High speed autotrains to Europe, will they ever happen???

the_amazing_raisin

So there's a growing movement of people swearing off flying because of the environmental impact. I feel like while this is very noble and I approve in principle, it's quite difficult in reality, particularly for Ireland (and Britain) because we're islands. People on continental Europe on the other hand could theoretically drive anywhere on the Eurasian or African continents


So what are the options for going to Europe without flying?


Well there's the ferry to France, or the land bridge across the UK. The problem of course is time, it takes at least a day to get to Europe, and depending on where you're going you could have several days of journey time ahead of you. This works for some people, but realistically it isn't a solution for everyone



And that's all the options really


There's also the argument that the ferry and driving, although less environmentally damaging than flying, still aren't great


So here's my dream:


A network of high speed railways interconnecting Europe (and farther) allowing travel times considerably faster than driving. Still slower than flying, but vastly quicker and arguably safer than trying to drive across Europe for several days


And then, add autotrains (car carrying trains) to this service. They still exist in the low speed variety in some parts of Europe. A lot of people still like to bring their own car to stay mobile, and this gives them that options


There's also an advantage for hauliers, since they'll be able to move faster across Europe, use less fuel (which would partially offset the cost of the train ticket), and get around driving time restrictions since they can rest on the train while still moving


Ideally, we'd also build that bridge to the UK (we can call it the BoJo bridge if the UK pays for it) and have out own high speed rail network (ha, I know), and link into the UK high speed network (I'm sure they'll build it eventually) so that you can bypass the ferry entirely


Electric high speed trains already exist, so it's very easy to power such trains from renewable sources. Since the trains will be linking nations, you could also build electric inter-connectors along the same path to allow renewable energy to be exported and imported, something which is critical for renewables to succeed


So you can get around relatively quickly, in comfort, with the luxury of bringing your own car, all without causing undue harm to the planet.



And probably fairly cheaply since electrified transport is typically cheaper than fossil fuel equivalents, and is somewhat immune to fuel price changes


It all sounds very ideal


And of course, none of it will ever happen :mad:

SeanW

No way high speed rail directly from Ireland to France would be viable. Distance undersea is too far. The Channel Tunnel barely makes financial sense, and that links Paris with London.

Best thing to realistically hope for is alternative fuels for ferries (hydrogen, synthetic liquid fuels) and maybe the Boris Johnson tunnel from NI to Scotland.

lawred2

I'd be surprised if Cork Dublin pays for itself never mind a tunneled train from Ireland to France

Forget that pipe dream OP

banie01

Economically and actually technologically I believe the only way a rail interconnect with Europe would be possible, is via the UK. As in Ireland >UK/HS2 > Chunnel > European network.

Brexit has killed that possibility for the foreseeable IMO.
Perhaps when the UK rejoins?

the_amazing_raisin

lawred2 wrote: »

I'd be surprised if Cork Dublin pays for itself never mind a tunneled train from Ireland to France

Forget that pipe dream OP

I didn't mean a tunnel to France, build a bridge to the UK and send the train that way


Yeah it's totally unattainable, but hey, we're allowed to dream aren't we?

Blazer

not to worry..the star trek style transporter will be here anyime soon.
I personally can't wait for it so on holidays I can beam back to my bedroom and large screen tv and then the following morning back to the beach or poolside.

the_amazing_raisin

banie01 wrote: »

Economically and actually technologically I believe the only way a rail interconnect with Europe would be possible, is via the UK. As in Ireland >UK/HS2 > Chunnel > European network.

Brexit has killed that possibility for the foreseeable IMO.
Perhaps when the UK rejoins?

Yeah that's what I was thinking, unfortunately a bridge to the UK doesn't make economic sense, there isn't the traffic volume


Maybe the UK will build the bridge purely out of political reasons, hopefully they include a rail line if they do


Of course there is the technical stumbling block of the rail gauge being different in Ireland to the rest of Europe and the UK. Maybe we can coax some money out of the EU to 'standardise' the rail gauge here and build a high speed rail system in the process

firemansam4

I can't see that happening any time within the next century at least.

