Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Monday June 10, @09:11PM   Printer-friendly

Historically, high-speed rail travel by Train a Grande Vitesse (TGV) in France was the monopoly of the French national rail service, SNCF.

Under EU rules, all national operators have to make their rail system available to other willing operators. So in 2021, Trentalia, a unit of Italy's state rail operator, decided to offer high-speed train rides in France too.

Now a third company has decided to enter the fray. The difference is that this is a private company named Proxima, backed by a (French) private equity firm (Antin Infrastructure Partners) to the initial tune of $1.1bn.

Proxima will offer high-speed rail trips between Paris and four cities in western France - Bordeaux, Nantes, Rennes, and Angers, using 12 Avelia Horizon Trains. This will add 10 million new passenger seats on these lines, per year. According to the company,

"Travel between key cities in France has increased over the last 10 years, reflecting new ways of living. High-speed rail is the answer favored by the French, and train occupancy levels are at all-time highs.

As France's first independent high speed train operator, Proxima aims to reinvent the experience for its different customers groups by listening to their needs, and reflecting the changes in consumer behaviour and changing ways of life. These include trends to teleworking and the erosion of the business/leisure boundary, as well as the demand for better on-board connectivity and relevant services on-board."

It might be noteworthy that earlier this year, the EU decided to speed-up the implementation of the TEN-T network. The TEN-T is an EU-wide network of rail, inland waterways, short-sea shipping routes, and roads. It connects 424 major cities with ports, airports and railway terminals. When the TEN-T is complete, it will cut travel times between these cities. For example, passengers will be able to travel between Copenhagen and Hamburg in 2.5 hours by train, instead of the 4.5 hours required today. You can find an interactive map detailing the project(s) here.

While in 2021, the deadline for completion of the network's core was set at 2040, a recent update stated that the core transport links must be finished by 2030. It is speculation, but it could be -- given that Proxima's service will start in 2027 -- that the current initiative is in anticipation of that completion.

Related: Highspeed to the Future


Original Submission

Related Stories

Highspeed to the Future 39 comments

"After years of promises and years of lip service, we finally have all the funding needed, all the approvals, all the permits, all the union workers, and there's only one thing left to do now to get this party started.

We need to build it. And that starts today."

U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., April 22, Las Vegas.

It looks like America is going to get its first real high-speed rail train.

On Monday, April 22, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg officially opened the start of the works for the Brightline West High-Speed Rail Project. The 218-mile rail line will operate between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Rancho Cucamonga, California, and will be a fully electric, zero-emission system.

The high-speed train should average an 186 miles an hour speed, bringing the overland travel time between Las Vegas and Los Angeles down from 4 to 2 hours. To do so, 195 miles (315 km) of new track needs to be laid down to exacting standards, on the mid-shoulder of Interstate 15. There will be stations in Las Vegas, Victor Valley, Hesperia and Rancho Cucamonga, California. The line should be fully operational by 2028, in time for the Olympic Games.

Funding, to the tune of 12 billion dollar, comes half from private industry, and half from the Federal Government ($6.5 billion in grants and financing). An estimated 35,000 jobs, including 10,000 direct union construction jobs, and 1,000 permanent jobs once the line is operational, are associated with the project initiated by Brightline, a company which already runs a train service between Miami and Orlando.

"Today answers the question that has been asked too often, likely," Buttigieg said during the groundbreaking ceremony.

"The question whether America can still build massive, forward-looking engineering marvels that make people's lives better for generations ... and this is just the start."


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Tuesday June 11, @07:17AM

    by pTamok (3042) on Tuesday June 11, @07:17AM (#1360124)

    TEN-T includes EV chargers every 60 km on motorways.
    The Verge: EU passes law to blanket highways with fast EV chargers by end of 2025 - The chargers must be placed every 60km (37mi) and allow ad-hoc payment by card or contactless device without subscriptions. [theverge.com]

    From 2025 onward, the new regulation requires fast charging stations offering at least 150kW of power to be installed every 60km

    Electrek: EU passes law requiring EV fast chargers along all main transport corridors by 2025 [electrek.co]

    • From 2025 onward, EV fast charging stations of at least 150kW for cars and vans must be installed every 60 km (37 miles) along the EU’s main transport corridors “(TEN-T) network.”
    • Charging stations for heavy-duty EVs with a minimum output of 350kW must be deployed every 60 km along the TEN-T core network, and every 100 km (62 miles) on the larger TEN-T network from 2025 onward.
             
