On September 27th, 1981, the first ever French TGV with passengers left Gare de Lyon in Paris on the way to the city of Lyon, reaching speeds of up to 260 kilometers per hour on its 400-kilometer journey. It marked a new era of train travel and train renascence in Europe, or did it?
This article we will mainly follow the development of train travel in Europe, with special focus on Spain and France, which have built second and fourth largest high-speed railway (HSR) systems in the world.
Before we continue, I’m sorry if my text ends up being wearisome, part of that may be that those types of texts are what I enjoy reading, and that I lack the type of writing skills needed for engaging texts.
SNCF Class CC 7100 (Wikipedia)
History behind French TGV
The story of high-speed train development in Europe began in France, in 1955, after successful tests with Class 7100 locomotives. In March of that year, CC 7107 reached speeds of up to 330 km/h or over 200 mph, setting the then world record. It took another 50 years before the record was beaten in 2005 by Austrian made locomotive.
The records of CC 7100 prompted SNCF (French national railroad company) into researching high-speed train services. In 1964, the DETMT (petrol-engine traction studies department of SNCF) explored the possibilities of using gas turbines on trains. This experiment ended with the creation of TGV (Turbotrain Grande Vitesse).
In 1967, a prototype TGV reached 230 km/h during testing. It would later serve as a model for future TGVs. Meanwhile, SNCF created a new research department, whose research focused on track infrastructure. It was shortly thereafter transferred to public administration. A few years later in 1969, SNCF ordered two gas-turbine powered TGV prototypes from Alstom, which went on to passenger service the next year between Paris and Cherbourg, at maximum speeds of 160km/h.
One power-car of the gas-turbine prototype "TGV 001" (Wikipedia)
By this time, a new set of tracks between Paris and Lyon were on the planning boards. The route had become congested and could no longer handle extra load. There was rivalry between French Land Settlement Commission (DATAR) and SNCF about what should be built. DATAR supported unproven concept called “aerotrain”, and SNCF conventional rail. In 1971, the government opted for conventional rail and project “C03”, now known as LGV Sud-Est was greenlit.
Following the oil crisis of 1973, which hit France particularly hard, necessitated a government decision to ditch expensive to run gas-turbine powered TGVs in favor of electrification. Finally in 1977, SNCF placed an order for 87 TGV Sud-Est trainsets based on the body of gas-turbine prototype TGV.
Four years later, in 1981, the first part of the LGV Sud-Est was inaugurated. Initial top speed in commercial service was 260km/h, which was soon raised to 270km/h and onward to its current max of 300 km/h.
Since the inauguration of LGV Sud-Est, 11 new lines and extensions to every direction have been completed, bringing the total length of France’s HSR network to 2800 km.
In addition, the TGV has set numerous speed records, with 2007 test conducted on LGV Est being the current placeholder at 574,8 km/h or 356 mph. Though, one might consider this record broken, as Japan’s maglev train managed to reach speed of 603 km/h in 2015.
TGV Duplex at Gare de Lyon [my picture]
The success of Japan’s Shinkansen
It is no secret that the most successful HSR system in the world can be found in Japan. It was in Japan where the concept of high-speed railways was born, mainly as a result of persistence by Shinju Sogō, former president of Japanese National Railways, whose strong belief in the possibilities of high-speed rail made it all possible in the time when rail was considered outdated.
N700 series on Tōkaidō Shinkansen passing views of Mount Fuji
Japan’s first high speed railway, the Tōkaidō Shinkansen, connecting Tokyo and Osaka, began commercial service in 1964, operating at maximum speed of 210km/h. In 1992, after the completion of modernization, speed limit was raised to 270km/h. It was an instant success from the beginning, 100 million passenger mark was crossed in under 3 years, with 1 billion passenger mark by 1976. In 2014, daily passenger traffic rose to 390,000 per day, making it the busiest HSR in the world. During peak times trains run every 3 minutes. For comparison, Helsinki metro carries 300,000+ passengers per day.
Since the opening of Tōkaidō Shinkansen, Japan’s HSR network has expanded to little over 2800 km, making is slightly longer than France’s, and third longest in the world. To this date, it has carried over 13 billion people with zero fatalities.
