• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Possible services for baltica high-speed line

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen Lee

On Moderation
Joined
7 Jul 2019
Messages
675
Rail Baltica (also known as Rail Baltic in Estonia)[3] is an ongoing greenfield railway infrastructure project to link Finland (via ferry or an undersea tunnel), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania with Poland and through this with the European standard gauge rail line network. Its purpose is to provide passenger and freight service between participating countries and improve rail connections between Central and Northern Europe.
So I am wondering what services can be provided for baltica high-speed line, and if there are TOCs that can provide services.
Also, I just wonder if there will be dual-gauge tracks?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

StephenHunter

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
2,118
Location
London
Sleeper trains to Central Europe would be a logical option. Plenty of Baltic people work in Germany for example.
 

dutchflyer

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2013
Messages
1,237
This whole thing is mainly meant to offer STANdard gauge raillines across all 3 new countries-and with some hopeful ones even in tunnel onto Finland-which also has broad gauge. As for now only a short section from Polish border til Kauno=Kaunas,LT, without as for now even a daily service-just weekends with a tiny local DMU from POlRegio. The rest AFAIK is not even offered for interested builders.
TOC? Thats british thinking. All 3 countries have their traditional state owned national systems. Though EEstti=Estonia for a wile had it outsourced/privatised and split up, but they bought it back. This even means hardly any (LT to LV) international links or forced to change at border station (LV to EE). LT even broke up a section of broad gauge goods line into LV, as they did not want it to go to LV ports. The EU forced them to reinstate it.
As for now there are plenty of buses offering through trips or locals and these seem to handle the demand quite good. They are faster and cheaper and much more frequent as the trains.
Though amusingly I just read that plans have been presented for the new trainsets and their colours. Perhaps the whole thing is thus further as I had assumed or seen till now.
 

Alfonso

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
462
This is an incredibly expensive project linking relatively small populations. Unconfirmed reports suggests costs can be reduced by building a smaller diameter tunnel with third rail rather than overhead electric, and the budget reduced further by building it to the slightly smaller UK loading gauge. Rolling stock is rumoured to be the recently refurbished "Muovinen Sika" 5 car trainsets, if leasing terms can be agreed.
 

rf_ioliver

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
854
This is an incredibly expensive project linking relatively small populations. Unconfirmed reports suggests costs can be reduced by building a smaller diameter tunnel with third rail rather than overhead electric, and the budget reduced further by building it to the slightly smaller UK loading gauge. Rolling stock is rumoured to be the recently refurbished "Muovinen Sika" 5 car trainsets, if leasing terms can be agreed.

No doubt the "mouvinen sika"* sets will be hauled by the Nordic-Baltic strategic reserve steam trains too? :) :) :) :)

* "muoviset siat" might be a better translation to use the plural form
 

StephenHunter

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
2,118
Location
London
This whole thing is mainly meant to offer STANdard gauge raillines across all 3 new countries-and with some hopeful ones even in tunnel onto Finland-which also has broad gauge. As for now only a short section from Polish border til Kauno=Kaunas,LT, without as for now even a daily service-just weekends with a tiny local DMU from POlRegio. The rest AFAIK is not even offered for interested builders.
TOC? Thats british thinking. All 3 countries have their traditional state owned national systems. Though EEstti=Estonia for a wile had it outsourced/privatised and split up, but they bought it back. This even means hardly any (LT to LV) international links or forced to change at border station (LV to EE). LT even broke up a section of broad gauge goods line into LV, as they did not want it to go to LV ports. The EU forced them to reinstate it.
As for now there are plenty of buses offering through trips or locals and these seem to handle the demand quite good. They are faster and cheaper and much more frequent as the trains.
Though amusingly I just read that plans have been presented for the new trainsets and their colours. Perhaps the whole thing is thus further as I had assumed or seen till now.
There's a definite potential for freight use as well - especially for military materiel. Remember that Russia is just next door.
 

biko

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2020
Messages
487
Location
Overijssel, the Netherlands
My understanding is that freight and passengers both are just as important parts of the proposition. It will probably not be viable only with passenger trains.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The EU paid for the parallel motorway (Via Baltica) first, so the competition has had a big head start.

