|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rails to the future
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
According to this article, the Chinese decided to develop a high-speed rail network, with the action staring in 2007. Since then, they have built nearly 6000 miles of high-speed lines, with the newest and longest opening soon - 1428 miles joining Beijing to Guangzhou, the "southern boomtown".
That is equivalent to Montreal-Winnipeg or Winnipeg-Vancouver (pick your own preferred city-pairs)
And they claim that the rapid construction provided enough stimulation to significantly reduce the problems of 2008 et seq.
Meanwhile many in the US are fighting any chance to develop any form of improved passenger service, even at 19th century speed
And the government of Canada is adamantly opposed to passenger service at all, presumably so the increasing use of oil won't be affected.
I know the Germans and the French seem to be happy with improved passenger service at interesting speeds, while the British are rather doubtful
What are the actual pros/cons of improving passenger rail service in a useful way, given our increasing populations and environmental problems? (Specific local/national attitudes are also to be considered)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It all boils down to density. Passenger service was always marginally profitable in North America, "Head-End Business", mail and express was what kept most trains profitable. When the US Postal Service terminated most of its railway mail contracts in 1968 it led to a wholesale slaughter of now-unprofitable passenger trains.
Canada is barely dense enough to support what train service it has. Amtrak has repeatedly merged trains that run duplicate routes in its network.
China has some of the highest population densities in the world. That's what makes it work.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Didn't the Fed cut the state of Florida a check for a high-speed rail system only to have the newly elected Tea Party nutter governor send it back because "Americans don't ride no trains on my watch, damnit!" Or something.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
According to this article, the Chinese decided to develop a high-speed rail network, with the action staring in 2007. Since then, they have built nearly 6000 miles of high-speed lines, with the newest and longest opening soon - 1428 miles joining Beijing to Guangzhou, the "southern boomtown".
That is equivalent to Montreal-Winnipeg or Winnipeg-Vancouver (pick your own preferred city-pairs)
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It all boils down to density. Passenger service was always marginally profitable in North America, "Head-End Business", mail and express was what kept most trains profitable. When the US Postal Service terminated most of its railway mail contracts in 1968 it led to a wholesale slaughter of now-unprofitable passenger trains.
Canada is barely dense enough to support what train service it has. Amtrak has repeatedly merged trains that run duplicate routes in its network.
China has some of the highest population densities in the world. That's what makes it work.
Hold on a second. I'm not sure why it's profitable to have a line from Beijing (greater metro area population ~19.6 million) to Guangzhou (pop. ~12.7 million) but it's not so to have one going just over half that distance from New York City (greater metro area population ~18.9 million) to Chicago (pop. ~9.5 million). If density is the key, the U.S. certainly seems dense enough.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Check density in the middle, China has more big cities along the coast.
The two railroads that commanded the NYC-Chicago market, the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad were also the first to report chronic passenger deficits in the post-war period. The short answer is that the highways and the airlines ate their traffic.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But with the annoyance and longer waits on air travel due to the security theatre, high-speed rail begins to look like a better proposal for short hops. It used to be you could get from Seattle to Portland (160 miles, ish) by air in less than an hour. Not any more. It's 3 to 3.5 hours to drive in the best traffic. A high speed rail link should work admirably. One wonders how intensely the airlines are lobbying against it, if they are?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
From what I understand they do lobby against it, as do trucking firms because the freight railroads, Union Pacific and BNSF get the ride along on the benefits.
The major cost obstacle is cab signalling, which is an electrical system that uses the track to rely dispatching signals to a box in the locomotive cab instead of lineside track signals. US law states that lines with speeds greater than 80 mph must have cab signals, to prevent the engineer missing a signal and not acting appropriately. This usually includes Automatic Train Control, which brings the train to a stop if it runs a stop signal.
Plus lines at that speed always have Centralized Traffic Control, which places the switches and signals under direct control of the dispatcher through a control terminal.
The main cost with high-speed operation is the signalling and safety equipment, not additional track or train equipment. Possibly electrification, but that's not necessary. Apparently BNSF has considered electrification on its own due to fuel costs. There hasn't been new electrification by a US railroad besides Amtrak since the 1930's.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
The low population density and the need for immediate profits, increased travel independence with everyone owning cars, and the relative cheapness of air travel have made a real mess of New Zealand's rail system. Sold off by an earlier government and bought back some years later after the rail tracks had suffered from insufficient maintenance, NZ Rail has now reduced most passenger services except those scenic routes that can be promoted to tourists. Road freight has increased to the extent that we constantly see stuff that could well be carried by rail is now damaging the highways. We don't have wide freeways the length of the country and main routes are often winding and hilly (I can only say that in my experience truck drivers are pretty good at making it possible for a car to overtake them). The Gisborne district, which is fertile and has a great climate, has vineyards, gardens, arable crops and orchards ready to expand but the only rail link was seriously washed out last year and NZ Rail won't spend big bucks reinstating it because the freight that would use it is still moderate, and won't increase without the means to transport the produce – a catch 22 situation.