      • This must be followed by complete network coverage by 2030.

    ...

    • Drivers of electric or hydrogen-fueled vehicles must be able to pay easily at recharging or refueling points with payment cards or contactless devices and without a need for a subscription.
             
      • Charging transactions must include full price transparency.
    • Recharging or refueling station operators must provide consumers full information through electronic means on the availability, waiting time, or price at different stations.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by r1348 on Tuesday June 11, @04:36PM (26 children)

    by r1348 (5988) on Tuesday June 11, @04:36PM (#1360192)

    Because NTV has been operating in Italy since 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuovo_Trasporto_Viaggiatori [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Wednesday June 12, @01:11PM (24 children)

      by quietus (6328) on Wednesday June 12, @01:11PM (#1360269) Journal

      Thanks for that link -- I didn't know that (though it's possible that I've taken a train ride with them).

      To answer your question: it is news because it's a private company investing in train travel, and the general belief is that high-speed train travel simply is not profitable [without massive government subsidies]. See e.g. khallow's [and other comments] in the linked sub, or previous discussions about HS2 in the UK. That's one.

      Another interesting (to me anyway) thing that came up while doing a bit of research around the topic was TEN-T. Surprisingly, I didn't know about that -- though I did know that the train station of Liege-Guillemins (apparently a favorite place to meet up for Julian Assange, if you have to believe the movies) was renovated to its current state under an EU high-speed rail travel project.

      Finally, NTV isn't the only other private operator of train travel on the European net; since about 2 years the offering of [international, long distance] sleeper trains is expanding, through private operators. Here's one example [europeansleeper.eu] established in 2021 -- funded as a cooperative by 350 small investors within 15 minutes -- that currently connects the major airports in the Low Countries (Schiphol/Amsterdam and Brussels/Zaventem) to the Czech Republic, but is looking to expand towards Southern Europe too.

      It's not only private companies though: Austria and Germany's national railways also have teamed up to offer Europe-wide travel [nightjet.com], including hotel reservations [railtours.at] at your destination.

      Not many train buffs among the readership here, I'm afraid.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 13, @12:05AM (23 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13, @12:05AM (#1360320) Journal

        To answer your question: it is news because it's a private company investing in train travel, and the general belief is that high-speed train travel simply is not profitable [without massive government subsidies]. See e.g. khallow's [and other comments] in the linked sub, or previous discussions about HS2 in the UK. That's one.

        They're still heavily subsidized - the track they run on is publicly funded.

        Not many train buffs among the readership here, I'm afraid.

        Sorry, but there's a reason for that.

        • (Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday June 13, @12:23PM (22 children)

          by quietus (6328) on Thursday June 13, @12:23PM (#1360344) Journal

          So are highways, airports and harbours.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 13, @12:51PM (21 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13, @12:51PM (#1360350) Journal
            My bet is that private use taxes of those outlets more than pays for the subsidy, especially in Europe which tends to be hostile to at least two of those categories (highways and harbors).
            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 13, @01:05PM (20 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13, @01:05PM (#1360353) Journal

              especially in Europe which tends to be hostile to at least two of those categories (highways and harbors)

              I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I live in France and have travelled extensively in Europe. In what way is Europe hostile to highways and harbours?

              --
              I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 13, @01:13PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13, @01:13PM (#1360355) Journal
                High fuel and carbon taxes. Those pay for a lot of road and runway.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 14, @05:50AM (18 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 14, @05:50AM (#1360460) Journal
                There's also the variety of obstacles that they throw in the way of functioning transportation. For recent examples:
                • Waxing poetic [soylentnews.org] about narrow roads and how wonderful it is to drive in the Netherlands as a result.
                • In same thread, Blumenpots [soylentnews.org].
                • France banning [soylentnews.org] short airplane hops in order to force people onto trains.
                • Germany's Bundesrat calling for banning [soylentnews.org] the internal combustion engine.

