-link.html?channel=542
> 
> *Tendering underway for German-Czech link*
> Monday, November 03, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The abandoned line at Selb Plössberg_
> 
> _GERMAN infrastructure manager DB Networks has issued a tender notice for a contract to reinstate the German section of the short cross-border link between Selb, Germany, and Aš in the Czech Republic_
> 
> The rebuilding of the 7.6km line will include the upgrading of Selb Plössberg and Aš stations, renewal of signalling, and construction of a new bridge over state road 2179 near Erkenreuth. Work on the Czech side of the border is being implemented by Czech infrastructure manager SŽDC.
> 
> The project is due to be completed by the end of next year and will enable trains to run direct from the Bavarian town of Hof to Cheb in the Czech Republic


----------



## thun

If anyone should plan to travel by train in Germany in the 96 hours following Thursday 2 am: Don't try! DB's train drivers are going on strike, only 1 in 3 DB trains will apparently run. Germany feels like France right now.


----------



## Suburbanist

thun said:


> If anyone should plan to travel by train in Germany in the 96 hours following Thursday 2 am: Don't try! DB's train drivers are going on strike, only 1 in 3 DB trains will apparently run. Germany feels like France right now.


What are their demands?


----------



## Wilhem275

Suburbanist said:


> What are their demands?


4 days of holiday.


----------



## TedStriker

You know it's sad to see strikes in Germany. I always admired Germany for being a strike-free paradise in contrast to Britain in the 80s.

Have the French hijacked the GDL?


----------



## Road_UK

Strike is a form of democracy, and it's a good way to stand up for your rights. And you won't get shot....


----------



## Sunfuns

Sometimes it is, but not when it's as often as in France these days.


----------



## Mackem

Suburbanist said:


> What are their demands?


5% pay rise
4 hours per week hours cut
GDL union wants to represent more DB staff to increase GDL influence with DB

The union leader says he "enjoys the power" of leading the union. 

The coach companies probably do too.


----------



## TedStriker

This is really irresponsible, dumb behaviour on the part of the GDL. The only outcome I can see is the eventual demise of the GDL.

(I'm saying that while being totally ignorant of trade union law in Germany I confess.)

As I can't be bothered to do any research right now, can someone tell me, is the leader of the GDL seen as a bit of a tit by most Germans, like Arthur Scargill was in Britain in the 1980s?


----------



## Skalka

Oh yes, he is.


----------



## thun

Thanks to an unprecedented media campaign yes.


----------



## KingNick

The hate campaign in Germany against the GDL is nothing short of disgusting.


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Why is it disgusting? 

Every time there's a tube strike in London the RMT becomes a focus for people's anger which is quite understandable.


----------



## Suburbanist

If a union wants to make a strike on a visible public service where the state is a virtual monopolist, it ought to have an extremely good case so that the public won't hate them.


----------



## Road_UK

There will always be someone who are going to be annoyed about this, but there are also a suprising amount of people who will react sympatically to the cause, even if they can't get to work.


----------



## TedStriker

^^

This strike in Germany isn't only affecting passengers. It's also affecting all the companies which are involved with the shipment of rail cargo. 

And that's massively important given the significance of the Germany economy in Europe and the fact that many DB-hauled cargo trains are conveying transit cargo, between, for example, Sweden and Italy.


----------



## Road_UK

More reason to give in to demands then...


----------



## TedStriker

More reason to destroy the GDL more like...


----------



## TedStriker

German railway seeks injunction as train drivers stage massive strike


----------



## Skalka

And their injunction has been rejected later yesterday. Funnily (actually not that funny), a rental car company (Sixt) took a portrait of Weselsky and subtitled this with "Co-worker of the month - inexpensive rental cars at Sixt".

EDIT: Breaking News (an hour old and only in German): As an "act of reconcilation", the GDL now plans to end its strike on Saturday instead of Monday.


----------



## Wilhem275

Road_UK said:


> More reason to give in to demands then...


So next time they'll know they can strike to have 6 months of holiday every year :banana:


----------



## Road_UK

... and work 2 days a week, 4 hours a day with a break lasting 3,50 hrs...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The main issue that has caused the stalemate in negotiations lies elsewhere. GDL is traditionally the trade union of the train drivers. Like pilots they are irreplaceable in case of strike and have a strong bargaining stand. As the other rail staff were traditionally represented by a rather toothless union, by now a majority of train staff have joined the GDL. However DB rejects the GDL's right to negotiate for this staff and would prefer to have them represented by the by now minority union, which they can rely on as easy-going. I agree that the press campaign against GDL exaggerates discontent and that most passengers were rather cool about things.


----------



## KingNick

TedStriker said:


> More reason to destroy the GDL more like...


For making use of their right to strike, which is protected by I don't know how many legal regimes?


----------



## Sunfuns

For those who know the details: how justified do you think were the demands of strikers? Are they poorly paid or have less holidays compared to others employed in similar industries? 

Without knowing that a bit difficult to say whether it makes more sense to support union or management. After all any concessions will result in some combination of lower profits, higher ticket prices, delayed maintenance or higher taxes.


----------



## kato2k8

Sunfuns said:


> Are they poorly paid or have less holidays compared to others employed in similar industries?


*Income:*

Average income of full-time employees in Germany is €41,000 per year.
That's almost the exact same - slightly more actually - that a train driver with 20+ years experience and scores of specializations can earn at maximum. The demanded 5% salary increase would push this group to what's likely to be the average income next year.

The average income of train drivers is somewhere around €33,000-34,000, i.e. around 80% of total average.

Train drivers who are leftover _Beamte_ from before privatization are salary group A6 to A8 (which, for ease of comparison, would be the non-commissioned officer salary track in the army). This is about equivalent and roughly in the same sub-average region.

*Work hours:*

The push is not so much against the 39-hour work week - that's mostly what the media focuses on because that's an easy-to-work-with demand.

The primary push is to reduce the possible shifts per week from the current 7-in-6-days per week to 5-in-5-days per week.

DB train drivers currently work about 110-115 hours overtime per year (2-3 hours average per week), that's part of this problem. GDL wants to cap this at 50 hours overtime total.


----------



## Sunfuns

€41,000 a year in Germany allows a pretty good life so no reason to be too worried about those older guys, but how about young guys just starting out? How much do they earn in their first job just after finishing an apprenticeship?


----------



## M-NL

kato2k8 said:


> Average income of full-time employees in Germany is €41,000 per year.


The average income completely disregards income distribution and is a great example of the saying: there are lies, big lies and there are statistics.
If I have a population of 11 persons of which 10 earn 1 euro and 1 earns 100 euros, the average would be 11 euros, despite 91% of this population earning only 9% of the average.


----------



## Sunfuns

Nothing wrong with statistics, just need to use it correctly. For income the proper way is to use median instead of average. Then it doesn't matter how many millionaires you add to the list. Most likely this number already is median, sadly most people can't tell a difference…

Median income for a full time employee in Switzerland is ca 58,000 euros per year.


----------



## LtBk

An interesting article from the IRJ about rise of long distance bus operators in Germany and challenges facing passenger rail service:http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...nge-to-germanys-train-operators.html?channel=



> *THE announcement on October 14 that Veolia Verkehr will withdraw all of its InterConnex trains between Leipzig, Berlin and Germany's Baltic Coast from the December timetable change is the first tangible evidence that long-distance bus competition is already starting to hurt German passenger rail operators.*
> 
> Germany liberalised its long-distance bus market in January 2013, enabling buses to operate between cities in direct competition with train services for the first time. By the middle of this year there were already 40 long-distance bus operators vying for business and the number of services has trebled since the market opened. According to a recent study by IGES Institut, the largest player is MeinFernBus (MFB), which has a 40% share of the market, followed by German Rail (DB) with its berlinienbus.de and IC-Bus brands, but there are also many small operators, which in contrast to Germany's inter-city rail business helps to make this a dynamic and highly-competitive market.
> 
> Traffic figures released last month by Germany's federal statistics agency Destatis suggest that all this dynamism might be harming long-distance rail ridership. Passenger numbers on inter-city trains fell by 0.5% in the first half of this year to 62 million, while long-distance buses saw an 8.1% increase in ridership to 1.4 million passengers. With so many new entrants coming into the bus market during this period, Destatis says the actual level of growth may well be higher.
> 
> With such a sudden increase in capacity in the long-distance passenger transport market, it's easy to see why conditions have become even tougher for open-access rail operator such as InterConnex, which have to keep fares (and therefore margins) low to compete with the incumbent DB Fernverkehr.
> 
> Pressure group Allianz Pro Schiene says that the federal government introduced legislation on liberalisation of the long-distance bus market three years ago with the promise of more choice for passengers, but warns this policy may now be having the opposite effect. "As long as long-distance buses remain exempt from tolls, no new entrant [to the rail market] will be able to survive this ruinous price war," says managing director Mr Dirk Flege. "The Ministry of Transport expressly said that buses would not be drawing passengers from trains but these promises have not been fulfilled. InterConnex is a warning sign - a purely commercial long-distance rail market in Germany is not possible."
> 
> Likewise, DB admits that liberalisation of the long-distance bus market is bad news for its inter-city rail business. In its 2014 Competition Report, DB notes "There are clear indicators that long-distance bus transport is luring a large number of potential passengers away from long-distance and regional rail. Based on current data, roughly one third of long-distance bus customers have switched from long-distance rail, which puts even more pressure on the earning power of long-distance services and on the operation of routes which have become unprofitable, particularly in the supplementary network."
> 
> Reading between the lines, this seems to suggest marginal long-distance train services that are not eligible for PSO funding are in the firing line. Rail is at risk of losing the most price-sensitive segment of the market – and this is a big chunk of its ridership – unless it can find a way to counter the effects of such intense competition in the long-distance bus business. According to the International Association of Public Transport (UITP), inter-city bus users in Europe tend to be younger or older travellers, the lower-income population, and international travellers, and these are the groups rail needs to target to maintain its market share in the face of bus competition.
> 
> High fixed costs are one of the key challenges that rail will need to address if it is to remain competitive in these conditions and there are questions here for politicians as well as rail operators. Veolia cites high infrastructure charges as one of the reasons why InterConnex became unsustainable. For a single journey between Leipzig and the Baltic coast, InterConnex pays infrastructure manager DB Networks around €1700 in track access fees.
> 
> A truly competitive inter-city rail market, with all the innovation and investment that would bring, is only going to become a reality in Germany – or anywhere else – if such charges are sustainable. But as long trains are forced to cover a much higher proportion of infrastructure costs than buses it looks set to remain little more than an aspiration.


Comments?


----------



## whatsuplucas

It's only natural that that would happen, given the price difference between rail and bus. As a rail fan, I don't mind paying an extra €15 to travel by train, but most of the times it's much cheaper to travel by bus (it can be something like £40 in the UK).


----------



## TedStriker

^^

It’s an interesting story. But how does this situation relate to, for example, that in Britain? Or rather, is this situation somehow unique or is just a reflection generally of train travel versus bus (coach) travel in Europe?


----------



## whatsuplucas

TedStriker said:


> ^^
> 
> It’s an interesting story. But how does this situation relate to, for example, that in Britain? Or rather, is this situation somehow unique or is just a reflection generally of train travel versus bus (coach) travel in Europe?


It's definitely a reflection of train vs bus in Europe. Most young people I know travel by bus because it's much, much cheaper than traveling by train. It fits the profile of the article above.


----------



## TedStriker

^^

One of the reasons I ask is because I doubt that we'd ever see a story like this in relation to Britain because train services and bus services here have been in competition for so long. 

I wonder how many train services are under threat as a result of the rise of bus services across Germany. The story seems to suggest that this is now going to be more of an issue so I'm just wondering how much drama ought to be attached to it.


----------



## Vaud

LtBk said:


> An interesting article from the IRJ about rise of long distance bus operators in Germany and challenges facing passenger rail service:http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...nge-to-germanys-train-operators.html?channel=
> 
> 
> 
> Comments?


Awful news. From a macroeconomic point of view, it's much more efficient to concentrate as many people as possible on a single mean of transport to take advantage of economies of scale.

The rails are already there only to be used by mass-transit; highways are also used by private transportation so it's not a good idea to increase their usage by letting buses use them too while railways are emptied.

I hope Switzerland never takes such a bad step.


----------



## Sunfuns

British trains are still heavily used and the system is expanding again despite the competition from buses. The sky will not fall in Germany either.


----------



## AlexNL

Buses have a somewhat unfair advantage over trains as they pay very little for use of the infrastructure. A bus operator basically only has to pay for their fuel and automobile taxes, while there is no charge for use of the infrastructure itself.

Trains, on the other hand, get charged for each kilometer they make, for the power they use, and for each station they call at. There are charges for shunting, for empty runs, for overnight stabling, for usage of cleaning facilities, and so on.


----------



## Attus

^^In Germany rail network and train service is not split, both are offered by Deutsche Bahn. In long distance services DB has a market share above 95%, and rails are owned by DB as well. So DB pays all this charges to himself.


----------



## AlexNL

Yes, money flows within the DB Konzern but it still flows! DB Fernverkehr AG (the operator) has to pay a hefty charge to DB Netze (the infrastructure manager) to be allowed to use the railway infrastructure. On the roads, most of the costs of the infrastructure are paid for by the government. Only a portion of those costs is paid for by the road users, e.g. through fuel and road taxes. 

In France, the highway network is privatized and maintenance is paid for by tolls paid by the road users. If you were to drive a "Fernbus" from Paris to Lyon, taking the Autoroute du Soleil is the quickest way to get there by road. The toll road portion of the trip is 378 kilometers long, a long distance bus would pay € 111.70 in tolls for usage of this road. 

A similar trip in Germany would be from Leipzig to Germany. A road user doesn't pay a cent extra for this trip while a rail operator has to pay an amount between € 1000 and € 2000 for track usage, depending on the type of train path.


----------



## Wilhem275

Aren't buses subject to the same toll as trucks, in Germany?


----------



## AlexNL

Currently that is not the case, although the call to change that is getting louder.


----------



## KingNick

Sunfuns said:


> British trains are still heavily used and the system is expanding again despite the competition from buses. The sky will not fall in Germany either.


Especially since the first bus operators already withdraw from the market meaning we'll see some prices hicks in the near future as well.


----------



## Wilhem275

AlexNL said:


> Currently that is not the case, although the call to change that is getting louder.


They'd better do it before the industry gets too big to be touched...

Also, train fares have to pay for at least a part of stations and other passengers structures.
And apart from the usage of motorways, buses get for free the access to city centers (maybe even with the right to use city bus lanes), while access to crowded nodes is one of the thoughest burdens on IC trains.

I think there is space for a segment of users who prefer to avoid certain "luxuries" (like fancy stations, or travel safety...), but the competition must be fair.


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ There should be costs associated with using bus lanes and the bus stations to assist with upkeep/maintenance. It makes sense to me.


----------



## AlexNL

Wilhem275 said:


> I think there is space for a segment of users who prefer to avoid certain "luxuries" (like fancy stations, or travel safety...), but the competition must be fair.


SNCF is trialing this with the Ouigo, their low-cost high speed offering. It's basically like flying with RyanAir: there's only 1 class, no bar, you pay for a wall socket, et cetera. The goal is to keep trains running on the high speed lines as much as possible, and minimizing times spent in stations. 

From Paris, you can go all the way down to Marseille for fares as low as € 10. The drawback is that you don't board in Gare de Lyon, you board at Marne la Vallée Chessy (at Disneyland) instead. Ouigo trains serve peripheral stations as close to a high speed line as reasonably possible. 

From what I hear in the rail media, Ouigo is quite a success and is doing better than SNCF anticipated. Appearantly, there is a market for this kind of services and with Ouigo, SNCF has a good competitor for both domestic flights and buses.


----------



## Suburbanist

There are often sub-markets for cheaper travel. There are event those multi-day buses transporting people on 20-30h journeys between the Balkans and Northern Europe for little money (I have nothing against their existence, I just abhor the mess their passengers often make on rest areas restrooms).

Any business operating multiple brands within the same sector needs to think about cannibalization. 

In Italy, several years ago, Trenitalia came up with a new concept called "TrenOK". A low-cost non-stop train linking some major city paris like Bari-Roma with older rolling stock, Internet sales and lower prices. Lasted only 2 years I think. The trains were successful, but they didn't brought many passengers from Ryanair and Air One. Instead, majority of traffic was just demand diverted from the ES*City and other non-Freccia services on those routes...


----------



## MarcVD

Wilhem275 said:


> Aren't buses subject to the same toll as trucks, in Germany?


Even if they are, this is still not fair competition. Wear and tear caused on 
road infrastructure by vehicles are proportional to the fourth power of the
axle load (this has been proven by a university study many years ago). So,
to be fair, a truck (max axle load of 7.5 tons) should pay 10^4 times the
the road tax of a car (axle load approx 0.75 ton, so 10 times less), which
is of course never the case. Same for tolls on highways. So we motorists are
all subsidizing the truck and bus companies that can then unfairly take away a
significant market share from the rail industry. If all heavy road vehicles had
to pay their real share of the infrastructure costs, the rail transport would
be far more successful in Europe than it is today.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The market-crazed FDP (may the party rest in peace) in 2013 killed the ban on IC buses where competitive to trains that had existed since the 1920s (i.e. the birth of motored buses). One must lay blame on DB too though. Initially they did not take the threat seriously. They failed to recognize that there is a significant market for cheap traveling and that their saver fares are often still too expensive for these people. Way too late, they started reacting by (re-)introducing the IRE between Hamburg and Berlin, a slow but cheap alternative to the ICE. However DB's other reaction has been to create more and more bus lines themselves.
Competition in the bus sector is running wild and the business has not proven profitable. It is expected that only few companies will survive the ferocious price war. Once the market is consolidated in a year or 2, prices will go up, non-profitable routes will be dropped, and perhaps pressure on trains will lessen, but nonetheless due to the structural discrimination to the advantage of road traffic, bus services will be here to stay.


----------



## Attus

AlexNL said:


> Yes, money flows within the DB Konzern but it still flows!


Yes, it flows, but it has no importance. 
And that's like DB has almost a full monopoly ih German long distance services, because for them the price for using the tracks is virtually zero, while any other operator has to pay a large sum. And actually that's why rail charges are so high: in order to create a monopoly and to avoid having competitors.


----------



## K_

MarcVD said:


> Even if they are, this is still not fair competition. Wear and tear caused on
> road infrastructure by vehicles are proportional to the fourth power of the
> axle load (this has been proven by a university study many years ago). So,
> to be fair, a truck (max axle load of 7.5 tons) should pay 10^4 times the
> the road tax of a car (axle load approx 0.75 ton, so 10 times less), which
> is of course never the case. Same for tolls on highways. So we motorists are
> all subsidizing the truck and bus companies that can then unfairly take away a
> significant market share from the rail industry. If all heavy road vehicles had
> to pay their real share of the infrastructure costs, the rail transport would
> be far more successful in Europe than it is today.


For every study that claims that road isn't covering it's external costs there is one that claims it does. I don't think the matter is settled that clearly. 
For one thing, you forget speed, which also matters a lot and also influences the wear on the infrastructure disproportionally.
The other thing is that if were would indeed tax road vehicles more the the result would not be a move from road to rail. The result would be a contraction of the economy because transport became to expensive. The major reason why so much freight travels by road in Europe is because the railways are traditionally very unreliable, not because road has an unfair advantage.


----------



## K_

AlexNL said:


> Yes, money flows within the DB Konzern but it still flows! DB Fernverkehr AG (the operator) has to pay a hefty charge to DB Netze (the infrastructure manager) to be allowed to use the railway infrastructure. On the roads, most of the costs of the infrastructure are paid for by the government. Only a portion of those costs is paid for by the road users, e.g. through fuel and road taxes.


Otoh, only a portion of the costs associated with rail use is paid by the users as well. Rail is heavily subsidised everywhere. For example, DB-Netz gets loads of money directly from the government every year. 
So it's not as if rail has to pay it's own way. 



> In France, the highway network is privatized and maintenance is paid for by tolls paid by the road users. If you were to drive a "Fernbus" from Paris to Lyon, taking the Autoroute du Soleil is the quickest way to get there by road. The toll road portion of the trip is 378 kilometers long, a long distance bus would pay € 111.70 in tolls for usage of this road.
> 
> A similar trip in Germany would be from Leipzig to Germany. A road user doesn't pay a cent extra for this trip while a rail operator has to pay an amount between € 1000 and € 2000 for track usage, depending on the type of train path.


Given that a train can carry a 1000 passengers, whereas a coach only carries 50 I'd say that the rail access charges are reasonable.


----------



## XAN_

TedStriker, I've edited my post, so it's clear know what I'm asking and stating. 
We are talking about the same things.


----------



## telemaxx

There is a project called MegaHub Lehrte:

Construction on an innovative intermodal terminal with automated container sorting technology is getting underway in Lehrte, to the east of Hannover in Germany. It is expected to become a key node in the European rail freight network, as it lies at the intersection of the North Sea-Baltic, Orient/East-Med and Scandinavian-Mediterranean Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) corridors. Under development since 1997, the MegaHub project has experienced various interruptions to the process, however it is now expected that trial operation will begin in 2016, with the following year bringing a full start of revenue service. Six transfer racks with a minimal operational length of 700 m, accommodating the longest trains able to run across the TEN-T network, will comprise the centerpiece of the terminal. A fully-automated container sorting system is the most innovative element of the project.

Source: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1326514










Source (German): http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/bauen_bahn/aus_und_neubauprojekte/megahub_lehrte/

The basic idea:


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Has construction of this actually begun yet? 

The other MegaHub in Duisburg is largely complete and shows up on Bing's aerial photos but it's not in service yet.


----------



## telemaxx

They started constructing some access streets. It is expected to open in 2018, not 2016, due to changes in the plans. Residents and the city Lehrte complained about new numbers of TEU moved, so there will be some modifications I think. Financing is secured and it is generally not believed that the project will be stopped. 

The MegaHub project close to Hannover is different compared to the existing hubs, because it has not only two large cranes for lateral loading and unloading, but also an automated system for carrying containers longitudinally, thus reducing crane operations and transfer time between rail and rail. The planned standing time of the trains is 2 hours.


----------



## telemaxx

Here's another presentation: http://www.deutschebahn.com/file/4444856/data/projektvorstellung.pdf

The automated longitudinal transport of containers will be done by 12 special transport units on rails (three rails in the middle, see figure above). According to the presentation they have investigated or are investigating an alternative system with automated guided vehicles.


----------



## thun

This terminal will make even more sense if the projected "Y-Trasse" (new lines from Hannover to Hamburg and Bremen) will be buildt as it will sit between the line from the South and the the separation of the two lines to the two most important German ports.


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the Y-Trasse proposals before. Interesting little write-up on Wikipedia for anyone else like me who was living in ignorance.


----------



## telemaxx

Well, the Y-Trasse as originally designed probably won't be built. However, there is a huge demand for more rail infrastructure between the harbours of Hamburg, Bremen/Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven (JadeWeserPort) and Hannover, where most of the southbound freight traffic passes through, either via Bremen/Hamburg-Uelzen-Hannover/Lehrte or via Bremen/Hamburg-Verden-Hannover/Seelze. 

The original Y-Trasse is politically dead and maybe it is also not the best solution in terms of freight traffic. It was planned as a pure high speed line for long distance trains. The idea was that freight trains use the space that is freed up on existing tracks. 

So, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Deutsche Bahn presented a list of alternatives, which try to combine the necessary capacity for freight with advantages for high speed trains. 

I personally like the Ashausen-Suderburg proposal most. It comprises two new tracks from Ashausen (south of Maschen, the marshalling yard south of Hamburg) to Suderburg (south of Uelzen) and a flyover in Celle, where most passenger traffic to Hannover Hbf splits from the freight trains which go to Lehrte. It may be necessary to build a third track between Suderburg and Celle as well. 

The advantages of this variant are that long distance trains are sped up 10 - 15 minutes, making it possible to travel Hannover-Hamburg in less than 60 minutes, that least people are affected due to noise* and that it should provide the additional capacity needed for freight (both on the new and existing tracks).

*The new line bypasses Lüneburg, Winsen and Uelzen, so that there will be much less noise in those cities, especially at night when most of the freight trains would run on the new line.


----------



## telemaxx

Additionally, there are plans for an Ostkorridor (East Corridor). This denotes a project, that reroutes freight traffic, which goes from the harbours to southeast Germany and further, to existing lines which are less used. 

In principle, the following route is envisioned: Hamburg - Uelzen - Stendal - Magdeburg - area of Halle/Leipzig - Hof - Regensburg - (München/Passau). 

This, however, also requires some upgrading measures, e.g.:
- electrification between Hof and Regensburg
- doubling of tracks between Uelzen and Stendal

And IMO it can only be an additional measure to the Y-Trasse or its alternatives.


----------



## thun

The Eastern route will make significant more investment and heckling with NIMBYs necessary imo. And it would bypass connections to several industrial centres (Frankfurt-Rhein-Neckar, Nuremberg).


----------



## ArtManDoo

I know that in Europe it is widespread that trains are allowed to arrive on the same station track, the track being mostly devided into separate sections for that.

Anybody here more familiar with that. Are there some special signals and allowed approaching speeds for theese situations? Especially the case two trains arrive then couple and continue as one train. 

As for Germany how can a train serving passengers enter into the same LZB block for coupling operation? Or are there also station tracks whose are not divided into sections by block or signal and trains are allowed to arrive and couple?

Thanks in advance


----------



## telemaxx

thun said:


> The Eastern route will make significant more investment and heckling with NIMBYs necessary imo. And it would bypass connections to several industrial centres (Frankfurt-Rhein-Neckar, Nuremberg).


I guess it is meant for trains to Austria and Munich. I am not sure whether it needs more investment, most tracks already exist. But you shouldn't see it as an alternative, but rather as an addition to relieve certain nodes as Hannover etc. As for the NIMBYs I don't know...


----------



## thun

^^
True.
But electrification is a big investment, e.g. you would probably have to rebuild all overpasses. Current axle load could be an issue, too.

I guess it would be a mid-term addition. There are probably not as many trains from Hamburg to (Upper) Austria to make that investment feasible (I lived on the Donau railway for a few years). And for trains from Munich, the line via Würzburg is still shorter.


----------



## M-NL

ArtManDoo said:


> As for Germany how can a train serving passengers enter into the same LZB block for coupling operation?


As far as I know it can't. LZB was never intended for shunting operations. It was originally only intended for enabling train operations over 160 km/h and later extended to enable improved usage of congested lines. However the system has a special 'drive by sight' function that allows drivers to pass red signals with a limited speed that could be used for this purpose. The simpler solution however would be to drop the train from LZB before it enters the station, perform the shunting operations under conventional signalling and rejoin LZB while it exits again.


----------



## AlexNL

In the Netherlands, the safety system (ATB-EG) does not enforce drivers stopping at a red light if they approach it with a velocity of less than 40 km/h. In the past, this feat was used to enable shunting operations. Newer safety systems (ETCS, ATB-NG, ATB-Vv) do enforce signals at dangers and prevent a train from passing them.

Passing a red light was deemed confusing for drivers and was not compliant with the rule book, so a different signalling aspect was created: blinking yellow. This means "Proceed with caution, you are entering an occupied section of track", but does allow the driver to continue towards a platform where a train is already standing.


----------



## telemaxx

thun said:


> ^^
> True.
> But electrification is a big investment, e.g. you would probably have to rebuild all overpasses. Current axle load could be an issue, too.
> 
> I guess it would be a mid-term addition. There are probably not as many trains from Hamburg to (Upper) Austria to make that investment feasible (I lived on the Donau railway for a few years). And for trains from Munich, the line via Würzburg is still shorter.


They already electrified Reichenbach-Hof in the recent years. I think an electrification also makes sense for public transport. Of course, it is expensive, the question is what the alternatives are and how expensive those are.


----------



## MarcVD

ArtManDoo said:


> I know that in Europe it is widespread that trains are allowed to arrive on the same station track, the track being mostly devided into separate sections for that.
> 
> Anybody here more familiar with that. Are there some special signals and allowed approaching speeds for theese situations? Especially the case two trains arrive then couple and continue as one train.


In Belgium : the procedure used for that is the same as when a loco
must be coupled to a train. The loco will enter the occupied block with
a "shunting" authorization (signal red + white), telling the train driver to
drive "on sight" and remain able to stop before any obstacle. 

This procedure is also used when two short trains are sharing the same
platform.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...-hit-by-rolling-stock-delays.html?channel=542
> 
> *Nordbahn start hit by rolling stock delays*
> Tuesday, November 25, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _DELAYS in delivery of Stadler Flirt EMUs for the new Nordbahn service, which is due to commence on Schleswig-Holstein's central network from Hamburg to Itzehoe and Wrist on December 14, is putting the start of operations in doubt_
> 
> Currently three of the 15 trains ordered, seven five-car class 1429 and eight six-car class 1430 EMUs, have been delivered with three more vehicles set to arrive by the end of the month. However, it remains unclear whether the operator will have enough trains or if they will be approved in time for the start of operations, with the timetable requiring 13 of the 15 vehicles to be in service at peak times and eight for off-peak periods.
> 
> Nordbahn, which is a joint venture of AKN and Benex, says it is developing plans for replacement trains in case it has insufficient Flirt EMUs. It is also set to face problems on the 2.9km branch from Wrist to Kellinghuse, which was due to be rebuilt in time for the start of operations. However, with no progress on the €8m project, alternative work worth €1.5m is underway in Wrist to create a 236m turnback siding for the stabling of Nordbahn EMUs
> 
> .


----------



## M-NL

Why are so many trains not fitted with drivers cab doors anymore? I think that is outright dangerous.
If a driver needs to access the tracks for whatever reason (unfortunately a suicide comes to mind) he/she can only do so via the passenger doors. On an increasing number of services there is no other staff on board besides the driver, so there's nothing to prevent other people from doing the same. That could cause dangerous situations.


----------



## M-NL

AlexNL said:


> Passing a red light was deemed confusing for drivers and was not compliant with the rule book, so a different signalling aspect was created: blinking yellow. This means "Proceed with caution, you are entering an occupied section of track", but does allow the driver to continue towards a platform where a train is already standing.


As far as I know blinking yellow is the only not fail safe signal aspect in the Dutch signalling system. If the blinking fails and the signal would display a yellow, that's a less restricting aspect.

Passing a red signal in Germany is much more common. Apart from the occasional malfunction, there is also the issue that in Germany only the designed routes can be used by the interlockings. For every other route it will not be possible to clear the red signal. That can be very inconvenient in case of track maintenance for instance. For this purpose the Germans have an alternate clearance signal ('Ersatzsignal'). However, usage of this signal is the sole responsibility of the signaler because you are overriding parts of the safety provided by the interlocking.

I also wonder how they are going to perform coupling with ETCS in the future. My guess would be to stop at the previous signal, switch to shunting mode, wait for clearance, drive up to the other train and then resume normal operations. However in the various countries using ETCS this could be different, because despite sharing the same signalling systems, the operating procedures may still be entirely different.


----------



## Wilhem275

I appreciated the Talent 2 in the Berlin area, quick and comfortable. Far better than the BR 440, whose designers forgot to put windows on its side...

Not the same appreciation in NRW (the ones operated by DB Regio), because they're packed with more seats in the same space.

Any info on the design chosen by NE?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

*Vossloh to sell transportation division*



> VOSSLOH: Following ‘a detailed assessment’ of the company’s product range, the Supervisory Board of German track components and rolling stock supplier Vossloh AG announced on December 2 that its Transportation division ‘is no longer defined as core business’. The intention is therefore to sell Transportation ‘in whole or in parts by 2017 at the latest’, or transfer it to a partnership which would no longer be controlled by Vossloh.
> 
> According to the company, analysis has shown ‘very clearly’ that ‘none of the operations of Transportation under the umbrella of Vossloh can achieve the necessary size and international positioning’ required for ‘sustainably positive business development’.


http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/vossloh-to-sell-rolling-stock-division.html


----------



## dimlys1994

Video on Stuttgart Central station reconstruction:


----------



## Suburbanist

An interesting video if you have decent speakers on your computer


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> An interesting video if you have decent speakers on your computer


I already posted that on the HS thread months ago.... Thats a high speed train not a regional or Intercity train.


----------



## TedStriker

dimlys1994 said:


> Video on Stuttgart Central station reconstruction:



With some melodic house music filling my ears that video proved to be a very relaxing watch.


----------



## Matz32Z

Traveling on non-electrified line -Weiden Hof - Schwandorf - Regenesburg
Recorded in Autumn on the back from train. 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8FdI8cdUo


----------



## Zero Gravity

*€28bln infrastructure program for DB*

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/investition-in-infrastruktur-bahn-kuendigt-riesiges-sanierungsprogramm-an-1.2258043


> *Die Deutsche Bahn will in den kommenden fünf Jahren 28 Milliarden Euro in ihre Infrastruktur investieren.
> *Von 2015 bis 2019 sollen unter anderem 17 000 Kilometer Schiene, 8700 Weichen und mindestens 875 Brücken erneuert werden.
> *Vergangene Woche erst wurde bekannt, dass die Bahn 200 Millionen Euro in Service, Qualität und Pünktlichkeit stecken will.
> ________________________
> 
> *Deutsche Bahn [and the federal government] is going to invest 28 billion Euro in its infrastructure over the next 5 years
> *From 2015 until 2019 they will renew over 17.000km of tracks, 8700 switches and atleast 875 bridges
> *Just last week Deutsche Bahn announced a 200 million Euro package aimed at increasing service, quality and punctuality


Exciting news to me. Here the press release from DB itself. They have included some extra info there.
http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/presse/presseinformationen/pi_it/8577046/ubd20141208.html?start=0&itemsPerPage=20


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

^^
Wow! :shocked:
28 billion €uro to be spent on railway infrastructure within five years is indeed a hell of a lot money! :siren:


----------



## thun

Up to 850 construction sites at the same time. That will indeed be very "exciting", especially for train passengers.


----------



## Suburbanist

DB Netz kinda locked itself into low achievement and non-exciting goals when it abandoned not only maglev projects but any sort of super-high speed rail concept.

Imagine if right now they had an ongoing Transrapid project with beams laid between Stuttgart-Manheim-Frankfurt


----------



## thun

They've definitely chosen the right battle in modernising the ageing network.
The economic benefit will be a lot more than investing 28 billion in new HSLs.


----------



## Wilhem275

Suburbanist said:


> DB Netz kinda locked itself into low achievement and non-exciting goals


Keeping the German network in a decent condition is not a low achievement


----------



## thun

^^
To put that into perspective: They announced to rebuild 17,000 km of the 61,000 km of DB tracks, that equals more than 25%.


----------



## Sunfuns

I wonder if all this spending will have a noticeable effect on schedule reliability. Right now cross country long distance services are as likely to be late as on time…


----------



## bavarian urbanist

Sunfuns said:


> I wonder if all this spending will have a noticeable effect on schedule reliability. Right now cross country long distance services are as likely to be late as on time…


But there's still the chance that you can catch yesterday's train:lol:


----------



## Goy

*I would like to see a High Speed Hail between Leipzig - chemnitz - Dresden. It would be awnsome to see these cities merged!*


----------



## Road_UK

Merged or linked? Merged basically means build everything to one big city, but the countryside is way too nice in that area, although Suburbanist wouldn't care....


----------



## Goy

Road_UK said:


> Merged or linked? Merged basically means build everything to one big city, but the countryside is way too nice in that area, although Suburbanist wouldn't care....


It might turn a metropolitan area!


----------



## Road_UK

Knowing the Germany they won't have any of it. And they'd be quite right too!


----------



## thun

"Norimberk" = Nürnberg = Nürnberg?


I wonder where the rather new Talent 2 trains DB is using on the services currently will go.


----------



## KingNick

There I was thinking I'd know Germany quite well, but I have to admit I had to search for Norimberk.


----------



## Surel

Sometimes one just forgets, in this particular case the exonym stuck in my head.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

Siemens will deliver *82* new trains for the planned Rhein-Ruhr-Express.

Source


















:apple:


----------



## Wilhem275

Weird layout


----------



## AlexNL

Good to see that Siemens already found a customer for the Desiro HC (High Capacity) 

I have a brochure, here are a few pictures:


----------



## MajKeR_

AlexNL said:


>


Hmmm...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

AlexNL said:


> Good to see that Siemens already found a customer for the Desiro HC (High Capacity)


Are you sure it's not Daisyro HardCore?

I really hope Siemens has learned from its mistakes, such as with the German Velaro. I have taken one a few times now, and they had funny problems such as 10 minute delay because the door would not close, toilets which get blocked just from toilet paper, etc, plus no real benefit over the older ICE in design and passenger comfort. Nonetheless I am sure they cna make good trains if they want to and do not speed up the process too much.


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## mikoCZ




----------



## Suburbanist

When could we realistically expect Hof-Regensburg to be fully electrified?


----------



## Road_UK

By 2022.


----------



## thun

Or 2087. In my experience, it can take a very long time until improvements promised by DB are implemented. If they are implemented, that is.

Examples include elictrification of Geltendorf - Memmingen - Hergatz and tilt-shift trains on the Allgäu railways.


----------



## LtBk

Was it always that way?


----------



## flierfy

LtBk said:


> Was it always that way?


No, and it isn't that way either in fact. Some people just take the politicly motivated headline announcement too serious and wonder why these best case scenario targets aren't met.
As a matter of fact railway projects in Germany are very well in linewith similar projects abroad in terms of time and budget .


----------



## alphorn

flierfy said:


> No, and it isn't that way either in fact. Some people just take the politicly motivated headline announcement too serious and wonder why these best case scenario targets aren't met.
> As a matter of fact railway projects in Germany are very well in linewith similar projects abroad in terms of time and budget .


Disagree. The project mentioned (Geltendorf-Memmingen) is at least five years behind the international contract (2020 instead of 2015). Switzerland and Austria have completed their sections already.

Stuttgart 21 is three years behind schedule (the schedule that was made AFTER the popular vote, so not delayed by protests).

The construction of Ebensfeld-Erfurt has begun 19 (!) years ago but will not see trains for two more years.

Stuttgart-Zurich was contractually agreed ("Vertrag von Lugano") to be tilt train enabled and partially double tracked. The Swiss side has finished their part, nothing has happened in Germany.

4-tracking of Mannheim-Basel was contractually agreed to be finished when the Swiss Gotthard base tunnel is done. The tunnel will be in service next year, one year ahead of schedule, while the 4-tracking is still decades away.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Agree. Could lengthen that list. We should be able to travel with 300 kmh from Frankfurt to Mannheim by now; the Dresden-Berlin route sees some digging every now and then without any end in sight. Just now, the German side announced it will not have its access route to the planned Fehmarn Tunnel built by Denmark done in time etc. etc.


----------



## LtBk

To be fair those types of mega projects tend to be prone with delays, NIMBYism, and cost overruns.


----------



## DiggerD21

But why Austria and Switzerland - both also democratic and federal countries with the usual bureaucracy and potential NIMBYism - manage to finish their projects on time?


----------



## Surel

DiggerD21 said:


> But why Austria and Switzerland - both also democratic and federal countries with the usual bureaucracy and potential NIMBYism - manage to finish their projects on time?


No Eastern Germany?


----------



## flierfy

chornedsnorkack said:


> And that´s not a border of Germany.


Why should it?


----------



## chornedsnorkack

flierfy said:


> Why should it?


Because it was the map of German ICE network?


----------



## MarcVD

chornedsnorkack said:


> And that´s not a border of Germany. The crossing from Cologne past Aachen is depicted as once per 2 hours, and so are the crossings from Duisburg and Münster.


A bit more than that. There is a Thalys train every two hours, plus four ICE
trains per day. That border crossing is not high-speed, and tracks are 
shared with a local cross-border service too, operated with belgian EMUs.
The change of power supply is done in the station Aachen while the trains
stop for passenger service.


----------



## Suburbanist

I think the fastest international high speed link at the moment is HSL-Zuid/4 between Belgium and Netherlands, right? I mean: the border where trains can cross at the highest speed on commercial operations.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

MarcVD said:


> A bit more than that. There is a Thalys train every two hours, plus four ICE
> trains per day.


That is, less than 2-hourly takt of ICE. Are under-2h-takt ICE services shown on the map?


----------



## K_

chornedsnorkack said:


> That is, less than 2-hourly takt of ICE. Are under-2h-takt ICE services shown on the map?


But maybe Deutsch Bahn intends to increase that to a train every two hours. That would be a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## flierfy

chornedsnorkack said:


> Because it was the map of German ICE network?


There was no reference to a map in your comment.


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## TedStriker

Regular CargoBeamer Service Begins Between Cologne and Melzo


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...ejects-nuremberg-s-bahn-award.html?channel=00
> 
> *Regulator rejects Nuremberg S-Bahn award*
> Wednesday, April 29, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _THE status of National Express as preferred bidder for two contracts to operate the Nuremberg S-Bahn network appears to be in doubt after Southern Bavaria's procuremnt office (VBS) ruled on April 27 that the Bavarian Railway Authority (BEG) must exclude the company from the tendering process_
> 
> The VBS argues that National Express failed to provide BEG with all necessary documentation in its bid for the two 12-year contracts, which start in December 2018. BEG announced in February that it had selected National Express as preferred bidder in a move which was seen as a blow to German Rail (DB) and its subsidiary DB Regio, which currently operates the five-line network
> 
> ...


----------



## Surel

Škoda 109e Emil Zatopek has been finally certified for operation in Germany by EBA.

http://www.skoda.cz/cs/press-room/archiv-novinek/emil-zatopek-ma-povoleni-k-provozu-v-nemecku/


----------



## KingNick

Certification runs took place in New York? :lol:


----------



## kokomo

Hi, I've downloaded this picture for my desktop and I guess it's from a German station. Any idea which is?


----------



## Alan990

I guess it's not a German station, For me it's Milano Centrale!


----------



## K_

kokomo said:


> Hi, I've downloaded this picture for my desktop and I guess it's from a German station. Any idea which is?


I think it's from an Italian station, not a German one. Germany has higher platforms, for example, and the train on the left has a color scheme that makes me think it's an Italian IC.


----------



## kokomo

Thank you. I'll ask somewhere else. I thought since it looked really tidy and neat that it was Germany


----------



## Wilhem275

That's Milano Centrale, 100% sure.


----------



## mikoCZ

35 197-1: German steam locomotive in the Czech Republic


----------



## TedStriker

Is anyone here familiar with Kassel, even if it means just passing by the freight yard? I ask because I'm wondering if hump shunting is still carried out there so has anyone seen evidence that it is?


----------



## Christian1981

There isnt a direct connection between the rail tracks coming from east Germany to the rail tracks coming from the Ruhrgebiet.



> Der „weitere Bedarf“ des Bundesverkehrswegeplans sieht im südlichen Teil der Hannöverschen Südbahn eine Verbindungsstrecke von Speele nach Mönchehof an der Bahnstrecke Kassel–Warburg vor, *um Güterzügen aus und nach Hann. Münden vom und zum Ruhrgebiet den Fahrtrichtungswechsel in Kassel zu ersparen*. Das Projekt ist umstritten, der Verkehrsclub Deutschland und Pro Bahn fordern stattdessen den Ausbau der über Ottbergen führenden, vom Norden der Hannöverschen Südbahn nach Westen abzweigenden (Solling- und Eggebahn). Für den Güterverkehr wird schon jetzt die Eichenberger Kurve teilweise genutzt um ohne Kopfmachen auf der Hannöverschen Südbahn nach Norden, ab Hannover-Linden über die Bahnstrecke Hannover–Altenbeken, ab Hameln auf der Bahnstrecke Elze–Löhne und ab Löhne auf der Bahnstrecke Hamm–Minden ins Ruhrgebiet zu fahren.


----------



## LtBk

Which third-world countries are you referring to? You mean the ones that don't really have any passenger service like most of Latin America or Africa? I'm not denying DB has problems and there is room for improvement, but it seems like some of you guys are exaggerating the problems. Than again this is the internet.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

^^ I think it's fair to say (based on the comments) that DB is doing a poor job considering *this is Germany*, one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, usually known for it's work ethic and punctuality. 

I've also personally had the experience of waiting for an ICE train that was 30 minutes late. Then I though it was an exception but it seems it isn't.


----------



## Wilhem275

The service nowadays may be flawed and lacking the necessary regularity, but I still think DB's concept of service, including the integration of the whole public transport network, is still setting the example for most countries.

Plus, we should specify if the long distance or the regional service are flawed (and divide by regions).


----------



## LtBk

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I think it's fair to say (based on the comments) that DB is doing a poor job considering *this is Germany*, one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, usually known for it's work ethic and punctuality.
> 
> I've also personally had the experience of waiting for an ICE train that was 30 minutes late. Then I though it was an exception but it seems it isn't.


I live in one of the richest countries of the world(USA) and passenger rail doesn't really exist for most of the population.


----------



## TedStriker

Sunfuns said:


> Other than Swiss and perhaps Austrians is there anyone else in Europe who rates their own rail system as good or very good? :laugh:


Yeah Brit here. I rate the train services I use pretty highly, these being the London-Bournemouth services.


----------



## flierfy

5/10 is probably a more accurate assessment for rail services in Germany. After all, Deutsche Bahn its competitors don't do all things wrong. Yet, things tend to get worse and that's because the rail system in Germany is being run down systematically by the DB management which chases the short-term profits only.


----------



## hammersklavier

flierfy said:


> 5/10 is probably a more accurate assessment for rail services in Germany. After all, Deutsche Bahn its competitors don't do all things wrong. Yet, things tend to get worse and that's because the rail system in Germany is being run down systematically by the *DB management which chases the short-term profits only.*


This is a story that tends not to end well (cf. in the U.S. the Penn Central, Milwaukee Road...)


----------



## LtBk

flierfy said:


> 5/10 is probably a more accurate assessment for rail services in Germany. After all, Deutsche Bahn its competitors don't do all things wrong. Yet, things tend to get worse and that's because the rail system in Germany is being run down systematically by the DB management which chases the short-term profits only.


So who is to be blamed? Is there any outside pressure on DB fixing up stuff?


----------



## SturmBeobachter

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I think it's fair to say (based on the comments) that DB is doing a poor job considering *this is Germany*, one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, usually known for it's work ethic and punctuality.
> 
> I've also personally had the experience of waiting for an ICE train that was 30 minutes late. Then I though it was an exception but it seems it isn't.


No it's not an exception. It's a regular behaviour on ICE lines. And 30 minutes is practically nothing when the ICE is in question. In summer of 2014. I had the unforgettable trip from Düsseldorf nach Berlin, not only that the train was late for good 114 minutes, but the ICE had stopped in a tiny village station which is rarely served even by DB Regio trains, and what was really interesting is that there was another ICE waiting on the opposite track (?!?!???), people from this waiting ICE were instructed to leave the train and enter into ours, then we added another 27 minutes in waiting the third train to come and to bring the fresh crew (including the train driver) for our ICE in order to continue the trip. 
DB has a very bad communication with users of their services, because they have a complete monopoly over the much of the network, and they really do not care about the quality, punctuality and overall package of their services, they care only about the money. For example, ICE's between Berlin (Leipzig) and München should be not called ICE trains at all, and it's the just another trick to charge more money for the non existent service, E in the ICE's name means Express, and speeds of average 100km/h (and it goes slower on some sections) between Naumburg and Bamberg can not be called high speeds, but DB is charging it like it's the proper ICE line.


----------



## Autostädter

LtBk said:


> I live in one of the richest countries of the world(USA) and passenger rail doesn't really exist for most of the population.


