Eurostar

[jabird]

Yes, I know they are a train company but users on another thread have suggested we have a Eurostar discussion somewhere else.

Why is Eurostar relevant as an 'airline'?

* Operates in direct competition with airlines
* Unlike other rail services, has security & border checks like an airport
* All stations are part of the IATA coding systems
* Operates at speeds which are actually competitive to air travel
* Future developments will affect route to destinations like AMS, RTM, ANR & CGN
* As 'alternative' London airports open up, their development can be compared to existing Eurostar services (see SEN thread where request is made to move ES chat to new thread).
* This would be a better place to discuss any 'plane v train' type debate, rather than having it come up on each individual thread.
* Eurostar operates through numerous booking systems.
* Other European train services operate in code-share with airlines.

If mods say the thread belongs in a rail forum, then fair enough, but I think E* is a special case. If our German cousins can see a plane as just a train with wings, then I am sure we can see Eurostar as a plane without them!

[AirResearcher]

Good suggestion.
Heres'a few things to consider.

Eurostar claims it is carbon neutral - has anyone investigated how that is possible just taking into account the airconditioning system?
Safety- These trains travel almost as fast as a small commuter turboprop.Not a seatbelt to be seen never mind anything else, and I would hazard a guess that an on track collision is statistally more likely than in the air?
Bottlenecks - what happens when the maximum capacity of the tunnel is reached... does anyone have the exact figures to hand? It certainly cant cope with replacing all short haul EU air traffic
What happens if the French end of Eurostar decide to go on strike during the 2012 Olympics? Is there a contingency plan for all the other transport links that would be needed?

[jabird]

AR,

Eurostar claims it is carbon neutral - has anyone investigated how that is possible just taking into account the airconditioning system?

The term is carbon neutral. The whole offset industry depends on the fact that most people don't consider the other gasses which make up 50% of the problem.

But aircon will be calculated as part of the overall footprint. In a car, afaik, we're talking about 3% of fuel costs? The nasty bits should get taken out on recycling.

Safety- These trains travel almost as fast as a small commuter turboprop.Not a seatbelt to be seen never mind anything else, and I would hazard a guess that an on track collision is statistally more likely than in the air?


The High Speed Rail industry has an excellent safety record - TGV in France never had a single accident fatality during high speed ops. German ICE had the Eschede incident in 98 - 101 fatalities.

As a whole, safety of air v rail is very comparable, depending on equipment used and whether you measure per mile (favours air) or per journey (favours rail).

Bottlenecks - what happens when the maximum capacity of the tunnel is reached... does anyone have the exact figures to hand? It certainly cant cope with replacing all short haul EU air traffic

Who is suggesting it should replace all short haul air, apart from the odd lunatic fringe enviro group?

What we're looking at is a slow expansion of the envelope in which people prefer to switch to rail over air. This is a really key debate for both industries, so if this isn't the place to discuss it, hope mods can suggest whereabouts in pprune it is!

What happens if the French end of Eurostar decide to go on strike during the 2012 Olympics? Is there a contingency plan for all the other transport links that would be needed?

Strikes can affect both industries, except where the relevant national government has implemented a no-strike law - and I don't think that could apply within the EU.

[xtypeman]

However if we had joined up thinking..... Major transport interchange based around an airport then Eurostar could become part of our discussions. Just think Virgin West coast replacing LHR-MAN-GLA-EDI via HS2. Bmid operating to BRU vis HS1 and Channel Tunnel etc etc......

Taking off the anorak and boble hat.......

[AirResearcher]

Thanks jabird...all good points, I'm actually very pro high speed rail...as a well integrated inter-modal transport system, which the UK is lagging well behind on.. Ive been trying for over a year to put some ideas forward, but it seems the decision makers (including Transport for London) cant' get their heads around the benefits.

