"the overall performance improvement gained by optimizing a single part of a system is limited by the fraction of time that the improved part is actually used"
And probably the tear is bigger on curvy lines which most lines in Germany are, compared to e.g. China.
On some Swiss lines it's fairly common to have trains recover their delay at departure (which also avoids cascading impact).
If an ICE is, say, 15 minutes late, they cannot just drive faster to catch up. The schedule went on, and at that point there may be a much slower regional or intercity train on the same trajectory.
This is why ICE delays tend to cascade. It starts with a short delay, the ICE gets stuck behind a slower train, increasing the delay, etc.
The solution is better maintenance of tracks and trains, adding more rail capacity, adding redundancy, etc.
Of course, these are all much more expensive than an ICE speed experiment for PR.
Switzerland SBB/CFF and the German DB can not be compared, not even from far.
The Swiss trains are amongst the best in the world in term on punctuality. Delays barely exceed few minutes most of the time. Every connection is scheduled to be done < 5min. The usage is smooth like butter and It works like a Swiss clock.
At the opposite, German trains in the eastern part are barely on time and give you an almost Soviet experience for the regional one: The trains are old, poorly maintained, like the track itself and the service suffers of it.
The only place in Western Europe I experienced train to be worst than in Germany is currently in Hungary where there were actual soviet trains.
Even the freaking French SNCF with their legendary strikes tend to be more punctual than the DB.
As someone from the region, since when is Hungary 'Western' Europe? We are happy when acknowledged as 'Central' but this is new to me.
It seems the network of roads built in the 40s, 50s and 60s just can no longer be done efficiently.
Not uniformly. New York's LIRR (90 to 95% [1]) and Metro-North (99% [2]) feature on-time rates that rival the Swiss (93% [3]).
[1] https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/pdf/report-9-2025.pdf
[2] https://wpdh.com/metro-north-on-time-reliability/
[3] https://reporting.sbb.ch/punctuality?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&scrol...
> A commuter train is considered on-time by the LIRR if it arrives within 5 minutes and 59 seconds of its scheduled arrival time.
The second source doesn't say, but let's assume it's the same as for LIRR, i.e. 6 minutes.
It's also unfortunate that the SBB doesn't immediately tell us the metric, but I happen to know it's 3 minutes (more specifically 2 minutes and 59 seconds).
In other words, the LIRR permits a delay of twice the time as SBB for it to constitute late. The S-trains in Copenhagen now has a punctuality of 97% using a 3 minute metric.[0]
[0] https://www.dsb.dk/om-dsb/virksomheden/rettidighed/s-togs-re...
Not sure how you compare a small simple system like Lord which is pretty much one line with a few branches with an integrated multi-national system like the entire Swiss railway either
As for the LIRR, it seems it's only the terminal station that counts:
> Thus, a train is considered late only if it arrives at its final destination six minutes or more after its scheduled arrival time.
Of course they can, we have not lost that capability. It's not a matter of efficiency but effectivity. Road constructions of the 1960s are not effective for 21st century traffic demands. Today's level of traffic far exceeds the anticipated level of traffic at the time of construction. Germany sees this all the time, esp. with regards to bridges. Maintaining a road or a bridge to be effective at supporting the original traffic levels is easy but under today's load would require constant maintenance to not deteriorate immediately. Those constructions need to be upgraded which is hard to impossible to do in situ.
Let's take a well-known construction in Germany, the Leverkusener Brücke an der A1. It was originally built in the 1960s for a traffic level of 40,000 cars (and trucks) per day. It was upgraded and refurbished over the decades (meaning almost constant construction work happening) to a level of 100,000 cars per day. It wasn't enough, in 2016 about 120,000 cars crossed the bridge per day. At the same time trucks got about 30 % heavier from 1960 to 1990 and we all know that passenger cars got heavier, too.
