Ship of Fools: Rails to the future

Thread: Rails to the future Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024523

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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)

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

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

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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%.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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]

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

People ! More light, less heat, thank you so very much.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

[ 27. December 2012, 21:46: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

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!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

EU or not, we're part of the continent. You don't have to change trains when you travel to Switzerland.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

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.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

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?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

and I note that there is actually one train service in which the wheels change gauge as the train moves.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

On a shipworthy tangent (sidetrack?) a local Seattle paper had an article today about a rail musuem restoring on of the historic railroad chapel cars

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

However since the proposed expenditure on HS2 wouldn't kick in for a good few years, this argument is irrelevant to the HS2 debate.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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]

)

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...Certainly, the current plan of not spending any money does not seem to be working.

Certainly the current plan of spending more money than ever but ring-fencing schools spending the NHS and overseas aid to attempt - in vain I suspect - to detoxify the image of the Tories in the eyes of people who were never going to vote for them this requiring swingeing cuts in everything else does not seem to be working.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I agree with the issue of international services from the UK - of course, the Channel Tunnel was supposed to include North of London through services and Sleeper service. The trains were actually built but never used (I think some went to Canada). What a waste of money.

Two reasons have been advanced: seeing Eurostar and the Tunnel as a "stand alone" service rather than integrated within a bigger picture; the rise of budget air flights. I think Deutsche Bahn are hoping to start service soon - I'm pretty sure they have run some test trains. Obviously any international service has to work out lots of technical and compatibility issues.

Freight of course has done rather better in terms of linking with the wider network. Of course there were international srvices back in the 1930s, both passenger and freight, via ferry (Southern Railway and LNER).

[ 28. December 2012, 10:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
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. .

Actually most of it is being spent on expensive franchising arrangements and tearing up agreements that cost millions of pounds to sort out.

Ariel: the benefits of HS2 are by no means confined to the comparatively small number of well-heeled commuters. By making communications across the country, and especially between North and South, much easier it will help to break down the north-south divide and create a more equal nation. In theory anyway!

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Given that many European countries have been able to build HS networks (not just one-off lines) under government operation, while the Brits (and the Yanks and Canucks) cannot manage to do it at all under so-described "more efficient" private management, I could wonder if the priority given to expensive private operators is wise.

Or are Anglo (UK, US, Can) governments inherently worse than any European form?

Oh, yeah, the Nightstar stock, designed to run at Chunnel speeds is now puttering around in Atlantic Canada at average speeds approaching 40 mph, on the few days when it runs at all.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Quoth Olaf:

quote:
There has been a great deal of political support for high-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis.

While 79 mph speeds (or even hypothetical speeds of 110 mph) are laudable, "High Speed" in this context means 150 mph or all the way up to the French and Chinese standard of 186 mph. Even in the Channel Tunnel and UNDER parts of London, HS trains are at present allowed 125 mph.

The IDOT proposal to run trains at 79 mph on track with crossings at grade is barely feasible, unless you accept serious collisions quite often, and attempting run at any serious speed on single bidirectional track is basically asking for no schedule adherence at all.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Or are Anglo (UK, US, Can) governments inherently worse than any European form?

Not "inherently worse" but (at least in the case of the UK and the US) dogmatically attached to the notion that the best way to run a railway is via inherently complicated and eye-wateringly expensive commercial arrangements that serve the interests of no-one other than law firms and banks. If it was genuinely necessary to privatise the UK railway system (and, as someone who is politically from the centre-right, I am favourably predisposed to privatisation of the means of production and distribution in most circumstances), I am certain sure that the manner and structure adopted by the Major government was utterly inappropriate.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
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.

I thought this was originally a Labour idea that the current government inherited and for various contractual reasons were obliged to consider?

[ 28. December 2012, 11:35: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
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.
I thought this was originally a Labour idea that the current government inherited and for various contractual reasons were obliged to consider?

It is fast becoming the staple of left wing criticism of political opponent that those opponents are acting in bad faith and for narrow personal financial interest. To be fair, this kind of caricature has a long pedigree and Churchill's election speech in 1945 kicked off the modern era. I do long for a political discourse in which ones opponent was granted the presumption of good-faith.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
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.
I thought this was originally a Labour idea that the current government inherited and for various contractual reasons were obliged to consider?
It is fast becoming the staple of left wing criticism of political opponent that those opponents are acting in bad faith and for narrow personal financial interest. To be fair, this kind of caricature has a long pedigree and Churchill's election speech in 1945 kicked off the modern era. I do long for a political discourse in which ones opponent was granted the presumption of good-faith.

