TGV Unveils High-Speed Trains of the Future (cnn.com) 98
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: French railway company SNCF and train manufacturer Alstom have unveiled the first completed TGV M, a next-generation high-speed double-decker train that features a longer, more aerodynamic nose -- perfect for hurtling across the French countryside. Alstom dubbed the new train "the TGV of the future." TGV stands for Train a Grand Vitesse, meaning high-speed train. This swanky new design will premiere on the Paris rail network in 2024 and across the country over the following 10 years.
TGV is one of the world's most famous high-speed train brands and has been a staple of European rail travel since the early 1980s. Back in 2018, SNCF, the state-owned French railway company which controls TGV, ordered 100 TGV M trains (also known as Avelia Horizon trains) at a cost of 2.7 billion euros (around $2.7 billion). An additional 15 trains were ordered in August 2022. The majority of the trains will operate within France, but Alstom has said 15 will ride the rails internationally. TGV M will operate at the same maximum speed as the previous generation of TGV trains -- 350 kilometers per hour (nearly 220 mph). "In 2022, we don't want to go faster," said Alstom spokesperson Philippe Molitor told CNN Travel, explaining that the goal instead is high speed trains that accommodate more people while consuming less energy.
TGV M trains don't just have 40.5-centimeter (15.9-inch) longer noses than their predecessors, they're bigger all round. Roomier carriage interiors can accommodate up to 740 seats, compared to the current maximum of 634. TGV Ms also got what manufacturer Alstom calls "unprecedented modularity," meaning the train's interior configuration can be easily adjusted. A carriage can be converted from second class to first class and back again, or adapted to allow space for oversized luggage or bikes. There will also be dedicated on-board passenger social areas to offer variation and flexibility on longer journeys. According to Alstom, the design improves TGV's current energy efficiency and carbon footprint, with 97% of the train's components now recyclable. It also boasts better accessibility -- there will be a lifting platform to allow wheelchair users to independently board the train, and an on-board sound system to aid visually impaired travelers. Larger windows will make the most of views while the TGV's lighting will adapt depending on natural light outside.
TGV is one of the world's most famous high-speed train brands and has been a staple of European rail travel since the early 1980s. Back in 2018, SNCF, the state-owned French railway company which controls TGV, ordered 100 TGV M trains (also known as Avelia Horizon trains) at a cost of 2.7 billion euros (around $2.7 billion). An additional 15 trains were ordered in August 2022. The majority of the trains will operate within France, but Alstom has said 15 will ride the rails internationally. TGV M will operate at the same maximum speed as the previous generation of TGV trains -- 350 kilometers per hour (nearly 220 mph). "In 2022, we don't want to go faster," said Alstom spokesperson Philippe Molitor told CNN Travel, explaining that the goal instead is high speed trains that accommodate more people while consuming less energy.
TGV M trains don't just have 40.5-centimeter (15.9-inch) longer noses than their predecessors, they're bigger all round. Roomier carriage interiors can accommodate up to 740 seats, compared to the current maximum of 634. TGV Ms also got what manufacturer Alstom calls "unprecedented modularity," meaning the train's interior configuration can be easily adjusted. A carriage can be converted from second class to first class and back again, or adapted to allow space for oversized luggage or bikes. There will also be dedicated on-board passenger social areas to offer variation and flexibility on longer journeys. According to Alstom, the design improves TGV's current energy efficiency and carbon footprint, with 97% of the train's components now recyclable. It also boasts better accessibility -- there will be a lifting platform to allow wheelchair users to independently board the train, and an on-board sound system to aid visually impaired travelers. Larger windows will make the most of views while the TGV's lighting will adapt depending on natural light outside.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People will avoid it for the same reason they avoid other trains these days. They don't want to be assaulted by the diversity. So, nice try, but it'll still be a waste of money.
I dunno where you catch your trains.
I live near a beach.The trains I ride on are usually full of teenage girls in swimwear*, I'd love to be "assaulted"...