High-speed rail – what a dream!
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As a fan of railroads, I hope the attempts to rebuild the passenger rail system in the US happen. However, the Chinese Rail effort may not be the best model. As noted in a recent New Yorker article on the Chinese Rail Accident large projects run in a totalitarian society is that things can be done very rapidly, in a very shoddy and dangerous fashion at large and unknown expense.
The major problems in the US is that Rail makes sense in a number of places where there's several large cities the right distance apart. However federal funding usually ends up requiring that all regions of the US be given rail projects, even if they aren't economically practical. In addition, there are multiple poltical opponents to any idea of federal funding of any transportation other than highways and airports.
Rail may evade the delays of anti-terrorist security for now, but there are growing plans to implement security theater on the railroads.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
In the US and Canada, you've also got the hidden problem: curves and hills. High speed running requires curve elimination, grade separation at crossings and what curves do exist must be tangent to the incoming track, to allow speed. Otherwise the ever-so-subtle "kink" seriously impairs speed.
In the US you've also got to cross the Appalachians which involves both curves and hills. If you don't choose the extremely expensive option of creating a whole new route, you've got to use the existing right-of-way, that's either the PRR Main Line through Harrisburg or the NYC Water Level Route through Buffalo and Cleveland. The PRR Route has a serious problem for speed at Horseshoe Curve, where the line crests the Appalachians. A 270 degree swing across fill and 3% grades, plus tunnels. The line used to be 4-track and now it's down to triple track and its a key piece of Norfolk Southern's freight line.
On the Water Level Route you've got a 90 degree swing and a 2% grade on Mohawk Hill out of the Hudson River Valley to strike east. Plus the line through Cleveland is very actively used and Berea Tower is one of the most active junction towers in the US.
High speed out of Los Angeles? Ok, that's a 5% mainline grade up Cajon Pass and to get to San Francisco the line makes a further 2.2% grade in a complete circle at Tehichapi Loop. The freight roads won't let anyone else use that because it's full with freight trains.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Check density in the middle, China has more big cities along the coast.
The two railroads that commanded the NYC-Chicago market, the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad were also the first to report chronic passenger deficits in the post-war period. The short answer is that the highways and the airlines ate their traffic.
That only works up to a certain point. Too many stops and you've eliminated most of the benefit of high-speed rail.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But with the annoyance and longer waits on air travel due to the security theatre, high-speed rail begins to look like a better proposal for short hops.
For distances of 300 to 500 miles a truly high speed rail system would be very competitive with air travel. Unfortunately, as SPK noted, most U.S. rail infrastructure would need serious upgrades to accommodate speeds higher than 79 mph.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
In a fairly free market where railways have to at least break even, passenger trains have a miserable record. Airlines have a miserable record too, the net return on equity for airlines is negative, I believe and several people, Warren Buffett included have complained about that. The passenger business is always tough.
VIA Rail Canada, which I took to Ottawa last week loses money in the Corridor (Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City) even though that area is also 90% of its revenue and could reasonably break even. Ontario and Quebec balked at the $11 Billion price tag to build a 200 or 300 km/h line between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and that's the only route that could viably break even. Extending HSR to Windsor or Quebec City is a money-loser. You'd still need an almost totally new right of way because the existing CN/former Grand Trunk Railway line is built to 19th Century standards, as always it's the tight curves that kill speed.
Elsewhere in rail transport, GO Transit in Toronto is has the highest farebox return rate (least losses after fares) at 82.2% of costs recovered through the fare box. That's the highest in North America, The Toronto Transit Commission averages 70%, San Francisco is tops in the US at 64% followed by Philadelphia at 61%.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
In the US and Canada, you've also got the hidden problem: curves and hills...
High speed out of Los Angeles? Ok, that's a 5% mainline grade up Cajon Pass and to get to San Francisco the line makes a further 2.2% grade in a complete circle at Tehichapi Loop. The freight roads won't let anyone else use that because it's full with freight trains.
Actually, high speed rail between LA and San Fran is underway, having recently survived a challenge by farmers in the Central Valley.
Calif. high speed rail
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hold on a second. I'm not sure why it's profitable to have a line from Beijing (greater metro area population ~19.6 million) to Guangzhou (pop. ~12.7 million) but it's not so to have one going just over half that distance from New York City (greater metro area population ~18.9 million) to Chicago (pop. ~9.5 million). If density is the key, the U.S. certainly seems dense enough.
Read here for a full list of stations on the route. The locations served between Beijing and Guangzhou (and the eventual full-length terminus at Hong Kong) are all quite large cities by our western standards, only a couple are smaller than one million people in the immediate urban area. Most journeys will probably be on shorter sectors rather than the full Beijing to Hong Kong distance, and air will still remain the main form of transport over the full length.