Sorry, that went with the abolition of the Corn Laws. Peel's second ministry repealed them and a lot of other tariffs but brought about his government's downfall. Did the country a power of good. That was 1846 and we've seen nothing like it since.

I'd abolish Prime Minister's questions, as a step towards genuine debate (some more forlorn hope I suppose).

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

In many European countries, railways are highly unionised and thus very inefficient compared with the competing modes (budget airlines and cars).

It was a while ago now, but when I worked on the railways I heard that it takes 5 drivers to drive a train from Leeds to London:

- one man actually drives the train

- a second driver has to accompany him in the cab for "safety reasons". This second man is the successor to the fireman who used to shovel in the coal in the days of steam. Single driver operation was conceded by the unions, but not for trains travelling at 100mph or more. He serves no function.

- a third driver, from a different branch of the union, has to drive the train from the depot in Leeds to Leeds station, a distance of about three miles. There used to be multiple depots in Leeds, from the different railway companies, and this agreement dates from the time that this historic over-provision was rationalised. This driver then has no work to do until there is a train to drive back to the depot.

If any of these three roles is not filled, the train will not run.

- the rate of absenteeism was at one time so high that it was agreed that cover should be provided at a proportion of 1 to 6. Thus for every six drivers rostered to work, one driver is paid to turn up to work to be available to take the place of any absentee. Thus for the three drivers ensuring that the Leeds to London train runs, there is another half a driver sitting doing nothing - more or less waiting for one of them to fall ill.

- for every so many drivers (I forget the details), there is a shop steward who gets so many days paid leave for union activities.

- for "prestige" services like the Leeds to London train, there is "extra cover" - a man on standby for every 3 men working (including those on cover or on union activities).

And it all adds up to 5 men being paid for one of them to drive the train.

If today's railway in Britain seems like a mess of independent business units and a gravy train for lawyers drawing up contracts between them, it's because the other way was tried and failed.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In many European countries, railways are highly unionised and thus very inefficient compared with the competing modes (budget airlines and cars).

I don't see the connection between unionization and efficiency.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In many European countries, railways are highly unionised and thus very inefficient compared with the competing modes (budget airlines and cars).

It was a while ago now, but when I worked on the railways I heard that it takes 5 drivers to drive a train from Leeds to London: ...

Ah yes, the old "three guys on a shovel" featherbedding story. If this is really true, it will be documented, either in the collective agreements or the operating procedures, and you should be able to provide some sort of evidence that this was normal practice, and why. "I heard" is hearsay, and suggests you weren't actually driving trains or scheduling crews.

Industries and businesses that provide scheduled services have to have contingency plans for employee absences, which are unavoidable. Travellers get very grumpy if they are told they have to wait around until a replacement is brought in. In some industries, it is not just cost-effective, it is essential to have people on-call or on standby. Even theatres do it, since the show must go on.

Since shop stewards have to do their union work during working hours, they can't be doing their actual job at that moment. So they have to be officially given time off to do union work; otherwise they'd be walking off the job. You weren't expecting unions to meet on evenings, weekends, and holidays, were you?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Railways in North America are still heavily unionized, but their productivity has shot through the roof since 1960. Trains run with 2-person crews, the engineer and the conductor. One person in the cab at all times and a second to do anything outside, like fixing an air line or throwing a rail switch.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In many European countries, railways are highly unionised and thus very inefficient compared with the competing modes (budget airlines and cars).
I don't see the connection between unionization and efficiency.

Because the unions in the 1950s, traumatised by the experience of unemployment in the 1930s, responded to management attempts to reduce the workforce to what was actually necessary by going on strike, and by creating demarcation lines in terms of which workers could do specific jobs. Whilst this was effective and problem free when there was no significant competition with the firms involved, when competition did emerge, the firms hobbled by these agreements generally collapsed, though some reformed (docks, the newspapers and steel). However in the monopolistic industries such as the railways, there has never been the big fight necessary to remove such behaviour, with the result that such behaviour, protected by the threat of strikes in a vital public service, often remains in place.

