Railwayclub.info main
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
16.10.21 , 20:10

Login with username, password and session length
Home | Help | Search | Login | Register | References | Blogs | Contact Information

railwayclub.info: train travel answers, travel deals

  discussion

    Trip itinearies and train timetables

      Киев - Вена: Беспересадочное сообщение от декабря 2017

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59
Reply | Print
Author Topic: Киев - Вена: Беспересадочное сообщение от декабря 2017  (Read 154041 times)
levcic
User

Posts: 48


View Profile
« Reply #570 on: 22.09.21 , 23:09 »
Share Reply with quote

I wonder why does the train 145 operate only with bunks even if it does not run totally over the night: dep: Lviv 21;00; Arr: Ujgorod 2;35, dep: Ujgorod 4,29 arr Lviv 10,14/ it leaves and arrives Ujgorod in the middle of night. Hortobagy has similar schedule but operates only with seated cars/ dep Wien 16,42, arr Zahony 00,10, dep Zahony 4,08 arr WIen 11,21. perhaps the primary function of this train is to carry the sleeper Wien Kyiv no matter too much the timetable in local connection (existing overnights are not suitable by schedule for carriyng the sleeper?). or domestic ukrainian trains which run partially during the night follow policies different from other countries? the opposite scenario is Germany, where some ICE DB run overnight but only with seated cars, no bunks at all.
Logged
Maxy
Главный
Active user

Posts: 23198


View Profile
« Reply #571 on: 23.09.21 , 01:09 »
Share Reply with quote

Main reason is following - UZ have extremely few seating cars and all them are relatively new or recently refurbished (worst of them are refurbished in 2004 and next few years, while most of bunks are from end of 1970-ties and from 1980-ties). So seating cars are sold with significant extra price.

Also UZ usually don't put seating cars in usual overnight D-trains. Seating cars are only for "new" express train types.
It additionally justifies extra price for seating cars, at last in heads of domestic passengers who never been abrouad, because seating car is usually present only in train which anyway should have also extra price because of train type.

There is also culturally-psychological aspect which justifies such approach, if you are curious I can explain you why. It will be a long story, because I'll need to explain historical, cultural and psychological contexts. If you are curious - let me know.

Also such approach helps UZ to avoid incongruity in pricing - i.e. they wish to avoid stupid situation when the seating car with extra price and bunk without extra price (or with small extra price) would appear in same train and it turn out that bunk is cheaper than seating car.
Quote
perhaps the primary function of this train is to carry the sleeper Wien Kyiv no matter too much the timetable in local connection
exactly. It's the only real mission of this train. It's very revealing that on days when direct car Wien - Kyiv don't operate (for example if canceled for 1-2 days due to construction works in Hungary) - train 145 is also don't operate that day.
This train is not very popular despite of amazingly low price for domestic passengers. For example Uzhhorod - Lviv (286 km) in 3rd class bunk cost less than 3 EUR. But despite such amazing prices and abnormally short length of train, as for Ukraine - this this train sell out later than other trains on this section.
Any attempt to put anything with extra price instead would lead to a failure I think and train will be almost empty. While being sold without extra price is possible only for bunks, because UZ now sell without extra price only old buckets, while all seating cars which UZ have are not old enough yet.
Quote
existing overnights are not suitable by schedule for carrying the sleeper?
of course they aren't. They arrive to Transcarpathia from East in the morning and go back to East in the evening. All them would lead to inconvenient arrival/departure hour to Wien and Budapest.
Quote
. or domestic ukrainian trains which run partially during the night follow policies different from other countries?
there are no policies.

If train is usual D and and it cannot be served by EMU/DMU - UZ normally don't have other cars for it than bunks, because seaters are for new express train types only. So it will consist of bunks even if it goes completely during daytime.

If overnight train have average speed over 70 km/h - and thus have train type not usual D, but Night Express - UZ don't mind such train could have seating car but in such cases 1st and 2nd class bunks also come with significant extra price, and there is no 3rd class bunks, unless very special exception, so seating car price don't appear incongruent to prices of travel cars of other type in train.
 
Or there are few "new" daytime express trains, which go back overnight- they also initially had seating cars only. Later UZ (in fact not UZ itself, but one of branches - South-Western Railway, which had many such trains) softened their initial severity and allowed to include bunk in such train, but price in this case formed via reclassification - for example 3rd class bunk not by normal price of 3rd class bunk, but by price of 2nd class seat+price of sheet rental and similar story with 2nd class bunk, which goes by price of 1st class seat plus sheet rental).
« Last Edit: 23.09.21 , 02:09 by Maxy » Logged
Ulf
Active user

Posts: 3773


View Profile
« Reply #572 on: 23.09.21 , 09:09 »
Share Reply with quote

Main reason is following - UZ have extremely few seating cars and all them are relatively new or recently refurbished (worst of them are refurbished in 2004 and next few years, while most of bunks are from end of 1970-ties and from 1980-ties). So seating cars are sold with significant extra price.

Also UZ usually don't put seating cars in usual overnight D-trains. Seating cars are only for "new" express train types.
It additionally justifies extra price for seating cars, at last in heads of domestic passengers who never been abrouad, because seating car is usually present only in train which anyway should have also extra price because of train type.