From what I recall having been slightly involved a few years ago, it will indeed be a mixed traffic rather than high speed line. It is standard gauge only, one purpose being to connect the Baltic states (and ultimately Finland) better with the rest of the EU. The strategic/military value is also seen to be important, although I imagine any potential invader could cripple a railway in a short time with a few modern precision missiles.

As far as I know there are no plans to convert the existing rail networks, which still carry a lot of east-west freight traffic including linking Russia to its enclave in Kaliningrad and to ice-free ports. Some of them have been re-gauged multiple times in their history with alternating dominance by Russia and Germany. I think broad gauge links still exist between the three Baltic states but when I was involved there was no passenger service between them.

If built I guess you might see a handful of passenger trains each day, running at up to about 160km/h. Latvia was also looking at a standard gauge shuttle between Riga and its airport.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Sleeper trains to Central Europe would be a logical option. Plenty of Baltic people work in Germany for example.
The EU paid for the parallel motorway (Via Baltica) first, so the competition has had a big head start.

Yes - the EU subsidised the motorway after the three Baltic states joined the EU, and simultaneously encouraged the closure of the existing north-south rail line which linked the 3 countries. EU policy tended to be that roads / private transport is subsidisable, but public / rail transport shouldn't be.

During the Soviet bloc years, and afterwards until the three countries joined the EU and the line was closed, services on the north-south line did indeed include sleepers. I've caught a train in Tallinn, which went via Riga and Vilnius and got me to Warsaw the next morning. That ceased to be possible sometime in the 1990s. We've been waiting a long time for such a service to be on the horizon again ... but only after spending billions on a completely new line of course...
 

Austriantrain

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2018
Messages
1,307
EU policy tended to be that roads / private transport is subsidisable, but public / rail transport shouldn't be.

Not true now and I don’t think it ever was. The EU finances projects that the member states want. If they want motorways, then they will get money for motorways... if they want to invest in rail, they will get funds for it (look at Spain).

I don’t fault the Baltics for investing in decent roads first.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Not true now and I don’t think it ever was. The EU finances projects that the member states want. If they want motorways, then they will get money for motorways... if they want to invest in rail, they will get funds for it (look at Spain).

I don’t fault the Baltics for investing in decent roads first.

The privatisation (and hence fragmentation) of public services - including railways - is written into EU law, and was part of the EU's DNA even before it was all legally mandated. That, in itself, makes it harder for railways to be supported as "a public good". Yes, the pro-privatisation/commercialisation instinct of most, maybe all, of the three Baltic governments after the break-up of the Soviet Union was also an important part of the equation; but that mentality inevitably leads to money being put into roads (where it's called "an investment"), rather than into railways (where it's called "a subsidy"). The continuation (by overdue maintenance and upgrading) of the north-south rail link through those three countries would have taken a fraction of what was spent on new motorways (especially when including externalised costs).

The politics of the EU, and the commercial interests of many of its supporters, is part of what's led to a diminution of cross-border rail services compared to a generation ago. There's now the ridiculous situation of EU politicians wringing their hands wondering how to integrate rail services to enable passengers to travel across borders seamlessly, when it's their own pro-privatisation and pro-competition policies which are one of the causes of the problem in the first place. Ditto with respect to the environmental balance of air as opposed to rail transport; the problems now being acknowledged are a result of deliberate policies over many years by the same institutions which are now saying how awful it is.
 

Stephen Lee

On Moderation
Joined
7 Jul 2019
Messages
675
This is an incredibly expensive project linking relatively small populations. Unconfirmed reports suggests costs can be reduced by building a smaller diameter tunnel with third rail rather than overhead electric, and the budget reduced further by building it to the slightly smaller UK loading gauge. Rolling stock is rumoured to be the recently refurbished "Muovinen Sika" 5 car trainsets, if leasing terms can be agreed.
what is Muovinen Sika
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,488
Though amusingly I just read that plans have been presented for the new trainsets and their colours. Perhaps the whole thing is thus further as I had assumed or seen till now.

The route is in the main at detailed technical design stage, though some construction contracts have been either tendered or awarded, and some construction of the most complicated things (Riga station, viaducts in Estonia) has already started.

