More impressive than the initial line is the fact from the late 60s/70s, they actually had the political vision and will to invest and see this project through ( *cough* UK/US/Canada/Australia). The TGV is truly an icon 👏👏
The TGV is the subject of a great deal of pride amongst us Frenchmen. I just wish there were more "radial" lines radiating from Paris. I dream of a Bordeaux-Lyon connection.
What I don't understand is why some trains skip even major stations. Some time ago I took the TGV from Nice to Paris and was suprised to find it skips Lyon entirely, not stopping in either Part Dieu or the airport, and from what I understand it's the same with most if not all Paris-Niece services.
@@mancubwwa They are competing against planes nobody asks why the plane doesn‘t make a stop over in lyon…simple answer is time. It would absolutly mane sense to stop in lyon but on the otherhand by skipping it you can have a faster direct connection from nice-paris.
@@Slithermotion Ok, so not going into city saves time, but how much would stop at Saint-Exupery airport add, 10 minutes? Given how many stops train makes before hitting LGV outside Marsillies this doesn't look like a big deal
@@mancubwwathe line from Paris to Lyon is one of the most heavily trafficked high speed rail lines in Europe, with the majority of these trains stopping in Lyon before carrying on. The train to Nice takes a long time since there isn’t dedicated HSR tracks past Marseille and SNCF is trying to compete with airlines running the same route, so this is one of the few lines that skip Lyon entirely
There's a fun fact about the TGV in west of France : Prior to the electrification of the branch line from Clisson to La Roche sur Yon and Les Sables d'Olonne, the TGV served this part of the network, but hauled by Diesel trains. These patches of lines were eventually electrified during the 2000s, and the 3 class CC72000, that were fitted with a TGV automatic coupler in order to get rid of an extra wagon (kinda like the drag class 37s in the UK) were downgraded to stock specifications. To this day, the TGV in the west serves Le Croisic and Les Sables d'Olonne on summer. Another funfact is that, while the LGV Bretagne-Pays de La Loire was built, there was a comma, in Sablé sur Sarthe, that allows regional trains to go onto the LGV and provide a link between the major city stations and the LGV stations. For this purpose, the region Pays de la Loire modified 8 Class Z21500 (now part of the Z21700 subclass between Z21701/02 to Z21715/16), fitted with TVM in-cab signalling on them, whilst being able to reach 200 km/h such as the unmodified units. Quite unusual.
Interesting, though at least there wasn't dual mode high speed trains as seen in the UK, Germany and Spain - something just feels wrong about diesel fuel on a high speed train!
@@RMTransit I agree with that, it doesn't feel right to have Diesel power on high speed trains, and it doesn't really make sense to have Diesel engines fitted on an High Speed train nowadays, especially when the non-electrified branch line it goes on receives electrification shortly after installation of the service, which is what happened in this case. Even though it might've been strange to see this kind of operations, it allowed for straight service from Paris to the beaches in Les Sables d'Olonne without changing for a regional service that would take longer because of the inconsistency of said services that were rather infrequent and slow (especially if it's an omnibus service which would be the case of most services back in the day), which is understandable from the normal Parisian on a holiday in July's perspective. (Which I'm not) But still a nice thing that these lines are now electrified.
I always thought that it was funny to have a line between paris and such a small city. When i was passing by the train station as a kid at les sables being able to see TGV made me laugh. Also this line run not only during summer i saw one of those the other day .
French guy here, the video was very on point, I enjoyed watching ! I just wanted to mention that the TGV services are not only premium because of the LGV network, but also beacause of some upgraded yet historic lines allowing speed up to 220 km/h, regional services almost never go this fast. For instance there is Nantes - Le Mans or Strasbourg - Basel. The first one is also to be upgraded to ERTMS standrads so that more capacity is avaliable. A map that shows this, although it is quite outdated, can be found of the wikipedia page of heigh speed rail in Europe.
Yeah, and I do think this is a bit of a shortfall in the French railway system - the UK and Germany seem to have more fast regional trains generally - but if the world continues to "think out" perhaps this won't matter.
I think France doesn't get enough credit for their development of high speed trains. The Japanese built the first line. And they deserve a lot of credit for that. But from a technological point, there wasn't much break from existing standards, at least on the traction/speed side (signaling for example was quite revolutionary). The Tokaido Shinkansen line started operating in October 1964 at a top speed of 210 km per hour. In May 1967 SNCF introduced its first 200 km/h train Le Capitol between Paris and Toulouse using regular rolling stock and tracks, showing that 200 km/h wasn't special from a technological point of view. With the TGV the French in 1981 introduced the first 260 km/h service and shortly after raised it to a 270 km/h top speed. Then in 1989 with the TGV and LGV Atlantique 300 km/h regular train service becomes reality. To put this in context, the Shinkansen reached top speeds of 220 km/h in 1986, 230 km/h in 1989 and 270 km/h only in 1992.
LNER managed 203km/h between London and Edinburgh with a steam train (Class A4 Mallard) in 1938. The problem is that things haven't really got any faster since then.
@@katrinabryce The LNER run with Mallard was a test run, not the regular service speed for the every day passenger trains. Just like how TGV trains in France don't routinely reach 574km/h despite reaching that record on a test run.
japan also reached 300km/h back in 1997, although track and other requirements(shinkansen trains being wider than tgv and going though a lot more smaller tunnels with tigher noise regulation, along with higher acceleration for crowded schedule) meant those capable of operating at such speed(the iconic 500 series with its sharp nose) was horrendously expensive even by the already expensive shinkansen train standards, most(along with the cheaper 700 series operating at 285km/h to address the high cost of 500 series) were replaced by the n700 with lower cost and even higher acceleration
The duplex trains are absolutely a must between major cities of Europe. I wish ICE and others did like TGV, but having TGV duplex go all the way to Tallin in the future would be amazing!
TGV duplex has a horrible passenger change time. Even in small stations, they have to stop for at least 2-3 minutes, in bigger stations sometimes up to 7 minutes, to let everyone in and out of the train. For a rail system as congested as Germany's, it's just not an option. That's why DB has explicitly said that they want their new ICE trains to be single decker.
@@raileon that is true for the initial TGV duplex, but that is not true of all double decker trains. The design should be refined. In many cases, it is passenger count that matters a lot in reducing cost while increasing efficiency in moving people between dense urban hubs. And it doesn’t take 7 minutes in every cases (most in between stations only have a 3 min stay), most cases in which it occurs is usually where the actual stop times far exceed that time such as terminus. That being said, this inefficiency in loading and unloading should be worked on and not the reason for discarding double deckers.
@@raileon Though it's not a problem for the main model on which most of the passenger traffic occurs in France : direct non-stop high capacity routes. There are bypass tracks on every HSL corridor in France, even Paris and Lyon have bypass tracks used by dozens of trains every day, precisely for this : to be able to move up to 1250 (and soon nearly 1500) passengers in the shortest time possible and maximize track usage. (It's similar in Spain, but their network is far from being used at capacity). LGV Sud-Est is Europe's busiest high-speed line, with trains passing at 300kph up to every 3 minutes in each direction during peak, thanks to this system. Instead of having a train every 7 or 10 minutes stopping at all or most stations between Paris and Marseille for example (as it is the case in Germany), there are trains departing Paris every 3 or 4 minutes for many different destinations, with as few stops as possible. Plus trains that enter the LGV from the Eastern HS bypass of Paris or the short conventional link from Massy and the Atlantic LGV. This allows for more people to be transported per hour, on longer distances and thus at higher speeds. And once it has arrived it's quickly prepared for another service, usually a return trip, maximizing train usage. The same train could then run a long distance city pair *and* *be* *back* , full of passengers, in the original departure city before the all-stop train has even reached the last destination city. For example, a non-stop Paris Strasburg train has the time to run more than 2.5 times the route while a direct train travels between Frankfurt and Hamburg only once, which takes between 4h30 and 5h04 for a similar distance, instead of 1h45. The Duplex or new TGV M would be perfect for DB to operate true non-stop or quasi non-stop and super fast services in parallel to the current services that stop frequently. But it would also require some bypass HSL and to avoid having to slow down and cross or stop in between at every single somewhat mid-sized city whose Bürgermeister had an ego trip. Like Hamburg München non-stop in 2h30 or 3h instead of 6h30 or 7h currently. Or Berlin München in 1h45 / 2h00 instead of 4h30... Having to stop and / or to slow down and cross city center stations is the main cause for delays and the main reason there's no true long distance high-speed in Germany. Plus, any disruption in a station and the whole corridor, or multiple corridors that the station is on and the all trains are affected, which is terrible for reliability and causes cascading delays. If there's a disruption in Lyon's central stations : None of the trains on the corridor that travel to other cities are affected, none! As they are mostly non-stop and avoid all city centers on the corridor by running on bypass high-speed tracks. Paris Montpellier runs smoothly, same for Marseille Strasburg or Grenoble Lille. My friends in Germany complain all year round about the delays and lack of truly fast services on long distances. It drives them nuts to need 4h30, in the best case scenario, often more like 5h, to travel between München and Berlin. There's major untapped potential here. Imagine the mass of people that DB would be able to move if they had proper non-stop high-speed services on longer distances with high capacity trains. They could still run their frequent stop services in parallel. But they would also offer true domestic air travel replacement services. I'm sure many would pay a few extra euros to be able to cut travel times in half. Or just forget about domestic air travel and ride trains when they cross the entire country like they forget about driving to the next city. To be fair, 3 or 4 minutes stops are more due to unruly smokers that hog the doors than to actual door congestion most of the time. It's only during major holidays when all passengers carry their entire house in much too large suitcases that door congestion really happens. The real main reason for seemingly longer dwell times is because there are other TGV's, non-stop ones, that overtake them on the line and the next slot on the HSL requires a 5 minute stop. Anything less and the following train would have to stay behind and slow down. That's the point of the system, *never* slowing down the trains behind. So when a train has to make a stop, it must allow enough time for the next one, two or three trains behind to pass before continuing on / reentering the HSL.
@@raileon The one-way trip between Hamburg and Berlin is 100 minutes with only 2 intermediate stops (including Hamburg and Berlin). Isn't doubling the passenger capacity is easily worth another 10 minutes of stops? Maybe not for the passenger who has to wait another 10 minutes, but if that's really the biggest problem with the trains, then you should argue for them to add extra doors in the middle of the carriages to save 5 minutes per trip.
at 3:30: when you compare to the German high speed lines: a) That star-shaped "network" centered at Paris mostly covers rather flat parts for France. Germany's lines have to run through more foothills. b) the first generation of German high speed lines (Hannover-Wuerzburg and Mannheim-Stuttgart) was build without steep grades, with the idea that these lines could be used at daytime for high speed ICE passenger trains and at night for freight trains. That's why there are also extensive sidings every some kilometers, so slower freight trains could let an occasional nightly passenger train pass. That idea didn't work out. Newer lines (Frankfurt-Cologne, Stuttgart 21, Stuttgart-Ulm) are designed for passenger trains only and thus have much steeper grades, similar to France. c) not-so-fun-fact: due to the way the government's subsidy system works, it pays off more for the railway company to plan and build lines that need significant civil engineering planning, i.e. planning bridges and tunnels, instead of addressing the low hanging fruits first, i.e. building in the flat northern plain and optimizing track alignments in the river valleys etc.
b) Wendlingen-Ulm is at least officially supposed to be used by freight trains (as seen by the "Güterzuganbindung"), but it's unlikely that any freight train will ever use the line. Partly because most freight trains can't handle the grades, and partly because even those who could would still prefer to use the nearby "Filstalbahn" which has much more manageble grades.
@@etbadaboum I am still searching for a reference for that, but IIRC it boils down to: the actual construction work is done by contractors that have to be chosen by means of a bidding process. Then, the railway company can send these bills to the government for (partial) reimbursement. That way, they get the new railway line for free (or less than it's worth), but no government cash stays in the railway company. If, on the other hand, the railway company plans extensive tunnels and bridges with their own employees (architects and civil engineers), they can not only claim salaries and other expenses but also a profit margin for reimbursement, thus making real cash.
Thanks for mentioning Toulouse! Being the 4th largest French city while not having yet a high-speed line connection is quite frustrating... Beside having Airbus (and rugby and good food too!), we do have interesting transit as you mentioned though. It is probably not as noteworthy as Paris, Lyon or Rennes, but we are impatient to see our third metro line being completed. Ha, and bike is developing like crazy here too!
I'd say beyond the population:Metro size ration Toulouse is much more interesting than Rennes! Soon three metro lines, and trams while Rennes just has two metro lines!
To be fair, the LGV line to Toulouse would mean either losing the stops to Montauban and Agen or being close to not cutting the time duration much. (I agree that taking a single train that takes 2h30 to travel to Bordeaux followed by a 2h travel to Paris is annoying)
@@le_luk Many people complain because villages less than 1 hour away from the TGV stations will have to pay a tax, even if they'll hardly benefit from it. The taxes will par for 1 billion out of 14 billions.
We are entering the highspeed rail late in the Czech republic.. a combination of politics and topography but we are under way to connect Prague with Brno and Ostrava with Prague to Dresden as one of the most important intl links as well with a long not so easy to build tunnel under the ore mountains. The Czechs after a long period of research have decided for the French model and even the track plans, technology are and will be built according to TGV. First portions of the line are estimated to be sometime around 2028-2030
The best part about the TGV network is getting to take an ICE to Paris and realizing that the ICE is likely only punctual amd over 300kph outsude of Germany😅.
... and the ride on the ICE feels much less bumpy than on the TGV, on the same tracks in eastern France :) however, if we don't look at the details of (over-)engineering, but at the service as a whole, TGV/LGV clearly wins over ICE/NBS
@@joehacker6412I’m still surprised the new high speed trains have moved away from from articulated bogeys. It was a great feature both for safety and comfort.