                There's a lot of stupid shit where that comes from. I'll note that Europe is far from the only region that has come up with such policies. I just came up with European examples because that's what you asked for. For example, the US has the Jones Act [wikipedia.org] which is a huge obstacle to domestic trade (and one of the big factors in Puerto Rico's ongoing poverty), ridiculous policies (such as this [threadreaderapp.com]), and the occasional bit of hate [soylentnews.org] for the ICE vehicle too.

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 14, @07:00AM (17 children)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 14, @07:00AM (#1360464) Journal

                  There are several competing aims in what you are describing. The world (perhaps excepting the USA) has agreed to try to reduce carbon emissions. The banning of short plane hops is just one of the measures to enable France (and Europe) to reach its target reduction figures by 2030, 2040 and 2050, as are all of the moves to change to EVs and train. Similarly the calls from the Bundesrat. Most people in Europe (but not all of course) accept the need to reduce carbon emissions.

                  The Blumenpots, speed bumps, and other speed reduction/traffic calming measures are used to limit the speed of vehicles driving through villages and towns. The sign that indicates that you are entering a town also implies that the speed limit is 50kph. This appears to be ignored by some people, particularly tourists and others that haven't understood the significance of the sign. In the USA you also have various measures to restrict vehicle speeds such as passing a school at certain times or never passing a stationary school bus. The measures that are employed in Europe are simply different from those that you are used to. They are there to make sure that pedestrians, children, cyclists, motorcycles and cars can all exist safely side by side.

                  I live in a very rural area. Narrow roads are common. The knack is always to drive at a speed that is suitable for the road and weather conditions and not to assume that you have the automatic right or obligation to travel at the maximum speed permissible. Minimum speed limits exist but are rare. I don't recall seeing one in the last few years and I have travelled extensively.

                  Everybody has a right to use the road system, and they should always drive within the limits of their own capabilities and not at a speed that is dictated by other traffic.

                  You may think that such things are 'stupid shit'. The majority here would disagree with you. Everybody has the right to be able to use the roads safely.

                  --
                  I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14, @09:27AM (11 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14, @09:27AM (#1360466)

                    We also have many of these common sense speed reduction mechanisms in the US. The only time I've actually seen something like Blumenpots is when there's road construction. It's more common to have highways and bridges where some of the lanes are reversible depending on the time of day. You'll certainly see this on some bridges where most of the traffic goes one direction in the morning and the opposite direction in the evening.

                    In rural parts of the US, speed limits on state and US highways generally drops when entering a town or village. It's not automatic at the city limit sign, and the actual speed limit in the town or village depends on the road itself. We also have interstate highways with variable speed limits depending on traffic and weather conditions. The speed limit is indicated on LED signs. Speed bumps aren't especially common, but we do have them. I think you'll find that we have a lot of the same speed reduction mechanisms that are used in Europe.

                    Trains are a viable and profitable form of transportation in many parts of the US. If you're traveling along the northeast corridor through cities like Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, taking the Acela is probably at least as good of an experience as flying. A lot of Amtrak's short- and mid-range routes are profitable, including the northeast corridor. Some of these also benefit from state subsidies. It's mostly the long distance routes that lose money for Amtrak, but those run less frequently. Part of the appeal of long distance routes is tourism and the experience of riding those trains through scenic areas. I think you'll find that many Americans would welcome train travel as an alternative to driving or flying.

                    Our rail network is generally optimized for freight, which tends to travel at slower speeds than passenger traffic. Amtrak mostly runs on rail that's owned by freight companies. In many rural areas, the freight speed limit is around 50 or 55 mph, and passenger trains can go up to 79 mph. There are a lot of at-grade intersections, and these can be dangerous in rural areas where trains travel at higher speeds and there might not be safety mechanisms like warning lights and gates. But I think you'll find that a lot of Americans would actually welcome more high speed rail to the extent that it's affordable to implement. A lot of the locomotives are diesel-electric, and electrifying the rail network would be expensive. But freight companies are testing battery-electric locomotives. In that case, a train will generally use a combination of diesel-electric and battery-electric locomotives, effectively operating as a hybrid train.