It's a matter of what you expect from your rail network. In the US, passenger rail transport is neglected on purpose, the US is a car-friendly society. Rail transport is for the urban poor. In Germany this has been different so far, although I fear that it is moving in the same direction. Politicians and DB don't seem to care for passenger rail transport much but large parts of the population actually do and their demands are being failed. It is as SturmBeobachter said, everyone who uses long-distance trains from time to time has experienced the kind of things that he described (running more than 30 min late, having to switch the train mid-journey, overcrowded trains, ...). Regional trains are no better, as they have to wait constantly for delayed trains to overtake them or other problems.


----------



## doc7austin

Well, if you take a DB long distance "there is always something to happen", which will delay the train. Either the train brakes down or an infrastructure problem is bringing the train to a halt.
I'd be glad if this Homburg guy is sent to the desert.
Honestly, in China the "culprits" of massive delays would go to prison at one point.


----------



## M-NL

Some DB punctuality figures:

Roughly 95% of DB Regio trains arrive within 5 minutes of the time table
Roughly 99% of DB Regio trains arrive within 15 minutes of the time table
Roughly 79% of DB Fernverkehr trains arrive within 5 minutes of the time table
Roughly 92% of DB Fernverkehr trains arrive within 15 minutes of the time table
These figures only account for the trains that actually ran; cancelled trains are not included!


----------



## Baron Hirsch

While it is true that whining in self-pity is a favorite pastime of Germans, I think we are right to say that in a country which has a GDP the size of Germoney's, you can expect more services, more reliable services, and more state-of-the-art amenities. As the statistics show, long-distance services are much more prone to run late.
Also note that the statistics above are misleading. DB counts the delay at each stop along the way. Therefore a train that leaves on time, but starts running late halfway through its parcours and continues to do so until the end of the line counts as 50% late only, whereas a passenger who has taken that train for more than halfway will consider the train late, period.
Therefore we are not exaggerating that despite the above quoted 92% punctuality, actually delays of 15-20 minutes are more the rule than exact punctuality.
And the reason Spain and France also appear at the end of the investment line is because after having invested heavily into HSR, following the 2008 crisis, both countries decisively slowed their investments. Germany on the other hand was spending rather little on rail infrastructure even before 2008 and continues to so now that the German economy is doing well again. 
Before 2008, the German government was preparing DB for a launch at the stock market. Due to the slump in investments, it was decided that the prospects for raising money on the stock market for DB were not bright. However, DB has continued to operate as if it wanted to launch at the stock market tomorrow, postponing investments, neglecting proper maintenance of infrastructure and rolling stock, etc.


----------



## Surel

LtBk said:


> So who is to be blamed? Is there any outside pressure on DB fixing up stuff?


Although I am in general not a friend of a competition in the rail sector because it leads to cherry picking, I must say that it worked on the Praha - Ostrava line in the CZ and the Czech Railways had to react massively to the competiton which increased the overall quality substantially.

I guess that the losses from the monopolistic behaviour are higher than the losses from not utilizing the network effect and that perhaps it is possible to manage the network even when allowing for competition. Unrestricted monopoly is very bad for the consumer surplus and quality.

So first of all I would start by completely separating the DB Netz and DB. DB Netz should be completely separate entity not anymore used to subsidize DB operations and activities and certainly not expansion abroad or utilized for protectionist measures in Germany.

What is sad about this is that German government fully supports the monopolist. It supports the policy of one entity, when the DB Netz money are used for DB activities abroad. And mind you. DB is thus entering competition abroad and German government supports this opening for competition on the EU level, so that DB could profit and expand, while it protects its domestic market. This is the core of the whole problem. The nationalistic approach of the German government and German institutions.


----------



## KingNick

Baron Hirsch said:


> However, DB has continued to operate as if it wanted to launch at the stock market tomorrow, postponing investments, neglecting proper maintenance of infrastructure and rolling stock, etc.


Because who wouldn't want to marry an ugly bride, right? :lol:


----------



## KingNick

Surel said:


> Although I am in general not a friend of a competition in the rail sector because it leads to cherry picking, I must say that it worked on the Praha - Ostrava line in the CZ and the Czech Railways had to react massively to the competiton which increased the overall quality substantially.


Very spot on. Same happened in Austria on the Salzburg - Wien line. As Baron Hirsch mentioned, ÖBB offers free wifi on its RJ trains, but that is only after the privat competitor WESTbahn started to offer it.


----------



## LtBk

How often do you guys use the ICE trains?


----------



## SturmBeobachter

I was using it every day, and minimum was once a week.


----------



## SturmBeobachter

KingNick said:


> Very spot on. Same happened in Austria on the Salzburg - Wien line. As Baron Hirsch mentioned, ÖBB offers free wifi on its RJ trains, but that is only after the privat competitor WESTbahn started to offer it.


But FREE Wi-Fi is NOWHERE to be found in DB network (except a few HBF's with 30 minutes free Wi-Fi in 24hours). Only expensive hotspots, which are most of the time functioning very poor.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

During the last year, I had to commute about 30 times from Berlin 500 km to West Germany. I must say that mostly I arrived with less than 30 minutes delay, which felt sort of like right on time. 3 times maybe I arrived with 90-120 minutes delay. While sometimes I cursed that the ride took nominally 3 1/2 hours while in France a similar distance on TGV takes 2 hours, I also realized that the same distance into the Czech Republic would take about 6 1/2 hours. 
On the upside, most ICE still have sit-down restaurants, unlike the TGV, where you have to eat plastic food standing up. However variety and quality of food with DB falls short of Czech Rail's.

Concerning private competition: a few companies such as HKX have tried to offer their own long-distance services, but most have failed to seriously challenge DB. Usually they started out with rather cheap or old rolling stock and could not offer a comprehensive service, but just a few departures per day. None dared major investments like NTV ITalia, Westbahn or in CR. A new private carrier is now preparing to launch services on 3 routes from Stuttgart as of Dec 2015, but so far no-one knows where their rolling stock is supposed to come from: http://www.derschnellzug.de/ueber-uns.html#aktuelle-informationen


----------



## AlexNL

SturmBeobachter said:


> But FREE Wi-Fi is NOWHERE to be found in DB network (except a few HBF's with 30 minutes free Wi-Fi in 24hours). Only expensive hotspots, which are most of the time functioning very poor.


DB is working on offering free wi-fi. It's already free for 1st class customers, 2nd class will follow somewhere in 2016 (?).

I don't know why DB is taking so long for the roll-out.


----------



## KingNick

SturmBeobachter said:


> But FREE Wi-Fi is NOWHERE to be found in DB network (except a few HBF's with 30 minutes free Wi-Fi in 24hours). Only expensive hotspots, which are most of the time functioning very poor.


I know that and I was just trying to point out how Surel's argument materialised in Austria because I am certain ÖBB would not be offering any wifi at all if it wasn't for the privat competitor.


----------



## Surel

^^
The competition does not have only positive effect on the line where it happens (btw, the wi-fi story was the same in CZ), but it has substantial effect on the other lines as well, as the monopolist is threatened by a possible incumbent. In order to prevent the incumbent entering, the monopolist has to raise the quality, reduce price, etc...

What I want to say is, that even just a threat of competition has substantial influence on the service.

All in all, I really like the model where regional and non profitable lines are tendered by the regional or state authorities for given time periods. Where the tender requires certain quality standards, awards bonus points for additional quality, and the main criteria is the price. The commercially viable main lines then should be free to enter. The costs then being given by the infrastructure manager.

Obviously this can't really work when the infrastructure manager and one railway operator are not completely separated entities.


----------



## KingNick

Legally DB Netz and ÖBB Infra are completely separate entities with no legal possibility for the owners (DB and ÖBB Holding) to influence the management. I know for a fact that this works quite well in Austria as WESTbahn has always braced ÖBB Infra for being very fair to them and not harming competition.

I see your point though, but since the problems usually occure at administrative level, I don't see how such discrimination could be resolved by a different ownership structure. The infrastructure would still be owned by the state and you just gave the kid a new name. Take Spain as an example. ADIF is completely separated from RENFE and still the state goes on discriminating against competitors that are not even founded yet (See Case C-483/10 _Commission v Spain_ [2013] OJ C114/05). It basically comes down to the general attitude of every Member State whether they embrace competition or not.


----------



## Surel

KingNick said:


> Legally DB Netz and ÖBB Infra are completely separate entities with no legal possibility for the owners (DB and ÖBB Holding) to influence the management. I know for a fact that this works quite well in Austria as WESTbahn has always braced ÖBB Infra for being very fair to them and not harming competition.
> 
> I see your point though, but since the problems usually occure at administrative level, I don't see how such discrimination could be resolved by a different ownership structure. The infrastructure would still be owned by the state and you just gave the kid a new name. Take Spain as an example. ADIF is completely separated from RENFE and still the state goes on discriminating against competitors that are not even founded yet (See Case C-483/10 _Commission v Spain_ [2013] OJ C114/05). It basically comes down to the general attitude of every Member State whether they embrace competition or not.


Well, then it should be supervised on the EU rather then national level perhaps?

And what if the attitude is to embrace competition abroad, but hinder competition inland... and this is exactly the German attitude.

I am not quite sure in what way is the total split negative. When you have two separated companies they have to behave according to the commercial principles as well. Further on, the total split makes everything quite transparent and easy to control.


----------



## AlexNL

KingNick said:


> I know for a fact that this works quite well in Austria as WESTbahn has always braced ÖBB Infra for being very fair to them and not harming competition.


ÖBB Infra being fair to WESTbahn? Absolutely not! There have been at least two cases in which ÖBB Infra got slapped for anticompetitive behaviour:

1) When WESTbahn wanted information about connecting trains, which was denied. 
2) When ÖBB Infra changed its infrastructure charging mechanism shortly before WestBAHN started operations.


----------



## SturmBeobachter

AlexNL said:


> DB is working on offering free wi-fi. It's already free for 1st class customers, 2nd class will follow somewhere in 2016 (?).
> 
> I don't know why DB is taking so long for the roll-out.


It's very unprofessional from the point of customer. We are in year 2015, not in 2000.


----------



## KingNick

AlexNL said:


> ÖBB Infra being fair to WESTbahn? Absolutely not! There have been at least two cases in which ÖBB Infra got slapped for anticompetitive behaviour:
> 
> 1) When WESTbahn wanted information about connecting trains, which was denied.
> 2) When ÖBB Infra changed its infrastructure charging mechanism shortly before WestBAHN started operations.





> In welchen Bereichen sehen Sie sich von den ÖBB unfair behandelt?
> 
> Bei der Infrastruktur hat sich in den letzten Wochen und Monaten ein positives Bild gezeigt. Wir hatten kein Problem, zu einer gemeinsamen Lösung beim Fahrplan zu kommen. Und wir wurden bei Problemen eindeutig nicht diskriminiert. Ganz klare Aussage: Wir wurden in jeder Hinsicht gefördert.


http://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaf...besser?_vl_backlink=/home/wirtschaft/index.do


----------



## TedStriker

Deutsche Bahn structure hampers fair competition

http://www.dw.com/en/deutsche-bahn-structure-hampers-fair-competition/a-18603211


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

I´m sure most of you have seen this episode already but I post it here because of the ICE 3. :yes:

opcorn:


----------



## KingNick

Heartbreaking stuff.


----------



## TedStriker

Denmark-Germany undersea Fehmarn tunnel gets go-ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33633879


----------



## AlexNL

Given that the travel time between Hamburg and Copenhagen will be reduced by 3 hours and that the Swedes are getting more serious about HSR in their country, I wonder if we will see direct (day) trains between Stockholm and Hamburg somewhere in the next decade.


----------



## TedStriker

For those curious about the Sassnitz rail ferry complex please watch this ghostly piece by Andreas Oelfuss.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k6g-QELPdiY


----------



## K_

Baron Hirsch said:


> While sometimes I cursed that the ride took nominally 3 1/2 hours while in France a similar distance on TGV takes 2 hours,


In France however you have these fast times basically only to/from Paris. SNCF does excellent job connectin Paris with the rest of France. But the moment you want to go from "somewhere not Paris" to "somewhere else not Paris" the service becomes not so great. 
I have experienced about as many delays in France as in Germany. However only in France I have experienced a delay of 20 minutes escalating in to not even reaching my destination. There are lines with only two trains a day... Miss one, and you're in trouble.

Getting information about public transport in Germany is a lot easier than in France as well. You can just enter two street adresses in www.bahn.de, and you'll get detailed instructions. Bahn.de has been doing that for a few decades now, while France still doesn't have anything comparable.


----------



## K_

AlexNL said:


> Given that the travel time between Hamburg and Copenhagen will be reduced by 3 hours and that the Swedes are getting more serious about HSR in their country, I wonder if we will see direct (day) trains between Stockholm and Hamburg somewhere in the next decade.


A good hourly service on Hamburg - Copenhagen with connections to trains to Sweden would be sufficient I'd think.


----------



## LtBk

> *Partial privatisation studies included in DB restructuring *


http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ation-studies-included-in-db-reform-plan.html

Comments?


----------



## TedStriker

Here's my contribution: 

"Grube emphasised that ‘nothing has been decided’, and he wished ‘to make it perfectly clear that we are not considering selling off these companies. On the contrary, we will retain business management control of both DB Arriva and DB Schenker Logistics.’"

For those who haven't read the DB press release, the part privatisation idea only applies to DB Arriva and DB Logisitcs. And it doesn't seem a very exciting idea.


----------



## Robi_damian

TedStriker said:


> Here's my contribution:
> 
> "Grube emphasised that ‘nothing has been decided’, and he wished ‘to make it perfectly clear that we are not considering selling off these companies. On the contrary, we will retain business management control of both DB Arriva and DB Schenker Logistics.’"
> 
> For those who haven't read the DB press release, the part privatisation idea only applies to DB Arriva and DB Logisitcs. And it doesn't seem a very exciting idea.


So the holding company will relinquish some of its shares? DB Schenker, defo, as one of the largest logistics companies in Europe, would be very appealing... Of course, there is fairly little incentiv to privatise DB at this point. They had a net income of 1.4 billion Euros last year, amid 40 billion in revenue. That is one huge asset other countries would kill to have.


----------



## TedStriker

The DB Schenker Logistics partial privatisation though is not going to include DB Schenker Rail. But yes, DB Schenker Logistics is a beast of a business.


----------



## AlexNL

DB Arriva is also very interesting.


----------



## flierfy

DB should sell off all non-rail businesses, especially those abroad, to fund overdue investments in the railway network in Germany.


----------



## K_

flierfy said:


> DB should sell off all non-rail businesses, especially those abroad, to fund overdue investments in the railway network in Germany.


Why? If these businesses make money, that is money they can invest in the network in Germany...


----------



## KingNick

K_ said:


> Why? If these businesses make money, that is money they can invest in the network in Germany...


I still feel that DB is focusing on anything but the German rail network.


----------



## hammersklavier

KingNick said:


> I still feel that DB is focusing on anything but the German rail network.


This sounds like mismanagement at the top.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

I wouldn´t call it mismanagement if a company grows to that dimensions. 



> Deutsche Bahn AG
> 
> Deutsche Bahn describes itself as the second-largest transport company in the world, after the German postal and logistics company Deutsche Post / DHL, and is the largest railway operator and infrastructure owner in Europe. It carries about two billion passengers each year.


^^
Is DB really the world´s second largest transport company after Deutsche Post / DHL? :hmm:

Can someone here confirm this claim?


----------



## KingNick

What does this even mean? Transport company for what? Has to be freight otherwise the comparison with DP/DHL wouldn't make any sense. In this regard RZD (1241.6 mio t) transports way more than DB (411.6 mio t) though so by its own definition DB has to be at least third.


----------



## TedStriker

It is indeed a freight-specific reference, the comparison with DHL, and it goes beyond rail cargo operations to include road, air and sea forwarding and transport operations.

I'm guessing that it might be measuring the number of shipments made so that all modes can be considered. 

A comparison with the likes of RZD is only possible if one looks at just the rail cargo operations of DB given that RZD is only in the business of rail cargo.


----------



## hammersklavier

Deadeye Reloaded said:


> I wouldn´t call it mismanagement if a company grows to that dimensions.


I would. Because it's happened before and DB management is making the exact same mistakes. You might want to read this:

Amazon - The Wreck of the Penn Central


----------



## KingNick

TedStriker said:


> It is indeed a freight-specific reference, the comparison with DHL, and it goes beyond rail cargo operations to include road, air and sea forwarding and transport operations.
> 
> I'm guessing that it might be measuring the number of shipments made so that all modes can be considered.
> 
> A comparison with the likes of RZD is only possible if one looks at just the rail cargo operations of DB given that RZD is only in the business of rail cargo.


The numbers I posted are consolidated for the whole DB AG and it doesn't get more comparable than that. The number of shipments on the other hand is totally arbitrary and doesn't say anything about how much a company actually transports. Those transporting 1 billion letter are certainly smaller than a company transporting a billion parcels.


----------



## K_

hammersklavier said:


> I would. Because it's happened before and DB management is making the exact same mistakes. You might want to read this:
> 
> Amazon - The Wreck of the Penn Central


The answer to the Penn Central bankruptcy was to create something even bigger, and less efficient... 

But maybe reducing the size of DB would be appropriate. There is some research showing that a railway of about the size of NS or SBB is indeed optimal. 
(Coincidental these happen to be the two railways that manage to do better than DB...)


----------



## TedStriker

KingNick said:


> The numbers I posted are consolidated for the whole DB AG and it doesn't get more comparable than that. The number of shipments on the other hand is totally arbitrary and doesn't say anything about how much a company actually transports. Those transporting 1 billion letter are certainly smaller than a company transporting a billion parcels.


Yes but the question about how DB is defining itself as the world's second largest freight transport company came about. And that's why I supposed that this definition may be based around consignments rather than overall tonnage. 

I'm not saying that such a measure is a good one. I'm just trying to see if I can explain how the second place spot is defined. And while we're on the topic, how is D-Post/DHL achieving first place? Probably by number of consignments because like DB Schenker, D-Post/DHL ships everything from letters to all sorts of heavy cargo via land, water and air.


----------



## TedStriker

K_ said:


> The answer to the Penn Central bankruptcy was to create something even bigger, and less efficient... But maybe reducing the size of DB would be appropriate. There is some research showing that a railway of about the size of NS or SBB is indeed optimal. (Coincidental these happen to be the two railways that manage to do better than DB...)


Don't forget that NS is a passenger-only entity, the former cargo operations of NS now being run by DB Schenker.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The world's biggest transporters of passengers by rail are of course the state companies of India and China, who else.



K_ said:


> But maybe reducing the size of DB would be appropriate. There is some research showing that a railway of about the size of NS or SBB is indeed optimal.
> (Coincidental these happen to be the two railways that manage to do better than DB...)


I really marvel about your ability to compare apples with pears. The passenger transport of the Netherlands could well be compared to the passenger transport of Northrhine-Westphalia, both sizewise and regarding agglomeration structure, population density, and distances to be covered. For a model for German-wide transport, one should look to other models.


----------



## KingNick

TedStriker said:


> Yes but the question about how DB is defining itself as the world's second largest freight transport company came about. And that's why I supposed that this definition may be based around consignments rather than overall tonnage.
> 
> I'm not saying that such a measure is a good one. I'm just trying to see if I can explain how the second place spot is defined. And while we're on the topic, how is D-Post/DHL achieving first place? Probably by number of consignments because like DB Schenker, D-Post/DHL ships everything from letters to all sorts of heavy cargo via land, water and air.


I have never read about DP/DHL as being the largest freight transport company anyway. Largest courier company yes, but never freight transporter.


----------



## TedStriker

KingNick said:


> I have never read about DP/DHL as being the largest freight transport company anyway. Largest courier company yes, but never freight transporter.


For many years I have seen D-Post/DHL is mentioned as the world's number one freight company when DB comparisons are made, and I suspect that it's DB itself that issues press releases defining things in this way and subsequently media outlets regurgitate the same information. (Or misinformation if you don't think that it's incorrect).


----------



## flierfy

K_ said:


> Why? If these businesses make money, that is money they can invest in the network in Germany...


There is no point in a state-owned company being invested in all sorts of commercial activities all over the world while this very same company fails its core task. Germany needs a railway that runs smoothly. For that it takes a network operator which is focused on this specific task only.


----------



## Svartmetall

Baron Hirsch said:


> The world's biggest transporters of passengers by rail are of course the state companies of India and China, who else.


Japan. In fact, Japan has the clear lead over everyone else in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country

Look at the table for number of passengers - Japan = 22.6 billion. India = 8.9 billion. Germany = 2.3 billion. China = 2.1 billion (2013 figures, though). For passenger km travelled, of course larger countries like India and China dominate. 

China has an amazing amount of rail freight, though. 57% modal share, now that's really impressive.


----------



## Robi_damian

Svartmetall said:


> Japan. In fact, Japan has the clear lead over everyone else in the world:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country
> 
> Look at the table for number of passengers - Japan = 22.6 billion. India = 8.9 billion. Germany = 2.3 billion. China = 2.1 billion (2013 figures, though). For passenger km travelled, of course larger countries like India and China dominate.
> 
> China has an amazing amount of rail freight, though. 57% modal share, now that's really impressive.


This is, however, partially due to the definition of "rail". Many Japanese train routes, including hugely busy and purely urban lines like the Yamanote (5% of the entire Japanese rail passenger total), would be under the subordination of Metro authorities in other countries. Take Seoul´s Metro, which includes suburban rail, and some longer lines of the Shanghai and Beijing metros could be defined as such too.


----------



## TedStriker

flierfy said:


> There is no point in a state-owned company being invested in all sorts of commercial activities all over the world while this very same company fails its core task. Germany needs a railway that runs smoothly. For that it takes a network operator which is focused on this specific task only.


This is a very good argument and is one that is put forward by many in the UK who are critical of most of the railway operations in continental Europe, including DB, SNCF, SNCB, FS and so on. 

Ideally in Europe all of the railway networks ought to be run by bodies that are independent of any train operator. And I think this will happen eventually but we're just not quite there yet.


----------



## Svartmetall

Robi_damian said:


> This is, however, partially due to the definition of "rail". Many Japanese train routes, including hugely busy and purely urban lines like the Yamanote (5% of the entire Japanese rail passenger total), would be under the subordination of Metro authorities in other countries. Take Seoul´s Metro, which includes suburban rail, and some longer lines of the Shanghai and Beijing metros could be defined as such too.


But S-bahn is included in Germany if you read the source of the figures (http://www.wissen.de/175-jahre-deutsche-eisenbahn-von-475-000-zu-237-milliarden-fahrgaesten). Even if you took off the Yamanote line, the other lines such as the Chuo, Keihin-Tohoku and other busy lines are just the same as S-bahn or regional rail lines as they connect urban centres. Why should the Rhein-Ruhr S-bahn or other such S-bahn systems be any different?

I agree it doesn't tell the whole picture, but even if you were to add all the Chinese metro systems to the passenger transport total, you'd struggle to get to the Japanese level at present (though it will eclipse this in the future).


----------



## hammersklavier

K_ said:


> The answer to the Penn Central bankruptcy was to create something even bigger, and less efficient...
> 
> But maybe reducing the size of DB would be appropriate. There is some research showing that a railway of about the size of NS or SBB is indeed optimal.
> (Coincidental these happen to be the two railways that manage to do better than DB...)


The solution to the Penn Central catastrophe was to nationalize the entire (bankrupt) Northeastern rail net and prune lines by the bucketload, and even then it would take another decade before Conrail showed a profit.

But it's also important to remember something else: Penn Central was caused by mismanagement at the top of the Pennsylvania Railroad, the onetime "Standard Railroad Of The World". Specifically, management sought diversification opportunities _at the expense of_ reinvestment of capital into the infrastructure. (PRR management controlled the Penn Central.)

Hmm ... management focused on expanding business and diversifying ... mounting evidence that funds are being diverted away from core railroad operations ... doesn't that sound like a familiar story?


----------



## TedStriker

I'm sure we're all boring ourselves to death with discussing DB but I thought I'd suggest people read this piece on the latest restructuring announcement: http://www.shdlogistics.com/news/db-schenker-logistics-to-be-partially-privatised

You'll see that DB defines the second place position of DB Logistics by revenues generated, which apparently came to almost 20 billion Euros in 2014, around 50 per cent of the DB group's overall revenues.


----------



## KingNick

Then again La Poste has € 22.2 billion, UPS $ 49 billion... Spin it as you wish. DB never comes in second with reguards to logistics or transport.


----------



## TedStriker

KingNick said:


> Then again La Poste has € 22.2 billion, UPS $ 49 billion... Spin it as you wish. DB never comes in second with reguards to logistics or transport.


Okay. But DB Schenker is still one of the world's logistics big boys. Perhaps you ought to consider raising your league table concerns with DB itself. Why not fire off an email to the PR department of DB?


----------



## LtBk

hammersklavier said:


> The solution to the Penn Central catastrophe was to nationalize the entire (bankrupt) Northeastern rail net and prune lines by the bucketload, and even then it would take another decade before Conrail showed a profit.
> 
> But it's also important to remember something else: Penn Central was caused by mismanagement at the top of the Pennsylvania Railroad, the onetime "Standard Railroad Of The World". Specifically, management sought diversification opportunities _at the expense of_ reinvestment of capital into the infrastructure. (PRR management controlled the Penn Central.)
> 
> Hmm ... management focused on expanding business and diversifying ... mounting evidence that funds are being diverted away from core railroad operations ... doesn't that sound like a familiar story?


The difference is that passenger rail(both the providers and infrastructure) was controlled by private corporations until 1970's. Deutsche Bahn and other railway authorities are government owned in one way or another.


----------



## TedStriker

Tony Berkeley may be a familiar name for some of you. For those who are cynical about the state of railway organisation in Europe this piece may have some appeal: 

Germany and France cling to their railway monopolies


----------



## Matz32Z




----------



## Surel

TedStriker said:


> Tony Berkeley may be a familiar name for some of you. For those who are cynical about the state of railway organisation in Europe this piece may have some appeal:
> 
> Germany and France cling to their railway monopolies


It is the same story repeating itself. Shame that the EU doesn't step in, but then again, it is rather projecting German and French interests than doing anything else. It would not matter to me that much if it did not mean gaining advantage abroad in the countries where the liberalisation took place and thus creating and supporting national champions.


----------



## NordikNerd

A Swiss crocodile broke down in Berlin due to a faulty bearing. The loco is heading to Swinoujscie, Poland for further transport by ferry to Sweden.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Is It true that there are DB parcel freight trains running on HSR lines in Germany?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Funny idea. To my knowledge, DHL has completely cut out DB of its operations and does everything by plane and truck.


----------



## TedStriker

Some stretches of HS line in Germany are freight-enabled and they can see standard freight trains, such as 120kph intermodals, operate.

What you are referring to are the 160kph intermodal trains which carried swap bodies that were catering for the express market. DHL, for example, worked with DB to operate the 'Parcel InterCity' trains.

I'm not sure if there are any 160kph intermodals being run anymore in Germany. Can someone confirm? 

In the meantime, there apparently exist some 140kph intermodal trains which carry Hellmann Worldwide Logistics swap bodies.


----------



## TedStriker

Baron Hirsch said:


> Funny idea. To my knowledge, DHL has completely cut out DB of its operations and does everything by plane and truck.


DHL is one of the major users of intermodal services in Europe. Only recently a new intermodal service began between Rostock and Verona underpinned by a large volume of DHL semi-trailers.


----------



## Matz32Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMDKocBRde8


----------



## telemaxx

*New double-deck IC*

The new double-deck IC fleet (which will be called IC2) has been approved and presented by Deutsche Bahn in Potsdam:










Source: http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/09/25/german-rail-authority-approves-new-double-deck-ic-fleet/

More pictures: https://mediathek.deutschebahn.com/...ef4163b3d914e5ff68652bf2934c98ccf37?oid=12725


----------



## TedStriker

Can someone remind me, across which routes are these double-deckers going to operate?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Berlin-Cologne (the way I understand to complement, not replace, the current ICE2s)
Stuttgart-Zurich
Nuremberg-Karlsruhe
They are to be introduced as of spring 2016, little by little. Meanwhile the ICx, possibly to be renamed ICE4, is undergoing test rides. Although it can only crank up to 250 kmh, it is to be used mostly on the new Munich-Leipzig/Halle-Hamburg line, which will have several 300 kmh-sections. Source: http://dmm.travel/news/artikel/lesen/2015/09/erster-icx-auf-testfahrten-unterwegs-71360/ (in German)
As for the pics of the double-decker ICs, they remind me of current REs. I hope they will prove a bit more up to the standard of long-distance travel than that.


----------



## telemaxx

TedStriker said:


> Can someone remind me, across which routes are these double-deckers going to operate?





Baron Hirsch said:


> Berlin-Cologne (the way I understand to complement, not replace, the current ICE2s)


No, that is not correct. The first 27 double-deck IC will operate on the IC lines 55 and 56, so on Norddeich-Hannover-Leipzig and Köln-Hannover-Leipzig-Dresden. The first train sets will be introduced at the end of this year.



Baron Hirsch said:


> Stuttgart-Zurich
> Nuremberg-Karlsruhe
> 
> They are to be introduced as of spring 2016, little by little.


The second tranche of 17 double-deck IC will operate on Stuttgart-Zurich and Nuremberg-Karlsruhe from December 2017. 



Baron Hirsch said:


> Meanwhile the ICx, possibly to be renamed ICE4, is undergoing test rides. Although it can only crank up to 250 kmh, it is to be used mostly on the new Munich-Leipzig/Halle-Hamburg line, which will have several 300 kmh-sections. Source: http://dmm.travel/news/artikel/lesen/2015/09/erster-icx-auf-testfahrten-unterwegs-71360/ (in German)


I have posted a similar post in the German high-speed rail thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1260015&page=37


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Hi Maxx, I stand corrected. And I just saw your post on ICx in the parallel thread, sorry.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## M-NL

AlexNL said:


> They could always send those locos to freight services and order more 147's for IC2, right?


That's possible. But the TRAXX is a modular platform. If switching the axle ratio isn't enough you could also switch bogies. There are 200 km/h TRAXXs in Italy after all.


----------



## TedStriker

"Siemens' head of high-speed and regional trains, Juergen Wilder, will leave the industrial group at the end of the year to take over Deutsche Bahn's struggling rail freight arm,.."


----------



## Baron Hirsch

*15 routes in Germany Permanently Running Over Capacity*

Due to federal legislation, Deutsche Bahn Netz must annually report what sections of its tracks are jammed up. Thanks to the Green parliament faction, this information is now public and zeit.de has come up with a map: http://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2015-10/deutsche-bahn-schienen-strecke-ueberlastung
They are, not surprisingly, either main urban or commuter routes, such as Hamburg main station, Berlin Spandau station, Berlin's Stadtbahn, Cologne-Dortmund, or parts of the ICE grid, such as Uelzen-Hamburg, Hanover-Minden, Bamberg-Nuremberg, Nuremberg-Würzburg and beyond, Fulda-Hanau, Frankfurt-Mannheim, Offenburg-Basel (don't shoot me if I did not get geographic specifics all correct; do not know all the specific endpoints). The only regional line quoted is the line to Sylt. 
Almost all of these lines have completed plans about how to improve their capacity, either by additional tracks, faster speeds and more efficient signaling, bypasses, new lines, etc. However German chronic underinvestment into rail lines becomes most obvious here. 
I have a vague suspicion though that at least some of those lines are there for tactical reasons. For the Sylt line there was a bidding war recently, and claiming overcapacity traffic on Berlin Stadtbahn (where traffic seems moderate still when compared to Hamburg or the Northrhine Westphalian main axis) might seem like a good argument for relocating all long distance traffic to the North South underground line, which is unpopular, but the declared aim of DB.
Finally one must notice that East Germany is a safe haven: with the exception of the Berlin Stadtbahn, no East German line is among the list of jammed routes.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...r-operator-to-launch-in-2016.html?channel=524
> 
> *New German passenger operator to launch in 2016*
> Tuesday, October 20, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A new German long-distance open-access operator called DerSchnellzug (the fast train) has confirmed it will launch the first of three planned services on March 18 2016, three months later than originally planned, although three special trains will run at New Year_
> 
> Line D1 will operate from Stuttgart via Heibronn, Würzburg, Kassel, Hannover and Bremen to Hamburg on a route not currently served by German Rail (DB) long-distance services. The service will only operate at weekends to start with, although the objective is to provide trains running three times a day
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilhem275

A little help for my father, who's building a G scale model of an HSB railcar.

The model is VT 187, units 016-019. The external shape is built but we can't find any picture of the internal space.

I just found a couple of internal pictures of unit 015, which is different (searching for "innenraum").

Any hint?


----------



## Skalka

dimlys1994 said:


> From Rail Journal:


Nice. Heilbronn is my home town.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The plans of Der Schnellzug have seriously been bashed on the German forum. Contrary to its name, travel time will be abysmally slow, not just for the avoidance of HSR, but also on conventional lines. Routes where a DB IC takes 30 minutes Schnellzug will do in 50. As prices are also not extraordinarily cheap and services once a week are not really something to watch out for, this looks like its doomed from the start. Too bad, a serious private alternative as in Italy, Czech Rep, or Austria could do German rail services some good.


----------



## Wilhem275

Then the question is: is DB Netz not giving competitive timetables, or is DSZ* keeping them large to avoid troubles?

Anyway, if it's just a trial phase, not a big deal.

* I just made that up


----------



## AlexNL

Who or what company is behind Der Schnellzug?


----------



## TedStriker

SPECTRE


----------



## M-NL

Wilhem275 said:


> Then the question is: is DB Netz not giving competitive timetables


Can anyone confirm that train paths in Germany are priced according to desirability? E.g. a quick path giving you the shortest travel and dwelling times is very expensive and a slow path, which may include extra dwelling time at stations to let faster trains pass is less expensive.

In that case the question is: Has Der Schnellzug opted for the slower and cheaper path because they weren't offered anything better or because they wanted to themselves.


----------



## AlexNL

M-NL said:


> Can anyone confirm that train paths in Germany are priced according to desirability?


DB Netz has a section for this on their website, all information can be found there as well as a train path price calculation tool.


----------



## NordikNerd

*The next generation of ICE trains*










The new ICE4 is going to replace the old ICE3. This train may have some improvements on the inside, but the outside look does not differ much from the old ICE-versions. I would expect something more streamlined similar to the japanese shinkansen trains.


----------



## M-NL

AlexNL said:


> DB Netz has a section for this on their website, all information can be found there as well as a train path price calculation tool.


A short glance in the price list confirms my suspicion that al least there is a different pricing for more and less desirable paths. What it doesn't say is how the allocation is regulated. Can I demand a desirable more expensive path or do I have to make due with what DB Netz offers me?


----------



## M-NL

NordikNerd said:


> The new ICE4 is going to replace the old ICE3. This train may have some improvements on the inside, but the outside look does not differ much from the old ICE-versions. I would expect something more streamlined similar to the japanese shinkansen trains.


It is going to replace the ICE1 and ICE2. Streamlining doesn't stop with the nose shape. The length of the trains creates considerable drag as well. 
Note the JR 700 and the THSR 700T. The 700T is faster despite its shorter nose section. The lengthy Japanese nose sections are only required to compensate for the narrower tunnels, not because they create less aerodynamic drag.


----------



## suasion

> A little help for my father, who's building a G scale model of an HSB railcar.
> 
> The model is VT 187, units 016-019. The external shape is built but we can't find any picture of the internal space.
> 
> I just found a couple of internal pictures of unit 015, which is different (searching for "innenraum").
> 
> Any hint?


By some coincidence I travelled on 187-15-3 the other day and I only have external pictures from 187-16-1 and 187-19-5, :nuts:


----------



## suasion

> The new ICE4 is going to replace the old ICE3. This train may have some improvements on the inside, but the outside look does not differ much from the old ICE-versions. I would expect something more streamlined similar to the japanese shinkansen trains.


It only looks a bit more modern on the inside, seating seems to be the same. Biggest dissappointment for me is the Family compartment is gone, just some 4 seaters now in an open wagonhno: My kids always loved travelling ICE for this room, not sure I can coax them on long journeys with this.


----------



## Wilhem275

suasion said:


> By some coincidence I travelled on 187-15-3 the other day and I only have external pictures from 187-16-1 and 187-19-5, :nuts:


Dammit! :lol: Thank you anyway.

I can't believe, among the millions of photos of German railways, there's not a single pic of the internal space of those four units...


----------



## suasion

If only you had posted a few days earlier:crazy2:


----------



## Wilhem275

Well, those are interesting too, for external details.
Meanwhile we found a bunch of internal photos, on a nordic board (still have to understand if Norwegian or Danish).

I wonder why the 015, which is older, looks much more modern than its followers. Probably HSB said "Ok, we like it, but make it cheaper" :lol:


----------



## suasion

^^^^^^

Indeed 15 seems to be more curved, 16 and 19 have much more defined corners.

Would you like unwatermarked photgraphs?


----------



## Wilhem275

No, thank you, it's enough info for dad's work


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

*Presentation of a brand new Intercity 2.*


----------



## KingNick

DB apparently learned from ÖBB's RJ loco design failure. I always hate it when they are inverted.


----------



## TM_Germany

yay, new ICs that can only go 160 km/h hno:
Let's not forget that there will be new ICs (ICx) in the future, which will be marketed as ICE and will also only go 230/250 km/h.
Soon it'll be faster to walk than take the so-called "HSR"


----------



## AlexNL

The IC2 stock will run on routes where you can't go much faster than 160 anyway.

The ICx stock will run on the routes where going harder than 200 - 250 doesn't make any sense, such as Ruhrgebiet - Berlin via Hannover (no 300 km/h routes there).

The ICE 3/Velaro stock will run on the routes where it makes sense, such as between Frankfurt and Cologne, Nürnberg - Erfurt, and so on.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

KingNick said:


> DB apparently learned from ÖBB's RJ loco design failure. I always hate it when they are inverted.


^^
Explain! Pics! Now! Thanks.


----------



## TM_Germany

AlexNL said:


> The IC2 stock will run on routes where you can't go much faster than 160 anyway.
> 
> The ICx stock will run on the routes where going harder than 200 - 250 doesn't make any sense, such as Ruhrgebiet - Berlin via Hannover (no 300 km/h routes there).
> 
> The ICE 3/Velaro stock will run on the routes where it makes sense, such as between Frankfurt and Cologne, Nürnberg - Erfurt, and so on.


still, it's a shitty devolopement. In the most important IC connections, there are some 200km/h stretches which are then useless. But I suspect the new ICs will more ore less take the place of the old IR and the ICx trains will take the more important routes, then labeled as 'ICE'. That just makes train travel even more expensive. 

There are areas where the new ICx make sense, like Berlin-HH, or as you mentioned Berlin-Ruhr, but pretty much every other important connection has or will have stretches with 280-300 km/h. I think they even want to use ICx trains on the new Munich-Berlin line, which will have long parts with 300km/h.

So overall I think the ICx wouldn't be so bad, if it replaced ICs or the older ICEs on lines that can't support higher speeds anyway, but for what they want it to be, which is it being the future backbone of german HSR, I'd say it's also the last nail in germany's HSR's coffin.

But well we'll see. The new trains could be very useful in some places and I'm always ready to receive positive surprises. I couldn't think of a single one in relation to DB, though.


----------



## Wilhem275

Deadeye Reloaded said:


> ^^
> Explain! Pics! Now! Thanks.


I think he means that when the loco comes swapped around, the color scheme is screwed.
Few examples I found:


----------



## K_

TM_Germany said:


> still, it's a shitty devolopement. In the most important IC connections, there are some 200km/h stretches which are then useless. But I suspect the new ICs will more ore less take the place of the old IR and the ICx trains will take the more important routes, then labeled as 'ICE'. That just makes train travel even more expensive.


Frequencey, punctuality and good integration are more important then top speed. Running more trains by itself will already shorten travel times for many people. What I see DB doing is at the one hand improving their ICE network, and at the other hand positioning their IC network as a slower, but cheaper altenrative. That is a good strategy I think.


----------



## suasion

Does anyone have any info on the interior accomodations of these trains? Are the seats like those in the current IC/ICE trains with sockets, tables etc? Is there room for luggage as overhead space is normally miserable on double deckers?Is there a restaurant/buffet car?


----------



## AlexNL

The IC2 coaches are very similar to the ones you'll usually find on RegionalExpress services, but the interior is up to par with that of an ICE 2 or ICmod coaches (refurbished coaches as found between Amsterdam and Berlin).


----------



## tunnel owl

suasion said:


> Does anyone have any info on the interior accomodations of these trains? Are the seats like those in the current IC/ICE trains with sockets, tables etc? Is there room for luggage as overhead space is normally miserable on double deckers?Is there a restaurant/buffet car?


Official information in german above is telling, that there will be a basic offer of foods and drinks at place, so no restaurant. Most important is Internet provided in trains (a thing nearly all long-distance-busses in Germany already offer for free). Luggage can be stored in extra compartments, so not mainly over the seat. The IC-Neu basically is discussed as the reinvention of the former IR. But it couldn´t be named like this again, it closes a gap anyway.


----------



## TM_Germany

K_ said:


> Frequencey, punctuality and good integration are more important then top speed. Running more trains by itself will already shorten travel times for many people. What I see DB doing is at the one hand improving their ICE network, and at the other hand positioning their IC network as a slower, but cheaper altenrative. That is a good strategy I think.


Frequency, punctuality and good intigration is something that shouldn't be an issue. Least of all one they try to compensate at the cost of high-speed. What DB should do is reintroduce the IRs, use the new ICs for important IC and slower ICE connections and do the rest with real highspeed. Of course that would mean less profit for DB, since they can't demand ICE prices for previous IC connections and admit that they completely ****ed up their policies, so that won't ever happen. And - by the way- I've been following this thread for awhile, reapeating your arguments over and over again doesn't make them any better. Turning the ICE into a giant S-Bahn won't help anybody in country like germany. What you try so desperately to good-talk isn't rational - it's apologetic. If it's for patriotic reasons or if you're just a fan of DB I don't know, but please, there's no need to defend something that's not worth defending.


----------



## AlexNL

Deutsche Bahn is working with some Bundesländer to make the IC trains accessible to people holding tickets for the Nahverkehr, in turn the Länder would have to pay for the price difference. This is upsetting some of DB's competitors as they consider this as unfair competition.


----------



## K_

TM_Germany said:


> ... there's no need to defend something that's not worth defending.


It's not because you disagree with a position that it is not worth defending.


----------



## TM_Germany

K_ said:


> It's not because you disagree with a position that it is not worth defending.


It's good to know we agree, then.


----------



## Matz32Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a4Idz1f4UA


----------



## Wilhem275

I understand  but only because I already knew the final flyovers setting 
I have the impression it took a really long time to build the S5/S3 viaduct, from the moment they finished the main building and platforms.

I didn't remember about the northern RB platform. I hope that Lichtenberg will then become a through station for all its services, some continuing to Gesundbrunnen or BER via Ostkreuz (up) and the rest terminating at Ostkreuz (low); thus allowing everyone to reach at least the Ring, instead of terminating just out of it.

For RB trains terminating at Ostkreuz (low) will they build new terminal tracks west of the station? Or trains will terminate at the Warschauer Str. yard?
(Fantasy railway: it would be nice to build a RB platform at Warschauer Str., to connect them to U1 )

With Regio trains travelling west of Lichtenberg, crossing all ICE which will be shifted from the Stadtbahn to Hbf-Gesundbrunnen-Rummelsburg, the X crossing between Lichtenberg and the Ring will see some interesting traffic!
(I don't know the name of that Abzw.)


----------



## Bbbut

I am not sure I understand the last sentence.
For clarification, there is no connection between Lichtenberg and the Stadtbahn for non-S-Bahn trains.








The tracks on the north never meet the ones on the south. (They just lead to the 'Reichsbahnausbesserungswerk' and never further.)

There is a connection from Lichtenberg to the platform above, so they could theoretically run an Airport-Express coming from the east.

Also, your fantasy is actually the wrong way around, BVG is toying with the idea of connecting the U1 to Ostkreuz. (source)


----------



## Wilhem275

Uh, nice about the U1, maybe we already talked about it in the Berlin public transport topic.

The Abzw. I meant seems to be called Abzweigung Gabelung (Wikipedia), in that point Regio traffic Lichtenberg - Ostkreuz (Ro) will cross all traffic between Gesundbrunnen and Rummelsburg/Erkner.

Talking about the Ring mainline tracks, how many parts are still missing to make it complete?

Between Westend and Tempelhof it appears mostly complete but not electrified, and with missing bits (no tracks on the Schöneberg bridge).
Tempelhof - Treptow is used by freight service but with only one track in some parts.
From Treptow yard there is a completely missing section of 420 m to Treptower Park.
And from Treptower Park to Ostkreuz it's being reactivated now, for the Görlitzer Bahn.

So, there's really no interest in completing the Südring?
I think about a route for freight traffic, especially now that the Moabit - Gabelung section will become more crowded.


----------



## TedStriker

http://www.allgemeine-zeitung.de/wi...lin-arbeitsplaetze-bahn-db-cargo_16472136.htm

The word on the street is that the railway part of DB Schenker may be renamed DB Cargo, the name of the operation up until 2003.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Wilhem275 said:


> I didn't remember about the northern RB platform. I hope that Lichtenberg will then become a through station for all its services, some continuing to Gesundbrunnen or BER via Ostkreuz (up) and the rest terminating at Ostkreuz (low); thus allowing everyone to reach at least the Ring, instead of terminating just out of it.
> 
> For RB trains terminating at Ostkreuz (low) will they build new terminal tracks west of the station? Or trains will terminate at the Warschauer Str. yard?
> (Fantasy railway: it would be nice to build a RB platform at Warschauer Str., to connect them to U1 )


Tried to see what the final setup is supposed to be. As of April 2016, of the three hourly trains extended to Ostkreuz upper platform, one (the one coming from Eberswalde) will be extended via the long dormant Görlitzer Bahn (Schöneweide) to Lübben and Senftenberg. 
As of late 2017, the Kostrzyn trains will be extended to Ostkreuz (do not understand: since this line is coming from Ostkreuz, why can it not be extended to the upper platform and how does it cross from Lichtenberg to the lower level of Ostkreuz?)
At the same time, stops by the RE1 and RE2, two of the most used regional lines (Magdeburg-Frankfurt/O and Wismar-Cottbus respectively, are planned for the southern platform. Karlshorst Station will then be closed.


----------



## tunnel owl

Bbbut said:


> I am not sure I understand the last sentence.
> For clarification, there is no connection between Lichtenberg and the Stadtbahn for non-S-Bahn trains.


 You´re right. The northern regional platform cannot be used for trains from Lichtenberg. They are coming from the VnK (Verbindung nach Kaulsdorf) track reaching Küstrin. Lichtenberg can only be reached via upper Level from Ostkreuz.



Bbbut said:


> The tracks on the north never meet the ones on the south. (They just lead to the 'Reichsbahnausbesserungswerk' and never further.).


 Some people at DBAG dreamed of a single-track connection via tunnel between northern and southern tracks which is not realistic at all.




Bbbut said:


> Also, your fantasy is actually the wrong way around, BVG is toying with the idea of connecting the U1 to Ostkreuz. (source)


 
Toying is over. No one of Berlin authorities jumped on this train, so without support from no one it could be considered as dead. But you´re right again, as U-Bahn tracks lying beneath the northern DB-tracks would interfer with any idea of leading the Ostbahn further to the West.