@@joehacker6412 ah yes, the superior German trains that used to overheat on French lines because they couldn't withstand high speeds for long periods of time.
@@paname514_bis Well, when the train stops due to a breakdown there is no shaking and vibrations at all :-) But that's not what I meant - even if the ICE3 happens to run at 300+ kph the ride feels smoother than with the TGV. And I didn't call the ICE superior, just less bumpy to ride. The technical concepts are quite different - EMU vs. locomotives at the end - hard for me to tell what is better.
Thanks Reece for another excellent video. And you rightly highlight the flaws of the system, in particular that SNCF tends to make TGV train travel like air travel. I would add two points. Your international map at 4m 45s should have shown the links to Switzerland. TGVs run to Geneva, Lausanne, and Zurich via Basel. Your Paris area map at 6m 30s omits the (non-high-speed) link from Valenton on the Sud-Est line to Massy-Palaiseau on the Atlantique line. This is used by the FEW TGVs running from Marseille or Lyon to Nantes or Rennes. See European Rail Timetable table 335.
I think the maps just show the LGV's and not every city that TGV trains go to. TGV's also go to places like Luxembourg City and Brest that also don't appear on the map, they just complete their journeys on conventional lines
TGV services to Lausanne go through Frasne and the Jura mountains. TGV services to Geneva go through Bourg en Bresse - northeast of Lyon - and continue on through the southern Jura mountains
The debate in France is about the way to use the amount of money dedicated to rail investisment. Some ask to expand the TGV Network (to Toulouse, for exemple) others prefers to modernise regional railways. Since the amount is not infinite, choosing one slow down the work on the other one.
At least sometimes a new LGV means new investments in regional rail too. Here in Toulouse they plan to modernise all the conventional railway accesses in the north of the city with the construction of the new high-speed line to Bordeaux, which will be essential to increase capacity if the proposed RER for the city goes ahead.
@@SieurBrabantio I hope so too. At least people are mobilised for it: Pro-RER activists have banded together and created an association called "Rallumons l'Étoile", which has already published a white paper for what an RER toulousain with 30-minute headways from 5 AM to midnight would look like.
@@VarieTea729 Mayor is not too keen with it because of extension of line B of the metro, a new and long line C and the Bordeaux-Toulouse LGV! Quite a mouthful already!
Having HSR in France is awesome but as someone living in the west center of France, luckily with a TGV station in my city, the network would really benefit from being less centralized around Paris. For exemple, getting to Lyon from Bordeaux is quite a journey accros all of France with a connection at Massy, near Paris, granted the journey is surprisingly quick in this case (around 4:30) but that is a problem when you live further south.
Ideally the Bordeaux-Toulouse line would be extended all the way to Narbonne and link up with the future Montpellier-Perpignan line, providing a continuous connection to the LGV Méditerranée that would connect directly all big cities in southern France from Bordeaux to Marseille, and from there to Lyon. This would also allow a continuous journey at high speeds from Toulouse to Barcelona and from there to the rest of the AVE network, which would be great for the large number of Spanish people that live in Toulouse and the rest of southern France. I think it will happen eventually, but not until the 2040s at least.
@@VarieTea729 I was also thinking about an ambitious HSR corridor passing through Clermont Ferrand. Probably too tricky/costly for the SNCF but considering we are already digging another questionable tunnel through the Alps, I could be done (cope).
@@Liminal_Simulacre In fact, it's not that impossible. Because the Paris-Lyon line faces a huuuge challenge, in that it is completely at capacity and will never be able to face a significant increase in the number of trains passing by. WHich will probably happen one day or another, and likely sooner than later. Because if it's not done in the coming decade, or at least started, we may face a few problems ^^"
The problem is that "decentralized" services through Massy, Marne-la-Vallée... are used as much to stop at theses Parisian suburbs than to go from one region to an another. I don't know why (it was only mentionned in a thesis) but it wont push for a network extension outside of radial or european lines
Yes, but there are no plans to do in the short term. The Paris region (Île-de-France) will not subsidise it because Narbonne and Toulouse will already be linked from Paris. And it's the richest region in France, so without it, it's more complicated to finance this line. What's more, it's not currently the government's priority. So at the moment, this short link could be made by TGV, but at a slower speed.
For me the biggest issue is the monopoly Eurostar (former Thalys) has on the line Amsterdam - Paris. Prices are crazy! For example the trip Brussels -Paris costs (in november 2023) 50 euro. If you book that same train from Antwerp, the prices doubles! If you take a conventional train from Antwerp to Brussels it only costs 7,50 euros.
TGV is almost intimate to any French, most of us grew up with it around by now, so much so we forget other countries don't have the same standards (North America cough ) ^^
The TGV was financed at the cost of regional and local trains. Nobody talks what is happening ine the Province, were up to recently nearly 50% of the lines were abandonned, mostly due to the lack of funds. The truth is, only Paris and some few main Towns really benefit from the TGV, the rest of the country is basically abandonned from train service.
1 big difference though, TGV earns a tone of profit for sncf while those regional trains that are indeed sadly dying actually loose money everytime somebody purchases a ticket, a cost entirely beared by regions (I.e. taxpayers) which are short on money in general. I have to admit though that infrastructure cost for TGV is still heavily publicly subsidized which kind of tempers my point
1 big difference though, TGV earns a tone of profit for sncf while those regional trains that are indeed sadly dying actually loose money everytime somebody purchases a ticket, a cost entirely beared by regions (I.e. taxpayers) which are short on money in general. I have to admit though that infrastructure cost for TGV is still heavily publicly subsidized which kind of tempers my point
Yes, that s correct, that is a proposal to improve services around some 10 urban centers, but, as far as I know, that is still under study, the way i understand it SNCF does not have the funds , so someone else has to pay for it, some urban centers like Toulouse do not agree to pay their share. Has there been any decision so far? Where I live, close to the pyrenées, the train service is just minimum, you never know if a train wil run or, for whatever reason, not, very expensive (some 13€ for a one way ride to Toulouse, 88 km. My opinion, France does not need more high speed services, but a functional service from early morning to late night in the Provinces. High speed services are j too expensive, to construct and maintain, with very few exeptions between Metropoles of course, Paris Lyon Marseille, Paris Bordeaux. @@etbadaboum
@@kongtom The package includes also reinvesting into small lines which already have been taken care of previously. See interviews with senator Tabarot.
5:01 quick correction here, thalys and eurostar merged. Thalys does not exist anymore and is now called Eurostar, even for trains going up to Belgium from France, etc.
As a tourist in France, I travelled on some HS and some 'night jet'. They were using previous generation TGV on a couple of lines at lower speed. I also enjoyed getting to one place on jointed rail used a lot as a school bus. There was also a bi-mode section after that. There are probably a couple of countries in Europe with a broad range of train locomotion.
Exactly, the TGV is a role model as it helped create HSR networks elsewhere! Regarding the gas turbine concept, they created one with a gas turbine as a prototype called TGV 001. Now of course it wasn't what they ended up choosing, but it still wasn't a wasted prototype! It also tested high-speed brakes, of course needed to dissipate the large amount of kinetic energy of a train at high speed, high-speed aerodynamics, and signaling. It was articulated, comprising two adjacent carriages sharing a bogie, which allowed free yet controlled motion with respect to one another. And when they tested it, it even reached 318 km/h (198 mph) which remains the world record for the fastest non-electric train! And if the TGV wasn't impressive enough, the engineering feat of the Channel Tunnel is just as impressive! Plans for a cross-Channel fixed link were mentioned in 1802 when Albert Mathieu-Favier proposed a horse-drawn coach tunnel illuminated from oil lamps. There was an attempt at excavation in the 1880s but this stopped because of British fears of a possible invasion route. Finally, it began construction in 1988 and completed in 1994. At the peak of construction, 13,000 people worked on it! Eleven boring machines were used and weighed 12,000 tonnes in total! The spoil that was dug out on the UK side was 4.9 million cubic meters of chalk marl and shale going to create the Samphire Hoe nature reserve!
I’ve started watching your railway&transit-related videos when you’ve just hit 100K subscribers, and here you are now, more than 1.7 times of that amount. The precision and accuracy of the explanations and details in your videos still amazes me, thank you for bringing quality transit-related content for us to enjoy. I’ve learnt a lot from your channel.
Video ideas: how Abuja, Nigeria (capital city) can use the transit-oriented development approach to jumpstart its currently-unused light rail system to western suburbs and its airport. From what I've read, Federal Capital Territory officials built a line to "nowhere" (i.e., not to the suburbs where population growth is actually taking place). Also, tips for Lagos -- Nigeria's and Africa's most populous city -- to maximize its new mass transit train line. Given that Nigeria is poised to have some of the world's most populous cities in coming decades, this seems like a good discussion to have.
Hi Reece. Delightful video as always. Would love to see you cover the various intricate interchange/junctions/flyovers/ underpasses that the Chinese high speed rail system uses in the densely interconnected parts of their network. I’m fascinated by these and i’m sure most infrastructure aficionados who follow your channel would do too.
It's good that the TGV can operate on standard lines. It helped us take a single seat ride from Grenoble to Paris, when we had to switch trains in the opposite direction.
What a coïncidence to watch a RM transit video in great comfort, cruising a 300 kph in a TGV. I downloaded the video from nebula so yes I came here just to brag. Sorry for your watch time.
Really interesting summary of the system!! Also, talking about Toulouse's public transportation in the video, it would be super interesting to hear or read from you a deeper delve on this city's configuration and network given its strong but relative employment sprawl away from the centre (and especially w the presence of a heavy industry sector w Airbus), I know that it is an important driving stake behind the current construction of a 3rd metro line, as well as the gondola system, and the one and a half tramway lines, as well as the reconfiguration of high-service bus lines, I wonder what you could generalise or compare from that with your point of view
The metro line C will take Toulouse to the transit top tier along with Paris, Lyon and Rennes. I hope to see the gondola expanded to line A and line C in the future as well. The recent expansion of the bike network in the city center is really a great stuff!
@@SpectreMk2 the gondola extension could b great yes!! Other stuff that I think deeply lack in Toulouse tho would be decent suburban buses and getting a proper commuter rail with fares integrated to the rest of the system
Right now in Toulouse only the city center and the universities are connected to public transportation Hopefully it will change with the new metro line because the traffic everyday is insane in surrounding cities Fun fact: Toulouse used to be called the car-city so we come from a long way
@@annabonnet6873 so true!! It's p much the most suburbanised/sprawled city in France 🤡🤡 The way that when it comes down to being unable to use/have a car, so many journeys are lit impossible to do, it's not event like it's about convincing car users at that rate, but about providing bare public service ahaha
As you're talking about Geneva, I think it would be interesting to make a video about this city. It has a number of interesting features. The city extends beyond Switzerland's borders. The suburbs of Geneva are in France, while the city is in Switzerland. So we have an international transport network, with cross-border tram, BRT and bus lines between Switzerland and France. What's more, Geneva's public transport network is expanding rapidly, with a new railway line due to open in 2019, plans to build a new one, plans to build an underground high-speed line to neighbouring Lausanne, and several tram and BRT lines under construction or being extended. What's more, the city, which is partly bisected by a lake, is also served by 4 boat lines (and I don't think there's been a video on boats as public transport on this channel). I study in Geneva. I can film if you want
@@sarcasmenulit is not, thats not accurate wording. Geneve is 100% into france but right across the border there are suburbs of workers who commute into geneve.
1. the reason why all the HSR networks in Europe are star-shaped is because the most common long-range trip from any large city is to the capital city. Of course they built the lines that will service the most trips first. And then if the HSR is fast enough, it's still plenty quick to catch a connection in the capital to go down a different leg of the network. 2. they don't stop often because there's a cost to stopping and slowing down to stop can slow down other trains running on the same line. Having been on TGV services a dozen times in the last year, I've noticed they take ~50km to get to full speed from conventional track speed and the other way around. 3. they get closer to city centres than you think, pretty much every minor city gets a TGV train service direct to Paris if it's anywhere near an LGV. Even Bourg-St-Maurice gets a TGV service, and it's one of the most remote terminals on the entire network. The only time I had to go to one of those middle-of-nowhere TGV stations was for an international trip, where obviously the train wasn't going to stop at every minor city on the way. Other than that, the TGV is surprisingly cheap. It costs 50 EUR for me to get to Barcelona from my place in the Alps (which I recently did) if I book a month ahead, but then it's 150 to get from Barcelona to Madrid on the Spanish HSR, which I keep being told is the cheap one! The TGV is so cheap that I'm doing long range weekend getaways every month now.
The TGV is a great system. Interestingly, from its inception, it was built with stations at a number of small intermediate cities, albeit w express tracks. Similar to CA HSR, except the intermediate cities in California are up to 10-20x larger than the ones in France. I'm still puzzled by your criticism that CA HSR should not have had intermediate stops between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, even though those also include express tracks. All high speed rail lines serve intermediate cities, w a variety of service patterns including express, and is a key element in their success.
@@Dqtube The California cities that will have high speed rail stops do indeed have functioning transportation networks that can serve the HSR stations. All of them are also currently served by either commuter rail or Amtrak California intra-state rail lines, which are all among the 5 busiest Amtrak lines in the country.
