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

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:02:57 -0600, Anonymouse <nobody@anywhere.net> wrote:

>Furze Platt wrote:
>> Queen Opens High Speed Rail Link
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The French had their high-speed Channel Tunnel link ready in 1993 - a
>> year before the tunnel was officially opened - while the Belgians
>> completed their link in the late 1990s.
>>
>> The UK, however, spent years dithering over the cost and route of its
>> link. It meant Eurostar trains could only reach their ultimate 186mph
>> speed in France and Belgium, while comparatively crawling through
>> south London and Kent.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>Hi,
>
>I'm just wondering when the Belgians and the Dutch will get the thalys
>hs rail lines working north of Brussels.

Nothing has changed, as usual "next year". The lines work but the trains aren't
high speed.
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:55:52 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:48:59 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:44:17 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:36:00 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley)
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>But it's a lot of money and pretty needless disruption, to shave a few
>>>>minutes off of a journey frequented by a small minority of people -
>>>>I'm rather surprised it was at all economically viable.
>>>
>>>Who said it was economically viable?
>>
>>Eurostar makes a profit, the tunnel runs at a gigantic loss.
>
>Maybe Eurostar needs to pay more to use the tunnel.

and then nobody would make a profit.
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:53:00 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:06:15 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:14:51 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>Well you assume as it was government subsidised that it was
>>>economically viable - if it wasn't then the government absolutely
>>>should not have been subsidising it, and therefore we shouldn't be
>>>moaning that it took years, but that it happened at all.
>>
>>The government subsidised the airport infrastructure in UK before it was
>>privatised.
>
>Sure, and you would hope they got fair value when it was privatised -
>unfortunately I don't think they did, but at the same time one bad
>decision doesn't mean we should applaud another.

You don't believe in long term government investment in the infrastructure of a
country?
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:12:27 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:02:41 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:53:00 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:06:15 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:14:51 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>>>Well you assume as it was government subsidised that it was
>>>>>economically viable - if it wasn't then the government absolutely
>>>>>should not have been subsidising it, and therefore we shouldn't be
>>>>>moaning that it took years, but that it happened at all.
>>>>
>>>>The government subsidised the airport infrastructure in UK before it was
>>>>privatised.
>>>
>>>Sure, and you would hope they got fair value when it was privatised -
>>>unfortunately I don't think they did, but at the same time one bad
>>>decision doesn't mean we should applaud another.
>>
>>You don't believe in long term government investment in the infrastructure of a
>>country?
>
>Of course I do - economically though it's not immediately apparent to
>me why reducing 8 million journeys time by 20 minutes is a
>particularly useful investment. I fail to see the return. There
>are a lot more useful infrastructure investments that could be made.

Such as?
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:19:33 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:12:27 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:02:41 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>You don't believe in long term government investment in the infrastructure of a
>>>country?
>>
>>Of course I do - economically though it's not immediately apparent to
>>me why reducing 8 million journeys time by 20 minutes is a
>>particularly useful investment. I fail to see the return. There
>>are a lot more useful infrastructure investments that could be made.
>
>I presume that the faster travel time between London-Paris and
>London-Brussels will induce even more air travelers to use
>Eurostar instead, which would make the new routing a promising
>investment. Whether the investment will fulfill the promise is
>another question.

Eurostar is running at half the forecast number of passengers/annum. DB has
applied to run trains through the tunnel to London. This will open up the
possibility of high speed train travel from London to places like Berlin
Frankfurt and Munich, one day.
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:58:11 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:24:04 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:19:33 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I presume that the faster travel time between London-Paris and
>>>London-Brussels will induce even more air travelers to use
>>>Eurostar instead, which would make the new routing a promising
>>>investment. Whether the investment will fulfill the promise is
>>>another question.
>>
>>Eurostar is running at half the forecast number of passengers/annum. DB has
>>applied to run trains through the tunnel to London. This will open up the
>>possibility of high speed train travel from London to places like Berlin
>>Frankfurt and Munich, one day.
>
>Now that I would like, although the current high speed train
>changes at Brusssels and Koeln aren't all that onerous. Still,
>that's nearly nine hours London-Berlin and that's pretty much
>beyond my willingness to sit on a train, even an ICE.
>
>Are DB trains compatible with the UK trackage and electrical?

I assume what they intend to use will be, otherwise they wouldn't be applying.

It all goes wrong when you don't live really close to one of the high speed
train stopping places.
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:30:44 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:19:33 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:12:27 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:02:41 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You don't believe in long term government investment in the infrastructure of a
>>>>country?
>>>
>>>Of course I do - economically though it's not immediately apparent to
>>>me why reducing 8 million journeys time by 20 minutes is a
>>>particularly useful investment. I fail to see the return. There
>>>are a lot more useful infrastructure investments that could be made.
>>
>>I presume that the faster travel time between London-Paris and
>>London-Brussels will induce even more air travelers to use
>>Eurostar instead, which would make the new routing a promising
>>investment. Whether the investment will fulfill the promise is
>>another question.
>
>Private enterprise investment would be fine, but this was goverment
>investment because the private enterprises failed - that's what I have
>a problem with. Government infrastructure investment should only be
>used for things which have cost/benefits where the investor would not
>get a good return, but society would - say due to freeloaders.
>
>I don't see the benefit of 20 minute savings in 2 hour journeys for a
>very limited group of people being worth the investment.

Private enterprise wants a quick return on profit.
The very limited group is millions a year.

I'm not impressed with the time table for DB ICE services to Munich from
Amsterdam
--

Martin

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:21:29 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:04:55 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:30:44 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>I don't see the benefit of 20 minute savings in 2 hour journeys for a
>>>very limited group of people being worth the investment.
>>
>>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.

>
>Save some local london commuters 20 minutes a journey and you get
>massive improvements - be that by car/tube/train/bus whatever.

Moving jobs out of London is more productive and cheaper.

>
>Fractional improvements on long journeys really aren't worth much.

It depends how many fractional improvements there are on the complete route.
--

Martin

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.

Jet engines and modern aircraft were/are all government subsidised.

>
>>>Save some local london commuters 20 minutes a journey and you get
>>>massive improvements - be that by car/tube/train/bus whatever.
>>
>>Moving jobs out of London is more productive and cheaper.
>
>Which would need infrastructure investment, to make that possible!

Just private investment.

--

Martin

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.