Eurostar

[747-436]

As has been said on here if the any past and present UK Governments had long term joined up transport thinking Eurostar and UK high speed rail would very much compete with Airlines on more than two routes! Paris and Brussels, the best option city centre to city centre is Eurostar.

Frankfurt may come in to it if Deutsche Bahn are allowed to operate their Intercity Trains in to London, it will be within 4-5 hours from London which would compete effectivly with the plane city centre to city centre.

What I find really strange is that High Speed 2 in the UK is being planned to avoid Heathrow , with a possible link only planned for later phases.
It should be like Frankfurt Airport and CDG, Frankfurt airport station is a major interchange for German Intercity trains bringing people to the airport from other regions.
If that was done at Heathrow with a high speed line to Manchester you could reduce domestic flights straight away as people would connect to flights from the train.

You would also have the benefit of bringing people in to LHR from other areas west and also if it was linked to Eurostar.

With all the oppostion building it is not a dead cert it will be built, maybe if it was built alonside the existing M40 it would reduce this..

Sadly Governments in the UK don't really seem to have managed to plan good transport infrastructure and slow planning enquires and strong oppostion groups mean things take forever.
Perhaps we should get the Chinese in to sort it out.....

[AirResearcher]

747-436 - totally agree with you, and I'm still amazed that TfL are totally dismissive of the ideas I put forward which would solve sveral major problems at once, and put LHR back into its rightful position as one of the most important EU hubs for air AND HS2.... its actually really simple and fits in perfectly with svseral other major schemes in the area, and believe it or not would probaly please most of the environmentalists around Heathrow!

[jabird]

AR,

And cost how much?

TfL aren't responsible for airports. The matter was discussed at length in the 'Future of Aviation' White Paper, 2003. An airport in Cliffe marches was dismissed on cost and environmental grounds. Boris Island is just a more extreme version of this - the airlines don't want it, no-one can afford it and it would turn London's geography (ie business locations as pointed out above) on its head. If it was to happen, it would be a matter for parliament to decide as it would clearly be a matter of national interest. Or alternatively, a private consortium could put forward a bid - again presumably to parliament as the Thames Estuary would be outside any one planning area?

There ought to be a LONDON - all airports thread for that?

[Beancounter1]

Eurotunnel/Eurostar cost

The tunnel cost £9.5bn. Eurotunnel went bankrupt with £6.2bn debt. Eurotunnel lost £60m in 2010. Eurostar has lost £2.6bn since 1990.
UK trains are subsidised to the tune of £5bn a year.
Total cost of HS2 is £33bn.

[racedo]

Beancounter

That is at todays prices so basically double whatever figure they come up with as a good guess for costs, reduce passenger numbers by 60% and average fares by same.

[Lokfuhrer]

I don't think the costs would overrun to such an extent. I actually believe that the proposed route for HS2 (being planned to within 2 meters) is a very acurate prediction of costs, and those costs include all sorts of works ie demolish 3 bridges and create a roundabout and a new bridge near where i live. they went to huge detail in planning this and whatever the cost will be, it will always be hard to accept when transport budgets compete against health, education and welfare ect for the taxes we are prepared to pay. I believe that with across the board polital support for HS2, it is now or never. Such a project will never become cheaper with time, especially on our overcrowded island where the population is predicted to rise quite sharply over the next 40 years. HS2 is the stepping stone to HS3 and 4 wherever they may be (bristol-birmingham, liverpool-manchester-leeds-newcastle). We know they plan to continue HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Think of the high speed network that would give our future generations. I agree that HS2 should be routed via Heathrow and through ticketing should be offered to passengers to provide the reassurance of 'through journey integrity'. We must allow ourselves to consider the financial risk taken by our fore fathers in providing the conventional railway we now take for granted, and understand that HS2 will become a part of the national infrastucture of the UK, and we'll be asking ourselves why we took so long to build it. Many people may not see a direct benefit from HS2, but in future their slower trains may be more punctual and reliable because they are not being delayed at junctions waiting for the faster trains to go first. And they'll never understand that their journey has been improved by a railway line they may not use. Also, whatever the cost will be, it will be worth it just to get some funds from the EU to improve our crumbling corner of this pretty little continent. It would be a scandal if they didn't put any finance towards it.
As a stand alone railway, it could make a profit. But if it doesn't, subsidising such a huge piece of national infrastructure should not be viewed as a negative thing. Regarding the safety of High Speed trains and the UK railways in general. The overall record is good, and it's been a few years now since a major crash. The railway has become semi paralysed and way over cautious in its safety performance in order to prevent the (mostly stupid) red top headlines that follow a major incident.