4:11 If some people wonder why the Rhine-Rhône LGV is separated in this way it is because in Alsace south of Strasbourg there is the Strasbourg - Basel line, it is very linear. and there are no level crossings so the trains running Strasbourg - Mulhouse (east of the Rhine-Rhone LGV) can go up to 220 km/h on a regional line! , I There is also a line called TER 200 which runs from Strasbourg to Basel at 200 km/h and it is a regional line with many trains per day and one of the busiest lines in France, to the west there is the city of Dijon there are many TGVs which stop there so this part is on regional lines, there is a project to avoid the city of Dijon by creating a connection between the LGV Rhin-Rhone and the LGV Sud-Est
Great video underlining TGV advantages and also drawbacks. The new name for the TGV M is now the TGV 2025, the date of its introduction. There is also, potentially, new entrants like Le Train (who ordered April trains from Talgo and wants to complement the current destinations by connecting less served cities in the western part of the country), Kevin Speed, Heuro and Evoly (the latter two to compete with Eurostar and Thalys). Long term, since Paris-Lyon LGV will be saturated, a new lie going by Clermont-Ferrand will probably be built. Hopefully a high-speed connection from Nice to Italy will be made too.
Talgo Avril, not April. For the others companies like Kevin Speed and also, let’s see first what train and financial montage they will be able to put on. Also valabe for Midnight Train and all these compagny. Please don’t become scams like Railcoop.
A Genoa-Nice would be amazing, but hella expensive. And the Genoa-Pisa line would have the potential of allowing direct and faster trips from Rome and Naples to Milan and the North-West, bypassing Bologna and Florence, but this would be even harder to build, given how the Apennines just steeply dive into the sea, with the narrow coastal plain already occupied by urban areas. And since the Genoa-Pisa would probably be prioritized by Italy, unluckily the Genoa-Nice would have to wait too many years. Things would change with a new HS boast to connect all of Europe, but I don't see that anywhere near in the future
nice video! it is interesting but some points must be clarified: the overhead wire voltage (25kv AC) is completely conventional. it was the electrification standard since almost 20 years at the time of the opening of the first line. The older standard for electrification is 1.5kv DC and have been used for new electrification since the 1960sssss only in rare cases and mostly for inter operability reasons withe the riling stock used that supported only this current. Japan chose to build a totally separated network because the standard arail gauge in his country is quite narrow and was not suited for high speed. one big perks of that choice is that when there is a problem on the "normal" network it cannot affect the high speed network. in France, this is not the case and it explains part of the high speed train delays in France. the french high speed train are not very cheep because of the yeild management pricing system and the lack of seats, and the TGV has been a bad thing for the normal trains : repaying the loans for these lines leaded to a lack of maintenance of the classic lines and the need to use at much as possible these new infrastructures leaded t the end of most intercity trains (especially the ones not passing by Paris region)
@@Inucroft speaking and seeing to some people who live around these high speed rail lines, people mention that these once outer areas get developed very quickly due to the lines themselves.
@@Inucroft The new stations get rapidly built around (China still will urbanize with ca 300M people moving to cities) and all many of them are connected to metro stations!
About Eurostar : It was never named Thalys. I always remember Eurostar being Eurostar since its creation. In fact, it's the opposite that's happening : Eurostar and Thalys merged, only keeping Eurostar as a general name, although keeping the livery of the trains as they were So, the Eurostar service keeps being Eurostar with its original Eurostar trains with dark blue ang grey livery, while Thalys service is now Eurostar but keeping its Thalys trains with red livery.
Funny, when the SNCF updated their train signals along the railway in the 80's, they used fiber optics cable. And they had a massive unused bandwidth. When the Internet came, France was one of the first country to have fast connection because of this.
Generally speaking, the fiber optics backbone links between the cities are not so much of a problem. There are many rights of way along which you can install such fiber cables (railway lines, freeways, oil and gas pipelines, high voltage lines, etc.). More challenging is to run the fibers into every single building of a town, i.e., the access network. Different countries have different budgets for infrastructure as well as different standards - is it ok to install cables "in the air" between telegraph poles, or does everything have to be laid in the ground and the road nicely paved again?
I think SNCF really needs to extend the LGV lines from Bordaux to Toulouse and from Marseille to Nice as soon as possible. Just that would eliminate most of the domestic air travel in France, since Paris to Toulouse and Paris to Nice flights are still popular.
Bordeaux-Toulouse begins work in 2024..Marseille-Nice also in 2024, the biggest work being the construction of an underground station under the historic station (like in Stuttgart) connected with a long tunnel to the Mediterranean LGV and the future LGV Provencale. This will not eliminate the plane because demand is too high, but there will be fewer flights to Paris and more to Europe.
You missed the Southern Paris Interconnection that allows TGV from Lyon/Strasburg/Lille to reach the LGV Atlantique ( and Bordeaux, Rennes, Nantes, ... ) It's standard tracks shared with RER C. Also the LGV PACA ( the Cote d'Azur line ) is not going to happen, while part of the Montpellier Perpignan one is already in service, even if it's not High Speed for now ( the CMN [ Contournement de Nimes et Montpellier ] ) ... the LNPN ( The Normandy Line ) might still happen some day....
Thank you for your high quality videos :). It is true that the French are proud of their highspeed rail system, for the very good reasons you have mentioned. I want to add that many people in France, including a proportion of transit fans, are against the development of more high speed railways. Reasons include the social/landscape/ecological impact of some projects like the Lyon-Turin tunnels, where it is questionable that this amount of new infrastructure is worth the time and capacity gained, knowing that the current infrastructures are underused. On top of a big lack of transparency, such projects tend to ignore alltogether the scientific communities' advice, locals' opinions, and even the governmental agencies' studies that explain how the carbon imprint of the construction might never be compensated, or only after several decades. Alternatives include better inter-regional service (which is lacking when one doesn't want to go to Paris) both short and long distance, more night trains, a bigger use of the existing railways present at the same place, a fairer competition with airlines (which don't pay taxes on fuel), and a willingness to not always travel so fast, which is an idea that is gaining popularity.
2:14 TGV bogies are not Jacobs bogies. Jacobs have two fixation points for the cars that are spaced longitudinally, meanwhile an Alsthom bogie has one fixation point in the center of the bogie for the passageway ring which is rigidly fixed to one of the cars and the other car is supported by a fixation point on the ring with a pivot. This also doesn't have the same dynamic properties at all, that's why the Alsthom bogie cannot be considered as a Jacobs bogie.
but it's not an LGV line anymore after Bordeaux. Yes, the trains will go there, but that doesn't mean that it's still running high speed Like with the Paris Barcelona line through Lyon, Montpeller, Nimes, Béziers, Narbonne, and Perpignan. The train stops running at 320km/h after Montpellier
The "airplanization" of TGVs is a populist measure that was put in place following the terrorist attack on 21 August 2015. A terrorist attacked passengers on a TGV between Paris and Brussels. France has therefore introduced security checks similar to those found at airports for TGVs. While this may be justified for the Eurostar, it makes no sense for other trains: in the event of an attack, passengers can pull the emergency brake and run away, unlike on a plane, where passengers are trapped with the terrorists until they land. So trains are no more dangerous in terms of terrorism than other public places. There is therefore no reason to treat trains any differently from the rest of the public space in terms of security. Attacks are indeed possible, but as is the case everywhere else. But as the french government absolutely wanted to show that it was taking action, they put this measure in place. So we end up with absurd situations where on the TGV between Switzerland and France, passengers boarding the train in Switzerland are not subject to any security checks, but those boarding in France have to go through all sorts of checks, and we end up with a mix of controlled and uncontrolled passengers on the same train.
That’s not true? You don’t have any check except the automatic ticket check at the turnstile. Thalys used to have those tho, until 2020. They abandoned them during COVID. Spain however has those controls, not not France.
@@luclu7_ Okay, I didn't know. I haven't been back to France since 2019 (except in the area near Geneva, but I didn't take the TGV to get there), so it's possible. In any case, that was the reason why they put controls in place and if they've removed them that's fine. But then it doesn't make sense to talk about airplanization of TGV if there is no control anymore
Can confirm that there are no security checks. I went in 2022. Didn't experience any at Paris-Nord, Paris-Lyon, or Lyon-Part-Dieu. I thought it was clear enough from the video, but what Reece calls "airplanization" is a change in service pattern, going from the traditional train one of serving a series of cities along a route, to a point-to-point one instead.
Disneyland Paris is Europe’s biggest tourist attraction and connecting it to the high speed trains was one of the most well thought developments to happen by Disney. Love to fly into CDG, connecting with a TGV train and stepping into Disneyland in 10min!
3:57 "Not to price high speed trains as a premium service"... I mean, they kinda do, don't they? On any journey between two cities where there are both conventional and high-speed trains, the TGV is always much more expensive. Even if there are no high-speed tracks on that line! And don't even try to use an Interail/Eurail with them, it's a real headache. Countless times I have taken a TER instead, even if it was 30 minutes longer, just because of the price difference.
Not even. Just compare a travel between Mulhouse and Paris. You can get the TGV and a TER (both direct), both for 75€, at the same departure. TGV will be 3h where the TER will be 4.40h. It’s the first that come to my mind, but I’m sure in other place you can find TER just as expensive as TGV.
I.C.E. + the Intercity Express in Germany or something like this is a serene and wonderful rail-system in my viewpoint. 얼음. + Intercity Express는 내 관점에서 고요하고 멋진 철도 시스템입니다.
I take a TGV train multiple times a year. As someone who can't drive because of health issues, I really don't know how I'd get around without it when I need to cover long distances.
Even though within the context of France and the TGV, it is a great product offering national and international connections, it takes on a very hostile stance towards outside competitors. The EU has long been trying to open up the rail market such that competition can take place within the world of train travel, hoping that it will make train travel as a whole better and more competitive with planes and alike. France does the bare minimum of what the EU says is needed (ETCS and alike) , and does so in strategic places (where it is least useful to others). This is made obvious by the fact that almost all of the international connections that are possible, are also subsidiaries of SNCF. Only a handful of real competitors are available, probably because SNCF had way to block access anymore and had to allow them. This may not be unique to SNCF, but the fact that these state-owned companies actively try and have successfully blocked regulations that would benefit rail travel because it would be "too much of a hassle to implement" or would decrease their market share (relatively), is costing the train market as a whole, benefitting mostly car and plane travel. I can imagine that from a North American perspective, it all looks great and magnificent over here, but a lot has yet to be done, especially when it comes to removing active blockages, to make long distance train travel have the market share it truly deserves and it desperately needs against climate change.
A good argument made by a French politician is that the network was entirety paid for by the French tax payers, and France shouldn't be required to just give it up to private companies who's only interest is to generate profits for their shareholders in the short term. They don't serve the public and have zero interest in investing in the network. The EUs attempt at liberalizing the power sector led to similar instances of profiteering, mercenary cost cutting and no private capital going to infrastructure at all. Billions lost to the public, companies go bankrupt, infrastructure promised and never built, only shareholders won and moved on. I was honestly convinced. There has to be a way to to do what the EU aims for, but it's not simple nor fast. I respect the French réticence here.
@@yudeok413 It is exactly that defensive reaction of 'not giving it up' that bothers me and works restrictively. Sure the network was paid for by the French, but so are all the (non-toll) roads which private companies like Daimler, Stellantis, Total, BP, Michelin, Vinci, profit from. I hope you aren't fooled, because when you say 'France' it is the government of France and the people that make up that government, and it just as well only cares about the short term, up to whatever election is planned, that's just politics. Part of the liberalization is the divide between network and operations. Thus the competition shouldn't have to necessarily invest in the network: indeed, that would make it harder to have competition in the first place. Instead, users of the network pay for use of that network, similar to péage (toll). And that is already the case. One of the reasons for cargo over rail not being as successful as hoped, is that those network fees are too high for it to be a better alternative over road transport. Allowing other passage is not giving up anything, it is selling what you have invested in to make a return on it. More problematic would be to have an alternative to SNCF, which might or might not be better. But if you are proud enough of what you build that you don't want to share it with others, you should also be proud enough of your product to think you won't be beaten by someone else's product. As far as the comparison with the power sector, I am not well versed enough there to say anything about it. But I am guessing that it probably isn't an apples to apples comparison, and that just saying that the very general action of liberalizing it there made for some bad outcomes and thus will also have the exact same consequences for rail, seems too easy to be true. Instead, I'd like to think that by looking at the (dis)similarities, lessons can be learned on how to prevent the bad, and endorse the good. Of course it is possible that it is all an argument against liberalization in general. And even though I am a great sceptic of capitalism, we live in a society based on it, so selectively saying liberalization (as part of capitalism) is good in general but not in some specific cases based on austerity and chauvinism is a very bad stance. You just have to look at why there is consumer protection for flights (guaranteed layover, reimbursement for long delays), but not for trains: it is because the transport ministers of most EU states removed it from the bill that put in place for planes. Indeed, it was originally also meant for trains but got removed because all transport ministers were also thinking of their nationalized rail companies, and thought it was better to protect those companies from having to put in the effort of allowing good ticketing systems, guaranteeing layovers and reimbursing for delays, than offering the public the same protections they were giving to planes that led to a frictionless international travel.
unfortunately competition only concerns profitable LGV lines. The SNCF must continue to operate the unprofitable lines and not open to competition...otherwise it is not fair, since the SNCF paid for the construction of its lines , via the debt of the private companies which preceded it and which it received on the first day of its existence. In fact, this aims to sink the SNCF....If there must be competition then it must concern the entire network and the SNCF must be able to withdraw..And if no one wants these lines, then there is no will have more....That's the private market and competition...otherwise it's biased.
@@Lodai974 I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here (maybe you used google translate to translate from french to english, in which case it was probably more clear in french). Are you saying the SNCF has a duty to operate unprofitable lines and not open them up for competition because it would be unfair otherwise? Or are you saying it is unfair that the SNCF would be forced to keep operating on unprofitable lines? When you say 'this aims to sink the SNCF', what is 'this' referring to? And what do you mean exactly with SNCF having to be able to 'withdraw'? Withdraw from what exactly? Similar question about the last 'otherwise it's biased', otherwise to what exactly? Either way, there is an unclear yet very important distinction to be made which seems to be overlooked. SNCF consists of two very separate entities (as is needed for the liberalization). One that handles the network (the tracks and other infrastructure), which is called SNCF Réseau, and one that handles the actual transporting of people and goods (SNCF Voyageurs and alike). Also, don't forget that both SNCF entities very much like to export it products outside of France to profit from it (Morocco, Eurostar-Thalys, …), yet at the same time inhibits the same to be done in France.