(*100% true, not making it up)
Re:Get mugged in luxury (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly you have never been on a French train - much less a TGV. They are very comfortable and pleasant and the French on the whole are civilised people.
Re: (Score:2)
Trains are fine. (Score:2)
I'm American. I don't mind trains much.
In fact, the only thing I do mind about them is they aren't monorails. That's because monorails would take up a lot less valuable real estate; pose less of a risk to conventional traffic, wild and domestic animals, and people; eliminate railroad crossings; could be double- or triple-tracked everywhere because of the much lower real estate impact; would be pretty much immune to snow and so require less maintenance in the winter; and could
Re: (Score:3)
Sydney, Australia tried a monorail in the 1980s. This is the same city that had the biggest tram network in the southern hemisphere until the 1960s, when they tore it all up. All of it. The monorail was an overpriced white elephant that allowed the local transit authorities to underinvest in the rest of the network for another two decades, before eventually paying to tear up the monorail for scrap.
I get the appeal of grade-separated public transit, but I have seen first-hand just how terribly it can be impl
Re: (Score:3)
The reason nobody uses monorails is because they are rubbish. They are more expensive to build (don't just think about the tracks: think about the stations too). They are harder to operate (think about switching tracks). It's impossible to evacuate a monorail train in the event of an emergency. They actually take up about the same amount of real estate as a normal train once you remember that they need pylons to hold them up every few metres and who is going to builds underneath a monorail.
Re: (Score:2)
the only thing I do mind about them [trains] is they aren't monorails. That's because monorails would take up a lot less valuable real estate; pose less of a risk to conventional traffic, wild and domestic animals, and people; eliminate railroad crossings
That is nothing to do with being monorail. You can also raise conventional railways on viaducts and pillars; it is just more expensive than building at ground level. Actually, tunnelling is usually cheaper. Much of the Docklands Light Railway (conventional track) in London is raised, and when railways were first built through South London 180 years ago they were on miles of raised viaducts with the space beneath rented - the infamous "railway arches", loved by scrap metal dealers, and by crooks for hiding
Re: (Score:2)
the French on the whole are civilised people.
In my experience, French often start to board the train, while there are still people leaving it. That would be considered uncivilized in most of Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can see that having people fail to queue in an orderly fashion for the train would be even worse than being mugged.
Re: (Score:2)
On commuter trains ? Always.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Never rode the TGV, but the Japanese Shinkansen is similarly fast and extremely comfortable. It's movement is so smooth that more than once I've been setting settled after boarding, only to look up and realize that the train started moving and I didn't even feel it.
You get a standard AC outlet, a sturdy tray table, plenty of leg room, and overall plenty of space even if the seat in front is reclined. Some great views out the window too.
Much better than flying, and often faster too. No charges for extra lugg
Re: (Score:2)
"Never rode the TGV,"
I take it once a week from Luxembourg to Paris (2:05) to eat the daily plate with some former work colleagues.
(As a retired railway worker I can take it for free all over France, I only have to pay 5€ for the seat reservation, but prices are reasonable anyway.)
Best thing since sliced bread. We arrive in time for the apéritif, after the meal you can do some shopping until 6pm and back again at home at 8pm, playing cards in the train.
I have to be there 1 minute until the train d
Re: Get mugged in luxury (Score:2)
Every time I boarded a TGV I had to check my luggage and go through screening like it was an airport. That was about a decade or so ago, found it cheaper to just hop on Ryanair for short Eurotrips in most cases, also more convenient if youâ(TM)re already on a plane and donâ(TM)t need to intentionally go to CDG to get a connection to TGV.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I boarded a TGV I had to check my luggage and go through screening like it was an airport..
I have taken it. Security is just a metal detector, like the airport a generation ago, and very fast. And because you go from city center to city center, there's no long hassle of getting to, from and through a pair of airports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where were you going on the TGV? I've never had to check my luggage or go through screening when traveling within France.
