Queen Opens High Speed Rail Link - 14 years after the French....

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:26:41 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:04:55 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not impressed with the time table for DB ICE services to Munich from
>>Amsterdam
>
>Why? Seven and a half hours, including a change of trains,
>doesn't seem all that bad for the distance covered.

It works out at an average of just under 60 mph. Hardly high speed.

>
>I admit, though, that after spending some seven hours on a
>Munich->Berlin ICE I felt we might better have taken a plane, but
>I had a BahnCard50 which at that time gave my wife, daughter and
>myself half fare on the train.

The idea of having to be in Amsterdam around 6.30 am for the only direct train
of the day puts me off.
--

Martin

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:27:56 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:19:37 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:52:24 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:21:29 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>>>Private enterprise wants a quick return on profit.
>>>>>The very limited group is millions a year.
>>>>
>>>>but it's still not much time, and it's not very time-sensitive - the
>>>>number of people flying NY to London a year is a lot more, but
>>>>government isn't subsidising the speeding up of planes to save those
>>>>folk 20 minutes on each one - because it's really not sensible the
>>>>journeys are not that time sensitive.
>>>
>>>They already did a long time ago.
>>
>>Concorde? sure and I think that showed the success of that idea!
>>People simply didn't need that speed.
>
>Not for that price....

In fact it flew with high passenger loads.
--

Martin

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:34:25 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:22:38 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Jet engines and modern aircraft were/are all government subsidised.
>
>That may be a tad hyperbolic. I seem to recall that the 747 was
>designed and built by Boeing on their own in a bet-the-company
>mode. Obviously, of course, jet engine development began with
>military, but I don't have clear standards for how far back you
>can go claiming a subsidy.

If you don't believe that military contracts and government funded research
don't subsidise civilian aircraft development you are naive,
--

Martin

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:39:25 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:22:38 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:19:37 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>>Moving jobs out of London is more productive and cheaper.
>>>
>>>Which would need infrastructure investment, to make that possible!
>>
>>Just private investment.
>
>No! because the costs fall on the companies moving the jobs, but the
>benefits go to the wider society, it's precisely an area for
>government investment.

If you want to subsidise private companies with the taxes you pay.
--

Martin

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:13:05 -0800, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <unh6j3hji9m4dl60hujdk675mqh95iptah@>,
> Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >Concorde? sure and I think that showed the success of that idea!
>> >People simply didn't need that speed.
>
>Whether or not people needed this speed is one question. What Concorde
>also showed, however, is that it also really wasn't technologically
>feasible, within the laws of physics, then or (probably) now.

Of course it was. It flew for more two decades.
--

Martin

In article <dpl6j35anp0tc6b324b24eps6bcdte8uh7@>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

> >Whether or not people needed this speed is one question. What Concorde
> >also showed, however, is that it also really wasn't technologically
> >feasible, within the laws of physics, then or (probably) now.
>
> Of course it was. It flew for more two decades.

And over that period it never came anywhere within sight of paying back
its immense (taxpayer-funded) development costs.

And, despite claims from its operators, it probably never came anywhere
near operating at a genuine operating profit, even with development
costs and capitalization totally written off.

And most important, despite all the pampering it required, it ended up
with (I'm pretty sure) by far the _worst_ safety record (deaths per
passenger mile) of any major passenger airplane of the past half century.

And finally, it basically never showed the way to solving any of the
major technical limitations that led to all of the above problems. It
hasn't led to any successor -- and doesn't seem likely to.

In article <1194556479.262653.251030@t8g2000prg.. com>,
Wim Bledon <michaelnewportm> wrote:

> it was a technological marvel, but the money should have been spent on
> something more useful....sounds like London's Olympic bid......

I'll concede, we're debating over semantics here -- but from my
interpretation of the terms, it was a technological and engineering
failure and disaster (just like the Shuttle).

Hatunen wrote:
>
> I assume the Eurostar journey from St Pancras will now attract
> more passengers from other parts of southeast England. Whether
> it's sufficient to justify the construction cost, I don't know. I
> also presume taht the UK will want to extend Eurostar service
> further into England, but that remains to be seen.
>
It was supposed to have been extended up to Edinburgh - but the funds
for that seem to have been diverted to other places.

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g4h4.uk> wrote in message
news:1i7avvo.d1hccm115qsyfN%d4g4h4.uk...
>S Viemeister <sheila@see.sig> wrote:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>> >
>> > I assume the Eurostar journey from St Pancras will now attract
>> > more passengers from other parts of southeast England. Whether
>> > it's sufficient to justify the construction cost, I don't know. I
>> > also presume taht the UK will want to extend Eurostar service
>> > further into England, but that remains to be seen.
>> >
>> It was supposed to have been extended up to Edinburgh - but the funds
>> for that seem to have been diverted to other places.
>
> I wouldn't see the point of extending it to Edinburgh, as it would mean
> the eurostar sharing an already busy line. (GNER was actually using
> Eurostar stock on that line for a while for extra capacity.) Then, you
> would have passport control implications as well. Better just to take
> the train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross then walk a few minutes to St
> Pancras.
>


Surely we won't need a Passport to go to Scotland until Alex Salmond becomes
President?
--

JohnT

Hatunen wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:31:21 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:39:25 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:22:38 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:19:37 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Moving jobs out of London is more productive and cheaper.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which would need infrastructure investment, to make that possible!
>>>>
>>>>Just private investment.
>>>
>>>No! because the costs fall on the companies moving the jobs, but the
>>>benefits go to the wider society, it's precisely an area for
>>>government investment.
>>
>>If you want to subsidise private companies with the taxes you pay.
>
>
> Happens all the time. Tax breaks to Honda to build a plant in
> Tennessee. Highwya improvements so empoyees can reach their jobs.
> Texas built farm-to-market roads everywhere years ago to help
> farmers and ranchers sell their products.
>
> The assumption is, and it's not a bad one, that such
> infrastructure improvements provide more taxes through higher pay
> for employees, income for local suppliers of the new business,
> higher property taxes (after accounting for any tax breaks
> granted) more state income tax revenue.
>
> But don't get me started on local governments building new
> stadiums and arenas for sports teams....
>

But then they charge non-residents.