Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fixyfoxy3 t1_jdwj6gw wrote

Reply to comment by moo314159 in Compare Public Transport Network Connectivity In 10 European Countries [OC] by TravelTime_LKB

But most railway lines were built when Switzerland wasn't rich yet. I think it is rather that a lot of railways, especially the ones in the mountains weren't dismantled because they were still usefull and powerfull in comparison to early cars

13

rpsls t1_jdzgj4w wrote

When Credit Suisse (RIP) was founded in order to build the trains and tunnels, Switzerland was already becoming established. And in Swiss fashion, they built a network that’s worth paying for. (It helped that the neighbors also appreciated being able to transit goods through Switzerland, of course.) Today, I spend more on my rail pass than I ever would when I lived in the US, because the utility is so much higher. I can go everywhere, and do it quickly, quietly, and efficiently. Every regular train leaves at the same time past the hour on the same track every time. I can plan a route including which track I’ll arrive and depart from months in advance, or just look at the clock and know how many minutes to my next local train right now. (And all the trains here are hydroelectric powered so it’s guilt-free travel.)

The Swiss mentality is to think about perceived value and build around that, and the trains are no exception. They continue to be built out and upgraded, and I encourage most tourists to forego the car rental and just take the train.

10

moo314159 t1_jdwy24p wrote

That's fair! I mean upkeep still isn't cheap but that big initial cost of setting it up was already paid for. Projects like the Gotthard Tunnel are still nothing to be done by a poor country

4

Fixyfoxy3 t1_jdwyrx7 wrote

Yeah, I agree. I think the quality (infrastructure, maintenance and rolling stock) and quantity of (unprofitable) transit services is a bigger sign of how rich a country is than the sheer amount of train tracks.

3

moo314159 t1_jdyxa4j wrote

>bigger sign of how rich a country is than the sheer amount of train tracks.

While I mostly agree these two might still be correlated. You see this on the map of italy. Italy is divided in a rich(er) industrialised north and a comparably poor rural south. Having railroads doesn't make you rich or vice versa But I think there is still a connection to be observed when you specifically look at the history of a country and the developement of a railroadsystem, don't you think?

2

Fixyfoxy3 t1_jdzjbnn wrote

I think I get what you mean. When the railways were built Switzerland (like northern Italy) were still somewhat rich (and more inland, less boats) in regards to southern Italy, so they built more railways. This goes the other way around: Railways tend(ed) to attract people and industries. Many cities in Europe but especially in the US were built because of the railway. There is probably a correlation between how rich a country is, how much tracks it has, when they were built and how the service is today. I find it pretty hard to see a direct connection, but imo it should work as a rule of thumb.

2