@@kantikuijk7239 Or are you saying it is unfair that the SNCF would be forced to keep operating on unprofitable lines that's it! The "This" ? UE simply. "Withdraw from what exactly?" calls for tenders and therefore, ultimately the operation of these lines. "Similar question about the last 'otherwise it's biased', otherwise to what exactly?" Well, competition is biased because it is not fair...We don't just put profitable lines into a market, we put everything or nothing. "Either way, there is an unclear yet very important distinction to be made which seems to be overlooked. SNCF consists of two very separate entities (as is needed for the liberalization). One that handles the network (the tracks and other infrastructure), which is called SNCF Réseau, and one that handles the actual transporting of people and goods (SNCF Voyageurs and alike)." Obligation of the EU which has greatly complicated the situation... By dint of creating intermediaries, we increase price of services, and communication goes less smoothly, as well as the taking of responsibilities and many other things. "Also, don't forget that both SNCF entities very much like to export it products outside of France to profit from it (Morocco, Eurostar-Thalys, …), yet at the same time inhibits the same to be done in France." If others want to sell themselves, that's their right, if we want to be protectionist, that's our right. Forcing us to sell ourselves is simply a dictatorship... Look at Korea, it accepted the TGV, but it keeps the operation and even received the technology. It now builds it itself yes i use Google translate for some words...
It's worth noting that one of the reasons why many low-cost high speed trains are moving to suburban stations from centrals is because the huge jump in rail traffic from HSR has saturated many central stations in Europe. This is one of those "suffering from success" scenarios, the service is so good that many cities are running out of room for it. New stations need to be built.
"the rhin-rhône region"? oops reece, no! This corridor is named that way because it connects 2 distinct regions: the Alsace plain (Rhin valley) to the Rhône basin This name reflects the intention to build a corridor which isn't a centralized radial line from Paris, but would connect Germany and Switzerland directly to southern france: you didn't list the future phases of this LGV in the section about future expansions (probably because local politicians are still fighting about the exact design) but it should split into 2 branches, to Paris and Lyon (where it will meet the Rhône river itself)
The extensions south of Bordeaux, to Dax and Toulouse are up against opposition. Some NIMBY but others saying that TGV developments are denying resources to ordinary train services. People say that the cost is very high to save a half hour getting to Toulouse. And taking long distance trains away from existing track makes that existing track and local services less economic. I live near Bordeaux. TER trains are great but sometimes too infrequent. Bordeaux has interesting issues for transit. There is a need to better integrate TER services with tram/bus and to make better use of the heavy rail infrastructure. Pessac Bordeaux is 5 minutes by TER, 45 minutes by tram. But getting a train ticket has the same complexity as going to Paris. And there are few trains Pessac Bordeaux.
Thanks Reece for an objective and detailed video. Another time it's worthwhile investigating high-speed rail in the Spanish market. Spain is the only European country to invite foreign rail operators to run over its high-speed tracks.
No Trenitalia runs on Paris-Lyon and some to Turin and Renfe recently relaunched on its own (before it was a JV between SNCF and Renfe) journeys on Barcelona-Lyon and Madrid-Marseille, soon on Paris-Lyon-Marseille and then some (they also want to do Paris-London). And Spain didn't invite them, it's a EU law, basically, to make it short.
@@etbadaboum True. But please note I used the word "invited." In the case of France both Trenitalia and Renfe spent a long time dealing with the French regulator. For example it took Trenitalia two years before it gained permission.
The separation of national grid (adif) and operator (renfe) is key in this and serves as an example of how things should be across the European HSR markets.
@@alexmcwhirter6611 Because the trains are running on the busiest corridor in all of Europe and SNCF trains had to be removed to leave place for others! Not the case elsewhere. Spain was happy to bring competition because Renfe's prices were prohibitive. Germany will basically ban outsiders from entering the HS market.
Thanks for this video ! When you talk about old airlines executives getting new jobs in HSR, It makes me think about a very good sociology article (avaliable in english and for free on Cairn) called "Ticket Pricing by the French National Railway Company (SNCF), a Historical Sociology of Tariff SettingFrom Tariff Equalization to Yield Management (1938-2012)" by Jean Finez, wich is really worth the time !
The reason that the TGV can use legacy trackage and the Shinkansen can't is that Japanese railroads are narrow gauge. It was either build an entirely new wider-gauge network or accept the inherent limitations that a narrow gauge would've imposed upon high-speed operations. It was no choice, really.
I am so glad i got to ride the originalish style TGV back in 2010 from Geneva to Paris. There is something about the dual level cars that just doesnt look as sleek and cool as the original sets.
Rail in EU is becoming more interconnected, but is unfortunately still far too expensive. Train from Copenhagen to Paris: 175€ 18h 29m with 6 changes. Airplane from Copenhagen to Paris: 66€ 2h direct flight. Car from Copenhagen to Paris: ~220€ in gas and 14h drive. This is assuming a gas mileage of 9l/100km, which my Touran does. There is of course more than just gas to the cost of driving, but add two or three extra people to share the cost and rail never wins. At least not on cost or time, possibly on comfort though. In my opinion, flying has no business being this cheap in comparison. All in all, I want a european rail system and not a French railsystem which is connected to a German railsystem which is connected... You get the point.
I love in-depth, less theological videos especially matched with nice footage and map animations, they make watching the videos very interesting! I would 100% choose quality over quantity.
the TGV duplex is the best HSR train in the world! double deck HSR is great for capacity, and the duplex has a much better seat : weight ratio than the single deck trains!
Some day every major city in Europe will be connected with high quailty high-speed rail, with 25KV electrification, and ETCS. And direct tickets between any two places, independent of operator. Also, passenger rigths.
Been dreaming about this since last year, when a Ryanair's plane lost somewhere in Europe made us wait from 4 am to 12 am at Bologna, to fly to Budapest. That same distance could have been covered in 4 hours, even changing trains in Venice. I just hope such a network gets built, no planes lost thousands of km away, no hassle with security and unreasonable overpricing for luggage, connections to European metropolis also for smaller and medium cities
Morocco also uses french tgv a d extending the network , if everything goes well by the early 2030s agadir and fes would also have tgv , wich would be arround 1000kms total tgv lines lenght
Can you make a video about the London "Cross River Tram" and London's history with trams? I think it would be quite interesting to know why London switched from trams to trolleybuses to buses to trains, and then wanted trams again but didn't have the funds....
one minor think that isn't 100% correct. Montpellier does not have a LGV access or I should rather say TGV exclusive access. Rather they build the "Contournement Nîmes - Montpellier" which is just a new set of tracks allowing 220 kph but also intended for freight etc. This was a cost cutting measure which I fear will bounce back once the connection to Spain becomes super popular. We'll see too much traffic for the ligne to handle and thus many delays etc.
The CNM can be converted into an LGV quickly... It's the dual use freight/TGV that limits the speed on it and the legacy signalling used by freight trains. The tracks are laid for 300Km/h.
I love the TGV! The French have what I hope we would have in the US. However, we are stuck with look alike trainsets that are not much better then what we previously had. Lets hope this changes, at least for Cali.
So France basically invented a plane-speed metro with a strictly radial network map. Gotta say I prefer Germany's ICEs crisscrossing the country, even if at not quite the same speed. It's almost as if France has been very centralized historically, and Germany developed from a number of smaller states, all with their own transportation needs.
Well France is centralized and Germany is decentralized. Examples of radial high speed rail systems other than France include countries like Spain(out of Madrid), Japan(out of Tokyo) and South Korea(out of Seoul). Grid high speed rail systems include Germany and China and finally there’s linear high speed rail systems in countries like Italy and Taiwan where the major cities are lined up together due to country being narrow
It's a shame that the usual TGV Lyria rolling stock can't run at full power on the Swiss network. The train's power supply architecture limits it to run at 140km/h which stops it from using the higher speed lines between Zurich and Bern (200km/h) or even between Bern and Thun (160km/h) without disturbing the dense time table. The Gotthard base tunnel is completely out of discussion (250km/h). Better electronics could connect Milan to Paris through Switzerland using proper rail lines at higher speeds. This resulted in an almost complete disappearance of TGV lines connecting Swiss towns to Paris.
The problems of removal of local lines has nothing to do with TGV but everything to do with the privatization of public services. It also increased the price and reduced quality of services.
I think that France did a fantastic job with TGV and both the infrastructure and service are top tier. The trains are ok. They are fast and consistent, but not that comfortable (and imo not looking that good). From experience, I prefer ICEs
As much as the reduction of these short haul flights is an excellent thing, I don’t think an outright ban is the way to go. I think leaving the ability for the flights to exist helps with the competitive aspect of the tgv (and high speed rail) pricing in general. If the high speed train is given a de facto monopoly then they could theoretically abuse this to raise prices as they’re now the only option between these sorts of destinations, whereas if they’re kept in check by the airlines being able to operate as well it’s potentially better for everyone. What should be done though is a reduction of subsidies given to airlines for these regional flights, that way someone like EasyJet can’t come in and price a fare at $20 for a journey that could be covered by a train in a similar timespan for $30. Ultimately having more options for travel is better for everyone, as opposed to having less. I’d also like to see the pricing of high speed services (and train fares in general) be more consistent. Why is it that if I decide I need to travel somewhere tomorrow for an emergency I’ll end up paying double the price for the same train seat that would’ve likely (or otherwise) been empty anyway? Why not just set a consistent price for fares between two given destinations? Part of the great thing about trains is being able to just rock up to the station and use them, but that’s hindered by needing to book in some cases a month out in order to get the most competitive fare. I think you’d see an increase in ridership by having more consistent fares even up to the day before someone may travel, as it would open up the possibility of people being able to take more weekend trips on a whim for example.
I remember having taken HSF for the first time this summer to go to London. I first took a TGV from Lyon to Paris and then the Eurostar onto St Pancras. It’s amazing how fast we got there, we woke up at about 6 am and we arrived at St Pancras on 1:30pm. It is very comfortable, but if it wasn’t about being more ecological, I would’ve taken the plane, since it’s cheaper. Also our system definitely lacks reliability, and my train got delayed of about an hour to go back to Lyon.
🌏 Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/rmtransit It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
👍👍👍👍
More impressive than the initial line is the fact from the late 60s/70s, they actually had the political vision and will to invest and see this project through ( *cough* UK/US/Canada/Australia). The TGV is truly an icon 👏👏
Basically the Anglosphere is allergic to good rail infrastructure
The French state refused to fund the project, SNCF ultimately had to seek private capital to build it. There was no political vision.
The United States would rather use the sword than the trowel.
@@MetropoleYT Wasn't that because of the Aerotrain?
The Anglo countries are in a decline
The TGV is the subject of a great deal of pride amongst us Frenchmen. I just wish there were more "radial" lines radiating from Paris. I dream of a Bordeaux-Lyon connection.
What I don't understand is why some trains skip even major stations. Some time ago I took the TGV from Nice to Paris and was suprised to find it skips Lyon entirely, not stopping in either Part Dieu or the airport, and from what I understand it's the same with most if not all Paris-Niece services.
@@mancubwwa
They are competing against planes nobody asks why the plane doesn‘t make a stop over in lyon…simple answer is time.
It would absolutly mane sense to stop in lyon but on the otherhand by skipping it you can have a faster direct connection from nice-paris.
@@Slithermotion Ok, so not going into city saves time, but how much would stop at Saint-Exupery airport add, 10 minutes? Given how many stops train makes before hitting LGV outside Marsillies this doesn't look like a big deal
Maybe a poitier-clermont-lyon connection? Then it's more of an average between rennes/nantes bordeaux and lyon.
@@mancubwwathe line from Paris to Lyon is one of the most heavily trafficked high speed rail lines in Europe, with the majority of these trains stopping in Lyon before carrying on. The train to Nice takes a long time since there isn’t dedicated HSR tracks past Marseille and SNCF is trying to compete with airlines running the same route, so this is one of the few lines that skip Lyon entirely
There's a fun fact about the TGV in west of France :
Prior to the electrification of the branch line from Clisson to La Roche sur Yon and Les Sables d'Olonne, the TGV served this part of the network, but hauled by Diesel trains. These patches of lines were eventually electrified during the 2000s, and the 3 class CC72000, that were fitted with a TGV automatic coupler in order to get rid of an extra wagon (kinda like the drag class 37s in the UK) were downgraded to stock specifications.
To this day, the TGV in the west serves Le Croisic and Les Sables d'Olonne on summer.
Another funfact is that, while the LGV Bretagne-Pays de La Loire was built, there was a comma, in Sablé sur Sarthe, that allows regional trains to go onto the LGV and provide a link between the major city stations and the LGV stations.
For this purpose, the region Pays de la Loire modified 8 Class Z21500 (now part of the Z21700 subclass between Z21701/02 to Z21715/16), fitted with TVM in-cab signalling on them, whilst being able to reach 200 km/h such as the unmodified units. Quite unusual.
Yes I wish a map of all destinations reached by TGV would have been added
Interesting, though at least there wasn't dual mode high speed trains as seen in the UK, Germany and Spain - something just feels wrong about diesel fuel on a high speed train!
@@RMTransit I agree with that, it doesn't feel right to have Diesel power on high speed trains, and it doesn't really make sense to have Diesel engines fitted on an High Speed train nowadays, especially when the non-electrified branch line it goes on receives electrification shortly after installation of the service, which is what happened in this case.