Overall, I'm not sure of the impact it will have in terms of transport use. I suspect that it may well be of much greater significance as an economic stimulus project than as a useful piece of infrastructure.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But with the annoyance and longer waits on air travel due to the security theatre, high-speed rail begins to look like a better proposal for short hops. It used to be you could get from Seattle to Portland (160 miles, ish) by air in less than an hour. Not any more. It's 3 to 3.5 hours to drive in the best traffic. A high speed rail link should work admirably. One wonders how intensely the airlines are lobbying against it, if they are?
My experience in Europe a few years ago (using Eurostar and Thalys) is that high-speed is good, but once you get a distance beyond about 600km you start to get meaningful competition from airlines.
One strategy that has helped in Europe is getting the air industry to join in and invest in making the high speed rail networks more competitive. It's even gone to the point of airlines setting up codesharing on rail networks and assigning IATA airport codes to major city stations which have good rail links to another airport.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
1. From what I understand they do lobby against it, as do trucking firms because the freight railroads, Union Pacific and BNSF get the ride along on the benefits.
2. The major cost obstacle is cab signalling, which is an electrical system that uses the track to rely dispatching signals to a box in the locomotive cab instead of lineside track signals. US law states that lines with speeds greater than 80 mph must have cab signals, to prevent the engineer missing a signal and not acting appropriately. This usually includes Automatic Train Control, which brings the train to a stop if it runs a stop signal.
3. Plus lines at that speed always have Centralized Traffic Control, which places the switches and signals under direct control of the dispatcher through a control terminal.
4. The main cost with high-speed operation is the signalling and safety equipment, not additional track or train equipment. Possibly electrification, but that's not necessary. Apparently BNSF has considered electrification on its own due to fuel costs. There hasn't been new electrification by a US railroad besides Amtrak since the 1930's.
Oh dear, this is clearly not a specialist area of yours.
1. A dedicated high speed line would not provide any real benefit for the freight railroads in the USA, because the US freight operators would not use it when faced with the prospect of having to pay access fees that would cover the maintenance and paying off the capital cost, and having their access limited to certain sections at certain hours.
Making incremental speed upgrades on the classic lines would also be nowhere near beneficial to the freight operators which own them unless there were massive subsidies attached to make it worth their inconvenience. Mixing traffic which runs at vastly different speeds is a nightmare, and is best avoided by adding extra tracks to a route, using flyovers to separate conflicting movements or (where possible) restricting freight movements through a congested area to hours when there are few or no passenger trains.
2. The real major obstacle is that proper high speed rail (speed >250 km/h, which is roughly 155 mph) requires a purpose-built alignment with curves of a minimum 4000m radius, which in turn means splashing the cash to buy the land for it first. High speed train control and safeworking equipment (they don't really have lineside signals like classic lines) like the KVM430 or LZB systems would be relatively cheap because the new route would need the installation of something (regardless of what is picked) and the research and development work on those systems has already been done so it's off the shelf technology.
For incremental speed upgrades, if the track is appropriate then a relatively simple cab signalling system already exists in Amtrak usage at up to 100 mph, but that's not suitable for proper high speed rail. It's worthy of noting that this system is roughly equivalent to the British AWS or the German PZB90, both of which are basically used as enhancements for a lineside visual signal system.
3. See above, new proper lines mean new systems will need to be paid for regardless of what type is installed. CTC in its normal form is not really appropriate for high speed usage, as speeds increase so does the need for more advanced safeworking systems.
4. Electrification is extremely expensive on long distance lines which pass through sparsely populated areas, and also compulsory if you want anything faster than about 180-200 km/h (110-125 mph), let alone true high speed operation at over 250 km/h. And that's the main reason that high speed rail will never be sustainable in the USA outside of a few densely populated corridors. If BNSF are considering electrification, it would only be on a few selected routes which are busy enough to pay off the capital investment.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Actually, it is an area of specialty for me, O Giant Cheeseburger, and you obviously have zero idea about how things are actually done here in North America. The next time you try to call me a fool I'll call you to Hell. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
For a Seattle-Portland line, in North America that is generally done as in improvement to an existing freight line. No problems, most freight trains can do 79 mph anyway, especially out west. It's signalling that's the issue.
Second, nowhere outside of the existing North East Corridor and New York-Chicago has ever been considered for a completely new alignment, except for a few intra-Florida lines.
quote:
1. A dedicated high speed line would not provide any real benefit for the freight railroads in the USA, because the US freight operators would not use it when faced with the prospect of having to pay access fees that would cover the maintenance and paying off the capital cost, and having their access limited to certain sections at certain hours.
Making incremental speed upgrades on the classic lines would also be nowhere near beneficial to the freight operators which own them unless there were massive subsidies attached to make it worth their inconvenience. Mixing traffic which runs at vastly different speeds is a nightmare, and is best avoided by adding extra tracks to a route, using flyovers to separate conflicting movements or (where possible) restricting freight movements through a congested area to hours when there are few or no passenger trains.