For the record Amtrak has similar issues, with historic labour agreements adding substantially to the cost of running the system. I remember arriving at a small station in the heart of Kansas with one train each way EACH DAY to find the depot staffed by a full time member of staff. Since he had nothing better to do, we had breakfast together, and he explained that he lived just within the range required for him to actually come to work; if he'd been a bit further away, when the depot he used to work at had closed, he would have continued on the payroll indefinitely. Whilst this was 1984, it presumably reflects the reality of the day in terms of what the unions were achieving for the workers. (It appears that Newton station is STILL staffed with a 'ticket office' despite only 2 trains a day.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Two points: 1)if the managements of the railways weren't so blindingly obtuse and difficult, the unions would be considerably easier to deal with, just as in other industries. The people who complain loudest about unions are, far too often, the guys who want to treat their workers like garbage in order to inflate the financial returns the loudmouths get.

Why do you think unions got started in the first place?

and 2) what has that got to do with the possibility of High-Speed Trains, since the same arguments would apply to the HS and the present LS trains, or to the airline workers or highway workers (who are unionised for the same reason, mistreatment by management)?

Businesses/other operations have much less need of unions if the system is run properly.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

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.

Why on Earth not? People built the railways, we can build better ones.

And building a better high speed one that bypasses the existing local and commuter services automatically benefits because it removes some high-priority traffic from already overcrowded

Anyway, in the last 20-something years I've been living where I am now, two entirely new railways have been built with stations within walking distance of my flat, and a third one cobbled together from bits of underused track belonging to other railways, together with a little new construction, and some shiny new trains. So yes, if we want and we are willing to pay for it we can build new and better railways.

HS2 is not just needed, it ought to have been built twenty years ago. If we had been sensible we'd now be at the stage of opening the extension to Glasgow and starting to build a cross-country high speed railway connecting Cambridge to Oxford (HS4?) which will finally allow passenger traffic to bypass engineering works on any of the main north-south lines. In a sensibly run railway that would have been done before the WCML upgrade which cost so much, caused so many delays, and took fifteen years instead of two - which could have been done had there been decent alternate routes.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

What ken said.

Suggestions that the HS proposals are just big boys' willy-waving, and a futile attempt to copy other countries without regard to our different context, are way off-beam. You've got to ask, why is it that in France and Italy (the latter certainly comparable to the UK, and economically even weaker) only a few rural lines remain unelectrified, while major inter-city routes in this country are still served by ageing diesel units? Why do British rail fares continue to increase above inflation and why are they so much dearer than any others in Europe? Why have we as a country taken so few long-term strategic decisions about infrastructure?

Of course HS2 appears to be a ludicrously expensive project. That is partly because it would have been a lot less if it had started much earlier, and that over the construction period anyway it will balance out. Compared to the massive underinvestment in our rail system from WW2 (and before) until the last few years it is peanuts.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What ken said.

Suggestions that the HS proposals are just big boys' willy-waving, and a futile attempt to copy other countries without regard to our different context, are way off-beam. You've got to ask, why is it that in France and Italy (the latter certainly comparable to the UK, and economically even weaker) only a few rural lines remain unelectrified, while major inter-city routes in this country are still served by ageing diesel units? Why do British rail fares continue to increase above inflation and why are they so much dearer than any others in Europe? Why have we as a country taken so few long-term strategic decisions about infrastructure?

Of course HS2 appears to be a ludicrously expensive project. That is partly because it would have been a lot less if it had started much earlier, and that over the construction period anyway it will balance out. Compared to the massive underinvestment in our rail system from WW2 (and before) until the last few years it is peanuts.

What any rational member of the travelling public wants is £32,000,0000,000 spent on small but significant improvements to the rail network, such as extra coaches, longer platforms, decent signalling etc. However our lords and masters naturally want to improve their experience of rail travel and speed their descent from London when they deign to visit the proles who live up north. Funny that...

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Yes, but my (and ken's) point is that those improvements should have been done long ago. It's not either/or. Nor is it about shaving minutes off the journey for affluent commuters, it's about an effective and efficient rail system for the whole country.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Yes, but my (and ken's) point is that those improvements should have been done long ago. It's not either/or. Nor is it about shaving minutes off the journey for affluent commuters, it's about an effective and efficient rail system for the whole country.

Sadly in the real world, it IS an either / or. In terms of presentation, the hope that the 800lb gorilla of the £32,000,000,000 rail expenditure won't reduce the amount of money available for other rail expenditure is a vain hope. Of course it will make other investments less attainable. You know they said that ordaining women wouldn't undermine the status of opponents. Of course in retrospect it did. This is a similar argument IMHO.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Is that the same 'real world' where 'wealth creators' are granted tax exemptions and bonuses as incentives and the poor are on starvation wages or have their benefits cut because to pay them more would 'reward laziness'?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Angloid said.