Now Paris-London Eurostar on the other hand... that security process is a pain in the butt. But in that case it is because you have to clear the border and customs checks before boarding.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been on the Eurostar many times. You don't have to check your luggage although it does get security scanned and there's also a passport control. However, it's still easier than the security checks at an airport.
Re: (Score:2)
"But is that worth the 40 years of working for SNCF? "
I worked for the SNCFL. :-)
And yes, it was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
"They don't want to be assaulted by the diversity. "
No such thing in first class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to be assaulted by the diversity.
This says a lot about you, and nothing about french trains.
Re: (Score:2)
People will avoid it for the same reason they avoid other trains these days.
The only people I know who avoid trains do so because they are full and packed like sardines during peak hour, something which is fixed by adding extra seating... like this train does.
nerds <3 trains (Score:2)
Re:nerds 3 trains (Score:1)
Problems and advantages (Score:2)
In North America, you've got vast distances and, over much of the continent, cold temperatures that make high speed rail an engineering challenge. On the other hand, you can provide downtown to downtown service, which saves a lot of time when you compare it to landing miles out of town, then taking some kind of shuttle over gridlocked roads to get to the same place.
During times I haven't lived there, I've taken the GO bus to Toronto, the GO train, and I've taken my car. If you have to do the trip in busin
Re: Problems and advantages (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m sure there wouldnâ(TM)t be a problem running trains like this along the Windsor-Montreal/Ottawa corridor, Toronto-Niagara and Toronto through Barrie onwards north. Maybe some of those distances are a bit short, but the traffic on the QEW, 401 and 400 demonstrates how roads donâ(TM)t scale. There might even be sufficient demand for Toronto-NYC and Toronto-Chicago, with a similar model to how Eurostar has taken customers from airlines on the London-Paris and London-Brussels routes, but
Re: (Score:2)
There's talk and studies being done for link between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland, about 2 hours from Portland to Vancouver.
https://wsdot.wa.gov/construct... [wa.gov]
Re:Problems and advantages (Score:5, Informative)
In North America, you've got vast distances and, over much of the continent, cold temperatures that make high speed rail an engineering challenge.
(facepalm)
You think it doesn't get cold in Europe?
PS: Ever hear of the Trans-Siberian Express? That was built in the 19th century.
Re: Problems and advantages (Score:1)
This isnâ(TM)t high speed rail! The tolerances are much lower. Siberia would be one of the more challenging places with regular temperature ranges from sub -40 to over +35 Celsius, which I suppose would cause quite a lot of rail expansion and contraction. That said, Russia does have some ~250kph lines on the European side, and plans for a 400 kph line between Moscow and St Petersburg - if they can do it here, the environ
Re: Problems and advantages (Score:1)
Dream on. Their revenues from Europe have barely dropped because the increase in prices has offset the decrease in volume. Furthermore, China and India are happy to undermine sales. Sanctions are hurting Europeans right now far more than theyâ(TM)re hurting Russians
Re: (Score:2)
A recent Russian report suggested that 10% contraction of the economy would be a good outcome and that it wouldn't recover this decade. Russia is fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
nit picking. The original point is correct, it gets plenty cold in Europe (ever heard of Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, France !!).
Also, not sure what "vast distances" has to do with anything. That's what high speed trains excel at.
Finally, I always wander about the psychology: technologies, approaches (pick your subject), that aren't currently successful in the US, is rejected by the "In North America ..blah... so we couldn't adopt that." whereas that the writer just wants to defend the NA status qu
Re: Problems and advantages (Score:2)
For vast distances it is cheaper to fly. The infrastructure cost alone is ridiculously high for any rail system.
Even the European systems are heavily subsidized (the infrastructure investment and maintenance practically cost the train companies nothing) and still canâ(TM)t outcompete air on speed and cost for many popular destinations.