Freight roads own the Right of Way. Under current practices, Amtrak may do line upgrades and the freight roads get a free upgrade. And did I not say that freight trains do 79 mph here anyway, especially intermodal trains?
quote:
2. The real major obstacle is that proper high speed rail (speed >250 km/h, which is roughly 155 mph) requires a purpose-built alignment with curves of a minimum 4000m radius, which in turn means splashing the cash to buy the land for it first. High speed train control and safeworking equipment (they don't really have lineside signals like classic lines) like the KVM430 or LZB systems would be relatively cheap because the new route would need the installation of something (regardless of what is picked) and the research and development work on those systems has already been done so it's off the shelf technology.
For incremental speed upgrades, if the track is appropriate then a relatively simple cab signalling system already exists in Amtrak usage at up to 100 mph, but that's not suitable for proper high speed rail. It's worthy of noting that this system is roughly equivalent to the British AWS or the German PZB90, both of which are basically used as enhancements for a lineside visual signal system.
No, cab signals at present are viewed in the rail industry as expensive, that's why they haven't seen widespread use in North America, that's been clear since the PRR installed the NEC system in the 1930's. And getting any non-North American system past the Federal Railroad Administration is a pain because the operating assumptions in North America are so different. Example: buff standards. North America has very high standards for rear-end impact that most European rail equipment doesn't meet. See also limitations on superelevation of track.
quote:
3. See above, new proper lines mean new systems will need to be paid for regardless of what type is installed. CTC in its normal form is not really appropriate for high speed usage, as speeds increase so does the need for more advanced safeworking systems.
AMTRAK currently uses CTC in the North-East Corridor. After extensive conversation with British shipmates, again the operating premise of North American dispatching and control system is different, the dispatcher is God and CTC has never had speed limitations. CTC+Cab signals is what high speed operation must have (Amtrak uses Centralized Electrification & Traffic Control)
Cab signalling in North America implies automatic detection of train location through the signalling equipment, it usually also includes speed and stop enforcement. That's what the PRR/Amtrak system does; CTC just replaces towers and switchmen. CTC is not a "safeworking" system per se in North American usage, it is a dispatching system. Safety is provided by either Automatic Block Signalling or cab signals.
quote:
4. Electrification is extremely expensive on long distance lines which pass through sparsely populated areas, and also compulsory if you want anything faster than about 180-200 km/h (110-125 mph), let alone true high speed operation at over 250 km/h. And that's the main reason that high speed rail will never be sustainable in the USA outside of a few densely populated corridors. If BNSF are considering electrification, it would only be on a few selected routes which are busy enough to pay off the capital investment.
Spoken like a true Aussie who has no idea how to operate a proper freight railway. Think Trans-Australian Railway. That's the entire North American rail network. None of this garbage about gauge. Again, in classic lines outside the NEC the freight operator owns the upgraded route, 6 passenger trains a day is not enough to support an independent right of way.
As for electrification, passenger train frequency != freight frequency North America. BNSF double-tracked its entire Chicago-Lost Angeles route ten years ago, again with at least 79 mph operation, 110 east of Kansas City, IIRC. At that volume it's a fuel decision for electrification, just as it was for the PRR in the 1930's.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
A railroad executive in the 60s (which is a long time ago, things change) told me USA railroad lines are privately owned by the railroad companies who must do all the maintenance at their own expense, while trucks use publicly provided highways and pay not nearly as much in taxes as the wear and tear they do to the highways; so railroads are a private business competing against a tax-subsidized business.
A recent (2 years ago) article by a journalist described a round trip between two Texas cities by rail. The trip going was uneventful, but on the return trip the passenger train was sidelined for 5 hours because the rail lines are owned by the freight train companies, so freight gets absolute priority. If any freight train is anywhere in the area, the passenger train sits and waits. And waits.
Somewhere I read that in Europe the passenger trains have separate tracks from freight trains. True?
A friend hates flying and travels cross country (USA) by train. You simply never know when he will arrive. The schedule can say 4 PM arrival but it will actually be 2 AM. I'm serious. That discourages train travel.
Plus it's nothing like the movies anymore. Minimal food, poor service, extremely expensive beds. Flying cross country is usually much cheaper, at least the times I've looked.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The luscious dining cars of old never paid their way, they were always "loss leaders". Railroads made their money on the first-class rail fare or extra fare. And as I said, often-times they didn't make money on many trains.
Dispatching can be sporadic, but a 5-hour wait was probably a derailment or other track incident. The Amtrak law was recently made more strict to give Amtrak dispatching priority.
The point about trucking is still true. But trucking firms have learned that they can't beat railroads long-haul on intermodal. I know one freight company advised one of my employers that it was by far the cheapest option for transcontinental freight.
The bright spot is that railroads are starting to earn their cost of capital again, after decades of not doing so. That means additional investment in rail capacity is investment-positive. BNSF exceeds its cost of capital, the other three (Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX) are close. The fact that BNSF exceeds its cost of capital is one reason Warren Buffett bought it.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Ooh, a thread about trains all happening while those of us this side of the Pond are asleep!