However it is possible that there will be advances in air travel in decades to come, making it much cleaner and more efficient.
Of course all of this will be dependent on the political will to force this change, without it we will trundle on with the same polluting technology we have now.

Del2005

cruisey1987 wrote: »

I didn't mean a tunnel to France, build a bridge to the UK and send the train that way


Yeah it's totally unattainable, but hey, we're allowed to dream aren't we?

There's no infrastructure for rail or road on the crossings from NI to Britain and I don't see how building hundreds of km of railway in the wrong places is good for the environment.

Cargo ships from the far East ignore all the ports in the Mediterranean to get to Rotherham and other northern European ports and there is already good transport links from them to northern Europe.

Haulage companies won't pay for their drivers to sit on ferries or trains for days so driving hours won't be affected. The new ferry to Dunkirk will be mostly unaccompanied trailers

CelticRambler

cruisey1987 wrote: »

A network of high speed railways interconnecting Europe (and farther) allowing travel times considerably faster than driving. Still slower than flying, but vastly quicker and arguably safer than trying to drive across Europe for several days

Great in principal, but doesn't work in practice. I have the luxury of living in Europe with theoretical access to a high speed rail network. In reality, for most of my journeys, it's still quicker, less stressful and often cheaper for me to get in my own car and drive from A to B, for journeys of up to 1000km.

Why? Because for high speed networks to be economically viable, they can only operate between dense population centres, with feeder networks that take traffic away from older, notionally slower direct routes between outlying provincial/rural areas. I've lost the link now, but once read a very interesting article showing how the arrival and development of the TGV service in France has increased journey times for the vast majority of rail users.

As for building bridges and tunnels from Ireland to the rest of the world - well, when all is said and done, if someone chooses to live on an island, being cut off from the rest of the world is part of the package! If you want easy access to European destinations, come and live on the continent! :cool:

Isambard

Maybe we should be building a link to Yorkshire if that's where all the Far Eastern Shipping is headed.

Del.Monte

Maybe we should convert what's left of our railway system into greenways and thereby pre-empt any potential waste of money on high speed rail lines.

monument

Del.Monte wrote: »

Maybe we should convert what's left of our railway system into greenways and thereby pre-empt any potential waste of money on high speed rail lines.

Maybe stop trolling?

-- moderator

dowlingm

There are some places where this “works” e.g. Autotrain from south of DC to Florida as an express service over a double stack height railroad but it requires it to be convenient enough for users to drive significant distances to/from the terminal because mid route stops aren’t practical. If it wasn’t a legacy thing I doubt they would bother inventing it now.

For the investment required I would think it would be easier to grow conventional passenger service matched with the flexibility of modern car sharing

the_amazing_raisin

dowlingm wrote: »

There are some places where this “works” e.g. Autotrain from south of DC to Florida as an express service over a double stack height railroad but it requires it to be convenient enough for users to drive significant distances to/from the terminal because mid route stops aren’t practical. If it wasn’t a legacy thing I doubt they would bother inventing it now.

For the investment required I would think it would be easier to grow conventional passenger service matched with the flexibility of modern car sharing

Yeah I'd say the auto train part is definitely a pipe dream, unless it was available for trucks in the same way as the channel tunnel

High speed trains across Europe would be great, especially if there was a proper integrated booking system. One thing I've found is that you basically can't book tickets for trains that cross between several national rail services.

You'd think this would be something that would internet the EU greatly

CelticRambler

cruisey1987 wrote: »

High speed trains across Europe would be great, especially if there was a proper integrated booking system. One thing I've found is that you basically can't book tickets for trains that cross between several national rail services.