It costs something like 14M Euros per km of high speed rail and that doesnâ(TM)t account for the vehicles, maintenance, employees and other overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Surface mail is cheaper than air mail (Score:2)
How can a system that has to overcome gravity both vertically and horizontally (air travel) be cheaper than a system that has to overcome gravity in just one direction (surface travel)? The infrastructure cost for a rail system is a one-time cost. The energy requirements overwhelming favor a rail system, while both trains and planes require "maintenance, employees and other overhead" as you put it.
If you're not convinced, just compare ticket prices between trains and air planes.
Re: (Score:2)
The infrastructure cost for a rail system is a one-time cost.
The tracks require maintenance, too. This is after personal, the biggest cost sink of a railway system.
Re: (Score:2)
The infrastructure cost for a rail system is a one-time cost.
The tracks require maintenance, too. This is after personal, the biggest cost sink of a railway system.
Stupidly forgot about that one. You're absolutely right. Then again, airplanes require maintenance as well. Trains do derail, but planes crash. So that evens things out.
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity only goes downwards. I think what you mean is that trains don't have to expend energy in just staying at the same height because the ground keeps them up.
I couldn't tell you which is the most economic out of trains and planes. Intuition says trains but the infrastructure costs are much higher for trains. You can't really compare ticket prices either because, in many European countries, train travel is very heavily subsidised. In the UK where the train subsidies are fairly low, train fares and air fa
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity only goes downwards. I think what you mean is that trains don't have to expend energy in just staying at the same height because the ground keeps them up.
You're right. I had my Newton mixed up.
Re: (Score:2)
For vast distances it is cheaper to fly.
Define "vast".
utcompete air on speed
Of curse it can. Look on a map and check where the airports in Paris are.
Then do the same for London. And then tell me you are faster from a random spot in Paris at a random spot in London by air, rather then by train, HA HA HA HA.
and cost for many popular destinations. ...
And? That is a typical stupid American argument. If only dollars count for you
For most destinations: going by air is completely impractical.
E.g. Karlsruhe <-
Re: (Score:2)
None of those are a real issue. And you don't have to connect Miami to Anchorage, just at least the most common routes. East coast? Nope. California? Nope. Can't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue in the US is lack of willingness for the state to invest directly in this kind of thing.
But people accept subsidising road travel by building and maintaining the road network..
Re: (Score:2)
In North America, you've got vast distances and, over much of the continent, cold temperatures
France is roughly at the geographic latitude of US-Canadian border. That's warm in your opinion, I suppose?
Re: (Score:2)
While this is true, the temperatures are still quite different (not to mention snow volumes!). Having lived in Wisconsin, Switzerland and currently Denmark (amongst other places), I can tell you that southern Wisconsin is far colder in the winter than anywhere else I’ve lived.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am looking forward to trying out these new high-speed double decker trains. Travelling by train in Europe, city centre to city centre, with free WiFi & seats that face each other with tables in between & plenty of room for luggage, is so much more civilis
Re: (Score:2)
In North America, you've got vast distances and, over much of the continent, cold temperatures that make high speed rail an engineering challenge.
This is true of N America as a whole, but there are plenty of regions that have population densities similar to Europe that could be well served by high speed rail. The City Nerd Youtube channel did an episode a while back highlighting pairs of cities 400mi apart that had at least 10 local flights/day between them. These could all be candidates for rail links. And once you had enough city pairs linked, it starts making sense to link up regional hub cities with longer range rail.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I don't think anyone is thinking about building HSR links to Omaha.
Shinkansen shows that a large HSR network can be operated profitably. And if you're thinking, "Well, Japan is a small country," I suggest you consult a globe. If you were to drive the entire length of the Shinkansen network from its southernmost to northernmost station, the drive would be over 2000 km and take 20 hours -- roughly comparable to driving from New York City to Miami. There are transportation corridors *within* North A
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the calculation would be for our federal interstate freeway system.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, Japan is a whole 377,973.89 km2 compared to the USA hitting in at 9,833,520 km2. Your 2000km train ride is closer to what it would take to get from San Diego to Seattle, one way.