So the whole bridge was replaced, which took 7 years, ending in 2024. During that time traffic was rerouted over two nearby bridges in Cologne and Düsseldorf. The Cologne bridge was so badly damaged by the additional load that it had to be partially closed down and now is up for refurbishment or, maybe, replacement. Network effects at work ;)
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: we are actually better at building stuff than our predecessors but the demands put on our constructions are much, much higher. I don't dare to say if our capabilities have grown as much as the demands require.
Citation needed.
As I see it, the US is still riding on the coattails of 1960-s road construction. We should be doing more of it, in fact, not sabotaging it with bike lanes and road diets.
If done right, human-centric infrastructure can create much better urban environments than car-centric ones.
Counterintuitively perhaps, bike lanes, road diets and public transport actually work better. Give people other ways to move around, and you take pressure off the road system, making traffic better for everyone. And that includes the drivers.
China’s next-gen is being deployed with goals of a 400kph service speed.
DB is doing their best work for having people reaching out for cars.
While you might get stuck in traffic on the motorway, there are usually workarounds as soon as you get the next exit point, while being stuck on an train stopped in the middle of nowehere with a full train excedding passanger capacity because "pick random excuse", and reservations being optional, isn't really motivating to keep traveling by train.
The main cause (often somewhat hidden behind the term "decayed infrastructure") is that there are too many trains on too few tracks. There are many reasons for that. I think the main ones are:
* Political pressure to have more trains, without an adequate increase in infrastructure capacity (trains are cheaper than tracks and can be delivered faster). For example, political pressure utterly destroyed the reliability of the local rail system in our area, because the number of trains per hour was increased by a factor of 2-3, with only a minimal amount of new tracks (the majority of the network is still single-track). Apparently, the system worked in simulations under near-perfect conditions (no delays, few passengers, no technical problems). So let's build it! The chaos that ensued during the first few months after the network opened again made national headlines. Another example: the highly overloaded Rhine valley line between Mannheim and Basel was proposed to be upgraded to 4 tracks in 1964. In 1970, the project was scheduled to be finished in 1985. Currently the (ambitious) goal is to finish the project in 2041 [0]. The original line (270 km) was finished after 17 years in the 1840ies.
* On regional and local lines, a tendency to increase train frequency and to decrease train capacity (more trains, but shorter ones). I suspect this is also because of political pressure ("your station now has 4 trains per hour!!"), but it doesn't make any sense. A short train which can hold 150 passengers occupies exactly the same amount of "space" (blocks) on the tracks as a full-length train with a capacity of 1,200 passengers, and they require exactly the same amount of personnel.
* Privatization of DB on the early 90ies, with political pressure to be profitable. Tracks are expensive to maintain, so those parts of the infrastructure that could be classified as "redundant" were dismantled. Now they have a network with little redundancy, which is great from a short-sighted business standpoint, but terrible for reliability.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe%E2%80%93Basel_high-s...
Do you have a citation for this?
The people I know from the DB bubble are telling me that while some places have not enough track (e.g. the infamous Frankfurt-Mannheim/Riedbahn), but the everywhere problem is that there's just fault over fault over fault in tracks (often switches, but even tracks themselves) and trackside equipment.
> […] the number of trains per hour was increased by a factor of 2-3 […]
Even this I'm not quite willing to accept without citation; the railway timetables in the 70ies and 80ies, especially after the oil shock, were quite dense.
On a €/(avg. ICE speed) basis likely makes more sense to invest directly in RB.
The answer is: Nothing. Many ICE trains have the capability to go that fast* - and some already surpassed these speeds on test tracks decades ago. It's really nothing special to make a train go these speeds.
What this test was supposed to show is that the real track (not a test track) between Erfurt and Leipzig/Halle can now support trains going that fast. Having compatible tracks is the real challenge (and cost sink) for high speed transport, not the trains themselves. Creating high speed track that is safe and usable in year-round conditions while being affordable to build and maintain is surprisingly hard.
* ICE-3s reached up to 368 km/h in tests, though ICE-4s are designed for more economical speeds in the 200-300 range and currently limited to 265km/h in software for safe operation.