[jabird]

Beancounter,

Trains & tracks are expensive stuff but so are planes & airports - cue Mirabel! So are private airlines any better with inverstors' cash - cue Buffet's quote about the best thing they could have done is 'shot Orville & Wilbur'.

But I think times are changing - the thread started on Eurostar, but it is also worth pointing out AF-KLM are looking at high speed rail. Why not BA? Because it can't provide them any hub-feeder services. AMS, CDG & FRA are all attached to the European high speed network, we are just getting talk for LHR.

Lokfuhrer,

I believe that with across the board polital support for HS2

I always worry when the three main parties agree on something! They all want to keep us in the EU, but there is growing demand for a referendum (hears the whoosh of jetblast, but it was the best example I could think of). I have seen local politicians time & again congratulate themselves on 'unanimous' support for what they are doing, when they haven't even asked if anyone objects!

Such a project will never become cheaper with time, especially on our overcrowded island where the population is predicted to rise quite sharply over the next 40 years.

The more I read about maglevs, the more I like them - Ultraspeed makes some interesting claims if they can be given another look by the govt. A risky gamble? So is HS2. The cost of Maglevs will certainly come down over time and the UK economy should also be in better shape. Re: population - much of the predicted demand is based on changing social patterns, not just outright growth. There is also the question of who we let in and who leaves (see above), but more importantly how this growth is managed. If we go down the Spanish route - densely packed cities with quality urban spaces, not much in between - then inter-city transport becomes relatively easy, whatever the mode. If we allowed more US-style sprawl, investment in rail is often a total waste of time. Thankfully, we're more like the Spanish.

I haven't seen any suggestion that the EU is planning to foot any of the bill. But they have paid for some roads in Coventry, and they chipped in a few quid towards BHX's maglev replacement. This to me shows the pointlessness of EU TENS & regional policy - why do we give them money to give back to us, when we could just give the money direct to where we deem it best spent (and that does not include private airport operators!).

As for our forefathers - the original railways were privately funded - then came the boom and now we've got some nice cycleways. Isambard was a top class engineer but a lousy accountant! It was parliament that had the brilliant idea not to let the railways venture into central London. So along came the tube. I'd like to see a cost-benefit of a Berlin style Euston-Waterloo/Victoria tunnel, compared with HS2 or Crossrail.

There is no point in zooming into London at breakneck speed, only to slow down to a snail's pace once you get there. Of course, we can't join all the dots, but new lines need to terminate somwhere, and I don't think serious consideration has been given to making that point anywhere other than where the existing line already serves. Is that innovation?

But yes LF, I totally agree with you about safety. Last major incident was Grayrigg - train slid down an embankment - pretty serious snarl, but just 1 fatality.

[AirResearcher]

Jabird, agree with all you said, the reason I spoke to TfL was because the DfT are not remotely interested in talking - especialy when there's any remote reference to the third runway at LHR. More importantly, one person at the DfT - Theresa Villiers, appears to be incredibly negative and or disinterested about aviation - period. How she can do her job effectively with this view astounds me, and I'm sure it is not helping the aviation industry in the UK as we see the need for modernisation , growth and properly integrated intermodal transport.

The cost of the recommendations would be dependent on a lot of issues, and you are right, it would need a Parliamentary decision. My hope was that using the TfL report on a new airport for London issued earlier this year could pave the way for talks with the relevant people. Sadly that looks unlikely at the moment.

The 2003 white paper interestingly dismissed a few growth alternatives because it was a foregone conclusion pretty much that the 3rd rwy would be built, and T5 was going to be complete.

I agree about the new thread...

