Building an isolated line connecting destinations 1000 kilometre away is what's not viable, the airplane would win on market share. But, on one hand, in a network of connections between cities a few hundred kilometres away, routes thousands of kilometres could become possible. On the other hand, just as today there are passengers riding an express 10 hours or longer (not to mention the weeks on the Transsib), running high-speed trains over such longer routes would make extra trips possible. (Ii's a synergy: linking up two train services at one node will keep all the passengers on the two lines, and add ones who would have viewed changing trains at the node too much of a hassle or lost time.)
But this is the far far far future (if it comes at all), and for the question at hand, I only considered the existence of an Eurasia-spanning network,, not through services. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
in a network of connections between cities a few hundred kilometres away, routes thousands of kilometres could become possible
On the other hand, I have to admit that it doesn't make much of a difference to me because I'm going to take that train anyway. So you have a point there.
What is your estimate, how many people take the Berlin-Amsterdam ICs all the way? My guess would be that they are outnumbered by the sum of domestic passengers, and don't add up to a full train-load (to sustain extra trains with less stops), even considering the extra attractivity of somewhat shorter trip times.
For you, this shucks, of course. But 5½ hours vs. 6¼ hours, that's less significant than say 2¾ hours vs. 4 hours, would there be high-speed lines all the way.
In short, with less stops and greater distances more rational for high-speed, international relations would be in the 'normal' range, and passengers with your kind of problem would be say Berlin-Moscow or Berlin-Madrid travellers. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Now to take out some small city/town stops (from Amsterdam)
Hilversum - Amersfoort (14 minutes) Apeldoorn - Deventer (11 minutes) Almelo - Hengelo (11 minutes) Stendal - Rathenow (15 minutes) Berlin Spandau - Berlin Hbf (10 minutes)
Take out Hilversum, Apeldoorn, Almelo, Rathenow and Berlin Spandau, and you not only have a better international train, but also a better domestic intercity, IMO. Note that the intercity runs only every two hours on a track that also has a normal service. The few people in these minor cities and on connecting lines that may take the car rather than taking on 15 minutes of extra travel time should be compensated by people who do take the train rather than the car or airplane.
The Dutch, unfortunately, have scrapped the idea of a HSL Noord for now. I think it's rather stupid that we don't build an Amsterdam - Groningen - Bremen - Hamburg - Kiel - Copenhagen line as a priority project of the Trans European Networks.
With the existing HSL Zuid, we will have connected Europe's three largest ports (Antwerp - Rotterdam - Hamburg) within I would guess a 700-800 kilometre trip from Antwerp to Hamburg (as a quick reference Rotterdam is geographically 78 km from Antwerp and 414 km from Hamburg). There should be plenty business travel. Surely there must be an economic case.
To repeat myself, we need more money for TEN (and less for the CAP).
I'm wondering because the Swedish HSR is supposed to end in Copenhagen...
Being able to take the train to Amsterdam from Stockholm (in what, 6 hours?) would be GREAT. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Now the Amsterdam - Paris line is about 550 km in length, I think, and will have 6 stops from Amsterdam Zuid with a travel time of 2:57. I'd guess you should take 1.5 times that travel time, so you would have a 4:30 hour trip, with Amsterdam - Hamburg at 2:30 hours. If we build a dedicated HSR. I'd guess Stockholm - Copenhagen will be 2 hours?
With the existing plan, there should be a 200 km/h connection between Amsterdam and Hamburg over Amersfoort, Hengelo, Osnabrück, Bremen somewhere maybe in 2015. That should be about a ~ 4 hour trip (currently the fastest connection is 5:15 hours).
As for times, if I am optimistic, with stopping times: Copenhagen-Hamburg 1h20m, on to Bremen 40m, on to Groningen 50m, on to Amsterdam 50m, 3h40m total. If I am less optimistic about just how through the true high-speed lines would become (e.g. longer upgraded/four-tracked sections along the way, near cities and in a Fehmarn tunnel): 2h, 50m, 1h10m, 1h, together 5h. (Note: Paris-Amsterdam on upgraded conventional line from Brussels to Antwerp, and again Schipol-Amsterdam C).
Stockholm-Copenhagen would be roughly 550 km, so your two hours for a true high-speed service sound realistic. (Currently: more than five hours...) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There have been some very postive signs during the last year or two.
I should probably do a diary on it, as the project has the fitting name Europakorridoren, the European Corridor. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
That's not how it works.
With such big projects, the decision that really matters is the start of the main construction tenders.
When the 'decision' is a joint government or even EU-level declaration, that can be drawn out indefinitely, with repeated joint declarations that now we really mean business. Or worse, the decisionmakers might be only willing to pay for preliminary studies, and sell those as the start of the project, but then solicit ever more studies (an example: Brenner Base Tunnel). Even when the decision is tendering the detailed plans, that may be followed up by several plan modifications, or disputes over the price tag that may delay the construction tender (example: Malmö city tunnel), even indefinitely.
I should probably do a diary on it
You should!
(And with the political boundaries clearly drawn, I'd be curious at contrarian comments from other ETers versed in Swedish politics ;-) ) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