Ref the safety aspect, I was highlighing the fact that safety procedures and legislation for aviation are much higher and stricter than for high-speed rail, and therefore this creates a cost disadvantage for airlines. The two cant be compared in every aspect but something as basic as a seat belt wouldnt be a bad idea! And what about luggage stowage? a piece of luggage travelling at 150 mph is going to do the same amount of damage as it would on an aeroplane if it comes to an abrupt halt

Ive asked Eurotunnel several times for figs on the Co2 emissions of the chunnel cooling sytem, they havent replied yet. I suspect its much higher than we are led to believe.

[firstchoice7e7]

Eurostar no longer claiming that they are carbon neutral.

''For these reasons, Eurostar has decided to evolve its tread lightly programme to ensure it remains relevant and compelling to as many people as possible. From today, Eurostar will cease carbon offsetting and will no longer offer carbon neutral journeys. However, the operator has made sure that the journeys of anyone already booked to travel, will be offset and will still be carbon neutral.''

Source :
Eurostar raises the bar on environmental commitments (http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/press_release/20110616_tread_lightly.jsp)

[jabird]

AR,

Ive been trying for over a year to put some ideas forward, but it seems the decision makers (including Transport for London) cant' get their heads around the benefits.

There is a clear political will, backed by the 3 major parties for HS2. Personally, air v rail rather than rail v road has always been my interest, so a watered down (as it will be) HS2 which only links B-International to Acton will be as good as useless. Won't replace a single air journey. Rail already winning the battle on LON-MAN and it didn't take HS2 to extinguish LCY-LPL & LHR-LBA.

Ref the safety aspect, I was highlighing the fact that safety procedures and legislation for aviation are much higher and stricter than for high-speed rail, and therefore this creates a cost disadvantage for airlines.


That is a fair point - but then again, I felt for a long time that lifejackets were there to make people feel safer, rather than to be used in an actual emergency.

Then we had the Hudson landing, but even that showed little lifejacket usage.

Airlines will always claim a cost disadvantage - but air travel has traditionally been less resource intensive, as both industries share the need for a terminal, but aircraft use up no ground infrastructure once in flight.

The tables have now turned, as airlines have to spend so much of their turnover on fuel.

Ive asked Eurotunnel several times for figs on the Co2 emissions of the chunnel cooling sytem, they havent replied yet. I suspect its much higher than we are led to believe.

Do you mean air conditioning onboard the train (up to Eurostar as train operator) - or a system to keep the tunnels themselves cool?

I can't see why they would use that. Many older rail tunnels have ventilation shafts going back to the coal days, but nothing mechanical in those. Road tunnels use ventilation to clear fumes but no diesel trains would be allowed in the tunnel.

[AirResearcher]

Thanks firstchoice7e7 ... I think in time they will improve the carbon emissions, but as with all modes of transport, carbon offsetting is a concept that I would like to believe works. But I fear its only a matter of time before there is a documentary on tv showing that money destined for planting trees etc for carbon offsetting, has not been used for that purpose.

I raise this emissions issue because of link to the bizarre EU ETS situation - which I am also convinced is a flawed concept, as do the Chinese Govt who are blocking the purchase of 10 A380s by Hong Kong Airlines in protestat having to pay EU ETS.

[Capetonian]

The High Speed Rail industry has an excellent safety record - TGV in France never had a single accident fatality during high speed ops. German ICE had the Eschede incident in 98 - 101 fatalities.

Not only this, but the Japanese have been doing it longer, faster, and with more frequency than the French and also without any accidents.

[AirResearcher]

Thanks again jabird,

Agreed ref HS2 Govt support in priciple, but they have made a poor choice of Acton. Tere's a much better solution which, I have put a lot of work into and it would not only solve the problem of a good link up to LHR and Central London, it could also solve the 3rd runway issue, and reduce stacking (and associated delays/congestion and pollution). TfL werent remotely interested -they are convinced, arrogantly so, that Boris Island is the only solution. There are several other benefits too which would be politically beneficial and would probably balance against the fairly minor negatives. So I have to question TfLs agenda as the costs of building the infrastructure in the Thames Estuary, plus the environmental impact, timescales, and the ATC issues etc etc make it very unwise at the least

Yes I meant the cooling sustem for the tunnel, though the onboard a/c obviously plays a part too.