Even though it might've been strange to see this kind of operations, it allowed for straight service from Paris to the beaches in Les Sables d'Olonne without changing for a regional service that would take longer because of the inconsistency of said services that were rather infrequent and slow (especially if it's an omnibus service which would be the case of most services back in the day), which is understandable from the normal Parisian on a holiday in July's perspective. (Which I'm not)
But still a nice thing that these lines are now electrified.
I used to live near that line.
It was always funny to see the TGVs being hauled by diesels passing by
I always thought that it was funny to have a line between paris and such a small city. When i was passing by the train station as a kid at les sables being able to see TGV made me laugh. Also this line run not only during summer i saw one of those the other day .
French guy here, the video was very on point, I enjoyed watching !
I just wanted to mention that the TGV services are not only premium because of the LGV network, but also beacause of some upgraded yet historic lines allowing speed up to 220 km/h, regional services almost never go this fast. For instance there is Nantes - Le Mans or Strasbourg - Basel. The first one is also to be upgraded to ERTMS standrads so that more capacity is avaliable.
A map that shows this, although it is quite outdated, can be found of the wikipedia page of heigh speed rail in Europe.
Yeah, and I do think this is a bit of a shortfall in the French railway system - the UK and Germany seem to have more fast regional trains generally - but if the world continues to "think out" perhaps this won't matter.
I think France doesn't get enough credit for their development of high speed trains.
The Japanese built the first line. And they deserve a lot of credit for that. But from a technological point, there wasn't much break from existing standards, at least on the traction/speed side (signaling for example was quite revolutionary).
The Tokaido Shinkansen line started operating in October 1964 at a top speed of 210 km per hour.
In May 1967 SNCF introduced its first 200 km/h train Le Capitol between Paris and Toulouse using regular rolling stock and tracks, showing that 200 km/h wasn't special from a technological point of view.
With the TGV the French in 1981 introduced the first 260 km/h service and shortly after raised it to a 270 km/h top speed.
Then in 1989 with the TGV and LGV Atlantique 300 km/h regular train service becomes reality.
To put this in context, the Shinkansen reached top speeds of 220 km/h in 1986, 230 km/h in 1989 and 270 km/h only in 1992.
LNER managed 203km/h between London and Edinburgh with a steam train (Class A4 Mallard) in 1938.
The problem is that things haven't really got any faster since then.
@@katrinabryce The LNER run with Mallard was a test run, not the regular service speed for the every day passenger trains. Just like how TGV trains in France don't routinely reach 574km/h despite reaching that record on a test run.
ahem... commercial TGV speed has been 320km/h for some decades now ;)
japan also reached 300km/h back in 1997, although track and other requirements(shinkansen trains being wider than tgv and going though a lot more smaller tunnels with tigher noise regulation, along with higher acceleration for crowded schedule) meant those capable of operating at such speed(the iconic 500 series with its sharp nose) was horrendously expensive even by the already expensive shinkansen train standards, most(along with the cheaper 700 series operating at 285km/h to address the high cost of 500 series) were replaced by the n700 with lower cost and even higher acceleration
@@lsp6032 Japan faced quite tough geographical and urban challenges, limiting top and average speeds indeed
The duplex trains are absolutely a must between major cities of Europe. I wish ICE and others did like TGV, but having TGV duplex go all the way to Tallin in the future would be amazing!
TGV duplex has a horrible passenger change time. Even in small stations, they have to stop for at least 2-3 minutes, in bigger stations sometimes up to 7 minutes, to let everyone in and out of the train. For a rail system as congested as Germany's, it's just not an option. That's why DB has explicitly said that they want their new ICE trains to be single decker.
@@raileon that is true for the initial TGV duplex, but that is not true of all double decker trains. The design should be refined.
In many cases, it is passenger count that matters a lot in reducing cost while increasing efficiency in moving people between dense urban hubs. And it doesn’t take 7 minutes in every cases (most in between stations only have a 3 min stay), most cases in which it occurs is usually where the actual stop times far exceed that time such as terminus.
That being said, this inefficiency in loading and unloading should be worked on and not the reason for discarding double deckers.
@@raileon Though it's not a problem for the main model on which most of the passenger traffic occurs in France : direct non-stop high capacity routes.
There are bypass tracks on every HSL corridor in France, even Paris and Lyon have bypass tracks used by dozens of trains every day, precisely for this : to be able to move up to 1250 (and soon nearly 1500) passengers in the shortest time possible and maximize track usage. (It's similar in Spain, but their network is far from being used at capacity).
LGV Sud-Est is Europe's busiest high-speed line, with trains passing at 300kph up to every 3 minutes in each direction during peak, thanks to this system.
Instead of having a train every 7 or 10 minutes stopping at all or most stations between Paris and Marseille for example (as it is the case in Germany), there are trains departing Paris every 3 or 4 minutes for many different destinations, with as few stops as possible.
Plus trains that enter the LGV from the Eastern HS bypass of Paris or the short conventional link from Massy and the Atlantic LGV.
This allows for more people to be transported per hour, on longer distances and thus at higher speeds. And once it has arrived it's quickly prepared for another service, usually a return trip, maximizing train usage.
The same train could then run a long distance city pair *and* *be* *back* , full of passengers, in the original departure city before the all-stop train has even reached the last destination city.
For example, a non-stop Paris Strasburg train has the time to run more than 2.5 times the route while a direct train travels between Frankfurt and Hamburg only once, which takes between 4h30 and 5h04 for a similar distance, instead of 1h45.
The Duplex or new TGV M would be perfect for DB to operate true non-stop or quasi non-stop and super fast services in parallel to the current services that stop frequently.
But it would also require some bypass HSL and to avoid having to slow down and cross or stop in between at every single somewhat mid-sized city whose Bürgermeister had an ego trip.
Like Hamburg München non-stop in 2h30 or 3h instead of 6h30 or 7h currently.
Or Berlin München in 1h45 / 2h00 instead of 4h30...
Having to stop and / or to slow down and cross city center stations is the main cause for delays and the main reason there's no true long distance high-speed in Germany.
Plus, any disruption in a station and the whole corridor, or multiple corridors that the station is on and the all trains are affected, which is terrible for reliability and causes cascading delays.
If there's a disruption in Lyon's central stations : None of the trains on the corridor that travel to other cities are affected, none! As they are mostly non-stop and avoid all city centers on the corridor by running on bypass high-speed tracks.
Paris Montpellier runs smoothly, same for Marseille Strasburg or Grenoble Lille.
My friends in Germany complain all year round about the delays and lack of truly fast services on long distances.
It drives them nuts to need 4h30, in the best case scenario, often more like 5h, to travel between München and Berlin.
There's major untapped potential here.
Imagine the mass of people that DB would be able to move if they had proper non-stop high-speed services on longer distances with high capacity trains. They could still run their frequent stop services in parallel.
But they would also offer true domestic air travel replacement services.
I'm sure many would pay a few extra euros to be able to cut travel times in half. Or just forget about domestic air travel and ride trains when they cross the entire country like they forget about driving to the next city.
To be fair, 3 or 4 minutes stops are more due to unruly smokers that hog the doors than to actual door congestion most of the time. It's only during major holidays when all passengers carry their entire house in much too large suitcases that door congestion really happens.
The real main reason for seemingly longer dwell times is because there are other TGV's, non-stop ones, that overtake them on the line and the next slot on the HSL requires a 5 minute stop.
Anything less and the following train would have to stay behind and slow down.
That's the point of the system, *never* slowing down the trains behind.
So when a train has to make a stop, it must allow enough time for the next one, two or three trains behind to pass before continuing on / reentering the HSL.
Duplex are horrible. You feel like cattle. I'm ready to accept it on super busy lines like Paris Lyon but come on, don't generalize it. It's dreadful.
@@raileon The one-way trip between Hamburg and Berlin is 100 minutes with only 2 intermediate stops (including Hamburg and Berlin). Isn't doubling the passenger capacity is easily worth another 10 minutes of stops? Maybe not for the passenger who has to wait another 10 minutes, but if that's really the biggest problem with the trains, then you should argue for them to add extra doors in the middle of the carriages to save 5 minutes per trip.
at 3:30: when you compare to the German high speed lines:
a) That star-shaped "network" centered at Paris mostly covers rather flat parts for France. Germany's lines have to run through more foothills.
b) the first generation of German high speed lines (Hannover-Wuerzburg and Mannheim-Stuttgart) was build without steep grades, with the idea that these lines could be used at daytime for high speed ICE passenger trains and at night for freight trains. That's why there are also extensive sidings every some kilometers, so slower freight trains could let an occasional nightly passenger train pass. That idea didn't work out. Newer lines (Frankfurt-Cologne, Stuttgart 21, Stuttgart-Ulm) are designed for passenger trains only and thus have much steeper grades, similar to France.
c) not-so-fun-fact: due to the way the government's subsidy system works, it pays off more for the railway company to plan and build lines that need significant civil engineering planning, i.e. planning bridges and tunnels, instead of addressing the low hanging fruits first, i.e. building in the flat northern plain and optimizing track alignments in the river valleys etc.
I've never heard that last point! Shocking.
b) Wendlingen-Ulm is at least officially supposed to be used by freight trains (as seen by the "Güterzuganbindung"), but it's unlikely that any freight train will ever use the line. Partly because most freight trains can't handle the grades, and partly because even those who could would still prefer to use the nearby "Filstalbahn" which has much more manageble grades.
@@etbadaboum I am still searching for a reference for that, but IIRC it boils down to: the actual construction work is done by contractors that have to be chosen by means of a bidding process. Then, the railway company can send these bills to the government for (partial) reimbursement. That way, they get the new railway line for free (or less than it's worth), but no government cash stays in the railway company. If, on the other hand, the railway company plans extensive tunnels and bridges with their own employees (architects and civil engineers), they can not only claim salaries and other expenses but also a profit margin for reimbursement, thus making real cash.
@@lukast2952 Maybe just a trick to get the line through the cost-benefit-analysis needed for approval?
@@joehacker6412 Yes, I also think that
Thanks for mentioning Toulouse! Being the 4th largest French city while not having yet a high-speed line connection is quite frustrating... Beside having Airbus (and rugby and good food too!), we do have interesting transit as you mentioned though. It is probably not as noteworthy as Paris, Lyon or Rennes, but we are impatient to see our third metro line being completed. Ha, and bike is developing like crazy here too!
I'd say beyond the population:Metro size ration Toulouse is much more interesting than Rennes! Soon three metro lines, and trams while Rennes just has two metro lines!
We can't wait for our RMTransit video :)
Les concons en vert ne sont pas étrangers à cette situation.
To be fair, the LGV line to Toulouse would mean either losing the stops to Montauban and Agen or being close to not cutting the time duration much. (I agree that taking a single train that takes 2h30 to travel to Bordeaux followed by a 2h travel to Paris is annoying)
@@le_luk Many people complain because villages less than 1 hour away from the TGV stations will have to pay a tax, even if they'll hardly benefit from it. The taxes will par for 1 billion out of 14 billions.
We are entering the highspeed rail late in the Czech republic.. a combination of politics and topography but we are under way to connect Prague with Brno and Ostrava with Prague to Dresden as one of the most important intl links as well with a long not so easy to build tunnel under the ore mountains. The Czechs after a long period of research have decided for the French model and even the track plans, technology are and will be built according to TGV. First portions of the line are estimated to be sometime around 2028-2030
The best part about the TGV network is getting to take an ICE to Paris and realizing that the ICE is likely only punctual amd over 300kph outsude of Germany😅.
... and the ride on the ICE feels much less bumpy than on the TGV, on the same tracks in eastern France :) however, if we don't look at the details of (over-)engineering, but at the service as a whole, TGV/LGV clearly wins over ICE/NBS
The thing is the LGV Est highlights two things - the superior French network and the superior German trains!
@@joehacker6412I’m still surprised the new high speed trains have moved away from from articulated bogeys. It was a great feature both for safety and comfort.
@@joehacker6412 ah yes, the superior German trains that used to overheat on French lines because they couldn't withstand high speeds for long periods of time.
@@paname514_bis Well, when the train stops due to a breakdown there is no shaking and vibrations at all :-) But that's not what I meant - even if the ICE3 happens to run at 300+ kph the ride feels smoother than with the TGV. And I didn't call the ICE superior, just less bumpy to ride. The technical concepts are quite different - EMU vs. locomotives at the end - hard for me to tell what is better.
Thanks Reece for another excellent video. And you rightly highlight the flaws of the system, in particular that SNCF tends to make TGV train travel like air travel.
I would add two points. Your international map at 4m 45s should have shown the links to Switzerland. TGVs run to Geneva, Lausanne, and Zurich via Basel. Your Paris area map at 6m 30s omits the (non-high-speed) link from Valenton on the Sud-Est line to Massy-Palaiseau on the Atlantique line. This is used by the FEW TGVs running from Marseille or Lyon to Nantes or Rennes. See European Rail Timetable table 335.
I think the maps just show the LGV's and not every city that TGV trains go to. TGV's also go to places like Luxembourg City and Brest that also don't appear on the map, they just complete their journeys on conventional lines
TGV services to Lausanne go through Frasne and the Jura mountains.
TGV services to Geneva go through Bourg en Bresse - northeast of Lyon - and continue on through the southern Jura mountains
Finally, tgv is the best neteork according to me in Europe and one of the best in the world.❤
The debate in France is about the way to use the amount of money dedicated to rail investisment. Some ask to expand the TGV Network (to Toulouse, for exemple) others prefers to modernise regional railways. Since the amount is not infinite, choosing one slow down the work on the other one.
At least sometimes a new LGV means new investments in regional rail too. Here in Toulouse they plan to modernise all the conventional railway accesses in the north of the city with the construction of the new high-speed line to Bordeaux, which will be essential to increase capacity if the proposed RER for the city goes ahead.
