Same here, Kazakhstan has fast Talgo trains but apparently they don't go over 200, so I didn't try others. However, Uzbekistan has much larger population despite much smaller size, and even that is mostly concentrated in the east.
Bizarrely I did this quiz straight after finishing a journey from Samarkand to Bukhara on the Afrosiyob - the Uzbek version of the bullet train. Very comfortable it is too.
There was a YouTube video about Why the railroad system in USA is bad that made by Wendover Production. In that video It mentions USA has less high speed train tracks than Poland, Turkey and Uzbekistan. I'm from Turkey so I knew it, I can guess Poland too but I owe Uzbekistan to that video. Thanks Wendover Production :) Btw link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ
There are some very concentrated parts though, with huge traffic jams and busy air corridors, where high speed rail would absolutely make sense: SF-LA, DC-Boston at least, possibly Florida and later Chicago-NYC, Seattle-Vancouver, ...
In Europe all high speed lines are connected up so a train could theoretically go from London to southern Italy at 300 kph. This is like the length of the east coast of the usa.
That's because of the cheap Oil. Flying and driving is a lot cheaper. For instance, driving in The Netherlands means paying more than 2 dollars per liter for gas, cars are more expensive and there's loads of traffic.
I can't even imagine a scenario where I would use a high speed line. I live in New England, and I mostly travel to Florida and Texas. Both of those trips would take 10+ hours.
On a plane: I leave in the morning, I arrive in the morning.
Anything more local and I hop on the interstate, and when you factor in parking, boarding, not having a car at my destination, and other things, I would never want to take a train, anyway.
Given that there has been a lot of political focus on HS2 in the UK, I am surprised to see the UK so high up on this list. Other than HS1 (London to Dover) where are the other high-speed rail lines?
Ah, I've just checked the source and found out that some older major lines have been upgraded to go at faster speeds, such as the line linking London and Glasgow.
The main trunk routes (ECML, WCML, GWR, MML) have 160-200kp/h line speeds and could be further upgraded with in-cab signalling. Both the ECML and GWR were built with gentle curves over relatively flat land, with the ECML nicknamed the 'race track'. This map is really good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg
200km/h is only 145 mph or so. It's not what we would call "high speed". I was surprised too! Even the APT in the '70s was built to run at 170mph (250km/h).
Before privatisation of the railways, British Rail were operating Inter-City 125 services between many large cities from 1976. In fact, even before that, the Mallard broke the steam train record at 126 mph (203kph) way back in 1938.
Indeed, Portugal, the line Porto-Lisbon speed goes up to 220-230, In Greece as well, and in fact Liechtenstein indeed also has a highspeed railwa, though it does not stop there. Would you please confirm it? thanks a lot...regards
I'm not surprised at how low the U.S. is, but it is a bit ridiculous that Taiwan, a country half the size of West Virginia by area has nearly 8 times the length of high speed rail as the entire U.S. And unlike the comparably-sized European countries, Taiwan is an island, so it's not even rail lines connecting to other countries.
Finished the quiz with Taiwan with one second left. I was expecting Uzbekistan since I went there three years ago and took a high-speed train during my visit.
Somewhat surprised to see the UK on here as, being a regular rail user in Britain, I rarely experience speeds higher than 10mph. And that's if the train even turns up at all.
Wow, China has more than the rest of the world combined. Plus they're rolling out maglev lines...which aren't particularly cost-effective, but are pretty cool.
Tbh, kinda surprised Australia doesn't have more considering the vastness of the Outback, and that most of the time people are just passing through it to the next big city... seems like a great opportunity to build a train
Domestic flights between close cities are usually neither quicker nor easier than high speed train trips. They are sometimes cheaper though, but not everywhere.
There’s pretty much no such thing as ‘close cities’ in Australia. All the main cities are far enough apart to make air travel more appealing than train - possibly with the exception of Sydney/Canberra.
As someone who has travelled in high-speed trains in China, Japan,Spain, and France, I can assure you Greece does not have a high-speed train, it just doesn't have the tracks for it.