Then we take account that most of USA was built up with the car as the main mode of getting around. Japan on the otherhand has been around for many centuries and would likely be all around harder to get around with a car. The train probably stops at every little village's center and they are very likely walkable or at the very
Re: (Score:2)
HSR only competes with airlines up to about 500 miles. San Diego to Denver is about 1,000 miles.
But San Diego to Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and San Francisco/Sacramento are all feasible by HSR. Also possibly El Paso and Albuquerque, but Reno, SLC and Denver have some tricky topography to build through, and that drives up the cost of construction exponentially.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that depends. Beijing to Shanghai is China's most successful line; the train trip takes 4 hours 18 minutes and covers roughly 1200 km. A direct flight takes 2 h 20 m -- significantly shorter, however you then have to factor in security and getting from the airport downtown if that's your destination. So flying is at best marginally faster, and the train is competitive even though the route is 50% longer than you stay is the maximum viable HSR route.
But we do have to be careful about drawing anal
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I live in San Diego (obviously) but more specifically Lakeside, about 25 minutes from both the airport and the train depot that would go to LA. If I were to use only public transportation, I would first have to travel 7 miles to the nearest trolley stop. To get to the coaster is anywhere from 1 to 2.5 hours, depending on the time of day.
It's a doable bicycle ride to the trolley, although not very safe given our public surface road traffic, but then WTF do you do with your bike? No where to safely put
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're sighing about; I was saying that linking all of the USA by HSR doesn't make sense, particularly because it is extensive in two dimensions like China. However the East and West Coasts could each be served by a network that might look similar in geometry and extent to Japan's. The Midwest is a possible candidate for a more 2D network if you will, linking cities like Minneapolis and Chicago, or Saint Louis to Cleveland.
Re: (Score:2)
I must of took your comment a bit wrong at the time I read it.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if we would invest into a really useful public transportation system, but even in Democrat strongholds, we still don't have the political will to pull it off. It's very frustrating.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we take account that most of USA was built up with the car as the main mode of getting around
Actually it was not. For long time it had excellent long distance and local train systems. Those got intentionally bankrupted - I think the oil industry was behind it. The people involved alll got convicted, I think you can goole that up.
The train probably stops at every little village's center
No they don't. We are talking about high speed trains, not local trains.
Re: (Score:2)
The original HSL between Paris and Lyon paid itself in about 10 years. It has since then paid itself nearly twice over.
Profits are down from what they used to be due to lowcost airlines (which are **heavily** subsidized). The whole TGV network (running the trains) is a for-profit operation, it is not subsidized. It pays for track access charges that cover infrastructure costs. Same thing for Eurostar and Thalys.
High speed rail is almost always a profitable business.
FTR: subsidized trains in France are subur
Re: (Score:2)
With luck, the end of those subsidies is nigh. France has even gone so far as to ban short-haul flights, where there is a train route that takes under 2.5 hours: https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To add to your point, China is also a similar size to the US, and has long distances to connect, but yet have successfully built a HSR network. Whats crazy is that they've done it all in the last ~15 years. They had almost no HSR in 2007, and now they have the worlds longest HSR network with something like 25,000 miles of track.
What I like about the TGVs ... (Score:5, Informative)
The higher ride comfort made possible by larger wheels is very noticeable.
Re:What I like about the TGVs ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a bunch of factors that contribute to the TGV's ride comfort.
1. Long sections of rail are welded together so you don't get rail gaps every 30 meters.
2. Track is laid to tighter tolerances.
3. TGVs have excellent suspension.
4. The shared bogie design means the coupling between cars has no slack, so you don't get jerk as the train begins to accelerate or decelerate and that slack is taken up.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the poster has been on a train since 1950. All those features (except the shared bogie) are standard on modern railways, and modern couplings don't have slack anyway. But perhaps he has American railways in mind, they are about 70 years out-of-date.