We're in a mess in the UK for a number of reasons.
One, the pressure of the road lobby in the 1950s (and pre WW2, probably), allied to an unthinking 'what America does is good for us' approach*
Two, the historical legacy that comes from being the first industrialised nation to adopt railways, which means that all our bridges and tunnels etc. are too small for continental-sized trains (so, despite the channel tunnel link, making through running from mainland Europe too difficult.)
Three, the short-termism of all governments who have refused to look much beyond the next election so been reluctant to invest in upgrading infrastructure etc.
Four, the nimbyism of rural landowners who resist the building of new railways through the countryside, allied to the genuine, if overstated, problem of a densely-populated country with little room to put new lines. Though that doesn't seem to have stopped the construction of many motorways.
Five, the cocked-up privatisation rushed through by John Major's government in its dying days and not overturned by a pusillanimous New Labour. This results in billions of pounds wasted as subsidies are paid to shareholders and fares rocket to levels far higher than anywhere else in Europe.
But there is now a growing realisation that our present railway system is not fit for purpose. Too many lines were closed by Beeching in the 1960s. The capacity of our present main lines, particularly the West Coast at least as far as Manchester and Liverpool, needs to be supplemented by the proposed High Speed Line 2. That's not, as critics claim, just so that businessmen can be in Birmingham 20 minutes earlier; it's to provide a relief route for impossibly overcrowded existing lines.
*nb this isn't meant as an anti-US jibe, just at the failure of British politicians to acknowledge that our geography and demography is so totally different that we can't simply transplant someone else's transport policy.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The capacity of our present main lines, particularly the West Coast at least as far as Manchester and Liverpool, needs to be supplemented by the proposed High Speed Line 2. That's not, as critics claim, just so that businessmen can be in Birmingham 20 minutes earlier; it's to provide a relief route for impossibly overcrowded existing lines.
The increasingly desperate attempts of the proponents of HS2 to justify its absurd cost are beginning to wear thin; the reality is that it's about the British government and rail enthusiasts wanting to have the same toys as Europe, despite a very different demography. In reality the capacity shortage on the West Coast main line could easily be addressed by the electrification of the GWR route to Birmingham and the GCR line to Derby - reopening it where necessary, perhaps reopening it through to Manchester.
Note that I write as a resident of Manchester who is a fan of railways - but HS2 is a Rolls Royce solution to a problem that needs a Volvo solution.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The increasingly desperate attempts of the proponents of HS2 to justify its absurd cost are beginning to wear thin; the reality is that it's about the British government and rail enthusiasts wanting to have the same toys as Europe, despite a very different demography. In reality the capacity shortage on the West Coast main line could easily be addressed by the electrification of the GWR route to Birmingham and the GCR line to Derby - reopening it where necessary, perhaps reopening it through to Manchester.
Little-Englandism again? We have a very similar demography to other parts of Europe which are not averse to high speed lines... Belgium, parts of Germany, much of France and Italy. With a proper network of such in the UK (not just southern England) we could be much more integrated with the mainland European network, instead of just having Eurostar as a commuter line for international business people. Whether Scotland becomes independent or not, (and maybe more so if it does) it will still need efficient transport links, and a High Speed line to at least Glasgow and Edinburgh would be a no-brainer in France. The countryside between Lancashire and central Scotland is almost as sparsely settled as most of France.
As far as the GWR route to Birmingham goes (I don't know which route that took) it's been partly replaced by the Chiltern line from Marylebone, which joins the GW at Banbury. Increasing the frequency and speed of trains on that line would annoy the Cotswold nimbies nearly as much as the HS route. The GCR should never have been closed of course: it's the only main line built to continental standards and its founder Watkin who dreamed of transforming the Metropolitan Line into an international railway must be shaking his head in bewilderment, if not revolving at HS, in his grave. But surely much of it has now been built over so it would be difficult to revive.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Re: the question of stations along the HS line: apparently there are 35 stations along the 1428 miles of the new Chinese HS line, which works out to just about 40-mile intervals on average. They must have worked out some form of stopping/through trains to deal with this.
There has been some carping about the construction standards of the new Chinese lines, with poor contractor standards and problems in signalling highlighted: BUT I would point out that there have been very few actual problems - one bridge collapse (in 5000 miles of new construction) and a lightning storm inteference in signalling in one other case, spread over 5 years. This is not particularly high compared to the US or most of Europe.
And the amount of traffic is huge. The southern section of the new line now runs trains on an average headway of 8 minutes, or 180 trains each way each day, including stopping trains, according to the NYT on a 664-mile segment. Roughly the same distance as Portland, ME. to Richmond, VA.
So you can hardly say they aren't trying.
I note that all the successful lines run in areas that have strong central governments which have acknowledged their transportation problems.