You're obviously not looking in the right places. Out of curiosity, I've just had a look, and can book tickets from my local provincial French railway station (25km drive) at the end of January to Venice (change in Paris, Milan, Bologna) for 150€, or Prague (change in Paris, Frankfurt, Dresden) for 250€

tabbey

CelticRambler wrote: »

from my local provincial French railway station (25km drive) at the end of January to Venice (change in Paris, Milan, Bologna) for 150€, or Prague (change in Paris, Frankfurt, Dresden) for 250€

250 euro from France to Prague is enough to put off all but the most dedicated rail traveller. That and the worsening connections to passenger ferries, is what has everyone flying.

CelticRambler

tabbey wrote: »

250 euro from France to Prague is enough to put off all but the most dedicated rail traveller.

Well in my earlier post, I indicated a limit of 1000km as my "within driving distance" range. To do that same rail trip (nearest station is 25km from my house) is just short of 1300km, and I can do it for 210€ in my diesel-guzzling motorhome. In theory, I could do it in half the time needed to take the various trains, including connection times; in practice, I'd probably take a day or two longer and enjoy visiting several places en route.

Having said that, I've read that continental sleeper trains are making a comeback, and I'll probably treat myself to one of those some day. But first, I want to do the Trans Siberian Express.

Dunfyy

They are building electric planes

L1011

Dunfyy wrote: »

They are building electric planes

Currently suited for Aer Arann Islands style use only. Not a bad thing removing 50 year old piston aircraft from use but this is basically milkfloats compared to articulated coaches

the_amazing_raisin

L1011 wrote: »

Currently suited for Aer Arann Islands style use only. Not a bad thing removing 50 year old piston aircraft from use but this is basically milkfloats compared to articulated coaches

Yeah from what I've read the energy density of batteries will roughly need to triple to be suitable for a large airliner

Hydrogen is probably more suited for large aircraft but again the technology is a way off

The technology will arrive, but it's probably 10-15 years before we see something the size of a 737 powered by batteries or hydrogen (or both).

Remember even once the technology has been developed, it'll need to be refined to the point of being commercially viable, then go through testing, regulation and the ground facilities will need to be built up. So while you might have a flyable plane in the next few years, it'll take a while longer before you'll be booking flights on one

RandomViewer

NO

Isambard

cruisey1987 wrote: »

Yeah from what I've read the energy density of batteries will roughly need to triple to be suitable for a large airliner

Hydrogen is probably more suited for large aircraft but again the technology is a way off

The technology will arrive, but it's probably 10-15 years before we see something the size of a 737 powered by batteries or hydrogen (or both).

Remember even once the technology has been developed, it'll need to be refined to the point of being commercially viable, then go through testing, regulation and the ground facilities will need to be built up. So while you might have a flyable plane in the next few years, it'll take a while longer before you'll be booking flights on one

hydrogen has been tried , even so I think airship technology could be re-visited

theguzman

The airline industry and thus the commercial aviation industry who build the planes have been absolutely destroyed. There will be absolutely zero innovation or anything new in Aviation for probably 20+ years after 2020. Getting passengers back on planes will be a hard enough task. To develop a new aircraft could cost €20bn and the tech isn't there to revolutionize it.

Quantum Erasure

You could just, not go...?

Isambard

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

You could just, not go...?

along with drastically reducing private car use, I think that has to come. The World has been destroyed, in just over 100 years, by those two modes.

blackbox

Isambard wrote: »

along with drastically reducing private car use, I think that has to come. The World has been destroyed, in just over 100 years, by those two modes.

That's one way of looking at it.

Someone would also say that the car has done more for human freedom than any other development.
It would be better to improve them rather than remove them.

Population increase has been more of a problem, but that appears to be resolving itself.

the_amazing_raisin

Isambard wrote: »

along with drastically reducing private car use, I think that has to come. The World has been destroyed, in just over 100 years, by those two modes.

Reducing private car use to 0, or switching to EVs and using purely renewable energy would save around 10% of emissions

Something would need to be done about commercial travel such as trucks, delivery vans, ships and aircraft

I do believe a reduction in car usage will be part of the solution, but there's no silver bullet that fixes everything

the_amazing_raisin

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

You could just, not go...?