Lastly - this is quite relevant:
Chinese carriers slash fares, improve service to compete with high-speed rail | ATWOnline

[Lokfuhrer]

Jabird, i agree with your views about the EU and politicians. I am also curious about the potential of maglev. I'm very disappointed that the germans have dropped the plan to connect Munich airport to the city using maglev. I just wonder how the system would cope with heavy snow???
one of the problems with transport infrastructure planning in the UK is the short termism that affects our governing elite when planning public services, combined with the very high cost of doing anything.
I thought there was to be an interchange station at Old Oak which would integrate HS2 into Crossrail. But as for us being like the Spanish, i certainly hope not. As nice as their high speed trains are you need an advance reservation. You can turn up on the day, but if there's no seats left you're stuck. There's also the need to check in & security screen luggage (a job creation scheme to provide the illusion of security as the Madrid bombings happened on local trains), which takes away some of the advantage of railways.
So the best option for us would be to cherry pick best practise from around the world or become world leaders in developing intercity maglev. Either way it's expensive and there will always be disagreement, hence my constant reference to building it as a legacy for our (grand)children.

[racedo]

I don't think the costs would overrun to such an extent. I actually believe that the proposed route for HS2 (being planned to within 2 meters) is a very acurate prediction of costs, and those costs include all sorts of works ie demolish 3 bridges and create a roundabout and a new bridge near where i live. they went to huge detail in planning this and whatever the cost will be, it will always be hard to accept when transport budgets compete against health, education and welfare ect for the taxes we are prepared to pay. I believe that with across the board polital support for HS2, it is now or never. Such a project will never become cheaper with time, especially on our overcrowded island where the population is predicted to rise quite sharply over the next 40 years. HS2 is the stepping stone to HS3 and 4 wherever they may be (bristol-birmingham, liverpool-manchester-leeds-newcastle). We know they plan to continue HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Think of the high speed network that would give our future generations. I agree that HS2 should be routed via Heathrow and through ticketing should be offered to passengers to provide the reassurance of 'through journey integrity'. We must allow ourselves to consider the financial risk taken by our fore fathers in providing the conventional railway we now take for granted, and understand that HS2 will become a part of the national infrastucture of the UK, and we'll be asking ourselves why we took so long to build it. Many people may not see a direct benefit from HS2, but in future their slower trains may be more punctual and reliable because they are not being delayed at junctions waiting for the faster trains to go first. And they'll never understand that their journey has been improved by a railway line they may not use. Also, whatever the cost will be, it will be worth it just to get some funds from the EU to improve our crumbling corner of this pretty little continent. It would be a scandal if they didn't put any finance towards it.
As a stand alone railway, it could make a profit. But if it doesn't, subsidising such a huge piece of national infrastructure should not be viewed as a negative thing. Regarding the safety of High Speed trains and the UK railways in general. The overall record is good, and it's been a few years now since a major crash. The railway has become semi paralysed and way over cautious in its safety performance in order to prevent the (mostly stupid) red top headlines that follow a major incident.

It will cost twice what is proposed at a minimum.

The remit of it and the sellers of it have not come up with a business case that is ever going to work.

Claiming that because it works in France or Switzerland it should work here ignores the fact that there are existing alternatives which work well.

I can travel from London in 3-4 hours by car and get to my end destination without needing to change from my car, where as I will need to take transport from home to wherever and then at the other end. Great idea you can save an hour but I am travelling with 3 members of my family so even assumming fuel is £3 a litre it will still be cheaper than on rail.

HS2 is a cost this country can't afford.

[RB311]

HS2 is a cost this country can't afford.

Here Here.

HS2 serves only to make politicians feel they are doing something visionary and environmentally beneficial, and to hype up rail enthusiasts and train spotters.

The ruination of the countryside that will take place, the enormous costs that will be imposed on the beleagued taxpayer and the minimal benefit that will result is the only legacy that deciding to build HS2 will leave.

As others have said, just because others do it doesn't make it right for the UK.

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Jetblast where it belongs.

[Lokfuhrer]

RB311,

HS2 is really not the sort of thing that rail enthusiasts and train spotters enjoy. They much prefer loud old diesel locos and real old school trains. Where HS2 gets us talking is in the politics and potential of it, in much the same way as this thread.
And a high speed line is much less ruinous to the country side than a motorway or dual carriageway. Some of HS2 is even going to put in tunnels at greater cost in order to protect the countryside, which has never been done on any UK motorway that i'm aware of.

racedo

You travel 3 to 4 hours by car. Whose gardens were ripped up to build the nice wide motorways you drive on, whose homes blighted by the non stop, constant drone of traffic heard for miles around??? i accept the convenience of the car. And when we get reliable, long range electric ones it will be interesting to see what our governing elite attack when emissions are down to zero. Although you consider it cheaper to drive, even if fuel prices double. I think you may find a 'family railcard' would make a huge difference to your assumptions. What is needed is for the ticketing system to become easier to understand eg did you know that with the railcard you can travel on the peak (very expensive) Virgin trains with an Off peak ticket which also recieves the railcard discount. Rail fares do tend to look uncompetetive against the car when you have a group of people travelling, but fares can work out far cheaper if people understood how to use all the fare options they have. The system needs to be more user friendly, and advertised better.