                    Trains provide an alternative to cars for people living in rural areas. I should point out that rural and small airports also receive federal subsidies through a program called Essential Air Service. The problem isn't trains. It's that it's just generally less efficient to provide transportation to rural areas where there are fewer passengers.

                    As for cars and highways, most of us also understand that the internal combustion engine is really inefficient. There are ways to make them more efficient by turbocharging them, using regenerative braking, and capturing energy from the exhaust gases. In the power unit of a Formula 1 car, these would be referred to as the turbo, the MGU-K, and the MGU-H. The current power units are really efficient, and this technology could be used in other cars. The problem is that a mechanism like the MGU-H is complicated and expensive, so just moving to electric vehicles is probably going to be cheaper. Again, I think you'll find that khallow's views aren't shared by most Americans Most of us would welcome cars that are more efficient because, if nothing else, it means we don't have to pay as much in fuel costs.

                    Surveys show that most of us Americans accept that humans are causing climate change and that it's a serious problem. I think you'll find that many of us are open to a lot of the things that khallow refers to as "stupid shit".

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 14, @12:32PM (10 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 14, @12:32PM (#1360487) Journal

                      But freight companies are testing battery-electric locomotives. In that case, a train will generally use a combination of diesel-electric and battery-electric locomotives, effectively operating as a hybrid train.

                      Keep in mind that diesel-electric is already a hybrid train.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14, @07:26PM (9 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14, @07:26PM (#1360518)

                        That's incorrect. A diesel-electric locomotive [wikipedia.org] is diesel-powered. It is not a hybrid train. It is a diesel-powered locomotive that uses a diesel-electric powertrain [wikipedia.org]. The diesel engine drives either a DC generator or an alternator, which in turn supplies power to the electric traction motors. The term diesel-electric just means that there's no direct mechanical connection between the diesel engine and the locomotive's wheels. A diesel-electric locomotive is not a hybrid train. If there was a rechargeable battery to capture excess energy or energy that would be lost from braking, and which could power the traction motors, then it would be a hybrid locomotive. Because there isn't such a battery in diesel-electric locomotives, they are always diesel-powered, and are not hybrid locomotives.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15, @12:24AM (8 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 15, @12:24AM (#1360551) Journal

                          A diesel-electric locomotive [wikipedia.org] is diesel-powered.

                          A hybrid would be as well. Notice that you mention no other power source than the diesel engine. That's a typical hybrid feature.

                          If there was a rechargeable battery to capture excess energy or energy that would be lost from braking, and which could power the traction motors, then it would be a hybrid locomotive.

                          You have a very poor understanding of hybrid. It's simple to add said batteries to the diesel-electric system because the hybrid elements are already there - those electric traction motors. The problem is that you don't get much out of it. Batteries are heavy and displace paying cargo.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @04:36AM (7 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @04:36AM (#1360565)

                            You're wrong. But we don't need another thread 70 levels deep because you're too arrogant to admit that you're wrong.

                            A hybrid vehicle literally means its powered by more than one source. This isn't a usual feature like your post says; it's literally the defining feature of what makes a hybrid vehicle. Typically this is a combination of some kind of combustion (e.g., gasoline or diesel) and electricity. Hybrid cars have an internal combustion engine powered by gasoline. They also have a kinetic energy recovery system, which captures energy under braking that would otherwise be lost as heat. There are other ways to capture energy, too. In a prior comment, I talked about an MGU-H, which captures energy from the heat in exhaust gases. The captured energy is transferred to some kind of energy store like a rechargeable battery, capacitor, or a flywheel. When the vehicle accelerates again, it can draw from the energy store instead of relying solely on combusting fuel.

