# HSR: Enemy of a wider rail network?



## CHamilton (Dec 17, 2013)

High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network



> High speed rail is marketed as a sustainable alternative to air traffic. According to the International Union of Railways, the high speed train "plays a key role in a stage of sustainable development and combating climate change". As a regular long-distance train traveller in Europe, I have to say that the opposite is true. High speed rail is destroying the most valuable alternative to the airplane; the "low speed" rail network that has been in service for decades.
> 
> The introduction of a high speed train connection invariably accompanies the elimination of a slightly slower, but much more affordable, alternative route, forcing passengers to use the new and more expensive product, or abandon the train altogether. As a result, business people switch from full-service planes to high speed trains, while the majority of Europeans are pushed into cars, coaches and low-cost airplanes.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 17, 2013)

Absolutely true. HSR is good for trips of up to three to five hours. For longer trips they are just leading to a fragmentation of the network.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 17, 2013)

Fragmentation and higher infrstructure spending means higher prices, in places where slow trains and fast trains run side-by-side the demand for the lower speed, cheaper train remains.


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2013)

ALC Rail Writer said:


> Fragmentation and higher infrstructure spending means higher prices, in places where slow trains and fast trains run side-by-side the demand for the lower speed, cheaper train remains.


And then there is Ouigo which decimates slower cheaper trains between the points served by that service almost completely. That is a very possible direction that HSR will be going when it is fully deregulated.

But I don't think we have to fear any of that happening in the US. For the foreseeable future passenger rail will remain completely regulated preserving appropriate level of energy inefficiency and operating costs.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 18, 2013)

It does not have to be that way. Check the Taiwan HSR. It more or less parallels the existing West Coast Mainline which still carries a large volume of people making shorter trips, and for all I know people wanting to save the money that are willing to take an extra couple of hours to do so.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 18, 2013)

Regulation always favors somebody.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 20, 2013)

The mess with high-speed trains collapsing slower services is two-fold. One issue is that upon establishing the faster service, the operator (usually a nationalized or mixed operation) has multiple incentives to make sure the new line succeeds. This often invovles cutting other services (which may or may not be redundant as a result and/or which might be in competition for slots at major termini).

The other issue is stickier, and it involves demand shifting over. Let me offer a hypothetical situation: Let's say that the Washington-New York Maglev happened. Assuming it wasn't much more than the Acela (something the operator would be smart to attempt to ensure), you'd suddenly see virtually all business traffic from served stations jump over. Even if the train ONLY served NYP and WAS (i.e. all trains ran non-stop), the loss of that major market would probably collapse ridership on the Acela dramatically. If it were to stop at BAL and PHL as well, I'd expect the Acela to be cut south of NYP (or maybe south of PHL/WIL if there's enough run-through traffic), hurting riders from NWK, TRE, etc. Moreover, if the time savings are sufficient, it could also put a serious squeeze on the Regionals as well.

Even if the operator does nothing to trigger it on their own, a high-speed train can easily knock slower service into a death spiral with demand jumping over.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 20, 2013)

However, Acelas are not the only trains running on the Northeast Corridor. In fact, if the Acelas disappeared due to their niche being taken over by higher speed trains, it would open slots for lower speed trains (regionals) which appear to be well patronized despite their longer time. I would suspect that their patronage is sufficiently price sensitive that it would be unaffected by reduction in run times of the highest speed and higher priced trains.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 21, 2013)

George Harris said:


> However, Acelas are not the only trains running on the Northeast Corridor. In fact, if the Acelas disappeared due to their niche being taken over by higher speed trains, it would open slots for lower speed trains (regionals) which appear to be well patronized despite their longer time. I would suspect that their patronage is sufficiently price sensitive that it would be unaffected by reduction in run times of the highest speed and higher priced trains.