You have no evidence to say that HS2 would cost double the estimates. And while you say we can't afford it, the bulk of the costs would not need paying for almost 10 years, and they'd be spread over a longer period. You say the current alternatives work well and then tell us about your long drives. Should they take place in electic powered cars in 20 years time, i wonder where they will build the nuclear power station to fuel all of our electric cars?

[jabird]

Theresa Villiers, appears to be incredibly negative and or disinterested about aviation - period

And she is also a big friend of Cyprus. I suppose she can walk on water too?

Racedo,

There is much in the Swiss model for us to follow - total integration between modes etc - but they don't have high speed rail.

Lf, my reference to the Spanish was in regards to having high density cities but relatively little in between - that favours public transport infrastructure. Totally agree on AVE security, terrorists will go for the easiest target. But spotters like new technology too, look how many people have tried out the maglevs in Germany and Japan, even though they don't actually take them anywhere.

RB, I don't think there is a transport system invented to date which doesn't have some form of impact on the countryside - ferries perhaps but they still need ports!

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Jetblast where it belongs.

I hope not! OK, so we've bent about from ES to HS2, but the core interest is still in the emergence of high speed trains as an alternative to short haul air. This is still about shifting people first, political ramifications second.

[racedo]

You travel 3 to 4 hours by car. Whose gardens were ripped up to build the nice wide motorways you drive on, whose homes blighted by the non stop, constant drone of traffic heard for miles around??? i accept the convenience of the car. And when we get reliable, long range electric ones it will be interesting to see what our governing elite attack when emissions are down to zero. Although you consider it cheaper to drive, even if fuel prices double. I think you may find a 'family railcard' would make a huge difference to your assumptions. What is needed is for the ticketing system to become easier to understand eg did you know that with the railcard you can travel on the peak (very expensive) Virgin trains with an Off peak ticket which also recieves the railcard discount. Rail fares do tend to look uncompetetive against the car when you have a group of people travelling, but fares can work out far cheaper if people understood how to use all the fare options they have. The system needs to be more user friendly, and advertised better.

The Motorways are already there, its sunk cost that only requires maintenance. What was destroyed to build them is irrelevant as its done and can't be undone.

The idea that advertising it and a family railcard will make it better is laughable in the extreme because it isn't going to happen.

Spending £30 billion on it will require a payback and a payback on that sum even done over 25 years will require HS2 to make profits in excess of £1 Billion a year...............it ain't gonna happen.

The payback that it will somehow make some commuters train be less delayed is laughable.

HS2 is viable where it bringing in a service which wasn't already there and wasn't destroying existing businesses to do so BUT its not as the numbers needed are just being taken from an already existing service but costing Billions to get there.

TGV in France developed because there wasn't a credible infrastructural alternative and even now there doesn't exist a National Bus company that runs routes throughout the country unlike the UK.

You have no evidence to say that HS2 would cost double the estimates.

Actually I have and its called a 50 year record of Major Govt infrastructure projects which never come in on time, budget or meet revenue expectations.

And while you say we can't afford it, the bulk of the costs would not need paying for almost 10 years, and they'd be spread over a longer period. You say the current alternatives work well and then tell us about your long drives. Should they take place in electic powered cars in 20 years time, i wonder where they will build the nuclear power station to fuel all of our electric cars?

It will still require paying and where will it be paid from but existing taxation which even as we speak will be underpressure from years to come from Defence, Health and other expenditure.

It also justifies my view that the project hasn't a prayer of meeting its costs as Govt cannot predict its Tax revenue in 3 months time yet we are supposed to believe it can predict costs for a massive project yet to start !!!!!!

[jabird]

The idea that advertising it and a family railcard will make it better is laughable in the extreme because it isn't going to happen.

