Eurostar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a lot to wade through, but one point really stuck out:
And why would occupancy rates suddenly double with a high speed line? Rail in the UK has tended to favour frequency as a top priority and this means lower occupancy - afaik, the German ICE has around 50%, compared to 77% for the TGV. If a more attractive pricing structure could have been adopted, Virgin would have done it - but again they have gone for yields. High speed will have huge costs to pay for, so they are also more likely to go for yields over occupancy.
Calculations should compare Pendolinos with lighter weight
but higher speed rolling stock already in operation or planned and assuming a pricing structure
giving a load factor around 80% rather than the 40% assumed in the CILT article
Where is this lighter-weight stock, the Pendolini are already based on other models in operation in Europe?but higher speed rolling stock already in operation or planned and assuming a pricing structure
giving a load factor around 80% rather than the 40% assumed in the CILT article
And why would occupancy rates suddenly double with a high speed line? Rail in the UK has tended to favour frequency as a top priority and this means lower occupancy - afaik, the German ICE has around 50%, compared to 77% for the TGV. If a more attractive pricing structure could have been adopted, Virgin would have done it - but again they have gone for yields. High speed will have huge costs to pay for, so they are also more likely to go for yields over occupancy.
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.
There is no competition. Both Paris and Brussels are far quicker to reach by Eurostar than by air.
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.
There's no "if". DB put one of their trains on show into St. Pancras earlier this year. They are running a service from London to Frankfurt and Cologne - splitting at Brussels - in the very near future. Their new IC4 series are built to tunnel specifications.
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.
Ah but that's obvious and comon sense, no UK government is going to do that!
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.....
There is no competition. Both Paris and Brussels are far quicker to reach by Eurostar than by air.
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.
There's no "if". DB put one of their trains on show into St. Pancras earlier this year. They are running a service from London to Frankfurt and Cologne - splitting at Brussels - in the very near future. Their new IC4 series are built to tunnel specifications.
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.
Ah but that's obvious and comon sense, no UK government is going to do that!
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.....
Last edited by RedhillPhil; 2nd Jul 2011 at 21:47. Reason: mistake
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird,
That link is to a paper published by Network Rail, and the comments are by them in response to a paper delivered to the Chartered Institiute of Transport. I can't find that original paper on-line, but I remember reading it, and the figures used (ie 40% occupancy etc.) were based on actuals. Clearly it is a vested interest by Network Rail to come up with spin that disputes the original.
Another thing that could be disputed is that Network Rail make claims about the electricity mix that they actually use. It could be argued that if Network Rail didn't use grid electricity, a goodly % of the coal fired generation could be shutdown, and therefore their requirement should be considered as 100% coal generated, not a mix.
That link is to a paper published by Network Rail, and the comments are by them in response to a paper delivered to the Chartered Institiute of Transport. I can't find that original paper on-line, but I remember reading it, and the figures used (ie 40% occupancy etc.) were based on actuals. Clearly it is a vested interest by Network Rail to come up with spin that disputes the original.
Another thing that could be disputed is that Network Rail make claims about the electricity mix that they actually use. It could be argued that if Network Rail didn't use grid electricity, a goodly % of the coal fired generation could be shutdown, and therefore their requirement should be considered as 100% coal generated, not a mix.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redhilphil - yes, Cameron has confirmed Chinese interest in investing in HS2. HS1 now in the hands of some Ontario pension fund?
But wherever the electricity comes from, I still think 80% occupancy is ambitious. There were numerous other issues I could take with that paper, but I have ranted enough already! 40% is much closer to other figures I have seen from various sources. That report also assumes there will be very little demand for traffic between Scotland and LHR. I think BA would take a different view.
Also reading that Arups - highly respected engineering firm have been highly critical of HS2 routing.
Another thing that could be disputed is that Network Rail make claims about the electricity mix that they actually use. It could be argued that if Network Rail didn't use grid electricity, a goodly % of the coal fired generation could be shutdown, and therefore their requirement should be considered as 100% coal generated, not a mix.
I think that is a bit tenous. I used to flog cheap gas and often got the argument about it all coming down the same pipes. I'd rather look to the future and assume there will be a much higher %age of renewables. If an individual house can get a 'green' tariff, train operators could negotiate directly to go all renewable if they felt that made them a more attractive proposition.But wherever the electricity comes from, I still think 80% occupancy is ambitious. There were numerous other issues I could take with that paper, but I have ranted enough already! 40% is much closer to other figures I have seen from various sources. That report also assumes there will be very little demand for traffic between Scotland and LHR. I think BA would take a different view.