[jabird]

In 2006, research showed that a Eurostar journey produces around a tenth of the CO2 of an equivalent flight between London, Paris and Brussels.

Not only this, but the Japanese have been doing it longer, faster, and with more frequency than the French and also without any accidents.

Well, to go back to the power source argument, this '10x' argument was produced in one report and then accepted as gospel and recycled for every single rail route the world over. Never mind occupancy, never mind if it is actually a diesel train!

Theoretically, 10x can be 100x or 1000x if we're just comparing windmills to kerosene. But there's so much more energy than that going into the whole process - concrete, tracks, trains etc.

So use the Eurostar argument for a high speed domestic line which will compete against a recently upgraded service which already operates at very good frequency and it becomes very misleading indeed.

[AirResearcher]

There have been other HS rail incidents, thankfully not many, the ICE one in 2008 resulted in several injuries when it hit a flock of sheep at 120 mph in a tunnel on the way from Hamburg to Munich.

The issue here is that airlines have to spend far more on safety procedures and equipment than HS rail, and maybe its time to look at HS rail to bring it more in line - especially with the advent of the new Chinese Maglev trains. Free and fair competition also requires balanced safety legislation.

[racedo]

HS2 is a crock that will suck £60 billion in to build it to save little time and won't be ready for 20 years. Its a spending program that needs to be strangled at birth.

It will never pay for itself when taking into consideration that it will need to destroy the existing rail services to even get the passengers on board.

London - Manchester air services carry just over a Million people a year and that is declining.

[Hipennine]

A few points:

1/ I can't remember where I read it, but there was a detailed study of the net emmisions generated by a full virgin pendolino from London to Glasgow, compared to a fully loaded A320, but also compared to a good old loco hauled train with BR Mark 3 carriages. The carbon footprint of the old fashioned 100mph train was about one tenth of the pendolino, and the pendolino slightly exceeded the Airbus. Given that the Eurostar trains are of similar specs to the pendolino, it won't be too different. Modern trains have so much more onboard equipment that draws power, and weigh more per pax seat, which in turn requires more energy to drag it along. New transmission capacity was one of the big hidden costs of the West coast modernisation to get it up to pendolino requirements.

2/ Can't buy the relative safety arguments re seat belts. The main reason for the airline lap belt and luggage securing etc, is to overcome the acceleration movements in every dimension associated with most take-offs and landing, as well as incidents in cruise. If a train experienced anything like that, it would de-rail. If a train experienced that frequency of turbulence, the entire european network would be blocked with derailments within hours.

3/ Eurotunnel, along with the other new long length alpine rail tunnels, has a requirement for a very sophisticated ventilation system. Not only is heat build up a problem because there are no natural vents under the sea or high mountains, but also the control of air movement is a key part of the fire control systems in these tunnels.

4/ It grieves me to see talk of HS2. If anybody wants to see what proper reasoned investment in public transport can achieve in optimising total journey time and convenience look to Switzerland - no very high speed lines there, although plenty of miles of new track. Outwith TGV, the state of SNCF is chronically bad. In Japan, the Shin Kansen may be impressive, but convenient interchange with other rail lines, etc is poor, and timetables generally are designed around point to point journeys, not end to end convenience.

[AirResearcher]

Thanks Hipennine

ref:
1/ thats really useful info, I hadnt come across that yet..thanks!

2/The seatbelts, as well as movements in other planes (pardon the pun) are required to withstand 9g forward movement, which is 'abrupt stop ' territory - so that aspect is as relevant to HS trains as aircraft. I guess the chances of a derail/collision at that speed would involve other unplanned directions of travel for seat occupants who, if unrestrained could hurtle at 150+ mph causing damage to themselves and others. ( an unrestrained 70kg man effectively weighing over half a tonne flying down a railway carriage isnt easy to stop if you are in the way) :-)


3/ Agree again... and of course the ambient temperature underground is a major factor too in heat build up too.

