Q&A

What exactly is meant by high-speed rail?

High-speed rail, or high-speed track, is track suitable for speeds of at least 300 km/h. Meanwhile, a number of countries have gone a step further: France and Spain have made several sections of track suitable for 320 km/h, while China’s current standard is 350 km/h.

Depending on the speed, the following definitions are used internationally:

conventional track: suitable for speeds up to 200 km/h;
semi-highspeed rail: track for speeds between 200 km/h and 300 km/h;
high-speed rail: track suitable for speeds of 300 km/h and above.

Nevertheless, to encourage countries to upgrade their existing track, the European Commission has decided that existing track that is upgraded to a speed for at least 250 km/h may also be considered high-speed rail. Basically, that is semi-high-speed rail. For completely new track, however, the European Union maintains its definition of a minimum speed at 300 km/h. Obviously, by watering down the definition, more track may qualify as “high-speed rail,” but in the end it does not accelerate travel time. Nor will it substitute short-haul flights for the greener train: travelers choose the fastest way to travel. As long as air travel is faster than train travel, the vast majority of travelers will choose air travel.

What are the 8 benefits of high-speed rail?

High-speed trains running on high-speed track have a number of advantages:

Provided properly constructed (track for speeds of at least 300 km/h, shortest routes), it offers the fastest way to travel any distance between 200 and 800 km. In China, where speeds are now even higher, even upto 1,300 km;
The advantage of a high-speed line over an additional airport is that a high-speed train can also make a limited number of stops. For example, there can be a direct train between Amsterdam and Berlin on every full hour, and a train on the same route on the half hour which also makes stops in Enschede and Hanover;
Faster travel boosts the economy, makes us better able to compete with foreign countries and thus increases prosperity for the our people. And because the train can also make a stop in cities like Groningen an Enschede, it strengthens the economy of the northern and eastern Netherlands as well;
It is the most sustainable way to travel. And since high-speed trains offers the fastest way to travel at 200 – 800 km distances, travelers are more likely to choose the train over the car or plane;
Schiphol Airport has been running up against the limits of its growth for years. The construction of high-speed rail allows short-haul flights to be replaced by train travel;
With the increase in the Dutch population, roads will clog up if infrastructure isn’t improved. Construction of high-speed rail will provide this necessary infrastructure improvement;
The three countries in Europe with a successful high-speed network have built end-to-end high-speed rail between major cities. By using dedicated track for HSR, these high-speed trains are not hampered by regular (slower) trains, thus allowing competitors on that track as well. France has three competitors on its high-speed rail, Italy also three, and Spain as many as four companies. Thanks to competition, fares have decreased significant: on the Madrid – Alicante route, tickets were recently offered at 7 euros.
High-speed train does not only provide faster travel, it is also the most comfortable.

Why would the Netherlands build high-speed rail (HSR)? We already have rail, don’t we?

The first railroad in the Netherlands were built in the 19th century. These tracks are perfectly suited for a regional train, express train or intercity, carrying commuter traffic up to a distance of about 150 kilometers.

To transport travelers over a distance of between 200 and 800 kilometers, this railroad is not suitable. Travelers generically, and business in particular, choose the fastest way to travel in order to lose as little time as possible. Because high-speed rail is lacking in the Netherlands (with the exception of trains to Brussels, Paris and London), the train trip to Frankfurt, for example, takes 4 hours. And to that must be added the time it takes to get to the starting station, and then from the terminus to your hotel.

If you assume half an hour to travel from home to Amsterdam Central Station, and half an hour from Frankfurt Hbf to your hotel/office, you will spend at least 5 hours traveling. By car, the same distance takes 4 hours (from your home to the office), and by plane 3.5 hours (45 minutes to Schiphol Airport, 45 minutes for check-in and passport control, one hour of travel, 15 minutes off boarding, and 45 minutes cab from the airport to the office/hotel).

We already have HSR to Brussels. It’s not major success, is it?

The success of the high-speed trail to Brussels is indeed moderate. That’s because the way it has been built is moderate too. Also by the standard of the time (2009).

The distance between Amsterdam and Brussels is 200 kilometers. The regular Intercity Direct takes 3 hours over this distance, and the high-speed train “only” 2 hours. Although an improvement, it is by no means competitive to prefer the train to the car.

This is because you will also have to travel from home to the boarding station, and from the destination station to the office or hotel in Brussels: half an hour to get to the station, then 2 hours travel time, and finally another half hour to travel from the station to your final destination. That is three hours of travel time in total, while by car you cover the same route in two hours (from home in Amsterdam to hotel in Brussels). Travelers therefore mainly take the car.

That’s a long time! You can’t call that a high-speed train: the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt covers the same distance in an hour.

That’s right. The cause is not the train itself, but the way the track is constructed and the number of stops that are made. As the high-speed train alternates between high-speed rail and normal track, the train must regularly slow down and travel at significantly slower speeds. As a result, the train loses a lot of time. On top of that, the train also makes many stops: after departing from Amsterdam Central, the train stops at Schiphol Airport, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and finally Brussels.

That HSR could be much better is proven by the rest of the route: after Brussels, the train continues on to Paris, taking only 1 hour and 20 minutes over the remaining 300 km.

So it can be done faster?

Yes, it can be much faster. Indeed, the train between Cologne and Frankfurt, a distance of also 200 kilometers, takes only 1 hour. But it can now be even better: in China, high-speed rail is currently under construction between Guangzhu and Shangtu, where the train takes not 2 hours, but 40 minutes over the same 200 km. And the high-speed train between Shanghai and Beijing (over 1,300 km, the same distance as Amsterdam – Florence), including two stops, takes only 4:18 hours. In such a way, it is not at all attractive to go by car or plane: the train is by far the fastest. And that is exactly why countries like China have many more travelers opting for the train instead of the plane.