If you want to whinge about unneccessary waste of money in expensive transport infrastructure, whinge about the plans for new airports in the SE of England. Far more environmental damage than the most grandiose fantasies of rail fans could ever cause.

And the choices the government has dictated to us are (in approximate order of government interest in them) between a new runway at Heathrow, displacing thousands of homes and two entire villages and making the busiest part of the motorway network even busier; or an artificial island in the Thames Estuary, causing vast destruction of the landscape and wildlife at immense cost, and of no benefit at all to anyone living north or west of London. Complete insanity.

More high speed rail would take pressure of the existing airports and allow relatively modest improvments to them to cope with new traffic. Its the obvious way to go, and the cheaper one.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
More high speed rail would take pressure of the existing airports and allow relatively modest improvments to them to cope with new traffic. Its the obvious way to go, and the cheaper one.

I agree.

High speed rail is about replacing domestic (or short-haul international) airline travel, not about providing incremental improvements to commuter travel. To do that you need to have the majority of the line operating in the 250-360 km/h (155-225 mph) region, ideally with the point-to-point average speed well above 200 km/h (125 mph). Linking London with Paris and Brussels (CTRL, Channel Tunnel and LGV Nord) was a good start for Britain, adding links from London and the mainland to Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds (HS2) is a logical next step.

If the high speed rail side of things is done well, even the modest improvements for the airports should not be necessary as improved telecommunication technology should be bringing down the demand for business travel.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In many European countries, railways are highly unionised and thus very inefficient compared with the competing modes (budget airlines and cars).
I don't see the connection between unionization and efficiency.

The words you're looking for are "mutual exclusivity."

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The words you're looking for are "mutual exclusivity."

This is nonsense. I pray in aid the Deutsche Bahn.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The words you're looking for are "mutual exclusivity."
This is nonsense. I pray in aid the Deutsche Bahn.

The fact that the 4th Reich is able to order its industrial relations in such a way as to prevent the abuse of power by the unions is good news for our German friends. However it's not been achieved on this sceptred isle.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

That's true enough. It's a conundrum that I've often pondered. My Grandfather was a Union General Secretary and he became, reflecting in his later years (obit 1988). quite convinced that the problem - in the public sector - stemmed from the Unions, including his own then (50s, 60s and 70s), flexing their party political muscles if they couldn't get their way, this evoking an overly rigid and defensive management response. I do find the readiness of some Trade Unions to swing into action to defend what appears to be the indefensible bewildering but, then again, the only cases I know anything like the whole picture about, reveal the most appallingly cack handed and unjust behaviour by management.

[ 01. January 2013, 07:58: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

Bumping this thread, just having gotten back from China and actually riding part of the Guangzhou to Beijing high-speed line referenced in the OP.

We rode the high-speed line from Zhuhai to Guangzhou and then from Guangzhou to Wuhan. Guangzhou (aka Canton) is a major commercial city of long standing near Hong Kong; Wuhan is apparently is the closest thing there is in China to Chicago in terms of being a major inland industrial-commercial-transportation hub. (Zhuhai is basically a new town across the river from Macau, part of the Chinese cheap manufacturing economic boom.)

The Zhuhai to Guangzhou line is part of the new high-speed network though the trains they use are not the ultra-high-speed trains -- maximum speed about 200 km/h which makes sense given that it's a short distance with numerous stops along the way. Apparently these trains are a joint-venture with Bombardier.

The Guangzhou to Wuhan line uses 8-car and 16-car consists with the familiar "Shinkashen" look to them. I think the theoretical maximum speed is around 350 km/h though our trains were running at 300 km/h or less -- closer to 250 km/h for part of the trip to Wuhan because of weather issues.

Overall the system is pretty impressive for getting a lot of people really long distances quickly and efficiently. Service is somewhat basic, even in the first-class cars, and luggage storage is a problem (if you're in China and decide to try it out, try to use a small carry-on style suitcase).