Edit: For those interested in Pictures, this is a german blog about Ostkreuz construction:
http://www.ostkreuzblog.de/baufortschritt/baustellenuebersicht-september-2015/

Kind regards


----------



## tunnel owl

Wilhem275 said:


> Talking about the Ring mainline tracks, how many parts are still missing to make it complete?


Many. Between Westend and Tempelhof several bridges have to be rebuild, which takes place in a very slowly way. There is paradox of planning: To make the Südring attractive as freight-line it must be electrified. Electrification would mean an extraordinary change of the existing layout and therefore the line must be regarded with actual laws of environmental impact, making noise barriers necessary. This is somewhat weird, because electrification itself means an improvement in environmental purposes. But DBAG fears to do so, so they are building something mainly without electrification. Don´t know if that makes sence anyway.


----------



## flierfy

tunnel owl said:


> Some people at DBAG dreamed of a single-track connection via tunnel between northern and southern tracks which is not realistic at all.


There is nothing unrealistic about a simple underpass. Once the Ostbahn is electrified more voices will be heard demanding this link. And quite honestly, it should be built to make the network round and sound as well as to connect the towns along the Ostbahn directly to central Berlin.


----------



## ELZIPO32

Just a question

Does anybody know what kind of works are being done in Düsseldorf HBF? They are currently working on the south of the station, and I tried to look for some information but unfortunately, I didn't find anything. Are they related with the new RRX?

Thanks.


----------



## Earthlink

suasion said:


> If only you had posted a few days


Awesome. But what exactly is this?


----------



## suasion

^^^^^^

HSB railcars in the Harz National park


----------



## tunnel owl

flierfy said:


> There is nothing unrealistic about a simple underpass. Once the Ostbahn is electrified more voices will be heard demanding this link.


East of Strausberg there are no big towns in Germany and the next is Gorzow in Poland. It is simply wrong to state, that this railway will be electrified. And if not electrified it will not reach Stadtbahn. 

Diesel-service could be operated together with PKP maybe in future, if regularities and technical operation match together, about 40 Mill. Euro have been spent on building a second track partially. That´s enough for this corridor for now and the foreseeable future.


----------



## flierfy

tunnel owl said:


> East of Strausberg there are no big towns in Germany and the next is Gorzow in Poland. It is simply wrong to state, that this railway will be electrified. And if not electrified it will not reach Stadtbahn.


The electrification of the Ostbahn has been enrolled as candidate project for the forthcoming Federal Transport Links Strategy (Bundesverkehrswegeplan) by the land of Brandenburg. The project has yet to take some hurdles, but it is not as off as you seem to suggest. The administrative process is already under way. As a strategic freight link to northern Poland the project could be even supported by EU funds.


----------



## tunnel owl

flierfy said:


> The electrification of the Ostbahn has been enrolled as candidate project for the forthcoming Federal Transport Links Strategy (Bundesverkehrswegeplan) by the land of Brandenburg. The project has yet to take some hurdles, but it is not as off as you seem to suggest. The administrative process is already under way. As a strategic freight link to northern Poland the project could be even supported by EU funds.


 We are all waiting what will be left from that wish-list ater X-Mas I don´t pay any attention on things to be put on the list from the counties as long as they are not finally quoted as necessary from federal government.

Anyway cross-border rail to Stettin will have priority and Cottbus upgrade to 160 km/h, too. I think the strategic freight link would be the main cause to have this line electrified one day, because the Frankfurt/Oder line must be relieved from freight as it is the main passenger-corridor to Warsaw/Poznan and has significant commuter traffic. But even the Frankfurt-corridor still awaits it´s complete upgrade...


----------



## AlexNL

End of the line for CityNightLine, Deutsche Bahn is pulling the plug on the highly unprofitable service as of December 15, 2016. The sleeper services will be replaced with regular ICE trains and IC buses.


----------



## Robi_damian

^^ Boo DB!


----------



## ikarus280

Baron Hirsch said:


> Yes, upper level and only one track in the direction of Lichtenberg Station. In fact, the local trains to Werneuchen and to Eberswalde/Templin have simply been extended for a short 3-minute distance (so far 2 stations by S-Bahn). In the long run though, this stop can hopefully be developed into something more useful.


Actually only the Werneuchen (RB25) and Templin (RB12) trains terminate at Ostkreuz. The RB24 is a through service between Eberswalde (north east of Berlin) and Senftenberg (south Brandenburg) - a 2.5-hour ride. As both directions meet at Ostkreuz, both sides of the platform are used.

As far as I know, when Ostkreuz is completed, RB12 and RB25 will terminate "downstairs" and the RB24 will be the only service "upstairs". That's why they initially didn't even want to build a roof. That there is one now is thanks to the money the senate saved during the S-Bahn crisis.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

delete


----------



## Wbnemo1

I'm looking for information on the TR07 TransRapid Maglev, any help?


----------



## Wbnemo1

not really finding anything on this forum....I tried search too, not much luck there either....

Cheers,
Will


----------



## Nexis

Wbnemo1 said:


> I'm looking for information on the TR07 TransRapid Maglev, any help?


What kind of information are you looking for?


----------



## 33Hz

Try http://www.maglevboard.net/en/forum


----------



## Wilhem275

What's the current state of the Dresdner Bahn project in Berlin? Slow, very slow, corpse? :lol:

I really wonder what will be opened first, that or BER... (no trolling, I'm serious)


----------



## NordikNerd

*Accident in Puttgarden*

The ICE train *Hamburg-Copenhagen* broke through the fence to the ferry in the harbour.

Thursday afternoon, 01.07.2016, something failed in an ICE in Puttgarden it was probably the brakes. After exchange of staff from German to Danish train crew the driver drove towards the ferry. Since the gate to the ferry was not open, he wanted to slow or stop the train again. According to him, he pushed the brakes but they did not react, so the train moved against the massive gate and broke it. Both the Fence and the front of the train were badly damaged thereby. Officials of the federal police were quickly on the spot, they took Accident Pictures and noticed the loss. The 98 passengers, none of whom was injured when initiated emergency braking, had to leave the ICE and go on shore to leave on foot to the ferry in order to continue their trip to Denmark.










To determine the exact cause of the accident, the memory of the ICE must be read out, the investigation by the Federal Police is ongoing. The extent of damage remains to be determined.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Wilhem275 said:


> What's the current state of the Dresdner Bahn project in Berlin? Slow, very slow, corpse? :lol:
> 
> I really wonder what will be opened first, that or BER... (no trolling, I'm serious)


Actually with Mayor Wowereit as the main appeaser of the NIMBY-protests gone, things are starting to happen. The Federal Railway Authority (EBA) has granted permission for the line to be constructed without a tunnel through the angry men's suburb of Lichtenrade in August 2015. Apparently the senate are still discussing with the NIMBY protesters, but without the tunnel, the protesters will definitely go ahead and take the EBA's decision or actually what the senate makes of it to court. Maybe they should just go ahead with it. 18 years of waiting for the Lichtenrade suburbanites has not helped those who want ecologically responsible transport and the law suit looks unavoidable. Latest article:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/p...de-soll-wieder-gespalten-werden/12550136.html


----------



## Wilhem275

Sounds like good news, although -both as traveller and resident- I completely despise noise barriers raising over the height of bogies.
As a resident, I'd consider win-win having some sort of direct compensation (like, new soundproof windows) instead of those ugly walls.

Overall I don't understand why the Lichtenrade case went so much out of control. Pretty much the whole network in Berlin was rebuilt, in some parts from scratch and in denser environments, and here we're talking about a very short stretch with existing right-of-way and no planned freight traffic.

2024...


----------



## flierfy

Wilhem275 said:


> Overall I don't understand why the Lichtenrade case went so much out of control. Pretty much the whole network in Berlin was rebuilt, in some parts from scratch and in denser environments, and here we're talking about a very short stretch with existing right-of-way and no planned freight traffic.
> 
> 2024...


That is not exactly true. Actually, just the most important parts of the network have been restored. Nordbahn and Stammbahn are missing its mainline tracks just as the Dresdner Bahn does. And mainline services on the Kremmener Bahn and the Ostbahn still terminate at stations outside the centre.
That doesn't mean that the rebuilt part of the network wouldn't work well. Quite the contrary. Yet, there is still something left to be desired.


----------



## Wilhem275

Well, ok, but we must admit that all those lines are much less relevant than the Dresdner. I mean, half of the whole Nord-Sud-Tunnel project is meant to make use of it, at the moment the city's most important trunk line is left incomplete because of this delay.
The single track, at-grade loop of Großbeeren is very limiting in terms of capacity and travel times, especially considering how the whole BER connection has been functionally designed as directly connected to the Dresdner Bahn.

For example, the detour between Oranienburg and Nordkreuz doesn't have the same negative impact.

About the Stammbahn, I just discovered they left the stub of a flying junction in the tunnel under Gleisdreieck, good move. But I wouldn't consider that connection as important as the Dresdner Bahn.


----------



## Suburbanist

Berlin needs to start working in projects to replace some Metrotram lines with grade-separated U-Bahn or something new, like monorails.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Wilhem275

I just discovered, from OSM and Wikipedia, that the line between Lichtenfels and Bamberg will be completely closed from 11/01/2016 to 04/09/2016 for overhaul works connected to the Nürnberg – Erfurt high speed project.

This raises two questions:
- how is local traffic managed? Just buses?
- where are the München - Berlin ICE routed? Via Fulda - Erfurt for everyone?


----------



## whatsuplucas

Suburbanist said:


> Berlin needs to start working in projects to replace some Metrotram lines with grade-separated U-Bahn or something new, like monorails.


M8 into U-Bahn would be particularly beautiful.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Wilhem275 said:


> Well, ok, but we must admit that all those lines are much less relevant than the Dresdner. I mean, half of the whole Nord-Sud-Tunnel project is meant to make use of it, at the moment the city's most important trunk line is left incomplete because of this delay.
> The single track, at-grade loop of Großbeeren is very limiting in terms of capacity and travel times, especially considering how the whole BER connection has been functionally designed as directly connected to the Dresdner Bahn.
> 
> For example, the detour between Oranienburg and Nordkreuz doesn't have the same negative impact.
> 
> About the Stammbahn, I just discovered they left the stub of a flying junction in the tunnel under Gleisdreieck, good move. But I wouldn't consider that connection as important as the Dresdner Bahn.


Would agree on most of that. Connections via Oranienburg do not reach any major cities, especially since the route via Eberswalde is the faster way to reach Stralsund. Nonetheless it would be beautiful to have the direct northern route through Berlin developed someday. 
The Stammbahn, besides providing rail access to a few suburbs such as Klein-Machnow, is intended less to dramatically shorten travel times to Potsdam, but rather to increase capacity between the two cities and provide new direct connections by regional trains to other parts of Berlin. All in all, this is a regional rail issue rather than a matter for the long-distance grid though, as all westward fast traffic is concentrated on the Spandau-Wolfsburg HSR.
In short, these are two desirable, but not essential part of the "mushroom rail concept" that was part of developing the new Hbf.
By contrast, it is rather unacceptable that the southeastern leg of the mushroom has failed to develop and that passengers to Dresden and Prague must take a twenty minute detour to ensure the tranquility of Lichtenrade. If one looks at the rail corridors through Wedding/Prenzlauer Berg, Moabit, Schöneberg, Lichterfelde, all realized without much resistance, one wonders what makes Lichtenrade residents so special. As someone living off of the northern exit of the rail tunnel in Moabit, I can say that people here are much more annoyed by car traffic and Tegel airport noise than the trains, especially if they have modern cars and engines and if there is no freight to be expected, as is the case with Lichtenrade.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Suburbanist said:


> Berlin needs to start working in projects to replace some Metrotram lines with grade-separated U-Bahn or something new, like monorails.


They are one step behind you. They are presently considering upgrading metrobus lines into metrotrams, especially for the popular M41 through Neukölln, Kreuzberg to Hbf.


----------



## AlexNL

Wilhem275 said:


> I just discovered, from OSM and Wikipedia, that the line between Lichtenfels and Bamberg will be completely closed from 11/01/2016 to 04/09/2016 for overhaul works connected to the Nürnberg – Erfurt high speed project.
> 
> This raises two questions:
> - how is local traffic managed? Just buses?
> - where are the München - Berlin ICE routed? Via Fulda - Erfurt for everyone?


A while ago, DB posted this map on Facebook:









You can find a document about these engineering works on Deutsche Bahn's website.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Wilhem275 said:


> I just discovered, from OSM and Wikipedia, that the line between Lichtenfels and Bamberg will be completely closed from 11/01/2016 to 04/09/2016 for overhaul works connected to the Nürnberg – Erfurt high speed project.
> 
> This raises two questions:
> - how is local traffic managed? Just buses?
> - where are the München - Berlin ICE routed? Via Fulda - Erfurt for everyone?


Yes, an ICE departing Munich will head northwest to Fulda, then head east via the conventional route to Erfurt, then use the new HSR section to Erfurt and continue via Leipzig. DB claims that this is no longer than what trains took previously via Jena; however all the time advantage provided by the Leipzig-Erfurt HSR goes to serving this detour. 
I came back from eastern Bavaria yesterday and discovered that rather than doing these huge detours at up to 300 kmh, I would reach Berlin at the same time by using small DMUs on non-modernized routes via Hof and Gera.


----------



## Matz32Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o23R3B9QS-k


----------



## Jay

> The ICE train Hamburg-Copenhagen broke through the fence to the ferry in the harbour.
> 
> Thursday afternoon, 01.07.2016, something failed in an ICE in Puttgarden it was probably the brakes. After exchange of staff from German to Danish train crew the driver drove towards the ferry. Since the gate to the ferry was not open, he wanted to slow or stop the train again. According to him, he pushed the brakes but they did not react, so the train moved against the massive gate and broke it. Both the Fence and the front of the train were badly damaged thereby. Officials of the federal police were quickly on the spot, they took Accident Pictures and noticed the loss. The 98 passengers, none of whom was injured when initiated emergency braking, had to leave the ICE and go on shore to leave on foot to the ferry in order to continue their trip to Denmark.


Man good thing it didn't fall into the harbor and that everyone is okay..

Although the train looks far from "badly damaged", why do articles exaggerate so much?



...


----------



## mrsmartman

http://die-bahnfotocommunity.startbilder.de/name/zeitachse/jahr/2014/monat/april/seite/2.html


----------



## whatsuplucas

Jay said:


> Although the train looks farm from "badly damaged", why do articles exaggerate so much?


A little thing I like to call "journalism".


----------



## AlexNL

A train can be badly damaged even if you can't see it. For example, the electric connections on/in the coupler could have been damaged in such a way that this ICE no longer can be coupled to another set. That is pretty bad from an operational point of view.


----------



## doc7austin

Here is yet another farewell tour with the CityNightLine train.
Deutsche Bahn has putting some rumours out that the Zurich - Berlin sleeper train could be chopped as early as June 2016. Of Course, Swiss Railway SBB is not going to be interested in taking over running the service.
I purchased a sleeper surcharge for a Double cabin for EUR 60.















































































































Video of the journey:








If the video does not load correctly here is the direct link to the video:

http://youtu.be/AcT0PgSTVZE



Enjoy!


----------



## Baron Hirsch

*Major Train Accident in Bavaria*

Initial reports claim 8 dead and over 100 wounded as two EMUs operated by BOB/Meridian crashed head-on on a single track line near Rosenheim. There is no information yet as to why signaling failed to prevent both trains from operating on the line at the same time. http://www.focus.de/regional/muench...n-zug-bei-rosenheim-entgleist_id_5270469.html


----------



## M-NL

The death toll has risen to 9 at this moment.

Even though German signalling in general is pretty well designed it has a few major downsides:

PZB is only partly fail safe. Most failures will result in a brake penalty, but a missing/failed magnet isn't detected at all.
PZB is a point based system. You can't influence trains between these points. Especially on single track sections the distance between these point can be very long.
A driver can pass a signal at danger just by pulling a lever. The procedure assumes drivers will only do that when instructed to because there is no technical protection from misuse. 
The interlocking allows the signaller to override the system without any safety checks by the interlocking
One thing that could happen with the PZB system (and I am not claiming nor speculating that this has happened at Bad Aibling!): When a train approaching a red signal has passed both a 1000 Hz and 500 Hz 'magnet' and is slowed down to below 10 km/h for a short period of time, the PZB system will go into restricted mode, limiting it to 25 km/h. If the driver then fails to observe the red signal while restarting (distracted by someone or something) and passes the still red signal, the train gets a brake penalty when passing the signal. Because modern trains are quick, the driver however thinks he was stopped because he exceeded 25 km/h (you can't tell the difference from the indicator panel), confirms the brake penalty and continues on.


----------



## Fatfield

^^

Reports in English.

http://news.sky.com/story/1638493/at-least-nine-dead-in-german-train-collision
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35530538


----------



## M-NL

The (final?) death toll has risen to 10.

First investigation by the authorities indicates that it was the signaller that made an error (see bullet 4. in my previous post!).


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Yes. If leaks from the investigation to the press are correct, the signaler intended to let one of the two EMUs, which was running late, through and let it head to a double-track section to wait for the approaching train to pass. However, the EMU did not manage to reach that spot in time, as the second train had progressed further than assumed. 
http://www.rnd-news.de/Exklusive-Ne...Ermittler-gehen-von-menschlichem-Versagen-aus


----------



## Wilhem275

What kind of interlocking allows such operation? It must be a not fail-safe device, or he must have operated unlocking several safety controls.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The latter. PZB is what it is called in German (see above).


----------



## M-NL

I could try to explain it here myself, but linking to Wikipedia is probably easier:
Interlocking
PZB


----------



## Suburbanist

This is why positive train control, in some way or other, should be compulsory EU-wide for all passenger operations!


----------



## AlexNL

PZB is _not_ an interlocking system, it's a train protection system. PZB simply prevents trains from passing a signal at danger, while the interlocking system (IXL) ensures that no conflicting routes can be set. 

The interlocking ensures that a route from A to B can only be set if the route is guaranteed to be safe, i.e. no conflicting moves are planned. This influences the signalling system: signals will show red aspects when another train is (planned to) use the route. 

When a train approaches a signal at danger, the PZB system enforces a braking curve on the train, ensuring that it will not pass the signal (a "SPAD") and enters into the path of a different train. As with each system, it is possible to override the system in case of faults. 

On his control panel, the signaller has some buttons to authorise a driver to wilfully pass a signal at danger. When the signaller operates this override, a white light illuminates next to the signal at danger, telling the driver that he can proceed at low speed. This is called an "Ersatzsignal" (or Zs1), and it more or less replaces phone calls or written forms from the signaller. 

When passing the signal at danger, the driver also has to push a button to tell the PZB system "Yes, I know that I am passing a signal at danger, but I intend to do so." As the signaller basically says to the IXL "You are wrong, I know that the track is safe", procedures must be followed when operating the Zs1. The signaller must check that no conflicting routes are planned, and so on. 

What has happened in Bavaria is a mystery. Judging by the rumours, it looks like the signaller (or: one of the signallers*) made a mistake and did not properly ensure that the section ahead was clear.

* Germany still has a lot of old-fashioned control boxes that control a small area


----------



## Wilhem275

^^
From what I read, the Bad Aibling interlocking also controls the nearby station(s), so it should be a decently modern device (well, no actual guarantee of this).

I'm also hearing that today Police is firmly denying the hypothesis of a signaller's mistake, after the many rumors by the press.


----------



## Sunfuns

Is it only my impression that Germany has had more serious train accidents during the last 30 years than any of the other big West European countries?


----------



## Suburbanist

I'm not sure. UK had some serious disasters in the 1990s. Highest death toll I believe to be in Spain, if you include terrorist attacks


----------



## Sunfuns

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not sure. UK had some serious disasters in the 1990s. Highest death toll I believe to be in Spain, if you include terrorist attacks


I'm not sure either, however including terrorist attacks would be unfair. It wouldn't say anything about inherent safety cultures of railways themselves.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The Eschede accident (an ICE derailing at 200 kmh and some coaches hitting a pillar) with 100 dead is to my knowledge the worst accident in Europe for quite some time. It was caused because the wheels of ICE 1 had been making excessive noise, an insulation was used on them that had only been used on S-Bahns before, but that insulation then caused tears on the wheels and inspections just by the naked eye (rather than infrared) failed to spot the tears in time. A whole chain of neglect parred with a really bad spot for derailing.


----------



## M-NL

Suburbanist said:


> This is why positive train control, in some way or other, should be compulsory EU-wide for all passenger operations!


That's already in the works. ERTMS works on the basis of 'movement authorities'. Except for the short period of time and distance after a cold start when a train doesn't exactly know where it is yet (which is called 'staff responsible'), a train can only be moved when authorised to so.


----------



## Blackraven

So who is to blame? Negligence of staff? Or equipment failure?


----------



## Wilhem275

Too soon to get an accurate answer


----------



## M-NL

MarcVD said:


> But how is it possible that the interlocking system allowed the two signalmen to open itineraries in opposite directions on a single track ? There's something I don't get here...


Simple: it doesn't allow that, you need to override the system, using a Zs1 aspect to do that.
The explanation of AlexNL doesn't mention what this Zs1 aspect is: The Zs1 signal aspect, called Ersatzsignal in German, is a signal aspect that was originally meant to allow drivers to proceed in case a mechanical signal jammed. Nowadays it is regularly used by the signaller to allow drivers to do something otherwise not allowed by the interlocking. Downside is that there is no safety checking by the interlocking/signalling at all when you use this aspect. In this case it has allowed the signaller to have 2 train enter the same track from opposite ends.


----------



## suasion

> Nowadays it is regularly used by the signaller to allow drivers to do something otherwise not allowed by the interlocking. Downside is that there is no safety checking by the interlocking/signalling at all when you use this aspect. In this case it has allowed the signaller to have 2 train enter the same track from opposite ends.


I would have expected more stringent controls to come with such an override, warning the drivers, strict speed limits and two way radio's spring to mind. There is no point in having interlocks if they can be overridden willy nilly and allow operations to proceed as if nothing has changed.


----------



## MarcVD

M-NL said:


> Simple: it doesn't allow that, you need to override the system, using a Zs1 aspect to do that.
> The explanation of AlexNL doesn't mention what this Zs1 aspect is: The Zs1 signal aspect, called Ersatzsignal in German, is a signal aspect that was originally meant to allow drivers to proceed in case a mechanical signal jammed. Nowadays it is regularly used by the signaller to allow drivers to do something otherwise not allowed by the interlocking. Downside is that there is no safety checking by the interlocking/signalling at all when you use this aspect. In this case it has allowed the signaller to have 2 train enter the same track from opposite ends.


Ok, crystal clear now. Here this Zs1 aspect doesn't exist, signal override orders are delivered on paper forms. 


suasion said:


> I would have expected more stringent controls to come with such an override, warning the drivers, strict speed limits and two way radio's spring to mind. There is no point in having interlocks if they can be overridden willy nilly and allow operations to proceed as if nothing has changed.



Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## skyridgeline

M-NL said:


> Simple: it doesn't allow that, you need to override the system, using a Zs1 aspect to do that.
> The explanation of AlexNL doesn't mention what this Zs1 aspect is: The Zs1 signal aspect, called Ersatzsignal in German, is a signal aspect that was originally meant to allow drivers to proceed in case a mechanical signal jammed. *Nowadays it is regularly used by the signaller to allow drivers to do something otherwise not allowed by the interlocking*. Downside is that there is no safety checking by the interlocking/signalling at all when you use this aspect. In this case it has allowed the signaller to have 2 train enter the same track from opposite ends.





suasion said:


> I would have expected more *stringent controls* to come with such an override, warning the drivers, strict speed limits and two way radio's spring to mind. There is no point in having interlocks if they can be overridden willy nilly and allow operations to proceed as if nothing has changed.



The act was likely against regulations. And I think there are a lot of instances of unregulated overrides throughout Germany's rail networks. 

Massive lawsuits pending.


----------



## Nexis

*Two ICE trains pass each other at 200km/h *


----------



## nanth_abc

Where can I get a map of all railway route in Germany?


----------



## suasion

Here is a network map, Ive seen large passanger route maps next to the door in ICs & ICEs so I imagine its pretty easy to find on google


----------



## webeagle12

nanth_abc said:


> Where can I get a map of all railway route in Germany?


Google it :rant:


----------



## AlexNL

nanth_abc said:


> Where can I get a map of all railway route in Germany?


You can find one on DB Netze's website, this map includes all technical details.

By default the map only shows lines that are managed by DB Netze. If you want to see everything (including track that is not or no longer maintained by DB), set the "choice of lines" dropdown to "all lines".


----------



## flierfy

nanth_abc said:


> Where can I get a map of all railway route in Germany?


As for scalable maps there is the OpenRailwayMap as well as the transport layer of the OSM.


----------



## LtBk

That's a cool site you linked to(OpenRailwayMap).


----------



## TedStriker

DB Schenker Rail rebrands as DB Cargo

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ew/db-schenker-rail-rebrands-as-db-cargo.html


----------



## doc7austin

This is a video and photo report about a recent trip between Amsterdam and Berlin.
Up until December 2014 Deutsche Bahn offered a direct sleeping car connection between both cities. However, that connection was cut back to Cologne.
This time, I had to change in Düsseldorf. First I travelled with CityNightLine train CNL 419 in a seating car. In Düsseldorf I switched to the EuroNight train EN 447 Cologne - Prague/Warsaw and could finallly enter my private single sleeping car cabin.

Sadely it is expected that Deutsche Bahn will cancel all night trains alltogether by December 2016.
So, I hurried to catch that (soon to be historic) train.

Amsterdam Centraal:












CityNightLine train CNL 419 Amsterdam - Munich/Zuerich:





















Seating car - reservation compulsory:












EuroNight EN 447 Jan Kiepura Cologne - Warsaw:












Sleeping Car Cologne - Prague, operated by Czech Railways:






























Private sleeping car cabin between Duesseldorf and Berlin (CNL Cologne - Prague):






























Seating car, formerly owned by OEBB:





















Through cars Cologne - Prague are attached to the EuroCity train EC 171 in Berlin:












Youtube video, featuring all details of the sleeping car trip between Amsterdam and Berlin:








Here is the direct link to the video in case the video does not load here:
Link to Youtube video

Enjoy!


----------



## MarcVD

Koln-Warsaw is operated by PKP not by DB as far as I know so it has chances to survive after the end of the year...

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## doc7austin

> Koln-Warsaw is operated by PKP not by DB as far as I know so it has chances to survive after the end of the year...


The EuroNight train Cologne-Warsaw is definitely operated by Deutsche Bahn (DB Fernverkehr) between Cologne and Berlin.
Between Berlin and Warsaw the through cars are attached to the EuroCity Berlin-Warsaw train six times a week.
That EuroCity is jointly operated by DB Fernverkehr and PKP InterCity.
When DB Fernverkehr is ceasing all classical night trains by December 2016, the Cologne-Warsaw train has virtually no future.
Of course, Cesky Drahy and PKP InterCity may decide to finance the Cologne-Prague/Warsaw train beyond December 2016. DB Fernverkehr will be happy to 
provide the locomotive and logistics in Germany for good money. However, I doubt that the ticket prices will cover these costs, thus, PKP InterCity and Cesky Drahy will most likely loose money in that. No Chance!


----------



## Rohne

So I guess this also means the end of Basel - Frankfurt - Berlin - Warsaw trains, with cars continuing to Moscow?


----------



## doc7austin

> So I guess this also means the end of Basel - Frankfurt - Berlin - Warsaw trains, with cars continuing to Moscow?


What are you talking about?
There is no Basel - Frankfurt - Berlin - Warsaw train.
There are no certainly no cars continuing to Moscow.
We are not in 2011 anymore.


----------



## doc7austin

> Koln-Warsaw is operated by PKP not by DB as far as I know so it has chances to survive after the end of the year...
> 
> Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk


No, the train will be cancelled.

http://zpravy.e15.cz/byznys/doprava...vozu-nocnich-vlaku-ale-v-evrope-ubyva-1277096


----------



## Kpc21

It is strange. I used a night train in Germany (although it wasn't intended by me, I wanted to go by a daytime ICE) in January - it was a train that was going from Hamburg to Basel - and it was pretty full. On some section there was no more free seats in my compartment. So it isn't so that these trains are empty, this is not the reason why they are going to cancel them...

And while I can understand that the trains on inland routes within Germany are fast and it takes a few hours to get from one side of the country to the other by ICE trains, which, in addition, provide more comfort, so that it's practically no point in using the overnight connections, it is not so with longer journeys through the Europe.

They don't write anything about Kiepura in this article. But they write about Kopernikus (Prague-Cologne), which is the same train between Berlin Ostbf and Cologne, and between Wrocław and Berlin this is in fact a group of carriages in the Warsaw-Berlin train...


----------



## MarcVD

I think the reason behind this cancellation is not the lack of passengers, but the total 
production costs : the fleet of night carriages is getting old and needs either a renewal or 
a massive overhaul, which cannot be funded with the revenue DB gets from those trains.

Also, those trains seats or bunks can only be sold once per day, and the cars sit idle 
for at least half the time, so it is difficult to recover their costs.


----------



## Kpc21

Well, during the day they could run some low-cost train connections using these carriages (apart from the sleeper ones). Currently it is so that the prices for IC and ICE trains are, basically, equal (if I can say so with the dynamic ticket sale system). And often high in comparison with bus tickets. Even though IC provides less comfort than ICE. They could compete better with the buses this way. But probably their maintenance, needed renovations, costs so much that it doesn't make sense, it would be expensive anyway.

The trains in Germany are often much faster than buses and when you really want, you usually can buy a ticket for ICE for a good price, so even though the number of railway passengers is decreasing, many of them will stay.


----------



## Rohne

doc7austin said:


> What are you talking about?
> There is no Basel - Frankfurt - Berlin - Warsaw train.
> There are no certainly no cars continuing to Moscow.
> We are not in 2011 anymore.


There is!
I.e. departing Frankfurt-Südbahnhof today night at 0156 on track 8:

01:56 EN 453 Moskva Belorusskaja
Frankfurt(Main)Süd 01:56 - Erfurt Hbf 04:38 - Berlin Hbf (tief) 07:09 - Berlin-Lichtenberg 07:29 Poznan Gl. 10:41 - Warszawa Zachodnia 13:30 - Warszawa Centralna 13:36 - Warszawa Wschodnia 13:46 - Terespol 16:17 - Moskva Belorusskaja 10:10

But ok, it starts in Paris Est (until a few years ago this train was arriving from Basel or Zürich).


----------



## Kpc21

It doesn't go from Basel. You have to change in Karlsruhe, Mannheim (I am not sure if it stops there) or Frankfurt from a "normal" train. This is a luxury train of Russian Railways. A very strange train connection, if you take into account, that in most of the relations you can travel by plane for a lower price and it will be much faster. But it seems that Russians really love travelling by railway and even rich customers prefer a train to a plane.

Since it's a train operated, basically, by Russian railways, I don't think it will disappear.

It's very difficult to find this train in the search engine of the German Railways. Although French Railways and Russian Railways sell tickets for it online. I don't remember, how it is with Belarussian Railways, but for sure you could check the price on their webpage.

According to the Russian Railways website, a ticket from Karlsruhe to Warsaw costs 9841 rubles (in a kupyeyny car), which is over 120 euro.

About the stop in Mannheim, the website of Russian Railways (you need to use the Russian language version and type in the city names in Cyrylic alphabet) shows only departure time at Mannheim, it doesn't show the arrival, and the same situation is also in case of the cargo German station Oderbrücke (in Frankfurt an der Oder), where it's definitely impossible to board the train, as well as in case of the Polish station Kutno, where the train doesn't even stop.

By the way, the name of the Oderbrücke station written in Cyrylic looks funny - it's ОДЕРБРЮЕЦКЕ, so "Odyerbryuyetskye".


----------



## Baron Hirsch

*DB increases number of long-distance passengers*



Kpc21 said:


> The trains in Germany are often much faster than buses and when you really want, you usually can buy a ticket for ICE for a good price, so even though the number of railway passengers is decreasing, many of them will stay.


The official numbers are out for 2015. Guess what. While we believed that poor little DB is losing so many passengers to the cheap bus competition and that the prolonged strikes at the beginning of 2015 must have permanently put off passengers, there is actually an increase in long-distance passengers by a noteworthy 2.9%. Turnover is up by 1.9%. Regional traffic passengers decreased, probably because of several tendered lines being taken over by the competition. Overall DB has made a loss, but these seem not to be caused by operations, but rather by the restructuring of the company and investments, so the record for 2015 does not look gloomy at all. In German: http://dmm.travel/news/artikel/lesen/2016/03/db-mit-ueber-40-mrd-euro-umsatz-74371/


----------



## TedStriker

2015 was a bad year for the freight side of DB. The French-style strikes no doubt led to some shippers either abandoning rail altogether, in the single wagon sector, for example, or switching to other rail cargo providers.

I was very surprised by the trade union action. As a British man I'd grown up with the knowledge and experience of trade union disruption in Britain and always admired the cooperative, strike-free nature of the German social market economy. Last year, with the rail strikes, Germany reminded me of old post-war Britain.


----------



## TedStriker

DB Cargo plans to axe 250 transhipment points and axe 2,100 jobs.


----------



## redstarcastles

The weather was very wet in February in Berlin, bit like at home!


112 123 Gesundbrunnen 22 February 2016


112 101 Sudkreuz 22 February 2016


Track plant at Tempelhof 22 February 2016


232 909 Tempelhof 22 February 2016
Design classic!


442 621 Berlin Schonefeld 22 February 2016


Notice of special train at Berlin Schonefeld 22 February 2016


185 050 Berlin Schonefeld 22 February 2016


442 122 Berlin Schonefeld 22 February 2016


182 013 Berlin Zoo 22 February 2016
IRE service to Hamburg


120 137 Berlin Zoo 22 February 2016


442 825 Berlin Zoo 22 February 2016


445.101 Berlin Zoo 22 February 2016

More here:
https://transportsceneireland.smugmug.com/RailSceneEurope/RSE-Berlin-February-2016/


----------



## Oplot-M

*Berlin Hauptbahnhof*









http://trainphoto.org.ua/view/17203/


----------



## mikoCZ

27. Sächsisch-Böhmischer Freundschaftszug VACLAV


----------



## Nexis

*Spoorwegovergang Oberhausen (D) // Railroad crossing // Bahnübergang*


----------



## noikia2010

Hello. Does any one haves pictures of the interior of sleeping cars manufactures in the former G.D.R. (D.D.R.) in the '70-'80's. They where used in Romania untill the early '000's, but I've ride one about 30 years ago so I don't remember how they looked inside and couldn't find any picture on google.
Nowdays in Romania among the sleeping cars used are some old ones imported second-hand from Germany (D.B., not D.R.). The interior red ones manufactured in the '60's, but modernized a little bit (new boogies, new body) is making you feel like in the old days... i like it, you may think you're in an old movie.
I'm talking about the ones like in the first images: http://www.forumtrenuri.com/t226-vagoane-de-dormit

I think the rolling stock manufacturing from Eastern-Europe was influenced by Germany.


----------



## stingstingsting

Source: The New York Times



> http://www.nytimes.com/2016...crash.html
> 
> *Dispatcher Playing With Cellphone Is Faulted in German Train Crash*
> APRIL 13, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BERLIN — A railway dispatcher apparently caused the deadly collision of two trains in the German state of Bavaria on Feb. 9 because he was playing a game on his cellphone until just before the accident, according to state prosecutors.
> 
> ...
> 
> A week later, the state prosecutor Wolfgang Giese said that the dispatcher, identified only as a 39-year-old man, had violated work rules and had most likely caused the crash.
> 
> On Tuesday, Mr. Giese issued a warrant for the dispatcher’s arrest. He is expected to be charged with involuntary manslaughter, as well as violating work rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## TM_Germany

MichiH posted links to nice new maps for the new BVWP 2030 in the roads section, I hope he doesn't mind me reposting them here. 

This is the one concerning rail:
https://mobil.hessen.de/sites/mobil.hessen.de/files/content-downloads/EntwurfBVWP2030-Schiene_0.png

This map is pretty sweet. Besides the projects drawn on the map, there is a number. If you enter the number in Google, you can often find a dossier incl more specific details (some alignments, cost-use analyses, impact on traffic and nature, price,...) Sadly it's only for people who can read german, but the maps might be interesting anyway.


----------



## suasion

This simplistic conclusion fails to ask the question of how is that the failings of one individual can cause such a calamity. I can only hope the actual investigation is more thorough.


----------



## Wilhem275

There are several investigations currently going on, in parallel with the judiciary one. They will better identify the safety issues and address operators.

But I doubt they'll be able to point out any big breakthrough from this case, because the system was not operating in normal conditions, and in "manual mode" there's not much that can be done more than relying on the full carefulness of the dispatcher.

Probably the issue here lies in a better selection and formation of the staff.
Reminds me somehow of Germanwings 9525's case, although the reasons and actions were very different.


----------



## MarcVD

suasion said:


> how is that the failings of one individual can cause such a calamity.


If you were going to ask that question at every railway company around the 
world, you would probably come back with the same answer. There must be
a way to override security devices in case they don't work properly. If those
overriding mechanism are not operated properly, then accidents will happen.
The question is then why on the DB network it is allowed to work this way
so easily. It must be possible, but should remain an exception, not the normal
way of working.


----------



## AlexNL

It _isn't_ the normal way of working on the DB network. The Ersatzignal (Zs1) is there to override the signal in case of malfunctioning, it should never be used as a standard way of working. There are procedures surrounding Zs1 to ensure that it isn't just used whenever the signaller feels like it.

As has been stated before, all equipment was working normally. The signaller authorised the train to pass the red signal, but why is still unknown. They now say he was distracted by his phone, so maybe the signaller was under the impression that he had already followed all applicable procedures when he pushed the Zs1 button?

I can imagine it went something like this (warning, heavy speculation):

6:35 _path towards Kolbermoor programmed, signaller focuses on his phone again_
*signaller playing game when eastbound train arrives*
6:41 _train arrives, unloads, closes doors, ready to depart, signal remains red_
6:42 _looks outside and sees the train still standing there_
6:42 "Ah scheiße, the signal is broken and this train is already late..."
6:42 _pushes Zs1 button_
6:42 _picks up phone and continues playing_
6:44 HOLY **** I HAVEN'T SEEN THE WESTBOUND TRAIN YET


----------



## suasion

> If you were going to ask that question at every railway company around the
> world, you would probably come back with the same answer. There must be
> a way to override security devices in case they don't work properly. If those
> overriding mechanism are not operated properly, then accidents will happen.
> The question is then why on the DB network it is allowed to work this way
> so easily. It must be possible, but should remain an exception, not the normal
> way of working.


But there is no point in having an interlock if it can so easily be overridden. I am surprised there are not an extra layer of protocols that have to be implemented when you exit the normal mode. For any system to operate in a condition where a single failure (in this case the dispatcher) will result in disaster is mindboggling. It contravenes all logic; no engineer should build a system without a failsafe, who does the risk assesment in these cases? Transport safety should be proactive and not depend on tombstone regulations.


----------



## Bbbut

Of course there are extra protocols in place.
The big question is how they could have all been ignored. So many people should normally be involved in granting and confirming this exception. We know nothing concrete at this point sadly.


----------



## AlexNL

If the signaller has all the buttons he needs on his control pad, I can see him using them without obtaining authorisation. Maybe he doesn't even need to do obtain authorisation, as that would only further delay train traffic.


----------



## Wilhem275

And the fact that every single usage of Zs1 implies giving an official explanation to a supervisor is itself a second layer of control on the system, albeit in a later moment, considering one would not operate it if he's not fully aware of what he's actually doing.

I still think that we can provide any possible layer of extra protocol/automatic safety, but in the end the system will rely on the professional skills of a single man, so we should concentrate on those instead of looking for more and more complicated protocols.


----------



## Attus

Good maintenance, too, is important. If the signalling system fails and Zs1 shall be applied on a daily basis, the decision for apllying it will be easier: "I do now what I usually do, every day when the system fails". However if the system is maintained properly, the dispathcer won't think "I can't give green because the signalling failed" but "I can't give green because something unusual happened, possibly there is a train in this section".


----------



## suasion

> I still think that we can provide any possible layer of extra protocol/automatic safety, but in the end the system will rely on the professional skills of a single man, so we should concentrate on those instead of looking for more and more complicated protocols.


Any system that always relies of on one person to do the right thing is doomed to suffer periodic disasters.


----------



## Rohne

for BVWP 2030, you can also follow this link where you can find all proposals and their dossiers for roads, railways and rivers, including those projects that didn't make it into the plan.


----------



## IanCleverly

Feed your pantograph porn addiction, with this:-


----------



## Zero Gravity

IanCleverly said:


> Feed your pantograph porn addiction, with this:-


Great video!
The music drives me mad. That *CLACK* every second beat is really uncomfortable.


----------



## Mac_07




----------



## Nexis

*Im Zeitraffer nach Frankfurt - Timelapse München - Würzburg - Frankfurt*


----------



## TedStriker

DB Cargo Planned Terminal Closures

Source: www.swr.de


----------



## kato2k8

Isn't that like about all of them? 

They link the list itself btw: http://www.swr.de/-/id=17448532/property=download/nid=396/piusrk/index.pdf

Looking at it broadly shows how it's a bit media hype. Many of the stations to be no longer serviced by DB Cargo are the inshore and riverine ports where DB only has a marginal existence anyway - because they have competitors who run cargo there.

Most of the rest is located in areas where the economy is down in the dumps anyway. And a couple aren't exactly up to DB to close down; a simple example is "Heidelberg HBf Baulg" (a siding where construction trains are refitted, not a freight siding...) which will be torn down as part of urban redevelopment.


----------



## TedStriker

I don't know the individual loading points anywhere near well enough to imagine how much of a traffic loss, in terms of numbers of wagons per month, for example, the closure of them will represent.

But you sound as though you know them. And I've done a little research into some of them using satellite photos and quite a few seem to be very small and in some cases hard to see!

Perhaps then the closure programme is not as big a deal as it was feared by some to be when it was first announced, when the number of terminals to no longer be served had yet to be confirmed.


----------



## kato2k8

Many of those in the list - in rural places mostly - also only barely escaped the MORA-C axe fifteen years ago already, the last major closure of freight terminals by DB; in some cases services by DB at these terminals were severely limited back then already (e.g. only taking full 50-waggon train loads).


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Thanks.


----------



## kato2k8

For a sample i just went through the 11 cargo stations with changes in the list in the Rhine-Neckar region.

Of these:

four are port railheads (Ludwigshafen Rheingönheim, Mannheim Rheinau, Mannheim Industriehafen, Wörth):
Rheingönheim: primary customer (fuel depot) is served by competitor HGK; strong presence of multiple other competitors; giving up in face of competition apparently [note: currently five trains per week]
Industriehafen: primary customer (trash burning plant) is served by competitor AVG; service for other customers will be changed to other schedules [note: currently ten trains per week]
Rheinau: primary customer (coal plant) switched to mostly riverine transport last year; service for other customers will be changed to other schedules [note: currently eleven trains per week]
Wörth: strong presence of competitor AVG; only changes in schedule [note: currently five trains per week]

five are heads with a sole customer:
Hagenbach (local gravel pit) - served by competitor AVG [note: already not in DB GVSt list]
Bellheim (strategic fuel depot) - nominal distribution function from CEPS pipeline network by train ceased last year (afaik) [note: only served as _Übergabe_ from Wörth currently]
Edenkoben (ArcelorMittal) - probably only reflecting recent contract negotiations which were signed in March - major customer of DB with nationwide presence [note: currently five trains per week]
Neckarelz and Sansenhecken (wood transport sidings) were discontinued under MORA-C and reused from ca 2008 with the local district government as sole customer - which isn't exactly profitable and mostly political. Despite various attempts over the last decade no other local customers could be found. [note: Sansenhecken technically served as _Übergabe_ from Bad Friedrichshall-Jagstfeld, in reality closed last month; Neckarelz currently three trains per week]

One is the mentioned siding for construction in Heidelberg. [note: officially served once per week, probably when the train parked there goes for a wash and refit at Mannheim RBf... :lol:]
One - Schwetzingen - I don't have any idea about whether it's served at all anymore. In my opinion it's mostly used as one of two parking zones on the eastern entry to Mannheim Rbf. [note: nominally served as _Übergabe_ from Rheinau]

Looking over the list as a whole it looks like in most regions those cargo stations given up have similar profiles to the above sample.


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Thanks again.

A major concern of mine back in 2015 - when the news story broke about the impending cut backs but the scale had not been confirmed - had been that perhaps the traffic loss would be so large as to threaten the operation of some of the hump marshalling yards.

Now I realise that this isn't going to be the case. It seems as though DB Cargo is simply doing a little bit of housekeeping. 

On a different note, can someone explain why the GDL union thought that a strike lasting several days was a good idea last year? Do not these people understand that if DB Cargo loses customers then GDL members and other DB Cargo employees might lose their jobs?

Militant trade in unions in France I can understand, it's part of the national culture. But I was shocked to see strikes in Germany. Strikes don't seem to me to be very German.


----------



## bavarian urbanist

TedStriker said:


> ^^
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> A major concern of mine back in 2015 - when the news story broke about the impending cut backs but the scale had not been confirmed - had been that perhaps the traffic loss would be so large as to threaten the operation of some of the hump marshalling yards.
> 
> Now I realise that this isn't going to be the case. It seems as though DB Cargo is simply doing a little bit of housekeeping.
> 
> On a different note, can someone explain why the GDL union thought that a strike lasting several days was a good idea last year? Do not these people understand that if DB Cargo loses customers then GDL members and other DB Cargo employees might lose their jobs?
> 
> Militant trade in unions in France I can understand, it's part of the national culture. But I was shocked to see strikes in Germany. Strikes don't seem to me to be very German.


Strikes are the ultima ratio in german labour ´unionism´. If no consensus is found between union and employer, as was the case with DB a lot in recent times, of course a strike will happen. GDL is also slightly in competition with another union concerning representation of rail employees who are not train drivers, but on the whole, it's rather understandable that they want more money, isn't it? Plus, they are in a position of power that french unions don't have, at least not if you look at it realistically 
DB employees usually don't lose their jobs because, well, DB doesn't really have enough of them anyway. (There are some fields in Germany, where it's not the employer who choses the applicant, but the other way around... I've heard of SMEs who paid their apprentices a car)


----------



## TedStriker

^^

The desire for more money is something that pretty much any human can relate to. But to go on strike? That's not something that I'd ever do and it's not something that I can sympathise with.


----------



## telemaxx

If you don't get more salary although the company and the economy is doing quite well, then I can understand the employees. It is the ultimate measure to exert some pressure onto the employers. What else could they do except for keep working under same conditions?

Back to topic: DB says the 215 terminals they plan to close only comprise 0.4 % of the turnover of DB Cargo. 

http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/pres...306646/p20160518.html?start=0&itemsPerPage=10


----------



## uksam21

Wonderful construction


----------



## uksam21

really like all the pics


----------



## nanth_abc

Thank you.


----------



## Harbornite

nanth_abc said:


> Where can I find a map of railway in Germany? There is no map in DB website.


Try bueker.net


----------



## telemaxx

There's also Openrailwaymap: http://www.openrailwaymap.org/


----------



## Harbornite

telemaxx said:


> There's also Openrailwaymap: http://www.openrailwaymap.org/


I forgot about that site, it's a good one.