Besides the resumed daytime trans-border service Odessa <-> Chisinau where seated cars appear to be better than their tariff category
and some super-peak dates on very few trains with all other carriages sold out and no more bunk carriages available.

Regards, ULF
Logged
Maxy
Главный
Active user

Posts: 23198


View Profile
« Reply #573 on: 23.09.21 , 10:09 »
Share Reply with quote

Quote
Besides the resumed daytime trans-border service Odessa <-> Chisinau where seated cars appear to be better than their tariff category
yes, but in this case international tariff plays the same role, as putting only to trains of new express types only - passengers get them only if pay many times more, than in "usual" train on such distance.

In the past UZ did the same once in very similar circumstances in 2006. There were also slow cross-border train, which lost almost all it's passengers due to international tariff, which was not affordable for locals due to price. So UZ tried to rescue it by putting such good cars instead of old bunks in hope to to justify the higher price, caused by international tariff. Also during this attempt of rescue the route was extended - originally train operated from Homiel to Snovsk (Schors in those time) but UZ tried to extend it to Konotop.
Here are photos of this train
https://railwayz.info/gallery/album/117
(first 9 photos).

please note, UZ used exactly the same cars, which now are put into Odessa - Chisinau train - same 64-seaters of same origin - rebuilt in 2004-2005 from 197x old 4-bed compartments and they are even in the same specific livery.

Yes, in both those cases the possibility to travel on ridiculously low price between stations on domestic section remained, but it's short sections and most passengers of those trains anyway travel cross-border

Also note, in both cases it was unplanned spontaneous decision.
« Last Edit: 23.09.21 , 10:09 by Maxy » Logged
Ulf
Active user

Posts: 3773


View Profile
« Reply #574 on: 23.09.21 , 12:09 »
Share Reply with quote

Quote
Besides the resumed daytime trans-border service Odessa <-> Chisinau where seated cars appear to be better than their tariff category
yes, but in this case international tariff plays the same role, as putting only to trains of new express types only - passengers get them only if pay many times more, than in "usual" train on such distance.

In the past UZ did the same once in very similar circumstances in 2006. There were also slow cross-border train, which lost almost all it's passengers due to international tariff, which was not affordable for locals due to price. So UZ tried to rescue it by putting such good cars instead of old bunks in hope to to justify the higher price, caused by international tariff. Also during this attempt of rescue the route was extended - originally train operated from Homiel to Snovsk (Schors in those time) but UZ tried to extend it to Konotop.
Here are photos of this train
https://railwayz.info/gallery/album/117
(first 9 photos).

please note, UZ used exactly the same cars, which now are put into Odessa - Chisinau train - same 64-seaters of same origin - rebuilt in 2004-2005 from 197x old 4-bed compartments and they are even in the same specific livery.

The mezhoblast' koncept is older - I traveled overnight from St. Pete to Moscow in the early 90s by super-peak extra train.
No big tables in that one.

Regards, ULF
Logged
Maxy
Главный
Active user

Posts: 23198


View Profile
« Reply #575 on: 23.09.21 , 14:09 »
Share Reply with quote

Additional overnight train on Moscow - SPb line consisting from seating carriages in those time was quite common thing and the most probably was performed by trainsets which normally operated as "Yunost" during daytime.

But you don't realize how irregular was the distribution seating cars in late USSR times and how rare they were with exception of few "oases" and how old they were almost everywhere except October railway.

The whole story started in beginning of 1970-ties, when Gosplan (the central board that supervised various aspects of the planned economy) noticed, that SZD have the excess of old but still suitable for operation platzkartny cars and their quantity will grow in next years. In those times mezhoblast cars were significantly less comfortable than seating cars produced in end of 1980-ties, which is probably he car you've seen in early 1990-ties.In the beginning of 1970-ties seating car had 72 seats (instead of 62) in 24.5 meter carbody  - which also had 2 compartment of train staff, basically it's same car plan of KVZ as for plazkartny car, but just open space with 72 seats instead of 9 compartments. And the seats was semi-hard. According to normative documents of beginning of 1970-ties mezhoblast car of those type was considered the equivalent of general car, the tariff to them were equal.

So Gosplan decided to ban further supplies of seating cars, their production decreased in many times, and they were supplied by very limited quotas in in 2 following cases:
1. for commuter trains on non-electrified lines in areas which don't had DMUs and where the excess of old plazkartny cars was not so significant. In fact many of such seating cars later was utilized in long-distance trains, while suburban trains got more old platzkartny, anyway Gosplan didn't cared about utilization and re-distribution, they simply allocated quotas for seating car calculated on suggestion they are for local trains only, but didn't care how they are used later.
2. to very few places for a special reason - first of all for October railway for daytime trains on Moscow - Leningrad line but also to similar projects in other places, like "Burevestnik".

Also in the situation when mezhoblast car become exotic type of car in long distance trains - and significant part of such cars was produced by quota of type (2) for Moscow -Leningrad line - KVZ changed the planning and car become 62-seat instead of 72 seat in same car body. That's the reason how "mezhoblast" term was re-thought and instead of semi-hard car in 1970 it turned to something which is similar to seating car of 2nd class.