                            A diesel-electric locomotive is not a hybrid locomotive. Yes, it has most of the components to be a hybrid vehicle, but it lacks the capability to capture excess energy, and it lacks the energy store for that excess energy. If you want a hybrid train with diesel-electric locomotives, you'll need other locomotives in the consist with some other type of power. That's exactly what railroad companies like BNSF are testing, combining diesel-electric and battery-electric locomotives in the consist. Here are links:

                            https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/news-releases/newsrelease.page?relId=bnsf-and-wabtec-commence-battery-electric-locomotive-pilot-test-in-california [bnsf.com]
                            https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/innovation/battery-electric-locomotive.html [bnsf.com]
                            https://www.wabteccorp.com/media/466/download?inline [wabteccorp.com]

                            A hybrid train doesn't have to be a combination of diesel-electric and battery-electric locomotives. For example, a combination of diesel-electric and hydrogen-powered locomotives [wikipedia.org] could also properly be considered a hybrid train. But if the consist only has diesel-electric locomotives, it is not a hybrid train.

                            Just admit that you're wrong here. We don't need a massive thread over this. A diesel-electric locomotive is not a hybrid locomotive.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15, @06:08AM (6 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 15, @06:08AM (#1360568) Journal

                              A hybrid vehicle literally means its powered by more than one source. This isn't a usual feature like your post says; it's literally the defining feature of what makes a hybrid vehicle. Typically this is a combination of some kind of combustion (e.g., gasoline or diesel) and electricity. Hybrid cars have an internal combustion engine powered by gasoline. They also have a kinetic energy recovery system, which captures energy under braking that would otherwise be lost as heat. There are other ways to capture energy, too. In a prior comment, I talked about an MGU-H, which captures energy from the heat in exhaust gases. The captured energy is transferred to some kind of energy store like a rechargeable battery, capacitor, or a flywheel. When the vehicle accelerates again, it can draw from the energy store instead of relying solely on combusting fuel.

                              Except that it's not. Batteries aren't a source of power by definition - they store energy not produce it. Glancing around, it appears that the actual definition is a vehicle with multiple propulsion systems such as having both gas and electric propulsion systems. I still think diesel-electric should qualify because it requires two systems in order to provided propulsion. Looks [howstuffworks.com] like I'm not the only one:

                              This combination of diesel engine and electric generators and motors makes the locomotive a hybrid vehicle. In this article, we'll start by learning why locomotives are built this way and why they have steel wheels. Then we'll look at the layout and key components.

                              The MGU-H is an even worse example. It's just a typical attachment to an engine. Most fuel-air engines have some optimizations that extracts more heat from the exhaust in some way - for example, preheating fuel or compressing air (as in the MGU-H). In the link, I just provided there's a diagram of a diesel-electric locomotive with a turbocharger - which acts very similar to your MGU-H example, using the heat of exhaust gases to compress air intake. So by your tenuous definition that is a hybrid diesel-electric system - one that's probably been a standard design in locomotives and ships for a century.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @07:24AM (5 children)

                                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @07:24AM (#1360574)

                                I guess you're intent on digging yourself into an even deeper hole.

                                Do you even have a clue how a typical hybrid car works? There's a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. The car also has a kinetic energy recovery system which collects energy during braking that would otherwise be lost as heat. The energy is transferred to an energy store like a battery or flywheel. This is called regenerative braking. When the car accelerates again, energy from the energy store can be used to turn the wheels instead of energy from combustion.

                                Some of that equipment does exist in a diesel-electric locomotive because it's necessary for dynamic braking [wikipedia.org]. It does convert the kinetic energy back into electrical energy. But instead of storing that energy, it dissipated into the air as heat by resistors. Here is another description of how dynamic braking works: https://www.trains.com/trn/train-basics/abcs-of-railroading/dynamic-braking-101/ [trains.com]. If that energy was stored and could be used later to accelerate the locomotive, then that would would function the same was the regenerative braking in hybrid cars. Unless the recovered energy isn't stored and later reused for acceleration, a diesel-electric locomotive is not a hybrid vehicle.