Also reading that Arups - highly respected engineering firm have been highly critical of HS2 routing.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arups coincidentally have very strong links with TfL, and Boris Johnson has been saying this week that he doesnt want HS2 unless the Govt give him a lot of cash to improve London Underground.
Its bizarre they are looking at Royal Oak though as the HS2 main entry point, there's a FAR FAR better option available, and I have to question TfLs motives for ignoring a brilliant , cheaper all round solution...
Its bizarre they are looking at Royal Oak though as the HS2 main entry point, there's a FAR FAR better option available, and I have to question TfLs motives for ignoring a brilliant , cheaper all round solution...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This link Transport Watch UK - Road versus rail - Fuel consumptions across the UK presents the detail of a study comparing rail vs air with a bit of road transport thrown in for good measure. The summary is "a one-all draw" based on their assumptions - but that's comparing rail with jet aircraft. Perhaps the claimed lower emissions of turboprops would tip the balance in favour of air ?
The results of that survey, of course, will be regionally biased, with France feeding the TGV and Eurostar with relatively low-emission, nuclear-generated electricity, while the UK (and the future nuke-free Germany?) make dirtier watts.
When "total travel time" arguments push travellers towards choosing Eurostar instead of air, isn't this really a criticism of the airport experience, and an argument in favour of having more smaller airports? Faster security/check-in procedures, shorter walks to the gate and quicker gate-to-takeoff times would soon make the train look appropriately slow once again.
The results of that survey, of course, will be regionally biased, with France feeding the TGV and Eurostar with relatively low-emission, nuclear-generated electricity, while the UK (and the future nuke-free Germany?) make dirtier watts.
When "total travel time" arguments push travellers towards choosing Eurostar instead of air, isn't this really a criticism of the airport experience, and an argument in favour of having more smaller airports? Faster security/check-in procedures, shorter walks to the gate and quicker gate-to-takeoff times would soon make the train look appropriately slow once again.
A few comments:
The reason Eurostar claim to have such a low carbon footprint is because of the use of French nuclear power. I don't want to get involved in a debate about nuclear power.
HS1 attracts around half as many passengers as was forecast, but I am reliably informed that the forecasts were inflated to justify the scheme.
Air journeys have a high one off cost both in time and financially, airport processing, security, taxiing, etc, the the cost of increased distance is quite low. Rail will therefore be competitive for shorter distances but not for longer ones, particularly if an additional nights hotel accommodation is required.
Commercially Eurostar is where the airlines were prior to the introduction of LCCs, for example not offering one way discount fares with restrictions on cheap fares. This puts them at a disadvantage.
Coupled with this, operationally Eurostar is very inflexible. During the closure of airspace last year they managed to run around 15% more trains. Another rail operator, Eurostar, managed to double its service. Passengers have to work around Eurostar's offering rather fixed offering rather than vice versa For the centre of London to the centre of Paris Eurostar wins hands down. Unfortunately many journeys are not city centre to city centre.
It would appear that the airlines and high speed rail think that they are competing against each other. This may be true for the affore mentioned centre of London to centre of Paris market but for many other markets both are actually competing against road. As an example, my sister & family drove from Wiltshire to Switzerland via Eurotunnel. At 10 hours door to door it was probably as quick as going by by train and cheaper than flying (or the train for that matter). According to the IPS & operator statistics, Eurostar carries about 9m pax p.a., Eurotunnel c 7m and the ferries over 25m p.a. Around three times as many passengers go by car as train.
Airlines have designed effective hubs - look at Amsterdam or Frankfurt. This can also be highly effective on rail systems. Have a look at the Swiss timetable. It can be quicker to go by train rather than car for many, many routes in Switzerland, unlike in the UK where this is only true for journeys to and from central London. My strongly held belief is that the UK needs a proper integrated, consistent high speed (200 km/h should do) network rather than a politically motivated high speed line. Rail investment definately, but HS2 is the wrong way to go.
Indeed, if a high speed line is competiting against airlines it is probably not competiting very effectively against the car. Putting in more stations may increase the London to Scotland journey time but will create far more journey opportunities and ultimately more traffic.
Sadly thats not the way those with power to plan systems think.
Apologies, i didn't start off meaning to write an essay!
The reason Eurostar claim to have such a low carbon footprint is because of the use of French nuclear power. I don't want to get involved in a debate about nuclear power.
HS1 attracts around half as many passengers as was forecast, but I am reliably informed that the forecasts were inflated to justify the scheme.