@@VarieTea729 Good news, but I hope the toulouse RER will not follow the path of strasbourg, aka just renaming the TER Lines
That is a better problem to have than many other countries where there's no or very little investment. haha
@@SieurBrabantio I hope so too. At least people are mobilised for it: Pro-RER activists have banded together and created an association called "Rallumons l'Étoile", which has already published a white paper for what an RER toulousain with 30-minute headways from 5 AM to midnight would look like.
@@VarieTea729 Mayor is not too keen with it because of extension of line B of the metro, a new and long line C and the Bordeaux-Toulouse LGV! Quite a mouthful already!
Having HSR in France is awesome but as someone living in the west center of France, luckily with a TGV station in my city, the network would really benefit from being less centralized around Paris. For exemple, getting to Lyon from Bordeaux is quite a journey accros all of France with a connection at Massy, near Paris, granted the journey is surprisingly quick in this case (around 4:30) but that is a problem when you live further south.
Ideally the Bordeaux-Toulouse line would be extended all the way to Narbonne and link up with the future Montpellier-Perpignan line, providing a continuous connection to the LGV Méditerranée that would connect directly all big cities in southern France from Bordeaux to Marseille, and from there to Lyon.
This would also allow a continuous journey at high speeds from Toulouse to Barcelona and from there to the rest of the AVE network, which would be great for the large number of Spanish people that live in Toulouse and the rest of southern France.
I think it will happen eventually, but not until the 2040s at least.
@@VarieTea729 I was also thinking about an ambitious HSR corridor passing through Clermont Ferrand. Probably too tricky/costly for the SNCF but considering we are already digging another questionable tunnel through the Alps, I could be done (cope).
@@Liminal_Simulacre In fact, it's not that impossible. Because the Paris-Lyon line faces a huuuge challenge, in that it is completely at capacity and will never be able to face a significant increase in the number of trains passing by. WHich will probably happen one day or another, and likely sooner than later. Because if it's not done in the coming decade, or at least started, we may face a few problems ^^"
The problem is that "decentralized" services through Massy, Marne-la-Vallée... are used as much to stop at theses Parisian suburbs than to go from one region to an another. I don't know why (it was only mentionned in a thesis) but it wont push for a network extension outside of radial or european lines
@@Liminal_Simulacre That has been imagined under the evocative name of « LGV des Titans »
It is one of the things im proudest of as a french person
Alors que le reblochon existe...
That plus the fact that it's all run on very low carbon electricity thanks to nuclear and hydropower
A link from Toulouse to Narbonne looks really good on the map. 🙂
Yes, but there are no plans to do in the short term. The Paris region (Île-de-France) will not subsidise it because Narbonne and Toulouse will already be linked from Paris. And it's the richest region in France, so without it, it's more complicated to finance this line. What's more, it's not currently the government's priority. So at the moment, this short link could be made by TGV, but at a slower speed.
It's the problem of French LGV network (explained in the video) : Paris centralisation
For me the biggest issue is the monopoly Eurostar (former Thalys) has on the line Amsterdam - Paris. Prices are crazy! For example the trip Brussels -Paris costs (in november 2023) 50 euro. If you book that same train from Antwerp, the prices doubles! If you take a conventional train from Antwerp to Brussels it only costs 7,50 euros.
TGV is almost intimate to any French, most of us grew up with it around by now, so much so we forget other countries don't have the same standards (North America cough ) ^^
I've spent a fair bit of time in France and always travel by rail. Always a little sad when I come home to Canada.
The TGV was financed at the cost of regional and local trains. Nobody talks what is happening ine the Province, were up to recently nearly 50% of the lines were abandonned, mostly due to the lack of funds. The truth is, only Paris and some few main Towns really benefit from the TGV, the rest of the country is basically abandonned from train service.
1 big difference though, TGV earns a tone of profit for sncf while those regional trains that are indeed sadly dying actually loose money everytime somebody purchases a ticket, a cost entirely beared by regions (I.e. taxpayers) which are short on money in general. I have to admit though that infrastructure cost for TGV is still heavily publicly subsidized which kind of tempers my point
1 big difference though, TGV earns a tone of profit for sncf while those regional trains that are indeed sadly dying actually loose money everytime somebody purchases a ticket, a cost entirely beared by regions (I.e. taxpayers) which are short on money in general. I have to admit though that infrastructure cost for TGV is still heavily publicly subsidized which kind of tempers my point
A big $100 billion investment on 10 years is on the way to revitalize many regional lines, and smaller ones will get Draisy and the like
Yes, that s correct, that is a proposal to improve services around some 10 urban centers, but, as far as I know, that is still under study, the way i understand it SNCF does not have the funds , so someone else has to pay for it, some urban centers like Toulouse do not agree to pay their share. Has there been any decision so far? Where I live, close to the pyrenées, the train service is just minimum, you never know if a train wil run or, for whatever reason, not, very expensive (some 13€ for a one way ride to Toulouse, 88 km. My opinion, France does not need more high speed services, but a functional service from early morning to late night in the Provinces. High speed services are j too expensive, to construct and maintain, with very few exeptions between Metropoles of course, Paris Lyon Marseille, Paris Bordeaux. @@etbadaboum
@@kongtom The package includes also reinvesting into small lines which already have been taken care of previously. See interviews with senator Tabarot.
5:01 quick correction here, thalys and eurostar merged. Thalys does not exist anymore and is now called Eurostar, even for trains going up to Belgium from France, etc.
As a tourist in France, I travelled on some HS and some 'night jet'. They were using previous generation TGV on a couple of lines at lower speed. I also enjoyed getting to one place on jointed rail used a lot as a school bus. There was also a bi-mode section after that. There are probably a couple of countries in Europe with a broad range of train locomotion.
It's good to see TGV (and in another video Shinkansen) get highlighted...what works well needs to be in foremost view.
Exactly, the TGV is a role model as it helped create HSR networks elsewhere! Regarding the gas turbine concept, they created one with a gas turbine as a prototype called TGV 001. Now of course it wasn't what they ended up choosing, but it still wasn't a wasted prototype! It also tested high-speed brakes, of course needed to dissipate the large amount of kinetic energy of a train at high speed, high-speed aerodynamics, and signaling. It was articulated, comprising two adjacent carriages sharing a bogie, which allowed free yet controlled motion with respect to one another. And when they tested it, it even reached 318 km/h (198 mph) which remains the world record for the fastest non-electric train!
And if the TGV wasn't impressive enough, the engineering feat of the Channel Tunnel is just as impressive! Plans for a cross-Channel fixed link were mentioned in 1802 when Albert Mathieu-Favier proposed a horse-drawn coach tunnel illuminated from oil lamps. There was an attempt at excavation in the 1880s but this stopped because of British fears of a possible invasion route. Finally, it began construction in 1988 and completed in 1994. At the peak of construction, 13,000 people worked on it! Eleven boring machines were used and weighed 12,000 tonnes in total! The spoil that was dug out on the UK side was 4.9 million cubic meters of chalk marl and shale going to create the Samphire Hoe nature reserve!
I’ve started watching your railway&transit-related videos when you’ve just hit 100K subscribers, and here you are now, more than 1.7 times of that amount. The precision and accuracy of the explanations and details in your videos still amazes me, thank you for bringing quality transit-related content for us to enjoy. I’ve learnt a lot from your channel.
Thanks Reece, Keep up the great videos
Video ideas: how Abuja, Nigeria (capital city) can use the transit-oriented development approach to jumpstart its currently-unused light rail system to western suburbs and its airport. From what I've read, Federal Capital Territory officials built a line to "nowhere" (i.e., not to the suburbs where population growth is actually taking place). Also, tips for Lagos -- Nigeria's and Africa's most populous city -- to maximize its new mass transit train line. Given that Nigeria is poised to have some of the world's most populous cities in coming decades, this seems like a good discussion to have.
Hi Reece. Delightful video as always. Would love to see you cover the various intricate interchange/junctions/flyovers/ underpasses that the Chinese high speed rail system uses in the densely interconnected parts of their network. I’m fascinated by these and i’m sure most infrastructure aficionados who follow your channel would do too.
It's good that the TGV can operate on standard lines. It helped us take a single seat ride from Grenoble to Paris, when we had to switch trains in the opposite direction.
What a coïncidence to watch a RM transit video in great comfort, cruising a 300 kph in a TGV. I downloaded the video from nebula so yes I came here just to brag.
Sorry for your watch time.
Really interesting summary of the system!! Also, talking about Toulouse's public transportation in the video, it would be super interesting to hear or read from you a deeper delve on this city's configuration and network given its strong but relative employment sprawl away from the centre (and especially w the presence of a heavy industry sector w Airbus), I know that it is an important driving stake behind the current construction of a 3rd metro line, as well as the gondola system, and the one and a half tramway lines, as well as the reconfiguration of high-service bus lines, I wonder what you could generalise or compare from that with your point of view
The metro line C will take Toulouse to the transit top tier along with Paris, Lyon and Rennes. I hope to see the gondola expanded to line A and line C in the future as well. The recent expansion of the bike network in the city center is really a great stuff!
@@SpectreMk2 the gondola extension could b great yes!! Other stuff that I think deeply lack in Toulouse tho would be decent suburban buses and getting a proper commuter rail with fares integrated to the rest of the system
@@tarablaue Couldn't agree more!
Right now in Toulouse only the city center and the universities are connected to public transportation
Hopefully it will change with the new metro line because the traffic everyday is insane in surrounding cities
Fun fact: Toulouse used to be called the car-city so we come from a long way
@@annabonnet6873 so true!! It's p much the most suburbanised/sprawled city in France 🤡🤡
The way that when it comes down to being unable to use/have a car, so many journeys are lit impossible to do, it's not event like it's about convincing car users at that rate, but about providing bare public service ahaha
As you're talking about Geneva, I think it would be interesting to make a video about this city. It has a number of interesting features. The city extends beyond Switzerland's borders. The suburbs of Geneva are in France, while the city is in Switzerland. So we have an international transport network, with cross-border tram, BRT and bus lines between Switzerland and France. What's more, Geneva's public transport network is expanding rapidly, with a new railway line due to open in 2019, plans to build a new one, plans to build an underground high-speed line to neighbouring Lausanne, and several tram and BRT lines under construction or being extended. What's more, the city, which is partly bisected by a lake, is also served by 4 boat lines (and I don't think there's been a video on boats as public transport on this channel).
I study in Geneva. I can film if you want
that's nuts, i never knew geneva was split into france
@@sarcasmenulit is not, thats not accurate wording. Geneve is 100% into france but right across the border there are suburbs of workers who commute into geneve.
@@hypernewlapse Geneva is 100% in Switzerland...
Saying that 'Geneva's suburbs are in France' is far from being an apt description 🙄
'Due to open in 2019', you mean in 2029?
1. the reason why all the HSR networks in Europe are star-shaped is because the most common long-range trip from any large city is to the capital city. Of course they built the lines that will service the most trips first. And then if the HSR is fast enough, it's still plenty quick to catch a connection in the capital to go down a different leg of the network.
2. they don't stop often because there's a cost to stopping and slowing down to stop can slow down other trains running on the same line. Having been on TGV services a dozen times in the last year, I've noticed they take ~50km to get to full speed from conventional track speed and the other way around.
3. they get closer to city centres than you think, pretty much every minor city gets a TGV train service direct to Paris if it's anywhere near an LGV. Even Bourg-St-Maurice gets a TGV service, and it's one of the most remote terminals on the entire network. The only time I had to go to one of those middle-of-nowhere TGV stations was for an international trip, where obviously the train wasn't going to stop at every minor city on the way.
Other than that, the TGV is surprisingly cheap. It costs 50 EUR for me to get to Barcelona from my place in the Alps (which I recently did) if I book a month ahead, but then it's 150 to get from Barcelona to Madrid on the Spanish HSR, which I keep being told is the cheap one! The TGV is so cheap that I'm doing long range weekend getaways every month now.
Re 1.: I wouldn’t say Germany’s high speed rail network is star shaped
The TGV is a great system. Interestingly, from its inception, it was built with stations at a number of small intermediate cities, albeit w express tracks. Similar to CA HSR, except the intermediate cities in California are up to 10-20x larger than the ones in France. I'm still puzzled by your criticism that CA HSR should not have had intermediate stops between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, even though those also include express tracks. All high speed rail lines serve intermediate cities, w a variety of service patterns including express, and is a key element in their success.
The question is, do “small” cities in California have functioning public transportation networks that could serve these HSR stations?
@@Dqtube The California cities that will have high speed rail stops do indeed have functioning transportation networks that can serve the HSR stations. All of them are also currently served by either commuter rail or Amtrak California intra-state rail lines, which are all among the 5 busiest Amtrak lines in the country.
2:11 a lot of regional trains have this too, like AGVs , Regiolis ( this two are the most common regional trains in France ) and Regio 2n
4:11 If some people wonder why the Rhine-Rhône LGV is separated in this way it is because in Alsace south of Strasbourg there is the Strasbourg - Basel line, it is very linear. and there are no level crossings so the trains running Strasbourg - Mulhouse (east of the Rhine-Rhone LGV) can go up to 220 km/h on a regional line! , I There is also a line called TER 200 which runs from Strasbourg to Basel at 200 km/h and it is a regional line with many trains per day and one of the busiest lines in France, to the west there is the city of Dijon there are many TGVs which stop there so this part is on regional lines, there is a project to avoid the city of Dijon by creating a connection between the LGV Rhin-Rhone and the LGV Sud-Est
Great video underlining TGV advantages and also drawbacks. The new name for the TGV M is now the TGV 2025, the date of its introduction. There is also, potentially, new entrants like Le Train (who ordered April trains from Talgo and wants to complement the current destinations by connecting less served cities in the western part of the country), Kevin Speed, Heuro and Evoly (the latter two to compete with Eurostar and Thalys). Long term, since Paris-Lyon LGV will be saturated, a new lie going by Clermont-Ferrand will probably be built. Hopefully a high-speed connection from Nice to Italy will be made too.