They envisage an initial daytime international service of 4 trains per day Tallinn - Warsaw, 4 trains per day Tallinn to Vilnius, a number of trains to be determined from Vilnius to Warsaw, and 2 trains per hour Riga - Riga Airport. They envisage this building up to 6 trains per day Tallinn - Warsaw, 6 trains per day Tallinn - Vilnius, 10 trains per day Vilnius Warsaw, and a minimum of 2 trains per hour Riga - Riga Airport.

They also envisage overnight trains from Tallinn and Vilnius to Berlin (and maybe Vienna).

For freight they envisage 2 - 3 trains per hour, mostly intermodal.

They also envisage that the route could be used to run regional services that are (mainly) within countries; Tallinn to Parnu, Bauska & Salacgriva (and perhaps Marijampole) to Riga, and Vilnius to Kaunas & Marijampole. However these routes (unlike Riga - Riga Airport!) would be provided by the national operators / governments and not Rail Baltica.

Of their maybes I can't see Marijampole - Riga regional services and Vienna overnight services happening, but lets hope I'm wrong about that!

In terms of other operators I imagine the usual suspects will all at least look into the possibility of getting involved (Regio, Leo, Flix)? Local coach operator Lux Express has also previously made noises about being interested in running trains within Estonia.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Lee

On Moderation
Joined
7 Jul 2019
Messages
675
The route is in the main at detailed technical design stage, though some construction contracts have been either tendered or awarded, and some construction of the most complicated things (Riga station, viaducts in Estonia) has already started.

They envisage an initial daytime international service of 4 trains per day Tallinn - Warsaw, 4 trains per day Tallinn to Vilnius, a number of trains to be determined from Vilnius to Warsaw, and 2 trains per hour Riga - Riga Airport. They envisage this building up to 6 trains per day Tallinn - Warsaw, 6 trains per day Tallinn - Vilnius, 10 trains per day Vilnius Warsaw, and a minimum of 2 trains per hour Riga - Riga Airport.

They also envisage overnight trains from Tallinn and Vilnius to Berlin (and maybe Vienna).

For freight they envisage 2 - 3 trains per hour, mostly intermodal.

They also envisage that the route could be used to run regional services that are (mainly) within countries; Tallinn to Parnu, Bauska & Salacgriva (and perhaps Marijampole) to Riga, and Vilnius to Kaunas & Marijampole. However these routes (unlike Riga - Riga Airport!) would be provided by the national operators / governments and not Rail Baltica.

Of their maybes I can't see Marijampole - Riga regional services and Vienna overnight services happening, but lets hope I'm wrong about that!

In terms of other operators I imagine the usual suspects will all at least look into the possibility of getting involved (Regio, Leo, Flix)? Local coach operator Lux Express has also previously made noises about being interested in running trains within Estonia.
wondered if LTG/LDZ/Go rail need Standard Gauge stock......
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,864
Location
Airedale
The privatisation (and hence fragmentation) of public services - including railways - is written into EU law, and was part of the EU's DNA even before it was all legally mandated. That, in itself, makes it harder for railways to be supported as "a public good". Yes, the pro-privatisation/commercialisation instinct of most, maybe all, of the three Baltic governments after the break-up of the Soviet Union was also an important part of the equation; but that mentality inevitably leads to money being put into roads (where it's called "an investment"), rather than into railways (where it's called "a subsidy").
I think you are confusing capital expenditure and operating subsidy here - it is the latter that the EU will not fund, surely? There are ample examples of substantial (up to 85%) EU contributions to capital projects on railways.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,488
The privatisation (and hence fragmentation) of public services - including railways - is written into EU law, and was part of the EU's DNA even before it was all legally mandated. That, in itself, makes it harder for railways to be supported as "a public good".

It's not privatisation that's written into EU law, it's separation of infrastructure and train operators, and the infrastructure being open to multiple operators (sometimes even more than just in theory!).