Local characteristics of European high speed rail networks
There are three distinctive HSR network models in use in Europe. First being international model, which is in use in the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium. Their HSR networks are not in use for domestic services, only for international rail traffic. The UK operates a single high-speed rail line that runs from London to Folkstone, linking to the Channel Tunnel. From the UK, trains mainly run to Paris, Brussel and Amsterdam. Belgium and Holland are connected by a HSR line linking Paris with Amsterdam. For the lack of domestic services, I will consider them having no HSR in use.
The second approach is the German model, which can be characterized by lack of centralization. Rather than building out HSR lines from the capital (Berlin), Germany has opted to build HSR lines between city pairs and integrate them into the overall conventional network. This makes it an highly interconnected network, that is well served.
Picture of main railway lines in Germany (Picture: Wikipedia)
In the picture, pink and orange lines represent lines capable of handing trains at 300 km/h and 250 km/h or more. Yellow lines are upgraded conventional lines capable of handling trains at max 220 km/h and blue lines are un-upgraded conventional lines. Usually max speed is 160 km/h.
For a more detailed look, please check Openrailwaymap.org
The third approach is the French or Spanish model, which can be characterized by centralization. In France and Spain, HSR lines converge at a single point, that being their respective capitals, Paris and Madrid. In contrast to the German model, centralized approach is highly inflexible. Journeys between different mid-sized cities often require transfers at the capital, with those limited direct journeys taking disproportionally longer as a result of lacking investments on conventional network.
According to a study, in 1991, there were 8 trains per day between Lyon and Tours, with an average travel time of 4h 55 minutes. In 2015, this same trip took on average 5h 49 minutes by InterCity trains, with only 2 daily departures. Travel time by HST, in 2015, was on average 3h 15 minutes. In January 2024, there is only 1 daily direct train, with all other journeys requiring at least one transfer and taking, on average, over 4 hours. Only one daily journey has a travel time of 3h 15 minutes, and that required a stressful 8 minute transfer.
Development of public transport in Europe
The following two graphs, which I hope are sufficiently clear, show modal share of rail (including metro trains) and modal share of all modes of public transport by volume. This meaning share of total kilometers travelled. Kilometers walked or cycled are not included.
Graph. 1 Source: Eurostat database
| From 2000 to 2019, modal share of rail in passenger transport grew from: |
| 7,7% to 9,3% in Germany — 21% increase |
| 5,4% to 7,1% in Spain — 31% increase |
| 8,6% to 10,3% in France — 20% increase |
| 9,4% to 11,2% in Netherlands — 19% increase |
| 9,8% to 13,9% in Austria — 42% increase |
| 5,1% to 6,2% in Finland — 22% increase |
| 7,5% to 12,2% in Sweden — 63% increase |
| 13,7% to 20,0% in Switzerland — 46% increase |
| 5,3% to 8,5% in United Kingdom — 60% increase |
Graph. 2 Source: Eurostat database
| From 2000 to 2019, modal share of public transport grew from: |
| 14,8% to 16,7% in Germany — 13% Increase |
| 19% to 15,4% in Spain — 19% Decrease |
| 13,9% to 16,7% in France — 20% Increase |
| 14% to 14,4% in Netherlands — 3% increase |
| 20,8% to 23,6% in Austria — 13% increase |
| 16,6% to 16,1% in Finland — 3% Decrease |
| 16,2% to 20,5% in Sweden — 27% increase |
| 18,9% to 26,1% in Switzerland — 38% increase |
| 11,8% to 12,6% in United Kingdom — 7% increase |
Here we can observe that the modal share of rail in passenger transport has increased in every selected country. Highest increases have occurred in United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland, with 60%, 63%, and 46% respectably. Although, in UK’s case, a large portion of that increase has come from bus to rail shift, as total growth has been just meager 7%. Overall transit usage is quite low in the UK when compared to its peers. UK government report from 2019 confirms a continuous downward path for busses outside major city areas since 2000.
Declines in the modal share of public transport have occurred in two countries, Spain and Finland, with Spain having seen a drastic decline of 19%, compared to Finland’s modest 3% decline. From 2004 to 2019, modal share of public transport in Spain decreased from good 19% to comparatively low 14,4%. That being said, at the same time, rail saw decent growth of 31%. Nevertheless, it was still half of the rate compared to the UK, despite similar starting positions.