Usage seems to vary widely -- the ZH-GZ line was packed in both directions, the GZ-WH line packed on a Friday night going to Wuhan but virtually empty on the trip back mid-morning on Monday. They have built massive new concrete train stations for the new line -- unfortunately, mostly some distance from downtown, so the traditional rationale of taking the train from city centre to city centre doesn't apply -- the GZ station is the new Guangzhou South station, at the southernmost end of one of the subway lines, and the Wuhan station is in the far northeast of the city (Wuchang, near the steelworks if that helps anyone). I think it will be at the end of one of the Wuhan subway lines when the latter is finished.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The mindblowing (to us Europeans) distances in China don't seem to have forced them into the American mindset that trains are irrelevant. Maybe the sort of speeds they are capable of wouldn't be necessary in the UK, or even mainland Europe. But it rather suggests that high speed rail is the future if we're thinking of continental connections.

I've just booked tickets for a trip from Liverpool to Turin. Theoretically possible in one day but I've spread it over two; the fare pro rata is considerably cheaper than a domestic journey. However I am miffed that budget airlines can get away with undercutting train fares to a ridiculous extent, which doesn't do much for the environment.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

I understand that the Chinese plan to extend their highspeed network to link up to a high speed trans-Siberian line which will go to Kiev, Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin and eventually the Channel Tunnel. Soon, if DB gets its way, it should be possible to go from London St Pancras to Cologne direcly by High Speed and perhaps one day St Pancras to Peking.

What does not make any sense is that HS2 will not go to St Pancras or Stratford but to Euston. So it will be impossible to have through trains from all points on HS2 to all points in the European-Asian landmass. For this reason alone the planned route of HS2 makes no sense whatsoever and if it really is for express trains between Birmingham and Euston it is very doubtful there would be sufficient demand for it to make economic sense. HS2 from Stratford would make sense though

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

What does not make any sense is that HS2 will not go to St Pancras or Stratford but to Euston. So it will be impossible to have through trains from all points on HS2 to all points in the European-Asian landmass. For this reason alone the planned route of HS2 makes no sense whatsoever and if it really is for express trains between Birmingham and Euston it is very doubtful there would be sufficient demand for it to make economic sense. HS2 from Stratford would make sense though

It does seem daft. Especially as HS2 is planned, I think, to go from the west side of Euston rather than the east, which would be nearer to St Pancras. But it won't be impossible to connect with HS1... it would only need a small spur just to the north of Euston/St Pancras. Stratford would be a silly choice for an international terminal as it is nowhere near central London.

Connections in London would still be much easier than those in Paris. Every onward journey after Eurostar involves a cross-city trip by Metro or RER... and you don't even get your Metro fare included like you do in London (thanks to the legacy of BR days). It's only a ten minute walk from Euston to St Pancras. There is sometimes the option to change at Lille but all French TGVs have to circumnavigate Paris, often very slowly.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
What does not make any sense is that HS2 will not go to St Pancras or Stratford but to Euston. So it will be impossible to have through trains from all points on HS2 to all points in the European-Asian landmass.

What's wrong with the HS2-HS1 interconnection? That will allow trains to run through from HS2 towards HS1 with possible stops in at Old Oak Common and Stratford, both of which will also be accessible by Crossrail.

It's nothing too special really, just a miniature copy of the LGV Interconnexion Est which provides through services linking up four different high speed lines which also run into four different Paris termini.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What's wrong with the HS2-HS1 interconnection? That will allow trains to run through from HS2 towards HS1 with possible stops in at Old Oak Common and Stratford, both of which will also be accessible by Crossrail.

Is that the current plan or one that was rejected?

If there were somewhere to divert the East Midlands trains to, St Pancras would be big enough to handle both HS1 and HS2 traffic.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

That is indeed the revised route released last year, but I thought that bit from Old Oak Common to the HS1 tunnel portals had not changed anyway. A quick search of a couple of rail forums shows that people there are arguing over how many through services they'll get across the interconnection rather than whether it will be included.

I don't get why you're so keen about having connections in London rather than through trains, just spend a few minutes thinking about it. If you're coming from Birmingham or further away on HS2 and you're wanting to go to a mainland destination like Paris, wouldn't you prefer a train that goes all the way to Paris without being full of people trying to go to London, or having to fight against the tide while trying to make a connection.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

But surely the connection from Old Oak Common will not be a high speed link, if so, and I may be wrong here, what is the point of a high speed line that goes to a slow connection to then link up with another high speed line? If the HS1 line went to Stratford in the first place you could have a continuous high speed line. Also surely that would be much cheaper because under the current set up you have to have two separate links.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

I don't get why you're so keen about having connections in London rather than through trains, just spend a few minutes thinking about it. If you're coming from Birmingham or further away on HS2 and you're wanting to go to a mainland destination like Paris, wouldn't you prefer a train that goes all the way to Paris without being full of people trying to go to London, or having to fight against the tide while trying to make a connection.