----------



## Harbornite

*[DE] Maiden run of DB Cargo 187 113*




















www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1405330&id=9141&action=dview


----------



## Wilhem275

telemaxx said:


> There's also Openrailwaymap: http://www.openrailwaymap.org/


Good, and also the general OSM is usually pretty precise.

To have an idea of a station setup I also use the schemes of this good sim: http://www.stellwerksim.de/anlagen.php

Not 100% precise, and not always updated, but rich of interesting hints.


----------



## AlexNL

If you want a technical map of the DB railway network, DB Netze has got you covered with their interactive STREDA.X application.


----------



## Harbornite

Just seen this picture of Erfurter Bahnservice Class 232/132 132 334-3 which has just been repainted into Deutsche Reichsbahn red at the works in Cottbus.. Doesn't it look great!



> Today the main investigation freshly EBS 132 334 (0549) was picked up in Cottbus by their owner.












http://www.v300-online.com/0549_004.html


----------



## Autostädter

^ My favorite loco! I love the original livery. It's sound is amazing (it is nicknamed Steppenwolf).


----------



## Harbornite

Autostädter said:


> ^ My favorite loco! I love the original livery. It's sound is amazing (it is nicknamed Steppenwolf).


Great looking locomotives aren't they!

I visited Berlin in October 2015 and regret not photographing the DB Verkehrsrot liveried Class 232 that I saw running alongside my train. I look forward to going back to Germany (whenever that is) and seeing more classic locos, such as the 232s, 218s, 103s and 155s.


How many Diesel and Electric locomotives are there in Germany that are in DR livery, either original or repainted?


----------



## Suburbanist

Do they have one of these at the railway museum in Berlin?


----------



## Autostädter

Harbornite said:


> How many Diesel and Electric locomotives are there in Germany that are in DR livery, either original or repainted?


Not many. I don't think DB has painted any of their locos in DR livery. Some other private owners seem to do this with their 232s.


----------



## Jeff Hawken

That's beautiful. I love these locos.


----------



## Harbornite

Suburbanist said:


> Do they have one of these at the railway museum in Berlin?


Doesn't seem like it. They've got that amazing looking Henschel loco, a DB Warship and a DR Warship among others.


----------



## Harbornite

Doesn't it look good! :cheers:












> The production continues. This morning, DB Cargo's future 187 114 had
> its maiden run. A picture from Kassel-Oberzwehren. Thank you Marcus.


http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1000006&file=bomb_187114_51&action=image


----------



## Harbornite

*[DE] New Werbelok: DB Fernverkehr 101 004 -BKK-*












> Sven P. sent us our first images of the newest 'Werbelok' for DB Fernverkehr. DB 101 004 is now promoting Bahn-BKK, an insurance company.


http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1405330&id=9176&action=dview


----------



## Delasoto

Short video from the visit of the Czech Minister of Industry and Trade in Doosan Škoda Power and Škoda Transportation (in Czech). There is view of the NIM Express at time 1:37.


----------



## Harbornite

:cheers:











> On 05.09.2016, three red Vectron locomotive left the Siemens factory perimeters in Munich: 193 253, 254 and 255. All three are property of lease company ELL, but adjusted for services in Sweden and Norway, a country specific package that is new to ELL. They will be hired to Transdev Sverige AB for the use on its Snälltåget services.
> 
> The machines have a red livery with on one side 3x Loket (=locomotive) and 3x Snälltåget on the other. Before the three were sent of to Rostock harbor (northern Germany) for shipping, they first had to touch Austrian soil. So RailAdventure took them too Salzburg. A picture of this transport below:
> 
> Thanks Norman and Michael.


http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1405330&id=9222&action=dview


----------



## KingNick

That's a rather good looking loco.


----------



## Suburbanist

I think builders of modern locos should come up with a better solution for access to the cabin instead of these old fixed stairs. Something like an electrically-extendable set of inclined stairs, for instance.


----------



## redstarcastles

Some more including confusion in Bochum!


420 922 Dusseldorf Hbf 24 November 2016


146 119 Wanne-Eickel 24 November 2016


Delays on S1 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


111 155 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


111 155 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


407 017 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


111 155 & 111 150 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


111 150 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


425 105 Bochum Hbf 24 November 2016


428 508 Essen Hbf 24 November 2016


37035 Altenessen 24 November 2016

More here:
https://transportsceneireland.smugmug.com/RailSceneEurope/RSE-NRW-November-2016-Part-II/


----------



## Harbornite

Good pics.


I found out today that DB Fernverkehr are going to cease using Class 103s.


----------



## M-NL

I can understand that they would still use them for special occasions, but I'm surprised to see them still using two 103's in regular service.

I would like to know how exactly DB Fernverkehr schedules its drivers? As far as I know you need to be specifically trained for every type of train you drive. It doesn't make sense to me, that you would need to train all the drivers deployed on those services on how to drive this loco, given the small chance of encountering this loco. By the time they actually need to drive they may have forgotten some really important detail. Remember that compared to the modern 101, the 103 is a much more sensitive machine. Handle her good and she'll perform better than a 101, handle her bad and she will bite.


----------



## Matz32Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YkyDfhosng


----------



## Harbornite

M-NL said:


> I can understand that they would still use them for special occasions, but I'm surprised to see them still using two 103's in regular service.
> 
> I would like to know how exactly DB Fernverkehr schedules its drivers? As far as I know you need to be specifically trained for every type of train you drive. It doesn't make sense to me, that you would need to train all the drivers deployed on those services on how to drive this loco, given the small chance of encountering this loco. By the time they actually need to drive they may have forgotten some really important detail. Remember that compared to the modern 101, the 103 is a much more sensitive machine. Handle her good and she'll perform better than a 101, handle her bad and she will bite.


That is a good point actually. It seems odd that DB didn't order enough 101s to replace all the 103s but it was a nice gesture to keep the two in use on regular intensive services. DB have had enough though, spares are hard to come by.


----------



## MHG1023

Harbornite said:


> That is a good point actually. It seems odd that DB didn't order enough 101s to replace all the 103s but it was a nice gesture to keep the two in use on regular intensive services. DB have had enough though, spares are hard to come by.


DB did order eneough 101´s.
The only reason why they kept those 103´s busy was to recover as much revenue as possible for keeping them in running condition - which in itself is/was a nice gesture as already noted.
... and to be able to run an engine type properly in a schedule it takes more than a single unit.
Your last point maybe the reason why this is all ending now.
They´re simply running out of spare parts as there are no 103´s left to be cannibalized.
There´s eventually a point when certain spare parts are needed that cannot be re-manufactured at a reasonable cost.


----------



## Momo1435

If it wasn't for the ICE troubles over the last 20 years the BR 103 would probably had been fully retired from revenue services much earlier.


----------



## Harbornite

MHG1023 said:


> DB did order eneough 101´s.
> The only reason why they kept those 103´s busy was to recover as much revenue as possible for keeping them in running condition - which in itself is/was a nice gesture as already noted.
> ... and to be able to run an engine type properly in a schedule it takes more than a single unit.
> Your last point maybe the reason why this is all ending now.
> They´re simply running out of spare parts as there are no 103´s left to be cannibalized.
> There´s eventually a point when certain spare parts are needed that cannot be re-manufactured at a reasonable cost.



That's true. On a positive note, one of the prototypes of the class is due to return to the mainline in 2017.


----------



## M-NL

MHG1023 said:


> There´s eventually a point when certain spare parts are needed that cannot be re-manufactured at a reasonable cost.


It's actually interesting when you realise that from the mid '70s they started using more and more electronic components and software in trains. Unlike for instance cars or home electronics those components were never made in high volume, so spares will run out much faster. And even if you do have the parts, what is the use when the computers you need to diagnose and configure them cannot be obtained anymore or nobody knows how to operate them any more.

I have this sneaking suspicion that newer train models will not age as well as their more conventional predecessors did.


----------



## Wilhem275

M-NL said:


> It's actually interesting when you realise that from the mid '70s they started using more and more electronic components and software in trains. Unlike for instance cars or home electronics those components were never made in high volume, so spares will run out much faster. And even if you do have the parts, what is the use when the computers you need to diagnose and configure them cannot be obtained anymore or nobody knows how to operate them any more.
> 
> I have this sneaking suspicion that newer train models will not age as well as their more conventional predecessors did.


True but, on the other hand, it's becoming way easier to update those machines to new technologies, thanks to a much higher level of standardization.

I can see now that several second-generation electronic locos are getting a total upgrade of all the electronics (while first-gen were just scrapped early), which can be quite convenient since all the rest of the machine is still good to go and keeps the original homologation.
In fact the only parts which become outdated fast are easily replaceable with new off-the-shelf parts.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the BR 120 die soon and a BR 101 or 152 get a second life. For example this is happening for the Italian counterpart of the 101 (E 402A).


----------



## Momo1435

I think we can say anything about what will happen with the newer locomotives at DB. Most of the older series are now being replaced by mainly EMUs at DB Regio, the ICE-4 at DB Fernverkehr and new Bombardier Traxx and less older DB regio loco's at DB Cargo. 

103 - DB Fernverkehr - end of revenue services
110/115 - DB Fernverkehr - still used on non revenue services
111 - DB Regio - constantly on the move to new services, often replaced by new EMU's, either by the DB or Private railways. 
112 - DB Regio - same as 111, specifically replacing 143
120 - DB Fernverkehr - still going strong, some were used by DB Regio for RE services from Hamburg to Rostock.
139/140 - DB Cargo - end of revenue services at DB, still used by private railways
143 - DB Regio/DB Cargo - Many of these DR loco's have been scrapped, but 100 loco's will go to DB Cargo to replace the 140
151 - DB Cargo - No more heavy maintenance, will go out of service. Some have been sold to private railways.
155 - DB Cargo - Same as 151, it's on the way out


It's likely that all 200 km/h IC services will be replaced by ICE-4 or downgraded ICE-1 / 2 sets. The 101 might then simply be downgraded to 160 km/h services, they could also be replaced by newer 146 / 147 locomotives or by then new locomotives capable of 160 km/h. Therefor the 101 might not need to get a full technical overhaul with completely new systems.


----------



## Harbornite

*[DE] Railpool acquires 200 locomotives from DB Cargo*

DB are clearing out quite 200 old locos, they are going to Railpool.



> has been rumored for some time, but it is materializing now: DB Cargo (Germany) is selling-of its oldest electrics. The deal includes around 200 machines of the 151 and 155 series. All heavy six-axle electrics, built in 1972-1978 (151) and 1977-1984 (155). Lease company Railpool (Oaktree / GIC) will be managing the fleet after the deal is closed. Toshiba from Japan is one of the other investors in the deal. DB Cargo will remain responsible for the maintenance of the 151/155s.
> 
> Railpool filed for approval at the Bundeskartelamt on 16.11.2016 (no. B9-178/16).
> 
> DB Cargo will to lease-back 100 units, the other machines will be made available to other operators. When we take a look at the current fleet of DB Cargo, the number of 151/155 series machines currently available for revenue services lies around 130 units (source elektrolok.de). The other 70 machines that should be included in the deal are currently sidelined or even withdrawn. This means on the short term, that ‘only’ 30 units become available to open access operators. If Railpool wants to offer more locomotives to the market, they will have spend money on overhauling them.
> 
> Railcolor: It is very likely that after the deal is closed, DB Cargo will no longer own 151/155 series locomotives directly. (Of course there are still 151s operated through DB’s daughter company RBH Logistics and the MEG still has 155s in its fleet). As the very last 139/140 series electrics were sidelined in 2016, this deal will make the recently acquired 143 series locomotives (year of construction: 1984-1991), taken-over from DB Regio, the oldest units in the fleet. All other DB Cargo locomotives are built after 1995 and have the more modern three-phase electric propulsion system (series 145, 152, 185, 186, 187 and 189).
> 
> DB Cargo has been reducing the fleet of locomotives constantly during the past years. This is a logical consequence of the transition of an close market towards and open market, in combinations with DB Cargo’s current strategy; rationalizing the activities of the company. Selling-of the old 151/155 means some extra cash on the short term (70 million euro they say), and more flexibility in the fleet on the longer term. Expect DB Cargo to slowly reducing the number of 151/155s on hire during the next years, depending on how the German railfreight market will develop. Another important factor will be the arrival of the new 187 series, of which 110 units are currently on order. And possibly more will be ordered in the future.


http://railcolornews.com/2017/01/09/de-railpool-and-toshiba-acquire-200-locomotives-from-db-cargo/


----------



## redstarcastles

Some more pictures from November. Pardon the dark grey sky!


146 280 Koln Hbf 26 November 2016


442 373 Koln Hbf 26 November 2016


111 129 Koln Hbf 26 November 2016


111 113 Aachen Hbf 26 November 2016


143 263 Koln Deutz 26 November 2016


143 661 Koln Deutz 26 November 2016


442 358 Koln Deutz 26 November 2016


420 964 Koln Deutz 26 November 2016


620 023 Koln Deutz 26 November 2016


423 697 Koln Deutz 26 November 2016

More here:
https://transportsceneireland.smugmug.com/RailSceneEurope/RSE-Koln-and-Aachen-November/


----------



## Delasoto

Škoda NIM Express on the test circuit of VUZ Velim.




link


----------



## M-NL

What surprised me is that the class 102 doesn't have either the DB-Einheitsführerstand nor the standardised European Driver's Desk. It will feature a combined traction and brake controller, which use for locomotives is very uncommon outside the former Eastern European countries.

I would like to see the layout of the driver's desk of the driving trailer. Does it use ZWS to control the locomotive like all other modern German driving trailers or some proprietary protocol so they can only be used together with class 102? Would coupling a class 101 to this driving trailer work?


----------



## Matz32Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL9KhBuiP1k


----------



## Nexis

*4k Führerstandsmitfahrt: In den Sonnenaufgang von Kufstein nach München Hbf*


----------



## Nexis

*Cabview Kassel - Würzburg / 4K / GoPro / Part 1 HD*







*Cabview Kassel - Würzburg / 4K / GoPro / Part 2 HD*


----------



## Nexis

*Führerstandsfahrt IC Passau - Nürnberg*


----------



## Surel

Škoda NIM Express undergoing testing.
http://ekonomika.idnes.cz/deutsche-...-/ekoakcie.aspx?c=A170331_142917_ekoakcie_rts









http://ekonomika.idnes.cz/foto.aspx...ekoakcie_rts&foto=RTS6a4b3f_FotoNIMVelim9.jpg


----------



## Wilhem275

The tunnel is made specifically to let ICE and freight trains bypass Rastatt. The collapsed point is not just the Rheintal line dive-under, it is also the beginning of the whole bypass tunnel, so a diversion there would mean rebuilding the entire thing (unbelievable).

What Christian meant is a temporary diversion of the surface line, to leave the crossing area free for works.
I must disagree with this, because building an even slow and temporary set of tracks requires weeks at the very best, a railway can't just be laid upon random terrains (plus ballast, overhead wiring and poles, signalling).
It's almost 2 km of greenfield construction, to go around the tunnel ramps.

Once the line is closed, digging up a 100 meters hole is a matter of days, it is often done to replace underpasses even in weekend closures.
The real problem is that there is no approved design for that. The designed dive-under here was by means of a TBM round tunnel, while with cut-and-cover there should be an underground "box", pretty standard in design and construction but which nobody ever designed in that point, and which can't be improvised (no calculations, no investigations on terrain, water and whatever...).
It would be more an engineering than a construction effort, in fact.


----------



## eu01

> Locomore’s Berlin to Stuttgart service has been taken over by fellow open access operator LEO Express.
> 
> From August 24, the former Locomore service between Berlin and Stuttgart will resume with the Czech firm as the operator – under the Locomore brand – and German bus operator FlixBus selling tickets.


More in Global Rail News


----------



## Kpc21

I was always wondering why Leo is so interested in entering the Polish market, but not the German one, which would be both easier (no PKP making procedural problems because they don't like any competition - there are already private passenger long-distance railway carriers in Germany, so it must be easier) and more proficient (more passengers used to traveling by railway and lack of state-subsidized long-distance trains). Now they do the latter


----------



## eu01

Kpc21 said:


> why Leo is so interested in entering the Polish market, but not the German one


...due to the labour costs perhaps?

Btw. The tickets are already on sale @flixbus



> Berlin Hbf (Zug)
> Frankfurt Süd Bf (Zug)
> Durchgeführt von LEO Express GmbH
> 4:41 Std.
> Zug
> 9,90 €


----------



## Kpc21

Does Leo also sell the tickets through their own sales system?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

yes. But trains only run Fridays to Mondays, beginning 24 Aug.


----------



## 33Hz

hans280 said:


> Wouldn't this amount to bypassing Rastatt? The German public is quite sensitive to that.


It's bypassing it anyway, in the 3rd dimension!

Unless they are putting a station under the town centre in the tunnel?


----------



## Lw25

Strange, Berlin to Frankfurt shows me no connections. Stuttgart to Frankfurt works fine.


----------



## Christian_AT

@Rastatt major disruption

a minor non electrifed line single track line is used for run some trains, they shut down all regular local trains to get capacity for the major traffic, looks funny a ICE pulled from a diesel locomotive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blyqd1K28Vo


----------



## Kpc21

But from what I understand, those ICEs were not regular train service, but a technical ride without passengers, just to transport the vehicles from Switzerland to Germany.

DB Fernverkehr has workshops in Basel, where they can service the ICEs, but maybe they had to many trains there, or they had to take them to Germany for other reasons.

By the way, ICE pulled by a diesel locomotive is nothing new 






Are the ICEs equipped with coupling that would make it possible to power everything on the board (like heating, AC, lighting) from an external locomotive?


----------



## pccvspw999

Latest news I've heard says that the "Rheintalbahn" will be interrupted until october 7th, due to the problem near Rastatt.
After filling with concrete the tunnel section, they plan to build over it a massive concrete platform, about 150m long and 15m wide. Only then rails can be reinstalled and service resumed.


----------



## kato2k8

Kpc21 said:


> Are the ICEs equipped with coupling that would make it possible to power everything on the board (like heating, AC, lighting) from an external locomotive?


The emergency coupling on the ICEs doesn't have power transfer, it's a simple mechanical adapter from Scharfenberg to Schaku. It also has to be manually installed by the way (it's carried on each train though).

The relevant point of failure in not having power isn't AC or lighting but operating the doors. In emergencies ICEs have occasionally been pulled into stations by diesels with passengers with the doors still operational on battery power; otherwise a diesel-pulled ICE can only carry passengers if it still can draw power from a catenary (has also been done, e.g. in case of multiple engine failure).

There are also ICE-TD with diesel engines which could in theory be useful now. However DB took these out of operation end of last year and (unsuccessfully so far) tried to sell them. Three of these units are leased to DSB for operations between Hamburg and Copenhagen, at least two have been scrapped, up to 15 or so are in storage.



Kpc21 said:


> DB Fernverkehr has workshops in Basel, where they can service the ICEs, but maybe they had to many trains there, or they had to take them to Germany for other reasons.


All ICE operations south of Rastatt have been suspended. Between Baden-Baden and Basel only ICs are still running.


----------



## M-NL

kato2k8 said:


> The emergency coupling on the ICEs doesn't have power transfer, it's a simple mechanical adapter from Scharfenberg to Schaku.
> The relevant point of failure in not having power isn't AC or lighting but operating the doors.


Would it have been so difficult to hide a powerconnector somewhere under the bow doors where you can connect the UIC cable from the locomotive in case of failure? Thus you could power the doors, lighting and HVAC.

Apart from the doors, I think working HVAC is also essential for any train type lacking openable windows. Temperatures inside will rise to unbearable levels very quickly, so I'm suprised a back-up connection like this isn't mandatory.


----------



## K_

M-NL said:


> Would it have been so difficult to hide a powerconnector somewhere under the bow doors where you can connect the UIC cable from the locomotive in case of failure? Thus you could power the doors, lighting and HVAC.


The trains' systems would need to be compatible too. I don't know wether the ICE's power bus is compatible with standard HEP as provided by a locomotive. furthermore I doubt that a single diesel can power the AC on an ICE...


----------



## kato2k8

M-NL said:


> Would it have been so difficult to hide a powerconnector somewhere under the bow doors where you can connect the UIC cable from the locomotive in case of failure?


UIC 568/558 only transmits data, it's not made for power transmission in any way.

AC is considered a luxury in Germany, not a must-have. The temperature in a ICE without AC doesn't really rise much beyond 45-50°C anyway, which are perfectly normal summer temperatures in Germany (...outside shadow). Passengers also do not have any legal recourse to claim damages in case of non-working ACs; criminal cases for supposed negligent health damage have also been struck down since there has been no proven actual health damage to passengers.


----------



## Kpc21

kato2k8 said:


> The relevant point of failure in not having power isn't AC or lighting but operating the doors. In emergencies ICEs have occasionally been pulled into stations by diesels with passengers with the doors still operational on battery power; otherwise a diesel-pulled ICE can only carry passengers if it still can draw power from a catenary (has also been done, e.g. in case of multiple engine failure).


But even without power, it's always possible to use the emergency door opening.

If the passengers are afraid of doing it or they don't know how to do it (although it shouldn't be the case, because it sometimes has to be used immediately by the nearest person e.g. in case of fire, that's why those levers or valves are always red and equipped with clear instructions what to do and that's also why they must be locked in tunnels - in case of fire in a tunnel, it's most important to leave the tunnel and get the fire out of it as fast as possible rather than to stop and evacuate on foot while the fire in a tunnel spreads very fast and kills everyone before they manage to leave it), there is still the train staff on the board.

But, of course, in such a case it wouldn't be possible to pull such train with passengers, at least not further than to the first stop. The door which once has been opened the emergency way, rather can't be closed without the power. And the train can't carry passengers with open doors.



K_ said:


> The trains' systems would need to be compatible too. I don't know wether the ICE's power bus is compatible with standard HEP as provided by a locomotive. furthermore I doubt that a single diesel can power the AC on an ICE...


1. But then it was possible to make it compatible on the ICE.
2. If a single diesel can power the AC on a train with carriages, then I can see no reason why it couldn't do it for an ICE.



kato2k8 said:


> AC is considered a luxury in Germany, not a must-have.


Well, on a train where you can't open the window, it's rather a must-have.

Although maybe it would be better to equip the windows with a part which can be opened by the train staff in case of AC failure (normally they are locked with a "square" key, which is, as they say, possible to open with a door handle, but it's enough to stop those who would try opening the windows with working AC not understanding how the AC works). In Poland most of the public transport vehicles with AC has this possibility.

I was once travelling on an ICE, where a whole open-space compartment was taken out of use due to an AC failure... It was a bit crazy. After all, in case of crowd, some of the passengers would definitely prefer to sit in the part of the train without the AC (especially if it's not very hot) rather than to stand in the crowd in the other parts of the train.

45-50 degrees Celsius *in shadow* (and the interior of the train is definitely in shadow) is absolutely not normal for this part of Europe. The temperatures in summer rarely reach 40 degrees, it's usually up to 30 degrees (sometimes a few degrees above). Sometimes also less than 20 degrees. Between 20 and 30 degrees is the standard summer temperature during the day.


----------



## AlexNL

kato2k8 said:


> The emergency coupling on the ICEs doesn't have power transfer, it's a simple mechanical adapter from Scharfenberg to Schaku.


Scharfenberg and Schaku are the same thing... Schaku is an abbreviation for Scharfenbergkupplung


----------



## kato2k8

Yeah, that was a brain fart. Meant "from Schraubenkupplung to Schaku".


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Kpc21 said:


> 45-50 degrees Celsius *in shadow* (and the interior of the train is definitely in shadow) is absolutely not normal for this part of Europe. The temperatures in summer rarely reach 40 degrees, it's usually up to 30 degrees (sometimes a few degrees above). Sometimes also less than 20 degrees. Between 20 and 30 degrees is the standard summer temperature during the day.


Well think again. You are inside a metal can that is not in shadow, but in the sun. Think about how nicely metal gets hot when in the open sun. Therefore the interior of a train can get much hotter than the outside temperature in the shade. And obviously, these cases happened in hot summer spells of measured outside temps of 30°+. Nonetheless, I agree with the rest of what you say. The well-pubicized cases when DB managed to fry the passengers has led to some over-anxiety in other cases, when carriages without AC are hot, but not likely to make you faint. 
The old AC in ICE1 and 2 worked in such a way that when it did not manage to cool the inside to the planned temperature (which happened as of outsides temp. in the mid-30s), it simply shut itself down, rather than cooling as best it could. DB has replaced these systems with one more equipped to deal with the age of global heating, to my knowledge.


----------



## K_

Kpc21 said:


> 2. If a single diesel can power the AC on a train with carriages, then I can see no reason why it couldn't do it for an ICE.


A single diesel probably can't. The Zürich - Munchen ECs are pulled by two locomotives because one can't deliver enough HEP. And that's not a very long train...


----------



## Kpc21

It seems, it depends on the length of the train and the power of the locomotive.

I am from Poland, so I looked at how it is here. A diesel railway line with possibly long long-distance trains? It's not easy to find one here, but there is one which comes to mind: Gdynia - Hel (it has many passengers only in the summer season, and therefore, supposedly, it's not affordable to electrify it). By the way, quite a picturesque line - there are places, on the Hel peninsula, where you can see the sea through the windows on both sides. There are more picturesque ones in Europe - but if you are in Poland and you want to take a train which goes possibly close to sea, it will be the choice. It's pity that the Przewozy Regionalne (operating regional trains there) is slowly getting rid of their double-decker coaches.

Just now, there are 7 long-distance trains a day there (except for the numerous regional ones), including one EIC (ExpressInterCity), which definitely should be air-conditioned.

This is its composition from 2015:

http://www.vagonweb.cz/razeni/vlak.php?zeme=PKPIC&kategorie=EIC&cislo=5130/1&nazev=Jantar&rok=2015






It was pulled by two diesels. Which were originally constructed as shunters, so I believe, their power is limited.

But from 2016, it is pulled by a single locomotive borrowed from the Czech railways:

http://www.vagonweb.cz/razeni/vlak.php?zeme=PKPIC&kategorie=EIC&cislo=5550&nazev=Jantar&rok=2016
http://www.vagonweb.cz/razeni/vlak....rie=EIC&cislo=5140/5141&nazev=Jantar&rok=2017






But it has just 7 coaches, it's not a very long train.

So it makes sense that a longer air-conditioned train may demand two locomotives.

Sorry for showing Polish trains in the German thread, it's just an example for comparison.


----------



## 33Hz

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...odies-urge-action-after-rastatt-disaster.html



> EUROPE: ‘The European system of rail logistics is about to collapse’, warned more than 20 trade bodies on September 4 in an open letter to European Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc and German Federal Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt. The letter was copied to seven other transport ministers and Josef Doppelbauer, Executive Director of the European Agency for Railways.
> 
> The letter was issued by associations including the European Rail Freight Association, logistics body CLECAT and the International Union of Wagon Keepers. It urged action to mitigate the effects on rail freight and the wider logistics sector of the blockage to the Rhein Valley main lien by the tunnel collapse at Rastatt, south of Karlsruhe in western Germany, on August 12, which has blocked European Freight Corridor 1 until October 7, according to infrastructure manager DB Netz.
> 
> The associations said that by that date, railway logistics will have suffered ‘immense damage’. The letter disputes the claim made by railway infrastructure managers that 150 of the 200 daily freight trains that usually use the Rhein corridor could be re-routed via various routes including Stuttgart and Singen in Germany, the Brenner corridor in Austria and the Alsace region of France. The letter asserts that in practice only a quarter are being successfully diverted, and for intermodal traffic the associations claim this figure is just 15%.
> 
> According to the letter, one major problem in diverting trains is a lack of available and qualified drivers for the alternative routes, along with national rules which, for example, prevent German-speaking drivers operating trains in France.
> 
> The associations propose a series of short-term measures to try to mitigate the crisis. These include:
> 
> -establishment of a task force at ministerial and/or EU level with crisis competencies, which includes infrastructure managers;
> -provision of support to operators to perform short-term reinforcement of the driver pool on the diversionary routes;
> -simplification of operating procedures on diversionary routes, co-ordinated by ERA;
> -implementation of a special commission for ‘the short-term review of the largest and most serious freight traffic blockade in recent decades’.


----------



## M-NL

The interesting thing is that despite ERA already working on harmonising national rules for decades now and the introduction of ERTMS some 20 years ago we are no closer to interoperability then we were 30 years ago. Actually ERTMS may have made it worse for now, because it puts al kinds of limitations on changes to existing national systems and rules, bringing improvements to them to a near halt.

The problem with diverted trains is not only that qualified drivers may not be certified for either the route or the equipment, which could be solved by having a route qualified driver piloting a equipment qualified driver could be an option, but also the equipment used. The annoying solution is cooperation: Switch locomotives, create as long as possible trains by combining several diverted train into one and have the qualified drivers only drive the diversion. Oh no, we can't do that, because all those competing operators don't like to cooperate with each other.


----------



## Kpc21

In Poland it happened many times that one of the private freight carriers borrowed a diesel locomotive to a public passenger carrier e.g. in case of power supply problems...

It's what you often do in case of problems.


----------



## Kpc21

From Monday, there are some improvements and additional rides in the replacement service on the Rhine valley railway because of the school year start in Baden-Württemberg.


----------



## touya

The aborted Munich 21 called for a thru tunnel under Munich Hbf for long distance services. Was the HS corridor from Munich to Berlin intended to approach the tunnel station from east or from west?


----------



## Wilhem275

AFAIK, that corridor has been built exactly as planned, using the upgraded line to Ingolstadt; thus coming in from north-west.

I doubt a long distance tunnel would be useful in Munich, most services terminate there or would require a change anyway.

Frankfurt badly needs it, after Stuttgart 21 it will be the last main node with a lot of through traffic and a terminal station.


----------



## Sunfuns

Actually what's the progress with Stuttgart-Ulm new high speed line? Both English and German Wikipedia is stating that all structures will be finished in 2018. I wonder if that still corresponds to reality. Haven't heard about this project for some time...


----------



## d.henney

^^
Bahn spokesman says „finished 2021/2022“. I think you can read Deutsch, so here you go:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/news/wir....urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170608-99-769379

Other news:
http://www.bahnprojekt-stuttgart-ulm.de/projekt/aktuell/archiv-suche/

=)


----------



## Sunfuns

Thanks. Hopefully at least this date will be true... 

After writing my question I realised that the line probably can't work without Stuttgart 21 also being finished and the date for that is not before 2021.


----------



## touya

@Wilhem275: I believe that Frankfurt Flughafen Fernbahnhof is the solution meant for Frankfurt. Don't remember ever reading about making Frankfurt Hbf a thru station actually.

Munich-Ingolstadt... it's just that the current solution seems very much a stop gap measure to me. I'm wondering if long term the idea was instead to go on with a new alignment south of Ingolstadt, following the A9 alignment and entering Munich from east.

For domestic long distance traffic, accessing Munich from east would result in saving the time for turning the train, the potential of stopping at or passing thru the airport (a spur would be needed) and a potential direct connection to the Brenner axis (for freight) bypassing the Munich node.


----------



## Wilhem275

Frankfurt Flughafen is an effective but partial solution. It works well for trains travelling "along the Rhine", but it won't do much for any other connection.

This map helps:









(Wikipedia)

You can see that Frankfurt is in the middle of an X between Cologne, Mannheim (Basel), Fulda (Hamburg/Berlin) and Würzburg (Munich).
All these branches are important and need frequent direct connections between each other.

Frankfurt Flughafen solved the Mannheim - Cologne link.
All crossing connections need to go through the city and lose an awful amount of time; not just because of reversing, but also due to the loooow speeds to approach the station.
Cologne - FF Flughafen takes just 50'; but from there you need more than 30' just to reach Hanau, on the eastern side, and be actually out of the Frankfurt area.

There has been a Frankfurt 21 project, to build an underground station and a through tunnel, but I don't think it ever made it out of the wishlist.

I think it would be a very important project together with a new line towards Fulda - Erfurt, then you'd have a real HS network to Berlin and Hamburg.


About Munich, there are two reasons to limit the potential for through connections.
One is geographical: all internal long distance services are pointing to cities in a north-western direction from Munich. Everything has to pass through Stuttgart or Nürnberg. Following the A9 would be a path far from optimal, the most direct route would be a straight line between Ingolstadt and Dachau.

The other limit is that most services would terminate in Munich in all cases, so switching direction is not a big deal.
This is because the main connections to Munich from east and south come from cities which are quite far away (Wien and Verona/Bologna), so there's little demand for merging those services with some internal ICE route. An 8+ hour direct connection has not much appeal today, you can do it for just a bunch of trains in one day, not enough to justify a tunnel.
Internal connections wouldn't pass through Munich anyway, too far from everything.

Freight is already ok, there are two bypassing routes around the city.


----------



## JumpUp

New underground stations in Germany have been an idea sometimes in 1990s.
Most of them died around ca. 2000 because those new underground stations aren't the solution one need to cope with all the traffic there is.

The project has been named Köln 21, München 21, Frankfurt 21 etc. etc. (21st century!) where there should have been an underground ICE-station.

Only Stuttgart, Hamburg Altona and Lindau somewhat made it to proper projects out of that list. Every other project had been withdrawn some years ago.


----------



## tunnel owl

Wilhem275 said:


> There has been a Frankfurt 21 project, to build an underground station and a through tunnel, but I don't think it ever made it out of the wishlist.
> 
> I think it would be a very important project together with a new line towards Fulda - Erfurt, then you'd have a real HS network to Berlin and Hamburg.




Absolutely correct. Frankfurt Hbf is the bottleneck of HSR-network in Germany. Frankfurt 21 would have been fare more important than Stuttgart 21 is. The big mistake of the 21-projects was, that they have been too ambitious. It was planned to subsitute every surface track by tunnels. The former railway-area should refinance the Project, building Offices etc.


Now, after the big trouble concerning Stuttgart 21, a so called Kombilösung (combinated solution) turned out to would be better. Leave local trains at the surface mainly and create a tunnel for HSR only.


Recently there was an article in the Journal Eisenbahntechnische Rundschau, saying besides the mentioned HSR Frankfurt-Fulda and other projects in the Rhein-Main-Region (additional Bridge over Main) it might be useful to have a two-track tunnel connecting Ostbahnhof and Hauptbahnhof in Frankfurt. A new two platform ICE-Station could be constructed under the Mainzer Landstraße at Hauptbahnhof.


This is far behind the ambitious Frankfurt 21-project, but it would be useful for the whole german HSR-network.


Kind regards


----------



## Wilhem275

Yes, the original F-21 project would have been beautiful but also much more complicated...

















After all, S-Bahn is already in a through tunnel, RB/RE services are just needed to reach the city, so only long distance trains really need a fast through line.


Apart from the underground station it is pretty clear that all the surrounding network is very poor for ICE services.

Here is another Wikipedia map, to which I added in green most of the 200 km/h stretches (not all) and in blue the NBS needed to complete the HSR network:











Frankfurt is exactly in the middle of Germany's black spot.

I also think that DB and the federal government should show some courage and push for faster direct services and lines.
Today's ICE is basically an IC, and the IC is doing the IRE job. Too many stops, and the direct Sprinters are just random services. The average speed is very low compared with countries where HSR is a success (and Italy is not much different from Germany in terms of midsize cities spread all over the country).

A Berlin - Frankfurt ICE should not call at places like Bitterfeld, Fulda, Hanau... that service must exist, but it's an IC job.

So the missing lines should be built as straight as possible. Skip Fulda, skip Darmstadt, don't even touch Hanau...


----------



## Attus

There are ICE services from Eastern Germany to Frankfurt Flughafen completely avoiding Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof, calling in F Süd and F Flughafen. Süd has obviously a worse location than the Hbf., however, has outstanding S- and U-Bahn connections.


----------



## Rohne

The problem with Frankfurt is, that even the costs for just a tunnel for long-distance trains would far exceed the benefits. From Ostbahnhof trains would have to pass through the city center, crossing several skyscraper footings and U- and S-Bahn lines (so you would have to dig very very deep - making it a disaster for driving dynamics). Coming from Südbahnhof or digging under the river Main would still require to dig very deep and involves curves so narrow, that the time benefit is near zero. Ideas of moving the main station to Südbahnhof would even be much more expensive (Südbahnhof would need extremely more capacity and much more local public transport than today, which could only be provided by several deep tunnels) with overall a rather negative benefit.
Additionally the tracks in and around Frankfurt are so highly overutilized by all kinds of traffic, that taking care about long-distance trains only wouldn't solve the problems at all.
With very good reason, utmost priority now is on the "Frankfurt RheinMain plus" project. This includes not only a modification on the ramps in the approach to the terminus (resulting in higher travel speeds and much higher capacity), but also an upgrade from 4 to 6 tracks between Hauptbahnhof and Stadion (where the HSLs to Cologne and prospectively Mannheim begin) - the two new tracks dedicated for long-distance trains and with higher speed limit than the current tracks - as well as an upgrade from 2 to 4 tracks between Hauptbahnhof and Südbahnhof. And not to forget the HSLs to Mannheim and between Hanau and Fulda - Erfurt and maybe Würzburg, which are in planning stage again.
Compared to this project bundle, the additional time benefit even of a direct tunnel from Ostbahnhof to Hauptbahnhof (which in reality is nearly impossible physically, as depicted above) wouldn't be much higher than 1 or 2 minutes. That makes it very unlikely that such a tunnel will be built during the lifetime of anyone of us. So we will have to live with the current terminus in Frankfurt. But I guess this won't be too much of a problem. Even compared to other large stations the percentage of people staying in the train is quite low in Frankfurt. The vast majority of long distance passengers in Frankfurt is changing trains or even starting/ending their journey there. Keep in mind, that switching directions is not a big deal anymore today and not too time consuming, and the HSL gap within Frankfurt itself (where high speed limits on the tracks aren't necessary at all because this is where all trains even including sprinter services are still accelerating / decelerating) will be comparable to other large main stations like Nürnberg, Köln, Stuttgart or Hannover. So I guess we can live with that single terminus for the time being.
A major gap will still remain between Südbahnhof and the HSL(s) east of Hanau, and that's the only section where I can imagine a new project for long distance trains in the mid- or long-term future. Unfortunately the "Nordmaininsche S-Bahn" neither has any benefit for long distance trains (the S-Bahn running on dedicated tracks will replace only 2 regional trains per hour on the existing tracks, and travel speeds don't change at all) nor does it help to increase the chances for such a new project (rather the opposite). But still, soon there might come the time when DB and politicians realise that you have to increase capacity and speeds for long distance trains there. The speed even of the existing tracks could quite easily be increased to 200-230kph between Ostbahnhof and Hanau Hbf and/or between Offenbach and Hanau-Steinheim (and to 160kph between Südbahnhof and Offenbach). But you will need completely new tracks for long distance trains to pass Hanau Hauptbahnhof with higher speeds and proper capacity. That is where a focus for future HSR projects in Rhein-Main is necessary.


----------



## clickgr

JumpUp said:


> Only Stuttgart, Hamburg Altona and *Lindau* somewhat made it to proper projects out of that list. Every other project had been withdrawn some years ago.


Is there more info regarding the Lindau21 project? What is it about? New station outside the island? Tunnel from the island to the mainland? In what stage is this project, when it is expected to be completed?


----------



## Suburbanist

Connecting Frankfrut to the Wuzburg-Hannover HSL is a priority, the sector is really bad as it is today: curvy, slow, with limited local service expansion possibilities due to track congestion with ICEs and ICs etc.


----------



## AlexNL

clickgr said:


> Is there more info regarding the Lindau21 project? What is it about? New station outside the island? Tunnel from the island to the mainland? In what stage is this project, when it is expected to be completed?


They're planning to build a new main station at Reutin, currently a freight yard. The current Lindau Hbf will be degraded to a station for regional trains.


----------



## Wilhem275

The problem with reversal has been solved in Cologne as well, with the lower tracks at Deutz.

There's also a plan to better connect them towards the HSR (part of a bigger plan of improvements in the area).


Leipzig will remain a terminal station for ICE, but can be skipped via Halle. Although I don't agree with that solution... "skipping" means "skipping", not "just stop somewhere else". They should have continued the main route of the HSR from south of Halle straight into Bitterfeld.


----------



## tunnel owl

Wilhem275 said:


> The problem with reversal has been solved in Cologne as well, with the lower tracks at Deutz.


There is not even a feasability study for a tunnel connection between Ostbahnhof and Hbf. in Frankfurt imho, so I would not agree that it´s necessary to underpass skycrapers. Obviously there is an option to follow streets and run along the Main. Frankfurt 21 really had the intention to knock down existing U-Bahnstation at Hbf. and rebuild it at another level. This was crazy and is far away from what could be realized today, leaving existing infrastructure at itÂ´s place.

Also it´s not about reversing trains, it´s about capacity. Most passengers change trains at Berlin Hbf. but it´s useful to have through sercvice though. This argument still counts, that a through-service needs much less tracks than terminal-stations. 
Giving ICE-trains priority in the Rhein-Main-region regularly turns schedules of RE and S-Bahn into crap if something goes wrong. Anyway they should add more tracks at the Main-bridge first but it can only be seen as the first step.



Wilhem275 said:


> Leipzig will remain a terminal station for ICE, but can be skipped via Halle. Although I don't agree with that solution... "skipping" means "skipping", not "just stop somewhere else". They should have continued the main route of the HSR from south of Halle straight into Bitterfeld.


That´s a thing we can live with as it´s only about two ICE-relations Berlin-Munich and Dresden-Frankfurt and Halle is an important town. If I think about it, german HSR-network will have many routes beeing served by two or more lines per hour. In the near future It would be useful to have skip-stop-service at places like Fulda, Bielefeld, Hamm, Goettingen, Wolfsburg, Stendal, Darmstadt, Bitterfeld, Wittenberg with hourly service. Something done in Great-Britain resulting in high commercial speed without HSR. Don´t know about Italy though...

BTW the Wikipedia-plan is a little to optimistic about Erfurt-Frankfurt. The BVWP 2030 considers a HSR-route from the existing north-south-line to a point south of Bebra, where the line will return on existing tracks to Erfurt.

Kind regards


----------



## Suburbanist

Skip-service is bad. They should reduce the ICE stops and improve connections with other trains at fewer ICE hubs, allowing shorter travel time with higher speeds for long distance travel overall (even if at the cost of slightly degraded travel time in regional connections a.k.a. Darmstad - Ulm.)


----------



## tunnel owl

Suburbanist said:


> Skip-service is bad. They should reduce the ICE stops and improve connections with other trains at fewer ICE hubs, allowing shorter travel time with higher speeds for long distance travel overall (even if at the cost of slightly degraded travel time in regional connections a.k.a. Darmstad - Ulm.)



This is not bad either, but it reduces capacity on a trunk route like Hannover-Fulda because it´s not possible to harmonize speeds of several lines on one single route. Skip-stop is not bad, if there still is a connection between two following stations via regional service. Well, always someone takes the blame anyway, despite which service pattern has been chosen.


----------



## Christian_AT

Attus said:


> There are ICE services from Eastern Germany to Frankfurt Flughafen completely avoiding Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof, calling in F Süd and F Flughafen. Süd has obviously a worse location than the Hbf., however, has outstanding S- and U-Bahn connections.


to really boost ICE's i would invest in 2 major projects
1. Frankfurt - Mannheim
2. Ulm - Augsburg

with the bypass option of all this mentioned 4 main stations, like french:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud_Europe_Atlantique

if you build the 2 sections like this you can operate a service:

1. munich start 8 AM
high speed without stop
2. stuttgart 9 AM
high speed without stop
3. frankfurt airport 10 AM
high speed without stop
4. cologne 11 AM

and yes you can run slower ICEs with more stops in Augsburg,Ulm,Mannheim,FrankfurtMS

the biggest problem in germany, every ICE has to stop in every (small) city and for this stop going slow, loosing a lot of time and this for a lot of forced stops

but i know, this is germany with a lot of regional "kings" and every "king" demands that every ICE goes slow through their city and stops


----------



## Kpc21

One of the Polish SSC users wrote a report from his trip to Strasbourg through Germany. It seems that the organization of the bustitution in Rastatt/Baden-Baden is now perfect. There is many workers who help, everything is signposted very well, there are additional toilets and a temporary tent where they give away water. He also got a chocolate bar and a 10 euro DB voucher as a bonus because of the disturbances. The bus ride took 15 minutes.



kbieniu7 said:


> Dojechaliśmy do Rastatt, czyli ostatnia stacja, skąd dalej pojedziemy autobusem. Tutaj urzekła mnie cała organizacja tegoż. Wysiada się na peron, wokół dużo ludzi w kamizelkach, służących pomocą. Rozdają darmową wodę, wskazują gdzie iść (i tak dużo informacji dokąd się udać), nawet można poprosić o pomoc z przeniesieniem bagażu. Z racji, że w Rastatt jest mały dworzec, wokół dostawione tymczasowe toalety, a przed budynkiem postawiony namiot, pod którym można się schować przed deszczem. Autobusy już czekają, jest ich około siedmiu, miejskie przegubowe. W pierwszym sardynki, więc czekam na ostatni. W międzyczasie jeszcze dostaję batonika oraz przeprosinowy kupon z kodem zniżkowym na 10 euro do wykorzystania przy zakupach biletów DB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Chcieli mi dać drugi, ale w sumie powiedziałem, że już mam... czy nie jestem prawdziwym Polakiem w takim razie?  )
> 
> Tutaj krótkie ujęcie nagrane z autobusu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jazda autobusem trwa około 15 minut, przyjeżdża się przed dworcem w Baden-Baden. Duże oznaczenia wejścia na peron, jak i wokół dużo tabliczek i informacji o tym, gdzie są przystanki autobusowe, toalety, z którego peronu odjeżdżają które pociągi itp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wsiadłem w ICE jadący do Bazylei, więc nie przesiadałem się w Appenweier a w Offenburgu. Stacja w Offenburgu taka sobie, złapałem wspominany przed wyprawą pociąg SWEG. Złożony z dwóch spiętych ze sobą szynobusów. Żadnego konduktora nie było, więc nie było jak się zapytać tutaj, czy InterRail ważny aż do Francji, ale nie było z tym problemu (w DB Reisecentrum powiedzieli mi, że jest ważny). Przejazd odbył się sprawnie, tłoku nie było. Wysiadłem na dworcu w Strasbourgu, dopiero na peronie była kontrola biletów wykonana przez pracowników SNCF i w towarzystwie ochrony kolei.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To tyle z niemieckiego epizodu mojej wycieczki. Mam nadzieję, że niezbyt zofftopowałem ani nie zanudziłem za mocno
> *Dzięki jeszcze raz wszystkim, którzy pomogli mi przed wyjazdem!*


----------



## redstarcastles

Some pictures from Frankfurt Hbf back in March:


114 023 Frankfurt Hbf 14 March 2017


Frankfurt Hbf roof 14 March 2017


Frankfurt Hbf roof on 14 March 2017


103 184 Frankfurt Hbf depot 14 March 2017


----------



## redstarcastles

Some from Mainz Hbf in March 2017:


430 656 Mainz Hbf 13 March 2017


460 511 Mainz Hbf 13 March 2017


143 238 Mainz Hbf 14 March 2017


293 510 Mainz Hbf 14 March 2017


143 181 Mainz Hbf 14 March 2017


425 801 Mainz Hbf 14 March 2017

More here:
https://transportsceneireland.smugmug.com/RailSceneEurope/RSE-Mainz-Hbf-March-2017/


----------



## LtBk

How would you guys fix the delays in German rail system?


----------



## Autostädter

Invest more in rail infrastructure. Much more.


----------



## Momo1435

And do something about the bureaucracy which is slowing down all German infrastructure projects including much needed regular maintenance on the existing infrastructure.