> DB und Siemens Mobility haben bei Testfahrten einen neuen Geschwindigkeitsrekord für die Strecke Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle erreicht
> Der ICE-S der DB Systemtechnik wird hauptsächlich für Test- und Messfahrten eingesetzt. Er dient dazu, neue Strecken zu testen, die Infrastruktur zu untersuchen und verschiedene Hochgeschwindigkeitsprüfungen durchzuführen
The latter paragraph explicitly states the point of this specific train is to test new routes and to analyze the infrastructure.
I think, like usual, it's a case of people reading the title and then going off to write a comment.
Yes, that's poor communication. You need to read the last half of the article to really understand what the news is about. The title should be "405,0 km/h auf Schnellfahrstrecke Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle in Testfahrt erreicht". Note that this omits mentioning a specific train.
You can take RE trains at virtually no cost between any two cities you can dream of, yet people en-masse still happily fork over a hundred bucks to save 3-4 hours with an ICE train.
It's only quadratic. Aerodynamic drag force ∝ v^2, so aerodynamic power dissipation ∝ v^3—but travel time ∝ v^{-1}, so that cancels out back to ∝ v^2 energy per km.
(I don't know if this was your intent or the opposite, but "geometric" is a synonym for "exponential", which this isn't).
From a passenger perspective, a reduction of about an hour from the scheduled journey time for the long distance connections is pretty good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt%E2%80%93Leipzig/Halle_h...
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellfahrstrecke_Eltersdor...
"The Erfurt-Leipzig/Halle route was used for the record-breaking journey without any modifications. According to Nagl, this shows that infrastructure investments create a solid foundation that lasts for generations. The insights gained will help with future renovations and the development of new high-speed trains.
The ICE test train used was a Velaro Novo test car from Siemens Mobility. Thomas Graetz, Vice President High Speed and Intercity Trains at Siemens, explained that the test runs provided important insights into acoustics, aerodynamics, and handling. The Velaro Novo is set to establish new standards for capacity, economy, and efficiency.
Dr. Hiie-Mai Unger from DB Systemtechnik led the measurements with the special ICE-S test train. This train is equipped with extensive measurement technology and collected data on the interaction between train and track."
https://www.golem.de/news/deutsche-bahn-ice-testzug-erreicht...
Translation via DeepL
WorkerBee28474•5h ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity_Express
KronisLV•4h ago
It was a bit odd how the ticket prices seem to fluctuate a lot over there based on timing (like 20 EUR if you buy half a week ahead of time, closer to 40 EUR nearer to travel date, at least in my case) but I much preferred taking the train over flying.
hummuscience•3h ago
namibj•2h ago
dheera•2h ago
I worked in Germany in 2005 and back then everything was fixed price per kilometer for each train class, and you could get rail passes of sorts and get on whatever the hell trains you want during their validity. I'd take train roundtrips after work just to watch sunsets.
krior•2h ago
Surge pricing is not an uniquely american concept.
red_trumpet•1h ago
jksflkjl3jk3•1h ago
pjmlp•1h ago
Depending on the train you get, either you get a really nice travel, or some experience that doesn't reflect the plane like price ticket, and might leave you with some bad taste regarding train traveling.
Having canceled trains, crowded ICEs, either due to missing reservations as they are optional and anyone can get into one provided valid ticket, or because passagers from a canceled ICE needed to jump into an already crowded one, missign connections by 5m, being stuck in the middle of nowhere, only some WC work across the whole train, they decided to not have a wagon bar on a hot summer day,.....
The fun of train traveling, all great when stars align.
hedora•2h ago
I wonder if the Germans will end up having to rename the train system at some point.
krior•2h ago
You are vastly overestimating the relevance of this issue for the German public discourse.
chgs•1h ago
A high speed pr stunt isn’t much interest sure.
adwn•1h ago
pfannkuchen•1h ago
burnt-resistor•1h ago
pfannkuchen•1h ago