I should point out that a family railcard gives no discount on peak services in and out of London - you need a student or disabled railcard for that.

I also think there should be no assumption that railcards will be valid on HS2 - as racedo says, there is a lot of sunk cost which will need to be paid back, and this could only come from premium fares aimed at business users.

Racedo, afaik Virgin Trains carry 24m pax pa - but I can't find reference where I got that, nor am I sure if that is one way or return. 25m x £40 = £1bn. Based on current fares and inflation, should we assume an average fare in the region of £100 return?

As it stands, I still don't think the maths adds up - simply because as already pointed out, existing infrastructure has recently been upgraded, and let's not start on those cost overruns! Branson reckons he can get Brum-Euston down to 1hr on the current route, which also keeps key stops at Coventry and the ever-growing Milton Keynes.

Expensive rail infrastructure needs a monopoly to pay for itself - France has that, and even in the air, there is still just one major carrier after all this deregulation. I have heard it said (again, don't have a reference) that the TGV-Sud would need to run full on every available track path for 60 years to pay for itself. But ditto could still be said for other transport projects - road (Humber Bridge) and air (Mirabel, Kansai). France has no oil but lots of nuclear energy, and they have sold their technology to the Spaniards and the Koreans to name 2.

We invented the train and we pioneered the maglev. Now the Germans and the Japanese are taking the lead. There are other ways of making rail infrastructure pay for itself, as with airports. This is where we should follow Hong Kong's lead. Stations and airports both increase land values - but land around stations is usually much more valuable as it is more central, and also it can be built on without the restrictions which airports have due to clear sightlines needed for control towers, height restrictions imposed in line with runways etc (eg Nagoya station JR Central towers).

[Lokfuhrer]

jabird,

There is much in the swiss model for us to follow. Though i almost got caught out at a bus stop in a nice mountain valley south of Meiringen where the bus had to be 'reserved' in advance!

As for spotters and enthusiasts riding on maglevs, i'd love to have a bash on one. Maybe it'll be my excuse to go to shanghai, but many weekends you see people riding through the countryside on preserved steam trains. It doesn't make them spotters or even knowledgeable, just curious.

This thread has shifted away from Eurostar. Sorry for the part i've played in that. High speed rail is a creditable and real alternative to short haul travel in Europe and elsewhere. To the point that KLM have invested in the Dutch HS line toward Belguim (and hence Paris). The train has the market between Brussels and Paris. Lufthansa reserve whole carriages on some ICEs in Germany. But not so much for the UK regions. Manchester and Leeds to Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva and Paris yes. but further afield and involving connections i think it takes a dedicated traveler to go by train, ie someone who likes trains, or hates flying, or wants an adventurous journey or stop off enroute. I went from Birmingham to Corfu by train and ship and loved every bit. Yet i still fly maybe 20 sectors a year because that suits me best at the time. My concern would be the that the price of such railway integration into europe would mean us joining Schengen area.

racedo,

I'll start you off with the first half billion of funding for HS2 by cancelling the rebuild of Birmingham New Street. the station may be a dump, but £500 million for a new facade and nicer waiting space for the same old crammed trains really is a rip off against the public. I like how you appreciate the motorways now they have already been built... and added to, and bypassed (M6 toll), though i accept the nation would have difficulty without them.

That you obviously don't understand how HS2 will provide benefits to commuters (along the transport corridor it shares) is a lack of understanding on your part and a serious fail on my ability to articulate those benefits. But consider that local trains at Birmingham New Street are regularly delayed to allow express trains to go first. A new dedicated HS route will provide tangible benefits for local travellers along the transport corridor towards BHX, Coventry and London. Those benefits will reach further north as HS2 goes towards Manchester and Leeds. Not to mention that taking longer distance passengers off of local routes/trains provides much more capacity for local services and will make local rail transport into those cities a much better experience than it is now in the peak, with the potential to operate more frequent local trains. Not worth 30 billion, but a benefit that would cost lots on it's own and remember that the EU has put down a challenging target for the reduction in CO2 emissions, local road transport is reaching saturation point and that public transport is safer. HS2s main selling point is saving a few minutes out of London to all points northwest of Birmingham. It's reality is the start of a high speed train evolution in the UK for all transport users. I just hope it can be integrated properly, though that's not a reason not to do it. As for the costs, it will provide some jobs. But the pressing problem in the UK is for costs to be cut, waste to be trimmed, bureaucratic none jobs slashed not a reduction capital investment. Why should it cost 30 billion. A line of comparible distance in Europe won't cost that much so why is it so expensive here? That's where HS2 should be targeted. The railway needs to reduce its costs (and the dubious costs enforced on it by stupid regulation) but not at the expense of the step change infrastructure investment.

