Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Transportation

Europe Is Investing Heavily In Trains (nytimes.com) 124

Posted by BeauHD from the follow-the-money dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Train travel in Europe is on the upswing, thanks to growing interest from travelers, a renaissance in sleeper trains, and new investments in high-speed rail lines across the continent. But to see major growth in passenger traffic -- which is one of the goals of the European Green Deal -- the continent's railways will have to overcome a number of challenges, including booking difficulties and competition with short-haul flights, which remain the cheaper option on many multicountry routes. In France and Austria, the pandemic brought the planes-versus-trains question to the forefront. The French government's Covid bailout package of Air France required the airline to eliminate domestic flights when there was a rail option that took under two and a half hours to complete; the measure was later written into law.

The Austrian government placed a similar condition on its support to Austrian Airlines, demanding that the company end its 50-minute flight between Vienna and Salzburg, a journey that passengers can make by train in about three hours. The European Commission also designated 2021 as the "Year of European Rail," seizing the opportunity to spread the word about train travel, particularly to a younger audience. While passenger traffic was growing steadily through 2019, it was starting from a low base: Before the pandemic, only 8 percent of all passenger travel in the European Union was by train. But in addition to the public relations campaign, European leaders are also working to reduce practical barriers to cross-border train travel by introducing new data-sharing systems, replacing outdated infrastructure, and building new high-speed routes, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.

"The idea is that for train trips of less than four hours, no businesspeople will choose to fly, and for trips below six hours, normal people -- tourists -- will take the train," said Alberto Mazzola, the executive director of the Community of European Railways and Infrastructure Companies, which is based in Brussels. Mr. Mazzola added that government leaders are throwing their weight behind railway infrastructure, particularly high-speed lines. "We heard this 20 years ago," he added. "The difference today is that we are seeing the investments."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Europe Is Investing Heavily In Trains More

Europe Is Investing Heavily In Trains

Comments Filter:

  • What Choice? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inhuman_4 ( 1294516 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @08:10PM (#62438116)

    "The idea is that for train trips of less than four hours, no businesspeople will choose to fly, and for trips below six hours, normal people -- tourists -- will take the train," said Alberto Mazzola, the executive director of the Community of European Railways and Infrastructure Companies, which is based in Brussels.

    If the flights have been banned by the government, it's not really a choice is it?

    • Will eat the lunch of next gen planes.

      • Electric planes are not practical and making them practical would require physics and chemistry that is unknown to us.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        If we discovered the technology to make transoceanic aircraft practical tomorrow it would still take something like 30 years before that technology made a dent in the market. They'd have to test the technology out on experimental craft. Then light aviation. Then cargo. Then maybe it could be trusted to carry many people over long distances. That is barri

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ormy ( 1430821 )

          As your linked video states in the 2nd minute, it's really just a problem of energy density (W/Kg, not W/m^3). Today's batteries are orders of magnitude worse than hydrocarbons such as kerosene in terms of energy density. There is no law in physics or chemistry that prevents the existence of an electro-chemical cell with the energy density of hydrocarbons or better, it is perfectly plausible for such technology to exist but we just haven't discovered it yet.

          Summary of the video for others: Why electric p

          • There is no law in physics or chemistry that prevents the existence of an electro-chemical cell with the energy density of hydrocarbons or better, it is perfectly plausible for such technology to exist but we just haven't discovered it yet.
            Lol, no, it is not plausible, and there will never be something like that discovered.
            Perhaps super capacitors, but chemical: no way.

            However, we do not need that anyway. While there is currently a market for none stop flights from Sidney to London: it is only Zeitgeist. It

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ormy ( 1430821 )
          Clicked submit too early, meant to add this: as you say, even if such such battery technology were invented tomorrow, for the technology to get into commercial batteries, then for those batteries to make it into civilian aircraft, then for those aircraft to be certified to carry commercial passengers we're talking 20 to 30 years.

        • "Electric planes are not practical..." is too categorical a statement. They aren't practical for medium- and long-range travel, yes, but they certainly are imminently practical in the short haul.

        • There are plenty all electric airlines already in existence.
          As usually you are the ManBehindTheMoon, MadMann.

        • Nonsense. You may have heard that if we can go to the moon, we can do that, too. Everything is possible... in the world of liberal arts majors who smoke a lot of weed.