                                I linked to pages about BNSF testing hybrid trains. Union Pacific has somewhat similar ideas: https://www.up.com/media/releases/hybrid-electric-locomotives-nr-221006.htm [up.com]. When BNSF and UP are talking about hybrid trains, they're referring to a combination of diesel-electric and battery-electric power. Neither BNSF nor UP consider a diesel-electric train on its own to be a hybrid vehicle. I know, you were busy searching to find any link that might appear to support your position so you could reply with a gotcha comment. Your link is wrong, and so are you. The two largest (by far) railroad companies in the western US also both disagree with you.

                                Moving on to the concept of an MGU-H, it's not at all the same thing as a turbocharger. The MGU-H is connected to the turbo, but it's not the same thing. The MGU-H can extract energy from the turbo and transfer it to the energy store. The MGU-H also supplies energy to the turbo to get around the problem of turbo lag. Here is a video describing how a current Formula 1 power unit works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnByDRKO9JA [youtube.com]. Again, the MGU-H is certainly not the same thing as the turbo, but it is connected to the turbo. The turbo does recover some energy, but it doesn't store it for later use. A turbocharged engine is not considered a hybrid engine unless there are also hybrid components for things like regenerative braking. However, the MGU-H is one of the hybrid components which can transfer energy to and from the energy store.

                                This need not be a thread 70 levels deep. You're wrong on nearly every count and clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Stop digging a hole and just admit you're wrong.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15, @12:08PM (4 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 15, @12:08PM (#1360582) Journal

                                  Do you even have a clue how a typical hybrid car works? There's a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. The car also has a kinetic energy recovery system which collects energy during braking that would otherwise be lost as heat. The energy is transferred to an energy store like a battery or flywheel. This is called regenerative braking. When the car accelerates again, energy from the energy store can be used to turn the wheels instead of energy from combustion.

                                  Yes, the definition is just not what you think it is.

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @03:45PM (3 children)

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @03:45PM (#1360596)

                                    My definition was correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle [wikipedia.org]:

                                    A hybrid vehicle is one that uses two or more distinct types of power, such as submarines that use diesel when surfaced and batteries when submerged. Other means to store energy include pressurized fluid in hydraulic hybrids.

                                    Unless a diesel-electric locomotive is also doing something like storing energy in batteries during braking and then using that to supplement the diesel power, it's not a hybrid vehicle.

                                    Stop trolling. Just admit you're wrong and stop digging a deeper hole.

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15, @05:33PM (2 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 15, @05:33PM (#1360606) Journal
                                      Sorry, but this just means that there are multiple definitions around. And your definition has the problem that a battery is not a source of power.
                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @10:00PM (1 child)

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15, @10:00PM (#1360635)

                                        Literally everything you wrote here is incorrect. Stop digging the hole even deeper and just admit that you've been wrong the whole time.

                                        There aren't multiple definitions for a hybrid vehicle. I'll come back to this in a moment, but the second part of your comment is even more absurd. A battery literally is a source of power, otherwise you'd be claiming that all the electric vehicles on the road are unpowered. You're so intent on refusing to admit you were wrong that you're posting completely ridiculous and incorrect statements like saying that batteries aren't sources of power.

                                        A turbocharged car is not a hybrid vehicle. The turbo only boosts power when the internal combustion engine is running. The turbo cannot power the car on its own. A diesel-electric locomotive also isn't a hybrid vehicle. The electrical components cannot power the locomotive unless the diesel engine is running. The electrical components in the powertrain are not a distinct source of power.

                                        Hybrid cars can be powered by gasoline and battery-stored power. They are distinct sources of power. In a hybrid car, both the gasoline and the battery are capable of independently propelling the car without the other.

                                        If you reject that the combination of gasoline and battery power constitutes a hybrid car, then you'd be saying that virtually every hybrid car on the roads isn't actually a hybrid car. By the way, there are also plug-in hybrids, where the battery is also charged by, well, plugging the car in to an electrical outlet in addition to the regenerative braking. You're completely wrong about this, as I've explained to you repeatedly. Are you done trolling yet?

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 16, @01:01AM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 16, @01:01AM (#1360654) Journal
                                          I guess we're going to do the threadnought after all.

                                          There aren't multiple definitions for a hybrid vehicle.