4/ Agree ref Switzerland, its the most smoothly co-ordinated stress free travel system I have ever used. And agree again about the Japanese Shankansens...the links are very tricky to negotiate (for foreigners especially), and they are also incredibly expensive to use, even at preferential tourist rates. The booking offices, even at Narita are like stepping back in time too, they still use huge printed books as reference for a lot of the services.

[Lokfuhrer]

Hello all,

Having mooched these forums for a few months now, i've finally registered now there's something i can discuss professionally rather than as just an intrested passenger/enthusiast.

One reason for the lack of seatbelts on trains is that to fit a seatbelt on a train is to then suggest it is safer for everyone to have a seat. And if everyone then needs a seat (and associated advance reservation), passengers then lose the turn up and go/squeeze onto your prefered train that a standard ticket provides. Trains being the most efficient mass people movers out of city centres also mean they will continue to have a peak demand way above the seating capacity for the main rush hours at least.

With regard to Accidents on high speed trains. you'll find that most of them (ie Enschede) have happened on conventional lines and at speeds below 125mph. There has not yet been a fatal accident on a train on a high speeed line.

As for HS2, its time saving headline is nothing when you consider the capacity it will free up on the conventional lines. Birmingham and Manchester to London have a 20 minute frequency. There are very few (if any) european cities that are more frequent than every 30 mins. To accommodate this frequency compromises local travel. And the people who commute over shorter distances along the intercity routes will find they have more chance of a seat and a comfortable journey if the longer distance travellers given the new high speed route. It is will also be possible to schedule more freight services into the timetable, which can only be a good thing. It would be interesting to see what the opposition were saying against building some of the routes in the victorian era that we now take for granted, and what the next generation of citizens will think of us if we don't get it started now. The alterative would be to rebuild our whole railway infrastructure to accomodate double deck trains and provide comfort rather than speed but that's another debate.

Having just come back from a(nother) weekend in Switzerland i can assure you that it doesn't have the topography to accommodate high speed lines very easily or the size to benefit. And its beauty should be admired at a slower pace.... It is not immune from delay/disruption and carrying a heavy suitcase up 3 steps from platform to train is something UK travellers would never accept from a british railway operator.

I flew back with Skywork from Bern Belp to London City. My first flight in a Dornier. I was very impressed with the service and friendly crew. It was just a shame that the capital city of Switzerland doesn't have a rail link to its (admittedly small) airport!

As for Eurostar being considered like an airline because of similar operational procedures check in, security ect, that is because the UK is not in Schengen. I believe High speed rail fits into a category of its own between conventional railways and airlines. The only thing stopping British Airways entering the high speed train market is that it doesn't have the (expensive) trains, staff or 'slots' through the channel tunnel, likewise all crosscountry trains need is a few (expensive) aircraft, staff and airport slots and away they go. My point is that both forms of transport are a prohibitively expensive business to commence unless you have an experienced partner or a subsidising government. They could be considered as passenger benefiting co ops should the overseeing governing authorities integrate the infrastructure in the UK as has been done at Frankfurt, Schiphol and CDG. Followed by through ticketing alliances. From a technicial perspective i don't see much similarity. If a train loses power from both engines, the passengers moan about the delay. If it happens during a flight, it's a sick person complains about the inconvenience if they can walk away from such a scenario. Should Eurostar be accepted as an 'airline' it should be alongside the TGV and ICE too, then it becomes a huge subject with huge possibility.

[Hipennine]

Welcome to Pprune !

Starting to go way off topic here, but your Swiss experience sounds like mountain tourist area trains. A more direct comparison with Eurostar/HS2 etc would be the main east-west routes through the "lowlands" ie Geneva to St Gallen, with a current 4 hour journey or the new deep alpine tunnels. There have been proposals for High speed routes, but the policy has been convenience in end to end journeys - even the new NBS between Bern and Olten is only a 125mph railway, but gave a masive capacity boost. Investment in modern main-line and suburban trains with raised station platforms, has eliminated a lot of that 3 steps up into trains - with last years order for new rolling stock will virtually eliminate it. Bringing this back to Airlines, Airports etc., all this convenience is available direct from Zurich Airport.