Air journeys have a high one off cost both in time and financially, airport processing, security, taxiing, etc, the the cost of increased distance is quite low. Rail will therefore be competitive for shorter distances but not for longer ones, particularly if an additional nights hotel accommodation is required.
Commercially Eurostar is where the airlines were prior to the introduction of LCCs, for example not offering one way discount fares with restrictions on cheap fares. This puts them at a disadvantage.
Coupled with this, operationally Eurostar is very inflexible. During the closure of airspace last year they managed to run around 15% more trains. Another rail operator, Eurostar, managed to double its service. Passengers have to work around Eurostar's offering rather fixed offering rather than vice versa For the centre of London to the centre of Paris Eurostar wins hands down. Unfortunately many journeys are not city centre to city centre.
It would appear that the airlines and high speed rail think that they are competing against each other. This may be true for the affore mentioned centre of London to centre of Paris market but for many other markets both are actually competing against road. As an example, my sister & family drove from Wiltshire to Switzerland via Eurotunnel. At 10 hours door to door it was probably as quick as going by by train and cheaper than flying (or the train for that matter). According to the IPS & operator statistics, Eurostar carries about 9m pax p.a., Eurotunnel c 7m and the ferries over 25m p.a. Around three times as many passengers go by car as train.
Airlines have designed effective hubs - look at Amsterdam or Frankfurt. This can also be highly effective on rail systems. Have a look at the Swiss timetable. It can be quicker to go by train rather than car for many, many routes in Switzerland, unlike in the UK where this is only true for journeys to and from central London. My strongly held belief is that the UK needs a proper integrated, consistent high speed (200 km/h should do) network rather than a politically motivated high speed line. Rail investment definately, but HS2 is the wrong way to go.
Indeed, if a high speed line is competiting against airlines it is probably not competiting very effectively against the car. Putting in more stations may increase the London to Scotland journey time but will create far more journey opportunities and ultimately more traffic.
Sadly thats not the way those with power to plan systems think.
Apologies, i didn't start off meaning to write an essay!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When "total travel time" arguments push travellers towards choosing Eurostar instead of air, isn't this really a criticism of the airport experience, and an argument in favour of having more smaller airports? Faster security/check-in procedures, shorter walks to the gate and quicker gate-to-takeoff times would soon make the train look appropriately slow once again.
CR - you could have the best airport experience going (let's say LCY, even if people bitch about it too!) - but air is always going to be at a disadvantage on relatively short routes. Why? Trains don't have to taxi, they don't have pre-flight briefings, they don't have to take-off and they don't have to go through a landing routine.Smaller airports - we may get that - OXF, etc - but they will always offer convenience at the expense of frequency. How many OXF-EDI rotations would be supported - 2 at best?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jabird
you could have the best airport experience going (let's say LCY, even if people bitch about it too!) - but air is always going to be at a disadvantage on relatively short routes. Why? Trains don't have to taxi, they don't have pre-flight briefings, they don't have to take-off and they don't have to go through a landing routine.
In terms of new route development, air transport should be a convincing winner every time - no need for public consultations, no compulsory purchase orders for hundreds of km of greenfield land, no "transparent" tendering for construction contracts, no delays when an ancient roman wall is discovered right where the sleepers need to go, no budget overruns when the price of copper overhead cables goes exponential, etc, etc. Why isn't it?
Last edited by CelticRambler; 6th Jul 2011 at 23:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of new route development, air transport should be a convincing winner every time
I really don't think high speed rail is built to develop new routes - quite the opposite in fact. Rail will take market share from the densest air corridors, subject to the time / distance issues discussed above. I totally agree with you about thinner routes - much more flexible to connect by air - and also, if an air route doesn't work, the airline can withdraw it rapidly. Once contracts are signed for rail, it is not likely to get ripped up.But whatever the perception, there is still a huge inconvenience factor related to the take-off / landing process. Airports can speed up security, but there isn't a commercial aircraft that can just 'jump' into the sky. That still gives rail an advantage, even if door-to-door journey time is longer - until you get to the point when an extra hotel-night is needed and the time & money cost of rail shoots up.
Also, in terms of rail v car, driving is largely dead time - but by the time HS2 gets built, self-driving cars will be a lot more commonplace!
jabird
With respect I think you overstate the effect that the "take-off and landing process" is a "huge incovenience factor" when a traveller is comparing air vs rail.