Talgo Avril, not April. For the others companies like Kevin Speed and also, let’s see first what train and financial montage they will be able to put on. Also valabe for Midnight Train and all these compagny. Please don’t become scams like Railcoop.
@@haeffound *and such not 'and also', *also true not 'also valable', *companies not 'compagny'
A Genoa-Nice would be amazing, but hella expensive. And the Genoa-Pisa line would have the potential of allowing direct and faster trips from Rome and Naples to Milan and the North-West, bypassing Bologna and Florence, but this would be even harder to build, given how the Apennines just steeply dive into the sea, with the narrow coastal plain already occupied by urban areas. And since the Genoa-Pisa would probably be prioritized by Italy, unluckily the Genoa-Nice would have to wait too many years. Things would change with a new HS boast to connect all of Europe, but I don't see that anywhere near in the future
@@Hastdupech8509 Indeed not anytime soon, especially with the huge spending on Lyon-Turin...
@@etbadaboum Yeah, let's hope to see that by the time we're old hahaha
nice video!
it is interesting but some points must be clarified:
the overhead wire voltage (25kv AC) is completely conventional. it was the electrification standard since almost 20 years at the time of the opening of the first line. The older standard for electrification is 1.5kv DC and have been used for new electrification since the 1960sssss only in rare cases and mostly for inter operability reasons withe the riling stock used that supported only this current.
Japan chose to build a totally separated network because the standard arail gauge in his country is quite narrow and was not suited for high speed. one big perks of that choice is that when there is a problem on the "normal" network it cannot affect the high speed network. in France, this is not the case and it explains part of the high speed train delays in France.
the french high speed train are not very cheep because of the yeild management pricing system and the lack of seats, and the TGV has been a bad thing for the normal trains : repaying the loans for these lines leaded to a lack of maintenance of the classic lines and the need to use at much as possible these new infrastructures leaded t the end of most intercity trains (especially the ones not passing by Paris region)
I cant wait to see you cover China's HSR. I know the country is controversial, but they do metro and HSR really well.
their HSR is done fairly poorly, as unlike other systems, it has the main issue that airports face- they don't go to the city center
@@Inucroft speaking and seeing to some people who live around these high speed rail lines, people mention that these once outer areas get developed very quickly due to the lines themselves.
@@Thiccolo Depending on the region, some stations were not open.
@@Inucroft The new stations get rapidly built around (China still will urbanize with ca 300M people moving to cities) and all many of them are connected to metro stations!
Chine is not controversial, it's the coolest country for an engineer 😎
About Eurostar :
It was never named Thalys. I always remember Eurostar being Eurostar since its creation.
In fact, it's the opposite that's happening : Eurostar and Thalys merged, only keeping Eurostar as a general name, although keeping the livery of the trains as they were
So, the Eurostar service keeps being Eurostar with its original Eurostar trains with dark blue ang grey livery, while Thalys service is now Eurostar but keeping its Thalys trains with red livery.
Yeah, thats what I said in the video!
Funny, when the SNCF updated their train signals along the railway in the 80's, they used fiber optics cable. And they had a massive unused bandwidth. When the Internet came, France was one of the first country to have fast connection because of this.
Generally speaking, the fiber optics backbone links between the cities are not so much of a problem. There are many rights of way along which you can install such fiber cables (railway lines, freeways, oil and gas pipelines, high voltage lines, etc.). More challenging is to run the fibers into every single building of a town, i.e., the access network. Different countries have different budgets for infrastructure as well as different standards - is it ok to install cables "in the air" between telegraph poles, or does everything have to be laid in the ground and the road nicely paved again?
Do next a video about the swiss intercitys please😃
I think SNCF really needs to extend the LGV lines from Bordaux to Toulouse and from Marseille to Nice as soon as possible. Just that would eliminate most of the domestic air travel in France, since Paris to Toulouse and Paris to Nice flights are still popular.
Bordeaux-Toulouse begins work in 2024..Marseille-Nice also in 2024, the biggest work being the construction of an underground station under the historic station (like in Stuttgart) connected with a long tunnel to the Mediterranean LGV and the future LGV Provencale.
This will not eliminate the plane because demand is too high, but there will be fewer flights to Paris and more to Europe.
The problem is that there are outrageously cheap domestic flights (like Bordeaux-Lille for 30€) despite their ecological cost...
You missed the Southern Paris Interconnection that allows TGV from Lyon/Strasburg/Lille to reach the LGV Atlantique ( and Bordeaux, Rennes, Nantes, ... )
It's standard tracks shared with RER C.
Also the LGV PACA ( the Cote d'Azur line ) is not going to happen, while part of the Montpellier Perpignan one is already in service, even if it's not High Speed for now ( the CMN [ Contournement de Nimes et Montpellier ] ) ... the LNPN ( The Normandy Line ) might still happen some day....
Thank you for your high quality videos :). It is true that the French are proud of their highspeed rail system, for the very good reasons you have mentioned. I want to add that many people in France, including a proportion of transit fans, are against the development of more high speed railways. Reasons include the social/landscape/ecological impact of some projects like the Lyon-Turin tunnels, where it is questionable that this amount of new infrastructure is worth the time and capacity gained, knowing that the current infrastructures are underused. On top of a big lack of transparency, such projects tend to ignore alltogether the scientific communities' advice, locals' opinions, and even the governmental agencies' studies that explain how the carbon imprint of the construction might never be compensated, or only after several decades. Alternatives include better inter-regional service (which is lacking when one doesn't want to go to Paris) both short and long distance, more night trains, a bigger use of the existing railways present at the same place, a fairer competition with airlines (which don't pay taxes on fuel), and a willingness to not always travel so fast, which is an idea that is gaining popularity.
APTE at 1:33 ! w00t! I have an HO/OO model of one from Rapido.
2:14 TGV bogies are not Jacobs bogies. Jacobs have two fixation points for the cars that are spaced longitudinally, meanwhile an Alsthom bogie has one fixation point in the center of the bogie for the passageway ring which is rigidly fixed to one of the cars and the other car is supported by a fixation point on the ring with a pivot.
This also doesn't have the same dynamic properties at all, that's why the Alsthom bogie cannot be considered as a Jacobs bogie.
the line between Paris and Bourdeaux also extends to Pau, last year I took a TGV from Pau to Paris
but it's not an LGV line anymore after Bordeaux.
Yes, the trains will go there, but that doesn't mean that it's still running high speed
Like with the Paris Barcelona line through Lyon, Montpeller, Nimes, Béziers, Narbonne, and Perpignan. The train stops running at 320km/h after Montpellier
The "airplanization" of TGVs is a populist measure that was put in place following the terrorist attack on 21 August 2015. A terrorist attacked passengers on a TGV between Paris and Brussels. France has therefore introduced security checks similar to those found at airports for TGVs. While this may be justified for the Eurostar, it makes no sense for other trains: in the event of an attack, passengers can pull the emergency brake and run away, unlike on a plane, where passengers are trapped with the terrorists until they land. So trains are no more dangerous in terms of terrorism than other public places. There is therefore no reason to treat trains any differently from the rest of the public space in terms of security. Attacks are indeed possible, but as is the case everywhere else.
But as the french government absolutely wanted to show that it was taking action, they put this measure in place. So we end up with absurd situations where on the TGV between Switzerland and France, passengers boarding the train in Switzerland are not subject to any security checks, but those boarding in France have to go through all sorts of checks, and we end up with a mix of controlled and uncontrolled passengers on the same train.
That’s not true? You don’t have any check except the automatic ticket check at the turnstile. Thalys used to have those tho, until 2020. They abandoned them during COVID.
Spain however has those controls, not not France.
@@luclu7_ Okay, I didn't know. I haven't been back to France since 2019 (except in the area near Geneva, but I didn't take the TGV to get there), so it's possible. In any case, that was the reason why they put controls in place and if they've removed them that's fine. But then it doesn't make sense to talk about airplanization of TGV if there is no control anymore
I have been on TGV in 2022 and there were no security checks apart from ticket gates in Niece...
Can confirm that there are no security checks. I went in 2022. Didn't experience any at Paris-Nord, Paris-Lyon, or Lyon-Part-Dieu.
I thought it was clear enough from the video, but what Reece calls "airplanization" is a change in service pattern, going from the traditional train one of serving a series of cities along a route, to a point-to-point one instead.
I'm curious about what your opinion is on getlink's recent talk of more than doubling channel tunnel high-speed services?
Disneyland Paris is Europe’s biggest tourist attraction and connecting it to the high speed trains was one of the most well thought developments to happen by Disney. Love to fly into CDG, connecting with a TGV train and stepping into Disneyland in 10min!
3:57 "Not to price high speed trains as a premium service"...
I mean, they kinda do, don't they? On any journey between two cities where there are both conventional and high-speed trains, the TGV is always much more expensive. Even if there are no high-speed tracks on that line! And don't even try to use an Interail/Eurail with them, it's a real headache.
Countless times I have taken a TER instead, even if it was 30 minutes longer, just because of the price difference.
Not even. Just compare a travel between Mulhouse and Paris. You can get the TGV and a TER (both direct), both for 75€, at the same departure. TGV will be 3h where the TER will be 4.40h. It’s the first that come to my mind, but I’m sure in other place you can find TER just as expensive as TGV.
I.C.E. + the Intercity Express in Germany or something like this is a serene and wonderful rail-system in my viewpoint.
얼음. + Intercity Express는 내 관점에서 고요하고 멋진 철도 시스템입니다.
I take a TGV train multiple times a year. As someone who can't drive because of health issues, I really don't know how I'd get around without it when I need to cover long distances.
Even though within the context of France and the TGV, it is a great product offering national and international connections, it takes on a very hostile stance towards outside competitors. The EU has long been trying to open up the rail market such that competition can take place within the world of train travel, hoping that it will make train travel as a whole better and more competitive with planes and alike. France does the bare minimum of what the EU says is needed (ETCS and alike) , and does so in strategic places (where it is least useful to others). This is made obvious by the fact that almost all of the international connections that are possible, are also subsidiaries of SNCF. Only a handful of real competitors are available, probably because SNCF had way to block access anymore and had to allow them.
This may not be unique to SNCF, but the fact that these state-owned companies actively try and have successfully blocked regulations that would benefit rail travel because it would be "too much of a hassle to implement" or would decrease their market share (relatively), is costing the train market as a whole, benefitting mostly car and plane travel. I can imagine that from a North American perspective, it all looks great and magnificent over here, but a lot has yet to be done, especially when it comes to removing active blockages, to make long distance train travel have the market share it truly deserves and it desperately needs against climate change.
A good argument made by a French politician is that the network was entirety paid for by the French tax payers, and France shouldn't be required to just give it up to private companies who's only interest is to generate profits for their shareholders in the short term. They don't serve the public and have zero interest in investing in the network. The EUs attempt at liberalizing the power sector led to similar instances of profiteering, mercenary cost cutting and no private capital going to infrastructure at all. Billions lost to the public, companies go bankrupt, infrastructure promised and never built, only shareholders won and moved on.
I was honestly convinced. There has to be a way to to do what the EU aims for, but it's not simple nor fast. I respect the French réticence here.
@@yudeok413 It is exactly that defensive reaction of 'not giving it up' that bothers me and works restrictively. Sure the network was paid for by the French, but so are all the (non-toll) roads which private companies like Daimler, Stellantis, Total, BP, Michelin, Vinci, profit from. I hope you aren't fooled, because when you say 'France' it is the government of France and the people that make up that government, and it just as well only cares about the short term, up to whatever election is planned, that's just politics. Part of the liberalization is the divide between network and operations. Thus the competition shouldn't have to necessarily invest in the network: indeed, that would make it harder to have competition in the first place. Instead, users of the network pay for use of that network, similar to péage (toll). And that is already the case. One of the reasons for cargo over rail not being as successful as hoped, is that those network fees are too high for it to be a better alternative over road transport. Allowing other passage is not giving up anything, it is selling what you have invested in to make a return on it. More problematic would be to have an alternative to SNCF, which might or might not be better. But if you are proud enough of what you build that you don't want to share it with others, you should also be proud enough of your product to think you won't be beaten by someone else's product.
As far as the comparison with the power sector, I am not well versed enough there to say anything about it. But I am guessing that it probably isn't an apples to apples comparison, and that just saying that the very general action of liberalizing it there made for some bad outcomes and thus will also have the exact same consequences for rail, seems too easy to be true. Instead, I'd like to think that by looking at the (dis)similarities, lessons can be learned on how to prevent the bad, and endorse the good.
Of course it is possible that it is all an argument against liberalization in general. And even though I am a great sceptic of capitalism, we live in a society based on it, so selectively saying liberalization (as part of capitalism) is good in general but not in some specific cases based on austerity and chauvinism is a very bad stance. You just have to look at why there is consumer protection for flights (guaranteed layover, reimbursement for long delays), but not for trains: it is because the transport ministers of most EU states removed it from the bill that put in place for planes. Indeed, it was originally also meant for trains but got removed because all transport ministers were also thinking of their nationalized rail companies, and thought it was better to protect those companies from having to put in the effort of allowing good ticketing systems, guaranteeing layovers and reimbursing for delays, than offering the public the same protections they were giving to planes that led to a frictionless international travel.
unfortunately competition only concerns profitable LGV lines. The SNCF must continue to operate the unprofitable lines and not open to competition...otherwise it is not fair, since the SNCF paid for the construction of its lines , via the debt of the private companies which preceded it and which it received on the first day of its existence.