I think I'm correct in saying that in all the Baltic states the separate infrastructure and train operating companies are almost entirely owned by the respective governments, and in the case of passenger services operate almost entirely in their respective countries. The exceptions I can think of are:
- services to Russia
- services from Vilnius to Belarus
- that the joint Valga / Valka station is located a few hundred meters inside Estonia
- the track bed from Tallinn to Viljandi (and also the trackbed of the recently closed Parnu line) is privately owned
- The irregular services from Vilnius to Daugavpils and Kaunas to Bialystok cross borders from Lithuania
- The pre covid Ukrainian railways service to Riga (which they had been intending to extend to Tallinn).

Almost all recent infrastructure improvements and new rolling stock orders have been either government or EU funded and very little private money has been involved at all (for example, the private owner of the Tallinn - Viljandi line has a list of projects at https://edel.ee/en/projects/ ).

If anything, I would suggest that it is the ownership by individual states that has tended towards the separation of their networks. State owned operators have tended to keep rigidly to their own patches (indeed as was pointed out Lithuania lifted a line that was more useful to the Latvian network, and the EU had to make them put it back). A pan Baltic operator would be likely to have made more effort to ensure connections between Estonian and Latvian trains at Valga, and would have been likely to have ensure better services over the Lithuanian / Latvian border.

The continuation (by overdue maintenance and upgrading) of the north-south rail link through those three countries would have taken a fraction of what was spent on new motorways (especially when including externalised costs).

The EU paid for the parallel motorway (Via Baltica) first, so the competition has had a big head start.

The previous cross border routes were incapable of supporting services that would be used by anyone in the modern era who had a choice of mode of transport other than a rail enthusiast!!!

However it should also be noted that only very short stretches of the E67 are motorway; very much the exceptions. It is mostly only one lane each direction with no grade separation.

The politics of the EU, and the commercial interests of many of its supporters, is part of what's led to a diminution of cross-border rail services compared to a generation ago. There's now the ridiculous situation of EU politicians wringing their hands wondering how to integrate rail services to enable passengers to travel across borders seamlessly, when it's their own pro-privatisation and pro-competition policies which are one of the causes of the problem in the first place. Ditto with respect to the environmental balance of air as opposed to rail transport; the problems now being acknowledged are a result of deliberate policies over many years by the same institutions which are now saying how awful it is.

Not at all. Not only did the decline almost exclusively take place long before the Baltic states joined the EU, but it resulted from infrastructure that was outdated beyond belief (in 1992 some journeys took about the same length of time as they did in 1938), from Belarus charging passengers from Bialystok to Vilnius via Grodno €40 for a transit visa, and because for historical reasons lines frequently pointed what had become the wrong direction (ie towards Russia). EU money has long been funding many of the improvements that have taken place.

From what I recall having been slightly involved a few years ago, it will indeed be a mixed traffic rather than high speed line. It is standard gauge only, one purpose being to connect the Baltic states (and ultimately Finland) better with the rest of the EU.
[snip]
If built I guess you might see a handful of passenger trains each day, running at up to about 160km/h.

The linespeed will be 249kph, so high speed by any count!!!
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,551
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The old north-south service was built around the one true main line in the area, the Warsaw-St Petersburg line via Bialystok, Vilnius, Daugavpils and Pskov.

This line also linked from Vilnius to the German (Prussian Eastern Railway) network via Kaunas, with the Russian/German border at Kybartai now being the border between Lithuania and Russia (Kaliningrad).

However, the main line now crosses 5 borders (3 with the EU) and is only used domestically in each country, and is largely run-down in border areas.

The new line essentially bypasses Belarus and Russian territory, and will put Kaunas on the main line rather than a branch from Vilnius as per the original layout.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mailbyrail

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Messages
356
The image of rail in the Baltic republics in the days of the USSR was slow, cheap and relatively uncomfortable. Around 1986 I travelled by overnight sleeper from Vilnius to Riga having a full night's sleep. A journey of about 200 miles which would take around 3 hours by road.
Buses were seen as comfortable, fast and relatively expensive. I made similar journeys in 1992 and bus was pretty much the only possible way to do it.
I remember a UK university sports club invited over a exchange group from Tallinn to an event in Scotland, who arrived in London. To cut costs , the hosts booked student rate tickets on the overnight bus from London to Inverness. The Estonians were so impressed that their British hosts chose the bus in preference to the train - they must be well funded!
The old image of the railway lingered on but has recently improved with modernisation, but I've not been recently since the more widespread use of new rolling stock and modern ticketing.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Belarus charging passengers from Bialystok to Vilnius via Grodno €40 for a transit visa

I could be mistaken, but I believe that this only became an issue in 2003 when Poland was forced to introduce visas for people from Ukraine/Belarus/Russia, and so visas were introduced by Belarus and Russia in return. Until that point, transit via Belarus wasn't particularly problematic, especially as the road between Białystok to Budzisko was in terrible condition.