The published flight time, which is what he will use in his comparison, surely includes these elements of the journey. A published schedule showing a 60 minute flight time will comprise only some 50 minutes of actual flying time airport to airport. The problem lies in the fact that one can enter the station concourse and walk the few yards directly onto the train platform, needing to allow only a few minutes leeway before its departure time. The same cannot be said at any airport, but at least a smaller airport can mimimise this ground processing element of the total journey and this fact has not been lost on airports with ambitions to promote this advantage over their larger brethren - such as SEN is currently doing.
With respect I think you overstate the effect that the "take-off and landing process" is a "huge incovenience factor" when a traveller is comparing air vs rail.
The published flight time, which is what he will use in his comparison, surely includes these elements of the journey. A published schedule showing a 60 minute flight time will comprise only some 50 minutes of actual flying time airport to airport. The problem lies in the fact that one can enter the station concourse and walk the few yards directly onto the train platform, needing to allow only a few minutes leeway before its departure time. The same cannot be said at any airport, but at least a smaller airport can mimimise this ground processing element of the total journey and this fact has not been lost on airports with ambitions to promote this advantage over their larger brethren - such as SEN is currently doing.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one in six of the population who it is said suffer from aerophobia may indeed prefer to take the train. To such persons the prospects of a longer journey time of two to three hours may still seem like an attractive alternative.
The one in six of the population who it is said suffer from aerophobia may indeed prefer to take the train. To such persons the prospects of a longer journey time of two to three hours may still seem like an attractive alternative.
Spending £30 billion when its not there is a waste of money.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's this high speed bus idea you have Racedo? We already have congestion in the skies and congestion on the roads. High speed rail gives expanded travel options that deliver passengers to their destination safely and on time.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK sometimes
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the airport experience, it is indeed ironic that the mode(s) of transport that have suffered from the greatest terrorist attrocities of recent times in the UK are the ones with little or no security.
The argument goes that it is simply too impractical to impose airport like security checks at railway stations because of the inconvenience, delay and of course, cost of installation and operation. Certainly, having x ray machines and full, intimate body searches at, say, Waterloo station would be a huge inconvenience. But it's interesting that it has never even been mooted, let alone proposed.
On the other hand, at our airports, even a theoretical threat causes us all to have our water bottles snatched, even after 6 years has passed since the threat first came to light.
Thus aviation, and private enterprises at that, suffer unduly.
Meanwhile the government proposes to spend £30 billion of tax payers money to build a railway line and hand it over to competing enterprises to aviation, so they can run (subsidised) services to make a profit. Level playing field? Mmmm
Plus, aviation users have to pay year on year increases in airport duty tax whilst the tax subsidies on rail companies continue unabated. Another level playing field.
High speed rail is not and will not be necessary in this country. It works, up to a point, on the continent because there are far greater distances to travel, and a lot more space to play with. But if France is used as an example, they still have an integrated transport policy, as I fly over it I can see many new roads being built too.
I predict that HS2 won't happen, it will never get past the planning objection stage. So, instead of wasting millions fighting the objectors to HS2, scrap the ADT and re-invigorate the aviation industry before it's too late. Hubs like CDG and AMS are chomping at the bit to take over from LHR and LGW, and with this present government's help they will do.
The argument goes that it is simply too impractical to impose airport like security checks at railway stations because of the inconvenience, delay and of course, cost of installation and operation. Certainly, having x ray machines and full, intimate body searches at, say, Waterloo station would be a huge inconvenience. But it's interesting that it has never even been mooted, let alone proposed.
On the other hand, at our airports, even a theoretical threat causes us all to have our water bottles snatched, even after 6 years has passed since the threat first came to light.
Thus aviation, and private enterprises at that, suffer unduly.
Meanwhile the government proposes to spend £30 billion of tax payers money to build a railway line and hand it over to competing enterprises to aviation, so they can run (subsidised) services to make a profit. Level playing field? Mmmm
Plus, aviation users have to pay year on year increases in airport duty tax whilst the tax subsidies on rail companies continue unabated. Another level playing field.
High speed rail is not and will not be necessary in this country. It works, up to a point, on the continent because there are far greater distances to travel, and a lot more space to play with. But if France is used as an example, they still have an integrated transport policy, as I fly over it I can see many new roads being built too.
I predict that HS2 won't happen, it will never get past the planning objection stage. So, instead of wasting millions fighting the objectors to HS2, scrap the ADT and re-invigorate the aviation industry before it's too late. Hubs like CDG and AMS are chomping at the bit to take over from LHR and LGW, and with this present government's help they will do.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RB,
Yes - I agree about the security issues. But I have seen a couple of articles about security scanners which could be fitted at tube access gates. I don't think anything could be done onboard buses though - hence the Israelis opting to put up a huge wall to keep potential bombers out.