I.e. the passengers of such cars in other places (those, where such cars was supplied by quota type (1) ) -  turned out to become random beneficiaries of coincidence of circumstances. The increase space between seats was done not for improve of their comfort, but for improve of comfort of passengers of Moscow - Leningrad line, while they got the same cars just because production of seating cars was uniform.

Ukraine didn't had trains, which would allow to get seating cars by quota (2) in Soviet times, also DMUs was very common in Ukraine, so the supplies of seatings car after 1970 by quota of type (1) was extremely limited and it was very old deliveries - remnant of them was possible to find in beginning of 2000-ties in Chernivtsi depot and most of those very horribly old (most of them 72 seat yet) and slightly bigger quantity of slightly newer (but still very old) at different depots of Prydniprovska railway, but anyway by 2002 the remnant of those cars was small, most of such cars very existed their last years, older ones from Chernivtsi depot also lost their original seats and got handicraft wooden benches instead. It's expected btw - because in situation when seating car becomes exotic phenomena - it means the repairing factories don't have spare parts for repair the seats.

So if we take a look by period soon before 2002 in Ukraine - the seating cars in long distance trains  was technically not new phenomena, but was completely forgotten by all public.
So in 2002, when UZ opened first proto-IC and bought new seating cars of 1st and 2nd class for it - it was positioned as something new and never existed before and for public that's exactly what it was.
Logged
levcic
User

Posts: 48


View Profile
« Reply #576 on: 01.10.21 , 18:10 »
Share Reply with quote

yes thanks MaXu, i am curious about "There is also culturally-psychological aspect which justifies such approach, if you are curious I can explain you why. It will be a long story, because I'll need to explain historical, cultural and psychological contexts. If you are curious - let me know".
the explanations you have already given are very clear and interesting to understand the general idea of difference in Ukraine between using seated cars and bunks
Logged
levcic
User

Posts: 48


View Profile
« Reply #577 on: 01.10.21 , 18:10 »
Share Reply with quote

i am glad to hear about it long history
Logged
Ulf
Active user

Posts: 3773


View Profile
« Reply #578 on: 01.10.21 , 18:10 »
Share Reply with quote

Quote
Besides the resumed daytime trans-border service Odessa <-> Chisinau where seated cars appear to be better than their tariff category
yes, but in this case international tariff plays the same role, as putting only to trains of new express types only - passengers get them only if pay many times more, than in "usual" train on such distance.

In the past UZ did the same once in very similar circumstances in 2006. There were also slow cross-border train, which lost almost all it's passengers due to international tariff, which was not affordable for locals due to price. So UZ tried to rescue it by putting such good cars instead of old bunks in hope to to justify the higher price, caused by international tariff. Also during this attempt of rescue the route was extended - originally train operated from Homiel to Snovsk (Schors in those time) but UZ tried to extend it to Konotop.
Here are photos of this train
https://railwayz.info/gallery/album/117
(first 9 photos).

please note, UZ used exactly the same cars, which now are put into Odessa - Chisinau train - same 64-seaters of same origin - rebuilt in 2004-2005 from 197x old 4-bed compartments and they are even in the same specific livery.

Yes, in both those cases the possibility to travel on ridiculously low price between stations on domestic section remained, but it's short sections and most passengers of those trains anyway travel cross-border

Also note, in both cases it was unplanned spontaneous decision.

What about the Odessa - Chisinau train? Has been discontinued again? Ticketing was blocked.

And it should have been DMU, and IIRC, 2nd and 1st class seating on that DMU were not much more expensive than 3rd class while doing international.
How come?

Regards, ULF
Logged
Maxy
Главный
Active user

Posts: 23198


View Profile
« Reply #579 on: 02.10.21 , 02:10 »
Share Reply with quote

Tickets are commenced for sale till mid-October. But they been blocked few days ago since 1 Oct and had been unblocked for additional 15 days just in 2 days before 1 Oct.

All looks like CMF didn't managed to repair/make revision of their D1m by 1 Oct as initially planned, so UZ continued operation of their trainset for additional 15 days. And judging by how late  UZ extended the period of operation of UZ trainset - it looks like CMF avoided to acknowledge their DMU will not ready till last moment, but also they didn't confirmed D1m is ready. Such behavior of CMF
Quote
And it should have been DMU, and IIRC, 2nd and 1st class seating on that DMU were not much more expensive than 3rd class while doing international.
for this DMU there were agreement regarding discounting multipliers to MGPT-tariff. I hope that old agreement is still valid. If it is - price will be lower even in 1st class, than now by UZ trainset. 2nd and 3rd class even cheater. Yes, the difference in price between classes is smaller than we've used to expect. If my quick calculations are correct - the price of ticket Odessa - Chisinau by CFM's D1m should be ~220 UAH in 3rd class, ~250 UAH in 2nd class, and ~285 UAH in 1st (vs 353 UAH in de-facto 2nd class now) if old discounting multipliers from pre-covid time are still valid.
« Last Edit: 02.10.21 , 02:10 by Maxy » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59
Reply | Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!