Re:What I like about the TGVs ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been on TGVs, and on regular trains in the Netherlands and the UK. 2 weeks ago, I had several train journeys in the UK on old-style segmented rails. It's also easily noticeable that the lateral acceleration on regular trains is far greater than on any TGV high-speed section. Welded rail and shared bogies are becoming more common, but are not universal yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jakobs bogies are actually quite common, especially on trams.
Probably not just Paris (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt it will "premiere on the Paris rail network". There would be no point in a TGV if it just ran around Paris. Their whole purpose is to cross France in as short a time as possible and the French government aims to eliminate short-haul flying in France.
It might premiere on routes to and from Paris, but then most TGVs are on those routes anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't talking about Paris the inner city. They are talking about frequent trains from Paris to neighbouring cities. Many TGVs do not cut across the entire country.
Re: (Score:2)
the French government aims to eliminate short-haul flying in France.
Such a goal seems obvious to everyone, except to the french government, unfortunately. If this is one of their goals, they hide it very well.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is one of their goals, they hide it very well.
It is law since two years, how can that be hidden?
I'm surprised to see ... (Score:1)
... Alsthom stil adheres to the heavy locomotive desgin instead of the multiple drive trains which other companies do these days. Like SIEMENS with their ICE and Japan Rail with their latest Shin Kansen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanse E1 and E4 series are double-deck high-speed (240 km/h) trains with distributed traction.
AFAIK the Stadler KISS for Caltrain (to enter service in 2024) will run at 201 km/h, and thus will be a high-speed (AFAIK the usually used definition requires speed above 200 km/h) double-deck train.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Alshom are a major train building company who will make whatever the customer orders. They make inter-city trains, metro trains, trams (streetcars), monorails and freight locos. They build trains for the London Underground for example. In the case of TGVs, they are multiple units (ie have several power cars), as are practically all modern passenger trains.
Re: (Score:2)
Alstom build the AGV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that has distributed traction.
It is in service in Italy. But SNCF made it clear they didn't want that, so this latest Alstom high-speed train is back to what works for them in the French market.
Re: (Score:2)
... Alsthom stil adheres to the heavy locomotive desgin instead of the multiple drive trains which other companies do these days. Like SIEMENS with their ICE and Japan Rail with their latest Shin Kansen.
While the Japanse South Manchurian Railway used a locomotive for its 134 km/h service (the fastest in Asia at the time) in the 1930s, Japan has been using distributed traction since they introduced high-speed trains (to the world) in the early 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
High speed trains - Not in U.S. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you implying the USA had a state of the art rail system in 2002? I think you've probably been using the term 20 years for 20 years too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our freight rail system in the US is quite good....
Unless you want to sit on a oil tanker I'm not sure how you think that is relevant in a discussion about trains designed for moving people.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in the UK... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
4. Unreliable arrival times.
And unreliable departure times. At my local station they are usually late but will also leave early sometimes, just to spice things up.
5. Trains the same boring boxy clunky shape as the 70s/80s, with cram em in plastic seats.
Oh if only.
Southern has switched from the 4 car suburban trains with small seats, to the newer 5 car fancier one with tables and larger seats.
Which is, fuck you, southern, because the older ones hold a lot more people with more room in the corridor to manoeuv
Re: (Score:2)
When I used to commute from Birmingham to a place a few stops out, I found the smart Virgin trains actually quite inconvenient. The space seemed to be so cramped. If you have standing passengers, they are hopeless. The clunky box things run by London Midland (as was) are far more practical. I presume that the streamlined Virgin trains come into their own over a longer distance, such as going all the way to London. Though why anybody would leave a good city like Birmingham to go to that den of thieves is bey
Tres not Train (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought TGV stood for Tres Gran Vitesse, meaning according to the Google, Very High Speed
It's Train à Grand Vitesse.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you were wrong. Always been train, not très.
You learned something today!