                                          There was an second definition here [soylentnews.org]. And in the talk thread for that Wikipedia page, it's pointed out that another definition is multiple propulsion systems providing motive power.

                                          In a hybrid car, both the gasoline and the battery are capable of independently propelling the car without the other.

                                          Bingo. You just introduced my second definition above: the internal combustion engine and the electrical motors can independently propel the car. The fuel and electricity cannot.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 14, @12:28PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 14, @12:28PM (#1360484) Journal

                    The world (perhaps excepting the USA) has agreed to try to reduce carbon emissions. The banning of short plane hops is just one of the measures to enable France (and Europe) to reach its target reduction figures by 2030, 2040 and 2050, as are all of the moves to change to EVs and train.

                    Does that actually reduce carbon emissions though? I note that this law bans several efficient use cases (like distributing passengers after a long flight) and encourages inefficient workarounds (like two long flights to do one short hop).

                    Everybody has a right to use the road system, and they should always drive within the limits of their own capabilities and not at a speed that is dictated by other traffic.

                    How much of a right is that really? Earlier you wrote:

                    The Blumenpots, speed bumps, and other speed reduction/traffic calming measures are used to limit the speed of vehicles driving through villages and towns. The sign that indicates that you are entering a town also implies that the speed limit is 50kph. This appears to be ignored by some people, particularly tourists and others that haven't understood the significance of the sign. In the USA you also have various measures to restrict vehicle speeds such as passing a school at certain times or never passing a stationary school bus. The measures that are employed in Europe are simply different from those that you are used to. They are there to make sure that pedestrians, children, cyclists, motorcycles and cars can all exist safely side by side. Speed reduction is a given else there wouldn't be speed limits in the first place. But several of the measures you mention don't actually do speed reduction/traffic calming. The "blumenpot" (whatever it's supposed to be) merely discourages traffic by putting two way traffic on a one lane road. Stationary school bus rules are merely to prevent a dangerous situation involving moving cars and kids. Several measures are violations of the right to use a road system - directly impairing the driving experience.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 14, @12:29PM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 14, @12:29PM (#1360486) Journal
                    Typo, trying this again:

                    The world (perhaps excepting the USA) has agreed to try to reduce carbon emissions. The banning of short plane hops is just one of the measures to enable France (and Europe) to reach its target reduction figures by 2030, 2040 and 2050, as are all of the moves to change to EVs and train.

                    Does that actually reduce carbon emissions though? I note that this law bans several efficient use cases (like distributing passengers after a long flight) and encourages inefficient workarounds (like two long flights to do one short hop).

                    Everybody has a right to use the road system, and they should always drive within the limits of their own capabilities and not at a speed that is dictated by other traffic.

                    How much of a right is that really? Earlier you wrote:

                    The Blumenpots, speed bumps, and other speed reduction/traffic calming measures are used to limit the speed of vehicles driving through villages and towns. The sign that indicates that you are entering a town also implies that the speed limit is 50kph. This appears to be ignored by some people, particularly tourists and others that haven't understood the significance of the sign. In the USA you also have various measures to restrict vehicle speeds such as passing a school at certain times or never passing a stationary school bus. The measures that are employed in Europe are simply different from those that you are used to. They are there to make sure that pedestrians, children, cyclists, motorcycles and cars can all exist safely side by side.

                    Speed reduction is a given else there wouldn't be speed limits in the first place. But several of the measures you mention don't actually do speed reduction/traffic calming. The "blumenpot" (whatever it's supposed to be) merely discourages traffic by putting two way traffic on a one lane road. Stationary school bus rules are merely to prevent a dangerous situation involving moving cars and kids. Several measures are violations of the right to use a road system - directly impairing the driving experience.

                    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 14, @02:15PM (2 children)

                      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 14, @02:15PM (#1360505) Journal

                      Does that actually reduce carbon emissions though? I note that this law bans several efficient use cases (like distributing passengers after a long flight) and encourages inefficient workarounds (like two long flights to do one short hop).