In fact, this aims to sink the SNCF....If there must be competition then it must concern the entire network and the SNCF must be able to withdraw..And if no one wants these lines, then there is no will have more....That's the private market and competition...otherwise it's biased.
@@Lodai974 I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here (maybe you used google translate to translate from french to english, in which case it was probably more clear in french). Are you saying the SNCF has a duty to operate unprofitable lines and not open them up for competition because it would be unfair otherwise? Or are you saying it is unfair that the SNCF would be forced to keep operating on unprofitable lines? When you say 'this aims to sink the SNCF', what is 'this' referring to? And what do you mean exactly with SNCF having to be able to 'withdraw'? Withdraw from what exactly? Similar question about the last 'otherwise it's biased', otherwise to what exactly?
Either way, there is an unclear yet very important distinction to be made which seems to be overlooked. SNCF consists of two very separate entities (as is needed for the liberalization). One that handles the network (the tracks and other infrastructure), which is called SNCF Réseau, and one that handles the actual transporting of people and goods (SNCF Voyageurs and alike).
Also, don't forget that both SNCF entities very much like to export it products outside of France to profit from it (Morocco, Eurostar-Thalys, …), yet at the same time inhibits the same to be done in France.
@@kantikuijk7239 Or are you saying it is unfair that the SNCF would be forced to keep operating on unprofitable lines
that's it!
The "This" ? UE simply.
"Withdraw from what exactly?" calls for tenders and therefore, ultimately the operation of these lines.
"Similar question about the last 'otherwise it's biased', otherwise to what exactly?"
Well, competition is biased because it is not fair...We don't just put profitable lines into a market, we put everything or nothing.
"Either way, there is an unclear yet very important distinction to be made which seems to be overlooked. SNCF consists of two very separate entities (as is needed for the liberalization). One that handles the network (the tracks and other infrastructure), which is called SNCF Réseau, and one that handles the actual transporting of people and goods (SNCF Voyageurs and alike)."
Obligation of the EU which has greatly complicated the situation... By dint of creating intermediaries, we increase price of services, and communication goes less smoothly, as well as the taking of responsibilities and many other things.
"Also, don't forget that both SNCF entities very much like to export it products outside of France to profit from it (Morocco, Eurostar-Thalys, …), yet at the same time inhibits the same to be done in France."
If others want to sell themselves, that's their right, if we want to be protectionist, that's our right.
Forcing us to sell ourselves is simply a dictatorship...
Look at Korea, it accepted the TGV, but it keeps the operation and even received the technology. It now builds it itself
yes i use Google translate for some words...
It's worth noting that one of the reasons why many low-cost high speed trains are moving to suburban stations from centrals is because the huge jump in rail traffic from HSR has saturated many central stations in Europe. This is one of those "suffering from success" scenarios, the service is so good that many cities are running out of room for it. New stations need to be built.
Excellent informative video. Thank you.
"the rhin-rhône region"? oops reece, no! This corridor is named that way because it connects 2 distinct regions: the Alsace plain (Rhin valley) to the Rhône basin
This name reflects the intention to build a corridor which isn't a centralized radial line from Paris, but would connect Germany and Switzerland directly to southern france: you didn't list the future phases of this LGV in the section about future expansions (probably because local politicians are still fighting about the exact design) but it should split into 2 branches, to Paris and Lyon (where it will meet the Rhône river itself)
Yeah, don't sleepywrite . . .
Also because it is close to the Rhin-Rhone Canal, reminding of the former connexion.
The extensions south of Bordeaux, to Dax and Toulouse are up against opposition. Some NIMBY but others saying that TGV developments are denying resources to ordinary train services. People say that the cost is very high to save a half hour getting to Toulouse. And taking long distance trains away from existing track makes that existing track and local services less economic.
I live near Bordeaux. TER trains are great but sometimes too infrequent.
Bordeaux has interesting issues for transit. There is a need to better integrate TER services with tram/bus and to make better use of the heavy rail infrastructure. Pessac Bordeaux is 5 minutes by TER, 45 minutes by tram. But getting a train ticket has the same complexity as going to Paris. And there are few trains Pessac Bordeaux.
Confused by 08:00 - I went from Paris to Nice without changes in April on a OuiGo TGV service. This has been the case for a while...
The LGV Méditerranée ends in Marseille; the Marseille-Nice segment is done over a conventional line with speeds in the 95-160 km/h range.
@@tucuuk yes, but you sit on the same train, it stops in Marseille and continues to Nice...
in america we would rather drive around, mostly alone, in 6000lb suvs and pickup trucks
great video as always, i am wondering if you are planning to do a video about Chinas high-speed rail network?
Day 1 of asking rm transit to talk about merseyrail and how metros can be privately run and profitable
Thanks Reece for an objective and detailed video. Another time it's worthwhile investigating high-speed rail in the Spanish market. Spain is the only European country to invite foreign rail operators to run over its high-speed tracks.
No Trenitalia runs on Paris-Lyon and some to Turin and Renfe recently relaunched on its own (before it was a JV between SNCF and Renfe) journeys on Barcelona-Lyon and Madrid-Marseille, soon on Paris-Lyon-Marseille and then some (they also want to do Paris-London). And Spain didn't invite them, it's a EU law, basically, to make it short.
@@etbadaboum True. But please note I used the word "invited." In the case of France both Trenitalia and Renfe spent a long time dealing with the French regulator. For example it took Trenitalia two years before it gained permission.
But I do hear what you say.
The separation of national grid (adif) and operator (renfe) is key in this and serves as an example of how things should be across the European HSR markets.
@@alexmcwhirter6611 Because the trains are running on the busiest corridor in all of Europe and SNCF trains had to be removed to leave place for others! Not the case elsewhere. Spain was happy to bring competition because Renfe's prices were prohibitive. Germany will basically ban outsiders from entering the HS market.
The UK wished they’d have had this vision to connect the country
Thanks for this video !
When you talk about old airlines executives getting new jobs in HSR, It makes me think about a very good sociology article (avaliable in english and for free on Cairn) called "Ticket Pricing by the French National Railway Company (SNCF), a Historical Sociology of Tariff SettingFrom Tariff Equalization to Yield Management (1938-2012)" by Jean Finez, wich is really worth the time !
wow, that is a great recommendation
I love how almost half of the footage in this video is actually from Spain
I know that I take too much train when i recognize this landscape at 8:08 between Lyon and Paris, while currently in a TGV from Lyon to Paris 😅
The reason that the TGV can use legacy trackage and the Shinkansen can't is that Japanese railroads are narrow gauge. It was either build an entirely new wider-gauge network or accept the inherent limitations that a narrow gauge would've imposed upon high-speed operations. It was no choice, really.
I am so glad i got to ride the originalish style TGV back in 2010 from Geneva to Paris. There is something about the dual level cars that just doesnt look as sleek and cool as the original sets.
Capacity is king for Paris-Lyon or else the line would have been saturated a long time ago
Rail in EU is becoming more interconnected, but is unfortunately still far too expensive.
Train from Copenhagen to Paris: 175€ 18h 29m with 6 changes.
Airplane from Copenhagen to Paris: 66€ 2h direct flight.
Car from Copenhagen to Paris: ~220€ in gas and 14h drive. This is assuming a gas mileage of 9l/100km, which my Touran does.
There is of course more than just gas to the cost of driving, but add two or three extra people to share the cost and rail never wins. At least not on cost or time, possibly on comfort though.
In my opinion, flying has no business being this cheap in comparison.
All in all, I want a european rail system and not a French railsystem which is connected to a German railsystem which is connected... You get the point.
Thalys and their services europe wide actually got fully merged into Eurostar
Shout out to Princeton Jct 11:15; great spot to watch Acelas max out in revenue svc.
in fact you can go full TGV between Montpellier and Barcellona because a part of the line is a classical low speed railway
I love in-depth, less theological videos especially matched with nice footage and map animations, they make watching the videos very interesting! I would 100% choose quality over quantity.
the TGV duplex is the best HSR train in the world! double deck HSR is great for capacity, and the duplex has a much better seat : weight ratio than the single deck trains!
Some day every major city in Europe will be connected with high quailty high-speed rail, with 25KV electrification, and ETCS. And direct tickets between any two places, independent of operator. Also, passenger rigths.
Been dreaming about this since last year, when a Ryanair's plane lost somewhere in Europe made us wait from 4 am to 12 am at Bologna, to fly to Budapest. That same distance could have been covered in 4 hours, even changing trains in Venice. I just hope such a network gets built, no planes lost thousands of km away, no hassle with security and unreasonable overpricing for luggage, connections to European metropolis also for smaller and medium cities
Morocco also uses french tgv a d extending the network , if everything goes well by the early 2030s agadir and fes would also have tgv , wich would be arround 1000kms total tgv lines lenght
Can you make a video about the London "Cross River Tram" and London's history with trams?
I think it would be quite interesting to know why London switched from trams to trolleybuses to buses to trains, and then wanted trams again but didn't have the funds....
Sounds like a good suggestion for Jago Hazzard.
one minor think that isn't 100% correct. Montpellier does not have a LGV access or I should rather say TGV exclusive access. Rather they build the "Contournement Nîmes - Montpellier" which is just a new set of tracks allowing 220 kph but also intended for freight etc. This was a cost cutting measure which I fear will bounce back once the connection to Spain becomes super popular. We'll see too much traffic for the ligne to handle and thus many delays etc.
The CNM can be converted into an LGV quickly... It's the dual use freight/TGV that limits the speed on it and the legacy signalling used by freight trains. The tracks are laid for 300Km/h.
You forgot to mention the connection from LGV Nord to HSLine 1 in Belgium
Canada should convert VIA into a TGV around Canada and use brand-new EMU trains.
not all routes are starting in paris, cuz of tergv witch is a regional tgv in haut de france
Will you make a Video on Thalys's and Eurostar's Fusion?
To be honest it is mostly just painting the trains a different colour. Both were divisions of SNCF, and Eurostar still is.
I hope you’ll do a video about my birth city TOULOUSE❤transportation for a city of this size is pretty impressive
Amazing
Note that the TGV also goes into Luxembourg.
Took a TGV from Paris to Lyon back around 2006. Great scenery, and nothing like sipping a Stella in the bar car while rolling around 160mph
04:56 weird, why go through Brussels to go to Amsterdam? and not go instead through a more important city like Gent? it's even shorter
I love the TGV! The French have what I hope we would have in the US. However, we are stuck with look alike trainsets that are not much better then what we previously had. Lets hope this changes, at least for Cali.
So France basically invented a plane-speed metro with a strictly radial network map. Gotta say I prefer Germany's ICEs crisscrossing the country, even if at not quite the same speed.
It's almost as if France has been very centralized historically, and Germany developed from a number of smaller states, all with their own transportation needs.
Well France is centralized and Germany is decentralized. Examples of radial high speed rail systems other than France include countries like Spain(out of Madrid), Japan(out of Tokyo) and South Korea(out of Seoul). Grid high speed rail systems include Germany and China and finally there’s linear high speed rail systems in countries like Italy and Taiwan where the major cities are lined up together due to country being narrow
Just a note there is also a connection between Saarbrücken(Germany) and Paris
It's a shame that the usual TGV Lyria rolling stock can't run at full power on the Swiss network. The train's power supply architecture limits it to run at 140km/h which stops it from using the higher speed lines between Zurich and Bern (200km/h) or even between Bern and Thun (160km/h) without disturbing the dense time table. The Gotthard base tunnel is completely out of discussion (250km/h). Better electronics could connect Milan to Paris through Switzerland using proper rail lines at higher speeds. This resulted in an almost complete disappearance of TGV lines connecting Swiss towns to Paris.
The problems of removal of local lines has nothing to do with TGV but everything to do with the privatization of public services. It also increased the price and reduced quality of services.
I think that France did a fantastic job with TGV and both the infrastructure and service are top tier. The trains are ok. They are fast and consistent, but not that comfortable (and imo not looking that good). From experience, I prefer ICEs
As much as the reduction of these short haul flights is an excellent thing, I don’t think an outright ban is the way to go. I think leaving the ability for the flights to exist helps with the competitive aspect of the tgv (and high speed rail) pricing in general. If the high speed train is given a de facto monopoly then they could theoretically abuse this to raise prices as they’re now the only option between these sorts of destinations, whereas if they’re kept in check by the airlines being able to operate as well it’s potentially better for everyone. What should be done though is a reduction of subsidies given to airlines for these regional flights, that way someone like EasyJet can’t come in and price a fare at $20 for a journey that could be covered by a train in a similar timespan for $30. Ultimately having more options for travel is better for everyone, as opposed to having less. I’d also like to see the pricing of high speed services (and train fares in general) be more consistent. Why is it that if I decide I need to travel somewhere tomorrow for an emergency I’ll end up paying double the price for the same train seat that would’ve likely (or otherwise) been empty anyway? Why not just set a consistent price for fares between two given destinations? Part of the great thing about trains is being able to just rock up to the station and use them, but that’s hindered by needing to book in some cases a month out in order to get the most competitive fare. I think you’d see an increase in ridership by having more consistent fares even up to the day before someone may travel, as it would open up the possibility of people being able to take more weekend trips on a whim for example.
I love OUIGO. It's cheap travel à grande vitesse !
Great video as always!
There's a bit of a creaking plastic sound when you speak (check out 10:47)
I remember having taken HSF for the first time this summer to go to London. I first took a TGV from Lyon to Paris and then the Eurostar onto St Pancras. It’s amazing how fast we got there, we woke up at about 6 am and we arrived at St Pancras on 1:30pm. It is very comfortable, but if it wasn’t about being more ecological, I would’ve taken the plane, since it’s cheaper. Also our system definitely lacks reliability, and my train got delayed of about an hour to go back to Lyon.