Other benefits could arise from market share going from airlines to railways on the short haul routes could mean airlines operating a few different routes eg if Flybe stopped flying BHX to CDG maybe they'd put the aircraft on a route without railway competition which would increase the travellers overall choice of practical destinations. In 20 years time i don't see how airlines will be able to compete with high speed rail financially. Even though it maybe our taxes supporting the railway. I believe it better for tax to support the higher capacity people movers for the larger overall benefit.

I note that you find it easy to criticize these suggestions, you say there are current alternatives. Please share them with us. Not so that i can criticize you in return, but in order to share a greater understanding of the overall transport subject.

[Hipennine]

IMHO, the key strategic flaw in HS2 is conceptually the same as for UK Domestic air travel (putting aside hub connections). It's a point to point connection, over a relatively short length (the really succesful HST's are over much longer sections - Paris to Lyon, Tokyo to Osaka, etc. and were in direct competition with frequent and busy air services).

Current UK rail infrastructure is creaking at the seams capacity wise, and despite all its faults, has enjoyed significant usage growth. The real need is not to get from Euston to Birmingham faster, but to get from say Mitcham to Sutton Coldfield conveniently (ie frequently, reliably, cost-effectively). That means more trains which link together (and with other modes) to provide seamless comfortable travel. It means more Thameslinks and similar. It could mean building more capacity north of london, but that could be achieved by using much of the old trackbed of the Great Central, or expanding the loading gauge to take double deck trains on one or two northbound routes, and lengthening platforms (Uk Intercity trains are ridiculously short cf to Europe).
That is fundamentally what the Swiss have done (and are still doing), and why the new line they built is only 125mph - but they have manged to get the ERTC to work properly, so can stuff trains down that pipeline at very high frequency. however the prime motivation for building that line was to get more capacity, and get the Zurich Bern time down to just under an hour, not as fast as possible.

[RB311]

The problem with your argument, Hippenine, is that it would not and does not interest headline chasing politicians.

Tinkering with the trainset to make it more reliable, provide more and better connections and increase the size of trains does not make big headlines that tick all the necessary political boxes, ie:

a) visionary (claimed)
b) bold (supposedly)
c) advanced technology (for UK anyway)
d) envirnonmentally beneficial (debatable)
e) anti-aviation (naturally)
f) Easy for the Sun reader to understand (patronisingly)

Moreover, building one high speed rail link is easy for the bears of very little brain that make up the current blighted crop of politicians to understand!

One of the key problems of building a line like HS2 is that who knows what demand for transport links will be required in 20 years hence. Ripping up areas of outstanding natural beauty for an unknown quantity should be very hard to justify.

The beauty of air travel is that route networks can change on a daily basis and don't require £20 billion of infrastructure every time you want to fly to a new city. The airports are there already, the planes are there, and, for sure, the pilots are queuing up to be there.

As to the argument that it will relieve capacity on other lines, ask the people of Kent what has happened since HS1.....

[RedhillPhil]

HS2
The "ripping up areas of natural beauty" is a bit of a misnomer as the greater part of it through the Chilterns will be in tunnel and cuttings.

The line to Birmingham is just the first of the planned line(s). No-one - if I remember rightly - said much about the M40 terminating at junction 8 for some time before carrying on to hook up with the M42 or the M20 terminating at junction 10 before carrying on to Folkestone.
There is much myth talked about how wide the trackbed will be and the amount of land being taken. Have a look on google earth at the width of HS1 running alongside the M20 south of Maidstone.

Will the line be well patronised? Well, if HS1 is anything to go by it will. The trains are very well used by people paying their premium prices. It's a long term project, not short term.

As for costs.....what was the cost to the taxpayer for those Concordes that the government gave to B.A. gratis so that well heeled businessmen could flit back and forth across the pond?

[Hipennine]

There is a discussion on the Airbus vs Pendolino article here:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%...0transport.pdf