However, I don't know what was actually running from Białystok to Vilnius via Grodno after 1990.

The EU paid for the parallel motorway (Via Baltica) first, so the competition has had a big head start.

Via Baltica isn't a motorway, with the exception of the new Kaunas-Marijampolė section and in Poland. Otherwise, there were only small sections reconstructed with EU support. It's certainly not a parallel motorway or anything close to it from Kaunas to Tallinn.

But something else to note: Tallinn-Riga-Kaunas/Vilnius was always served by bus services. The parallel line from Tallinn to Riga only entered use for passenger services in 1981 and direct trains ended in 1992 (as demand collapsed after the end of the Soviet Union), which meant that the Baltics developed a high quality network of bus routes to compensate. There's really not much between Tallinn and Riga, so apart from Parnu, there was nothing to attract most travellers between the two points. I also believe that Tallinn-Parnu only opened for passenger services in 1971.

It's not quite fair to say that the parallel road killed the rail line. It was simply the intense competition from private bus companies offering a far better experience, combined with a lack of interest in the line by Estonia and Latvia. Estonia in particular after 1991 focused on other areas rather than intercity transport, as they had virtually no money and needed to spend what little they had on the future - in Estonia's case, they invested very heavily in IT in the early 1990's in schools, which has paid off massively for them.

The major issue with Rail Baltica is going to be the cost of the tickets. If you look on the Rail Baltica website, they're talking about 38 Euro tickets from Tallinn to Riga and 78 from Tallinn to Vilnius, which seems very expensive.

I do wonder if there's much of a commercial case for Rail Baltica.
 
Last edited:

Austriantrain

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2018
Messages
1,307
I do wonder if there's much of a commercial case for Rail Baltica.

Nothing to wonder about, there is almost certainly no commercial case. It is a strategic decision, both to intensify ties with the rest of the EU in the face of an increasingly aggressive Russia, und to make the Baltics more attractive for investment decisions based on better infrastructure.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
The major issue with Rail Baltica is going to be the cost of the tickets. If you look on the Rail Baltica website, they're talking about 38 Euro tickets from Tallinn to Riga and 78 from Tallinn to Vilnius, which seems very expensive.

I do wonder if there's much of a commercial case for Rail Baltica.
That seems like about a 40-50% premium over the bus fares, but with the journey time down to a bit less than half. I would guess that if the majority of the infrastructure cost is booked as a strategic freight development, and is all paid off over 100 years rather than 30, then the passenger operations could probably get to profitability. Things are moving fast in the region though, and in 10 years it will probably look like a no-brainer
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,488
I could be mistaken, but I believe that this only became an issue in 2003

That's right, and it was 2005 that the Warsaw - Grodno - Vilnius sleeper was withdrawn.

That seems like about a 40-50% premium over the bus fares, but with the journey time down to a bit less than half. I would guess that if the majority of the infrastructure cost is booked as a strategic freight development, and is all paid off over 100 years rather than 30, then the passenger operations could probably get to profitability. Things are moving fast in the region though, and in 10 years it will probably look like a no-brainer

It's likely more than you'd pay on the coach for sure (as you'd expect, though actually it's very much in the region of what you could sometimes pay for the lounge section of the coach pre covid), but in the region of what air fares were (pre covid).