----------



## Kpc21

redstarcastles said:


>


When I was riding those trains, I always wondered: what is the meaning of this "triangle" sign on the left of the destination name?


----------



## d.henney

LtBk said:


> How would you guys fix the delays in German rail system?


Yeah, the delays are kinda frustrating. But you have to consider this: Deutschland has alot of bigger cities and here and there. So there is a pretty dense railway network. To manage all the trains on a net like this is not easy. Many railway lines also have only one track rather than two. So they have to manage the trains not only at the train stations, they have to coordinate also the trains between them as well. So one disruption will result in other disruption. While the Shinkansen for example has its own highspeed track, ICEs have to share them with slow trains stopping at some villages and freight trains. The Shinkansen also has to operate on an easy network made of one long line of big cities, while in Deutschland the railway network has alot of nodal points. All that stuff results into delays, also pretty long ones. Its not an easy task managing all the trains in Deutschland.


----------



## TM_Germany

Kpc21 said:


> When I was riding those trains, I always wondered: what is the meaning of this "triangle" sign on the left of the destination name?


It indicates the length of a train. One "triangle" means a single trainset, two means two trainsets etc


----------



## Kpc21

d.henney said:


> Yeah, the delays are kinda frustrating. But you have to consider this: Deutschland has alot of bigger cities and here and there. So there is a pretty dense railway network. To manage all the trains on a net like this is not easy. Many railway lines also have only one track rather than two. So they have to manage the trains not only at the train stations, they have to coordinate also the trains between them as well. So one disruption will result in other disruption. While the Shinkansen for example has its own highspeed track, ICEs have to share them with slow trains stopping at some villages and freight trains. The Shinkansen also has to operate on an easy network made of one long line of big cities, while in Deutschland the railway network has alot of nodal points. All that stuff results into delays, also pretty long ones. Its not an easy task managing all the trains in Deutschland.


In Poland, there are still people believing that the railway in Germany works like a Swiss clock and the German trains have no delays at all, on the contrary to the Polish railway


----------



## flierfy

LtBk said:


> How would you guys fix the delays in German rail system?


Short term: breaking all lines in Frankfurt(M)Hbf
Long term: establishing a segregated network for long distance services in the core of the network. That core are the routes from Frankfurt(M) to Hamburg, from Frankfurt(M) to Duisburg and from Frankfurt(M) to München via Stuttgart.
This segregation is intended to help the local services whose performance suffers almost entirely from making way for the fast trains. They would be remarkably reliable once they are the top dog on their tracks.


----------



## da_scotty

Is the problem not more bureacratic. Meaning that infrastructure investment (rail/road) take way to long to pass and get stopped all the time or don't start at all.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

DB has a short list of sections which it considers congested. While some of them are on main routes outside of urban settlement and could thus rather easily be upgraded from double track to four-track or so, most problems are actually within built-up conurbations and are therefore difficult to solve. In the long run, large-scale developments such as additional tunnel lines through cities might help. In the midterm, increasing station and urban line capacity through more platforms, better signaling can help. In the short run, rerouting as much traffic as possible around downtown stations, into places such as Köln-Deutz, Frankfurt Süd etc. might help.
Obviously, all of these problems are exacerbated due to lack of funding and slow planning procedure and practice.


----------



## Fatfield

Kpc21 said:


> In Poland, there are still people believing that the railway in Germany works like a Swiss clock and the German trains have no delays at all, on the contrary to the Polish railway


Ditto in Britain too. Some people just can't get their heads around the fact that DB suffer from the same issues as we do here.


----------



## LtBk

da_scotty said:


> Is the problem not more bureacratic. Meaning that infrastructure investment (rail/road) take way to long to pass and get stopped all the time or don't start at all.


I think that's a worldwide problem unless you are China.


----------



## JonBlack95

Kpc21 said:


> In Poland, there are still people believing that the railway in Germany works like a Swiss clock and the German trains have no delays at all, on the contrary to the Polish railway


I'm Malaysian, and I used to sorta put DB and SBB on a pedestal with regards to on-time performance as compared to our own Malayan Railways (KTM).

Of course now I'm a bit more knowledgeable about DB's problems, but my personal experience with them have been alright. .

But I still don't quite understand why the ICE lines are tightly integrated with the existing mainline tracks instead of having segregated lines.


----------



## flierfy

JonBlack95 said:


> But I still don't quite understand why the ICE lines are tightly integrated with the existing mainline tracks instead of having segregated lines.


There are two reasons for this.

First the potentials of the high speed technology are grossly underestimated in Germany. The implementation of this technology is furthermore undermined by parochial decision making and an irrational desire to save costs. The results are short truly high speed section.

Second there is a demand for fast services to large cities in towns that can't be linked by a high speed line at reasonable cost. That makes it necessary to run classic compatible services on high speed lines, which require a certain degree of network integration.


----------



## The Polwoman

^^ I'm more the person who sees the advantages of integration, however, there is a difference between integration and the lack of upgrading. And that last thing is also a problem in Germany, at least, in recent years on less-prioritized lines. A lot of lines could be upgraded and the speed can also be upgraded with the right implementation: straighten tracks or add a third and fourth rail separating local and express traffic. The express traffic then can pass safely at very high speeds (>200).

Germany is not the only country with such problems, more countries seem to be reluctant in proper investment in railways on longer distances, not looking at the full potential of international links, too much listening to nimby's and throwing new signalling systems in the fridge causing the fastest trains to be even as slow as the fastest trains in Ethiopia (and it's TRUE!). Sounds typically Dutch. That's the reason why the ICE to Amsterdam is a very slow train. Two, no, at least three and actually four exceptionally powerful regions, only to be connected by a snail trail and speeding up when 75% of the potential has already been passed by (seen from Amsterdam).


----------



## Kpc21

I have heard from a Dutch person that the trains in the Netherlands are never late 

No idea if he was right. But in Germany they are indeed sometimes late.

In Poland they happen to be maybe slightly more often late, but:
- during the last two hurricanes, Germans were suspending the railway traffic in whole Bundesländer; in Poland we had big delays and detours, maybe the passengers of some trains had to wait many hours until they reached their destinations - but generally, everything worked so well as it was technically possible under such conditions and if anything was suspended than it was some single trains instead of whole voivodeships
- on the other hand, the trains in Germany are simply much more frequent then in Poland, in Poland there is often only one or two trains in a day serving the specific connection, while Germans often have hourly service (or even more frequent) even on long-distance routes, this is a big power of the German railways because when there are problems with one train, the passengers can simply take the next one


----------



## The Polwoman

^^ at least maintenance here is better than in Germany. That's the reason why we score good in punctuality. And because we close tracks at the slightest observations. Prevention of any problem is generally very good in the Netherlands. But that is for the short term, plans for the long term are bleak since about five years.

Belgians have a railway system more comparable to the Polish ones: they always keep driving, although with higher frequencies than Poland but with escalating delays. Plans are more ambitious than their neighbours north of them. And it happens to have the same 3000V system as the Polish have. Something the Dutch are constantly debating about (1500V is not adequate for higher speeds, 3000V is better though still easy to implement), we_ polder_ a lot, but it does not come to a result.

Funny is that the Belgians already plan to phase out 3000V in favour of 25kV AC, we'll just keep running behind until they see a dilapidated track :lol:


----------



## MarcVD

We have no plans to replace the 3000V system, at the exception of line 162 between Namur and Luxembourg. Arlon-Luxembourg is for summer 2018.


----------



## Kpc21

3 kV is also not adequate for high speeds, and the need to start moving to a system based on a higher voltage is one of the reasons why it's so difficult to finally start constructing a real high speed railway system in Poland.

It's no doubt it's needed, as nowadays, the highest speed on the Polish railway network is 200 km/h, only on a part of one route (see the map: http://www.plk-sa.pl/files/public/user_upload/pdf/Mapy/2017_04_13_mapa_predkosci_linie_ILK_RW.pdf) and this is no longer considered high-speed for the European and world standards nowadays.


----------



## Shenkey

flierfy said:


> Short term: breaking all lines in Frankfurt(M)Hbf
> Long term: establishing a segregated network for long distance services in the core of the network. That core are the routes from Frankfurt(M) to Hamburg, from Frankfurt(M) to Duisburg and from Frankfurt(M) to München via Stuttgart.
> This segregation is intended to help the local services whose performance suffers almost entirely from making way for the fast trains. They would be remarkably reliable once they are the top dog on their tracks.


Frankfurt also desperately needs a tunnel from the east to F-Hbf with a HSR station under the ground.


----------



## Rohne

^^ as already stated some weeks ago, this tunnel is unrealistic. Efforts have to be concentrated on widening and accelerating the approaches from Stadion and Hanau, as these will not only save much more time but also increase capacity and thus help to stabilize the train schedules.
A big mistake by Deutsche Bahn and the federal government was that after reunification they solely focussed on infrastructure investments in eastern germany and - regarding rail - especially Berlin, and did not give a shit about the already existing bottlenecks in the western part. Besides Frankfurt and some missing HGV lines throughout the country (Frankfurt-Fulda, Frankfurt-Mannheim, Stuttgart-Ulm-Augsburg, Karlsruhe-Basel, Frankfurt-Würzburg-Nürnberg, Hannover-Hamburg and Hannover-Dortmund - only some of which are currently in planning or even u/c) it's also the rail junctions in Köln, Hannover, Hamburg, Mannheim, München and - yes - Stuttgart that need great investments.
But the most impacting junction might be Frankfurt, since more than half of all long distance lines call there and nearly every single train gets delayed, with the effect that these delays are "distributed" through the whole country still messing up the schedules 100s of kms away.


----------



## Richard_P

Aren't You guys a bit too critical regarding state of railways in Germany? Of course there are some problems, there are issues to be solved and investments to be made but still German Railways offer level which in most parts of Europe is far from reach and many countries would love to have level of services provided in Germany :cheers2:


----------



## The Polwoman

^^ comparing to most other, poorer countries results in Germany being superior in means of transportation and the accessibility of that transportation in all corners of the country. In that sense Germany has a better system than, say, France, the USA or China. If it is about a long-term strategy: comparable to most of Europe, with small tweaks here and there, nothing really big though. But if it is maintenance and succeeding projects: Germany is doing bad for it's income and wealth level. If their only solution is tolling roads but just for foreigners in the central core of Europe, then something is going wrong.


----------



## Richard_P

The Polman said:


> If it is about a long-term strategy: comparable to most of Europe, with small tweaks here and there, nothing really big though. But if it is maintenance and succeeding projects: Germany is doing bad for it's income and wealth level. If their only solution is tolling roads but just for foreigners in the central core of Europe, then something is going wrong.


 Yet are You sure that other western European countries do really have some impressive rail network development strategy? If not Brexit spurring need for economy stimulation HS2 in UK would be still debated yet despite that bottleneck in East Croydon will still generate delays to half of Brighton Main Line services. France plunged into huge debts to complete HS network at an expense of conventional network. Spain is struggling to complete its old plans and patch its fragmented network together – Germany has a comprehensive network just like Italy where conventional network is only expanded by AV/AC sections. And last but not least Scandinavia where time flows in completely different way and apart from additional tracks in centre Stockholm development plans are almost the same as 10-20 year ago. Oslo – Honefoss cut off on Bergensbane is still far from fruition, Sweden still plans it Y HS line between 3 major cities and that’s about it. So I think that German Railways are doing what can be done within budget and without unnecessarily plunging into debt as in other countries with spectacular investments. Bear in mind that let alone Stuttgart 21 project which for me is complete waste of public money will suck 10 billion euro which is 2/3 of what Poland is set to invest into railway infrastructure development in 2014-2020 budget! Think how much could be done if this megalomania project would be cancelled. It’s not about lack of money it’s more about how they are spent that makes present development look weak :cheers2:


----------



## Shenkey

Rohne said:


> ^^ as already stated some weeks ago, this tunnel is unrealistic. Efforts have to be concentrated on widening and accelerating the approaches from Stadion and Hanau, as these will not only save much more time but also increase capacity and thus help to stabilize the train schedules.
> A big mistake by Deutsche Bahn and the federal government was that after reunification they solely focussed on infrastructure investments in eastern germany and - regarding rail - especially Berlin, and did not give a shit about the already existing bottlenecks in the western part. Besides Frankfurt and some missing HGV lines throughout the country (Frankfurt-Fulda, Frankfurt-Mannheim, Stuttgart-Ulm-Augsburg, Karlsruhe-Basel, Frankfurt-Würzburg-Nürnberg, Hannover-Hamburg and Hannover-Dortmund - only some of which are currently in planning or even u/c) it's also the rail junctions in Köln, Hannover, Hamburg, Mannheim, München and - yes - Stuttgart that need great investments.
> But the most impacting junction might be Frankfurt, since more than half of all long distance lines call there and nearly every single train gets delayed, with the effect that these delays are "distributed" through the whole country still messing up the schedules 100s of kms away.


I do not think it should be that hard, there must just be modesty in the project.

2 tracks which go into 6 platforms underground for pass-through would provide more capacity than 20 overground. With it, HSR could mainly be diverted there, with regional rail going to overground station.

There is also no need to stop anywhere else around Frankfurt than HBF, so no need to have alignment with Ostbahnhof or something.

They could decommission some on the north part, since the area is getting redeveloped, they could sell it to finance a small part of the investment. DB itself is going to build a new tower just north of the station.

I believe they still have service station on the south side, where they could concentrate them.


----------



## touya

Richard_P said:


> So I think that German Railways are doing what can be done within budget and without unnecessarily plunging into debt as in other countries with spectacular investments.


Do bilateral agreements between EU member states count as "unnecessarily plunging into debt with spectacular investments" too? Because I'm afraid to say, Germany does not score well at all with regards to the commitments they've freely taken:

1) The Betuwelijn in the Netherlands has been ready since 2007, but the german approach was first delayed to "not before 2015", then finally started (in year 2016) for a completion date of 2024 (17 years after it would have been nice to have it in first place!).

2) Pretty much the same is happening these days with the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link, with Germany delaying the approval process for their part of work on the access line to "not before 2015", while Denmark has already started assigning contracts to subcontractors for the tunnel.

3) The north access line of the Brenner base tunnel is to be completed... nobody knows when. The Federal infrastructure plan 2030 only talks about the Kufstein - Brannenburg. The Brannenburg - Rosenheim - Munich part is in its infancy, officially because "Italy must first prove they can build the southern approach". Italy who meanwhile is working actively on the BBT, has green lighted the Fortezza - Ponte Gardena section and is about to green light the Bolzano and Trento node bypasses and the approach into Verona. Not to talk about Austria who already completed the Lower Inn Valley railway in 2012...

4) The Karlsruhe - Basel stretch won't be completed before year 203x, and this stretch, much like 1) above, is right in the middle of the all-important TEN-T Rhine-Alpine corridor.

If Germany does not want to keep building the European high-speed/core network they can just say it, the other countries will happily act consequently and take less debt.


----------



## flierfy

touya said:


> 1) The Betuwelijn in the Netherlands has been ready since 2007, but the german approach was first delayed to "not before 2015", then finally started (in year 2016) for a completion date of 2024 (17 years after it would have been nice to have it in first place!).


The Betuwelijn is in service since the 1880s actually. What you mean is the Betuweroute. These are different lines which mustn't be confused.


----------



## touya

Ok, thanks for the correction. I thought Betuwelijn was the Dutch name.


----------



## 8166UY

That's indeed how almost everyone calls it here.


----------



## suasion

Fatfield said:


> Ditto in Britain too. Some people just can't get their heads around the fact that DB suffer from the same issues as we do here.



Seriously?????

AS someone who uses both German and UK railways regularly, there is no comparison.

The last two trains I went to catch in the UK were both canceled at the last minute.

UK intercity trains still have slam doors
Toilets with flaps onto the tracks
The most convoluted ticketing system I've ever had the misfortune to use.
The most expensive tickets.
Paper cards for reservations?
5 abreast seating on British loading gauge
No national discount card
No access to the dining car without a first class ticket????
Keeping departure platforms a mystery until the last second
Pacers.

I could go on

In fact the only thing British railways seem to pour any sort of resources into is ticket checking.


----------



## TedStriker

With regards to the coaching stock of the Inter City 125 units, at least these units are set to be replaced by the new Hitachi units. 

With regards to fitting out trains with five abreast seating plans, I am 100 per cent with you on this point. The UK loading gauge is too narrow for five abreast seats. 

As for the Pacer units, at least these are now to be replaced.


----------



## flierfy

suasion said:


> Seriously?????
> 
> AS someone who uses both German and UK railways regularly, there is no comparison.
> 
> The last two trains I went to catch in the UK were both canceled at the last minute.
> 
> UK intercity trains still have slam doors
> Toilets with flaps onto the tracks
> The most convoluted ticketing system I've ever had the misfortune to use.
> The most expensive tickets.
> Paper cards for reservations?
> 5 abreast seating on British loading gauge
> No national discount card
> No access to the dining car without a first class ticket????
> Keeping departure platforms a mystery until the last second
> Pacers.
> 
> I could go on
> 
> In fact the only thing British railways seem to pour any sort of resources into is ticket checking.


The pacers are the only shame of the British railways actually. All the others points are invalid for either being historic relics which will be discarded sooner or later anyway or for not being a disadvantage at all. Discount cards for instance don't do any railway a favour. They work as an entrance barrier to the system which keeps occasional users off.

What you don't mention in your one-sided review is that Britain has a proper high speed line which provides dedicated end-to-end infrastructure for high speed services only. Britain also has a TOC which is fully committed to high speed rail services, a TOC which is not afraid of purchasing the right trainsets to make use of the infrastructure provided. Try finding one of these over here in Germany.


----------



## Kpc21

flierfy said:


> Discount cards for instance don't do any railway a favour. They work as an entrance barrier to the system which keeps occasional users off.


But they keep passengers using the railway once they purchase the card.

If something keeps occasional users off, then it would be the too high ticket prices.

The prices should be set so, that an occasional user will see: it's as fast (or slower) as car but it's cheaper, so I will save money going by train. Or - if the train is fast: it's faster than by car and not much more expensive, so I will save time and not waste much money.

And with a discount card, it should be yet cheaper: I will buy a discount card and use the train regularly instead of car, I will save even more.


----------



## Fatfield

suasion said:


> Seriously?????
> 
> AS someone who uses both German and UK railways regularly, there is no comparison.
> 
> The last two trains I went to catch in the UK were both canceled at the last minute.
> 
> UK intercity trains still have slam doors
> Toilets with flaps onto the tracks
> The most convoluted ticketing system I've ever had the misfortune to use.
> The most expensive tickets.
> Paper cards for reservations?
> 5 abreast seating on British loading gauge
> No national discount card
> No access to the dining car without a first class ticket????
> Keeping departure platforms a mystery until the last second
> Pacers.
> 
> I could go on
> 
> In fact the only thing British railways seem to pour any sort of resources into is ticket checking.


Yes, seriously.

I use both networks quite a lot too. DB suffers from the same issues as we do. Late services due to points & signal failures. Low rail adhesion due to leaves and snow. Broken train sets. Old train sets. Last minute cancellations. Platform changes minutes before arrival. Overcrowded trains. Lack of staff & filthy carriages.


----------



## flierfy

Kpc21 said:


> But they keep passengers using the railway once they purchase the card.


Only a tiny minority gets one.



Kpc21 said:


> If something keeps occasional users off, then it would be the too high ticket prices.


It is the discount scheme which make prices for flexible tickets high in the first place. Prices are pretty much doubled up front to ensure that discounted prices still cover the costs. That leads to the unbearable situation in which train travel is suitable only for a small group of regular users. Everyone else is pretty much priced off.



Kpc21 said:


> The prices should be set so, that an occasional user will see: it's as fast (or slower) as car but it's cheaper, so I will save money going by train. Or - if the train is fast: it's faster than by car and not much more expensive, so I will save time and not waste much money.


And this precisely is not the case. Trains are rarely faster but almost always more expensive than car travel. Hence the mode split of 80% to 7,5% in favour of the car.


----------



## Kpc21

flierfy said:


> And this precisely is not the case. Trains are rarely faster but almost always more expensive than car travel. Hence the mode split of 80% to 7,5% in favour of the car.


Which is bad for the railway itself.

The model I described would work well.

But... the trains are often indeed much faster, especially on long routes throughout Germany. No idea about the UK.

So people in Germany buy even those expensive "flexible price" tickets.

But the price difference between the tickets bought long ahead and directly before the ride shouldn't be so big, it makes the people spontaneously deciding about the travel use cars - and generate traffic jams.

Those expensive "flexible" tickets are suitable almost only for the business trips.


----------



## Richard_P

touya said:


> Do bilateral agreements between EU member states count as "unnecessarily plunging into debt with spectacular investments" too? Because I'm afraid to say, Germany does not score well at all with regards to the commitments they've freely taken:


Money doesn't grow on trees, this year we will see inauguration of Verkehrsprojekt Deutsche Einheit Nr. 8 which is HS connection between Berlin and Nuernberg which initially was planned to be opened in early 2000ts. So if internal investments are severely delayed than expecting swift progress on international ones especially where present infrastructure can cope with traffic is unfounded. Every additional billion put into Stuttgart hole means that it will be missing somewhere else. Of course You can plunge into debt like France but also this source can dry up and recently Macron 'paused' Torino - Lyon enhancement project which includes 57 km tunnel between France and Italy. Or we should also for that blame DB 



suasion said:


> In fact the only thing British railways seem to pour any sort of resources into is ticket checking.


Amen to that :cheers2:



Fatfield said:


> Old train sets.


Yet German Railways don't have problems with Pacers as they replaced such designs decades ago with 628 series which is now in withdrawal process. I also don't see any bold projects to rebuild worn down tube rolling stock into DMUs which is the case in Britain. Citing English tourists heard on some halt in Stuttgart - wow, with such transport network You don't need a car here - bet no one will say the same regarding Britain mostly due to absurd ticket prices and general lack of cross ticketing with other modes of transport


----------



## LtBk

flierfy said:


> Only a tiny minority gets one.
> 
> 
> It is the discount scheme which make prices for flexible tickets high in the first place. Prices are pretty much doubled up front to ensure that discounted prices still cover the costs. That leads to the unbearable situation in which train travel is suitable only for a small group of regular users. Everyone else is pretty much priced off.
> 
> 
> And this precisely is not the case. Trains are rarely faster but almost always more expensive than car travel. Hence the mode split of 80% to 7,5% in favour of the car.


Modal share is based on mileage, so cars are going to favored towards other forms of transportation. I disagree that cars are faster than trains.


----------



## Jonesy55

LtBk said:


> Modal share is based on mileage, so cars are going to favored towards other forms of transportation. I disagree that cars are faster than trains.


It depends where you are going to/from. A reasonably fast train should be faster from station to station but if you are going from the suburb of one city to the suburb of another city and have to get to the central station to start the intercity trip then get from the central station out to the suburb at the other end then that adds time.

I'd say in the UK that from city centre to city centre the train is almost always quicker, London to York for example is under 2 hours by train, no way you could drive it in under 3 hours at best but beyond that it depends on the exact trip you are doing and the distance between the cities. If you were going from a home in outer west London to somewhere in the outer areas of York then car might be more competitive for time. 

In terms of some of the issues with the UK rail system mentioned it does depend a lot on which routes you use most often, I travel pretty often on intercity trains and can't recall using a slam door train for a long time but then I very rarely use the ECML or Great Western mainline where they have the IC125 trains. Even the crappiest trains on local services I use have electronically operated doors but i'd rather have a slam door 125 as they are more comfortable.


----------



## LtBk

Good points, but I think Germany's and UK's passenger rail system is pretty good despite their flaws. Keep in mind I come from a country where only a tiny percentage use passenger rail(over 31 million used Amtrak out of a population of over 320 million), very slow speeds outside of a small section, little electrification, missing cities, poorer frequencies, and outdated looking trains+train stations.


----------



## suasion

flierfy said:


> The pacers are the only shame of the British railways actually. All the others points are invalid for either being historic relics which will be discarded sooner or later anyway or for not being a disadvantage at all. Discount cards for instance don't do any railway a favour. They work as an entrance barrier to the system which keeps occasional users off.
> 
> What you don't mention in your one-sided review is that Britain has a proper high speed line which provides dedicated end-to-end infrastructure for high speed services only. Britain also has a TOC which is fully committed to high speed rail services, a TOC which is not afraid of purchasing the right trainsets to make use of the infrastructure provided. Try finding one of these over here in Germany.



horseshit, ahem!!!!

A years railtravel for the entire rail network in Germany is less than €3,000 (Im too lazy too google the precise figure). 50% off was €256 less than 10 years ago (again too lazy to google precise figure today). A years pass for ELy to London is circa £4,000 valid on no other route. 
Pleas explain to me how a cheap nationwide railpass is worse than a simple route pass which costs annually more than a reasonable car?

And the time is long gone for purchasing the right trainsets. The slam door IC's in the UK look very like the MKIIIs I used in Ireland in my youth, they even had push button doors yet were retired over a decade ago. If you have the most expensive tickets in Europe and your trains are decades obsolete then you are not providing a service, you are stealing from your customers.

When German trains have problems, yes the platform is changed at short notice but heavily announced. Otherwise the departure platform is known from the date of timetable publication. In the UK, especially London stations, it is like Broadway with hundreds of passengers for long distance trains glued to monitors so they can all sprint to the train when it does appear.

Germany's trains, especially DB's are not ideal but there is no way you can even pretend they are playin in the same league.

Another point, the zeal of British railways revenue protection is such , that stations have nowhere near enough entrances. My local station has only one which necessitates me crossing a bridge over the station just to get to the station entrance side, a detour of several hundred metres.


And as for TOC's in Germany when my train is delayed I am often handed the 50% discount voucher at source, every effort is made to re-ticket and reroute me to minimise disruption, admittatly often to noe avail. In the UK, I'm supposed to be grateful if they announced the cancellation before I get bored of waiting for the affected train.


Oh ya, in Germany kids (your own or your Grandchildren) travel free on longhaul for free (Holland is €2.50) in the UK it is simply half the arm and leg I have paid for my adult ticket.



.


----------



## suasion

Jonesy55 said:


> but i'd rather have a slam door 125 as they are more comfortable.



You do have a point there. But that is merely a reflection of the cramped interiors offered on other trains. Thalys and TGV trains suffer from the same affliction IMHO and Dutch IC trains are the worst as far as comfort goes. The newer versions offer something slightly better than a subway bench.




.


----------



## suasion

flierfy said:


> Only a tiny minority gets one.
> 
> 
> It is the discount scheme which make prices for flexible tickets high in the first place. Prices are pretty much doubled up front to ensure that discounted prices still cover the costs. That leads to the unbearable situation in which train travel is suitable only for a small group of regular users. Everyone else is pretty much priced off.
> 
> 
> And this precisely is not the case. Trains are rarely faster but almost always more expensive than car travel. Hence the mode split of 80% to 7,5% in favour of the car.


I'm sorry but fully flexible tickets in Germany are far cheaper than those in the UK, despite having nationwide discount cards (and saver tickets too).


----------



## suasion

flierfy said:


> Only a tiny minority gets one.
> 
> 
> It is the discount scheme which make prices for flexible tickets high in the first place. Prices are pretty much doubled up front to ensure that discounted prices still cover the costs. That leads to the unbearable situation in which train travel is suitable only for a small group of regular users. Everyone else is pretty much priced off.



I would argue that in Germany most semi regular train user have at least a Bahncard 25 (I myself have one) 25% off all tickets including discount ones for approx €65 pa. 
In Switzerland almost everyone who has any notion of taking more than one or two journeys a year has the Halb-tax card, ditto for Holland with the voordalenuur (40% off peak) or other options.




I apologise now for what may seem like is spam posting, especially on a topic which has more to do with UK rail than Germany but one cannot simply let comparing acne to leprosy go unchallanged.


.


----------



## flierfy

Kpc21 said:


> Which is bad for the railway itself.
> 
> The model I described would work well.
> 
> But... the trains are often indeed much faster, especially on long routes throughout Germany. No idea about the UK.





LtBk said:


> I disagree that cars are faster than trains.


Trains are only faster than cars if both the start and the end of a trip are located in urban areas and these urban areas are linked with decent services. That, however, applies only to a small number of trips. The vast majority of trips in this country are made these small confined areas, however.



Kpc21 said:


> So people in Germany buy even those expensive "flexible price" tickets.


Very few passenger travel actually do pay the full price. Which highlights that the whole pricing system is a farce.



LtBk said:


> Modal share is based on mileage, so cars are going to favored towards other forms of transportation.


Modal share is not necessarily based on kilometrage or passenger-kilometrage in fact, even though the aforementioned numbers are. But even these numbers only favour motorised transport over non-motorised. The train-car relation isn't effected by this.


----------



## AlexNL

suasion said:


> horseshit, ahem!!!!
> 
> A years railtravel for the entire rail network in Germany is less than €3,000 (Im too lazy too google the precise figure). 50% off was €256 less than 10 years ago (again too lazy to google precise figure today). A years pass for ELy to London is circa £4,000 valid on no other route.
> Pleas explain to me how a cheap nationwide railpass is worse than a simple route pass which costs annually more than a reasonable car?


The key here is the difference in financing. The German governments allocate a large amount of money to the network (DB Netz) and regional trains (DB Regio and its competitors) for the delivery of services and the maintenance of the network. DB Fernverkehr (the intercity/ICE operator) does not receive any subsidies but is expected to fund itself.

In the UK, the government prefers the railways to fund their day-to-day running costs themselves. This isn't something new, it has been like that ever since British Rail.

The UK does have some nationwide railpasses, known as "All Line Rovers" although some peak-time restrictions do apply.


> And the time is long gone for purchasing the right trainsets. The slam door IC's in the UK look very like the MKIIIs I used in Ireland in my youth, they even had push button doors yet were retired over a decade ago. If you have the most expensive tickets in Europe and your trains are decades obsolete then you are not providing a service, you are stealing from your customers.


It would surprise you, but the majority of the German intercity fleet is not much younger than the Intercity 125 fleet! The IC fleet consist mostly of Eurofima-coaches built during the 70's and 80's, just like the Mark IIIs.

While slam doors might seem antiquated now, remember that they were very common when the HSTs were built and that it's not easy to change the door system on a train as this has serious impact on its safety case. Nevertheless, the HSTs which are currently being refurbished for ScotRail are getting power operated doors installed.

Apart from that, the UK is currently undergoing a major fleet renewal: Great Western and East Coast will see brand-new Class 800/801 trains being introduced as part of the Intercity Express Programme, Transpennine Express have ordered several new fleets, Northern are introducing new CAF built trains, South Western Railway is getting a boatload of new trains and Abellio Greater Anglia are even going to replace all of them.


> When German trains have problems, yes the platform is changed at short notice but heavily announced. Otherwise the departure platform is known from the date of timetable publication. In the UK, especially London stations, it is like Broadway with hundreds of passengers for long distance trains glued to monitors so they can all sprint to the train when it does appear.


The late announcement of departure platforms is for operational reasons, the TOCs (especially the long distance ones) need time to properly clean and prep their trains for the next journey.

This isn't uncommon to the UK though, France and Italy also have the habit to show platforms only close to departure.



> Another point, the zeal of British railways revenue protection is such , that stations have nowhere near enough entrances. My local station has only one which necessitates me crossing a bridge over the station just to get to the station entrance side, a detour of several hundred metres.


This is mostly down to the architecture of a station, legal framework (permits, etc.) and the ability to even build an exit on the other side. This is an issue which plays just as hard in Germany as it does in the UK.



> And as for TOC's in Germany when my train is delayed I am often handed the 50% discount voucher at source, every effort is made to re-ticket and reroute me to minimise disruption, admittatly often to noe avail. In the UK, I'm supposed to be grateful if they announced the cancellation before I get bored of waiting for the affected train.


I have to commend DB for that, their passenger service is great and should serve as an example to others.


----------



## Richard_P

AlexNL said:


> It would surprise you, but the majority of the German intercity fleet is not much younger than the Intercity 125 fleet! The IC fleet consist mostly of Eurofima-coaches built during the 70's and 80's, just like the Mark IIIs.


 Yet IC125 sets are serving prime corridors in UK while IC trains in Germany are serving secondary routes and mostly regional traffic (which in UK would be served by regional EMUs/DMUs while prime corridors are served by ICE not older than 1990.



> Apart from that, the UK is currently undergoing a major fleet renewal: Great Western and East Coast will see brand-new Class 800/801 trains being introduced as part of the Intercity Express Programme, Transpennine Express have ordered several new fleets, Northern are introducing new CAF built trains, South Western Railway is getting a boatload of new trains and Abellio Greater Anglia are even going to replace all of them.


 Yes, crown pride and joy designed in Japan, build in Britain barely able to made its maiden journey (click)  In the same time You seems to forget that DB is in process of obtaining new ICE4 fleet which will replace ICE1 and ICE2 sets which will leave ICET as oldest in fast long distance fleet. As for the IC segment the problem arose because initially ICE4 fleet was envisaged as its replacement but it turned the other way. Due to that IC fleet in Germany is now renewed by dedicated double deck push pull sets and in near future tender for single deck fleet comparable to Austrian Railjet is set to be procured for that segment. Still light years before Britain.


----------



## AlexNL

Err, no. Deutsche Bahn's Intercity fleet serves routes which are just as much a 'prime corridor' as the ones served by the IC125 and IC225 fleets in the UK.

Yes, Deutsche Bahn are procuring new fleets (ICE4, IC2) but similar actions are taking place on the UK's railways.


----------



## Richard_P

AlexNL said:


> Err, no. Deutsche Bahn's Intercity fleet serves routes which are just as much a 'prime corridor' as the ones served by the IC125 and IC225 fleets in the UK.


Lets agree that we disagree :cheers2:



> Yes, Deutsche Bahn are procuring new fleets (ICE4, IC2) but similar actions are taking place on the UK's railways.


 Well, DB is reportedly willing to donate 100 VT628 series DMUs for Ukraine (click) while in Britain much older D78 tube rolling stock was sold and instead of scrapping someone attempts to make fortune on converting them to DMUs but after prototype caught fire it was reverted to battery vehicles. Do we really can compare those countries? Clearly German Railways can't be is such a bad shape if they can donate 100 30 year old DMUs to a country which is in deep troubles :cheers2:


----------



## AlexNL

In that article I don't see it mentioned anywhere that DB is willing to _donate_ those VT628's to Ukraine. There's only talk about UZ needing new units as their current ones are in a dire state, and that second hand DMUs from Germany are being looked at as an option because it's cheaper and faster to acquire and refit those than new-built would be.

How is that any different from London Underground, a publicly owned body, selling D78 stock to a private company (Vivarail) who are willing to invest significant amounts to repurpose the trains into "as new" DMUs?


----------



## Richard_P

AlexNL said:


> In that article I don't see it mentioned anywhere that DB is willing to _donate_ those VT628's to Ukraine.There's only talk about UZ needing new units as their current ones are in a dire state, and that second hand DMUs from Germany are being looked at as an option because it's cheaper and faster to acquire and refit those than new-built would be.


 Because deal isn't at present fully finalised, earlier statements indicated that we are talking about either donation or purchase at a scrap cost. There are also issues whether they can be re-gauged for further use on 1520 mm gauge network and how much it will cost. Whether this deal will be finalised and at what terms should be known in December.



> How is that any different from London Underground, a publicly owned body, selling D78 stock to a private company (Vivarail) who are willing to invest significant amounts to repurpose the trains into "as new" DMUs?


 There is huge difference because Germans wouldn't thought to do something such stupid. Train designed and built as electric with urban use will never offer parameters of diesel regional train. The engine fire on prototype unit and subsequent refocus on battery source of energy wasn't a coincidence. And as yet no one discovered that diesel engine generates vibrations which will put excessive stress on already old car body while bogies may tend to overheat from significantly longer distances and speeds than found on Tube. Contrary to that DB knows that its 628 series is nearing end of its envisaged service life yet it still can be used by another 15 years although Germany having enough money doesn't see need for doing that. Yet those units (on average 10 years younger than D78 stock) can still be used according to its initial design somewhere else and Ukraine is seen as a potential place. So do really railways in UK are in such poor state that they need to repurpose worn down rolling stock? Clearly Germany despite all criticism of state of the railways have enough money to buy new one despite fact that those are more expensive than comparable DMU on the island :cheers2:


----------



## flierfy

suasion said:


> A years railtravel for the entire rail network in Germany is less than €3,000 (Im too lazy too google the precise figure). 50% off was €256 less than 10 years ago (again too lazy to google precise figure today). A years pass for ELy to London is circa £4,000 valid on no other route.
> Pleas explain to me how a cheap nationwide railpass is worse than a simple route pass which costs annually more than a reasonable car?


These less than €3'000 are precisely €4'190. This is still a bargain for those who are able to make use of it. But it is no ticket which common people can realistically ride on.
Ely to London is one of the rather extreme commutes. It is a long commute and also one that stretches form a town of fairly modest living costs and a city with plenty of highly paid jobs. The TOCs charge accordingly. People who travel from Ely to London daily can't really complain.



suasion said:


> And the time is long gone for purchasing the right trainsets. The slam door IC's in the UK look very like the MKIIIs I used in Ireland in my youth, they even had push button doors yet were retired over a decade ago. If you have the most expensive tickets in Europe and your trains are decades obsolete then you are not providing a service, you are stealing from your customers.


Now this comment is rather unreasonable. British trainsets are not worse than their continental counterparts. All networks are equipped with older and newer rolling stock. Britain is not different in this regard.



suasion said:


> Germany's trains, especially DB's are not ideal but there is no way you can even pretend they are playin in the same league.


British railways are different in only one way. It is the oldest network in the world and their trains have to fit the tight constraints that derive from this circumstance. Other than that I can't see a significant difference really.



suasion said:


> Another point, the zeal of British railways revenue protection is such , that stations have nowhere near enough entrances. My local station has only one which necessitates me crossing a bridge over the station just to get to the station entrance side, a detour of several hundred metres.


Your stations are free of graffiti though. If you've gone through the decayed subways of German railway stations, especially the minor ones, you would probably start to appreciate the tight control of railway facilities in Britain.



suasion said:


> I'm sorry but fully flexible tickets in Germany are far cheaper than those in the UK, despite having nationwide discount cards (and saver tickets too).


The difference is that in Britain one needs a fully flexible ticket for travel in peak hours only while in Germany it is needed all the time. Off-peak tickets in Britain are significantly less expensive. In fact, tickets in Britain can be less expensive than in Germany. An off-peak return-ticket from Paddington to Maidenhead costs £12,40, two single tickets Weissenfels-Leipzig €15,20. That doesn't look like the 'most expensive tickets in Europe' to me.


----------



## flierfy

Richard_P said:


> In the same time You seems to forget that DB is in process of obtaining new ICE4 fleet which will replace ICE1 and ICE2 sets which will leave ICET as oldest in fast long distance fleet.


The ICE1 fleet won't disappear entirely, at least not too soon. Some of these sets will be shortened and refitted. They are badly needed after all as DB Fern is chronically short on rolling stock.


----------



## Jonesy55

The UK ticketing system is Byzantine though, if you know your way around it and plan well some time in advance you can get some very cheap long distance fares but the walk-on flexible tickets can often be ridiculous to the extent they are only really used by business travelers getting the cost paid for them and tourists who don't know the system who end up with a big shock!

Season tickets for commuting are also very expensive, especially into London where they can be 2-3x the price of similar distances into other cities, no doubt about that.


----------



## Richard_P

flierfy said:


> The difference is that in Britain one needs a fully flexible ticket for travel in peak hours only while in Germany it is needed all the time. Off-peak tickets in Britain are significantly less expensive. In fact, tickets in Britain can be less expensive than in Germany. An off-peak return-ticket from Paddington to Maidenhead costs £12,40, two single tickets Weissenfels-Leipzig €15,20. That doesn't look like the 'most expensive tickets in Europe' to me.


 Yet You are comparing off peak ticket for Britain with any time ticket in Germany. But here difference doesn't end as above mentioned ticket for Germany is from Mitteldeutschen Verkehrsverbund range and it envisages one trip within 5 tariff zones (7,6 euro) made within 3 hours using any form of transport so You can hop on bus in starting point than use train and in Lepizig continue by a tram. Of course for 17,5 euro You can buy anytime day travel card for that zones. For comparison specified connection in Britain although from Maidenhead to London costs 21,9 pound for anytime return and 28,4 for day anytime travel card, off peak travel card is 18,4 sterling.



flierfy said:


> The ICE1 fleet won't disappear entirely, at least not too soon. Some of these sets will be shortened and refitted. They are badly needed after all as DB Fern is chronically short on rolling stock.


 Frankly I haven't heard about such scenario and after ICE4 certification process was finished series production should soon diminish stock shortages. Although we will see what future will bring and some cascades of former ICE to IC segment may be the case.


----------



## flierfy

Richard_P said:


> Yet You are comparing off peak ticket for Britain with any time ticket in Germany. But here difference doesn't end as above mentioned ticket for Germany is from Mitteldeutschen Verkehrsverbund range and it envisages one trip within 5 tariff zones (7,6 euro) made within 3 hours using any form of transport so You can hop on bus in starting point than use train and in Lepizig continue by a tram. Of course for 17,5 euro You can buy anytime day travel card for that zones. For comparison specified connection in Britain although from Maidenhead to London costs 21,9 pound for anytime return and 28,4 for day anytime travel card, off peak travel card is 18,4 sterling.


Do you really think that picking the most expensive ticket makes this comparison fair? You actually do want to make British railways look bad, don't you.


----------



## Jonesy55

It's one reason to do away with those very expensive tickets, even if few people actually pay those prices is not good PR to have them available to be used as an example. I don't think going for the extreme of single per km pricing for every trip around the country no matter what the demand is the answer but probably the gap between highest and lowest fares should be reduced. 

Purely demand based pricing works well for airlines, and maybe for the longer intercity train trips but for more local/regional services people want the convenience of being able to turn up without planning weeks ahead and not getting gouged on price.


----------



## Richard_P

flierfy said:


> Do you really think that picking the most expensive ticket makes this comparison fair? You actually do want to make British railways look bad, don't you.


No I am just comparing what is comparable. Of course You can be lucky enough to live near Paddington station and go to Maidenhead near railway station but most probably this won't be the case and at least 2 x 2,4 pounds for tube needs to be added to Your off peak return calculation (assuming that You have Oyster which is/was additional 5 sterling) while in Germany You don't need to pay such ransom as rail ticket which You have mentioned is valid also on busses and trams – it is so simple that almost boring. Ticketing in Britain is a pure madness and lucky those who live in TfL integrated area, so I don’t need to make British railways look bad as they simply suck in this field. My favourite ticket is "not via Clapham Junction" – boy you can have a lot of 'fun' with those :cheers2:


----------



## K_

Richard_P said:


> No I am just comparing what is comparable. Of course You can be lucky enough to live near Paddington station and go to Maidenhead near railway station but most probably this won't be the case and at least 2 x 2,4 pounds for tube needs to be added to Your off peak return calculation (assuming that You have Oyster which is/was additional 5 sterling) while in Germany You don't need to pay such ransom as rail ticket which You have mentioned is valid also on busses and trams – it is so simple that almost boring. Ticketing in Britain is a pure madness and lucky those who live in TfL integrated area, so I don’t need to make British railways look bad as they simply suck in this field. My favourite ticket is "not via Clapham Junction" – boy you can have a lot of 'fun' with those :cheers2:


If you really want to make a correct comparison you must compare average yield. Take total ticket revenue, dividi by total passengerkm. And you get the average “price per km” a passenger pays. 
The authors of this report did just that:
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/site...ce-quality-rail-pax-services-final-report.pdf
See page 14. The result is rather unexpected...


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ That does still show that the UK is the second most expensive in Europe on average. Though Germany really is not that far behind at all.


----------



## AlexNL

A while ago The Man in Seat 61 did a comparison of rail ticket prices between the UK and other countries, which is definitely worth a read.

The conclusion: 


> So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk...


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ That is why the analysis above ironed out the differences between those buying in advance and those travelling on the day by simply looking at the outcome for the market as a whole by using revenue per passenger km. So yeah, overall despite being able to get bargains, the cost to the UK consumer makes the UK rail system the second most expensive in Europe behind Austria.


----------



## Jonesy55

The Austrian system seems particularly expensive to run overall, that report also looked at the % of costs covered by fares, nowhere do the fares cover all costs but in 2012 Germany was the highest at nearly 70% followed by UK at 60% (probably more similar to Germany by now as fares have risen and subsidies fallen since then) while Austria only covered less than 40% of costs with fare receipts which is more like the EU average even with the highest per km tickets. 

Some of the CEE countries get virtually nothing from fares, they might as well make the system free of charge getting so little.


----------



## Svartmetall

To me, that makes the UK and German railways look like very sustainable businesses. More likely to have expansion or at least maintenance of status quo when you're covering that much of your costs.

Plus the modal split/reliance on rail is pretty good in both countries as well.


----------



## Jonesy55

More expansion and investment here would be nice. It is coming I guess with HS2 which should make a big difference nationally, Crossrail opening imminently etc and other various smaller projects but it's frustrating to see such long time scales for those things. I guess I'll just have to be patient!


----------



## Svartmetall

Jonesy55 said:


> More expansion and investment here would be nice. It is coming I guess with HS2 which should make a big difference nationally, Crossrail opening imminently etc and other various smaller projects but it's frustrating to see such long time scales for those things. I guess I'll just have to be patient!


You've got some nice smaller projects ongoing - the varsity rail line for instance just so that the toffs from Oxbridge can meet in Bletchley. :lol:

But this is a bit off-topic. Should be taken to the UK rail section.


----------



## Richard_P

Jonesy55 said:


> The Austrian system seems particularly expensive to run overall, that report also looked at the % of costs covered by fares,


 I assume that Austria figures are highly influenced by high investments into infrastructure and rolling stock replacement. Modernising to 200 km/h with double tracking in mountains means mostly tunnelling, in mentioned time also Wien Junction was completely rebuild while train operator bought huge number of Railjet sets. This boosted the figures but will benefit country in future.



> Some of the CEE countries get virtually nothing from fares, they might as well make the system free of charge getting so little.


In fact the last one on the list did so by offering free travel within Tallinn


----------



## Attus

Jonesy55 said:


> Some of the CEE countries get virtually nothing from fares, they might as well make the system free of charge getting so little.


In those countries is railroad something like "transport for the poor". Ticket prices are heavily subsidized even in long distance traffic. And lot of people may use the trains free, for example in Hungary every EU citizens above 65 years can travel for free.


----------



## geogregor

Richard_P said:


> No I am just comparing what is comparable. Of course You can be lucky enough to live near Paddington station and go to Maidenhead near railway station but most probably this won't be the case and at least 2 x 2,4 pounds for tube needs to be added to Your off peak return calculation (assuming that You have Oyster which is/was additional 5 sterling) while in Germany You don't need to pay such ransom as rail ticket which You have mentioned is valid also on busses and trams – it is so simple that almost boring. Ticketing in Britain is a pure madness and lucky those who live in TfL integrated area, so I don’t need to make British railways look bad as they simply suck in this field. My favourite ticket is "not via Clapham Junction" – boy you can have a lot of 'fun' with those :cheers2:


All this has more to do with rather poor integration of British public transport outside the TfL area. Here Germany has clear advantage. 

The train tickets itself, apart form some very expensive peak fares, aren't really that much different In the UK than in the rest of western Europe. Often they are actually cheaper due to aggressive pricing. 