Even the airlines have bought in, bewcause they get stations serving their airports directly, while getting rid of the nuisance-value of short-haul flights.
Imagine: public transport, high-speed at that, direct to airports! Not in Canada, for sure, and rarely in the US.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Note that I write as a resident of Manchester who is a fan of railways - but HS2 is a Rolls Royce solution to a problem that needs a Volvo solution.
We need more lines, that's a given — the WCML is already bulging at the seams in terms of passenger capacity. Personally I'm in favour of HS2 because nobody's offering us anything else. If the government stood up and said "These two options are on the table: one new high speed line, or one traditional line plus a bunch of branch lines reopened", that'd be a different argument, but since they haven't then it only makes sense to take what is offered.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
In the US and Canada, you've also got the hidden problem: curves and hills.
You've said this before and its no less false than it was then. In Europe high-speed railway lines have been built in the Alps. And across the centre of Norway - the Oslo-Bergen line isn't strictly speaking high-speed, but it is faster than anything in North America - and built in conditions not unlike the Rockies - and it goes up to the summer snowline - and it runs all winter.
Also as the giant cheesburger said, its curves, not gradients that matter. HS trains are actually better at gradients than traditional ones, as they are lighter and faster. They can handle 5% if designed for it. For the exact same reason they are rubbish at curves, so almost everywhere they need new track alignments. Sharing with freight is irrelevant. HS rail operators no more allow freight trains onto their shiny new track than airports allow you to drive your pickup truck onto their runway.
High speed rail means new lines and new infrastructure. Which can run over new routes as easily as over old. Someone has to pay for that and business can't, it needs to be government. So the questions are political ones, not engineering ones.
Population density isn't the limiting factor everywhere in America. The obvious case is the East Coast of the USA from Virginia to Boston. The densities there are greater than most parts of the world that do have decent rail networks. Also the conurbations are more or less lined up along the coast or just inland so one serious high-speed railway connecting to local services could handle the lot of it. Its actually rather more favourable to high speed rail than most places that have it already.
A new railway running roughly SW/NE through the Toronto region need only be about 150 miles long to connect to local public transport serving a quarter the population of Canada. (Of course if the French government were planning such things they'd go for a new railway from Chicago to Quebec - the northern 30% of which probably would be economically redundant - though a great symbol of Canadian unity - again its the political question of what's worth paying for)
There are viable opportunities for shorter fast railway lines in a number of other places in North America, mostly in California, but even Houston might do with one. No-one is suggesting an electric railway from Florida to Alaska - just sensible ones in regions that have the urban conglomerations to make it worthwhile.
The reasons there are few modern passenger trains in North America are political, not technical. Government subsidies go to roads for driving on. Various business interests lobby against rail, as described above.
Also there is a sort of historical contingency. The three main uses of railways - long-distance travel, commuting, and goods - don't mix very well. Really they need separate lines. That's very expensive. So when one kind of user gains the upper hand the others can be squeezed out. In North America, outside the greater New York region, goods traffic became dominant. In most of Europe it was passenger traffic. In Britain (and also the new York area) it was commuting. In any case, high-speed operation requires completely new lines, so its irrelevant who has right of way over the old ones, they can carry on using them.
The economic balance is tipping though. As energy gets relatively more expensive, the economic (and environmental) benefits of increased urbanisation get stronger. And high-speed rail is better at connecting cities to each other than other forms of transport.
For the Boston-Washington corridor the balance probably tipped decades ago. Americans as a whole would probably be better off now if it had been possible to build a decent modern passenger railway in the East Coast corridor any time between the 1920s and 1970s. They never did.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
For the Boston-Washington corridor the balance probably tipped decades ago. Americans as a whole would probably be better off now if it had been possible to build a decent modern passenger railway in the East Coast corridor any time between the 1920s and 1970s. They never did.
And this is where you plainly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, ken. The North East Corridor was electrified and received cab signals from New York to Washington in the 1930's, under the leadership of its owner, the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The electrification was recently extended to Boston because the historic owner of that line, the New York, New Haven & Hartford RR was a ne'er-do-well and frequently bankrupt. The NEC has long supported 150 mph operation since the 1930's.
Recent Amtrak High Speed projects outside the NEC have all been about improving speed on freight lines.
The key bottlenecks in North American rail geography usually feature both grades and curves, at the same time.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Given the number and lengths of new HS trackage that have been built in many countries of the world (including Sweden and Norway, which are similar to Canada in many ways), simply parrotting that "it can't be done" is irrelevant.
Politically, it may be difficult, but physically it is completely possible - unless you believe that Canada and the US have given up all their engineering expertise.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Sober Preacher's Kid - your take on this is just weird. It's obvious that you don't really understand what a modern high-speed railway is like. Your posts read like someone who says we can't go to the Moon because the engines on their DC3 aren't powerful enough.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
People ! More light, less heat, thank you so very much.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
[ 27. December 2012, 21:46: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Personally I'm in favour of HS2 because nobody's offering us anything else. If the government stood up and said "These two options are on the table: one new high speed line, or one traditional line plus a bunch of branch lines reopened", that'd be a different argument, but since they haven't then it only makes sense to take what is offered.