                      Here you go again simply arguing because it makes you feel good. The TEN-T system is getting electric trains, electric buses and electric cars direct to the airports and ports. That is improving efficiency not reducing it and at the same time reducing carbon emissions. If you wish to pay for 2 long flights (with double the departure, arrival and any other taxes), then be my guest. It will not be quicker. Most Europeans appear to be more intelligent than that.

                      The blumenpot and some other measures give priority to vehicles leaving a town or village over those entering. It slows traffic entering the town far more than it does those leaving (because they have priority). It provides a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians who have an equal right to the roads. It also prevents traffic building up in the town. Just because you don't see many pedestrians in the USA doesn't mean they have disappeared everywhere else in the world. They have a right to move around inside the town in which they live just as much as cars have a right to drive through it. It usually isn't the locals who are complaining about such measures.

                      Stationary school bus rules are merely to prevent a dangerous situation involving moving cars and kids

                      So you do understand what the traffic calming measures are meant to achieve, you just want to object to the fact that there is a different system here. Where do you imagine that they place these traffic calming measures? I'll make it easy for you and tell you - wherever there are pedestrians, old folk and children (which includes the the approaches to schools, hospitals and care homes etc). People are more important than cars.

                      --
                      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15, @12:18AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 15, @12:18AM (#1360550) Journal

                        The TEN-T system is getting electric trains, electric buses and electric cars direct to the airports and ports. That is improving efficiency not reducing it and at the same time reducing carbon emissions.

                        We will see. I'll just note that it isn't organized by an entity known for its competence in such things and they're driving around a lot of batteries. Somewhat better than the US though. If it were the US doing that, I'd know for sure it would be a cluster.

                        It provides a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians who have an equal right to the roads.

                        They don't actually. In particular, pedestrians don't have a right to just walk down the middle of busy roads. In the English-speaking world that probably would be jaywalking or even causing a public disturbance. Similarly, cyclists can't simply bike down the autobahns and other major highways. And European versions of human rights are selective and limited anyway.

                        So you do understand what the traffic calming measures are meant to achieve, you just want to object to the fact that there is a different system here. Where do you imagine that they place these traffic calming measures? I'll make it easy for you and tell you - wherever there are pedestrians, old folk and children (which includes the the approaches to schools, hospitals and care homes etc). People are more important than cars.

                        Transportation is important because people are important. I get that if you have roads in a town that was poorly designed for transportation 500 years ago, that there would be challenges today which traffic calming techniques might aid. But a lot of this is just virtue signaling. We'll impair or ban an out-group mode of transportation to show how virtuous we are. The French example of banning short airplane hops is an example of that.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 16, @09:53PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 16, @09:53PM (#1360731) Journal
                        A few decades back, there was this fad on university campus in the US. They would build a bunch of sidewalks that deliberately forced you to walk around various landscape follies (islands of landscaping, statuary, etc) and snaking paths. I guess the concept was that the indirect route would be more uplifting or something. Anyway, such designers quickly learned that students would take the shortest route and wreck it. The last time I was in school, such architects had gotten wise to the issue and would just plant a basic lawn and later pave over the wear spots that showed up and do proper landscaping.

                        A lot of this traffic calming (and similar policy) just seems to be of this sort. It's just throwing obstacles in front of transportation modes for no gain.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday June 12, @02:58PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 12, @02:58PM (#1360275) Journal

      No. Transport is definitely a topic that we cover. Combatting global warming is another. It is far greener to use a train to move x people than to put them in cars to make the same journey. TEN-T is also designed to encourage switching to EV and to make it a practical proposition throughout Europe.

      Quietus has also pointed out that the project is expected to make rail travel economically profitable and convenient by including overnight sleeper trains and/or hotel bookings at the point of departure or destination.

      --
      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12, @06:45AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12, @06:45AM (#1360238)

    Queues to enter the port of Dover will continue to exceed 4 1/2 hours regardless of European policies..

    --

    You have the right to remain dead.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 12, @07:38AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 12, @07:38AM (#1360243) Journal

      It has nothing at all to do with Brexit. French ports service far more places than Dover you know.

      --
      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(1)