Someone already posted this:
https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html

I wish German style fare integration was introduced in more cities in the UK. But there is problem with private bus operators.

Anyway, I promise not to drag this OT


----------



## AlexNL

"German style fare integration", you mean the "City mobil-ticket" which you can buy while booking a ticket?










How is this different from purchasing a "London travelcard" or "PLUSBUS" ticket while buying a ticket for National Rail services?


----------



## Richard_P

Construction of new Berlin S-Bahn fleet started.









Source of picture (click) including further description.


----------



## Jonesy55

Looks like these new S-bahn trains won't have much legroom! :shocked:


----------



## Kpc21

AlexNL said:


> "German style fare integration", you mean the "City mobil-ticket" which you can buy while booking a ticket?


Maybe the system, in which on a single ticket you can travel using all the means of transport in the neighborhood (not only in the city, but also in the rural areas tens or even hundreds of kilometers around), except for long-distance trains and buses.

You validate one ticket, board a train, transfer to a bus and still use the same ticket.

You buy a ticket, board a regional train, get to the city, and there you use the public transport still within a single ticket.

Because the whole ticketing system for buses, trams, subway and regional trains in a big area (with a radius of tens or hundreds of kilometers) is managed by a single body (called Verkehrsverbund).


----------



## Svartmetall

Jonesy55 said:


> Looks like these new S-bahn trains won't have much legroom! :shocked:


Headroom looks a little cramped too.


----------



## suasion

AlexNL said:


> "German style fare integration", you mean the "City mobil-ticket" which you can buy while booking a ticket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this different from purchasing a "London travelcard" or "PLUSBUS" ticket while buying a ticket for National Rail services?


Only one city is called London in the UK.
Buying an long distance rail ticket with a bahncard gets you a citi ticket in both your departure city and destination city. Train journeys in regions or around urban areas, the train ticket is bought door to door or as a zonal ticket



> The NRW tariff applies for the travel connection you have chosen for the whole journey.
> 
> All tickets in the NRW tariff apply from “door-to-door”, i.e. buses, the Stadtbahn and the U-Bahn can be used at the start location and destination to the train station.


.


----------



## Kpc21

Is the "City ticket" cheaper than buying just a normal city public transport ticket upon the arrival?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Usually yes, plus its given for free to discount card (Bahn Card) holders.


----------



## Richard_P

Well, who would have expected that - Stuttgart 21 will require 1 billion euro more and completion date 3 years later than expected sources here (click) and here (click).


----------



## da_scotty

Is *anything* construction whise going smoothly at the moment in Germany?

BER airport is a disgrace
Motorways bridges are falling apart and works take forever to start and finish
Railway-projects are in the same boat.


----------



## Richard_P

da_scotty said:


> Is *anything* construction whise going smoothly at the moment?
> BER airport is a disgrace
> Motorways bridges are falling apart and works take forever to start and finish
> Railway-projects are in the same boat.


 Well, one of Stuttgart 21 controversy was that its construction was to be managed by person which delivered Berlin Hauptbahnhof over time, over budget and in some parts under initial standard (too short roof on elevated platforms and cancelling of ceiling letting sunlight to underground platforms). So it was from beginning obvious that Stuttgart 21 will be also over time and budget, You may only guess how much and how late


----------



## LtBk

Who would that be?


----------



## flierfy

da_scotty said:


> Is *anything* construction whise going smoothly at the moment in Germany?
> 
> BER airport is a disgrace
> Motorways bridges are falling apart and works take forever to start and finish
> Railway-projects are in the same boat.


You seemed to fall victim to the notion that everything goes wrong in this country. As a matter of fact though, most projects go smoothly and they also get finished on time.
The station rebuilding in Halle, the upgrade of the Eisenach to Erfurt line as well as the complete rebuilding of the Berlin to Dresden line are finished right ahead of the timetable switch next weekend.
The high-speed line Erfurt to Bamberg go also in service next week, just as promised.


----------



## Kpc21

So Germans simply do so many infrastructural projects that some statistically have to go wrong, don't they?


----------



## ValterPravnik

Kpc21 said:


> So Germans simply do so many infrastructural projects that some statistically have to go wrong, don't they?


Stuttgart 21, Berlin-Brandenburg airport and the Hamburg Philharmonie have all one in common:

They are the biggest and most expensive project in Germany currently. How likely is it that only these biggest projects suffer of bad planing while all other smaller projects don't?


----------



## Kpc21

Don't forget about the upgrade of the Karlsruhe-Basel railway, recently also a big fail.


----------



## touya

Speaking of the Karlsruhe-Basel railway, is there any hope that after the August collapse of the tunnel the design will be modified so that the stretch in Rastatt will be above ground along to the A5 autobahn?


----------



## Richard_P

LtBk said:


> Who would that be?


I have read about that some time ago so unfortunately can't find it and provide link to that. 

But on other hand we must bear in mind that costs can be predicted with high accuracy after you leave ground and foundations and as Stuttgart 21 is fully underground its final price can't be fully predicted. Although costs are still within worst case scenario estimates but posting them before works started would most certainly block the project. So the way of plunging into investment with fictive budget and its increase in later stage when it will be too late for halting works was chosen, affecting many other smaller projects. Stuttgart 21 simply shouldn’t progress into implementation as it is too pricy for achieved effects. Comparable project of Zürich Durchmesserlinie was priced at slightly over 2 billion Swiss Franc which is 1,7 billion Euro with today exchange rate compare to 7,5 billion presently estimated for Stuttgart 21.




touya said:


> Speaking of the Karlsruhe-Basel railway, is there any hope that after the August collapse of the tunnel the design will be modified so that the stretch in Rastatt will be above ground along to the A5 autobahn


Most certainly not because tunnel was forced by local protests over noise concerns (not first such case in Germany).


----------



## touya

Richard_P said:


> Most certainly not because tunnel was forced by local protests over noise concerns (not first such case in Germany).


Are sure about this? Maybe you're misremembering and are confusing the protests with the ones that residents of Ötigheim, Bietigheim Durmersheim organized and that resulted in moving the northern approach of the line close to the B36?

Because east of Rastatt, along the A5, I can only see an industrial/third sector area. And the hamlet of Rauental could be protected with noise protection barriers.

Maybe the alignment in Rastatt was decided before the northern approach was moved out to the B36 alignment and it just stayed that way even if now it would make more sense to proceed along the A5?


----------



## Richard_P

touya said:


> Are sure about this? Maybe you're misremembering and are confusing the protests with the ones that residents of Ötigheim, Bietigheim Durmersheim organized and that resulted in moving the northern approach of the line close to the B36?
> Because east of Rastatt, along the A5, I can only see an industrial/third sector area. And the hamlet of Rauental could be protected with noise protection barriers.
> Maybe the alignment in Rastatt was decided before the northern approach was moved out to the B36 alignment and it just stayed that way even if now it would make more sense to proceed along the A5?


 According to German Wikipedia DB decided to tunnel under Rastatt as a precautious measure after residents of Ötigheim, Bietigheim and Durmersheim successfully challenged expansion of corridor in their premises. Due to that above ground version of Rastatt wasn’t on design boards and at present it is impossible to revert that decision. There is only the question how to proceed with tunnelling to avoid further damages.


----------



## Wilhem275

Going along A5 wouldn't be that easy.

The NBS would have to pass over the Rheintalbahn and A5 itself, and then cross several roads, rivers and railways at different levels.
At Rastatt Nord the A5 passes under some roads, and them climbs over the Rheintalbahn.
That route is straight and easy just on the map.

Beside that, the difficult part with the tunnel was just the Rheintalbahn dive-under, and they already fvcked that up, so...


----------



## M-NL

ValterPravnik said:


> Stuttgart 21, Berlin-Brandenburg airport and the Hamburg Philharmonie have all one in common:
> 
> They are the biggest and most expensive project in Germany currently. How likely is it that only these biggest projects suffer of bad planing while all other smaller projects don't?




That's actually pretty simple to explain, because it happens al around the world and it's called politics: The project scope you actually want is initially deemed too expensive to receive funding. Next the project scope is reduced to absolutely bare bone to reduce the budget. This plan gets approved. Then, as the project progresses, a point of no return is reached and more and more it is realised that the removed elements weren't nice to have but actually necesary for a good result and get readded as additional work at a higher cost. In the mean time, because of long lead times, legislation may have changed as well, leading to even more cost overruns.

This results in the original scope being built at addtional cost. The bigger the project the higher the change of this happening.


----------



## The Polwoman

flierfy said:


> You seemed to fall victim to the notion that everything goes wrong in this country. As a matter of fact though, most projects go smoothly and they also get finished on time.
> The station rebuilding in Halle, the upgrade of the Eisenach to Erfurt line as well as the complete rebuilding of the Berlin to Dresden line are finished right ahead of the timetable switch next weekend.
> The high-speed line Erfurt to Bamberg go also in service next week, just as promised.


Was that the promised date? They started building on it back in the days that we were dancing the Macarena, Diana was still alive and the Belgiums still had capital punishment. And we paid with Guilders, Francs, Marks...

That's really an excessive long time, even to Dutch standards, even with the construction halt in between for 4 years.


----------



## Suburbanist

touya said:


> Wondering if there ever will be a Milan - Berlin and/or a Venice - Berlin and/or a Rome - Berlin night train. Maybe over the HSL line once appropriate rolling stock is available.
> 
> The current Milan/Venice to Munich trains are nice but too limited in scope and range, while Berlin is one of the most popular destination for young Italian expatriates, which is a market segment that may consider traveling overnight to increase the available time to spend back home at their families'.


Overnight travel is very expensive in decent trains with individual cabins. There are many daily flights between TXL/SFX to LIN/MXP and FCO/CIA.

There is a daily high speed service Frankfurt Hbf - Milano C.le already...


----------



## touya

I think there are also frequent Venice-Munich flights but this does not seem to prevent DB from offering trains over the Brenner railway. 

Daily trains can also count on patronage between all the stations where they stop, while for night trains it's always argued that this positive effect is lower, however in this particular case night trains could at least count on patronage from Florence, Bologna, Brescia, Verona, Vicenza, Padova, Trento and Bolzano in Italy (depending on the route), and probably Leipzig in Germany, all while still easily provide for 6 uninterrupted hours of full sleep.

Why do you say individual cabins? I was really considering decent trains with bunks or berths really. That is, a bare bones, cheap travel service for young people (university students participating in the Erasmus program, young professionals or young people in their first jobs that happen to be across the continent), without breakfast served (who cares, if your trains arrive at 8:00 in a station with restaurants) or other frills. 

Anyway, I think arguments solely based on ticket prices are somewhat short-sighted because we will see higher prices for low cost airlines some years from now in any case: low cost airlines can offer today's prices for tickets because they enjoy huge tax breaks from the EU, but there has already been calls to start paying for CO2 emissions, and to start phasing out some VAT breaks too. This may help revive night trains in Europe in the next years.


----------



## Wilhem275

HS trains are expensive to buy and mantain. A single trainset is used on several trips per day and possibly into late hours (DB has some night ICE services).
A night HS train could be used on just a single trip per day, would cost more per passenger (much more space needed) and could not be used for any service during daytime.


----------



## Suburbanist

touya said:


> I think there are also frequent Venice-Munich flights but this does not seem to prevent DB from offering trains over the Brenner railway.
> 
> Daily trains can also count on patronage between all the stations where they stop, while for night trains it's always argued that this positive effect is lower, however in this particular case night trains could at least count on patronage from Florence, Bologna, Brescia, Verona, Vicenza, Padova, Trento and Bolzano in Italy (depending on the route), and probably Leipzig in Germany, all while still easily provide for 6 uninterrupted hours of full sleep.
> 
> Why do you say individual cabins? I was really considering decent trains with bunks or berths really. That is, a bare bones, cheap travel service for young people (university students participating in the Erasmus program, young professionals or young people in their first jobs that happen to be across the continent), without breakfast served (who cares, if your trains arrive at 8:00 in a station with restaurants) or other frills.
> 
> Anyway, I think arguments solely based on ticket prices are somewhat short-sighted because we will see higher prices for low cost airlines some years from now in any case: low cost airlines can offer today's prices for tickets because they enjoy huge tax breaks from the EU, but there has already been calls to start paying for CO2 emissions, and to start phasing out some VAT breaks too. This may help revive night trains in Europe in the next years.


For that, Ryanair and Easyjet are the answer, and they take just 1h40 between both capitals...


----------



## Jonesy55

touya said:


> Anyway, I think arguments solely based on ticket prices are somewhat short-sighted because we will see higher prices for low cost airlines some years from now in any case: low cost airlines can offer today's prices for tickets because they enjoy huge tax breaks from the EU, but there has already been calls to start paying for CO2 emissions, and to start phasing out some VAT breaks too. This may help revive night trains in Europe in the next years.


Does Germany have any sort of air ticket taxation? Here in the UK there is a specific tax 'Air Passenger Duty' levied to help compensate for some of those issues you mention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty

There is also zero VAT on train fares here so no advantage there for airlines.


----------



## touya

This is perhaps going a bit too OT, is there a suitable thread to discuss night trains in Europe?

@Jonesy55: I'm referring to what I read on this website: http://www.tamingaviation.eu/index.php?id=29&L=1 which admittedly may be a bit biased against air travel  In particular:



> As a result there is no VAT on any aspect of international air travel, not on airline tickets, nor on purchase of aircraft, nor on their servicing, nor on their fuel, nor on air traffic control, nor on baggage handling, nor on aircraft meals. Everything to do with air travel after passport control is zero rated.


(international means also flights *within* the EU)

Also, http://www.tamingaviation.eu/index.php?id=34&L=1 for Energy Tax exemptions.

EasyJet tells me that for Germany the per-passenger, per-flight tax is €7.47, which would be the 20% VAT of a ticket of €44.82.


----------



## doc7austin

The Erasmus generation of today (most oftem born in the 1990s) are flocking to cheap air travel. The first trip to London, Paris, Barcelona with their friends -> its done by plane - period. They dont know anything else.


----------



## Shenkey

Can't blame us when it costs literally 20€ by Ryanair/Wizzair.

Usually the cost from the airport to the city rivals the price, while trains are 10x as expensive.


----------



## Wilhem275

doc7austin said:


> The Erasmus generation of today (most oftem born in the 1990s) are flocking to cheap air travel. The first trip to London, Paris, Barcelona with their friends -> its done by plane - period. They dont know anything else.


Sad but so very true.


----------



## Richard_P

Hamburg Altona terminus is set to be closed and replaced with new through facility in Hamburg-Diebsteich location which will be renamed as Hamburg Altona. New station will feature 3 main line platforms with 6 tracks while S-Bahn will retain its island platform with two tracks. Its opening is set at 2023, further details and source of visualisation (click).


----------



## Wilhem275

The plan is good - today's Altona is horrendous and inefficient.

I just wonder what will happen to the S-Bahn network, since Altona is a node where both urban corridors meet while Diebsteich is on an outer branch.

The western parts of S1 and S11 have no way to connect to the new hub (they are to Hbf, though).


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Where can I view a copy of that map please? It looks very detailed and I'm keen to zoom in to some places.


----------



## Wilhem275

It's used on the German Wikipedia for the Hamburg S-Bahn page.

Here you can find all sizes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topografischer_Netzplan_S-Bahn_Hamburg.png


----------



## TedStriker

^^

Thanks. I thought I might be able to drill down into fine detail. It's a nice map all the same though.


----------



## Wilhem275

Yeah, I know the Hamburg node can be rather complicated to understand. Especially in Altona there's a through S service, one bouncing to another line and two terminating there but from two different lines :lol: 

Plus, the S surface line from Hbf and the ICE line from their depot both come into Altona with their tracks swapped around (running on the left), to add to the general mess.

No surprise they're getting rid of it :lol:


----------



## Kolerus

And what about new NIM express? Is the new Skoda`s DOSTO in use?


----------



## rheintram

No news on the Munich - Kufstein line. Disappointing.


----------



## kato2k8

Those 20,000 tons may sound like much, but that's only about 10% of what DB requires per year for ongoing construction - and that's with the current reduced construction going on, 15 years ago they used up to 300,000 tons per annum - and Voestalpine as the main culprit in the _rail cartel_ used to produce about that much in Duisburg alone.


----------



## rheintram

First pictures of the new "FlixTrain":
https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?031,8490669,page=1


----------



## da_scotty

rheintram said:


> First pictures of the new "FlixTrain":
> https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?031,8490669,page=1


In a British way "that's something else and very special"


----------



## Grotlaufen

*Four tracks through Bamberg*

The city council of Bamberg voted to expand the current railway through the city from two to four tracks (along the new HSR Erfurt-Nuremberg). A new S-bahn station will be built in southern Bamberg as well:

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/oberfranken/inhalt/bamberger-stadtrat-entscheidet-sich-fuer-ebenerdige-durchfahrung-100.html

Construction might begin by 2022 and take eight [sic!] years to finish. 


I'd love to know the reasons why it will take eight years to complete. No tunnels or anything grand like that. One huge reason I can think of is to ensure there are no track closures during the construction phase, but even then I wonder how that should add up to eight years of construction. 


(Also as a side note on the news article: How can this be considered to be the greatest civil engineering project in the history of the city ("Es ist das größte Infrastrukturprojekt in der über 1.000-jährigen Stadtgeschichte") if the current double-track railway hadn't been constructed and electrified in the first place? )


----------



## eu01

^^ Well, in the 19th century railway lines were built mostly through suburbs that usually became city centers by now. I guess that might be the case also in Bamberg. Much more will have to be changed / destroyed at present.


----------



## Grotlaufen

I understand if they don't wish to interrupt ongoing rail traffic which will extend construction time. But even so this is going to be a flat stretch with a flyover north of Bamberg station (which surley will take some time to construct, but does it really add up to eight years?).


Once planning has been approved and the money is there (which in Germany surley can take very long time) there can't be that many legal-technical obstacles in the way. With expropriation etc. approved it isn't years in this single aspect.


----------



## flierfy

Grotlaufen said:


> Once planning has been approved and the *money is there* (which in Germany surley can take very long time) there can't be that many legal-technical obstacles in the way. With expropriation etc. approved it isn't years in this single aspect.


The money could be there, but it isn't. The penny pinchers in Berlin have quite likely stretched funding for the project over an unnecessarily long period of time. And this is why it takes so long.


----------



## M-NL

*Aichach accident*

Signaller arrested after Aichach Accident (in German).
During the accident 2 people were killed and 14 injured. A passenger train ran into a waiting freight train. The only ways that could be possible is a train detection fault or misuse of the 'Ersatzsignal'. I'm pretty sure they suspect misuse because otherwise they wouldn't have arrested the signaller.

For those that do not know: 'Ersatzsignal' is a signal aspect that can be used when the regular signal can't be cleared because of a malfunction, an occupied track or unusual route. In recent history several accidents have happened because of misuse of this feature, notably the Bad Aibling accident in 2016, which resulted in 12 deaths.


----------



## Wilhem275

A retired signaller declared that Aichach station is not fitted with an interlocking system, meaning that all switches and signals are operated manually.

I don't know how true this can be. But, from several recent accidents, I'm getting the impression that the DB network can be extremely weak in some rural areas.


----------



## Kpc21

M-NL said:


> For those that do not know: 'Ersatzsignal' is a signal aspect that can be used when the regular signal can't be cleared because of a malfunction, an occupied track or unusual route. In recent history several accidents have happened because of misuse of this feature, notably the Bad Aibling accident in 2016, which resulted in 12 deaths.


In Poland we also have the replacement signal and there were also accidents because of using it.


----------



## Attus

Wilhem275 said:


> that the DB network can be extremely weak in some rural areas.


And the road network as well. And internet network as well. And...


----------



## Wilhem275

I just discovered a friend of mine was supposed to be on that train, for his usual commute. On Monday he was sick and went home earlier than usual.

He feels quite lucky...


----------



## Kpc21

Germans are practical and they don't tend to decommission old systems just because they are old, if they still work well and are sufficient.


----------



## Richard_P

Kpc21 said:


> Germans are practical and they don't tend to decommission old systems just because they are old, if they still work well and are sufficient.


 Well recent accidents indicate that those systems are no longer sufficient from safety point of view simply because present staff lacks old timers strict discipline to safely operate it! The short term solution are changes to corporate rules especially regarding use of 'Ersatzsignal' which must be more safeguarded. Yet in the long term introduction of modern control system with more safety features is the only option.


----------



## Wilhem275

It's not a matter of how old the system is, but the crash itself demonstrates that the system is no more sufficient.


----------



## M-NL

I bet there already are very stringent rules regarding 'Ersatzsignal', but because usage defeats all system based safety, even when followed to the letter, there still is a considerable residual risk.

I also do not think it is lack of discipline but a result of increasing work load. The number of trains has grown steadily over the years. An experienced signaller might handle that better.

If not for the 'small' problem of funding all countries subject to the EUAfR (formerly ERA) would have loved to completely switch to ERTMS, electronic interlocking and unified rules yesterday. The reality is different.


----------



## Richard_P

M-NL said:


> I also do not think it is lack of discipline but a result of increasing work load.


 Wasn't recent head on collision with Flirts caused by dispatcher playing on his phone or something like that? 'Ersatzsignal' requires 'hab acht' approach and full concentration because once You override it there is completely nothing to stop potential accident. And unfortunately times have changed and so military discipline approach simply vanished from railways thus there is urgent need to increase safety redundancy when 'Ersatzsignal' is applied. After all this was the cause of almost all recent tragic accidents on German rail network!


----------



## kato2k8

Wilhem275 said:


> A retired signaller declared that Aichach station is not fitted with an interlocking system, meaning that all switches and signals are operated manually.
> I don't know how true this can be.


Aichach has a second-generation electromechanic Type E43 interlocking installed in 1949. Pretty standard for that kind of route.

DB as of 2016 operated about:

752 first-generation (mechanical - 1880s to 1920s),
321 second-generation (electromechanical - 1920s to 1950s),
1298 third-generation (electric - 1950s to 1980s),
361 fourth-generation (electronic - 1980s to current) and
1 prototype fifth-generation (digital - current)
signal control stations.

Bad Aibling for comparison has a third-generation electric Sp Dr S60 interlocking installed in 1977.
In case someone wonders about the 1880s above, there are probably around a dozen signal boxes in active service built before 1900.

Based on typical ESTW costs replacing the above first-, second- and third-generation systems would probably run in a region of minimum 25 billion Euro investment.



M-NL said:


> The only ways that could be possible is a train detection fault or misuse of the 'Ersatzsignal'. I'm pretty sure they suspect misuse because otherwise they wouldn't have arrested the signaller.


There's been suggestions he may have forgotten to manually lock out the track for the oncoming train since he did not have any indicator for whether the track is occupied (and didn't look out the window to check...). Nothing to do with an Ersatzsignal.


----------



## M-NL

kato2k8 said:


> There's been suggestions he may have forgotten to manually lock out the track for the oncoming train since he did not have any indicator for whether the track is occupied (and didn't look out the window to check...). Nothing to do with an Ersatzsignal.


The thought of mainline tracks without an automatic occupancy detection is just baffling to me. 
In fact I assumed the objects inside the track a short distance past the PZB magnet as seen in this photo were axle counters. Because the train was led to occupied track, whose detection I assumed to be part of the interlocking, that would require Ersatzsignal to achieve, because regular interlocking will not allow you to do that. Guess not.


----------



## pccvspw999

Wilhem275 said:


> It's not a matter of how old the system is, but the crash itself demonstrates that the system is no more sufficient.


Sorry, but the crash demonstrates only that someone made a mistake, which can occur with every other system, as far as 100% safety is not possible.
A system is obsolete only if the rate of accidents is over the "level of acceptance", however we will measure it. Is it?


----------



## M-NL

I would call any kind of system of which a variant exists that can severely reduce the likelihood or impact of human error obsolete.
The generally accepted "level of acceptance" has dropped massively over time.
And although 100% safety is not possible, it is unacceptable in my book that a country like Germany, despite having enough resources available to replace it, still keeps a system known to have caveats. They could and should have done more to prevent these accidents. And Germany is not the only country this logic applies to.


----------



## pccvspw999

M-NL said:


> I would call any kind of system of which a variant exists that can severely reduce the likelihood or impact of human error obsolete.


 I agree, but is it the case? On which figures can we assume if this occurs?


> The generally accepted "level of acceptance" has dropped massively over time.


Again, I agree. But it must be reduced to rational analysis, and it’s not that sure that the system in use would undergo actual “level of acceptance”?


> And although 100% safety is not possible, it is unacceptable in my book that a country like Germany, despite having enough resources available to replace it, still keeps a system known to have caveats. They could and should have done more to prevent these accidents. And Germany is not the only country this logic applies to.


I can convene, not as a result of a songle accident or two. And considering that economic resources are a finite amount, priorities have to be given.

The system works, it’s economic, and gives an reasonable amount of safety. The age does matter, it matters on in maintenance costs.
Every system has flaws, every system needs in some cases uman intervention. And every system, even the oldest in use, have a flawles logic constraint, machanical or electronic doesn’t matter. The error occurs always when the logic needs to be overcome by uman intervention.
Modern systems aren’t “more secure”, they are only faster, cheaper, easier to maintain.

That’s why most accidents occur do to train drivers mistakes, and very seldom do to mistakes done by track operators.


----------



## Kpc21

M-NL said:


> I would call any kind of system of which a variant exists that can severely reduce the likelihood or impact of human error obsolete.


Many level crossings probably in all European countries (I asked about it once in this forum) are still manually operated, which increases the probability of a dangerous human error. And such errors, and accidents resulting from them, occur. But regardless of that, most of those crossings remain manually operated and, I don't know about other countries, but in Poland we have rule that a level crossing with more than 2 tracks must be manned.

On the other hand, when there is no man on site, there are other dangers:
- when a car gets stopped on the crossing, on a manned crossing the guard will simply react in such a way that the train will be stopped, when the crossing is unmanned it's more likely that it will end up with an accident (we recently had such a case in Poland),
- there were cases when the automatics did not work correctly and did not detect a train.


----------



## TM_Germany

What you're saying makes sense to a degree but I don't think I agree. Why would trucks chokeful of electronics be economical but not railcars with just one chip or so per car?


----------



## Wilhem275

My answer usually is... because if road traffic had to follow the same strict regulations as in railways, there would be 10% of trucks left on the road :nuts:


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there any projects for major freight-only cross-Germany links? Freight-only railways benefit from being able to skirt all major urban areas. They need lower grades but can deal with tighter curves due to relatively lower speeds up to 160/180 max (like the Betuwelijn in the Netherlands).


----------



## TedStriker

Suburbanist said:


> Are there any projects for major freight-only cross-Germany links?


There's the Hamburg/Bremen-Hannover project, which is been planned for years and once did imply the construction of a number of stretches of new freight-only railway route, although now the idea is to enhance existing routes. Please see: https://www.hamburg-bremen-hannover.de/home.html

Then in Nuremberg, there are plans for a new freight-only rail tunnel. Please see: https://www.railjournal.com/freight/db-revives-plans-rail-freight-tunnel-furth/


----------



## Momo1435

One of the big differences between German and Dutch railways is that in Germany there are already a larger number of secondary lines without long distance passenger traffic. These line do not necessarily avoid urban centers, especially when it comes to smaller cities, but they have enough capacity for the freight trains to run without to much interference from faster passenger trains. The railway line on the right / east side of the Rhine is an obvious example of this. The IC trains between Köln and Mainz - Frankfurt/Basel ran on the left / west side of the Rhine, the freight trains on the other side. The Köln - Frankfurt high speed line made it even more easier for freight trains to run on either side of the Rhine. 

There are also a lot of cities that have an obvious freight rail bypass, Mönchengladbach, Münster, Hannover, Mainz, Freiburg to name a couple. You don't really have this kind of by passes in the Netherlands. These bypasses make it very easy to bypass the urban centers of these cities. 

This means that building new long dedicated freight lines is not needed in Germany. The money can spend much better on local solutions for places where too many freight trains run directly through a city or where there are capacity issues. Just like the examples in TedStriker's post.


----------



## TM_Germany

Also, many of the first generation HSLs were built with low gradients to allow freight traffic at night (e.g. Hannover- Würzburg). I somwehat have to disagree with Momo, though. The existing railways don't nearly offer enough capacity if we want to shift freight traffic from the road onto the rails. We need to build a nationwide HSL network to increase capacitiy in existing lines but we also need new and significantly upgraded lines for freight traffic. Ideally they'd support trains of 1500m. This is really necessary, the amount of trucks on the highways here is completely insane. The railway lines aren't capable of handling all the new east-west transit traffic and they're not fast and flexible enough to handle medium-haul traffic.

Momo mentioned the Rhine valley lines which are notorious bottlenecks for freight traffic. Both lines run on well over 100% capacity, so surprisingly a new bypass freight line made it into the new federal traffic demand plan. However, the chances of that being realized in the next 25 years is 0.

Also, there is the before mentioned rail line between Hannover and Hamburg which is hopelessly overloaded and plans to shift the disruptive long distance traffic to a new 300km/h HSL have been murdered by "citizens initiatives" and the greens. Now they plan to build a compromise solution that relies on some serious vodoo maths to work out and will only somewhat alleviate the problem. This is catastrophic, as trains are very good at handling the "hinterland" traffic of the harbours but if there is no capacity going to and from the harbour, they can't capitalize on their advantage.

I agree that there should be more village/town bypasses. Even some major cities like Hamburg don't have them and freight trains have to go straight through the congested central station. Also, the noise of freight trains passing through villages and towns often produces the largest local opposition against them.


----------



## Wilhem275

Germany is probably the country where the concept of "freight bypass/ring" was more extensively developed, and in general the freight dedicated parts of the network are more extended.

Usually it would be enough to have dedicated lines only in metropolitan areas, to support the extra traffic density, and fast and freight traffic could coexist in the countryside.
Problem is, on major axis traffic is so dense that the whole network should be doubled...


Btw, I would say Hamburg's bypass is the Maschen - Rothenburgsort - Eidelstedt line, even though it was not designed to be so and has capacity limits.


----------



## dkzg

OeBB Nightjet 456 form Budapest/Vienna to Berlin in Zielona Góra (Poland) 10.12.2018:


----------



## tunnel owl

TM_Germany said:


> Momo mentioned the Rhine valley lines which are notorious bottlenecks for freight traffic. Both lines run on well over 100% capacity, so surprisingly a new bypass freight line made it into the new federal traffic demand plan. However, the chances of that being realized in the next 25 years is 0.



It was said that this freight-line is to be build with a huge demand of tunnels and so they put it into the demand-plan in order to start planning process with a financial base. At least until 2030 we will see probably hear nothing about this. One main reason is the massive noise-pollution of the existing Rhine-based freight-corridor.


----------



## tunnel owl

Wilhem275 said:


> Usually it would be enough to have dedicated lines only in metropolitan areas, to support the extra traffic density, and fast and freight traffic could coexist in the countryside.
> Problem is, on major axis traffic is so dense that the whole network should be doubled...



This reminds me of the strategy Netz21 with the intention to harmonize speed in the network. Even with todays signal standards a main-line is limited to 4-5 max. trains/h in one direction if slow/fast passenger traffic and freight-trains have to share tracks. And this with negative aspects for all the three modes.


Coming back to the ill-fated HSR conncetion cancelled between Hamburg and Hanover, they investigated a freight-only line instead of high-speed. And it turned out, that both would take the same costs. So as a matter of reason they choose the HSR option because passengers beneffit more from high-speed than freight-service. Unfortunately everything went wrong and if I take a look at the considered rail-projects between Hamburg and Hanover in the demand plan it simply does not make sense at all. Everywhere are corridors left with still mixed traffic. Sometimes a third track is added, wow, nothuing suitable to serve a port like Hamburg sufficient.


----------



## MarcVD

tunnel owl said:


> Coming back to the ill-fated HSR conncetion cancelled between Hamburg and Hanover, they investigated a freight-only line instead of high-speed. And it turned out, that both would take the same costs. So as a matter of reason they choose the HSR option because passengers beneffit more from high-speed than freight-service.


Well know fact. Remember that in France, the first high speed line was considered as an alternative to quadrupling the entre Paris Lyon classical line. The HSL turned out cheaper and way more beneficial...


----------



## foxmulder

One of the Velaro D's in turkey lost in an accident:


----------



## Josp64

What connects the accident in Turkey with german railways?

If a Flirt train in Hungary would derail, you write this in railways of Switzerland??


----------



## Richard_P

Well it might have been prototype never taken over by DB and sold to Turkey  But of course it's not particularly fortunate thread to discuss TCDD matters here :cheers2:


----------



## Richard_P

Stuttgart 21 progresses forward. Bahnprojekt Stuttgart–Ulm informed that first glass shaped structure supporting roof of future underground platform hall was finished.





And supplementary progress on other components of future station layout requiring heavy tunnelling in state of end November can be seen below.


----------



## LtBk

What are current rail projects in Germany aside from Stuttgart 21?


----------



## TM_Germany

Well, I suppose there is sadly not all that much going on right now... I only know of smaller projects being u/c right now. There is quite a lot in planning etc. You can take a look at this interactive map. Projects that are u/c, almost u/c or recently finished are in purple. Red are projects that supposedly have "secured funding" until 2030 and should _theoretically_ all get u/c by then at the latest. Projects that are supposed to be realized after 2030 are in orange. Some notable ones are the corridor from Frankfurt to Switzerland, from Frankfurt to Nuremberg and continuing along the Donube, from Hamburg to the island of Fehmarn and through the new tunnel u/c to Denmark, some upgrades between Ulm and Augsburg to complete the Stuttgart-Munich corridor, a better connection from Munich to the Austrian border and the u/c Brenner base tunnel and extension of rail lines in the Rhine-Ruhr agglomoration to allow a new express-service to function. That map is very rough and doesn't go into specifics. It also doesn't show every project, I believe. For example, in and around Frankfurt there are these projects:



Schmittchen said:


> Der Bundesverkehrsminister hat heute zusätzliche Schienenprojekte vorgestellt, die in den kommenden Jahren vordringlich geplant und umgesetzt werden sollen. Es handelt sich um Projekte, die im Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030 bislang in die Kategorie "Potenzieller Bedarf" eingestuft waren. Insgesamt 44 dieser Projekte wurden in den vergangenen Monaten gutachterlich unter die Lupe genommen und auf ihre Wirtschaftlichkeit untersucht, heißt es in einer Pressemitteilung. Ergebnis der Bewertungen demnach: 29 Schienenprojekte steigen in den "Vordringlichen Bedarf" (die höchste Dringlichkeitsstufe) des Bundesverkehrswegeplans auf. Die Projekte erhalten damit eine ganz konkrete Umsetzungsperspektive und können nun geplant werden.
> 
> Zu diesen hochgestuften Vorhaben gehört auch der "Knoten Frankfurt". Dieser umfasst unter anderem die dritte Mainbrücke in Niederrad sowie die komplette Nordmainische S-Bahn. Die Gesamtkosten sollen sich auf gut 5,5 Milliarden Euro belaufen, davon knapp 1,3 Milliarden Euro für die S-Bahn-Strecke nördlich des Mains. Das sind die einzelnen Projekte:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plan/Text: Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur


crosspost from another forum, original source is the German Ministry for Traffic and Digital Infrastructure

In the map, it just shows that there is "something" planned for Frankfurt. Some larger station projects also include the complete reconstruction of the Munich central station. 

Maybe someone else knows a bit more than me, especially about current projects but I hope this is at least a little helpful


----------



## Baron Hirsch

I think you got most of them pegged down pretty well. Only two other major intercity rail projects u/c come to my mind, neither one being high-speed.
- upgrading of Berlin-Dresden to 200 kmh, incl. reopening of direct link through Berlin 
- upgrading of Munich-Swiss border east of Lake Constance (Bodensee)
After the experience with Stuttgart 21, DB is mostly taking it rather slowly in negotiating construction upgrades with interested parties. Unfortunately, this means that Frankfurt-Mannheim HSR, and the Karlsruhe-Basel upgrades have been moving at a snail's pace through planning, even though they had been scheduled to take off at the beginning of the millennium already.


----------



## Rohne

BVWP doesn't mean secured funding at all. It just specifies which projects on federal traffic routes may be planned ('Vordringlicher Bedarf' and 'Weiterer Bedarf mit Planungsrecht') and which are considered as valuable but generally planning may not start before they moved into higher category ('Weiterer Bedarf', but in the past even some WB-projects had been started earlier). Generally only projects of 'Vordringlicher Bedarf' have high chances of getting at least to u/c before 2030. So it's rather about the permissions to plan, funding is a totally different story. And it's not going into detail, the federal ministry is just defining the corridors and the improvements (create new links, remove bottlenecks here and there, decrease travel times by x minutes) it is expecting from each of these projects.
Rail nodes are just shown as circles in that PRINS map you linked, final scope of respective subprojects as well as upgrades of some projects from 'Potentieller Bedarf' to 'Vordringlicher Bedarf' had been defined until early November, and what you crosslinked is content of the respective presentation (see BMVI press release, the presentation is linked there as well). These contents still need to be added to the project sites of PRINS.


----------



## TM_Germany

In the BVWP 2030, *only* projects with available funding could get into VB. I agree with the rest of what you said.


----------



## AlexNL

The United Kingdom has such a system in place, the ORR's NPA test.

The UK has a completely privatised rail system, and many operators actually pay the Government a premium for the privilege of running trains in a certain area. Not all operators run a profit, but the long distance operators such as Virgin Trains and LNER do make premium payments.

The Office of Road and Rail (ORR, the UK rail regulator) vets each open access operator's application for profitability. Using complex mathematics, they try to assess whether a proposed OAO would add value to the railway on routes not served by existing franchises/operators. This is the so-called 'Not Primarily Abstractive' test.

The ORR tries to model the revenue which an OA operator would generate, and offsets that against the income of the existing operator along a route. They check if the OA generates new revenue streams on its own, or if it would abstract passengers away from the existing operator (and thus hurting the premium payments it can make to the government).

If the test points out that it would mostly just abstract passengers, the OA application is rejected. If the ORR finds that it would generate new revenue without hurting the existing operator too much, the application is more likely to get approved.


----------



## davide84

Italy has a similar system: new open access private services must not damage publicly subsidized services. A public office does the assessment.

The system is not perfect though: the (state owned) monopolist has a strong power to appeal and make claims of damages (even DB lost a battle for ONE Eurocity train); at the same time no assessment is due for potential damages to the regionally financed fast services coming from the long-haul market service of the monopolist (in some areas they overlap, e.g. on the Milan - Venice line).


----------



## hybridace101

Is there a way to find out which variant of the ICE train operates from Frankfurt Sud to Berlin? I noticed that the speeds of it are slower than some of those operating via Frankfurt HBF, sometimes up to a half hour.


----------



## TER200

hybridace101 said:


> Is there a way to find out which variant of the ICE train operates from Frankfurt Sud to Berlin? I noticed that the speeds of it are slower than some of those operating via Frankfurt HBF, sometimes up to a half hour.


On bahn.de when you open de trian details of an ICE (like this) you can have the "coach sequence" of the given train. If you know the coach arrangement on different ICE series (I don't have time to retrieve it now) you can figure it out.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

hybridace101 said:


> Is there a way to find out which variant of the ICE train operates from Frankfurt Sud to Berlin? I noticed that the speeds of it are slower than some of those operating via Frankfurt HBF, sometimes up to a half hour.


Only a very short section of the overall route allows for 300 kmh, so more likely the route and the stops matter. Some trains run as Sprinter, i.e. only stop at major hubs, did you figure that into your comparison? I have not taken a train from Frankfurt Süd, but even the Sprinters I have taken where ICE-T, only capable of 230 kmh. And then there are the ICE running via the old, more roundabout line, i.e. via Göttingen. These used to be ICE 1 (capable of 280 kmh), but could be more varied nowadays.


----------



## btrs

hybridace101 said:


> Is there a way to find out which variant of the ICE train operates from Frankfurt Sud to Berlin? I noticed that the speeds of it are slower than some of those operating via Frankfurt HBF, sometimes up to a half hour.


If you know a specific train number you can try to search grahnert.de:
http://grahnert.de/fernbahn/datenbank/suche/


----------



## Nexis




----------



## NCT

I have been doing a bit of mindless map reading on German HSR. I notice there are quite a few journeys with more than one routing possibilities, e.g.

- Berlin - Frankfurt can be done either via Erfurt or via Kassel;
- Frankfurt - Munich can be done via either Stuttgart or Nuremburg;
- Hamburg - Cologne can either be done via Hanover or via Bremen (via Hanover requires a change but also offers a competitive journey times)

In all cases one route tends to be faster than the other but the difference isn't huge.

In pretty much all cases both routes are a mixture of high speed (new or upgraded) and conventional lines, and either route has the potential to be upgraded to fully high-speed. In Germany's High Speed plans, in any of the examples above, are upgrade / new line plans concentrated on one corridor or will those journeys continue to have such routing choices with similar journey times?


----------



## TM_Germany

It looks like the upgrades on the Frankfurt - Berlin route aim for faster service over Erfurt compared to over Kassel, even though the latter route will also get a little faster.

Frankfurt - Munich will be faster over Stuttgart in the future. The route over Nuremberg will only get upgraded for volume of trains but not in terms of speed. 
Meanwhile there will be plenty of travel time improvement on the Stuttgart leg with Stuttgart 21, the new HSL Stuttgart - Ulm as well as a new HSL from Frankfurt to Mannheim in the future. The remaining conventional section between Ulm and Munich is also supposed to get some upgrades.

Now, with Cologne - Hamburg it's a little hard to tell. There is a small upgrade planned that would benefit the trip via Bremen, but nothing too big. 
Originally there was supposed to be a 300km/h HSL between Hannover and Hamburg which would surely have made that trip shorter. Now the upgrade plans are an unsightly mess thanks to r*tarded NIMBYS, so how much travel time improvement it will bring is unclear to me. Honestly I wouldn't be too surprised if the plans will get changed again because they just don't hold up to scruteny.


----------



## Rohne

TM_Germany said:


> It looks like the upgrades on the Frankfurt - Berlin route aim for faster service over Erfurt compared to over Kassel, even though the latter route will also get a little faster.


Frankfurt-Fulda benefits both. Once finished, the whole route via Kassel will be high speed then, except for Hildesheim-Wolfsburg. This route will be slower as it's just longer than the route via Erfurt (where only Fulda-Eisenach is not high speed, but planning started already for new HSL there).



> Frankfurt - Munich will be faster over Stuttgart in the future. The route over Nuremberg will only get upgraded for volume of trains but not in terms of speed.
> Meanwhile there will be plenty of travel time improvement on the Stuttgart leg with Stuttgart 21, the new HSL Stuttgart - Ulm as well as a new HSL from Frankfurt to Mannheim in the future. The remaining conventional section between Ulm and Munich is also supposed to get some upgrades.


You forgot the Deutschlandtakt, which is still in evaluation, but very likely to be the template for all future improvements. This project includes 300kph HSL Würzburg-Nürnberg, and improvements to reduce travel times Frankfurt-Würzburg to under an hour (which means 200-230kph for nearly the whole section). Once finished Frankfurt-München will be possible in 2,5 hours via Nürnberg vs about 2:40 via Stuttgart. But in the very long term things could change again, when they start accelerating Mannheim-Stuttgart to under half an hour. If they also constructed bypasses of Mannheim, Ulm and Augsburg, 2hours with just one stop in Stuttgart could be possible.


----------



## Wilhem275

A good solution would be to build a straight Frankfurt - Erfurt HSL, with just a junction to Fulda station where it connects to the existing HSL.
After all, while there is fast Frankfurt > Kassel traffic, there is no need for a Würzburg > Erfurt new connection, since fast traffic from the south will go via Bamberg anyway. And Fulda itself is not really worth a stop along a 300 km/h corridor.


----------



## TM_Germany

I have never heard of plans for a 300 km/h line between Würzburg and Nürnberg, do you have any info on that? I was generally pretty sure we wouldn't see anything more than 230/250 km/h in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Wilhem275

If you're asking me, that map is just a work of fantasy. It's just my idea of what the German HS network is missing (on main routes only), I made it to show why a through corridor in Frankfurt would be so good.

Although one missing connection that always surprises me is that there's nothing even decent between the Ruhr and Kassel (and so München).
Köln has a good access to the South, but then it's a long ride to Essen and Dortmund...

They're not really distant, but the old line via Paderborn is so slow.


----------



## TM_Germany

I meant to ask Rohne, since he mentioned a 300 kph line as part of "Deutschlandtakt" between Würzburg and Nuremberg.

I know that your map is just fantasy for now, but whenever I look at a map of railways in Germany, those missing links are extremely obvious. 
I also think that the Ruhr metro in general lacks a good connection to the east. If there was a fast line to Kassel and if the gap between the Kassel - Würzburg HSL and Erfurt would be closed, the Ruhr metro would both have a much better connection to Bavaria and also finally have a decent connection to the biggest eastern German metros like Leipzig.


----------



## Rohne

Just have a look at the BMVI web sites. Especially this one:
https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/E/zukunftsbuendnis-schiene.html

You can find several pdf documents, including grid plans, and a " Bericht über den zweiten Gutachterentwurf". See especially pages 14+17 of the latter. These are clearly announcing 300kph HSLs for Würzburg-Nürnberg (for travel times of 30 minutes) and Hamm-Hannover-Berlin (for about 3,5 hours Berlin-Köln/Düsseldorf).


----------



## TM_Germany

Okay, thanks. I'm quite sceptical about the chances they will actually build it but at least it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Midnight Sun

Deutsche Bahn Cargo buying 160 Type Sggrs80 wagons from Russia's OVK with an option for 350 more wagons

https://www.uniwagon.com/en/multimedia/media_about_us/first-ovk-platform-wagons-db-cargo/
https://www.uniwagon.com/en/multimedia/media_about_us/russian-wagons-db-test/


----------



## xalexey

^^
Russland verkauft Plattformen für den Transport von NATO-Panzern. Ironie des Schicksals 
Morgen werden auf diesen Plattformen NATO-Panzer nach Osten bis an die Grenzen Russlands fahren


----------



## da_scotty

The dutch railways are thinking about routing the IC-Amsterdam-Berlin via the Ruhr area to speed up the service. Trains will take slightly less then 5hr that way. I suppose that the Talgo gains are already counted in that.


----------



## Suburbanist

da_scotty said:


> The dutch railways are thinking about routing the IC-Amsterdam-Berlin via the Ruhr area to speed up the service. Trains will take slightly less then 5hr that way. I suppose that the Talgo gains are already counted in that.


Could they extend ICEs Berlin-Duisburg to the Netherlands?

------------------------

Speaking of German links to NL, any news on the replacement of the destroyed bridge near Leer?


----------



## da_scotty

^^
Latest news is 2024. Building to start in 2020. But seeing how German infra has a habit of spiraling out of control in both time and money I wouldn't hold my breath.
-------------
I don't think they will extend those ICE's as you need tri-voltage ICE's (1500V, 15kV, 25kV) to reach the Netherlands via Arnhem.


----------



## mistertl

da_scotty said:


> The dutch railways are thinking about routing the IC-Amsterdam-Berlin via the Ruhr area to speed up the service. Trains will take slightly less then 5hr that way. I suppose that the Talgo gains are already counted in that.


Afaik the Talgo's don't have the required 25kV support, so routing the Talgo trains via that route will be difficult. However, the ICNG-DE trains will have that option...


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Suburbanist said:


> Could they extend ICEs Berlin-Duisburg to the Netherlands?