I'm not in favour of it. Like the majority of people who will be living near the line, I'd have to travel to Birmingham or London to be able to catch it - it's non-stop and nobody who lives along the route will be able to board it. You're not going to get many people commuting on it on a daily basis between those two destinations, which suggests that revenue is going to have to be made up mostly from executives travelling down for occasional meetings, and holidaymakers. You won't get much of a core of regular passengers and steady income you can rely on. Also, as a HST the fares are likely to be higher than on the normal Chiltern railways and whatever is running out of Euston these days.
It's a white elephant which is being foisted on us because we're expected to keep up with the Joneses and because they've got it in Europe. Not because we need it or want it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
California is getting high speed rail. In 2028 it will be possible to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles averaging 164mph. Baby steps and everything.
[ 27. December 2012, 21:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[I'm not in favour of it. Like the majority of people who will be living near the line, I'd have to travel to Birmingham or London to be able to catch it - it's non-stop and nobody who lives along the route will be able to board it.
It's not just about Birmingham. It will improve travel between London and the NW of England/Scotland even before the line is extended as planned. Also, you forget that the benefit for those who live near it will be an improved train service on existing lines. Think continental, not little-England!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As I understand it HS2 is to be a dedicated through passenger line. Freight would go on the existing network.
The problem with upping the status of the GWR route through Banbury and Leamington Spa is that it still ends in Birmingham. New Street itself is on a cramped site, and everything goes into and out of it. That is what decides which services the networks charge highest rate fares on. Using Snow Hill is no good as everyone needs to change in the same place where all the connections are, and that is New Street.
What would be an improvement would be quadrupling the line into Birmingham past the University, as at the moment everything has to negotiate that section at the speed of the suburban units that stop everywhere. The expense and disruption mean it isn't going to happen though.
Bit puzzled by the reference to the GCR and Derby. It never went there. The lines from London, Bristol, Nottingham, Crewe and Leeds to Derby still exist. I agree the line from Derby to Manchester doesn't, and that it shouldn't have been closed.
The big difference between the Chinese and everyone else is that in stead of endless feasibility studies, business plans, public inquiries and campaigns, the Central Committee just needs to say 'build' and it is built.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Also, you forget that the benefit for those who live near it will be an improved train service on existing lines.
I can't honestly believe or see any way that that the train service on existing lines will be improved at any point in my lifetime. I don't see how it's possible.
quote:
Think continental, not little-England!
I'm a Eurosceptic. Bring on the EU opt-out referendum!
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
EU or not, we're part of the continent. You don't have to change trains when you travel to Switzerland.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
There has been a great deal of political support for high-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis.
Illinois actually sees a lot of passenger rail usage, in the form of Metra, the commuter rail system that serves suburban Chicago. Tens of thousands of people each day board Metra trains in their sleepy suburban downtowns, bound for their jobs in the Loop. There has been some minor service expansion in the past two decades. From the linked map, one can see that suburban sprawl very often follows the train lines.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
EU or not, we're part of the continent. You don't have to change trains when you travel to Switzerland.
From the UK? Not?
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
There has been a great deal of political support for high-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis.
There actually used to be one- but it rotted away after air travel took over.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the number and lengths of new HS trackage that have been built in many countries of the world (including Sweden and Norway, which are similar to Canada in many ways), simply parrotting that "it can't be done" is irrelevant.
Politically, it may be difficult, but physically it is completely possible - unless you believe that Canada and the US have given up all their engineering expertise.
It should be fairly easy in Canada. 70% of the population lives on the Québec City to Windsor Corridor. That is one part of the country where the population is more than dense enough to support it. One or two lines along that route could take care of a broad swath of the population. Add the Edmonton to Calgary and/or Calgary to Vancouver and Canada would have an excellent system.
As for profitability, ours streets, highways and bridges are built and maintained by taxpayers - so car and truck transportation is heavily subsidized. The (increasingly few) airlines that are profitable are only so because of massive government subsidies and investment in the building and maintenance of airports, air traffic control, weather forecasting services, security, etc. Ports were built and maintained by the taxpayer as well. Certainly one would want rail to be as efficient as possible, but I'm sceptical as to why it should be held to a standard that other modes of transport aren't.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
EU or not, we're part of the continent. You don't have to change trains when you travel to Switzerland.
From the UK? Not?
Currently there is no through service leaving the UK and arriving in Switzerland, but it's a fairly easy interchange in Paris so there's little incentive for anybody to establish a through service that would require Channel Tunnel compliant trains for a journey mostly on the mainland. The infrastructure is there and any operator could start through service if they had good reason to believe it would generate enough income to pay for the open access fees though.
