# France: Decision for new, 2nd high-speed rail line Paris - Lyon



## beautifulplanet (Oct 22, 2014)

After being constructed on budget (inflation-adjusted), the first high-speed rail service (faster than 126mph/200kmh) outside of Japan started in France between Paris and Lyon just 33 years ago (well, 33 years and a month  ). See here:
http://www.franceinfo.fr/emission/l-ephemeride/2014-2015/l-ephemeride-du-22-09-2014-22-09-2014-05-55

Public service started on September 22, 1981, with a speed of 162mph/260kmh, and was increased two years later with completion of both segments to 168mph/270kmh, eventually reaching 187mph/300mph. While the fastest prior service, the TEE Mistral took 3h 55mins from Paris to Lyon, TGV in 1983 took only 2h, essentially cutting the travel time in half. Thanks to the dedicated high-speed rail line, the TGV was considerably faster than cars, or airplanes. To counteract any misconception that the TGV would be a premium service for business travelers, a publicity campaign was started highlighting the speed, frequency, reservation policy, normal price, and broad accessibility of the service. Ridership expectations were exceeded. In 1984, the first full year of service with both segments of the high-speed line Paris-Lyon completed, more than 13 million people used the TGV service. Before 1981, 31% by of Paris-Lyon trips were done by air, 40% by train, and 29% by car. After 1984, this changed to approximately 7% travel by air, 72% travel by train, and 21% travel by car. The success of the high-speed rail line between Paris and Lyon was just the beginning of what was built out to be today's large TGV network, which will become even bigger in the future, with all the ongoing construction and further plans.

Here is a map of the French TGV network by Wikipedia user "classical geographer"
(not being 100% up to date, as planned lines Marseille-Nice, Montpellier-Perpignan and Bordeaux-Spain will be finished much later than 2020):







source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/France_TGV.png/718px-France_TGV.png

After its complete opening in 1983, the first line Paris-Lyon (LGV Sued-Est) was so successful, that it is nearly operating at capacity. Even using double-decker high-speed trains (a first for high-speed rail around the world), in order to increase the number of passengers transported with each train, was not enough to alleviate the very strong demand for high-speed rail. In 2014, the Paris-Lyon high-speed line is used for so many different services:
Not only Paris-Lyon itself, but also Paris-Marseille, Paris-Nice, Paris-Montpellier-Perpignan-Barcelona, Paris-Milano(Italy), Paris-Geneva(Switzerland), Paris-Basel (Switzerland), Marne-la-Vallee-Lyon, Marne-la-Vallee-Marseille, Brussels-Lyon, Lille-Marseille, London-Lille-Avignon, London-Lille-Bourg-Saint-Maurice among others. Next year in 2014, a new daily London-Lille-Marseille service by Eurostar will use the Paris-Lyon high-speed line as well. Also currently, TGV services coming from Mulhouse going south regularily use the existing classic line north of Lyon, possibly they could also change over to the high-speed line if there was more capacity.

In the part of the line seeing the highest usage, between Crisenoy and Passily, in 1999, the average daily use was roughly 220 trains a day, even about 250 trains on Fridays. As the line came into operation, a headway of 5 minutes was planned in terms of the signalling system. As the line came closer and closer to its capacity limits, between 1999 and 2001 the signalling system was modernized and the minimal technical headway decreased to just four minutes. In combination with increasing the top speed to 187mph/300kmh for most of the line, the practical capacity of the line was increased to 12 TGVs per hour and direction (leaving some slots unused as a buffer for delays).


More and more high-speed rail traffic is projected to come into service in the next years and decades, also between city pairs that would at least partially use the existing Paris-Lyon high speed line. That is why the French government is determined to proceed with building a completely new, second high-speed line (Lignes à grande vitesse in french, abbreviated LGV) between Paris-Lyon, roughly via Orleans and Clearmont-Ferrand, thus called LGV POCL. The work will be carried out by Réseau Ferré de France (RFF), the infrastructure company owning the french rail network and train stations.