There is also the issue that airport security costs are included in the ticket price (part of the PSC), but the BTP are funded from govt coffers.
However, there are still valid reasons to give rail a helping hand. The French in particular see the TGV as preferable to internal flights as they have no fossil fuel resources and plenty of nuclear energy. The likely long term trend is that carbon costs and the price of oil will go up, whereas the price of renewable energy, especially solar, will go down. High speed in the UK for me is all about London - Scotland - the time savings on London - Birmingham will be pretty marginal.
Yes - I agree about the security issues. But I have seen a couple of articles about security scanners which could be fitted at tube access gates. I don't think anything could be done onboard buses though - hence the Israelis opting to put up a huge wall to keep potential bombers out.
There is also the issue that airport security costs are included in the ticket price (part of the PSC), but the BTP are funded from govt coffers.
However, there are still valid reasons to give rail a helping hand. The French in particular see the TGV as preferable to internal flights as they have no fossil fuel resources and plenty of nuclear energy. The likely long term trend is that carbon costs and the price of oil will go up, whereas the price of renewable energy, especially solar, will go down. High speed in the UK for me is all about London - Scotland - the time savings on London - Birmingham will be pretty marginal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick thought on the Birmingham - London section of HS2. As said by numerous commentators here, the time savings are really quite small - especially for anyone interchanging at New St & having to walk to the new site.
So it then comes down to capacity increases to relieve the existing WCML. Some other options:
* Local trains between Coventry and New St slow the system considerably. They have tried removing some stops from the patterns, but ultimately fast & slow don't mix. Three times as many pax use International as all the stopping points in between combined. Replacing the stops with a bus service would be much more cost efficient - but I think politically difficult to implement.
* Changing pendolini from 9 to 11 cars will increase capacity. But why so much 1st class space, rarely anywhere near full?
* Consider increasing platform length - why stop at 11 cars - pendolini are powered in each car, so no restrictions due to capacity of power car. Or join trains together.
* Double decker trains would need quite a few tunnels / bridges to be lifted, but what is the cost of this compared to a whole new line?
So it then comes down to capacity increases to relieve the existing WCML. Some other options:
* Local trains between Coventry and New St slow the system considerably. They have tried removing some stops from the patterns, but ultimately fast & slow don't mix. Three times as many pax use International as all the stopping points in between combined. Replacing the stops with a bus service would be much more cost efficient - but I think politically difficult to implement.
* Changing pendolini from 9 to 11 cars will increase capacity. But why so much 1st class space, rarely anywhere near full?
* Consider increasing platform length - why stop at 11 cars - pendolini are powered in each car, so no restrictions due to capacity of power car. Or join trains together.
* Double decker trains would need quite a few tunnels / bridges to be lifted, but what is the cost of this compared to a whole new line?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RB311:
On the other hand, at our airports, even a theoretical threat causes us all to have our water bottles snatched, even after 6 years has passed since the threat first came to light.
On the other hand, at our airports, even a theoretical threat causes us all to have our water bottles snatched, even after 6 years has passed since the threat first came to light.
I think a lot of these security measures imposed on aviation industry is overkill. To impose the same security measures on the railways will lead to Britain grind to a halt. After all it is between 1.2 and 1.3 billion passenger journeys made each year. At one of the top 20 European airports, the security screeners makes out around 5% of the employees at the airport. If we bring this to the British Isles and use Heathrow as measure, we would end up with a minimum of 140,000 security screeners to cover the British rail network. With around 5,900 railway stations in Britain, this number may need to be higher than 140,000 and closer to 200,000 to get a full coverage.
This is pure madness.
Question: How many passengers have lost their lives or have been injured due to a terrorist attack on British railways?
Answer: None and none
I'll continue later - I just got a text message from a buddy at Duxford - Mustang down, unclear if the pilot is still living. Earlier today the Swedish Fokker DR1 crashed (no one injured).
Update: Mustang pilot walked away, but dustpan and brush operators at IWM Duxford must have been busy today.
Last edited by LN-KGL; 10th Jul 2011 at 16:43.
What's this high speed bus idea you have Racedo? We already have congestion in the skies and congestion on the roads. High speed rail gives expanded travel options that deliver passengers to their destination safely and on time.
There are already existing services serving same areas.
What is now been spent is £30 billion on a service not required.
The lets save 30 minutes idea is great but for what exactly ? What are people going to do with all this saved time.