The irony about that statement is that Switzerland is the country which does passenger rail better than anyone, and the sole reason is that they have interchanges with useful connections. The rail system in Britain could do that as well if they put effort into educating the people that properly-organised connections are good, if they did it would allow most lines to have increased service frequencies and better reliability.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
and I note that there is actually one train service in which the wheels change gauge as the train moves.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The rail system in Britain could do that as well if they put effort into educating the people that properly-organised connections are good, if they did it would allow most lines to have increased service frequencies and better reliability.
Speaking from the POV of a long-term rail commuter the service would improve dramatically if a) they banned freight trains which have a habit of running late/breaking down/going very slowly, b) managed to prevent 100% of railway-related crime like cable theft and vandalism to lineside equipment, c) all engineering works were completed on time and didn't over-run and d) weather made no difference.
The trains aren't usually just late because they're late, they're mostly late because of one of the above four reasons. This week "b", "c", and "d" have all been playing nicely together, as anyone trying to get anywhere between Birmingham, London and the West/Wales will probably be able to confirm. That's why I don't think the current level of service can ever improve significantly, no matter how much investment is put into it. There are always going to be external factors.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
and I note that there is actually one train service in which the wheels change gauge as the train moves.
In Switzerland? Not that I'd heard of (but I may be wrong).
Definitely takes place between the AVE and regular network in Spain, though.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
We do not need to get to London faster.
We do need more carriages on our seriously overcrowded local trains.
Spend the money on that, please.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We do not need to get to London faster.
You wouldn't say that if you lived in Portsmouth. The other thing is that we do need to get from London to Birmingham, Manchester and beyond more quickly. That air travel is a serious option to Manchestr from London is a bloody joke in the country that invented passenger railways.
quote:
We do need more carriages on our seriously overcrowded local trains.
I completely agree.
quote:
Spend the money on that, please.
And on improved signalling and on a whole host of other things. The pointsade up thread about the subsidy to road users is well made - although they would argue that the amount of VAT, fuel duty and road fund licence the UL Government gets from them is hardly negligible - the reality is that we need to spend a whole pile of cash on our rail network and that there isn't much of it about at present. What there is is going to be spent where the politicians will get what they perceive as the best PR. Sadly, that isn't going to be on an extra couple of carriages on you chosen commuter train.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I can't honestly believe or see any way that that the train service on existing lines will be improved at any point in my lifetime. I don't see how it's possible.
How about if most of the people travelling from Birmingham or points north are on the high speed line? If nothing else you'll have more seats available to you!
But really, this attitude of "it won't benefit me so it shouldn't be done" is why Britain can't have nice things any more. We should be looking at what benefits the nation as a whole, not just a few nimbys worried about their house prices!
[ 28. December 2012, 09:17: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How about if most of the people travelling from Birmingham or points north are on the high speed line? If nothing else you'll have more seats available to you!
Well, no, there won't be. It'll be just the same; the Cross Country lines from Birmingham to Bournemouth don't go via London, aren't usually taken by people who want to get there, and are horribly overcrowded, and the Chiltern Line trains to Marylebone are likely to be just as full as they usually are.
quote:
But really, this attitude of "it won't benefit me so it shouldn't be done" is why Britain can't have nice things any more. We should be looking at what benefits the nation as a whole, not just a few nimbys worried about their house prices!
But HS2 is only going to benefit a minority. Not most people. I really don't see how in a time of recession anyone can justify spending billions on something that isn't essential. Keep it for later and sort out the recession first, it doesn't make sense to incur further expenditure on this scale.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I really don't see how in a time of recession anyone can justify spending billions on something that isn't essential. Keep it for later and sort out the recession first, it doesn't make sense to incur further expenditure on this scale.
The theory is that spending a lot of money on infrastructure would help sort out the recession. Certainly, the current plan of not spending any money does not seem to be working.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
However since the proposed expenditure on HS2 wouldn't kick in for a good few years, this argument is irrelevant to the HS2 debate.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I really don't see how in a time of recession anyone can justify spending billions on something that isn't essential. Keep it for later and sort out the recession first, it doesn't make sense to incur further expenditure on this scale.
The theory is that spending a lot of money on infrastructure would help sort out the recession. Certainly, the current plan of not spending any money does not seem to be working.
It would be more useful to spend a tenth of the money on something people would find useful in the shorter term, rather than this grandoise showpiece that will benefits the Tories friends in the construction industry and their pals in business in about twenty years time when it gets finished, at about twice the budgeted price.
Still, it keeps the party donations coming in and that is something that should not be ignored.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
EU or not, we're part of the continent. You don't have to change trains when you travel to Switzerland.
From the UK? Not?
Sorry: ambiguous post. I meant, just because Switzerland isn't part of the EU doesn't mean its railway system isn't integrated with the rest of Europe. Whether or not through trains from the UK to Switzerland are a realistic possibility (probably not), the range of destinations should and could be broadened beyond Brussels, Paris, and Eurodisney. (Oh, and Avignon in the summer, for the Guardianistas ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