It's a noble thought, but let's face it, people are going to want to travel, so it's more about finding a solution that has the least environmental impact that simply reversing human development by a century or so

Harpon

Why does the ferry to France take so long? Could that tech not be improved to create a more viable route to France?

the_amazing_raisin

Harpon wrote: »

Why does the ferry to France take so long? Could that tech not be improved to create a more viable route to France?

Technology improves but you're eventually going to have to run up against the annoying reality that a boat displaces water and has to push the water in front to either side when it's moving.

Advances in hull design have generally been around reducing the amount of the hull in the water or making a shape that glides through the water better. Unfortunately this is usually at the cost of stability, so fast hull designs often can't handle rough seas, something you're bound the encounter in the atlantic.

They also tend to have less load capacity than a traditional displacement hull and port fees are often decided by the size of the ship, so you want to carry as much as possible for the size of the ship

So it's really down to speed vs economy. Ships travel at the speed they do because it's when they're most efficient. Even a moderate increase in speed dramatically increased fuel consumption

Isambard

cruisey1987 wrote: »

Technology improves but you're eventually going to have to run up against the annoying reality that a boat displaces water and has to push the water in front to either side when it's moving.

Advances in hull design have generally been around reducing the amount of the hull in the water or making a shape that glides through the water better. Unfortunately this is usually at the cost of stability, so fast hull designs often can't handle rough seas, something you're bound the encounter in the atlantic.

They also tend to have less load capacity than a traditional displacement hull and port fees are often decided by the size of the ship, so you want to carry as much as possible for the size of the ship

So it's really down to speed vs economy. Ships travel at the speed they do because it's when they're most efficient. Even a moderate increase in speed dramatically increased fuel consumption

yes, I've known the boat leave early in a quiet period but still arrive right time as they just go slower to save fuel.

the_amazing_raisin

Isambard wrote: »

yes, I've known the boat leave early in a quiet period but still arrive right time as they just go slower to save fuel.

Yeah I guess for the ferry to go faster, the fuel would have to get a lot cheaper. Battery electric vehicles are cheaper to run and more efficient, so the same logic should apply. However they'd probably run at the same speed to reduce the number of batteries required

Hydrogen costs have a lot of scope to come down in price, so I'd say there's a good possibility that hydrogen could undercut fossil fuels at some point in the future, especially if fossil fuels are punitively taxed

However, if the ferry company can suddenly save a lot of money on fuel, it's probably more likely they'll increase their profit margin (and maybe lower prices, stranger things have happened) rather than run the ferry faster

Marcusm

cruisey1987 wrote: »

Yeah that's what I was thinking, unfortunately a bridge to the UK doesn't make economic sense, there isn't the traffic volume


Maybe the UK will build the bridge purely out of political reasons, hopefully they include a rail line if they do


Of course there is the technical stumbling block of the rail gauge being different in Ireland to the rest of Europe and the UK. Maybe we can coax some money out of the EU to 'standardise' the rail gauge here and build a high speed rail system in the process

It's three times the length of the main span of the Hing Kong-Zuhai-Macao bridge which links multiple metrolpolises (i.e. not a small city and a tiny village) and which is dependent on artificial islands to span its total length.

goingnowhere

The HSS1500 was the pinnacle of fast ferry design. 40+ knots and rapid docking and loading

Problem is it consumed fuel at an insane rate, which needs oil to be well under $50 a barrel to be commercially sensible

But it was limited in capacity for trailers and was reasonably capable of rough seas


The bridge tunnel setup between Copenhagen and Malmö actually has problems with wind stopping trains so a full tunnel option is the only one to provide weather proof service

Strumms

SeanW wrote: »

No way high speed rail directly from Ireland to France would be viable. Distance undersea is too far. The Channel Tunnel barely makes financial sense, and that links Paris with London.

Best thing to realistically hope for is alternative fuels for ferries (hydrogen, synthetic liquid fuels) and maybe the Boris Johnson tunnel from NI to Scotland.

I can hear it now.. “I’ll be getting the BJ all the way from Belfast to Stranraer.”