        • Your absurd comparison of long haul and short haul was amusing . I await your news letter on how interstellar plane flight will never be practical and how trans oceanic trains will require unknown physics. But sadly for you electric planes for short haul flights are being built now. And as they become refined will out perform trains by offering point to point travel with more frequent departure times and less staff and maintainence than train tracks require.

          • I noticed you didn't provide any sources. I linked to a video that went through the math in significant detail. Yes, there were many approximations made so it's not going to be exact, but it shows that there is an order of magnitude problem here. If this were an issue of two versus a half then perhaps there is a debate to be had, since we've seen a fourfold improvement in technologies before. When there is a difference of two orders of magnitude then there's no fixing that any time soon.

            Show your work.

      • There's no question that electric powertrains are vastly more robust and easier to maintain than anything powered by fossil fuels, not to mention the difference in the cost of fuel. We all complain about the 62% increase in gasoline prices, but the specialized fuel used by aircraft have seen triple that increase. However, as pointed out by others in this thread, electrical flight is practical only for very short flights, because we have no known methods yet for either storing or generating electricity in qu

      • Will eat the lunch of next gen planes.

        Long before we have electric planes that hate the range of even today's short-haul aircraft, we will be able to make artificial jet fuel. This would make air travel carbon-neutral while giving all those wind turbines something useful to do.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )

      Well, the commuter train in my area has free WIFI and no hassles with baggage.

      Since this is Europe, I am sure these trains will be far more comfortable then anything a plane can offer. Plus one can work or game while on the train, try that on a Plane during the complete flight (take-off to landing).

      • Re:What Choice? (Score:5, Informative)

        by UnderCoverPenguin ( 1001627 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @09:30PM (#62438338)

        Since this is Europe, I am sure these trains will be far more comfortable then anything a plane can offer.

        Even in the US, Amtrak's coach class is better than airline's first class - more leg and elbow room, free WiFi and 120VAC power at each seat.

        • I'm just surprised trains are not more common in the first place. Companies like having deliveries on time, and a train can carry a lot more stuff than a choked interstate full of semis. Passenger rail, provided it has an adequate schedule is useful.

          If a high speed rail system was built in the US to allow north/south transportation at relatively high speeds (200+ mph/320+ kph), as well as east/west, perhaps paralleling interstates, it would get a large amount of traffic off the roads. It is just mind bog

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Kremmy ( 793693 )
            A lot of rail infrastructure in the United States was lumber company lines. As the mills in the west closed down, so did the rail lines themselves. Locally there was a tunnel collapse that nobody has the resources to repair, so what remained of the old lumber line only goes as far as a turn-around station when it used to connect to lines that crossed the state.

            • A lot of rail infrastructure in the United States was lumber company lines.

              Is that really right? I would have thought coal and grains would have been pretty big too. Maybe ores too. And I seem to see lots of trains with shipping containers these days.

              Of course, I don't have any numbers to back this up. Do you? I'm quite curious.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Agripa ( 139780 )

              A lot of rail infrastructure in the United States was lumber company lines. As the mills in the west closed down, so did the rail lines themselves. Locally there was a tunnel collapse that nobody has the resources to repair, so what remained of the old lumber line only goes as far as a turn-around station when it used to connect to lines that crossed the state.

              More relevant is that federal policy taxes rail by the mile making double tracking uneconomical. This does not matter for freight, except right now when it is limiting capacity, but it is important for passenger schedules. The US does not want a comprehensive rail system and acts to prevent it from being developed.

          • A lot of freight is already on the rails in Europe.

            But as it usually has to share the same rails with passenger trains, those (and especially high speed trains) will have priority over freight trains. This makes truck delivery times often more predictable than freight trains. Like if a truck gets stuck in traffic for 3 hours, it will be late 3 hours. If your freight car arrives 3 hours late at the freight switching station, it may be there till the next night.

            Plus, it doesn't help that the German Railroad C

          • Re:What Choice? (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @08:08AM (#62439410)

            As you talk about highways choked by semis and other issues related to the transportation of goods, you should be aware that the US has the largest rail network in the world, by far [wikipedia.org], nearly as big as the next two—Russia and China—combined. It’s that big because it already gets a tremendous amount of traffic off the road.