It's an open question. If you knocked another half-hour off the Acelas' times but kept the price the same (with more capacity), what would that do? What would 90-120 minute travel times do? And how many people who are sucking it up and paying an upper bucket now would turn around and spring for the faster train? Yes, you've got a price-sensitive audience; the concern would be that you'd end up splitting folks into a "bullet train crowd" and "bus crowd" with Regionals getting ground up between them, frequencies dropping, and so on.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2013)

The way to manage that would be to grossly increase capacity on the Regionals and drop their fare to capture the upper crust bus crowd. I don't think this will be an issue on the NEC if it is managed properly Fares at present are unreasonably high and that needs to change. There needs to be a lower rung service to actually deliver on the claim of energy efficient transport for the masses, which at present it is not quite so. The masses appear to take to the roads in cars and buses still.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 21, 2013)

jis said:


> The way to manage that would be to grossly increase capacity on the Regionals and drop their fare to capture the upper crust bus crowd. I don't think this will be an issue on the NEC if it is managed properly Fares at present are unreasonably high and that needs to change. There needs to be a lower rung service to actually deliver on the claim of energy efficient transport for the masses, which at present it is not quite so. The masses appear to take to the roads in cars and buses still.


I've got to wonder, though...how much of a market would you have for something like MARC/NJT (in terms of on-board seating and whatnot) running all the way from WAS-NYP, and what price could you charge for it? I ask because that's basically what you'd seem to have "below" the Regionals, and you'd be looking at something like $45 ($15.50 NYP-TRE+$9 TRE-PHL+$6.50 PHL-Newark, DE +$11 Perryville-WAS...plus I throw in $3 Newark-Perryville). The Amtrak E-bucket special is $49 NYP-WAS...but that also gets you a Regional with a cafe car and a much better seat than you tend to get on SEPTA.

I guess I'm just having trouble envisioning what such a low-cost system would actually look like.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 28, 2013)

jis said:


> Fares at present are unreasonably high and that needs to change.


I played around with an inflation calculator, and got a couple of interesting equivalent fares:

PHL-BAL: 1971: $26.00 (2103 dollars; it was $4.50 in 1971) 2013: ~$46.00 ("Value fare")

NYP-BAL 1971: $58.00 (2013 dollars; was ~$10 in 1971) 2013: $75.00("Value fare, which never seems to be available for trains at convenient times.)

What's seems anomalous are the competing bus fares: Back in the day, the bus was maybe 8-10% cheaper than the train. Now we have the Bolt Bus, etc. charging ~$30-40 for a BAL-NYC trip. 

An off-topic note about air fares: Back in my college days, I could get a PHL-ORD standby ticket for $35 (or about $200 in today's money.) The cheapest flights on United are $278. Full fare back in '71 was $50, or $287 in 2013 bucks. If you take Southwest airlines, you can get fares for as low as $140, but you're going to Midway (which would have been inconvenient for me back in college.) Of course, when I was in college, I would tend to fly on days like Jan 2., and the Southwest fare for that day is $326. It seems that, in the long run, maybe airline deregulation wasn't worth it. Customer service is much worse than in 1971, the employees are more poorly paid, the networks are smaller, yet the fares are more or less what they were before deregulation.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 28, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I guess I'm just having trouble envisioning what such a low-cost system would actually look like.


Take Horizon coaches (Shouldn't there be a whole bunch freed up when they get those Midwest double deckers), and run them with more stops than the Regionals. On the other hand, most riders are not going to run from end to end, so maybe commuter equipment isn't such a hardship. And people do tolerate the commuter equipment on the holiday specials.

Here's some possible stops:

WAS

New Carrolton

Odenton

BWI

BAL

Aberdeen

Elkton or Perryville

Newark, DE

Wilmington

(There's a big looking Septa Park and ride north of Wilmington near the State line)

PHL

North Philadlphia

Cromwell's Heights

Trenton

Hamilton

Princeton Junction

New Brunswick

Metropark

Newark Airport

Newark NJ

Secaucus

NYP

I would guess it would take 4/12 hours instead of the 3 1/2 hours for the regular regionals. They could also throw in a cafe car, apparently the NEC cafe cars make money, or at least cover their costs.

I would also accept commuter tickets/passes. (this assumes the service would be supported by the various commuter agencies.)


----------