Would not work. On the one hand, as already pointed out, this would need multi-voltage systems, which are few in DB's fleet and mostly being used for Frankfurt-Brussels. On the other hand, ICEs Berlin-Duisburg actually run Berlin-Düsseldorf, and a zigzag Berlin-Amsterdam ICE would hardly justify not providing hourly ICEs between Düsseldorf, Essen and the capital. 
There is nothing to be gained by detouring IC(E)s Berlin-Amsterdam via the Ruhr. This is a very busy, but not really high-speed line, doing 200 in some stretches and as little as 70 kmh in others. A train over the direct line Berlin-Osnabrück-Amsterdam would be fine if it did not stop every 10 minutes on the Dutch side. NS will have to unclutter traffic on this line, so a faster train stopping less can fit into the schedule.


----------



## flierfy

mistertl said:


> Afaik the Talgo's don't have the required 25kV support, so routing the Talgo trains via that route will be difficult.


How could they, they are powerless coaches which will get push and pulled by a locomotive. It is the latter which needs the capability to transform the provided electric power into traction.


----------



## wbrm

^^ The Talgo coaches DB ordered include Talgo locomotives.


----------



## da_scotty

The Talgo train will include 25kV equipment according to the news blurs.


----------



## flierfy

wbrm said:


> The Talgo coaches DB ordered include Talgo locomotives.


Sure. But a locomotive can be replaced if necessary. It was the main point to purchase loco-driven push-and-pull-trains to get the ability to adjust the trains to different track equipment.


----------



## eu01

Just traveling aboard the ICE 703 to Munich. My window is covered by the layer of dirt. This is happening on a beautiful sunny day, also yesterday there was no rain here. I find it very disappointing.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Yes, I often wondered how DB could opt for all-white livery and then bother to clean windows and outsides so rarely. Hope your toilet flushes, that reserved seats are indicated, and that on board ETCS will work and you will not habe to be sent to the old line, arriving 2 hours later. All these and many other little annoyances are daily routine for train passengers in Germany. The Munich-Berlin line, being new and using under 20 years old rolling stock, is less prone to these problems though than the older HSR lines and trains.


----------



## hkskyline

* Germany OKs cheaper train tickets in plan to lower emissions *
_Excerpt_ 
Dec 20, 2019

BERLIN (AP) — Germany's upper house of parliament has approved a plan to make rail travel cheaper as part of a package of measures to combat climate change.

The decision Friday by the chamber representing Germany's 16 states will reduce value-added tax on train tickets, making them about 10% cheaper starting Jan. 1.

The German government hopes that cutting rail prices will encourage more people to use trains, thereby helping reduce emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Rail travel in Germany, where much of the track is electrified, produces significantly less carbon dioxide per passenger kilometer (mile) than conventional road transport.

More : https://apnews.com/10d75f073858cf6e891f6c3af801bc2d


----------



## Woonsocket54

Earlier this month a new railway stop was opened at the Audi factory in Ingolstadt.



















https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en...-work-new-ingolstadt-audi-train-station-12412


----------



## EMArg

*Hannover Hauptbahnhof*





The Hannover Hauptbahnhof is on of the most important stations of Lower Saxony, Germany. The railway junction is one of the 21 stations listed as a railway Category 1 station by DB Station&Service. It is also the most important public transport hub of the region of Hanover and it is served regional and S-Bahn services. The station has six platforms with twelve platform tracks, and two through tracks without platforms. Every day it is used by 250,000 passengers and 622 trains stop at the platforms (as of October 2012).


----------



## EMArg

^^


Video:


----------



## EMArg

*Munich:* Arriving in the city, from the train


----------



## da_scotty

I'm booking a trip from Venlo to Darmstadt (Dutch section will be on my own pass, cheaper). 

However I have a supersparpreise 1e klasse (cheaper then 2nd class) with a very tight interchange. The route will be Venlo (Eurobahn) -Dusseldorf (ICE sprinter) - Köln (ICE)-Mainz (RB) - Darmstadt. This was cheaper then the route via the NBS Köln-Frankfurt.

4 minutes in Köln seams really tight with the DB punctuality. However with the supersparpreise I'm obliged to one train. I believe that I'm allowed to take the next train as said in the DB-App. 

Could I be very lucky in that case as the next train is probably the faster connection via the NBS with a change in Frankfurt?

Can anyone explain how this would work out, or if I should go to the reise-zentrum instead? Or just board the next option on the DB app. Even though i lose my seat reservation.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Kpc21

Is the interchange on the same ticket or on two separate ones?


----------



## da_scotty

All are on one ticket. 
For the return I'm allowed to take a earlier train towards Mainz, which I think is the smart/save thing to do. But the Köln ICE to ICE change is crossplatform, but still 4min is tight as delays are very common I hear and see in the punctuality statistics. So hence my question stated above.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

You are definitely entitled to another ride, and it should be the next connection that gets you to Darmstadt, irrelevant of the route. If your first train is late, you can demand of your train attendant that he calls for the connecting train to be stalled, which is however up to traffic control at Köln Hbf. If the connection is not upheld, either get a notification written on your ticket by the train attendant or upon arrival not at the Reisezentrum, but at the information desk at the entrance, then hop onto the next connection. If getting such a confirmation upon arrival seems to take too long, take chances and hop on the other train. This is not quite according to procedure, but with today's electronics, the train attendant should be able to confirm that your first train was delayed. Köln Hbf is a hotspot of delays, but usually this affects outgoing trains more seriously than incoming ones.


----------



## da_scotty

Well that will be fun, as the ICE i'm in goes on to frankfurt, so if I miss the connection I can just stay seated and ask the train conducter. 

It's fun tripping anyway as 2e klasse was €50 more expensive then a 1e klasse ticket.


----------



## Suburbanist

I wonder what type of revenue-share agreement DB has with Swiss train operators.

Some travel blogs recommend buying tickets for Swiss routes on DB website with a departure in Germany, then discarding the German sector. For leisure rides like Zürich - Tirano (IT) via the Bernina line... It is much cheaper with Sparepreis 29 or 39 on RhB network trains.


----------



## Attus

da_scotty said:


> 4 minutes in Köln seams really tight with the DB punctuality. However with the supersparpreise I'm obliged to one train. I believe that I'm allowed to take the next train as said in the DB-App.
> (...)
> Can anyone explain how this would work out, or if I should go to the reise-zentrum instead? Or just board the next option on the DB app. Even though i lose my seat reservation.


If you use DB app and your ticket is in the DB app (what I suppose according to your post), the app will automatically offer you another connection for the case your first (or second, i.e. not the last) train has a delay and you don't reach the connection you booked. It may have another route.


----------



## da_scotty

You lot are better help then the DB-twitter folks.
They replied:
"you are not allowed to change the destination station, just use your ticket". 

Which is kind of vague.


----------



## EMArg

The *Munich Hauptbahnhof*:


----------



## EMArg

^^


Video:


----------



## Wilhem275

I hope with the -badly needed- redesign, the train hall will also get a new appearance.
It aged terribly. Right now it's like waiting for a train in a factory.


----------



## flierfy

^^
The train shed in München is fine as is the whole station. Renovation works are always welcome. But to say they were badly needed is just outright wrong.


----------



## TM_Germany

I mean, the whole station will get demolished and replaced in the next years AFAIK, so the station hall will look different as well,


----------



## Shenkey

Wilhem275 said:


> I hope with the -badly needed- redesign, the train hall will also get a new appearance.
> It aged terribly. Right now it's like waiting for a train in a factory.


Deutsche Qualitat


----------



## Suburbanist

How is the Stuttgart-21 project going? Still on track for its expected full completion?


----------



## Stuu

There are some photos from 3 January here. No idea whether they are on schedule or not, my German isn't good enough to understand technical terms


----------



## davide84

111 km of 120 total tunnels have been excavated, and the building concrete skeletons are in place.


----------



## geogregor

Suburbanist said:


> How is the Stuttgart-21 project going? Still on track for its expected full completion?


I guess it depends what you mean by "on track". They already have delays and costs have increased...


----------



## M-NL

geogregor said:


> They already have delays and costs have increased...


Three remarks that may or may not have happened here:

The initiators of these kinds of project tend to create at least an optimistic, realistic and pessimistic planning and present the most optimistic one as THE planning. An optimistic planning is usually just that, very optimistic, but not achievable. Everybody knows it beforehand, yet it remains standard practice.
These project are usually started with a budget that only includes the bare bones. Everything else needed to get to actually usable state is extra. Also the budget is based on the optimistic planning. Delays cause increased costs. Again everybody knows it beforehand, yet it remains standard practice.
When the delays and cost overruns occur the point of no return has usually already been reached. Again everybody knows it is going to happen, yet it remains standard practice.


----------



## kato2k8

Suburbanist said:


> How is the Stuttgart-21 project going? Still on track for its expected full completion?



Stuttgart 21 is delayed by several years with a finishing date currently end of 2025, likely to be pushed further back.
NBS Wendlingen - Ulm, the HSR project planned to be finished in parallel to S21, is only delayed by one year with a likely finish in 2023. It will now be connected temporarily to the old tracks southeast of Stuttgart at an extra cost of 100 million Euro in order to be able to use it.
There are similar considerations to start using the S-Bahn Tunnel project built around S21 early (extending the main tunnel for all core S-Bahn routes eastwards, with a new underground station east of Stuttgart central station) as the tunnel would be finished by 2024 and the station by 2025.
The underground HSR airport station that was touted as a big item of S21 restarted three months ago. It has been delayed by a three-year court case which is still ongoing. Planned to be finished by 2025 (we'll see...). The airport station will only be serviced by a couple IC/EC trains, not the main route ICEs.
One main problem is that the delays are sorta tilted between partial projects, which leads to further disconnects. One such thing currently pondered a bit more publicly is that the _Gäubahn_ railway from the south of the state (and Zürich) will be disconnected from the central station for several years instead of originally planned 6 months. The city is currently planning to build a new station nearby in the inner city, otherwise trains would end in Vaihingen in southwest Stuttgart for transfer to S-Bahn.

Financially the last i've seen was 8.2 billion, from an original 4.5 billion.


----------



## EMArg

Arriving in the *Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof* with the high-speed train:


----------



## EMArg

*Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof*





Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof is one of the biggest railway stations of Europe. Because of its location in the middle of Germany and usage as a transport hub for long and short distance travelling, Deutsche Bahn refers to it as the most important station in Germany. The appearance of the station is divided into perron (track hall) and vestibule (reception hall). Dominant in those parts built in 1888 are Neo-Renaissance features, the outer two halls, added in 1924 follow the style of neoclassicism. The eastern façade of the vestibule features a large clock with two symbolic statues for day and night. Above the clock, the word Hauptbahnhof and the Deutsche Bahn logo are situated. The roof of the front hall carries a monumental statue of Atlas supporting the World on his shoulders, in this case assisted by two allegorical figures representing Iron and Steam. As for long-distance traffic, the station profits greatly from its location in the heart of Europe; 13 of the 24 ICE lines call at the station, as well as 2 of the 3 ICE Sprinter lines. To ease the strain on the Hauptbahnhof, some ICE lines now call at Frankfurt Airport station and at Frankfurt (Main) Süd instead of Hauptbhanhof. There are also long-distance night trains from Frankfurt, e.g. to Copenhagen, Berlin, Prague, Amsterdam, Zurich, Paris and Rome.


----------



## EMArg




----------



## EMArg

^^


Video:


----------



## EMArg

*Frankfurt: South Station (Südbahnhof) *




Frankfurt Südbahnhof is one of three railway stations for long-distance train services within the city. Unlike Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof it is not a terminus but a through station, and has nine tracks with five platforms. It is a stopping station for some long-distance routes (ICE, IC) and for regional traffic (Regional-Express and RegionalBahn). It is also one of the major rapid-transit railway hubs in the city with S-Bahn and U-Bahn services.


----------



## EMArg

^^


Video:


----------



## EMArg

*Berlin:* arriving in the city with the ICE train


----------



## Turf

The youtube algorithm gave me this video.
Quite impressive what they are planning to do freezing of 100 meter of ground under the river.






Though freezing was used already a century ago in Paris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Métro_Line_4

Looking forward to using this line once. 
It has been 2012 since I last visited Berlin. Could it be they were already constructing this line? I remember roadworks on Unter den Linden.


----------



## TER200

Turf said:


> It has been 2012 since I last visited Berlin. Could it be they were already constructing this line? I remember roadworks on Unter den Linden.


I think I have seen works there in 2011...


----------



## AAPMBerlin

TER200 said:


> I think I have seen works there in 2011...


It´s the extension of U5. Station Museumsinsel. Opening End of 2020 (line) respectiveliy beginning 2021 (Station).


----------



## Darryl

Are the other two U5 extension stations (Rotes Rathaus and Unter den Linden) finished and on track to open to passengers this year in 2020?


----------



## TM_Germany

^^Yes. 
Though this topic probably better belongs in the Berlin specific one.


----------



## Darryl

Thanks. Well it's a railway that is in Germany, no? ;-)


----------



## Attus

An elavator is replaced. Not a complete railway station, not even a track or a platform in a station. An elavator.
Workd were planned for 4.5 months. The original deadline of 15th of January was corrected to February. However, I made this photo today, the 3rd of March. 
Aufzug wird erneuert. by Attila Németh, on Flickr


----------



## TM_Germany

News from the Fehmarnsund crossing (between the mainland and the island of Fehmarn, not the crossing to Denmark, which is the Fehmarnbelt crossing)



bongo-anders said:


> The Germans has found out what they will do with Fehmarnsund.
> 
> They will construct a 1,7 kilometer submerged tunnel, the design looks similar to the Fehmarnbelt tunnel so I´ll guess they just make a few more in Rødby.
> 
> https://www.anbindung-fbq.de/de/pre...ntscheidung-zur-neuen-fehmarnsundquerung.html
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPkRShQhUOk
> 
> 
> 
> Seen from the mainland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And from Fehmarn Island


----------



## EMArg

*Berlin: East Station (Ostbahnhof)*




Berlin Ostbahnhof (German for Berlin East railway station) is a main line railway station is located in the Friedrichshain quarter, now part of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg borough, and has undergone several name changes in its history. It was known as Berlin Hauptbahnhof from 1987 to 1998, a name now applied to Berlin's new central station at the former Lehrter station. Alongside Berlin Zoologischer Garten station it was one of the city's two main stations; however, it has declined in significance since the opening of the new Hauptbahnhof on 26 May 2006, and many mainline trains have been re-routed on the North–South mainline through the new Tiergarten tunnel, bypassing Ostbahnhof.


----------



## EMArg

^^


Video:


----------



## EMArg

*Berlin Hauptbahnhof*


----------



## EMArg




----------



## EMArg

^^


Video:


----------



## Wilhem275

If only they could fix the elevators. They were a mess 14 years ago, they never got better.


----------



## Wilhem275

Semi-historical question.

In 1988 the Dortmund - Witten line was reserved for S-Bahn traffic, and a new link was built for fast traffic, along the Dortmund - Bochum main line.
The new line was built with only one track between Dortmund Hbf and the point where the two lines diverge (approximately near Dortmund Marten Sud station).
I understand there are space constraints between Hbf and Dorstfeld (several narrow bridges) not allowing the extra track to be laid, but after Dorstfeld the proper space was reserved and there are apparently no physical limits.
Is there a reason why this was left incomplete even where the space would allow doubling the line?

I don't think there are plans to complete the line all the way into Hbf, would be quite expensive.


----------



## geogregor

https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-arrest-man-over-rail-sabotage/a-52873197



> *A 51-year-old man in Germany was facing charges of attempted murder on Saturday after being "strongly suspected of having removed bolts on 80 meters (260 feet) of rail on a bridge between Cologne and Frankufrt," prosecutors said in a statement.*
> 
> Investigators are still trying to determine the suspect's motives, while police on Friday said they could not rule out a "possible attack attempt."
> 
> State-owned rail operator Deutsche Bahn described the incident as "sabotage."
> 
> The affected area of the track was located just before a bridge near Niedernhausen, outside Frankfurt. An Intercity Express (ICE) train driver noticed something unusual while crossing it during the early hours of the morning Friday. Police later said several trains had crossed that stretch before the tampering was discovered.
> 
> "Under such circumstances a train could be derailed," a police spokesperson said. "Luckily no harm came to any trains or passengers.".
> 
> Several trains had to be canceled or redirected as a result, but traffic has since returned to normal.


----------



## TM_Germany

While I was bored, I was looking for a map with all currently planned or u/c railway projects in Germany. I didn't find one as the one realeased with BVWP 2030 isn't up to date anymore since the it was decided to introduce the Deutschlandtakt clockface timetable. I then decided to create a map as best as I could myself. This map is not complete and also probably not 100% accurate but it might give you a decent overview.


This includes all larger projects currently planned, u/c and necessary for Deutschlandtakt. Several smaller projects are missing.
PDF:
Datei von filehorst.de laden

Legend:


Of course, given German glacial planning and construction speed, we'll be _extremely _lucky to see this by 2050+++ but fingers crossed. It's still nowhere great but if everything was built, I'd give it a passing grade.

Because I was still bored, I made a fantasy map of a much more rail-oriented Germany with a HS-network worth the name.


PDF:
Datei von filehorst.de laden


----------



## Darryl

TM_Germany said:


> It's still nowhere great but if everything was built, I'd give it a passing grade.


Come to the US and check out our passenger rail system. You'll give the CURRENT rail system of today in Germany an A++


----------



## TM_Germany

That might be so, but at least the US has a very well functioning freight rail system which is also not the case in Germany.


----------



## LtBk

You should grateful for your passenger rail network, even if it has problems.


----------



## TER200

TM_Germany said:


> That might be so, but at least the US has a very well functioning freight rail system which is also not the case in Germany.


Come to France and check out our freight rail system. You'll give the CURRENT freight rail system of today in Germany an A++...


----------



## TedStriker

TM_Germany said:


> That might be so, but at least the US has a very well functioning freight rail system which is also not the case in Germany.


Apart from the single wagonload network of DB Cargo not being profitable, why do you say the rail freight system is not a well functioning system?


----------



## TM_Germany

Because of severe lack of capacity. This lack of capacity often causes long delays for customers. This doesn't just mean an hour or two but sometimes days. If a train e.g. misses the time it's supposed to be at a port, the port operator will have no choice but to load everything on to trucks. 
There doesn't seem to be any positive developement either, new logistic centres are almost always 100% for trucks without rail access, already existing rail accesses are even being torn down. Many smaller cargo stations and branch lines have also been discontinued, leading to rail freight often just not being an option anymore. DB Cargo is also apparently extremely inflexible in their operations but at least there private companies fill in the gaps. Another problem is lack of electrification in many areas, leading to many locomotive changes which increases travel time. 
Rail freight is _still _loosing market share compared to trucks. I believe in Germany it accounts for only about 9% of modal share compared to 80% trucks. In the US, rail freight has a modal share of over 40% but even a more comparable country like Switzerland manages to have 20-30% on rails. 
I predict the situation will get even worse in the future, as DB wants to double the number of long distance passengers by 2030 but hardly any infrastructure imrpovements will be ready by then, leading to even less capacity for freight trains.


----------



## TedStriker

TM_Germany said:


> Because of severe lack of capacity. This lack of capacity often causes long delays for customers. This doesn't just mean an hour or two but sometimes days. If a train e.g. misses the time it's supposed to be at a port, the port operator will have no choice but to load everything on to trucks.
> There doesn't seem to be any positive developement either, new logistic centres are almost always 100% for trucks without rail access, already existing rail accesses are even being torn down. Many smaller cargo stations and branch lines have also been discontinued, leading to rail freight often just not being an option anymore. DB Cargo is also apparently extremely inflexible in their operations but at least there private companies fill in the gaps. Another problem is lack of electrification in many areas, leading to many locomotive changes which increases travel time.
> Rail freight is _still _loosing market share compared to trucks. I believe in Germany it accounts for only about 9% of modal share compared to 80% trucks. In the US, rail freight has a modal share of over 40% but even a more comparable country like Switzerland manages to have 20-30% on rails.
> I predict the situation will get even worse in the future, as DB wants to double the number of long distance passengers by 2030 but hardly any infrastructure imrpovements will be ready by then, leading to even less capacity for freight trains.


Thanks for your reply. I guess it's easy for a Brit like me to look at Germany and central Europe generally and see that traffic volumes are high, for trainload services, single wagon services and intermodal services. Intermodal services seem to be doing very well and there's plenty of potential for more growth. 

I can see your point about capacity problems. Also, with regard to single wagon traffic, it does not help that a few branches closed and that new industrial and logistics premises are build without the prospect of a rail connection. 

Contrary to many, I believe that there is a place for a single wagon system in central Europe. It will require some changes to incentive investment in various areas though. Perhaps a pan-European policy approach is a requirement, via the EU?


----------



## MarcVD

The market share of rail freight in Europe will never be much higher, whatever you do. The cheapest mode of transportation is the boat. Given Europe's geography, most population and industrial centres are never more than a few hundreds miles from a port. That distance is not relevant for rail.


----------



## TM_Germany

Yes, there is strong growth of Container intermodal traffic and also whole-train traffic (e.g. an entire trainload from a single factory to a port) but this is also constrained by lack of capacity. Single wagon traffic is very important to shift more freight on to the rails, so it should be agressively expanded instead of reduced. A step to decrease costs here would be the long overdue implementation of automatic couplers.

I strongly disagree with MarcVD, as the example of Switzerland shows how the modal share in European countries of rail can at least reach ~25%. In bigger countries it could even be much higher because rail traffic get more advantageous over longer distances. The busy long haul corridors Benelux-Poland or Benelux Italy for example could easily archieve a rail modal share of 80%+ if the necessary infrastructure was provided.


----------



## davide84

Switzerland is still doing single wagon traffic, and also pushing on automated coupling:








SBB Cargo pioneers automatic couplers


SBB Cargo has initiated a pilot of automatic couplers for locomotives and rolling stock with operational tests getting under earliet this month.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## TedStriker

MarcVD said:


> The market share of rail freight in Europe will never be much higher, whatever you do. The cheapest mode of transportation is the boat. Given Europe's geography, most population and industrial centres are never more than a few hundreds miles from a port. That distance is not relevant for rail.


Your focus seems to be on the type of cargo which is ideal for water transport, namely, bulk materials and maritime container traffic that is not time sensitive. In terms of the measurement of tonnes/km, the share of the market that rail transportation has in Europe does have tremendous growth potential. This is the case for the 'sexy' side of rail freight, which is intermodal transport (swap bodies/semi-trailers/shipping containers), and also there is a place for a comprehensive single wagon network.


----------



## davide84

Since a couple of years in Italy there's even a high-speed freight train. During these crazy days it's transporting mostly farmaceuticals, medical equipment, spare parts.
High-speed freight will never replace huge trains (or barges) of steel or coal, but it has a niche market... I believe regular rail freight in general has still a lot of potential. In addition, not every european region has suitable waterways - e.g. Italy has only one in the north, but water depth is often affected by heavy agricultural use.


----------



## mgk920

By 'automatic couplers', is the technology that is being tested the AAR 'knuckle' couplers that are used in North America, Australia and China (strongest in the World, BTW), or are they the SA3 couplers that are used on the broad gauge lines in Finland, Russia and in most of the rest of the former Soviet Union?

I find it borderline laughable that those absurdly weak and labor intensive to use 'buffer and chain' couplings are still the standard on European standard gauge railways.

(I would strongly recommend the AAR knuckle couplers be used on the standard gauge European lines, especially for seamless future interoperability with Chinese railroads.)

Mike


----------



## TM_Germany

^^ Europe has long since developed it's own automatic coupler system C-AKv which is compatible with the SA3, the already partially in use UIC coupler _and _the buffer-and-chain couplers so there's literally no reason whatsoever to not intruduce them step by step. I agree it's utterly ridiculous to still use that method.
SA3 compatability was chosen over AAR which made sense to me at first because the nearest AAR country is seperated from Europe by an entire continent's worth of SA3 rail until I remembered that the former Soviet Union has broad gauge so there's no interoperability anyways.


----------



## mgk920

TM_Germany said:


> ^^ Europe has long since developed it's own automatic coupler system C-AKv which is compatible with the SA3, the already partially in use UIC coupler _and _the buffer-and-chain couplers so there's literally no reason whatsoever to not intruduce them step by step. I agree it's utterly ridiculous to still use that method.
> SA3 compatability was chosen over AAR which made sense to me at first because the nearest AAR country is seperated from Europe by an entire continent's worth of SA3 rail until I remembered that the former Soviet Union has broad gauge so there's no interoperability anyways.


I suppose that if push came to shove due to a standard gauge railroad being built between China and central Europe, equipment with AAR couplers could operate side-by-side with whatever standard is used in Europe for the indeterminate future, with the limiting factor being such things as loading gauge limits (bridge and tunnel clearances), passing siding and yard track lengths, power supply capacity, etc.

Mike


----------



## davide84

This is the coupler used by SBB:

https://www.sbbcargo.com/content/da...en_Wabtec_freight_coupler.pdf.sbbdownload.pdf


----------



## MarcVD

This issue of old fashioned couplers in Europe got a lot of attention 50 years ago, but it since faded away. The reasons are multiple. But essentially, the kind of traffic that still exists on European networks today require much less consist alterations than before (notably with the single waggonload almost extinct) and we don't really need the additional strength because the existing track plans limit our train length to ca. 800 m anyway. So the incentive us not really there anymore.


----------



## MarcVD

TedStriker said:


> Your focus seems to be on the type of cargo which is ideal for water transport, namely, bulk materials and maritime container traffic that is not time sensitive. In terms of the measurement of tonnes/km, the share of the market that rail transportation has in Europe does have tremendous growth potential. This is the case for the 'sexy' side of rail freight, which is intermodal transport (swap bodies/semi-trailers/shipping containers), and also there is a place for a comprehensive single wagon network.


Don't misunderstand me, I'd love to see way more freight trains all over Europe myself too, but I'm not holding my breath. Notably the "sexy traffic" that you mention won't grow notably unless a unified and efficient loading method appears. Modalohr waggons in France, small wheels in central Europe... Not good.


----------



## TedStriker

Even if, like me, you don't understand German, I can highly recommend that you watch this documentary on the history of the train ferry port in Mukran. 

Please see:


----------



## 3737

A bizarre accident happened today in Auggen where a RoLa train has hit a part of a collapsed bridge sadly killing the traindriver.










Link


----------



## Baron Hirsch

The bridge was being prepared for dismantling and another built in its vicinity. The piece of concrete weighs 100 tons. The route is extremely busy, only within 10 minutes before two passenger trains had passed. RoLa is a system where trucks are piggy-backing on a train during transit through Switzerland, while drivers are in a separate coach. There were conflicting reports about the condition of the truck drivers.


----------



## mgk920

That explains the passenger car between the locomotive and the freight cars. I was wondering about that.

Mike


----------



## Rohne

mgk920 said:


> By 'automatic couplers', is the technology that is being tested the AAR 'knuckle' couplers that are used in North America, Australia and China (strongest in the World, BTW), or are they the SA3 couplers that are used on the broad gauge lines in Finland, Russia and in most of the rest of the former Soviet Union?


The problem in Europe is that many different countries couldn't agree on one coupler that shall be used across the continent.
Now Germany, Switzerland and some others are driving the development of a digital automatic coupler. There are several prototypes which have to be tested, based on the existing types SA3, Scharfenberg and Schwab. AAR wouldn't make sense as it's used nowhere near Europe, and it's not possible to make it fully digital (including air, power line and data bus, and at least partially automatic decoupling).


----------



## M-NL

Rohne said:


> AAR wouldn't make sense as it's used nowhere near Europe, and it's not possible to make it fully digital (including air, power line and data bus, and at least partially automatic decoupling).


That is not true. This type is used on the British class 321, which also happen to have an, albeit non standard, lower electric connection block. Also the coupler used on the NMBS/SNCB class 75 is a Belgian knock off of the Janney coupler.
The main reason they couldn't agree, was based on cost. Thousands of couplers would need to be replaced. All new freight wagons built the last 30 years or so are suitable to be converted. Also the current iterationof the C-Akv coupler is backward compatible with chain couplers. I still hope they will take the plunge one day, but it has to be a big country like Germany or France to lead the way.


----------



## mgk920

M-NL said:


> That is not true. This type is used on the British class 321, which also happen to have an, albeit non standard, lower electric connection block. Also the coupler used on the NMBS/SNCB class 75 is a Belgian knock off of the Janney coupler.
> The main reason they couldn't agree, was based on cost. Thousands of couplers would need to be replaced. All new freight wagons built the last 30 years or so are suitable to be converted. Also the current iterationof the C-Akv coupler is backward compatible with chain couplers. I still hope they will take the plunge one day, but it has to be a big country like Germany or France to lead the way.


Also, a railroad freight yard is one of the very _toughest_ operating environments for any kind of equipment that one can imagine. How well will this C-Akv system survive the slam-banging that is common and normal in such places? It just strikes me as being too complex to be long-term reliable. One advantage of the AAR couplers is their design simplicity - they can take that normal, everyday roughness and one guy on the ground can change out a broken knuckle in the field.

Also, and this was mentioned in an earlier response, the places where the SA3 couplers are the standard are otherwise fully incompatible with the rails of central and western Europe due to their 85 mm difference in track gauges.

Mike


----------



## M-NL

mgk920 said:


> How well will this C-Akv system survive the slam-banging that is common and normal in such places? It just strikes me as being too complex to be long-term reliable.


The C-Akv is basically an optimised SA3. If the SA3 can handle it, the C-Akv can. Only thing may be that pneumatic and electric connection are integrated as well, but I asume that the old fashioned brakepipes and cables remain for the time being and as a fall back.


----------



## Rohne

M-NL said:


> That is not true. This type is used on the British class 321, which also happen to have an, albeit non standard, lower electric connection block. Also the coupler used on the NMBS/SNCB class 75 is a Belgian knock off of the Janney coupler.


But these are just exceptions, and not a standard. And it remains valid, that you cannot integrate all desired features into AAR. So as said, they are testing only types SA-3, Schwab and Scharfenberg. Let's see what the outcome will be.


----------



## Wilhem275

I can't identify where this was taken. Does anyone recognize the place?


----------



## pccvspw999

^^ Here it is. I know the place al to well.

Segnaposto inserito
Vicino a 65479 Raunheim, Germania








50°01'39.7"N 8°28'33.9"E







goo.gl


----------



## Wilhem275

Oh yeah! I wasn't thinking about that link, I assumed that ICE was in commercial service.


----------



## sponge_bob

Activation of contracts | Femern A/S - The tunnel across Fehmarnbelt


Announcement by Sund & Bælt Holding A/S



femern.com





It *took Germany and Denmark 4 years* to write some eco bollox report before they could 'activate' a set of 4 year old contracts and go build the Fehmarn Tunnel.



> On 12 May 2020 Femern A/S has activated the conditioned contracts on ’Tunnel North’, ’Tunnel South’ and ’Ramps and Portals’ that were signed between Femern A/S and the construction consortium Femern Link Contractors (FLC) on 30 May 2016.


----------



## da_scotty

The problem is not that the report is bollox, it´s the terrible slow procedure and appeal construction.


----------



## hkskyline

Germany aims to lift debt ceiling for rail operator Deutsche Bahn


German Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling coalition plans to allow state-owned rail operator Deutsche Bahn to incur more debt to cushion it from the collapse in travel due to the coronavirus crisis, a document showed on Wednesday.




www.reuters.com


----------



## brick84




----------



## Ugo Fantozzi

Former freight line opens to passenger traffic in northwest Germany as long-term reopening plan agreed


NWB has introduced an hourly weekend and holiday passenger service from Duisburg via the 10km former freight line between Rheinkamp and Kamp-Lintfort.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## btrs

Some time ago I became more interested in Germany's signal box upgrade programme. 
Germany has still many track diagram (relay-based) and sometimes mechanical signal boxes which are life-expired and need replacement. In most cases several signal boxes are aggregated and replaced by 1 or several new electronic (solid-state electronics) signal boxes.
At the same time, most of these new signal boxes are actually controlled remotely from 1 of the 7 central signal centres of DB Netz: Duisburg, Frankfurt (Main), Karlsruhe, Hannover, Berlin, Munich and Leipzig.

Only for some very specific cases local control (or remote control on short distance) is retained. Once such example for instance is Weil am Rhein, just near the Swiss-German border which got a new electronic signal box, but is controlled remotely from Basel Badischer Bahnhof (instead of the signalling centre in Karlsruhe).

And now they are even taking it a step further: while current replacement programmes will still use the ESTW-architecture, new projects which aren't linked to an existing ESTW will use the new DSTW architecture. Instead of solid-state electronics, this architecture even more reduces the need for dedicated hardware and uses IP-based networks instead of dedicated fiber networks (SDH etc).
A first prototype digital signal box was launched in Annaberg-Buchholz Süd (Saxony), but only used specific components. The rest was re-used from the existing electronic signal box. Also, since this is a low-traffic regional line it hardly provided any real safety protection.
The second, more mature prototype was launched last year at Warnemünde: this prototype actually uses the reference architecture, save for some features which have not been finalized yet (but were not needed for this line).

DB Netz plans another 15 or 20 prototype signal boxes before it can consider the technology mature enough to make it the standard technology for future replacements.









Aktuelles


Aktuelles




fahrweg.dbnetze.com












Vorserienprojekte


Vorserienprojekte




fahrweg.dbnetze.com





However, there are examples of signal boxes where a replacement with an electronic/digital signal box is not possible due to technical (no presence of a fiber PoP, especially in rural regions) or economical reasons. In that case, the old (mostly mechanical) signal box is replaced by a relay-based signal box, which re-uses parts from former signal boxes which were replaced by an electronic signal box. Especially in the former DR (GDR) area this seems to be common.
Does anybody know of more examples that will be replaced by a "re-used" relay signal box ?


----------



## davide84

Interesting topic, thanks!

Do you know if and how this replacement program relates to ETCS?


----------



## M-NL

Germany is working on supplementing/replacing PZB with ETCS Level 1 Limited Supervision. So electronic signal boxes are a great start for that.
On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if there are semaphore signals with ETCS balises somewhere in Germany.


----------



## btrs

davide84 said:


> Interesting topic, thanks!
> 
> Do you know if and how this replacement program relates to ETCS?





M-NL said:


> Germany is working on supplementing/replacing PZB with ETCS Level 1 Limited Supervision. So electronic signal boxes are a great start for that.
> On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if there are semaphore signals with ETCS balises somewhere in Germany.


Yes, you are both right, ETCS L1 LS is also part of the umbrella-program "Digitale Schiene Deutschland" where DB Netz aims for 20% additional capacity on existing infrastructure:





#Digitale Schiene Deutschland | Deutsche Bahn AG


Digitalisierung ETCS




www.deutschebahn.com





The reason why DB Netz prefers ETCS L1 LS is simple: it provides the same protection as the current PZB system, avoiding the need for large-scale training both for signallers and for train drivers. Also since ETCS L1 LS is not a full-supervised protection (the name already states it: Limited Supervision), it still needs fixed signals (no cab-signalling). Given the thousands of new Ks-signals that have been placed with the roll-out of electronic signal boxes, it would be an enormous destruction of capital if they are made redundant by simple stop marker signs. 

Only high-traffic main lines and high-speed lines will be equipped with ETCS L2, starting with the NBS Köln-Rhein/Main (Frankfurt), the greater urban area around Stuttgart (needs a new signal architecture due to S21 anyway) including equipment of the S-Bahn with ATO (like Elizabeth Line in London):


https://www.deutschebahn.com/resource/blob/1173510/0d975c55e4c4a312bb1f090e0aaf2a87/Broschuere-Digitale-Schiene-data.pdf


----------



## hkskyline

* Volkswagen sets course for green electricity to power all freight carried on Deutsche Bahn *
Press Release _Excerpt_
Sep 8, 2020

Volkswagen Group Logistics is switching all Deutsche Bahn carriage of materials and vehicles within Germany to green electricity by the start of 2021. This will cut over 26,700 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year compared to the conventional electricity mix. 95 per cent of all such transportation is already powered by green electricity. In addition even more freight is set to go by rail: Volkswagen aims to increase vehicle transportation by train from 53 per cent today up to 60 per cent by 2022. “With this green electricity offensive we are making an important contribution towards Group decarbonisation”, says Thomas Zernechel, Head of Volkswagen Group Logistics. For this purpose, Deutsche Bahn feeds in electricity from wind farms and hydropower plants.

He continues: “No car maker in Europe transports more freight by rail using renewable electric power than Volkswagen. In addition to our electric vehicle production having a carbon-neutral footprint, this is a further element in being able, for instance, to hand vehicles from the Volkswagen ID range to customers without any CO2 baggage.”

When operations are running normally, over 190,000 freight wagons a year are in use for Volkswagen. On average 38 long-distance and 157 local trains a day deliver materials to the plants - in total around 100,000 wagons a year. Meanwhile, around 90,000 wagons take approximately 900,000 vehicles from the plants to 40 interim storage facilities, distribution centres and ports. The brands transported in this way are Volkswagen Passenger Cars, AUDI, ŠKODA, SEAT, Porsche and Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles.

More : Volkswagen sets course for green electricity to power all freight carried on Deutsche Bahn.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Oh yeah, sure! And just a few years ago, they told people they could buy fat cars and they would not have any exhaust. And for years nobody even checked whether those cars really did not pollute the environment; once somebody did and they found out it was all lies, they were all so sad...
And now, hksyline, you are posting that company's propaganda crap about respecting the environment as if nothing had happened? Please, show some self-respect and delete that garbage.


----------



## Wilhem275

Incredible how Dieselgate faded away like nothing happened.
They've been greenwashing for years, recently even more.


----------



## davide84

Baron Hirsch said:


> Oh yeah, sure! ...


In principle I agree, but maybe we shouldn't shoot the messenger...


----------



## M-NL

Wilhem275 said:


> Incredible how Dieselgate faded away like nothing happened.
> They've been greenwashing for years, recently even more.


Each car in the EU must have a type approval certificate before being allowed on the road. This certificate is issued by private companies called Notified Bodies. A manafacturer can use any Notified Body as long as it is in the EU. Only the National Motorvehicle Agency of the country where the type approval certificate of a car model was issued has the power to revoke that certificate. That agency is part of the governement. Note that the German governement has a stake in VAG, the French governement in Renault and the Italian in FCA and all those companies are major employers in their countries. Guess in which countries the certificates of most of those cars were issued. Guess how many were revoked?

Also another interesting fact is that of modern cars (regardless ICE or electric) most of the polution the car creates comes from tire and brake dust and dust from road abbrasion. And that is where electric rail vehicles like trains and trams are excellent: wheel on rail contact hardly produces dust and most of the braking is also electric. And there is more potential. I've read somewhere that a Transrapid only uses 30% the energy of an ICE at the same speed.


----------



## Wilhem275

Almost all true, but still, Dieselgate was such a scandal that should have brought VAG to its knees, while in practice they're still well in business like nothing happened.

Just a note: not to state they're cleaner than the rest, but the Italian government has no more stakes in FCA. It was a specific decision by Sergio Marchionne, to cut all ties with local politics, may it be goverment, employers' associations or national unions. This in fact generated some hostility by the public sector towards FCA.
Surely FIAT used to have a fast lane into government decisions and funding in the past, but today it's actually independent.

Also, with the FCA-PSA merge, the French State stake in Stellantis is diluted (Elkann family alone is reported to have a larger stake).


----------



## LtBk

Every company makes mistakes. They making it up by focusing on electric cars.


----------



## Shenkey

Wilhem275 said:


> Almost all true, but still, Dieselgate was such a scandal that should have brought VAG to its knees, while in practice they're still well in business like nothing happened.
> 
> Just a note: not to state they're cleaner than the rest, but the Italian government has no more stakes in FCA. It was a specific decision by Sergio Marchionne, to cut all ties with local politics, may it be goverment, employers' associations or national unions. This in fact generated some hostility by the public sector towards FCA.
> Surely FIAT used to have a fast lane into government decisions and funding in the past, but today it's actually independent.
> 
> Also, with the FCA-PSA merge, the French State stake in Stellantis is diluted (Elkann family alone is reported to have a larger stake).


Why are you so jelly of VAG?
It was not the only one, how much has Nissan paid for cheating? Or FCA, or ... 

VAG is the only one of those actually pushing for electric vehicles now. Are you scared because you have shares in Tesla?


----------



## M-NL

Wasn't it FCA that bought emission rights from Tesla, to not have to produce actual emission friendly cars?


----------



## TM_Germany

Tesla's main source of income is selling emission rights to other automakers. VWs are already pretty fuel efficient, I guess with their push to electric they could begin selling emission rights to others as well sooner or later.


----------



## M-NL

The newest EU plans envision a further reduction of fleet CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030. And because an electric cars also emmits CO2 (because of the power generation mix), there isn't that much more room for improvement. (It would mean a large Merced
The best way to further reduce emissions is to use more efficient modes of transport. With the same amount of energy a train can move a lot more passengers or freight. So it basically a method of the EU to promote rail transport.


----------



## M-NL

This is what a 100.000kW (136,000 hp) power move looks like in Europe. A bit underwhelming if you ask me.




The reason for this train: Make some noise! 100,000 kW-protest train is coming to Berlin. The open access operators are protesting that only (state owned!) Deutsche Bahn is getting financial support, despite the open access operators having more then 50% of the market. This train made a stop Berlin Hauptbahnhof at 5 minutes to 12, to strenghten the message.


----------



## Smooth Indian

M-NL said:


> This is what a 100.000kW (136,000 hp) power move looks like in Europe. A bit underwhelming if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for this train: Make some noise! 100,000 kW-protest train is coming to Berlin. The open access operators are protesting that only (state owned!) Deutsche Bahn is getting financial support, despite the open access operators having more then 50% of the market. This train made a stop Berlin Hauptbahnhof at 5 minutes to 12, to strenghten the message.


How many open access operators are there in Germany? How are they allocated slot vs DB?


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

The 50th ICE 4 was delivered to the Deutsche Bahn and named "Metropole Ruhr".


----------



## davide84

Interesting, DB is using 12- and 13-coaches trainsets instead of coupling 7-coaches long units, like it's the norm in Italy...


----------



## M-NL

The 12 and 13 car sets are intended to replace ICE1 sets, which are mainly used on high demand routes. Also one 13 car set has 918 seats compared to 888 seats on two coupled 7 car sets, despite being 28 meters shorter. The advantage is probably due to the longer train only having one restaurant car and one service car. What I don't understand is why they didn't opt for 14 car sets. A 14 car set will have the same length as two 7 car sets.

Also interesting: The 12 and 13 car sets are to get a speed increase to 265 km/h and the 7 car sets don't. Is that an error, because this article Speed increased to 265 km/h for ICE 4 doesn't exclude the 7 car sets from the speed increase? It would also enable you to run two coupled 7 car sets interchangeable with 12/13 car sets. The 7 car sets do have relatively less power cars though.


----------



## TM_Germany

I don't believe that's an error, afaik the 250km/h for the 7-car trains is already a speed increase, they were originally planned to only be 230 km/h fast iirc.


----------



## M-NL

The original order for the ICE4 called for 7 car 230 km/h TSI class 2 multisystem sets and 10 car 249 km/h TSI class 2 15kV AC sets. The 7 car sets were to have better acceleration (due to shorter gearing?), the 10 car sets a higher top speed. None of them were ever built. Instead all sets are now TSI class 1, 15 kV AC only and have the same top speed.

The 7 cars sets are technically identical to the longer sets and lighter and more powerful then the ICE2 sets they are intended to replace. There is no reason they couldn't do 265 km/h as well, so why wouldn't you change it, even if they don't need it. It would keep the fleet more uniform.


----------



## TER200

davide84 said:


> Interesting, DB is using 12- and 13-coaches trainsets instead of coupling 7-coaches long units, like it's the norm in Italy...


If you have enough demand to run a full length train all day, it's more economical to use one long trainset than two short ones.


----------



## AR1182

M-NL said:


> The 7 cars sets are technically identical to the longer sets and lighter and more powerful then the ICE2 sets they are intended to replace. There is no reason they couldn't do 265 km/h as well, so why wouldn't you change it, even if they don't need it. It would keep the fleet more uniform.


So are the 7-car ICE4 trainsets intended to operate between Berlin and Hamm as two coupled trainsets and be split at Hamm, just as the ICE2 sets today? Or are they intended for routes with lower demand?
Where else are ICE2 sets usted nowadays?


----------



## M-NL

From what I read the 7-car ICE4 sets were ordered to replace the ICE2, because the ICE2 with cab car forward always had a cross wind instability problem at high speed. Originally they intended to retire the ICE2 fleet, but now they are thinking about a refit and creating ICE1-like sets from ICE2 power cars and coaches to increase capacity. Such sets would be easy to spot, because they have a low roof bistro car instead of the high roof restaurant car on the ICE1.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

ICE4 (2x7) are at present doing trial runs on the Berlin-Köln/Düsseldorf line, including hooking up at Hamm. As of December, they are supposed to do scheduled runs on this line, initially two per day and direction, to become more within the year as more trainsets become available.


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded

So these coupled 7-car ICE4s have a length of 404 m?! Wow! 
Are the platforms at the train stations even that long?


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Too bad though the connection was designed to be such an insular one. Rather than just serving Munich and Zurich and only the rather tiny towns in between, the line could have been extended northwards maybe as far as Berlin. Berlin-Munich-Zurich would thus ideally be doable in slightly less than 7 hours, which is of course still a lot, but would attract some passenger traffic and connect to preexisting main lines. (Berlin-Zürich via Augsburg would be even faster, but that would probably not be profitable.) There are also no good onward connections onto mainlines that would make sense. For Western Germany, of course Zurich to Frankfurt etc. will always be faster via Basel, but for the east of the country, this could have been a welcome alternative via a less crowded route and thus also a route not as likely to have delays.


----------



## AlbertJP

This train service could be run with ETR 610 trains that were already owned by SBB. Anything else would have required more stock compatible with Switzerland and Germany (and possibly need to be tilting trains to reach journey times in Switzerland.)


----------



## Mr Smiyh

Big train orders for Hambourg S-bahn for the new extension:








La ville de Hambourg va commander des nouveaux trains pour l'extension de son S-Bahn - Actu Train


Allemagne - Actu Train Le sénat de la ville de Hambourg (La ville de Hambourg est une cité-état) vient d’approuver un plan pour commander une série supplémentaire de trains de




actutrain.com


----------



## hkskyline

* Deutsche Bahn to post 2020 loss of 5.7 bln eur - sources * 
Mar 17, 2021

BERLIN, March 17 (Reuters) - Germany's dominant railroad operator Deutsche Bahn is to post a 5.7 billion euro ($6.78 billion) loss for 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic led to a slump in passengers, two sources told Reuters.

Revenue fell 10% to around 40 billion euros and net debt rose to 29.3 billion euros last year from 24 billion in 2019, the sources said.

Source : Deutsche Bahn to post 2020 loss of 5.7 bln eur - sources


----------



## M-NL

One of the big problems arising around Europe is that in most countries the biggest operator is still state owned and there are usually also several private operators (often owned by a state owned operator from a different country). The state owned operator has received compensation, the private owned operators often have not. It is highly unlikely the German government will let DB go bankrupt, not so for all the others. The same situation applies to both passenger and freight rail. In fact, in freight, even though DB Cargo is the biggest, it only accounts for less then half of the total freight volume. Despite that they get compensation, their competitors do not.