            The only “issue” here is the degree to which it isn’t filled with passenger traffic.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Agripa ( 139780 )

              As you talk about highways choked by semis and other issues related to the transportation of goods, you should be aware that the US has the largest rail network in the world, by far [wikipedia.org], nearly as big as the next two—Russia and China—combined. It’s that big because it already gets a tremendous amount of traffic off the road.

              The only “issue” here is the degree to which it isn’t filled with passenger traffic.

              Yet despite its size, it is capacity constrained and access is rationed.

          • There is not much passenger rail service except for North/South (DC to NYC and that is very profitable) America is big, to get from DC to Pittsburgh is a 10 hour train ride, or a 1 hour flight. To get to Los Angeles from NYC is 3 days train ride. passenger train service really on makes sense as a commuter or luxury travel, that has nothing to do with freight service. If you want to have a sleepless night counting trains there is a campsite on the C&O canal trail and you can count a freight train pull

            • America is big, to get from DC to Pittsburgh is a 10 hour train ride, or a 1 hour flight.
              Because the tracks are old and the trains are slow. In Europe - obviously only if there is a connecting train track - 1h flight equals 2.5h train. In Japan it is even less.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by bjb ( 3050 )
                I don't know if it is so much "the tracks are old" since the lines that are in regular use are routinely maintained due to federal regulations. The places where you see wobbly uneven rails are short lines that do freight for a few warehouse businesses (at least around where I am).

                But that being said, the "slow" part is simply because the freight companies own the tracks and passenger rail (read: Amtrak) effectively pays to run on those rails. The freight company is always going to prioritize their very pr

          • There is plenty of freight transported by rail in the U.S.; just not very many passengers, compared to other vaguely comparable parts of the world.

      • Re:What Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @09:52PM (#62438412) Homepage

        Since this is Europe, I am sure these trains will be far more comfortable then anything a plane can offer.

        Yep.

        Plus:
        a) You don't have to arrive an hour before departure and be violated by "security"
        b) It won't leave you 40 miles outside the city so that you have to waste another hour to get to where you need to be.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Agripa ( 139780 )

          a) You don't have to arrive an hour before departure and be violated by "security"
          b) It won't leave you 40 miles outside the city so that you have to waste another hour to get to where you need to be.

          Rail travel in the US is nice compared to a plane, however if it became popular, TSA would work to make it just as miserable, and they have already taken steps in that direction.

      • Oh really? If the train is so super awesome then why have air routes been banned in order to force people to take the train? People are willing to pay more than endure the train. For many people, are not as good an experience as airplanes. No amount of lying to them will change that. Maybe you could try talking about the pollution aspect, but do not bring the dishonest argument that the train is better.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by N1AK ( 864906 )
          I want to see more rail travel but I completely agree with this point. I don't believe this is an example of people accidentally/ignorantly choosing the worse option so it seems to stretch credibility to say option A is clearly superior to option B so we'll ban B to stop people choosing it. What I think would be legitimate is ensuring that air travel costs properly account for environmental factors vs rail, but governments also need to look at why it can often be considerably cheaper to fly a short distance

          • Most people simply take the cheapest option.
            They do not care that it takes an hour to the airport, another hour for being early and another hour to finally get to the destination.

            Trains are not super cheap, not if you try to buy a single ticket on last minute. But unlike airplanes: they are super cheap if you buy a month ahead, or have a special bonus card. Most people do not care, they think they are more free if they can decide last minute where to go and when to go.

        • Because one heavily subsidized industry (no tax on kerosine for planes) was using that advantage to push another subsidized industry out of business.

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by blahabl ( 7651114 )

            Because one heavily subsidized industry (no tax on kerosine for planes) was using that advantage to push another subsidized industry out of business.

            Pretty funny how leftists consider not taxing the hell out of something "subsidizing" it.

            • Well... if anyone else is "taxed the hell out" for something, but someone special is exempt from those taxes by grace of some specific government action, the word "subsidizing" is pretty much appropriate.

              It's not about something being taxed or not, it's about the exemption that is made from general taxation for someone.

            • Pretty funny how leftists consider not taxing the hell out of something "subsidizing" it.
              And what has that to do with lefties again?

              If you have tax on gasoline but not on kerosine, you are subsidizing the kerosine using industries.

              It is as simple as that.

        • If the train is so super awesome then why have air routes been banned in order to force people to take the train?
          Because the air planes produce more CO2. Ooops - that easy, or not?