As usual with huge infrastructure projects like new high-speed lines, a lot of planning and engineering is necessary, and all the respective stakeholders are informed and invited to give their input. There are several alternative routes that have been proposed, RFF indicated that it would like to choose the middle route. It is shorter than the western one when it comes to miles of route to be built, making it cheaper. And travel time between Paris and Lyon would be 10 minutes shorter compared to the existing line, which alone is estimated to lead to one million new travelers annually. In opposition to that, the western route would connect several cities more directly, which is why the respective majors oppose the middle route. Also, environmentalists and farmers oppose the middle route as it would cross the wine region of Sancerre.






source:
TGV Paris-Orléans-Clermont-Lyon : préférence pour le tracé médian [schéma]
July 15, 2014
by Franck Simon
http://www.lamontagne.fr/auvergne/actualite/2014/07/15/tgv-paris-orleans-clermont-lyon-preference-pour-le-trace-median-schema_11081167.html

Just the day before yesterday, the general council of the Département Nièvre announced that it will vote in support of the middle route, as will the inter-local body of the Nevers Agglomération. The reason obviously is that the middle route will nearly completely bypass the Nievre region, and completely bypass the Nevers region, while still passing by Nevers pretty closely, so possibly a new TGV train station could be build just outside of Nevers. The eastern route, in opposition to that, would pretty much cut through all of the Nievre region from north to south, so it's obvious there might not be so much local support in the region for that, here is a press report about the recent developments:

Nièvre : le tracé médian de la LGV est en discussion au Conseil Général
October 20, 2014
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bourgogne/2014/10/20/nievre-le-trace-median-de-la-lgv-est-en-discussion-au-conseil-general-574808.html

Originally, a final decision on the route was expected by the end of 2014, meanwhile different sources suggest different dates during 2015. Many might be curious about when it will be made, and thus what then the estimate for start of construction and start of operations will be.


----------



## cirdan (Oct 22, 2014)

It does seem to me from looking at that diagram that the west variant does serve most places, although of course one should also look at the size and importance of those places (on which i have no data). This whole philosophy of out of town stations often means that the time you gain through the faster train you lose again by having to take on a long trek to some remote station.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Oct 22, 2014)

Thank you very much for this post. 



cirdan said:


> It does seem to me from looking at that diagram that the west variant does serve most places, although of course one should also look at the size and importance of those places (on which i have no data).


In order to provide just some data, Orleans has a population of about 115,000, Vierzon roughly 26,000, Bourges approximately 66,000 and Clermont-Ferrand around 140,000. This being the population inside of city limits, the numbers might be higher for "urban areas" or metro areas.



cirdan said:


> This whole philosophy of out of town stations often means that the time you gain through the faster train you lose again by having to take on a long trek to some remote station.


Many might think each concrete case might require a different, specific response to the question of downtown station vs. "out-of-town station".

Some might think, on the one hand, f.e. when it comes to California High-Speed Rail, then it's obvious that cities like Bakersfield (population roughly 347,000) or Fresno (population approx. 509,000) would benefit from a downtown station, to revitalize their urban core, to prevent further prime farmland loss because of sprawl, redirect new growth into higher densities and enable economic development within the city. Many might think while those cities f.e. would still benefit from an "out of town station" outside of the currently built-up area, the cities would be best served with a true downtown station to unleash high-speed rail's full potential.

On the other hand, some might think, in France the cities are set up in a different way. While f.e. Bakersfield or Fresno already have a pretty linear rail line going through town, many French cities have an urban core that is very dense, many centuries old and usually pedestrianized, and the rail lines with an existing station somewhere in town normally include curves sharper than a 4000 meter radius, so it would be difficult to integrate or somehow use any existing rail right-of-way for a new high-speed rail line without limiting high-speed rail's performance.
When building a completely new rail tunnel for high-speed rail underneath town to create a downtown stop is not an option (like it was done in Girona, Spain, or how it will be done Stuttgart, Germany), then an "out-of-town station" might be a good alternative. Of course how badly a downtown station is needed may also always depend on how big the city population is. Often, the smaller the city's population is, the less it makes sense to try to make massive investments to get a rail station downtown only in order to serve a comparatively small population.

