|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rails to the future
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
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 Ł32,000,0000,000 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...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
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 Ł32,000,000,000 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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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'?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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]](wink.gif)
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!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Crossrail actually makes Stratford more convenient to the West End and City than Euston.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