          People are willing to pay more than endure the train. For many people, are not as good an experience as airplanes. No amount of lying to them will change that
          Sorry, but those points are nonsense and do not reflect reality.

          • You are delusional to assume everyone prefers the train over airplanes. Are you saying that statement is false? Obviously you're a liar.

            Yes, the planes produce more CO2, however you idiots seems to think that people don't prefer airplanes over trains .. yet somehow people are choosing airplanes even though the price is higher. How do you figure? Idiot.

            • You are delusional to assume everyone prefers the train over airplanes.
              I did not say that. Are you answering to the wrong post?

              yet somehow people are choosing airplanes even though the price is higher. How do you figure? Idiot.
              I told you already in the previous post: they prefer the perception that the flight is only 1h - 1h sitting awkwardly - but the train is 3h.

              No idea why that makes me an idiot.

      • Yep, just took the AVE in Spain. Booked ticket online. The final cost was about the same as flying. Arrived at the station 10 minutes before departure. There were no queues anywhere. Put bags through x-ray machine which took seconds & then boarded the train. Travelled at 300kmph over the central Spanish mountains & plains watching the beautiful countryside zip by. Free WiFi & power (220v & USB). Trolly refreshment service & a cafeteria car if you prefer to stretch your legs & sociali
        • Also worth mentioning that this particular AVE line has been operating since the 1990s. The EU's rail network has had decades of intensive investment & it's constantly upgrading & expanding. You don't build something like this overnight.

        • That's nice but 300km is nothing. If I take the car, I'll be halfway to the destination by the time I got to the train station and onto the train.

          For longer trips it's just much faster to fly. At my airport I can be at the gate within 15 minutes of entering the terminal, and two hours will get me almost anywhere in Europe. High speed rail could be decent for something mid-range but a) it doesn't exist and b) it would be expensive as hell.

          • I wrote 300kmph, not 300km. That particular car journey would take you over 8 hours. The AVE does it in 3:45. Flights from northern to southern Europe take about 3 hours, eastern to western EU is further so no, you can't be "anywhere" in 2 hours. Additionally, if you think you can go from the airport entrance to board a plane in 15 minutes, you're delusional. Maybe you've been doing too many 8-hour drives & can't think straight?
            • Oh, & for longer distances, there's always the option of sleeper trains. High speed trains are well equipped, smooth & quiet, i.e. very comfortable & easy to sleep on. That way you arrive at your destination in the morning having slept & had breakfast & pay one less night on hotels.

    • If you have ever faced a choice between airport to airport, then transportation into a city's business district afterward, and train station to train station...city centre to city centre...you'd be insane to choose flying.

      • For many years, the Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to Cologne actually went by train :-) Just like a flight, stewardesses in the same uniform, same service, just quicker.

      • Agreed assuming your goal is the city centre. If it's not, this becomes a hassle versus an advantage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LKM ( 227954 )
      I already prefer taking night trains over flying. Get on the train, go to sleep in your own room in a thing that actually resembles a bed, wake up, you're there.

      Compare this to flying, where you have to go through the rigmarole of all the security checks, limited suitcase space, waiting for boarding, the terrible cramped chairs you sit in, the dry air you breathe all night while you try to sleep in your shitty chair with a baby crying all night and the person next to you waking you up in the middle of the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by N1AK ( 864906 )
      Moderating this troll seems pretty unreasonable; the summary does highlight multiple examples of government removing the choice of flying short distances.

      Train travel at its best is fantastic. You'd be mad to fly between two Japanese, German, French etc cities with a remotely direct rail connection. However at its worst rail travel is far worse than flying with issues accessing city centre stations, dysfunctional schedules, sometimes ridiculous prices, and trains so overcrowded that you spend hours stand

    • If the flights have been banned by the government, it's not really a choice is it?

      Maybe english comprehension isn't your strong suit, but the concept of which mode of transport people take has absolutely nothing at all to do with government policy listed earlier in the summary.

      • The French government's Covid bailout package of Air France required the airline to eliminate domestic flights when there was a rail option that took under two and a half hours to complete; the measure was later written into law.

        If rail really was so much better than rail as people here are claiming, then why do these flights exist in the first place? Everyone should be taking the superior rail option leaving no demand for these short haul flights. And without demand the airlines wouldn't fly those routes. And there would be nothing for the French government to ban.