[paully]

In Spain, their high speed train is called AVE and first went head to head with the airlines on the lucrative Madrid Barcelona shuttle, as a result they beat the airlines hands down resulting in the airlines leaving, what was their most profitable route. Now there are very few flights between these two points and AVE is expanding rapidly. Only recently this system has been bought by the USA..

High speed trains are here to stay and without doubt they will turn out to be the main competition to airlines.....well not in the UK obviously as we cant afford them :( but will be interesting on mainland Europe in time to come.

[TartinTon]

As with all these things it depends when you buy your ticket. If I'm buying for tomorrow I'll get stung whether I'm travelling with Eurostar or domestically. If I can plan ahead then I can get tickets for £47 (with one change on the return) or £66 with no changes for a LON-GLA train ticket. That, to me, seems like a decent fare.

[jabird]

The issue here is that airlines have to spend far more on safety procedures and equipment than HS rail, and maybe its time to look at HS rail to bring it more in line - especially with the advent of the new Chinese Maglev trains. Free and fair competition also requires balanced safety legislation.

AR, are you essentially saying that rail operators should be forced to install safety belts just so they can be on a level playing field with airlines?

By the same logic, we should slow all cars down to about 3mph, give cyclists a sponge suit to wear and probably just ban motorcyclists outright (yipee, Guangzhou here we come!)

Re: TfL, their remit is to serve air transit and long distance rail, not to propose new airports.




I can't remember where I read it, but there was a detailed study of the net emmisions generated by a full virgin pendolino from London to Glasgow, compared to a fully loaded A320, but also compared to a good old loco hauled train with BR Mark 3 carriages. The carbon footprint of the old fashioned 100mph train was about one tenth of the pendolino

I'd like to see the study - was it peer reviewed / debated?

I doubt the pendolini are anything like 10x more fuel hungy - but there is an inherent problem that the longer the distance the journey the train is competing on, the faster it has to go, therefore the more energy it uses, therefore it becomes less competitive with air on environmental terms.

Afaik, the Swiss & Norwegian power systems are 'carbon free' - Swiss 60:40 hyro-nuclear, Norwegian all hydro.

Afaik Eurostar bought their energy from a renewable provider - but people probably look at the figure and think - 10x is that true?

Well if you just do a simple CO2 released per journey then it could be well more than 10x. Factor in the embodied energy building the track & trains, not to mention the windmills, dams and nuclear plants and the 10x starts to get reduced heavily.

4/ It grieves me to see talk of HS2. If anybody wants to see what proper reasoned investment in public transport can achieve in optimising total journey time and convenience look to Switzerland - no very high speed lines there, although plenty of miles of new track.

Yes and very reliable connections too. But also, as in the UK, fares are a closer refelction of the actual cost of operating the service, perhaps except for the mountain lines which charge extortionate fares - presumably because they can!

I flew back with Skywork from Bern Belp to London City. My first flight in a Dornier. I was very impressed with the service and friendly crew. It was just a shame that the capital city of Switzerland doesn't have a rail link to its (admittedly small) airport!

Not really realistic as I'm sure you know, even if it is also gatway to Interlaken - but BSL also no rail link. Can't fault GVA & ZRH for rail access.

[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]

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 (http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/news/chinese-carriers-slash-fares-improve-service-compete-high-speed-rail-0629)

[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 :ugh: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%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%204%20-%20electrification%20strategy/consultation%20responses/s/scottish%20association%20for%20public%20transport.pdf

[jabird]

Quite a lot to wade through, but one point really stuck out:

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?

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.

[RedhillPhil]

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..... they have offered.......

[Hipennine]

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.

[jabird]

Redhilphil - yes, Cameron has confirmed Chinese interest in investing in HS2. HS1 now in the hands of some Ontario pension fund?

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.

[AirResearcher]

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...