"[...] that the time you gain through the faster train you lose again by having to take on a long trek to some remote station."
In France so far, many people might disagree with that assessment. For example in Aix-en-Provence, before TGV services operated, the rail travel time to Paris with the TEE Mistral conventional train was more than 6 hours.
Currently, non-stop TGV services connect Aix-en-Provence TGV station with Paris Gare de Lyon in 3 hours and 2 minutes.
That's for a distance of roughly 466mi/750km, which is pretty amazing it itself for many, that the average speed (not top speed) of this high-speed rail service is 155mph/250kmh.
To drive the same route, would take about 6h 45mins, and would cost more than 57 Euro (approx. $72) in highway tolls - one-way (just talking about tolls, not about gas yet).
The cheapest buy-in-advance TGV fare starts at 19 Euro (approx. $24).






source: http://www.leongrosse.fr/srt/leongrosse/showReference;jsessionid=4CBABFCAACA8BC69C024CFED68E22D73?location.id:=1374&id=59&type=saf&constid=6&compid=1&range=20&tot=25

So even when figuring in 25 minutes of a bus ride from Aix-en-Provence Centre to Aix-en-Provence TGV, and 15 minutes of transfer time, the "out of town station" plus TGV high-speed rail is still more than 2h faster than the former conventional train.
This is one example to illustrate, how some might think in many cases the statement "[...] the time you gain through the faster train you lose again by having to take on a long trek to some remote station" might not apply. 

It seems like an "out of town station" can sometimes mean tapping into additional ridership potential as well, as "Marvellous Provence" writes in the case of Aix-en-Provence TGV:



> The Aix TGV station itself has been a roaring success too, much more so than originally projected, mainly because it's not only used by people travelling to Aix itself. Many passengers find it quicker and more convenient to get from Aix TGV station to the airport or to areas north of Marseille, than to travel from Saint Charles station in Marseille.


source:

http://www.marvellous-provence.com/travel/rail/aix-en-provence-by-train

Travel connectivity is not only offered by several buses and of course by taxis, but also by plentyful parking including electric car charging spots and by featuring locations several car rental agencies on site (Sixt, Europcar, Avis, Hertz, Enterprise) at the "out of town station" example of Aix-en-Provence TGV.






source:

http://www.leongrosse.fr/srt/leongrosse/showReference;jsessionid=4CBABFCAACA8BC69C024CFED68E22D73?location.id:=1374&id=59&type=saf&constid=6&compid=1&range=20&tot=25


----------



## jphjaxfl (Oct 23, 2014)

I have travelled on trains of the SCNF quite a few times and all trains from the TGV to locals have been great and mostly on time. We should allow some foreign rail company to develope a comprehensive rail system in the US. That may happen in Texas.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Oct 23, 2014)

Thank you for your reply.

Maybe this goes rather into the field of "rail advocacy", so this post can be moved if necessary. 

To some, it may be great to read the following as part of the public profile:



> Interests:Rail passenger advocate for modern, reliable passenger trains that will allow for business or leasure travel. [...] I am not advocating going back to what we once had, rather an updated system similar to Europe, Japan, China, India and other nations with great passenger train systems.


There they are, those words "rail passenger advocate" - to many, that's something they like to read.  And it might be especially good to some to read the advocacy for "modern, reliable passenger trains" and an "updated system similar to Europe, Japan [...]", as sometimes some rail advocates f.e. when advocating for Amtrak seem to be interested only in that rail companies keep the old exterior or interior look, ring bells when entering stations or blow horns at crossing etc. just to keep "the magic of trains", while opposing high-speed rail or modern designs. So some might think it's great to hear advocating for "modern" rail and a system "similar to Europe, Japan" etc. 



jphjaxfl said:


> I have travelled on trains of the SCNF quite a few times and all trains from the TGV to locals have been great and mostly on time.


That's great to hear, that you had a good experience with SNCF trains, no matter if TGV high-speed rail or regional rail. While also in France there still might be room for improvement, many might share your impression that all the different rail services enable residents and visitors to get around the country quiet well, and trains are mostly on time.



jphjaxfl said:


> We should allow some foreign rail company to develope a comprehensive rail system in the US.