As regards the commercial case, something that should be borne in mind is that Riga airport will be connected to the route and has excellent connections to all over Europe and a little beyond, whereas Tallinn, Vilnius and Kaunas have all been struggling a bit. At the moment it's not unusual to find yourself connecting at Riga, or even arriving in Riga and taking the bus into the coach station for your onward journey to Estonia or Lithuania where you'd really rather have flown direct. I think that Riga Airport is going to take on a more important role in the Baltic states when this is finished, and that it will generate traffic for Rail Baltic in doing so (and yeah I know the Tallinn station is basically at the airport, and that Vilnius Airport is but a train ride away from Vilnius, but... it's Riga that's going to benefit!)
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,551
Location
Mold, Clwyd
But based on the 2021-2027, better minds than us have certainly worked out the budget without the UK.
OK, they've done their post-Brexit financial homework, maybe more than we have!
And thanks for the links to the budget documents. I did see the RG item at the time.
I'm sure it is a commission priority for several strategic reasons.
I'm less sure about national commitments, with the pressure of Covid to be added to the commercial uncertainties.
As a related side-note, EU funds are still due to support the South Wales Metro project, as one of its prior commitments during UK membership.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
That's right, and it was 2005 that the Warsaw - Grodno - Vilnius sleeper was withdrawn.



It's likely more than you'd pay on the coach for sure (as you'd expect, though actually it's very much in the region of what you could sometimes pay for the lounge section of the coach pre covid), but in the region of what air fares were (pre covid).

As regards the commercial case, something that should be borne in mind is that Riga airport will be connected to the route and has excellent connections to all over Europe and a little beyond, whereas Tallinn, Vilnius and Kaunas have all been struggling a bit. At the moment it's not unusual to find yourself connecting at Riga, or even arriving in Riga and taking the bus into the coach station for your onward journey to Estonia or Lithuania where you'd really rather have flown direct. I think that Riga Airport is going to take on a more important role in the Baltic states when this is finished, and that it will generate traffic for Rail Baltic in doing so (and yeah I know the Tallinn station is basically at the airport, and that Vilnius Airport is but a train ride away from Vilnius, but... it's Riga that's going to benefit!)
As they're quoting 1hr42min for Tallinn-Riga it should essentially eliminate flights such as this, although longer legs such as Tallinn-Warsaw may still be competitive by air.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
I could be mistaken, but I believe that this only became an issue in 2003 when Poland was forced to introduce visas for people from Ukraine/Belarus/Russia, and so visas were introduced by Belarus and Russia in return. Until that point, transit via Belarus wasn't particularly problematic, especially as the road between Białystok to Budzisko was in terrible condition.

However, I don't know what was actually running from Białystok to Vilnius via Grodno after 1990.

Yes - when I travelled Tallinn-Riga-Vilnius-Warsaw on a through sleeper in the early 1990s, I checked re transit visas for the bit through the corner of Belarus beforehand. I checked with Belarus representatives in London, a diplomat in Helsinki - where I was at a conference before going to Tallinn - and when I bought the ticket in Tallinn. They unanimously said that through passengers needed no transit visa for the Grodno section. Of course that didn't stop the Belarus border guards trying it on while the train was stuck at Grodno for ages having the wheel gauge changed...

It's not privatisation that's written into EU law, it's separation of infrastructure and train operators, and the infrastructure being open to multiple operators (sometimes even more than just in theory!).

But mandating the possibility of multiple, competing operators amounts to at least partial privatisation.

I think you are confusing capital expenditure and operating subsidy here - it is the latter that the EU will not fund, surely? There are ample examples of substantial (up to 85%) EU contributions to capital projects on railways.

The distinction is artificial. If, say, public money (from the EU for instance) funds the building and maintenance of something that is then made available without charge to users - as in the case of most roads - then that is in effect subsidising the running costs. Road users don't have to pay the real cost of their use of the roads. (And of course similar points apply to the EU's preferential tax treatment of air travel over rail travel.)

Getting back to Rail Baltica specifically: I presume that even if it isn't filled with local traffic, it's justified if it links the Baltic countries better into other European rail networks. Given the urgent planetary need to abandon unnecessary air transport (ie pretty much any within Europe), that seems important.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
it's justified if it links the Baltic countries better into other European rail networks. Given the urgent planetary need to abandon unnecessary air transport (ie pretty much any within Europe), that seems important.

The problem is distance when it comes to Warsaw-Baltic States. It's just not that close, and I see that Rail Baltica is rather quiet on the journey time.