        I'm happy to see governments invest in any kind of infrastructure, including rail. But don't tell me that your solution is so good that the government needs to ban the c

        • If rail really was so much better than rail as people here are claiming, then why do^H^H DID these flights exist in the first place?
          Because they where cheaper. As in some countries kerosine is not taxed.

          And people prefer cheap. And/or the perceived fun to waste an hour in an airport drinking expensive beer.

          Some people do not do the math, like: by train it is 3h from door to door, but the train takes 2.h :( versus by plane it is 3h from door to door, but the plane takes only 55mins! Yaeay!

  • Europe's trains are great! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @08:16PM (#62438132)

    Lived in Switzerland for a few years. Europe has the best trains. Great service. Much better than driving or airplanes. Frequent service, just get on the train. No hassle. Comfortable.
    Whenever we go to Europe, we plan to take trains everywhere.

    • Back when I was traveling for business in Europe or Japan it was a highlight for me to arrange to get around on the trains. The high speed run from Stuttgart to Munich was always a favorite. The Shinkansen from Tokyo/Yokohama (business) to Hakone/Kyot (pleasure) also was something to do when possible.

      Now -- California: it looks like we will never see rail service that we so badly need. Because reasons. If I had my way it would go all the way from the Canadian border to the Mexico border. We can buil

      • Back when I was traveling for business in Europe or Japan it was a highlight for me to arrange to get around on the trains. The high speed run from Stuttgart to Munich was always a favorite. The Shinkansen from Tokyo/Yokohama (business) to Hakone/Kyot (pleasure) also was something to do when possible.

        Now -- California: it looks like we will never see rail service that we so badly need. Because reasons. If I had my way it would go all the way from the Canadian border to the Mexico border. We can build huge Interstate highways but not that.

        You should question the politicians that sheared (or fleeced ?) the Kalyfornya taxpayers on the CAHSR dream.

        For all the money spent on CAHSR they could have double-tracked many existing single-track routes between LA to Sacramento and possibly to SF and probably done it all without grade crossings... even the infamous "it's too hard Bluto!" Tehachapi Loop area. Now such a plan would not have been much faster than existing trains... if they were allowed to stop at every sleepy burgh along the tracks. That's

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          "it's faster than flying! Yeah, right.

          That's not hard to do when even biking is sometimes faster than flying [archive.org]!

        • The biggest single challenge for passenger rail in the US is density... but it's not a LACK of density, it's the fact that in the parts of the US where it would otherwise make sense, you can literally drive a hundred miles without driving past anything more 'rural' than a gravel parking lot.

          European cities are dense, but unlike the northeastern US & Florida, they actually HAVE open rural land between cities to build tracks through. In many parts of the US, any new rail route that puts stations "downtow

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Agripa ( 139780 )

            The biggest single challenge for passenger rail in the US is density... but it's not a LACK of density, it's the fact that in the parts of the US where it would otherwise make sense, you can literally drive a hundred miles without driving past anything more 'rural' than a gravel parking lot.

            I have to disagree. Tax policy in the US prevents the double tracking which would be needed for reliable passenger service, and regulation is excessive. Even under ideal conditions a state like California cannot make travel by rail feasible, and I do not think they ever intended to.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Agripa ( 139780 )

          Interestingly enough, sections of the old ATSF Surf Line from Fullerton to San Diego are rated by CALTRANS for up to 90 mph passenger trains. That comes from a CALTRANS document published on the web by the State of Kalyfornya itself.

          I have ridden that one a few times going back to the 80s and so much of the travel time is spent creeping along that it is faster to drive.

      • And German trains are a laughing stock compared to the swiss trains mentioned by GP post. Well, at least from a European perspective.

      • I was. on Eurostar once, my GPS thought I was on a road, and told me I was exceeding the speed limit by 120 mph.

      • So how many people a day does the highway system serve? Remember, people can access and leave the highway at hundreds of points. Even if you stuffed them all onto trains they would still need to find some way to get to their destinations.

        People in countries that have no extensive highway system just make do with what the goverment has built. It just happens that all the places people want to go a train also goes there, how convenient /s.

        • This doesn't seem to be a big issue with countries with decent train service. I can't tell you what begat what: whether the places you want to go were formed around train destinations or whether the desirable destinations go train service. Maybe a bit of both.