Obviously through trains are preferable. But logistics and economics will rule out more than a few obviously popular routes like Birmingham to Paris. More destinations should be available from London and in that case it is best to make connections as easy as possible.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
But surely the connection from Old Oak Common will not be a high speed link, if so, and I may be wrong here, what is the point of a high speed line that goes to a slow connection to then link up with another high speed line? If the HS1 line went to Stratford in the first place you could have a continuous high speed line. Also surely that would be much cheaper because under the current set up you have to have two separate links.

HS1 does go to Stratford. HS2 could, but without an additional stop in central London what would be the point?

The slow link between HS lines is exactly what happens around Paris. It might be frustrating for passengers, but nowhere near as much as carting luggage across city on the Metro.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
But surely the connection from Old Oak Common will not be a high speed link, if so, and I may be wrong here, what is the point of a high speed line that goes to a slow connection to then link up with another high speed line? If the HS1 line went to Stratford in the first place you could have a continuous high speed line. Also surely that would be much cheaper because under the current set up you have to have two separate links.
HS1 does go to Stratford. HS2 could, but without an additional stop in central London what would be the point?

The slow link between HS lines is exactly what happens around Paris. It might be frustrating for passengers, but nowhere near as much as carting luggage across city on the Metro.

Why is there a need for the HS2-HS1 link trains to include a stop in central London? That will be well served on both routes by the majority of the trains which run to/from their main terminus stations.

As for the "slow" link, a couple of quick back of the envelope calculations will reveal this is not really a problem. A rough measurement from Old Oak Common and the HS1 tunnel portal shows it as being about 7.5 km (nothing compared to the distance TGV services run on classic lines), which will be covered in about 6 minutes at the average speed of about 85 km/h. The average speed on the section from OOC to Euston is to be about 150 km/h (maximum of 225 km/h, but down to under 50 near the station) which would take about 4 minutes.

Using the link would therefore "delay" you by about 2 minutes if you're comparing it only on speed, but can you possibly imagine ever doing a connection at even a medium-sized station like St Pancras International in that time even if HS2 terminated there?

I wouldn't be surprised if the speed for the tunnel section of the HS2-HS1 was bumped up beyond 100 km/h in the end, given the tunnel will be the same as the HS2 tunnels alongside it.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Obviously through trains are preferable. But logistics and economics will rule out more than a few obviously popular routes like Birmingham to Paris. More destinations should be available from London and in that case it is best to make connections as easy as possible.

That's exactly why you need the link route. The two London stations will be busy enough as it is and absolute hell if you throw a whole lot of HS1-HS2 connecting passengers into the mix (and tax the immigration/customs routine there even more than it is currently), but with the HS1-HS2 link having through trains there will be other options for where those connections can take place such as Stratford or Lille. Yes, I do know that currently no international trains stop at Stratford and many don't serve Lille, but timetables could be tweaked to add those stops without any problems, especially with the new Velaro trains which are a whole generation more advanced than the current TGV-TMST trains used by Eurostar at only 300 km/h.

With even a limited selection of European destinations available from Birmingham and Manchester (like the current range isn't limited already), people wanting to change for other European destinations will still be better off using a through train and transferring at some location other than a busy terminus. For a start, if immigration/customs is still required in 2026 (i.e. if Britain is still holding out on Schengen) it means they can do that as part of smaller crowds in Birmingham/Manchester instead of having to factor in a generous amount of time for doing that among great hordes in London.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
But surely the connection from Old Oak Common will not be a high speed link, if so, and I may be wrong here, what is the point of a high speed line that goes to a slow connection to then link up with another high speed line? If the HS1 line went to Stratford in the first place you could have a continuous high speed line. Also surely that would be much cheaper because under the current set up you have to have two separate links.
HS1 does go to Stratford. HS2 could, but without an additional stop in central London what would be the point?

The slow link between HS lines is exactly what happens around Paris. It might be frustrating for passengers, but nowhere near as much as carting luggage across city on the Metro.

Well the answer therefore is to think of Stratford as a London terminus. It will be on the Cross Rail Line and is already on the Central, District and DLR lines so is just as convenient, if not more so, for most of London as Euston. It would also mean that a HS line to Stratford could have high speed through trains. I find it difficult to believe that taking the high speed line north out of Stratford would be anywhere as expensive to build as having a tunnel all the way to Euston. Also Stratford has much better motorway links and masses of room for development whereas Euston is a gridlocked hellhole. I cannot see any sense at all in a high speed link to Euston.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Every onward journey after Eurostar involves a cross-city trip by Metro or RER...