Interestingly, there’s no distinctive difference between countries that have built HSR and those that haven’t. This in itself does make one question the effectiveness of HSR lines to increase rail usage. Worryingly, even with 20 years of continuous high expenditure on passenger rail, Spain has not even reached EU [28] or EU [27] averages (8.1% in 2019). Not in 2019, nor in 2022, from which the latest data is from. We’ll be looking at Spain and France in greater detail later on to gain a better understanding on why this may be the case.
Note that long distance journeys carry more weight in this comparison. A decline here does not necessarily represent an actual decline in the number of public transportation journeys taken. In Finland, for example, overall use of public transportation has grown in every sector in terms of passengers according to detailed statistics from Traficom (Finnish Transport and Communications Agency. Decline has only occurred in the number of trips taken on rural and small city long-distance bus routes.
Rail passenger numbers
Next we’ll look at the development of rail passenger numbers in the European countries. Note that unlike in the graphs above, metro (subway) journeys are not included, only journeys by trains.
Germany, Spain, France, and United Kingdom
Graph. 3 Source: Eurostat database
Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland
Graph. 4 Source: Eurostat database
| From 2004 to 2019, rail passenger numbers grew: |
| 40,00 % in Germany — From 2.091 billion to 2.938 billion |
| 7,00 % in Spain — From 593 million to 635 million |
| 34,00 % in France — From 943 million to 1.265 billion |
| No data for the Netherlands |
| 46,00 % in Austria — From 215 million to 314 million |
| 54,00 % in Finland — From 60 million to 92 million |
| 80,00 % in Sweden — From 146 million to 262 million |
| 38,00 % in Switzerland — From 460 million (2008) to 635 million |
| 72,00 % in United Kingdom — From 1.069 billion to 1.836 billion |
Here we can observe that the number of rail passengers have grown significantly in the European countries, with one distinctive exception, Spain. There the number of train journeys increased only by 7% between 2004 and 2019, despite 10% growth in population during the same period. This signifies us a sign of serious lack of development in local, regional and InterCity lines. In 2019, Spain had the same number of train journeys as Switzerland, with only 8,7 million inhabitants compared to Spain’s 47 million.
At this point, you may wonder why so much effort is spent on looking at passenger numbers and modal shares. Well, as we will soon enough find out, it’s not simply enough to look at a certain route, like Paris and Marseille, and then conclude that if aviation trips between those cities have decreased after an introduction of high-speed train (HST), that it has been great success.
Barriers to rail transport
There is truth to the notion that focus on long-distance transportation is important as, in many cases, a large chunk of the total transport performance is linked to long distance travel. According to a study, 30% of all transport performance is linked to long distance travel in Germany, with long-distance journeys being those longer than 100 km. However, as we observed earlier, modal share of rail in those countries that have invested heavily in HSR marginally differentiates from those that haven’t. In some cases, rail travel is even higher in countries that haven’t invested in proper HSR, notably Sweden and the UK. Same study also finds that despite highly developed rail network, 80% of domestic long-distance journeys are made by car, with rail accounting for 10%. In the UK, car accounts for 82% of domestic long-distance journeys.
Germany is home to an effective rail transportation network. Even still, the majority of long distance journeys are made by other modes of transportation, mainly by car. There are clearly external factors affecting the preferred choice of transportation. Let’s dive a little deeper through a study from 2012 as to find out what those reasons may be. According to their research, there’s a set of hard barriers, soft barriers, and complementary barriers.
Most important hard barriers include travel time and travel costs. These factors affect all passengers basically the same, although weight varies from person to person. For example, an elderly with more time available may put less consideration into travel times compared to a busy working person. For most of us, time under our current work oriented social-economic model is in short supply. Thus, it is highly valued.
Second most important hard factor is travel costs. Interestingly, another study notes that “Rail travel is often perceived as being more expensive than car travel, as drivers tend to equate running costs with fuel costs only” and that “This might be a psychological effect, since paying railway costs is a more conscious action than paying car travel costs”.
Perhaps this has to do with the widely accepted norm, that cars belong to the daily life, whether through overall car dependency, or by the need to do certain task quicker in a highly time-constrained world, and in doing so, their costs excluding certain costs, like fuel, are viewed as cost-of-living expenses by a large portion of the population. Especially by those living outside of core city areas.