It is so sad not to see my country Czechia with at least one stupid main corridor of 60 km here. All other normal countries around us like Austria, Poland, Switzerland, Belgium and Netherlands are doing perfectly. Just us have to completely waste this opportunity of being in the centre of Europe.
Czechia does have lots of highspeed-rail projects currently under construction though. Last year the HSR from Prague to Ceske Budejovice via Tabor was completed. Your country is doing much better than lots of other countries in the area (like Poland or Slovakia)
most of serbias rail network doesnt even operate above 70 km/h, if there are even trains running. The only 200 km/h part in all of Serbia is a short section between Belgrade and Novi Sad.
I don't know how up to date the info on wikipedia is but it seems like only a part of the track (186 km) runs at a top speed of 320 km/h. The rest of the line was rated for 160 km/h when service began, with a "planned upgrade" to 220 km/h. The source only counts the 186 km.
I'd like to understand where exactly are 1900+ km of high-speed railroads in the UK. I've lived there until 2017 and by then the only working line was the one London-Paris, so less than 200 km in the UK.
I know it was "being built", but it was about 600 km, and I've heard nothing about it being currently working, so I'm a bit puzzled on the source.
London-Folkestone (Eurostar), London-Bath, London-Bristol, London-Newcastle, Luton-Wellingborough, Birmingham-Derby and Wolverhampton-Stafford. A few other short sections among the major routes also are 200+ km/h. Though I still doubt that all of those add up to 1900 km. Maybe if you include London-Birmingham under construction.
Interesting... But do trains actually go 200+ km/h on those tracks?
When I checked 7 years ago how long did it take to go to places like Newcastle from London (where I was living), there was no option that was comparable to taking a plane, factoring in the "door-to-door" time.
This isn't the case in more developed countries in Europe like Spain, Italy or France, where moving from major destinations (say Naples to Florence, Marseilles to Lyon, Valladolid to Bilbao, or anywhere from the capital cities) takes remarkably less by train than by plane.
Looks like - at least the London-Newcastle - is now better than taking a plane, as for speed. 3 h for 400 km isn't the fastest, but then again it's not that bad (Rome to Milan is similar, 3:00 h for 480 km, Paris to Marseilles is 3:20 h for 650 km, Madrid to Barcelona is 2:30 for 500 km, as a comparison).
My guess is that the figure includes lines where the trains don't actually always go that speed, but high speed on that line is possible. Delays and congestion on the line make it impossible for all trains to achieve high speed travel.
Greece does not have this much HSR over 200 km/h. Apart from two relatively short sections (on the routes of Athens-Lamia and Athens-Patras), the highest speeds in the country are 160 km/h, sometimes 180 km/h.
18/20. Did better than I thought I was going to do but once I figured out that they were mainly in Eastern Asia and mainland Europe it got easier. Did not expect Uzbekistan.
On a plane: I leave in the morning, I arrive in the morning.
Anything more local and I hop on the interstate, and when you factor in parking, boarding, not having a car at my destination, and other things, I would never want to take a train, anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg
Before privatisation of the railways, British Rail were operating Inter-City 125 services between many large cities from 1976. In fact, even before that, the Mallard broke the steam train record at 126 mph (203kph) way back in 1938.
"Ahh five left, can't think... Lets chuck down a random country which has no chance of being on there."
Brain: Uzbekistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Boraq
I know it was "being built", but it was about 600 km, and I've heard nothing about it being currently working, so I'm a bit puzzled on the source.
When I checked 7 years ago how long did it take to go to places like Newcastle from London (where I was living), there was no option that was comparable to taking a plane, factoring in the "door-to-door" time.
This isn't the case in more developed countries in Europe like Spain, Italy or France, where moving from major destinations (say Naples to Florence, Marseilles to Lyon, Valladolid to Bilbao, or anywhere from the capital cities) takes remarkably less by train than by plane.
What's the situation now?
Countries with high-speed railway✅