Not if you are sensible and go by Brussels [Biased]

quote:

It's only a ten minute walk from Euston to St Pancras.

If that. Euston and St. Pancras stations are a lot closer to each other than the different terminal buildings at Heathrow are!

In fact the gap between the two stations is only about twice the width of one of them. Probably not much more than than the gap between the most distant platforms in Waterloo or Clapham Junction, which are much bigger than Euston. Or not much more than the unneccessarily long walk between the platforms and the street entrance at Euston - which is by a long way London's most unpleasant and inconvenient station. Perhaps Britain's second most unpleasant large station after New Street, but at least New Street is easier to use - Euston seems designed to piss off and confuse passengers. (I have a minor rant about Euston on a blog here - and its not got any better since)

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
HS1 does go to Stratford. HS2 could, but without an additional stop in central London what would be the point?

Because Stratford is very well connected to local rail lines that can take you pretty much anywhere in London - rather better connected than Euston in fact. (Though Euston is only a short walk from lots of other stations of course) Most people arriving in a city the size of London need to take some other transport to their final destination, wherever they arrive. All the main stations are more convenient than any of the airports, but the chance of the place you are actually going to being near one of them is quite small!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

We visit Heidelberg in Germany a LOT. I can't imagine ever being able to easily go by train - but you never know. The German ICE trains are fabulous.

Currently we fly or drive (ferry to Rotterdam). Flying is much cheaper.

[ 15. January 2013, 11:22: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We visit Heidelberg in Germany a LOT. I can't imagine ever being able to easily go by train - but you never know. The German ICE trains are fabulous.

Currently we fly or drive (ferry to Rotterdam). Flying is much cheaper.

Flying is cheaper because there is no VAT or excise duty on jet fuel for international flights.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We visit Heidelberg in Germany a LOT. I can't imagine ever being able to easily go by train - but you never know. The German ICE trains are fabulous.

Currently we fly or drive (ferry to Rotterdam). Flying is much cheaper.

Last year we went by train from Ebbsfleet in Kent to Regensburg in Bavaria with an overnight stop in Cologne. In fact the fare was only slightly more expensive than flying and of course the train takes you to your destination and not some airport 30 miles away which usually makes it necessary to hire a car or take a bus. I don't know what sort of line Heidelberg is on but it is not far from Frankfurt which is very easy to get to on the ICE train system at 150mph more or less all the way from Cologne.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Every onward journey after Eurostar involves a cross-city trip by Metro or RER...
Not if you are sensible and go by Brussels

Or change at Lille for a TGV service that uses the LGV Interconnexion Est to then run through to the LGV Est, LGV Sud-Est or LGV Atlantique.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
HS1 does go to Stratford. HS2 could, but without an additional stop in central London what would be the point?
Because Stratford is very well connected to local rail lines that can take you pretty much anywhere in London - rather better connected than Euston in fact. (Though Euston is only a short walk from lots of other stations of course) Most people arriving in a city the size of London need to take some other transport to their final destination, wherever they arrive. All the main stations are more convenient than any of the airports, but the chance of the place you are actually going to being near one of them is quite small!

I think a simple link line allowing north-of-London passengers direct travel to the continent is almost essential. Certainly very desirable. And an interchange like Stratford on it would make permutations of journeys much easier.

That's different from the site of the London terminus for HS2. If passengers are heading for businesses in the Canary Wharf area Stratford would be fine, but for the vast majority of people it is surely in the wrong place. The West End, universities, shops, theatres and galleries and many hotels are all within walking distance of Euston. There seems little point of saving a few minutes on the principal journey and then adding a complicated tube or bus journey on top.

I just hope that the surroundings of post-Olympics Stratford offer more amenities for transferring passenger than those of Lille. I had an hour to kill there once and managed a stroll round the deadly shopping centre with its even deadlier refreshment facilities.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

Crossrail actually makes Stratford more convenient to the West End and City than Euston.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What are the actual pros/cons of improving passenger rail service in a useful way,

Back in June we drove a little over an hour to Greenville SC, spent the night and caught the Crescent as it went from New York to New Orleans to go to a wedding. Some family members flew. Some drove. The ones that drove their cars got there a little quicker. But they had to actually drive. I was able to read, sleep, go to the club car for a beer, eat in the dining car, stare out the window, talk with other travelers about stuff, whatever.