Many might think it's not so much about foreign vs. not foreign, or depending on any rail company. If SNCF had to take over Amtrak operations in the USA, with the same conditions that Amtrak is currently facing (being chronically underfunded, having to operate with rolling stock that is at least partially very old, not owning tracks passenger rail is operated on, passenger rail not having priority over freight trains, etc etc) then some might think the result would pretty similar. In the same way, if Amtrak had to take over SNCF in France, with the same conditions that SNCF is currently facing (substantial investment in rail year after year, with a lot of new and modern rolling stock, owning the tracks passenger rail is operated on, passenger rail of course having priority over freight trains, even with high-speed rail lines that are dedicated and passenger-only etc), then some might think the result might be pretty much the same. So some might think it's not foreign vs. not foreign, or depending on the rail company, but many might think what is needed is public investment in rail - that is what makes the difference. And some might think, this is where rail advocates step in, telling members of the public in general and elected leaders of the public in particular to make the necessary investments in rail. 



jphjaxfl said:


> We should allow some foreign rail company to develope a comprehensive rail system in the US. That may happen in Texas.


Some might think there is the rail infrastructure on the one hand, and rail operations on the other.

So some might think just as airlines don't build the air travel infrastructure, but the public builds airports, air traffic control systems etc, rail companies should not have to build rail infrastructure, but the public should do that.

Some might think, a comprehensive rail system includes not only high-speed (or long-distance) rail services, but regional (or local) rail services as well.

Generally, many might have the impression that operating long-distance rail or high-speed rail can be profitable, but operations of most regional rail services are not profitable. Still, many might think regional rail should exist, only that the public funds part of the operating costs, because rail has many benefits in many different ways.

In conclusion, private companies (foreign or not) might not have any incentive to build any comprehensive rail system (=rail infrastructure, including infrastructure for regional rail), because there is a huge upfront investment needed, and at least with regional rail operations private companies will not be able to recover the costs of their investment. The only rail infrastructure private companies will build is one where the private companies will likely be able to recover the costs of their investment, and then afterwards see additional profits because of their rail operations. There are not very many scenarios for that to happen in passenger rail. While one can hope for private companies to build a "comprehensive rail system", most likely the private companies will not because they have to cherry-pick only the very most attractive routes, those that they can recover the cost of their investment with and afterwards still make a profit with through operations. F.e. it was reported about Texas Central Railway that the "company, originally called U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail, looked at 97 possible routes nationwide before concluding that Texas was the ideal place for a high-speed line — and that healthy profits could be made in long-distance passenger rail [...]". So many might think, picking Dallas to Houston out of 97 possible routes nationwide was the cherry picking part mentioned above, if Texas Central Railway wanted to build a "comprehensive system" they could go ahead and build (or have partners build) all 97 possible routes nationwide, instead private companies can only select the very best ones, thus cherry-picking has to take place. 

In Texas, to some this might be obvious because even when a private company wants to invest $10 billion of private money to build high-speed rail infrastructure ($10 billion which they have to raise first), the private company still only wants to build Dallas to Houston. The current discussions about a Fort Worth to Dallas expansion of high-speed rail infrastructure, that would need to be a public investment. Texas Central Railway, the private high-speed rail company, is not willing to build rail infrastructure from Fort Worth to Dallas also. They might gladly operate on it, once it is build, still they will not invest private money to build it. And to many, it makes sense, because a private company has to make a profit, and to be profitable, they can only build the rail infrastructure where they can recover their investment, and make a profit afterwards. Thus many might think, any rail in Texas outside of the Dallas and Houston high speed rail infrastructure, will have to be publicly built infrastructure. So for a comprehensive rail system in Texas, the public will have to step up first, allocate the public funding, and make the public investment. Then, and possibly with ongoing public funding towards operations, private rail operators will gladly operate on the public rail infrastructure in Texas. No matter if it is regional rail, high speed rail, or any other form of passenger rail - at the same time, it's also ok if there is a public, not private entity in charge of the rail operations as well.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 1, 2014)

Well I was going to read this, until I saw it was more walls of text. But I think it's just deja vu again.


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 16, 2015)

France faces tough choices over future of TGV




> The publication of a government report on the finances of TGV has ignited debate in France on the future development of the high-speed network. Keith Barrow examines the main findings of the report.
> FRANCE will need to consider reducing the number of stations served by TGV services if the network is to stand any chance of being profitable, according to a report on the finances of TGV, which was published by the French Court of Auditors at the end of October.


----------



## jis (Jan 16, 2015)

CHamilton said:


> France faces tough choices over future of TGV
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Many of my otherwise ardent rail supporter friends in France tell me that some of the lines being proposed now are pretty marginal bordering on political boondoggle. We'll see how they fair.


----------