----------



## doinel

Apparently, DB is in the initial planning stages for double-tracking the line Mannheim-Karlsruhe:








Bahnprojekt Mannheim–Karlsruhe


Neu- und Ausbau der Verbindung zwischen Mannheim und Karlsruhe



www.mannheim-karlsruhe.de




This project went under my radar, which is not surprising considering the attention-grabbing problems related to Frankfurt-Mannheim and Karlsruhe-Basel.


----------



## TM_Germany

You mean expanding the existing line or building a new, parallel one. The existing railway has been double tracked for a century already. Curently, part of the HSL Mannheim-Stuttgart covers that stretch, with the rest being a 200km/h upgraded line.


----------



## doinel

The initial plan was to add new tracks to the line between Graben-Neudorf and Karlsruhe. They came to the conclusion, that they also need additional capacity btw Mannheim and Graben-Neudorf (besides the SFS stretch you mentioned). Presumably, this capacity extension is aimed at the accommodation of rising freight traffic.
They are looking at a wide corridor. Hence, it could lead to a new line, not necessarily located adjacent to the current tracks.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

M-NL said:


> One of the big problems arising around Europe is that in most countries the biggest operator is still state owned and there are usually also several private operators (often owned by a state owned operator from a different country). The state owned operator has received compensation, the private owned operators often have not. It is highly unlikely the German government will let DB go bankrupt, not so for all the others. The same situation applies to both passenger and freight rail. In fact, in freight, even though DB Cargo is the biggest, it only accounts for less then half of the total freight volume. Despite that they get compensation, their competitors do not.


It is not about private vs. public ownership. It is about big companies vs. little ones. The German government has also pledged billions to save Lufthansa, which is a 100% privatized company. Fact is, if we woke up to Flixtrain being bankrupt, this would be a special interest notice on the business news site. Would DB or LH go bust, that would be front page news, sincere trouble with lobby groups, trade unions, all kinds of political groups and voters. The German term is "systemrelevant", no idea of the English equivalent. This might not be fair, but I am just explaining the logic behind the government position, which has nothing to do with DB ownership. They could not care less, no MP or minister could be sent to prison or held personally liable for mismanagement of public property.


----------



## davide84

Baron Hirsch said:


> The German term is "systemrelevant", no idea of the English equivalent.


Literally "Company of systemic relevance", most frequently re-translated as "too big to fail".

The EU pushes for crisis-related aids being offered in terms of track access discounts so that all operators will benefit, but of course in this case revenue is practically absent and much more than that is needed, namely cash injection to pay staff and operations.
In Italy there's the same problem with the private High Speed operator Italo, which can't rely on regional service contracts and is not backed by the State like the incumbent Trenitalia. So far they're still in business, but it's tough.


----------



## Mr Smiyh

The rolling stock for Berlin`s suburban rail is being modernized:








Les VBB rénovent les Talent 2 du réseau régional de Berlin - Actu Train


Allemagne - Actu Train La VBB a consenti à un investissement de 105 millions d’euros pour la modernisation de 145 voitures à deux étages, 31 locomotives électriques et 41 unités




actutrain.com


----------



## noikia2010

But why did Germany introduced 16 2/3 Hertz A.C. for electric trains and not 50 Hz?


----------



## pccvspw999

noikia2010 said:


> But why did Germany introduced 16 2/3 Hertz A.C. for electric trains and not 50 Hz?


Because a those times it wasn’t feasable to produce 50Hz motors for the needed output power, so 1/3 of that frequency was the best solution.


----------



## M-NL

noikia2010 said:


> But why did Germany introduced 16 2/3 Hertz A.C. for electric trains and not 50 Hz?





pccvspw999 said:


> Because a those times it wasn’t feasable to produce 50Hz motors for the needed output power, so 1/3 of that frequency was the best solution.


To be more precise: All single phase AC commutator motors suffer from current arcing at their 'brushes', reducing their life span. Lower AC frequencies, 16,7 Hz or 25 Hz are common, reduce this arcing enough to create a viable maintenance interval.
Early 50 Hz AC trains actually aren't AC trains at all. They are in fact DC trains, with an onboard transformer and rectifier to make that DC power from the AC overhead line. Only from the 1950's science had advanced enough that they were able to produce rectifiers, that were small, sturdy and reliable enough, to be mounted on trains. The same trick is more or less still used today on all AC trains. Single phase AC is turned into DC and then inverted into 3 phase AC for the motors.


----------



## dyonisien

M-NL said:


> To be more precise: All single phase AC commutator motors suffer from current arcing at their 'brushes', reducing their life span. Lower AC frequencies, 16,7 Hz or 25 Hz are common, reduce this arcing enough to create a viable maintenance interval.
> Early 50 Hz AC trains actually aren't AC trains at all. They are in fact DC trains, with an onboard transformer and rectifier to make that DC power from the AC overhead line. Only from the 1950's science had advanced enough that they were able to produce rectifiers, that were small, sturdy and reliable enough, to be mounted on trains. The same trick is more or less still used today on all AC trains. Single phase AC is turned into DC and then inverted into 3 phase AC for the motors.


Probably with the idea of avoiding a special frequency there were pioneering trials with 50Hz in Hungary in the early 20s (Kálmán Kandó, Budapest-Hegyeshalom line) and in the 30s by the Deutsche Reichsbahn on the Höllental line in the Black Forest, a line with gradients up to 55‰. Many electrical configurations were tested within the technical state of that time, the system being judged interesting in spite of residual difficulties. 
As you rightly point, it is the use of rectifiers which opened the way to 50Hz electrification, with SNCF learning vastly from the Höllental trials and extending them with the ignitrons as rectifiers. In the mean time the DB had lost interest in the system tried by the DR...
The superiority of rectifiers against direct AC motors (available tractive effort at low speeds) was show in Switzerland by the BLS railway.
Now power electronics has changed the game.


----------



## noikia2010

I forgot that in the early days voltage rectifiers where big so you had to had A.C. motors.
True about power electronics. With power tranzistors you can controll traction more eficiently.
At least in Germany you had one unitary system for electrification. France haves 3. I can understand that they are 2, because you do want to electrify new lines with modern instalation, but why 3. 1500, 3000 Volts d.c. and 27000 Volts a.c.
Kálmán Kandó was the guy who started with 50 Hz locomotives. He also concived 3 phase locomotives. I saw a description of him on a Hungarian locomitive that pulled trains to Bucharest. The Hungarians made one intresting locomotive, 3 axles on one bogie, 2 on on the others.

But do yo know more about this auto cars? D-Zug Komet
They where pretty intresting. Usually automobiles transport cars where of the classical desing, meaning they where loaded from the end, so this requested a ramp and automobiles could be unloaded only by the rear end of the train, so if a automobile from the from the front end of the car or the car from the front of it was to be unloaded, what a mess. This sytsem was more simpler. Only in some U.S.A. pictures I've seen something like this.


----------



## TER200

noikia2010 said:


> France haves 3. I can understand that they are 2, because you do want to electrify new lines with modern instalation, but why 3. 1500, 3000 Volts d.c. and 27000 Volts a.c.


No, there are only 2 systems.
In the early XXth century one railway company ("Chemins de fer du Midi") electrified some of its lines in AC 12kV 16 2/3 Hz, but in 1920 the state decided that it was unsuitable (mostly because it was too similar to the german system and the army didn't like this) and all lines except one were converted to 1500 V DC.
There were also some suburban lines with a third rail under 600 or 750V, but they were concerted to either 1500V or 25 kV long ago.
Except maybe some stations for cross-border traffic, there is no 3 kV in France ; only the old (1500 V) and the modern (25kV 50 Hz).


----------



## Eloi von Grauwolf

TER200 said:


> No, there are only 2 systems.
> In the early XXth century one railway company ("Chemins de fer du Midi") electrified some of its lines in AC 12kV 16 2/3 Hz, but in 1920 the state decided that it was unsuitable (mostly because it was too similar to the german system and the army didn't like this) and all lines except one were converted to 1500 V DC.
> There were also some suburban lines with a third rail under 600 or 750V, but they were concerted to either 1500V or 25 kV long ago.
> Except maybe some stations for cross-border traffic, there is no 3 kV in France ; only the old (1500 V) and the modern (25kV 50 Hz).


There's also the Train Jaune (Yellow Train) with its 1000 mm, third rail 750V DC, which is part of the SNCF. And a single station with 3 different track gauges and electrification systems, La Tour de Carol-Enveigt, with 1000mm 750V DC 3rd rail, 1435 mm 1.5 kV DC and 1668 mm 3 kV DC (this last one from the Spanish side).


----------



## TER200

Eloi von Grauwolf said:


> There's also the Train Jaune (Yellow Train) with its 1000 mm, third rail 750V DC, which is part of the SNCF.


And the Saint-Gervais - Vallorcine which has its third rail under 850V. But SNCF or not, they are not part of the main network due to the different gauge, so electrification compatibility is not an issue.


----------



## Eloi von Grauwolf

TER200 said:


> And the Saint-Gervais - Vallorcine which has its third rail under 850V. But SNCF or not, they are not part of the main network due to the different gauge, so electrification compatibility is not an issue.


It could -theoretically- be an issue if they were to modify the track gauge to 1435 mm, but not the electrification system. But yes, I was just nitpicking because I find the Train Jaune a lovely little yellow train and wanted to share it.


----------



## TER200

Eloi von Grauwolf said:


> It could -theoretically- be an issue if they were to modify the track gauge to 1435 mm, but not the electrification system.


Definitely the least of the issues, given the differences in loading gauge and curve radius.


----------



## CornelM




----------



## CornelM

Trains at/Eisenbahnaktivität bei Frankfurt/Main Hbf.


----------



## CornelM

Züge in/Rail traffic in München Hbf.


----------



## CornelM

Hello, folks, 
There is also steam in East Germany between 01:16:25 -01:51:45 on the below video . Enjoy!


----------



## hkskyline

* German railway announces plan to reopen 20 closed routes *
_Excerpt_
June 22, 2021

BERLIN (AP) — Germany's national rail operator on Tuesday announced plans to reopen 20 stretches of railway around the country that have been closed over the years, a move intended to help get more people and freight on trains as the country steps up efforts to fight climate change.

The stretches that state-owned Deutsche Bahn plans to revive have a total length of 245 kilometers (152 miles). They were chosen after a team of experts assessed shuttered routes totaling around 1,300 kilometers (800 miles) for potential viability.

The routes include several suburban lines in and around Berlin and Duesseldorf, as well as other local routes in various parts of the country and a cross-border connection from Breisach in Germany's southwestern corner to Colmar, France.

More : German railway announces plan to reopen 20 closed routes


----------



## M-NL

The article is a bit unclear on this, but isn't it DB Netz that owns the tracks? 
So I would assume they are reopening the tracks, but it doesn't have to be DB Regio to operate them?
Wasn't it up to the states to determine who operate where in regional traffic?


----------



## TM_Germany

Yes. DB Netz will rebuild those lines, who runs services on them is a different matter.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Yes. Essentially, this is not new. It is a summary of ongoing activities, summed up and "remarketed," if you so like. There are other ongoing attempts to revive some side lines, which are undertaken by local initiatives and therefore do not feature in this press release, which only mentions those lines under DB Netz management.


----------



## AAPMBerlin

*Fernbahntunnel Frankfurt approved!!!!!*









Bahn plant Fernbahntunnel in Frankfurt


Um dem hohen Verkehrsaufkommen gerecht zu werden, soll der Frankfurter Hauptbahnhof deutlich erweitert werden. Die Deutsche Bahn plant einen Fernbahntunnel unter der Innenstadt der Banken-Metropole. Die Bauzeit des Milliarden-Projekts wird mit zehn Jahren angegeben.




www.n-tv.de











Also here in english:




goschio said:


> *Deutsche Bahn plans long-distance rail tunnel beneath Frankfurt*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deutsche Bahn plans long-distance rail tunnel beneath Frankfurt
> 
> 
> Top Stories from around the globe brought to you by dpa International.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dpa-international.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bilder & Grafiken - Fernbahntunnel Frankfurt
> 
> 
> Bilder und Grafiken sowie Karten zum Projekt Fernbahntunnel Frankfurt sind auf der Webseite zusammengetragen.
> 
> 
> 
> www.fernbahntunnel-frankfurt.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video is in German but has some interesting concept visualisations of the project.


----------



## goschio

Construction of the new *Hamburg Altona train station* has officially started.

Architects: C.F. Møller Architects
Cost: 550 mio EUR
Construction start: 5/7/2021
Expected completion: 2027
New name of station: Diebsteich

New station will be located further north and will be a through station instead of a terminus like the old one. This will improve both capacity and speed on the north-south rail corridor.

The site of the old station will be redeveloped with residential units.















Bahnprojekt Hamburg-Altona: Baumaßnahmen Mitte Altona und Diebsteich







bahnprojekt-hamburg-altona.de


















































Train Station Hamburg-Altona


New train station at Hamburg-Altona that acts as a visionary landmark – both for Altona and for the whole of Hamburg – in that the station plays an active role in the urban development




www.cfmoller.com


----------



## Sunfuns

A through station for trains going to where? Denmark?


----------



## AAPMBerlin

^^
Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, Sylt, Sweden via Kopenhagen


----------



## Darryl

goschio said:


>


Niiice


----------



## Shenkey

AAPMBerlin said:


> ^^
> Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, Sylt, Sweden via Kopenhagen


And the new tunnel to Denmark?


----------



## AAPMBerlin

Shenkey said:


> And the new tunnel to Denmark?


Exactly. It‘s the same way out of Hamburg.


----------



## bruno amsterdamski

^^ That's not true. New Altona station will handle traffic in direction Sylt, Kiel, Flensburg (Jutland pennisula Denmark). Traffic to Kopehnagen, Sweden will be realized via Lübeck, Fehmarnbelttunnel. The reason to build new Altona is that all RE trains from northern Schleswig-Holstein will serve Altona and Hbf (now Kiel and Flensburg trains go to Hbf, and Sylt ones to Altona). Also through ICE/IC trains Kiel-Zürich/München, Sylt-Berlin/Frankfurt/Köln etc. will stop on both stations.


----------



## AAPMBerlin

Ok


----------



## Baron Hirsch

If you were planning a summer train cruise along the Rhine, visiting Beethoven's birthplace in Bonn, hiking in the Ardennes or Eifel Hills from train station to train station, or a scenic train ride to taste the Ahr Valley wines in situ, better cancel or delay. Here is a summary (far from exhaustive though) of the current situation:








German and Belgian networks disrupted by devastating floods


Lines across Germany and Belgium have been closed and traffic severely disrupted as record rainfall causes rivers to burst their banks.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## TM_Germany

Does anyone know about the condition of the Aar river bridge near Sinzig? Most bridges over the river are completely destroyed or heavily demaged. This would have severe and long lasting effects on the left Rhine valley line.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

theoretically, this map 




__





DB Netz - strecken.info






db-livemaps.hafas.de




should help you find out details to the damage, but considering the extent of the destruction, I would not vouch for it being up to date in every detail.


----------



## btrs

About the "new" Altona station: will it keep the "subtitle" Diebsteich or will it be discarded ? Because back in the early 2000's when Berlin Hbf was still under construction, it had the subtitle "Lehrter Bahnhof" (as it was on the location of the old Lehrter Stadtbahnhof) and DB management firmly stressed that it had to be called by its whole name : Berlin Hauptbahnhof - Lehrter Bahnhof.
When the station eventually opened in 2006, the subtitle was silently dropped and nobody from the "Chefetage" seemed to care that much anymore ?

We could however have the same discussion with other stations: for example the official name for the station in Chambéry is Chambéry-Challes-les-Eaux, but I bet no one in common language would call it that. They would just call it "Gare de Chambéry". Or the whole Lyon monstrosity "Lyon-Saint-Exupéry", which many prefer to call "Lyon-Satolas" (that was the original name before the airport was named Saint-Exupéry, and the station adjacent to it had to follow..).


----------



## TM_Germany

Baron Hirsch said:


> theoretically, this map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DB Netz - strecken.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> db-livemaps.hafas.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> should help you find out details to the damage, but considering the extent of the destruction, I would not vouch for it being up to date in every detail.


Thanks. It seems that services continue, albeit with vmax=40 over the bridge. The information is dated to the fiteenth. A section of the railway further north is closed completely for repairs though, it seems like they want to reopen it tomorrow, though.


----------



## bruno amsterdamski

btrs said:


> About the "new" Altona station: will it keep the "subtitle" Diebsteich or will it be discarded ?


I did not see a real discussion about that. As far as I know it was so far called "der neue Fern- und Regionalbahnhof Hamburg-Altona"


----------



## zsbuum

Hi!

I would like to ask if the 2. Stammstrecke München will be usable for long distance trains as well, or only S-bahn?

In my opinion, it would be better to allow Railjets or ICEs in the tunnel as well, because that would save a ton of time without changing directions in Münich main station towards/from Wien or Innsbruck/Italy directions. And it would be bad if they only build this tunnel for S-bahn and I suppose, later an another one for only long distance trains would be a waste of money, it wouldn't be so used alone, to make it financially worth.


----------



## M-NL

The S-Bahn operates as an all stop high frequency rapid transit system with commuter rail equipment. It would be very disrupting to have long distance trains running in between. Long distance trains accelerate and brake much slower, don't need to stop at every station and at the stations they do stop have much longer dwell times.

In the past switching directions was time consuming, because you had to disconnect the loco at one end and connect another at the other end, do brake tests, etc. Nowadays most of the long distance trains, whether ICE, RailJet or regular IC, are either EMUs or behave like EMUs by having a loco at one and a driving cab on the other end. The time it takes another driver to take over the train to drive it in the other direction is roughly the same as the dwell time needed. Even splitting or combining trainsets hardly adds extra time. The only reason for a long distance train tunnel would be that it would cut a massive amount of travel time, because of a shorter route. I don't know if that applies for Munich.


----------



## pccvspw999

As far as I know platforms of 96cm of height pose some serious obstacles for other trains than S-Bahns in using them, if not even make it impossible. Were a mixed use is intended a height of 76cm is normally used.
But there may be exeptions.
So, what platform height is planned inside the "2. Stammstrecke"? I hope 96cm.


----------



## flierfy

zsbuum said:


> Hi!
> 
> I would like to ask if the 2. Stammstrecke München will be usable for long distance trains as well, or only S-bahn?
> 
> In my opinion, it would be better to allow Railjets or ICEs in the tunnel as well, because that would save a ton of time without changing directions in Münich main station towards/from Wien or Innsbruck/Italy directions. And it would be bad if they only build this tunnel for S-bahn and I suppose, later an another one for only long distance trains would be a waste of money, it wouldn't be so used alone, to make it financially worth.


The whole point of an S-Bahn is the segregation of frequently running stopping services from the remainder of mainline services. Once established, this principle will not be given up again and most certainly not when the reason for building the new trunk route is the limited capacity of the existing one.


----------



## davide84

M-NL said:


> The S-Bahn operates as an all stop high frequency rapid transit system with commuter rail equipment. It would be *very disrupting* to have long distance trains running in between.





flierfy said:


> The whole point of an S-Bahn is *the segregation* of frequently running stopping services from the remainder of mainline services.


Honestly I'm used to lines and stations with mixed long-distance and S-Bahn services... I know the maximum capacity is reached when all the traffic has the same pattern, but as long as the long distance services are not high-speed (and they never truly are in urban areas) I see room for cohabitation.


----------



## NCT

Urban networks in 2-5m cities are a different kettle of fish to Switzerland with an entire population of 8m.

As far as I'm aware both Munich S-bahn tunnels will handle 20+tph. at this sort of frequency you want your train performance to not just be similar but actually absolutely identical. Same dwell times, same door positions, same acceleration/deceleration curves, and same passenger behaviour. Having inter-city end door stock taking one extra minute dwell time with passengers arriving earlier for that 1tph service isn't acceptable for a metro operation.


----------



## flierfy

davide84 said:


> Honestly I'm used to lines and stations with mixed long-distance and S-Bahn services... I know the maximum capacity is reached when all the traffic has the same pattern, but as long as the long distance services are not high-speed (and they never truly are in urban areas) I see room for cohabitation.


Except that services, which you are used to, are S-Bahn in name only. Proper S-Bahn lines run at intervals of 10 min or less. There is no way that non-S-Bahn services fit between them. Hence the need for segregation.


----------



## davide84

...ok, then it's more extreme than what I remembered... thanks!


----------



## NCT

There are different S-bahn systems in Germany. Berlin, Hambourg and Munich S-bahn networks are completely/mostly(?) segregated from other mainline traffic with metro characteristics, basically full-sized versions of U-bahn. Other cities' S-bahn can feel more like rebranded regional trains.


----------



## TER200

NCT said:


> Berlin, Hambourg and Munich S-bahn networks are completely/mostly(?) segregated from other mainline traffic with metro characteristics,


Berlin and Hamburg have completely (or almost) segregated tracks. Munich, Frankfurt and Stuttgart not really, except for the _Stammstrecke _which is the common trunk with very high frequency.


----------



## Attus

TER200 said:


> Berlin and Hamburg have completely (or almost) segregated tracks. Munich, Frankfurt and Stuttgart not really, except for the _Stammstrecke _which is the common trunk with very high frequency.


No, it's wrong, S-Bahn in and around Munich, Frankfurt/Main and Stuttgart is not completely, but for the most part segregated. The same is true around Cologne, too. 
RE 1 der Deutschen Bahn nach Aachen by Attila Németh, auf Flickr
S-Bahn nach Düren by Attila Németh, auf Flickr


----------



## bruno amsterdamski

davide84 said:


> ...ok, then it's more extreme than what I remembered... thanks!


Here example of timetable for Hackescher Markt - S-Bahn Berlin in direction Friedriechstr. (on average train every 3min)










TER200 said:


> Berlin and Hamburg have completely (or almost) segregated tracks


As far as I know there are two places where regional trains use S-Bahn tracks in Berlin namely Karow and Birkenwerder. In both cases there is no platform on regional tracks so regional trains use S-Bahn tracks on a very short length only to use S-Bahn platforms. In Karow there are diesel trains in Birkenwerder in addition to third rail there is also overhead catenary.


----------



## TM_Germany

Attus said:


> No, it's wrong, S-Bahn in and around Munich, Frankfurt/Main and Stuttgart is not completely, but for the most part segregated. The same is true around Cologne, too.
> RE 1 der Deutschen Bahn nach Aachen by Attila Németh, auf Flickr
> S-Bahn nach Düren by Attila Németh, auf Flickr


There are certainly a lot of lines where S-Bahn and regional/long distance trains have their own tracks, however there are a lot of lines with shared track as well. I'm not even sure if it is the case for the majority of lines. Frequency can also be quite low on S-Bahn branches with only a single line on them, with headways of 20min or so. In Munich, there are also some single track S-Bahn branches. Of course, frequency in the central areas is still very metro like, however only Hamburg and Berlin are actually sort of second metro systems with frequencies of 10 minutes or less on most of the network. If you're nerdy enough and can understand German (or are able to bear the automatic translation) you can watch this documentary about the different S-Bahn systems: 







bruno amsterdamski said:


> Here example of timetable for Hackescher Markt - S-Bahn Berlin in direction Friedriechstr. (on average train every 3min)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know there are two places where regional trains use S-Bahn tracks in Berlin namely Karow and Birkenwerder. In both cases there is no platform on regional tracks so regional trains use S-Bahn tracks on a very short length only to use S-Bahn platforms. In Karow there are diesel trains in Birkenwerder in addition to third rail there is also overhead catenary.


This is the Berlin system, which as previously mentioned certainly is the most comprable to a second metro. AFAIK, the S-Bahn was originally a competitor of the U-Bahn and they also use subway-like rolling stock, so it makes sense. The example you gave is also part of the (somwhat confusingly named) Stadtbahn, which is one of the three central trunk lines of Berlin's S-Bahn network, where several lines are superimposed on top of one another to archieve those high frequencies. This isn't exactly representative even for the high frequency Berlin S-Bahn network, but it is a good comparison for the second Stammstrecke in Munich. I believe that will have even higher frequency as the current Stamstrecke already has headways of only 90 seconds or so.
OT to the topic, but why does the timetable you show using the Austrian S-Bahn logo?


----------



## bruno amsterdamski

TM_Germany said:


> The example you gave is also part of the (somwhat confusingly named) Stadtbahn, which is one of the three central trunk lines of Berlin's S-Bahn network, where several lines are superimposed on top of one another to archieve those high frequencies. This isn't exactly representative even for the high frequency Berlin S-Bahn network,


I did not say it is representative. Of course in peripheral areas frequency is smaller but generally (inside city bounduary) trains go in one direction every 10min or less.



TM_Germany said:


> OT to the topic, but why does the timetable you show using the Austrian S-Bahn logo?


Taken from ÖBB


----------



## Baron Hirsch

bruno amsterdamski said:


> As far as I know there are two places where regional trains use S-Bahn tracks in Berlin namely Karow and Birkenwerder. In both cases there is no platform on regional tracks so regional trains use S-Bahn tracks on a very short length only to use S-Bahn platforms. In Karow there are diesel trains in Birkenwerder in addition to third rail there is also overhead catenary.


Okay, so for the purists, yes there are a few places where S-Bahn and other trains are not completely segregated even in the big German cities, but these are the absolute exceptions, especially in Berlin and Hamburg, where S-Bahns run on a completely incompatible power supply system (3rd rail) from other trains. As Bruno pointed out, in two places, Regionalbahns share the same platforms with S-Bahns for lack of space for a separate one. These were both results of the Berlin Wall, as some lines could no longer be operated in straight direction from West Berlin into the Eastern suburbs, but had to circle around and connect with other lines on East Berlin territory instead.
One more interesting East German defiance of categorical segregation: the station Wuhlheide _Wuhletal _has common platforms for S- and U-Bahn. In this way, commuters can easily switch between the two main lines heading straight east, i.e. U5 and S5. To my knowledge though, they never swap the side of the platform where U- and where S-Bahn stop.

_PS Thanks, P. Haven't been to that station in a few years and already names start to slip. Guess it must be old age.._


----------



## pccvspw999

Baron Hirsch said:


> […]
> One more interesting East German defiance of categorical segregation: the station Wuhlheide has common platforms for S- and U-Bahn. In this way, commuters can easily switch between the two main lines heading straight east, i.e. U5 and S5. To my knowledge though, they never swap the side of the platform where U- and where S-Bahn stop.


No, they can’t swap. There is no track comunication, the two systems are still segregated, only the platforms are shared. The station is Wuhletal, in fact.

Segregation of S-Bahn developed over the years along with their increased frequency. A part of specific lines where S-Bahn is the only service, other lines got S-Bahn dedicated tracks bit by bit, sometimes only a third track was layed. Nowadays S-Bahn systems are already that busy, that activating new lines will always require new tracks, but in the beginning this was not the case. But always part of the plan.


----------



## Baron Hirsch

Oh for crying out loud, how many more threads do you want to spam with your countless cross-postings of train videos? There are more than enough places on youtube etc. to watch nostalgic train trips. The purpose of this forum is primarily to exchange and discuss developments, rather than just watch tv. Please stop it, or we must appeal to the admins to take action!


----------



## M-NL

At the start of the year the Abellio Germany subsidiaries in North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg went bankrupt and seized operations. I can't make out whether the complete Abellio Germany went under, because some parts still seem to be active. 
What I was wondering: Since august 2020 Abellio had made multiple pleas to the state transport associations for extra compensation because corona had decimated the number of travellers. They were refused. Now those same state transport associations had to find alternate solutions in a hurry. I can't imagine that was cheap. In fact, wouldn't it have been cheaper to compensate Abellio to keep running, if only for the time being?


----------



## Turf

M-NL said:


> At the start of the year the Abellio Germany subsidiaries in North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg went bankrupt and seized operations. I can't make out whether the complete Abellio Germany went under, because some parts still seem to be active.
> What I was wondering: Since august 2020 Abellio had made multiple pleas to the state transport associations for extra compensation because corona had decimated the number of travellers. They were refused. Now those same state transport associations had to find alternate solutions in a hurry. I can't imagine that was cheap. In fact, wouldn't it have been cheaper to compensate Abellio to keep running, if only for the time being?


In what way does this impact Nederlandse Spoorwegen and the Dutch taxpayer?
What is the point anyway of doing this activities abroad?


----------



## AlbertJP

Many European railway companies have gone abroad, under threat of competition in their own country. DB owns Arriva, SNCF owns Keolis, the Italian FS owns Qbuzz, etc. So for NS this was a logical step, and they made a profit in the UK and Germany before - until 2020.

NS had indicated in September to be unwilling to cover losses over a longer period of time, and that is what led to the insolvency proceedings in Germany.


----------



## K_

M-NL said:


> At the start of the year the Abellio Germany subsidiaries in North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg went bankrupt and seized operations. I can't make out whether the complete Abellio Germany went under, because some parts still seem to be active.
> What I was wondering: Since august 2020 Abellio had made multiple pleas to the state transport associations for extra compensation because corona had decimated the number of travellers. They were refused. Now those same state transport associations had to find alternate solutions in a hurry. I can't imagine that was cheap. In fact, wouldn't it have been cheaper to compensate Abellio to keep running, if only for the time being?


So in Germany those private operators do take up some commercial risks? I though that they just operated as subcontractors to the transport authorities, billing them for the amount of trainkm. performed.


----------



## TM_Germany

K_ said:


> So in Germany those private operators do take up some commercial risks? I though that they just operated as subcontractors to the transport authorities, billing them for the amount of trainkm. performed.


Yes exactly. The state pays the companies to run the trains, the operators then pass the ticket revenue back to the state. So the claim that Abellio went bankrupt because of fewer passengers doesn't really make sense.


----------



## M-NL

That can't be right. There must be some mechanism that makes the operator turnover dependent on the number of passengers, otherwise this problem wouldn't exist.
Another thing is that there have been huge staff pay rises, that were unforeseen (at least by Abellio). They were not compensated for either. As I understand it Abellio paid their staff at the same rates as DB Regio, which is higher then most private operators use. Former Abellio staff will no be happy, when they switch employers and get lower rates (on the other hand, there is a massive shortage of rail staff, maybe that helps a little).


----------



## pccvspw999

Maybe some side-effect from the pandemic. Did the two Länder reduce the service because of lower passanger numbers? Because if the operator has no risk due to lower passenger numbers, it has probably the risk that orders may be reduced by the authorities.


----------



## AlbertJP

No they did not, but the service got cancelled due to building works or infrastructure failures more often than expected, and Abellio complained that they got fined for cancellations that they couldn't do anything about it.


----------



## M-NL

AlbertJP said:


> No they did not, but the service got cancelled due to building works or infrastructure failures more often than expected, and Abellio complained that they got fined for cancellations that they couldn't do anything about it.


Is that normal practice in Germany or an oversight of Abellios contract lawyers?


----------



## AlbertJP

Whether this problem happens in other German regions as well, I don't know. As I understood it, these were the terms as given by the VRR and other authorities in the tender, and it was Abellio's fault that they made a cheap bid that didn't take such setbacks into account.

Nevertheless the VRR should have done this better.


----------



## 33Hz

Does anyone know whether the 9 Euro ticket is valid on IREs? All the DB website says is:



> The 9 euro ticket can be used nationwide on all routes and in all means of public transport (RE, RB, U-Bahn, S-Bahn, bus, tram) for any number of journeys.
> The ticket is *not* valid on *long-distance trains* (e.g. IC, EC, ICE) and long-distance buses .


----------



## TM_Germany

IREs afaik only exist in BW and are considered regional trains, so it should be fine.


----------



## AlbertJP

Long-distance trains are only the ones operated by "DB Fernverkehr" (or private long-distance operators such as Flixtrain.) These have entirely different ticketing systems, where you can get a cheaper ticket if you book for a specific train.

In everything else, regional tickets are valid and thus also the 9€ ticket (with some exceptions for cross-border routes.) BW has a number of train "brands" and classes that don't exist nationwide, such as the MEX around Stuttgart or the RS around Ulm, but all of these are accessible with any ticket for regional trains.


----------



## AAPMBerlin

Biggest contract for Alstom for the Coradia Stram platform in Germany:








Alstom to supply 130 Coradia Stream trains to SFBW in Germany


The order includes 130 Coradia Stream High Capacity electric double-deck trains and their maintenance over 30 years Alstom meets demand for sustainability, capacity, and comfort in regional transport




www.alstom.com





Another contract for the Coradia Stream platform in Germany for Alstom:








Alstom wins contract to deliver 29 double-deck Coradia Stream trains to DB Regio


Twenty-nine modern Coradia Stream High Capacity trains will increase transport capacity and reduce travel times for passengers in Germany’s Hesse region




www.alstom.com


----------



## TM_Germany

The BW trains look really impressive in their interior design. The top speed of 200 km/h is also really cool.


----------



## Fatfield

I notice Alstom have gone for a different set-up to Siemens having the duplex carriages at the front & rear compared with the RRX duplex being the middle two carriages. Still a nice looking train though.


----------



## TER200

Fatfield said:


> I notice Alstom have gone for a different set-up to Siemens having the duplex carriages at the front & rear


This is maybe because the first contract for the Coradia Stream HC was for CFL, which required a 3-car variant (thus they put only one power car, in the middle, and both end cars are identical).


----------



## Attus

RE1: Koblenz - Trier - Saarbrücken - Mannheim, DB Regio with Flirt EMUs
RE11: Koblenz - Trier - Luxembourg, CFL with KISS EMUs.
The trains run between Koblenz and Trier coupled.
mosel_20220626_16 by Attila Németh, on Flickr


----------



## goschio

Some new details...

*Long-distance railway tunnel in Frankfurt: New details on the billion-euro project*



> A year after a feasibility study had shown that an ICE train station under Frankfurt's main train station is fundamentally possible, Deutsche Bahn put the planning services out to tender.





> This includes preliminary planning, draft planning, approval planning and implementation planning - "everything in one process to save time," said Gerd-Dietrich Bolte, who manages the infrastructure projects in central Germany for Deutsche Bahn.





> Among other things, track 10 will be rebuilt at Südbahnhof and a new signal box will be installed. At Frankfurt Central Station, platform 25 is being rebuilt on the north side, where there are currently parking spaces.





> The long-distance station is to have* four tracks on two island platforms*. It will be at a *depth of around 40 meters* on the south side of the main train station, along Mannheimer Strasse. *The platform will be around 450 meters long* so that the ICE trains, which are more than 400 meters long, can stop there.





> Deutsche Bahn expects 20 percent more capacity through the long-distance railway tunnel - so a fifth more trains can pass through the main station. *Travel times would also be shorter - from Frankfurt to Hamburg, Berlin or Munich by around half an hour each*.





> The feasibility study had shown a possible route under the Main river - other routes under the city center or under the bank towers had not been possible because of the foundations of the high-rise buildings.





> A new cross connection will be built under the tracks in front of the main train station for travelers and residents -





> The *costs of the long-distance railway tunnel* were last given as around *3.5 billion euros*, which the federal government will assume.











\

Fernbahntunnel in Frankfurt: Neue Details zum Milliardenprojekt (google translate)


----------



## TM_Germany

^^ yes.


----------



## Attus

TM_Germany said:


> ^^ yes.


But what has RRX with the second track of the S-Bahn to do?


----------



## TM_Germany

Attus said:


> But what has RRX with the second track of the S-Bahn to do?


Sperating the S-Bahn from the faster traffic frees up capacity for the RRX.


----------



## Attus

TM_Germany said:


> Sperating the S-Bahn from the faster traffic frees up capacity for the RRX.


OK, what are we taling about? Neuss - Dormagen - Cologne? If yes, then, please, forget it I was wrong. Or Dusseldorf - Leverkusen - Cologne?


----------



## NCT

From what I can gather - Dusseldorf-Leverkusen-Cologne was 3-tracks in many places - S-bahn had single line working and freight had to use fast lines. Current works will create a continuous 4-track railway between Cologne and Dusseldorf via Leverkusen so that freight and S-bahn can share tracks. This would leave the fast lines for ICEs and RRX which can coexist relatively well.

4tph at even intervals on RRX between Dusseldorf and Cologne will be a game changer. You can really turn-up-and-go with your eyes closed (i.e. you can enjoy an Altbier in Dusseldorf old town and stumble towards Hbf without consulting a timetable, whereas today you still feel you need to time yourself for the 40, 58 or FFS the 13 via Neuss).


----------



## Wilhem275

Is there freight traffic on that line? I'd think they're mostly on their dedicated line via Hilden - Rath - Wedau, which also allows to avoid Dusseldorf Hbf and Duisburg Hbf.

Not that it would surprise me, to see freight on any line in that corridor...

While I know there's some freight via Neuss, but again not towards Dusseldorf, it just follows the left bank.


----------



## NCT

Another question, once the four-tracking is complete, will there be a recast of the S-bahn timetable as well? I recall reading somewhere that S-bahn in the Rhine area will move to a 15-minute cycle as well (instead of the current 20)?


----------



## TM_Germany

Wilhem275 said:


> Is there freight traffic on that line? I'd think they're mostly on their dedicated line via Hilden - Rath - Wedau, which also allows to avoid Dusseldorf Hbf and Duisburg Hbf.
> 
> Not that it would surprise me, to see freight on any line in that corridor...
> 
> While I know there's some freight via Neuss, but again not towards Dusseldorf, it just follows the left bank.


Yes, there's also freight traffic on the corridor, which will use the S-Bahn tracks. The corridor on the right side of the Rhine is usually the more important freight route and part of the TEN-T network afaik.


----------



## TM_Germany

NCT said:


> Another question, once the four-tracking is complete, will there be a recast of the S-bahn timetable as well? I recall reading somewhere that S-bahn in the Rhine area will move to a 15-minute cycle as well (instead of the current 20)?


I don't know anything specific about that. Afaik they will stick to a base 10 system, so if there will be improvements, it will likely be a train every 10 minutes.


----------



## jrcc

Do ICE trains have Wifi?


----------



## bruno amsterdamski

^^ I'm not sure if all but mostly yes.


----------



## TM_Germany

Yes they do, though connection quality can vary.


----------



## AlbertJP

NCT said:


> Another question, once the four-tracking is complete, will there be a recast of the S-bahn timetable as well? I recall reading somewhere that S-bahn in the Rhine area will move to a 15-minute cycle as well (instead of the current 20)?


The Cologne S-Bahn is becoming increasingly different from the Rhein-Ruhr one, even though the networks are intertwined. Cologne is planning to keep its 10 or 20-minute frequencies and 96cm platform height while the VRR wants to move to 15-minute frequencies and 76cm platforms in the long term, given many of their lines run together with regional trains.


----------



## Attus

AlbertJP said:


> The Cologne S-Bahn is becoming increasingly different from the Rhein-Ruhr one, even though the networks are intertwined. Cologne is planning to keep its 10 or 20-minute frequencies and 96cm platform height while the VRR wants to move to 15-minute frequencies and 76cm platforms in the long term, given many of their lines run together with regional trains.


True. Additionally: S-Bahn in the Rhine-Ruhr area hast already a 15/30 minutes frequency in several lines. S1 has a quite funny schedule, it's like two different lines having the same line number:

10/20 minutes frequency between Solingen and Duisburg
15/30 minutes between Duisburg and Dortmund.


----------



## NCT

Some photos of RRX from my trip:

IMG_0014 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

Upper deck interior:

MED_8222 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

Lower deck:

MED_8224 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

Looking into the single-deck carriage:

MED_8223 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

There is step-free access from a (IIRC) 550mm platform into the lower section through a series of ramps:

IMG_0019 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

You go through the intermediate level to access the upper deck: 

IMG_0017 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

The tip-up seats when in use get in the way big-time

IMG_0016 by Constant Invader, on Flickr


----------



## kyllä

Garmisch-Reute-Pfronten and Garmisch-Mittenwald-Seefeld reopened

Still closed Garmisch-Murnau (until November)










R6/S7 to Pfronten-Steinach track 4 17:04 (on the right)

R6/S6 to Mittenwald track 3 17:02 (does not appear in the image, just behind the first train)

On track 2 a train just arrived from Seefeld (on the left)


----------



## NCT

A few more photos from my recent sojourn, in the Rhine-Ruhr area, mainly Cologne

Rhine-Ruhr S-bahn Class 422 at Essen Hugel

MED_8151 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

Same class in the new Rhine-Ruhr S-bahn livery captured at Dusseldorf

MED_8270 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

Graffittied trains are not an uncommon sight. This was at Solingen Hbf on a service from Cologne.

MED_8159 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

Train shed at Cologne Central Station (Hauptbahnhof) from the cathedral square

IMG_0029 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

MED_8156 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

These double decker coaches are formerly regional stock now masquerading as inter-city:

MED_8155 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

IMG_0096 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

IMG_0101 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

IMG_0099 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

I wasn't the only crank:

IMG_0103 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

My train to Hamburg, coaching stock pushed by a Class 101 loco capable of 220km/h - not dissimilar to an IC225 with a rake of MkII coaches:

IMG_0106 by Constant Invader, on Flickr

My train left Cologne (the origin stop) 1 minute late and gradually lost time. We arrived at Hamburg 15 minutes late.


----------



## Nik name

bongo-anders said:


> Can you guys explain me something.
> 
> The railroad to Fehmarn closes this september in preperation for the Fehmarn tunnel.
> 
> But according to danish newspapers the comstruction start is delayed to 2026 because of added noise protektion etc etc.
> 
> So why close the railroad for 3,5 years for no apparent reason.



"On Fehmarn the railway is currently still waiting for the building permits for the new double-track electrified route. According to the railway, the route must be closed now because such "blocking breaks", eg. times when no trains can run, have a long registration period. Preparations for construction are now to begin on the island in order to be able to start as quickly as possible when the permits are issued."

Der letzte Zug ist auf die Insel Fehmarn gerollt


----------



## Wilhem275

I still don't understand...


----------



## Wilhem275

One thing I noticed recently is how DB changed the voice used for announcements in several main stations. The female voice (as used in Berlin Hbf) is being replaced by a male voice, which I recognize as the guy who recorded Berlin S-Bahn and RB's on board announcements (must have been 20 years ago).

But... in the new announcements he sounds like he's about to fall asleep while reading, and with a severe cold blocking his nose. Very unpleasant. Somehow even disturbing.
Why did they go this way? Did the public react to this choice?


----------



## M-NL

doc7austin said:


> I am pretty sure in other countries trains won't be stopped just because someone claimed to have seen some people near the tracks. This is a very German thing.


AFAIK in the Netherlands drivers will be asked to run the section 'on sight' at low speed (40 km/h max). If something is spotted the police will be dispatched, if multiple drivers don't see anything out of the ordinary regular service will resume.


----------



## davide84

doc7austin said:


> I am pretty sure in other countries trains won't be stopped just because someone claimed to have seen some people near the tracks. This is a very German thing.


My experience from other countries is that people near the tracks are normality, or aren't there at all.
In Switzerland it is common to have pedestrian trails side by side to a railway line, with a 40 cm fence or even nothing at all in between.
In Italy high speed lines are fenced and separated, secondary lines are often also fenced... people go on the tracks only within stations when it's the student protest seasons (November).


----------



## Stuu

doc7austin said:


> I am pretty sure in other countries trains won't be stopped just because someone claimed to have seen some people near the tracks. This is a very German thing.


Definitely a thing in the UK too. Typically the controller will tell the next train, or few trains if it's busy, to run slowly and report back


----------



## M-NL

Stuu said:


> Definitely a thing in the UK too. Typically the controller will tell the next train, or few trains if it's busy, to run slowly and report back


So the UK does the same as the Netherlands. Germany does a different thing. They stop running altogether until the line is verified clear by some other means than running a sighting train.


----------



## Attus

If you see the telegraph poles, it's more or less clear where the railway used to run. Not only the railway, but the ground under it, too, was washed away by the river last year. Hard to believe, if you see it nowadays.
Ahr valley, Western Germany.
Winzerweg 05 by Attila Németh, on Flickr


----------



## geogregor

NCT said:


> I had a Leipzig - Berlin train a few days earlier that emergency stopped because of trespassers on the line (reason given on the Navigator app anyway) - we were sat at Wittenburg 2-carriages short of the actual stop position for 50 minutes before the line reopened. At least that was a delay caused by reasons genuinely outside of the industry.





doc7austin said:


> I am pretty sure in other countries trains won't be stopped just because someone claimed to have seen some people near the tracks. This is a very German thing.


There is difference between trespasser "on the line" and "near the line"

Even in the UK response differs. If someone reports people near the line (which are generally fenced) as other said, the drivers are cautioned and told to look around, but trains run.

But there are cases when people run on tracks, happens sometimes in urban areas when teenagers run from police etc. In that case line can be totally blocked.


----------



## Coccodrillo

geogregor said:


> My main issue with the ICE trains (we also used one between Strasbourg and Paris) is the seat layout. There are many seats badly aligned with windows. By luck in most cases we got really crap seats, in a few cases we could only stare at blank wall. I though it was mostly British problem (where modern fleet is often crap in that regard) but I see that fleet makers on the continent don't seem to care about seat-window relation either.


From my experience, in Stadler trains almost always seats align with windows, even outside Switzerland Stadler trains remains bright, because the pillars are usually not that wide and even when seats are not exactly aligned the train remain bright. In contrast, Alstom regional trains like the Coradia Stream in Italy are dark and sad. There is nothing better than Stadler for regional trains IMHO, the only problem with them is that SBB always buy them with seats as soft as a stone bench.

The few CAF high speed trains I tried in Spain were also quite good, but that was a decade ago. In contrast, Talgo sucks a lot.



davide84 said:


> There are no AGV operators abroad, but there were a number of AGV renders, prototypes and mock-ups when Alstom was pushing for it. I remember seeing the comparison on Italian forums when the Italo AGV was first unveiled, now I can't find the images anymore.
> 
> But I can proudly show you what Italo managed to order... notice that the size of the 4-seat module would allow for a good alignment with the window, but they still managed to screw it!
> View attachment 3974538
> 
> 
> View attachment 3974527


This dumb design also makes clothes hangers almost useless. Either (first photo) you get it half folded on your table (where you might want to put your laptop instead), or somewhere placed diagonally on your head (second photo, there might be place for just one dress, for a second one, no way).


----------



## kyllä

Werdenfelsbahn on the brink of the full closure:

main track (München-Tutzing-Weilheim-Murnau-Garmisch-Mittenwald-Scharnitz-Innsbruck):
X Tutzing-Weilheim (since 7.11.22)
X Murnau-Garmisch
X Garmisch-Mittenwald (only lasted 5 days open in September)
branches:
X Seehaupt - Kochel am See
X Murnau-Oberammergau

So now it's only open München-Tutzing and Weilheim-Murnau.
The Außerfernbahn working: Garmisch-Pfronten (since mid-September) and Pfronten-Kempten (reopened in late October after 3-week works)

Bahnstrecke Weilheim-Tutzing gesperrt: „Warten, warten, warten. Keine Infos, keine Durchsage“ | Weilheim (merkur.de)

Aktuelle Betriebslage (bahn.de)


----------



## kyllä

Update:

Tutzing-Weilheim: reopened
X Murnau-Garmisch : to open 16.11.22
X Garmisch-Mittenwald : closure extended to 11.12.22


----------



## kyllä

All sections in the Werdenfelsbahn to be open next Sunday: 

To reopen;
Garmisch-Mittenwald
Murnau-Oberammergau

The section Garmisch-Murnau recovers all train services

Bahn in Bayern: Normalisierung im Werdenfelsnetz - Bayern - SZ.de (sueddeutsche.de) 

RB 6 from Garmisch approaching Murnau train station bound to München two weeks ago 
(to Murnau, to the left)


----------



## Gintaras

*Berlin S-Bahn/Berliner S-Bahn 2022*


----------