I don't like flying. Amtrak didn't have to beat the finest trains in the world for me to be happy with it. It just had to beat driving.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Crossrail actually makes Stratford more convenient to the West End and City than Euston.

'Will'. But I get your point, except that it is not within walking distance. But to add, either way HS2 is going to involve replacing or remodelling Euston, which must be a good thing. It is a hateful place. Bring back the Arch!

[ 15. January 2013, 17:23: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I don't like flying. Amtrak didn't have to beat the finest trains in the world for me to be happy with it. It just had to beat driving.

I really don`t understand why there hasn`t been a pro-train, anti-miseries-of-air-travel consumer backlash. Who wouldn`t rather "read, sleep, go to the club car for a beer, eat in the dining car, stare out the window, talk with other travelers about stuff, whatever" than be electronically strip-searched, have your water bottle confiscated, get a blood clot from sitting for hours in a cramped seat, and end up on the opposite side of the continent from your luggage?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I really don`t understand why there hasn`t been a pro-train, anti-miseries-of-air-travel consumer backlash. Who wouldn`t rather "read, sleep, go to the club car for a beer, eat in the dining car, stare out the window, talk with other travelers about stuff, whatever" than be electronically strip-searched, have your water bottle confiscated. . .

The problem with Amtrak is that, except in the Northeast Corridor, it's often slower than driving. Even in the Northeast Corridor it's often subject to delays. And trains can often be very dirty, especially when passengers don't clean up after themselves (so to speak) in the lavatories, or when deboarding they leave their trash behind for the next occupant of their seat to deal with.

Don't get me wrong -- I hate what one has to deal with at airports and fly as little as I must. On the other hand, I love trains and travel by train whenever I can. I just wish they were better.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I don't like flying. Amtrak didn't have to beat the finest trains in the world for me to be happy with it. It just had to beat driving.
I really don`t understand why there hasn`t been a pro-train, anti-miseries-of-air-travel consumer backlash. Who wouldn`t rather "read, sleep, go to the club car for a beer, eat in the dining car, stare out the window, talk with other travelers about stuff, whatever" than be electronically strip-searched, have your water bottle confiscated, get a blood clot from sitting for hours in a cramped seat, and end up on the opposite side of the continent from your luggage?

It's probably not very often that one can find a straight shot on Amtrak to the place they want to go. Greenville SC to New Orleans is one and the timing works out to where there's no need to get a sleeper. It would be way cool if there was an Amtrak route that approximated I-40 so we could just hop a train to Nashville to see the kids.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Crossrail actually makes Stratford more convenient to the West End and City than Euston.
'Will'. But I get your point, except that it is not within walking distance. But to add, either way HS2 is going to involve replacing or remodelling Euston, which must be a good thing. It is a hateful place. Bring back the Arch!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Last year we went by train from Ebbsfleet in Kent to Regensburg in Bavaria with an overnight stop in Cologne. In fact the fare was only slightly more expensive than flying and of course the train takes you to your destination and not some airport 30 miles away which usually makes it necessary to hire a car or take a bus. I don't know what sort of line Heidelberg is on but it is not far from Frankfurt which is very easy to get to on the ICE train system at 150mph more or less all the way from Cologne.

I'm going to look into it. I much prefer the train to flying or driving (Don't tell my son who is about to become a pilot!)

When we fly to Frankfurt we get the ICE train to Mannheim, then the local train to Heidelberg. So I'm not sure how many changes it would mean from Manchester - but it'd be great fun!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

When we fly to Frankfurt we get the ICE train to Mannheim, then the local train to Heidelberg. So I'm not sure how many changes it would mean from Manchester - but it'd be great fun!

Four changes seems to be the best you can do it, from Manchester. But easily achievable in one day with a not too early start.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

Can be done with three changes: London; Brussels; Frankfurt; or London; Brussels; Cologne. Leaving at 07.55 from Manchester you can be in Heidelberg at 19.12 (via Frankfurt) or 19.34 (via Cologne). Information from DB online.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Doesn't a thread like this tempt all the clerical anoraks out of the woodwork?

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

Asperger's Syndrome didn't exist when I was a schoolboy. Apparently now it simply rates as Autism. Either way I never cared for wearing anoraks.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

They weren't invented when I was a schoolboy. [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0