          My only personal experience of this is when BART opened the Rockridge station (I lived near there for a while) it was a scummy and run-down section of town and plagued by street crime. Over the course of years it was transformed into a high-ren

    • European trains are fantastic, I'll take a 5 hour train rid rather than a 1,5 hour flight +end effects. But... they are expensive. I prefer them, but am able to afford the extra cost

      • Trains do take a long time, though. I just checked: I can fly from Amsterdam to Münich in 1.5 hours. Granted, one should add 2 hours to be on the airport, and another half hour to get to the airport. Total: 4 hours. You can also take the train to Münich. It'll take 9h39m, let's make that 10 hours total.

        I've done that trip a number of times, but in the end, 10 hours was a bit too much for me.

        Costs are roughly equal, by the way, about 150 euros.

        • Well, there is a damn reason a train takes 9h++ from Amsterdam to Munich.
          DISTANCE And on top of that: there for some strange reason not many fast rail ways going that route, otherwise it would be ~3h

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I was raised on planes. First intercontinental flight before I was five. In the US we drive as a family for the most part. I love to fly. I live in the city, so I can literally get an Uber from my house and be at the domestic terminals in a little over 30 minutes. I know planes such for the environment. But to be 400 miles away in less than 3 hours, from my house to the destination, is too convenient. I suppose if I raised on trains it would be different I like planes
      • Compare overnight trains to cruise ships... While traveling between ports/cities you avoid hotel costs, plus gain savings in time, flexibility, costs. Sure, in a cruise ship you don't need to un/pack between ports and you're sold a package deal. But compare.

        Pro-tip: buy a box of wine (in France) or a big bottle of Jeigermeister or Oozo depending on where in Europe you are, and a bunch of paper/plastic cups at the grocery store across from the train station, given your travels and to-be expected room-mates
    • Additionally, at least in The Netherlands, you can extend your RFID'd/monthly-invoiced travel using the rail network's bicycles at the larger stations. The rail service also has short-term cars with their own neighborhood parking space (to discourage the need for car ownership) along with RFID'd-somehow taxi service in the 'burbs, but I have no experience or comments about that motor vehicle stuff. I find skateboards to be the light sabers of transport (hands-free! for groceries and stuff, -- use low center

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by freax ( 80371 )

      One thing you should realize is that Switzerland probably has the best railway service in both the EU as in the world.

      Don't hope too much that all other EU countries have as good trains as Switzerland has.

  • In response the US Congress has passed a bill that will shut down the Amtrak Accela, the United State's only high speed train. When asked why, Senator Mitch McConnell (R) said that "Due to the Laws of Conservation of Momentum is was a necessary measure, otherwise there's a risk of ripping apart the spacetime continuum and creating a black hole that would devour the Earth.", and also "We are severely upset by this reckless and careless, unilateral action being taken by European nations, so we had to take act

  • The idea is that for train trips of less than four hours, no businesspeople will choose to fly

    That's certainly true in the US, if the train trip is less than 4 hours the distance involved is walkable

  • Small correction to the article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sique ( 173459 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @02:44AM (#62438918) Homepage
    The train takes between 2:22 and 2:28 between Vienna Main Station and Salzburg Main Station, not three hours. And during the day, you have four connections per hour on the train. To take the plane, you have first to get to Schwechat, a town outside Vienna, where the airport is located. And then you have to find a connection from Wals-Siezenheim to Salzburg, to get from the airport to the city.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by N1AK ( 864906 )
      I would definitely get the train from Vienna to Salzburg; however in comparisons if you're going to throw in getting to the airport then you need to throw in getting to the train station as well; not every journey starts and ends at the main stations or even the city centres. Austrai has decent local public transport as well which helps considerably.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Sique ( 173459 )
        The main stations in both cases are close to the city center. And if you arrive per plane, you probably would have to go the main station first to get a connection to your final destination. While driving in Vienna is not great, it really sucks through Salzburg, so I would not recommend to take a cab or get a rental car to drive into town.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I make that about 300km, so 2.5 hours is an average speed of 120 kph which isn't bad. The current route looks unsuitable for higher speeds due to some of the curves, but it could potentially be down to about an hour.

  • You know, folks who remember that for *months* after 9/11, the pilots' union was saying that for anything under 300-400 mi, flying makes no sense, and the train is faster (and it gets you downtown, not 20 mi through heavy traffic from downtown)?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close