It's 3 hours from Tallinn to Kaunas on Rail Baltica, plus 4.5 hours from Suwałki to Warsaw. It might be possible to get that 4.5 hours down to 3.5 by eliminating all the stops at Podlasian shacks (where the train stops mostly for political purposes) and upgrading the line, but then there's the gap between Suwałki and Kaunas to think about, which means at least an hour. So, in a best case scenario - it's still 7.5 hours from Tallinn to Warsaw, or 10-11 hours from regional Polish cities. Any sleeper train will have to go slower for comfort reasons, so even assuming a reasonable 19:00-20:00 departure from Warsaw, I'd have to leave Wrocław at around 15:00 in order to arrive at around 7:00am in Tallinn.

In comparison, I fly sometimes to Tallinn from Wrocław, and it's around 4 hours with a stopover in Warsaw. With the pre-Covid timetable, I could normally fly to Tallinn on a late Sunday afternoon and arrive at around 22:00-23:00, get a good night's sleep, then spend the day working before returning back on the 18:00 flight from Tallinn to Warsaw, arriving in Wrocław around 20:30.

Even Vilnius and Kaunas from Warsaw are likely to be 5 hours on the train, which is just too much. I still sometimes take the plane to Warsaw from Wrocław, not because I want to, but because I'm not fatigued from travelling 3-4 hours each way. The car or train is fine if it's just one or two meetings, but it's not such a great option if I've got a packed schedule from morning till evening. The other option is to stay overnight, but I'm not superhuman - after 10-12 hours of meetings, the last thing I want to do is travel for another 4 hours.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
The problem is distance when it comes to Warsaw-Baltic States. It's just not that close, and I see that Rail Baltica is rather quiet on the journey time.

It's 3 hours from Tallinn to Kaunas on Rail Baltica, plus 4.5 hours from Suwałki to Warsaw. It might be possible to get that 4.5 hours down to 3.5 by eliminating all the stops at Podlasian shacks (where the train stops mostly for political purposes) and upgrading the line, but then there's the gap between Suwałki and Kaunas to think about, which means at least an hour. So, in a best case scenario - it's still 7.5 hours from Tallinn to Warsaw, or 10-11 hours from regional Polish cities. Any sleeper train will have to go slower for comfort reasons, so even assuming a reasonable 19:00-20:00 departure from Warsaw, I'd have to leave Wrocław at around 15:00 in order to arrive at around 7:00am in Tallinn.

In comparison, I fly sometimes to Tallinn from Wrocław, and it's around 4 hours with a stopover in Warsaw. With the pre-Covid timetable, I could normally fly to Tallinn on a late Sunday afternoon and arrive at around 22:00-23:00, get a good night's sleep, then spend the day working before returning back on the 18:00 flight from Tallinn to Warsaw, arriving in Wrocław around 20:30.

Even Vilnius and Kaunas from Warsaw are likely to be 5 hours on the train, which is just too much. I still sometimes take the plane to Warsaw from Wrocław, not because I want to, but because I'm not fatigued from travelling 3-4 hours each way. The car or train is fine if it's just one or two meetings, but it's not such a great option if I've got a packed schedule from morning till evening. The other option is to stay overnight, but I'm not superhuman - after 10-12 hours of meetings, the last thing I want to do is travel for another 4 hours.
https://info.railbaltica.org/en/in-brief suggests 6:47 from Warsaw to Tallinn. When I went through in late 2019 they were doing a load of work on virtually the entire line from Warsaw to Białystock, which suggests that they are looking to speed that bit up quite a lot.

To be honest, if you fly rather than spending 3-4 hours on a simple intercity train journey which runs multiple times a day using reasonably high-quality modern stock and charging very reasonable fares, you might not be in the target market for any rail development however high speed.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
As for now there are plenty of buses offering through trips or locals and these seem to handle the demand quite good. They are faster and cheaper and much more frequent as the trains.
Though amusingly I just read that plans have been presented for the new trainsets and their colours. Perhaps the whole thing is thus further as I had assumed or seen till now.

Within Latvia trains are cheaper and faster than buses because there are no motorways in the whole country, but with less frequency.

However, if travelling between state boundaries, a train isn't simply a viable option there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top