This may explain why car ownership rate and the share of households without access to a car is similar across the board in developed European countries. For instance, majority of all journeys are made by active mobility in the Netherlands, with 25% of all trips by cycling alone, yet car ownership rate is higher than in the UK, and the share of households without a car is only marginally higher than in, say, Germany or Finland (26%, 23% and 24% respectably). However, this topic is beyond this analysis.
Soft barriers include things such as station facilities (WC, parking, access to indoor waiting area) and on-board services (WIFI, seat comfort, catering, luggage racks) depending on the trip in question.
Last but not least, complementary factors, which are related to things such as lifestyle choices, culture, age, health, disability, and economic status or presence of luggage or wheelchair.
Lessons from France and Spain
As we have by now observed, high-speed rail has not led to a significant increase in the modal share of rail, not even in the long distance sector, those being trips longer than 100 kilometers. According to this study from 2017, which we’ll mainly go through in this final section, finds that even in the 500 km to 900 km journey sector, train’s share is only just under 30% in France, with air having 15% share and rest are by car. The graph is set between 2009 and 2013, during which there’s no noticeable increase in train’s share, while popularity in air travel increased slightly. Since the latest data is from 2013, it is outdated, though it is unlikely that those numbers have radically changed. Since then, there have been one HSR extension that can be considered major, the LGV Sud Europe Atlantique, a 300-kilometre high-speed railway connecting Tours to Bordeaux, opened in 2017.
During the period 1990 – 1994, conventional rail network, which totaled 32,000 kilometers, received only 41,3% of the total investment, which was 15,9€ billion at 1990s value, compared to 43,6% received by three HSR projects, LGV Rhône-Alpes (opened in 1992), LGV Nord (opened in 1993) and LGV Interconnexion Est (opened in 1994). The combined length of these projects is 550 kilometers. The rest went to Paris RER.
Subsequently, this massive disparity in financing lead to serious financial troubles for conventional lines, especially after infrastructure operator RFF (Réseau Ferré de France), was created in 1997. RFF inherited all of SNCF’s infrastructure related debt, totaling 27 billion € in 1997. With insufficient state subsidies and massive debt from the get-go, it was unable to properly finance maintenance on conventional rail network, resulting it to fall into state of disrepair. Speed limits were introduced, travel times increased (note the journey time comparison from the beginning), and even lines closed. From 1990s to 2018, almost 5,000 kilometers of track has been closed for safety reasons. In 2015, RFF was replaced by SNCF Réseau. Furthermore, in 2018, French state took 35 billion € of SNCF Réseau’s debt on its shoulders improving its financial situation and ability to maintain infrastructure.
Not only is French conventional network in relatively poor state, but also the most expensive in Europe. In France, the price of a train kilometer is between 20-24€, while in Germany it is hovering around 12€. The study also finds that infrastructure fees are exceptionally high in France, mainly due to lack of subsidies.
Conventional rail network in France hasn’t been the only one to suffer, in Spain, travel times on coastal railway called Euromed, linking Barcelona to Valencia, increased by half an hour in 2014. Though, this problem has been fixed at this point and travel times have returned to previous levels. On Euromed’s case, the problem wasn’t disrepair, but a bottleneck caused by a single rail section on an otherwise double track railway. In other words, lack of investment on the railway, which only got funding when the problem became untenable.
The study includes an example from Spain, reported by the Cour des Comptes in 2014, which shows that after Renfe cut prices up to 20%, the number of passengers increased by 23.5%. Indeed, modal share of rail in Spain increased by 0.6% between 2013 and 2014, the highest single year growth for Spain’s rail network. Same type of price cuts elsewhere have resulted in similar results, with VR (Finnish railways) finding that for every percent decrease in pricing, passenger numbers increase by similar amount. The author of the study concludes: “In the light of this, it would seem paradoxical to pursue expansion when the price increases that would result are likely to reduce overall use.”
Unfortunately, I have run out of time and I apologize for that. I feel like this article / analysis whatever you want to call it, is still unfinished and that I’m releasing it too soon. I do also apologize for any mistakes or poor sentences, I’m a Finnish person after all. There will be a second part, for which I will try to do better research. I haven’t covered financial side nearly as well as I wanted to, or present situation, nor have I touched environmental concern at all. Well, those in the next part then. That’s all I have to say this time, hope you enjoyed!