[CelticRambler]

This link Transport Watch UK - Road versus rail - Fuel consumptions across the UK (http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5b.htm) 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. ;)

[Peter47]

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!

[jabird]

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?

[Hipennine]

Peter 47

Pretty much agree entirely !

[CelticRambler]

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.

Certainly there is a certain amount of "dead" time to be taken into account, but that just defines the point at which a rail journey is faster/slower than the corresponding journey by air. In practice passengers don't make such a fine analysis. If they think they need to allow an extra half hour or forty-five minutes to avoid boarding stress/hassle, then they'll include that in their comparison. That perception is largely outside the control of the airlines but within the control of the airport management.

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?

[jabird]

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!

[Expressflight]

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.

[Sober Lark]

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.

[racedo]

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.

But they already can or the bus.....

Spending £30 billion when its not there is a waste of money.

[Sober Lark]

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.

[RB311]

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.

[jabird]

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.

[jabird]

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?

[LN-KGL]

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.Don't make it worse than what it is. The new water bottle regime started on 10 August 2006 and that is only a bit less than 5 years ago.

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.

[racedo]

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.

Who said anything about hugh speed bus ?

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.

[CelticRambler]

Question: How many passengers have lost their lives or have been injured due to a terrorist attack on British railways?
Answer: None and none

:eek: You might want to re-read your modern history books. There have been at least 60 people killed on British railways in at least 10 terrorist attacks over the last 40 years and close to 1000 injured. The IRA was responsible for the greatest number of attacks, al-Qaeda for the greatest number of casualties.

Good security is, of course, essential on our transport networks, but security is a broad term and risk is not equal even within any one sector. If anything, the (non) implementation of stringent security measures on rail travellers is an example of a sensible approach, keeping paranoia in check without crippling the service being provided.

So we agree - current "security" arrangements around air travel are overkill (unfortunate choice of words) but the answer is not to bring rail security up to the same level. Rather it would be better to bring airline/airport measures into line with what works for the rail network.

[LN-KGL]

CelticRambler:
You might want to re-read your modern history books. There have been at least 60 people killed on British railways in at least 10 terrorist attacks over the last 40 years and close to 1000 injured. The IRA was responsible for the greatest number of attacks, al-Qaeda for the greatest number of casualties.

I suggest you take a closer look at this:
List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain)

Terrorist attacks like the bombing of relay boxes at Wilmslow in March 1997 would not have detected of any security screening at the railway station. The 1991 Victoria Station bombing when one was killed and 38 injured, the device was placed in a litter bin in the public part of the station and a warning was phoned in. Hello, do I need to continue?

There is more people loosing their lives at railway stations in a quite different way, committing suicide. It would have been much better to have a mental health check point at every railway station (5,706 committed suicide in 2008 in the UK, and a very large share of those jumped from the platform in front of a train).

[jabird]

LN-KGL,

Rail companies don't like talking about suicides - it is a gruesome subject and I think they feel any effort to raise awareness ends up raising awareness amongst the wrong group of people. Slipping in front of a train is an all too easy way to go - and consideration for the driver and the people who have to clear up the mess isn't really a top priority for the unfortunate person who wants to end it all.

Theoretically, rail suicides could be prevented - but it would require gates to be installed at every single station - much like has been done on the Jubilee Line Extension - but the determined {suicidee?} would only need one loophole.

With regards to terrorism, the key difference between rail and air is that trains and stations are targets, whereas aircraft are targets and missiles. However much the 'War on Terror' may have been overhyped, the public still expect higher standards of safety when they hand their trust over to someone else to do the driving. Stations also tend to be much easier targets than airports, as they have so many more entrances and exits - Shinjuku in Tokyo has 100+

Even with the risk of terrorism and suicides (let's not forget the biggest killer on the tube is slips, trips & falls) - the numbers are tiny relative to road fatalities. Rail and air are comparable, depending on how the counting is done.

HS2 will, by transferring passengers from road to rail, provide a net safety benefit - but that is a low priority in terms of the main arguments for and against it.