How should railroads be constructed to enable faster travel?

The solution is that the train can travel at full speed, and thus avoid regular track. The problem then lies mainly with the cities: you can solve that by building a tunnel under the city, or by building HSR along the city, with possibly a branch line into the city for trains making a stop in the city concerned. France and Spain have successfully built their high-speed lines in this way: the high-speed line from Madrid can run non-stop at full speed until it arrives in Barcelona, but thanks to a branch line at Zaragoza, there are also trains that do make a stop in this intermediate city.

Why is speed relevant?

The faster a train runs, the more successfully it competes with cars and airplanes. And the more time it saves, a factor in economic growth.

In addition, further destinations are also becoming suitable for substituting air traffic by rail traffic:

If the train from Amsterdam to Groningen takes 1:45, the subsequent connection to Hamburg also takes 2 hours, then it is still attractive for Groningers to travel to Hamburg by train, but Amsterdam travelers will prefer the plane.
If the journey to Groningen takes less than an hour and the onward journey to Hamburg takes an hour, Amsterdam travelers will prefer to take the train rather than the plane. And if the train continues to Copenhagen, taking an hour and a half, travelers from Amsterdam will choose the train not only to Hamburg, but also many travelers to Copenhagen.

Therefore the faster the train can travel, the more short-haul flights can be replaced by rail.

Do you have a math example?

On distances between 200 and 800 km, there are four possible forms of transportation for a traveler: bus, car, train and plane. Among these alternatives, the car is the only form of transportation that can basically get from your home to your final destination (for example, a client’s office, or your hotel in the destination) without also using another mode of transportation such as a cab.

Airports are located outside the city. Let’s assume that the travel time from your home to the departure airport is three-quarters of an hour in travel time, and the same is true at the arrival point. At the airport, you will also need about three-quarters of an hour to check in and walk to the gate. Business travelers (the largest group of passengers) generally take only carry-on luggage, so we assume they won’t lose time checking in luggage. They will also lose 15 minutes between leaving the plane and boarding the cab.

Travelers by train and bus spend less time: because their stations are more central, we assume it takes half an hour to get from home to the station, and half an hour to get from the arrival station to the office or hotel.

Then we come to the following conclusion.

For a trip to Hamburg or Frankfurt (400 km) you will spend about 4 hours by car;
by bus you spend about the same time, but also half an hour to get to the departure station, and half an hour to travel from the arrival station to the office or hotel. So a total of 5 hours;
the plane ride takes about three quarters of an hour over such a distance. But you also spend another three quarters of an hour to get to the airport, another three quarters of an hour for check-in and boarding, fifteen minutes for off-boarding, and three quarters of an hour for the cab to the office or hotel. So a total of 3:15;
By train (if HSR is properly built) the distance will take you about 2 hours. With an additional two times half an hour to get to the station, you have a travel time of 3 hours.

If the Netherlands is going to build HSR, we will probably be one of the first, right?

Well, not really. More than half a century ago Japan was the first to build high-speed rail (1964). But even within Europe, the Netherlands is slow: Italy (1977), France (1981) but also Spain (1992) have had extensive high-speed rail for years. The Netherlands only started in 2009 by building only the line to the Belgian border. And given its performance (200 km in 2 hours), it wasn’t even constructed properly.

So is high-speed rail in other countries better constructed?

Absolutely. In France, you travel from Paris to Lyon (450 km) in 2 hours; from Paris to Marseille (750 km) in 3 hours, from Paris to Strasbourg (400 km) in just 1:50. Air France has therefore lost most of its flights at these distances to the train.

Spain, after opening the Madrid – Barcelona link (625 km) in 1992, made both cities accessible in 2.5 hours.

And in Italy, you travel from Rome to Milan (567 km) in 3:10 hours. Because travelers thus preferred the Frecciarossa (the Italian HSR), Alitalia lost its most profitable connection, one of the causes of the airline’s ultimate downfall.

Back to Asia: China started building HSR late, on par with the Netherlands. But by working steadily, the country has now built 67% of the world’s high-speed rail. And by developing it further, you can now travel from Shanghai to Beijing (1,300 km) in 4:18. A distance equal to Amsterdam – Florence, in just over four hours. Thus, air travel is also being reduced on medium distances and opted for the train.

And what about the Fyra? That project was eventually cancelled, wasn’t it?

The Fyra was intended to speed up domestic train traffic (Amsterdam to Breda, with intermediate stops at Schiphol Airport and Rotterdam Central), as well as provide a connection to Belgium (Antwerp and Brussels). With a maximum speed of 250 km/h, it was not really a high-speed train either.

But none of this is really relevant: you don’t build hsr for a distance of 50 or 100 km. It is built by other countries for distances between 200 and 800 kilometers, for example to connect Amsterdam to Paris via Brussels, or Amsterdam to Hamburg and Copenhagen via Groningen. That is a fundamentally different objective than that the Fyra had, and one of the reasons why it was not a successful idea.

The Netherlands is a small country. So then we don’t need to build high-speed rail. Right?

The Netherlands is indeed a small country, and therefore does not have domestic air traffic that countries like France and Italy do. You don’t build high-speed lines for distances under 150 km. The regional train, express train or intercity are all good modes of transport for these disctances.

But from 200 km it becomes interesting. On the one hand, there are national destinations like Groningen (200 km) that do meet that, and on the other hand, you lay high-speed rail mainly for international destinations. Think of connecting Amsterdam with major European cities like Hamburg, Copenhagen, Hanover, Berlin, Leipzig, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich, Basel and Zürich. There’s also a lot of flying between those, so you can replace short-haul air travel with high-speed rail transport.